Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • Canadian Gov’t Falls on No-Confidence Vote

    On what otherwise seems a relatively slow news day, it seems a big winter political storm is brewing in the Great White North.

    A corruption scandal forced a vote of no-confidence Monday that toppled Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority government, triggering an unusual election campaign during the Christmas holidays.

    Canada’s three opposition parties, which control a majority in Parliament, voted against Martin’s government, claiming his Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to lead the nation.

    The loss means an election for all 308 seats in the lower House of Commons, likely on Jan. 23. Martin and his Cabinet would continue to govern until then.

    Opposition leaders last week called for the no-confidence vote after Martin rejected their demands to dissolve Parliament in January and hold early elections in February. Monday’s vote follows a flurry of spending announcements in Ottawa last week, with the government trying to advance its agenda ahead of its demise.

    Martin is expected to dissolve the House of Commons on Tuesday and set a firm date for the elections. Under Canadian law, elections must be held on a Monday — unless it falls on a holiday — and the campaign period is sharply restricted.

    “The vote in the House of Commons did not go our way,” Martin said. “But the decision of the future of our government will be made by Canadians. They will judge us.”

    The Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper joined with the New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois parties to bring down the government — prompting the first Christmas and winter campaign in mostly Christian Canada in 26 years. Recent polls have given the Liberals a slight lead over the Conservatives, with the New Democrats in third place.

    […]

    “This is not just the end of a tired, directionless, scandal-plagued government,” Harper said after Monday’s vote. “It’s the start of a bright new future for this country.”

    The opposition is banking on the public’s disgust with a corruption scandal involving the misuse of funds targeted for a national unity program in Quebec.

    An initial investigation absolved Martin of wrongdoing, but accused senior Liberal members of taking kickbacks and misspending tens of millions of dollars in public funds.

    Canadian Damian J. Penny of Daimnation! suggests his personal six-part strategy for the Conservatives in the pending elections. Here’s a little taste (hat tip to Viking Pundit):

    The Conservatives are behind in most of the polls, but this election is ours to win. My advice:

    1. Don’t let the Liberals set the agenda. They have betrayed the public trust, and the onus is on the Martin government to show why it deserves to stay in power – not on Stephen Harper to prove he isn’t “scary”.

    2. Don’t be afraid to run as Conservatives, not a “Lite” version of the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians are much more open to new ideas in areas such as health care and immigration than the CBC or Toronto Star would have you believe.

    Go give the rest a gander.

    Meanwhile, nearly-Canadian Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters (hey, Canada, Minnesota, same thing from a Texas vantage — besides, the good captain has had the blogosphere’s best coverage of the recent Canadian Adscam scandals) thinks he has divined the Liberal’s strategy for the upcoming campaign.

    I’m listening to the aftermath on CPAC, where the Liberal apologist wants to tell Canada that Adscam involved “a few Liberals”, but that “no one believes that it involved the party as a whole”. That apparently will be the line that the Liberals take in this election, along with a scolding tone about all of the great work that the Commons could be doing instead of holding another election seventeen months after the last one.

    I’m still holding out for reaction from two of my favorite bloggers from our neighbor to the north: Small Dead Animals and Angry in the Great White North. If we’re truly lucky, Damian Brooks of Babbling Brooks will briefly rouse himself from his blogging hibernation.

  • Mother’s Iraq Protest Plays to Smaller Crowd

    Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s Thanksgiving vigil in Crawford will not go down as a rousing success.

    Dancing to reggae music and hugging her supporters, Cindy Sheehan led an anti-Iraq war rally Saturday at a one-acre campsite adjoining the ranch where President Bush is spending his holiday weekend

    Wait, whoa, stop right there! Dancing to reggae music? Is this Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s idea of a mournful vigil? A traditional Thanksgiving? No, it’s a brief crack in the mainstream media’s coverage of Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan. Oops, sorry about that folks, don’t expect to hear more about it, or about her actual radically leftist views. Now, back to the story.

    As in August, when she galvanized attention and made headlines for days with similar protests, there were songs and speeches and demonstrators holding signs reading “Bring the Troops Home” near the main entrance of the 1,600-acre ranch where Bush has been vacationing since Tuesday.

    Unlike then, when hundreds came from all over the country for major events at the two campsites named after Sheehan’s son, who was killed in Iraq, Sheehan found herself addressing a crowd of only about 100 Saturday afternoon. The large tent where supporters had erected a stage hung with the banner “Speak Truth to Power” was only partially full. In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd.

