Raleigh News & Observer Watch - 6/25/05

Today's N&O runs an AP story concerning a U.S. House vote involving funding for The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the agency responsible for allocating public funds to PBS and NPR.

The House voted to restore some CPB funding cuts but left a few others in place.

Any error and bias in the story? Read on.

We're told:

The corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, a GOP appointee, has contended that public broadcasting is too liberal.(Bold added)

Tomlinson was appointed to the CPB's board of directors in 2000 by then President Clinton. You can check that at CPB's website here. He was elected chairman by his fellow board members. You can check that here.

The story runs with the CPB/PBS/NPR spin that any government funding cuts mean less Bert and Ernie and what some liberals call "informed broadcasting."

"(CPB) still might end up with less money than in its current budget. The legislation would eliminate $23 million for the Ready to Learn program, which subsidizes children's educational programming and distributes learning materials."

There's no mention of why public broadcasting executives say they'll need to cut Ready to Learn while they have enough funds to sponsor the America-bashing BBC's World News on both PBS and NPR.

Here's the story's closer:

Opponents of the cut say public broadcasting provides programming not available elsewhere.

"Do we want to live in a society where pop culture dictates all that is offered on the airwaves?" said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

Pop culture's "all that is offered on the airwaves?"

How about C-SPAN, The History Channel, Arts & Entertainment, The Learning Channel, The Discovery Channel, and North Carolina based WCPE-FM, a 24/7 all classical music station available worldwide on the net?

But the story doesn't mention those stations or many others that broadcast similarly worthwhile programing.

Will we ever read a news story in the N&O that gets beyond a CPB "don't let them take Bert and Ernie away" promo and looks instead at why public broadcasting gives us the BBC and so much other leftist tilt?

The N&O's AP story is here.

For more on BBC bias, including anti-American go here and here.

The Washington Post's two-speed spin cycle

Did you know the Washington Post has a two-speed spin cycle?

Postwatch compares and contrasts WaPo's treatment of Durbin's abominations and Rove's remarks.

It's a don't miss post and all here.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Senate Democrats now want "consultation"

Senate Democrats want the President to consult with them on any Supreme Court nominee. They say they want a "fair and reasoned confirmation process."

Really? What happened when the President nominated Miguel Estrada for an Appellate Court seat?

With a few exceptions, Senate Democrats claimed they didn't have enough information to give him an up or down vote. So, they wouldn't allow one.

But the American Bar Association had enough information on Estrada to give him its highest rating, Highly Qualified. The vote by the ABA's committee on judicial nominations was unanimous.

For years, the Democrats refused to confirm Justice Priscilla Owen, even though she too had the ABA's highest rating with a unanimous vote.

A senior Senate Democrat, Tom Harkin, said he couldn't vote for Owen becasue she was "a whacko."

Based on their record, expecting Senate Democrats to respond to consultation in a "fair and reasoned" way is like expecting Senator Clinton to take good care of your law firm's records.

NY Times cheers Kelo. Blogger analyzes.

In yesterday's Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for a local government to take away a person's property when the government feels it has a better use for the property than the individual. Here's how CNN began it's Kelo report:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

The New York Times editors cheered the Kelo decision which only affects the rights of law-abiding Americans, not terrorists.

But Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters isn't cheering. He's provides background to the decision and eviscerates the Times' editorial. Here's part of what Ed says:

I suppose I should not be surprised that the New York Times argues that the ends justify the means, but the fact that they so baldly buy into this shows just how badly they've slid into the statist mindset. What they endorse is the notion that people must live in their homes at the whim of city governments, who only have to justify their seizure by creating a plan that asserts that another private developer will put their land to better use than the homeowner.

Because of Kelo, it's now much easier for developers, ever generous at campaign time, and local pols to cozy up and declare an individual's property is needed for "the public good."

The Times tries to reassure readers by telling them that Justice Anthony Kennedy said Kelo can't be used just to make a "developer or other private party become richer."

Really? Here are two questions for Justice Kennedy and the Times' editors.

Do you know of a single instance of a developer saying the purpose of his development project involving condemnation of private property was only to make him rich or richer?

Aren't such projects always done to make the community more beautiful, provide employment, encourage tourism and strengthen the tax base?

Ed Morrissey's post is here. He links to the NYT editorial.

The CNN report's here.

William F. (Bill) Buckley Greatest American post set for Sunday

I'm sorry I didn't get the Bill Buckley post up this week.

Regulars know that Durbin's abominations and some Raleigh News and Observer nonsense needed quick response posts.

The post putting the case for Buckley's place on a Greatest American list goes up by noon Sunday or my name is Howard Dean.

Meanwhile, if you're a Buckley admirer or just someone with a good sense of humor (Could they really be exclusive categories?), I think you'll enjoy a recent post on Buckley's humor. Vistiors have added some great comments.

Rove only said what Dean and Kerry wanted

(Welcome visitors from Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Mudville Gazette and other blogs. Look around all you like.)

Some Democrats have worked themselves into a lather over a New York Times report that Carl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "'liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'"

The Dems are demanding Rove "either apologize or resign."

But their Chairman, Howard Dean, said he wanted a jury trial for Osama bin Laden and wouldn't believe him guilty of planning and ordering the 9/11 attrocities until he was convicted by a jury.

And their most recent presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, said that the fight against terrorism was "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

And don't Sens. Kennedy and Durbin and Reps. Pelosi and Conyers believe Americans won't be able to relax until our military does a better job of handing out Korans and serving rice pilaf at Guantanamo?

Rove just spoke the truth.

Raleigh News and Observer columnist gets facts wrong and leaves others out (Part 2)

I posted here concerning some errors of commission and omission in News and Observer political reporter and columnist Rob Christensen’s June 12 column. This post concerns his June 19 column.

According to Christensen, North Carolina Republican U. S. House Rep. Walter B. Jones, who last week co-sponsored a resolution calling for the President to begin troop withdrawal from Iraq beginning no later than October, 2006, is “now questioning the wisdom of the war.”

“Speaking out against the war is a politically risky move for Jones, a six-term congressman representing a district that includes the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.,” Christensen says.

Jones has a different view of what he’s doing. He expressed it in a June 15 press release which he posted on his web site. Jones said in part:

In recent days there has been considerable press coverage on my position on America’s presence in Iraq. Despite what some media accounts have said, I want to make it crystal clear that I am NOT in favor of any immediate withdrawal nor do I support setting an end date at which time all troops must be out of Iraq.

That doesn’t sound like someone “speaking out against the war,” does it?

Christensen says nothing about Jones’s press statement. But he does use Jones’ sponsorship of the resolution to suggest Vietnam redux: “When U.S. Sen. B. Everett Jordan of Alamance County turned against the Vietnam War, you knew the tide of public opinion was shifting.”

And that may be the point of the column. But if that is the case, Christensen should make it in his own name, not Jones'.

Christensen’s column is here.
Jones’ June 15 press statement is here.
The resolution Jones’ is co-sponsoring, H. R. Res. 55, is here.

Blogger clips preening Byrd

With the release of his autobiography, Sen. Robert Byrd is trying once again to clean up and fluff the facts of his KKK membership. Sunday, The Washington Post lent a hand with a sympathetic page one story.

But blogger Betsy Newmark at Betsy's Page wasn't taken in by Byrd's' "I had no idea" and WaPo's "We understand" pas de deux. Instead, she clipped the preening Byrd. Here's a sample:

"My only explanation for the entire episode is that I was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions," Byrd wrote.

Yup, just like joining the Rotary Club. He's just trying to sell his membership as what any ambitious up-and-coming young man would do in the West Virginia of his time. All that racist stuff was besides the point and not really an attraction for young Bobby Byrd.

Yet, he was a leader of the organization. You don't achieve that without being on board with the purpose of the organization. And that was racism, pure and simple. And Byrd flourished in that organization. First he was the "Exalted Cyclops" of his local unit. I kid you not. These names are priceless. Then he became a Kleagle, one of the KKK's leaders in West Virginia.

Betsy's post is here. She links to the WaPo story.

Will the Raleigh News ad Observer review its election endorsement policies?

A Raleigh News and Observer editorial expresses dissatisfaction with the NC General Assembly's budget and tax plans.

Current plans call for increases in both spending and taxes, but not enough to suit the N&O. So it calls for the Governor to ride to the rescue:

When Governor Easley, who should take an active leadership role here, first confronted a multibillion-dollar budget crisis soon after taking office, he set a standard for budget-writing, which was to protect working families. The budget proposals as they now stand are just unacceptable when it comes to meeting that standard, or any standard of common sense and compassion.

At the last election, the N&O enthusiastically endorsed many of the legislators who support the proposals it says are unacceptable by "any standard of common sense and compassion."

Will that cause the N&O to review its election endorsement policies?

The editorial's here.

Would you have quessed right?

Instapundit asks if you can quess who said:

"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." (Bold added)

He then links to Ed Driscoll's blog where you'll qet the answer at the June 20 Quote of the Day. There's much more at Ed's blog so be sure to look around.

Pundit says Durbin's critics are the problem

In today's Washington Post, pundit Richard Cohen thinks Sen. Durbin's remarks are maybe a bit poorly phrased but certainly nothing we should get upset about. But he does see one big problem:

The practice of the Bush White House and its supporters is to go right at its critics -- to hell with fairness -- and shout them down. This is what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry and this is what the White House itself did to Newsweek. That magazine's story about reported abuses of the Koran at Guantanamo was admittedly wrong on one specific, but we did learn later that the military itself had investigated reports of Koran abuse. There's smoke, if not fire, there.

A few more columns like today's and Cohen will find himself invited to sit with Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore at the '08 Democratic convention.

And he'll belong there.

Raleigh News and Observer columnist gets facts wrong and leaves others out (Part 1)

Raleigh News and Observer political reporter and columnist Rob Christensen's last two columns (June 12 and 19) contain errors of both commission and omission. Today I'll post on his June 12 column; in a few days I'll post on his June 19 column.

Christensen begins his June 12 column with a reference to the U.S. Senate's apology for its failure to ever enact anti-lynching legislation, an action both North Carolina Senators, Elizabeth Dole and Robert Burr, supported. He then discusses lynching and some matters related to it.

Christensen says that because "of opposition from Southern Democrats over the years, the Senate failed to pass about 200 anti-lynching bills." But he fails to mention the legislative form their opposition took: filibusters and threats of them.

He also fails to say that, unimpeded by a filibuster option, the U.S. House of Representatives three times passed anti-lynching legislation which Presidents were willing to sign into law, if only the Senate agreed to the legislation.

But for the use of the filibuster, America would have had anti-lyching and much other civil rights legislation well before World War II. Christensen should have told his readers that.

Christensen did say this: "(North Carolina), a border state with a reputation for moderation, had 68 lynchings, far fewer than most Southern states."

North Carolina a border state? That needs only a one-word response: Virginia.

A "reputation for moderation?" In a discussion of lynching in a state whose history also includes slavery, race riots, and segregation, using the noun "moderation" is inappropriate and insensitive.

North Carolina's history with regard to lynching and race hasn't been "moderate;" it's been terrible.

When telling his readers about NC Democrat Party icon Governor Charles Aycock (1901-05), Christensen says only:

(The Governor) was continuously frustrated by his failure to stop 11 lynchings during his term. He ordered two companies of militia to the town of Emma near Asheville to prevent a lynching and offered rewards for information leading to the conviction of a lyncher.

Christensen tells readers nothing about how, at the turn of the last century, Aycock and N&O editor and owner Josephus Daniels led a white supremacy movement on behalf of the NC Democratic Party. Their goal was to seize power from the then politically dominant alliance of Republicans and blacks who, despite being only a generation removed from slavery, held many public offices and voted in significant numbers, with their vote almost always overwhelmingly Republican.

The strategy Aycock, Daniels, and others devised to seize power had two main thrusts. One involved disenfranchising blacks by legal means when possible, by physical intimidation when necessary. The other involved playing on the racial fears of whites. Aycock ran for Governor under the banner: White Supremacy-Protect Us.

I've one final criticism regarding Christensen's column. It has to do with the column's lead: Free at last from grim past

Perhaps Christensen didn't select it. But whoever did needs to be told the lead just isn't true.

In preparing this post I found Philip Dray's book, At The Hands Of Persons Unknown: The Lynching Of Black America, a reliable and useful history of events that still shock and pain.

Christensen's June 12 column is here.

Downing Street reporter claims he copied, burned and retyped memos. No kidding.

Here we go again. Another MSM story meant to question the credibility of the Bush and Blair administrations is instead raising questions about MSM's competence and integrity.

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters and Marc at USS Neverdock are on top of the latest twists and turns in the Downing Street memos story, including a reporter's unbelievable claim that he got the original memos from a government source, photocopied them, returned them, had a secretary type copies of the photocopies, and then burned the photocopies.

And then there's the reporter's claim he had the secretary retype the memos not on a computer but on "an old typewriter." I'm not kidding.

Besides reporting, Captain Ed and Marc ask the kinds of questions MSM editors are supposed to ask.

The decision to go to war in Iraq.

In today's Washington Post, national security expert and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace senior associate Robert Kagan offers an informed and carefully reasoned case for the decision to go to war in Iraq. Here's part of what he says:

A more intriguing question is whether a decision not to go to war in 2003 would have produced lasting peace or would only have delayed war until a later date -- as in the 1930s. There is a strong argument to be made that Hussein would have pushed toward confrontation and war at some point, no matter what we did. His Hitler-like megalomania does not seem to be in question. He patiently, brutally pushed his way to power in Iraq, then set about brutally and impatiently making himself the dominant figure in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, using war and the threat of war as his principal tools. In the early 1980s he invaded Iran and fought it to a bloody standstill for the better part of a decade. No sooner had that war ended than he invaded Kuwait. He fancied himself the new Saladin, much as Napoleon and Hitler had fancied themselves the new Caesar.

Many argue that, even if all this is true, Hussein was nevertheless contained through sanctions and no-fly zones and therefore could be deterred. Many advanced this argument before the war, too, even when they believed with as much certainty as the Bush administration that Hussein did have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And, indeed, although for most Americans the question of whether the war was "worth it" revolves around the failure to discover the stockpiles that most believed he had, nevertheless the key issue, I believe, remains the same as before that failure: whether Hussein could have been contained.

For another fact not in dispute is that Hussein remained keenly interested in and committed to acquiring weapons of mass destruction, that he maintained secretive weapons programs throughout the 1990s and indeed right up until the day of the invasion, and that he was only waiting for the international community to lose interest or stamina so that he could resume his programs unfettered. This is the well-documented, unrefuted -- and unnoticed -- conclusion of both David Kay and Charles Duelfer. Whether Hussein would have eventually succeeded in acquiring these weapons would have depended on other nations' will and ability to stop him.

That is a question to which we will never have a definitive answer, and yet it is critical to any judgment about the merits of the war. The most sensible argument for the invasion was not that Hussein was about to strike the United States or anyone else with a nuclear bomb. It was that containment could not be preserved indefinitely, that Hussein was repeatedly defying the international community and that his defiance appeared to both the Clinton and Bush administrations to be gradually succeeding. He was driving a wedge between the United States and Britain, on one side, which wanted to maintain sanctions and containment, and France, Russia, and China, on the other, which wanted to drop sanctions and normalize relations with him. The main concern of senior officials in both administrations was that, in the words of then-national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, containment was not "sustainable over the long run."

While Kagan notes that the Bush administration has made mistakes in Iraq, he's clearly not a member of the "It's Nam redux. Blame Bush." club.

You'll find Kagan's article here.

When Senator Durbin met Sheriff Sheahan

Who doesn't know that Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin used the Senate as a forum to compare American personnel serving at Guantanamo to, among other monsters, Nazis?

And if you've visited this blog or others such as Betsy's Page, Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, and The Mudville Gazette, you've had a chance to read about prisoner abuse at Chicago's Cook County Jail, run for the last 15 years by Durbin's pal and political ally, Democrat Sheriff Michael F. Sheahan.

So are you wondering: "What happens when a Senator who compared Americans serving at Guantanamo to Nazis meets a Sheriff who presides over a jail where, in one especially gruesome incident, 40 prison guards entered a cell block and systematically beat prisoners?"

Here's an example of what happens, courtesy of Chicago's CBS affiliate WBBM-TV reporting this year's Chicago St. Patrick's Day parade.

WBBM naturally interviewed "dignitaries." Durbin was one of them.

The Senator was in fine spirits. "St. Patrick's Day is the warmest day in Chicago," Durbin remarked, on a day when temperatures were well below freezing.

But what are freezing temperatures to a politician warmed by the company of powerful political pals?

Durbin, after all, was just about to step off in the line of march with other "dignitaries" such as Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley and, of course, Sheriff Michael F. Sheahan.

As a wrap-up, the WBBM reporter wanted to know what they'd all be doing after the parade. "Lots of parties to remember and honor St. Patrick," Durbin enthused.

WBBM didn't report asking Sheriff Sheahan anything. But can't we assume he would have said he was glad to be there with his pal and politcal ally Senator Durbin "to remember and honor St. Patrick?"

And, if asked, wouldn't both "dignitaries" have said they support our troops?

Here's the link to the WBBM report.

He spoofs Liberals. Should we stop him?

If you don't like people spoofing Liberals and/or PCers and/or the New York Times' best opinion-shaper reporters, skip this post and go straight to my Sanctimony Reigns post. It's here. (Or did I delete it?)

Anyway, do you know Iowahawk? If not, I think you'll enjoy meeting him.

Here's a sample where Iowahawk picks up on that NPR/NYT story about how we all mourn for that dying mill town where Dad worked 66 hour weeks while Mom rung clothes by hand and we dreamed in Miss. Quimby's English IV class about a place she called "the Hamptons."

Each year they come here, from Cambridge and Ithaca and New Haven, young and eager social critics seeking nothing more than an honest day's wage for an honest day's condescension, and perhaps a decent squab pate in white wine reduction.

For the newest generation of polemic workers, though, the promise of that simple Anti-American Dream seems ever more distant. Most of the mills have long fallen silent, tragic victims of cheap foreign radio talk shows and the growing monopoly of multinational corporate blogs.

Now, even the grandest of the old mills -- the venerated New York Times 43rd Street Opinion Works - stands at risk. A recent spate of quality control problems, product recalls, management turmoil and a painful round of layoffs is leading many here to worry if the plant is destined to go the way of Automats, five cent Cokes and international socialism.

Iowahawk keeps up with things. Just today he made public some letters of Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill) that even Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) didn't know about.

About public funding of PBS and NPR

The AP reports that a U. S. House committee has voted to cut some government funding for PBS and NPR.

Rep. Nita Lowey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., brought puppets of "Sesame Street" characters Bert and Ernie to remind Republicans of the battle 10 years ago when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., unsuccessfully led the charge to take away subsidies for public broadcasting, but relented after a public outcry.

I don't think there'll be much of an outcry this time. Most of the public is indifferent to PBS and NPR. And while both have their loyal supporters, growing numbers of Americans are put off by public broadcasting's leftist tilt.

Yes, PBS and NPR insist with straight faces they have no such tilt. Then they go our and hire the biased, America-bashing BBC to bring us "news."

Who's fooled?

Durbin's pal and prisoner abuse

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Ombusmax and The Mudville Gazette. Please consider writing a letter to your editor expressing your thoughts and feelings about Senator Durbin's abominations. Thanks, John)

Illinois Democrat Senator Richard Durbin compared American servicemen and women serving at Guantanamo to Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's gulag thugs, and Pol Pot's murderers.

But I could find no criticism by Durbin of his pal, political ally and Cook Country's Democrat Sheriff, Michael F. Sheahan, who's run the notorious Cook County Jail since 1990. I used Google and Yahoo search engines. The Senator's office didn't return a phone call inquiry about Sheahan and prisoner abuse at the jail.

During the 15 years Sheahan’s run Cook County Jail, there have been numerous reports by rights groups, attorneys, and a grand jury documenting systematic prisoner abuse there, including rapes and beatings by guards.

Legal action by Chicago University's Law School's public-service law firm, The MacArthur Justice Center, led to a grand jury finding that a failure by Sheahan’s office to investigate prisoner beatings constituted “obstruction of justice.” The MacArthur site details other actions its brought against Sheahan and other responsible officials.

In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, MacArthur attorney Jean Maclean Snyder gave readers this graphic example of prisoner abuse at Cook County Jail:

(a) squad of 40 guards took over a maximum-security division of the jail in 1999 for the sole purpose of beating and terrorizing the prisoners. A jail investigator determined that the guards' misconduct was covered up by Cook County medical personnel, who filed false reports and refused or delayed treatment to the prisoners, and by the Cook County inspector general, who refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Snyder want on to describe a meeting with a prisoner who'd been beaten:

the whites of his eyes were nearly obscured by the red from blood vessels that had ruptured during the beating, and deep lacerations were held together by staples that had been applied to his scalp.

Chicago newspapers have reported and spoken out against the abuses in Cook County Jail.

Now they and the rest of the national media who've given voice to Senator Durbin's attack on the military need to ask him about his pal, Sheriff Sheahan, and Cook County Jail.

About the EU: Some things are clear

Eureopean Union leaders and issues often seem mysterious to most Americans.

There're good reasons for that. Many of Europes leaders, like many leaders here, hide their true intentions. Issues are regularly fogged up.

But once in a while, the sun shines through; and thoughtful Americans (Europeans,too) have a chance to get a better understanding of some of the who and what and whys of the EU.

We have one of those chances now thanks to an AP background article on the two-day summit of EU leaders which starts today. Here are samples:

Thursday's talks were scheduled to focus on the future of the constitution, with leaders split over whether to now press ahead with ratification (following French and Dutch rejection). But the budget battle, officially on the agenda for Friday, was already darkening the atmosphere.

France refuses cuts in generous handouts to its farmers; Italy says it will veto a deal that cuts aid to its poor south; Germany wants to reduce its contribution to the EU's accounts; Britain is clinging to the $5.5 billion annual rebate former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won two decades ago by telling the continentals: "We want our money back!"

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's country objects to being the largest per-capita payer into the EU's coffers.

Despite the general support for the need for further integration, there were differences over whether to press ahead with the proposed constitution, which must be ratified by all 25 members.

The constitution debate has hardened governments' position in the fight over EU funding, as leaders heed voters' concerns that decisions from the EU's Brussels headquarters override their national interests.

Determined to fight, French President Jacques Chirac insists the agriculture subsides that eat up half the EU's budget — and favor French farmers — are untouchable.

The entire article is here and worth reading.

The EU may become a stong economic rival to the U.S. but not anytime soon.

William F. (Bill) Buckley's humor

I'm planning a post on National Review founder and editor William F. (Bill) Buckley's many achievements that I think earn him a place on a Greatest Americans list. I hope to post it by Sunday.

Meanwhile, I can't resist sharing a few samples of his humor. The first two are from memory; the last two from a Jeff Jacoby column.

Buckley once said that given a choice between being governed by the Harvard faculty or a Congress composed of the first 500 people listed in the Boston phone directory, he'd opt for the phone directory.

He received a letter from an irate National Review reader telling him in great detail what a miserable editor he was. The letter ended with "cancel my subscription."

Buckley wrote back that he knew he had shortcomings and would work hard at doing better. But as for canceling the subscription, he told the reader, "Dammit, cancel it yourself."

When asked why Robert Kennedy was refusing to appear on his Firing Line interview program, Buckley replied, "Why does baloney resist the meat grinder?"

A National Review editorial comment began: "The attempted assassination of Sukarno last week had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno."

BTW - Shortly after graduating from Yale, Buckley served in the CIA.

Comments about Buckley are welcome.

Bloggers demolish 9/11 conspiracy claim

Palmetto Pundit posts on a UPI report in the Washington Times that begins:

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus” and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

Palmetto provides a response from Littlegreenfootball.com to this latest Michael Moore-type conspiracy fantasia:

None of the chuckleheads who propose theories like this ever seem to consider that professional demolition on such a scale would have been a gigantic task, would have taken a lot of time to set up, and would have been very visible to the tens of thousands of people who worked in the Trade Center every single day.

Sure, it's nonsense to claim giant buildings could be prepared for demolition and no one would notice. But don't be surprised if you hear the demolition nonsense recycled by the likes of Howard Dean, Al Frankin and Al Gore.

Palmetto provides thoughtful commentary of his own.

Read the post and spend some time at his blog. It's first-rate.

Limousine liberals and crime on the rise

"Limousine liberals and crime on the rise" leads James Pinkerton's column in today's Newsday.

A federal judge has ruled NYC police violated the "constitutional rights" of "peaceful panhandlers." The New York Times applauded.

Pinkerton has a lot to say, including this:

So in The Times' view of the world, which is the view from the back seat of a limousine, this court ruling is a victory for the Constitution, pure and simple. And what of the commonsense right of people to walk the streets unmolested? The lead plaintiff-panhandler, for example, is currently facing felony raps for crack cocaine. So best get a limo, because the judge, Shira Scheindlin, ordered the immediate release of anyone who might be in custody under the old rule.

Pinkerton thinks there's another Rudy Giuliani out there somewhere.

I'll bet most NYC subway riders hope so.

Read the whole thing.

(Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Remember Sean Penn? He's back.

Remember Sean Penn? Hollywood pacifist. Hero to Liberals and the Farther Left.

"Yeah, one of the humanitarians who loved Saddam. His car was stolen. He had a loaded Glock 9 millimeter semiautomatic pistol in his glove compartment and an unloaded Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver in the truck. The cops got the car back but never found the guns, right?"

You're right on all counts. Anyway, Penn's now reporting for the San Francisco Chronicle on Iran's "elections." He's gotten big MSM coverage.

"So who cares? The guy craves publicity."

OK, I just wanted to mention it.

"Why? Did MSM ask Penn how come an antigun pacifist carries a loaded semiautomatic and a pistol to spare? Has he stopped bashing America? C'mon, what's new?"

Er, nothing really.

Lynching and trouble saying, "Democrats."

Reporting on today's U. S. Senate's resolution apologizing for its failure to ever pass an anti-lynching bill, the Associated Press explains the Senate's abominable failure this way:

But the Senate, with Southern conservatives wielding their filibuster powers, refused to act. (italics, bold added)

What person or organization would use the good and historic act the Senate performed today for partisan advantage?

I nominate the Associated Press.

Bloggers Pick Greatest Americans

At Betsy's Page I learned that John Hawkins at Right Wing News invited bloggers from the Left and Right to list their 20 greatest Americans.

Hawkins then ranked the "greatest" by number of votes. He included "honorable mentions," so the final lists for both Left and Right each contains 31 names. You can look at the Left bloggers list here; and the Right's here. Hawkins also identifies the blogs who did the picking.

Although "greatest" and Left and Right as used here are imprecise terms, the lists interest me. I hope they interest you too.

Some observations:

There's a notable gender disparity between the lists. The L's include 11 women; the R's 1.

No composer or visual artist received a single vote on either L or R lists.

Mark Twain is the only person we identify as primarily a writer who made both lists.

John F. Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson didn't receive a single vote from either L or R.

Dwight D. Eisenhower received votes from the R but George C. Marshall didn't.

On the other hand, Marshall received votes from the L while Eisenhower didn't.

Under the Don't Understand heading I put the following 2 items:

On the R list, Rush Limbaugh received votes; Bill Buckley didn't.

On the L list, George C. Marshall and Mother Jones received the same number of votes.

Yes, "greatest" lists are somewhat subjective; but then so is art. Both can provide pleasure and stimulate thought.

I plan to post later this week on Limbaugh's place on a greatest American list vs. Bill Buckley. Also, why I'd put Andrew Carnegie and Gertrude Elion on my 20 Greatest Americans list.

I'd like to hear from you regarding Hawkins' L and R lists, and what I've posted here.

Can we agree on divisiveness?

Some call President Bush a divider. Those doing so say that's a bad thing. But it's not necessarily bad at all.

In a democracy, great leaders are often dividers. President Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King come to mind. Their actions, divisive in their times, ultimately strengthened our country.

You can't have democracy without divisiveness. Members of the British parliament are reminded of that when on selected, critical votes they leave their seats; enter a large lobby; and form groups according to how they'll vote. Members call what they're doing "a division." The lobby is formally called Division Lobby.

That from the "mother of parliaments."

Despite what such as Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer claim, the President, when compared to some of his predecessors, isn't all that divisive. Certainly not on the order of Presidents Lincoln and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Five years into his presidency, Bush has yet to veto a single bill. His language is far more temperate than that of many of his political foes.


"Bush is a divider" talk is mostly a form of partisan attack, especially useful to those in MSM who must deny their partisanship in order to claim "objective journalist" status.

But they no more fool sensible people than do kids who put lipstick and ribbons on the pig they're showing at the county fair.

An observant Muslim scholar

Muslims upset by the terrorists' deliberately killing peaceful, civilian Iraqi Muslims have been asking if the killings can be justified under Muslim religious teaching.

A number of Muslim religion scholars, called ulema, have studied the question. They've concluded Muslim teaching does indeed justify such killings. They've provided examples of circumstances in which Muslim's may deliberately kill, say, a mother and child.

But other ulema disagree. In a NY Post column, Amir Teheri writes about one of them as well as about those telling Muslims the killings are justified.

Jassim al-Shamri, a Saudi theologian, rejects the authority of the "self-styled ulema" to reinterpret Islamic concepts for political goals.

"These gentlemen sit in air-conditioned rooms and drink iced mango juice and issue fatwas for indiscriminate killing," al-Shamri says. "We never see any of them or their children sent on suicide missions."


I like the observant al-Shamri. May the number of those like him grow.

(Before accessing Taheri's column, you may need to complete a short, free registration at the NY Post site.)

This made me smile

(From time to time I post remarks, incidents, etc., that made me smile.)

A young West Virginian about to enter politics went to Senator Robert Byrd for advice on public speaking.

"Above all else, young man, you must keep your remarks short," Byrd said. "You'll start to lose your audience if you go much past 5 hours."

Questions for the Raleigh N&O editorial writers

An editorial in today's News and Observer, Talk of Healing, concerns public reaction to the despicable cross-burnings in Durham. The N&O says in part:

It's true that many of the vigils have been attended mainly by white people. The N&O's Nikole Hannah-Jones quoted some African-American residents as saying that whites' angst over the cross-burnings ought instead to be expressed at the ongoing, often subtle racism that blacks experience daily. Those residents have a point.

Questions for the N&O editorial writers.

Why no criticism or explanation from you when your editorial cartoon series, Doonesbury, recently put into President Bush's mouth the racist and sexist term, "Brown Sugar," as he was drawn speaking to Secretary of State Rice?

Democrat Senate minority leader Harry Reid recently praised U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as "one smart guy." In the same interview, Reid called Scalia's fellow Justice, Clarence Thomas, "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court." "I think that (Thomas') opinions are poorly written," Reid continued. "I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

Reid subsequently acknowledged he'd never read a court opinion by either the white Scalia or the black Thomas, who have similar judicial philosophies.

Why no N&O editorial criticism of Senator Reed's not subtle racist remarks?

KERRY STILL WON'T RELEASE ALL HIS MILITARY RECORDS

If you believe Santa really does fill all those stockings, maybe you believed what the Boston Globe reported on June 7: "Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records." (Bold added)

But the Globe is a "Kerry friendly" paper. So it's no surprise that under questioning by bloggers and a few in MSM, the Globe's report that Kerry authorized "the release of his full military and medical records" is falling apart.

In a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed, Thomas H. Lipscomb, senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, reports Kerry's Senate office wouldn't provide a copy of the form Kerry signed for the Globe nor would Kerry's staff answer questions.

Merely signing a record release form, known in the military as SF-180, doesn't mean everything in a veteran's records is released. Kerry and any other veteran can specify what records are to be released.

Lipscomb discussed the matter with an expert.

"There is nothing magic about signing a SF 180," said former Naval Judge Advocate General Mark Sullivan. "It is sort of like your checkbook. You can fill out a check for one dollar or a million. It is the same check form."

"And the Globe story says Kerry sent it to the Navy Personnel Command, which is only a limited storage location. So it is not surprising that the Globe then notes that what they received was largely 'duplication' of records previously released. The Navy Personnel Command primarily stores a subset of service records rather than a person's full military records. There is no doubt there are a lot of after-action records missing from what Kerry has released," said Sullivan.

Did anyone at the Globe or in MSM see the SF-180 Kerry signed?

According to Lipscomb, "no one in the press has yet claimed to have seen a copy of Kerry's SF-180. When asked if she had a copy of Kerry's SF 180, the Globe's Managing Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson said, 'I haven't seen it, and I don't know if anyone here has.'"

Meanwhile, there's something Wilkinson wants us to know: "The Boston Globe is not going to make available the (Kerry records) we have received."

Sad but not surprising.

Should Steven Speilberg point fingers?

On an Australian chat show, ENOUGH ROPE, moviemaker Steven Speilberg said, "I was disappointed that Hollywood didn't do enough for John Kerry's campaign."

Maybe Hollywood didn't do enough for Kerry, but who is Speilberg to point fingers?

When Kerry's campaign floundered, did Speilberg give us "Saving Senator Kerry?"

Raleigh N&O Interviews Sen. Helms.

Today's Raleigh News and Observer contains an article by political reporter, Bob Christensen, concerning his recent interview with former Senator Jesse Helms.

Helm's has written a memoir, "Here's Where I Stand." Random House plans to publish it in September.

Christensen's article is fair and fact-filled. Samples:

Besides writing his memoirs -- with the help of former aides -- Helms, 83, has been regularly going to his Raleigh office to meet with friends or help former constituents, working with the Jesse Helms Center in Union County, and sometimes watching Senate proceedings on C-SPAN.

And

(Helms) heaps praise on Ronald Reagan, calling him the greatest president of the 20th century, and reserves his most withering scorn for the news media.

Helms is unapologetic as he writes about his major battles and his efforts to derail "the freight train of liberalism." But he admits to being wrong about the AIDS epidemic. Helms was the subject of strong criticism from the gay community because of his outspoken opposition to laws to protect homosexuals from discrimination, to funding for AIDS research and to other related issues.

Read the whole thing.

Globe columnist defends Dean; blames Dems

According to Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, Chairman Dean isn't the problem.

If Democrats in Congress did their job, Dean would be the chorus. Now he's the whole act. Dean's fellow Democrats would rather boo him than themselves.

Vennochi provides examples of what she means. Here's one:

General Motors announces it will eliminate 25,000 jobs, and its CEO complains that health benefits reduce profits. Where are the Democrats brave enough to say the burden falls on GM to design fuel-efficient cars people want to buy rather than on workers who produce those cars?

Vennochi ignores the fact that auto unions have strongly resisted legislation that would encourage production of fuel-efficient cars. More fuel-efficient cars will be produced on more technology advanced production lines that will require fewer workers to produce the same number of cars as now. Union workers will lose jobs

The Dems might be willing to go after GM but they're not going to fight the unions.
Michigan's Democrat Senators Carl Levin and Deborah Stabenow could have told Vennochi that.

Vennochi ignores the real problem Dean has created for the Democrats: more and more people are realizing Dean does represent the party.

If today's MSM had covered World War II

The D-Day anniversary reminded us of what we owe the extraordinary men and women who made our success possible.

It also led me to wonder how today's media would have covered the invasion and other events.

Below is how I ithink ABC Evening News would have done it

References to the pre-invasion disagreement between General Eisenhower and Air Marshall Leigh-Mallory concerning the American paratroop drop are historically accurate as is the information concerning the Enigma project, one of the war's most important secrets.

The peace activist who wants the kids to learn to goose step is, of course, fictional.


Now here’s ABC's Evening News – June 8, 1944


Charles Gibson: “Good evening. We begin tonight with the war news. And there’s plenty of that, including reports of a serious split in the ranks of Allied military leaders.

When we reported the D-Day invasion, we believed Americans and British military leaders had agreed on the invasion plan. Now we learn that was not the case.

We go first to Linda Douglas at the War Department. Linda, we’re hearing rumors of deep splits among Allied military leaders? Is there any truth to them?”

Douglas: “There certainly is, Charles. A source, who must remain anonymous, told me Eisenhower’s air chief, Leigh-Mallory, strongly opposed the plan to drop paratroops into Normandy during the early hours of D-Day. He feared they couldn’t achieve their objectives and would suffer massive casualties.

Eisenhower, not an airman and with no experience commanding paratroops, went against Leigh-Mallory’s advice and ordered the drop anyway.

Now, although the paratroopers achieved their main objectives, even Ike’s headquarters is admitting many lives were lost.

Gibson: “Well then, Linda, do we know yet on who might replace Eisenhower?”

Douglas: “No.”

Gibson “Well, do we at least know when Eisenhower will be replaced?”

Douglas: “I’m afraid it might not be soon, Charles. Ike’s boss, General Marshall, is solidly behind him.”

Gibson: “That’s really not too surprising since Eisenhower is a Marshall protégé. Well, thank you, Linda.

Now we go to Terry Moran at the White House. Terry, do we know why President Roosevelt has failed to tell the American people anything about this major split in the Allied leadership? He spoke to the nation on D-Day and, as I recall, said nothing about it”

Moran: “That’s right, Charles. And he’s still said nothing. And I’ve got to tell you that just from where I’m standing that looks like a really huge blunder.”

Gibson: “And why is that, Terry?”

Moran: “Because it makes you wonder if Roosevelt really knows what’s going on in Normandy.”

Gibson: “Indeed, Terry. ABC News will continue to follow this story.

Now we bring you another report in our series, Your Right to Know. This one concerns a top secret effort to decode German military and diplomatic communications. It’s called the Enigma project.

. George Stephanopoulos is here to explain it to us.

George, can you tell us first whether this Enigma matter is really as important as it seems, or are the Allies exaggerating its importance in order to draw attention away from the quagmire that’s developed in Normanday? It’s almost 48 hours since the invasion began and they're still not in Germany.”

Stephanopoulos: “Charles, it’s really big news. The allies are intercepting and reading communications the Germans thought were secure. They’re doing it in almost real-time”

Gibson: “Thank you, George. Now we go to Berlin where Admiral Karl Donnitz, in charge of German submarine warfare, is standing by.

First, Admiral, thank you for taking time to be with us.

Donnitz: “A pleasure, Mr. Gibson.”

Gibson: “Admiral, I don’t know whether you’ve heard yet, but ABC has just reported the Allies have for some time been intercepting and reading German communications, including those of your submarine fleet.

So if I may, Admiral, I’d like to begin by asking if you would be good enough to give us your reaction to the news. …..Admiral?….We seem to have lost our contact with Berlin.

Well, we’re almost out of time.

Tomorrow night we’ll bring you our Person of the Week. She’s a peace activist who wants the schools in her town to let children wear swastika armbands and learn to goose step so they can better understand children in Germany. But some angry parents and a hostile school board don’t seem to want her to succeed.”

Kerry puts you to sleep? Try Ann Althouse.

Meet Ann Althouse - thoughtful critic, political jockey, blogger and University of Wisconsin Law School Prof. She's got lots to say about Sen. John Kerry.

Remember Kerry? Tall, coifed, Vietnam, two wealthy wives (successive, of course), MSM presidential candidate, goes on and on.

You're right. He's the guy who got you thinking, "Hey, I don't need Sominex."

Althouse makes reading about him interesting.

This should scare us all

Dan Rather keynoted the Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) recent national conference. He received frequent applause, including two standing ovations. Accounts are here and here.

The IRE audience knew their fellow investigative reporter and editor used fake documents to attack the President's National Guard service.

It knew that Rather and the CBS network had assured the public that the then still anonymous source of the fake documents, Bill Burkett, was "an unimpeachable source" even though Rather and CBS knew Burkett was a Bush-hater who was actively campaigning against the President.

Rather and CBS did many other things to prop up an obviously false story. The IRE audience knew that, too.

Still they applauded. Not polite applause. Standing ovations.

For the IRE to enthusiastically applaud Rather is far worse than, say, an American College of Surgeons convention audience enthusiastically applauding a surgeon it knew repeatedly operated while drunk.

A drunken surgeon does a terrible wrong; so do surgeons who applaud such a colleague. But nothing like that has ever happened at an American College of Surgeons conference. If it did, it would be headlines and a national scandal. And rightly so.

But what Rather and CBS did and the IRE's applause is far worse than a surgeon operating drunk and fellow surgeons applauding him.

You can't have democracy unless citizens are given the truth. Rather and CBS didn't do that. First, they misled us. Then they lied to us. Yet the Investigative Reporters and Editors convention audience applauded.

That should scare us all.

The soft bigotry of low expectations

Over at Betsy's Page, she posts concerning the University of Oregon's plan to, as its president said, "reach all of the students who have demonstrated their competence to be in the university but for whom, because of cultural background, traditional techniques of teaching may not be as effective as others."

If any Oregon faculty are not sure how they can "reach all of the students, etc., " I suggest using either Plan "A" or Plan "B," and in rare instances, Plan "C+."

Meanwhile, remember President Bush's remark about "the soft bigotry of low expectations?"

Senator Clinton's sleep problems

Reuters reports Senator Hillary Clinton said the following:

"I stay awake at night thinking about all the mistakes and the wrong direction and all the bad decisions being made in Washington," Clinton said at the fund-raiser. "It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It's very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."

Clinton never spoke of sleep problems after Travelgate, or while Vince Forster's briefcase sat in a closet beside her bedroom, or while she waited with her husband for results of DNA analysis of Monica's dress stain. But she has trouble sleeping now.

Clinton sounds like someone who slept through London's Blitz and later complained Big Ben's tolling kept her up at night.

Will the professor be punished?

In yesterday's Washington Post Book World section, Ken Pollack reviewed a group of World War II books. Here's part of what he said about one of them:

The great surprise of the season in World War II books is Deborah Dash Moore's wonderful GI Jews: How World War II Changed a Generation (Belknap/Harvard, $25.95). Moore is a professor, the book is an academic study of how one small segment of the American population dealt with the war, it was published by an academic press and the endnotes are nearly a fifth as long as the story itself -- none of which promises an enjoyable read. But it is an enjoyable read. Moore, a Vassar professor, writes well and knows how to tell a story -- sins that some faculty committee will no doubt punish her for someday.

Yes, and it isn't only fine writing and storytelling that can upset many academics. Just ask Harvard's President, Lawrence Summers.

Amnesty Should Be Asked A Question.

Today's Washington Times carries a story about Amnesty International's charge that the U.S. runs a gulag. Here's part of it:

"I don't believe [the charges] are irresponsible," said Mr. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International U.S.A. "I've told you the ways in which I think that [there are] analogies between the Soviet prison system and the United States."

Pressed to cite concrete evidence that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales are the "architects" of "systematic torture" at the prison, Mr. Schulz could produce none.

I wish a TV interviewer would, in a quiet and matter-of-fact way, ask Mr. Schulz: "Sir, if the U.S. was actually running anything like a gulag system, wouldn't you and the rest of Amnesty's leadership right now be either slave-laboring or decomposing inside it?"

D-Day Tribute

June 6, 1944: It's an oft told tale. Yet more than 60 years on, D-Day still interests, awes and inspires.

We hear the date and can immediately say, "Sure, Normandy, and they touched down around 6 or 7 AM, didn't they?" We ask each other how they did what they did. And following Shakespeare, about that day the good parent teaches the child.

So I've listed no chronologies, books or sites; they're easily located.

This tribute is in impressionist form: Three "brush strokes" are meant to suggest the whole. The Supreme Commander provides the first ; a correspondent who sailed to Normandy not with troops, but with doctors, nurses and corpsmen, the second; and a correspondent who walked Omaha Beach on June 7, the third.

We begin on June 5 when General Eisenhower knew the invasion could fail. He prepared a message to be released in the event he had to order a withdrawal.

Eisenhower's penciled message on plain paper contains errors, including a dating of "July 5." Historians agree the errors suggest fatigue. In the months before D-Day, Eisenhower slept only 3 or 4 hours a night. But the quality of the man shines in his message.

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone. July 5.

The man and women of D-Day had a commander they deserved.

With night falling along the English coast and June 5 giving way to June 6, correspondent Martha Gellhorn prepared to sail for France on a hospital ship. She described for readers what she saw. Here's some of what she wrote:

There was nothing to do now but wait. The big ship felt empty and strange. There were 422 beds covered with new blankets; and a bright, clean, well-equipped operation room, never before used; great cans marked “Whole Blood” stood on the decks; plasma bottles and supplies of drugs and bales of bandages were stored in handy places. Everything was ready, and any moment we would be leaving for France.

Our ship was snowy white with a green line running along the sides below the deck rail, and with many bright new red crosses painted on the hull and painted flat on the boat deck.

Pulling out of the harbor that night we passed a Liberty ship, going the same way. The ship was gray against the gray water and the gray sky, and standing on her decks, packed solidly together, khaki, silent and unmoving, were American troops. No one waved and no one called. The crowded gray ship and the empty white ship sailed slowly out of the harbor toward France.

It's June 7 now. Correspondent Ernie Pyle walks along Omaha Beach. Here's part of what he said:

You can still see the foxholes they dug at the very edge of the water, in the sand and the small, jumbled rocks that form part of the beach.

Medical corpsmen attended the wounded as best they could. Men were killed as they stepped out of landing craft. An officer whom I knew got a bullet through the head just as the door of his landing craft was let down. Some men were drowned.

Our men were pinned down for a while, but finally they stood up and want through, and so we took that beach and accomplished our landing. We did it with every advantage on the enemy's side and every disadvantage on ours.

Pyle titled his account, "And Yet We Got On." He began by telling his readers why he was at Omaha and talking to them:

In this column I want to tell you what the opening of the second front in this one sector entailed, so that you can know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful to those both dead and alive who did it for you.

Know, appreciate, and forever be humbly grateful.

(Citations and links will be provided tomorrow)

Senator Harkin as Chairman Dean understudy?

Over at the always interesting Captainsquarters blog, Captain Ed has some Sen. Tom Harkin quotes you won't believe.

Harkin must be hoping to get the Chairman Dean understudy role.

"Old Europe": Rumsfeld deserves an apology

During the lead up to the Iraq war, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used the term "Old Europe." Politicians and MSM media on both sides of the Atlantic expressed horror. How could he?

Of course, the term "Old Europe" has been used for decades by those same people and others. How many times did we read that the EU would replace "Old Europe" with "New Europe?"

But those who act on the "Anything to hurt America" principle seized on Rumsfeld's use of a term they themselves had used to pound him and America.

With that in mind, take a look at this paragraph from a June 2 New York Times article about the French and Dutch EU rejection votes:

"Old Europe lacks confidence and is therefore defensive, trying to freeze things rather than look forward, feeling that any change is bad," Mark Leonard, a specialist on European Union affairs at the Center for European Reform, said in a telephone interview. "It's a toxic brew of failure to build support for reform, terrible economic circumstances and elites that are tarnished and shop-soiled."

You can read the entire article here.

Please e-mail if you find anyone who beat on Rumsfeld saying, "Sorry, Mr. Secretary, I shouldn't have beat on you for using a phrase that was in common usage then and now."

I'll post it.

Midway Anniversary Tribute

In June 1942, Japanese and American forces fought an epic battle at Midway, the name of a pair of mid-Pacific islands whose combined size totaled two square miles. But one of the islands was just large enough for an airfield and a small harbor, where submarines could rearm and refuel. Thus, Midway's strategic importance to both sides.

Midway was one of World War II’s most decisive battles. America's victory there halted the Japanese offensive and enabled the Allies to begin their advance toward Japan.

Beginning on June 4, the battle lasted for three-days. Its decisive action occurred that first day so we mark June 4 as the battle's anniversary.

Today is the 63rd anniversary of Midway. Here is how one historian began his account of the battle:

By any ordinary standard, they were hopelessly outclassed.

They had no battleships, the enemy eleven. They had eight cruisers, the enemy twenty-three. They had three carriers (one of them crippled); the enemy had eight. Their shore defenses included guns from the turn of the century.

They knew little of war. None of the Navy pilots on one of their carriers had ever been in combat. Nor had any of the Army fliers. Of the Marines, 17 of 21 new pilots were just out of flight school – some with less than four hours’ flying time since then. Their enemy was brilliant, experienced and all-conquering.

Further on, he wrote:

They had no right to win. Yet they did, and in doing so they changed the course of a war. More than that, they added a new name – Midway – to that small list that inspires men by shining example. Like Marathon, the Armada, the Marne, a few others, Midway showed that every once in a while “what must be” need not be at all. Even against the greatest of odds, there is something in the human spirit – a magic blend of skill, faith and valor – that can lift men from certain defeat to incredible victory.

You may recognize historian Walter Lord's words from the forward of his authoritative and inspiring book, Incredible Victory.

Lord's words are a fitting tribute. They speak for all of us.

You may want to visit these Midway websites:

Battle of Midway - Department of the Navy-Naval Historical Center staff prepared this excellent print and photo narrative.

The Battle of Midway, 1942 - A brief outline of the battle and the eyewitness account of Japanese pilot, Commander Mitsuo Fuchida, who was lead pilot at Pearl Harbor.

Midway@nationalgeographic.com - This is an extraordinary site. With narrative, photos, and video, it tells how the Navy, National Geographic, and undersea explorer Robert Ballard, who led the scientific team which located RMS Titanic, searched for and finally found on the Pacific's bottom the carrier, USS Yorktown, which was sunk by torpedo fire on June 6 after suffering severe damage earlier in the battle

Soros comes up short

Have you been following Moveon.org money-guy George Soros' effort to become part-owner of the new Washington baseball team?

American Spectator editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell,Jr. has, and he's made some comments.

“Conservatives don’t see everything as political,” he told The Washington Times. “We’ll go to the baseball game and not pay attention to who owns the team, though I suppose it would make a difference if the Nazis or the Communists owned it.

“George Soros isn’t that extreme – just short of it,” he said.

NPR's left-wing bias: Another example

Here's another example of NPR's institutional, left-wing bias.

In a June 1 "analysis" of reaction to France's EU rejection vote, an NPR reporter said:

The failure to ratify a European constitution could also affect trans-Atlantic relations. Many European analysts suspect there's a sense of relief in some American circles -- those that fear a stronger Europe could evolve into a counterweight to U.S. power, and those who prefer a less united continent, where Washington can pick and chose its allies, as it did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. (Bold added)

America didn't pick and choose European allies in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

America worked hard to build an alliance that would include all European countries. Most joined.

Even those European countries that didn't join the alliance -- principally France and Germany -- acknowledge America wanted them to be part of it.

So how can NPR go ahead and tell us of an America that "can pick and chose its allies, as it did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq?"

NPR's claim is leftist and false.

I'll going to e-mail NPR's Ombudsman, Jeffrey A. Dvorkin. I'll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, NPR's claim will make anti-American newspapers and journals in Europe happy. But will even they believe it?

Pundit pours facts on Kerry's whine

Senator John Kerry's never seemed like a happy guy - nuanced certainly, service in Vietnam for sure - but never happy.

What best characterizes Kerry is his whines. Recently, he's been whining that the vast right-wing media drowned out his presidential campaign message; thereby insuring President Bush's victory. It may comfort Kerry to believe that.

Someone who doesn't buy Kerry's '05 vintage whine is Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. His column today begins with a taste of Kerry's whine, then quickly gets to facts. Here's a sample.

But there is a difference. Nixon really did a face an overwhelmingly hostile press corps. Kerry, Gore, and Clinton, by contrast, benefit from a news media that is overwhelmingly liberal, as countless surveys have shown. To cite just one: When a New York Times reporter polled journalists covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention, those from around the country favored Kerry over Bush by a ratio of 3 to 1. Among the Washington press corps, the results were even more lopsided -- 12 to 1 pro-Kerry.

What Kerry and the others object to is not that there are only conservative voices in media circles these days but that there are any such voices. The right-of-center Fox News cannot hold a candle to the combined left-of-center output of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS. Scaife, Bradley, and Olin money helps leverage Republican messages, but its impact is dwarfed by the Ford, Rockefeller, Pew, Heinz, MacArthur, Carnegie, and Soros fortunes. The Washington Times is conservative? Yes, but The Washington Post is liberal -- and its circulation is eight times as large

Jacoby's column is a clip and save. You can read the whole thing here. (I think the Globe's website, boston.com, only keeps columns up for 7 days after which there's a fee for access.)

Democrats at Amnesty International "nonpartisan"

Today's Washington Times has a story exposing campaign contributions made by leaders of the supposedly nonpartisan Amnesty International USA. Their money went to Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Amnesty International recently made the outlandish charge that the Guantanamo prison was "a gulag," a reference to the Stalinist prison system in which millions were made slave laborers and tens of thousands were murdered or disappeared without a trace.


The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.

Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.

"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.

Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. (Bold added)

Of course, Amnesty International's nonpartisan. Just ask Sens. Kerry and Kennedy or any Mullah in Iran.

The W. Times story carries Rowan Scarborough's byline. You can read it all here.

The New York Times can do better

Today's New York Times' story of two men charged with conspiring to aid Al Qaeda runs with this headline:

Anti-Muslim Bias Seen in Charges Against Man Linked to Al Qaeda

The anti-Muslim bias charge is made by one of the men's lawyers. He offers no facts to support his charge, instead just saying things like his client "wouldn't be here if he wasn't a Muslim."

Lawyers are given wide latitude when defending clients. But news organizations are supposed to stay close to the facts, and never propagandize on their news pages.

So why didn't the Times run a headline like:

Defense Attorney Says Al Qaeda Suspects Victims of "Anti-Muslim Bias"

Can't the Times to be more evenhanded? Wouldn't being so better serve its readers?

EU rejection: Will it increase global warming?

To the long list of calamities Europe's elites say will follow EU rejection votes, shouldn't we add an increase in global warming?

After all, doesn't everything except treaties and bureaucracy increase global warming?

Who's willing to bet there'll still be rain on that plain down in Spain?

London Times' French EU vote letters

You don't want to miss the London Times' letters to the editor concerning France's EU rejection vote. They're sharp and fun.

Here's a sample:

Sir, Is there an estimate of the wasted cost of producing the miserable verbiage that the French have rightly rejected, apparently for all the wrong reasons?

AP calls France's de Villepin "eloquent"

Reporting on President Chirac's appointment of Dominique de Villepin as France's new Prime Minister, the AP gives us this paragraph:

Villepin was Chirac's foreign minister during the Iraq war. He is best known for his eloquent defense of the French stance against a U.S.-led invasion.

Eloquent? Maybe Saddam thought so.

Memorial Day tributes

Instapundit links to the Winds of Change Memorial Day tribute post. It includes links to other bloggers' tributes as well as to sites set up to support out troops and those of our allies.

I'll bet a lot of service people have been saying to buddies things like, "Hey, come look at what some bloggers did. It's really nice."

I wish I had the words to properly express my debt to our war dead, veterans, serving military, their families, and our allies.

Iran's nuclear plans: The New York Times doesn't seem to notice

The headline is easily understood.

VOTE FOR RAFSANJANI AND WE WILL HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS, SAYS RELIGIOUS LEADER

And the article that follows speaks for itself.

Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani, a representative of Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in Iranian Azerbaijan, has no doubts as to who to vote for in the next presidential elections on 17 June. "You need to vote for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani," said Hasani. "This way we will finally be able to have for ourselves the atomic bomb to fairly stand up to Israeli weapons," said Hasani.

"Freedom, democracy and stupidities of this type cannot be carried over to any part, and these concepts are out of sync with the principles of Islam," said Hasani, the ima
m who led Friday prayers in the main city of western Iranian Azerbaijian.

"Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand and I don't see why now we have changed attitudes and talk with the other civilizations."

Here's the link.

If you've followed events in Iran since the mullahs came to power, you know the imam is saying what Iran's ruling leaders mean to do: Go nuclear.

Yet, The New York Times doesn't seem to notice. In a lengthy article (Across Iran, Nuclear Power Is a Matter of Pride, May 29), we read nothing about Iran using nuclear weapons to "stand up to Israel" and Islam speaking with "the sword in the hand."

Instead, we're served this opening paragraph:

From nuclear negotiators to student dissidents, from bazaar merchants to turbaned mullahs, Iranians agree: the right to develop nuclear power is a point of national pride.

And further down:

(It's) clear that Iran's attachment to nuclear development is rooted in its own tumultuous history. The Islamic republic is trying to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to end the varying degrees of international isolation it has been forced to endure since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The nuclear standoff also echoes an older fight: Iran's colonial struggle to control its oil resources, which it eventually wrestled away from the British. Some reach further back, reflecting a desire to revive the glory of ancient Persia. Others want to claim Iran's future, to prove that the Islamic revolution can overcome its reputation for abysmal management.

Doesn't anyone at the Times take Iran's leaders seriously?

(Thanks to littlegreenfootballs.com for the link to the imam's remarks.)

Media hysteria follows French EU vote. What can Americans learn?

If you've never witnessed full-blown hysteria, take a look at how some of Europe's leading news organizations are reporting French rejection of the EU constitution.

France says 'no' to EU constitution, plunging Europe into crisis - Agence France-Presse

France rejects EU treaty, Europe faces crisis - Reuters

Meanwhile, much of the continent's MSM downplays Europe's growing Muslim extremism and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But Americans shouldn't sneer. We have our own MSM misleading us. The next post provides an example that ought to concern us all. And, yes, it's The New York Times that misleads.

It made me smile

(One of a series of posts about remarks and happenings that - made me smile.)

Churchill's reply to the mother who said she thought her baby looked like him: "Madam, all babies look like me."

France's EU vote: MSM won't explain it.

We'll soon know the result of France's EU Constitution vote, at which point hundreds of MSM reporters and pundits will tell us why the French voted as they did.

Most of what they'll say will be some form of an MSM consensus explanation. It will be an oversimplification at best, if not largely wrong.

How can it be otherwise given that, among other things, most MSM journalists haven't read the constitution? Doing so is a daunting task. The document goes on for hundreds of pages.

