Morgan

Yet another media change of position. Is this a trend? Here's a lukewarm pro-USA whisper in the Globe & Mail: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, on what Iraqis think "...Hossain al-Kadum, a stocky, 24-year-old computer whiz, is worse off than he was before the war. He used to have a good job as a computer programmer for the government. Now, to make ends meet, he works a 12-hour overnight shift at an Internet cafe...Ask him if his life is better, and he doesn't hesitate. "Now," he says, "I can stand up as a man." There's a weird disconnect between the debates raging in the West about what's happening here, and the way Iraqis talk. Sometimes it's as if the Western media and the Iraqis are discussing two different countries. A solid majority of Iraqis want the Americans to turn the government over to them and go home -- but not yet. Maybe in a year or three, after things have settled down. Meantime, they tell the pollsters, they're modestly optimistic: For the first time in memory, most people think life will be better next year than it is today. I'm no apologist for the occupation. It's clear that the Americans had no idea what they were taking on. I don't think they've got a chance of turning Iraq into a shining beacon of democracy. But contrary to the impression left by TV, the vast majority of Iraqis deplore the terrorist attacks, even those that kill Americans. They're horrified by the suicide bombers who blow up Red Cross buildings and police stations and set off bombs near schools. Most are completely convinced that all the terrorists are foreigners, because Iraqis simply wouldn't do things like that. There are other shreds of good news. A fundamentalist Islamic revolution is not on the horizon -- not yet, at any rate. People with relatives in Iran know what life's like there, and they don't want any part of it. In the mosques of Karbala (the second holiest Shia city in Iraq), the clerics are preaching tolerance and moderation. Give the Americans a chance, they say. Work with them. Meantime, thousands of young Iraqi men are signing up to join the police and the security guards. Iraqis are coming forward to volunteer information to the coalition forces about gangsters, counterfeit rings and weapons caches. Iraq's a mess. But most Iraqis would be amazed by the depiction of their country in the Western media. They wouldn't recognize themselves. "

Mark Steyn writes that Europe is over. Do you agree or disagree? Mark Steyn says that Europeans are worse than coachroaches "...The Telegraph’s Adam Nicolson got irritated the other day because Denis Boyles of America’s National Review had dismissed the Europeans as ‘cockroaches’. Boyles is wrong. The Europeans are not cockroaches. The cockroach is the one creature you can rely on to come crawling out of the rubble of the nuclear holocaust. Whereas the one thing that can be said with absolute confidence is that the Europeans will not emerge from under their own rubble. Europe is dying. As I’ve pointed out here before, it can’t square rising welfare costs, a collapsed birthrate and a manpower dependent on the world’s least skilled, least assimilable immigrants. In 20 years’ time, as those Dutch Muslim teenagers are entering the voting booths, European countries, unlike parts of Nigeria, will not be living under Sharia, but they will be reaching their accommodations with their radicalised Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the ‘tolerance’ of pluralist societies. How happy what’s left of the ethnic Dutch or French or Danes will be about this remains to be seen. But the idea of a childless Europe rivalling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. That’s the Europe that Britain will be binding its fate to. Japan faces the same problem: in 2006, its population will begin an absolute decline, a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition. "

Here's an American economist's take on this pharmaceutical issue. He gives some good cost figures for R&D. Drug Industry Destruction -Once a drug is produced, the cost of an additional pill is very low. The real cost of a new drug lies in developing it and getting it through the Food & Drug Administration's regulatory hurdles. FDA requirements cost drug companies an average of $800 million per drug, and then, according to a Tufts University study, only three in 10 drugs produce sales sufficient to allow the companies to recoup their development and FDA approval costs. - Then there's a class of drugs known as "orphan drugs" that don't make it to the market. These are drugs effective in the treatment of a rare disease, but coupled with FDA approval costs, their expected sales make them a losing economic proposition for the drug companies. - Though pharmaceutical CEOs lack the moral courage to say so, the drug price difference between the United States and Canada is simply price discrimination not unlike the thousands and thousands of other cases of price discrimination. In order to practice price discrimination, sellers must be able to separate markets to prevent arbitrage – buying cheap and selling dear. - In the case of drug companies, they must prevent re-importation either through contracts or law, then they can charge foreigners drug prices that only have to cover the incremental costs of manufacture and distribution. But given broad economic ignorance in Congress and among many Americans, talking about price discrimination might be hopeless. - If Congress enacts laws preventing price discrimination, both foreigners and Americans will lose because it will reduce the profitability of drug manufacturer and hence drug development incentives. I ask you which is preferable: a life-saving drug at a high cost or no life-saving drug at all? Americans would be much better served by trying to do something about FDA's costly approval process.

Sir Riff, a. The USA is the largest donor to the UN for humanitarian efforts. As well, apart from ongoing UN financial support, the USA just coughed up $15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa and $87 Billion for re-construction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. b. Were it not for the USA intervening and bringing to bear its fire power and manpower in the the most recent World War, there'd be no "democracy" in this world. We'd all be speaking German as citizens of a facist empire.

