Here's what Mike Lupica of the Daily News said on Tuesday about the Yankees stinking:
The way baseball works, they will probably break out all this week, even going against Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito.
Lupica was right, in his way. The Yanks became the second team to ever sweep Oakland's big three in a three-game series. First team to do so? The 2001 Yanks, on the same dates -- April 27-29. The A's turned around and won the other six games in the season series from the Yanks in 2001 and the first two games of the 2001 ALDS before the Yanks rallied for a 3-2 series win to take on the Mariners.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Say what?
Joseph Wilson IV is the erstwhile Clinton ambassador who the CIA stupidly sent to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase enriched uranium. Wilson went to Niger, sat around drinking tea (by his own admission), chatted up Niger officials and rubbished the claims. But now, the Washington Post reports that Wilson has written in his new book that
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
. . . Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
Wilson's book is about his life since an administration official allegedly exposed his wife's identity as a CIA agent (there's still no real proof that she was a covert operative within the preceding 5 years -- which would make the disclosure illegal). But he made much ado about the non-existent Iraq-Niger uranium connection. Now he's changed his tune.
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
. . . Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
Wilson's book is about his life since an administration official allegedly exposed his wife's identity as a CIA agent (there's still no real proof that she was a covert operative within the preceding 5 years -- which would make the disclosure illegal). But he made much ado about the non-existent Iraq-Niger uranium connection. Now he's changed his tune.
Only Nixon could go to China Alert
Canada is the bastion of multiculturalism, internationalism, UN worship and world communitarianism. So it is a major moment when Canada's PM says that the major problems of the world should be discussed (and potentially decided) by a G-20 of major developed and developing nations outside the UN umbrella. Check it out here.
Competitive balance
Rob Neyer shows that the complaints about a lack of competitive balance in baseball are rubbish. Just because one or two teams continue to win doesn't equate to a lack of balance when so many teams have a good chance to win. Neyer compares the six-division era with the four-division era and concludes that the competitive balance has increased by more than 50%. Here are the money 'grafs:
If by "competitive balance" we mean that a significant number of teams have a fighting chance to win the World Series, then we're probably at an all-time high. In any given season since 1994, roughly four out of every 10 teams finished the schedule within five games of either a division title or the wild card, and that's a lot of teams.
And yet, the Commissioner continues to prattle on about "competitive balance" and, even more cloyingly, "hope and faith." Well, he and his fellow owners solved the "problem" 10 years ago when they created two new divisions and four new postseason berths. In the face of the evidence I've presented above, I'm led to one of two conclusions: that the Commissioner won't be happy until 1) MLB is like the NHL and the NBA, with more than half the teams not only having the chance to make the playoffs, but actually making the playoffs, or 2) the Commissioner's own team, which hasn't played a postseason game since 1982, actually makes the playoffs.
If by "competitive balance" we mean that a significant number of teams have a fighting chance to win the World Series, then we're probably at an all-time high. In any given season since 1994, roughly four out of every 10 teams finished the schedule within five games of either a division title or the wild card, and that's a lot of teams.
And yet, the Commissioner continues to prattle on about "competitive balance" and, even more cloyingly, "hope and faith." Well, he and his fellow owners solved the "problem" 10 years ago when they created two new divisions and four new postseason berths. In the face of the evidence I've presented above, I'm led to one of two conclusions: that the Commissioner won't be happy until 1) MLB is like the NHL and the NBA, with more than half the teams not only having the chance to make the playoffs, but actually making the playoffs, or 2) the Commissioner's own team, which hasn't played a postseason game since 1982, actually makes the playoffs.
Do something
That's the gist of John Podhoretz's column today. As long as Presidents are proactive in election years, they win; if they are not, they lose; and the state of the nation is a secondary concern. Read it.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Disaster written all over it
Would you let the fox guard the henhouse? Apparently the US will -- check out this report that a Falluja Protective Army comprised of "a new Iraqi force led by former Iraqi army officers" will take over patrols of Falluja and that the Marines will pull back. Those are the Iraqi army officers comprised of Ba'athists/Sunnis/Saddamites being sent to guard against insurgency from the Sunni/Saddamite stronghold of Falluja. And this deal was announced on the same day that another 10 Marines were killed. Politically correct warfare is ineffectual warfare -- the President should have ordered Falluja brought to heel before any deals because this will look like surrender.
Worse by the minute
I've said twice over that the Eli Manning deal the Giants made in the NFL draft was not good. Here's Adrian Wojnarowski's eulogy of Kerry Collins, Giants' Quarterback. Wojnarowski's one of the best (and most underrated) writers in sports journalism and he shows the level of class, integrity and leadership Collins brought to the Big Blue, and how he won over his 65%+ black teammates after his career had plummeted into an abyss of alcoholism, teammate problems and the spectre of the racial slur Collins hurled at Muhsin Muhammed while playing for Carolina. It will take a lot for Manning to even come close to Collins' achievement.
Burned.
Well, it happened: the Giants cut Kerry Collins and they are officially rebuilding. What that means is they are rebuilding WITHOUT a first-round draft pick next year because they had to give it to San Diego for Eli Manning. This trade is looking worse by the day.
Wake up
Brent Bozell blasts the GOP for standing idly by while the media works for a Kerry victory in November.
Gorelick should have been fired . . .
. . . from the Justice Department. Check out this report from the Washington Times detailing her involvement with walling off FBI and CIA investigations from each other. Gorelick has claimed that the "wall" was a statutory requirement. That's completely untrue. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act did not require separation between criminal and espionage investigation of foreign nationals (see my earlier posts re: Andrew McCarthy's articles). Only an incorrect court ruling in the 1980s (overturned by the Ashcroft Justice Department's challenge) establishing a primary purpose test regarding information-sharing required any segregation of investigative information. But the wall Gorelick designed (and which Janet Reno approved) went beyond the legal requirements of the statute and the court ruling and Gorelick boasted of that fact in her memo creating the wall!
Here are the key points in the article, noted by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (the one who prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombers) in a memo to Gorelick in 1995 in response to the Gorelick memo that created the prototype wall that Reno approved later that year:
"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.
Here are the key points in the article, noted by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (the one who prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombers) in a memo to Gorelick in 1995 in response to the Gorelick memo that created the prototype wall that Reno approved later that year:
"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.
Today's sign of the Apocalypse
The NY Times publisher blames readers for not alerting the Times to Jayson Blair's innumerable falsifications. See it here.
Hat-tip, Nat'l Review.
Hat-tip, Nat'l Review.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The Islamization of Canada
Here's a worrying report: bringing shari'a law to Canada. That's the Islamic law practice (shari'a) that endorses stonings of married women who get raped, honor killings, execution of apostates (Muslims who question orthodoxy), etc. This quote is the most telling because it shows how Canada is bending over backwards to make Muslims feel comfortable but doesn't know what it is really getting into:
Homa Hoodfar, a professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, complained that there was little public discussion before the tribunals were created. "This vague idea of sharia court is what bugs me," Hoodfar said. "Because having worked on sharia law and family law in the Middle East, I know there is no one set [of laws]. Which country will they use as a basis? They don't answer. But also, the Canadian government does not question. They think sharia law is written in the Koran. But sharia is the interpretation of the law and practices."
Hoodfar said she was concerned that recent female immigrants could be forced into participating in tribunals and possibly victimized because they don't speak English or are not aware of their legal rights. "It won't affect my life or educated women who know their rights," Hoodfar said. "It will affect the rights of women who are new and need protection. They are much more subject to community pressure."
hat-tip = Andrew Sullivan
Homa Hoodfar, a professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, complained that there was little public discussion before the tribunals were created. "This vague idea of sharia court is what bugs me," Hoodfar said. "Because having worked on sharia law and family law in the Middle East, I know there is no one set [of laws]. Which country will they use as a basis? They don't answer. But also, the Canadian government does not question. They think sharia law is written in the Koran. But sharia is the interpretation of the law and practices."
Hoodfar said she was concerned that recent female immigrants could be forced into participating in tribunals and possibly victimized because they don't speak English or are not aware of their legal rights. "It won't affect my life or educated women who know their rights," Hoodfar said. "It will affect the rights of women who are new and need protection. They are much more subject to community pressure."
hat-tip = Andrew Sullivan
The Great Rumsfeld
From the SecDef to his daily press briefing.
There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to [run a] headline saying that "Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques." That would be one way to present the information.
Another might be to say: "Mosques Targeted in Fallujah." That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.
hat-tips: National Review Online's The Corner, Instapundit.
There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to [run a] headline saying that "Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques." That would be one way to present the information.
Another might be to say: "Mosques Targeted in Fallujah." That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.
hat-tips: National Review Online's The Corner, Instapundit.
one for three
One: The Yanks came back from 8-4 down, bottom of the eighth with a 6-run rally against the Oakland bullpen. Losing pitcher Jim Mecir said after the game that he wasn't really that upset because he didn't think he pitched poorly despite giving up four hits and a walk and getting no outs. The sick thing is, he's right -- Bernie Williams started with a solid single, but ARod reached on a seeing-eye hit, Giambi walked on a close pitch, Sheffield scored Williams with a tough infield single and Posada hit a pitcher's pitch (low, outside) for another run-scoring hit. Mecir was pulled and his relief (Ricardo Rincon) did only marginally better. If I was not a Yankees fan, I'd feel bad for the A's because Mecir didn't pitch poorly and still blew a big lead.
In the two near misses: Denver lost to Minnesota in the NBA playoffs after a huge comeback attempt and some choke jobs by the T'Wolves.
Pat Toomey lost to the execrable Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Primary. Yuck.
In the two near misses: Denver lost to Minnesota in the NBA playoffs after a huge comeback attempt and some choke jobs by the T'Wolves.
Pat Toomey lost to the execrable Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Primary. Yuck.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The Giants' biggest splash
It wasn't the trade for Eli Manning, instead it's the signing of Jared Lorenzen as a rookie free agent. Lorenzen was the QB for Kentucky and is known for being larger than life -- he's 288 pounds and that's probably a decrease from his playing weight.
This will be overlooked
Kenneth Timmerman on the recent progress in finding Iraq's WMD.
Meanwhile, Ralph Peters is largely on-target with this criticism of the ridiculous notion of negotiating with Moqtada al-Sadr and his Sadists.
Meanwhile, Ralph Peters is largely on-target with this criticism of the ridiculous notion of negotiating with Moqtada al-Sadr and his Sadists.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Come off it
Kerry is lashing out at President Bush to "prove" his National Guard Service. But that story is 2 months old and is done -- the President's records are now in the public domain and his Service is proven. Kerry is still fighting his own Vietnam legacy, not because his war record is dishonorable (it's not), but because his actions after he returned to the US were so deplorable.
Best Predictions, not publicized
I predicted that the Mavericks would lose to the Kings in the NBA playoffs in five games -- I just felt it. Sure 'nuff, the Kings are up 3-1 going back to Sacramento after a 94-92 Kings win tonight.
Burned?
Here's the deal: if Newsday is correct and Kerry Collins is going to get cut from the New York Giants, then Giants GM Ernie Accorsi screwed up on Saturday by making a four-for-one deal with San Diego to get Eli Manning. The Giants sent this year's first and third-round and next year's first and fifth-round picks to San Diego for Manning. If the Giants would retain Collins and seek to build this year and have it work as Eli's apprenticeship, then the Giants would possibly go 8-8 and have a mid-round first-round pick next year that they would be losing. High price, but acceptable.
But Newsday's report says Collins is gone; if true, the Giants are in full rebuilding mode and essentially gave up a top 5 draft pick next year, because there's no way they'll top 5 wins (if that) against their schedule with a rookie QB. Accorsi had a good position because Manning did not want to play for San Diego. Accorsi could have called AJ Smith's bluff and forced the Chargers' GM to lower expectations for the trade. Accorsi blinked. Unless Manning is a star by 2005 (his brother Peyton only took two years to become a top starter, but Eli is not as good), Accorsi made the wrong move.
But Newsday's report says Collins is gone; if true, the Giants are in full rebuilding mode and essentially gave up a top 5 draft pick next year, because there's no way they'll top 5 wins (if that) against their schedule with a rookie QB. Accorsi had a good position because Manning did not want to play for San Diego. Accorsi could have called AJ Smith's bluff and forced the Chargers' GM to lower expectations for the trade. Accorsi blinked. Unless Manning is a star by 2005 (his brother Peyton only took two years to become a top starter, but Eli is not as good), Accorsi made the wrong move.
Forgive him
Read William F. Buckley standing athwart Arlen Specter's re-election campaign and yelling "STOP!"
Journalistic ethics at the NY Times?
What's with this: Ron Suskind wrote an anti-Bush book using disgraced Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill as his foil. The NY Times then commissions Suskind to review Karen Hughes' book in the Times' Book Review. That is an editorial subterfuge to set up a criticism of the President through the book review. Bad ethics by the Times. [hat-tip, Kausfiles].
Oh my goodness
This stat, from Joel Sherman in the NY Post, is just sickening. It details just how awful the Yankees are.
