JFK is quick to use Paul Bremer’s comments about Iraq against President Bush. Bremer pens an op-ed column for the New York Times today setting the record straight about his remarks:
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.
Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision. (HT: Power Line)
It’s all about context and using it correctly.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Saddam’s Sugar Daddy
Claudia Rosett’s runs down Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass Corruption”, which include Koffi Annan and the U.N. Oil for Food program:
Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council."
But no one has ever heard these facts from the U.N. itself, certainly not from such prime violators as France, Russia, and Syria — nor from the man most directly responsible for protecting the honor of the institution, Secretary-General Annan. Instead, Annan has to this day refused even to disclose to the public such basic details as the names of Saddam's contractors or the terms of their deals.
By greatly obscuring the specifics, this U.N. secrecy has gone far to blur the true damage and horrors of Oil-for-Food, leaving the impression that any graft — if indeed there was such a thing within the program — was allegedly committed by faceless people employing vague methods, overseen by an unwitting U.N. Secretariat, led by a Secretary-General who earlier this year professed himself ignorant of any wrongdoing by his staff, and who somehow never worked around to alerting the world that Saddam had developed a taste for doing sweet deals via states with conveniently shared borders, such as Jordan and Syria, or veto-wielding members of the Security Council: France, Russia, and China.
Blessedly, the Duelfer report clears away much of the U.N. murk. Volume I, devoted to sources of financing and procurement for Saddam's regime, provides hundreds of pages of damning details — lifting much of the cover that U.N. secrecy gave to Saddam, his business partners, and the U.N. itself (which had effectively become one of his chief business partners, thanks both to the 2.2-percent commission collected by Annan's Secretariat, and the deals parceled out by Saddam to pivotal member states). Duelfer's report, released Wednesday, includes not only general descriptions of Oil-for-Food corruption, but names, dates, methods, networks, and dollar amounts — a roster dubbed adroitly by Reuters as Saddam's There is everything here from the eye-catching list of Saddam's oil allocations to Annan's handpicked head of the program, Benon Sevan (he denies it); to specific allocations of cheap oil for French and Russian government officials; to such low-profile stuff as how Oil-for-Food gave Saddam money and maneuvering room to meddle in the presidential election of Belarus.
Oh no, Saddam wasn’t corrupt nor a threat. The U.N. an outdated dinosaur that helped Saddam get rich? Nah, this just couldn’t be.
And if you believe that...
Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council."
But no one has ever heard these facts from the U.N. itself, certainly not from such prime violators as France, Russia, and Syria — nor from the man most directly responsible for protecting the honor of the institution, Secretary-General Annan. Instead, Annan has to this day refused even to disclose to the public such basic details as the names of Saddam's contractors or the terms of their deals.
By greatly obscuring the specifics, this U.N. secrecy has gone far to blur the true damage and horrors of Oil-for-Food, leaving the impression that any graft — if indeed there was such a thing within the program — was allegedly committed by faceless people employing vague methods, overseen by an unwitting U.N. Secretariat, led by a Secretary-General who earlier this year professed himself ignorant of any wrongdoing by his staff, and who somehow never worked around to alerting the world that Saddam had developed a taste for doing sweet deals via states with conveniently shared borders, such as Jordan and Syria, or veto-wielding members of the Security Council: France, Russia, and China.
Blessedly, the Duelfer report clears away much of the U.N. murk. Volume I, devoted to sources of financing and procurement for Saddam's regime, provides hundreds of pages of damning details — lifting much of the cover that U.N. secrecy gave to Saddam, his business partners, and the U.N. itself (which had effectively become one of his chief business partners, thanks both to the 2.2-percent commission collected by Annan's Secretariat, and the deals parceled out by Saddam to pivotal member states). Duelfer's report, released Wednesday, includes not only general descriptions of Oil-for-Food corruption, but names, dates, methods, networks, and dollar amounts — a roster dubbed adroitly by Reuters as Saddam's There is everything here from the eye-catching list of Saddam's oil allocations to Annan's handpicked head of the program, Benon Sevan (he denies it); to specific allocations of cheap oil for French and Russian government officials; to such low-profile stuff as how Oil-for-Food gave Saddam money and maneuvering room to meddle in the presidential election of Belarus.
Oh no, Saddam wasn’t corrupt nor a threat. The U.N. an outdated dinosaur that helped Saddam get rich? Nah, this just couldn’t be.
And if you believe that...
Kerry’s False Claims
Hugh Hewitt lists all the mainstream media sources compiled by the RNC that point out Kerry’s erroneous claims that General Shinseki was “fired” by President Bush:
CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: “[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.” (CNN's “Inside Politics,” 9/24/04)
KERRY KEEPS REPEATING FALSE CLAIM
October 7, 2004: Kerry Claimed “I Will Do What The Generals Believe We Need To Do Without Having Any Chilling Effect As The President Put In Place By Firing General Shinseki.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Englewood, CO, 10/7/04)
October 5, 2004: Kerry Claimed President “Fired His Own Army Chief Of Staff [Eric Shinseki] When His Army Chief Of Staff Said How Many Troops He'd Need [In Iraq].” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. “[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.” (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside The Ring,” The Washington Times , 4/19/02)
It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said “Several Hundred Thousand” Troops Would Be Required For “Post-Hostilities Control” In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?” ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think …” LEVIN: “How about a range?” SHINSEKI: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)
MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD
Shinseki “Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule.” BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, ‘lost their jobs for telling the truth.’ But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 9/20/04)
Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: “Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003.” (CNN’s “NewsNight,” 10/1/04)
John Kerry’s Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is “Factual Mistake.” ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own.” (CNN’s “News From CNN,” 9/8/04)
CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: “[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.” (CNN's “Inside Politics,” 9/24/04)
KERRY KEEPS REPEATING FALSE CLAIM
October 7, 2004: Kerry Claimed “I Will Do What The Generals Believe We Need To Do Without Having Any Chilling Effect As The President Put In Place By Firing General Shinseki.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Englewood, CO, 10/7/04)
October 5, 2004: Kerry Claimed President “Fired His Own Army Chief Of Staff [Eric Shinseki] When His Army Chief Of Staff Said How Many Troops He'd Need [In Iraq].” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. “[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.” (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside The Ring,” The Washington Times , 4/19/02)
It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said “Several Hundred Thousand” Troops Would Be Required For “Post-Hostilities Control” In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?” ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think …” LEVIN: “How about a range?” SHINSEKI: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)
MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD
Shinseki “Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule.” BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, ‘lost their jobs for telling the truth.’ But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 9/20/04)
Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: “Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003.” (CNN’s “NewsNight,” 10/1/04)
John Kerry’s Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is “Factual Mistake.” ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own.” (CNN’s “News From CNN,” 9/8/04)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Wictory Wednesday
This week, Wictory Wednesday is focusing on the dead even Senate race between Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Erskine Bowles. However, Burr needs your help. The wealthy Bowles is pouring his own money into the race and Burr needs to counter him. If you don’t want Democrats controlling the Senate, then please contribute whatever you can to Burr’s campaign.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
The VP Debate
The debate last night was great, much better than the presidential one. And, Cheney won, despite the post debate spin. Edwards was physically flustered throughout the debate and Cheney remained calm and cool at all times. Cheney landed some decisive blows against the Kerry/Edwards camp by attacking their record in the Senate as well as the noticeable absence from the Senate, missing countless votes on things such as Medicare reform, taxes, and energy. Edwards is attempting to fast track up the political ladder while putting as little effort in as possible.
