Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Why I nearly resigned
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 04/26/03 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 04/24/2003 6:44:07 AM PDT by Pokey78

Mark Steyn says he is disgusted by what he sees as The Spectator’s ill-judged and idle defence of the UN


The UN should be appointed overseer of the peace not because that organisation possesses planning skills which America does not, but because to shut it out will cause resentment in the Arab world. However irritating are many of the do-gooders among its ranks, the UN has the advantage of being seen as an antidote to alleged Western imperialism.
After reading those words in The Spectator’s leading article of 12 April, I hurled the magazine across the room and typed up my letter of resignation. A nervous dependant pointed out it might be wiser to line up alternative employment first. It quickly emerged that no other British publication would have me, and the only alternative employment was casual construction work. So let me try to explain instead why the heart sinks at finding a paragraph like that in what purports to be a conservative magazine.

The short answer is the official Russian response to the suggestion that UN sanctions should now be lifted, so that Iraqis can sell their oil and start rebuilding their country. ‘This decision cannot be automatic,’ says the Russian foreign minister with a straight face. ‘For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not.’

Got that? Last month, the Russians were opposed to war on the grounds that there was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This month, the Russians are opposed to lifting sanctions on the grounds that there’s no proof Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

There are a few striped-pants masochists in the State Department who enjoy this sort of thing and have spent the last four weeks pining for M. Chirac to walk all over them in steel-tipped stilettos one more time. But most Americans, given a choice between being locked in Security Council negotiations with the Russians, French and Germans or being fed feet-first into one of Saddam’s industrial shredders, would find it a tough call.

In the week before The Spectator’s demand that Kofi and co. be put back in the limelight, I’d devoted this space to suggesting why the UN was not the answer for postwar Iraq. While one is not so foolish as to believe the scales will be falling from Dominique de Villepin’s eyes, one hopes one’s argument might as least circulate as far as the magazine’s editors. After all, that was also the column in which I opined on the progress of the war. ‘We’re still on Cakewalk Time,’ I wrote. ‘If Baghdad falls within the next seven to ten days, that’s a quickstep cakewalk.’

Well, I was wrong. It was six days. But that still put me ahead of that issue’s leader (‘Now that coalition forces are digging in around Baghdad waiting for reinforcements...’), not to mention Julian Manyon (‘We now know that The Plan — General Franks’s plan, as Donald Rumsfeld has effortlessly started calling it — was based on a number of arrogant assumptions. It completely disregarded a key lesson of modern history — that invasions ignite nationalism, and that even the worst of tyrants may be preferred by many of his people to occupation by a foreign army.... Meanwhile, Saddam appears to be plotting an Arab Stalingrad’). In an issue brimming with an unintentional hilarity not seen since Alexander Chancellor’s Falklands coverage, I was happy to do my bit to help maintain a few shreds of The Spectator’s reputation.

A thank-you note and a box of chocolates would have been nice; a large raise and comprehensive medical coverage would have been better. But at the very least, instead of rushing on to their UN bromides, The Spec’s editors might have thought, ‘Hmm. Steyn was right on the war; maybe he’s right on the postwar, too.’

You don’t have to be a genius to see that, since 11 September, we have entered a transitional phase in world affairs. John Pilger can keep boring on about Vietnam until he’s driven away every last Mirror reader, but to any sentient columnist the analogy is irrelevant: indeed, a canny newspaper would design a software programme that crashed a columnist’s computer every time he typed in the word.

The Spectator is not motivated by anti-American animus, of course, and, unlike certain anti-war contributors to these pages, it was not on Saddam’s payroll. But it’s as prone as anyone to a slyer temptation: the seductive power of inertia in human affairs. The wish not to have to update one’s Rolodex burns fiercely in the political breast. Brent Scowcroft, George Bush Sr’s national security adviser, wanted to stick with the Soviet Union even after the Politburo had given up on it. The European Union was committed to the preservation of Yugoslavia even when there had ceased to be a Yugoslavia to preserve. Indeed, as Tim Congdon pointed out last week, Britain’s own membership of the EU now defies any rational justification other than force of habit — which is a mighty potent force. As Polly Toynbee wrote to Peter Cuthbertson’s Conservative Commentary website a couple of months back, ‘War without the UN is unthinkable.’ But it happened anyway. Imagine that.

