| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Last week I went to a talk by Thomas Del Beccaro, author of "The New Conservative Paradigm." One of the many important points he made was that one of the reasons for Ron Paul being a player in the current campaign, is that, more than the other Republican candidates, he has been running against Washington. While the other candidates were putting themselves forward as experienced managers, Paul was presenting himself as a maverick who wanted to change Washington D.C. Beccaro argued that this has always been appealing to American voters.
With that in mind, it was striking to notice that, in last night's debate between Clinton and Obama in Los Angeles, the Democrat candidates were presenting themselves as wanting to change - not Washington D.C. - but as wanting to change America.
Hillary: ...So we have differences both at home and around the world, but, again, I would emphasize that what really is important here, because the Republicans were in California debating yesterday, they are more of the same.
Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same. We will change our country.
She flat-out says it. It's not merely Washington D.C. she wants to change - it's the country.
Most Americans like America. They want to shake up things in D.C. - they don't want to drastically change the country.
Obama: And that's one of the reasons why I think I will be -- just to finish up this point, I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain, or any other Republican -- because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies -- because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
That's the kind of leadership I'm going to provide as president of the United States.
Did he misspeak? Did he really say he wanted to end the mindset that got us into war, period? As in, nations such as Iran and Syria which finance terrorists, can seek to blow up our cities all they want, and not have to fear that we'll use war to stop them from doing so in the future? That's not just a change to Washington D.C. - it's a change to America - and a change that is very dangerous to the safety of our citizens.
When we see Obama claiming that he's no longer willing to wear an American flag pin, but that he wants to show his patriotism in other ways, we are seeing nuance that verges on the incoherent:
"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."
A "substitute" for patriotism? Is he saying his fellow Dems wear a flag pin in lieu of being patriotic - that their patriotism is only pin-deep? What a slam on his fellow Dems that would be!
On the other hand, making a point of taking off the American flag pin is a universally-recognized indication of lack of allegiance to our country. Obama's saying that he opposes America unless it adopts the policies he supports.
At the heart of it is an opposition to Democracy itself; he's saying that the will of the people, as expressed at election time, is wrong unless it elects him, or someone else with views similar to his own.
And in referencing Iraq, he shows that his notion of being patriotic is to call for our troops to leave Iraq before they have accomplished their mission. As I recently posted:
There are those in Iraq who are trying - and, in some cases, succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops in that country. We win when enough of those enemies (the ones still standing) give up.
Every time someone in the U.S. calls for our troops to leave before we win, it encourages those enemies not to give up. It encourages them to keep trying - and in some cases succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops.
...Anybody who clamors for our troops to get out of Iraq before we win, is contributing to getting more of our troops killed.
Obama has shown that his leadership is dangerous to our own troops, and that he doesn't believe in Democracy.
We've heard it so many times - the statement by someone who wants U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, that they "support the troops."
Many feel that there's some logical flaw there - something that renders it sickeningly absurd.
And there is.
There are those in Iraq who are trying - and, in some cases, succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops in that country. We win when enough of those enemies (the ones still standing) give up.
Every time someone in the U.S. calls for our troops to leave before we win, it encourages those enemies not to give up. It encourages them to keep trying - and in some cases succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops.
That is not supporting our troops. It encourages the enemy to keep fighting, and contributes directly to more of our troops getting attacked.
The "we support the troops" crowd used to claim that the war is unwinnable, so the sooner we get the troops out, the better. And what an encouragement to our enemies that was, to hear U.S. elected officials claiming that the war was unwinnable! How many more American troops were killed because of the encouragement provided to the enemy by such officials? But General Petraeus' testimony before Congress last week cut the legs out from under the proposition, that the war in Iraq is unwinnable.
So let's have an end to this lunacy, that you can help to keep the enemy attacking our troops, and still claim to "support our troops."
Anybody who clamors for our troops to get out of Iraq before we win, is contributing to getting more of our troops killed.
