Is there more progress in Saudi Arabia? Perhaps — but there’s less to this story than meets the eye:

Six Saudi preachers seen as influential with Islamist extremists yesterday denounced attacks on westerners as a “grave sin” under Islam.

“The bombings and killings have revolted people and hurt individuals and their property, and no one with the slightest knowledge of Islam can doubt that this is an atrocious crime and grave sin,” they said in a statement carried by Saudi media.

If you read down a little further, you’ll see that the clerics said that “those who killed non-Muslims resident among Muslims would not go to heaven.”

Let me see if I have this right.

Killing infidels who live in the Holy Land is bad. Why? Well, one explanation is the respectable and commendable Islamic rules of hospitality. Another, less charitable explanation, is that infidels are allowed into Saudi for only three reasons:

To do actual work, which Saudi men won’t do and Saudi women aren’t allowed to do.

To defend the Saudi kingdom, which Saudi men are mostly incapable of doing.

And. . . um. . . maybe to serve as fluff girls or something.

So. Killing infidels is bad manners. And could also lead to the collapse of the Saudi economy, and/or the end of the Saudi government, and/or a total lack of blow jobs for Saudi princes not currently abroad.

Any way you look at it, it must be a sin.

Comments Off

I’ve been meaning to send you over to MartiniPundit for weeks now. If you don’t mind making up for my mistake, why not click over twice?

Comments Off

John Kerry might have a bigger problem with Iraq than even George W. Bush does:

In the past few weeks, Mr. Bush has, with the help of the United Nations, identified Iraqi leadership that appears to have sufficient domestic and international legitimacy to assume sovereignty after June 30. The next phase of the transfer of power has won unanimous endorsement from the Security Council. The Group of 8 summit meeting last week, however, showed that our on-again allies were reluctant to move beyond lip service to much real aid, either in the form of troops or Iraqi debt relief.

For instance, Senator Kerry says NATO should assume a greater role in Iraq. This prospect is blocked by a stubborn president, but not the one named in Mr. Kerry’s critique. Rather it is President Jacques Chirac of France who rejects a NATO role.

Mr. Kerry also said that the allies would find it difficult to contribute without greater cover from the United Nations. We now have it. Why can’t Mr. Kerry find it in his heart to express a modicum of disappointment with, say, the Germans, who for months have vowed not to provide troops even with United Nations endorsement, even if NATO authorizes them to do so?

Kerry’s problem, explains Peter D. Feaver is that much of Kerry’s Democratic base simply isn’t interested in a solution to Iraq — unless you call pulling out and blaming Bush a solution.

Feaver points out other problems as well, which is why I suggest you read the whole thing.

Comments Off

Is John Ashcroft a prig and a bit of a political dunce? You bet he is. Is he “the worst attorney general in history,” as Paul Krugman claims?

Oh, please.

I once joked that I would take a “Demoral-laced Norm Mineta over John Ashcroft,” and I stand by that. But does that make Ashcroft the worst AG in history?

Oh, please.

Tell Krugman he can give Ashcroft that label, just as soon as he gives an order resulting in 80 cultists getting burned alive, or takes a child away from his grandparents at riflepoint, in order to ship him back for brainwashing in a communist dictatorship.

Comments Off

Pro and amateur pundits have wondered in recent weeks, if crippling the Saudi economy is al Qaeda’s newest tactic. If so, it might just be working:

IF THE tens of thousands of Western expatriates who find themselves directly in Al-Qaeda’s sights decided to leave Saudi Arabia en masse in light of an upsurge in terror attacks against them, their departure would have a devastating impact on the Islamic kingdom’s key economic sectors.

That is what the militants hope to achieve as they notch up a gear in their campaign to overthrow the Al-Saud ruling family, and there are early signs that they may be on their way to achieving their goal.

Travel agencies in the Eastern Province, scene of the hostage drama in Khobar on May 29, in which 22 people were killed, say big joint ventures and multinational groups have made recent mass bookings for their American and European executives.

There are even unconfirmed reports in the government-guided Saudi media of mass resignations from the state-owned energy giant Saudi Aramco, where Americans make up the bulk of the more than 10,000 Westerners whose expertise the kingdom still largely relies on to run its most vital economic sector.

