« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 30, 2005
The Unconstructive Herbert
I've never believed Bob Herbert to be much of a writer, but his column today is a doozie. As far as I can discern, its thesis is that "Iraq is a quagmire because the war has been prosecuted incompetently." But then it's hard to say, because it's such a jumbled mess.
Let's take a lookie at this journalistic catastrophe. Following are the subjects of the 12 paragraphs in Herbert's column, in order:
1. The President had to make a speech about the war. [Ha ha.] 2. The definition of "quagmire" is "a situation from which extrication is very difficult." 3. Over 1,730 American soldiers have died in Iraq. 4. One of them was really young, and she's from the Bronx. 5. Two years ago the President foolishly said of insurgents, "Bring' em on." 6. Senator Frank Lautenberg didn't like that comment. 7. Bush didn't have a plan then, and he doesn't have a plan now. 8. High-level incompetetence is undermining the troops' effort. 9. Too commonly, areas are freed from insurgents, only to be re-taken because of our lack on manpower. 10. The White House believes Iraqi troops will help defeat the insurgency. 11. This is stupid. 12. Because of incompetence, we can expect to be in a quagmire for a while.
(MORE AFTER THE JUMP)
Herbert’s thesis appears, I think, in the 12th paragraph: "the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future."
As for the other paragraphs: We can toss out paras. 3 & 4 immediately (not to be forgotten, but nothing to do with Herbert’s thesis); as well as 1 (unadorned ridicule). Para. 6 is not relevant, and 8 simply repeats his thesis.
Leaving in the rest, then, and re-ordering things for logic's sake, we have this:
Because of incompetence, we can expect to be in a quagmire for a while (12).
The definition of a "quagmire" is "a situation from which extrication is very difficult" (2). The Iraqi people will not be able to contrbute meaningfully to defeating the insurgents, and this is true because I say it is, and it is typical Bush stupidity to believe my conclusory prediction is untrue (10 & 11).
I believe the Bush crowd is incompetent because: the President foolishly said of insurgents, "Bring' em on" (5) and because Bush has never had a plan and I know this because I say it frequently (7), and because American troops have often freed towns from insurgents, only to see them retaken because they have to leave (9). They are stupid if they disagree with my conclusory prediction about the Iraqi people (10 & 11).
So even after we winnow this mess down to its logical core, Herbert offers no facts and no evidence to support the first half of his thesis (incompetence) other than that Bush once taunted the insurgents (which was indeed foolish). He attempts to support the “quagmire” part with misdirection (Bronx soldier) and an unfortunate and apparently common occurrence in Iraq, but no logical connection is offered.
I mean, really -- what rubbish. So much for a constructive opposition.
Posted by bill at 01:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blue States' Bad Drivers
As the red state/blue state chasm widens, representatives of both sides have been busy pointing fingers across the divide, anxious to show which set of states is: friendlier, more moral; stocking or feeding from the government trough' more charitable, sacrificing more in Iraq; etc. etc. As could be expected, each side brings its own experts and relies on its own set of statistics.
Next? CNN reports on the results of a nationwide (except Hawaii & Alaska) driver's test, and 9 out of the 10 lowest-scoring states (+DC) are blue: 40. Illinois; 41. Florida; 42. Connecticut; 43. California; 44. Maryland; 44. Washington, D.C.; 44. New York; 47. New Jersey; 48. Massachusetts; and 49. Rhode Island.
What does this mean politically? I won't hazard a guess. Anyone else?
Posted by bill at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Thursday, June 30, 2005
It's All About 9/11 - Andrew McCarthy, NRO
One fewer rogue nation, for now - Patrick Chisholm, CSM
Iran's New President - Mehran Riazaty, American Thinker
Torture at Gitmo? Ask the Mau Mau - Max Boot, LAT
'Reform' Overreach - Ryan Sager, NYP
Observations on the belligerent opposition - Russ Smith, NY Press
Wanted: a Constructive Opposition - WSJ
Hamptonites on the Warpath - Brett Duval Fromson, WSJ
A continent's success stories go unreported - Niall FitzGerald, IHT
'Mainstream' judges - Thomas Sowell, Wash. Times
Shakespeare in the Park - Bryan Curtis, Slate
Posted by bill at 05:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
Wednesday Fodder
Powerline's Hinderaker chastises the stock liberal response to the President's speech last night: "the howls of outrage protesting Bush's explanation that the war in Iraq is an important part of the war on terror that began on September 11." and itemizes the "huge, obvious connections" between 9/11 and the War in Iraq.
Russ Smith of NY Press makes some reliably incisive "observations on the belligerent opposition."
Pejman Yousefzadeh tackles the "chicken hawk" canard for Redstate.
