Tuesday, February 28, 2006
I can not believe that O'Neill has been left out again. Mike Bauman is a national columnist for MLB.com and speaks for most of us:
"It is difficult to imagine how this process could be held without electing Buck O'Neil to the Hall of Fame. Even those of us who cannot claim comprehensive historical knowledge in this area are aware of his exploits and his importance. In more recent years, O'Neil has come to be a truly national figure, a symbol of an entire era when great American baseball was not played only in the Major Leagues. His omission is entirely regrettable, not to mention, for many of us, completely inexplicable."
Buck O'Neill and Tommy Lasorda are baseball's current goodwill ambassadors. It is beyond belief that O'Neill is not a member of the HOF!
P.S. Cuban greats Cristobal Torriente and Jose Mendez are among the candidates for special induction.
Last Wednesday, Iraq was on the brink of civil war. Today, the NYTimes reports that there is calm again. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/international/27iraq-cnd.html?ei=5094&en=eadad1013bc78778&hp=&ex=1141102800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)
Again, no one is suggesting that Iraq is Disney World but the big clash did not happen.
What happened to the civil war? It could still happen.
However, why does our media continue to forecast a civil war?
John Hawkins has a very popular blog. I agree with him:
"On Friday of last week, the media was looking at what was happening in Iraq and screaming "Civil War! Civil War! Civil War!" at the top of their lungs.
Here's what I was saying at the same time:
"(T)he media has been saying the exact same thing they're saying today for 3 years, they've been wrong the entire time, and they look to be just as wrong right now."
Of course, the media -- in an attempt to justify their hysterical shrieking about a civil war -- has played up every killing and mosque attack made by militia yahoos since the Golden Dome attack like it's the first shell being fired on Fort Sumter." (http://www.rightwingnews.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5273)
John is right. Iraq has problems. It may indeed end up in a civil war. It may also end up with a new government.
Claude Salhani is international editor for United Press International. He has written an article: "Is it a civil war yet?":
"How long can this civil war that is not a civil war last before it becomes a civil war?" (http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060226-102711-1401r)
Bill Roggio has written about this. He has put together an interesting checklist. It is worth reading: "Looking for Signs of Civil War in Iraq" (http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/02/looking_for_signs_of.php)
Roggio points to the Iraqi army:
"The Iraqi Security Forces have taken appropriate measures and suspended all leaves, but there are no indications they are cooperating with militias or abetting the violence in any way."
Will we see a civil war? It could happen. It has not happened yet. Of course, another bomb may go off next week and the news media will tell us again that the country is on the brink of civil war!
P.S. Ralph Peters flew over the city and made this comment:
"The calm made a striking contrast to the media hysteria. No mosques burned. No demonstrations seethed. The closest thing I saw to violence was a children's soccer game played in a suburb.
Baghdad isn't Candyland, of course. We skimmed the city at 300 feet — combat altitude — with the Blackhawk's guns up.
But it sure wasn't civil war. For now, at least, Abu Musad al-Zarqawi and his blood-cult terrorists haven't succeeded in pitting Sunni against Shia.
Our effort to help Iraqis build a rule-of-law democracy may yet fail. But it remains a better bet that Iraq will become the most equitably governed major Arab state and that a democracy, however imperfect, will stand where a monstrous regime fell." ( http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64314.htm)
Monday, February 27, 2006
David Wissing has an interesting review of the poll:
"I will freely admit President Bush is in a rough spot right now and I am not surprised that his numbers are low.
But I just took a look at the party breakdown for this CBS News poll and it is borderline ridiculous.
The poll had 1,018 respondents. Check out the party breakdown among these 1,018 people.
Democrats - 409 - 40%
Republicans - 272 - 26%
Independents - 337 - 33%
Does CBS News really believe the Democrats have 14% registration edge in this country?
This is a prime example of manipulating a poll to get a news story you want….
In fact, Bush had a 42% job approval rating in the previous CBS News poll. The party breakdown for that poll was Democrats 31%-Republicans 30%-Independents 38%.
So in one month, according to CBS News, Democrats managed to increase their share of registred voters in the country by an incredible 9%!" (http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/5329)
Why would CBS do that? Why did CBS run a story on forged memos six weeks before the 2004 election? The answer is that we are talking about CBS.
Once in a while, we have to laugh. The Clinton Foundation is looking for interns. According to the website:
"the Clinton Foundation Intern Program offers a unique opportunity for growth, learning and meaningful service. We are looking for people who are dependable, enthusiastic, professional, and intelligent." (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/programs-cs-internship.htm)
Check it out. Make sure that you forward this information to all of your friends and neighbors.
Dave Wissing analyses the data in his blog. Check it out: (http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/5329)
Again, it's early and things could change. However, there is a growing sense that Senator Clinton can not win.
First of all, congratulations to Sweden for winning the gold medal. It was a good game. (http://www.nbcolympics.com/results/1501439/detail.html?qs=pt=espn)
During the Cold War, the Soviets and East Germans dominated team sports in the winter Olympics. Those were the days when the USSR hockey team was made up of veterans playing US and Canadian college kids.
Back then, the matches were a joke.
Once in a while, you had a "miracle on ice". Most of the time it was a nightmare on ice as veteran Soviets beat up college kids!
Today, the USSR is gone. The best Europeans are playing in the NHL.
So let's bring the college players back. Let them earn medals and enjoy the fame. The pros have the Stanley Cup. Turn the game back to the amateurs and let the young men play for the medals and the flag.
A week ago, I did not know a thing about our ports. Today, I know a little more and feel confident that we can live with a UAE company managing 6 of our ports.
