On Women Leaders

In a recent Morning Report, I cited a post by Tammy Bruce on the Foley scandal (and on men in power generally). Tammy wrote:

Here's one comment which will remind you of my Authentic Feminist foundation--while we all complain that politicians are politicians, here's one thing we can be sure of--with all the page scandals, the intern scandals, and girls who worked for politicians turning up dead (think Kennedy/Kopechne and Condit/Levy), none of the politicians involved have been women. A woman lawmaker has never been accused of sexually harassing an intern, or of making passes at a page, nor has a woman in office been linked to an office worker's death.

So perhaps it's not Washington, DC, power or politics that is the common thread here--maybe it's the sort of man [TB's emphasis] attracted to that environment. There are women serving on both sides of the aisle, and no matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, as an example, we can be pretty darn sure she's not chasing an intern of either sex around her office. The same can be said about Elizabeth Dole, and Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, or Barbara Mikulski. Because it's not about homosexuals, but about men, gay and straight, young and old, and what they do with power.

Is it possible to have the same peace of mind with men in Congress as we do with the women in Congress, at least when it comes to their personal deportment? Is that too much to ask? I certainly don't think so.

Let's admit it--women handle power differently. And as pundits on the left and the right point fingers and complain about who is more corrupt--perhaps it's time to see this as an opportunity to decide to really do things differently, and vote for women, for a real change.

In my Comments, Jeremayakovka expressed reservations about Tammy's post, and I agreed:

I think Tammy makes some great points but I think the issues need to be addressed more clearly. She weakens her argument by conflating two or three points which I believe are distinct from one another: (1) the assertion that women tend to have a different style of leadership from men, quite possibly true in itself; (2) the fact that men tend to display *certain forms* of sexual aggression that are less prevalent (though not necessarily absent) among women; and (3) the lack of (and continuing discrimination against) women in leadership roles.

Also it's important to remember that just as men and women tend to have different styles of leadership, so too do women and men have different ways of engaging in conflict and aggression. Phyllis Chesler wrote an excellent book on female/female conflict.

So, let me elaborate a little here. Individually, I believe Tammy's points are all valid, but I think it would be misleading to suggest that one should vote for women with the expectation that women will be better leaders. Of course, that's not what Tammy is saying; she says, "women handle power differently" (my emphasis), not necessarily "better". But it's not too much of a stretch to read her post and think, "I should vote for women because they will be less likely to harass their pages and will therefore be better leaders". Which of course is wrong thinking.

One of the assumptions of old-school feminism has been that if women leaders were given a fair chance, they would prove less aggressive, less violent, less susceptible to "testosterone poisoning", and generally better leaders than men. Now for all I know, this may very well be true! Given the continuing paucity of women leaders on the international scene, it is far too early to make any kind of empirical assessment.

But we should not predicate our support for women leaders on these assumptions, because they may prove to be false. To put it another way, it would be unfair to put women on any kind of a pedestal based on pre-conceived expectations. And even if a putative future generation of women world leaders did prove to be less predatory and warlike in the patriarchal fashion, might they not make up for it with other vices? Again, as Phyllis Chesler has so ably demonstrated, women are quite capable of their own forms of cruelty.

Do vote for women because women leaders bring many things - character traits, abilities, and experiences - to the political world that men lack. Do vote for women because women have had the deck stacked against them by a sexist, patriarchal society for generations.

Don't ever vote for a woman just because she's a woman, or because you think women can do no wrong.

Do vote for women because of what women can do.

Twin Cities: Muslim Taxi Drivers Refuse Transgender Riders

Fox 9 (via LGF):

By Tom Lyden
Web Produced by Michael Durkin

MINNEAPOLIS – In her bright pink hat, Paula Hare has found herself waiting on her stoop a lot lately, for taxi cabs that never come.

Not to avoid confusion, Paula even tells the taxi dispatcher she’s transgendred. But on three occasions when the taxi actually showed up, she says Muslim drivers have refused to give her a lift.

“This is more than just religion, it’s flat out discrimination,” hare said. “And we’ve got laws against that in this state.”

The city of Minneapolis says she’s right.

