QandO

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.......

When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded: "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation."

To say the least, Mr. Minister.

Some might even argue that the previous regime was catastrophic, and did not correspond with the demands of the situation.

UPDATE: John Rogers points to a poll which indicates that 32% of the American public would have the US leave Iraq immediately.
Get that? Almost 1/3rd of the American public needs to be slapped into reality by the French Foreign Minister.

That's like having your pronunciation criticized by President Bush.

I hope they're suitably embarrassed.

It's never easy to say "my bad", and Paul Krugman managed to do it badly in his most recent:

"To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started. And despite yesterday's good news, that's a trick President Bush still seems likely to pull off."

Oh, so it's Bush that's losing the jobs. I see.

I wonder if the 90s tech bubble, and resulting factory over-capacity, could have anything to do with it? Or if it could be related to the worldwide slide in manufacturing jobs among industrialized nations? Or possibly due to the economic slump occurring around the world? Or 9/11? Or the effects of the perfectly normal slump in the business cycle?

Nah. It's Bush.
Don't you know? Correlation has suddenly become causation. Really. It's the most amazing thing.

Tom Maguire has a good piece on more of the economic sleight of hand in Krugmans column. It's worth reading.

Surfing the blogosphere....

* The Man Without Qualities finds one blog who, apparently, hasn't heard the good economic news. Gosh, I wonder why?


* That leads me to check.....and, hey, suprise suprise! As of this morning, no mention of the massive GDP growth on the Democratic Party websites News Section, or their Blog. I guess it's just an oversight.


* I guess this is an oversight, too.

"...the White House has edited its website to keep search engines from archiving pages on Iraq."

No correction, and no update, despite the fact that it was apparently a glitch and it was immediately corrected.

"...in response to inquiries from 2600 and other sources, the White House web team has recently changed their robots.txt so that these files are no longer blocked."

Seems to me that the advantage of blogs is the ability to update what you write, if the story changes or the facts contradict you. If the DNC cannot do that basic blogging task, then their blog is.....well, just propaganda.


* The APwire this morning has this report:

"Virginians getting drivers licenses for the first time next year will have to provide documents proving they are in the country and state legally. The state has made changes in the laws since it was discovered that several of the nine-eleven
hijackers had Virginia I-D cards."

Thank goodness they didn't waste any time getting right on that.

Too bad they couldn't have started it a few months earlier, though, in time for the 2nd ANNIVERSARY of the attacks allowed by those loose license policies!


* The Angry Economist has an instructive, yet simple, discussion on trade deficits.

consider that you have a permanent trade deficit with the supermarket that you buy your food from. They are forever selling you things, you are forever paying them, and yet you NEVER offer to sell them anything. Nobody has a problem with this. Nobody is decrying the trade deficits that customers everywhere have with stores. Of course not, because the concept is just wrong.

* I'm always looking for more interesting pieces. If you've got one, or found one, feel free to pass it on to me. (audioboy101 (at) aol.com)

I have been reticent to comment on the apparent legal dispute between Donald Luskin and Atrios.

On the one hand, I like Donald Luskin....he's been very kind in our email exchanges. He's friendly, and he has responded to each message. That's a rare kindness, and it strikes me that he is a nice fellow.
Add to that my distaste for the insulting anti-intellectualism of Atrios, and I've got little reason to jump into the fight.

Except, I think it's important to be fair to your opponents. That's been the reason for my previous criticisms of Luskin....

Donald Luskin has been working hard to keep up with the ridiculous hyperbole and falsehoods that come pouring out of Paul Krugman on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, he does not appear to be immune to that same disease.

.....I think it's warranted this time, as well.

Well qualified lawyers have already pointed out that the suit has no merit. You don't need me to add my unqualified opinion. Other bloggers have also pointed out the negative effect it could have on the blogosphere.
I agree. This suit is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Having said that, let me repeat one of my previous points about Mr Luskin.
Unlike Paul Krugman....

"Luskin seems capable of admitting when he's wrong"

I hope he'll do so, again.

Econopundit has a good point about the recent "Windfalls of War" piece....

"...the study uncovers many contracts awarded to poorly-connected companies who made only modest political donations, but actually dismisses these as still-corrupt owing to their having been awarded to unsuitable companies with 'thin or no credentials'!"

Apparently, they would only be satisfied if the administration gave contracts exclusively to companies who only donated to Democrats.

My own take: The study reaches conclusions based on correlation, not causation. They make logical leaps, while leaving out relevant data points that point to alternate explanations.

For example.....

More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years. Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush - more than $500,000 - than to any other politician over the last dozen years.

This is news? Let me point out a few other things we know...
* Presidents, who engage in the most high-stakes election campaign, naturally get the largest donations. So, it is to be expected than a President will get more donation-money than, say, a Congressman. So, that narrows the competitive field down to only two people in the last 12 years....Bush and Clinton.

* The Defense industry tends to lean Republican, since Republicans are perceived to be stronger on Defense. And that means it follows that, war or no war, Bush would get more donations than Clinton from this industry.

So, what's the story? Where's the suprising data? What's news here?
Big Defense-industry businesses tend to give more to Republicans than Democrats? Thanks, but I think there are as yet undiscovered tribes in the heart of the Peruvian jungle who already knew that little bit of information.
...a bit of information that was, interestingly, absent from this report.

The report implies that the companies were selected because of connections...

Most of the companies that won contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are political players.

Perhaps I'm a bit ignorant about the field, but aren't most major, qualified companies who work closely with the government, and apply for government contracts, "well connected", as a matter of course.

Are there really major defense industry contractors who have no connections?
I doubt it.

The report, of course, does not indicate the percentage of major, qualified companies who have no connections at all.

But did the Administration engage in a little tit for tat?

Kellogg, Brown & Root, the subsidiary of Halliburton - which Vice President Dick Cheney led prior to being chosen as Bush's running mate in August 2000 - was the top recipient of federal contracts for the two countries, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to the company.

$2.3 billion! That's a lot of profit!

Well, not so much. 2.3b is REVENUE. Revenue is not profit.

In fact, according to their 3Q financial statement, out of revenues of $900 million, Kellog, Brown and Root had a profit of.......you ready for the massive payback?


....wait for it.....


$34 million.

Yep, a profit margin of less than 4%. Good times are here again.

Look, I've no doubt that there is a degree of "politics" involved in the decision-making process. That's true for every industry. I've also no doubt that there is a lot of waste. It is, after all, government.

But the allegations that this is a "pay off" for friends and supporters is simply unsupported.

In every silver cloud....

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003..."

...there's a dark lining, as James Picerno points out:

In the world according to Darda, either gold is due for a fall or velocity is set to rise. Darda's betting on higher velocity, and by extension, higher inflation. That is, unless the Fed acknowledges the inflation threat and acts accordingly. That may be too much to expect now that the presidential election cycle has effectively begun.

Deflation has appeared to be the most significant threat, recently....but Picerno offers reason to believe otherwise....

As for the threat of deflation, Darda thinks worrying about this is akin to planning for a blizzard in Miami. As he told us on the phone yesterday, "There's never been a country in the history of the world that's experienced monetary deflation when the value of its currency is in decline against other currencies and gold."

The seeds of so many economic problems are sown with the "solutions" to a previous problem.

Thus...
* The growth following WW1 was "helped along" with simultaneous Government subsidies and loose monetary policy.....which caused the Great Depression.
* The Great Depression was "solved" with the New Deal....which caused the Depression to drag on until WW2.
* The Poverty rate problem of the 50s-early 60s was solved by the Great Society....which created a permanent tax-siphon on the economy, and subsidized non-productivity. (...and if you subsidize it, it will grow)
* The 70's. (you know)

A little tinkering here, and a little tinkering there, and we may put down one monster.
.....and succeed in creating our next monster.

Howard Dean isn't sure about his sexuality:

Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," the buzz phrase for straight men in touch with their feminine sides, as he touted his accomplishments in "equal justice" for gay and lesbian couples.

But then he waffled.

"I'm a square," Dean declared, after professing his metrosexuality to a Boulder breakfast audience with an anecdote about being called handsome by a gay man. "I like (rapper) Wyclef Jean and everybody thinks I'm very hip, but I am really a square, as my kids will tell you. I don't even get to watch television. I've heard the term (metrosexual), but I don't know what it means."

Tom Maguire notes that "in the millisecond between assertion and retraction, Dean's entire Southern "strategy" passed before his eyes."

One does have to wonder how that will play in the South.

Bill: "Honey, that Dean feller just called hisself a 'meterasekshul". Any idear what that is?"

Carol: "I don't know, dear....maybe he has relations on city buses?

Bill: "naw, I doubt it. I cain't see that feller ridin public transpertashun. I think he might be one a them, whatyacallit, folks who know how to match their pants and their shirt. I ain't sure I can vote for a feller like that."

Carol: "Dear, you haven't voted since Jimmy Carter."

Bill: "You're damned straight. If ya cain't trust a peanut farmer from Georgia, who can ya trust? Not one of these here meterasekshuls, that's fer sure. I ain't votin for em!"

Carol: "...but you never vote anyway."

Bill: "Well, this year, I ain't votin for him, specifically."

Yep. Howard Dean better get caught kissing his wife, and soon. Also, it wouldn't hurt if he made a few campaign stops at Hooters before Super Tuesday rolls around.

Brian Anderson contends the conservatives are not losing the cultural war:

Almost overnight, three huge changes in communications have injected conservative ideas right into the heart of that debate. Though commentators have noted each of these changes separately, they haven’t sufficiently grasped how, taken together, they add up to a revolution: no longer can the Left keep conservative views out of the mainstream or dismiss them with bromide instead of argument. Everything has changed.

The three changes he cites are:
1: Cable TV, especially FoxNews
2: The internet, especially major right-of-center bloggers, Drudge, OpinionJournal, NRO, etc.
3: Book publishing, where conservative voices are finally breaking through in the mainstream.

Hm....I'm not sure I'd agree that it's necessarily a coup that the conservatives have created a News network that is just as biased as they believe the other networks to be. It smells of "if you can't beat em, join em".

Perhaps it's time for the right wing to quit claiming to be such media-martyrs? Perhaps.

One other observation. I note that a common thread in many of the changes noted by Mr Anderson is libertarianism.
From the blogosphere, to talk radio, to South Park (yes, South Park) libertarians have begun to get a voice in the public dialogue, and I think it's going to increase, as our "do as you will, but do no harm" ideology resonates with people grown tired of a too-large government.

Perhaps we will see a rebirth of respect for the individual? One can only hope.

He might write something like this.....

Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Bush, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft forgotten during campaigns.

So let it be with Bush. The noble Democrats
Hath told you Bush was ambitious.

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Bush answered it.
Here, under leave of Wesley Clark and the rest --

For Clark is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men --

Come I to speak in Bush's funeral.
He was the President, unfaltering and he gave tax cuts to me.

But John Kerry says he was ambitious,
And Kerry is an honorable man.

He hath brought liberation to Iraq,
and our own ransoms did their general coffers fill.
Did this in Bush seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Bush hath sent them $87 billion.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

Yet Gephardt says he was ambitious,
And Gephardt is an honorable man.

You all did see that in Florida
the voters twice presented him an election,
Which the Supreme Court did twice uphold. Was this ambition?

Yet Lieberman says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.

I speak not to disprove what the Democrats spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did approve of him once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to vote for him?

O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And Bush's opponents have lost their reason!

It's the economy, stupid:

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

It's Bush's fault, you know.
....at least, that's what I've been hearing from the Democrats, and they wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't true, right?

If society was a swimming pool.....

* Democrats would make sure everybody got an equal amount of swimming time, even if that meant the pool was too crowded to actually swim. And the good swimmers would have to carry the dog-paddlers.

* Republicans would let swimmers do what they liked.....provided it was on the list of pre-approved swimming activities.

* Libertarians would keep the pool clean.

You know, at the end of the day, I'm just a guy. And guys, real guys, like cool stuff.

And this is cool stuff.

UPDATE: Old Link was blogspotted.....I've updated it, but you'll have to scroll down to the cool picture. You'll know it when you see it. It's the cool one.

"We're from the Government and we're here to help you. Whether you want it or not."

Roughly 40,000 poor people have been dropped from the Oregon Health Plan this year because of their failure to make monthly premium payments, some as low as $6 a month.

Sounds like a pretty clear declaration of the "will of the people", right?

Wrong. The bar, in Oregon, has been set very, very low.

Advocates for the poor say the premiums are too expensive for some people and the government may have overestimated the ability of people to mail a check.

What, they don't have enough time to mail that check? They're certainly not putting in too much overtime at work, so what's the problem?

Oh, and "overestimated the ability of people to mail a check". That may be the single most insulting statement I've ever read.
But the fact that it is, apparently, true does tend to mitigate the offensiveness. I guess this is exactly what "too stupid to live" means.

Fortunately, we have the government to pick up the pieces when times are tough and......uh, we can't be bothered to get off the couch.

"It's an enormous barrier," said Ellen Pinney, director of the Oregon Health Action Committee. "Let alone the $6, there is the whole issue of writing a check or getting a money order, putting it in an envelope with a stamp and putting it in the mail to this place in Portland that must receive it by the due date."

Funny, they don't seem to have any trouble feeding themselves, which is at least as difficult.

You know, once upon a time we believed in the Protestant work ethic: "if you don't work, you don't eat".
Then, we got the New Deal work ethic: "we'll find work for you, so you can eat."
Followed by the Great Society work ethic: "Find work. Don't find work. Whatever. We'll feed you."
Now, we have the Big Government work ethic: "we're going to feed you whether you like it or not."

Odd, isn't it, that right around the time the government started teaching darwinian evolution, they stopped allowing darwinian evolution.

(link via Best of the Web)

This can't be making Terry McAuliffe happy:

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

That's gonna leave a mark.

Well, when your Party platform is "anybody but Bush", there are bound to be a few people who aren't willing to vote for just "anybody".

(link via Captains Quarters)

When all Al Sharpton has is a hammer, everything is a nail...

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's [National Rifle Association's] agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country."

I'd suggest that this ridiculous attack means Al Sharpton is struggling....but, then he's always resorted to this attack.

On the other hand, he's always been struggling, too.

On the FCC and deregulation, Arnold Kling makes an interesting observation:

The FCC oversees industries in which competition is messy. Broadcasting and telecommunications do not resemble the economist's model of "perfect competition," in which there are no economies of scale or network effects or information asymmetries or dominant firms. In spite of all of these deviations from the ideal of perfect competition, Powell favors reducing the weight of the hand of government.

By defending markets even when competition is messy, Powell is being Hayekian. Friedrich A. Hayek, awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974, viewed Competition as a Discovery Procedure. He wrote, "market theory often prevents access to a true understanding of competition by proceeding from the assumption of a 'given' quantity of scarce goods. Which goods are scarce, however, or which things are goods, or how scarce or valuable they are, is precisely one of the conditions that competition should discover."

Powell's opponents are Stiglitzian. Joseph Stiglitz, awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001, wrote, "But information economics does not agree with Hayek's assertion that markets act efficiently. The fact that markets with imperfect information do not work perfectly provides a rationale for potential government actions."

Hayek would have the government tolerate messy competition. His point is that with the optimal outcome unknown, government resolution of issues shuts off the learning process that market competition provides.

Stiglitz sees the messiness in real-world economies, and he claims to have the right solution in every case. ....
Stiglitz's outlook is that markets are imperfect, but he is not. Where Marx offered dictatorship of the proletariat, Stiglitz would give us dictatorship of the Nobel Laureate. Between the two, we might be safer with Marx.

In Washington, the conventional wisdom is Stiglitzian. People do not run for office or seek appointments to high-level regulatory positions out of humility and respect for market processes. It is not surprising that the Beltway views Powell as at best eccentric and at worst a heretic.

What's really suprising is how little faith our elected officials have in the free market, and how much faith they have in monopoly. (provided, of course, the monopoly belongs to the government)

The White House was blocking certain webpages from showing up on search engines. It was a scandal! Obviously the administration was trying to put history down the memory hole, because "they want to make it harder to get caught if they do something like that again".

Obviously.

Except, not so much. Apparently, they were simply partitioning off the WhiteHouse website into separate templates, without every search returning duplicate results.

In fact, an Archive group was recently asked to do a thorough scan of the website and they said:

"[T]here was no hint of sinister intent in their expressed wishes. Instead, we were told "we could scoop everything up, no problem" -- a genuine desire to have whitehouse.gov material archived, on a topic-neutral basis."

Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Maybe next time.

(link via WizBangBlog)

Funniest. Commercial. Ever. (non-SuperBowl category)

(link via Donald Sensing)

Always a good round up of the blogosphere, it's the Carnival of the Vanities.

I wish it was a daily round-up. What the blogosphere needs is a portal....a Drudge Report for blogs.
Somebody who rounds up the important, interesting and substantive posts from the blogosphere and keeps it constatly updated. Like Instapundit....but more.

Between the traffic, donations and sponsored links.....I've wondered if somebody could make money off that.

Any thoughts? Would it be something you'd visit/support?

Know what makes me cry? This.

I wish I'd been there to see it.

One of the most commonly cited meme's among the anti-war crowd is that Halliburton is "Making a Killing on the war".....that Halliburton was "profiteering".

Well, the results are in, and if Halliburton is profiteering...they suck at it.

From their 3rd Quarter financial statement, specific to subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, who got the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. (the "no-bid contract")

"KBR revenue for the third quarter of 2003 was $2.3 billion, an 80% increase over the third quarter of 2002. The improvement was primarily due to increases in government services activity and, to a lesser extent, progress on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas projects in Nigeria and Algeria, and hydrocarbon plants in North America and Europe."

Gasp! Their revenue was "largely due to the government activity!".

....but revenue is not necessarily profit, is it? Well, no. It's not.
And to "profiteer", you have to profit.

"Total company revenue and operating income from Iraq-related work in the third quarter were $900 million and $34 million, respectively. Iraq-related work contributed $0.05 per diluted share of earnings after tax."

So, after all the complaints that KBR was getting "billions" from administration cronyism....this is what we get? A 34 million dollar profit?

That's a Iraq-related profit margin of less than 4%. Be still my heart.

But, hey, something is better than nothing, right? Well, not always.
This war wasn't exactly "nothing but net" for Halliburton. Instability in the worldwide oil market hit their other revenue streams pretty hard:

"The increase in revenue was partially offset by lower revenues on projects in western Africa, Brazil and Asia Pacific, maintenance contracts in the United States and the United Kingdom, and the United States Government contract in the Balkans."

Hands up if you've heard the protestors mentioning the US government contracts to KBR/Halliburton that were reduced.

No? Funny, that.

The Belgravia Dispatch takes a look around to find out what the Arab leaders thought of the recent killing of Arabs in the Iraq bombings. They condemned it, of course....I mean, killing Arab civilians during Ramadan? Well, not so much:

No. Not a whimper of condemnation from Hosni Mubarak (he tepidly wished for "Iraq's stability" in a meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister), Crown Prince Abdullah (who told a cabinet session that "he hoped Muslim countries and peoples would seize on the holy month of Ramadan to end all kinds of disunity and disputes"), King Abdullah (nada), or Bashar Assad (no surprise there).

....surely when Arab blood is spilled in such large number--Arab leaders might step up to the plate to condemn these vicious tactics?

Nope. Rather a quite deafening silence or broad banalities uttered about Ramadan bonhomie.

Telling.

On that note, Dale Franks has a related comment:

Hey, just out of curiosity, why is it that we have to walk on freakin' eggshells so as not to disturb anybody during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, but the Muslims themselves can blow up 40 people in homicide bombing attacks.

I'm just, you know, wondering.

Well, that's an easy one....Realpolitik.

We'll stand by the principles we value.....human rights, tolerance, and sensitivity.
The Arab/Muslim leaders will stand by the principles they value....the survival of their own tyrannies.

Oh, they're being consistent........provided one understands just what they want to be consistent about.

I've been enjoying the blog run by Tyler Cowen for some time, but haven't put it on the blogroll. That was an oversight and it has been corrected. Marginal Revolution is chock-full of excellent information on a variety of topics, but mostly focused on economics.

Plus, he's an economics professor at George Mason University, which is on my very short list of places at which I'd like to continue my education. (Walter Williams? Blogger Tyler Cowen? Nobel prize winners James Buchanan and Vernon Smith? I'd be a kid in that candy store)

A couple notes from Marginal Revolution.....

* Tyler points to historic evidence which suggests the current stock market optimism is probably justified....

* Some studies indicate that the US is ranked 21st in terms of per capita foreign aid. But, Tyler points out....

"These figures neglect remittances, where the U.S. is a very clear first with $28.4 billion a year sent to other countries. The bottom line: when it comes to other nations, the United States is the most generous country in the world."

We could be doing better, though. Tariffs, trade restrictions and subsidies hurt the US just as much as they hurt other countries.

In Techcentralstation, James Glassman writes on the cost/benefit of environmental initiatives....

"The Senate is set to vote Thursday on a bill that would impose mandatory restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, affecting practically every business and consumer in the country.

While supporters claim that the climate-change legislation, S.139, introduced by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), has been toned down in response to concerns about its negative economic effects, a new study by Charles River Associates finds that the impact would still be dramatic -- a cost of between $350 and $1,300 per family per year through 2020.

At a minimum, the study found, "refined petroleum product prices would rise by 12 percent to 16 percent" even under the milder, amended McCain-Lieberman bill. Under the most optimistic assumptions, "the associated consumer costs are estimated to be $350 per household in 2010, rising to $530 per household by 2020."

Most large-scale environmentalist legislation (Kyoto, for example) reminds me of going to the doctor for a cold. Sure, he can write you a prescription that will make you fee a bit better, temporarily.

But the cold would go away whether you went to the doctor or not, and at the end of the day, you're paying 100 bucks to somewhat reduce your symptoms for two days.

But, you argue, "if we don't do something, we'll never get rid of the pollution!"
And I'd respond...."what in the world would make you believe that?"

History indicates otherwise. With the exponential advance of technology, one would be hard-pressed to argue that we will have the same problems in 50 years, that we have now. After all, coal was our major pollutant 100 years ago.....and when's the last time you saw a "Coal-dust Alert"?

So, why create "solutions", when we can be fairly certain that the problems will be solved, before the solutions can take effect? Why institute the Kyoto Treaty which purports to slow global warming by a degree or two by the year 2094, when it's hard to imagine we'll still be driving gas-powered cars in the year 2050?

In short, why not solve our problems with progress, rather than regress? It will leave us better prepared to handle the next problem.....and there will be a "next problem". Always.

Of course, the current problems aren't necessarily as bad as you may believe:

The Mann research is commonly known as the "hockey stick," for the shape of a graph that shows temperatures roughly flat from 1000 through the early 20th century, then rising sharply on the right-hand side, like the blade-end of a hockey stick. The United Nations used Mann's research to declare that "the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium."

A new paper, however, published in the journal Energy and the Environment, repudiates the Mann claims. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick examined Mann's data and found his research "contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."

A new computation, with the errors corrected, discovered that the "late 20th Century is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries, displaying neither unusually high mean values nor variability." In fact, temperatures were higher during periods in both the 15th and 16th Century than they were in the late 20th Century.

UPDATE: Drudge is reporting:

German scientists who have created a 1,000-year-record of sunspots said Wednesday they discovered the Sun has been in a frenzy since 1940 and this may be a factor in global warming.

The Sun is not participating in the Kyoto Treaty, either. Unilateralist.

Ok ok... this will the third time I've mentioned this, and it may not be the last. I keep thinking of new reasons to ridicule A.N.S.W.E.R. for this (pdf).....

"...the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

So, I am to understand that A.N.S.W.E.R. is not really opposed to wars against the government of Iraq. They're just opposed to wars against the government of Iraq, if that government is the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

If, however, the government of Iraq is temporarily the United States, then they give their "unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance" (read: people who kill US soldiers and bomb the Red Cross)

That isn't dissent....it's hypocrisy.

...and treason.

Recently, following another unsubstantiated bit of NYT Op-Ed pessimism, Econopundit called out Paul Krugman:

Professor Krugman, we issue this public challenge to you.

We've published all our data and announced the MODEL that generates PREDICTIONS similar to those of Secretary Snow.

On what MODEL do you base your ALTERNATE PREDICTIONS?

If you are not using a model are your predictions, rather, based on IRRATIONAL "GUT" FEELING?

As of yet, I've seen no response from Professor Krugman.

Odd, too, considering Professor Krugmans distaste for people who make unsubstantiated economic predictions.....

"I am a strong believer in the importance of models, which are to our minds what spear-throwers were to stone age arms: they greatly extend the power and range of our insight. In particular, I have no sympathy for those people who criticize the unrealistic simplifications of model-builders, and imagine that they achieve greater sophistication by avoiding stating their assumptions clearly."

I'm feeling a distinct lack of sympathy, too, Professor.

A brief round-up of items worthy of attention....

* Dale Franks brings back the Captions. Scroll down for more. Funny.
(also, he's the only guy in the blogosphere who has ever written the words "That's my kind of justiciating!" That's gotta be worth something)

* Looks like an interesting website. It allows you to look at any of the candidates positions/statements on the issues, or even compare two candidates on any given topic. (Mmmm...research) I'm saving it.

* Pejman asks whether we really want the anti-war crowd leading our country, considering their paucity of ideas that don't begin with the words "I hate" and end with "Bush". Oddly, he began the post with the correct answer, and finished with the question.

Also, he quotes Isaac Asimov, long my favorite author. Paul Krugman is a fan, too, but I don't think that invalidates Asimov.

* Glenn Reynolds, on the people who believe that God will visit his wrath on the US, if we allow gay marriage:

"Yeah: No-show for the Holocaust, or Rwanda, or what's going on in North Korea, but he's going to come down from the clouds and hurl lightning bolts if two guys get married."

* John Hawkins polled bloggers (including QandO), asking which books have had "The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking". Follow the link for his list.
My selections were as follows:

Fiction:

- Lord of the Rings (JRR Tolkien)
- Chronicles of Narnia (CS Lewis)
- Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
- Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States (Dave Barry)

Non-fiction:

- Diplomacy (Henry Kissinger)
- Eat the Rich (PJ O'Rourke)
- Parliament of Whores (PJ O'Rourke)
- Life and Time (Isaac Asimov)
- The Relativity of Wrong (Isaac Asimov)
- Free to Choose (Milton Friedman)

....but I probably forgot a few.

Samizdata finds another reason why more government doesn't necessarily mean better government...

It was reported last week that an Austrian farmer, Johann Thiery, had been fined and threatened with prison for selling "apricot marmalade" made from a traditional Austrian recipe passed on by his grandmother. Under EU rules "marmalade" can only be made from citrus fruit. Sternly defending Mr Thiery's punishment, a European Commission spokesman said: "The law is the law."

Next day Pedro Solbes, the EU's economics commissioner, was reported as defending the right of France and Germany to run up huge budget deficits, in flagrant breach of the Growth and Stability Pact. "Given the circumstances we face," he said, "it would be unwise to follow the letter of the law."

...and why would we assume it will be any different? After all, aren't the tendency towards double-standards a part human nature?

And when power is centralized....?
Centralization of power has the same effect on government that a monopoly has on the free market. Namely, "if you don't like the way we do it here....too bad. We're going to keep doing it to you."

Nancy Pelosi chooses an interesting time to get serious about the war on terror:

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday police raids on dozens of U.S. Wal-Mart stores in the search for illegal immigrants this week amounted to "terrorizing" workers.

Yeah, Senator....United States policeman, enforcing the law. We should be fighting a War against that terror.

Is it any wonder that so many people find it hard to take the Democrats seriously on matters of national security?

She goes on....

"It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family," Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on a Congressional visit to Mexico.

Well, I suppose it does, at that.

Good.

"Fear".....would you prefer criminals feel any other way?

(link via CountryStore)

A. Barton Hinkle, in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, writes on the perception of NPR as "liberal".

It seems there's a good reason for it....

(Neil) Kuchinsky, a Colonial Heights attorney, recently sought to make a corporate contribution through his firm. He wanted the tag line to read, "Attorneys who are militant in opposing terrorism."

He did not choose the words idly. National Public Radio excels in delivering hard news, in-depth issue coverage, and "Hey, Martha" material (that is, amusing gee-it-sure-is-a-wacky-world stories that, if they appeared in print, would cause husbands to call out, "Hey, Martha, get a load of this!"). But NPR's on-air personalities occasionally display a smug, unctuous, faculty-lounge liberalism, and the news coverage from reporters in the field often reflects the bias; think of the program as the photo negative of Fox News. As noted here recently, of the past eight corrections NPR has made to its reporting on the Middle East, seven corrected an anti-Israel slant.

In fact, it was just such a slant that provoked Kuchinsky, who calls himself a moderate Democrat who could not bring himself to vote Republican. It rankles him that NPR often refers to terrorists as "militants." It rankles him especially because he has been on the receiving end of a Katyusha rocket attack in Israel, and because two years ago he was in the Jerusalem Sbarro's pizza joint where a terrorist bomb had killed 15 mostly teenage Israelis. He was there, he says, "before the blood had been cleaned up."
....
THUS KUCHINSKY'S interest in issues relating to terrorism is not merely academic. But when he requested his barbed tag line, he was told that "no promotion of ideological, theological, or political positions is allowed."

