Monday, August 02, 2004

The Democratic Echo Chamber

Here’s the one thing I took away from watching the 4 day coverage of the Democratic National Convention:

Democrats have been talking to each other in campaign mode for a year now and they think that their I-hate-Bush talking points are now universally accepted truths all across America. So now they just shorthand it to each other in the Echo Chamber.

Here’s what I imagine a conversation between 3 delegates at the convention to be like:

Left - winger #1: Count Every Vote! Can you believe the security here?

Lefty #2: Bush is a divider, not a uniter! I like your hat.

Lefty #1: Restore Credibility! I got some new Edwards buttons. He's got such great hair!

Lefty #2: Tax cuts for the rich!

Lefty # 1: Internationalize the war! No WMD’s!

Lefty #2: Lost 1 million jobs! Haliburton!

Lefty #1: Hey there’s sister Lefty. Is she done with her abortion rights, stop outsourcing, start gay marriage, stop-the-war committee meetings?

Lefty #3: Hi Ladies. I hate Bush. Bush lied, kids died. No War for oil. Florida. Deserter. Election Stealer. Disenfranchiser. And he’s stupid, too!

Lefty #1: Shhhhhh! Didn’t you get the memo? We’re not supposed to say any of that out loud here! We can’t tip off the swing voters.

Lefty #3: Oops. Sorry. But hey, no one’s looking. Let’s all whisper it together.

Lefty chorus, whispering: I Hate Bush!

Lefy #1: Wow, I feel better. I’ve been keeping that bottled up all week.

Hey is anyone hungry? We can limo over to the Ritz Carlton for our party with the Clintons. Time Warner is buying the Dom Perignon. We can talk about the poor.

Lefty chorus: Let’s go. Kerry’s a war hero!

Thursday, July 29, 2004

A Choice...Reason or Ignorance

Ron Reagan Jr. offered this choice in his passionate speech before the Democratic National Convention on the topic of Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research. A choice in our election in November between reason or ignorance.

Reagan was offered the prime time speaking slot to tweak the Republicans, of course. To stick a knife into his old man's name. And to take shots at George W. Bush, who the Democrats accuse of blocking miracle cures just around the corner to foist his own ignorant religious beliefs on the country. The bastard! George W. Bush must be evil. Ron Reagan Jr. said so.

Reagan made the simplified case. People have diseases. Miracle cures are just around the corner. The cures are only being stopped by the ignorant, like super meany George Bush, who can't tell the difference between a clump of stem cells and a full grown person. Why, oh why, can't everyone see how reasonable ESC is? Why aren't we pouring in the federal dollars to line up and destroy embryos in the petri dishes? Why is Bush so stupid and mean?

The case was made to the convention. The delegates gushed their approval. Ron Reagan was their new champion.

The esteemed Ron Reagan Jr.

Noted Scientist and Physician. Nobel prize winner in genetics and neurologic research. Gifted deep thinker and noted embryologist.

Oh, wait. Ron Reagan has none of those credentials. In fact, what exactly does he do? I mean besides being a professional besmircher of his father's legacy?

Democrats - why are you listening to Ron Reagan Jr on a topic like Stem Cell Research? You're emabarrassing yourself nodding along like puppets  at his sophmoric appeal to "reason".

Ron Reagan Jr. and I have about equal credentials to opine on the subject of Stem Cell Research. We both watch TV and we both read newspapers. He pretends to be a journalist, I write a blog. His father died from a terrible disease. My grandfather died from the same disease. We're even.

Oh, wait - he has special empathy for the subject. He said so. Because he knows a little girl with diabetes who could benefit from a cure.

Oh, wait - I have diabetes and could benefit from a cure. I guess I'm one up on young Mr. Reagan.

Okay. For the know-nothing bobbleheads on the convention floor who were swooning at young Ron's profound choice between reason and ignorance, let's look at the two key facts.

First, there are deep and unavoidable moral issues here that Reagan just swept aside. He may not give pause to the thought of destroying life to benefit life, but many people including me do and you can't just sweep it aside and accuse those who disagree with you of being ignorant. Or bad people.

Second, he's wrong. There is plenty of informed medical opinion, if you care to read it, outside of the realm of those with a political axe to grind that indicates that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is non-operative and that there is no miracle cure around the corner. In fact, there have been no research projects with ESC's that have had positive results. There have been studies with adverse results that had to be halted. There have been positive studies with Adult Stem Cells, which do not have the moral issues attached. But ESC has not panned out. Want proof? George Bush did not make stem cell research illegal, he just limited federal funding. Private funding is fully legal and permissable. If ESC held the hope of miracle cures around the corner for diabetes, private companies would be rushing to fund it and patent it. They're not. Why? Because it doesn't work. The few who want to keep pushing it have to go for government funding because the private funders know it doesn't work. That's your proof.

So why do Ron Reagan Jr. and the know-nothings keep pushing failed Embryonic Stem Cell research over promising Adult Stem Cell research and distort the hope of imminent cures? Because it fits with the abortion-at-all-costs agenda of his crowd that dominates the Democratic National Convention. If they make it noble to destroy embryos to advance science they further legitimize abortion.

Okay, bobbleheads on the floor of the convention- keep swooning at the the profound young Ronnie. I, on the other hand, have no problem choosing between reason and ignorance.

Monday, July 26, 2004

Bill Clinton Rocks!

Okay, I haven't been smoking marijuana. I haven't changed my mind on the fact that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar and a disgrace to the country.

But the man can give a speech. There is no doubt about it. His speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight was amazing.  Clinton rocked the Fleet Center and the Democratic party faithful adore him. He didn't disappoint. The man can give a speech. Everyone else on the podium pales in comparison. Especially the dreadful Hillary.

He was lying, of course. Shoveling the B.S. full speed.  But as expertly as anyone ever has shoveled the B.S.

Gotta hand it to him.

