Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Once again, the Liberal media is trying to ramp up hysteria over the "outing" of Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The problem with their frenzy is that there's no substance to the charge, once all the angry flailing and faux outrage are done with.
Liberals are sacrificing what little credibility they have left with the American people in their desperate attempt to destroy the Bush administration at all costs. To that end, they have continually accused President Bush's advisor Karl Rove of giving Plame's name to the media in order to punish Wilson, after Wilson investigated reports of Saddam's attempt to buy Nigerian uranium and lied about his findings.
Wilson filed a disappointingly neutral report upon his return, but published an editorial stating unequivocally that the British-backed claim was absolutely untrue -- and that President Bush was using it anyway, to create a reason to attack Saddam. However, in his 2004 book, Wilson revealed that "It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as 'Baghdad Bob,' who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium." So the uranium buy attempt actually did happen, and Wilson knew about it, but lied about it to try and prevent the liberation of Iraq for political purposes.
In the Liberal version of events, Karl Rove -- a consummately clever political operator by all accounts, except in this story -- revealed Plame's role as a covert agent for the CIA out of sheer vindictiveness. I don't know how that makes any sense, or what end it was supposed to achieve, but somehow it seems perfectly reasonable to Liberals that he would do this. Rove did, in fact, mention that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA to Time reporter Matt Cooper, but never indicated that she had once been a spy. Cooper was not the writer who published her identity -- that was columnist Robert Novak. The problem is that in order to prove Rove did anything illegal, an illegal act has to have taken place.
Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that's what Rove or anyone else did, he ought to be hung out for the crows. (I wonder whether Liberals will wail about such a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as they do when terrorists get too much or too little air conditioning?) In order for Rove (or whoever the source was) to have broken the law, he would have to know and reveal that Plame was a covert operative for the CIA. The problem is... she wasn't one anymore.
Apparently, Valerie Plame ceased to be a covert agent when her cover was blown years earlier. The CIA believed that Aldrich Ames (CIA agent/KGB spy/traitor) revealed her role, along with many other operatives, to the KGB before his arrest in 1994. Plame's former existence as a secret agent became little more than cocktail party chatter with which to thrill the uninitiated. Since her identity was not classified, not secret, and she had not been assigned to duty outside the US in the last five years, revealing her mundane desk job with the CIA was simply not a crime. Lots of people work for the CIA, after all.
What no one talks about is the reason Wilson was picked to go to Niger... the question that originally nagged Novak. In fact, whoever did uncover Plame's involvement in her husband's selection did the country a favor. Plame wanted Wilson to investigate the British claim because of his vocal antipathy to President Bush and his staunch opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was sent not to gather evidence and form a conclusion, but because his conclusion was foreordained. Whoever sent him was attempting to exert an undue influence over America's foreign policy by sending someone who would ignore evidence contrary to his opinion. Do we really want former secret agents playing political games to determine the outcomes of investigations before they're even begun? Investigations the outcomes of which may determine the nation's course in wartime?
Once again, Liberals and their pet Democrats have chosen the wrong hill to die on. While ignoring the real problem we narrowly avoided, they try to whip us into an attack on someone who, even if their accusations are true, commited no crime.
Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium
Posted at Tuesday, July 12, 2005 by CavalierX
Saturday, July 09, 2005
The following email arrived in response to my 7 July 2005 blog entry, London and the Long War, which was reprinted in American Daily. After responding to it, I thought I should post his letter here, along with my reply.
Have just read your article and would like to thank you for your support and kind words. I cannot also begin to tell you how much George Galloway is hated here in the UK (by anybody with a sense of decency), but sadly people like him are all too prevalent in this land. That this creature Galloway could not even wait a decent time (if there is such a thing) to try to make political capital out of the blood of innocent victims and families makes it even more despicable. He did it on the day, when people are dead or dying, when families don`t still know whether their loved ones are coming home that evening!!! How low can he go??
Sadly I also blame our government for a weak, ineffective immigration policy that has allowed the country to become awash with so-called "asylum seekers" and free-loaders. And a human rights policy that means "we" do nothing but give succour to suspected terrorists and murderers. If you speak out here about this, you are a racist. Well, look at what happens when you have such policies Mr Blair. It`s why when I see him bleating on TV, I want to shout at him and tell him and his bleeding-heart government to wake up to the real world.
I am a Londoner, born and bred, work there and so shared in all the grief, anger and courage that was displayed in our city on Thursday. One of my work colleagues was on one of the tube trains that was bombed. He took shrapnel wounds, but is, thankfully, alive. But he has only just started his working life. Poor kid. But trust me we will not be cowed from going about our business as usual, and will never let these bastards win. Because the moment that I or any of my countrymen refuse to leave our homes to travel to our daily business, then this scum HAVE won.
Thank you for your support, and for the support of your countrymen and women. It is truly comforting to know who our true friends are. But we have always known that.
My reply to his email:
Thanks for writing; I know it's a difficult time for all of you. Oddly enough, the terrorists followed the Nazi playbook exactly, and seem to have achieved the same result. Bombing Guernica resulted in Spanish capitulation (to Franco), but bombing London, hoping for a similar loss of nerve, resulted in resolute opposition. The barbaric scum of the Earth never learn... lucky for us.
I see what's happening in Great Britain as a close analogue of what happened here in America after 9/11 -- most will band together while some use the tragedy for personal or political gain. What George Galloway said was utterly disgusting, and his timing inhumanly cruel. We have more than our share of that sort here, and all their poison came out during the recent election season, even to using the number of our dead soldiers to demand we run away and hide. Galloway isn't too far from our John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and so on ad nauseum.
After nearly four years, some people seem to have forgotten what happened, but most Americans have the right attitude about this war: a steely determination to see it through. President Bush truly speaks for us in this regard. For some of us, it's easy to remember -- every time I go to NYC, I see that broken skyline and get angry as hell all over again. Debra Burlingame, sister to one of the 9/11 pilots, said it best. She said she was once asked whether she missed the easy solidarity of the days following 9/11. "No," she said, "I miss the anger." There's nothing wrong with being angry over these horrible atrocities the terrorists are visiting upon the innocent, and don't let any crystal-wearing, tree-hugging, dope-smoking New Age "citizen of the world" wanna-be hippie tell you differently.
President Bush's open border policies concern us greatly, as Mr. Blair's concern you. In addition to the illegal immigrants that are a drain on our economy, we know that terrorists are coming in from Mexico. They're all just walking through holes in the fence, but neither Republicans nor Democrats are inclined to do anything about it. But at least Bush and Blair are aggressively pursuing the leaders of these murderous scum in their hidey-holes, and pushing a policy of democritisation and freedom in the Middle East to take care of the frustration and hopelessness that give rise to terrorism. It's our best shot, I think, in the long term.
They can't win, as long as we refuse to let them. It's going to be hard and tough, and they will murder as many innocents as they can in an effort to frighten and dishearten us. But in the end, they will lose.
Posted at Saturday, July 09, 2005 by CavalierX
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Once again, the barbarians who are our enemies in the War on Terror have struck a blow against the innocent. This time, they have exploded multiple bombs in London, in three Tube (subway) stations as well as a passenger bus. Dozens of innocent people are dead and as many as a thousand may be wounded. How many more innocents must suffer at the hands of these inhuman creatures in the shape of men before the hard-core anti-war Liberals among us stop giving them cover and support?
Almost immediately, seemingly before the echoes of the blasts even stopped, the recriminations began -- not against the sadistic monsters who target innocent men, women and children for death, but against those world leaders who are trying to stop them, especially President Bush and PM Tony Blair. Leftists like the despicable George Galloway, who was expelled from Britain's Labour party for his comments about the Iraq war, were at their terrorist-defending best. Galloway, who apparently received millions of dollars in oil vouchers from Saddam for his opposition to Saddam's overthrow, stated that "Londoners have now paid the price" for Britain backing America in the War on Terror. Well, London has paid the price for standing up to evil before.
Galloway suggested that retreating from Iraq immediately might appease the terrorists, echoing a persistent defeatist theme coming from the Left. Somehow, the Liberals have deluded themselves into thinking that there was no such thing as terrorism before President Bush and the other Coalition leaders removed one of the biggest terror supporters in the Middle East from power. They have themselves convinced that if America runs away from them, the terrorists will simply leave us alone. But they can't convince those of us who remember 9/11 so easily, no matter how hard they try to pretend that it didn't happen, or didn't matter.
Since 9/11, the US and our allies have finally responded to the menace of al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Al-Qaeda's main base in Afghanistan was destroyed, and the Taliban as well as Saddam Hussein's regime have been replaced with growing democracies. Democracy and freedom are the only cures for terrorism, and the terrorists know it. The fight in Iraq, according to a Congressional study, is the "central battle" for al-Qaeda. That's why they're pouring so much of their resources and manpower into Iraq, trying to prevent the fledgling democracy from taking root there. Meanwhile, the "useful idiots" (Stalin's term for his unwitting Western supporters) on the Left have spent the last three years fighting al-Qaeda's public relations war for them, thinking only of their own political gain.
Our enemies haven't been killing only Iraqis and Americans; al-Qaeda is responsible for the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002, the Istanbul mosque and Casablanca bombings of 2003 and the Madrid train bombing of 2004. The so-called "Chechen separatists" responsible for the Russian plane crashes and school massacre of 2004 were, outside of the "mainstream" media's euphemism fetish, Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. It seems that not even trying to stop the invasion of Iraq was protection against terrorist attacks, so the Liberal insistence that abandoning Iraq will stop terrorism is ludicrous. Al-Qaeda's goal is to bring the entire world under the sway of their radical brand of Islam, and refusing to fight them won't stop them from fighting you.
