There is something that is confusing me about the issue surrounding the Plame Leak investigation.
“Scooter” Libby has been indicted for lying about what he knew and when he knew it.
Yet the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald has not answered the central question: was a crime committed by saying to a reporter that Valerie Plame – Joe Wilson’s husband – worked for the CIA and was instrumental in having him sent to Niger?
Fitzgerald claims to be prosecuting Libby, in part, because Libby lied about who told him and when he found out about the Plame/Wilson connection. He claims that those lies inhibited his investigation.
But since he now knows the truth about who told what to whom, and who knew, and what the law is regarding disclosure of this information to the public, why is there no indictment on the fundamental case?
When did Fitzgerald find out that Libby lied about what he knew and when? Who actually outed Plame? Is outing Plame a crime?
After two years of investigations, millions of dollars spent, and an indictment that does not address the primary issues, I am coming to the conclusion that for all the great press Fitzgerald has gotten; as an investigator he is either incompetent or he decided that after all this effort he had to indict somebody so he served up the Libby indictment.
UPDATE: For the Libby Indictment click HERE.
For Fitzgerald's statement click HERE.
Bottom line, according to the Special Counsel, Libby lied to the FBI and in his Grand Jury testimony about what he knew and what he told reporters. A number of the counts are based on the word of Libby vs. the reporters.
The underlying question not addressed in the indictment, because he has not been charged with this crime, is whether what Libby did was criminal. There is an inference that Libby committed a crime before he alledgedly perjured himself, but there is no indictment for anything but his testimony.
Why not? In my opinion, the Special Counsel accepted the job of determining if a crime has been committed (past tense), not whether he can get a witness to commit a crime after he begins his investigation.
Failure to do so ...to resolve this issue, is a dereliction of his duty to the American people.
UPDATE 2: The Wall Street Journal chimes in:
Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.
Let us stipulate that impeding a criminal investigation is indeed a serious matter; no one should feel he can lie to a grand jury or to federal investigators. But there is a question to be asked about the end to which the accused allegedly lied. The indictment itself contains no motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was revealed.
Rather, according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
If this is a conspiracy to silence administration critics, it was more daft than deft. The indictment itself contains no evidence of a conspiracy, and Mr. Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush administration. The indictment amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about an underlying "crime" that wasn't committed. And we still don't know who did tell Mr. Novak -- presumably, it was the soon-to-be-infamous "Official A" from paragraph 21 of the indictment, although we don't know whether Official A was Mr. Novak's primary source or merely a corroborating one.
To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon, the story goes something like this. Sometime in May 2003, or slightly before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed of Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column, and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war. He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New York Times about Mr. Wilson's wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission and its outcome, without reference to his wife's employment or possible involvement in his trip.
Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up, but only after Mr. Novak's column had run. In this same time period, he had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr. Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.
So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper "without qualifications," as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?
On this much we can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald: These are "very fine distinctions" indeed, especially as they pertain to discussions that occurred two years ago, and whose importance only became clear well after the fact, when investigators came knocking. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said "We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements." He added that they "will defend vigorously against these charges."
On the answers to these questions hang a possible 30-year jail term and $1.25 million in fines for a Bush administration official who was merely attempting to expose the truth about Mr. Wilson, a critic of the administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced. In other words, Mr. Libby was defending administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime.
Mr. Fitzgerald has been dogged in pursuing his investigation, and he gave every appearance of being a reasonable and tough prosecutor in laying out the charges yesterday. But he has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected administration and critics of the president's approach to the war on terror, who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Who Said What About Iraq's WMDs?
Today’s “letters” section of the Virginian Pilot has another deluded Pilot reader railing against Bush’s “lies” about WMDs to get us into war. A rare day goes by when there is not a letter on the same theme.
I sent a letter to the Pilot politely asking why their readers are so misinformed. I doubt if I’ll get a reply, or even a follow up story – something I suggested – but hope spring eternal as they say.
For those who have short memories, Glenn Beck provides a summary of those who warned about Saddam’s WMD programs. Here is a link to a list of people who warned about Saddam’s WMDs before George Bush was elected President and before 9/11 brought home the dangers of WMDs getting in the hands of fanatics.
They include: Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Pelosi, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Rockefeller and Graham. All of the Left. And all believed Saddam has WMDs and all before the war in Iraq.
UPDATE: Since we are now facing another nuclear threat in the form of Iran, this analysis by Wretchard at the Belmont Club is worth reading.
I sent a letter to the Pilot politely asking why their readers are so misinformed. I doubt if I’ll get a reply, or even a follow up story – something I suggested – but hope spring eternal as they say.
For those who have short memories, Glenn Beck provides a summary of those who warned about Saddam’s WMD programs. Here is a link to a list of people who warned about Saddam’s WMDs before George Bush was elected President and before 9/11 brought home the dangers of WMDs getting in the hands of fanatics.
