Blogosphere caught salivating too early over Schiavo memo

Well, they can’t all be Memogates. I admit I was convinced that the memo was fraudulent, especially after yesterday’s Washington Times piece where every GOP senator denied seeing or writing it.

Bush launches Phase 2 of his Social Security argument

The newsclip yesterday of Bush next to the filing cabinet representing the Social Security trust was pretty clever. Needlenose has a picture of it. The Democrats' response is that Bush's explanation of how the government actually currently uses Social Security money proves their point about the deficit spending problem - but to me, it shows that there is no such thing as a "locked box" in government. To listen to Reid or Pelosi, one would think that Bush was the first to violate the Social Security trust:

In a letter to Bush, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said: "We urge you to commit to
paying back every Social Security dollar that has been used for other purposes."

The implication is silly. Social Security funds were spent by the government from the very beginning and the problem has less to do with Bush or the GOP so much as it has to do with the nature of government. Converting over to private accounts is about the only way you can keep the money out of the hands of government and secure it in the Social Security system - but when you suggest that, then the Dem leadership threatens to take their marbles home (which is assuming they still have their marbles).

Also, everytime Bush proposes a spending cut, he's charged with underfunding this or that. In regards to the budget, our Senate needs to show some balls and come up with something similar to the House. Bush spent a lot of effort to help get a GOP majority in the Senate, it's time they paid him back by showing a little spine.

Pejmanesque notices a good point

made in this Post article about our intelligence service. Despite glaring deficiencies in our intelligence resources, I've never been comfortable with saying that our intelligence prior to the Iraqi invasion was a "failure", simply because I'm not sure where the bar is in determining success. Intelligence is always hit and miss:

For all of its genuine distinction, the report has weaknesses. Foremost
among them -- a product of the blinding clarity of hindsight -- is a misplaced
perfectionism that feeds the dangerous fallacy that all intelligence failures
are the product of culpable, and therefore remediable, blunders.

NYTimes and the Post want the hammer's head on a plate so bad they can taste it

I missed the part in the NYTimes piece and the Post piece about DeLay's illegal activity. I look forward to their page one expose on Nancy Pelosi.

China and S. Korea unsatisfied with Japanese textbooks

Granted, Japan doesn't like acknowledging its WWII past, but I'd be curious to see a S. Korean history book - or, I'm sure far worse, a Chinese textbook. The Japanese seem to be the universal scapegoat for all their woes. Why not let Japan write up the history books for China and let China do the same for Japan? At least the Japanese student can google other sources.

San Francisco beating FEC to the punch

They want bloggers earning over $1K to register with the Ethics Commission.

Labor shortage in China?

This story fails to mention that China’s unemployment rate doesn’t get too far away from double digits. But even a 9 to 10% rate is not an accurate depiction of the employment condition in China. When I was there I saw plenty of waste – everything from 3 or more door openers in every restaurant (often outnumbering the number of customers) or several security guards stationed in vacant buildings. While the Party recognizes some of the virtues of capitalism it cannot bring itself to let go of its communist ways. The result is a grossly inefficient system that prohibits the natural reallocation of resources which heavily contributes to the kind of labor problems described in the NYTimes story.

Iraqis gettin’ it done

When I was in college, our Middle East expert – a fine professor in most respects – taught us that the Kurds were historically nomads and that even to the day (this was the spring of 2000), they had no particular desire or understanding for creating a Kurdish state. Even then, Kurds in Iraq were making the most of their autonomous government in the 90’s (courtesy of the no fly zone) – so I’m not sure why he was off the mark. Now they are leading the way for representative government in the region.

And the Shiites ain’t doing bad themselves. The general assembly is getting it done, one argument at a time.

Sandy Bergler update

I don't count myself as a Clinton hater, but it should be noted that he contributed to the Bergler cover up by dismissing it from the get-go:

"That's Sandy for you," he said at a Denver book signing last summer. "We were
all laughing about it on the way over here."

Uh-huh.

Clinton Supporters Gear Up Against 'Swift Boat' Tactics

So long as she doesn't lie about being in Cambodia, the Swifties will probably leave her alone.

Sandy Bergler agrees to plead guilty to misdemeanor

Being in possesion of some marijuana is a misdemeanor. Stealing and destroying classified documents should be a felony. With his plea, Bergler's security clearance will be suspended for 3 years....which means he'll get it back.

How is it an honest mistake when he admitted to removing and destroying the documents intentionally. And why hasn't he come clean about his motives. I'm not satisfied.

Jonah on the environment

Even an act from Congress couldn't keep Terri alive

Spanish fatwa ripples

There's increasing grumbles coming from moderate Islam.

Strange decision by our former ambassador in Pakistan

restricting the distribution of "wanted" material in Pakistan.

Conservative critiques of Republican maneuvering on Schiavo

In the past, conservatives have been for less, not more government. As far as the right to live, the legal precedent has been that in the absence of a living will, it is up to the next of kin, in this case, her husband, to decide what the affected person would have wanted. But as we all know by now, Tom DeLay doesn't give a damn about what her husband has to say about it.

Here are critiques by Wiliam F. Buckley and Andrew Sullivan about all of this brouhaha, though Sullivan's critique of American conservatism is a little broader.

Here's the Reagan quote I like from Sullivan's column:

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less
centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general
description also of what libertarianism is.”

So if you think Congress knows what Terry Shiavo would have wanted better than her husband, than you are aruging for a paternalistic government, one that knows what you want and need better than you do. There was a time when liberalism, the New Deal and the Great Society were criticized for such thinking.

Dowd on Schiavo

Maureen Dowd made a couple of points that have cropped up elsewhere that seem to capsulate the core response from the left regarding the Schiavo case:

Republicans easily abandon their cherished principles of individual privacy and
states rights when their personal ambitions come into play.

What would the left do without the hypocrisy card? Would they be able to form an argument? Hypocrisy is not the end all be all to me. While it’s a weakness that can rightly be exploited – as Jonah Goldberg points out here – it’s not the worst thing that a politician can display, especially in a open democracy like ours where leaders have to pacify constituents by compromises and shifts.

So if a politician has two stances – one for the right to life and another for state’s rights – and those two positions come in conflict, should that politician avoid choosing between them because doing so would be hypocrisy? And as much as Republicans believe in state’s rights, they also believe in the 14th Amendment. So, if the politician believes that Terri Schiavo is being unduly denied her right to life, and the Florida supreme court is not adequately protecting her, then would it not stand to reason that the Senate should act within its powers to protect her?

As for Terri being denied her right to life – that point is admittedly not a proven fact. But there are questions, which is why Congress wanted more appeals on the case. As a friend of mine said, perhaps Terri would have a better chance if she was on death row. Krauthammer made a pretty good assessment when he described the issue as a choice between a legal travesty and a moral tragedy.

