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.

Close Gitmo? One more thing

Have you noticed that none of the "Close Gitmo Gang" has any suggestions whatsoever for what we should do instead?

What should we do with the prisoners that are still there? Release them, even though we have good reason to believe that they will re-engage in attacks on U.S. troops and/or civilians? (What happened to "what did we know and when did we know it?"--remember that?)

Joe Biden (Democratic senator from Delaware) makes this statement in an interview on "ABC News".

"But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners," he said. "Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go."

What a great clarification! What constitutes 'reason to keep'? Don't you think that is exactly what we are doing???

And if we close Gitmo, where do we put them? I'd rather have them in Cuba, than in my home state, where terrorists trying to free their comrades might kill innocent Americans in a prison break attempt (or hostage situation).

Should we close Gitmo and build an entirely new facility, with taxpayer money, move all the prisoners there (a risky undertaking, to be sure) and then close THAT facility down when people start lying about it?

And why does Biden think this move is necessary?

"This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be in that position."

Well, the terrorists and Islamofascists hated us well before Gitmo was established. Remember September 11? The U.S.S. Cole? The first World Trade Center bombing? Somalia?

To suggest somehow that closing Gitmo would reduce the anti-American propaganda and create 'goodwill' with the terrorists is simple-minded tripe. How did this guy get to be a Senator?

I'm becoming more and more depressed about the lack of logic and reasoning power exhibited by the very people we have elected to help run our country. And how they are playing right into the terrorists' hands.

Gitmo Hysteria and Hyperbole

The Journal/Sentinel comes out again today with another "close Gitmo" diatribe. I love the title, "Fix Guantanamo and beyond." Beyond what? I suggest that the 'beyond' stands for beyond any humanly reasonable measures--for that is the standard that the United States is being held to by the MSM and the people, who, in general, oppose the war and just about anything the Bush administration sets out to do.

I won't do a 'blow by blow' of the article. You can read it here yourself.

But I would like to include, in full, an amazing email that was published on Powerline the other day. Here it is:

Messages from our readers last night carry some of the best commentary on recent events that I have read this morning. Regarding Time's "Inside the interrogation of Detainee 063" (Mohammad al Kahtanni), Dr. Brian Byer writes:

On the CNN web page I read the reactions of U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel and Dianne Feinstein to the report which appeared in Time magazine [click here for the CNN story]...As you know Mohammed al Kahtani was to be the 20th hijacker on United Airlines flight 93. This bloodthirsty murderer was captured alive and brought to Guantanamo Bay where our men and women sought to extract as much information from him as quickly as possible to prevent further attacks and learn more of his al Qaida associates. As reported by Time the methods used included shaving his facial hair, having him wear racy pictures around his neck, sleep deprivation with loud music, standing for prolonged periods, removing articles of clothing and making the once arrogant and still bloodthirsty terrorist wet his pants.

As I mentioned in my previous email, this is equivalent to what the average collegiate freshman athlete must endure from upperclassmen. It is also much, much less than what our elite Navy Seals, Army Rangers and Paratroopers experience during their bootcamps. Of course Amnesty International cares more about the comfort, dignity and well being of terrorists like Kahtani than any member of our special forces. I guarantee they will be crying about Kahtani's treatment which has been equivalent to a modest hazing at worst.

But what has really struck me to the quick and saddened by heart has been the comments from our elected Senators Hagel and Feinstein. Specifically Senator Hagel was quoted by CNN as saying the treatment of terrorist Kahtani was wrong, dangerous, very dumb, shortsighted, and not how you win Muslim people over to ourside. With these words Senator Hagel has betrayed the brave men and women who protect us from terrorists like Kahtani. He is placing American popularity in the world above the lives of innocent Americans like thousands who died on September 11th. I never thought I would see the day when a U.S. Senator would place the dignity and comfort of an al-Qaida terrorist above the lives of even a single American or an innocent Muslim for that matter. O how my heart weeps for the dedicated personnel who probed Kahtani for details about al-Qaida's plans and are now insulted and defamed on international television by a U.S. Senator for trying their hardest to protect innocent lives.

