Protest Warrior is a group that has taken the tactics of the Left and used them on the right. Started by a pair of twentysomethings in California, the Protest Warriors now have chapters throughout the country and were profiled this week in Newsweek. Here's the article's description of the PWs.
The methods of the right-wing protesters mirror those of their left-wing opponents. The Warriors organize rallies, street theater and marches. They carry video cameras to record their own version of events to bypass mainstream media outlets.
And, of course, the members hold plenty of signs and slogans, which read like editorial cartoons from the National Review: PROTECT ISLAMIC PROPERTY RIGHTS AGAINST WESTERN IMPERIALISM declares a sign over a picture of a Muslim woman in a burqa with a leash around her neck tied to a pole. EXCEPT FOR ENDING SLAVERY, FASCISM, AND COMMUNISM, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, says another. The most provocative, perhaps, is a picture of a Palestinian woman with a T shirt on her burqa saying MY SON SUICIDE-BOMBED A BUS FULL OF ISRAELIS AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT; the small print underneath reads AND $25,000 FROM SADDAM.
[Kfir] Alfia, who designed network chips for a Silicon Valley start-up before devoting himself full time to the group at its Austin, Texas, headquarters, founded it in March 2003 with his childhood friend Alan Lipton. According to Alfia, the organization is funded by merchandise sales from the Web site, the occasional $50 donation and out of “our own pocket.” So far, there are about 7,200 Protest Warriors across the United States. They've pulled off close to 80 missions to date, including Operation Bias Check (they snuck signs behind Matt Lauer’s head during NBC’s "Today" show that said: DON’T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA) and Operation Eagle Strike, where the protesters crashed an antiwar demonstration hosted by the radical group ANSWER.
Newsweek interviews Alfia.
More information on Protest Warrior is here on their very good website.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Bush did not lie -- new ISG discovery!
I've said it here and here, the there-was-no-WMD-in-Saddam's-Iraq conclusions by the media and the politicians are PREMATURE. Here is another indication that Saddam had moved some of his WMD materials into Syria before the US attacked last year (emphasis added):
Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Two defense sources told The Washington Times that the ISG has interviewed Iraqis who told of Saddam's system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the border, where they would send border inspectors away.
The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts.
* * *
. . . there is evidence of unusually heavy truck traffic into Syria in the days before the attack, and with it, speculation that some of the trucks contained the banned weapons.
"Of course, it's always suspicious," the Pentagon official said.
The source said the ISG has confirmed the practice of IIS agents going to the border. Investigators also have heard from Iraqi sources that this maneuver was done days before the war at a time of brisk cross-border movements.
That particular part of the disclosures has not been positively confirmed, the officials said, although it dovetails with Saddam's system of switching guards at a time when contraband was shipped.
Once again, it is a matter of time before we know the truth about the WMDs -- probably a goodly amount of time at that because the nerve agents and biochemical materials that Saddam allegedly had could be stored in relatively small spaces -- The Monk's garage could hold enough WMD to wipe out Iraq's population. Try searching for stuff that could be contained in a two-car garage in a country the size ofTexas California.
Hat-tip: Bill in DC
Hat-tip2: Oyster for the correction to the geographical analogy.
Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Two defense sources told The Washington Times that the ISG has interviewed Iraqis who told of Saddam's system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the border, where they would send border inspectors away.
The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts.
* * *
. . . there is evidence of unusually heavy truck traffic into Syria in the days before the attack, and with it, speculation that some of the trucks contained the banned weapons.
"Of course, it's always suspicious," the Pentagon official said.
The source said the ISG has confirmed the practice of IIS agents going to the border. Investigators also have heard from Iraqi sources that this maneuver was done days before the war at a time of brisk cross-border movements.
That particular part of the disclosures has not been positively confirmed, the officials said, although it dovetails with Saddam's system of switching guards at a time when contraband was shipped.
Once again, it is a matter of time before we know the truth about the WMDs -- probably a goodly amount of time at that because the nerve agents and biochemical materials that Saddam allegedly had could be stored in relatively small spaces -- The Monk's garage could hold enough WMD to wipe out Iraq's population. Try searching for stuff that could be contained in a two-car garage in a country the size of
Hat-tip: Bill in DC
Hat-tip2: Oyster for the correction to the geographical analogy.
Subverting the Fathers
The Founding Fathers were quite concerned about the mercurial whims of the masses and constructed the Constitution in such a way to safeguard government and promote stability. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. (Note the French are on their fifth Republic) The Electoral College was a construct that served as a filter against direct election of the President. It has, over the past two centuries, evolved into a process that distributes power towards smaller and medium sized states as each state has a minimum of three electoral votes (2 Senators and 1 Representative). The first-past-the-post system of allocation is key to protecting this important power re-distribution. Proportional representation will limit the clout of smaller states as candidates will be incented to campaign more on a national scale and concentrate in larger states.
Colorado Democrats' attempt to enact a referendum that will allocate Colorado's electoral votes proportionally (see link in title), and make that allocation retroactive to this presidential election, therefore merely dilutes Colorado's influence over future elections. The Colorado Democrats want to try to shift some of the state's electoral votes to Kerry in what may be a close election, as the link above indicates. As Republicans realized after pushing enactment of the XXII Amendment (which term-limited presidents, a regrettable occurrence in 1988), be careful what you wish for.
Colorado Democrats' attempt to enact a referendum that will allocate Colorado's electoral votes proportionally (see link in title), and make that allocation retroactive to this presidential election, therefore merely dilutes Colorado's influence over future elections. The Colorado Democrats want to try to shift some of the state's electoral votes to Kerry in what may be a close election, as the link above indicates. As Republicans realized after pushing enactment of the XXII Amendment (which term-limited presidents, a regrettable occurrence in 1988), be careful what you wish for.
Introducing the Wongdoer
Wongdoer is a friend of The Monk's from way back in the day -- from 7th grade in fact. He is also The Monk's most consistent reader and, annoyingly, The Monk's editor and spellchecker when The Monk eschews Blogger's built-in spell-check tool.
Today marks Wongdoer's debut as a contributor to The Key Monk. His posts will be fewer in number (and lower in level of erudition) than The Monk's, but are highly valued additions. When The Monk goes on vacation in a couple of weeks, Wongdoer will have the keys to the kingdom. Therefore, if there's no more Monk when I get back, you know which fat guy to blame.
Anyway, his first post is immediately below this one. Enjoy.
Today marks Wongdoer's debut as a contributor to The Key Monk. His posts will be fewer in number (and lower in level of erudition) than The Monk's, but are highly valued additions. When The Monk goes on vacation in a couple of weeks, Wongdoer will have the keys to the kingdom. Therefore, if there's no more Monk when I get back, you know which fat guy to blame.
Anyway, his first post is immediately below this one. Enjoy.
Bear facts = lack of disclosure
N.Z. Bear is the author of the Truth Laid Bear blog. The Bear blogs in-depth and backs up his work with research (contrast that with Ted Rall, Kos at Atrios, all of MoveOn, etc.). Saturday's entry = contribution disclosure. Specifically, which candidates have done their best to obtain and report the name, address, occupation and employer of each $200+ contributor (by calendar year), as required by FEC regulations. President Bush has a full disclosure rate of 93%, highest of any of the presidential candidates. Kerry has a full disclosure rate of 76.4%, lower than every other candidate except Wesley Clark. Ditto Kerry's rate of full plus incomplete disclosure = 77.1%.
It's not the campaigns who have to pry the required information out of their contributors, it is instead incumbent upon the contributors to give that information to the campaigns. No disclosure means "No information about the donor's employer and/or occupation was listed." Thus, the Kerry campaign has a lot more people who are trying to hide who they are, who they work for and what they do contributing to it than any other campaign other than Gen. Clark's.
The next question is why that is. First, we know from Edwards' campaign that lawyers "encouraged" (read: Soviet-style encouragement) their staffers to contribute and then would reimburse those staffers -- an illegal mechanism that, upon discovery, forced Edwards to refund a significant amount of money. Second, we know that Kerry has the support of the radical left -- MoveOn.org and its fellow travelers like International Answer, the CP-USA, etc. Those people tend not to want to expose themselves, and the Kerry campaign has continually downplayed its appeal to the far left.
It's not the campaigns who have to pry the required information out of their contributors, it is instead incumbent upon the contributors to give that information to the campaigns. No disclosure means "No information about the donor's employer and/or occupation was listed." Thus, the Kerry campaign has a lot more people who are trying to hide who they are, who they work for and what they do contributing to it than any other campaign other than Gen. Clark's.
The next question is why that is. First, we know from Edwards' campaign that lawyers "encouraged" (read: Soviet-style encouragement) their staffers to contribute and then would reimburse those staffers -- an illegal mechanism that, upon discovery, forced Edwards to refund a significant amount of money. Second, we know that Kerry has the support of the radical left -- MoveOn.org and its fellow travelers like International Answer, the CP-USA, etc. Those people tend not to want to expose themselves, and the Kerry campaign has continually downplayed its appeal to the far left.
NJ corruption -- why McGreevey resigned
John Fund describes the state of the State in New Jersey -- party bosses, centralized power in the executive, McGreevey's misuse of state funds, the extreme power of the lobbyists, McGreevey's attempt to become the Gray Davis of the east coast, etc.
New Jersey's system is too easily corruptible and McGreevey grew up within that system. That state needs its own tough-talking Hollywood conservative to come in and clean up the joint like Schwarzenegger is doing in California. Too bad there aren't enough conservatives in Hollywood to go around.
New Jersey's system is too easily corruptible and McGreevey grew up within that system. That state needs its own tough-talking Hollywood conservative to come in and clean up the joint like Schwarzenegger is doing in California. Too bad there aren't enough conservatives in Hollywood to go around.
Democrats can't handle the truth
There is a such thing as objective truth. There are facts: 2+2=4; red, white and blue are the colors of the United States flag; the Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVIII and John Kerry was not in Cambodia in Xmas 1968 despite his seared memories.
Mark Steyn cuts Kerry to ribbons today:
In politics, it's helpful if whatever ''unique truth'' the consultants have run past the focus groups bears at least a passing relationship to the real, actual truth -- not the whole truth, but at least a grain of it. That was what was so ingenious about Bill Clinton's ''60 Minutes'' appearance in 1992. He didn't come clean -- he was, as usual, full of it -- but he set in motion his designated ''unique truth'' -- flawed but human. It was designed to get him past Gennifer, but it wound up also getting him past Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita. . . . Whatever goods you got on him, it fit ''his truth'' as he sold it to us on CBS that day. . .
Indeed, Clinton's fudging his adultery under the label of "marital difficulties" in that interview (in which Steve Kroft repeatedly let Clinton off the hook) enabled him to dodge the effects of his infidelities. Why? As pollsters and spinmeisters understand, too many Americans need to hear incriminating facts outright before they stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt: that's why juries like proof of the criminal's fingerprints at the crime scene and trust (almost inherently unreliable) witness testimony.
But can Kerry dodge the FACT that his whole political identity is built on a fiction? More from Steyn:
In 1986, on the floor of the United States Senate, he said:
Though the seared senator peddled this searing memory for a quarter-century, it had evidently been seared into him pretty haphazardly. It turns out at Christmas 1968 he wasn't in Cambodia but was instead 55 miles away at Sa Dec, South Vietnam. So the Kerry campaign's begun riffling hurriedly through its Sears Rowback catalog for more or less watertight back-pedaling of the story: They now say that ''many times he was on or near the Cambodian border,'' which is true in the sense that 80 percent of Canadians live on or near the American border. But most folks in Vancouver don't claim to be living in the Greater Seattle area.
Earlier, senior Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told ABC News: ''The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol ... in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam.'' For a crowd of ostentatious multilateralists, they can't seem to hold the map the right way up: The Mekong River isn't the border between Cambodia and Vietnam; it cuts through the heart of Cambodia and then runs through Vietnam to the sea.
And every fact that is revealed about the US presence in Vietnam in December 1968 cuts against Kerry's history, as Steyn shows:
. . . Here's the real reason Lt. Kerry wasn't spending Dec. 24, 1968, on a secret mission in Cambodia: On the previous day, Dec. 23, the U.S. government finally secured the release, after a five-month diplomatic stand-off, of 11 Americans whose U.S. Army utility landing craft had made a navigational error and strayed into Cambodian waters. Prince Sihanouk had rejected U.S. apologies and threatened to try the men under Cambodian law. It's unlikely, 24 hours after their release, anyone in Washington was thinking, ''Hey, we need to send that hotshot Kerry in there.''
Ultimately, the mainstream press is so deep into Kerry's pocket that it is not even investigating how Kerry's Xmas epiphany is total fiction, and asking what that means about the man himself. Steyn notes that the nonexistent Xmas mission "is the turning point, the moment that set the young Kerry on the path from brave young war volunteer to fierce anti-war activist. And it turns out it's total bunk." And here's the result:
Thirty-five years on, having no appealing campaign themes, the senator decides to run for president on his biography. But for the last 20 years he's been a legislative non-entity. Before that, he was accusing his brave band of brothers of mutilation, rape and torture. He spent his early life at Swiss finishing school and his later life living off his wife's inheritance from her first husband. So, biography-wise, that leaves four months in Vietnam, which he talks about non-stop . . .
A handful of Kerry's ''band of brothers'' are traveling around with his campaign. Most of the rest, including a majority of his fellow swift boat commanders and 254 swiftees from Kerry's Coastal Squadron One, are opposed to his candidacy. That is an amazing ratio and, if snot-nosed American media grandees don't think there's a story there, maybe they ought to consider another line of work. To put it in terms they can understand, imagine if Dick Cheney campaigned for the presidency on the basis of his time at Halliburton, and a majority of the Halliburton board and 80 percent of the stockholders declared he was unfit for office.
The media is engaging in a cover-up of its own. Indeed, this blogger shows how extensive the mainstream media news coverage of the false Bush-was-AWOL story was in the media, as compared to the coverage of the Kerry-in-Cambodia story, which has been picked up only by columnists.
The Monk only hopes that Kerry's fundamental mendacity becomes fully exposed.
Mark Steyn cuts Kerry to ribbons today:
In politics, it's helpful if whatever ''unique truth'' the consultants have run past the focus groups bears at least a passing relationship to the real, actual truth -- not the whole truth, but at least a grain of it. That was what was so ingenious about Bill Clinton's ''60 Minutes'' appearance in 1992. He didn't come clean -- he was, as usual, full of it -- but he set in motion his designated ''unique truth'' -- flawed but human. It was designed to get him past Gennifer, but it wound up also getting him past Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita. . . . Whatever goods you got on him, it fit ''his truth'' as he sold it to us on CBS that day. . .
Indeed, Clinton's fudging his adultery under the label of "marital difficulties" in that interview (in which Steve Kroft repeatedly let Clinton off the hook) enabled him to dodge the effects of his infidelities. Why? As pollsters and spinmeisters understand, too many Americans need to hear incriminating facts outright before they stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt: that's why juries like proof of the criminal's fingerprints at the crime scene and trust (almost inherently unreliable) witness testimony.
But can Kerry dodge the FACT that his whole political identity is built on a fiction? More from Steyn:
In 1986, on the floor of the United States Senate, he said:
''I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory, which is seared -- seared -- in me.''
Though the seared senator peddled this searing memory for a quarter-century, it had evidently been seared into him pretty haphazardly. It turns out at Christmas 1968 he wasn't in Cambodia but was instead 55 miles away at Sa Dec, South Vietnam. So the Kerry campaign's begun riffling hurriedly through its Sears Rowback catalog for more or less watertight back-pedaling of the story: They now say that ''many times he was on or near the Cambodian border,'' which is true in the sense that 80 percent of Canadians live on or near the American border. But most folks in Vancouver don't claim to be living in the Greater Seattle area.
Earlier, senior Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told ABC News: ''The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol ... in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam.'' For a crowd of ostentatious multilateralists, they can't seem to hold the map the right way up: The Mekong River isn't the border between Cambodia and Vietnam; it cuts through the heart of Cambodia and then runs through Vietnam to the sea.
And every fact that is revealed about the US presence in Vietnam in December 1968 cuts against Kerry's history, as Steyn shows:
. . . Here's the real reason Lt. Kerry wasn't spending Dec. 24, 1968, on a secret mission in Cambodia: On the previous day, Dec. 23, the U.S. government finally secured the release, after a five-month diplomatic stand-off, of 11 Americans whose U.S. Army utility landing craft had made a navigational error and strayed into Cambodian waters. Prince Sihanouk had rejected U.S. apologies and threatened to try the men under Cambodian law. It's unlikely, 24 hours after their release, anyone in Washington was thinking, ''Hey, we need to send that hotshot Kerry in there.''
Ultimately, the mainstream press is so deep into Kerry's pocket that it is not even investigating how Kerry's Xmas epiphany is total fiction, and asking what that means about the man himself. Steyn notes that the nonexistent Xmas mission "is the turning point, the moment that set the young Kerry on the path from brave young war volunteer to fierce anti-war activist. And it turns out it's total bunk." And here's the result:
Thirty-five years on, having no appealing campaign themes, the senator decides to run for president on his biography. But for the last 20 years he's been a legislative non-entity. Before that, he was accusing his brave band of brothers of mutilation, rape and torture. He spent his early life at Swiss finishing school and his later life living off his wife's inheritance from her first husband. So, biography-wise, that leaves four months in Vietnam, which he talks about non-stop . . .
A handful of Kerry's ''band of brothers'' are traveling around with his campaign. Most of the rest, including a majority of his fellow swift boat commanders and 254 swiftees from Kerry's Coastal Squadron One, are opposed to his candidacy. That is an amazing ratio and, if snot-nosed American media grandees don't think there's a story there, maybe they ought to consider another line of work. To put it in terms they can understand, imagine if Dick Cheney campaigned for the presidency on the basis of his time at Halliburton, and a majority of the Halliburton board and 80 percent of the stockholders declared he was unfit for office.
The media is engaging in a cover-up of its own. Indeed, this blogger shows how extensive the mainstream media news coverage of the false Bush-was-AWOL story was in the media, as compared to the coverage of the Kerry-in-Cambodia story, which has been picked up only by columnists.
The Monk only hopes that Kerry's fundamental mendacity becomes fully exposed.
Oil for Food kickbacks -- feedback response
Friend of The Monk (yes, he has one or two other than Monkette2b) is complaining that The Monk has not tracked the Oil-for-Food scandal enough. But The Monk is merely reflecting the media at large on this. How's that? In the US, only Claudia Rosett has been covering this story out of all the media in the country. She SHOULD get a Pulitzer, but her reporting is not anti-American, it's anti-UN, so she has no hope from the Pulitzer committee.
Past links to Oil-for-Food on The Key Monk are here, here, here, and here.
Past links to Oil-for-Food on The Key Monk are here, here, here, and here.
Poverty and Terrorism: the false link
Earlier this week in The Guardian -- London's reliably liberal daily, and usually a fairly solid newspaper despite its leftward tilt -- ran an editorial by former Pakistani PM Benazhir Bhutto that called for a war on poverty to help win the war on terrorism. This is the usual rehash of the liberal canard that terrorism is rooted in poverty. That claim is pure rubbish. The majority of the al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah members are from middle class families or richer than that, as the article linked in the title of this post indicates. (If you don't want to read the whole article, read this synopsis; see also this fact sheet from the Council on Foreign Relations and this archived post). Here is an excerpt:
Any connection between poverty, education, and terrorism is indirect, complicated, and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or lack of education, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration (perceived or real) that have little to do with economics. ... The evidence that we have assembled and reviewed suggests that there is little direct connection between poverty, education, and participation in or support for terrorism. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that compared with the relevant population, participants in Hezbollah's militant wing in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Lebanon were at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and to have a relatively high level of education as they were to come from impoverished families without educational opportunities.
Bhutto calls for eliminating the poverty in the Muslim world, and that's all well and good -- if it could be done. But her premise is false. Non-Muslim African nations are not state sponsors of terrorism even though they are far and away the poorest on the planet. How many Tanzanian or Madagascan terrorists have you heard about? Mozambiquan terrorists? What about Laotian or Burmese terrorists from Asia? No, no, no, no, and no. There's much more to terrorism's causation than poverty -- if poverty is even a cause. Bhutto's simplistic formulation of cause-effect-solution is only a way for richer countries to throw money at a potentially minimal problem -- and given the nature of the countries from which the terrorists usually come (Arabian Africa, Saudi Arabia, Southwest Asia), that money would only line the coffers of the totalitarian regimes in the countries that spawn the terrorists.
Hat-tip to QandO for The Guardian link, but they completely blew the analysis.
Submitted to the Beltway Traffic Jam.
Any connection between poverty, education, and terrorism is indirect, complicated, and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or lack of education, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration (perceived or real) that have little to do with economics. ... The evidence that we have assembled and reviewed suggests that there is little direct connection between poverty, education, and participation in or support for terrorism. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that compared with the relevant population, participants in Hezbollah's militant wing in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Lebanon were at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and to have a relatively high level of education as they were to come from impoverished families without educational opportunities.
Bhutto calls for eliminating the poverty in the Muslim world, and that's all well and good -- if it could be done. But her premise is false. Non-Muslim African nations are not state sponsors of terrorism even though they are far and away the poorest on the planet. How many Tanzanian or Madagascan terrorists have you heard about? Mozambiquan terrorists? What about Laotian or Burmese terrorists from Asia? No, no, no, no, and no. There's much more to terrorism's causation than poverty -- if poverty is even a cause. Bhutto's simplistic formulation of cause-effect-solution is only a way for richer countries to throw money at a potentially minimal problem -- and given the nature of the countries from which the terrorists usually come (Arabian Africa, Saudi Arabia, Southwest Asia), that money would only line the coffers of the totalitarian regimes in the countries that spawn the terrorists.
Hat-tip to QandO for The Guardian link, but they completely blew the analysis.
Submitted to the Beltway Traffic Jam.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Quick Sports Roundup
The Monk hasn't posted on the Yankees in awhile and with good reason. Right now, they're basically on cruise control because they're 10.5 ahead of the Red Sox and are simply attempting to ensure that Brown, Mooooooooooose, Vazquez and (probably) El Duque are ready for the playoffs and that Rivera's and Gordon's arms don't fall off.
But games like today's drive me nuts: Torre had a 3-2 lead with Brown at 89 pitches. One out, runner on second, Ichiro up. Torre should have let Brown fight his way through the inning; instead, he opted for the so-so lefty pitcher against lefty hitter, instead of the solid righty Brown. Result: walk. Then Quantrill gives up three straight hits and the whole game goes in the tank. Stop managing by "the book," Joe, it got you in trouble in the WS last year, and not managing by the book got to this team to a couple of championships (1996, 2000) that it won without being the best team going into the playoffs.
As for other items:
(1) The notion that Mark Mulder is the leading candidate for AL Cy Young is tiresome and, at this point, ridiculous. Mulder's ERA is a weak 3.71 and has been trending upward over the last month. So he leads in wins, it means little considering certain far superior candidates. First, Johan Santana of the Twins has been the best starting pitcher this year. He leads in best batting average against -- opponents hit only .205 off him, 27 points lower than second-place and 40 points better than Mulder's -- and leads the league in strikeouts and is second in ERA. Second, there's this misplaced concept that starters should win. But in the AL, no starter who qualifies for the ERA title (one IP per game played by his team) has an ERA under 3. Meanwhile, Joe Nathan has had a phenomenal year so far -- ERA around 0.85, 33/34 in save opportunities. For that matter, Mariano Rivera is having a better year than any starters (40/43 saves, 1.48 ERA); but Nathan has stabilized the Twins' bullpen and the Twinkies have been . . . saved by the excellent season he's had. The Cy Young Award ought to go to the pitching MVP, and in the AL this year, Nathan's it.
(2) Check out those patrons dressed up as empty seats in the Olympics. Other than the swimming venue, everything is empty or dang close. Check out how desperate the International Olympic Committee is to get butts in the seats here.
(3) I'm not watching that much of the Olympics coverage, but I watch the swimming races. Every time NBC cuts away and shows an Athens shot, the network essentially shows the same things time and again: the Parthenon and other parts of the Acropolis or the Temple of Jupiter ruins. Why? Athens is shockingly charmless with a few parks and the ruins and the rest of the city is tons of 3-5 story squareish and colorless apartment buildings -- legacy of too much socialist government over the past 60 years. I've been there and every person who tells you that you only need to spend a couple of nights in Athens if you go to Greece is absolutely right.
But games like today's drive me nuts: Torre had a 3-2 lead with Brown at 89 pitches. One out, runner on second, Ichiro up. Torre should have let Brown fight his way through the inning; instead, he opted for the so-so lefty pitcher against lefty hitter, instead of the solid righty Brown. Result: walk. Then Quantrill gives up three straight hits and the whole game goes in the tank. Stop managing by "the book," Joe, it got you in trouble in the WS last year, and not managing by the book got to this team to a couple of championships (1996, 2000) that it won without being the best team going into the playoffs.
As for other items:
(1) The notion that Mark Mulder is the leading candidate for AL Cy Young is tiresome and, at this point, ridiculous. Mulder's ERA is a weak 3.71 and has been trending upward over the last month. So he leads in wins, it means little considering certain far superior candidates. First, Johan Santana of the Twins has been the best starting pitcher this year. He leads in best batting average against -- opponents hit only .205 off him, 27 points lower than second-place and 40 points better than Mulder's -- and leads the league in strikeouts and is second in ERA. Second, there's this misplaced concept that starters should win. But in the AL, no starter who qualifies for the ERA title (one IP per game played by his team) has an ERA under 3. Meanwhile, Joe Nathan has had a phenomenal year so far -- ERA around 0.85, 33/34 in save opportunities. For that matter, Mariano Rivera is having a better year than any starters (40/43 saves, 1.48 ERA); but Nathan has stabilized the Twins' bullpen and the Twinkies have been . . . saved by the excellent season he's had. The Cy Young Award ought to go to the pitching MVP, and in the AL this year, Nathan's it.
(2) Check out those patrons dressed up as empty seats in the Olympics. Other than the swimming venue, everything is empty or dang close. Check out how desperate the International Olympic Committee is to get butts in the seats here.
(3) I'm not watching that much of the Olympics coverage, but I watch the swimming races. Every time NBC cuts away and shows an Athens shot, the network essentially shows the same things time and again: the Parthenon and other parts of the Acropolis or the Temple of Jupiter ruins. Why? Athens is shockingly charmless with a few parks and the ruins and the rest of the city is tons of 3-5 story squareish and colorless apartment buildings -- legacy of too much socialist government over the past 60 years. I've been there and every person who tells you that you only need to spend a couple of nights in Athens if you go to Greece is absolutely right.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Lack of Anonymity
In late June, noted author Anonymous wrote Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror. Anonymous is actually Michael Scheuer, an analyst (non-covert) who headed the CIA's counterterrorism task force against Osama bin Laden. Scheuer's identity is well-known to most of the press, but the Jack Shafer article linked in the title to this post asks why the NY Times and Washington Post have not outed him. After all, Shafer notes, Scheuer has repeatedly stated in interviews (i.e., through a screen like interviews with mobsters who were in witness protection) and through his publisher that he did not want his identity shielded and the press is supposed to try to FIND THINGS OUT.
For The Monk, however, there are two more pernicious aspects to the Scheuer story. First, as Shafer noted, the CIA could have stopped him from publishing his screed but did not:
Current and former CIA employees who write for publication (books, articles, novels, letters to the editor) must submit to the agency for pre-publication approval anything that might touch on agency business. (Diet and gardening books and the like are exempt.) John Hollister Hedley, who chaired the CIA's Publications Review Board for three years in the late '90s, writes in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence that tougher restrictions apply to current CIA employees than former ones. The PRB will block former employees from disclosing classified information that might damage national security, but as a matter of policy it doesn't throttle opinions that may cause the agency discomfort or embarrassment. A tougher three-part test exists for current employees. The agency can "deny permission to publish statements or opinions that could impair the author's performance of duties, interfere with the authorized functions of the Agency, or have an adverse impact on US foreign relations," Hedley writes.
Surely Scheuer's forceful opinions in Imperial Hubris trigger one or two of these three trip-wires, especially given the ease with [the Boston Phoenix's Jason] Vest uncovered his CIA identity.
The fact that the CIA would not halt publication of this type of anti-US policy commentary in the year of a presidential election, authored by an analyst who is supposed to synthesize the information that is so crucial to the policies he derides says a great deal about how the CIA is running an agenda separate from the President. Indeed, the fact that the CIA recently shut Scheuer up, as Shafer notes, is evidence that some high-ranking members of the CIA had a contrary agenda and the agency is trying to lie low during the confirmation of Porter Goss so that Goss has no more excuses to perform a huge housecleaning (which he currently may be unlikely to do).
Second, the book itself may well shed some insight into WHY the CIA has failed so miserably in counterterrorism -- the analysts view the Middle East through a faulty prism. Scheuer describes Osama Bin Laden, et al., as insurgents, not terrorists. He claims that draining the terrorist swamp in Iraq only makes for more terrorism, and said the liberation of Afghanistan was insufficient. He is also an anti-Semitic crank, disparaging the only democracy in the Middle East as this excerpt at Amazon.com shows:
[Publishers' Weekly review]: . . . The author makes some challenging remarks regarding Israel ("Surely there can be no other historical example of a faraway, theocracy-in-all-but-name of only six million people that ultimately controls the extent and even the occurrence of an important portion of political discourse and national security debate in a country of 270-plus million people that prides itself on religious toleration, separation of church and state, and freedom of speech") while playing down the extent to which the Taliban itself was a corrupt theocratic regime.
