Is all of the talk about the White House and UFOs unique to the 2008 presidential elections? Hardly.
Ufologists have been inserting themselves into the American political scene for decades. And one website - www.presidentialufo.com - is devoted to the subject. Although you would think that they would be happy with Dennis Kucinich's extraterrestrial musings, they are not. In a blog post, Kucinich is upbraided for his failure to embrace his UFO experiences more publicly:
Dennis Kucinich has always been a darling of the UFO community. He has been viewed as a visionary congressman outside the mainstream and thus prepared to take on the important task of leading the US government to disclosure of the truth about the ET presence. Following Shirley MacLaine's disclosure that Kucinich had experienced a UFO up close, Kucinich was even anointed by some in the UFO community as the ET candidate, implying that he had been chosen by the ETs to be President just like Jimmy Carter who had a similar UFO experience in 1969 prior to becoming President in 1977. Kucinich's popularity in the UFO community is also supported by things he did which appeared to aid the UFO cause such as when he introduced the Space Preservation Act of 2005 designed to ban the weaponization of space. This move appealed to a huge segment of UFO researchers who believed the 'star wars' weapons being proposed for space are actually to be used against extraterrestrials.
This same "UFO community" had great hopes for Dick Cheney, too. I explore the subject in Cheney, a biography of the vice president.
Here's an excerpt:
On September 4, 2004, Cheney flew to Roswell, New Mexico, for a campaign rally. Roswell is known, to the extent it is known at all, as the world headquarters for research on unidentified flying objects and alien life. 'The street lights are little aliens and they have the alien museum,' says Senator John McCain, who joined Cheney for the event. 'It's all about the alien invasion. It's incredible.'
Cheney didn't know it, but his visit to Roswell - the third since he reentered public life - was a big deal to the world's ufologists. They believe Cheney's experience at the Pentagon made him one of the few U.S. government officials to have been briefed on the UFO phenomenon. He was in a unique position to share the truth about UFOs and extraterrestrials, if he were so inclined.
Two events heightened this intrigue. The first took place at a Bush-Cheney 2000 rally in Springdale, Arkansas, on July 28, 2000, just three days after Cheney was announced as the vice presidential candidate. A UFO enthusiast named Charles Huffer approached then-Governor Bush and sought a commitment. 'Half the country believes UFOs are real. Would you finally tell us what the hell is going on?'
'Sure I will,' said Bush.
Huffer motioned to Cheney. 'This man knows. He was secretary of defense.'
Minutes later, Bush was standing next to Cheney when Huffer made a second pass. Bush gestured to his runningmate and told Huffer that Cheney had a new assignment. 'It'll be the first thing he will do,' Bush promised facetiously. 'He'll get right on it.'
Many in the UFO community missed the candidate's sarcasm and would come to speak of this exchange as 'Bush's Promise.' Would it be just another broken promise from a politician seeking the votes of ufologists and their supporters? Word spread quickly throughout the UFO community. Cheney is on it. After he took office, they waited eagerly for news, but the vice president seemed preoccupied with the Energy Task Force and other matters. So on April 11, 2001, UFO researcher Grant Cameron followed up in a phone call to Cheney, who was appearing on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio.
'Since the statement made by George Bush last July, there is a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO community that you've been read into the UFO program. So my question to you is, in any of your government jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you told?'
'Well,' said Cheney, 'If I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it.'
The host followed up. 'Is there an investigation going on within this administration, Mr. Vice President, as to UFOs?'
'I have not come across the subject since I've been back in government, oh, like, since January 20,' Cheney said. 'I've been in a lot of meetings, but I don't recall one on UFOs.'
The UFO community seized on Cheney's allusion to classified information and their hope turned to bitterness. 'He was like the secretive and calculating Cheney of old,' Cameron complained.
It's just that so little of it seems to get much attention in the major media! Leave it to THE WEEKLY STANDARD's own Dean Barnett to capture the situation:
SO WHAT'S HAPPENED the past several months? One thing's for sure--you wouldn't know the story by reading the New York Times. Throughout Iraq, Iraqi citizens have decided that the fighting must end. They have tired of the sectarian strife that made swaths of their country a killing field. Having sampled something that could be called a civil war, they have collectively decided that they would rather live in a peaceful society. This means that each sect will have to tolerate the other sects' presence.
Throughout Iraq, ordinary citizens have tipped off American troops to the presence of not only Al Qaeda forces but members of their own sect bent on violence. They have also tipped off American troops to the presence of hundreds of IEDs, saving countless American lives. And they have done all of this knowing that they were risking death by doing so.
