White House reporter Helen Thomas, who said she would "kill herself" if Dick Cheney announced he would make a bid for the presidency, is not at all happy that the remarks were published. This...from Drudge:
...Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.
"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.
But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."
"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.
Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.
Boy, isn't that the truth.
Reporters are so good at the "gotcha game." Always there when a microphone catches a personal remark, always there to exploit the slip of the tongue that makes others look bad. Worshiping at the altar of whstle-blowers and inside information.
Don't turn the tables though. That's a big no-no.
My advice to Helen is to suck on it. Eisele is simply demonstrating how Thomas herself has made for such a long successful career. Maybe it will teach her a little humility.
I doubt it...but maybe.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
A Much-Needed Rest
Life has been pretty hectic around here for the past few days. I am going to take today off from the blogosphere.
Have a nice Sunday and we'll catch up on the hysterical sadness of the left and the media as the week progesses.
Have a nice Sunday and we'll catch up on the hysterical sadness of the left and the media as the week progesses.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Culpepper, Mosquito's, and Defense
The Vikings started camp today with a new owner and with Randy Moss (mercifully) gone forever. For those only mildly interested in this team let me just say this: It was never Randy Moss. It was always Daunte Culpepper. Culpepper could throw a football up a mosquito's rear end from forty yards, off his back foot, with a linebacker hanging from his jersey.Further evidence that the world has changed, the Star Tribune is running a training camp blog.
A few thoughts. On paper, the Vikings defense is much improved. Even if they finish the season with a middle-of-the-pack rank, it will have a huge impact on the team's record. If I am not mistaken, the Vikings average about seven less points per game without Moss. Therefore, if the defense can average 10 points less per game, that puts the Vikings on the sunny side of the average.
Despite going to the playoffs last year, the Vikings do not appear to have an unusually tough schedule.
The football pundits will be stunned this season when the Vikings improve their lot. They will openly scratch their heads when the Vikings prove successful without Randy Moss. Why? Because while they were drooling over the rastefarian receiver, they were oblivious to the prototype quarterback-of-the-future running the show. If Culpepper can lead, all bets are off on how far the Vikings can go.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Air America's Non-Statement
Air America has released another statement about their alleged dealings with the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, and they have further perfected the art of not really saying anything, or taking any reponsibility. The statement starts like this:
If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful.
In other words, Air America is outraged that the club was talked into handing over almost a half-mil...to Air America. Then again, outrage is as outrage does, and Air America has no plans to correct this situation.
The current owners of Air America Radio have no obligation to Progress Media‚s business activities. We are very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people, which is why we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.
There is no claim that full compensation has in fact been made, only that Air America agreed to make an attempt. The statement goes on to describe how Air America did some promotional spots for a summer camp. Alas, Gloria Wise was forced to close it's doors before the camp could be held.
Gee, I wonder if a half million dollars would have helped keep the doors open?
Malkin has lots of links, but no one seems particularily interested in my "greater good" theory.
Be sure to check Captain's Quarters and Power Line as well.
If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful.
In other words, Air America is outraged that the club was talked into handing over almost a half-mil...to Air America. Then again, outrage is as outrage does, and Air America has no plans to correct this situation.
The current owners of Air America Radio have no obligation to Progress Media‚s business activities. We are very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people, which is why we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.
There is no claim that full compensation has in fact been made, only that Air America agreed to make an attempt. The statement goes on to describe how Air America did some promotional spots for a summer camp. Alas, Gloria Wise was forced to close it's doors before the camp could be held.
Gee, I wonder if a half million dollars would have helped keep the doors open?
Malkin has lots of links, but no one seems particularily interested in my "greater good" theory.
Be sure to check Captain's Quarters and Power Line as well.
No Liberal Bias Here
The word is that veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas isn't too interested in Dick Cheney for president."The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar." Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."
Nothing like wearing your politics on your sleeve.
I wonder if Thomas is serious about her credibility, or if it is considered incidental to her job title? And, isn't it a bit scary how comfortable liberals have become with promises they have no intention of keeping?
Then again, she may be thinking of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton when she refers to "one more liar." But I doubt it.
Nick at Conservative Dialysis is thinking about starting a Run Dick Run campaign. Boortz says "the hag is at it again." Chrenkoff suggests e-mailing Thomas with some creative ideas, and Ramblings' Journal has some diet advice.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Perfect Example of Liberal Mentality
The story of the day is the roughly half-mil in money intended for inner-city youth programs that was instead "invested" in the dismal failure Air America radio. For links, Malkin, Captain's Quarters, and La Shawn Barber all have you covered. For the best overall read on the subject, check Brian Maloney, who describes the situation very well.
In a nutshell, the Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club was almost forced to shut down major programs because almost $500,000 of public grant money was instead diverted to Air America radio.
In response to the story, Air America has responded that it happened under the leadership of Evan Cohen, who is no longer with the network, and since the network is under new management, somehow Air America is not at fault.
On MAY 24, 2004 the newly formed PIQUANT LLC acquired the principal assets of AIR AMERICA RADIO from the prior ownership entities. PIQUANT has owned and operated AIR AMERICA RADIO since that time. The company that had run AIR AMERICA RADIO till then no longer had anything to do with the network.
PIQUANT had no involvement whatsoever with funds from GLORIA WISE BOYS &GIRLS CLUB. PIQUANT neither received nor expended any of the sums that are the subject of the City's investigation of the CLUB.
I guess that gets Piquant off the hook, but says nothing about Air America's responsibility, which certainly was inherited by Piquant upon acquiring the black hole of talk radio.
I think there is a larger issue here though, that everyone is missing. The idea that the "cause" would be better served by handing the money to Air America instead of where it can do the most good directly is very typical liberal logic that applies to so many other issues as well.
For instance, instead of giving up the SUV and riding a bike to work, the liberal instead works to have SUV's restricted or shells out money to causes that encourage draconian environmental measures. Instead of getting directly involved with south American countries, through missionary work, adopting children etc., they buy "fair trade" coffee. Instead of supporting the direct removal of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein they support vague decades long human rights efforts that have absolutely no impact on the situation. Instead of giving money directly to charity, they spend money in support of political measures that would force contributions through tax dollars.
In other words, the liberal mentality has no time for doing "small" things that could actually impact someone's daily life, but prefer instead sweeping gestures that, while certainly making them feel better about themselves, have very little impact on the problems they give voice too.
How does that apply to Air America and Evan Cohen? Well, it is clear today that they are not too sorry about the revelation that they took money directly away from individuals and instead diverted it too the "larger" picture. In fact, I would wager that, from management down, most of the folks at Air America aren't even sure what the big deal is.
Maloney hints at this idea in the following passage:
The money, intended as a loan to be repaid with interest, was agreed to by Rosen after being sold on the idea of stretching their grant money further, according to one account. Part of the deal included promotional consideration of Gloria Wise's activities on Air America's programs.
They were serving the "greater good" you see. While the half-mil may have helped a few kids or Alzheimers patients through the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, the liberal mentality dictates that it could do much more for the "greater good" at Air America, the collection of do-gooders with a national voice. If a few random folks lose a program in the Bronx, that is simply the price that has to be paid to "change the world."
Given that, I wouldn't expect any semblance of remorse from Air America in the near future. They were just following liberal protocal. Exchange the few for the "many" and personal gratification, and in the process help no one.
Also posting: Kerfuffles, Wizbang, Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy, Llama Butchers
In a nutshell, the Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club was almost forced to shut down major programs because almost $500,000 of public grant money was instead diverted to Air America radio.
In response to the story, Air America has responded that it happened under the leadership of Evan Cohen, who is no longer with the network, and since the network is under new management, somehow Air America is not at fault.
On MAY 24, 2004 the newly formed PIQUANT LLC acquired the principal assets of AIR AMERICA RADIO from the prior ownership entities. PIQUANT has owned and operated AIR AMERICA RADIO since that time. The company that had run AIR AMERICA RADIO till then no longer had anything to do with the network.
PIQUANT had no involvement whatsoever with funds from GLORIA WISE BOYS &GIRLS CLUB. PIQUANT neither received nor expended any of the sums that are the subject of the City's investigation of the CLUB.
I guess that gets Piquant off the hook, but says nothing about Air America's responsibility, which certainly was inherited by Piquant upon acquiring the black hole of talk radio.
I think there is a larger issue here though, that everyone is missing. The idea that the "cause" would be better served by handing the money to Air America instead of where it can do the most good directly is very typical liberal logic that applies to so many other issues as well.
For instance, instead of giving up the SUV and riding a bike to work, the liberal instead works to have SUV's restricted or shells out money to causes that encourage draconian environmental measures. Instead of getting directly involved with south American countries, through missionary work, adopting children etc., they buy "fair trade" coffee. Instead of supporting the direct removal of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein they support vague decades long human rights efforts that have absolutely no impact on the situation. Instead of giving money directly to charity, they spend money in support of political measures that would force contributions through tax dollars.
In other words, the liberal mentality has no time for doing "small" things that could actually impact someone's daily life, but prefer instead sweeping gestures that, while certainly making them feel better about themselves, have very little impact on the problems they give voice too.
How does that apply to Air America and Evan Cohen? Well, it is clear today that they are not too sorry about the revelation that they took money directly away from individuals and instead diverted it too the "larger" picture. In fact, I would wager that, from management down, most of the folks at Air America aren't even sure what the big deal is.
Maloney hints at this idea in the following passage:
The money, intended as a loan to be repaid with interest, was agreed to by Rosen after being sold on the idea of stretching their grant money further, according to one account. Part of the deal included promotional consideration of Gloria Wise's activities on Air America's programs.
They were serving the "greater good" you see. While the half-mil may have helped a few kids or Alzheimers patients through the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, the liberal mentality dictates that it could do much more for the "greater good" at Air America, the collection of do-gooders with a national voice. If a few random folks lose a program in the Bronx, that is simply the price that has to be paid to "change the world."
Given that, I wouldn't expect any semblance of remorse from Air America in the near future. They were just following liberal protocal. Exchange the few for the "many" and personal gratification, and in the process help no one.
Also posting: Kerfuffles, Wizbang, Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy, Llama Butchers
A Blow To Local Democrats
An interesting local story has come to a conclusion with the conviction of Loren Jennings (D) on charges of mail fraud and money laundering. Jennings was the state representative for our district for 18 years before being defeated by Pete Nelson, whose campaign for re-election I worked on last year.
This story has loads of local connections and I actually delved into it for a short time before realizing that it was beyond my pay grade. My sources inside the county Republican Party were feeding me tidbits of information, including that FBI agents were pouring over documents all over the state in order to make this case. But my sources dried up once certain individuals were called to testify and were no longer allowed to discuss the case in any capacity.
The whole case centers on a company called Northern Pole, which received generous amounts of grant money, at Jennings behest, for purposes of refurbishing used light poles. No one that I talked to could recall a single pole being turned out by the company, despite receiving over a half million dollars for that express purpose.
A solid chunk of that money went to pay off previous bank loans secured by Jennings, who also had an undisclosed interest in Northern Pole that actually exceeded the grant amount.
It is a massive blow to the local Democratic Party that will make upcoming challenges, and highly sought after seats, much harder to secure. So much so, in fact, that I am afraid to even bring it up with various local Democratic Party leaders. Although I consider a couple of them to be friends, the mention of this is sure to set them off.
Instead I will keep my glee to myself, and quietly celebrate the fact that Jenning's conviction is a fairly major setback and sure to be a black mark on the party for the foreseeable future.