Basically, the Clinton and Bush Administrations were relying for their bin Laden information on the analysis of a unit headed by someone who sees no value in the only democracy in the Middle East (and instead likens it to the Taliban, much like any International ANSWER activist would), cannot identify an unquestionable terrorist as such, and gives credence to the anti-Israel and anti-western grievances of the Arab world by saying that the US should address them to take away the underlying reasons for Islamic anti-Americanism. The problems in the CIA therefore go far deeper than whether this man should have been allowed to publish his book whilst supposedly working on the same issues he discusses for the US's prime intelligence agency.
Hat-tip: Outside the Beltway for pointing The Monk to the Shafer piece.
For The Monk, however, there are two more pernicious aspects to the Scheuer story. First, as Shafer noted, the CIA could have stopped him from publishing his screed but did not:
Current and former CIA employees who write for publication (books, articles, novels, letters to the editor) must submit to the agency for pre-publication approval anything that might touch on agency business. (Diet and gardening books and the like are exempt.) John Hollister Hedley, who chaired the CIA's Publications Review Board for three years in the late '90s, writes in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence that tougher restrictions apply to current CIA employees than former ones. The PRB will block former employees from disclosing classified information that might damage national security, but as a matter of policy it doesn't throttle opinions that may cause the agency discomfort or embarrassment. A tougher three-part test exists for current employees. The agency can "deny permission to publish statements or opinions that could impair the author's performance of duties, interfere with the authorized functions of the Agency, or have an adverse impact on US foreign relations," Hedley writes.
Surely Scheuer's forceful opinions in Imperial Hubris trigger one or two of these three trip-wires, especially given the ease with [the Boston Phoenix's Jason] Vest uncovered his CIA identity.
The fact that the CIA would not halt publication of this type of anti-US policy commentary in the year of a presidential election, authored by an analyst who is supposed to synthesize the information that is so crucial to the policies he derides says a great deal about how the CIA is running an agenda separate from the President. Indeed, the fact that the CIA recently shut Scheuer up, as Shafer notes, is evidence that some high-ranking members of the CIA had a contrary agenda and the agency is trying to lie low during the confirmation of Porter Goss so that Goss has no more excuses to perform a huge housecleaning (which he currently may be unlikely to do).
Second, the book itself may well shed some insight into WHY the CIA has failed so miserably in counterterrorism -- the analysts view the Middle East through a faulty prism. Scheuer describes Osama Bin Laden, et al., as insurgents, not terrorists. He claims that draining the terrorist swamp in Iraq only makes for more terrorism, and said the liberation of Afghanistan was insufficient. He is also an anti-Semitic crank, disparaging the only democracy in the Middle East as this excerpt at Amazon.com shows:
[Publishers' Weekly review]: . . . The author makes some challenging remarks regarding Israel ("Surely there can be no other historical example of a faraway, theocracy-in-all-but-name of only six million people that ultimately controls the extent and even the occurrence of an important portion of political discourse and national security debate in a country of 270-plus million people that prides itself on religious toleration, separation of church and state, and freedom of speech") while playing down the extent to which the Taliban itself was a corrupt theocratic regime.
Basically, the Clinton and Bush Administrations were relying for their bin Laden information on the analysis of a unit headed by someone who sees no value in the only democracy in the Middle East (and instead likens it to the Taliban, much like any International ANSWER activist would), cannot identify an unquestionable terrorist as such, and gives credence to the anti-Israel and anti-western grievances of the Arab world by saying that the US should address them to take away the underlying reasons for Islamic anti-Americanism. The problems in the CIA therefore go far deeper than whether this man should have been allowed to publish his book whilst supposedly working on the same issues he discusses for the US's prime intelligence agency.
Hat-tip: Outside the Beltway for pointing The Monk to the Shafer piece.
SNAFU re: Hurricane Relief post
The Monk apologizes for the multiple postings from earlier today. Safari/Blogger combination was kind of like following burritos with a curry dish -- highly repetitive.
Best bet = send money to the American Red Cross. The Monk is donating on-line.
Best bet = send money to the American Red Cross. The Monk is donating on-line.
Help the Hurricane victims
California Yankee has tons of information on how to help the victims of Hurricane Charley.
The Monk sends his condolences and best wishes to those affected by Hurricane Charley.
The Monk sends his condolences and best wishes to those affected by Hurricane Charley.
Kerry and the vets
One of the major (non)stories of the Kerry-Swiftvet situation is the lack of attention that the mainstream media has given to the Swiftees' ACTUAL statements, as opposed to: (1) who funds the Swiftees, (2) the timbre of the allegations, (3) the knee-jerk Democratic claims that this is just a function of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Dave Kopel of the Rocky Mountain News (link in title) examined the issue's coverage by the Denver papers:
The Denver dailies have covered the story exclusively by attacking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth through:
• An Associated Press article in both papers reporting that John McCain denounced the attacks on Kerry (without providing any evidence that the attacks are factually wrong);
• [Rocky Mountain] News columnist Mike Littwin criticizing Bush for not criticizing the Swift boat veterans (Aug. 7);
• The [Denver] Post's Jim Spencer defending Kerry's Purple Hearts (a July 30 column with more substance than other Kerry defenses); and
• An AP article pointing out that John Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command has made disparaging remarks about Islam and Catholicism (News, Aug. 11).
Kopel's analysis shows that Denver's coverage is consistent with the coverage that the facts of Kerry's Xmas in Cambodia, Purple Hearts and valor decorations have received in the rest of the media at large. As shown on That Liberal Media here, here and here, the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and other major media have not deigned to examine the substance of the Swift Vets evidence but have been more than happy to blast the Swiftees as Republican dupes.
But the story has gotten great traction in the blogosphere.
First, Captain Ed has been analyzing in great detail the substance of the Swiftees' statements compared to Kerry's current and past descriptions of his actions and missions. The deviations are too numerous to mention in a post (Captain Ed has had 8 and counting just on the Xmas in Cambodia fallacy, four on the inaccuracies in David Alston's story) but the major effects are: (1) the Xmas in Cambodia -- this Kerry claim has completely fallen apart and is now exposed as a false construct with the Kerry campaign changing its explanations and eventually asking Kerry's biographer to write a piece for The New Yorker to reconstruct the past; I discussed the impact on Kerry's reason to even BE a politician here; (2) Alston was a speaker at the Democratic National Convention because he claimed he served under Kerry, but Alston was wounded and removed from action the day before Kerry took command of the Swift that Alston had served on, thus he never served under Kerry; (3) even a mainstream press columnist now calls for Kerry to come clean, make public all his service records and be fully honest. But, as the posts from That Liberal Media show, the LA Times treats all this as off-limits.
Second, the charges are beginning to get traction with polls, as shown here in this study.
Third, Instapundit (scroll to Aug. 13 and below) has been banging away at the facts and information the mainstream media has missed. Instapundit is the probably the most popular non-ideological blog on the Internet so his comments carry weight.
Reagan and Clinton both proved that the easiest way to defuse the personal damage that could result from a scandal is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible: Reagan said "mistakes were made" and got a pass on Iran-Contra; Clinton said "we've had problems in our marriage" without saying adultery and got a pass from the press in 1992. Only cover-ups generate endless questions (Watergate, Lewinsky). Kerry has covered-up, backtracked and revised history -- an unholy trinity of obfuscation. Luckily for him, the mainstream media does not seem to care.
The Denver dailies have covered the story exclusively by attacking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth through:
• An Associated Press article in both papers reporting that John McCain denounced the attacks on Kerry (without providing any evidence that the attacks are factually wrong);
• [Rocky Mountain] News columnist Mike Littwin criticizing Bush for not criticizing the Swift boat veterans (Aug. 7);
• The [Denver] Post's Jim Spencer defending Kerry's Purple Hearts (a July 30 column with more substance than other Kerry defenses); and
• An AP article pointing out that John Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command has made disparaging remarks about Islam and Catholicism (News, Aug. 11).
Kopel's analysis shows that Denver's coverage is consistent with the coverage that the facts of Kerry's Xmas in Cambodia, Purple Hearts and valor decorations have received in the rest of the media at large. As shown on That Liberal Media here, here and here, the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and other major media have not deigned to examine the substance of the Swift Vets evidence but have been more than happy to blast the Swiftees as Republican dupes.
But the story has gotten great traction in the blogosphere.
First, Captain Ed has been analyzing in great detail the substance of the Swiftees' statements compared to Kerry's current and past descriptions of his actions and missions. The deviations are too numerous to mention in a post (Captain Ed has had 8 and counting just on the Xmas in Cambodia fallacy, four on the inaccuracies in David Alston's story) but the major effects are: (1) the Xmas in Cambodia -- this Kerry claim has completely fallen apart and is now exposed as a false construct with the Kerry campaign changing its explanations and eventually asking Kerry's biographer to write a piece for The New Yorker to reconstruct the past; I discussed the impact on Kerry's reason to even BE a politician here; (2) Alston was a speaker at the Democratic National Convention because he claimed he served under Kerry, but Alston was wounded and removed from action the day before Kerry took command of the Swift that Alston had served on, thus he never served under Kerry; (3) even a mainstream press columnist now calls for Kerry to come clean, make public all his service records and be fully honest. But, as the posts from That Liberal Media show, the LA Times treats all this as off-limits.
Second, the charges are beginning to get traction with polls, as shown here in this study.
Third, Instapundit (scroll to Aug. 13 and below) has been banging away at the facts and information the mainstream media has missed. Instapundit is the probably the most popular non-ideological blog on the Internet so his comments carry weight.
Reagan and Clinton both proved that the easiest way to defuse the personal damage that could result from a scandal is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible: Reagan said "mistakes were made" and got a pass on Iran-Contra; Clinton said "we've had problems in our marriage" without saying adultery and got a pass from the press in 1992. Only cover-ups generate endless questions (Watergate, Lewinsky). Kerry has covered-up, backtracked and revised history -- an unholy trinity of obfuscation. Luckily for him, the mainstream media does not seem to care.
Welcome Barking Moonbat Readers
Nice post and comment about The Key Monk on the Barking Moonbat Early Warning System. The Moonbat exterminators are a pair of ex-military guys who have their priorities straight.
Derivation of Moonbat? From their site:
The ancient Latin word for moon was luna . . . from the Latin lunaticus, which translates as "moon-struck", we derive the word lunatic. The Romans thought that recurring bouts of madness were caused by cycles of the moon.
* * * [snip]
Moonbat. This is the human personification of the two terms [moon and bat, duh -- TKM] described above. It is a human whose cerebral cortex has turned to silly putty causing him or her to mentally slide down the evolutionary ladder to the level of a winged rat who is influenced by the moon and wants to suck your blood. Also affectionately known as a "Democrat".
These creatures spend their days hanging from the ceiling (or relaxing in their saunas in Beverly Hills) and by night, when the moon exerts its lunatic influence upon their two remaining brain cells, they wander the streets babbling insanities and looking for their next victim. They usually first appear about sundown on NBC, CBS and ABC News as "sound bites" (see above regarding fangs). Then they quickly gather in upscale neighborhoods like The Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, San Francisco and Hollywood where they plot their devious, totally mad plans to take over the world.
Poor pitiful creatures. They have no clue that we are on to them. Their twisted, demented little brains simply cannot grasp the fact they are doomed to extinction. The legends of vampires have slowly died out and thanks to modern psychotherapy (and electrical shock treatments) these miserable throwbacks to an earlier dark era in human history are slowly being eliminated . . .
Derivation of Moonbat? From their site:
The ancient Latin word for moon was luna . . . from the Latin lunaticus, which translates as "moon-struck", we derive the word lunatic. The Romans thought that recurring bouts of madness were caused by cycles of the moon.
* * * [snip]
Moonbat. This is the human personification of the two terms [moon and bat, duh -- TKM] described above. It is a human whose cerebral cortex has turned to silly putty causing him or her to mentally slide down the evolutionary ladder to the level of a winged rat who is influenced by the moon and wants to suck your blood. Also affectionately known as a "Democrat".
These creatures spend their days hanging from the ceiling (or relaxing in their saunas in Beverly Hills) and by night, when the moon exerts its lunatic influence upon their two remaining brain cells, they wander the streets babbling insanities and looking for their next victim. They usually first appear about sundown on NBC, CBS and ABC News as "sound bites" (see above regarding fangs). Then they quickly gather in upscale neighborhoods like The Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, San Francisco and Hollywood where they plot their devious, totally mad plans to take over the world.
Poor pitiful creatures. They have no clue that we are on to them. Their twisted, demented little brains simply cannot grasp the fact they are doomed to extinction. The legends of vampires have slowly died out and thanks to modern psychotherapy (and electrical shock treatments) these miserable throwbacks to an earlier dark era in human history are slowly being eliminated . . .
Friday, August 13, 2004
Beware of Dog
Floridian Frank J. is a gun-totin' bad-mouthed anti-leftist political writer and the blogger behind IMAO. He has attempted to explain Democrats to the unwary with Fun Facts (here are about 50% of his facts):
* Democrats chose the donkey as their symbol because the Democrat base smells as bad as one and has the same verbal skills. In the donkey's defense, it's smart enough to understand a butterfly ballot.
* Democrats are big into class warfare. They also are for gun control which has caused the deadliest firearms to be too expensive except for the rich to buy. So, if class warfare ever goes to blows, it won't last long.
* No matter what legislation the Republicans propose, the Democrats call it "just a tax cut for the rich." When Republicans proposed to free the slaves, Democrats called it "just a tax cut for the rich."
* Democrats have lost most of the men's vote because they're a bunch of girlie men. Don't tell them that, though, because they'll cry.
* Democrats are always trying to get into your wallet to spend money on their wacky ideas. If you see a Democrat near your wallet, hit him on the head with a rolled up newspaper. You have to catch him in the act or he'll never learn.
* To do better in elections, many Democrats are trying to allow felons to vote. Next on their agenda: Allowing foreign terrorists to vote.
* Trial lawyers can and do vote for Democrats... probably for the same reason convicted felons and terrorists would.
* While the Democratic leadership is currently devoid of any real leadership or substance, they may try and make up for that with important-looking hair.
* Some Democrats may have served in Vietnam. You can find out which ones by seeing who tells you that fact over and over and over.
* And over and over and over.
* Many Democrats intensely hate Bush because it's easier than confronting the irrelevancy of their ideas. It’s funny to dump a bucket of cold water on them and hear them blame Haliburton.
* If you're plagued by Democrats, they can be scared away with snakes, guns, or concepts of individual responsibility.
* Bill Clinton, who cost the Democrats their majorities in the House, Senate, and Governorships while he was president, is still venerated by Democrats because... uh... I guess they're just frick'n retards.
* Democrats will often visit maternity wards and shake their fists angrily at all those who escaped the wrath of choice.
* The Democrats have built a giant statue in tribute to Michael Moore which eyes glow red, shoots fire out of its ass, and constantly demands tributes of ham.
* Or maybe that is just Michael Moore wearing a gray sweat suit. Whatever it is, don't let it fall on you because it's heavy.
* Democrats are convinced Bush lied about something. They're not sure what... but they know it's something! Come on; Clinton lied all the time... Bush must have lied at least once!
* The foreign policy ideals of the Democrats involve waiting for the mighty France to approve anything they plan on doing. This should allow them to snap into action about the time half the earth is destroyed by radical Islamists.