Robert J. Caldwell writes:
"Security at the six ports – New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans – would remain exactly where it is today, with the U.S. government. The U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Coast Guard would continue to provide security at the six ports in question, as they provide security at all American ports."
Jack Kelly, a strong supporter of the war on terror, writes this:
"It is stupid as well as shameful to turn the war we must fight against Islamic extremism into an attack on Muslims generally." (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/06057/660934.stm)
The war against terrorists is a very serious enterprise. It requires every ounce of our energy and commitment. We should not waste our time with ignorance and politics.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Over the years, I've had my share of laughs over Barney in Mayberry and the funny landlord in "Three's company". As I remember, he was a pretty funny character in Disney movies, too.
Overall, a very good acting career. We will miss Don Knotts!
It was a bad week for our politicians. As I wrote before, the White House should have handled the ports issue a lot better. They should have foreseen the outcry, specially from Republicans. Why didn't someone invite key Republicans over and discuss the deal with them? Frankly, someone dropped the ball on this one.
The Democrats were worse, if that's possible. The White House's incompetence handed Charles Schummer and Hillary Clinton a chance for shameful demagoguery on national security.
It was a bad week. I expect something better.
The Democrats keep talking about winning "hearts and minds" in the Middle East. Why are we kicking an ally in the region? The Wall Street Journal summarizes the situation:
"A United Arab Emirates government allied with America, that provides a Persian Gulf base for U.S. military operations, and that was the first Middle Eastern country to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, has been rewarded with Congressional demagoguery that a company it owns can't be trusted to manage commercial operations in U.S. ports." (
Someone forget to tell the Democrats that former Pres. Clinton just visited UAE and praised them for being such a good ally of the US! (http://www.itp.net/business/news/print.php?id=18919&prodid=&category=arabianbusiness)
Read Deb Saunders on this:
"The left's outrage about racial profiling goes out the window the minute partisans see an opportunity to bash Bush. Ditto all that high-minded rhetoric about the need for America to win friends among the -- all bow -- international community." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_25_06_DS.html)
Read Charles Krauthammer:
"The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security. Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical.
If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother. Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301393.html)
No one wants to protect the ports, and every aspect of the homeland, than I do. However, we need politicians who are looking out for the national welfare more than the next election.
Let me repeat. The White House fumbled but the Democrats went into full Bush bashing mode.
Again, the Wall Street Journal:
"The good news is that we elect Presidents to represent the national interest on these issues, even if it means taking political heat for doing so. That's what Mr. Bush has been doing this week, and in the process he's caused some of the original yahoos to educate themselves before they demagogue again."
The "ports crisis", on the heels of the "Cheney crisis", is just another example of how silly our debate can be!
P.S. Speaking of Senator Clinton, check out Andrew C. McCarthy's review of the Clintons and the ports. I hope that a member of the news media will challenge Senator Clinton on this:
"So here she is, trying to elbow her way to the right of the current Bush administration on the scourge of al Qaeda … and hoping the rest of us are struck by amnesia." (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602231409.asp)
Saturday, February 25, 2006
South Dakota is making a statement on abortion. The SD House passed a bill 50-18 and the SD Senate approved it 23-12. Those are very good margins against abortion.
What's next? Anti-abortion organizations are hoping to take this case up to the US Supreme Court. It will likely get there after various appeals.
There are similar anti-abortion proposals in Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee.
Fasten your seat belts. Abortion will be huge issue in state elections in 2006 and 2007.
Where was Karl during this port issue? Someone, preferably Karl, needs to protect the president from a controversy like this.
Again, I am comfortable with the ports deal. I am not happy with the way that this White House performed.
Hopefully, the president learned his lesson. The White House fumbled and that's not something that the President can afford to do.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Today, Thomas Friedman was on TV and he said this about Iraq:
"If we defeat them in the heart of their world, in collaboration with other Arabs and Muslims, by putting together some kind of decent democracy in Iraq, that will have an enormous impact, an enormous resonance in the region and be a terrible defeat. So what you're seeing now is in many ways acts of unspeakable violence. I mean, going into a mosque, blowing it up, one of the most prominent Shi'ites shrines, the reason they're doing that is actually because in some ways they've been losing.
The process of Iraq coming together has been happening.
And I believe that the most dangerous point for America, as with Iraq, is the closer we actually get to producing a decent outcome there, the crazier our opponents are going to get, because they know if they lose, it's strategic." (http://newsbusters.org/node/4168)
Friedman is right. Iraq is the battleground in this clash of civilizations that we keep hearing about.
Iraq is no longer about Saddam, WMDs or failed UN resolutions. Iraq is now about Al Qaeda and their hatred of our Western values. In Iraq, the US, along with the UK and Australia, are fighting a battle for our way of life.
We can not quit now that we are ahead!
Al Qaeda cannot defeat the US military or even the growing Iraqi military. Like the Vietcong, their best hope is that they US cuts and runs. Their only chance is that they can bomb enough mosques and kill enough people that the American public demands a pullout.
VD Hanson just got back from Iraq and filed a very good report: "Standoff in IraqThe IED vs. Democracy"(http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602240629.asp).
Hanson reports that "....the terrorists have an invaluable ally in the global media, whose “if it bleeds, it leads” brand of journalism always favors the severed head in the street over the completion of yet another Iraqi school."
At this point of the war, the terrorists can count on The New York Times or Howard Dean.
The bad news is that The NYTimes will publish anything that hurts our cause and Dean does not think that we can win.
The good news is that the NYTimes is losing readers and Dean is not improving his party's chances!
