« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
Clear Thinking On The Torture Issue
Jonah Goldberg at The Corner has posted a well-reasoned email on the torture issue. The author emphasizes some points that are personal favorites, and he makes several more observations that hadn't occurred to me. Any emphases are mine.
I am opposed to torture under all circumstances, and there should be laws against it. Those who break them, should be punished. As a former Army Counterintelligence Agent, I conducted battlefield interrogations of enemy prisoners of war as well as strategic debriefings of higher value targets, and I've served in bad places where bad things will happen if you don't get the information.
On more than one occasion, I had discussions with some of our operators regarding the obtaining of information in the ticking bomb scenario. Our discussion ran along the lines of "It's against the law. It's against the UCMJ. We'd go to jail. But if we knew the bomb was ticking, and this guy had the information that could save dozens or hundreds or more people, or if the team (the operators and the unit) were going to be wiped out if we didn't get it, I'd whip out a hatchet and an entrenching tool and go to work on him."
We were comfortable with this fairly horrible ambiguity and the bad consequences that would accompany it only because the military ethos was to sacrifice ourselves for others, and the notion of incurring legal jeopardy to save others struck us as a righteous cause, but it had to be predicated on the necessity of the ticking bomb. We did not want torture legalized. We did not want a guide book. We were fine with the notion we'd be punished had we ever used it - we never got into the neighborhood, much less seriously considering using it on anybody, BTW, we were just prepared to do what we had to do because it occurred to use that we could be in that position. There are some things that are too horrible to give a moral and legal imprimatur to, and torture is one of them, just as the law doesn't permit cannibalism but won't convict shipwrecked sailors and air crashed rugby players for engaging in it. We know these taboo and downright wrong practices sometimes rear their heads for good reason, but they are animalistic behaviors that come from a bestial place in the human soul, and no civilized society can long withstand a handshake deal with such beasts. Better to keep them caged.
The real problem with the current debate is the defining of torture downwards.
Exactly. As with so many of our political debates these days the terms of the argument are never clarified, which pretty much makes the ensuing discussion useless.
What exactly do we mean when we refer to "torture"? Clearly electric shocks and rubber hose beatings count as torture; but what about keeping someone's cell at 55 degrees? Or scaring the bejeesus out of the prisoner--even if only verbally?
The definition problem presents a very useful Trojan horse for the Left to continue their attack against our national interests and culture. It's a very easy jump from advocating a ban on torture (the undisputed kind, which is already long illegal) to trying to ban coercive methods which are allowed under international law (law which the Western democracies have always adhered to more than say, the Warsaw Pact--as the emailer points out). Coercive methods that might yield information that would prevent the deaths of many innocent people.
A truly balanced and intellectually honest media could do so much to help sort out this debate. Alas.
Posted at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)Malkin Knows Who's Angry (And It's Not Conservatives)
It's very likely that anyone who winds up here in Flippery Fish land will have already checked in with Michelle Malkin. But I just have to highlight this article of hers, if for no other reason than principle's sake. It's just too damned spot on.
Janeane Garofalo, left-wing actress-turned-Air America radio host, is a miserable woman. Last week before the holidays, she turned up on cable TV. No, not to count her blessings -- but to rant against conservative journalist Bob Novak, author Ann Coulter, and the Fox News Channel.[...]
Accessorized by a permanent scowl (hard to believe she was once considered a comedienne), Ms. Garofalo accused conservatives of having "an anger management problem." Without a trace of irony, the frowning Garofalo griped about "right-wing partisan hacks" who "are always on the verge of punching somebody or always behave as if they've just been cut off in traffic."
This, dear readers, is a classic case of liberal projection. [...] Ms. Garofalo crossly blames the Right while denying the pathological wrath and fury that characterize the unhinged Left.
Who are you calling angry, Ms. Garofalo? [...]
It isn't out-of-control conservatives tossing Molotov cocktails at police officers in San Francisco, burning American soldiers in effigy, and smearing pig's blood and feces on the walls and windows of military recruitment centers across the country to protest on behalf of peace.
It isn't rage-blinded conservative professors who embrace fragging (the murder of American soldiers by their fellow soldiers on the battlefield) as a legitimate anti-war tactic.
It isn't vengeful conservatives torching SUVs, condo developments, and research facilities, and targeting biotech and pharmaceutical company employees and their families to protest on behalf of the environment. [...]
My Christmas wish for Ms. Garofalo and her ilk: a mirror and a clue to make the yuletide bright. In the meantime, when vein-popping liberals start seething about the rage of the Right, the wisest action for peaceful right-wingers I can recommend is this:
Duck.
I've edited this for length a little, but I can't say I've taken the best bits--the entire piece is a best bit. And as a bonus check out her inclusion of the charming Democratic Underground post in which an "unapologetic" writer wishes for conservatives to do him favor and kill themselves.
Maybe the end to this irrationality will come when the Left's emotional rage finally reaches a tipping point and begins to intrude into the consciousness of the silent centrists--the people who don't read Michelle Malkin or LGF or The Corner. I've always thought Joe McCarthy has been one of the best friends the Left ever had because they have been able to invoke his name like a cudgel to ward off legitimate criticism. Although the same kind of advantage doesn't exist for conservatives, the rage-besotted extremists that control the Democratic party will have to be confronted, just like McCarthy was.
This is certainly one of the best pieces I've read this year.
Posted at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 29, 2005
Urban Myths Of The Iraq War
The American Enterprise Online busts some of the urban myths planted by the Left about the Iraq war. It's a repost from last year's election cycle, but it's still well worth reading (via Solomonia). A couple of my favorites:
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”
Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”
Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”
The truth always bears repeating, but it will do no good to those on the Left whose emotional well-being is invested in denying the obvious. The indispensable Dr. Sanity has a perfectly-timed post up on the process of denial and how it applies to avoiding uncomfortable truths:
Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.
The post is long, but it really is a must read--the more we understand about the bases of the Left's irrational motivations the better.
Posted at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)The 2005 BadBlog Awards
Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is accepting nominations for her inaugural 2005 BadBlog Awards (hat tip: Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse). Some sample categories:
- Most self-worshipping blogger
- Blogger who takes him/herself MUCH too seriously
- Worst Post of the Year
- Worst Right-wing Blog
- Worst Left-wing Blog
Heh. The comments on Beth's post get pretty interesting. It's hard to get a sense of how one's own blog comes across to strangers--it's a little like seeing yourself on video for the first time.
