- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Two Iran Attentions: Two Puzzles
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 10:42PM
Bill Broad of the NYT writes of Iran's missile program in Sunday 19 NYT. Separately, Broad does not deny that that it is possible (no confirm) that Iran has a two track nuke fuel or missile program. Could likely be a second, totally hidden track, much more advanced, for their nuke fuel program or missile program or both.
Also, best Iran anti-regime source (who has said before that Iran has deployed 300 Shahab 3 and has a new Ghadar program, multi-stage, using Russian prototypes) says that there is a major presser on Monday in DC to annouce new detail on the Iran nuke fuel program. This presser is linked to the UN work in NY.
Puzzle 1: Are we being fed revelations on the Natanz and Isfahan and so forth so that we do not look elsewhere?
Puzzle 2: Broad did mention that the centrifuges at Natanz are antiques. Also, it took the US just three years to make the bomb in '45. It took Pakistan ten years. Iran has been working on this project since 1987 at least. Puzzle, what is the game at the UN for?
9-7 Gets T-O
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 10:20PM
So the 9-7 Dallas Cowboys have signed Terrell Owens, one of the most repulsive personalities in sports. They now, by contract, deserve each other. Owens, the personification of all that's wrong in professional sports, was justifiably shunned by the rest of the NFL after being booted off the Philadelphia Eagles. Dallas has agreed to a three-year $25 million contract with TO. It remains to be seen how many millions' worth of excellence on the field they get, and how many millions' worth of thuggishness. I expect the split to be about even.
Reid's '06 Strategy: Drive Troop Morale Down
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 6:16PM
When the President speaks before military audiences, he encourages the troops and reassures them that they're serving a worthy cause. Now Rowan Scarborough reports that Harry Reid's office is urging Senate Democrats to plan their own events:
• "Hold a town hall meeting with state officials and a local National Guard unit at their armory to discuss the security impact of long deployments. ... Ask National Guard members to offer input on how security and disaster response at home is compromised by long deployments."Nice, huh?[...]
• "Work with [veterans] organizations ... to find recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan veterans willing to discuss the mental effects they or their fellow veterans have experienced."
Re: WMD, DNI, Saddam Tapes, Russia
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 5:55PM
Easy there. Byron York is a veteran of The American Spectator and among the best investigative reporters in the country. Regarding Loftus and Tierney, he pointed out troubling facts that have yet to be disputed. Another great reporter, Stephen Hayes, deserves much of the credit for doggedly pursuing the release of captured documents from Iraq; he's been pushing ahead on the story at the Weekly Standard since long before the IntelligenceSummit.org release. Hayes, who knows more about this topic than almost anyone outside of the government, cautioned last month against either dismissing or hyping the IntelligenceSummit.org material.
We're all on the same side here. When we start turning on each other for the crime of attempting to get at the truth about a war we all supported, something has gone very, very wrong.
WMD, DNI, Saddam Tapes, Russia
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 3:04PM
Mention that Negroponte and the apparatchiks at DNIville are in full retreat with regard the unexploited docs and tapes from the late Saddam regime.
You will recall several weeks back, a York spent a few days shopping noise that there was something amiss with intelligencesummit.org and John Loftus and Bill Tierney with regard a release of twelve hours of audio tapes made during a decade of war council meetings in Baghdad between Saddam and his lackeys. ............ Those Saddam tapes are the key that unlocked the three thousand hours of tapes that are in the possession of Negroponte and are now said to be enroute to release. Slowly, because Negroponte is a bitter and irrelevant man, ignored by the war fighters and the other intel enterprises: his power consists in saying no to Congress ...........................................................
Additional note: there is more than Hoekstra's committee chasing the WMD story. Curt Weldon now gets involved. I have much more, will develop in time.
The answer to your questions is that the denial and deception plan for Saddam's WMD was hired out to the Russians. The slim argument that Negroponte and other State hacks have to holding back on the release of the Russian skulduggery is that State needs Russia with regard Iran.
.................................
Iran War Plan: First Window Opening
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 12:04PM
Best signals source indicates the window for concern is March 21 to April 8 to watch for a multiple front offensive by Tehran.
The window has been in the signals since last December, so it is not tied to the UN Security Council action with regard the IAEA referral.
The window may already have achieved its aim by intimidating and marshalling the disparate elements of the Iranian war plan. Syria, Hizballah, Sadr, AlQ, Russia, Cairo, Beijing -- and more, all these are elements in the war plan.
The war plan has three distinct targets:
1. War on oil. To break the U.S. resistance by driving the price of oil into the $80-$100 region and hacking into all GDP projections.
2. Wipe Israel off the map. A decap strike at Jerusalem is credible, or a strike that separates Israel from its supporters.
3. The U.S. political apparatus. Iran has determined that the U.S. cannot deal effectively with a foreign policy crisis in an election year.
Again, the war plan has already moved pins around the map and may be a feint. Iran has tied down the U.S. ground forces in Iraq to the point that it can turn on and off the destruction of the Shia or Sunni leadership. A surrogate strike on Israel or on oil pipelines is most credible. The sleeper cells in Europe are said to be turned on. The hardened bunkers are ready to accommodate the Tehran leadership to ride out a U.S. strike. The Russians are ready to outlast the struggle and assert themselves as the new honest brokers in Asia.
The Iran war plan is not terror. It is domination.
Yaliban at Foggy Bottom
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 11:13AM
Yale Taliban (Yaliban) source points to a new break in the story soon enough, asking the question how did the Talabina regime flack with a fourth grade education get a visa to enter the United States of America? This will turn the investigation from asking what Yale's admission office did to avoid common sense to what did the State Department do to avoid the safeguards against the enemy.
Mention the thickly ironic detail that almost twenty thousand rejection letters are going out next week to those families not as cunning as the Taliban to get their prodigies into Yale.
Foggy Bottom is most vulnerable. Waivers get reviewed. Officials who skirt safeguards get suspended. Student visas get canceled.
Yaliban looks like a good bet for Lahore University with his own show on AlQ TV: My Year With Infidels.
French Capitalism
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 9:17AM
An oxymoron? If so, why bother? As students pick up where mad Muslims left off -- torching cars, throwing stones -- one's got to wonder whether France shouldn't just stop the anguish of failure and give in to socialism. With unemployment rates like this, who needs French capitalism?