It is early but Senator McCain is looking great. The Marist College poll confirms what Gallup, Rasmussen and American Research Group have recently indicated. McCain has a double digit lead on Sen. Clinton. (2008 Presidential trial heats)
In other words, if the election were held today, McCain would win a landslide. He would win the popular vote:
McCain 55% Gore 38%
McCain 54% Kerry 37%
McCain 52% Clinton 42%
Let me add some perspective. Bush-41 won 54% in '88 and he carried 40 states or more than 400 Electoral votes. Bush-43 got 51% and won 31 states.
As of today, McCain could carry 40 states, which would be a major defeat for the Democrats, reminiscent of Dukakis '88!
Why is McCain doing so well and Sen. Clinton doing so poorly?
Let's look at McCain first. McCain is benefiting from the current events. The American people are concerned about national security and that's his strength. McCain has been one of Pres. Bush's most outspoken supporters on Iraq and the War on Terror.
Why is Clinton poorly? Same answer. The Democrats do not do well when the public is concerned about terrorists and national security. To be fair, Sen. Clinton has supported the war and has not joined the "Bush lied about WMDs" choir. Nevertheless, she is not viewed as a leader, which is what a post 9-11 election is all about.
Guliani is doing well, too. Again, the public associates him with leadership and strength.
All of this could change. Perot could run again. The Republicans could break into factions. Immigration and the border could spark a conservative challenge to the Republican nominee.
However, I don't think that it will. In fact, I think that there is a better chance of a Democrat civil war than a Perot. Besides, the 2008 Democrat primaries will be ugly and bloody with Gore and Kerry hitting Clinton from the left and Warner coming from the right.
Put me down as a McCain supporter in 2008! Is it too early to say Pres. McCain?
What's going on in Europe? The wounds are self inflicted, according to Paul Belien, who writes "The Closing of Civilization in Europe" (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/852)
Belien does not consider himself a pessimist but rather a realist:
"In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves."
Europe has already surrendered. It can't stand up to terrorists. Furthermore, you cannot maintain a civilization without faith, babies or economic growth. I'm sorry to report that Europe is too secular, birth rates are insufficient and the major economies are barely growing.
It is not a pretty scenario. The future does not look good for Europe! As Belien writes:
"The coming decade will witness the war between the values of Islam and the secular “values” of the decadent, hedonistic post-Marxist Left. We have seen the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, last November’s prelude to the French civil war, the Danish cartoon case. This is just the beginning of the beginning. I do not consider myself a pessimist, merely a realist.
It is quite clear who is going to lose – and whose fault that will be."
Thursday, February 23, 2006
As I write this, this port deal could go either way. Bush could veto it and get overridden, a bad choice. Or, he could pull the deal out and look bad too. So let's hope that cooler heads can prevail and find a reasonable solution to this no-win situation.
So let's call a time out. Let's table this issue for 45 days and review it again. No one should be opposed to that.
I would recommend that everyone sit back and read "Good for America" By James K. Glassman:
"You can fault this administration for many of its actions, but in one area its success is immense and undeniable: George W. Bush has kept America safe. It is now close to four and a half years since 9/11 and, still, no attacks on U.S. soil. "If there was any chance this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States," Bush said Monday, "it would not go forward." Whom do you trust on security, Schumer or Bush?"(http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?Id=)
Let's stop the shouting and posturing. Let's sit down and have a mature conversation! Let's put this deal off for 45 days and have everyone review the details. I am confident that time will answer many of the questions pending.
The boss is up front again. He is predicting a NYYankee title in 2006. (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060222&content_id=1319547&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)
The NYYankees have 26 titles but none since 2000. They lost the '01 and '03 World Series and have not recovered from the '04 debacle. (They led the Bosox 3 games to 0!)
I like Steinbrenner. He is a fan's owner. He wants to win. He is not afraid to spend money.
Can the NYYankees win the title? First, they have to win the AL East, and that means beating the new Toronto Blue Jays.
Today, I would nominate the NYYankees to win the AL East. I won't go beyond that because this is an older team. Where is the youth? Where is the starting pitching? Too many Yankees are 30-something. That's not good for a long baseball season!
Tom Hicks is talking playoffs. (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/mlb/texas_rangers/13932245.htm)
I have not seen so much excitement since the start of the '99 season. That was the year that the Rangers brought Palmeiro back and won 95 games. Unfortunately, they lost to the NYYankees in the first round again! ('96, '98 and '99).
The 2006 is a brand new team. I love their determination and youthful attitude.
The enthusiasm starts with 3 new starters-----Milwood, Eaton and Padilla. The Rangers will now have youngsters fighting for the 4th and 5th spot in the rotation. We have not seen that kind of depth since the division winners of the late 90s.
Beyond pitching, Michael Young, Hank Blalock, Mark Texeira and Kevin Mench bring a "let's win now" approach. These guys want to win. They are tired of development. They want to play in October.
Tom Hicks is right. The Rangers will play in October.
Want to talk baseball? Politics? Elections? The economy? I can talk about these issues.
Want to talk about managing ports? I don't know a thing. I am ignorant on the subject. 99% of our political class is ignorant too but they will play politics.
At times like this, I look to people I trust.
Let's go to Pres. Bush. I trust him. Bush was reelected because the country would rather have him that the other guy at a time when our national security is an issue.
Let's go to Sen. McCain, my current favorite for 2008. He said this:
"We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/02/mccain_bush_has_earned_our_tru.html)
My favorite newspaper is The Wall Street Journal. I love their editorial page. This is what they wrote today:
"Ports of Politics: How to sound like a hawk without being one." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007999)
"Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
Lawrence Kudlow is a strong conservative and supporter of Pres. Bush's foreign policy. He wrote today "Call It What It Is .....Islamophobia" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/02/call_it_what_it_is_islamophobi_1.html)
"This UAE company-Dubai Ports World—is just a commercial administrator. They are not in charge of security. That responsibility remains tight in the hands of our U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Officials. Moreover, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, (a multi-agency panel which includes seasoned representatives from the departments of Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security) has looked it over and has vetted the deal."
