Yes, He's Worth It

Sphere: Related Content

Next Sunday's New York Times Magazine has a cover story on the Big Man of radio, the Left's bete noir and conservatism's leading man, Rush Limbaugh. The piece is surprisingly even-handed, even nice and consists in large part of a long interview with Rush done in February of this year. The major piece of news to emerge from it is the revelation of Rush's new contract that will keep him on the air until 2016 for an unprecedented and breathtaking amount that is estimated to be near $400 million dollars...not counting the 9 figure signing bonus. Figured annually it is an amount larger than the per annum pay of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer combined.

The Left, never a group to disappoint is livid, rallying a kind hysteria usually reserved for GWB.
On the Huffington Post, "researcher", showing the kind patriotism Barack Obama tells us the Left is all about says,

he is a have more and an imperialist and a war monger
that is why he so popular in america
until most americans figure that out not much will change

And Sylmason on the same HuffPo gives us a peek into the wonderful world of freedom that might be an Obama Presidency:

You might have a contract in 2009, but once BO gets to the WH.......................... you hate bating racists will have to change your dialogue. So for now drug abusing Rush,,,,,,,,,,,,,, have fun cause your days are numbered as a hate monger. Gotta love America,now you have, and now you don't.

But such talk is to be expected from these folks and is therefore dull. What is not is the peek behind the scenes of the Golden EIB microphone into Rush's life offstage. If living well is the best revenge then Rush is living the most vengeful life possible. We're taken to his Florida estate on which there are five houses, the biggest, obviously being his main living quarters is 24,000 sq. feet. There's the two story library, the $450,000black Maybach 578. (It is a car for those of us not used to checking out vehicles in that price range.) There's the 54 million Gulfstream G550. A writer bearing a grudge would probably use all those things and use them as a launching pad for an assortment of snide asides, but none really show up here. Instead there is even some mention of the fact that Rush's excess isn't exactly self centered, with this revealing story:

Dinner was winding down, and I called for the check. It tickled Limbaugh to be taken out to eat on The New York Times. A few weeks later, he sent me a copy of an interview with Jeremy Sullivan, a waiter at the Kobe KobeClub in New York. Sullivan told a reporter that Limbaugh, a fellow Missourian, was the biggest tipper in town: “He likes to throw down the most massive tips I’ve ever seen. The last few times his tips have been $5,000.” When I read this, I felt a stab of guilt toward the hyperattentive staff at Trevini. If I had only known, I would have let Limbaugh leave the tip.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the story is the impression that one gets of Rush, off-air as being essentially the same man we hear on-air three hours a day, five days a week. He's passionate about those things you would expect; American exceptionalism, Ronald Reagan, his family and friends. He's tepid about those things you would expect; particularly GWB. And he's cold as ice about those things you would expect, also: Barack Obama and John McCain for two. About McCain he says,

“McCain and Reagan do not belong in the same sentence,”

About Obama, a dead-right clip from his show is used to express his feelings:

“With Obama we started out, we couldn’t talk about his big ears ’cause that made him nervous. We’ve gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears, we can’t talk about his mother. We can’t talk about his father. We can’t talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a ‘typical white person.’ We can’t talk about his wife, can’t talk about his preacher, can’t talk about his terrorist friends, can’t talk about his voting record, can’t talk about his religion. We can’t talk about appeasement. We can’t talk about color; we can’t talk about lack of color. We can’t talk about race. We can’t talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can’t talk about schooling. We can’t talk about his name, ‘Hussein.’ We can’t talk about his lack of experience. Can’t talk about his income. Can’t talk about his flag pin. This started out we can’t call him a liberal. It started out we just couldn’t talk about his ears. Now we can’t say anything about him.”

Not all conservatives love Limbaugh, of course, some finding him a shallow popularizer and he doesn't seem give a damn about that view of him (although the "shallow" part he'd find not to be on target). The truth is that with Reagan gone and now with William F. Buckley recently deceased conservatism needs a popularizer. As Rush points out in the interview, GWB is not the leader of a movement and McCain is likely to be more of a danger to conservatism than an avatar.

It has been twenty years now since Rush first hit the national airwaves. In that time he saved AM radio by virtually creating the conservative talk radio industry and personally managed to spread the good word of conservatism forcefully, passionately and amusingly, while converting millions to the cause and still managing to charge "confiscatory" advertising rates at the same time.

The conservative movement is obviously in trouble these days, those we placed in office seemingly having left the reservation and left us as well. Rush has gone nowhere, standing firm for all these twenty years. And with his new unbelievably large contract he will continue to do so for another eight, at least. And maybe in that time one of those "skulls full of mush" he talks about so much who have been listening will come along and lead the movement from the White House once again. In the meantime I'll settle for having Rush.

And yes, he's worth it.

Flopping Aces also discusses

Allahpundit at Hot Air also notes the story

A Newt One is talking, too

As is Wake Up America

Mugabe Sworn In After Landslide Win...Also...Pigs Fly

Sphere: Related Content

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwean thug-o-crat and faux President was sworn in for a sixth term after a reign of terror launched against all who opposed his bid for re-election.  Mugabe, who has taken an economically sound nation which had a strong manufacturing base, mining industry (it is rich in natural resouces)  thriving agricultural as well as tourism industies, and turned it into one of the world's biggest economic basket cases. 

Over the last seven years, Professor Craig Richardson of Salem College estimates the economy has shrunk by 40 percent, wiping out almost 60 years of gradual economic improvements. The standard of living has dropped to levels last seen in 1948. The World Health Organization estimates that Zimbabwe has the world’s lowest life expectancy — 34 years for women and 37 years for men.

Unemployment is at 80 percent. The currency is nearly worthless and inflation currently exceeds 3,700 percent per year. Last week, the black-market exchange rate for one U.S. dollar reached 40,000 Zimbabwean dollars.

