Rockefeller Lies, People Die

If you have ever watched a magician, you know that one of their key techniques is diversion. While they are waving their wands in the air, or twirling their cape, they distract you so that you don't notice them pulling the coin out of their sleeve.

This has been the approach of the Democrats. Keep harping on the 'pre-war intelligence', "where are the WMDs?" and question Bush's motivations to keep the American people distracted from the true progress in Iraq and the vital strategic importance of nurturing democracy in the Middle East. The Dems have scrupulously avoided any real debate on the war itself or offered any alternative strategies for dealing with either garden variety or state-sponsored terrorism. Business as usual for the Dems.

But recently, they have crossed the line with their tactics. And Bush is finally responding. It is about time.

Senator Jay Rockefeller made an amazing and chilling confession on Fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt from William Bennett's NRO article.

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

This is incredible. So. Do you think any of the major media outlets who thought that our national security had been compromised by 'outing' Valerie Plame (which no one actually did, by the way, lest you forget the truth in the constant barrage of lies)--do you think any of them will even report this exchange? Do you think any of them will call for an investigation? Do you think that any of them will call for Rockefeller's resignation? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Bush has finally stepped up to the plate and is fighting back. He made these comments in his speech at Elmendort Air Force Base in Alaska on Monday.

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now. (Applause.)

The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. ***

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

You can read the text of the speech here.

Go, George, Go. This message is long overdue. It is one thing to disagree with the President's policy. It is one thing to question whether our intelligence community is effective and how we might improve it in the future to gain better information on our enemies. It is another thing entirely to start accusing Bush of deliberately lying and misleading the country. It is another thing to visit leaders of other countries (one a known enemy) and lie to them--undermining our President and our government.

In the old days, we would call it treason. Now, some would call it 'patriotism'.

Bush and the Republicans need to stage a media blitz to refute the lying tactics of the Left. Even if you agree with the anti-war crowd, their tactics should alarm you. Let's debate the issue of Iraq on its merits, not on baseless accusations. And let's remember that our debate is no longer confined to the boundaries of the U.S. We live in a global culture. Messages here, designed for political ends and aimed at the American people, can and will find a very different audience. With very real consequences.

The danger of a campaign based on lies is this...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

Who said it?

Adolf Hitler.

Think about it.

Palestinian Reaction to Suicide Bombing in Amman

Interesting snippet this morning at the end of an MJS article attributed to Knight Ridder/AP/Washington Post on the recent terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan...

Palestinians mourn: In the Palestinian village of Silet Al Thaher in the West Bank, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by one of the suicide bombers in Jordan -- the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack. (emphasis mine)

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is is possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.

Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over attacks aimed at civilians. (emphasis mine, again).

Indeed.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli civilians for years, using suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see if this event has any power to change their hearts, now that they have experienced the tragedy of senseless, cowardly attacks on innocent civilians. Note that the bereaved aunt is upset because Arabs and Muslims are killing each other. It would be interesting to know whether this particular family was a supporter of terrorist attacks on Israel.

Opinions on Alito

So much to blog....so little time. I was in Boston this week on business and unable to blog. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published my editorial on the Dems reaction to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito.

They also published a great piece by Ann Althouse. In fact, if you aren't familiar with Ann, check out her blog at http://althouse.blogspot.com.

She writes good stuff.

Do we care what Prince Charles thinks?

Someone forgot to tell Prince Charles that the U.S. is no longer a colony in the British Empire.

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11. The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.<

From The Telegraph.

Too confrontational? Intolerant? What would be the appropriate level of "tolerance" in response to the horrors of 9/11? The murders at Beslan? The genocide in Darfur? The beheadings of innocent, unarmed civilians?

As far as I know, the American president never declared war against Islam, just against Islamo-fascist terrorism. If we were truly intolerant of Islam, why wouldn't we have banned Islam in Iraq? Why do we provide copies of the Koran and broadcast prayer times for the prisoners in Gitmo? Why don't we ban all Muslims from entering into the United States?

What specifically, does His Royal Highness think that the U.S. should do differently? (not that we care, but my curiosity is getting the better of me).

I think the non-Muslim world would find the 'merits of Islam' more evident if the mainstream Muslim world would become confrontational over the acts of the lunatic fringe. But their silence is deafening.

This excerpt from an article in the Telegraph by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, is compelling.

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

Read the whole thing.

Anyway, it will be fascinating to see what the bonnie Prince advises. I don’t think most Americans really care.

Problems at the CIA

If you are not a regular Powerline reader already, check out "My Favorite Democrat, Part 21" for an excellent synopsis written in plain English on the fishy business surrounding Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

Scott summarizes a Wall Street Journal article (subscribers only) from Victoria Toensing that contrasts the behavior of the CIA in the Wilson/Plame situation with their standard operating procedures and policies.

Either the CIA is woefully inept or they were clearly up to dirty tricks. Read it and draw your own conclusion. Our country needs a strong competent apolitical CIA, now in these days of international terrorism more than ever. Too bad we don't have a Congress who is more interested in getting to the bottom of this than of trying to destroy the White House.

It's Not Easy Being Green....

Just in time for Halloween, the New York Times pubishes this photo of Samuel Alito, Bush's new SCOTUS pick. (From Confederate Yankee).











...and everyone is complaining because Bush picked a WHITE male.

If you haven't already, check out Michelle Malkin for altered pix of Condi and some great posts on the subliminal messaging of photojournalism.

It Depends On What Your Definition of "Corruption" Is

Can you believe all of the liberal media hysteria over the indictments of Scooter Libby? Cries of "corruption", "smear campaigns", "outing a CIA covert agent" abound, even though there is absolutely no evidence that anything of the kind actually occurred!

Seems these folks have very short memories. Remember the Clinton administration? Now, there was a 'culture of corruption'. John at The Citizen's Journal has done a great job of providing a synopsis of the Clinton legacy as chronicled by The Progressive Review.

Check out the whole thing, but here are a few of the highlights.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates**
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

It goes on (and on, and on).

Remember the preachiness of the media during the Clinton era? The villification of Kenneth Starr? The vast right-wing conspiracy?

And they say that elephants have short memories.

More on Libby

Here is another excellent article by Stephen F. Hayes on the Libby indictments. Here is what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has to say about the relevance of the charges to the media assertions that this is all about the justification for the Iraq war

Fitzgerald was asked directly about the connection between the indictment and the Iraq war during his press conference Friday.

Question: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.
Does this indictment do that?

Fitzgerald: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Watch for continuing swirls of hype around this story, completely obfuscating the actual facts.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

MSM Glee Over Libby Indictment

Breathless piece from Knight Ridder today about the Scooter Libby indictments. The conclusions they are drawing from the indictments can only be attributable to:

1. Their seething disappointment over the prosecutor's failure to indict Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George Bush.
2. Their utter inability to actually read and understand the Libby indictments.
3. Their fervid hope that the American people will believe ANYTHING, as long as it is repeated often enough and loudly enough from the MSM.

The prosecution's case against White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby pulls back the curtain on the Bush administration's efforts to silence its critics and challenges its rationale for war with Iraq.

Huh? But wait, there's more...

The five-count indictment raises new questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney had any role in revealing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. A Libby trial almost certainly would delve into internal White House deliberations that could provide more embarrassment for Bush, who'd promised to bring a new ethical climate to Washington.

Bush's name doesn't appear anywhere in the 22-page indictment, but his reputation is inextricably linked to the case. Even beyond the alleged criminal wrongdoing, the indictment offers an unflattering portrait of a White House with little tolerance for dissent and a no-holds-barred attitude toward its critics.

From the New York Times:

Over a seven-week period in the spring of 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney's suite in the Old Executive Office Building appears to have served as the nerve center of an effort to gather and spread word about Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, a C.I.A. operative.

Okay, stop, now. I am laughing. "....to gather and spread word" about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Gather and spread word? Now THERE's an indictable offense!

But the indictment alleges that Mr. Cheney himself and others in the office took part in discussions about the origins of a trip by Mr. Wilson to Niger in 2002; about the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson; and whether the information could be shared with reporters, in the period before it was made public in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

The indictment identifies the other officials only by their titles, but it clearly asserts that others involved in the discussion included David Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel; John Hannah, deputy national security adviser; and Catherine Martin, then Mr. Cheney's press secretary.

Well, yeah. In May 2003, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times had reported that Cheney was the one who sent Wilson to Iraq. Do you think it is sinister that Cheney's reaction was to meet with his advisors to find out who REALLY sent Wilson? And learning that it was his wife, who worked for the CIA, do you think it bizarre that he would have conferred with his legal counsel to determine whether or not the information could be released?

Gee, what would YOU have done in his shoes?

What would the New York Times or Knight Ridder do if someone erroneously reported that THEY had initiated the investigation?

If you really want to separate the facts of the indictment from the breathless MSM tizzy, read the indictment yourself here.

Now, do you think this is an expose of nefarious dealings from the Bush administration to "silence its critics"? Are you scratching your head, wondering what indictment the Knight Ridder and NY Times guys read?

After reading the indictment, it appears to me that Scooter Libby is guilty of two things:

1. Lying to the media, which, according to my limited knowledge of the law, is not a crime. If we are going to make lying TO the media a crime, then we'd better make lying FROM the media a crime as well.

2. Forgetting about specifically which conversations he may have had with whom. And goodness, if THIS is a crime, most of the US population would be in jail. (And then who would be paying taxes to keep our government working doing valuable service by indicting our officials for minor infractions?)

It is very interesting that, although Fitzgerald did not bring the more serious indictments of 'outing' Valerie Plame, the MSM is acting as though he did. Maybe they had their articles all ready to run, in eager anticipation of a more serious indictment and just didn't have the heart to do a re-write.

For more on the MSM/anti-war crowd's spin on the Libby indictments as proof that there was some sort of cover-up involved in the war with Iraq, read Stephen F. Hayes' article here.


Since the left is losing the "Iraq as quagmire" argument in the face of democratic progress and free elections, they need to drag out the old "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" argument.

Heroes of the American Left

I am thinking about writing a children's book, entitled "Heroes of the American Left". It will be a tribute to today's darlings of the media who deserve admiration for their patriotism, integrity, leadership and vision for America.

Here is my table of contents so far:

Michael Moore
George Soros
Cindy Sheehan
Al Franken
Joe Wilson
Richard Clarke
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Louis Farrakhan
Al Gore

Just picturing future generations of parents sharing these inspiring stories with their progency makes my heart warm.

Please nominate your favorite candidates in my comments field. This may grow into a 10-volume set.

Update: Oops. I forgot George Galloway!

Wisconsin Taxpayers Overwhelmingly Support TABOR

According to a recent poll by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Wisconsin residents are strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit spending increases in state and local government to the rate of inflation.

This support cuts across party lines, ideologies, race and geography.

Wisconsinites favor TABOR by more than a 2:1 majority (62% in favor, 27% opposed, 12% undecided). TABOR is supported by 56% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, 76% of Republicans and even 46% of Liberals.

And here's why....another recent poll by WPRI shows that most Wisconsin residents feel that elected representatives do not represent taxpayer interests.

Only 6% of residents polled in Wisconsin believe that their elected officials represent the interests of the electorate. Wow. That is amazing. Think of all of the hoopla made over Bush's low approval ratings. Well, even at his current all-time low of 39% approval, he beats the heck out of our own representatives!

41% think that elected officials represent special interest groups and 47% feel that elected officials are more interested in promoting their own agendas.

In addition, 46% of those polled felt that in the last ten years, ethics of members of Wisconsin State Government have gotten worse. To quote the report, "The widespread feeling that the institutions in Madison were deteriorating ethically produced the highest negative numbers we have seen in our polling back to 1991."

The overwhelming landslide vote tonight for Daniel Vrakas in Waukesha County demonstrates the frustration of Wisconsin taxpayers with the 'pass the buck' attitude of state and local officials who think that playing the economic shell game will somehow continue to bamboozle the electorate.

