Saturday, November 19, 2005
Theories and Experiments
Posted by on 11.19.05 @ 8:24PM
John, I apologize for my rusty terminology and application -- high school science classes seem so long ago. Let me take another crack at it: a scientific theory must be falsifiable through repeated experiments. Neither evolutionary theory or ID qualify under such requirements, correct?
Are you arguing that the question of how things came to be is the exclusive domain of science?
Re: ID
Posted by on 11.19.05 @ 7:09PM
J.P.: The thing is, as far as the science is concerned, there really is no debate. Krauthammer is dead right: ID is not a scientific theory, period. It makes no positive assertions that are falsifiable. That is, its falsifiable assertions are entirely negative, variations all on "natural selection doesn't explain X." Its positive assertions (an Intelligent Designer did it) are not falsifiable. As far as the metaphysics goes, there's a lot to mull over, as Krauthammer acknowledges ("Intelligent design may be interesting as theology"). But science isn't metaphysics, and it's a mistake to rely on Edward O. Wilson's theological conclusions. I've mentioned here before that lots of scientists are flakey, even nuts, when it comes to serious thinking about religion. It's no more profitable to ask them about the nature of God then to ask a priest or philosopher to lead a paleontological dig.
And Dave, you're throwing around terms you don't seem to understand: "The real kicker here is that Krauthammer doesn't hold evolution to the same standard as ID. As a scientific theory, evolution should not only be disprovable, but also repeatable, with a more complete fossil record between these jumps in species."
A scientific theory must be falsifiable. A scientific experiment must be repeatable.
Melloan's Europe
Posted by on 11.19.05 @ 9:00AM
George Melloan of the WSJ is always worth reading. Until I read his 11/15 column (subs req'd) I couldn't think of a time I seriously disagreed with him. Consider this one: Melloan, arguing that most of the damage to European unity is self-inflicted and not America's fault, is right on target. But his conclusion is way off:
"It would be foolish of Americans to think that all this turmoil in Europe somehow serves U.S. interests. Chaos in Europe has never worked that way before, it should be carefully remembered...There is nothing to be gained by the U.S. from watching cars burn in Paris, politicians fumbling in Berlin or mass demonstrations against the government in a Spain at risk of exploding into little pieces." Actually, there is.
For decades, many of these European governments have had no foreign policy except anti-Americanism and no domestic policy except socialism. If the product of those policies is failure -- as Melloan's examples prove redundantly it is -- maybe European voters could come to realize that anti-Americanism hurts them far more than it hurts us. Europe has sunk so far into intellectual decadence, there's little hope it can be revived by non-traditional means. In the Euro context, by means other than war or revolution.
Friday, November 18, 2005
"I Will Not Cut and Run on the People of Iraq"
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 8:31PM
Says South Carolina Congressman Gresham Barrett. Amen.
Tantrum in the House
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 8:07PM
Read the AP report to catch up on today's back and forth on the Murtha resolution. The highlight:
The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
"He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said.
Democrats booed and shouted her down - causing the House to come to a standstill.
Rep. Harold Ford (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that it was an uncalled for personal attack. "You guys are pathetic. Pathetic," yelled Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Most Republicans oppose Murtha's call for withdrawal, and some Democrats also have been reluctant to back his position.
C-Span is replaying the debate from earlier today right now. Stay tuned.
Murtha Mush
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 7:41PM
John Murtha just
appeared with Chris Matthews on Hardball, and said so many
things that are factually incorrect, reckless and - I'm sorry to
say - irresponsible, I hereby refuse to defend the man further.
Just because you are a war hero doesn't permanently immunize you
from on-target criticism. Just ask Tail Gunner Joe
McCarthy.
Among the whoppers
Murtha was peddling are that: (1) all Iraqi troops are
at the lowest readiness rating; (2) Iraqi troops work only three
out of four weeks; (3) there was no terrorism in Iraq before we
went in (news to Abu Nidal, who headquartered in Baghdad for
years); (4) Iraqis won't tell us where the insurgents are (Pentagon
sources say Iraqi cooperation and intelligence given our troops by
Iraqi civilians is very good and growing daily); and (5) the tired
old argument that we didn't go into Iraq with enough troops to
win.
It is a shame to see a
man who has been so thoughtful and so honest in the past lose his
compass and fall in with the nitwits who dominate his party. With
Jack Murtha's turn, the Dems have…who? Offhand,
I can't think of a single one who has any credibility left on war
and national security. Or much of anything
else.
[The anti-Murtha resolution is on hold, the House on recess 'till later tonight when they may take it up again. I'm still hoping for a good old-fashioned punchfest. Once again, one must wonder how much better would we be had dueling not been outlawed.]
Re: More on ID
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:57PM
D.,
I don't even think that there's a recognition that there is a
debate. For many, as Dr. Krauthammer taps his medical degree and
invariably tries to end the discussion. Many think there's an
immediately reconcilable edition of Darwinism that will cater to
those who don't wish their religious ideals to obfuscate their
arguments; sort of a Rawlsian relapse into arguments about private
reason vs. public reason. Because Darwinism is so poorly
understood, it winds up misrepresented in such a way that even
Wilson feels it's being sold short.
Re: More on ID
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:49PM
J., if you mean that there's an unwillingness to see evolution debated among the right, you're correct. Is this what you're arguing?
Iraq Showdown Live
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:45PM
They're at it already, tho proceedings stopped when a freshman congresslady from Ohio (Schmidt?) read an e-mail from a constituent that may have violated House rules on decorum by implying Murtha is a coward. While they sort this out, all the momentum building toward fisticuffs has been lost. If memory serves, we haven't had a real fight in Congress since just before the Civil War.
More on ID
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:34PM
From a reader:
TAS -- I beg you to stop with this ID nonsense.
Maybe George could comment, but one thing that I've noted since I got started here at the Spectator is a desire to doggedly pursue arguments to their philosophical ends. Many thought the Spectator was just beating a dead horse by reporting on Clinton; but if the magazine was trying to score political points and make itself look good, it would have eventually rescinded its stories or pretended it never happened, tucked its tail in, and headed back to Bloomington.
What Dan Peterson did in his article was simply provide a basis for debate; before reading it, even I was not yet annealled into the fold of critics of Darwinism. ISI put out a very good book on the topic, called Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. There's a reason they refer to intellectuals here.
There are a lot of doctrinaire varieties who chime in on the subject, doing so unhelpfully in the course of serving either side. But just because they use moderated beliefs doesn't mean their way of voicing them isn't extreme. In fact, the so-called "extreme" sides are the ones with the greatest intellectual beef; Wilson's book, which George discusses here provides a convincing argument that Darwin wasn't willing to interweave religion and evolution as so many others have tried to do for him. That appears to be an intellectually honest position. Why is it that the intelligent design position is consistently considered to fall short of that?
Kerry: Stop "Swift Boat Attacks" on Murtha
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:26PM
John Kerry's still smarting from losing last fall. This email just went out:
This is our moment of truth. You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.
Yesterday, an extraordinary congressman, former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on the war in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. No sooner had the words left his lips than the vicious assault on his character and patriotism began.
Today, in a statement on the Senate floor, in interviews with the national media, and in this message to you, I am seeking out every opportunity to defend a brave American hero that the Republican attack machine has set their sights on.
I urge you to do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with Jack Murtha is irrelevant. These despicable attacks on Jack Murtha's patriotism and courage must be met with an enormous public outcry. Call your local talk radio show, write a letter to the editor, phone your members of Congress - join me in acting now to reject these "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.
It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.
Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.
Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.
The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.
I urge you to join today in a massive public outcry that rejects the attempt to demonize and destroy anyone who dares to disagree with George W. Bush's aimless "stay for as long as it takes" policy on Iraq.
Please act now. Call and email your elected officials. Flood talk radio with calls rejecting these vicious smear tactics. Send a letter to the editor. Express your outrage about the tired old Rovian "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Without actually citing anyone questioning Jack Murtha's patriotism, he appears to make a blanket accusation against Murtha's detractors. Name names, Sen. Kerry. Anonymous quotes don't fly in the public discourse, as you learned last year.
Johnny Cash Review Roundup
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 5:12PM
I know, you're dying to see the new Johnny Cash biopic, Walk the Line, as much as I am. It's received largely positive reviews, most of which I've read (out of my Johnny Cash excitement), so you don't have to.
