Read the Captain, Michelle, Power Line, Polipundit, Cox and Forkum, et al for the good stuff.
Offending readers with over-heated drivel on politics, sports and whatever interests me.
The more we find out about Able Danger, the more questions about almost everything we have been told about 9/11 it produces. Clearly this failure ran much deeper than we have been told, and the dismissal of Able Danger from the Commission's narrative looks more and more suspect.In the end, it really doesn't matter if the identification of Atta was correct or not. The Able Danger story is is critically important because we need to expose the corrupt conflicts of interest on the 9/11 Commission and toss out all their work. And most importantly, we need to fully expose and discredit the mindset and worldview of liberals like Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton which made 9/11 possible.
The second bit of luck is a certain fiber displayed by a huge number of anonymous Americans. Faced with a constant drizzle of bad news and purposely demoralizing commentary, millions of people stick out their jaws and hang tight. I am no fan of populism, but I surmise that these citizens are clear on the main point: It is out of the question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so are soft on crime and soft on fascism.
Over the last 40 years productivity growth has averaged 2.1 percent. Since 2001 it has averaged 3.9 percent. One reason for this surge? A 1998 prediction by Paul Krugman, now a New York Times columnist, was spectacularly wrong: "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."Krugman is so popular with left-wing wack jobs precisely because he is always spectacularly wrong. The left has an extraordinary record of being wrong. It is a prerequisite to left-wing "success".
WaPo's David Ignatius laments the Democratic Party's lack of a strong spokesman who can fulfill "the role of an opposition party" in Bush's time of troubles. I'm not sure it's a big dilemma for Democrats (as opposed to for Hillary) if the party remains championless. After all, there already is an effective anti-Bush opposition party in America. It's called the media. We don't need two of them! Alert kf reader G.S. suggests leaderless Democrats take another look at that Amazing Dr. Pollkatz Polling Graphic. The only time Bush's steady polling decline stopped was in 2004, when he actually had some identifiable Democratic champions (Dean, then Kerry) to be set off against. G.S.'s upshot is
Midterm political advice for the Dems: Keep the party face-less through the 2006 races.
It's good to be kingless!
Similar undisguised admiration for the communists pervades David Halberstam's Ho (1971). Halberstam's book is perhaps the most sympathetic portrait of a Stalinist dictator ever penned by a reputable American journalist identified with the liberal rather than the radical left.
In Ho, Halberstam omits any mention of the repression or atrocities of Ho Chi Minh's regime. For example, Halberstam writes that in August 1945, "the Vietminh had in one quick stroke taken over the nationalism of the country, that Ho had achieved the legitimacy of power."
From reading Halberstam, one would never guess that in 1945-46 Ho's deputy Giap carried out a reign of terror in which thousands of the leading noncommunist nationalists in territory controlled by Ho's regime were assassinated, executed, imprisoned, or exiled.
Halberstam condemns the repression carried out by the Saigon regime ... Of the far more severe repression in North Vietnam, there is not a word in Halberstam's book.
The Maoist-inspired terror of collectivization in the mid-fifties, in which at least ten-thousand North Vietnamese were summarily executed because they belonged to the wrong "class," is not mentioned. Nor is the anticommunist peasant rebellion that followed; nor the deployment of the North Vietnamese military to crush the peasants; nor the succeeding purge of North Vietnamese intellectuals; nor the fact that almost ten times as many Vietnamese, during the brief period of resettlement, fled from communist rule as left South Vietnam for the North.
The equivalent of Halberstam's book would be a flattering biography of Stalin that praised his leadership during World War II while omitting any mention of the gulag, the purges, and the Ukrainian famine ...
This is the one big similarity to Vietnam. The "mainstream" media sees its job not as reporting the news, but as trying to defeat U.S. foreign policy.
I can't say I'm surprised: the "grassroots" antiwar movement keeps turning out to be MoveOn/A.N.S.W.E.R. astroturf. But I bet that if a GOP group were to send servicemen's families to picket Democrats it would be getting more play. And more negative play.
For one, it reveals that very few people on the antiwar left have any compunction at all about making common cause with someone who espouses virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic views. For another, it showed something we've long suspected: that some on the left--and not just the America-hating fringe--want America to lose this war. Here's an editorial for today's Seattle Times:Stupid is as stupid does.
America's purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places.
Vietnam, a humiliating defeat that left America bitterly divided for a generation, and Somalia, which emboldened Osama bin Laden, are, according to the Seattle Times, the models for the conduct of a war.
I pray that if what befell Mrs. Sheehan's son should ever befall mine, at least I not be goaded to further grief-drenched flailings by a crowd of smirking, cannibalistic politicians such as John Conyers and Maxine Waters, and opportunistic media thugs including Maureen Dowd, who have done such disservice to Cindy Sheehan.