Clearly Senators Hagel and Feinstein have forgotten that the terrorist Kahtani was turned back from the Orlando airport in August 2001 while Mohammed Atta was there awaiting his arrival. How is it that they have forgotten that Kahtani planned to join Atta as the 5th hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93? How have they forgotten that Kahtani planned to use a boxcutter or similar instrument to slice the throat of any passenger or crew who resisted? How have they forgetten that Kahtani wished to shout praise to Allah as he and Atta plowed that aircraft full of innocents into New York Cities tallest skyscraper also crowded with innocents?

How have these U.S. Senators forgotten those who were incinerated on that day? How have they forgotten those who were so terrorized with fear and suffering that they jumped to their certain death rather than face the inferno of the Twin Towers? How is it that they have forgotten the brave who rushed to the rescue but never returned? How can they have forgotten about those who lost their lives in the Pentagon only a few miles from their plush Senate offices? How have they so quickly forgotten the brave souls who confronted their terrorist assasins and then lost their lives in a field just east of Pittsburgh? How is it that they have turned their backs on the dedicated men and women who have risked and lost their lives in the hunt to bring back alive evil men like Kahtani?

How do our Senators propose our troops pursue those who would slaughter our children, burn our cities and decapitate innocents? By giving quarter? By show respect and mercy? By providing cozy rooms, gentle questioning and frequent potty breaks to the relentless al-Qaida murderers and assasins? Even today Mohammed al-Kahtani eats a nourshing halal meal and breaths the warm Carribean air while the innocent blood of thousands still cries from the ground. When will they receive justice? When will our Senators fight for their dignity and respect rather than the diginty and comfort of the terrorists who designed their slaughter?

Please Sirs, I beg you to share with your readers the disgrace now being dumped on the memory of those who died, the diligent work of the men and women who have lost their lives defending the innocent and the forgotten deeds of our heroes who willingly enter the dangerous shadowlands of this world and hunt evil men like Mohammed al Kahtani. My heart can barely bear the suffering and disgrace America must endure by the thoughtless words of her own elected officials.

In his earlier message Dr. Byer provided this link to the Defense Department's press release yesterday on the information reported in the Time story. Please check out the press release.

Rapidly Approaching Saturation

Is it just me, or are things becoming more fast and furious? People's patience shorter and shorter?

I just read an article in BusinessWeek about camps for kids where there is no technology allowed (ohmigosh--no iPODs, IM'ing, internet, cell phones). People have to send their kids AWAY for this?

Of course, we do the same thing as adults. We have to go on vacation to 'relax'.

I wonder if we are heading toward implosion.

It will be interesting to see what our kids are like as adults. I predict that one of two things will happen.

1. They will just think this pace is 'business as usual' and will have no problems.
2. They will 'burn out' by the time they are 30, chuck it all and adopt a more bohemian lifestyle.

A survey I saw a few years ago in some women's magazine ask kids about their parents' careers (moms especially). Most moms predicted that the kids would say that they wished their moms didn't work. What kids actually said was that they wished their moms were less hassled and frustrated with their work.

Yikes.

James Murphy, a former Air Force pilot who has become a management consultant, has a new book on the market, Flawless Execution. In it he states, "As task saturation increases, performance decreases."

I think I'm rapidly approaching saturation... Wonder what will happen when I get there?

Would be funnier if it weren't so true....

By Chris Muir @ www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx

Check out http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx. This says it all.

Dangerous Naivete (or Deliberate Lies) of the Media re. Gitmo

Great article from John Hinderaker at The Weekly Standard on the unbelievable international media frenzy around the Koran abuse nonsense. You must read the whole thing.

Read the entire report here from Brigadier General Jay Hood on the investigation into the allegations of Koran abuse.

The bottom line?

There are five (five, count 'em FIVE) confirmed instances of 'mishandling' of the Koran (either intentional or unintentional) by Army guards. Mishandling--not destruction.

But here's the interesting part of the report. There were FIFTEEN confirmed instances of deliberate Koran abuse by detainees, including tearing up pages, urinating on the Koran, and trying to flush pages down the toilet.