They include: Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Pelosi, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Rockefeller and Graham. All of the Left. And all believed Saddam has WMDs and all before the war in Iraq.
UPDATE: Since we are now facing another nuclear threat in the form of Iran, this analysis by Wretchard at the Belmont Club is worth reading.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
ON THE LIBBY INDICTMENT
Jeff Goldstein has everything you would want to know about the indictments handed down by Mr. Fitzgerald.... with commentary and links to literally dozens of sources and updates.
I refer to to the very smart Jeff...read the whole thing.
I refer to to the very smart Jeff...read the whole thing.
THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T SAY AND THE MEDIA WON'T TELL
Powerline reminds us why we are at war in Iraq.
READING THE WHITE SPACES AT THE TIMES
Michelle Malkin notes that it's often more important to know what the NY Times leaves out than what it prints.
You'll see when you read her post.
Here is a comment from Little Green Footballs.
And from Patterico.
And Tim Blair
You'll see when you read her post.
Here is a comment from Little Green Footballs.
And from Patterico.
And Tim Blair
NEWS FROM THE HOME FRONT 1944
Rand Simberg "resurrects" a 1944 Reuters story about FDRs illegal war:
October 28th, 1944
WASHINGTON (Routers) As this bloody and futile war enters its fourth year, the casualties continue to rise, and while it's hard to know how many American soldiers have been lost, due to a secretive Roosevelt administration, many analysts think that the number of deaths in brutal battle is now approaching a quarter of a million, with many more millions of civilian casualties in Europe and Asia. Even ignoring all of the innocent loss of life, the loss of American soldiers alone is now almost equivalent to that of the entire population of a medium-sized American city.
This mark is being reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the seemingly endless European and Pacific conflicts, hastily and, some say, thoughtlessly launched in December 1941 to avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor by radical Japanese Shintoists.
Here in the nation's capital, many urged the U.S. Senate to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen 250,000.
Read the whole thing...
October 28th, 1944
WASHINGTON (Routers) As this bloody and futile war enters its fourth year, the casualties continue to rise, and while it's hard to know how many American soldiers have been lost, due to a secretive Roosevelt administration, many analysts think that the number of deaths in brutal battle is now approaching a quarter of a million, with many more millions of civilian casualties in Europe and Asia. Even ignoring all of the innocent loss of life, the loss of American soldiers alone is now almost equivalent to that of the entire population of a medium-sized American city.
This mark is being reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the seemingly endless European and Pacific conflicts, hastily and, some say, thoughtlessly launched in December 1941 to avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor by radical Japanese Shintoists.
Here in the nation's capital, many urged the U.S. Senate to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen 250,000.
Read the whole thing...
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Volker Destroys the Status Quo Ante
The opponents of the Bush reaction to 9/11 is twofold: first, Iraq did not attack the US; second, International pressure was keeping Saddam bottled up.
The first objection is true but irrelevant. During WW2 we attacked Italy while Italy did not attack us. It was, however, part of the problem, and we dealt with it.
The Volker report tells even the self deluded that the second proposition was totally false. Our “allies” were hip deep in helping Saddam escape the sanctions against Iraq.
Belmont club has some insightful commentary:The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to containing rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness. The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay.
The first objection is true but irrelevant. During WW2 we attacked Italy while Italy did not attack us. It was, however, part of the problem, and we dealt with it.
The Volker report tells even the self deluded that the second proposition was totally false. Our “allies” were hip deep in helping Saddam escape the sanctions against Iraq.
Belmont club has some insightful commentary:The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to containing rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness. The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay.
Opting Out of Reality
My parents were born at the beginning of the 20th century, in Holland. Holland has not, in the memory of living man done anything to anyone. You would think that leading life as poor but honest people in a small country on the edge of the European continent with no natural resources except salt water would be rather dull.
They were anything but.
Holland was neutral in WW1 and the Kaiser fled there after the war to live in exile.
WW2 visited Holland – and my family – in a big way. We went to the countryside to escape starvation. We ducked bombs and bullets. We hid our bicycle tires to keep them from the Germans. And we hid my mother’s ancestry to avoid the gas chambers.
Our experience in WW2 taught us this thing: there is no escape from history. As Trotsky said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
It is 150 years since American has a real war in their country, and that war was primarily fought in the South. For almost all Americans, war and man-made destruction is unreal; something that happens on the TV newscasts … to other people.
That is why 9/11 is now something that is rarely remembered as part of our history. For a majority of Americans, it does not fit into any narrative of history. It is a one-off; an artifact of Osama bin Laden. It is totally unconnected with Islam as it is practiced in many parts of the world, divorced from the suicide bombers in Israel, ridiculed as an excuse for the war on terror or the conflict in the Middle East.
And if the war in Iraq is not related in any way to 9/11 the only thing that makes sense is that the war is for oil, for Halliburton, for … Evil Bushhitler.
