Fine? Why Fine?

Chirac Shuffle

The Guardian explains the power play in Chirac's reshuffling of his Cabinet.

France's hugely popular interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, was handed the job yesterday of spearheading an immensely unpopular programme of reforms as President Jacques Chirac made sweeping changes to his cabinet after the centre-right's humiliating defeat in regional elections.

Mr Sarkozy was appointed finance minister in a major reshuffle which also saw Mr Chirac's close ally, the smooth and aristocratic foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, take over at the interior ministry, and a European commissioner, Michel Barnier, step into Mr de Villepin's shoes at the Quai d'Orsay.

[...]

Mr Sarkozy, on the other hand, who constantly tops opinion polls as France's most popular politician, may have the charisma, stature and gift of the gab for the job. The appointment has the added benefit for Mr Chirac that if he fails to convince France's fickle voters of the need for reform, Mr Sarkozy will see his bid to become president in 2007 badly undermined. He faces a huge task overcoming anger over high unemployment, pension reform and budget cuts.

The new job will make or break Mr Sarkozy's ambitions. The minister, who has so far made a name for himself by cracking down successfully on street crime, illegal immigrants and prostitution, is by no means certain to make such a success of his new and considerably less high-profile role as head of government finances.

The same could, however, be said of Mr Villepin, the part-time poet and arch Chirac loyalist who won over the French public by eloquently voicing France's opposition to the US-led war on Iraq.

"To be honest, I just can't see De Villepin visiting some rundown housing estate to talk about rising levels of street crime with youth gang leaders," said one government official who asked not to be named.

But other observers discerned a longer-term strategy in Mr Chirac's choice.

"This is an interim appointment," said one commentator, Marie Eve Malouine. "It's setting up De Villepin to take over from Raffarin as prime minister, probably after the June elections, and establishing his credentials as Chirac's preferred successor. This is all about keeping out Sarkozy."

So basically, Chirac, for his own political purposes, has replaced the one guy with the semblence of a backbone when standing up to the domestic Islamists with the effete guy who sucks up to the Islamists abroad.

Excellent move, Jackie!

Animals

The American Thinker sums up pretty much how I feel about what those animals did in Fallujah today.

In Iraq, after seeing those pictures today of the madness in Falluja, the Coalition has a major choice to make.

Either we deal properly with the portion of Iraqis who think that they can get away with murdering their own and Coalition personnel, or we might as well just pack our bags and leave. That’s because we simply will not have the stomach for what will be necessary to tame Iraq and deliver real stability and democracy. The other side, of course, suffers from no such qualms.

The leftist media such as the BBC and CNN, already paint the Coalition forces as the bad guys, no matter how passively they behave. There is literally nothing to lose now except for all the hard work and blood, already sacrificed by the US, UK and their allies.

More importantly, there will be those in Iraq who will use the new policy as a pretext to protest against the “inhumanity” or “anti-Muslim” character of the Coalition forces. But such people will always find a pretext for their complaints, agitation, and terror. There is no compromise with them, and no reason to tolerate their violence.

Polling data clearly show that most Iraqis appreciate their liberation from the tyranny of Saddam. Their complaints these days have more to do with the lack of order and the continuing need for the occupation itself than with “inhumanity” of the foreign troops. Iraqis know all too well what genuine inhumanity looks like.

Iraq is learning how to be democratic. One essential characteristic of democracy is public order, reinforced by a broad understanding of the limits of dissent. It is time to make those limits abundantly clear to those Iraqis who seek to destroy the achievements of the fall of Saddam.

The problem is clearly with the Baathist remnants in Fallujah. American Iraqi blogger Fayrouz explains.

Are there more disgusting acts these ex-Baathists will try to show the world in the future?

What the ex-Baathists are doing is helping people like me realize Iraqis are better off without Saddam. Today's photos show how brutal his party members were to the Iraqi people. What you saw today on the streets of Falluja was previously conducted by Saddam's henchmen behind closed doors.

What hurts me the most is people reading the report and watching the video -- I didn't include it because it's graphical by my standards -- would think most Iraqis support those criminals' acts and views.

I'm sitting here and wondering if the "positive" Iraqi bloggers are really making a difference in this world. You read our posts and think Iraqis are great. Then, you turn on the TV or read the newspapers and reconsider your opinions.

I know most Iraqis are like the Iraqi bloggers, who are trying to make a difference in this world. I know bad news makes more noise than the good news. I know I still have faith Iraq will have a great future. Then, I get depressed from time to time and wonder if this is just a fantasy, or it may become a reality in the near future.

3 and Out

In January, F?WF? noted the opening of the trial of Khaled Abdel-Latif Dumeisi, an Iraqi living in the U.S. for acting as an agent of Saddam's regime. Well, the trial has been wrapped up.

