November 11, 2005
Democrats Deny Having Pre-War Intelligence
by Scott Ott
(2005-11-11) — Democrats in Congress today rejected President George Bush’s accusation that they’re trying to rewrite history, which shows they supported the Iraq war based on the same intelligence that drove his decision to send in the troops.
“We had no pre-war intelligence,” said Sen. John Kerry, “History will show that none of the leading Democrats had substantial intelligence. Anyone who remembers what we did then knows that the president is making a baseless allegation. I think history will bear out my contention that we Democrats lacked the intelligence to make such an important decision.”
The junior Senator from Massachusetts said he continues “to faithfully support the troops who uselessly die for a lie in Iraq.”
“Our troops deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war will remain firm in our conviction that we didn’t know what we were doing at the time,” Sen. Kerry said. “It’s important, on Veteran’s Day, to remember that our Democrat commitment to our military hasn’t changed.”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated his categorical denial that the Bush administration “ever manipulated anyone’s intelligence or ignorance.”
Friday, November 11, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Take One For The Slicker
Today the Chronicle headlined Gov. Schwarzenegger calling the Dems “girlie men,” and buried Sandy Berger’s “mishandling” of classified material on page three. Mr. Berger said he made an “honest” mistake, leading one to believe that Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser knew less about handling classified material than I did as an Airman Third Class in Turkey eavesdropping on the Soviets in 1964.
To compound the “mistake,” Democrat leaders such as Senator Tom Daschle called the timing of the disclosure of the investigation “suspicious.” I suppose Tom means the Republicans are using this for political advantage, but Tom overlooks the Dem’s advantage gained from hiding information from the 9/11 Commission.
Those who say that playing with classified information is no big deal are poor students of history, and don't understand “knowledge is power.” Why did Berger do it? For Bill Clinton's legacy? Did he have to “take one for the Slicker?”
To compound the “mistake,” Democrat leaders such as Senator Tom Daschle called the timing of the disclosure of the investigation “suspicious.” I suppose Tom means the Republicans are using this for political advantage, but Tom overlooks the Dem’s advantage gained from hiding information from the 9/11 Commission.
Those who say that playing with classified information is no big deal are poor students of history, and don't understand “knowledge is power.” Why did Berger do it? For Bill Clinton's legacy? Did he have to “take one for the Slicker?”
Democrats Unhinged
Editor
Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill., compared the treatment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo to the Nazis, Soviet Gulag, and Pol Pot. Aside from the fact that no Guantanamo prisoner has died, and tens of millions died at the hands of (National) Socialists and Communists, the “torture” he cited would make a fraternity pledge laugh. I had it tougher in Air Force Basic Training, the easiest by far of all the services.
About two years ago, my oldest son began an eight-month tour of duty in Iraq with the Nevada National Guard. For many months he endured heat, filth, and short rations that are unknown at Guantanamo.
Republicans remove leaders, such as Trent Lott, when they make dumb remarks, while Democrats honor Howard Dean and Dick Durbin for their offensive Nazi and Gulag comparisons. Democrats, please don’t change.
Clinton's BJ
Editor
The 11 April San Francisco Chronicle detailed President Clinton’s attempt to overhaul Social Security in 1998. According to the Chronicle, what Clinton said then and what President Bush is saying now are strikingly similar.
What Bill Clinton knew, the New York Times concedes, and even the Chronicle admits is that the Trust Fund only exists on paper.
Medicare expenses already exceed revenues, and would be robbing other government programs if today’s Social Security surplus was not being used to cover today’s Medicare shortfall. Soon Social Security will be broke too, and will be raping and pillaging other programs unless President Bush can rescue President Clinton’s blown job.
The 11 April San Francisco Chronicle detailed President Clinton’s attempt to overhaul Social Security in 1998. According to the Chronicle, what Clinton said then and what President Bush is saying now are strikingly similar.
What Bill Clinton knew, the New York Times concedes, and even the Chronicle admits is that the Trust Fund only exists on paper.
Medicare expenses already exceed revenues, and would be robbing other government programs if today’s Social Security surplus was not being used to cover today’s Medicare shortfall. Soon Social Security will be broke too, and will be raping and pillaging other programs unless President Bush can rescue President Clinton’s blown job.
Faking Principles, Then Lying About It
John Kerry said he threw his medals away to protest the Vietnam War. Then he emphatically confirmed to ABC that indeed he threw his medals away. But later he said he only threw away his ribbons, and that the medals belonged to someone else. If you keep changing your story, isn’t that called lying?
And if you pretend to do something, isn’t that called faking? Clearly, in his actions, John Kerry was faking taking a principled stand. And then lied about it.
And if you pretend to do something, isn’t that called faking? Clearly, in his actions, John Kerry was faking taking a principled stand. And then lied about it.
It's The Logistics, Stupid
I was in the Air Force over 21 years, and had the additional duty of Disaster Preparedness Officer at a base in the UK for over 5 years. My oldest son is in New Orleans right now with the Nevada National Guard. I know how we plan and train for emergencies, and the chain of command. From all I have read the past few days from the guys doing the work, they are doing an outstanding job of rescue and recovery, as they always do. And as always, the left parades their ignorance of logistics and planning, and belittles the hard and dangerous work accomplished by the active duty, guard, and reserve guys and gals. The left apparently thinks that each person in the military is a self-contained unit, capable of showing up and doing miraculous things anywhere at anytime, and the only problem is that the President does not unleash them to perform miracles because he does not care for blacks, because they are poor and Democrats. They probably are poor because they are Democrats, but that is another issue.
The point is, hurricanes pack a Hell of a lot of energy, and human beings in their way get damaged, whether or not they are wearing a uniform. After the storm passes, the military come in and try to find out what happened, and then what to do about it.
Of course, the local authorities performed their duties in a responsible and timely manner beginning at least as early as after the last disaster. Knowing that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they evacuate the hazard zone, because it is a lot easier and effective to help people outside the damage area than inside it.
How come all this seems incomprehensible to the left? None of it seems like rocket science. All the concepts and procedures are known, written down, and are supposed to be reviewed, evaluated, and practiced on a continuing basis. That is why, when you are faced with evacuating a large population that does not have its own transportation, you plan to move them with the transportation at hand -- New Orleans had hundreds of buses -- I've seen the pictures of buses in the flooded parking lots, spilling fuel and oil into the surrounding waters.
The first response is always local. Except the first response from the left is always, "It's Bush's fault."
The point is, hurricanes pack a Hell of a lot of energy, and human beings in their way get damaged, whether or not they are wearing a uniform. After the storm passes, the military come in and try to find out what happened, and then what to do about it.
Of course, the local authorities performed their duties in a responsible and timely manner beginning at least as early as after the last disaster. Knowing that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they evacuate the hazard zone, because it is a lot easier and effective to help people outside the damage area than inside it.
How come all this seems incomprehensible to the left? None of it seems like rocket science. All the concepts and procedures are known, written down, and are supposed to be reviewed, evaluated, and practiced on a continuing basis. That is why, when you are faced with evacuating a large population that does not have its own transportation, you plan to move them with the transportation at hand -- New Orleans had hundreds of buses -- I've seen the pictures of buses in the flooded parking lots, spilling fuel and oil into the surrounding waters.
The first response is always local. Except the first response from the left is always, "It's Bush's fault."
Thanks, MoveOn.org
(MoveOn.org provided a service on its website to make it easy to send letters to the editor. I and many conservatives are using MoveOn.org's website to participate in their letters to editors campaign. In fact, it was so well publicized in conservative blogs, that we probably represented a large percentage of their total activity.The following is the form letter I posted using the MoveOn.org addresses and template. Their tracking system showed I was the first and only person to use their system to send a letter to many of the smaller newspapers. Mine was the first and apparently only letter from their system to the ICO. 175+ went to the San Francisco Chronicle, and 30+ to the Press Democrat.)
I am following the talking points in the MoveOn.org website to write this letter. We need to stay the course in Iraq. World terrorism is pouring its resources into the fight, which consist largely of misguided fools willing to die for a lost cause. The Iraqi insurgents and their supporters are outnumbered a thousand to one by Iraqis who want to get on with their lives and experience liberty and freedom.
I have departed from the talking points suggested by MoveOn.org, which consist of baseless assumptions that Iraqis support the insurgents who are primarily targeting them.
MoveOn.org ends its talking points that training of Iraqi forces be turned over to the international community - which is not interested or capable of doing any such training.
MoveOn.org says the Bush policy is out of touch with reality, while proving that they are totally reality challenged.
I am following the talking points in the MoveOn.org website to write this letter. We need to stay the course in Iraq. World terrorism is pouring its resources into the fight, which consist largely of misguided fools willing to die for a lost cause. The Iraqi insurgents and their supporters are outnumbered a thousand to one by Iraqis who want to get on with their lives and experience liberty and freedom.
I have departed from the talking points suggested by MoveOn.org, which consist of baseless assumptions that Iraqis support the insurgents who are primarily targeting them.
MoveOn.org ends its talking points that training of Iraqi forces be turned over to the international community - which is not interested or capable of doing any such training.
MoveOn.org says the Bush policy is out of touch with reality, while proving that they are totally reality challenged.
Democrats Still Counting, Still Losing
Editor,
Sunday, November 11, was a night to remember, when the results of the latest exhaustive recount of the Florida election were released showing that President Bush won regardless of Supreme Court intervention. Immediately liberal Democrats launched into a frenzy of spin and rationalization. They argued that "overvoting," which to my knowledge is not counted in any election, and specifically not in Florida elections, should have been counted, giving Al Gore at best a resounding 171 vote margin.
In other news, a recent poll showed that two out of three Americans would now vote for President Bush over Al Gore, including half the Democrats. Another recent poll reported that nine of ten Americans prefer President Bush over Bill Clinton, and Gallup polls show President Bush has sustained an approximately 90 percent approval rating longer than any previous president. Since all of these studies and polls were released before the collapse of the Taliban, I am confident that President Bush will continue to do well in subsequent polls.
Incidentally, reference the ICO Editorial "Rough Justice," I do not understand why the justice system which is good enough for the American military (and was used by FDR in WW II) is not good enough for terrorists. I was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for over twenty-one years (1962-1984), and I do not recall any bleeding-heart liberals protesting that I was subject to a "Kafka-esque scenario" in a nation blind to injustice. As for the details of military justice procedure which were stated in the ICO editorial, in the military trials I served on, the accused did confront his accuser and did see the evidence against him, right here in the United States of America (and overseas), Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and birthplace of the Bill of Rights.
Let’s roll!
At the same time, the results of voting in the People's Banana Republic of San Francisco were sort of released, after almost a week of delay due to the incompetence that is a traditional part of San Francisco elections. I wonder when liberal Democrats will realize and admit that Illinois had a higher percentage of spoiled ballots in the 2000 election, and that San Francisco elections should be supervised by Jimmy Carter and his group.
Sunday, November 11, was a night to remember, when the results of the latest exhaustive recount of the Florida election were released showing that President Bush won regardless of Supreme Court intervention. Immediately liberal Democrats launched into a frenzy of spin and rationalization. They argued that "overvoting," which to my knowledge is not counted in any election, and specifically not in Florida elections, should have been counted, giving Al Gore at best a resounding 171 vote margin.
In other news, a recent poll showed that two out of three Americans would now vote for President Bush over Al Gore, including half the Democrats. Another recent poll reported that nine of ten Americans prefer President Bush over Bill Clinton, and Gallup polls show President Bush has sustained an approximately 90 percent approval rating longer than any previous president. Since all of these studies and polls were released before the collapse of the Taliban, I am confident that President Bush will continue to do well in subsequent polls.
Incidentally, reference the ICO Editorial "Rough Justice," I do not understand why the justice system which is good enough for the American military (and was used by FDR in WW II) is not good enough for terrorists. I was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for over twenty-one years (1962-1984), and I do not recall any bleeding-heart liberals protesting that I was subject to a "Kafka-esque scenario" in a nation blind to injustice. As for the details of military justice procedure which were stated in the ICO editorial, in the military trials I served on, the accused did confront his accuser and did see the evidence against him, right here in the United States of America (and overseas), Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and birthplace of the Bill of Rights.
Let’s roll!
At the same time, the results of voting in the People's Banana Republic of San Francisco were sort of released, after almost a week of delay due to the incompetence that is a traditional part of San Francisco elections. I wonder when liberal Democrats will realize and admit that Illinois had a higher percentage of spoiled ballots in the 2000 election, and that San Francisco elections should be supervised by Jimmy Carter and his group.
The Lovenstein IQ Hoax
Editor:
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has published research to the education community on each new president that includes an ‘IQ’ report among others. Its latest such report detailed its "findings" concerning the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush, and concluded that his IQ was the lowest of the modern presidents, and that on average the IQ's of Republicans were lower those of Democratic presidents. (The foregoing was the opening paragraph of the Lovenstein Institute hoax. The main stream media fell for it for several days.)
At the end of the report, the person who forwarded me a copy added a pointed question concerning the average intelligence of "Dubya's" supporters. Of course, I do not know the average IQ of "Dubya" supporters. In addition to my wife and myself, I do know a lot of bright, highly educated Republicans who are leaders in business, the military, and government, and many others who are financially "comfortable." In fact, Democrats themselves frequently stereotype Republicans as wealthy, and as leaders in business and other nonacademic fields. On the other hand, I do believe that the overwhelming support Clinton and then Gore received from low socioeconomic, abysmally educated minorities included very few measurably bright people. You may be unable to forgive my political incorrectness, but my family was poor and my parents were only high school graduates, and I believe in School Choice and the privatization of Social Security and education to give the poor and uneducated the means to raise themselves up as I did. Presently, the simple act of marking a ballot in a Florida or Illinois voting booth is too much for most hard-core Democrat supporters.
Concerning Democrat presidents, "Genius" Jimmy Carter was easily the most ineffective president of the last half of the 20th Century, Bill Clinton and JFK were the most immoral, and Clinton was only effective when he was dragged unwillingly into supporting Republican programs such as welfare reform and balancing the budget. Clinton famously did not accomplish any of his pet programs, and his (and Hillary's) failed health care plan was as big a blunder as JFK's Bay of Pigs fiasco, and would have rivaled the mess JFK got us into in Viet Nam if it had passed. LBJ continued the escalation of war in Southeast Asia, and left it to Nixon to finally extricate us. LBJ's morality was also typical of Democratic presidents, as Lady Bird recently confirmed, and his Great Society programs started the spending flood that continues to swamp the budget to this day. LBJ took Social Security "off budget" to mask the costs of his escalating war in Viet Nam, thereby speeding its collapse. FDR's so-called Social Security "Trust Fund" does not now contain any funds, only Treasury Bonds that the government will have to redeem by borrowing more when Social Security outlays soon vastly exceed income. Only the government can get away with such a "con" game for over sixty years and counting.
How bright were Republican presidents? Ike was the Allied key to victory in WW II, and as president led Republicans to achieve Civil Rights victories over intense opposition, primarily from Democrats who then dominated Congress. Nixon got us out of Viet Nam, and into China. Ronald Reagan rebuilt our military, replaced Carter's malaise with optimism, and pushed the Soviet Union to the brink of collapse. George H. W. Bush completed Reagan's triumph over the Soviets, and then superbly led allied forces to overwhelming dominance in the Gulf War. By the way, Reagan also reversed the double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates he inherited from Carter, and his 1981 tax cut began a period of almost unbroken economic prosperity that lasted right up to the high-tech failures during the last year of the Clinton presidency. Under Reagan, government tax revenues doubled after his 1981 tax cut, but the Democrat-dominated Congress did not keep spending cut promises, so and we ended up with deficits. Later, after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they reined in spending and soon achieved surpluses.
In conclusion, it seems that the education elite, who have given us a failed public education system, find Democrat presidents to be just as smart as they are, and further find that the much more effective Republican presidents do not measure up to their intellectual standards. For that we can be grateful!
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has published research to the education community on each new president that includes an ‘IQ’ report among others. Its latest such report detailed its "findings" concerning the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush, and concluded that his IQ was the lowest of the modern presidents, and that on average the IQ's of Republicans were lower those of Democratic presidents. (The foregoing was the opening paragraph of the Lovenstein Institute hoax. The main stream media fell for it for several days.)
At the end of the report, the person who forwarded me a copy added a pointed question concerning the average intelligence of "Dubya's" supporters. Of course, I do not know the average IQ of "Dubya" supporters. In addition to my wife and myself, I do know a lot of bright, highly educated Republicans who are leaders in business, the military, and government, and many others who are financially "comfortable." In fact, Democrats themselves frequently stereotype Republicans as wealthy, and as leaders in business and other nonacademic fields. On the other hand, I do believe that the overwhelming support Clinton and then Gore received from low socioeconomic, abysmally educated minorities included very few measurably bright people. You may be unable to forgive my political incorrectness, but my family was poor and my parents were only high school graduates, and I believe in School Choice and the privatization of Social Security and education to give the poor and uneducated the means to raise themselves up as I did. Presently, the simple act of marking a ballot in a Florida or Illinois voting booth is too much for most hard-core Democrat supporters.
Concerning Democrat presidents, "Genius" Jimmy Carter was easily the most ineffective president of the last half of the 20th Century, Bill Clinton and JFK were the most immoral, and Clinton was only effective when he was dragged unwillingly into supporting Republican programs such as welfare reform and balancing the budget. Clinton famously did not accomplish any of his pet programs, and his (and Hillary's) failed health care plan was as big a blunder as JFK's Bay of Pigs fiasco, and would have rivaled the mess JFK got us into in Viet Nam if it had passed. LBJ continued the escalation of war in Southeast Asia, and left it to Nixon to finally extricate us. LBJ's morality was also typical of Democratic presidents, as Lady Bird recently confirmed, and his Great Society programs started the spending flood that continues to swamp the budget to this day. LBJ took Social Security "off budget" to mask the costs of his escalating war in Viet Nam, thereby speeding its collapse. FDR's so-called Social Security "Trust Fund" does not now contain any funds, only Treasury Bonds that the government will have to redeem by borrowing more when Social Security outlays soon vastly exceed income. Only the government can get away with such a "con" game for over sixty years and counting.
How bright were Republican presidents? Ike was the Allied key to victory in WW II, and as president led Republicans to achieve Civil Rights victories over intense opposition, primarily from Democrats who then dominated Congress. Nixon got us out of Viet Nam, and into China. Ronald Reagan rebuilt our military, replaced Carter's malaise with optimism, and pushed the Soviet Union to the brink of collapse. George H. W. Bush completed Reagan's triumph over the Soviets, and then superbly led allied forces to overwhelming dominance in the Gulf War. By the way, Reagan also reversed the double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates he inherited from Carter, and his 1981 tax cut began a period of almost unbroken economic prosperity that lasted right up to the high-tech failures during the last year of the Clinton presidency. Under Reagan, government tax revenues doubled after his 1981 tax cut, but the Democrat-dominated Congress did not keep spending cut promises, so and we ended up with deficits. Later, after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they reined in spending and soon achieved surpluses.
In conclusion, it seems that the education elite, who have given us a failed public education system, find Democrat presidents to be just as smart as they are, and further find that the much more effective Republican presidents do not measure up to their intellectual standards. For that we can be grateful!
If Plame Was Covert, We All Are Covert
Editor
Thanks for giving me enough rope to hang myself, or to share with others.
As an afterthought to my letter concerning the lack of Ms. Plame's "covertness," I served three years in the Air Force Security Service as a Russian linguist radio intercept operator in the mid-1960’s. We went to Russian classes at Indiana University in uniform. We had classes at the National Security Agency. We worked in a secure compound in Turkey. We knew the Soviets knew who we were, and had a pretty good idea of what we did. We also knew that the Soviets knew the names of everyone who openly worked in intelligence activities. Especially if they went to work at the National Security Agency everyday. Or the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if they always sneaked in the back way! How did we know they knew? Because it was and is really stupid to think your enemy is too dumb or too lazy to find out and keep track of the obvious.
Let’s keep hangin’ ‘em high!
Thanks for giving me enough rope to hang myself, or to share with others.
As an afterthought to my letter concerning the lack of Ms. Plame's "covertness," I served three years in the Air Force Security Service as a Russian linguist radio intercept operator in the mid-1960’s. We went to Russian classes at Indiana University in uniform. We had classes at the National Security Agency. We worked in a secure compound in Turkey. We knew the Soviets knew who we were, and had a pretty good idea of what we did. We also knew that the Soviets knew the names of everyone who openly worked in intelligence activities. Especially if they went to work at the National Security Agency everyday. Or the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if they always sneaked in the back way! How did we know they knew? Because it was and is really stupid to think your enemy is too dumb or too lazy to find out and keep track of the obvious.
Let’s keep hangin’ ‘em high!
What Made Pelosi Forget Saddam Had WMD?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, in a statement in December 1998 supporting President Clinton's four-day bombing of Iraq: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people."
A Line In The Sand
On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
Critics ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and 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." Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron. You want more? We got it: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN 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."
On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has the left also forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people. When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD. He talked about freedom. Those focusing exclusively on the WMDs are simply desperate, out-of-power people seeking to inflict any damage they can on Bush. What's shocking is that they're the same people who always honored themselves by speaking out in favor of human rights, yet they would've left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam's thugs rather than see them liberated by this president.
Critics ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and 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." Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron. You want more? We got it: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN 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."
On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has the left also forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people. When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD. He talked about freedom. Those focusing exclusively on the WMDs are simply desperate, out-of-power people seeking to inflict any damage they can on Bush. What's shocking is that they're the same people who always honored themselves by speaking out in favor of human rights, yet they would've left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam's thugs rather than see them liberated by this president.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Truth About WMD
WMD was found in Iraq! Dafydd ab Hugh, Big Lizards blog, demonstrates what the Associated Press labors mightily to overlook.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Blame Bush
The Chronicle editorial Saturday prompted me to go to the prediction I made before Katrina hit. In the jar I placed a small piece of paper, upon which I had written the anticipated Chronicle editorial response. I opened it yesterday, and found it was spot-on accurate. It read: "It's Bush's fault." To be honest, I must admit that I put the same piece of paper with the same prediction in the jar every time, and it has not been wrong yet.
I wonder if The Chronicle has someone with enough of a nose for news to go to the San Francisco City Hall and see if SF has a disaster preparedness plan, and check and see if the plan says to "do nothing, and then complain about Bush." Since San Francisco and New Orleans are both one-party towns, where there is no competition between competing philosophies and principles of municipal government (and where corruption and cronyism are expected and accepted), I expect that that is the situation. Wouldn't it be nice to find out before something bad hits the Bay Area?
I wonder if The Chronicle has someone with enough of a nose for news to go to the San Francisco City Hall and see if SF has a disaster preparedness plan, and check and see if the plan says to "do nothing, and then complain about Bush." Since San Francisco and New Orleans are both one-party towns, where there is no competition between competing philosophies and principles of municipal government (and where corruption and cronyism are expected and accepted), I expect that that is the situation. Wouldn't it be nice to find out before something bad hits the Bay Area?
Who Can We Kick Now?
Damn! These NY Times columnists are now only available online in Times Select, which costs $50 a year. As much as I enjoy pointing out their absurdities and the fact-free columns they write, I'm not paying any $50 to poke fun at them. Since Times Select will result in a vast shrinking of their reading audience, all they will have left to preach to is their choir of true believers - both of them! By reducing their exposure to critical thinkers, they may start to lose the defensiveness that has characterized their "work" of late. Krugman won't have his column held up as an example of what happens when you don't do any research.
The soon to be invisible columnists are:
Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, John Tierney, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, and Bob Herbert
They couldn't take the heat, so they got out of the kitchen!
The soon to be invisible columnists are:
Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, John Tierney, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, and Bob Herbert
They couldn't take the heat, so they got out of the kitchen!
San Francisco Chronicle Full of Gas, Not News
Your Mike Lukovich cartoon on the Sunday Chronicle editorial page was ludicrous. If he had an ounce of fairness or perception, he would have had the first panel of the pair with the "Help us" on the roof of the flooded house, followed by a picture of the hundreds of flooded buses in the parking lot. Don't you at the Chronicle ever give any of the crap you put on your editorial page the smell test. Didn't your mother teach you "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Move the people out with the buses before the flood hits, and you don't have people needing help on a flooded roof. Move the buses out before they are flooded, and you don't need to scream at President Bush to "Give me buses and gas. Buses and gas. Buses and gas." I think the Louisiana politicians are full of gas, and that the Chronicle is overlooking their failures to pursue the usual "It's Bush's fault."