* Every time someone votes for a Democrat, baby Jesus cries.
* Democrats chose the donkey as their symbol because the Democrat base smells as bad as one and has the same verbal skills. In the donkey's defense, it's smart enough to understand a butterfly ballot.
* Democrats are big into class warfare. They also are for gun control which has caused the deadliest firearms to be too expensive except for the rich to buy. So, if class warfare ever goes to blows, it won't last long.
* No matter what legislation the Republicans propose, the Democrats call it "just a tax cut for the rich." When Republicans proposed to free the slaves, Democrats called it "just a tax cut for the rich."
* Democrats have lost most of the men's vote because they're a bunch of girlie men. Don't tell them that, though, because they'll cry.
* Democrats are always trying to get into your wallet to spend money on their wacky ideas. If you see a Democrat near your wallet, hit him on the head with a rolled up newspaper. You have to catch him in the act or he'll never learn.
* To do better in elections, many Democrats are trying to allow felons to vote. Next on their agenda: Allowing foreign terrorists to vote.
* Trial lawyers can and do vote for Democrats... probably for the same reason convicted felons and terrorists would.
* While the Democratic leadership is currently devoid of any real leadership or substance, they may try and make up for that with important-looking hair.
* Some Democrats may have served in Vietnam. You can find out which ones by seeing who tells you that fact over and over and over.
* And over and over and over.
* Many Democrats intensely hate Bush because it's easier than confronting the irrelevancy of their ideas. It’s funny to dump a bucket of cold water on them and hear them blame Haliburton.
* If you're plagued by Democrats, they can be scared away with snakes, guns, or concepts of individual responsibility.
* Bill Clinton, who cost the Democrats their majorities in the House, Senate, and Governorships while he was president, is still venerated by Democrats because... uh... I guess they're just frick'n retards.
* Democrats will often visit maternity wards and shake their fists angrily at all those who escaped the wrath of choice.
* The Democrats have built a giant statue in tribute to Michael Moore which eyes glow red, shoots fire out of its ass, and constantly demands tributes of ham.
* Or maybe that is just Michael Moore wearing a gray sweat suit. Whatever it is, don't let it fall on you because it's heavy.
* Democrats are convinced Bush lied about something. They're not sure what... but they know it's something! Come on; Clinton lied all the time... Bush must have lied at least once!
* The foreign policy ideals of the Democrats involve waiting for the mighty France to approve anything they plan on doing. This should allow them to snap into action about the time half the earth is destroyed by radical Islamists.
* Every time someone votes for a Democrat, baby Jesus cries.
UVa grad to US flagbearer
Dawn Staley is the best basketball player in University of Virginia women's hoops history. She led the team to three Final Fours in a row -- the team has not been to one since she graduated (same year as The Monk) in 1992. Staley won gold medals in the '96 and '00 Olympics and is a legend in her hometown of Philadelphia, where she is the Temple women's hoops coach when not working her other job as a player for the WNBA's Charlotte Sting. Tonight, she is the US flagbearer during the opening ceremonies.
Congrats.
Congrats.
Kerry's energy record
The biggest problem with every platitude that Kerry utters is that when you examine: (1) his actual plan (to the extent he has one); and (2) his prior record; there is every reason to think that Kerry's plan will have the opposite effect of what he claims it will do. Kerry is touting his energy plan as one that will enable energy independence, but there is no detail of the plan on Kerry's own website.
As the editorial referenced in the title of this post notes:
Seeking to capitalize on the public's concern over rising gasoline prices (and to perhaps divert attention from Kerry's past support of a 50-cent hike in the federal gasoline tax), the Kerry campaign recently announced a new “energy independence” plan. To promote the "energy of the future," Kerry wants to mandate that 20 percent of electricity come from renewable energy sources — such as wind, solar, and biomass — by 2020, up from the current 2.2 percent. Given current trends, renewable energy will make up only 3.7 percent of electricity generation by 2025, according to the Energy Information Agency. Implementing Kerry's mandate would yield a significant increase in electricity prices for consumers, because renewable energy sources are 3 to 15 times more costly than conventional fossil-fuel-generated power. [emphasis added]
And despite his campaign rhetoric, Kerry has refused to support even the modest renewable-energy provisions in the administration's energy plan, including an extension of the production-tax credit for wind energy, and a renewable-fuels program to use five billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012.
The Bush campaign actually has a good breakdown of its past proposals and Kerry's positions on the same issues. The analysis is also not a screed -- it presents facts and the presentation does undercut Kerry's claims. Here is an excerpt discussing oil refineries:
REFINERIES
No new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976 and prospects for building new refineries are bleak at best. According to John Kilduff, senior vice president of Energy Risk Management Group, "Besides the challenging economics, permitting issues appear to be formidable and make it unlikely any new refineries will be built in the United States in the future." (Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hearing: "What Drives Fuel Prices," 6/15/04).
President Bush proposed improvements to the New Source Review program that would provide certainty and encourage environmentally sound refinery capacity expansions. According to Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, President Bush's NSR reforms "should facilitate new domestic refining capacity expansions" and "encourage the installation of more technologically-advanced equipment and provide greater operational flexibility while maintaining a facility's environmental performance." (Bob Slaughter, Senate Testimony, "Environmental Regulations on Refining," Committee on Environment and Public Works, 5/12/04)
John Kerry voted against bipartisan NSR reform last year and is supporting a lawsuit blocking the President's reforms in court. ("Clean Air: Kerry Joins Senate Colleagues in Court Challenge of Bush NSR Reforms," Greenwire, 5/19/04)
John Kerry's support for Kyoto-style regulations puts America's refining industry at risk. According to a study by the Department of Energy's Argonne National Lab during the Clinton Administration, climate change policies "that increase costs" will send refining operations overseas and "threaten existing refineries." (Argonne National Laboratory Study: "The Impact of Potential Climate Change Commitments on Energy Intensive Industries," July 1997, summary by Unions for Jobs and the Environment)
Similarly, John Kerry has claimed he is pro-clean coal (no, it's actually not an oxymoron -- technological progress makes it possible) but, as the Bush site notes:
. . . Kerry's record is decidedly anti-coal, and if legislation he supports became law, coal use would decline dramatically and nearly eliminate one of America's most critical energy resources.
Last year, Kerry voted for the Climate Stewardship Act, which, according to the independent Energy Information Administration, would reduce coal-based electricity from over 50 percent today to 11 percent, or an 80 percent reduction.
Kerry also is a cosponsor of the Clean Power Act, which, according to the Energy Information Administration [a Department of Energy sub-agency -- TKM], cuts coal-based electricity by 55 percent. And further, under the bill, "new coal plant additions are much lower while retirements are higher compared to the reference case," while "new coal capacity additions through 2025 amount to only 3 gigawatts." Without the bill, 74 gigawatts of capacity are expected to be built by 2025.
Compare the Bush analysis with the absence of any details and discussion of Kerry's and Edwards' records on the Kedwards campaign site. The Monk doesn't vote for platitudes alone.
Submitted to the Traffic Jam.
As the editorial referenced in the title of this post notes:
Seeking to capitalize on the public's concern over rising gasoline prices (and to perhaps divert attention from Kerry's past support of a 50-cent hike in the federal gasoline tax), the Kerry campaign recently announced a new “energy independence” plan. To promote the "energy of the future," Kerry wants to mandate that 20 percent of electricity come from renewable energy sources — such as wind, solar, and biomass — by 2020, up from the current 2.2 percent. Given current trends, renewable energy will make up only 3.7 percent of electricity generation by 2025, according to the Energy Information Agency. Implementing Kerry's mandate would yield a significant increase in electricity prices for consumers, because renewable energy sources are 3 to 15 times more costly than conventional fossil-fuel-generated power. [emphasis added]
And despite his campaign rhetoric, Kerry has refused to support even the modest renewable-energy provisions in the administration's energy plan, including an extension of the production-tax credit for wind energy, and a renewable-fuels program to use five billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012.
The Bush campaign actually has a good breakdown of its past proposals and Kerry's positions on the same issues. The analysis is also not a screed -- it presents facts and the presentation does undercut Kerry's claims. Here is an excerpt discussing oil refineries:
REFINERIES
No new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976 and prospects for building new refineries are bleak at best. According to John Kilduff, senior vice president of Energy Risk Management Group, "Besides the challenging economics, permitting issues appear to be formidable and make it unlikely any new refineries will be built in the United States in the future." (Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hearing: "What Drives Fuel Prices," 6/15/04).
President Bush proposed improvements to the New Source Review program that would provide certainty and encourage environmentally sound refinery capacity expansions. According to Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, President Bush's NSR reforms "should facilitate new domestic refining capacity expansions" and "encourage the installation of more technologically-advanced equipment and provide greater operational flexibility while maintaining a facility's environmental performance." (Bob Slaughter, Senate Testimony, "Environmental Regulations on Refining," Committee on Environment and Public Works, 5/12/04)
John Kerry voted against bipartisan NSR reform last year and is supporting a lawsuit blocking the President's reforms in court. ("Clean Air: Kerry Joins Senate Colleagues in Court Challenge of Bush NSR Reforms," Greenwire, 5/19/04)
John Kerry's support for Kyoto-style regulations puts America's refining industry at risk. According to a study by the Department of Energy's Argonne National Lab during the Clinton Administration, climate change policies "that increase costs" will send refining operations overseas and "threaten existing refineries." (Argonne National Laboratory Study: "The Impact of Potential Climate Change Commitments on Energy Intensive Industries," July 1997, summary by Unions for Jobs and the Environment)
Similarly, John Kerry has claimed he is pro-clean coal (no, it's actually not an oxymoron -- technological progress makes it possible) but, as the Bush site notes:
. . . Kerry's record is decidedly anti-coal, and if legislation he supports became law, coal use would decline dramatically and nearly eliminate one of America's most critical energy resources.
Last year, Kerry voted for the Climate Stewardship Act, which, according to the independent Energy Information Administration, would reduce coal-based electricity from over 50 percent today to 11 percent, or an 80 percent reduction.
Kerry also is a cosponsor of the Clean Power Act, which, according to the Energy Information Administration [a Department of Energy sub-agency -- TKM], cuts coal-based electricity by 55 percent. And further, under the bill, "new coal plant additions are much lower while retirements are higher compared to the reference case," while "new coal capacity additions through 2025 amount to only 3 gigawatts." Without the bill, 74 gigawatts of capacity are expected to be built by 2025.
Compare the Bush analysis with the absence of any details and discussion of Kerry's and Edwards' records on the Kedwards campaign site. The Monk doesn't vote for platitudes alone.
Submitted to the Traffic Jam.
Can Bush Gallup ahead?
Some decent news for the president: his approval rating is now above the crucial 50% threshold that the political wags say indicate that the incumbent will be reelected AND Gallup's likely voters poll puts the president ahead 50-47(%) over the flip-flopping Frenchman.
Note that this poll also shows a decrease in the disapproval of Bush's handling of Iraq and an increase in approval of how he handles terrorism. For some reason, though, Bush has negative economic ratings despite the highest GDP increases in decades and constantly improving consumer confidence. Donald Luskin discusses how Kerry is trashtalking a good economy.
Note that this poll also shows a decrease in the disapproval of Bush's handling of Iraq and an increase in approval of how he handles terrorism. For some reason, though, Bush has negative economic ratings despite the highest GDP increases in decades and constantly improving consumer confidence. Donald Luskin discusses how Kerry is trashtalking a good economy.
National Review Roundup
NRO has been slow this month . . . must be a latent and repressed affinity for the French.
That'll get The Monk blacklisted.
Anyway, today NRO is hitting hard with some sharp articles:
Jim Geraghty on New Jersey's reputation for political corruption. He kept the focus to the last few years, otherwise the article would become novella-sized.
Andy McCarthy's back, and he exposes some aspects of Islam that the media doesn't discuss.
Denis Boyles, the original foreign press anthologizer before Arthur Chrenkoff devoted his blog to it, reviews recent Europress reports on what a "sensitive" war entails.
And Victor Hansen has his weekly "SMARTEN UP" column wherein he turns his gaze to Bush hatred and concludes:
September 11 cooled the furor of [Bush's] aristocratic critics, but Iraq re-ignited it. Not voting for George Bush is, of course understandable and millions in fact will do precisely that. But for those haters who demonize the man, their knee-jerk disgust tells us far more about their own shallow characters than it does anything about our wartime president.
And there is a great danger in all these manifestations of pure hatred. We are in a war. And in these tumultuous days, the Left's unhinged odium will resonate with and embolden not only our enemies abroad, but also the deranged, dangerous folk here at home.
That'll get The Monk blacklisted.
Anyway, today NRO is hitting hard with some sharp articles:
Jim Geraghty on New Jersey's reputation for political corruption. He kept the focus to the last few years, otherwise the article would become novella-sized.
Andy McCarthy's back, and he exposes some aspects of Islam that the media doesn't discuss.
Denis Boyles, the original foreign press anthologizer before Arthur Chrenkoff devoted his blog to it, reviews recent Europress reports on what a "sensitive" war entails.
And Victor Hansen has his weekly "SMARTEN UP" column wherein he turns his gaze to Bush hatred and concludes:
September 11 cooled the furor of [Bush's] aristocratic critics, but Iraq re-ignited it. Not voting for George Bush is, of course understandable and millions in fact will do precisely that. But for those haters who demonize the man, their knee-jerk disgust tells us far more about their own shallow characters than it does anything about our wartime president.
And there is a great danger in all these manifestations of pure hatred. We are in a war. And in these tumultuous days, the Left's unhinged odium will resonate with and embolden not only our enemies abroad, but also the deranged, dangerous folk here at home.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Resignation of Jim McGreevey
There's got to be more to it than this:
In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.
"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexecusable."
The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15.
McGreevey said he would step down because his secret - both his sexuality and his affair - leaves the governor's office vulnerable.
This is odd on a couple of levels: first, why is a governor of one of the most liberal states in the country resigning in this situation? Granted, NJ demographics are different from NY and Mass.: the Democrat leanings derive much more from ethnic immigrants, blacks and Puerto Ricans than those leanings derive from liberal left-wingers (like NY, Vermont and Mass.) -- although the grievance-class politics and ultra-liberal NJ Supreme Court result in NJ legally resembling the left-wing lunacy in Massachusetts. Given that blacks are known to be very religious and disapprove gay marriage by a much wider margin than the population at large, and that the blue-collar ethnics (think about every Sopranos stereotype -- I grew up around those same folks, only on the other side of the Hudson) are not necessarily gay-friendly either, that may be a reason that McGreevey's type of adultery is politically less acceptable than Bill Clinton's would be if he'd been governor. Nonetheless, the Democratic establishment in that state got McGreevey elected against a strong Republican challenger, so The Monk thinks that McGreevey had to have other skeletons in his armoire.