Again, I don't know about managing ports. Congress can do its own due diligence inquiry. They can hold hearings.
Without further evidence, I will trust Kudlow, The Wall Street Journal, Sen. McCain and Pres. Bush.
I understand our new sensitivity over national security. I want to defend our ports. However, the best way to protect our ports, or the homeland, is to kill terrorists. Take the war to them so that they don't have the resources to bring their evil plots to our ports.
Kill terrorists. Listen to their conversations. Order the FBI to break their cells here. Get serious about the US-Mexico and the US-Canada borders. Cut deals with moderate Arabs. Attack those countries that provide comfort to the terrorists. Make it clear to Iran that we will not tolerate nuclear weapons. That's how you protect the homeland and the ports!
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
George Washington was born in 1732. Happy birthday, Mr. President!
Monday night, I heard a wonderful discussion of Pres. Washington's life on "The Hugh Hewitt Show". By any standard, Washington is one of the greatest historical figures of all time.
Washington's greatest achievement is that he walked away from power after two terms. He could have stayed president for life but he chose to retire. It was a fateful decision that gave legitimacy to the constitution. It was a signal that we were a nation of laws rather than men.
Washington was our greatest president and citizen. (http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gwashington.html#highlights)
The Power Line has a wonderful comment on George Washington, "Remembering the indispensable man". You can link to it: (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013218.php)
I like the word indispensable. Washington was indeed the right man at the right time.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
In the next six months, the Roberts Court, which now includes Alito, will give us a partial birth abortion decision. (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,185531,00.html)
On this one, the public is opposed to the procedure. It is horrific and many liberals are opposed to it as well.
Sam Alito and John Roberts will be watched closely on this. The issue is the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed by Pres. Bush.
My prediction is that the Roberts Court will support the law. Partial birth abortion is barbaric and it must be stopped immediately. It is generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Check it out. The economic leading indicators were good in January! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/bs_nm/economy_index_dc&printer=1;_ylt=A9G_RxL_V_tDSZcAuw.b.HQA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)
According to the report:
"Six of the index's 10 components strengthened in January. The positive contributors were a reduction in new jobless claims, real money supply, building permits, vendor performance, stock prices and interest rate spread. Consumer expectations restrained the gain.
Average weekly manufacturing hours, manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials and manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods held steady in January."
Kevin Hassett of Bloomberg reported today:
"Booming consumer spending and a slew of other positive indicators suggest that gross domestic product will post one of the largest gains in recent memory in the first quarter. Wall Street is buzzing about the skyrocketing output, but it may matter more to Washington, which has only begun to take notice of the big news on the way."
Can you believe a first quarter 6% GDP increase? We could have it! David Malpass, chief economist with Bear Stearns Cos. in New York, wrote in his commentary last week that "first-quarter GDP growth is setting up to be a blowout.''
Politically speaking, the new numbers will help Bush. According to Hassett, "....the strong data will weaken the hand of Democrats who have been predicting a deficit-induced slowdown. The Republicans will gain political steam, and the Democrats will be scrounging around for a new story, or risk sticking to their old one and looking silly."
According to Timmerman:
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John. A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org)
"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence."
What if Mr. Shaw is telling the truth? Of course, this comes on the heels of the Saddam audio tapes, where the inner circle confirms in 1995 that they had no intention of obeying UN resolutions. There are other audio tapes, which will be released soon.
The Washington Times has an editorial today on this subject:
"The new information includes audio recordings of 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 involving Saddam Hussein and his top aides, in which Saddam discusses how to conceal Iraqi weapons programs from U.N. inspectors and the possibility that the United States could be the target of terrorist attacks. The recordings were provided by Bill Tierney, an Arabic speaker, who worked during the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission that was responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament." ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060219-092126-1788r)
Stephen F. Hayes has been on this story for months. He writes for The Weekly Standard:
"So let's take a step back and put this in context. Estimates from people involved in the document exploitation project tell us the U.S. government has in its possession some 2 million "exploitable items." Of that number, less than 3 percent--somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 items--have been fully exploited. The information that will be made public by the end of this week--28 captured al Qaeda documents and 12 hours of audiotape from Iraq--will provide a glimpse of a fraction of a fraction of the total collection." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/760ukool.asp)
What does it all mean? We don't know today but we will over the next few months. Saddam obviously had some type of WMD weapons program.
One possibility is that Saddam's scientists and inner circle were deceiving him. Another possibility is that they were telling the truth. After 9-11 and 12 years of "cat and mouse" games, the burden of proof was on Saddam and not Pres. Bush. It was up to Saddam to come clean not Pres. Bush to prove that he had WMDs!
The question remains: What if Saddam actually had WMDs, as most of the world believed that he did? What if Bush, Clinton, the first Bush, Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Al Gore were actually telling the truth?
Monday, February 20, 2006
Most of us grew up watching the NBC Saturday afternoon baseball game and listening to Gowdy's voice. I recall many World Series games. He was also the voice of Super Bowl I and the famous Heidi game, when NBC cut off the Jets-Raiders game to broadcast the Disney movie. It turned out to be a controversial decision because the game changed leads in the last few minutes.
In '84, Gowdy was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Well done Curt Gowdy. You were great. We will miss you!
It's Presidents' Day! So let's check out a couple of new books and articles about the presidents.
Robert Dallek has a review of presidential biographies in The Wall Street Journal. (http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/fivebest/?id=110007991)
Mr. Dallek has a lot of experience. His books include "An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963" and "Flawed Giant: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1960-1973." He is currently writing a book on Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. His choices are very interesting:
1. "The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It" by Richard Hofstadter (Knopf, 1948).
2. "George Washington: Man and Monument" by Marcus Cunliffe (Little, Brown, 1958).
3. "Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation" by Merrill D. Peterson (Oxford, 1970).
4. "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald (Simon & Schuster, 1995).
5. "Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox" by James MacGregor Burns (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1956).
Let me say this. I have not read these 5 books. I will read # 5 because I want to learn more of FDR's role in WW2.
On the critical side, I found "The Lincoln Legacy Revisited" By Mark M. Alexander, executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record." (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2006/02/17/187037.html)
Alexander's article caught my attention because it is critical of Abraham Lincoln. I found the last paragraph very interesting:
"What kind of democracy can exist where tens of thousands of political opponents are jailed, opposition newspapers shut down by the hundreds, telegraph communication is censored, elections are rigged, and new states are created illegally to add to the incumbent government's electoral-college vote count? And what kind of 'democracy' is it where 10 percent of the population is appointed by one man to rule over the other 90 percent, as was Lincoln's plan for 'reconstruction'? It's 'Lincolnian democracy,' of course, but not the kind of democracy that most Americans would be familiar with." --Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln scholar and author of The Real Lincoln, an excellent resource.
Frankly, I need to digest Mr. Alexander's article slowly. He raises some very good points but my overall impression is that Lincoln was a great president who had to deal with some tough issues.
Last but not least, the imperial presidency is back: "Long Live The King!" by By Paul Starobin, National Journal. (http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm#)
This article will be a disappointment to the liberals who think that King George W has overreached as president. Starobin traces the imperial presidency to Pres. Truman who used national security to send troops to Korea without a congressional vote:
"Without a vote from Congress, for or against, Truman dispatched troops to repel the Korean invasion. This can be seen as the first defining precedent of the modern Imperial Presidency."
Speaking of US foreign policy since the collapse of the USSR:
"Bush is not the first post-Cold War president -- Bill Clinton was. But Clinton failed to develop a comprehensive justification for an imperial exercise of power. He did not, though, have a modest idea of the role of the executive. In March 1999, without authorization from Congress (and without even approval of the U.N. Security Council), Clinton ordered U.S. forces to participate in NATO's massive bombing campaign against Serb forces in the former republic of Yugoslavia. A leading pro-Congress legal scholar, David Gray Adler, called this "one of the most flagrant acts of usurpation of the war power in the history of the Republic."
Read the full article. I found it very interesting, informative and stimulating.
My bottom line is this. I want a strong president. The Constitution provides a very good guide for the presidency. He is the commander in chief and executive.
Overall, the US has been blessed with excellent men in the White House. From Washington to Bush, we've had very good leaders. Let's remember today the men who have served as Presidents of the US.
P.S. Another good article about presidential biographies is "The Biographers' Hail to the Chief" By Ronald Brownstein (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prezbios20feb20,0,3056459,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
Sunday, February 19, 2006
In the short run, the NYTimes hurt our national security by publishing that the NSA was listening to phone calls. In the long run, it may have done the country a big favor. The NYTimes story has revealed the insanity of this law. It was written in 1978 but we live in 2006.
It was written when most of us were listening to vinyl "Saturday Night Fever" LPs and watching Pres. Carter's "malaise" speech. Today, most of us have a CD version of the soundtrack and Pres. Carter is not doing very well in most presidential rankings.
This is what the 9-11 commission said about all of this:
"The 'wall' between criminal and intelligence investigations apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations.
Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance. Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved at FBI headquarters and the Department of Justice was incredibly lengthy and inefficient."
I agree with Morton Krondacke, a liberal, but a liberal who understands that terrorists are more dangerous than Pres. Bush:
"After weeks of furious controversy, Congress seems to be moving toward a sensible consensus on President Bush's secret National Security Agency surveillance program: Make it legal. Now, Bush should take "Yes" for an answer." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_MK.html)
Let's get serious. Our enemy is dead serious about blowing up a Western city. No one is going to remember the NSA debate if terrorists succeed in killing thousands in a future terrorist attack. They won't hit us because we were too tough. They will hit us because we were not tough enough!
I saw an interesting article: "Rumors of a Third Nominee to the Supreme Court" By Paul M. Weyrich (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/printer_3565.shtml)
Washington is about rumors. The latest one is that Justice Stevens, appointed by Pres. Ford in '75, is planning to retire in June. To be fair, Stevens is 85, which is a pretty good age to stop working and enjoy your grandchildren. Most 85 year-old men are not working full time.
If true, it means that Pres. Bush will have another opportunity to appoint a justice. Who does he appoint? My guess is Janice Rogers Brown, a very strong choice from California.
So let's watch the court's proceedings.
As we know, Pres. Bush carried 31 states. On a county by county basis, the president dominated the suburbs and rural areas. In Pennsylvania, or Illinois, or Michigan, Pres. Bush carried most of the state outside of the cities.
Today, there are a bunch of very successful Dem. governors in places like Arizona, Tennessee, Iowa, etc.
Why are they so successful?
These governors are governing and avoiding the poisonous liberal rhetoric that has killed the party for 40 years.
Take a look at what is happening in Florida.
The AP reports that "Mainstream Democrats are exploring ways to tone down extremist liberal rhetoric that may be alienating black constituents and voters in rural counties, in hopes of luring swing voters and conservative Democrats who tend to vote Republican.
Gun restrictions and gay rights laws are not platforms that will win votes in rural areas, Democrats acknowledged."