Re: Stevens
Posted by on 3.18.06 @ 1:06AM
Quin: There are rumors about Stevens retiring almost every year. Don't believe 'em.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Re: Cheer Up, Hearts of Oak
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 4:37PM
Jed, There are candidates who run from the right now and then. One of them is Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston who's running against Linc Chafee for the GOP Senate nod in Rhode Island. The RNC is backing Chafee over Laffey. Solution: don't send your cash to the party. They don't back conservatives -- they back incumbents.
Re: New National Security Strategy Report
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 3:41PM
James: The problem I have is that we obviously don't have the belly for it. If we were to have followed this strategy from 9-11, by now Syria would be an Israeli protectorate, Iran would be ruled by someone other than the mullahs and the Saudis would be begging for mercy and selling us oil at $5 a barrell. The more we talk the talk but motionless fail to walk the walk, the strategy -- which is right -- rings more hollow.
Cheer Up, Hearts of Oak
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 3:28PM
Hang in there, Quin. I hope you're right about Stevens. His departure this year would be great. But if he goes next year -- or in '08 -- there's an even greater chance that the Senate (given the fact that pretty near all of them want to be prez) will be more vulnerable to pressure from our side after '06. We need these nitwits, as hard as it is to stomach them. As long as W doesn't try another Miers, we should be okay.
This whole debate stimulates the big question: how do we get people to run against these guys from the right? There's candidates aplenty to run against Repubs from the left. Where are all the stand tall conservatives?
Re: New NSS
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 2:55PM
James, While it's obviously intended as a shot in the arm for the Bush administration's Iraq policy, it's first and foremost a late term paper -- required by law.
Jed, What's the Use?
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 2:42PM
Jed -- These numbskulls won't move any judges forward anyway, they spend like Ivana Trump on steroids, they act like whores to K Street, and they haven't done anything right since about 1998. SO what's the use of keeping them? As for Stevens, I think he'll retire this summer, so we'll have our shot at replacing him before the election.
Big Ben
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 2:37PM
Guess who took Grand Rapids by storm last night? It wasn't Ann Coulter, though the local scribbler couldn't help but conclude he's no less "derisive toward the Republicans' political enemies."
Re: New National Security Strategy Report
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 2:17PM
The big question for the NSS this time around is whether it has any point or purpose beyond the level of a particularly wide-lens stump speech. Preemptive action doctrine is quite a trip -- but what can you do for an encore? Jed, you're right to ask whether we dare actually implement the rhetoric.
The questions are multiplying. Isn't the NSS supposed to be a policy document? Does it matter if it's not? And if so, what's the point? To whom do we want to spill our strategic guts anyhow?
It's a postmodern thicket: will the text of this message self-destruct?
Re: Let 'em Lose
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 2:01PM
Quin: Whoaaaaaa, big fella. I agree with you that the Senate and House are infested with too many big-spending Republicans, and that the republic would be far better off were they retired. But the prez, sitting on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, is little better on that score, and he still has another coupla years to do. Can we wait to toss the Congressbeings out 'til John Paul Stevens is replaced? I feel your pain, pal. But as sorry as this lot is, what sits across the aisle is just that much worse.
More on N.O. Floodwalls
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 1:47PM
The latest from the excellent Bob Marshall of the Times-Picayune (a former boss of mine, by the way) shows more proof that the floodwall failures in N.O. were the fault of the feds, namely those at the Corps. Tell me again how the devastation in Lakeview and Gentilly and Broadmoor and Mid-City is the fault of the locals? Meanwhile, a friend of mine, a reporter now in Ohio who has never lived in N.O. and therefore has no local bias, reported this to me yesterday: actually, i just bought the old flood maps from FEMA so i could see what parts of the city are in the flood plain. i think that most were not because of the levees.
So, to quote one of the official investigators: "So, yeah, this was a human failure, not a natural disaster."
Yet the White House's goofballs at one point wanted to help rebuild only 20,000 of 200,000 damaged houses because the rest supposedly were victims, in effect, of their own bad judgment. Yeah, right. Not exactly. The fact is that many, many of the victims had every reason to believe they were safe from a Category Three storm, and that they were not effectively in a flood plain at all. The feds have a responsibility here, which they haven't lived up to.
Hope in Iraq, Part Two
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 1:15PM
The odd thing (to Westerners' pre-conceived notions) is that so many Iraqis are highly educated people. A source of mine who spent many months there said that their engineers are at least as good as many of the American engineers we've sent over. There is reason to believe that a competent civil society can emerge once the terrorists are crushed -- which, by the way, I think is in the process of happening.
I've been a big Bush critic on spending, and on his insularity, and on Katrina, and on other fronts as well. But I continue to believe that his overall choice for war in Iraq (certainly not every sub-decision and every tactical choice),the main thrust of his policy there, was and is and always will have been right, NO MATTER WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. Faced with the situation we were in, with the knowledge (both correct and incorrect) that we had or thought we had, and with the values that we have and the goals (both humanitarian and strategic) that we have in the region, the president made the only morally defensible call. He deserves continued support for it. And I do believe our policies there will be adjudged by historians to have been a success.
Hope in Iraq, Part One
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 1:00PM
Both here and here, the Wash Post's David Ignatius, who is not exactly a Bush-o-phile, reports that things are looking up in Iraq. Meanwhile, I expect many interesting things to come from the release of the gazillions of pages of documents discovered in Iraq. In short, I think this whole thing could still be a success.
Let 'em Lose
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 10:09AM
It really might be time for conservatives to sit out elections. Better to do it this fall, so the Dems get the blame for the next two years and we can come back in 2008, than to work for a bunch of big-government cretins to maintain a bare GOP majority this time, only to have the good guys go down in flames at all levels of government in 2008.
What makes me conclude that it's not even worth the effort for conservatives this year? The latest in a long, long, LONG, LONG string of spineless, unprincipled votes by a congressional GOP utterly unwilling to act like conservatives. Already the Senate GOP had decided to ignored President Bush's call for further savings (from projected increases) in entitlements. Yesterday, they went further, voting to bust the proposed discretionary budget caps by an astonishing $16 billion. And that's $16 billion not spread over five years, but in just the one fiscal year beginning October 1.
These people are hopeless fools. (Actually, the words that come to mind are stronger than that, the sorts of words that in comic strips get represented by symbols like this: %&*%%$*$#.)
Let'em lose in November. They deserve it.
Do As They Say
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 10:09AM
For all the talk in Memphis about reining in spending, even the Post couldn't help noting the irony in reporting yesterday spending spree. And the man ruling the roost in the Senate -- that's Arlen Specter, not Bill Frist -- is downright exultant, writes Dana Milbank.
