From the Wall Street Journal. Reprinted in full:
A Fitting Address
By JAMES Q. WILSON
November 26, 2005; Page A10
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are arguing against critics of the Iraq war who are trying to rewrite history. There is some value in this, but it is a fight about the past and not about the future.
What most Americans care about is not who is lying but whether we are winning. I offer this speech that the president might use to tell Americans that we are winning.
* * *
"My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.
Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.
Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.
An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.
According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.
In some places, the terrorists who lost the war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent, honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad.
And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.
Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.
The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.
We grieve deeply over every lost American and coalition soldier, but we also recognize what those deaths have accomplished. A nation the size of California, with 25 million inhabitants, has been freed from tyranny, equipped with a new democratic constitution, and provided with a growing new infrastructure that will help every Iraqi and not just the privileged members of a brutal regime. For every American soldier who died, 12,000 Iraqi voters were made into effective citizens.
Virtually every American soldier who writes home or comes back to visit his or her family tells the same story: We have won, Iraqis have won, and life in most of Iraq goes on without violence and with obvious affection between the Iraqi people and our troops. These soldiers have not just restored order in most places, they have built schools, aided businesses, distributed aid, and made friends.
To take their places, Iraq has trained, with American and NATO assistance, tens of thousands of new troops and police officers. In the last election, there were more Iraqi soldiers than American ones guarding the polling places.
We know that much remains to be done. Sunni and Shiite leaders must work together more closely. We know that for centuries Sunni leaders, including Saddam, ruled Iraq even though the Sunnis are only a minority of its population: The terrorists began by killing Shiites but now have killed Sunnis as well, all without the slightest moral justification. But we know from America's own experience that when different groups work together constructively, they learn to trust one another. That must happen, and will happen, in Iraq.
Our success is not confined to Iraq. Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons. Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people. Egypt has had the beginnings of a democratic vote. In an area once dominated by dictatorships, the few remaining ones are either changing or worrying deeply about those that have changed.
We know now that some of our information about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong. But we also know now what we have always believed: That Saddam Hussein, who had already invaded both Iran and Kuwait, had the money, authority and determination to build up his stock of such weapons. When he did, he would have become the colossus of the Middle East, able to overwhelm other countries and rain rockets down on Israel.
We have created a balance of power in the Middle East in which no regime can easily threaten any other. In doing this, we and our allies have followed a long tradition: We worked to prevent Imperial Germany from dominating Europe in 1914, Hitler from doing the same in 1940, and the Soviet Union from doing this in 1945. Now we are doing it in the Middle East.
And we are winning. Soon Iraqi forces will be able to maintain order in the few hot spots that still exist in Iraq. We will stay the course until they are ready. We made no mistake ending Saddam's rule. We have brought not only freedom to Iraq, but progress to most of the Middle East. America should be proud of what it has accomplished. America will not cut and run until the Iraqis can manage their own security, and that will happen soon.
Thank you, and God bless you."
Mr. Wilson has taught at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine, and is the author, among other books, of "The Moral Sense" (Free Press, 1997).
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Midge Dector: The Never-Ending War: The Battle Over America's Self-Meaning
A long lecture, but well worth reading for those who are interested in the history
of the counterculture.
Excerpt:
The first and most important thing of all for any real understanding of the nature of America’s cultural war is the fact that it has been going on not merely since the period identified by the name of “Vietnam” but for about a century and a half. That clash of ideas and attitudes that made such a deal of noise in the 1960s and 1970s—and which has continued more quietly and more deeply in recent years—is in fact no more than a particularly gaudy episode in a very old conflict.
I like to say that this conflict began on July 8, 1839. Why that day in that year? Obviously, historical developments can never really be dated quite so neatly, or neatly at all, especially where such developments have to do with culture. Anyway, I am, of course, being somewhat facetious.
of the counterculture.
Excerpt:
The first and most important thing of all for any real understanding of the nature of America’s cultural war is the fact that it has been going on not merely since the period identified by the name of “Vietnam” but for about a century and a half. That clash of ideas and attitudes that made such a deal of noise in the 1960s and 1970s—and which has continued more quietly and more deeply in recent years—is in fact no more than a particularly gaudy episode in a very old conflict.
