Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Tue Sep 30, 2003

Axis of Leftism

Deceit an Export for Western Press

Lowell Ponte uses this to begin his article in FrontPage,

I DOUBLE, TRIPLE DARE YOU to find just one sentence in the following press release from North Korea’s official News Agency,” wrote Lawrence Peck to FrontPage Magazine, “that could not have been lifted from a stump speech by Howard Dean!

“Think about that for a moment,” he continued. “What does that say about the modern Democratic Party?”

With that astonishing revelation he finishes with this even better one:

But the larger truth revealed in the KCNA release is that North Korea has no need to fabricate propaganda. The leftist Western press, from the BBC to the New York Times, has already woven abundant fabric out of such half-truths and deceit, much of it calculated to undermine President Bush and help elect a Democrat to the presidency in 2004. The KCNA need only sew together pieces of Democratic Party propaganda to create a legitimizing cover for North Korea’s own naked brutality and militarism.

Kim surely has some good material to choose from.

Kyoto on Life Support

Time to Pull the Plug

Steven Hayward of No Left Turns comments on the apparent reluctance of Russia to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol and raises this interesting issue:

Behind the scenes the Russians are demanding guarantees that they will collect the theoretical windfall that Kyoto seemingly promises them. Because the treaty uses 1990 as its baseline year, when the old Soviet Union had mich higher greenhouse gas emissions than today, Russia stands ready to sell emission credits in any kind of tradable emissions scheme. I’m betting the Europeans wll not want to make firm commitments to transfer billions of dollars to Russia just to satisfy their green lobbies.

That sounds like a safe bet.

An overlooked source of journalistic bias on Iraq

They are still colluding with Saddam's hand-picked henchmen

Steven Den Beste has another must-read essay on what's happening in Iraq as they come to realize that Saddam isn't coming back. He cites Johann Bari who reprints an article that he wrote for the Independent. One point Bari makes struck me as a root cause of journalistic bias on Iraq:

And third - I know this sounds like a petty point, but it's very important - a lot of journalists are using the same guides and translators that they used before the war, because they know them. They don't seem to realise that those people were carefully selected by the regime because of their loyalty to Saddam's line. So most journalists are getting a totally distorted picture.

We already know many news organizations and reporters were very cozy with Saddam's regime and covered up the horrors of his regime to maintain access. Old habits seem to die hard.

The root causes of 9/11

You don't have to look much further than the White House in the days after Feb. 26, 1993

Richard Miniter walks us through the first WTC bombing and President Clinton's response to it in this devastating WSJ Opinion Journal article. Here's what the President said in response to the worst terrorist attack on American soil:

Mr. Clinton expanded on the law-enforcement theme, signaling that terrorists need not fear an armed response. "Just this morning I spoke with FBI Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who was involved and why this happened. Americans should know we'll do everything in our power to keep them safe in their streets, their offices and their homes. Feeling safe is an essential part of being secure. And that's important to all of us."

Note how he treats the attack as a domestic criminal investigation rather that what it was, international terrorism. The much maligned and demonized Newt Gingrich grasped what was going on:

On the day after the bombing, the minority whip of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that the president should be "cautious" in cutting the defense budget, as Mr. Clinton planned to do. Citing the Twin Towers bombing, Mr. Gingrich said, "There's a very real requirement for human intelligence and military strength. Every time we have any display of weakness, any display of timidity . . . here are people on the planet eager to take advantage of us."

Would that President Clinton had listened.

The Enemy Within

Dawning or Fawning?

What's that noise? Bells and sirens.
This is the conclusion of a piece in the NY Daily News that highlights the 'awakening' of people like Senator Schumer.

And if the military has been infiltrated, what about local, state and federal law enforcement agencies? Wasn't there a Muslim FBI agent not so long ago who refused to investigate fellow Muslims? What about the airline industry? What about the power companies? Of course, we're not talking about all Muslims, just the time bombs.

The Trojan Horse. Remember?

Mon Sep 29, 2003

Psychopaths

Crazed, Violent, and Just Plain Mean

Anti-com.com has this to say about that fine group of humanitarians, the North Koreans, who said: .....that Rumsfeld's "outbursts ... can not be construed (other) than a desperate shrill cry of a psychopath on his death bed."

Just look at the coalition of people that loath current US administration: islamofascists, left liberals of the West, and, of course, communists of North Korea. Amazing, truly amazing!

The nation is indeed going to hell in a handbasket when such upstanding individuals hate our leaders. Now if we can just continue to work on instilling a sufficient quanity of fear...............

Inexcusable Policy

Political Correctness versus Common Sense

Daniel Pipes strikes yet another blow for common sense in this article dealing with the recent 'surprise' that Islamists have infiltrated our military:

Executive-branch insistence on "terrorism" being the enemy, rather than militant Islam, permits this Islamist penetration.

And it continues. The Defense Department responded last week to the chaplain's arrest by defending its hiring practices. Only under external pressure, notably from Sens. Chuck Schumer and Jon Kyl, did it agree to reassess them. Even then, the Pentagon insisted on reviewing the appointments of all 2,800 military chaplains - rather than the 12 Muslims among them.

Political correctness run amok! Which Christian or Jewish chaplains would be accused (as the Washington Times has reported of their Muslim colleague Yee) of "sedition aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order? By pretending not to see that the enemy emerges from one source, the authorities dilute their focus, render their review nearly meaningless and endanger security.