Of course this is not universally accepted. Some people do have a sense of history, a realistic overview of the challenge we face. And an awful sense of the tragedy in the clash of civilizations. A clash that includes Osama and Saddam, but that is much bigger than either of these people. It is also bigger than George Bush.
That is why this essay by Peggy Noonan “A Separate Peace” is so relevant; so disturbing and such a wake up call to those who believe, with a childlike trust that everything will be all right.
That is what my family believed before the Anschluss. That is when history became real and war became interested in us.
They were anything but.
Holland was neutral in WW1 and the Kaiser fled there after the war to live in exile.
WW2 visited Holland – and my family – in a big way. We went to the countryside to escape starvation. We ducked bombs and bullets. We hid our bicycle tires to keep them from the Germans. And we hid my mother’s ancestry to avoid the gas chambers.
Our experience in WW2 taught us this thing: there is no escape from history. As Trotsky said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
It is 150 years since American has a real war in their country, and that war was primarily fought in the South. For almost all Americans, war and man-made destruction is unreal; something that happens on the TV newscasts … to other people.
That is why 9/11 is now something that is rarely remembered as part of our history. For a majority of Americans, it does not fit into any narrative of history. It is a one-off; an artifact of Osama bin Laden. It is totally unconnected with Islam as it is practiced in many parts of the world, divorced from the suicide bombers in Israel, ridiculed as an excuse for the war on terror or the conflict in the Middle East.
And if the war in Iraq is not related in any way to 9/11 the only thing that makes sense is that the war is for oil, for Halliburton, for … Evil Bushhitler.
Of course this is not universally accepted. Some people do have a sense of history, a realistic overview of the challenge we face. And an awful sense of the tragedy in the clash of civilizations. A clash that includes Osama and Saddam, but that is much bigger than either of these people. It is also bigger than George Bush.
That is why this essay by Peggy Noonan “A Separate Peace” is so relevant; so disturbing and such a wake up call to those who believe, with a childlike trust that everything will be all right.
That is what my family believed before the Anschluss. That is when history became real and war became interested in us.
THE QUAGMIRE THE NY TIMES SUPPORTS
Captain’s Quarters points to an editorial in the NY times supporting the continued occupation of Kosovo – after seven years.
While Iraq is moving toward democracy and increasing its ability to govern itself without the despotism that is a feature of virtually all of the Middle East, Kosovo is still a ward of outside powers. And the NY Times wants to continue that with no end in sight.
Says the Captain:
Kosovo should embarrass everyone who participated in its separation from Serbia. No doubt that the Milosevic reign of terror caused great hardship for the Kosovars, but its severance from Serbia created an expectation of independence from the start. The UN and NATO should have realized that before they interceded in what had been a civil war along ethnic and religious lines, and prepared a long-term strategy rather than a repeat of the Korean War.
Now the Times wants this quagmire to continue without any resolution until the Kosovars prove themselves worthy of liberation and freedom. Not only is that a recipe for perpetual occupation, it might be one of the most elitist sentiments ever issued by a supposed voice for liberal thought. Human beings qualify for liberty and freedom on the basis of their humanity, not their politics, at least until they can individually show that they cannot handle it. Condemning the entire region to essentially martial law on the basis of their ethnicity betrays the same kind of arrogance that led to Kosovo's mindless occupation in the first place.
While Iraq is moving toward democracy and increasing its ability to govern itself without the despotism that is a feature of virtually all of the Middle East, Kosovo is still a ward of outside powers. And the NY Times wants to continue that with no end in sight.
Says the Captain:
Kosovo should embarrass everyone who participated in its separation from Serbia. No doubt that the Milosevic reign of terror caused great hardship for the Kosovars, but its severance from Serbia created an expectation of independence from the start. The UN and NATO should have realized that before they interceded in what had been a civil war along ethnic and religious lines, and prepared a long-term strategy rather than a repeat of the Korean War.
Now the Times wants this quagmire to continue without any resolution until the Kosovars prove themselves worthy of liberation and freedom. Not only is that a recipe for perpetual occupation, it might be one of the most elitist sentiments ever issued by a supposed voice for liberal thought. Human beings qualify for liberty and freedom on the basis of their humanity, not their politics, at least until they can individually show that they cannot handle it. Condemning the entire region to essentially martial law on the basis of their ethnicity betrays the same kind of arrogance that led to Kosovo's mindless occupation in the first place.
IS IT RACIST IF BLACKS CALL EACH OTHER SAMBOS?
A blogger named Steve Gilliard has posted a photo-shopped image of Michael Steele in blackface, headlining his diatribe:”Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house.” (note: the picture is not work friendly and I will not run it on my website).
Gilliard is black and so is Steele. Gilliard is a Leftist and Steele is running as a Republican.
Question: Can blacks be racists?
Discuss.
Gilliard is black and so is Steele. Gilliard is a Leftist and Steele is running as a Republican.
Question: Can blacks be racists?