This story has loads of local connections and I actually delved into it for a short time before realizing that it was beyond my pay grade. My sources inside the county Republican Party were feeding me tidbits of information, including that FBI agents were pouring over documents all over the state in order to make this case. But my sources dried up once certain individuals were called to testify and were no longer allowed to discuss the case in any capacity.
The whole case centers on a company called Northern Pole, which received generous amounts of grant money, at Jennings behest, for purposes of refurbishing used light poles. No one that I talked to could recall a single pole being turned out by the company, despite receiving over a half million dollars for that express purpose.
A solid chunk of that money went to pay off previous bank loans secured by Jennings, who also had an undisclosed interest in Northern Pole that actually exceeded the grant amount.
It is a massive blow to the local Democratic Party that will make upcoming challenges, and highly sought after seats, much harder to secure. So much so, in fact, that I am afraid to even bring it up with various local Democratic Party leaders. Although I consider a couple of them to be friends, the mention of this is sure to set them off.
Instead I will keep my glee to myself, and quietly celebrate the fact that Jenning's conviction is a fairly major setback and sure to be a black mark on the party for the foreseeable future.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Only a College Democrat Could Believe...
...what Howard Dean recently had to say about the Kelo vs New London decision.
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean has denounced last month's Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain as a product of "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court."
Never fear, Brit has this one covered.
...not one of the justices on the Supreme Court was appointed by President Bush. And the most conservative justices — William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — dissented on that ruling.
Is Howard even trying anymore? Or is he just feeding the pigeons?
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean has denounced last month's Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain as a product of "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court."
Never fear, Brit has this one covered.
...not one of the justices on the Supreme Court was appointed by President Bush. And the most conservative justices — William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — dissented on that ruling.
Is Howard even trying anymore? Or is he just feeding the pigeons?
When Liberals Babysit
Despite having many personal issues that might make a proximity to children dangerous, Liberal Larry is saddled with his neo-fascist niece for the duration of the week. His brother must have been extremely desperate. To Larry's surprise, his chimpy/McHaliburton niece was not at all interested in two days of transcendental meditation at the local rock garden, and suggested instead that he take her to the drag races.
As much as I abhor the unegalitarian barbarism of competitive sports, a day spent absorbing the rich culture of the cross-dressing community would be good for the little fascist. So I happily agreed to treat little Kinsey to a day at the races, and even promised to leave the Nappy Time® Child Safety Tazer at home.
Imagine my surprise when, upon arriving at the event, I suddenly realized that they were not racing gender dysphoric homosexuals gussied up like giant sequined ostriches, but frigging CARS! VERY LOUD cars, as a matter of fact. Before I knew what was happening, I had already ruined a perfectly good pair of prototype ultra-absorbent hemp underwear thanks to Bush and his thinly veiled campaign fundraiser. Indeed, the entire spectacle was little more than an elaborate Bush scheme to glorify the automobile while siphoning money from the very same slack-jawed sheeple who helped him steal the office!
Karl Rove is indeed a genius.
Read the whole thing, it's hilarious.
As much as I abhor the unegalitarian barbarism of competitive sports, a day spent absorbing the rich culture of the cross-dressing community would be good for the little fascist. So I happily agreed to treat little Kinsey to a day at the races, and even promised to leave the Nappy Time® Child Safety Tazer at home.
Imagine my surprise when, upon arriving at the event, I suddenly realized that they were not racing gender dysphoric homosexuals gussied up like giant sequined ostriches, but frigging CARS! VERY LOUD cars, as a matter of fact. Before I knew what was happening, I had already ruined a perfectly good pair of prototype ultra-absorbent hemp underwear thanks to Bush and his thinly veiled campaign fundraiser. Indeed, the entire spectacle was little more than an elaborate Bush scheme to glorify the automobile while siphoning money from the very same slack-jawed sheeple who helped him steal the office!
Karl Rove is indeed a genius.
Read the whole thing, it's hilarious.
This Can't Be Good For The Democratic Party
I read about this on Monday and spent today thinking about it before deciding to post on it. I don't know why.
The AFL-CIO has split into at least two seperate factions, with the SEIU and the Teamsters taking their 1.8 million workers out of the AFL-CIO umbrella.
"Our goal is not to divide the labor movement but to rebuild it," said Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He and Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said their unions would leave the AFL-CIO, paving the way for other unions to follow.
Their action drew a bitter rebuke from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it a "grievous insult" that could hurt workers already buffeted by the global economy and anti-union forces in Congress.
This is a major blow for the Democratic Party, who relies heavily on union support at the polls. Now, I am sure the decision to split was based on many factors, and I can only offer anecdotal evidence regarding the decision.
There have been rumblings over the last year or so that the AFL-CIO had erred in putting most of it's eggs in the Democratic basket. And with the left out of power in this country, it leads to the obvious conclusion that unions do not serve their needs by backing a losing horse.
This story from SignOnSanDiego, which has the number pegged at 3.2 million, would seem to bolster that view.
At the core of the dispute is the rejected demand by the two breakaway unions and several allies that the federation shift resources from political action and devote them instead to organizing nonunion sectors of the economy.
Speaking for 1.4 million Teamsters, Hoffa declared, "We must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers' rights in this country. The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach. . . . Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians."
Regardless if that translates to a more equal spread of funds between both parties or simply less spending altogether, that is disturbing news for the left, which relies heavily on those funds. And, with Howard Dean proving to be a fund-raising disaster, the Democratic Party can ill afford this promised depletion of campaign reserves.
When you look at the speaker line-up at AFL-CIO convention this year, it isn't difficult to see why many union members have become disenchanted with the direction of union political affiliations.
Addressing the convention yesterday were Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Also speaking were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and John Edwards, last year's Democratic vice-presidential candidate.
In other words, a traitor, a rookie, a coward, a wallflower, a whiner, and a loser.
On a local level, my union sources express a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, which has embraced it's liberal wing and has little time for labor issues. Furthermore, union members generally support a strong national security policy, and could care less about things like gay marriage. Generally, union members are parents and care a great deal about "moral issues" as well. They are not passionate about making sure porn is available at public libraries etc.
It has often enough heard; "I don't want to trade my paycheck for my country," that it is almost becoming a cliche. This splinter of one of the most powerful groups in the country, I think, reflects that sentiment, whatever the talking heads might tell you.
I could be wrong, but I believe this split in the AFL-CIO marks the end of Democratic dominance of the unions. Only time will tell.
The AFL-CIO has split into at least two seperate factions, with the SEIU and the Teamsters taking their 1.8 million workers out of the AFL-CIO umbrella.
"Our goal is not to divide the labor movement but to rebuild it," said Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He and Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said their unions would leave the AFL-CIO, paving the way for other unions to follow.
Their action drew a bitter rebuke from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it a "grievous insult" that could hurt workers already buffeted by the global economy and anti-union forces in Congress.
This is a major blow for the Democratic Party, who relies heavily on union support at the polls. Now, I am sure the decision to split was based on many factors, and I can only offer anecdotal evidence regarding the decision.
There have been rumblings over the last year or so that the AFL-CIO had erred in putting most of it's eggs in the Democratic basket. And with the left out of power in this country, it leads to the obvious conclusion that unions do not serve their needs by backing a losing horse.
This story from SignOnSanDiego, which has the number pegged at 3.2 million, would seem to bolster that view.
At the core of the dispute is the rejected demand by the two breakaway unions and several allies that the federation shift resources from political action and devote them instead to organizing nonunion sectors of the economy.
Speaking for 1.4 million Teamsters, Hoffa declared, "We must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers' rights in this country. The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach. . . . Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians."
Regardless if that translates to a more equal spread of funds between both parties or simply less spending altogether, that is disturbing news for the left, which relies heavily on those funds. And, with Howard Dean proving to be a fund-raising disaster, the Democratic Party can ill afford this promised depletion of campaign reserves.
When you look at the speaker line-up at AFL-CIO convention this year, it isn't difficult to see why many union members have become disenchanted with the direction of union political affiliations.
Addressing the convention yesterday were Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Also speaking were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and John Edwards, last year's Democratic vice-presidential candidate.
In other words, a traitor, a rookie, a coward, a wallflower, a whiner, and a loser.
On a local level, my union sources express a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, which has embraced it's liberal wing and has little time for labor issues. Furthermore, union members generally support a strong national security policy, and could care less about things like gay marriage. Generally, union members are parents and care a great deal about "moral issues" as well. They are not passionate about making sure porn is available at public libraries etc.
It has often enough heard; "I don't want to trade my paycheck for my country," that it is almost becoming a cliche. This splinter of one of the most powerful groups in the country, I think, reflects that sentiment, whatever the talking heads might tell you.
I could be wrong, but I believe this split in the AFL-CIO marks the end of Democratic dominance of the unions. Only time will tell.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Bolton Hears The Recess Bell
Drudge has this piece from Yahoo! News, hinting that John Bolton will be given a recess appointment by the Bush administration.
Congressional aides said a recess appointment could be announced as early as Friday night, immediately after the Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the monthlong August break. A recess appointment would allow Bolton to take up the U.N. post but he would serve only until January 2007.
The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.
Those allegations don't really add up to much, whether Voinovich weeps on the senate floor or not. It is just more obstructionism from the left, which seems to fear the idea of making any significant changes at the U.N. Mystifying, I know.
In a strange turn, Dem's will not use Bolton's recess appointment as an excuse to broaden obstructionism to other confirmations.
Senate Democratic leaders have removed a possible hurdle by signaling that they would not use a recess appointment of Bolton to hold up Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
"It's unlikely that one would be used against the other," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
This would seem to imply one of three courses of action. Either Democratic Party leaders, weary of being considered the largest group of whiners ever assembled by the American people, will welcome the addition of Bolton. Or, they are looking for an easy way out from under the Bolton debacle and will pretend the whole thing never happened.
Thirdly, and far more likely, they will pretend that a recess appointment is an unprecedented step in American governmental history and accuse the Bush administration of making a mockery of democracy in order to pursue his theocratic-chimpy-McHaliburton agenda of world domination.
Unfortunately, until the Democratic Party gets it's marching orders from Dailykos, it is anybody's guess exactly which way it will go.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Blogs for Bush
Congressional aides said a recess appointment could be announced as early as Friday night, immediately after the Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the monthlong August break. A recess appointment would allow Bolton to take up the U.N. post but he would serve only until January 2007.
The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.
Those allegations don't really add up to much, whether Voinovich weeps on the senate floor or not. It is just more obstructionism from the left, which seems to fear the idea of making any significant changes at the U.N. Mystifying, I know.
In a strange turn, Dem's will not use Bolton's recess appointment as an excuse to broaden obstructionism to other confirmations.
Senate Democratic leaders have removed a possible hurdle by signaling that they would not use a recess appointment of Bolton to hold up Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
"It's unlikely that one would be used against the other," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
This would seem to imply one of three courses of action. Either Democratic Party leaders, weary of being considered the largest group of whiners ever assembled by the American people, will welcome the addition of Bolton. Or, they are looking for an easy way out from under the Bolton debacle and will pretend the whole thing never happened.
Thirdly, and far more likely, they will pretend that a recess appointment is an unprecedented step in American governmental history and accuse the Bush administration of making a mockery of democracy in order to pursue his theocratic-chimpy-McHaliburton agenda of world domination.
Unfortunately, until the Democratic Party gets it's marching orders from Dailykos, it is anybody's guess exactly which way it will go.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Blogs for Bush
Craziest Thing I Have Ever Seen
We are all used to media depiction of automobile accidents involving SUV's right? The ones in which there does not appear to be a driver involved? For instance: "An SUV crossed the center lane today and killed a family of five."
Tim Blair provides this quote from an article appearing in The Age, which takes the practice of blaming inanimate objects for deaths to an entirely new level.