And where Dowd thinks that Republicans are advancing there own ambitions, I think it’s more a case of Republicans putting their money where their mouth is.

Dowd quoting Republican House Rep. Christopher Shays:

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. There are
going to be repercussions from this vote."

We will dismiss the assertion that having a Christian element in the party that actually influences party platforms equates a theocracy. At the time of this post (and Dowd’s column) it is appearing less and less likely that the tube will be reinserted into Terri. With Terri’s death dies the argument of Congressional overreach, because it is hard to make such an argument for something that failed. There may very well be repercussions from this issue, but it will hurt the (mostly silent) Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? Because it will fuel Bush’s argument about an out of control judiciary, which has stonewalled any attempts at further deliberation. The more people think about that, the more they won’t understand why Terri had to be starved to death now. And it appears that Congress was no match for the courts. All the while, the left has ridiculed the Republicans for refusing to accept decisions that they (the Republicans) disagree with. In other words, to listen to the left, the Supreme Court is the one branch of government that should be above checks and balances. And, by proxy, it certainly won’t help the Democrats filibustering Bush’s nominees of strict constitutionalists. In a cold political sense, Terri’s death is the worst thing that can happen to Democrats.

Finally, when Dowd charges Bush with packing the courts, she should probably learn what “packing the courts” actually means. It’s not replacing retiring judges with conservative nominees. It is creating new seats to fill with judges of your own liking. The last president to do that was FDR, who was frustrated with the judicial opposition to New Deal programs.

Powerline has questions about the GOP Senate memo that was leaked

Personally, it didn't bother me when I first heard about the memo. I mean, generally speaking, Senators don't do anything unless it's to their political advantage. For instance, watch the dog pile on Social Security - or the lack thereof - even though it's obviously an issue that needs to be tackled for the good of the country.

Some encouraging news on the propoganda front

Dean is going to be a fun DNC chairman to watch

the South is his sphinx. The more he says how Democrats need to respect the South, values and faith - the more it appears that Democrats don't and that's got to be frustrating for the Dems that do.

80 + 25 Vermin killed over past few days

A heartening story of Iraqis taking care of terrorists themselves

A critical look at George Kennan

Big stick is enroute to the Middle East

Opposition candidate in Egypt is charged with forging signatures

This may be too much to hope for, but

the Europeans are rethinking lifting the ban on arms to China.

French support for the EU constitution is down

The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, is upset and "demanded the political leaders of France 'do their job' and 'make an effort to explain the constitution' to French voters, who are turning against the treaty. "

Maybe they can have public readings where they go through the colossal document like it was storytime in the class room. When I first heard of French opposition to the constitution, I thought it may have been fueled by a French desire to have more control over the size of bananas being imported, etc., but apparently that's not the case. This story goes on to say that the French oppose cutting red tape for service industries moving across borders because they see it as a threat to their nanny state.

My 1 cent worth on Terri Schiavo

Since it was the focus of news saturation over the weekend, I figured I’d chime in, though my opinion is lukewarm at best. Obviously I’m not a legal or medical expert – and it appears that the husband has Florida law on his side – but I must side with Terri’s parents on this one (as well as Bush and Delay, etc.) I can’t figure out the husband’s motives on the issue. Something about it is fishy. I don’t think it is a money thing, & I’m not sure if it is necessary for her to die for him to remarry. From what I understand Terri has never had an MRI (she had a catscan in the early nineties). Why is that? She seems responsive enough (more than a vegetable, at least) based on the videos of her that I’ve seen and (assuming it is real) a recently released audio clip. The husband apparently has a new life, complete with fiance and kids, so why not hand over his rights to the parents? I admit that simply can not imagine keeping my future in-laws out of that decision. His attorney seems to be nothing more than a right-to-die advocate whose remarks about the Stalinist nature of Congress and Bush is absurd. This issue has been politicized by right and left – make no mistake.

Incidentally, my friend Jay over at Nonfamous has a penchant for painting Bush and Republicans as fascists. But what fascist errs on the side of life? If I recall, Hitler wanted to kill people like Schiavo for the benefit of the species.

Jay’s post also serves as a sort’ve living will, itself:

Let me say this very clearly to my friends and family. If anything like thisever
happens to me and somehow my wishes aren't followed, I don't want you just to
stop feeding me. And don't wait 13 years to do something, either! I want 80ccof
morphine, a bullet to the head, or whatever it takes--and wherever I end up,I'm
sure I'll see some of you there. OK? Thanks!

I’m sure that can be arranged, Jay.

Finally, Dude’s post with the MSNBC link makes a pretty good point regarding Congress passing a bill for one person. While I don’t have a good argument to the contrary (though I guess that’s the difference between a conservative and a libertarian) I applaud Congress for clever maneuvering to keep Terri alive. So far as I know, the issue has not gone to Congress to decide, but is still up to the courts.

UPDATE: In answer to my question, Schiavo hasn't had an MRI because of some implants that were added to her some time ago. However, she could have a PET scan, which would make a clearer image of the brain than a CAT scan.

Gays in Saudi Arabia have it rough

I know, I know, no surprise, but I thought this story was worth posting.

A direct Secretary of State

Nothing against Powell, but I’m comforted by Rice’s resolve to maintain a strong message against the proposed ban lifting on arms to China right before her trip to Beijing. Her visit to the Presbyterian Church in Beijing – just blocks away from Tinnamen Square and all the Party and government buildings – was a nice touch.

2 Years since the invasion

While we await pictures of this weekend's anti-war protests in Chicago, an Iraqi blogger says what the war means to him. It's never cheap.

Stifling debate in the House

Here's an article on how the Republicans are going back on their word to open up debate since having taken control of the House. It seems that consolidation of power is more central to Republican rule than gathering all points of view when legislating.

"The number of bills the Rules Committee allows to go to the floor under 'open rules,' that is, bills to which any member may offer amendments, has dropped steadily. By the count of the then-minority Republicans in the 95th Congress in 1977-78, 85 percent of nonappropriations legislation in the House were offered under open rules.

But the number of bills open to revision dwindled to 57 percent overall and to 30 percent for nonappropriations bills in 1993-94, the last Congress controlled by Democrats, a denial of process so serious that it led the late Representative Gerald Solomon, a New York Republican, to pledge that the incoming Republicans would make the vast majority of bills open. But the opposite happened.

In the current Republican-led Congress, according to statistics offered by both parties, the percentage of nonappropriations bills open to revision has dropped to 15 percent. "

Even more troubling...

