by David Steven | Sep 4, 2007 | North America
Over at National Review’s The Corner, John Podhoretz links approvingly to a review of Brian De Palma’s new anti-war film: Redacted.
Redacted is, putting it mildly, not going down well on the right.
“How about a movie where Hollywood filmmakers take money from America’s enemies to undermine morale?” asks Glenn ‘Instapundit’ Reynolds. “It wouldn’t be any more dishonest than Brian de Palma’s latest.”
The film is based on an incident where “American soldiers took turns raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and one of them put a bullet through her head after killing her parents and 5-year-old sister.”
The attack, led by a sociopath called Steven Green, was preplanned, and was long and gruesome:
Barker said the soldiers found the girl and her father outside their home. Spielman grabbed the girl while Green seized her father and took them into the house, Barker’s statement said, and Cortez and Barker followed them inside.
Green led the father, mother and younger sister into the bedroom and closed the door, while the teenage girl remained in the living room with the others, Barker’s statement said.
Cortez pushed the girl to the floor, lifted her dress and tore off her underwear while she struggled, Bierce said, citing Barker’s statement. Cortez appeared to rape her, then Barker tried to rape the girl, according to the statement.
Suddenly, the group heard gunshots, and Green came out of the bedroom holding an AK-47 rifle and declared: ‘”They’re all dead. I just killed them,'” according to the statement.
Green then raped the girl while Cortez held her down, Barker’s statement said. Green picked up the AK-47 and shot the girl once, paused, then shot her several more times, Bierce said, quoting Barker’s statement.
Barker said he poured fuel from a kerosene lamp on the girl’s body but did not say who set it on fire. The soldier’s statement did not say whether Howard or Spielman participated in the rape, Bierce said.
Another investigator, Gary Griesmyer, quoted Cortez as telling him that the teenage girl was weeping and speaking in Arabic and that Barker told her to “shut up.”
After the attack, the soldiers headed back to their post for a meal of grilled chicken wings.
Few have yet seen Redacted, so let’s leave arguments about its quality aside for a moment. Instead, ask why the film about the rape has received so much more attention on the right, than the crime itself. (more…)
by David Steven | Sep 4, 2007 | North America
A conversation with George Bush, as reported in Robert Draper’s new book:
“The job of the president,” he continued, through an ample wad of bread and sausage, “is to think strategically so that you can accomplish big objectives. As opposed to playing mini-ball. You can’t play mini-ball with the influence we have and expect there to be peace. You’ve gotta think, think BIG.
“The Iranian issue,” he said as bread crumbs tumbled out of his mouth and onto his chin, “is the strategic threat right now facing a generation of Americans, because Iran is promoting an extreme form of religion that is competing with another extreme form of religion. Iran’s a destabilizing force. And instability in that part of the world has deeply adverse consequences, like energy falling in the hands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West. And to couple all of that with a nuclear weapon, then you’ve got a dangerous situation. …
“That’s what I mean by strategic thought. I don’t know how you learn that. I don’t think there’s a moment where that happened to me. I really don’t. I know you’re searching for it. I know it’s difficult. I do know—y’know, how do you decide, how do you learn to decide things? When you make up your mind, and you stick by it—I don’t know that there’s a moment, Robert. I really—You either know how to do it or you don’t. I think part of this is it: I ran for reasons. Principled reasons. There were principles by which I will stand on. And when I leave this office I’ll stand on them. And therefore you can’t get driven by polls. Polls aren’t driven by principles. They’re driven by the moment. By the nanosecond.”
by David Steven | Sep 3, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
When a member of the Bush administration tried to persuade me that her boss was a ‘thought leader’ on climate change, my first thought was that I was being punk’d. But she was serious. And now Karl Rove has emerged from the White House bunker singing a similar song…
On energy, the environment, and climate change, he is developing a new paradigm. Emphasizing technology, increased energy-efficiency partnerships, and resource diversification, his policies are improving energy security and slowing the growth of greenhouse gases without economy-breaking mandates and regulation. The president who won criticism by rejecting the failed approach of Kyoto has implemented policies that enabled the United States to grow its economy by 3.1 percent and reduce the absolute amount of CO2 emissions (by 1.3 percent).
Rove is also refreshingly honest about how the American right plans to shape its Iraq/Afghanistan legacy. Let’s take it step by step:
Option 1: “History will render a favorable verdict if the outcome in the Middle East is similar to what America saw after World War II.” If a miracle happens, Dubya wins.
Option 2: “If the outcome there is like what happened in Vietnam after America abandoned our allies and the region descended into chaos, violence, and danger, history’s judgment will be harsh. History will see President Bush as right, and the opponents of his policy as mistaken — as George McGovern was in his time.” If the worst happens, it’s the liburals fault. Georgie wins again!
Whichever way:
President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century. He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.
Well that’s alright then…
by Alex Evans | Sep 3, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia
Here’s the chapter and verse from the German Chancellery website:
According to Merkel’s proposal, CO2 emissions would be measured per capita. The maximum COs emissions of a country would thus be measured in terms of population numbers. The larger the population of a country, the more CO2 the country would be permitted to emit. This would mean that every individual in the world would be entitled to emit the same volume of carbon dioxide.
In her proposal, Merkel presupposes that the industrialised countries cut their share of energy consumption as far as possible, thus reducing per capita emissions of carbon dioxide.
The emerging economies, on the other hand, need to grow if they are to reduce poverty. The downside is, of course, that their emissions of CO2 will continue to rise in the years to come. In the final analysis the per capita emissions in emerging economies will meet those of industrialised countries.
If the agreement is to be just, one thing must be clear, however, stressed the Chancellor, “I cannot imagine that the emerging economies will one day be permitted to emit more CO2 per capita than we in the industrialised countries”.
If the emerging economies were to accept this proposal, they would face the task of braking the rise in their CO2 emissions. This is possible with “intelligent growth”, explained Merkel thinking of the most modern of environmental technologies – many of which come from Germany.
With Merkel’s proposal, the emerging nations with rapidly expanding economies could be brought on board the global climate negotiations scheduled for 2009.
This is a big deal.