The economic meltdown has led to environmental devastation. Zimbabwe, once known for its flourishing wildlife, used to have a sophisticated tourism industry that accounted for up to 6 percent of the country’s GDP. Hunger and lawlessness have put an end to that.

Brian Gratwicke, an Oxford-educated environmentalist and Zimbabwean national who runs a U.S-based nature and wildlife website estimates that “Eighty percent of 250,000 head of game that lived on privately owned commercial farms have been poached by land invaders – often with the encouragement of senior ZANU-PF officials who wanted to wrest control of the farms from their rightful owners.” To make matters worse, Gratwicke argues, chronic environmental problems such as deforestation and overgrazing, water pollution, uncontrolled fires, human-wildlife conflict, and wildlife-borne disease are spreading through Zimbabwe.

Needless to say, this nightmare has not been accomplished without a corresponding downturn in the country's' human rights condition.  Copiously documented here, the violations are a stark indictment of the human suffering taking place under Mugabe:

The ruling party's dominant control and manipulation of the political process through intimidation and corruption effectively negated the right of citizens to change their government. Unlawful killings and politically motivated kidnappings occurred. The state sanctioned the use of excessive force and torture, and security forces tortured members of the opposition, union leaders, and civil society activists. Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained journalists, demonstrators, and religious leaders; lengthy pretrial detention was a problem. Executive influence and interference in the judiciary were problems. The government continued to forcibly evict citizens and to demolish homes. The government continued to use repressive laws to suppress freedom of speech, press, assembly, movement, association, and academic freedom. Government corruption and impunity remained widespread. High ranking government officials made numerous public threats of violence against demonstrators. The following human rights violations also continued to occur: harassment of human rights and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and interference with their attempts to provide humanitarian assistance; violence and discrimination against women; child labor and prostitution; discrimination against persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities; an increase in the number of HIV/AIDS orphans and child-headed households; harassment and interference with labor organizations critical of government policies; and attempts to supplant legitimate labor leaders with hand-picked supporters.

The current election is a well documented fraud, in which Mugabe's main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out before the voting, after escalating attacks on him and his supporters.  

The Mugabe-appointed Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) said the 84-year-old incumbent won Friday's run-off presidential election, in which he was the only candidate, with 85.51 per cent of the vote.

Those Zimbabeans who cannot prove that they voted for Mugabe are currently being hunted down and assaulted by his bands of travelling thugs. 

The vaunted "international community" has been utterly ineffectual in dealing with the situation. A number of Mugabe's African neighbors are supporting him, thereby facilitating the atrocities.  A review of those neighbor's and their positions toward him are illustrative of their impotence and/or complicity:

The African Union – Mugabe's opponents and allies

ANGOLA

The most surprising criticism of Mugabe came from the Angolan president, Jose Dos Santos, who has been one of Mugabe's staunchest allies. In a message sent to Mugabe yesterday, Dos Santos said he welcomed the Zimbabwean's statement that he is open to negotiations with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

BOTSWANA

Botswana's president, Seretse Ian Khama, is the only African leader so far to make an official protest against Robert Mugabe's reign of terror. Botswana has seen its population of fewer than two million invaded by 800,000 Zimbabwean refugees. Mr Khama said he was "deeply disturbed" by Mugabe's politically-motivated arrests.

KENYA

Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga has called on the international community to demand that Mugabe steps down from power, describing the run-off vote as a "shame to Africa".

MOZAMBIQUE

The government of Mozambique has called for renewed dialogue between Mugabe's Zanu-PF party and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to solve the crisis. "We lament the loss of human lives (in the period before the first election on 29 March and before the uncontested run-off on 27 June], and hope that the injured make a speedy recovery," a statement read.

NAMIBIA

Namibia's Swapo government has been an unwavering ally of Robert Mugabe, and last week the country's foreign minister, Marco Hausiku, described reports of electoral violence in Zimbabwe as "unverified rumours". The "Swapo Elders Council," comprising top party members, issued a statement blaming western countries for the crisis and urged Zimbabwean citizens to vote for Mugabe in the run-off.

TANZANIA

The handling of the Zimbabwe crisis by Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete, current chairman of the 53-member African Union (AU), has been severely criticised by Amnesty International. In a statement, Amnesty said Mr Kikwete's silence on Zimbabwe has been "deafening and is contrary to its own principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law".

ZAMBIA

Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa has said: "What is happening in Zimbabwe is a matter of serious embarrassment to all of us."

President Bush has been one of the strongest world leaders in condemning Mugabe and attempting to remove him from power.

United States President, Mr. George W. Bush, has ordered tougher sanctions against the Zimbabwean government headed by Mr. Robert Mugabe for "the regime's blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people's democratic will and human rights".


The hard slam from the American government is coming as Mugabe is to be sworn in as Zimbabwe's president today, following his victory in a run-off election boycotted by the opposition candidate, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai.

Bush, in a directive to his top aides including secretaries of state and the treasury, said the US was compiling sanctions and would also champion international campaign for sanctions against the administration, including an arms embargo.
He said the move was in response to "the Mugabe regime's blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people's democratic will and human rights".

While Bush's actions are significant, pressure must continue to be applied until Mugabe is finally pushed from powere.

Robert Mugabe must go.

Nocomme1 also posts at The Patriot Room and Flopping Aces

GWB Next On Rushmore?

Sphere: Related Content

It is never easy to figure out how a still-serving President will be judged by history. Some President's who were unpopular during their time in office are treated better by history than they were by their contemporaries. Harry Truman comes to mind. Some unpopular Presidents get as dissed by history as by those unfortunate enough to have lived through their administrations. Jimmy Carter pops into my mind most quickly here.

Considering the loathing hoisted upon George W. Bush by the Left and the media and the general dissatisfaction that his own base often feels about it might make one think he'll wind up in the dog house with Carter. But maybe not. This column suggests that GWB may turn out to be misunderestimated after all:

George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.