We've tried electing people who pledged to reduce spending. We have a governor who thinks we are stupid enough to believe that a reduction in how much he INCREASES spending is a 'tax freeze'. We have clearly given our elected officials every opportunity to bring state and local spending in line with our ability to pay. But, they can't help themselves....they are out of control.

If someone has a control problem, the best thing you can do for them is to enforce limits on their behavior--and keep them out of situations where they could lose control. So, you don't let a gambling addict loose in Vegas, and you don't leave a chocoholic alone in the Godiva store. If your husband or wife goes beserk with the credit cards, you cut them up. When your elected officials can't stop spending, you put them on a budget. A budget with teeth. A budget called TABOR.

I think the reason that we no longer trust our elected officials is that they can't seem to resist the 'siren call' of spend-spend-spend. We, like Odysseus, need to 'tie them to the mast' of TABOR to keep them from driving the ship into the rocks.

After giving them decades to deal responsibly with the budget, Wisconsin residents have decided that 'enough is enough'. And it is about time. Maybe if they can prove that they have the ability to spend OUR money wisely, we can trust them again. But until then, we need to cut up the credit cards.

Let's Start Calling it Like it Is....

Great column by Mark Steyn on the reluctance of the mainstream media to name the true enemies we are fighting in the war on terror.

From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''

"Insurgents," eh?

From Agence France Presse:
"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Militants," you say?

From the Scotsman:
"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."
"Rebel forces,'' huh?

(My comment: Good grief! Weren't the GOOD guys in 'Star Wars' the Rebel Forces?)

From Toronto's Globe & Mail:
"Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:

''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter.

I really don't understand the reluctance of the media to describe who these people are and why they are hell-bent on our destruction. If it were a group of Christians out blowing things up, you can be sure that their religious affiliation would be in every headline. If I had a nickel for every time a liberal mentions the Crusades in conversations about the brutality done in the name of religion, I could retire.

Continue to watch this in the media---over time, I predict that the euphemisms will continue until it appears that the terrorists are merely innocents victims of Western interference, fighting for their rights and freedoms against the Great Satan.

Photo IDs Required for Just About Everything But Voting

Shopping at Menard's over the weekend, my husband presented a $4 instant rebate coupon he had received in the mail. The cashier asked him for a photo ID in order to process the rebate.

I was in Blockbuster last week and I forgot my Blockbuster card. The checkout guy asked me to show a photo ID to rent a movie.

I stopped at the Red Cross Blood Drive at my church on Sunday. They asked me for my photo ID in order to give blood.

The librarian asked me for my photo ID a few weeks ago when I went to check out a book and realized that I had forgotten my library card.

Do you see a pattern developing here?

What is wrong with a country where you have to show a photo ID to get a $4 rebate, rent a movie, donate blood and check out a book, but not to vote?

NOW they are babies....

Jonah Goldberg makes a brilliant point about all of the liberal brouhaha over William Bennett's infamous remarks that no one else seems to have noticed....

Democrats and many liberals have been trying to distort what Bennett said. Former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe: "The point he was trying to make, I guess, he said, you know, if you were to go out there and kill the black babies, the crime would go down." Ted Kennedy and a predictably long list of others have called him a racist. Radio host Ed Schultz said: Bennett is "out there advocating the murder of all black babies."

There are too many ways in which this anti-Bennett backlash is cheap and tawdry to discuss here. (Though I should note that a considerable minority of liberal writers who loathe Bennett refuse to participate in the witchhunt.)

My first objection is more of a delicious irony. Notice how so many righteously offended liberals keep referring to fetuses as people. In the New York Times, Bob Herbert proclaims that Bennett considers "exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool." Schultz and McAuliffe say Bennett wants to exterminate "babies."

Funny, I thought the bedrock faith of pro-abortion liberals is that fetuses aren't babies. Isn't it interesting how this lynchpin of liberal morality evaporates the moment an opportunity to call Bennett a racist presents itself? Talk about utilitarianism. (emphases mine)

So, now liberals are horrified at the thought of killing babies? That's a new one.

"Fake, But Accurate" - the Continuing MSM Saga

Stephen Spruiell, on his Media Blog (via National Review Online) posts this interesting quote from Heath Allen, a reporter from NBC's New Orleans affiliate. Heath was being asked about the inaccuracies and exaggerations by the MSM in post-Katrina New Orleans.

I don’t think the media overplays. I don’t think the media exaggerates. Maybe the people on the ground were exaggerating because, hey, they wanted help, they needed help and they weren’t getting it. Perhaps they would say anything they could say. Maybe they would say the first thing that came to mind to try and get help. But if the photojournalist, if that photographer is there to capture it, who’s doing the overplaying? You’re certainly gonna take that person and you’re gonna tell that story because that’s the story of the need, of the person that camera is on. And I don’t think that’s over-exaggerating in the least…It’s the responsibility of the photojournalist to capture that and put it on television because those people at that point needed help no matter what was true, what was false, what was exaggerated.

(emphasis mine).

Hold the phone. So the new level of accuracy in journalism is that it doesn't matter what is true or false, what is exaggerated...as long as the end goal is helping people?

Well, depending upon your definition of 'helping people', this could be a dangerous philosophy. And how is Joe Citizen to know if the reports we are reading, hearing, seeing are accurate, fake, or 'fake but accurate'? How do we know if it is real or staged?

And, as Hugh Hewitt points out in his radio interview of Heath Allen (via Radioblogger), if they get it SO wrong this close to home, what is the hope of them having any chance of accuracy in somewhere far away.....say, like....Iraq for instance?

We had all the resources of the American media combined in New Orleans. Everything they had, they threw at it. With the help of locals like you and national networks, print, media, radio, everything, not one outlet could get inside the convention center or the Superdome to do accurate reporting. What's that tell us about the trustworthyness of American media, when it's far away from home in a war zone like Iraq. Isn't that in fact an obvious admission that not only can they not do the job in New Orleans, we can't expect them to do the job of accurate reporting in a war zone like Iraq.

Scary thought. And if they are motivated by 'helping us' understand the 'reality' behind the progress of the war as THEY see it (think quagmire), what hope is there of receiving accurate information from the mainstream media on Iraq? Or anything else, for that matter?

