Do you ever get the impression that every time the Mother Earth worhippers hold a convention, we get a rash of end-of-the-world Global Warming stories?
The least we could expect though, is that they stay on message. Check out these two headlines regarding dire predictions for Europe, both of which ran on Drudge over the last few days.
Global warming set to hit Europe badly: environment agency
Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
With any luck, the two will balance each other out and things won't change much at all.
The first article issues this certainty:
In the 20th century, the average global temperature rose 0.7 C (1.25 F) as a result of burning coal, gas and coal -- the carbon fuels that are mainly to blame for the rise.
Actually, it's about .45 C, and the article fails to note that the bulk of that warming took place in the first half of the century, before the bulk of that carbon fuel burning took place.
By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)
In fact, the dire prediction of massive global warming article is pretty much useless in its entirety, except to scare people into forcing the US into signing the Kyoto Accords.
The second article is slightly less useless, as the scientists only make conjectures about the reasons for the cooling of ocean currents and cannot explain if it is an anomoly or a long-term shift. All though, are willing to go on record as saying that it is probably global warming. It isn't until the final paragraph that these facts are given:
The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.
None of the scientists in the article had any idea how early societies managed to unseat the ruling neo-con governments in power at the time in order to affect sweeping reforms which ultimately turned the tide not once, but twice, and rescue the climate from prehistoric SUV's, and evil loin-cloth wearing industrialists.
The Global Warming debate is rapidly turning into a joke. There is no normal climate and the earth has been in a constant state of flux since the moment it came to be. There is nothing stable about it, it changes constantly.
Nevertheless, I predict we will continue to be bombarded with global armegeddon stories until Mother Earth Mass concludes in a couple of weeks. And here I thought we would get a much earned reprieve once the temperature dropped below 30 F.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
‘Bush lied’ is pure politics
This week's column is a response to a column by Senator Mark Dayton that ran a couple of weeks ago.
With all due respect to Sen. Dayton, his column “On the closed-door session...” (11/16/05) was long on Democrat Martyrdom Syndrome but a bit short on useful information. For starters, he called the session “necessary to prompt an investigation stalled for 20 months.”
The investigation in question is designed to discover who, if anyone, exaggerated pre-war intelligence. To eliminate partisanship, committee chair Pat Roberts devised a process of evaluating statements from the administration and congress anonymously. Democrats so far refuse to take part in that evaluation unless speakers are identified.
What are they hiding from? Perhaps statements like these:
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction.”-Ted Kennedy
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology...”-Nancy Pelosi
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”-Al Gore
Democrats have rightly proclaimed Hussein a menace since the mid 90s. Unfortunately, since they have embraced the “Bush lied” hysterics, they can ill afford it to be known. The closed session Dayton refers to as “necessary” was nothing more than a smoke screen to that end.
Dayton also refers to the Jan. 2003 State of the Union, in which Bush claimed Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and states that Bush “misinformed” the nation on that day.
In fact, not only did the U.S. believe Iraq was seeking uranium, so did the English, the French, and even a former Prime Minister of Niger. When Joe Wilson returned home from Niger, the initial CIA reaction to his now infamous report was that it bolstered, not contradicted, previous intelligence.
To this day, the Butler report maintains that Iraq sought uranium and calls Bush’s reference to that search “well-founded.” Butler’s assessment of that likelihood is shared by Dayton’s own Senate Intelligence Committee.
The CIA did ultimately change its mind about the Niger story, saying “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” That was June, 2003, five months after Bush’s speech.
That is the essence of the case against Bush. He “lied” when he reported intelligence that continues to be bolstered by Butler and the SIC, intelligence that was cleared by the CIA at the time; because CIA changed its mind five months after the fact.
For obvious reasons, that incoherent rationale has been abridged to read “Bush lied.” It would be embarrassing to have to explain the charge in detail. Thank goodness for the supporters of this theme, the media rarely asks that they do.
The “Bush lied” mantra is pure politics and does not stand up to honest scrutiny. Multiple bi-partisan commissions have concluded that it is not the case. On the subject of who had access to what, the Silverman-Robb commission even found that Bush may have actually downplayed the intelligence to congress and not the opposite.
The truth is out there for anyone to discover. Unfortunately, rather than contribute, our own Sen. Dayton chooses instead to pay homage to the unhinged. In doing so, he misleads the state and perpetuates myths that serve no purpose other than to rewrite history, painting his own party in a more favorable light.
With all due respect to Sen. Dayton, his column “On the closed-door session...” (11/16/05) was long on Democrat Martyrdom Syndrome but a bit short on useful information. For starters, he called the session “necessary to prompt an investigation stalled for 20 months.”
The investigation in question is designed to discover who, if anyone, exaggerated pre-war intelligence. To eliminate partisanship, committee chair Pat Roberts devised a process of evaluating statements from the administration and congress anonymously. Democrats so far refuse to take part in that evaluation unless speakers are identified.
What are they hiding from? Perhaps statements like these:
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction.”-Ted Kennedy
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology...”-Nancy Pelosi
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”-Al Gore
Democrats have rightly proclaimed Hussein a menace since the mid 90s. Unfortunately, since they have embraced the “Bush lied” hysterics, they can ill afford it to be known. The closed session Dayton refers to as “necessary” was nothing more than a smoke screen to that end.
Dayton also refers to the Jan. 2003 State of the Union, in which Bush claimed Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and states that Bush “misinformed” the nation on that day.
In fact, not only did the U.S. believe Iraq was seeking uranium, so did the English, the French, and even a former Prime Minister of Niger. When Joe Wilson returned home from Niger, the initial CIA reaction to his now infamous report was that it bolstered, not contradicted, previous intelligence.
To this day, the Butler report maintains that Iraq sought uranium and calls Bush’s reference to that search “well-founded.” Butler’s assessment of that likelihood is shared by Dayton’s own Senate Intelligence Committee.
The CIA did ultimately change its mind about the Niger story, saying “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” That was June, 2003, five months after Bush’s speech.
That is the essence of the case against Bush. He “lied” when he reported intelligence that continues to be bolstered by Butler and the SIC, intelligence that was cleared by the CIA at the time; because CIA changed its mind five months after the fact.
For obvious reasons, that incoherent rationale has been abridged to read “Bush lied.” It would be embarrassing to have to explain the charge in detail. Thank goodness for the supporters of this theme, the media rarely asks that they do.
The “Bush lied” mantra is pure politics and does not stand up to honest scrutiny. Multiple bi-partisan commissions have concluded that it is not the case. On the subject of who had access to what, the Silverman-Robb commission even found that Bush may have actually downplayed the intelligence to congress and not the opposite.
The truth is out there for anyone to discover. Unfortunately, rather than contribute, our own Sen. Dayton chooses instead to pay homage to the unhinged. In doing so, he misleads the state and perpetuates myths that serve no purpose other than to rewrite history, painting his own party in a more favorable light.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Is This the Real Story of the American Military?
On the same day that Ted Rall slimes the American military, it was nice to run across this study from antimedia, calculating the true number of Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of the "occupation" at less than 1,000.
The study is based on the numbers published by Iraq Body Count (pdf), which concluded that over 24,000 civilians were killed, and the study was intended to prove that the big bad American forces were indiscriminately killing civilians en masse.
But Dan Hallagan points out that Iraq Body Count's numbers don't represent an accurate cross section of the Iraqi population. Hallagan theorizes that, based on the indiscriminate nature of colatteral damage, the civilian casualty rate should at least resemble Iraqi populations of men, women, adults, and children. The numbers agreed upon by Iraq Body Count don't even come close.
Hallagan projects Iraq Body Count's numbers against population statistics to arrive at the conclusion that an inordinate amount of adult males are included in the totals. Once the large amount of extra adult males are removed from the equation in order that the total of adult male civilian casualties reflects the rates of all of the other population subgroups (women and children), the amount of true casualties is reduced to 7,976 killed by all combatants. Casualties by American forces only are further reduced to 3,682.