You know, a couple of years ago, I was fascinated by the recent history of China, especially the rise of Communism and Mao and the Red Guard. I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" (a great book), "Wild Swans" and some other books written by Chinese women who had lived through the Chinese 'revolution'. It was amazing to me how such blatant propaganda took hold of an entire society and was readily accepted by so many people so quickly.

I was quite smug in concluding that such a thing would never happen in the U.S., because of our diversity, our free press and our independent culture.

This is really getting downright scary.

What OF Accountability?

Another incredible editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, entitled "What of Accountability?" As you will see, "accountability" only applies to the military and the Bush administration, not journalists...("media accountability--the new oxymoron!")

Get this opening paragraph:

The parade of indictments of torture and other abuses at the Pentagon's overseas prison camps continues to march relentlessly before us. And if our collective outrage over these abuses has faded and dimmed over the months, so has the notion that the men and women responsible for these affronts should be held to account for their failures. In fact, this lack of accountability is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves.

Hmmm....where do I start? Parade of 'indictments'? Are we talking definition #1 of indictments--"a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury" or definition #2 "an accusation of wrongdoing"?

If definition #1 applies, then having the 'men and women responsible for these affronts' indicted would certainly mean that they have been held accountable for their 'failures'. ('Affronts' and 'failures'? Isn't this kind of "sissy talk" if we are referring to torture and abuse?)

If definition #2 applies, then we are talking about ACCUSATIONS. And shouldn't journalists also be ACCOUNTABLE for investigating the source of the accusations to determine whether they are credible? Especially when getting it wrong has serious consequences(just ask Newsweek)!

It goes on...

Likening Guantanamo to the infamous string of forced labor camps that existed for many years in the Soviet Union was extremely far-fetched. Hyperbole of the first order, in fact. It's apparent that some detainees' stories have been exaggerations because it is, sadly, in the interests of some to have U.S. conduct portrayed in the worst possible light. (But NOT the Journal Sentinel, of course! --comment mine)

Still, the real light has been bad enough. Given the number of verified incidents of abuse, some accountability beyond the lower rungs should have been brought to bear.

Okay, so, first of all, how have these verified incidents of abuse been uncovered? After all, this is the American Gulag, where torture is rampant, prisoners are worked to death in labor camps and countless people are disappearing (definition of gulag)--with the complicity of our highest government officials. What deft reporter uncovered this scandal, in a world-altering scoop? Is there a new 'Deep Throat'? No....what do you know--the intrepid press has discovered these abuses documented in Defense Department documents!

So, let me get this straight, because right now my head is spinning a little bit. Our government is documenting instances of abuse in publicly available documents, making them available to the press and then prosecuting those responsible. But we have a "lack of accountability which is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves"? Isn't documenting the alleged abuse, investigating it and prosecuting those involved considered assigning accountability? If not, what is, exactly?

And since when is a lack of accountability as appalling as abuse itself? Is not being held accountable the same as being tortured? Hmmm, I know if I were given the choice, which option I'd go for....

The J/S goes on to quote the highly unbiased (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Physicians for Human Rights, who issued a 135-page report on systematic torture practiced by the US since 2002 in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's see, the President and VP of this organization, Dr. Holly Atkinson and Dr. Frank Davidoff are contributors to the following: DNC, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton. I don't think they have any bias whatsoever. (BTW, if you want to read more about their position on the war in Iraq, check this out. I would like to comment on this article, but I think they deserve a blog of their own.)

An interesting choice of a group to quote. Of course, these people also stated in an article from 2002 on their website:

The US and allies must prepare for and develop a plan to prevent or stop reprisals by Saddam Hussein against Iraqi citizens in the midst of a conflict. This should include prevention of and preparedness for the burning of Iraqi oil fields and other elements of a scorched earth policy, as well as a chemical or biological attack against Iraqi citizens, in addition to those in neighboring countries.

Chemical or biological attack? With what? Hmmm, they were wrong about WMD, could they be wrong about torture?

Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.

Back to the J/S editorial....

Psychological mistreatment may seem pale by the side of the sexual sadism that was depicted in the photographs that emerged from the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the techniques of psychological torture, the doctors warned, "can be just as harmful and are often more long-lasting than physical torture."

Hmmm. Can it be as long-lasting as, say, having your head cut off? Having your body set on fire and dragged through the streets behind a car? Being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber?

The next source quoted is the NYTimes May 20th article about the deaths of two Afghan suspects at the U.S. military prison in Bagram. (How come these guys never quote The Weekly Standard, or The National Review?)

"Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths," The Times noted.

So, now I'm wondering. Gulag, torture, prisoner abuse. Wow. This must really be out of control. So, if torture and abuse is rampant, there must be a lot of casualties associated with our military prisons. How many incidents of abuse have been documented? How many have led to prisoner deaths? Well, according to Time magazine's May 31st article, "What's Going on at Gitmo?":

HAVE ANY DIED THERE? Although the U.S. military has recently acknowledged that more than 30 detainees died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan from August 2002 to November 2004, there have been no reports or allegations of detainee deaths at Guantanamo. (emphasis mine) According to the Pentagon, prisoners there have attempted suicide 34 times and have committed several hundred acts classified by the military as "self-injurious manipulative behavior," but none have died as a result. A Saudi man who tried to hang himself in 2003 ended up in a coma for several months but ultimately regained consciousness and learned to walk again.

Now, I'm not advocating mistreatment of prisoners, but NO ONE has died at Guantanamo. And in two years of conflict, there have been thirty (30) deaths? Thirty? Don't you think if there was widespread, malicious intentional torture of prisoners, sanctioned by military leadership, there would be more than 30 deaths?

A July, 2004 USA Today article stated that there had been 94 total alleged cases of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ninety-four. Okay, no deaths at Gitmo, 30 deaths in two years, 94 alleged cases of abuse.

But here's the number you'll never see in the J/S...this is out of 50,000 prisoners. The 50,000 prisoners number was taken from the Army inspector general's office report and is from July 2004. So, presumably, there have been more prisoners since then. And still no deaths at Gitmo. The report goes on to state that almost half of those cases of alleged abuse had occurred where the terrorists were taken prisoner (presumably in the heat of battle) and not in the prison system itself.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have never found myself in a combat situation. But I can well imagine that if I had been shot at, or watched my buddy blown up by a suicide bomber, and I had the opportunity to capture one of these guys, I would make doggone sure that he was not in a position to do me any bodily harm. And I think I would be a lot more worried about putting him out of commission than being held 'accountable' by some liberal human rights-watch group for prisoner 'abuse'.


And the total number of allegations (allegations--not indictments) of abuse related to interrogations? Interrogations. Which, if there was a mandate on torture from the top, is when you would expect most of the abuse to occur. Eight. Eight. Hmmm. Not a strong indictment for a widespread policy of abuse.

So, if anything, I think that our military has performed quite remarkably, given the circumstances.

And, if that weren't enough, even though there have been relatively few incidents, there have been investigations and criminal charges filed against the soldiers involved. So, aren't these people being held accountable for their 'failures' and 'affronts'? (J/S term, not mine)

But we haven't charged "officials at the highest levels of government, from the White House to the Defense Department, whose actions and failures placed the ill-trained soldiers where they were and created the environment that led to the abuses."

Okay. Charge them with what? Is the J/S seriously advocating that we prosecute the President of the United States for the actions of a SMALL minority of our thousands of troops deployed across the globe? Well, before you start to chuckle, you should realize that they are in good company.

Because, in fact, Amnesty International Executive Director William Schultz is advocating that foreign governments arrest U.S. officials for their complicity in torture. So, if the J/S and Amnesty International get their way, maybe France will capture President Bush on his next trip across the pond and hold him for a war crimes trial. Wouldn't that be great? (This is the one thing that might make me actually wish that John Kerry had been elected president).

Kenneth Anderson addresses this issue and more in a great article"An American Gulag? Human Rights Groups Test the Limits of Moral Equivalency".

