| July 23, 2008 |
| Third time's a charm? |
The Observer reports that a team of Hollywood insiders is currently working on a screen adaptation of Mary Mapes's 2005 book Truth And Duty. Mapes was the producer of the the 60 Minutes II story by Dan Rather about President George W. Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, which ran on CBS in September 2004 and eventually led to her ouster from the network. I thought I was the only person in the country who read Truth and Duty. I reviewed her incredibly bad book for the Standard in "Second time's a charm?" Bad books frequently do make good movies, but I doubt that Mapes's book would prove the rule.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:26 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
| July 23, 2008 |
| Opportunism knocks yet again |
In his Examiner column War and peace and the Democrats," Paul Mirengoff collects conflicting statements made by Barack Obama on his signature issue of Iraq. Paul's column cites and relies on Peter Wehner's Commentary article "Obama's war," but it distills and updates the evidence of Obama's extraordinary cynicism. Paul shows that, in a line headed by Bill Clinton and John Kerry, Obama has perfected the art of trimming on the most serious issue confronting the United States. Paul concludes with Obama on the surge:
The night President Bush announced it, Obama opined that nothing in the plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence." But after the surge accomplished this and more, Obama insisted that he had always known that adding troops would tamp down the violence. Anyone can be wrong about whether a military operation will succeed or fail, but an honest person cannot be wrong about whether he predicted success or failure.
Barack Obama insists, quite correctly, that his patriotism cannot be judged by whether he wears an American flag lapel pin. But it's fair enough to measure a politician's patriotism by whether his positions on crucial questions of war and peace are based on the national interest, not which election the politician has his eyes on. By this standard, recent Democratic presidential nominees, and especially Obama, do not fare well.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:04 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 23, 2008 |
| Joel Mowbray reports: Eric Cantor for VP? |
Eric Cantor is the House chief deputy minority whip whom we have written about in several posts including "A letter to Speaker Pelosi" and "Cantor on CAIR." Our occasional correspondent Joel Mowbray (jdmowbra@erols.com) writes:
With the speculation machine at full tilt this week that McCain may soon announce his running mate, one name not commonly bandied about deserves at least a closer look: Rep. Eric Cantor.
The Virginia Republican is a stalwart conservative, and he happens to be the only Jewish GOP member in the U.S. House. Working in his favor, he's got a smooth delivery and a soft, but distinct Southern accent. With boyish good looks and the requisite attractive family, he exudes wholesomeness. Not to be discounted, either, is that he is quite close to McCain personally. At a mega-dollar fundraiser in the posh Hamptons this past weekend, for example, Cantor was one of the few "friends" who didn't buy his way in.
Plenty of insiders see Cantor as one of the best faces in the GOP. In a recent National Journal anonymous poll of three dozen Republican congressmen and senators, Cantor received the second-highest number of votes -- behind only Mitt Romney -- for whom they would like as McCain's veep pick. When Bush spoke in Israel this May, the influential Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention told several members of the American delegation that he would like to see Cantor as vice president.
Though the odds of the 45-year-old Cantor being picked are unquestionably long, it might be worth checking out the independent EricCantorforVP site. The site is chock full of information on the four-term congressman from the Richmond area, including news stories and video clips.
Even if McCain, as expected, goes with Romney or Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Cantor would be a very close friend of a McCain White House. And should Obama triumph in November, there's little doubt that Cantor would become one of the most prominent voices of Republican opposition.
In other words, learn more about Cantor now, so you can say you knew about him before most did.
Jaime Snyder recently posted thoughts on a possible Cantor vice presidential candidacy at the Weekly Standard site and linked to the Standard's 2003 profile of Cantor by Susan Crabtree. This past fall Fred Barnes returned with an updated profile of Cantor in "The leader."
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:04 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 22, 2008 |
| Tear down this technicality! |
The Politico reports on a background briefing on Obama's coming speech this Thursday in Berlin:
At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama's speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.
"It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 9:21 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 22, 2008 |
| Who is Leo Thorsness and why is he supporting John McCain? |
When the McCain campaign invited me to meet with Leo Thorsness yesterday, I vaguely recalled him as a Vietnam veteran who had narrowly lost a 1974 Senate race to George McGovern in the toxic afermath of Watergate. That recollection proved accurate, but his record contains a few other items of interest. He is a native Minnesotan, having been born into a farm family near Walnut Grove, Minnesota, and graduated from Walnut Grove High School in 1950. He attended South Dakota State College, where he met his wife in the freshman registration line. In January 1951 he enlisted in the Air Force and graduated from pilot school in 1954. He was a career fighter pilot, reaching the rank of colonel and accumulating 5,000 hours of flying time.
