Thursday,
June 30, 2005
The
news on the Special Forces crash in Afghanistan is confirmed
as as bad as it could be. I will feature a
number of milbloggers on today's show, including FroggyRuminations
Col. Bay,
Smash, Blackfive
as well as Mark
Steyn, Lileks
and, from Baghdad, Michael
Yon.
I will also
be urging the audience to contribute to the
United Warrior Survivor Foundation which is "dedicated
to the surviving spouses of Special Operations military
personnel killed in the line of duty since 9/11. UWSF
offers Survivor Transition Assistance to surviving spouses,
along with educational counseling, financial guidance,
investment planning, and other programs."
I know the groups' founders and they are superb people
with extensive ties to the special operations community,
and they do great things with the resources they raise.
You
can contribute here.
Perhaps some
other civilian bloggers could post a link to the Foundation.
The url is easy to remember: www.frogfriends.com.
SoldiersAngels
can also use as many sponsors as there are out there.
Radioblogger
will post the transcripts later this evening.
UPDATE:
The
fighting is far from over in that area as a major battle/rescue
operation is underway at this hour.
Update:
From the e-mail:
"Hey
Hugh.
The grim reality of war hit us in our small office here
in Southern
California.
The helicopter crash that took the lives of 17 of our
finest took the
life of the boyfriend of one of our co-workers. She
knew yesterday that
his team was on that helicopter but it was not until
this morning that
we finally learned that he was with his team when the
aircraft went
down.
Needless to say, it's been very quiet around here as
our thoughts and
prayers are with our friend and we continue our work.
Obviously, at
times like this, work seems very unimportant.
I had the opportunity to meet our coworker's boyfriend
and, taking a cue
from you, thanked him for his service.
I have found that those I have thanked for their service
have always
been very humble and almost reluctant to receive the
appreciation from
a fellow American. This man I met and thanked was no
different than any
of the others I have met and, for me, will always be
a testament of the
selflessness and humble professionalism of those who
serve to protect
our country.
This July 4th will have a different meaning for me and
although I don't
know how, I'm sure this event will have an effect on
me for the rest of
my life.
I will never hesitate now to show nothing less than
the most heartfelt
appreciation to the sacrifice of those who serve and
their families
because now the true sacrifice of those who die in defense
of this
country is now far more than the abstract idea it has
always been for
me. Dying in defense of your county is now very tangible
and very real.
Thanks as always for you continued fight against those
who would seek
to tear our military down.
If you read this on the air, please leave my name off
out of respect
for the privacy of the families.
Thank you"
See also QandO
MichelleMalkin
and A Soldier's
Duty.
Update:
Pastor
Donald Sensing posts about one of those killed in the
crash.
See also the
stories of Marine
Cpl. Kevin J. Dempsey and Warrant
Officer Keith Mariotti.
UPDATE:
An e-mail from someone who gets it:
Hugh, because of your show I signed up for a soldier
last year with Soldiers'
Angels. I now have 22 that I email, write cards
and letters, and send care packages I have been so humbled
by their response in letters and emails to me. They
are our Nation's finest and the truest form of America's
Heroes. As a 59 years-old mother of two sons, I have
lovingly adopted them in my heart and am very protective
of them. I earnestly pray for them each day and night
and for their families who are as heroic as their loved
ones. I cannot think of a more satisfying cause in my
life at this time, than to support and honor "my boys"
and their noble service to their country. I will not
tolerate any less than our Nation giving it's all for
our troops, you are either with our troops or your against
them. They are our sons and daughters, who deserve our
support and respect. Without brave and selfless young
people willing to make such sacrifices over our history,
we would be a pathetic country(kind of like our Congress). I
urge all who truly love your country to contact the
various support organizations like Soldiers' Angels,
that gives so much time, effort and love to our troops. You'll
get back a hundred fold. Jane C., Eaton, Colorado
Reading
FroggyRuminations gives a small glimpse into the grief
among the special forces community. FrogFriends
supports the survivors of special forces killed in the
war. This 4rth of July weekend would be an excellent
time to contribute to the fund.
Memo to Time
sources: When
the chips are down, Time will sell you out.
Fascinating
Washington Post article on maintaining public support
for a war when the war is long and costly.
The Bush White House is drawing on the academic studies
of experts who have studied Vietnam, and who believe
some unsual things about public opinion in waretime.
The relentlessness of the attacks on Bush from the country's
left is not mentioned in the article, or the rise of
new media's alternative channels of communication.
Nixon used television to rally the Silent Majority,
and American resolve on Vietnam was lost only when Nixon's
political power was destroyed by Watergate. Bush's
ability to maintain support for the war seems tied to
his continued rock solid support among his base, and
that support is only strengthened by the relentlessness
of the left's attacks coupled with the mindlessness
and offensiveness of rhetoric such as Durbin's.
Then there's
this paragraph:
"Sen.
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has also been highly critical
of Bush's handling of the war effort, rushed out a statement
after Tuesday night's speech asserting his own confidence
in victory. 'I have had differences with the administration
over the planning and execution of our postwar policy
in Iraq,' he said. 'However, we all are working toward
finding a way to succeed in Iraq.'"
The legacy
media loves Hagel's Bush-bashing, but Hagel seems to
have figured out that the Republican Party thinks very
little of it, and that his presidential hopes, already
diminished along with John McCain's by grandstanding
on judges, have been damaged even further by his willingness
to get before the cameras via criticism of the war.
Thanks to
RogerLSimon
for pointing me to Omar's
advice for the U.S. left.
"'As soon
as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the
bastard,' said retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73,
a former hostage who lives in Jonesboro, Ga."
Great background on Iran's new president.
"Next
topic. MSNBC is the River Styx of television talk shows.
These kinds of news-based programs were supposed to
serve as a farm team for the network leagues, testing
the talent of lesser-known commentators and reporters
in a looser, more forgiving format. Lately, however,
all the synergy is going south, all the way to Hades.
Washouts often get a second chance on MSNBC and its
sister channel, CNBC, but it is mostly a last chance.
Recent fallen stars on CNBC include Tina Brown, John
McEnroe and Dennis Miller. Mr. Carlson had to step over
the departed Deborah Norville to get his 9 p.m. slot."
Ouch.
Dick
Durbin said you should have to join the Army to drive
one of these. GM might want to try a campaign
built on the slogan: "Durbin's a jerk. Buy a Hummer
for a hero."
Nick
Owchar penned a fine obit of Shelby Foote in yesterday's
Los Angeles Times. Towards the end, there is this anecdote:
"During
a 1991 literary festival in Nashville, Foote encountered
one enthusiastic fan as he, Garrett and novelist Fred
Chappell stood in the lobby of their hotel.
" A woman rushed up to Shelby and planted a kiss
on his cheek. Then she said, 'What was Gettysburg like?'
" Garrett recalled. "By that time, Shelby had gotten
tired of explaining that he hadn't been there. So he
just looked at her and said, 'Madam, it was hell.' "
Wednesday,
June 29, 2005
Not
a "retooling." Not a "redefinition."
A reaffirmation, and a compelling one.
On of the
talking points from the left today, parroted by Ronald
Brownstein at the Los Angeles Times and Peter
Canellos of the Boston Globe and throughout talking
head land, is that President Bush's speech last night
was a "retooling" of his original arguments
for the Iraq invasion, as Brownstein put it, or a "redefinition"
of the war to use Canellos' phrase. This is the
MSM-assist to Democratic propaganda that has tried --and
so far famously failed-- to persuade the public that
the president has a credibility gap with anyone outside
the fever swamp. It fails because the public has
a memory,a nd they remember why the president argued
we had to invade Iraq.
I posted this
early this morning, but do so again so readers don't
miss it. An excellent summary of the very comprehensive
argument put forward by the president and his Administration
for invading Iraq was penned by now Dean of the Columbia
School of Journalism, and then Washington, D.C. correspondent
for the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann, in that magazine's
February 17/24, 2003 issue, "After
Iraq: The Plan to Remake the Middle East".
Here's what Lemann wrote:
"In his
State of the Union address, President Bush offered at
least four justifications, none of them overlapping:
the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting
of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions;
the military threat that he poses to his neighbors;
and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda
in particular. In addition, Bush hinted at the possibility
that Saddam might attack the United States or enable
someone else to do so. There are so many reasons for
going to war floating around—at least some of which,
taken alone, either are nothing new or do not seem to
point to Iraq specifically as the obvious place to wage
it—that those inclined to suspect the motives of the
Administration have plenty of material with which to
argue that it is being disingenuous. So, along with
all the stated reasons, there is a brisk secondary traffic
in 'real' reasons, which are similarly numerous and
do not overlap: the country is going to war because
of a desire to control Iraqi oil, or to help Israel,
or to avenge Saddam's 1993 assassination attempt on
President George H. W. Bush.
Yet another
argument for war, which has emerged during the last
few months, is that removing Saddam could help bring
about a wholesale change for the better in the political,
cultural, and economic climate of the Arab Middle East.
To give one of many possible examples, Fouad Ajami,
an expert on the Arab world who is highly respected
inside the Bush Administration, proposes in the current
issue of Foreign Affairs that the United States might
lead 'a reformist project that seeks to modernize and
transform the Arab landscape. Iraq would be the starting
point, and beyond Iraq lies an Arab political and economic
tradition and a culture whose agonies have been on cruel
display.' The Administration's main public proponent
of this view is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense, who often speaks about the possibility that
war in Iraq could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle
East. President Bush appeared to be making the same
point in the State of the Union address when he remarked
that 'all people have a right to choose their own government,
and determine their own destiny—and the United States
supports their aspirations to live in freedom.'"