He makes an interesting point...

If you really believe, as Amnesty does, that Guantanamo is a Stalinist gulag, then you ought really to believe that its authors are the genuine Stalinist article--criminal leaders of a world-class criminal regime. After all, it is Stalins, Berias, and their henchmen who produce Stalinist gulags. Likewise, if you are Human Rights Watch and you really believe in the moral equivalence of Sudan and the United States, then surely you ought to regard U.S. leaders as nothing more than wicked criminals, to be arrested, and their regime isolated and sanctioned, if not actually invaded. Surely you should be urging the virtuecrats of Brussels and all of Europe to break off trade relations with the United States. You should be arguing for a breakup of NATO to isolate the human rights abuser, and perhaps even urging Europe to create the military might necessary to confront the deep evil of the U.S. regime. That's what morally serious people should be doing, after all, in dealing with Sudan and its leaders. We should be contemplating all that and more against the regime in Sudan. And if you really believe in the moral equivalence you rhetorically trumpet, then that's what a principled organization would demand regarding the United States, too.

So, do the editors at the J/S really believe that officials at the top of our government are bloodthirsty war-criminals? Tromping on human rights and condoning torture and abuse of innocent prisoners? Blood dripping from their jowls? If so, then they should be calling for more than 'accountability'....they should be calling for the overthrow of our very government. If it is that serious, it is that serious....

The conclusion of their editorial...

Osama bin Laden's terror gang inflicted serious damage on our country, and the war in Iraq is killing and maiming our young men and women.

No, the terrorists (not the 'war in Iraq') are killing and maiming our armed forces. And killing and maiming Iraqi civilians. Who would all be dead, if we capitulated to the thinking of the J/S editorial board and turned tail and abandoned the Iraqi people. What's more, at least 12 of the former detainees who have been set free have resumed terrorist activities. So...if we have so much concern over the deaths of our young men and women, wouldn't we advocate keeping these guys locked up as long as possible? Or depriving them of a few hours sleep to learn whatever we could about how they might be planning to attack our people? Or is their freedom more important than human life? (I guess some human lives--those of terrorists and murderers--are more valuable than other human lives--our 'young men and women').

But another kind of damage occurs when we evade our moral and legal responsibilities and allow some of our country's deepest and most cherished values to be trivialized in waging the war on terror. In failing to call to account all those responsible for torture, we are inflicting that kind of damage on ourselves.

Well, I always thought that some of "our country's deepest and most cherished values" included love of country, respect for the truth, support of our troops, and the presumption of innocence. (Note the surprising absence of 'self-loathing' or anti-American sentiment, or even 'Bush-hating' as a cherished value). I would believe our men and women (young AND old) before I would believe the word of terrorists (who are apparently the sources of most of the allegations)--who are explicitly instructed by Al Qaeda to lie to rile up the Islamic world against the U.S.

But Al Qaeda should write a new chapter in their instruction manual--no need to ask their devotees to deliberately lie about their abuse at the hand of the Great Satan in order to whip up anti-American sentiment. Whipping up anti-American sentiment over the thinnest of allegations has become the core competency of the American media (including the Journal/Sentinel). Al Qaeda can sit back and focus on killing more Americans and Iraqis.

"Mission Accomplished".

Hypocrisy, Hype and Hysteria over US Treatment of Terrorists

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on the continued braying by the MSM on the 'abuses' at Guantanamo, entitled Gitmo Grovel: Enough Already. An excerpt:

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about people but about mishandling the Koran. What do we know here? The Pentagon reports (Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, May 26) -- all these breathless "scoops" come from the U.S. government's own investigations of itself -- that of 13 allegations of Koran abuse, five were substantiated, of which two were most likely accidental.

Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

On the scale of human crimes, where, say, 10 is the killing of 2,973 innocent people in one day and 0 is jaywalking, this ranks as perhaps a 0.01.

Moreover, what were the Korans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Korans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book "Portraits 9/11/01" -- vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

He goes on...