Posted by bill at 09:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
No Bias Alert - Part I
Today's unbiased journalism comes from the BBC, which reports the results of a poll conducted by AOL and the Discovery Channel, in which President Ronald Reagan was voted the "greatest American" of all time:
Some observers suggest the image of Mr Reagan, who was criticised as an intellectual lightweight during his presidency, has been enhanced following his death as millions of Americans cast a rose-tinted look back at his presidency.
His two terms in office (1981-1989) coincided with a period of economic prosperity, the crumbling of the Soviet bloc and a renewed sense of pride among Americans still reeling from the Vietnam War.[Emphasis mine.]
Yep, just a coincidence.
Posted by bill at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Wednesday, June 29, 2005
On the President's Speech: Kaus/Powerline/NYT/WP/NYP
Live Blogs: Captain Ed/Wonkette
Liberals and Terrorism - Peter Huessey, WT
Why are politicians so full of themselves? - Peggy Noonan, WSJ
A man's home is Uncle Sam's castle - Selwyn Duke, AT
The Mark Twain Option - Captain Ed
End This Silly Talk About Sacrificing Children - C. Hitchens, Slate
The Great Malls of China - William Kowinski, LAT
China's Charge - Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., NRO
Retrospective: JFK Reports on the Beginnings of the UN - SF Chron.
New Freedom Tower Design Unveiled - NY Times
Posted by bill at 05:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2005
...and Stupider Democrats (or, Life imitates Holiday Inn commercials)
From Polipundit, by way of Pundit Review, comes this mind-boggling sophomoric observation from Democratic dingbat Ellen Tauscher.
You know, look, I didn't go to law school but I have watched Law & Order for ten years, and I do believe we have the rule of law that we are not only, uh, adhering to in the United States as a very strong principle, but we're also trying to, by the way, interject it around the world. And we need to stand for it. And not only because it's morally right but because we have our own people at risk if they were captured....
Posted by bill at 08:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stupid Republicans
My eyes almost popped out of my head when I caught this news item. Republicans have been disappointing enough since January, but evidently Republican House Member Tom Davis has threatened Major League Baseball, implying that retribution might await MLB if political foe George Soros is permitted to buy the Washington Nationals (Soros is apparently interested). Reports the USA Today:
"I think Major League Baseball understands the stakes," House Government Reform chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., told Roll Call.
"I don't think they want to get involved in the political fights."
Davis, who convened the recent congressional hearings on steroids, added, "I don't think it's the Nats that get hurt. I think it's Major League Baseball that gets hurt. They enjoy all sorts of exemptions from antitrust laws."
This is government at its worst - unadulterated abuse of power. For shame, Tom Davis. Readers, please contact this idiot (email)(info below the fold).
UPDATE - I contacted Tom Davis' office - a staffer seemed clueless, and I was transferred to the press office to be informally told there was no official comment from Davis. Yawn.
U.S. House of Representatives
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4611
Phone: (202) 225-1492
Fax: (202) 225-3071
Posted by bill at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
On Iraq
In advance of the President's speech tonight, advice comes cheap. John F. Kerry does make some valid points in his column today, foremost that our troops "deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice," which, the Senator might consider, is why he is writing op-eds instead of delivering tonight's speech.
Cliff May suggests Bush include this call to the next "Greatest Generation":
I have confidence that you understand that if we were to allow our enemies to destroy our will to fight, if we were to let our enemies defeat us on the battlefield in Iraq, that would not be the end of the war.
Rather, fortified by his victory, our enemy would go on to challenge us on other battlefields. I ask those calling on us to withdraw from Iraq leaving the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of al Qaeda: Where would you prefer we fight this enemy? Where would you like the battlefield to be? Or do you think we can hide from this enemy or cut a deal with him or make ourselves inoffensive to him? If so, you are seriously mistaken.
Meanwhile, Kos offers liberals two ways to talk about the Iraq war (advocate withdrawal or admit it's a failure and a mistake), which LGF notes:
comes after years of brittle screaming from Markos that "bringing democracy to Iraq" is nothing but a lie and a sham, and that we need to immediately cut and run. It's a little glimpse into the utter moral bankruptcy of the modern left, as they twist, distort, and change their stories at will depending on the political wind.
Posted by bill at 10:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A first-hand account
Two weeks ago Jonah Goldberg reminded us "Why we need Gitmo," recalling Mamdouh Mahmud Salim's savage attack on Louis Pepe. Yesterday, Army Green Beret Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu expanded with his essay on his first-hand account, entitled, "What I Saw at Gitmo" (h/t: Kieran Lalor) Among the things that haven't appeared in the NY Times:
After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it's the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and "cut the throats of them and their families like sheep." Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor - all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: "One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable...." These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being "non-compliant." They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.