From U.S. News and World Report: "Momentum Shifting To GOP In Iraq Debate" - discussing how the views of key Dem lawmakers are now shifting in favor of our work in Iraq - our noble, heroic, difficult work, to bring Democracy and Capitalism to the heart of the Mid East - the accomplishment of which would be a historic achievement that would assist greatly in bringing Islam out of the dark ages that many of its practitioners still inhabit, of rage and hatred against non-Muslims.
Now, what could possibly have happened, to change the minds of these key Dem lawmakers?
It turns out that it was a little tiny thing called, checking out the facts. They actually went to Iraq and found out what was going on:
...the eyewitness reports from individual Democratic lawmakers who've recently visited Iraq appear to have changed the dynamic in the debate over the war. The Kansas City Star's "The Buzz," for example, reports Democratic Rep. Brian Baird "saw enough progress on the ground that he will no longer vote for binding withdrawal timelines." Rep. Jerry McNerney "suggested that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the war."
This is a much more powerful strategy for decision-making, than mindlessly parroting the verbiage of the far left.
I give great credit to Baird, McNerney, and others, who have had the courage to find out the facts, and to bring that news home to their party. Every Dem lawmakers who does as they have done, earns admiration for himself, and for his party as well.
As for those Dem lawmakers who have not yet come around:
Also changing his tune is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says the troop increase 'has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.'" As the Washington Post says this morning, "Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with...Bush on the Iraq war." Instead, "Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions."
Republican leaders and Administration officials are looking on with interest at the newly found Democratic support for the troop surge. A GOP congressional aide tells the Political Bulletin, "We think it is interesting to hear Democrats reluctantly admitting that the surge has been a tactical success. It's fascinating considering the ride they've been on since January and that all Democrats in Congress voted to condemn the surge in one form or fashion." Republicans are speculating that with the recent drop in blockbuster attacks and American troop deaths in Iraq, the Democrats are a bit concerned that pushing for an immediate withdrawal might appear defeatist.
Gee - really? After a year of Dem lawmakers saying we can't win, we've already lost, yada yada yada, they're starting to be concerned that they might look defeatist? They should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they've done by encouraging the enemy to keep fighting and trying to kill our brave troops.
I'd like to see Dems like Baird and McNerney among the future leaders of their party.
Here's a list of recent events:
The Pentagon tells Hillary that she's 'reinforcing enemy propaganda.' Hillary had asked the Pentagon for a plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq - and the enemy has propaganda that tells those who are killing American troops that, if they just keep going, they will triumph and make the U.S. withdraw all troops from Iraq. The Pentagon warned her that she is 'reinforcing enemy propaganda.' Instead of letting the story be forgotten, Hillary is keeping it alive and trying to draw other Dem senators into it with her.
The Dems are now in a fight with Cindy Sheehan, their former heroine, who is trying to launch a run against Nancy Pelosi. On the Daily Kos, she's being called "arrogant" and accused of "believing her own hype."
Naked protesters who are against war - protested against Hillary Clinton. ("These protestors wouldn't exactly sway your vote.") This draws attention again to the bizarre craziness of the far Left.
The astonishing, nightmarish effort by the Dems to kill the King amendment. This amendment protects whistleblowers who see evidence of terrorists trying to blow us up - it protects those whistleblowers from being sued. CAIR has launched lawsuits against such whistleblowers, to intimidate them from coming forward with the kind of information that has already stopped major terrorist plots. And astonishingly, the Dems actually voted to kill the amendment. Not one Republican voted against the amendment. The resulting public outcry has just saved the King amendment.
Obama says he'd meet with dictators who are enemies of America:
The controversy springs from a question at the YouTube debate asking whether Obama would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Obama, an Illinois senator, said he would and called it a break with the Bush administration's diplomatic policies.
Clinton, in the debate, said she would pursue vigorous diplomacy but she wouldn't make such a promise without knowing the other countries' intent.
"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said.
In a telephone interview today, the New York senator went further. Of Obama's comment, she said: "I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive."
And of course, the low approval rating of Congress. In April, it was at a 12-year low, per Gallup.