Here is another huge blow struck by Cheney last night:
The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.
And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?
Edwards got Halliburton wrong last night, and even when refuted kept going with error. Come to find out, it was not that Halliburton got the nod on a no-bid job, but they got the contract because they were the only company that could do the job that was required and within the allotted time, not because Dick Cheney was the former CEO. In this day and age of the blogosphere and media watchdogs, it’s hard to imagine Edwards coming to the table with faulty info and trying to make it work. In the past, when people just took what the politicians and media said as truth and never questioned it, this tactic would have succeeded. I’m convinced this is what Dan Rather thought about the forged memos. Nobody will question the word of “The Dan”, as he was dubbed by Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias. These tactics will not work anymore.
Cheney was smart to call Edwards on his diminishing of the role of the Iraqi people in the war. They are giving their lives to liberate their country too, and should be counted in Iraqi Coalition as well. The Kerry camp’s desire to make this war look bad, and especially by trying to discredit Prime Minister Allawi, is going to shoot them in the foot, especially when Allawi and Iraq are going to play a prominent role in their so called “coalition”.
But did this debate do anything for the undecided? I have to say probably not. The base for both camps is secure and the debate last night continued to pump them up. But, as I believe Tim Russert said on NBC this morning, there is three weeks to go, and what is it going take make a decision.
As I have ranted on long enough, make sure to check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here. A debate transcript is available here.
Here is another huge blow struck by Cheney last night:
The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.
And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?
Edwards got Halliburton wrong last night, and even when refuted kept going with error. Come to find out, it was not that Halliburton got the nod on a no-bid job, but they got the contract because they were the only company that could do the job that was required and within the allotted time, not because Dick Cheney was the former CEO. In this day and age of the blogosphere and media watchdogs, it’s hard to imagine Edwards coming to the table with faulty info and trying to make it work. In the past, when people just took what the politicians and media said as truth and never questioned it, this tactic would have succeeded. I’m convinced this is what Dan Rather thought about the forged memos. Nobody will question the word of “The Dan”, as he was dubbed by Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias. These tactics will not work anymore.
Cheney was smart to call Edwards on his diminishing of the role of the Iraqi people in the war. They are giving their lives to liberate their country too, and should be counted in Iraqi Coalition as well. The Kerry camp’s desire to make this war look bad, and especially by trying to discredit Prime Minister Allawi, is going to shoot them in the foot, especially when Allawi and Iraq are going to play a prominent role in their so called “coalition”.
But did this debate do anything for the undecided? I have to say probably not. The base for both camps is secure and the debate last night continued to pump them up. But, as I believe Tim Russert said on NBC this morning, there is three weeks to go, and what is it going take make a decision.
As I have ranted on long enough, make sure to check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here. A debate transcript is available here.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Comments
I have enabled the comments feature for the blog. This was done with some apprehension, not because differing opinions from mine would be expressed, but how they might be expressed.
Comments posted to this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World of Tomorrow. Open conversation is encouraged, but personal attacks and vulgarity will result in the comments feature being shut off.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from some of the regulars that stop by the WoT and those who are visiting for the first time.
Comments posted to this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World of Tomorrow. Open conversation is encouraged, but personal attacks and vulgarity will result in the comments feature being shut off.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from some of the regulars that stop by the WoT and those who are visiting for the first time.
The American Coalition: the U.S., Britain, Austrailia, and Poland?
The president of Poland chides John Kerry for leaving Poland out as part of the coalition in Iraq:
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Poland’s efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, “I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.”
When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: “I don't think it's an ignorance. The anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the U.K. and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.”
“That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished,” President Kwasniewski said. “Perhaps Mr. Kerry thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq.”
Ouch!
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Poland’s efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, “I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.”
When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: “I don't think it's an ignorance. The anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the U.K. and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.”
“That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished,” President Kwasniewski said. “Perhaps Mr. Kerry thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq.”
Ouch!
What’s Your Drug of Choice?
Depends on if you are attacking Coalition Troops or blowing yourself up.
Al-Sadr and his boys have been dealing in the streets of Iraq. Drugs to get the fighters pumped up to attack troops and barbiturates to calm down the suicide bombers. Drugs to finance their operations. Holy men indeed. Common street thugs are more like it.
Also of note is that there was talk of drug use by the terrorists in the spring, and only now the media is picking up the story, almost six months later.
Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC, whose emails I often post here, had this to say about drug use in Fallujah this past spring:
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Al-Sadr and his boys have been dealing in the streets of Iraq. Drugs to get the fighters pumped up to attack troops and barbiturates to calm down the suicide bombers. Drugs to finance their operations. Holy men indeed. Common street thugs are more like it.
Also of note is that there was talk of drug use by the terrorists in the spring, and only now the media is picking up the story, almost six months later.
Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC, whose emails I often post here, had this to say about drug use in Fallujah this past spring:
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Check it Out
New blog to check out. It is called Grape-Koolaid: Chronicling the Final Days of the American Left as We Know it and I am very happy to say that I am going to be a contributor.
Fallujah Update
Latest email from Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC:
Right now we are finishing our rotation of units out of the area with new ones arriving and taking over. We were concerned about a spike in enemy activity as they knew we were rotating troops. Because of this we conducted a couple of operations on the front end of the rotation and put a hurting on them. Another unit here that operates with us also pulled a couple of operations at about the same time. The result is that we put the enemy back on its heels for a couple of weeks and got some breathing room. Unfortunately, if these guys are true to form, things will pick up again very soon.
It is great to see the Marines who have completed their tour come off the line. Most are now out of day-to-day operations and you can literally see the relief and the letting down as they wait for their flight out. It is hard to believe how much they have done in the past 3 years. Some of the Marines just finishing up their first contract have three combat tours under their belts (one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq). A few of these guys will be in college next year and they will look like any other freshman sitting in class. The rest of the students will have no idea what a hero the guy sitting next them is.
As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.
Read the whole thing here.
Right now we are finishing our rotation of units out of the area with new ones arriving and taking over. We were concerned about a spike in enemy activity as they knew we were rotating troops. Because of this we conducted a couple of operations on the front end of the rotation and put a hurting on them. Another unit here that operates with us also pulled a couple of operations at about the same time. The result is that we put the enemy back on its heels for a couple of weeks and got some breathing room. Unfortunately, if these guys are true to form, things will pick up again very soon.
It is great to see the Marines who have completed their tour come off the line. Most are now out of day-to-day operations and you can literally see the relief and the letting down as they wait for their flight out. It is hard to believe how much they have done in the past 3 years. Some of the Marines just finishing up their first contract have three combat tours under their belts (one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq). A few of these guys will be in college next year and they will look like any other freshman sitting in class. The rest of the students will have no idea what a hero the guy sitting next them is.
As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.
Read the whole thing here.
Palesky Tax Cap
Does it seem like a good idea to vote for a citizen initiative that was created by a person that has been convicted of embezzlement, ruled mentally insane after robbing a bank, a has filed for bankruptcy numerous times?
Besides being a mother of two, a grandmother of four and a champion of tax reform, Palesky is a convicted embezzler and forger who rankles public officials and was once charged with bank robbery.
While she rails against soaring property taxes, the taxes on her house have gone down for two consecutive years, according to Topsham records. They have fallen $141, or 5.3 percent, to $2,479.
She has declared bankruptcy at least four times. She has sued her hometown a half dozen times. On the witness stand, she once accused a detective who had searched her house of "probably...going through my underwear drawer."
I hate to consider someone’s personal history when voting for a tax initiative, but given Palesky's spotty financial history, I tend to think that this is not a good plan for Maine. Something needs to be done, because people are being taxed out of their homes and Augusta needs a wakeup call, but this is not it.
Besides being a mother of two, a grandmother of four and a champion of tax reform, Palesky is a convicted embezzler and forger who rankles public officials and was once charged with bank robbery.
While she rails against soaring property taxes, the taxes on her house have gone down for two consecutive years, according to Topsham records. They have fallen $141, or 5.3 percent, to $2,479.
She has declared bankruptcy at least four times. She has sued her hometown a half dozen times. On the witness stand, she once accused a detective who had searched her house of "probably...going through my underwear drawer."
I hate to consider someone’s personal history when voting for a tax initiative, but given Palesky's spotty financial history, I tend to think that this is not a good plan for Maine. Something needs to be done, because people are being taxed out of their homes and Augusta needs a wakeup call, but this is not it.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Hugh Hewitt
Hugh has a couple articles worth reading today.
The first comes from WorldNetDaily.com called "End Game". Hugh points out the Senate races that are heating up for November. Wictory Wednesday is also focusing on these candidates.
Hugh's second offering is about how the old media is going to be on trial at the debate just as much as John Kerry is.
The first comes from WorldNetDaily.com called "End Game". Hugh points out the Senate races that are heating up for November. Wictory Wednesday is also focusing on these candidates.
Hugh's second offering is about how the old media is going to be on trial at the debate just as much as John Kerry is.
Spaceballs Episode II
Remember that great Star Wars spoof from 1987 called Spaceballs? Mel Brooks is planning on making a sequel. This newest installment will take on George Lucas' SW Prequels. Brooks hopes to have Spaceballs II out next year when Star Wars Episode III- The Revenge of the Sith comes out.
Cool. Two Star Wars spoofs to choose from at the box office.
Cool. Two Star Wars spoofs to choose from at the box office.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Wictory Wednesday
It's Wictory Wednesday once again. This week we turn our attention to the tight race in Alaska between encumbant Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles. Knowles is running as a "moderate", which means raising your taxes, cutting defense spending, and blocking President Bush's judicial nominations.
Don't let another useless Democratic "moderate" get into the Senate. Donate to Senator Murkowsi's campaign today to make sure she is re-elected.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Don't let another useless Democratic "moderate" get into the Senate. Donate to Senator Murkowsi's campaign today to make sure she is re-elected.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
CBS is Spinning Again Already
I thought they would have let Rathergate blow over before they starting "creating" the news again. Power Line has a post about how CBS used discredited documents to attack President Bush last night. This time it is "the Draft":
Tuition increases, war and the possibility that the draft will be reinstated are issues that directly affect younger voters who have a history of not turning out to the polls on Election Day, Heinz said.
Apparently everyone over at the Heinz-Kerry house has drunk the Kennedy Kool-Aid.