If it works? Bad news.

The good news is, Saudi Arabia is no Iraq — just like Iraq doesn’t compare to Vietnam. Should the worst come to pass, we would really have but two interests left in Saudi Arabia:

1) Protecting the oil fields.

2) Cutting off petrodollars to the terrorists.

If you accomplish the first goal, the second goal is accomplished, too. Making things easier, almost all the oil is located in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province which hugs the Persian Gulf coast. 40,000 Coalition troops would probably be more than adequate to secure the richest oil-producing areas. And when the pickings are as ripe as the Saudi oil fields, don’t doubt for one second that the French, Germans, and other recalcitrant nations wouldn’t jump on board, and fast.

The rest of the country has little beyond sand, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and a whole lot of quite poor and rather fanatical Wahhabi tribesmen. Let them have their desert and their hate and their poverty. Without the oil, they don’t have much to offer the world, other than issuing worthless fatwas and slaughtering not-quite-holy-enough pilgrims traveling to Mecca.

That’s not to say I endorse dismembering Saudi Arabia. War should always the last resort, and is almost as frequently the wrong choice. Even a successful campaign would seriously disrupt the flow of Arabian oil

Comments Off

Fascinating NRO piece here by Herbert Meyer, who was tasked during the Reagan Administration to figure out what it would look like if the USSR was crumbling from within:

The career analysts responded by digging in their heels; by insisting that the Soviet economy was growing steadily and dismissing the alternate hypothesis as unworthy of serious attention. So I wrote a lengthy “think piece” memo that simply made the assumption that the Soviet economy was shrinking, then outlined what the downward spiral would look like. Casey made sure that just about everyone inside the CIA and elsewhere in the intelligence community read that memo

Comments Off

Or at least tell Jeff.

Comments Off

So far today, I’ve entertained:

The trash guys. They needed extra money to take away all the extra trash. What extra trash? Enough cardboard to ship an entire kitchen’s and one wet bar’s worth of cabinetry, wood and plaster from the old soffit, and enough drywall to uncover all our kitchen electrical works. Plus three trash bags filled with insulation. And a twenty-plus-year-old microwave oven.

The electrician. He’s still here. We’re still having to decide things, figure out unexpected problems, and make compromises

Comments Off

I really didn’t mean to make this a full afternoon of Euro-blogging, but here’s solid evidence that not all EU voters had their heads stuck where the sun don’t shine:

George Galloway’s attempt to enter the European parliament with his anti-war party Respect ended in failure last night.

The former Labour MP secured 91,175 votes but was beaten by Labour and the Conservatives, who each picked up three seats, and the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, who each secured one, as well as the UK Independence party, who will send Gerard Batten to Strasbourg.

Mr Galloway needed 115,000 votes to get a seat.

Don’t hang your head too low, Georgie. Sixth place really isn’t all that bad–that is, if you’re Vanderbilt.

Hat tip: The Mighty Tim Blair.

Comments Off

A thought about Martini Boy’s EU-vote speculation below:

Is the trend in the Western democracies an anti-incumbent one? If so, that spells serious trouble for President Bush in November. The same tide sweeping against Labour in the UK, the left-leaning SDU in Germany, and conservatives in Italy and France, could wash up against the status quo in Washington, too.

Or, is the European backlash less against the ruling parties, and more against the new status quo of EU supranationalism? If so, then an internationalist like Kerry could have trouble against the more-nationalist Bush.

Here’s another possibility. I believe oil and gas prices are the major, unremarked-upon factor in both the EU vote and Bush’s recent poll numbers. There’s been a good bit of speculation about how the improving US economy isn’t being reflected in Bush’s numbers, but I maintain that people are reacting to the April-May price spike at their gas stations much more than any unemployment or growth statistics.

When you’re looking at $2 or more a gallon, it’s a tough sell to tell people that the rest of the economy is roaring along, even if it really is. Oil and gas prices eventually affect literally everything in the economy, and people have seen enough recessions closely following oil spikes to not be nervous about a price jump this dramatic. I bet that’s even more true in Europe, where growth is slower (if existant), unemployment much worse, and gas prices are even higher.