Clinging to the status quo even as it’s melting and dripping on to your shoes is one reason why the Middle East is now a problem. You’ll recall G.W. Hunt’s famous 19th-century music-hall song, the one that gave us a new word for the kind of militant patriotism most distasteful to the enlightened soul:

We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too....
What’s often overlooked is what all this flag-waving was in aid of:
We’ve fought the Bear before, and while Britons shall be true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.
Why? Because the British coveted it? Not at all. Her Majesty’s Government was interested in cherrypicking the odd isle and emirate — Cyprus here, Oman there — but, other than that, they were committed to maintaining the Ottoman empire: all that jingoistic rabble-rousing not for British glory but just to keep some other fellow’s simpleton sultan on his throne. The Middle East is in its present condition in part because the European powers kept propping up the Turkish empire decades after it had ceased to be prop-up-able. It would have been much better for all concerned if Britain had got its hands on Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Arabia in the 1870s rather than four decades later. But, even in the later stages of the Great War, after the British had comprehensively sliced and diced Turkey from top to toe, London’s official position was that somehow the Ottoman empire should be glued back together and propped up till the next war.

Now another Middle Eastern war has come and gone, and the bien-pensants are anxious that once again an obsolescent institution be glued back together and propped in position. This time it’s the UN. The Spectator has it exactly backwards: it’s not the irritating ‘do-gooders’ among its ranks, but the do-badders. The ‘oil-for-palaces’ programme (as Tommy Franks calls it) is a classic UN boondoggle: it was good for bureaucrats, good for Saddam’s European bankers, good for George Galloway (allegedly), but bad for the Iraqi people. A humanitarian operation meant to help a dictator’s beleaguered subjects has instead enriched the UN by more than $1 billion (officially) in ‘administrative’ costs. There’s no oversight, no auditing, nothing most businesses would recognise as a legitimate invoice, and, although non-essential items can be approved only by the secretary-general himself, Kofi Annan has personally signed off on practically anything Saddam requested, including ‘boats’, from France. The UN, France, Germany and Russia are desperate to keep the oil-for-palaces programme going, and they figure they can bully the Americans into going along.

Before the war, it was said that, for America, the issue was Iraq and, for everybody else, the issue was America. Now the issue is the UN, France, Germany and Russia, and whether they can get away with hijacking the Anglo-American victory. You don’t have to agree (though, as it happens, I do) with my distinguished compatriot George Jonas that the UN is a fully-fledged member of the axis of evil to recognise that there’s little point in going to war to install yet another branch office of UNSCAM. If the problem is America’s image in the Arab world, in what way does it help to confine the Stars and Stripes brand to unpleasant things like bombs, while insisting all the nice postwar reconstructive stuff be clearly labelled with the UN flag? If the answer is that that’s the price you pay for healing the rift with Old Europe, that presupposes Old Europe is interested in healing it. Tony Blair may be keen, but the Continentals have different agendas. Will the Belgian government approve the complaint of ‘genocide’ against Tommy Franks? The petition accuses the general of ‘inaction in the face of hospital pillaging’, which apparently meets the Belgian definition of genocide. Unlike the deaths of more than three million people, which is the lowball figure for those who’ve died in the civil war in the Congo — or, as I still like to think of it, the Belgian Congo.

The Congo’s civil war is everything George Mohammed al-Galloway claimed Bush’s war would be: there were more civilian deaths in a few hours in Ituri province last week than in the entire Iraq campaign; while the blowhards at Oxfam and co. — the Big Consciences lobby — insist on pretending that Iraq is a humanitarian disaster, there’s an actual humanitarian disaster going on in the Congo, complete with millions of children dead from disease and malnutrition. While the lefties warned that Ariel Sharon would use the cover of the Iraq war to slaughter the Palestinians, the Congolese are being slaughtered, and you don’t need any cover. Because nobody cares. Because no Americans or ‘Zionists’ are involved.