Colonel Thorsness flew 92 S Wild Weasel missions over North Vietnam. In 1967 he earned the Medal of Honor for a Wild Weasel mission he flew on April 19, 1967, 11 days before being shot down. Here is his Medal of Honor citation. The Air Force account of his heroics makes a somewhat more readable narrative:
Thorsness, then a major, was "Head Weasel" of the 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Takhli Air Base in Thailand. On April 19, 1967, he and his backseater, Capt. Harold Johnson, fought a wild 50-minute duel with SAMs, antiaircraft guns and MiGs. They set out in a formation of four planes. Their target was an army compound near Hanoi, heavily defended. Thorsness directed two of the F-105s north and he and his wingman stayed south, forcing enemy gunners to divide their attention. After initial success at destroying two SAM sites, things turned for the wors[e]. First, Thorsness' wingman was hit by flak. He and his backseater ejected. Then the two Weasels he had sent north were attacked by MiGs. The afterburner of one of the F-105s wouldn't light, so he and his wingman were forced to return to Takhli, leaving Thorsness alone to fight solo.
As the F-105 circled the parachutes, relaying their position to the Search and Rescue Center, Johnson spotted a MiG off their left wing. The F-105, though not designed for air-to-air combat, responded well as Thorsness attacked the MIG and destroyed it with a 20-mm cannon, just as another MiG closed on his tail. Low on fuel, Thorsness broke off the battle and rendezvoused with a tanker.
In the meantime, two A-1E Sandys and a rescue helicopter arrived to look for the crewmen. Upon being advised of that fact, Thorsness, with only 500 rounds of ammunition left, turned back from the tanker to fly cover for the rescue force, knowing there were at least five MiGs in the area. As he approached the area, he spotted four MiG-17 aircraft and initiated an attack on them, damaging one and driving the others away from the rescue scene. His ammunition gone, he returned to the rescue scene, hoping to draw the MiGs away from the remaining A-1E. It could very well have been a suicidal mission, but just as he arrived, so did a U.S. strike force and hit the enemy fighters.
But Thorsness' day wasn't over yet. Again low on fuel, he headed for a tanker just as one of the strike force pilots, almost out of fuel himself, radioed him for help. Thorsness knew he couldn't make Takhli without refueling, but he quickly determined he could make it to Udorn, 200 miles closer, so he directed the tanker toward the strike fighter. Once across the Mekong Delta, he throttled back to idle and "glided" toward Udorn, touching down as his tanks went dry.
Colonel Thorsness didn't find out about his receipt of the Medal of Honor, however, until 1973. He was shot down by an air to air missile in late April 1967. He ejected from from his exploding fighter doing nearly 700 miles per hour and injured both his knees. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. Like John McCain, he was "tied up" until 1973. His Medal of Honor was kept a secret so that the North Vietnamese would not use the citation against him and aggravate the conditions of his captivity. As it was, he was tortured unmercifully for the first three years.
Upon his capture, he was tortured in interrogation for 19 days and 18 nights, without sleep. He mentioned to me in passing yesterday that he didn't break for 18 days, at which time he finally provided something more than name, rank and serial number. Reading the Medal of Honor link above, it is noted that he was in captivity when a Cuban team came in 1968 and stayed for a year. They taught the North Vietnamese how to extract information. Colonel Thorsness was not among the eight tortured by the Cubans, but they systematically tortured POW Earl Cobiel to death: "Corbeil was struck along the brow with a hose and didn't blink. And they took a rusty nail and carved a bloody X across his back."
As for his own treatment, he has recalled:
With a wire, strap, or rope, the guards would pull your elbows together behind your back. Then they'd tie your hands together at the wrist and pull, cutting off the circulation. They would put a clevis around your feet and run a bar through it. It was hardest if they put the clevis behind because they'd bend you forward and put your head under the bar. Sometimes they'd hoist you off the floor and it felt like your sternum was going to break.Generally, you'd pass out. It didn't bother them if they dislocated your shoulders; most of us had our shoulders dislocated. We called it the Suitcase Trick. It was brutal, painfully brutal.
Speaking of Senator McCain, Colonel Thorsness vouches for his intelligence, character and devotion to country. He recalled how on "film night" at the Hanoi Hilton, when the POWs would entertain each other with accounts of their favorite movies, McCain was by far the best storyteller. McCain's favorite movie was "African Queen." McCain meticulously noted the gun emplacements, provided descriptions of the plot that grew more elaborate and entertaining with each telling, and generally told the story with gusto. Colonel Thorsness testified to McCain's appropriation of Thorsness's own story about killing a horse with a shotgun on a dare in Walnut Grove. According to Thorsness, McCain told Thorsness's own story better than Thorsness did.
In our conversation yesterday, Colonel Thorsness mentioned the tap code by which the POWs kept in contact with each other even when in solitary confinement. He explained the code and tapped out "GB" (God Bless) and "GN" (Good Night) for me on the table. He said Air Force men could tap out 15 words a minute, humorously ascribing somewhat lower rates to Navy and Marine POWs.
I asked him how he kept up hope for release during the years of captivity. He said that optimism was mandatory among the POWs, although the mask would occasionally slip in their conversations. On those occasions they might talk about doing something "if we get out." The required formulation was "when we get out." He recalled that the most encouraging event of his captivity, by far, was the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi.
Colonel Thorsness related the story of his captivity while applying genial black humor to virtually every element. What he couldn't leaven with humor, he omitted. He bragged, for example, about never having had a cross word with his daughter. He adds as a footnote that of course he wasn't around from ages 11 to 17.
I asked Colonel Thorsness about his political experience. In addition to his race against McGovern, he recalled that he ran against a talented young man for a South Dakota congressional seat in 1978 (South Dakota then had two congressional districts) and won by 16 votes out of more than 129,000 votes cast. Unfortunately, he recalled, Tom Daschle was declared the winner by 110 votes months later after the recount.
Colonel Thorsness is one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. He is one of the few (fewer than 150) living Medal of Honor recipients. His name should be known and his story should be told. He may be one of the "great-souled" men at the summit of human excellence of whom Aristotle speaks in the Ethics. He deserves to be heard out.
I met up with Colonel Thorsness over the lunch hour yesterday at the local McCain campaign headquarters in St. Paul through the kind invitation of Tom Steward. Our friend Ed Morrissey was able to attend the press conference with Colonel Thorsness and fellow veterans supporting McCain yesterday morning at the State Capitol. Ed has posted an account with video of Colonel Thorsness's remarks here.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:33 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 21, 2008 |
| Feeling protective |
Barack Obama is scheduled to visit the West Bank town of Ramallah tomorrow. According to Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's military wing, will participate in protecting Obama during the visit, having been enlisted by the PA for that purpose.
Klein points out that the "Brigades" is listed as a terror organization by the U.S. State Department. It took credit, along with the Islamic Jihad terror organization, for every suicide bombing in Israel between 2005 and 2006. The Israeli Defense Forces say that the Al Aqsa Brigades have perpetuated more terrorism from the West Bank than Hamas.
One member of the Brigades is quoted as follows: "Maybe the Israelis will try something because of Obama's policy on Israel, which the Zionists don't like, but we will certainly protect Obama. We are professional security forces."
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 9:33 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 21, 2008 |
| Mark Falcoff: CBS serenades Chavez |
Mark Falcoff is resident scholar emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, most recently, of Cuba the Morning After: Confronting Castro's Legacy. He writes:
I don't normally watch CBS's Sunday evening 60 Minutes show, but I happened to be at some friends' house for a barbeque tonight and they had the TV on, so I managed to see part of the program. The segment I caught had to do with youth orchestras in Venezuela ("El Sistema: Changing lives through music"). The main theme was how an idealistic Venezuelan has started a movement to interest young people, particularly from desperately poor areas, in classical music. The segment concluded with a film of one of these youth orchestras performing at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
Now who is against youth orchestras? Not me.
However, it was explained in the segment that most of the funding for these orchestras comes from the Venezuelan government. I believe the figure $80 million was mentioned. To be fair, the narrator admitted that five or six successive Venezuelan governments have supported this worthy endeavor.
However, what was interesting was what was NOT said in the segment. $80 million sounds like a lot of money for youth orchestras, even if there are hundreds of them in Venezuela (which we were told). But still, the founder of this movement seems to be looking all over the world (but particularly the US) for additional funding.
I thought, how very interesting. That same day Bloomberg news reported that Hugo Chavez, the president-dictator of Venezuela, had announced plans to order TWO BILLION DOLLARS' worth of weapons, including diesel subs, Mi-28 helicopters, and airplanes from the Russian Federation. The same dispatch pointed out that since 2003 Chavez has already ordered FOUR BILLION DOLLARS worth of Russian arms.