Discuss.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Dean: Celebrate 2,000th Iraq Death with Dignity
Fromn Scrappleface:
(2005-10-25) -- Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged party members to "restrain their joy" during nationwide celebrations of the 2,000th American fatality of the Iraq war, "out of respect for the untold thousands who have been killed by our troops."
"These American military dead are not just names on a list," Mr. Dean said. "Behind many of those names we can feel the loss of the grieving families of Arab freedom fighters who mourn their dearly-departed insurgents."
In an email to Democrat party members, Mr. Dean suggested that local celebrations of the grim milestone include "a moment of non-sectarian silence before the champagne corks start popping."
At the end of his note, the DNC chief added, "P.S. -- I hope the 2000 celebration helps us all to look forward eagerly to 2008."
(2005-10-25) -- Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged party members to "restrain their joy" during nationwide celebrations of the 2,000th American fatality of the Iraq war, "out of respect for the untold thousands who have been killed by our troops."
"These American military dead are not just names on a list," Mr. Dean said. "Behind many of those names we can feel the loss of the grieving families of Arab freedom fighters who mourn their dearly-departed insurgents."
In an email to Democrat party members, Mr. Dean suggested that local celebrations of the grim milestone include "a moment of non-sectarian silence before the champagne corks start popping."
At the end of his note, the DNC chief added, "P.S. -- I hope the 2000 celebration helps us all to look forward eagerly to 2008."
Shelby Steele, Black and White Racism
From time to time we have heard calls by various groups about a "dialog" between the races. In the past this has been less of a dialog than an opportunity for black leaders to castigate whites for racism and all the ills that infect the body of Black America.
I now have hope because I have seen the glimmer of a real opening for honest discussion of issues of race, racism and responsibility.
Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution has written a groundbreaking article in the Wall Street Journal .
Referring to the theme of racism in the aftermath of Katrina he makes this telling observation:
Therefore, it was only a matter of time before the images of deep black poverty that emerged in Katrina's aftermath were covered over in a narrative of racism: If Katrina's victims had not been black, the response to their suffering would have been faster. It did not matter that a general lack of preparedness, combined with a stunning level of governmental incompetence and confusion, made for an unforgivably slow response to Katrina's victims. What mattered was the invocation of the great white shame. And here, in white racism, was a shame of truly epic proportions -- the shame of white supremacy that for centuries so squeezed the world with violence and oppression that white privilege was made a natural law. Once white racism -- long witnessed by blacks and acknowledged since the '60s by whites -- was in play, the subject was changed from black weakness to white evil. Now accountability for the poverty that shamed blacks could be once again assigned to whites. If this was tiresome for many whites, it was a restoration of dignity for many blacks.
I now have hope because I have seen the glimmer of a real opening for honest discussion of issues of race, racism and responsibility.
Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution has written a groundbreaking article in the Wall Street Journal .
Referring to the theme of racism in the aftermath of Katrina he makes this telling observation:
Therefore, it was only a matter of time before the images of deep black poverty that emerged in Katrina's aftermath were covered over in a narrative of racism: If Katrina's victims had not been black, the response to their suffering would have been faster. It did not matter that a general lack of preparedness, combined with a stunning level of governmental incompetence and confusion, made for an unforgivably slow response to Katrina's victims. What mattered was the invocation of the great white shame. And here, in white racism, was a shame of truly epic proportions -- the shame of white supremacy that for centuries so squeezed the world with violence and oppression that white privilege was made a natural law. Once white racism -- long witnessed by blacks and acknowledged since the '60s by whites -- was in play, the subject was changed from black weakness to white evil. Now accountability for the poverty that shamed blacks could be once again assigned to whites. If this was tiresome for many whites, it was a restoration of dignity for many blacks.
In other words, white racism was invoked to give black poverty an acceptable cover.
More excerpts:
In the '60s -- the first instance of open mutual witness between blacks and whites in American history -- a balance of power was struck between the races. The broad white acknowledgment of racism meant that whites would be responsible both for overcoming their racism and for ending black poverty because, after all, their racism had so obviously caused that poverty. For whites to suggest that blacks might be in some way responsible for their own poverty would be to relinquish this responsibility and, thus, to return to racism. So, from its start in the '60s, this balance of power (offering redemption to whites and justice to blacks) involved a skewed distribution of responsibility: Whites, and not blacks, would be responsible for achieving racial equality in America, for overcoming the shames of both races -- black inferiority and white racism. And the very idea of black responsibility would be stigmatized as racism in whites and Uncle Tomism in blacks.
President Johnson's famous Howard University speech, which launched the Great Society in 1965, outlined this balance of power by explicitly spelling out white responsibility without a single reference to black responsibility. In the 40 years since that speech no American president has dared correct this oversight.
The problem here is obvious: The black shame of inferiority (the result of oppression, not genetics) cannot be overcome with anything less than a heroic assumption of responsibility on the part of black Americans. In fact, true equality -- an actual parity of wealth and ability between the races -- is now largely a black responsibility. This may not be fair, but historical fairness -- of the sort that resolves history's injustices -- is an idealism that now plagues black America by making black responsibility seem an injustice.