That’s why The Spectator should be wary of lending credence to phrases like ‘Western imperialism’. There’s no such thing. There’s Belgian imperialism, which, as the Congo continues to demonstrate, is a sewer. And then there’s Anglo-Saxon nation-building, which, from India to Belize, works quite well, given the chance. St Lucia, Mauritius, Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea, to pluck four at random, have enjoyed the attributes of a free society a lot longer than, say, Greece, Portugal and Spain, which were dictatorships a quarter-century ago. The argument of our old friend Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi minister of water, that freedom is ‘European’ is not borne out by the facts. If Latin Americans, Pacific islanders and even the Muslims of south Asia can live in liberty, it’s surely a little racist to suggest that Arabs are uniquely incapable of so doing. Had Britain begun administering Mesopotamia in 1877 instead of 1917, we wouldn’t even be asking the question.

But if you want to turn a long shot into a surefire failure, there’s no better way than handing postwar Iraq from the Americans to the UN — the successors to the Belgian school of nation-building. At best, you’ll end up with Cambodia, where the UN has colluded in the nullification of democracy; at worst, you’ll wind up with the Balkans, where once functioning jurisdictions are reduced to the level of geopolitical tenements with the UN as slum landlord in perpetuity.

As my colleague Matthew Parris has written, there are today two competing philosophies, which he has characterised as America vs the Rest of the World. For the purposes of this argument, ‘America’ includes Australia, Poland and Qatar, but let’s not quibble. The Rest of the World — the Franco-Russo-Belgian philosophy — has given us the oil-for-food programme, Hun Sen’s UN-approved coup in Cambodia, and Congolese genocide. That’s good enough for Belgium, but it shouldn’t be for Britain and America. Washington should dare the French and Russians to veto, let the Iraqis turn on the spigots, and pay no attention to Spectator editorials.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ineffectiveun; iraqifreedom; marksteyn; marksteynlist; postwariraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2003 6:44:07 AM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...

2 posted on 04/24/2003 6:46:44 AM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bump for an excellent article.
3 posted on 04/24/2003 6:48:44 AM PDT by livius (Let slip the cats of conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Excellent essay.
4 posted on 04/24/2003 6:58:36 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
As usual, Steyn is right on target.
5 posted on 04/24/2003 7:04:48 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78
Excellent, excellent Steyn!

Let the UN die its deserved death.
7 posted on 04/24/2003 7:07:38 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Steyn...totally irreplaceable.
8 posted on 04/24/2003 7:07:40 AM PDT by IGOTMINE (He needed killin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bump for later.
9 posted on 04/24/2003 7:21:02 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
We need a word beyond "Brilliant." Steyn has a an ability to draw conclusions from a vast knowldge of history.

I hope everyone involved with the future of Iraq will read this and take it to heart.

10 posted on 04/24/2003 7:21:59 AM PDT by maica (Home of the FREE because of the BRAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Once we have most of the facts on Galloway, I hope Steyn will do an article on Galloway's pronouncements and the drum beat responses to them. Saddam was paying Galloway to say what he said; most of the usual leftists responded because they were leftists, willing to jump on any anti-American bandwagon, although some were, surely, also on Saddam's gift list. Check out Pilger, as well. Has Tommie the Commie's wife also been taking cash from Saddam?
11 posted on 04/24/2003 7:28:08 AM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Many thanks for your dedication to Steyn ping-ation. We never, never tire of this man's genius and honesty...
12 posted on 04/24/2003 7:39:12 AM PDT by Airborne Longhorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
Do you suffer under the notion that less Steyn would be a good thing? I find myself always wanting more. Longer articles, whole treatises, whole books even would be my preference.
13 posted on 04/24/2003 7:51:21 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I wrote this yesterday in relation to some idiot professor's contention that Mark Twain was a "liberal" in the modern sense, and this article by Mark Steyn proves the point:

It's a bit ironic, but IMHO the one current pundit who seems to come closest to Twain in ability to turn a phrase and stick it deep with a twist of the blade is a Canadian, Mark Steyn. He's not Twain's equal, nobody is (how many essayists have written novels still being read after 130 years?), but he'll do.