The Senate failed to pass spending cuts, thanks to the help of 7 Republicans.

There was a time.....

when Republicans would have been against creating a law for one person. Bill Clinton declared the Era of Big Government over, and the Republicans have been bringing it back from the dead over the last 4 years.

Blogspot

I've noticed that over the past month or so Blogger has been less and less reliable, and it's been harder to post on it. You fellow members may have noticed the same thing. Therefore, I'm thinking to move Liverputty somewhere else - possibly making it a complete site to itself. I'm not yet sure when that change will be, but I'll keep you.....posted.

Cool airplane art site

These pictures remind me of the painting of planes that graced the model boxes I had as a kid. They fueled my imagination, no end.

Dispute over islands making some Koreans nuts

A recent row (no pun intended) between Japan and S. Korea over two tiny islands begs the question: does S. Korea need a timeout? They scrambled jets to intercept a Japanese civilian aircraft with a news crew, some Korean protesters have chopped off fingers in front of the Japanese embassy to protest Japanese claims to the two islands, and a cabinet minister questioned whether Japan has an intent to live peacefully with their neighbor. In short, S. Korea sounds more like a psycho girlfriend than the responsible democracy they are. This is no way for two allies in an increasingly tense part of the world to act. To quote my parents whenever I was throwing a tantrum - "Someone needs a nap." And get over WWII already.

Why is this a government issue?

I realize the president brought up drugs in sports last year, something I thought was slightly bizarre, but that doesn't explain the whole congressional committee/major league sports relationship.

Biden supports Wolfowitz nomination at world bank

Kudos to Biden.

More on spreading democracy as a foreign policy

Victor Davis Hanson lays it out:

The foreign policy Realists want nothing to do with George Bush's idealism. They
rely exclusively on deterrence and balance of power to adjudicate relations
abroad: We must deal with the world as it is, they say, rather than as we
think it should be. Isolationists likewise bristle at the idea of expending blood or
treasure in an open-ended commitment to spread our values. And don't expect
liberals to applaud the new idealism, as if their 1960s vision of an ethical foreign policy has at last arrived. The Left's attachment to "multiculturalism" long ago ended the idea that the U.S. had any right to place Western ideas of politics over indigenous practices. Other "progressives" are de facto pacifists; for them, any use of U.S. force is a betrayal of global diplomacy....

and then:

....Despite these many reservations and pitfalls, George Bush's new idealism may
eventually make America's foreign initiatives more consistent and predictable to
friend and enemy alike. Personalities and crises of the day may nuance the
stance of the United States, but illiberal regimes will ultimately realize there
will be no real friendship with the U.S. unless they reform their governments
and free their peoples.

In response to Mat's comments on a previous post, I'm not sure I can explain why the left has refused to embrace the Bush doctrine if their burning disdain of Bush, the man, is not a factor.

free bernie ebbers!!!

free andy fastow!!!

Freedom on the march

Making headway in Bahrain.

Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers found guilty

A big fish is nabbed.

I must unlearn what I have learned

I always thought that cats and toons did not have bones - but I'm apparently wrong. (via the Corner)

The babe theory

via Instapundit. I'll buy that for a dollar. Check out the Iranian female swat team pictures (also on LGF). They are disturbing - I wonder if they goose step.

Amir Taheri: Pests in freedom's way

Why doesn't the left want to support freedom for arabs?:

Over the past two weeks several Western capitals, including London and
Paris, have witnessed feverish activity by more than two dozen groups
organising meetings and marches to mark the second anniversary of the
liberation of Iraq. The aim is not to celebrate the event and express
solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush
and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.

I like it, I like it

The US and Japan start to put muscle into their new alliance

If all goes well, those efforts will produce a joint declaration by US
President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi next
autumn that will reflect the most fundamental and far-reaching revision of
the alliance since the US-Japan Security Treaty was rewritten in 1960.

It's like watching dueling banjos

In contrast to the all men-some-trucked-in-from-Syria bunch last week who supported Syrian puppetmasters, this march was different:

The most notable element in the rally was that it did represent a broad
cross section of Lebanese from all around the country.

Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says

Two thoughts: 1) Why was this story on the frontpage of the NYTimes? It isn't really news. 2) How can so much WMD-making material be missing from a country that didn't have WMDs?

1,000 gone, 18,000 left

Hopefully, Bush will keep the focus on the Syrian pullout and not chase after the more important, though more elusive, threat of Hizbollah. After listening to Rice on "Meet the Press" this morning, it seems like that is where they are focused. Syria has falling away from the herd (or as Bush would say, is out of step with the region) and, if things go well, Boy Assad won't be around too much longer. If a Syria emerges that won't provide resources to Hizbollah, then Hizbollah will be left with only one sugar daddy, Iran. And that will bode well for the Lebanese. However, if we get caught up trying to defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon, and they are still getting help from Syria and Iran, then that isn't good.

Larry "Spiggots" Kudlow thinks $55 a barrel won't long be sustained

N. Korea launches harsh crackdown

via Drudge

Right-Wing Bloggers' Fake Sgrena Car Photo

A fascinating account of how, Rightwing bloggers (specifically LGF) handled the Sgrena car incident. Unless this post is meant to confirm how LGF quickly corrects errors and accounts for them in a transparent manner, then I'm not quite sure what the point is. LGF faked nothing. (hat tip: LGF)

The freedom girls aren't going to like this

Thought on the Hezbollah demonstration

Words can't express how much of a mistake I think it was for Hezbollah to come out in support of Syria. Their numbers were impressive, but I don't think they will recover from this mistake. I guess terrorism is as terrorism does. One of the best developments that's happened over the past couple of months has been repeated warnings from various terrorist groups against democracy. There is no doubt that they do not stand with the people. By fielding hundreds of thousands of foreigners with signs praising the occupiers leader, they've undone any goodwill generated by their hospitals or water services, etc. I'm not sure how ugly Lebanon will get, but I doubt Hezbollah will come out on top.

Something missing

My movie watching enthusiasm was riding high after a recent gander at King Solomon’s Mines. Since then I’ve been in the mood for other exotic adventures with good location shots, which is why I rented The Naked Jungle. The DVD had a few things going for it: the screenplay was based on a story I read in jr. high English (Lenigen versus the Ants) that I always liked and felt would adapt well to film; it was nicely packaged, indicating a vibrant print; and it starred Charlton Heston, always a plus. All that set my expectations pretty high, and although the film certainly wasn’t bad, it lacked something.