I thought this was a very powerful news item that people may want to discuss further. Does this article in the largest English language Middle Eastern daily newspaper represent the start of changing Arab Street views re: the USA and its invasion of Iraq? Or is this a flash-in-the-pan, isolated columnist's position? I'll cut and paste full text because to provide snips would not do it justice. Revisionist thoughts on the war in Iraq Is it too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq and for this column to admit its mistake in having vehemently opposed it from the outset? At issue here is whether the Iraqi people have benefited from the overthrow of the Baathist regime and whether the American occupation will eventually benefit their country even more. I’m convinced — and berate me here from your patriotic bleachers, if you must — that what we have seen in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in recent months may turn out to be the most serendipitous event in its modern history. One need offer no apology for saying that the supreme virtue of this war is that Saddam Hussein was gotten rid of. Period. The very man who had established arguably the closest approximation of a genuine fascist state in the Arab world, that sustained itself on fear, repression, genocide, cult of personality and wanton murder — a state whose law was that those who rule are the law. One doesn’t become a revisionist in a vacuum. I pore over material from various media sources about the mass graves unearthed all over Iraq, particularly those discovered in uncounted pits in the south, where Saddam had crushed a rebellion there in 1991 with genocidal ferocity, and I turn away in nauseated disbelief. Then there’s the UN Special Rapporteur’s September 2001 report about the execution of 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib’s prison in 1984, and 3,000 others at the Mahjar prison between 1993 and 1998. And you ask how a regime could become so monstrous, so whisked clean of human decency. Last Saturday, the Washington Post’s Peter Finn filed a gut-wrenching report about Baghdad’s Kadimiyah High School, where during the 1990s kids were being dragged off for questioning by members of the Mokhabarat for writing boyish anti-Saddam graffiti on their walls, such as “Down with Saddam” — and never returned home. Only now are their families, like other families of the “disappeared” speaking up, asking questions and demanding to know how and why their children were killed and where they are buried. One of the ancillary byproducts of the US invasion of Iraq was the ouster of Saddam and the obliteration, clearly forever, of the totalitarian dungeon that he had turned his country into. That, in my book, is enough to warrant extending my support for that invasion and for Washington’s projected plans to rebuild the country. Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution. Look, I have no illusions about the shenanigans and hypocrisies of a big power like the US, including its neocon ideologues, who are more cons than neos. Lest we forget, at the height of Saddam’s bloody reach in the 1980s, which saw the Halabja atrocities, Washington not only uttered nary a word of criticism of the Iraqi leader, let alone called for his overthrow, but provided him with political, military and economic assistance that, in effect, underwrote his survival and made possible the very repression that American officials now claim they want to banish forever from the land. All true. Yet, the US may, just may, end up doing in Iraq what it did in war-ravaged European countries under the Marshall Plan. And if it doesn’t, well, what would Iraqis have lost other than the ritual terror of life under a dictator who had splintered their society into raw fragments of fear, hysteria and self-denial — a man who insisted that third graders learn songs whose lyrics lauded him with lines such as “when he passes near, the roses celebrate.” No, I don’t believe that by going to war, America had dark designs on Iraq’s oil or pursued an equally dark conspiracy to “help Israel.” I believe that the US, perhaps willy-nilly, will end up helping Iraqis regain their human sanity, their social composure and the national will to rebuild their devastated nation. And no, it’s not too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq, or too late for a columnist to say he was wrong all along.

Daniel, 1. Don't you think it's curious that Chretien has been stalling a public enquiry to his own government's part in Arar being sent to Syria? Even Paul Martin is calling for an inquiry. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/arar_chretien "Martin calls for an explanation on Arar case; Chretien looks to US" Nov.06, 2003 As I recall from previous press reports, the USA prevented Arar from visiting their country due to a tip from the RCMP/or CSIS that Arar had been monitored in Canada as a possible terrorist. And after the USA wanted to send Arar back to Canada, as is their right to protect their nation's borders from undesirable visitors, officials from aforementioned Canadian departments did not want Arar back. Since Arar is a Syrian national still holding Syrian citizenship, along with Canadian naturalized citizenship, the USA sent Arar to Syria as the second choice that was available to them. What do think the USA was supposed to do - put Mr. Arar up at the Four Seasons until such time that Canada changed its mind? Would that Chretien put as much energy to speaking out on the sad cases of the journalist being beaten to death in Iran or to Mr. Sampson being tortured for several years in Syria or to the little minister guy who was jailed in Lebanon and threatened beheading for wanting to plant apple trees there. 2. Fyi, the USA and Canada have fought in several wars together, have the longest undefended border between each other in the world, and Canada's economy is 40% richer due to US business. I think that speaks well for a long standing good relationship on many fronts. What generation I've grown up is an irrelevant comment when speaking about an historically enduring alliance between the USA and Canada. But Chretien has gone out of his way to undermine this fine relationship and he has personally nurtured as well as role modeled an anti-American mindset that is even worse than what occured with similar posturing by Pierre E. Trudeau. This time the bile of one Canadian politician has infected a good number of Canadian laymen. I think that's very wrong and selfish on the part of Chretien. A politician like Chretien comes and goes, but an historical bond/alliance like what Canada and the USA had is something unique and should be cherished, not destroyed by a self-serving mortal.