As most of those 3,682 were a result of the initial invasion, Hallagan concludes that less than a thousand true civilians have been killed as a direct result of American action. And, while American caused casualties have for the most part remained very low since the "occupation," civilian deaths caused by terrorists occur at a rate ten times higher.
I went over the math many, many, times and it seems pretty solid. One could argue that it paints too rosy a picture, but one could argue much more strongly that the 24,000 number is totally bogus, especially when you eliminate Iraq Body Count's inclusion of Iraq security forces as "civilian" casualties.
If Hallagan is right, American forces are responsible for a mortality rate commensurate with the risk associated with driving a car in this country. It demonstrates an incredibly responsible and compassionate military.
It's also quite a far cry from what slimebags like Ted Rall and the rest of the far-left establishment would have you believe.
The study is based on the numbers published by Iraq Body Count (pdf), which concluded that over 24,000 civilians were killed, and the study was intended to prove that the big bad American forces were indiscriminately killing civilians en masse.
But Dan Hallagan points out that Iraq Body Count's numbers don't represent an accurate cross section of the Iraqi population. Hallagan theorizes that, based on the indiscriminate nature of colatteral damage, the civilian casualty rate should at least resemble Iraqi populations of men, women, adults, and children. The numbers agreed upon by Iraq Body Count don't even come close.
Hallagan projects Iraq Body Count's numbers against population statistics to arrive at the conclusion that an inordinate amount of adult males are included in the totals. Once the large amount of extra adult males are removed from the equation in order that the total of adult male civilian casualties reflects the rates of all of the other population subgroups (women and children), the amount of true casualties is reduced to 7,976 killed by all combatants. Casualties by American forces only are further reduced to 3,682.
As most of those 3,682 were a result of the initial invasion, Hallagan concludes that less than a thousand true civilians have been killed as a direct result of American action. And, while American caused casualties have for the most part remained very low since the "occupation," civilian deaths caused by terrorists occur at a rate ten times higher.
I went over the math many, many, times and it seems pretty solid. One could argue that it paints too rosy a picture, but one could argue much more strongly that the 24,000 number is totally bogus, especially when you eliminate Iraq Body Count's inclusion of Iraq security forces as "civilian" casualties.
If Hallagan is right, American forces are responsible for a mortality rate commensurate with the risk associated with driving a car in this country. It demonstrates an incredibly responsible and compassionate military.
It's also quite a far cry from what slimebags like Ted Rall and the rest of the far-left establishment would have you believe.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Now Where is That Cat?
PETA has provided me the perfect opportunity to show off this 4-pound large mouth bass with their "get tough on animal killers" anti-fishing campaign.Just look at that baby.
We were doing some early morning casting at Spirit Lake near Grantsburg Wisc., not being too picky. The bait was likely one of the roughly dozen spinner baits we went through that week. The lake had been offering a lot of action from smaller northerns with the occasional large-mouth out of the weedline. This fish was the biggest bass caught during a week of large fish.
It marks the first fishing trip in 17 years of marriage in which I caught the largest fish. Needless to say, that fact alone dictates that every opportunity be taken to display it.
PETA offers this stellar caption:
"Your Daddy Kills Animals"
Well actually, I put it back in the lake like a good conservationist. Still, I think PETA's sentiment captures the spirit of the thing, and their hysterical fear-mongering can certainly be understood in context.
In my estimation, about 90 percent of the kids PETA reaches will toss their over-the-top drivel off the boat the first time they hook into a fish like this. The exhiliration as it leaves the confines of the water to soar majestically through the air, only to dive and run, is pure joy.
PETA's depiction of fishermen as drooling, psychotic, animal murderers has created a yearning in me to once again dangle a juicy leech or sucker minnow in front of an unsuspecting and perfectly innocent non-Bush supporting trophy fish.
I hereby declare than, that this is the year I take up ice-fishing.
After all, I have only so much time on this planet and there are only so many chances to drive PETA followers insane with rage. Hell, I might even keep a few fish from now on.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Study Shows Tinfoil Hats Useless!
Tom has brought my attention to a study that is sure to disappoint those of us who do not appreciate the messages sent by Karl Rove. As it turns out, the tinfoil hats are all but useless, and in fact may enhance the quality of right-wing George W.ont ever win a Nobel Prize Bush marching orders.
The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.
It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.
My suggestion would be for the far-left to run a presidential candidate on a platform of mandated improvements to tinfoil helmets. It may be only then that something is done to eliminate inner-cranium updates sent out by Karl Rove first thing each morning.
This is a serious issue. Right up there with Global Warming...and...stuff.
Use of "George W.on't ever win a Nobel Prize Bush" courtesy of Tom. All rights reserved.
The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.
It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.
My suggestion would be for the far-left to run a presidential candidate on a platform of mandated improvements to tinfoil helmets. It may be only then that something is done to eliminate inner-cranium updates sent out by Karl Rove first thing each morning.
This is a serious issue. Right up there with Global Warming...and...stuff.
Use of "George W.on't ever win a Nobel Prize Bush" courtesy of Tom. All rights reserved.
Friday, November 25, 2005
When All Fails, Accuse Bush of Attacking Aliens
Courtesy of Power Line, former Canadien Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer has accused the Bush administration of trying to start an intergalactic war.
Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."
Like, duh! Everyone knows that even our most modern weapons would be useless against an alien invader, which would have invisible klergal defense shields and supercroig photon defeaters, thus making Bush's plan of intergalactic domination a fantasy.
Besides, Bush has his hands full installing the underground oil pipeline from New Orleans to his Secret Volcano Lair.
Man, where do these people get this stuff?
Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."
Like, duh! Everyone knows that even our most modern weapons would be useless against an alien invader, which would have invisible klergal defense shields and supercroig photon defeaters, thus making Bush's plan of intergalactic domination a fantasy.
Besides, Bush has his hands full installing the underground oil pipeline from New Orleans to his Secret Volcano Lair.
Man, where do these people get this stuff?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
There Will Never Be More Chris Whitley
I was shocked and deeply saddened to learn from my friend Boz today of the death of guitarist and songwriter Chris Whitley.Hardly a household name I know, but around my house Chris Whitley has been a cherished talent since his debut album "Living With the Law" in 1991. In a world that has embraced the regurgitation of simplistic, easily marketable themes in music, Chris was a truly unique voice.
His talent with open tunings on virtually any stringed instrument, and the way he was able to bend both intruments and his astounding voice to his will was magnificent in a way that comes along maybe once in a lifetime.
Chris was the only musician who ever managed to dominate my imagination. He made other music seem uninteresting by comparison and made radio play lists sound like a cruel joke on society. For almost fifteen years now, when I consider an album to listen to, 9 times out of 10 it will be one of his. So much so that I have grown long used to hearing the groans of my dearly Befuddled as I once again place "Dirt Floor," or "Terra Incognita" in the disk tray.
I was blessed enough to see Chris perform just once, at the Fine Line Music Cafe in Minneapolis. It is a night that I shall never forget and will always consider myself extremely lucky to have seen such a talented artist in such an intimate setting. As it happens, Boz was with me that night.
I'm not one given to emotional reactions to the demise of people I never met and know so little about, but I must say that losing Chris feels very much like losing a family member today. And, whether he knew or cared, he was always deeply loved here.
Dead at the tender age of 45 from lung cancer, Chris Whitley left a mark that most could only dream of if they had a dozen lifetimes. What he left was enough.
Rest in peace you dear beloved man.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
More Irrelevant Details of Little Importance to Anyone
I found this excellent summary of the judgements of a host of committees, reports, and individuals on the subject of pre-war intelligence and intelligence manipulation.
1. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
a) Found no evidence of attempts to influence analysts to change intelligence.
b) Found that Joe Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case.
c) Found that contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
2. The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction (Robb-Silverman Commission)
a) Found that the Presidential Daily Briefing contained similar intelligence as the National Intelligence Estimate given to Congress but expressed it in more alarmist and less nuanced language.
b) Reported that the intelligence in the Presidential Daily Briefings was not markedly different than the intelligence given to Congress in the National Intelligence Estimate.
c) Found no evidence that intelligence analysts were pressured into issuing false aseessments.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/
3. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)
Found no evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
4. Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (Lord Butler Report)
Found no evidence that intelligence--much of it used by the U. S.--was distorted.