Although grassroots politics in America is of a less perilous sort, this too is a form of grassroots politics. Ordinary people have involved themselves with the fate of their nation, and made an enormous difference. While the Iraqi government remains mostly dysfunctional and enmeshed in squabbling, the Iraqi people have chosen the course their country will take.
Ace of Spades covers this ground as well. He notes that a Washington Post reporter explained recently that the encouraging numbers on casualties got short shrift from the Post because they do not yet constitute a trend. Now that the Congress's GAO has declared a trend, does it get prominent play in the Washington Post? Read Ace's post--I'm sure you'll be shocked by the answer.
And credit where it's due: a reporter for McClatchy's Raleigh News and Observerreports that "high blood pressure, bad backs, bum knees and other mundane health problems" are three and a half times more common than combat injuries in Iraq right now.
If the New York Times and Washington Post were McClatchy papers, I'm sure they'd be reporting the story as well.
The American Spectator's Phil Klein has a great catch. Turns out Giuliani never said the leading Democrats wanted to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House, which the AP has reported he said. Here's Klein:
Now, it's perfectly accurate for Giuliani to hit Obama for wanting to invite Ahmadinejad and Assad to Washington, as Obama said he was willing to do ... Clinton later joined him, at least on Iran, ... If you want to argue that Giuliani went overboard by joking that the Democrats 'are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,' that's one thing. But clearly what sensationalized this entire story is the idea that Giuliani was saying that Democrats want to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House. That's a claim that Giuliani clearly did not make, and the AP, as well as bloggers who picked up the story, should correct the error.
Via our buddies at Op-For, the official caption: "A pirate skiff burns after being hit by several rounds from a 25mm gun aboard guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78). The skiff belonged to a group of pirates that had taken a cargo ship."
You can read the full story here at Military.com. The long and the short of it is that the United States Navy seems to be increasingly engaged in a campaign to suppress the rampant piracy off the coast of Somalia. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of this recent success happen to be North Korean, but as CSBA's Bob Work told the Virginia Pilot, "The Navy does this for all mariners." Though he also said that this may not be the best allocation of naval resources:
"Essentially, you don't want to use a billion dollar DDG [guided missile destroyer] to suppress pirates," Work said. "That's a mission for a much smaller ship. But we have a lot of ships in that area because of ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa. These are ships designed for high-end war fighting, not chasing pirates."
Don Surber looks for an upside for U.S.-Nork relations in all this, but I'm not so optimistic. I suspect the only American warship that ever gets a shout-out on North Korean radio is the USS Pueblo.
Karen Hughes, a longtime friend of the president, has announced her resignation as undersecretary of state, effective at the end of this year. Hughes was supposed to enhance the image of the United States in the greater Middle East, but, in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Stephen Hayes writes that she was never very well suited to the job as she "had never been to the region, had no expertise in the Muslims who largely populate it, and had never shown any real interest in it either." Hayes goes on:
It showed. On her first trip to the Persian Gulf, she approached foreign dignitaries as if they were soccer moms and began with a campaign slogan: "The four E's of diplomacy: Engagement, Exchange, Education and Empowerment." In one meeting, she told her host that the most famous phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance--"One Nation, Under God"--came from the U.S. Constitution.
So why did George W. Bush pick Karen Hughes for such a critical mission? Her words upon emerging from a meeting with an Egyptian sheikh provide one clue: "I think I was able to have a wonderful meeting with His Eminence to talk with him about the common language of the heart."
We don't know what His Eminence thought about his introduction to the common language of the heart. But George W. Bush, who years earlier declared that he had seen into the soul of Vladimir Putin, speaks it fluently. Hughes knows Bush as well as anyone other than his wife. And when Bush needs help on the big issues, he often seeks assistance from those most familiar to him, whatever their qualifications and without regard to what the rest of world might think.
And so it was that, as Hughes finished her trip, a reporter approached her for a comment on Bush's likely Supreme Court nominee: "Harriet would be a wonderful Supreme Court justice!"
Do you find American presidential politics sometimes boring? (You're not alone!) Just look at Indonesia, where the politicians sing:
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has released his first music album, a collection of love ballads and religious songs he wrote, state media said. The album, entitled 'My Longing for You,' contains 10 songs written by Yudhoyono after he became president in 2004 and features some of the country's popular singers, Antara news agency said. ...
Yudhoyono is not the only Indonesian general with musical talent.
A former armed forces chief, Wiranto, who is expected to run for president in the 2009 elections, has released a collection of love ballads he sings himself.
Think of Yudhoyono's LP as the Indonesian Supernatural.
Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim democracy, holds its presidential election in 2009. But I wouldn't expect the singing president trend to cross the Pacific anytime soon - unless, of course, one of these guys runs for president in 2012.