Crusader and Mr. Farius, 1. Let's put Iraq War related GI deaths in proper perspective. You say that there's one GI death a day? Wowsers! France lost 10,000 civilians in 2 weeks this summer due to the shameful incompetence of their government in responding to a little old heat wave, much less a war. 2. With regards to your claim that the USA's invasion of Iraq is "all about oil," guess you haven't heard about the countries that had signed contracts for Iraq's oil...it wasn't the USA...surprise, surprise...the oil companies planning to cash in on Iraqi oil fields were French[with a heavy duty Canadian component] as well as Russian. a) "Welcome to Anglo-Saxon reality" Mark Steyn National Post www.nationalpost.com Thursday, April 10, 2003 - France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. The pictures from the streets of Baghdad make that plain. But we are on the side of TotalFinaElf. -Twice in recent columns, Diane Francis has mentioned, almost en passant, a curious little fact:The Western oil company with the closest ties to the late Saddam is France's TotalFinaElf. That's not the curious fact, that's just business as usual in the Fifth Republic. This is the curious fact: As Diane wrote in February and again last week, "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter." - Let's see if I've got this straight: TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chrétien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board. - For months, the anti-war crowd has insisted that "it's all about oil," that the only reason the Iraqi people were being "liberated" was so that the second biggest oil reserves in the world could be annexed in perpetuity by Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the rest of Bush's Texas oilpatch gang. Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian Prime Minister -- that's to say, his daughter, France Chrétien, and his grandchildren. What a delightful footnote to the Chrétien-Chiraquiste war effort. This is a victory not just for the Iraqi people but for "Anglo-Saxon" reality over Franco-Canadian postmodern cynicism. "Iraqi liberation will unleash untapped wealth:Hussein's regime has stolen oil proceeds, impoverished nation" Diane Francis Financial Post [email protected] Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - The liberation of Iraq will create profound benefits for its people and also for the world's economy. That is because Iraq is one of the world's richest countries, but you wouldn't know it. Its oil reserves of 112 billion barrels are second only in size to Saudi Arabia's. Even more significantly, 90% of the country has yet to be explored. - Last year, Iraqi oil exports tallied US$12.3-billion. Virtually all this money was skimmed by the corrupt regime and its supporters or otherwise squandered. Reinvestment in the oil production industry, exploration, reconstruction and retrofitting of refineries, building of new export facilities or research into new technologies has been non-existent by Saddam Hussein. Instead, he has diverted the cash to armaments and payoffs. - Once the regime is removed, however, cash flow from oil production can be increased and used to rebuild and develop the country. A U.S. government report in February estimated investments of US$5-billion to repair current facilities and another US$5-billion in improvements could bring the country's production up to pre-1990 Gulf War levels of nearly three million barrels daily. This would nearly double export income and represents an amount equivalent to twice the gross domestic product of roughly US$1,000 for every man, woman - Iraq's wealth potential is so massive that the France, China and Russia obviously became willing to sabotage the United Nations Security Council in order to exploit Iraq's oil resources. By 2001, oil companies in those three countries had signed deals with Hussein, pledging to spend up to US$38-billion in exploration, improvements and expansions to bring production up to at least five million barrels a day. - Most lucrative of all, and least surprisingly, was the deal between Hussein and France's largest corporation, TotalFinaElf, to exploit the country's largest oil field on the Iranian border north of Basra. This February, a Russian company negotiated a contract for Bin Umar. Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter. Mr. Desmarais Sr. also sits on Total's board of directors, along with other ranking members of France's establishment. 3. With regards to Bechtel and Haliburton getting contracts suriptiously due to Bush playing favouritism, fyi the USA holds an open, transparent tender process for Iraqi reconstruction. Any company in the world could bid on the jobs that were posted. The reconstruction jobs that were contracted out - something that has been the US policy under several Democrat and Republican Presidents before "#43", require companies to bring highly specialized and trained employees to the task in a very dangerous environment. ie. there are not a whole lot of companies in places like Steinbach that could even consider bidding. Here's some reading to on the bidding process and tasks that had to be contracted out. Judge for yourself if Bechtel and Haliburton et al don't deserve what they won through this open bidding system and that the USA is doing for Iraq what they did for Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan: P.S. Bechtel has sub-contracted 50% of its contracts to Iraqi firms, per Economist article. The Economist Nov.06/03 : rebuilding Iraq Overview of USAID accomplishments U.S. engineers working under the gun in Iraq USAID: Assistence for Iraq - listing of contracts and grants USAID: Update on reconstruction activities in Iraq Diary of Iraq trip by Democrat Cngresswoman McCarthy who examined reconstruction efforts 4. The White House holds regularly scheduled press briefings on a weekly basis if not more frequently, so how does that translate into "prohibiting the media from reporting the whole story?" Remember too that it was the USA that came up with the idea of "embedded" journalists to cover the Iraqi War. How much more transparent can a government get? Perhaps, it's the media, not the White House, that should be criticized for lack of journalistic integrity re: publishing biased and selectively negative reporting on Iraq and Bush to further personal agendas. World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Bush's Mess Media reporting is one-sided

Daniel, Your 2 points about Bush's "resume" only serve to remind folks of Bush's presidential leadership skills and his no nonsense clear thinking regarding the hypocracies perpetuated under the name of the UN. #1. Bush not recognizing the "jurisdiction" of the hallowed World Court, better known by the acronymn, ICC. Hee, hee. The ICC is a joke, a sham. Who, but the EU and an EU wannabe like Chretien would happily sign off on their sovereign judicial jurisdictions? And let's look at the efficiency that " world justice" is dispatched through the endeavours of the ICC. For example, how many years has it been that Milosevic has been "on trial" while ICC Justices and their humongous entourage of attendent staff [some of whom hail from Canada]have their fun shopping in European clothing boutiques or frequenting the Red Light District when they're not listening gravely to testimony??? Fyi, Bush did not unilaterally reject the ICC without bi-partisan support - even bleeding heart Clinton recommended that the ICC was flawed and should not be ratified by Congress. Bush followed through on what was a DOA concept. America leads by leaving the ICC. "...The Bush administration's decision to renounce the treaty creating a permanent international criminal court, or ICC, has been met with howls of indignation.With "history" and "all multilateral endeavors" on the line, what must the Bush administration be thinking? Such dire rhetoric, however, is not supported by the facts. A closer look at these anti-Bush criticisms instead reveals a willingness to ignore inconvenient facts and a perverse understanding of the concept of leadership. For starters, it should be recalled that opposition to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been bipartisan and predates President Bush's arrival in Washington. And in early 2001 President Bill Clinton said that the International Criminal Court treaty had "significant flaws," and recommended that the incoming Bush administration not submit it for Senate ratification unless and until U.S. concerns were resolved. The Bush administration has apparently concluded that the ICC treaty is beyond repair and that no amount of fine-tuning will correct its flaws. Most troubling, however, is the muddled understanding the president's critics have of the concept of leadership. Indeed, the president's critics seem to believe that it is an expression of American leadership to go along with treaties that are flawed, like the International Criminal Court, and treaties that are contrary to U.S. national interests, like the Kyoto Protocol. By that logic, following the bad policies of other countries is a form of American leadership. True leadership, however, is something different than the president's critics imagine. True leadership means pursuing policies that are in America's national interest, and persuading other countries that the policies are in their national interest too. It does not mean, as some of the president's critics contend, doing things because they will make other countries happy. That's what we might more accurately call "followership." 2. Re: under Bush's Admin. the USA was "kicked off" the UN Human Rights Commission. Wow, that's some accomplishment for Bush, I'd say. For the USA to find itself alienated from stellar human rights nations that chair and have positions on the HRC is not to be ignored. Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. Umm...let's go down the list of nations that populate the sacred orb of the HRC. For starters, there's Col. Muammar Gaddafi's regime[ err..country], Libya, as Chair, but let's not forget other "stars" like my personal favourites who stand out as standard bearers for human rights...the Congo, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia,South Africa, and last but not least, Syria. Waiting in the wings to claim their positions on the HRC next year are Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Uganda. This assortment of thug led nations, Daniel, are who "kicked" the USA off the HRC. Bravo, USA! Btw, even international human rights organizations are peeved at the sorry examples of human rights abuser nations who serve on the HRC. Anger at UN role for rights violators 3. Regarding your claim that I was Canada bashing in a previous post...I notice that you have no arguments that might disprove my invalid, meritless, hurtful, "bashing" opinions... Fyi, I am Canadian so I think I have the right to address the "warts" and "foibles" I perceive in the pervasive anti-American invective that's taking hold of my countrymen. Whereas, I think it's rather inappropriate for Canadians to bash people in another country, a long standing ally on many fronts, while at the same time enjoying, taking advantage of the hospitality and generosity of the country they so hate and disrespect. This is not the kind of Canada I grew up in and I'm frankly ashamed of the emotionally charged, visceral hatred for America that I now read or hear so frequently. It's unbecoming to the great nation Canada once was.