Think of it: that's a lot of youth orchestras.
I couldn't help thinking that the segment was intended to soften up American TV viewers towards the Venezuelan dictatorship--to show its "humanitarian" side. Every so often when I think I might have exaggerated my opinion of CBS and 60 Minutes, I catch a program like this and realize that I am right on the money.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 8:50 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 21, 2008 |
| Fiddling while Burns roams, part 3 |
In his most recent Wall Street Journal column last week, Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton discussed Iran's nuclear threat. The column appeared before the Bush administration authorized Undersecretary of State William Burns to attend the ongoing EU-3 talks with Iran on its nuclear program in violation of its previously stated policy requiring the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran as a precondition to direct American participation in such talks.
According to administration spokesman Dana Perino, Burns's attendance was intended to signal the seriousness of American diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise solution with Iran regarding its nuclear program. On Saturday the talks adjourned with the latest EU-3 proposal being submitted to Iran for a period of 14 days.
In his column Bolton asserts that we have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" (in the words of Barack Obama) for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Iran has used the past five years of negotiations to advance its nuclear program. The talks show no prospect of reaching a resolution that will retard it.
Bolton considers the possibility of a military strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities. "There was a time when the Bush administration might itself have seriously considered using force," Bolton says, "but all public signs are that such a moment has passed." President Bush appears resigned to kicking this problem down the road for his successor to handle, under even more difficult circumstance than those of the present.
Over the weekend I criticized the Bush administration's decision to dispatch Burns to attend the EU-3 talks with Iran, characterizing it as of a piece with other deflections from such previously stated Bush administration foreign policy positions regarding North Korea and the creation of a Palestinian state. By contrast, our friend Hugh Hewitt decries the hand-wringing on the right over Burns's attendance at the meeting in Geneva: "Seems like a necessary 'last chance' offer to me, and Iran has apparently rejected it." Hugh implies without stating that Burns's attendance is a public display intended to justify American support for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, presumably by Israel, though Hugh doesn't say.
Hugh's reading of events is not unreasonable in the abstract. It is certainly possible that it is correct. Hugh doesn't offer any evidence to support it, however, whereas the administration has provided reasonable ground for "hand-wringing" over its treatment of a wide array of the most serious foreign policy issues outside Iraq. Hugh does not consider the meaning of Burns's attendance at the Geneva meeting with Iran in this context. Stephen Hayes, Hayes's administration sources and I do.
UPDATE: As does Middle East Quarterly editor Michael Rubin in today's Wall Street Journal.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 6:43 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 20, 2008 |
| I'll teach the seminars around here |
This low-quality article in the Washington Post reports that, when it comes to the Supreme Court, "Some Legal Activists Have Hearts Set on 'True Liberal.'" Imagine that.
The article, by Robert Barnes and Kevin Merida, is an uncritical presentation of the leftist legal community's dogma regarding the Supreme Court and its politics. The presentation is uncritical because, by all appearances, Barnes and Merida agree with that dogma. Thus, they state that "liberal legal activists have consistently lagged behind conservatives in convincing their partisans that the court should be a voting issue." Barnes and Merida cite no evidence for this view, which seems to be a function of nothing more than the normal tendency of partisans to believe that their opponents are always better mobilized.
Barnes and Merida also quote leftist professor Geoffrey Stone's view that the current Supreme Court has no "true liberal" on it. In Stone's view "what we call liberals on this court are moderates or moderate liberals, if you want to get refined about it." But Stone provides no defense of the view that, say, Justice Ginsburg is other than a liberal, and it would not have been difficult for Barnes and Merida to have found a law professor who disagreed with Stone on this point. Apparently, Barnes and Merida weren't interested in doing so.
The most amusing part of their piece is the voice they give to the liberal lament that liberals don't have "their own Antonin Scalia." Here, finally, Barnes, Merida, and the leftist legal activists have a point. But I doubt there could be a liberal Justice Scalia. The distinctive clarity and bite of his opinions seem inextricably linked to the content of his positions. Leftist law professors recognize and resent the fact that Scalia is out-arguing the court's liberals and believe that they, or those they follow, could do better. But Justice Breyer, a brilliant man, presumably believes that he's at least holding his own, and there is no reason to believe that this or that leftist professor or lower court judge would fare any better than Breyer.