Apparently both Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon pull off the singing -- marvelously well. Ann Hordaday in the Post loves the singing, is a little down on Witherspoon, and dismisses the film as too firmly wed to the biopic story arc. David Edelstein at Slate loves it all: it's a biopic alright, but breaks away enough to convince; Witherspoon "gives every scene a lift"; Phoenix "evokes Cash on stage." Joe Morgenstern (sub. req'd), the WSJ's stellar film critic, says the film "breaks through the conventions of its biopic form with a pair of brilliant performances and a whole lot more." At NRO, Steve Beard tackles the tougher questions of how to enjoy Cash and appreciate his love for June while knowing that he left his first wife for her. Beard explains it well:
He was America's blue-collar troubadour of tales of heaven and hell, murder and redemption, love and death, sin and salvation. He was never too proud to seek grace, but he would never pretend to be pious. He once referred to himself as a C-minus Christian -- a believer who had nose-dived into the sumptuous buffet line of fame and fortune and was working his way towards paradise, one painful day at a time.
As some reviewers have pointed out, if you want the short version of the Johnny Cash story, watch the 2003 music video for "Hurt," a chilling journey through Cash's life of chaos, love, God, and sin. If you're wanting more Cash, go see the film.
Evolution, ID, and Faith
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 4:23PM
Mr. James G. Poulos, a contributor to TAS Online, takes issue with my post earlier today challenging Charles Krauthammer apoplectic and ill-reasoned column.
After considering my quick summation of ID, Poulos comments,
But it's one thing to say "maybe God did it" and quite another to say "therefore--." In unravelling the basic secrets of life on Earth, we should be none too surprised by a lack of clear evidence as to how mitochondria or the human eyeball eased into being over billions of years. The theory of evolution is on weak empirical reeds because it's being pushed beyond its brief: today bird beaks on the Galapagos, tomorrow the world, past, present, and future.
While he acknowledges evolutionary theory's lack of evidence, he seems to understand ID as concluding that without the evidence of evolution, God therefore created. From a strictly empirical standpoint, we cannot say that either God or blind, random chance is responsible for creation.
Poulos makes this point again in an email,
Alas ID advocates sometimes rather strike me as wanting to be picked for the science team more than they want to be right; or that for both sides, it's not good enough to simply take evolutionary theory for the interesting but limited thing that it is, rather than trying to make the partial evidence and unanswered quetions into ammunition in a war about the meaning of human existence.
I told Mr. Poulos that this aspect of the fight wasn't picked by the ID folks. The Darwinists staked it out long ago, claiming much more ground than their theory can cover, both in terms of certitude and its meaning for human existence. Folks like Vatican scientist Rev. Coyne (mentioned at Poulos's blog), who doesn't speak for Church Magisterium, have become the poster boys for those attempting to reconcile their faith and evolution. The IDers are pointing out that evolution is an incomplete theory, rather than fact, and then suggesting another (scientifically incomplete) theory.
After rightly mocking Coyne's God-on-the-sidelines, Poulos seems to divide faith from the rational world:
The whole purpose of faith is to structure action in accordance with a belief that stands outside of logic, that is free of logic, that faces tragedy or impossible circumstance and holds its power because it is beyond the "real" world, and functions on a plane in which the material universe is roughly akin to the sonic boom left by an airplane speeding silently two thousand feet ahead.
The bulk of faith, or at least the one I (try to) practice, is inherently rational. St. Thomas Aquinas engaged it as such. Catholic moral teaching is grounded in a systematic, logical philosophy. Faith/morality and logic aren't realms, or even classrooms, to be separated into the humanities and social sciences, faith and reason, or the irrational and rational. When evolution claims to explain the "how" of creation, that is not a question easily contained to biology or the sciences.
Iraq Showdown: 7 pm
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 3:56PM
Finally, some Republicans are willing to go to the mat, and play hardball politics the way it should be played. There's a vote now scheduled for 7 pm in the House, to force Dems to say we should or shouldn't pull out of Iraq. Stay tuned. Pelosi and Co. are gonna try to wiggle past it, and the Repubs may yet cave, but right now every Dem thinking of running in '08 is carpet-chewing mad.
Trouble in Storrs
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 3:56PM
The University of Connecticut is in the midst of the toils and troubles that always comes with having a conservative speaker. This is your example of a typical reaction, as the Campus Establishment (by which I mean, the liberals) are alleging that those in the student government who voted to bring Coulter to campus have a conflict of interest given that they are also members, leaders even, of the College Republicans.
The UConn handbook requires the neutrality of its students, but there's hardly a conflict of interest; for one thing it's not like conservative voices abound in Storrs. The other is that on a content-neutral basis, Ann Coulter's national standing is enough to warrant the use of student funds. If there are meek university students concerned with Coulter's tendency to abrogate the common, clean, healthily open-minded environment with her brand of honesty, then they can stay at home and listen to their racially-charged gangsta rap while watching reciting their favorite David Chapelle jokes. The open-minded and discursive Students Against Hate is planning a counter-event, designed to pull people away from the Coulter speech.
Much of the pomp is being celebrated under a speech code in the university handbook: "Every member of the University shall refrain from actions that intimidate humiliate or demean persons or groups, or that undermine their security or self-esteem." This anti-harassment policy has been repeatedly proven a violation of the First Amendment, as both the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has shown time and again at various colleges.
Ann Coulter is hardly a cute widdle puppy. But even if her rhetoric can be largely offensive, that's because the offended are only listening to her rhetoric, designed to infuriate people who aren't willing to laugh at the absurdity of politics. If you actually look past the obvious jokes, which no reasonable person would take as absolute seriousness, you'll see a brilliant mind at work. She is a lawyer, after all, one who went to Cornell (natch!).
Careful, John
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 3:24PM
I think it's a big mistake, one that can affect the credibility of his critics at NRO and the White House, to paint John Murtha with too wide an anti-war brush. He is one of the very few Dems who thinks carefully and cares deeply about the defense of our nation as his book, From Vietnam to 9/11, shows. We would do better to answer him and win him over than to try to push him into the left corner. The fact that he has criticized the war -- even that he voted for Howlin' Howie -- says less about him than his decades in Congress.
The Antiwar Press
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 2:47PM
After stumbling around for a while, the mainstream press has finally found an organizing principle: if an event/person advances antiwar coverage, let's push it hard. Almost everything in the media is now judged according to its relationship to the war, including the merits of journalists. Had Judith Miller provided some fine antiwar articles before her imbroglio, she would still be at the New York Times. Had Bob Woodward smoked out some war-related scandal before this week's controversy, his colleagues would be celebrating not condemning his cavalier and sloppy habits. Who was and who was not on the right side of the antiwar line? That's what determines coverage. Â
The Myth of Murtha
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 2:18PM
This is a manufactured news story. Murtha is not a hawk, and hasn't been for at least a year and a half.
From the May 6, 2004 Roll Call (here's a Yahoo cache):
Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats' most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is "unwinnable."That didn't stop The Hill from making a big deal of it when Murtha endorsed Howard Dean for DNC chair:
The endorsement of the leading antiwar presidential candidate by one of the Democrats' most prominent early supporters of the Iraq invasion signals a rehabilitation of Dean's image in the House and greatly increases his prospects of leading the party, many Democratic lawmakers and aides said.That was in January, nearly eight months after Murtha joined the party's antiwar wing. Our esteemed press corps didn't check up on the Murtha-is-a-hawk spin then, and they didn't check up on it yesterday, either. Pathetic.Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) is writing letters in support of Howard Dean. Several lawmakers said support by the hardscrabble, old-school Vietnam veteran, who endorsed former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) in the presidential primaries, would compel the DNC to take a second look at the firebrand governor and not simply write him off as an extreme avatar of the party's antiwar wing.
(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez.)
UPDATE: GatewayPundit has a history of Murtha's positions on the war.
Fair Print
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 1:34PM
As reported this morning by Publishers Weekly in PW Daily, and following up on RET's column in September, the ongoing debate over Google continues:
The debate between publishers and authors and Google and its allies held last night at the New York Public Library was heated, sometimes contentious and mostly civil, and even produced a point on which all sides agreed--that they are miles apart on what they view as fair use in the 21st century.AAP's Allan Adler said if Google's theory of fair use was adopted, it would put Google in control of other people's content that it downloaded onto its own databases. While Google says it will use the scanned book content in a limited way, that could all change, Adler said.
Google v-p of corporate development David Drummond said Google Book Search was designed with fair use in mind and not to harm publishers. If the company ever goes beyond the bounds of fair use, other copyright protections would kick in, Drummond said, to which Adler quickly responded "that's why we went to court."
The definitions of "fair use," "free content," and "rights" in the publishing industry have been constantly shifting this past decade as technology advances and as more and more distance is put between our times and the advent of the Gutenberg press. This fight began with the literary agents in the 1990s over the "rights" of "electronic files," and thereby effectively putting an end to the term of "out of print." With the development of "print on demand" technologies, no book will ever again be "out of print." Will this debate now put an end to "copyrights," or will some music-industry-type middle ground be adopted?