Both Beth and Rick note that the real Weblog Awards is a good thing, and I agree. But it's interesting that, even with a brand new medium like the blogosphere with it's anti-hierarchical infinitely distributed structure, we still crave validation and attention.
Ack--anti-hierarchical infinitely distributed structure? If I keep that up I may wind up nominated.
Posted at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 28, 2005
Tammy Bruce On The Psychology Of The Left
Over at Right Wing News John Hawkins interviews Tammy Bruce (hat tip: Italics Mine). Tammy proceeds to climb inside my brain and mirror my thinking on the psychological motivations of the Left:
Tammy Bruce:[...] I think, in actually coming from the left, (that the left is) a religion unto its self if you will. It is really the ultimate entity that looks for converts and then heretics. It is a dynamic where a complete submersion into the left, void of self, and erasure of the individual is required.
What I’ve found coming in from the left [is that] you can really only come to conclusions about individualism from the right. The left requires so much conformity and there is so much pressure and threat to not dissent that the idea of the individual almost cannot exist. It is like the epitome of a cult if you will.
On the right, on the other hand, you’re looking at a (different) framework because it’s based in the expectation of personal responsibility....It really is a much more conducive arena for a level of individualism that really harkens back, if you will, to the foundation of this nation and what makes us great.
John Hawkins: In the book, you said: "The feminist establishment wanted people to be like stupid, submissive, noisy parrots." You pretty much confirmed that just now. Conservatives can be individuals; the left can’t. Why can’t you be an individual on the left?
Tammy Bruce: Well, it is as the left has done and has shown us historically; it is a basis of an existence of collectivism. That is what all of the energy is put into. It requires massive numbers of people to march lock-step within a certain framework for a certain goal.[...]
John Hawkins: Is that what you mean when in the book you said, "I spent the whole of my activist career compromising myself, my individuality, and my sense of right and wrong in order to belong."
Tammy Bruce: Yeah, and my experience is not unique. Ultimately what you have is the left appealing to people who have had difficulties or sometimes victimhood in their (youth), and telling those people that it is their empowerment, and then maintaining those people in that victimized framework.
The biggest threat, of course, on the left, ...is the threat that if you do not compromise, if you do not conform, if you are too much of a lone wolf or an individualist, you’re going to be shunned, and...when you’re looking for family, as I did for years -- that becomes a very potent threat.
John Hawkins: Now at one point in the book you said something related to that. You said victimhood is the cornerstone of the identity of many liberals and for that reason, it's very difficult for many of them to give it up. Why do you say that?
Tammy Bruce: ...With an identity that’s based in victimhood, if you find either that you’re not a victim or you find personal independence and power, it literally becomes a threat. (If) your identity (is) based in victimhood (and) that is removed, it literally strikes at the core of the identity of that person.
This has long been my private theory about the motivations of the Left: it is quasi-religious, based on faith, substantiated by personal victimhood, and intolerant of dissent. Logic, reason and individuality are suppressed because they are death to the collective dogma; and those individuals that leave the cult are subject to unimaginable vilification.
Bruce is dead on target when she observes that--since Leftist beliefs are in reality a religion, i.e. based on faith alone--the reason it is so hard to renounce Leftist political beliefs is that it requires a reordering of one's very sense of self, one's own personal sense of identity. That's why is so useless to try and debate a Leftist--the revelations required to change his or her mind must come from within.
Tammy Bruce has that admirable quality of being able to speak extemporaneously, not in complete sentences, but in complete paragraphs. And her prior experience in the Leftist camp gives her a special kind of authority.
Posted at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)French Intifada: Don't Believe The Pictures
In her piece today about our traditional American images of Paris versus those of the recent riots, Diana West has perhaps uncovered a learning moment for the French:
Maybe the best comment on the French Intifada came from French Tourism Minister Leon Bertrand: "You get the impression that France is awash with flames and blood, which is not at all the case," he said. "You cannot deny the images, but there are images and images."
Gee, M. Bertrand--that statement might very well apply to Iraq as well. In fact, if events proceed at their current rate I wonder if Iraq might soon have a more dynamic and representative government than France.
Nahhh....
Posted at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)The Bare Bones Of The Argument
Every time I hear a spittle-flecked rant about "Bushhitler and his illegal, immoral war" I ask myself, "Does this person really think that Iraq was better off under Saddam?" Of course the question is rhetorical, even if unspoken--hating Bush is an end in itself.
Patrick Hynes at Right Wing News thinks that this mental excercise ought to be a centerpiece of the Bush administration's counterattack against the anti-demoncratic Democrats:
And the president and his surrogates need to call his critics out on the carpet: They cannot retroactively oppose the Iraq War and agree with the prosecution of Saddam Hussein at the same time. I have made this argued over at Ankle Biting Pundits and will continue to do so until the GOP and the White House take up the charge of challenging anti-war liberals with implicit defense of Saddam Hussein.
Simply put, if George W. Bush lied us into war then the prosecution of Saddam Hussein is a sham; Saddam is the innocent victim of George W. Bush’s zealous war hawkery. This is true if Bush’s critics are of the moderate “one more resolution” variety, the moonbat “no war for oil” variety, or even the present day revisionists who supported the war once and told the same “lies” that Bush has told.
The emphasis is mine. The White House needs to bring a sledgehammer down on the Left's little shell game, the flim-flam troika of bankrupt ideas:
If you challenge my anti-war rhetoric, you're challenging my patriotism. What they'd really like you to believe is that it's somehow patriotic to secretly wish for the triumph of the insurgents over US and Iraqi forces. I guess it depends on how you define "patriotic".
Yes Saddam was an evil dictator, but we didn't need to use force--we should have continued to work through the U.N. Bogus. See the decade long refusal of the U.N. to enforce it's own resolutions demanding adherance to the truce that ended the previous war that Iraq started. And then look up "Oil For Food" scandal.
Bush lied... So very tiresome. See the Congressional Record.
The Democrats need to be forced to explain why they would prefer Saddam to be back in power.
Posted at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)"Patriotism" Doesn't Trump Stupidity
Mark Coffey at Decision '08 conveys some encouraging poll results that reflect fact that a lot of Americans aren't buying the idea that it's "patriotic" to criticize the war.
