SARAH EVE KELLY is feeling old already.

WAR BY NEXT THURSDAY? If so, let’s hope that this part turns out to be true: “American forces will go in hard and fast and we expect minimal resistance from the Iraqi military.”

But I expect that the disinformation is flying fast and furious enough that reports like this should be treated with considerable skepticism.

UPDATE: Well, we’re certainly bombing more all of a sudden.

Meanwhile here’s a report from Baghdad about trenches being filled with oil to create a smokescreen.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tacitus agrees about the date.

ROSS NORDEEN has a page of photos from a pro-liberation rally in Melbourne, Florida.

UPDATE: Matt Crandall has pictures from a pro-war rally in Cleveland that reportedly drew 10,000 people. And there are more pictures here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Still more pictures from Cleveland! Looking at these pics, I can’t swear that there weren’t 10,000 people there, but the number looks maybe a shade optimistic to me. But, as I noted in an earlier post, organizers tend to overestimate.

But hey, if it was really just 6,500 people, that’s one-tenth as many as turned out for the huge-huge-huge rally in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago. And this was Cleveland, in the winter. And without the undisputed organizational talents of Stalinists. But as I wrote last week, the pro-liberation protest movement is just getting off the ground. The antis have 40 years worth of cadre, experience, and infrastructure to draw on.

But with this rally, and the Houston rally of comparable size, as well as events in Nashville, etc., the movement is clearly growing.

OKAY, ONE MORE: Cinderella says that calling ’em “Stalinists” is letting them off the hook.

LAST ONE: Blogger Jack Burton, whose pictures are linked above, says that I’m wrong to be skeptical of the Cleveland attendance estimates:

Thanks for the link to jackburton.blogspot.com – just wanted to let you know that the Cleveland rally was at least 10,000 – some of those pictures were taken early. About 30 minutes after the rally started, the people were still trying to get to it, the Cleveland flats area where the rally was had only two-lane streets for access. The people had spilled over into the parking lot and all the way up to the river (you can’t see it in the pics). The ‘center’ area held 5,000 – which was packed. I’d say there was at least 10,000 – if not more.

Well, he was there, and I wasn’t — but crowd estimates are notoriously tricky. Still, it was obviously a large turnout. And — as another reader suggests — it was all on one issue, without a bunch of “Free Mumia,” “Legalize Hemp,” etc., etc., hangers-on.

A KLAN RALLY IN FULTON, TEXAS turned out badly — for the Klansmen:

Donning robes and carrying a Confederate flag and an American flag, six Ku Klux Klan members paraded outside the entrance to the 24th annual Oysterfest on Saturday in Fulton.

“People were yelling at them, and others at Oysterfest were getting really upset,” said Aransas County Sheriff Mark Gilliam. “I was worried about a riot.” . . .

“The crowd was definitely offended,” Gilliam said. “There weren’t many takers for their fliers. I was really more worried about the safety of the Klansmen.”

Losers.

DANIEL DREZNER is offering some advice for liberal hawks.

THE BLOGOSPHERE ECOSYSTEM IS BACK! Drop by and thank the Bear.

AT LONG LAST, BLOGCRITICS.ORG is once again at BlogCritics.org and not at some godforsaken, tilde-laden hard-IP address. Check ’em out.

THERE WAS A HUGE PRO-AMERICAN RALLY in South Korea:

A large-scale pro-U.S. rally opposing the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed here was held last Saturday in front of City Hall, downtown Seoul.

Some 100,000 members from the 114 conservative civic bodies, such as the Korean War Abductees’ Family Union and the National Council for Freedom and Democracy, gathered to protest against the North Korean nuclear plans and against Kim Jong-il on the occasion of the 84th anniversary of March 1 Independence Day.

You can see a picture here.

UPDATE: Here’s another.

THERE’S GOING TO BE A NEW BATTLESTAR GALACTICA MINISERIES PRODUCED, starting this month, for broadcast in late 2003. The Starbuck character will be a woman this time, played by Katee Sackhoff.

IT’S COLD AGAIN. Yesterday it was sunny, and warm enough that the InstaWife — notoriously averse to cold — was happy outdoors in no more than jeans and a stylish InstaPundit babydoll t-shirt.

Today it’s gray, cold, drizzly, and miserable. I won’t miss this winter. I’m already planning beach trips, scuba-diving trips, and other expeditions to tropical locations.

Of course, if I had any sense, I’d be on one of those expeditions now. But nooo. . . .

SWEDES AGAINST RECYCLING: They say that it’s actually bad for the environment:

Throw away the green and blue bags and forget those trips to the bottle bank: recycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, according to leading environmentalists and waste campaigners.

In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling.

They dismiss the time-consuming practice – urged on householders by the Government and “green” councils – of separating rubbish for the refuse collectors as a waste of time and money.

The claims, which will horrify many British environmentalists, are made by five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste.

Go figure.

SOME THOUGHTS ON CULTURAL WAR.

PAUL JOHNSON offers five lessons from Iraq. The first: “France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. . . . French support always has to be bought.” He goes on to note:

What the Americans and British now have to decide is whether formal alliances that include France as a major partner are worth anything at all, or if they are an actual encumbrance in times of danger.