Answering Murtha
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 12:49PM
Texas Army National Guard Colonel James K. Brown commands the 56th Brigade Combat Team operating now in Iraq. In a Q&A with reporters this morning, he had some choice words in answer to Rep. John Murtha, who called yesterday for withdrawal from Iraq because we've done all we can do there militarily. Here's the money quotes:
QUESTION: "Colonel Brown, I didn't know if you'd heard the remarks yesterday made by Congressman John Murtha calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq; Congressman Murtha being a Marine for 37 years, Vietnam veteran who had been awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. Coming from someone like that, what do you think of this call?"COLONEL JAMES K. BROWN: "Well, certainly I think that, coming from a distinguished American, a distinguished member of our Congress, that's the ongoing rhetoric of a democracy, our own democracy, as we look at the future of our participation here.
"But physically here on the ground, our job's not done. It's been very clear by administration and by the leadership of the military here in Iraq that our exit from this theater should be conditions-based."
QUESTION: "Sir, as a follow-up, though, what do you say to his contention that the troops there are helping fuel the insurgency? He says, 'Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.'"
COLONEL BROWN: "Well, certainly as we support the democracy, our forces and coalition forces are going to be the targets of insurgents. But as we incubate all the national elements of power of this young democracy, it's necessary for us to be here to provide the security, provide the support to the Iraqi security forces to be able to do that.
"I think it would be, in my opinion -- and I think it's supportive of what's being said -- is that our job's not finished. And we need to stay here and finish the job that we began.
"I think the soldiers, my soldiers, believe that we've made great strides in supporting the democracy of Iraq. And I think all those soldiers want to see that job finished."
Do you hear the same echo of Vietnam I do? We can win, if we have the fortitude to do it, and let our warfighters take the fight to the enemy in Iraq and wherever else he may be. And if we don't, we can lose. And we will.
Big Murtha
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 12:21PM
"Vietnam Veteran Reacts to Challenges by 'People With 5 Deferments'" -- that New York Times subhead pretty much captures the problem with Rep. John Murtha's bombshell press conference yesterday. Evidently, Murtha fought in Vietnam so that elected officials who did not would have no standing under our Constitution.
Dana Milbank, who from all indications never served in the military either, nevertheless joins in to attack Republican critics of Murtha who do not "have military service on [their] resume..." (even while saving his cheapest shot for a Republican congressman who is an Army veteran). Suddenly Milbank has great respect for Murtha, an obscure hawk "whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the word 'chicken.'" Milbank confidently declares that Murtha "has long served as Democrats' conscience on military matters because of his moral authority on the subject." But how would Milbank know? Today's column is the first time he has ever bothered to mention Murtha.
Scientific Standards in the Evolution Debate
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 12:15PM
The Post's other erstwhile conservative, the august Charles Krauthammer, takes his shots at intelligent design today. While a healthy, honest debate on this subject is warranted and even welcome, Krauthammer and his fellow vituperative ID critics aren't interested. He trots out tired and unjustified attacks on ID: "warmed-over creationism," that it's "not science," "as science it is a fraud."
The standard for a scientifically defensible theory, Krauthammer writes, is
that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
In other words, Krauthammer doesn't bother directly to address ID, but rather his caricature of it. ID demands the scientific evidence for evolution between species and, finding little or none, posits the more reasonable theory. Occam would be proud.
The real kicker here is that Krauthammer doesn't hold evolution to the same standard as ID. As a scientific theory, evolution should not only be disprovable, but also repeatable, with a more complete fossil record between these jumps in species. Sadly, Krauthammer has bought evolution as a scientific theory, hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to examine it.
The Democrats Want Another Vietnam
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 12:11PM
Dear Congressman Murtha:
What none of our political leaders has said, I suspect for fear of being attacked by the left and the MSM, is that the Democrats want
They want support for the war to plummet. They truly care nothing for the Iraqi people who are tasting freedom for the first time ever. And for all of their talk of “supporting the troops,” they have no problem undercutting and devaluing the mission and the accomplishments of those same troops. That is the most insidious and cowardly position of all.
There are two reasons they desire a total
The second reason flows from the first and is even more insidious. They want a total failure in
The troops on the ground, the troops here at home preparing to deploy, and the troops around the world who stand guard, ready and willing to beat back those who would destroy America and our way of life, are being told by the Democrats and the anti-war leftists that their service is misguided. What other conclusion can they draw from the words of John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and their ilk? What other conclusion can they draw from the mainstream media’s coverage – coverage that ignores the incredible accomplishments in
Is it any wonder that the troops cannot stand liberal politicians and the MSM?
The Democrats desire the same flames of civil and cultural unrest here in
They think the CIA leak investigation will be another Watergate (though with Mr. Woodward’s latest bombshell, they will be sadly disappointed).
The Democrats will fail. The American people will soon understand that we are safer and more secure from terrorism with a flourishing, strong and democratic
Our troops, their families and friends, and the majority of normal patriotic Americans are proud of what has already been accomplished in
With apologies to the Who: We won’t be fooled again.
Goss
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 10:59AM
Clearly, CIA boss Porter Goss is the target of the latest Post leaks. And these reports are doing real damage overseas.
According to some folks we talk to, at least two countries involved in helping the U.S. with its internment of al Qaeda terrorists have asked in the past two weeks for assistance in tracking what they call an increase in communications traffic between suspected Islamic terror networks in country. They say there is heightened concern for domestic terror activities as a result of the Post "black site" and third-party leaks.
Congress better put a clamp on some of this, and those "former" intelligence sources who are doing this -- in part to get back at the administration over the Joe Wilson scandal -- had better be shut down too.
Re: The Recount Lingers
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 10:35AM
Paul -- The recount may have been a turning point, but I would think it happened earlier. President Clinton's tenure was the milestone of the postmodern era, where it was no longer important what someone did or didn't do; How he played to the camera was what was most important. It was said that no Republican administration could get away with what his did, but what was most galling was that no administration prior to his would have ever dared behave like his, regardless of party. (You can make an argument for Carter, except his public diplomacy was a caricature of itself enough to quicken support for Our Ron.)
I mention this as a testament to spin, and the tactics Clinton employed in maintaining an upper hand, what he referred to as "triangulation." That was a clever word for what was actually a failure on his part to employ good policies or make the right decisions, leading him to use the press office more exclusively as his mode of effecting change. Now, having nourished on the massively entertaining show put on by the Altar Boy from Arkansas, liberal groups hate Bush for being everything Clinton was not -- moral (and not moralizing), confident (and not empathizing), and Republican.
So where does national security come in?
One of the most shocking aspects of Clinton's tenure was in the neglect of his draft-dodging. The apathy to that charge was symptomatic of a nescient media, and perhaps the populace in general about the Vietnam conflict and the "peace movement" (who am I kidding, I'm referring to the Kultursmog). There was little discussion about the state of our military in those years, particularly on Clinton's behalf who stumped on 3 major occasions about it: Don't Ask Don't Tell (which reflected on the military negatively), Kosovo (which had the appearance of an air show), and briefly, Iraq (coming amidst the height of the scandals). His attention was far more focused on making sure the Republicans would not ruin his legacy by impeaching him for only a few of the things he did that were impeachable.
While today, many Americans look at that period as The Time Republicans Went Too Far, what was really egregious was the way the President abused his power and manipulated the media, and the military, in order to beat his rap. With such a no-holds-barred approach, he set the precedent of "throw everything at them," and now, as though they were projecting their own flaws of yesteryear onto this presidency, they are undermining everything of value in our efforts, military or otherwise, around the globe.
NOC, NOC: Who's There?
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 9:09AM
The idea that Valerie (99) Plame -- famously CIA-employed wife of Joe (Agent 86) Wilson -- was a "non-official cover" or covert agent is about as serious as your kid's last "knock-knock" joke. WaPo's Bob Woodward said, on CNN's Larry King Live on 27 October, the day before Libby was indicted:
"They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment." Just "some" embarrassment?
Woodward's revelations make Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak of Plame's identity look less and less serious. How many others in the press who were working on the Wilson story did Fitzgerald fail to question? Why weren't the obviously open leads -- such as NBC's Andrea Mitchell's famous quote about Plame's identity being well-known among those reporting the Wilson story -- investigated thoroughly? And why, when Fitzgerald came to the conclusion that outing Plame wasn't a violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, didn't he just fold his tent and go home to Chicago?
We know none of those answers, and apparently won't any time soon. Fitzgerald is apparently empaneling a new grand jury to hear the Woodward evidence. If he does, it may well take months for him to even get them up to speed on the previous two years' accumulation. Fitzgerald's band apparently plans to extend its gig until the '06 election.
The Recount Lingers
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 8:46AM
Near the end of a typically strong column by Daniel Henninger in today’s Wall Street Journal, he makes a point in passing that probably doesn’t get made enough: that the 2000 presidential recount has played a significant role in weakening our national security:
"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in
It’s hard to believe that the vituperation against President Bush would be quite the same without the backdrop of that election. Most presidents don’t take office with books alleging they stole the presidency on shelves before their inaugurations. The moment that election went into dispute, our adversaries gained an important advantage. Bush went into office with a target on his back, and it would have been similar, though easier, for Gore. We lost more than we know that night.
