Friday, July 30, 2004
Good News is No News
Be sure to stay informed on the rest of the story from Iraq and Afghanistan. Chrenkoff has been compiling multi-part series for both countries. The latest:
Iraq, Part 6
Afghanistan, Part 2
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Close Encounter with an Actual Bush Supporter
So there is another one out there somewhere in Minnesota.
I think Clay needs to expand his horizons a bit.
Moore and the DNC
When an anti-American propagandist produces a vile, slanderous film, full of demonstrably false assertions, undermining the morale of American servicemen and women fighting and dying on our behalf, I would hope the Democratic Party wouldn't
- endorse it
- or welcome him to the Democratic National Convention
- or seat him one seat away from a former President
How much common decency would that have required?
Kerry as President?
Personally, my strongest objection to John Kerry as President is that I don't believe he can be trusted to perservere when the going gets tough. The WSJ argues much the same point:
Mr. Kerry has simply been wrong about the major national security questions of his time. Leaving aside the special case of Vietnam, the Senator voted against nearly every major weapons system during the Cold War. He supported the recklessly naive "nuclear freeze" in 1984. He opposed SDI, which convinced the Soviets they couldn't win an arms race. He even opposed the invasion of Grenada at the time, though he now says that is the kind of operation he would support. In other words, he was a stalwart of the dovish wing of the Democratic Party that voters refused to entrust with the Presidency from Vietnam until the Berlin Wall fell.
More recently, Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, arguing that diplomacy was enough to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This vote strikes us as especially noteworthy now that Kerry supporters are trying to portray him as a foreign policy "realist" in the mold of George H.W. Bush, and in contrast to the current President. Yet when the senior Bush sought to use military force in the U.S. national interest, Mr. Kerry opposed that too.
...
Now that he's won the nomination, Mr. Kerry has once again turned moderately hawkish. He assails the President's management of the war but proposes more or less the same policy. We give him credit for saying he won't withdraw abruptly from Iraq and leave a failed state, but he also leads a center-left coalition that will pressure him to do precisely that as costs rise and compete with domestic priorities....
We have little doubt that a Kerry Administration would pursue Osama bin Laden to the ends of the earth. The doubts run to what he would do in the hard cases when Presidential fortitude and leadership are required. Whatever else they think of Mr. Bush, Americans know he is willing to act in our national defense. They'll be trying to judge tonight, and over the next three months, if they can depend on John Kerry to do the same.
Candidates' Position Quiz
Which presidential candidate said the following?
I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11....And
September 11th. I mean, that’s changed the dynamic of this country and - and, I think, people’s perceptions of what people are willing to do....
I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy....
[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack....
[I] believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future....
I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that.
Answer: John Kerry! In fact, John Kerry said
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq...What you don't believe me? Watch the video!
(RealPlayer here. Full post here. Hat Tip: Instapundit)
"News"week
One day maybe Republicans can get this kind of favorable treatment from the "news" media:
And no, this doesn't count:
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
French Moral Clarity
Open question: With on-going terrorist massacres of civilians in Iraq, why do the French continue to unilaterally oppose training of Iraqi security forces?
Terrorists? What terrorists?
Ted Kennedy thinks all of the security in Boston and at the Fleet Center is to keep George Bush out:
Today, we say the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.
Iran resumes nuke program
Looks like Iran is getting busy on their nukes again:
Iran has broken the U.N. nuclear watchdog's seals on centrifuge equipment and resumed building the devices, which are key to making nuclear weapons, in a show of defiance against international efforts to monitor its program, diplomats said Tuesday.So what is the U.N. going to do about this? Apparently not much. In fact, they are urging the world to assess the situation cautiously:
God forbid, we wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions about all of Iran's suspicious activities. We can't say with absolute certainty what Iran's intent is. After all, the evidence showed Saddam was actively stockpiling massive quantities of WMD, and yet that turned out not to be true.The diplomats cautioned against equating Iran's move with the removal of IAEA seals on nuclear equipment by North Korea two years ago as it expelled agency inspectors and declared itself no longer bound by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The agency was informed of Iran's decision to break the seals, which — unlike in North Korea — "were not a legal requirement" on the part of Tehran, one of the diplomats told The Associated Press.
