Candidate Profile Ten: Harry Reid

I'll give Harry Reid this much - he has a very nice official website (bonus points for using ColdFusion by Macromedia, the excellent tool for database interactivity and web design that I use at work). Reid has earned some buzz for 2008 with his quite public resistance to the notion of Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and his opposition to Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. These actions endear him to the Daily Kosians, and inflame conservatives, particularly since his criticisms of Thomas are borderline racist and lacking in foundation.

Harry Mason Reid - official bio

Unable to find an official or unofficial Reid 2008 site

Resume - senior Senator for Nevada; Senate Minority Leader; former Nevada state legislator; former Lieutenant Governor of Nevada; former Nevada Gaming Commissioner; former Nevada House Representative; former Senate Minority Whip

Reid's resume is not reassuring; he sounds like the consumate politician, and voters like someone who gives at least the appearance of being an outsider. Nor will his 'is he or isn't he' pro-life stance endear him to the Democratic faithful - in fact, it's probably a deal-killer. Despite Reid's severe personality flaws (he seems to lack one), Chris Suellentrop at Slate recently reminded readers that no one with a political career in Nevada can have a total lack of good stories to tell.

When looking over Reid's stance on the issues, it's hard to imagine he could emerge from a Democratic primary (in fact, it's hard to imagine him in the Senate as Minority Leader, frankly, so in that sense, you could say he sometimes exceeds expectations). I've already mentioned his suspiciously (from a Leftist standpoint) pro-life voting record, and you know how important that is to Democrats. Also, he's been pretty solidly for our efforts in Iraq, and that won't sit well with soon-to-be DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

I don't see it happening, in other words. Sure, Reid fired up the activist crowd with his condemnation of Gonzales and his 'torture memo', and making fun of Clarence Thomas is good sport indeed for 'progressives'. Given his stand on so many crucial Democratic issues, though, I think any serious bid by Reid to run would result in a 'What have you done for me lately?' reaction. Unless something dramatic changes, we can safely rule Reid out as a threat.

CURRENT ODDS: 85-1

UPDATE 07/04/05 10:36 p.m. central: Well, the activists seem to like him still...I'm bumping him from 'not a chance in Hell' to 'slim and none - and slim just left town'...

CURRENT ODDS: 50-1

Miscellanea - Goodbye to Our Foggy Bottom Friends Edition

Sadly, the Diplomad is calling it quits. Best of luck and thanks for all the good posts (hat tip to Chrenkoff)...

The Daily Kos is running a poll for the Democratic candidate for 2008. Surprisingly, the two top vote-getters so far are Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark. This requires a little explaining, though; first of all, Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer are missing from the list, as is Harry Reid. Obama's appeal is self-evident; Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer are the heroes of the hour for 'progressives' for sticking it to the Bushies, but have no real shot (I'll be profiling both soon, starting with Harry Reid, tomorrow). Al Gore is also missing, and he has a better shot at it, realistically, than John Kerry, currently pulling 7% in the Kos poll. I'm not surprised Hillary isn't running high in this poll - she probably (don't laugh) isn't liberal enough for this crowd (and I'll get around to profiling her, don't you worry) (tip of the hat to the Museum of Left Wing Lunacy)...

Currently reigning Weekly Jackass Eric Alterman thinks George W. Bush wants to poison your children (Eric, adjust the dosage, please - for the sake of us all)...

I just might offer Rodger Morrow a job editing the Progressive Dictionary; he's certainly well acquainted with their etymological roots...

Dean Panic Watch

Mickey Kaus of kausfiles fame had an amusing ongoing refrain during Election 2004 called 'Kerry Panic Watch' (or, sometimes, 'Dem Panic Watch'). Kaus, who is a Democrat, but no member of the Radical Left, was making the point that Kerry was a horrible candidate (which he was), and that eventually the Democratic rank-and-file would realize they had a bum horse in the race (which they arguably never did).

I would like to honor that spirit with a Dean Panic Watch, in view of the impending absolutely mind-boggling selection of Howard Dean to run the Democratic National Committee. Jonathan Chait is a Senior Editor at the New Republic, a usually quite reasonable and fairly moderate organ of the American Left, and he is sounding the alarm in the L.A. Times, calling the selection of Dean 'suicidal' for the Democratic Party. I don't disagree.

A worse choice than Dean is hard to imagine. Quoth Chait:

Dean, with his intense secularism, arrogant style, throngs of high-profile counterculture supporters and association with the peace movement, is the precise opposite of the image Democrats want to send out.

Another way of saying this is what Dean's selling, nobody's buying.

That's not quite accurate, though; somebody is buying, and it's the Daily Kos faction. The young, idealistic, fuzzy-thinking, stick-it-to-the-man, dope-smoking 'progressive' crowd is full of puffed-up importance with this 'victory'. It will likely be their last, in the foreseeable future. The ascension of Dean will mean a Democratic Party run by the activists, the same rude, pompous long-hairs that so turned off Iowa voters that they destroyed Dean's presidential chances far more effectively than he himself could.