[Only] 30% believe the Democrats are, in other words, being loyal in their opposition. Not 30% of Republicans, mind you - 30% of Americans…and more than half of Democrats think they’re hurting morale!
I'm sick to death of the standard argument deployed by the Left: "We are perfectly willing to put the US military on equal moral footing with the Taliban/Saddam Hussein/Zarqawi jihadists. But we are doing so because we love our country, and you have no right to challenge us over our views." In other words, no one is allowed to challenge their cowardly moral relativism.
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain loved his country down to the marrow of his bones, but that did nothing to prevent him from leading Great Britain down a path of appeasement, destruction and death. Love of country and policy correctness are not hitched at the waist.
Posted at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 27, 2005
General Motors And The Dynamic Market
Michael Barone has a must read piece up in WSJ's OpinionJournal, in which he notes that the massive layoffs and plant closings announced by General Motors signify the passing of an economic model that promised (and delivered) much wealth--for a while (hat tip: Powerline).
The success of the Big Three and the UAW seemed a fit symbol of America's postwar economic dynamism. In fact, this was an economy characterized not by dynamism but by stasis, to use Virginia Postrel's term in "The Future and Its Enemies." New Deal legislation had been designed not for economic growth but for protection from the downward spiral of deflation. Those laws, not least by encouraging unions, strove to prop up wages and prices and to provide security to workers and existing firms. Keynesian economics was employed to flatten out the business cycle as much as possible and to reduce unemployment.[...]
Everything was hunky-dory until the mid seventies when increasing foreign competition and declining American quality combined with the catalyst of high oil prices, and the slide began.
Faced with domestic-content laws [pushed by the Big Three], Japanese and European firms built large plants in the U.S. with nonunion work forces. That has left the Big Three and their spinoffs, like Delphi, with redundant work forces and huge legacy costs in the form of generous pensions and open-ended retiree health benefits.[...]
The attempt to protect workers from all risk has turned out to be very risky indeed, since in a dynamic economy large corporations are subject to competition from firms with lower costs. In the auto industry the result is significant pain for those who relied on the Big Three and the UAW; but the result is also a vastly faster growing economy and many more opportunities than provided by the European welfare states.
I never believed the "buy American" hard sell campaign. I didn't see how it was fair that I was expected to buy a clearly inferior product just so a guy who screwed in windshields all day could keep his $25 an hour job. What about the single mother of three who makes half that hourly wage, with no benefits? You're damned right she'd buy a Toyota, as did I back then.
And guess what? I'm now on my third Ford Explorer, thanks to the quality improvements made possible by that biting competition twenty years ago. Stasis is for the birds.
Posted at 09:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)The Next "Passion Of The Christ"?
Well, that may be a stretch. But it looks like Bruce Willis will try to put a screeching halt to the string of malicious Hollywood movies that place our troops on the same moral level as the Viet Cong or al-Qaeda jihadists. (hat tip: AJ Strata):
ANGERED by negative portrayals of the conflict in Iraq, Bruce Willis, the Hollywood star, is to make a pro-war film in which American soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy. It will be based on the exploits of the heavily decorated members of Deuce Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, which has spent the past year battling insurgents in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul.
The Deuce Four, of course, is the outfit that Michael Yon was embedded with; Yon's reports of the battalion's work in Mosul has made him justly famous in the blogosphere and beyond.
I sure hope that Willis is able to follow through on this project, and I hope it hits the same grass-roots nerve that Mel Gibson's "The Passion" did. I wonder if he can have it ready by November 2006?
Posted at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)November 26, 2005
Whose Side Are They On, Anyway?...No. 139
The European Union continues to demonstrate exactly where their priorities lie. From the Counterterrorism Blog:
The European Court of Justice's Advocate General Philippe Leger, has just issued an Advisory Opinion favoring a EU Parliament challenge to a May 2004 agreement under which EU countries provide the US Bureau of Customs advance data on all air passengers traveling to the United States. [...] His Opinion called for the agreement to be annulled. [...] The Advocate General’s finding bolsters a previously existing court challenge to the agreement initiated by the EU Parliament several months ago. The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice is expected to rule on the case in early 2006. While the Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the court it has been followed in a majority of cases before the court. [...]
An EU court ruling abrogating the agreement would throw a major wrench into the existing US aviation control system and would represent a major set-back for the G-8’s anti-terrorism Secure and Facilitated Travel (SAFTI) initiative.
Emphasis mine. This sounds like bad news to me. Given the fact that Britain, France and Germany alone host vast numbers of (often radicalized) Muslims, eliminating the advance notice of suspect passengers would seem to put a dangerously heavy strain on the receiving side: the Department of Homeland Security.
So what was the motivation for the EU Parliament to challenge a common-sense policy that seemed to be functioning smoothly? Obviously "privacy concerns" of Europeans outweigh discovering another Mohammad Atta.
Posted at 06:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)A Ray Of Hope
I wrote yesterday about the mainstream media's replay of their defeatist strategy that worked so well in Vietnam. But perhaps a ray of hope can be found in the fact that, although the MSM dinosaurs have evolved very little, their audience's environment has: cable news, talk radio and the internet all provide many info streams that were absent in '60's and '70's.
Today Tim Chapman conveys the results of a recent survey on the public's reaction to the Democrat's anti-Iraq/anti-military attacks:
The Cook Political Report has interesting poll numbers on the Iraq issue:
- When Dems Sens. criticize Bush's policy on Iraq, does it help/hurt morale of troops in Iraq?
- 68% Hurts
- 14% Helps
- When Dems criticize Bush's policy on Iraq, do you think they are trying to gain partisan advantage or believe it will help US' efforts in Iraq?
- 52% Gain political advantage
- 30% Think will help
- Should US military withdraw troops immediately regardless of impact, as Iraq meets goals, or set fixed publicaly avail timetable for withdrawal?
- 50% as goals met
- 15% withdraw
29% timetable
These numbers suggest what many Republicans have been privately saying for a week now: Democrats have classically overreached on the Iraq issue. Not only have they gone farther than the American people are willing to go, but they have been so wrongheaded about their approach that they have unified a Republican party that only days ago was fissured on domestic issues.
I hope this is right--I'd like to believe that most mainstream Americans can see through the shameless political posturing of Reid and Pelosi. We'll see.