In the final 23 innings of the Red Sox's three-game sweep, [Alex] Rodriguez was 5-for-8; the rest of the Yanks were 4-for-68.
In the final 23 innings of the Red Sox's three-game sweep, [Alex] Rodriguez was 5-for-8; the rest of the Yanks were 4-for-68.
Check this out
Great apparel that will p'o every person who could read it. It's pro-Israel and pro-Judaism messages written in Arabic on various types of clothing.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Boooooooooooooooooo
To all the Yankees hitters. Between yesterday and today, the Yanks pitchers gave up 5 runs (4 earned) in 21 innings to what was the best-hitting team in baseball last year (and doesn't suck this year), including 0-20 with runners in scoring position yesterday. The Yanks hitters, in those same 21 innings, recorded 8 hits. The Yanks' 8-11 start is their worst since 1997, the last year they did not win the AL East. The team currently is one of the WORST in baseball.
The Yanks have 18 of their next 21 against Oakland, Anaheim and Seattle, so they cannot afford to wallow in this weekend's fiasco. Other than the woeful Blue Jays, Boston does not play a team that finished >.500 last year again until late May. In other words, the Yanks will not catch the Redsux any time soon. Therefore, the Yanks need only to worry about themselves and do what they have to do -- suck measurably less.
In '97, the Yanks started 5-10, were 4 games back by the end of April, 8.5 games out by the end of May, lost their first seven games against Baltimore, and 8 of 12 total against the O's after winning 10 of 13 in '96. They finished two games behind the Orioles. In other words, there is still time and opportunity, they just need to alleviate the stench emanating from the large edifice on the Harlem River.
The Yanks have 18 of their next 21 against Oakland, Anaheim and Seattle, so they cannot afford to wallow in this weekend's fiasco. Other than the woeful Blue Jays, Boston does not play a team that finished >.500 last year again until late May. In other words, the Yanks will not catch the Redsux any time soon. Therefore, the Yanks need only to worry about themselves and do what they have to do -- suck measurably less.
In '97, the Yanks started 5-10, were 4 games back by the end of April, 8.5 games out by the end of May, lost their first seven games against Baltimore, and 8 of 12 total against the O's after winning 10 of 13 in '96. They finished two games behind the Orioles. In other words, there is still time and opportunity, they just need to alleviate the stench emanating from the large edifice on the Harlem River.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
It's official
The Yankees stink. Four hits in a 12-inning loss to the RedSax today. And the Red Sax were 0-20 with runners in scoring position. Jeter and Williams are awful, and yes I did predict that Williams would hit into a bases-loaded inning-ending double-play in the 7th today and thought the RedStiffs should've walked Lee intentionally to set it the twin-killing even before Williamson went 3-0 on Lee. Meanwhile, Matsui and Giambi are intermittent; the fill-in types like Wilson and Lee can't hit .200. That's 1-5 against the RedSux and the Yanks have scored 2 runs in four of those games. The defense is poor, clutch hitting worse, and the rotation is 3-deep. Simply stated, the Yanks are in trouble win or lose tomorrow. Eighteen games is not a real good sample, but the Yanks have won one series to date (the one-gamer against Tampa doesn't count) and have exceeded five runs just three times for a team expected to exceed six runs per.
The Red Sax changes have worked nicely: they have a no-doubt closer and have four frontline starters. The Yanks have three frontline starters and two question marks. Even assuming the Yanks win 60% of their remaining games, that means a 92-win season. The last three AL wild cards have won 102, 99 and 95 games. The Redsax are the better team right now, and that's true even though they don't have Nixon and Nomaaaaa.
The Red Sax changes have worked nicely: they have a no-doubt closer and have four frontline starters. The Yanks have three frontline starters and two question marks. Even assuming the Yanks win 60% of their remaining games, that means a 92-win season. The last three AL wild cards have won 102, 99 and 95 games. The Redsax are the better team right now, and that's true even though they don't have Nixon and Nomaaaaa.
Friday, April 23, 2004
American Hero, R.I.P.
After 9-11-01, Arizona Cardinal safety Pat Tillman turned his back on his $3.5M salary and enlisted in the Army. He said he wanted to be treated as just another soldier and turned down requests for media coverage of his enlistment and training. He also said he wanted to be an example for others. He went through basic training and was deployed as a Ranger, first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan. He and his brother Kevin were awarded the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for athletes whose contributions to society transcend sports. Today, Tillman was killed in a firefight in Afghanistan. The US has lost a good man.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
New idiocy from Kerry
I just saw this on Special Report with Brit Hume, on the Grapevine section of the program, which should be on the Fox News website in the morning (on the left side of the page). Here's the gist of it: in 1971 at the height of his VVAW involvement, Kerry went on a campus speaking tour. At one college in West Virginia, he said that the US democracy is not the best system in the world and that Communism was not a threat to the US.
The fact that he was so dead wrong on both counts is only part of the point. More important is the unescapable fact that no matter how ineffectual they are, US presidents now will always have a major impact on the world that will last for decades after they leave office. Kerry's inability to nail the most important foreign policy questions of the day is of minimal consequence in his position as a Senator; it will have a major detrimental impact on the world until the 2020s at the least if he becomes president.
The fact that he was so dead wrong on both counts is only part of the point. More important is the unescapable fact that no matter how ineffectual they are, US presidents now will always have a major impact on the world that will last for decades after they leave office. Kerry's inability to nail the most important foreign policy questions of the day is of minimal consequence in his position as a Senator; it will have a major detrimental impact on the world until the 2020s at the least if he becomes president.
Andrew Sullivan is Right
This IS addictive -- the money tracking for the 2004 Presidential contest. You can check this out by county, zip code, state and check on who has donated to whom. Note that of the 10 cities that have contributed the most, six (including the top four) have contributed more to democrats (all of them, not just Kerry), four have contributed more to Pres. Bush. Looking at the money map as an electoral map, however, is a nice thought for supporters of the President. Democrats have collected more money in states worth 157 electoral votes, 51 too close to call, and 330 electoral votes for states where the President has out-raised Democrats.
Note that the richest contributors and largest contributors are for Kerry, not Pres. Bush. Note also that Kerry has received money from less than 4000 zip codes, Pres. Bush's support has come from nearly 11,000 zip codes. Thanks to Sullivan for pointing the way.
Note that the richest contributors and largest contributors are for Kerry, not Pres. Bush. Note also that Kerry has received money from less than 4000 zip codes, Pres. Bush's support has come from nearly 11,000 zip codes. Thanks to Sullivan for pointing the way.
Mo Clarett, redux
Maurice Clarett's application to Justice Ginsburg was denied. That's no surprise because Clarett really has no case for entering THE SPECIFIC NFL Draft that will be held Saturday and Sunday. As I said before, he's challenging the work eligibility rules and any harm he may suffer by not being in the regular draft will be rectified by a supplemental draft.
Interesting side note: local sportstalk guy was querying Prof. Gary Roberts of Tulane Law School (not the Toronto Maple Leafs' forward) about the Clarett case. Roberts said that the NFL should really win this in a slam dunk because there is Supreme Court cases on its side. But Judge Scheindlin's decision for Clarett didn't surprise him because "nothing judges do really surprise me anymore . . . what surprised me was how wrong she was on the law."
Interesting side note: local sportstalk guy was querying Prof. Gary Roberts of Tulane Law School (not the Toronto Maple Leafs' forward) about the Clarett case. Roberts said that the NFL should really win this in a slam dunk because there is Supreme Court cases on its side. But Judge Scheindlin's decision for Clarett didn't surprise him because "nothing judges do really surprise me anymore . . . what surprised me was how wrong she was on the law."
Gitmo Detainees
The Volokh Conspiracy is blogging heavily on this issue. Eugene Volokh is a law prof. at UCLA and very sharp. Here is the crux of his argument (just the high points, it's really long, but worthwhile -- just go to the Conspiracy):
Detainees and unlawful combatants vs. POWs: . . . I've blogged about this general question before, but it seems worth mentioning again; so here are a few thoughts.
1. There's nothing at all novel about the concept of an enemy detainee who isn't a POW. To the best of my knowledge, the practice of civilized nations has long recognized that there are two categories of wartime military captives. The first involves (more or less) soldiers who were fighting in uniform within organized command structures; these are generally seen as being entitled to "prisoner of war" status, which means (a) humane treatment, (b) limits on certain kinds of interrogations, and (c) immunity from being tried for actions that consist of "lawful warfare," e.g., shooting at our soldiers (while fighting in uniform within organized command structures). . .
The second category . . . is that of unlawful combatants. The quintessential examples are spies and saboteurs, but more generally it also includes soldiers who do not fight in uniform within organized command structures. Unlawful combatants are generally not protected in the ways I describe above; they have many fewer rights (I speak here of rights under international conventions and conventional practice) than lawful POWs. In particular, unlawful combatants may be tried and often executed for their unlawful conduct; they don't have the "lawful combatant" immunity from murder laws, for example.
* * *
2. This also suggests, I think, that it doesn't make much sense for purposes of American constitutional law, or the American law of habeas corpus, to provide habeas to unlawful combatants but not to POWs. The distinction is a matter of miiltary practice and treaty law, not of U.S. constitutional law. What's more, it doesn't make a huge deal of sense. Unlawful combatants and POWs are both deprived of their liberty by U.S. forces. Both can claim that they really weren't enemy soldiers, but were caught by mistake. If anything, the detainees who are detained on the grounds that they are thought to be unlawful combatants are likely to be more dangeorus than the POWs.
* * *
3. Now there is of course one important potential difference, which I alluded to in the first item. Once an unlawful combatant is tried and convicted for his unlawful actions, then he does stand in a different position from the POWs: He's not just being detained as a prophylactic measure for the duration of hostilities (however long that might take), but he's being imprisoned for a longer time as a punishment, or even being executed. At that point, there's a more credible case for civilian court review. I think it's probably still pretty weak, for various reasons. But he can no longer be squarely analogized to the bulk of other detainees.
* * *
The current litigation thus isn't challenging punitive detention or execution, which hasn't taken place. Rather, it's challenging prophylactic detention -- the very sort of thing that was indeed done to German and Japanese soldiers captured during World War II.
I'm just worried that the internationalist Justices on the Supreme Court will find some new justification to reconfigure the laws of warfare.
Detainees and unlawful combatants vs. POWs: . . . I've blogged about this general question before, but it seems worth mentioning again; so here are a few thoughts.
1. There's nothing at all novel about the concept of an enemy detainee who isn't a POW. To the best of my knowledge, the practice of civilized nations has long recognized that there are two categories of wartime military captives. The first involves (more or less) soldiers who were fighting in uniform within organized command structures; these are generally seen as being entitled to "prisoner of war" status, which means (a) humane treatment, (b) limits on certain kinds of interrogations, and (c) immunity from being tried for actions that consist of "lawful warfare," e.g., shooting at our soldiers (while fighting in uniform within organized command structures). . .
The second category . . . is that of unlawful combatants. The quintessential examples are spies and saboteurs, but more generally it also includes soldiers who do not fight in uniform within organized command structures. Unlawful combatants are generally not protected in the ways I describe above; they have many fewer rights (I speak here of rights under international conventions and conventional practice) than lawful POWs. In particular, unlawful combatants may be tried and often executed for their unlawful conduct; they don't have the "lawful combatant" immunity from murder laws, for example.
* * *
2. This also suggests, I think, that it doesn't make much sense for purposes of American constitutional law, or the American law of habeas corpus, to provide habeas to unlawful combatants but not to POWs. The distinction is a matter of miiltary practice and treaty law, not of U.S. constitutional law. What's more, it doesn't make a huge deal of sense. Unlawful combatants and POWs are both deprived of their liberty by U.S. forces. Both can claim that they really weren't enemy soldiers, but were caught by mistake. If anything, the detainees who are detained on the grounds that they are thought to be unlawful combatants are likely to be more dangeorus than the POWs.
* * *
3. Now there is of course one important potential difference, which I alluded to in the first item. Once an unlawful combatant is tried and convicted for his unlawful actions, then he does stand in a different position from the POWs: He's not just being detained as a prophylactic measure for the duration of hostilities (however long that might take), but he's being imprisoned for a longer time as a punishment, or even being executed. At that point, there's a more credible case for civilian court review. I think it's probably still pretty weak, for various reasons. But he can no longer be squarely analogized to the bulk of other detainees.
* * *
The current litigation thus isn't challenging punitive detention or execution, which hasn't taken place. Rather, it's challenging prophylactic detention -- the very sort of thing that was indeed done to German and Japanese soldiers captured during World War II.
I'm just worried that the internationalist Justices on the Supreme Court will find some new justification to reconfigure the laws of warfare.
Paying for suicide
This is disgusting -- Muslims born and raised in Britain desiring the death of Britain and milking the British taxpayers. Read it here. (hattip = Andrew Sullivan).
Investigation, finally
If I were Iraqi, I could still blog
Freedom of expression exists in Iraq. Want proof? Check out the proliferation of Iraqi bloggers.