I like to say that this conflict began on July 8, 1839. Why that day in that year? Obviously, historical developments can never really be dated quite so neatly, or neatly at all, especially where such developments have to do with culture. Anyway, I am, of course, being somewhat facetious.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Why does the ultimate precision guided weapon kill so many innocent bystanders?
Much has been made of the precision of American weapons. We can now destroy a building or a bridge with a single bomb; a job that took dozens - if not hundreds – of bombs in conflicts as recent as Viet Nam.
Yet with even these precise weapons, mistakes are made, bombs or rockets go awry and innocents are killed. Those opposed to the current war refer sneeringly to a term that the military coined for this: “collateral damage.” And every time it happens, it creates headlines.
Yet there is a weapon that are a great deal more precise than ours. In fact, this weapon can find the inside of a closed room, pick its spot, and blow up, killing everything in its range with both blast effect and shrapnel.
This is the suicide bomber: the ultimate precision weapons. The suicide bomber sees his victims face to face, assesses the situation and decides whether to kill or not. This is no precision guided bomb that – once it is released – will detonate since it is beyond recall.
The suicide bomber can walk into a wedding party and choose which side of the room he will destroy; which individuals he will kill. He can detonate his weapon in the midst of a crowd of schoolchildren gathered around an American handing out candy. He can enter a mosque and determine which worshippers he wants dead. He can target police recruits in a crowd knowing he will also kill the shopkeepers around him.
There can be no doubt that if we possessed a bomb that had this much discrimination, this much precision and this much judgment until the moment of detonation, we would not kill those children, shopkeepers and worshippers.
The question before the house is: if the US is condemned when one of our precision guided weapons kills innocents, why is there not condemnation (among the International Left) of the Islamofascists when their more precise weapons destroy vastly more innocents – on a daily basis?
Does the Left have any moral scruples at all? Did it ever?
Yet with even these precise weapons, mistakes are made, bombs or rockets go awry and innocents are killed. Those opposed to the current war refer sneeringly to a term that the military coined for this: “collateral damage.” And every time it happens, it creates headlines.
Yet there is a weapon that are a great deal more precise than ours. In fact, this weapon can find the inside of a closed room, pick its spot, and blow up, killing everything in its range with both blast effect and shrapnel.
This is the suicide bomber: the ultimate precision weapons. The suicide bomber sees his victims face to face, assesses the situation and decides whether to kill or not. This is no precision guided bomb that – once it is released – will detonate since it is beyond recall.
The suicide bomber can walk into a wedding party and choose which side of the room he will destroy; which individuals he will kill. He can detonate his weapon in the midst of a crowd of schoolchildren gathered around an American handing out candy. He can enter a mosque and determine which worshippers he wants dead. He can target police recruits in a crowd knowing he will also kill the shopkeepers around him.
There can be no doubt that if we possessed a bomb that had this much discrimination, this much precision and this much judgment until the moment of detonation, we would not kill those children, shopkeepers and worshippers.
The question before the house is: if the US is condemned when one of our precision guided weapons kills innocents, why is there not condemnation (among the International Left) of the Islamofascists when their more precise weapons destroy vastly more innocents – on a daily basis?
Does the Left have any moral scruples at all? Did it ever?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Murtha On the Record
From Captain's Quarters: Click on the link to read the whole thing.
Earlier today, I posted about John Murtha's stance on Somalia based on a Newsmax article. Various CQ readers have had an opportunity to research the subject further, and have discovered several references to the cut-and-run position Murtha urged on the Clinton adminstration -- advice it took, and helped to create the paper-tiger reputation that led to a decade of escalating attacks on the United States. These remarks come not from Newsmax but from Nexis searches of mainline press and from the Congressional Record itself.
Let me be clear on one point. In 1993, many people espoused the cut-and-run position from Somalia, among them Curt Weldon, one of the most vociferous hawks on Iraq. In fact, it does not stretch the imagination at all to call that position one of the more bipartisan efforts in the 103rd Congress. The difference is that in the eight years between our run from Somalia and 9/11, most of us learned the bitter lesson that retreating in the face of Islamists does not connote reasonableness and humanity, but cowardice and powerlessness. Combined with our spinelessness in Teheran, Beirut, and in caving into hostage demands from Hezbollah in the mid-80s, the pattern clearly gave Islamists the accurate depiction that Americans could not stand any sort of casualties in war and would quickly retire after the first bloody nose.