"The Republican Party is now principally moderate, if not liberal!"
That's Specter himself. Remind me why Pennsylvania Republicans were told they needed to reject Pat Toomey to save the Senate?
More Arlen for you:
"All the talk in Memphis doesn't comport with reality.... I don't have any apologies to make for this 7 billion [in extraneous domestic spending]. I'm still not satisfied."
If conservatism isn't dead in this Senate, it sure has seen better days. Those 55 Republican Senators just aren't 55 Tom Coburns, unfortunately.
Pence No on Spending Bill
Posted by on 3.17.06 @ 9:14AM
House leadership lumped war spending and Katrina relief into the $92 billion supplemental that passed yesterday, by a vote of 348-71. Conservatives wanted to separate the two so as to pass military emergency spending, and then debate the rest (there were extraneous projects attached to the bill). The President had sent the two expenses as separate bills, but Congressional leadership lumped them, probably to guarantee passage.
Rep. Mike Pence's office tells us in a press release that he supports the war supplemental, but could not vote for a bill that weds non-military emergency spending to a military emergency spending bill. Pence and other conservatives are trying to hold the line on Katrina spending, but the House leadership shows little interest in doing so. In addition to Pence, 18 other Republicans voted against the bill. Most of them are members of the House Republican Study Committee.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Re: Nicks Of Time
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 6:32PM
FOX's Special Report tonight suggests, re: my post below, bingorama. When it comes to Iraqis taking charge, style is substance.
The Diabolical Katherine Harris Conspiracy
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 5:41PM
Dave Weigel deconstructs the latest Kosland fantasy.
Nicks Of Time
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 5:24PM
In Iraq: Operation Swarmer gives the US and Iraqi nationalists an alternative to Moqtada al-Sadr in the unity-and-order department. How much is establishing that alternative the whole point?
In Florida: I wish to declare for the Golden Bear. Tournament time makes it all seem fortuitous in a sportsmanlike, buzzer-beater sort of way, and Battier for President is a long way off.
Jack Still Needed
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 3:01PM
Just because Katherine Harris has proved herself to be extremely bullheaded (and that's not the only bovine word that comes to mind), that's no reason for other potential candidates, or the state or national GOP grand poobahs, to defer to her without a fight. At the very least, Florida's Republican voters deserve a choice. And that's all the more reason for wise party elders to prevail upon Jack Nicklaus to run for the Senate -- if not instead of her, then against her. I could even write his basic campaign message, which would not have to sound wonkish, but just full of good mainstream conservative common sense coupled with the Golden Bear's legendary integrity (and with Barbara Nicklaus' legendary graciousness and kindness). Run, Jack, Run!
Honor Hanoi Jane?
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 12:26PM
The Georgia state legislature wisely says, "maybe not."
The Outcry of the Values Voter
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 12:16PM
The Family Research Council is holding a press conference now at the National Press Club announcing a "Value Voters Summit" for September. They're also presenting the results of a March 9-12 poll, focusing on value voters, conducted by bipartisan firm Riehle-Tarrance.
We had an early look at the numbers this morning, which we can now relate. There's a flood of data here, so we'll pull out what strikes us as most important. The sample seems evenly distributed among Republicans and Democrats (31 to 28 percent), and among Republicans and Democrats including "leaners" (36 to 40 percent). Eighty-five percent of respondents were registered voters.
Forty-one percent described themselves as born again or evangelical Christians, versus 52 percent who said they were not. By party, this breaks down into 53 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of Democrats self-identifying as evangelicals. Fifty-six percent of conservatives and 20 percent of liberals report being evangelical.
By the issues:
-A Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is slightly favored by registered voters: 47 to 41 percent. Evangelicals favor it 69 to 22 percent.
-An overwhelming majority supports increased FCC fines for indecency 60 to 31 percent.
-The pollsters asked the abortion question differently: Would you "generally favor or oppose law designed to protect the unborn and to help foster 'a culture of life?'' Registered voters favor such laws 58 to 28 percent.
The composite question is the kicker: after asking about these three specific issues, as well as a ban on tax dollars to Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, making permanent the child tax credit and relief from the marriage penalty, and a ban on legalized gambling expansion, "Thinking about the issues I've just read, would you say the Republican majority in Congress has done enough or NOT done enough to keep its promises to voters to act on these proposals." Not surprisingly, registered voters largely said Congress has not done enough -- 61 percent versus 22 percent.
But what do those numbers mean? Is that widespread Democratic dissatisfaction with Republicans? Since registered voters polled reject the gambling expansion ban by a five-point margin, does this mean those voters are upset by talk of a gambling ban? These are diverse issues, and to label those who agree with the Family Research Council on all six "values voters" may be foolhardy. Pro-life libertarian-leaning conservatives may support abortion restrictions, but not larger FCC fines and the gambling expansion ban.
FRC may not be off its
rocker though. The next question quells some of the doubt about
this strategy: "Would you be more likely, or less likely to support
a candidate who would vote in Congress in favor of the laws we just
discussed?" Sixty percent of registered voters would be more
likely, and 22 percent less likely. Among evangelicals, that jumps
to 75 versus 11 percent. This are huge margins in the
evangelical-rich red states.
Bottom line: Even in the areas that President Bush and Republicans have performed pretty well (and there aren't many), their base is mostly dissatisfied. Republicans will ignore the social conservatives at their own peril. Of course, the Republicans' loss is not necessarily the Democrats' gain -- they're even worse on these issues. Republicans need to give social conservatives a reason to vote for them. Otherwise, it comes down to domestic economic policy/entitlements and foreign policy. Those aren't great odds.
Popularity Isn't Just for Elections
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 12:14PM
President Bush is blowing it, Dick Morris writes, because of his disregard for pursuing popularity -- "All because he doesn't want to do what he must -- get up every day and speak to America."
Think back to the December 2004 press conference, in which Bush bragged about the political capital that he intended to spend. If you don't feed that capital with a little popularity, there's no public clamoring for the other guys to work with you, and your capital has suddenly disappeared. It happened with Social Security, and it'll happen again with Iraq after the President completes his current burst of attention to that PR breakdown.
Snowe
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 11:19AM
And that was not a typo or oversight calling Sen. Olympia Snowe a Democrat.
Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is free to do so. ... over on the Daily Kos.
Socialist Republicans
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 11:17AM
Lost in yesterday's news was the victory by Democrat Sens. Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe in getting price controls placed on pharmaceuticals. The amendment passed with Republican support, and allows Medicare to negotiate over prices for pharmaceuticals that are part of the Bush Administration's prescription drug plan.
