politics
Wither the financial services windfall profits tax?
So both Goldman and Lehman are reporting huge earnings. Obviously they did so on the backs of working-class Americans and Congressional hearings should begin post-haste to determine if a "windfall" profit tax will be levied, right? [For the sarcasm-impaired, the above was typed very much tongue-in-cheek.]
This "Striderweb", I like it
Please note: You're not allowed to call yourselves followers of a "religion of peace" if you riot and make death threats over a political cartoon.
[...]
A lot of people decry such statements, saying that this is the actions of some muslims, but not most of them. I'm still waiting for the major leaders of Islam to rise up and denounce such violence. Until that starts happening on a regular basis, I have a hard time believing those arguments. [Via Jeff.]
Are you registered to vote?
The Free Market Foundation reminds Texans the deadline for voter registration in time for the March primaries is this Monday, February 6th. If you need to register: 1. Click here to download a PDF of the voter registration form you can print out. 2. Fill it out and mail it to your county voter registration office. Click here for a list of registrars by county. As with every election, the Free Market Foundation is providing non-partisan Voters' Guides free of charge. Send them an e-mail with your mailing address and desired quantity. I've taken advantage of these guides in the past, and they are great at distilling voting issues in to clear language, offering pros and cons for ballot propositions, as well as candidate information.
Reckless with the truth and national security
A Patriot Post reader:
In their eagerness to inflict as much damage as possible to the Bush administration record, the Democrats once again are being reckless with the truth and with national security. Some say that the president is spying on American citizens. The president has made clear from the start that the wiretaps were limited to targeting communications from outside the country to individuals in the U.S. with known links to terrorist groups. It's not an "unreasonable search" to look for the bad guys when fighting international terrorism. The Democrats don't have a leg to stand on in this issue...and they know it.
How can the Democrats in all honesty criticize the president for intelligence failures and then attack him for being too aggressive in doing surveillance? How do you explain dismantling protections in the midst of a terror war? The Democrats by their duplicity are playing a very dangerous game that could derail the president's strategy to defeat a deadly enemy. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects its citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures" but who will protect us from "unreasonable" self-serving, seditious and self-destructive politicians?" --Fredericktown, Ohio
Shocked--shocked!--we tell you
Dana Priest of The Washington Post sounds shocked - shocked! - to discover that George W. Bush ordered a complete remobilization and reinvigoration of the CIA immediately after September 11th:
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al-Qaida has grown into the largest CIA covert-action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over clandestine tactics...
This is news? Isn't this just what W. told the country he would do in the aftermath of September 11th?
[...]
Apparently W. meant it. According to the Post's Ms. Priest, the president signed an order six days after September 11th empowering American intelligence agencies in a way not seen since the Second World War.
Gosh, just as if we had suffered a surprise attack and thousands of our people had been killed in a second Pearl Harbor.
Do you think maybe the president decided to fight this like a world war because, far ahead of his critics, he realized we were in one?
On truth being stranger than fiction
What do the senior senator from Massachusetts and quadruple murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams have in common? The Associated Press provides one answer:
Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."
<p>Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.</p>So Ted Kennedy has a dog named Splash? How witty.
Mary Jo Kopechne's children could not be reached for comment.
Cleaning house
Today's featured article on OpinionJournal, while highlighting the Abramoff ugliness, shows why many conservatives, this one included, are relatively unhappy with the Republicans in Congress:
The party that swept to power on term limits, spending restraint and reform has become the party of incumbency, 6,371 highway-bill "earmarks," and K Street. And it's no defense to say that Democrats would do the same. Of course Democrats would, but then they've always claimed to be the party of government. If that's what voters want, they'll choose the real thing.
[...]
Republicans won't escape voter anger by writing new rules but only by returning to their self-professed principles. Gradually since 1994 they've decided they want to reform and limit government less than they want to use government to entrench their own power, and in the case of the Abramoffs to get rich doing so. If Speaker Dennis Hastert, interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt and other GOP leaders are too insulated to realize this, then Republicans need new leaders, and right away. What's the adage, "Lead or get out of the way"? That's what the Republican congressional leadership needs to do. Show some backbone and lead, or let a willing someone step up and take over. There should be no more talk of DeLay returning to the Majority Leader position. Even if Mr. DeLay is found to be completely innocent (and in the case of the Texas charges, I believe he is), he has been tainted by allowing himself to be put in that position in the first place. Mr. Blunt or another Republican congressman needs to be named the new Majority Leader, so the floundering of the party can be put to a stop. The Republican Party, lead by Reagan, and then briefly from '94-98 by Gingrich, was the party of smaller government. This message resonated with the American people, and this put and kept the Republicans in power so long as they abided by that message. If Republicans are so interested in remaining in power, as the OpinionJournal piece opines, perhaps they should look to their recent past.