1. Craig, I agree that anti-Americanism has its roots in "racism," nurtured by our own tax-supported state run Commie network news. That is to say some Canadians hate Americans for just being American, like some people hate blacks for their colour. But this very same America-hating Canucks can't wait to drive down to Palm Springs or Palm Beach to spend 6 months each year enjoying the warmth and hospitality of America. The second largest population of French-Canadians outside Quebec is in Florida...funny, eh? With regards to CBC, here's an insider bit of info that's a sad irony...do you know what news position is most coveted by CBC'ers? Answer: being transferred to the CBC news bureau in Washington, D.C. So the very same CBC'ers who malign Bush 24/7 and the USA at 10 pm news can hardly wait to get their keesters out of Paradise Canada and move to Black Satan country. The second reason you stated for anti-Americanism...lack of self-esteem? Maybe you're being too kind to say what I see as being obvious...I believe many Canadians feel unadultered, gut wrenching, green monster "envy" of a neighbour who is many times more successful, powerful, affluent, inventive, influential, self-sufficient, patriotic than this country is. And as the USA gains in afore-mentioned areas, the ugly green monster grows in the hearts of many Canadians, but cloaks itself in more politically correct terms like: indignation at US unilateralism, dismay and concern about world peace and stability...you get the picture. So the only way I see for anti-Americanism to die off is for America to become less enviable...that is, more a welfare state like Canada, so the grass is not greener south of the border and everyone is the same ho-hum, unmotivated, feed me, sleepy head kind of socialist. That could happen with a Hillary Presidential victory. The election of Paul Martin will not change the government's anti-American stance. Don't let Paul Martin's businessman image deceive any of you into thinking that he is any less a socialist than Chretien. As someone else rightly pointed out in another post, Paul Martin learned all his political views at the knee of his mentor, Maurice Strong, who embodies the term "noblesse oblige." People like Strong and Martin secured their material wealth due to capitalism and globalization and they protect their personal billions fiercely in offshore tax havens. But they feel guilty for their ways - after all they have souls and deep feelings for humanity - so it's folks like Martin and Strong who will use YOUR tax dollars to pay for "noble programs to help the poor of the world" to salve their inner angst for being so personally "superior" and "filthy rich." Paul Martin will move Canada even closer to UN world government goals, which, in turn, will move Canada farther from its former long standing ally, the USA. That's my prediction, for what it's worth. 2. Scriblett, You were right about blatant and mis-informed anti-American invective on discuss.50plus.com forum, at least as demonstrated by the most recent posts. Thankfully, it appeared to me that there were only two or three dominant female anti-Yank cheerleaders who filled the bandwidth. One saving grace for me was picking up on an article by Barbara Amiel that was posted on this same site by a brave soul who attempted to quiet the shrill voices, but to no avail. Amiel zeros in on why the anti-Americanism fervour has become more pronounced with the election of Bush. The Left have an irrational, visceral hatred for the man. See if you agree/disagree with Amiel's analysis. Barbara Amiel on why the Left hate Bush