What the heck are they teaching in journalism school these days?

Seeing is not necessarily Believing

Marvin Gaye, in his sixties hit "Heard it Through the Grapevine" sang....

"People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear..."

In the recent reporting on Hurricane Katrina and the Anti-America (oops, I meant Anti-War) movement, I think believing half would be generous...

Take a look at this photo essay from the protest march in San Francisco last Saturday.












Here's a shot similar to the one published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

As you will see in the essay, there was a lot more going on at the actual scene than The Chronicle depicted.

This is another striking example of media bias. Not only do they select what we read about the event, they selectively shape what we see....and images are very powerful.

Days later, no one sees or cares about any measly 'correction' that may be run on a back page somewhere.

How do we begin to hold the media accountable and responsible for some semblance of integrity? And if we can't (or won't), what will happen when we lose all trust of the Fourth Estate?

The Latest Oxymoron....'Investigative Reporting'

Mayor Nagin is in the wrong job. He should be in Hollywood. Witness his Oscar-winning performance in this video of the Oprah Winfrey interview. (hat tip: Gateway Pundit)

Only problem? Most of what he said was categorically untrue. And since he was there on the ground from the beginning (as he humbly reminds us), he has no excuse. He is either a liar or incompetent.

He claims that people were in the Superdome (where HE sent them, by the way) watching hoodlums kill and rape each other. Only problem? That didn't happen. (And, by the way, if it had happened, it was his responsibility as mayor to stop it.)

This man is a piece of work. And Oprah is falling all over him--instead of asking any serious questions, like, say, "How do you know that people are being killed?" Or the tougher one, "Well, you're the Mayor, what are you doing about it?"

Okay, so we don't expect 'tough reporting' from Oprah. But, now that the hysteria is over, it turns out that there are a lot of things that were reported that just were not true.

Powerline calls for a Congressional Investigation to ask the mainstream media some tough questions--questions they should be asking themselves, in order to restore any shred of credibility that they may still possess.

It's time for some accountability here. The conventional wisdom is that no one performed particularly well in the aftermath of Katrina--not local, state or federal authorities, and not considerable numbers of private citizens. But it now appears clear that the worst performance of all was turned in by the mainstream media. Congress should promptly investigate, and try to get to the bottom of the following questions:

* How did so many false rumors come to be reported as fact?
* Do news outlets have any procedures in place to avoid this kind of mis-reporting? If so, why did their procedures fail so miserably?
* To what extent were the false rumors honest mistakes, and to what extent were they deliberate fabrications?
* To the extent that the false reports were deliberate, did the press pass them on through sheer negligence, or did some reporters participate in deliberate fabrication?
* Did the widespread breakdown in accurate reporting stem only from a failure to follow proper journalistic standards, or did it also reflect a deliberate effort to damage the Bush administration by passing on unconfirmed rumors as fact?
* In deciding what stories to report, did the news media consider the likelihood that passing on false rumors would damage the rescue effort?

It is vitally important to get to the bottom of these questions, so that future natural disasters are not similarly mis-reported.

Check out great stuff at Michelle Malkin on this topic.

I nominate the term 'investigative reporting' as the newest oxymoron.

UPDATE: Read Jonah Goldberg's post on this topic.

Cindy Sheehan and the 'New' Media

In the 'old' media, we would only be exposed to this type of reporting from the Associated Press about the 'Anti-War' protest this weekend in Washington, D.C.

But, in the new media, we can read this excellent analysis by Jeff Goldstein.

In the 'old' media, the press could deftly edit Cindy Sheehan's speech to highlight a few coherent statements (a real editing challenge, when dealing with Cindy).

In the 'new' media, we can hear and see Cindy's unedited remarks (posted by The Political Teen). Here are some excerpts from her brief remarks at the rally.

"We have to do our jobs as Americans. … We’ll be the checks and balances on this out of control criminal government. This government that condones torture."

This out of control criminal government that condones torture? Trust me, Cindy, if this government were criminal and out of control, you would not be parading around the square, criticizing them at the top of your lungs. If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure the protest organizers had to get a 'parade' permit from the 'criminal out of control government' to allow them to hold their protest. Criminal out of control governments do not allow people to hold protest rallies criticizing them and their policies. They torture and kill those people to shut them up and to intimidate anyone else from following suit.

And, since her son was a volunteer (a fact that no one seems to want to remind her), then I guess he was part of the criminal out of control government who condones torture. Is she saying that her son was a criminal? Out of control? A torturer?

She goes on...(you really need to watch the video, so you can hear her tone of voice here. She makes the Howard Dean screech speech sound like a symphony. Since I couldn't find a transcript, I had to play it over and over to capture her exact remarks. Gives a new meaning to the word 'torture'.)

"We don’t torture, we’re human beings. We don’t torture other human beings. We have to reclaim our humanity."

If someone can explain to me what she is talking about, I would appreciate it. "We don't torture, we're human beings?" Who is she suggesting DOES torture? Aliens?

"We have to show the world that Americans don’t torture and its not okay for anybody to torture another human being."

Yes, well, Cindy, I think that is exactly one of the things we showed the world by removing Saddam Hussein, one of the world's most evil dictators. Saddam, his sons and his followers institutionalized torture to keep his people under his control. Saddam led a criminal, out of control government (just in case you needed one for comparison to OUR criminal, out of control government). How did we show the world that we don't torture and its not okay for anybody to torture? We removed him. He is in jail and his sons are dead.

That lesson was not lost on Moammar Qaddafi, who suddenly became very anxious to cooperate with Bush and Blair. Note that he did not make his overtures to the U.N.

But, Cindy, please tell us, what are Americans to do in the face of criminal out of control goverments who kill, torture and abuse their citizens?

"Americans don’t invade countries and occupy other countries pre-emptively that are no threat to our country. And it's not okay for other countries to do that, either."

Actually, this time I agree with Cindy. We DON'T invade countries that are no threat to our country. That's why we are in Iraq and are not in, say, Cuba.