Even if there were a Scalia of the left out there, it seems unlikely that, if elected, Barack Obama would be inclined (or well-advised) to nominate him or her. Such a figure, if he or she has a track record, would cause Obama to take too much heat. Barnes and Merida quote Lani Guinier to the effect that a Supreme Court Justice is a teacher in a national seminar on the Constitution. But Guinier is a case study in how hazardous it can be for a president to nominate someone who thinks that way for any high profile legal position.
Obama is probably too shrewd to make this kind of mistake. If elected he'll be looking to his Supreme Court nominees for reliably liberal votes, not a national seminar. Teaching seminars will be Obama's job.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 9:11 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 20, 2008 |
| Fiddling while Burns roams, part 2 |
By all accounts, President Bush adamantly insists that there is no discrepancy between the major foreign policy positions he took during his first term with those he has taken in his second term. Indeed, he is said to become irate when the question of such discrepancies is put to him. He denies that such discrepancies exist.
What about the abandonment of the "roadmap" approach to the creation of a Palestinian state? Or the concessions made to North Korea despite its role in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and despite its failure to account for its nuclear programs? President Bush does not concede that these developments represesent a fundamental rethinking of his foreign policy positions.
The past few days have brought us the example of Iran. Why did President Bush decide to shift policy and send a senior U.S. envoy (William Burns) to talks with the Iranian regime regarding its nucelar program. Glenn Kessler reports that "U.S. officials" have explained that the decision to send Burns was made after increasing signs that Iran was open to possible negotiations and that international sanctions were having an impact on the Islamic republic. According to Kessler, Secretary Rice is the driving force behind this shift. Kessler quotes one on-the-record White House statement:
"The substance remains the same, but this is a new tactic," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. She added: "What this does show is how serious we are when we say that we want to try to solve this diplomatically."
When the administration abandons a key tenet of its policy regarding Iran, surely something more is called for.
To the extent that President Bush denies that he has significantly shifted course in his foreign policy during his second term, he appears removed from his own administration. To the extent that he fails to provide a frank explanation for the policy shifts he has engineered during his second term, he appears to be riding out the waning days of a defeated presidency.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 12:59 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 18, 2008 |
| People, let me put you wise |
In a long career now spanning some firty years, Dion Dimucci (of Dion and the Belmonts, above with Bo Diddley) has experienced many ups and downs. Through it all, he has maintained a rare purity in his work. At every stage of his career you can hear the blues coming through.
In 2003 Dion appeared as part of an oldies show at the Iowa State Fair, a show that I am reliably informed was pathetic until Dion took the stage. My informant described Dion as sounding vocally closer in age to 16 than 64, as he was then, and commented that he was superb.
The musical highlight of his Iowa State Fair show was introduced by Dion's 9/11-related comments, comments from the perspective of a native New Yorker. He spoke of the guys who died because their jobs had called them that day. He said that many of them had learned about duty and doing the right thing as he had in parochial school. Then Dion gave a stirring performance of his comeback hit "Abraham, Martin and John" -- one of the few topical songs he has ever recorded. The song's message --"They freed a lot of people, but it seems the good die young" -- was one with which few would argue, and it soothed many souls in 1968.
The only other "message song" I know in Dion's catalogue apart from his 1980's work in gospel music is "Your Own Backyard" from 1970, a harrowing account of his own nasty battles with alcohol and heroin:
My idea of having a good time
Was sitting with my head in between my knees.
I knew everything there was to know --
Everything except which way to go.
I cried, "Oh, God, take me will you please?"
A little further along in the song he adds: "I can't tell nobody how to live their life." He concludes: "It's gotta start right in your own backyard."
In 2006 Dion stripped down his sound for "Bronx in Blue," a recording of blues songs (mostly classics, though Dion wrote two that fit right in). Dion accompanied himself handsomely on guitar and has never sounded better. He performs the difficult task of making these songs utterly his own. Writing about the disc, Dion revealed the secret of his access to what Gram Parsons called the Cosmic American Music:
Some people think I grew up on Rock & Roll (not so). When I was a kid, there was no Rock & Roll. In the early Fifties - late at night, I'd tune into some southern radio station that somehow reached the Bronx, listening to The Blues, Howling Wolf's How Many More Years, Jimmy Reed's Bright Lights, Big City.
After school, I'd run home to catch the last half hour of the "Don Larkin Country Show" comin' out of Newark, New Jersey. I was a Hank Williams junkie. For me, putting country and blues together, that's what I call Rock & Roll.