If the activist faction is given the upper hand, the Democratic Party that spoke to the middle class will replaced by one that preaches to the choir in the primarily leftist world of academia and the press. Converts will be few and far between, but defectors will number in the hundreds of thousands. The fringe will be given far more weight than the mainstream. Maybe I'm wrong, and Dean will grow into the job. The Democrats had better hope so; if he runs the DNC the way he ran his presidential bid, this quite sensible nation will turn its back on them in droves.

Miscellanea - Did You Say the Washington Post? Edition

We all like to have a bit of fun at our opponents' expense, or report on the latest liberal outrage, but I've tried (most of the time) to avoid painting an unfair picture here. In that spirit, I think we have to acknowledge when the liberal MSM goes out on a limb and challenges expectations. Such is the case today, as, shockingly, the Washington Post takes the Democratic Party to the woodshed for their inertia on the issue of Social Security (hat tip to Power Line)...

That doesn't mean there's not plenty to be outraged about. I've avoided mentioning Ward Churchill and his slander of the 3,000 9/11 victims as 'little Eichmanns" (let's see, earning a living = Nazi; sorry, I'm not seeing it) up to now, because I couldn't think of a response to the bastard that didn't get me all upset, but here's Professor Bainbridge's take (shared by the Instapundit, Volokh, and many others) - Churchill is an idiot, but an idiot protected by the First Amendment...

Another scandalous Nazi comparison from a former Weekly Jackass. Man, this crap sure gets old...

The Daily Kos is celebrating the impending selection of Howard Dean as DNC Chairman - for once we agree on something - as someone who wants to see the Dems lose for the rest of my lifetime, I couldn't ask for a nicer present...

These 'progressives' have me depressed. Time for some Political Therapy...

In Praise Of: Stevie Ray Vaughan

A section of river runs through downtown Austin, and we call it Town Lake. On the north shore is the impressive new City Hall, some luxury hotels, and Class A office buildings. On the south side lies Auditorium Shores, and the statue of Stevie Ray Vaughan. People worldwide went to public spaces and lit candles upon the deaths of John Lennon and Jerry Garcia. In Austin, we also did it the day we got the sad news that Stevie's helicopter had smashed into a mountain on the outskirts of Alpine Valley.

I moved to Austin in 1986, and the live music scene was going through its second great phase, and drawing national attention. The first phase rode in on the backs of Willie Nelson, Kenneth Threadgill, and the Armadillo World Headquarters, a legendary club that played host to everyone from Bruce Springsteen to the Jerry Garcia Band to the Clash. To paraphrase Willie, it was the place where the hippies met the rednecks, and decided they liked each other's company.

The second phase began when Stevie Ray Vaughan, the Fabulous Thunderbirds, and Timbuk 3 found a national audience in the younger days of MTV, when they actually played music videos. Stevie was by a wide margin the head of the class. He came to Austin at a young age from the Dallas area, and way before he was old enough to drink, he was playing regularly at the legendary Antone's, Austin's Home of the Blues, on the same stage that had seen the mighty presence of Lightning Hopkins, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Junior Wells, and all the greats. Stevie quickly earned a reputation as a stone-cold gunslinger, a teen prodigy who not only played the blues, but, improbably for such a young man, felt the blues as well. He also fell in love with cocaine.

You can look elsewhere to find out more of Stevie's background, his rising success, and his eventual triumph over drugs after nearly dying on tour. It's inspirational stuff; even better, I recommend one of his live performances on Austin City Limits, or the early gem from the El Mocambo nightclub in Montreal. I want to bend your ear for a minute with a personal memory. I had the good fortune to see SRV in person on four occasions. I was there when the tapes rolled for the Live Alive album at the City Coliseum; I saw him at Willie Nelson's Austin Opry House; I saw him 0n another occasion that the sands of time have covered from my recollections. The last time I saw him was at the Astrodome, in Houston, TX, as part of a stellar lineup to benefit the Special Olympics.

The lineup was, first, the Fabulous Thunderbirds; second, SRV; and third, the Who. I was there to see the Who for the second time, primarily, but looking forward nonetheless to Stevie's performance. We stopped on the way to Houston at College Station, and picked up an acquaintance who was attending Texas A&M. Much to my chagrin, she wasn't ready to go - not for 15 minutes, not for 30. More than an hour later, we were flying down the highway trying to make up for lost time.

We got to the Astrodome, parked, ran inside, and (this being the college years), got in the long beer line. While standing there, we could hear the roar of the crowd, almost deafening. We knew we had arrived too late for the T-Birds, but after hearing how rowdy it was getting, our hearts sank a bit...the Who has started, and we missed the beginning, I thought.