He continues:
These were the worst of the worst. More than 200 have been released back to their home country – if the U.S. is assured that the detainees would not be tortured by local authorities upon return. These men were freed because they were deemed by ongoing official military review processes to no longer pose a threat, or to possess no useful intelligence. And this process has proven too generous at times: more than 10 released GITMO detainees have been killed or recaptured fighting Americans or have been identified as resuming terrorist activities. Still, the process is up and running for review of cases, and if a Washington DC circuit court approves a government appeal, the system for military tribunals will get started. All mechanisms are in place and ready to go as soon as DoD gets a green light.
There is a good reason these unlawful combatants are being confined. They are evil and dangerous individuals. Yet these thugs are treated with an amazing degree of compassion: They are given ice cream treats and recreational time. They live in clean facilities, and receive a full Muslim religious package of Koran, prayer rug, beads, and prayer oils. An arrow in every cell points to Mecca. The call to prayer is played five times daily. They are not abused, hanged, tortured, beheaded, raped, mutilated, or in any way treated the way that they once treated their own captives – or now treat their guards.
Posted by bill at 08:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Big Lie on the Assault Weapons Ban - John R. Lott, Jr., LAT
Taking Down the Ten Commandments - Wash. Times
The Speech the President Should Give - John Kerry, NYT
A Suggestion for the President - Clifford May, NRO
The Power of Hatred - Ralph Kinney Bennett, TCS
Grantsmen at Ground Zero - Mickey Kaus, Slate
Do we really own our homes? - Bob Weir, American Thinker
Bureaucrats and Indians - John Tierney, NYT
Spinning Lincoln - Indepundit
They Still Blame America First - Fred Barnes, WS
Posted by bill at 06:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 27, 2005
John Hinderaker's all wrong on Live 8
John Hinderaker is one of my favorite bloggers. But his weird fascination with Live 8 reeks of a mid-life crisis. Consider this post and this one (yay! Bono likes us!). For one thing, I've always thought (or hoped) conservatives agree that, as Captain Ed wrote today:
"Celebrities, for some reason, continually get drawn to political issues on which they know next to nothing. Most of the time, this makes for meaningless and harmless political comedy...The definition of celebrity has begun to transform into "celebration of stupidity."
Who gives a damn what Bono thinks about Africa policy anyway? I understand celebrities bring attention to worthwhile causes, and that it's noteworthy when one of them is ballsy enough to compliment a Republican. But Hinderaker hardly stops there. In fact he's devoted quite some time to getting Live 8 off the ground.
Problem is, Live 8 is a prototype for bad liberal policy (spend more money/reap political benefits for "compassion" etc). As the level-headed are pointing out, Live 8 has little chance of succeeding, and may hurt its intended beneficiaries (as I said: typical liberal policy). See, e.g, this article, which points out that in Africa, aid does not bring relief, no matter how happy one feels by virtue of having tried; or this one, which concludes:
If people really want to help Africa, they can spend July 2 lobbying Congress and the White House to force the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide, pressuring health organizations to mobilize against AIDS and raising serious amounts of money to feed millions of starving kids and their parents -- rather than boogeying to the sounds of Bon Jovi, Maroon 5 and the Barenaked Ladies.
As Le Professor points out, feeling good about one's attempt to help is not the same as helping. It's disappointing to that John Hinderaker has bought into Live 8's feel-good fraud. Someone buy that man a sports car.
Posted by bill at 08:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why Does Paul Krugman Oppose China's Takeover of Unocal?
Tyler Cowen thinks that Paul Krugman has become a mercantilist. I have a simpler explanation for Krugman's strange assertion that "If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal." Krugman, like your usual trade economist, believes that the Unocal deal is good for the United States. However, the United States is the vehicle of power for his nemesis, George W. Bush. Good for Bush = Bad for Krugman. So Krugman is against the deal because it benefits the United States. This is the same reason that he has been desperately hoping for recession and depression for the past few years.
Posted by Good Samaritan at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Years Late and Millions Short
Occasionally the MSM's pomposity is a source of entertainment, rather than mere annoyance - today, for example, CNN blared the ridiculous headline (it was on its front page), "Internet Transforms Modern Life," plugging a mindless article that would have been almost un-readable if it'd been published in 1998. It wasn't, but if we trudge through, we quickly come upon the following non-news:
The World Wide Web has transformed the way people live, work and play. People can play travel agent and book all the elements of a vacation online. They can arrange for their bills to be paid automatically while they are gone. They can put a hold on mail delivery, find directions to tourist attractions and get a long-term weather forecast before they pack.