Sir Riff, Your theory about Mr. Zinsmeister presenting false information in his WSJ article does not make sense. a. You say that he added the "other and none" figures to make the USA's total 37%. But if he did that for the USA, then where did he get the additional figures to inflate Saudi Arabia's % to 28% in the WSJ article from the 17% as listed in the raw data pdf? According to your theory of fudging numbers for the USA,why would he do it for Saudi Arabia as well and where would he get the extra 11% once he used up the "none and other" for the USA? b. Mr. Zinsmeister has an impeccable reputation. I don't think he'd risk his reputation over "fudging" numbers on behalf of the USA, especially when he also directs folks to original raw data that his company commissioned. KARL ZINSMEISTER As editor in chief, Karl Zinsmeister conceives, assigns, and edits each issue of The American Enterprise, and writes all but a few of the "Bird's Eye" essays that introduce the special theme of every installment. He also produces many of the magazine’s short items, and contributes occasional feature articles on topics like television, fatherhood, race politics, suburban architecture, and school failure. Thanks to the telecom miracle he does all this from rural New York, 400 miles from the magazine's Washington production office. Karl’s new book, Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq, based on his observations as an embedded combat reporter during the second Iraq war, was released in August by St. Martin’s Press. It is the very first narrative of the war, and a main selection of the Military Book Club. Zinsmeister is also J.B. Fuqua Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the major Washington, D.C. think tank that is the magazine's publisher. His research has spanned demographic and social trends, economics, politics, and cultural topics. He has been published in many places in addition to The American Enterprise, including The Atlantic Monthly, Reader's Digest, The Wilson Quarterly, The Public Interest, National Review, Reason, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Zinsmeister originated a weekly radio commentary on social and economic trends syndicated nationally to 100 stations, and has written newspaper columns for the United Feature Syndicate. He has appeared often on television and radio programs including CNN's Crossfire, ABC's Politically Incorrect, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, PBS' Think Tank, BBC World Service, and many others. Karl’s first job in Washington was as an assistant to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the U.S. Senate. Zinsmeister supported his family by working as a carpenter on Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill while launching his writing career. Once established, he was self-employed as a writer for most of a decade. Zinsmeister is a graduate of Yale University and did further studies in history at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland (the best part of his education). During college he won national rowing championships in both the U.S. and Ireland. He has testified before Congressional committees and Presidential commissions numerous times, and has been an advisor to various research and policy groups. His writing has won several national prizes, and been translated into Japanese, German, Spanish, French, Swedish, Chinese, and other languages. He is a sixth generation resident of his region of central New York, where he and his wife and three children live in a rural village. c. If you are truly concerned about the variances in figures quoted for the USA as well as Saudi Arabia in the WSJ vs taemag, then email Mr. Zinsmeister and ask him for his reasons. If you are sure he has fudged on the numbers to favour the USA [and Saudi Arabia], challenge him. I have no doubt he will reply to you.

There must be some kind of statistical "weighting" that TAE editor in chief, Karl Zinsmeister, used to summarize the poll's findings in his Wall Street Journal 9/10/03 article, which I cut and pasted, versus the raw data published on his site. If you'll notice there are disparities in the %'s quoted in Zinsmeister's WSJ article vs the taemag.com pdf with regards to the second place country, Saudi Arabia, as well as the USA. For example Saudi Arabia's % appears as 17% in the pdf. but in the WSJ article, Zinsmeister quotes its % as 28%. If you want to contact Mr. Zinsmeister with your concerns/questions about the statistics he used in the WSJ article versus the raw data , here's where you can direct your letter: ...We welcome Letters to the Editor, all of which are considered for publication (unless you tell us they’re not for printing). To be considered for publication, your letter must include your name, a valid return e-mail address, and your home town. E-mail letters to [email protected] or Fax them to (202) 862-5867 or Write “The Mail” The American Enterprise 1150 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Suit yourself, Black Dog. But keep in mind that the uber tolerant distinction that you make between "average and so-called Baathist insurgents" is not shared by Iraqis living under threat of violence by Baathist party members. Rather than be guilty of cross-posting a message in its entirety, I'll merely direct you to an Iraqi run blog from which I cut and pasted today under the subject heading of "Iraq is on track." This Iraqi blogger states matter-of-factly that living in a neighbourhood "with a large number of ex-Baathists/Wahhabis/extremists" is extremely dangerous. So you see, the Iraqi blogger lumps Baathists together with other "bad guys" and unlike yourself, doesn't see a difference between "average and so-called Baathist insurgents." Call me crazy, but I think this Iraqi blogger's viewpoint might be more valid because it's reality and not merely PC theory based.

The following url is a link to an eye-opening blog created by an Iraqi who is actually living in Iraq. It would appear that Iraqis are much happier with coalition "occupation" than left winger journalists are. For example, this is his response today to Western news media mis-reporting Iraqis' desire to help coalition troops and omissions re: Iraqis' hatred for Baathists, Saddam, and foreign fighter-terrorists who sabotage progress in Iraq. This blog directly challenges the veracity of "news" that CBC/CNN, et al report. It appears, at least from this Iraqi's viewpoint, that Iraq is as much on track as is humanly possible. http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2...802883205716753 -You see a handful of teenagers dancing in front of the camera celebrating dead Americans, and you judge an entire people, you start whining about pulling the troops out of Iraq and giving the Iraqis what they deserve. Are you people really so close-minded? It is the fault of your news agencies that show you what they want, its certainly not ours. -According to a poll by an Iraqi agency, only 3% of Iraqis want Saddam back and less than 40% want the Americans to leave immediately. Did you even hear about these results? -If you think that Iraqis aren't doing enough, then you're being mislead by your media. Thousands of people are applying to be members of IP, FPS, and the civil defense force. They are begging for the security to be in their hands. We know how to handle those scum. The Americans are more interested in being nice and all about human rights and free speech and stuff. We have our own Law and court systems which we can use but the CPA won't allow us to. They are being too lenient and forgiving on our expence. If you think that is what is required to build a successful democracy then you're too deluded. You don't know the first thing about the Iraqi society. -Iraqis are providing intelligence to the CPA hourly. Just ask the soldiers here. Iraqis are cooperating in every way they can. They're losing their lives for it goddammit. If you aren't seeing it on tv, it isn't my fucking problem. -Imagine yourself living in a neighbourhood with a large number of ex-Baathists/Wahhabis/extremists like I do. Would you go out and denounce the Jihadis/Ba'athists openly for everyone to see, and then get back from work one day to find your brother kidnapped or a threat letter hanging on your door? A friend of mine was standing in front of his house with his kids when a car drove by and emptied a magazine of bullets into them. You know why? Because he was working with the CPA in reconstructing Baghdad Airport. What do you think he did? He stubbornly refused to quit his job and bravely returned to work after spending a week in hospital. Would you do the same? Of course not. We expected most of the IP would simply leave their jobs after last weeks bombing, well they didn't. In fact there were thousands of parents volunteering to carry arms and protect the schools which their kids attend to allow the IP to do their real job. -Another thing I'm sure you haven't seen in your news. There are paintings on the walls all over Baghdad warning Arab foreigners from a bloody revenge if they keep messing with our affairs. Iraqis are openly calling the GC to quit the Arab League. ***His blog puts CBC/CNN anti-American agenda driven mis-reporting of events in Iraq in proper perspective.