As we entered the seating area of the 'Dome, I saw one of those sights that stays embedded in your mind even as the years flow by. As you've guessed by now, it wasn't the Who yet. Stevie was finishing his set, and the atmosphere was...electric. 45,000 people were on their feet as one, screaming, whistling, stomping, as Stevie tore through riff after bone-chilling riff. He was already on his last song, but as he finished, the roof just about flew off of the old 'Seventh Wonder of the Modern World'. A full five minutes must have passed before any of us thought to speak, not that it would have mattered, since we couldn't have heard anyone. Finally, as the cheers began to die down, one of my friends turned to me, grinning, and uttered a most appropriate benediction: "Wow."

Wow, indeed, Mr. Vaughan. You're sorely missed.

The Progressive Dictionary (A Work in Progress) - Entry One

America, United States of � fascistic nation composed of a theocratic interior surrounded by reality-based coastal areas. Oppressor of millions, despoiler of the environment, debaser of culture, the United States refuses to abide by the rulings of benevolent international institutions such as the United Nations, unlike more enlightened nations like Cuba and France. Currently ruled by the madman George W. Bush.
See also:
Chimp, Smirking
Abortion, Assault on
Nuts, Gun and Wing-
Chomsky, The Great and Holy Noam
Jesusland

Miscellanea - Goodbye to the Old Klansman? Edition

Patrick Ruffini smells a Robert Byrd defeat in the wings...

Ruffini and JustOneMinute factcheck the Washington Post so you don't have to...

Hindrocket at PowerLine quotes Norm Coleman on the Volcker report. His verdict? Not bad...

If you're not reading Chrenkoff daily, you should be. Here he hunts down and destroys the new Democratic talking points on Iraq...

Roger Simon expands on the notion of similarities between the Volcker and Thornbough reports, and throws in future Weekly Jackass Eason Jordan, to boot...

Political Therapy on the DNC and Howard Dean...

Michelle Malkin on a scandal you might have missed (a note to the dozens [okay, 0] readers who have used my Amazon honor button to send me money - I will never quit blogging until the day I do)...

A Bad Day to Be a Progressive

I bet there's a lot of lefties in a foul mood today. First the Volcker Report, whatever its shortcomings, confirms there is a 'there' there, if you follow me, in the Oil-For-Food Scandal. Then, Alberto Gonzales is confirmed as Attorney General, in a clear blow to the Daily Kos crowd. Of course, the President is getting tons of good press on the heels of his masterful SOTU last night. Even many Democrats are looking in the mirror and asking, 'What if Bush was right all along?', in the wake of the stirring visuals from the Iraqi election. Don't choke on your bile, Eric Alterman...

Oil for Food, Part Eleven: This Song Sounds Familiar

The scenario: conservative journalists and bloggers throw a spotlight on a scandal the MSM would just as soon forget. The blistering criticism forces the organization implicated to sanction an independent investigation. As the time for the findings of the investigation nears, the conservatives begin to fear a whitewash. Finally, the report is released, and is quite damning in the individual details, but too tame in the conclusions drawn.

Rathergate? How about Oil-For-Food?

From the Associated Press:

A sweeping investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food program accused program chief Benon Sevan of a conflict of interest, saying Thursday his conduct in soliciting oil deals was "ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations.''
Although Sevan said he never recommended any oil companies, the investigation led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker concluded that he repeatedly solicited allocations of oil from Iraq under the program and "created a grave and continuing conflict of interest.''

To be continued...

UPDATE 4:48 p.m. central: Thanks to the Instapundit for the link and welcome to those of you who haven't been here before. Take a look around, kick your shoes off, and stay a while...

UPDATE 2 5:12 p.m. central: The reaction to the report is quite similar, too: the small fish get fried and the big one swims away (so far)...

SOTU a Resounding Success With Public, MSM

The reviews are in, and Bush's 5th State of the Union Address is a smash hit. A poll by CNN showed a huge impact on viewer perceptions of the War in Iraq (78% think it's heading in the right direction) and Social Security reform (66% approval). An amazing 86% had a positive or very positive reaction.

Howard Fineman "saw a man at the top of his game". Alessandra Stanley at the New York Times says Bush was "buoyant". Says Matthew Cooper at Time: "Bush remains not only passionate but very smart." From an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle: "President Bush last night officially to put to rest any doubt about his willingness to tread boldly into his second term."

Most observers have similar sentiments. I continue to be euphoric about George W. Bush's sweeping calls for freedom and an end to tyranny. Rhetoric matters, and Bush is pushing hard at those nations that are attempting to resist democracy's call. Even some Bush critics are coming around on Iraq after the stirring scenes of the Sunday past, and the hardest heart had to be moved by the passionate hug between an Iraqi woman who last her father and an American mother who lost her son, in the most worthwhile of all causes.

There are some things worth dying for, and some things worth living for, and President Bush understands the need to articulate both. Bush's awkwardness in delivering extemporaneous remarks has been widely noted. His prepared speeches have at times approached perfection. Great job by the speechwriters, and excellent delivery by the president - for the first time, I think Social Security reform has a real chance of passage.

Miscellanea - The Mighty Kos Edition

The Weekly Standard seems to take the Daily Kos a lot more seriously than my man Chrenkoff...

Speaking of the Kos, he's unimpressed with the SOTU. Are you shocked? (Notice how defending marriage against judicial activism is turned into 'demonizing gays')...

It seems Howard Dean is heading for the DNC chair. Have the Democrats learned nothing?...

Truly excellent SOTU wrap-up from Patrick Ruffini...remember how George W.'s pa was always hit with the 'lack of vision' thing? Can't say that about the son...

VodkaPundit finds the Democratic response to be...(well, you'll have to click here to see)...

Now for something completely different - check out this eerily beautiful photo over at bebere's...

Quick First Reaction to the SOTU Speech

God, I love this president!...

Weekly Jackass Number Nine - Eric Alterman

Something about George W. Bush causes mass hysteria among 'progressives'. I would imagine the Left feels the same way about the conservative reaction to the Clintons. I happen to think Bill Clinton behaved in a manner unbecoming of any grownup, much less the President of the United States, with his inability to keep his fly zipped (because one is able to attract groupies doesn't make it right to sleep with them - better still would be to avoid putting oneself into these difficult situations, if a problem is known of beforehand). I also think he was a fairly decent president in the domestic policy arena who showed a willingness to compromise on such issues as welfare reform and economic policy, even if that willingness was only a result of a Republican-held Congress. Nuance, to reluctantly quote John Kerry's supporters, is sometimes necessary to avoid demonizing one's political opponents.

This anti-Bush hysteria is the only reasonable explanation I can conjure up to explain how someone with Alterman's credentials routinely puts out such poorly written garbage. Here's an excerpt from his bio at The Nation:

Termed "the most honest and incisive media critic writing today� in the National Catholic Reporter, and author of �the smartest and funniest political journal out there,� according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Eric Alterman is Professor of English at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, media columnist for The Nation, the �Altercation� weblogger for MSNBC.com, and a senor [sic] fellow at the Center for American Progress, for whose journal he writes and edits the �Think Again� column.

Sure beats my resume - so what's missing from this picture? Either (1) Alterman's brain has collapsed under the weight of his hatred of Bush, (2) he is just phoning it in, tossing red meat to the faithful in the Michael Moore vein, or (3) he really is trying both to write well and with meaning, but is hopelessly delusional (see Chomsky, Noam).

That's enough intro - we'll let Eric drive, now.

Alterman on the Iraqi elections:

I don�t have a lot to say about the Iraqi elections because it�s way too early to know exactly what happened and what its ultimate effect will be.

Or could it be, Eric, a reluctance to give any credit to your nemisis?

Alterman on Bush, today:

Everyone knew that he was not going to do anything about AIDS in Africa as soon as it came out of his mouth.

Alterman on Ronald Reagan:

...Ronald Reagan was many things, but most undeniably he was a pathological liar. True, he also gave every impression of being an unbelievable moron (which is why Saturday Night Live could once parody his pathetic excuses for the Iran/contra scandal with a skit that depicted Reagan as--get this!--brilliant and competent). His worshipful, if fanciful, biographer Edmund Morris even calls him an "apparent airhead." The President's famous cluelessness was so obvious during his years in office that his defenders would attempt to deploy it as a defense of his actions, as if he were a small child or a beloved but retarded uncle.

"The most honest and incisive media critic writing today� on truth:

As NYU's Jay Rosen points out, "objectivity as a theory of how to arrive at the truth is bankrupt intellectually.... Everything we've learned about the pursuit of truth tells us that in one way or another the knower is incorporated into the known." (Remember Heisenberg? Remember Einstein?)

[Note: Eric is the victim of an old fallacy here: the assumption that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, a law of physics that applies only to the measurements of a particle's location and velocity, has application to the world outside of particle physics. It most certainly does not. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a bit complex, but it has to do with the constant velocity of light, irrespective of the position or velocity of the observer, the bending of light by gravity, the curvature of space, and things like, you know, physics. The idea that somehow Einstein was providing a justification for fuzzy notions of philosophical truth and moral relativism is laughable.]

Alterman's desire to engage in terroristic activities:

I got a call one day from a Republican Party functionary telling me that Hillary Clinton supported a Palestinian state and took money from groups that supported terrorist organizations "like the one that just blew up the USS Cole." I told the sorry sonofabitch that like Israel's Prime Minister, I, too, support a Palestinian state. And, if there was any justice in the world, Hillary's "terrorist" friends would blow up Republican headquarters while we were still on the phone, so I could enjoy hearing the explosion.

Alterman on Bush's soaring Second Inaugural speech:

Not a word either about the fact that Bush's messianic foreign policy is killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers; sowing hatred of America across the Arab (and most of the non-Arab) world; recruiting terrorists for Al Qaeda-like organizations; torturing hundreds, perhaps thousands of victims in numerous nations; supporting and empowering tyranny around the world; destroying the liberty of American citizens and noncitizens alike here at home; and shredding time-honored constitutional liberties as it invents new federal police powers out of whole cloth.

My guess is that Alterman is preaching to the choir because he makes a good living at it. At the usually caustic BuzzFlash, he actually gives a pretty reasonable picture of what the Bush administration must look like from a leftist perspective, largely avoiding the easy targets and loaded questions the raving interviewer throws at him. That's a pretty big disconnect from calling George W. Bush 'the worst president in [America's] history'. I truly can't believe that Alterman thinks that. The worst president in America's history overthrows the brutal Taliban, deposes Saddam Hussein, and is given a second term, Eric? Is that really your opinion, or are you engaging in a little showmanship to increase your book sales?

That suggests to me that this supposed paragon of honesty is not being very honest with his readers, and is deliberately tilting at windmills. Alterman has elsewhere been accused of being an incredibly rude, pompous jerk (and worse), but that's not surprising, and that's not the reason I'm making him this week's honoree. It is for your deliberate dishonesty, and your constant hyperbole, that I present you, Eric Alterman, with the 9th Weekly Jackass award.

A Busy Wictory Wednesday

This week, the Wictory Wednesday folks are asking for your donations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. As a reminder, Wictory Wednesday is dedicated to the proposition that we need to stay active and mobilized and prepared to defend our values and candidates now and in the future. So throw a few bucks to the cause, if you're able, and as always, I ask that you click on a random link or two from the blogroll at the bottom right; you never know what nice surprises might await you.

Of course, we have the State of the Union Address tonight, and the much anticipated Eric Alterman edition of Weekly Jackass will be unveiled soon. Stay tuned!

Miscellanea - Chrenkoff Tortures Himself with Alexander Edition

The great Chrenkoff takes his wife to see Alexander and discovers a neo-conservative message underneath the atrociousness...

Mark Steyn in his usual fine form...

JustOneMinute quotes an Oxford historian with the question of all questions for our 'progressive' friends...

Professor Bainbridge has been outed as a liberal...

I've blogged and blogged on the Iraqi elections, but Daniel Drezner covers an angle that I haven't...

I haven't mentioned or linked much to Andrew Sullivan - probably sour grapes on my part as I felt he became too obsessed with the gay marriage issue. Still, he has been a huge part of the success story of blogs, and I wish him well on his hiatus. Besides, how can I stay mad at anyone who loves beagles? (hat tip to deacon at Power Line)...

Did the Coalition Provisional Authority Lose $9 Billion Dollars?

No, I haven't revealed myself as the Daily Kos, but a reader of this blog, I suspect weary of my constant harping on Oil-for-Food, brought this up. That's a serious sum of money, and you can't just wish it away. I'm a Bush supporter, not a paid shill like the Kos, so let's start with a little background.

An audit by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that $8.8 billion dollars, money it said was probably spent on salaries, operating expenses, and reconstruction, cannot be accounted for properly. In a nice twist, part of the money came from the old Oil-for-Food program.

Notice, first, that the accusation is one of poor management and inefficient procedures, rather than the outright theft of humanitarian funds that were then shuffled around to Saddam's various supporters, as is alleged in the larger scandal. There is a huge moral difference.

Practically, however, money is still money, and $9 billion is not chump change. The Pentagon and Paul Bremer of course deny the accusations, saying that the audit doesn't take into account the outdated budgeting and fiscal controls of the Iraqi ministries that the funds were shared with, nor the extraordinary conditions of wartime. The report itself, however, does mention those very conditions:

"While acknowledging the extraordinarily challenging threat environment that confronted the CPA throughout its existence and the number of actions taken by CPA to improve the (interim Iraqi Government's) budgeting and financial management, we believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor management," the report concludes.

I'd hate to see another full-blown investigation formed - that seems like throwing good money after bad. Nor does it seem wise to just say, well, $9 billion - it comes and it goes. Here's a proposal - couldn't one or more of the existing congressional investigations of Oil-For-Food take a look at this matter, as well?

Readers of this blog of the left persuasion (few though they may be) would probably point to my lack of hysteria over this as compared to the U.N. scandal, and they would be right. In my heart of hearts, I just trust the U.S. more than I do the U.N. There - I've laid my cards on the table.

******

Don't forget, tomorrow is Weekly Jackass day, and I've already named the winner(?), so be sure to check back, won't you?

Uncle Noam's Story Time Hour

Time to gather up the kids - and send them far, far away. Our old buddy Chomsky is at it again, and he's quite possibly more delusional than ever. Allow me, if you will, to fisk. Chomsky starts out by comparing Iraq to - could it be? - Vietnam!:

...it is clear by around 1970, certainly by the time the Pentagon Papers came out, the primary concern was the one that shows up in virtually all intervention: Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, just about everywhere you look at. The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate. And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions.

Chomsky would have us believe that the people of Nicaragua, Cuba, and Vietnam wanted to live under Marxist dictatorships. You'll certainly won't find a more freedom-loving bunch than Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro, those icons of independent nationalism. You'll find no hint in the above paragraph of the Cold War and our desire to halt the expansion of the Soviet bloc.

The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed. That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq. It looked at that point as if they would conquer Vietnam. The Tet Offensive [a major national offensive by anti-US Vietnamese forces in early 1968] made it clear it was going to be a long war. At that point the business world turned against the war and decided this is just not worth it. They said we have already achieved the main objectives and Vietnam is not going to undergo successful independent development. It will be lucky if it survives. So it is pointless; why waste the money on it. The main goal had been achieved by the early seventies.

So you see, Timmy, the big bad wolf blew down the houses of the little small country, and pretended that the war had been lost and it was a complete disaster, but in reality, the wolf had merely achieved his goals under a satisfactory timetable. Anybody know when visiting hours are over at the asylum? I'd hate to keep Noam up past his bedtime.

The Second World War was fought in the Pacific phase to prevent Japan from establishing a new order in Asia in which it would be the center. And it would be an independent force in world affairs. Well in the 1950s the US was not prepared to lose the Second World War and so it took a nuanced position.

And to think there are those who accuse Chomsky of being an America-hater. This is truly childish...Pearl Harbor was just a friendly invitation for a cup of tea, I guess. Outlandish comes to mind.

[Chomsky goes into a long diatribe here about how Iraq is all about oil (of course!). We can safely skip this nonsense, except to note in passing that he accuses the sanctions of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Chomsky is widely known in Leftist circles as a meticulous researcher, but this is yet another example of his habit of throwing out remarkable statistics that no one but he has ever heard of. When challenged, his source is invariably some small circulation 'Progressive' magazine.]

...[there was] every possible reason for it [the Iraq invasion] to succeed, but somehow they have managed to turn it into an unbelievable catastrophe. [London Independent Middle-east correspondent] Bob Fisk has been describing it all along. About a year ago I happened to meet a friend who I can't identity but who is a high official in one of the major relief organizations. He has experience all over the world and has worked in the most horrible places. His description of Iraq was that he had simply never seen such a combination of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence.

He mentioned Fisk! In a fisking! Is this worth double points? Oh, and what was I just saying about Chomsky's dubious sources? A friend who I can't identify...how convenient. I'll let you guys in on a secret. A friend who I can't identify (oh, what the hell, it's my beagle) has more sense than this MIT professor.

[Now comes another long, boring digression on this history of 'insurgencies', interrupted by the assertion that the U.S. will never allow a sovereign Iraq and the incredible statement that an independent Iraq would probably develop WMDs to counter Israel's! And I know about Israel's nuclear program, but this is a bit much.]

Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Q: Let me ask you about some of the criticism that has come your way from the left since 9/11. You've been accused, notably by Christopher Hitchens and by others, including the Independent's Johann Hari, of making excuses for Islamic fascism and of drawing 'moral equivalency' in your discussions of 9/11 and US crimes. How do you respond?

A: Can they give a source? I don't care what sort of ranting and tantrums people have. If they refer to something, fine. The phrase moral equivalence is used only by totalitarians.

This is infuriating, and shame on the interviewer for letting him get away with such shamelessness. The source, Chomsky, is your own words on the very day after the attacks! I quote, verbatim:

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The great Hitchens, among others, has justly accused this pathetic 'intellectual' of moral equivalence for the passage above and many others like it. I will only note here that: (1) the accusation that the Sudan bombing killed 'untold numbers' has long been disproven, (2) Chomsky asserts that worse cases than 9/11 easily come to mind (this on September 12th, 2001, mind you!), and (3) Chomsky expresses no sympathy whatsoever for his own nation in the very shadow of its darkest hour, but immediately thinks of what a crushing blow this will be to the Palestinians! If I edited a dictionary, and was asked to furnish an example of 'moral equivalency', I would quote the passage above.

The rest of the interview is basically Chomsky's justification for not giving much of a damn about 9/11 - read it if you want, but not right after you eat.

The first indication that you are dealing with a 'Progressive' is the loving devotion to Uncle Noam. Unfortunately far too many mistake his fairy tales for the truth. My own personal test for an America-hater is not, as Chomsky and his followers suggest, whether that person disagrees with this or any administration on a specific policy. My criteria is two-fold:

1. The America-hater has an alternative history of U.S. foreign policy ready at hand at all times. This alternate history is short on facts, long on speculation, and like all conspiracy theories, fits the chaotic events of many decades and various leaders into a cohesive whole, as if life were merely a script written by 'them', whoever they are.
2. The America-hater has one overriding principle when discussing any issue: if it's good for America, it's bad for the world.

I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that these criteria fit Chomsky like a glove.

Miscellanea - Comparing the Radical Left with John Cleese Edition

Christopher Hitchens channels the spirit of Monty Python in this stirring rebuttal to those who compare Iraq to Vietnam...

I've blogged on this speech before, but it's been reprinted and it's a classic: Bill Moyers on the Rapture Index, and the takeover of America by Christian thugs...

Congratulations to Ann Althouse on her 1,000,000th visitor...wow!

God knows I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton's politics, but I wish her good health and hope this isn't a sign of something serious (she sure doesn't look well in the accompanying photo)...

Coming very soon to a blog near you (well, this one, actually): I fisk the latest Chomsky interview...

Looking In On the Lefties: Post-Election Edition

Juan Cole is 'appalled' that some newsmen were cheerful about the 'Shiite political tsunami' (really tasteless choice of words there, Juan). Is he complaining that there aren't more Sunnis or that the ones that are there chose not to participate? Hard to tell, but it doesn't matter, after all - Bush Lied! People Died!...

Josh Marshall, who apparently lives in a land where the elections were never held, does have some "uber-cool 'Privatize This' TPM T-Shirts...just in time for the kick-off of the president's Social Security bamboozlepalooza tour". Josh, um, it's not very cool to use the phrase 'uber-cool'. Likewise, 'bamboozlepalooza'. Say, did Jim Hightower ghostwrite that copy?...

'Kos' says the Iraqi election was not a success, despite what us 'wingnuts' say, and compares the situation to....(drumroll)....Vietnam!!!, the war the Left can't let go of...

The Democratic Underground has a list of the 'Top Ten Conservative Idiots'. Number one is the Bush Administration. Whaaaa???? Did I read that right? Can an administration, or, to put it another way, a collection of officials who form the executive level of a governmental organization, be an idiot? Or could this, just perhaps, be a case of severe projection by the compiler of the aforementioned list? I leave that for you to decide...

Miscellanea: Note to Maureen Dowd - Catch a Clue! Edition

The day of the historic Iraqi elections, Maureen Dowd chooses to write about - women wearing thongs at Guantanamo? Is this some kind of sick joke? What newspaper would publish this crap? Oh, wait, the New York Times...

Elsewhere at the esteemed Times, that other substitute for toilet paper known as Frank Rich's column harps about the elections being another in a string of 'false endings' to the war - uh, Frank, what the hell are you talking about? I've never, NEVER seen a Bush official say the troops were coming home one minute earlier than is necessary to complete the job. Talk about your alternate history...

As part of my continuing search for liberals who get what happened today, I refer you to Dean's World. Well said...

You might have missed this one, but remember that stink about the missing computer disks at Los Alamos? The ones that five people lost their jobs over? They never existed...

Ann Althouse has the best skewering yet of the John Kerry Meet the Press appearance...

Miscellanea - The Greatest Day Edition

"This is the greatest day in the history of this country," Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie told CNN. Hats off again to the troops, both coalition and Iraqi, for making it a reality...

I've been taking some prominent Leftist bloggers to the woodshed for their lack of enthusiasm about this milestone, but Bull Moose is one Democrat who has it exactly right (hat tip to Galley Slaves)...

Not one freakin' word at Talking Points Memo - hey, Josh, the revolution is happening, and you're getting left behind...

Earlier today I posted about the Left's attempts to define away the victories of this administration - it didn't take long for the new spin to hit. Armando at the Daily Kos has a rant eerily similar to what I predicted. Guess which ink-stained finger I'm holding up, Armando...

Meanwhile, the Ghost of Iraq's Past has paid a visit. A report is out that Kojo Annan has admitted to having a part in the oil-for-food scandal - if this is true, I don't see how Kofi Annan can keep his job (hat tip to Friends of Saddam)...

Defining Victory Away

A remarkable aspect of human psychology is that we see what we want to see. For the Radical Left in America, Bush is a monster, and his fascist policies are wrong by definition. What is one to do, however, if your mortal enemy is scoring successes? One tactic frequently employed against Bush is that of the moving goalposts.

For historical purposes, the Bush era began on 9/11/01. Here's what we've heard from the nay-sayers in the three and a half years since that horrible day.

1. Impending Disaster #1: Bush can't handle a crisis of this magnitude. The Left made a big deal at the time of Bush 'flying all over America', supposedly avoiding his responsibilities, and of course there is the infamous '7 1/2 minutes'. Talk was in the air that Cheney would have to pull the strings, as if Bush were some village idiot who just happened to blunder into the White House. When the time was right, Bush spoke at the National Cathedral and to a Joint Session of Congress and just blew everyone away with two of the greatest speeches of my lifetime.
2. Impending Disaster #2: Afghanistan will be a blood bath. Critics of Bush constantly reminded us that the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan for a decade. The poster boy of the Radical Left, Noam Chomsky, spoke of a Silent Genocide (in the same talk he says 'terror works'). Instead, we deposed of the vile Taliban regime in a matter of weeks, with minimal boots on the ground and light casualties. During this very short period of time, the Left (and even some elements of the MSM) began to speak of a 'quagmire'.
3. Impending Disaster #3: Iraq will be a bloodbath. So it has been, to some extent. The fact that we have taken a large number of casualties post-major combat as we battle a terrorist insurgency should not fool us into thinking the 'Progressives' got this one right, however. We were told prior to the invasion that Saddam would use WMDs on our troops and on Israel (notice this link quotes a former U.N. Weapons Inspector, who seemed quite convinced in April 2003 that Saddam had WMDs. We know now that he didn't have any stockpiles - but 20/20 hindsight doesn't count). When the coalition forces had to slow down because of a freak sandstorm, the media began to speak of, you guessed it, a 'quagmire'.

Then came a string of 'unachievable' assertions about the Iraqi elections - first, that there was no way elections could be held on January 30th in the 'present security environment' (like 'quagmire', the 'present security environment' had to be mentioned by any serious Iraq critic in a solemn, respectful manner). When that argument fizzled, the Left turned to the notion that the elections would have a low turnout, especially among the Sunnis, and thus wouldn't be accepted as 'legitimate'.

Now, the elections have been held, in a mostly joyous, celebratory environment, with higher-than-expected turnout, but you can bet this won't be seen as a victory by the Left. They'll move the goalposts again. Expect to hear some variation of the following with increasing frequency: "The war is lost because some elected Iraqis are anti-American and want the troops to go home'. This is closely tied to the belief among many 'Progressives' that we won't accept any election results that don't go according to our script.

You and I know better; democracy requires that we accept the results of this and all Iraqi elections in the future, provided they are conducted freely. We can't handpick the government and still call that Iraqi sovereignty. Regardless of what type of government eventually forms in Iraq, though, we can take pride in the following: since 9/11, despite some temporary setbacks that are always to be expected in any part of life, we have enjoyed a virtually unbroken string of victories against the forces of terror. We can't let up now - and we mustn't fall prey to elusive 'definitions' of victory from those who don't want to achieve it. If the Iraqis elect a solid slate of anti-Americans, that will still be a victory - provided those votes were an expression of the will of the Iraqi people and not the aspirations of a brutal dictator.

Miscellanea- Ink-Stained Finger Edition

Scrappleface has got it about right, based on the NY Times headline I received in my inbox this morning: "Explosions Heard Across Baghdad"...

A Democratic strategist blasts Kerry's noticeable lack of enthusiasm...

Even more of Kerry's buffoonery here - kind of makes you nostalgic for the election campaign...

Political Therapy once again has me laughing out loud...

Ramsey Clark remembers the real victim here: I'm talking, of course, about Saddam Hussein...

The Iraqi Elections - Turnout High, Violence Low

Despite the 28 deaths, at last count, a tragedy to be sure, the streets didn't flow with blood, and 72% of the Iraqi people braved the threats of the terrorists to show how important democracy is to them. This is a stunning victory for Iraq, America, the Bush administration, and the coalition partners. With the very real prospect of losing their life facing them, almost three out of four registered Iraqis participated in the first free elections in half a century. [Update 10:45 am central - other estimates put the death toll as high as 36 and the turnout as low as 60% as of this writing. This is still quite remarkable, matching approximately the US turnout in 2004, and no one faced the threat of death by voting here.] Great big kudos to everyone involved in organizing the elections and providing the security.

I blogged earlier on the exuberant coverage of Geraldo Rivera - Johnny Dollar was impressed, too, and put up a transcript here...

Power Line says 'A Smashing Success'...

Iraq the Model - "The People Have Won"...

What election?, implies the silent Daily Kos. Likewise, Josh Marshall refuses to mention this great occasion. (shame on you 'Progressives', a truly pathetic lot you are, sticking your heads in the sand and pretending this isn't a momentous day)...

John Kerry was against the election before he was for it - in a single TV appearance! I've said it before, and I'll say it again - thank God we didn't elect this man!...

Chrenkoff, as usual, is full of good information...

The terrorists have lost the battle for Iraq.

Early Iraqi Reactions

I've been no fan of the MSM, like most conservative bloggers, but the cable news outlets are giving the Iraqi elections big coverage. I'm posting this a little after midnight. It's pretty moving, and it's democracy. Geraldo Rivera has been a bit of a clown at times, but I must say his enthusiasm as he broadcasts from Baghdad is quite contagious. Among his comments - "Unimaginable under Saddam Hussein" - "People in America should be proud" - "The turnout is amazing" - "This country will heal its wounds" - "The terrorists will lose".

I'm proud of my country, always, but never more so than on days like this.