Even on vacation, they can log onto the Web to keep up with news from their hometown paper or TV station, and stay connected with friends and family. In its first decade, the Internet altered the pace of popular culture. It made distance less daunting, rendered information instantly accessible and revolutionized communication.
(Anyone else thinking of Austin Powers air quoting the word "Lasers"?) The absurdity here reminds me of a three-night segment, years ago, in which NYC's local NBC news anchor, Chuck Scarborough, regurgitated some old footage into a 3-night series entitled, "Who really killed JFK?"." I was about 12 years old when it aired and even then, it was condescending. Scarborough wasn't exactly breaking new ground, and any dufus with a library card knew the series was neither "investigative" nor "journalism." (Packaged with the Zapruder tape and some historical footage, though it was evidently passable as such by Channel 4's standards.)
Also laughable is NYT executive editor Bill Keller's observation, apparently not from 1993, that the paper should "stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
Thanks, Bill.
Posted by bill at 03:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
SCOTUS sizzles
If you're a SCOTUS junkie, today is your day. Michelle Malkin has the links and has already posted her take on the file-sharing decision; Powerline discusses potential nominees (so does Volokh).
More later...
Posted by bill at 10:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Monday, June 27, 2005
As the Vacancy Nears - Eugene Hickok, WT
The American Story - John Fund, WSJ
The Chinese Challenge - Paul Krugman, NYT / IHT
A Supreme Court Conversation - Slate
The Vanishing Mirage of Saudi Oil - Michael T. Klare, LAT
The Last Rockefeller Republican - John Avlon, RCP
New Approach, but the Same Private Accounts - William Raspberry, WP
Rove was Right About MoveOn - Byron York, NRO
Posted by bill at 06:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 24, 2005
Weekend
I'll be away this weekend and won't be posting (most likely) until Sunday evening or Monday. Next week we'll have a bunch of new articles, plus some news about America's Next Top Blogger (hint). Some of CJ's blogteam may well post over the weekend but if not and you need a fix, check out the links Michelle Malkin pulled together on the SCOTUS eminent domain decision.
Posted by bill at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Rove and DeLay
Andrew Sullivan is outraged by Karl Rove's remarks to the New York Conservative Party, and Dems want him to resign. For a different reason, I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Karl Rove:
Karl Rove, Bush’s key political strategist, has advised against using presidential vetoes because they risk alienating interest groups friendly to the administration that benefit from Republican legislation.
Similarly, with Tom DeLay, while the "ethics" charges against him sound like baloney, I think he went too far in his attacks on judges a while back. I wouldn't mind seeing the back of him, too.
By the same token, Dick Durbin should fall for his offensive remarks.
What's wrong with a little turnover in high office?
Posted by Good Samaritan at 10:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - June 24, 2005
The Supreme Court's Reverse Robin Hoods - WSJ
More on Kelo:S. Bainbridge/J. Hinderaker/Volokh
Democratic shamelessness... - Christopher Adamo, AT
Social Security at a Turning Point? - Eric Pfeiffer, NRO
Hustling on K Street - Jonathan Chait, LAT
A Party Without Ideas - Charles Krauthammer, WP
The Crying Game Continues - Captain Ed
Echoes of Vietnam from the Democrats - Daniel Henninger, WSJ
From the Left: Krugman/Friedman
Posted by bill at 04:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2005
Infiltration
I'm not sure I support a constitution amendment banning flag desecration, but it is difficult to watch this without considering it (h/t Kieran Lalor, via The Jawa Report). And keep in mind this didn't happen in Iraq or Iran - it was in New York.
I was wondering what I'd have done if I'd happened by when this filth was filming. Just wish it away?
Posted by bill at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"I would reconsider them": The Reason Liberals Fear Clarence Thomas
Anyone else remember President Bush's reference to the Dred Scott decision during the October 8th debate? He said:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all--you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
Idiot liberals cackled but those with any sense of history were beflumoxed because, as I wrote in November:
it is precisely the flimsiness of Roe that scares the dickens out of America's pro-choice leadership. No judge interpreting the Constitution - the left's dreaded "strict constructionist" - could, if reviewing the right case, do anything but saw away Roe's wobbly stilts. In fact, the Supreme Court already said (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) that Roe is only as valid as stare decisis makes it. (This, one imagines, is why President Bush's mention of the 1857 Dred Scott decision during the second presidential debate sent shudders up the Pro-Choice spine. For too long, stare decisis upheld that ugly decision, too.)