Interesting bit
Kelsey Grammer is one of the few people in Hollywood who doesn't think the rantings of Michael Moore are gospel. I knew of his past problems with cocaine and failed marriages, but this nice piece gives background -- namely Grammer's numerous family tragedies. Grammer has always acted with dignity since becoming a TV star, so his previous decents into darkness always seemed out of place. Unfortunately for Grammer, David Hyde Pierce, Jane Leeves, Peri Gilpin and John Mahoney, Frazier's impending sign-off is dwarfed by the fanfare surrounding the final episodes of Friends. This is a great disservice to one of the best comedies in the history of TV. Simply stated, Frazier ranks with M*A*S*H, All in the Family, Seinfeld and The Cosby Show as one of the best and most influential shows in TV history.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Opinion Journal
Quick highlight from OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web column by James Taranto, which is especially interesting today.
Most notably, a comment on the stupidity of Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations (Mead in green; Taranto in red):
Writing in the New York Times, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations reports that he's been rambling around the Middle East and has discovered the real reason "why they hate us":
It is a widespread belief that the United States simply does not care about the rights or needs of the Palestinian people.
"The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?"
In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries, the large majority of people I spoke with are ready to tolerate the Jewish state--most even understand that the final boundaries of Israel will include some of the heavily settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders. They also understand that few if any Palestinians will return to the homes they lost after the war that erupted when Israel declared its independence in 1948. And they are prepared to accept, though not to relish, America's close relations with Israel. Beyond that, they want increased American support for their domestic political reforms and for initiatives to enhance regional cooperation for economic growth and fighting terrorism.
But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?
Darn it, now our craw is stuck too. Why don't their fellow Arabs care more about the Palestinians' future? With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries by and large do not allow Palestinians to become citizens, settle permanently or own land. What some of them are willing to do, notably Saudi Arabia and preliberation Iraq, is send money to support suicide bombers.
Then there's this Reuters headline: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever." Imagine the outcry if this were ever to appear in reverse. Bush: U.S. Hates Arabs More Than Ever.
Taranto's right.
Most notably, a comment on the stupidity of Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations (Mead in green; Taranto in red):
Writing in the New York Times, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations reports that he's been rambling around the Middle East and has discovered the real reason "why they hate us":
It is a widespread belief that the United States simply does not care about the rights or needs of the Palestinian people.
"The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?"
In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries, the large majority of people I spoke with are ready to tolerate the Jewish state--most even understand that the final boundaries of Israel will include some of the heavily settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders. They also understand that few if any Palestinians will return to the homes they lost after the war that erupted when Israel declared its independence in 1948. And they are prepared to accept, though not to relish, America's close relations with Israel. Beyond that, they want increased American support for their domestic political reforms and for initiatives to enhance regional cooperation for economic growth and fighting terrorism.
But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?
Darn it, now our craw is stuck too. Why don't their fellow Arabs care more about the Palestinians' future? With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries by and large do not allow Palestinians to become citizens, settle permanently or own land. What some of them are willing to do, notably Saudi Arabia and preliberation Iraq, is send money to support suicide bombers.
Then there's this Reuters headline: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever." Imagine the outcry if this were ever to appear in reverse. Bush: U.S. Hates Arabs More Than Ever.
Taranto's right.
To the ridiculous
President Bush's detractors are merely ridiculous. Now they're protesting his nominee for National Archivist, Allen Weinstein. Why? In part because Weinstein wrote a book in 1978 that concluded that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. But this actually proves Weinstein's ability as a researcher and historian because the release of the decoded Venona files in the early 1990s proved, without any doubt that Hiss actually was a Soviet spy (a fact not referenced in the AP article linked above) -- a fact deduced by Weinstein in his research without benefit of the Venona information (for some info on that, see here). Hiss maintained his innocence, thereby compounding his lies. Then again, famous British turncoat Kim Philby always said he wasn't a traitor to Great Britain because he always knew who he was working for.
Required Reading for today
First, this long investigative piece on the Oil-for-Food scandal. ABC News picks up where Claudia Rosett has left off.
Next, your daily dose of Andrew McCarthy.
And after that, this piece on the reaction to Tony Blair's decision to put the EU Constitution to a vote in the UK. Seems that the most EU-friendly nations (France, Germany, Belgium) really don't like democracy. No shock there.
Next, your daily dose of Andrew McCarthy.
And after that, this piece on the reaction to Tony Blair's decision to put the EU Constitution to a vote in the UK. Seems that the most EU-friendly nations (France, Germany, Belgium) really don't like democracy. No shock there.
Putting the degree to work
For the first time ever, I called into a radio talk show yesterday. The hosts of a local sportstalk program were struggling with the implications of the Second Circuit's ruling on Monday that stayed the District Court order finding that the NFL's eligibility rules violated antitrust law and that Maurice Clarett should be eligible for the draft. I explained the situation: no, Clarett has not lost the appeal the NFL filed but the Second Circuit's ruling is rare because by its nature it indicates the NFL is likely to win the appeal (one requirement for a stay is a "likelihood of success on the merits"); yes, there will be a supplemental draft if Clarett wins on the appeal but only for this year, future Claretts will be able to enter the regular draft. And I explained the post-Second Circuit options for the parties. Does this count as pro bono?
Yesterday Clarett appealed to Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg (who deals with interim motions by the Second Circuit) to lift the Second Circuit's stay. I don't think it will happen -- the point of the lawsuit (from a legal standpoint) is to determine the validity of the NFL eligibility rules, not to change this draft only.
Yesterday Clarett appealed to Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg (who deals with interim motions by the Second Circuit) to lift the Second Circuit's stay. I don't think it will happen -- the point of the lawsuit (from a legal standpoint) is to determine the validity of the NFL eligibility rules, not to change this draft only.
Big big cat
Former Expos/Rockies/Braves/Giants firstbaseman Andres Galarraga, aka the Big Cat, is dealing with his third flare-up of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma since 1999. I wish him a quick recovery.
No surprise
When Craig Esherick was fired by Georgetown as its head basketball coach, I told some friends that the next coach should and would be John Thompson III -- son of John Thompson Jr., Hall of Fame former coach of Georgetown. Yesterday Georgetown hired JT3 as its new head coach. This is a good hire on a number of levels: first, it restores the Thompson dynasty and that will help re-connect Georgetown to the fertile recruiting grounds in the DC area; second, Thompson has won with minimal athletic talent as Princeton's head coach; third Thompson brings a precise, disciplined offensive system -- the Princeton offense, which maximizes marginal talent -- to a program that has not had any good offensive coaching in years. Offense was always the weak suit for the original John Thompson, but JT3 had the Princeton tutelage. I hated Georgetown back in the day as the good Syracuse fan I am. Once again, Georgetown will be a program to be reckoned with.
Barra facts
Alan Barra tells it like it is: quit griping about Steinbrenner non-Yankee fans and start griping about your team's owner being a cheapskate. Many owners have more money than Steinbrenner, but they pocket the dough (two words: Carl Pohlad). I like the fact that my favorite team's owner wants to win. Here's Barra's solid article.
Here's the behind-the-numbers play for the Yanks' win in Chicago last night -- Miguel Cairo's hustle double in the 7th. The Yanks led 9-8 and were doing their best to blow what had been a 7-0 lead when Cairo led off with a looping liner to left center. Cairo hustled the hit into a double, Jeter sacrificed him to third, and after Williams honked, Cairo scored on a wild pitch. That run made it 10-8, gave the Yanks some insurance and they eventually won 11-8.
Here's the behind-the-numbers play for the Yanks' win in Chicago last night -- Miguel Cairo's hustle double in the 7th. The Yanks led 9-8 and were doing their best to blow what had been a 7-0 lead when Cairo led off with a looping liner to left center. Cairo hustled the hit into a double, Jeter sacrificed him to third, and after Williams honked, Cairo scored on a wild pitch. That run made it 10-8, gave the Yanks some insurance and they eventually won 11-8.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Veterans against Kerry?
From CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, full transcript here, this interview with John O'Neill. O'Neill was a decorated Vietnam vet who commanded a swift boat, like Kerry. After the war, O'Neill debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show (excerpt in green, below) about the "atrocities" by American soldiers and Kerry's association with the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Here's the O'Neill section:
BLITZER: O'Neill challenged Kerry to debate and they did, first on "The Dick Cavett Show."
KERRY: I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
O'NEILL: I think there's something particularly pathetic about me having to appear on nationwide television and trade polished little phrases with you to defend the honor of 55,000 people that died there, the 2.5 million of us that served there. I think further that the justification that Hanoi uses for keeping our POWs is that they were engaged in criminal acts there. BLITZER: Kerry now says his use of the word atrocities to describe soldiers' actions was inappropriate.
KERRY: I think some soldiers were angry at me for that. And I understand that. And I regret that because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand they were a little bit over the top.
[Blitzer voice-over] O'Neill, himself awarded two Bronze Stars in Vietnam, was encouraged by President Nixon to give it to Kerry.
RICHARD NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Go on some of these TV shows, like the Cavett thing, you're going to get banged. You'll feel terribly discouraged. You have to remember to get back and reassure people that those few that come back, like Kerry and the rest, don't speak for all.
BLITZER: O'Neill, the son of a Navy admiral, had spent his last 12 months in Vietnam patrolling enemy waters as the officer in charge of a swift boat, in fact, O'Neill says, the same vessel that John Kerry had led before he returned home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Today, John O'Neill is an attorney. He's turned down Republican overtures to speak out during John Kerry's previous campaigns. This year, he has not given any interviews until now.
John O'Neill is joining us now live from Houston.
Mr. O'Neill, thanks very much for joining us.
Why have you decided you want to speak out against John Kerry right now?
O'NEILL: I have no choice, Wolf. I would far rather be home or on the other side of a TV camera than being on television.
I haven't been on television in many, many years, had very little involvement in politics. But I was in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry. I arrived about two months after he left and I had the same small boat he did. His allegations that people committed war crimes in that unit and throughout Vietnam were lies. He knew they were lies when he said them. And they were very damaging lies.
That speech you played for example in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was broadcast for POWs when they were actually being held in Hanoi. The admiral, Admiral Zumwalt, whose son was my closest friend who gave him that medal in the picture you showed, that was one of the people that John Kerry was claiming was a war criminal. Admiral Zumwalt was one of the greatest heroes in the Navy. He was a man that introduced women to the Naval Academy, who stood and saved ships in World War II by himself. And, finally, I had no choice but to come forward.
BLITZER: He did say on "Meet the Press" on Sunday that some of the words he used were probably inappropriate. He says he wouldn't use those words today, but he was young and he was passionate and he was anti- -- very anti-war. Can you forgive him for that?
O'NEILL: Actually, what he said was -- or at least the part I got was that it was a little bit excessive. It's really not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of fitness to be the commander and chief of all U.S. forces.
There's a book that he published, it's a book called "The New Soldier." And I hope you can see this book. It costs $1,700 to buy the book now that he published because they won't permit the reprinting of the book because they don't want the American people to see the book. He's the author of the book "The New Soldier." And every American should take a look at this book. It begins with a caricature making fun of the raising of the American flag on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima.
My father was on Iwo Jima. The damaging lies that he told about war criminals have haunted people's entire lives. So it's just a little bit late in the course of a presidential campaign to say it's a bit excessive after, you know, coming forward with lies for a period of more than 30 years.
BLITZER: As you well know, there will be charges made that you're getting involved now for political reasons, because maybe you're a Republican -- I have no idea -- or the Bush people are encouraging you to do so. Tell our viewers why exactly you are doing this now.
O'NEILL: It's not just me, Wolf. I think you are going to find many people, many people from Coastal Division 11 are coming forward now. I've been in contact with them. We drew the black name.
We would much rather stay at home. Most of us would much rather have nothing to do with this. I have been contacted at least 50 times over the past 30 years by Kerry's opponents at various times. I have refused to do it. Why are we coming forward? Because we were there. We know the truth and we know that this guy is unfit to be the commander in chief.
BLITZER: One final question, I've been to several rallies of Kerry supporters. I see a lot of Vietnam veterans there, Max Cleland, the former U.S. senator from Georgia. So many of these guys are passionate about John Kerry, especially those who worked with him, served with him, in Vietnam. How come they have such a different impression of him than you do?
O'NEILL: Wolf, what you've got is the same seven or eight people recycled over and over again. I think you'll find when you match numbers out of Coastal Division 11, the people that knew him, the people that came from the unit like I did, I think you'll find that he'll get less votes than a Republican would get in South Boston.
I think you'll find people are very, very angry at John Kerry. They remember his career in Vietnam as a short, controversial one. And they believe only Hollywood could turn this guy into a war hero. I saw some war heroes, Wolf. John Kerry is not a war hero. He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11.
BLITZER: John O'Neill, thanks very much for joining us on this very, very sensitive subject.
O'NEILL: Thank you, sir.
hat-tip = National Review Online.
BLITZER: O'Neill challenged Kerry to debate and they did, first on "The Dick Cavett Show."