Posted at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 25, 2005
The Enemy Behind You
In their failure to provide balanced reporting on the Iraq war, the mainstream media is faithfully following the same script that led to the defeat of the democratic forces in Vietnam. The MSM's refusal to report positive news provided a kind of "suppressing fire" that skewed the average American's view towards pessimism, and allowed a small phalanx of Leftist legislators to finally persuade Congress to pull the plug on funding to the South Vietnamese.
The MSM is adept at rooting out individuals who hold views in line with their own, and then presenting them as speakers for the majority. See, for example, the recent hyping of the fraud-ridden fantasies of former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey. Anyone who reads the milblogs would know immediately that Massey is an exception, yet he got tons of press--all without the the scrutiny of even the most rudimentary journalistic fact-checking.
Well, Mona Charen has found a voice of with a slightly different point of view: Marine Sgt. Todd Bowers, who has completed two tours in Iraq. Bowers is understandably suspicious of the press, based on his first-hand experience. Charen:
In his first tour, he noticed that members of the press were reluctant to photograph Iraqis laughing, giving the thumbs up sign, or cheering. Yet Bowers saw plenty that would have made fine snapshots. In Baghdad, Al Kut and Al-Nasiriyah, Bowers reported no signs of anti-American feeling at all among Iraqis.
Fallujah, of course, was different, as the city was a hotbed of terrorism, and the battle of Fallujah was one of the fiercest engagements of the war. During the battle, Bowers found himself sharing a ride with an embedded reporter for the AP. He was asked what he thought of the destruction. Bowers responded that it was "Incredible, overwhelming. But it definitely had to be done." He also stressed that because the enemy had fought so dirty, tough calls had to be made. Later, he saw himself quoted in newspapers around the country to the effect that the destruction was "overwhelming" as if he could not cope.[...]
It's easy to understand how a fresh-faced j-school freshman could be swayed by utopian propaganda about "changing the world" as he or she sits safe in some college classroom. But it's another matter entirely to excuse the bias of field reporters who are risking their lives yet willfully ignore the evidence in front of their faces.
There was plenty of progress to report, if the press had been interested. When the battle of Fallujah was over, the Marines set up a humanitarian relief station in an abandoned amusement park. Together with Iraqis locally hired and trained for the purpose and with an assist from the Iraqi ministry of the interior, they distributed rice, flour, medical supplies, baby formula, and other necessities to thousands of Iraqis. For six weeks, Bowers reports, the distribution went beautifully, "like a well-oiled machine." Not worth a story, apparently. Only when something went wrong did the press see something worth reporting. A small group of Iraqis were turned away from the food distribution point, though they had been waiting in line for hours. They were given vouchers and told they could come to the front of the line the next morning when supplies would be replenished. These few unhappy souls were then besieged by press types eager to tell their story.
At the same site, the Marines had repaired an old Ferris wheel. The motor was dead, but when two Marines pushed and pulled by hand they could get the thing turning to give rides to the children of the Iraqi employees. They did so for hours on end. A photographer from a large American media company watched impassively. "Why don't you take a picture of this?" demanded one Marine. The photographer snorted, "That's not my job."
It's tough to win a war when you're enemy is in front of you, and also behind you--shooting at your back.
Posted at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 23, 2005
Iraq = Vietnam? Maybe...
Here's what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had to say recently about our involvement in Iraq::
"This week, Iraqi leaders at the Arab League conference in Cairo called for a timetable for withdrawing foreign forces from Iraq, further evidence of how far out of touch President Bush's Iraq policy is from reality," Pelosi said in a statement.
"Congressman John Murtha's courageous statement ignited a long overdue debate in Congress and the country over the administration's failed Iraq policy. Mr. Murtha spoke truth to power: the war in Iraq has not made America safer, it has stretched thin our military forces, and it has damaged our reputation around the world," she added.
Is Nancy Pelosi trying to become the new Bella Abzug?
One thing is certain: Pelosi cares about the Iraqi people as much as Abzug cared about the Vietnamese people--which is to say, not at all. There has been a long-term campaign in the "progressive" education movement to denigrate learning by memorization, and I guess it's paying off because our collective capacity to remember has decayed to pathetic levels. Thirty years ago we were so eager to forget the nastiness of the Vietnam war that we utterly ignored what happened once we cut and ran. We had the war won militarily, the South Vietnamese were holding their own; but a small phalanx of Leftist congresspeople, supported by a lying mainstream media, succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
NeoNeocon has been dead on target with this idea for the last several months. Here she pulls a quote from David Horowitz' indispensable memoir Radical Son:
Assisted by radical legislators like Ron Dellums and Bella Abzug, Hayden set up a caucus in the Capitol, where he lectured congressional staffers on the need to end American aid. He directed his attention to Cambodia as well, lobbying for an accommodation with the Khmer Rouge guerillas. Nixon's resignation over Watergate provided all the leverage Hayden and his activists needed. The Democrats won the midterm elections, bringing to Washington a new group of legislators determined to undermine the settlement that Nixon and Kissinger had achieved. The aid was cut, the Saigon regime fell, and the Khmer rouge marched into the Cambodian capital. In the two years that followed, more Indochinese were killed by the victorious Communists than had been killed on both sides in all thirteen years of the anti-Communist war.
It was the bloodbath that [the Left's] opponents had predicted. But for the Left there would be no contrition and no look back.
NeoNeocon further illustrates that Hayden has not changed his stripes in the least:
It is really, really recommended that you read Hayden's entire document, in order to get a flavor of the unrepentant and unchanged quality of his thought processes and strategies. Just as in the 70s the Left undermined the idea of Vietnamization, Hayden is determined to undermine plans for Iraqization:
...we need to defeat the U.S. strategy of "Iraqization." "Clearly, it's better for us if they're in the front-line," Paul Wolfowitz explained last February. This cynical strategy is based on putting an Iraqi "face" on the U.S. occupation in order to reduce the number of American casualties, neutralize opposition in other Arab countries, and slowly legitimize the puppet regime. In truth, it means changing the color of the body count.
Note that one of the rationales for opposing Iraqization is the idea that it's based on a sinister and cynical racist exploitation of the Iraqis, rather than their empowerment and the need for the US to ultimately bow out when no longer needed.
There is no sign, aside from Pentagon spin, that an Iraqi force can replace the American occupation in the foreseeable future.