Most of us learned that retreat means that the Islamists simply follow you home. The first WTC attack should have taught us that, but even though the Clinton administration insisted on treating it as an organized-crime case, other battles followed: Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and finally an attack on the USS Cole, a daylight attack on our military that went unanswered. Each silence that followed each attack only emboldened our enemies more. They do not want peace -- they want a war, and will take it to our shores if we don't give it to them elsewhere.
I point out these examples of Murtha's statements on Somalia for two reasons. One, his remarks on the state of the troops sounds almost exactly like his assessment of the troops in Iraq; indeed, it sounds like he's using the same script. Two, his track record hardly makes him a "hawk", as the media describes him, but an isolationist that has never believed in a forward strategy against terror or anything else. That doesn't make Murtha dishonorable, at least to the extent that he doesn't pretend his record says anything other than what it does.
In the extended entry, I have copied Murtha's remarks from November 9, 1993 (page H9054) in the Congressional Record. I have also copied portions of Murtha's comments to the public as reported by Murtha's home-state newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (h/t: CQ reader Tom W). See if you, as I, notice the similarities in argument for Murtha. It points to a serial isolationist that refuses to stand and fight outside of the United States, not to a hawk on Iraq or any other theater of battle.
Earlier today, I posted about John Murtha's stance on Somalia based on a Newsmax article. Various CQ readers have had an opportunity to research the subject further, and have discovered several references to the cut-and-run position Murtha urged on the Clinton adminstration -- advice it took, and helped to create the paper-tiger reputation that led to a decade of escalating attacks on the United States. These remarks come not from Newsmax but from Nexis searches of mainline press and from the Congressional Record itself.
Let me be clear on one point. In 1993, many people espoused the cut-and-run position from Somalia, among them Curt Weldon, one of the most vociferous hawks on Iraq. In fact, it does not stretch the imagination at all to call that position one of the more bipartisan efforts in the 103rd Congress. The difference is that in the eight years between our run from Somalia and 9/11, most of us learned the bitter lesson that retreating in the face of Islamists does not connote reasonableness and humanity, but cowardice and powerlessness. Combined with our spinelessness in Teheran, Beirut, and in caving into hostage demands from Hezbollah in the mid-80s, the pattern clearly gave Islamists the accurate depiction that Americans could not stand any sort of casualties in war and would quickly retire after the first bloody nose.
Most of us learned that retreat means that the Islamists simply follow you home. The first WTC attack should have taught us that, but even though the Clinton administration insisted on treating it as an organized-crime case, other battles followed: Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and finally an attack on the USS Cole, a daylight attack on our military that went unanswered. Each silence that followed each attack only emboldened our enemies more. They do not want peace -- they want a war, and will take it to our shores if we don't give it to them elsewhere.
I point out these examples of Murtha's statements on Somalia for two reasons. One, his remarks on the state of the troops sounds almost exactly like his assessment of the troops in Iraq; indeed, it sounds like he's using the same script. Two, his track record hardly makes him a "hawk", as the media describes him, but an isolationist that has never believed in a forward strategy against terror or anything else. That doesn't make Murtha dishonorable, at least to the extent that he doesn't pretend his record says anything other than what it does.
In the extended entry, I have copied Murtha's remarks from November 9, 1993 (page H9054) in the Congressional Record. I have also copied portions of Murtha's comments to the public as reported by Murtha's home-state newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (h/t: CQ reader Tom W). See if you, as I, notice the similarities in argument for Murtha. It points to a serial isolationist that refuses to stand and fight outside of the United States, not to a hawk on Iraq or any other theater of battle.
Bias In the Washington Post In Plain View
From Powerline:
My 17 year-old daughter is conservative but not across-the-board, and she has a very open mind. In fact, she led the family rebellion that caused us to re-subcribe to the Washington Post after I had cancelled our subscription in the summer of 2004.
I'm glad she did. Now, every morning she reads the headlines from both the Post and the Washington Times. Often the bias of the Post headlines leaves her shaking her head.
Today, the Post's headline for its story on Vice President Cheney's speech was "Cheney Again Assails Critics of War." (The Times said "Cheney hits Democrats on war tack). By using the word "again," the Post signaled to its readers that there was nothing new to report, and that Cheney was merely up to his old tricks. Nowhere in the article, however, does the Post make any mention of a prior instance in which Cheney "assailed" war critics.