KERRY: I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
O'NEILL: I think there's something particularly pathetic about me having to appear on nationwide television and trade polished little phrases with you to defend the honor of 55,000 people that died there, the 2.5 million of us that served there. I think further that the justification that Hanoi uses for keeping our POWs is that they were engaged in criminal acts there. BLITZER: Kerry now says his use of the word atrocities to describe soldiers' actions was inappropriate.
KERRY: I think some soldiers were angry at me for that. And I understand that. And I regret that because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand they were a little bit over the top.
[Blitzer voice-over] O'Neill, himself awarded two Bronze Stars in Vietnam, was encouraged by President Nixon to give it to Kerry.
RICHARD NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Go on some of these TV shows, like the Cavett thing, you're going to get banged. You'll feel terribly discouraged. You have to remember to get back and reassure people that those few that come back, like Kerry and the rest, don't speak for all.
BLITZER: O'Neill, the son of a Navy admiral, had spent his last 12 months in Vietnam patrolling enemy waters as the officer in charge of a swift boat, in fact, O'Neill says, the same vessel that John Kerry had led before he returned home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Today, John O'Neill is an attorney. He's turned down Republican overtures to speak out during John Kerry's previous campaigns. This year, he has not given any interviews until now.
John O'Neill is joining us now live from Houston.
Mr. O'Neill, thanks very much for joining us.
Why have you decided you want to speak out against John Kerry right now?
O'NEILL: I have no choice, Wolf. I would far rather be home or on the other side of a TV camera than being on television.
I haven't been on television in many, many years, had very little involvement in politics. But I was in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry. I arrived about two months after he left and I had the same small boat he did. His allegations that people committed war crimes in that unit and throughout Vietnam were lies. He knew they were lies when he said them. And they were very damaging lies.
That speech you played for example in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was broadcast for POWs when they were actually being held in Hanoi. The admiral, Admiral Zumwalt, whose son was my closest friend who gave him that medal in the picture you showed, that was one of the people that John Kerry was claiming was a war criminal. Admiral Zumwalt was one of the greatest heroes in the Navy. He was a man that introduced women to the Naval Academy, who stood and saved ships in World War II by himself. And, finally, I had no choice but to come forward.
BLITZER: He did say on "Meet the Press" on Sunday that some of the words he used were probably inappropriate. He says he wouldn't use those words today, but he was young and he was passionate and he was anti- -- very anti-war. Can you forgive him for that?
O'NEILL: Actually, what he said was -- or at least the part I got was that it was a little bit excessive. It's really not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of fitness to be the commander and chief of all U.S. forces.
There's a book that he published, it's a book called "The New Soldier." And I hope you can see this book. It costs $1,700 to buy the book now that he published because they won't permit the reprinting of the book because they don't want the American people to see the book. He's the author of the book "The New Soldier." And every American should take a look at this book. It begins with a caricature making fun of the raising of the American flag on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima.
My father was on Iwo Jima. The damaging lies that he told about war criminals have haunted people's entire lives. So it's just a little bit late in the course of a presidential campaign to say it's a bit excessive after, you know, coming forward with lies for a period of more than 30 years.
BLITZER: As you well know, there will be charges made that you're getting involved now for political reasons, because maybe you're a Republican -- I have no idea -- or the Bush people are encouraging you to do so. Tell our viewers why exactly you are doing this now.
O'NEILL: It's not just me, Wolf. I think you are going to find many people, many people from Coastal Division 11 are coming forward now. I've been in contact with them. We drew the black name.
We would much rather stay at home. Most of us would much rather have nothing to do with this. I have been contacted at least 50 times over the past 30 years by Kerry's opponents at various times. I have refused to do it. Why are we coming forward? Because we were there. We know the truth and we know that this guy is unfit to be the commander in chief.
BLITZER: One final question, I've been to several rallies of Kerry supporters. I see a lot of Vietnam veterans there, Max Cleland, the former U.S. senator from Georgia. So many of these guys are passionate about John Kerry, especially those who worked with him, served with him, in Vietnam. How come they have such a different impression of him than you do?
O'NEILL: Wolf, what you've got is the same seven or eight people recycled over and over again. I think you'll find when you match numbers out of Coastal Division 11, the people that knew him, the people that came from the unit like I did, I think you'll find that he'll get less votes than a Republican would get in South Boston.
I think you'll find people are very, very angry at John Kerry. They remember his career in Vietnam as a short, controversial one. And they believe only Hollywood could turn this guy into a war hero. I saw some war heroes, Wolf. John Kerry is not a war hero. He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11.
BLITZER: John O'Neill, thanks very much for joining us on this very, very sensitive subject.
O'NEILL: Thank you, sir.
hat-tip = National Review Online.
The Psycho and the depressive
Today is the fifth anniversary of the Columbine, Colorado shootings. Read this article about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine killers. The article discusses the conclusions of the FBI investigators and mental health pros who evaluated Harris and Klebold after the massacre. Conclusions: Klebold was a raging teen depressive, Harris was a psychopath in the clinical (not vernacular) sense. Moreover, it wasn't just a school shooting, it was a mass-murder attempt (they had incompetently rigged two sets of bombs) where the targets happened to be students and teachers.
More on the Guvernator
How Schwarzenegger is navigating the dangerous and treacherous waters of California politics, and trouncing the political establishment at every turn. Read it here.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Monstrous
This is absolutely heinous: Muslim nutters in Spain raided the tomb of a policeman killed in the raid on Spain-based al-Qaeda types, they exhumed the policeman's body and they burrned it. Here's the information from CNN; I first saw it on Little Green Footballs.
Conversational stuff
Just a few quick hits on personal interests.
Note 1 = there are more flavo(u)red vodkas on the market than you can swing a dead feline at. My drinking habits (ha!) are sporadic -- an occasional nip now and again, but I keep a decent stock. Vodka stock now with comments = Chopin (kinda veggie-tasting), Belvedere (very good), Luksosowa (OK, but not great), Zubrowka (outstanding funky taste), Stoli Gold (still unopened), Stoli Honey (earthy and full-bodied; no longer available), Absolut Kurrant (the best Absolut b/f the Vanilla came out), Absolut Vanilla (excellent), Absolut Mandarin (tastes more like the peel than the fruit), Van Gogh Citroen (unopened), Three Olives Green Apple (decent). All are kept in the freezer (alcohol's freeze point is lower than water so it's all liquid). As my local spirit-seller said to me last year, there are tons of "martini-quality" vodkas on the market. Why? First, vodkas can be produced anywhere, unlike the various whisk(e)ys; second, they only have to be "grain-neutral spirits". There are potato vodkas, wheat vodkas, rye vodkas and even grape-based vodkas.
Note 2 = I hope for Hollywood's sake that there are enough dollars in the economy for all the expensive movies coming out this summer: King Arthur, Van Helsing and other less sure-fire pics will have to compete with Shrek 2, Harry Potter 3, Troy and Spider-Man 2. G'luck.
Note 3 = I'm a fan of epic fantasy fiction (Lord of the Rings type stuff) but some of the offerings are frustrating. First, there's Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series where nothing substantial has happened in the last four books and the series is at 10 and counting. Then, there's George R.R. Martin's exc. series whose fourth installment will be released FOUR years after the third one, and at least two more are pending. I'm wondering if I'll be my dad's age before some of these are finished.
Note 1 = there are more flavo(u)red vodkas on the market than you can swing a dead feline at. My drinking habits (ha!) are sporadic -- an occasional nip now and again, but I keep a decent stock. Vodka stock now with comments = Chopin (kinda veggie-tasting), Belvedere (very good), Luksosowa (OK, but not great), Zubrowka (outstanding funky taste), Stoli Gold (still unopened), Stoli Honey (earthy and full-bodied; no longer available), Absolut Kurrant (the best Absolut b/f the Vanilla came out), Absolut Vanilla (excellent), Absolut Mandarin (tastes more like the peel than the fruit), Van Gogh Citroen (unopened), Three Olives Green Apple (decent). All are kept in the freezer (alcohol's freeze point is lower than water so it's all liquid). As my local spirit-seller said to me last year, there are tons of "martini-quality" vodkas on the market. Why? First, vodkas can be produced anywhere, unlike the various whisk(e)ys; second, they only have to be "grain-neutral spirits". There are potato vodkas, wheat vodkas, rye vodkas and even grape-based vodkas.
Note 2 = I hope for Hollywood's sake that there are enough dollars in the economy for all the expensive movies coming out this summer: King Arthur, Van Helsing and other less sure-fire pics will have to compete with Shrek 2, Harry Potter 3, Troy and Spider-Man 2. G'luck.
Note 3 = I'm a fan of epic fantasy fiction (Lord of the Rings type stuff) but some of the offerings are frustrating. First, there's Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series where nothing substantial has happened in the last four books and the series is at 10 and counting. Then, there's George R.R. Martin's exc. series whose fourth installment will be released FOUR years after the third one, and at least two more are pending. I'm wondering if I'll be my dad's age before some of these are finished.
Arafat + Hamas = Joint Leadership
That's the situation the little terrorist himself wants, according to the Jerusalem Post. Another thumbed nose at the Bush Administration, which wants Hamas out of business.
The media sleeps
I don't get the Washington Times, but the fact is that the rest of the media never picked up on this story: Arafat approved the attack on the US convoy in Gaza that resulted in the deaths of three Americans. If the story has any validity, we should cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority and make our own response, Israeli-style.
Gorelick must go, Part 50 in a continuing series
Jamie Gorelick wrote an op-ed piece in Sunday's Washington Post explaining the intelligence sharing wall and her role in it. Her op-ed is testimony because it contains "facts". Unlike AG John Ashcroft's revelation about Gorelick's role in inventing the intel-sharing-prevention wall, Gorelick's op-ed is NOT sworn and NOT delivered under penalty of perjury. It is also entirely disingenuous, as Andrew McCarthy shows here. McCarthy links to Gorelick's op-ed in his essay.
Note also the Volokh Conspiracy has some thoughts on Gorelick here.
Note also the Volokh Conspiracy has some thoughts on Gorelick here.
In the tank
Once again the Yanks stank up a stadium but it's worse this time because the Redsux took 3 of 4 from the Stanks this weekend including a come-back win today. And once again the Yanks did not hit: Jeter, Williams, Arod, Sheffield. Arod went 1-17 with a harmless two-out single in the top of the ninth today. Williams did the Bernie Special -- one out, two on, three runs in in the top of the 2nd and the pitcher struggling = groundout double play. Thereafter, Arroyo settled down and the RedSux came back.
Meanwhile Giambi and Jeter whiffed looking against Redsux closer Keith Foulke. Foulke throws two pitches, fastball and changeup. Both are straight, not curveballs, sliders, knucklers or anything really shifty. Why did Jete and Giambi sit there with their bats on their shoulders?
Next Sunday the Yanks finish a 14-of-15 game stretch against the Sawxes -- White and Red. They're currently 3-5. Splitting the next six (which would require IMPROVED play) means the Yanks will be 9-10 -- their worst 19-game record since 1997 (8-11). Does that year sound familiar? It's the last time the Yanks did not win the AL East.
Meanwhile Giambi and Jeter whiffed looking against Redsux closer Keith Foulke. Foulke throws two pitches, fastball and changeup. Both are straight, not curveballs, sliders, knucklers or anything really shifty. Why did Jete and Giambi sit there with their bats on their shoulders?
Next Sunday the Yanks finish a 14-of-15 game stretch against the Sawxes -- White and Red. They're currently 3-5. Splitting the next six (which would require IMPROVED play) means the Yanks will be 9-10 -- their worst 19-game record since 1997 (8-11). Does that year sound familiar? It's the last time the Yanks did not win the AL East.
Terminating the Legislature
Texas is the second most populous state in the country, but it has a part-time Legislature that meets for about 150 days every two years (odd number years). The rest of the time, the legislators do normal business -- businessmen, lawyers, doctors, whatever. That is, they work and live like normal Texans for 580 out of every 730 days.
Not so Californian legislators. And this leads to innumerable problems because legislators with too much time on their hands and generous benefits from feeding at the public trough tend to enact stupid rules. In California, there is a movement to scale back legislative activity and make the Legislature part-time only. This would be an obvious benefit because operational costs and the too-high salaries that legislators receive from the public dole would be reduced and, as Governor Schwarzenegger noted, the legislators would not have too much time on their hands such that they'd feel like they had to fill the gaps in the legislative sessions with stupid laws. John Fund's article on how Schwarzenegger has steamrolled the most out-of-control state legislature in the country is a must read on power politics and the effectiveness of the bully pulpit.
Not so Californian legislators. And this leads to innumerable problems because legislators with too much time on their hands and generous benefits from feeding at the public trough tend to enact stupid rules. In California, there is a movement to scale back legislative activity and make the Legislature part-time only. This would be an obvious benefit because operational costs and the too-high salaries that legislators receive from the public dole would be reduced and, as Governor Schwarzenegger noted, the legislators would not have too much time on their hands such that they'd feel like they had to fill the gaps in the legislative sessions with stupid laws. John Fund's article on how Schwarzenegger has steamrolled the most out-of-control state legislature in the country is a must read on power politics and the effectiveness of the bully pulpit.