Of the nearly 2,000 taxis in the Twin Cities metro, estimates are as many as half the drivers are recent immigrants – many Muslim. ...

Read the rest at the link.

It's deep!

Iran: Deep disappointment!

The United States and five other world powers failed to agree Friday on decisive action against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, issuing a statement that merely expressed "deep disappointment" for Iran's failure to comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was late to the meeting because of problems with her plane. She had to be helicoptered from the airport in London to the meeting and managed to attend only the end of the session. Afterward, British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett read a statement expressing "deep disappointment" by the council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. ...

Norks: Deep testing.

The president of South Korea reportedly ordered his government to send a "grave warning" to North Korea about the consequences of a nuclear test, and Russia said it was trying to dissuade Pyongyang from conducting it.

Amid the rising tensions, Ja pan's Kyodo News agency said a U.S. military plane capable of de tecting radiation took off from southern Japan, believed to be part of U.S. efforts to monitor for signs of a North Korean test.

North Korea threatened Tues day to conduct a nuclear test to prove it is a nuclear power. Pyong yang claims it has nuclear weapons and needs them to deter a U.S. at tack, but hasn't performed any known test to verify that. ...

Hastert: Deep doo-doo.

Republican leaders, closing ranks around House Speaker Dennis Hastert, have settled on a strategy of trying to move quickly beyond the congressional page scandal and turn the political conversation to such issues as terrorism, tax cuts and a growing economy in the final four weeks before Election Day.

They face a tough challenge, as polls show a growing number of Americans inclined to vote Democratic on Nov. 7 and most people surveyed this week suspecting a "cover-up" in the House's handling of the controversy involving lewd electronic messages sent by former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., to underage pages.

But with an explosive story erupting a month before an election in which control of Congress is at stake, Republicans have few options. ...

Afternoon Roundup

CTB: Tamil Tigers smuggling ring butsted.

Last week the U.S. Attorney for Baltimore announced that two complaints and an indictment were unsealed charging six people with conspiring to purchase weapons for the LTTE. The lead agency in the operation was Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This is the second major bust of a Tiger arms purchasing network in the U.S. in two months. Like the previous operation these arrests were the culmination of an impressive operation. The arms purchasers were allowed to sample the merchandise at an arms range in Havre de Grace (a small town not far from Baltimore - or, interestingly, Aberdeen Proving Grounds.) Some of the arrests were actually made in Guam.

On the U.S. side, clearly more resources have been devoted to breaking up LTTE arms buying networks. This is an important development if the terrible civil war that has tormented Sri Lanka for over a quarter century is ever to end. The LTTE is an effective terrorist organization that has carried out over 200 suicide bombings and has also held its own in direct fighting with both the Sri Lankan and Indian militaries.

When interviewed about the previous bust, I stated that the LTTE is capable of hitting the U.S. However, they have historically avoided hitting U.S. targets or even American advisors to Sri Lankan forces to avoid American animus.

One of the key items sought by both LTTE arms-purchasing rings were anti-air missiles (SAMs), indicating that Sri Lankan airpower is a major concern for the Tigers. ...

Gay Patriot on Mary Cheney and "The List".

Despite the failure of this tactic two years ago, leftists are trying to make it work this year, only instead of bringing up the sexuality of a candidate’s child, they’re threatening to “out” gay staffers to prominent Republicans. As Bruce reported earlier today, various gay leftists have been sending copies of the “List” (of gay staffers to leading Republicans) to a variety of social conservative organizations, political allies of the GOP who have a less-than-favorable opinion of homosexuality.

It seems clear they’re doing this to weaken the support of those organizations for the GOP as the mid-term elections approach. If these groups show less enthusiam, Republicans won’t generate the turnout they need in order to hold onto Congress.

Without any concern for the lives of these gay men and women — or even any knowledge of whether these staffers have attempted to lobby their bosses to change their stands on gay issues — gay activists are doing something they believe will hurt the party they love to hate — and so help the real object of their efforts, electing more Democrats. ...

ThreatsWatch: Russia and China in Lebanon.