On July 7 three trains and a bus in London killed 56 people - including the four suspected suicide bombers - and wounded 700.
Word on the street is that the London police currently have a half dozen buses and at least two trains under surveilance, suspected of helping to plan the attacks on unsuspecting fares. Don't believe me? Check the next line:
Since then, Britain's newspapers and television news broadcasts have been filled with images of heavily armed police on London's streets.
No doubt sending a strong message that London will not tolerate acts of terrorism from it's various modes of public transportation. As usual though, they are probably shutting the barn door a bit too late. While they are profiling buses and trains, the next attack is being planned by militant taxis, or perhaps even a rogue faction of rick-shaws.
Tim Blair provides this quote from an article appearing in The Age, which takes the practice of blaming inanimate objects for deaths to an entirely new level.
On July 7 three trains and a bus in London killed 56 people - including the four suspected suicide bombers - and wounded 700.
Word on the street is that the London police currently have a half dozen buses and at least two trains under surveilance, suspected of helping to plan the attacks on unsuspecting fares. Don't believe me? Check the next line:
Since then, Britain's newspapers and television news broadcasts have been filled with images of heavily armed police on London's streets.
No doubt sending a strong message that London will not tolerate acts of terrorism from it's various modes of public transportation. As usual though, they are probably shutting the barn door a bit too late. While they are profiling buses and trains, the next attack is being planned by militant taxis, or perhaps even a rogue faction of rick-shaws.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Eight-Year-Old More Intelligent Than Columnist
An op-ed by David Kennedy in the NYT today essentially charges that our military is nothing more than a group of mercenaries.
To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.
Neither the idealism nor the patriotism of those who serve is in question here. The profession of arms is a noble calling, and there is no shame in wage labor. But the fact remains that the United States today has a military force that is extraordinarily lean and lethal, even while it is increasingly separated from the civil society on whose behalf it fights. This is worrisome - for reasons that go well beyond unmet recruiting targets.
I would submit that our military is far less removed from civil society than...say...David Kennedy.
Captain Ed lays out the "attractive" benefit program for enlistees.
Ask our military families how good they have it on those oh-so-attractive wages and benefits. A private makes between $14 - 16k. Even a sergeant with six years of experience only makes a base salary of $25K, which puts them at the same wages as a full-time worker at $12 per hour -- almost entry level everywhere for office jobs.
Ah, the spoils of war.
Blackfive has a few thoughts on the subject, which are, not surprisingly, less than complimentary. Also, contrasting Kennedy's assault on the military and call for a draft, read this letter from an eight-year-old kid.
How come an eight-year-old gets it and Kennedy does not?
To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.
Neither the idealism nor the patriotism of those who serve is in question here. The profession of arms is a noble calling, and there is no shame in wage labor. But the fact remains that the United States today has a military force that is extraordinarily lean and lethal, even while it is increasingly separated from the civil society on whose behalf it fights. This is worrisome - for reasons that go well beyond unmet recruiting targets.
I would submit that our military is far less removed from civil society than...say...David Kennedy.
Captain Ed lays out the "attractive" benefit program for enlistees.
Ask our military families how good they have it on those oh-so-attractive wages and benefits. A private makes between $14 - 16k. Even a sergeant with six years of experience only makes a base salary of $25K, which puts them at the same wages as a full-time worker at $12 per hour -- almost entry level everywhere for office jobs.
Ah, the spoils of war.
Blackfive has a few thoughts on the subject, which are, not surprisingly, less than complimentary. Also, contrasting Kennedy's assault on the military and call for a draft, read this letter from an eight-year-old kid.
How come an eight-year-old gets it and Kennedy does not?
Rendell Smarter Than Second in Command
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is making amends for his Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll's atrocious behavior at the funeral of Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich last week, a story we covered here.
Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday that he hadn't spoken to Knoll, but he said it's not the business of state government to have a position on the war. He said the state supports the men and women fighting the war.
Rendell said written apologies will be sent to the Goodrich family.
The story also notes that Baker Knoll called the family and apologized...to the voice mail.
What a coward.
UPDATE: Speaking of cowardice, check out the letter that is being drafted for Baker Knoll, via Malkin:
Dear Mrs. Goodrich,
I am writing to further apologize and clarify what happened at the funeral of your beloved husband, Joseph. As a wife and mother, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to lose your spouse so suddenly. As an adored member of your family and one of Pennsylvania’s sons serving with soldiers from across the commonwealth, SSGT Joseph Goodrich, is one of this nation’s heroes.
As I said in my phone message to Rhonda, after I learned through press reports that your family was offended by my attendance, I was incredibly upset. I wanted to assure you once again that my intention was not to add to what must be a tremendously, heartbreaking, difficult period.
The war on terror is an immensely personal conflict for the thousands of people whose families continue to serve with honor, and I have attended dozens of funerals to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
My heart and prayers are with your family, and to the families of all the men and women serving the cause of freedom in the fight against terror. I unfortunately, did not arrive at the church services for SSGT Goodrich’s funeral in time to offer my personal condolences to you. As I also mentioned on Rhonda’s phone message, as I do with many Pennsylvanians I meet, I offered my business card so she could contact me, and as a sign of my willingness to help the family through this difficult time in any way I can. To do anything that was deemed insensitive was completely counter to my intent.
Sergeant Goodrich’s service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his family’s grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.
I will continue to support our troops in my role as Lt. Governor and support our President as an American. That I somehow conveyed an impression that was interpreted as other than that will forever be saddening and upsetting to me.
Again, please accept my heartfelt apology and deepest sympathy.
Sincerely,
Catherine Baker Knoll
Lieutenant Governor
Seriously...I feel like I'm going to puke.
There you have it folks. She really didn't even know what she was doing. Please note the Durbin-esque "I'm sorry that you are offended" slant and the failure to actually apologize for anything beyond that. In fact, like Durbin, she's not even sure what all the hubbub is about. She "somehow" conveyed an "impression" that remains unclear even to her.
Malkin spoke with Baker Knoll's chief of staff and gleaned this extra detail:
Sirabella says that Knoll has no plans to make herself available for public comment about her obnoxious crashing of Sgt. Goodrich's funeral. She will not hold a press conference. She will not take phone calls from the media. She will not address constituents who have complained or veterans who have protested.
Did I say coward?
Also posting: Sister Toldjah
Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday that he hadn't spoken to Knoll, but he said it's not the business of state government to have a position on the war. He said the state supports the men and women fighting the war.
Rendell said written apologies will be sent to the Goodrich family.
The story also notes that Baker Knoll called the family and apologized...to the voice mail.
What a coward.
UPDATE: Speaking of cowardice, check out the letter that is being drafted for Baker Knoll, via Malkin:
Dear Mrs. Goodrich,
I am writing to further apologize and clarify what happened at the funeral of your beloved husband, Joseph. As a wife and mother, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to lose your spouse so suddenly. As an adored member of your family and one of Pennsylvania’s sons serving with soldiers from across the commonwealth, SSGT Joseph Goodrich, is one of this nation’s heroes.
As I said in my phone message to Rhonda, after I learned through press reports that your family was offended by my attendance, I was incredibly upset. I wanted to assure you once again that my intention was not to add to what must be a tremendously, heartbreaking, difficult period.
The war on terror is an immensely personal conflict for the thousands of people whose families continue to serve with honor, and I have attended dozens of funerals to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
My heart and prayers are with your family, and to the families of all the men and women serving the cause of freedom in the fight against terror. I unfortunately, did not arrive at the church services for SSGT Goodrich’s funeral in time to offer my personal condolences to you. As I also mentioned on Rhonda’s phone message, as I do with many Pennsylvanians I meet, I offered my business card so she could contact me, and as a sign of my willingness to help the family through this difficult time in any way I can. To do anything that was deemed insensitive was completely counter to my intent.
Sergeant Goodrich’s service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his family’s grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.
I will continue to support our troops in my role as Lt. Governor and support our President as an American. That I somehow conveyed an impression that was interpreted as other than that will forever be saddening and upsetting to me.
Again, please accept my heartfelt apology and deepest sympathy.
Sincerely,
Catherine Baker Knoll
Lieutenant Governor
Seriously...I feel like I'm going to puke.
There you have it folks. She really didn't even know what she was doing. Please note the Durbin-esque "I'm sorry that you are offended" slant and the failure to actually apologize for anything beyond that. In fact, like Durbin, she's not even sure what all the hubbub is about. She "somehow" conveyed an "impression" that remains unclear even to her.
Malkin spoke with Baker Knoll's chief of staff and gleaned this extra detail:
Sirabella says that Knoll has no plans to make herself available for public comment about her obnoxious crashing of Sgt. Goodrich's funeral. She will not hold a press conference. She will not take phone calls from the media. She will not address constituents who have complained or veterans who have protested.
Did I say coward?
Also posting: Sister Toldjah
Wish Me Luck Folks
I've got a big, big job interview this morning. I will post later in the day, but in the meantime, I could use all the positive thoughts you can muster.
Thanks in advance...
UPDATE: Interview concluded and your guess is as good as mine. Won't know for more than a week.
Thanks for the happy thoughts.
Thanks in advance...
UPDATE: Interview concluded and your guess is as good as mine. Won't know for more than a week.
Thanks for the happy thoughts.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Giving Birth To Optimism
Mark in Mexico drew my attention to this column by Irshad Manji, in which she notes a decided change in the rhetoric in Muslim chat rooms.
AS a reform-minded Muslim, I've given birth to a twinge of optimism. Nine months ago, I wrote about the need for Muslim leaders to pull their heads out of the sand. I challenged them to recognise that something is askew in Islam. My call for honesty capped a week of back-to-back terrorist atrocities: the slaying of 12 Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, the double suicide bombings in Israel, the kidnapping of two French journalists and the hijacking of a school in Russia.
In the wake of Thursday's bombings in London, combined with the first wave of explosions 2 1/2 weeks ago, something has changed. As I scour Muslim chat rooms and discussion boards, I see an overwhelming display of heartfelt condolences for the victims and angry condemnation of the criminals.
Last year, the powerless children of Beslan, Russia didn't have nearly such an effect on Muslims worldwide. It is as if London - its pluralism, dynamism, and (we shall whisper this) capitalism - marked the line that dare not be crossed.
It's not all good news, but it is instructive that there seems to be a significant crack developing amongst the extremists and the rank and file of Islam.
I'll take those where I can get them.
AS a reform-minded Muslim, I've given birth to a twinge of optimism. Nine months ago, I wrote about the need for Muslim leaders to pull their heads out of the sand. I challenged them to recognise that something is askew in Islam. My call for honesty capped a week of back-to-back terrorist atrocities: the slaying of 12 Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, the double suicide bombings in Israel, the kidnapping of two French journalists and the hijacking of a school in Russia.
In the wake of Thursday's bombings in London, combined with the first wave of explosions 2 1/2 weeks ago, something has changed. As I scour Muslim chat rooms and discussion boards, I see an overwhelming display of heartfelt condolences for the victims and angry condemnation of the criminals.
Last year, the powerless children of Beslan, Russia didn't have nearly such an effect on Muslims worldwide. It is as if London - its pluralism, dynamism, and (we shall whisper this) capitalism - marked the line that dare not be crossed.
It's not all good news, but it is instructive that there seems to be a significant crack developing amongst the extremists and the rank and file of Islam.
I'll take those where I can get them.
Durbin's Slander Will Reach Far and Wide
Baldilocks has a great post on Ted Kennedy and Daniel Akaka's trip to GITMO this week, in which soldiers gave the two senators a piece of their mind. Be sure to read her collection of thoughts.
