« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
Arabs: Anti-American or Not?
(Cross-posted at Blogmeister USA)
I read this extremely interesting commentary by Iraninan Amir Taheri, whose columns are featured regularly in the New York Post. Using Karen Hughes' current good will tour of the Middle East as a springboard, Taheri poses the question: "Are Arabs the most anti-American people on Earth?" What he discloses in order to answer the question is illuminating.
In addition to many American products and business outlets in Arab countries, one will find that:
More than 70 percent of what's broadcast on Arab TV stations (including those regarded as "obsessively anti-American") is U.S.-made; 80 percent of the films shown in Arab cinemas are made in Hollywood. There are more than two dozen English dailies, all using the American version of the language. Go through them, and you see that much of the content comes from U.S. agencies and syndication services.
The above paragraph will be important later. Here's more:
Only God and the U.S. immigration service would know how many Arabs hold green cards or even dual Arab-U.S. citizenship. With the possible exception of Libya, which has a weird regime, and Syria, whose leaders fear they may be targeted for "regime change," almost all Arab regimes are well-disposed toward the United States. Sixteen of the 21 member states of the Arab League host some U.S. military presence. The FBI maintains offices in at least 12 Arab capitals.
I imagine Iran is among the few whose government is anti-American, but this information isn't what one would expect to hear.
Remember the paragraph I said would be important? Here's why:
In Arab newspapers, the bulk of the material that could be classified as anti-Bush and/or anti-American is translated from U.S. sources. Stroll in the streets where books and video and audio tapes are on sale at the curbsides and you will see that 90 percent of the items vilifying America come from American, French and British authors.
Thanks, Noam Chomsky! You've found an audience after all.
At any given time, one can find a horde of American activists visiting the region to urge the natives to hate America:
* Two years ago, a group of Americans appeared in Arab capitals to stop people in the bazaars to "apologize for the Crusades," although the United States didn't even exist when those wars were fought between Europe and the Middle East.
They took a page out of Bill Clinton's book, who apologizes for--well, everything.
* One American professor recently published an op-ed in The New York Times relating his trip to Iran, where he was "disappointed" to see that students not only did not hate George W. Bush but, horror of horrors, also craved for an American-style democracy instead of an Islamist utopia.
If only this professor had those students in his classes, he could have shown them the "light."
* A friend, who happens to be a minister in an Arab state, was saddened this summer when, spending holidays with his family in the United States as he had always done since student days, he had to quarrel with an old American schoolmate. The point of the dispute was that the American insisted that the United States was an "evil empire," while the Arab believed that it could be a force for reform in the Middle East.
Read the article for more startling examples. Taheri's conclusion:
There are many issues on which the Arabs disagree with the United States. But most Arabs don't see that as a sign of anti-Arabism on the part of America. Hughes should not regard it as a sign of anti-Americanism on the part of Arabs.
It's nice to know that so many are doing their part to crumble the wall of misunderstanding between Arabs and Americans...not. Anti-Americanism exists in the Arab world, of that there is no doubt. If it didn't, 9/11 would never have happened. But is it as widespread as we think it is?
If not, some of our very own countrymen will do their best to encourage it.
Posted by Pam at 09:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Priscilla Owen Out?
Rumor that she pulled her name out of consideration for SCOTUS.
With everything going on about Bill Bennett's comments, I am salivating (more than usual) for Janice Rogers Brown. Brown!
Posted by Aaron at 04:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cindy Sheehan and MSM Blindness
Let's get something straight here, even if MSM members won't.
Cindy Sheehan isn't a "peace mom".
A person who wants peace understands that there are times when you have to fight.
Americans, in general, want peace, but they won't tolerate being attacked.
USA will not have peace as long as terrorists threaten the USA and its allies. Thus, the USA has sent its military into Afghanistan and Iraq.
A "peace mom" would understand the need for such military action.
Cindy Sheehan, however, has demonstrated that she isn't a "peace mom".
Over at PoliPundit, someone suggested that Ms. Sheehan be called a pawn, probably because she is being used by Marxists, as seen at that rally that took place in Washington, D.C.
A fitting word to describe Ms. Sheehan is enabler, because she is enabling the enemies of the USA, which is the opposite of what her son Casey was doing when he was killed.
You don't have to approve of the fighting in Iraq in order to see that there is something wrong with an American enabling America's enemies.
When it comes to Ms. Sheehan, some MSM members have selective blindness.
Posted by Dodo David at 02:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Brock, Bennett, Clinton, Jess and Sullivan
I am going to post extensively on this later, but I have a few quick questions...
