June 20, 2002

Instapundit on Said

He finally noticed that Said article in Al Ahram:

Said has always been more anti-Israel (and anti-West) than he has been pro- Palestinian or pro-Arafat, but the idiocy of Arafat's strategy since Oslo has led things to such a pass that even Said is pointing out the problems. He's also quite hard on suicide-bombing as a strategy, though an uncharitable reader might conclude that's mostly because he sees that it's failing miserably.

He just can't bring himself to give credit without trying to smear Said again, can he? Evidence for Said either being more anti-Israel then pro-Palestina or Said taking not a principled but a practical stance against suicide bombing are not forecoming, of course.

The other interesting thing about this passage is that it's in Al Ahram, which means that the Egyptian government can't hate it too much. And when you strip away the still-present obligatory Israel and America-bashing, it looks to me like another sign that everyone thinks Arafat now represents a problem, not an asset.

UPDATE: A troubling thought. We're getting a lot of cooperation all of a sudden from Arab countries, including places like Syria that haven't been all that cooperative before. It's likely that this is the result of increasing pressure. But given the cooperation between Syria and Iraq on nuclear matters, is it possible they're just trying to keep us out of the picture until the Islamic Bomb is ready in sufficient quantities? I don't think that's what's going on, but such behavior would be very much in character.

Syria has never been Iraq's closest friend -even taking part in the anti-Iraq coalition during Gulf War II, Instapundit Watcher seems to remember. Nor are either Syria or Iraq Islamitic states; they're both ruled by the secular baath parties, which are of a nationalistic semi socialist bent, not an Islamitic one.

Not a word about Instapundit being wrong about Said missing no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies, of course.

June 18, 2002

Pot calls kettle black

Our dear friend quotes from and links to a spinsanity article calling into doubt the reports about the restrictions on protests during President Bush's commencement address at Ohio State University. He comments:

Well, there you have it. Hey, anybody can be wrong, but -- especially when you're online and it's so easy to do -- it's important to correct things once you find out they're wrong, even if the incorrect version is more politically opportune. I would think that would go double for anonymously authored sites like MWO.

Even if this was correct it would be an astonishing piece of chutzpah, considering the sloppiness an outright lying found on his own site... But it's of course not true, as the original eyewitness account on the Democratic Underground website makes clear. Spinsanity has offered nothing to doubt this story, apart from the person reporting being -shock horror- anonymous.

Instapundit accuses the EU of supporting terrorism again

Quote Instapundit:

CHRIS PATTEN IS COMING UNDER MAJOR CRITICISM for the EU's support for terrorism, according to this story in the E.U. Observer.

Now this article he links to only talks about some concerns several members of the EU parliament have with EU financial support for the Palestinian Authority, one of which, the anti-semitic and anti-Israel nature of PA published schoolbooks was already debunked last year in a paper by Nathan Brown, of The George Washington University. Nowhere does it offer any evidence of EU support of terrorism, yet does that stop Instapundit from falsely claiming there is?

Edward Said and his support of fundamentalist Islam

From a recent Al Ahram article:

If there is one thing along with Arafat's ruinous regime that has done us more harm as a cause it is this calamitous policy of killing Israeli civilians, which further proves to the world that we are indeed terrorists and an immoral movement. For what gain no one has been able to say.

Who said Edward Said supported Islamitic terrorists again?

This article brought to the attention of Instapundit Watcher by one of her readers, for which thanks.

More Instapundit Watchers

It looks like Instapundit Watcher started a mini trend; MaxSpeak has dedicated this week to highlighting "at least one incredibly dumb thing to be found on the site of the King of Bloggers". He does so "Because a modern day type of Red Scare -- hysterical misinformation about things on the left -- seems to cloud the vision of quite a few otherwise sane persons."

Instapundit Watcher can only applaud his efforts.

yadda yadda Blogosphere blah blah

Instapundit praises the "self-correcting nature of the blogosphere". Unfortunately, the article he links to does not show this "self-correcting nature" at all.

Instead it shows the power of e-mail. The Rittenhouse Review made a mistake, got an e-mail about it and rectified its mistake. No different from how any website or newspaper does things, not something unique to the "blogosphere".

June 17, 2002

Instapundit slanders the left again

Quote

PERHAPS ALL THE LEFTIES WHO HAVE SHOWN AN UNACCOUNTABLE AFFECTION FOR FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM will think twice now:

And then our brainac links to a Washington Post article about how Christian Fundamentalists have joined forces with their Islam counterparts. In other word, glenn accuses the left of giving Islamitic fundamentalists a pass where it would attack Christian ones. Worse, that "the left" supports Islamitic fundamentalism.

Instapundit also asserts that:

On the other hand, some people dispute my assertion that there are lefties who like fundamentalist Islam. Well, there certainly seem to be a lot of people -- Chomsky, Kingsolver, Edward Said, etc., who miss no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies.

Now you know and Instapundit Watcher knows that this is not the same as showing an "unaccountable affection for fundamentalist Islam", but for the professor such things are more difficult to understand. You cannot draw conclusions from silence! Chomsky et all are under no obligation to state their disapproval of fundamentalist Islam when criticising US policy, no matter how much Instapundit wants this.

Instapundit Watcher wants to make it clear that she does not take Glenn's word for Chomsky et all silence on this subject, sio if any kind reader could give her a pointer she would be much obliged.