The U.S. government needs to use common sense and focus on militant Islam. It should consider such steps as:

* Breaking off contact with organizations (like the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) that place Islamists in government jobs.

* Suspending presently employed Muslim personnel who got their jobs through those institutions until their loyalty can be confirmed.

* Working instead with anti-Islamist Muslim groups, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America for Sunni Muslims and the American Muslim Congress for Shi'ites.

* Confirming that government-employed Muslims do, as many of them swore under oath, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A mechanism is needed to identify employees with an Islamist outlook and expel them from government service.

Ironically, the Defense Department finds it easier to kill Islamists in Afghanistan than to exclude them from its own ranks. But only if the latter is carried out can Americans be confident their government is fully protecting them.

It would seem that we should place extra scrutiny on Muslims at this point in time. Is this a suggestion for profiling? Yeah. Does anyone remember the story of the Trojan Horse? Apply it to terrorism and the problem becomes apparent, even to ~~socialists~~ ~~Liberals~~ Progressives.

Slick Willy Slipping

Recent Poll Shows Weakness

It looks like Slick Willy has lost some of his lustre:

Here's a little-publicized aspect of the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll showing Californians booting the increasingly green Gray Davis: Bill Clinton's support did more harm than good.

Question 13: "Did Bill Clinton’s campaigning against the recall of Governor Davis make you more likely to vote to recall Davis, did it not make much difference, or did it make you less likely to vote to recall Davis?"

Among registered voters, 18 percent said more likely, 68 percent said no difference and 12 percent said less likely. Among probable voters, 21 percent said more likely, 66 percent said no difference and 11 percent said less likely.

And the L.A. Times and other Democrat newspapers kept claiming that Clinton is so terribly popular in La-La Land.

Let's hope the donkeys' 2004 presidential nominee asks for Slick Willie's "help."

Better late than never. But what about those 11-12% who still listen to Ole Slick?
Diehards, Stubborn, or Dumb Asses?

So, how's Blair doing now?

Hanging on but taking heat from the right (Conservatives), left (unions) and far left (the antiwar factions)

Barbara Amiel's opinion piece tracks his career and highlights his commitment to the war on terrorism. Unlike Bush, Blair is ahead of most of his country on this issue and paying a steep political price for going out on such a limb.

British public opinion is heavily weighted in favour of appeasement as a policy until the last possible moment. Appease "foreign" terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Northern Ireland or America. Few people would admit that.

It is far more respectable to buy into the notion that terrorism, whether religious, nationalist or state-inspired, is a legitimate political expression of grievances, capable of being addressed. Talk to them. Listen. Or, just leave suicide bombers alone and they will leave us alone. Then everyone can go back to grumbling about transportation.

Blair was not of this cut. He took the terrorists at their own word - war against the West. He saw they couldn't be appeased with the equivalent of Benes's Czechoslovakia, namely Israel, when what they wanted was New York, Paris, Moscow and London as well.

It will be a sad day for the West if Blair's support for the War on Saddam brings him down. But so far his party's leadership is standing by him. More on Blair's struggle within the Labour Party can be found here.

My blogging will fade to zero as I fly to St George, Utah to run a marathon and then England for some R&R.

U.N.Serious

Running Away From Danger

Peter J. Wallison paints a bleak picture of the U.N. and its penchant for avoiding the difficult and dangerous jobs that need doing:

By withdrawing personnel after the first attack — instead of improving security and staying put — the U.N. has already made the declaration that is most important to the terrorists. It has admitted that it can be intimidated and manipulated by fear. As a result, it will be a more inviting target if it ever reenters Iraq than it was before, and especially so if it has any responsibility for administration of the country. This should make our policymakers even more wary about accepting a statement of determination at face value, and giving responsibility to the U.N., than they have seemed to be so far. Declarations are one thing; standing firm in the face of physical risk is quite another, and it may be that Kofi Annan and the U.N. administrators have already painted such a large target on themselves that they are, in every realistic sense, foreclosed from entering Iraq until security there is fully restored.

If that's true, we should abandon the idea, if it was ever seriously considered, of sharing power with the U.N. in Iraq.

With any such mob ruled organization such as the U.N. there is the very real tendancy to avoid, prolong, and debate to death any substantial action. This tendancy, combined with the recent reconfirmation of the lack of intestinal fortitude, precludes any right thinking person from believing that the U.N. can do any substantial work in Iraq beyond simple humanitarian aid. Perhaps their best bet is to remain offshore and send their aid into the country to be distributed by those who think enough of their ideals to fight for them. Given the track record of this group of petty tyrants we should never, ever, entrust such matters of grave importance as Iraq to them. Simply put, they are incapable of making the tough decisions, incapable of standing up to those who use violence, and lack the guts, brains, and will power to successfully complete any task that requires an effort beyond easy.

Politics Over Reality

Illegal Immigration and Wide Open Borders are a Serious Security Threat

While politicians avoid the issue of illegal immigration and gripe about such things as port security, our borders remain wide open to all who choose to walk in. This leaves one to wonder what these illegals are carrying with them as they enter the country and who exactly is doing the walking. Here is another group that sees the threat posed by our porous borders:

The public support exists, but the political and bureaucratic will is missing to enforce America's immigration laws, a panel of experts concluded Friday at a seminar in Washington, D.C.