Russia has airlifted an entire Engineer Battalion into southern Lebanon to function in conjunction with UNIFIL’s mission there under Security Council Resolution 1701. China has 182 PLA soldiers under UNIFIL inside southern Lebanon and has pledged that over 1,000 troops will arrive soon. The two members of the Iranian protectorate in the ongoing Iranian nuclear crisis are uniquely involved in the international efforts in southern Lebanon following the conflict between Israel and the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hizballah.

Both China and Russia are actively seeking more active roles in Middle Eastern affairs and are tangibly invested in the Iranian regime; cash-starved Russia principally through the building of the Iranian nuclear facilities and military equipment sales, and energy-hungry China increasingly as an oil-trading partner. ...

Prague Synagogue Massacre Plot

Terrorists reportedly planned to kill large numbers of Jews at a synagogue in Prague, Czech Republic. Details are still sketchy. Here is what I've found so far:
Arutz Sheva:

11:11 Oct 06, '06 / 14 Tishrei 5767

(IsraelNN.com) According to a report appearing in the daily Mlada Fronta Dnes on Friday, Islamic terrorists in Prague planned to abduct tens of Jews and then execute them.

According to the newspaper, the leading paper in Czech Republic, the terrorists planned to kidnap the victims, hold them hostage in a synagogue and make outrageous demands that would not be met. The hostages would then be killed.

Quoting unnamed intelligence community sources, the report indicated the terror plot was foiled.

Czech Chief Rabbi Ephraim Sidon stated the terrorists planned to strike Central Prague’s Jerusalem Synagogue, not the Jewish Quarter, a popular spot for tourists.

Debka:

Arab terrorists planned mass murder of Jews in a Prague synagogue after taking them hostage, according to Czech intelligence. This plot, according to the Prague Daily Monitor, triggered the special security measures announced in the Czech capital for the first time two weeks ago. According to the sketchy information released, unidentified “Arab extremists” planned to penetrate a synagogue during a Jewish holiday, pose unspecified conditions that would not be fulfilled and then blow up the synagogue with explosives they would have had ready for use. They intended killing scores of Jewish worshippers inside. On Sept 23, the Czech government deployed armed guards around dozens of buildings and on the streets of the capital after security services announced an unspecified attack was imminent. They have not divulged any further information. The country’s once flourishing Jewish community was decimated by the Nazis during World War II.

More on this as it develops.

Morning Report: October 6, 2006

New battle fronts. Reports of a planned synagogue massacre in Europe, while a South Asian president feels the heat. Our friend in Baghdad wonders where America's will has gone.

Debka: Pogrom plot uncovered in Prague. Debka reports: 'Arab terrorists planned mass murder of Jews in a Prague synagogue after taking them hostage, according to Czech intelligence. This plot, according to the Prague Daily Monitor, triggered the special security measures announced in the Czech capital for the first time two weeks ago. According to the sketchy information released, unidentified “Arab extremists” planned to penetrate a synagogue during a Jewish holiday, pose unspecified conditions that would not be fulfilled and then blow up the synagogue with explosives they would have had ready for use. They intended killing scores of Jewish worshippers inside. On Sept 23, the Czech government deployed armed guards around dozens of buildings and on the streets of the capital after security services announced an unspecified attack was imminent. They have not divulged any further information. The country’s once flourishing Jewish community was decimated by the Nazis during World War II.' (Debka)

ITM: America's sin. Mohammed at Iraq the Model critiques American foreign policy:

Perhaps America's biggest mistake was the hesitation in keeping up the strategy of preemptive war.

Yes, America used that strategy in Iraq but failed to go on, and instead of chasing terrorists, America stopped at Iraq and sat waiting for terrorists to come in.

Keeping a large number of troops in Iraq and hoping they could root out terrorists can only be described as a bad plan. It really wouldn't matter much if we had 50 thousand in stead of 150 thousand troops in Iraq and in fact what really matters is the distribution of these troops. If we look back at the record of the war since April 2003 we'll see that adding more troops on the ground resulted only in making the enemy call for more reinforcements and the war kept getting more violent. In other words, how much troops we have is not the question, where we put the troops is.