Ratherbiased.com (whose site is down now) and Little Green Footballs detail how CBS News last night used discredited documents to attack President Bush:
In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft. At the center of Schlesinger’s piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is 'sick to my stomach' that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future. Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal conscription, seeks to establish a 'peaceful, rational foreign policy' by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger’s Cocco, the group portrays itself as 'nonpartisan' although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans. The group’s domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984. CBS News also reported that there are two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, but failed to mention that they were both introduced by Democrats.
HINDROCKET adds: The Selective Service System has added this statement to its website:
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.
UPDATE: Here is a "mirror" of the original piece by Ratherbiased.
Chris Heinz, Teresa Heinz-Kerry's son, was here at the University of Maine trying to sell the same "draft" line:Tuition increases, war and the possibility that the draft will be reinstated are issues that directly affect younger voters who have a history of not turning out to the polls on Election Day, Heinz said.
Apparently everyone over at the Heinz-Kerry house has drunk the Kennedy Kool-Aid.
High Noon at the Kerry Spot
From NRO’s Kerry Spot:
IT WAS LATE, KERRY SAID, REFERRING TO NOON [09/29 08:52 AM]
The good news is John Kerry did an interview on Good Morning America, and he was asked about his "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment.
Kerry responded, "No, it wasn’t classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly."
Hey, it happens! No big deal. Everybody has made a comment that doesn't make sense late at night... except...
“‘I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it,’ he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed.”
As Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt suggested, maybe his watch was on Paris time
He said this because he was “tired”. Yeah, right. Duplicity is more like it.
IT WAS LATE, KERRY SAID, REFERRING TO NOON [09/29 08:52 AM]
The good news is John Kerry did an interview on Good Morning America, and he was asked about his "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment.
Kerry responded, "No, it wasn’t classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly."
Hey, it happens! No big deal. Everybody has made a comment that doesn't make sense late at night... except...
“‘I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it,’ he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed.”
As Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt suggested, maybe his watch was on Paris time
He said this because he was “tired”. Yeah, right. Duplicity is more like it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Kerry’s Defeatism
Larry Kudlow over at TownHall.com on how Kerry is the siren of defeatism:
Defeatism is the hallmark of the Kerry policy, so you won't hear the candidate mention any of this. Instead, he'll whine about internationalizing the war, while neglecting to mention that U.N. Resolution 1546, which passed in June, endorsed the Iraqi interim government and pledged support for the upcoming elections. The G-8, the European Union and NATO have also issued formal statements of support.
Problems in Iraq? Absolutely. A quagmire? Absolutely not. Allawi a strong ally? Definitely. "But a puppet of the United States, (where) you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," as top Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart put it? Nonsense. Pure partisan political pap. And the solutions Kerry is putting forward -- training Iraqi security forces, rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, holding elections in January, bringing in more allies -- are already being undertaken by the Bush administration.
This is World War IV, as Norman Podhoretz recently put it. Bush understands this. Kerry does not. In essence, it's a vision thing -- a key difference that will surface in Thursday's debate. Bush's vision is to use American power to promote democracy and freedom in a vital part of the world that has become unimaginably dangerous. Bush's vision is also one of optimism, of America's ability to succeed in carrying out a humanitarian operation that will make the world a better place and leave America more safe and secure.
Kerry has no such vision. He's a pessimist and a defeatist, whose campaign is doomed to failure.
It’s all about vision. A vision John Kerry doesn’t have. George Bush does.
Defeatism is the hallmark of the Kerry policy, so you won't hear the candidate mention any of this. Instead, he'll whine about internationalizing the war, while neglecting to mention that U.N. Resolution 1546, which passed in June, endorsed the Iraqi interim government and pledged support for the upcoming elections. The G-8, the European Union and NATO have also issued formal statements of support.
Problems in Iraq? Absolutely. A quagmire? Absolutely not. Allawi a strong ally? Definitely. "But a puppet of the United States, (where) you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," as top Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart put it? Nonsense. Pure partisan political pap. And the solutions Kerry is putting forward -- training Iraqi security forces, rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, holding elections in January, bringing in more allies -- are already being undertaken by the Bush administration.
This is World War IV, as Norman Podhoretz recently put it. Bush understands this. Kerry does not. In essence, it's a vision thing -- a key difference that will surface in Thursday's debate. Bush's vision is to use American power to promote democracy and freedom in a vital part of the world that has become unimaginably dangerous. Bush's vision is also one of optimism, of America's ability to succeed in carrying out a humanitarian operation that will make the world a better place and leave America more safe and secure.
Kerry has no such vision. He's a pessimist and a defeatist, whose campaign is doomed to failure.
It’s all about vision. A vision John Kerry doesn’t have. George Bush does.
Rather’s Ratings in a Downward Spiral
This is what happens when you stake your claims on forged documents and wait almost 2 weeks to repent: your ratings fall, drastically. (Via Instapundit)
Non-existent credibility and a major ratings decline means only one thing:
Bye, Dan.
Non-existent credibility and a major ratings decline means only one thing:
Bye, Dan.
The Kerry-Kennedy Line
Daniel McKivergan over at the Weekly Standard on how John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were wrong about Saddam Hussein in 1991 and how they are wrong now.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Kerry Demoralizes our Troops
NRO’s Jed Babbin on how John Kerry is sending a message of defeatism to our troops:
The problem with Kerry's speeches is not that he's sending mixed signals on Iraq. Of course he is, and by now most of us have lost count of them. The problem is in his sole point of constancy: Kerry says, over and over, that we need to make the Iraq war someone else's problem, and begin pulling out. Nothing in his formulation requires that the war be won — and Iraq and Afghanistan be stable and free — before we leave. That one unshakeable position is sending a precise, consistent, and damaging message to the troops.
You might be surprised to hear how well-informed and thoughtful the grunts are. From the army private standing guard to the Marine lance corporal riding a Humvee on patrol, these men and women probably follow the news more closely than the average civilian voter. They read whatever they can get their hands on, listen to American broadcasts on the Armed Forces Radio Network, and thousands see television news broadcasts on a regular basis. They get letters from home and talk to the reporters who pass through their units. And they talk among themselves, all the time. Not just about what they're doing, their families, and their comrades who have been wounded and killed: They discuss what's going on at home, and how it will affect them. When they hear Kerry talking — as he did earlier this week — they hear defeatism.