I’m a sucker for movies about Americans running a business or plantation or otherwise plying a trade in far off locales – like John Wayne’s operation in Hitari or Clarke Gable’s rubber plantation in Red Dust, and The Naked Jungle did not short change me on that score, but Lenigen’s hacienda was larger and certainly more majestic than what I pictured it in the story. To stretch it out into a feature film, the first two thirds of the movie implanted a mail-order bride love story that was a bit long and dull. But once the ants started getting close, the movie got better. After some sure fire scenes of Leningen’s men preparing for battle, building defenses – the drama kicks off with the first casualty, the drunk Mexican lookout. And it ends with a desperate run by Charlton through the ants to the dam. Good stuff, but the preceding impertinent subplot made the overall film a bit stiff. They can’t all be King Solomon’s Mines.

BTW – When is the African Queen going to be released on DVD? Somebody is slacking.

Hizbollah has made its bed

UPDATE: Looks like Hizbollah put out some big numbers, though I imagine al Jazeera’s 1 million estimate is a tad high. But did you see all those sour pusses? No cute girls at that rally at all, as Astute Blogger notices. They must be feeling the pinch. Ralph Bennett at TCS:

But if you want to get some perspective on Hezbollah as a political party (or
"Lebanese faction" as the New York Times called it), think Nazi party in the
German Reichstag in the early 1930s.

Finally, an appropriate place for a Nazi analogy. While watching the news the other night I noticed that both Hizbollah militants and the Syrians are goose-steppers, a sure sign of evil.

It seems like there’s been lots of rallies and protests everywhere, whether its in Turkey or Togo or Nepal or Kuwait, its getting harder to sling a dead cat with out hitting a protest, unless, of course, your in Tinnamen Square, where protest are cleared away.

PS - Austin Bay predicted these past few weeks back in December:

"Mark it on your calendar: Next month, the Arab Middle East will
revolt."

AHH! SEND IT BACK TO HELL!!!

AUSTIN, Texas -- It was something of a curiosity back in December when a California company announced the delivery of the world's first kitten cloned for a customer bereaved enough over the loss of a pet cat to pay $50,000 to have it duplicated.

Troops Shoot Italian Hostage's Car Despite E-ZPass

Mark Steyn: one man, one gloat

Requires a free sign-in, but it is definitely worth reading, particularly the parts regarding Wolfowitz and, towards the end, the FREE TIBET bumper sticker set. In my estimation (and many others), Steyn is the best columnist out there. And he's never one to shy away from bold predictions. He's earned this gloat.

And then there's this comical Best of the Web piece in the WSJ with the following excerpt:

The editorialists at the Orange County (Calif.) Register think something
may be going on here:

It is fairly easy to see that something important is happening in
Lebanon, a move in the direction of independence and the idea of a civil
society with democratic underpinnings that is reflected elsewhere in the Middle East. It is more difficult to figure out why it is happening just
now, what forces have converged at this moment.

Man, this is a tough one! We're racking our brain trying to remember if
anything happened recently that might have given a push to proponents of
democracy in the Middle East. Hmm, nope! Still can't think of
anything.

Finally, regarding the same Taranto piece, he quotes Daniel Schorr:

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a
liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital
region."

He may have had it right.

Apparently Mr Schorr was aware of the liberation line Bush used prior to the invasion.

Still boundaries to break in aviation

Too cool.

In need of a Baath

Chemical Ali is wetting his pants. (via Iraq the Model)

Cognitive dissonance on display at Comedy Central

I had my “I told you so moment” last night while watching John Stewart interview Nancy Soderberg. She came on to promote her book, The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might. Her intention was to point out faults in Bush’s handling of foreign policy, but instead, she squirmed and looked uncomfortable as John imploded on camera. She did her best to poo-poo any credit to Bush, but it just wasn’t happening. At a couple of points during the interview she even begrudgingly admitted that things appear to be going in the right direction. The audience was pretty quiet, not knowing how to react while John wondered allowed if Bush was right all along – rubbing his eyes as if he didn’t know the world anymore. Soderberg’s book came across as bunk and Mr. Stewart finally found a way to be funny and behind the curve at the same time, though I’m not sure that was his intention.

Update: a letter to Jonah I found on the Corner reads:

From a reader:
Jonah,
The common complaint of Stewart and the anti-hygiene anti-war crowd seems to be that the freedom of Iraqis was an after the fact rationalization for the war. It got me thinking, so I did some heavy research and was quite surprised to learn that the military operation was not named “Operation Iraqi WMD”! Apparently it was called—get this!—Operation Iraqi Freedom.

…And the argument continues.

First, I will say that I agree with Dude in regards to Homeland Security. I was never for creating a new department and felt that it was done for political reasons. Such things happen in a democracy. It happened again with the creation of an intelligence czar, another measure that I do not support.

However, I disagree that a bait and switch took place upon the lead up to the war. Certainly the WMD case got the most attention from the people and the press and became a focal point from the administration, but the other reasons, including the freedom of the Iraqi people were stated beforehand as well, as his 2002 speech to the U.N. shows. I also maintain that the president was careful to distinguish between a grave and gathering threat and an imminent threat. If an administration official painted the threat as imminent, such a depiction was the exception, not the rule. In his 2003 SOTU Bush stated:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have
terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice
before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge,
all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in
the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an
option.

I recognize that rehashing this argument will not bring about any reconciliation. One side feels that the president was essentially honest with the people (though I’ll admit that there was a selling job to garner support for the war) and the other side feels that the president lied and manipulated evidence to go to war. Neither can prove, with any certainty, its case.

That said, I would no sooner condemn Bush for focusing on the liberation aspect after the WMD argument didn’t pan out as I would condemn Lincoln for freeing the slaves after his 1860 campaign tried to convince nervous slaveholders that he wasn’t an abolitionist.

A couple of excerpts from that UN speech:

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic
repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international
peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and
support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and
Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993,
Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American
President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th.
And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
...

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?
The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's
regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against
the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions
and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not
take.
...

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally
forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction,
long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian
population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as
required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government
that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights,
economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
...

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic
goal.

Lebanon effect is rippling into Syria

Why?

We should be working to eliminate the FCC, or at least limiting its authority, not expanding it like this republican senator wants to do.

Male escort quips ad nauseum

Clinton supports are still putting up with intern jokes, so suck it up.

More importantly, isn't it a bit disconcerting from a security standpoint that someone can attend the White House briefings without submitting to the full FBI background check?

Thomas Friedman disclaimer

I don’t wish to leave a wrong impression and I noticed that my comments have been targeting Mr. Friedman of late. While I won’t think twice in poking fun at Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman, I do have respect for Mr. Friedman and think of him as a very knowledgeable fellow, especially in regards to the Middle East. That said, I admit to being regular frustrated by his columns.

