Terrorism

At NRO’s Corner K. J. Lopez has a “quickie” transcript of Howard’s press conference. He observes that Bin Laden justified the Bali bombing & murder of Sergio de Mello in Iraq by both Australia’s and de Mello’s roles in East Timor. Howard begins:

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Howards words are inspiring; the reporter’s questions are not. Senators aren’t the only ones with “dumbass” questions. Howard’s response has the context of the real world (where Bin Laden’s fatwas are actually read & his words, say about East Timor, actually register). Clearly, Howard, like Hatch, can say: “But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions.” Still, he dignifies them with an answer that is neither hasty nor nasty if loaded with history he knows only too well. Thanks Instapundit for both, who also links to The Anchoress’ visual chronology of steps in “Bush’s War.”

Max Boot ponders the parallels between the Blitz and the Bombing:

The London bombings have occasioned many comparisons with the 1940 Blitz. This is usually cited as evidence of British fortitude — the attitude exemplified by cockneys in the heavily bombed East End who told Winston Churchill, “We can take it, but give it ’em back.” That is indeed the dominant British (and American) attitude, then and now, but it is important not to ignore a streak of timidity there (and here) that may get stronger in the years ahead and that was present even when civilization faced an existential threat from Nazism.

The last sentence segues into a litany of appeasement stances. I imagine that in their day these appeals against involvement in the war were far louder than history has allowed their echoes to be. Take one delicious morsel of an example:

Even in January 1942, when German armies were at the gates of Moscow, George Orwell wrote in Partisan Review that “the greater part of the very young intelligentsia are anti-war … don’t believe in any ‘defense of democracy,’ are inclined to prefer Germany to Britain, and don’t feel the horror of Fascism that we who are somewhat older feel.”

As if to illustrate Orwell’s point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he “would never fight and kill for such a phantasm” as “Britain’s ‘democracy.’ ” Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: “Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same.”

Savage naively wondered, “Who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?” Savage thought the real problem was that Britain had lost “her meaning, her soul,” but “the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won’t help this forward an inch.” “Personally,” he added, with hilarious understatement, “I do not care for Hitler.” But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting him: “Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler’s head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding.”

Remind you of anything? No wonder they’ve been in such a frenzy to portray Rove as some sort of criminal mastermind — with the usual lack of success.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit)

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Lileks has a new entry in his Screedblog. He talks about the recent London bombings, and muses on the music that best defines a culture. (This might sound odd, but trust me. James handles it with verve and class.) Later in the essay, he savagely punctures some of the talking points of the anti-war crowd. An excerpt…

“They did not bomb London because there is insufficient transparency in Congress about the Gitmo detainees; they bombed London because it is part of the Zionist-Crusader Conspiracy run by the sons of monkeys and pigs, who must submit or die.

“Ummm, how does it end? I don’t know. Not well for quite a few, I fear. And not well for quite a few, I hope.”

It’s worth your time to read the whole thing.

Read more

The guards at Buckingham Palace, to show support for America after the 9/11 attacks, played the Star Spangled Banner instead of the usual God Save the Queen. I get a lump in my throat every time I see it.

The Guards played the Spanish national anthem, Marcha Real, after the Madrid bombings last year. They wanted to put aside one of the most beloved of British traditions for one day to show respect.

Publius Pundit reports that we hoisted the Union Jack over the State Department today, the first time in history that a foreign flag has flown there.

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

The English people and their government have been the greatest of friends to the US during the last few years. Today terrorists attacked London with a series of bomb attacks. If you’re interested in finding out what’s going on, as well as read some first hand accounts by bloggers, then Glenn has the skinny.

You can contact the British Embassy if you’d like to voice your support. There’s not much any of us can do right now, but that’s a great start. Let them know that they aren’t alone.

UPDATE
Ace of Spades notes that you can make a donation right now. Follow this link to find the British Red Cross Disaster Fund.

Like Ace says they probably don’t need a great deal of support, but it certainly will do some good.