1. Has anyone checked to see what level the Andrew Sullivan freak-out meter is at today?
2. Where's Hillary?
3. Where is Jesse--"Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"--Jackson? [Yes, Jesse said it back in 1977]
Posted by Aaron at 01:20 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
INTERBLOGATORY HIT'N'RUNS
|
(Caution; language:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by kitty at 11:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Democrats Plan to Go Positive in 2006
So reports Mort Kondracke.
Democrats have an answer to the question, "OK, what's your alternative to the Bush policies you constantly criticize?" It is: "We're working on it." When it emerges, in a form yet to be determined, it's likely to include proposals for tax reform, health insurance, energy independence, national security and retirement reform.
Tax reform? The only kind of tax reform the Democrats ever propose is the kind that reforms your wallet by making it a little thinner. Health insurance? Wow, that's exciting and new: HillaryCare 2006. Energy independence? Arguably a laudable goal, but there are two aspects to achieving that: Energy conservation, and finding new sources of energy. So far the Democrats have only mustered enthusiasm for the former. Are they going to propose new hydroelectric dams, or nuclear power plants, or drilling in ANWAR?
One key outside consultant told me he once thought Democrats needed to come forward with positive messages immediately, but that he's changed his mind. "The Republican numbers are bad now, bad across the board," he said. "So, we have time. Let them stew in their juices a bit longer. They perfected this in '94 and it worked for them. What's the one thing we've done? We've held the line on Social Security. Did we do anything else? Not that I can tell."
Hey, it worked in 2002 and 2004, why not try it again?
According to the latest Democracy Corps poll, Democrats now enjoy a 9-point advantage in a generic Congressional preference poll and are running stronger in unidentified seat-by-seat matchups.
Yet the poll found that the public's general opinion of Democrats is no better than it is of Republicans, that "feelings about Democrats are at a 2.5-year low" and that Democrats receive only 48 percent of the 2006 preference ballot - the same as their 2004 showing.
Buncha problems there. Democracy Corps is not non-partisan, the ballot that voters face is not a generic Congressional preference poll, and it's hard to argue that the Democrats are going to pick up anything when feelings about them are lower than since 2003.
Roy Blunt, new House Majority Leader, puts it well:
"I think the problem our friends on the other side have is that they can't win without ideas and they can't win with the ideas they have. If they don't come forward with the kind of proposals that Republicans brought to the public arena in 1994, they're not going to win the majority. And the kind of ideas that Leader Pelosi will come up with are not likely to be the kind of ideas that will appeal to the country."
See also the Viking Pundit
Posted by pat at 10:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Will Harry Reid Step Down
Rush was absolutely right yesterday. He said that the Democrats and the media are overplaying their hand on the delay indictment. Just like the non-story about travel reimbursments when every democrat refiled all their paperwork when they realized they were just as guilty as Tom DeLay. San Fran Nan Bella Pelosi was asked about why she was criticizing Tom DeLay when she did the same thing. Nancy replied that this was not about her, its about Tom DeLay.
Well lets see if Senator Reid will receive the same breathless attention that Tom DeLay has received:
Senator arranged for grant now involved in indictment of pastors.
WASHINGTON -- The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.
"The money was administered by the Department of Justice, and it went to the agency in Nevada (Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada)," Hafen said.
The Rev. Willie Davis, the longtime pastor of Second Baptist Church, and his wife, Emma, were indicted Tuesday on fraud charges with an associate minister, the Rev. McTheron Jones.
They are accused of spending $330,000 from federal grants on themselves although the money was intended for halfway houses for prison inmates in Southern Nevada.
The indictment identifies Willie Davis as president of the Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada board of directors.
How is this different than the DeLay indictment? Well it's $140,000 more than what's involved with DeLay. Also, there is no zealous prosecutor charging conspiracy because there's actually EVIDENCE in this case.
Posted by Aaron at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Bozell on the Bush Haters
Brent Bozell has an interesting comparison piece on the coverage of last weekend's anti-war protest and a pro-life gathering with similar numbers of people in Washington D.C.
The Washington Post won for the best biggest puff piece, a front-page story hyping how "Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets." Reporter Petula Dvorak began: "Tens of thousands of people packed downtown Washington yesterday and marched past the White House in the largest show of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the conflict in Iraq began.""Tens of thousands" also marched in the last pro-life march in January, but that story landed on page A-3, which is better than most years. Reporter David Snyder noted "tens of thousands of antiabortion advocates marched on the Mall yesterday as part of an annual protest of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to abortion." That's an interesting difference in terms. Pro-lifers were advocates marching against a landmark guarantee for women, not people "packing the streets" to show growing "antiwar sentiment."