Denial is a river in Cautious Optimism

I nearly fell out of my chair last week when I read an excerpt from a Der Spiegel article (sorry, no link) covering Bush’s European charm offensive which briefly pondered whether Bush might actually be right about his Middle East policy.

In Monday’s Washington Post, Jackson Diehl wrote the following:

As thousands of Arabs demonstrated for freedom and democracy in Beirut and
Cairo last week, and the desperate dictators of Syria and Egypt squirmed under
domestic and international pressure, it was hard not to wonder whether the
regional transformation that the Bush administration hoped would be touched off
by its invasion of Iraq is, however tentatively, beginning to happen.

Why was he trying hard not to wonder about the regional transformation? Is that supposed to be unthinkable? It certainly is to Maureen Dowd who refused to answer a question posed by Tim Russert on Sunday’s Meet the Press. When asked if Bush’s policy my have actually started the chain of events, Dowd dodged and parried as best she could:

MR. RUSSERT: Maureen Dowd, "on a roll"--there were no weapons of
mass destruction, which was the primary rationale for the war, but would you now accept the fact that, because of the invasion of Iraq, there is a possibility of
democracy in Iraq and perhaps that may spread through the Middle East?

MS. DOWD: I think Bill and Tom are right. It's so 20th century to go to war because you have to. Now, we go to war because we want to. But the problem with that is that kind of moral absolutism gets you into a lot of ends-justify-the-means traps. And that's what we saw in Europe and with Putin, because Putin can also say, "Well, our ends justify our means." And look at us, and we're torturing people and we're outsourcing torture. The administration is trying to throw journalists in jail and basically trying to replace the whole press crew with ringers, including male escorts. I mean, even Nixon hated the press, but he never tried to
actually do an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" thing with them. So as Tom
has pointed out, it's a Pandora's box. There are good spirits and evil
spirits that we've unleashed.

Sadly, that seems to be the default fall back position for much of Bush’s detractors. Not only does her response fail to cede the obvious, but it replaces an answer with a red herring. Does anyone actually buy the moral absolutism “ends-justify-the-means traps” argument that she regurgitates? Does she actually think that Putin is using our actions to form his own? He wouldn't have clamped down on the Russian press if Bush hadn't done the same here? The episode she alluded to was a recent back and forth between Bush and Putin about freedom of the press. The intercourse was remarkable because it showed just how oblivious Putin was in the Rathergate affair when the Russian president accused Bush of firing the old CBS goat. Putin’s astonishing ignorance could be the subject of a whole other post, but to someone like Dowd, who believes the administration is trying to throw journalists in jail and replacing the press pool with ringers (never miss an opportunity to point out the male escort) Putin’s charge seems perfectly natural. But I digress, the question was whether Bush’s policies have led to the recent rash of elections in the Middle East. And Dowd pleads the fifth.

There may be the rare columnist here or there that might actually admit that Bush’s detractors were wrong and that Bush was right, but on the whole, I think the kind of response we can expect from the usual suspects can be summed up by the following line from Diehl’s piece:

“It also won't be entirely Bush's creation: The tinder for ignition has been
gathering around the stagnant and corrupt autocracies of the Middle East for
years.”

And perhaps that’s even too generous for some, because it suggests that Bush had something to do with the recent events and I’m sure that we all know a few people that will simply not let such an assumption stand. I suspect every effort will be taken to shift the credit away from Bush and put it on any other possible contributing factor that presents itself. No doubt squirming will be involved as democrats and leftward pundits adapt to the new reality of an increasingly free Middle East, but it will mainly be detectable to those that supported the war from the beginning. Those that opposed it still wish to live in their remarkably durable bubble that withstood that giant prick of November 2nd and continues withstand the pricks of good news on a repeated basis.

And there’s the cautious optimism set, formerly known as the freedom-is-good-but-inaction-is-better group – like Thomas Friedman. His recent talking point of "tipping points" sounds a little more upbeat that his January 6th take on the elections, which, he thought, would pave the way for an Iraqi civil war. On October 3rd, Friedman wasn’t sure about what was salvageable there. I wish I’d saved all the gloomy columns I’d read from the NYTimes, because many of them treated any positive news with kid gloves. This was good, but….and then a litany of all the bad stuff that could still go wrong. Still, even though it’s getting harder to be pessimistic about Iraq, Friedman is duty bound to remain worried that the tipping points don’t tip the wrong way.

Indeed, in the Middle East playground - as Friday's suicide bomb in Israel
reminds us - tipping points are sometimes more like teeter-totters: one moment
you're riding high and the next minute you're slammed to the ground.

We all recognized the gamble that we took by invading Iraq (including neocons, believe it or not), but what Friedman would rather not say is that any failure puts us back in a place similar to the previous status quo. Very little can emerge out of the old Middle East that is worse than what once was. At worse, we’ll find ourselves in the same position as we did in 9/11 but with a humiliating loss to siphon off any resolve we would have to be successful in the war on terror. But, if we lose, then that resolve never existed in the first place – so what’s the difference?

That means that Americans are divided into two and a half camps. There’s the camp that is forever haunted (or emboldened) by our failures in Vietnam and who believe we can’t win this war. There’s the camp that says we can and will win it. And finally, there’s the half camp that says we need to win but were doing it all wrong. The latter stakes their tent in the “we can’t” camp but refuses to say they live there. No doubt, that explanation is too simplistic to some (like Tom Friedman, I’m sure), but it roughly breaks down that way.

Part of the shortcomings in Friedman’s worldview can be seen in the following:

Thanks to eight million Iraqis defying "you vote, you die" terrorist
threats, Iraq has been reframed from a story about Iraqi "insurgents" trying to
liberate their country from American occupiers and their Iraqi "stooges" to a
story of the overwhelming Iraqi majority trying to build a democracy, with U.S.
help, against the wishes of Iraqi Baathist-fascists and jihadists.

Whereas Friedman may have just seen the story reframed into such terms, I’m sure Iraqis saw the story in the latter terms for quite awhile now. Unbeknownst to Friedman, the big tipping point happened a while back with Bush's decision to change the face of the Middle East. It turns out that that tipping point went the right way and the only reason we are even talking about the recent outbreaks of democracy, whether Shiites will be able to reach out to Sunnis or whether Mubarak is serious about election reform is because Bush made a decision a couple of years ago.

Back in 02’ and 03’ there was one knowable tangent regarding action in Iraq and that was this: opponents to the war will never fully acknowledge it as a success. For those of us on the right who are waiting for a “I told you so” moment, we will only be frustrated because such a moment will never happen. It wouldn’t have mattered if large caches of WMDs were found or if bin Laden’s cell phone was listed in Saddam’s little black book, the dye was caste when that monkey, Bush, thought he could nation build and no amount of success will justify the death of x number of dead U.S. soldiers. That the mere question would be raised that Bush may have been right, is farther than anything I would have expected. As Noemie Emery recently quoted John Stewart:

"Here's the great fear that I have," said comedian Jon Stewart once the Iraq
elections were over. "What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about
this all along? I feel that my world view may not sustain itself, and I may, and
again I don't know if I can physically do this, implode."