The troops believe in President Bush as their commander in chief. They support him and they support what they are doing in Iraq. The lives that have been sacrificed so far have not been in vain. Not yet at least. Should Kerry become president their sacrifice will mean nothing. He will leave Iraq and Afghanistan not caring about those that have given the ultimate sacrifice or about the people of these countries that we have liberated.
Babbin continues by talking about his pal, a Navy Seal, and the “soldiers creed”, which Babbin points out is Spend my life if you have to, but don't waste it.
As McClellan sees it, it's different now. "I can go over there [to Iraq or Afghanistan] with a bunch of 22-year-old kids or 40-year-old men, and we'd go with a smile, because there's a reason to be there. And we're not leaving until the job is done. That means everything to the men who fight, and the families of the men who die there." But from what Senator Kerry has said again and again, it apparently doesn't mean much to him.
As it was in Somalia, so it is now in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it will be wherever else we have to fight against terrorists and the regimes that create and support them. To say, as Kerry does, that we should begin withdrawing our troops in six months and — with the help of the phantom allies he will get to take over in Iraq — be out altogether in four years, says nothing about finishing the job. Kerry makes no commitment to ensure that Iraq doesn't revert to chaos after we leave. He says nothing about ending the threats to America and Iraq emanating from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the other nations whose terrorists have been pouring into Iraq since at least September 2002. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is known to have been there since then.)
Kerry will bug out rather than finish the job that our soldiers and their current commander in chief have started. The military wants to finish it and make sure that not only the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are free and secure, but our country also. President Bush will stay the course and finish the task that he and the military have started.
Spend my life if you have to, but don't waste it.
The problem with Kerry's speeches is not that he's sending mixed signals on Iraq. Of course he is, and by now most of us have lost count of them. The problem is in his sole point of constancy: Kerry says, over and over, that we need to make the Iraq war someone else's problem, and begin pulling out. Nothing in his formulation requires that the war be won — and Iraq and Afghanistan be stable and free — before we leave. That one unshakeable position is sending a precise, consistent, and damaging message to the troops.
You might be surprised to hear how well-informed and thoughtful the grunts are. From the army private standing guard to the Marine lance corporal riding a Humvee on patrol, these men and women probably follow the news more closely than the average civilian voter. They read whatever they can get their hands on, listen to American broadcasts on the Armed Forces Radio Network, and thousands see television news broadcasts on a regular basis. They get letters from home and talk to the reporters who pass through their units. And they talk among themselves, all the time. Not just about what they're doing, their families, and their comrades who have been wounded and killed: They discuss what's going on at home, and how it will affect them. When they hear Kerry talking — as he did earlier this week — they hear defeatism.
The troops believe in President Bush as their commander in chief. They support him and they support what they are doing in Iraq. The lives that have been sacrificed so far have not been in vain. Not yet at least. Should Kerry become president their sacrifice will mean nothing. He will leave Iraq and Afghanistan not caring about those that have given the ultimate sacrifice or about the people of these countries that we have liberated.
Babbin continues by talking about his pal, a Navy Seal, and the “soldiers creed”, which Babbin points out is Spend my life if you have to, but don't waste it.
As McClellan sees it, it's different now. "I can go over there [to Iraq or Afghanistan] with a bunch of 22-year-old kids or 40-year-old men, and we'd go with a smile, because there's a reason to be there. And we're not leaving until the job is done. That means everything to the men who fight, and the families of the men who die there." But from what Senator Kerry has said again and again, it apparently doesn't mean much to him.
As it was in Somalia, so it is now in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it will be wherever else we have to fight against terrorists and the regimes that create and support them. To say, as Kerry does, that we should begin withdrawing our troops in six months and — with the help of the phantom allies he will get to take over in Iraq — be out altogether in four years, says nothing about finishing the job. Kerry makes no commitment to ensure that Iraq doesn't revert to chaos after we leave. He says nothing about ending the threats to America and Iraq emanating from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the other nations whose terrorists have been pouring into Iraq since at least September 2002. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is known to have been there since then.)
Kerry will bug out rather than finish the job that our soldiers and their current commander in chief have started. The military wants to finish it and make sure that not only the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are free and secure, but our country also. President Bush will stay the course and finish the task that he and the military have started.
Spend my life if you have to, but don't waste it.
Ted Kennedy Rips Bush and U.S. Troops
Ted Kennedy, the Godfather of Liberals, is going to use a speech today at George Washington University to attack President Bush. Here are some of his quotes:
"The greatest danger we face in the days and weeks and months ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and pray that it is not already too late to prevent," he says. "The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely."
Yeah, I hear Iran is planning on making some nukes, again defying a U.N. order. What is John Kerry going to do to stop that? Close his eyes and hope that the can’t get a bomb to Massachusetts. Teddy is apparently giving them the green light to nuke us.
"I thank God that President Bush was not our president at the time of the Cuban missile crisis," Mr. Kennedy will tell the students. "Even after 9/11, it is wrong for this president or any president to shoot first and ask questions later."
I thought the terrorists shot first. Hence the planes going into the Twin Towers, killing thousands of innocent Americans. According to Ted, I guess we were wrong.
And U.S. Troops aren’t free from blame either:
Mr. Kennedy praises American troops for their execution of the war, but, at another point in his speech, he says their errant bombs are sparking the insurgency. The speech also insinuates that Mr. Bush is keeping American troops from doing the hardest job of going after insurgents in remaining pockets, postponing it until after the Nov. 2 presidential election.
"Whole cities are considered 'no-go' zones for our troop — presumably to avoid even greater casualties until after the election," he says. "We continue to use so-called 'precision' bombing in Iraq, even though the bombs can't tell whether it's terrorists or innocent families inside the buildings they hit."