"Changing the color of the body count". Pure recycling of the old Vietnam Westmoreland-era "destroy the village to save it" rhetoric. Never mind that that strategy was abandoned in 1968 in favor of Creighton Abrams' far more effective plan. Hayden of course is expert at ignoring the root causes of the conflict; he is not interested in the slightest in individual liberty and real human rights.
I really don't know what he and Pelosi are interested in, other than a mindless defeat of the Bush administration.
Posted at 07:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 22, 2005
Illegals And Their Enablers
Mark Krikorian at the Corner highlights a puff piece in the Washington Post that details the supposed suffering western state farmers would endure if their pool of cheap illegal labor was removed through immigration reform.
The article is essentially a series of quotes from farmers and their lobbyists on how they can't find enough servile labor to work on their plantations, and demanding that Congress procure a work force for them. The only dissent is a couple of sentences from the United Farm Workers, whining about low wages but supporting the farmers' call for an amnesty and guestworker program -- a typical absurdity from the useless UFW, since mass immigration is the reason for the low wages to begin with. Apparently the "reporter" was unable to find anyone to ask whether it's a viable business model for farmers to rely on 19th century technology and work practices, and then invest money in lobbyists instead of engineers designing new harvest machinery.
Emphasis mine. I'm really fed up with the knee-jerk arguments instantly produced by the enablers of illegal immigration: 1) these are jobs that US citizens won't do; 2) think about how much labor costs would skyrocket. Remember the steel industry? The old school American companies like U.S. Steel also had to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but because of modern technology steel mills are now vastly more efficient than their smoke-belching predecessors. Defenders of archaic work methods are just defending their comfortable niche; they never look at the big picture. Would produce cost more if there were no illegals to harvest it? Maybe or maybe not--newer, more efficient methods of getting the crop in might well be used; and think of the offsetting savings to be gained by eliminating the drain on our public school and public health systems.
Conservatives are often characterized as resistant to change by those on the Left. That's utterly false. I'm very resistant to mindless change for change's sake, but defending an outdated and inefficient system is equally as bad. Free market capitalism is a powerful and ruthless force--those growers are conerned with their bottom line first. Just like the steel industry, a larger force will be required to change the situation for the better.
UPDATE: Mark Krikorian came back with a very interesting update which noted that illegal labor is limited almost exclusively to the harvest of fresh fruits and vegetables. (As Mark notes, not only do illegals not touch any wheat or corn, no one else does either--those grains are harvested mechanically.) Krikorian give a link to the source of his numbers, which reveals the following:
For a typical household, a 40 percent increase in farm labor costs translates into a two to three percent increase in retail prices (0.175 x 0.33 = 6 percent, farm labor costs rise 40 percent, and 0.4 x 6 = 2.4 percent), so total spending on fruits and vegetables would rise by $8, from $353 a year to $361 a year. However, for a typical seasonal farm worker, earnings could rise to $11,200 a year, up from $8,000. These wage increases may lead to farm productivity improvements, so that consumer prices may decrease rather than increase.
So as Mark points out, raising the wages of the harvesters by 40 percent would result in only an eight dollar a year increase in the grocery bill of an average family. And it could quite possibly be less than that if productivity improvements are made.
Posted at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Intellectual Bullies
Dr. Sanity hits the nail squarely on the head regarding the crass attempts of the Democrats to cloak their intellectual dishonesty in the mantle of the "loyal opposition":
Personally, I don't believe for a moment that they really want to debate the issues. What they want to do is more grandstanding and showboating to try to score even more points at the expense of our military and the Bush Administration. If you believe that they have any goodwill--except insofar as it will get them votes--then you have not been listening to them very carefully.
Just go check and see what Pelosi has been saying. Or Biden. Or (shudder) Kerry and his sidekick Edwards. If you think these are reasonable adults who will do what is right instead of what is expedient, then I also question the soundness of your own psychological health and maturity.
When the Democrats are capable of discussing their reservations about U.S. foreign policy without the accompanying media circuses and infantile grandstanding; and when they actually come up with alternative ideas or suggestions for how to win the war, instead of how to lose it--then, and only then will I take them seriously.
It's just as clear as the nose on your face that the Dems don't want an honest debate on the conduct of the war. The grade-school defensive hysteria that erupted once the Bush administration began quoting back their own words to them was oh-so-predictable--as Dr. Sanity pointed out, they can dish it out but they can't take it.
But ultimately it doesn't matter if these intellectual bullies can take it or not--if they win this PR battle for the hearts and minds of the moderate center, the truth and justice of our mission in Iraq will wind up as fodder for an endless stream of PBS revisionist TV specials in the years to come. Bullies hold power over their victims through fear and intimidation; most bullies can't take what they dish out. That doesn't stop them from trying and often succeeding.
It is a foregone conclusion among the general US population (including a lot of my close friends) that the US conducted an "unjust" war in Vietnam. The question I'd always like to offer to these people is this:
The archangel of fantasy questions appears to you and says, "It has been decreed that you and your family must leave the United States. Your only choices for relocation are the Republic of South Korea, and the Peoples' Republic of Vietnam. Where will you choose to move your family?"
We "won" the Korean war inasmuch as we prevented the Communist takeover of the south--and South Korea now has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We "lost" the Vietnam war--we failed (thanks to Bella Abzug and her cronies) to prevent the Communists from establishing their enlightened Marxist rule. Of course the Vietnamese economy is a permanent basket case, and good luck with trying to peacefully assemble to protest government policy. What a paradise.
Which way will Iraq go?
Posted at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 21, 2005
Gays And Muslims Holding Hands In DU Land
John Hawkins at Right Wing News brings us a nauseating reminder of the mindset of the far Left. From Democratic Underground he plucked a series of comments made in response to a typical anti-Bush screed. The suggestions of fascistic oppression and outright murder advocated by these supposedly gentle, peace-loving "progressives" is scary fascinating. Here's a typical example:
Alexodin: I was at the boiling point a long time ago. Back in January I prepared a safe room to hide GLBT people and Muslims and anybody else that needed to flee the fascism. I asked my relatives to seriously consider sending those not able to fight out of the country, elderly and young mothers. I was preparing. [...]
But an astute Right Wing News commenter provided an amusing mental picture:
>He felt the need to build a "Safe room" for gays?Gays AND muslims. Some mix. Among the amazing amount of things that guy does not know, there's how Islam treats gays.
Indeed. But don't you know that if Alexodin's muslim friends turned on his gay friends, that somehow it would still be Bush's fault. What was that line about "denial not being a river in Egypt"?