In Raich and today’s regrettable disembowelment of the 5th Amendment, liberals must sense not only some more dissonance (liberals for corporations?! What gives?) but big problems ahead, specifically in the person of Justice Clarence Thomas. In these two decisions Thomas has underscored his commitment to originalism, stare decisis be damned – bad law is bad law. Unlike Scalia in Raich, Thomas dissented on the basis that old, bad law needn’t get a free pass. And today Thomas dissented separately to point out:
Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.
“I would reconsider them" -- and this is precisely why the left hates Clarence Thomas. Here come Ye Aulte Politics of Personal Destruction.
UPDATE -- For an analysis of today's eminent domain decision, check out Captain's Quarters.
Posted by bill at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bennett Plan + DeMint/Ryan Idea = Good Social Security Plan
Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman Jack Ryan have just put forward a plan to stop the raid on the Social Security surplus by diverting payroll tax dollars that are not spent into individual accounts, in the form of Treasury bonds.
The Wall Street Journal approves, and hints at how the politics will play out.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint are calling for legislation to bring an immediate halt to the ongoing political raid on the surplus payroll taxes collected by Social Security. Congress now spends that cash on current programs--from cotton subsidies, to defense, to the Dr. Seuss Museum. Every day that Congress fails to act, another $200 million is spent rather than being saved for future retirement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called this "thievery," and if corporate America were engaged in this type of accounting fraud Eliot Spitzer would be hauling CEOs to jail.
You tell 'em! But while the WSJ is taking a moment to highlight the ongoing absurdity of the Social Security program's structure, USA Today gives a more balanced update.
The plan has one distinct virtue. It would prevent that money from being used to fund other areas of government, a long-standing practice used to partially mask grossly irresponsible deficit spending.But for every one part substance, the plan contains nine parts gimmick...
Perhaps its most troubling aspect, however, is that it's being sold as something different from what its authors hope it will become. Creating private accounts only to shut off their funding after a decade, just when the surplus becomes a deficit, makes little sense.
Okay, point taken. But there's another plan on the table: the Bennett Plan. Pardon the source of the quote, but here's the NYT:
[Bush] gave tepid approval to a proposal by Robert Bennett, the stalwart conservative senator from Utah, to restore the system's solvency in a way that would not include private accounts... Mr. Bennett's plan includes drastic and unnecessarily large cuts in Social Security benefits, but at least he is being straightforward in offering a plan that addresses the real problem Americans want solved.
This is a highly misleading description, because 1) there are no benefit cuts, merely a cut in the growth rate of benefits, 2) the NYT, usually keen on class warfare, neglects to mention that the reduced benefit growth rate will apply only to the better-off (including the middle class, but the poor will be protected), and 3) the cuts are by no means "unnecessarily large," but actually (I think) fall somewhat short of restoring solvency, though they're still a huge step in the right direction.
But in addition to restoring solvency, the Bennett Plan would increase the Social Security surplus over time, by reducing scheduled benefits without reducing payroll tax receipts.
And if the surplus were channeled into individual accounts, a larger surplus just means larger individual accounts.
Brilliant! Now let's hope it passes.
Posted by Good Samaritan at 08:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Apologies over substance?
Dean Esmay says Dick Durbin's "un-Trent Lott-like" apology is "good enough" for him. Recalling Lott:
A couple of years ago webloggers helped get former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired for not just saying nice things about Strom Thurmond's career as a racist Dixiecrat. At the time I had absolutely no pity on Lott, because instead of just saying, "You know I was just trying to say something nice on the retirement of an old friend, I didn't mean it to sound like it did, sorry about that," Lott stonewalled and refused to admit that he'd said something incredibly stupid, THEN he issued several half-assed and insincere apologies that just made it worse, THEN did a complete 180 even on his former policy positions just to "prove" he wasn't a racist. It had to be damn near the most phony thing I'd ever seen in my life(more after the jump).
Until a few days ago Durbin was well on his way with his own version of the standard "half-assed and insincere apologies" but I've watched the video a few times and while it's hard to discern whether this was "Crap look what I did to my career" or something more sincere. I'm still waiting for Durbin to say "I'm sorry for being a tool of our enemies' propaganda" but I won't hold my breath.
Esmay focuses too much on the apologies. My own starting point for such things is that all politics is dishonest, its personalities fleeting and ideas more important. I don't care all that much for either Lott or Durbin, but by my account the thinking that motivated Durbin's comments is, in 2005, far more dangerous that that which motivated Lott's. Lott unveiled a shocking insensitivity to politics as much as toward minorities - and I don't believe he was capable of leading Senate Republicans; I thought resignation was appropo because he exhibited bad judgment, not because, as some believe, he's a racist/closeted segregationist. In any event, the apology was calculated and the charade pointless.
