31 May 2004 @ 12:16AM >> There are thugs all over the ideological spectrum. And when the thugs become associated with your political philosophy, they will turn off the people you need to win at the ballot box.

29 May 2004 @ 9:17PM >> Fred Barnes has an interesting article on media bias over at The Weekly Standard. He cites some rather illuminating data:

Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that’s changed in the media’s politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven’t changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

No matter what evidence is given, the media denials will continue. They’re objective, they say, not biased. But if someone cares about current events so passionately that they go into journalism as a profession, are we supposed to believe that they don’t have any actual opinions about the events they’re covering?

If the members of the media can’t be honest with us about who they are, then why should we believe what they say about anything else?

27 May 2004 @ 7:02PM >> The U.N. might be corrupt and a complete failure as a world body, but it sure sounds like they throw one hell of a party. In an article entitled “U.N. missions painted as booze-soaked orgies,” the Washington Times reports:

A book by three current and former U.N. employees about peacekeeping operations portrays wild parties with alcohol and drugs, and convicts and mental-asylum inmates passing as soldiers.

Makes me nostalgic for college.

No word yet on whether the book (Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Matters) contains a precise recipe for this concoction:

A favorite drink among the U.N. personnel at the parties was the “Space Shuttle.” It was made “by distilling a pound of marijuana over a six-week period with increasingly good quality spirits. It is a work of love, and the final product is an amber-colored liquid that tastes like cognac. We drink it with rounds of Coke.”

One contingent of U.N. “peacekeepers” in Phnom Penh were described as follows:

They’re drunk as sailors, rape vulnerable Cambodian women and crash their U.N. Land Cruisers with remarkable frequency.

Perhaps the broadcast media can squeeze in a word or two about this between updates on Abu Ghraib prison.

27 May 2004 @ 1:31AM >> A Washington Post article about the possibility of al Qaeda attacks this summer contains an interesting line:

[...] al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United States and other countries.

This begs the question: which candidate do you think al Qaeda would like to see win the election?

More importantly, what kind of American would vote for the candidate that al Qaeda wants to win?

25 May 2004 @ 11:34PM >> AP is now reporting:

Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday.

Just last month, Iraq’s neighbor Jordan foiled a chemical attack that could have killed anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 people. According to Jordanian officials, the attackers and the weapons entered the country from Syria.

Add to this the recent claim that large portions of Saddam’s chemical stockpiles were routed through Syria into Lebanon (which is occupied by Syria) and hidden in the Bekaa valley.

Earlier this year, David Kay—who led the U.S. military’s search for Iraqi WMDs—stated:

[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Let’s see: Iraqi WMDs may have been transferred to Syria. Chemical weapons set to be used in an attack against Jordan may have come from Syria. The nerve agent sarin was exploded in Baghdad, even though the U.N. inspectors were supposed to have disposed of all such weapons.

Connect the dots...do you think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

21 May 2004 >> When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill became law, unprecedented restrictions were placed on the free speech rights of private citizens. It is now illegal for a group of people to organize, pool their resources and purchase broadcast media ads supporting or opposing political candidates within 60 days of November’s election. The rationale was to eliminate the influence of advocacy groups that have become increasingly effective at bringing certain issues to the attention of voters. But the bill has one big gaping loophole. More >>

18 May 2004 @ 7:05PM >> AP discusses two polls of Iraqi citizens that paint a far different picture than what the traditional media generally presents to us.

The article quotes directors from the polling firms involved: Richard Burkholder of Gallup and Christoph Sahm of Oxford Research International.

Sahm and Burkholder said they’ve found Iraqis have a sense of optimism about the future of their country. But they understand that nothing can be achieved until the nation is more secure.

Burkholder discussed the type of government Iraqis wanted:

“Very low down the list is an Islamic theocracy, in which mullahs and religious leaders have a lot of influence, such as in Iran.”

The polls also revealed areas where Iraqis feel the U.S.-led coalition has been successful:

“One of the things that comes up again and again as a success in the transition so far is education,” Sahm said. He also mentioned increasing trust in the Iraqi police and the new Iraqi army.

“When we see the images of war and terror on the TV screen,” Sahm said, “it’s hard to believe that behind all of this, many Iraqis are leading normal lives and going about their business.”

That’s strange. If you listen to our media, you wouldn’t think we had any successes in Iraq.

It makes you wonder: is the purpose of the media to give you an accurate view of the world? Or is it to promote a specific agenda?

15 May 2004 @ 3:33PM >> Toby Harnden, a London Daily Telegraph reporter, recounts a story showing more bias in the U.S. media. Harnden tells of his encounter in Baghdad with “an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials”:

“Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country.

“Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’”

Should we be surprised to hear that at least some members of the U.S. media are actively cheering for America’s defeat?