Why this abjectness on our part? On the very day the braying mob in Pakistan demonstrated over the false Koran report in Newsweek, a suicide bomber blew up an Islamic shrine in Islamabad, destroying not just innocent men, women and children, but undoubtedly many Korans as well. Not a word of condemnation. No demonstrations.

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

Does the Koran deserve special respect? Of course it does. As do the Bibles destroyed by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Torahs blown up in various synagogues from Tunisia to Turkey.

So...we have people who are more concerned about someone dropping a book than killing hundreds of innocent Muslims? The Islamic religious extremists (terrorists) kill innocent civilians (9/11, beheadings, bombing mosques, suicide bombings, etc.), yet WE are the 'evil empire' and the 'gulag contenders'? Because one of our soldiers may have dropped a copy of the Koran while being spit upon or urinated on by a detainee? Get real.

And the recent report by Amnesty International is a hoot. From a quote in the Pakistan Daily Times, Irene Khan, the head of Amnesty International, says,

Our answer is simple: if that is so (that the allegations are unfounded), open up these detention centres. Allow us and others to visit them.

I don't think comparing Gitmo to a gulag is going to help your case, Irene. Can you imagine Amnesty International 'inspectors' wandering around Gitmo, wringing their hands over the torture of detainees--forced to live in small cells with no cable television (worse yet, we could force them to watch FoxNews!!!)

I see an emerging pattern here...

a. Someone hears an allegation, made by a known enemy of the U.S. (or its current administration).
b. They go public with that allegation, without an iota of fact-checking.
c. The administration states that the allegation is false and unfounded.
c. The left immediately demand that the administration PROVE that the allegation is unfounded.
d. Over time, everyone forgets that the allegation was untrue...

I heard people on a NPR talk show a few weeks ago, who absolutely believe that our soliders DID flush a Koran down the toilet and that the government is covering it up.

Sound familiar? I suppose next we will hear that Elvis has hijacked a truck full of Korans and is destroying them with laser beam weapons captured from aliens detained at Area 51. C'mon Rumsfeld, PROVE it isn't true.

Better yet, let's ask the anti-war people to PROVE that there were absolutely NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war. That oughtta keep them busy for awhile. In the meanwhile, they should get out of the way. We have a war to win.

Equal Protection for Bibles

Great article in The Opinion Journal (Wall Street online) by Ali Al-Ahmed on "Hypocrisy Most Holy".

He makes several excellent points:

With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments--including that of Saudi Arabia--reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations.

As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia--where I come from--are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.

Maybe the Christians need to start rioting in the streets.

"Who cares what makes these people angry?"

A must-read from Jonah Goldberg on the reaction of the "Muslim Street" (notice how that term has disappeared from the MSM lexicon?) to the Newsweek article.

I couldn't agree more.

And if I hear one more comment about the Crusades, I'm going to lose my lunch.

Get over it.

Some Further Analysis (no pun intended) on Toiletgate and the Media Meltdown

Just when you think the situation with the American media can't get any worse, we get this exchange at the briefing of the White House Press Corps today:

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

Scott McClellan has the patience of a saint. Excuse me, didn't the questionner ASK him what the President would like Newsweek to do? And then when Scott answers, he asks him 'who died and made you king'?

And anyhow, what's wrong with the President asking for Newsweek to help clean up its own mess? Why NOT report the extraordinary measures taken to respect the religious practices of the prisoners at Gitmo? (Although I always say, if I'm going to be accused of something, despite bending over backwards to the contrary, I might as well let 'er rip and give them their money's worth.).

However, this begs the question--why should there have to be external pressure applied to news organizations in order for them to retract something if they find that it was ill-founded? And then help mitigate the damage from their erroneous reporting? I would think that news organizations would want the public to know that they do NOT need any external pressures to keep their house in order (can anyone say congressional investigation?).

I, for one, do not want to see any encroachments on freedom of the press, but that carries a serious responsibility for the press to police itself. With Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and now this, the news industry seems to be on a path of self-destruction--unable to help itself from repeating the same offenses over and over. This would imply a systemic problem.