Black music, filtered through an Italian neighborhood, comes out with an attitude. Rock & Roll. Yo! The music on this CD was the undercurrent of every song I did: Runaround Sue, The Wanderer, even the foot stomping on Ruby Baby I got from John Lee Hooker's Walkin' Boogie.
Late last year Dion revisited the same territory with that certain attitude on "The Son of Skip James." Catching up with Dion's tour supporting "Bronx in Blue" a few days before Dion's birthday in 2006, reader Edward Van Bomel noted the highlight toward the end of the show:
Dion told the audience "I recorded this song in 1968." In anticipation and appreciation of Dick Holler's "Abraham, Martin & John" the audience applause began...causing Dion to interrupt the audience and applause for the only time of the night: "I'd like to dedicate this song to the most wonderful, brave, heroic, outstanding military people protecting our country."
Today Dion turns 69. He's an American classic with a voice crying to be heard.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 6:21 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 17, 2008 |
| They Don't Know Anything About Baseball, Either |
Decades ago, when Paul and I were college friends and roommates, he was the first person I ever heard rip the New York Times. Not because he was a conservative; we were both Commies, more or less, at the time. But Paul, who was then a fan of the Washington Post, thought that the Times was grossly overrated. Among other things, he pointed out that the Times had the worst sports section of any newspaper in America.
Which brings me to today's NY Times corrections section, which contains this remarkable entry:
Because of an editing error, the baseball standings on Wednesday listed the Yankees twice. They remain where they have always been, in the American League - not also in the National.
It was an "editing error," which means that some editor changed "Mets" to "Yankees" in the National League East standings. Which is more likely, that the editor is a fanatical Yankees fan who did it in a fit of anti-Mets loyalty, or that he didn't know that there are two baseball teams in New York? I suspect the latter: it's sort of like how the paper's news staff hasn't figured out that America has two political parties.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by John Hinderaker at 10:53 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 16, 2008 |
| Foiled again |
Yesterday was another disappointing one for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and for the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. The previous disappointment occurred three weeds ago when the Dems attempted to grill Vice President Cheney's top aide David Addington about war on terror detainee policy. Milbank was forced to report that the Dems barely laid a glove on Addington (Milbank chalked it up to Addington's "nastiness"). The only sound-bite to emerge from the hearing came from the reprehensible Rep. Delahunt (D-Mass.) who told Addington during the televised hearing that he was "glad [al-Qaeda] finally have a chance to see you."
Yesterday, Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the Pentagon, testified before the same Committee, and the ever-hopeful Milbank was present again. But alas: according to the Clown Prince, "Republicans on the committee created a diversion, and Feith escaped unscathed."
As far as I can tell, the diversion Milbank refers to was nothing more than insistence that the Committee members follow the five-minute rule for questioning. This apparently proved to be too tough for the windbag Dems some of whom, as Milbank put it, need five minutes just to clear their throats. While the members seem to have squeezed their speechs/questions into the five minutes, the witness often lacked much time to respond. In one case, according to Milbank, Feith had time for only 72 words.
Fortunately, the filibustering cross-examiners had the benefit of Feith's informative opening statement -- in the unlikely event they listened to it.
For me, Addington and Feith are heroes who helped quickly move our country into an anti-terrorism mode that minimized the likelihood of additional attacks on the homeland (of which there were none). In so doing, they probably enhanced civil liberties; a second attack would have produced enormous pressure on those rights.
That said, there are respects in which detainee policy was excessively harsh, in my view, and hearings that thoughtfully explored this subject would be beneficial. But there is no prospect for such hearings with this committee, and that's true whatever time limits (or none) are placed on the members.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 11:17 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 16, 2008 |
| Lebanon's latest national hero |
Israel and Hezbollah completed their swap today. The deal, which we described here, brought Israel the bodies of two dead soldiers -- Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. In exchange Hezbollah received six terrorists previously held by Israel. Among them was Samir Kuntar who buthered the Haran family, including a four-year-old girl, in 1979. Israel also gave Hezbullah the bodies of 200 terrorists, agreed to provide Hezbullah with information on four missing Iranian "diplomats," and agreed to release an unknown number of Palestinian terrorists from prison.
As expected, the return of the murderer Kuntar was greeted in Lebanon with elation and celebration. Hezbollah and its Lebanese suporters plainly viewed the swap as a victory, and to a degree it was.