The country gave the Dems a chance to show what they could do if they got control of Congress. Hopefully the voters are taking heed of the embarrassments and debacles that are resulting.
From StrategyPage:
July 24, 2007: The surge has basically been chasing the terrorist and criminal gangs around the suburbs of Baghdad, or even into northern or western Iraq. This has taken its toll. Time spent in flight cannot be spent planting IEDs or killing people. Putting all these guys on the road, also makes them more susceptible to capture. A lot of important terrorists have been captured this way. The chief liaison between al Qaeda headquarters and al Qaeda in Iraq was nabbed, as well as many mid-level terrorist cell leaders.
What most of the troops, and Iraqi civilians, notice is the lower level of violence. Since the surge offensive began four months ago, Iraqi (military and civilian) deaths have declined by more than 50 percent, and American casualties are down by over a third. U.S. troops are still taking the lead in moving into hostile areas, and being exposed to ambush and IEDs. But U.S. tactics and training have made enemy efforts much less lethal. This has helped demoralize an increasing number of terrorists. Many are tired of killing Iraqi civilians, and the increasing difficulty at getting at American troops. Look at this from the Iraqi perspective. In a very good month, Iraqis make a hundred or more attacks a day on American troops, and kill, on average, about four of them. While the terrorists make a big deal out of every American killed, they know that most of their attacks were not only failures, but got a lot of their buddies killed. On average, 10-20 terrorists die for every American killed. This has been going on for years, and an increasing number of Iraqi fighters are demoralized and quitting. Many either become informers, or surrender and speak freely. This is resulting in fresher intelligence, and raids that are catching terrorist cells preparing for operations, and in possession of weapons, bombs and incriminating documents.
The terrorists like us to think that it's impossible for an army to fight a force that can melt into a civilian population.
But maybe it's not impossible.
Maybe it's just a little more expensive.
You'd think Hillary would at least want the story to go away. You'd think she wouldn't want to remind people that the Pentagon had warned her she was 'reinforcing enemy propaganda.' For the record, here's the background info:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda. In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
But, on the contrary, she's working hard to keep the story alive - and even to drag other Democrat senators into it with her.
Hillary Seeks Support in Pentagon Fight
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday enlisted the help of other Democratic senators in her feud with the Pentagon over end-of-war planning in Iraq.
She wants to be commander-in-chief - but she's in a feud with the Pentagon. Hopefully many voters will remember that the Pentagon itself has warned her, that she's helping the enemy - the enemy that is killing American troops in Iraq.
From the Washington Times:
A Muslim civil rights group yesterday blamed the Bush administration for promoting "Islamophobia" and said the "war on terror" won't stop terrorists.
"The new perception is that the United States has entered a war with Islam itself," said Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the national board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot eradicate it by declaring a war against it. The war on terror is causing us infinitely more harm than the terrorists could have ever imagined."
Mr. Ahmed, who spoke at a CAIR symposium at the National Press Club, said the war against terrorists is driven by an "irrational" fear that the Bush administration has inculcated in the American public. The chance of being killed in a terrorist attack, he said, is 1 in 80,000 over a lifetime.
There are about 300 million people in America. 1 in 80,000 means that Ahmed is predicting that 3,750 of them will be killed by terrorists - more than the number killed on 9-11. And he also says, in another implied threat, that the war on terror won't stop it. Yet there hasn't been another 9-11 since 2001, despite the efforts of the Islamists.
Ahmed knows that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are committed by his co-religionists in the name of their religion. Yet CAIR's opposition is directed against U.S. efforts to put an end to those attacks. CAIR itself makes little effort to put an end to those attacks. This recent Ramirez cartoon says it well:
Ahmed's implied threat of future attacks, and his organization's lack of actions to prevent such attacks, show what goals CAIR - an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding case - is pursuing.
As a blogger, from time to time you see what appear to be echoes of your views appearing in various public statements, and occasionally you wonder if you may have been one of many contributing to the expression of those views in those statements.