The article, in fact, has little to do with Cheney's speech. Instead, it focuses on Cheney's poll ratings. Indeed, the subtitle of the piece is "Rejection of 'Revisionism' Comes as His Standing Drops in Polls.'" Here the Post signals to its readers that, even if they don't mind Cheney's alleged repetition, they should ignore the substance of the speech (as the Post does) because it's the work of a desperate man.
The Post also works Scooter Libby into the piece. Writers Michael Fletcher and Jim VandeHei claim that unnamed White House officials were surprised that Chaney replaced Libby with advisers who share his views on detainee policy and the war, and who testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Such officials, if they exist, are morons. Why would the indictment of Libby for perjury cause Cheney to appoint advisers who disagree with him on policy matters, or to shun aides who are not accused of perjury?
The Post also suggests that Cheney erred in describing the people who blow up innocent civilians in Iraq as "terrorists." It cites evidence that most of those fighting against the U.S. and the Iraqi government are not foreigners. But why does their status as Iraqis make them other than terrorists? Apparently, the Post takes offense that Cheney is assailing Iraqi killers as well as Democrats.
In any case, I'm not displeased that the Post is willing to risk sacrificing its credibility with a new generation of potential readers by failing to keep its bias out of their plain view.
My 17 year-old daughter is conservative but not across-the-board, and she has a very open mind. In fact, she led the family rebellion that caused us to re-subcribe to the Washington Post after I had cancelled our subscription in the summer of 2004.
I'm glad she did. Now, every morning she reads the headlines from both the Post and the Washington Times. Often the bias of the Post headlines leaves her shaking her head.
Today, the Post's headline for its story on Vice President Cheney's speech was "Cheney Again Assails Critics of War." (The Times said "Cheney hits Democrats on war tack). By using the word "again," the Post signaled to its readers that there was nothing new to report, and that Cheney was merely up to his old tricks. Nowhere in the article, however, does the Post make any mention of a prior instance in which Cheney "assailed" war critics.
The article, in fact, has little to do with Cheney's speech. Instead, it focuses on Cheney's poll ratings. Indeed, the subtitle of the piece is "Rejection of 'Revisionism' Comes as His Standing Drops in Polls.'" Here the Post signals to its readers that, even if they don't mind Cheney's alleged repetition, they should ignore the substance of the speech (as the Post does) because it's the work of a desperate man.
The Post also works Scooter Libby into the piece. Writers Michael Fletcher and Jim VandeHei claim that unnamed White House officials were surprised that Chaney replaced Libby with advisers who share his views on detainee policy and the war, and who testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Such officials, if they exist, are morons. Why would the indictment of Libby for perjury cause Cheney to appoint advisers who disagree with him on policy matters, or to shun aides who are not accused of perjury?
The Post also suggests that Cheney erred in describing the people who blow up innocent civilians in Iraq as "terrorists." It cites evidence that most of those fighting against the U.S. and the Iraqi government are not foreigners. But why does their status as Iraqis make them other than terrorists? Apparently, the Post takes offense that Cheney is assailing Iraqi killers as well as Democrats.
In any case, I'm not displeased that the Post is willing to risk sacrificing its credibility with a new generation of potential readers by failing to keep its bias out of their plain view.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Why Talk Radio Is Conservative
Why didn't I think of that? (Read the whole thing)
But consider the number of radio stations in each city, and the number of cities in America, with each station producing programming and fighting for local market share. The potential for something different to arise was vastly greater in radio than in television. And compared to television, “something different” could only mean something more conservative. Thus, when something different did arise, it had a ready-made audience in the millions of people that were sick of the left wing axis of drivel, ABC-CBS-NBC.
So talk radio became conservative because it could, and because there was a market for it when it did. Dan Rather helped create Rush Limbaugh. ...
Together, the twin forces of biased television news and socialized radio nearly ensured that commercial talk radio would become conservative. It was not, as is often implied, the result of some secret Rovian conspiracy in which political ideologues funded by billionaire megalomaniacs sought to propagandize listeners to their political agenda. That would be Air America.
Interestingly, this same sort of market-driven evolution can now be seen at work reshaping two other areas of the media. The proliferation of television stations via cable and satellite has finally created enough variation in news networks to allow viewers to select a non-liberal format from the mix: Fox News. Judging by Fox’s success, there is probably room for other such stations. One wonders why MSNBC insists on remaining CNN Jr.