Why is this important? Because, you may recall, former California governor (and Democrat) Gray Davis's plan to do exactly this in 2003 fueled the successful movement to recall him from office. Gov. Schwarzenegger campaigned on an explicit promise not to issue licenses to illegal immigrants, and he beat Davis ally Cruz Bustamante by 17 points.
Which is to say: There are plenty of Democrats, believe it or not, who have qualms about issuing licenses to illegal immigrants. The reason they feel this way is that, as Christopher Caldwell pointed out last weekend in an altogether different context, immigration and national identity are related intricately. Here Caldwell is describing a French proposal to base family reunification for immigrants on voluntary DNA testing:
Members of the socialist and communist parties have promised to bring the law before France's constitutional council. Introducing tests for immigrants that French citizens are not required to take violates the principle of equality before the law, they say. But how, exactly, is equality violated? Traditionally this equality principle holds among citizens, not between citizens and non-citizens. To say otherwise is to suggest that immigration laws do not have the full force of law. Patrick Weil, an immigration expert at the Sorbonne, has criticised Mr Sarkozy's immigration policies for attacking 'people who aren't delinquents, who are merely committing a breach with respect to their residence situation.' There is a logic to this. Since many identities (racial, sexual) are more important to their holders than national identity, denying someone rights over a 'mere' question of citizenship looks like an archaism. But as soon as the distinction between citizens and non-citizens fades, rights do, too.
People tend to predict that immigration will tear the GOP apart. But I have a suspicion that its effects will influence the future course of the Democratic party as well - heightening tensions between lower-income native Democrats who still cling to a sense of American identity and the graduate-schooled elites who run the party and believe that opponents of illegal immigration seek only to punish those who, to quote Prof. Weil, "are merely committing a breach with respect to their residence situation."
Update: And there's none forthcoming...see the email from the L.A. Times below.
I wrote earlier in the week about Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten's attempt to weigh in on the Beauchamp story with this piece that was riddled with factual errors. Rutten described the disfigured woman Beauchamp claimed to have mocked as Iraqi--even in Beauchamp's imagination she was always American. Rutten said the editor at TNR had conceded that the story was "concocted." It is, but they haven't, choosing instead to shift its location to Kuwait. Rutten claimed TNR had been unable to communicate with Beauchamp. This is obviously untrue, they've been able to communicate with Beauchamp, they've just refrained from communicating the substance of those conversations to their readers. And finally, Rutten accused Drudge of reporting the existence of a "Memorandum for Record" and not posting a copy of it. Of course, Drudge did post a copy of it, but Rutten failed to read all the documents before filing his sorry excuse for a column.
Since then, a number of bloggers have pointed out these serious factual errors, including Bob Owens, Mickey Kaus, and Patterico. Patterico has even taken the time to help Rutten craft a correction:
In an October 27 column, Tim Rutten wrote that the editors of The New Republic had been “unable to communicate with” Scott Thomas Beauchamp since an Army spokesman had denied the existence of a signed statement by Beauchamp disavowing his piece. As Rutten’s column stated, editors from The New Republic claim to have spoken to Beauchamp at least three times since August 7, when the Army spokesman issued the denial.
In the same column, Rutten wrote that “the magazine determined that the incident involving the disfigured woman was concocted and corrected that . . .” In fact, the magazine did not determine that the incident was “concocted,” but admitted only that the incident took place in Kuwait, and not Iraq.
In the same column, Rutten wrote that Beauchamp had “described the ridicule of a disfigured Iraqi woman . . .” In fact, the woman has never been described as Iraqi.
Rutten also said that Beauchamp “described . . . attempts to run over stray dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles . . .” In fact, Beauchamp actually described three incidents in which military personnel had killed stray dogs.
In the same column, Rutten wrote that Matt Drudge had failed to provide a link to a purported “Memorandum for Record” signed by Beauchamp. Drudge did in fact provide such a link, but later took it down.
Patterico reports that he has been in touch with the paper's "readers representative," Jamie Gold, and I have as well. Gold recently sent me a note explaining that he was "checking with the reporter and editor and will get back to you as soon as possible." That was yesterday, I'd sent him a note the day before that, and Rutten's column appeared last Friday. So it's now nearly a week that the Times has knowingly allowed a number of factual inaccuracies to stand uncorrected. The New Republic's investigation into Beauchamp's tall tales has lasted more than four months and shows no signs of coming to an end anytime soon. Rutten is obviously a fan of Foer's approach, but one would hope that "the editors" at the Times are slightly more serious about accuracy and integrity than their peers at the New Republic.