Naturally, the two senators have made no mention of their visit in public thus far, nor would I expect them too. People don't usually go out of their way to make themselves look like idiots. Of course, in Kennedy's case "going out of his way" is a relatively short trip.
Austin Bay points out that, were the shoe on the other foot, we would be seeing a very different reaction from the left and the media.
The press and bloggers need to either get transcripts of the interviews or — better yet– let’s get some of these soldiers on-line to tell us what they told their senators. Just imagine the headlines and obliterative outrage if Repubs touring Gitmo got an earful from the troops.
Spread the word. We want a full and open disclosure of the interviews. The senators represent us and the soldiers defend us. That makes their gathering a completely public one. I think we have a right to know how our soldiers reacted in the face of one of their primary detractors.
Or, should it be only Kennedy that gets a bully pulpit?
Naturally, the two senators have made no mention of their visit in public thus far, nor would I expect them too. People don't usually go out of their way to make themselves look like idiots. Of course, in Kennedy's case "going out of his way" is a relatively short trip.
Austin Bay points out that, were the shoe on the other foot, we would be seeing a very different reaction from the left and the media.
The press and bloggers need to either get transcripts of the interviews or — better yet– let’s get some of these soldiers on-line to tell us what they told their senators. Just imagine the headlines and obliterative outrage if Repubs touring Gitmo got an earful from the troops.
Spread the word. We want a full and open disclosure of the interviews. The senators represent us and the soldiers defend us. That makes their gathering a completely public one. I think we have a right to know how our soldiers reacted in the face of one of their primary detractors.
Or, should it be only Kennedy that gets a bully pulpit?
Democrat Campaigns At A Funeral
Lt. Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, Catherine Baker Knoll (pictured), decided recently to attend the funeral of Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, who died in Iraq on July 10. While it might not seem strange for a state leader to attend the funeral of one of the state's fallen heroes, in this case it is not only strange, but sick and disgusting to boot.She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.
"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."
Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.
"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."
What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.
Baker Knoll seems to have forgotten what exactly comprises a government in this country. If I'm not mistaken it is the people, not the politicians. Those people happened to be filling a church to say goodbye to a fallen comrade at the time she decided to pull out her soap box and business cards.
Is the left that desperate or they simply losing their minds? With each passing day it gets harder and harder to tell.
Blackfive has links to contact Governor Rendell if one were inclined to express their displeasure with his deranged lt. governor.
UPDATE: Rendell has apologized.
Also posting: Pennywit, Media Lies, Malkin, Junkyardblog
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Chait Needs Exercise Too...
Independent Sources has a challenge for Jonathan Chait, who appears to have not exercised his body or his mind in quite some time:
If Mr. Chait emails us his typically weekly schedule, we will find him 30 minutes a day to exercise. If we do, Mr. Chait agrees to follow the regimen for one month and then tell us if his health has improved. If we don’t then Independent Sources will (at one sitting) eat two Tommy’s cheeseburgers, drink two soft drinks, and write a completely irrelevant attack on the President’s character and publish it right here.
Indeed. But will IS look like as much of an ass as Chait did? Doubtful.
If Mr. Chait emails us his typically weekly schedule, we will find him 30 minutes a day to exercise. If we do, Mr. Chait agrees to follow the regimen for one month and then tell us if his health has improved. If we don’t then Independent Sources will (at one sitting) eat two Tommy’s cheeseburgers, drink two soft drinks, and write a completely irrelevant attack on the President’s character and publish it right here.
Indeed. But will IS look like as much of an ass as Chait did? Doubtful.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Jonathon Chait Needs Professional Help
Frustrated that Rove-Plame is a non-story? John Roberts not controversial enough to generate inspiration for your column? That's not a problem for Jonathon Chait, who finds it "disturbing" that Bush would ask Supreme Court nominees about their exercise habits.
I don't mean the fact that Bush would vet his selection for the highest court in the land in part on something utterly trivial. That's expected. What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.
Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise. His full schedule is not publicly available. The few peeks we get at Bush's daily routine usually come when some sort of disaster prods the White House Press Office to reveal what the president was doing "at the time." Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter.
Chait concludes that the president isn't really running a government, but a "cult of personality" based on exercise, and attacks the president pretty viciously based on that assumption.
What a flippin' rube.
Let me get this straight. Useful idiots like Chait are obsessed with Bush and literally every thing he does. They count the minutes he spends at Camp David or in Texas, dissect his every word, and attack his every position based on little more than the fact that it is his position. Now, exercise is even a negative character trait. Why? Because it is a Bush trait.
Redguy sums this idiocy up pretty well:
Friends, the following story demonstrates what I believe to be the most pathetic, desperate and infantile waste of waste of pulp and pixels in the history of the modern media.
I couldn't agree more. Chait needs professional help. He has obsession issues bordering on the frightening. He even has the audacity to infer that his job is far more demanding than the president's and doesn't have the time to exercise.
Apparantly that includes his mind.
Also posting: Daily Pundit on why SCOTUS should exercise.
I don't mean the fact that Bush would vet his selection for the highest court in the land in part on something utterly trivial. That's expected. What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.
Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise. His full schedule is not publicly available. The few peeks we get at Bush's daily routine usually come when some sort of disaster prods the White House Press Office to reveal what the president was doing "at the time." Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter.
Chait concludes that the president isn't really running a government, but a "cult of personality" based on exercise, and attacks the president pretty viciously based on that assumption.
What a flippin' rube.
Let me get this straight. Useful idiots like Chait are obsessed with Bush and literally every thing he does. They count the minutes he spends at Camp David or in Texas, dissect his every word, and attack his every position based on little more than the fact that it is his position. Now, exercise is even a negative character trait. Why? Because it is a Bush trait.
Redguy sums this idiocy up pretty well:
Friends, the following story demonstrates what I believe to be the most pathetic, desperate and infantile waste of waste of pulp and pixels in the history of the modern media.
I couldn't agree more. Chait needs professional help. He has obsession issues bordering on the frightening. He even has the audacity to infer that his job is far more demanding than the president's and doesn't have the time to exercise.
Apparantly that includes his mind.
Also posting: Daily Pundit on why SCOTUS should exercise.
Back To The Head Of The Class
In a seemingly desperate attempt to deny the biggest story out of Washington in quite some time, an actual bonafide nominee to the highest court in the land (and what could be more exciting than that), Barbara Boxer held a press conference yesterday to remind the D.C. press corps that the real story is Karl Rove's non-outing of the non-covert Valerie Plame.
Despite her valiant efforts though, media in attendance refused to stay on message and Boxer was finally forced to address a question on the Roberts non-story.
Reporter: Senator, you said that gender is not the primary concern, but is it a step back in some way that we have, you know, just another white guy being nominated in this important position?
Boxer: I assume those are your words, which I don't ascribe to. What I would say is, it's definitely a setback when the president has an opportunity to appoint...to make a, shall we say, ground-breaking appointment, you know, of a woman, of a minority. It's always a setback when he decides that there's no one that fills the bill. And so...but to me, the bottom line is, you know, your rights, the rights of your families, the rights of my grandson, and future citizens. That's the key thing here. But there's no question in terms of role models. And I have to...I could tell you right here now, that being a woman in the Senate, and we are now up to fourteen, when I go out, and especially in the years when I was one of four or six or whatever the number, I can't remember exactly, the young girls that would come around to me, who would just say, you know, I want to do what you do. And I'm sure as reporters in the early days, when there were fewer, I'm sure you had the same if you went to speak at a school, a high school. The girls would be so interested. How do you do it in a man's world, you know? And look around you here. It's very different today, which is terrific. So when we have a chance, as elected leaders, to, you know, to pick a chief of staff as a woman, or a minority, this is something that's a good thing to do. You pick the best. You always pick the best. But my view is there's the best out there. So yeah. I would have to say, for sure, I'm disappointed in that. But I don't want to say that's dispositive of how I feel about this nomination, because there's a lot more important things. I mean, had the president chose a woman who didn't respect the rights of women, that wouldn't have...it would have been good from a role model perspective, when you see the picture, and little girls in the community and the country know that it's possible for me. But in terms of the rights of the people, that's the key here, more than anything else.
And that, my friends is why Boxer is the queen. Listening to her talk about politics is like listening to Tom Cruise talk about Katie Holmes. In fact, the only complete thought in this entire litany is the very first sentence. The rest looks like a symptom list for ADD, or ADHD, or whatever acronym we are using these days to describe an inability to focus ones attention for more than a few seconds. Sadly, it is a response to what was essentially a yes-or-no question.
Duane attempts the Herculean task of making some sense out of this at Radioblogger and my hat's off to him. I became sleepy and despondent after the first few "sentences."
Despite her valiant efforts though, media in attendance refused to stay on message and Boxer was finally forced to address a question on the Roberts non-story.
Reporter: Senator, you said that gender is not the primary concern, but is it a step back in some way that we have, you know, just another white guy being nominated in this important position?
Boxer: I assume those are your words, which I don't ascribe to. What I would say is, it's definitely a setback when the president has an opportunity to appoint...to make a, shall we say, ground-breaking appointment, you know, of a woman, of a minority. It's always a setback when he decides that there's no one that fills the bill. And so...but to me, the bottom line is, you know, your rights, the rights of your families, the rights of my grandson, and future citizens. That's the key thing here. But there's no question in terms of role models. And I have to...I could tell you right here now, that being a woman in the Senate, and we are now up to fourteen, when I go out, and especially in the years when I was one of four or six or whatever the number, I can't remember exactly, the young girls that would come around to me, who would just say, you know, I want to do what you do. And I'm sure as reporters in the early days, when there were fewer, I'm sure you had the same if you went to speak at a school, a high school. The girls would be so interested. How do you do it in a man's world, you know? And look around you here. It's very different today, which is terrific. So when we have a chance, as elected leaders, to, you know, to pick a chief of staff as a woman, or a minority, this is something that's a good thing to do. You pick the best. You always pick the best. But my view is there's the best out there. So yeah. I would have to say, for sure, I'm disappointed in that. But I don't want to say that's dispositive of how I feel about this nomination, because there's a lot more important things. I mean, had the president chose a woman who didn't respect the rights of women, that wouldn't have...it would have been good from a role model perspective, when you see the picture, and little girls in the community and the country know that it's possible for me. But in terms of the rights of the people, that's the key here, more than anything else.
And that, my friends is why Boxer is the queen. Listening to her talk about politics is like listening to Tom Cruise talk about Katie Holmes. In fact, the only complete thought in this entire litany is the very first sentence. The rest looks like a symptom list for ADD, or ADHD, or whatever acronym we are using these days to describe an inability to focus ones attention for more than a few seconds. Sadly, it is a response to what was essentially a yes-or-no question.
Duane attempts the Herculean task of making some sense out of this at Radioblogger and my hat's off to him. I became sleepy and despondent after the first few "sentences."
Thursday, July 21, 2005
London Attacked Again
Two weeks after four bombs killed 56 in the London tube system and aboard a bus, London was struck again today. This time reports indicate two explosions and, thankfully, no casualites.
LONDON (Reuters) - The explosions on London's transport system on Thursday look like an attempted carbon-copy of four attacks that killed 56 people two weeks ago and may be masterminded by the same group, security analysts said.
They put forward two main scenarios behind the latest blasts, which were much smaller than the previous ones, and appeared to have caused no fatalities.
The first, more benign explanation, was that the attacks were carried out by "imitative amateurs" intent on mounting a copycat strike by targeting three underground trains and a bus across the city, as in the earlier bombings.
The second, more worrying, was that the same group behind the suspected al Qaeda-linked attacks on July 7 had struck again, albeit with far less devastating effect.