The official word is that these aren't price controls. But, in fact, they are. Republicans privately were complaining that they couldn't afford to alienate seniors with a "No" vote. It's this lack of courage to do the right thing that not only makes the Republicans look bad to conservatives, but it feeds into the growing frustration with the Bush Administration. By saying no to Wyden-Snowe, they would have been saying no to the president's drug plan, which would have been saving the President from himself. And that's a good prescription.
Novak on Judges!!!!!!
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 10:12AM
In his column today, Bob Novak hits a topic that everybody should be banging the drums on: all the unconfirmed judicial nominees still languishing. It absolutely astonishes me that Senate Republicans remain so stupid -- and I do mean stupid, as in dumb, utterly without sense, lame-brained, moronic, idiotic -- as to STILL not realize that judges are a winning issue for them. Whenever the topic is judges, the right wins. One reason is that -- even though judicial conservatism isn't really concerned with "results" -- when the issues are put in political terms, the right is on the popular side of every issue that swirls around judgeships. On partial birth abortion, we win and they lose. On law and order, we win and they lose. On faith references in the public square, we win and they lose. We win on eminent domain. We win on judicially imposed homosexual "marriage." And so on and so on: We win, we win, we win. Meanwhile, it is fundamentally unfair to the nominees to let them twist in the wind, and it is bad for the country to leave so many judgeships unfilled, especially ones where the caseload is so heavy as to constitute and official "judicial emergency." And of course it is even worse to leave them unfilled when the prospect looms of having a Democratic president fill them instead. That's why, if Frist doesn't push these judges through -- and if Specter doesn't push them through, and if the White House doesn't knock heads together to push them through -- then the betrayal not just of the conservative movement, but of all political common sense, will be utter and complete and unforgivable. So c'mon, senators, get your heads out of your rearward nether regions and start confirming judges!!!!!!!
Draft Gore
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 9:30AM
Northern Virginia's Rep. Jim Moran, a Jack Murtha booster, is backing another great and sturdy political horse: Al Gore for 2008. For most folks, Gore "jumped the shark" long, long ago when he started giving arm-swinging, red faced speeches about the horrors of the Bush administration. But for the angry left, he's a reliable perennial also-ran, like Eugene Debs. Al Gore: use in case of emergency.
Harris Matters
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 9:21AM
So Harris stays and essentially self-finances. We got a clarification last night that should Harris resign from the House to focus on the campaign, her staff would not be fired, but would instead continue working through the special election period. Our point was that Harris would "essentially" be firing her staff, given that she wouldn't be around after the resignation, and while constituents always have issues, it helps to have a someone at the top.
As for the Senate campaign, recent polls have Harris down to Sen. Bill Nelson by 20 points or more. We're dubious of most of those polls, which have a respondent pool of between 500 to 600 people. That puts the margin of error up in the five point range, which is awful for a serious political or opinion poll. Twenty points is a big number, and so is 15 or even ten points. But people should take a deep breath and hope that the national party can help her right her ship.
That said, we keep hearing that there are more shoes to drop related to Harris's sale of home down in Florida, as well as other issues, and she continues to have problems finding senior management staff for her campaign. All not good.
New National Security Strategy Report
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 7:34AM
The White House, in support of the president's latest speeches on the war, has just released a new National Security Strategy document. It reaffirms preemptive action and - still - relies on the spread of democracy to be the endgame of the war against terrorists and terrorist nations. Here's a few excerpts:
"While the War on Terror is a battle of ideas, it is not a battle of religions. The transnational terrorists confronting us today exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers – including Christians, Jews, Hindus, other religious traditions, and all Muslims who disagree with them. Indeed, most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries – and most of the victims have been Muslims…
"The strategy to counter the lies behind the terrorists’ ideology is to empower the very people the terrorists most want to exploit: the faithful followers of Islam. We will continue to support political reforms that empower peaceful Muslims to practice and interpret their faith. The most vital work will be done within the Islamic world itself, and
"The advance of freedom and human dignity through democracy is the long-term solution to the transnational terrorism of today. To create the space and time for that long-term solution to take root, there are four steps we will take in the short term.
- Prevent attacks by terrorist networks before they occur. A government has no higher obligation than to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. The hard core of the terrorists cannot be deterred or reformed; they must be tracked down, killed, or captured. They must be cut off from the network of individuals and institutions on which they depend for support. That network must in turn be deterred, disrupted, and disabled by using a broad range of tools.
- Deny WMD to rogue states and to terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. Terrorists have a perverse moral code that glorifies deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Terrorists try to inflict as many casualties as possible and seek WMD to this end. Denying terrorists WMD will require new tools and new international approaches. We are working with partner nations to improve security at vulnerable nuclear sites worldwide and bolster the ability of states to detect, disrupt, and respond to terrorist activity involving WMD.
- Deny terrorist groups the support and sanctuary of rogue states. The
United States and its allies in the War on Terror make no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they are equally guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror, such as Syria or Iran, has chosen to be an enemy of freedom, justice, and peace. The world must hold those regimes to account. - Deny the terrorists control of any nation that they would use as a base and launching pad for terror. The terrorists’ goal is to overthrow a rising democracy; claim a strategic country as a haven for terror; destabilize the
Middle East; and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. This we can never allow. This is why success in Afghanistan and Iraq is vital, and why we must prevent terrorists from exploiting ungoverned areas."
But do we really mean it? Will we strike at terrorist sanctuaries in Syria and Iran? Will we demand that Islamic leaders condemn the terrorist ideology? Stay tuned.
The Bishops and the Gay Agenda
Posted by on 3.16.06 @ 7:20AM
Jeff Jacoby takes the hypocrisies of gay agenda advocates to pieces in a magnificent column yesterday, here. Key graf:
"Is this a sign of things to come? In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business? Same-sex adoption is becoming increasingly common, but it is still highly controversial. Millions of Americans would readily agree that gay and lesbian couples can make loving parents, yet insist nevertheless that kids are better off with loving parents of both sexes. That is neither a radical view nor an intolerant one, but if the kneecapping of Catholic Charities is any indication, it may soon be forbidden."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Vapid
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 11:09PM
I have defended Katherine Harris here of late, as you know.
The interview tonight with Sean Hannity was an unmitigated mess.
Quin....you called this one correctly. She's done.