Dana Priest Strikes Again
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 8:32AM
The increasingly infamous Washington Post reporter has penned another disclosure of classified information regarding the U.S. Counterterrorist Intelligence Centers. Her sources are current and former intelligence officers, foreign intelligence officials, "as well as diplomatic and congressional sources." Look for this to become more fuel for a congressional investigation into a truly damaging leak, rather than one impacting a gal commuting not-so-covertly from her house in Washington across the river to CIA headquarters each morning.
Congressional Defeatism
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 8:26AM
The WSJ has a great editorial today (sub req'd) about the congressional cowardice on display this week. Money quote:
"There are many lessons of the Vietnam War, but two of the biggest are these: Don't fight wars you don't intend to win, and while American troops can't be defeated, American politicians can be. Like General Giap, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his fellow terrorists understand the second lesson very well, and so his strategy has always been not to capture Baghdad but to inflict casualties in a way that breaks the will of American elites. He'll only be encouraged by this week's show of Beltway duck and cover."
General Giap -- the North Vietnamese commander who engineered our defeat -- found he could rely more on American public opinion than his own forces. In Somalia, in 1996, Mohammed Fara Aideed learned that America can be outlasted, and defeated by the infliction of more casualties than its pollsters, newspapers and television newscasters would tolerate. Saddam tried to use that same formula and failed. The insurgents are doing the same now, and will succeed if we don't act decisively to prosecute the war with all the resources at our disposal, in all the places in which they should be employed.
As I wrote yesterday, people such as Rep. Murtha cannot be ignored. If we were fighting this war to win it -- instead of to not lose it -- former Marine Jack Murtha would not be saying it's time to throw in the towel.
Intelligent Design Guide
Posted by on 11.18.05 @ 12:34AM
A reader asks if anyone has a "reference for a short, concise pro-ID explanation of what ID is." Well, Pete, as a matter of fact we do! It ran in The American Spectator's June issue. It was also posted online (subscription free) in early August, so if you are not a print or digital subscriber to TAS, you can read the article here.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Willful
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 2:12PM
In his column today, George Will calls members of a school board in Kansas who question Darwinism "the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people." Well, we can't have that. I would like to know who these temperate people are. My very unfair guess is that many of them sign his checks.
How many philosophically liberal cultural positions has Will advanced over the years? I've lost track. I do remember him endorsing feminism and state experimentation with gay marriage (this involved a lot of impressive throat-clearing and very thoughtful qualifications). He recently scolded social conservatives for being crudely obsessed with letting unborn children live.
At the same time, however, he is appalled at the Republicans' compromising spirit on spending. But why is he so uptight about this? After all, Will once instructed conservatives to pursue "conservatism with a kindly face." Otherwise, they would make conservatism repulsive to temperate people. "A conservative doctrine of the welfare state is required if conservatives are even to be included in the contemporary political conversation," he once wrote.
The New New McCarthy
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 1:27PM
Joe Conason's profile of Bill Clinton in the new Esquire is notable mostly in how blandly soundbite-ish the rhetoric of the ex-president it declares "The most influential man in the world" is. There are, however, points of interest here and there, not least of which is when Clinton notes in defense of George W. Bush that "when you've been president and troops are committed and lives are on the line, I think we have to be very careful what we say." Whoa! When did Ari "watch what they say, what what they do" Fleischer start coaching Clinton? And when will the left side of the blogosphere start condemning the 42nd president for this attack on their right to dissent? Is someone at Daily Kos even now photoshopping a picture of Bill Clinton lighting the Bill of Rights on fire with a cigar? Can I expect an online petition and fundraising request from MoveOn.org in my inbox this very day?
Joesph McCarthy, you wily rascal, the latest form you've taken on is your most dastardly yet!
Another interesting quote from Clinton: "You know, I have an interesting relationship with President Bush, and I believe when a president asks you to do something, if in good conscience you can do it, you should do it."
Yeah, priggish White House interns, he's talking to you. Now somebody call Dominos.
Murtha's Speech
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 12:11PM
Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa) is no Kucinich. He's been a defense stalwart for decades. His speech today, in which he says that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding Iraq's progress to self government and defense, and calls for immediate withdrawal, is a serious statement from one of the few remaining Dems who have any credibility on defense.
When Murtha says, as he did today, that "the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," he removes one of the last restraints on irresponsible Congressional action on the war. The president and vice president are at least beginning to answer their critics on the pre-war intel issue. But they need to act, decisively and consistently, to win back the support of people such as Murtha. We have Republican Roundheels in the Senate, and antiwar whacko Dems in the House and Senate. We simply can't afford to lose the few remaining Murthas in Congress.
Alaska's Bridges Blowup
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 11:10AM
Some of our readers have argued that the removal of the Bridges to Nowhere earmark is a token victory, since local Alaskan officials will still receive more than $400 million to spend as they see fit. Symbolic or substantial, the win over pork still has Alaskan Rep. Don Young, chairman of the transportation committee, so angered that he's cornering House colleagues and reminding them he won't forget it. The Hill has the full story.
House Repub Tussle
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 10:30AM
Before newbies to the leadership ladder start campaigning, there remain some big dogs to push out of the way. Biggest is Rep. John Boehner, who has been waiting for his shot at the leader's chair now for several election cycles.
Boehner has been doggedly fundraising, working K Street and helping his colleagues for years and isn't because he enjoys the hustle of it all. He will be a tough competitor. But the more the merrier.
Coup Time
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 9:51AM
Rep. Tom Reynolds mean anything to you? Pat Hynes's AnkleBitingPundits.com thinks he will soon enough. The current chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee wants to move up -- way up -- in the GOP House leadership. He's from Buffalo, so there's a lot more to him than there was, say, from Rick Lazio. But how do he and, say, Mike Pence, mesh?
On the Air
Posted by on 11.17.05 @ 8:20AM
I'll be subbing for Mark Larson on KOGO (600 am) in San Diego today, 3-6 pm EST. For those not lucky enough to be living in SD, you can listen live on the net on the KOGO website. We'll be talking about the latest on the Senate Roundheels, Judge Alito, and lots more.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
GOGs Retake the Field
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 6:33PM
Well, now we have a small lesson in leadership. From, unsurprisingly, the Vice President. Striking back at Dems for their "Bush lied us into war" campaign, Mr. Cheney said:
"There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are facts. 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."
To the point, factual, and a hard right jab at the libs' jaws. Please, sir, may I have some more?
Alaska's Bridges to Nowhere Slain
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 4:13PM
Or defunded. But conservatives are rejoicing at the victory over the two transportation projects that amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressional earmark spending. Andrew Roth has the round up of news and commentary. Next up: parking garages and bike paths.
UPDATE: Readers note that while the bridges are gone, the funds are still flowing to Alaska, probably as a concession to please Ted Stevens. Still, it's a sizable victory.
Happy Beaujolais Nouveau Week
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 3:42PM
The French wine is officially in season tonight at midnight. The Boston Globe has a terrific dispatch from the Beaujolais region of France. Of course, Wikipedia has a complete entry.
Sunset Provisions
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 2:25PM
Merging the topics of my previous two posts, here's a classic Sarbanes Banking Committee moment, as recounted by Bill Bradford in 1997:
[Alan] Greenspan ... recommended to a Senate committee that economic regulations all should be sunsetted. Senator Paul Sarbanes accused him of "playing with fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on the fire," and asked him whether he favored a sunset provision in the authorization of the Fed.Greenspan coolly answered that he did. Do you actually mean, demanded the senator, that the Fed "should cease to function unless affirmatively continued"? "That is correct, sir," Greenspan responded. "All right," the senator came back. "The Defense Department?" "Yes."
The Senator could scarcely believe his ears.
Re: USA PATRIOT Act
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 2:19PM
Is it really that bad to have sunset provisions on laws that expand government power during wartime? The Patriot Act is a big, complicated law, and while some of its provisions are necessary and useful, others aren't (for example, the way the Patriot Act expanded the already nigh-useless data-collection that started with the Bank Secrecy Act). A periodic reassessment seems entirely appropriate.
Batchelor Show Tonight
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 2:17PM
I'll be on again with John Batchelor (WABC radio in NY and nationally-syndicated) tonight about 10:35 EST talking about the latest on the Fitzgerald/Plame/Wilson/Libby saga. Bob Woodward's statement raises some new and interesting points about the Fitzgerald investigation. We'll be talking about that and more.
