Democratic Schizophrenia

You must read the latest column from Victor Davis Hanson. He provides a brilliant analysis of the pickle the Democrats find themselves in today, as a result of their inability to take a stand (and stick to it) on the initiative in Iraq.

Hanson is much more articulate than I, but basically, their problems include the following:

*They were for the war before they were against it.

*They run the risk of aligning themselves with the lunatic fringe of the Left.

*They cannot refute the progress we are making in Iraq--so they focus on U.S. casualties.

*They are not sure that the American people are ready to give up on Iraq.

*They are not sure how Iraq is really going to turn out.

This is why you see them doing crazy things like last Friday's vote in Congress--spending hours decrying the war and then voting overwhelmingly against a resolution to withdraw our troops.

Read the whole article.

This Says it All....

CNN Hits New Low

From Drudge:

In a televised broadcast of Vice President Dick Cheney's live speech from the American Enterprise Institute earlier today, CNN flashed a large black "X" over Cheney's face.














See my earlier posts on the manipulation of photo-journalism to make subtle, political points. This is a new low, even for CNN. They had better get to the bottom of it and fire the person responsible. I can't believe that this was just a random broadcasting error.

'War Hawk' Jack Murtha Urged Pullout from Somalia that Emboldened OBL

From NewsMax.com:

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

...

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

We have met the enemy and he is.....us

this powerful email from Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya. I am including the post in its entirety.

We've written here several times about Minnesota's Lt. Col. Joe Repya, who volunteered to return to active duty for service in Iraq at age 59. Joe's previous service includes command of a rifle platoon in Vietnam and flying helicopters in the first Gulf War.

Joe is a classic citizen patriot and activist. He first came to public attention in March 2003 when, disturbed by the anti-war campaign mounted by Minnesota liberals, he arranged for the production of lawn signs saying "Liberate Iraq -- Support Our Troops." His effort garnered a lot of publicity, and Joe eventually distributed 30,000 signs.

Today he writes:

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq in January to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they "Support the Troops" by wanting them to "Cut and Run" before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many American's think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy ove

Democrats don't seem to mind unilateralism....when it is exercised in retreat

And another thing....

In Friday's heated debate in the House over the resolution to withdraw immediately from Iraq, I did not hear one word about the effect of our withdrawal on other coalition countries.

We have a number of allies who have joined us in Iraq. Their men and women are dying right alongside ours. Many of them joined us not only because they support the cause, but also because of their loyalty and friendship to the United States.

While the Dems were foaming at the mouth when we went to war (remember John Kerry's 'global test'?), I did not hear one of them suggest that we huddle with the coalition before making any decisions about our continued involvement in the war. I guess they have repeated the lie of 'unilateralism' so many times that they actually believe it.


How do we expect our allies to react to all this internal discussion of Iraq? Should they just stay in Iraq, holding the bag? Do we realize that all of this U.S. discussion about cutting and running might affect their policies and attitudes about Iraq?

How can we expect our allies to stand firm with us in Iraq (and elsewhere in the world), if we are publicly second-guessing our involvement? How do we think they might respond to accusations that Bush deliberately misled the country (and the world) to enter into war with Iraq? Do you think they might be dismayed? Do you think they might be reluctant to support us in future conflicts?

As our allies see our resolve and commitment begin to crumble, do you think they will just hang around? I suspect that they might want to remove their troops from harm's way. Once they begin pulling their troops, the Left will use this as further rationale for our immediate withdrawal.

Heaven help the U.S. if we prematurely withdraw from Iraq. If we leave these people to annihilation by the terrorists, I don't see how we can ever approach our allies in the future and expect them to support us in foreign conflicts.

It would be a self-inflicted wound from which we would never recover.

More Good News from Iraq

While it looks like Zarqawi is still on the run, this good news was buried in an article in today's Washington Post...

Over the past month, the official said, there has been a series of raids following a surge in tips from Iraqis unhappy with Zarqawi and his operation. These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. "Their feeling is that al Qaeda in Iraq has overstepped its bounds," he said.

One of our biggest problems in dealing with an in-country 'insurgency' (read: terrorists) is the tacit complicity of their fellow countrymen. Iraqi leaders may have been willing to 'hedge their bets', by outwardly supporting the U.S., but yet doing nothing to stop Zarqawi and his thugs. If they are now willing to turn him in, I think his days are numbered.

Was Zarqawi Killed and Would that be 'Progress'?

Rumors abound that Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul on Saturday. Here is the latest story from ABC News. The Jerusalem Post has another article here.

FoxNews tonight reported that, while some of the terrorists were killed by U.S. gunfire, several of them blew themselves up, rather than be captured.