Iran still was respecting its pledge not to resume nuclear enrichment, which can be used to generate power or make warheads, said the diplomat, who is familiar with Tehran's nuclear dossier.
Apparently the new rule of thumb is that insane, murderous dictators and dictatorships must be given total benefit of doubt. But is this really a good national defense policy? Democrats seem to think so -- given the recriminations on the Left after the intelligence failures with regard to Iraq, this does seem to be their unstated defense policy.
So if John Kerry is elected, are we going to sit our on hands and debate nuances while Iran builds bombs? For my money, I'll take a president who looks at the evidence at hand, and acts to defend the United States when necessary.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Bergergate IV
Vodkapundit strikes at the heart of why I find the Berger story so unsettling. At worst, the National Security advisor to the previous Democratic administration walked out with highly-classified, incriminating national security documents with intent to destroy them. At best, he casually borrowed and then lost them. Either way, it is not reassuring. And hardly a person on the Left thinks this is a big deal.
There's a reason why the media is trying to bury the Berger story as quickly as possible. It's the same reason why all these Democratic spin guys are trying to change the subject in such spluttering tones.
The Berger thefts are a window into the un-seriousness at the core of the Democratic Party where national security is concerned. They dare not let the Great Unwashed realize that simple truth, thus the panicky volume of the spin, and the silence of the anti-Bush press.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Thoughts on Media Bias
James Lilek's has more thoughts on the media reaction if instead of Sandy Berger, Dick Cheney had been caught smuggling out and disposing of potentially incriminating documents related to the 9/11 attacks, before they had a chance to be turned over to the 9/11 committee:
We wouldn't be hearing about impeachment, we'd be debating the probity of rolling a guillotine toward the White House, and whether the heads should be arranged alphabetically on the fence spikes, or by seniority.Meanwhile the NY Times seems to think the Sandy Berger story is actually a Republican scandal. CBS and ABC news agree that the real story is the interesting timing of the story, just before the Democratic Convention. And alert Instapundit reader Rob Wiles mentions that the recent revelations on Sandy Berger were not even brought up last night on NBC Nightly News.
Again, this demonstrates that if you're getting your news from the traditional sources, you're getting sanitized coverage. Why? Every news entity tends to have a narrative or a philosophy which represents their understanding of the way the world works. Because journalists are overwhelming left-leaning, their political philosophy can be simplified to: Republicans are warmongering tools of exploitative corporations and the wealthy, while Democrats are peace-loving, selfless, tireless workers for the common man.
Journalists' time and space are limited, regardless of the medium, so you're not going to get a lot of coverage on an issue, unless journalists think it is important to their narrative -- something you need to know to understand why the world is how it is. In this case, they see the Sandy Berger scandal as at best unimportant -- I mean, c'mon we all know Sandy Berger is a Democrat and so he is one of the good guys: Time magazine's Joe Klein declared, "[T]he notion that he would do something mortally sinful is about as likely as Brent Scowcroft or George Shultz or name your foreign policy priesthood member. This is a very solid, decent guy. I'd be shocked if there was something really terrible that he did here." At worst this is a Republican-planted story to draw attention away from the Democratic National Convention or the 9/11 report itself. And what self-respecting journalist would allow himself or herself to be taken off-message by a scheme of the Republicans?
Lileks' experience is becoming the norm for those who want to stay well-informed:
A while ago I noted that I had ceased to rely on my paper for international and national news. The web's competitive advantage is overwhelming. Now I turn straight to the Metro section, because the web can't yet match the resources and reach of a newspaper. If I were king of the forest, I'd turn the A section into the Metro section. For most papers beside the big swingin' Johnson dailies, the A section is a lost cause; its lunch has not only been eaten but digested and excreted, and most newspapers think it's still on the plate with its garnish intact. Newspapers to me no longer look like great sober edifaces inscribing the details of history as the parade clatters past. They just look like group blogs. Without the honest admission of bias.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Bergergate III
Robert Musil points out that Sandy Berger already has credibility issues. If you recall, Time magazine wrote in August 2002, that Berger claimed that the Clinton aministration had placed an almost fully-developed, working plan to eliminate Al-Qaeda on Bush's desk, which apparently went ignored by the incompentant Bush adminstration.
Unfortunately for Berger, in September of 2002 he testified under oath:
BERGER: Now, the second question you asked—which comes off of the Time magazine story, I think—was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.
The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had—I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information—what was going on and what situations they faced.
Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I’m not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing—on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.
Of course it is impossible to say exactly what Berger told Time, and what Time extrapolated and sensationalized. But in my opinion, whether he invented this myth or Time spun it, an honest man has the obligation to correct the record publically and forcefully when his name is attached to such a slanderous story.
Bergergate II
So Sandy Berger still claims this was all an honest mistake? Reasonable enough to believe? Many commentaries argue that in fact it is unbelievable.
Captain Ed claims some experience in these matters:
Perhaps this explanation will fly for those who have never worked around classified documents, but since I spent three years producing such material, I can tell you that it's impossible to "inadvertently" take or destroy them. For one thing, such documents are required to have covers -- bright covers in primary colors that indicate their level of classification. Each sheet of paper is required to have the classification level of the page (each page may be classified differently) at the top and bottom of each side of the paper. Documents with higher classifications are numbered, and each copy is tracked with an access log, and nowadays I suppose they're tracking them by computers.
Under these rules, it's difficult to see how anyone could "inadvertently" mix up handwritten notes with classified documents, especially when sticking them into one's jacket and pants. Furthermore, as Clinton's NSA, Berger would have been one of the people responsible for enforcing these regimens, not simply subject to them. The DOD makes these rules crystal clear during the clearance process at each level of access, and security officers (which Berger clearly was) undergo even further training and assessment on security procedures. "Inadvertent" and "sloppiness", in the real context of secured documentation, not only don't qualify as an excuse but don't even register as a possibility.
Instapundit has posted many mails from readers casting doubt on the possibility that this all an honest mistake. For example:
Just to back up some of your other correspondents. I spent 27 years total in the AF - with a Top Secret clearance. I had at times, specific appended code word clearances, which are controlled on a strict need-to-know basis - because they often involve sensitive sources (say, you are getting data from a mole in the Itanian Gov. - that particular data would be graded TS and then given a code word to further identify it as very sensitive and to restrict access from those with just general TS clearances). In a nutshell, the security system from least classified to most classified was: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret codeword). When we worked on Top Secret codeword (it might read something like Top Secret Fishhook), it was in a vault and our notes were put in burn bags. We were not allowed to take any notes out -period. We clearly understood that you didn't screw around with Secret, much less TS or TS codeword. For us a slip-up meant the slammer. What Berger did is so far removed from accepted security procedure, that I can only see two possible explanations: dishonesty with an ulterior motive (political CYA, I would guess) Or he's crazy. There is no way a veteran in the security business doesn't understand the gravity of walking out with TS codeword data.
But, for argument's sake, let's assume Berger is telling the truth: He accidentally removed documents with the highest level of classification, and some of them may have been thrown out inadvertantly. In other words, he isn't sure that they were thrown out, and in fact has no idea where they are. As Instapundit reader Kyle Kveton points out, this isn't exactly reassuring. So Berger commits a colossal security blunder, and now he has no way of knowing what damage might have been caused. Mind you, this was Clinton's top National Security Advisor.
What does Clinton have to say about all of this? He thinks it's just hilarious! "We were all laughing about it...." Is this the attitude with which he protected our country for 8 years?Whose Land Is It?
Are the endless politics of this election year getting to you yet? Take some time out for a good laugh!
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Bergergate, Part I
Clinton National Security advisor Sandy Berger is under investigation for "disappearing" classified documents related to 9/11:
Sandy Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.
Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.
However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.
...
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
I believe there are still a lot of questions to be answered, and we deserve a much better explanation than Sandy Berger has given. For now, I will note a point made by Hugh Hewitt: As you watch this story unfold over the next few weeks, imagine if Dr. Rice had been caught "stuffing her blouse" with and smuggling out highly classified information related to the 9/11 investigations. Do you think there might be a bit of skepticism and outrage in the press?
Monday, July 19, 2004
Let America Be America Again
A slogan of the Kerry, Edwards campaign: "Let America Be America Again". Trouble is, I don't know what that means. Maybe something like this?
Leeden on the Mullahs
Michael Leeden summarizes the Iranian problem. Read the whole thing, but in particular, see this Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah coalition's plan to fight America:
Meanwhile, the mullahs and the other terror masters in the region quite sensibly continue to wage war against us. At the recent meetings in Tehran between a Syrian delegation led by President Bashar Assad and the Iranians, including Supreme Leader Khamenei and top deputies including strongman Rafsanjani, the head of intelligence Yunesi, several leading officials of the Revolutionary Guards, and Foreign Minister Kharazi, the two sides agreed on five key points:
- A common strategy involving Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah to thwart American plans for the democratization of the Middle East;
- Coordination of joint operations against the Coalition and the interim government in Iraq;
- Coordination of political strategy to influence groups and countries that oppose the American presence in Iraq;
- Planning for revenge should Israel attack Iranian nuclear, chemical or missile sites, or Syria's chemical and missile sites, or Hezbollah bases;
- Full cooperation to prevent the reelection of President Bush, including all possible measures (such as sabotage of oil pipelines and terminals) to drive up the price of oil.
Iran must be dealt with forcefully, and soon. They will only understand a demonstration of strength. I hope the US will do something soon, but I fear it won't happen until after the election, and will never happen if Kerry is elected. But if we wait until Tehran demonstrates a successful nuclear weapon, it will be too late.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Free Speech in Iraq
Another reason why I am optimistic about Iraq -- the Freedom Genie will be hard to get back in the bottle. AFP reports:
At least 1,000 people calling for the death of detained former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein paraded through central Baghdad, displaying posters of relatives killed during his years in power.
Death to Saddam, death to the Baath party", they chanted as they marched down a main road in the Iraqi capital followed by others in trucks.
Brandishing posters of executed loved ones and holding banners proclaiming "Our goals are peace and freedom", the protesters wound their way peacefully to gather around central al-Tahreer square.
No no Baath party! Yes yes Iraq!" they chanted, led by a band of men shouting into loudspeakers.
Dying to be PC
After reading some intial reports after 9/11 on the degree to which racial-sensitivity affected FAA security rules and contributed to the slaughter of 3,000 of us, I had thought that once Americans learned about it, they would be as disgusted as I was, and in the very least, there would be a return of common-sense to security rules.
Of course, I should have realized that the media would be interested in exploring culpability for 9/11 in many areas, particulary within the Bush administration, but the media had absolutely no interest in exploring how politically-correct restrictions on security might have played even the slightest role in failing to stop the massacre.
Nevertheless since 9/11, Homeland Security has instituted some stronger rules, such as finger-printing all vistitors from some foreign countries as they enter the US, but any tightening of rules has been followed by some media hysteria about unfairly targeting innocent people, or accusing Bush of scaring the public by hyping the actual threat level.
Now read this first-hand account of a flight from Detroit to LA last month. Then ask yourself if you are prepared to die or sacrifice someone in your family, so that we don't risk offending young, male, Arab visitors to our country. (In this account we are not even talking about American citizens!)
Blame goes all around on this issue: Bush needs to be a leader, take stronger security measures, and be willing to stand up and defend them. Democrats need to stop accusing Bush of using the threat of terrorism to frighten voters. The media and left-wingers in general need to stop criticizing common-sense security precautions. And the American public needs to hold all of the above accountable, or we will get what is coming. Lest we forget, we are at war with crazy Islamists publically sworn to destroying America and killing Americans.
Update: This story is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere, see here, here and here. Is it too much to hope for that some of this publicity could effect some official policy change?
Common Sense Alert
Arnold Kling at TechCentralStation looks at whether the Left is right -- that quality of life for average people has been degrading.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Stupid Poll Alert
CNN.com: "Do you feel America is safer from terror because of the war in Iraq? Yes or No."
Was America safer after it engaged Germany in WWII? Or did that make America more of a target? Of course, in the short term America was less safe, but in the long term, WWII made America safer.
The point of the war in Iraq isn't to make American safer immediately, but to establish the conditions which will make America safer in the future. The Bush administration has made this point repeatedly, so why doesn't CNN get it?
Monday, July 12, 2004
While America finds itself in a global war against fanatics who are actively seeking nuclear weapons for attacks on American cities, and who in the meantime saw off peoples' heads with carving knives, let's check in on what the leading candidates are up to:
From the Drudge Report, via James Taranto, John Kerry says he doesn't have time to stay informed about terrorist threats against America:
Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how he has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.
"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview.
Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.
KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?
KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.
As Taranto points out, later that night Kerry and Edwards found the time to attend a "celebration of real American values", where Whoopi Goldberg "delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush":
Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material.
"I Xeroxed my behind and I folded it up in an envelope and I sent it back with a big kiss mark on because we're Democrats--we're not afraid to laugh," she said. . . .
Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's tirade --and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its tone when they spoke to the crowd.
They hailed the fund-raiser as a great event.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Iraqi opinion
I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Iraq. I think it will become an Islamic democracy similar to Turkey, and a strong friend to America in the region, now that the country has returned to Iraqi control, and the feeling of appreciation for America's sacrifices settles in.
Recent opinion polls show that a large majority of the country support the new interim government.
At Iraq the Model, if you missed it, Ali, an Iraqi, describes his experience as he learned about the official transition of power.
I was deeply moved by this great man’s [Bremer's] words but I couldn’t prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She’at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, “So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?” My friend smiled, still touched and said, “Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him.”
Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, “I must admit that I’m beginning to believe in what you’ve been telling us for months and I’m beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises.”
Even the BBC, not known for their pro-American bias, seemed unable to find someone who was not sanguine about the future.
More WMD found in Iraq
17 rockets and 2 mortar shells filled with chemical weapons were found in Iraq in June.
Reuters finally admits the truth that "small quantities of banned weaponry" have been found. Of course, "small quantities" are sufficient for catastrophic attacks:
"If these shells had been used, in a mortar attack on Camp Babylon for example, the results would have been unthinkable," the Polish commander in Iraq, General Mieczyslaw Bieniek, told TVN24 television.
So does this mean that George Bush didn't lie after all? Of course not, you see he told us that we would find vast warehouses filled with WMD, stamped with shipping labels to Osama Bin Laden. Didn't he?
Regardless, it is just common sense that the real danger from Saddam was that once sanctions and inspectors were finally removed, as the French were pressing for in 2002, he would resume his WMD programs. There is overwhelming evidence of that intention, including his nuclear weapons programs.
Make no mistake, Saddam despised America and would have loved to have hit us hard. These newly minted weapons might have been used for attacks against America, with his own secret agents or through various terrorist groups.
So in my opinion, the discovery of existing WMD is neither here nor there. If we were attacked some day, are we going to care that the WMD were manufactured pre-2003 or after 2003?
But remember who the liar is when someone tells you no WMD have been found in Iraq. Hint: It's not George Bush.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
The Enemy is George Bush
The Democratic Party has found a kindred spirit today.
Following the lead of Al Gore, Howard Dean, DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe in his enthusiastic endorsement of Michael Moore's "documentary", and even occasionally the MIA candidate John Kerry, and their allies like George Soros and his moveon.org (I thought money in politics was supposed to be evil!), Saddam declared today that the real criminal is Bush.
Great minds think alike. Saddam may have finally found a place where his worldview will be appreciated. Perhaps he can add strength and gravitas to the democratic ticket as Kerry's VP candidate.