It has always been a matter of civilisation versus the barbarians who care nothing for the lives of innocents, who fight to destroy, not expand, civilisation. Our various ancestors fought pirates, Mongols, Huns, and Vikings. The reference to "the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn refers to the war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa two centuries ago. The Spanish fought the tide of Muslim invasion for centuries, a millennium ago. The Romans fought the Visigoths and Ostrogoths before Rome fell. Even the Sumerians repeatedly fought off those who tried to destroy their civilisation. The fight against Islamofascism is merely the current incarnation of the long war. Now we fight terrorists around the world, and the latest battleground is London.
The British have never been a people liable to meekly surrender to threats. They didn't bow humbly to the Vikings, the French, the Spanish, the Germans or even Irish terrorists, and they don't appear to be faltering now. The British people face the choice whether to band together with us -- as Tony Blair has done -- to hunt and fight the enemy wherever they hide, or fight each other and let the enemy win. According to all reports, the British are coming together exactly as we Americans did after 9/11, and we must stand by them as they did us. We can only win this war together.
Posted at Thursday, July 07, 2005 by CavalierX
Monday, July 04, 2005
Remember to send a positive message of support to those who make our freedom possible.
"Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause. Honor also to the citizen who cares for his brother in the field, and serves, as he best can, the same cause -- honor to him, only less than to him who braves, for the common good, the storms of heaven and the storms of battle."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1863
Hat tip to ALa of Blonde Sagacity
Posted at Monday, July 04, 2005 by CavalierX
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Well, the much-ballyhooed Live 8 concert has come and gone, and suddenly there's no more poverty in Africa, right? What was the point of all that, anyway? Turns out it was the same Liberal answer to everything: let's throw someone else's money at the problem! And it'll do just as much good as the original Live Aid concert in 1985: namely, none.
The purpose of holding the simultaneous concerts around the world, besides giving a shot in the arm to the careers of several dozen aging pop stars, was to "raise awareness" of poverty in Africa. And what are we to do with all this newfound awareness? Did the concerts actually raise any money? No. Did all that concentrated brainpower come up with a solution to world hunger (besides "dude, if the people are hungry, they should order a pizza")? No. Did they at least tell those who might want to make a donation to some worthy charity where to send the money? No. So what was the point?
In fact, the concert cost uncounted millions of dollars, between posh hotel rooms for the pampered performers and their entourages to limousines for ferrying them around to the $12,000 "goodie bags" each singer received. Why couldn't that money have been used to benefit the poor? The real point of this event was convincing you to tell the government that they need to take more of your weekly paycheck and send it to the corrupt leaders of African nations. This will make you feel good, apparently more so than if you simply contributed money on your own to private organisations that might actually help the people there. But taking money from its own people at gunpoint to give to people in other countries should not be the business of a democratic goverment. As President Bush said, when asked about American aid, "Aid is more than gifts from governments. It is also individual contributions. We contribute billions of dollars each year."
Yes, there are a lot of poor people in Africa, and they do need help -- real help, not temporary measures. The poor in Africa are really poor, unlike many of our house-owning, car-owning, air conditioner owning, cable tv-owning "poor" in this country. Those people in Africa really have evil dictators crushing their economy, destroying their rights and killing them, unlike the reedy Liberal exaggerations about such things we get to hear in America. That's why the poor in Africa require a real solution, not some feel-good concert in which a bunch of pampered poseurs posture on a stage without doing a single thing to actually alleviate the problem.
Pictures of starving Ethiopians were flashed on giant screens during the concert to encourage guilt, which these performers were using to convince people to urge their governments to send money instead of sending it themselves. What good will that do for the actual hungry people? Maybe some government agencies will send food. Everyone gets to feel good about that, for a short while. If they actually get hold of it (remember the warehouses full of rotting food and expired medicine in Iraq?), the people will eat the food and be hungry again the next day. Hey, maybe we can have another concert!
Maybe the governments of industrial nations will give money to the corrupt governments of those African nations. "Here, this is for your poor." "Gee, thanks! They could use some more rifles and bombs, I think." Maybe the leaders of the industrial nations attending the G-8 conference will forgive the debts racked up like high scores on a pinball machine by the corrupt politicians and petty warlords that run those poor nations. That will enable them to begin borrowing to pay for their Mercedes limos, weapons stockpiles and palaces all over again. Throwing money at the problem will never help, never!
As long as those nations have no infrastructure, no economic development and no free markets, there will be no jobs at which the poor can earn money to feed themselves. ("What?" I can hear the Liberals saying. "Asking people to work for a living? How mean!") Organisations like USAID (US Agency for International Development) try to improve conditions in Africa, but their efforts are hampered by the local governments. As long as those nations are controlled by totalitarian dictators and self-serving corrupt politicians, there can be no meaningful improvement in the lives of their people. The answer is not to simply send money and food -- that's a narcissistic feel-good band-aid kind of answer. The only realistic answer is to push for economic freedom and democratic change in those countries, and help the people build a real, sustainable economy. "Give a man a fish," the old saying goes, "and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life."
Try telling that to some of these self-indulgent, egotistical singers that appeared at Live 8, though, or most of the fans in the audience, and their eyes just glaze over. "But we're sending good wishes, and asking for the government to send money; that's what's really going to help," most would say. Roughly translated, that means, "we think the government should decide where to spend our money -- yours, too." It makes a thinking man want to scream in frustration. If the people who performed at the concerts simply donated, say, 10% of their personal income -- which they get from us in the first place -- to fund some serious economic development projects, there would be no need for them to demand that the government take more of our money to send. That, however, wouldn't give them a chance to strut in the spotlight.
The only poor beneficiaries of the concerts were the waste disposal crews, who (I have heard) received double overtime pay to clean up the unbelievable mess in Philadelphia. At least Live 8 wasn't a total waste.
UPDATE: In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Kenyan economist James Shikwati explains how aid pouring into Africa from industrialised nations keeps the Africans in poverty, begging, "For God's sake, please just stop!" Food aid puts farmers out of business. Clothing puts tailors and textile workers out of business. Malaria is a worse problem than AIDS, but "There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical." Shikwati confirms everything we've been saying all along. "No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products."
Hat tip to Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page for the Spiegel interview.
Posted at Sunday, July 03, 2005 by CavalierX
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Your Home is the Government's Castle
Own a nice home in a good area? Don't bother to settle in, if a corporation or developer might want to build on your land. The Supreme Court declared that it's perfectly alright for your local government to take your property away and give it to someone they feel can generate more tax dollars or jobs from the site, in a stunning blow to individual rights last week. Better start schmoozing with your local politicians, if you want to keep your home. They have the power to take it away from you at any time.
The concept of "eminent domain" has been with us from the start, limited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The guaranteed right to own a piece of land was the prime reason many immigrants came to America in the first place, fleeing countries where all land was seen as belonging to the government. In America, the government could only take your land for public use... until now.
What is "public use?" Obviously, something owned and used by the public, like parks, roads, sidewalks and bridges. Public buildings, perhaps, like libraries, schools or courtrooms. "Public use" meant exactly that. Over the years, however, it's become more common to use eminent domain to take some property for less obviously-public usage, transferring it to private owners. Government officials have transferred abandoned or disused private property, mostly in inner cities, to developers with plans to rebuild and revitalise the area... developers who, no doubt, contributed to the election campaigns of those same local officials in many cases. Corrupt local officials have even gotten occupied and useful property condemned so it could be bought cheaply, on occasion. In most cases, tax revenues from those formerly "blighted" properties have increased -- how many tax dollars does an abandoned warehouse generate, anyway? -- and new jobs often created as well. So the purpose of eminent domain has slowly expanded from public USE to public BENEFIT, although that's not what the Constitution says. But no one cared about that -- corporations were making money, government was making money, and people were finding jobs.
All was right with the world... until some began to wonder why only blighted inner-city areas could be turned over to corporations for improvement. Why not more... desirable property? If increasing the tax revenue from a piece of land is a good thing, then why limit it to abandoned or disused land in areas no one wanted? So the city of New London, CT decided to turn over some 90 acres of prime waterfront property to private developers, who plan to build office complexes, upscale housing, and a marina on the site.
Unfortunately, 15 homes on part of that property belonged to people who didn't want to sell, for one reason or another. They disputed the use of eminent domain to force them to sell to a private corporation. So the homeowners took the case to court, represented at the Federal level by the Institute for Justice (a Libertarian civil liberties group). First the Connecticut Supreme Court, then the US Supreme court ruled that the mere possibility of generating higher tax revenues or jobs qualifies as "public use" under eminent domain, allowing local governments to forcibly transfer property from one private owner to another. The old saying, "a man's home is his castle" no longer applies in America. As in the countries our forefathers came here to escape, the government can dispose of "your" property as it sees fit.
The interesting twist on this case is how the US Supreme Court justices voted. The Liberals on the court -- John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, along with "wild card" Anthony Kennedy -- all voted in favor of government seizure of private property for transfer to another private owner. The Conservatives -- William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, joined by perennial swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor this time -- voted against the action. In her dissent, Justice O'Connor wrote, "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She also wrote, "As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result." Doesn't this decision show the Liberals squarely on the side of Big Government and greedy corporations against the "little people" trying to protect their homes? The mask slips from time to time.
All is not lost, however. Justice David Souter owns a home in the town of Weare, New Hampshire, as it happens. A company called Freestar Media, LLC has filed a bid with the local Board of Selectmen to seize that particular property and turn it into a revenue- and job-generating hotel. In a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer or Weare, Logan Darrow Clements affirms: "The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare." If three of the five selectmen agree, the Lost Liberty Hotel (featuring the Just Desserts Cafe and a permanent museum to the loss of freedom in America) will be built on the site of Souter's home. And I'll be packing my bags to visit the town of Weare. I hope the hotel has an indoor pool. And, of course, internet access.
To whom can Souter appeal to prevent the loss of his own home to the eminent domain decision he himself made? Perhaps the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act quickly introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) will help him retain his property. And if not... exactly where do the other Justices who voted with him live, again?
Posted at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 by CavalierX
Friday, June 24, 2005
Nothing Says 'Loser' Like A Burning Flag
The US House of Representatives has passed a proposed Constitutional amendment that will prohibit one of the favorite activities of the hate-America crowd: trashing the American flag. The proposed amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." If the measure passes the Senate by a two-thirds vote, then 38 states (3/4) must ratify it within seven years.
Until 1989, 48 states already had laws prohibiting the desecration of our national symbol. There was also a Federal law to the same effect passed in 1968. All of that was thrown out by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision saying that burning the flag is a kind of "free speech," thus protected by the First Amendment. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is to amend the Constitution itself, and that may finally happen after several attempts. But is it really necessary?
Desecrating the most widely-recognised symbol of America, in my opinion, is not any kind of speech at all. The Supreme Court was wrong. It's the opposite: the end of speech, the end of debate, the end of principled opposition. Those who do so make it clear that there can be no compromise or argument with them. Once you think that burning or besmirching an American flag will make your point, your argument is already lost. If you can't express your point of view in words, it probably isn't worth consideration anyway. Anyone who burns an American flag is, in effect, symbolically setting fire to America. They're willing to seek our destruction in order to get their way. Trashing the American flag, the one symbol all Americans can claim as their own, is not merely unpatriotic... it's anti-patriotic.
Let them burn the American flag if they want to... just allow real Americans to defend it appropriately. They can make no clearer statement to the effect that they hate America and everything it stands for than that. Our flag, and our country, have been through a lot worse than having some hemp-smoking hippies declare their everlasting hatred of us. We should make it clear to them, in turn, that disrespecting the American flag will automatically lose the support of all true Americans for whatever their lost cause is. Causing harm to the flag only hurts them, not America.
There's no reason to change the Constitution to protect the flag. What we really need is a federal law giving Americans the right to rescue a flag from desecration by any means necessary, short of causing death or permanent injury. I wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of America-bashers interrupted in their flag burning by a gushing firehose or a string of firecrackers going off, would you?
Posted at Friday, June 24, 2005 by CavalierX
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
I'm Not Buying the Hillary Attack Book
So Ed Klein comes out with a torrid Hillary-bashing book, chock full of personal anecdotes, juicy gossip and accusations, pretty much guaranteed to destroy Hillary Clinton's carefully-crafted political persona. Don't expect to see me dancing in the streets waving a copy, though. I'm not buying it -- literally or figuratively. Something about it just smells fishy.
Many of the accusations in The Truth About Hillary seem too deeply personal to be called anything but personal destruction: she's a lesbian, Chelsea was conceived by rape, and so on. It's distasteful tabloid fodder at best, even if it all turns out to be true. As much as I don't want Hillary Clinton holding any sort of office whatsoever, I don't believe ripping her personal life apart in public is the way to defeat her. I'll continue to base my opposition on her Marxist background and destructive political agenda, thanks.
If nothing else, we've seen how personal attacks often backfire on the attackers, as happened when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for Governor of California. When opponents exposed him as having groped women on movie sets, the backlash actually increased his support. The constant negative attacks on President Bush probably didn't help John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign as much as the George Soros/MoveOn.org "BushisHitlerandhelookslikeachimp!" crowd hoped, if at all. But exposing someone as a victim of rape? That's incredibly low, in my opinion, even if -- especially if -- the story's true. And what has Chelsea done to merit that sort of cruel attention? If we believed that using Dick Cheney's daughter to attack him was wrong, then we have to believe the same applies to Chelsea Clinton.
So who would stoop that low? According to the Drudge Report, Hillary's people already have that figured out. "This is the right wing attack machine on crack!" a "top Hillary source" reportedly said. Hillary Clinton was, after all, the person who invented the myth of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to explain why her husband was being accused of philandering with an intern in the White House... which turned out to be true. But is Ed Klein a likely member of the VRWC?
Edward Klein was editor-in-chief of New York Times Magazine for eleven years, and has also been the foreign editor of Newsweek. Neither publication is known as a vehicle for Clinton-bashing or Democrat-baiting... quite the opposite. While some might think this impressive resume lends credibility to his hit book, it raises some important questions. Where was all this information during the eleven years he helmed NYT Magazine, and why did he suddenly decide to put it all together now? How come no other person has ever even hinted at these accusations -- not even political advisor Dick Morris, who knew the Clintons about as well as anyone ever did, and even accused Clinton of physically attacking him?
I'm inclined to believe that this book is a carefully-crafted plant, designed to inoculate Hillary against real negative campaigning. It's coming out far enough ahead of her 2006 Senate re-election campaign for most of the buzz to fade by the time the run begins. Mark my words: within the next year, some major accusation in the book will suddenly become a big media sensation, and then be proven false, discrediting the entire book. Perhaps Klein himself will "out" his own source for the accusation as a fraud, or claim he was misled by a right-wing enemy of Hillary (but refuse to name names). Not only will any Clinton opponents who used information from the book against her be discredited along with it, but any further negative information about Hillary Clinton during her 2008 Presidential campaign will be greeted with, "yeah, it's just like that Klein book."
If you do buy the book, I suggest you check the sourcing for yourself before repeating any of Klein's claims. Maybe someone should list them, and take bets on which accusation will be the one "revealed" as a lie.
Posted at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 by CavalierX
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Dick Durbin's Despicable Dictum
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."
Did an Air America radio commentator say that, using airtime bought by George Soros? Was it an al-Jazeera "journalist" railing against the Great Satan? A Democratic Underground poster, perhaps? Was it the laughable figure of a sign-waving war protester standing on a street corner somewhere? No... sad to say, that was a United States Senator comparing American soldiers to Hitler's Gestapo, Stalin's KGB, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. That was Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, assaulting the US military on behalf of the terrorists held at Gitmo, saying that our troops have no concern for human beings. Durbin may come from the Land of Lincoln, but he lives in the Land of Quisling.
Dick Durbin is the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, the Democratic Senate Whip, put in that position by his fellow Democratic leaders. Now when we say that Democrats are working to undermine America's military and are taking the enemy's side in the War on Terror, no one can say, "oh, that's just a few fringe wackos." No, that's the official leadership of the Democratic party attacking our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime! How many times will Durbin's words be replayed by our enemies to ramp up anti-American feelings, recruit more terrorists and give heart to those already fighting us? How must American troops feel, knowing that the Democrats consider them comparable to the worst examples of inhumanity and brutality to exist in the last hundred years? Is that how Democrats "support our troops?" What Durbin said was unconscionable, indefensible, and about as un-American and unpatriotic (yes, I will say it) as anything I've ever heard. Even an abject apology couldn't begin to repair the damage he has caused. And yet... not a single one of his fellow Democrats has repudiated his words.
So what unimaginable horrors had been visited on the poor, hapless prisoners to upset Dick Durbin so? Were they tortured to death, maimed, starved and broken? Were they slaughtered by the millions, as Durbin would apparently have us think? Well, the reality is "just as bad," I suppose. According to the email he received, which Durbin has not released to the public, some prisoners had their air conditioning turned up too high, and others had it turned too low. I wonder whether Nazi death camps even had air conditioning; I know they had heat, in the form of ovens. Some prisoners wore chains and were kept in uncomfortable positions. Imagine that. Some were scared by nearby dogs. Not eaten alive by dogs, mind you: scared. Some were made to stand for hours, had women invading their personal space, and had loud music blared in their ears. I've been to clubs like that. Oh, the inhumanity.
Some prisoners had to listen to rap music and Christina Aguilera songs. Alright, maybe that part could be classified as "brutality." However, these are the same prisoners who are given Qur'ans (by the US government; isn't that a violation of the "separation of Church and State?") and far better food than they've ever had, like honey-glazed chicken and lemon-baked fish. These are the same prisoners whose religious rights are so well respected that guards are not allowed to walk near their cells during prayer times, lest the squeak of their shoes disturb the prisoners while they're praying for our deaths.
Compare that to conditions in actual Nazi POW camps where Americans were held during WWII. In the camp known as Stalag IX, for instance: "Over 4,700 American POWs were far more than the camp could handle. The food was terrible and rationed in insufficient quantities. Many of the captives were too weak to greet their liberators. Many corpses remained exposed and unburied. For each 160-person barrack, [there was] only one cold water tap, and one hole in the ground for a toilet. The barracks were so overcrowded that the prisoners had to take turns sleeping, in bunks and on the floor in lice-infested straw." Sure, I can see where Durbin and the rest of the Liberal Democrats who've never been there could mistake that for Gitmo. Let's not even get into the millions who died of malnutrition, brutality and overwork in Soviet gulags. Let's not mention the millions who were brutally slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in their takeover of Cambodia and deliberate regression of that country to the Stone Age. If Durbin and his ilk want to see a closer analogue to their killing fields and gulags, all they have to do is take a peek over Gitmo's wall into Castro's Cuba.