It's a good thing that bloggers like Hawkins have the stomach to go down into the cesspool to extract these examples of enlightenment.
Posted at 01:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Johnny Depp Joins The American Diaspora
I'm so knackered I've just got to hit the sack, but the Ten O'Clock Scholar has a great piece on the trials of Johnny Depp. I've pretty much given up on considering the political view of my favorite artists--if I kept strict score I would never listen to any music nor watch any movies.
Depp is a great actor who has been in some of my favorite movies; I wish him well in his search to find a better country for his children than the United States. But RDS's post is about much more than the mundane confusion of a pop artist--note particularly his ominous comments about the state of resident "immigrants" in Scandanavia.
November 18, 2005
Mea Culpa
Blogging has been very limited lately, obviously. Schedule crunches, family stuff, and tenacious rhinoviruses have conspired against me. Early tomorrow I'll be off to Ft. Worth and Denton, Texas, for another weekend of bike racing. Check back on Monday, I promise to do better next week!
November 17, 2005
Marines: A Tough Audience For The MSM
Stephen Spruiell over at National Review goes to some primary sources for his report on the effects of media bias against the Iraq war. He was recently part of a symposium with some other MSM-types, and the audience was a group of very interested Marines. All emphases are mine.
The marines were a fantastic audience. They were engaged and inquisitive on every point, and they were also genuinely concerned about the mainstream media's preoccupation with negative news. They felt that it's not that the negative stories — like casualty reports — shouldn't be reported, but that we never hear what America is getting for this sacrifice. As one marine put it, it's like if I spent $7.99 for a slice of pizza and the headlines the next day read, "Marine Out Eight Bucks!"
Of particular concern was the way the 2,000th casualty overshadowed the passage of Iraq's constitution, which happened on the same day. One marine just recently back from Iraq called the constitution "a major step toward us getting out of there," yet noted that the media coverage of the event had been astonishingly shallow. One fellow panelist, a former producer for CBS News, said that the 2,000th casualty was a very important story because it was important to know that these were our brothers and fathers that were sacrificing in Iraq. The room sort of exploded with hands in the air and marines arguing that the 2,000th casualty was a meaningless statistic and no different that the 1,999th or the first. Moreover, they argued that the bigger problem was the lack of balance — the good news was not reported with the bad.
Leftists and MSM-types always miss this point. Most people on the right do not want to supress bad news (some argue that some news should be withheld to ensure security for future or ongoing operations, and I agree--but those situations are infrequent compared to the daily stories); rather all we ask is that the successes are reported as well.
But as always, the larger question is: Is the mainstream media even interested in balance?
November 16, 2005
New Kid On The Human Rights Block
Everyone knows that human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have an institutional bias toward the Left. I've become immune to the frustration resulting from the way in which these organizations seemingly assign equal weight to a death penalty case in Texas and a genocidal episode in Rwanda or Iraq.
But today CNSNews highlights a new human rights organization that is founded on a stable and proven foundation: free market capitalism combined with the rule of law.
Members of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) conducted their first meeting in New York City Nov. 10, stating that their goal was to spread human rights and democracy throughout the Americas.
Guest speakers at the HRF event warned about "unelected" organizations that have secured places at the "decision-making table" of the United Nations. The speakers stated that these "unelected" groups operate on the premise of human rights concerns, but have a real goal of undermining the sovereignty of democratic nations and the war against terrorism. [...]
The Foundation emphasizes property rights and free markets as the basis for human freedom.
The founding members are a strong group indeed--they include Thor Halvorssen, the founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education (FIRE), and Father Robert Sirico, founder of the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty.
This is all great news, and it reminded me immediately of this post I wrote about a group of economists and activists who are challenging the institutionalized wisdom of "international aid is a cure for African poverty".
Reading further down the CNSNews article, I was pleasantly surprised to find that one of the speakers at the HRF launching was Franklin Cudjoe, leader of Imani: Center for Humane Education in Ghana and one of the African intellectuals profiled in my previous post. CNSNews:
Cudjoe pointed to one of the globe's worst human rights crises - the conflict in Sudan - which involves violent militias allegedly supported by the Sudanese government targeting civilians and routing them from their homes. It's estimated that 2 million civilians have been forced to flee.
"What's happening in Sudan is not a religious conflict, despite what you've heard," said Cudjoe, "but is due to an absence of clearly defined property rights, which always endangers the rights of humans."
Reaction by the human rights establishment was typical:
Curt Goering, deputy executive director of Amnesty International, also dismissed the HRF's charges [...]
"The U.S. is losing, if it hasn't already lost, the global human rights debate and the results of the course of action suggested by the speakers (at the HRF event) would inevitably damage further the U.S. image worldwide, something which this country can ill-afford."
Oh sure...I need Curt Goering to tell me all about the damaged worldwide image of the United States. Once again, the proper path of US foreign policy does not for a second depend upon the wishes of a bunch of self-hating Euros.
I think the establishment of the Human Rights Foundation, based as it is on championing individual freedom, rule of law and free markets, is a very welcome development. I hope it gets some press.
November 14, 2005
Arnold And The Failed Initiatives
Mike Antonucci's weekly Communique at EIA Online has a good analysis of the failure of the California election initiatives:
Arnold and the California GOP – An Associated Press headline screams, "Republicans Blame Schwarzenegger." That's chutzpah for you. This is a party that can't get anyone elected to statewide office and is heading for Hawaii levels in number of Republicans in the legislature -- despite gerrymandering. The only reason Arnold called a special election is because his party is too weak to do anything in the state, and the other party wouldn't cut a deal. He had one arrow in his quiver – his undeniable charisma – and he shot it. It got him nothing but a 30-point drop in approval ratings.
Without him, the California GOP has nothing. Fortunately, the governor still wields the veto pen, which should be enough to prevent any further raid on the state treasury.
Interesting, especially the part about the lack of Republican power at the state house level--it's not as if there were no Republicans in California. Mike write regularly on one of the most powerful forces in American electoral politics: the collective power of the teachers' unions. These are organizations whose preference for job preservation over effective education is completely institutionalized. Mike wields a small but very pointed stick; trouble is we need a lot more of them.