Same goes for Durbin. He's dangerous not because his comments were stupid but because given their context of his apparent willingness to abet our enemy's propagandists, for political purposes, and no apology will help him now, no matter how clever his speechwriters. Al Jazeera appreciated the fodder and so, no doubt, did the US flag desecration crowd. Durbin's comments were distortion by any measure and gassed up anti-US sentiment far more than it informed whatver debate we should be having about Gitmo.
There is a war going on, and despite the Reuters-type perch assumed by many Democrats ("one man's terrorist..."), we all have to pick a side. In the end Senator Durbin sought political gain because he's too smart, too nuanced and too introspective to support the war effort. So Dick should resign, too.
This will be my last post on Durbin until he makes another blunder. At one point our friends at Lucianne.com banned posts regarding Terri Schiavo because everything had been said that could be said. I think we've reached that point with Durbin.
Posted by bill at 07:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Thursday, June 23, 2005
Iraq and the Polls - Bob Herbert, NYT
Where Have All The Manners Gone? - Cinnamon Stillwell, SF Chron.
Eine Kleine Biographie - Peggy Noonan, WSJ
Crime? And Punishment - Stephen Bainbridge, TCS
Why the Rebels Will Lose - Max Boot, LAT
Why Detain Terrorists? Maybe This Will Help Explain It - Cpt. Ed
Terrorists Against Bolton - Steven Stalinsky, FPM
Let the Chinese Bid - NY Sun
A Quiet Father's Day - Russ Smith, NY Press
Posted by bill at 05:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 22, 2005
Slouching
Dave St. John says he's disappointed with Republicans:
I was in awe of the campaign you Republicans waged to re-elect our president as well as gain control of Congress. We turned out and supported you. Surely things would happen now, I thought. But since the election, I feel your sense of urgency is gone. Folks across the aisle seem willing to say and do anything and there is little more than some "official" outrage from you to rebut their comments and assertions.
I've been disappointed, too. But is more to do with this, this and this. They compromise when they shouldn't, and unite in pointlessness.
UPDATE: Oh, and this.
Posted by bill at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
SCOTUS Cogitation
Hendrick Hertzberg is in knots over the SCOTUS decision in Raich:
The least muddled opinion was Justice Thomas's separate dissent, certain passages of which (e.g., "In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana") could have been written by Justice Cheech or Justice Chong. Thomas's private views on marijuana are unknown, but if he had his way, as expressed in this particular opinion, any federal interference with homegrown, home-smoked pot, whether for medical or recreational purposes, would be ruled out as an unconstitutional usurpation of the states' powers "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." But, then, almost any federal effort to protect those things would be similarly inadmissable. Hello to bong hits, but goodbye to workplace safety, environmental regulations, and Medicare. Thomas's view has the virtue of consistency. But consistency is not the same as wisdom.
Hey, wait! This reminds me of the NY Times editorial (link is an excerpt) on Raich("...we hope that Justice Antonin Scalia, who seems to be campaigning for chief justice, remembers that he concurred with the majority this week the next time the court hears a federal-powers case on, say, air pollution).
In any case, court watchers were aflutter reacting to news Justice Rehnquist could retire as early as Monday, as Clarence Thomas gains steam, and Antonin Scalia may be losing some, as conservatives' fave.
Meantime, Ted Kennedy, who isn't the President, says Thomas is not an option.
Paging Anita Hill! Paging Anita Hill!
Posted by bill at 08:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Durbin Apology: Captain's Quarters/Malkin/Redstate
Condi in Cairo: WSJ/David Ignatius
Helping Hillary Now... - Dick Morris, The Hill
Run, Dick, Run - Thomas Friedman, NYT
Will the Republicans we elected please stand up - D. St. John, AT
Tax Reform Realities - Bruce Bartlett, WT
Betting Against the House - Andres Martinez, LAT
The Clash over Ground Zero - Jarrett Murphy, Village Voice
DaVinci Code/Downing Street Memo - Christopher Hitchens, Slate
Posted by bill at 06:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 21, 2005
Too little, too late?
Senator Dick apologized today. Was it enough? Judge for yourself here. It certainly seems sincere, but good Lord this guy is a crappy speaker. He looks like he's giving a speech campaigning for class President.
Posted by bill at 08:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In Defense of Dick Durbin
Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, the right-wing denizens of the internet and talk radio have set after Ill. Sen. Dick Durbin for his speech on the Senate floor last week. Supposedly, Sen. Durbin compared the American military to the police-state tactics of Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and others.