Hugo, You're right on your facts about medical care, mediocre health care is mediocre and making it free does not transform mediocre to better. With regards to higher numbers of gun deaths in the USA versus Canada, aside from reasons due to obvious disparities in total population[the US is 10 times that of Canada], another regretable reason for high gun death numbers in the USA is related to the high numbers of black on black crime in the USA. Since blacks represent 12% of the US population versus approx. 2% of Canada's population and are 8-9 times more likely to commit homicide with a gun, this contributes significantly to the USA's gun deaths versus Canada's. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29329 http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

I'd like to add to your comments about Chretien's legacy of "bad relations with the USA." Chretien and his cabinet lackeys just can't resist poking the USA in the eye, even when their comments make themselves look like asses. Here's Reuters take on Manley's fiscal report from yesterday, wherein he announced the nasty news about how the country is running on empty and how the "surplus" she is gone. But, no worries, eh? However, are the Liberals contrite and humbled by the state of Canada's economy which has been their responsibility for the past 8 years? No way...Manley takes this opportunity to criticize Bush for running up a deficit!This is too precious. I'm sure Manley's ill-advised criticisms will be remembered by the White House come trade negotiations time. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...udget_usa_col_1 Canada Says U.S. Budget Deficit Needs to Be Curbed Mon Nov 3,11:27 AM ET OTTAWA (Reuters) - The United States must rein in its budget deficit, or rising debt levels will boost interest rates around the world, Finance Minister John Manley said on Monday. In a fiscal update presented to Parliament's finance committee, Manley singled out the sustainability of the U.S. economic recovery as a threat to Canada's own growth forecasts -- 1.9 percent growth this year and 3 percent next year.

This is an interesting multi-faceted court case taking place in Colorado, whose final outcome may influence what happens in Canada in the future, since the judges here openly admit that they take international case law into consideration in the course of their deliberations. I'll cut and paste the gist of the article. *Is this an example of gay rights suppressing the rights of others -- free speech rights, religious rights? *Or this a case of the courts rightly looking out for the interests of children in a divorce? ie. the judge feels that negative statements about homosexuality will jeopardize the child's relationship with the other parent, who is a practising homosexual. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22726-4541r.htm Mother appeals ruling on gays By Valerie Richardson, Washington Times, Nov.5,2003 -A Christian mother is appealing a judge's decision that prohibits her from teaching her daughter that homosexuality is wrong. -Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." -Dr. Clark filed her appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals last week. Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption. -The case has raised red flags among some Christians, who say the decision infringes upon the mother's right to freedom of expression and religion. -While custody cases involving homosexual parents are becoming more common, the Denver decision goes beyond previous court orders, said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Fla. -"We've seen cases around the country where the court will order one parent not to say anything negative about the other spouse's lifestyle, but this goes much further than anything we've seen," said Mr. Staver, whose firm specializes in constitutional issues involving marriage. Mr. Staver said he filed a friend-of-the-court brief last month with the Colorado Court of Appeals at the request of Dr. Clark's attorney and that the order effectively prevents the mother from practicing her religion in her daughter's presence. -"The mother is a Christian, and that's a major part of her lifestyle," he said. "She would be prohibited from reading her daughter Romans 1 or anything in the Bible on sexual fidelity in marriage, going to Bible study, or listening to a sermon on marriage or fidelity." -Dr. Clark had argued that Miss McLeod should not have joint custody because she was not interested in the adoption while it was taking place and that it was never their intention that she would act as a parent.

I heard Zell Miller interviewed on another network. What a razor sharp mind he has. He has offered to help Bush in his campaign - the Democrats will have much to fear everytime Zell Miller opens his mouth and articulates what has gone wrong with the Democrat party. I loved it when Zell Miller said that the current Democrat campaign platforms combined the worst of McGovern's and of Mondale's - higher taxes and peace at any cost. I almost dropped out of my chair when he made that statement because he summed up the pathos of the 9 dwarfs' platforms in one pithy statement. Zell Miller's fine interview also reminded me of the differences that exist in the quality of Senate Canada has versus what the USA has. Zell Miller embodied leadership, a powerful voice for his state of Georgia and of the South, whereas our lumps of coal who call themselves senators are toadies to the PMO...they represent no one but their own self-interest. Sad, really, that Canadians allow this group of free-loaders to exist.

1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102068,00.html Tuesday Elections Could Be Bellwether for 2004 WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing: Victory in Tuesday's elections will reflect the nation's mood and could signal how much success President Bush will have in his re-election campaign next November. "If the Democrats win, you can be sure the Democratic National Committee will be saying it's the beginning of the end for George W. Bush, and if the Republicans win, the Republicans will be saying it foretells a national landslide for Bush," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. In Kentucky and Mississippi, the GOP looked poised to take control of two states that have long elected Democratic governors. Dual victories by Republicans would show even more erosion of Democratic power in the once "solid South." 2. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap2003...31104_1863.html GOP's Fletcher Wins Kentucky Gov. Race Republican Fletcher Wins Kentucky Governor Race; Polls Set to Close in Mississippi Governor Race The Associated Press Nov. 4 — Rep. Ernie Fletcher easily won the Kentucky governor's race Tuesday, becoming the first Republican to lead the state in 32 years, while the GOP hoped to take another Democratic governor's seat in Mississippi. With 41 percent of precincts reporting, Fletcher who got a big campaign assist from President Bush in the campaign's final days led with 52 percent, or 246,033 votes, to Democratic Attorney General Ben Chandler's 48 percent, or 224,468 votes. In both states, candidates tried out slogans and strategies that could well be used in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush campaigned with GOP candidates in both states. In Kentucky, party activists argued that a vote for Chandler would tell the White House its economic policy is a failure. Mississippi Democrats criticized Republican Haley Barbour as a "Washington insider." ***That's all she wrote. Looks good for a 2004 re-election of Bush.