That Brownstein,
Canellos, et al refuse to acknowledge the set of arguments
that --combined-- led Bush to order the invasion is
an admission either of their ignorance or their duplicity.
SoCalPundit
has collected an enormous number of links on the Saddam-terror
connections that Bill Clinton among others has been
denying today.
In the mailbag:
"I wanted
to inform you of an exciting project that I will be
working on with
one of my best friends from college, Army Reservist
Sgt. Christopher
Missick. Sgt Missick is a milblogger from the 319th
Signal Batallion who
has recently returned from Iraq. He kept a blog, known
as "A line in the
sand," throughout his time in Iraq.
Sgt. Missick was struck by the extent to which ordinary
Americans go above
and beyond to support the troops in Iraq, a frequent
topic of your show.
Missick has decided to write a book, highlighting the
stories of those who
supported both him and other troops who are currently
stationed around the
world. In particular, Missick will be discussing how
technology has
facilitated an increase in communication between the
soldiers and the
patriots who support them at home. Toward this end,
we will be embarking on
a country wide road trip to interview many of the people
who have done so
much to support our troops.
I know you are very busy, but I thought this was a project
that might
interest you very much. More information can be found
at the following
websites:
A line in the sand:
www.missick.com
Web of support:
www.webofsupport.com
The road trip will begin on July 17 in Carson City with
an event that will
collect donations for troops in Iraq. Any support you
could give for the
project would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kyle Rodgers
I will open
today's show by reading Peggy Noonan's brilliant essay
from OpinionJournal.com this morning:
"Conceit of Government." Read the
whole thing. Teaser:
"And
there are the Clintons. There are always the Clintons.
The man for whom Barack Obama worked so hard in 1992
showed up with his wife this week to take center stage
at Billy Graham's last crusade in New York. Billy Graham
is a great man. He bears within him deep reservoirs
of sweetness, and the reservoirs often overflow. It
was embarrassing to see America's two most famous political
grifters plop themselves in the first row dressed in
telegenic silk and allow themselves to become the focus
of sweet words they knew would come.
Why did they
feel it right to inject a partisan political component
into a spiritual event? Why take advantage of the good
nature and generosity of an old hero? Why, after spending
their entire adulthoods in public life, have they not
developed or at least learned to imitate simple class?"
The
Wide Awake Cafe's Laura Lee Donohoe awards a much-deserved
"Golden Hammer" to Noonan for her article.
What a wonderful award. Heritage ought to get Laura
Lee's permission to institutionalize the award --a center-right
version of the Pulitzers.)
When you have
finished with Noonan, drop by RightWingNews
to read John Hawkins' excellent interview with Mark
Steyn.
Gee, I wonder
if a Steyn-Michelle
Malkin hosted show on MSNBC would do better than
Keith O (that's O as in zerO ratings)?
And
Lileks launches a new screed. So much great
stuff to read, and it is all free. Why are you buying
a newspaper again?
Want even more?
Then try Andrew
McCarthy's fine bit of evidence production over at NRO
onthe Saddam-terror ties. McCarthy will be on the
program in hour 2, as will Claudia
Rosett, who has another zinger for Kofi.
And
RedState has the latest in Supreme Court speculation.
The laugh line, though, is "If Luttig doesn't want
it..." That's like saying "If Hillary
doesn't want the Dem nomination in 2008..."
RedState sees a small Garza boomlet forming, but I am
thinking that if Justice O'Connor does indeed follow
the Chief into retirement, a Luttig-Roberts tandem would
be a huge, huge boost to the Court's sagging reputation
for coherent legal argument. Both men have deserved
reputations for brilliance.
This
is the core problem: A horrific disfigurement
of religious belief into a killing frenzy. It was the
motivation behind 9/11, Bali, Madrid, and Beslan, and
it is the motivation behind the terror is Iraq today.
The only solution --the only solution-- is
the creation of societies committed to religious pluralism.
It takes a long, long time for such societies to develop,
but a beginning has been made in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.
The president's speech was an argument about why perseverance
is not only necessary but in fact indispensable to survival
of the West. The cut-and-run caucus led by Ted
and MoveOn and Howard et al simply refuses to look the
evil in its face and deal with it. Their dodge
is to claim that our troops' presence is the cause of
the evil. This laughable argument is at its heart
a suicide note.
When Howard Dean declares that the president's speech
is about "the darkness of divisiveness, attempting
to garner support for his failed policies by pandering
to fear," it signals the fundamental irresponsibility
of the party he leads. Quite simply, the Democratic
Party cannot be trusted with the national security because
it absolutely refuses to recognize the peril of Islamist
fanaticism.
The American
public --at least a sizeable majority of the American
public-- understands that threat, which is why the Dems
have had their collective head handed to them in 2002
and 2004, and why the same result will occur in 2006.
The reason the media's reputation has in fact fallen
off of the floor to even lower depths is because of
the refusal to treat the war as a war rather than a
political battle. "Growing numbers of people question
the news media's patriotism and fairness," Pew's
most recent report concluded. "Perceptions
of political bias also have risen over the past two
years." The public understands we are
in a war and wonders why the elite media doesn't seem
to get that crucial fact.
Read Tom
Shales absurd "review" of the president's
speech last night from this morning's Washington
Post --Shales implies that the Army audience was
hostile to Bush by noting only a "sole supportive
interruption" in the speech-- or Ronald
Brownstein's ridiculous assertion that Bush used
the speech to "retool[] his original argument for
the Iraq war." This is left-wing propaganda,
and easily refuted with even a glance at the writings
of center-left journalists prior to the war. Here
is an excerpt from the New
Yorker's Nicholas Lemann's essay, "After Iraq:
The Plan to Remake the Middle East" in the February
17/24 issue on the approach of the Iraq invasion:
"In his
State of the Union address, President Bush offered at
least four justifications, none of them overlapping:
the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting
of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions;
the military threat that he poses to his neighbors;
and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda
in particular. In addition, Bush hinted at the possibility
that Saddam might attack the United States or enable
someone else to do so. There are so many reasons for
going to war floating around—at least some of which,
taken alone, either are nothing new or do not seem to
point to Iraq specifically as the obvious place to wage
it—that those inclined to suspect the motives of the
Administration have plenty of material with which to
argue that it is being disingenuous. So, along with
all the stated reasons, there is a brisk secondary traffic
in 'real' reasons, which are similarly numerous and
do not overlap: the country is going to war because
of a desire to control Iraqi oil, or to help Israel,
or to avenge Saddam's 1993 assassination attempt on
President George H. W. Bush.
Yet another argument
for war, which has emerged during the last few months,
is that removing Saddam could help bring about a wholesale
change for the better in the political, cultural, and
economic climate of the Arab Middle East. To give one
of many possible examples, Fouad Ajami, an expert on
the Arab world who is highly respected inside the Bush
Administration, proposes in the current issue of Foreign
Affairs that the United States might lead 'a reformist
project that seeks to modernize and transform the Arab
landscape. Iraq would be the starting point, and beyond
Iraq lies an Arab political and economic tradition and
a culture whose agonies have been on cruel display.'
The Administration's main public proponent of this view
is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
who often speaks about the possibility that war in Iraq
could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle East.
President Bush appeared to be making the same point
in the State of the Union address when he remarked that
'all people have a right to choose their own government,
and determine their own destiny—and the United States
supports their aspirations to live in freedom.'"
The MoveOn/Dean/Clinton/Moore/Kennedy/Brownstein
gang wants to revise history in order to make it easier
to assault the GOP in 2006. The reaction from
the public will be the same as in 2002 and 2004, I think:
A fundamentally feckless party cannot be allowed near
the controls of national security, and a fundamentally
deceptive MSM will not be trusted to tell us that that
party has the answers.
Read
The Belmont Club's reflection on the drive that unites
this Bush and Reagan. The divide in the country
between serious people and the folks who will get us
killed by their ideological zeal mixed with incompetence
grows deeper and deeper. The good news is that
there are a whole lot more folks on the responsible
side of the divide than on the Soros/Clinton/Moore side,
and they vote. The president added to their number
with a serious speech last night. He and the vice
president and the secretaries of state and defense should
do that more often.
Tuesday,
June 28, 2005
Bush
makes his case.
"Some
wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on
terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear
the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War
is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this
war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery
and humiliation."
That is the
key point in the speech, the key point in the debate,
and the president's clarity in making it made it a very
successful speech. Over and over again he and his Administration,
his supporters and the military must make that point
again and again: It is all one war.
The president's
emphasis on the training of the new Iraqi Army underscores
the strategy of standing down as that new army stands
up. Expect the left to brand this the new millennium's
version of "Vietnamization."
"We will
stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day
longer," Bush declared tonight. The Nixon
policy of Vietnamization failed because of a too quick
exit from Vietnam, and the refusal to back the ARVN
when the North broke the peace treaty.
Other key
"The
American people do not falter under threat, and we will
not allow our future to be determined by car bombers
and assassins."
"We will
stay in the fight until the fight is won."
"We know
that if evil is not confronted it gains in strength
and audacity and returns to strike us again."
You can respond
to the president's request to show support for the troops
and their families via SoldiersAngels
or via AmericaSupportsYou.
UPDATE:
Smash
liveblogged the speech, and approves. So did
Powerline.