Fighting on many fronts
Not content to see the U.S. surrender in Iraq, the "peace" activists want us to lose in our own hemisphere as well. Notes Mary Anastasia O'Grady:
Congressional proposals to cut and run from Iraq are not the only dumb ideas emanating from Capitol Hill that threaten the security of Americans. Another is the insistence that the U.S. should stop its training efforts to increase the professionalism of Latin American militaries.
Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has operated a training facility at Fort Benning, Georgia for Latin American soldiers. Prior to 2000, it was known as the School of the Americas (SOA). Today it is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whinsec. Some 60,000 Latin military professionals have come through the two schools in the past six decades to improve their warfare skills while imbibing U.S. respect for democratic values.
In a region flush with political instability and insurgent activity, promoting military professionalism among our Latin allies might seem like a good idea. But Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, and 122 other House members have a problem with Whinsec. In March 2005, Mr. McGovern sponsored House Resolution 1217, which called for a suspension of the Whinsec program and an investigation of human rights violations that it allegedly contributed to.
It might be tempting to climb on board this "peace train" if not for the low credibility of Mr. McGovern and his activist admirers. The National Journal recently named the Massachusetts congressional delegation the most liberal in the nation and Mr. McGovern one of its most liberal members. Not incidentally, many of those demanding that Whinsec be shut down on "human rights" grounds are wholesale opponents of U.S. policy in the region.
One of the favorite targets of our adorable pacifists is the Colombian military, which a Gallup poll two years ago found was the most respected institution in that war-torn country with an 87% positive image (beating even the Church). Since Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has committed to raising the professionalism of Colombia's armed forces, the country's bloodthirsty guerrillas have been set back on their heels. That seems to make Mr. McGovern's supporters very unhappy.
There is also the habit of linking U.S. training to any misdeed committed by any individual that passed through the school. For example, SOA Watch, a Web site dedicated to closing Whinsec, blames the killing of a leader in the "peace community" on "troops commanded by General Luis Alfonso Zapata Uribe." Whether that's true or not is a matter for Colombian investigators. However, as evidence of U.S. complicity, SOA Watch cites Gen. Zapata Uribe's SOA attendance. What it doesn't mention is that he was there for six weeks in 1976 just after cadet school, according to Whinsec records. Even if Gen. Zapata Uribe -- who may well be innocent -- did spend six weeks in Georgia 30 years ago, does that really have any bearing on what constitutes good U.S. policy in the region today?
The notion that the U.S. should simply withdraw from military relationships in Latin America, abandoning not only alliances but also its role in promoting a U.S. human rights agenda, is about as stupid as, well, the Democratic idea of withdrawing from Iraq.
What is it about people named Barbara and Dean?
John Fund has a note on Barbara Boxer's Bush obsession in today's Political Diary.
Some Democrats have become so obsessed with President Bush's National Security Agency surveillance activities that they are putting the most rabid of the anti-Clinton Republicans of the 1990s to shame. Take Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who serves as her party's Chief Deputy Whip. Last month, during the holiday season, she sent a letter to legal scholars asking their opinions as to whether the Bush NSA program should compel Congress to start impeachment hearings. With the 2006 midterm elections now upon us, if the Democrats want the American public to take them seriously on matters of national security, perhaps they should quietly decide to make someone else the Chief Deputy Whip. Ms. Boxer's letter had been prompted by a December 16 appearance she made at Temple Emanuel in Los Angeles with former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, who has since become a sort of understudy to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his willingness to ascribe all manner of evil intent to conservative presidents. Mr. Dean, who declared the Bush record on civil liberties "worse than Watergate," told the Temple Emanuel audience that Mr. Bush is "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Ms. Boxer called that "a startling assertion" worthy of Congressional attention. During her duet with Mr. Dean, she made her own startling statement, blurting out that she feared Mr. Bush "would prefer to do away with Congress," calling for the House and Senate to be disbanded during wartime. The "worse than Watergate" assertion would be one of the funniest things I've read today if it weren't for Boxer's own comment about Bush wanting to disband Congress. One has to wonder if she's truly serious when she utters such nonsense, or is she simply playing to the anti-war radical left? Either way, I think it shows that Boxer isn't fit for such a high position in one of this country's two major political parties. Democrats such as Ms. Boxer are in danger of being viewed as overheated and irrational in their reaction to the NSA story. Ya think? I think we're well past the "in danger of" stage. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 32% of voters think our legal system worries too much about individual rights at the expense of national security. Another 27% say the current balance is about right. Only 29% say there is too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties and only one-third of Americans believe that Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the NSA to monitor phone calls between terrorist suspects. Only 26% believe that President Bush is the first to authorize a program allowing the NSA to intercept such calls.