Posted at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 11, 2005
Speechless
After seeing Mary Mapes on O'Reilley's show last night and reading the transcript today, I'm very nearly speechless. The sum effect of her appearances hawking her new book is to leave me floundering for a word that combines pathetic with evil. The interview is rather rambling in its course (I would have dearly loved to see a sharp attorney like John Hindraker do the questioning) and O'Reilley fails to stay focused on the important points. But here's a sample:
MAPES: OK. Here's why I think you're wrong. I believed in these documents beyond a reasonable doubt. I did.
I had also worked for four years essentially, mostly off, rather than on, but for four years' time gathering information, talking to characters, looking at documents, knowing the story of what had happened. I really knew it.
I had plenty of reason to believe these documents were real, because I didn't just count on document analysts at all, because I felt that their evidence was probably the least important or the least believable to me. I'm a very old-fashion reporter. I believed collaboration [sic. corroboration?--Jeff]. I believed content. I believed vetting. And I believed the meshing that I did.
This is not a question of the blind leading the stupid; it's an example of being both stupid and blind. This excerpt confirms what has been obvious all along. Mapes wanted so desperately to believe that Bush got preferential treatment that she was utterly unable to recognize that the docs were fabrications.
There are three possibilities that apply to any person who still thinks that the documents are authentic, and they are not mutually exclusive:
1) That person is not aware of the evidence.
2) That person is aware, but does not understand the evidence.
3) That person is aware of the evidence and understands it, but wilfully choose to disbelieve it.
I think in Mapes' case, it might be all three. Check out this excerpt at Political Teen, taken from an interview by Howard Kurtz with Mapes (hat tip Instapundit). Mapes:
MAPES: I can’t speak for Dan, I certainly can’t. All I can do is tell you my experience and once again, I’m going to say your reporting was wrong about proportional spacing, it was wrong about the document being able to be created in [Microsoft] Word with Times New Roman font,(1) it was wrong in a number of respects and it remains wrong and if you had spent more time looking for more documents, looking at the facts of the story, and really looking at the case you would have done some different reporting yourself.(2)
From this snip it's clear she has no grasp of the typographical evidence that is stacked against her, evidence that is only slightly technical and easy enough for any savvy high school student to follow.
Obviously she can't follow it--I guess she's just a very old-fashioned reporter.
Posted at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)My Most Sincere And Humble Thanks...
to all veterans--young and old, wartime or peacetime--for their service.
It's also my dad's birthday. He would have been 82 today.
Posted at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 10, 2005
From Tripoli To Fallujah
Happy birthday to the United States Marine Corps.
This is the uncropped original version of Joe Rosenthal's immortal photo.
Bloomberg's Failed Education Reforms
I think the WSJ OpinionJournal writers need to go back and read some of their own past columns. From today (any emphases are mine):
On the other hand, the one notable Republican who did win, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, owes more to Mr. Bush than he or anyone else will admit. The 2003 tax cuts helped to revive financial markets and thus the city's economy and revenue coffers, allowing him to rebate some of his earlier and unpopular tax increase. Mr. Bloomberg also benefited from his laudable attempt to reform education in the face of union opposition.
Mr. Bloomberg's attempt at education reform has been anything but "laudable". Back on May 12, OpinionJournal published a piece by the estimable Diane Ravitch, who deploys an absolutely withering assault against Bloomberg, his school chancellor Joel Klein and the constructivist educational agenda they adopted. The essay is also an excellent overall primer on the "progressive"/constructivist ideas that dominate public education policy and practice. Ravitch:
Neither Mr. Bloomberg nor Mr. Klein knew about the war of ideas that had been raging among educators for many years. On one side, beloved by schools of education, are the century-old ideas of progressive education, now called "constructivism." Associated with this philosophy are such approaches as whole language, fuzzy math, and invented spelling, as well as a disdain for phonics and grammar, an insistence that there are no right answers (just different ways to solve problems), and an emphasis on students' self-esteem. Constructivists dislike any kind of ability grouping or special classes for gifted children. By diminishing the authority of the teacher, constructivist methods often create discipline problems.
On the other side are those who believe that learning depends on both highly skilled teachers and student effort; that students need self-discipline more than self-esteem; that accuracy is important; that in many cases there truly are right answers and wrong answers (the Civil War was not caused by Reconstruction); and that instructional methods should be chosen because they are effective, not because they fit one's philosophical values.
Messrs. Bloomberg and Klein embarked on school reform knowing nothing of this heated debate. [...]
They outcome, as you might expect, has been disastrous. After noting that the results of Bloomberg's reforms have been mediocre at best in the budget and personnel areas, she moves on to student performance:
In the first round of state testing in 2004, the results were mixed. In the fourth grade, where the pedagogical changes were concentrated, the citywide scores in math were up by 1.4%, but in reading they declined by 3%. In some poor districts, such as Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant, the score declines in reading were in double digits.
State scores for 2005 will be released in the next few weeks. It is widely expected that scores will rise, reflecting the unusual amount of time devoted this year to test preparation. Social studies and other subjects have been shelved to focus on the all-important tests of reading and mathematics (81% of eighth graders failed the state social studies exam, a 20% increase in the failure rate since Mayor Bloomberg took charge). A modest amount of time devoted to test preparation makes sense; but when it consumes vast amounts of instructional time, it does not.
Here's a photo from today's Houston Chronicle. The accompanying article relates the vast sums of money local school districts receive from the Texas Education Agency to help students pass the state-mandated proficiency exams.
Note the little "manipulative" blocks on the students' desks--in the third grade. It is typical of the constructivist approach to emphasize manipulatives over pencil-and-paper algorithms.
Bloomberg's squandering of his opportunity to reform the public education system is a real tragedy for NYC students, parents and taxpayers. But it also highlights a nationwide problem: there are far too many parents, journalists, and politicians who are simply unaware these issues even exist. Luckily I was able to get a good idea of the mindset of my own local school district by simply surfing the websites of my local elementary schools. After a few days of reading the little blurbs written by the teachers, I was a walking dictionary of ed school buzzwords. But I'm sure most parents of elementary school-age children still couldn't tell you what whole language is.
Thanks to failed reformers like Bloomberg, we aren't any closer to changing that.
Posted at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Damn The Definitions, Full Speed Ahead
John Derbyshire hits on something that has been severely bugging me:
After saying my piece & reading the comeback emails, I realized that to a great many folk, "torture" does not refer to the pulling out of fingernails, beating senseless with rubber truncheons, having your infant daughter raped before your eyes, or any of the other things I had always supposed it meant. To a lot of people, it embraces the merest roughness or unkindness -- a shove, a kick, a slap, sleep deprivation, and so on.