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
5. Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr. David Kelly (Lord Hutton Report)
Found that British Prime Minister Tony Blair did not manipulate intelligence, much of which was used by the U. S. This report forced two heads of the BBC to resign.
6. David Kay, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Testified to Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
7. Charles Duelfer, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Stated that U. S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/roberts050304.html
8. Australian Government’s Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies
Found no evidence that the Office of National Assessments (ONA) was influenced by policy or political considerations to conclude--as did U. S, and British intelligence agencies--that Iraq had significant WMD stocks.
http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/chapter3/2_iraq.htm#aust_lessons
Isn't it amazing how rare it is for any of these determinations, much less all of them, to appear on the nightly news?
The conclusions of these groups are highly credible because it was reached in the open, in fair ways, with ample scrutiny from elected officials, constituents and a free press. They are by nature not partisan conclusions, but analytical ones.
It can't be stressed enough that journalism has become an exercise in transcription, not unlike a court reporter, except no one is under oath. One wonders if they will ever get the message that we need no longer rely on them to tell us what is. And, that if they continue to exist in this institutional fantasy, they will cease to be a part of the discussion entirely.
1. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
a) Found no evidence of attempts to influence analysts to change intelligence.
b) Found that Joe Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case.
c) Found that contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
2. The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction (Robb-Silverman Commission)
a) Found that the Presidential Daily Briefing contained similar intelligence as the National Intelligence Estimate given to Congress but expressed it in more alarmist and less nuanced language.
b) Reported that the intelligence in the Presidential Daily Briefings was not markedly different than the intelligence given to Congress in the National Intelligence Estimate.
c) Found no evidence that intelligence analysts were pressured into issuing false aseessments.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/
3. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)
Found no evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
4. Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (Lord Butler Report)
Found no evidence that intelligence--much of it used by the U. S.--was distorted.
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
5. Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr. David Kelly (Lord Hutton Report)
Found that British Prime Minister Tony Blair did not manipulate intelligence, much of which was used by the U. S. This report forced two heads of the BBC to resign.
6. David Kay, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Testified to Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
7. Charles Duelfer, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Stated that U. S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/roberts050304.html
8. Australian Government’s Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies
Found no evidence that the Office of National Assessments (ONA) was influenced by policy or political considerations to conclude--as did U. S, and British intelligence agencies--that Iraq had significant WMD stocks.
http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/chapter3/2_iraq.htm#aust_lessons
Isn't it amazing how rare it is for any of these determinations, much less all of them, to appear on the nightly news?
The conclusions of these groups are highly credible because it was reached in the open, in fair ways, with ample scrutiny from elected officials, constituents and a free press. They are by nature not partisan conclusions, but analytical ones.
It can't be stressed enough that journalism has become an exercise in transcription, not unlike a court reporter, except no one is under oath. One wonders if they will ever get the message that we need no longer rely on them to tell us what is. And, that if they continue to exist in this institutional fantasy, they will cease to be a part of the discussion entirely.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Consequences? What Consequences?
Michael Barone is up to his usual standards with his latest column addressing the "lie" myth being pushed by the hysterical left. Along the way he summarizes the Middle East successes linked to Iraq.
Now, the progress toward democracy in Iraq is leading Middle Easterners to concentrate on the question of how to build decent governments and decent societies. We can see the results -- the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the first seriously contested elections in Egypt, Libya's giving up WMDs, the Jordanian protests against Abu Musab Zarqawi's recent suicide attacks and even a bit of reform in Saudi Arabia. In Syria, The Washington Post's David Ignatius reports, "people talk politics here with a passion I haven't heard since the 1980s in Eastern Europe. They're writing manifestos, dreaming of new political parties, trying to rehabilitate old ones from the 1950s."
When the left pushes a cut and run strategy from Iraq, it fails to acknowledge not only potentially devestating losses in Iraq, but signs of progress in the region that could just as easily be wiped away.
And, while the media has been more than willing to advertise the left's deadly "plan" for Iraq, it has been nowhere on the possible consequences.
I wonder why?
Now, the progress toward democracy in Iraq is leading Middle Easterners to concentrate on the question of how to build decent governments and decent societies. We can see the results -- the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the first seriously contested elections in Egypt, Libya's giving up WMDs, the Jordanian protests against Abu Musab Zarqawi's recent suicide attacks and even a bit of reform in Saudi Arabia. In Syria, The Washington Post's David Ignatius reports, "people talk politics here with a passion I haven't heard since the 1980s in Eastern Europe. They're writing manifestos, dreaming of new political parties, trying to rehabilitate old ones from the 1950s."
When the left pushes a cut and run strategy from Iraq, it fails to acknowledge not only potentially devestating losses in Iraq, but signs of progress in the region that could just as easily be wiped away.
And, while the media has been more than willing to advertise the left's deadly "plan" for Iraq, it has been nowhere on the possible consequences.
I wonder why?
Friday, November 18, 2005
This is the New Anti-War Champion?
I saw Chris Matthews interview with Murtha tonight and Matthews was more than willing to pimp the "war hawk" angle. He must have used the word a half a dozen times.
James Taranto shows why that characterization of Murtha is simply off, at least as it pertains to Iraq.
But read this quote from Murtha, from last night on Lehrer:
Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.
Aside from the confusion as to when terrorism began, invasion or Abu Ghraib, the suggestion that the "fight against Americans" didn't exist before Iraq makes me wonder if Murtha hasn't taken leave of his senses.
James Taranto shows why that characterization of Murtha is simply off, at least as it pertains to Iraq.
But read this quote from Murtha, from last night on Lehrer:
Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.
Aside from the confusion as to when terrorism began, invasion or Abu Ghraib, the suggestion that the "fight against Americans" didn't exist before Iraq makes me wonder if Murtha hasn't taken leave of his senses.
New Rule: If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them
Drudge is reporting that there will be a House vote tonight on an immediate pullout from Iraq. Kind of clever actually. It will force the foaming-at-the-mouth to put their money where their mouth is. I expect the issue will get real gray, real fast.
Personally, I'm wondering if it isn't about time to give them their way. It might be the best of both worlds for the Republican Party, if they were willing to think like the Democratic Party.
In one fell swoop they could get all of our troops out of Iraq, virtually ending the war overnight. Plus, when the country descends into chaos and the good citizens of Iraq are left at the mercy of Islamic fanatics, they could hold press conferences every day and insist that the Democrats weren't forthcoming about the ramifications of withdrawl.
If it was me, I would even throw in a few demands that the Democrats now implement their strategy for fighting terrorism and bringing democracy to the Middle East.
"They told us that it was our presence there that was causing terrorist attacks in Iraq."
"They told us that Iraq would be a peaceful place without our interference."
"They told us what we needed was a plan. Well, where is it?"
"People by the thousands are dying in Iraq and they do nothing. And, until they find a way to stop this senseless mass murder, the blood of innocents is on their hands."
"Don't look at me. It's not my fault."
Perhaps it is time to choose political expediency and allow the pursuit of power to outweigh what is right and good. We'll certainly never defeat terrorism as long as the Republicans aren't willing to debase themselves in exchange for short-term political gain.
Of course it won't happen, which is certainly best. And the left will certainly equivocate. And tomorrow, we'll start the whole process over again.
The way they play with our troops heads and manipulate information and a war in order to score a few seats in the House and the Senate make me sick though.
Really, really, sick.
Personally, I'm wondering if it isn't about time to give them their way. It might be the best of both worlds for the Republican Party, if they were willing to think like the Democratic Party.
In one fell swoop they could get all of our troops out of Iraq, virtually ending the war overnight. Plus, when the country descends into chaos and the good citizens of Iraq are left at the mercy of Islamic fanatics, they could hold press conferences every day and insist that the Democrats weren't forthcoming about the ramifications of withdrawl.
If it was me, I would even throw in a few demands that the Democrats now implement their strategy for fighting terrorism and bringing democracy to the Middle East.
