Assume the Position

Saturday, November 09, 2002
It must run in the family, "Double tragedy for Al Sabkhis."
The tragedy of Jama'an Ismael Juma'a Al Sabkhi whose only child, Rashid, was taken away by his British wife, Jacqueline Anne, is the second in the family, with his younger brother, Mubarak, having had a similar experience.

The British wife of his younger brother, Mubarak Ismael Juma'a Al Sabkhi, ran away with their three children to the UK some years ago.…

He said that it is now more than two years since he has seen his children and that their mother has changed her address, telephone numbers and cut off all contact between him and his children. He has filed a case at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Scroll down four posts.

The Saudis are given a seriously deserved treatment by Laurence Simon in response to this complaint in Arab News. (link via Emperor Misha I)

Emperor Misha I provides the Imperial misting to Bab's post-election whining:
The Democratic Party was not able to articulate a clear message

TIBERIUS: Hard to articulate with both feet stuck in your mouth, I'd say.

- was not able to convey the very real and very many differences between the two parties.
TIBERIUS: Oh, but I disagree! They did exceedingly well in that department!
CALIGULA: How so, uncle?
TIBERIUS: For one thing, they made abundantly clear that these Democrats of which she speaks are unusually sleazy and morally bankrupt, even for politicians which is saying quite a bit in my experience...
There's much more where that came from.

Friday, November 08, 2002
The UNSC passed the Iraq resolution with a 15 - 0 vote. I have little doubt that the results of the mid-term elections helped bring about that quick and unanimous decision.


Iraq has seven days to accept the resolution's terms

Within 30 days, Iraq must send the U.N. a list of its weapons

Within 45 days, Iraq must allow inspections to begin

Any breach constitutes further "material breach" which will be met with "serious consequences" based on UNSC consultations that do NOT require another resolution.

During the Senate hearings at the end of July I said,

The current bluster seems designed to push Saddam into either backing down (like Qadhafi) or making a irrevocable mistake that can justify a US attack. If he does the former, there will be no US/Iraq war, if he does the latter he will be toast.

From Washington's perspective, I imagine it to be an argument over the difference between should and must. While there may be plenty of reasons we probably should directly attack Iraq and force a regime change at the earliest opportunity, at the present time there seems to be a shortage of reasons that demand we must do so right now. I think the "go slow" crowd is going to win out.

This latest UNSC resolution puts Hussein in the box. I think he will accept the resolution, send the list, and then the inspectors will go to work. Although the president said (paraphrasing), "the seriousness of the breach doesn't matter, any breach will be a serious material breach," don't expect an invasion the first time the inspectors run into trouble or turn up something not listed on the "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration;" instead, expect a few cruise missiles into the offending location and/or Saddam's personal palaces—with the US follow-up depending on Hussein's reaction to those strikes. He and his regime will crumble a bit more each time he backs down, and if he goes on the offensive he will be destroyed.

UPDATE: I don't think the strikes I conjecture will be the Clintonian after-hours strikes on empty facilities. I think they will be broad daylight, in your face, hope we take out your technicians and get lucky and hit you, too strikes.

And, yes, I think the Congressional and UNSC resolutions followed by a major attack/invasion after January 1, 2003 should probably count as "the 'go slow' crowd" having won out.

Thursday, November 07, 2002
A turnabout situation of the kind we don't often hear about: British mother flees UAE with 7-month old son.
A Briton has escaped with her seven-month-old boy to the UK, leaving a shocked UAE national father groping for clues that will lead him to his child.

Jacqueline Anne, 43, a private school teacher in Ras Al Khaimah, flew out of Dubai International Airport with Rashid. She did not leave a shred of evidence that would lead 37-year-old Jama'an Ismael Juma'a Al Sabkhi to her doorstep in the UK.…

Al Sabkhi urged UAE and British authorities to get his child back to the UAE. "I don't want Jacqueline Anne back as my wife, but if she wants to live with her son in the UAE, I will support it."

It's not a kidnapping, yet:
The British mother who took her baby son from Ras Al Khaimah to the UK without her UAE national husband's permission, is not a "kidnapper" yet according to UAE law, says a leading advocate.