I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.

No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

Success works wonders in burying failure. That holds true for no President more than Abraham Lincoln. The first years of the Civil War were marked by numerous military disasters, incompetent Generals, assaults on civil liberties etc. The ultimate success of Lincoln's actions however have left all the not inconsiderable catastrophes as not much more than footnotes in the minds of people today.

Bush will probably be helped, too by the utter derangement of many of his political adversaries.

History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.

The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.

Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.

When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.

If the Surge continues to succeed in the coming months as it has been doing recently and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy and therefore a stabilizing force in a very unstable part of the world, all the Bush Derangement Syndrome the Moonbats care to indulge in might not stop Bush from ending up with a lot more respect than he is getting today.

Barking Moonbat Early Warning System is intrigued by the possibility as well

A Newt One is dusting off Rushmore to make room.

Sister Toldja makes a number of good points, as well

Sublime Bloviations also notes

Brian at Liberty Pundit does, as well

The Economy Stinks Because They Say It Does.

Sphere: Related Content

Hat tip to Michael Novak over on The Corner for this story detailing how the media distorts its reporting of news about the economy based on which party is in the White House.

Why has so much of the media accepted the deep recession story when the data is so mixed? The most plausible explanation is that many are motivated by political bias.

Economist John Lott and I studied thousands of economic news stories written over the past 30 years or so, and found that coverage tended to be far more negative when there was a Republican in the White House as there is now.

The bias has an easy explanation. Yale University economist Ray Fair has shown that a weak economy hurts the incumbent party. If a Democratic-leaning press can convince everyone that the economy is in recession, then it can influence the election.

Our analysis indicates that the treatment of the economy would be much different if there were a Democrat in the White House today. If so, then the headline of each bad piece of news would be, more accurately, "Economy Hovering Above Recession."

But instead of that, we get doom and gloom.

The politically motivated pessimism, like the computer virus, can have real consequences. While the economic data has been mediocre, consumer sentiment, as measured by the Conference Board, has been driven by the negative drumbeat to its lowest in 16 years. Negative sentiment might well slow spending enough to give us a textbook recession in the second half of the year.

But another possibility lurks behind the numbers. The Federal Reserve and Congress have delivered a ton of economic stimulus, and that stimulus is set to juice up an economy that has been weak, but not terrible. If everything goes according to plan, the economy will grow faster in the second half of the year, and a recession will have been avoided.

If we follow that path, then you can bet that the media won't admit it until Nov. 5.

Even in years when the msm is not as completely enamoured of the Democratic nominee as they are with Barack Obama, their reporting of the performance of the economy remains skewed. Is it any wonder then that this year, in which the economy is weak, but demonstrably not in a recession the msm rarely give us insights like the following:

Over the past two quarters, the annualized growth rate was about 0.7 percent, almost double the growth rate of the shallowest recession on record.

Consumption has been holding up as well. Annualized real consumption growth over the first two quarters of a postwar recession is 0.2 percent. The maximum annualized growth rate over the first two quarters was 2.8 percent, posted during the 1969-70 recession. The minimum growth rate over the same time frame was negative 4.7 percent, which was posted during the recession of 1980.

The annualized growth rate over the past two quarters has been 0.8 percent, not the best on record, but roughly four times higher than the typical post-World War II recession.

A pessimist might argue that the jobs data has been terrible this time, right?

Think again.

Job Losses

The average change in non-farm employment during the first six months of a postwar recession is negative 387,000. The maximum employment loss was slightly more than 1 million during the recession of 1948-49. In the recession of 1973-74, employment actually rose 690,000. That's a wacky number for a variety of reasons. If we exclude it from the calculations, then the average post-war recession began with a drop of 506,000 jobs.

The employment loss since December 2007 has been 324,000 jobs, way below that average.

Barack Obama is spending a good deal of his efforts running against the "Bush economy" as if it were almost as awful as Reaganomics (a term that fell out of favor with the press when Reagan's economic policies actually kicked in and started to work) but in fact the economy continues to grow, even now, albeit slowly. Don't expect the media to correct him anytime soon.

Drill, Dammit, Drill

Sphere: Related Content

Amazingly it looks like the Republicans might actually be getting smart on the issue of drilling for domestic oil. Yesterday President Bush came out in support of ...

...John McCain’s plan to lift the ban on fresh oil drilling off the US coast and accused Democrats of contributing to record fuel prices by restricting domestic production.

Mr Bush called on the Democratic-controlled Congress to lift the moratorium that has limited access to offshore oil and gas reserves for more than two decades.

His intervention came a day after Mr McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, made the same proposal in a shift from his previous support for the ban.

Mr Bush said about 18bn barrels of oil were believed to exist in the 80 per cent of US coastal waters that are off-limits to drilling – enough to match current US production for 10 years.

The Republicans have made their push for increased domestic oil production a key policy ahead of November’s presidential poll amid mounting public anger at soaring petrol prices.

McCain's move towards opening up more domestic drilling is a move in the right direction on what will probably be one of main issues in this campaign season and one on which the Dems are vulnerable, beholden as they are to the Evironmental loons of the Left. McCain, of course, is still opposed to drilling in ANWR, for reasons that still seem as mysterious as Mona Lisa's smile but the fact that he positioning himself as he seems to be doing hopefully is hinting at a reevaluation of his current ANWR policy.

The American people, under the pressure of the current dramatic spike in oil prices are finding that their adherence to every whim of the Environmental movement has consequences that they might not be ready to live with. A recent poll shows that the Republicans might just have found an issue on which they and country are unambigiously in agreement:

A push by U.S. President George W. Bush and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain to lift a ban on U.S. offshore oil drilling could find plenty of support from Americans weary of rising energy costs, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll.