CHICAGO — A suburban Chicago newspaper publisher convicted of spying on Iraqi dissidents for Saddam Hussein was sentenced Wednesday to three years and 10 months in federal prison.

Khaled Abdel-Latif Dumeisi, 61, is expected to be deported after he finishes his prison term.

U.S. District Judge Suzanne B. Conlon also said he may not re-enter the United States without permission from the attorney general.

Dumeisi was convicted of failing to register as a foreign agent, conspiring to fail to register, lying to a federal grand jury and lying to an immigration agent. He was not convicted of espionage, which involves theft of defense secrets, nor was there any allegation the case involved terrorism.

"I don't think anyone at the trial would conclude that Mr. Dumeisi was a sophisticated spy," the judge said, characterizing his offense as more like fraud.

So he was a dopey spy, who cares? The rest of the article gets into the squabble over whether Dumeisi was important or not. I don't think it really matters.

I wonder if this dope will get a similar sentence. Of course, we can't deport her.

"Bug-eyed, Yosemtie Sam-ish, anti-Bush apoplexy"

Allah's got a new Kerry photoshop bonanza up.

Sowell Throws His Hat in the Ring

Not really, but Thomas Sowell responds to his readers' request for his platform.

Since politicians like to have campaign slogans, instead of "Bring it On!" my slogan might be "Get rid of it!" to describe all the laws, policies, and government agencies that I would abolish.

A more positive slogan would be "Conservative Radicalism." That is, my policies would be based on traditional values but would make radical changes in order to restore or enhance those values.

Cabinet-level departments, for example, would be reduced to just two -- the Defense Department and the State Department, with the latter purged of the weak-kneed internationalist crowd who have dominated it for so long. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, etc., would all be abolished as just money-wasting bureaucracies serving outside special interests, instead of the people whose taxes support them.

Government subsidies would be drastically reduced, starting at the top. That is, there would be a prohibition against giving a dime of government money to anyone whose annual income or total assets exceed one billion dollars. Why should agricultural subsidies be going to Ted Turner and David Rockefeller, or "universal health care" pay for their medicine?

Who could object to cutting off subsidies to billionaires? Once that was done, however, the next step would be to cut off millionaires. Then we could proceed on down the income scale until people making a hundred grand a year could no longer expect to be subsidized with the taxpayer's money.

First they came for the billionaires...next they came for the millionaires...

The great advantage of this way of proceeding is that it would rob the media of opportunities to run sob stories about how some poor person was hurt by cutbacks in some government program -- even when the vast majority of those who were hurt were the bureaucrats who run these programs and slick special interests who hide behind the poor.

By the time we got down to cutting off all government subsidies to people making $100,000 a year or more, the federal budget would probably not only be balanced but have a surplus. Of course, there would be hordes of unemployed bureaucrats being interviewed on TV, complaining that the world was going to end, without their vital contributions. But that could be brushed aside.

With all the money saved by ending vast numbers of subsidies, the government could afford to pay the kinds of salaries that would attract highly qualified people from the private sector. For example, if every member of Congress were paid a million dollars a year, that would cost less than one percent of what it costs to run the Department of Agriculture.

As things stand today, a successful doctor, lawyer, executive, engineer or economist would lose money by becoming a member of Congress. This means that Congress is largely filled with people who either already have great wealth or people who don't have what it takes to earn a high income in the private sector -- or people hungry for power, who are the worst of all.

Ah, it'll never work.

Geography Savant

Was Bill O'Reilly ever a hobo? No matter what city one of his guests mentions, he replies with, "Denver, I lived there," or "I know Seattle, I lived there some time ago."

"I Can No Longer..."

French (!) author Jean-Christophe Mounicq is throwing in the towel. (Emphasis mine.)

Following the attacks in Madrid, this feeling struck me again. The reaction of the Spanish people, cringing in fear before the Islamist claim of responsibility, bothered me even more. I can no longer tolerate such cowardly Munich-like behavior that leads inevitably to dishonor and war.

The reaction of the European media and political class to the elimination of Sheikh Yassin — the master of hate and terrorism, and one who had called for the murder of Jews — pushed me over the edge. I can no longer tolerate descriptions of the monster responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of wounded as a "spiritual leader," a poor "paralytic in a wheelchair." I can no longer tolerate murderous, barbaric Islamist hatred.

[...]

I can no longer tolerate the double game of Yasser Arafat, the Saudi princes or Pakistani leaders. I can no longer tolerate watching Muslims dance with joy, in the Palestinian territories or in Paris, following attacks on the World Trade Center or an Israeli bus. I can no longer tolerate their anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism, anti-Buddhism or anti-Hinduism.