Second, why does McGreevey think his sexuality and the affair leave the governor's office vulnerable? Again, New Jersey is a Democratic stronghold and its Democratic party is notoriously corrupt throughout all the levels and branches of state government including the judiciary (remember the NJ Supreme Court's legal prestidigitation to enable Frank Lautenberg to violate the candidate registration laws and still end up on the Senatorial ballot in 2002?). This also indicates to The Monk that someone has something on McGreevey other than the governor's proclivities viz. the down low. (Jeff Jarvis was dead-on with his sourcing on McGreevey's reason to quit).
Third, why did he refer to himself as a "gay American" -- can't he just be an American who also happens to be gay, as opposed to a new category like all the hyphenated Americans: Italian-American, African-American, Asian-American, Liberal-Ted-Kennedy-worshipping-American, etc.? Yeah, that's a minor point, but McGreevey's phrasing annoyed The Monk.
Submitted to Beltway Traffic Jam.
See also A Small Victory regarding other rumors surrounding McGreevey.
In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.
"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexecusable."
The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15.
McGreevey said he would step down because his secret - both his sexuality and his affair - leaves the governor's office vulnerable.
This is odd on a couple of levels: first, why is a governor of one of the most liberal states in the country resigning in this situation? Granted, NJ demographics are different from NY and Mass.: the Democrat leanings derive much more from ethnic immigrants, blacks and Puerto Ricans than those leanings derive from liberal left-wingers (like NY, Vermont and Mass.) -- although the grievance-class politics and ultra-liberal NJ Supreme Court result in NJ legally resembling the left-wing lunacy in Massachusetts. Given that blacks are known to be very religious and disapprove gay marriage by a much wider margin than the population at large, and that the blue-collar ethnics (think about every Sopranos stereotype -- I grew up around those same folks, only on the other side of the Hudson) are not necessarily gay-friendly either, that may be a reason that McGreevey's type of adultery is politically less acceptable than Bill Clinton's would be if he'd been governor. Nonetheless, the Democratic establishment in that state got McGreevey elected against a strong Republican challenger, so The Monk thinks that McGreevey had to have other skeletons in his armoire.
Second, why does McGreevey think his sexuality and the affair leave the governor's office vulnerable? Again, New Jersey is a Democratic stronghold and its Democratic party is notoriously corrupt throughout all the levels and branches of state government including the judiciary (remember the NJ Supreme Court's legal prestidigitation to enable Frank Lautenberg to violate the candidate registration laws and still end up on the Senatorial ballot in 2002?). This also indicates to The Monk that someone has something on McGreevey other than the governor's proclivities viz. the down low. (Jeff Jarvis was dead-on with his sourcing on McGreevey's reason to quit).
Third, why did he refer to himself as a "gay American" -- can't he just be an American who also happens to be gay, as opposed to a new category like all the hyphenated Americans: Italian-American, African-American, Asian-American, Liberal-Ted-Kennedy-worshipping-American, etc.? Yeah, that's a minor point, but McGreevey's phrasing annoyed The Monk.
Submitted to Beltway Traffic Jam.
See also A Small Victory regarding other rumors surrounding McGreevey.
Telegraphing Kerry's changing stories
The Daily Telegraph examines the Xmas in Cambodia myth chapter in Kerry's life history. The worst part of this Kerry mythology: the Mekong River runs FROM Cambodia to Vietnam, it's not like the river forms the border of the two countries and veers into Cambodia at some point.
Here is the damaging part of the DT's article:
Yesterday, however, the Kerry campaign was left in verbal knots after a new book accused the senator of inventing stories about being sent, illegally, over the border into neutral Cambodia.
The Kerry campaign responded, initially, that Mr Kerry had always said he was "near" Cambodia. Then a campaign aide said Mr Kerry had been in the Mekong Delta "between" Vietnam and next-door Cambodia - a geographical zone not found on maps, which show the Mekong river running from Cambodia to Vietnam.
Whoops.
As I've said before (and I said it before James Lileks did on 8-11), this is the impact of Kerry's mythological Xmas adventure:
Hat-tip: Capt. Ed for the DT story.
See also: Dailypundit, Right Wing News and VodkaPundit.
Here is the damaging part of the DT's article:
Yesterday, however, the Kerry campaign was left in verbal knots after a new book accused the senator of inventing stories about being sent, illegally, over the border into neutral Cambodia.
The Kerry campaign responded, initially, that Mr Kerry had always said he was "near" Cambodia. Then a campaign aide said Mr Kerry had been in the Mekong Delta "between" Vietnam and next-door Cambodia - a geographical zone not found on maps, which show the Mekong river running from Cambodia to Vietnam.
Whoops.
As I've said before (and I said it before James Lileks did on 8-11), this is the impact of Kerry's mythological Xmas adventure:
Ultimately, this whole story is fundamentally dishonest in ways that cut to the core of who John Kerry is and what he is about. If the underlying core "facts" that are the basis for Kerry's politics are false, what does that say about Kerry's politics and candidacy? I've said that Kerry is a Manchurian Candidate of the anti-war Left, but he's more than that. His Vietnam "story" is the basis of his whole worldview as a politician. His immediate post-Vietnam actions were anti-war, anti-military, anti-veteran and anti-anti-Communist; his initial Senate record is pro-Communist (Latin America policy), pro-peacenik (nuclear freeze) and anti-Reagan. Each and every one of those positions is fundamentally anti-American/blame America first and in favor of weakening America's standing in the world. Ultimately, Kerry is not only the Manchurian Candidate of the anti-war Left, but he is also the Manchurian Candidate of the anti-America Left.
Hat-tip: Capt. Ed for the DT story.
See also: Dailypundit, Right Wing News and VodkaPundit.
Kerry outwitted
What constantly amazes The Monk is how a man who is barely intelligent enough to blink his eyes can be the source and cause of all failures in the world. Iraq has terrorists = it's Bush's fault. Iran wants nukes = it's Bush's fault. Israel has Jews =it's Bush's fault. My cats have stinky poo = it's Bush's fault.
And what is more amazing is how this "moron" has outwitted Kerry into admitting he'd do the exact same thing that the dumbfark did, if Kerry had been in the same situation.
As noted by Master of the Obvious, Walter Russell Mead:
"Kerry has always had this vulnerability of looking flip-floppy on the issue and Bush is using this very shrewdly," said Walter Russell Mead, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. He added "Being silent on the question makes [Kerry] look evasive, and saying something, anything, gets him in trouble with one side of his party or another."
Amazing. If the President were any stupider, Kerry would be out touting his own horrendous Senate record and claiming that supporting Latin American Commies in the 80s, the Nuclear Freeze, and voting against every major weapons system that later proved important in Gulf War II was justified by later events.
Last word for Kerry on this is from Rand Beers, Kerry's national security mouthpiece, and the four problems with Bush's approach to Iraq:
"Rushing to war is one, doing it without enough allies is two, doing it without equipping our troops adequately is three, and doing it without an adequate plan to win the peace is a fourth," Mr. Beers said. "If you want to add a fifth, it's going to war without examining the quality of your intelligence."
OK, The Monk must blow these up one by one:
1. There was no rush to war, period. Seventeen UN resolutions over 12 years, a 14-month wait to give Saddam a chance to come clean about Iraq's WMDs -- this is only a "rush" to war compared to Britain and France appeasing Hitler from 1936-39 before finally saying enough. Appeasement is folly, so was waiting.
2. More than 30 allies aren't enough? Waiting for the sclerotic armed forces of Germany and the heel-digging French tips the scales? Ridiculous. Australia, UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, So. Korea, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Latvia, and 20 others. Is there an indispensible ally not in that bunch? No, the Aussies and UK are there.
3. Lack of equipment for the troops? This is a new line of hooey because the $87,000,000 that Kerry voted against was primarily (around $65M+) to ensure troop equipment sufficiency. Kerry has no credibility on this.
4. Adequate plan to win the peace. I've covered this here and said:
5. This is rich -- essentially Kerry is saying that Bush needed to investigate the CIA's intelligence, the intelligence of MI6, the intelligence of every major intelligence agency in the world, and the intelligence conclusions throughout the US intel community from the first Clinton presidential term through 2003. Furthermore, the book on Saddam's WMD, or alleged lack thereof, is not finished as I've noted here and here. Simply stated, Beers' fifth category is a ready-made excuse for interminable delay -- the type of kicking the can down the road that Clinton did routinely and which finally harmed the US on 9-11-01. That's the exact type of dithering that the US cannot do anymore.
And what is more amazing is how this "moron" has outwitted Kerry into admitting he'd do the exact same thing that the dumbfark did, if Kerry had been in the same situation.
As noted by Master of the Obvious, Walter Russell Mead:
"Kerry has always had this vulnerability of looking flip-floppy on the issue and Bush is using this very shrewdly," said Walter Russell Mead, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. He added "Being silent on the question makes [Kerry] look evasive, and saying something, anything, gets him in trouble with one side of his party or another."
Amazing. If the President were any stupider, Kerry would be out touting his own horrendous Senate record and claiming that supporting Latin American Commies in the 80s, the Nuclear Freeze, and voting against every major weapons system that later proved important in Gulf War II was justified by later events.
Last word for Kerry on this is from Rand Beers, Kerry's national security mouthpiece, and the four problems with Bush's approach to Iraq:
"Rushing to war is one, doing it without enough allies is two, doing it without equipping our troops adequately is three, and doing it without an adequate plan to win the peace is a fourth," Mr. Beers said. "If you want to add a fifth, it's going to war without examining the quality of your intelligence."
OK, The Monk must blow these up one by one:
1. There was no rush to war, period. Seventeen UN resolutions over 12 years, a 14-month wait to give Saddam a chance to come clean about Iraq's WMDs -- this is only a "rush" to war compared to Britain and France appeasing Hitler from 1936-39 before finally saying enough. Appeasement is folly, so was waiting.
2. More than 30 allies aren't enough? Waiting for the sclerotic armed forces of Germany and the heel-digging French tips the scales? Ridiculous. Australia, UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, So. Korea, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Latvia, and 20 others. Is there an indispensible ally not in that bunch? No, the Aussies and UK are there.
3. Lack of equipment for the troops? This is a new line of hooey because the $87,000,000 that Kerry voted against was primarily (around $65M+) to ensure troop equipment sufficiency. Kerry has no credibility on this.
4. Adequate plan to win the peace. I've covered this here and said:
Neither Roosevelt nor Wilson had a "plan for the peace" when they went to war because it is nearly impossible to do so. The victor does not know how much damage it will have to inflict before the vanquished foe relents. The facts of each situation change too rapidly for a "plan for the peace" to be a detailed step-by-step process that can be followed to the letter. That's what Kerry implies he would have had -- a point-by-point program that would have been implemented (that plan is secret, of course, because Kerry never had one to begin with -- he's just relying on general dissatisfaction such that voters will believe his assurances). That concept is garbage -- reality intrudes on those best-laid plans and requires the victorious combatant to be flexible, responsive and attentive to its overarching goals. Despite the relentless carping in the press, the reconstruction of Iraq is going well and that country is FAR ahead of post-war Germany and Japan in both infrastructure and the establishment of an effective governmental apparatus..
5. This is rich -- essentially Kerry is saying that Bush needed to investigate the CIA's intelligence, the intelligence of MI6, the intelligence of every major intelligence agency in the world, and the intelligence conclusions throughout the US intel community from the first Clinton presidential term through 2003. Furthermore, the book on Saddam's WMD, or alleged lack thereof, is not finished as I've noted here and here. Simply stated, Beers' fifth category is a ready-made excuse for interminable delay -- the type of kicking the can down the road that Clinton did routinely and which finally harmed the US on 9-11-01. That's the exact type of dithering that the US cannot do anymore.
The Bush record on stem cell research
The biggest canard in the presidential campaign is the claim that the Bush Administration has prevented stem-cell research. Only in the Democrat mindset can a refusal by the president to approve FEDERAL funds for FETAL stem-cell research become a ban on stem-cell research. Honestly, it makes no sense: no private funds have been barred from use in stem-cell research, instead the private sector can raise and spend every nickel it wants on stem cell research, both fetal stem-cell research and adult stem-cell research.
Furthermore, the federal government allows (and funds) stem-cell research on existing lines of embryonic stem-cells that have been "harvested". The Wall Street Journal (link above) exposes the disinformation campaign by Democrats, most notably Ron Reagan, in an editorial today. Thus, the Journal notes that
The President's answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos. In short, it was a reasonable middle ground. It's worth noting that other countries, such as Germany, Ireland and Austria, ban even the private sector from creating embryos for stem cell research.
Read the whole thing.
Furthermore, the federal government allows (and funds) stem-cell research on existing lines of embryonic stem-cells that have been "harvested". The Wall Street Journal (link above) exposes the disinformation campaign by Democrats, most notably Ron Reagan, in an editorial today. Thus, the Journal notes that
The President's answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos. In short, it was a reasonable middle ground. It's worth noting that other countries, such as Germany, Ireland and Austria, ban even the private sector from creating embryos for stem cell research.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Fisking the campaign solicitations
Dr. Joyner fisks a campaign solicitation he received from Mary Beth Cahill, a Kedwards shill. Although he originally wanted to contribute $87 million before he decided not to, Dr. Joyner does make a nice point here:
. . . you're not allowed to take any money because the [Democratic] convention is over. So wouldn't you get in trouble if I sent you money?
In other words, the campaign solicitation that the JohnJohns sent out under Cahill's name is of dubious legality . . .
. . . you're not allowed to take any money because the [Democratic] convention is over. So wouldn't you get in trouble if I sent you money?
In other words, the campaign solicitation that the JohnJohns sent out under Cahill's name is of dubious legality . . .
How the Swift Boat groups operated
Balloon Juice has a great post that describes the operation and deployment of Swift boat units. Why is this important? One of the main talking points for the Democrats is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who have come out against Kerry did not serve in Kerry's boat.
My thought process has been, that's nice, but at least the Swiftees know how the boats operated, their missions, their duties, and Kerry's actions in multi-boat firefights. Now, however, I feel better educated.
Why? Swift boats were deployed in UNITS, not on individual patrols like Apocalypse Now. I imagined the Coppola-fied version but that's not how Kerry operated.
Instead, the Swiftees were billeted at various naval bases, trained together and had multiboat patrol and combat missions. In other words, the Swift boats operated like aquatic fighter squadrons on Vietnamese rivers and along Vietnam's shores, much like aerial fighter patrols fly multiple planes together.
More from the Juicers:
Media Matters, the wholly owned subsidiarity of the DNC, funded by George Soros, has been quick to pass out the talking points:
You see where this is going, don't you? They were not on the actual boat with Kerry, so therefore they have no idea who the man is or what he was like during the time in question. Except, of course, this defies reality. As I stated last night, you almost have to admire the brazenness and the audacity of those willing to make this statement, because it is so misleading and stupid that surely they must be afriad of being caught.
Go check out the Balloon Juice post (link in title to this post), very detailed; and check out QandO for pictures from Kerry's service time that show the boats on river patrol.
My thought process has been, that's nice, but at least the Swiftees know how the boats operated, their missions, their duties, and Kerry's actions in multi-boat firefights. Now, however, I feel better educated.
Why? Swift boats were deployed in UNITS, not on individual patrols like Apocalypse Now. I imagined the Coppola-fied version but that's not how Kerry operated.