Some 59.6 percent of Americans surveyed in the poll released on Wednesday said they would favor government efforts to boost domestic drilling and refinery construction to cool record prices.

Roughly the same amount -- 59.3 percent -- said they would back efforts to reduce domestic demand in the world's biggest energy consumer through tougher fuel-efficiency standards, while 54.2 percent of respondents said they supported increased use of biofuels like ethanol to cut gasoline use.

With Iraq more clearly appearing to be a success with every passing day and an emphasis on doing what the American people want done re: oil drilling, maybe, just maybe this November won't be quite the debacle for Republicans it seemed certain to be just a short time ago.

But of course one should never discount their ability to screw things up, either.

Hot Air is encouraged as well

The Bad News Is The Good News...

Sphere: Related Content

The now undeniable success of The Surge (deserving of the capitalization, I'd say) is a growing problem for Democrats and their new standard bearer, Barack ('I'm still pulling out') Obama. Democratic luminaries like Harry Reid tried denying the early indications that The Surge was working (Reid: "Its a failure") in a willing suspension of disbelief that was reminiscent of a child closing his eyes and shaking his head, hoping that the bad thing would go away. It didn't.

Author Arthur Herman has a good recent piece here in which he spells out what is now happening in Iraq and why it makes the Dems look so very bad.

AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.

The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."

The Dems have made the "quagmire" of Iraq a linchpin in their continuing assaults on Republicans in general and GWB in particular and were certainly hoping to use it as a battering ram against John McCain in the upcoming election. Sadly for them, events are conspiring to prove that not only are they bad prognosticators but many of their underlying assumptions about the war were dead wrong, as well.

The rap the Dems tried to peddle so long has been that Bush had taken his eyes off the real prize - the war on terror - to pursue oil for his big business buddies, his mad obsession, while Al Qaeda gained strength in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But now it is becoming more obvious every day that Bush's "obsession" may have been where the action really was after all.

In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.

According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.

And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.

Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.

In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.

The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

The fact that Iraq is central to the war on terror shouldn't be a big surprise to Dems. Al Qaeda has been telling us just that for some time. The Democratic desire to damage Bush colored their judgement and that is becoming more and more obvious.

...America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.

Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.

Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.

Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.

This is basically the same lesson that Ronald Reagan taught in confronting and beating the Soviet Union, and the Dems, who were wrong then show that they are beyond learning and are making the same mistake again. The Democrats seem uncertain how to handle this new reality. Obama hasn't bothered to go to Iraq since The Surge began and hasn't adjusted his policy - Get out ASAP - in light of the new facts on the ground; a disturbing lack of flexibility in a Presidential-wannabe.

The understanding that Iraq is in fact a success and a major one hasn't been completely digested by the American people yet. There are five months to go before the election. If the public gets the full picture by November 4 Iraq, which has been the Democrat's gift that keeps giving may actually turn out to be their Achilles' Heel. Now wouldn't that be ironic?

Everybody's Talking 'Bout Him

Sphere: Related Content

Scott McClellan, probably the least respected White House Press Secretary in recent memory has written What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, a reportedly very unflattering account of the administration in which he served. And everybody's going nuts. The book, makes supposedly explosive accusations of deception and incompetence on the part of his boss, the President (or "Bush" as he now rather disrespectfully refers to him) and most of the rest of administration.

The Left, of course is having a field-day, finding in McClellan, a man they previously reviled as a liar and dolt, a new found hero and truth-teller extraordinaire. The Right is less clear on exactly what to make of him: 1) A Judas? Yeah, that seems to fit. 2) A liar? Well, a lot of his "revelations", like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby "conspiring" to lie about the Valerie Plame affair, is more air than substance. Unless you're psychic you usually can only suspect what two people behind closed doors are talking about. Apparently McClellan possesses some hitherto psychic powers which he should have employed a bit while he was Press Secretary. They might have prevented him from looking so clueless much of the time.

The reaction of those who knew him in the Bush administration is interesting. Most of them seem legitimately shocked, saying they never knew he thought what he is now saying in the book and that the book doesn't "sound" like him. They ask, and rightfully most fair minded people would have to admit, "Why did you stay so long if you thought this way?" There are a couple of possible explanations: 1) He was there sucking up all the info he could gather in order to write this hit piece as soon as he left. 2) He's lying now because his publisher wanted a book that would do what this one seems to be doing already: sell. 3) He is incredibly weak and stupid, everything he says in the book is true and he just didn't know how to handle it when he was there. Boo Hoo

Strip away everyone's agenda (and I'm not immune-I think he's a mostly lying Judas) the fact is no one really knows...which leaves the accuracy of his book very suspect indeed. No matter how you look at it, McClellan was either lying then or now: He's a liar.

McClellan may have made a big contribution to his net worth, but he also has also managed to do what had seemed impossible; to diminish his already negligible reputation. Congratulations, Scott.

Hot Air comments

Flopping Aces comments

Exurban League comments

Right Wing News comments

Stop The ACLU comments

Below The Beltway comments

Hamas: Bush Is Dracula, Blah Blah Blah

Sphere: Related Content

I know this will shock you but according to Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh, President Bush is Dracula. To prove the point he says,

"I can see the blood of the children of Afghanistan between his fangs. Their blood drips onto his lips and chest. He is Dracula, a vampire. I can see the holocausts in which the Iraqi people is burned, the land that is being torn to shreds, the oil that is being plundered, and the four million Iraqis scattered throughout the land, or exiled in their own country...

Bush thirsts for blood day and night. He derives pleasure from killing. He has surpassed all types of crimes and all sadistic traits. That's Bush for you. With all his audacity and insolence, Bush tears the Arab land to shreds. He makes decisions and has the audacity to call for the killing of life, and the killing of any person fighting for his right to live. That's Bush for you."

I'm not sure but I'm guessing when the Dems get a gander at this they just may want to run it at their convention. Much the same is said daily on the Huffington Post, Democratic Underground etc. so everyone will feel right at home with it. And since Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaks in much the same way Barack Obama can consider it to be that preparation he's been talking about. Good stuff, eh?

Barack Obama Am Stupid

Sphere: Related Content

If George W. Bush were setting a trap then Barack Obama went for the bait like a starving shark after chum. In a speech before Israel's Knesset today Bush said the following:

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

And Barack Obama flipped out, responding:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Ok, fine. Except Bush never actually mentioned Obama and if he and the rest of the vast left-wing attack machine hadn't decided that they recognized themselves in Bush's comments and then went nuts, GWB's comments would probably have only received a brief mention on the evening news instead of becoming the story du jour. And it is not a story one would think Obama wants getting a lot of attention as it highlights his inexperience in and embarrassing naivete about foreign policy.

My guess is that Obama was trying to set up his template for the election in which any criticism of him is immediately labelled an "unprecedented"and "vicious" attack and just the Republicans using the "politics of fear". (Hold me, Mommy. I'm scared.) The only problem here is that in bringing attention to this issue Obama has sent everybody running to his website to come up with this:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Now if you want to be generous and say that Iran is not a terrorist state (stop laughing!), alright but no one can say that they don't sponsor terrorism. So Obama wouldn't ever negotiate with terrorists but he's proud and happy to negotiate with their bankers. Oh. Then, it's ok, I guess.

There is no way Obama comes out of this looking good to the average Joe. Calling attention to it was a stupid thing to do.

But stupid and Obama are becoming synonymous lately. On May 13 he launched into the following meandering, fact-poor, verbal glider-looking-for-someplace-safe-to-land and not finding it:


And then there was the May 14 kerfuffle that led to this:

And let's not forget that Obama is apparently a mite confused on how many States there are:


And then, of course there was his abysmal performance in his last debate with Hillary and...well you get the point.

As I pointed out in a previous post Obama has far fewer accomplishments and far less experience that the much maligned Dan Quayle. He is simply not qualified to be President. And continued examples of the kind of ineptitude he showed today (and there will be continued examples) will just make that more and more clear to the American people.

Liberty Pundit comments.
Wake Up America comments.
Hot Air comments.
Common Sense Political Thought comments.
Baldilocks comments.
Exurban League comments.
Fred Thompson comments in a video clip.

Bush on Mugabe

Sphere: Related Content

President Bush today forcefully urged Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe to step down today.

"The will of the people needs to be respected in Zimbabwe," Bush told a White House press conference as the UN Security Council prepared to discuss the month-long election turmoil in the troubled southern African nation.

Bush said it was clear that the people of Zimbabwe had voted for change in the March 29 parliamentary and presidential elections "because their president has failed the country" after 28 years in power.

Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe ever since independence from Britain and is a hero of Africa's national liberation movements but he has presided over a spiralling economic crisis.

Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party lost control of parliament for the first time since 1980 to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), whose leader Morgan Tsvangirai has also claimed victory in the presidential vote.

No official result has yet been issued from the presidential election.

Mugabe is a criminal and one of the world's worst dictators, an extraordinary accomplishment considering the competition. The Washington Post details some of what is a long and horrific list of crimes:

THE EVIDENCE is now overwhelming that the Zimbabwean regime of Robert Mugabe is engaged in a massive, orchestrated and brutal campaign to punish and terrorize its opponents. Security forces and militia groups loyal to the 84-year-old autocrat have rampaged across the countryside for the past month, targeting opposition activists and whole villages suspected of having voted against the government in the March 29 elections. In some areas, torture camps have been established where victims are taken and beaten while their homes are looted and burned. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Association said yesterday that at least 10 people have been killed and hundreds displaced; the opposition Movement for Democratic Change counts 15 dead, 3,000 refugees and 500 hospitalized.

It is generally agreed that Mugabe lost the election by a wide margin to Tsvangirai and his refusal to release the results will be just his latest crime if he is allowed to get away with it. Bush's applying the pressure here is necessary and right, especially considering the lack of any significant pressure being applied by the UN, which yet again is proving itself to be useless against tyrants.

President Bush has shown a great deal of positive leadership in areas relating to Africa and he's doing so again here. Now the rest of the world needs to follow.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has more details.

Welcome Words

Sphere: Related Content

On a beautiful sunny day on the South Lawn of the White House today President Bush and a crowd of 13,000 met Pope Benedict XVI (on what is also his 81st birthday) in the largest gathering of the the Bush presidency. With flags flying, the Marine Band playing and a 21 gun salute as background the President and the Pope delivered remarks that were remarkable for their affirmations of faith, truth and life and for their rejection of the moral relativism that pervades modern society.

I can't begin to improve on their words or expand on them in any meaningful way so I present them here in their entirety without further commentary.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BUSH
AND HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
IN ARRIVAL CEREMONY
South Lawn
10:38 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Holy Father, Laura and I are privileged to have you here at the White House. We welcome you with the ancient words commended by Saint Augustine: "Pax Tecum." Peace be with you.

You've chosen to visit America on your birthday. Well, birthdays are traditionally spent with close friends, so our entire nation is moved and honored that you've decided to share this special day with us. We wish you much health and happiness — today and for many years to come. (Applause.)

This is your first trip to the United States since you ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter. You will visit two of our greatest cities and meet countless Americans, including many who have traveled from across the country to see with you and to share in the joy of this visit. Here in America you'll find a nation of prayer. Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us. Millions of Americans have been praying for your visit, and millions look forward to praying with you this week.

Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.

Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.

Here in America, you'll find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and eternal truths. The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth — it is also among the most religious. In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our country's greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions across the world.

Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that "God is love." And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from "falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism."

In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved" — (applause) — and your message that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary."

In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)

In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but "in a spirit of mutual support."

Holy Father, thank you for making this journey to America. Our nation welcomes you. We appreciate the example you set for the world, and we ask that you always keep us in your prayers. (Applause.)

POPE BENEDICT XVI: Mr. President, thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the 200th anniversary of elevation of the country's first Diocese — Baltimore — to a metropolitan Archdiocese and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville.

Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel, and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America's Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God.

The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time, too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideas and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual group can make its voice heard.

As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate.

In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time and again that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation," and a democracy without values can lose its very soul. Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God. She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman. Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling and to hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts underway to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world's peoples.

On this, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity — as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish — a world where the God-given dignity and the rights of every man, women and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends, as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America. (Applause.)

China Stinks

Sphere: Related Content

The environmental movement loves to pound the US for not signing the Kyoto Protocol and big business for putting profits ahead of a clean environment. Despite what various environmental groups and the msm would have you believe, in many important ways the environment in the US is actually improving. But China's hosting of this year's Olympics is taking the spotlight away from the US and calling attention to China's environmental problems. And they are massive.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

BEIJING has unveiled drastic pollution measures for the Olympic Games, including a two-month freeze on all construction, in an admission that despite spending about $18.4 billion in the past decade to reduce smog, the capital's air quality remains a formidable challenge.

It comes as a University of California report to be published next month suggests that China's carbon dioxide emissions have been underestimated and China probably overtook the US as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2006-07, the BBC has reported.

All construction in Beijing must stop from July 20 to September 20 when both the Olympic and Paralympic Games will have finished. The unprecedented shutdown will leave Beijing eerily quiet.

Although all Olympic venues are virtually completed, other key projects such as the fast rail link between the new international airport and downtown, plus hundreds of other private and public building and infrastructure projects are still under way.

Another 19 heavy polluting industries, including steel and petrochemical plants, will have to slash emissions by a further 30 per cent or risk total closure. All quarrying, cement production, outdoor spray painting and other outdoor use of toxic solvents will be banned. Petrol stations, oil and gas tankers and oil depots that have not finished installing equipment to reduce petrol fumes will also be shut.

The situation is so extreme that it threatens to affect athlete's performances.

Some Olympic teams, including the US and Britain, have developed masks for their athletes to use. Others, including Australia, are conducting their pre-Games practice outside China and planning to fly to Beijing at the last possible moment to minimise exposure.

While the current focus on China's environmental disaster revolves around the Olympics and Beijing, the problem is, of course far greater and goes well beyond Beijing. According to The Daily Green:

..China will have increased its CO2 output by 600 million metric tons in the first decade of the 21st Century. That is more than five-times as much carbon as participating nations have pledged to cut under the Kyoto Protocol. And several nations are not on pace to meet their targets.

The analysis lends credence to the Bush Administration's contention that any international framework for reducing pollution must include China and other rapidly developing nations.

The fact is that capitalist countries are far better stewards of the environment than are communist countries and developing nations as well. Capitalism provides incentives to keeping the environment clean as cleanliness increases efficiency and more efficient systems are more profitable systems.

Despite the Left's obsession with capitalist evils, their statist solutions simply don't work. Anybody who doesn't believe this can don a face mask and head over to Beijing to ask the Olympic athletes. They'll be the folks with the face masks and the medals.

The Pope in America

Sphere: Related Content

The arrival today of Pope Benedict XVI is a welcome event. It is always interesting to watch the reaction of the msm, which loves the pomp and ceremony that invariably accompanies Papal visits but is also hostile to the Pontiff, forever looking for weakness in the church and seeming to revel in the difficulties that it faces.

The press is especially conflicted with this Pope, who has expressed disagreement with the Iraq War, which they are sure to mention with joyous regularity. But George Weigel, one of the the most astute observers of the Holy See has insights that the media is likely to either miss or ignore:

In my own conversations with senior Vatican officials over the past 18 months, I have been struck by the fact that the debates of 2002-2003 are over. That there was serious disagreement between the U.S. government and the Holy See prior to the invasion of Iraq is, and was, obvious. Today, however, the page has been turned, and despite what Winters’s Vatican leakers may be telling him, the people who make the decisions tell me, as they have told the Bush administration, that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for both Iraq and the entire Middle East.

Pope Benedict will likely urge President Bush to demand that the Iraqi government be more assertive in defending the Christian minority population of Iraq; but that means more and stronger American involvement in the evolving politics of Iraq, not the end of an “occupation.” As for a papal “denunciation” at the U.N., Winters and his friends among Catholic Democrats are likely to be disappointed; Benedict XVI is far too shrewd to give fall campaign sound-bites to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (either of whose victory in November would cause nightmares for the Holy See at the U.N. and other international agencies).

There is much for conservatives to like in Benedict, a man who has little use for moral relativism and is fully aware of the dangers a radicalized Islam presents.

Nor would a pope who thought in Eurocrat terms about world politics have appointed as his “foreign minister” Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, a man who combines extensive experience of Islamist aggression (he was formerly papal nuncio in Khartoum) with a fondness for the United States and a clear-eyed view of the weaknesses and corruptions of the present U.N. (where he served for three years). Furthermore, Benedict XVI and Archbishop Mamberti are both fully aware that the “dictatorship of relativism” of which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned just prior to his election as pope is not only being imposed across Europe by radically secularist governments like the Zapatero regime in Spain; it is also being imposed by the E.U. bureaucracy, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European human rights courts. Rather than the pope and Mamberti being driven by the “Brussels-think” in the permanent Vatican bureaucracy, it is far more likely that this pontificate will continue to challenge those default positions; it may even start the process by which the defaults are decisively changed.

Benedict has had large shoes to fill, following as he has the unusually popular and successful Pontificate of John Paul II. Benedict XVI may not have the personal dynamism of his extraordinary predecessor but Americans would do well to get to know him better as his intellect, natural conservatism and devotion to God are resources that America would be wise to tap.

Cross-Posted At Liberty Pundit

That's What Friends Are For

Sphere: Related Content

''Never before has a president done so much, so fast, to undermine our relations with other nations...As a nation, we must do more than show our strength. We must show our greatness.'' - Nancy Pelosi

The Democrats are forever bemoaning the poor relations the US supposedly has with other nations under George W. Bush, as the quote above shows. We now have a pretty good idea of who the Democrats would like to buddy up to and who they're happy to kick to the curb.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives will effectively kill a free trade deal with Colombia by voting later on Thursday to delay action on it indefinitely, a White House spokeswoman said.

"We believe that if the Democrats decide to hold this vote today they are effectively killing the Colombia free trade agreement and there are lots of consequences that go along with that," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

President George W. Bush sent the Colombia free trade agreement to Congress on Tuesday in an attempt to force a vote on it before the end of the year.

The Democrats are saying that their objection is based on the amount of violence levelled at unionists in Columbia but this claim is shown to be hollow in light of the fact that such deaths have actually decreased 88% from 2002-2007. The real reason for their lack of support is the fact that US unions don't like the bill and the Dems can hear their masters' voice. The ramifications of dissing Columbia, a true US ally in an area of the world we need to be promoting free market democracies are that communist, America -hater Hugo Chavez is strengthened and the US's credibility is weakened.

Now we know who the Dems want for friends:

And who they don't:











Cross-Posted at Liberty Pundit

Fred Kagan Explains The World

Sphere: Related Content

American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and one of the major architects of the current Iraq surge Fred Kagan has written a a lengthy piece for NRO Why Iraq Matters, Talking back to anti-war party talking points.


It's probably a good thing that moonbats everywhere already see him as Rudolph Hess to Bush's Hitler as Kagan apologetically faces down many of the anti-war Left's arguments against the Iraq war and this article would certainly put a bullseye on his forehead, if it weren't already permanently affixed there by the Moveon.org Left.

He comes out of the gate, both guns blazing and letting the war's opponents know that their ever-changing reasons for pulling out would have real world ramifications:

Yes, in the world as it is, whatever line we sell ourselves, there really is victory and there really is defeat, the two are different, and their effects on the future diverge profoundly. And yes, the reason we must continue to spend money and the lives of the very best Americans in that far-off land is that the interests of every American are actually at stake.

He makes no effort to disguise his distaste for the Left's cynicism.

The antiwar party rather gleefully seized upon recent Iraqi Security Forces operations against Sadr’s militia and other illegal gangs as proof of this — the general glee with which the antiwar party has greeted any setback in Iraq is extremely distasteful and unseemly, whatever domestic political benefits they believe they will receive from those setbacks.

And then he begins to dismantle their arguments. He dispatches the "The War Cost Too Much" mantra by comparing Iraq War costs with the costs of previous wars.

Military spending in World War II ranged from 17.8 percent of GDP to 37.5 percent; in Korea from 5.0 percent (in 1950 — 7.4 percent in 1951) to 14.2 percent; in Vietnam from 7.4 percent to 9.4 percent. Current expenditures on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars bring total defense expenditures to something well below 5 percent of GDP. Even granting the simplistic and misleading $3 trillion figure, $3 trillion is about 5 percent of the nearly $60 trillion American GDP over the five years of the war.

He also deals with the related complaint that "The war has caused the upcoming recession" with ease as well.

Defense spending as a percentage of total federal spending is now around 20 percent. In World War II, it ranged from 73 percent to 89.5 percent; in Korea it ranged from 32.2 percent (1950 — 51.8 percent in 1951) to 69.5 percent; and in Vietnam from 42.8 percent to 46 percent. In more context: at the height of spending on this war, defense spending was only 12.3 percent of all public spending (including federal, state, and local expenditures); in World War II the high was 82.1 percent; in Korea, 52.5 percent; and in Vietnam 31.3 percent.

And he puts the lie to the assertion that "High gas prices are the result of the war — and ending the war would lower gas prices."

Oil prices do not rise because American forces are in the Middle East — they rise because of instability and fighting in the Middle East. One of the most dramatic increases in oil prices in history occurred during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when no American forces were present.

One of the arguments that I've always found to be most insincere coming from the Left is their programmed, "We're spending money on X "that would otherwise be spent on more important domestic programs. "

In the real world, there is no way that even a Democratic Congress would spend $100 billion a year in non-offset emergency authorizations for education or health care, even if some war critics think that they would like it to do so. As for increasing domestic spending, those who believe that we should raise taxes and spend more money on domestic programs can still advocate that policy, whatever its wisdom. This isn’t an argument about the cost of the war — it’s an argument about whether we want to have higher taxes to pay for increased domestic spending.

He goes on and on like this, puncturing holes in the Left's varied arguments, revealing them to be the political showthings that most of them are rather than thoughtful, reasoned arguments. The only area in which I think his argument goes weak is in addressing the Arab World's readiness for democracy. He holds up various modern states and populations as examples of how well Muslims can function under democratic rule. There are problems with all of his examples. Indonesia is hardly an example of a stable, long-lived democracy. Any discussion of Muslims in Europe being an example of how easily they can adapt to Western-style democratic ideals just doesn't pass the sniff test. If Kagan were to visit some of the Parisian suburbs or London's mosques he might rethink using these as examples of how ready Muslims are to enter the "Free World". The one example he gives that might have some legs is Turkey, but there are stresses in that country too that might yet cause Kagan to reconsider his confidence.

Of all the arguments the Left uses to attack the war, the above may be their best and seems to demand more attention than the President's "All men yearn for freedom" talk indicates that it is getting. But this argument would change the whole complexion of the Left's anti-war rationales, requiring a good faith effort to develop strategies to assist the Muslim World to reform itself into a more modern form. The Left doesn't want that. They want George W. Bush destroyed. They want him to lose and if it means (as of course it would) that America loses too, that's fine with them.