What I endorse is for US soldiers to be allowed more flexible rules of engagement to respond properly to asymetrical warfare that's being waged against them. But more to the point is what Iraqis themselves endorse to deal with terrorists hiding and in some cases being supported by the Baathist-friendly civilian population. And it isn't limited rules of engagement that Iraqis would follow that's for sure. Why don't you read up on what the Baathists did to innocent Iraqis over the years and then see if you still feel compassion for how Baathists and Al Feyadeen insurgents are to be treated. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/internat...&partner=GOOGLE Iraqis Seek Justice, or Vengeance, for Victims of the Killing Fields By SUSAN SACHS Published: November 4, 2003 As for the Kurds, I have no doubt that they have taken care of Baathist and Al Feyadeen fighters whenever they have run up against them in their neck of the woods in Northern Iraq. I don't have a problem with those measures whatsoever. As for the Zogbi poll, the positive poll results as posted in the WSJ by Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine, which sponsored the Zogby poll,were confirmed by a Gallup poll that followed. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/internat...7aa527b&ei=5070 In a Poll, Baghdad Residents Call Freedom Worth the Price By PATRICK E. TYLER Published: September 24, 2003 BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 23 — After five months of foreign military occupation and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents believe that the removal of the Iraqi dictator has been worth the hardships they have been forced to endure, a new Gallup poll shows. Only 8 percent of those queried said they believed that their lives would be worse off as a result of the military campaign to remove Mr. Hussein and his Baath Party leadership from power...... 67 percent of 1,178 Iraqis told a Gallup survey team that within five years, their lives would be better than before the American and British invasion. The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 across the ethnically diverse landscape of the battered capital... half the respondents said the occupation authority was doing a better job now than it was two months ago, and their view of Mr. Bremer himself was remarkably positive, with 47 percent holding a favorable view of him compared with 22 percent who held an unfavorable view. Other key findings in that Gallup poll were that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon. AND Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58 percent, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying ``very well.'' Twenty 20 percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent said very badly. As for my cheering for the Kurds, what's your problem with that? The Kurds deserve a chunk of the Iraq pie. They stood up to Saddam in the past and they took risks in the present helping the Americans get rid of that monster. They currently occupy a stable part of Iraq for coalition forces. Turkey has done nothing in this war to rid Iraq of Saddam. They're greedy for the oil wells in Northern Iraq. Too bad Turkey didn't take risks to help liberate Iraq like the Kurds did. Also, Kurds represent 16% of Iraqi population, whereas Turks only represent 2%. Enough said on who gets what percentage of Iraqi territory. As for Saddam and the USA's "complicity" in gassing the Kurds...like I said before, only the Left thinks that's true. The Kurds sure don't... and I guess it's only the Kurds' opinions and what they know to be true is what is relevant, eh?

The 2 countries you've talked about as examples of Muslim devotees resorting to violence...I think it's actually secular Arabs who are using violence against the USA and Israel. Only the Baathist supporters- ie. secular Iraqis- in the Sunni triangle celebrated the recent GI deaths. The Shiites and Kurds are co-operating by and large with coalition troops. As for Palestinians celebrating Israeli deaths -they're secular, too. In spite of Arafat sporting the sheet on his head, what with his "conversion" to Islam, Arafat is as representative of the Muslim faith as I am.

Personally I think Bush is as good as it gets to face off against the list of candidates you posted as replacements. No offence intended against Buchanan personally, but objectively speaking, I believe Buchanan is unelectable. His views on immigration, valid as they may be, are too unpolitically incorrect. The media would have a heyday portraying him as a "racist." His recent anti-Israel comments are unacceptable for most Americans. Hillary and Howard Dean would be disasters for the USA. Their socialist views are better suited for being PM of Canada. Kerry is too flip-floppy like General Clark. Both men have no views but what the wind blows into their kitchens each morning. Gephardt is in the pocket of big unions and minority rights groups. The only name I can come up with, off the top of my head, to replace Bush would be perhaps Rudy Guilliani. Guilliani showed leadership and grace in the midst of crisis. He also restored New York to its rightful stature as a classy cosmopolitan city instead of the dumpster for crime and lawlessness that a succession of Democrat mayors had let it become. Fyi, a Marist poll in September, 2003 showed that 2/3 of New Yorkers wanted Guilliani to return to public office and that he was so popular with New Yorkers that he could beat both of the 2 sitting state senators [ie. Clinton and Shumer]if he ran against them. That's a good sign re: general respect for Guilliani considering that New York is a left wing dominated state by and large.

Seems like the Left always like to accuse the USA of helping Saddam gas the Kurds. Yet, strangely enough, the Kurds themselves don't hold that belief. In fact, much to the chagrin of left wingers, the Kurds love the Americans and have been supporting the Americans even before war against Saddam was formally declared by letting special ops scope out Iraq last fall. Also, another strange fact is that the Kurds have not allowed any Baathists terrorize GI's for the past 6 months...you'd think if the left's accusations were accurate, the Kurds would have welcomed terrorists to kill GI's to get revenge on the US. But such is not the case. Here's an article from Jane's to help you understand what the Kurds already know: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcb...30417_1_n.shtml. Who armed Iraq? By Andy Oppenheimer Sometimes through deception, but often with the silent acquiescence of Western governments, Iraq was able to acquire the machines, components, tools and expertise to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as its own ballistic missiles. West German companies were some of the main suppliers for Iraq's major weapons projects, including its nuclear weapons programme, chemical weapons facilities, ballistic missiles and long-range 'supergun' development. German companies are said to have contributed to the Iraqi government's weapons programme since the mid-1970s. According to the 17 December 2002 edition of the German daily, Tageszeitung, some German companies continued to do business with Iraq right up until 2001. This would have been a clear breach of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. According to Tageszeitung, German companies comprise more than half of the total number of institutions listed in Iraq's 12,000-page weapons report to the UN in December 2002. German assistance was allegedly given to Iraq for the development of chemical agents used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq. After the massacre, the USA reduced its military co-operation with Iraq, but German firms continued their activities until the Gulf war.