According to Cindy, we don't torture and we don't condone torture, but we sure as heck are not going to do anything about it when another country does so (unless it is a country like, say, Israel). I know! We'll send Cindy Sheehan over there to tell them that it's not okay for them to do it EITHER. That'll stop 'em in their tracks.

The very best part about the 'new 'media is that it preserves the testimony of people like Cindy Sheehan. We can hear her words from her own lips and evaluate her credibility for ourselves, not from some glamorized, edited version from the media.



UPDATE: I can't believe it. Thank you to Katherine M. Skiba of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for proving my point. After finishing this original post, I picked up the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and read the Katherine Skiba piece on the Anti-War rally. I could not have manufactured a better illustration of my point. Let me share with you what Ms. Skiba decided to report about Cindy's speech:

NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEO YET, STOP AND DO IT NOW BEFORE YOU READ ON....see if you are as struck as I was about the 'tone' depicted by Skiba's article vs. the reality of the video.

"Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey, was killed in Iraq last year, was the event's leading lady. Her vigil at President Bush's ranch may be over, but her celebrity in Washington seemed only to grow."

Gosh, Katherine, could you gush just a little bit more? I don't think we all got it.

"'We're not going home till every last one of our troops are home,' the California woman told an exultant crowd Saturday, the first of three days of planned protests.

'We mean business, George Bush,' she said. 'We're going to Congress and we're going to ask them "How many more of other people's children are you willing to sacrifice?'"

So...did Cindy say this? Yes. But, as you can see for yourself, she also said a lot of other things, none of which Katherine thought worth reporting. I wonder why not? Perhaps because that didn't support her view of Cindy as the event's 'leading lady'.

I swear, Cindy Sheehan could advocate eating small children for breakfast, but those who rely on the old media would never know.

Katherine does not limit her glowing prose to Cindy. She describes the crowd as...

"...a colorful sea of humanity: college students and lawyers, nuns and veterans, federal workers and farm wives."

To see what today's college students, lawyers, nuns, veterans, federal workers and farm wives look like, check out the photoblogs from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette

Hmmmm, do you think the protester carrying the "Convict and Castrate Cheney" sign is a nun or a farm wife? The guy with the "F*** the War" t-shirt a veteran...or a federal worker (probably not a nun, but in today's world....who knows???)?

This is one more example of why people are turning to the blogosphere for their news. (And it's free!)

UPDATE 2: Just found this link to the MJS article. Check it out for yourself.

The new slogan for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.... "We report. We decide."

Who'da Thought????

In today's MJS (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)....

After a surge during the first half of summer, killings in Milwaukee slowed over the past month, giving activists, police and others hope that their efforts to stem violence are paying off.

The start of school, cooler weather and other factors are being cited for the slowdown.

Wait a minute....these people are killing each other because they're hot? And have too much time on their hands?

Jeepers. We have spent millions of dollars on jobs programs, crime-prevention, and the War on Poverty. Are you telling me all we needed to do was to hold school year-round and buy some air-conditioners?

Thoughts on Rita vs. Katrina

In his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the mainstream media. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Although I consider myself fairly risk averse, I tend to ignore warnings. The last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it.

However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. We did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing.

We were spurred to action by the sense of responsibility for someone ELSE's children.

I think, like me, most people can’t imagine that the worst could possibly happen to them. We’ve all been warned about so many things that we are becoming fear-immune. Constantly alerted to a new ‘crisis’ every minute by the media (cable news is one of the worst offenders)— catastrophes caused by global warming, brain cancer caused by our cell phones, death by terrorist attack—we start tuning them out.

The problem is that these catastrophes rarely happen, and when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people. Truth be told, we all are much more likely to die of natural causes than to be killed in a disaster, man-made or otherwise.

Unfortunately, in the case of Katrina, the ineptness of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly. They reinforced the jaded skepticism of New Orleans residents who have survived multiple storm warnings in the past and thought they could ride this one out.

Regardless of the facts, the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

While the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita, it is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks that it has completely re-engineered its approach to disasters. Especially while everyone is still up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina..

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people who need help.

While it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.

The President Nails It

In his press conference today, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the MSM. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I don't know if I am unique, but I consider myself fairly risk averse. Even so, the last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it. However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. But we did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing. But we were spurred to action by the responsibility our son had for someone ELSE's children.

In fact, I believe that most people refuse to think that the worst could possibly happen to them. We have been warned about so many things that I think we are becoming fear-immune. We are constantly threatened and warned of new crises every minute. If we don't die of a catastrophe caused by global warming, we will suffer brain cancer from our cell phones, heart disease caused by our diets, or killed in a terrorist attack. The problem? These things rarely happen, when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people and we all are much more likely to be killed in a car accident or die from smoking than to perish as a result of disaster.


The MSM, eager for our attention, screams warnings of doom. We were told that Hurricane Katrina would kill tens of thousands of people and render New Orleans uninhabitable due to toxic soup for years to come. So the combination of natural human inclination to think that nothing will happen to us and the constant dire predications that fail to materialize leave us skeptical and less likely to take reasonable precautions.

So, just like in the story of Chicken Little, we begin to ignore the warnings that "the sky is falling" until it is too late.

Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco's ineptness, indecisiveness and reluctance to call in help from federal authorities only added to the skepticism and sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly.

But the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

So, yes, the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita. But not drastically so. It is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks, (and while
STILL up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina) the federal government has completely changed its practices and approach to disasters, or that the firing of Michael Brown turned FEMA around overnight.

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people with no transportation to get out of the area.

And, while it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but although I do not live in a geography affected by tropical storms, I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.

Support for Voter Photo IDs

I just came across this excellent post from LaShawn Barber on voter photo IDs. Read the whole thing.

I have often wondered myself how many people actually lack photo IDs. The left assumes that anyone poor, elderly, or from a minority group does not have a photo ID. I have yet to see any hard facts quoted to support this assertion. Since anyone who drives or cashes checks has to have a photo ID, this would eliminate anyone who has a job, a car, or receives welfare checks (which should pretty much cover everyone except street people and the elderly).