What is the root cause? Perhaps:

-Under pressure to 'scoop' each other, journalists/editors have become careless.
-Given the competition for public attention, the 'titillating' stories get immediate coverage with no thought to the consequences.

-There is a lack of political diversity in the news organization, leaving no one to play 'devil's advocate' when these types of stories arise. This is proven out by the immediate reactions in the blogosphere who find logical errors and other reasons to question these stories which apparently have never occurred to the editors.

-A certain pervasive smugness derived from being 'in the know' leads the elite media to spend insufficient time questionning their own accuracy and underlying motivation for certain news stories.

For a good analysis and discussion of the growing public mistrust of the media, check out Winds Of Change.

If media outlets want to improve their credibility, they need to bring in some independent analysts to review their internal processes for 'vetting' articles. Anonymous sources should be used sparingly and then, only when corroborated by other independent means.

Jay Rosen has a great analysis of the sourcing issues with the Newsweek debacle.

I'm sure there will be more to come on this intriguing topic.

NEWSWEEK Lied, People Died....

I will blog more later about the role of NEWSWEEK (now dubbed Newsweak and "Toiletgate"--"Loogate" in the UK-- by the blogosphere) in aiding and abetting the enemy, but my husband asked an interesting question last night...

If an Islamic country had flushed Bibles down the toilet, do you think Christians would be rioting and killing people in response?

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? He should start his own blog.

UPDATE: Just another random thought. I am as happy as anyone to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to trashing the MSM, however...is it really OUR fault that the reaction of the Islamic world is to riot and kill each other over an alleged desecration of the Koran?

We tend to be very narcissistic here in the US and think that we somehow can control the actions of the rest of the world, simply by being inoffensive. I think that is a naive (and dangerous) view.

UPDATE: Lots of good stuff out on the blogosphere. I'll keep updating.

Check out this one..."Guns Don't Kill People...Reporters Kill People". And this one..."Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'"

Austin Bay also has some great commentary.

UPDATE: Newsweak retracts.

Great comment from Cliff Kincaid, of the Accuracy in Media website:

Ironically, noted Kincaid, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas has been teaching a course at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government on "the ethical, moral and practical issues that recur in news delivery."

Kincaid commented, "It looks like he flunked his own course."

Any Fraud is Bad Fraud...

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel misses the point *AGAIN* in their editorial on voter fraud, "What's the Fraud Threshold?". If voter fraud were found to favor the Republicans, I suspect that ANY level of fraud would exceed the threshold. But somehow, to date, there is not sufficient evidence for them to conclude that fraud has actually occurred. Too bad no one captured the fraud ACTUALLY occurring on videotape (of course, tape can be doctored!!!)

Here's what the interim report from the Fraud Task Force said:

Based on the investigation to date, the task force has found widespread record keeping failures and separate areas of voter fraud.

Here's what the J/S editorial said:

Investigators have found widespread record-keeping glitches and spotty instances of fraud.

Hmmm...I think that Ricardo & friends need a new thesaurus!

The J/S editorial goes on...

The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 instances in which residents are suspected of voting twice or of using somebody else's name or a fake name to vote. It also found more than 200 felons who voted despite being barred from doing so.

But here's a little tidbit they left out....

"The number of votes counted from the City of Milwaukee exceeds the number of persons recorded as voting by more than 4,500....To date, the investigation has concentrated on the 70,000+ same-day registrations." (emphasis mine)

Here is the actual interim report for your reading pleasure.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the Journal/Sentinel is quibbling over 'how much fraud is too much'. (Well, I guess I can believe it).

But, as the interim report states,

These findings impact each other. Simply put: it is hard to prove a bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money was there in the first place. Without accurate records, the task force will have difficulty proving criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

And, of course, this is the crux of the problem. The system was not designed to have an audit trail worthy of follow up and prosecution for fraud, NOR does it make any sense to try to develop such a system. The problem is not to prove and prosecute voter fraud AFTER THE FACT (the old 'locking the barn door after the cows have escaped' option). The point is to PREVENT voter fraud from happening so that everyone's vote DOES count. Requiring people to register before elections and present some form of photo ID is a much better option than depending upon the tenacity of the poll workers (those great senior citizens who selflessly devote hours to staffing the polls so that the rest of us can vote!)