If Ms. Boxer and Mr. Dean continue to urge Democrats down the impeachment route, they should recall how much the issue flopped for Republicans in the 1998 mid-term elections. Mr. Clinton became the first president since FDR to see his party gain seats during a mid-term election, in part because voters felt Republicans were spending too much time attacking him rather than addressing other issues.
Letterman's swing to the left
This morning, while dropping the little phisch off at school and running an errand, I caught a bit of Laura Ingraham. She was discussing and taking calls about David Letterman's treatment of Bill O'Reilly when the latter appeared on the former's show earlier this week. I'm not an O'Reilly fan in the least, and I am an infrequent watcher of Letterman, but when I have tuned in, I too have noticed the late night host's slide toward the radical left. The late night shows, Leno and Letterman, have always poked fun at whomever is the current President, and the Congress. That's not the issue here. Carson did the same, and it's to be expected. They are public figures, and one of the great things about our country, as opposed to, say, the workers' paradise ninety miles off the coast of Florida, is that we can poke fun at our leaders without fear of reprisal. We have come to accept, and expect, such fun-poking from the late-night hosts. Within the past couple of years, however, both Leno and Letterman have increasingly been slinging barbs, instead of zingers, with regard to the President in particular, and conservatives in general. Leno, at least, remains funny and charming about it, and tries to be balanced. Letterman, however, appears bitter, his comments aren't funny, and he certainly isn't interested in trying to be fair. From the clips I heard, O'Reilly was trying to keep things light, quipping that Dave should tune in to O'Reilly's show, and maybe they would "send him a hat." Letterman's response was something along the lines of, "So long as it's a Cindy Sheehan hat." Cindy Sheehan, Dave? She's so last year. No one even showed up for her book signing. Letterman's strength has always been his and his staff's writing. Among the reasons I've tuned in less and less to Letterman is that strength is waning, and he's allowing too much of his political beliefs come through in what is supposed to be an entertainment show. No one tunes in to Letterman or Leno to listen to political rants, from either perspective, or to discuss world events. People tune in to get the latest entertainment gossip, watch the "interviews," and get a good laugh. Letterman has become fallow ground for the latter.
If Karl Rove Leaked the NSA Story, He'd Be a Media Hero
[T]he establishment media clearly leans toward the view that the NSA leak was in the public interest. Unlike the Plame probe, the Justice Department career employees trying to investigate the NSA case can expect no laudatory editorials urging them to pursue their job relentlessly and, above all, no media bloodhounds conducting their own parallel investigations.
The old adage that politics should stop at the water's edge was abandoned long ago. Now the idea that all of us, regardless of political stripe, have a stake in preventing harm to national security from unauthorized intelligence leaks seems to have similarly entered the dustbin of history.
War has solved <i>plenty</i>
The last major war the United States was involved in was Vietnam. The modern Democratic Party leadership all came of age during that war, as did most of the editorial staff in the manistream media. It wasn’t just a defining moment in the modern American left, it was the defining moment, the prism through which the left would view the world from that moment on. Vietnam was justification for every pacifist tendency that every liberal has ever had. When they said that war didn’t solve anything, they could point to Vietnam. When they wanted to show the consequences of war, they could point to Vietnam. When they wanted to show the failure of military force as a tool for political change, they could point to Vietnam. It was the last major war this country was ever involved in. Sure we’ve had military operations, from Grenada to the Gulf War to the Balkans, but Vietnam our last big one, and it was a war we ended up losing. Vietnam has been their de facto answer for everything for the past 30 years.