If you make photo IDs available in nursing homes (where the residents have to be driven by healthcare workers to get to the polls), that eliminates the elderly objection. Many elderly people who live independently have access to bus lines or friends/family members who can drive them to appointments. I'm sure the 'Get out the Vote' volunteers could be mobilized quickly to transport people to get voter IDs in advance of an election.

It is embarrassing to me that we dismiss voter IDs as being too much 'hassle' in an era where people in the Middle East are risking their lives for the privilege of voting in free elections. You know, many things in life are a 'hassle'. Going to work every day is a 'hassle'. Paying taxes is a 'hassle'. A once-in-a-lifetime requirement to register in order to help prevent election fraud (and make sure when I go through the 'hassle' of voting, my vote wasn't canceled by a fraudulent vote) seems like a small price to pay.

Off with their Heads!!!

Mind-boggling editorial from the MJS (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) yesterday on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They have never found a solution too complex to be immediately solved by the firing of a single individual in the Bush Administration.

Their solution for the thorny and complex issues facing the nation after the horrible destruction and loss of human life wreaked by Katrina? Fire Michael Brown, the head of FEMA. While I am not a fan of Michael Brown, I don't think getting rid of him will do the trick.

And here is their reasoning....

FEMA used to give local communities grants to combat natural disasters - money Homeland Security subsumed mostly for grants to fight terrorism. The administration slashed FEMA's staff by 500 positions, to 4,735, reports the Los Angeles Times. The Wall Street Journal chimes in that morale at the agency has plummeted and its executives are stretched thin.

So....

Having insisted after 9/11 on the establishment of a giant homeland security bureaucracy, they (the Democrats) now are shocked to find that FEMA, having been placed within that bureaucracy, is too bureaucratic. So now some Democrats are demanding that FEMA be removed from the giant bureaucracy. Lacking anything serious to say about national security, the Democrats are treating us to the spectacle of chasing their tail while spewing venom against the president.

(from Powerline)


So, this is Michael Brown's fault? Well, not really, the editorial goes on to say:

No, Brown can't shoulder most of the blame for the agency's downgrading. President Bush and Chertoff must answer for that. But even with his diminished power, he could have acted in a more decisive and timely manner. He failed to do so.

For instance, the agency left thousands of people stranded in the New Orleans Convention Center for days, local officials and others say FEMA refused many offers of help that could have saved lives and many victims complained of getting the bureaucratic cold shoulder from the agency.

Here's the problem. The editorial makes it sound as though FEMA refused to help people, resulting in the death and discomfort of thousands. But during that timeframe, the Red Cross and Salvation Army were denied access to New Orleans by state officials because they were told they would interfere with rescue and evacuation efforts. Red Cross officials say they were told that aiding the people in New Orleans would discourage them from evacuating. Who are the 'local officials and others' quoted by the MJS?

Here is the transcript from the Hugh Hewitt interview with Major Garrett, who spoke with the heads of the Red Cross and Salvation Army (from Powerline):

I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.
MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that?

HH: And the answer is?

MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.

HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?

MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.

HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.

MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday.

***

HH: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.

MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.

HH: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well?

MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance.

So, here is the solution to the problem:

After all, if the nation bungles its response to an anticipated disaster, how can it be prepared to handle a surprise disaster, such as a terrorist attack? FEMA needs restored clout and a new director - which the Republican Congress, in the past an enabler of Bush's penchant for non-accountability, should insist on.

I think the issue is that we have a form of government in which the local and state government serve as the first responders in the case of disaster, natural or otherwise. When they need assistance from the federal government, they ask for it. If the federal government offers help and they refuse it, what does MJS suggest that the federal government do? March in like stormtroopers? (I thought we put that approach to rest when we got rid of Janet Reno).

Unfortunately, in this case, state and local officials responsible for New Orleans knew that there were major issues with their evacuation plans and hurricane response capabilities. And yet they did nothing. Read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

So, why aren't Democrats screaming "Who knew what, when?"

So, this is another complex issue that deserves honest debate and creativity. What an opportunity for the media to educate its readers/viewers/listeners on the roles of federal, state and local governments. In this 'perfect storm', a combination of natural disaster and poor decision-making by officials led to disaster. The only way to have REALLY averted disaster was for the mayor to have called for full evacuation of the city and to provide needed assistance to those who could not evacuate on their own (which he was told to do in numerous reports, studies and policies issued BEFORE the Hurricane struck).

Instead, the media and politicians are using the death of thousands of hurricane victims to advance their own political causes. This is only compounding this national tragedy.

Typical and disappointing.

Best of Times, Worst of Times

Great article by Thomas Sowell on the breakdown of civilization in New Orleans.

It is interesting that disasters bring out the best in some people and the absolute worst in others.

Personally, I think it is entirely a matter of your perspective. If you believe that we all are here by mere chance and that this life is all there is, then I suppose there is really no reason not to loot, kill or plunder to guarantee your own survival. Especially when there is no threat of consequence. "Survival of the fittest" and all.

However, if you have an eternal perspective, believe that there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong and realize that things we do in this life will have consequences in the next, then I think your behavior here and now is guided by higher principles.

Where Have all the Leaders Gone?

Showing the statesman-like leadership that has netted the Democratic Party a majority in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid today refused to support the idea of an independent investigation into what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

They are going to hold their breath until their faces turn blue.

That will be a comfort to the people suffering as a result of Katrina's devastation. It continues to amaze me that there is no depth to which these people are unwilling to stoop to try to embarrass the President. And somehow, they think the American people are falling for it.

It would be funny, really, if it weren't so tragic.

Cut!! Take Two!!

This tidbit on Sean Penn from the boys at Powerline was simply too good to pass up. So, here it is in its entirety.

Our Helpful Celebrities

Actor Sean Penn has accused President Bush of "criminal negligence" in connection with the response to Hurricane Katrina. Of course, you have to give Penn credit--he's not one of those celebrities who just mouth off, but never do anything constructive. No, Penn sprang into action, determined to show the authorities how it's done by people who aren't "criminally negligent." Unfortunately, the results weren't quite what he had hoped for:

Sean Penn's Hurricane Katrina rescue boat just wasn't sound enough to help those in New Orleans. Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug in a hole in the bottom of his vessel, which began filling with water seconds after its launch the other day, reports the Melbourne Herald Sun. The star was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out with a red plastic cup. When the motor didn't start, Penn and his entourage — including a personal photographer — were forced to use paddles to propel themselves down a flooded street.