And yet, despite the fact that greater responsibility is the only transforming power that can take blacks to true equality, this is an idea that deeply threatens the 40-year balance of power between the races. Bill Cosby's recent demand that poor blacks hold up "their end of the bargain" and do a better job of raising their children was explosive because it threatened this balance. Mr. Cosby not only implied that black responsibility was the great transforming power; he also implied that there was a limit to what white responsibility could do. He said, in effect, that white responsibility cannot overcome black inferiority. This is a truth so obvious as to be mundane. Yet whites won't say it in the interest of their redemption and blacks won't say it in the interest of historical justice. It is left to hurricanes to make such statements.
But it is the shame of blacks that becomes most transparent when black responsibility is given its rightful ascendancy. When this happens blacks themselves cannot look at New Orleans without acknowledging what Bill Cosby acknowledged in a different context, that poor blacks have not held up their end of the bargain. Responsibility always comes with the risk of great shame, the shame of failing to meet the responsibility one has assumed. A great problem in black American life is that we have too often avoided responsibility in order to avoid shame. This is understandable given the unforgiving pas de deux of mutual witness between blacks and whites in which each race prepares a face for the other and seizes on the other's weaknesses with ravenous delight. And four centuries of persecution have indeed left us with weaknesses, and even a degree of human brokenness, that is shaming. Nevertheless, it is only an illusion to think that we can mute the sting of shame by charging whites with responsibility for us. This is a formula for running into the shame you run from.
And our open acknowledgment of our underdevelopment will clearly give whites a power of witness over us. It will mean that whites can hold us accountable for overcoming inferiority as we hold them accountable for overcoming racism.
Let the dialog begin.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Rewriting History - The Media Shove the Past Down the Memory Hole.
The theme under girding much of the MSM’s story on the war in Iraq is that George Bush created a false public fear of Iraq’s WMD program; a program that did not exist.
The fact that this is not true does not appear to hamper their efforts to rewrite history.
The reality is found in a story by Robert Kagan in Today’s Washington Post (page A21)..
Excerpt:
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one. ...
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries." ...
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak."
In times past the MSM could have gotten away with fooling people in this way. Who had the time and resources to go through old issues of yellowed newspapers? Thanks to the magic of computer science and the vast data bases available to the average citizen, it’s getting harder and harder to shove the past down the memory hole.
That doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying.
Hat tip to Captain’s Quarters.
The fact that this is not true does not appear to hamper their efforts to rewrite history.
The reality is found in a story by Robert Kagan in Today’s Washington Post (page A21)..
Excerpt:
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one. ...
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries." ...
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak."
In times past the MSM could have gotten away with fooling people in this way. Who had the time and resources to go through old issues of yellowed newspapers? Thanks to the magic of computer science and the vast data bases available to the average citizen, it’s getting harder and harder to shove the past down the memory hole.
That doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying.
Hat tip to Captain’s Quarters.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
CONTRACTOR BURNED ALIVE
As the left hypocritically hyperventilates about the burning of rotting Taliban corpses in Afghanistan, we learn that four US contractors were murdered by a mob of Sunni Muslims in an Iraqi town last month—and one was burned alive...
Funny, I did not read about this in the Virginian Pilot.
UPDATE: It turns out that the original report may have been incorrect. Here is a follow up from the AP (not necessarily a font of either accuracy or wisdom). With the MSM in crisis mode regarding credibility, I don't know whether to believe the original story or the follow-up. We report; you decide.:
BAGHDAD, Iraq The U-S military is denying a newspaper report that the bodies of four American contractors killed in Iraq were set on fire by a mob.The military says all four were in their vehicles with bullet wounds and one of them was burned from a vehicle fire. It says another one was injured but later died of his wounds.
The Virginian Pilot has covered neither the original story nor the correction.
Funny, I did not read about this in the Virginian Pilot.
UPDATE: It turns out that the original report may have been incorrect. Here is a follow up from the AP (not necessarily a font of either accuracy or wisdom). With the MSM in crisis mode regarding credibility, I don't know whether to believe the original story or the follow-up. We report; you decide.:
BAGHDAD, Iraq The U-S military is denying a newspaper report that the bodies of four American contractors killed in Iraq were set on fire by a mob.The military says all four were in their vehicles with bullet wounds and one of them was burned from a vehicle fire. It says another one was injured but later died of his wounds.
The Virginian Pilot has covered neither the original story nor the correction.
IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE LOVES YOU, CHECK IT OUT.
I commented on the differences between what is said and what is reported following an article in the Wall Street Journal by reporters Ryan Chittum and Joe Hagan. The article was about the tendency of the Blogosphere to disseminate conspiracy theories and used the recent suicide of a student - Joel Hinrichs - at the University of Oklahoma, as a hook for that story.