But, as Noah Pollak reports, more distressing than Hezbollah's predictable reaction was that of Lebanon's March 14th movement. Named after the date of the Cedar Revolution, this is a coalition of anti-Syrian political parties and independents in Lebanon. Today, two of its leaders -- Fouad Siniora, the Sunni prime minister of Lebanon, and Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon's Druze, both of whom are embraced as American allies - celebrated the return of Kuntar as a victory for all of Lebanon. Siniora had this to say:
The success of Hizbullah in the negotiations led by a third party is a national success for the party and for the struggle of the Lebanese because it secured national goals which Israel always refused to respect.
Meanwhile, Jumblatt promised that a delegation from his party would welcome and congratulate Kuntar, and called his return a "national occasion." The government followed suit by declaring the day a national holiday. Many, including Pollak, have held out great hope for the March 14 movement. That hope now seems badly misplaced.
I'm far from an expert on Lebanon. However, it seems to me that Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah during the war two years ago shifted the balance of power in Lebanon to the point that leaders like Sinora and Jumblatt feel constrained to follow Hezbollah's line in matters like this one and many others. If so, and after today's spectacle, Pollak seems correct to question whether it makes sense for the U.S. to consider Lebanon an ally in any meaningful sense.
Meanwhile, the man who brought Israel both the botched war and the one-sided prisoner swap, the corrupt Ehud Olmert, remains in power in Israel.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 10:45 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 16, 2008 |
| An Argument For An Armed Citizenry |
A horrific news story has slowly made its way into the headlines here in the Twin Cities. A local resident, his wife and three daughters spent the evening of the Fourth of July at Valleyfair, a local amusement park. They were leaving the park at midnight when a criminal began to molest his twelve-year-old daughter.
The father intervened to defend his daughter, and the offender put out a call for his "homies." Eight "men" materialized and began to beat up the father. They knocked him to the ground and took turns stomping on his head. The man's wife and daughters tried to protect him, unsuccessfully, and Valleyfair's security guards apparently tried to help, but ineffectually.
The father is still hospitalized, but the criminals are out on bail. The family's name is being kept secret, lest the criminals find them and kill them to avoid prosecution.
Initially, the local media downplayed the story, presumably because of the race of the criminals. But today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune broke down and covered it. Still, the story was apparently too hot for the paper to allow comments; if you follow the link, you'll see that, contrary to the Star Tribune's usual policy, it is impossible to comment.
The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.
Under Minnesota law, any business can ban guns on its premises, and, while a few minutes of research yielded nothing, I assume that Valleyfair bans guns, as most businesses that are open to the public do. This strikes me as a mistake. Against a gang such as the one that is now on the loose in the Twin Cities, only armed citizens can be effective.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by John Hinderaker at 8:30 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 16, 2008 |
| MPR News asks: What course would you set for the GOP? |
Minnnesota Public Radio assistant producer Anna Weggel writes:
The Republican Party is at a crossroads. An unpopular president is on the way out, and the party's election-year hopes are pinned to a candidate who sometimes strays from the party line. With the convention coming up and the GOP seeking the public input on their platform outline, we want to know: Where would you steer the party? And how was your Republican identity shaped?
To share your thoughts and your story, please visit What is the future of the Republican Party? Please contact Molly Bloom at mbloom [at] mpr [dot] org with any questions, thoughts or concerns.
President Bush is still relatively popular among Republicans from whom MPR hopes to hear, but the reference to his unpopularity by Ms. Weggel is not unfair. President Bush's unpopularity contributes to the enormous electoral challenge facing Republicans in the fall and to the interest of a project such as MPR's.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 8:52 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 16, 2008 |
| The captive mind |
Commenting on Barack Obama's foreign policy speech in an excellent editorial, the Washington Post calls out Barack Obama for his "damn the facts" approach to the American sacrifice in Iraq:
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
***
"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
While speaking on Obama's behalf yesterday, Senator Joe Biden captured the "reality is optional" approach of the Obama campaign to Iraq. Speaking on behalf of Obama yesterday, Biden advised: ""If John (McCain) wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq." Biden's comment is stupid, but it is also an offense to the American troops coping with the forces of evil in Iraq. Senator Biden owes them an apology, and the Obama campaign owes them a swift disavowal of Biden's remarks.
Via Dean Barnett.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 8:19 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 15, 2008 |
| An icon is out |
College basketball analyst Billy Packer is out at CBS. Although Michael Wilbon describes the move as a "stunner," to me the real surprise is that Packer lasted so long at the top (he has worked every Final Four broadcast since 1975.).