Update: Los Angeles Times reader representative Jamie Gold just emailed the WWS a note explaining that the Times believes that Rutten's column is error-free. Here is the full text of the email:
L.A. Times columnists, Rutten among them, are encouraged to use their columns as forums for their fact-based assessments of news events. His assessments might not match yours, but that doesn't mean that his assessments warrant correction. (By the way, you might disagree with his opinion column but he did base it on having read the materials that you suggest he was unfamiliar with.)
The chief allegation of error that you seem to make is that Rutten erred in writing that "Drudge provided links to the transcripts and report but not to the purported 'Memorandum for Record.'" You wrote that this is wrong because "the memorandum was appended to the second portion of the transcript."
Rutten's assessment is that it was not clear that the memo at the end of the military officer's report/summary is the same one to which Drudge's original post referred. The columnist's thinking: Drudge lists it apart from the final document, but -- as Rutten wrote -- Drudge provides no link, nor does he say it can be found at the end of the report, seeming to indicate possession of another document, but providing no link. I don't believe that Rutten's column warrants correction on that point.
As to points made by Bob Owens: The July essay did not refer to the disfigured woman specifically as Iraqi. However, Rutten inferred from the fact that she was there (vs. being sent home as a U.S. soldier or civilian would be) that she is Iraqi. Rutten referred to the Bradleys as trying to run over stray dogs, vs. kill the dogs, but I'm not seeing that point as factually wrong (I don't believe that a reader thinks that a Bradley trying to run over dogs is different from a Bradley trying to kill dogs). As to whether the magazine "determined that the incident involving the disfigured woman was concocted and corrected" it, as the column said: Rutten's point is that, as a scene in Iraq, it was "concocted" in that it never happened there. The magazine corrected it, which means editors admit that it never happened there.
Obviously this is a controversial issue that has given rise to a good amount of interest and greater number of opinions. I'm sorry that you feel so strongly that your differences in interpretation are points that need correcting, vs. points of interpretation of various facts.
Thanks again for writing.
Jamie Gold
Readers' Representative
At the end of the day, it's up to each institution to set its own standards for accuracy. If the editors at the Times are comfortable with Rutten's explanation that it was unclear to him that the "Memorandum for Record" described by Drudge, and linked to by Drudge, can not be clearly identified as the "Memorandum for Record" because it was not linked separately, that's their prerogative. But to anyone not drawing a salary from the L.A. Times, it's obvious he didn't read the documents all the way through.
Also, Gold's, and by extension Rutten's, explanation about his exclusive discovery that Beauchamp's mysterious disfigured woman was Iraqi is . . . creative. Maybe if we go to grad school some day, we'll learn how to find hidden meaning in texts.
Missing is any excuse for the paper's failure to correct the Rutten whopper that "Beauchamp has remained in Iraq with his unit and the magazine has been unable to communicate with him" since August. Even the New Republic--which like Lewis Carroll's queen believes six impossible things before breakfast when it comes to defending Beauchamp--doesn't believe this.
That the Times would reduce all these errors to a mere difference of opinion is fascinating, and not a good sign for those who still root for the survival of traditional newspapers.
The House has now joined the Senate in passing an extension of the Internet Tax Moratorium:
A bill to extend a moratorium on Internet access taxes for seven years was approved 402-0 by the House Tuesday, less than two days before it was set to expire.
The House initially approved a four-year ban, but last week the Senate passed a seven-year prohibition, despite considerable support for a permanent ban.
"Seven years is better than nothing, and that's what we're doing today," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, during remarks on the House floor.
A House bill that would make the moratorium permanent has 238 House co-sponsors, more than a majority.
The tax ban, first approved in 1998 and twice renewed, is set to expire Nov. 1.
While an extension of the ban was supported by nearly all Members of both House and Senate, the fight was whether to enact a temporary ban or a permanent one. Action was forced last week when Senator Sununu (R-NH) filed an amendment to Amtrak reauthorization legislation that would have forced a vote on the permanent ban he had introduced. That led to a compromise on a 7-year extension, which was longer than the Democratic leaders in the Senate wanted.
The measure has already been sent to the president, who is expected to sign it promptly.
The Hillreports that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has announced that the House is not likely to vote on FISA 'anytime soon,' apparently waiting to see how the Senate handles the issue:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has postponed a vote to amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for at least a week, and a Hoyer aide told The Hill there was no indication the bill would go back to the floor “anytime soon...”
Hoyer’s spokeswoman also denied that House Democratic leaders were waiting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will start its markup of the bill’s Senate version Wednesday.
The Senate Intelligence panel has passed a FISA rewrite that includes limited retroactive immunity for telecommunications firms that cooperated with the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program. Many Democrats oppose that provision, which is not in the House bill, and some on the Senate Judiciary panel may try to change or strip that language...