Volume 2 plus
The fiancee and I saw Kill Bill vol. 2 on Saturday. Volume 1 was better -- more stylish, more intriguing, more creative. This one suffered numerous flaws: too talky (not typical Tarantino rat-a-tat-tat talk but slowed-down idle chatter), too drawn out (the part with Budd getting beat down by his boss at the strip club was notably worthless), too anticlimactic (final showdown is all talk and 45 seconds of action). Ultimately, learning The Bride's name had no impact or relation to the movie -- Tarantino could have kept bleeping it and it would have added to the mystery of her.
Jonathan Last's review in the Weekly Standard website (scroll to Friday April 16) had many salient points.
I thought David Carradine's Bill lacked a lot of the coldness that a cold-blooded killer should have and his silibants threw me off (he sssaysss wordsss with esses with extra sssstressss on the ssss). Nonetheless, it was interesting and Uma Thurman's acting was better in this one than in the previous one and Darryl Hannah did a good turn as an interesting evil b****.
Jonathan Last's review in the Weekly Standard website (scroll to Friday April 16) had many salient points.
I thought David Carradine's Bill lacked a lot of the coldness that a cold-blooded killer should have and his silibants threw me off (he sssaysss wordsss with esses with extra sssstressss on the ssss). Nonetheless, it was interesting and Uma Thurman's acting was better in this one than in the previous one and Darryl Hannah did a good turn as an interesting evil b****.
Quick hit
Can't talk about this too much because today's game has just started, but here's the stat of the day for the Yanks: the six runs they scored yesterday in the third inning were more than they scored in 10 of their previous 11 GAMES.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Typical
First, Fox News noted yesterday that Hamas had already picked a new leader. In a typical display of leadership and courage, Hamas refused to divulge his identity.
Second, the UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution complaining about the association of Islam with human rights violations. (hattip: little green footballs). Here are those in favor:
Argentina (hid Nazis), Bahrain (Arab, only allows Islam worship), Bhutan, Brazil (wants its own nuke, hid Goebbels), Burkina Faso (diamond killings), China (perpetual human rights abuser), Congo (three words: Mobutu Sese Seko), Costa Rica, Cuba (45 years of Communism), Egypt (home of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Indonesia (home of largest single-country Muslim population), Mauritania, Nigeria (1/2 dominated by shari'a practitioners in north of country), Pakistan (recognized Taliban -- one of two countries to do so), Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia (women cannnot drive, leave house w/o male companion, own land, etc.), Sierra Leone (diamond wars), South Africa (puhlease), Sri Lanka, Sudan (where Arabs enslave blacks), Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe (two words, Robert Mugabe).
Against: Australia, Austria, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States = the western countries with democratic and human rights traditions and a passel of former Soviet subjects or Communist victims (Hungary, Croatia, Ukraine).
Second, the UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution complaining about the association of Islam with human rights violations. (hattip: little green footballs). Here are those in favor:
Argentina (hid Nazis), Bahrain (Arab, only allows Islam worship), Bhutan, Brazil (wants its own nuke, hid Goebbels), Burkina Faso (diamond killings), China (perpetual human rights abuser), Congo (three words: Mobutu Sese Seko), Costa Rica, Cuba (45 years of Communism), Egypt (home of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Indonesia (home of largest single-country Muslim population), Mauritania, Nigeria (1/2 dominated by shari'a practitioners in north of country), Pakistan (recognized Taliban -- one of two countries to do so), Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia (women cannnot drive, leave house w/o male companion, own land, etc.), Sierra Leone (diamond wars), South Africa (puhlease), Sri Lanka, Sudan (where Arabs enslave blacks), Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe (two words, Robert Mugabe).
Against: Australia, Austria, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States = the western countries with democratic and human rights traditions and a passel of former Soviet subjects or Communist victims (Hungary, Croatia, Ukraine).
Un-PC in Canada?
Michael Coren speaks truth, but let's see if he gets fired for this column where he says the Palestinian death cult and the nutters who celebrated the deaths of the US contractors in Iraq are part of religion gone mad.
The stench at the Harlem River
That stink coming from the vicinity of the Harlem River is the Yankees. After losing today to the repulsively gleeful RedSawx, that team needs to get its collective head out of its rear (Arod = .171, Jeter = .239, Sheffield = .214, Matsui < .200, Williams = .208) or they'll be deep in third place by May 1.
Proof Positive
That the "Palestinians" are creating and stoking a death cult: this Palestinian mom of seven was stopped from delivering a suicide bomb.
Remember, Pres. Bush has said to the Palestinians that they need to develop a leadership untainted by terrorism and their response was Arafat tightening his ties to Hamas.
Remember, Pres. Bush has said to the Palestinians that they need to develop a leadership untainted by terrorism and their response was Arafat tightening his ties to Hamas.
And another one gone
The Israeli Defense Forces took out Rantisi, the new Hamas head. Response: this is a good thing. The Hamas charter is the most anti-Semitic tract since the Mein Kampf. Hamas's express purpose is to wipe Israel off the map. Here's the White House response, courtesy National Review:
As we have repeatedly made clear, Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians, and that claimed responsibility for the suicide attack today that killed one and injured other Israeli guards at the Erez crossing. The United States is gravely concerned for regional peace and stability. The United States strongly urges Israel to consider carefully the consequences of its actions, and we again urge all parties to exercise maximum restraint at this time. This is especially true at a moment when there is hope that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will bring a new opportunity for progress toward peace. All parties should focus on the positive, concrete steps needed now to make the Gaza withdrawal successful.
As we have repeatedly made clear, Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians, and that claimed responsibility for the suicide attack today that killed one and injured other Israeli guards at the Erez crossing. The United States is gravely concerned for regional peace and stability. The United States strongly urges Israel to consider carefully the consequences of its actions, and we again urge all parties to exercise maximum restraint at this time. This is especially true at a moment when there is hope that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will bring a new opportunity for progress toward peace. All parties should focus on the positive, concrete steps needed now to make the Gaza withdrawal successful.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Just a classic
From Andrew Sullivan: these quotes from John Kerry.
"Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist." - John F. Kerry, Congressional Testimony, April 22, 1971.
"I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms." - John F. Kerry, April 14, 2004.
In other words, democracy and freedom are neutral concepts with no inherent value. Communism and dictatorship are similarly neutral and can be better than democracy if those systems satisfy a "felt need".
"Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist." - John F. Kerry, Congressional Testimony, April 22, 1971.
"I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms." - John F. Kerry, April 14, 2004.
In other words, democracy and freedom are neutral concepts with no inherent value. Communism and dictatorship are similarly neutral and can be better than democracy if those systems satisfy a "felt need".
But wait, there's more . . .
. . . on Jamie Gorelick's involvement in screwing up US counterterrorism policy. Check out this piece, which notes that she was the Pentagon's top legal adviser in 1993 and 1994, and the Pentagon's lawyers nixed special ops attacks against bin Laden. Did she have involvement in that policy? Seems somewhat unlikely because bin Laden became a known entity to policymakers after 1994, but her role in Pentagon counterterrorism policymaking is an issue for the Commission.
Prof. Jonathan Turley noted that "It's hard to see how she can review systemic failures in intelligence, when she held a high-ranking position in the prior administration and played a role in intelligence matters[.] Not only is there a strong suggestion of conflict [of interest], there is an overwhelming appearance of conflict."
And from the left came these two arguments on Fox News yesterday, one by Alan Colmes and the other by a former Deputy White House Counsel under Clinton.
Colmes claimed that Gorelick's conflict is akin to Justice Scalia's alleged conflict in hearing the VP Cheney-Sierra Club appeal regarding the "secrecy" of the Energy Task Force that Cheney presided over. See here for Scalia's opinion and note that one of the two groups challenging the Cheney Task Force did not move to recuse Scalia and also that one of Scalia's good friends is a Sierra Club higher-up.
But the Cheney-Scalia (and numerous others) duck-hunt to Louisiana is entirely different because: (1) the Cheney case only involved an appearance of impropriety, not direct involvement of the judge with the underlying events -- that is, Scalia did not help make the policies of the Energy Task Force and thereafter be in a position to evaluate them as a judge, but Gorelick authored the policy at issue that established the wall between counterintel and crime-solving FBI agents; (2) the Cheney case turned on an indirect connection to the case -- Cheney was not sued as Richard Cheney but was sued in his capacity as Vice-President of the US and chairman of the Task Force. This is just like every ACLU v. Reno case during the Clinton years -- Ms. Reno was not sued as Janet Reno but as Janet Reno, Attorney General of the US, thus any personal connection between a justice and Ms. Reno was irrelevant. Ms. Gorelick's connection is not insulated because she personally authored the new policy and is not a potential witness solely as Deputy AG.
The ex-Clinton flack claimed that the Gorelick policy was no different than the one followed in the 1980s and Bush-41 administration and that Ashcroft continued the policy. As Andrew McCarthy shows here, the Gorelick policy by its own terms increased the separation between counterintel and criminal investigation agents. Plus, McCarthy also shows here that the Reagan Justice Department was bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's "primary purpose" test that Ashcroft successfully appealed and had overturned by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (see here for the opinion). And, as I've said before, the false equivalent of 8 years of Clinton ambivalence and less than 8 months of Bush continuing certain Clinton policies cannot absolve Clinton of doing nothing but encouraging the situation that led to 9-11-01.
Prof. Jonathan Turley noted that "It's hard to see how she can review systemic failures in intelligence, when she held a high-ranking position in the prior administration and played a role in intelligence matters[.] Not only is there a strong suggestion of conflict [of interest], there is an overwhelming appearance of conflict."
And from the left came these two arguments on Fox News yesterday, one by Alan Colmes and the other by a former Deputy White House Counsel under Clinton.
Colmes claimed that Gorelick's conflict is akin to Justice Scalia's alleged conflict in hearing the VP Cheney-Sierra Club appeal regarding the "secrecy" of the Energy Task Force that Cheney presided over. See here for Scalia's opinion and note that one of the two groups challenging the Cheney Task Force did not move to recuse Scalia and also that one of Scalia's good friends is a Sierra Club higher-up.
But the Cheney-Scalia (and numerous others) duck-hunt to Louisiana is entirely different because: (1) the Cheney case only involved an appearance of impropriety, not direct involvement of the judge with the underlying events -- that is, Scalia did not help make the policies of the Energy Task Force and thereafter be in a position to evaluate them as a judge, but Gorelick authored the policy at issue that established the wall between counterintel and crime-solving FBI agents; (2) the Cheney case turned on an indirect connection to the case -- Cheney was not sued as Richard Cheney but was sued in his capacity as Vice-President of the US and chairman of the Task Force. This is just like every ACLU v. Reno case during the Clinton years -- Ms. Reno was not sued as Janet Reno but as Janet Reno, Attorney General of the US, thus any personal connection between a justice and Ms. Reno was irrelevant. Ms. Gorelick's connection is not insulated because she personally authored the new policy and is not a potential witness solely as Deputy AG.
The ex-Clinton flack claimed that the Gorelick policy was no different than the one followed in the 1980s and Bush-41 administration and that Ashcroft continued the policy. As Andrew McCarthy shows here, the Gorelick policy by its own terms increased the separation between counterintel and criminal investigation agents. Plus, McCarthy also shows here that the Reagan Justice Department was bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's "primary purpose" test that Ashcroft successfully appealed and had overturned by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (see here for the opinion). And, as I've said before, the false equivalent of 8 years of Clinton ambivalence and less than 8 months of Bush continuing certain Clinton policies cannot absolve Clinton of doing nothing but encouraging the situation that led to 9-11-01.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Tom Kean -- smarten up
From the increasingly invaluable Andy McCarthy: telling Tom Kean to smarten up.
Clinton's failures
First, read Mansoor Ijaz on the Clinton Administration's political football playing regarding Sudan's numerous offers to turn over bin Laden to the US or at least keep tabs on him. The Sudanese also offered to watch two suspects from the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings who fled to Khartoum, but the US refused and Clinton bombed an aspirin factory. Is Ijaz credible? Completely -- he brokered the deal to get the Sudanese to expedite bin Laden to the US.
Next, read this essay from 2002 regarding FBI primacy in counterterrorism and its effects. Who set up the new paradigm whereby the FBI would be the primary counterterrorism agency in the US? The Clinton Administration. Who was president during the most frequent terrorist attacks against the US and its interests? Clinton.
Next, read this essay from 2002 regarding FBI primacy in counterterrorism and its effects. Who set up the new paradigm whereby the FBI would be the primary counterterrorism agency in the US? The Clinton Administration. Who was president during the most frequent terrorist attacks against the US and its interests? Clinton.