Mea culpa, dear readers....paging Jack Nicklaus....urgent!!!!
Harris Matters
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 4:50PM
Her refusal to step, well, aside, Harris's decision to resign her House seat -- if this is what she decides to do -- probably won't wash well with those young staffers who were counting on her being in the House for a while. This is a staff that has taken a beating of late, and to watch their boss essentially fire them mid-year is not a way to encourage continued effort on their part.
Medicare Insurgents
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 10:54AM
This evening the Senate will vote on a proposal by Senators Olympia Snowe and Ron Wyden to replace the new Medicare drug benefit's competitive pricing model with a single payer drug system controlled by the government. Senator Wyden likes to compare his proposal to Costco getting a good deal for consumers on toilet paper.
Except that Wyden actually opposed his own proposal seven years ago when President Clinton introduced a Medicare drug benefit that barred the government from setting or negotiating prices for nearly half the prescription drug market. My new partner in crime at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest Peter Pitts blogged on this at drugwonks.com:
Here's what Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR) had to say about the federal government negotiating prescription drug costs on October 28, 1999:"What troubles me about plans to deal with prescription drug costs that involve price controls, we will have massive cost-shifting. If we have Medicare acting as the buyer for all the medicine, it may be possible for the Government to negotiate a discount. I have always said that might be possible. What troubles me about that approach is we will have the cost passed on to someone else who might be 26 or 27 -- maybe a divorced mom who has a couple of kids -- working as hard as they can, and all of a sudden they find out their prescription drug bill shoots up because Congress adopted an approach in this area that doesn't use marketplace forces."
And then he added for good measure …
"There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with the issue of affordable medication. The wrong way is to create a one-size-fits-all Federal regime and put the Government in the business of trying to orchestrate this entire program."
And here's what he just said, on March 13, 2006:
"At a time when the costs of this program and the costs of Government have gone through the stratosphere, one would think the Government would be doing everything possible to hold down costs. Yet, unfortunately, in the original prescription drug legislation, a bizarre restriction was put in place that literally bars the Government from being a smart shopper.
"I compare the Government's approach to buying prescription drugs under Medicare to somebody going into Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time."
Wyden was right the first time. And the problem with the Costco comparison of course is that Costco does not control 60 percent of the toilet paper market -- as the government would if the Snowe-Wyden proposal goes through -- and therefore does not, as a matter of course tell people to use the Kirkland (that's the Costco house brand for you outsiders) before stepping up to the Charmin' two-ply plush. And by the way, if you don't like Costco's limited selection of items for each type of good, you can go to Wal-Mart or Target or Kohl's or any number of department stores, etc. Don't like the drug you get under a single payer proposal the Wyden hated and now loves? Either pay out of pocket or die.
Which leads me to wonder what supposedly free market Republicans are thinking when they even consider supporting a measure that would make the government the largest purchaser of medicine in the universe. An AP story this week describes a memo describing how an organization called Americans United intends to use "polling, television advertisements, public events and more, hoping to serve as a sort of bearer of unwelcome news about the (Medicare) program."
According to the AP story, "...The objectives of the Americans United program, according to the memo, include: Drive down support ... to minuscule levels. Mobilize a popular insurrection ... that demands real change and threatens to exact a price on members of Congress who resist" fixing the program." Fixing the program, by the way, boils down to creating the sort of single payer system that Olympia Snowe proposes and some conservative Republicans, including those who might run for President, might vote for.
The kicker is that the "...organization draws heavy financial support from organized labor, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California have both met with prospective donors to demonstrate their personal interest in the group's efforts."
In other words, Republicans -- including those who would be the party's standard bearers -- are supporting a Medicare insurgency funded by the extreme left of the Democrat party. Worse, they are supporting the most massive centralization of government authority in recent history. And in doing so they are robbing seniors of necessary choices and the right of doctors to make important life and death decisions on behalf of their patients.
My New Hero
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 10:27AM
I love Lucianne's site. I love it even more now that she's posted this. Stop what you are doing and check it out.
Behind the Harem Curtain, Part 1
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 10:07AM
Ummah source reports that the State Department has established Dubai as the new Berlin of the Cold War with Iran.
Behind the Harem Curtain. Part 1.
Dubai is State's watchtower, where it has staffed 12 extra positions to connect with Iranian dissenters and liberation movements. This means that it is where the Iranians are watching the U.S. as well, and within 24 hours of State announcing its funding of freedom speakers, the Iranian secret police started rolling up big mouths in Tehran.
The dissenter celebration, Fire Festival, celebrated on March 14 throughout Iran, was a success. Tens of thousands of young people turned out to celebrate an ancient Zoroastrian holiday not because they are thinking of converting but because it is a way to remember Iran before Islam conquered Persia. To speak of the Zoroasters is a way of decrying the Shia mullahcrats at Qom.
(My memory is that Zoroaster has in it the root "aster" from which English gets the word "star.")
In a strange way to measure the dissenter success, hundreds of bully boy basijis and secret police turned out to beat and stomp the celebrants, especially to stomp the girls. Our enemies are perverts and sex-abusers at home. It seems odd that the State thinkers haven't discovered yet a way to communicate the wickedness of the enemy in Tehran. These men routinely counsel abuse and crime toward women as a way of expressing power. The fantastically anti-feminist concept of the harem is their idea of a perfect shooting range. The mullahs recommend bluntly wife-beating. I am not inventing. The Iranian dissenters know that it is their women and girls who will suffer the most when the bully boys come knocking in the night. At the same time, do you know that the young Iranian women are the strongest hearts when standing up to the regime?
Ah, the Vaunted Maverick
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 9:19AM
Of course, if Russ Feingold were a staunch conservative instead of a staunch liberal, he would be a "radical" in the Post headline, "A Senate Maverick Acts to Force an Issue."
Nicklaus?
Posted by on 3.15.06 @ 9:00AM
Quin, Wlady, et al:
Jack Nicklaus has had at least two spasms of very serious money/business troubles, near bankruptcy. So personal and business history might reveal some skeletons, and Nicklaus himself would probably recoil from the idea of self-financing.
Don't forget he lives in two states, Florida and Ohio. In which does he vote?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Re: Harris
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:47PM
The Prowler's latest report certainly sounds like the Katherine Harris I know. If she does indeed take this course, conservatives everywhere should applaud -- and open their wallets. If I had a nickel for every good conservative candidate cowed out of a race due to threats from the GOP suits...let's roll, Katherine!
Mean Mike
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 5:54PM
Finally, the insufferable Mike Wallace has decided to hang it up. Excellent news.