Liberals complain that we haven't proven the Gitmo detainees are terrorists, so we should let them go free. Some Liberals even believe the detainees have rights under the Constitution to be given lawyers and a speedy trial in a US court of law. The fact is that the US Constitution does not apply to foreigners, especially enemies, just as the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. This is a war, not an episode of Scooby Doo. At no point will Osama bin Laden say, "I would have won, if it wasn't for those pesky Bush and Cheney kids" before being marched off to jail. We don't have to give the enemy a speedy trial if that would conflict with national security. Anyone who lifts a hand against an American soldier is the enemy by his own choice. I know that's a hard concept for Liberals to understand, but it's a hard world, and a hard war. One that we could easily lose, if we allow Liberals to dictate our conduct.
In order to claim protection under the Geneva Conventions, participants must fight wearing a recognisable uniform or badge, fight under officers who can be held responsible for them, carry their weapons openly, and -- perhaps most important -- fight according to the rules of war laid out in the Geneva Conventions themselves. The Geneva Conventions are not meant to be a handicap to decent people -- they're meant to be a deterrent to keep rogue nations from breaking those rules. If one side of a conflict decides not to fight according to Geneva Conventions, then they forfeit their protection as well. The two are locked together -- that's the rules. Yet Liberals continue to claim that we -- not the terrorists who deliberately murder innocents -- are uninterested in laws and human rights.
We're all for human rights, more than any other country has ever been in the entire history of mankind. But we're fighting an enemy who isn't. We're fighting an enemy that has gladly used their own children as suicide bombers, and deliberately targets children. We're fighting an enemy that will settle for nothing less than total global domination by their twisted version of Islam. We're fighting an enemy that cannot be bought off or reasoned with. Note to Liberals: if you want to play patty-cake with those inhuman barbaric bastards, gamble with your own life. Don't do it with mine, or those of my friends and family.
Every weakness we show is one that will be ruthlessly exploited to destroy us. Every consideration we show the enemy is one that will be turned against us and used to murder more innocent Americans. Osama bin Laden admitted that his plan to destroy the US really began when he saw us run away after a mere 18 casualties at Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993. "Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger," he said in a 1998 ABC interview. "After a few blows, [America]... rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers."
Liberals are against keeping probable enemies locked up "indefinitely" without a trial. The most humane and safe thing we can do to anyone who is a likely enemy is to lock him up, and sort them all out after we have utterly broken the back of al-Qaeda and the other international terror groups. We cannot try them now, because every piece of information that gets out -- and believe me, it WILL get out -- is like a gun aimed at an American's head. If you're a Liberal, maybe that doesn't bother you as much as the thought that the UN -- mostly comprised of dictators itself -- might disapprove. Maybe you can make a moral equivalence between keeping probable terrorists locked up and endangering innocent lives. Maybe you're all nuanced and multicultural and morally self-righteous and so on. But I'm not. If there's even a chance of an innocent American being put in harm's way by granting these people any sort of legal rights, then forget it. I'm against it. Keep them locked up, out of harm's way.
Some people claim that the detainees at Gitmo should be set free because, after several years, they can't give up any more useful intelligence. Those people forget that al-Qaeda's "trademark" is planning operations up to six years in advance. If we let them out, or give any hint of what they've talked about, or even discuss who they are, all the future plans they have given up to us could be rendered useless. Liberals don't seem to understand the cell organisation of groups like al-Qaeda. Since there is little contact between cells, others might not know that a cell's been disrupted and its members arrested... until they do make contact, and give themselves away. Slowly but surely, by keeping those who have been arrested incommunicado, al-Qaeda is being taken apart.
People like Dick Durbin and NY Congressman Charlie Rangel, who said of the Iraq war, "This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed," only advance the cause of our enemies. They don't do America any good, and they don't do America any justice. They trivialise the true horrors that Americans have paid in blood to face and defeat in the past; they slap every member of the US military, past and present, in the face with such comparisons. They hand the enemy propaganda material in a vain attempt to repeat the public relations victory Liberals enjoyed over America in the Vietnam War.
A generous interpretation of the words of these Democrats would be that they care more about regaining power than anything else. A more cynical evaluation would be that they actively want the US to lose this war, in order to accomplish that aim. Which is it? And how long will we voters continue to let them get away with it?