You've also got to give credit to the Dems for the theme that they've settled on: "Strength and Wisdom are not mutually exclusive".  Their shorthand slap at Bush. They don't want to come out and say they think Bush is stupid. So they've shorthanded it.

I think it's misleading and irrelevant. I would ask them if "Strength and Appeasment" are mutually exclusive, because they're leading the appeasement parade.

But it is a clever slogan. And it was a great speech. I'll give them that. It won't be much consolation when they lose the election, of course.

Why is this a "Leak"?

I'm still amused by the breaking Sandy Berger story last week. Do you still need evidence of a liberal bias in the news?

A former National Security Advisor, preparing for testimony before the 9/11 commission related to his administration's handling of terrorism, walks out of the National Archives with all of the copies from the White House file of a terrorism report stuffed in his socks. Is that the headline? No. The headlines in the national press were centered on the Democrat's outrage that anyone would ascribe devious motives to this innocent act of sloppiness. Also, the "news" outlets parroted the Democrats suscpicion on the timing of the "leaks" about the Berger investigation by the FBI?

Leaks? What leaks? Who said it was a leak?

Why is it a leak? It can only be a "leak" if it is secret or classified information that was inappropriately divulged to the public.

Why is an investigation by the FBI of the theft of classified documents by a formal federal official a secret? Why does it have to be "leaked"? Why wasn't this public information from day one?

There used to be a time when it wasn't as clear that the mainstream press was an arm of the Democratic party. A time when a journalist discovering a federal investigation of a former federal official would call it "news", not a "leak". 

Of course, it is news. And, of course, the Democrats are just doing their usual scandal diversion by shouting "look over there - eek! it's a leak" to cover up for one of their own getting caught in misdeeds.

But journalists shouldn't be aiding their diversion.

For the journallistically impaired journalists out there - I'll help you out. The story is the theft of national security documents, not a "leak". Now, go and pretend you know how to report a story.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

So the main recomendation from the 9/11 committee is to have a single point of focus for our nation's intelligence gathering. A single director or czar for intelligence.

Maybe one focal group or task force or organization. I've got it! An Agency.

That collects data or worthwhile information related to national security. Something we would call "intelligence".

A group that all data flowed through. A group that was common to all data gathering groups. A Central group.

What we would call this Agency that was Central to all Intelligence gathering? That's a tricky one.

What would we call a Central Intelligence Agency? How about the C.I.A. ?

Oh, we already have that.

How about we just rebuild the agency that was gutted by Democratic congressmen for the last 3 decades?

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Keep these people away from the Documents!

"Democrats denounce allegations about Berger" says the MSNBC headline.

What are the allegations? Did he turn left without signalling? Did he corrupt an intern in his National Security Advisor office? (Not likely, they were all down the hall in the little kitchen off the oval office with his boss.)

No - the allegation is that he walked out of the National Archives with classified documents hidden in his briefcase, his pants, and even in his socks.

Oh, that allegation. The one with the FBI investigation. The one with the possible jail time.

But Democrats, as usual, can't seem to muster any concern about the theft of classified documents related to 9/11. They are mad! They're furious! Not at the theft of classified documents, but at "the timing of the leak"! Nice try at a diversion by the ethically challenged. But it won't work.

"He was just sloppy", they said.

Kind of like Hillary was sloppy with the missing subpoened billing records that showed up in her residence with her fingerprints on it. Kind of like the security chief in Clinton's White House was with the 800 FBI files on key republicans that just happened to show up in his office. Remember? "Just a bureaucratic snafu".

Sloppy like that.

Keep these people away from important documents.

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Revisiting Jihad

In my recent post "Rethinking Russia" I was entertaining the idea that we should revisit previous world conflicts to evaluate whether Al Qaida or terrorists played a role in areas where we hadn't focused on that possibility.
 
Reader Jill left an excellent comment where she challenged my assertion that Al Qaida was playing a role in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
I've learned two things since:
 
1. I'm reading Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Readers of this blog will know that I'm not a fan of Dick Clarke. However, he has some interesting relevant info in his book on this topic. He indicates, approximately around page 138, that as the CIA and other agencies began tracking Al Qaida that they knew that they were strategically planning and executing the exportation of "jihad" into countries like Bosnia and Chechnya. Their goal was and is to establish a Caliphate in that region of the country to reestablish Islamic rule.  Yes, he said Bosnia and Chechnya specifically.
 
2. USA Today had a cover story yesterday about a top Al Qaida officer, with direct ties to Osama Bin Laden, surrendering in Saudi Arabia. An interesting little sidenote in the article was that he was offloaded in Saudi Arabia in a wheelchair. Why a wheelchair? Because he was injured fighting in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
Connect the dots, people.

Monday, July 12, 2004

America is Safer

I caught a little bit of President Bush's speech today at Oak Ridge Laboratory while I was dressing for work. Not all of it, but snippets. It was in part a defense of our actions in the War on Terror.

It had a tag like this throughout the speech: "The terrorists have suffered defeat after defeat and America and the world are safer". Great line. And true. (Don't believe me? Read the text of the speech and argue it with me.)

Another great line: "The War on Terror will not be fought to a draw".

Well written. Convincing. Why haven't I heard a speech like this every month for the last year? He's got the right message. Why haven't he used the bully pulpit to defend it more.

I sat through a seminar today on change. One of the key recommendations in a change environment? Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

I would say the War on Terror was a big change for the country. President Bush, take the seminar advice. Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

The Black Screen Tells All in Farenheit 9/11

Propaganda. Webster defines it as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". It's not a word much in use anymore. It's a word I heard often growing up during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and their Communist puppet states were masters of propaganda. Now all that the twentysomethings coming up behind me ever hear about is propaganda's kinder little brother: "spin". But, with the release of Michael Moore's outrageous new movie, "Farenheit 9/11", propaganda makes a roaring comeback.

And a minute or two of black screen in the movie tell you all you need to know about it. I'll get back to that.