I've never been a fan of Wallace's, but my distaste turned to loathing a few years back when, while serving as emcee of a dinner for the pro-gun control Brady Center (at the French embassy, natch), Wallace mocked Charlton Heston and actually made fun of the fact that the legendary actor and activist had developed Alzheimer's disease.
(Of course, the NRA protested this and received an assurance from CBS News that Mr. Wallace would from that point forward never be allowed to cover 2nd Amendment issues for the network again -- a promise it seems to have kept.)
Harris
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 5:46PM
National Review Online is reporting that they hear Rep. Katherine Harris does not intend to step out of the Florida Senate race, and to underscore that point, she will resign from the House.
They only have part of the story, according to Harris sources we speak to. Late last week, Harris was approached by both senior Senate Republicans and intermediaries from the White House about stepping out of the race for the good of party.
According to one Senate official we spoke to, Harris very bluntly told them to forget about it. When told they had strong interest from a well-known, respected former Florida elected official in jumping in, her response was that she welcomed the competition. When they responded that the GOP would begin to make fundraising more difficult, she revealed nary a frown.
To underscore that point, Harris told them that she would resign her House seat and privately finance her Senate campaign. If that "major announcement" is to come, we hear it is going to be that she is taking her campaign private, putting her money where her mouth is and focusing on the race full time.
That may not be the wisest investment, but then her spunk was never in doubt.
Bearly Fooling
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 1:55PM
Wlady -- Over the course of his career, Nicklaus learned how to turn on the charm at will, and I've seen him, up close, on more than one occasion, suffer fools incredibly well, with a big smile on his face. And he is unfailingly polite with the press corps, even when the reporters don't deserve it. Meanwhile, he and Barbara have engendered a tremendous amount of good will through their work in the community in Florida and through their enthusiasm for and approachability during the many school athletic contests their five children have been a part of. Finally, no worries about Russia: Russian bears are red or pink; Jack is golden!
C.J. -- I have no inside knowledge, but I do know a couple of people who might be able to get inside knowledge because one works (or at least used to work; I've lost touch) for Nicklaus and one, who is an office-holder in Alabama, grew up next to the Nicklaus compound and is friends with the family. I do know that Jack made several campaign appearances (in Ohio, his native state, not Florida) for Bush last year, and has long been openly conservative, and so I know he cares enough about politics at least to go that far. I say it's time for a draft!
The Moussaoui Mess
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 12:35PM
It appears the prosecutors have made a hash of the Moussaoui death penalty trial, or at least one of their team - a lawyer from TSA - may have. Judge Brinkema doesn't like the death penalty for Moussaoui anyway. The question is not whether Moussaoui will ever be released. It is what damage he can do behind bars.
Though it cannot be a factor in deciding his sentance, Moussaoui imprisoned may be able to do more damage than he ever did while free. Charles Colson first reported it (if memory serves) in the Wall Street Journal more than three years ago. Imams preaching Wahhabi radicalism to state and federal prisoners under the guise of catering to prisoners' religious needs has become a significant threat. What better place to recruit terrorists than from among criminals disaffected with society?
Look for Moussaoui to be sentenced to life without parole, and then look for him to be suddenly proclaimed an imam to preach to his fellow prisoners.
Re: The Evil Twin
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 12:14PM
It wouldn't be the first time that identical twins have flummoxed the justice system. John Wolfson had a fascinating article in Legal Affairs last fall about what happens when DNA evidence points to two genetically identical suspects.
The Golden Bear
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 11:28AM
If our politics were more serious, I could see Jack Nicklaus emerging as its master. But what about his obvious inability to suffer fools gladly? He never charmed galleries the way Arnold Palmer did without even trying. Could he maintain a smile to attract voters when in no mood to? Outside of Russia, is a political career possible for anyone nicknamed a bear?
Re: Claude, Jack
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 11:15AM
Quin,
Re Claude Allen: I am glad you wrote this. I have met Claude on a few occasions and have found him to be uncommonly kind -- and utterly brilliant. Friends who have spoken with him since the news broke report that he remains in good spirits and looks forward to telling his side of the story.
Re Nicklaus: An outstanding idea to be sure -- but do you have some sort of inside knowledge of how he feels about running for office? Recall the draft Ditka movement in Illinois last cycle. An incredibly exciting idea for sure -- to everyone but him, as it turned out…
Florida Senate
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 10:41AM
I'm gonna do this every day until I see signs that somebody in the GOP hierarchy takes it seriously, because it is serious: Jack Nicklaus should be drafted to run for Senate as a Republican (which he long has been) in Florida. He's smart, articulate, easy with the press, conservative, able to at least partly self-finance, and very, very, very likable -- with a wife who is one of the most universally liked women anywhere, and with a record himself of numerous charitable endeavors. Plus the man has great integrity. He's a winner, indeed a hero, and he could win the race and serve a term as a solid and sensible, conservative, Republican senator.
Claude Allen's Comeback?
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 10:17AM
Okay, I am SO glad to see the Prowler's note on the Claude Allen case, to the effect that maybe, against what seemed like all the evidence, Allen may actually be innocent. I have read about Allen for a number of years of course, and had heard nothing but great things about him. So it was that I was absolutely delighted last Wednesday, as I was being led to a table at a Union Station restaurant, that I saw my friend, the incomparable John Gizzi of Human Events and, when saying hello to him, was introduced to Mr. Allen himself, who was dining with Gizzi. I had never actually met Claude Allen before, but just about the first words out of my mouth were: "I STILL think you should be a judge!" As Gizzi reported in that column linked above, Allen showed no signs whatsoever that any sort of boom was about to be lowered on him. He was relaxed, cheerful, friendly, engaging -- and that was just in the two minutes I spoke with them before moving on to my table.
Obviously, when the news came out, just over two days later, about Allen's arrest, I was particularly stunned because I just couldn't imagine somebody's demeanor betraying NO hint of scandal to come if they actually were worried about, well, what ended up happening. I really, really, REALLY hope that the arrest was indeed a case of mistaken identity, or something like that. I just don't want to believe that Claude Allen could be not only so dishonest, but also so reckless as to risk a charmed career for such petty and despicable activities.
So here's hoping everybody takes a chill pill and waits to see how events unfold, before jumping to conclusions. And here's hoping that all of Allen's friends stand by him at least unless and until the charge is proved accurate, and that the friends of his wife and family stand behind them always and comfort them in this time of distress.
Our Bet ...