"They told us that it was our presence there that was causing terrorist attacks in Iraq."
"They told us that Iraq would be a peaceful place without our interference."
"They told us what we needed was a plan. Well, where is it?"
"People by the thousands are dying in Iraq and they do nothing. And, until they find a way to stop this senseless mass murder, the blood of innocents is on their hands."
"Don't look at me. It's not my fault."
Perhaps it is time to choose political expediency and allow the pursuit of power to outweigh what is right and good. We'll certainly never defeat terrorism as long as the Republicans aren't willing to debase themselves in exchange for short-term political gain.
Of course it won't happen, which is certainly best. And the left will certainly equivocate. And tomorrow, we'll start the whole process over again.
The way they play with our troops heads and manipulate information and a war in order to score a few seats in the House and the Senate make me sick though.
Really, really, sick.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Sometimes Leaks Are Fun
I'm sure it's been well read by now, but in case you are one of the few who have yet to read today's piece by Rivkin and Casey in the Washingtion Times, here is your chance.
Here is a key section:
It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
Today the D.C. media is shocked and confused by Woodward, none more than his co-workers. Mediabistro is posting an internal message board from the Post where journalists discussed Woodward's actions, the effect on the credibility of the modern media, etc...
At least, it started that way. It quickly descends into griping that someone leaked quotes from the message board to the NYT. There is something unsettling about listening to journalists, who relied heavily on leaks to report the Plame afair and have championed leaks as a credible and essential way of practicing journalism, whining about how unfair it is that they can't have a discussion in private.
I'm a real fan of the dialogue unfolding in this space, and I think that its quality will be jeopardized if participants believe that a) their comments may be passed on to outside journalists without their permission or b) our own outstanding media critic may quote from the critiques without permission, or may characterize the dialogue in general terms in his report.
No doubt Debbi Wilgoren, the author of the quote, would scream bloody murder if any non-journalist subject expected that kind of treatment. Perhaps subjects should be allowed to characterize their own statements.
Personally, I think it is a perfectly acceptable practice to publish verified quotes from a story subject. Public or otherwise. What is important about the quote is the magical idea that those in the field of journalism should somehow be exempt from that kind of freedom to report. Above it, if you will.
Scrutiny is always a good thing and there is no institution, in my opinion, that could stand some right now than media.
Here is a key section:
It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
Today the D.C. media is shocked and confused by Woodward, none more than his co-workers. Mediabistro is posting an internal message board from the Post where journalists discussed Woodward's actions, the effect on the credibility of the modern media, etc...
At least, it started that way. It quickly descends into griping that someone leaked quotes from the message board to the NYT. There is something unsettling about listening to journalists, who relied heavily on leaks to report the Plame afair and have championed leaks as a credible and essential way of practicing journalism, whining about how unfair it is that they can't have a discussion in private.
I'm a real fan of the dialogue unfolding in this space, and I think that its quality will be jeopardized if participants believe that a) their comments may be passed on to outside journalists without their permission or b) our own outstanding media critic may quote from the critiques without permission, or may characterize the dialogue in general terms in his report.
No doubt Debbi Wilgoren, the author of the quote, would scream bloody murder if any non-journalist subject expected that kind of treatment. Perhaps subjects should be allowed to characterize their own statements.
Personally, I think it is a perfectly acceptable practice to publish verified quotes from a story subject. Public or otherwise. What is important about the quote is the magical idea that those in the field of journalism should somehow be exempt from that kind of freedom to report. Above it, if you will.
Scrutiny is always a good thing and there is no institution, in my opinion, that could stand some right now than media.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Devestating
Today's statement by Bob Woodward regarding the Valerie Plame case looks like a pretty serious blow. Fitzgerald's assertion that Libby lied to a grand jury is tied tightly to Libby's "attempts" to deflect attention away from himself as the original source of Valerie Plame's name.
Fitzgerald himself made that very clear when he announced the indictments.
If Libby is not the original source, then it seems a case built on showing that Libby was the original source, and then lied about being the original source, suddenly got very thin.
Although Woodward's stunning admission and the further crumbling of this ridiculous investigation was certainly enough to make my day, the text of Cheney's speech put me over the top.
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them.
I sure hope that Cheney's remarks signal the kick-off to a forthright attempt to reclaim the debate from the liars and propogandists of the left.I want to hear this every day, and the day after that, until further notice. It should have been done two years ago.
Here's to hoping it's the start of something substantive and long-lasting, instead of another false start.
Fitzgerald himself made that very clear when he announced the indictments.
If Libby is not the original source, then it seems a case built on showing that Libby was the original source, and then lied about being the original source, suddenly got very thin.
Although Woodward's stunning admission and the further crumbling of this ridiculous investigation was certainly enough to make my day, the text of Cheney's speech put me over the top.
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them.
I sure hope that Cheney's remarks signal the kick-off to a forthright attempt to reclaim the debate from the liars and propogandists of the left.I want to hear this every day, and the day after that, until further notice. It should have been done two years ago.
Here's to hoping it's the start of something substantive and long-lasting, instead of another false start.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Global Non-Warming
I am just about finished with State of Fear, the latest novel by Michael Crichton. I am only reading it now because I am too poor to be buying hard cover novels willy-nilly like some kind of rich guy.
The book is everything I had hoped it would be after reading various speeches by Crichton and reviews of the book. In fact, it is more. Never have I seen a novel so loaded with footnotes and bibliography. Every "outrageous" claim regarding global warming, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on a people, is backed up with raw data.
Even for those who prefer non-fiction (and you know who you are) to novels, there is enough science in the book to make it extremely interesting. While some may enjoy the action and intrigue of the book, my favorite part is the endless stream of global warming sycophants who run up against MIT scientist John Kenner. The leftists sound just like most do, and Kenner slaps them all down with facts and data that go a long way to disproving the global warming myth.
Just so we are clear, the data Kenner uses is documented fact, it is only the plot of the book that is fiction.
On a whim I did a search on the book and global warming, and of course there is no shortage of websites dedicted to chipping away at and assassinating the character of Chichton. I did find a review at Reasononline though, that manages to condense the overall message of the book into a reasonably short column. Here is an excerpt:
Contrary to claims that rising global temperatures will melt the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, thus elevating sea levels catastrophically, average temperatures over Greenland have been falling since 1987 at a rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Over Antarctica, they’ve been falling for 50 years. Crichton also correctly reports that Nils-Axel Mörner, a professor of geodynamics at Stockholm University, has found “a total absence of any recent sea level rise” and has instead found evidence of a fall in sea levels in the last 20 years.
Temperature in Greenland falling. Check. Antartica too. Check. No sea level rise. Check.
According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate of 0.08 degree Celsius per decade. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if that rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degree Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degree Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there.
In the 21st century, the temperature will rise at a rate .2 degrees faster than in the 20th century, most of which occurred before the myth of global warming was dreamt up. Check.
Column author Ronald Bailey did find one error in State of Fear though, and here it is:
The MIT professor Kenner claims at one point that “environmental groups in the U.S. generate half a billion dollars a year.” The actual amount for just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. in 2002 was almost $2 billion.
$2 billion. Check. The going rate for fear-mongerers attempting to create hysteria through bogus science.
The book is everything I had hoped it would be after reading various speeches by Crichton and reviews of the book. In fact, it is more. Never have I seen a novel so loaded with footnotes and bibliography. Every "outrageous" claim regarding global warming, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on a people, is backed up with raw data.
Even for those who prefer non-fiction (and you know who you are) to novels, there is enough science in the book to make it extremely interesting. While some may enjoy the action and intrigue of the book, my favorite part is the endless stream of global warming sycophants who run up against MIT scientist John Kenner. The leftists sound just like most do, and Kenner slaps them all down with facts and data that go a long way to disproving the global warming myth.
Just so we are clear, the data Kenner uses is documented fact, it is only the plot of the book that is fiction.