Poor Sean.

Camp Media Circus

Somehow I think this has less to do with 'absolute moral authority' than 'careful media packaging'.

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs


Here's what you see....



















Here's what you DON'T see...













This is no 'grassroots' protest. This is a serious PR campaign.

Continued Media Bias...

You have to love the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In a 'teaser' on today's editorial page under the heading "COMING SUNDAY", we find the following. Just for fun, I am going to add my own emphasis.

Deadline for Iraq: The war drags on amid mounting U.S. troop deaths, growing unease and anger at home and a continuing unwillingness by the Bush administration to publicly acknowledge the truth about what is going on. It is time for fresh thinking. Sen. Russ Feingold's proposed deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal is a necessary course. Setting the deadline will underline the fact that it is up to the Iraqi people, not Americans, to build their country.

Fresh new thinking? "Cut and run"? Yup, that's really fresh.

And why might there be growing unease at home? Well, here's an example from the same issue of the paper. (Couldn't find it online, so I am linking to the same AP article in The Guardian).

The headline in the Journal/Sentinel? "3 Sunnis urging voting are killed".

Which is a terrible thing. And what kind of impression does it leave? More killing, more violence in Iraq. We should just 'cut and run'.

But yet, it raises the question. So Sunnis are starting to support the new government and the constitutional process? And someone really wants this to end?

You have to wait until the middle of the article to read the following:

Many Sunni Arabs are considering taking part in the constitutional referendum after having boycotted the Jan. 30 national election ballot - a move that left the once- dominate community with few seats in a parliament dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

In recent weeks, various Sunni groups have been urging fellow Sunnis to vote in the referendum and a general election planned for December. The voter-registration deadline is Sept. 1.

And the END of the article for this:

About 1,000 people including Sunnis and Shiite followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rallied in two Baghdad districts Friday, waving Iraqi and Shiite flags and chanting ``No to separation, yes to unity.''

A similar rally including Sunnis and Shiites was staged in the religiously mixed city of Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

``After all, we are one united people whether we are Sunnis or Shiites, Kurds or Arabs,'' Hazim al-Aaraji, another al-Sadr aide, told worshippers in a Shiite mosque in Baghdad's Kazimiyah district during Friday prayers.

At a Sunni mosque across town, Sheik Ali Khudr al-Zand warned his congregation not to accept any constitution ``that would rip away the unity of the nation.''

So, why wasn't the headline "Thousands of Sunnis Rally in Support of New Iraq, Despite Threats to their Lives"?

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

From an Associated Press story this morning....

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

And Darwinian evolution isn't science masquerading as religion????

Al Radio and Al TV....the Future of Media???

Last week, the television industry was rocked by the debut of "Current", the new cable channel introduced by that maven of the entertainment world, none other than Al Gore.

Current is "the first national network created by, for and with an 18 to 34 year old audience", according to this press release on their website, www.current.tv.

Rather than a traditional network...Current offers short-form programming, the TV equivalent of the iPod shuffle. Its "pods" primarily consist of 15-second to 5-minute segments that run throughout the day, exploring the people, places, happenings and hot-button issues of interest to young adults.

A listing of some of its features includes:

CURRENT ISSUE - Drugs, relationships, political hot topics
CURRENT NEWLYWEDS - New married couples, including behind closed doors
CURRENT HOTTIE - Off-the-radar and onto the screen, from librarians to lifeguards, a look at those that are making heads turn and jaws drop
CURRENT LIES - What the media is telling you that isn't true (my note: this oughtta be rich!)
GOOGLE CURRENT - What our audience is searching for on the web

Can you just picture Al Gore sitting around, cooking this stuff up? "Yeah, yeah, this is cool---they'll like this!"

BCBeat, The Blog of Television, sentenced one of its interns to do a minute-by-minute blog of Current's first day. You can read it here. Pretty interesting. I give it a year, eighteen months tops.

Meanwhile, the arterial bleeding continues at "Air America", the brainchild of the other Al...Al Franken.

According to The Scrapbook column in The Weekly Standard (available online only to subscribers),

Full details having yet to be revealed, The Scrapbook has decided to withhold all comment on an emerging scandal involving massive financial improprieties at the Al Franken-headlined liberal talk-radio network Air America. Really, we mean it. That spring 2004 scheme by which the network's then-top executive appears to have diverted nearly $900,000 in New York City-funded social service grants from a Bronx-based charity to Air America's own desperately underfunded bank accounts? Mum's the word.

Meantime, though, we figure there's nothing wrong with noting the latest listenership data from Arbitron. "Now that it's possible to compare ratings for this spring to last year's start-up," the Philadelphia Inquirer's Beth Gillin reports, "it's clear that [Air America] has yet to climb out of the cellar." In particular, Franken's decision to schedule his show in direct competition with conservative talk-radio superstar Rush Limbaugh "was not such a good idea," it turns out. "Limbaugh . . . has squashed Franken like a bug."

At its flagship station in New York, Air America's audience is down 14 percent. In Philadelphia, moreover, Arbitron reports that the network has "fallen off the charts . . . meaning there were too few listeners to measure during the second quarter of this year."

It makes me think of a new twist on the old puzzler...if a blowhard falls in the forest and no one is there to hear....does he still make a sound?

If at first you don't succeed...lie, lie again

Great article by Michael Barone on the failure (despite desperate attempts) of the liberal left to 'tank' the Bush presidency, entitled "Bush Bashing Fizzles".

Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in The New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of "twisting" intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger, and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. So despite the continuing credulousness of much of the press, it appears inconceivable at this point that Karl Rove will be charged with violating the law prohibiting disclosure of the names of undercover agents. The case against Rove -- ballyhooed by recent Time and Newsweek cover stories that paid little heed to the discrediting of Wilson -- seems likely to end not with a bang but a whimper.