That would show that, far from exhausting its strike potential, the group was capable of causing fresh havoc despite heightened security precautions in the British capital and a high state of alert in both the police and general public.
It also would show that the group could readily mobilise fresh operatives -- perhaps even would-be suicide bombers -- to follow the example of the four bombers who blew themselves up two weeks earlier.
Witnesses are reporting a wave of panic in the wake of the explosions, for which Londoners can hardly be blamed after the events of two weeks ago. Those poor people.
"I was in a middle carriage and the train was not far short of Warren Street station when suddenly the door between my carriage and the next one burst open and dozens of people started rushing through. Some were falling, there was mass panic.
Malkin has many links, as does the Counterterrorism blog. Jawa Report is hoping to update throughout the afternoon.
UPDATE: Via Power Line, Some great remarks from Australian PM John Howard in repsonse to a reporter.
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?
When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
I wonder if there will ever come a time when reporters questioning leaders about the invasion of Iraq and it's effect on terrorism will not only look foolish to the rest of us, but feel foolish to the reporter? There must be an old saying somewhere about the idiot always being the last to know that he is, indeed, the idiot.
I just don't know what it is.
Also posting: Mark in Mexico
LONDON (Reuters) - The explosions on London's transport system on Thursday look like an attempted carbon-copy of four attacks that killed 56 people two weeks ago and may be masterminded by the same group, security analysts said.
They put forward two main scenarios behind the latest blasts, which were much smaller than the previous ones, and appeared to have caused no fatalities.
The first, more benign explanation, was that the attacks were carried out by "imitative amateurs" intent on mounting a copycat strike by targeting three underground trains and a bus across the city, as in the earlier bombings.
The second, more worrying, was that the same group behind the suspected al Qaeda-linked attacks on July 7 had struck again, albeit with far less devastating effect.
That would show that, far from exhausting its strike potential, the group was capable of causing fresh havoc despite heightened security precautions in the British capital and a high state of alert in both the police and general public.
It also would show that the group could readily mobilise fresh operatives -- perhaps even would-be suicide bombers -- to follow the example of the four bombers who blew themselves up two weeks earlier.
Witnesses are reporting a wave of panic in the wake of the explosions, for which Londoners can hardly be blamed after the events of two weeks ago. Those poor people.
"I was in a middle carriage and the train was not far short of Warren Street station when suddenly the door between my carriage and the next one burst open and dozens of people started rushing through. Some were falling, there was mass panic.
Malkin has many links, as does the Counterterrorism blog. Jawa Report is hoping to update throughout the afternoon.
UPDATE: Via Power Line, Some great remarks from Australian PM John Howard in repsonse to a reporter.
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?
When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
I wonder if there will ever come a time when reporters questioning leaders about the invasion of Iraq and it's effect on terrorism will not only look foolish to the rest of us, but feel foolish to the reporter? There must be an old saying somewhere about the idiot always being the last to know that he is, indeed, the idiot.
I just don't know what it is.
Also posting: Mark in Mexico
America Needs To Wake Up
My e-mail contained this speech by U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette, who is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. The speech, which is over a year old, documents exactly how long the war on terror has been ongoing, and the litany of wake-up calls we should have paid attention too.
It is a startling argument against who would claim that America somehow "created" Islamic terrorism with it's "ill-advised" invasion of Iraq.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years...
...Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more...
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex inRiyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
You can read the full text of the speech here.
It is a startling argument against who would claim that America somehow "created" Islamic terrorism with it's "ill-advised" invasion of Iraq.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years...
...Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more...
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex inRiyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
You can read the full text of the speech here.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Schumer Advocates Disbanding Congress
Political Yen/Yang is thinking the same thing that I am after listening to Senator's Schumer and Leahy respond to the Roberts nomination. I thought it was Leahy, but Yen-Yang attributes the following quote to Schumer:
"Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a very broad range of questions,"
Surprisingly, the blogosphere seems to have missed this significant statement. The quote is instructive not only to the understanding that liberals have about the role of the Supreme Court, but also to their intention with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has neve been tasked with making law. To suggest it is to suggest that the congress really has no job at all. Perhaps Schumer would like to live in a country where nine people make the laws for the rest of us, but I would prefer to leave that job to a much larger body of elected representatives. Since making law is the priamry function of congress, under Schumer's premise that the Supreme Court "makes" law, there is really no need for a congress at all.
Wasn't Schumer screaming about checks and balances not too long ago?
His advocacy for a court that makes law is perhaps the biggest suggestion of utter disdain for checks and balances I have seen in some time. He seems to be advocating a system whereby the people have no say in the direction of their country. Or, Schumer is completely ignorant to how checks and balances work in the America system of government.
More frightening still, it could be a little of both, which I think is the most likely conclusion.
Captain Ed has more on the furor surrounding Roberts nomination, as does Malkin here and here. Alas, there is no mention of Schumer's startling statement.
Media Lies and Hugh Hewitt readers: thanks for stopping by.
Also posting: Working Patriot gets it too.
"Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a very broad range of questions,"
Surprisingly, the blogosphere seems to have missed this significant statement. The quote is instructive not only to the understanding that liberals have about the role of the Supreme Court, but also to their intention with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has neve been tasked with making law. To suggest it is to suggest that the congress really has no job at all. Perhaps Schumer would like to live in a country where nine people make the laws for the rest of us, but I would prefer to leave that job to a much larger body of elected representatives. Since making law is the priamry function of congress, under Schumer's premise that the Supreme Court "makes" law, there is really no need for a congress at all.
Wasn't Schumer screaming about checks and balances not too long ago?
His advocacy for a court that makes law is perhaps the biggest suggestion of utter disdain for checks and balances I have seen in some time. He seems to be advocating a system whereby the people have no say in the direction of their country. Or, Schumer is completely ignorant to how checks and balances work in the America system of government.
More frightening still, it could be a little of both, which I think is the most likely conclusion.
Captain Ed has more on the furor surrounding Roberts nomination, as does Malkin here and here. Alas, there is no mention of Schumer's startling statement.
Media Lies and Hugh Hewitt readers: thanks for stopping by.
Also posting: Working Patriot gets it too.
The FBI Is Not Paranoid
In light of the recent news that the ACLU is suing the FBI for the release of documents that would quantify to what degree the Feeb's have been watching leftist activist groups like PETA, ELF, ALF, etc., Malkin has a column today on why the federal government might be interested.
To make her point she lists some of the activities endorsed by ELF:
1) Attack the financial centers of the country. Using covert or black block techniques...physically shut down financial centers which regulate and assist the functioning of U.S. economy. This can be done in a variety of ways from massive property destruction, to online sabotage, to physical occupation of buildings
2) Large scale urban rioting. With massive unrest and even state of emergencies declared in major cities across the country, the U.S. government will be forced to send U.S. troops into the domestic arena thereby taking resources and political focus away from the war.
3) Attack the media centers of the country...Using any means necessary, shut down the national networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.
4) Spread the battle to the individuals responsible for the war and destruction of life — the very heads of government and U.S. corporations. No longer should these people be able to hide behind their occupations, living their lives in peace while they simultaneously slaughter countless people. Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes, and make them feel personally responsible for committing massive atrocities.
5) Make it known publicly that this movement DOES NOT support U.S. troops as long as they are serving an unjust and horrifying political regime. Create an atmosphere lacking of support to assist U.S. troops at home and abroad in losing their morale and will to fight.
6) Actively target U.S. military establishments within the United States...use any means necessary to slow down the functioning of the murdering body.
Personally I am in favor of releasing the documents. I think once the American people got a look at exactly who the ACLU supports and defends, they would have a much better idea about what the ACLU really is. A subversive anti-American group bent on shaping the country in it's own image.
At her blog, Malkin has links to other articles on the subject.
To make her point she lists some of the activities endorsed by ELF:
1) Attack the financial centers of the country. Using covert or black block techniques...physically shut down financial centers which regulate and assist the functioning of U.S. economy. This can be done in a variety of ways from massive property destruction, to online sabotage, to physical occupation of buildings
2) Large scale urban rioting. With massive unrest and even state of emergencies declared in major cities across the country, the U.S. government will be forced to send U.S. troops into the domestic arena thereby taking resources and political focus away from the war.
3) Attack the media centers of the country...Using any means necessary, shut down the national networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.
4) Spread the battle to the individuals responsible for the war and destruction of life — the very heads of government and U.S. corporations. No longer should these people be able to hide behind their occupations, living their lives in peace while they simultaneously slaughter countless people. Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes, and make them feel personally responsible for committing massive atrocities.
5) Make it known publicly that this movement DOES NOT support U.S. troops as long as they are serving an unjust and horrifying political regime. Create an atmosphere lacking of support to assist U.S. troops at home and abroad in losing their morale and will to fight.
6) Actively target U.S. military establishments within the United States...use any means necessary to slow down the functioning of the murdering body.
Personally I am in favor of releasing the documents. I think once the American people got a look at exactly who the ACLU supports and defends, they would have a much better idea about what the ACLU really is. A subversive anti-American group bent on shaping the country in it's own image.
At her blog, Malkin has links to other articles on the subject.
More On Hussein-Bin Laden Links
Thomas Joscelyn has an interesting piece at The Weekly Standard noting yet another link between Hussein and al Qaida, and even more specifically, Osama Bin Laden himself. This link is drawn over the backdrop of Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
Just days after Operation Desert Fox concluded one of Saddam's most loyal and trusted intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was dispatched to Afghanistan. He met with senior leaders from the Taliban and then with bin Laden and his cohorts on December 21.
While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.
Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture.
Joscelyn goes on to lay out the media frenzy that ensued and the claims of cooperation between the two that were made. Reports, and claims, that seem to have been conveniently forgotten between then and now. Joscelyn notes the possibility that that the global media was wrong, but the sheer number of outlets reporting and the extent of the details given do create an overwhelming body of evidence.
Also posting: Power Line
Just days after Operation Desert Fox concluded one of Saddam's most loyal and trusted intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was dispatched to Afghanistan. He met with senior leaders from the Taliban and then with bin Laden and his cohorts on December 21.
While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.
Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture.
Joscelyn goes on to lay out the media frenzy that ensued and the claims of cooperation between the two that were made. Reports, and claims, that seem to have been conveniently forgotten between then and now. Joscelyn notes the possibility that that the global media was wrong, but the sheer number of outlets reporting and the extent of the details given do create an overwhelming body of evidence.
Also posting: Power Line
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
John Roberts Is The Nominee
FoxNews is reporting that Bush has nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Bench Memos is sure to have updates and information regarding Roberts judicial background in the next hour or so.
Jonathon Adler is happy with the choice:
If he is confirmed without too much to-do, my faith in the judicial nomination process might be restored. I recently told a liberal friend that Roberts truly is the "best available" nominee. When she asked what that meant (and wondered "if Roberts is a old white guy or worse a middle aged white guy?" I responded as follows:
John Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of Appeals in the last few years, though he was first nominated in 1991 by Bush 41. He is a "middle-aged white guy," but he is universally regarded as among the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation, bar none. He clerked for Rehnquist, was deputy SG, is a remarkable oral advocate and a sharp legal mind. He is liked and admired by all of the current justices, who regularly look forward to cases in which he is representing one of the parties because of the quality of his work. If a case is winnable, he will win it. It is a travesty he was not confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in the 1990s when first nominated. Setting aside ideology — and he has a sterling conservative reputation despite the relative lack of a paper trail — he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be.