I suspect that the purveyors of conservative propaganda are motivated by their frustation over successful Democratic tactics in blocking Bush judicial appointments, and the stalling of the Bolton nomination. Plus, I think they sense increasing impatience by the American public over the abject failure of the post-war planning by the Bush administration coupled with the President's inability to articulate a coherent argument on social security reform or even formulate a rational energy policy. The president's energy policy seems to be that as long as Texas oil men are getting rich, all's well with the world.
If anyone cared to read the entire Durbin speech which was thoughtful and persuasive, you will see that he makes a few important and compelling points:
1. We should adhere to the Geneva Convention. Even Colin Powell agrees with this point.
2. Enemy terrorists are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection anyway, so there is no practical effect to adhering to the convention.
3. We are better than our enemy in the war on terror and should not sink to their inhumane level. We, as a country, have recognized in the past where our conduct went over the line. We should do so here and not revert back to lawless conduct.
I happen to agree with him on this. But even if you don't, how can you argue that it is an unpatriotic statement.
If you would rather just read the hysterical summaries and join the mob in attacking Sen. Durbin, I suppose you are free to do so. But you would be harkening back to the McCarthy era when people were punished and ostracized for their beliefs.
Posted by American Dream at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Hobbes, Locke and the Bush Doctrine - Nathan Smith, TCS*
View John Kerry's Form 180 - Powerline
America Needs John Bolton - Newt Gingrich, NRO
Nuclear Iran and the Wizard of Oz - Akbar Atri, Amer. Spectator
What Became of Federalism? - John Yoo, LAT
Is Bush getting serious about the peace process? - Henry Siegman, IHT
Church, not state, must advance moral agenda - Cal Thomas
How Cheney Fooled Himself - EJ Dionne, Jr.
California's Union Blues - Bryan O'Keefe, WS
Why is there an American University in Cairo? - Daniel Engber, WSJ
The Adams Principle - John Tierney, NYT
War of the Worldviews - John J. Miller, WSJ
* Nathan blogs with Citizen Journal under the name "Good Samaritan."
Posted by bill at 05:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hard Landing
It's in the air: the frenzy and the folly of a bubble as the end nears. The real estate bubble in the U.S. has reached absurd heights. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), 25% of those purchasing homes last year made no down payment (see article here). The increasing use of no-interest and negative amortization mortgages is undercutting the traditional (financial) rationale for purchasing a home. Meanwhile, real estate prices are falling in Australia and the UK (ours is part of a global real estate bubble), and it is only a matter of time before they begin to fall here. Given the extent of the run-up in housing values in some areas of the country, and the increasing willingness of American home buyers to adopt imprudent risks, this is unlikely to be a soft landing.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 01:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
Dear Democratic Underground:
Please consider me for your "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" list. I support my President and his conduct of the war on terrorism, despite his faults, and I believe in all that free market stuff, America's greatness, and the human spirit. I liked Ronald Reagan, don't think Patrick Buchanan is Satan and have never protested any wars, attended to NYU, or shouted down Bill O'Reilly at the Fox News studios. I think CNN is more biased than Fox, and I pay $.75 for my coffee every morning. Moreover, I am grateful to be an American citizen and think French people should work harder and take a more showers. I think Wonkette is a foul slut, and I think Kos and his daddy would benefit from psychiatric help.
In short, I feel I'm ideally qualified to be included in your list. Please consider my interest. I am happy to provide more information as needed.
Regards,
Bill Lalor
wlalor@citizen-journal.net
Posted by bill at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Things about the war we don't see in MSM
Given MSM's treacherously biased coverage of Iraq, the more pictures like this the blogosphere can circulate, the better:
More here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Posted by bill at 08:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Left's War on the War on Terrorism
Though more subtle than Senator Dick's awful comments (read Powerline's latest here), the left's snickering over military recruitng problems is just as nauseating.
Maybe that dispiriting negativisism, the message that we're losing and should give up fighting the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" is taking a toll. Maybe 18 year-olds read putrid lies like the recent one about about Marines kipnapping a potential recruit (click here for the hook, line and sinker); or have seen media vultures -- the vast majority of whom have no idea what it might be like to fight in a war against animals with guns -- circle young soldiers guilty of little more than hazing and then sneer as they were convicted and shipped off to prison; maybe potential recruits heard about Ilaro Pantano, and the hell he experienced while our God damn American politicians betrayed him; and maybe they noticed the fretting over "degrading" photos of Saddam Hussein, by the same bunch who take such frequent pleasure in humiliating the Commander-in-Chief. Maybe, too, the putrid Memorial Day protests, the likening (by a U.S. Senator speaking on the Senate floor) of his military to Nazis; the fact that terrorist detainees eat better than military men do; and the pittance of any news about progress and heroes are having their effect. Maybe they watched Farenheit 9/11 and, because they're young, or impressionable, believed the Michael Moore's propaganda.