Very interesting turn of events. I wonder which countries and state officials appear in these records re: selling weaponry to Saddam? Also, officials searching for WMD are now meeting with resistence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2003Nov2.html Seized Intelligence Files Spur U.S. Investigations By Steve Coll Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A15 BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 -- -The CIA has seized an extensive cache of files from the former Iraqi Intelligence Service that is spurring U.S. investigations of weapons procurement networks and agents of influence who took money from the government of Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. officials familiar with the records. -The records would stretch 91/2 miles if laid end to end, the officials said. They contain not only the names of nearly every Iraqi intelligence officer, but also the names of their paid foreign agents, written agent reports, evaluations of agent credentials, and documentary evidence of payments made to buy influence in the Arab world and elsewhere, the officials said. -The Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-supervised body appointed by President Bush to lead the hunt for special weapons, hopes its searches for fugitive officers from the Iraqi security services may also produce breakthroughs in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. -In the meantime, as they travel on site visits and conduct interviews, survey group teams increasingly are falling under hostile, professional surveillance and ambush attempts, according to officials involved in the weapons searches.

1. My suggestion at drafting the Kurds to patrol Baghdad was made in jest. My point was that the rules of the Geneva Convention inhibit the GI's from dealing effectively with the asymetrical warfare that's being waged against them in the Sunni Triangle. And in fact last week, an Iraqi official said himself that the US's limited terms of engagement were a handicap in dealing with the terrorists and that more Iraqis including former Republican Guard soldiers should be armed to deal with the terrorists in an Iraqi way. It doesn't take much imagination to consider what this Iraqi official meant by these comments. 2. But if we set aside my scenario made in jest, let's look at your comments about: a) "Iraquis lashing out against their conquerers"...Huh? In most of Iraq including the Kurdish area in the north and the Basra area to the south, Iraqis are pretty content about coalition forces being present and don't want them to leave too soon. In fact, the majority of Iraqis are happy the Baathist "occupation" of Iraq has been broken. Only in the Sunni triangle is there violence and resistence against coalition forces. http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp? id=500572BA-D3F0-4728-B554-405847CC59F0 A puzzling tale of two armies by Bruce Wallace The Ottawa Citizen -Iraq's carnage and chaos is very much a regional phenomenon...the British sector in southern Iraq remains relatively peaceful. "We don't have the same types of attacks as the Americans," Squadron Leader Alison Simmonds said in a telephone interview yesterday from the British headquarters in the country's second-largest city of Basra. "Most of the trouble we deal with is related to smuggling precious metals and petty looting. Generally, the people of Basra are happy to see us." -The relative calm is widely attributed to the fact that southern Iraq is more heavily populated by Shiite Muslims, who may have a grudging view of the western presence, but still regard the Anglo-U.S. invasion as a liberation from Saddam Hussein's heavily Sunni Baathist party. By contrast, experts say roughly 70 per cent of the attacks on Americans are being carried out by former Baathists who remain loyal, if not to Mr. Saddam, to their own nostalgia for power in Iraq. The remainder are attacks carried out by Islamic militants hunting American targets and operating with relative freedom among a civilian population that resents the American presence. -"We are seeing the de-Baathistification of southern Iraq, while the Baathists continue to fight on in Baghdad and central Iraq where the population is sullen about the Americans being there," says Toby Dodge of London's Royal Institute for International Affairs... http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153,filte...news_detail.asp What Iraqis Really Think Wall Street Journal Publication Date: September 10, 2003 -Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all. -Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance. -57 percent of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41 percent of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be punished. And on a more informal note: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vinc...00311040815.asp Hacks of Baghdad:The cabbie read of Iraq. By Steven Vincent http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/.../BNStory/Front/ There are good men in Iraq By Margaret Wente b. As for your remarks about "Kurdish goons brutalizing Iraqis"...once again you take liberties with your term "Iraqis"...be more specific...don't you mean "Baathists?" Baathists have brutalized Kurds and Shiites for years and yet no smug, self-righteous liberals worried about a minority regime of Saddam and his Baathist Party thugs brutalizing a majority of Iraqis. Therefore, I find it rather amusing to read your concern about the potential for Kurdish brutality against Baathists now. And btw, the Kurds were more than "whipping boys" for the Baathists, an understatement if I've ever heard one.

There is justice in this universe!!!...Kurds get treated well by the USA, and so they should, for their continued support. I hope the Kurds gain "ownership" of some nice rich oil wells in their region, too. Turkey is annoyed but Turkey reneged on its promised support for the US invasion of Iraq at the last minute...what does Turkey expect? Too bad the Kurds can't be asked to help "patrol" Baghdad...I suspect not too many Iraqis would be dancing and celebrating GI deaths once the Kurds blew into town. After the Kurds "bust" the first celebration in their own inimitable "un-Geneva Convention-like" way, no more parties after that. No more thugs on the street-all sent to Allah-no more car bombs because houses on nearby streets would be leveled in retaliation for supporting terrorists...yes, I think the Kurds would restore law and order to Baghdad in a very efficient and timely fashion, don't you? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_turkey_usa_dc Turkey Accuses U.S. of 'Favoritism' in Iraq The Turkish ambassador in Washington said on Tuesday the United States was giving excessive favors to Kurdish groups in Iraq at the risk of encouraging civil war and Kurdish secession in the future. Logoglu said the favoritism was reflected in the composition of the Iraqi Governing Council and interim Cabinet and in U.S. readiness to consider a federal constitution. It also complained earlier in the year that the small Turkmen minority in Iraq, estimated at 2 percent of the population, had only one member on the Governing Council.