Before I review the movie let me make three things clear. First, Michael Moore has a right to make this movie and to profit from it. I'm a free market capitalist and a first amendment fan and I say he's entitled to submit his movie to market forces and be seen. Second, I would say Moore is a skilled propagandist. He even makes a point or two worth considering. But they are lost in the orgy of Bush bashing and anti-war exploitation of widows and amputees. Third, I would say that as Moore as the right to put the movie out, the rest of us have a responsibility to review it and to revile it for what it is: vile anti-American propaganda.

I knew that if I was going to comment on the movie, and how could I not as a conservative blogger, I needed to actually see the whole movie. So I reluctantly went to my local metroplex and, with teeth gritted, coughed up the $7.50 to see it. Let me just say it took enormous willpower not to walk out in the first 10 minutes or heckle the screen throughout. But I made it. As painful as it was I suffered through the whole movie. Here's my review:

Unfortunately, the movie is effective as propaganda. It drives hard at it's theme (Bush is bad) with a relentless unflattering portrayal of George W. Bush. Also of everyone in the administration: Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Paul Wolfowitz. All get hammered with unflattering portayals. All driven by a running narrative by Moore telling his simple story that goes something like this:

George Bush is a bad man from a bad family including Pappa Bush. They are all corrupted by oil money. They are owned by Saudi Arabia, who owns a large portion of America, and are their puppets. First, the Bush's (George, Jeb, etc.) disenfranchised all of the blacks in America and stole the 2000 election by stealing Florida and then having Pappa Bush's friends on the Supreme Court seal the deal. Then the set their eyes on looting the country through big oil. The Bush's are surrounded by corrupt people who are also owned by big oil (Haliburtion, Harken, Arbusto Drilling) and by big defense (The Carlyle Group). Bush's corrupt minions (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were all asleep at the switch for 9/11 because they were plotting a takeover of Iraq for it's oil and for revenge from the Gulf War. After 9/11 all the evil minions realized that their friends (Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia) were guilty, so they decided to attack poor innocent Sadaam Hussein as a coverup. (See the video of the smiling dancing Sadaam. Hey, he's not too bad!). They had to attack Afghanistan first, but only as a ruse. And they did all of this so that they could build a pipeline through Afghanistan and make billions of dollars with all of their corrupt oil buddies.

And oh, by the way, Al Gore and all of the Democrats are guilty too because they didn't stop it.

And oh, by the way, all of the media is guilty too because they reported favorably on the war. And Fox News Network is especially evil because they apparently conspired with the evil Bush's by calling Florida for Bush on election night. (Disregard the fact that they were right).

And oh, by the way, all of our troops are bloodthirsty killers who play rock and roll in their tanks as they blow up only innocent Iraqis in a country that "never killed a single American".

And oh, by the way, Michael Moore really does love America and our troops.


Can I gag now? I certainly did while I was watching the movie.

Moore is a master of weaving falsehoods, quick edits, unflattering pictures, and interviews with only those that support his views. He mixes, out-of-context quotes, outlandish speculation, and unfounded accusations in a building pace to walk you to a conclusion: George W. Bush and his people are the biggest evil on the planet.

It would take pages to do a complete critical analysis of the movie, and those can be found from more talented writers than me. Let me just take a few shots:

Mockery: Moore has a field day making fun of Bush for taking a "vacation" in Texas in August 20001. He states, not implies, that Bush was loafing and "should've shown up for work" right before the terrorist attacks. Never mind that presidents before him routinely get out of Washington in August because the Congress is not in session and there's no legislative work to do. Never mind that president's are rarely ever truly on vacation - with satellite phones and secret service and National Security staff meeting with them every day.

Conspiracy Theory: Moore makes a lot out of a blacked out name on Bush's released medical records from his Texas National Guard days. The released record includes a page relating to two airmen failing their medical exams: Bush and a Mr. Bath. Moore makes a lot out of the blacked out name of Mr. Bath and weaves an elaborate conspiracy involving the Saudis and oil money. A more reasonable explanation to anyone who has ever served in the military is that the Privacy Act applies and Bush cannot release the record of Mr. Bath. That' why it's blacked out. But that's too simple and doesn't fit the need of a propagandist.

Falsehoods: An early example comes in the opening montage about Bush stealing the 2000 election. Moore pans a newspaper headline "Gore wins in statewide recount", followed by a video clip of a Gore partisan saying the same thing. Wow! Really! Gore won? The trick here is the phrase "statewide recount". True, 3 independent news sources obtained the ballots after the election and finished the "recount". They did conclude that Gore won a statewided recount. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Gore's official challenge to the election was not statewide. Gore only challenged 4 cherry-picked heavily Democratic counties. The independent news agencies concluded that Bush won the election when recounting just those 4 counties. So, under Gore's chosen contest - Bush won and the election stands. Moore left out those inconvenient facts because they do not fit with his propaganda.

Outrageous claims: Moore repeats the canard that Bush's allies purged the voter rolls in Florida of "people not likely to vote for him. You know, you can usually tell them by the color of their skin". That's a vicious and racist allegation. The rolls were purged of felons ineligible to vote. And they were purged by county officials, most of whom in Florida are Democrats.

Interviews: Moore interviews several people, all of them from the same viewpoint. Only two congressmen, McDermott and Conyers, who are among the most liberal partisans in Congress. He inteviews a 9-11 widow mad at Bush. She has a right to her anger, but do you suppose there are widows who support Bush? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film however. Moore exploits the grief of a mother who lost a son in Iraq who's mad at Bush. Do you think there are parents of soldiers who support the war? Not in Moore's film. He interviews wounded soldiers mad at Bush. Again, they are entitled to their anger but I imagine that there are wounded soldiers who are proud of what they accomplished in Iraq. Not in Moore's film. Most eggregiously, he films Iraqi people shouting their hatred of Bush. Are there Iraqis who are grateful that we liberated their country? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film.