14 May 2004 @ 11:38PM >> Jose Ramos-Horta won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, he had some interesting comments on the justified use of force and Iraq:

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early ’80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed “Emperor” Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened—without a U.N. mandate—to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world’s most barbaric regimes.

So why do some think Iraq should be any different?

[...]

Saddam’s overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That’s why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes—from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.

[...]

If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington’s vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women’s advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

[...]

The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.

[...]

It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

13 May 2004 @ 11:34PM >> This cartoon makes a similar point about the media as my latest article.

It’s from Cox & Forkum. If you haven’t seen their site before, check it out. It’s a nice antidote to Ted Rall.

13 May 2004 @ 4:10AM >> “The rich aren’t paying their fair share!” That’s the mantra you hear whenever a Democrat runs for office. You’d think that people employing such rhetoric would be sure to pony up their fair share, right? Especially if the people involved happened to be super-rich?

Not in the case of John Kerry or his wife Teresa.

Last year, Teresa—worth an estimated half-billion dollars—paid less than 15% of her income in taxes. Meanwhile, the non-Heinz Kerry paid just 23%.

Not that I’m complaining; I’m just a little envious. During my last full year of salaried employment, nearly 50% of my income was removed by various governments (federal, New York State and New York City) before it even hit my bank account.

Don’t take this as an argument in favor of higher taxes for anyone; instead, it’s a sign that we need a fairer tax system, one where the rate you pay doesn’t depend on the accountant you can afford. (A flat tax, anyone?)

But since real tax reform isn’t going to happen any time soon, I have a different request. If Kerry really has compassion for the common man, perhaps he can help this one figure out how to game the system like he and his wife do. I could use the break.

Next time you hear Kerry talk about soaking the rich, remember: he doesn’t mean himself or his wife. He probably means you.

13 May 2004 >> For us to achieve a just victory, it is important to hold ourselves to a higher morality. And when we fall short, the rest of the world should see that we can confront our own mistakes. If airing the Abu Ghraib prison pictures helps us do that, all the better. But we must not let terrorists take it as a sign that we don’t have the stomach for war. That’s why it’s important to show the rest of the world that we’re not afraid to kick some ass. And if seeing the gruesome images of Nick Berg’s beheading gives us the mettle required to win this war, then he will not have died in vain. More >>

12 May 2004 @ 5:37AM >> When Iraq erupted in April, the news media re-declared it a quagmire. It was a tense, tenuous time, but once again the media made the mistake of assuming that a short-term shift in momentum proved a long-term trend. If the media applied the same mentality to its financial reporting, each down day on Wall Street would be cited as proof that for the rest of human history, not a single stock price would ever again move higher.

In the midst of the furor over the shocking prison pictures, some positive-sounding news flew under the radar screen. First, Iraqis formed their own militias against Moqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite demagogue who sparked one front in last month’s hostilities. Knight Ridder reports:

Armed with a 9mm handgun and grit, Haidar is trying to do what the American military camped nearby hasn’t done: Drive the gunmen of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr from this holy city.

Since mid-April, Haidar and scores of other young men from Najaf have gathered nightly in the city’s sprawling cemetery to attack members of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia. Only a few gunmen are targeted each time to prevent big firefights that might injure civilians, said Haidar, who spoke with Knight Ridder on the condition that his last name not be used.

Now, according to AP, Iraqis are protesting al-Sadr:

About 1,000 people, including a few women in black veils, marched through the streets of Najaf on Tuesday to urge radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers to leave the city.

Reuters adds:

A bigger demonstration is planned for Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, said an official of a rival Shi’ite organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

[...]

A senior aide to Sadr in the city told Reuters Monday the Mehdi Army planned to widen its offensive, however.

It didn’t take long for that story to change, however. Bloomberg is now reporting:

Iraqi Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr offered to end his insurgency against the U.S.-led coalition in the country if the coalition agrees to negotiations, Agence France-Presse reported.

If al-Sadr thought he could take Iraq—or even one major town—by force, he would. Only a few weeks ago, he was predicting total victory. That he is now offering to put down his arms, I suspect, is a sign that he doesn’t have much in the way of arms left.

More importantly, though, it’s heartening to see Iraqis with the courage to take control of their own future.

10 May 2004 @ 5:56PM >> As we get bogged down in the trials of daily life, it is quite easy to forget that we are engaged in a war of civilizations.

We yawn while radical Islamists have pledged to destroy Westernism. Because we haven’t been hit by another attack on mainland America since September 11th, we delude ourselves into thinking we are safe. But our enemies live by a timeline we can’t fathom. November’s elections seem like an eternity away to us, while Wahabbists are willing to wait two or ten generations to do us in. As long as we continue to let radical Islam sprout from the madrassas of the Middle East, we are in danger.