Click here to read the whole thing.
I'm sure it was simply a difference in editorial style...
Posted by Pam at 02:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stop It Drudge!
Why is he driving me insane by putting JRB's photo up as a possible nominee? God I wish it were true.Posted by Aaron at 02:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Guardian Columnist: Why Does America Celebrate Heroes?
(Crossposted at Brainster's)
We don't have any newspapers quite like the Guardian in the US. It's kind of an amalgam of the Nation and the New York Times; mostly far left but with an occasional dollop of sense. This column, by Timothy Garton Ash, unfortunately lacks that latter quality.
This was the enactment of a dream, of course. The statistical reality of social mobility in today's United States is rather different. But a dream in which enough people believe is itself a kind of reality, and that has long been the case of the American dream. It's a remarkable fact that, in surveys, many poorer Americans oppose high taxes on the rich - presumably because they believe they might one day be rich themselves. There are just enough success stories of outstanding individuals from poor and immigrant backgrounds to keep the dream alive.
That is not entirely the reason why sensible people oppose high taxes on the rich. In fact, we had those high taxes right up until Ronald Reagan. The reason why we oppose high taxes on the rich is that the rich have the capital stock of the country. If they are taxed highly on their investments, they will tend not to invest. And then the rest of us suffer the ill-effects. Perhaps the classic case of this was when the Clinton Administration decided to raise taxes on the purchase of luxury goods, like yachts. Inevitably what happened was that rich people decided not to buy yachts. Who suffered? The folks who made their living building them.
Two months later we saw America at its worst, as members of the black underclass in the ninth ward of New Orleans drowned, grew sick and were preyed upon by violent gangs, while government failed to help or protect them. There are even reports (unconfirmed, and perhaps apocryphal) of American women changing their name from Katrina, since Hurricane Katrina has become a synonym not just for natural disaster but for human and political failure. How could the richest and most powerful country in the world, capable of hitting a flea in Afghanistan with a precision laser-guided missile, fail its own poor so miserably?
Sigh. Perhaps Mr Garton Ash is unaware that the number of dead in Katrina was vastly overstated, that the reports of violent gangs appear to have been completely made up. I don't know anybody named Katrina myself, but I doubt if many women so named would change it just because of the hurricane.
Then he diverges onto another path which I found interesting:
It would be interesting to do a word count for mentions of the word "hero" in American public life, as compared with Britain, France or Germany. A hundred years ago, conservative nationalist Germans used to characterise the "true" Germans as heroes and the Jews as wheeler-dealers: Helden against Händler. Today, we have a different stereotype: true Americans as Helden and limp-wristed Europeans as Händler. Yet in practice, of course, you had the same mix of true bravery and, as one journalist on the spot noted, "real raw panic" in the response to Rita and Katrina as you would in most societies.
I have no doubt that the word "hero" is used more commonly in the United States than in Europe and for a simple reason: Leftists hate heroes. Indeed, I suspect Mr Garton Ash is not a big fan himself. Note his immediate (and inane) evocation of the Germans and the Jews; the implication is clearly that if you like heroes you must have loved the Holocaust.
Why does the Left denigrate heroes? Because when we celebrate heroes, we are elevating an individual over the common man. We are saying that this person is better than average, that he or she is deserving of admiration and emulation. The Left realizes that heroic individuals undercut their argument that people on their own cannot succeed, that a collective, community effort is needed. It takes a village, remember?
Think about the reaction of "cartoonist" Ted Rall to the death of Pat Tillman. Tillman, a multimillionnaire athlete, had quit professional football after 9-11 to enlist in the army, where he became a Ranger. He was tragically killed in Afghanistan in a friendly fire incident. Rall created a cartoon depicting Tillman as bloodthirsty to kill Arabs. In the final panel, two newspaper reporters are talking with their editor about what they think of Tillman. "Uh--Idiot?" says the first reporter. "Sap?" suggests the second. "Hero!" says the editor.
That's why the continuing theme of Brainster's (my solo blog) is the hero, the individual who rises above the moment to achieve greatness. It is to celebrate people like Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, or Phillip Bullard, or Sgt Paul Smith.
Yes, I blog on a lot of topics. But the word "hero" definitely pops up more often in my blog than most. It appears in 17 different posts in September alone, according to a quick search.
Posted by pat at 10:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Fetus Smuggling
Colombian police have found the bodies of three human foetuses hidden in statues destined for the United States.
The discovery was made by officers searching for contraband at Bogota Airport on Tuesday.
The corpses were wrapped in plastic and concealed inside statues of Christian icons, which were smashed open.