Sadly, the comedian isn't joking.

Bush fails, Egyptian President Imposes Democracy

"How is President Bush going to carry out his promise to invade dictatorships and impose freedom if they keep announcing changes like this?" said an unnamed Democrat Senator.

Curious date in history

Today is the anniversary of the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1984 Marine pullout from Lebanon (leaving it to Shi'ite militiamen).

Cute

LGF and Right Wing News on Ted Rall

I can see why Ted is so frustrated. He can't say anything anymore without it coming back on him. A case of too much free speech, I suppose.

Fascinating story about shrines in Japan

Thanks, Mr. Dzurinda

That’s funny, I was preparing to post a response to this Buchanan article when Mat made the previous post.

I’m always heartened when Buchanan is on the other side of an issue. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a smart guy, but I also think he is pretty consistently wrong.

One of the main differences I have with this particular article is his interpretation of mission creep. I’m not entirely sure how to interpret his reference to Lincoln. Is Buchanan saying that Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a war to save the union in the beginning? I think he did. I would have expected Buchanan to use the argument that abolition wasn’t the reason for the war until the emancipation – that would have been wrong also.

Next, Buchanan sited Wilson’s changed rhetoric from not understanding the reason for war in 1916 to proclaiming it a “war to end all wars” and “to protect democracy” in 1917. But I think Buchanan glosses over an underlying consistency in Wilson’s worldview that ran beneath both his pacifist and wartime positions that was tied to his evangelical background. The immediate catalysts for wars may have been tied to “lesser interests” but the big picture reasons for those wars was always present, even if the participants were not able to see it so defined. In other words, the contingencies that led Europe into the Great War (like the Schiefflin Plan) may be “lesser” things, but the rift between a more enlightened west and a more autocratic east (along with perpetual national interests) was the major issue that made that conflict inevitable, and it was present well before the war (and beyond, in this case). Likewise, slavery was the major issue surrounding the Civil War – and the fissure between north and south was present from the first slave ship landing in the colonies. All the other inequities between the two sides (i.e. industrial strength and economic output) were a result of this institution.

Regarding the spread of democracy: I would say that as our world becomes more intertwined, we increasingly rely on the benevolence and freedom of other parts of the world to keep trade and prosperity open for everyone. Personally, I don’t care what the 9/11 hijackers were thinking when they were recruited into al Qaeda or when they crashed into our buildings. To me, the root cause of their actions was not the humiliation they felt because of a U.S. presence on holy land (though they may think so), but rather a closed society that blamed others for its own deficiencies, causing pent up frustration and inspiring radical actions because no other method of venting was available. True, the U.S. reliance on oil has fed that problem, but it didn’t cause it. And that reliance will not disappear by our recognition of it. It will take years and years for the U.S. to “invent our way out” as Kerry liked to say. What we can do is topple regimes like Saddam’s and work with the people to form a representative government where an Arab can vote with a ballot and not a belt bomb. To do nothing is to promote endless collisions. Consider the trend of terrorist attacks that led up to 9/11. With each inaction of ours, the terrorists became increasingly bold and their attacks became more deadly.

Also, the world has changed since our forefathers espoused the virtues of isolationism (never mind that Jefferson sent our navy to N. Africa to fight Barbary piracy). Our ocean buffers are not what they once were. Maintaining old friendships (as Buchanan later brings up as a reason for non intervention) is not always in our national interest – or, so thought Washington in his second inaugural address. I think Bush picks up on Washington’s point regarding alliances when, during his recent trip, he says that they must be based on shared values. The daunting task of fighting a seemingly endless war against terrorism is not dissimilar to the argument for pursuing a missile defense. What seems unattainable now will always be so if your do not work towards a goal. However, steadfast devotion to an end will make eventually make it attainable. We are not going to directly confront every autocratic nation and force democracy on them at once, since that is impossible. But, by taking the spread of freedom off the back burner and making it a central focus of our foreign policy, we will chisel away at the tyrannies of the world. Are we going to depose Musharraf because he isn’t elected and has postponed democratic reforms? No. Should we? No. Will we be able to push reforms on Pakistan after the swamps of radical Islam are drained from Afghanistan? Very possibly.

I must admit that I don’t understand Buchanan’s pessimism about the war on terror. Where he sees a wasted $200 billion and 1,400 lost American lives, I see something else. I see a budding representative government in Iraq where Shiites have to deal with Kurds to build a coalition government, where both of those groups seem willing to include Sunnis who sat out of the voting process. I see Lebanese protestors emboldened by Iraq and the Ukraine to march against Syrian occupation. I see the dynamics of Palestinian politics in a much needed flux instead of the decades old static cesspool, which Saddam supported, under Arafat. Sharon is gaining ground on a proposed pullout of the Gaza strip. I see the Israelis willing to complete their fence, which will improve the circumstances on the ground in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Who knows, it may set up a final phase for a permanent settlement. I see where 140,000 Saudis actually picked some leaders themselves and where anti Mubarak demonstrations were allowed to happen….these all bode well for the freedom of the region and they all stem from Bush’s foreign policy.

I think Buchanan’s isolationism is a major reason that the paleo-cons are becoming less and less significant in conservative circles.

Is N. Korea getting closer to collapse?

Iowahawk has the goods on the Bush junta

The Truth is Out There: I corrected the link. Sorry.

Wead does the right thing

Bandying numbers

Rumsfeld and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez have a back n forth. (via Mudville Gazette)

Does Deep Throat exist?

I'm sure Dude is pretty well read on this subject and can weigh in better than I can, but this Jonah Goldberg piece brought up something that I had never really considered (which isn't saying much as I'm not a Watergate affecianado), it's easy to pin the Deep Throat tag on a dead guy.

King Solomon's Mines

is an incredible film! I remember seeing it way back when on a grainy UHF print and didn't think too much of it. But after just watching the new DVD, where it's been freshly shined and polished, I fell in love with it. The photography is wonderful and it has all the components of a perfect action story - a reluctant hero, good looking heroine, a perilous quest and a big map of Africa with a huge grayed out section in the center earmarked "uncharted," where reports of a hostile tribe scare away everyone with any sense - though that's exactly where Allen Quartermain (Stewart Granger) will lead the party. There's just enough 50's hokiness to satisfy the cheese lover and enough intrigue to make you forget your watching a movie.