Palestinian enemies
This analysis from David Bernstein is worth quoting in full:
Bush and Sharon: For all the handwringing of the American (not to mention world) media, the dynamic is very simple: Bush has made it abundantly clear that he wants the Palestinians to have a responsible government that fights terrorism, and wants the Israelis to move toward a settlement that turns over sovereignty of Gaza and most of the West Bank to a Palestinian state. No progress was being made in either direction for some time. Then, Sharon announced a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Self-interested, sure, but also a political risk that breaks the impasse that had developed, and a potential momentum builder. Bush looked in vain for a reciprocal gesture from the Palestinians. He got nothing. Worse then nothing, the Palestinians have been busily discussing how to bring Hamas into their government. Result: political rewards for Sharon, a cold shoulder for the Palestinians. It was almost two years ago that Bush made it clear that he would judge the Palestinian leadership by one criteria: its willingness to fight terrorism. Why, two years and no willingness to fight terrorism later, it expects "evenhandedness" from Bush shows that they simply don't understand the man.
Neither I nor my fiancee will ever forget the celebrations the Palestinians had when they heard the news on 9-11-01.
Bush and Sharon: For all the handwringing of the American (not to mention world) media, the dynamic is very simple: Bush has made it abundantly clear that he wants the Palestinians to have a responsible government that fights terrorism, and wants the Israelis to move toward a settlement that turns over sovereignty of Gaza and most of the West Bank to a Palestinian state. No progress was being made in either direction for some time. Then, Sharon announced a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Self-interested, sure, but also a political risk that breaks the impasse that had developed, and a potential momentum builder. Bush looked in vain for a reciprocal gesture from the Palestinians. He got nothing. Worse then nothing, the Palestinians have been busily discussing how to bring Hamas into their government. Result: political rewards for Sharon, a cold shoulder for the Palestinians. It was almost two years ago that Bush made it clear that he would judge the Palestinian leadership by one criteria: its willingness to fight terrorism. Why, two years and no willingness to fight terrorism later, it expects "evenhandedness" from Bush shows that they simply don't understand the man.
Neither I nor my fiancee will ever forget the celebrations the Palestinians had when they heard the news on 9-11-01.
Agreed
Thomas Kean and Slade Gorton need to smarten up, as Susanna Cornett says. Jamie Gorelick's obvious conflict of interest is our business and is not merely a matter for the 9-11 Commission. Gorton and Kean are indicating only that they think they know better than we do. Kean's comment (scroll down to 4:30 pm or so on April 14) that she is one of the most nonpartisan members of the Commission is laughable on its face. Next Kean will say that Richard Ben-Veniste is even-handed and neutral.
Democrats always cry foul whenever Republicans try to fight fire with fire, but the fact is that the Democrats ALWAYS fight harder and dirtier than Republicans. The press will never say that, of course, because it votes 90% for Democrats.
Democrats always cry foul whenever Republicans try to fight fire with fire, but the fact is that the Democrats ALWAYS fight harder and dirtier than Republicans. The press will never say that, of course, because it votes 90% for Democrats.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
200 x2
Congrats to Kevin Brown, the second-straight Yankees pitcher to win his 200th game. Brown and Mussina are the only teammates to do so in the same year, and they did it in consecutive games. Brown's 3-0, 1.29 ERA but the tough part of his season is just beginning -- no more starts against the Devil Rays for awhile.
Yankees newbies
I'm liking Gary Sheffield more and more. Today he rapped his third run-scoring two-out hit in the last two games. The Yanks need that kind of clutch hitting -- they were among the worst teams in the AL last year with two outs and runners on.
Time to Go
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) calls on Gorelick to resign.
says it all
Check out today's Day By Day cartoon on Jamie Gorelick and the 9-11 Commission. Chris Muir draws it and it's been called the Doonesbury of the Right (although Muir is probably more of a libertarian).
Valid views
Whose views about the Iraq war are more valid: (a) Moveon.org, (b) International ANSWER or (c) the Iraqis themselves? If you answered a or b, go back to reading your Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger and Said screeds; if you answered c, there's hope, and according to Rick Brookhiser, there is.
Brit Hume, national treasure
Brit Hume is far and away the best anchor on TV news. Peter Jennings is an odious anti-American wretch, Brokaw is more hat than cattle to paraphrase what some folks would say in the Southwest, and Dan Rather is either pure petulance or semi-conscious (the only reason anyone knows Rather has a personality is because Letterman has drawn it out of him). As for bias: Jennings is blatantly anti-American, Rather is goofy in his closet liberalism, Brokaw is probably the straightest shooter of the bunch. But you need to ask, given the immense conflict-of-interest that Jamie Gorelick has (see my posts below), and how prominently that conflict was displayed by the 1995 Gorelick memo in yesterday's 9-11 hearings, why none of the networks discussed that memo. Only Hume brought it up as an issue (Brokaw brought it up in a "blame game" context) -- and it is a huge one.
New York's best opinion newspaper?
For all the heat it takes for being a tabloid (which is really a format, not a style of a newspaper -- tabloids are 10.5" by 13", broadsheets like the NY Times and Washington Post are 13x21), the NY Post puts out more intellectually honest and forthright editorials than any other newspaper in the City. Here's today's editorial on the preening idiots of the 9-11 Commission.
Books books books
I've been asked by one of my notsomany readers about the books discussion part of this blog. This will obviously be intermittent, but I keep a decent list of what I've read each of the past 2-3 years. I'll read about two books per month, not much to voracious readers but I have a full-time (and then some) job, other hobbies, high-maintenance fiancee (not really) and watch too much TV (Sopranos, Touching Evil, CSI [original only], Monk, Law & Order(s), 24, Deadwood).
What do I read? Spy stories, fantasy and sci-fi, historical novels, history. Since January 1, 2004, I've read: Asimov's original Foundation trilogy (actually a re-read after 16 years -- it stands up pretty well with 2000 technology), Ed McBain's Money, Money, Money and Fat Ollie's Book, Rafael Sabatini's Captain Blood, Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Tiger, Dave Duncan's Paragon Lost, Charles McCarry's The Last Supper (it's a spy novel, not religious), and Sean Russell's The Initiate Brother. More discussion later, but that's a pretty representative sample. If you can find McCarry, buy The Last Supper -- a very interesting and twisted tale.
What do I read? Spy stories, fantasy and sci-fi, historical novels, history. Since January 1, 2004, I've read: Asimov's original Foundation trilogy (actually a re-read after 16 years -- it stands up pretty well with 2000 technology), Ed McBain's Money, Money, Money and Fat Ollie's Book, Rafael Sabatini's Captain Blood, Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Tiger, Dave Duncan's Paragon Lost, Charles McCarry's The Last Supper (it's a spy novel, not religious), and Sean Russell's The Initiate Brother. More discussion later, but that's a pretty representative sample. If you can find McCarry, buy The Last Supper -- a very interesting and twisted tale.
Funny math
Only John Kerry could finagle an economic index that shows this economy, with its 3.3%+ growth rates, minimal inflation and near-full employment, is bad. Then again, the Kerry Misery Index also rates the economy under Jimmy Carter (12%+ inflation and interest rates, gas rationing, high unemployment) as better than the Reagan Economy (biggest boom years in US history). Kerry Misery Index validity = nonexistent.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Not equivalent
The best Senator from Arizona is named Jon, without an "h". From Jon Kyl, this comparison between Vietnam and Iraq.
Gorelick part 3
Attorney General John Ashcroft has just dealt Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton Justice Department a severe blow. Earlier today, former AG Reno stated that the wall preventing evidence sharing (this is a level-headed essay by former prosecutor Andy McCarthy, not a get-Reno/get-Gorelick hit piece) between intelligence investigations and criminal investigations was minimal to nonexistent. The wall is a major reason that FBI criminal investigators and FBI counter-intel agents did not coordinate their counterterrorism efforts in pre-9/11 times.
But then Ashcroft declassified this memorandum from Ms. Gorelick that boasts it exceeds the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirements to separate intelligence and criminal investigations (despite their inherent overlap -- as McCarthy shows, any espionage act covered by FISA is also a criminal act under federal law).
But then Ashcroft declassified this memorandum from Ms. Gorelick that boasts it exceeds the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirements to separate intelligence and criminal investigations (despite their inherent overlap -- as McCarthy shows, any espionage act covered by FISA is also a criminal act under federal law).
Strategy for Iraq?
Kerry's Strategy for Iraq was published in the Washington Post today. Much of it is the same boilerplate he has said before.
Three points stand out: (1) pushing for the US to support any governance plan proposed by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi -- that gives Brahimi too much lattitude, the US has spent its blood and treasure on toppling Saddam and reconfiguring Iraq into a democracy to allow a UN envoy to exercise semi-plenary power over solving Iraq's governance issues (plus Paul Bremer is doing a standout job); (2) Kerry's farcical notion that: "The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people". This statement is risible -- the UN Oil for Food program allowed Saddam to bilk the Iraqi people while the UN reaped rewards and the UN fled after the US's first attempt to involve it in Iraqi reconstruction. Any belief that the UN is a more responsible, authoritative, capable or legal entity for working with Iraqi civilians is an article of blind faith that has no relation to the facts. (3) Kerry again touts NATO involvement to ease the burden on US troops. But our allies are the weak links in the peacekeeping chain, as Brendan Miniter demonstrates.
Lastly, Kerry claims that Pres. Bush seeking Brahimi's help is a tacit concession of failure -- this is pure drivel. There is no failure because Iraq is being governed much better with Paul Bremer than with Saddam. The infrastructure, hospital and school construction has increased many times over under Bremer and Iraq as a whole is much better off. Are there insurgents and Islamist terrorism? Yes. Should the US step up the pressure on them and their state sponsors (read: Iran, Syria)? Again, yes. Is Iraq becoming Vietnam II? No.
Ultimately, Pres. Bush is seeking UN cover for US actions, yet again, as urged repeatedly by the internationalists in Kerry's own party and by our best ally, the British. If the Administration had not been sandbagged by the French before the "second" Security Council vote on force against Saddam last year (which ultimately was not held), the fig leaf of UN legitimacy would not be sought today.
Three points stand out: (1) pushing for the US to support any governance plan proposed by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi -- that gives Brahimi too much lattitude, the US has spent its blood and treasure on toppling Saddam and reconfiguring Iraq into a democracy to allow a UN envoy to exercise semi-plenary power over solving Iraq's governance issues (plus Paul Bremer is doing a standout job); (2) Kerry's farcical notion that: "The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people". This statement is risible -- the UN Oil for Food program allowed Saddam to bilk the Iraqi people while the UN reaped rewards and the UN fled after the US's first attempt to involve it in Iraqi reconstruction. Any belief that the UN is a more responsible, authoritative, capable or legal entity for working with Iraqi civilians is an article of blind faith that has no relation to the facts. (3) Kerry again touts NATO involvement to ease the burden on US troops. But our allies are the weak links in the peacekeeping chain, as Brendan Miniter demonstrates.
Lastly, Kerry claims that Pres. Bush seeking Brahimi's help is a tacit concession of failure -- this is pure drivel. There is no failure because Iraq is being governed much better with Paul Bremer than with Saddam. The infrastructure, hospital and school construction has increased many times over under Bremer and Iraq as a whole is much better off. Are there insurgents and Islamist terrorism? Yes. Should the US step up the pressure on them and their state sponsors (read: Iran, Syria)? Again, yes. Is Iraq becoming Vietnam II? No.
Ultimately, Pres. Bush is seeking UN cover for US actions, yet again, as urged repeatedly by the internationalists in Kerry's own party and by our best ally, the British. If the Administration had not been sandbagged by the French before the "second" Security Council vote on force against Saddam last year (which ultimately was not held), the fig leaf of UN legitimacy would not be sought today.
Gorelick -- support for my position
The Landmark Legal Foundation backs me up on my statement that Jamie Gorelick is or should be conflicted out of being a 9-11 Commission member in this letter to Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton.
CD Baby
One of the sites I link to below is CD Baby. It is an online music retailer of music you really won't find too many other places. For instance, I bought CDs by Oka Road, Solid State, Blue Root, The Big Creak, Seeking Homer and Scream Sophie at CD Baby. Have you heard of any of them?
Basically, CD Baby concentrates on non-major label acts of all sorts. They get new CDs every day from all types of artists -- Jazz, Gospel, Roots Rock, Metal, Classical, Alternative, etc. The prices are pretty good, especially in comparison to Tower Records or similar. The shipping is very fast and not too expensive and the customer service is top notch. Plus, they have extended samples of 2 minutes each for anywhere between 4 songs to each song on the CD (Amazon, Tower, CD Now and others have 30-second samples). Check them out.
Basically, CD Baby concentrates on non-major label acts of all sorts. They get new CDs every day from all types of artists -- Jazz, Gospel, Roots Rock, Metal, Classical, Alternative, etc. The prices are pretty good, especially in comparison to Tower Records or similar. The shipping is very fast and not too expensive and the customer service is top notch. Plus, they have extended samples of 2 minutes each for anywhere between 4 songs to each song on the CD (Amazon, Tower, CD Now and others have 30-second samples). Check them out.