Failing to prevent voter fraud disenfranchises ALL voters (even the ones that voted for Kerry!!)

Read additional commentary here from Powerline and Michelle Malkin.

Once more, Wisconsin is in the news for all of the wrong reasons. And the Journal/Sentinel is on the wrong side of the issue.

UPDATE: Great comments and a history of news on the Wisconsin voting fraud situation from Sean at everythingiknowiswrong.com.

In the words of Mark Twain...

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

A lot of discussion going on right now about the future of the newspaper and traditional media. Are they in their last, dying gasps?

Excellent post from Powerline on the general decline of newspaper circulation.

Charlie Sykes also talked about this on his radio show yesterday on WTMJ.

Since many newspapers have been inflating their circulation numbers, (Journal Sentinel included), it is difficult to tell how much decline is attributable to the correct circulation and how much is attributable to people becoming fed-up with their bias, or turning to other outlets for news and information.

Most of the callers on Charlie's program mentioned the internet as a key contributor to the decline in newspaper readership. They cited the following reasons that they use the internet as a primary source (as opposed to the paper):

-The internet is more visual and interactive (and therefore appealing to younger customers)
-The internet is more timely (get news as it is happening)
-The internet allows links to the source material and other related stories
-The internet allows you to be selective (if all you want to read is the sports, why buy the whole paper?)
-The internet is 'free' -- or relatively so, after you've purchased a computer and pay for broadband/ISP access

It will be interesting to see how newspapers evolve in response to this threat. But I believe it is too early to sound the death knell. Remember, years ago when people were predicting that movies on demand and online entertainment would mean the demise of books? Remember predictions that movie theaters would disappear due to the rise of Blockbuster and NetFlix?

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran Jonah Goldberg, from National Review, today. In his column, "Bloggers are latest media darlings", he contends that newspapers are not 'down for the count' and predicts that the Internet will be absorbed by traditional media. He cites examples of how the blogosphere is beginning to consolidate:

Big media outlets are starting blogs and buying up the best bloggers. Independent bloggers are joining forces to achieve economies of scale for advertising and editorial direction.

Just this week, some of the best bloggers created a small consortium called Pajamas Media. It's not inconceivable that consolidation will continue to the point where bloggers become new online newspapers.

I can't find an online version right now...will add one if it becomes available.

I think the bottom line is this: Choice is good. Competition raises the bar. The gauntlet has been thrown to the newspaper industry. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the challenge.

Political Correctness Reaches New Heights

The much-awaited decision has come down from Marquette University over the naming of their sports team/mascot. As you may know, years ago, the Marquette Warriors was deemed offensive to Native Americans, so the name was changed to the Marquette Golden Eagles. (I'm surprised PETA didn't protest it as being offensive to eagles).

A couple of alumni offered to donate a cool $2M to the school if they changed the name back to the Warriors. Now, I can see that a Native American sports mascot might be offensive (Willie Wampum WAS pretty tacky), but they certainly could have made it a more 'generic' warrior. How about an ancient Greek warrior? (Our local high schools have Spartans and Lancers as their mascots. Since those guys are all dead, none of them can protest.)

So...what is the final decision? The Marquette Gold! The Marquette Gold? Yes, Gold. They have selected a COLOR as their mascot.

From the Marquette University website:

Further, data collected in an online survey last fall of opinions and attitudes indicated that even 10 years after its introduction, the Golden Eagles nickname, logo and mascot have not generated with the Marquette community a strong sense of pride or identity. In the survey, the terms respondents most often used to describe the Golden Eagles nickname are boring (57 percent), weak (55 percent) and common (52 percent).

So, they think "Gold" is not boring, weak or common?

Cheesh. What will be next? The Milwaukee Puce? The Madison Magentas?

Update: Great posts from Marquette Warrior....read the "Trustees Turn Chicken" post.