We also have to decide whether France should be allowed to remain as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, with veto power, or whether it should be replaced by a more suitable power, such as India. Linked to this is the question of whether France can be trusted as a nuclear power. The French have certainly sold nuclear technology to rogue states in the past, Iraq among them.

And that’s just in lesson one! I agree with Steven Den Beste that French obstructionism is likely motivated in no small part by the fear of what will come out after an American victory in Iraq. I also think that, if Saddam remains in power — even if he is “disarmed” — he will wind up buying more weapons, from the French.

JUAN PAXETY REPORTS that International A.N.S.W.E.R. is planning an aggressive war.

I thought they were supposed to be against that sort of thing.

JIM BENNETT ANALYZES TONY BLAIR’S SITUATION and observes:

Blair is in the ironic position of being opposed by so many who once adored, or at least supported him: the BBC, the radical bishops of the Church of England and many members of his own party in Parliament. . . .

Although Blair triumphed over Clause Four in domestic policy, he had never seriously challenged its foreign-policy equivalent: the rampant anti-American sentiment of Labor’s “looney left”. They are the same sort of people, and often the same people, who marched in previous decades against NATO missile deployments in Britain and [in] other dubious causes.

One might call them transnationalists, but their actions make no sense even from the perspective of one who sincerely believes in building the power of transnational institutions.

That’s why they’re called the “loony” left, Jim.

PUNDITWATCH is up! I especially like the “surreal” section.

DR PEPPER is trying to use weblogs to promote a new product. I don’t think it’ll work, though, and the reason isn’t weblogs, but the drink, “Raging Cow,” which is described as a “milk-based product with an attitude.”

The last time I had a milk-based product develop an “attitude,” it was because of insufficient refrigeration.

SOME READERS HAVE CHALLENGED my statement below about increasing anti-semitism from the Vatican. But the Vatican has consistently taken the side of Palestinians, and Arab Muslims generally, against Israel and Jews, to the point where I can’t really believe any excuses that it’s not about antisemitism. (I think that there have been a few minor condemnations of the increasing anti-semitism in Europe, though I looked and couldn’t find any.) Then there’s this damning picture. (Yeah, he’s French, but he’s also a Cardinal.)

Sorry — readers can defend this sort of thing if they like. But to me it’s just another sign that the Vatican — whose retreat from antisemitism was at any rate recent and shallow — has no moral ground to stand on.

UPDATE: For those seeking context, the original Yahoo story has died, but here is a Guardian story on the meeting, and here’s Craig Schamp’s blog entry. Here’s my original post on the topic.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Several readers have emailed. Reader Peter Hanna emails from New York:

Hey Glenn, long time reader, law student in NYC. I’ll be brief – I’m a Coptic Christian (Egyptian), and I can readily attest to the existence of virulent anti-semitism not just among Arab Muslims, but Christians as well. It’s very bizarre, but an unnaturally high number of Christians are complete bigots- the things I’ve heard at my church (of all places) would make your head spin. I’ve been trying to explain this to myself for a while, and I think I’ve gotten to the bottom of it, or at least one facet of it. The Coptic Pope (Pope Shenouda, aka the Patriarch of Alexandria) has adopted a very, very hardline pro-Palestine stance. Needless to say, this stance has trickled down to the lesser clergy and been adopted by the Coptic community en masse. Furthermore, the way it’s trickled down – without debate, discussion, etc – has obviated the possibility of any real dialogue on the ‘question of Israel’ entirely.

It’s really quite striking (and to me, annoying) hearing my fellow Christians go to such extraordinary lengths to defend not just Palestinians, but any Islamic endeavor at all (e.g., Saddam in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan). A number of family members (still in Egypt) have contacted my immediate family (over here) specifically to berate us as if we were responsible for the “American Crusade.” It’s funny (but sad), cuz there’s a well-known saying in Arabic: “In aharda il Yahoud, bokra il Massihian” -which means “Today the Jews, tomorrow the Christians” – and it’s just oddly amusing seeing Christians side with, almost adopt, an ideology bent on their destruction as well as the Jews.

Indeed. Reader John Cross emails:

Being a good Catholic, I have tried to reason the Church’s anti-war stance, but I am afraid that the similarity between its stance now, and the stand it took having to do with the Nazis and Fascists, is too strong to ignore. I won’t renounce my Catholic beliefs, but I renounce the stand the Catholic Church has taken on this matter. If that breaks me with the Church, or I am under excommunication (official or not) then fine. Me and St. Peter can discuss it later.

Reader Joel Merriam adds this:

I am a Roman Catholic and have been for all of my 45 years.I am very active in my church and belong to a lay ministry that takes communion to hospitals and shut ins.

Last year our parish priest came out very strongly against the pedophile priests and received a standing ovation in the church. Recently he has been giving anti war sermons and several of us walked out during a recent service. I have not been back in the last couple of months. Our diocese got into bed with ANSWER for the protests. Now the Vatican is saying the war is unjust and allows the murderer Aziz to visit with the pope. This is the equivalent of Gobbels having a papal visit in mid 1939.