    Regarding that sparsely-attended book signing, Jawsblog looks at a picture similar to the one accompanying the WaPo piece and reminds us of a time-tested business axiom.

    Meanwhile, turn out the lights, the party’s over … for now.

    Dozens of war protesters packed up their tents and left their campsite in a field near President Bush’s ranch Sunday, vowing to return during Easter for a third vigil if U.S. troops are still in Iraq.

    The weeklong protest, which coincided with Bush’s Thanksgiving holiday visit to his ranch, drew about 200 people. It was a continuation of the August demonstration led by California mother Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq last year during combat.

    […]

    Before leaving town Sunday, the group of about 50 war protesters held an interfaith service at the Crawford Peace House.

    They also planted a tree at their campsite, a private lot about a mile from Bush’s ranch. The landowner who let demonstrators use the property the last few weeks of the August vigil has leased it to them through next year. Before last week’s protest, the group had water and electricity installed.

    “We’re here for the long haul. As long as this country is at war with Iraq, we’ll be here to oppose it,” said Hadi Jawad, a co-founder of the Crawford Peace House, which opened a month after the war began in March 2003. “I think Crawford has become a point of pilgrimage to a lot of people. This has become hallowed ground.”

    Hmmm … I’ve been to Crawford, and it ain’t hollowed ground. Not even if one adds a silly sculpture and calls it a monument. For hallowed ground, I would instead offer the site where Casey Sheehan raised his right hand and volunteered for our country’s military. Or perhaps the site where he chose to re-enlist, again vowing to support his nation. Or perhaps the site where he fell, giving all in service to his nation and his comrades in a manner he rightly held noble.

    I am curious about the financing of that water and electricity installation. Any chance we could get some names there?

    Perhaps upon Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s return to Crawford in Easter, we can actually get media coverage of the woman herself? Maybe some video of the mournful Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan dancing to reggae during the traditional egg roll? Maybe an inciteful look at her controversial quotes that have pretty much gone uncovered outside the blogosphere? Nah, that would take reporting.

    During her autumn stunts, I blogged that Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan was fighting tooth and nail for an addition to her fifteen minutes of fame. In a comment on my post about the silly monument, Phil pegged her as currently being at about her nineteenth minute. The woman is addicted to attention, as demonstrated by her jealousy of hurricane coverage, and will not wait until Easter. I only fear how low Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan will stoop to be in front of cameras in the meantime.

  • Vt. Teacher Accused of Anti-Bush Quiz

    Ah, one wonders at the state of public schooling and our educators. Now, a tale arises of a teacher injecting his political views into English vocabulary lessons.

    A high school teacher is facing questions from administrators after giving a vocabulary quiz that included digs at President Bush and the extreme right.

    Bret Chenkin, a social studies and English teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, said he gave the quiz to his students several months ago. The quiz asked students to pick the proper words to complete sentences.

    One example: “I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes.””Coherent” is the right answer.

    Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned. She said she also would talk with Chenkin. School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.

    “It’s absolutely unacceptable,” Knapp said. “They (teachers) don’t have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint.”

    Quite right. It’s bad enough that some teachers are afraid to use red ink to grade papers for fear of being abrasive. Now, here’s a fool who feels that his position as an English instructor entitles him with the authority to indoctrinate students with political views. Does he even understand the argument against his practice?

    Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn’t shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.

    “The kids know it’s hyperbolic, so-to-speak,” he said. “They know it’s tongue in cheek.” But he said he would change his teaching methods if some are concerned.

    “I’ll put in both sides,” he said. “Especially if it’s going to cause a lot of grief.”

    No, Chenkin does not understand the issue. Since he seems to have trouble understanding the language he teaches, I’ll spell it out in simple words — leave politics out of your English class.

  • Anti-War Protesters Unveil Monument In Crawford

    As if the story of Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan in Crawford wasn’t beat down enough, it has resurfaced with “news” of a big, heavy tribute to Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan waiting for her on her recent return to the site of Camp Casey for a little Thanksgiving shindig.

    Anti-war demonstrators unveiled a stone monument in Crawford, Texas today that honors the California mother who inspired their efforts.

    Cindy Sheehan, who staged a 26-day protest outside Bush’s ranch in August, cried when she saw the two-foot-high sandstone marker with the words “Sheehan’s Stand.”

    Sheehan and other protesters are back in Crawford to protest during President Bush’s holiday vacation,

    The 12-hundred pound rectangular slab lists the names of more than two dozen soldiers whose families were part of the vigil.

    Several Bush supporters also gathered in Crawford today with a sign reading: “The price of freedom is not free.”

    Anti-war and pro-Bush rallies were planned for tomorrow in Crawford.

    Folks, I just happened to be there at Camp Casey when this “monument” was delivered in August. I blogged that day with pictures of the memorial and its hippie-leftover creator. This is all as sadly silly now at it was then. And Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan supposedly cried when she saw it? That woman can apparently cry at the drop of a hat or, to be more accurate, the sight of a camera.

    Other photos of my August trip to Crawford can be found here.

  • Introducing the Liberty Papers

    A new libertarian group blog has launched with the debut of the Liberty Papers.

    Eric Cowperthwaite, proprietor of Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave and founder of the Life, Liberty, Property community, has gathered together a bevy of contributors with high hopes of building a strong voice for personal freedom. Eric explains the site’s purpose with the following:

    So, why this blog? Our goal is a place where we can write on Liberty. We aim to be the place you come to when you want to read political thought from a classic liberal perspective. There’s many other places on the web you can go for freedom and liberty writing. You can visit Catallarchy for anarcho-capitalist writing, or Q And O for neo-libertarian writing (a blend, really, of neo-conservative and libertarian perspectives). So, we aim to be the place you go for liberal thought from a classic perspective. Expect to see a wide variety of writing, as we have a wide variety of contributors.

    Go give it a gander. I know I’ll certainly spend time aplenty watching it develop. Hey, if I ever get off my duff and wax political, maybe I’ll try to throw my two cents into the Liberty Papers.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXI

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Left Brain Female. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.

  • The War Hangs in the Balance

    By that, I don’t mean on the battlefield, where we have nothing but achievement and progress, both unheralded and under-reported. Unfortunately, once again the danger of defeat lies in the political arena. The only way to lose is to choose to lose (it helps to be blinded from success). Some are cool with that. Some have done so in the past.

    Here are three columns that look at how we are currently on the knife’s edge, victorious in every way in the field and yet pulled towards defeat at home (hat tip for all to Power Line).

    First, Ralph Peters wants the reader to think about that very thing the critics of the Iraq war want to sweep under the carpet — the consequences of defeat, which is how an early withdrawal would be trumpeted by our radical Islamist enemies.

    How to Lose a War

    QUIT. It’s that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

    Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can’t win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That’s precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we’ve made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

    […]

    The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

    There’s plenty I don’t like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they’ll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country’s future security for a few House seats.

    Surrender is never a winning strategy.

    Yes, we’ve been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what’s at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

    What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they’re going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they’ll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

    I’ve never wanted to cut-and-paste and entire column like this one. I’ve previously expressed my long–standing respect for Mr. Peters, but he’s dead on the money here — one side is fighting a war and fighting for our troops; for the other, it’s sheer politics and gestures for the troops.

    Second, a history lesson for those rallying around Democrat and erstwhile hawk Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania about the effects of premature withdrawal and the undercutting of an ally.

    Defeated by Defeatism: Why Jack Murtha is wrong

    But if the United States were to take Murtha’s advice, the outcome would be precisely the opposite of what he desires. He only needs to recall what happened in Vietnam.

    After 1968, the situation in Vietnam was very similar to the one that prevails in Iraq today. Trends were moving in the right direction for the Americans and South Vietnamese. The United States had changed its strategy after Tet 1968, scoring significant military successes against the North Vietnamese while advancing “Vietnamization.” These successes helped stabilize the political and economic situation in South Vietnam, solidifying the attachment of the rural population to the South Vietnamese government and resulting in the establishment of the conditions necessary for South Vietnam’s survival as a viable political entity.

    The new strategy was vindicated during the 1972 Easter Offensive. This was the biggest offensive push of the war, greater in magnitude than either the 1968 Tet offensive or the final assault of 1975. While the U.S. provided massive air and naval support and while there were inevitable failures on the part of some South Vietnamese units, all in all, the South Vietnamese fought well. Then, having blunted the communist thrust, they recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. So effective was the combination of the South Vietnamese army’s performance during the Easter Offensive, an enhanced counterinsurgency effort, and LINEBACKER II — the so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 later that year — that the British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson concluded US-ARVN forces “had won the war. It was over.”

    But as Bob Sorley has observed, while the war in Vietnam “was being won on the ground… it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress.

    If one does away with the unfortunately popular mythology of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, one could see that there are actually very few similarities. After Tet and the accompanying decimation of the Viet Cong, we were not facing a true insurgency threat; rather, the bulk of the rest of the war was carried by outside regulars, the North Vietnamese Army. Second, the enemy’s efforts then were strongly and rather openly supported, supplied and fortified by our formidable rival superpower, the Soviet Union. That is not the case in Iraq. The true parallels are that it’s an engagement that can be won, is in the process of being won, and domestic forces are working to keep it from being won.

    The third piece takes a look at the effect of the current and unfortunate political games upon our boots on the ground, those supposedly so heartily supported by the anti-war movement.

    Military fears critics will hurt morale

    Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington’s political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

    Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

    The commanders also worry about the public’s declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

    “They say morale is very high,” said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. “But they relate comments from troops asking, ‘What the heck is going on back here’ and why America isn’t seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them.”

    This one falls equally upon those politically cutblocking the efforts today and the media, which has spent the entire war focusing upon the burning building and ignoring the opening school. Progress has been shunted for bloody headlines, and generations of blood may be the result.

    The war and the world our children and grandchildren will inherit hang in the balance.

  • Robitussin-based Link Dump

    I’m a little under the weather, but here’s a little bit of what I’ve been reading.

    Zarqawi’s family disown him after bombings

    Iraq’s most-wanted militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been disowned by members of his family in Jordan who have pledged to “sever links with him until doomsday” and proclaimed their loyalty to Jordan’s king, Abdullah II.

    The statement, which also removed “protection” from Zarqawi, came amid further protests in Jordan at the suicide bombings at three hotels on November 9 in Amman , the capital, that killed 59 people, including revellers at a wedding party.

    Zarqawi’s organisation al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the blasts and subsequently threatened to kill the king. But yesterday, 57 members of his al-Khalayleh clan, including his brother and first cousin, took half-page advertisements in Jordan’s leading newspapers to revile the militant leader.

    “We denounce in the clearest terms all the terrorist actions claimed by the so-called Ahmed Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, who calls himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, wrote the family members who proclaimed “homage” to the Hashemite throne and “to our precious Jordan”.

    “We announce, and all the people are our witnesses, that we – the sons of the al-Khalayleh tribe – are innocent of him and all that emanates from him, whether action, assertion or decision.”

    The statement effectively declared open season on Zarqawi, saying that anyone who carried out acts of terrorism in the kingdom would not be protected.

    Al-Zarqawi May Be Among Dead in Iraq Fight

    U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

    Interesting timing between those two stories. Meanwhile, the U.S. is playing down stories that Zarqawi is taking the dirtnap. Chad and Mac at In the Bullpen have been posting updates.

    UK will embrace ‘voluntary’ Kyoto targets

    Interest groups on both sides of the Kyoto divide are calling remarks by Margaret Beckett, Prime Minster Tony Blair’s Environment Secretary, the death of the protocol.

    Ms Beckett told The Observer that future work on climate change could involve “voluntary” targets rather than the compulsory targets that are Kyoto’s engine.

    Like Mr Blair before her, she said that achieving consensus on compulsory targets would be impossible in the present political environment.

    But where Mr Blair appears ready to embrace the approach advanced by the US-led Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Ms Beckett appears to be engaged in seasoning an apparently unpalatable stew in order to help reluctant international partners consume what’s really on their plates.

    And that dish is, essentially, the end of Kyoto.

    Davids Medienkritik takes a look at why Kyoto is failing.

    One of the few causes behind which the Left still can unite is the Kyoto treaty on the reduction of greenhouse gases. After all, the refusal of the U.S. to sign “Kyoto” makes a good reason to kick off anti-American campaigns.

    […]

    Anyway, casual observation tells me that the front line of the “Sign Kyoto” movement is beginning to fall apart, in Europe as well as in the U.S.. The “consensus science” approach comes under increasing fire[.]

    Meanwhile, Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein points out the beneficial irony of any failure of the treaty.

  • House Rejects Iraq Pullout

    Overwhelmingly.

    Bravo, and here’s hoping they shut up about it through the pending holiday week. I don’t want to have to give thanks for further discussion of the need for our military to abandon another mission.

    In a maneuver to strike at Iraq war critics, the Republican-led House of Representatives engineered a vote on Friday on a resolution to pull U.S. troops immediately from Iraq, which was defeated nearly unanimously.

    Republicans, who introduced the surprise resolution hours before lawmakers were to start a Thanksgiving holiday recess, said the vote was intended to show support for U.S. forces.

    Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as possible.

    The problem is not the “as quickly as possible” portion. Rep. Murtha crossed the line in a variety of areas. First, he said the following:

    Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency.

    It’s quite obvious from terrorist bombing efforts over the last several months that the American forces, while a desired target, have been too efficient in the conduct of their business. The fact that the suicide bombs and car bombs have, for quite a while now, predominantly targeted Iraqi civilians should have quashed this statement.

    Meanwhile, Murtha was far from being above playing politics himself:

    Underscoring the rising emotions of the war debate, Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice-President Dick Cheney’s comments this week that Democrats were spouting “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges” about the Bush administration’s use of intelligence before the war.

    “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there,” said Murtha, a former Marine. “I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”

    Referring to Bush, Murtha added, “I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.”

    Look, I’ll put it quite simply. Murtha’s ploy was most assuredly political, just like his slam on Cheney. Did he ever denounce his colleague John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts and recently-defeated presidential candidate, for seeking a deferment? The betterment of our efforts against radical Islamist terror was not a consideration in Murtha’s manuever. To then turn around and whine when politics are thrown back at you is childish. You started the game, play it. To whine about a factual response to criticism, especially one based upon the words of those attacking, is simply pathetic.

    Here’s a few editorial responses the Murtha’s cut-and-run stance. I recommend them both.

    Democrats Display A Muddled Vision

    Despite their relentless rhetoric that the Bush Administration took America to war in Iraq under false pretenses and their nonstop criticism of the war, Democrats said that by calling for the vote Republicans were engaging in a political stunt. The fact is, Democrats have had a free ride for too long. They have simultaneously said they supported the troops in the field but opposed the war. They cannot have it both ways and it is time for them to back up their oratory with a vote. If Bush is wrong and the war is unjust then let the Democrats stop complaining and vote to bring the troops home and put an end to it.

    Murtha’s resolution would compel Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at the “earliest practicable date” and maintain a nearby U.S. presence. Bush has already said he wants to bring U.S. forces home as soon as possible but without setting a date for withdrawal.
    […]

    Democrat objections indicate they prefer using Iraq as a convenient political battering ram rather then actually having to commit their vilification of the president’s policy to a vote.

    America stands at the threshold of a dark doorway and the Democrats are turning the handle.

    Cut and run in Iraq isn’t a real policy

    But added to the anti-war chorus this past week was the voice of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), ex-Marine, Vietnam vet and long-time supporter of the war on terror generally and its Iraq phase. But this past week, as Congress prepares to adjourn for its Thanksgiving break and as Murtha prepares to return to a district which has suffered the loss of 13 of its native sons in Iraq, he went before his colleagues to urge the pullout of American troops within the next six months.

    “Our military has done everything that has been asked of them,” he said. “It is time to bring them home.”

    Now we have no reason to question the sincerity of Murtha’s change of heart. Vietnam did indeed leave scars on the psyche of a generation – Murtha’s generation – that simply won’t go away. But did we learn nothing from that tragic war about pulling the rug out from under our own troops, about denigrating the job they have been given and about setting a timetable for surrender?

    And while Murtha’s timing might have made sense to him, as he prepared to face the losses of his constituents, it couldn’t have been worse on the ground in Iraq with elections scheduled next month.

  • En Fuego: Eric’s Grumbles

    Having made my position our media repeatedly clear, I’ll let Eric hammer on them for their current sins of omission.

    First, he tags them with a left hook for some blatant amnesia about Clinton-era concerns about Iraq:

    For more than two years now we have continuously had it pounded into our heads that there was no real linkage between al-Qaeda and Iraq, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that Osama bin Laden detested secular Iraq and would never work with them. What you may not know, even though it is in the 9/11 Commission’s report, is that Richard Clarke, the top counter-terrorism official in the later years of the Clinton Administration, didn’t agree with that point of view. And that there is reasonable evidence to support Clarke’s point of view.

    Read it. Then Eric throws a right cross at poll-number coverage:

    So, why isn’t the media, generally, telling the story that has existed at least since August? Yes, the President’s poll numbers are low, but so is the entire mainstream political structure. Now, why do you suppose the media isn’t pointing that out every time they run a story on the poll numbers? The fact is, people are disgusted with everybody in Washington. But, interestingly, they aren’t as disgusted with the President as the Congress and the political parties. That, of course, doesn’t fit the meme being pushed by certain quarters.

    Go let Eric grumble at ya.