On a whim I did a search on the book and global warming, and of course there is no shortage of websites dedicted to chipping away at and assassinating the character of Chichton. I did find a review at Reasononline though, that manages to condense the overall message of the book into a reasonably short column. Here is an excerpt:
Contrary to claims that rising global temperatures will melt the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, thus elevating sea levels catastrophically, average temperatures over Greenland have been falling since 1987 at a rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Over Antarctica, they’ve been falling for 50 years. Crichton also correctly reports that Nils-Axel Mörner, a professor of geodynamics at Stockholm University, has found “a total absence of any recent sea level rise” and has instead found evidence of a fall in sea levels in the last 20 years.
Temperature in Greenland falling. Check. Antartica too. Check. No sea level rise. Check.
According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate of 0.08 degree Celsius per decade. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if that rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degree Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degree Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there.
In the 21st century, the temperature will rise at a rate .2 degrees faster than in the 20th century, most of which occurred before the myth of global warming was dreamt up. Check.
Column author Ronald Bailey did find one error in State of Fear though, and here it is:
The MIT professor Kenner claims at one point that “environmental groups in the U.S. generate half a billion dollars a year.” The actual amount for just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. in 2002 was almost $2 billion.
$2 billion. Check. The going rate for fear-mongerers attempting to create hysteria through bogus science.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Scary Good Goalie
A momentary respite from the subject of politics, in order to apprise faithful readers of a milestone achieved.On the way to a 9-0 spanking of the Alaska Anchorage Seawolves, Minnesota Golden Gophers goalie Kellen Briggs became the first in Gophers history to post nine shutouts in a career. Even more amazing, Briggs is only a junior, making double digit shutouts all but a certainty.
Aside from a record-setting goaltender, the Gophers sport a freshman class of skaters that is second to none in the NCAA. It has been a couple of years now since we have won a national championship, but with the new additions a title is very much back on the table. While the team still needs to gel somewhat and have managed only a 4-2-1 record thus far in the WCHA season, teamwork improves with every game.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Taking the Joy with the Sorrow
I was having a great week. I knocked off a couple of stories that I was just chomping at the bit to do. One, a profile of a Vietnam veteran in honor of Veterans Day, turned out pretty cool. My subject was a good guy, conflicted about both Vietnam and Iraq, sincere and open. An American hero in and out of uniform.
I didn't learn until late in the interview that he had likely read to most of my kids at one point or another as they passed through elementary school, and may have spoken to at least one of my daughters middle school class on the meaning of Veterans Day and his experiences in the war. When I got home and asked the girls if they knew him, they all said "We know that guy."
I hope I did him justice.
The other was an in-depth look at an experiment at the local elementary school. Two fourth grade teachers are experimenting with single gender classrooms and it is amazing the advantages it brings. Recent research on the genetic differences between boys and girls is also fascinating and probably puts to bed once and for all the feminist myth that boys and girls are exactly the same.
I consider it the cutting edge of a trend that will ultimately become standard in education, but I've been wrong before.
While those stories were in the can by Friday, when I got to work on Monday, another story was waiting to be written. A 20-year-old man hit and killed on a county road over the weekend. The hardest part was having to call the kid's mom. Having to do it every so often does not make it easier, trust me. Having the story done and ready for print Tuesday evening was of great relief.
That relief was short-lived though, as this story awaited me this morning (here is the follow up, which has more details). The fact that it happened in the high school and directly following a wrestling practice, and to someone so young, made it the story of the day, not just locally but in the Tein Cities as well, where the TV people are in the middle of sweeps week. Every Twin Cities news broadcast had a transmission truck in town today. They were still there when I came home.
We fielded calls from the Minneapolis paper and the TV people all day long. Reporters looking to trade on information, digging for the local angle and contacts. It seemed like half the city called as well. Over the course of the day I interviewed the EMS people, and various school officials, including an intense and emotional half-hour sit-down with the superintendent. A good man in a storm.
I guess I should take pride in the fact that we had by far the most substantive information on the tragic situation, and I am proud and relieved that my editor was not at all interested in voyeuristic images of children grieving. We definately got the story though. We led the news cycle for virtually all of the business day. All of the TV people are playing catch up tonight and will be reporting the details we broke over the course of the day.
I would have prefered it didn't happen at all though, and that I could have spent my day, and my week, busy with happier subjects. But, like every news cycle, you take the joy with the sorrow.
Sometimes the sorrow sucks though.
I didn't learn until late in the interview that he had likely read to most of my kids at one point or another as they passed through elementary school, and may have spoken to at least one of my daughters middle school class on the meaning of Veterans Day and his experiences in the war. When I got home and asked the girls if they knew him, they all said "We know that guy."
I hope I did him justice.
The other was an in-depth look at an experiment at the local elementary school. Two fourth grade teachers are experimenting with single gender classrooms and it is amazing the advantages it brings. Recent research on the genetic differences between boys and girls is also fascinating and probably puts to bed once and for all the feminist myth that boys and girls are exactly the same.
I consider it the cutting edge of a trend that will ultimately become standard in education, but I've been wrong before.
While those stories were in the can by Friday, when I got to work on Monday, another story was waiting to be written. A 20-year-old man hit and killed on a county road over the weekend. The hardest part was having to call the kid's mom. Having to do it every so often does not make it easier, trust me. Having the story done and ready for print Tuesday evening was of great relief.
That relief was short-lived though, as this story awaited me this morning (here is the follow up, which has more details). The fact that it happened in the high school and directly following a wrestling practice, and to someone so young, made it the story of the day, not just locally but in the Tein Cities as well, where the TV people are in the middle of sweeps week. Every Twin Cities news broadcast had a transmission truck in town today. They were still there when I came home.
We fielded calls from the Minneapolis paper and the TV people all day long. Reporters looking to trade on information, digging for the local angle and contacts. It seemed like half the city called as well. Over the course of the day I interviewed the EMS people, and various school officials, including an intense and emotional half-hour sit-down with the superintendent. A good man in a storm.
I guess I should take pride in the fact that we had by far the most substantive information on the tragic situation, and I am proud and relieved that my editor was not at all interested in voyeuristic images of children grieving. We definately got the story though. We led the news cycle for virtually all of the business day. All of the TV people are playing catch up tonight and will be reporting the details we broke over the course of the day.
I would have prefered it didn't happen at all though, and that I could have spent my day, and my week, busy with happier subjects. But, like every news cycle, you take the joy with the sorrow.
Sometimes the sorrow sucks though.
A Rare Glimpse Into the Mysterious World of Journalism
Mary Mapes granted an interview to ABC News and has an important message for the people who might have felt somehow betrayed by the CBS debacle known as Memogate.
She's working on it.
Mapes says she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents whose authenticity was seriously questioned by the CBS panel.
Mary Mapes...ladies and gentlemen...former CBS producer, is investigating the source of the documents. I guess, like Hollywood marriage and babies, the investigating is now scheduled for after the story. I suspect we'll be seeing Mary Mapes sharing a golf cart with O.J. real soon.
But wait, there's more:
She tells Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said.
I have, in my possession right now, documents that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein swallowed the evidence of WMD in little tiny balloons and that Osama bin Laden is, in actuality, Madeline Albright after in-patient Jenny Craig therapy. Seriously. They may or may not be authentic, but apparently that is not of great concern.
Mapes says one of her few regrets in handling the story was her phone call to a member of Sen. John Kerry's Presidential campaign staff prior to the broadcast. "I wish to God I hadn't done it, because I think it was so wildly misinterpreted." She says she made the call only as a way to gain favor with the source who provided her with the documents.
I don't know about anybody else, but I interpreted her call to Kerry's campaign staff as an attempt to gain favor with Democratic operatives. My mistake.
To recap: report, then investigate; authentication not my job; I was only trying to curry favor.
I feel much better now. Thank God she went on the air and explained all of this. I was under the mistaken impression that journalism was in trouble in this country. I wasn't exactly ready to jump off the roof or anything, but I was concerned.
Now I know that I can go ahead and jump off the roof.
She's working on it.
Mapes says she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents whose authenticity was seriously questioned by the CBS panel.