It's possible that one of these governors could end up as a VP candidate in '08, specially the former or current governor of Virginia.
It would make a lot more sense for one of these governors to get the nomination. They have a better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Al Gore.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed the liberals to hijack the nominating process.
For the Democrats, the answer lies in red state governors not another northeastern liberal. Of course, it means that the party faithful may have to accept a nominee who opposes abortion, same sex marriage and supports the Iraq war.
My guess is that the liberals will never accept such a nominee. At the same, centrist Democrats are getting tired of losing the suburbs and rural areas.
This is why I continue to believe that we are watching the implosion of the Dem. party.
The party is over! (a John Lennon line but I can't remember the song)
It had to happen. Someone had to bring up the Chappaquidick analogy.
Let me assume that most of the readers remember Chappaquidick. If you don't, then do a quick Internet search for Mary Jo Koepchne, the young woman who died that day.
There is no comparison between Cheney's shooting and Chappaquidick. It is a silly comparison.
First, Cheney was hunting with some buddies in Texas. He accidentally shot a friend, something that happens.
Ted Kennedy was driving at night, probably under some influence, with a young woman and headed for additional evening entertainment.
The bottom line is this. Did Mrs. Cheney know where her husband was? Did the first Mrs. Ted Kennedy know where her husband was?
Kennedy went into hiding and left Mary Jo to drown. He did not report the accident (i.e. death) until the next day. Kennedy panicked and went into hiding. The police backed into the story and the young woman's body.
Cheney took care of his friend. His biggest sin, if that is a sin, is that he called a local newspaper rather than self-absorbed David Gregory of NBC News.
As I recall, Kennedy did not call anyone from the media!
Speaking of the media, let me close with Mark Steyn's wonderful wit:
"And maybe it would be even ever so much more serious still if, after peppering him with birdshot, Cheney had dragged him into a safe house in the Sunni Triangle and decapitated him with a rusty scimitar while shouting "Allahu Ahkbar!" and then sold the video to al-Jazeera." (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html)
For years, Jesse Jackson has been a charlatan and a shakedown artist. He plays the race card and looks for the racial angle. Jackson became a loyal Democrat in the 1970s and helped deliver the vote of the black community. In exchange, the Democrats have tolerated Jesse Jackson's behavior.
Times are changing. Today, more and more blacks are looking to the Republican party.
George Will points out that 2006 "could produce a remarkable quartet of Republican victories -- black U.S. senators from Maryland (Michael Steele, who now is lieutenant governor) and Michigan (Keith Butler, former Detroit city councilman and currently pastor of a suburban church with a congregation of 21,000), and black governors in Pennsylvania (Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steeler) and Ohio (Ken Blackwell, currently secretary of state)."
This is going to drive Jesse crazy. Imagine Gov. Swann and Sen. Steele addressing the 2008 Republican convention!
Beyond that, these black Republicans are conservatives on cultural values. They are part of a growing black movement that sees the welfare state as the chief culprit of the community's problems.
Larry Kudlow writes that "Blackwell has rejected the victimology of many black activists and opted for a different path, championing school choice, opposing abortion and advocating low taxes as a road to prosperity."
Let's keep an eye on these wonderful candidates. More and more blacks are saying no to victimhood and yes to personal responsibility! Today, it means yes to Republicans and no to Democrats!
Saturday, February 18, 2006
The Drudge Report has a link to a weather map. According to the Plymouth State Weather Center, the wind chill factor in Great Lakes area is under zero. (http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif). It looks like it is 28 below zero in Milwaukee, where I spent my teenage years.
Do I miss that? It may sound crazy but I actually do miss winter.
Frigid temperatures make you appreciate spring and summer. Also, the change of the seasons is beautiful.
In Texas, we have a very hot summer. It is common for us to have days of temperatures in excess of 100 degrees. I remember the summer of 1998. It was one of the warmest on record.
Tonight, the DFW area is also very chilly. We have temperatures around 25 and a wind chill factor around 10. It's not as bad as Chicago but it is cold for us.
Winter is almost over anyway. Spring training is around the corner and opening day is six weeks away.
Put me down as one of those who finds the Winter Olympics sort of boring. Winter sports are not my thing. I admire the athletes and their dedication. I just don't follow, and in some cases, do not understand most winter sports.
The exception is hockey. This year, the USA team is pretty good but I don't think that they have enough talent to take the gold. (http://www.usahockey.com/)
It is wonderful to watch Darien Hatcher and Mike Modano play on the same side. They were two of the best players on The Dallas Stars' teams that won the Stanley Cup in '99 and lost to New Jersey the next year.
Good luck to Modano and Hatcher. Bring home a medal.
P.S. The US team is now 1-1-1 after losing this afternoon to Slovakia. Canada also lost to Sweeden and that was a shock to me because I picked our northern neighbors to win the gold medal!
Victor Davis Hanson is a nationally syndicated columnist, a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Today, Prof VD Hanson has written another great article: "Appeasement Markers" (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060217-092128-6170r.htm)
The professor recalls the 1930s and how Europe did not deal with Hitler until it was too late. He recalls how "Winston Churchill was a voice in the wilderness -- and demonized as a warmonger and worse".
Read this article and share a copy of a friend. Prof. VD Hanson closes with an important reminder:
"In response, either the West will continue to stand up now to these recurring post-September 11, 2001, threats, or it will see the bullies' demands increase as its own resistance weakens. Like the appeasement of the 1930s, opting for the easier choice will only guarantee a more costly one later."
It's now or later. In the case of the 1930s appeasers, "later" meant 50 million people dead and the Jewish concentration camps.
Giles Merritt is secretary general of Friends of Europe and editor of the policy journal Europe's World. Today, he writes about Europe's economic crisis:
"Europe's economies are in the doldrums, and no one seems to know how to revive them. For all the brave talk of new policies to promote industrial innovation, the malaise seems to be getting worse. Unemployment remains persistently high, especially in Germany, and the weak growth rates of recent years are threatening to stall and plunge Europe into recession." ( The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com)
Europe lacks politicians who are capable making the tough economic choices. Europe can no longer afford shortsighted policies like early retirement and shorter working hours. Someone has to tell the Europeans that they need to work more and harder. Also, someone needs to tell them that the US is not going to defend anymore. The days of "easy life" and "free US defense" are over.
Over here, things are the exact opposite. The US economy is doing quite well. Any European politician would give you an arm and a leg to have our unemployment, GDP growth and over overall prospects of the US economy.
Europe must make radical changes or it will continue to fall behind the US, China and India.
The media was quick on the Cheney story. It was quick to report every exageration about Katrina, from 10,000 dead to ethnic misrepresentations. It turned out that only 1,000 not 10,000 died and they weren't all poor blacks. The media was quick to jump on every negative angle of the Iraq War. Bad things get 24/7 coverage. Good things, and there are many, go unreported.
Today, the media is looking the other way as the Democrats are imploding. I read this today by Tim Chapman:
"Various people on Capitol Hill tell me that the Democrats are struggling to keep their internal disputes from boiling over. They all lay the blame at Howard Dean and the Democrat leadership on Capitol Hill failing to get along. Right now, individuals loyal to Howard Dean are compiling dossiers on embattled Senate minority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Couple these potential trouble spots with the pending William Jefferson plea bargain, Democrat netroots leader Kos' perceived selling out to the establishment through his failure to engage the DLC and failure to back Hackett in Ohio, and the failure of the minority to rally around one set of talking points and you have the a higher chance of a Democrat civil war than an Iraqi civil war." (http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2006/02/16/186833.html)
You won't hear or read this one. The Democrats can't get their act together and they will implode. We are witnessing the end of the Democrats.
Friday, February 17, 2006
I saw the Britt Hume interview. You can watch it by going to the FNC website. It was very professional.
What's this all about? I think that the liberals are jealous. FOX is killing CNN and nobody is listening to Air America.
Drop it. It's over!
Blaming FOX is not the answer.
I have noticed one thing. No Democrat has stood up to defend or compliment Gore's words. It looks to me that most Democrats are looking beyond Gore, which is good for their party and the country!
Slowly but surely, we are getting back to the real world. The Cheney "scandal of the century" is fading.
So let's talk about China.
Today, I read "Commercial photos show Chinese nuke buildup"
By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060216-015853-7367r.htm)
Gertz points out that "Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China's nuclear forces and bases -- images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel."
China is preparing for a fight with the US. The Chinese leadership understands that the US has a military edge and they want to close it.
We've had a lot of talk about the Chinese economic buildup. However, it may be time to take China's military very seriously. At the moment, China is desperately looking for natural resources to feed its growing economy.
Keep an eye on China and drop all of this nonsense about Cheney's weekend accident.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
True, we did not hear Saddam say that the WMDs should be moved to Syria or that he was Osama's golfing buddy.
What we did hear is that Saddam's inner circle was lying to the UN and had every intention of having WMDs. It is going to be hard to argue that Saddam was not a threat or, at least, a gathering threat.
ABC's Brian Ross wrote this:
"The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s.
In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.
At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.
"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."(http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996)
Simply put, Iraq was not living up to the cease fire or the UN resolutions.
Those who say that we should have sent more inspectors need to listen to these tapes. It's obvious to me that Saddam's regime was not interested in complying with any agreements.
As with Iraq, Saddam was simply buying time hoping that the West would get tired. He almost succeeded except that 9-11 changed everything.
After 9-11, the US could not play "cat and mouse" with Iraq.
Cheney did address the major questions head on.
Why did he wait? The shooting was not a national security matter. It was a personal matter. It was an accident in someone's farm. No laws were broken.
Why did he go to FOX News? My guess is that VP Cheney is comfortable with Brit Hume. Why not? Hume is a serious reporter who does not walk around promoting an agenda. Hume is a conservative but he is also better known as a respected journalist.
Furthermore, VP Cheney went to FOX because they have the best ratings. Do you want to reach people? Go to FOX.
Hopefully, this mess will pass soon and we can get back to the Iran crisis and other issues of greater importance.
By the way, check out "Spoiled Brat Media" By Thomas Sowell. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_16_06_TS.html)
We continue to hear a lot of partisan words on the budget deficit. I won't quote every Democrat who has raised this issue. However, they continue to make the point that Pres. Bush is spending so much money.
What no one is asking is this: What is the budget deficit relative to GDP?
US$ 400 billion is a lot of money. Yet, it is still small relative to our massive GDP.
"Last year, the Administration's Budget projected a deficit of 4.5 percent of GDP in 2004. But by the end of the year, the deficit had shrunk to 3.6 percent of GDP, which while still too large, was only the 10th largest deficit in the last 25 years." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html)
The report goes on:
"While the 2005 deficit rises in nominal dollar terms to $427 billion, it falls to 3.5 percent of GDP. And in 2006, the deficit is expected to fall further still, to 3.0 percent of GDP, which would be only the 15th largest in 25 years."
It's time for the media to see this economy for what it is. It is a strong economy.
I am not saying that budget deficits are good. My own preference is to go back to the days (pre-1969) when the federal government was always running surpluses. In fact, let me go further. I would support a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. I think that the federal government should be forced to make the tough political decisions of balancing a budget, except in a time of war.