In any case, Zarqawi has been denounced by his family. Hopefully, as his supporters diminish, our chances of catching or killing him will increase.

So, do you think that the Dems would consider this 'progress in Iraq'? Probably not, since they don't consider the following as signs of progress:

*First elections ever
*Drafting of country's first Constitution ever
*Sunnis regretting not voting in first election; urging members to vote in upcoming election
*Rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure
*Creation of an Iraqi military, fighting side-by-side with U.S. troops
*Terrorist encounters changing from strategic military operations to suicide bombings

I think that the mainstream media should have the decency to at least report the number of terrorists killed and captured next to the U.S. death tolls printed daily in the newspapers. The American people need some sort of context in order to understand how the war is really progressing.

It will be a fatal mistake if we make cruicial decisions about our foreign policy based on opinion polls based on inaccurate, misleading information from the mainstream news media.

By the way, I know I'm rambling, but Jack Murtha quoted a statistic (twice) in the floor debate over the withdrawal resolution Friday night. He stated that 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of Iraq (or don't want us there--not sure of the exact wording--it was late and my blood pressure was soaring). Has anyone seen this particular survey? I would love to know who conducted the survey and how the question was worded.

While I am sure that the Iraqis eventually want the U.S. to leave, thus signaling Iraqi stability and sovereignty, I can't believe that they want us to leave NOW. It would be interesting if someone could do some fact-checking on this one.

Women and Heart Disease

Fascinating blog post from Dr. Helen, who is the wife of Glen Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, on her mis-diagnosed heart attack.

Should be required reading for all women and their physicians.

Perhaps someone should start a 'pink ribbon' campaign for women's heart health.

Thoughts for the Day

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. ~Will Rogers


Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens - and then everybody disagrees. ~Boris Marshalov

Republicans Call Dems' Bluff

In a brilliant stroke of genius last night, the Republicans in Congress called for a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (Good post: A Spine is Detected). This forced the Democrats to basically 'put up or shut up' over the war in Iraq. We listened to the whole thing on C-SPAN Satellite Radio as we were driving up to Minneapolis.

The Democrats have been calling George W. Bush, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief a liar for the past several weeks. So, it is hard to understand their frenzy last night when the following occurred...

Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

It was a very bad idea to have her words withdrawn from the record, because this gives license to the Dems and the media to reconstruct what she actually said. Watch for them to spin this as an 'attack' on Murtha.

Whoa. No sooner had I typed these words than I saw this great post at The California Conservative.

She didn't attack Murtha. She said that she got a call from a fellow legislator who asked her to remind Murtha that cowards cut and run. Since Murtha is suggesting that we cut and run, I guess the shoe fits. While he is (was?) a war hero and deserves our gratitude for serving his country bravely, this does not exempt him from criticism when he makes a cowardly suggestion. (And apparently doesn't keep him from making a cowardly suggestion).

But you had to hear the rest of the debate that evening (and this probably won't be reported in any major media outlet). Murtha used his time at the end of the debate to tell story after story of individual families and soldiers dealing with the tragedy of injury and loss of life.

Now, the American people place a high value on individual lives, unlike the terrorists. No one wants to lose our young men and women (or older ones, for that matter) in a conflict in a distant part of the world that few of us will ever see and most of us will never understand.

That is why the terrorists blow up innocent men, women and children. That is why they kidnap and behead unarmed contractors and drag burned bodies through the streets. To weaken our resolve and cause us to give up. So, by playing up the very same thing that the terrorists have identified as our weakness, isn't Murthau playing right into their hands?

Anway, after hours of bloviating, fist waving and foaming-at-the-mouth, in the end, the vote came down to 403 to 3. So, the 'heroic' Dems after arguing for weeks that...

*We should not be in Iraq.
*Bush deliberately misled the country to war.
*The Iraqi people don't want us there.
*We are making terrorism worse.
*We are causing the rest of the world to hate us.

...voted that *gulp* we should, "stay the course". Kind of makes your head spin, doesn't it?

It will be fascinating to see how the Democrats try to resuscitate the 'let's withdraw from Iraq' mantra after all of the them voted against it.

"Your comments may be recorded for training purposes....."

Check this out.

The American Spectator has a post on their site courtesy of The Washington Prowler, listing quotable quotes from the Democrats on the subject of Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Also, check out the excellent video posted on the Republican National Committee website, showing some of these quotes (and others) in video format.

Either the Democrats think the American people are incredibly stupid, or they are basing their tactics on the world of the 'old media', where they could manipulate history and remain unchallenged.

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.