The huge mass of military power looks dull here and there's no meaningful objective for its presence but to protect the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq and this can be done with much less troops than there is now in Iraq. It is unfair to leave this highly-trained, heavily-equipped mighty forces to fight a guerilla war against gangs and faceless insurgents and militias armed with old rifles and rusty mortars. All the sophisticated warplanes, tanks and big organized units will have not have a chance to make the desired impact on the ground or meet the goals such units are built to achieve, which means smaller, more agile units backed by strong intelligence-gathering capabilities can replace the bigger units when the latter can move on to engage bigger targets elsewhere.

The insurgents, terrorists and militias operating in Iraq depend on foreign support for money, training, technology and in some cases men. Moreover the influence of foreign interference is clear even in the political arena in Iraq through the numerous political crises the country had faced.
Thus, this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran.

Read the whole thing at the link. (ITM)

Rice to meet Iraqi Kurdish leaders. Reuters: 'U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will urge Iraqi Kurdish leaders on Friday to work with Sunnis and Shi'ites, particularly on the controversial issue of managing Iraq's vast oil wealth. Rice, on a visit to Iraq, pressed Iraqi leaders on Thursday to end their "political inaction" and put aside their differences to rein in sectarian violence that threatens to tear the country apart. Witnesses said Rice, who arrived in the autonomous region of Kurdistan on Friday, was meeting Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region.' AFP: 'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has met the leaders of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, urging them to cooperate with Iraqi Arabs in building a peaceful and unified country. Grateful for US support in throwing off the yoke of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Kurds have put their long-cherished dreams of independence on hold while the Baghdad government struggles to rebuild the war torn country. But separatist tensions are never far from the surface, and fierce rows have recently erupted over the banning of Iraq's national flag in the north and the Kurdish government's determination to develop its own oil industry.' (Reuters, AFP)

Pakistan: Nothing to see here, move along. ThreatsWatch: 'With today’s discovery of two rockets outside the Pakistani parliament aimed at both the Parliament building and Musharraf’s residence, it is much more difficult to believe Pakistan’s quick claims yesterday that an explosion yesterday in a park near Musharraf’s home had nothing to do with the Pakistani president. Yesterday’s blast seemed unusual in that there appeared no clear target, initially interpreted here as likely an accidental detonation with more sinister intent, especially when unexploded ordnance was found nearby as well. But with today’s find of rockets un-launched but aimed at the parliament and Musharraf’s home, the explosion surely was not accidental. Together they should be seen as a message to Musharraf by al-Qaeda and like-minded Pakistani terrorists: “We can reach you. You are not safe.” Considering that the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance is currently trying to wrest the whole of the North West Frontier Province from Musharraf and the Pakistani government just as it did in both North and South Waziristan, the message is likely intended to twist Pakistani arms to hand over more territory to the terrorists. ...' Map at the link. (ThreatsWatch)

Saudi link in US embassy plot? Arutz Sheva: 'It has been learned that last month’s terror attack against the US embassy in Damascus was planned in Saudi Arabia, carried out by four Syrian nationals. While it was first reported they were linked to al-Qaeda, investigators now state this is not true, stating a local Saudi religious figure influenced the terrorists to carry out the attack.' (A7)

Muslim-French civil war? Sandmonkey thinks so. 'It seems that France is paying for its colonial sins by the truckload. Or the dozen. Dozen of police Officers a day that is. ...' Read the whold story at the link. (Sandmonkey)

Merideth Howard remembered. Mister Ghost at Little Green Colloquium has a tribute to 52-year-old SFC Merideth Howard, United States Army. Meredith Howard was the oldest US servicewoman to give her life in combat. Go to the link for lots of information about the life of this amazing woman, including an exclusive interview with her friend Rebekah Bridges-Tervydis, and a selection of "Merideth Howard in her own words". (LGC)

Iran: Time for sanctions? ThreatsWatch: 'US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Iran is simply employing another “stalling technique” with its latest offer for a French consortium overseeing Iranian uranium enrichment and that Iran is clearly not going to halt enrichment in any case. Dr. Rice said that it is therefore time for the Security Council to take up Chapter Seven sanctions against Iran. Addressing the issue during her Middle East tour, Rice said, “I think we have come to a time when the Iranians have to make their choice, and the international system has to act accordingly.” It has been over one month since the Security Council’s August 31 enrichment cessation deadline has passed.' (ThreatsWatch)