Colombian police chief Gen Jord Alirio Varon said the four- to five-month-old foetuses could have been intended for use in Satanic rituals.
Gen Varon said the foetuses were found alongside crucifixes and medals.
He said officials are trying to find out who sent the packages, which came from Barranquilla in Colombia and were destined for Miami in the US.
Posted by Aaron at 10:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Feminists Laud First Female Suicide Bomber in Iraq
(The following piece is a political satire.)
The first known woman suicide bomber in Iraq, killing at least six Iraqi army recruits and wounding 35, has been hailed as a trailblazer by feminists.
Gloria Steinem, considered the mother of modern feminism, had only words of praise for the nameless woman. "When a woman steps into a role formerly dominated by men and makes it her own, then women everywhere benefit by her courage and fortitude. She is an example of where perseverance and persistence can bring you." Steinem then had a pertinent question regarding the bombing. "Was she wearing a bra?"
Echoing those sentiments was Eve Ensler, creator of the Vagina Monologues and crusader against violence toward women. "She sounds like an amazing person. By killing these men she is fighting back against the cycle of violence perpetrated by men upon women. Of course, it's too bad she had to die with them. I hope she shouted, 'My vagina wins!' when she pulled the cord."
Others were wondering how they could be a part of this groundbreaking occurrence. Lawyer Lynne Stewart offered to help with the woman's defense, but upon being reminded that the woman was dead, revised her offer to defending those who recruited the female bomber--should they decide to go public. "Of course, they'll have to wait until I find out how long I'll be in prison," the convicted lawyer chuckled.
Even some Hollywood stars are in awe of this woman whom they have never met, and now never will. "It's like, so totally awesome," said Cameron Diaz, host of the MTV show Trippin'. " "I'd love to try that on my show, but, um, I don't think the producers would go for it. It's way too dangerous. But I'm with her in spirit, you know?" she added as she boarded her private jet with Drew Barrymore as they flew to an impoverished country in Africa to shoot another episode of the program.
Finally, grieving mother Cindy Sheehan blamed the woman's act on President Bush. "People are saying this woman was brainwashed, or maybe even forced, into doing this heroic act," she declared from her jail cell in Washington D.C. "But I know what she was thinking. She knew that by blowing herself up and taking a few evil Iraqi army recruits with her, she was actually going to blow a big hole in the reason for the U.S. being in Iraq. I'd love to meet her mother. Maybe she can join my tour."
Posted by Pam at 09:01 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Jesse Jackson to go on trial
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has picked up on a story that is bound to become a hot topic beginning next year.
Rev. Jesse Jackson will be a defendent in a civil trial that is to take place next January.
To learn more about the story, click here.
Posted by Dodo David at 06:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Replace DeLay with Gay?
UPDATE: Dreier was not asked to replace DeLay.
This is quite interesting:
The latest target of a Capitol Hill outing campaign — designed to expose closeted homosexual Republicans who oppose civil rights for gay people — is San Gabriel Valley Congressman David Dreier.
The powerful 12-term congressman — chairman of the House Rules Committee, chairman of the California Republican House delegation, co-chairman of Californians for Bush, chairman of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s transition team — is in the cross hairs of Mike Rogers and his Blogactive.com Web site, whose outing campaign has already forced one GOP congressman out of politics. Representative Ed Schrock, a reactionary from Virginia, ended his re-election campaign last month after Rogers put on his Web site an audiotape of Schrock trolling for tricks on a gay chat line.
Now, Rogers — a former development director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — has given Dreier the “Roy Cohn Award, in recognition of 24 years of working against gay and lesbian rights while living as a gay man yourself.” He is pummeling Dreier with almost daily revelations as a response to the GOP’s anti-gay crusade for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
Rogers’ campaign against Dreier got a major boost when it was taken up by Raw Story, the hot new liberal gadfly newsblog. Raw Story — which is edited out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, by 23-year-old John Byrne, who is also gay — last week published an interview with Dreier’s Democratic opponent in 1998 and 2000, Dr. Janice Nelson, who said she was aware during her 2000 campaign that Dreier was living with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. “Brad was like an invisible presence,” she said. “They really have the routine down slick.”
First of all, you will recall I met and confronted this Rogers fellow at the National Press Club. He firmly believes that all gay Republicans are shams and in hiding unless they are actually sodomizing each other on C-Span. I didn't see Rogers shouting down McGreevy at any press conferences.
And until I see the "Anti-Gay Person's Act H.R. 666" that Dreier authored and voted for, then excuse me for not being exited by this information. Dreier would be a gayhater to this crowd unless he was actually signing Andrew Sullivan and David Brock's marriage certificate.