More at The
Corner. And Glenn's
piling up the links as well.
Radioblogger
has transcribed my interviews with Austin
Bay And Blackfive
from earlier today.
From
the folks who brought you defeat in Vietnam, a call
for retreat in the GWOT.
MoveOn PAC
has sent an e-mail in anticipation of the president's
address. I read it on the air, and many listeners responded
by using the MoveOn.org website to send letters to their
local papers supporting the president, the mission and
the troops. Heh.
Dear MoveOn
member,
Tonight at 8:00 p.m. ET, President Bush will speak to
the nation about the war in Iraq in a televised address.
Despite the car bombs and rising attacks, he's expected
to offer no new policy—in fact, he's expected
to say that we're making progress, that everything is
going just fine.
Over the last week, we asked you to
vote on whether we should work together in a major campaign
to get Democrats and Republicans in Congress on board
with a responsible exit plan. As of this morning, hundreds
of thousands have voted and the results are clear: more
than 83 percent said you were in. Together, we're ready
to tell our leaders that it's time to come home.
One good first step is letters to
the editor. Bush's speech tonight will be one of the
major "tipping point" moments since the war
began, and we can help make sure that no one buys his
"stay the course" rhetoric. Politicians will
be watching the letter-to-the-editor pages closely,
and newspapers are likely to print letters on what will
be the major story of the week. If we're able to push
back hard enough, we can build a drumbeat for a real
exit plan.
We've set up an online tool that makes
submitting a letter easy. Tonight, you can watch President
Bush's speech and then immediately go online and write
a letter to the editor by clicking below. (We'll update
our suggestion for the best thing to write about 30
minutes after his speech ends.)
You might have noticed that Republicans
like Karl Rove, White House Communications Director
Dan Bartlett and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
have tried to distract the country from Bush's disastrous
Iraq policy by attacking MoveOn by name on TV. Rove
was trying to put Democrats and MoveOn on the defensive,
painting us as weak on security. But it didn't work—we
held strong, and with your help we can make sure that
the attack backfires. Lying about MoveOn can't solve
Bush's problem—that he has no plan for Iraq.
And there is broad public support
for a real plan. Two-thirds of the public say they would
support elected leaders who stand up to President Bush
and insist on a real plan to get out of Iraq. That makes
sense: without an exit plan with a timeline, we'll be
stuck in Iraq for years and years, exacerbating the
problems there. As General John Abizaid, Commander of
the U.S. Southern Command said last week testifying
in front of the Senate, "too much of a footprint
in the region creates more resistance." But, believe
it or not, Bush and Rumsfeld reject the very suggestion
of a timeline. Rumsfeld said on Sunday we could be in
Iraq another 10 years. But their voices are the only
ones being heard right now. That is why we all need
to get a well-reasoned argument for an exit strategy
with a timeline out there.
Please take just a couple of minutes
to write your letter to the editor today.
Today's letters to the editor are
just the beginning. We're also starting national television
advertising and running an ad in The New York Times
that carry this message: "It's time to come home.
We went in the wrong way, let's come home the right
way." With your help, we'll keep that going and
expand the push into the cities where it will make the
most difference. More on how to help do that tomorrow.
Public opinion has turned on President
Bush's reckless war policy, but most leaders in Washington
still aren't speaking out. That's why our work together
is so important. Together, we can show the way toward
a responsible exit plan and a more peaceful and secure
world.
Thank you for all you do,
–Tom, Jennifer, Justin, Micayla
and the MoveOn PAC Team
Tuesday, June 28th, 2005
P.S. Here are the points you can make
in your letter or when you're talking to friends, family
and colleagues.
It's time to start responsibly coming
home from Iraq.
Iraq is no closer to stability than
it was a year ago. Things keep getting worse every week.
More than 1,700 Americans have been killed and more
than 12,000 wounded.
The U.S. occupation is fueling a growing insurgency.
Our presence is exacerbating the problem. There are
tens of thousands of insurgents backed by hundreds of
thousands of supporters.
We got into this war based on lies—the wrong way.
It's time to get out the right way. The first step is
to realize that the Bush policy is out of touch with
reality.
We need a real exit plan with a real timeline providing
real accountability for our leaders. We need to turn
control of the training of Iraqi forces and the rebuilding
of Iraq to the international community. And we must
renounce permanent military bases in Iraq because that
angers the Iraqi people.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Among my guests
today in the two hours preceding the president's speech:
Austin Bay,
Blackfive
and Frank
Gaffney. The bumper music for today's show
comes from the CD "Angels
Across America," produced to benefit three
national charities supporting the troops, including
SoldiersAngels,
which can still use new volunteers to adopt a soldier/sailor/airman/Marine
in Iraq or Afghanistan.
TruthLaidBear
has a great aggregator for milblog postings.
What
is the Christian Right up to?
MarkDRoberts
has begun a series of posts on the March 2005 statement
of the National Association of Evangelicals, "For
the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic
Responsibility." I had simply missed the
publication of this document, and the list of endorsements
it carried, and so Roberts' notice of the statement
and his analysis are both very timely and very useful.
"If you want to understand the 'real agenda' of
the Christian right in America," writes Roberts
"I'd suggest that this document is a great place
to start."
I'll add the
suggestion that Roberts series is a great guide to the
document and the terminology. I will go and search
EvangelicalOutpost,
Albert
Mohler and John
Mark Reynolds to see if these Godbloggers have also
posted on the statement. If a critique of the
statement has come from the left, please send me a pointer
and I will list it here as well.
One
of John Kerry's big ideas for Iraq: Arm and deploy
the Badr
Brigade. No, really. He wrote that.
Another of
Kerry's bold ideas: "He should also say that the
United States will insist that the Iraqis establish
a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines
for finishing the Constitution and holding elections
in December."
Why didn't
Bush think of that!
Update:
Gregory
Djerejian of the Belgravia Dispatch on Kerry's call
for the Badr Brigade's deployment:
"What a
horrible idea! Pushing the Badr Brigade and pesh merga
out front smacks of desparation to provide security,
whatever the consequences. Why? Because to integrate
such militias into a "National Guard-type force" is
likely to heighten the risks of inter-sectarian conflict.
(Note also the inconsistency in Kerry's op-ed. He wants
an all out "six month wartime footing" train and equip
effort. But, apparently without really addressing the
seeming contradiction, he more or less acknowledges
that truly efficacious 'train and equip' will take more
than two years."
Brendan
Miniter makes a case that Vietnam Syndrome has broken
out among the Democrats. That
makes two of us.
Powerline
publishes the lame response of the Minneapolis Star
Tribune's editorial page editor to last week's outrageous
slander of the American military, wherein the paper's
unsigned editorial --written by the always silly
Jim Boyd-- called Gitmo a "hellhole."
Betsy's
Page directs me to Dana Milbank's strange opening
line today: "Spectators packed the Pentagon briefing
room yesterday to see Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
fight the insurgents -- mano a mano."
The insurgents Milbank refers to are reporters and pollsters.
Betsy: "Dana
Milbank equates the media and pollsters
with the insurgents in Iraq. Revealing, n'est-ce pas?"
From
John McCaslin's Inside the Beltway:
First-class
trio
Michael Helfrich is president of Blueforce
Development Corp., which develops distributed command-and-control
applications for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland
Security and first-responders.
And when he's not busy with that, he keeps a blog on
the Internet.
"As I mentioned in the previous post, I am at the 4th
Annual Government Symposium on Information Sharing and
Homeland Security in New Orleans," read yesterday's
posting. "Quite an apropos trip to be taking, given
an opportunity to witness a rare moment on the outbound
flight from Boston earlier this morning ...
"I noticed several GIs waiting to board the flight at
Logan [International Airport]," he continues. "These
folks were surrounded by family members in the departure
lounge; hence, it was clear that these guys were headed
into harm's way.
"Shortly after the doors were closed on the flight,
I noticed a great deal of movement in the first-class
cabin. Three men were standing up and collecting their
belongings. They headed into coach class, where they
offered the GIs their seats up front.
"It was a rare moment. These GIs were enlisted men,
all clearly destined to be thrown into the thick of
things. Yet, people who had probably paid handsomely
for seats in 'first' were happily exchanging places.
Save for the two characters sitting next to me, the
entire coach cabin erupted in cheers."
GOPBloggers
adds to the evidence. (HT: Conservative
Outpost.)
Now, let's
be clear on this: The PRC doesn't get to buy
Unocal, right?
SquawkBlog
reports on Treasury Secretary Snow's studied ambiguity,
but wouldn't it be better to just say "No,"
and be done with it? I understand that Unocal
shareholders might lose a couple of bucks a share from
a bidding war undone, but encouraging the idea that
the PRC has any chance of buying major US resource companies
is lousy national security policy even if the bid falls
through.
BTW: Oil&GasNews
has the background and frequent updates.
Monday, June
27, 2005
After all
the commentary on Supreme Court decisions of the last
two weeks, I have to note that neither the decision
in the takings case last week nor the Ten Commandments
decisions today were unexpected. Had any of the
three gone the other way, there would have been surprise,
but there isn't any among the long time Court watchers.
The dismay among some circles in the public stems from
a general lack of understanding of the Court's march
over the past twenty years, as though Rip Van Winkle
had woken up to find the world changed.
The cases
do underscore the stagnation at the Court, as old battles
are fought and refought again and again. Only with new
blood and new ideas will the logjams break open.