Educating Paul Sarbanes
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 2:01PM
Western Illinois University econ professor William J. Polley notes this exchange from the Bernanke hearings last night:
Sen. Sarbanes held up a chart showing how our unemployement rate is so much lower than Europe's...and of course he reminded us that the European Central Bank has an inflation target. Mr. Bernanke's response: "Senator, it was below that rate 20 years ago before the ECB was even created. I believe there are other factors that contribute to that difference."Bernanke was too polite to expound on those factors -- i.e., policies that Sarbanes has spent his political career fighting for.
Death Penalty Teaching Optional
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 1:50PM
A fact that is frequently blurred by media, liberal politicians, and even clergy, the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty is not an absolute proscription, as with abortion. Phil Lawler lauds the Boston Globe for noting this important point in the wake of the bishops' conference approving a new statement denouncing capital punishment in the U.S. Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn said that unlike teaching in areas of euthanasia or abortion, on the death penalty "people of good will can disagree."
USA PATRIOT Act
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 1:21PM
Is half a loaf okay when the issue involves our domestic security?
Apparently our elected officials in Congress think so, judging by the deal they struck on renewing and making permanent ivestigative tools in the USA PATRIOT Act. We'll leave the details to people like Corallo who actually dealt with the stuff during their time in government, but this negotiated deal, which keeps many of the most critical investigative tools on a sunset schedule for seven years, is just awful.
Granted, it's better than the four years Democrats were asking for, but we shouldn't be playing games with policies that keep us safe. The privacy concerns related to some of these tools have been overblown by People for the American Way and the ACLU, which have both raised millions off of half-truths and outright lies. And besides, privacy rights don't do you much good if you're not alive to enjoy them.
Gov. Gilmore Part Deux
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 1:20PM
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore told the Washington Times yesterday that he will run for public office again, either as governor again or as a U.S. Senator. Interesting tidbit: the Times asked Jerry Kilgore's campaign manager, Ken Hutcheson, why Gilmore wasn't more involved in the race (Gilmore said he was ready and willing). Hutcheson claimed Gilmore didn't offer. In other words, the Kilgore campaign wasn't seeking out these senior Virginia Republicans. That campaign's missteps become more clear by the day.
Bethell for the Birds
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 1:16PM
It isn't government that is hyping avian flu threats. It's the markets: global banks and investment houses and large international companies that trade in Asia.
They are rightly concerned, and have been for more than three years now. This isn't a new concern, it's just a new concern to the media. Bethell is right on one point: the media has oversold by not being forthright about how the disease is most likely carried over from fowl to human. Who wants to know the intricacies of nonmodern butchering techniques in the hinterlands of Mongolia, after all?
Following Conservative Anglicans
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 12:56PM
For more on the growing schism in the American Episcopal Church, check out a couple conservative Anglican blogs: titusonenine and CaNN.
Bernanke to the Floor
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 12:39PM
Ben Bernanke's nomination to succeed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board passed the Senate Banking Committee today.
Your Courageous Republicans
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 12:37PM
For the record, here's who voted no on the Warner amendment yesterday:
Republicans: Jim Bunning (Ky.), Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Isakson (Ga.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), John McCain (Ariz.), Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.), and David Vitter (La.).
Democrats: Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Ted Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.), and Pat Leahy (Vt.).
Not everyone on this list voted no for the same reason (the far left group who voted yes for the Democrats' amendment), but those who opposed both resolutions should be singled out for their commitment to victory in Iraq. This group included all the Republicans as well as Sen. Conrad.
Kiss the Pig
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 10:44AM
This morning CNN's Miles O'Brien tried his hand at Anderson Cooper-style righteous indignation with middling results during a segment about how Wal-Mart was responding to Robert Greenwald's much heralded documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, currently being flocked to by similarly indignant yuppies and college freshman with no homework.
In a mocking tone O'Brien sniffed that Wal-Mart had "hired a big fancy PR firm."
"In other words the response to what seemed to be some substantive concerns about wages and how workers are treated is public relations. Trying to put a little lipstick on a pig maybe. Is Wal-Mart going to succeed?"
Ironically, the voice of reason and journalistic balance turned out to be not the supposed moderator O'Brien, but his guest, a correspondent for a business magazine who tried to explain that both Wal-Mart and those trying to unionize the store were engaged in a political campaign-esque battle of which PR was a component. O'Brien wasn't having any of it, though.
"One way to stem the tide would be to perhaps treat workers better," the anchor said. "Or is that just an anathema?"
O'Brien then rambled on about how Wal-Mart should realize their employees were also their customers, but it's a little late to be offering advice to a company after you've called it a dolled up pig that has an anathematic revulsion to doing anything nice in pursuit of its capitalistic destruction of the proletariat, isn't it? I'm curious if O'Brien would sign on to Greenwald's other documentary propositions of recent years, namely that election 2000 was stolen and Rupert Murdoch is Satan?
Ted Kennedy loves the new movie and has been appearing with the filmmaker, but another Democratic Senator, Arkansas Mark Pryor, actually made a reasonable point about his homestate company.
"Wal-Mart has been an extremely successful American company and they are obviously being attacked on a lot of different fronts, but I don't know how fair that is -- or unfair," he told an Arkansas paper. "Every time I drive by Wal-Mart the parking lot is full of cars," he said. "Obviously, they are successful for a reason."
A lot of people must like kissing pigs.
Tricky Dick
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 10:34AM
Just received this email from a friend:
"Dick Durbin said on 'Meet the Press' that Alito's pro-life stance would disqualify him. Durbin, like Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, was vehemently pro-life in the 1980s when he was in the House and switched to pro-choice to make himself a more viable Senate candidate (the other two switched, of course, to be more viable presidential candidates)."
Here's the Durbin quote about Alito, and here's his pro-life record from the 80s. Unbelievable.
Bob Woodward: Plame Affair is "laughable"
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 10:22AM
That's what Woodward said on NPR this summer. His grand jury testimony, detailed today in the Washington Post, gives context to that quote, and adds a new layer of confusion to a "scandal" that looks more and more hollow. Woodward learned Plame's name from a senior administration official who "casually" mentioned it; Woodward didn't consider the information classified; the information was so unhot that when Woodward himself casually mentioned Plame's CIA identity to a fellow reporter that reporter, Walter Pincus, says he can't remember the conversation.
French Republicans
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 8:44AM
The Senate's action yesterday, requiring the president to pressure Iraqis to compromise politically, to provide quarterly reports (as if body counts are like price/earnings ratios on financial statements) and to, "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq" was awful on any number of levels.
As I said on the O'Reilly Factor last night, the formulation of questions on the war are wrong so long as we speak only about Iraq. And if even Bill O'Reilly says, as he did last night, that we'll never defeat terrorism everywhere, our mindset is wrong. We can't and won't defeat terrorism everywhere. But if our nation is going to survive, we need to defeat the terrorist ideology and convince its adherents that they are defeated. If we quit before achieving that goal, they will keep fighting until we are defeated.
Before I got to the Fox studios, I did a hit with my pal Hugh Hewitt, who was about as steamed as I've ever heard him on Republican political cowardice. You can read the transcript of that segment here. People such as Chuck Hagel and others who work against the president's ability to carry on with the war will -- I hope too late -- be made to understand that they have forfeited their presidential ambitions by joining the Dems in opposition to the war. At this point, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Hagel and Kerry.
I never knew so many Senate Republicans were French. (Some, such as John Warner, are members of the Franco-American Congressional caucus. And yes, Virginia, there is such a thing.)
Take on Roe
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 8:39AM
For political reasons, I understand why Chief Justice John Roberts had to bow to Roe v. Wade. Harriet Miers would have to honor it in the same way. And now Judge Alito is disavowing his 1985 memo denying there is a right to abortion in the Constitution. I'm all for avoiding the question for the sake of expediency, but it's a sad day when tough legal scholars like Alito are forced to obscure the truth. I'm with Tim Carney on this one: it's time to fight back and argue that Roe is bad law. And as ammo, we have a long and distinguished list of jurists, legal professionals, and other public figures including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Larry Tribe, Will Saletan, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt.
Anglicans Breaking Away
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 8:27AM
The split in the Episcopal Church, which Thomas Lipscomb detailed here Monday, widened this week when South Riding Church in Loudoun County, Virginia, left the Virginia Diocese and placed itself under Ugandan Bishop Benezeri Kisembo. The Bishop of Virginia, Peter Lee, supports the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop. Over the weekend, the Bishop of Washington, John B. Chane, had condemned conservative agitation in the church. This is the same bishop who called the Resurrection "conjectural."
A Clean Sweep
Posted by on 11.16.05 @ 8:15AM
The U.N.'s attempt to wrest control of the Internet from the U.S. was defeated yesterday in international meetings in Tunisia. Efforts had been led by such paragons of free speech as China, Iran, and Cuba.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
MLB's New Tough Steroid Rules
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 7:55PM
I like what I see in new rules that players and owners announced today: 50-game suspension for the first offense, 100-game suspension for the second offense, and a lifetime ban for the third.