Instead, the Swiftees were billeted at various naval bases, trained together and had multiboat patrol and combat missions. In other words, the Swift boats operated like aquatic fighter squadrons on Vietnamese rivers and along Vietnam's shores, much like aerial fighter patrols fly multiple planes together.
More from the Juicers:
Media Matters, the wholly owned subsidiarity of the DNC, funded by George Soros, has been quick to pass out the talking points:
Despite the ad's claim, members of the group did not serve with Senator John Kerry on his swift boat in Vietnam. Not only did the programs ignore that fact, but FOX News Channel hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes went so far as to call them Kerry's "fellow crewmates."
You see where this is going, don't you? They were not on the actual boat with Kerry, so therefore they have no idea who the man is or what he was like during the time in question. Except, of course, this defies reality. As I stated last night, you almost have to admire the brazenness and the audacity of those willing to make this statement, because it is so misleading and stupid that surely they must be afriad of being caught.
Go check out the Balloon Juice post (link in title to this post), very detailed; and check out QandO for pictures from Kerry's service time that show the boats on river patrol.
Inauspicious beginning
The Yanks got whacked last night in a game that starts them on a double-roadie with 16 of their next 19 on the road; nine of those against contending teams: Texas, Cleveland, Minnesota, and the three home dates are against the healed-up and improved Angels. And from the "now, matters are worse" category, Javy Vazquez's pinkeye flared up and the Yanks left him in NYC so that he won't pitch until at least the Twins series next week. Tonight, it's Tanyon Sturtze against a Rangers' rookie. Over/under on this one = 15 runs.
At least, the Yanks' recent spate of four-straight 8IP outings from starters, followed by two losses where they trailed all game means that QuanFlashMo has gotten some rest. Quantrill's pitched twice in the last six games -- low for him; Flash has pitched once and Mo has been on extended vacation. Good. Mo needs it and the Yanks need him to be his old self come September and October.
Who caught the movie reference above?
At least, the Yanks' recent spate of four-straight 8IP outings from starters, followed by two losses where they trailed all game means that QuanFlashMo has gotten some rest. Quantrill's pitched twice in the last six games -- low for him; Flash has pitched once and Mo has been on extended vacation. Good. Mo needs it and the Yanks need him to be his old self come September and October.
Who caught the movie reference above?
Al-Qaeda attack plan
Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reports that al-Qaeda plans to assassinate a major "U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad." Furthermore, the attack would signal "attacks to follow involv[ing] 'multiple targets in multiple venues' across the United States."
In addition, Gertz reports:
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports.
One main target for the al-Qaedans is oil refineries. US refineries are operating at nearly 90% capacity. No new refinery has been built in the US since the mid-1970s according to the Energy Information Administration, a Department of Energy sub-agency, and the only thing maintaining processing capacity has been "capacity creep" -- adding new refining capacity to existing refineries. Nonetheless, the EIA states that "[s]ince 1988, the United States has lost over 1.6 MMBD of capacity, which is about 10% of today’s total refining capacity." Refinery capacity stats are available here. Why the lack of new refineries? Environmental protests -- any new refinery proposal is guaranteed to be tied up in litigation for a decade on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act (there's always one in some proposed industrial area; two words: snail darter), Clean Water Act, etc. lawsuits
So some primary al-Qaeda targets are obvious and the impact of shutting down a refinery would be great. More importantly, certain refineries are the only ones to produce certain special gasoline formulations (i.e., for smoggy cities like Chicago and LA).
This is how al-Qaeda wants to damage this country and install ABB as president. The question is whether we will be unable to prevent that.
See also: Outside the Beltway for general comments;
Allahpundit for odds on who al-Qaeda wants to whack (although John Howard's not on his list, and Australia has an election coming up too).
In addition, Gertz reports:
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports.
One main target for the al-Qaedans is oil refineries. US refineries are operating at nearly 90% capacity. No new refinery has been built in the US since the mid-1970s according to the Energy Information Administration, a Department of Energy sub-agency, and the only thing maintaining processing capacity has been "capacity creep" -- adding new refining capacity to existing refineries. Nonetheless, the EIA states that "[s]ince 1988, the United States has lost over 1.6 MMBD of capacity, which is about 10% of today’s total refining capacity." Refinery capacity stats are available here. Why the lack of new refineries? Environmental protests -- any new refinery proposal is guaranteed to be tied up in litigation for a decade on NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act (there's always one in some proposed industrial area; two words: snail darter), Clean Water Act, etc. lawsuits
So some primary al-Qaeda targets are obvious and the impact of shutting down a refinery would be great. More importantly, certain refineries are the only ones to produce certain special gasoline formulations (i.e., for smoggy cities like Chicago and LA).
This is how al-Qaeda wants to damage this country and install ABB as president. The question is whether we will be unable to prevent that.
See also: Outside the Beltway for general comments;
Allahpundit for odds on who al-Qaeda wants to whack (although John Howard's not on his list, and Australia has an election coming up too).
Iran's nukes
This is why feckless negotiation with terrorists and members of the Axis of Evil is like negotiating with a rabid dog:
Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
* * *
Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.
The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.
Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology. They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.
Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest xfor "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.
The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.
More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.
In the face of Iran's belligerence, the utopians in the EU: "are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was 'extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process.'"
NO, you dopes, it's NOT SURPRISING AT ALL. Anyone with common sense and knowledge of both the type of regime Iran has and its publicly stated intentionsto both become a nuclear power and USE nuclear weapons against Israel knew that Iran would not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons dreams by negotiation with the EU.
The US allowed this charade to proceed to curry favor with the French and Germans, and to allow Britain to kiss up to those two after the UK supported the US in Iraq. France and Germany want to keep this issue from going to the UN Security Council (where the US wants to impose sanctions) because (1) France and Germany don't actually want to do anything that would damage their relations with Iran; (2) France and Germany want to "prove" that their negotiations work as well or better than US force; (3) France has too many business dealings with Iran to rattle the mullahs' cages. The US should do one of two things: tell Iran it had its chance, now face sanctions (which the French would probably veto) or do what's necessary to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Ultimately, only one option really remains: taking Iran's nuclear capacity offline by force.
Captain Ed notes how this relates to the US election on two counts:
European dithering will be the death of the West yet, if we allow it.
And remember which candidate has the fetish for European approval in the upcoming presidential election. Casting a vote for John Kerry is an endorsement of this fecklessness. He's made his insistence on Franco-German approval quite clear all campaign long.
Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
* * *
Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.
The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.
Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology. They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.
Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest xfor "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.
The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.
More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.
In the face of Iran's belligerence, the utopians in the EU: "are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was 'extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process.'"
NO, you dopes, it's NOT SURPRISING AT ALL. Anyone with common sense and knowledge of both the type of regime Iran has and its publicly stated intentionsto both become a nuclear power and USE nuclear weapons against Israel knew that Iran would not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons dreams by negotiation with the EU.
The US allowed this charade to proceed to curry favor with the French and Germans, and to allow Britain to kiss up to those two after the UK supported the US in Iraq. France and Germany want to keep this issue from going to the UN Security Council (where the US wants to impose sanctions) because (1) France and Germany don't actually want to do anything that would damage their relations with Iran; (2) France and Germany want to "prove" that their negotiations work as well or better than US force; (3) France has too many business dealings with Iran to rattle the mullahs' cages. The US should do one of two things: tell Iran it had its chance, now face sanctions (which the French would probably veto) or do what's necessary to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Ultimately, only one option really remains: taking Iran's nuclear capacity offline by force.
Captain Ed notes how this relates to the US election on two counts:
European dithering will be the death of the West yet, if we allow it.
And remember which candidate has the fetish for European approval in the upcoming presidential election. Casting a vote for John Kerry is an endorsement of this fecklessness. He's made his insistence on Franco-German approval quite clear all campaign long.
Alan Keyes quick comment
The Alan Keyes candidacy for Senate in Illinois is a ridiculous farce. The Illinois Republicans should be pilloried for the damage they've done to the party's waning credibility in that state (already declining thanks to dope Senator Peter Fitzgerald and the failure of Jack Ryan) by bringing in a carpetbagging combination of Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell wrapped inside the melanin-rich skin of Alan Keyes. The whole situation is stupid and has made Barack Obama look far better every day.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Claudia Rosett to UN: full disclosure NOW
Wall Street Journal reporter and syndicated columnist Claudia Rosett has been pursuing the Oil-for-Food scandal harder than the Congress, the UN or Paul Volcker.
The old saw is that sunlight is the best disinfectant: it means bringing the political and/or diplomatic processes to the light of day will help cleanse the worst of a given bill or some corruption from an organization. In other words, if the UN has nothing to hide, what is it hiding and why is it fighting so hard to hide its funny math? The answer is probably the one anyone sane suspects: French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arab, the UN and other businesses profited handsomely by selling goods to Saddam in exchange for Iraqi oil; UN officers like Benon Sevan made tons of money through these corrupt transactions and Saddam used the cash to maintain his power and pursue nuclear weapons or other WMDs.
The old saw is that sunlight is the best disinfectant: it means bringing the political and/or diplomatic processes to the light of day will help cleanse the worst of a given bill or some corruption from an organization. In other words, if the UN has nothing to hide, what is it hiding and why is it fighting so hard to hide its funny math? The answer is probably the one anyone sane suspects: French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arab, the UN and other businesses profited handsomely by selling goods to Saddam in exchange for Iraqi oil; UN officers like Benon Sevan made tons of money through these corrupt transactions and Saddam used the cash to maintain his power and pursue nuclear weapons or other WMDs.
Beware quotes that sound too good
The American Spectator is a far-right publication, not in the nuthouse of the Buchananites, but generally both more religious conservative than National Review and less interventionist than the Weekly Standard.
One of its features is the Washington Prowler -- an insider column that is akin to US News' Washington Whispers and a step down from Byron York's work for The Hill and NR. Making the rounds on the Right side of the Blogosphere is this quote from the Prowler column today:
According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.
* * *
The campaign source said that the book was not considered a "serious" problem for the campaign, because, "the media wouldn't have the nerve to come at us with this kind of stuff," says the source. "The senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing, and that the convention inoculated us from these kinds of stories. The senior guys really think we don't have a problem here.
Vodkapundit's Will Collier semi-bought it. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty did not, and his own Kerry source debunks the quote (scroll down to 8-10 at 3:56 pm):
I ran this past my guy at the Kerry campaign, who's been honest and reliable with me in the past, and he says this didn't happen. His words: "This smooth talking 'source' is clearly a fiction. Seems more like a conservative's paranoid conspiratorial central casting image of what Democrats must talk like about our Freudian [he means Faustian -- TKM] bargain with the media.
I'm with Geraghty, but the media's relationship with Kerry is so hand-in-glove that the quote is easily believable.
One of its features is the Washington Prowler -- an insider column that is akin to US News' Washington Whispers and a step down from Byron York's work for The Hill and NR. Making the rounds on the Right side of the Blogosphere is this quote from the Prowler column today:
According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.
* * *
The campaign source said that the book was not considered a "serious" problem for the campaign, because, "the media wouldn't have the nerve to come at us with this kind of stuff," says the source. "The senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing, and that the convention inoculated us from these kinds of stories. The senior guys really think we don't have a problem here.
Vodkapundit's Will Collier semi-bought it. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty did not, and his own Kerry source debunks the quote (scroll down to 8-10 at 3:56 pm):
I ran this past my guy at the Kerry campaign, who's been honest and reliable with me in the past, and he says this didn't happen. His words: "This smooth talking 'source' is clearly a fiction. Seems more like a conservative's paranoid conspiratorial central casting image of what Democrats must talk like about our Freudian [he means Faustian -- TKM] bargain with the media.
I'm with Geraghty, but the media's relationship with Kerry is so hand-in-glove that the quote is easily believable.
Chrenkoff
Arthur Chrenkoff is an Australian, which means he has lots of time on his hands (considering the Aussie work week compared to the American one), although it's less time than the French or Germans have and Chrenkoff has more initiative than Frenchmen and Germans.
Anyway, his site is a sight for sore ears and good news: semi-regular updates of Good News From Iraq and All in the same EU-Boat -- a rundown of headlines and local issues in the EU. Check him out.
Anyway, his site is a sight for sore ears and good news: semi-regular updates of Good News From Iraq and All in the same EU-Boat -- a rundown of headlines and local issues in the EU. Check him out.
Homeland security problem
Michelle Malkin takes no prisoners. Even though The Monk doesn't always agree with her, she definitely gets her point across and will back it up. Yesterday, she gave Norm Mineta a whipping in her syndicated column. What amazes The Monk is that a Cabinet Secretary with the damning nickname "underperformin' Norman" has survived nearly three years as a member of the Bush Cabinet in the aftermath of 9-11. Of all Cabinet secretaries who cannot be asleep at the switch, Mineta is near the top of the list, thanks to having the TSA and FAA under his rule.
Mineta is the Administration's most strident critic of racial profiling -- a criticism that prevents the TSA and FAA from using predictive factors to determine who could be a threat to a given flight: Arab male 21-35, ID is Saudi passport, or Catholic nun 55+ on visit from Ireland? Muslim male without baggage, approx. 31, or small female child, approx. 8 carrying teddy bear?
Mineta is the Administration's most strident critic of racial profiling -- a criticism that prevents the TSA and FAA from using predictive factors to determine who could be a threat to a given flight: Arab male 21-35, ID is Saudi passport, or Catholic nun 55+ on visit from Ireland? Muslim male without baggage, approx. 31, or small female child, approx. 8 carrying teddy bear?
Reference tool: Kerry's Cold War record
I've been banging my drum about Kerry's horrendous Cold War record and Joshua Muravchik has tied the whole thing up in a neat little package. Muravchik's views support my thesis that Kerry is the Manchurian Candidate of the peaceniks. Here's a lengthy excerpt (emphases mine), before the LA Times caches his editorial:
The Cold War [ ] provides our best measuring stick for estimating how Kerry might perform as commander in chief, and in that conflict Kerry's instincts were always awry. Had the country heeded his counsel, we might not yet have won it.
Many leaders had a hand in Washington's Cold War triumph, but Ronald Reagan's contributions were pivotal, and Kerry opposed every one of them. Reagan's defense buildup disabused Soviet leaders of any hope that they could ultimately come out ahead of the United States. Kerry derided these military expenditures as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat." In particular, Reagan's plan to seek a missile defense system against Soviet ICBMs and NATO's decision to station new missiles in Europe to counteract the new Soviet deployment there rendered futile the Kremlin's vast investment in nuclear supremacy. Instead of these measures, Kerry advocated that we adopt a one-sided "nuclear freeze."
Reagan also showed the Soviets that history was not necessarily on their side by ousting the erratic communist regime in Grenada and arming anti-communist guerrillas to challenge the leftist oligarchs of Nicaragua. Kerry condemned the U.S. action in Grenada as "a bully's show of force," and he opposed our support for guerrillas in Nicaragua as vociferously as anyone in the Senate, even traveling to Managua to try to cut a deal with Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega to thwart Reagan's policy.