What made the explosion at the University of Oklahoma suspicious were the method, place and prior actions of Mr. Hinrichs.
First, the method: a bomb. Other than suicide bombers, bombs are rarely – if ever - the means chosen by people who wish to commit suicide. I have searched Google for previous suicides by bomb and, except for the Hinrichs suicide, suicide bombers all seem to be Jihads of one type or another.
Second, the place: near a packed football stadium. Suicides are generally committed in private. People setting off bombs near crowds raise suspicion that there was a motive other than simply suicide.
Third: the student had inquired about buying ammonium nitrate a few days prior to the explosion. Ammonium nitrate was the primary ingredient in the bomb created by Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
The authorities seem to have dismissed these questions by insisting that the Hinrichs suicide was simply that of a depressed student who ended it all. Despite these assurances, we are told that the next football game at the University of Oklahoma will be accompanied by increased security. If Hinrichs had shot himself in his room, would the University have increased security at football games?
But back to our story. Chittum and Hagan quoted several bloggers about their continuing skepticism of the official explanation. The bloggers responded by claiming that the Wall Street Journal reporters had asked leading questions and took their comments out of context.
Three bloggers responded: Michelle Malkin, Jason Smith and John Hinderaker. Following the controversy, I e-mailed Ryan Chittum with a copy of the essay on my web site.
He graciously responded by stating that “I would dispute those characterizations, especially the ones made about me and Joe on those Web sites."
Gratified by his reply, I asked him: “ Just which characterizations are you disputing ... and why? Were you misquoted or taken out of context?
If you have a case to make to bloggers, why not use me as a third party intermediary? “
He responded: “I really appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to decline. I'm confident my reputation and the Journal's will survive the mischaracterizations, and I don't want to get involved in any silly pissing match. I think most people on their own intuitively follow the old journalism axiom: Consider your source. There's always a minority who just believe what they want to believe, and that's fine.
Speaking of sources --on the newspaper being like talking to the 20th guy in telephone--I spoke directly with multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation, some of whom I could not name because of the sensitivity of their positions. We have rules against hearsay here and we guard our credibility jealously and are serious about getting stories right.
We, of course, get things wrong sometimes, but when we do we try to quickly correct them. “
What can we learn from this?
First, we learn that the MSM is beginning to take the blogosphere seriously – as part of the opinion shaping medium.
Second, they seem to hold bloggers in contempt.
Third, they still believe they have the superior position regarding believability. They have not internalized the damage that has been done to their credibility by Jason Blair, Dan Rather, exploding fuel tanks, and their ever more obvious political bias. In an example of unintended consequences, the MSM’s adversarial attitude in its attacks on authority figures has ricocheted. If it is OK to question the truthfulness of the President, what makes it not OK to question the truthfulness or thoroughness of the press?
Therefore, when Chittum asks me to believe that his explanation of the suicide-by-bomb is correct; he is asking me to take two things on faith. First, that he is telling the whole truth about his unnamed sources and, second, that his sources had indisputable proof that Hinrichs only meant to end his own life. These assurances, in the absence of public proof, are not good enough, especially since the University is increasing security at football games. Are they afraid of another depressed student taking his own life via bomb, or do they see the possibility that Hinrichs may not be a simple suicide.
We report, you decide.
His assurances about his credibility and getting it right are no longer good enough. Remember the old saying by Emerson: “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons?”
The blogosphere can be as egregiously wrong as the MSM, but it has an advantage that the print and broadcast media does not have: we can link to original sources. We can append corrections to our original stories, not bury them in the corrections section. In other words, the blogosphere is transparent in a way that the MSM is not and – in the case of the “dead tree media” is technologically incapable of ever becoming.
I predict that Ryan Chittum will someday have his own blog. Until then, I believe in the old newsman’s bromide: “if your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
UPDATE: While this story has disappeared from the media's radar screens, they having concluded that the bomb explosion was a suicide, Jason Smith informs us that Hinrichs lived in a university-owned property popular with Islamic students because it is adjacent to the local mosque. This does not prove anything; nothing to see here ... move along. In fact if you make anothing of this you are probably a conspiracy theorists and bigot. I got it, Ryan.
What made the explosion at the University of Oklahoma suspicious were the method, place and prior actions of Mr. Hinrichs.
First, the method: a bomb. Other than suicide bombers, bombs are rarely – if ever - the means chosen by people who wish to commit suicide. I have searched Google for previous suicides by bomb and, except for the Hinrichs suicide, suicide bombers all seem to be Jihads of one type or another.
Second, the place: near a packed football stadium. Suicides are generally committed in private. People setting off bombs near crowds raise suspicion that there was a motive other than simply suicide.
Third: the student had inquired about buying ammonium nitrate a few days prior to the explosion. Ammonium nitrate was the primary ingredient in the bomb created by Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
The authorities seem to have dismissed these questions by insisting that the Hinrichs suicide was simply that of a depressed student who ended it all. Despite these assurances, we are told that the next football game at the University of Oklahoma will be accompanied by increased security. If Hinrichs had shot himself in his room, would the University have increased security at football games?