Mary Mapes...ladies and gentlemen...former CBS producer, is investigating the source of the documents. I guess, like Hollywood marriage and babies, the investigating is now scheduled for after the story. I suspect we'll be seeing Mary Mapes sharing a golf cart with O.J. real soon.
But wait, there's more:
She tells Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said.
I have, in my possession right now, documents that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein swallowed the evidence of WMD in little tiny balloons and that Osama bin Laden is, in actuality, Madeline Albright after in-patient Jenny Craig therapy. Seriously. They may or may not be authentic, but apparently that is not of great concern.
Mapes says one of her few regrets in handling the story was her phone call to a member of Sen. John Kerry's Presidential campaign staff prior to the broadcast. "I wish to God I hadn't done it, because I think it was so wildly misinterpreted." She says she made the call only as a way to gain favor with the source who provided her with the documents.
I don't know about anybody else, but I interpreted her call to Kerry's campaign staff as an attempt to gain favor with Democratic operatives. My mistake.
To recap: report, then investigate; authentication not my job; I was only trying to curry favor.
I feel much better now. Thank God she went on the air and explained all of this. I was under the mistaken impression that journalism was in trouble in this country. I wasn't exactly ready to jump off the roof or anything, but I was concerned.
Now I know that I can go ahead and jump off the roof.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Internet is least of woes at major newspapers
After softening up the readership with a couple of harmless, campy columns about nothing in particular, I decided that this was the week to hit them with serious political issues. Thus, I give you this week's column:
Revenue at the NY Times disappearing. Circulation at the LA Times way down. TimeWarner subpoenaed. Trust in media at disturbing lows. Were it any other industry, the press would be covering an astounding viability hemorrhage, but we in the media don’t care much for being the news.
While major newspapers may not be reporting the story, they are frantically trying to diagnose the source of the bleeding. And, of course, the culprit du jour is the internet.
But is it?
In a 2003 poll, only 26 percent of Americans intimated that major media was providing fair and accurate coverage of events and public figures.
That was before CNN chief Eason Jordan and Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley accused American troops of murdering journalists; before CBS ran a hatchet job on the president using fake evidence; before Newsday grossly overstated circulation; and before Newsweek ran an unsubstantiated, error-riddled story, causing fatal riots in Afghanistan.
Did I mention the grossly inaccurate coverage of hurricane Katrina’s aftermath?
Major newspapers have become little more than outlets for vendettas and political advocacy. They have abandoned what little sense of fair play they may have ever had.
There are myriad examples. The NYT splashed Abu Ghraib on its front page for 32 consecutive days. At the same time, it is all but impossible to find positive news from Iraq in their pages despite the milestones reached on a daily basis.
Consider this: On Oct. 25, Iraq passed a constitution by a 79 percent margin, with a voter turnout that puts ours to shame. This event transcended milestone and jumped straight to “out of this world historical significance.” Rather than highlight this watershed moment though, the Washington Post led with “Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq,” as if 2,000 is somehow significant where 1,982 was not.
The Post did run an Iraq constitution story buried on page 13A. It was called, “Sunnis Failed to Defeat Iraq Constitution.” If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought the Post was disappointed.
Our own Star Tribune is certainly no exception to this rule. Their shameless over-coverage of Morgan Grams in 2000 was anything but subtle. More recently, a Trib columnist conducted personal attacks against the authors of Power Line, who came to prominence after helping expose CBS for not properly vetting memos so obviously fake it had become an established fact within 10 minutes of their use.
Often, agendas are hidden behind claims of neutrality, such as in Chicago, where the Tribune refuses to refer to people who blow up children on purpose as terrorists. Editor Don Wycliff explains the policy: “We won’t call someone a terrorist simply because today’s terrorist sometimes turns out to be tomorrow’s statesman.”
Isn’t that special? Heaven forbid they alienate a potential future source with bad press.
Given the evidence, and this is but a fraction, can it be any wonder that Goldman Sachs calls 2005 the worst year in four for newspapers?
Despite all of this, don’t look for major newspapers to view this problem introspectively anytime soon. Rather, expect the blame for woes to fall on the internet or, better yet, the lack of interest in news by a distracted generation.
And, unless they have an epiphany in the next year or two, expect the debate to simply die away altogether.
There will be too few readers left to care.
Revenue at the NY Times disappearing. Circulation at the LA Times way down. TimeWarner subpoenaed. Trust in media at disturbing lows. Were it any other industry, the press would be covering an astounding viability hemorrhage, but we in the media don’t care much for being the news.
While major newspapers may not be reporting the story, they are frantically trying to diagnose the source of the bleeding. And, of course, the culprit du jour is the internet.
But is it?
In a 2003 poll, only 26 percent of Americans intimated that major media was providing fair and accurate coverage of events and public figures.
That was before CNN chief Eason Jordan and Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley accused American troops of murdering journalists; before CBS ran a hatchet job on the president using fake evidence; before Newsday grossly overstated circulation; and before Newsweek ran an unsubstantiated, error-riddled story, causing fatal riots in Afghanistan.
Did I mention the grossly inaccurate coverage of hurricane Katrina’s aftermath?
Major newspapers have become little more than outlets for vendettas and political advocacy. They have abandoned what little sense of fair play they may have ever had.
There are myriad examples. The NYT splashed Abu Ghraib on its front page for 32 consecutive days. At the same time, it is all but impossible to find positive news from Iraq in their pages despite the milestones reached on a daily basis.
Consider this: On Oct. 25, Iraq passed a constitution by a 79 percent margin, with a voter turnout that puts ours to shame. This event transcended milestone and jumped straight to “out of this world historical significance.” Rather than highlight this watershed moment though, the Washington Post led with “Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq,” as if 2,000 is somehow significant where 1,982 was not.
The Post did run an Iraq constitution story buried on page 13A. It was called, “Sunnis Failed to Defeat Iraq Constitution.” If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought the Post was disappointed.
Our own Star Tribune is certainly no exception to this rule. Their shameless over-coverage of Morgan Grams in 2000 was anything but subtle. More recently, a Trib columnist conducted personal attacks against the authors of Power Line, who came to prominence after helping expose CBS for not properly vetting memos so obviously fake it had become an established fact within 10 minutes of their use.
Often, agendas are hidden behind claims of neutrality, such as in Chicago, where the Tribune refuses to refer to people who blow up children on purpose as terrorists. Editor Don Wycliff explains the policy: “We won’t call someone a terrorist simply because today’s terrorist sometimes turns out to be tomorrow’s statesman.”
Isn’t that special? Heaven forbid they alienate a potential future source with bad press.
Given the evidence, and this is but a fraction, can it be any wonder that Goldman Sachs calls 2005 the worst year in four for newspapers?
Despite all of this, don’t look for major newspapers to view this problem introspectively anytime soon. Rather, expect the blame for woes to fall on the internet or, better yet, the lack of interest in news by a distracted generation.
And, unless they have an epiphany in the next year or two, expect the debate to simply die away altogether.
There will be too few readers left to care.
Monday, November 07, 2005
The Youth are Our Future
Liberal Larry attended the "get out of school free" protest last Wednesday, and was very impressed with the youth of America.
The gathering in downtown Seattle numbered in the tens of thousands, the accompanying aroma of doobie and bryl cream being detected as far south as Tacoma. As an educator, I was especially honored to walk amongst these civic-minded youths, albeit somewhat surprised that my own progressive philosophy isn't much different from that of your average developmentally disabled teen. But thanks to the Washington State educational system, rampant use of psychotropic drugs, and the mind-expanding effects of autoerotic asphyxiation, the youth of today are far more liberal than they were when I was a kid.
The aroma of doobie I get, but bryl cream? I must be getting old.
The gathering in downtown Seattle numbered in the tens of thousands, the accompanying aroma of doobie and bryl cream being detected as far south as Tacoma. As an educator, I was especially honored to walk amongst these civic-minded youths, albeit somewhat surprised that my own progressive philosophy isn't much different from that of your average developmentally disabled teen. But thanks to the Washington State educational system, rampant use of psychotropic drugs, and the mind-expanding effects of autoerotic asphyxiation, the youth of today are far more liberal than they were when I was a kid.