Re: GOP Surrender
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 4:18PM
Dave: You are dead bang right, and Morrissey couldn't be more wrong. These Republicans are distancing themselves from the president and the war, setting it up so that if things aren't politically calm next year -- and I'm here to tell ya they won't be, here or in Iraq -- these guys can cut and run. Maybe even agree with another Levin amendment to set a time table for withdrawal. The text of the Warner amendment isn't the problem: what it sets up for next time is.
Bethell on the Birds
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 3:18PM
AmSpec senior editor Tom Bethell takes on the avian flu scare in the Washington Times today. Bethell's rightly doubtful of the hype, including from the Bush administration, surrounding bird flu, considering only 60 people have died worldwide.
Wardrobe Malfunctions
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 3:13PM
Adam Gopnik's New Yorker piece on C.S. Lewis will be the first of many attempts this winter to put the Christian apologist in his place now that his work, in the form of a Narnia movie, enjoys a new round of popularity. Gopnik's condescension is only exceeded by his ignorance. Gopnik tells us what is and what is not valuable in Lewis's work: his Christian work, bad and inept; his imaginative work, as long as it was freed up from his Christian prejudices, good. Gopnik in know-it-all mode even sketches out what he considers a better animal than a lion to use for a Christian allegory -- a donkey. Gopnik reveals his cluelessness early on when he attributes significance to a criticism of Lewis as a Christian apologist by a "former Archbishop of Canterbury, no less." The "no less" added at the end suggests that Gopnik isn't aware that Canterbury archbishops are about as interested in the actual meaning of Christianity as he is.
Whiplash at the Times
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 3:06PM
Google News cached a New York Times article a couple hours ago with this headline: "Democratic Effort to Set Iraq Timetable Is Easily Defeated"
Click on the story now, and it's changed into "Senate Votes to Demand Regular Iraq Updates From White House."
That must have really spooked them at 229 W. 43rd -- for a minute there, it looked like they were going to have to report good news for Bush. The horror!
No GOP Surrender?
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 2:56PM
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters sees the Warner amendment as pretty benign:
It isn't unreasonable to have Congress call for some accounting from the White House on the status of Iraq, given the 150,000 troops currently deployed on a police mission there. It doesn't have to be a net negative for Bush to come to the Senate to present his side of the story; as the events this past week have shown, the President can use that kind of platform to correct many distortions of his record and the state of the effort in Iraq. Given the frustration many in the GOP feel with the White House in communicating all the good that our intervention has created, it sounds like a very good idea indeed, one that might be cast as a long-overdue bullhorn.
While I'm sympathetic to Morrissey's argument and his later defense that "in this hyperpartisan atmosphere, any attempt to find a middle ground looks like surrender," the circumstances and actors in this Republican effort make it suspect. Leader Frist and Sen. John Warner have proven all too ready to preen for cameras even if that means conforming to conventional wisdom. If this were a genuine attempt at oversight, and not merely meeting the surrender halfway, the Warner amendment would have been presented independently of the Democratic one. Instead, we have Warner and Frist slipping their amendment, which reads like a cut-and-paste version of the Democrats', into the record immediately before the Democrats act on theirs.
Republicans Fall For Failure
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 2:26PM
As a reader points out, even though the Senate rejected the first, stronger resolution, it then endorsed a weaker one by 79-19. Ankle Biting Pundits has more.
Cut-and-Runners Encouraged
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 2:23PM
Or at least the John Kerry faction is. His latest email begins:
You can feel the ice breaking. For far too long, Republican leaders have refused to challenge the aimless Bush "stay as long as it takes" approach to Iraq. But now, their unwillingness to act has started to crumble.
Today in the Senate, facing a Democratic resolution on Iraq, the Republicans offered their own call for President Bush to come up with a plan. They didn't go nearly far enough, but clearly our call for a concrete plan is gaining momentum.
It's time for the next step. Help our "20,000 troops home over the holidays" campaign place billboards in the home districts of Republican leaders.
Nothing like the prospect of failure to energize Democrats.
O'Reilly Factor Tonight
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 1:38PM
I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly tonight, talking about the Senate antiwar mess today. How much damage to a war effort can 100 Senators do in one day? Unfortunately, a whole bunch.
Frist Offensive
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 11:04AM
And a good one at that ...
Trent Lott should have a lot to talk about with his friends in the MSM after today's Senate Republican Policy Lunch. According to sources close to Senate leadership, Senator Frist is expected to unleash a huge broadside against Democrats, and present a blue print for his colleagues to push back hard against the Dems pathetic, "I voted for war, but really wanted to vote against it with 20/20 hindsight" arguments. The following memo and a 10 page set of quotes from Democrats going back to 1998 reads like a "greatest hits" of Democrats presenting a very hawkish take on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Good to see them pushing back hard. Read the whole document here.
TO: Senate Republicans
FR: Majority Leader Bill Frist
DT: November 15, 2005
RE: Iraq Rhetoric: Weapons of Mass Distortion
Democrats are claiming the Bush Administration manipulated and "cherry-picked" intelligence before commencing military operations in Iraq. By making such claims, they are waging a public relations campaign of mass deception. Their accusations defy reason, logic and fact ... and their own words. Throughout the Clinton Administration, Democrats - up to and including the president, vice president, secretary of state, national security adviser and more - warned of the dangers posed to America by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. There was no question of "if," only "where" and "how much." They told the American people of the horrifying effects of anthrax, VX, botulism and other unconventional weapons. President Clinton "guaranteed" that Saddam, left to his own devices, would use such weapons again. Administration officials raised the prospect of Saddam's weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists.
When the Clinton Administration warned of these gathering dangers, Democrats did not question the validity of the intelligence. Instead, they stressed the urgent nature of the threat - some even argued for more sustained military action to curtail Saddam's obsession with weapons of mass destruction. The conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and sought an even more lethal capacity was a premise held by intelligence agencies under the last two administrations, as well as intelligence agencies from around the world.
For Democrats to engage in partisan finger-pointing now ignores their own statements from not long ago. Attached please find a summary of Democrat statements in which they consistently warn the country of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I hope you will find this useful when discussing the matter with constituents and the press.
The Commission that won't go away
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 9:45AM
Will someone please tell the 9-11 Commission members that we are all sick and tired of their desperate attempts to stay relevant? They have become a national embarrassment.
First, they whitewashed Jamie Gorelick's role as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno in building and institutionalizing "the wall" between law enforcement and the intelligence community. Her blatant conflict of interest makes suspect all of the commission's findings and its entire work product. And anyone slightly to the political right of Ralph Neas or Barney Frank who watched the proceedings couldn't come away with any other conclusion than that the Democrat attack dogs, Gorelick, Roemer, and Ben Veniste, were only interested in assigning blame for 9-11 to George Bush while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his 8 years of inaction.
Now, reborn as the "9/11 Public Disclosure Project," they are sticking their uninformed noses into the Iraq War and the detention of terrorists.
It is becoming apparent that no Indian Shaman or Catholic Exorcist will be able to make them go away. So, I have an idea. Let's send them on a "fact finding" mission to one of the so called "black sites," overseas…
More from Senate Dempublicans
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 9:00AM
Senate Republicans -- led by Bill Frist and John Warner -- are putting a package of antiwar legislation up for votes today that stops short of imposing a withdrawal schedule from Iraq, but will otherwise gladden the hearts of the Cindy Sheehans of the world.
The legislation scheduled for floor vote today imposes requirements on the administration to lay out its strategy to end the Iraq war, gives terrorist detainees the right to appeal military tribunal decisions to federal civilian courts and pressures the administration to impose the kind of "do this or else" requirements with the Iraqis that L. Paul Bremer brought into disrepute
The NYT report today shows how well the effort is orchestrated to dress this legislative cow pie up to look like a chocolate sundae.
"The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate." And, of course, sitting atop the whipped cream is the McCain "anti-torture" amendment which is entirely binding and should be enough to draw a veto. Will it?
It should, but it probably won't. The president has threatened to veto the McCain amendment (which, as I explained in a column last week, has nothing to do with torture and everything to do with confusing the law on detainee interrogation). But because the president hasn't ever vetoed anything, no one takes him seriously on the McCain amendment.
The Senate continues to argue that the war is the war in Iraq, not the global war against the ideology of Islamic terrorism and all those who support it. They continue to do this because the White House doesn't bother to dispute the point. If the president fails to veto this mess, he will set himself up for the same legislative mess Nixon faced in 1972: Congressional funding cutoffs, imbecilic deadlines, and the last helo out of Baghdad. And yes, it is that serious.
The Mass. Drug Service
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 8:16AM
Get your hypodermic needles for drug use at your local pharmacy, right next to the aspirin. Or so the Massachusetts House hopes it will be.