The SCOTUS Blog has a biography of Roberts and adds:
The debate on Judge Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit (he was nominated in 2001 and confirmed in 2003) provides a preview of likely public reaction to a Supreme Court nomination. Liberal groups criticized many of the positions he argued while working in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. This report from the Alliance for Justice is representative. As this report from NARAL illustrates, pro-choice groups focused on the anti-Roe stances taken in briefs written by Roberts during his time in the Solicitor General's office. The Department of Justice's summary of the support for Judge Roberts's nomination is available here.
I have heard Roberts characterized as a "solid conservative" which, if true, is of great relief. It was rumored for a while that he would replace O'Connor with another such wishy-washy appointment. Time will tell if reports of Roberts position is accurate.
He has a rating of "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association and sounds like he will be tough to filibuster, which is not to suggest that the Dem's won't try. Again...time will tell.
UPDATE: A Stitch in Time has an intersting post on Roberts and the Kelo decision, and David Limbaugh has a dozen reasons why Roberts is an excellent choice. My favorite was the last one.
12) Democratic Underground is already going bonkers.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt knows Roberts personally and adds this:
A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.
You can look at Roberts' bio here, and here you will find the tactic that is sure to be employed in obstructing his nomination. Remember, Roberts has a "well-qualified" rating from the ABA.
Matt Margolis has a massive round-up of blog reaction.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Republican Jen, Malkin
Bench Memos is sure to have updates and information regarding Roberts judicial background in the next hour or so.
Jonathon Adler is happy with the choice:
If he is confirmed without too much to-do, my faith in the judicial nomination process might be restored. I recently told a liberal friend that Roberts truly is the "best available" nominee. When she asked what that meant (and wondered "if Roberts is a old white guy or worse a middle aged white guy?" I responded as follows:
John Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of Appeals in the last few years, though he was first nominated in 1991 by Bush 41. He is a "middle-aged white guy," but he is universally regarded as among the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation, bar none. He clerked for Rehnquist, was deputy SG, is a remarkable oral advocate and a sharp legal mind. He is liked and admired by all of the current justices, who regularly look forward to cases in which he is representing one of the parties because of the quality of his work. If a case is winnable, he will win it. It is a travesty he was not confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in the 1990s when first nominated. Setting aside ideology — and he has a sterling conservative reputation despite the relative lack of a paper trail — he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be.
The SCOTUS Blog has a biography of Roberts and adds:
The debate on Judge Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit (he was nominated in 2001 and confirmed in 2003) provides a preview of likely public reaction to a Supreme Court nomination. Liberal groups criticized many of the positions he argued while working in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. This report from the Alliance for Justice is representative. As this report from NARAL illustrates, pro-choice groups focused on the anti-Roe stances taken in briefs written by Roberts during his time in the Solicitor General's office. The Department of Justice's summary of the support for Judge Roberts's nomination is available here.
I have heard Roberts characterized as a "solid conservative" which, if true, is of great relief. It was rumored for a while that he would replace O'Connor with another such wishy-washy appointment. Time will tell if reports of Roberts position is accurate.
He has a rating of "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association and sounds like he will be tough to filibuster, which is not to suggest that the Dem's won't try. Again...time will tell.
UPDATE: A Stitch in Time has an intersting post on Roberts and the Kelo decision, and David Limbaugh has a dozen reasons why Roberts is an excellent choice. My favorite was the last one.
12) Democratic Underground is already going bonkers.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt knows Roberts personally and adds this:
A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.
You can look at Roberts' bio here, and here you will find the tactic that is sure to be employed in obstructing his nomination. Remember, Roberts has a "well-qualified" rating from the ABA.
Matt Margolis has a massive round-up of blog reaction.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Republican Jen, Malkin
Will It Be Clement?
UPDATE: This post is now entirely moot. Bush has made his choice.
President Bush appears to have picked a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Speculation is running wild that the nominee will be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
A little birdy has told Hugh Hewitt to start digging up background on Clement, Drudge is reporting that the possibilities include many besides Clement, and Bench Memos has this:
FOX News has learned that Clement has been interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she is the choice for the high court.
Asked whether he expected an announcement, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, "I don't know, but I don't think so."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan would say only: "The president is closer today than he was yesterday on naming a nominee,"
Robert Alt adds:
Just a couple of hours ago, I was convinced that Clement was going to be the pick, based not simply on the popular sentiment, but on a series of conversations Ive had with people in positions to know things over the past few days. But in the last couple of hours, a number of people I trust have expressed that they are now less than convinced, thinking that perhaps Bush will pull a last minute switch. There is even some suggestion that the nominee might not be at the White House when he makes the announcement tonight (which does not make much sense to me, given the prime time spectacle of the thing). There is still some last minute candidate promotion going on, and I note that Judge Alice Batchelder from the Sixth Circuit not only received high praise from Christopher Flannery today on NRO, but that Peter Schramm of the Ashbrook Center likewise has joined the fray in making the case for Batchelder.
It looks like it is still anybody's guess, but Clement still appears to be the odds-on favorite. One thing that seems crystal clear is that Bush will nominate a woman. And, as we all well know, that woman will be fought tooth and nail be the Democratic Party, regardless of who she is.
In fact, as Protein Wisdom notes, Barbara Boxer and others may be already gearing up.
But how likely is that? On FOXNews today, Barbara Boxer described “extraordinary circumstances”—the requisite standard for overriding the judicial compromise agreement—as being anything that would upset established law and “roll-back rights,” among them “workers rights,” “environmental legislation,” and “privacy rights.” Which would seem to suggest that at least some Democrats will push for a filibuster in the event that George Bush nominates someone other than Ralph Nader.
Personally, I think there would be an attempt to filibuster even if Bush nominated Jesus Christ himself. Check that...Jesus would cause heads to explode. He is far too controversial.
UPDATE: Malkin links an ABC News article claiming that Clement is not the choice.
An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."
Check Malkin to see who is left.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Power Line
President Bush appears to have picked a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Speculation is running wild that the nominee will be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.A little birdy has told Hugh Hewitt to start digging up background on Clement, Drudge is reporting that the possibilities include many besides Clement, and Bench Memos has this:
FOX News has learned that Clement has been interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she is the choice for the high court.
Asked whether he expected an announcement, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, "I don't know, but I don't think so."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan would say only: "The president is closer today than he was yesterday on naming a nominee,"
Robert Alt adds:
Just a couple of hours ago, I was convinced that Clement was going to be the pick, based not simply on the popular sentiment, but on a series of conversations Ive had with people in positions to know things over the past few days. But in the last couple of hours, a number of people I trust have expressed that they are now less than convinced, thinking that perhaps Bush will pull a last minute switch. There is even some suggestion that the nominee might not be at the White House when he makes the announcement tonight (which does not make much sense to me, given the prime time spectacle of the thing). There is still some last minute candidate promotion going on, and I note that Judge Alice Batchelder from the Sixth Circuit not only received high praise from Christopher Flannery today on NRO, but that Peter Schramm of the Ashbrook Center likewise has joined the fray in making the case for Batchelder.
It looks like it is still anybody's guess, but Clement still appears to be the odds-on favorite. One thing that seems crystal clear is that Bush will nominate a woman. And, as we all well know, that woman will be fought tooth and nail be the Democratic Party, regardless of who she is.
In fact, as Protein Wisdom notes, Barbara Boxer and others may be already gearing up.
But how likely is that? On FOXNews today, Barbara Boxer described “extraordinary circumstances”—the requisite standard for overriding the judicial compromise agreement—as being anything that would upset established law and “roll-back rights,” among them “workers rights,” “environmental legislation,” and “privacy rights.” Which would seem to suggest that at least some Democrats will push for a filibuster in the event that George Bush nominates someone other than Ralph Nader.
Personally, I think there would be an attempt to filibuster even if Bush nominated Jesus Christ himself. Check that...Jesus would cause heads to explode. He is far too controversial.
UPDATE: Malkin links an ABC News article claiming that Clement is not the choice.
An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."
Check Malkin to see who is left.
Also posting: Right Side of the Rainbow, Power Line
Monday, July 18, 2005
Schumer Would Prefer There Was No History
Tigerhawk links an interesting New York Sun piece, although I would disagree with it's assertion that the Republican Party has switched positions on CIA leaks. The party may have at one time wanted to criminalize such leaks, but in the Rove-Plame case are simply following the law as it was written in 1982. An effort to make that law more strict was vetoed by Clinton just before he left office. So, I guess if you can't beat them you really have no choice but to join them.
To say that the Republican Party is acting hypocritically is to suggest that there is a seperate set of laws applying only to Republicans.
The blathering Senator Schumer has held numerous press conferences this week on the matter, at least one of which included Yellowcake Joe right there on the stage. Schumer is, of course, calling for Rove's security clearence to be stripped. But the Sun is pointing out that his position has changed drastically since the law was passed in 1982.
...in 1982 Mr. Schumer was one of 32 House members who voted against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at the center of the investigation that has swept up Mr. Rove and other White House officials.
A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Israel Klein, said the senator has been consistent. "Senator Schumer, who has been a longtime advocate for whistle-blower rights, felt that the initial law that was passed was a little bit too broad," Mr. Klein said.
Mr. Schumer also denounced the anti-leak legislation Congress passed in 2000. "We should never forget that one of the core purposes of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from suppressing embarrassing information, not criminalizing its release," the senator said. He complained that the measure "would require all current and past government officials to guess at what might be illegal, while the threat of serious jail time hangs over their heads."
Too bad, for Schumer, that the oppressive legislation didn't pass muster with Clinton. He might actually have a leg to stand on in this situation. No doubt, at the time, Schumer opposed the legislation with the idea that someday it might protect a hapless Democrat, and never envisioned that it would be a Republican who would find himself in its crosshairs.
Perhaps Schumer could propose legislation calling for the funding of time machine research so he wouldn't sound like such a politically motivated whiner today.
To say that the Republican Party is acting hypocritically is to suggest that there is a seperate set of laws applying only to Republicans.
The blathering Senator Schumer has held numerous press conferences this week on the matter, at least one of which included Yellowcake Joe right there on the stage. Schumer is, of course, calling for Rove's security clearence to be stripped. But the Sun is pointing out that his position has changed drastically since the law was passed in 1982.
...in 1982 Mr. Schumer was one of 32 House members who voted against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at the center of the investigation that has swept up Mr. Rove and other White House officials.
A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Israel Klein, said the senator has been consistent. "Senator Schumer, who has been a longtime advocate for whistle-blower rights, felt that the initial law that was passed was a little bit too broad," Mr. Klein said.
Mr. Schumer also denounced the anti-leak legislation Congress passed in 2000. "We should never forget that one of the core purposes of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from suppressing embarrassing information, not criminalizing its release," the senator said. He complained that the measure "would require all current and past government officials to guess at what might be illegal, while the threat of serious jail time hangs over their heads."
Too bad, for Schumer, that the oppressive legislation didn't pass muster with Clinton. He might actually have a leg to stand on in this situation. No doubt, at the time, Schumer opposed the legislation with the idea that someday it might protect a hapless Democrat, and never envisioned that it would be a Republican who would find himself in its crosshairs.
Perhaps Schumer could propose legislation calling for the funding of time machine research so he wouldn't sound like such a politically motivated whiner today.
Fatwahs Come to the Blogosphere
Chris Byrne of Anarchangel has had an honest-to-Allah fatwa issued against him and Dr. Rusty Shackleford is extremely jealous. I mean hey, it's not like he hasn't tried. In all seriousness though, this would scare the absolute crap out of me.
The FBI has been unable to tell me of any actionable threat, however they beleive that the threat is real. They have warned me to take the standard anti-terrorist precautions, suitable for Bogota or South Africa not Phoenix.
They are also contacting the people on the list that was distributed, including my mother, my stepfather and step siblings, and the people who worked on Team Infidel with me.