The problem isn't the quality of his work. As Rick Patino says, "Billy has given the most professional accounting of [college] basketball in the history of our game as a commentator." The wonder, instead, is that someone as politically incorrect and no-frills as Packer made it this deep into the current era of sportscasting.
These days, there are basically two types of analysts, showman and vanilla. Packer was neither. He provided flavor but not through shtick. Rather it was the quality of his analysis coupled with the force of his opinions (and, yes, biases) that made him stand out. In most instances, I could have done without the opinions and biases, but the analysis more than compensated for them.
That's Wilbon's view, too, and his column represents a worthwhile appreciation.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 10:57 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 15, 2008 |
| They Had No Faith to Lose, and They Know It |
I spent some time yesterday with a high-ranking Republican elected official. He noted that more than ever, the Democrats are the party of special interests. On issue after issue, they take perverse policy positions that are dictated by the fact that they are in the pocket of various special interests:
* They want to destroy the secret ballot in union elections, the cornerstone of labor democracy. Why? Because they are owned by the unions.
* They allowed our ability to spy on terrorists to lapse for a period of time, thereby threatening our national security. Why? Because they are owned by the plaintiffs' lawyers who were determined to sue telecoms.
* They try to block energy production, even though they know that the effects on our economy will be disastrous. Why? Because they are owned by the Sierra Club and other "environmentalist" groups.
What is surprising to me is not that the Democrats can be bought, but that they continue to be treated as the home team of American politics by essentially every reporter and editor in the news business.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by John Hinderaker at 7:56 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 15, 2008 |
| Let's party like it's 1984 |
The New York Daily News catches Barack Obama scrubbing his Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq. Obama's site had previously described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence. Obama's "down the memory hole" approach to his critique of the surge is the perfect accompaniment to his dishonest New York Times op-ed.
Question of the day: Who is heading up the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth over at the Obama campaign?
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:44 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 14, 2008 |
| Mr. Spielberg, tear down this wall |
Andrew Breitbart helps hold down the fort at the Drudge Report while running Breitbart.com. He observes the entertainment industry from his home in the Los Angeles area. In a terrific Washington Times column, Andrew decries the existence of the new Hollywood blacklist. Comparing the old Hollywood blacklist with the new, Andrew has previously observed:
My father-in-law, Orson Bean, an author, comedian and actor, was once blacklisted as a Communist back in the '50s. Ed Sullivan called him to say he could no longer book him on the show. Fifty years later, and after a sharp ideological metamorphosis, Orson says it's harder now to be an open conservative on a Hollywood set than it was back then to be a Communist.
Via Lucianne.
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 6:32 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| July 14, 2008 |
| John Cornyn: Time to get serious about energy |
John Cornyn represents Texas in the United States Senate. Senator Cornyn has forwarded a post commenting on John Hinderaker's "Democrats sucking wind on energy policy." Senator Cornyn writes:
After reading John Hinderaker's post on Friday about lack of Democratic leadership on energy, I can report that the view looks about the same from my Senate office. Nancy Pelosi promised an effective new energy plan before the 2006 election - that's about 809 days ago - and we're still waiting. They're now postponing votes because some Democrats fear reality has finally set in - and Congress may actually approve more domestic exploration for new energy.
We've put ourselves in an irrational box. We've put 85 percent of our prime energy exploration lands off-limits. The U.S. is the only country in the world that refuses to develop its own natural resources. With a growing worldwide demand for energy, we're willing to enrich foreign governments - some of which wish us harm - instead of helping ourselves.
The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I'm for pursuing every source of energy out there - solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all. But we've built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure - or we're headed towards economic catastrophe.
As John notes, a number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they want to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot. You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development - in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale - or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall's elections than most pundits now assume.
I'm staging an "Energy Independence Days" discussion this week on my Web site. I will be joined by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and others who see clearly the need to produce more domestic energy and reduce our reliance on foreign sources. You know I am a long time and enthusiastic Power Line fan, and it's an honor to communicate with your readers. I hope many of you will join me at JohnCornyn.com this coming week, and share your thoughts on our energy problem.
Thanks to Senator Cornyn for the kind words and for his report. We look foward to checking out the discussion Senator Cornyn will be hosting this week. (Reposted from Saturday.)
Courtesy of Power Line |
| Posted by Scott Johnson at 6:18 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