The bottom line is that all 5-4 decisions are hardly
anything more than pause points, and not very decisive
ones at that.
Retirement
watch day. Predictions are compiled at ConfirmThem.com.
If both the Chief and Justice O'Connor retired,
the summer will be full of the soft fury of a democracy,
modeling to the new democracies that politics can be
both brutal and bloodless.
'
Syria
replaces Iraq on the Axis of Evil. In last
week's Armed Services Committee hearing, John McCain
asked General George Casey whether continued Syrian
assistance in or acquiescence with the flow of terrorists
and weaponry across Syria and into Iraq might have to
be met with operations that crossed the border into
Syria. General Casey demurred on the idea of operating
inside Syria as that was a political decision, but Chair
of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers declared that
that flow meant dead members of the coalition forces
and was thus unacceptable. McCain appeared to concur.
Given Teddy
K's quagmire rant of last week, would he support cross-border
operations to keep the swamp drained and Americans alive?
One other very interesting exchange followed the Kennedy
long burp of Vietnam Syndrome --Senator James Inhofe
asked each of the three generals present if any of them
agreed with the term quagmire, and each of
them firmly rejected the applicability of the term.
General Abizaid also took the opportunity to endorse
Rumsfeld's leadership against Teddy's tirade. Abizaid's
strong performance on Face the Nation yesterday,
as well as Rumsfeld's string of appearances, seems to
indicate that the Pentagon has figured out it cannot
allow the left's propaganda on the home front to go
unanswered in the MSM. Good. The best antidote
to Vietnam Syndrome is trustworthy information.
Like
Austin Bay's reports from Iraq. Major
K, Howdy
and Hurl
and others deployed in Iraq provide much better assessments
than Ted Kennedy's staff, so bookmark them and read
them regularly. "Are
we winning?" by Howdy, for example, where you
read:
"80% of
the captured combatants here are foreign. Most are Saudi. Go
figure. Most of the 9-11 bombers are Saudi. Fear vice
Free Societies like Saudi Arabia breed dissenters and
criminals....ultimately making bad neighbors. So, we
fight here or on United States soil. See the connection
now to 9-11? Why would they come to fight here? Hate
brings them, hate brought them on 9-11.
We are not trying
to make them like us via concessions and tolerance here. We're
just killing those that are trying to do the same. Freedom
for the Iraqis is the best antidote for Southwest Asia's
future. It will breed more and more human rights for
the oppressed here."
The political consequences of
the Democrats' decision to press for a cut-and-run strategy
in the face of virulent jihad ism is I think certain
disaster next November. There will be an attempt
as the election draws near and progress continues in
Iraq to pretend that this early summer outbreak of defeatism
was misunderstood, that Pelosi,
Kennedy, Durbin, Rangel
and Feinstein ("It's
his war") were all somehow misquoted.
They haven't been, of course. The public glimpsed
the real intent of the Democratic Party if given the
controls of the nation's defenses: Retreat and hope
for the best.
Michael
Barone, as usual, has it exactly right when he notes
that "a party that happily allies itself with the
likes of moveon.org and many of whose leading members
have lost the ability to distinguish between opposition
to an incumbent administration and rooting for our nation's
enemies has got serious problems." But Barone makes
a rare misstep when he concludes: "Especially when
it is called on again, as it will be sooner
or later, to govern."
The Whigs
were never called on again, nor the Federalists, and
Canada's Conservatives may well have vanished from the
front bench as well, like Gladstone's Liberals.
Parties are not always fated to rise again, and the
"split" Michael Barone discusses may
have become a chasm, with a significant majority of
the Dems on the Soros-Moore-MoveOn-Dean-Kennedy-Pelosi-Reid-Durbin
ide of the canyon. Hillary is going to try and
pretend to be on both sides, but that act is already
old. There aren't enough Americans on the left
side of that chasm to elect a president. Thank God.
The Dems have flunked the fundamental test of resolve
in the face of the terror threat. They have flunked
many others, and will flunk the Supreme Court test as
well, with yet another filibuster and finally the constitutional
option. "Sooner or later" could very
well be "never," if cooler heads and new leadership
doesn't emerge soon.
Saturday,
June 25, 2005
Intention,
Causation, Responsibility and Culpability
On
May 4, 2000, officials of the U.S. Forest Service started
a fire in the Bandelier National Monument. The was
was supposed to be a "controlled burn," but
the Service miscalculated conditions on the ground and
the weather forecast was wrong, and the fire became
a runaway disaster, eventually consuming 235 homes and
47,000 acres. The Service did not intend to start the
fire, but it surely caused the destruction, and it admitted
responsibility. No criminal charges were brought. The
United States government paid for the losses not covered
by insurance.
If the Forest
Service were to initiate another controlled burn in
the same spot under the same conditions and with the
same weather forecast as it did in 2000, the public
would be outraged. Not only would the Service' proclamation
of innocent intent be insufficient to quell the anger,
but demands for criminal investigation into culpability
would surely follow.
Indeed, if any controlled burns
get away from the Service for years to come, they will
be under immediate suspicion of fecklessness and and
best gross negligence. The public assumes they should
know better, and the Service will be held to a much
higher standard of care for years to come, a standard
that will brand them as arsonists in fact if not in
intent if any more of their experiments in forest management
result in the destruction of private property, especially
homes.
The Democratic
Party and its liberal/left supporters negligence with
regard to southeast Asia in the '70s bought about the
deaths of millions and the enduring communist governments
of Vietnam and Laos and the desperate circumstances
of Cambodia. They did not intend that result.
In
his famous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, John Kerry predicted of the aftermath
of a unilateral withdrawal of American troops that the
United States would have "an obligation to offer
sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might
face, and obviously they would, we understand that,
might face political assassination or something else."
His blindness was neither unique nor even notable. They
did not see the carnage coming, or the consequence of
American retreat from Vietnam as it would manifest itself
in Africa, Central America and ultimately in Afghanistan.
Now the same
Democratic Party, the same liberal/left, the same John
Kerry and Ted
Kennedy and some of the same anti-war protestors
grown old and respectable are urging that timelines
for unilateral withdrawal be set, the words "bug
out" and "quagmire" and back, and once
again an ally is beginning to feel the full support
of the Democratic Party like a knife in the back. The
same tactics, the same denunciations, the same theater
that cloaked the approach of disaster are in play in
D.C. The Democrats want to start a controlled burn.
If they succeed
again, the deaths will surely occur far away and by
the hundreds of thousands if not millions.
But they will
also occur here. The president knows this, as does the
vice president, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of State.
What Rumsfeld must have been thinking when Kennedy
ranted on about the need for the controlled burn to
begin in Bandelier Monument immediately.
What Rumsfeld
could not say, Rove
did, and good for him. More
and more people should say it, and are
saying it. Serious
people don't have to rely on MSM for repackaged talking
points from the left. There
are new
voices and
new sources,
and they
know the
one
key political fact: The leadership of the
Democratic Party is now committed to a strategy of retreat
that will inevitably lead to disastrous defeat and the
deaths of Americans here at home. They have reverted
to type, and the type is naive and dangerous. Their
intentions don't matter, and their predictions can't
be trusted. The voters have taken away most of
their matches. In 2006, they should take away
the rest.
Friday, June
24, 2005
Mrs.
Greyhawk blogs on her visit to wounded milblogger
Chuck,
whose wife relates is soon to be at Walter Reed.
If after reading both posts you wish you could do something
for troops recovering from wounds like Chuck, stop by
StrikeoutsforTroops
and make a donation. To give an assist like a letter
or a care package to a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine
in the field, drop by SoldiersAngels.
The Senate
Democrats' #2 compares the American military to Nazis,
Stalinists, and Pol Pot's killer, and the
story never gets
near to the
cover of the Washington Post. Karl Rove makes
a valid assertion about the behavior of liberals, backed
by evidence, and the fake outrage of those Senate Democrats
makes
page 1, but in a story without the pointed reply of
George Pataki which happens to pivot on Durbin's slander.
At least the New York Times included a portion
of the Pataki quote, which has now vanished from
the original Newsday article.
But there
is no MSM bias, right? My
World column looks at the Minneapolis Star Tribune's
repulsive editorial on Durbin's speech, but that's
just the obvious bias against truth at work. Placement
and pitch matter just as much. The contrast between
the MSM's smothering of Durbin's slander and his non-apology
versus its treatment of the false outrage directed at
Rove joins the massive set of examples of MSM bias which,
while it will never be corrected, will always be there
to explain the collapse of credibility among the elite
media.
Just so you
don't miss it, here's what Governor Pataki said:
"I think
it is a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton to call
on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when
she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments. Senator
Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous
statements from the other side that are far beyond political
dialogue --insulting every Republican, comparing our
soldiers to Nazis or Soviet gulag guards-- and never
protesting when she serves with them."
The
evidence to support Rove is here. And don't miss
Teddy
Kennedy's attack on Donald Rumsfeld and the war.
RogerLSimon brands the Democrats as deeply
reactionary, and he's right. Every action taken
by the party's leaders in recent months, from obstruction
across the board on Social Security, to the blocking
of judicial appointments and Bolton, to the Dean and
Durbin rhetoric and now to the war against the war are
tied together by a bitter hatred of George W. Bush that
makes the right's antipathy of Clinton seem like child's
play. The GOP recovered from Clinton-induced derangement,
but it is not at all clear that there is anyone in the
Democratic Party who wants to recover from its current
fevers.