Your Readers Representative column on Sean Penn had to be the lamest thing I have seen among a long list of lame Readers Rep columns. Are you putting out a newspaper or a lifestyle commentary? You gave more coverage to Burning Man and Cindy Sheehan each than to Able Danger, the Iraqi constitution, elections in Afghanistan, the Syrian pullout of Lebanon, and the disuse of the New Orleans hurricane disaster preparedness plan combined.
Your Readers Representative column on Sean Penn had to be the lamest thing I have seen among a long list of lame Readers Rep columns. Are you putting out a newspaper or a lifestyle commentary? You gave more coverage to Burning Man and Cindy Sheehan each than to Able Danger, the Iraqi constitution, elections in Afghanistan, the Syrian pullout of Lebanon, and the disuse of the New Orleans hurricane disaster preparedness plan combined.
On The News Tonight
Did you see this on TV evening news?
On the screen are pictures of hundreds of buses parked in floodwater.
Terry Ebbert, head of New Orleans' emergency operations: "This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."
Louisiana Governor Blanco called for a mandatory evacuation following a personal President Bush request on Sunday. President Bush had already declared a state of emergency for Louisiana.
Someone notes that The City of New Orleans has a disaster plan they didn’t follow.
"Don't give me your money. Don't send me $10 million today. Give me buses and gas," said Dem. LA state Rep. Kargen Carter.
Meanwhile, hundreds of New Orleans buses sit flooded and useless, their gas and oil polluting the surrounding water. “Did you see the picture, Mr. Ebbert? Ms. Carter?”
The Democratic Black Caucus and NAACP leaders condemn President Bush for the slow pace of rescue efforts.
“But the City of New Orleans hurricane emergency management plan did address the evacuation of poor blacks. You can easily access it and read it on the Internet,” I point out – “I did, and I am not a reporter. In fact, I live in the tiny far-off northern California hamlet of Gualala.” (How did I get on this TV news show?)
Then the black mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, says President Bush and his administration did not do their jobs. At this point the camera pans back to the flooded buses. Then to Mayor Nagin. Then to Mr. Ebbert. Stunned silence, then heads bowed in shame.
But then Nagin, Ebbert, and Carter yell in unison: "Yeah, those buses were Bush's fault!" Then Michael Moore appears: "You know, brothers! Sister too!"
On the screen are pictures of hundreds of buses parked in floodwater.
Terry Ebbert, head of New Orleans' emergency operations: "This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."
Louisiana Governor Blanco called for a mandatory evacuation following a personal President Bush request on Sunday. President Bush had already declared a state of emergency for Louisiana.
Someone notes that The City of New Orleans has a disaster plan they didn’t follow.
"Don't give me your money. Don't send me $10 million today. Give me buses and gas," said Dem. LA state Rep. Kargen Carter.
Meanwhile, hundreds of New Orleans buses sit flooded and useless, their gas and oil polluting the surrounding water. “Did you see the picture, Mr. Ebbert? Ms. Carter?”
The Democratic Black Caucus and NAACP leaders condemn President Bush for the slow pace of rescue efforts.
“But the City of New Orleans hurricane emergency management plan did address the evacuation of poor blacks. You can easily access it and read it on the Internet,” I point out – “I did, and I am not a reporter. In fact, I live in the tiny far-off northern California hamlet of Gualala.” (How did I get on this TV news show?)
Then the black mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, says President Bush and his administration did not do their jobs. At this point the camera pans back to the flooded buses. Then to Mayor Nagin. Then to Mr. Ebbert. Stunned silence, then heads bowed in shame.
But then Nagin, Ebbert, and Carter yell in unison: "Yeah, those buses were Bush's fault!" Then Michael Moore appears: "You know, brothers! Sister too!"
ICO Editor Gives Me Enough Rope
Thanks for giving me enough rope to hang myself, or to share with others.