Posted at Saturday, June 18, 2005 by CavalierX
Monday, June 13, 2005
Hijacking the 9/11 Memorial
Future visitors to the 9/11 memorial that's planned for the rebuilt World Trade Center site won't learn what we learned that day. They won't learn about terrorists murdering defenseless civilians in the name of their vicious version of Islam. They won't learn about the horror, the grief or the pain we all felt, or how we came together as a united nation... at least, until we began to fight back. They won't learn how ordinary Americans rose to the stature of heroes, or the reasons for our determination to root out terrorism wherever it is found. They won't learn what we learned at all; they won't feel what we felt. That's not politically correct, you see. Instead of a memorial honoring the dead, both the innocent victims and the brave men and women who died trying to save them, visitors will "learn" that America "deserved" what we got. That's right: the 9/11 memorial itself is being hijacked by Liberals.
Debra Burlingame, sister of flight 77's pilot Chic Burlingame (the plane that hit the Pentagon), revealed the horrible truth in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. As a member of the board of directors of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, she is privy to the plans that have been kept secret from the rest of us. "Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss, they will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world," Ms. Burlingame wrote. "They will be served up a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world." Abu Ghraib -- the sorry story of a few soldiers exceeding their orders and being duly punished for it long before the media blew the whole episode out of proportion -- is somehow the Left's "answer" for 9/11. Murdering thousands of innocent people by deliberate design, they seem to feel, is nothing compared to a couple of rogue guards putting underwear on the heads of captured enemies.
The editorial continued, "The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona." This is Liberal moral equivalence at is worst -- trying to pass off 9/11 as something those people who died deserved for the awful "crime" of being Americans. It's a version of history combined from the twisted visions of Osama bin Laden and Ward Churchill (the America-hating professor who vilified 9/11 victims by referring to them as "little Eichmans.")
Who's behind this evil scheme? Who is trying to minimise the meaning of 9/11? Who's trying to "Blame America First?" Why, the usual suspects, of course. The same Liberal icons who fund organisations like MoveOn.org and who have bought the once-great Democratic party at wholesale prices. Tom Bernstein heads the IFC (International Freedom Center), the group responsible for the World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex. He also happens to be the president of Human Rights First. Bernstein's organisation worked with the ACLU to file lawsuits against America on behalf of the terrorists held in Gitmo, demanding that they be granted all the rights and privileges of the Americans they conspired to murder. That's the man selected to tell us that 9/11 was all our fault, on the very spot where that sort of self-flagellating apology to the killers has the least right to exist. The rest of the crew, as listed by Ms. Burlingame, includes:
- Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."
- Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.
- Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.
- George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."
9/11 was an attack on every American. Every one of us felt the shock when the terrorists finally declared war in a way no one could mistake. Al-Qaeda's previous attacks on the USS Cole, the embassies at Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Khobar Towers and Riyadh went unanswered. Even their first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 (in partnership with Saddam Hussein) was largely ignored, treated as a mere criminal act, forgotten once a few low-level scapegoats were arrested.
On 9/11, the targets were not soldiers or sailors, and they weren't in some dangerous far-off country. They were ordinary Americans, here at home, living their ordinary lives. Every American -- if only briefly -- realised that any one of us might have been attacked, merely for being Americans, and most of us remember that we still could be. We remember that we are Americans, heirs to a great experiment in freedom and democracy that our enemies hate simply for its existence. We want no excuses or apologies for our enemies' behavior. We want no multimedia attacks on the morale of our own military forces. All we ask is that the dead be remembered, not as pawns in some Liberal scheme to Blame America First, but as innocent victims of terrorism. All we want is for their memorial to be unsullied by some politically-correct offering of appeasement to their murderers. They deserve a true memorial, a fitting tribute, not this travesty.
This plan to hijack the 9/11 memorial is nothing less than an insulting stab in the back to every person who died that day, as well as every member of the US military who has died in the War on Terror, fighting to prevent a repeat. It's difficult to tell who's worse anymore: the terrorists who attacked us and murdered over 3,000 people, or the Liberals who want to use their memorial to advance their own personal agenda.
For more information: http://takebackthememorial.com
UPDATE: According to the 25 June 2005 NY Daily News, NY Governor George Pataki has apparently taken a hard-line stance against America-bashing at Ground Zero, but I'm still skeptical that the cultural programming can be removed as long as people like Tom Berman, Eric Foner and George Soros are associated with the plans in any way.
His voice rising and his resolve steely as he compared the World Trade Center tract to the bloody beaches of Normandy and the black waters of Pearl Harbor, Pataki vowed: "We will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America, denigrates New York or freedom or denigrates the sacrifice and courage that the heroes showed on Sept. 11." He added, "The Daily News did a good service by pointing out some of these things. We do not want that at Ground Zero; I do not want that at Ground Zero and to the extent that I have the power, it's not going to happen."
Posted at Monday, June 13, 2005 by CavalierX