Making Nice With the Actors
Posted by on 11.15.05 @ 8:14AM
The L.A. Times reports on the politicians courting Hollywood for funds in anticipation of presidential runs. There are many familiar Democratic names, but only one Republican: Sen. John McCain. It's no big surprise, but it's important to remember that the good senator isn't just friendly with liberals -- he's cut from a similiar ideological cloth.
McCain's picked up a good deal of steam for a 2008 run lately. But would primary voters, or even Americans at large, elect an also-ran? Who are the victorious also-rans of post-World War II politics? Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Two had the benefit of the vice presidency and one was riding an upsurgent political movement. McCain may benefit from an otherwise mediocre Republican field, but he has little else to recommend him for the presidency besides a vague likability.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Give Those Thugs Jobs!
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 7:48PM
French solutions for French problems from Jacques Chirac.
The Tortured Moralist
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 6:42PM
Jimmy Carter, the media's idea of a good Christian, is very adept at deleting from his dog-eared bible any passages that conflict with the platform of the Democratic Party. In this column, he ranks the harsh treatment of terrorists as America's most unforgivable sin. The legality of "torture" -- what that means according to international standards isn't clear -- makes him squirm. But his conscience grows a little more elastic when the legality of abortion comes up. Another distressing crisis for Carter is the "increasingly intertwined" relationship between "church and state." He punctuates this hysterical contention by declaring the intertwining "unimaginable." To anybody who has cracked open an American history book and studied the country's first 180 years, the emergence of religion in the public square is quite imaginable.
Re: Notre Domers
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 5:59PM
To add to that, Prowler, as one of our readers pointed out in a comment on Wlady's post, the Naval Academy sent students to Notre Dame during World War II to sustain the school. There is a debt of gratitude underlying this rivalry.
Notre Domers
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 5:47PM
Wlady's smug little West Coast bias shines brightly in his little riff on Notre Dame's playing Navy.
First, the Navy game has been a long tradition dating back to the days of Roger Staubach and probably before that, when Navy actually fielded a more than competitive team. Second, the game is great for Navy because of the gate it collects and serves as a recruiting tool.
We can recall many moons ago sitting up in the upper deck at the old Memorial Stadium in Baltimore watching Navy take on Notre Dame, and cheering on the Irish. It was great for Navy and great for Notre Dame alums in the region.
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 4:50PM
William Tucker is right to praise their discussion of health care reform, but to call the Douthat/Salam Weekly Standard cover-essay "an absolutely fabulous article" is a bit much. A great deal of their argument for a government-friendly overhall of the GOP platform is terribly wrongheaded, and underpinned by two fundamental mistakes.
Their first mistake is assuming that because the GOP is "a party whose constituents are surprisingly comfortable with bad-but-popular liberal ideas like raising the minimum wage, expanding clumsy environmental regulations, or hiking taxes on the wealthy to fund a health care entitlement," it follows that pandering to those impulses is politically critical. But voters aren't policy wonks. Pandering on one issue or another can lead to short-term gains at the ballot box, but Douthat and Salam admit that the GOP doesn't need any fixing in the short term ("The current Republican majority isn't likely to be defeated, or disappear, in the next few election cycles"). In the long run, it's the results of an economic policy that determine its political viability.
Their second mistake is thinking that most of their policies would lead to good results. I won't pick through each one here, but Matt Yglesias, who (because he's a liberal) likes a lot of Douthat and Salam's ideas, is quite correct to note that you'd have to raise taxes to pay for them.
The America's Future Foundation, by the way, is hosting a debate on this topic Wednesday; Douthat will be on the panel.
Posted...
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 4:42PM
Without comment due to mind-numbing disgust. From The Australian:
Actor forced to stop smoking: From correspondents in Rome, November 15, 2005
A STUNNED Italian actor had to stub out the cigarette he had lit up on stage after a spectator complained, forcing the theatre to change the script of an Arthur Miller play to make it smoke-free.
"This had never happened to me in more than 300 performances," the actor, Sebastiano Lo Monaco, said.
Italy has banned lighting up in all enclosed public places since January this year.
Lo Monaco was smoking, in line with the script, while playing the main character in Miller's A View from the Bridge at a theatre in the northeastern city of Mestre, when a woman from the audience shouted "Put out that cigarette".
After a 15-minute suspension, the performance resumed with a modified script and a non-smoking protagonist.
Virginia AG Recount
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 3:56PM
No surprises here, but it appears as though the recount in the Virginia attorney general race between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds will proceed. I cannot find a news story to link to just yet, but the State Board of Elections has McDonnell up by 446 votes.
Yes, Yes, Georgette!
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 3:39PM
Mark Humbert's latest on Democrats' increasing strength in N.Y. state is worth reading.
Was somewhat (pleasantly) surprised to see Republican moneybag Georgette Mosbacher's comments on the NY State GOP:
"Our New York party leaders have tried to be everything to everybody, and what's now happened to us is that we've become nothing to everyone."
Correct. Perhaps Georgette and others can now begin to remedy this by sending their money to the good guys in N.Y. politics.
Alito on the Vanguard Matter
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 2:58PM
Via RedState, Judge Alito has responded (pdf) to Sen. Arlen Specter's request for additional information on Alito's relationship with Vanguard with respect to Monga v. Ottenberg. He defends himself well, since federal law and judicial ethics have long held that judges need not recuse themselves from cases in which the potential conflict of interest is limited to holding shares of a mutual fund.
In today's edition, the Wall Street Journal editorial page dismantled this desperate ethics charge with its customary clarity.
Are Men Necessary?
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 2:09PM
Perhaps not, at least at the New York Times. Editor and Publisher has a fascinating report from which emanates the strong odor of a coming coup at the Times.
The report, which appears to be based on both research and leaks from the Times editors, says that Judith Miller wasn't the only person at the Times tied too closely to the Bush administration. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller is painted as too close to the Times' ultimate boogey man, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Here's the money quote:
How deeply was Bill Keller in the sway of Wolfowitz & Co.? Read this small piece of Keller's 8,139-word profile of the assistant defense secretary from Sept. 22, 2002, called -- believe it or not -- "The Sunshine Warrior" (via Nexis):The coup could be organizing to replace Keller with hyperlib Managing Editor Jill Abrahmson, a longtime pal of Mo Dowd. Are men necessary at the Times? Not if Keller goes and Abrahmson takes over. Stay tuned. This could be as much fun as the Jayson Blair scandal and many more such to come.
"In Washington, some people go straight to caricature, without getting much chance to be interesting or complicated. Paul Wolfowitz, who is interesting and complicated, has been cast since Sept. 11 in the role of zealot... . The shorthand version of Paul Wolfowitz, however, is inadequate in important ways. It completely misses his style, which relies on patient logic and respectful, soft-spoken engagement rather than on fire-breathing conviction."
Keller described three "important" things that Wolfowitz "brings to the table," including "something of a reputation as a man who sees trouble coming before others do, his long anxiety about Iraq being one example." Another "striking thing" about Wolfowitz: "an optimism about America's ability to build a better world. He has an almost missionary sense of America's role. In the current case, that means a vision of an Iraq not merely purged of cataclysmic weaponry, not merely a threat disarmed, but an Iraq that becomes a democratic cornerstone of an altogether new Middle East."
Even after no weapons of mass destruction turned up in Iraq after the invasion, Keller wrote a June 14, 2003 column that was called "The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz" and gives a very benign defense of the neo-cons and their feud with the CIA over pre-war intell on Iraq. He called the CIA "Team A" and the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Libby boys "Team B."
"The B Team comes in with fresh eyes, and fresh assumptions," Keller wrote. "One assumption, another Wolfowitz mantra, is that more weight should be given to the character of the regime -- in Saddam's case, his transcendent evil and megalomania. While the C.I.A. may say that we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program, Team B starts from the premise that it is just the kind of thing Saddam would do, and it is dangerous to assume he didn't."
Want to hear a great irony? Keller's was printed just two days after the Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there.
That same date, June 12, 2003, also happens to be the day when Dick Cheney spoke with Lewis "Scooter" Libby and told him where that diplomat's wife worked.
Schroeder's Anemic Germany
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 2:05PM
Gerhard took leave of the SPD today. His assessment of his tenure caught my eye:
Speaking to an SPD congress in the southwestern town of Karlsruhe, Schroeder said Germany had become a more likeable and liveable place in the past seven years -- even though his center-left party had often made governing tortuous.
"We've made Germany a country that is more modern, more open to the world and more just," Schroeder told the 500 delegates, who rewarded him with a 10-minute standing ovation. "It's been a good seven years for our country and our party."
Speaking of seven years, German unemployment is at a seven-year high of 11.7 percent.