Apparently, Greg Stamford from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel hasn't gotten the word. Here he demonstrates why he is my leading contender for "Moonbat of the Month".

So ask yourself: If you were serious about fighting weapons of mass destruction, would you blow the cover of an agent gathering intelligence about them? Would you put at risk her network of spies and informants? Well, some official in the White House seems to have done precisely that. And a leading suspect is Rove. Also implicated is Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Their apparent motive? To discredit Wilson, who had sought to set the record straight about a claim Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address.
Trying to scare the bejabbers out of us, Bush said that Iraq had "an advanced nuclear weapons development program" and that the British government had learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought to purchase uranium, the key ingredient, in Africa. But at the request of the CIA, Wilson had investigated the African connection and found it to be bogus. It rested on a forged document. After futilely going through channels to correct Bush's statement, he went public.

So...where do I start? Powerline had a great analysis of what is going on in the press regarding the Wilson 'affair'. I quote:

The quality of the reporting on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story has been appalling. It raises in stark form the question whether "mainstream" reporters get facts wrong because they are ill-informed, or because they are counting on their readers being ill-informed.

That, or they think that if they repeat the lies enough times in bold print, people will start believing them.

Valerie Plame was actually 'outed' in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. And then the CIA accidentally blew her cover when certain classified documents were compromised by the Cuban government. How do we know this? Through the media's friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, trying to defend Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. Read the brief here.

Read the excellent article by Andrew McCarthy on this topic here.

Read this entire post on the subject from Powerline.

And for more, check out GOP.com's "Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements". (Lies?)

Stamford concludes his piece with the following:

The dangerous theory emerging in my mind does explain a puzzle: why Bush embarked on a vaguely defined and, thus, unwinnable war on terrorism in the first place.

The seemingly more sensible course would have been to declare war on the group that warred on us - namely, al-Qaida - and those who abet that group. A virtue of the narrower focus is that it puts victory, though tough to reach, in view. After experiencing the modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor, America needed to lift its spirits with the equivalent of a V-J Day - al-Qaida's destruction.

The defeat of terrorism ought to be a goal of national policy. But in the wake of 9-11, America needed a real war against the real culprit, not a metaphorical war, as in the never-ending war on drugs.

But for Bush, winning may not be the point - at least not that kind of winning. Making political gains may be the point.

Huh? The only dangerous thing about Stamford's mind is that he is allowed to air its contents in the pages of a sizeable Midwest newspaper. Give us a break.

John Howard Helps Reporter with Short Memory...

Great response from John Howard to the knot-head reporter who suggested in a press conference today that the recent London bombings were a direct result of the UK's involvement in the war in Iraq.

Here is the transcript. You can also see the video here, courtesy of Trey Jackson.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

From K. Lopez on NRO Corner.

The Anchoress has a great photoblog showing the history of terrorist attacks that occurred before the coalition invasion of Iraq. Check it out here.

The narcissistic left just cannot believe that these Islamic fanaticists just hate us because we exist--not because we did something to offend them...

John Roberts--Now Let the Spin Begin

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats deal with the nomination of John Roberts for the U. S. Supreme Court. A few months ago, I would have thought that there was still a chance that they might behave in a civil and reasonable fashion.

However, after the Karl Rove debacle, I think we can expect the usual "much ado about nothing" from the left and the media until everyone's heads start to spin.

Here is an excellent article from Powerline listing the potential areas of attack and an analysis of each.

I predict that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel will criticize the choice because Roberts is:
1. not a woman
2. not a minority
3. not a liberal

I hope I am wrong...

Michael Crichton Does it Again...

Just finished a great book -- State of Fear by Michael Crichton. The book is a quick read, with the trademark Crichton combination of a gripping story line backed up by excruciating research on the subject matter - global warming.

He quotes Mark Twain in his preface:

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Crichton spent three years researching the information in a list of environmental studies, which are contained in a 20-page bibliography in the back of the book.

His most important points have to do with the dangers of the 'politicization' of science--an alarming trend in our world.

He also quotes Alston Chase:

When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the role of politics in science.

Facing Reality

One wonders how many more terrorist attacks in different countries it will take for the left to understand that this is not all about Bush. (A lot more, if you read Leonard Pitts' editorial in today's Journal/Sentinel. Link here to the online version at the Detroit Free Press).

I quote...

Here's my take: Staggered and made to feel helpless by the Sept. 11 attacks, the nation needed something to hit. So we hit those that needed hitting -- the Taliban, which had sheltered Osama bin Laden -- but we didn't stop there. Apparently, we bought into the xenophobic notion that taking down a Muslim tyrant who wasn't threatening us was the same as taking down the Muslim extremists who had hurt us so badly.

Hopping mad and led by a president spoiling for a fight, we attacked the wrong guy. And many of us didn't care because it gave us the sense that we were doing something. It gave us false comfort.

It is past time we faced that fact.

Yes, I would agree with Leonard that many in this country and elsewhere are operating under a sense of false comfort.

But for very different reasons....

Contrast Leonard's predictable response to the London bombing with Nick Cohen's piece in The Observer.

In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.

All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him....

But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot....Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows.

And this from Charles Moore, in the Telegraph, "Where is the Gandhi of Islam?"

The strength of a civilisation is shown not only in its great monuments and works of art, or in its famous people: it appears also in the instant, instinctive behaviour of millions at a moment of crisis. By this measure, London is part of a great civilisation.

Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction between our heroic capacity to deal with the immediate effects of terrorism and our collective refusal to confront what lies behind it. The effects of this disjunction are, literally, fatal.

The inimitable Stephen Hayes (from Milwaukee!) has another great article on the linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda, The Mother of all Connections.

Perhaps it is simply too frightening for the left to confront the reality of terrorism. It is more safe and comfortable to blame our government for the extreme hatred that drives these Islamic extremists. Somehow, that gives them the feeling that the situation really is under our control....

False comfort indeed.

No Excuses, But...

Well, I know this is really not an excuse, but...

This is why I didn't blog at all last week.

Blogger has just made it very quick and easy to add pictures from your hard drive or the internet to your blog. Check it out.