Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Reuters reports this morning: Iran Shows Off Missile Might Amid Nuclear Concerns.
Iran, under mounting pressure to dispel fears it is developing nuclear arms, Monday paraded six of its newly deployed medium-range missiles, military analysts say could reach Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf.[...]Television pictures showed one of the missile carriers displayed a defiant message in bold letters on a giant yellow banner facing Khatami which said: "We will stamp on America." Iran insists its nuclear scientists are not working on a weapons program but trying to meet soaring electricity demand.
From FoxNews: Iranian Nuke Official: Tehran Will Scale Back Cooperation With U.N. Watchdog Agency.
Iran will scale back its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog in response to the agency's Oct. 31 deadline for Tehran to prove its atomic programs are peaceful, Iran's representative to the agency said Monday.
Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A Dan Quayle 'potatoe' award goes out to Gov. Gray Davis:"My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth..." (September 18, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle, Hat Tip - J. Taranto)
Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's Vaclav Havel and Lech Walensa in a letter to the editor of London's Daily Telegraph:Today, it is the responsibility of the democratic world to support representatives of the Cuban opposition, irrespective of how long the Cuban Stalinists manage to cling to power. The Cuban opposition must enjoy the same international support as political dissidents did in divided Europe.
It cannot be claimed that the American embargo of Cuba has brought about the desired result. Neither can this be said of the European policy, which has so far been considerably more forthcoming towards the Cuban regime.
It is time to put aside transatlantic disputes about the embargo of Cuba and to concentrate on direct support for Cuban dissidents, prisoners of conscience and their families.
Europe ought to make it unambiguously clear that Castro is a dictator, and that for democratic countries a dictatorship cannot become a partner until it commences a process of political liberalisation. [Daily Telegraph]
Sep 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
Here's Andrew Sullivan on BBC dishonesty:This week was the week in which the BBC essentially capitulated in its war against the Blair government. Under cross-examination, the BBC's reporter, Andrew Gilligan, admitted a series of what might politely be called "errors" in his claim that the British government had inserted fabricated intelligence findings in its now-famous Iraq dossier, compiled before the Iraq war. The whole notion that the government had lied was revealed as invention: "The allegation I intended to make was a spin. I do regret those words--and I shouldn't have used them." Isn't that a big difference? A government putting the best spin on facts to make a case in a democratic society (that's called politics) and outright deception? Mr. Gilligan also admitted that he wrongly "outed" the late scientist, David Kelly, as the source of some of the material, to members of Parliament. Being pushed into the public realm was the main reason Kelly committed suicide earlier this year.
Related Reading: Saddam Hussein's Real Ministers of Disinformation Come Out of the ClosetSep 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
I love the New York Sun:[Sen.] Kerry also claimed, "We are at risk of being the first generation in history to pass this place off in worse shape than we were handed it by our parents." That's at odds with the claims of many environmental experts and historians. "The long-term trend of declining air pollution has continued under the first year of the Bush administration, according to preliminary EPA data, and is certain to continue for the rest of this decade and beyond," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Steven Hayward in a recent article warning of "Eco-Hysteria."
"It would be virtually impossible for anyone, no matter how tenacious or determined, to prevent continued and substantial reductions in air pollution," wrote another AEI fellow, Joel Schwartz, in a recent study.
Sep 18, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
The cartoon was inspried by the second photograph in this story: Clinton praises Democratic candidates in Iowa. And the Iraqi tyrant happens to be in the news this morning: 'Saddam' Tape Urges Iraqis to Fight Americans.
Sep 17, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA -- Expansion of Medicare through prescription drug subsidies, currently in a Congressional conference committee, will deal a serious blow to pharmaceutical research. That's the claim of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (AFCM), a non-profit organization which favors capitalism in medicine."In addition to discovering and testing drugs, pharmaceutical companies also face enormous administrative costs to obtain FDA approval to put drugs on the market," Richard E. Ralston, AFCM's executive director, explained in an op-ed. "If drug firms know that a drug's price is established by the state--not by patients--there is no interest in discovering, testing and creating new drugs."
While Ralston said he welcomes the latest effort by some House Republicans, led by Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Toomey, to block the worst ideas in the recently approved Medicare drug bills, Ralston insisted that preserving the world's highest quality drugs means total opposition to any expansion of Medicare.
"A free market in pharmaceuticals is the only way to insure the flow of new, breakthrough drugs and competitive pricing," Ralston contended. "Controls on drugs, doctors, and cost will distort the drug market from the science stage to the pricing stage."
Ralston urged seniors who treasure their independence, including those covered for prescription drugs through employer-based plans, to tell
Congress: "Leave my drugs--which means those who produce them--alone!"
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, (AFCM), founded in 1993, is the nation's only educational organization based on individual rights, personal responsibility and free market ideas in medicine.