Yesterday there was a lot of public discussion of a dust-up that happened on Sunday between Senators Graham and Webb on the subject of Iraq. From Senator's Graham's remarks:
GRAHAM: If General Petraeus comes back, he will tell us these things. I want to leave. No American wants to occupy Iraq, but history will judge us, my friend, not when we left but what we left behind. Do we leave a resurgent Al-Qaeda that will kill every moderate who helped us? Do we empower Iran, do they control the south of Iraq? Nobody ever asks the consequences, polls the consequences of this idea, just wash your hands of Iraq. I'm going to listen to this general and I'm not going to let any politician take the place of the general.
Just a few days previously I had made precisely this point regarding a recent poll on Iraq, and provided evidence for it. The post was linked by Pajamas Media, as well.
With many Conservatives criticizing GWB these days, it's worth remembering his substantial successes to date:
Per William Kristol in the Washington Post:
Why Bush Will Be a Winner
...With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.
...What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.
I like the odds.
In many cases, even Conservatives have fallen for the never-ending drumbeat of biased reporting from MSM, and have come to the conclusion that he's a disappointment.
On the plus side, in this environment - in which MSM continuously feeds the public a biased view of the news - it may help the next Republican presidential candidate get elected, to distance himself from GWB.
But it appears to me that in 20 years, GWB's presidency will be held in very high regard.
This week various media outlets are noting the result of a Gallup Poll, reporting that:
A new USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S. troops by April.
A visit to the Gallup site shows the text of the poll question:
37. (Asked of a half sample) Do you favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts?
BASED ON 505 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A
Favor
Oppose
No opinion
2007 Jul 6-8
71%
26
4
To throw a little cold water on this, it is necessary to point out that the question asks interviewees to respond without regard to the consequences of a troop pullout. Iraqi and U.S. analysts believe that a troop pullout would be catastrophic for Iraqis and for the U.S. From AP:
BAGHDAD - Iraqi leaders warned Monday the country could collapse if American troops leave too quickly as pressure mounts in Washington to draw down U.S. combat forces. More threats to Iraqi stability could be looming to the north with Turkish forces gathering in a possible prelude to a cross-border attack against Kurdish rebels.
...The idea of a withdrawal drew a sharp response from Iraq's foreign minister, who warned that a speedy U.S. military withdrawal could lead to all-out civil war, the collapse of the government and spread conflict across the Middle East.
"We have held discussion with members of Congress and explained to them the dangers of a quick pullout and leaving a security vacuum," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters. "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state."
That sentiment was echoed by leading political figures from the Sunni Arab community, the group that had been the least supportive of the U.S. presence following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government in 2003.
"A hasty withdrawal . . . would lead to a crisis that would obliterate all the positive aspects of the U.S. troop deployment," said Salim Abdullah, spokesman for the largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament.
Sunni legislator Adnan al-Dulaimi said a quick U.S. departure would "destroy Iraq" and that the American presence was necessary to "keep a balance between Iraqi sects" after the wave of Shiite-Sunni reprisal killings that plunged the country to the brink of all-out civil war last year.
From Victor Davis Hanson:
A Greek Tragedy in the Making
Vietnam has been evoked so many times for Iraq that most snore when they hear it.
But the real parallels are the images of an orphaned war (Vietnam circa 1972-5) when the public had given up, the politicians had begun getting most troops out, and after Watergate, begun to cut off funds in a series of Congressional actions.
Few cared then to hear that the South Vietnamese government, corrupt as it was, was far superior to the alternative, or was viable in a way that late 1950s South Korea had become (compare the modern state there to the present alternative to the north), or that Saigon could evolve in a way Hanoi could not.
Much less did anyone want to hear of possible consequences of defeat and flight. Indeed, talk of camps, executions, and refugees were written off as right-wing scare stories. The last five years of Vietnam before the fall were largely the work of a small dedicated group of military people and diplomats who finally figured out counter-insurgency, had trained and supplied the South Vietnamese effectively, and very slowly drew down while providing air and material support-until the cutoffs.