* * *
Not only in the Cold War but also in other events that foreshadowed today's challenges, Kerry consistently got it wrong. In 1986, Reagan bombed Moammar Kadafi's residence when intelligence intercepts showed that the Libyan dictator was behind the terrorist bombing of a nightclub full of American soldiers in Germany. Kerry denounced the U.S. retaliatory strike as "not proportional." And when Saddam Hussein swallowed Kuwait in 1990, Kerry opposed using force to drive him out, calling instead for reliance on economic sanctions.
All in all, in his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry ranks as one of the five most dovish or liberal members on foreign policy if you tally up the key votes selected by the liberal advocacy group, Americans for Democratic Action. Is it any wonder that Kerry is seeking to focus voters' attention on his courage as a Navy officer rather than his judgment as a political leader?
Since 1972, when McGovern . . . made the Democrats the party of dovishness, only two Democrats have won the White House. Both of them, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, presented themselves as more hawkish than their Republican opponents . . . Once in office, each pursued softer foreign policies than the Republican he had defeated.
The Cold War [ ] provides our best measuring stick for estimating how Kerry might perform as commander in chief, and in that conflict Kerry's instincts were always awry. Had the country heeded his counsel, we might not yet have won it.
Many leaders had a hand in Washington's Cold War triumph, but Ronald Reagan's contributions were pivotal, and Kerry opposed every one of them. Reagan's defense buildup disabused Soviet leaders of any hope that they could ultimately come out ahead of the United States. Kerry derided these military expenditures as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat." In particular, Reagan's plan to seek a missile defense system against Soviet ICBMs and NATO's decision to station new missiles in Europe to counteract the new Soviet deployment there rendered futile the Kremlin's vast investment in nuclear supremacy. Instead of these measures, Kerry advocated that we adopt a one-sided "nuclear freeze."
Reagan also showed the Soviets that history was not necessarily on their side by ousting the erratic communist regime in Grenada and arming anti-communist guerrillas to challenge the leftist oligarchs of Nicaragua. Kerry condemned the U.S. action in Grenada as "a bully's show of force," and he opposed our support for guerrillas in Nicaragua as vociferously as anyone in the Senate, even traveling to Managua to try to cut a deal with Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega to thwart Reagan's policy.
* * *
Not only in the Cold War but also in other events that foreshadowed today's challenges, Kerry consistently got it wrong. In 1986, Reagan bombed Moammar Kadafi's residence when intelligence intercepts showed that the Libyan dictator was behind the terrorist bombing of a nightclub full of American soldiers in Germany. Kerry denounced the U.S. retaliatory strike as "not proportional." And when Saddam Hussein swallowed Kuwait in 1990, Kerry opposed using force to drive him out, calling instead for reliance on economic sanctions.
All in all, in his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry ranks as one of the five most dovish or liberal members on foreign policy if you tally up the key votes selected by the liberal advocacy group, Americans for Democratic Action. Is it any wonder that Kerry is seeking to focus voters' attention on his courage as a Navy officer rather than his judgment as a political leader?
Since 1972, when McGovern . . . made the Democrats the party of dovishness, only two Democrats have won the White House. Both of them, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, presented themselves as more hawkish than their Republican opponents . . . Once in office, each pursued softer foreign policies than the Republican he had defeated.
Kerry's Heroism
I'm not questioning John Kerry's heroism and I have consistently refused to do so. I question his reasons for joining the Navy, his truthfulness about certain incidents (Cambodia in '68) and everything he did upon his return. The link above is a defense of Kerry's heroism by a special forces member that Kerry saved while captaining a Swift boat. The Swiftees have doubted the accuracy of Jim Rassmann's story because Rassmann himself was out of commission during the firefight in question. You can check out Rassmann's account and see what you think, then check on Captain Ed's blog and read the Swiftees' letter (scroll down a bit)to the TV stations that Kerry threatened when the Swiftees' ad was released. The incident where Kerry saved Rassmann is the one for which Kerry received a Bronze Star and the injury that earned Kerry Purple Heart #3.
UPDATE: Captain Ed fisked the Rassmann piece and noted this statement by Mr. Rassmann: "This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat." The Cap'n blasts Rassmann by noting that the Swiftvets are made up of more than 200 men who DID serve in combat -- that's part of their raison d'etre (pardon the French) and part of their credibility because they know whereof they speak.
But there's a more pernicious undercurrent to Rassmann's statement: that military vets lack the mental capacity, integrity or intelligence to just say no if they believe their status as veterans and/or their experiences are being used for purposes that are contrary to their beliefs. Say that a non-vet like The Monk and a cadre of non-vet conservatives approach a group of honorably discharged vets who served in the same capacity as a presidential candidate. Say also that the non-vet cadre wants the vets to speak out against the presidential candidate's story, experience and actions. Each and every one of those vets approached can tell The Monk and his acolytes to bugger off if the vet does not agree with the purpose and reason for The Monk's use of their stories. Each Swiftee had that chance and MADE A CHOICE to denounce Kerry.
Moreover, Rassmann's claim are an offhand swipe at unidentified members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy because that's the group supposedly at the bottom of the Swiftees. That claim is demonstrably false: John O'Neill, head Swiftee and co-author of Unfit for Command, supported liberal cotton-candy candidate John EDWARDS.
UPDATE: Captain Ed fisked the Rassmann piece and noted this statement by Mr. Rassmann: "This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat." The Cap'n blasts Rassmann by noting that the Swiftvets are made up of more than 200 men who DID serve in combat -- that's part of their raison d'etre (pardon the French) and part of their credibility because they know whereof they speak.
But there's a more pernicious undercurrent to Rassmann's statement: that military vets lack the mental capacity, integrity or intelligence to just say no if they believe their status as veterans and/or their experiences are being used for purposes that are contrary to their beliefs. Say that a non-vet like The Monk and a cadre of non-vet conservatives approach a group of honorably discharged vets who served in the same capacity as a presidential candidate. Say also that the non-vet cadre wants the vets to speak out against the presidential candidate's story, experience and actions. Each and every one of those vets approached can tell The Monk and his acolytes to bugger off if the vet does not agree with the purpose and reason for The Monk's use of their stories. Each Swiftee had that chance and MADE A CHOICE to denounce Kerry.
Moreover, Rassmann's claim are an offhand swipe at unidentified members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy because that's the group supposedly at the bottom of the Swiftees. That claim is demonstrably false: John O'Neill, head Swiftee and co-author of Unfit for Command, supported liberal cotton-candy candidate John EDWARDS.
John Kerry: ME TOO! (updated)
President Bush called him out this weekend: knowing what you know now, would Kerry have attacked Iraq? Bush noted that he had long been on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was the right decision at the time and was the right decision even in light of events.
Today, John Kerry responded "me too." Sort of. Kerry said knowing what he knows now he would have voted for the authority for the president to go to war -- the same authority that he voted for in 2002. Big deal. Kerry also claims he would have used that authority "effectively." Somehow winning a war in a matter of months with one of the most stunningly effective battle plans in military history, obtaining a 30+ nation coalition to help, dethroning a Stalinist dictator and bringing freedom to 22 million Iraqis is not using that authority effectively.
Kerry's "me too" reaction is the same one that Kerry had when Bush sought Congressional support for a resolution in favor of military force against Iraq. It's also the same "me too" reaction that Kerry initially had when Bush requested $87,000,000. Then Kerry voted against the funding, and he later slammed Bush for leading us into war on pretenses and lies -- the same war that Kerry would have led us into in the first place!
Dizzy yet?
So Kerry is essentially saying: Bush is not credible and he's a poor leader because he did exactly what I would have done in the same situation and exactly what I did do until I decided not to approve $87,000,000 that would help pay for body armor for our troops.
Only Kerry says he would have had a better plan for the peace and would have gotten allies involved (i.e., allies unlike the British, Aussies, Poles, Italians, etc.). Whatever.
Neither Roosevelt nor Wilson had a "plan for the peace" when they went to war because it is nearly impossible to do so. The victor does not know how much damage it will have to inflict before the vanquished foe relents. The facts of each situation change too rapidly for a "plan for the peace" to be a detailed step-by-step process that can be followed to the letter. That's what Kerry implies he would have had -- a point-by-point program that would have been implemented (that plan is secret, of course, because Kerry never had one to begin with -- he's just relying on general dissatisfaction such that voters will believe his assurances). That concept is garbage -- reality intrudes on those best-laid plans and requires the victorious combatant to be flexible, responsive and attentive to its overarching goals. Despite the relentless carping in the press, the reconstruction of Iraq is going well and that country is FAR ahead of post-war Germany and Japan in both infrastructure and the establishment of an effective governmental apparatus.
As Stephen Green notes:
Nobody ever knows what the peace will look like . . . Even as late as Appomattox, who could have predicted the KKK, Jim Crow, or Radical Reconstruction? No statesmen in 1914 knew that the war they were about to unleash would result in 20 million deaths, Russian Communism, or Nazi Germany. World War II? If you can find me the words of some prophet detailing, in 1940, the UN, the Cold War, or even the complete assimilation of western Germany into Western Europe. . . then I'll print this essay on some very heavy paper, and eat it. With aluminum foil as a garnish.
Simply stated, Kerry is playing to the moderate pro-war voters who doubt Bush's plan for democratic Iraq because Kerry believes he has the left-wing Anybody But Bush crowd in his pocket (so he can safely proclaim his own martial option). Thus, he is pandering to those who think Bush has botched the peace. Kerry's current plan for Iraq reconstruction consists of three steps:
1. Increase international involvement
2. Appoint a "high commissioner" to work with Iraq
3. Convert security forces from American to Iraqi
As I've already noted, the first won't happen because the French and Germans aren't playing ball with the US anyway and the US already has achieved the UN's imprimatur for the occupation. The second is ridiculous, we're beyond the high commissioner stage and into Iraqi sovereignty -- that's leadership, Sen. Kerry, propose a huge step back. Finally, the third point has been in process for months as NATO has trained Iraqi security details.
When all is said and done, Kerry has no ideas other than suck up to the French and to point out that he's not George Bush. Bush's popularity is not so low that merely being not-George-Bush is a winning strategy. And the reality is that being not-George-Bush is not perceived as a good thing anywhere near to the extent that Kerry believes it will be.
Submitted to Beltway Traffic Jam.
Today, John Kerry responded "me too." Sort of. Kerry said knowing what he knows now he would have voted for the authority for the president to go to war -- the same authority that he voted for in 2002. Big deal. Kerry also claims he would have used that authority "effectively." Somehow winning a war in a matter of months with one of the most stunningly effective battle plans in military history, obtaining a 30+ nation coalition to help, dethroning a Stalinist dictator and bringing freedom to 22 million Iraqis is not using that authority effectively.
Kerry's "me too" reaction is the same one that Kerry had when Bush sought Congressional support for a resolution in favor of military force against Iraq. It's also the same "me too" reaction that Kerry initially had when Bush requested $87,000,000. Then Kerry voted against the funding, and he later slammed Bush for leading us into war on pretenses and lies -- the same war that Kerry would have led us into in the first place!
Dizzy yet?
So Kerry is essentially saying: Bush is not credible and he's a poor leader because he did exactly what I would have done in the same situation and exactly what I did do until I decided not to approve $87,000,000 that would help pay for body armor for our troops.
Only Kerry says he would have had a better plan for the peace and would have gotten allies involved (i.e., allies unlike the British, Aussies, Poles, Italians, etc.). Whatever.
Neither Roosevelt nor Wilson had a "plan for the peace" when they went to war because it is nearly impossible to do so. The victor does not know how much damage it will have to inflict before the vanquished foe relents. The facts of each situation change too rapidly for a "plan for the peace" to be a detailed step-by-step process that can be followed to the letter. That's what Kerry implies he would have had -- a point-by-point program that would have been implemented (that plan is secret, of course, because Kerry never had one to begin with -- he's just relying on general dissatisfaction such that voters will believe his assurances). That concept is garbage -- reality intrudes on those best-laid plans and requires the victorious combatant to be flexible, responsive and attentive to its overarching goals. Despite the relentless carping in the press, the reconstruction of Iraq is going well and that country is FAR ahead of post-war Germany and Japan in both infrastructure and the establishment of an effective governmental apparatus.
As Stephen Green notes:
Nobody ever knows what the peace will look like . . . Even as late as Appomattox, who could have predicted the KKK, Jim Crow, or Radical Reconstruction? No statesmen in 1914 knew that the war they were about to unleash would result in 20 million deaths, Russian Communism, or Nazi Germany. World War II? If you can find me the words of some prophet detailing, in 1940, the UN, the Cold War, or even the complete assimilation of western Germany into Western Europe. . . then I'll print this essay on some very heavy paper, and eat it. With aluminum foil as a garnish.
Simply stated, Kerry is playing to the moderate pro-war voters who doubt Bush's plan for democratic Iraq because Kerry believes he has the left-wing Anybody But Bush crowd in his pocket (so he can safely proclaim his own martial option). Thus, he is pandering to those who think Bush has botched the peace. Kerry's current plan for Iraq reconstruction consists of three steps:
1. Increase international involvement
2. Appoint a "high commissioner" to work with Iraq
3. Convert security forces from American to Iraqi
As I've already noted, the first won't happen because the French and Germans aren't playing ball with the US anyway and the US already has achieved the UN's imprimatur for the occupation. The second is ridiculous, we're beyond the high commissioner stage and into Iraqi sovereignty -- that's leadership, Sen. Kerry, propose a huge step back. Finally, the third point has been in process for months as NATO has trained Iraqi security details.
When all is said and done, Kerry has no ideas other than suck up to the French and to point out that he's not George Bush. Bush's popularity is not so low that merely being not-George-Bush is a winning strategy. And the reality is that being not-George-Bush is not perceived as a good thing anywhere near to the extent that Kerry believes it will be.
Submitted to Beltway Traffic Jam.
Not dumb at all
In January, the UPI published this under-covered nugget: an article on George W. Bush's Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. The President scored a 1206 (when he took it, the SAT didn't score by ten-point increments). Under today's scoring system, that equates to a 1280. Under the scoring system when The Monk took his SAT in 1987, that's about a 1230-1250 (the SAT curved its scores upward in the mid-1990s).
A 1280 puts the President squarely in the top 10% of test-takers, and then some. And some experts who understand IQ testing said this:
Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.
Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."
Of course this was under-reported in the press: the vast majority of pundits and journos (who think they're so smart and the President is a dope) did not score anywhere NEAR 1200+ on the SAT. Your faithful blogger did, however, outscore both the President and his previous rival, Al Gore (1355), therefore The Monk can ridicule the press with great ease of mind.
A 1280 puts the President squarely in the top 10% of test-takers, and then some. And some experts who understand IQ testing said this:
Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.
Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."
Of course this was under-reported in the press: the vast majority of pundits and journos (who think they're so smart and the President is a dope) did not score anywhere NEAR 1200+ on the SAT. Your faithful blogger did, however, outscore both the President and his previous rival, Al Gore (1355), therefore The Monk can ridicule the press with great ease of mind.