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:58AM
If the Treasury Secretary post opens up, our bet on the nominee would be current OMB director Josh Bolten.
Other names you'll see floated: former Commerce Secretary Don Evans, current Treasury officials Robert Kimmitt, and, of course, current White House chief of staff Andrew Card. There are several other dark horses, including a couple of current Treasury officials.
Let It Snow ...
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:50AM
Hmm. Four days after we report that Treasury Secretary Snow might be on the way out, word is leaking out that Snow has cleared his calendar for the end of the week, and has had meetings in the West Wing with White House Presidential Personnel. This follows word that he has canceled an overseas trip.
Snow is a good man, who has served this President well. Let's hope that if he has decided to leave, he is given a good sendoff.
While we hope he stays, we also can't help but look forward to the infighting that should ensue for the job. By our count, there are at least three current senior Treasury officials who have their eye on the top job. And at least one very senior White House officials who is in the running. Stayed tuned ...
The Evil Twin
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:39AM
We know that Quin is going to be writing about Claude Allen, but this is just too rich to avoid posting about. For all the movies we've seen involving an evil twin, who'd have thunk there would actually be such a true-life case? And that it might involve a senior White House official?
Hat tip must go to Josh Marshall and "Talking Points Memo" on this one. For just the shock value, and to bring a little ray of hope into ever Republican's heart, hit this hyplink and bask in the glory of what appears - literally on the face of it - to be yet another MSM blunder of remarkable proportions.
It's still unclear where this story is going, but it always pay to not jump to conclusions, like so many conservative web sites did in this case.
Hollywood Knows America?
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:28AM
So George Clooney likes "being a little out of touch."
Hollywood in general doesn't care just how out of touch it is. The latest example is "V for Vendetta," produced by the same brother team that made the "Matrix" films a few years ago. Based on what used to be called a "comic book," now called a "graphic novel" by the geeks and fan boys who buy them up, the movie has been turned into a left-wing marketing tool not so much against Operation Iraqi Freedom, but against the American government and its honorable attempts to prevent terrorist attacks here at home.
The movie (its website is here), has been getting awful reviews, so there is hope that it will quietly disappear without much noise. But think about this. An anti-American screed (set in London, so we won't be able to make the connection, we suppose) released on St. Patrick's Day. It doesn't so much show a lack of understanding of the American people, it shows disrespect.
Feingold's Folly
Posted by on 3.14.06 @ 8:09AM
One thing that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has learned in his time in leadership is that if nothing else, Democrats are essentially legislative bullies. Always have been, always will be. Sure Democrats talk a good game, rolling out a Byrd or a Kennedy for indulgent floor lectures. But when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, they rarely back it up. Yesterday’s performance on the Senate floor was yet another example, as Sen. Russ Feingold, he of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform disaster, attempted to have the Senate take up censure legislation against President Bush for the overseas terrorism monitoring program. And Frist let him. Much to the amazement of his fellow Republicans, Frist called the Democrats on their bluff and they folded. In fact, Sen. Harry Reid looked downright ill when Frist came forward and essentially dared his Democrat counterpart to get a vote through. Reid, who has been talking a good game the last few days, gulped and folded like so many of the tourists his home state makes its billions off of. According to Senate sources, Frist intends to let the Democrats put just about any kind of censure legislation they want up for a vote, knowing that Democrats have neither the votes nor the nerve to follow through, particularly in an election year. And it’s already causing Reid some heartburn. “We get the impression that the minority leader just thought he could coast through this session,” says a Democratic staffer for a far-left Senator. “We want to be aggressive on this administration’s lies, and Reid wants us to go away, but if we have to make him a little uncomfortable to make the Republicans even more uncomfortable, so be it.” According to Democrat sources, Reid will attempt to bring his caucus to some kind of order as early as today, but is not hopeful about his chances. He has several fellow Democrats working to undercut his leadership: Sens. Dick Durbin, Christopher Dodd and Feingold, to name just three. Dodd has eyes on the leadership post down the road, Feingold has possible presidential credentials to burnish with the far left. But none of them could get their colleagues to buy into a censure vote. Throughout the day as Feingold attempted to garner support, his Democrat colleagues went before the press and just shook their heads when asked about the censure vote. Frist, for his part, is more than willing to let the Democrats devour their own, and is emboldened. Speaking about the Monday Democrat debacle, one Frist associate said, "[Frist] pushed them to the mat today, and they blinked. He dared them to vote and Democrat Leader Harry Reid looked like he was going to be sick as he said no. Frist thinks it's time to call Democrats on their antics, and so he's going to continue to dare Democrats to vote on censuring the President. When it comes to intercepting phone calls from Tora Bora to
Monday, March 13, 2006
Re: Fund on the Yale Taliban
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 7:45PM
Dear Andy DeP and Katherine: Beats me how the Yalies figure this slug -- with a 4th-grade education -- is somehow a better catch than the national honor student whose dad I spoke to last week on Hugh Hewitt's show. And the answer to who's paying the Talibanista's freight is revealed by Fund's piece of last week. A filmmaker named Hoover is paying the bills. I wonder: is NSA listening to his cell calls? I sure hope so.
Briar Patching McCain
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 7:08PM
What's wrong with this picture? A Republican presidential contender being revealed as a - shudder -- conservative by one of the New York Times's worst hyperlibs?
Senator John McCain -- the only Republican capable of losing to Hillary in '08 -- was called all sorts of names today in Paul Krugman's column. According to Krugman, McCain is a "man of the hard right," "no moderate" and -- perhaps worst of all -- actually ranks as the third most conservative member in the Senate by one vote ranking outfit.
The problem with Krugman's analysis is that McCain is no conservative. His track record of legislation -- McCain-Feingold, the "anti-torture" amendment with his apostle, Lindsey Graham, and too many positions on too many issues make it clear that McCain is careless with the Constitution. His ill-considered wavering on social issues makes him no conservative.
What could have brought on Krugman's fit of pique? Only one thing. McCain was horrifically embarrassed by the lack of support he received in last weekend's Republican beauty contest. He desperately needs support from real conservatives to get the presidential nomination. Did McCain's campaign managers talk to Krugman and beg for a bashing? Unlikely. But McCain and his people apparently don't understand that conservative support doesn't flow from liberal condemnation. If Mr. McCain wants conservative support in '08, he'll only be able to do that by achieving a shutout of all the rest of the conservative field. McCain a conservative? Who're you going to believe? Paul Krugman or your own brain?
