.
Dec 19, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
FoxNews reports: Saddam Speaks From Prison.From his prison cell, ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein urged his compatriots to remain united against the U.S. occupation and warned of the potential dangers of the upcoming elections, his lawyers said Sunday.
Iraqi lawyer Khalil al-Duleimi met with Saddam on Thursday, the first meeting since Saddam was captured a year ago.
"Our representative in Iraq told us that the president warned the people of Iraq and the Arabs to beware of the American scheme aimed at splitting Iraq into sectarian and religious divisions and weakening the (Arab) nation," said Bushra Khalil, a Lebanese member of the defense team.
This can only get worse.Dec 17, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From Human Events Editor Allan H. Ryskind: Ugly Reporting Wrongs Rumsfeld.Nowhere was the media's irresponsibility on the Iraq conflict more acutely demonstrated than in the barrage of ugly news reports on Donald Rumsfeld's exchange in Kuwait with Spc. Thomas Wilson, an exchange that is still reverberating across the country. ...
Virtually all the newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV accounts wildly misrepresented what happened next. As the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks "reported" -- and his piece was wholly representative of the media in general --" Rumsfeld replied: 'As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Rumsfeld, as the media would have it, was blowing off the deepest concerns of our men and women about to be placed in a deadly situation. ...
But the official transcript of the Kuwaiti townhall meeting with the troops ... reveals an entirely different story.
The first words out of Rumsfeld's mouth in response to Wilson were not what the media either said or implied or disclosed in film clips. They were, instead, words of encouragement. Rumsfeld dwelt at length on how much progress the military was making in solving the problem that began materializing a year ago August when the enemy started using explosives to blow up thin-skinned Army vehicles normally used in the rear of the combat zone. Nor was the secretary caught off guard by the question, as the media has suggested.
The Wall Street Journal ran two good editorials on this subject this week:
The first is by John R. Guardiano, an Arlington, Va.-based journalist who served in Iraq in 2003 as a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps' Fourth Civil Affairs Group: Question Authority: What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson's question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.
Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few "up-armored" humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon's highest official. I wasn't.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you're in the middle of a firefight, you cannot -- and must not -- second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged -- even demanded, I found.
As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."
The second WSJ editorial is by Brendan Miniter: Hunter's Gun Truck: One reason for the Iraq armor shortage: The military is too thorough.Mr. Rumsfeld stirred up a hornet's nest last week by saying, "You go to war with the army you have. They're not the army you might want or wish to have." He's right. We cannot afford to make the mistake George McClellan did in the Civil War, endlessly preparing for war but not doggedly going after the enemy. Our soldiers deserve the best equipment and training money can buy. And that includes the best equipment they can use now, instead of waiting around for something better. Sometimes what's good enough today is better than what would be perfect sometime down the road.
Dec 14, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From CNN: U.S. opposes third term for IAEA chief.The Washington Post reported Sunday that U.S. intelligence had taped conversations between [Mohammed] ElBaradei [head of the International Atomic Energy Agency] and Iranian officials in an alleged attempt to discredit the Egyptian-born IAEA chief, who has served at the IAEA's director-general since 1997. ...
The United States must win the support of 12 nations on the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors to block ElBaradei's re-election, but its influence with the board has been limited. To date the U.S. has been unsuccessful in persuading the board to take a tough line with Iran.
In November, ElBaradei praised the European preliminary nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran as a "step in the right direction," despite the fact that Iran has a history of lying about its nuclear programs, not to mention a history of being the world's worst sponsor of terrorism and an open enemy of America and Israel. (One recent example: Iran group canvasses for suicide bombers.)
Around the same time, ElBaradei acknowledged that the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists was a "real danger," saying we should take "preventative measures" then: "We have to cross our fingers that nothing will happen." (Via LGF)
When one expects terrorist-sponsoring regimes like Iran's to abide by weapons agreements, then all that is left is to cross your fingers and prepare to be attacked.
The Bush Administration is long over due in confronting Iran, and at least one person has decided to do something about. The Los Angeles Times today published a story about a "grass-roots crusade against Iran," as Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily called it: Kerry Opponent Taking Aim at New Target: Iran.
Jerome R. Corsi, a leader of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth campaign against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, is hard at work on his next political project: preparing American public opinion for what he sees as a likely war with Iran.
"The world cannot tolerate the potential that these mad mullahs would have a deliverable nuclear weapon, even one, secretly developed," Corsi said in a recent interview. "They might just launch on Tel Aviv. The moment the world intelligence community becomes convinced that could happen, either the U.S. alone or the U.S. plus Israel or Israel alone will seriously contemplate a preemptive strike, and I'd be in favor of it."