The aroma of doobie I get, but bryl cream? I must be getting old.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Life in a House of Cards
It is widely known, despite the media's best attempts to characterize it differently, that Harry Ried's now famous closed session earlier this week was a cheap political stunt. Courtesy of antimedia and Faces from the Front, we now know that it was not only a stunt, it was a stall tactic, directly designed to mislead the public into believing it was the Republican Party that was dragging its feet on phase II of an investigation into pre-war intelligence.
But, while the press was parroting whatever Democratic spin was provided as though it were fact, the truth of the matter is that the report has been compiled since mid-May. It was an attempt by Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts to insure bipartisanship that led to the report not being released.
At the May 17 meeting, I made a number of attempts to begin evaluating nearly 500 statements made by Administration officials and Members of Congress, over 300 of which were provided by the Democrats. My friends across the aisle wouldn’t even let me get past the first statement. When they learned that I didn’t intend to identify the speakers in an effort to remove partisan bias, they wanted to talk about everything but public statements.”
It would appear that the Democrats on the committee wanted no part of evaluating pre-war statements on Iraq's capabilities, as long as they would be forced to evaluate the comments of themselves and their leftist colleagues. Perhaps that is because their entire propoganda campaign against the president and his "lies" leading up to the war would crumble like week old cake with statements like these:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is useing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
No one on the right or the left has ever condemned these speakers as liars or manipulators. If the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong. The only party turning it into a partisan issue (instead of focusing on improving our intelligence gathering) is the left. Therefore, they cannot afford to have any attention drawn to their own statements on the subject.
Roberts, a Republican, made an attempt to remove bias from the process of determining the truth, and the left wanted no part of it. They still don't, which is why it was so important for Ried to call a closed session and throw a tantrum blaming the Republicans for stalling the report. A simple diversion, that is all.
Naturally, the press was more than happy to carry the water for Ried, reporting the matter as though a "damning" report was hidden in some evil Republican's desk, never to see the light of day were it not for the heroism of Reid and senate Democrats.
Instead: On Monday, Chairman Roberts informed the Democratic staff that he was going to conclude the work on the second phase of the report.
Reid was forced into the position of having to confront that he and his fellow members had exaggerated pre-war intelligence with public statements or, having to give a blanket seal of approval to all the Administration’s statements. And we know what he did 24 hours later.
Once again, we see germaine details left out of a news story to the benefit of Democrats, even in their attempt to mislead the American public and stifle an important report. A report, by the way, that will show "The Committee found no evidence that the IC's mischarachterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure."
You know, an entire political platform built on cheap political propoganda and finger pointing is a fragile thing. If the press hadn't been so uninterested in fair play, or even competence, over the last few years, maybe the Democrats would have been forced to divert their attention to more important matters, like creating some kind of forward thinking platform for America.
Perhaps that was Karl Rove's plan all along.
But, while the press was parroting whatever Democratic spin was provided as though it were fact, the truth of the matter is that the report has been compiled since mid-May. It was an attempt by Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts to insure bipartisanship that led to the report not being released.
At the May 17 meeting, I made a number of attempts to begin evaluating nearly 500 statements made by Administration officials and Members of Congress, over 300 of which were provided by the Democrats. My friends across the aisle wouldn’t even let me get past the first statement. When they learned that I didn’t intend to identify the speakers in an effort to remove partisan bias, they wanted to talk about everything but public statements.”
It would appear that the Democrats on the committee wanted no part of evaluating pre-war statements on Iraq's capabilities, as long as they would be forced to evaluate the comments of themselves and their leftist colleagues. Perhaps that is because their entire propoganda campaign against the president and his "lies" leading up to the war would crumble like week old cake with statements like these:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is useing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
No one on the right or the left has ever condemned these speakers as liars or manipulators. If the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong. The only party turning it into a partisan issue (instead of focusing on improving our intelligence gathering) is the left. Therefore, they cannot afford to have any attention drawn to their own statements on the subject.
Roberts, a Republican, made an attempt to remove bias from the process of determining the truth, and the left wanted no part of it. They still don't, which is why it was so important for Ried to call a closed session and throw a tantrum blaming the Republicans for stalling the report. A simple diversion, that is all.
Naturally, the press was more than happy to carry the water for Ried, reporting the matter as though a "damning" report was hidden in some evil Republican's desk, never to see the light of day were it not for the heroism of Reid and senate Democrats.
Instead: On Monday, Chairman Roberts informed the Democratic staff that he was going to conclude the work on the second phase of the report.
Reid was forced into the position of having to confront that he and his fellow members had exaggerated pre-war intelligence with public statements or, having to give a blanket seal of approval to all the Administration’s statements. And we know what he did 24 hours later.
Once again, we see germaine details left out of a news story to the benefit of Democrats, even in their attempt to mislead the American public and stifle an important report. A report, by the way, that will show "The Committee found no evidence that the IC's mischarachterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure."
You know, an entire political platform built on cheap political propoganda and finger pointing is a fragile thing. If the press hadn't been so uninterested in fair play, or even competence, over the last few years, maybe the Democrats would have been forced to divert their attention to more important matters, like creating some kind of forward thinking platform for America.
Perhaps that was Karl Rove's plan all along.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Media-CIA Love Fest
Tom is in blog mode again, must be the weather. Come to think of it, it is kind of a winter sport in these parts. With baseball over, the Vikings on their back, and golf all but a memory, it's blogs or hockey.
Hmmm...or both.
On to Today's Treats from Tom, which are starting to appear with more regularity.
The AP is doing its usual bang-up job covering the riots in Paris. For six days now, angry youth have been tearing apart portions of Paris, and AP doesn't think its noteworthy that it is more muslim violence.
Not one mention. Six days of violence. I guess they forgot the "who" in "who, what, when, and where."
Today's Treats also included this column from Mark Steyn, written before the indictments and the Miers withdrawl. It is a substantive column that attempts to explain the mentality in the White House. A very good read.
Given my interest in the Wilson scandal, I found sections noteworthy.
Steyn points out the lies told by Wilson in his book about his wife's level of involvement in his being chosen for the Niger mission, and proceeds to lay out the evidence against Wilson's assertions.
The 2004 Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence has 48 pages on Wilson that exposes everything he’s said publicly about his mission as a lot of baloney. Not only did the Senate report and the Butler report in London and British Intelligence and French Intelligence think Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Niger, but so did a former Prime Minister of Major Wanke’s, who said so to Wilson, who said so to the CIA.
One could add that the 9/11 commission also found Wilson's claims bogus.
That Wilson tried to pass off a whopping load of malarkey on to the administration and the American people is a fact, not an opinion. Not only that, given the nature of the issue, it is a dangerous fact. He passed on the wrong intelligence and then used that intelligence to undercut an elected government. Foreign policy could have been based on that bogus intelligence.
By the way, isn't that exactly what the left accuses Bush of?
Furthermore, Wilson even tried to legitimize that intelligence by falsely attributing his trip to Dick Cheney. That is also a fact.
What I find so astounding is not that Wilson would skew the truth to taint the Bush administration, everyone does that. It is not that the Democratic Party would twist this entire case to make the over-reaching claim that Libby's indictment is "key to the question of pre-war intelligence."
What I find so astounding is how it has been reported. I simply can't imagine crafting stories about the Wilson affair day after day, week after week, and failing to include the facts of the case as they pertain to Wilson. Time after time he is characterized as a dissenter, someone who "disagreed" with the administration. He has been painted as the victim of a Republican machine, a tortured truth-teller whose life has been turned asunder by a right-wing cabal.
It's not just flabbergasting, it is grossly incompetent and an insult to a formerly noble profession. It is in itself, a scandal.
Libby might fry for false statements. Who knows? Maybe Rove will fry too. In hindsight, the only mistake the White House appears to have made was to try and legitimately discredit Wilson in private. They should have just held a press conference and pointed out the facts of the case.
WASHINGTON D.C.-Vice President Dick Cheney rocked the press room late this morning, announcing a Justice Department investigation into the actions of a CIA analyst and her husband, a former ambassador.