Steyn is the best writer I know of who is working as a columnist today.

14 posted on 04/24/2003 7:54:42 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Because no Americans or ‘Zionists’ are involved.

That says it all.

15 posted on 04/24/2003 7:59:08 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
A good one. He makes a great case. The versatility of Steyn's talent and mind is astounding.
16 posted on 04/24/2003 8:01:13 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
I wish that Steyn would lengthen his columns!

;^)

17 posted on 04/24/2003 8:05:11 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jayef
One Saturday night a while back, I went over to the Telegraph site and just sat and read every one of his columns.

I had quite a good time that night.......LOL.
18 posted on 04/24/2003 8:05:23 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Will the Belgian government approve the complaint of ‘genocide’ against Tommy Franks? The petition accuses the general of ‘inaction in the face of hospital pillaging’, which apparently meets the Belgian definition of genocide. Unlike the deaths of more than three million people, which is the lowball figure for those who’ve died in the civil war in the Congo — or, as I still like to think of it, the Belgian Congo.

As much as I love Steyn when he's funny, he's even better when he's angry. I'd ask for a cleanup in the Belgian waffle aisle after that, but there's really nothing left.

19 posted on 04/24/2003 8:06:06 AM PDT by Mark de New Brighton (So, Eason Jordan, what else aren't you telling us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
Ping
20 posted on 04/24/2003 8:09:07 AM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn takes on the UN.

It's not a fair fight!

21 posted on 04/24/2003 8:13:55 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
bttt for later STEYN read ! . . .
22 posted on 04/24/2003 8:16:18 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Saddam! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping.

Steyn is the best. Period.
23 posted on 04/24/2003 8:20:30 AM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The man is a treasure.
24 posted on 04/24/2003 8:23:01 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
FYI
25 posted on 04/24/2003 8:26:15 AM PDT by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
I wish that Steyn could shorten his columns just a bit.

HERESY!!!!!

I savor every Steynian statement.

26 posted on 04/24/2003 8:28:50 AM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
LOL. Including the words I have to look up!
27 posted on 04/24/2003 8:29:35 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
I wish that Steyn could shorten his columns just a bit.

Heresy!

28 posted on 04/24/2003 8:34:18 AM PDT by NewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; JohnHuang2
<< ..... the heart sinks at finding a paragraph like that in what purports to be a conservative magazine. >>

The heart should not so sink, though, for all they have used, misused, abused, politicised and even Capitalized the word "Conservative" in once great Britain, there never has been, is not now and never will be a Consevative -- in the American sense of what that means -- in that once-fair land.

The British mind set is such that even those who call themselves Capital "C" Conservatives differ from the rest of Britain's sorry socialist shower only in the ways in which they offer to cut up and squander the confiscated wealth of Britain's most creative, innovative, productive and industrious SUBJECTS.

The Brits, that is -- poor fools they! -- who are not already called AMERICANS!
29 posted on 04/24/2003 8:35:38 AM PDT by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
Hmmm. What's that old saw about Great Minds?! LOL
30 posted on 04/24/2003 8:36:16 AM PDT by NewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Excellent column.
31 posted on 04/24/2003 8:36:18 AM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Nobody consistently gets it right as often as Steyn. "Or as I like to call it, the Belgian Congo." Even his insults make valid points.
32 posted on 04/24/2003 8:41:24 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It quickly emerged that no other British publication would have me, and the only alternative employment was casual construction work.

I can see several American news outlets that would jump at the chance to acquire Mark Steyn.

33 posted on 04/24/2003 8:42:36 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn bump. It is notable that those countries most interested in transferring control of Iraq to the UN are the very ones most interested in plundering the place, and who have active track records of doing precisely that. But not to accede to their demands would place the U.S. in dire peril of international public opprobrium. They might say nasty things about us and hate us.

Which represents a change from the present situation...precisely how?

34 posted on 04/24/2003 8:46:51 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Once again, Steyn pierces the jugular.

It's noteworthy that, whereas most American liberals ask to be judged on their intentions and excused for their failures, Postmodern Transnationalists, the sole remaining human subspecies that considers the UN a really neat idea:

  1. demand to be judged on their allegiance to a gaggle of despots, without reference to what those despots actually do to their subjects;
  2. refuse to consider previous successes and failures as relevant to a policy decision, and consider it rude to raise the subject;
  3. condemn anyone who dares to assert that there might be some source of moral authority more reliable and less transient than the opinion of the "world community," in whose name they claim the monopoly privilege to speak.

UN Delenda Est.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

35 posted on 04/24/2003 9:11:41 AM PDT by fporretto (Curmudgeon Emeritus, Palace of Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Mark Steyn goes after his own editors. Wow.
Why isn't he on Fox News?
36 posted on 04/24/2003 9:39:24 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katana
Twain's equal? I see Mark as being the best of HL Mencken and PJ O'Rourke. To compare him to Twain would be difficult unless it were to say that Steyn is the Twain of our century.
37 posted on 04/24/2003 9:42:32 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn is awesome..............as usual.
38 posted on 04/24/2003 10:56:08 AM PDT by conservativemusician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fporretto; MadIvan
The Spectator is not motivated by anti-American animus, of course, and, unlike certain anti-war contributors to these pages, it was not on Saddam’s payroll.

Who's he talking about???

39 posted on 04/24/2003 11:12:49 AM PDT by Shermy (Full disclosure of Food For Oil books...No Compromise!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
While the lefties warned that Ariel Sharon would use the cover of the Iraq war to slaughter the Palestinians, the Congolese are being slaughtered, and you don’t need any cover. Because nobody cares. Because no Americans or ‘Zionists’ are involved.

The nobodies who don't care are the media...it is their job to inform us...I'd love to see CNN do some investigative reporting on the Belgian Congo and the French action in Sierra Leone...but they never seem to turn a critical eye on anyone but the USA and Israel.

40 posted on 04/24/2003 11:16:36 AM PDT by foreshadowed at waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Washington should dare the French and Russians to veto, let the Iraqis turn on the spigots, and pay no attention to Spectator editorials.

AMEN!

At this point their should not even be the ludicrous farce of a request for another U.N. (ir)resolution.

TURN ON THE SPIGOTS!
JUST DO IT!!!

41 posted on 04/24/2003 11:32:40 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Shermy
I can only suggest either Matthew Parris or Boris Johnson. The former is a snob, the latter may or may not be a drunk, but he acts like one anyway - but he's not well known as being "anti-American" per se.

Regards, Ivan

43 posted on 04/24/2003 12:17:07 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Outstanding, as always.
44 posted on 04/24/2003 1:01:16 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn is right on the money again.

Thanks, Pokey.

45 posted on 04/24/2003 1:03:13 PM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
bookmark bump
46 posted on 04/24/2003 1:14:10 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; Howlin; headsonpikes; fporretto; Miss Marple
The thing with Steyn is that he not only knows his history, but that he is aware of history which is so, so unlike most journalists, columnists and modern writers in general.
47 posted on 04/24/2003 1:24:34 PM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scholar; Bullish; linear
Ping
48 posted on 04/24/2003 1:35:49 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
You don’t have to agree (though, as it happens, I do) ... that the UN is a fully-fledged member of the axis of evil

YES, YES, YES. SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS. CLOSE IT DOWN.

49 posted on 04/24/2003 1:49:14 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
That was pretty much the gist of what I posted about Twain, i.e. the only current essayist who "compares" is Steyn. I would never equate the two.

Now if Mark Steyn continues writing till he's in his 70's, publishes a pair of classic stories that are still being read in the year 2250, goes on regular lecture tours to packed houses, and someday has an actor make an entire career of impersonating him, we can talk.

50 posted on 04/24/2003 2:07:19 PM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson