October 14-15, 2007
Oct 14 00:18 Gen. Sanchez Criticizes Bush, Agenda Media Oct 14 00:49 Slain Sheikh's Brother Aiming for National Reconciliation Oct 14 08:15 Fred Whacks Mitt Oct 14 17:29 Dr. Gray Demolishes Gore Oct 14 19:20 No. 28 Goes For 67, 73, 35; Longwell hits 55 yard GW Field Goal As Time Expires Oct 14 20:05 Gen. Petraeus' Testimony Shames Hillary Oct 15 09:20 One Way Or Another Oct 15 19:43 Reid Congratulates Gore's Nobel Victory
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
Gen. Sanchez Criticizes Bush, Agenda Media
Ret. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez is making headlines by saying that we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. That wasn't the first time that he's made these claims. Here's his most recent statement:
AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVISE A STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN COUNTRY OR IN THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM. FROM A CATASTROPHICALLY FLAWED, UNREALISTICALLY OPTIMISTIC WAR PLAN TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S LATEST "SURGE" STRATEGY, THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO EMPLOY AND SYNCHRONIZE ITS POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER. THE LATEST "REVISED STRATEGY" IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THIS WAR AND THEY HAVE DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNICATED THAT REALITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AN EVEN WORSE AND MORE DISTURBING ASSESSMENT IS THAT AMERICA CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE POLITICAL CONSENSUS NECESSARY TO DEVISE A GRAND STRATEGY THAT WILL SYNCHRONIZE AND COMMIT OUR NATIONAL POWER TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN IRAQ. SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT OUR NATIONS CRISIS IN LEADERSHIP.Compare that statement with this statement in June, 2007:
The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war. "I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will, not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said inHe made this statement before the surge troops were even in place. I'd further suggest that Gen. Sanchez made his mind up long before the statistics started changing. His opinions have little to do with the facts on the ground. It's also quite possible that he's bitter for having not gotten a promotion after Abu Ghraib essentially ended his career :
an interview.
He was in command when the abuse of prisoners occurred most notably at Abu Ghraib prison. Some have been highly critical of the U.S. military's failure to hold generals accountable, putting the blame for abuses at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers only on a few individuals of the lowest rank.More important than his statement about the military conditions in Iraq, though, is what he said about the press corps covering Iraq. Here's a sample of that lambasting:
ONCE REPORTED, YOUR ASSESSMENTS BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE. OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY "HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS" WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCURATELY AND PROMINENTLY CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES AND YOUR AGENDA DRIVEN BIASES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT.I've argued since I started my blogging life on Nov. 18,2004 that the so-called MSM couldn't care less about getting the facts straight. Little less than a year later, I said that the MSM was more interested in advancing their liberal agenda than they were in reporting the truth. That's when I created the term Agenda Media.
What's ironic is that Gen. Sanchez started his statement by criticizing the Agenda-driven media, then he launches into an attack against the surge despite the facts not supporting his arguments. Last week, Howard Kurtz said that casualties in Iraq have dropped 4 straight months .
Here's another part of Sanchez's anti-press diatribe:
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED. THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS STATES:Dilligently reporting the truth about the who, what, where and when should be the highest priority of the media. It's obvious that that isn't their first priority. I'd be surprised if it's even their next highest priority. Noteworthy exceptions to that rule are Bill Roggio, Michael Yon and John Burns. They view accuracy as a necessary part of their jobs because it keeps their credibility intact.
...PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT IS THE FORERUNNER OF JUSTICE AND THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. THE DUTY OF THE JOURNALIST IS TO FURTHER THOSE ENDS BY SEEKING TRUTH AND PROVIDING A FAIR AND
COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES. CONSCIENTIOUS JOURNALISTS FROM ALL MEDIA AND SPECIALTIES STRIVE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WITH THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A JOURNALIST'S CREDIBILITY.
To be blunt, the headline of this story should be more about how Gen. Sanchez exposes the Agenda-driven Media than about his criticism of President Bush.
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:20 AM
No comments.
Slain Sheikh's Brother Aiming for National Reconciliation
This Chicago Tribune article gives hope to the notion that there will be a national reconciliation movement in Iraq. Here's what the Chicago Trib is reporting:
When the prominent sheik who led a tribal revolt against Al Qaeda in Iraq was killed last month, it raised the question of whether his Awakening movement would die with him.In other words, the reconciliation movement didn't die with the assassination of Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha. Instead, it appears as though it's strengthened the Sunnis' resolve in Anbar.
But now his brother has assumed leadership of the group and is trying to parlay its success at establishing security in Anbar and neighboring provinces into a political organization bent on sectarian reconciliation across the country.
The nascent movement is being cemented through complicated living-room diplomacy involving Sunni tribal leaders and political power brokers in Anbar province.
Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Ramadi sheik who led resistance against Al Qaeda, was killed Sept. 13 by a car bomb near his home. Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha assumed the mantle of the Iraq Awakening movement shortly after his brother's death.
"So far, we have achieved big success in the area of security, something hard even for the Americans and government to achieve. After that, we began to have the will to join the political process in order to build the country," Ahmed Abu Risha said. "You can only build a society through the political process. You can't always stand on the margins and watch."
It's important that we not view the reconciliation movement through western eyes. Arab reconciliation might well take shape in a different pattern than Western reconciliation. Here's how Iraqi reconciliation is being cobbled together:
The group has sought cooperation from Sunni tribal leaders in neighboring provinces, asked Sunni political leaders in parliament to tone down sectarian rhetoric, and reached out to the office of the Shiite cleric and political figure Moqtada Sadr, U.S. military officials say.In other words, they've made some smart moves. They've worked at changing the tone while reaching out to non-Sunni groups. That sounds like the intelligent thing to do. If it works, alot of Agenda-driven Media will have second and third helpings of raw crow to dine on.
I'm not predicting total quiet but I'm saying that it's looking possible now. I'm certainly cheering for it.
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:50 AM
No comments.
Fred Whacks Mitt
This press release by the Thompson campaign will leave a substantial mark:
Friends of Fred Thompson Communication Director Todd Harris released the following statement today regarding Mitt Romney's claim that he speaks for the "Republican wing of the Republican Party:"I'd buy it if Romney said that he represents the northeast moderate/Rockefeller wing of the GOP but hinting that he represents the conservatives is the type of nonsense I'd expect from Democratic presidential candidates, not from GOP presidential candidates.
"In 1994, Mitt Romney accomplished what people had long thought was impossible - he ran for Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy. I didn't know there was any room there. For him to now claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party is yet another Mitt Romney flip flop."
Mitt Romney is trying to pass himself off as a conservative. We wanted to believe that about George Bush in 2000. This time, we aren't buying into Romney's claims that he's conservative. His record is clearly that of a moderate.
I'd trust Rudy Giuliani more than I'd trust Romney. Giuliani hasn't changed his positions. He's clumsily handled some questions on abortion but he hasn't changed his mind. Romney says that he had a change since his days of saying he'd be better on women's issues than Ted Kennedy. I haven't seen proof that that 'conversion' ever took place.
The Romney campaign is just waiting to collapse. Giuliani and Thompson connect with real people. The same can't be said about Romney. Whether Romney likes it or not, likeability still matters.
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007 8:17 AM
No comments.
Dr. Gray Demolishes Gore
One of the foremost meteorologists, Dr. William Gray, ridiculed Al Gore's theories on global warming yesterday. It wouldn't be inaccurate to say that Dr. Gray demolished Gore's assertions.
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.This isn't some conservative radio talk show host saying that Gore is "brainwashing our children." This is an expert that's saying that Gore is peddling propaganda. When a somebody like Dr. Gray says that "we're brainwashing our children", people would be wise to listen. For those of us who are old enough to remember, Dr. Gray ridiculing Gore is like those old Merrill-Lynch commercials where the guy says "My broker is Merrill-Lynch..." and the entire room goes silent.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures, related to the amount of salt in ocean water, was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.While Dr. Gray is willing to wait "10 or 15 years" before saying that we'll "realize how foolish it was", I'll speed up that process. I'll realize that Gore's a laughingstock today. In fact, I suspect that a bunch of people think he's an idiot now.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years. "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."The first thing we need to do is introduce verifiable facts into the discussion. We don't need to "change the world's consciousness about" anything. Instead, we need to let scientists run their tests so they can discover the truth about our changing climates.
Originally posted Sunday, October 14, 2007, revised 15-Oct 12:35 AM
Comment 1 by JoeCitizen at 14-Oct-07 06:15 PM
Of course, it is not just Gore. Gore is a popularizer. The understanding that anthropogenic global warming is real is shared by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (which is, if you didnt know, a different discipline from meteorology).
Dr. Gray seems not to have any understanding of atmospheric chemistry - which might be understandable given that it is not directly relevant to the prediciton of hurricanes from one year to the next.
Scientists are doing the hard work of verifying the claims of global warming advocates. That is what the IPCC is all about. Dr. Gray is in a very distinct minority, and the vehemence of his language does not add anything to the value of his perspective.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Oct-07 07:22 PM
The IPCC wasn't a scientific document. It was a purely political document. The sooner whackaloons like Al Gore get that through their thick skulls, the faster we'll rid ourselves of this junk 'science'.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 15-Oct-07 09:33 AM
OK, all of you who believe the "consensus of scientists" (which is anything but), let's just look at the IPCC report. Yes, it's a political document, but heavy on cientific "supporting evidence."
If you can find it, you will notice two "predictions" in the report. The first is that "fully implementing Kyoto" (keeping third world countries in poverty and sending first world countries hurtling towards third world economies) would reduce global temperatures by an almost insignificant amount. So why all the pain for no gain? The second is the prediction that, if we "drastically reduced" CO2 emissions today (one assumes far below Kyoto standards, meaning instant worldwide economic and humanitarian disaster), we could see temperatures "start down 100-200 years from now." Sorry, but I'm not willing to condemn billions of real human beings to poverty, misery, starvation and death just to save a few polar bears 100 years into the future (even if the bears' fate WERE true, which it isn't), or to avoid the earth being just a wee bit warmer, as if that were a bad thing.
No. 28 Goes For 67, 73, 35; Longwell hits 55 yard GW Field Goal As Time Expires
No. 28 of the Vikings, Adrian Peterson, did the unthinkable today. Prior to today, it'd been forever since the Bears defense had given up a 55 yard run. Undaunted, AD (stands for All Day)carried the ball 20 times for 224 yards with 3 TD's, including TD's of 67, 73 and 35 yards. Though he played in just his fifth game, he looked like a man amongst children. If that wasn't enough, he also returned 4 kickoffs for 128 yards.
How did he perform down the stretch? All he did was turn the momentum around after the Bears tied the score at 31 with 1:38 left in the game. He returned the ensuing kickoff 53 yards, virtually putting the Vikings in field goal range with the kickoff.
After that, the Vikings nearly managed to lose enough yardage to take them outside of field goal range. It's a good thing that Ryan Lonmgwell hit a career-high 55-yard field goal as time expired.
Young Mr. Peterson is already an elite back. No offense to Chester Taylor but AD is head and shoulders better than Chester. AD's 224 yards rushing are also a team record. Asked after the game what that meant to him, Peterson humbly said "That means alot breaking that record in Walter Payton's house."
Brian Baldinger did the color analysis for today's game. Count him a big AD admirer. He said that AD "is the best running back to come into the league since Ladainian Tomlinson, maybe ever before that." I don't disagree with that. He's all of 5 games into his career and he's outrushed the other teams' running backs combined thus far. He's 5 games into his career and he's averaging 6.3 yards per carry. Five games into his career, he's averaging 121.4 yards rushing per game.
That's a pace to eclipse the 1900 yard mark. I'm skeptical of him accomplishing that because he'll likely hit the 'rookie wall'. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if he got close to the Vikings' single season rushing record.
Originally posted Sunday, October 14, 2007, revised 15-Oct 12:37 AM
No comments.
Gen. Petraeus' Testimony Shames Hillary
Everyone remembers Hillary's telling Gen. Petraeus that his report to the Senate " required the willing suspension of disbelief ." The Washington Post is picking on her for something else, though it's just as effective.
A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.That's a stunning bit of reporting. The Washington Post saying that there isn't much debate but that casualties are dropping is terrible news for Democrats, especially Democratic presidential candidates, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy and the MoveOn.org types. Suffice it to say that another month of lower casualties will make Hillary as nervous as a chameleon on a tie-died shirt.
A month later, there isn't much room for such debate , at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43, down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.
During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say, so far, with stunningly little success.
We all agree that the Bush administration didn't prosecute the war properly initially. The good news is that they're doing the right thing now. Everyone is acknowledging the Anbar Awakening. That's something I was writing about in August. Back then, I said that this would likely help Gen. Petraeus pivot some troops away from Anbar to the south to eliminate the Shia militias. I'd expect the next reports to show a drop in casualties in and around Baghdad.
When that happens, Democrats will be faced with the prospect of having been vocally opposed to a successful war. Make no bones about it: Democrats were counting on Iraq continuing to be bad news for Republicans. At minimum, the Iraq issue will be neutralized. If the trend continues, it might even be a positive for Rudy or Fred because they've explained why we needed to win there and because they didn't waver in their support for the military.
Hillary's changed her stump speech so many times that voters can't keep track of all the changes.
This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions, and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were, to put it simply, wrong.Indeed they were. That's because they were so invested in defeat that they couldn't ponder the possibility of victory.
When things have changed even more, Democrats will owe Gen. Petraeus an engraved apology.
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007 8:06 PM
No comments.
One Way Or Another
Jed Babbin has a must read article in Human Events on how Democrats are trying to end the war in Iraq with an unusual tactic. Here's what's happening:
Congressional Democrats anxious to force a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation that would establish a firm date for retreat. But what they cannot do directly they are now working hard to do indirectly.This should be seen for what it is: A despicable attempt by Democrats to end the Iraq War by cutting off supplies to US troops. There's no question but that Democrats want to end this war even though there's now proof aplenty that the surge is working, casualty rates are dropping faster than the Hindenburg and we're about ready to fix our sights on radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militias.
According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey is the transshipment point for about 70% of all air cargo (including 33% of the fuel) going to supply US forces in Iraq. Included are about 95% of the new "MRAP", Mine-resistant, ambush-protected, vehicles designed to save the lives of American troops. Turkey wasn't always this helpful. In 2003, the Turks refused permission for the 4th Infantry Division to enter Iraq through Turkey.
Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a non-binding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.
At issue is the non-binding resolution passed on October 10 by the House Foreign Affairs Committee that labels the 1915-1923 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire a genocide. Such resolutions can be passed by either or both houses of Congress and are not subject to presidential veto.
If Ms. Pelosi forces this vote and the Turkish government demands that we leave, the consequences will be dire for our military. If the Turkish government stops our using Incirlik, there's a strong probability that it'll cripple our war effort. If that happens, then blame for our defeat will be fixed on House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi.
Follow this link to Ms. Pelosi's contact page. Let her know that we're watching and that there's political consequences to this stunt. (Appropriately, her email address for non-constituents is AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov. Let's make sure that Ms. Pelosi is hearing our voices on this issue.)
Meanwhile, this NY Times article hints that Pelosi might not bring the vote up if President Bush calls:
The House speaker, one of four Congressional leaders to appear on the Sunday talk shows, repeated her vow to move the genocide question to the full House for debate now that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has passed it.That isn't much of a backdown but it might suggest that she's vulnerable to White House's pressuring on the matter. Until we hear otherwise, let's coninue under the assumption that we need to step up the pressure on Ms. Pelosi.
But when George Stephanopoulos asked the key question, how would she react if Mr. Bush or Defense Secretary Robert Gates called her to say that they were "just certain that this is going to put our military at risk", she replied: "The president hasn't called me on it, so that's hypothetical. He hasn't called me on it."
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 15-Oct-07 09:38 AM
Gary,
"proof aplenty that the surge is working"?
You mean from the Government Accountability Office, which noted that only 3 out of 18 benchmarks established for judging the success of the surge had been met?
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-1222T
"Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds. These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province...
The government has not enacted legislation on de-Ba'athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament. It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased--a key security benchmark--since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators' intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends."
Comment 2 by Winston Smith at 15-Oct-07 10:03 AM
Gary,
Or are you talking about the statistics and trends reported by General Petraeus, which Rand Beers, counterrorism advisor to Presidents Bush and Clinton, and Lawrence J. Korb, former senior Reagan Pentagon official, say was cherrypicked to enhance appearances.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14196/iraq_security_statistics.html?breadcrumb=%252F
Nongovernmental analysis of civilian deaths in Iraq is even more critical of military numbers.
At least 1,809 Iraqi civilians were killed in August 2007, according the Associated Press. That's the second-highest total recorded in 2007.
Comment 3 by jay k. at 15-Oct-07 11:13 AM
um...political reconciliation is moving in the negative direction. the surge is not working based upon the administrations own stated goals.
Comment 4 by ME at 15-Oct-07 01:09 PM
"casualty rates are dropping faster than the Hindenburg"
Do you really believe that?
Man, you are a sad sucker. a rube.
Then again, you probably also believe in a 2000 year old magic carpenter who could fly... so why should reality matter?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 15-Oct-07 02:18 PM
Gary,
"proof aplenty that the surge is working"?
You mean from the Government Accountability Office, which noted that only 3 out of 18 benchmarks established for judging the success of the surge had been met? I'm refering to the dramatic drop in casualties. Words have meanings. Comprehension matters. I even demand it of liberals.
Comment 6 by Neo at 15-Oct-07 04:18 PM
Is this part of that John Kerry type nuance that will make the US more liked ?
Comment 7 by john Ryan at 16-Oct-07 09:59 AM
The "purpose" of the surge was never declared to be lower casualty rates. The "purpose" was to give the Iraqi govenment (?) time for reconciliation. People seem to have forgoten that was the stated goal.
Comment 8 by john Ryan at 16-Oct-07 01:08 PM
I realize that the fuel must go in by air, Iraq is not safe for that transpost. But sending the mine resistant vehicles in by air ?? Surely they could go by sea to Kuwait and then overland.
Using the mine resistant vehicles really weakens your point.
Comment 9 by john Ryan at 17-Oct-07 10:31 AM
Who cares if trhe muslims killed a million Christians 80 years ago. That was 20 years before the holocaust.
Reid Congratulates Gore's Nobel Victory
Once upon a time, a politician congratulating another on winning the Nobel Peace Prize would've been seen as an automatic gesture. In this instance, Harry Reid's congratulating Al Gore is a source of ridicule:
"I congratulate my former Senate colleague Al Gore on receiving the world's greatest honor, the Nobel Peace Prize, for his work on the planet's greatest environmental issue. We have all benefited from his vision and unique ability to focus the world's attention on the causes and consequences of global warming, and we are proud that he now has earned this well-deserved worldwide recognition. Al Gore's tireless advocacy continues to inspire me and many other Democrats to work toward curbing our reliance on foreign oil, increasing our energy independence and reduce global warming emissions."The Carpetbagger Report laments conservatives' reaction to Gore's winning this laughable award:
I saw the first few minutes of Fox News Sunday yesterday, and was struck by how angry the conservative Republicans were about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. These guys don't just ignore the scientific evidence, they lash out wildly at Gore, the Nobel committee, the scientists, everyone who dares to think differently than they do.Let's first deal with the Carpetbagger's statement that he "saw the first few minutes of Fox News Sunday yesterday, and was struck by how angry the conservative Republicans were about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize." That's a rather odd statement considering the fact that Bill Kristol's and Charles Krauthammer's statements were made in the last half of the roundtable segment near the end of the show. Their first guest was John Boehner followed by Steny Hoyer.
Bill Kristol disparaged Gore and the Nobel prize itself, saying "it's a prize given by bloviators to a bloviator." Charles Krauthammer insisted the award goes to "people whose politics are either anti-American or anti-Bush, and that's why [Gore] won it."
These pundits were obviously bitter and incensed, much the same way National Review's Iain Murray was late last week, when he suggested Gore share his award with Osama bin Laden, "who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance" in a September video harangue. (Apparently, to accept global warming is to embrace a terrorist philosophy.)
It's led Paul Krugman to ask a good question : "What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?"Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.
And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job, to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have hoped for, the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.
The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the "ozone man," but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, "the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." And so it has proved.
Next, let's examine Harry Reid's statement. When Sen. Reid says that we've "all benefited from his vision and unique ability to focus the world's attention on the causes and consequences of global warming", it's a great spin job. Specifically, when Sen. Reid talks about Gore's "vision", that's code for Gore's delusional belief in unverifiable truths.
I wonder what Sen. Reid means when he says that "Gore's tireless advocacy continues to inspire me and many other Democrats to work toward curbing our reliance on foreign oil." Is he perhaps talking about Democrats' keeping vast amounts of natural gas and oil off limits in ANWR and off the coasts? That's an odd source of inspiration.
Now let's deal with Paul Krugman's delusional beliefs. Krugman insists that conservatives are crazy because "the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House." Perhaps Krugman should hire himself a history professor so he could learn that the Constitution says that presidents are elected when someone reaches 270 electoral votes. Perhaps he didn't know that. That isn't the only example of Krugman's BDS:
And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job, to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have hoped for, the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.
President Bush isn't popular and he's made mistakes but to say that he's "proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job" is the height of stupidity. Bill Clinton's administration didn't prevent the following terrorist attacks:
Terrorist Acts Suspected of or Inspired by al-QaedaProfessor Krugman's criteria for success and failure, like much of his writing, is subjective. Bill Clinton ignored the terrorists' attacks for his eight years in office whereas 9/11 happened on President Bush's watch. After that attack, President Bush has implemented intelligent policies that have disrupted numerous terrorist plots.
1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
By any objective measure, it's safe to say that President Bush has been effective in preventing additional terrorist attacks, something that nobody thought possible on 9/12.
As for Krugman's statement that "Gore keeps on being right", that's another laughable statement from a man who used to have a solid reputation. Krugman, like Gore, has destroyed his reputation with his irresponsible statements.
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007 7:44 PM
No comments.