I'm sorry, but that ain't torture, and a person who says it is is either (a) the product of a very sheltered life, or (b) just looking for any old reason to say how horrid GWB and his administration are.
Exactly. Whenever I hear a news story on the role of "torture" in the war on terror, the first thought that pops into my mind is: "How are you defining torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? How about keeping a prisoner's cell temperature at 55 degrees? Or subjecting the prisoner to psychological pressure by bending or breaking cultural taboos?"
As usual, the combination of sloppy, inexact language and stunted critical thinking skills has thrown up a cloud of confusion around a critical topic. Here's yet another opportunity for an MSM journalist to do some work of real and lasting value--"change the world" kind of work--but it won't happen. The sloppy words and bad thinking will get repeated ad nauseum on CNN and in the New York Times until it becomes fodder for the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Who's Killing Saddam's Lawyers?
neo-neocon has an in-depth post on the shrinking life expectancy of Saddam's defense lawyers (two have now been assassinated):
The world press has talked from the start about how Saddam's trial shouldn't be held in Iraq, and the murders of the lawyers could play to this belief and create clear proof in their eyes that indeed, it's not safe enough. And who would benefit from a move? Saddam, especially if it's to a European country with no death penalty (unlikely, but possible).
It's no stretch for me to imagine that a prime goal of his Saddam's supporters would be to get the trial moved to, say, The Hague. Can you say "jury nullification"--modern European anti-American postmodern multicultural style?
Posted at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 09, 2005
The Bush White House: Pulling Its Punches
AcademicElephant points to an email sent out by the White House in response to Brent Scowcroft's New Yorker piece that criticized GWB's foreign policy. Thanks to the RCP blog, who was on the recipient's list, we get to see the talking points that Joe Klein of Time magazine says are an example of the kind of tactic contained in the "sordid tool kit" of the Bush administration. Here are a couple of points from the WH email:
3. [Scowcroft's] assertion that we have had "fifty years of peace" in the Middle East is an odd one, if you consider (a) America's 1991 war against Iraq (which General Scowcroft favored); (b) the Iraq-Iran war (in which there were a million casualties; (c) the conflict in the early 1970s between Jordan and the Palestinians; (d) the civil war in Lebanon; (e) the four wars between Israel and Arab nations; and (f) the attacks of September 11, 2001 (which was carried out by Islamic radicals who emerged from the broader Middle East).
Scowcroft belongs to the old Kissinger realist school of diplomats who would rather deal with "the devil you know" (along with the little sideshows like rape rooms and poison gas) than fiddle around with messy concepts like democracy. In this context I guess it's no surprise that Scowcroft's concept of "peace" is a little...practical.
5. Mr. Scowcroft insists we will not "democratize" Iraq and that "in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful." Except that in the last two-and-a-half years Iraq has moved from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, to the passage of a constitution. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress. Iraq still faces challenges, including a ruthless insurgency -- but there is no question that the people of Iraq long for democracy and for victory over the insurgency.
Scowcroft's ignoring of the existing evidence in front of his nose indicates to me that he's not arguing from good faith. If Iraq actually is the quagmire that the MSM continues to portray it as, Scowcroft would have a point. But it's not, and he doesn't.
The entire memo is hard-hitting, concise and is solidly reasoned; the RNC should just copy the text into a TV commercial and run it every day for the next year.
But no, it was sent out by email to a limited group of people, and that's what galls me the most. Yesterday on Brit Hume's panel discussion, I heard Mort Kondrake express his frustration over the White House's continuing inability to summon up a vigorous defense, in this case to Harry Reid's latest delusional pronouncements. As AcademicElephant says, this well-written email ought to be published as an op-ed in a major newspaper, at the very least.
We've got the ideas on our side as well as the evidence that they're correct. Why are we conservatives barely staying afloat?
Michael Yon: Hitting'em Where It Counts
It's gratifying to see that Michael Yon's superb reporting from Iraq will reach a very high profile audience, an audience that desperately needs an alternative to the legacy media.
If you have an opinion about the war in Iraq and you haven't read any of Michael's work, you simply must do so now--here's a good starting point.
Posted at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)November 08, 2005
Bill Clinton Is "Scary Smart"? That's Half Right...
What's up with all these people the lib/Left thinks are "really smart"? Think of Al Gore and John Kerry--both guys were touted as being "brilliant', yet it was clear to anyone who heard them speak that they were anything but. It's no surprise that they failed as presidential candidates.
Bill Clinton is another supposed "smart" guy. The difference with Bill is that he is an engaging speaker who possesses a skill in connecting with his audience that Gore and Kerry can only dream of. Indeed, if the primary job of a politician is to get elected (one can hardly be a politician otherwise) then Clinton can rightfully be considered one of the greatest politicians of the century.
But now we have "smart guy" Bill saying stuff like this (from NewsMax via Free Republic):
Ex-president Bill Clinton is arguing that tighter immigration laws are hurting America, saying the new restrictions aren't worth it even if they stop the "one out of a zillion [foreigners] who might have a bomb."
"I'm very worried that one of the consequences of our tightness on immigration and visas as a result of 9/11 and terror, has led to a drop in many places of the number of foreign students coming to the United States to study and be graduate students," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday.
It's nice to know there's a "really smart" person out there to keep our priorities straight for us.
He said the U.S. needed foreign students because "we are nowhere near graduating enough scientists and engineers to maintain, given the size of our economy, a leadership role in the global economy."
One might ask why our own public school system is failing to produce enough competent science and math students. After all, Clinton's Democratic party has had a stranglehold on education policy for what, the last one hundred years or so? And one of the most powerful union blocks in the country--the teachers' unions--is nothing more than a political wing of the Democratic party. And yet Bill somehow thinks our eroding base of scientists and engineers is result of our tiny steps toward securing our borders?
Clinton said the terror trade-off wasn't worth it.
"When we got real tough on visas - because one out of a zillion of them might have a bomb - we lost a lot of brains. We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains."
The trade-off "wasn't worth it"? I wonder if the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks would agree. This is not "scary smart", it's staggeringly stupid. And to think this guy would probably have beaten GWB if he had been allowed to run.
Posted at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)