MartiniPundit
has great analysis of Rove's speech and its aftermath,
as does Stylish
Since This Morning, Hoystory,
and Let
Freedom Ring. But the best analysis comes, as it
often has, from Victor
Davis Hanson, who writes in part: "As
September 11 faded in our collective memory, Muslim
extremists were insidiously but systematically reinvented
in our elite presentations as near underprivileged victims,
and themselves often adept critics of purported rapacious
Western consumerism, oil profiteering, heavy-handed
militarism, and spiritual desolation."
2006 will
tell quite a story, because though I thought it impossible
to have a starker choice than that offered in 2004,
the Democrats have indeed upped the ante. While Democrats
pat ritual homage to the memory of 9/11, they seem to
have lost the concrete knowledge of American vulnerability
to more terrorist attacks and the resolution to take
the steps necessary to prevent them.
The GOP has
only one vulnerability: border security. I will
broadcast an entire show on that subject from San Diego
today.
Thursday,
June 23, 2005
George
Pataki, on Hillary's call for a Rove apology: "I
think it is a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton
to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments
when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his
comments. Senator Clinton might think about her propensity
to allow outrageous statements from the other side that
are far beyond political dialogue --insulting every
Republican, comparing our soldiers to Nazis or Soviet
gulag guards-- and never protesting when she serves
with them."
When the weak
horse saddle fits, you have to ride it.
Lileks
had a grand screed yesterday. Don't miss it.
Two days ago he had a fine column
on Gitmo.
And Mitt Romney
was on the program to discuss his
new proposal for Massachusetts' uninsured, Karl
Rove, Pataki and Hillary, and Teddy's attack ont he
war in the Senate today. Radioblogger
will have the transcript as well as the discussion of
the SCOTUS decision on takings with Eugene
Volokh and Instapundit
later tonight.
And John
Campbell's Congressional campaign website is up.
Send
him some support.
Wasn't
that Michael Moore sitting in the DNC's Presidential
Box? Wasn't that John Kerry on Meet the Press
asserting that the war on terror was "primarily"
a law enforcement action?
Big-name Democrats
have foolishly engaged Karl Rove exactly as he no doubt
hoped they would. Ankle-Biting
Pundits has it figured out, but the Mehlman statement
from the RNC underscores how the rush to condemn Rove
for speaking the truth about the Michael Moore/George
Soros/MoveOn.org
left now obliges those very same people attacking Rove
to argue that the evidence produced by Mehlman is either
inapplicable or misunderstood.
The left in
this country is defeatist, harshly critical of the American
military, and always eager to blame America for creating
terrorists as though our actions in defense of ourselves
and innocents everywhere are the root cause of terrorism.
With Dick Durbin's and Nancy Pelosi's shameful attacks
on the military this week, the gloves are coming off,
and the debate about what the Democrats believe will
be an excellent one for the entire country to observe.
Mehlman's
statement:
"It’s outrageous
that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling
of our military are now expressing faux outrage over
Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros,
Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after
9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand
by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable
comments.”
- RNC Chairman
Ken Mehlman
Liberal Third
Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:
Immediately After
9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint”
And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”
• “We, The Undersigned,
Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America
… Appeal To The President Of The United States, George
W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use
Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent
Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org
Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3,
Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
• “We Implore
The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International
Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights
Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks,
Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.”
(MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3,
Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
• “[W]e Demand
That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological
Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction,
And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live
In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website,
“MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3,
Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
Just After 9/11,
Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And
Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed,
“All Hail Moore,” The New York Times, 6/26/04)
• Just After
9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism”
And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor
terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing.
We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists
in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians.
That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve,
and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution
to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website
Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01, www.michaelmoore.com,
Accessed 7/27/04)
• Michael Moore
Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise,
to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood
this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)
Liberal Donor
George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11
Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is
a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating
terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes
against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes
require police work, not military action. To protect
against terrorism, you need precautionary measures,
awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which
ultimately depend on the support of the populations
among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment
that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would
have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would
not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military
struggling to perform police work in full combat gear
and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The
Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)
• Soros Said
The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More
Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was
a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded
airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious
idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George
Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)
• Soros Said
War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than
9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say,
but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted
by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims
that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks
At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)
Liberal Democrats
Urged Restraint, Blamed America:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared
Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before
Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. …
Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A
Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The
Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic
Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace
The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer
The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
• Kucinich:
“Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It
Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth
Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain
Dealer, 9/30/01)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie
(D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is
Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They
Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems
With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had
A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.”
(Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,”
Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Rep. Barbara
Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will
Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism
Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman
Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University
Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)
Al Sharpton (D-NY)
Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are
Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It
Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York
Times, 12/1/02)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur
(D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To
“Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British
Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these
non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are
very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries
that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told
an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon,
“Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated
Press, 3/6/03)
Sen. Joe Biden
(D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single
Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan.
“‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’
Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council
on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single
hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper,
"Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other
Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
• “The Bombing
Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes
Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles
A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults
Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly
Weekly, 10/26/01)
Gov. Howard Dean
(D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still
Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People
Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We
Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive
Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready
To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated
Press, 12/26/03)
Sen. Patty Murray
(D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims]
Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With
Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are
Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is
Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking
About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other
Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.”
(Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,”
The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)
Sen. John Kerry
(D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation
And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement
Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential
Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)
• Kerry: “[W]hat
We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More
Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.”
(NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)
"The
Durbin Effect" is my WeeklyStandard.com column
this morning, on the continuing effort by senior Democrats
in Congress to smear the American military.
Don't
miss Tunku Varadarajan's account of Oriana Fallaci's
indictment for vilification of Islam.
The anti-religious
expression zealots at Barry Lynn's shop are going to
have to be satisfied with a couple of distorted headlines
in the New
York Times and the Washington
Post, as the panel reviewing Lynn's gang's charges
of rampant discrimination against religious minorities
at the Air Force Academy found no "overt religious
discrimination," on "insensitivity."
The New York Times also noted that "[t]he group
found that several incidents widely covered by news
organizations were overblown." Barry Lynn lamely
announced that the "good news is that the report
makes it clear to anyone who reads it that this is a
real problem, not some imagined witch hunt."
The opposite
is true. Lynn's headline grabbing accusations
were overblown attention-getting and fundraising-assisting
devices. But we already knew that.
For
a detailed review, see TheRovingTheologian's account.
Glenn
points to a couple of posts by David
Bernstein and Bill
Quick on the question of whether there is a housing
bubble. The housing market is too vast to proclaim
the presence or absence of a bubble across its entirety.
The key seems to me to be regional population
growth and housing supply. One report predicted,
for example, that California's "population will
increase to 36 million in 2002 and 36.5 million in 2003.
At that growth rate, California will reach 54 million
residents by 2025; that’s as if the entire population
of New York state moved to California." With
that sort of population surge, and a backdrop of dwindling
land supplies and difficulty in obtaining permission
to build, it is hard to see an long-term pressures on
housing prices in the Golden State.
Wednesday,
June 22, 2005
Bill
Kristol writes that he hears it will be O'Connor stepping
down next week, not the Chief, and that the Attorney
General will be her replacement.
Doug
TenNapel gives Durbin's Lincoln quote its appropriate
context.
Congrats
to FroggyRuminations. He must look like his
mother because he is cute.
And
Godspeed to milblogger Chuck. (HT: MudvilleGazette.)
The
New York Times ran a story today that reports on
the 33 American deaths in Iraq in May and the 35 so
far in June, and to the increasing sophistication of
the terrorists' IEDs. Andrew "God bless Dick
Durbin" Sullivan links to the story, and comments:
"I link.
You decide. And the obvious corollary to the fact that
U.S. forces are getting one hell of a training in fighting
urban terror in Iraq is that ... so are the Jihadists
in fighting
back . It would be a pretty awful historical irony
if a war designed to cripple Jihadist terrorism ended
up making it leaner, meaner and more lethal. Merely
another consequence of too few troops. But, hey, better
to risk losing a war than have Rumsfeld admit he was
wrong, right?"
Andrew might
have wanted to link this story: "No
drawdown in Iraq likely soon, general says,"
from the Air Force Times. This is a report of the briefing
of the top U.S. combat general in Iraq, Lt. Gen Vines.
It isn't pollyannaish, but it is specific and focused
on the key thing --the move towards a constitution:
“'We’re not at
that point yet,' Vines told reporters when asked whether
he would recommend U.S. troop cuts soon.
Troop levels are 'conditions-based,'
Vines said. 'Currently we know that insurgents will
do everything they can do disrupt ratification of a
constitution. To them, that’s a terrifying event.' Iraq’s interim
government is drafting a new constitution, scheduled
to be ratified by national election in October. If that
happens, national elections for a permanent government
would take place in December. 'At this point,
I would not be prepared to recommend a drawdown prior
to the election — certainly not in any significant numbers,'
Vines said."
Vines continued:
"Coalition
forces appear to be at the correct level to train and
work with Iraqi security forces, whose capabilities
continue to steadily improve, Vines said.
However, 'a political solution could
absolutely change the dynamics,' he said. 'We want to cut
down as quickly as conditions permit,' Vines said. 'The
reason I think conditions will remain fairly static
— keep in mind that those [constitutional] elections
are only four months away. I don’t have any reason to
believe there’s going to be a significant change in
four months absent a political breakthrough.'”
And the medium
term outlook:
"Coalition
forces appear to be at the correct level to train and
work with Iraqi security forces, whose capabilities
continue to steadily improve, Vines said.
However, 'a political
solution could absolutely change the dynamics,' he said.