I could go on and on. But the black screen is the most telling. So let's go back to it.

Since the film is nominally about 9-11 Moore has to cover it and he does. For a few moments the screen goes black. We hear the sounds of the planes slamming into the buildings. We hear screams and moans and chaos. All of the sounds we are familiar with from that day. But no pictures. Eventually the picture comes back and we see people standing confused in the street. Crying. Ashes falling. Some brief comment by Moore and then he moves on.

Why the black screen? Why no video of the planes slamming into the buildings? Why no video of the bodies jumping out of the buildings? Why no video of the buildings collapsing with mass murder as the consequence? Why none of that most compelling video. This is afer all a movie, not an audio, and this is after all the pivotal moment of 9/11. Is it because there's no video of those events? No - there is plenty of video available. We've all seen them. Is it because it's too gruesome? No - Moore has no problem showing gruesome footage when it makes America look bad.

Ah, that's it. It's because propaganda is most effective when appealing to emotions. And the emotions you feel when you watch the planes hitting the towers, and the bodies jumping out, and the buildings falling are not the emotions that the master propagandist Moore wants you to experience. Those emotions helped us bond with George W. Bush. They do not fit the 'Bush is Bad' conclusion that Moore is driving at. That's why the screen is black during the most pivotal moment of 9/11. And that black screen is Michael Moore's shame.

Those few of you that clapped when the lights came up - I'm worried about you. I know that there is no talking to the grown up Bush-haters in the crowd who saw their own blind partisan hatred of Bush echoed back in this film. But I am worried about the twentysomethings who did not grow up in an era of real propaganda and are unprepared to critically analyze it. But then again, most of those clapping did not look to me like people likely to be registered voters, so I'll relax.

Friday, June 25, 2004

Rethinking Russia

Headline in my local newspaper 2 days ago: "Militants attack Russian town, 48 killed".

OK. I start reading.

The town, of course, was in the embattled area of Chechnya. Militants attacked it. Or separatists. Or militant separatists.

OK. 5 paragraphs into the story I find this: the militants were trained in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Paragraph 6 I find this: the militants are tied to the Wahabbi Muslim sect in Saudia Arabia which spawned Osama bin Laden.

So my question is: Why did it take 5 or 6 paragraphs to get to this information? Why wasn't it in the headline that "Al Qaida attacks Russian town, 48 killed"? Why do we mask who they are by calling them militants or separatists, as the media has done for the last decade.

So now I'm rethinking Russia and their decade long battle in Chechnya. I don't even know where that is, and I'm sure I don't know all of the details of that conflict. I do know that we in America have condemned the Russians for trying to put down the "separatists" every time.

Now I'm thinking that the Russians are fighting a common enemy to us and are 10 years ahead of us in the War on Terrorism. If they are indeed fighting Al Qaida I say "Go Russia"!

My thinking is that after 9-11 it is our obligation to go back and review every conflict in the last 20 years through the lens of the War on Terrorism. How long has it really been going on?

For example, President Clinton is out promoting his book and trumpeting as one of his major accomplishments the defeat of the Serbians in Kosovo. Were we on the right side in that one, thru the lens of the War on Terror? Serbia is a Christian nation. Kosovo / Albania were Muslim nations. Serbia was accused of "ethnic cleansing". What ethnicity were they trying to cleanse? As I remember it, they were principally fighting against the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which was a militant islamic group. Was Serbia an early combatant in the War on Terror before we ever realized there was a War on Terror. I'm thinking so.

We owe ourselves a re-evaluation of recent history so we know the full extent of the fight that we're in.

Here's to the Little People

As we all know by now, Bill Clinton launched into a fit of rage at his interviewer in England during a TV interview this week. Among other things he said this:

"One of the reasons he (special prosecutor Kenneth Starr) got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions."


"You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people (emphasis mine) from Arkansas -- what did you care about them, they're not famous, who cares that their life was trampled? Who cares that their children are humiliated?"


"Nobody in your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why? Because he was helping their story. People like you always help the far right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings," he said.


Little people - like Susan McDougal who sat in jail for months rather than just testifying before the grand jury to protect the big dog. Little people like Web Hubbell who did the same.

"Little People". Why do I only ever hear liberals talking about the "little people"? Kind of patronizing isn't it. It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. He used to have a saying:

Son, there's only two kinds of people around here: Elephants and piss ants. And I'm the only elephant.


Same thought.

Why do only liberals talk about the "little people"? That's an easy answer. It's because liberals, like President Clinton, are class elitists.

Conservatives are for the individual - both rights and responsibilities. They want the indivdual to succeed with minimal government support. And they want individuals to be responsible citizens.

Liberals are all about classes, not individuals. Class rights. Class entitlements. They give a lot of lip service to the "little people", but their leaders really are elitists who know more about policy than the class of "little people". The "little people" need caring for.

I don't buy it, but then again I'm just a little people.

WMD's Found Daily

Why is there an absence of coverage in the mainstream media of stories like this one about the U.S. weapons inspectors finding shells with WMD in them?

According to the head of the U.S. inspection team they are finding WMD evidence daily.

Daily?

Why isn't that on Rather/Jennings/Brokaw. Oh, I know. They're too busy relentlessly hammering on the Abu Gahraib prison mistreatment story.

I'm still convinced that they will find a large cache of WMD either buried in the desert or transferred to Syria or Lebanon. Just a matter of time and perserverance to keep searching.

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Curse of the Ryans

Well well well. Another Ryan is in political trouble in Illinois.

First we had George Ryan, a crook through and through as our Govenor. He managed to hold off indictment until he made it through one term.

Then we had his heir apparent Jim Ryan who crashed and burned in what should have been a transition to power. His undoing? I believe it was his total failure as Attorney General to do any thing investigatively about his boss, a crook. He gave him a free ride and then coasted in on election day saying "What? Was I supposed to have done something". Thanks Jim, for us having a Democrat for govenor now.

It wasn't enough that the two Ryans are no longer in power. They, and the Republican Party power structure who supported them, brought about a wholesale slaughter of Republican candidates on the ballot at all levels that year. It will take the party a long time to recover.

I say all of that as a Republican who was infuriated with my party's leadership, or lack thereof. They hurt the party in Illinois.

Now we have Jack Ryan, running for an open - Republican held - Senate seat. The Democrats want it bad to tip the balance of the U.S. Senate back to the Democrats. So they're playing hardball. Their allies in the press forced Ryan to release his divorce records containing salacious allegations of sex club partying.

For the record, I do not consider the allegations serious enough for him to drop out of the race. For one thing they are unsubstantiated allegations in a custody battle. Reason 2 - his ex wife supports his bid calling him a good man and a loving father. Lastly, he didn't break any laws, cheat on his wife, or commit any physical violence. I think he's qualified and should stay in the race.

Ray Lahood, my Congressman - who I like and always vote for, thinks otherwise. He's calling on Ryan to step down.

Nice. Where were you Mr. Lahood when our party supported a crook for 4 years in the Govenor's office. I never heard from you then.

The Chicago Republican machine, led by Judy Barr-Topinka, are also calling for Ryan to step down.

Nice. Where were you, Judy, when you and your fellow party bosses brought the Republican party to staggering defeat in the last Illinois election? In fact, why are you still a party boss?

Message to Ms. Topinka and Congressman Lahood: Wrong issues, wrong Ryan.

Monday, June 21, 2004

Show the Videos Already!

I've said it here before. I'll say it to the American media again. Show the videos.

Show the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan.

Show the video of Nicholas Berg being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Iraq.

Show the video of Paul Johnson being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Play the audio of them screaming their death screams.

If you're going to relentlessly show the pictures of Abu Gahraib, then tell the rest of the truth and show the videos. Let's see the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.

And while you're at it, show the recently released video of Sadaam'm thugs torturing and killing prisoners in Abu Gahraib.

That would be fair and balanced.

That would show the American public exactly who our enemy is in the War on Terror.

This Just In......

In case you missed it over the weekend, an underreported news story indicated that Vladimir Putin, former head of the KGB, said that he had reported to George Bush shortly after 9-11 that Iraq was also preparing terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Say again? Where has that little nugget of news been for the last 2 1/2 years?

I'm guessing that the Bush administration wanted to go public with that news before the War, but held back to keep from comprimising intellegence sources. I don't know that as fact. I'm conjecturing here.

If that news was well know before the start of the Iraq War do you think there would be any question as to whether invading Iraq was justified?

And now that it is known, do Democrats have any leg to stand on as they pound on their allegation that Bush exagerated the Iraqi threat in the War on Terrorism?

And why is this story coming out now? What does Putin have to gain by publicly speaking up now?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

I Blame the Sellout Senators

There are many to blame for the spectacle I witnessed tonight.

I watched the Dan Rather interview with former President Bill Clinton on 60 minutes. It was excruciating. Please tell me that we're not going to have to watch him lie his way through history revision after revision on national television for a year as he promotes his book.

Could Dan have been any more deferential? And could Clinton have been any more smug?

The problem here is clear. After disgracing his office and the country, we left him standing to declare victory. And rub it in our faces.

There's an old saying: If you shoot at the king, don't miss. Normally that saying is about the fearful retribution that comes to the shooters. In this case the retribution comes in the form of a million dollar victory dance book tour. Take that, Republicans.

And now we have the spectacle of Bill Clinton saying on national TV in a softball interview with Rather that he views the Impeachment as a badge of honor because it was illegitimate and he beat it.

I place blame in a lot of places.

First and foremost, of course, is the President himself. As he said in his interview, "I never thought of resigning". Anybody with any decency would have thought about it. Anybody else would have realized that you don't have an inherent right to the office of the President of the United States and that if you betray the public trust in that office you should step aside. But no. Not this guy. He felt entitled to the office. And his staff defended everything he did. None of them resigned either even as he forced them out on camera to defend the indefensible.

I blame Ken Starr. Contrary to Clinton's allegations, Starr was not a religious zealot bent on bringing down a president. Starr was in fact, way too nice. Playing by the rules to an extreme that in fact let the President off the hook. Starr didn't even commit to doing this as his full time job, but kept defending other clients in court.

Of course I blame all elected Democrats. It didn't matter what he did they weren't going to let him go down in flames. As long as he was defending the 3 core principles of the Democratic party (Abortion on demand, high taxes, loathing of the military) they would stuff principles to keep him in play. Need evidence? How about this: not one Democrat in the House or the Senate went to the evidence room during the Impeachment proceedings to view the boxes of evidence that Ken Starr or Impeachment Special Counsel David Shippers had collected and laid out for them. Not one. In spite of the oath they swore to do justice, looking at the actual evidence was beyond them. Did they know he was guilty? Of course they did. I refer you back to the "censure resolution" they proposed instead of impeachment. You can't read that document and conclude that Clinto was innocent. But the Demcrats tried to survive by spooning out the pap that his offenses "didn't rise to the level of an imeachable offense". Nonsense.

And most of all, I blame the Senate Republicans. They too refused to go look at the evidence. They made it clear that there was no way to get 67 votes for conviction on impeachment and they were covering their backsides. As David Shippers elegantly makes the case in his book, they sold out their fellow Republican House managers and tanked the trial. How disgusting was it when Arlen Specter voted "not proved" when push came to shove. I hold special contempt for him and the Senate Republicans who knew better and still voted no.

Only the House Republicans, and the 13 House Managers in particular lead by Henry Hyde, did their duty. Hats off to them.

And please spare me the Clinton victory tour.



Friday, June 18, 2004

Break out the nukes

It's a war. It's a war. It's a war.

The beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaida today should make it clear to the left where the real evil lies. It's not George Bush. It's not Abu Gharaib. It's Al Qaida.