Posted by Aaron at 03:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
On DeLay
I don't know if he did it, but it sure doesn't look good.
I don't care how good he is for the Party. If he did it then good riddence and I hope he spends all two years behind bars.
UPDATE: Okay, maybe I shouldn't just throw him under the bus. Here is what Mark Levin had to say at the corner (and I really trust his opinion in judicial matters):
DELAY [Mark R. Levin]
Here's my first take on this indictment (I've only read the indictment and nothing more for now): The indictment is three pages in length. Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something!
This is a reasonable argument not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I am sticking to my statement above if he is in fact involved.
UPDATE II: From Media Blog
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Tom DeLay, for reasons that have entirely to do with the expansion of entitlement spending under his watch (see Bruce Bartlett's excellent piece on NRO today for details). But having said that, this indictment is totally phony. Here's why:
The indictment centers around a money swap that took place between the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), to which DeLay has ties, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates in 2002. Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from coporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
What you won't hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and B) the Democrats did the exact same thing. An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.
Here's what I wrote about this case last summer:
Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans. I've been watching TV all day and no one has provided this context. I'll keep watching to see if the coverage gets more than fingernail-deep.Bottom line: Even people who aren't fans of Tom DeLay should show some intellectual honesty and admit that this is an out-of-control prosecutor and a phony charge.
Posted by Aaron at 02:05 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
DeLay Indicted
So, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted by a Texas grand jury.
DeLay has accused the district attorney involved in the case of conducting a political witch hunt.
The Dodo doesn't buy that argument.
First, the grand jury had to have sufficient evidence in order to indict DeLay.
Second, the fact that the district attorney is a Democrat doesn't automatically mean that the district attorney is letting politics influence his work.
Third, being a Republican doesn't mean that one is incapable of committing a crime. Republicans aren't more saintly than Democrats.
Power can corrupt a politician no matter which side of the U.S. House of Representatives that the politician sits on.
Posted by Dodo David at 01:59 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Kitty Sure Gets Around
Not only does she blog her and at Kitty Litter, but she is down saving elderly men Louisianna. God bless her!
Posted by Aaron at 12:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Evil Inspires
What does one say when they come across an article titled 'Honour killing' inspires reflection among Pakistanis?
Calm and methodically big brother stoops over his little sister while shooting one projectile after the other into her. Her spouse, affected by several shots to the abdomen, can only look on helplessly, while his wife is executed by her own family. [Translation from FreeRepublic]
A so-called 'honour killing' involving a Pakistani family leads members of the immigrant community to reflect on the practice.
A Pakistani man's alleged shooting of his younger sister in a so-called 'honour killing' over the weekend has led members of the Pakistani community to discuss ways of halting the practice.
The sheer idiocy of the community's reaction is breathtaking: you get pee-pee on the Koran--you must take to the streets in violent, deadly protests; a man in Denmark murders his own sister in broad daylight--you must pause and reflect.
Where is the outrage?
And more importantly, where's Hillary?
[nod to Danegerous]
Posted by Aaron at 11:44 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
You know that . . .
You know that you’ve been working with pre-schoolers too much when . . .
. . . the home page of your web browser is NickJr.com.
. . . while at McDonalds you order a Happy Meal, and you are by yourself.
. . . there are crayons where you used to keep ink pens.
. . . at night you can’t fall asleep until you look for monsters underneath your bed.
. . . you anxiously await the arrival of the next Winnie the Poo movie.
. . . at the state fair you try to get on the kiddie rides.
. . . you listen to Sesame Street songs while driving to work.
. . . at home you use bowls and plates decorated with cartoon characters.
. . . when you go to a movie theater, you ask for the child discount, and there are no children with you.
. . . you name your own children Dora and Diego, and you name your dog Blue.
Posted by Dodo David at 10:57 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
It's All About Cindy--What About Lynndie?
You know, for all the press the Abu Ghraib photos received, why isn't anyone interested in the outcome of Lynndie England's trial?
England was sentenced to three years in prison for her involvement, as well as a dishonorable discharge. Where's the excitement about this example of the American military doing the right thing? Ah, gotcha--we only talk about the military when it goofs, not when it makes things right. George W. Bush can commiserate, I'm sure.
Lynndie England may be one of the only people I can think of who is thrilled that Cindy Sheehan's popularity with the press has seen a resurgence, as it's taking much of the heat off of her.
While I think it's right that those who participated in that distasteful photo shoot be punished, I find it amusing that the incident at Abu Ghraib, which dominated the headlines for weeks on end, has had its conclusion shunted aside for the "fresher" spectacle of Cindy Sheehan and her followers being arrested in front of the White House.