I can no longer tolerate those who hate liberty but take every advantage of it. I can no longer tolerate Islamist lack of respect for secularism and equality, between men and women, Muslims and others. I can no longer tolerate their lack of respect for the cultures of the very countries that shelter them. I can no longer tolerate the multiplication of veils on women in the streets of Paris.

[...]

I can no longer tolerate concealing the massacres of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries, Copts in the Middle East, of one-and-a-half million Orthodox Armenians in Turkey at the beginning of the last century, as well as a million-and-a-half Christian Sudanese at its end. I can no longer tolerate Muslim ethnic cleansing in Kosovo or Palestine. I can no longer tolerate Islamist totalitarianism.

I can no longer tolerate the relativism and masochism of a West incapable of recalling its own history other than to denounce it. I can no longer tolerate comparing the Crusades to jihad, when the Crusades were nothing but a parenthesis in the history of Christianity while jihad is an integral part of Islam.

I can no longer tolerate the cowardice, weakness and mediocrity of the majority of Western leaders, or the unwillingness of Westerners to affirm their own values and the superiority of liberty and democracy over all other principles and systems. I can no longer tolerate the inability of Europe to recall its Judeo-Christian heritage.

I chopped it up pretty good so you should read the rest.

Shticky

Kerry's shtick is awful.

"I tell you what, if gas prices keep going up like they are now, Dick Cheney and George Bush are gonna have to carpool to work," Kerry said, repeating a line he used the night before.

Don't Bush and Cheney pretty much live where they work? Why would they need to carpool, if they just walk down the hall to get to work? Very dumb line. It must've gone over well the "night before."

I'm sure there are millions of people who will vote for Kerry partly because they believe that Iraq was a "war for oil." All of this of course is belied by the fact that gas prices are higher than they've been in a long time.

UPDATE
Ed at Late Final has more on Kerry's interest in oil.

One thing the note failed to say: the Kerry family has as much as a couple of extra million dollars in its portfolio today because of its wheeling and dealing - during the Bush Administration - in oil stock.

A Little Schadenfreude

The recent plans put forth to reduce the number of military personnel in Germany is causing fits. Mark Steyn digs in. (Emphasis mine.)

Karl Peter Bruch, a state official in Rhineland-Palatinate who's lobbying the Americans to change their minds, put it this way: "We realised that our installations are in grave danger. And then came the question, what can we do to make us more attractive?"

"Our" installations? As Daffy Duck famously remarked after losing yet another verbal duel with Bugs Bunny and getting his bill shot off: "Hmm. Pronoun trouble." As to what Germany can do to make itself more attractive to the Yanks, how about this? Spend less time running around playing Mini-Me to Jacques Chirac's Doctor Evil. Just a thought. And it seems to have occurred, somewhat belatedly, to Gerhard Schröder.

[...]

America's main "overstretch" lies not in Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa, but in its historically unprecedented generosity to its wealthiest allies. "The US picks up the defence tab for Europe, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others," I wrote. "If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming home from South Korea and Germany, and maybe Japan, too."

Well, the second term is not quite here. But America has already quit Saudi Arabia, and plans for South Korea and Germany are well advanced. When scholars come to write the final chapter in the history of the European continent, the six-decade US security guarantee will be seen as, on the whole, a mistake. Not for America, but the Continentals.

The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members, a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into a semi-non-aligned status.

[...]

This weekend, for example, nearly 60 per cent of French electors voted Socialist, Communist, Fascist or Green. Most of the rest voted for the "ruling centre-Right" - ie, Chirac. Does that sound like an "ally" that's ever again likely to grant overflight rights to the USAF? Better a nice clean flight plan direct from Missouri or Diego Garcia.

What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power? Germany has a shrinking economy, an ageing and shrivelling population, and potentially catastrophic welfare liabilities. Yet the average German worker now puts in over 20 per cent fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable would propose closing the gap.

Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans.

[...]

But there's no stollen left to steal: Germany is the sick man of Europe, and too risk-averse to try any cure other than sugary placebos such as the dismal "Year of Innovation" Mr Schröder has declared 2004 to be. He has appointed an Innovation Council. The first sign of a genuinely innovative culture is that it's too busy innovating to have an Innovation Council. An Innovation Council is just more of the same-old same-old.

While the schadenfreude feels good, the objective part of me realizes that Europe needs to get their shit together for our safety as well as their own.

Hometown Hero

Here.

"Michael freely and fully accepted the challenge of providing for our future...Michael has been taken from us, but his heart remains."

There.

Esposito, he said, was the kind of guy who could give “dissertations on spaghetti sauce and Pink Floyd.”

Here at home, to millions of Americans, Sgt. Michael J. Esposito Jr. will be a revered hero who gave his young life for us all.

In Afghanistan, amongst his fellow soldiers whom he lived and died, he's a quirky 22-year-old kid and a reminder of why they fight.