Sep 16, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Stephen Pollard, in the Sunday Telegraph, is wrong that "national self-determination" has any legitimacy as a cause. That said, he still has a point when he shows that Hamas is so much worse than that:Most coverage of Hamas in the Western media betrays a quite astonishing misunderstanding of its role and its aims. The received wisdom is that, although its tactics may be repellent, Hamas is a group of freedom fighters battling against the Israelis for their rights--something akin to nationalist terrorist groups such as the IRA or ETA, which, however foul their methods, have an aim--national self-determination--that can be shared by perfectly decent, non-violent supporters.
It follows logically that any Israeli response to Hamas is reported as merely tit for tat and, in its own way, equally destructive to the chances of a negotiated settlement. Both sides are as bad as each other [...]
That view, however widely it may be propagated, is so warped that it can only raise suspicions about the agenda of those who peddle it. The comparison with the IRA is entirely specious. If the IRA had espoused not merely the separation of Northern Ireland from the UK but also the murder of every Unionist and every Anglican in Great Britain, the abolition of the United Kingdom and its replacement with a Catholic state, run by the IRA and dedicated to converting the rest of the world to Catholicism by force, then there might be some merit in the comparison.
[...] Talk of "negotiation" with Hamas is meaningless--as meaningless as the idea that you can negotiate with Osama bin Laden. You cannot negotiate with the man who intends only your murder and the destruction of your country and who is prepared to die--and kill you in the process--rather than settle for less.
Sep 15, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
The local paper ran an AP story with this headline: "Israel ignores outrage at its threat to remove Palestinian leader." It should have read: "Media ignore outrages committed against Israel by Palestinian leader." As usual, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs is on top of things, compiling these stories this weekend:
Here is a sample of what Arafat's Palestinian Authority is teaching its children ... 'I'm prepared to kill Jews wherever they are' says Palestinian schoolgirl.
"I came here to defend President Arafat against the occupiers who are killing us every day. I'm prepared to make a big sacrifice. I'm prepared to go to the Jews myself and to kill them wherever they are just as they killed us and destroyed us," she said.
For more, be sure to check out Charles' Palestinian Child Abuse Slideshow. To deal with this threat, an Israeli authority naturally mentioned that killing Arafat is definitely one of the options. This is exactly the option we, the United States, chose for Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and everyone directly associated with them. But as the same article indicates, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Israel should not be allowed that option.
He said that if Arafat was either exiled or killed, "I think you can anticipate that there would be rage throughout the Arab world, the Muslim world and in many other parts of the world. The United States does not support either the elimination of him or the exile of Mr Arafat...the Israeli government knows that," Powell said.
In other words, do as we say, not as we do.
Not surprisingly, we have this news today: Palestinians Demand U.N. Protect Arafat.
UPDATE: FoxNews reports: Israel Backs Off Killing Arafat Option.
Israel backed off Monday from threats to kill Yasser Arafat, while the incoming Palestinian prime minister ceded control over many Cabinet appointments to Arafat's Fatah party despite Israeli demands that the veteran Palestinian leader be stripped of authority.
Sep 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
The Pentagon Memorial campaign is trying to raise money for a memorial.
The goal [...] is to construct a memorial commemorating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the 184 lives lost in the Pentagon and on American Airlines Flight 77.
The Pentagon Victims
The Flight 77 Victims
Earlier this year, a Department of Defense news release featured some technical facts regarding how well the Pentagon withstood the impact of the hijacked airliner: Engineer Study Reports Pentagon Was Built Tough.
But this article reveals just how far off the deep end some have gone to deny such basic facts about the Pentagon attack:
[The Zayed International Centre] hosted Thierry Meyssan, the French author of "9-11, The Big Lie," which seeks to implicate U.S. military officials in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.Meyssan's book suggests that the Pentagon was hit by an American missile, and not a hijacked airliner and that the attacks were plotted to promote a U.S. military agenda that included waging war in Afghanistan.
The French press ridiculed the book, but it became a best seller in France for three months. The Pentagon has called the allegations in the book "more than insulting."
News from Afghanistan has been overwhemled by news from Iraq, but our troops are still bravely meting out justice there: U.S. General Sees Taliban in Afghanistan.
Taliban fighters, paid and trained by al-Qaida, are pouring into Afghanistan from Pakistan, the top American commander in Afghanistan said Sunday.Lt. Gen. John Vines said the Taliban were trying to regroup and regain control of the country they ruled until ousted by the United States in late 2001. His comments to reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were the first confirmation from a top U.S. military official of reports of a Taliban resurgence out of Pakistan into Afghanistan.
American, Afghan and coalition forces have responded with military operations against the radical Islamic fighters. As many as 200 Taliban have been killed this week alone, Vines said.
Thank you, men and women of the armed forces, for keeping up the fight. (Click here for ways to support the troops.)
Sep 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute:The Jerusalem Post's editorial calling for killing--not expelling--Arafat is right on target, even if years too late. Arafat has been a terrorist murderer for decades and deserves exactly the same fate as bin Laden deserves.