"We have uncovered an attempt, which we believe was intentional, to have bogus intelligence used as a basis for foreign policy in a time of war. This attempt to pass discredited intel on to the administration and the public, was perpetrated by a former ambassador, whose wife, in turn, is an employee of the CIA," said Cheney.
According to a press release from the Justice Dempartments, an investigation will proceed, based on evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame, an analyst at Langley, pushed the CIA to send her husband, Jospeh Wilson, on a fact finding mission to Niger. Furthermore, that her husband, in turn, held back information from the administration that was contrary to his own conclusions.
Granted, Wilson as "soon to be indicted for treason in a time of war" might be a bit over the top. But it would certainly be as fair-minded as the press reports we are getting now. At the very least, we would be getting some facts relating to the lead-up in the investigation. But in all of the endless background included in every single update on the case, it is all but impossible to find.
I guess the press has spent so much time speculating about Rove's future indictment for outing Valerie Plame, and whether the indictments would "reach all the way to the top," that they just couldn't muster the energy to speculate about Wilson, or Plame, or the CIA.
It's amazing how quickly those non-elected, black-budgeted, closed-session, ultra-secretive, black-jobbing, civil rights violating, always listening, thugs at the CIA became of no concern to the media. Seems just yesterday the CIA was the big bad wolf with too much power; the power, even, to affect the political discourse and manipulate foreign policy.
Hmmm...or both.
On to Today's Treats from Tom, which are starting to appear with more regularity.
The AP is doing its usual bang-up job covering the riots in Paris. For six days now, angry youth have been tearing apart portions of Paris, and AP doesn't think its noteworthy that it is more muslim violence.
Not one mention. Six days of violence. I guess they forgot the "who" in "who, what, when, and where."
Today's Treats also included this column from Mark Steyn, written before the indictments and the Miers withdrawl. It is a substantive column that attempts to explain the mentality in the White House. A very good read.
Given my interest in the Wilson scandal, I found sections noteworthy.
Steyn points out the lies told by Wilson in his book about his wife's level of involvement in his being chosen for the Niger mission, and proceeds to lay out the evidence against Wilson's assertions.
The 2004 Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence has 48 pages on Wilson that exposes everything he’s said publicly about his mission as a lot of baloney. Not only did the Senate report and the Butler report in London and British Intelligence and French Intelligence think Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Niger, but so did a former Prime Minister of Major Wanke’s, who said so to Wilson, who said so to the CIA.
One could add that the 9/11 commission also found Wilson's claims bogus.
That Wilson tried to pass off a whopping load of malarkey on to the administration and the American people is a fact, not an opinion. Not only that, given the nature of the issue, it is a dangerous fact. He passed on the wrong intelligence and then used that intelligence to undercut an elected government. Foreign policy could have been based on that bogus intelligence.
By the way, isn't that exactly what the left accuses Bush of?
Furthermore, Wilson even tried to legitimize that intelligence by falsely attributing his trip to Dick Cheney. That is also a fact.
What I find so astounding is not that Wilson would skew the truth to taint the Bush administration, everyone does that. It is not that the Democratic Party would twist this entire case to make the over-reaching claim that Libby's indictment is "key to the question of pre-war intelligence."
What I find so astounding is how it has been reported. I simply can't imagine crafting stories about the Wilson affair day after day, week after week, and failing to include the facts of the case as they pertain to Wilson. Time after time he is characterized as a dissenter, someone who "disagreed" with the administration. He has been painted as the victim of a Republican machine, a tortured truth-teller whose life has been turned asunder by a right-wing cabal.
It's not just flabbergasting, it is grossly incompetent and an insult to a formerly noble profession. It is in itself, a scandal.
Libby might fry for false statements. Who knows? Maybe Rove will fry too. In hindsight, the only mistake the White House appears to have made was to try and legitimately discredit Wilson in private. They should have just held a press conference and pointed out the facts of the case.
WASHINGTON D.C.-Vice President Dick Cheney rocked the press room late this morning, announcing a Justice Department investigation into the actions of a CIA analyst and her husband, a former ambassador.
"We have uncovered an attempt, which we believe was intentional, to have bogus intelligence used as a basis for foreign policy in a time of war. This attempt to pass discredited intel on to the administration and the public, was perpetrated by a former ambassador, whose wife, in turn, is an employee of the CIA," said Cheney.
According to a press release from the Justice Dempartments, an investigation will proceed, based on evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame, an analyst at Langley, pushed the CIA to send her husband, Jospeh Wilson, on a fact finding mission to Niger. Furthermore, that her husband, in turn, held back information from the administration that was contrary to his own conclusions.
Granted, Wilson as "soon to be indicted for treason in a time of war" might be a bit over the top. But it would certainly be as fair-minded as the press reports we are getting now. At the very least, we would be getting some facts relating to the lead-up in the investigation. But in all of the endless background included in every single update on the case, it is all but impossible to find.
I guess the press has spent so much time speculating about Rove's future indictment for outing Valerie Plame, and whether the indictments would "reach all the way to the top," that they just couldn't muster the energy to speculate about Wilson, or Plame, or the CIA.
It's amazing how quickly those non-elected, black-budgeted, closed-session, ultra-secretive, black-jobbing, civil rights violating, always listening, thugs at the CIA became of no concern to the media. Seems just yesterday the CIA was the big bad wolf with too much power; the power, even, to affect the political discourse and manipulate foreign policy.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Slander Begins
The slander against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has already begun and it is typical of an idiotic liberal establishment long since used to not being challenged by the MSM. So idiotic in fact, that they failed to even ponder the idea that metadata is traceable.
I had a boss once who was a real moron. When I terminated our contract he threatened to sick his "legal team" on me, and sent me a document that had been drawn up by aforementioned "legal team." In the metadata it attributed the document to LawDepot.com. Tom and I got a pretty good kick out of the sheer stupidity of a man who couldn't be bothered to copy and paste text to eliminate tell-tale metadata.
This abhorant attack by the DNC makes my old boss look like a genius.
The insinuation is that Alito has a special place in his heart for the mafia, seeing as how he is Italian and everything.
U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying “You Can’t Win Them All.” Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation’s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a “stunning defeat.” Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, “Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can’t win them all.” Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases “as short and simple as possible.” Alito continued, “I certainly don’t feel embarrassed and I don’t think we should feel embarrassed.
As if that isn't stupid and disgusting enough, the DNC couldn't even be bothered to cover their tracks. The DNC's Chris Prendergast is likely the author, and the copy of the Microsoft software is licensed to the DNC. Furthermore, the metadata includes information indicating that the smear was again edited by Devorah Adler, also of the DNC.
With all of that involvement in the document's creation, it has the look of a well-organized slander of Alito by the DNC.
Stupidity and self-righteousness is a dangerous combination. Luckily for the right, the Democratic Party has a surplus of both.
I had a boss once who was a real moron. When I terminated our contract he threatened to sick his "legal team" on me, and sent me a document that had been drawn up by aforementioned "legal team." In the metadata it attributed the document to LawDepot.com. Tom and I got a pretty good kick out of the sheer stupidity of a man who couldn't be bothered to copy and paste text to eliminate tell-tale metadata.
This abhorant attack by the DNC makes my old boss look like a genius.
The insinuation is that Alito has a special place in his heart for the mafia, seeing as how he is Italian and everything.
U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying “You Can’t Win Them All.” Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation’s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a “stunning defeat.” Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, “Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can’t win them all.” Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases “as short and simple as possible.” Alito continued, “I certainly don’t feel embarrassed and I don’t think we should feel embarrassed.
As if that isn't stupid and disgusting enough, the DNC couldn't even be bothered to cover their tracks. The DNC's Chris Prendergast is likely the author, and the copy of the Microsoft software is licensed to the DNC. Furthermore, the metadata includes information indicating that the smear was again edited by Devorah Adler, also of the DNC.
With all of that involvement in the document's creation, it has the look of a well-organized slander of Alito by the DNC.
Stupidity and self-righteousness is a dangerous combination. Luckily for the right, the Democratic Party has a surplus of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)