A reader recently forwarded me an editorial by Phil Lucas which serves as a reminder of what we’re up against:

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can’t get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims. We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them.

[...]

Let’s recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe and when they reached sufficient numbers they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

[...]

Let’s consider the concept of a “long war.” Last time it was 200 years, give or take.

Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn’t fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That’s the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims—some live here—but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers, the millions gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

[...]

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that’s the way it was and that’s the way it is.

But many Americans don’t get it.

Unfortunately, I’d venture to say that most Americans don’t get it. They will be reminded some day, when they wake up to a dirty bomb—or worse—detonated in a major city. It may not happen tomorrow, it may not happen for another ten years. But unless we’re willing to crush radical Islam completely, it will happen. The only question is when and who will be killed.

5 May 2004 @ 7:46PM >> UNSCAM, the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, may turn out to be the single biggest financial scandal in the history of mankind, not that you’d know it given the scant media coverage.

Nevertheless, the story continues to develop thanks in large part to the efforts of investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. In today’s Wall Street Journal, she reports that the stonewalling of the investigation goes right to the top of the U.N.:

[I]n the interval between March 19, when Mr. Annan finally conceded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the program might after all need investigating by independent experts, and April 21, when former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker was appointed to head to the investigation, Mr. Annan’s office explicitly reminded these two crucial contractors, which worked for the Secretariat’s Oil for Food program checking the imports and exports involved in more than $100 billion worth of Saddam’s oil sales and relief imports, to keep quiet.

Even before this scandal erupted, I had serious doubts about the efficacy of the U.N. Its problems are structural, and this scandal is yet another sign of how deep the rot goes.

In the Chicago Sun-Times, John O’Sullivan argues that the scandal has robbed the U.N. of its pretense of legitimacy:

More worrying is what the Oil for Food scandal tells us about the political attitudes of the U.N. bureaucracy and the political elites of Europe. None of them was seriously hostile to Saddam or his brutal state — they struck attitudes in public that their private actions belied. None of them was even slightly concerned about the Iraqi people despite their crocodile tears about the impact of sanctions — they colluded in denying the promised humanitarian aid to them. None wanted to see U.N. resolutions enforced despite their sanctimonious rhetoric about the U.N. being the fount of legitimacy. All of them were mainly concerned with obstructing the Anglo-Americans in their campaign to enforce those resolutions and oust Saddam.

The corruption of the Oil-for-Food program may turn out to be the primary reason the U.S. faced such stiff opposition among the larger players in the U.N. If so, the corruption is also one of the reasons why we aren’t getting more international help in Iraq today. In other words, there is a very real possibility that the U.N. scam led to more American casualties in Iraq than would have occurred if other governments were more generous in augmenting the coalition’s troop strength. Historically, the U.N. has done little to fulfill the goals outlined in its own charter. And now we know that the U.N. is a fraud on other levels as well.

The U.N. occupies extremely valuable land in Manhattan. Americans could do more with that land than the back-stabbing diplomats who take our money to run the U.N. and then use it to prop up Saddam Hussein. If you ask me, we’d all be better off if the U.N. headquarters were moved to Brussels, where the organization could be even more attentive to its European masters.

5 May 2004 >> Disney declines to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore’s upcoming hit piece against President Bush. According to one Disney executive, “It’s not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle.” For his part, Moore denies his film will be partisan. Is he being disingenuous? More >>

3 May 2004 @ 11:34PM >> In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal calls attention to some interesting tidbits from Bob Woodward’s latest book, Plan of Attack:

The President continued, “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?” At which point Mr. Tenet is said to have thrown his hands in the air and remarked, “It’s a slam-dunk case!” Mr. Bush pressed again, “George, how confident are you?” Mr. Tenet: “Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”

It isn’t a shock, of course, that the CIA believed Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Administration bombed Iraq for four days in December 1998 based on that assessment. Every other major intelligence agency in the world believed the same. What is new in the Woodward account is the extent to which Mr. Bush appears to have been a thoughtful and critical consumer of such intelligence. The President reportedly told Mr. Tenet several times, “Make sure no one stretches to make our case.”

These revelations, of course, haven’t been widely discussed. Doing so would debunk many of the media-propelled myths intended to damage President Bush.

It does make one wonder about Tenet, though. If I were as conspiratorially-minded as many on the left, I’d think that Tenet, a Clinton hold-over, was trying to sabotage the Bush presidency. I don’t think that. I just think intelligence gathering and analysis is a tough business, and that our systems need serious work.

3 May 2004 @ 4:05AM >> John Kerry several weeks ago: “I don’t fall down.“

John Kerry now: AP reports that “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry took a spill from his bicycle while riding Sunday afternoon [...]”

Is there one issue where this guy has taken a consistent stand?