Next on the Netflix list: The Ipcress File, El Cid and several Ozu films, beginning with Tokyo Story and ending with the Story of Floating Reeds. Though after watching King Solomon's Mines, I'm tempted to bump up Scaramouche just to see more of Stewart Granger!

Tim Blair

identifies the parties in the vast right wing conspiracy.

Too funny

Ted Rall is bent out of shape over the blogosphere:

Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing
interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and
spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have
sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make
mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately
he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guys.

Of course, everyone and their dog has a blog, including me and at one time, my cat, but Ted is off the mark to suggest that there's no accountability, no sources or no education among bloggers. The major right wing blogs - LGF, Instapundit, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, so on and so forth, are well educated, link-rich with sources and are very accountable from their readers. The above mentioned are quick to post corrections - much faster and willing that the Washington Post, CNN, LATime, NYTimes, etc.

As for having nothing interesting to say: then why the phenomenon?

Oops!

I meant to post something during lunch but got caught up adding movies to my Netflix queue. I have searched high and low for the Pacific University debate transcript between Howard Dean & Richard Perle. If anyone comes across it (I'm not sure one is out there) you should post it!

Can someone explain the Gannon frenzy to me?

I’m not sure I understand all the hubbub over the Jeff Gannon ordeal. Many lefty bloggers, including my old friend Jay whom I linked to previously, think that they need to harp on this story for the next few news cycles. Warning: that would be a mistake. I mean, where’s the story here? The closest thing to a story is Gannon’s access to the White House briefings – but hitherto all accusations that he was somehow in the employ of the administration are completely baseless. I haven’t even seen anything that hinted at such a conncetion, but apparently the outraged left thinks that politically baited questions are proof enough that one exists. As Powerline indicated in their response to the affair (which is much more rational and thoughtful than any of the left’s attack posts that I've seen) Gannon was more or less doing the same thing that Helen Thomas has always done, except in reverse.

Another Powerline post ask some questions based on angry lefty emails that have filled their inbox that I’m curious about too:

Why are liberals obsessed with the fact that Jeff Gannon was once a gay
escort? Beats me. Why does this character think that as conservatives, we are
duty-bound to hate gay escorts? Beats me. We've done close to 10,000 posts on
this site, and I doubt that we've ever mentioned gay escorts one way or another.
Would I want my son to be one? No. Do I think that having once been a gay escort should disqualify Jeff Gannon from becoming a reporter, or entering any other
occupation? No. Why do liberals find this so hard to understand? And how on
God's green earth does this make us "hypocrites"?

Of course, what we've criticized the left-wing blogs for is posting nude photographs of Gannon. How does the twisted "logic" manifested by these
emailers justify that contemptible practice? Once again: beats me.

SS Reform

I was actually disappointed that part of Clinton's '96 run was built on not touching SS, and I'm disappointed that the Dems' Congressional leadership is bent on preserving the New Deal, rather than proposing new initiatives to draw a larger marketshare at the ballot box.

I don't ever expect to see the $15,388 that I have paid into it so far in my lifetime, not to mention the $15,388 my employers have matched.

SS is a Ponzi scheme, and is therefore only sustainable as long as you have more suckers coming into the system than are cashing in on it. It was probably a good tool in the Depression years, but with a larger economy, plus the introduction of new retirement tools, such as IRA's and 401(k)'s, it's time to do serious reform. Even if it's not yet a crisis.

Given that we can't scrap it and give employees a 6.2% raise (and employers an equal cut in payroll expenses), I would do the following:

Change the link from the rise in wages to the rise in prices, which do not inflate as quickly as wages. Basically, it would be saying the purchasing power in 2005 would be the same in 2050.
Raise the cap on income for the payroll tax (currently $87,900), so it's not so regressive and so that it generates more revenue to cover expenses.
Implement means testing, so that we're not giving Donald Trump an extra source of revenue when he retires. I could drop this one as long as the cap on payroll tax was raised.
Allow for private accounts. However, I don't understand Bush wanting to limit how you could invest private accounts. If I want to take higher risk with money from my paycheck, I should be able to do so.
Expand IRA's and 401(k)'s to raise the caps, and perhaps to encourage to contribute more to employees' accounts and accelerate the vesting period.

Of course, the transition to private accounts would have been better served by the surplus funds Bush had before tax cuts than by borrowing more money. And that is money that will come from Japan and China, our 2 largest creditors. I don't mind borrowing from Japan so much, as they have proven a consistent ally. However, going into hock to China, a country whose economy is projected to surpass ours in size in the next 20 years, isn't good financially or politically. Financially, interest rates at home will go up. Politically, we lose some of the leverage we currently have with them.

On a related note, David Brooks notes that by 2015, half of all government spending will go to those 65 or older. ("In the Midst of Budget Decadence, A Leader Will Arise", NY Times, 2.19.2005). I'm not sure where he got that number from.

The politics of Green (more)

So it's the tactical proposals, not the strategic, that you disagree with.

You suggest passing an energy bill would alleviate the situation. What specifics would you recommend?

Did I write Krugman? I meant Friedman.....My apologies to both.

I don't think either Friedman or I suggested Bush is a bonehead for not considering Friedman's proposals.

Had you noticed the oxymoron in "force democracy on them so that they can control their own destiny"?

Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide

He shot himself Sunday. Via Drudge.

It's not too early to be thinking about 2008

So long as you don't overlook 2006.

Some of the reasons on the site are silly, but I'm all for the drafting part. Apparently Bush's pet name for Condi these days is "44".

Guaranteed to make a Bush hater wince and scream bloody murder…

AKA: I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check.

The excerpts from recently released “private” conversations are sure to confirm the worst fears of Bush’s opposition, though there’s really nothing new. Mr. Wead’s motives are curious and I can’t imagine them being well intentioned. “If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them too.” says Wead….classy. What isn’t in doubt is the motives of the old gray lady.

For a Bush lover, like myself, I’m ever more endeared to the man.

One particular thing that caught my eye was Bush’s attitude towards gays. An old friend of mine, Jay, has his own blog up Seattle way called Nonfamous where he rants and raves about that dirty “Gaybasher-in-Chief” Bush. After months of reading his blog, its hard to fathom that such childish behavior is the product of an Ivy league mind like Jay’s. Of course, Bush isn’t a gay basher or even a gay hater – but don’t bother telling that to Jay – his mind is slammed shut tighter than a steel trap. Bush’s “off the record” comments about gays:

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian
conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I
think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James
Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said
he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the
bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I
differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the
Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as
the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political
agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush
said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had
pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I
wouldn't fire gays."