25 years ago a much younger pope helped liberate eastern Europe. Today he wants to keep another area of the world enslaved while lecturing the democracies around the world while my church is repeating the same antisemitic behavior the pope apologized for a couple of years ago.

I am seriously considering a complete break from my church and that pains me a great deal.

Yes, I can imagine that it would. But the Church has disgraced itself immensely over the past year, on a number of fronts, so I sympathize.

Justin Katz, meanwhile, sends this:

I, for one, had only written to see if you had come across something

more recent than that picture with Arafat from last spring. You’re

right, though, that picture is shameful and caused many an angry word among Catholics. As I’ve noted (link), that grinning bishop is the very same Etchegaray who recently met with Hussein (that link also suggests that some French bishops are acting more French than Catholic).

To offset the implication of “readers [who might] defend this sort of

thing,” I thought I’d point out that many Catholics are agonizing over

the issue: Link.

As the tone of that link will convey, it’s a painful situation for Catholics, and I’ve found that many in the blogosphere, big names and small, seem more than willing assume the worst of the Vatican and to condemn the Church and all its followers for the quotations of a few.

At any rate, I found this picture from a couple of weeks ago that might be relevant to questions of the Vatican and hatred of Jews: Link.

Well, I thought that my comments were pretty clearly aimed at the Vatican, not at catholics in general, and I am — obviously — aware that it’s causing a lot of people pain. I’m sorry about the pain, but I am not its author. The Vatican has, in fact, been consistently supportive of Arab tyrants, for reasons best known to itself, as they mystify me. The final photo, of the Pope meeting with a rabbi, is not, to me, enough to offset the photo shown above, or the rest of the Vatican’s shameful record in this area.

Finally, to the one guy who emailed with the old “Arabs can’t be anti-semitic because they’re semites themselves,” — grow up and get a clue.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Took down the big picture — some people with dialup connections were complaining it was slowing the page down too much — but you can still see it by following the link.

HERE’S ANOTHER REPORT FROM THE GROWING PRO-WAR MOVEMENT:

Cheering, chanting and waving flags, thousands jammed shoulder-to-shoulder into downtown Houston’s Jones Plaza on Saturday to hear politicians, soldiers and entertainers praise God, America and President Bush’s firm stand against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. . . .

The only speaker who was opposed to military intervention in Iraq, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, was greeted with some boos as she stepped onto the stage midway through the two-hour rally. She and her party later were led from the plaza under protective police guard.

KPRC spokeswoman Melissa Brezner said 8,000 to 10,000 people attended the event. . . .

Michael Hambright, an ex-Marine and one of few blacks in the crowd, said he believed the rally achieved its goal by demonstrating public support for the troops.

He likened Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler in pre-World War II Europe, and said the United States has “given peace a chance.”

“Now,” he said, “I think it’s time for a different method.”

No Stalinists were involved in the event’s organization, so far as I can tell.

UPDATE: You can see pictures posted here and here. (There’s an alarming shortage of stilt-men, though). Laurence Simon has a blog account of the rally.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Dave Schipani emails:

>From the newspaper article:

“Michael Hambright, an ex-Marine and one of few blacks in the crowd”

Hmm. I don’t recall any mainstream-media news reports pointing out the lily-white composition of the antiwar protests.

Well, to be fair, they didn’t really point out that they were organized by Stalinists, either. . . .

THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT IS rushing to repair ties with the United States after the vote to refuse support.

A couple of readers suggest that the actual bone of contention between the U.S. and Turkey had to do with how much autonomy the Iraqi Kurds would have. I hope that’s true, but I don’t know. At any rate, it’s certainly a reason to adopt a more expansive view on the subject than we would if the Turks were, you know, cooperating.

UPDATE: Dave Kopel suggests that we use the money that was going to go to Turkey to build another aircraft carrier. Heh.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Lynxx Pherrett is less optimistic.

BUSH JUST CAN’T WIN: The old rap was that Iraq was a “distraction” from the war on Al Qaeda. But now the problem seems to be that the war on Al Qaeda is going too well, leading Nick Gillespie to ask:

Mohammed’s detention raises an interesting possibility regarding Iraq: If the US effectively destroys Al Qaeda before any shooting on Baghdad begins, what effect will that have on the question of war with Iraq?

There’s just no pleasing some people. . . .

HUMAN SHIELDS (WELL, SOME OF THEM) ARE WAKING UP TO THE FACT that there’s a war on, and that they’re being shamelessly used by Saddam for evil purposes.

Well, duh. Welcome to reality, guys — I just hope we don’t have to send the rest of the “peace” movement to Iraq for them to get the message. Though as the story indicates, some are beyond hope.

A GOOD REASON TO SHOP AT SEARS: Reportedly, they’re paying their reservist-employees the difference between their military salaries and what they would be making on the job at Sears.

Good for them.

MORE BLOOD-BLOGGING, from Yashar Yamin.

PROLIFIC BLOG-COMMENTER (and emailer) Howard Veit has finally started his own blog. About time!