Craig Nelson, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, cited a 2001 Zogby poll showing that 76 percent of likely voters felt the government was not doing enough to control the borders.

This issue goes much further than the underpayed illegal migrant worker who doesn't help support our system. The security issue of unfettered access makes other security measures nothing more than an illusion of protection. Given the close connection of terrorism with illegal drugs is should be apparent to all that the highly successful smuggling routes and methods used by the drug cartels and illegal aliens are the very same routes that terrorists can use to import armies of mass murderers and their weapons.

"The violence that is attendant with the drug trade leads to the loss of lives of many more than the 3,000 who perished on 9/11," Cutler continued. "These are because of the crimes associated with drug traffic carried out within our borders. There is also a nexus that exists between drug traffickers and terrorist organizations, as well as organized crime groups. We also lose American lives because of people involved with ethnic organized crime organizations. And yet, we have done very little to deter the criminal activities of these people operating within our borders."

Perhaps it is an impossible mission. We cannot stop illegal drugs, we have not stopped illegal aliens, and we most likely cannot stop terrorists from entering this country at will. No amount of border security will ever be enough. While reasonable methods of security should be implemented some very real facts remain. Unless we eradicate the source of illegal drugs they will continue to plague us. Unless we eradicate the source of terrorism it will continue to plague us. Unless we defend our borders from illegal immigration we face the triple threat of drugs, crime, and terrorism. Top this off with the social issues surrounding illegal workers and it would seem that our elected representatives would find the time to do something about the complete lack of security at every border and coastline we have. Still, we wait.

Sun Sep 28, 2003

Progressive Suckers

Socialism Takes on a New Look

Scott Hogenson discusses the tactic of the left of changing the term to disguise the truth, in this case, using 'progressive' instead of 'liberal' while avoiding 'socialist' like the very plague:

One of the best ways to monitor coming political trends is to pay close attention to the language, which is the first and most important tool in making radical policies more palatable.

The movement away from the use of 'liberal' and toward 'progressive' in American politics is one rooted in the hope of duping uninformed voters into supporting candidates and parties bent on advancing a socialist agenda. It is synonymous with socialism and is a moniker that preys on suckers.

The problem is, there's nothing progressive about progressive politics. It's a new use for an old phrase that constitutes the soul of socialism and communism.

With all the problems socialists are facing in Europe it is beyond comprehension that there are people in this country who still want to force that losing system on us. Progressive? Yeah, like France and its enlightened government. Maybe we need to send Hillary and a Coalition of Progressives over there to study failure in motion. That might help to derectumfy these delusional idealists. Probably not though, these people are immune from common sense. And....another thing. If these people truly believe that socialism is so great, why are they not simply using that term instead of avoiding it? Progressive, my ass. This is regressive back to the days of Lenin and Stalin, the enlightened ones.

Citizens Unite to Guard Our Borders

We're just gonna have to do it ourselves

Since our government hasn't adaquately addressed the illegal immigration problems, some citizens groups have taken it upon themselves to defend their homes from this scourge.

Incensed with lawmakers’ seeming indifference and limited federal resources, private citizens have begun to take action against what they can only perceive as an invasion of their property by forming their own border patrol groups.

Head on over and read about these groups. While you are there ask yourself what possible motive other groups have to oppose our self defense.

However these groups have come under fire from organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other pro-illegal immigration groups. Citing incidents like the one in Yuma, they denounce the “vigilantism” they say adds to the border's natural lawlessness.

Adds to natural lawlessness? Without illegal immigration and smuggling the level of lawlessness would be almost nil. With more border enforcement the level of lawlessness would also decrease. If the government can't or won't address this problem then the citizens must take measures to protect their homes and ours. What is it going to take to get Congress off their ass and onto the huge problem of border security? The president can't do it alone, Tom Ridge can't do it alone. Congress needs to address this problem or accept full responsibility when Osama comes strolling across the river and launches another attack. Congress must take responsibility when the benefits that working, tax paying Americans have earned for themselves are bankrupted by this influx of illegals. Congress must act or this problem will continue to grow, drugs will continue to flow freely, illegal aliens will continue to create problems, and our worst enemies will continue to have the ability to walk into our country and do as they will. It is time for some action on this issue. Now.

Front Line Voices

Open for Business

Head on over for the debut of Front Line Voices.
The mission for this new blog is to provide a view of reality using all the facts instead of what we are being fed by the major media. Initial concentration will be the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as keeping an eye on the media. Go see.

If you are or know anyone who would be interested in submitting their view of what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan please let me know. All views, positive and negative are welcome. All that we ask is for the truth as you see it. Let's hear it, we can take it.

A Cop in Baghdad

Police Perspective

Bernard Kerik gives a cop's eye view of the situation in Iraq:

To those who claim that we're not doing enough, fast enough, it helps to put matters in perspective. We're doing a hard job to the best of our abilities, in postwar circumstances, with really scarce resources and a clock ticking above our heads. In my four months there, I oversaw the setting up of 35 police stations in Baghdad. Try setting up 35 stations in New York in four months!
New Yorkers will remember that it took the Giuliani administration eight years to create the safest large city in the world and that was with every resource under the sun. Five months ago in Iraq, we adopted a country of 24 million, with no electricity, water, technology, Internet, telephones or radio communications, etc. There was nothing, and yet the critics are saying that it's taking too long. One would think that they themselves have the answer, or the magic pill that will fix it all, but unfortunately, there isn't one! It's always easier to criticize--as some Congressional delegations in Iraq are prone to do--when you have no operational involvement, insight, authority or responsibility.