Fine, he said. He asked if his firm could state that "we are opposed to: (a) sexual exploitation of children; (b) world hunger; or (c) in favor of protecting the environment from environmental harm." He was informed that a tag line referring to something the firm is in favor of would be better than something it is opposed to. What's more, "The statement that your firm 'is in favor of protecting the environment from environmental harm' would be perfect for Earth Day. Would you like to run [that] announcement on Earth Day, which is April 22, 2004?"

Oops. What happened to no ideological or political doctrines?

Hinkle notes that the NPR station explained the inconsistency by claiming "The staffer who approved the environmental tag line probably was just trying to be solicitous toward a persistent would-be donor."

.....but it's odd, isn't it, how that "solicitousness" only arose when he made the more liberal-centric suggestion?

Look, this is very simple.....when you're willing to break the rules for one ideology, but not another, it's not called "trying to be solicitous".

It's called "bias".

In response to the recent Baghdad bombings, President Bush remarked:

"The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become.

They can't stand the thought of a free society. They hate freedom. They love terror. They love to try to create fear and chaos."

His point? The Iraqi resistance fighters will get more and more desperate the more they lose. When cornered, they will fight harder.

It's hardly a suprising statement.

Except, of course, to Democrats who are running for President, many of whom managed to mangle the Presidents statement into (suprise!) conveniently attackable form......

Howard Dean?

"I just don't understand the president's logic - that because there is more violence and more deaths, things are going well. In my book, that means things are worse," said Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean.

Because there is more violence, things are going well? That doesn't sound like what Bush said. He said (paraphrase) "because there is progress, there will be violence".

But, sure...I can see how it would sound bad, if you misrepresent what the President said.

John Kerry-who-was-in-Vietnam?

"This sounds frighteningly like the 'light at the end of the tunnel' rhetoric of Vietnam. Every day, the White House's excuses become more insulting to our troops on the ground."

As opposed to the very complimentary approach taken by you, Senator Kerry, when you claim failure at every turn?

Keep ignoring the progress, Senator, all the way to the end.....
Just like Joseph Lieberman....

"With all respect, it makes no sense: This is a tragedy that occurred today, and it's amid growing signs of dangerous disorder in Iraq."

Growing signs of disorder.

Well, let's look at some of these growing signs of disorder.

- The Governing Council has been welcomed to a wide range of meetings, including the Arab League, the United Nations General Assembly and, last week, the Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

- (The Iraqi Governing Council) run Iraq’s ministries, determining budgets and policies. They are responsible for personnel.

- In Baghdad alone some 800 men and women have been selected by their fellow citizens to represent them in neighborhood, district and city councils.

- Nationwide, 85 percent of Iraq’s cities and towns now have either town or provincial councils.

- Other organizations, from Parent Teacher Associations to the Bar Association and sports federations across the country are electing their own leaders.

- Electric power has returned to pre-war levels.

- Hospitals, health clinics and schools have reopened across the country.

- Markets are offering a wide range of goods and services.

- ...two weeks ago the Minister of Communications announced the award of three mobile telephone licenses which will, for the first time, give Iraqis access to mobile communications.

- In the past five months, the Coalition has completed over 14,000, individual reconstruction projects, large and small, all across Iraq.

And according to the Middle East Media Research Institute:

- For the first time in more than 30 years, there are no torture chambers and no arbitrary arrests or executions.

- The Iraqi press publishes uncontrolled and uncensored.

- Freedom of religion has also returned to Iraq.

- Four and a half million students started school on October 1, 2003.

And what do the Iraqi people think? Do they see progress or disorder? Fortunately, somebody asked them....

The Saudi newspaper Okaz has run an opinion poll in Iraq, asking people to agree or disagree that "Iraq, and the people of Iraq, are today better off than they were in the past." Sixty-six percent of the respondents "strongly agreed" and another 17 percent "agreed." Only 17 percent disagreed."

At some point, the constant Vietnam references, invocations of "quagmire" and defeatism begin to sound less like a Party trying to keep the President focused on the goal and more like a Party with their own set of goals.....goals which have very little to do with success in Iraq.

But they have a lot to do with that upcoming election.

A.N.S.W.E.R., the organizer of this past weekends "Rant...er, March on Washington", is an interesting group to make the claim that the Iraq war was "justified to the public by the White House in a series of poorly bundled lies..."

On the other hand, A.N.S.W.E.R. knows lies.....

For starters, they write:

"100,000 people marched through the streets of Washington, D.C. today..."

100,000? Who's kidding who.....they even link to pictures that show differently.

Nobody, not even the Park police or the WaPo, counted anything resembling 100,000. That should come as no suprise, given their track record at head-counting. ("ANSWER's Jan. 18 demonstration, the largest antiwar rally in Washington since the Vietnam War. That protest, was put at 100,000 by police and 500,000 by organizers.")

But they really put together an impressive series of "poorly bundled lies" in a piece called "WHY WE ARE MARCHING ON WASHINGTON OCTOBER 25, 2003".

I'll list the lies.....
Lie #1:

"The occupation is not liberation. The Iraqi people want the U.S. troops to leave and the soldiers want to go home."

Lie and lie.


Lie #2:

The demonstration will also expose that Bush's war in Iraq is really a rich man's war. A central goal of the war is to privatize (i.e. steal) Iraq's vast oil fields for the benefit of U.S. corporate and banking elites who in turn are plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into George W. Bush's campaign coffers.

Right. War for oil. That's why you don't see other countries working out oil deals with Iraq right now........uh....well....oops.

Industry mag GasAndOil.com writes:

One prominent theme of those who opposed the Iraq war was that it was "all about oil." The United States was obviously concerned about the uses to which Iraqi oil revenue were being put under Saddam Hussein, but the notion that it wanted to grab production facilities or hijack drilling rights was always absurd.

Now that it is in reluctant control of the country, the US administration might think it reasonable that US oil companies play a major part in Iraq's oil resurgence, but it seems that US companies are less than wiling to accept this "inside track." Recently, it was announced that Robert E. McKee, a retired executive with ConocoPhillips, would be taking over the role of Iraqi oil czar from Phillip J. Carroll, another former oil executive, who was appointed in the wake of the war.
Mr McKee's appointment seems to indicate that Iraqi energy czardom might not be everything it was cracked up to be. Mr Carroll had ambitious plans for getting the Iraqi oil business going, but getting oil companies of any nationality to invest in Iraq at the moment is an uphill struggle. And the Iraqis want to do it for themselves anyway.

Mr Bahr al-Ulum invited foreign oil investors to come on down. Any foreign investors.

So, what ANSWER is saying is that, other than all the foreign participation in the Iraq oil industry, it's all about US domination. And other than all that money we're sending Iraq, it's all about how much money we can steal from them.

You know, the "War for Oil" canard has been brought out for every war in recent memory, and in every instance, it has fallen flat on its face. You'd think that lines constant failure would discourage protestors from using it.....but, damn it, it just fits so well on a sign. Plus, hey, no big words!

So, I can see why they have to keep using it.


Lie #3:

At the cost of $6 billion per month (that is $1.5 billion each week) the price tag for the U.S. occupation of Iraq is being paid for by dramatic budget cuts in primary education and at the college level, as well as in health care, housing, veterans benefits, and other programs that assist working and poor people.

Really? Wow....that sounds terrible! Gosh, I better go check the budget to find out just how much those programs have been cut!

Education? Nope, that's up 6%.

Health Care? Nope, Health and Human Services is up 3%.

Housing? Nope, HUD is up 1%.

Veterans benefits? Nope, that's up 11%.

Other programs for working/poor people? Huh...so help me god, I can't seem to find a Department of Stuff for Working and Poor People, but I do recall Bush extending unemployment benefits, adding Medicare/drug benefits, and signing a tax cut which (through August) refunded 21 billion to parents/10% bracket taxpayers/married couples, and cut another 12 billion in small-business/depreciation taxes. (which helps...you know, the people who benefit from businesses spending more money)

It's almost like ANSWER is just begging to be wrong. I mean, this stuff is available to everyone. They could even look it up, in between all the foaming and fomenting.


Lie #4:

The occupation is a violation of the Iraqi people's fundamental right to self-determination by the U.S. government which pursues Empire in the interests of the U.S.-based corporate and banking elites.

Well, this isn't so much a lie as an unsupported collection of drooling, based on the hard-to-comprehend premise that a "dictatorship" is equivalent to "self-determination".

Really. They said that. One is tempted to point them towards a dictionary.

Let me re-write their sentence, taking into account the reality in prewar Iraq:
"The occupation is a violation of Saddam Husseins fundamental right to dictatorship....."

Well, yes, I could agree with that. Except the part about the "fundamental right".
Also, the implication that it's a bad thing...I'd disagree with that, too. Heads on sticks....that's my preferred foreign policy towards Dictators. ANSWER, though, prefers to "recognize their fundamental rights" to be dictators.

Noble.


Lie #5:

This was never a war to defend the United States from the supposed "grave and imminent danger" posed by Iraq. That claim was a bold-faced lie.

Hey, they did my job for me! They're absolutely right...that claim IS a bold-faced lie.

Minus the historic revisionism, the quote was actually that Iraq was a "grave and gathering threat". I don't mean to be picky, here, but usually when you put words in quotes, they're supposed to be, you know, actual quotes.


Lie #6:

Killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and sacrificing a growing number of U.S. soldiers - who are being killed or maimed in the interests of Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon/Mobil, Citibank and Chase - is what reveals the criminal character of the whole endeavor.

Even the anti-war website Iraqbodycount.org only counts "between 7768 and 9578".

The Associated Press reported "More than 3,000 civilians are likely to have been killed".

And, of course, one must mention that it was the Iraqi militants who were intentionally shooting their own civilians.

Well, one should mention that, but I'm sure ANSWER just forgot. At least they continue their proud tradition of difficulty with numbers.

One final note....ANSWER writes this:

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition believes that only a true mass movement of the people can end the criminal occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home.

A mass movement of the people, huh? Well, ANSWER does support one specific group of people they hope can "bring the US troops home".

"...the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

Sure, they want the US troops brought home......specifically, they want the troops brought home in body-bags.

Poorly bundled lies, indeed.

At best, the people who marched with ANSWER are simply ignorant fools, unwittingly complicit in ANSWERs support for the killing of US soldiers.
At worst, and I use this word rarely and with great precision, they are traitors.

In an ongoing battle, one group effectively dominates the region with the only military in the conflict, controlling boundaries and operating at will within those boundaries to respond to attacks.....the other group is stuck with car-bombs, suicide attacks, and occassional protest-marches.

Who would you say is winning that fight? Why, I'd say it's Israel.
In fact, at best, the Palestinian resistance is simply a persistent thorn in the side of Israel. At worst, they are the authors of their own misery.
In any case, Israel remains a thriving democracy, despite the terrorists in their midst.


So, when the same thing happens in Iraq, why should we assume that we're losing?

Focus on the prize. Our goal is not "0 casualties", and our goal is not "Eden on Earth". Although both would be ideal.

Our goal is the institution of a stable, democratic government. Car-bombs do not deter us from that goal in the least.

Responding to demand with supply, at a mutually acceptable price....it's the Carnival of the Capitalists:

Read it. Or dont. It's a free society and nobody can force you to do so against your will.

Of course, were this the Circus of the Socialists, you'd each be forced to read a certain percentage of the Circus, whether you wanted to or not. And if you wanted to read more? Well, that's too bad. It's been assigned to somebody else, and they have to read it whether they want to or not.

Me? I'm reading the Carnival of the Capitalists. Voluntarily.

Kevin Hassett, in Techcentralstation, discusses how hatred has replaced policies among the Democratic candidates:

The hate of Bush is so powerful that it has even dominated Democratic tax policy. For example, Wesley Clark announced his tax plan in a speech on Wednesday, and the details were oddly familiar. Like just about every other Democratic candidate, Clark has proposed an enormous tax hike. And what form does that tax hike take? Why the same form chosen by his competitors. Clark would roll back the tax reductions that President Bush passed for those taxpayers who make more than $200,000 per year. The only debate among the Democratic candidates appears to be whether one should roll back most of what Bush accomplished (Clark, Kerry), or erase the man's efforts from the history books entirely (Dean) even if that means a tax hike for just about every voter.

Such a focus is bizarre. Suppose you were a candidate with a genuine intent to make the world a better place. You might convene a committee of the finest tax policy minds in the world and ask them to list the ten biggest problems with the tax code. You might then ask these men and women to suggest tax policies that would fix these problems, and even, as a Democrat concerned with social justice, constrain the proposals reach with specific "fairness" targets. In the end, you would have a product that you could sell to voters, your own plan to make the world a better place.

The Democratic candidates each studied the tax code and the economy and reached precisely the same conclusion: The way to improve the world the most is exactly to reverse the tax policy of George Bush. Such a convergence of answers is extraordinarily improbable. There is no economic model that suggests that the tax code as inherited by Bush was some kind of bliss point of optimal tax policy, nor will there ever be. There is nothing magical about a marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent.

No, but there is something almost magical about tossing rhetorical red meat to the crowd. It makes you feel good. It makes them feel good. It reinforces something you have in common....a visceral hatred.

It does not, however, constitute thoughtful analysis, any more than did Hitlers analysis of Churchill as merely a "puppet of Jewry".
Good red meat for the crowds.....but as policy? Mindless.

When high school students who sit next to each other give the same wrong answer it is a sign of foul play. In a similar manner, the fact that Democratic candidates all have converged to the same tax policy is a sign of foul motive. Rational analysis can not explain their policy proposals. Only hatred of Bush can.

There's an old Groucho Marx song that could be the theme of this crop of candidates:

I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!!

Since I'm on the topic, there's another Groucho-ism that seems appropriate:

The last man nearly ruined this place,
he didn't know what to do with it.

If you think this country's bad off now,
Just wait 'til I get through with it!

Pejman Yousefzadeh has been subjected to the most rigorous of interrogations, of the sort usually reserved for Democratic Presidential debates.

Sample question:

So you've got a pretty cool blogroll. Can we get listed if we ask really nicely?

Jeez. What a softie. I would have asked him something tougher, like:

Hey, how come I'm not blogrolled!?!? Have that taken care of!"

Dale Franks is blogging from the inferno. (read: California)

The fire is about 1 mile away from our vantage point, which puts it about 1 1/2 miles from the house.

In case we have to evacuate, we have the staple items packed. All we have to do is gather up the pets, throw the stuff into the car, and we're outta here.

Fortunately, there is almost no wind in the area right now, so the fire is spreading very slowly. But, the trouble with Santa Ana winds is that they can come up suddenly, and blow up to 50 miles per hour. In that case, the fire could be here in less than an hour from where it is now.

It's not a reassuring place to be, and he has pictures to prove it.

I've gotta admire my blogfathers dedication to blogging, but damn, dude. Get off the computer. Leave. Get outta Dodge.

...however, if you do stay, more cool pictures of stuff on fire, please.

Today's Richmond Times-Dispatch has a story on John Allen Mohammeds brief foray into the world of "Sniper: Attorney-at-Law".

Notable moments in legal history.....

* "We know something happened. They [the prosecutors] wasn't there. I was. I know what happened and what didn't happen."

* "I had nothing to do with these crimes, directly or indirectly."

* (Prosecution witness British Army Sgt. Maj. Mark) Spicer said that several items police had seized from the Caprice, including detailed maps, GPS equipment and a set of walkie-talkies, were classic tools of sniper teams.

In his cross-examination, Muhammad suggested that all the objects Spicer had described were common enough that anyone might carry them into a shopping mall. He seemed to have momentarily forgotten about the Bushmaster rifle, but the chief prosecutor, Paul Ebert, had not.

After Muhammad sat down, Ebert picked up a replica of the Bushmaster and held it up. "Ever seen somebody walking around with one of these weapons in the mall?" Ebert asked, more to the jury than to the witness.

* Cross-examining a fingerprint specialist ...he asked pointedly, "Is fingerprinting more of a science, or is it more of a guess?"

A science, the expert replied.

Muhammad quickly moved on to another topic.

Two invaluable responses to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s protest against the US action in Ira....er, against US actio....er, against the US.
Yeah, I think that last is probably the best description.

PetBunny went to the site and documented the virulence herself. With pictures. And insight:

Fighting the power? Destroying the USA? Isn't this supposed to be a peace rally?

Nope. Remember, they're not against war....they're against the US. It's different. Destroying the US would be ok, because it would free people from the chains of US tyranny, while destroying the Saddam regime would just.....um, you know. Kill another socialist.

Also, there was this, with corresponding pictures...

As usual, giant puppets attended the rally, if only to let the world know on which side they stand. This time they stood as mute witnesses, leaving the job of articulating a coherent argument to the......spokesclowns. Serious, pro-Saddam spokesclowns.

The whole thing is a brilliant look at the unbelievably tacky, disgusting and anti-american (rather than anti-war) quality of these protests.


In fact, I would add this "Even if I wasn't pro-war, I couldn't be a member of the anti-war movement, because of the company I would have to keep".....if RocketPenguin hadn't added it already, along with some first class A.N.S.W.E.R. ridiculing.

He cites their anti-war pamphlets:

1. Relief was quickly replaced by limitless U.S. triumphal, and the announcement that the invaders were now hunting the leaders of the ousted regime, the same way that in earlier manifestations of colonialism the authorities tracked and killed the leaders of defeated slave revolts.

Holy Shit! Did they just say that noble Saddam was leading the poor little brown slave people against the cruel white masters? I don't even have anything to say to that. Wow.

And perhaps most tellingly of all:

4. "Having achieved their victory, however, the occupiers now confront a people who have a long and proud history of resistance. The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

Is this an anti-war pamphlet or an al-Qaida training manual? They support the killing of U.S. soldiers. They think it's heroic. Supporting the resistance is treason. The author of this pamphlet is attempting to be principle to the crime of treason.

Let's be clear on this. It IS possible to oppose the war on solid, and rational intellectual grounds.

It is NOT possible to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people and do so. They are, in no uncertain terms, active supporters of Saddam Hussein, and they support the continued killing of US soldiers.

The rest of RocketPenguins fisking is good, too. Plus, he's a soldier in the US military and may soon be going to Iraq. Let's hope he continues blogging.

Limited blogging today, as I will be busy having a life.

In the meantime, it may be worth your time to scan the archives, as a lot of this blog is meme-centric, rather than event-driven. (meme-centric....new word?)

In particular, I'd draw your attention to my post-war review of the justification for war.

It is a long, thorough, and link-filled compedium of the evidence for the justification of war. Useful in debates, research and parties. (but not fun parties)

Thanks for visiting.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is getting critical, but ironic.

Key criticisms:

The committee staff was surprised by the amount of circumstantial evidence and single-source or disputed information used to write key intelligence documents ...
...
The intelligence was sometimes "sloppy" and inconclusive, he (Sen. Pat Roberts) said.

"Single-sourced", "sloppy" and "inconclusive".

Well, they should know

Insufficient sources?
"Tenet shot back an angry letter criticizing the committee for not interviewing enough people."
"...nor has it accepted an offer made Wednesday by Tenet to hear from him and senior intelligence officials."

Sloppy?
According to CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, "the committee has yet to take the opportunity to hear a comprehensive explanation of how and why we reached our conclusions,"

Inconclusive?
"It is hard to understand how the committee could come to any conclusions at this point, particularly while the efforts of (weapons search leader) Dr. David Kay in Iraq are at an early stage," said CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.

(note: I'm very much in favor of a investigation into our intelligence data. It's vital. I'm just opposed to "single-sourced, sloppy, inconclusive" blame-storming)

In reference to Paul Krugmans latest, Econopundit asks Krugman to put his cards on the table:

It is really hard to read beyond this point:

John Snow, the Treasury secretary, told The Times of London on Monday that he expected the U.S. economy to add two million jobs before the next election -- that is, almost 200,000 per month...[N]othing in the data suggests that jobs are being created at that rate...Still, Mr. Snow may get lucky, and the job market may pick up.

...this is about more than just "luck," isn't it? We're economists here. We deal with models, and numbers, you know, scientific stuff.

And it's true....there are models that forecast the economic future and Econopundit has used them....

Unforseen events can change this conclusion, but best currently available evidence suggests those willing to round 1.77 up to 2.0 will, by election time, be able to claim the Bush Presidency has "created" 2 million new private sector jobs.

Will it be accurate? Well, who can tell, at this point? But Econopundits models have been pretty accurate in the past. (What? You haven't been reading him every day? Well, go back and do so. I'm not going to find everything for you!)

So, with his cards facing up on the table, Econopundit calls:

Professor Krugman, we issue this public challenge to you.

We've published all our data and announced the MODEL that generates PREDICTIONS similar to those of Secretary Snow.

On what MODEL do you base your ALTERNATE PREDICTIONS?

If you are not using a model are your predictions, rather, based on IRRATIONAL "GUT" FEELING?
....
Please let us know. Otherwise I think it will be clear you're speaking not as an economist, but merely as a Democrat hoping for bad economic news.

It will be instructive to hear Mr Krugmans answer. Or, lack thereof.

Donald Luskin notes a recent C-Span exchange with a Krugmanite....

"Bobby" -- the sycophantic keeper of the Paul Krugman online shrine -- is incensed that CSPAN refuses to archive a lecture by Krugman on its website. "Bobby" claims that in a letter to him, a CSPAN employee told him,

"After being told I would be allowed to post Paul Krugman's speech online, and then passing the news onto you, it came down that we needed to hold off on such an action in order to maintain the balance of partisan voices featured on booktv.org."

Hey, C-Span just called Krugman "unbalanced"! (well, sorta) We've been saying that all along!

Luskin continues....

"Bobby's" reaction? You guessed it:

"This sounds an awful lot to me like C-Span Online is censoring Krugman for his (very moderate) political views..."

"Bobby" must not be keeping up with Professor Krugman, as befits a "Keeper of the Shrine".
Otherwise, he'd never use the word "moderate" to describe Krugman, who self-indentifies as "radicalized".

Perhaps Donald (Stalker) Luskin should submit an essay for "Bobby" to post to the PKArchive.....
......I wonder how "Bobby" would feel about censorship then?

Where have I heard this stuff before? A two-day fundraising drive with comments like:

* "...donors came through Friday with pledges big and small..."
* "All of us are here today to make a strategic investment in hope."
* "Now is the time for all of us to be generous with money..."
* "...opened the pledging session with promises that....would not forget those who helped."
* "give and give generously".
* "The amount we have is very encouraging"

It all sounds so very familiar.......hm....

Oh, right. Now, I remember....

* "We conduct two major on-air fundraising campaigns per year to raise needed operating funds"
* "Your support is vital to (our) existence."
* "Thank you for doing your part"
* "the most important thing that everyone gets from pledging is the satisfaction and comfort that they are helping us out tremendously in our effort..."
* "please consider making a donation. Any amount is both helpful and very appreciated"

One of the above is an NPR fundraiser.....the other, the Iraqi fundraising conference in Madrid. Good luck telling 'em apart.

Hey, if things don't work out well in Madrid, maybe we can send Jerry Lewis in to have a telethon. That should get France on board.

Truthlaidbear opens the New Blog Showcase again, and I'm voting for Captains Quarters. In response to an article about the recent Boykin scandal which claims "the issue is not whether the general is free to express his views, but whether Secretary Rumsfeld wants someone who holds such views in high office."....
The Captain writes:

I'm really at a loss as to what remedy Zakaria recommends here. Is he really calling for a religious test for government office? Because up until now, no one has proposed that non-Christians be barred from military command or the State department. Zakaria can't have it both ways. Either we are all free to worship as we please without fear of punishment or retribution, or we can start chucking people out of their jobs for religious expression we don't like. Is that what Zakaria wants?

Using religious views as a basis for employment is illegal for those of us in the private sector.

Not so much in Washington, though. There, it's de rigueur.

Interesting perspective in the comments section of Cold Fury on our apparent lack of action with Saudi Arabia.
Jeff writes:

I sympathize with those who believe our policy vis a vis Saudi Arabia may appear schizophrenic - what with denunciations one day and Crawford BBQ's (sans pork) the next

But there is a deeper strategy here. The Saudi government is not a monolith - instead, it is riven by a variety of factions that fall into two broad camps. The first (headed by Crown Prince Abdullah) is nominally pro-American. They may have no great love for the US - but they don't seek our destruction and are willing to work with us as long as it serves their own interests.

The second faction is much more dangerous. Led by Interior Minister Nayef, it is the primary source of virulent anti-American religious rhetoric and is also a key supporter of Wahabism (forgive the spelling) - which in turn is the instigator of the bulk of the Muslim world's embrace of Jihadism.

Bush and co. have to balance these factions carefully. Lean too hard on Abdullah - and he might go down in flames - which would greatly empower Nayef. Go too easy, and we're perceived as weak - and the fanatical message continues unabated.

Interesting. There are other considerations, as well, including the power that the Saudi ruling family holds, through control of OPEC and their massive overseas investments which, if withdrawn, would have a very significant impact on our (and the worlds) economy.

As Jeff indicates, the answer is not a simplistic "get tough". Not yet, anyway.

Yesterday, I took care of my slightly ill son while my wife was out, and had a few poignant moments with him. Plus, I noticed that fall was really here, and summer was completely gone.

So, after I had a Lileks sort of day, it's only fair that Lileks do some investigative blogging.....

It’s the Ds of the Daschle stripe who bug me, the ones who seem to think the Iraq invasion was something we did for kicks and grins, and didn’t have the same geopolitical or moral imperatives as, say, President Clinton’s decision to invade Haiti once Raoul Cedras kicked out the UN observers.

No, I didn't have Cedras' name at the tip of my fingers; I googled. And found some interesting things. From the LA Times right before Operation Restore Democracy: “The Clinton administration won rhetorical backing from Caribbean republics Tuesday for an invasion of Haiti, but came away virtually empty in its attempt to sign up allies for military action to restore ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.”
.....
Can’t stop the googling on this one. Found this, from Time:

PRESIDENT CLINTON asked aides at a National Security Council meeting on Haiti to prepare a comparison between a possible U.S. invasion of Haiti and Reagan's 1983 invasion of Grenada. Clinton wanted a study of forces needed, likely casualties -- and rationales used. After the meeting one official asked, half joking, " Are there any Americans in medical school in Haiti ?" Another answered, " No, but we've found two American dentists there."

Does this sound, well, odd to you? Imagine this in Time:

"President Bush asked aides at a National Security Council meeting on Iraq to prepare a comparison between a possible US invasion of Iraq and Clinton’s 1994 invasion of Haiti. Bush wanted a study of forces needed, likely casualties - and rationales used. After the meeting one official asked, half jokingly, 'are there any American dentists in Iraq?' Another answered, 'No, but we’ve found two American chiropractors there.'”

That anecdote would be the main talking point for a week. Joking about making up rationales? They’d be waving the articles of impeachment.

Googling the Haiti war is an interesting exercise, if only to revisit old fault lines. Thrill! as conservatives grumble that we’ve no business nation-building. Gasp! as liberals insist that the Armed Forces should be used to topple tyrants.

Funny, how much one little letter changes things. Put a little (R) behind the Presidents name, and watch that techtonic shift in Washington. Right is wrong! Wrong is right!

...and I don't think it's going to be getting any more intellectually honest, any time soon.

This would probably require some changes to the Social Security system.....

Scientists say people could live active lives for hundreds of years if humans follow the same biological rules as laboratory worms.

Hm.....if we were more like worms.....

Could explain the longevity of Fidel Castro, and Yasser Arafat.

God must not be happy about getting his own movie:

Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ.
The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome.

I guess Old Testament God has returned, and he's rediscovered lightning.

But that's not the worst of it.....

It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot.

So, while making a movie about Jesus, he gets hit by lightning.
Twice.

There's a message there somewhere.

Interesting article, in Foreign Policy, by Fouad Ajami:

Pollsters report rising anti-Americanism worldwide. The United States, they imply, squandered global sympathy after the September 11 terrorist attacks through its arrogant unilateralism. In truth, there was never any sympathy to squander. Anti-Americanism was already entrenched in the world's psyche - a backlash against a nation that comes bearing modernism to those who want it but who also fear and despise it.

The tall tree catches the most wind, and capitalism weilds the tallest piece of lumber in the world.

Ludwig Von Mises said "All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out."

The world is paying homage with one hand, while carrying a picket sign with the other.

Ajami goes on to describe the inevitability (and irony) of anti-Americanism, and concludes well:

The United States need not worry about hearts and minds in foreign lands. If Germans wish to use anti-Americanism to absolve themselves and their parents of the great crimes of World War II, they will do it regardless of what the United States says and does. If Muslims truly believe that their long winter of decline is the fault of the United States, no campaign of public diplomacy shall deliver them from that incoherence. In the age of Pax Americana, it is written, fated, or maktoob (as the Arabs would say) that the plotters and preachers shall rail against the United States - in whole sentences of good American slang.