Conflict of Interest
It's bad enough that the Democrats selected partisan shill Richard Ben-Veniste as a Commissioner on the 9-11 Commission. They also picked Jamie Gorelick -- a top deputy in the Janet Reno Justice Department. Gorelick was "an architect of the government's self-imposed procedural wall, intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts" -- that is, she was involved in establishing the wall between CIA and FBI agents and evidence-sharing that prevented the agencies from pooling their information. Given the information brought to light by Andrew McCarthy (link above), there are two questions about Ms. Gorelick: (1) is she conflicted out of serving on the Commission, (2) was she picked for the Commission to prevent inquiry into her actions and policies that hindered effective counterterrorism investigation during the Clinton Administration?
Canada the refined and humane?
I never want to hear a Canadian touting the virtues of their pacifist, multicultural, humane, and internationalist society ever again. This week begins the migration of the harp seal from Greenland to Eastern Canada. The harp seal is one of very few seal species that does not lose its soft fur almost immediately after birth. Instead, the seals will retain their fur for 12 weeks or more. Canadian fur traders kill the seals in a nasty orgy of violence -- they stalk the babies across the ice and bludgeon them to death. The seal fur is used in Scandinavia and Russia for clothing, and the seal's penis is used in Chinese "traditional" medicine (another vestige of third world ignorance). Canada's most recent justifications are that the seal herds have destroyed cod fish stocks (the International Foundation for Animal Welfare claims that overfishing is the cause, according to its spokesman on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News last night) and numbers are too high. But pelts are gaining high prices on the market, therefore the hunt is not an attempt to cull the herds (that could be done by euthanizing the seals, not beating them to death), just a profit-taking.
It's not a sign of the apocalypse. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), noted liberal Senator, and I agree on something: the harp seal hunt is disgusting.
It's not a sign of the apocalypse. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), noted liberal Senator, and I agree on something: the harp seal hunt is disgusting.
Imperialism? Not really.
Second reading assignment -- Mark Steyn on why the US is not imperialist. Honestly, this should be self-evident because the US is not a conquerer or a colonial master like Britain, France, Spain, Germany and Belgium (which was the worst of all: from 1885-1908, King Leopold II's colonial dictatorship over the Belgian Congo killed about 10 million of the 20 million Congolese; see here and here for some detail). The US pattern is simple: overthrow the dictator, rebuild the society and polity and get out. Proof? Germany, Japan and the current plan for Iraq.
Reading assignment
The must-read of the day, Victor Davis Hanson's essay on appeasement in City Journal.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Luck o' the Irish and Scots?
The Hartford Courant notes a study showing the medicinal effects of Guinness beer -- potentially lowering heart attack risk and preventing cataracts. Nice. (Hat tip = Instapundit).
I noticed that the Instapundit says he received free "samples" of Aberlour A'bunadh (say: ah bun ak) while he was in Cincinnati last weekend. I want a bar nearby that offers free samples of $58+/bottle whisky (I lucked out because the seller up the block from me sold me a bottle for $51). The A'bunadh is cask-strength and very good scotch from a distiller that is not well-known to most casual Scotch drinkers in the US (they know Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Macallan, J&B, Johnnie Walker, Chivas Regal, etc.; the only one on that list that's decent is Macallan, which is good; the others are like Scotch-for-Dummies).
Plus, it's a waste to give free samples of A'bunadh to Instapundit because he's an InstaWimp -- he said the scotch was too strong!
Hey Prof. Reynolds, I'm still a big fan!
I noticed that the Instapundit says he received free "samples" of Aberlour A'bunadh (say: ah bun ak) while he was in Cincinnati last weekend. I want a bar nearby that offers free samples of $58+/bottle whisky (I lucked out because the seller up the block from me sold me a bottle for $51). The A'bunadh is cask-strength and very good scotch from a distiller that is not well-known to most casual Scotch drinkers in the US (they know Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Macallan, J&B, Johnnie Walker, Chivas Regal, etc.; the only one on that list that's decent is Macallan, which is good; the others are like Scotch-for-Dummies).
Plus, it's a waste to give free samples of A'bunadh to Instapundit because he's an InstaWimp -- he said the scotch was too strong!
Hey Prof. Reynolds, I'm still a big fan!
Cultural note
We (the fiancee and I) saw Intermission the other day. Good little Irish movie with numerous plot threads like a Guy Ritchie movie, about what people do when they have unplanned intermissions in their love lives -- husband walking out, break-up with girlfriend, dry spell, etc. -- while trying to make the most of their unsatisfying jobs, with a funny robbery-kidnapping subplot thrown in. Some very funny stuff too. Starred Colin Farrell as a thief (and his EXTREMELY thick Irish brogue), Colm Meaney as a violent cop (he's a staple in all the Irish flicks -- The Commitments, Waking Ned Devine, etc.), Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle from Harry Potter 2) and some unknown-in-the-States Irish actors. Good stuff, funny, and some nice sentiment without the nauseating treacle that infests US-made movies.
Here's info from the website: An ill-timed and poorly executed break-up sets off a chain of events affecting everyone in town. There's the hapless romantic and his sex-starved best friend, the hotshot detective and the crook he's after, a young girl on the rebound with an older married man (not to mention his deserted wife), an ambitious TV producer, abandoned fiancée, preteen trouble-maker -- all unaware of how their choices are profoundly intertwined.
Here's info from the website: An ill-timed and poorly executed break-up sets off a chain of events affecting everyone in town. There's the hapless romantic and his sex-starved best friend, the hotshot detective and the crook he's after, a young girl on the rebound with an older married man (not to mention his deserted wife), an ambitious TV producer, abandoned fiancée, preteen trouble-maker -- all unaware of how their choices are profoundly intertwined.
Boortz
Neal Boortz is on today. First, his quote of the day:
WE START THE WEEK WITH A GREAT QUOTATION
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
It occurs to me that there are quite a lot of people in this country who fit that description. Most of them will vote for John Kerry in November.
Then check out his Neal's Nuze with this great dose of reality:
Lost in all this is how the Clinton administration, which did virtually nothing to fight terrorism for 8 years, is getting a complete pass. Clinton turned down a direct offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden and yet Bush is the one that is being raked over the coals for somehow not doing enough. The reason is we are in an election year, and the Bush-hating Democrats want to politicize the tragedies of September 11th. Where's the outrage about that? The Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with that for a second.
WE START THE WEEK WITH A GREAT QUOTATION
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
It occurs to me that there are quite a lot of people in this country who fit that description. Most of them will vote for John Kerry in November.
Then check out his Neal's Nuze with this great dose of reality:
Lost in all this is how the Clinton administration, which did virtually nothing to fight terrorism for 8 years, is getting a complete pass. Clinton turned down a direct offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden and yet Bush is the one that is being raked over the coals for somehow not doing enough. The reason is we are in an election year, and the Bush-hating Democrats want to politicize the tragedies of September 11th. Where's the outrage about that? The Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with that for a second.
Waste of Taxpayer Money
President Bush is going to Pennsylvania to campaign for Arlen Specter. That's like Jimmy Carter supporting Zell Miller. Specter is the worst Republican Senator, even worse than Lincoln Chafee and the honorable Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Why? At least Chafee, Collins and Snowe will jump in line and work with their own party, Specter will screw his fellows in a heartbeat.
Jeff Jacoby
Here's a must read from the only worthwhile columnist the Boston Globe has. Jacoby sees the trees and the forest here.
Andrew Sullivan off the deep end
I've lost a good deal of respect for Andrew Sullivan over the past few months. Basically, Sullivan used to continually harp on the "big picture" of the war on terror as the primary reason to decide on one presidential candidate. But since February or so, Sullivan has lost his moorings. He's basically equated President Bush's stance on gay marriage with Bull Connor sending the hounds after blacks in the deep South. This comparison makes no sense -- gays aren't being lynched, there is no separation of facilities, gays are fully integrated in daily life, etc. The lone difference is "gay marriage". Regardless of your view as to the legitimacy of gay marriage or civil unions or whatever, forcing two committed homosexuals to live in a Susan Sarandon-Tim Robbins arrangement is not a civil rights violation that merits comparisons to water-hosing sit-ins at lunch counters.
Sullivan's crusade has now shifted his politics. He is advocating Kerry for President in every way he can without coming out and endorsing Kerry (that's forthcoming in October or so). Kathryn Lopez of National Review has exposed Sullivan on this multiple times. Sullivan himself has essentially done so now in his Sunday Times article (link on left column of Sullivan's site) wherein he writes a little script for Kerry on the theme of "Bush started the Iraq war and I'm the man to finish it." Pundits don't put words that the candidate (or politician) should into candidates' mouths unless the pundit is trying to help the candidate. Conservatives tell Pres. Bush what he should say all the time; ditto liberals and Kerry.
Ultimately, Kerry has no credibility on the Iraq issue. He voted against the Gulf War in 1990, then complained that Saddam remained in power. He voted for authorizing force in 2002, then claimed he only authorized the "threat" of force (despite the clear language of the resolution). Kerry then voted against additional funding for the troops (after he voted for it, as he admitted). Moreover, Kerry has voted against funding for 10 of the most important weapons systems or military vehicles the troops have used in Iraq as Mark Steyn demonstrates (scroll midway down the page). And, Kerry voted to cut funding for the intelligence services in the 1990s. Sullivan wants Kerry for president now based upon Sullivan's petulance on the gay marriage issue. So much for the big picture.
Sullivan's crusade has now shifted his politics. He is advocating Kerry for President in every way he can without coming out and endorsing Kerry (that's forthcoming in October or so). Kathryn Lopez of National Review has exposed Sullivan on this multiple times. Sullivan himself has essentially done so now in his Sunday Times article (link on left column of Sullivan's site) wherein he writes a little script for Kerry on the theme of "Bush started the Iraq war and I'm the man to finish it." Pundits don't put words that the candidate (or politician) should into candidates' mouths unless the pundit is trying to help the candidate. Conservatives tell Pres. Bush what he should say all the time; ditto liberals and Kerry.
Ultimately, Kerry has no credibility on the Iraq issue. He voted against the Gulf War in 1990, then complained that Saddam remained in power. He voted for authorizing force in 2002, then claimed he only authorized the "threat" of force (despite the clear language of the resolution). Kerry then voted against additional funding for the troops (after he voted for it, as he admitted). Moreover, Kerry has voted against funding for 10 of the most important weapons systems or military vehicles the troops have used in Iraq as Mark Steyn demonstrates (scroll midway down the page). And, Kerry voted to cut funding for the intelligence services in the 1990s. Sullivan wants Kerry for president now based upon Sullivan's petulance on the gay marriage issue. So much for the big picture.
Moose gets loose?
Congrats to Mike Mussina for his 200th win. Now that the 200-win monkey is off his back, maybe he can get right with ball so that he can regain his usual effectiveness Saturday in Fenway.
Clinton knew in '98
Enough of the August 6, 2001 PDB nonsense. That memo contained a non-specific threat based on old information and the President wanted newer information when he read it. Instead, how about some investigation into Clinton's knowledge in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hit the US? Look at this article in Time magazine from December 1998.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Old and outdated
To see just how tendentious the Democrats on the 9-11 Commission have been, check out this interchange and the earlier statement by Bob Graham (D-Fla.) from 2002. Courtesy Opinion Journal.com:
During yesterday's 9/11 commission hearing, Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste tried to set a trap for Condoleezza Rice over an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:
Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Now, the . . .
Ben-Veniste: Thank you.
Rice: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste . . .
Ben-Veniste: I will get into the . . .
Rice: I would like to finish my point here.
Ben-Veniste: I didn't know there was a point.
Rice: Given that--you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
Ben-Veniste: I asked you what the title was.
Rice: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Ben-Veniste's rudeness was clear for all to see, but to understand just how dishonest was his line of questioning, look at this article from the May 27, 2002, issue of Human Events, a conservative Washington weekly:
Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.
"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."
Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said [emphasis added]. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."
During yesterday's 9/11 commission hearing, Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste tried to set a trap for Condoleezza Rice over an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:
Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Now, the . . .
Ben-Veniste: Thank you.
Rice: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste . . .
Ben-Veniste: I will get into the . . .
Rice: I would like to finish my point here.
Ben-Veniste: I didn't know there was a point.
Rice: Given that--you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
Ben-Veniste: I asked you what the title was.
Rice: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Ben-Veniste's rudeness was clear for all to see, but to understand just how dishonest was his line of questioning, look at this article from the May 27, 2002, issue of Human Events, a conservative Washington weekly:
Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.
"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."
Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said [emphasis added]. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."
Context within the context
Amidst all the chirping and griping regarding the country's preparedness for terrorist attacks that the 9-11 Commission has essentially exacerbated, there is a distinct lack of political context. Here are some under-reported factors.
In early 2001, Tom Daschle and the Democrats in the 50-50 Senate decided to engage in a power play to obtain more influence than the usual amount that a minority party (VP Cheney made it a 51-50 Republican Senate) had traditionally wielded. Daschle really attempted to be the ultimate power broker in Washington. His attempt failed because the public tends to gravitate toward the President, not a random Senator, and because Daschle has minimal charisma.
In early 2001, the political atmosphere was still thick with the partisan fog that arose from the Florida recount battle, and that sniping continued until 9-11 even though an independent newspaper investigation showed that, under the Gore campaign's recount standard, President Bush's margin of victory in Florida would have trebled.