“Nothing’s new. Democratic leadership is still in limbo,” said Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.). “The best thing to do is to have a solid bill, not the bill the Democrats cobbled together. That was a mess.”
When asked whether she had heard that Democratic leaders were having trouble with gathering the votes on the measure, especially from conservative freshmen and Blue Dog Democrats, Wilson said, “That would make sense.”
Wilson is quite right. Whether out of conviction or political survival instincts, the Blue Dogs have been reluctant to vote for the leadership bill, which would afford terrorists significantly more protections than they have under current law. The Democratic leadership seems frustrated that they cannot find a way to force them to support such a measure--for now, at least.
For an excellent assessment of just how irresponsible the Democratic leadership position is, check out this piece from Gary Schmitt in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD:
In a perfect (or just more reasonable) world, the House and Senate Intelligence committees would start over. Constantly trying to amend FISA presumes that FISA's underlying structure (with its secret court of review) and its standard for issuing warrants ("probable cause") are worth preserving. We might remember our own system of separation of powers while picking up a thing or two from our European allies. Searches, electronic or otherwise, should be "reasonably" connected to the government's legitimate function of protecting us from terrorist attacks...
The last part of the piece from the Hill drips with irony, by the way. We covered here the problems that Democrats created for themselves when they shut Republicans out of the process completely. Not having learned from the experience, it seems Democrats may try it again:
Democrats were mum about which tactics they may use to curtail other possible motions by Republicans, who vehemently opposed the bill’s closed rule. But when asked whether the Rules Committee may tweak the rule to limit Republican input on the floor, panel member Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) smiled and said: “We are aware of the options.”
Rather than hinting at another attempt to ram this through with no amendments, Hastings may be referring to an another attempt on the part of House Democrats to change the rules of the House completely to deny minority rights.
RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area, because this is a serious question. The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in Washington state. ...
(Laughter)
RUSSERT: ... that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a 'triangular craft, silent and hovering,' that you 'felt a connection to your heart and heard directions in your mind.'
Now, did you see a UFO?
KUCINICH: I did. And the rest of the account - I didn't - it was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something. Now, to answer your question, I'm moving my -- it's -- and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico, and other one in Exeter, New Hampshire, OK?
And also, you have to keep in mind that more - that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency.
Whereupon Russert pointed out that Kucinich is wrong; 14 percent of Americans claim to have seen a UFO, while Political Arithmetik's current trendline for Bush's support is at a meager 32.6 percent. I wonder how many Bush supporters claim to have seen a ... actually, maybe I don't want to know that.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Kucinich's UFO encounter is not the first time aliens have come up during the presidential campaign. Notice how each candidate's views on interplanetary contact reflects his broader political philosophy: Kucinich for peaceful communication, Giuliani for strength and preparedness.
Christmas may be cancelled, at least in Iowa, according to this Advertising Age story. Ira Teinowitz reports:
TV spending on the 2008 presidential campaign is climbing so fast in the Hawkeye State that between now and the Jan. 3 primaries it threatens to overwhelm outlays by holiday-related marketers.
As of Oct. 22, spending in Iowa by four presidential hopefuls alone has reached a combined $8.7 million, according to TNS Media Intelligence's Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Already, two candidates - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney - each have spent $2.6 million in the state, equivalent to the total Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry heaped on Iowa during 2004 when he won the Democratic presidential nomination. Bill Richardson, with a $1.9 million Iowa outlay, isn't far behind. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton spent only $1.6 million so far, but has been steadily increasing spending.
Iowa is where the Democratic candidates have spent the most money on television ads and, not incidentally, the Democratic race is most competitive there. How will Clinton's increased media spending affect her numbers? And now that the other Democratic candidates have attacked Clinton and realized that she actually is vulnerable, when will the negative media begin?
It's 11:00 p.m. Do you know where your 21- to 34-year-old is? They are probably in a bar!
According to an advertisement for "I Am TV" - I have no clue what that means either - in the current Advertising Age, 75 percent of bar-goers are 21 to 34 years old. They average two evenings per week at their favorite bar. They average two and a half hours per visit. All this from an Arbitron study conducted in September.
I have a quibble with this study, however. It says bar-goers average two evenings per week at their favorite bar. Most bar-goers I know go out around two evenings per week, but not to the same place. And since the Arbitron study does not conform to my anecdotal impressions, it must be flawed, right? Either that, or there's a lot more drinking taking place across America than I had previously thought.
Have the Afghan government and NATO forces cracked the code with dealing with the Taliban-controlled district of Musa Qala in the violent province of Helmand? A report from the em>Telegraph indicates Afghan and NATO forces may have found a pro-Taliban commander and tribal leader willing to turn on the Taliban in Musa Qala.
Diplomats confirmed yesterday that Mullah Salaam was expected to change sides within days. He is a former Taliban corps commander and governor of Herat province under the government that fell in 2001.
Military sources said British forces in the province are "observing with interest" the potential deal in north Helmand, which echoes the efforts of US commanders in Iraq's western province to split Sunni tribal leaders from their al-Qaeda allies.
The Afghan deal would see members of the Alizai tribe around the Taliban-held town of Musa Qala quit the insurgency and pledge support to the Afghan government. It would be the first time that the Kabul government and its Western allies have been able exploit tribal divisions that exist within the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.
One year ago, the British cut a deal with the Taliban, under the guise of dealing with the local tribes. The deal essentially signed over Musa Qala to the Taliban, much like the Pakistani government signed over multiple agencies in its tribal regions to the Taliban. U.S. commanders were furious over the agreement, and it is rumored the French threat to pull its special operations forces out of the south was due to the Brit’s actions in Musa Qala.
Just after the agreement was inked, the Taliban ran up its black flag over the Musa Qala district center, and fighting between the Taliban and Afghan and NATO forces has been intense. Over 250 Taliban have been killed during five intense ambushes on Afghan and NATO patrols, with few Afghan or NATO casualties. The Taliban lost 80 fighters in the latest attack. Three senior Taliban leaders--Mullah Dadullah, Mullah Berader, and Qari Faiz Mohammad--have been killed in strikes in Helmand province over the past several months.
OK - so we have the logic of the political campaign dictating that a candidate like Giuliani amp up his pitch in the fall. We have an alternative explanation - the changed strategy theory - that makes no internal sense, that does not fit the facts, and paints the picture of a campaign team that is inconsistent (this is the same campaign team that has been run professionally and well for eight or so months). AND we have Giuliani's people telling us that the strategy has been that they were always going to amp up in the fall.
And yet the thesis of the story is: Giuliani changes strategy.
A better headline to the Politico story Cost discusses may have been, "Press wakes up to the fact that Giuliani is trying to win in New Hampshire."
John Edwardssaid last night that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the 2008 Defense appropriations bill expressing the sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist organization was written "in the language of the neocons."
I'm not certain about that, however. Most neoconservatives speak and write in standard American English. Still, today the seeds of neoconservative thinking can be seen sprouting in Europe, where those ideas may be expressed in Portuguese, Spanish, and even French.
One thing's for sure: There's no way the language of the neocons is Esperanto.
In honor of Halloween, I've been collecting the top 10 spookiest tidbits buzzing around the blogosphere this past week. Drumroll please...
10. While munching on your candy corn (or if you are lucky enough to work in TWS office, my signature devils food cupcakes), have a laugh with Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall.com as she and her brother carve "the scariest jack-o-lantern ever."
9. Yikes! That cackle reminds me of a former Democratic candidate's hoot. Try one of these spooktacular guffaws on the trick-or-treaters tonight!
8. In fact, I'd recommend using the Dean Scream on little girls that are dressed like this tonight. Maybe that will scare them into wearing something more modest. I'm pretty sure I was a scarecrow for Halloween when I was 8...
7. Hopefully, all you Commies out there were able to catch Turner Classic Movies' celebration of the Hollywood Ten last night. Is TCM preparing for a socialist takeover in 2008? Scary!
6. Even more frightening is the stupidity of some liberals. The AP reported that Americans are more likely to believe in ghosts (34 percent) than support President Bush (31 percent).
5. In other truly scary news (no joke), Saudi Arabia says Britain isn't doing enough to fight terror. As Jawa Report says, this wrist-slapping comes from "the world’s #1 financiers of terror." Now THAT is chilling.
4. The Democratic leadership is pushing "The Mother of All Tax Bills," which the NRCC has dubbed "The Mother of All Tax Hikes." Michelle Malkin’s got the NRCC's fear-inducing video.
3. During Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a female GW student told an Incorrect U camera, "I want the sharia law imposed. I want it in my country…I don’t want to live in a secular state." As Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch notes, she doesn't say what "her country" is, but I’d bet money it’s the United States.
2. Kind of old news, but Al Gore winning the Nobel for his film of falsehoods, An Inconvenient Truth, is still pretty frightening. What's next? Gore runs for president? SCARY! Oh, wait…
1. Lastly, this Halloween, be on the lookout for those monstrous neocons, such as the “unprincipled hack willing to countenance butchery as long as it's done by people he approves of" and those other evil bloggers who were recently "making fun ('just for laughs')" of the Frost family "with a demented sense of glee." Pure evil! And be especially wary of neocon thugs--they're out to get you!