There's that word again, perspective. Fortunately, it seems that the word has gotten out that Americans are seeking more info based on all the facts in Iraq. That perspective seems to be in the works and just in time.

TTLB New Weblog Showcase

Go Have a Look

This week's New Weblog Showcase is shy on entries but there is one that stands out.
That entry is from King of Fools and is call Caucasian Club.
Head on over and take a look at the all the entries and cast your vote.

Sat Sep 27, 2003

Dennis Miller for Senator?

This May Be the Newest Trend

Here's something to ponder:

The comedian Dennis Miller is being talked about — apparently seriously — as a Republican candidate for a statewide post. Three Republican strategists interviewed in the last week have said they want to draft Miller into politics. One, a prominent Republican operative and Schwarzenegger aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that, once the recall election is over, he plans to recruit Miller to challenge Barbara Boxer for her U.S. Senate seat next year.

Sounds like mucho fun.

Questions on Iraq

Let's Set the Record Straight

Dean Esmay hammers what seems to be the current hot topic in the blogoshere:

I suppose Democrats can hardly be blamed for jumping all over the President, claiming he "had no plan" for post-invasion Iraq. Even though many of them know that's a bald-faced lie, it's easy for them to rationalize when it looks like the plans the administration laid out are failing--even though they aren't. They can also hardly be blamed for claiming we have flubbed the greatest military victory in human history, with an astonishingly low number of civilian and military casualties, and even though our occupation has suffered extremely tiny numbers of casualties and has racked up impressive victory after impressive victory against dwindling guerilla forces. Even though the vast majority of Iraqis are known to be either friendly to the Americans or, at worst, mistrustful but cautiously optimistic. Because the media's doing such a piss-poor job at its job, it's easy for Democrats to smell blood and act like the political animals they are.

Why aren't reporters doing their jobs, and instead giving people at home an impression of what's going on over there that's directly counter to reality? Failure to go out and act like real journalists threatens the future of Iraq, to waste the lives of American GIs who've fallen, to embolden our enemies, and to cause pointless disunity at home, when we could be arguing about far more pressing and important issues.

Is that what they want? Or is it about time that they start really doing their jobs for once?

Head on over, Dean has a bunch of links pointing to other sources of info that say the same thing about media coverage of Iraq. Check it out for yourself and then raise some hell and set some records straight. This air of negativity is for a fact hurting the people who are fighting for us and it is sabotaging our efforts in what is an extremely important matter. Politics be damned, this is simply too important to be playing games with. Those who are knowingly playing that game need to be hurt badly where it matters the most, at the polls. The time draws nigh for them to pay up for their sins against America. Extract a heavy toll.

Link via SoCal Law Blog

Europe's Utopian Hangover

Quagmire, Quagmire, Quagmire

Even though the grand ideal of socialism has been mentioned a time or two in this blog, this article does a good job of driving home the point again. In it, Paul Johnson does a fine job in of laying out the bleak present and even bleaker future for the European Union:

The EU is built on a fantasy--that men and women can do less and less work, have longer and longer holidays and retire at an earlier age, while having their income, in real terms, and their standard of living increase. And this miracle is to be brought about by the enlightened bureaucratic regulation of every aspect of life.

Throw in the lack of incentive to excel and the recipe for failure is near complete.

The omens for continental Europe, however, are sinister. The entire plan for perpetual improvement upon which the EU depends is based on continuous economic expansion. There is no provision for stagnation. As we see in Japan, once stagnation sets in, it can last many years. Americans should count their blessings, above all the supreme blessing of having an economy that is run by businessmen not bureaucrats, or that--under wise governance--runs itself.

Head on over and read between the quotes. The fact of the matter is that the EU and most of the countries in it are stuck in a quagmire of social programs and labor unions that prevent them from freely adapting to changing times. With the lack of incentive to excel, mediocrity flourishes, without business people running business in place of bureaucrats and labor unions the EU's companies are paralyzed and to forced to keep all those mediocre employees come hell or high water, and with all those mediocre and uninspired workers on the dole the governments are stuck in a rut that only goes one way, down. Which leaves this question:
Why are there so many people in this country who feel that the EU model of government is the one we should have? Are these people blind, dumb, or out of their mind?

Hollywood Visits Iraq

Bruce Willis Entertains Troops

In what is surely a refreshing change from the normal drivel we get out of Hollywood, Bruce Willis has been on tour over there and offers some observations:

During an interview Willis said: "Peculiar thing back home is that the liberal media was trying to portray it as a bad war.

"But being over here just a couple of days, seeing how well our troops and the allied troops are being received here, (I) think the Iraqi people are happy we're here," the Hollywood star said.

"Children are being taken care of, starting being inoculated, starting being looked after. Wherever these guys go they get thumbs up. They no longer have to contend with the terrorist leader," Willis said.

Though Willis admitted to not having met many Iraqis his observations should nonetheless be added to other voices from over there that say we are making steady progress towards getting that country on its feet and giving them a chance to rule themselves democratically.