In early 2001, the Bush appointments for numerous security posts had not been confirmed or placed until March or April that year.
The country was not on a war-footing, except for domestic politicking.
In early 2001, Tom Daschle and the Democrats in the 50-50 Senate decided to engage in a power play to obtain more influence than the usual amount that a minority party (VP Cheney made it a 51-50 Republican Senate) had traditionally wielded. Daschle really attempted to be the ultimate power broker in Washington. His attempt failed because the public tends to gravitate toward the President, not a random Senator, and because Daschle has minimal charisma.
In early 2001, the political atmosphere was still thick with the partisan fog that arose from the Florida recount battle, and that sniping continued until 9-11 even though an independent newspaper investigation showed that, under the Gore campaign's recount standard, President Bush's margin of victory in Florida would have trebled.
In early 2001, the Bush appointments for numerous security posts had not been confirmed or placed until March or April that year.
The country was not on a war-footing, except for domestic politicking.
Good point here.
Andrew Sullivan on missing the forest because we're running into the trees:
CONDI: What is there to say? We have a frigging war on and the major networks all run this? I have nothing to add. Except to say: we have a war on. We used to win them before we engaged in elaborate blame-games as to who was asleep at the wheel when they broke out.
Just two quick points: (1) after Pearl Harbor, FDR had the wisdom to fight the war first, and have the investigation into the bombing after the war ended (the investigation was after FDR's death); (2) in 1944, Thomas Dewey did not criticize FDR's handling of the war ["the President should bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, the President should have ensured proper air cover on D-Day, etc."], thus your mental essay assignment for the day is compare and contrast Dewey with John Kerry . . .
CONDI: What is there to say? We have a frigging war on and the major networks all run this? I have nothing to add. Except to say: we have a war on. We used to win them before we engaged in elaborate blame-games as to who was asleep at the wheel when they broke out.
Just two quick points: (1) after Pearl Harbor, FDR had the wisdom to fight the war first, and have the investigation into the bombing after the war ended (the investigation was after FDR's death); (2) in 1944, Thomas Dewey did not criticize FDR's handling of the war ["the President should bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, the President should have ensured proper air cover on D-Day, etc."], thus your mental essay assignment for the day is compare and contrast Dewey with John Kerry . . .
Useful idiot
A former member of British PM Tony Blair's Cabinet said that President Bush and PM Blair should negotiate with Bin Laden. In other words, Mo Mowlam (yeah, that's her name) called for the Leader of the Free World (and the leader of the World's Oldest Democracy) to hold talks as equals with a terrorist thug. This suggestion is so stupid it defies belief. (Courtesy, Neal Boortz).
Unfortunately, there are precedents for heads of democracies meeting with terrorists -- Arafat was the most frequent White House visitor of any foreign "head of state" during the Clinton Administration.
Unfortunately, there are precedents for heads of democracies meeting with terrorists -- Arafat was the most frequent White House visitor of any foreign "head of state" during the Clinton Administration.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Nice start
I'm hoping the end result is at least equal to the beginning. Javier Vazquez, first time in pinstripes, first time as a Yankee starter at the Stadium, home opener 2004 = 8 IP, 2H, 1ER, 2BB, 5K and the win.
90% of his brother?
The Giants are trying to move from the #4 pick overall in the NFL draft to #1 so they can nab Eli Manning, the younger brother of Hall-of-Famer to be Peyton Manning. Eli is 6-4, 220, so he has the NFL height that the scouts want from QB prospects and enough weight to get whacked around a bit. Problem is that the Jints need more than a QB to be, they also need a running back who can hold onto the ball and some OL help. If they stay at #4, the Giants should pick the behemoth Robert Gallery from Iowa. No matter what, the Giants cannot lose too many draft picks because their list of needs (OL, DL, RB, QB) is large. Trading picks is a semi-foreign concept for long-time Giants fans like me because the philosophy of the late GM George Young was to not trade draft picks.
The Great One Strikes Again
The incomparable Mark Steyn, on the hatred of the Left including the Democrats.
Self-perpetuating story
The biggest problem with the press in general, and with sportswriting in particular, is the self-perpetuating story. Before the baseball season, the question for the Yankees (as posed by the press) was "what happens if this team struggles, ever?" After both of the Yanks' losses this year, the reaction has been "what happens if the Yankees lose tomorrow? Will Mount Steinbrenner erupt?" Joel Sherman, who can somehow both recognize the fallacy of conventional wisdom while indulging in it, offers the paradigm of this Yankee-writer Syndrome here.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Morally bankrupt
Democratic Presidential nominee-to-be, John Kerry, complains that the US shut down the newspaper of Moqtada al-Sadr -- the terrorist who has exhorted his followers to kill Americans and is currently in hiding as the Marines seek to nullify insurgents in Fallujah. Kerry said al-Sadr's paper is a legitimate voice in Iraq. Whose side is Kerry on? (courtesy Little Green Footballs).
Pollos
The Spanish are wimps and useful idiots for the Islamofascists.
Meanwhile, the terrorists seem to have been encouraged by their successes in Spain because they are targeting Europe.
Meanwhile, the terrorists seem to have been encouraged by their successes in Spain because they are targeting Europe.
Two must reads
First, George Will on the duties of a war president. Considering that Bush's ratings and influence increase every time he makes a national public statement on American goals and determination in the war on terrorism, he uses his bully pulpit far too little.
Second, Senator Mitch McConnell on Egypt. Since the Camp David Accords in 1978, Egypt has been the second-largest recipient of US aid. The net result is a better-armed Egypt that aids the Palestinian Authority in its terror against Israel, publishes anti-Semitic blood libels and exalts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the Tsarist forgery of the late 1800s) into a multi-part miniseries, stifles democracy, and praises suicide bombers. McConnell goes somewhat easy on Egypt, but at least he's asking some of the right questions.
Second, Senator Mitch McConnell on Egypt. Since the Camp David Accords in 1978, Egypt has been the second-largest recipient of US aid. The net result is a better-armed Egypt that aids the Palestinian Authority in its terror against Israel, publishes anti-Semitic blood libels and exalts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the Tsarist forgery of the late 1800s) into a multi-part miniseries, stifles democracy, and praises suicide bombers. McConnell goes somewhat easy on Egypt, but at least he's asking some of the right questions.
Right for the wrong reasons
John Kerry is right to doubt the June 30 sovereignty handover to Iraq, but for the wrong reasons. He's a Democrat who experienced eight years of Clinton debasing the American polity, therefore he thinks everything a president does in the first term is a political calculation for re-election. It's not. Instead, it's an attempt to placate the international community -- an impossible task that President Bush has still not realized is futile.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Saddam apologia
Hans Blix, the ineffective weapons inspector, now believes that Iraq is worse off without Saddam. This is unbelieveable. The worst is this money 'graf:
In the interview[with a Danish newspaper], Blix said the war had contributed to a destabilization of the Middle East and a move away from democracy in the region, adding that even though Iraqis had been spared life under a dictator, it was at too high a cost.
I defy every person in the world to identify any democracy in the Middle East other than Israel and I defy anyone to identify all ways in which the region had moved towards democracy before Saddam had been ousted.
Blix's opinion is so stupid it boggles the mind. [hat-tip, little green footballs]
In the interview[with a Danish newspaper], Blix said the war had contributed to a destabilization of the Middle East and a move away from democracy in the region, adding that even though Iraqis had been spared life under a dictator, it was at too high a cost.
I defy every person in the world to identify any democracy in the Middle East other than Israel and I defy anyone to identify all ways in which the region had moved towards democracy before Saddam had been ousted.
Blix's opinion is so stupid it boggles the mind. [hat-tip, little green footballs]
It's a riot
I remember in 1994 how the ESPN idiots anticipated rioting, looting and mayhem if the Rangers were to win the Stanley Cup for the first time in 54 years. This was just a few years after Detroit and Chicago had started the championship-rioting trend after the Pistons (1989, 1990) and Bulls (1991-93) won the NBA titles. Naturally, the assumption was that in crime-ridden NYC (a fallacious notion in itself) a crime wave would follow a title. Didn't happen. The Rangers fans conducted themselves with great decorum; but in peaceful, clean, safe Canada, the Vancouver fans rioted thoughout that city after the Rangers defeated the Canucks in game 7. Yankees fans in '96, '98, '99 and 2000 were peaceful but exultant; Lakers fans in "laid-back" LA rioted each year the Lakers won in the Phil Jackson era.
Meanwhile, in Connecticut (richest state in the US), some of the future doctors-and-lawyers that Uconn will produce rioted after the Huskies' national title win over Georgia Tech last night.
Meanwhile, in Connecticut (richest state in the US), some of the future doctors-and-lawyers that Uconn will produce rioted after the Huskies' national title win over Georgia Tech last night.
Appeasement REALLY works!
Anyone who has ever seen a TV show or movie centering around extortion knows that giving in to the demands of the extortionist only makes him want more. Somehow, Spain failed to learn that lesson as evidenced by the Spanish al-Qaeda aligned group's demand that Spain leave Afghanistan, Iraq and stop supporting the US, as this article shows.
Jonah Goldberg has the right take:
If [the above story is] true, the conventional wisdom about al Qaeda winning a victory by knocking Spain out of the coalition shouldn't be overturned so much as revised. If that had truly been al Qaeda's goal they would have been very, very smart to pocket the victory and attack Britain or Poland. Instead, by increasing the attacks on Spain they underscore the stupidity of Spain's appeasement since that appeasement bought Spain nothing.
Jonah Goldberg has the right take:
If [the above story is] true, the conventional wisdom about al Qaeda winning a victory by knocking Spain out of the coalition shouldn't be overturned so much as revised. If that had truly been al Qaeda's goal they would have been very, very smart to pocket the victory and attack Britain or Poland. Instead, by increasing the attacks on Spain they underscore the stupidity of Spain's appeasement since that appeasement bought Spain nothing.
The Idiocy of the Left
Weak-willed, weak-minded and without honor -- that's Ted Kennedy in a nutshell. The senior senator from Massachusetts said that Iraq is Bush's Vietnam on Monday. I'm sure our men and women in the armed services, defending democracy here and freedom abroad, will dismiss Kennedy's ranting for the idiocy it is; hopefully, they won't forget it. Kennedy's statement will help the President's re-election campaign because John Kerry's voting record is further to the left of the worst of the Kennedys.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Large furry dogs
As expected, UConn (the Huskies) won the NCAA men's title tonight over Georgia Tech, 82-73. What a misleading score! This game was nearly over at halftime (41-26 UConn) and was over when UConn smacked Tech with a 15-5 run in the first six minutes of the second half. Thus, the stupidest comment of the night -- Greg Gumbel of CBS noting Georgia Tech's free throw troubles told us that Tech missed nine free throws and lost by 9. As if that matters -- if the game had been less than a 25 point margin midway through the second half, UConn wouldn't have slowed down and bled the clock for the rest of the game. Kudos to the Huskies and Jim Calhoun, who was classy throughout.
Gumbel's idiocy masked stupid statement #2 -- Stu Scott on SportsCenter wondering if the Phillies weren't regretting letting go of Jose Mesa (malcontent, 6+ ERA, awful closer) after Joe Table closed out a 2-1 win for his new team, the woebegone Pirates, over the Phils today. I'm sure the Phils fans really regret obtaining Billy Wagner this winter.
Gumbel's idiocy masked stupid statement #2 -- Stu Scott on SportsCenter wondering if the Phillies weren't regretting letting go of Jose Mesa (malcontent, 6+ ERA, awful closer) after Joe Table closed out a 2-1 win for his new team, the woebegone Pirates, over the Phils today. I'm sure the Phils fans really regret obtaining Billy Wagner this winter.
Good taste
More reasons to like Paul Hewitt: he's from NYC and is a Yanks-Isles-Giants-Knicks fan. So am I.
You heard it here first
Hopefully, you're hearing it at all. Predictions for the baseball season.
AL East = Yankees
AL Central = Twins
AL West = Angels
Wild Card = Red Sax barely over A's
NL East = Phillies
NL Central = Astros
NL West = Dodgers
Wild Card = DBacks; I just don't trust the Cubs
AL MVP = Vlad Guerrero
AL Cy Young = Mark Mulder
NL MVP = Albert Pujols
NL Cy Young = Randy Johnson again, especially because if the Snakes are in the playoff hunt without Schilling, it will be because RJ has a big year.
I don't know the rookies well enough to opine.
No playoff predictions because I live and breathe with the Yanks in the post-season.
AL East = Yankees
AL Central = Twins
AL West = Angels
Wild Card = Red Sax barely over A's
NL East = Phillies
NL Central = Astros
NL West = Dodgers
Wild Card = DBacks; I just don't trust the Cubs
AL MVP = Vlad Guerrero
AL Cy Young = Mark Mulder
NL MVP = Albert Pujols
NL Cy Young = Randy Johnson again, especially because if the Snakes are in the playoff hunt without Schilling, it will be because RJ has a big year.
I don't know the rookies well enough to opine.
No playoff predictions because I live and breathe with the Yanks in the post-season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)