And in the greatest example so far of low-production costs and diverse content knocking down a market-insulated monolith, the internet is busy destroying the newspaper business. Eat my digital dust, New York Times Corp. The Internet is somewhat more evenly split between liberal and conservative, however. But hopefully, the government will create National Public Internet News soon and destroy much innovation on the leftward side of the web as well.
But consider the number of radio stations in each city, and the number of cities in America, with each station producing programming and fighting for local market share. The potential for something different to arise was vastly greater in radio than in television. And compared to television, “something different” could only mean something more conservative. Thus, when something different did arise, it had a ready-made audience in the millions of people that were sick of the left wing axis of drivel, ABC-CBS-NBC.
So talk radio became conservative because it could, and because there was a market for it when it did. Dan Rather helped create Rush Limbaugh. ...
Together, the twin forces of biased television news and socialized radio nearly ensured that commercial talk radio would become conservative. It was not, as is often implied, the result of some secret Rovian conspiracy in which political ideologues funded by billionaire megalomaniacs sought to propagandize listeners to their political agenda. That would be Air America.
Interestingly, this same sort of market-driven evolution can now be seen at work reshaping two other areas of the media. The proliferation of television stations via cable and satellite has finally created enough variation in news networks to allow viewers to select a non-liberal format from the mix: Fox News. Judging by Fox’s success, there is probably room for other such stations. One wonders why MSNBC insists on remaining CNN Jr.
And in the greatest example so far of low-production costs and diverse content knocking down a market-insulated monolith, the internet is busy destroying the newspaper business. Eat my digital dust, New York Times Corp. The Internet is somewhat more evenly split between liberal and conservative, however. But hopefully, the government will create National Public Internet News soon and destroy much innovation on the leftward side of the web as well.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Former FBI Director Freeh Slams 9/11 Commission
In a column in the Wall Street Journal, former FBI Director Louis Freeh demolishes the 9/11 Commission's report and it's handling of Able Danger.
Excerpt:
The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion -- in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings -- raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.
...
The commission, at the very least, should have interviewed the 80 members of Able Danger, as the Pentagon did, five of whom say they saw "the chart." But this would have required admitting that the late-breaking news was inconveniently raised. So it was grossly neglected and branded as insignificant. Such a half-baked conclusion, drawn in only 10 days without any real investigation, simply ignores what looks like substantial direct evidence to the contrary coming from our own trained military intelligence officers.
Excerpt:
The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion -- in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings -- raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.
...
The commission, at the very least, should have interviewed the 80 members of Able Danger, as the Pentagon did, five of whom say they saw "the chart." But this would have required admitting that the late-breaking news was inconveniently raised. So it was grossly neglected and branded as insignificant. Such a half-baked conclusion, drawn in only 10 days without any real investigation, simply ignores what looks like substantial direct evidence to the contrary coming from our own trained military intelligence officers.
Steyn on Baghdad on the Seine
Excerpt (hah):
So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.
So Europe's present biculturalism makes disaster a certainty. One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics.
Christians, Jews & Immigration
A long but great article on the issue of Jewish views on immigration and the threat facing Jews everywhere.
Excerpt:
Reality is dawning on many American Jews that something is amiss, although it seems lost on some of the country’s most venerable Jewish organizations. There’s a sad, if comic irony associated with the fact that employees at organizations like ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents’ Conference must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians. Meanwhile, the legislative affairs staffs of these organizations are directed to lobby against immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.
Excerpt:
Reality is dawning on many American Jews that something is amiss, although it seems lost on some of the country’s most venerable Jewish organizations. There’s a sad, if comic irony associated with the fact that employees at organizations like ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents’ Conference must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians. Meanwhile, the legislative affairs staffs of these organizations are directed to lobby against immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
They Blow Up So Fast
From Ace of Spades:
Two Palestinian men are showing pictures of their children to each other.
The first says: "This is my oldest, Muhammed. He was a martyr.... this is my second oldest, Muhammed. He was a martyr too.... This is my baby boy, Muhammed. One day I hope he will be a martyr too."
The other replies: "They blow up so fast, don't they?"
Two Palestinian men are showing pictures of their children to each other.