Someone who has studied, debated, and written about the constitution is William Rees-Mogg, former London Times editor, now a member of the House of Lords. In a March 2005 op-ed he noted:

Article 3 (of the Constitution) reads: “The Union shall work for sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and with a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.”

We have to take this seriously, but these aspirations are neither defined nor justiciable. Suppose they were brought in front of the European Court of Justice, on the complaint that the European institutions were failing to achieve these objectives.

Rees-Moog then asked questions many French votes have asked themselves

What is “sustainable development”? How can Europe achieve “balanced economic growth”? What does “balanced” mean in that context? Is “economic growth” desirable in all circumstances? What is a “social market”? In what ways does it differ from an ordinary “market economy”? Can a “social market economy” be “highly competitive”, or will its social character be a hindrance to its competitiveness? What is the appropriate level of full employment? Is it 3 per cent unemployment, as Lord Beveridge once suggested? Is it the 10 per cent which is the current German level? What is “social progress”? Can it be measured by income differentials? Or by educational standards? Might there not be a conflict between social progress and economic growth? How does one measure the “improvement of the quality of the environment”? Indeed, what is “the quality of the environment”? How should Europe promote “scientific and technological advance”? By subsidies? How would they fit in with fair competition?

You can read the whole thing here.

MSM has said a lot during the campaign about the vote being a referendum on Chirac and his government. No doubt, whichever why the vote goes we'll hear more about the "Chirac factor"

Why not? It's simply explained, and you can prepare alternative leads before the polls close. "Tonight, in what is being viewed as a resounding rejection of President Chirac's leadership ...." Or, "Tonight, in what is being viewed as a show of support for President Chirac's leadership ....."

If you can peddle the Chirac stuff, why read the constitution? And Rees-Mogg's questions? Well, who wants complexity when simplicity will do?

But you know Rees-Mogg's questions and others like them where on the minds of many French voters today.

I'll watch for Rees-Mogg's post-election op-ed and link to it.

Bonne chance et bonsoir.

Four great service academies.

If you saw any part of today's graduation ceremony at the Naval Academy at Annapolis, including President Bush's graduation address, you may have noticed some of the graduates wore white jackets while others wore blue.

Navy and Marine Corps buffs know those in white will serve as Navy officers; those in blue as Marine Corps officers.

The graduation was an inspiring reminder of how fortunate we are to have Annapolis and three other great service academies which train leaders to defend America and the civilized world.

Here are links to the four service academies' websites.

Air Force

Army

Coast Guard

Navy

God bless them all.

Senator Clinton's candor

Writer and talk radio host Hugh Hewitt's blog is always interesting. He'll be part of the blog roll I'll post in a few days, once some "technical difficulties" are worked out.

Meanwhile, Hewitt's May 26, 2005 postings include a revealing exchange (you may need to scroll down):

Senator Clinton, on CNN's Inside Politics Today, with host Judy Woodruff:

JW: "08? When do you have to make a decision on that?"

HRC: "I am not even remotely thinking about that."

Candor was never the long suit of the previous Administration.

Yes, Senator Clinton's "not even remotely thinking about" an '08 presidential run, yet somehow she keeps winding up in Iowa.

Thanks, Hugh.

Krugman leaves you hungry? Try Juan Cole.

I'm not a fan of Princeton Professor and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman. But many are, including media and academic folks.

Krugman's fans often finish his columns and wish, "Please, editor, more like Paul."

Well, for all Krugman's fans, "a second helping" is just a click away.

The click takes you to Professor Juan Cole's blog. Like Krugman, Cole's an academic (Michigan - Ann Arbor) who hates President Bush.

Are there differences between the Profs?

Yes. For instance, during the current three-year economic upturn, Krugman's predicted many more downturns than Cole. On the other hand, Cole is somewhat more supportive of Palestinian terrorists than Krugman.

Both Profs are available to speak at college lecture series and commencements near you.

Will Newsweek Change?

Now that Newsweek has started referring to the Koran as the Qur'an, will it rename itself Newswee'q?

FDR and America's last declaration of war

In the hours following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt and his aides discussed the speech he would deliver the next day to Congress. Of course, he would ask for a declaration of war.

But FDR's aides disagreed regarding whether the speech should be what historians now call "the long version," which would review in lawyerly detail Japanese-American relations going back over decades; or whether it should be "the short version," saying essentially: "Look, they attacked us; we're at war."

FDR settled on "the short version." The speech lasted just over seven minutes, including interruptions for applause.

Here's the first sentence of the typed "short version" draft

Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in world history, the United States of America was simultaneously and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

If you remember how FDR began the address, you know the above sentence is not the one he spoke before Congress.

Here's how FDR actually bagan:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 --- a date which will live in infamy ---
the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. (Bold mine)

Who changed world history to infamy and simultaneously to suddenly?

FDR did.

And who added those --- pause cues?

Again, FDR.

The why of Roosevelt's changes and pause cues is obvious.

You can view and enlarge a facsimile of the first page of the draft with FDR's changes in his own hand here at the FDR Memorial Library site.

You'll also see a picture of FDR signing the war declaration. Notice he's wearing a black memorial armband. Some have said he did that in respect for the Pearl Harbor dead.

Not so. Roosevelt wore the armband in memory of his mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt, who died three months earlier. At the time, wearing armbands in memory of recently deceased family members or close friends was a fading but not uncommon custom.

FDR was the last President to formally ask Congress for a declaration of war.

It made me smile

Senator John Warner was a guest tonight on Special Report with Brit Hume.

With the interview nearing its end, Hume gave Warner the "we have only a few seconds left" cue.

Warner nodded and want on: "In the great panoply of American history ....

Do you think Warner's been taking public speaking lessons from Senators Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy?

Tributes to Our Military

Any day's a good day to pay tribute to the American military, but some are especially appropriate. So I'll post tributes on June 4 and 6.

June 4 is the anniversary of one of World War II's most important battles, Midway. Our victory there stopped the Japanese advance in the Pacific and enabled Allied forces to take the offensive. U.S. Navy forces faced a Japanese fleet superior in number of ships and planes, yet achieved what historians acknowledge was an "incredible victory."

June 6 I'll post on some of Eisenhower's decisions related to D-Day, and what those decisions tell us about Ike's intellect and character. I'll also post some eyewitness accounts of those first minutes on Omaha Beach.

Both posts will include links.

DNC Chairman Dean on Meet the Press

Fans of DNC Chairman Howard Dean must have been shaking their pompoms while watching him yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russett.

The DNC website, Kicking Ass (Dean gave it that name), provides some quotes:

"Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans', is (sic) we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.".

And this: "Our moral values say that we ought to have a strong, free public education system so that we can level the playing field."

Millions of Democrats love Dean because he says things like Republicans "think kids ought to go to bed hungry." So what if it's false and mean spirited?

Democrats are happy Dean talks about "a strong, free public education system" without mentioning the many failing public school systems which they and their teacher union allies have controlled for generations.

I'm sure Dean's received many e-mails from Democrats saying, "Well done, Chairman."

That's sad. The Democrats were once a better party.

You can access the entire Meet the Press transcript here.

Away until Monday evening

Friends,

I'll be away until Monday evening at which time I'll post on DNC chair Howard Dean.

Tuesday morning I'll post about tributes to the American military that
will soon appear here.

Lots more will follow that.

Stay well.

John

MSM Dodges Owen's ABA Highly Qualified Recommendation

The American Bar Association awarded federal appellate court nominee and Texas Supreme Court Justice Pricilla Owen its highest rating - Highly Qualified. The ABA's committee on federal judicial nominees vote was unanimous. Owen is assured of confirmation by the Senate if it gets to vote on her nomination.

Most Senate Democrats and every powerful liberal interest group don't want Owen to get that vote. In their efforts to prevent it, they're getting huge assists from MSM.

Among MSM assists are reporting and commentaries that usually fail to mention the very important ABA recommendation. Here's an example from the May 21 Washington Post.

And here are two more from the current issue of Newsweek here and here.

The second Newsweek link is to Democratic spear-carrier Eleanor Clift's column. Clift doesn't mention the ABA's recommendation, but she does suggest that Owen's nomination is part of the religious right's effort to take over of America. Gosh, how did the ABA miss that?

If even half the MSM stories and reports concerning Owen had mentioned the ABA's unanimous recommendation, I think the Democrats would've been unable to sustain their opposition . The public would have said, "Enough of this nonsense about 'extremism.' Confirm the woman." And the Dems would have had to yield.

The Dems and liberal interest groups owe their MSM friends a big thank you.