Comments Off

Here’s another story about the “disastrous” EU parliamentary elections. This quote just jumped out at me:

Outgoing European Parliament President Pat Cox described the results as a “wake-up call” and warned European leaders that they had to demonstrate the EU’s relevance to voters.

“Regrettably, Europe is too absent from European elections in east and west,” he said. “States need to engage, particularly in central and eastern Europe, in voter education of EU institutions.”

Um, Mr, Cox, is is just possible that you might have it the wrong way ’round? Shouldn’t you be considering the possibility that the voters (and non-voters) are “educating” the politicians about just how much they really want the EU meddling in their (and their nations’) affairs?

Comments Off

From the “what did you really expect?” department, we give you Jacques Chirac, the best ally that Saddam’s money could buy:

Chirac’s performance benefited mightily from his tolerance of wide chasms between his words and his deeds. “France will never forget what it owes America,” the French president told some 6,000 D-Day veterans and assorted guests in his talk on Sunday in the Norman coastal town of Arromanches. A few days later he opposed America’s requests for deeper involvement of NATO in the pacification of Iraq, saying such a move would not be “opportune”; fought to water down Bush’s program to foster the growth of democratic institutions in the Middle East, stating that he opposed such “missionary” work; and responded with a vigorous “non” to Bush’s plea that Iraq’s creditors join America in forgiving “the vast majority” of the debts incurred by Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s regime. (Within the G-8 nations, Japan is owed $4.1 billion, Russia $3.5 billion, France $3 billion, Germany $2.4 billion, and the United States $2.2 billion.) And just to make certain that none of the anti-American voters at home get any idea that he has moved too close to the Americans, Chirac decided to pass up President Reagan’s funeral to keep an unspecified “previous commitment” in Europe.

Apparently, remembering one’s debt to America, France’s “steadfast friend and ally,” and honoring that debt are two different things. Iraq’s monetary debt to France must, Chirac insists, be paid, but France’s moral debt to America remains in the need-not-repay file.

Comments Off

Where European voters go, American voters often follow. And vice-versa. It’s no coincidence that Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulrooney, and Helmut Kohl all helmed their nations at the same time.

It’s also probably no coincidence that Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schroeder, etc — you get my point already, I’m sure.

So what to make of this? Read:

Europe’s governing parties received a mauling from disgruntled voters Sunday as preliminary results from the EU Parliament elections showed opposition parties making sweeping gains across the continent.

In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats suffered their biggest post-war setback, picking up just over 20 percent of the vote. British Prime Minister Tony Blair fared little better, with little more than one in five voters backing his Labor Party. But the left’s worst performance was in Poland, where the ruling party of premier-designate Marek Belka was virtually wiped out by populist right wing groupings.

Conservative governments also took a pounding from voters who used the European Parliament elections as a mid-term protest vote. In Italy, fierce opposition to the conflict in Iraq saw the center-left grouping of European Commission President Romano Prodi trounce the pro-war party of Prime Minster Silvio Berlusconi, while in France, President Jacques Chirac’s UMP party mustered only 16 percent of the vote. Other governments that took a battering from voters included the Dutch, Danish, Belgian, Hungarian and Slovak ones.

The only administrations to break the trend were the Spanish and Greek governments, both enjoying honeymoons with their electorates after recent election victories.

Is the trend in the Western democracies an anti-incumbent one? If so, that spells serious trouble for President Bush in November. The same tide sweeping against Labour in the UK, the left-leaning SDU in Germany, and conservatives in Italy and France, could wash up against the status quo in Washington, too.

Or, is the European backlash less against the ruling parties, and more against the new status quo of EU supranationalism? If so, then an internationalist like Kerry could have trouble against the more-nationalist Bush.

We might not know the answer until November.

Comments Off

Now this is a wargame.

Comments Off

“Hoosier Dave” tells me the Army turns 229 years old today.

So let me add with a smirk — gee, and I thought we abolished slavery in 1865.

Comments Off

And a fine time was had by all.

Comments Off

Hot off the press:

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed on Monday a constitutional challenge to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance recited by schoolchildren, without deciding the key church-state issue.

The justices ruled that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place. “We conclude that Newdow lacks standing,” Justice John Paul Stevens declared in the opinion.