The first says: "This is my oldest, Muhammed. He was a martyr.... this is my second oldest, Muhammed. He was a martyr too.... This is my baby boy, Muhammed. One day I hope he will be a martyr too."
The other replies: "They blow up so fast, don't they?"
Plame Learned Covert status from Woodward
From Scrappleface:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who secured grand jury indictments against a top Bush administration official last month, today announced he may be close to discovering who told Valerie Plame that she was an undercover CIA agent.
Mr. Fitzgerald refused to release any names, but sources close to the probe said evidence indicates that the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward may have revealed Ms. Plame’s covert status to her.
Read the whole thing.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who secured grand jury indictments against a top Bush administration official last month, today announced he may be close to discovering who told Valerie Plame that she was an undercover CIA agent.
Mr. Fitzgerald refused to release any names, but sources close to the probe said evidence indicates that the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward may have revealed Ms. Plame’s covert status to her.
Read the whole thing.
WILL A JOURNALIST AT THE POST HAVE BE INDICTED?
Update on the Plame/Libby story:
Michelle Malkin has a great analysis of Bob Woodward's revelation that he was told of Joe Wilson's wife working at the CIA years ago. click on the link for the story.
Woodward testified that he told Walter Pincus, a reporter for the Washinton Post about the Plame/Wilson connection. Pincus denies this. So:
So, if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too? Or that Scooter Libby could? Why does is one discrepancy worthy of indictment and the other one chalked up to "confusion about the timing"?
Captain Ed chimes in.
Michelle Malkin has a great analysis of Bob Woodward's revelation that he was told of Joe Wilson's wife working at the CIA years ago. click on the link for the story.
Woodward testified that he told Walter Pincus, a reporter for the Washinton Post about the Plame/Wilson connection. Pincus denies this. So:
So, if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too? Or that Scooter Libby could? Why does is one discrepancy worthy of indictment and the other one chalked up to "confusion about the timing"?
Captain Ed chimes in.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
THE ACADEMY IS OPEN TO NEW IDEAS? OH YEAH!
Publishing an article that argues for Intelligent Design can get you fired!
Got to love those Liberals and their open mindedness.
Got to love those Liberals and their open mindedness.
Oh, those WMDs!
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
Read the whole thing.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
Read the whole thing.
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS
Why do we accept some stupid comments and nod our heads when they are written in a newspaper? Example:
Jack Shafer in Slate:
Last night on Larry King Live, [Judy] Miller once again blamed "faulty intelligence" for her "handful" of flawed stories, neglecting to explain that real investigative reporters aren't passive conduits for intelligence but skeptical analysts of it. [Emphasis added]
This is patent nonsense. If this were in fact the case, we'd lose every investigative reporter who took Joe Wilson's word about what he "found" (but, alas, didn't find) in Africa. Skeptical analysts? Journalists such as The Nation's David Corn, in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, still covers the Wilson/Plame affair as if its protagonist has not been roundly discredited, and as if his wife was still some kind of top-secret foreign operative, rather than a CIA bureaucrat who did in fact recommend her husband for the Niger assignment.
Jack Shafer in Slate:
Last night on Larry King Live, [Judy] Miller once again blamed "faulty intelligence" for her "handful" of flawed stories, neglecting to explain that real investigative reporters aren't passive conduits for intelligence but skeptical analysts of it. [Emphasis added]
This is patent nonsense. If this were in fact the case, we'd lose every investigative reporter who took Joe Wilson's word about what he "found" (but, alas, didn't find) in Africa. Skeptical analysts? Journalists such as The Nation's David Corn, in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, still covers the Wilson/Plame affair as if its protagonist has not been roundly discredited, and as if his wife was still some kind of top-secret foreign operative, rather than a CIA bureaucrat who did in fact recommend her husband for the Niger assignment.
Monday, November 14, 2005
The Comic Book Guy Interviews Mary Mapes
Now for a humor break, I direct your attention to WuzzaDem and see the Comic Book guy from the Simpsons interivew Mary Mapes.
Mary Mapes, it is an honor to have the opportunity to speak with you.
Why, thank you very much.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
What???
Click on the link and read the whole thing.
Mary Mapes, it is an honor to have the opportunity to speak with you.
Why, thank you very much.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
What???