The MSM should adopt a new slogan: all the news that's fit to occupy the attention span of a gnat. And you wondered what that annoying buzzing sound was!
Posted by Pam at 09:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Update on story about Sheehan jealousy
Journalist Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times has called into question the authorship of that controversial "Cindy Sheehan" post at DailyKos.
Harper writes the following:
The someone called "Cindy Sheehan" wrote at the DailyKos.com Web site early Saturday evening: "I am watching CNN and it is 100 percent [Hurricane] Rita. Even though it is a little wind and a little rain, it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today ... and in the world."
The comment was one of a dozen entries, including speech transcripts and press releases, credited to Mrs. Sheehan at the site, which says 79 percent of the "page viewers" are Democrats. Bush-bashing is the daily ritual.
But was "Cindy Sheehan" actually Cindy Sheehan?
"I am very certain she did not post it," says Morrigan Phillips, a spokesman (Mrs. Sheehan has three) who has taken questions for Mrs. Sheehan on her cross-country protest tour. "She was pretty busy on Saturday."
So is the "Cindy Sheehan" who wrote the controversial post the real Cindy Sheehan?
Here are some observations.
#1 Ms. Harper states, "The comment was one of a dozen entries, including speech transcripts and press releases, credited to Mrs. Sheehan at the site."
If DailyKos credits other entries as being from the real Cindy Sheehan, then why not credit this latest, controversial entry as being from the real Cindy Sheehan? Didn't DailyKos verify that the person with the user name "Cindy Sheehan" was really Cindy Sheehan?
#2 Sheehan spokesman Morrigan Phillips stated, "I am very certain she did not post it."
Well, Sheehan is very certain that President Bush lied about there being WMDs in Iraq. Being certain isn't the same thing as being right.
#3 Sheehan denied writing anti-Semitic remarks in e-mail that she sent to others. Yet, the recipients of her e-mail confirm that Sheehan did write those remarks. It wouldn't be out of character for Sheehan to say something controversial and then deny saying it.
#4 Sheehan got herself arrested in order to draw media attention to herself, which explains why she was smiling while being arrested. If Sheehan is that starved for media attention, then it wouldn't be surprising if Sheehan did post that controversial statement at DailyKos.
For its own good, DailyKos needs to investigate the authorship of the controversial "Sheehan" post.
If the real Cindy Sheehan didn't write it, then all other DailyKos entries credited to Cindy Sheehan are also questionable.
If Ms. Sheehan didn't write the post, then out of fairness to Ms. Sheehan, the real author needs to be outed.
Even if Ms. Sheehan isn't popular with conservatives, it would still be wrong for someone to impersonate her.
That's a fact that both Ms. Sheehan and President Bush would agree on.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:32 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Interesting Omissions/Additions on SCOTUS Pick
Here is an earlier list of possible SCOTUS picks:
Widely mentioned candidates include federal appellate judges Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Emilio Garza, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alito. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and Maura Corrigan, a member of the Michigan Supreme Court, are also considered possibilities.
Here is the latest list:
President Bush, close to nominating a successor to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has narrowed his list to a handful of candidates that outside advisers say includes federal judges and two people who have never banged a gavel--corporate attorney Larry Thompson and White House counsel Harriet Miers.
...
He declined to say if the president had interviewed any candidates and wouldn't speculate about Bush's favorites, but legal analysts monitoring the selection process say others often mentioned are federal appellate judges Alice Batchelder, J. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Priscilla Owen, Samuel Alito, Karen Williams and Michael McConnell. Also said to be on the list are Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Who was added to the list?
Priscilla Owen
Who didn't make the second list?
- Edith Brown Clement
- Emilio Garza
- J. Harvie Wilkinson
- Samuel Alito
- Miguel Estrada
- and...Janice Rogers Brown
Personally, I think the three most likely candidates are:
- Edith Jones
- Alice Batchelder
- Priscilla Owen
My dream list would be:
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Miguel Estrada
- J. Michael Luttig
Who are your top three?
Posted by Aaron at 07:27 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Islands for Sale
Who knew you could buy an island online.
Posted by Aaron at 06:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tax Dollars at Work
I am simply beside myself. This should be a crime:
With little to do, some evacuees are blowing their $2,000 checks from FEMA. One family hired a stretch limo to go shopping. Local hustlers are hanging about, offering, for a fee, to take evacuees to bars or casinos.
That's hip-hop culture for ya!