'We want to cut
down as quickly as conditions permit,' Vines said. 'The
reason I think conditions will remain fairly static
— keep in mind that those [constitutional] elections
are only four months away. I don’t have any reason to
believe there’s going to be a significant change in
four months absent a political breakthrough.'”
I link. You
decide. But the difference between this civilian and
Sullivan is that I find it objectionable to refer to
the military stationed at Guantanamo Bay as "clowns,"
as Andrew
did when he wrote:
"Torture
and abuse haven't made us safer. Sending too few troops
to Iraq hasn't made us safer. Israeli interrogators
do not kick the Koran or pee on it or throw it to the
ground. They learn it word for word. They quote it back
to their prisoners. They win their confidence and infiltrate
their networks. They gain good intelligence by eschewing
the goon-like antics of the Gitmo clowns.
Fake menstrual blood? If it weren't so disgusting, it
would be risible. But it's true. Remember that, whatever
the Tarantos
of this world want to deflect the conversation to. It's
true. It happened. In the end, reality will count."
Rather than
"deflect" the conversation, I want to
make it a real conversation, my producer invited Sullivan
via e-mail and calls to his various representatives
to spend an hour talking about "torture" and
"abuse" and the "clowns at Gitmo"
today. We did not get a response. The invitation
remains open.
Note that Sullivan
conflates "torture" with "abuse,"
without specifying which practices he thinks are in
which category. Note that he holds up the Israeli intelligence
services as model interrogators without a link to their
declaration of acceptable interrogation tactics.
It seems that Sullivan also equates "disgusting"
with "torture" or abuse." While
all torture is disgusting, not all disgusting things
are torture.
I have yet to see any critic
of Guantanamo link to or put forward any set of interrogation
guidelines they believe to be appropriate for jihadists
who are members of or have access to information on
the al Qaeda network. The United States has some
very senior al Qaeda leadership in custody. What,
exactly, do critics of the standing rules of interrogation
suggest be the guidelines for questioning these men?
Of course there is the transparent
attempt to argue that the critics of Durbin are somehow
defending torture, as dishonest a bit of sophistry as
is out there. The United States military has always
prosecuted and imprisoned and not promoted its members
who violate the rules of interrogation. And to
defend the military against charges that they are "clowns"
as Sullivan puts it, is not to endorse torture anymore
than the military does.
UPDATE:
Andrew Sullivan wrote about his approval of
Israeli interrogation techniques today. I received this
e-mail from Yoni, a veteran of the Israeli defense services,
now living in the U.S. but intending to return to Israel
and pursue a political career in the future:
"Hugh,
Regarding Andrew Sullivan,torture is not what is happening
at Gitmo and
that is not only his mistake but that of the left as
a whole.
What is happening at Gitmo is a variation of modern
techniques of
interrogation. I can't go into a lot of detail but people
are restrained
in certain ways for extended time periods and also not
allowed to sleep
and sensory deprivation is standard.
Do Israelis learn the Koran, yes some do, as well as
learn Arabic, but we
also read Mien Komf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion
and all three
books are equal in spreading hatred of Jews.
It was Sun Tzu who said it so clearly when it come to
the issue of
victory or defeat. "If you know the enemy and know yourself,
you need not
fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself
but not the
enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer
a defeat. If you know
neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in
every battle."
Israel and the USA have fallen into the last category
due to the efforts
of the left in both countries, the good guys no longer
know themselves. We
were not divided in WW2 and we won. If Andrew and Irwin
were around 60
years ago America would have lost.
Also the majority of people in both countries refuse
to know the enemy. If
you read the Koran you will find what it says about
Christians and Jews
convert or die. It is the knowledge that comes from
seeing the look in
the eyes of a suicide bomber when they punch the button.
Both countries due to the effort of the left will loose,
and the whole
false issue of torture is symbolic of the battle of
the left to weaken
both countries. The joke on Irwin and Andrew is that
they will be murdered
screaming and peeing their pants, while the terrorist
they defend cut
their heads off.
The ticking bomb scenario is very real in Israel and
could also be the
case in the two theaters of war America is currently
involved in.
What is a ticking bomb?
None of the terrorist in Gitmo are ticking bombs. A
ticking bomb is a
terrorist attack where terrorist are in the process
of murdering people
and the good guys show up and the terrorist goes to
ground in a building or a bus with hostages. But in
the process you grab a terrorist or two.
The terrorists you now hold are ticking bombs, and any
and all force
including force that would result in the death of the
terrorist is
justified in an effort to obtain intel on weapons and
numbers of
terrorist. The methods used to inflict extreme pain
on these terrorist in
order to get them to maybe talk in the shortest time
possible are brutal
beyond belief in many cases. Again this is totally justified,
under this
scenario.
Back to Gitmo, I think using fake menstrual blood is
stupid. As is peeing
on the Koran, it will only reinforce the idea that you
are an infidel and
deserve to be murdered. I would not have the guards
wear gloves when
guards touch the Koran as this also gives the Muslims
a sense of they are
correct and we acknowledge the truth of the Koran.
I hope this clears it up.
Yoni"
I do not agree
with Yoni on his pessimism concerning Islam's ability
to adopt to and embrace religious pluralism as a system
of government. Christianity was once also a "convert
or die" religion in many parts of the world but
came to understand that the protection of religious
pluralism was the only path to peace and faithful religious
practice. I have interviewed too many American Muslims
committed heart and soul to the country, religious pluralism
and their own faith to believe otherwise.
Yoni's key
point is that the interrogation guidelines have to be
situational, depending upon the agreed upon threat that
any particular detainee poses. Americans will
always, rightly, be very reluctant to cause discomfort
to people in captivity, if the reason for that discomfort
is not the urgent need to save lives.
At the same
time, sleep deprivation, loud music and temperature
extremes were used at Waco. Surely the left does
not believe they are inappropriate against would be
terrorists?
When did we lose the war?
Earlier today, on Inside
Politics, an amazing exchange featuring Robert Novak,
host Ed Henry, and Paul Begala:
Novak: I think the American people would love to end
this war. They would love to find some way that they
could feel that we were leaving as soon as possible,
with honor, that we weren't bugging out, we weren't
making the world less safe. There's people in the Administration
who would like to do that right now, believe me, because
I talk to them, but that is not the president's view,
and that's not the majority view. I think the trouble
with the Democrats is that when they have a meeting
and say we are going to get tough on Iraq, and say ok,
we're going to fund it but these people have screwed
it up, they are not yet to the point of saying we are
the people, we will get out now, the Dennis Kucinich
plan. We are going to get out immediately. They have
not reached that point. They think it is too risky.
And so therefore, there is something flat about the
whole debate because nobody has viable alternatives.
Ed Henry: You seem to be saying that there are people
at the White House who are more nervous than they are
letting on publicly.
Novak: There are people in the Administration will
say, who think that Iraq is never going to be Iowa,
and its , its, and we're going to have to get out, and
if the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds are having
a civil war, we've done the best we could and we have
to keep it in their hands. The counter argument to that
is well its not just a civil war, it is the center of
the terrorist movement in the world, and I think that's
a debatable thing, but there are, believe me Ed, there
are a lot of people , there are conservatives who think
that we should get out by the end of the year.
Begala: This whole thing has
been a disaster for the country, for our country, and
the president seems to be disengaged from reality.
The debate in Washington, I think, among those who are
observing this, with respect, is the president and his
team, are they purposefully misleading us, do they understand
what a debacle it is but they are lying, or are they
so delusional that they think that we are winning this
thing. I have no idea which it is. But I'd like to know,
but maybe there are two camps, the reality-based people
who understand that we are loosing but they are lying
to u and then there's the delusional wing.
Ed Henry: Bo, you have been around Washington for a
long time. Do you think people like Chuck Hagel, it
is just a pebble in the water, or is there building
Republican concern on the Hill?
Novak: There is building Republican concern on
the Hill and in the country. I go out around the country
a lot, and I take a very critical position on the prospects
there, and I don't get criticism from conservatives,
but I don't believe, I don't agree that it is either
delusional or reprehensible. You get into this bureaucratic
mode of where the military people say, oh boy, we can't
leave the Iraqi forces can't cut it, we've got to stay,
and its very hard to bite the bullet. If we had pulled
out of Vietnam in 1968, which I was violently against,
I was a super hawk, if we had pulled out in '68, the
situation of the communist tyranny over Vietnam would
not be any different than it is today and we would have
saved a lot of American lives. But it is very hard to
pull that trigger."
The Vietnam Syndrome isn't dead. It's been sleeping.
And the outbreak underway in D.C. is alarming, because
this time a collapse of American will to fight and win
a war won't be followed by the massacre of innocents
Southeast Asia, but the massacre of Americans inside
our own borders.
The Durbin Damage and
the Pelosi Double-down.
If you missed the transcript of my
conversation with Lt. Pete in the post below, read it
before continuing. Turns out Lt.
Pete is a Princeton grad in addition to being a Gitmo
vet.
The
Dallas Morning News blasts Durbin and his non-apology,
and concludes:
"Hey, we're sorry, too.
We're sorry that anything
else Mr. Durbin might say about allegations of torture
at Guantánamo Bay simply cannot be believed, thanks
to his way-over-the-top screed.
We're sorry that in his haste
to score political points against the Bush administration,
he chose to squander his credibility by linking U.S.
troops to despots who killed millions of innocent people.