Mukhtar Mohammed Gharib, a UAE national lawyer at Al Gharib Associates, explained: "According to article 329 of the Federal Law number 3 of the year 1987, the law punishes the father, mother, grandfather or grandmother with one month to three years in prison or a fine upon the discretion of the judge, if any of them kidnaps the child or the grandchild from its legal guardian.

"The law considers the act as kidnap when they take the child from his legal guardian who was already assigned as the legal custodian of the child upon a court order or sentence."

"As she travelled with her son, of whom she shares legal custody with the father, she wasn't charged or accused by any legal or official authority. The legal mother of the child left the UAE not being wanted by any police department and there were no court orders that banned her from travelling," he said.…

A source at the British Embassy in Dubai told Gulf News that Jacqueline Anne had travelled with her son to the UK with her British passport, while her son Rashid carried no British passport.

I couldn't find anything in the British press. This one will be interesting to follow-up on just to see how it turns out.

UPDATE Nov 8, 2002: "National ready to forgive British wife."

Jama'an Ismael Juma'a Al Sabkhi, said he is ready to drop all charges he had filed against his wife, Jacqueline Anne, 43, a private school teacher.

"If she comes home I will forget everything that has happened in the past week and consider it a nightmare. I still love her and I am ready to accept all her terms to return with our child to the UAE."

I still haven't seen anything about this in the British press.

Howard Kurtz cast a wide net for today's Media Notes column and hauled in a load of post-election commentary from across the country (Wall Street Journal to Los Angeles Times) and across the political spectrum (from National Review to the New Republic). Worth taking a look through to separate the keepers
"Shell-shocked Democrats emerged from Tuesday's midterm election in their worst shape since landslide defeats of 1984 and 1994, and began the process of picking up the pieces without the presidency or either house of Congress, without a dominant national leader and without a clear agenda to take into the 2004 presidential election.

"Tuesday's results, in which President Bush and the Republicans recaptured the Senate, expanded their majority in the House and held down anticipated Democratic gains in governors' races, caught the party by surprise. The losses triggered finger-pointing at party leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), and reopened ideological and strategic divisions that have plagued the party for years."

-- Dan Balz
Washington Post
from the trash.
"Now the Democratic voters who chose not to show up Tuesday are going to find out what their decision meant, in a country ruled by President Bush, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay. From drilling in Alaska to regressive taxation to unilateral war, the agenda of the corporate and religious right will shape our future."
-- Joe Conason

A Pratt and a Frum on a couple of folks who shouldn't be overlooked when casting blame for the Democrats' fizzle.
"The elections in Maryland show how small the Brady Campaign's constituency really is," he said. "We see that [Sarah Brady's] endorsement tended to be the kiss of death for her candidates."
-- Erich Pratt, spokesman
Gun Owners of America
…targets for Democratic recriminations, though, would be Rep. Jim McDermott and former Rep. David Bonior--the two congressmen who traveled to Baghdad on the eve of war to stand with Saddam Hussein and denounce their president. Today’s Democratic party has come a long way since the bad days of the 1970s and 1980s--and in one photo op, McDermott and Bonior managed to throw away a decade of efforts to prove that maybe Democrats can be trusted with the nation’s security after all.
-- David Frum, author
National Review Online

Startling new findings: "Left-Wing Hates America."

Wednesday, November 06, 2002
Of all the post-election analysis I've seen, this best sums it up.

Sunday, November 03, 2002
It's "deja vu all over again" in the story Glenn Reynolds points to on the low numbers of student anti-war protesters. I recall plenty of nearly identical articles written in late 1990 through early 1991 about the "apathetic" or "greedy" college students who weren't interested in their professors' anti-war politics and just wanted to "party" or "get their MBAs" instead of organizing or attending protests against the Gulf War.

Thanks go out to Jim Henley for sending some visitors this way with his Friday roundup. Jim, as every blog reader probably knows, has been sniper central throughout the entire case, a subject I pretty much avoided just because I never felt there was enough evidence to speculate on the who and why—or, more precisely, the evidence available tended to support almost any and every speculation offered. I think Jim's post-capture pieces on where he went wrong and where everybody else went wrong illustrate that.

Original content copyright © 2002-2005 Lynxx Pherrett. All rights reserved.