I've actually had a few conversations with close friends about this very possibility, although I don't flatter myself that crazy Islamic militants would waste their time on little old me. Nevertheless, it is a rather sobering reality.
Then again, I get the impression that Byrne has been preparing for this eventuality and is more than a little prepared.
If you attempt to do anything to me, to my friends, to anyone I care about; I WILL KILL YOU. I will not simply defend myself, I WILL kill you, and while you are dying I will piss on you.
I have jsut rolled all my bullets in pig fat. I'm going to start carying around pieces of swine flesh with me; and I'll shove them into your wounds, then force feed them to you. Then I'll cut your cock and balls off and shove them down your throat.
Oh, there's more. And, lest there be any doubt as to Byrne's willingness and ability to lather pig fat on the wounds of dying religious fanatics, he has posted this photo.
The FBI has been unable to tell me of any actionable threat, however they beleive that the threat is real. They have warned me to take the standard anti-terrorist precautions, suitable for Bogota or South Africa not Phoenix.
They are also contacting the people on the list that was distributed, including my mother, my stepfather and step siblings, and the people who worked on Team Infidel with me.
I've actually had a few conversations with close friends about this very possibility, although I don't flatter myself that crazy Islamic militants would waste their time on little old me. Nevertheless, it is a rather sobering reality.
Then again, I get the impression that Byrne has been preparing for this eventuality and is more than a little prepared.
If you attempt to do anything to me, to my friends, to anyone I care about; I WILL KILL YOU. I will not simply defend myself, I WILL kill you, and while you are dying I will piss on you.
I have jsut rolled all my bullets in pig fat. I'm going to start carying around pieces of swine flesh with me; and I'll shove them into your wounds, then force feed them to you. Then I'll cut your cock and balls off and shove them down your throat.
Oh, there's more. And, lest there be any doubt as to Byrne's willingness and ability to lather pig fat on the wounds of dying religious fanatics, he has posted this photo.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Ice Cream On a Hot Summer Day
You really have to hand it to Captain Ed, who has been on the Rove-Plame situation like blowflies on a rotting corpse. The latest revelation in the controversy (Ed: can we really call it that anymore?) is Matt Cooper's verification of the NYT story from last week, in which Cooper was reported to have called Rove, not the other way around.
In his 2 1/2 hour testimony last Wednesday before the grand jury investigating the CIA leak case, TIME White House correspondent Matthew Cooper testified that when he called White House political advisor Karl Rove the week of July 6, 2003, Rove did not reveal Joe Wilson’s wife’s name and did not reveal her covert status to Cooper. But he did say that Wilson’s wife works at the “Agency on WMD.” This was the first time Cooper had ever heard of Wilson’s wife...
Cooper writes that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald “asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that (Valerie) Plame worked at the CIA.” Cooper says he testified that Rove did not.
Cooper also writes about his August 2004 testimony before the grand jury relating to his conversation with Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Cooper writes that, like Rove, Libby never used Plame’s name or indicated that her status was covert and he never told Cooper that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated. On background, Cooper had asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending him to Niger. Libby answered with words to the effect of “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”
I would agree with the Captain that this episode grows increasingly embarrassing for the media. In fact, when you strip away every thing else from the story, the media and the left still had that tenuous "revenge factor" from which to conclude that this is a power hungry administration bent on destroying all political enemies. That theory, like all the others in this case, seem to be melting away like ice cream on a hot summer day.
In other Rove-Plame news, Cooper is framing his use of the term "double super secret background" as a "bit of humor" based on Animal House.
AP is publishing e-mails between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that would seem to bolster claims by the White House that Rove was simply warning Cooper and Time Magazine from swallowing Wilson's op-ed whole.
"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.
"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
In his 2 1/2 hour testimony last Wednesday before the grand jury investigating the CIA leak case, TIME White House correspondent Matthew Cooper testified that when he called White House political advisor Karl Rove the week of July 6, 2003, Rove did not reveal Joe Wilson’s wife’s name and did not reveal her covert status to Cooper. But he did say that Wilson’s wife works at the “Agency on WMD.” This was the first time Cooper had ever heard of Wilson’s wife...
Cooper writes that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald “asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that (Valerie) Plame worked at the CIA.” Cooper says he testified that Rove did not.
Cooper also writes about his August 2004 testimony before the grand jury relating to his conversation with Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Cooper writes that, like Rove, Libby never used Plame’s name or indicated that her status was covert and he never told Cooper that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated. On background, Cooper had asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending him to Niger. Libby answered with words to the effect of “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”
I would agree with the Captain that this episode grows increasingly embarrassing for the media. In fact, when you strip away every thing else from the story, the media and the left still had that tenuous "revenge factor" from which to conclude that this is a power hungry administration bent on destroying all political enemies. That theory, like all the others in this case, seem to be melting away like ice cream on a hot summer day.
In other Rove-Plame news, Cooper is framing his use of the term "double super secret background" as a "bit of humor" based on Animal House.
AP is publishing e-mails between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that would seem to bolster claims by the White House that Rove was simply warning Cooper and Time Magazine from swallowing Wilson's op-ed whole.
"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.
"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Parochial Politics
Is anyone tired of the Rove-Plame story yet? I mean seriously, what are we talking about here? A CIA analyist who was anything but covert, nepotism, a politically motivated op-ed farce, and the malcontents of Moveon, who don't have the sense to know that their strings are being pulled by an ultra-rich, economic rapist.
Mark Steyn sums up the situation pretty well in his latest offering.
What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government. If the left's view of the world is now so insanely upside-down that that's the side they want to be on, good for them. But ''leaking'' the name of Wilson's wife and promoter within the CIA didn't ''endanger her life'' or ''compromise her mission.'' Au contraire, exposing the nature of this fraudulent, compromised mission might conceivably prevent the American people having their lives endangered.
I would disagree with Steyn on one small point. It would appear that Plame's "mission" was indeed "compromised." If this is the stuff that bad Hollywood movies are made of, Rove would have to be a cast as the protagonist and ultimately, the hero. Despite Hollywood's seeming obsession with never again having another original thought, i.e. Bewitched, Herbie: Fully Loaded, The Dukes of Hazzard, and The Bad News Bears, I think we can safely assume that "Yellowcake Joe" is one movie that we will never see.
Mark Steyn sums up the situation pretty well in his latest offering.
What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government. If the left's view of the world is now so insanely upside-down that that's the side they want to be on, good for them. But ''leaking'' the name of Wilson's wife and promoter within the CIA didn't ''endanger her life'' or ''compromise her mission.'' Au contraire, exposing the nature of this fraudulent, compromised mission might conceivably prevent the American people having their lives endangered.
I would disagree with Steyn on one small point. It would appear that Plame's "mission" was indeed "compromised." If this is the stuff that bad Hollywood movies are made of, Rove would have to be a cast as the protagonist and ultimately, the hero. Despite Hollywood's seeming obsession with never again having another original thought, i.e. Bewitched, Herbie: Fully Loaded, The Dukes of Hazzard, and The Bad News Bears, I think we can safely assume that "Yellowcake Joe" is one movie that we will never see.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Humor...From National Review?
Eric Pfieffer of National Review braved the Che Geuvara t-shirts and dreadlocks of the Moveon protest in front of the White House, to heroically bring back a report to the sheeple on how it went.
In reading the piece, I noticed something curious. There seems to be a central brain, if you will, which Moveon members may query anytime they face a tough question fro ma reality-based person, like Pfeiffer.
When it was my turn to speak, I asked Matzzie if it was fair for MoveOn to be demanding Rove’s termination when he had not even been formally accused, let alone found guilty, of any wrongdoing. Matzzie looked irritated and said, “I have to go speak to the group," before hustling into the crowd of protesters who had begun moving from the White House gates back onto Pennsylvania Avenue. Just when I thought I had missed my opportunity, Mattzie reemerged, pointed a finger at me and shouted, “He needs to be held accountable! Now!" before disappearing back into the crowd.
No doubt to go thank central brain for the timely and substantive answer.
Another thing I noticed was the difficulty the protestors seem to have collecting their thoughts and staying on topic.
As the protesters encircled Mattzie with shouts of “Whose house? Our house!” the MoveOn operative waved a MoveOn press release in the air then repeated his talking points to the crowd. Mattzie seemed to struggle with his words, stumbling over the line about Rove and patriotism, before finding the strength to yell, “Rove must go!” Meanwhile, near the back of the crowd a small group had decided to take the protest in a different direction. I heard cries of “Bush’s Iraq policy…” before a MoveOn organizer quickly rushed to the scene and put the demonstrators back on message.
And thus...talking points were born. This a fun read and worthy of a Saturday afternoon.
Also posting: Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy
In reading the piece, I noticed something curious. There seems to be a central brain, if you will, which Moveon members may query anytime they face a tough question fro ma reality-based person, like Pfeiffer.
When it was my turn to speak, I asked Matzzie if it was fair for MoveOn to be demanding Rove’s termination when he had not even been formally accused, let alone found guilty, of any wrongdoing. Matzzie looked irritated and said, “I have to go speak to the group," before hustling into the crowd of protesters who had begun moving from the White House gates back onto Pennsylvania Avenue. Just when I thought I had missed my opportunity, Mattzie reemerged, pointed a finger at me and shouted, “He needs to be held accountable! Now!" before disappearing back into the crowd.
No doubt to go thank central brain for the timely and substantive answer.
Another thing I noticed was the difficulty the protestors seem to have collecting their thoughts and staying on topic.
As the protesters encircled Mattzie with shouts of “Whose house? Our house!” the MoveOn operative waved a MoveOn press release in the air then repeated his talking points to the crowd. Mattzie seemed to struggle with his words, stumbling over the line about Rove and patriotism, before finding the strength to yell, “Rove must go!” Meanwhile, near the back of the crowd a small group had decided to take the protest in a different direction. I heard cries of “Bush’s Iraq policy…” before a MoveOn organizer quickly rushed to the scene and put the demonstrators back on message.
And thus...talking points were born. This a fun read and worthy of a Saturday afternoon.
Also posting: Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy
VDH Explores the Myths of the Left
Victor Davis Hanson has a good piece in the National Review about the struggles between right and left in a post 9/11 world. He discusses the "alternative narrative" that has been used by the left to undermine the war; that America is at fault, that we unfairly favor Israel, or that we have mistreated muslims in the larger scope of things.
Hanson explores those charges and others, and dispels them, by simply being cognizant of history.
Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade. (Ed: reverse emphasis is Hanson's)
Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.
If the larger picture is absorbed, bin Laden's creed may be accurately described as, "the enemy of my enemy...is my enemy."
Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.
He goes on. Be sure to read the whole thing.
Hanson explores those charges and others, and dispels them, by simply being cognizant of history.
Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade. (Ed: reverse emphasis is Hanson's)
Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.
If the larger picture is absorbed, bin Laden's creed may be accurately described as, "the enemy of my enemy...is my enemy."
Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.
He goes on. Be sure to read the whole thing.
"Screw Abstinence" Was Fun For The Whole Family
The Screw Abstinence Party was held in Seattle this week, and though uptight Republicans condemned the party, Liberal Larry was actually there. All of the "reactionaries" out there can put the razor blades down. This was a party for the whole family.
For the teens, there was the "Kids are Going to Do it Anyway" booth, where young boys and girls were encouraged to explore their sexuality in a clean, safe environment away from the prying eyes of their fuddy-duddy parents. Unlike what Bush and Co. preach in their abstinence-only sex-ed programs, our young people must learn that human sexuality is a beautiful thing and experimentation is healthy and completely natural. Do we demand that monkeys remain monogamous? Do we ask dogs humping in the front yard to hold off until marriage? Of course not. So why do we ask it of our own kids?