Click on the link and read the whole thing.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
SADDAM'S TRIAL AS IT WILL BE REPORTED BY THE MSM
FROM BITTER SANITY:
I've been thinking that it's only a matter of time before mainstream thought in this country begins the process of lionizing Saddam Hussein. With his trial beginning, the tone of media coverage is starting to bear out my worst fears. (You wouldn't think it would be possible to admire someone who has done what Saddam has uncontestably done, but in a country where people wear Guevera t-shirts without hiding their faces, I suppose just about anything is possible.)I predict:
- The words "defiant", "strong", "canny", and "independent" will become de rigeur in all stories concerning Saddam's trial.
- The meme that the trial is "illegal" (because not blessed by "international-law experts") will spread. Shortly, it will be routine to refer to the "illegal trial" in editorials, and to "the trial, whose legality is disputed" in news coverage.
- If and when he is executed, the television news coverage will feature somber voices.
- On the day, no Iraqis who were victims themselves or who lost family will be quoted. Only Baathist voices will be heard, mourning "the great lion", and so on.
- Editorials will announce that since obviously the Iraqi people mourn Saddam Hussein, his execution will only increase the "Iraqi" "insurgency".
- Within two months, Saddam's daughter Raghad will be the subject of a sympathetic television interview, perhaps by Barbara Walters. The interviewer will not ask her what kind of a tree she would be, but will ask how she felt "the day you lost your father".
- Raghad will do a lecture tour of the US, and will be invited to speak at several prominent universities.
- None of the victims of Saddam Hussein will be invited to speak in any of these venues, then or in the future.
Unsuccessful Suicide Bomber of Jordanian Hotels Captured - Speaks Out
This Powerline post links to a USA Today website.
A quote:
Al Qaeda of Iraq issued a statement claiming responsibility for the mass murders carried out last week in Amman, Jordan. In passing, they mentioned that the bombings featured the first-ever husband and wife team. Maybe they didn't realize that the female half of the team was still alive and had escaped, or maybe they just didn't care--after all, she was supposed to be dead anyway.
...
It's a remarkable fact that Zaraqwi has not yet been captured, given how many of his close aides have been killed or captured (Mrs. al-Rishawi's brother, described as Zarqawi's right-hand man, was killed in Fallujah.) But I have to think that his days are numbered, given the pretty much universal outrage his psychopathic crimes have generated in Iraq and around the Middle East. Reportedly, even other elements of the Sunni "insurgency" would like for him to be caught, because he has generated so much bad publicity.
Of course, the American MSM and the Left have yet to condemn the bombings.
A quote:
Al Qaeda of Iraq issued a statement claiming responsibility for the mass murders carried out last week in Amman, Jordan. In passing, they mentioned that the bombings featured the first-ever husband and wife team. Maybe they didn't realize that the female half of the team was still alive and had escaped, or maybe they just didn't care--after all, she was supposed to be dead anyway.
...
It's a remarkable fact that Zaraqwi has not yet been captured, given how many of his close aides have been killed or captured (Mrs. al-Rishawi's brother, described as Zarqawi's right-hand man, was killed in Fallujah.) But I have to think that his days are numbered, given the pretty much universal outrage his psychopathic crimes have generated in Iraq and around the Middle East. Reportedly, even other elements of the Sunni "insurgency" would like for him to be caught, because he has generated so much bad publicity.
Of course, the American MSM and the Left have yet to condemn the bombings.
Bush Thumps Kennedy
Gateway Pundit links to the White House website that exposes Teddy Kennedy for the pompous fraud that he is ...
Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs:
Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons."
Sen. Kennedy Now Says The President Manipulated Facts About Iraq's WMDs
Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Kuwait
Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Power
Bottom line: if Senator Kennedy had his way Saddam would still be putting his opponents through shredders, getting his WMD plans in gear, gassing more Kurds and occupying Kuwait.
And Teddy would still be a fat, obnoxious, lying drunk.
Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs:
Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons."
Sen. Kennedy Now Says The President Manipulated Facts About Iraq's WMDs
Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Kuwait
Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Power
Bottom line: if Senator Kennedy had his way Saddam would still be putting his opponents through shredders, getting his WMD plans in gear, gassing more Kurds and occupying Kuwait.
And Teddy would still be a fat, obnoxious, lying drunk.
Les Risiblés
The incredible Iowahawk does it again. Read excerpts from his upcoming musical on the French riots.