President Bush and congressional Republicans shouldn't worry about political fallout from blocking the Democratic legislation to expand the children's health insurance program known as S-chip. They have a good argument against it that most Americans will buy and a credible alternative. So there's no reason to be anxious.
Supporters of S-chip expansion point to polls that show widespread public backing, including among Republicans. But once a single piece of information is added to a poll question on S-chip, the public's attitude changes. That information: the bill would allow kids in families making up to $61,800 a year to get free, taxpayer-paid health insurance.
Gallup asked this question of adults two weeks ago: "Based on what you have heard or read about this bill, who do you have more confidence in to handle this issue - George W. Bush or the Democrats in Congress?" Bush got 32 percent, Democrats 54 percent. Bush, of course, opposed and then vetoed the Democratic S-chip bill.
That question went to half the polling sample. The other half got this question: "As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"
The response was almost the reverse. Bush got 52 percent, Democrats 40 percent. And the response likely would have been more pronounced in opposition to S-chip expansion if Bush, a relatively unpopular and highly polarizing figure, had been left out of the question.
For Republicans, this means they have a winning strategy. Limiting S-chip to its original purpose of providing health insurance to poor children (in families at less than $41,200 income) meets with the public's approval. Expanding S-chip into the middle class doesn't. The key is citing the $61,800 figure.
But that's not enough to win the political fight. Democrats can respond by saying, "There are millions of kids in that $41,200 to $61,800 income bracket without health insurance. What are you going to do about them? Where's the Republican alternative?"
In fact, Republicans have such an alternative. In the Senate, Mel Martinez of Florida and George Voinovich of Ohio have introduced a bill that would offer a $1,400 per child tax credit for health insurance to families in that bracket. The credit would be refundable. Tom Price of Georgia and dozens of other Republicans are sponsoring a House version of the bill.
The bill also would impose a wealth test. Children in families with more than $500,000 in net assets would be ineligible for S-chip. This would keep families with low income but with, say, an expensive house or large stock holdings from qualifying.
Voinovich, describing his bill in a letter, said it includes "an aggressive outreach program to ensure all children eligible for the program have the opportunity to sign up for insurance." More than 500,000 children currently eligible for S-chip have not signed up.
So the Republican task on S-chip is easy. All they need to do is oppose making middle class families earning up to $61,800 eligible for a program designed to aid the poor. And they need to offer a free-market alternative that limits the government's role in the health insurance business.
It's that time of the year, folks. Project Valour-IT has turned into a blogosphere monster, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy voice-activated laptops for soldiers' who have lost the use of their limbs.
Valour-IT has had a great year of fundraising, but the needs of the wounded continue, and our coffers are empty.
Just in time, because the 2007 Valour-IT Veterans Day Fundraising Competition begins on Monday, October 29. Last year a merry band of milbloggers and friends raised over $230,000 dollars. This year, need among the wounded hasn't changed, with as many as 100 laptops going out each month. But every year, the amazing bloggers who participated have exceeded Valour-IT's wildest hopes. Let's do it again!
Here's the who, what, where, when, why and how of the competition:
Who: Bloggers of any and all stripes who support the U.S. Military
What: Raising $240,000 ($60,000/team) for Project Valour-IT,
Where: Starting on the blogs, then spreading through your community and into major media
When: Monday, 29 October through Saturday, 11 November (Veterans Day)
Why: Because reconnecting the wounded with the world is a vital part of their recovery
How: Signing up for your favorite military branch, blogging, auctioning, emailing, and spreading the news
Once again, OPFOR will be supporting Team Air Force (ignore any subversive treason from Marine/Navy/Army OPFOR bloggers). Here's the donation link:
Please consider donating! You won't find a more noble cause.
Huckabee's position on Hillary is that he can beat her. During a lunch with 20 or so reporters here in Washington today, Huckabee said, "Assume Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee, and I do. Of those running for president, Democrat or Republican, no one knows her better than me."
Why is that?
"No one else has every really run against her. And in a way I have. I ran against the Clinton machine and political organizations that dominated Arkansas politics all these years. In every election I ever ran in, Clinton has campaigned for my opponent. I won not once, twice, three, but four times. In statewide elections. So [this is] something I'll bring to this whole race that no one else has."
One of the most lame and tiresome things about the American anti-war movement is the way some activists both spout off about how brave they are in speaking truth to power, and then complain about the legal penalties they suffer for breaking the law as part of their protests. Few seem to recognize that you can't be a martyr unless you suffer a little. For example, one penalty that a war protester ought to be able to take without too much whining is getting barred from entry into to Canada due to prior convictions.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink Women for Peace and Global Exchange, was also invited by the Parliamentarians, but had been arrested the previous day for holding up two fingers in the form of a peace sign during the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified on Iraq, Iran and Israel-Palestinian issues....