Re: Agenda
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 1:10PM
Prowler's point about Rockefeller's private venture into pre-war diplomacy is one we need to keep firmly in mind in the coming months. On FNC yesterday, Rockefeller said:
"I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."
Now think about what was going on in January 2002: (1) we were still trying to get the UN Blixiecrats to do their job in inspecting Iraq, and were doing what little we could to get Iraq to cooperate; (2) we were performing intensive intelligence gathering and analysis to determine whether Saddam's WMD programs were ongoing; (3) we were dealing with Britain and the Axis of Cheese to try to get the UN set up to deal with this; and (4) President Bush was talking to the same arab heads of state that Rockefeller visited, asking for their help.
We now know that Rockefeller's trip provided a data point to the arab states that must have been passed on to Saddam, and that he must have acted on this information. What did Saddam do at that point?
By March 2002, Kofi Annan had gotten into the act, telling the world that there should be no military action against Iraq, and meeting with an Iraqi foreign minister to lay the rules for restarting the Blixiecrat inspections. In the months that followed, there were Congressional hearings to ventilate experts' opinions on whether Saddam really was a danger. And then the president decided to take the Iraq question to the UN. Where -- from September 2002 through early March 2003 -- we tried, unsuccessfully, to get the UN to take action to enforce its own resolutions. And, in those six months -- according to the Duelfer Iraq Study Group report -- unknown cargoes were shipped in hundreds of trucks from Iraq to Syria. WMD? Maybe.
Sen. Rockefeller is already under criminal investigation over the leak of a top-secret satellite program. And it's more than likely that he or his staff were the leakers of the CIA secret prison story to Dana Priest of the WaPo. Now we know about his "secret" mission which may have given Saddam more time than even the UN did to prepare for the war that came more than a year later. While the FBI questions Rockefeller and his staff about the CIA prison leaks -- which they absolutely should -- it's time for Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist to take steps to toss Rockefeller off the Intelligence Committee. His guilt or innocence in the leaks aside, his 2002 trip demonstrates clearly that he cannot be trusted with any post that carries the international significance and credibility of Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Re: Class of the Irish
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 1:06PM
Dave: I'm glad the new Notre Dame behaved itself during and after the Navy game. But there's one thing that bothers me about Notre Dame playing Navy -- the talent gap. Did anyone for a moment think there Navy stood any chance of winning? While other teams play serious league schedules, ND pads its independent schedule with games against easy prey. I'm all for sportsmanship, but in this case it was risk-free. If next year I see the ND and USC bands getting along, I'll know there's something to this display of genuine sportsmanship, South Bend style.
New Schonborn Article on Evolution
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 12:45PM
Get ready for the January First Things. Fr. Neuhaus writes at the journal's blog that Christoph Cardinal Schonborn will answer Stephen Barr's October article defending evolution.
Also, don't miss another installment on the intelligent design controversy by Dan Peterson in the December/January TAS.
The Class of Irish and Navy Football
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 12:37PM
Though a Notre Dame football fan from my younger days of donning a Ron Powlus jersey and pestering my family with my game day enthusiasm, I had never attended a game until this weekend. Saturday's contest between the Irish and Navy's Midshipmen exceeded all my expectations.
While enjoyable, the game itself wasn't the real treat. Navy's run offense was a fine display of a well-executed wishbone. They capitalized on their strengths of precision and speed and reliably pick up three or four yards each play with the sweep option.
The traditions and class of Irish football were unlike those at any football game I've ever attended. The student fans, most of them paying attention to each and every play, were energetic and respectful. Notre Dame fans cheered Navy as they took the field. This was a far cry from Providence College basketball, including one game at which jeering students so angered St. John's coach Mike Jarvis that he was awarded a technical foul. At the half, when the Notre Dame marching band finished its performance, the band members retreated to the sidelines, each took a knee, and respectfully watched their counterparts. And after the game, the Irish walked over to the Navy marching band, removed their helmets, and listened to the Navy alma mater. The whole stadium was silent in honor of a worthy opponent and those who the football team represents.
The game was sport at its best: opponents respecting each other as gentlemen and athletes first and foes second. The traditions of Notre Dame and the class of those gathered celebrated sport for its own sake and elevated a football game into an event that speaks well of American culture. The steady stream of fans headed straight to the Basilica for Mass following the game suggested that maybe -- just maybe -- all things can be redeemed and claimed for a higher purpose.
Priest in Trouble
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 12:21PM
Speaking of Howard Kurtz, his column today confirms what Mark Corallo laid out here last Tuesday -- Dana Priest could find herself in legal hot water for her reporting on the CIA's "black sites."
Typically, Kurtz, Priest & Co. try to ignore the gravamen of the matter by playing up criticism from the left for the Post's not having revealed more in its report. Evidently the paper thinks it deserves a Pulitzer for not revealing the names of the countries hosting the alleged sites -- information that became easily obtainable once Priest provided all the necessary clues.
MoDo and Crew Selling Well
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 11:00AM
Finally, we see some numbers for TimesSelect, the New York Times' subscription-only online content. Howie Kurtz reports this morning that the Times has sold 135,000 subscriptions at $50 each. Plenty of folks have howled about the Times killing its op-ed writers' relevancy with this move, but it appears they're paying their salaries well. The free content/paid advertising model really isn't sustainable unless your traffic is incredibly high. Even destinations like the Washington Post website have trouble meeting those numbers and run their web operations at a loss.
Hollywood Knows America
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 9:57AM
Another sign that the Left Coast just doesn't get it. Not happy to just make a good TV show -- and a dubious show at that -- big time Hollywood producers are making a superhero show where all of the bad guys are oil companies or businessmen or "polluters" in general.
Agenda
Posted by on 11.14.05 @ 9:43AM
Sen. Jay Rockefeller has a lot of explaining to do given his comments over the weekend that he was traveling around the Middle East back in 2002 telling Arab governments that the President had already made up his mind to go to war with Iraq.
It isn't clear -- as in other situations -- that Rockefeller may have leaked national security intelligence materials, but it is clear that he was working against the interests of his own country for what sounded like nothing more than an opportunity to strut around on foreign soil like a big-time politico.
Last week, according to a Republican staffer on Senate Intelligence, Rockefeller's personal office called in committee staff associated with the Intelligence commitee to measure just what, if any, damage they might be dealing with in a full investigation of the "Black Site Scandal." They must be getting nervous.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Matthews Revisionism
Posted by on 11.13.05 @ 11:28AM
Seeking to justify the Dems newest use of their Vietnam Playbook -- saying the president lied us into Iraq the same way LBJ lied us into Vietnam -- Chris Matthews said this morning that the attack on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. The Tonkin Gulf resolution, passed by Congress and authorizing military intervention in Vietnam, has always been used by the party of George McGovern to condemn the Vietnam war. The problem that Matthews, Dean and the rest have is that the Tonkin Gulf attack - and the threat of Saddam -- weren't fiction.
As I wrote for another publication in 2003, the parallel is very apt, but for precisely the opposite reason that the Dems want it to be. As that column said, "...the destroyer USS Maddox - gathering intelligence for the South Vietnamese - was attacked by four North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2, 1964. Maddox - aided by carrier aircraft - severely damaged the attackers, leaving at least one dead in the water." The next night, there was another attack detected, but due to the overcast skies, US aircraft couldn't find them and they couldn't find the US ships. One pilot who flew that second night e-mailed me that he was confident the enemy boats were there. In that e-mail, he told me, "We were being vectored by a radar operator. He could see our aircraft and he could see the targets on the water. We were vectored to a surface target, but without flares we could not see it. I know for certain there were targets on the water, but like the WMD in Iraq, we could not visually find them."
The Dems are desperate to make Iraq another Vietnam. "The president lied us into war" is just a page from the Vietnam playbook. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Zawahiri and the Queen
Posted by on 11.13.05 @ 8:46AM
We can't prove a cause and effect relationship between the two events, but al-Queda's condemnation of Queen Elizabeth as "one of the severest enemies of Islam" comes only a few days after Tony Blair's parliamentary defeat on one of his proposals to toughen Brit law on terrorism. The message -- in a videotape of UBL's #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is viewed by Brit security as a direct threat to the Queen.
The timing of the message is worth thinking about. Parliament - faced with Blair's proposal that terrorist suspects be held for up to 90 days without charge -- quailed. Because the July London bombers were all apparently Brit citizens, something has to be done to increase police power to interdict terrorist attacks, and to keep suspects in custody who would otherwise certainly flee or carry out attacks. Blair's first big attempt to do that has failed. In response - perhaps - comes this threat to the Queen. We hope al-Q lacks the power to attack the Queen, but whether it does or not, this whole exercise is a propaganda coup for al-Q at Britain's expense and - ultimately - ours as well.
The Brits' national anthem is "God Save the Queen." It would be nice if Parliament pitched in to help Him.
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Bowling Alone
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