We're sorry that at this key moment in the war on terror,
when democracy demands a full and open debate on all
U.S. policies and tactics, he so devalued his own voice
and potential contributions.
We're sorry that Mr. Durbin woke up this morning still
the Senate's assistant minority leader – the second-ranked
Democrat – and that it apparently hasn't occurred to
fellow Democrats that he should step down from the leadership."
But even as Durbin slinks
away, Nancy Pelosi steps up to provide copy for Al Jazeera.
From
her statement yesterday:
"The treatment of detainees
is a taint on our country's reputation, especially in
the Muslim world, and there are many questions that
must be answered. These questions are important because
the safety of our country depends on our reputation
and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world.
"There are many questions that have gone unanswered:
What was the atmosphere created that permitted detainee
abuse, and why was it tolerated? What was the training
and supervision of the troops? Who had this responsibility?
What is it that the Republicans are trying to hide?
How far up the chain of command does this go? Why is
the Secretary of Defense not taking responsibility?
This happened on his watch.
"Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since
October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly
four years without being charged? Why has so little
been done to resolve the status of the detainees?"
Anthony
Lewis and the International Herald Tribune pick up the
chant and spread it across the globe: The United States
is a criminal state:
"No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties
and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at
Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened
elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers,
untold others held in secret locations by the CIA, others
rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's."
The result is predictable. Lawyers
for "innocent" detainees are now proclaiming
that their clients have been savagely abused at Gitmo,
and these stories thrive in the ground plowed by Durbin,
Pelosi, Lewis and others. Here's
another one. There will be many, many more.
If Democrats want to taken seriously as other than
a desperate group of out-of-power ideologues willing
to trash everything and everyone in an attempt to get
some traction with the public that has evaluated their
collective fitness for leadership in time of war and
ejected them from power, they will begin by defending
our defenders, articulating the necessity of long term
imprisonment for would be terrorists and the interrogation
of those terrorists, drop the absurd and dangerous demand
for "due process" for unlawful combatants,
and help shoulder the burden of explaining to the world
that America is the most humane of all jailers, and
rigorous in its prosecution of its representatives who
violate the rules of detention.
Commentators
on Gitmo should read the various documents put out by
the Department of Defense, especially this report, released
a year ago today. The crucial statement:
"It is the policy and practice of the Department
of Defense to treat detainees in the War on Terrorism
humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent
with military necessity, in a manner consistent with
the principles of the Geneva Convention.
No procedures approved for use ordered, authorized,
permitted, or tolerated torture. Individuals who have
abused the trust and confidence placed in them will
be held accountable. There are a number of inquiries
that are ongoing to look at specific allegations of
abuse, and those investigations will run their course."
I believe the DoD, and I believe that the conditions
at Gitmo are humane. Those like Durbin and Pelosi who
do not have decided to believe the critics and sometimes
the enemies of the United States. I think this
choice will and should be a huge factor in future elections.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
A Gitmo veteran's comments.
I interviewed a veteran of Gitmo last hour on the show,
and provide his remarks here. I hope you will give his
comments as much credibility as you do the e-mail cited
by Senator Durbin that prompted him to compare the conduct
at Gitmo with the conduct of Nazis, Stalinists, and
the Khmer Rouge.
Hugh: Pete in New York is a veteran of Gitmo.
Hello Pete, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
Pete: Thanks for having me on Hugh.
Hugh: When did you serve in Gitmo?
Pete: I was there about two months ago, for a
year.
Hugh: Thank you for your service. What say you
about Dick Durbin and everything you have been watching
over the last month?
Pete: It has been unbelievable to watch it unfold after
having spent a year there. I mean it seems to
be a lot of people who don't know a whole lot
about what they are talking about, talking about things
that may have happened years and years ago. 2002, 2003.
If they could see the professional operation that is
being run down there today, I think they would take
their words back in a second.
Hugh: Pete, which unit were you with?
Pete: I was with the New Jersey National Guard.
Hugh: Did you see brutality at Gitmo?
Pete: I didn't see one bit of it.
Hugh: Are interrogations ongoing at Gitmo?
Pete: Absolutely. The facility is there to gather
intelligence.
Hugh: Do they use extremes of hot and cold to
gather intelligence?
Pete: That I can't speak to directly, but I can tell
you it is nothing that any of us would deem to be inhumane,
especially compared to what many of our servicemen and
women have been put through overseas.
Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality
of the prisoners you observed?
Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine
hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee
to go back home who had refused to do so because he
wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated
so well.
Hugh: Food okay for the prisoners at Guantanamo, Pete?
Pete: I think it is better than what my guys
got for a year, to be honest with you.
Hugh: You an officer, Pete?
Pete: Yes I am. Second Lieutenant.
Hugh: Are you proud of the way your men conducted themselves
vis-a-vis these prisoners?
Hugh: Absolutely. I mean, you've got guys
from New jersey who were just, you know, minutes away
from the Towers when the fell, who knew family members
who died that day. And the professionalism with
which they conducted themselves around men who may have
been involved in those attacks was extraordinary.
Hugh: Do you feel they are being slandered by these
conversations, the Durbin statements, the Minneapolis
Star Tribune?
Pete: Oh, sure. It is something that I have come to
expect but thankfully we have men and women who are
willing to conduct themselves, you know, the right way
on a mission no matter what anyone is saying about them.
Hugh: Tell us about the prisoners at Gitmo. Are these
killers, or are they misunderstood religiously observant
Muslims?
Pete: I tell you one thing, Hugh. I had a soldier in
my platoon who spoke fluent Arabic, and so I'd go up
in a tower and he'd interpret for me, and I am telling
you, these guys are talking about, you know, how much
they hate America and how much they would love to kill
somebody if they could get their hands on them. These
are not friendly guys, and given the opportunity, as
I think someone put it, to spend the night at
it with a few members of the editorial pages of the
Star Tribune, I think that maybe they would take their
statements back.
VodkaPundit
has more on Durbin's non-apology apology.
So does PardonMyEnglish,
The
Lunch Counter, GOPBloggers,
and Technicalities.
The civilians are under whelmed, and I doubt very much
if the military feels the slander has been revoked and
buried.
Dick Durbin's appearance on
the floor of the Senate for yet another attempt at clarification
included the word "apologize," but it was
not an apology. An e-mail from a midwestern pastor
received moments ago:
"As you know I'm a pastor, which means I spend
a lot of time talking about repentance and forgiveness.
I also listen to people confess and repent. Maybe I
missed it, but I didn't hear Senator Durbin admit he
had actually done anything wrong, only that he was sorry
'some were offended.' Which is another form of his
previous statement, that he was sorry he was misunderstood,
which is not the same as an admission of guilt, but
an admission of unintended consequences. Again, am
I wrong, did I miss something, or is he equivocating
with tears this time?"
Newt Gingrich, appearing on
the program agrees that the Durbin statement simply
does not do what needs to be done. Gingrich, an early
proponent of censure, recognizes how reluctant the
body will be to undertake such a process and proposes
instead a resolution stating that there is no parallel,
no legitimate comparison whatsoever, between the conduct
of the United States and that of the regimes of Hitler,
Stalin, and Pool Pot. That's a superb idea, as Durbin
will be forced to vote on the substance of the matter.
Radioblogger
is transcribing the Durbin statement as well as the
Gingrich interview, and it will be up shortly.
And
Mitch Berg has more on the Minneapolis Star Tribune's
outrageous attack on the military this morning.
Chicago
Mayor Richard Daley has called on Dick Durbin to apologize
for his remarks equating interrogation practices
at Gitmo with the practices of the barbaric regimes
of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Evidently Daley
didn't read the Minneapolis Star Tribune's defense of
Durbin's outrageous remarks, or wasn't persuaded by
Andrew Sullivan
or over-the-cliff bloggers like Kos.
Daley's an old-school Democrat: He supports the military,
and according to the AP, Daley "says its
a disgrace to accuse military men and women of such
conduct."
Ed
Morrisey of CaptainsQuarters is keeping tack of
Durbin reactions, and Powerline
reprints a powerful letter the editor of the Minneapolis
Star Tribune from Lt. Colonel Joe Repya about its abhorrent
editorial. Lt. Col. Repya sent his letter
from Iraq, where he is presently serving.
We have called the Strib to ask for a guest to defend
the editorial on air, and the woman who answered told
my producer we should talk to Jim Boyd, as he wrote
the piece. Now, we have been around the issue
before about who does and doesn't write editorials,
and we know that an unsigned editorial represents the
views of the paper, but Boyd's authorship is consistent
with his long record of journalistic malpractice.
Boyd dodges his critics, of course, and refuses to defend
his screeds, but perhaps he has enough personal honor
to appear and answer Colonel Repya's letter.
But don't count on it.
Here is the contact information for the Star Tribune.
I really don't see how anyone can subscribe to a paper
that attacks our troops, which today's editorial unquestionably
does. And if you advertise there, you have to ask yourself
what it is you are supporting.
The paper has a right to employ a nutter like Boyd
and to print the bile-filled idiocies that come off
his keyboard, but it doesn't have a right to your money.
Here's
the contact info for the Strib. To cancel
a subscription, call (612) 673-4343 or 1 (800) 775-4344
.
The
Minneapolis Star Tribune publishes a howler of an editorial
today. What world do these people live in?
Sayeth the nutters at the Strib:
"Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo.
That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth."
He told the truth? "[Y]ou would most certainly
believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in
their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others
— that had no concern for human beings." Dick Durbin
on Gitmo, JUne 14, 2005. The Strib says he told
the truth.