United Democratic Nations

Now, There's as Idea

Here is an interesting point of view from a Kurd. After proclaiming that Blair made a serious mistake insisting that Bush get that second resolution from the U.N. he further makes the point that seeking the present resolution for U.N. help in Iraq is also a mistake. But the biggest point is one that suggests a better version of the U.N. since the present form is unacceptable to a lot of people:

So what is the solution? Doesn’t the world need United Nations? No, not in its current form and structure.

Instead there should be United Democratic Nations.

Membership of this new body should not be open to fascist, dictatorial, repressive “sovereign” states.

It should be open only to democratic states and the principle of “regime change” should replace the principle of “sovereignty” in relation to dictatorial states that violate human rights.

There should be a “human rights and democratic principles” checklist covering: human rights, free press, freedom of expression, freedom of political action and organisation, free opposition parties and freedom for women and minorities. Only the nations that pass these tests should be accepted to UDN. Other states should be considered illegal dictatorial rogue states and the principle of “regime change” should be applied to them.

Mr Blair should not make another Blairite blunder. He should be patient and careful and work towards UDN.

Now that is something most reasonable people could agree to. The current U.N. is nothing more than a power device for the mob of undemocratic countries of the world. It is a burden to those who espouse freedom for all people. In fact, it's indecisive nature coupled with the selfish concerns of some of the members pretty much guarantees that this body will continue to be near useless for making important decisions on such matters as world peace. A complete overhaul is needed. Better yet, like this writer suggests, start fresh with a new world body with much stricter membership requirements.

Fri Sep 26, 2003

Slow Day

It Gets that Way at Times

Sorry for the slow posting today, it was just one of those days where other things were more important and nothing really caught my eye. There is some news though. Some Alliance members lead by Frank have come up with an idea to create a blog that attempts to shed some more light on the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Hopefully this venture will be in operation soon and a link can be posted. The intent is to counteract the air of negativity that the media has generated by doing what they do best, report bad news. Some other areas of interest include such things as debunking politicians of either party who attempt to circumvent the truth and rely on spin to suit their purposes. That should keep us busy. Since this blog has already been doing something along these lines it seemed natural to join the bloody fray. So stay tuned, when the site is up and running a link will magically appear on this site.
In the meantime, how about try to use the comments to leave us your views. The lack of comments tends to discourage your faithful bloggers here and leaves the impression that our posts are not appreciated. Either that, or we are so good that there is nothing else that needs adding. Which is it? Whatever the answer, a comment or two would be nice.
On the same thought train is this idea. Is there anyone out there that has something to say?
If so, submit your thoughts via email and, if suitable, it will be posted here. Those thoughts should adhere to some general rules of civility such as proper language (no cussing like a sailor) and remain in the realm of reality. You can remain anonymous or provide whatever info you wish. So speak your peace, its free.

Where are the Saddam horror stories?

The big media is ignoring the horrors of Saddam's regime

At the end of World War II the allies uncovered the unspeakable horrors concealed by Nazi Germany. The concentration camps, the mass graves, the torture chambers, and the slave labor camps made the front pages of Western newspapers.

While the Baathists were not as efficient as their role models - the Nazis and Communists - there is a mountain of evidence in Iraq of their crimes against humanity. Yet the media has largely ignored those crimes and the evidence, just as it has ignored the good news from Iraq. We see passing references to how power is almost back to pre-war levels, quotes from Iraqis pining for the good old days, a few token admissions that Saddam is a bad guy, but virtually nothing about the evil that was Saddam's rule of terror.

Bottom Line

Costs of War in Iraq

The Sophorist puts the cost of the war in Iraq into a little perspective:

It now seems that the cost of deposing Saddam Hussein and re-establishing civil government in Iraq will be in that range. Critics are using words like "massive" and "staggering" to describe the cost. But what we really should ask is: Compared with what? We cannot walk away. If we have no choice but to fight, it makes sense to spend what it takes to win. While any dollar amount in the billions is substantial, it's important to put it into perspective. The Vietnam War cost 12% of GDP at the time and World War II cost 130% of GDP.

The cost to defeat Saddam was less than half a percent of America's annual income (measured as gross domestic product). If spending continues at the current pace, our involvement could cost us 0.4% of our income for the rest of this year. If President Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is approved, the cost of these two fronts will amount to about 0.8% of our income next year.

To recap:

World War II = 130% of GDP
Vietnam War = 12% of GDP
Afghanistan and Iraq = 0.8% of GDP

A bargain at twice the price.

There you have it. Expensive, but still a bargain, IF we have the resolve to succeed. Otherwise, it will be a complete waste of not only money, but blood as well.

Dems Losing It

Pathological Hatred Blinds

Krauthammer nails Kennedy and his liberal cronies where it hurts the most, in the facts. A large portion of this editorial deals with the absurd accusation that Bush went to war in Iraq for political reasons. Common sense proves this to be absolutely rediculous and Charles covers it nicely:

Good politically? There are a host of criticisms one might level at Bush's decision to go to war -- that it was arrogant, miscalculated, disdainful of allies, lacking in foresight, perhaps even contrary to just-war principles. I happen not to agree with these criticisms. But they can be reasonably and honorably made. What cannot be reasonably and honorably charged, however, is that Bush went to war for political advantage.

On the contrary, this war was an enormous -- and blindingly obvious -- political risk. It was clear that if America failed either in the conduct of the war itself (a bloody Battle of Baghdad, for example) or in the aftermath (a failure of reconstruction), Bush would be deeply wounded politically.