Iraq threatens their entire belief system. [Emphasis added. --R]
On knowing when to get the job done
Jeff takes the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's ("Intelligencer"? Granted, I know it's a real word, but come one. Couldn't you have just said "Reporter"?) Thomas Shapley--hereafter referred to as "Tom"--to task for the latter's confusing of the Valerie Plame non-event and the recent leak on NSA surveillance:
How peculiar indeed that the President and his administration should respond differently to these two situations. How very odd that when something right out of the pages of a movie of the week crops up and administration opponents do their level best to capitalize on it in order to harm the President and obstruct his second-term agenda, that the administration should respond one way, but when a loose-lipped grudge-bearer calls up a reporter and blows the lid on an operation that saves American lives, the administration does something else entirely.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say the White House is doing its job, Tom.
On the cookie idiocy
From the level-headed responses I've read regarding the NSA's web cookie whoopsie, Captain Ed has to have the best analysis:
In the great spectrum of Internet privacy dangers, "persistent cookies" sits on the weakest end. Spyware from free downloads cause more security problems than cookies, and even the ones used by the NSA can be blocked by any browser on the market. The AP uses the mistake to make cookies sound vaguely sinister when they're almost as ubiquitous on the Internet as pop-up ads, if not more so. The Guardian gets even more hysterical, in all senses of the word, when it says that the "[e]xposure adds to pressure over White House powers".
The silliest part of the story is that no one can understand why the cookies would present any danger to visitors to the NSA website. Both versions of the story call the risk to surfers "uncertain", but a more accurate description would be "irrelevant". Even if the NSA used it to track where casual visitors to its site surfed afterwards, it would discover nothing that any casual surfer wouldn't already be able to access on their own with Google or a quick check on Free Republic. Now imagine who stops to check on the NSA website and try very hard to come up with any good reason to spend precious resources on scouring the web preferences of bloggers and privacy groups instead of focusing on real signal intelligence, which already comes in such volume that the agency has trouble keeping up with their primary task. [Emphasis in the original.]
Sign your politically-motivated movie is tanking
I find it amusing the producers of Syriana are touting the fact of their whopping two Golden Globe nominations. The movie cost $50 million, and has only made $33.6 million after being in theaters a month, a third of that made on its opening weekend. Then there are all of those marketing costs, such as commercials touting your two Golden Globe nominations. [Figures courtesy of Box Office Mojo.]
When you have nothing to offer...
Mary Katharine Ham notes a Boston Globe piece on how, just under three years away from the next presidential election, the Democratic Party is already seeking dirt on a potential Republican contender. This is yet further proof that the Democrats are out of ideas. Their only platform continues to be "We're everything the Republicans aren't." That may work with the lunatic fringe of the Left, but in mainstream America, voters like to hear about plans and ideas for moving the country forward.
But we're just as bad as the terrorists, right?
By now, most people have heard John Kerry's slanderous comments about our servicemen terrorizing women and children in Iraq. James Taranto turns the table on the man who would be President, noting a CNN story about what a handful of our servicemen are really up to: doing everything possible, with help from folks stateside, to see that a little Iraqi girl doesn't die from spina bifida.
Not wanting it both ways
Jeff does an outstanding job of showing the flip side of the coin the press doesn't want to admit:
Yes, the President is responsible for making the decision to go to war based in part on intelligence that turned out to be incomplete. But the President is also responsible for acting with swift resolve to unseat a brutal dictator, terrorist and friend to terrorists. He’s also responsible for having the sheer guts to go it alone when a great many of the West’s liberal democracies shirked their responsibility both as leaders of the world and as members of the Security Council of the United Nations. He’s also responsible for bringing Saddam Hussein to justice, for capturing or killing his cohorts in crime, for cutting off a huge source of funding to Palestinian murder gangs, for shattering Ansar al-Islam, and for freeing the Shiite people of Iraq from decades of illegitimate rule by a Stalinist political party. And in many ways, President Bush is personally responsible for bringing liberty to Iraq for the first time ever, and for changing the history of the Middle East, and the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Who are the surrender monkeys now?
The Democratic Party's national leadership has plumbed a record depth in its search to score points against the Republicans. In the past week and a half, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have called for the United States to surrender in Iraq. Not since George McGovern in 1972 has one party called for the United States military to surrender to an enemy during wartime.
Some will object to the word, "surrender," but there is no other word to describe the immediate withdrawal of troops from the war zone in Iraq. The simple fact is that two of the nation's three highest-ranking Democrats are advocating an enemy victory over U.S. forces in a foreign land. That not only is appalling in its contempt for the troops who have died to liberate Iraq, it is astonishing in its brazen disregard for the lives and well-being of the Iraqi people. [Via Political Diary.]