Posted by Aaron at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More on that "anti-war" rally
Thanks to Michelle Malkin, the Dodo has been examining photos taken at the anti-war rally held in Washington, D.C. The photos give the Dodo the impression that the rally had little to do with the war in Iraq. The photos indicate that Cindy Sheehan’s supporters had another agenda.
In case you didn’t know, Cindy Sheehan’s support comes from an organization that calls itself International ANSWER. It turns out that this particular organization is a front organization for the Worker's World Party.
Writing for Slate, Christopher Hitchens states the following:
I can tell you that the Worker's World Party — Ramsey Clark's core outfit — is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump.
According to Hitchens, the Worker’s World Party “openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Thus, International ANSWER is, in the words of Hitchens, “a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.”
Neal Boortz states the following about International ANSWER:
In the leadership of International A.N.S.W.E.R you will find people who have been supporting communist causes and working for the weakening of America for many many years. The groups behind International A.N.S.W.E.R have also called for the abolition of private property.
Photos taken at that so-called “anti-war” rally verify what Hitchens and Boortz are saying.
Here are some of the things stated on the signs and banners that were at the rally, along with the Dodo’s commentary:
“Build the Socialist Equality Party”
[DD: Socialist equality? In Socialism, some people are more equal than others.]
“Party for Socialism and Liberation”
[DD: In some nations, socialism and liberation are opposites.]
“Freedom Road Socialist Organization”
[DD: What an oxymoron.]
“Break with the Democratic Party of War and Racism – For a Workers Party That Fights for Socialist Revolution!”
[DD: The Democratic Party is racist? Want to tell that to the N.A.A.C.P.?]
“Young Communist League”
[DD: Finally, a group that admits to being Communist.]
“Hands Off Iran and north Korea!
Socialist Workers Campaign”
[DD: A group that supports North Korea’s Communist government; they forgot to capitalize “north”.]
“From Baghdad to New Orleans –
Capitalism Means Mass Murder!
Socialist Revolution
Is the Only Solution!”
[DD: Communists are known for their opposition to Capitalism; someone forgot to tell them about the mass murders committed by Saddam Hussein . . . and by Stalin.]
There you have it. The rally was a pro-Socialism rally. Its participants seem to have forgotten about a couple of famous Socialist organizations.
Remember the USSR? Well, the letters “USSR” stand for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.
Remember the Nazis of 20th-Century Germany? Well, “Nazi” is the shortened form of the German word “Nazionalsozialist”. “Nazi” was the name for a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
What will Cindy Sheehan’s Socialist supporters do next?
It wouldn’t surprise the Dodo if the Socialists started saying, “Heil Cindy!”
Clarification: This post is not about Cindy Sheehan. It is about the people who are supporting her. The Dodo doesn't have any evidence that Cindy Sheehan supports either Socialism or Communism.
Posted by Dodo David at 06:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
CNN.com Spinning Brown
Here is how CNN quotes Michael Brown: You want me to be a hero.
But that's NOT what he said!
"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."
There is a big difference between a hero and a superhero. But I guess that's just CNN "nudging."
Posted by Aaron at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
They lie and lie and lie...
Is anything about the Democrats real anymore other than their hatred for Bush? Wizbang has the donation record or this "republican" (aka democratic hack).
Andrew Sullivan was unavailable for comment.
Posted by Aaron at 03:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Caption Contest Winner
Winner goes to GayPatriotWest! Who knew he reads this site? Is he single? Heh.
"I Thought Cindy Was Arrested, not Eaten"
Posted by Aaron at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Typical, Typical
World according to the MSM:
Posted by Aaron at 12:59 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
INTERBLOGATORY GEMS
|
Ben Stein's
|
|
|
Scroll down to
Posted by kitty at 10:04 AM | Comments (4)
Kalb and Teflon
Here's a particularly stupid article by Marvin Kalb on the sudden unleashing of the press:
Suddenly, as if the flood waters had smashed not only the levees in New Orleans but the teflon-protected presidency of George W. Bush, networks and newspapers have again found their voice. An embarrassing four-year period of media deference to the president and his policies has ended.
Sigh. Yeah, we all know how deferential the press had been to the president right up until Katrina. Talk about nutty myths, this is the nuttiest of all.
For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when an understandable feeling of patriotism induced timid coverage of White House policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, journalists have now returned to their traditional role as fearless chroniclers of the passing parade, blasting the administration for its tardy, ineffective response to the hurricane. Indeed, they have even gone beyond their traditional role.
Marvin, Marvin, Marvin! Have you forgotten that "everybody supported Afghanistan", that lovely and phony meme that the left went along with that war, but Iraq was just a step too far?
The media feels free to criticize a president whose poll numbers are collapsing....