U.S. Troops’ errant bombs are to blame for the insurgents. I thought it had something to do with Islamic Radicals whose business is hate, fear, and cowardice.
Remember, Chapaquitic Ted has proof. 110 proof. And he’s John Kerry’s mentor to boot. Everything Kerry has learned, he learned from Ted. A very scary thought.
"The greatest danger we face in the days and weeks and months ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and pray that it is not already too late to prevent," he says. "The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely."
Yeah, I hear Iran is planning on making some nukes, again defying a U.N. order. What is John Kerry going to do to stop that? Close his eyes and hope that the can’t get a bomb to Massachusetts. Teddy is apparently giving them the green light to nuke us.
"I thank God that President Bush was not our president at the time of the Cuban missile crisis," Mr. Kennedy will tell the students. "Even after 9/11, it is wrong for this president or any president to shoot first and ask questions later."
I thought the terrorists shot first. Hence the planes going into the Twin Towers, killing thousands of innocent Americans. According to Ted, I guess we were wrong.
And U.S. Troops aren’t free from blame either:
Mr. Kennedy praises American troops for their execution of the war, but, at another point in his speech, he says their errant bombs are sparking the insurgency. The speech also insinuates that Mr. Bush is keeping American troops from doing the hardest job of going after insurgents in remaining pockets, postponing it until after the Nov. 2 presidential election.
"Whole cities are considered 'no-go' zones for our troop — presumably to avoid even greater casualties until after the election," he says. "We continue to use so-called 'precision' bombing in Iraq, even though the bombs can't tell whether it's terrorists or innocent families inside the buildings they hit."
U.S. Troops’ errant bombs are to blame for the insurgents. I thought it had something to do with Islamic Radicals whose business is hate, fear, and cowardice.
Remember, Chapaquitic Ted has proof. 110 proof. And he’s John Kerry’s mentor to boot. Everything Kerry has learned, he learned from Ted. A very scary thought.
Friday, September 24, 2004
VDH on Rather
Victor Davis Hanson delivers another great article. This time it is on the fall of Dan Rather and CBS:
Worse than being duped, worse than cobbling together a highly politicized hit-piece during a war and in the waning days of an election, worse than the shady nature of the "unimpeachable" sources and the likely sordid origins of the story, and worse even than the pathetic nature of CBS's "expert" witnesses — worse than all that was Rather's ten-day denial of reality, culminating in the surreal half-admission that the phony documents could not be verified as accurate. That's the equivalent of saying that a corpse cannot be proven to be alive.
Commentators have envisioned Rather's fall as symbolic of a "paradigm shift" and the "end of the era" — an event that has crystallized the much larger and ongoing demise of the old establishment media. Allegories from the French Revolution and the emperor without any clothes to the curtain scene in The Wizard of Oz have been evoked to illustrate Rather's dilemma and the hypocrisy of all that went before. We have come a long way since the 1960s: The once-revolutionary pigs taking over the manor are now bloated and strutting on two legs as they feast on silver inside the farmhouse.
First CBS went into denial; then it tried to smear its critics; next it emulated the Nixonian two-step; and finally it stonewalled altogether, hoping that the 24-hour news buzz would fade before it ultimately did. Meanwhile, more and more Americans yawn and have already switched the channel to cable news. We keep waiting for Mike Wallace on Sunday's 60 Minutes to stare down Dan Rather on the set of Tuesday's 60 Minutes, sticking his mike in Dan's face, springing on him a long list of his previously unknown sins, capped off with the zoom shot on a fidgety, sweating Rather, as the tick, tick, tick fades into a primetime commercial.
Make sure you read the whole thing here.
Worse than being duped, worse than cobbling together a highly politicized hit-piece during a war and in the waning days of an election, worse than the shady nature of the "unimpeachable" sources and the likely sordid origins of the story, and worse even than the pathetic nature of CBS's "expert" witnesses — worse than all that was Rather's ten-day denial of reality, culminating in the surreal half-admission that the phony documents could not be verified as accurate. That's the equivalent of saying that a corpse cannot be proven to be alive.
Commentators have envisioned Rather's fall as symbolic of a "paradigm shift" and the "end of the era" — an event that has crystallized the much larger and ongoing demise of the old establishment media. Allegories from the French Revolution and the emperor without any clothes to the curtain scene in The Wizard of Oz have been evoked to illustrate Rather's dilemma and the hypocrisy of all that went before. We have come a long way since the 1960s: The once-revolutionary pigs taking over the manor are now bloated and strutting on two legs as they feast on silver inside the farmhouse.
First CBS went into denial; then it tried to smear its critics; next it emulated the Nixonian two-step; and finally it stonewalled altogether, hoping that the 24-hour news buzz would fade before it ultimately did. Meanwhile, more and more Americans yawn and have already switched the channel to cable news. We keep waiting for Mike Wallace on Sunday's 60 Minutes to stare down Dan Rather on the set of Tuesday's 60 Minutes, sticking his mike in Dan's face, springing on him a long list of his previously unknown sins, capped off with the zoom shot on a fidgety, sweating Rather, as the tick, tick, tick fades into a primetime commercial.
Make sure you read the whole thing here.
Dateline Illustration
Byron York on how CBS should clean up its memo mess. It’s been done before by NBC's Dateline in 1993 when it falsely reported the tendency of GM trucks to catch on fire in side collisions.
True to TV-news-magazine form, Dateline wanted some dramatic video to illustrate the problem. So producers set up a test in which a car would slam into the side of one of the trucks, leading — hopefully — to a spectacular, caught-on-tape explosion.
But what if the truck didn't blow up? Would the Dateline team have to get another one and try again? That could get expensive.
So to ensure a positive result, the Dateline producers placed small incendiary devices in the truck. And sure enough, it blew up very nicely.
The people at General Motors thought there was something suspicious about the report. A few months later, having done an extraordinarily detailed study of the matter, they filed a defamation suit against NBC.