But back to our story. Chittum and Hagan quoted several bloggers about their continuing skepticism of the official explanation. The bloggers responded by claiming that the Wall Street Journal reporters had asked leading questions and took their comments out of context.
Three bloggers responded: Michelle Malkin, Jason Smith and John Hinderaker. Following the controversy, I e-mailed Ryan Chittum with a copy of the essay on my web site.
He graciously responded by stating that “I would dispute those characterizations, especially the ones made about me and Joe on those Web sites."
Gratified by his reply, I asked him: “ Just which characterizations are you disputing ... and why? Were you misquoted or taken out of context?
If you have a case to make to bloggers, why not use me as a third party intermediary? “
He responded: “I really appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to decline. I'm confident my reputation and the Journal's will survive the mischaracterizations, and I don't want to get involved in any silly pissing match. I think most people on their own intuitively follow the old journalism axiom: Consider your source. There's always a minority who just believe what they want to believe, and that's fine.
Speaking of sources --on the newspaper being like talking to the 20th guy in telephone--I spoke directly with multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation, some of whom I could not name because of the sensitivity of their positions. We have rules against hearsay here and we guard our credibility jealously and are serious about getting stories right.
We, of course, get things wrong sometimes, but when we do we try to quickly correct them. “
What can we learn from this?
First, we learn that the MSM is beginning to take the blogosphere seriously – as part of the opinion shaping medium.
Second, they seem to hold bloggers in contempt.
Third, they still believe they have the superior position regarding believability. They have not internalized the damage that has been done to their credibility by Jason Blair, Dan Rather, exploding fuel tanks, and their ever more obvious political bias. In an example of unintended consequences, the MSM’s adversarial attitude in its attacks on authority figures has ricocheted. If it is OK to question the truthfulness of the President, what makes it not OK to question the truthfulness or thoroughness of the press?
Therefore, when Chittum asks me to believe that his explanation of the suicide-by-bomb is correct; he is asking me to take two things on faith. First, that he is telling the whole truth about his unnamed sources and, second, that his sources had indisputable proof that Hinrichs only meant to end his own life. These assurances, in the absence of public proof, are not good enough, especially since the University is increasing security at football games. Are they afraid of another depressed student taking his own life via bomb, or do they see the possibility that Hinrichs may not be a simple suicide.
We report, you decide.
His assurances about his credibility and getting it right are no longer good enough. Remember the old saying by Emerson: “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons?”
The blogosphere can be as egregiously wrong as the MSM, but it has an advantage that the print and broadcast media does not have: we can link to original sources. We can append corrections to our original stories, not bury them in the corrections section. In other words, the blogosphere is transparent in a way that the MSM is not and – in the case of the “dead tree media” is technologically incapable of ever becoming.
I predict that Ryan Chittum will someday have his own blog. Until then, I believe in the old newsman’s bromide: “if your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
UPDATE: While this story has disappeared from the media's radar screens, they having concluded that the bomb explosion was a suicide, Jason Smith informs us that Hinrichs lived in a university-owned property popular with Islamic students because it is adjacent to the local mosque. This does not prove anything; nothing to see here ... move along. In fact if you make anothing of this you are probably a conspiracy theorists and bigot. I got it, Ryan.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
EXTERMINATING WHITEY
Dr. Kamau Kambon in a speech at Howard University declaims on the solution to the race problem:
Dr. Kambon teaches at N.C. State University.
we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.
Dr. Kambon teaches at N.C. State University.
Friday, October 21, 2005
The DePaul Follies
If you have not heard DePaul university invited Ward Churchill (who called the people who died in the world Trade Center on 9/11 "Little Eichmans")
The university then excluded the College Republicans from attending the meeting.
DePaul is a Liberal university.
Of course.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Farrakhans In Government
LOOK, it’s one thing to have Louis Farrakhan make speeches about being beamed up by space aliens and make crazy comment about numerology.
An excerpt from Farrakhan’s “million Man March” speech 10 years ago.: “In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial, each one of these monuments is 19 feet high. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, and 16 and three make 19 again. What is so deep about this number 19? … When you have a nine, you have a womb that is pregnant. And you have a one standing by the nine. It means there’s something secret that has to be unfolded."
I’m willing to understand that a generation of black men that have been taught by black racists and white Liberal racists to hate whitey will respond to a combination of self-help and hatred that is the stock-in-trade of this tribe.
But when someone who sat at the right hand of Colin Powell gives a speech that is even more troubling than the stupidity uttered by Farrakhan, there is every reason to begin wondering what kind of people are a little too close to the levers of power in Washington.