Now wait a minute. First the media are plural, so it's "The media feel free...." Second, I thought they were becoming fearless chroniclers of the passing parade, not merely folks feeling free to kick somebody when he's down. And as for Bush's supposed "collapsing poll numbers", they are not evident in Rasmussen's polling, which has shown him at between 44 and 49 percent approval both before Katrina and afterwards.
Update: Aaron points us (in the comments) to this article in the LA Times on all the mistakes in the coverage of Katrina. Could it be that the reason the press has gained the courage to resist Bush is because they got away with lying during the aftermath of the hurricane?
Posted by pat at 10:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Where was Kerry?
The Dodo has a question about the anti-war rally held in Washington, D.C. on September 24th of this year.
Where was Senator John Kerry?
During his 2004 presidential campaign, Senator Kerry spoke against the war in Iraq.
So why didn’t he appear at Cindy Sheehan’s rally?
Could his absence have anything to do with the speech that he gave on October 9, 2002?
You remember the speech, right? Kerry gave it on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
You don’t remember?
That’s probably because most of the mainstream media didn’t report the speech. If MSM members did report the speech, then they forgot about it during the 2004 presidential campaign. How convenient for Senator Kerry.
So what is in the speech that would make Senator Kerry stay away from Cindy Sheehan?
Answer: Evidence that President Bush did not lie.
Here are some excerpts from Kerry’s speech. Take note of the parts in bold print.
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
He [Hussein] has supported and harbored terrorist groups . . .
In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.
As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? . . . And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.
In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.
If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence.
So there you have it. A few months before President Bush claimed that Iraq still had WMDs, Senator Kerry claimed that Iraq still had WMDs. Before the Bush Administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons, Senator Kerry claimed that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Senator Kerry even said that Saddam Hussein had been aiding terrorists.
So if President Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs, about Saddam Hussein being a threat to the USA, then Senator Kerry lied, too.
Certainly you didn’t expect a “liar” like Senator Kerry to be welcome at Cindy Sheehan’s rally.
A big “Thank You” to Giacomo of Joust The Facts for finding Kerry’s speech, blogging about it and providing a link to it.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Line Item Veto
Even though I was in the fifth grade, I remember seeing the Bush/Clinton/Perot debates in 1992. And I still remember Bush discussing a line item veto and he held up his pen showing him zapping the fat of bills. Its funny the things one remembers...
I just bring that up because of this:
Senators Jim Talent (R., Mo.) and George Allen (R., Va.) are holding a press conference tomorrow announcing that they are going to introduce a constitutional amendment to create a line-item veto.
Posted by Aaron at 02:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Caption Contest
linked to by EU Rota...and I cannot verify it's authenticity.
Posted by Aaron at 02:37 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Cindy Sheehan Arrested
I am assuming she threw a temper-tantrum and the secret service said enough was enough.
Ah, I was right.
Posted by Aaron at 02:03 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Alone in Iraq
That's the message we get daily from the left and the MSM: we're "going it alone" in Iraq, and the rest of the world has abandoned not only us, but the Iraqis.
Not true.
As Allan Wall points out on Front Page Magazine, there is a coalition in Iraq:
The U.S. presently has 26 coalition partners here in Iraq, with a total of over 23,000 troops which are neither American nor Iraqi.
Here is a list of our 26 partners, in descending order of troop strength: the UK, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Lithuania, Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Norway and the Netherlands.
Just because France, Germany and Russia declared they would not be a part of the mission in Iraq (and we all know why now), that doesn't mean there is no coalition. It makes me think of my high school days, when the kids who thought they were cooler than everyone else would consider any gathering without them a "non-event," even when everyone else was having a great time without them.
Here in Iraq, we have allies with worthy traditions, distinguished units, good equipment and dedicated soldiers. They deserve our respect and appreciation, and we can learn from them. As the Operation Iraqi Freedom continues its fight, we should not forget the contributions of our coalition allies.
Hear, hear.
UPDATE: Oops...click here for that Frontpage Magazine link.
Posted by Pam at 01:29 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Cindy Sheehan jealous of Hurricane Rita
The blog Angry in the Great White North has a story that seems too good to be true. However, Michelle Malkin has confirmed the story.
This past Saturday, members of the Main Stream Media were focusing on Hurricane Rita and its victims.
Well, Cindy Sheehan became jealous of Hurricane Rita. Cindy wanted the media attention that Rita was receiving.
Cindy responded by posting the following statement on the blog Daily Kos:
i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!
How did the other readers of Daily Kos respond?
To find out, read the story at Angry in the Great White North.
Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin.
Posted by Dodo David at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack