Decision '08

Friday, August 05, 2005

It May Be Time To Adjust Kerry's Odds

Few stories bring me as much sheer delight as those that show John Kerry in a poor light (I'm shallow that way - so sue me!). Naturally, then, it's my pleasure to direct you to these poor favorability ratings (hat tip to the Instapundit)...

The Secret Behind Novak's Strange Behavior

Makes perfect sense, once you know it...see Mickey Kaus, the MinuteMan, and the Mystery Pollster for the details...

UPDATE 3:15 p.m. central: Novak has now apologized for the incident...

...These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For...

An Iranian spokesman attempts the Jedi Mind Control trick...

The Times, They Are A-Certainly Not Staying Motionless

If there can be a silver lining to the horrors of terrorism, at least it may be said that the London attacks have sparked a new serious in combating extremism at the source. Tony Blair has announced a new set of proposals that include making justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence. I hope Juan Cole is not planning a move to England (come to think of it, the same could be said of practically the entire roster at Huff'n'Puff)...

Ken Livingstone: Stay Safe Through Appeasement

When a Ken Livingstone opinion piece appears in the Guardian, you can fairly well bet that you're about the in the presence of some grade-A nonsense. Livingstone, the lefty mayor of London, gives his prescription for a safe populace:

Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects - from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail, the Spectator, and a majority of the British public. Jack Straw has also acknowledged this debate. If the invasion of Iraq had been justified, it would be possible to argue that we must bear the sacrifices necessary to achieve a just outcome. However, it is evident that the war in Iraq was not justified. It has made the situation worse. The illusions with which it was launched are collapsing.

Sigh...here we go again. Does Livingstone not realize that the terrorist demands, as stated this very day, go far beyond a withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Does he not agree that foreign policy decisions in a democracy are the province of elected representatives, and not mass murderers? The apologetics of the Leftists for terror grow more wearying by the day...

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Is the Pressure Getting To Novak?

Sure looks that way...today he blew up at James Carville after a fairly innocuous statement, exclaiming "That's bull**it", and walked off the set of Inside Politics. An indefinite suspension by CNN followed (don't cry too much, though; Novak's wealth is the stuff of legend)...

Server problems, apparently, at the first link...you can also view the video here...

The Iraq Index, Part One: U.S. Troop Casualties

I learned of the Brookings Institute Iraq Index through our good friend the MinuteMan. Essentially, it's 41 pages of statistics in chart and graph format related to our progress with 'reconstruction and security in post-Saddam Iraq'. There is much valuable information contained, too much to cover in a single post, so if you will indulge me, I'd like to take a series of looks at the numbers over the next several days.

The report covers U.S. troop casualties first, and so will we. Fatalities among our armed forces peaked in late 2004, with 137 in the terrible month of November, and have been declining lately at a fairly rapid pace (though we lost 14 in a single day just this week). Roughly 70% of the 1,800 U.S. fatalities have been white males, and the bulk have been active personnel from the Army.

1,397 troops were wounded in November, 2004. In retrospect, the losses of that month, in a low-intensity guerilla war, are pretty stunning; it's a sober reminder to even staunch supporters of the war like myself that the human cost has been high. (That same month saw 30 attacks on Iraqi oil and gas pipelines, by far the worst month on that score, as well).

Is there any good spin to put on these horrible numbers? Yes, there is; the frequency of the attacks on coalition forces has barely declined since then, but the lethality, as far as United States personnel are concerned, is way down. A stunning 77 daily attacks were recorded in November on our men and women, and that number has only receded to about 70 a day, and yet there were 39 deaths and 467 wounded in July, versus the aforementioned November numbers.

In other words, a 10% decrease in daily attacks has resulted in about a third less casualties. By such grim yardsticks is progress measured in times of war...

AP: Sevan "Only" Received $160,000 in Kickbacks

In another sign of the AP's lopsided coverage of world affairs, the embezzlement of $160,000 in Oil-For-Food kickbacks by the program's chief is reported in the following manner:

Investigators have concluded that the former chief of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, took kickbacks under the $64 billion humanitarian operation and refused to cooperate with their probe, his lawyer said Thursday.
While the amount of money Sevan allegedly took wasn't immediately known - and may be as little as $160,000 - the findings would be a major blow because of his stature in the organization and the control he had over it.

Presumably the author of this piece writes for a living and thus knows the importance of words, and that makes this coverage even more baffling. '...As little as $160,000"? "A major blow because of his stature"? $160,000 wouldn't be a big deal if he weren't the program head, is that the implication?

This is somewhat akin to saying although most people think O. J. Simpson is a murderer, he 'only' killed 2 people. If Sevan is corrupt, he's corrupt - and $160,000 isn't the taking home of a few pens with the U.N. Oil-For-Food logo on them. Anything less than 2 years in prison would be a scandal if these allegations are proven.

UPDATE 08/05/05 3:04 p.m.: Many thanks to the Instapundit for the link!...

The Israeli Settler Movement Is Out of Control

I'm quick to condemn atrocities directed against Israel, but idiocy like this is equally deplorable. The settlers have proven to be just the sort of extremists that I routinely condemn on the Arab side. Ironic, but sad, that the 'extremist' Sharon now finds himself pitted against radical Israelis who resort to terroristic tactics. Sharon is correct to draw a hard line against the settlers; murder is murder, and terror is terror, and this sort of thing must stop.

A Lesson to the Appeasers from al-Zawahri

A little deconstruction of the latest terrorist videotape:

In a videotape broadcast Thursday, Al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri said British Prime Minister Tony Blair was to blame for the London bombings and that Blair's support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq would incite further attacks.

"Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing," al-Zawahri said in the tape, while never claiming responsibility for the July 7 bombings. The statement was broadcast on the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera.

Referring to the Western nations like Britain that have contributed troops in Iraq, he said: "As to the nations of the crusader alliance, we have offered you a truce if you leave the land of Islam."

"Hasn't Sheik Osama bin Laden told you that you will not dream of security before there is security in Palestine and before all the infidel armies withdraw from the land of Muhammed?" al-Zawahri asked, referring to the leader of the al-Qaida network.

"Our message is clear: you will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers," he said.

The first sentence will get the most attention from the anti-war crowd: "See," they'll say, "it's Iraq! Bush has brought on more terror, not less."

They will say that, and they will be wrong. For the rest of the statement reveals demands that we surely cannot and will not meet: the infidel must leave the land of Muhammed (all Americans - and Israelis, you can bet - must leave the Middle East). Security in Palestine (why is there no security in Palestine? Because of the Palestinians. What do the Palestinians want? The destruction of Israel).

Notice also that the hateful murderer speaks for the terrorists, that he offers a truce...but wait! Didn't Juan Cole just tell us that there is no centrally organized terrorist front, and we might as well fold the hand?

The 'Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism'? Hell, No...

President Bush sets the record straight - it's the War on Terror, after all...good for him. Political correctness in slogan phrasing is not the nation's highest priority at the moment...

Byron York and 'Abuse of Power'

In light of my recent post on the 'official' Democratic reaction to the appointment of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador, I'm especially pleased to read this similar piece by Byron York:

Quick: What do you call President Bush's decision to recess-appoint John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations?

"Abuse of power," says Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

"Abuse of power," says Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

"Abuse of power," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

How remarkable that all of the top Democratic leaders had the exact same reaction - but of course you know better. York details the sordid story of how the Democrats convened a war room to implement the recommendations of a pollster who discovered that 'abuse of power' (the phrase, not the action) struck fear in the hearts of the electorate - and lo and behold, a message was born.

If you harbored any doubts whatsoever that the Bolton fight was strictly partisan, harbor them no more...

A Most Welcome Competitor

The latest addition to the blogosphere is the great political analyst Michael Barone, who has started a blog under the auspices of the U.S. News website. Barone is one of the best, and I look forward to his increased output. Here's a taste of his insightful commentary, as he dissects the results of the Ohio special election (hat tip to PoliPundit).

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

What Does the 'Official' Democratic Reaction to the Bolton Appointment Tell Us?

Certain unnamed elements took me to task for my wildly successful post on 'The Top Ten Leftist Reactions to the Bolton Nomination' (an appointment, actually - my fault). Apparently, there is some confusion that Leftist somehow means an elected official, a well-known public figure, etc., and an insinuation was made that perhaps I played 'dirty pool' by picking comments from the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground.

The larger point I and many of my commentors were trying to make, however, is that the Democratic Party is, in fact, in danger of being overrun by the nutcases. To make my case, here are some examples of highly placed Democrats and their reactions:

Teddy Kennedy, Senator, Massachusetts: "It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

Harry Reid, Senator, Nevada, Minority Leader: "President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House."

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman: "A truly arrogant move. By moving unilaterally to overrule the Senate and appoint a nominee who is being dogged by significant questions about his integrity on intelligence matters, Bush has reduced our nation's ability to cooperate with our allies on the war on terror."

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representives: "For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee - not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it - subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States' reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better."

And there's this from the DNC's official blog:

We know John Bolton is unfit for the job, with a record of harassment and retribution in his tenure at the State Department. We know he lied to Congress on a questionnaire, saying he hadn't been questioned in any investigations in the last five years when in fact he's been questioned in the CIA leak scandal.
With a public record like that, we can only imagine what the White House is hiding by refusing to disclose his full record.

Admittedly, these professional politicians clean up their language considerably compared to their radical supporters, but the underlying message is the same: the President is accused of deviousness, arrogance, unconstitutional actions, and deliberate concealment of wrongdoing. The nominee has 'a record of harassment and retribution', is accused of perjury, and associated with a pseudo-scandal that some elements of the Left have called treasonous.

We have moved well into Orwellian territory here. Words exist independent of their larger meaning to serve the temporary partisan wishes of those who utter them. Little, if any, thought is given to the national security repercussions of accusing political enemies of the most foul deeds and thoughts.

Meanwhile, Democrats of moderation are routinely spat upon and ridiculed by this election-losing fringe faction that is on the verge of usurping control of the once-proud party. Do I exaggerate? Consider the blogroll of the DNC, yes, the Democratic National Committee itself, now headed by the far-left Howard Dean:

There are some voices of reason on there, sure, such as Kevin Drum's Political Animal and Taegan Goddard's Political Wire. Far more prevalent, though, are foul-mouthed, hateful sites such as the Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, Eric Alterman, and Atrios.

Again, the point is that the inmates are, if not running the asylum, at least in very close contact with those who do; and the keepers of the keys are becoming increasingly beholden to them, financially, and spiritually. Was John Bolton the best man for the job at the U.N? Arguably not...but he certainly is not the figure he has been made out to be by the partisan rhetoric...and we see the same pattern with John Roberts.

When it was directed at the Democrats, President Clinton decried 'the politics of personal destruction'...and he was right. The tendency to demonize our opposition is not new, but it is dangerous, and it divides our nation and can only serve our enemies. It's time for the Democrats to grab hold of the wheel, before the progressives steer the Party right off the road of mainstream America.

Pretty Sweet...

Michelle Malkin gives us a sneak preview of her upcoming book - I like it. A lot (even though I'm green with envy)...

New Poll On Rove

The John Roberts nomination will be approved on a party line vote, according to 29% of you, but a whopping 60% think Roberts will get at least some Democratic support, while 7% think he will be approved unamimously. Next up - whither Rove?...

The Top Ten Liberal Oxymorons, From BSR

10) Civil Disobedience
9) Devout Atheist
8) Girly Man
7) Global Village
6) Open Marriage

Where are the rest? Hey, you gotta get those from the source...

The War on Terror: Predictability and "Useful Idiots"

This weekend, I took Weekly Jackass Simon Jenkins to task for referring to those of us who prefer to stop the terrorists before they kill as 'useful idiots'. Anthony Browne, Europe Correspondent for the London Times, puts that appellation back where it belongs: on "left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC." In other words, on those who, like Professor Juan Cole, insist that we cannot fight this war proactively. Cole insists there is no way to predict who the terrorists are, or when and how they might strike, as they are too decentralized.

Not so, says Christopher Brown at FrontPage Magazine:

The good news is that preventing terrorist attacks is not as impossible as conventional wisdom would have it. Al-Qaeda, after all, is anything but subtle. Al-Zawahiri has clearly indicated al-Qaeda's desired targets. Note that his second video was at once an order and a warning that the attack was going to occur within a month. Finally, the Internet posting a week before the London attacks gave us a clue that the target was Europe and the attack would come shortly. Put all of this together with al-Qaeda's previously scouted targets, its propensity for going back to targets that they failed to destroy before, its limited yet strategically successful attack in Madrid, and a globe of potential targets is reduced to a few neighborhoods in London, Paris, or Rome. (It is very likely that a similar set of indicators will emerge in relation to the Egyptian attack.)

Oversimplified? Perhaps...but preferrable by a wide margin to the plan of those like Cole who would engage in sociological apologetics aimed at explaining the motives of murderers after they kill, or changing American foreign policy to suit the agenda of Islamic extremists (after all, if we just left Israel to be destroyed and gave up all of our strategic interests in the Middle East, they wouldn't hate us...as much).

Intelligent Design And Science...The Debate Continues

Clearly, "Intelligent Design" is a very divisive topic in Republican circles. I intend to do my own longish contribution soon, but in the meantime, here's a couple of more takes on the matter, from Ryan Bonneville at the Big Tent Blog, and Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House. I also recommend this dairy from Red State, from a concerned Republican who thinks we need to find some common ground on this issue...

UPDATE: Also see this post by our good friend Minh-Duc, who has considered the issue from a most interesting angle...

Does Juan Cole Even Believe Juan Cole?

Former Weekly Jackass Juan Cole, at his blog Misinformed Conjecture, says that basically global terrorism amounts to a few hooligans:

The Bush administration is giving up the phrase "global war on terror."

I take it this is because they have finally realized that if they are fighting a war on terror, the enemy is four guys in a gymn[sic] in Leeds. It isn't going to take very long for people to realize that a) you don't actually need to pay the Pentagon $400 billion a year if that is the problem and b) whoever is in charge of such a war isn't actually doing a very good job at stopping the bombs from going off.

The Scotsman reports on the spectacular arrest of the Somalian suspect in the July 21 failed bombing attempts, saying, "The ethnicity of the eight London bombers, ranging from Somalis, to British-born sons of Pakistani parents and an Anglo-Jamaican Muslim convert, have surprised detectives investigating the attacks"...

...Former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds.

That's right. The old "war on terror" was a war of the world's sole superpower on a few hundred people. (I exclude Iraq because it is not and never was part of any 'war on terror,' though the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration has contributed to the ability of terrorists to operate there.)

Funny how those 'few hundred people' have been killed dozens of times in Iraq alone, eh? As to not doing a good job on keeping the bombs from going off, I beg to differ...how many attacks on the American homeland since 9/11, Professor? Is it zero, perhaps?

Juan makes a big deal about how there's no common thread linking the London bombers and other terrorists, as they sometimes come from different countries or have differing ethnicities. Let's see, common threads, common threads...hey, here's one! They're all radical Islamists! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Cole tries to deflect this obvious point by trying to confuse the issue with tales of our Muslim allies. Of course, no one (at least, hardly anyone) thinks our war is with Muslims, per se, so much as a particularly dangerous branch of radical Muslim ideology.

Fortunately, I don't need to spend a lot of time rebutting Cole, because Michael Totten has done so...beautifully...

(hat tip to Hit and Run via the Instapundit)...