The White House, and bureaucracy aren't blameless for recruiting problems, either, but give me a break. Powerline sums things up well:
It is hard to escape the sense that some politicians, like some reporters, look back fondly on their anti-Vietnam war days and would like to recreate the same "success" thirty-five years later. Let's hope they fail.
I do hope they fail but some "success," it seems, may already be theirs. Thanks, Democrats!
Posted by bill at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Un-conservatism
I don't like the fact that I cannot post anything here on the Middle East, September 11th and Israel without running the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite" if I'm not exquisitely sensitive to the words I use and the range of inferences a reader might make. It's a sad truth that even foreign policy can be a casualty of speech policing inasmuch as Israel is involved. But this website is supposed to cut through the jib jab, aye?
I was thinking about all of this when I learned of the DNC's headache over the distribution of "material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy," one run by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). MORE AFTER THE JUMP
The DNC website describes the incident as follows:
...some members of the audience took it upon themselves to distribute anti-Semitic literature at the Wasserman Conference room where an overflow crowd observed the proceedings on television.
Reports the AP:
One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned.
I don’t know whether the offending literature or the text of McGovern's remarks is available yet – hopefully it will surface on Drudge – but it is startling to me that raising questions about Israel and Iraq is said to constitute "anti-Semitism." Like a lot of conservatives I support President Bush and his conduct of the war on terror, and I don’t subscribe to Tin Foil Hat Brigade conspiracy theories. But if we’re to have a worthwhile debate about what wars to fight, and how and when to do so, it’ll have to account for the U.S.' unique relationship with Israel and the extent to which our interests are co-extensive with theirs, and when they diverge. One of the vastly unexplored issues of the last few years is whether, as to Israel, we’re reaching a point of divergence, or are at or beyond it, as are sub-points such as: the idea that September 11th united much of the world against Islamofascim; questions about what Israel stands to gain from regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan; and why President Bush’s approval among American Jews isn’t higher. 9/11 conspiracy theories are one thing but these unexplored questions are quite another.
Jewish neo-conservatives’ indignation, and their willingness to affiliate paleo-conservatism with anti-Semitism (one example: this WSJ editorial) has thrown water on the debate. The tactic is as regrettable as when it’s used, for example, by liberal idiots who introduce the words “racism” and “bigot” into a debate over affirmative action. Such exaggeration and careless use of the terms eventually cheapen them, which is especially bothersome considering the frightful reemergence of actual anti-Semitism in Europe.
It remains to be seen whether the DNC’s troubles this weekend will fester or be whisked under the carpet. At this point, without knowing the contents of the literature that was circulated, it’s impossible to talk merits. But judging by the initial response we’ll never get that far – the script is being followed: righteous indignation, then summary dismissal – of an idea, precisely because it is “critical of Israel.” And no one dares ask why. This is a terrible path for public debate, one that bears no resemblance to “conservatism.” Where do the reliable conservative pundits stand? Why isn't anyone denouncing the speech policing?
For now it may be worth savoring a delicious irony here. Liberals tend to disclaim responsibility for speech codes, but who’s kidding whom? That some of them, as a result of yet another meandering tirade against President Bush, found themselves ensnared in their own rhetorical trap is beyond amusing, as is the spectacle of Howard Dean denouncing anything at all as “offensive.”
Posted by bill at 07:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Morning Blend - Monday, June 20, 2005
Review of Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Mark Kilmer, Redstate.org
Terms of Internment - Alan Bromley, WSJ
The Dangers of Being a Moral Don Quixote - Roger Kimball, Armavirumque
None dare call it treason - Bob Weir, American Thinker
Breaking the Durbin Code - Hugh Hewitt, WS
Not on Faith Alone - Mario M. Cuomo
Lebanon, Islamofascism and Democracy - WT / Captain Ed
The Donors and Darfur - Wash. Post
Juries on Trial - LAT
Posted by bill at 06:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 19, 2005
Pundit Review
Pundit Review radio will be interviewing the lesser known Massachusetts liberal Kennedy, Dan Kennedy, who is a writer for the Boston alt-weekly Boston Phoenix. Show starts at 9 p.m. -- listen live here.
Posted by bill at 06:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Shame on him"
Mark Steyn says it all on Guantonamo. It's almost impossible to do this column justice by excerpting but below is a sampling. I consider this the definitive commentary thus far on the Club Gitmo inanity, comparable to Christopher Hitchens' decimation of Michael Moore and Farenheit 911:
The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so.
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe. It would be heartening to think that Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don't mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him. But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he's done -- in a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatsoever except to America's enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.
Posted by bill at