Let's hammer them into oblivion already. They are a threat to the entire West and they must be dealt with. Unequivocably. Unflinchingly. Dealt with.

Enough already.

"9-11 Commission Can't Find Their Butts with Both Hands"

Okay, that is the headline I would have written instead of the real headline in most newspapers Thursday morning: "9-11 Panel finds no link between Iraq and Al Qaida".

This is the same panel that can't even, as I've delineated for you in previous posts, spot the obvious conflict of interest of one of their own panel members. And we're going to trust them to analyze complicated terror networks.

Here's what I want before I'm satisfied: I want a full national discussion of the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq where a parked airliner was used to train hijackers on techniques using small knives. I want to know if the obvious is true, that this camp played a part in the training of the 9-11 "muscle" hijackers who took over the plane. That's what I want and it's completely missing in all the mainstream coverage of the commission.

Monday, June 14, 2004

Quick Takes

I'm on the road this week. So, with Fox News Network - O'Reilly Factor in the background as mood music, I'll throw out some quick takes from my perch in my hotel room.

1. The Reagan funeral was very moving and was America on display at it's best. The spit and polish of the military funeral details was impressive. Those guys should get a unit citation.

2. On the Left -

- Kerry is being seriously eclipsed lately with the funeral, with the release of Bubba's memoirs, and with Michael Moore's film coming out.

- I did see Mrs. Theresa Heinz Kerry on TV being interviewed this week. Let's see - she's from South Africa, she disdains America, and she speaks softly in a French accent about obsure French philosophers. Please put her on TV in a debate with Laura Bush. Please. It's too bad the potential 1st Ladies don't debate.

3. From the right:

I've made a decision about the Bush administration's approach to the election and their puzzling quietness on the successes of the Iraq War component of the War on Terrorism.

Either:

- They are very confident in how the summer will unroll into the election. Good economic news, a positive spin out of the handoff to Iraqi sovereignty on June 30th, a good bump out of the convention.

or:

- they're just not competent and they're making the usual Republican mistake of playing nice while the opponents are at war.

I'm going with the "confident" option.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Reagan taught me that I'm teachable

In honor of the passing of President Ronald Wilson Reagan this weekend I'll say this: I was wrong about him.

We're going to be seeing hours and hours of footage and commentary about Reagan and his presidency this week. But I don't need the footage to remember. It was all live and in color to me.

Two facts framed his presidency for me. First, the 1980 election was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. Second, I was a college student then, and a raving left-wing liberal. In the clutches of liberal academia and not correctly informed about politics.

As for the election, I did pay attention. Reagan or Carter - choose. I read. I watched the debates. And I voted - absentee because I was off campus working as a co-op student at election time. I remember wanting the voting experience so badly that when my ballot arrived in the mail I took it into the shower, pulled the curtain around me, and punched my ballot. The ballot booth experience in my little apartment. Who did I vote for? I'll tell you at the end.

When I was on campus passions ran high. I remember speakers on the quad railing about Ronnie and his "Super Cosmic Ray-Gun" (clever huh?) who was going to drag us into a nuclear war.

And I was passionate about Reagan, in opposition. I believed he was stupid. I believed his policies were wrong headed and caused the huge deficit. I believed he was a dangerous right-winger. I believed he was going to drag us into nuclear war with the Soviets. And I wanted him impeached over Iran-Contra.

Now I think differently. He didn't change of course. I did. I read more about history and politics from different sources. Frankly, Rush Limbaugh's two books did quite a bit to change my mind about Reagan. You should read them if you haven't.

Now I recognize that his committment to principle, namely the goodness of America and the need for limited government were right on target.

I changed. I'm teachable. That's what my experience with Reagan taught me.

Who did I vote for in my first election in 1980. John Anderson - Indpependent.

One Judge shuts down Democracy

It took years to shape this law - the law banning partial-birth abortion procedures.

435 duly elected Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives passed the law - twice.

100 duly elected senators in the United States Senate passed it - twice.

1 duly elected President, Bill Clinton, vetos the law - twice.

A new election, a new president. The law passed again constitutionally by the House, passed again constitutionally by the Senate, signed now constitutionally by an elected President.

And now one federal judge in San Francisco of all places declares it unconstitutional and void. One judge, elected by nobody. One judge has that much power.

Does that make any sense at all?

Saturday, May 29, 2004

Iron(y) Man

8 airplanes, 6 cities, in 4 days. Tough week of business travel.

And to top it off I had to watch the Al Gore speech to MoveOn.org. Okay, I didn't have to. But I am a newsjunkie. So I had to.

Vice President Gore gave a passionate left-wing speech to a stridently partisan left-wing organization, MoveOn.org. (If you remember, this is a left-wing website that started up during President Clinton's impeachment to defend the president. The concept was "it's only about sex, there's nothing to see here, let's move on..."). The speech was an attack on President Bush, and his Attorney General John Ashcroft, and their record on civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11. It was all one-sided of course. There was no real recognition that we are at war. Only rebuke of our reaction to war. And it was distorted of course. Gore painted every issue in the worst possible interpretation.

He closed his speech with a recap of the 2000 election. He opined that, while he did his duty by conceding the election for the good of the country, he had no idea that the Bush administration would trash out the "rule of law".

As to style - Gore was his usual stiff self. The Iron Man.

But he was more the Irony Man. Irony abounds in his speech.

Let's start with recapping the 2000 election in a speech to a group called "MoveOn". I guess he's not moving on.

Gore railed at the adminstration about not providing more airline security in spite of warnings about terrorists wanting to hijack aircraft. The irony, of course, is that Gore chaired a Presidential Commission to improve airline security. 19 men proved his commission's work to be woefully and fatally ineffective.