Wait under you read about the "It's a Lousy World" gondola ride for the kiddies. I mean really, who ever said abortion had to be a "bad" thing?
For the teens, there was the "Kids are Going to Do it Anyway" booth, where young boys and girls were encouraged to explore their sexuality in a clean, safe environment away from the prying eyes of their fuddy-duddy parents. Unlike what Bush and Co. preach in their abstinence-only sex-ed programs, our young people must learn that human sexuality is a beautiful thing and experimentation is healthy and completely natural. Do we demand that monkeys remain monogamous? Do we ask dogs humping in the front yard to hold off until marriage? Of course not. So why do we ask it of our own kids?
Wait under you read about the "It's a Lousy World" gondola ride for the kiddies. I mean really, who ever said abortion had to be a "bad" thing?
Friday, July 15, 2005
Abortion Out Of Vogue In Minnesota
The Star Tribune reported Wednesday that the State of Minnesota has dropped below 14,000 abortions annually for the first time since 1975.
Naturally, the two sides of the issue disagree on the cause.
"One of our great hopes in passing Woman's Right to Know was that more pregnant women would make an informed decision not to abort their babies, and this is clearly happening," said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
But Tina Smith of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota notes that the numbers have been dropping for years. She said one of the keys is providing access to birth control. "That's what Planned Parenthood does every single day," she said.
Given that "birth control" is widely regarded as the primary reason for having an abortion, perhaps Smith should have said "alternative" forms of birth control. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood profits from the practice of abortion. With business down, does anyone suppose an advertising blitz is in the works?
Naturally, the two sides of the issue disagree on the cause.
"One of our great hopes in passing Woman's Right to Know was that more pregnant women would make an informed decision not to abort their babies, and this is clearly happening," said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
But Tina Smith of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota notes that the numbers have been dropping for years. She said one of the keys is providing access to birth control. "That's what Planned Parenthood does every single day," she said.
Given that "birth control" is widely regarded as the primary reason for having an abortion, perhaps Smith should have said "alternative" forms of birth control. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood profits from the practice of abortion. With business down, does anyone suppose an advertising blitz is in the works?
Potential Bombshell in Rove-Plame
Captain Ed is reporting that the NYT has a story for today claiming that it is Novak who told Rove about Plame, not the other way around. So before you read about the hysterical Kerry connection, digest this:
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
The Captain expounds:
...it turns out that Novak called Rove. Just like the earlier revelation about Rove's conversation with Cooper, Novak called Rove and started out by asking Rove about a completely different subject. He wanted a comment about the promotion of a Janet Reno aide to a key counterterrorism job at the White House, and only filled Rove in on Plame after getting Rove's reaction to his initial query.
That flies in the face of any notion that Rove set out to damage Wilson or Plame.
If true, this could pretty much sink Rove-Plame. About the only thing the left had left was the possibility that Rove set out to "out" Plame. If both Novak and Cooper initiated the phone calls, on unrelated matters, there is no conspiracy.
So who is Judith Miller protecting. Could it be Novak? Does it even matter?
UPDATE: Mark in Mexico and Not Another Right Wing Blog have the skinny on the Wolf Blitzer-Joe Wilson interview, in which Wilson drops yet another bombshell.
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
That would seem to be case closed wouldn't it?
UPDATE: Liberal Larry puts this national security nightmare in perspective.
The overlying importance of this whole Plamegate scandal is that it perfectly illustrates how far the Republicans will go to destroy a true American hero. We saw it when they invented a group of phony Veterans known as "The Swift Boat Liars" to besmirch the heroism of Sen. John Kerry, a thrice-wounded Vietnam vet with eight Purple Hearts, 17 Medals of Honor, and a Cap'n Crunch Super Sailor Badge with clusters.
And Lileks adds his two cents, which is actually worth much more, of course.
In any case I’m amused how this Scandal seems disconnected from the issue of yellowcake in light of the post 9/11 atmosphere. Given all the tales in the 90s about the threat Saddam faced – a threat everyone accepted when Clinton was launching strikes and pulling serious faces – the idea that the whole Niger-yellowcake nexus should have gotten a big shrug in 2002, when the WTC rubble still smoked, seems to be another act of willful amnesia. If anyone in 02 could have thought we’d be parsing who said what about which agent re a politically motivated rewrite of the intel, they’d have heaved a sigh of relief: so we didn’t get hit again.
UPDATE: The Washington Times adds the coup de grace:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
It would seem to me that this entire story is about to go the way of the dodo bird. If Plame is not a covert agent than this whole exercise is academic. Without that charge the rest fall apart. Rove could have given Osama Bin Laden Plame's actual name and it still wouldn't be a crime.
Also posting: Sister Toldja, Everything I Know is Wrong, Right Wing News, Malkin
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
The Captain expounds:
...it turns out that Novak called Rove. Just like the earlier revelation about Rove's conversation with Cooper, Novak called Rove and started out by asking Rove about a completely different subject. He wanted a comment about the promotion of a Janet Reno aide to a key counterterrorism job at the White House, and only filled Rove in on Plame after getting Rove's reaction to his initial query.
That flies in the face of any notion that Rove set out to damage Wilson or Plame.
If true, this could pretty much sink Rove-Plame. About the only thing the left had left was the possibility that Rove set out to "out" Plame. If both Novak and Cooper initiated the phone calls, on unrelated matters, there is no conspiracy.
So who is Judith Miller protecting. Could it be Novak? Does it even matter?
UPDATE: Mark in Mexico and Not Another Right Wing Blog have the skinny on the Wolf Blitzer-Joe Wilson interview, in which Wilson drops yet another bombshell.
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
That would seem to be case closed wouldn't it?
UPDATE: Liberal Larry puts this national security nightmare in perspective.
The overlying importance of this whole Plamegate scandal is that it perfectly illustrates how far the Republicans will go to destroy a true American hero. We saw it when they invented a group of phony Veterans known as "The Swift Boat Liars" to besmirch the heroism of Sen. John Kerry, a thrice-wounded Vietnam vet with eight Purple Hearts, 17 Medals of Honor, and a Cap'n Crunch Super Sailor Badge with clusters.
And Lileks adds his two cents, which is actually worth much more, of course.
In any case I’m amused how this Scandal seems disconnected from the issue of yellowcake in light of the post 9/11 atmosphere. Given all the tales in the 90s about the threat Saddam faced – a threat everyone accepted when Clinton was launching strikes and pulling serious faces – the idea that the whole Niger-yellowcake nexus should have gotten a big shrug in 2002, when the WTC rubble still smoked, seems to be another act of willful amnesia. If anyone in 02 could have thought we’d be parsing who said what about which agent re a politically motivated rewrite of the intel, they’d have heaved a sigh of relief: so we didn’t get hit again.
UPDATE: The Washington Times adds the coup de grace:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
It would seem to me that this entire story is about to go the way of the dodo bird. If Plame is not a covert agent than this whole exercise is academic. Without that charge the rest fall apart. Rove could have given Osama Bin Laden Plame's actual name and it still wouldn't be a crime.
Also posting: Sister Toldja, Everything I Know is Wrong, Right Wing News, Malkin
Rove-Plame is Officially Hysterical
Thanks to Newsmax I feel like an ass. How in Great Damian's beard could I have forgotten about this.Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.
In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.
"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."
Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.
"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.
The general rule is, if the Democrats accuse you of something, there is always, always, a great example somewhere is recent history, some parallel issue, that illustrates the utter hypocricy of their outrage and hysteria. What can I say? Sandy Berger threw me a curve ball and I forgot to look past it.
Kerry outed an honest-to-goodness covert agent during the Bolton hearings, directly and in public, against the express consent of the C.I.A. The Rove-Plame scandal is officially hysterical. And when I say hysterical, I mean hy-ste-ri-ca-l.
Fast forward to the present and Kerry is calling for Rove's head just like everybody else on the left. This is from his official statement on the matter.
...the question is what are the White House's fundamental values? Is it the value of day-to-day politics, the value of political advice? Is the value of Karl Rove's position greater than the value of the national security of our country? Is he more important than the protection of the identity of CIA agents or even George Bush's own word?
"The White House's credibility is at issue here, and I believe very clearly that Karl Rove ought to be fired."
Wow. He sounds serious. But he defended his "outing" of Armstrong in April by with the "he did it too" defense, noting that Senator Richard Luger had made the same reply, and concluded:
...besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."
Armstrong's name had been in the press a couple of years prior, much as Valerie Plame's has appeared. The difference is that Armstrong had officially changed tasks within the C.I.A and was working covertly at the time of the Bolton hearings.
Incidentally, Kerry's press release calling for Rove to be fired is titled "America's National Security - Not Karl Rove's Job Security - Should be Administration's Only Priority."
Oh, great irony.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Osama Losing His Constituency
In the wake of news that Iraqi's are standing up for themselves and protesting the use of terrorism in their counrty, comes another story that bodes well for the war on terror. This one is from Captain Ed, who cites poll data that Osama Bin Laden's support in the Middle East is dwindling fast.
Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some key Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released today.
In a striking finding, predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle East and Asian countries are also as alarmed as Western nations about Islamic extremism, which is now seen as a threat in their own nations too, the poll found...
Compared with previous surveys, the new poll also found growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims surveyed now say democracy can work in their countries and is not just a political system for the West. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco and the highest score at 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey, where significant numbers were unsure.
"They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party to participate in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and director of the project. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."
Captain Ed adds:
This demonstrates that Bush's policies of attacking terrorists where they have hidden themselves and demanding the liberalization of the Arabic world has had a huge, positive impact.
Words rather escape me on this one. While the MSM continues to report only isolated incidents of bad news in Iraq, there appears to be a quiet revolution under way all over the realm. And, make no mistake, democracy is the key to winning the war.
A free people are not driven to act out using terrorism as they generally feel a much greater satisfaction in their own lives, i.e., a sense of control over their destiny and a voice for change in their own country. Look at all the left wing loonies in this country. Were we in some despotic nation they might be driven to express their frustration as a non-factor in dangerous and violent ways.
But not even the most disenchanted among us is going to give up lattes and ginko bilobo for a sinlge act of suicidal insanity. At least...not yet.
Also posting: Weapons of Mass Destruction, Obsidian Wings, Angry in the Great White North
Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some key Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released today.
In a striking finding, predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle East and Asian countries are also as alarmed as Western nations about Islamic extremism, which is now seen as a threat in their own nations too, the poll found...
Compared with previous surveys, the new poll also found growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims surveyed now say democracy can work in their countries and is not just a political system for the West. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco and the highest score at 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey, where significant numbers were unsure.
"They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party to participate in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and director of the project. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."
Captain Ed adds:
This demonstrates that Bush's policies of attacking terrorists where they have hidden themselves and demanding the liberalization of the Arabic world has had a huge, positive impact.
Words rather escape me on this one. While the MSM continues to report only isolated incidents of bad news in Iraq, there appears to be a quiet revolution under way all over the realm. And, make no mistake, democracy is the key to winning the war.
A free people are not driven to act out using terrorism as they generally feel a much greater satisfaction in their own lives, i.e., a sense of control over their destiny and a voice for change in their own country. Look at all the left wing loonies in this country. Were we in some despotic nation they might be driven to express their frustration as a non-factor in dangerous and violent ways.
But not even the most disenchanted among us is going to give up lattes and ginko bilobo for a sinlge act of suicidal insanity. At least...not yet.
Also posting: Weapons of Mass Destruction, Obsidian Wings, Angry in the Great White North
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)