If you haven’t already, go read Lee Harris.
Archives for March 2003
Josh Marshall
The other day I commented on Matt Yglesias’s site that I never felt that Josh Marshall had committed to a pro-war stance. That is a personal interpretation of Marshall’s writings, so it is not open to debate. I just never believed he was committed to it.
After reading what he has written the last few days, I think he simply needs to be committed.
Taranto, and those who believe as he does, see the decapitation of the Iraqi government as the linchpin of international peace and security. We see it as extremely important, but a means to creating a more stable, safer world order. Fundamentally, we see the preservation of our key alliances and standing in the world, indeed the ‘world security system’ itself as even more important than Iraq.
Why is the preservation of or key alliances important if they are not willing to undertake what you describe as extremely important “means to creating a more stable, safer world order.”
One point that deserves notice — and which we’ll try to return to — is that the Bush crowd is now pursuing a logic on the international stage which is inherently self-validating. Every bust-up of an alliance, every disaster is proof that this or that alliance or relationship or global norm was worthless in the first place and thus we’re even more right than we thought we were in bulldozing through.
No, Josh. Just because a couple gets divorced does not mean the marriage was once worthless. What the divorce might lead one to believe is that it is NOW worthless.
We’re in international affairs not just for today but for the long haul. And our political leadership in the world community matters profoundly.
Josh is clearly working from a different definition of leadership than I am. Leadership means leading- not acquiescing to petty tyrants and becoming neutered by international organizations.
Next, to the United Nations. One hears that the United Nations was basically a wrecked or never-functioning institution. So the costs of putting it out of its misery are not so great. I’m not so sour on the UN. But what worries me here is not principally the UN. NATO sidestepped the UN in 1999 during the Kosovo war because of Russian intransigence. And I was happy to see NATO do it. Anti-UN types now see this as a bit of internationalist hypocrisy. But again, it’s not the UN I’m worried about. It’s the destruction of NATO that’s the issue here.
????
Atrios- Truth Detector?
Atrios loves being hysterical- fortunately, most of the time he is hysterical in the funny sort of way. Look how he discusses this story with this absurd title:
PENTAGON THREATENS
TO KILL INDEPENDENT
REPORTERS IN IRAQ
Now go look at how Instapundit treated the same story.
Gee, Atrios. I don’t know why more people read and quote and BELIEVE Glenn. Is it because he understands what he reads? Or is it because he simply isn’t a knee-jerk reactionary?
French Fried Logic
You can count me as a Frog-hater of the first order. I have not liked them since I lived in Germany a dozen or so years ago. They smell, they are rude, they are overtly obnoxious to all Americans, they intentionally gave bad directions, they didn’t have ice cubes, and overall, the place just sucked. yes, I am generalizing- I did have a few positive experiences in France.
Regardless, there is no point to renaming French Fries and French toast (to freedom fries and freedom toast, respectively) is. Matt Yglesias links to this Joe Conason story pointing out that “French Toast” is actaully an American invention:
[A] gastronomic historian writes: “French toast was not invented in France. In fact, it was invented in Albany, NY. Tavern owner Joseph French is credited with inventing the famous breakfast in 1724. Supposedly, Mr. French didn’t know the proper usage of the possessive apostrophe and, instead of ‘French’s toast’ he put ‘French toast’ on his menu.”
Interesting. More interesting is the France/Belgium debate over the origin of french fries. I had always thought they were french fries because they had been ‘frenched.’
The Good Guys
Go here and learn how you can help to support our troops, regardless what your position on the war is.
Day By Day
I see that Day by Day by Chris Muir is finally getting the recognition he deserves. Good. Glad you others are following my lead.
Now Do You Understand?
These are not serious people, and they are not serious nations. Thus, we should quit trying to take them seriously:
Sharp opposition, both from Europe and Iraq, was voiced today to a new British proposal setting out six ways for Saddam Hussein to prove his commitment to disarmament and avoid an invasion.
In Paris, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said the plan, which would give United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq a short extension, perhaps to March 24, did not address the key issue of seeking a peaceful end to the showdown with Iraq.
Security Council members are scheduled to meet today to consider the proposal, which is intended to win support for a draft resolution authorizing war against Baghdad.
Mr. de Villepin said France rejected the “logic of ultimatums,” and added in a statement: “It’s not a question of giving Iraq a few more days before committing to using force. It’s about making resolute progress towards peaceful disarmament, as mapped out by inspections that offer a credible alternative to war.”
The Iraqi opposition to ultimatums leading to real disarmament came as a complete surprise- the French opposition less so.