...And now the Vietnam parallel again. Are we going to read books in the next decade with titles like "Triumph Forsaken" and "Victory Lost", whose themes will be that the US had almost done the impossible by going into the worst place in the Middle East and, all at once, addressing Saddam's reign of terror, Islamic fundamentalism, ex-Baathism, religious sectarianism, Iranian and Syrian infiltration, and seeing something far better emerge-and then at the climax quit in recrimination and despair over the terrible loss in blood and treasure?
If the question had been followed up with something like this, there would likely have been a different result:
37 A. (Asked of a half sample) Do you favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts, if this would increase the risk of the collapse of the Iraqi state?
Hanson observed that in the Vietnam war, no one wanted "to hear of possible consequences of defeat and flight." The same thing is exemplified in this poll. The poll asks respondents whether they want troops out of Iraq, without regard to consequences. In fact, the poll merely asks respondents if they "favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops..." Of course everybody favors that. Consequences aside, of course everybody wants the troops out.
But the very next question of the Gallup poll - ignored by most of the MSM - does touch remotely on consequences - and does give a far different result. Again, from the Gallup site:
38. (Asked of a half sample) Which comes closer to your view about U.S. policy toward the situation in Iraq -- [ROTATED: Congress should act now to develop a new policy on Iraq, (or) Congress should not develop a new policy on Iraq until September when General Petraeus reports on the progress of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq]?
BASED ON 509 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B
Act now to develop
new policy on IraqNot develop
new policy on Iraq
until September
No
opinion2007 Jul 6-8
40%
55
5
The majority opposes changing policy in Iraq until Petraeus reports. Sure, when asked without regard to consequences, 70% want our troops out. But when asked about what they want to do now, in the real world, where there are consequences - the majority favors maintaining GWB's policies until the September report comes in.
Yet MSM ignored this poll result. Too often, this is how MSM operates - selectively hiding key facts, in an effort to stampede the populace - and successfully stampeding some Congressmen, who should know better.
(Note that the question, #38, asks respondents to choose between changing
the policy now, or changing it later - leaving out a third option,
namely, to maintain current U.S. policy, if they like what Petraeus
reports.)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in jail, and nobody has a good answer as to why:
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to FBI agents and grand jurors about his role in revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters in 2003.
Notice he isn't convicted of revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. That's because he didn't do it. The person who did that identified himself - it was Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State. No, Libby isn't convicted of lying about something he allegedly did. He is convicted of lying about something that he didn't do. And by lying, is meant, he made a misstatement of fact, which could easily be due to a lapse in memory about something that took place years ago, in 2003.
The name of the formerly covert officer was leaked to reporters in 2003 after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, began criticizing the Bush administration's war policies.
Special prosecutor Fitzpatrick argued for a prison term, saying, "Why did he lie? People lie when they do something wrong. He knew what the investigation was about."
"Something wrong?" What's Fitzgerald talking about? He knows Armitage, not Libby, leaked Plame's name. Fitzgerald couldn't even make a court case that Libby had leaked Plame's name.
In morning hearings, Libby's defense team argued that it was unfair to increase the sentence simply because the investigation was serious.
"No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty," attorney William Jeffress said. "The government did not establish the existence of an offense."
Bingo.
[U.S. District Judge Reggie B.] Walton disagreed, saying that by that reasoning, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can't make their case.
"I just can't buy in on that being good social policy," Walton said. "It's one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It's another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation."
Walton's decision will have the opposite of the effect he intends. Instead of promoting cooperation between civilians and authorities who are investigating something, he is showing that it's dangerous to say anything to them, because a lapse in memory can be absurdly construed as evidence of lying.
Walton is showing that the only safe thing to do when talking to authorities who are investigating something, is to clam up and call your lawyer.
And the kicker is that Joe Wilson, whose allegations started all this, has just been rebuked by the Senate for his deceptions.
WASHINGTON -- In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.
The report claims Wilson misled the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.
...Perhaps the most damning conclusion of the Senate report has been known for nearly three years, but has remained classified until now. In the initial July 2004 report, the Senate committee reported that the intelligence community "used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President's State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was 'vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa.'"