I used to get irritated by people like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. OK, let me be honest. People who have absolutely no regard for the truth make me very, very angry.
So, I basically stopped reading their columns long ago.
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Krugman has blatantly lied yet again (is the sky blue?) and John Podhoretz at the The Corner noticed.
Merely by pulling up the New York Times's own electronic morgue at his desk, Krugman could have avoided making the mistake of claiming that Gore was ruled the winner in two independent media counts. If he didn't, he's lazy. If he he did, he's spectacularly dishonest. And he doesn't strike me as lazy.
Goudreau herself has to ask her own boss "if there was any way to check these assertions" (in the e-mail). Pick up the phone, Ms. Goudreau! Turn to your own back files of "returning soldiers" profiles and -- what? The Tampa Tribune hasn't done any profiles of returning soldiers? Well, call the local VFW posts and churches and start finding some. Then arrange for interviews and ask questions. Assign your reporters to dig at the topic. If your reporters find out something, print it.
If you're out in the world, it falls right in your lap. At our church a few weeks back, one of our service men, home on leave, stood up to say that we shouldn't believe what we saw on TV or in the newspapers, that it was nothing like what was going on in Iraq. After church, he told me, "You don't know anything if you're not reading the blogs."
No one in the Seelye story gets the point, not Goudreau, not Silverman, not Dardarian, and certainly not Seelye herself. They've turned news into a product, like toothpaste. But it's worse. A real toothpaste manufacturer, faced with customer complaints, would find out what's wrong with the toothpaste. The AP-ers never even consider there might be something wrong with their reporting. At best, they are willing only to work on how their readers "perceive" their reporting.
Ponder this, editors. There is something wrong with your product, and your readers have stopped buying it.
I no longer feel any responsibility to respect the arguments from anyone opposing the War in Iraq. The evidence, the clear success, and the need for sustained support for the President and our troops makes any opposition to the war at this point either the hallmark of chosen ignorance, or willful treason.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: military service a "social problem"
In today's P-I, an article about children raised by relatives other than parents:
This so-called "kinship care" is the largely unseen fallout from a confluence of social problems -- parental drug addiction, incarceration, mental illness and, more recently, military service -- that have left about 2.3 million children in the United States raised by their relatives, mainly grandparents.
Military service is a "social problem"?
The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S. attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever.
Will they learn the lesson? Even money says Sheehan will be sitting in the Michael Moore seat next to Jimmy Carter at the '08 Democratic convention.
WHAT MORE CAN WE SAY?
Could you ask for a single sentence that better captures the quintessence of what's wrong with government trying to spend and invest our money for us? Leading off a story from American City Business Journals, the first half of the sentence:
Members of Congress want to establish a new government-backed venture capital program...
And now the second half:
...to replace one that's being phased out because of sizable losses.
on the overall scale of outrageousness, I have to say that this ad ranks pretty low compared to conservative benchmarks like Willie Horton and the Swift Boat lunatics.This is why liberalism has gone completely beserk.
... single women seemed to be better at detecting men who were faking good than those who were in a committed relationship. "Women have a kind of radar for deception in men, which they switch on or off, depending on the context."From Marginal Revolutiion.
These people are either hopelessly uninformed, or they are lying to you — right to your face. There is no third explanation. And I find it almost impossible to believe that they are that uninformed.Read it all.
the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues.
The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb.
But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI?
I do not personally blame the individual who refused to turn over Atta and his al Qaeda co-conspirators to the FBI. That is, it's not their fault for being a brainless bureaucrat. They were just following policy. But policy or no, there was an individual who had to look at the documents and make a decision not to share this intelligence with those that could do something about it. Who was this person who made the decision to follow policy?
Wal-Mart's customers tend to be the Americans who need the most help. Our research shows that Wal-Mart operates two-and-a-half times as much selling space per inhabitant in the poorest third of states as in the richest third. And within that poorest third of states, 80 percent of Wal-Mart's square footage is in the 25 percent of ZIP codes with the greatest number of poor households. Without the much-maligned Wal-Mart, the rural poor, in particular, would pay several percentage points more for the food and other merchandise that after housing is their largest household expense.The fight against Wal-Mart is really a conflict between these poor customers and labor unions and their liberal supporters.
There's nothing new here. What I want to know is whether this is just an effort to fire up the base or a signal that the party is going to take this to the public and insist on measures to clean up the fraud.
I wrote to you in May about the lengths to which Democrats went in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2004 elections, specifically, the Washington State Governor's race. Our Republican candidate, Dino Rossi, actually won the election, and then the recount, before then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for a second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount. The judge who presided over the court case that followed, actually said "this election may not be set aside simply because the number of fraudulent votes exceeds the margin of victory" when he issued his ruling against the Republican challenge.