Transatlantic passenger data accord reached. Stratfor (subscription service): 'The European Union and the United States have agreed on a preliminary accord over new rules to transfer personal data on trans-Atlantic air passengers to U.S authorities, an EU official said Oct. 6. The accord will allow U.S. law enforcement agencies easier access to credit card information, addresses and other personal data as part of the fight against terrorism. EU justice ministers, who must formally approve the accord, were scheduled to meet later Oct. 6.' (Stratfor)

Morning Report applauds. Gay Patriot declares a Foley-free zone. (Gay Patriot)

Commentary. The price of America's indecision has been high, allowing our terrorist enemies to gain ground in places like Waziristan. But our side is gaining ground, I think, on the mental battlefield. The recent incident at Columbia University and the tiresome antics of the leftists are not likely to gain much sympathy for the anti-America, anti-Bush cause.

The breaking report of a plan to massacre Jews in Prague ought to set off more alarm signals in the West. Will it? How many more innocent lives have to be lost before we wake up and do what must be done?

ITM: America's Sin

Mohammed at Iraq the Model has posted his critique of American policy:
America's sin - hesitation.

Perhaps America's biggest mistake was the hesitation in keeping up the strategy of preemptive war.

Yes, America used that strategy in Iraq but failed to go on, and instead of chasing terrorists, America stopped at Iraq and sat waiting for terrorists to come in.

Keeping a large number of troops in Iraq and hoping they could root out terrorists can only be described as a bad plan. It really wouldn't matter much if we had 50 thousand in stead of 150 thousand troops in Iraq and in fact what really matters is the distribution of these troops. If we look back at the record of the war since April 2003 we'll see that adding more troops on the ground resulted only in making the enemy call for more reinforcements and the war kept getting more violent. In other words, how much troops we have is not the question, where we put the troops is.

The huge mass of military power looks dull here and there's no meaningful objective for its presence but to protect the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq and this can be done with much less troops than there is now in Iraq.
It is unfair to leave this highly-trained, heavily-equipped mighty forces to fight a guerilla war against gangs and faceless insurgents and militias armed with old rifles and rusty mortars. All the sophisticated warplanes, tanks and big organized units will have not have a chance to make the desired impact on the ground or meet the goals such units are built to achieve, which means smaller, more agile units backed by strong intelligence-gathering capabilities can replace the bigger units when the latter can move on to engage bigger targets elsewhere.

The insurgents, terrorists and militias operating in Iraq depend on foreign support for money, training, technology and in some cases men. Moreover the influence of foreign interference is clear even in the political arena in Iraq through the numerous political crises the country had faced. Thus, this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran.

Read the whole thing at the link.

And while we're on the subject, pay a visit to the new Regime Change Iran.

Tags:
Iraq
Iran
Syria

US Embassy Bombing Plot: Saudi Link?

Arutz Sheva reports:

(IsraelNN.com) It has been learned that last month’s terror attack against the US embassy in Damascus was planned in Saudi Arabia, carried out by four Syrian nationals.

While it was first reported they were linked to al-Qaeda, investigators now state this is not true, stating a local Saudi religious figure influenced the terrorists to carry out the attack.

Lovely.

Terrorists' Victims Can Sue French Bank

Via LGF: Suit against Credit Lyonnaise division can proceed.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawsuit by families of suicide bomb victims in Israel seeking damages from French bank Credit Lyonnais claiming it knowingly provided financial services to a group linked to Hamas can proceed, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Thursday.

The suit, which made claims on behalf of 25 families of U.S. victims killed or wounded in the attacks, alleges that Credit Lyonnais, S.A. provided financial services and material support to CBSP, a French charity that raises funds for Hamas.

CBSP has been officially designated a global terrorist organization by the U.S. government. ...

Read the rest at the link.

