Picking Nits

Saddam Hussein as a "Secular Leader"

2005-09-23T10:41:00.000-05:00

Watched a few minutes of The Factor's replay of the Phil Donahue interview last night, and it reminded me of an old question of mine.

If George Bush had used federal money to construct the world's largest Christian Church, and then used it to house all the pages of the New Testament written in his own blood, AND if George Bush had changed the U.S. flag by adding the words "I love Jesus Christ" in his own handwriting, wouldn't every liberal in the U.S., along with virtually every conservative and right-minded American, rightly say that Bush was a religious zealot and a Christian extremist?

Yet Saddam Hussein does all these things and leftists like Donahue jump to his defense by saying that he was a "secular leader", who would never have abided Islamic extremists or religious fundamentalism.

Tell me how this isn't an absurd argument.

The truth is that Saddam Hussein was a secular leader and socialist when Iraq was a Soviet client state. Being "secular" helped him procure First World weaponry and maintain power.

After the fall of the USSR, however, it was much more advantageous to accommodate the Islamic Fundamentalism that was defining the power structure of the Middle East after the Cold War. Thus he supported Hamas, thus he built Mosques and changed the flag and started to make appearances in traditional Islamic dress.

Because that was now in his best interest.

The argument that Saddam Hussein was a stalwart and unshakable ideological opponent of radical Islam is ridiculous, and those who make that argument should start getting called on it.

Compare and Contrast

2005-09-22T13:34:00.000-05:00

Big difference.

Paying the Danegeld...again.

2005-09-19T10:36:00.000-05:00

Many are taking this story from North Korea as good news (including JYB). Color me unconvinced.

How is returning to the 1994 agreement a good thing? We gave them millions (billions?) in fuel oil, food and other aid in return for empty promises. Now we are talking about building them light water nuclear reactors (again) in exchange for them not building nuclear weapons. In other words, nothing.

Forgive me, but I do not think propping up one of the world's worst dictators in exchange for promises that have already broken in the past is a good idea. Will anyone be surprised in five years when we realize that North Korea has continued a clandestine nuclear weapons program?

Fool me once, shame on you...

In addition, we will undoubtedly be drawn back to the negotiation table again and again so the Kim can see what else he can threaten out of us.

"And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

Washington Post reports on Iraq

2005-09-19T09:45:00.000-05:00

"US Claims Success in Iraq Despite Onslaught" is the headline for a Washington Post story this morning.

Strange headline considering we get a total of seven words quoted from the military spokesman in Iraq responsible for those claims. Specifically, the words "great successes" in paragraph four, and "Zarqawi is on the ropes" in paragraph seventeen. In both cases, the statements are heavily scrutinized.

For balance, we have one hundred and twelve words critical of U.S. progress from a Washington expert starting in paragraph thirteen.

In addition, we have seventy-one words quoted from Al Queda website statements and a telephone interview with an Al-Queda affiliated spokesman. These statements are not so heavily scrutinized.

Most of the public have not followed Iraq as closely since Katrina took over the headlines. To me, and like minded folks, the military operations and heavy fighting near the Syrian border seem to be progress. We are taking the fight to the enemy and they are standing their ground and dying. Likewise, the suicide bombings against the Shiite minority seem to be desperation. Fewer confrontations by the terrorists against American and Iraqi forces and more against unarmed civilian Iraqis seem to suggest that the ability of the terrorists to hit defended targets has been significantly degraded, and that the terrorists are resorting to the slaughter of civilians to grab headlines.

I would not begrudge the Washington Post from attempting to disabuse me of these notions. One could make a credible argument that I am very wrong, and that the violence in Iraq is intensifying despite our best efforts. I would strongly disagree, as I do not believe that a reduction in violence is the goal (in the short run at least), but rather making dead the enemies of America and the emerging Iraqi government. It is a debate worth having.

This Washington Post story, however, is not contributing to the debate. It is certainly not representing both sides. It is a full on assault against American efforts and an indictment not just of U.S. progress, but U.S. intentions. The Washington Post flatly states that the U.S. military has changed the standards of success by embracing the enemy body counts, "just as it did during the Vietnam War".

It does not occur to the Washington Post that rejecting enemy body count numbers in judging the political success in Iraq would give way when judging the tactical success in a particular battle. Instead, they assume that the U.S. military is engaging in hypocrisy and hints at nefarious intent with a not-so-subtle reference to the Vietnam War.

Read the story.

Louisiana DHS Officials Were Under Indictment

2005-09-19T09:27:00.000-05:00

for misappropriating FEMA funds when Katrina hit. Funds designed to preparethe state for a disaster. State officials can only account for 3% of the cash sent to them by the feds.

But Bush is taking it on the chin for Katrina.

I wonder what took so long for this information to come out. We had time to fact check Michael Brown's resume, didn't we have time to look into those federal indictments of state DHS officials before now?

Too late now. And the LA Times knows it.

HT: Captain's Quarters

No War for Gumbo!

2005-09-16T15:43:00.000-05:00

Once again, Cindy Sheehan has selflessly come forward, at great personal risk, and spoken Truth to Power! She has been to New Orleans, and she has seen the hand of Fascism! Hear the truth:

Cindy has always thought that if the military had to be used at home, "they would be there to help ...and protect them". Incredibly, she found that in order to protect the people, the soldiers thought they needed guns! Didn't you hear me? Soldiers With Guns! She "wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot [her]". I'm thinking if she talked to them like this, not much.

Cindy, using only her women's intuition, had decided that the "vast majority of people who were looting in New Orleans were doing so to feed their families or to get resources to get their families out of there". Like TVs and DVDs and all that other stuff we saw being looted on television. Apparently they were stolen to fashion rafts.

But the soldiers, now, they were the real looters. They had stolen sand bags from private property "to make machine gun nests". The Bastards.

Prepare for the real howlers:

"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans."

Pull out of occupied New Orleans. Yeah, if one thing really pissed off the stranded hungry masses of New Orleans, it was the arrival of the military with all their "law" and "order" and "food". You go, Cindy! Truth to Power.

"If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened."

W.O.W! Cindy Sheehan, committed Leftist, writing on Michael Moore's website, says that if only George W. Bush was more religious, read the Bible more, then GOD would have spared New Orleans.

I am speechless. Can we ignore her yet?

This about sums it up.

2005-09-16T10:54:00.000-05:00

See here, here, and here for backstory.

MSM interviews wrong black people.

2005-09-16T08:58:00.000-05:00

Damn that live television!

ABC was mighty disappointed last night with their selection of people to interview after Bush's speech. They went to some poor, black Katrina evacuees and cued them up to criticize Bush. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, apparently they had some crazy ideas about city responsibilities to evacuate the city, and about unused buses that were allowed to flood. They seem to have some sort of grasp on the concept of federalism(MSM: "Uh, what's that"?), in that they expected state and local government to respond before the feds show up. They liked Bush's speech, and had faith in his promises.

Incredible. Bet that reporter does some extra screening before going live next time. That's what you get for stereotyping.

NewsBusters has the video and the transcript.

Bush's speech.

2005-09-16T08:44:00.000-05:00

Best I can tell, Bush seems consigned to accepting a large portion of the responsibility for the response to Katrina. Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps Bush would be damaged more in the long run if he engaged in a war over "who was responsible".

I hope that Bush doesn't believe, however, that accepting responsibility will placate his critics. The MSM and Democrats will latch onto this speech and bash him over the head with it for the rest of his Presidency. Bush will now have to rely completely on surrogates to see that Blanco and Nagin are held accountable for their failings as well.

I'll certainly do my part.

I think most conservatives, however, will be most disappointed with the laundry list proposal of spending that Bush laid out for reconstruction efforts. Certainly there is a large role for the federal government in rebuilding New Orleans, but damn. This is the time for tax incentives and replacing infrastructure, and cutting the free market loose to rebuild New Orleans.

Let government help the people. Trust me. There are developers and speculators already eyeing opportunity in New Orleans. Let them handle the rebuilding.

Ex-FEMA head Brown blames local officials...

2005-09-15T08:19:00.000-05:00

and it is taken as evidence that it's all Bush's fault.

This AP story recounts Michael Brown's claims that he had judged state officials actions as incompetent in the early hours of the storm, and had reported such to his superiors in Washington.

Now, it would be completely appropriate for the press to approach Brown's statements with caution. He has a grudge, and thus an agenda. The AP apparently did try to confirm the story with Washington officials, who stated they remembered Brown calling but didn't think Brown was as worked up as he had suggested.

Good job so far. Now the obvious thing for the press to determine is whether there are facts that support Brown's assertion. Considering this blog, and the blogosphere in general, has carefully documented state and local government's failings from the beginning (including the stunning Blanco footage found here), that's a pretty simple job.

Instead, the AP jumps to the conclusion it wants with this stunning bit of speculation: " His account suggests the White House knew right away that the storm was leaving the coast in shambles."

Get it? Federal official criticizes state failings, and it is taken as evidence of federal failings. Doesn't make sense?

Then you don't understand the MSM. Excuse me while I hurl.

UPDATE: JYB discovers that the New York Times is pulling the same stunt this morning. The MSM isn't even trying to put on a nuetral face anymore. The gloves are off, and they have decided that this is the moment to hammer the Bush Presidency into the ground.

Damn the Facts. Full Spin Ahead!

Victory!

2005-09-14T20:29:00.000-05:00

At least it seems to be.

The Architect behind the Flight 93 Memorial is offering to alter the design to appease critics unhappy with its blatant theme of submission.

"There's no desire to make this a divisive memorial", he says. OK. Then don't. It is impossible to imagine that he didn't realize that this would turn heads and stir controversy. No reasonable person could conclude otherwise. Supporters of the design claim that it is the ignorance of the proposal's critics that have fueled this fire.

The truth is that the ignorant would never have even seen the similarity between the proposal and the Islamic crescent. The ignorant wouldn't even have been aware of the Islamic crescent.

No. Instead, the architect (Paul Murdoch) counted on the ignorance of conservatives and non-multiculturalists to slip this thing under the radar. Once again, conservatives were underestimated.

Back to the drawing board, Mr. Murdoch.

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin,who has spearheaded the fight against the "Crescent of Embrace".

Do you remember that time...

2005-09-14T16:53:00.000-05:00

that Governor Blanco got on TV and admitted that she hadn't asked for federal troops, but needed to?

Me neither.

But that's exactly what she did, folks. While preparing for a live shot, and with the cameras rolling, she sort of jokes to an off-screen aid that she guesses that she "really need[s] to ask for troops". Moments later, she is asked directly by the CNN interviewer when she asked for troops, and she dodges the question.

Here's Political Teen with the video. Warning: If you are of "Blame Bush" persuasion...It Hurts!

Bring on the clowns court jesters

2005-09-14T13:53:00.000-05:00

Talk about timing. Just as Democrats seem to be wrapping up their absurd street theater in opposing John Robert’s nomination to the Supreme Court, here comes Michael Newdow and a California federal court to remind America why having conservative justices is a good idea.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in a case brought by the same atheist who lost a similar U.S. Supreme Court case because a majority ruled he did not have standing to sue. This time, Mr. Newdow has found at least three like-minded couples with children, as of yet unnamed, to lodge a similar suit.

Could it be that this Michael Newdow is Karl Rove in disguise? I can think of no turn of events that better facilitates John Robert’s swift confirmation as Chief Justice and Bush nominating another conservative to the Supreme Court (quickly, please).

Any way to have the Ninth Circuit issue a crazy opinion upholding this travesty? In the meantime, all eyes (and MSM cameras) on Mr. Newdow, please.

Bombings across Iraq

2005-09-14T10:09:00.000-05:00

Explosions in Iraq have killed hundreds of Shiite civilians in an apparent retaliatory attack following the US/Iraqi offensive against the terrorists of Tel Afar.

With the MSM’s attention focused on Katrina and the Robert’s hearings, Al Qaeda in Iraq is intent on getting some attention. Cowards they are, they accomplish this goal by murdering defenseless civilians.

Perhaps if they weren't getting their collective asses kicked elsewhere, they could come up with a better strategy.

Word cannot describe the degree to which I loathe these people. If only we could accommodate their desires for martyrdom without them insisting on murdering their own people along the way…

Crescent of Embrace, Round 2

2005-09-14T09:49:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin has a great column up about the travesty now proposed to become the Flight 93 Memorial.

This thing is dead in the water. I don’t believe for a second that the American people will countenance this abomination. But....the American people will have to become aware of the problem before the outcry is heard.

Contact the Park Service and tell them how you feel about it.

Bush accepts responsibility for Katrina failures

2005-09-14T09:37:00.000-05:00

Bush makes a good political call in accepting responsibility for FEMA's failures during the Katrina crisis. It is good for two reasons:

1. FEMA is a bureaucratic mess. From professional firefighters being given sexual harassment classes before being allowed to go to New Orleans to pass out flyers, to the agency head not knowing about folks being trapped in the convention center when it had been reported on national news countless times for hours, FEMA clearly needs an overhaul from the ground up. That is impossible if you don't acknowledge the problem.

2. The move inoculates Bush against charges of denying his own responsibilities, thus allowing him to challenge state and local officials to do the same. When the smoke clears, it will be apparent that the real failures, the ones that cost lives, occurred at the state and local level.

Ghost Train

2005-09-12T09:49:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reveals that an empty train, with hundreds of empty seats, left New Orleans after the mandatory evacuation order was given and before the hurricane hit.

Amtrack offered to use it to evacuate residents.

The city declined.

Hat tip: JYB

Tough Questions...Terrible Answers

2005-09-12T09:11:00.000-05:00

Weeee. Chris Wallace hit Senator Mary Landrieu with the million dollar question on Fox New Sunday. What up 'bout them buses? The Senator's answer had something to do about how the Bush administration didn't support mass transit on sunny days. Or something like that.

Actually, I think her point was more along the lines of "Shut Up!". Anyway, her answer was powerful bad.

The Corner has the relevant portion of the transcript.

Meanwhile, Tim Russert got it straight from the horse's mouth:

RUSSERT: ...we've all see this photograph of these submerged school buses. Why did you not declare, order, a mandatory evacuation on Friday, when the president declared an emergency, and have utilized those buses to get people out?

MAYOR NAGIN: You know, Tim, that's one of the things that will be debated. There has never been a catastrophe in the history of New Orleans like this. There has never been any Category 5 storm of this magnitude that has hit New Orleans directly. We did the things that we thought were best based upon the information that we had. Sure, here was lots of buses out there. But guess what? You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane, you know, pending down on New Orleans. We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday, or Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome. We barely had enough drivers for that. So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available.

Oh, yeah. I think we are already debating those points, Mr. Nagin. And for the record, Russert asked you why you didn't do those things on Friday, when you still had drivers. And dry buses. And time. You could have at least moved the buses to higher ground. You know, in case you needed them. Later. Like if there was a big hurricane. Or something.

I was disappointed that the issue of the Red Cross being kept out of New Orleans didn't come up. Nagin seemed cued up to hammer the Governor on that point, but Russert didn't follow through. Hell, it would be nice if we had some reporting on that issue, period.

All I caught on the Today show this morning was the obligatory story on Bush's "sagging" poll numbers. "Can he 'weather the storm'?" Get it?

Man that show sucks.

The Discovery Channel Special on Flight 93...

2005-09-11T21:42:00.000-05:00

was incredible. No greater justice could have been done to the civilian heroes of September 11th. America does not have an honor to bestow upon civilians that is worthy of their deeds.

It is with great regret that I find myself opposing my own county's proposal for the Flight 93 memorial. I will not abide that abomination. It is an insult to Jeremy Glick. It is an insult to Todd Beamer. It is an insult to every heroic soul on that flight. It is also an insult to Islam. Those maniacs were not Muslims.

They were not human beings.

No controversy. No PC. Let's have an old fashioned granite memorial that honors the old fashioned courage that Flight 93 represents. They deserve it. America deserves it.

I will abide nothing else.

Let's get to work.

The Politics of a Disaster

2005-09-10T17:36:00.000-05:00

By now, everyone has started to hear the rumblings of the MSM: The death toll may not be nearly as high as predicted. I know everyone joins me in hoping that this disaster turns out to be much less costly than anticipated, at least in terms of human lives lost.

But this will leave an interesting void for the media to fill. If this is the case, where to place blame, and for what? Katrina's costs will be mainly reduced to:

1. Property damage in the billions.

While the costs will be huge, no amount of preparation or emergency response could possibly have mitigated those costs.

2. The loss of lives among those who chose to ignore the mandatory evacuation order and stay in their homes.

It is difficult to imagine how any level of government can be held directly responsible for these losses. Perhaps officials could have issued the order sooner, or been more forceful in their requests, but the bottom line remains that their were other options available for these unlucky souls (even if some of these options turned out to be little better than risking staying at home, which brings us to number 3...)

3. The misery and death in the Super Dome and convention center.

Considering that state and local officials ignored their own evacuation protocols and herded these people into those hell holes instead of providing the means to evacuate, and then intentionally denied them food, water and sanitation (because they didn't want to "encourage" people to stay there), it is difficult to lay blame for these horrors anywhere other than at Blanco and Nagin's feet.

Help me here. What could FEMA have done different? What would have made a difference? This is not a defense of Brown, who displayed his incompetence on TV for all to see. I just want a specific example of what the federal government could have done different that would have saved lives.

Even more interesting. In what direction will the MSM vent their wrath? They smell blood, but it is difficult to imagine them turning on "folk hero" Nagin or the weepy and seemingly empathetic Blanco.

What happens next?

Flight 93 Memorial...to the hijackers?

2005-09-09T11:19:00.000-05:00

As I anxiously await the Discovery Channel's special on Flight 93 Sunday, Michelle Malkin discovers the outrage that will become the Flight 93 Memorial.

Is this a joke?

This makes the "Hate America" 9-11 Memorial proposal look patriotic.

Incredible.

MSM covers for Blanco

2005-09-09T08:48:00.000-05:00

Watched as much of the morning news shows as I could this morning. Quite frankly, its difficult to pay attention amongst flying pop tarts and the tattling and arguing that accompanies having little people in your house. Best I can tell, no real focus on Blanco's DHS stopping the Red Cross from entering New Orleans.