Rich Karlgaard writes in the Forbes blog:
"1. The U.S. economy has grown a 3.5%-plus during this period
2. Unemployment in the U.S. has dropped well below the post WWII historical average of 5.5%. It is now below 5.0%.
3. Mortgage rates remain at near 40-year lows
4. Home ownership is at record levels
5. Consumer spending shows no signs of abating." (http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2006/02/why_do_wefeel_b.html)
Let's stop all the doom and gloom.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The pictures add nothing. Yet, these pictures put Americans at risk. I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about diplomats and business people who may be targets of fanatics.
Publishing these pictures is irresponsible. It is also dangerous.
The Saddam trial goes on. Saddam is one of the biggest criminals in history. Check out this incredible list of Saddam's crimes and mass graves:
As Saddam screams and the US media is obsessed with getting Bush, the US Congress is listening to hours of Saddam's tapes.
What's on the tapes? Nobody knows for sure.
House committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, won't discuss details. However, Mr. Hoekstra recently met with a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada. He claims that Saddam used civilian airplanes to move WMDs to Syria in 2002.
The committee is looking at this issue. Time will tell.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Reuters just reported more economic news today:
"U.S. retail sales surged 2.3 percent in January, nearly triple the expected increase and the largest gain since May 2004, as post-holiday spending on cars, clothing, gasoline and furniture galloped ahead, a government report showed on Tuesday.
Excluding demand for cars and parts, retail sales were up 2.2 percent last month - the largest monthly gain in more than six years, the U.S. Commerce Department said."
Did you hear any of this?
First, let's pray for attorney Harry Whittington. He suffered a heart attack today. I hope that he recovers so that he can go hunting with VP Cheney again.
The media's reaction is silly. What are they so mad about? What is NBC's David Gregory so worked up for?
This is a lot about nothing. Iran is building a nuclear reactor, ex-VP Gore is speaking a lot of nonsense in Saudi Arabia, and retail sales are way up in January.
What does the media want to go crazy about? The Cheney accidental shooting.
I don't get it.
Last week, it was Carter. Two weeks ago, it was Kennedy at the Alito hearings. Yesterday, it was Gore. Who will say something next week? What Democrat will make a silly speech next week?
Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia and gave an outrageous speech. Can you imagine a Republican going overseas and attacking FDR about the treatment of Japanese Americans in WW2?
What's Al Gore doing? Gore is positioning himself to run to the left of Hillary Clinton in 2008. He knows that Sen. Clinton has an Iraq war problem and he is trying to do a Howard Dean in the upcoming primaries. By the way, Kerry is doing the same thing.
Gore's mistake is that he is investing all of his electoral hopes on Iraq. In fact, Iraq won't be an issue at all. Iran is more likely to be the big issue of the next election.
The bottom line is that McCain or Guliani will defeat Gore on national security issues.
Finally, someone needs to give Gore a copy of the 9-11 report. As Terence P. Jeffrey wrote today:
"Gore must not have read the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. It concluded that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. These hijackers, the commission concluded, took advantage of weak U.S. immigration and visa enforcement.In fact, the hijackers submitted a total of 24 U.S. visa applications, of which 20 were retained in U.S. State Department files. “All 20 of these applications,” a 9/11 Commission staff report concluded, “were incomplete in some way, with a data field left blank or not answered fully.”
Gore's words are foolish. Worse, they are wrong.
What's Gore up to? He is a bitter man who is still struggling with the 2000 election.
Will some Democrat tell Gore and Carter to shut up?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Some of you are leaving comments to my posts. I am happy about that. I appreciate your point of view.
What's the purpose of this blog? The name "My view" is a clue.
I do not want to simply reprint newspaper articles. We may quote an article or give you the link so that you can read the full version.
My intention is to post a daily comment on the news, sports or some general interest story.
Why the Pres. Reagan quote on top of "My view"? It came down to two quotes, one from Sir Winston Churchill and Pres. Reagan. The Churchill quote was from the late 1930s when he warned Europe about the gathering threat in Germany. It is the crocodile quote about the appeaser.
I settled on Reagan because he died as I was putting this blog together. I thought that it would be a great tribute to the best of our modern presidents.
So I settled on the Reagan quote.
Thank you and keep checking "My view"!
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Today, Mr. Gerges wrote a fascinating op-ed piece on Osama Bin Laden:
"A U.S. airstrike in Pakistan last month that targeted Mr. al-Zawahiri reportedly killed four principal al-Qaida figures. Mr. al-Zawahiri survived, but the al-Qaida cohort is being closely tracked. Al-Qaida cannot win if its top leaders spend most of their time hiding, just trying to survive. If nothing else, the bin Laden tape says, "We are winning because we are alive." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.terrorism12feb12,0,5943431.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines )
I agree with Mr. Gerges. The Iraqi people went to vote three times in 2005 despite serious threats from Bin Laden.
Bin Laden is losing. He knows it. When will the anti-Bush Western media pick up on this?
I hope that the Dems have more photos. Today, the NYTimes printed a photo of Pres. Bush and Abramoff.
Even anti-Bushies must ask themselves---is that the best photo that we can find?
It shows Pres. Bush shaking someone's hand at one of those White House visitor lines. Where is Abramoff? He is somewhere in the background. He was in the room, along with probably a bunch of other people.
It reminds me of a photo-op with VP Bush in '88. I was invited by a local Republican group to have a photo taken with the VP who was running for president in '88.
I went in the room and cleared security. Then I was taken to see the VP. We shared a couple of jokes. He told me about some of his Cuban friends and I moved on.
Blogger ScrappleFace (http://www.scrappleface.com) has a flair for good humor. So today he printed a hilarious post on the photos.
Check it out: (http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2175)