Politically, the war promised nothing but downside. There was no great popular pressure to go to war. Indeed, millions took to the streets to demonstrate against it, both at home and abroad. Bush launched the war nonetheless, in spite of the political jeopardy to which it exposed him, for the simple reason that he believed, as did Tony Blair, that it had to be done.

You can say he made a misjudgment. You can say he picked the wrong enemy. You can say almost anything about this war, but to say that he fought it for political advantage is absurd. The possibilities for disaster were real and many: house-to-house combat in Baghdad, thousands of possible casualties, a chemical attack on our troops (which is why they were ordered into those dangerously bulky and hot protective suits on the road to Baghdad). We were expecting oil fires, terrorist attacks and all manner of calamities. This is a way to boost political ratings?

Whatever your (and history's) verdict on the war, it is undeniable that it was an act of singular presidential leadership. And more than that, it was an act of political courage. George Bush wagered his presidency on a war he thought necessary for national security -- a war that could very obviously and very easily have been his political undoing. And it might yet be.

To accuse Bush of going to war for political advantage is not just disgraceful. It so flies in the face of the facts that it can only be said to be unhinged from reality. Kennedy's rant reflects the Democrats' blinding Bush-hatred, and marks its passage from partisanship to pathology.

And that is a fact. Go see the rest.

Thu Sep 25, 2003

WMD's Were a Real Concern

Hillary Says So

Fred Barnes has an article dealing with Hillary's comments that seem to back up the Bush administration claims that Saddam had WMDs. Here is a portion:

PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.

Clinton isn't normally a defender of the Bush administration. And on other issues, especially Bush's handling of postwar Iraq, she was highly critical. But she agreed, with qualifications, that preemptive military action may be necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq.

Surely this truthful moment was just an oversight on Hillary's part. Just as surely it must really grate in the craw of certain folks in the BushHater camp.

Stupid Americans

How Soon They Forget

Neil Boortz lays into the stupid Americans who believe that the Democrats can do a better job fighting terrorism and the economy than Bush:

Oh ... but you're worried about our economy. That's why you are not satisfied with Bush. Do you want to see our economy take a real hit? Let those Islamic terrorists bring down just one commercial airliner with a ground-to-air missile. Watch the airline industry literally shut down ... then you'll get an economic show you won't soon forget. Or, much worse, let those Islamic terrorists get some of their chemical or biological weapons into a water supply or subway system. Now that would generate quite an economic spectacle for you to wring your hands over. Then, of course, we have the possibility of a nuclear event in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. Yeah, your job would be real safe then, wouldn't it.

You've heard of Job No. One, haven't you? Well, right now America's Job Number One is to fight Islamic Terrorism. The Islamic radicals have declared war on every man, woman and child in the United States. They want to kill you. We can either appease them, and then live in fear of a change of heart, or we can destroy them. You know damn well which party is the party of appeasement, and which is the party dedicated to destroying the terrorist enemy and protecting American lives and property. You have a choice to make, and it's not made on who "cares" more, it needs to be based on who will DO more.

That pretty much covers it but go see what else Boortz has to say.

Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11 - are they linked?

The jury is still out but don't be surprised if a guilty verdict comes in

Richard Miniter at TCS has listed all the evidence in the public record that links al Qaeda to Iraq. The first WTC attack is directly linked to Saddam:

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

That attack, had it gone according to plan, would have made 9/11 look like a picnic. Imagine one tower toppling onto the second with no warning.

Another important piece of evidence links al Qaeda to the Salman Pak terrorist training camp.

An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

Miniter does not mention the claims that Atta twice met Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague. These contacts would fit the pattern of contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq that Miniter does list and the reason why they favored personal contacts.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

Al Qaeda was responsible for both WTC attacks. Iraq can be linked to the first. We should not be surprised if evidence linking Iraq to the second attack turns up. Be assured though, that it will be as well hidden as Saddam's WMD programs.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

World must acknowledge U.S. role in ending squalor, slavery

Here is a little note from a Canadian supporter:

It would be nice if we could have a United Nations in which, for instance, such vicious governments as those of Libya, Syria and Cuba were viewed as the pariahs, instead of such bourgeois democracies as Israel and the U.S.

But that is asking more than I think is obtainable from an organization ultimately controlled by the votes of its 191 members, the majority of which are unspeakable despotisms, and most of the rest ruled, democratically or otherwise, by cynical, posturing hooves (like our own dear prime minister).

For the foreseeable future, sweetness and light should be sought more practicably, as socialism once was, "in one country" at a time.

Iraq and Afghanistan now offer the world, and the Islamic region, an unprecedented opportunity to pursue good works -- to raise men up from squalor and slavery to prosperity and freedom. Through its courage and persistence, the Bush administration and the United States have created this opportunity.

It is beyond the moral and intellectual capacity of much of the world to acknowledge this fact, but let them at least act in subconscious acknowledgement.

When will that acknowledgement occur? Probably never. Even in this country there are many who will continue to 'lack the moral and intellectual capacity' to admit that what we are doing is important and right. With that fact, the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general will remain a daunting and thankless task for the current administration. This is very unfortunate for all of us.

Cookies Anyone?

Bake Sale Raises Hackles

Here's another example of the free speech for me but not for thee attitude. Have some cookies:

Southern Methodist University shut down a bake sale Wednesday in which cookies were offered for sale at different prices, depending on the buyer's race or gender.