Despite that finding, Democrats led by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin blasted President Bush for the "16 words" in the January 2003 speech that described Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, calling them an effort to "cherry-pick" intelligence and to "mislead" the country and the world in a "rush to war."
Walton's decision is a travesty of justice that dishonors him, falsely convicts a good man, and does great harm to the ability of our citizens to safely cooperate with authorities who are conducting investigations.
6-7-07: P.S. Evidently it wasn't a crime to reveal Plame's name, since Armitage, who admitted doing it, hasn't been convicted of any crime.
When the leading story of the day doesn't fit its view of the world, MSM often likes to bury it on a back page so that its readership never hears about it.
MSM has been doing this for a long time.
On June 10, 2004, the NY Times buried on page A12 (as noted in this previous post) a story stating that the head of the UN inspectors office reported to the Security Council that, before, and during, the war - Hussein had busted up and shipped out of Iraq factories capable of making WMDs.
...Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing satellite photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad in May 2003 and the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from the site included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation columns, parts of missiles and a reactor vessel-all tools suitable for making biological or chemical weapons.
The NY Times, and MSM in general, didn't follow up on this, and today, it's all but forgotten. MSM sent no reporters to ask, why were these facilities destroyed? Why was evidence of their existence removed? What were they doing at these facilities that made it necessary to destroy them? And for most people reading this post, this may be the first time you've ever heard of it.
On June 19, 2004, the NY Times buried on page 8 (as noted in this previous post) this story:
MOSCOW, June 18 - President Vladimir V. Putin said Friday that Russia gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration suggesting that Saddam Hussein's government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas.
Again, MSM buried the story, and you've probably never heard of it.
For years, and up until the present time, MSM has worked hard to avoid publicizing the tremendous success of the economy under GWB. Few people even think about it. MSM's success in keeping us from thinking about such things is so great that even Newt Gingrich recently said that 'nothing seems to be going right' for the GWB administration - as if the country wasn't enjoying such a great success. Per Larry Kudlow, as long ago as 2005:
Here's one story you won't find on tomorrow's front pages: "The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly." The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.
...Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.
Of course nothing seems to be going right, when MSM, that so many rely on as trusted purveyors of the news, refuses to print stories about the things that are going right. I admire Newt greatly in his views on almost all subjects, but on this topic, he should know better. MSM covers the news about the economy, but with nothing remotely approaching the prominence its significance deserves.
As I noted in June, 2004:
This is how papers like the NY Times get “plausible deniability”—they print a story like this once, on a back page, so that they can’t be accused of not covering it. Most readers never see it. And after that one article, they ignore it. No follow-up articles are printed. The story is suppressed.
And today we see the NY Times burying the story about the attempt to blow up JFK, on page 30 of the Metro section:
A major terror plot to blow up fuel tanks and a pipeline feeding New York's JFK airport and nearby residential communities made front-page news this weekend across the nation. The terror story also led all the major network and cable news shows.
But The New York Times didn't think the story was so important.
In fact, on Sunday the country's leading liberal daily carried a simple one-paragraph reference to the story on its first page, buried in the news brief section. The Times brief said the plot posed "no imminent danger."
The front-page brief referred the reader to a full story on Page 30 in the "New York Metro" section of the day's paper.
Interestingly, the Times story acknowledged the seriousness of the threat, noting that one of the four suspects in the plot, Russell Defreitas, had boasted that the destruction at the airport would be so vast that "even the twin towers can't touch it."
Per the U.S. criminal complaint in the case, Defreitas, the originator of the plot, has been recorded saying that carrying out the plot would assure him, as a Muslim, of going to paradise.
28. During the return drive from JFK, DEFREITAS discussed the extent of the damage they could cause. In particular, DEFREITAS predicted that the plot would result in the destruction of "'the whole of Kennedy," that only a few people would escape and that, due to underground piping, part of Queens would explode. DEFREITAS went on to predict that, as a result of the plot, DEFREITAS and the Source would "get our blessings and our rewards" and "a place in paradise."