You learn who your friends are, when times are tough. And Iraq is learning.....

A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council, said he hoped German and French officials would reconsider their decision not to boost their contributions beyond funds already pledged through the European Union.

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

I've got competing reactions:

1: Good.....they're making their own decisions and their decisions are more Western than European. (Now, quick, somebody teach them to say "take a hike, Chirac")

Or.....

2: Crap. Here it comes.....from now on, the sort of people who believe the world can be divided into "governments who oppose the US" and "Puppet Governments installed by the Imperialist United States" will have something to talk about.

On the other hand, #2 is pretty much unavoidable, but it's not every day that a country begins to stand on its own two feet.

Proof positive that Washington only believes in "fiscal responsibility" on the tax side. The spending side? Every day is Christmas.

For the fifth straight year, members of Congress will see a jump in their paychecks in 2004, with election-year salaries rising from the current $154,700 to about $158,000.

The Senate, on a 60-34 vote Thursday, rejected a proposal to exempt senators from a cost-of-living increase going to all civilian federal workers and military personnel. Last month the House, by a similar convincing margin, also turned back an attempt to deny lawmakers an automatic share of the COLA increase.

To review:

* Cutting taxes for rich people? Bad.

* Giving raises to rich Senators? Good.

Credit where credit is due, though....

As in past years, the effort to deny senators their pay raise was led by Sen. Russ Feingold (search), D-Wis., who has a policy of returning to the Treasury any pay he receives that is above his salary when he began his six-year term.

A remark on Daniel Drezner's blog.....

The quotes...indicate that the administration argued at various points that Hussein would use terrorist groups as his delivery mechanism. Holsclaw, in characterizing the Cheney quote, acknowledges:

"This quote points out Saddam's capability, and our knowledge about Saddam's willingness to use such capabilities makes it disturbing that he should continue in power indefinitely."

....reminded me to blog about a long forgotten remark by Saddam Hussein.

Inexplicably, people still question whether Saddam Hussein would have been willing to actually attack the US through terrorist groups....
In 1990, Saddam Hussein said:

"If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."

"Individual Arabs may reach you"? That's about the least thinly veiled description of terrorism I've ever heard.

And what had the United States been doing ever since Gulf War I? I'd say "pressure" is an accurate description.

Would Saddam have attacked us? We'll never know, now.
...but if you want to argue that he would have, you've got yourself a pretty strong witness.

Slowly, but surely, tyranny is in retreat in the Middle East:

* Saudi Arabia announced last week it will hold elections for municipal councils within a year - its first flirtation with real elections.

* In Morocco, King Mohammed VI outlined sweeping changes in polygamy, marriage, and divorce laws, proclaiming: "How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization?"

* In Iran, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi - the first Muslim woman to win it - gave heart and a fillip to the embattled reform movement. Ten thousand Iranians turned out at the Tehran airport to welcome her home.

* Arab intellectuals, in cooperation with the UN, released a report Monday calling for reforms that would advance the cause of women's rights in Arab lands and make governments more accountable.

* Afghanistan has virtually finished a constitution that will affirm adherence to Islam, but provide for national elections in 2004, and set up a two-chamber parliament in which women would have a significant role. The draft constitution guarantees the protection of human rights.

* In Iraq there's movement toward swifter empowerment of the Iraqi Governing Council, to be followed by a new constitution and national elections, perhaps in 2004.

Baby steps, doc, baby steps. Nothing is certain, except that this would not be happening, had the US not forced the issue.

A friend of mine once said...."while you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. But you can't do either, if there's no water."

Can't say I blame Dean Esmay:

I don't know which political BS annoys me more:

1) The notion that the Bush administration ever said that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Of course, the response is "well, they didn't actually SAY it, as such, but they sure implied it!"
I think these people need to review the difference between the words "imply" and "infer".

What they believe are "administration implications" are nothing more than foolish "inferences".
It's especially frustrating because the statements that Bush did make point to the exact opposite conclusion. ("we must not wait till the threat is imminent")

He continues to be annoyed:

2) The notion that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was ever given to the American people as our "primary reason" for invading Iraq, or

3) The notion that the Clinton administration had a plan that the Bush administration ignored to deal with terrorism.

Every one of the above is categorically and unequivocally false. Not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of documented, verifiable fact. Yet we keep hearing it anyway.

Funny. All of these false memes come from the people who claim that the administration was "making it up", "misrepresenting the facts" and believing the assessment because it was "what they wanted to believe".....

Let's all enjoy the irony.

Oxblog rants on the topic of Iraq misrepresenations in the media, which leads to me bring up a topic I thought I'd blogged this weekend. (apparently not, though)

There have been more than a few misnomers on the level of danger in Iraq lately. Senator Graham tossed off one of the most ridiculous bombs, recently:

"I think it's absolutely descriptive, that it is a quagmire. We're losing one soldier a day. .... This is a quagmire. And if we don't have a strategy to exit honorably and expeditiously, I think it has the fingerprints of another Vietnam."

Quagmire? Vietnam? Are we watching the same Iraq? Here's a little perspective, Senator. First, let's address the "one soldier a day" comment.

As of today, it has been 176 days since May 1st, when Bush declared "mission accomplished". According to today's Department of Defense report, in that time we have lost 104 soldiers to hostile fire. That works out to .59 soldiers lost/day......less than 1, for the math-impaired.

But what about non-hostile losses (99), which brings the total up to 203? Well, what about them?
In 6 months, out of approximately 132,000 deployed troops, we've lost 99 to non-hostile causes. That translates to about 150 deaths per 100,000/yr.
And how does that compare to non-Iraq death rates, among civilians of similar age?

25-44 years...All causes....148,904....177.8

177 per 100,000? It's a quagmire, right here in the United States!

Of course, you can't conflate accidental deaths with hostile deaths in Iraq any more than you can count US traffic fatalities towards the Iraq casualty count.
So, one has to ask, why is it not reported that we're losing (about) one soldier every two days, and the non-hostile death rate is lower than that in the United States?


Moving on......Senator Graham states "I think it has the fingerprints of another Vietnam".
Interesting.

In Vietnam, we lost 58,148 soldiers. At the aforementioned rate of .59 soldiers killed in action a day, the Iraq war would have to last 270 years to reach the death toll of the Vietnam war.


One final comparison:
* Iraq, (at the rate of .59/day + 296 days this year) would have an extrapolated 174 hostile fire (occupation-period) deaths this year.

* Richmond, Virginia has 79 homicides this year.

So, for a US citizen, Iraq is now about twice as deadly as Richmond, Virginia.

I blame the Bush administration.

USA Today is reporting on a Senate Investigation:

A Senate investigation has found no evidence that the Bush administration pressured CIA analysts to tailor their intelligence to suit the White House's views on the threat posed by Iraq.
.....
The committee finding comes amid claims from former intelligence officials that the White House pressured the CIA and other branches of U.S. intelligence to confirm its views on the Iraqi threat.

However, no current intelligence analysts came forward to the committee to back up that charge.

You know, much more of this, and some people are going to have to at least consider the possibility that Bush wasn't lying.

But they won't.

Roberts' committee is investigating why the tone of CIA reporting on Iraq, both in classified and unclassified forms, grew more alarmist from late in the Clinton administration to 2002, when Bush focused on Iraq.

If I might make a suggestion? From the last couple years of the Clinton administration, until shortly before the war, Saddam wouldn't allow inspections. A blind spot is especially troubling, when you know your enemy is in it.

Just a thought.

There are interesting and valid questions being asked by the committee, and I hope they're pursued. While the war was justified, it is very important that we evaluate our intelligence processes and analyses.

The Mises Institute has a good collection of quotes from the Cato Letters. First, the introduction.....

On November 5, 1720, the first letter from Cato (pseudonym for John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, honoring Cato the Younger, whose dedication to principles of liberty led him to oppose Julius Caesar) appeared in the London Journal. Many more followed, reflecting the ideas of John Locke, soon making it England's most influential newspaper, and leading to collections of Cato's Letters that were, according to Clinton Rossiter "the most popular, quotable, esteemed source of political ideas in the colonial period."

Well, since I've been quite influenced by John Locke, too, here are a few good quotes from the letters that influenced our Founding Fathers.

* ...brand those as enemies to human society, who are enemies to equal and impartial liberty.

* ...liberty is the unalienable right of all mankind. All governments, under whatsoever form they are administered, ought to be administered for the good of the society; when they are otherwise administered, they cease to be government, and become usurpations.

* True and impartial liberty is therefore the right of every man to pursue the natural, reasonable, and religious dictates of his own mind; to think what he will, to act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the prejudice of another; to spend his own money himself, and lay out the produce of his labor his own way; and to labor for his own pleasure and profits, and not for others who are idle, and would live...by pillaging and oppressing him, and those that are like him...

* Indeed liberty is the divine source of all human happiness...The privileges of thinking, saying and doing what we please, and of growing rich as we can, without any other restriction than that by all this we hurt not the public, nor one another, are the glorious privileges of liberty; and its effects, to live in freedom, plenty, and safety.

* ...every man has a right and a call to provide for himself, to attend upon his own affairs, and to study his own happiness.

* Nor could any man in the state of nature have a right to violate the property of another...as long as he himself was not injured by that industry and those enjoyments. No man therefore could transfer to the magistrate that right which he had not himself.

* It is a mistaken notion of government, that the interest of the majority is only to be consulted...otherwise the greater number may sell the lesser, and divide their estates among themselves; and so, instead of a society, where all peaceable men are protected, become a conspiracy of the many against the minority...

Stefan, at Shark Blog, follows the evolution of the "Imminent Threat".

From start....

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi October 3, 2002

"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.

...to finish....

Senator Edward Kennedy September 18, 2003

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud,"

...good investigative blogging. My, how the anti-war crowds "imminent" claims evolved.

Nice work.

I'm not sure exactly what I've been paying taxes for, but I was under the impression that I was at least paying for roads, highways and interstates. I could have sworn......
Guess not.

A key legislative committee Tuesday authorized the state Department of Transportation to seek federal permission to charge tolls on Interstate 95. The revenue would pay for the highway's $3 billion overhaul.
The department gave the committee the highlights of a consultant's report that said the state could pay for the facelift by charging drivers $18 to travel the entire 182 miles that I-95 wends through Eastern North Carolina.

Putting six toll booths about 30 miles apart, and collecting $3 at each booth, would raise enough money over 30 years to widen I-95 to eight lanes...

If it passes, I think I'll find a detour. Around the whole state.

What ever happened to the administration that was called "one of the most leak-proof ever to take power in Washington."
What happened to the President who said "We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest."

What happened, and when can we have them back? The latest....

The Pentagon and White House on Wednesday defended a private memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to top defense officials questioning progress in the war on terrorism and warning that the United States faced "a long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, the immediate story will be about the questions Rumsfeld raises, but they are legitimate questions and the fact that he's raising them should be commendable. Should be, anyway.

And what did you expect from Rumsfeld? Smoke? False cheer?
He doesn't strike me as that sort of fellow.

I had some thoughts on the points he made, but I may save that for later. In the meantime, Instapundit has a good roundup of blogosphere reaction on the issue. I'll steal the ones that echo my thoughts:

Byron Preston writes:

"Frankly, I think this memo shows that Rumsfeld understands the war perhaps better than anyone else in Washington. Mindful of the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, he also has his eye on the big picture and the difficulties ahead. He wants DoD to become more agile in dealing with a very agile threat."

Porphyrogenitus writes:

This is going to become the latest effort in the War Against the War on Terror. While Rumsfeld, among others, tries to figure out how to most effectively and efficiently fight and defeat America's enemies, others in Washington are trying to figure out how to most effectively and efficiently fight and defeat our efforts in said war, because that war effort is being lead by people they hate."

Unfogged writes:

"If you wonder why public officials speak in vague and uninformative generalities and never level with the public, this piece of work by USA Today should answer your question. Thanks, guys."

Glenn Reynolds writes:

"...the USA Today story takes what should be a positive development -- U.S. officials trying to do a good job and engaging in self-criticism -- and twists it into a negative story."

Final thoughts....
This is a leak that requires investigation. This is a deliberate attempt to make public what should be the internal machinations of the Department of Defense. How can we conduct the war on terrorism if we let our enemies in on our planning sessions?
The Plame incident still requires investigation....it may have been illegal. This incident requires more.....it may be treason.

Good to see that Rumsfeld isn't letting up on the pressure, though.

This story will generate some criticism of the Iraq war:

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider.

In fact, the criticism has started already, and I'm sure it will continue along the lines of "look what Bush did!"

But I think they miss the point, and it's an important one.

Pakistan has been selling arms to odious regimes before we ever invaded Iraq:

"But the CIA believes Pakistan already has shared its nuclear know-how, working with North Korea in exchange for missile technology.
A Pakistani C-130 was spotted by satellite loading North Korean missiles at Pyongyang airport last year. Pakistan, which is estimated to have between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons, said this was a straight purchase for cash and strongly denied a nuclear quid pro quo.

....so, it's unlikely that they were opposed to this sort of thing on moral principles. In fact, according to the story, they seem to be motivated by more regional neighbors:

Pakistan, meanwhile, is concerned about a recent arms agreement between India, its nuclear archrival, and Israel, a longtime nuclear power whose inventory is estimated at between 200 and 400 weapons.

And Saudi Arabia?

The Saudi rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, are believed to have concluded that nothing will deter the Shi'ite Muslims who rule Iran from continuing their quest for a nuclear weapons capability.

So, the Middle-East is concerned about neighborhood rivalries. Tensions mount, arms escalate.

And the point.....take a look at this map.
See Iran? See Saudi Arabia? See what's between them?

Who would you rather be in the middle of that football?

* An unpredictable and aggressive madman like Saddam Hussein, who is capable of beginning wars, and inflicting enormous damage...but not winning wars? (and Iran and Saudi Arabia know that)
Or:
* A free and democratic Iraq, concerned with their own reconstruction, and backed by the military support of the United States which is very capable of ending any war with Iran and Saudi Arabia immediately? (and they know that, too)


Did the Iraq war quicken this process? Possibly.
But the absence of an Iraq war might not have prevented it. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was just one more military concern for both nations.

Conclusion:
Like Austria, under the leadership of Metternich, which forestalled a European war by mediating and balancing the interests of surrounding powers, a free Iraq may be the wedge that prevents a Middle-Eastern war from happening at all.

John Edwards says:

"If it looks like a tax cut for the rich, if it walks like a tax cut for the rich, it is in fact a tax cut for the rich."

Just who are these rich people who are getting all the breaks? A few facts for reference.....

In 2001, the top brackets were 35% (over $132,600) and 38.6%. (over $288,350)
Now, after the tax cut for the rich, these brackets are 33% (over 143,500) and 35%. (over 311,950)

However, according to the Joint Economic Committee (pdf), "the share of income taxes paid by taypayers earning over 200,000 in income increased under the 2003 legislation".

According to the Joint Economic Committee, to be among the richest 5%, your income must exceed $127,904. The higher tax brackets kick in at $143.500.

And who are among those getting wealthy, from Bush's tax cut?
Why, according to the Senate website, it's John Edwards! And Dick Gephardt! And Joe Lieberman! And John Kerry!

How much do Senators get paid?

Each Senator is paid $150,000.

Can somebody tell me why we're either making our public servants "rich", or raising taxes on people who are not rich?

Perhaps the next time they want to question whether the "rich" really deserve that money...I might be tempted to agree with them.
....in some specific instances, anyway.

Bill Herbert, at Cointelprotool, does some investigative research on the recent study which claimed "Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

First, background....to reach the abovementioned conclusion, the study had asked three questions:

"Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

"Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq."

"World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

Note that all three questions represent misperceptions of one particular ideological group, while completely leaving out misperceptions of other groups.

Well, Cointelprotool noticed that, too:

In reality, the study merely confirmed that those who were more likely to believe Conservative misperceptions -- let's call these people Conservatives -- are more likely to be Fox viewers.
...
I had also e-mailed the study's lead researcher, Stephen Kull, to ask him how such a slanted collection of data could be used to draw such a conclusion. He responded by forwarding the following "clarification" that had apparently been sent out to journalists reporting on the study...(excerpt)

The purpose of this study was not to determine whether, overall, those who get their news from various media sources are more likely to have misperceptions.

You'll notice that the clarification is markedly different than the original claim. In the original, they claimed a comparison, while in the clarification, they noted that there was no comparison made at all.

Cointelprotool does quality research. He's on the blogroll for good reason.

OpinionJournal has an interesting piece on Wesley Clark, then and now:

Talk about insufficient research: Candidate Wesley Clark has written a book that ignores an earlier book by Gen. Wesley Clark.

In spring 2001, a few years after his stint as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo, Gen. Clark brought out "Waging Modern War," in which he outlined the frustrations of trying to serve every other country in the NATO alliance and his own. He wrote about not getting permission to fight a ground campaign, about not managing to persuade the U.S. Army to use Apache helicopters, about working through constant flak from Allied officers and, not least, from Washington and Brussels.

It was, apparently, a maddening assignment, a product of the kind of coalition and alliance warfare that, for some reason, Candidate Clark feels the need to recommend in his new book, "Winning Modern Wars" (PublicAffairs, 200 pages, $25). You could make the argument that the Bush administration, in Afghanistan and Iraq, remembered the frustrations of Gen. Clark much better than Candidate Clark does.

It's ironic that the Dems most credible and charismatic candidate, one who really should know that multilateralism is an means rather than an end, is the candidate who may lead us away from exactly that conclusion.

And it seems to me that this is less a considered opinion than a pique. General Clark is throwing the baby out with the Bushwater:

The lesson was not lost on President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks. They knew that the model Gen. Clark had followed in Kosovo would have guaranteed defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gen. Clark spent 78 days bombing Serbia and Kosovo. Gen. Franks intervened in Iraq with ground forces at the fore, understanding that, otherwise, Saddam would have set the oil fields on fire and attempted to destroy the economic future of Iraq.

And they knew that America had to act as necessary, even without balking allies and the endorsement of the United Nations. Candidate Clark sees this as mere hubris. "Coming to power in a disputed election," he writes disapprovingly, "the Bush administration acted unambiguously to put a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp on U.S. foreign policy." We withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, he notes; we pursued missile defense and rejected dialogue with North Korea. In short, U.S. foreign policy "became not only unilateralist but moralistic," intimating a "New American Empire" while ignoring "rising unemployment and the soaring budget deficit." Candidate Clark claims that such "aggressive unilateralism" was sure to "hamper counterterror efforts" and "turn upside-down five decades of work to establish an international system to help reduce conflict."

It always amazes me that people really believe that the "reduction of conflict" is our goal.

Again, conflict is a means to the real goals....freedom, safety, democracy.
If the "reduction of conflict" means we have less of those, then who needs it?

As for the war on terror at the moment: On one hand Candidate Clark says the Army is overextended; on the other, he would double the number of soldiers in Iraq. The result, of course, would simply be more American targets and more Iraqi resentment. (What we need in Iraq is a rapid buildup of Iraqi security forces so that Iraqis are able to govern themselves.)

Amen. And General Clarks inability to be clear, consistent and realistic is making my sometimes undecided stance lean in the direction of "nay".

Barbara Bush has opened up recently.

Regarding the President, she says:

"He still doesn't take my advice, that dirty dog."

The Democratic candidates for President fare no better:

"So far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion."

Dirty dog? Sorry group?

Heck with Howard Dean and John McCain.....she's the straight-talker.
Barbara Bush for President!

Recently, Gregg Easterbrook made some unfortunately anti-semitic comments, and was met with immediate reproof from....well, a lot of people. He has since apologized.
Meryl Yourish seems to have been the most vocal, and she is a fellow Richmonder, so I wanted to make a comment to her. Except, I'm unable to email her. So, since I have a blog, I'll post my thoughts here, and perhaps she'll come across it.

You wrote:

"And frankly, I don't give a damn if people get mad at me because of it. You're not the one that's going to suffer for anti-Semitism. I am. ........
When the use of anti-Semitic phrases is no longer a casual thing, I'll stop."

- - -I don't think people want you to stop, Meryl. I'd settle for responses that were simply proportional to the offense.
I understand that Easterbrooks words offended you, and I accept that. But was it really necessary to write "Because right now, you look like a totally bigoted ass."

You later wrote that you believed he "intended no offense" and that he's not an anti-semite....but, DAMN, if it didn't seem like you just called him "a bigoted ass". This is how we respond to people we believe are well-intentioned?

Perhaps, instead of immediately resorting to the sort of eye-bulging, wall-shaking hyperbole that produces comparisons between Easterbrooks poor choice of words and the wholesale slaughter of millions of people.

I'm not saying you shouldn't criticise. Not at all. But shouldn't the righteous indignation be saved for, I don't know, something truly evil? Something other than a decent guy who wrote one bad thing?

Shouldn't we apply the same standard we tell our kids to apply......go to them first, get an explanation, an apology....or a defense.
If they retract or apologize....great! If not...then make an issue of it.

But resorting to anger as a first line of defense is just....well, counter-productive.
Ever been yelled at, for an innocent mistake? Did you feel contrite, or pissed?

Well, Easterbrook is probably contrite. But (and I'm just guessing here) I'd bet he's also pretty pissed at the people who executed him, before he even had a chance to speak at his own trial.

Other than that, though, I enjoy the blog.

(Note: Meryl actually does say she'll "think about what I write a little more before coming out with it". I hope that means "proportional response")


UPDATE: Dean Esmay has more.

Bush is getting tough. Or threatening to get tough, anyway:

President Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto a bill providing $87 billion he has requested for troops and reconstruction in Iraq if Congress insists on part of the package being in the form of a loan.

Well, if he's going to break out the Veto Pen, this is an interesting place to do it.

Funny, isn't it, that Bush is the one fighting to not take money from Iraq.
I wonder if they'll notice.

The administrations position:

White House budget director Joshua Bolten, in a letter threatening the veto, said loans would impede U.S. plans to stabilize the region following the invasion by U.S. forces, which have subsequently come under frequent attack.

Adopting loans not grants slows "efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt."

All good reasons. But there's one more.....

They're (minimum) $127 billion in debt, which is 2 to 4 times their annual GDP of between $31.2 billion and $58 billion. (depending on source)
They'll never repay it......so, why bother?

Bad decisions are unfortunate......but bad, pointless decisions are just unbelievable.

Senator Chambliss writes about the recent Kay Report:

When I later read his very detailed declassified summary, I expected to wake up the next morning to a flurry of media reports about how far-reaching Iraq's banned programs had progressed and how the French and Germans were going to have to eat some crow.

Instead, I woke up to a very different kind of media frenzy. I saw such headlines as "No evidence of Iraq WMD programs found," which by any objective standard is an untrue statement.
....
This willful ignorance of facts reminded me not of professional journalists investigating a story, but of those members of the Flat Earth Society who still ignore all evidence the Earth is round.

It's funny how little coverage we saw of the actual contents of that report. Lots of "No WMDs", but very little "...but".

And I've always wondered something else. Why are we asking Bush where the WMDs are?
Doesn't that question really belong at the foot of Saddam Hussein? Why did the anti-war crowd only suddenly get interested in the whereabouts of those WMDs now?

I wonder whether we all read the same summary. What I read was that Kay and his team, working in extraordinarily difficult conditions, found hidden in a WMD scientist's home strains of biological organisms, including live botulinum, used in manufacturing bioweapons.

Kay found a prison laboratory complex that might have been used to test biowarfare agents on humans, unmanned aerial vehicle and missile technology banned by the United Nations and equipment for uranium enrichment that could have helped restart Iraq's nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

Also discovered were reams of evidence of Iraqi attempts to illicitly acquire banned technologies with WMD applications from abroad. Kay found thousands upon thousands of WMD-related documents and collected compelling testimony that scientists and officials were ordered by Saddam to conceal banned WMD work from U.N. inspectors.

He inspected dozens of suspected WMD facilities that had been clearly and deliberately sanitized by agents of the former regime, and he made numerous other relevant finds in the banned missile, chemical and biological arenas that are still being evaluated.

In light of all of the damning evidence that David Kay reported, I've another question......

If President Bush had, instead of making the claims he did make, claimed that Saddam had precisely what we discovered he did have....wouldn't that have been an even more powerful argument to attack Iraq?

It strikes me that the story of the Kay Report is that, while we didn't have all of the specifics right.....we had the story right.

Arnold Kling, who will become one of my favorite writers if he doesn't stop making sense, writes on the branches of US foreign policy:

* Hamiltonians -- They are the guardians of the international economic order. Think of Alan Greenspan or Robert Rubin.

* Wilsonians -- They are the architects of an international order governed by treaties and international institutions. I think of the Clinton Administration, which supported both NAFTA and Kyoto.

* Jeffersonians -- They are idealists, the most emotional of the four types, who believe in a moralistic approach to foreign policy. They believe that there are always better alternatives than war. The Jeffersonians are staunch opponents of the Iraq war, and many of them were none too keen on the war in Afghanistan.

* Jacksonians -- They are the patriotic fighters for whom the worst sin is not going to war, it's losing one. Examples would be people who hung flags and attended pro-America rallies after 9/11. When Jeffersonians attack President Bush for acting unilaterally, they are probably helping his popularity with Jacksonians. For Jacksonians, unilateralism is a virtue not a vice -- or to put it in geekspeak, a feature, not a bug.

I'd add one more....

* Rooseveltians -- They recognize collective arrangements as useful tools, but nothing more. Security, peace and freedom? They can only be achieved and sustained through strength. If a nation cannot protect itself, it cannot depend on the goodwill of the world to do it for them.

And yet, not every battle must be fought. There are times that neutrality must be maintained, as the spheres of power balance, not according to righteousness, but according to their sustainable power...and our national interest.

In other words, sometimes we must support a Saddam Hussein against an Iran...because the alternative is worse.

(Theodore) Rooseveltian foreign policy believes that the balance of international powers can be used to our benefit, so long as we remain stronger....and while we may use it, we must never cede our interests to it.
As Roosevelt said:

"Nothing would more promote iniquity...than for the free and enlightened peoples....deliberately to render themselves powerless while leaving every despotism and barbarism armed"

Perhaps Rooseveltian foreign policy is similar to Jacksonian foreign policy, but it has the advantage of a more rational view of the world. It is not simply an emotional reaction for "righteous action", but a considered estimate of our long term interests.

Kling argues:

"I am so enamored of our system of checks and balances, along with our Bill of Rights, that I distrust the Wilsonian project of bringing about international rule of law. I would be all for it if everyone were to adopt our system. However, compromising our elegant architecture for the sake of participating in a world architecture is repellent to me. Consequently, on foreign policy, and particularly after 9/11, I wind up a Jacksonian.

I suspect he's more of a Rooseveltian. I suspect he'd agree......

"...Mead warns that "Jeffersonians can do as they did in the 1930's... rest in denial concerning the true extent of the nation's vital interests... confine themselves to sniping at the moral inconsistencies, blunders, and costs of American foreign policy..." In that case, he says, they will marginalize themselves and their potential contribution will be lost.

It seems to me that the Jeffersonians have gone off-track in exactly the way that Mead feared. If they align the Democratic Party with our opponents in the UN, then as far as I am concerned, the best thing that can happen to this country would be an overwhelming Republican victory next year.

He also develops those ideas in the areas of economics. It's worth your time to read.

UPDATE: I should point out that Rooseveltians can be found on both sides of the war. It can certainly be argued that the war on Iraq put us in a poor position in the world, with respect to our long-term national interests. I happen to disagree with that assessment, but there are Rooseveltians who hold that position.

The important thing to remember about Rooseveltian foreign policy is its disdain for idealism. Ideals are results, they are not processes.
Roosevelt believed that the result should be freedom, democracy and security....but it could not be obtained through voluntary associations, like the League of Nations (or, decades later, the UN) which he called "a milk and water righteousness, unbacked by force". Those were, he claimed, "as wicked and even more mischievous than force divorced from righteousness".

In this view, the UN, while a sometimes useful society, is not an end, in itself. When national security calls, our own interest supercedes that of the UN.

If I told you that Paul Krugman was so crazy that he'd even blame Arabic anti-semitism on the Bush administration, you'd think I was crazy. "Hey", you'd say, "the Arab world has been anti-semitic long before Bush was born."

Then, I'd point you to his column:

Indeed, those remarks were inexcusable. But they were also calculated - for Mr. Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish. And to understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy.

Yessir, no stretch is too far for Professor Krugman, who now believes that Arabs voice anti-semitism because of (what else?) President Bush.

Cornfield Commentary fact-checks him further, right here. Robert Musil has more here.

One final note, though, about Krugmans selection bias.

Note that Paul Krugman cites a speech he calls "a speech mainly about Muslim reform."
And then he claims "Somewhere in Pakistan Osama bin Laden must be enjoying this."

Anybody else think that Osama bin Laden is probably not enjoying the fact that a Muslim Prime Minister is giving speeches on the need for Muslim reform, which Krugmans says "sounds as if it had been written by Bernard Lewis, author of "What Went Wrong," the best-selling book about the Islamic decline."

Anybody? I don't think so, either.

Odd, that Mr Krugman thinks Bin Laden would enjoy this.....or, maybe Professor Krugman just isn't thinking at all.

Reporters without Borders has released their 2nd World Press Freedom Rankings. The United States comes in at #31. Except....

Special situation of the United States and Israel.
The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders.

Apparently, since standing in the middle of a war-zone is dangerous, the people involved in that war must be opposed to the Freedom of the Press.
Or something like that.

Shockingly, with regards to our actions in Iraq, Reporters Without Borders ranks the US behind Iraq.

124 - Iraq 37,50
...
135 United States of America (in Iraq) 41,00

Somewhere, the Iraqi Information Minister is proudly declaring that "there are no American infidels on the list! Never!"
Perhaps Iraq made the list because "Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity."

One other head-scratcher. Sweden (#9) made the domestic press-freedom list 22 positions ahead of the US. (#31)
Odd, considering.....

"Sweden's broadcasting watchdog said Wednesday it was censuring an Oprah Winfrey talk show for showing bias toward a U.S. military attack on Iraq.
........
"Different views were expressed, but all longer remarks gave voice to the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and should be the target of attack," Sweden's Broadcasting Commission said."

Well, you live and learn. If you want more freedom, you have to censor your media.

Who knew?

An unscientific survey taken by Stars and Stripes has been released:

A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.

The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training.

So....I am to understand that, after being in-theatre for about 6 months, almost half of questioned soldiers said they had low morale?

I had to come in to work one weekend, and I was bummed about it.....
Is it really suprising that soldiers have low morale after 6 months in a combat-zone? Isn't it more suprising that half the soldiers don't have low morale?

But the story presents some more information, which puts things in a bit more perspective:

In the survey, 34 percent described their morale as low, compared with 27 percent who described it as high and 37 percent who said it was average;

Interesting. Less than 1/3rd of soldiers said they actually had low morale.

And bear in mind this is during a post-war period in a combat zone.

Well, let's compare these terrible results to some previous morale surveys....
A survey on morale among officers, as reported in April, 2000:

About 1,000 officers discussed the problem last month in 64 faculty-led discussions at the college. They said they mistrusted senior leaders; didn't like the shift to peacekeeping, humanitarian and other missions; preferred civilian jobs in the expanding economy; had spouses unhappy with the long absences and frequent moves of military life. The groups, mostly majors with lieutenant colonels, were asked a range of questions, including what might be making so many officers leave. The idea for the panel came up in February, the discussions were held in March and then students were asked to bring back comments from fellow students as well, Santos said.

What made their comments so troubling, he said, is that ''they weren't unsolicited, a bunch of officers sitting around and whining about the Army.''

Other officials who declined to be identified said some of the comments were so negative and startling that 16 of the 64 group summaries, which were meant only for internal panel use, have made their way into e-mails been bouncing around the military for about a week.

Or this, from the NYTimes, dated April 18th, 2000:

Army leaders, concerned about record exodus of junior officers, create two panels to deal with problem; respond to survey in which officers complained about confusing missions, low morale and stress of seemingly constant separations from their families, junior officers are leaving the Army in such record numbers that the Army's leaders
created two panels today to figure out how to keep them in the ranks.
...
Lieut. Gen. Walter F. Ulmer of the Army, who is retired, wrote both the Army's study of similar problems from the Vietnam War and a recent private two-year survey of morale problems in the military. While General Ulmer said the Army was a "dramatically better Army" than it was in those days, he did find some similarities in the problems the junior officers faced.

"There are great stresses to the institution today that are similar to those after the Vietnam War," he said in a telephone interview. "There are concerns about morale, lack of trust in Washington's policies, and a concern about whether all the missions are worth the sacrifice."

And how about morale in other countries? A report on the Australian Navy, in 2002, shows...

"...a large and increased majority of naval staff rating their personal and unit morale as poor or fair. The navy's results were also poorer than other services in several other categories, with more sailors looking to leave and claiming their working hours were excessive."

One more. From August 2000:

Despite remarkably strong values and dedication, people in the Armed Forces indicated that they have an inadequate level of service satisfaction. When asked about morale in their units, only 26 percent of those surveyed characterized it as high. We heard time and again that the Armed Forces has already lost a disproportionate share of its best young officers and non-commissioned officers.

26% described their morale as high. In 2000.
Versus 27%, currently.

The media.....always snatching quagmire from the jaws of victory.

The final budget deficit has been announced, and it's not a pretty picture:

The U.S. government posted its largest budget gap in history in the just-ended 2003 fiscal year, $374.22 billion in red ink, the Treasury Department said Monday.

Criticism is justified.

Under the circumstances these past two years, additional defense spending, homeland security spending, even some additional domestic spending/tax cuts have been warranted.

But spending has gone up just about everywhere. In fact, the only agencies to have their budgets cut from FY03 to 04 are the Labor department and the Justice Department. (and the Justice dept cut is attributed to the creation of the Homeland Security Department)

So, clearly, the Bush administration has not been pushing for fiscal responsibility.
But critics have taken a good point, and gone all hyterical about it:

"With more than 3 million jobs lost, record budget deficits and mounting debts, it is time for this administration to admit what millions of unemployed Americans already know -- that the economic policies of George W. Bush are the worst in our nation's history," said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass."

Worst ever, huh? Wow.

Great Depression. The following decade+ that we couldn't pull out of the depression. The stagflation of the 1970s......
No, sir, it's our current 6.1% unemployment and 3.3% gdp growth rate we're seeing now that represent the "worst ever" economic policies.

Well, one has to expect a Presidential candidate to engage in hyperbole. One doesn't have to like it, though. Let's give Senator Kerry a little perspective on that deficit and unemployment.....

We are slightly less than two years out of the recession, which ended in November 2001. At that (roughly) 2-year mark, our unemployment rate is 6.1% and our deficit is 3.5% of GDP.

Let's compare that to another recession.

The recession ended in February, the recovery began in March.
Flash forward two years, and the unemployment rate was 7.0%. The deficit was 3.9%. (In fact, after that recession, unemployment did not drop to 6.1% until 3 years-2 months after the recession ended)

Note that both figures are worse than current 2-year-out figures, yet there were no extenuating circumstances like a 9/11, corporate scandals, or geopolitical uncertainty.

And what Party was in power? Why, if I recall correctly, that would be the Democratic Party, who controlled the executive Branch, from 92-on. It was not until 1994 that the Republicans controlled the Houses of Congress.

Yet, despite having significantly worse post-recession economic numbers at the same point in time, the Democrats have described their economic policies as "good by comparison".

I think the numbers actually speak pretty well for themselves, Senator Kerry, and you don't have room to boast. Your Parties horse ain't high enough.

All those antiwar protests may have been worthwhile, after all, if they resulted in this quality entertainment. Check out the "Posters" section.

Or, go here to see the Ad that ProtestWarrior is placing in college newspapers. (well, they're trying to place it, anyway)
Excercise and comedy. I may have to go to one of those antiwar protests, one day.


PS: What does Senator Daschle think of those posters? Well, let's see......
"Criticizing those who are vocal in their personal criticism, their approach, their concerns, is McCarthyesque."

Yep. The ProtestWarriors are McCarthyesque! And Tom Daschle opposes protesting!

Worried about how you'll explain the dangers of drug use to your kids?

Show em this story.

Look at the girl before she started doing hard drugs.
Scroll down.
Now, look at her after she did hard drugs. And read the story, too.

...and save it. They may forget, one day, but you never will. Not as long as you have kids.

(link via Right-Thinking)

The Do Not Call List is getting results. Or rather, complaints. Already.

The government is fielding more than 1,000 complaints a day from people who say telemarketers continue to call them even though they are on the do-not-call list.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission have received more than 18,000 complaints since Oct. 1, when the government's list took effect.

You know, there was a much simpler, more effective way of solving this problem, without creating another government bureaucracy to monitor and enforce it.

Of course, we didn't go the easy route.

The solution? Simply require all telemarketing calls, no exceptions, to clearly identify themselves. On the Caller-ID. And watch the citizens let them know just how valuable they are.
....two months of fielding call-backs from every pissed off person they just interrupted, and telemarketers would become as common as door-to-door salesmen.

Is it any wonder we runs deficits, when our government operates like this:

The Department of Veterans Affairs is trying to find thousands of former prisoners of war who have never claimed disability benefits.
...
"We want to turn over every rock to locate as many of these people as possible," Cox said. "It's almost like a last chance. They're dying ... at least 10 a day."

As part of its appeal, the VA is telling reluctant POWs to apply for the sake of their spouses, who may be eligible for benefits if they die.

We spend money on the soldiers who seek it...good.
We also have a welfare state that gives money to almost anybody who asks for it....whatever.

But, now we have so much money that we're looking for people to take it off our hands?
Apparently so....

Beemer, an Army staff sergeant during the war, waited until late last month to apply for disability benefits. He said he wouldn't have bothered either if a national service officer — a volunteer who helps veterans navigate the VA bureaucracy — hadn't visited his home in Bedford, Iowa, and urged him to file a claim.

"The reason I don't expect anything is that I'm not a pauper," he said. "My wife and I live pretty well."

He's also in relatively good health despite Type II diabetes and the loss of 70 percent of his hearing. "I can't blame anything that's the matter with me on my service," Beemer said.

If soldiers don't want benefits, why are we pushing taxpayer money on them? I used to think this sort of thing was the exception, but now I suspect there really are conversations that go something like:

"Government: "No, really. Take it."
Citizen: "But I don't need it."
Government: "So what? You know you want it."
Citizen: "But don't you have something better to do with it?"
Government: Not really. Hell, we print this stuff."
Citizen: "Well...."
Government: "You want more? I'll see what I can do. Plus, I'll get you a 10% cost of living increase next year or we'll kick the greedy *&$%@ Republican out of office!

Could this behaviour have something to do with fact that government agencies have to spend their entire budget, so they can show a need for additional funding?
.....or is that a stupid question.

...of the Bush-hating organization:

"The meeting of Bush Haters is called to order," Michael Moore announced, "Jonathan Chait, please read the minutes from the last meeting."

"By unanimous vote, we declared that we hate Bush," Chait said as he read from the minutes that were made from hastily writing with a crayon, "Also, by unanimous vote, we declared that we are much smarter than the general populace. By majority vote, it was decided that people were much happier under Saddam than the occupying force led by Bush. We also determined that we will spend more time trying to resolve how Bush can be both extremely dumb and evil and scheming and constantly outsmarting us at the same time. Still open to debate is whether Bush is worse than Hitler."
...
"Oh, I would like to welcome some new members to the Bush Haters club," Moore said, "but I need to remind our Islamic extremist friends that we refer to Jews here as 'neo-conservatives'. I think it's time to open the floor to general fomenting. I'll start." Moore took a deep breath and fixed his hat. "I hate Bush!" he screamed, shaking the floor as he jumped up and down, "I'm too busy hating Bush to shave or bathe. And he drive me to eat excessively!"

"You could use some of your eating time to instead bathe," suggested someone in the audience.

"You shut up!" Moore responded.

I'd remind you that it is satire.

But barely.

The job losses that Dick Gephardt call Bush's "miserable failure" are now a worldwide phenomenon:

"The U.S. manufacturing sector has gone through 38 grueling months of declining employment, but a new report shows that factory-job woes aren't just an American problem. From Brazil to Russia and yes, even to China, manufacturing jobs are disappearing around the globe.

Well, yes, but Bush's failed economic policies made it worse, right?
Not so much....

Contrary to conventional U.S. beliefs, the research found that American manufacturing workers weren't the biggest losers. The U.S. lost about two million manufacturing jobs in the 1995-2002 period, an 11% drop. But Brazil had a 20% decline. Japan's factory work force shed 16% of its jobs, while China's was down 15%.

And why is this happening?

Joseph Carson, director of global economic research at Alliance, says the reasons for the declines are similar across the globe: Gains in technology and competitive pressure have forced factories to become more efficient, allowing them to boost output with far fewer workers. Indeed, even as manufacturing employment declined, says Mr. Carson, global industrial output rose more than 30%.

More for less. It's called "progress". It's why we don't all farm for a living and starve in the winter.

If this manufacturing job loss still sounds like a bad thing, consider this:

From 1910 to 1990, agricultural employment in the U.S. fell to 2.5% of total employment from 32%; in the U.K., it fell to 2% from 11%, and in Germany, it fell to 3% from 34%, according to statistics provided by Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth-based economic historian.

We certainly could have full employment, with the right mix of policies. For example, many centuries ago, everybody was employed.....hunting, gathering, and dying around the age of 35.

Plus, the income gap was very minimal....everybody had nothing. Social equality!

This wouldn't have to happen....

A high school teacher was hospitalized after a 15-year-old student allegedly knocked her down, then repeatedly kicked and hit her, school officials said.
...
The incident occurred Friday afternoon at Armstrong High School when Hamlin tried to take a classroom telephone from the student, according to a school incident report. Hamlin, who teaches physics and biology at the school, asked the student to end his conversation three times, and he refused, the report said.

...if we had school vouchers.

Oh, sure, students could still become violent, but would schools still respond like this?

"You've got to be careful who you take the phone from."

Yeah, it's a good thing those parents and teachers can't go to another school. Be such a shame if the people responsible for school-conditions like that lost their job.

This weeks edition of Carnival of the Capitalists is up.
Visit. Read. Learn.

Maybe we should provide equal time to the non-capitalists, too. Some way in which they can argue for more government and less freedom?
We could call it the "Circus of the Socialists".

And we'd mean every word of it.

Two comments in the past year have grabbed attention and calls of "anti-semitism".

First.....
Gregg Easterbrook, recently, wrote:

Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.

..for which he was promptly criticised by Meryl Yourish, Roger Simon, and a host of others.


Second....
Representative Jim Moran, in March, said this:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

His remarks were immediately criticized by the Jewish Community Council of Washington and the Anti-defamation League.

Both men apologized for their remarks.


Now, flash forward to today.

Gregg Easterbrook has, apparently, been fired (and deleted) from Sports Illustrated.

Representative Jim Moran, whose comments were far more egregious than the simple poor choice of words used by Easterbrook, is still working in Washington and voting against the funding bill for Iraq, claiming there are too many "unanswered questions".

I've got an unanswered question. Why does Representative Moran still have a job, while Gregg Easterbrook gets canned?

Prior to the war, a very big fuss was made about a think-tank called Project for a New American Century. Many of the members went on to become a part of the Bush administration.

Their evil plans included containment, in the Middle East, with scaled-back military presence on the ground, resistance to another Super-power like Russia and the promotion of democracy.

As stated in the document, they described the main mission as:

Secure and expand zones of democractic peace

They also drafted a letter to President Clinton, calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."

This was a shocking departure from Clintons official policy "to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government".

For that, they are called "extremists" and the "modern chartists of American terrorism".

Well, count another co-conspirator among these "American Terrorists".
Thomas Friedman, liberal editorialist for the NYTimes, writes:

...virtually every autocratic Arab regime is starting to prepare for the uncomfortable possibility that by 2005 Iraq will hold a free election, which will shame all those who never have. As Lawrence Summers, Harvard's president, likes to say, "One good example is worth a thousand theories." Iraq - maybe - could be that example.
...
We should stop talking about "terrorism" and W.M.D. and make clear that we're in Iraq for one reason: to help Iraqis implement the Arab Human Development Reports, so the war of ideas can be fought from within. Then we should get out of the way. Just one good model - one good Arab model that works - and you will see more than just municipal elections in Saudi Arabia.

I'll await John Pilgers Friedman expose' eagerly.

From the Cato Institute, Alan Reynolds writes on the statistical sleight of hand that has reared its ugly head lately. (not that it ever really went away)

Consider first the headline estimate that 43.6 million are said to be without health insurance. The trouble with such estimates...is that the March Current Population Survey (CPS) shows us only an instant snapshot of what is actually a moving picture. People often have short spells without health insurance, just as they have short spells being statistically poor or unemployed. Many of those without health insurance in November were different people than those without insurance when the March survey was taken.

To fix such problems, a superior Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is less frequent but more intense. That survey is conducted four times a year but not every year. In 1998, the latest available, the SIPP survey found only 21 million without health insurance for the entire year -- half the number in the headlines.

Consider me one of those people, at one point in my life. I was on my own for the first time and I was healthy....so I didn't spend much money for health insurance. And when I had an illness? I paid out of pocket. I saved money.

A few years later, I decided it was worth my money to get insurance and I paid for it out of pocket. 83 bucks a month. After all, I didn't need full coverage for every eventuality. If I needed to go to the doctor for one thing that year, it wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to pay (gasp!) 120 bucks out of my own pocket. So, I was covered for large bills, and I took care of smaller bills.

And I was a part of the Uninsured Tragedy. Millions of Americans without health insurance. My god, where was the government in my moment of need! Where was my Activist Group to tell me how the government had failed me?!?

Median income among "households" is lower and more cyclical because it includes young singles with frequent, short spells of unemployment. Median household income always falls in recessions, not because "President Bush took office." The 3.4 percent drop in median household income from 1999-2002 was less than the 4.7 percent to 5.7 percent declines during the previous three recessions.

But the relatively minor drop in median household income over the last few years is not at all the same as saying total incomes are falling this year. Over the past 12 months, after-tax personal income rose 5.7 percent, thanks in part to Bush tax cuts.

Hey! That's the failed Bush tax cuts, to you.

Ms. Connolly's allusion to a "similar rise in poverty" is at least as misleading as the number of uninsured, partly for similar reasons. The new report on poverty uses SIPP data to show that more than half of those counted as poor over a four-year period had spells of poverty that lasted only two to four months. Only 2 percent remained in poverty for four years. Although this writer for The Washington Post went out of her way to assign political significance of the poverty rate rising to 12.1 percent last year, she neglected to notice last year's poverty rate was nonetheless lower than in any year from 1980 through 1998. The poverty rate was 15.1 percent in 1993 and 12.7 percent as recently as 1998.

Funny, isn't it, how short the media memories have grown in the past few years.

6.2% Unemployment! Gasp! What a horrid unemployment rate, almost 2 years after the end of the recession!
...except, during our last recession, it was three years from the end of the recession, till we reached an unemployment rate that low. The story is pretty much the same for all previous recessions.

And the Bush recession? Ahem. Allow me to point out that the recognized dates for the recession are March 2001-November 2001.
And under whose economic policies were we operating until September 30th, 2001? Why, that would be Bill Clinton!
Bush's first fiscal year did not begin until October 1st, 2001. So, unless Bush managed to force Clinton to institute Bush's policies prior to Bush actually taking office....I'm not sure that's gonna fly.

What about that remark about "the nation's stalled economy"? The economy grew at 3.2 percent in the second and third quarters -- slightly quicker than the average growth rate during President Clinton's first three years in office (1993-95). Why is a similar pace of expansion now described as "stalled"?

Strikes me as a good question, at that. Maybe because of that persistent unemployment problem? Well, I guess that depends on how you look at that, too......

And what about that endlessly repeated chant that "the United States has lost 2.7 million jobs." The Bureau of Labor statistics asks people if they are employed every month, and their answer has been they have 1.2 million more jobs than they had at the start of this year. They ought to know.

Bottom line: dig deeper.

We're rarely doing as well as the party in power promises...or as badly as the party seeking power whines.

Instapundit takes Josh Marshall to task, and it's a well-deserved thrashing, too.

First some background. Josh Mashall wrote:

"But it was a little painful yesterday watching various media outlets bend over backwards to give credence to the White House's complaints that the media is conspiring to hide all the good news coming out of Iraq.

CNN was in full grovel mode."

Instapundit replies:

It's revealing, isn't it, that by the professional standards of American journalism, groveling to Saddam was widespread and seen as barely worth reporting, while even the possibility that someone might write something favorable about the United States is seen as an appalling breach of accepted practices.

If Josh Marshall isn't squirming, he ought to be. Glenn Reynolds has just pointed out that his bias has overtaken his objectivity....a wooden stake to the heart of a journalist.

As I've written before, there are two different stories in Iraq right now. There are the incidents and the perspective. The press has chosen to focus on only one story. They report the incidents, but not the perspective.

Thus, we know that a soldier has been killed, we know that Iraqis protested the US occupation, and we know that there are problems. But we don't understand how those problems fit within the larger story.

And yet, I don't blame the reporters, really. As I wrote before:

So, who is at fault, if not the reporters? The answer is simple.
The reporters are doing their jobs. The news organizations are failing us.

Incidents have been magnified into "The Story", and how would we know differently.

If you heard of a fellow who had lost *huge* amounts of money in the last few years, and is mired in legal problems...you might think he's had it tough, woudn't you? Of course, if I mentioned that his name was Bill Gates, you might see things differently.

By the way, scan down from Instapundits referenced commentary, and look at his picture. Anybody else think he looks exactly like David Hermans character in Office Space? Check here for verification.

Apparently unfamiliar with the results of the Versailles Treaty, the US Senate has elected to turn 10 billion of our Iraqi reconstruction costs into a loan. Blogosphere response has been pretty bipartisan and they're against it.

Balloon-Juice is collecting names of those who oppose it:

Think of what all the America haters (both the ones overseas and within our borders) are going to say about this- they are going to claim this is nothing more than a racket, we occupy a country, destroy it, rebuild it, and charge them for the construction. Cute deal.

There is an anti-war fringe that genuinely, to this day, believes we did it "for the oil". They are irrational, tinfoil-hat-wearing loons and they're not worth the time it takes to backhand some sense into them......but a bill like this will throw fuel on their fire.

I'd hate to think that their reaction would irk me the most, when so many more important issues are at stake. So, I won't. But it irks me all the same.

Setting aside personal pique, I can think of issues more important than our popularity among people who never liked the US and don't plan to start anytime soon:

For starters, there's the question of whether it will help or hurt our goals in Iraq to put a $10b chain around their neck. It could only help us in the most marginal of ways.....but it could potentially break Iraqs will.
Even if the Senate cannot, I recall another post-war burden, applied to a nation which was struggling to rebuild, and which further hurt their already ailing economy in ways which led very directly to the rise of a guy named Hitler.

In 1920, however, the US Senate had the common sense to reject the Versailles Treaty. In 2003, we sign it.

That may be the most important reason why the Senate made a mistake, but there's one more....a simple, pragmatic reason we should have never turned $10b into a loan.

Bush, the dummy, and DeLay, the evil Nazi, making more sense than any of the asshats that voted to saddle a nation that does not even really exist with 10 billion in debt.

Iraq's debt is calculated at $127 billion.

In the end, the Senate made a grand show of demanding repayment from a country which will not be able to repay it's debt. We have kicked Iraq when they were down. We have said to the victim "I'll pull you out of the burning car, if you give me some money".

And what will be our return? Bitterness, until we realize we're not going to see that loan. And when we realize we won't get our money back? The bitterness will still remain.

And that's an irresponsible way to wage peace.

UPDATE: Invaluable reader John Rogers adds this:

In the reconstruction of Japan, there was a point when chaos ruled, and (unlike Iraq) most of Japan was starving. Congress was complaining about the cost of the reconstruction in Japan. Starry-eyed idealists had the wacky idea that a democratic, capitalist Japan would be bulwark against communist expansion in Asia, and that it might just infect the area with capitalist zeal. Realists in Washington complained that it was costing too much money, and that silly yellow people could never build a democracy or understand how to make money.

Douglas MacArthur was furious. He cabled Washington: "Send me money or send me bullets."

It looks like we should prepare to send bullets this time.

UPDATE 2: Saw some interesting comments from Senator John Ensign today on C-Span. He claims that, since we, too, are now are now holding Iraqi debt, it will give us leverage with other Iraqi creditors. We can now say "We'll forgive our 10b if you forgive your Xb" We will be seen as sharing the burden.

Well, the argument is long on symbolism and short on actual substance, but maybe he has a point. It makes the debt no more of a good idea, but perhaps there will be some small good that will come of it, if we're able to lobby more successfully for Iraqi debt forgiveness.

Well, I've received my first piece of hate-mail. It wasn't a particularly good piece of hate-mail.....not something that you could really sink your teeth into debunking, or a vicious, semi-literate screed that you can show people for laughs.

A liberal use of the Clue-Bat would certainly be appropriate, but I think I'll leave that to people more qualified. However, I do want to respond, under the circumstances. (You'll see)

In recent days, a thin-skinned troglodyte took great offense at a post in which I had noted my confusion at the wording of a commercial for "Breast Cancer Awareness". The last line of the commercial was "Together, we can lick breast cancer".
I mentioned that this strange juxtaposition of imagery had gotten my attention, and that somewhere, a copywriter is either going to get fired....or get a raise.

So, Mr Douglas Uh* writes to me:

"My mother died of breast cancer. Puerile, sniggling comments about efforts to fight this disease are beyond the pale. Please stop it."

I respond by telling Mr DU that I was sorry for any offense, and I offered my apologies if such was the case. But it *was* an odd bit of copywriting, and my intent was to point out that oddity.

An apology. Everything this person could have hoped for, right? Of course not....

Unsatisfied with an apology, Mr Duh writes back:

"You unfortunately have an adolescent boy's prurient sense of humor.
......
There is a feeling out there that anything goes, anything is a proper target of satire or amusement. Well, I don't think breast cancer is such a subject and I don't care how low you have to stoop to find something allegedly "funny" about it.

Apparently, it did not occur to Mr Thinskin that I had written about a television advertisement, and the copywriting therein. No, he was on a roll and an apology was not going to do the job.
He wanted.....uh. Well, I don't know what he wanted, but whatever it was, he thought it was important enough to keep missing the point.

I responded by writing that "I thought I was rather clear that I intended no harm. That I was simply pointing out that "lick" was a poor/odd choice of words to use in a television commercial about breast cancer.......Look, I'm sorry for your loss....that is a tragedy. But that tragedy doesn't make the word "lick" any more appropriate in a commercial for breast cancer. The word is STILL just as out of place."

I thought I'd been clear enough. I thought I'd been polite. I thought I'd responded with admirable restraint to this humourless windbag. Naturally, I was wrong.

Then it went beyond just an odd exchange, with an overly sensitive reader. Then, Mr Duh made a gross violation of email protocol....this dink took our private e-mails and copied them to Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, saying this:

"Links appear to be valuable currency in the blogging world. Jon Henke likes to brag on his blogsite (qando.blogspot.com) that you link to him. I had this recent exchange with him and wonder if you still find him linkworthy."

Well, since Mr Douglas Uh* has made this exchange public, allow me to respond and reciprocate. In public, as per his wishes.

First, my sympathies to Mr Sullivan and Reynolds, who were probably forced to waste valuable nano-seconds of their lives on this twit.

Secondly, Mr Duh* doesn't seem to grasp the concept of blogrolls, which he seems to think equates to "bragging".
He even writes:

"And what we haven't yet explored is why people who link to your site from their blogs have a special section where you list them, just because they linked to you, and without regard to how you evaluate their site."

You see? If I offer reciprocity to bloggers, that must mean.....well, I don't quite know what he thinks it means. He's not clear, except that he thinks it's "bad", and I must be a "braggart".

And so, he writes to Mr Sullivan and Mr Reynolds. Who, presumably, have better things to do that listen to this piddly crap.

Mr Duh, I'm truly sorry if I'm managed to offend you.
Or rather, I was sorry. After our exchange, I'll wear your offense like a badge of honor. Ridiculing trolls and cranks, like yourself, is a tedious job, but sometimes an idiotarian, like yourself, just seems to require it. And just this time, I am happy to oblige.

Now, get offended, get mad, get self-righteous....but most of all, get bent.


* Mr Duh is not his real name. I'll retain that for his privacy.

However, his email address is: congo51@earthlink.net
...you know. Just in case anybody else comes across this troll.

More of what Dick Gephardt calls "miserable failure":

Consumer sentiment rebounded in early October while U.S. home builders accelerated new construction in September to a near 17-year high, according to two reports that added to this week's evidence of fast-paced economic growth.

Other data this week have revealed that while consumer spending eased in September, spending was far stronger in August and July than originally estimated.

Hint: Next year...it ain't gonna be the economy, stupid. The normal business cycle is trending up strongly, in spite of Democrats dire warnings to the contrary.

So, what are they going to do now....campaign on the platform that 2002 was a difficult economic year? What kind of policies would you need to change that? (Although, General Clark has mentioned time travel. Hmmm)
Really, how much traction can you get in the middle of a very strong economic recovery by claiming to oppose George Bush's economic policies? Seems like they may have missed their window of opportunity there.

A curious statement in the same story:

That means gross domestic product in the third quarter could have been as high as 7 percent -- the best since the end of the late-1990s boom.

Really? That's not what I find here:

1996......3.7
1997.......4.5
1998.......4.4
1999.......4.2
2000.......5.0

Even adjusted for inflation, 7% GDP would stand up to 2000 gdp growth. And that was partially due to the bubble.

Miserable failure, indeed.

It's said that fathers live vicariously through their sons. If so, one can hope that George Bush reads this story and feels some redemption:

Bush dubbed Koizumi, who has pledged to contribute money and troops to help rebuild Iraq (news - web sites), a "good friend" as the two emerged smiling from a no-necktie dinner at Japan's state guest house.
...
Koizumi, dapper in a beige jacket and orange shirt, was also upbeat after the meal, which featured Japanese beef along with a long list of other local delicacies.

"Very frank, meaningful, interesting, wonderful," he said in English when asked about the talks.

"Also, he didn't throw up on me."

Another diplomatic success for the Bush administration.

After their team lost Game 7 of the ALCS, some RedSox fans night didn't get any better:

Police used pepper spray to disperse 2,500 people who blocked a main street in Durham and climbed on the roofs of buildings after the game. Nine people were arrested, mostly students at the University of New Hampshire, police said.

Lost the ALCS, gassed and arrested....all in the same night.

God must really have it in for Red Sox fans.

A recent Joint Economic Committtee report states:

Tax increase advocates who assert the recent tax relief legislation should be reversed because it shifts the tax burden from upper to middle income households are mistaken, Vice Chairman Jim Saxton said today. Saxton pointed out that the income tax system is highly progressive, and that the share of income taxes paid by upper income taxpayers actually increased somewhat under the 2003 tax relief bill.

"Recent talk of tax increases by opponents of the Bush Administration is based on mistaken assumptions about the impact of recent tax policy," Saxton said. "Under the 2003 tax relief legislation, the largest percentage reductions in income taxes were provided to low and middle income persons. Consequently, the share of income taxes paid by taxpayers earning over $200,000 in income increased under the 2003 tax legislation."

Another example of Bush trying to help his friends by, um, increasing the progressivity of the income tax...?

My god, Krugmans warning has come true! It's a "radical uprising against the system", which has "gotten a lot less progressive over the past 20 years".

We must do something to stop it! Like making the income tax more progressive! But it only counts if it's done by a Democrat!

Look, I certainly don't mind pointing out idiocy in the statements of public officials. I've done it here, and I'll continue.

But a couple (somewhat) recent statements have come in for some unfair criticism. It seems people are willing to believe the worst of the speakers, without any attempt to understand what they were trying to communicate.

First, the Rep. George Nethercutt comment:

""The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

The Democratic response:

Democratic state Chairman Paul Berendt said Nethercutt has turned into "an administration shill who insults the service of the men and women brave enough to serve their country."

The blogosphere response:

"Easy for you to say, asshole. A member of your family is not at-risk in Iraq.

Here's my suggestion. All of those members of Congress who come back to the States telling us how wonderful things are in Iraq, ought to either VOLUNTEER to serve in infantry patrols in the Sunni triangle, or shut the fuck up."

Get a Grip: C'mon, people. The guy was not saying that the death of US soldiers in Iraq is not important. He is saying, albeit poorly, that the real story is that we are succeeding.

...and his critics know this. Cheapshots are just too easy to pass up, though.


Secondly, the Howard Dean comment:

Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration.
"It's a victory for the Iraqi people ... but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war," Dean said. "I think in general the ends do not justify the means."

The Media response:

Dean spinmeisters will abandon their candidate's untenable "never said any such thing" and argue that the words "in general" remove the quoted sentence from an answer to the specific question about killing Saddam's sons. They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that.

The blogosphere response:

"I cannot understand for the life of me what would have been so terrible about admitting that the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein were good things. If Dean can't bring himself to give credit when credit is most emphatically due simply because of the political considerations involved, he naturally throws his own credibility into doubt."

Get a Grip: Two separate allegations here.
1: That Dean can't admit that Uday and Qusay's deaths were good.
- Come on....he did say it was a good thing. Look at his quote again. He specifically made that statement. He simply said that the death of Uday and Qusay, while good, were not sufficient justification to send US troops to war. Well, what of it? Most of us believe that the end of the communist regime in China would be a "good thing", too...but I doubt we'd agree that we should send in ground troops to effect that change.

2: The more valid assertion that Dean had an "...eagerness to expunge from the record his snap judgment...".
- Look, I recognize that he was wrong. He did say it. But that does not necessarily make this a "lie". Seems to me Dean simply heard his words, out of context, and didn't recognize them. Or disagreed with the context in which they were presented, and disclaimed having made the statement that was being communicated.

In either case, it doesn't have to reflect poorly on his character.


In both cases, it seems to me that partisans are looking at poorly constructed statements and inferring larger intentions. Inferences which are just not fair representations of their intent.

It's a common political play, but it's one that few of us apply with any intellectual honesty to members of both parties.
Rule of thumb....if you would defend your guy for saying it, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, too.

While otherwise a fairly useless figurehead, the Queen of England has brought up an important concern:

"The Queen is growing more concerned about Tony Blair's plans to sign a European constitution that she fears could undermine her role as sovereign.
.........
It is believed that the Palace's concerns focus on whether the Queen's supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by article 10 of the draft text.

This states: "The constitution and law adopted by the union's institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

Many MPs say that this will rob the House of Commons of its ultimate authority to override decisions and laws made by the EU.

This illustrates one of the fundamental problems with the proposed UN Constitution (pdf) and accompanying Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The problem? It is vague, filled with nebulous clauses like:

"If action by the Union should prove necessary within the Framework of the Policies defined in Part III to obtain one of the objectives set by the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall take the appropriate measures."

Translation: If we want to do it, and the Constitution doesn't give the EUnion the power...the EUnion has the right to give itself the power.

Lot of other dubious phrasing, too....

"The Union shall work for sustainable development of Europe, based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress, and with a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment."

Oh, good. I couldn't possibly see how that could be enlarged, interpreted and carried out of hand.

The EU Constitution is a vague statement of ideals, admirable principles. Admirable principles are, well admirable....but they are not a basis for a system of government. They are good intentions, and nothing more. (...and what do we know about that road?)

The EU Constitution is a legal Rorschach test, waiting for a loose constructionist Union judge to tell the EU how he feels about it. And that judge is not the exception.

The lesson of the US Constitution is one of sharp limits on the federal government, and as little wiggle room as possible. Even with that, we've come a long way from original intent. Imagine how this EU Constitution will be expanded in decades to come.

Unfortunately, not everybody in Britain has such a realistic view of the threat of centralized power:

Ministers say they are not worried by article 10, which they insist does not represent a material shift of power to the EU. They maintain that it merely defines in writing the hitherto unwritten agreement that EU member states are obliged to accept the rulings of the European Court."

Uh huh.
Translation: "Don't worry about it. It's just a little camel and his nose is barely in the tent at all. You'll be fine."

In the end, a collective agreement for Europe is probably a good thing. But it desperately needs limits. Hard limits. Strict limits. Unbreakable, unchangeable limits.

And to the credit of the EU, they do have a clause which provides for seccession. A back-door on that tent.
Good move....it may not keep the wildlife out, but at least the States won't be forced to occupy an infested tent.

UPDATE: Reader John Rogers describes it well:

"The EU looks to be a massive undemocratic bureaucracy, rapidly lacing on its jackboots while a passive population looks on."

Which are we to believe.......this Ted Kennedy?

But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.

Or this Ted Kennedy?

"This war was a fraud."

This Ted Kennedy?

"But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives."

Or this Ted Kennedy?

"This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically."

This Ted Kennedy?

In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all.

Or this Ted Kennedy?

"The administration still refuses to face the truth or tell the truth," Kennedy says, accusing the White House of misleading the public about every aspect of the war, from the financial costs to the motivation and the aftermath.

This Ted Kennedy?

"Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us."

Or this Ted Kennedy?

All the administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as double-talk.

Double-talk? He'd know.

Remember the pre-war claims that this war was just fought so we could "profit off Iraq" ......because "George Bush wants to get hold of the Iraqi oil."

They were certain, absolutely certain, that the Bush administration wanted one thing....to profit off of the source of Iraqi wealth.

Flash forward 6 months:

A handful of Republicans have joined Senate Democrats in urging that the United States count at least part of the $20.3 billion Bush is seeking for Iraqi reconstruction as loans or loan guarantees.

Hey, who's looking to get their hands on that Iraqi money now?
Well, it's not the administration, anyway.

The Bush administration strongly opposes using loans for the Iraqi reconstruction request. It argues that Iraq's $200 billion debt is already more than it can handle, that future oil revenues will be needed for additional public works programs, and that there is no Iraqi government in place with authority to take on the additional debt.

They also say that using future oil revenues as a collateral would boost the argument of those who claim the war was fought to gain control of Iraq's oil.

My, how the tables have turned.

Speaking of tables turning, remember this from Teddy Kennedy:

"In effect, if that was to be accepted.....It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community....authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do

So, we understand that Senator Kennedy was against unilateral action. Ok. Let's remember that.

Now, a quick update on current events:

By an impressive unanimous vote that even Syria joined, the Security Council approved an American-backed resolution containing almost everything he wanted, including continued exclusive American control over Iraq's political affairs and the authorization of a multinational peacekeeping force under American command.

Unanimous. Our current actions in Iraq have the unanimous support of the United Nations Security Council.

Now, flash forward again:

"Until the administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world, instead of protecting them."

So, let's make this perfectly clear.
On one side, we have:
- The United States, France, Germany, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Syria, United Kingdom, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Chile.

And on the other side? Senator Kennedy and "as many as 15 Democrats".

Wait....what happened to his admonition to "build international support, try the United Nations"?

Who's unilateral now, Senator?

Reuters reports:

Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

This will likely begin a new series of accusations that Bush failed to enact the Clinton administration "plan" to deal with Osama bin Laden.

Except, according to Sandy Berger, there was no plan, and according to another guy, "the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed."

And Bill Clinton would know.

So, what do we have?
1: The Clinton administration told the incoming administration that OBL was dangerous and they had some suggestions for dealing with him. (which we know, according to Time Magazine)
2: The military had recommended against these suggestions.
3: The suggestions that had been passed along had a "high probability of failure".
4: ...but Clinton did pass along the information.

So, what's new about this story? Nothing.

One more thing Clinton said:

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

As far as levels of immediate threat, I could agree with him. Makes it sound like we should only handle one problem at a time, doesn't it? That wasn't what he was telling Larry King in February:

"I think, you know, we've got three big security problems now.

We still haven't, for sure, eradicated bin Laden and also we're hearing the leadership of al Qaeda and they're still very active. And that's the most imminent problem. And then we've got the North Korean problem we can talk about later, if you want. That's the biggest potential problem.

But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office.

...and perhaps these statements are not contradictory, at all. It's worth pointing out that Iraq can be a less pressing immediate threat than NoKo, yet still be worth pursuing prior to the resolution of the NoKo problem.


Oh...and there's this amazing bit of idiocy from Reuters:

"The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks."

I guess that's right. In the same sense that the US government has "blamed Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbor".

It's not like this is a contentious allegation. Another fellow has accused Al Qaeda of being responsible for 9/11, too. Guy by the name of Osama bin Laden.

Now that this has happened:

The U.N. Security Council voted 15-0 on Thursday to adopt a contentious resolution on Iraq's future, a victory for the United States which sought approval for its occupation of the country.
Russia, Germany and France, key opponents of the war, announced hours before the vote they would support the resolution, albeit with reservations. Syria, the last hold-out, then also came on board.

Does that mean that Kennedy/et al will retract this?

Senator Edward Kennedy says he plans to vote against the Bush administration's 87 (b) billion-dollar package for military action and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts Democrat is scheduled to announce his opposition in a speech this morning.

In it, Kennedy says he supports troops in Iraq, but can't vote to finance what he describes as the president's "go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so" policy that he says is leaving young Americans increasingly at risk.

Senator Kennedy is going to have some re-writing to do this morning.

Spinsanity has a good analysis of Michael Moore's latest book-length screed:

In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.
.......
In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

Spinsanity's most recent Moore review is here.
Their specific corrections can be found here


Or....you could read Frank J's latest letter to Michael Moore, for more amusing abuse:

You probably remember me from the previous most hatingest hate mail ever, but now I'm so mad, I'm gonna top even that one. I'm going to do my best to put pure hate in word form so that you know exactly the amount of hatred for you.
.....
I have some ground rules, though. What I hate you for is your rhetoric, so I'm not going to mention how fat you are. That doesn't reflect on your ideas, and this should be about how idiotic your ideas are and not about how fat and ugly you are.
....
Oh, and another ground rule: bringing up your poor shaving habits is fair game because that's just sloppy of you. I'm not going to bring it up, though, because it's not the strongest point to hit you with.

BTW, if you do improve your shaving habits, could you tell me what electric razor you choose because I'm not very satisfied with the one I have now. I'd appreciate it.

Where was I?
....
It's your tinfoil hat fantasies about how the Bush administration is out to take away your rights and ship your fat ass... sorry... you to Guantanamo. I know it makes you think you’re important to believe you're battling the "evil" Bush to save the world, but why can't you be courteous like the rest of the rejects by playing out your fantasies by rolling ten sided dice in some basement instead of trying to inflict it on the rest of us?

His first hate-letter to Michael Moore is pretty good, too.

Unless you're Michael Moore. Probably not so much, then.

Maureen Dowds column in todays NY Times (Current Presidential Endorsement: "Anybody But Bush") is a rich example of the sort of nonsense for which she gets paid.

For starters, she begins with an analogy that connects the Cubs fan everybody hates right now, to Halloween, to the former and current Presidents Bush, to Iraq.
Ok! Had to get there somehow, I guess.

Keep your eyes open for Dowds upcoming column on the sorry state of music today.
Hey, soldiers listen to music!
Hey, soldiers are in Iraq!
Hey, sorry music is being played for our soldiers in Iraq! And Bush is doing nothing at all about it!
It's a quagmire!

Well, other than being generally wrong in her column today, Maureen Dowd is also specifically wrong about a few things. Factual ones, too, so I can write a letter to the NYT editor about it.

Dear NY Times Editor:

I am appalled by some of the egregious, and unsubstaniated claims in Maureen Dowds most recent column. I am appalled because there is information widely available, even to an editorial writer at the New York Times, that quickly discounts these allegations.

First, she writes:

"The president has tried to shake off the curse with a P.R. push to circumvent the national media and get smaller news outlets to do sunny stories about Iraq.

The P.R. campaign shamelessly included bogus cheerful form letters sent to newspapers, supposedly written by soldiers in Iraq.

Unless Mrs Dowd has forgotten basic rules of grammar, "The P.R. campaign" to which she refers in the second sentence can only be the one she claimed, in the first sentence, was begun by the President.

And yet, neither the initial Olympian report, nor the ABC follow-up, of the form letter story has even hinted that this could be connected with the administration.

In fact, in the follow-up report by ABC, the form letter was claimed by "...the commander of the battalion, Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo" who "said the 'letter-writing initiative' was all his idea." Yet, with not even a hint of administration involvement, and evidence that the administration was not involved, Maureen Dowd makes a claim to the contrary?
She blames the administration for the misleading writing of an employee?

Might I suggest that writers for the New York Times should be particularly sensitive to this sort of accusation?

I hope she makes a correction, pointing out that this letter was not part of an administration campaign.


Secondly, she writes

"It would be a lot easier to heed good news as well as bad if Bush officials hadn't assured us before we invaded Iraq that there would be no bad."

While I have not read every single word from the Bush administration, I am fairly certain that they never claimed there would be no bad news. I am also fairly certain that Mrs Dowd cannot find a quote to back up her assertion.

I'm willing to concede that I am wrong if she can produce this evidence. I am not prepared to take her word for it, though, when the administration statements that I heard were consistent with this message:

"Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice."

In February, the President said:

"The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife."

I feel fairly confident that the vast news gathering resources of the New York Times could find more examples of this sort of statement from the administration.
I suggest Google.

I trust that the New York Times will insist on a correction in her column. These allegations are too serious, this matter too important, to let such inaccuracies stand.

Thank you,

Jon Henke


UPDATE: Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan have linked this, which means I have a lot of new visitors today.
Thanks. Come back. Daily. Be a statistic.

While you're here, you may also be interested to read my post-war review of the official justification for war. It's a long, link-filled analysis of each of the official rationales for war against Iraq and how those claims have turned out, in retrospect.

If you are looking for evidence that the war was justified on the merits the administration advanced, you can probably find it there.

UPDATE 2: For more related perfidy, reference this post.
This may be where Maureen Dowd gets her talking points.

This has to be the funniest news story of the year. Or, the most pathetic:

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

The Presidents next meeting should include this statement to his staff:

"I want to make something perfectly clear. You are a part of this administration because I feel you can be a strong part of a strong team. If I am mistaken...if you cannot be a part of this team, I want your resignation on my desk this afternoon.
Then, extend that same order to your staff. If you cannot get your staff to be a part of this team, then I expect your resignation on my desk this afternoon, along with the names of staff-members who refuse to be a part of the team.
If you continue to be a part of this administration and I find you leaking stories or working against this team, I will personally hold a press conference to announce why you are being fired, and why you are a failure. I will not be kind."

Take control, Mr President. It's time.

(link via Cointelprotool)

I'm not really a sports fan, but I was nominally pulling for the Cubs out of sympathy for their fans.

And that didn't work out so well.

So, this morning, I signed on wondering how uber-Cub-fan Pejman would take it. A long rant about the poor sap of a fan they all blame now? Perhaps a "woe-is-us" post? Or a perpetually-positive "we'll get em next year"?

Nope. Instead, Pejman posts this and perfectly encapsulates the feelings of almost-rans everywhere.
My sympathies, Pejman.

It could be worse, though. At least you got the chance to nail Calpundit twice in the same day.

Listened to Rush Limbaughs show today (Roger Hedgecock sitting in), and realized something. He's done. This is it. He can't come back.

Not that he won't try, mind you. And not that he can't be a success, again. He can.
He remains an incredibly talented broadcaster....even his opponents have to concede that point. But, the "pre-drug admission Rush Limbaugh" can never come back.

And what did I hear today that made this so clear?

Roger Hedgecock was heading to a break, when he mentioned that he was sitting in and "Having more fun than we should be allowed to have. Rush taught us how to do it".
....and all I could think of was "heh. I bet he did".

Now, understand.....I'm not a fan of Limbaugh, outside of professional respect for his abilities. But I'm also not one to mock a man who has a very serious and very tragic problem. And yet, I still noticed the irony. I still thought of the joke. I still shook my head at the poor choice of words.

And if the old Limbuagh comes back, that's going to happen to him all of the time.

Sure, he'll still have his core audience....people who would forgive him any transgression. Sure, others will still listen to him, knowing that the message is more than the man.
...but his credibility will be shot. He simply cannot maintain the facade of smug, but amused, superiority that defined his radio persona, when it has been punctured so publicly.

Of course, Limbaugh has said he'll come back and he may give it the old college try. He may even be able to do it. But it can't be the same Rush Limbaugh.
In order to come back Rush has got to redefine his show.

How?
Put an end to the daily litany of Republican Talking Points, and begin saying what he really thinks. (anybody who agrees with one party all of the time is being paid to do so)
Criticise both parties.
Compliment a Democrat when they do something well.
Remember...everything isn't always about Clinton.
Sometimes, you're wrong. Point it out.
Hillary? She might be wrong, but she isn't actually evil.
Feminazis? Drop the name-calling and address the arguments on their merits.

In short, be an intellectual, and do it in such a way that the layman may actually learn something about the ideology. Something more valuable than "environmentalists are whackos".

Considering his current dilemma, one might even suggest he consider becoming a bit more libertarian.

And he could do it, too. He could be really great at it.
Or, he could fade into obscurity.

Let's hope this will be a learning experience for him*...and eventually, maybe, for his audience.


*....and if it is, I wonder if he could write it off as "show-prep"?

....but Clark is the Democrats candidate. Count on it.

Why? Three reasons:

1: He's an accomplished General....but he was against the war.

Thus, he appears credible on national security/military matters, his criticism is given more weight, and the anti-war fringe can convince themselves that he's one of them.
Most importantly for Clark, the very anti-war crowd, at this point, just wants Bush gone. There is a large minority who don't care who they vote for, so long as they vote against Bush.


2: The Democrats have candidates who can appeal to the middle (Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards) and candidates who can appeal to the left (Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich, Sharpton) and even a candidate who appeals to NOW (Moseley Braun)

What they don't have, outside of Clark, is a candidate who can appeal to both the middle and the fringe. The rest are too far left, or just uninspiring.


3: Clark doesn't have a record to drag him down. Even his website, which has pages for "Clark Gear" and a blog, has no page for policies. Possibly because he doesn't have any, yet.

At this point, he's got a nice uniform and he's running on it. It's hard to mount an ideological opposition to an enigma. (reference the Arnold Schwarzenegger campaign)

So, for now, his absence of policies will leave his opponents floundering with minor scandals, which won't translate into voter discontent. (I mean, c'mon...who really believes he would have started WWIII? Get real.)
...and when he does come up with policies? Count on it....they'll be the sort of political pablum that candidates love, because it doesn't commit them to anything more than good intentions. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at his Vision page:

We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received.
.....
We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good.
.....
We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt.
.....
This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

Got that? Who could be against opportunity?!? Or balancing the budget! And he wants greater insight! Of course...insight! Why didnt we think of that before!

Nothing. He didn't manage to say a single substantive thing in his entire "100 year Vision". That's a long time to view the world, without anything substantive.
But it certainly sounded good.

And you can't attack a guy who says very little.....for awhile, anyway. Maybe long enough.

Clark will be the Democratic candidate for President. Expect John Edwards to be his running mate.

(I have a point at the end, so bear with me)

There's been no end to the claims that Bush is (take your pick) Hitler/Nazi/Fascist. Well....is he?
And if not, what does that say about the people who make the claim?

The International Socialist Organization certainly doesn't think so:

The word "fascism" is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government--in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
........
In power, as we know, fascism ruthlessly crushed even the most limited forms of parliamentary democracy. Clearly, this is not the character of the conservative state under which we current live. Moreover, if we were to accept the wrong definition of fascism (repression), then we would be forced into the position of saying that the Democrats are also "fascist."
........
If we lived in a fascist state, it would be impossible to even publish this newspaper, let alone print this article. To cry "fascism" every time a Republican is in the White House is to drastically underestimate what fascism really is.

Jeez, even the Commies know what "fascism" means.

Which brings me to my point. If Bush cannot be described as a "fascist" or a "Nazi", then what does that say about the people who make these claims?

Bear in mind what the Nazi party did. They were responsible for the death of some 6 million Jews. They killed millions throughout Poland, France, Great Britain, Russia and neighboring areas. They burned books, imprisoned children and killed dissenters.
The Nazi party was among the most hideous manifestations of evil we have ever seen......and yet, some people want to compare them to George W Bush, with whom they disagree on tax policy and the imminence of the threat from Iraq?

Isn't that a bit....no, a lot....reprehensible? Comparing policy differences with being held in concentration camps?
For a Holocaust-survivor, I suspect it might be more than a little annoying to have people compare the Holocaust to a slight tax cut.

All of that, though, makes this quote from DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe more than a little ironic:

"George Bush has unleashed a New McCarthyism that, under the cloak of a time of crisis and peril, has vilified and questioned the patriotism of those who have policy and political differences with him and his administration."

Right, Terry. When Bush disagrees with you, it's a "New McCarthyism". But calling Bush "Hitler/McCarthy/etc"......well, that's just peachy.

You'll understand if I practice a little of that New McCarthyism and disagree with you. We are still free to do it, you know.

John Edwards had an interesting interview with Chris Matthews the other night, and his answers were often illuminating. Other times, not so much.

On the subject of whether Saddam was trying to gain nuclear capability:

"As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about."

Interesting. And he was on the Senate Intelligence committee, so presumably, he would know.

On the topic of whether Saddam was a threat to the United States:

"When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.
......
And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was."

So much for the claim that Bush lied, "Saddam posed no threat to Americans". Unless Edwards is part of the Neo-con conspiracy.

"We were promised a plan. There is no plan. We were promised a coalition. There is no coalition.

Really? Interesting. I guess all those good things happening in Iraq, as a result of the combined efforts of the US, Great Britain, Poland and other nations, are just pure coincidence.

Those polls that repeatedly show the Iraqi people approve of our presence and are glad we came? Uh. Well, he meant the other failing plan. The one that allowed the bad guys to keep being all bad and stuff.
Clearly, we should have brought more Ritalin to sedate the Iraqi people. Or something.

Then there was this gem:

"If we really want to provide security in Iraq, we're ultimately going to need an Iraqi security force. Because they can communicate better. Because they'll be more trusted by their own people. That's another step that needs to be taken by this administration."

Gee, it's a shame the administration didn't think of that. Too bad that's not going on now.

That's not the only time Edwards appeared to not be aware of current events:

"Why in the world can we not turn over the establishment of this transitional government to the United Nations? I think the Iraqi people would respond very differently to that than what we're seeing.

Yeah, I guess so.....they'd be bombing the UN buildings.

Not really that different, though, is it?

Finally, there was this very serious accusation, which he both made and backed away from on the same show:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EDWARDS: Eighty-seven billion for Iraq with no plan in sight. Billion-dollar giveaways for the president's oil industry friends like Halliburton, and no help from the allies he shut out. Is this our America? Well, I will not give this president a blank check. We should stop the inside deals and work with our allies in Iraq. (END VIDEO CLIP)

Got that? The reconstruction of Iraq is a giveaway to Bush's friends, organized from the inside, by the President who is "spending more energy looking out for his friends than he is looking out for the American people and the taxpayers". That's the claim.

So, what does he say to back up this charge?

"MATTHEWS: Do you think that Dick Cheney had any hand in letting this contract go to Halliburton? Any hand in it?
EDWARDS: I have no idea.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he might have?
EDWARDS: I literally have no idea. I mean, I don't have any evidence of it.

It think it's true, but I have no idea why I think that.
There's your new standard. If John Edwards has "no idea" and "no evidence". then charges must be made.

Maybe somebody will point out that we also have "no idea" and "no evidence" about Senator Edwards connections with ritual animal abuse. We should demand an investigation.

What's more, these allegations of "Billion-dollar giveaways for the president's oil industry friends like Halliburton" are contradicted by the facts.
Halliburton has one Iraq-specific contract, and it relates to firefighting....a role for which Halliburton is the obvious choice, for a variety of reasons including experience, security, and capability.
The LOGCAP contract was simply an extension of a built-in contingency clause in the existing LOGCAP contract. It was competitively bid, in 2001. Estimates put the total expense of this contract at about 1 billion......which is less than 1% of the money appropriated for Iraq.

In fact, according to Slate, "In its second-quarter conference call, the company reported that Iraq-related activity accounted for only about 9 percent of revenue."

Even with that "giveaway", Halliburton is struggling:

"Earlier this month, Halliburton said third-quarter profit was less than it had forecast because of rising legal fees and lower-than-expected results from ventures."

So does Halliburton have special deals with the USAID? Not really.:

"KBR remains a potential subcontractor for this important work and continues to have no direct involvement (or working relationship) with USAID."

It's a shame that these guys, who are campaigning to beat a President they claim is dishonest, cannot even manage a bit of honesty themselves.

All in all, while he may be interesting down the road, this was not a command performance by John Edwards. Fortunately, he doesn't need to be Presidential. Vice-Presidential is good enough.

More failure to plan, as new Iraqi currency springs up spontaneously:

Six months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the former leader's likeness on Iraq's currency is being phased out as the Coalition Provisional Authority introduces the new dinar.

Images of Iraq's historical sites, palm trees, and monuments will replace the mustachioed face of Saddam on the new money, which comes into circulation on Wednesday.

I wouldn't feel bad for Saddam, though. He's still got his picture on lots of wanted posters.

From the Party that calls Karl Rove a "GOP henchman" who does "dirty work" comes this raging bit of dishonesty:

"Learn how the Bush administration used our soldiers as a public relations prop"

The link takes you to the story of a letter that was written by members of a unit, at which time a "platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of their hometown newspapers. Soldiers were asked to sign the letter if they agreed with it...".

So, the DNC claims it was the Bush administration who "used our soldiers as a public relations prop".

Yet, nowhere in this story, or any following story, is there an accusation, not even a hint, that this could be related to the administration.

Nothing.

Yet, the Democratic National Committee accuses the Bush administration of being behind it.

McAuliffe, Rove, pot, kettle.....

It's gonna be hard for some scientists to do anything about this, if other scientists keep doing stuff like this.
Not that I'm complaining.

More evidence of the failure to plan for Postwar Iraq:

The Gallup poll found that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon.
..........
Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58 percent, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying ``very well.'' Twenty 20 percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent said very badly.

If this is what failure looks like, I don't think we could stand success.

An unusual aspect to this survey:

Almost everyone responded to the pollsters' questions, with some pleading for a chance to give their opinions.

You know, when the Iraqi people are pleading to tell you that they're glad you came and want you to stay......maybe it's time for opponents of this war to reconsider their position.

After all, if the Iraqi people wanted this, and they did, who does Kofi Annan think he is to intervene in the domestic affairs of people who haven't asked for his help?

My god, it's....it's.....it's unilateralism!

This story shouldn't escape our attention:

Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, has announced it will hold its first council elections, in a move seen as the kingdom's first real political reform.
The government decided to "widen the participation of citizens in running local affairs through elections", the state news agency SPA reported.

Half the members of future councils will be elected under the reform.

The desert kingdom has never had political elections at any level since its creation in 1932.

This serves notice to those who claim "...prospects for democracy in any Islamic country seem particularly poor."

Dominoes have begun falling.

Econopundit (himself, an economist) points out that Krugman is lying. Yes, again.

...Krugman in today's NYT:

Lehman Brothers has a mathematical model known as Damocles that it calls "an early warning system to identify the likelihood of countries entering into financial crises." Developing nations are looking pretty safe these days. But applying the same model to some advanced countries "would set Damocles' alarm bells ringing." Lehman's press release adds, "Most conspicuous of these threats is the United States."

First misrepresentation: Damocles is not a mathematical model but a very simple index of ten "selected" indicators.

Second misrepresentation: genuine mathematical models, like the Yale multi-country trade and US macroeconomic models are definitely not predicting that a "crisis could erupt at any time." (Far from it, they're predicting a robust recovery even in the face of Iraq reconstruction costs!)

Third misrepresentation -- when we look at the original article on which the editorial was based, we find Krugman left something out:

...However, Lehman Brothers cautions that Damocles could not be used alone to grasp a country's full financial picture. (Emphasis added.)

....To even use the word "model" when referring to an index like Damocles is absurd.

It absolutely boggles the mind that the people who accuse the administration of lying would point to this man as "the most important political columnist in America".

Krugman is a hack. He is Ann Coulter, with a beard. He is an unmitigated partisan, who sacrifices truth for points. Are there still any doubts?

(Pejman has good comments on Krugman, too)

Frank J has posted another excellent In My World.
In case you're making up your mind whether to read it, here are excerpts:

Suddenly a vortex emerged at the center of the stage. From it emerged a giant figure in black armor with glowing red eyes. "I am O’Yama, eater of souls and registered Democrat!" he screamed, lighting bursting about him and the entire auditorium shaking at the sound of his voice. "I will plunge the world into eternal darkness, raining blood upon the land, all funded by taxing the top one percent who are not paying their fair share!"
........
"Well, I welcome any Democrat to the debate," Sen. Joe Liberman said, "but I'm not sure that eternal darkness is the direction we want to take the country in."

"Quiet, moderate fool!" O'Yama screeched, launching a fireball at Liberman. It exploded the Senator right off the stage. "I will wreak death, vengeance, and a progressive agenda upon the world, and no one can stop me! And I have been a Democrat since before time began... unlike a certain General in our midst."
........
"Bush! Bush!" White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yelled as he ran into the Oval Office. "There's a new Democrat who's entered the race for the presidency!"

"Who is it now?" Bush asked with annoyance.

"An evil demon that vows to destroy the world and eat your soul!"

Bush jumped out of his chair in surprise. "But Hillary promised she wouldn't run for the presidency!"
.........
Scott turned on the T.V. to a news station. "O'Yama, having just entered the race, is already polling as the front-runner,” said the anchorman. “Apparently Democrats are warming up to him because of his left-leaning politics and how his vow to slaughter all humanity doesn't leave him as vulnerable to attacks about being weak on national security."

The screen then showed O'Yama, eyes glowing red with evil, giving a speech before a crowd of reporters. "When I am president, the oceans will boil, the cities will be destroyed in fire, and there will be universal health care!"

"What!" Bush exclaimed as he watched the television, "A universal health care plan could be harmful!"
..........
"....who is answering press questions while I'm gone?"

"I told Rumsfeld to cover for you."

* * * *
"Rarr!" Rumsfeld yelled as he strangled a reporter.
* * * *

"Are you sure that's a wise decision?" Scott asked.

Bush rolled his eyes. "When was the last time I made a wise decision?"

Funny.

BusinessPundit has gathered good economic posts from the blogosphere and called them Carnival of the Capitalists.
Good selections of worthwhile econ-blogging......an excellent idea, long overdue.

By the way, have I mentioned my Capitalist plan?

Next census, I'm listing my religion as "Capitalist". My religious practices will consist of any money-making activity in which I engage. My home? Well, it is my largest investment, the focal point of my religious activity.....so it might be called a "church".
And since religious activities and property are outside the scope of government taxation.....I'll never have to pay taxes again!

It can't fail.

The Weekly Standard has a very good round up of the evidence that led us to war.

My own wrap:

1: If "Bush lied", then so did the rest of the world....yes, UNSCOM, Germany, France, Clinton (Bill and Hillary), most major Democrats.....heck, pretty much everybody.
As the Weekly Standard writes:

Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

2: If Bush's "unilateralism" was an international crime....it wasn't the first:

The Clinton administration tried but failed to get French and Russian support at the Security Council either for military action or for a tightening of sanctions to force Saddam to cease these activities and comply with his commitment to disarm. The French and Russian position by 1997 was that the "books" should be closed on Iraq's WMD programs, sanctions should be lifted, and relations with Saddam should be normalized. That remained the French position for the next five years.

Interestingly, there is pretty widespread approval for Clintons attack on Iraq in 98, despite the fact that they were widely criticized at the time. Perhaps extra-UN attacks on Iraq are only unpopular if they work.

More likely, though, short term passions have given way to a more rational view of the the attack. "Attacking intransigent, rogue dictators who have WMDs = Good".

Hopefully, the same thing will occur again. Once the Iraqi people have achieved their democracy, it will be very hard to look them in the eye and tell them that their liberation was a bad thing.

3: Clinton gave the definitive speech on the necessity for war, on February 17th, 1998.....and it held true to the day when we finally fulfilled his promise. In his words:

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Still true today.

That speech, and his comments since, may be the reason the Weekly Standard concludes:

There are people who will never accept this logic, who prefer to believe, or claim to believe, that the whole Iraq affair was, in the words of Ted Kennedy, a "fraud" "made up in Texas" for political gain, or who believe that it was the product of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by a tiny little band of "neoconservatives." Some of the people propagating this conspiratorial view of the Iraq war are now running for the Democratic nomination for president; one of them is even a former general who led the war against Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. We wish them the best of luck selling their conspiracy theories to the American people. But we trust Bill Clinton won't be stumping for them on this particular issue.

A commercial I caught tonight will be getting some ad executive a pink slip.....or a raise.
I haven't made up my mind, yet.

It was about Breast Cancer Awareness month and ended with the most unusual piece of health care imagery I've ever heard.
Last line: "Together, we can lick breast cancer".

Got my attention, anyway.

For starters, I've decided I'm not watching tv during the entire month of March. (national Colon Cancer Awareness Month)

Well past his expiration date, Dennis Kucinich has formally announced his bid for President:

Miracles occur when our faith meets our vision, when believing is seeing," said Kucinich, who recalled years ago watching the flames from the stacks at an Ohio steel factory and imagining running for president.

Miracle.....faith....imagination. All very appropriate words to describe the Kucinich bid for President.

"I'm running for president of the United States to enable the armies of peace," Kucinich told some 300 supporters in the chambers of the Cleveland city council.

Armies of peace. I suppose we can just put flowers in our guns, beat our swords into plowshares and we'll......uh....
Well, we'll be getting our ass handed to us by the people who don't have any truck with such nonsense.

You know. Our enemies.

Armies of peace.....that brings something to mind:

First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow.

(Bonus points to anybody who gets the reference.)

Pejman writes an open letter to Jonah Goldberg, saying what many of us have been thinking for so long:

"...in the end, there is a limit to how much you can try to persuade fools of their foolishness. Some people just revel in their ignorance and boorishness, and there's no way to save them.

So we don't save them. We just laugh at them instead. That's the good thing about buffoons--they serve as wonderful comic relief. In the meantime, we seek out the smart and serious liberals with whom we can carry on grown up and meaningful conversations.

And while the latter quest may at times seem quixotic and Sisyphean in nature, we should keep at it. Let other people reinforce their own backwardness by staying in their echo chamber, and reassuring one another that their toilet rhetoric is somehow justified, proper, and objectively correct."

We've all come across these people. In discussion groups, in comment sections, even in brief forays to the Tinfoil Temples. Those places are, as Pejman says "echo chambers" for the most ridiculous of assumptions.

One can get quite a lot out of debating them. Briefly. It forces you to find evidence to back up your own assumptions.....or even, at times, change them.
But, after a time, you realize that they are not, as Owen Barfield put it, "arguing for truth not for victory, and arguing for truth, not for comfort."

They are impervious to facts. They believe that, in the absence of evidence, "it could be true" is a proof enough to convict.
They are not interested in the best arguments of their opponents, but revel in that "echo chamber" of more and more ridiculous theories. And if the theories contradict each other? Well, there's just so many of them, some of them are bound to be true!

And rest assured....the right wing has just as many of these echo chambers and ideologues.
Ironically, they see absolutely no resemblance to each other.

Pejman is right. Tolerate them briefly, but seek debate with intellectual peers. You may learn something.

A recent Michael Elliot article in Time Magazine gives some valuable perspective on the US/French divide, while echoing thoughts I'd previously expressed.

It's worth reading, especially for those who can see France as nothing more than our enemy. Of course, while finding the article very instructive, I cannot agree with everything he writes.

Regarding the idea that France is now our "enemy":

This is nonsense on stilts. You can make any argument you like about whether France's policy on Iraq makes sense, but it is hard to claim that France has been either inconsistent or motivated by a desire to see the U.S. fail.

Well, I'd certainly argue that France, and much of the Security Council, has been inconsistent with regards to whether a nation should be able to use military force without UN approval.
But, with respect to this specific incident, I can agree with that statement....at least well enough to move on:

In a long interview with TIME in February, President Jacques Chirac laid out his policy with admirable clarity. France, he said, had no difference with the U.S. "over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." The point of distinction was simply that Chirac thought that war — which he believed would outrage Arab and Islamic public opinion and "create a large number of little bin Ladens"--should be a last resort.

Interesting. And, so far, public opinion in Iraq seems to be with the United States.
And the best way, at this point, to ensure that Arab opinion does not turn into Arab activism? Ensure that the rebuilding process is as swift and peaceful as possible. Yet, France no longer seems to seek this goal.

That position may be mistaken, for conventional wisdom holds that nation building can't be hurried, but it is not self-evidently absurd or anti-American. So why the new round of Paris bashing?

Three reasons. First, there is something about Dominique de Villepin, the oleaginous French Foreign Minister — with his dashing good looks, his volumes of poetry, his love of the word logic — that just gets under American skins.

Really? I must have missed that.
I consider myself fairly well-read, yet I had never noticed Dominique de Villepins "dashing good looks" until after I'd read this article.....and then, only because I had read an article which claimed I hated France because Minister de Villepin was a regular "Monsieur Brad Pitt".
Whatever. He makes better points, after that:

Second, there is continuing resentment in Washington that six months ago France did not just agree to disagree but actively lobbied other members of the U.N. Security Council against the American position on Iraq. That may have been unwise. But there is no evidence to support the most serious charge that some Administration supporters leveled against Paris back then — that France tried to persuade members of Turkey's Parliament to vote against allowing U.S. troops to transit Turkey on their way to Iraq.

That is likely accurate. One suspects that Washington did not appreciate being portrayed as a nation intent on forcing it's will on the world when it was Jacques Chirac who suggested that Eastern Europes leaders had "missed a good opportunity to stay quiet" when they offered support to the US.

Washington could not have appreciated that a member of the Security Council, one who had signed off on the prospect of "immediate compliance" or "serious consequences", would actively lobby to simply erase the accomplishment that was 1441, by claiming "France will vote no to a new UN resolution on Iraq whatever the circumstances."

While France is not our enemy, they did decide to become our opponent. And that point leads into reason number 3:

But it is reason No. 3 that is the most interesting. The Administration and its supporters think — and this is going to shock you — that France is pursuing an independent Iraq policy out of naked self-interest.

It's true....."raison d'etat" lives in France. It should be no suprise. After all it was born there.

Chirac, in this view, is seeking to curry favor with the Islamic world and using France's disagreement with the U.S. to re-establish its political leadership in the European Union and become a rival to U.S. power.

Precisely, as far as it goes. I'd go farther.

France does not continually block the US resolutions out of some abstract noble belief that "war would not be justified after 12 years and 17 resolutions, but it would be justified after 12 years, 17 resolutions, and a few more months".
France does not continue to block US resolutions out of some notion that "the reconstruction of Iraq can only succeed if we do it in 6 months or less".

France has a goal even more vital to their self-interest than that cited by Mr Elliot. France desires to re-balance the powers.
France would see the US either "concede defeat" by turning military control over to the UN, or be dissuaded from future endeavors by the high cost of reconstruction.

France, in short, seeks to force the United States into compliance by making the policy of pre-emption and reconstruction as difficult as possible.

Is France our enemy for doing that? Of course not. They have their own ideals, just as we have ours.
But the French ideals are not motivated by the more immediate security and self-interests of the United States....they are motivated by a world in which the status quo is safe, secure. A world in which the cost/benefit ratio of the status quo is acceptable to France.

Such is not the case in the United States. We've seen the status quo and we have decided that it is unacceptable. Our cost/benefit ratio has swung toward action.

France merely seeks to make the cost too high. To rebalance the status quo.

Elliot concludes:

France, in other words, is behaving just like the U.S....

Yes, they are. They seek their own national interests, just as we do, so, let's not pretend that France occupies a moral high-ground in this battle.

In the end, though, which would you prefer?
- The French status quo, where all dictators enjoy the tolerance, even support, of the world
or:
- The status quo sought by the US, in which dictators tread lightly, knowing that either their actions will be measured, or their days will be numbered.

As for me, I'll take the one where the dictator may end up with his head on a pike.

From the Middle East Media Research Institute, a round-up of the results of the non-existent post-war plan (it's failing, don't you know):

Violence and terrorism in post-war Iraq, while a legitimate subject for the press, often overshadows the progress made in the region. Statements by Iraqi officials as well as a number of editorials published in Iraqi and Arab newspapers would indicate that the situation in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, has been steadily improving. Last week's decision by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to reduce the number of night time curfew hours to four is an indication of growing confidence in Iraq's security. Certainly there is a sense of optimism about the future, confirmed by a number of polls taken in Iraq in recent months.
.........
In one poll, the Saudi daily Okaz asked people if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "Iraq, and the people of Iraq, are today better off than they were in the past." 66 percent of the respondents "strongly agreed" and another 17 percent "agreed." Only 17 percent disagreed. One hundred percent of respondents disagreed with the statement: "It is possible that Saddam Hussein will return to govern Iraq because he is preferable to the Western coalition." In analyzing the results of the poll, the paper concluded that a majority of Iraqis are pessimistic about the conditions in the short term, but optimistic about the long-term situation.
.....
Another interesting finding is that an overwhelming majority of respondents oppose an Iraqi government patterned after the Islamic Republic of Iran.
.....
The most palpable change in Iraq since the demise of the Saddam regime has been the restoration of freedom and dignity to the Iraqi people. For the first time in more than 30 years, there are no torture chambers and no arbitrary arrests or executions. For the first time in that many years, one does not have to be afraid to confide in a friend: in the past, such a person could have been an informer for the regime.
.....
The Iraqi press publishes uncontrolled and uncensored. The Iraqis, who are avid newspaper readers, can choose from among more than 100 dailies and weeklies which cover subjects from Islamic fundamentalism to Kurdish nationalism.
.....
Related to the freedom of the press is the spread of Internet coffee shops which were forbidden under Saddam. Similarly, satellite dishes, also prohibited in the past, are now sold in large numbers. Iraqis can listen to views other than those of Saddam or those sanctioned by his information ministry.
.....
Freedom of religion has also returned to Iraq. The Shi'a, who are the majority in Iraq, can practice their religion without fear of punishment, and their clerics can take any position that suits their personal temperament or political predilection.
.....
Iraq was provisionally admitted to the Arab League and the Iraqi Governing Council has been recognized by a number of Arab countries, publicly or implicitly.
.....
The Iraqi delegation to the United Nations occupied its seat and the outgoing president of the Governing Council, Dr. Ahmad Al-Chalabi, delivered a speech before the body.
.....
An Iraqi representative was present, for the first time in years, at the September OPEC meeting at the ministerial level held in Vienna.
.....
The Organization of Islamic States, comprising 57 Muslim states, declared its support for the Governing Council and called for meeting the needs of Iraq.

I guess all of this just happened by accident, because we all know there was no plan for post war Iraq.

All of that is not to say that everything is going swimmingly. There are difficulties and there are problems. They will continue, until the day we have established the new democratic and sustainable Iraq. And they will continue afterwards, too.

That's why you need a government in the first place. Problems exist.
The Garden of Eden has not been in Iraq for a very long time.

But that doesn't mean we've failed.

The MEMRI conclusion is good:

The defunct daily Al-Aswaq, which was the organ of the Iraqi Industry Federation, provided a balanced conclusion to this survey: "We agree that the Governing Council is not perfect… and where can one find a perfect government? But the beginning is good… and though some criticism is justifiable… isn't it better to assist the Council in doing its job than looking for reasons and justification to make it fail?"

Gosh, isn't it? Too bad our own critics cannot come to terms with this.

10 out of 10 for speaking his mind. Minus a few points, though, for consistency:

"Sure, people are mad at Gray [Davis], because he's had a tough economy to deal with, but the fact is that it's probably better to continue with somebody that you know, even though you may not be fully satisfied . . . "
- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, on CNN's "Inside Politics," before the California polls closed Tuesday

Funny, how change is bad in some campaigns...but not when he is a candidate:

"As I travel the country, I am more and more convinced that voters are ready for a change.

I guess it's too much to expect the same civility and understanding towards Bush that he suggests we give Gray Davis.

Econopundit cites an op-ed and makes a good point:

Holman Jenkins sets us straight on OPEC and why we're spending so much money in the Middle East:

...U.S. consumption of Persian Gulf oil totals about $18 billion a year, less than we spend on computer parts from Asia. The price mechanism works: Oil would flow in greater volume from higher-cost sources in the unlikely event of a catastrophic disruption of supplies from the Gulf. Canada, for instance, has 180 billion barrels in oil sands that are producible, judging by a new Shell project, at $15 a barrel.

Yet so ingrained are the false assumptions of energy insecurity that many pundits and politicians continue to insist that the U.S. has been remiss in failing to impose monumental costs on itself in pursuit of "energy independence."

In other words, people are claiming the US should keep shopping at the high priced small stores, instead of Wal-Mart, because....what if Wal-Mart closes up shop? We'd be forced to shop at the high priced small stores!

This is nothing but the isolationist illusion reclothed, and nonsensical even by the assumptions that such people embrace. If we stopped importing oil, oil wouldn't be any less important to the world economy, the world economy would still be critical to our prosperity, and we'd remain the only country with military power to protect the flow of oil.

But, "what about the UN", ask the isolationists? Well. What about the UN? I am aware of no function within the UN to put an end to oppression and strife. On the contrary, the UN seems particularly useless when it comes to protecting the people of the world from dictators.

Instead, here's the real reason we care about the security of the Gulf: Oil is wealth, and wealth attracts bandits. For the past 60 years we have been committed to the proposition that the world can prosper by peaceful trade, not by nations trying to seize resources by force.

By one count, Americans have spent nearly $1 trillion on this cause since 1973 (and another $1.7 trillion in defense of Israel), an outlay impossible to explain in terms of fuel security. Likewise, the further costs we're courting on behalf of Iraq hugely outweigh the real value of that country's oil to us.

This is where Sept. 11 inescapably changed the picture. Spending another trillion dollars and waiting three more decades for the Middle East to grow up politically suddenly seemed like a bum bet. History occasionally calls on us to do more than twiddle our thumbs. In fact, $87 billion to put a democratic Iraq on its feet might turn out to be one of the better bargains Congress has ever seen -- and it has nothing to do with oil.

Econopundit responds with his excellent point:

The largest challenge to American Democracy in our lifetimes, I think, is coming in the next Presidential election. The challenge is whether and how "American Interests" will be defined by the two sides, and whether the discussion will remain at least partly within bounds of rational debate.

At this point, it seems the Democratic Party cannot address the very real foreign policy issues that exist....or, if they do, it is being drowned out by their conspiracy theories and hyperbole, regarding the current administration.

I'd love to know that they have a real plan for securing our interests....one which does not simply mean "let's turn over our national interests to the goodwill of the member-states of the UN".
It's hard to imagine why a committee of nations, or dictators, who have their own national interests at heart, would be trusted to look after our own.
It is not hard to imagine why a Political party, attempting to win an election, might suggest that the current President is worse than a committee comprised of nations who would rather see the United States fail. It is not hard to imagine, but it is hard to swallow.

In his book "Diplomacy", Henry Kissinger identified a similar situation in another era.

"British leaders were more likely to be clear about what they were not prepared to defend than to identify a casus belli in advance. They were even more reluctant to spell out positive aims, perhaps because they liked the status quo well enough. Convinced they would recognize the British national interest when they saw it, British leaders felt no need to elaborate it in advance. They preferred to await actual cases - a position impossible for the Continental countries to adopt, because they were those actual cases.

Similarly, the UN members are paralyzed into inaction against threats and oppression....often because they are those threats, and they cause that oppression.

The British view of security was not unlike the view of American isolationism, in that Great Britain felt impervious to all but cataclysmic upheaval. But America and Great Britain differed when it came to the relationship between peace and domestic structure. British leaders did not in any sense consider the spread of representative institutions as a key to peace in the way they their American counterparts generally did, nor did they feel concerned about institutions different from their own.

Indeed. And, the UN does not seem in the least concerned with whether their members represent their people or simply repress their people. Democracy, dictatorship....what's the difference? Yet, we have an entire political party espousing UN authority as the basis of their foreign policy.

While our current approach has its flaws, it's dangers......the alternative they are offering is nothing more than surrender. And they are offering it with a steady stream of lies, ("The President tried to connect Iraq to 9/11/said the threat was imminent") distortions, ("cronyism") and hyperbole. (unilateralism, fraud)

I'd love to see a different President in '04....but I cannot take seriously a President whose policy is "anything but Bush".

Recently Elton John lambasted Dennis Miller at a charity concert at which they were both playing:

"I love America, but if you want to know why the world hates America, I can give you two words: Dennis Miller."

Now, I wouldn't advise Dennis Miller to enter a singing contest with Elton John. He'd fare poorly, to say the least.
On similar grounds, I think Elton John would be well advised not to enter a verbal spat with Dennis Miller.

Dennis Miller has responded. Devastatingly.

"My only hope is that someday he can defend my beliefs with the same vim and vigor that he's chosen to defend Eminem's."

Can you feel the love tonight?


(link via Judicious Asininity)

For the last few years we've been hearing of Muslim clerics, around the world, who call for jihad against the United States, attacks on US troops, and the destruction of their enemies in the western world?
We hear them and think..."How awful. What kind of society could produce such a horrible person? What kind of religion could produce such revolting teachings?"

Imagine hearing one of them suggest this:

'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer.' I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up'.

Foggy Bottom is the nickname for the US State Department.
On a separate occassion, the same religious leader said this:

"...maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up."

Despicable, right? What sort of backwards, violent, disgusting religion must this be?

That'd be Christianity. Of the Southern Baptist variety. Specifically, Pat Robertson.
He has suggested a nuclear attack on US soil.

When contacted, CBN claimed Robertson was "out of town" and "could not be reached for comment".

Uh huh.

Maybe we should deploy grounds troops to Virginia Beach to wait for him. It seems the Middle East doesn't have a corner on the "Terrorism-advocating, Fundamentalist Religious Cleric" market, after all.

Tim Blair dresses Michael Moore down:

Suppose you're a fat stupid guy with no great education and not even enough motivation to last more than a single day on a production line. You complain all the time, your appearance is terrible, you struggle with accuracy, and you make enemies easily. You think the government is conspiring against you. Your overall skill-set barely qualifies you for homelessness.

Has anybody said "ouch" yet? No?
Allow me. Ouch.

It gets better:

With these talents, where on earth might you expect to become a millionaire?
Why, only in the US, which rewards Michael Moore with terrific wealth.
....
Yet according to Moore, nobody has a realistic shot at wealth:

Millionaire Michael Moore, with not a hint of irony, manages to say this without laughing:

Listen, friends, you have to face the truth: you are never going to be rich. The chance of that happening is about one in a million.

Never? Gosh, that's odd, because I'm a middle-class American....and that, alone, puts me in the top 1% of income-earners in the world. I guess "rich" is relative, huh?

Not to mention the fact that Michael Moore has gotten rich doing exactly this....criticing a system that he claims will "never" make you rich.
It's a self-refuting assertion, yet people eat this stuff up. Unbelievable.

Tim Blair notes another remarkable Moore contention:

Commenters note that according to Moore's math -- the likelihood of getting rich is "about one in a million" -- only 280 millionaires must exist in the US.
In fact, there are two million. Therefore, your chances of Moore-like riches: 140/1. I like those odds!

Me too.
If it will make him happy, though, Moore is welcome to go to a country in which the poverty is shared more equally.

Finally, Moore gets caught in what can only be called a failure to remember todays lie:

Another Moore contradiction. Here he is in The Guardian:

[Moore] believes some well-placed suicide bombs or terrorist attacks could change everything. "At that point, you will find millions of Americans clamouring for martial law ... The American people will be so freaked out they will demand that the White House take action, round up anyone and everyone. That's what I fear."

And here he is on the Today Show:

"There is no terrorist threat."

Got that? Michael Moore claims to be afraid of terrorist attacks.....terrorist attacks which he believes are not a threat.

I used to be scared of things I knew weren't real, too, just like Michael Moore.
Of course, I was 4 years old. Eventually, I grew up.

Apparently lacking any connection with reality, many opponents of the war have been claiming that our post war plan for Iraq is either "failing"...or that it never existed in the first place.

Andrew Sullivan makes a nice list of what failure looks like:

Six months ago there were no police on duty in Iraq.

· Today there are over 40,000 police on duty, nearly 7,000 here in Baghdad alone.
· Last night Coalition Forces and Iraqi police conducted 1,731 joint patrols.
· Today nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.
· Today, for the first time in over a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
· On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.
· Today all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
· Many of you know that we announced our plan to rehabilitate one thousand schools by the time school started—well, by October 1 we had actually rehabbed over 1,500.

Six months ago teachers were paid as little as $5.33 per month.

· Today teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
· Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam.
· Today all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
· Today doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
· Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
· Since liberation we have administered over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s many children.

This is failure? I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Since Arnold has been elected, I think it's time to review our stereotypes and put a little hypocrisy to bed once and for all.

First, to the Republicans. You know all that complaining you've been doing about those "Hollywood Liberals and Democrats"?

Well, now that you're on your secondActor-turned-Governor of California, maybe it's time to reconsider this meme. (...not to mention Mayor Eastwood, and Dennis Miller)
I don't think the party of "Governor $20mil/movie" has the moral authority to complain about Janeane Garofalo's appearance on Larry King Live.


And the Democrats. Let's put aside the hypocrisy of your calling this recall vote an "illegitimate power grab" considering the fact that well over 50% of the public supported the recall, and Gray Davis had approval ratings approaching those of Al Sharpton, but with less credibility.

Let's put aside the fact that you've suddenly discovered that a celebrity in politics is "in way over his head".

Let's put that aside and focus on this bit of idiocy from LAweekly:

"...the question has to be asked: Is the late-night king becoming just another political pawn?
...
So why in the world is Leno suddenly taking sides?... But the real truth is that, for some time now, Leno has been leaning right and going soft on President Bush, judging by jokes on The Tonight Show.
...
It wasn't always so. Before 9/11, Leno and his writers were deriding Bush almost nightly, blaming him for what was clearly even back then a worsening economy.
...
Whether Leno continues this partisan attitude as the 2004 presidential race heats up, and the candidates' talk-show appearances become increasingly crucial, remains to be seen. But the last Tonight Show host who went too far by intermingling politics and entertainment was Jack Paar....and his late-night reign ended with his own recall."

Hey, look who just decided that celebrities shouldn't be partisan!

Particularly funny, because 2 months ago the SAME author said this:

"And that's the problem: Hollywood talent who are Democrats don't want to run, don't want to walk, don't want to even get their foot in the door for political office.

What's stopping them?

It's a ridiculously obvious question, yet the answer is perplexingly elusive. Or maybe it's as simple as: They're cowards.

So a partisan Republican celebrity getting active is a problem....and partisan Democrats not getting active is also a problem.

Clearly, Ms Finke does not suffer from an overexposure to consistency.

A few good points made by RealClearPolitics recently.

For starters, they catch a good piece answering the Democrat claim that we're in the "worst economy since the Hoover administration".

Under Bush, the economy had two quarters of contraction that started before his first tax cut was even adopted, much less implemented. Since then, there has been positive although not spectacular GDP growth.

Unemployment has risen to above 6 percent. But it wasn't too long ago that 6 percent unemployment was considered transitionary. Anything much less was feared inflationary, before Reaganonomics killed the Phillips curve.
.....
There are certainly plenty of fair Democratic criticisms that could be mounted against Bush's economic policies. Aggressively cutting taxes while embarking on a costly war and reconstruction in Iraq is certainly arguable fiscal policy. Deficits are reaching levels worrisome even for those generally disinclined to worry about them in the context of now-global capital markets.

But the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? For the entire decade preceding the full implementation of the Reagan tax cuts, economic growth averaged only 1.6 percent a year, and in four years the economy actually contracted. Inflation hit double digits. Unemployment reached 8.5 percent in 1975 and averaged more than 7 percent for three consecutive years.

These candidates were adults during this dismal economic stretch and presumably semi-sentient. Hyperbole is, of course, endemic to the political beast. But you have to wonder about reasonably bright and informed individuals so willing to debase themselves intellectually.

Bang. Nailed it.

Meanwhile, on the foreign policy front, RCP answers a Howard Dean assertion with another dose of reality:

In addition to drawing the wildly hyperbolic conclusion that President Bush is "setting the stage for the failure of America," Dean also expounded on the virtues of foreign policy. Here's the first key graf:

President Bush, Dr. Dean said, is "particularly poorly suited" for foreign policy "because he has a black and white view of the world, and foreign policy depends on enormous understandings of nuances and trade-offs."

There's little historical evidence to suggest that having a black and white view of the world makes any president "poorly suited" in matters of foreign policy. It worked pretty well for both Roosevelts, JFK, and especially Ronald Reagan.

Furthermore, I'm not sure the American people feel a black and white world view is such a bad thing to have these days given the fact thousands of people around the world are plotting to kill us.

Dr Dean doesn't come off too well in the next part, either:

Graf number two:

"The most important criteria for whether you're going to be any good at foreign policy or not is judgment and patience, both of which are in short supply in this presidency."

I suppose Dean is referring to President Bush's mad rush to war in Iraq. Regardless, if we've learned anything about Howard Dean over the past few months it's that he can be impatient, impertinent, and will occasionally lash out at his rivals with statements that eventually require an apology. In other words, judging him by his own criteria, Howard Dean as president would be a foreign policy failure.

Hyperbole. The Democrats don't let Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter get away with it....(and thank god)....I don't think their Presidential candidates, of all people, should be immune from that standard.

(link via Marcland)

Dana, at Noteitposts.com, makes a great catch.

Check out the sponsored link (on the right-hand side) when you do a Google search for 'Dean'.

Really. Check it out.
That is funny. I guess he's catching on to this "internet thing", after all.

Appropriately, Dana titles her post "God, I love capitalism".

First thing I see on the wire this morning....the Nobel Peace prize has been won by an Iranian woman:

Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for her work defending human rights in an award aimed at spurring democratic reform across the Muslim world.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Ebadi, one of Iran's first woman judges before the 1979 revolution forced her to step down in favor of men, for seeking to improve the rights of women and children.

I'm betting Pejman Yousefzedah mentions this today. Just a hunch.

Thank god the Nobel Committee elected to give the award to somebody who is trying to end tyranny, rather than somebody who opposed it.

It cannot be good news for the current Iranian regime that the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a person who actively opposes them.

To all visiting for the first time, thanks for coming by.

Couple notes:

1: Check out my post-war analysis of the justification for war. It's a very thorough, link-filled look at the official justification in review.
If you need evidence to defend the war, it is probably there.

2: I offer reciprocity to anybody who blogrolls me. If you do so, let me know so I can add you to my roll.

3: Hey, go nuts. Add the blog to your favorites. Visit daily. Be a statistic.

Will be blogging while watching the debate for a bit tonight.
Quotes will not be verbatim, of course, but the content will be intact.

Updates numbered:

1: Gephardt was just asked what he would do differently in Iraq. He responded by saying that we need to "get our friends to help us and cooperate with them".
The moderator told him that she wanted something more substantive, since "we need friends" doesn't really mean anything.....what would he do specifically?

His response? "We just need to get our friends to help".

Great. Thanks, Senator. Top notch advice. Can't wait for your policy papers:

- Foreign Policy: Friends are good. Enemies are bad.
- Domestic Policy: Economic growth is good. Let's do that.
- Environmental Policy: Good weather? I'm in favor of it.

2: 8:19pm: In his very first response, John Kerry-Who-Was-In-Vietnam works in a reference to his military service. He was in Vietnam, you know.


3: Wesley Clark nails the rest of the stage, by commenting that their criticism of each other was "shameful", when they all agree on the main thing....Bush has to go.
Nice rhetorical shot. I'm guessing he's gonna use it again.


4: Al Sharpton. Hard not to like the guy. He's funny. I think he's got a shot.

...not at the Presidency, of course. Maybe he could be some sort of controversial, race-baiting, publicity hound. I bet he'd go far.


5: Moseley Braun says she's the clear candidate, since "The men have ruined it".

I wonder how well it'd go over if a man said "The women have ruined it"?
He'd be criticized by the other candidates and the media. He'd never have a political career again.

I'm guessing it will be pretty much the same for her. Except for the part about being criticized by the candidates and the media.


6: Huh. Did you know that the success of the 90s was entirely due to the Clinton administration? I guess Congress just took the decade off.
Based on Gephardt and Edwards comments, that's the impression I'm getting.


7: Dick Gephardt just said that the economy was a "mess". Guess he hasn't been keeping up with the news.


8: Al Sharpton just Gore-jacked the debate. Bush didn't win. Yawn.
Keep it up, Al. I'm sure you'll score points with that, among a wide variety of people at Democraticunderground.


9: Dennis Kucinich is talking. I wonder what's on NBC tonight? Now would be a good time to check.


10: John Edwards not only hates Bush more, he hated Bush before before anybody else. He hated him in 2001! He wins!


11: Wesley Clark: "Republicans like weapons systems. Democrats like people".

Oh, that's the difference. I never quite knew.
I thought it had something to do with differences on policy or something.


12: A person in the audience claims she chose food over medicine. She asks how they can assure her that they empathize with her.

Edwards claims he would "stand up for you", and would provide free health care for her and people like her. Also, he pointed his finger and looked very sincere.
She seemed assured.

Oddly, he didn't respond to one thing she mentioned. She actually *does* get drugs cheap through a private drug company plan. I guess she'd rather get it free from the government, though. And Edwards is happy to give away the drug companies property, with our money.

Democrat Definition of "Free": Somebody else will pay for it.


13: Kucinich: "America is a country from the heart".....hey, the Yankees are beating Boston 2-1.
Gephardt: "We need to take our dream to the rest of the world"......except for Iraq, I guess.


14: Howard Dean has mentioned Vermonts health care plan approximately every time he's opened his mouth. Strangely, he hasn't mentioned who paid for it.

"*The percentage of Vermonters on state funded Medicaid programs is twice the national average-and caseloads have quadrupled since Dean took office.
*In 1998 Vermont under funded hospital Medicaid costs by 16 million. Six million more that Medicare under funded Vermont hospitals."

I wonder how that will work on a national level, when you can't just shift the burden to somebody else?
No mention of this, either:

"...when Dean became governor, 90.5% of the citizens of Vermont were already covered. When he left as governor, 90.4% were covered."

15: John Kerry makes fun of Rush Limbaughs drug problem! Ha ha! People with addictions are funny! He's here all night! Try the veal!


16: Unions. They're all in favor of them.
But John Edwards' mother was a union member, so he's like some sort of Mutant Super-hero for Unions. It's in his genetic code. Maybe his mom sang the Union song to him when he was a baby.


17: Unanimous Democratic Position on Immigrants: They shouldn't die. Controversy did not ensue.


Final thoughts:

- Clark started out strong, but faded away once the debate turned to domestic matters. Seemed somewhat strong, but the other candidates finally seemed willing to send a few soft-pitch hardballs his way. He's definitely gonna have to start thinking of what he believes. Can't campaign on being opposed to the war forever.

- Lieberman was Lieberman. He probably wasn't bad, although it's hard to think of anything he said.

- Gephardt came out swinging, which would be very helpful for his campaign if most of his supporters hadn't stopped watching TV when Matlock was cancelled.

- John Edwards got in some good practice for his 2012 campaign.

- Carol Moseley Braun was an interesting diversion. What's the female equivalent of "misogynist"?

- John Kerry was a regular comedian. Specifically, he was Andrew Dice Clay. Haha, drug addiction is funny!
On the other hand, he only managed to work in his Vietnam service once, so he can't consider this a total success.

- Al Sharton was funny, too, but in a "don't look now, but there's a guy over there who is..." sort of way. Still, he should definitely run in every election.

- Howard Dean took every opportunity to mention that he was consistent in his opposition to the war. I guess that was better than saying he would have been in favor of it had France been not blocked the final resolution.

And it was way better than mentioning that he was actually in favor of the war, sometimes:

If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

- Did I mention Dennis Kucinich? No? Maybe it was the mind-control space lasers.


Best show on TV.

Frank J nails it:

"...Democratic Underground, who...play their part of the inmates in the Asylum looking out the window and wondering why everyone is so crazy."

Seriously. Far gone and out.

Say, has anybody told them that Bush supports putting flouride in our drinking water?
We should just send them some old Birch Society literature with the dates scrubbed out, and watch the fireworks.
...like laughing at monkeys in a barrel.

Donald Sensing asks a stupid question:

"The threat posed by Iraq may not be imminent, but it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." Who said that? Sen. Tom Daschle on the floor of the Senate, Oct. 10, 2002; video clip shown on cable news just now. So why is Daschle's party claiming that the president claimed the threat was "imminent," when they provably understood last fall that no such claim was being made? (Or is that a stupid question?)

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has more.

On the subject of whether we're getting an accurate story on the media bias in Iraq, the Belgravia Dispatch writes:

Listen, you're a reporter. You're in Iraq. In one area the power has come back on, a new school has opened, a symphony orchestra is back on tap.

And in another, say, three GIs have been killed. Or the United Nations headquarters has been blown up. Or a major cleric has been killed in a bombing. What story are you going to cover?

The answer is: mostly the latter category. Sure, one should be duty bound to give a full picture and cover the former category as well. Yes, there's a valid complaint being made by Reynolds.......
But let's not get carried away with Panglossian visions of how it all goes in Iraq--if it weren't for those damn journalists.

I think both points of view are missing the point.

Yes, the media is focusing too much on the negative, to the exclusion of the positive.
Yes, it's also normal for reporters to focus on the explosions, rather than the life that is returning to normal.

Both of them are right. And yet, there is still an unacceptable level of media distortion.

So, who is at fault, if not the reporters? The answer is simple.
The reporters are doing their jobs. The news organizations are failing us.

Incidents have been magnified into "The Story", and how would we know differently.

If you heard of a fellow who had lost *huge* amounts of money in the last few years, and is mired in legal problems...you might think he's had it tough, woudn't you? Of course, if I mentioned that his name was Bill Gates, you might see things differently.

Look, a reporter is nothing more than a single person, capable of being in only one place at a time, and essentially capable of telling only one story at a time. That is their job.

The fault does not (necessarily) lie with the reporters, who are reporting what seem to be the important incidents in their reach.....the fault lies with the news organizations who select the scope of information they pass along.

Story vs Perspective. The reporter gives the former....the organization, the latter.

The news organizations are failing their journalistic responsibility, as they continue to focus on the notable stories without giving us perspective.
That is the failure that should be addressed.

Complaints about reporters may be valid, but they largely miss the point. It's not the stories that are the problem....it's the perspective.

We should focus our complaints on those who offer perspective.....or fail to do so.

Bill Herbert, at Cointelprotool, makes an interesting observation on why Bustamante was doomed from the start.

He's also got a few more incisive and interesting observations on current issues, but I don't think he'd appreciate it if I just republished his entire Blog here.
So you'll have to read Cointelprotool for yourself.

News of Arnolds Gubernatorial victory had far-reaching impact:

Iraq's top gym changed its name Wednesday to "The Arnold Classic" to honor former bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger's win in the California governor's race.

The victory even had some Iraqis -- long ruled by another strongman, Saddam Hussein, until his ouster in April by U.S.-led forces -- calling for a new leader in Schwarzenegger's mold.

And critics think Iraq can't manage democracy. Ha! They already want to elect actors.

No wonder the Democrats didn't like the war in Iraq......we just liberated an entire nation of Republicans.

This story has caused a big stir:

The White House said Monday it is creating an Iraq Stabilization Group to be headed by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. The group would be responsible for handling the day-to-day administration of Iraq, a task previously handled by the Pentagon.

Of course, the immediate concern is that Rumsfeld got his feelings hurt, as he was not aware of the transition until after the fact. And that may be true.

But have you been watching Rumsfeld?
I don't think he is a thin-skinned fellow. I think he can take it.

In fact, I think he takes it quite well:

"We have the schools open, have the hospitals operating, have the universities functioning, have a new currency, have a central bank, have no humanitarian crisis in terms of hunger. We do not have tens of thousands of internally displaced people or refugees."

Rumsfeld also said Iraq's electrical system was back up and operating at what he called "the ragged edge of prewar levels.

"On the one hand, the public's been fed a line of 'no plan and no progress,' and it stands in such contrast to the facts on the ground," he said."

I don't want to offend with unacceptable language or anything, but I think we might describe that as "success".

However, while the media is discussing piques, I think we're missing the larger story.
The operation is being transitioned away from military control and towards more mundane tasks:

The stabilization team would be being divided into sections: economic development, counter-terrorism, political affairs and media relations/communications.

When you begin focusing on the economy, media, crime and politics....the war is over. You've won.
If that's not already a cliche, it should be.

Tim Blair catches a CNN goof:

"CNN reports Arnie’s victory:

"Schwarzenegger, who, like Hitler, is a native of Austria ... "

Fortunately, CNN has corrected this vile implication.

But jeez.

Why does an honest journalist make a remark like that in the first place? Unless....

Proving once again that PETA is its own worst enemy, they've sent out this press release :

Perhaps Friday's frightening incident will make you realize that a brightly lit stage with pounding music and a screaming audience is not the natural habitat for tigers, lions, or any other exotic animals. The only natural thing that happened on that stage was that this majestic animal lashed out against a captor who was beating him with a microphone because he wouldn't do a trick.

How much mileage do you think PETA can get by ripping a guy who is still in critical care?
Almost as much as they got by criticizing US use of dolphins and pigeons, rather than US soldiers, to detect danger?

"These animals never enlisted. They know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein, and they probably won't survive."

Why bother opposing PETA? Heck, you can't even parody them anymore. They're the Saturday Night Live of Animal Rights groups.

(link via Hobbsonline)

Couple comments on Arnolds acceptance speech:

"From the time I came over to this country, you have opened up your arms to me, you have received me, you have given me opportunities, endless opportunities, every thing that I have. I came here with absolutely nothing and California gave me absolutely everything, and today California has given me the greatest gift of all, you have given me your trust."

Great...in his first act as Governor, he gives the Oscar acceptance speech he's always wanted to give.

"You like me! You really like me!"

"I will do everything I can to live up to that trust. I will not fail you, I will not disappoint you and I will not let you down"

Uh huh. Arnold has worked out a way to make all of the people happy, all of the time. Neat trick.

"I want to be the people's governor. I want to represent everybody. I believe in the people of California and I know that together, we can do great things."

Is there a Candidates Bible which forces every candidates to say this kind of boiler-plate stuff in acceptance speeches?

Oh, one final quote I read this morning:

"I'm horrified at the thought that Schwarzenegger can be our governor", said Gretchen Purser, 25, of Berkeley, who voted against recall. "I'm sick of Republicans trying to take over the state."

Got that? These election things are making her sick.

Presumably, she wasn't so upset at the "will of the people" before the Republicans garnered a grand total of ONE state-wide seat.

She's from Berkeley, of course.

Dave Barry has long been one of the funniest writers around. Lately, though, he's put a little more elbow in the "wink wink, nudge nudge"......

From a recent column:

...in my August column, I printed the toll-free telephone number of one of these groups, the American Teleservices Association. My thinking was: Hey, if the ATA feels its members have a constitutional right to call you, then surely the ATA feels that you have an equally constitutional right to call the ATA.
......
Thousands and thousands of you called the ATA. I found out about this when I saw an article in a direct-marketing newspaper, the DM News, which quoted the executive director of the ATA, Tim Searcy. Here's an excerpt from the article:

''The ATA received no warning about the article from Barry or anyone connected with him,'' Searcy said. ``. . . the Barry column has had harmful consequences for the ATA. An ATA staffer has spent about five hours a day for the past six days monitoring the voice mail and clearing out messages.''

That's correct: The ATA received NO WARNING that it was going to get unwanted calls! Not only that, but these unwanted calls were an INCONVENIENCE for the ATA, and WASTED THE ATA'S TIME!

Great idea, right? Dave really showed them.

Not quite.

Here is where Dave turns the screw:

I realize that many of you would like to, once again, let the telemarketers know how you feel. And I am, frankly, tempted to reveal to you here that the American Teleservices Association (www.ataconnect.org/) seems to have a phone line working (at least for now) at 317-816-9336.

But would it be right to reveal this? I mean, yes, you could call the ATA again. But the ATA surely doesn't WANT you to call again. It's inconvenient! And to insist on calling somebody who doesnt want to be called, even if you have the legal right to call, well, that's just plain rude.

So I am taking the high road.

Game, set, match to Dave Barry.

(link via Bad Money)

Neil Boortz, with an analogy I wish I'd thought of first:

Let's imagine that we have a counterfeiter on the loose. He's spreading $100 bills like a Democrat. He's not all that careful, this counterfeiter. He keeps appearing on closed-circuit cameras and leaving his fingerprints pretty much everywhere he goes. The police spend a year building up their case. They collect the pictures and testimony from victims. Officials know that this counterfeiter has a massive printing capability that could, if not stopped, mean that he might well pass enough $100 bills to seriously affect our economy, not to mention the cost to merchants and law enforcement.

You have the picture, right? This man has been spreading counterfeit $100 bills. No doubt about it. So, it's time to put him out of business before he prints and spreads some more. The Secret Service agents swing into action and raid the counterfeiter's home. There they find a high-tech printing press. They also find the special types of paper used for U.S. currency, and the inks as well. To top things off, they actually find the engraved plates for the $100 bills. They find all of the basic ingredients for the making of the counterfeit bills. But they don't locate one single counterfeit bill. Not one. They search for a month, tearing out walls and ripping up carpet … but no bills.

So, what to do? Do you let him go? Do you apologize for the raid? You know he had those bills. You know that because he actually passed them! He has the press, the paper, the ink and the plates … but no bills. Was your whole effort a miserable failure?

Of course, it wasn't a failure. The counterfeiter is out of business. He won't be printing any bogus bills any time soon. To turn him loose simply because he didn't have any actual bills on him, or you couldn't find any bills he had hidden away would be pure idiocy.

OK, I'll put away the spoon. If this little allegory hasn't turned on a light somewhere you need to reset your circuit breakers.

Analogies don't prove anything, of course, but they are useful tools to help make a complex issue somewhat more clear.

Get thee to Sgt Hooks blog right now, and partake of his lyrical photo essay.

Instructive, impressive and touching.

Make sure you read the lyrics while clicking on the pop-up photos. You'll understand.

(link via Oscar Jr)

Quick thought.......
We all know the candidates voted today in the recall election, and we can be pretty certain they all voted for themselves.

But how do you suppose Bustamante voted on the recall?
He'd never admit it, but whatya wanna bet he voted "Yes".....
"...and the horse you rode in on, Davis".

Did the war make the world safer?

Well, the UN seems to think so:

A United Nations peacekeeping mission says it has wound up its mandate to patrol the border between Iraq and Kuwait after 12 years, because Iraq is no longer a threat to its smaller neighbour.
....
The UN Security Council voted in July to phase out the peacekeeping mission, saying it was "no longer necessary to protect against the threats to international security posed by Iraqi actions against Kuwait".

Kudos to them.
It's not everyday that the UN recognizes when it has become irrelevant.

(link via The Command Post)

A moment of curiosity occassioned a brief, but not suprising, search.....
www.luddites.com and www.luddites.net have yet to be scooped up.

However, there is a quiz to determine if you are a Luddite.
Seems pretty axiomatic to me.

This should be a one part quiz:

Question:
You do know this is an online quiz, right?
You have to access it with a computer. And a modem.

Do you really need a quiz to decide whether you are a Luddite? Idiot.

Arnold Kling eviscerates Paul Krugman today, in exactly the way that Luskin should be confronting Krugman.

Interested parties need to read this open letter:

Dear Paul,

You might remember me from graduate school at MIT. I would like to ask you a question about what constitutes a reasonable argument.

For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."

There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.

A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."

A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."

Paul, my question for you is this:

Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?

Sadly, I believe he does see the difference. Yet, he makes his arguments anyway.

I see differences, and to me they are important. Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies.

In this example, the type C argument says that the consequences of eliminating the minimum wage would not be those that I expect and desire. We can have a constructive discussion of the Type C argument -- I can cite theory and evidence that contradicts Krueger and Card -- and eventually one of us could change his mind, based on the facts.

Type M arguments deny the legitimacy of one's opponents to even state their case. Type M arguments do not give rise to constructive discussion. They are almost impossible to test empirically.

And that's the problem with the arguments Krugman makes. They cannot be falsified.

One consequence is to lower the level of political discourse in general. You have a lot of influence with those who sympathize with your views. When they see you adopt type M arguments, they do the same.

Translation: "Hi, Donald Luskin! Recognize anything?"

Amusing excerpts of a good piece:

"Woman have boobies and I like to touch them!" Arnold shouted, "Why is that wrong?"

"Hey, I don't make the laws," Bush said defensively, but then thought for a moment. "Well, I do sign them."

And, for equal time....

"Bah!" Davis yelled, "We will hit him with so many allegations that he will be paralyzed! No one can stop me from finishing my incompetent term as governor! No one!"

"But putting out allegations that he supports Hitler!" the aide exclaimed, "That's so extreme it's almost a self parody!"

Whole thing is good. Always is.

Donald Luskin has been working hard to keep up with the ridiculous hyperbole and falsehoods that come pouring out of Paul Krugman on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, he does not appear to be immune to that same disease.

I've noted before that I think, in his search for criticisms, he sometimes becomes obsessed with minutae. Today, he goes full-bore with the hyperbole he claims to despise so much in Krugman:

"...there was nothing fun about this experience. I have looked evil in the face. I've been in the same room with it. I don't know how else to describe my feelings now except to say that I feel unclean, and I'm having to fight being afraid."

Oh. Good. Lord.

Look, I've got as little respect for the red-meat-throwing/sky-is-falling, partisan hack as anybody. His constant stream of insubstantial invective is exactly what feeds the "much more polarized political system....much more polarized social climate" that seemed to dismay him so much just recently.

And it's especially distressing when his claims, widely accepted as fact by his readers, prove themselves false almost immediately.....(What? Retraction!?! Why start now?)

But Luskin has drunk deeply of the well of political rhetoric that fuels Krugman, and that's a shame, because he does make some good points, too.

Regarding a question on whether Krugman would "advise a foreigner to emigrate to America at this time":

Krugman's answer was that if you didn't know in advance where you'd end up in America's economic structure, you'd never want to come here. "It's so cruel, so harsh now." Could there be a better statement of the very essence of Krugman's political vision?

He simply discounts any possibility of growth, or opportunity, or social mobility -- or, perhaps more accurately, sees the pursuit of them as so fraught with risk that no sane person would take it on.
......
How does he explain to himself the fact that millions of people are clamoring to get into America, risking life and limb to get into America by hook or by crook, and entering it at the lowest possible level -- anything to avail themselves of an opportunity for freedom and advancement. His is the fearful world-view that sees libertarians like Grover Norquist -- people who want to shrink the size of government and allow Americans the opportunity to be more self-reliant -- as dangerous radicals.

Further proof of the maxim that "if you want to be labeled a radical, all you have to do is say the same things our Founding Fathers said".

Wish I'd been a fly on the wall for this, too:

I waited in line for a few minutes while he banged out scrawled signatures by the dozen, and when he was done with mine, I asked, "Would you inscribe it to me personally?" He said, "Yeah, alright, what's your name?" I said "Don..." and he wrote Don. Then I said "Luskin: L-U-S-K-I-N..." and by the time he got halfway through... he realized. He started up with the ferret-like shifty-eyed thing like when he's on TV. I said "Now you keep up the good work, Paul." He muttered, "Yeah... yeah... fine..."

Can't decide whether I want to high-five Luskin, or slap him on the wrist. Maybe both.

George W Bush claims entry into the blogosphere.

I took a look at the blog.......the Official Blog.
Blog.....they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Looks like they've just put the press releases on another, somewhat narrower page. It's got all of the form, but none of the substance.

I don't think I'd call that blogging.

Tyler Cowen, at Marginal Revolution, makes an interesting point about job losses in the manufacturing industries:

Some fallacies just keep coming back no matter how many times they have been exploded. Jobs in the manufacturing sector are disappearing and have been doing so for 30 years. The reason this has occured, however, is not because we have "sent the good jobs overseas" and it is not because our manufacturing sector is "rusting." Jobs have disappeared because the manufacturing sector has been spectaculary succesful. When measured in terms of what ultimately matters, output, the U.S. manufacturing sector has more than doubled in size over the past 30 years. We are now producing more "stuff" than virtually ever before and because of productivity improvements we are doing it with less labor.
......
"Job destruction" is a vital aspect of progress. If we had not destroyed millions of farm jobs most of us would still be working in agriculture today.

Interesting graph to go along with it, if you're the visual learning type.

Paul Johnson, at Forbes.com, writes:

One thing history teaches, over and over again, is that there are no shortcuts. Human societies advance the hard way; there is no alternative. Communism promised Utopia on Earth. After three-quarters of a century of unparalleled sufferings, the Soviet Union collapsed in privation and misery, leaving massive Russia with an economy no bigger than tiny Holland's. We are now watching the spectacle of another experiment in hedonism, the European Union, as it learns the grim facts of life.

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.

Hey, I'm all in favor of living the good life. Who isn't?

But proponents of socialism seem to believe that the "good life" is a fundamental right, rather the the outcome of good choices and productive behaviour.

All this is wonderful, but it is dependent, even in theory, on the European Union's expanding continuously, its economy running at full throttle, its productivity steadily increasing and a profound peace cocooning the world in a nest of luxurious tranquility. But in the real world, things are different. The EU has discovered, since the autumn of 2001, that it has little ability to determine events because its armed forces are small, underfunded, obsolete and ill-trained. Apart from making trouble at the UN, France and Germany--those two former military giants that once made the world tremble--have been mere spectators. Now France, followed by a still more reluctant Germany, is being obliged to take defense seriously for the first time in many years, thus upsetting all its budget calculations.

Well, freedom ain't free, and the US might not subsidize it forever. Perhaps they should learn that lesson. Sooner, rather than later.

In virtually every industry there are plans to shrink the work force. People have become too expensive, especially in France and Germany, where social security payments cost an employer almost as much as wages. In a desperate attempt to get its economy moving, France is set to cut income taxes, though this will raise its deficit to a level strictly forbidden by the rules governing the common European currency (the euro). France thus risks having enormous fines levied against it or, more likely, a collapse in confidence in the euro.

Bear this in mind when you hear of plans to expand benefits, or nationalize health care....it's been done, and the results could be our future....

We can never raise taxes fast enough to keep up with the demand for bread and circuses. That way lies danger.

Heretical Ideas has an interesting open thread question:

Assume that there is a God.....who judges humans....according to their ability to follow His edicts, and rewards or punishes them accordingly.

Also assume that the morality that can be rationally deduced from the reality around us appears to be at odds with divine edict. That is, the only proof that what God says is a moral act is moral is that God says so, whereas contrary acts appear to be in accordance with reality and reason.

Which is the moral act, then? That which can be rationally deduced, but leads to eternal damnation, or that which appears to be contrary to reason, but leads to eternal paradise?

Heh. Yeah, that's gonna be solved on the blogosphere.
But it's a good question and one worth discussion.

In the HI comment section, two points are made, which I think are worth addressing.


1: "...you have to step back a few and begin with definitions....Provide a definition of morality..."

- Since morality is subjective, I think this would be an impossible task. (Think it's not subjective? Try to get two people to agree on it)

Even those who assert that morality is objective (based on a Bible, Koran, etc) cannot settle on a comprehensive set of moral rules.


2: "As an atheist, I define morality socially. I try to act in such a way that is beneficial to myself, my loved ones, and society."

- - -Darwinian morality. "Whatever works for me".

The advantage of that system is that it *does* provide a set of rules most applicable to the individual. (operating on the same assumption that makes capitalism more efficient than communism....individuals can choose better, for themselves, than can the group)

The disadvantage? It means the morality of a Saddam Hussein is just as valid as yours, since, after all, he was just doing what was "right for him".

It's bothersome, but if you accept the darwinian morality in the first place, it's hard to find an objective basis to dispute that conclusion.

Unbe-freakin-lievable:

Another protest today in the Iraqi capital.

About two thousand former employees of the Iraqi intelligence agency have been gathering in Baghdad weekly to demand pay or their old jobs back.

Let me get this straight. The people who tortured, kidnapped and killed the Iraqi people...they want their jobs back?

Hasn't anybody told them?
Iraq is no longer in the "electrocuting genitalia" business. Their jobs don't exist anymore.

Sorry guys. From now on, if you want to feed Iraqis into shredders, you'll have to do it on your own dime.

The protesters shouted slogans in support of Saddam Hussein. They also chanted "Bush, Bush, Ali Baba" -- which means "thief" in Iraqi slang.

Allow me to repeat. Un-be-freakin-lievable.
They want their jobs back, so they gather to announce that they support Saddam Hussein?

Talk about putting your money on the wrong horse.

I don't often say this, but these protesters may be as pig-ignorant as your Common North American "No War for Oil!/Bush=Hitler!" Hippies.
At least the leftistas have the courtesy to criticise Bush without actually supporting an oppressive despot, right? Er.....

They hurled rocks at American troops guarding the palace headquarters of the U-S-led coalition.

Forget democracy. These people need to learn basic job interview skills.

But never fear......

The crowd scattered when the soldiers advanced.

Fortunately, US soldiers know very advanced management techniques.

This is what we are doing in Iraq.

Just thought it was worth a mention.
Now back to your regularly scheduled Network defeatism.

CNN.com has the first edition in a series of 9 stories:

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida dropped out of the race Monday for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I'm leaving because I cannot be elected president of the United States," Graham said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

And then there were 9......

Whose got the office pool on this?
Put my money on Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosely Braun to bail next.

Saw a few minutes of Entertainment tonight, while eating dinner tonight. (Bob Goen....that guy is covered in a 6 inch thick layer of smarm)

Well, they were covering the California recall election (And we had the exclusive! Like only Entertainment tonight can! Exclusively on Entertainment Tonight!) with very unsuprising results.

The ET website has a decent sampling of the usual ET Cheese, politics-style:

Judgment day for Arnold and California Gov. GRAY DAVIS happens tomorrow at the polls, but, first, our BOB GOEN is in the air with Arnold on his private jet!

Sure it's seriious....but it's fabulous, too! And we're right there! Plus, we'll skip all the serious stuff!

Tune in to ET tonight as we count down to the recall election with outrageous footage from the Arnold Express!

Broadcasting live from the Apocalypse, but reporting on the Designer clothing worn by the Four Horsemen! It's Entertainment Tonight!

Fascinating data from Oxblog.
Apparently, when poll-takers were given the names and titles of the Dem candidates, their responses varied widely from the results when just given the names:

.....................Names Alone.....Names & Titles
Wesley Clark.........14%............10%
Richard Gephardt....5%............15%
Howard Dean......... 9%.............9%
Joe Lieberman.........5%...........13%
John Kerry................4%..........11%
Carol Moseley Braun..7%..........1%
Al Sharpton..............3%........... 4%
Bob Graham..............3%...........3%
John Edwards............1%..........3%
Dennis Kucinich.........1%...........1%
Other........................27%..........10%
Don't know...............21%..........20%

Hey, they should run that "Other" guy! He's the Man!

Josh Chafetz comments:

it hints at a few interesting things: (1) To a number of likely Democratic primary voters, Clark's military service is a negative. In other words, the impression that a significant part of the party base is looking for a savior with ready-made credibility on military issues is called into question. (2) Voters like Members of Congress. Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, et al. should be running ads with, "Hi, I'm Senator Lieberman, and I'm running for President ... " (3) On the other hand, being "former Senator Carol Moseley Braun" is not at all helpful -- I guess people wonder what she did to deserve the "former."

I'm really at a loss regarding the race for the Democratic nomination. It's wide open, with quite a few strong, competitive candidates....but it's not clear that the winner would actually be the best general election candidate.
The Dems may really be running agains themselves, and they might run right into a candidate who can't win the middle.

First, a disclaimer.
I make no claims to the accuracy of this article, as I haven't followed sports in years and don't know jack about McNabb.

With that being said....Allen Barra defends Limbaughs NFL comments with an interesting, and statistical, analysis:

In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is.

Allow me to repeat...I don't care whether Limabugh gets his job back, or never calls another NFL game.

But it bothers me a great deal that there are entire topics that one cannot broach in public without being accused of racism.
Unless you're Dusty Baker, I guess.

With the end of the Iraq war, comes the question...was the war justified?

Of course, one must define the justification for war first.
Was it human rights? Was it terrorism? Was it WMDs all along, with the others justifications only claimed after the fact?

Well, there's only one definitive answer, and it always suprises me that this is still debated. The justification for war has long been codified and official.
It is described in the October 10th, 2002 "House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq", and it is quite clear.

So, in light of the recent progress report from David Kay, let's examine the justification for war, and see what we get. We'll list the justifications and see if they have been confirmed, or found wanting.

1: First justification:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;"

Simple statement of fact. The UN resolution which authorized the Gulf War can be found here.


Conclusion? Accurate



2: Next justification:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

As stated, Iraq accepted these terms on April 6th 1991.


Conclusion: Accurate



3: Next justification:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Statement of fact. These were the circumstances throughout the inspections.


Conclusion: Accurate



4: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Iraqi intransigence with regards to the UN inspections is listed on the UN Website.


Conclusion: Accurate



5: Next justification:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

The cited Public Law 105-235 can be found here.


Conclusion: Accurate



6: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Here are specific and contested claims. Let's examine them one by one:

a: "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace..."

- Says who?
Well, the UN said so in resolutions up to and including 1441, where they say "Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

The United States concluded such in 1998, when President Clinton said "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

The CIA concluded such in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, when it stated "Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives."
Tenet, who also said that Saddam was more likely to cooperate on attacks against the US as he grew stronger, later added "Let me be clear: Saddam remains a threat."

So, while there was no claim that Iraq was an imminent threat, there was broad concensus that Iraq was a "grave and gathering" threat.

b: "....remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations..."

- Per Resolution 1441"...Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions...".

c: "...continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability..."

- Did Iraq do so? Let's reference the evidence:

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.
......
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
.....
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
.....
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Clearly, Iraq did continue to possess and develop significant chemical and biological weapons capability, in violation of the UN resolutions.

d: "...actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability,"

- Again, to the evidence:

"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point.
......
Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term.

This justification is less clear than the preceding. It appears that Saddam had an ongoing interest in a nuclear program, and had maintained programs for turning that interest into a program and some point in the future. It is not clear that he had taken material steps toward acquiring those items necessary to actually build a nuclear weapon.

e: "...and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations"

- The list of State Sponsors of terrorism has not changed since 1993, and Iraq remains on that list.

It was also the judgement of the world that Iraq continued to support terrorism, per Resolution 1441 , which states "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism..."


Conclusion: Largely accurate
***The only justification, among those cited in item #6, that can be questioned is the claim that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. It is not clear, with publicly available evidence, that Iraq was doing so...although such cannot be ruled out, yet. Certainly Iraq was maintaining the potential to regain the capability.



7: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

- This is a no-brainer. According to human rights groups, the Iraqi government was oppressing its people.
Human Rights Watch says:

"The Iraqi government continued to commit widespread and gross human rights violations, including the extensive use of the death penalty and the extrajudicial execution of prisoners, the forced expulsion of ethnic minorities from government-controlled areas in the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and elsewhere, the arbitrary arrest of suspected political opponents and members of their families, and the torture and ill-treatment of detainees."

The UN agreed:

Iraq has been condemned by the United Nations' top human rights body for conducting a campaign of "all pervasive repression and widespread terror".

Post-war findings once again vindicate this claim, while debunking the myth that the suffering was "caused by the sanctions".


Conclusion: Accurate



8: Next justification:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

- A clear citation of history.
Specific instances......."1986 March - UN Secretary General reports Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984." and "1988 March 16 - Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents."


Conclusion: Accurate



9: Next justification:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

- The attempted assassination of former President Bush, in 1993, is a matter of record, as is President Clintons response.

- The attacks on US/Coalition planes enforcing the No-Fly zones is also a matter of record. These attacks constituted a violation of UN resolution requirements, whichbrequired Iraq to cooperate with the UN resolutions, and which expressly prohibited Iraq from taking or threatening any "hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution."


Conclusion: Accurate



10: Next justification:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

- This is a two-parter.
Were Al Qaeda members known to be in Iraq, prior to the war, and were those claims justified by post-war evidence?

Claims:
a: The Powell-cited case of Abu Mussab Zarqawi, who sought medical treatment in Baghdad.
b: Ansar Al-Islam operated out of Northern Iraq, out of Saddams immediate control, but without any attempt to quell their operations.
c: Powell also claimed that "There have been contacts over the years...." between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Post-War:
a: Regarding Abu Mussab Zarqawi.....

"U.S. forces near Baghdad have captured a man they describe as a midlevel terrorist operative with links to al Qaeda, a counterterrorism official said.
The operative, whose name was not provided, works for Abu Musab Zarqawi, a senior associate of Osama bin Laden..."

b: Regarding Ansar Al-Islam....

Evidence has been found in the Kurdish-controlled regions of northern Iraq that the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam was working on three types of chlorine gas and ricin and has ties to Al Qaeda...."

c: Regarding the claimed contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

There is also this article, full of additional connections.


Conclusion: Accurate
While individual charges may, or may not, turn out to be accurate, that is within the normal range of intel-reliability. However, the post-war findings are quite conclusive that the charge, itself, was accurate.



11: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

- Reference Iraqi support of terror organizations, which has been widely ackowledged for a decade or more.

Many of these groups and terrorists have been caught or killed since the war.


Conclusion: Accurate



12: Next justification:

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

- Hard to explain this one. Either you get it, or you don't.
Bush confirmed that 9/11 "changed my calulation".

This is not to say that the authorization claimed revenge as justification. It simply underscored the danger of allowing nations, like Iraq, to freely maintain WMD capability and support terror.

Notable figures like John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and others concurred in that assessment.


Conclusion: Accurate, albeit opinion



13: Next justification:

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

- The capability, willingness and risk has already been discussed above.
Tha magnitude of the harm of such an attack would depend on the nature of the attack, of course.


Conclusion: Accurate, still



14: Next justification:

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

- Simply a recitation of relevant documents.
Review 678, 660, 687, 688 or 949 to verify.


Conclusion: Accurate



15: Next justification:

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

- A citation of the 1991 authorization and for war against Iraq, a supporting resolution, and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Review transcript of authorization here, supporting resolution here, and the Iraq Liberation Act here.


Conclusion: Accurate



16: Next justification:

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to 'work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to 'work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that 'the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

- A citation of a speech given by Bush, to the UN, on September 12th, 2002.
It is important to note that Bush made it clear that we were not just dedicating ourselves to renewed inspections, or renewed negotiations, but to actual action....either on Iraqs part, or, absent that, our own.

Some now claim the October 2002 resolution was just a profession of "support for the Security Councils decisions"....one should remind them of this speech, nearly a month ahead of that resolution, in which Bush said "But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable."
It was clear to everybody that the only outcome was full and immediate compliance. It was for Iraq, alone, to decide whether that would be voluntary or forced compliance.


Conclusion: Accurate



17: Next justification

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

- Two controversial statements herein:

a: Iraqs "development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire..."
- This had been going on throughout the inspections of the 90s, and continued thereafter, according to the Kay report, which notes "ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities" and "...ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003."

b: "it is in the national security interests of the United States..."
- One might argue whether this is true, but this must be a decision made by those given responsibility to make that call. And did they decide such was the case?

The President, CIA, UN, and Congress have all affirmed this decision, in various statements, UN resolutions and Congressional resolutions.
One may disagree with their judgements, but their authority was clear and due process was followed.


Conclusion: Accurate



18: Next justification:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

- A citation of the Congressional authorization for the war on terror.

Note: Authorization includes those responsible for 9/11, but is not exclusive to those responsible.
Iraq, per preceding citations, was unequivocably a supporter of terrorism.


Conclusion: Accurate



19: Next justification:

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

- A citation of the previous authorizations.


Conclusion: Accurate



20: Next justification:

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:"

- One can hardly argue that a peaceful Middle-East would not be in our national security interests.

President Clinton and Congress certainly believed Iraq consitituted a threat when they passed Public Law 105-235, which stated "...Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security".

President Clinton and Congress even voted to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Again, one may argue that this potential threat was not the case today, but the figures tasked with making that determination decided differently.


Conclusion: Accurate



Final Conclusions:
The inescapable conclusion is that, with the sole exception of the claim that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability", the justification for war was completely accurate. And that claim has yet to be settled either way.

No facts subsequent to the war have proven any of the official justifications false.

Even the nuclear claim may be described as accurate depending on the extent to which Iraq is alleged to have "sought" the capability.

Note:
I may amend this essay as further information is brought to my attention.

Bil Herbert, at Cointelprotool, finds an interesting and plausible explanation for the Jessica Lynch story, which was quickly called an example of "administration propaganda" by war opponents.

In this story about a heroic member of the 507th, it is pointed out that the initial Lynch story might have been the result of simple mis-identification, rather than "propaganda"

The Army report later said, "There is some information to suggest that a U.S. soldier that could have been Walters fought his way south of Highway 16 toward a canal and was killed in action." The report also said, "The circumstances of his death cannot be conclusively determined," although his body was found in a shallow grave with bullet and stab wounds. Walters' family in Oregon believes that the blond, wiry soldier may have been mistaken for Jessica Lynch in the intercepted Iraqi radio transmission that referred to a blond American woman heroically battling attackers.

Bill Herbert responds:

It appears that the intelligence that was leaked to Vernon Loeb wasn't too far off the mark after all -- it simply attributed the account to the wrong soldier.

So much for the BBC/Scheer...conspiracy theories about how the story of Lynch's capture was completely fabricated to hoodwink the American public into believing that the war was going well for our side....."

For the life of me, I'll never understand why people can believe that the administration will take massive gambles on items with the smallest of potential returns.

Short version: The mafia doesn't do convenience store hold-ups.
Why do they believe the Bush administration would do the equivalent?

Perhaps a dolphin ate their tax returns?

"A nonprofit watchdog group filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Greenpeace on Monday, urging the agency to investigate the environmental organization.

In a report entitled "Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," Public Interest Watch detailed how Greenpeace -- one of the nation's most recognizable and visible non-profits -- is knowingly and systematically violating U.S. tax laws.
......
"American tax law very clearly differentiates between taxable and tax- exempt contributions, and the ways in which they can be used," Hardiman said. "Greenpeace has devised a system for diverting tax-exempt funds and using them for non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- purposes. It's a form of money laundering, plain and simple."

Yes, but it's dolphin-safe money laundering.

There is no suggestion that there may be prosecutions.
Meanwhile, cases again Enron are going forward.

So, can we now accuse Bush of protecting his cronies at Greenpeace?

That'd be rich.

Lot of fuss was made about a quote in which Arnold seemed to be praising Hitler:

"I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

Gray Davis immediately condemned it:

""I find that particularly offensive," Davis said before resuming his schedule of campaign appearances. "I don't see how anyone can admire Adolf Hitler. Any decent American has to be offended by that phrase."

Fortunately, as it turned out, Arnold said exactly the opposite:

"I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it."

No word, as of yet, on a retraction from Gray Davis.

Still, Arnold is getting heat for what he said. "What! He said something good about Hitler!? How terrible!"

Allow me to step into that untouchable region of public discourse for one moment, and defend what Arnold said.....
Hitler was a good public speaker. God help me for saying it, but he was.
How do you suppose he rallied an entire country to his side?

One doesn't have to support the Holocaust to admit that Hitler was an effective public speaker. From what little I still recall in my college public speaking class, there is very little correlation between "good public speaking" and "morality".

Similarly, if I were to claim that:

1: Mao Tse-Tung had good penmanship.
2: Stalin knew the value of pi to 28 decimals.
3: Saddam was the three time Spelling-Bee champion of Tikrit.

...it would not be indicative of support for their regimes.
Intelligent people can tell the difference.

Gray Davis, it seems, can only tell the difference between a cheap shot and a cheap shot that will score points.

Couple points about the recent Limbaugh issue....

1: Limbaugh did not immediately deny the drug reports.

- That doesn't sound good for him. Generally, when somebody makes a wildly inaccurate allegation, it's immediately denied.
A retreat by Limbaugh makes me think the story must be pretty substantively true.

2: Limabughs response? He said:

"I don't know what I'm dealing with, folks. I really don't know the full scope of what I'm dealing with," Limbaugh said during his daily show Friday. "When I get all the facts, when I get all the details of this, rest assured that I will discuss this with you and tell you how it is -- tell you everything there is.

"There may be more than you want to know about this, you can believe and trust me on that."

Uh huh. So, he's asking people to trust him, but he doesn't want to comment until he knows exactly how much dirt they have on him?

Let me translate that for you. "I'm gonna be honest when I absolutely have to. That's all you'll get outta me!"

Didn't Limbaugh spent a lot of the 90s criticizing Clinton for this sort of behaviour?
When Clinton did the same thing, Limbaugh accused him of "waiting to find out what he has to lie about".

3: If these stories do prove substantively true, this is it for Limbaugh. The end of the road.
He's made his career claiming that "Character matters". He's maintained his credibility with his audience by claiming that his ideological peers were somehow morally superior to his opponents......that they were above the sort of tawdry malfeasance that the Democrats engaged in. (of course, he generally ignored the ugly Republican stories)

Well, if this is true, there's just no way he can continue his show. Not the same show he's been doing for all these years.

Perhaps the transition I mentioned here will just be happening sooner, rather than later? Perhaps.

All,

Blogging will be lighter tomorrow.

My wife and I will be celebrating our anniversary by taking our son on his first visit to the Fair. I'm sure we'll all enjoy the experience, although I probably won't be able to make every moment sound as heartbreakingly poignant as every moment of Lileks life apparently is.

I'd bet anything that our pictures will be every bit as cute, though.

Feel free to check around the blog and read through the archives. Comment, even, if the spirit moves you. Heck, if you bookmark the site, I'll remember you in my will.

UPDATE: Had a lovely day, and a lovely evening as well.
Nothing in the world like watching a little kid go to the fair for the first time.
Nothing in the world is as tough and rewarding as raising a kid, but days like Friday make you forget the tough days.

Author of some of the longest essays on the net, Bill from Ejectejecteject.com certainly has plenty of opportunities to make a good point.

In his latest, Power, he does just that:

"The United States is often referred to as a childish country, an adolescent nation, young and strong and stubborn, but unsophisticated and unseasoned. Up until a short while ago, there may have been some truth to this, for there is one adolescent quality that has long marked the American psyche when involved overseas, and that is the desire to be liked by everyone. As we mature as individuals (and this is not a universal phenomenon (yes, I'm talking to you, Sheryl Crow), we begin to realize that not only is it impossible to be liked by everyone... it is, in fact, repugnant. I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites."

I'm still reading the rest of it....I'd recommend it to you, too. He's worth the time.

UPDATE: Ok, another great passage:

"The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world – it has only been replaced. And so our choice – now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types – is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels."

I've echoed that sentiment before on this blog.

I doubt this will go on her campaign literature:

"Bernadette Chirac, wife of French President Jacques Chirac, says she hopes Hillary Clinton will one day be elected US president because she would become a trailblazer for women across the world.

Clinton "does not say it, but I think she is aiming for the White House," Chirac said in an interview with Thursday's edition of the French magazine Nouvel Observateur.

"And I want her to succeed because the day that she is elected president of the United States she will become a trailblazer for all women of the world," she said.

So she's got the endorsement of Chiracs wife. Nice.

Actually, I bet she could win, too, if Chiracs wife could vote for her.
Of course, that would require her to run for office in France.

I don't see a downside to this.

Rush Limbaugh, hired to be controversial, has suprised everybody by being controversial.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Of course, his comments were immediately called "racist".

But re-read them. Are they racist? I don't see it.
Looks to me like he was commenting on the media, and not on McNabb.

Bear with me, while I hold my nose and defend this guy.
Limbaugh, if I am reading him correctly, alleges that the media has engaged in a sort of "affirmative action" with respect to hyping a particular quarterback, giving him credit because they want to see a black quarterback succeed, rather than because his performance has been unusually good.

Is Limbaugh right? Beats the hell out of me. I don't follow sports.
I don't think we could possibly have a definitive answer, since we're talking about motives and we rarely even understand our own motives.

But, could Limbaugh be right?
Why not?

Remember when Tiger Woods broke onto the scene? Have you ever seen that much press for a golfer....even a particularly good golfer?
And what was the story on which they focused? Not that he was a young, dominant golfer turning pro.....not that he was a young, dominant golfer winning tournaments.
The media focused on the fact that he was a young, dominant, black golfer.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, either. But it certainly seems like it's within the realm of possibility that there might be some bias in favor of a black quarterback.
Again, this does not reflect badly on Mr McNabb, at all. Not even in Limbaughs comments.

Looks to me like people got overly sensitive and instead of addressing his comments on their merits, they took the cowards way out, and accused him of racism.
Whatever.

Now, though, for the criticism:

"Limbaugh said in his syndicated radio show that critics were overreacting to him exercising his free-speech rights in calling McNabb overrated.

Are you kidding? You wanna call this a freedom of speech issue?
This coming from the man who spent weeks excoriating the Dixie Chicks for insulting Bush?

Pot....kettle. You're black.

UPDATE: Couple interesting points, from either side, made today in The Corner.

Jay Nordlinger writes:

"Now, it seems to me that what Rush said is rather obvious: that people root for the black player, in whatever field, to succeed. That’s not necessarily wrong, incidentally. It may even be admirable. But it’s so."

And Robert George writes:

"I'm not feeling sorry for Rush today......
He did what what we hate in liberals: Gratuitously introducing race in a discussion where it doesn't belong.

Interesting point.

Hmmmm......

"Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.

I'm gonna withhold judgement at this point.

Besides, what's the use.
We only have two possible outcomes:

1: It's not true.
2: It's true. But Bush planted it. (He planted it, I tell you! For the oooiiillll!)

Patience.

(link via Hobbsonline)

The New York Daily News is reporting that Al Gore is close to entering the world of TV news:

The former vice president is close to striking a $70 million deal to acquire Newsworld International, a tiny cable network owned by French media giant Vivendi Universal, media sources said.

Gore and his backers want to turn the digital channel into a liberal-leaning network.

I think I have this straight now.
When Al Gore called FoxNews a part of a "Fifth column" in American journalism, that "inserts daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective"......

.....he wasn't actually opposed to it.
He was just upset that he hadn't thought of it first.

Bill Hobbs points to the Time story that asserts that Saddam did destroy his WMD programs, but pretended otherwise:

"Over the past three months, TIME has interviewed Iraqi weapons scientists, middlemen and former government officials. Saddam's henchmen all make essentially the same claim: that Iraq's once massive unconventional-weapons program was destroyed or dismantled in the 1990s and never rebuilt; that officials destroyed or never kept the documents that would prove it; that the shell games Saddam played with U.N. inspectors were designed to conceal his progress on conventional weapons systems - missiles, air defenses, radar - not biological or chemical programs; and that even Saddam, a sucker for a new gadget or invention or toxin, may not have known what he actually had or, more to the point, didn't have.

It would be an irony almost too much to bear to consider that he doomed his country to war because he was intent on protecting weapons systems that didn't exist in the first place."

Bill's response:

"But here's what the Left is missing: Saddam, by playing shell games with the UN inspectors for whatever reason, failed to abide by a variety of UN resolutions, including UN Res. 1441, that required him to prove he had disposed of his WMDs and shut down his WMD programs. Instead, he continued to act as if he had WMDs, even issuing orders to his frontline commanders shortly before the U.S. invasion to prepare to use chemical weapons against American troops in what may have been a bluff, a deception intended to deter the U.S. from invading.

I disagree, Bill.
What the Left is missing is that, if true, this exhonerates Bush.

He didn't lie.
He may have been misled, but he was misled by the person who *did* lie...Saddam Hussein.

Funny, ain't it?
All this time, they were screaming that we should remove the liar from office, and...
...hey, how about that! We did.


UPDATE: Thanks to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler for the link.

In his comments section, we find this gem from MonkeyPants:

"So Saddam was actually the kind of asshatted idiot who draws a toy gun on a cop in a dark alley.

Nominate that man for a Darwin award.

Stupid and dead is no way to go through life."

As they say...heh.

One curious feature of the Plame Affair has been the fact that her identity was apparently confirmed by numerous sources, and her identity was apparently widely known......yet attention/investigation is focusing on the White House.

Donald Sensing, who has worked in public affairs at the Pentagon, offers some insight into "how things work" regarding classified information:

"So ISTM that the first question (and until it is answered, the only question) to be addressed by the just-begun DOJ investigation is simple: Did Valerie Plame's CIA employment status fall under the provision of US Code: Title 50: Section 421, "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources"? The kind of intelligence-related employment or affiliation protected by the code is that of "covert agent," not "operative" or "employee."

"In order for Plame's identification in Novak's column to be considered violating the law, all the following elements of proof must be met:

1. The person who told Novak (or anyone else) had to have had access to classified information that identified Plame as covert. Even if the information is accurate, if the "leaker" did not learn it from classified sources, there is no violation of the law.

2. The disclosure of Plame's covert status must have been intentional; this would seem easy to ascertain.

3. The person receiving the information, i.e., Novak, was not authorized to receive classified information; again, this would seem easy to prove.

4. The discloser must have known that the information identified Plame as covert.

5. The discloser must have known that the United States was taking positive actions to conceal Plame's covert intelligence relationship to the US government.

Note well: all five of these things had to have happened in order for the law to have been violated. IMO, that will be very difficult to prove; in fact, the CIA itself seems to have shown that #5 was not being done."

His last line is probably quite accurate, based on the political point-scoring that has already begun....

"My prediction: Plame's status will be shown not be have been protected by the law, but someone will be fired anyway, just because the Washington culture of punishment of the innocent demands it."

Frank J has justified his existence with this excellent idea.

Front Line Voices.
A collection of letters and stories from the soldiers doing their job in Iraq.

Some are touching. Some are bracing.

Whether you supported the war, or opposed it, the stories they tell are worth your time.

This one touched me:

I am proud to be here. I will be coming home, but not until I know that it's going to be safe for all Americans and for everyone I love. My family is first. My country is where they live. I will defend it.

I stand in awe of these people who wear the uniform and do the job.

The Belgravia Dispatch has some interesting points to make about the Plame Affair:

In response to Tom Daschles claim that "John Ashcroft won't even go after Ken Lay. How will he possibly go after someone appointed, who appointed him as attorney general?"....
The Begravia Dispatch writes:

"Um, ok. But wait, the Enron Task Force is pretty busy. Ken Lay isn't sleeping easy just yet."

You'll have to excuse Tom Daschle. It was just too easy a shot to pass up.

He also finds a quotes from these same Democrats explaining why an Independent Prosecutor was wrong in the 90s......but it's a good idea now.

Hey, I'm all in favor of an investigation, and have been for quite some time.
There's a difference, though, between a desire for investigation and a desire to score political points.

I remember the 90s well enough. I don't want a return to that circus.
Too many Congressmen, though, don't seem to recall what they believed in the 90s.

The Kanawha County School Board has upheld the 10-day suspensions of two high school students who led an anti-war protest in March.
.....
On March 20, the day after the Iraq war began, two dozen Capital High School students left class 10 minutes before lunch and held a peaceful protest in the school courtyard. Emily Basile and Jessica Grubb were suspended when they refused to return to class.

Good for them.

Funny, ain't it, how this war protest had to occur when they were supposed to be in class?

"I oppose this war, so I shall skip math class!"
Such sacrifice!

They asked the school board to revoke the suspensions and remove them from their school records.

Can you imagine all the "fun" that could be had if these girls ideas were the law of the land?

Break into somebody's house?
No problem....you're just protesting the Bush administration!

Place a bomb in a courthouse?
Hey, it's just your way of saying you don't like the Patriot Act!

Everything is legal, if you feel strongly about it!
Rules are for people without opinions!

Even more priceless/exasperating was one of the students comparison of their action with another protest:

At one point during the protest, Basile told Giles that the walkout was an act of "civil disobedience," likening it to Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955.

Uh huh.

Because skipping school to protest the war is exactly like demanding equal rights.

UPDATE: Newmanisms points to another High School kid, who also wants to make a political statement, by wearing a "Bush, International Terrorist" t-shirt and giving a report on the similarities between Bush and Saddam.
Lovely. Well, free speech and everything.

Newmanisms, though has a better point on the matter:

If this kid can make it a week without at least 12 flaming bags of dog shit on his porch I will be disappointed.

Well, you know what they say. Free speech ain't free.

In news from the closest planet to Earth, California:

Independent candidate Arianna Huffington dropped out of California's gubernatorial recall race Tuesday night and threw her support behind the Democrats in an effort to keep the governorship from front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger's hands.
......
Huffington, who was one of Gov. Gray Davis's harshest critics on the campaign trail, urged her supporters to vote against the effort to remove the Democratic governor as "the only way now to defeat Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Let's review Arianna's positions:

1: Gray Davis is a terrible governor, is ruining the state, and should be removed from office.

2: I should be voted into office.

3: Hey, none of you want to vote for me!?!?

4: Then vote NO on the recall.
Screw you guys, you deserve Gray Davis after all.

Such a principled stand she takes.