The sale was organized by the Young Conservatives of Texas, who said it was intended as a protest of affirmative action.

A sign said white males had to pay $1 for a cookie. The price was 75 cents for white women, 50 cents for Hispanics and 25 cents for blacks.

Members of the conservative group said they meant no offense and were only trying to protest the use of race or gender as a factor in college admissions.

Matt Houston, a 19-year-old sophomore, called the group's price list offensive.

"My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students," said Houston, who is black. "They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."

If affirmative action is not based on race, then what is it based on? And if it is based on 'bringing a diverse community to a certain organization', how is that diversity accomplished?
Another question comes to mind with the statement, "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created," issued by the college. Who exactly was it that was becoming hostile? Any bets?

Wed Sep 24, 2003

The New Prohibition

What Will Be Next?

Sterling Rome in CNS lays out his case against 'nanny state' laws and the rediculouis lawsuits that have resulted from the refusal to accept responsibility for personal choices:

Since arrogance and ignorance are so commonly displayed by our political elites, it is clear that the ban on smoking is just the beginning. There is already serious consideration of a "fat tax" on foods that politicians decide aren't good for us, and litigation is already underway across the country against food companies for allegedly making people fat.

Why not? After all, the states were able to secure billions of dollars from the tobacco industry for convincing juries that cigarettes can make you smoke them, so why not make the argument that Twinkies can do the same?

The dumbing-down of the public into accepting the premise that there is no such thing as free will or personal accountability might allow for more jackpot jury awards, but it also sows the seeds for nanny-state legislation like the smoking ban - and worse.

Remember, your favorite activity, habit, sin, vice, or simple pleasure may be next. Think about that next time you are asked to vote to ban someone else's business.

A Good Game

Waiting for the First String

Peter Schramm of No Left Turns has this to say to those who believe Bush has suddenly become vulnerable in the coming election:

Let me be clear that I think this perception, fueled by the elite media, the Democrats’ attempt to latch unto something, anything--now WMD, now unilaterialism, now all-of-Iraq-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket--that will give them some traction, is a good thing. Perception in politics counts for much, and sometimes it seems as if it can take you all the way over the goal line. If Bush is going to seem vulnerable, this is the time to so seem. This had better not happen next April or May, for example. Anyone worthy of the name of analyst would have predicted a low point in Bush’s political fortunes sometime between now and the election; but no one could have predicted when that would happen. Well, here it is, or here is the perception of it. Now, let’s see how far they can carry this ball. Not as far as they think. In their enthusiastic raptures to multilateralism, their paeans to the upstanding French, their deep understanding of the ways diplomacy and war, their deep knowledge of the pessimistic nature of Americans, these nay-sayers-of-negativism are forgetting that there is another team on the field between their driving perception and the goal post. This is a good game.

Uh huh. And just wait until the Bush team puts their first string on the field. Like I have said, the Dems have hitched their wagon to failure and that will prove to be a terrible mistake for them.

Senate Hearings Confirm Iraq Situation

Word From the Ground Vastly Different than Media Coverage

It seems that the word is getting out that what Americans are hearing about Iraq is not the true situation over there. Much as this blog has been saying, some senators have begun to paint another picture. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an available transcript for today's hearing so this will have to do.

Testimony in the Senate Foreign Relations committee today yielded some interesting speech. There were strong words from one senator who hears reports from those on the ground in Iraq that differ substantially from those of the mass media. Senator Bennett of Utah told a story of Viet Nam where the Secretary of Defense and the generals told a rosy tale of the situation in that war while the troops doing the dirty work told a totally different story. Today, he said, I hear many stories from our troops who have been there and those reports are a stark contrast to what we hear from our media. He told a story of a soldier who came home on leave for the birth of his twin babies. This soldier reported that he stopped watching the news after one day because it made him angry and upset due to the bias of untold stories. This same soldier reported that he WANTED to go back and help finish the job helping Iraqis. The senator closed with this:
But, these reports are the same that we hear from our current Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld and he encourarged Rumsfeld to continue being as frank and honest as he has in the past.
Senator Domenici had some words for his Democratic collegues in the Senate. The gist of which is this: If any of you actually believe what you have been saying about Iraq then I challenge you to do your duty and get up on the senate floor and introduce a bill to bring our troops home from Iraq. He forecast that not one such senator would do so. This was strong language and the put up or shut up attitude is very refreshing. Needless to say, you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for any Democrat to introduce such a bill. In my opinion, the Democrats have fallen into a deadly trap. This trap was of their own doing and involves using the negative for their own political gain. They have continued a trend of putting their own political survival before the overall good of the country. They have hitched their wagon to a strategy that depends on America's failure for its success. They will pay for this big time as the news begins to tell the whole story and Americans show what they think of leaders who fail to put the country's best interest ahead of their own selfish goals. Speaking of news from over there, here is today's word from the families of the 4th Infantry Division:

1) I received word from my son, B CO 299 ENG. BN. early this morning that he would be home on his mid-tour leave sometime between 25th & 27th...I am ecstatic..I must go to the grocery store immediatley and stock up on his favorite foods....I am so happy that he gets to come home and meet his son who was born June 29th, but I also know the goodbye this time will be even harder...I will do a lot of praying between now and then and hope I don't become a blubbering idiot...They never stop being our babies....So, for now my cup runneth over...Pray our soldiers' sight is acute, their aim is true and that as many come home as God can spare.