Michael Gartner stood firm. While he admitted that NBC had used what he called "sparking devices" in the demonstration, he claimed that GM's accusation was a distraction from the real story. "GM sought to divert attention from the central issue," Gartner said, "namely that there appear to be fundamental problems with the safety of its trucks."
"We remain convinced that, taken in its entirety and in its detail, the segment that was broadcast on 'Dateline NBC' was fair and accurate."
The short version of that is that Gartner was arguing that the Dateline demonstration was fake but true. But that tough stance didn't last long.
Numerous people were fired, including the then president of NBC News, Michael Gartner, and the lawsuit was settled within a day. The scenario sounds familiar doesn’t it?
York’s solution:
Later, CBS News announced the "independent investigation" of the matter to be run by former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi. So far, however, CBS News executives seem more interested in setting up Mary Mapes, the producer of the segment in question, as the fall-person.
Of course Mapes should go, but remember the lessons of Dateline. If that example were followed, then the 60 Minutes Wednesday producer, senior producer, and executive producer would all have to go. And then the president of CBS News. And then — well, then the on-air reporter.
Sounds like an excellent solution to me. If most of us had made a colossal blunder such as Rather and CBS News has, we would be out looking for a new job. The Dateline example should be used here as well. So long, Dan…
True to TV-news-magazine form, Dateline wanted some dramatic video to illustrate the problem. So producers set up a test in which a car would slam into the side of one of the trucks, leading — hopefully — to a spectacular, caught-on-tape explosion.
But what if the truck didn't blow up? Would the Dateline team have to get another one and try again? That could get expensive.
So to ensure a positive result, the Dateline producers placed small incendiary devices in the truck. And sure enough, it blew up very nicely.
The people at General Motors thought there was something suspicious about the report. A few months later, having done an extraordinarily detailed study of the matter, they filed a defamation suit against NBC.
Michael Gartner stood firm. While he admitted that NBC had used what he called "sparking devices" in the demonstration, he claimed that GM's accusation was a distraction from the real story. "GM sought to divert attention from the central issue," Gartner said, "namely that there appear to be fundamental problems with the safety of its trucks."
"We remain convinced that, taken in its entirety and in its detail, the segment that was broadcast on 'Dateline NBC' was fair and accurate."
The short version of that is that Gartner was arguing that the Dateline demonstration was fake but true. But that tough stance didn't last long.
Numerous people were fired, including the then president of NBC News, Michael Gartner, and the lawsuit was settled within a day. The scenario sounds familiar doesn’t it?
York’s solution:
Later, CBS News announced the "independent investigation" of the matter to be run by former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi. So far, however, CBS News executives seem more interested in setting up Mary Mapes, the producer of the segment in question, as the fall-person.
Of course Mapes should go, but remember the lessons of Dateline. If that example were followed, then the 60 Minutes Wednesday producer, senior producer, and executive producer would all have to go. And then the president of CBS News. And then — well, then the on-air reporter.
Sounds like an excellent solution to me. If most of us had made a colossal blunder such as Rather and CBS News has, we would be out looking for a new job. The Dateline example should be used here as well. So long, Dan…
Presidential Visit
As I briefly mentioned last night, I had the honor of seeing President Bush speak here in Bangor, Maine. And it was truly an amazing experience.
A Bangor Daily News estimate put the crowd at about 4000, but it seems to me that the crowd was more in the 7,000 to 10,000 range. Alfond Arena, where the Maine Black Bears play hockey, holds a little under 6,000, and the were way more people at the rally than a packed house during the Hockey East finals. Our local paper also estimated that there were several hundred protestors near the rally. Unless they were hiding somewhere, this number was inflated. There was only a handful (5-10) near the exit to the rally, and maybe 75 to 100 on Union Street, a major thoroughfare in Bangor.
With the number game aside, the rally was awesome. The President’s speech was great, touching on the major campaign issues as well as some local groups and issues.
Bangor International Airport is the first stop for troops returning from overseas. President Bush praised the efforts of 82-year old Bill Knight, who organizes troop greeters and makes sure that there is always someone at the airport to greet troops at all times of the day and night.
The president also addressed the local lobstermen, sportsmen, and talked about tax relief for small businesses here in Maine. There is a great entrepreneurial spirit here in this state, but since we are so heavily taxed, small businesses don’t flourish here like they should.
After the rally, the President took time to greet a troop transport flight headed to Middle East. This was a complete surprise to the troops.
Sgt. 1st Class Maxie Tolar of North Carolina said he was excited to go to Iraq and that the trip had "just been made even better by seeing the president." Tolar also would have been happy just to get a picture of Air Force One.
"But right now this is Air Force One," Tolar said.
This is from Sgt. 1st Class Keith Hopper who was about the troop transport:
Sgt. 1st Class Keith Hopper had hoped for a glimpse of Air Force One. Instead, he got to look his boss right in the eye when President Bush made a surprise inspection aboard an Iraq-bound troop transport plane Thursday at the Maine Air National Guard base. "This is pretty exciting," said Hopper. "I've even got my absentee ballot with me, but I already knew who I was voting for."
President Bush’s stop here in Bangor was awesome. The rally was well worth the security, the blazing sun, and the long wait. I am still awestruck that I was some 100 or so feet from the leader of the free world and got to hear him speak in person. It was great that the troops heading overseas got to see their commander-and-chief in person before heading to Kuwait and Iraq to fight for and spread democracy and freedom.
And the crowd chanted “4 more years”…
We the people of the United States, and particularly Maine, need to make this a reality, not only for our country but also for the world.
Update: The Portland Press Herald puts the rally numbers around 9,000. More quality reporting from the Bangor Daily News.
A Bangor Daily News estimate put the crowd at about 4000, but it seems to me that the crowd was more in the 7,000 to 10,000 range. Alfond Arena, where the Maine Black Bears play hockey, holds a little under 6,000, and the were way more people at the rally than a packed house during the Hockey East finals. Our local paper also estimated that there were several hundred protestors near the rally. Unless they were hiding somewhere, this number was inflated. There was only a handful (5-10) near the exit to the rally, and maybe 75 to 100 on Union Street, a major thoroughfare in Bangor.
With the number game aside, the rally was awesome. The President’s speech was great, touching on the major campaign issues as well as some local groups and issues.
Bangor International Airport is the first stop for troops returning from overseas. President Bush praised the efforts of 82-year old Bill Knight, who organizes troop greeters and makes sure that there is always someone at the airport to greet troops at all times of the day and night.
The president also addressed the local lobstermen, sportsmen, and talked about tax relief for small businesses here in Maine. There is a great entrepreneurial spirit here in this state, but since we are so heavily taxed, small businesses don’t flourish here like they should.
After the rally, the President took time to greet a troop transport flight headed to Middle East. This was a complete surprise to the troops.
Sgt. 1st Class Maxie Tolar of North Carolina said he was excited to go to Iraq and that the trip had "just been made even better by seeing the president." Tolar also would have been happy just to get a picture of Air Force One.
"But right now this is Air Force One," Tolar said.
This is from Sgt. 1st Class Keith Hopper who was about the troop transport:
Sgt. 1st Class Keith Hopper had hoped for a glimpse of Air Force One. Instead, he got to look his boss right in the eye when President Bush made a surprise inspection aboard an Iraq-bound troop transport plane Thursday at the Maine Air National Guard base. "This is pretty exciting," said Hopper. "I've even got my absentee ballot with me, but I already knew who I was voting for."
President Bush’s stop here in Bangor was awesome. The rally was well worth the security, the blazing sun, and the long wait. I am still awestruck that I was some 100 or so feet from the leader of the free world and got to hear him speak in person. It was great that the troops heading overseas got to see their commander-and-chief in person before heading to Kuwait and Iraq to fight for and spread democracy and freedom.
And the crowd chanted “4 more years”…
We the people of the United States, and particularly Maine, need to make this a reality, not only for our country but also for the world.
Update: The Portland Press Herald puts the rally numbers around 9,000. More quality reporting from the Bangor Daily News.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
President Bush Makes a Stop in Bangor, Maine
I got to see the President of the United States in my humble little metropolis today. What an amazing experience. But I'll elaborate more tomorrow. It is late, and I am sunburned from spending too many hours standing on the tarmac at BIA awaiting the arrival of Air Force One. It was well worth the wait though. We need to make sure George W. Bush is elected to a second term.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Wictory Wednesday
It's Wictory Wednesday once again.
We are now focusing on some other races taking place this November. Last week WW focused its attention on John Thune, who is running against Tom Daschle.
This week's race is in Florida. Mel Martinez is trying to fill a Senate seat left vacant by a retiring Democrat, Bob Graham. Mr. Martinez is a Cuban-American immigrant success story who will help the president attract a larger share of the Hispanic vote. He would be replacing a currently held Democratic seat. His election would keep the Dems from controlling the Senate and further obstructing the President. But you have to donate to make sure Mel Martinez is elected.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
We are now focusing on some other races taking place this November. Last week WW focused its attention on John Thune, who is running against Tom Daschle.
This week's race is in Florida. Mel Martinez is trying to fill a Senate seat left vacant by a retiring Democrat, Bob Graham. Mr. Martinez is a Cuban-American immigrant success story who will help the president attract a larger share of the Hispanic vote. He would be replacing a currently held Democratic seat. His election would keep the Dems from controlling the Senate and further obstructing the President. But you have to donate to make sure Mel Martinez is elected.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
A War Referendum
Opinion Journal’s featured editorial points out that John Kerry has finally given the voters a choice on Iraq and Terrorism:
When it comes to the war on terror's grand strategy, readers probably won't be surprised to learn we prefer the Bush version. Limiting the definition of the enemy to bin Laden and his associates makes little sense in an age when terrorists cavort with rogue states and multiply like blades of grass in the despotic soil of the Middle East. Without an Iraq-type plan for changing the region, the U.S. would seem condemned to a century of playing terrorist whack-a-mole. If Mr. Kerry has an alternative root-causes strategy, he has yet to articulate it.
When it comes to Iraq specifically, Mr. Kerry's picture of the country is unrealistically bleak and many of his proposals are already in motion. Iraqi security forces are being trained, after all, and Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Allawi remain committed to the January elections. As for getting other countries to share more of the burden, good luck. Sometimes we think we might enjoy a Kerry victory just for the spectacle of watching a Secretary of State Biden or Holbrooke try to convince the Europeans to accept responsibility for their own security, never mind Iraq's.
Mr. Kerry is offering a minimalist conception of the war on terror, focused on al Qaeda and a rapid exit from Iraq. Mr. Bush spoke to the United Nations yesterday again pushing his democracy-for-the-Middle-East line. No one will be able to say voters weren't offered a clear foreign policy choice come November.
Make sure you read the whole thing.
When it comes to the war on terror's grand strategy, readers probably won't be surprised to learn we prefer the Bush version. Limiting the definition of the enemy to bin Laden and his associates makes little sense in an age when terrorists cavort with rogue states and multiply like blades of grass in the despotic soil of the Middle East. Without an Iraq-type plan for changing the region, the U.S. would seem condemned to a century of playing terrorist whack-a-mole. If Mr. Kerry has an alternative root-causes strategy, he has yet to articulate it.
When it comes to Iraq specifically, Mr. Kerry's picture of the country is unrealistically bleak and many of his proposals are already in motion. Iraqi security forces are being trained, after all, and Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Allawi remain committed to the January elections. As for getting other countries to share more of the burden, good luck. Sometimes we think we might enjoy a Kerry victory just for the spectacle of watching a Secretary of State Biden or Holbrooke try to convince the Europeans to accept responsibility for their own security, never mind Iraq's.
Mr. Kerry is offering a minimalist conception of the war on terror, focused on al Qaeda and a rapid exit from Iraq. Mr. Bush spoke to the United Nations yesterday again pushing his democracy-for-the-Middle-East line. No one will be able to say voters weren't offered a clear foreign policy choice come November.
Make sure you read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)