That doesn't mean that the story isn't having an effect, though. It seems that the MSM has shifted the story more towards "why didn't the feds help the people stranded in their homes sooner". You know, those people they had been telling us didn't want to go anyway.

This is important. The MSM has an uncanny ability to shift gears and change their story, and act like nothing happened. If you think carefully, I bet you can remember a time when the media seemed to be disappointed that Katrina really didn't live up to expectations. New Orleans had dodged a bullet. Two days later, they had reframed the story so as to lead us to believe that everyone knew that Katrina had been bad from the beginning. Thus, there was no excuse for not acting sooner.

Now, I am predicting that they will do they same thing with the story of the people left behind in New Orleans. The plight of the folks in the convention center and Super Dome will take a back seat to the people left scattered about the city. Mention that the Red Cross was stopped from relieving the misery in the Super Dome, and someone will be there to falsly claim that the Super Dome was never the real problem or the focus of the media's complaints.

Thus, they defuse the story before they ever get around to really reporting it. Watch and see.

Related:

The Corner hints that Brown will quit today. Good riddance. Clearly not up for the job.

JunkYardBlog finds that Blanco DID order the Buses of New Orleans to evacuate the poor...after they were flooded and useless.

LA Governor to NO Residents: "Drop Dead!"

2005-09-08T16:04:00.001-05:00

We know that Mayor Nagin did nothing to provide the poor a way to comply with the mandatory evacuation order, instead allowing the city's buses to flood with everything else.

We now know that Governor Blanco actively prevented the Red Cross, which was positioned and ready with relief supplies, from entering the city to come to the people's aid. It seems that the Governor wanted to encourage people to leave the city. It seems that she reasoned that allowing the people to go without food and water for days would provide said encouragement.

1. Order mandatory evacuation
2. Deny the poor means to leave the city
3. Open the Super Dome and convention center as "refuges of last resort"
4. Deny the poor, who are now sheltered by the city, food and water in hopes that they will leave
5. Blame the federal government for the resulting suffering of the people.

That sum it up?

Radio Blogger has an interview with Major Garrett, the Fox News reporter that got the Red Cross scoop.

The Red Cross confirms the story on their website in the form of a FAQ.

JYB calls for Blanco's impeachment (many times over).

The Buses of New Orleans finally get some attention

2005-09-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

JunkYardBlog has the complete roundup. Looks like the MSM will finally start to notice this huge story. (JunkYardBlog has done some incredible reporting).

We have pictures upon pictures of hundreds of buses in downtown New Orleans, some within a mile of the hellish Super Dome. Most could have been moved yards to higher ground, if nothing else. They would be useful assets in relocating storm victims after the fact, as well as transporting supplies into the city.

Instead, they were left in low lying areas to rot in the sewage of the victims they could have saved.

Why weren't the disaster plans using the buses implemented, Mr. Mayor? Governor?

Someone needs to confront state and local officials with pictures like this:

Perhaps the reason that the federal response seemed so slow was that vast amounts of resources had been squandered by local officials before the hurricane even arrived. Resources that then had to be needlessly replaced by the feds. If state and local officials didn't believe that they would be needed, or that the hurricane wouldn't destroy them, why blame the federal government for making the same mistake?

I want someone to explain to me why this isn't a disgrace. I want someone to explain to me why the Governor, Mayor and those in their employ shouldn't be held directly accountable for these failings.

iPods for Peace?

2005-09-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan's group Veterans for Peace is heading to Louisiana to help. That is a noble gesture, even though it rings a bit as grandstanding for that sixteenth minute of fame.

Notice that their site requests donations:

Right now we can use your dollars, trained volunteers & specific donations
(This list will change!):

Volunteers
Baby Food Formula, diapers #4,#5, wipes, Pedialyte.
Adult Depends
Steril Gloves
Electrolites
Food bank & delivery volunteers with trucks, vans or cars
Self contained kitchens with generators, utensils, workers
Office & media equipment

Then they go on to explain what they really need to be "truly effective":

Apple iMac G5 Computers 20" Monitor
500 Gigabyte Firewire Hard Drives
Canon XL2Digital Video Camera
Digital Projector (3000 lumens)
Apple iPods with recording
Monthly Satellite Access and Website
Hosting Fee

(emphasis mine)

Uh, how can an iPod possibly be more important to the people of Louisiana than baby formula? How is an iPod going to help aid workers "keep in touch"? If they want to record audio messages, there has got to be a cheaper way.

(HT: The Corner)