Gore railed at the administration for poor treatment of immigrants since 9-11. Improper searches and detaintments and such. The irony, of course, is that Gore spearheaded an effort for the Democrats in 1996 called "Citizenship USA" to pressure the INS to circumvent immigration laws in order to get more immigrants eligible to vote in time for the election. (see this article) They bypassed background checks and rushed naturalization for up to a million immigrants to get them eligible to vote. Who knows who they let in. TheClinton-Gore administration's trashing of immigration laws is directly responsible for allowing terrorist to infiltrate America and set up terrorist cells in our midst. All in the name of political correctness and Democratic votes.

Gore quoted a recent study that indicated that Al Qaida membership has reformed (after their devasting defeat, I would add), in Afghanistan to a membership of approx. 18,000. He was implying that Bush had not succeeded in stopping Al Qaida. The irony, of course, is the Clinton-Gore administration's total inattention to terrorism for 8 years while Bin Laden was running 10,000 terrorist through his training camps and dispersing them throughout the world. It was those cells that formed in the 90's that have allowed them to regroup after the pounding that Bush gave them.

Oh, the irony. Actually, the absurdity.

I have not doubt who I would want leading the War on Terrorism, that was not of our choosing but was forced on us. Bush and Ashcroft. Or Gore and Reno. No doubt of that at all. I'm very thankful for the results of the 2000 election. I'm moving on.

Patient Justice

Kudos to the State of Oklahoma for their perserverance for a decade in the prosecution of Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 169 people. Though already convicted and sentenced to life in a federal court, the state prosecuted as well with the power to impose the death penalty.

Some thoughts:

Nichols is definitely guilty of an abhorrent crime. I hope this second conviction gives some comfort to victims families.

The judge limited testimony regarding other conspirators who helped McVeigh, including middle eastern connections. I'm sure this was helpful in the narrow interest of convicting Nichols. It was not helpful broadly for Americans to learn the full nature of the conspiracy to bomb the building. There is clear evidence that Nichols met in the Phillipines with terrorists with Iraqi and Al Qaida connections. When is that going to get examined in public? And why don't more Americans know about that connection.

One hidden tidbit I learned by reading news accounts closely is that Nichols was convicted of killing 160 people and 1 fetus. Killing a fetus is a convictable offense? How can that be when it happens 4,400 times a day in America under the banner of choice?

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Let the Witnesses Speak

I thought they were all finally going to get to speak. The witnesses in the Oklahoma bombing case. I was wrong.

Just to recap: Terry Nichols is being tried in a state court for murder for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was already convicted in a federal court and is serving life. The state of Oklahoma wants him also for the deaths of their citizens. Nichols defense includes the argument that McVeigh had numerous other co-conspirators.

I absolutely think that Nichols conspired in the bombing, is guilty, and should have gotten the death penalty.

However, I'm also convinced that McVeigh had other conspirators with him in Oklahoma City that day and I want them brought to justice also. I finished reading Jayna Davis's definitive book "The Third Terrorist" and I think it's clear and convincing on the presence of Middle Eastern terrorists in the plot that day. If you haven't read it, you need to. Lot's of witnesses to Middle Eastern men with McVeigh. None of them called to testify. Why?

It's important to remember a few facts:

1. Nichols was in Kansas on that day, April 19th. Did he conspire to build the bomb. Absolutely, I'm convinced of that. Davis presents the evidence that Nichols travelled to the Phillipines to learn bombmaking from Ramsi Yousef. Yousef built the bomb for the World Trade Center in 1993 and was connected to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. And Nichols spent time with him. But he was not present when the bomb was constructed and delivered.

2. There are witnesses that saw McVeigh with other people in OKC that morning. Several witnesses. They got to testify in Nichols trial. A quote from the Associated Press in USA Today:

Defense attorneys allege that other coconspirators gave McVeigh substantial help in planning the bombing. They put several witnesses on the stand who said they saw McVeigh with another man who was not Nichols in the days and even the moments before the bombing.


If it wasn't Nichols, and it wasn't, who was it who helped McVeigh deliver the bomb downtown.

3. There are ample witnesses who place McVeigh in Elohim City, a white supremacist group in Oklahoma before the bombing. More co-conspirators. You can read about them in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's excellent book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton". But you can't read about them in the trial transcripts of this trial. Why? The judge said so:

An April 21 ruling by Taylor kept the defense from calling hundreds of other planned witnesses. He said there was no substance to defense allegations that McVeigh had links to a gang of white supremacist bank robbers and residents of Elohim City, a separatist enclave in eastern Oklahoma.


No substance? Why not hear from the witnesses and let the jury make that decision?

When are we going to get to hear from these witnesses under oath?

Hillary visits the VRWC

Re: Hillary Clinton's appearance on Fox News Network's Sunday show this morning:

- Her 1st appearance at the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

- Did I hear her right, that she agreed with me on the handover of power in Iraq on June 30th? In early April I was advocating that we keep the date. Dems (and most Republicans) at that time were jabbering that there was no way we could turnover power on that date with the situation on the ground there. I made the argument to my friend that the wildcard in the argument was George W. Bush. The man has an iron core. He set the date, and he wasn't going to deviate. June 30th it was going to be. I also made the argument that doing so would disarm his opponents. I'm sure I heard Sen. Clinton say this morning that we were going to meet the date.

- It was the height of political irony seeing Hillary paired on the show with Sen. Lindsay Graham. They were having a political lovefest of bipartisanship over Iraq. Closing ranks for the sake of the troops. Awesome! The irony: Graham was one of the leading House managers presenting the case to the Senate that President Clinton should be convicted and removed from office! Time marches on in politics, I guess.

Monday, May 17, 2004

"Do you take this woman" - or is it man?

They're popping the champaign corks in Massachusetts as they legalize gay marriage - the first in the nation to do so. In honor of this historic event I thought I would finally comment. Here are my thoughts, in brief:

1. I believe that homosexuality is probably nature driven rather than nuture and is hormonally/chemically driven rather than genetic. However, whether it is a result of nature or through some developmental factor of parenting or environment - it's not the individual's choice in most cases. And I believe that individuals, who did not make a choice of who to fall in love with, want naturally to get married.

2. I also believe that the Bible is clear on the topic and that marriage is designed, biologically, for a man and a woman. Thousands of years of history in all civilization supports this concept.

3. I also recognize that the first two are in conflict. I've resolved it for myself this way.

- I believe in civil marriages for everyone as a state sanctioned function. I believe encouraging monogamy is in the best interest of a stable society. Getting married at the courthouse is fine with me. I believe that represents the conservative position politically as I know it.

- I also believe churches have an absolute right to set doctrine on the issues of marriage in the church, ordination, membership, etc. I believe it is incompatible with Christian doctrine for gays to get married in the church or hold leadership positions. I'm ok with membership. But all that is for each church hierarchy to work out independent of the state.

That's just how I've worked it out. You're on your own.

Who was really lying?

For months now Democrats in general, and the Kerry campaign in particular have been advancing two arguments:

1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida

The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.

Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.

Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.

But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:

1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.

2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.

3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.

I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.

So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.

Squeamish Americans

I want to see the video of the Nicholas Berg execution by Al Qaida in Iraq. I've attempted unsuccessfully to find it and view it on the internet.

I'm deeply puzzled by our news media's filter on war issues. Prison mistreatment photos take by American GI's from Abu Grhaib are ok to show over and over again. Why because they are not too gruesome and are important. But Nicholas Berg's execution by Islamic terrorists can't be shown because it's too gruesome and would offend the sensibilities of civilized people. Same with the video of Daniel Pearl's slaughter by Islamic terrorists. Same with the graphic video of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers after being attacked by Islamic terrorists.

Are we getting the picture here? American mistreatment - not too gruesome. Islamic terrorists activities - too gruesome to show. That should give you all the perspective you need. As Sean Hannity said on his radio program all week, it should define for you the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.

But it's not enough. I think Americans are way too squeamish on this and should suck it up and view the videos so that we fully know what this War on Terrorism is all about. The full depth of it. I frankly don't have patience with my fellow countrymen on this point. We're going to commit troops to fight and die for a cause, but we can't be bothered to be offended by viewing the reality of that war?

I see it as analogous to "The Passion of the Christ". Sure I already knew the story of the crucifixion of Christ. Sure it meant a lot to me. But Mel Gibson correctly understood that people needed to be visually confronted with the reality of those last twelve hours, in all of their violent content, to truly internalize the meaning. It's the same principle here. Sure we understand the pure evil of Berg's killing. But have we, in a two day news cycle, really internalized what it means about the enemy that we are in a life and death struggle with daily?

I think public opinion of the war in Iraq would be far different and far more committed if Americans had been allowed to view the complete Twin Towers video, the Daniel Pearl video, and the Nicholas Berg video.

To the networks: stop censoring the video.

To my friends and family: stop averting your eyes. You owe it to our troops to be fully committed to why we sent them there.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Making it Personal

Even as a news junkie it's hard to put all that's happening in Iraq and in the War on Terrorism in perspective. How can you take in the daily toll of casualties, the complete disheartening of the prisoner abuse photos, the atrocity of the beheading of the American contractor by Al Qaida in Iraq. It's mind numbing.

And most of all it's remote. Even with Guard and Reserve troops from our area to Iraq I only know 1 person directly involved militarily. Even being a veteran myself it's hard to relate to our troops and the events unrolling on the screen.

So I decided to make it personal, and yesterday's news of the beheading of Mr. Berg made me do it. Here's how I made it personal:

I have a coworker who became a friend over the last year. I don't know him outside of work. I didn't know anything about his family. I know snippets about his hobbies. But I got to know him and admire him as a coworker and a mentor over the last year.

Around March of last year, when the Iraq invasion started, we were having lunch in the cafeteria. I was chattering on about events and my take on it. He wasn't talking much. Finally I asked him what he thought about us going to Iraq. "We don't have any business being there" he said in a quiet but deeply intense way. It surprised me. What's that all about, I thought.

Last month we were together again for a business dinner. We had more time to talk. It seems my friend has a son in the military. Assignment: Baghdad. And he won't say it, but he's clearly deathly afraid for his son's safety. "Stay on the base", he told him. "There's no reason to go to town".

So that's how I make it personal. I don't know a troop, but I know a troop's father.

So I watch the news of the beheading and I think "What if that was my friend's son? Is it worth his death for us to be in Iraq? Is it worth the heartache my friend would have?"

My answer for the invasion would have been yes. I believe Sadaam represented a real threat with a real connection to terrorism and a real grudge against the U.S. and was, in sum, a danger to us that needed to be defanged at a cost.

That's done. My answer now is no. We should go home.

I know that we have stated objectives to build a democracy in that area of the world as a base against terrorism. I don't buy it. They'll never like us there. Never.

I know pundits like Cokie Roberts make the argument that "We broke it, we bought it". I don't buy it. Sure we should rebuild some bridges, turn the water and power back on, etc. But nation building, no.

They're defanged. They can't hurt us. We should say simply "we did the right thing to prevent terrorism. Don't do it again or we'll be back." Then bring my friend's son and all the troops home.

If the Sunnis want to fight the Shiites, or vice versa, I don't care. It's not our fight.

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Crossing the line

They're disconcerting of course. The pictures of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Absolutely unacceptable and appalling. And definitely damaging to our efforts to rebuild Iraq.

So are the soldiers who did it animals? Not likely in my estimation.

I attribute it to 2 things. Skirting the line by trying to gather intelligence thru psychological rather than physical torture. And putting troops untrained in that practice in charge of it for months at a time. Both things add to a failure of leadership. In skirting the line they crossed it. Court-martialling the privates won't accomplish anything. Some leaders have to take the fall.

There's no doubt that the Bush-haters and the anti-war folks will rightfully make good mileage out of this dreadful situation.

Fix it. Fire someone. And move on.