Welcome Right Wing News fans
For those of you who don't know him, John Hawkins is the founder and creator of Right Wing News (see link at left) -- a website he founded three years ago that has grown exponentially. Today he has a great "cartoon" (in quotes b/c it looks like a 1950s movie poster) that blasts John Kerry in the same way The Monk has been banging away at the Senator's weak record. Check it out.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Fundamentally dishonest
Captain Ed adds to his dissection of Kerry's Cambodia Xmas story. Ultimately, this whole story is fundamentally dishonest in ways that cut to the core of who John Kerry is and what he is about. If the underlying core "facts" that are the basis for Kerry's politics are false, what does that say about Kerry's politics and candidacy? I've said that Kerry is a Manchurian Candidate of the anti-war Left, but he's more than that. His Vietnam "story" is the basis of his whole worldview as a politician. His immediate post-Vietnam actions were anti-war, anti-military, anti-veteran and anti-anti-Communist; his initial Senate record is pro-Communist (Latin America policy), pro-peacenik (nuclear freeze) and anti-Reagan. Each and every one of those positions is fundamentally anti-American/blame America first and in favor of weakening America's standing in the world. Ultimately, Kerry is not only the Manchurian Candidate of the anti-war Left, but he is also the Manchurian Candidate of the anti-America Left.
Here's the Captain's take on the fundamental flaws in Kerry's story:
Now that more of the record has come out and his band of brothers has decided to give testimony to Kerry's actual experience, Kerry appears to be backtracking back to Vietnam on Christmas Eve, saying that he was "near" the border, but that won't help a bit. His entire narrative has been exposed as a house of cards built on a lie, and not just any old lie, either. The illegal incursions into Cambodia energized the anti-war movement, and claiming (falsely) to have participated in them would have given Kerry tremendous credibility to those activists, as well as to the Senators in 1971.
He stole the story to puff himself up in 1971. He kept repeating the story, even on the floor of the Senate, in order to puff up his credibility there as well, this time on Nicaragua -- where his unerring instinct for picking the losing side showed again. And now we see that in the bout for credibility, the 200+ band of Swiftvets has beaten the narcissist by a knockout.
After having retracted his three-decade-old story, what other lies has Kerry told about Viet Nam? Lies about his Purple Hearts? Lies about his Bronze Star? Lies about American atrocities so widespread that all units and the entire leadership took part in them?
The Swiftvets deserve their day of reckoning with John Kerry, and we deserve to see his complete military records, just as Terry McAuliffe and Kerry himself demanded -- and got -- from George Bush, who wasn't making his military service the centerpiece of his campaign. Call Kerry's campaign headquarters and demand that he release the records!
Here's the Captain's take on the fundamental flaws in Kerry's story:
Now that more of the record has come out and his band of brothers has decided to give testimony to Kerry's actual experience, Kerry appears to be backtracking back to Vietnam on Christmas Eve, saying that he was "near" the border, but that won't help a bit. His entire narrative has been exposed as a house of cards built on a lie, and not just any old lie, either. The illegal incursions into Cambodia energized the anti-war movement, and claiming (falsely) to have participated in them would have given Kerry tremendous credibility to those activists, as well as to the Senators in 1971.
He stole the story to puff himself up in 1971. He kept repeating the story, even on the floor of the Senate, in order to puff up his credibility there as well, this time on Nicaragua -- where his unerring instinct for picking the losing side showed again. And now we see that in the bout for credibility, the 200+ band of Swiftvets has beaten the narcissist by a knockout.
After having retracted his three-decade-old story, what other lies has Kerry told about Viet Nam? Lies about his Purple Hearts? Lies about his Bronze Star? Lies about American atrocities so widespread that all units and the entire leadership took part in them?
The Swiftvets deserve their day of reckoning with John Kerry, and we deserve to see his complete military records, just as Terry McAuliffe and Kerry himself demanded -- and got -- from George Bush, who wasn't making his military service the centerpiece of his campaign. Call Kerry's campaign headquarters and demand that he release the records!
Heinous
Time and again, columnists and politicians in Israel have asserted that to the Europeans, the only Jew worthy of any treatment more favorable than thinly veiled scorn is a Jew who died in the Holocaust. This assertion is backed up by referring to the change in European attitudes from vaguely pro-Israel in the state's early years to anti-Israel after its huge defeat of Egypt and Syria in the Six-Day War to pro-Palestinian from the 1975 Zionism is Racism resolution at the UN to the present.
Before World War II, the worst anti-Semitism was usually found in the Baltic states (and still is to a large degree in Ukraine and Lithuania) and even much of Eastern Europe. After the war, when much of the reckoning of the Final Solution became clear, even the Eastern Euros were chastened. After the fall of the USSR, the worst anti-Semitism became generally a feature of post-modern Catholic Europe: Spain, Portugal, Italy, and especially FRANCE.
Thus, the incident in the report linked above disgusts me. If it had happened in The Monk's presence, there would have been much harm to certain Frenchmen:
While on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland on Sunday, a group of around 50 Jewish university students from Israel, the U.S. and Poland were verbally attacked by a three-member gang of French male tourists.
[Seeing] an Israeli flag wrapped around the shoulders of Tamar Schuri, an Israeli student from Ben Gurion University, the first assailant ran at the group while its members were being guided through a model gas chamber and crematoria and began swearing and hurling anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli insults.
"He told us to go back to Israel and said that we were stupid and should be ashamed to walk around with an Israeli flag," testifies Maya Ober, a 21-year-old Polish student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Poznan and member of the Polish Union of Jewish Students (PUSZ), which organized the 16-day summer learning program along with the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS).
After the initial altercation, a second assailant
grabbed Ober by the arm. "One of the guys held me by the arm and wouldn't let go," says Ober, who lost several members of her family at Auschwitz. "I was afraid. I couldn't move and I didn't know what he was going to do.
"I was shocked. Although I have met anti-Semitism many times, I never expected to meet it at Auschwitz, where so many of my relatives were killed," she says she spoke to the assailants in French and that in addition to being "brutish and vulgar," their sentiments "made absolutely no sense."
* * *
[Laurence] Weinbaum [Director of Research at the World Jewish
Congress], who has been to Poland more than 30 times on educational tours, says he never before saw anything like what happened, happen. "It was simply shocking," he says. "In some way, I felt that these men were satisfied to visit Auschwitz. This was another reminder that in Western Europe there is sympathy for dead Jews; it's just the live ones that they cannot tolerate."
"This event shocked me," adds 24-year-old tour
participant Yigael Ben-Natan from Zichron Yaacov, a recent graduate from the University of Haifa. "But, it bought into focus a small part of what it's like to be a Jew in the Diaspora today and a little bit about what it was like to be a Jew in the Diaspora during the Holocaust. . ."
See also: Allahpundit.
Before World War II, the worst anti-Semitism was usually found in the Baltic states (and still is to a large degree in Ukraine and Lithuania) and even much of Eastern Europe. After the war, when much of the reckoning of the Final Solution became clear, even the Eastern Euros were chastened. After the fall of the USSR, the worst anti-Semitism became generally a feature of post-modern Catholic Europe: Spain, Portugal, Italy, and especially FRANCE.
Thus, the incident in the report linked above disgusts me. If it had happened in The Monk's presence, there would have been much harm to certain Frenchmen:
While on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland on Sunday, a group of around 50 Jewish university students from Israel, the U.S. and Poland were verbally attacked by a three-member gang of French male tourists.
[Seeing] an Israeli flag wrapped around the shoulders of Tamar Schuri, an Israeli student from Ben Gurion University, the first assailant ran at the group while its members were being guided through a model gas chamber and crematoria and began swearing and hurling anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli insults.
"He told us to go back to Israel and said that we were stupid and should be ashamed to walk around with an Israeli flag," testifies Maya Ober, a 21-year-old Polish student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Poznan and member of the Polish Union of Jewish Students (PUSZ), which organized the 16-day summer learning program along with the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS).
After the initial altercation, a second assailant
grabbed Ober by the arm. "One of the guys held me by the arm and wouldn't let go," says Ober, who lost several members of her family at Auschwitz. "I was afraid. I couldn't move and I didn't know what he was going to do.
"I was shocked. Although I have met anti-Semitism many times, I never expected to meet it at Auschwitz, where so many of my relatives were killed," she says she spoke to the assailants in French and that in addition to being "brutish and vulgar," their sentiments "made absolutely no sense."
* * *
[Laurence] Weinbaum [Director of Research at the World Jewish
Congress], who has been to Poland more than 30 times on educational tours, says he never before saw anything like what happened, happen. "It was simply shocking," he says. "In some way, I felt that these men were satisfied to visit Auschwitz. This was another reminder that in Western Europe there is sympathy for dead Jews; it's just the live ones that they cannot tolerate."
"This event shocked me," adds 24-year-old tour
participant Yigael Ben-Natan from Zichron Yaacov, a recent graduate from the University of Haifa. "But, it bought into focus a small part of what it's like to be a Jew in the Diaspora today and a little bit about what it was like to be a Jew in the Diaspora during the Holocaust. . ."
See also: Allahpundit.
Can't negotiate with Axis of Evil
The simple fact is that neither Iran nor North Korea will give up their nuclear ambitions (or realities, in the likely case of NoKor) simply because the West wants to play nice. Iran's worldview is diametrically opposed to the democracy and freedom enjoyed in the west and nuclear weapons make Iran a major regional and international power in a way that its oil reserves never could. North Korea's worldview is pathologically insane and the nuclear weapons enable it to remain an island of stagnation within the larger area of Asian economic and social progress. Nukes allow Kimland to stay separate from the world while simultaneously allowing it to threaten, cajol, and browbeat South Korea into more concessions and more "openness."
Here is a quote from the NY Times article (link above) that crystallizes the situation:
[A former Bush administration] official noted that Mr. Bush and his aides had been talking as if North Korea and Iran would follow the model of Libya, which disarmed earlier this year in an effort to re-integrate its economy with the West. But, the official argued, Iran does not need to do that because it has robust trade with Europe, and North Korea still receives considerable aid from China.
Proof of the failures are in David Sanger's article in the NY Times and Condoleeza Rice's statement on Meet the Press that the US will not allow Iran to go on-line with nuclear weapons.
Hat-tip: QandO
Here is a quote from the NY Times article (link above) that crystallizes the situation:
[A former Bush administration] official noted that Mr. Bush and his aides had been talking as if North Korea and Iran would follow the model of Libya, which disarmed earlier this year in an effort to re-integrate its economy with the West. But, the official argued, Iran does not need to do that because it has robust trade with Europe, and North Korea still receives considerable aid from China.
Proof of the failures are in David Sanger's article in the NY Times and Condoleeza Rice's statement on Meet the Press that the US will not allow Iran to go on-line with nuclear weapons.
Hat-tip: QandO
Kerry withdrawal plan fisking
Dr. Joyner is supporting and echoing other anti-Kerry bloggers with this conclusion about Kerry's Iraq plan:
With all due respect, Senator, it isn't a plan. It's a series of platitudes basically saying nothing more than "We're going to do exactly what the Bush Administration has been doing but it's going to somehow work when we do it."
Dr. Joyner's entry is a nice fisking of Kerry's op-ed piece in today's USA Today.
See also here for my previous comments and Capt. Ed's take.
And wait, there's more! William Kristol of the Weekly Standard discusses how Kerry's peace protestor ethos informs his approach to the war on terror.
With all due respect, Senator, it isn't a plan. It's a series of platitudes basically saying nothing more than "We're going to do exactly what the Bush Administration has been doing but it's going to somehow work when we do it."
Dr. Joyner's entry is a nice fisking of Kerry's op-ed piece in today's USA Today.
See also here for my previous comments and Capt. Ed's take.
And wait, there's more! William Kristol of the Weekly Standard discusses how Kerry's peace protestor ethos informs his approach to the war on terror.
Sadr -- be careful what you wish for
Muqtada al-Sadr says he won't leave Najaf until the last day of his life and will fight to the death. The Monk says that he should get his wish and hopes that the US/Iraqi forces will cap him quickly. Even better, the governor of Najaf has given the US and Iraqi forces political cover by saying that they can go into the "holy city" and get al-Sadr.
Xmas in Cambodia
Captain Ed has been banging away at John Kerry's claim that he spent Xmas 1968 in Cambodia. Evidently this is false on a number of fronts and Kerry has milked it for political gain.
First, how Kerry milked it: he claimed that he was commanding a Swift boat in Cambodian waters during Xmas 1968. He also claimed that he became disillusioned with the war then because President NIXON claimed AT THAT TIME that there were no American servicemen in Cambodia. Problem: the President in 1968 was Lyndon Baines Johnson. Thus, Kerry is using the Nixon boogeyman to rally his leftist dopes.
Second, as Capt. Ed has shown in this entry, Kerry's main media hagiographer described how Kerry's attack into Cambodia actually violated orders and had Kerry worried about a court-martial. But although the BoGlo story Capt. Ed quotes says that Kerry fired off a sarcastic note to his superiors, he also never wrote any after-action reports backing up his statements.
There's much more, and most of it related to the Swiftees' accounts vs. Kerry's accounts of the time. Most notably, half of Kerry's crew in that Swift boat denies that they were in Cambodia in December 1968.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are preparing to attack the Swiftees.
First, how Kerry milked it: he claimed that he was commanding a Swift boat in Cambodian waters during Xmas 1968. He also claimed that he became disillusioned with the war then because President NIXON claimed AT THAT TIME that there were no American servicemen in Cambodia. Problem: the President in 1968 was Lyndon Baines Johnson. Thus, Kerry is using the Nixon boogeyman to rally his leftist dopes.
Second, as Capt. Ed has shown in this entry, Kerry's main media hagiographer described how Kerry's attack into Cambodia actually violated orders and had Kerry worried about a court-martial. But although the BoGlo story Capt. Ed quotes says that Kerry fired off a sarcastic note to his superiors, he also never wrote any after-action reports backing up his statements.
There's much more, and most of it related to the Swiftees' accounts vs. Kerry's accounts of the time. Most notably, half of Kerry's crew in that Swift boat denies that they were in Cambodia in December 1968.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are preparing to attack the Swiftees.
Get well soon
A hopeful good wish to Monkette2B's momma. The Monkette2B is going to Idaho this week to get her momma's house in order because her ma is having an operation next Monday and the recovery period will be long and require extensive bed-rest and therapy. Monkette2B's momma isn't in the best of health to begin with (she's not even 60 and seems older than MaMonk even though MaMonk is more than 10 years older), so Monkette2B will be spending some time with her and doing fun stuff before the not-fun procedures begin.
Get well soon, Monkette2B's momma.
Get well soon, Monkette2B's momma.
Does this happen at your kids' school?
Neal Boortz apparently runs this column every year in some form: how teachers in public schools seize students' school supplies and redistribute them on the basis of need to the kids in the same class.
Very disturbing example of communism in the schools. Yuck.
More details on Boortz's own site too, just go to my link and scroll down.
Very disturbing example of communism in the schools. Yuck.
More details on Boortz's own site too, just go to my link and scroll down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)