Now, The American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund (ACVR Legislative Fund), a non-partisan, non-profit organization has released a new report documenting how thousands of Americans were disenfranchised during the 2004 elections because paid Democrat operatives were heavily involved in voter intimidation and suppression.
A few of examples include:
Coordinated efforts by certain "non-partisan" organizations to disrupt the election process in at least 12 states through voter registration fraud
Democrat operatives convicted for tire-slashing on GOP election day vans in Milwaukee
An Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling Republican voters telling them the wrong date for the election, and location for polling places
The report also indicated that the following were the top 5 "hot spots" in the nation for voter fraud:
1. Philadelphia, PA
2. Milwaukee, WI
3. Seattle, WA
4. St. Louis, MO/East St. Louis, IL
5. Cleveland, OH
We encourage you to view the ACVR report in it's entirety at www.ac4vr.com and forward this to your friends and family.
Fight back today by calling talk radio and writing letters to the editor describing the Democrats' efforts to undermine American's voting system.
RNC Political Director
Being the kind of prop leftist media and activist groups prize – a sympathetic and malleable character whose victim credentials are beyond reproach – such entities have seized upon her story and made her the poster-girl for hate-anything-remotely-conservative-no-matter-what activism. Thus, she has become the latest of a new breed of political animal: the Grieving Activist.And this:
let’s get something straight: if you want to grieve, grieve. If you want to play politics, play politics.
But my sympathy for the grieving ends where their use of their grief as a political battering ram begins.
I say this unabashedly, without apology or concession. In fact, those who use the Cindy Sheehans of the world for political advantage owe the rest of us an apology. And “use” is the operative word, because this is the most shameful sort of exploitation.
In September 2002, when Democrats first blocked Justice Priscilla Owen from a circuit court nomination over a Texas Supreme Court ruling that upheld a parental notice law, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah put it this way:
I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. . . . At nearly one million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists.
You've never heard this? Surely that is no surprise. Mr. Hatch's statement was reported in only one news story, by Newsday's Tom Brune. He noted that there was an audible gasp among the abortion lobbyists in the back of the Judiciary Committee room. I remember that gasp.
What Mr. Brune did not record is that no Democratic senator responded to Hatch's charge. Something very unusual. Not even Dianne Feinstein of California, who, as she always notes, ran for the U.S. Senate to protect abortion rights. Or was it abortion profits?
George Will delivers a well-deserved smackdown to the perpetually truth-challenged Jimmy Carter in today’s Washington Post. Will leaves out one telling detail about that episode. Carter’s debate briefing book was nearly 1,000 pages long, as befits Carter’s control-freak personality (its very length, to paraphrase a Churchill quip, defended it from the risk of being useful to the Reagan campaign). Reagan’s debate briefing book, by contrast, was only 72 pages. There he went again. . .
the numbers show continuingly diminishing attacks on (a) US troops and (b) Iraqi infrastructure (both relatively hard targets), accompanied by (c) continuingly increasing attacks on Iraqi civilians (soft targets).
Biased partisan media coverage. The Media Research Center has shown that mainstream media coverage of the Bush economy 2003-04 was much more negative than coverage of the Clinton economy of 1995-96, though the economic news was in fact similar. This should be no surprise. No serious person expects fair coverage from the New York Times.
But the result of the 2004 election showed us that there are limits to how far the mainstream media can lead the electorate around by the nose. Mainstream media coverage may explain some of the negative response to the economy, but not all of it.
The DNC's Bush-is-the-reason-your-kid-is-fat press release is a convenient precis of the party's problem: While he runs rings around them, the Dems lounge about getting flabbier by the week and telling themselves it's all his fault they can barely move except to complain about Bush's Supreme Court nominee's kid being overly cute. What's the betting for 2006? The Dems will have a few more "nearly the biggest political upsets," while the Republicans will have the actual political upsets -- a couple more Senate seats? Including Robert C. Byrd's venerable perch in West Virginia?The "increasingly arthritic, corpulent, wheezing, flatulent Democratic Party" -- and he was being kind.
Republicans may see the increasingly arthritic, corpulent, wheezing, flatulent Democratic Party as a boon for them, but I don't. Two-party systems need two parties, not just for the health of the loser but for that of the winner, too. Intellectually, philosophically, legislatively, it's hard to maintain the discipline to keep yourself in shape when the other guy just lies around the house all day.
Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it's an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes -- mostly from the South, or places no better than the South -- who voted for Bush.
Or think hard, my conservative readers, about what it would have been like to be Bill Clinton in the eight years he was president. Many conservatives see Clinton as a sociopath, a man totally uncaring about the consequences of his actions. I choose to see him differently. We have evidence that Clinton was often pressing for action against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, understanding that they were a threat. That's evidence that he felt a responsibility to save Americans' lives.
A nonpartisan group yesterday released a report that said paid Democratic operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.