2) Hi there! The rumors are true...my brother is leaving Iraq within the next week to come home for two weeks! We are soooo excited!

There's >>>>>>>> Read more »

Controversial Pictures from the Womb

Smiling Faces Break Some Hearts

Michelle Malkin has a story about ultrasounds of smiling babies in the womb that paints a bleak picture of such groups as NARAL and NOW:

When General Electric began running incredibly moving ads last year celebrating the company's new innovations in sonography, a writer for the liberal American Prospect complained the commercials were "a milieu of clever illusion" that "blur[red] the distinction between a fetus and a newborn infant."
This from the masters of deception who gave us the infamous euphemisms "fetal matter" and "uterine tissue," that have successfully blurred the distinction between human life and disposable Kleenex for more than three decades.
Similarly, pro-abortion advocates have attacked legislation in Congress, introduced by Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, which would guarantee free ultrasound screenings to any woman who visits a non-profit crisis pregnancy center that receives subsidies for sonogram equipment.
Kathryn Allen, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, griped: "With all the problems going on in our world, I can't imagine that Congress would spend its time and energy on ultrasound for anyone."
Allison Herwitt, director of government relations for NARAL Pro-Choice America in Washington, also attacked pro-life supporters of the bill. "They don't want women to go to Planned Parenthood, where they'll get their full range of options," said Alison Herwitt. "They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayers' expense."
Liberals in America are all for the government giving away any health services for free — except if it's a service that has the ability to persuade a wavering patient to preserve a life instead of end it.
These amazing advances in golden-hued ultrasound have illuminated an insurmountable truth: No amount of NARAL money or National Organization for Women screeching can overcome the persuasive power of an unborn child's beaming face.

Can you say one way? Apparently these groups feel so threatened by the truth that they are willing to fight it tooth and nail at every opportunity. Perhaps they should get a real life and leave others to live theirs. Either way, this picture of NARAL and NOW ain't purty.

No Excuses

Speakly Frankly is a Refreshing Thing

Clifford May on NRO has some thoughts on Bush's U.N. speech:

Speaking at the United Nations on Tuesday, President Bush wasted no time and minced no words. The world today, he said, faces "an unfinished war." That war is being fought in such places as Baghdad, Bali, Bombay, Mombassa, Tunis, Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and Jerusalem. And in this global conflict, "there is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization."

This is not what the president's critics, adversaries, and enemies wanted to hear. They hoped he would sound apologetic and chastened. But he wasn't even particularly conciliatory. Terrorists, he admonished the U.N. General Assembly, "those who incite murder and celebrate suicide...have no place in any religious faith, they have no claim on the world's sympathy, and they should have no friend in this chamber."

The president's opponents won't like that kind of talk. They'll call it arrogant. They'll say it is bruises the tender sensibilities of the distinguished representatives of the international community. But speaking frankly and truthfully to the members of the U.N. — as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to do — is a tradition worth reviving.

The president's opponents don't like any thing about G.W. But the fact is, the U.N. has failed to live up to its mission on nearly every occasion and its very future depends upon waking up and correcting such ludicrous situations as Libya on Human Rights commission and Syria on the security council. Still, it seems that poor Kofi still doesn't get it and intends to increase the power of the mob to paralyze all action. So yeah, Bush told it like it is, not as the career diplomats at the U.N. may have wanted. If the truth hurts then some changes need to be made in that organization before it truly does become irrevocably useless.

The costs lawsuits impose are getting out of control

Trial lawyers netted $40 billion from $205.4 billion in settlements

Marguerite Higgins writing in the Washington Times highlights a study that exposes the high cost of lawsuits. The $200 billion works out to $700 per US resident. Of course, it's not like a tax where you have some idea of what you are paying. The cost of lawsuits is built into the prices of goods and services as companies pass on to consumers the cost of lawsuits and the cost of measures taken to reduce the risk of lawsuits.

These figures underestimate the impact of lawsuits, as Higgens notes:

When calculating the costs of the litigation, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin included insured costs and overhead, self-insured costs and medical costs. The measures did not include tobacco settlement costs, most contract and shareholder litigation costs, most punitive damages costs or indirect costs like reduced innovation or investment.

That makes the $205.4 billion estimate the tip of the iceberg.

While some lawsuits have merit, many are based on junk science and jury shopping. The breast implant cases that destroyed Dow Corning and crippled many medical device manufacturers were based on junk science. The genuine asbestos cases have been overwhelmed by a flood of new cases based on the notion that workers that may have been exposed to asbestos should be compensated for diseases that have not manifested themselves and may never do so. Law firms have become adept at using the threat of class action lawsuits filed in multiple friendly jurisdictions to force companies to settle cases that had no merit.

The system is out of control and congress seems unwilling to tackle the problem. Democrats rely on campaign contributions from trial lawyers and many Republicans, Trent Lott and Arlen Specter come to mind, are also sympathetic to the interests of trial lawyers. Meanwhile, costs rise, companies close or move off shore and the economy suffers great harm.

Tue Sep 23, 2003

Shocking Coincidence

Believe It

John Cole of Balloon Juice fame has found that he has something in common with BaBa:

Today I find myself in total agreement with Barbra Streisand:

Barbra Streisand says she finds listening to her own songs is so boring that it was one of the reasons she gave up public performing three years ago.

I find her songs so boring I can't listen to them either.

The

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message