ACT I
Split stage. On the right, a group of immigrant street toughs mill outside a bleak suburban banlieu. On the right: President Jacques Chirac’s office in Elysee Palace, where Chirac is toasting another French diplomatic victory with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man).
CHIRAC It’s great to be part of the UN… the EU’s a marvelous thing…
VILLEPIN In our little cloister the world is our oyster…
TOGETHER ‘cuz – we – get – to – pull – all - the - striiiiings!
CHIRAC We are FRANCE!
VILLEPIN We are France!
TOGETHER If you think you can beat us, bon chance!
CHIRAC We’re on a first name basis with the Chinese.
VILLEPIN Not to mention Kofi Annan on speed dial.
TOGETHER With speeches so emphatique and manuevers diplomatique, we’ll twist the rusty knife in while we smiiiile!
TOGETHER We are France, we are France!
CHIRACWe’ve got the Saudi contacts…
VILLEPINto get us oil contracts…
TOGETHERand stuff away the profits in our pants!
Music makes dramatic minor key shift, stage rotates to the immigrant boys.
KHALIDMy parents immigrated from Morocco.
TARIQMy dad arrived in Paris from Algiers.
HASSANNow all that we can do is hang out by the banlieu…
TOGETHERMom and Dad ain't found a job in 30 years!
KHALID (angrily)We are France!
HASSANWe are France!
TOGETHERWhere a guy can’t get the break he wants!
TARIQA hundred Euros weekly for our welfare.
KHALIDThey think that it will keep us satisfied.
TOGETHERThey invented mimes, and we’re accused of crimes? It's time for these two worlds to collide!
TOUGHS (angrily)We are France!
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWe are France!
TOUGHS We are France!
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWe are France!
The stage rotates as the two groups continue singing. Finally they bump into each other and begin catlike finger snapping.
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWhen you’re a Frog you’re a Frog all the way, from your first cigarette to your last beaujolais!
TOUGHSMohhhhh- OH! – rocco! Where the wind comes sweeping down the dunes! Where the sand can fly straight in your eye, but they don’t have these French buffoons!
Pantomime sissy knife fight
Read the whole thing.
ACT I
Split stage. On the right, a group of immigrant street toughs mill outside a bleak suburban banlieu. On the right: President Jacques Chirac’s office in Elysee Palace, where Chirac is toasting another French diplomatic victory with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man).
CHIRAC It’s great to be part of the UN… the EU’s a marvelous thing…
VILLEPIN In our little cloister the world is our oyster…
TOGETHER ‘cuz – we – get – to – pull – all - the - striiiiings!
CHIRAC We are FRANCE!
VILLEPIN We are France!
TOGETHER If you think you can beat us, bon chance!
CHIRAC We’re on a first name basis with the Chinese.
VILLEPIN Not to mention Kofi Annan on speed dial.
TOGETHER With speeches so emphatique and manuevers diplomatique, we’ll twist the rusty knife in while we smiiiile!
TOGETHER We are France, we are France!
CHIRACWe’ve got the Saudi contacts…
VILLEPINto get us oil contracts…
TOGETHERand stuff away the profits in our pants!
Music makes dramatic minor key shift, stage rotates to the immigrant boys.
KHALIDMy parents immigrated from Morocco.
TARIQMy dad arrived in Paris from Algiers.
HASSANNow all that we can do is hang out by the banlieu…
TOGETHERMom and Dad ain't found a job in 30 years!
KHALID (angrily)We are France!
HASSANWe are France!
TOGETHERWhere a guy can’t get the break he wants!
TARIQA hundred Euros weekly for our welfare.
KHALIDThey think that it will keep us satisfied.
TOGETHERThey invented mimes, and we’re accused of crimes? It's time for these two worlds to collide!
TOUGHS (angrily)We are France!
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWe are France!
TOUGHS We are France!
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWe are France!
The stage rotates as the two groups continue singing. Finally they bump into each other and begin catlike finger snapping.
CHIRAC/VILLEPINWhen you’re a Frog you’re a Frog all the way, from your first cigarette to your last beaujolais!
TOUGHSMohhhhh- OH! – rocco! Where the wind comes sweeping down the dunes! Where the sand can fly straight in your eye, but they don’t have these French buffoons!
Pantomime sissy knife fight
Read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)