So, the paper believes the Gitmo = Pol Pot's killing
fields, eh? That air conditioning levels equate
with the Holocaust, and a single FBI report with Solzehnitsyn's
witness to the millions of lives lost in the Gulag.
What moral ciphers. Good to remember that in
the future as they endorse candidates.
How does any supporter of the United States military
subscribe to this paper? Who is willing to advertise
in it?
Here's the letter from GOP Senate leadership to Harry
Reid regarding Dick Durbin:
"June 20, 2005
The Honorable Harry Reid
Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Dear Senator Reid:
We call upon you to encourage Senator Richard Durbin,
the Senate Democratic Whip, to apologize for and withdraw
his remarks made on the floor of the U.S. Senate on
June 14 likening the men and women of the U.S. Armed
Forces and other U.S. Government civilian employees
defending America’s freedom to “Nazis, Soviets in their
gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had
no concerns for human beings.” Such language and comparisons
are inappropriate, unwarranted, disrespectful, and dangerous.
Referring to one person’s characterization of treatment
of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Senator Durbin said:
“When you read some of the graphic descriptions of
what has occurred here [Guantanamo Bay] — I almost hesitate
to put them in the Record, and yet they have to be added
to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent
saw. And I quote from his report:
‘On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms
to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal
position to the floor, with no chair, food or water.
Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves,
and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On
one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down
so far and the temperature was so cold in the room,
that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold .
. . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had
been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated
room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost
unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to
him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair
out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only
was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud
rap music was being played in the room, and had been
since the day before, with the detainee chained hand
and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.’
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it
was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done
to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly
believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in
their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others
— that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that
is not the case. This was the action of Americans in
the treatment of their prisoners.” (emphasis added)
Such hyperbolic, insensitive, and inaccurate statements
should not be spoken on the Senate floor. As numerous
Senators collectively noted on the Senate floor on June
16, such statements:
· Tarnish the U.S. Senate as an institution by making
comparisons of U.S. actions taken against the Nation’s
enemies and in accordance with U.S. and international
law, i.e., the Geneva Conventions, to those of Adolf
Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Pol-Pot, who slaughtered tens
of millions of innocent civilians, mostly women and
children, for reasons such as racism and political ideology.
· Insult and demoralize the overwhelming majority
of U.S. soldiers and civilian employees honorably defending
America.
· Exacerbate the terrorist threat against Americans
by providing “evidence” of what they claim are reasons
for attacking us. (The Arab media were quick to publicize
the criticisms.)
· Are unproven and part of a legal investigation being
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Department of Defense.
· Deny due process legal rights to those alleged of
committing abuses (by presuming guilt upon the accused
party).
On June 16, Senator John Warner (R-VA), seeking to
clarify the “Nazi” reference as well as to obtain a
formal apology from him, engaged in floor debate with
Senator Durbin and said:
“I go back on my own recollections [of] those three
examples the Senator used. I don’t know what interrogation
took place. Perhaps if we go into the sinews of history
there were some, but what the world recognized from
those three examples the Senator used, they were death
camps — I repeat, death camps — where, as my colleague
from Kentucky very accurately said, millions of people
perished. It is doubtful they were ever often asked
their names.
“To say that the allegations of a single FBI agent
mentioned in an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report give
rise to coming to the Senate and raising the allegation
that whatever persons of the uniformed military, as
referred to in that report — albeit, uncorroborated,
unsubstantiated report — are to be equated with those
three chapters in world history is just a most grievous
misjudgment on the Senator’s part, and one I think is
deserving of apologizing to the men and women in uniform.”
Subsequent statements by Senator Durbin indicate only
that he was regretful if people misunderstood his remarks. We
do not believe his remarks were misunderstood.
In deference to the Senate as an institution for which
we serve and to the millions of men and women currently
serving this Nation in uniform and civilian dress for
which we owe so much in the War on Terrorism, we ask
Senator Durbin to issue a formal apology and strike
his remarks from the record."
Signed by Senators Frist, McConnell, Santorum, Hutchinson,
Kyl and Dole.
Expect Democrats to hang tough with Durbin, who spoke
for them, and their silence and continued confidence
in their whip make Durbin's assessment their assessment,
and one which will be remembered in November, 2006.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Arizona's United States Senator
Jon Kyl confirmed on my show a few minutes ago that
the GOP leadership in the Senate had sent a letter to
Harry Reid with a copy to Dick Durbin demanding that
Durbin apologize for his remarks and strike them from
the record. If Durbin refuses, Kyl noted, there
are other options.
Kyl also rejected the arguments by Durbin and his defenders
that there are widespread human rights abuses at Gitmo
or elsewhere in the world where terrorists are being
detained. Kyl rejects the idea that anyone can conclude
that "torture" has occurred at Gitmo based
on the FBI memo that Durbin read, or that the Geneva
Conventions have been violated. In short, it is
utterly absurd and dangerous to argue as Durbin has,
or to support his hysterics.
Radioblogger
will post a transcript of the Kyl interview later.
FroggyRuminations
asks whether Durbin embellished the FBI account he read
on the floor of the Senate. The
original memos are here.
The Durbin Defense League want to change the subject
from what Durbin actually said to wholly different subjects.
Durbin said the practices at Gitmo were like the practices
at Abu Ghraib which are like the practices at detention
centers around the world which are like the practices
of Nazis/Stalinist/Pol Pot. Andrew
Sullivan asserts that "it's people like Dick
Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against
this stain on American honor and call it what it is.
Good for him. Thank God for him," thus buying into
the Nazi/Stalinist/Pol Pot comparison, which simply
takes them off the field of serious argument.
I have not seen a single critic of Durbin's do other
than condemn the Abu Ghraib crimes, but Sullivan attempts
to transform critics of Durbin's vast slander into defenders
of the Abu Ghraib crimes, which is not only shabby,
but transparently the argument of the hysterical.
The
Defend Dick Durbin caucus now has a cartoonist.
Understand that the left in this country agrees with
the Durbin statements --all of them. And
don't miss Jed Babbin in today's Spectator.
"Breaking
the Durbin Code" in the WeeklyStandard.com
this morning is an effort to make the case for a Senate
resolution of censure for Dick Durbin, as well as a
single source for all of the relevant Durbin statements
from last week. When all of Durbin's statements
on Gitmo, the Nazis/Soviets/Pol Pot and Abu Ghraib are
laid end to end, they reveal Durbin's argument very
clearly, and very clearly the Senate ought to censure
him for making it.
Bill Kristol agrees that censure is appropriate, but
in "A
Better Idea than Censure" suggests that Durbin's
removal from the leadership post he holds for the Democrats
would be more likely. I agree that the Democrats would
be wise to dismiss Durbin, but it isn't my party and
if they wish to be led by fools brimming with anti-American
rhetoric, that is their right. A resolution of
censure, though, sets a standard for the Senate which
represents all Americans --a standard that says slanders
on the United States military and America's conduct
in the war on terror, especially those slanders that
provide our enemies a huge propaganda victory, will
not be tolerated by the body of senators, not just one
party.
Scott Johnson, also writing in the Standard today,
throws
light on Robert Byrd, Durbin's predecessor in the
Democratic Party senate leadership. Democrats, it seems,
have for a long time been looking the other way when
it comes to hypocrisy in their leaders. But as a party,
and as senators, they should not look past Durbin's
reprehensible arguments.
Blackfive
has the contact information for Durbin's many offices.
The contact information for
other senators is here.
Update
at 9:00 AM, Pacific
Joshua
Micah Marshall, on Durbin's situation:
"I don't want to overplay the political significance
of this. And I'm certainly not going to say the guy
is toast. But I think [Durbin's] in real trouble. The
conventional wisdom on the news today was that [Durbin]
had pretty much put this story to bed with his 'apology'
I didn't think that was true. Now it seems clear that
it's not true.
But you don't have to have your ear to the ground or
be getting tips about long forgotten speeches to know
this. Much of the wobbly coverage of this story (and
much of the deep unease over this among [liberals])
stems from fact that this obviously wasn't some misstatement
or hyperbole or slip of the tongue. It's what the guy
believes."
Not really. It is Joshua on Lott, and the unease
he was writing about was among "conservatives,"
not "liberals." The same interesting
exercise can be run with Andrew
Sullivan's postings from mid-December, 2002.
Lott was Majority Leader, Durbin is Minority Whip, but
both were/are leaders. Lott's disqualifying
statements came on race, Durbin's on the military.
But everything that was said about Lott then can and
should be said about Durbin now, but whereas the GOP
disciplined itself and its leadership, there is no indication
that the Dems will do the same. The difference is that
the GOP did not share Lott's views on Thurmond's 1948
campaign, but Durbin's anti-military instincts define
his party.
Sunday, June
19, 2005
Mark
Steyn on Dick Durbin. Smash
has a key letter to Durbin. (HT: Greyhawk.)
Blackfive
has all the contact
info. Durbin is the subject on every Sunday
talk show with John McCain predicting an apology from
Durbin this week. Senator McCain's mild handling
of a gross slander on the American military is another
step backward in his campaign for the GOP nomination
--even though post "judges-deal," his support
among GOP primary voters is already low. It is tough
to fall off a floor.
Happy Fathers Day to all dads and grandads, but especially
to those serving abroad and away from their children.
MarkDRoberts
has some great thoughts on the day in two posts, the
second of which is here. Scroll down for the first.
|