Kagan points out why their arguments are as insubstantial as their motivations. His article is well worth reading.

Left-Wing Talk Radio - The REAL Hate Radio

Sphere: Related Content

You may not know who Randi Rhodes is and there's a reason for that. Rhodes has a show on Air America, the Left-wing radio network that has had more reorganizations than it does listeners. Sweet Randi has a habit of saying and doing things that are ... well, slightly unfortunate. The video seen above was taken at an Air America benefit appearance in San Francisco and if potty language isn't your thing, don't watch it.

The Randster does what may be her idea of a stand-up comedy routine but due to the fact that many of the objects of her "comedy" are fellow liberals is now more appropriately labeled "hate speech". Her rant was so foul, laced as it was with four letter words and vicious slanders it actually got her suspended by Air America, showing an prudish streak, hitherto barely suspected.

Among her witticisms were calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro f..king wh.res. She also had nice things to say about such diverse individuals as Dick Cheney, "Dina McGreevey", wife of disgraced former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey and disgraced former Governor Elliot Spitzer. This isn't the first time Rhodes has shared her unique sense of fun with the public. Once she aired a fake commercial stating that Mitt Romney supporters planned to go on a murder spree if John McCain won the Republican nomination. Another time she compared the government's Hurricane Katrina evacuation of New Orleans to the Holocaust with (naturally) George W. Bush in the role of Hitler.

But this kind of gutter banter is heard frequently on "progressive" talk radio. Left-wing talker Mike Malloy has called for physical torture of the "Bush crime family" if they refuse to "tell the truth" (i.e. agree with him). Liberal talker Mike Webb has called for the execution of GWB for (you guessed it) "war crimes".

These kind of violent fantasies are apparently standard fare today wherever "progressives" hunker down together. Arianna Huffington has had to close down comments numerous times when reporting stories about Dick Cheney, GWB, the death of Jerry Falwell and on and on. Change the names in the Daily Kos and you might think you're reading some historical material from Nazi-era Germany. While the msm frequently bemoans the "hate speech" of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (must have been shows I missed) liberal radio and blogs are where all the hottest hate-action can really be found.

Hey, maybe this is where Jeremiah Wright gets some of his material...

Bush, The Movie!

Sphere: Related Content

It looks like the Oliver Stone movie biography of George W. Bush, "W" is progressing along the lines one might expect. According to ABC News which got a copy of an early version of the script the movie presents a "humanistic portrait of the president". No, really. They actually said that.

The film seems to bear a number of similarities to another film based on another Republican President, CBS' The Reagan's which documented such well known episodes in President Ronald Reagan's life as his conversation with wife Nancy in which he said, referring to homosexuals suffering from AIDS, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." (Well, actually he never said that but CBS apparently thought he would have if only...if...he...had(?) Well, you know what they meant.) That film, by the way proved so controversial due to a host of falsified scenes like that one that CBS wound up airing it on their pay cable channel, Showtime.

"W" stars Josh Brolin, the son actor James Brolin who played Reagan in The Reagan's. Brolin, by the way is married to Democratic activist/actress, the legendary Barbra Streisand, who in 2006 included as part of her concert performances, a skit using a Bush impersonator making the President look foolish. As another aside Brolin, pere gained some recent notoriety by saying on a local New Haven, CT radio show, "Happy 9/11" and "Celebrate the day, right?"

This films seems to have the same sort of interest in historical accuracy as the Reagan film as it contains scenes such as the following:

One explosive scene in the movie features press secretary Ari
Fleischer complaining to Bush about longtime reporter Helen Thomas who questioned the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bush explodes in a
profanity-laced outburst , "Did you tell her I don't like motherf-who gas their own people! Did you tell her I don't like a-- holes who try to kill my father! Did you tell her I'm going to kick his & a-- all over the Middle East?"

Fleischer says it never happened.


Stone's interest in accuracy can perhaps best be seen in his other biopic of a Republican president, the 1996 "Nixon" which Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said,

The real Nixon looks and sounds like another Jack Kennedy next to
the version presented in ``Nixon,'' Oliver Stone's overblown biographical epic on the life and career of our 37th president. In the title role, Hopkins sweats and twitches, walks like an ape, hunches his shoulders and looks like a man on the edge of a breakdown.

The ridiculous thing is that this is Stone's image not just of the private Nixon but of the public Nixon, too. The Nixon who could
be a cool customer, who could slam home a stump speech, who could deal as an equal with guys like Brezhnev, is nowhere to be found.

Instead you get the pathetic Nixon as described by Woodward and Bernstein in ``The Final Days.'' So we see him looking paranoid and speaking haltingly, for example, as he delivers
his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican convention -- a speech that the real Nixon thundered out forcefully.

"W" is expected to be released sometime in 2009. Get your tickets early.

The Best Defense Is...

Sphere: Related Content

This story from the AP falls under the category of the best defense being a good offense. In it we see that,

Iran is demanding compensation for what it says are unlawful
sanctions imposed by the U.N. for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, the Mideast nation's foreign minister said in a letter...

Of course nobody is fooled by this kind of tactic, which Iran uses so regularly and which allows Bush Administration haters who would rather hurt Bush than face the threat of Iran use to try to make the President look like a warmonger.

Foreign ministers of the six countries that have been in the
forefront of efforts to ensure that Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful—the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany—issued a joint statement to coincide with the council's adoption of a third sanctions resolution on March 3 reaffirming their approach.

They offered to improve a package of political, security and economic incentives they put on the table in June 2006 if Iran suspends enrichment—but said continued defiance will lead to further measures.

While I suppose this is better than encouraging Iran the fact remains that while we engage in all this diplomatic back-and-forth Iran gets closer to actually having a real nuke every... single... day.



Tick Tick Tick



Cross-linked at Liberty Pundit