Dec 13, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--The use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by major league baseball players has drawn threats from the United States government. Major league baseball had better institute strict drug policies, warned Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan, or it will face Congressional action.
But the government should not be granted the power to dictate to consenting adults what they can and cannot ingest, stated Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. Major league baseball is a private organization that has the right, if it chooses, to ban steroid use among players by contractual agreement. As with any private individual or organization, it has the right to lay down the terms under which it will associate with others--leaving it to the voluntary decision of players to accept the terms or play elsewhere.
More broadly, Bernstein pointed out, in a free society an adult has the right to think and decide for himself in the pursuit of his own happiness. A necessary consequence is that he may choose self-destructive actions--whether to drink harmful amounts of alcohol or use toxic drugs. A legal prohibition on drugs, as on alcohol, is a violation of the right of the individual to determine the course of his life. Bernstein concluded that Congress should butt out and let Major league baseball determine its own course of action regarding players' use of steroids.Dec 13, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
In The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes writes on the issue of social security reform: Republican Insecurity.Democrats are a problem. On modernizing Social Security, most of them are reactionary liberals, committed to preserving an antiquated system. But at the moment, Republicans are an even bigger problem for the White House. For a reform measure to win approval in Congress, Republicans must be united. True, the conventional wisdom in Washington is that entitlement reform requires bipartisanship. With only a handful of Democrats likely to sign on, however, that won't happen. So that leaves the matter with Republicans, and they are anything but together.
In today's TIA Daily, Robert Tracinski commented on the above story:The Democrats are on the ropes and in no position to resist President Bush's proposal for a partial privatization of Social Security. So it is up to cowardly congressional Republicans to stand in the way of progress -- which some of them are, of course, doing. This article provides a good overview of likely resistance from Republicans -- as well as the likely outlines of any Bush administration proposal.
Dec 10, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Charles Johnson commented earlier this week on the Bush Administration's plans to give $20 million to the Palestinian Authority: Rewarding Terrorism.It's amazing how nobody in the world wants to hold Palestinian society responsible for anything. Their economy is devastated because of four years of senseless violence, all right -- perpetrated by the Palestinians, in spite of a historic peace offer from Israel.
For a people who talk endlessly about having their own state, they have done almost nothing positive, on their own, to achieve it. The world has given them countless billions of dollars, much of which vanished into anonymous bank accounts, and the Palestinian people have nothing to show for it. Why are we giving them another huge handout?
Meanwhile, AFP reported the same day that PLO chief Mahmud Abbas was not opposed to convicted and jailed terrorist Marwan Barghouti running for the Palestinian presidency.
But Palestinians aren't the only ones defending Barghouti. So are Leftists, who are supposedly for the criminal prosecution of terrorists instead of waging war against them. Why the contradiction? TIA Daily's Jack Wakeland examined the issue: No War, No Justice.The left complains when we invade countries allied with the anti-American terrorist cause, we do not treat captured terrorists and the criminal militamen who fight alongside them as if they are lawfully uniformed combatants of a hostile nation at war with the United States. Likewise, when police and intelligence operatives capture terrorists in Islamabad or Kabul or Baghdad, the left insists that the men be put on trial, proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in accordance with the law, like any other criminal -- or released immediately for lack of evidence. The left has attempted to apply the rule of law out of context, as a fig leaf to cover their general rejection of national defense.
With Barghouti, Israel has done exactly as the left specifies. And the instigator of a dirty terrorist war responsible for the loss of well over a thousand innocent lives is slated to rot in prison for the rest of his life.
Does the left celebrate this successful use of their policy? No. They have dropped the fig leaf.
Dec 8, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Under the heading "Keep Kofi," Harry Binswanger (HBL email list) pinpointed the real issue:The movement to force the resignation of U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan is a red herring, or a sop. What is needed, of course, is not to get Annan out of his office but to get the U.S. out of the U.N.
The evil of the U.N. is that it includes, in a world body allegedly devoted to peace, every and any dictatorship. It is one of the most egregious examples of the sanction of the victim, which serves to sacrifice the good to the evil.
This, not the graft of the "Oil for Food Program, is the scandal of the U.N. Deposing Annan will serve only to divert attention from this essential and quell the rising outrage against the nature of the U.N.
The best result for the U.S. would be if Kofi Annan keeps his job. That would reveal how corrupt the U.N. is, and the real cause of that corruption is only beginning to be faintly perceived by a few commentators.
While there were good ideas in 
From an AP report: 
From CNN: 
From CNN: 