I still don’t think the Pledge is a big deal, but that doesn’t mean the Supremes don’t look like they found an excuse to duck the issue.

UPDATE: As I wrote (and headlined) this piece, it sounds like I’m accusing the Supreme Court of ducking the issue. Almost, but not quite. I wrote, it looks like they ducked it — which some people will accuse them of doing. And perhaps with some justice.

But I should have been a little more clear, and written “appears” or “gives the appearance of” or some other such weasely phrase, to get across what I meant. I honestly don’t know if the Suprmemes were trying to duck, trying to establish case law on non-custodial parents, or simply doing what they felt was right.

To be even more weasely, I can’t say I’m not unpleased with the way things turned out. Bad cases make bad law, and this one stank.

Comments Off

Is Pakistan really, finally, truly getting serious about fighting al Qaeda? Maybe:

In Pakistan, fighting along the Afghan border (South Waziristan), have left over 70 dead (17 soldiers, the rest tribesmen and foreign fighters). The Pakistani army, aided by American photo satellites, radio interception facilities and UAVs, has located the villages and compounds where the al Qaeda activity has been taking place. Now that al Qaeda has declared war on the Pakistani leadership (via several recent assassination attempts), the Pakistani army is striking back. The last offensive, in March, was halted because the tribes said they were willing to give up the al Qaeda members and wanted to negotiate terms. The tribal leaders either lied, or couldn’t deliver. This time, there is little or no room for delay and negotiation.

More here.

Comments Off

Johnathan Rauch, Friedrich Hayek, and the libertarian case against gay marriage.

Obiovusly, I don’t agree — but unlike most of the gay marriage debate, it’s fascinating reading.

Comments Off

From the Daily Telegraph:

Reading the IAEA’s reports on Iran in the past year, there are good reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civil nuclear power programme, are secretly trying to build an atomic bomb or at least develop a “just in time” capability to build one at short notice.

A nuclear Iran would precipitate a Middle East arms race that could prompt Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to secure their own nukes. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by while Iran arms itself with atomic weapons and long-range missiles.

As the IAEA’s governors meet in Vienna this week to decide how to deal with Iran’s latest evasions, Mr ElBaradei has told the Telegraph that Teheran keeps “changing its story”. Despite good progress, the IAEA chief said inspections “cannot go on forever”. Sound familiar?

All too familiar. The rest of the piece is even scarier.

Comments Off

French students, apparently, aren’t taught that those who never learn history, are doomed to collaborate again. Read:

On the eve of D-Day ceremonies, an association dedicated to the memory of Saint-L

Comments Off

Bill Safire on Oil-for-Food investigation stonewalling — by Paul Volcker.

Discuss.

Comments Off

Some weekends, it’s hard not to love being me.

Friday night, Matt and his gorgeous fianc

Comments Off

. . . with the accent on moron. Here’s the teaser from a Sundy NYT op-ed by Dave Eggers:

Colleges should require students to volunteer.

With a teaser like that, why bother reading the damn thing?

Comments Off

From the AP:

Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the “nuclear club.”

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran’s highly controversial program.

“We won’t accept any new obligations,” Kharrazi said. “Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path.”

Meanwhile, the EU still just wants to talk:

Musavian went on to say that the draft resolution prepared by Britain, France, and Germany for the IAEA Board is not dissimilar to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei

Comments Off

Britain isn’t the only EU country where the incumbent party is in trouble:

The European parliamentary election confirmed a clear trend in German politics: The SPD and Chancellor Schroeder are on their way out. Today, Sunday, June 13, the Socialists registered their worst election loss in postwar history, dropping at least 7 percentage points to a projected 22%. The conservative Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) took advantage of the Socialist’s collapse to claim two times as many votes with a projected 46% result, giving them the largest number of seats from Germany’s 99 seats in the European parliament.

And then:

The election results in the state of Thuringia were a further disaster for the SPD, with the party dropping over 4% to an abysmal 14.5% of the vote there. If the Greens are unable to pass the 5% hurdle to gain seats the state parliament, the CDU will have the absolute majority.

Signs of a wider trend? Maybe not — voter turnout (a problem only in America, claim europhiles) was miserable.

Comments Off

“No difference at all.”

Comments Off