Dear Readers:
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 7:07PM
Topics on which I want to blog on Tuesday, so please remind me to do so: Florida Senate race. Congressional ethics. Claude Allen. That's it for now. Thanks.
Still The One
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 6:02PM
Defying expectations, Moqtada al-Sadr is the man in Iraq on nationalism and anti-terrorism. He has every opportunity to spark a catastrophe, but commands calm -- again -- and criticizes al Qaeda. Stay tuned.
Clarification
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 2:14PM
A few emailers have chided me for characterizing the P&O lease on port terminals as "run[ning] six major U.S. ports." I don't think this choice of widely-used shorthand changes anything -- nothing in my article depends on a misconception about who handles port security, for example -- but I apologize if anyone was confused or otherwise vexed.
Quote/Unquote...Or Maybe Just Unquote
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 1:38PM
My friend and fellow New Hampshireite Paul Sands wonderfully deconstructs Paul Krugman and Heather Boushey's gross misrepresentation of Alan Greenspan's Senate testimony last year to portray the former Fed chairman as a converted leftist guerrilla in the class war. It's a must read and can be found here.
Re: Harris Out?
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 1:08PM
I know Katherine Harris reasonably well and in addition to being one of us in the ideological sense, she also happens to be one of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. I am sorry for her that the Senate campaign thing doesn't seem to be working out.
Adding to the Prowler's comments on Marshall & Co's wild speculation about the profit she and her husband made on a recent home sale -- all I can say is this: To begin with, Katherine is an heiress. Her father was, I believe, some sort of Citrus mogul or something. She is also married to an extremely wealthy man. In sum, these are very, VERY rich people. To suggest, as our little friends seem to be doing, that she may have some sort of Duke Cunningham problem because she sold a home at a significant profit is laughable.
Fund on the Yale Taliban
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 11:23AM
John Fund has another great piece on the Taliban at Yale, and the amazingly inept (and angry) response from Yale officials in today's Wall Street Journal. It gets curiouser by the day. If Yale is allowing its employees to get (possibly) confidential information about alumni donations, and then use their Yale offices and equipment to fire off barrages at said alumni, one has to wonder: who is in charge there? Will Yale prez Richard Levin lift the cone of silence and talk about it?
Nicklaus Must Replace Her
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 11:19AM
Prowler, what an excellent report on the Katherine Harris race. I now repeat the call on this same subject I made here just a week ago, namely that the Golden Bear himself, Jack Nicklaus, should enter the race in Katherine Harris's place. I really think we should start a groundswell on the subject here. Of course we can't SUPPORT a declared candidate, but we sure as heck can bang the drums to convince a particular person to ENTER a race...and Jack can win and would serve with great honor and distinction!
Gloves Off
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 11:15AM
John McCain may be a media darling, but Paul Krugman is no longer buying. Today he offers some "straight talk about John McCain." A few highlights:
"He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be."
"A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate third most conservative member."
Evidently Krugman will have to settle for that other straight-talker, Ms. Hillary. The larger question is whether others in the MSM will join in this effort to bring down the fellow they so affectionately built up.
Harris Out?
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 11:10AM
It might not happen today, but it's clear that Rep. Katherine Harris is going to have to abandon her Senate campaign soon. There is just too much controversy surrounding her. Over the weekend, she canceled her appearance at the GOP leadership conference in Memphis, promising a major announcement soon.
We reported two weeks ago that her Senate campaign was again hemorrhaging senior staff, and the whiff of a rotting corpse floating in the Florida Keys was unavoidable around that campaign organization.
Now, Josh Marshall and his intrepid crew of "reporters" are on the make. Anyone who lives in California or a Washington, DC suburb knows that a 200% increase in a real estate sale is not a big deal nowadays. Homes in the Washington suburbs of Maryland and Virginia that were bought just five years ago for $300,000 were being sold a few months ago for almost a million. Clearly Marshall's crew either lives in Manhattan dwellings or is too busy hanging out in Adams Morgan with the MoveOn.org crowd to understand, well, capitalism.
But Harris's problem isn't with her real estate deal, it is more broadly her lack of judgment in entering a race no one wanted her to enter, and doing so knowing that she was damaged goods due to sloppy fundraising practices and poor staffing oversight on Capitol Hill. Hence, her ensnarement in the Duke Cunningham investigation.
We've heard that Republicans -- Gov. Jeb Bush in particular -- are looking for someone who can step in quickly to face off again Sen. Bill Nelson. By all accounts, this is not a race that is a foregone loss. The right man could beat Nelson. But whether they can recruit him is another matter.
Slobbo and the Beeb
Posted by on 3.13.06 @ 6:38AM
Jed:
During the Balkan wars, the BBC was unbelievably hostile to Serb spokesman and partisans. I never could exactly figure out why. Because they were the Orthodox side? Muslim PC tenderness? Milosovic's death lets them revive that hoity-toity down-the-nose moralising the Beeb does so well.
I would rather have seen Milosovic live and finish his trial so the world could say, with a yawn, "All that and now only this?" Because of course the Hague wouldn't hang him. As things stand, the endless bureaucracy of the World Court will go on -- and how much can it do without a police force? We might have seen some restraint in its use, just out of sheer exhaustion. Now, the WC types are just champing to get to work again, as indeed the chief prosecutor said on the BBC last night.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Re: Question
Posted by on 3.12.06 @ 10:46PM
Jed -- the EU aches in crestfallen frustration at the sudden uselessness of its proud tribunal. "Soft power" drops the pretense of patience, and the war criminal-rendition drop-dead date brandished at Belgrade now becomes Europa's flaming sword. International law -- European law -- must be proven decisive. The atavistic Yugo is the Continent's Eliza Doolittle.
Old World rite of passage: serving Serbia a red-faced ultimatum.
Question
Posted by on 3.12.06 @ 8:13PM
Guys: Is it more important that Slobo is dead than the effect on the international war crimes tribunal? Is it possible that he died of sheer boredom at the progress of the trial? Or am I being slightly uncharitable? The BBC thinks it's a tragedy that Slobo died before the trial ended. Isn't it enough that the old murderer has gone?
Iran, All According To Plan
Posted by on 3.12.06 @ 1:09PM
Uncharitably I predicted for '06 that "the Iranians will toy with the Russian proposal, embrace it again, demur again, raise questions, withhold answers, tinker furiously, and let their actions constitute a de facto rejection."
Next: "...the Security Council will pass an unenforceable resolution..."
- Republic, Regained
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