Case in point is Lawrence Wilkerson; until recently chief of staff of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
He made a remarkable speech to the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank. What was remarkable about the speech is that it articulated the attitude and belief system of the Washington establishment which consists of the bureaucracy, the press, the lobbyists and the denizens of the think-tanks.
In his own personal Farrakhan moment he said that the government of the United States was hijacked by the inhabitants of the “Oval Office.”
Think about that for a moment.
What would your reaction be if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs complained that the civilian leadership was hijacking the military’s decision making power to wage war. If he said that he would, and should, be immediately dismissed. Then an investigation begun to determine if there are a bunch of Colonels planning a military coup.
But here we have a member of the permanent bureaucracy criticizing the top elected civilian leadership of the country of actually plotting to implement their ideas for the direction of government policy.
Here is his complaint: What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense ... on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.
And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal...
There is a President Bush that Mr. Wilkerson admires: … watching probably one of the finest Presidents we’ve ever had, that’s how I feel about George H. W. Bush, exercise one of the greatest adeptnesses at foreign policy I’ve ever seen.
So many things happened in George H. W. Bush’s 4 years that I think when historians write about it with dispassion 25, 30 years from now, they’re going to give that man enormous credit for knowing how to make the process work…
George H.W. Bush:the man who made “the process work.”
There are probably not many things that history will say about Bush 41, the one-term Bush. I doubt that it will place tremendous emphasis on his foreign policy in view of the mess he left in the Middle East; a mess that we are now fighting a costly war to repair.
Am I being unduly harsh on this Wonder Bread member of the foreign policy establishment? You have a chance to read his speech and decide for yourself. I doubt if it will major play in the MSM because it lays bare so many of the pathologies of the Washington establishment.
But since it appears to represent high level bureaucratic beliefs, it does explain to some extent the reasons why George Bush finds himself embattled. He now has a war not just with Islamofascists, but with the permanent establishment who see an opportunity, like jackals circling a wounded lion, to take a nip.
I don’t know who will win this fight, but I am firmly on Bush’s side. I want to be able to vote for my leaders. I will not be ruled by the people who believe they are superior to our elected officials. Those people are not amusing; they are a danger to a free people.
An excerpt from Farrakhan’s “million Man March” speech 10 years ago.: “In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial, each one of these monuments is 19 feet high. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, and 16 and three make 19 again. What is so deep about this number 19? … When you have a nine, you have a womb that is pregnant. And you have a one standing by the nine. It means there’s something secret that has to be unfolded."
I’m willing to understand that a generation of black men that have been taught by black racists and white Liberal racists to hate whitey will respond to a combination of self-help and hatred that is the stock-in-trade of this tribe.
But when someone who sat at the right hand of Colin Powell gives a speech that is even more troubling than the stupidity uttered by Farrakhan, there is every reason to begin wondering what kind of people are a little too close to the levers of power in Washington.
Case in point is Lawrence Wilkerson; until recently chief of staff of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
He made a remarkable speech to the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank. What was remarkable about the speech is that it articulated the attitude and belief system of the Washington establishment which consists of the bureaucracy, the press, the lobbyists and the denizens of the think-tanks.
In his own personal Farrakhan moment he said that the government of the United States was hijacked by the inhabitants of the “Oval Office.”
Think about that for a moment.
What would your reaction be if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs complained that the civilian leadership was hijacking the military’s decision making power to wage war. If he said that he would, and should, be immediately dismissed. Then an investigation begun to determine if there are a bunch of Colonels planning a military coup.
But here we have a member of the permanent bureaucracy criticizing the top elected civilian leadership of the country of actually plotting to implement their ideas for the direction of government policy.
Here is his complaint: What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense ... on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.
And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal...
There is a President Bush that Mr. Wilkerson admires: … watching probably one of the finest Presidents we’ve ever had, that’s how I feel about George H. W. Bush, exercise one of the greatest adeptnesses at foreign policy I’ve ever seen.
So many things happened in George H. W. Bush’s 4 years that I think when historians write about it with dispassion 25, 30 years from now, they’re going to give that man enormous credit for knowing how to make the process work…
George H.W. Bush:the man who made “the process work.”
There are probably not many things that history will say about Bush 41, the one-term Bush. I doubt that it will place tremendous emphasis on his foreign policy in view of the mess he left in the Middle East; a mess that we are now fighting a costly war to repair.
Am I being unduly harsh on this Wonder Bread member of the foreign policy establishment? You have a chance to read his speech and decide for yourself. I doubt if it will major play in the MSM because it lays bare so many of the pathologies of the Washington establishment.
But since it appears to represent high level bureaucratic beliefs, it does explain to some extent the reasons why George Bush finds himself embattled. He now has a war not just with Islamofascists, but with the permanent establishment who see an opportunity, like jackals circling a wounded lion, to take a nip.
I don’t know who will win this fight, but I am firmly on Bush’s side. I want to be able to vote for my leaders. I will not be ruled by the people who believe they are superior to our elected officials. Those people are not amusing; they are a danger to a free people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)