Regarding the wave of anti-American/anti-Israeli protests sweeping Europe and Asia, the media coverage has been nothing short of orgy-like. Television viewers are endlessly bombarded by scowling images of venom-spewing, militant anti-Semites "protesting" Israeli incursion into the West Bank in her campaign to rout out terrorists.The ulterior purpose behind the media fixation on "protests" is as plain as the nose on your face: Prevail upon Americans the notion that Bush is botching foreign policy, big time -- and drive his job approval ratings -- still hovering at or near 80% -- southward. Instead, the incessant pro-"Palestinian" "news" slant has backfired, with surveys showing Americans backing Israel in overwhelming margins over the media's beloved "Palestinians".
According to a CNN/USATODAY/Gallup poll out tonight, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel: 50% say their sympathies are with Israel, while only 15% side with the "Palestinians". Moreover, despite the non-stop pro-Arafat media barrage, a whopping six out of ten Americans consider Yasser Arafat an enemy of the United States.
Another dubious facet of media reportage I've found singularly amusing: The cryptogram behind the comparative body count totals. To hear Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings tell it, since the "Palestinian" side has racked up the higher casualty count, ergo "Palestinians" are the 'good guys' -- not the Israelis.
By this twisted, cockamamie "logic", the Nazis were morally head-and-shoulders above the allies -- the former having sustained the higher casualty count. From media ding-a-lings, among whom sympathy for Arafat runs high, this moral inversion is par-for-the-course, however.
Meanwhile, any doubt America was still serious about Saddam Hussein, the weekend Bush-Blair joint-press conference in Crawford will have laid such doubts to rest.
To Democrats and their Big Media accomplices, the roiling Mideast crisis looked like a godsend at first.
The hope was that the Bush administration, now 'mired' in the thorny thicket of the Mideast, would have no choice but to 'back-burner' Iraq. Any plans for imminent military action -- or any military action this year, for that matter -- was now utterly out of the question, or so went their wishful thinking.
For Saddam, it would have been the 'mother-of-all' victories, a remarkable return on a paltry investment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how turmoil in the Mideast works to his advantage. It keeps the U.S. distracted and complicates Washington's efforts at coalition-building, particularly with moderate Arab states. Pouring gasoline on a flame, Saddam instituted a system of lucrative payments to families of suicide bombers -- recently upping the anty to $50,000 per bomber. With each new suicide attack, Hussein would rub his hands in glee.
(Absurdly, liberals still debate whether Saddam is a terrorist or not. Hardball host Chris Matthews has become a veritable apologist for Iraq, labeling anyone who dares disagree a "neo-con". As Matthews sees it, Bush is but a marionette puppet of those devilish "neo-cons". He's surrounded by them. For some, however, the phrase itself carries ugly, anti-Semitic overtones).
For Saddam, then came the 'bad' news on Saturday.
At the Crawford press conference, Prime Minister Blair was as adamant as Bush that Iraq will not be allowed to continue developing weapons of mass destruction. He said "you cannot have a situation in which he [Saddam] carries on in being in breach of the U.N. resolutions and refusing to allow" weapons inspectors back in.
"We will hold Saddam Hussein accountable for broken promises", Bush warned ominously. If Saddam banked on the two leaders being overly distracted by Mideast events, he sorely miscalculated. Iraq -- not the Mideast -- is "what a lot of our discussion over there at the Prairie Chapel Ranch has been about", said Bush.
Memo to Hussein: Sorry, Charlie. Your diversionary ploy didn't work.
News that Tony Blair was still on board with U.S. plans to topple Hussein sparked a callow conniption fit among British lefties. The Mirror's Paul Routledge went on a rampage. He denounced Blair bitterly as a "whimpering poodle" -- Bush's "whimpering poodle". The zany writer dubbed the Crawford Ranch a "Texan poodle parlour."
Memo to Routledge: Wanna see a real poodle? Stand in front of a Mirror, no pun intended.
The Independent belittled Blair to "regional salesperson for a policy already decided by the President". The Guardian reported "disquiet from [Blair's] own backbenchers over his new hardline approach to Iraq."
"George Galloway", according to the Guardian, "accused the prime minister of 'needing his head examining' for wanting to open up a 'second war' in the Middle East."
But if you think these Saddam Hussein groupies are in a tizzy now, boy, just wait till the bombs start to drop.
Meanwhile, the Kabuki dance continues, with Powell expressing the hope that Israel's initial pull-back from the "territories" augurs "the beginning of a full withdrawal". Secretary Powell landed in Morocco on Monday on the first leg of his 'let's-give-peace-a-chance' mission that will take him to Israel either on Wednesday or Thursday.
Of course, this "peacemaking mission" is nothing but a charade, as are U.S. calls for Israeli withdrawal. (wink, wink). Team Bush is cleverly setting the table for Arafat's final downfall. By now, everyone (and his sister) knows Arafat will never make peace with Jews -- he's an Arab Nazi, after all. Illustrating this point lies at the heart of this trip.
'Setting the table' involves three phases:
Phase #1) Give Israel a face-saving pretext to withdraw (but enough time to gather intel and deal terrorists a major blow).
Phase #2) Allow Arafat to fail to reach an agreement with Israel.
Phase #3) Once the suicide bombings resume, all bets are off -- it's showtime. Israel gets the green light to crush Arafat once and for all, while the U.S. and her allies move on to Iraq.My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"