On drugs:

Mr. Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr.
Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it
involved nothing more than "just, you know, wild behavior." He worried, though,
that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his
opponents for stirring rumors. "If nobody shows up, there's no story," he told
Mr. Wead, "and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up." But when Mr.
Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush
replied, "I haven't denied anything."

He refused to answer reporters' questions about his past
behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his
approach, Mr. Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know
why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

A perfectly reasonable position. Most grown ups, even serious Christians, don’t care that much about someone’s past if they feel that person has moved on.

Other topics covered:

Being a Christian:

Preparing to meet Christian leaders in September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr.
Wead, "As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways." He added, "I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."

Cockiness:

"It's me versus the world," he told Mr. Wead. "The good news is, the world
is on my side. Or more than half of it."

On the political shift in Texas:

"The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been
a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn't that amazing? And I hate to
be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me."

The politics of green

Paul Krugman makes a good case for pushing energy conservation. Namely that reducing our dependency on foreign oil would reduce the economic and political power of undemocratic regimes in Iran, Saudia Arabia, Sudan and Russia (which has been stepping back from democratic reforms as of late).

I would go one step further than Krugman to say not only is conservation necessary to strengthen our hand, but also the increase of domestic production (ANWAR - the oil field, not the assassinated Egyptian leader).

On a related note, NPR had piece recently on how oil-producing countries will be able to start selling more to China to avoid reform pressure from the U.S.

Bush has no plans to invade Iran

Of course, he had no plans to win the peace in Iraq, either.

Japan to Taiwan: We got your back.

U.S. and Japan join arms and form a shield for freedom.

China just doesn't like having anything out in the open

TCS Set of Two

First, I'm still thrilled at the return of Lee Harris. In this article he distinguishes between "empire" and "hegemony." A distinction that celebrated linguist Noam Chomsky is apparently unaware of.

This second article concerns the shady science behind the Kyoto Treaty and reinforces a previous point I made about how the scientific community is too caught up in its moral crusade to pay attention to dissenting views (an argument I've been on the receiving end of regarding the war). From a quote in the story:

'The unmitigated exposure to prophecies of imminent ice ages, looming hell
fire, mass starvation, mega-droughts, global epidemics and mass extinction is an
experience I would not recommend to anyone with a thin-skinned disposition
(although the news media couldn't get enough of it). But such was the spectacle
of pending disaster that anyone who dared - or was allowed - to question whether the sky is really about to fall on us (and there were at least half a dozen of
moderate anti-alarmists present), was branded a 'usual suspect' ....'

What happened to Disney?

You might think the broader question would be “what’s happened to Hollywood?” After all, during the war effort in the 40’s, some of our finest directors were in the war theaters shooting film, big stars had enlisted and the studios were churning out propaganda to mobilize the home front. The nearest Hollywood can muster now is Sean Penn and some second unit directors bringing back footage for Michael Moore, and they’re against the U.S. But after getting caught up in the frenzy of 02’ and 03’ where rightwing pundits and heartlanders were paying attention to which star said what and where, I resigned myself to the fact that an actor is an actor, his primary function is to entertain. Regardless of what I might think of the political views of Sean Penn or Danny Glover, Streisand or Susan Surandon, I still enjoy their acting. Okay, maybe nothing they’ve done lately, but I do appreciate their collective bodies of work. Why ask more from them?

The question of what happened to Disney came upon me while I was watching Walt Disney Treasures: On the Front Lines, Animation from 1941-45. Like the rest of the vault Disney collections, this was a goldmine of animation. Some of the cartoons were made for the general public and stared one of the Disney regulars like Goofy or Pluto. Others were training films, like the timeless short, Four Methods of Flush Riveting, a riveting tale about riveting tails. Still others covered the history of certain topics, like corn in The Grain That Built a Hemisphere.

The entertainment value of Disney hardly needs to be mentioned. Likewise, the educational virtues of Disney don’t need to be explained to those of us who remember Walt Disney Presents, regardless of whether we still believe lemmings plunge to their death en masse or not. But the Disney animators were also quite deft with technical training, as the flush riveting short demonstrates. The methods were explained in the simplest and most effective possible way. In an age before Power Point, the Disney animators created the ultimate Power Point presentation. Another short, Stop That Tank, is a brilliant introduction to the M-1 tank rifle – how it worked, how to maintain it and how to use is against German armor.

What a gift to the military to have the film medium taken care of by a professional studio.

And this cooperation from Disney, as well as other studios, was not the result of any effort to nationalize the industry or forcing cooperation via government edicts, though a level of censorship existed. Walt Disney believed in the war effort enough to devote his animation team to making an ambitious animated feature called Victory Through Air Power (1943), which argued for the need of a long range bombing capability.

Victory Through Air Power is a magnificent history of aviation. It has Disney’s humor and uncanny way of explaining things in a poignant shortened way. But it achieves something rare in that it delves into military theory in a way that few other cartoons do. Apparently Churchill had watched it and, while visiting the White House, discovered that FDR had not yet seen it. He sang the praises of the film to the President and had his copy of the film sent to Washington for FDR to watch. I would dare call the film a masterpiece.

Other notable shorts include Der Fuhrer’s Face, remembered now chiefly for the title song in it, (it’s hard to watch Donald playing a Nazi); Education For Death, which chronicles the development of a young lad into a hardened Nazi; and Food Will Win the War, a riotous and inventive look at our agricultural output.

The whole set is superb and definitely worth renting.

To answer the question of what happened to Disney, I must conclude that Walt died and along with him, his vision.

Continued from the “scientific” “theory” of intelligent design thread

I’ve no answer to Steve’s question regarding the possibility of our creator being a bug-eyed alien. There’s so many variables in the topic of creation that it is hard for me to give it much thought one way or another. I’m content being a God fearing Christian who satisfies his appetite for understanding our creation with a little Bible reading here and there and the occasional Discovery channel show I can roll my eyes at. Ultimately, I can’t say that I understand the battle between evolution and the Bible beyond the social or political implications that evolution (and other scientific ideas) have on the church. While I see no real apparent contradiction between Darwin and Genesis (I wouldn’t know where to begin as science and religion talk in two different languages even though they may say the same thing) I can understand the Church’s desire to maintain its authority over such issues in this earthly realm, regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so. You can see the scientific community doing the same thing now in regards to global warming as well as evolution.

Lee Harris is not dead

Since his last article from May of last year, Mr. Harris fell of the face of the earth. He's back at TCS, though he's still being haunted by his strong man theories.

Steyn Online is Back!

After a 3+ month hiatus. It's a nice Valentine's present from the greatest conservative political writer. His V-Day post, though, isn't political. UPDATE: but this one is.