As an afterthought to my letter concerning the lack of Ms. Plame's "covertness," I served three years in the Air Force Security Service as a Russian linguist radio intercept operator in the mid-1960’s. We went to Russian classes at Indiana University in uniform. We had classes at the National Security Agency. We worked in a secure compound in Turkey. We knew the Soviets knew who we were, and had a pretty good idea of what we did. We also knew that the Soviets knew the names of everyone who openly worked in intelligence activities. Especially if they went to work at the National Security Agency everyday. Or the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if they always sneaked in the back way! How did we know they knew? Because it was and is really stupid to think your enemy is too dumb or too lazy to find out and keep track of the obvious.
Let’s keep hangin’ ‘em high!
As an afterthought to my letter concerning the lack of Ms. Plame's "covertness," I served three years in the Air Force Security Service as a Russian linguist radio intercept operator in the mid-1960’s. We went to Russian classes at Indiana University in uniform. We had classes at the National Security Agency. We worked in a secure compound in Turkey. We knew the Soviets knew who we were, and had a pretty good idea of what we did. We also knew that the Soviets knew the names of everyone who openly worked in intelligence activities. Especially if they went to work at the National Security Agency everyday. Or the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if they always sneaked in the back way! How did we know they knew? Because it was and is really stupid to think your enemy is too dumb or too lazy to find out and keep track of the obvious.
Let’s keep hangin’ ‘em high!
Tax The Rich!
Bill Meyers uncovered part of our little Republican secret when he said that we had an agenda to eliminate taxes on the rich. Then James Oglesby tried to throw everyone off the track when he disagreed with Bill. Unfortunately, I must disclose all the sordid details of one of the most diabolical plots ever devised by man.
Unfortunately, when we devised our plot to eliminate taxes on the rich, we forgot that government always screws everything up. Think of examples such as the National Health Services of Great Britain and Canada. Social Security and Medicare here. Any systems of tariffs by any governments anywhere.
Anyway, when government implemented our plan to eliminate taxes on the rich, as usual they fouled it up royally. Consequently, each year the rich pay a larger proportion of total taxes compared to their proportion of total income. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The tax cut enacted last year has reduced tax burdens further. This analysis' update of the Treasury data shows that in 2001, … a median family of four will pay a smaller share of its income in federal income taxes than in any year since 1957.”
Conversely, the top one percent will pay four times more than the total paid by the bottom 50 percent, who will pay less than four percent of the total. And the percentage paid by the top wage earners has been increasing steadily for years. Of course the government screwed it up! Hopefully the Democrats will pass a tax-the-rich bill, and finally give the rich true tax relief!
Unfortunately, when we devised our plot to eliminate taxes on the rich, we forgot that government always screws everything up. Think of examples such as the National Health Services of Great Britain and Canada. Social Security and Medicare here. Any systems of tariffs by any governments anywhere.
Anyway, when government implemented our plan to eliminate taxes on the rich, as usual they fouled it up royally. Consequently, each year the rich pay a larger proportion of total taxes compared to their proportion of total income. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The tax cut enacted last year has reduced tax burdens further. This analysis' update of the Treasury data shows that in 2001, … a median family of four will pay a smaller share of its income in federal income taxes than in any year since 1957.”
Conversely, the top one percent will pay four times more than the total paid by the bottom 50 percent, who will pay less than four percent of the total. And the percentage paid by the top wage earners has been increasing steadily for years. Of course the government screwed it up! Hopefully the Democrats will pass a tax-the-rich bill, and finally give the rich true tax relief!
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Keeping it simple
What am I missing? Back in March the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and about 32 other major news organizations filed a "friend of the court" brief to protect Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper against a charge of concealing the identity of a source responsible for compromising the identity of a covert agent. In essence, when the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 was reviewed, it became readily apparent that no violation of law had occurred. Simply, Valerie Plame had not meet the criteria to be a covert agent for over five years, and the CIA had not even taken the reasonable minimum steps to maintain her in a "covert" status.
So the question is, how can these news agencies be pursuing "Plamegate" so breathlessly when they already concluded there was nothing there?
So the question is, how can these news agencies be pursuing "Plamegate" so breathlessly when they already concluded there was nothing there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)