While there has been no shortage of excuses and rationalizations to leave Arafat alone, the fact remains that no solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is possible with Arafat alive. Exiling him would be a mockery of justice and would not stop him from inciting further terrorism against Israel.
Taking him out would not only advance the prospects for peace in the region but would show to every Palestinian terrorist that Israel means business and that the days of moral cowardice and appeasement towards its enemies are over; it would show that Israel will no longer cave in to "world opinion" or to pressure from American presidents.
It is a shame that the Sharon and the Bush Administrations have still not decided to kill the murderer. As long as they remain oblivious to the need to carry out justice, the blood of innocent Israelis will not stop flowing.
Sep 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute:After listening to the debate between the Democratic presidential candidates, one conclusion is inescapable: they couldn't care less about America's security.
If they did, they would have criticized Bush--not for attacking Iraq, but for not also attacking Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not for failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but for failing to identify militant Islam as our ideological enemy. Not for going to war against the wishes of the United Nations, but for even considering U.N. approval. Not for spending too much on the war on terror, but for spending too little. Not for failing to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks, but for failing to act forcefully enough to prevent the next ones.
But if Democrats changed their rhetoric and criticized Bush for all the above they would have to embrace self-interest as the basis for American foreign policy. But then they wouldn't be proper leftists, would they?
Sep 13, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Comments Allen Forkum:
A FoxNews poll this week found Americans Split on Bush Request for $87 Billion.
"Helping the economy recover" barely bests "protecting the country from terrorism" when the two priorities are pitted directly against each other (32 percent to 29 percent respectively), but a plurality (37 percent) says "both" are important priorities for the government to work on right now. This is a shift from almost a year ago, when only 22 percent said "helping the economy," 24 percent said "protecting" from terrorism and 51 percent put them on equal footing (December 2002).
This cartoon was actually created last year during the run-up to the Iraq war. It was never posted or published and perhaps is even more appropriate on this day.
Sep 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Sep 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Related Article: Forgotten Heroes of 9/11 by Onkar Ghate
Sep 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
AFP reports: US keeps it quiet and dignified for second September 11 anniversary.
As an illustration of how some mindsets have changed in the past year, the New York Daily News on Thursday published an e-mail written by the vice president of the Tishman construction firm, Robert McNally.Responding to a request from New York City officials for a 24-hour moratorium on work around Ground Zero on September 11, McNally replied: "9/11 happened two years ago, it is time to move on."
"Move on"? If he meant we should move forward, as in rebuilding bigger and better at the WTC site rather than turning it into a cemetery pit, then I would agree. But I don't think he meant that. He seems to mean get over 9/11, accept it, don't dwell on it, don't acknowledge the anniversary, don't place any importance on it.
It is exactly in that sense that we should never "move on" from 9/11.
"Moving on" has been part of the problem for decades. We moved on when Hezbollah killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. We moved on when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time, murdering six. We moved on when the Khobar Towers were blown up in Saudi Arabia: 19 dead. We moved on from the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, and the incessant bombings by Palestinian terrorists in Israel.
Had we faced head-on the Islamist threat from the beginning, we wouldn't today be talking about "moving on" from 9/11.
Unfortunately, some seemed to have moved on all too easily.
Sep 6, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:Earlier this week, the Bush Administration put forth a U.N. resolution that would grant more authority to the U.N. in Iraq. A key component is to "transform the U.S.-led coalition force into a U.N.-authorized multinational one under a unified command, with an American officer in charge. The force would be required to submit periodic reports to the [U.N. Security] Council." Secretary of State Colin Powell described the effort as "essentially putting the Security Council in the game."
It must be kept in mind the United Nations is composed of an number of dictatorships, one of which -- Syria -- has a seat on the Security Council. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumself stated just yesterday that many of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Syria.
As opponents of the war in Iraq, France and Germany naturally welcomed America's willingness to submit to U.N. authority but quickly added that the resolution didn't go far enough.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq announced yesterday that the U.S. needs more help in Iraq. But the Bush Administration is making a terrible mistake seeking that help from those who are united against America pursuing its own interests.
Sep 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Last month FoxNews reported: Green Party Happy to 'Spoil' Democratic Presidential Run in 2004.
Some members of the Green Party are reserving much of their anger for Democrats these days, and say they don't care if another third-party run by Ralph Nader wrecks the Democrats' opportunity to replace President Bush in 2004. [...] In the razor-thin election of 2000, Nader received 2.7 percent of the vote, compared to 48.4 percent for Al Gore, and 47.8 percent for George W. Bush, who won the electoral vote and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling deciding his victory. Democrats savaged Nader publicly, blaming him for "stealing" votes away from Gore.
This cartoon is posted with apologies to Benjamin Franklin, who is considered the creator of America's first political cartoon: "Unite or Die". The link depicts a later version of the cartoon, which originally appeared in 1754. According to the book, Drawn & Quartered:
The cartoon is based on a popular superstition that a snake that had been severed would come back to life if the pieces were put together before sunset.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't work with donkeys.