Note that per the
complaint, Defreitas has said that his view of his religion, Islam,
based on his understanding of the Koran, is that it teaches him that to go to Paradise, he should commit a mass murder such as this. Is this what the NYT wants to keep the public from thinking about?
The Times' strategy of burying the news is fraying and is in danger of making that paper, and other mainstream media that practice it, irrelevant. The NY Times must be embarrassed today, as so many other media have not buried the story:
The NY Post and New York Daily News made it front page news. The NY Daily News headlined its story, "They Aimed to Kill Thousands." The Post included a chilling sidebar, "Pipeline Security A Joke."
Will MSM continue to follow up on this story? Or will it follow the NY Times' lead, and bury future references to it? Stay tuned.
From Reuters:
Iraq a "terrorist Disneyland" if U.S. goes: expert
LONDON (Reuters) - A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.
Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.
If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq."
The Singapore-based academic and writer said the epicenter of international terrorism had already switched from Afghanistan to Iraq." In many ways, the terrorist threat has now shifted 1,500 miles closer to Europe."
The flypaper strategy worked. Here's how it was described in 2003 by U.S. Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq:
This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them. ...This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States.
Terrorists have been drawn into Iraq where we have been consistently capturing and killing their leadership.
Yet the Dems want to run away, and abandon Iraq to become a "terrorist Disneylad" for terrorists to use in launching attacks against America.
From Appeal For Courage, via Instapundit.
In last week's debate, Democrats inadvertently revealed just how unprepared they are to deal with another 9-11. They were asked how they'd respond to it, and amazingly, appeared not to have even considered the subject.
MODERATOR: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?
Obama was so unprepared that, when asked how he would change the U.S. military stance overseas, he has to tapdance and answer a question he wasn't asked:
OBAMA: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.
The premise of the question as stated by the moderator was we already knew "beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida." Obama is still tapdancing - he has put no thought into this question at all:
The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.
He keeps tapdancing:
But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.
Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.
"We're not going to defeat terrorists on our own." So he finally gets around to something like a response, and his response is to preemptively give up and say that the U.S. can't win on its own, without help. He has no plan for using the military to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack. This is just encouragement to the terrorists. It's pathetic.
Edwards was then asked the same question:
MODERATOR: Senator, thank you.
Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was Al Qaida, what would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?
Edwards does the same tapdance - ignoring the premise that we knew it was Al Qaida.
EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.
And he's going to 'hold someone responsible'! That doesn't imply a military response.
The second thing I would do -- and, of course, some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how did this happen without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage; how did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?
That's the second big action Edwards would take in response to another 9-11: he'd look for someone in the CIA to blame it on! Pathetic.
You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here, and how do we stop it from happening again?
That's the third big action Edwards would take - trying to prevent the attack from happening the exact same way next time. In other words, he'd fight the game on defense other than offense. He's inviting the terrorists to try and try again to do more 9-11's to us, saying that in response he won't take the fight to them.
I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.
But we have more tools available to us than bombs.
There - he actually said it - he won't use bombs - he won't make a military response. He's throwing the door wide open to the terrorists, telling them to attack us all they want, and all Edwards will do in return is attack the CIA. Edwards is telling them they have nothing to fear from attacking us.
And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.
Responding to another 9-11 by blaming the CIA is no strategy at all, long-term or short-term.
Edwards is so concerned about these fence-sitters that he forswears using bombs on people who kill our citizens. Those fence-sitters would have no choice but to support those who attack us if they saw that someone like Edwards did nothing to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack.
Edward's position is pathetic - and would be dangerous to Americans.
Unlike Obama and Edwards, Clinton had at least thought about the subject:
MODERATOR: Senator Clinton, same question.
CLINTON: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.
I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.
If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.
Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.
Like getting Bin Laden would take care of the whole thing - like it's a Hollywood movie where, once you capture the top guy, everything's all better. But at least Hillary said she supported GWB's actions in Afghanistan and supports using the military to attack nations that support terrorists.
Obama and Edwards had nothing but policies that would make it safer for terrorists to attempt another 9-11. They show how unsafe the country would be with leadership such as theirs.