Iraq Opinion Poll

You're probably familiar with this poll which found, inter alia, that a majority of Iraqis support attacks on US troops:

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

Gateway Pundit objected that the Washington Post 'did publish pieces from a leaked classified document again today that paints a picture of a ungrateful and violent Iraqi population'. I responded in a comment (one of the last to appear under my old Blogger nom de guerre):

I would like to understand this poll and its results better. Certainly it's interesting that the only aspect the WP found headline-worthy was "Iraqis back attacks on US soldiers" and not the anti-OBL and anti-IRI sentiment.

But we really need to deal with this directly. Taken at face value, the results of the poll contradict the assertion that the Iraqis want us there. They contradict the assertion that we are winning hearts and minds, and they support the position that it would be better for both Iraqis and Americans if we would just leave immediately.

All of these things are perfectly reasonable inferences if we are to take the results of the poll at face value. That, obviously, is the big "if". The poll may have been conducted in a misleading way, or the results may have been reported in a misleading way, or the numbers may simply be wrong and not reflect Iraqi opinion at all. The previous commenter raised the kind of questions we need to ask.

Personally I am skeptical of these numbers, but I am not going to discount them simply because they don't fit my current beliefs. If the poll is wrong, we need to get that out there. If it's right, we need to re-examine our assumptions about Iraq.

I don't think it is helpful to respond to this by saying "Damn those Democrats! They're trying to hurt the war effort." Of course they are, and we all know that. But we still need to deal honestly with the results of this poll.

Gateway Pundit responded graciously and noted: 'The State Dept. today explained how hard it is to take polls in a place like Iraq where the people have been traumatized for so long. That was omitted from the WaPo report.'

Also, this is definitely a "good news, bad news" poll and overall the news is mostly good. Here is Harry's Place:

The report suggests that this hostility to US troops is related to the belief, held by 77% of Iraqis, that the US is planning permanent military bases, and says that the high approval rating for attacks on US forces might be "not because they are so eager for the US-led forces to get out immediately, but because they want to put pressure on the US to get out eventually" (my italics). Significantly, of the 61% who support attacks on US-forces, more than half say that their support would diminish if the US announced a commitment to withdraw its forces.

There's lots more good news, none of which made the WaPo headline:

In the previous PIPA poll, taken in January this year, 99% of Iraqis said they disapproved of attacks on civilians, with 95% disapproving strongly. Since then opinion has swung away from those supporting attacks on civilians. The figure is now 100%.

Other findings include:

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis: 94% expressed an "unfavourable" view of Al Qaeda, with 82% expressing a "very unfavourable" view. The "unfavourable" figure included 77% of Sunnis. 93% expressed an unfavourable view of Osama bin Laden, with 77% very unfavourable. The unfavourable figure included 71% of Sunnis.
Some support remains for a US presence in a non-military capacity, with 63% approving of the US continuing to train Iraqi security forces, and 68% supporting the US in "helping Iraqis organize their communities to address local needs such as building schools and health clinics". Again, this is linked to the withdrawal of US forces. Of those expressing disapproval of a non-military US role, more than half said they'd be more likely to support such a role if a timetable for withdrawal was agreed.
Confidence in the Iraqi security forces is rising: 70% expressed confidence in the police, 64% in the army and 62% the Interior Ministry. 56% said they believed that in 6 months Iraqi security forces would be strong enough to cope with security challenges on their own, up from 39% in January. 63% believe the government is doing a very or somewhat good job.
Militias are seen as the problem rather than the solution: 77% support "a strong government that would get rid of militias", while only 21% preferred to continue to have militias. Support for militias was highest among Shias, but even then only 33% preferred militias to a strong central government. 68% of Iraqis said that they'd be able to rely on the government to ensure security if the militias were to disband.
The report states that "majorities of all groups do not favor a movement towards a looser confederation and believe that five years from now Iraq will still be a single state" (72%). Only 37% believe that the central government has too much power, and 65% see it as "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people".

And last but not least:

61% continue to believe that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships entailed. This includes 75% of Shias and 81% of Kurds. The 61% figure is down from 77% in January 2006, but is consistent with previous polls from 2004. The report suggests that the high January figure "may have been influenced by optimism over the election in December 2005".

Overall, then, I think the results of the poll are very positive. This report shows us a picture of Iraqis who want to govern themselves: not to be ruled by Ba'athists, not by islamists, not even by Americans, but by themselves - the people of Iraq. And that's a healthy sign.

UPDATE. Iraq the Model has a few words about those poll numbers:

I can say that having 40% of Iraqis who disapprove of attacks on US troops is actually a surprising figure (in a good way) and it's not that bad at all. I mean the numbers indicate that war has more support in Iraq than it has in the UK itself or in countries in the Middle East where America is not waging a war! But again, if we want to comment on these numbers we need to keep a few points in our minds…

The magnitude of pressure and misinformation the people here are subject to from the media is a factor that cannot be ignored. Since April 2003 and till now virtually all the media kept describing the US presence as a force of occupation even when the legal status of the forces ceased to be so long time ago. For over three years, the media kept focusing on the mistakes and shortcomings of the US military and US administration in what I can only describe as force-feeding hatred to the Iraqi people.

It's not only the media, there are also our politicians. A good deal of the political class here is guilty of treason; some betrayed the US after posing as allies and friends while some betrayed the people by dragging them to an absolutely unnecessary confrontation with the US military. Both types have been trying to convince the people that America is responsible for instability and chaos in Iraq.

The behavior of Iraq's neighbors, Arab league, UN and the anti-war crowds in America and Europe has had a no better influence than the media or our irrational politicians and clerics.

What do you expect the attitude of the common Iraqi to be when he watches, hears or reads about the fairly wide anti-war movement in the west? When there are Americans who say America is wrong or say the war isn't for a just cause and when Americans say the US presence in Iraq is bad, and when that is the only side of the image the media focuses on, it becomes an invitation for Iraqis to resist this presence and there's no doubt many will answer the invitation whether with words or violent action since they will get the impression that they're legitimately resisting something bad.

We have little in our culture about compromise or working-out-our-differences-peacefully. Radical solutions often seem more tempting to the ordinary, less educated people. When everyone, and I mean everyone, keeps telling them America is their enemy, the common reaction would certainly involve violent means of expression…yes, that's our common way in showing our disagreement with others in this part of the world. It sucks, it's backward and it's savage but it's the fact and it will not change overnight, such changes happen slowly.

We should not expect pleasing answers from confused people, living in extremely difficult conditions, subjected to extreme emotional, physical and psychological stress and being misguided and misinformed by biased media and corrupt leaders.

Read the whole post here. Also check out Mohammed's post on the four sins contributing to the gloomy mood among Iraqis today ... and keep an eye on ITM for Mohammed's follow-up on what Americans need to know.

Foley

I've been watching the Foley scandal but haven't posted on it yet. And right now I think the best thing I can do is send you to Gateway Pundit's comprehensive roundup on the Representative Mark Foley affair.

Feminist Nancy Kobrin's Book Blocked by Islamic Fascists

The Jawa Report:

Rioting and threats of violence from Muslim extremists have apparently triumphed once again over the First Amendment.

According to psychoanalyst Dr. Nancy Kobrin and noted feminist Phyllis Chesler, who wrote the introduction, Kobrin's new book, "The Sheikh's New Cloth: The Naked Truth about Islamic Suicide Terrorism", was to be published in November by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc., but Dr. Kobrin's contract was suddenly cancelled over concerns for their staff's safety.

Ms. Chesler writes:

...in the wake of the Pope's mistreatment, they would not be able to provide security for their staff people were her book to inflame the "Muslim street." Dr. Kobrin's book discusses, in depth, the normalization of cruelty and child abuse, including pederasty and daughter-abuse that is pandemic in the Arab Muslim world and how such shame and honor childrearing practices renders adults vulnerable to death-cult temptations and brainwashing. She focuses on the degradation of women in the Islamic world and how that is a crucial factor in suicide terrorism.

Bluto adds that 'Looseleaflaw is a small publisher and can hardly be blamed for getting cold feet' and I quite agree. Full post at the link. This is appalling, sad, and tragically ironic in light of some of my liberal friends' ravings about the supposedly imminent "brown shirts and book burnings" resulting from the new anti-terrorism bill.