I presented to immigration officials our letter of invitation from the Parliamentarians that explained that Medea and I had been denied entry to Canada at the Niagara Falls border crossing on October 3, 2007 because we had been convicted in the United States of peaceful, non-violent protests against the war on Iraq, including sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House with 400 others, speaking out against torture during Congressional hearings, and other misdemeanors.
The Canadian government knew of these offenses as they now have access to the FBI’s National Crime Information database on which we are listed. The database that was created to identify members of violent gangs and terrorist organizations, foreign fugitives, patrol violators and sex offenders—not for peace activists peacefully protesting illegal actions of their government...
I call on the US Congress to conduct hearings to determine who ordered the FBI to place peaceful, non-violence protest convictions on the international data base and for what purpose.
It feels to me like purposeful intimidation to stop dissent—but I can guarantee you, it won’t work!
To all those concerned about free speech, freedom to travel, ending an illegal war, stopping torture and other violations of domestic and international law, come to Washington and help us!!!
As this piece mentions, Benjamin has been denied entry to Canada before--so Code Pink is clearly familiar with the rules and the consequences. As to their complaints about the decision of the Canadian government to deny them entry, is that truly George Bush's fault? Liberals frequently complain that the United States does not treat our international partners with respect; would they have the U.S. government refuse to disclose information about U.S. criminals traveling abroad? Surely the government of our enlightened neighbor to the north can make its own decisions about whom to allow to enter.
And as to that latter point, is it really all that surprising that Canada denies entry to a group that claims to be a non-violent protest organization, but which actually organized the violent anti-WTO protests in Seattle (which caused about $20 million in damage), and which has disrupted Congressional hearings and proceedings, as well as political conventions.
Perhaps Code Pink ought to look at the bright side; who wants to go to Canada anyway?
The good news for Democrats: there's plenty of time for improvement.
The bad news: this is starting to look like one of the most ineffective, unproductive, Congresses in memory. Approval of Congress overall has fallen to 22 percent. Speaker Pelosi's approval rating among Californians has fallen to 35 percent. House leaders cannot corral moderate Members into supporting legislation to make it harder to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists. Inter-party and intra-party fights dominate every policy issue. And Congress has fallen further behind on the simple business of running the government than at any time in the last 20 years. Half of the bills signed into law this year are measures to name courthouses and other federal facilities. Even padded with those largely meaningless measures, this Congress is on pace to enact fewer laws than any one since 1973--which at least had impeachment of the president to deal with. Democrats have announced that they plan not to spend so much time in Washington next year, which led one House moderate to warn that Speaker Pelosi won't hold the majority in 2009 unless Democrats start to accomplish... something.
Some argue that Democrats are not in as much electoral danger as it may appear, since voters are not especially enamored of Republicans right now, either. However, it's worth noting that before the 2006 elections, just 29 percent of voters thought Congressional Democrats were doing a good job. It was public dissatisfaction with Republicans that gave Congress to the Democrats, not approval. Another year like the one Democrats are having now, and who can predict what the result will be?
In November 1975, Ted Kennedy led all comers among the Democratic faithful in Gallup's polling, including the eventual nominee, Jimmy Carter, who barely registered in the poll at 3 percent. On only two occasions in the modern era did the eventual Democratic nominee place first in the polls among fellow Democrats a year before the election. Republican voters have coalesced around their nominee earlier than the Democrats have.
The two occasions when the eventual Democratic nominee placed first in the Gallup poll a year before the election? November 1983, when Walter Mondale led the field with 47 percent support nationally, and November 1999, when Al Gore held a 58 percent to 33 percent lead over Bill Bradley. Hillary Clinton's current lead over Barack Obama in the Gallup poll is 50 percent to 21 percent. Hillary: the Walter Mondale of our age.
The Republican race is more interesting. Giuliani's first place position with 32 percent support nationally in the current Gallup poll is most similar to ... Ronald Reagan's first-place position with 35 percent support in November 1979. We know how that turned out. Of course, unlike Giuliani's foes, Ronald Reagan's liberal opponents didn't call him a "crazy," "deluded" "warmonger" ...
On July 6 of this year, I pointed to a survey showing that 60 percent of Americans opposed a war with Iran. I also noted at the time that given "the substance of the left/libertarian opposition to a more confrontational approach in dealing with Iran," I wouldn't be "too surprised when that 60 percent opposing a war with Iran starts to dwindle--it has dropped five points in just the last six months."
Well, today we have new poll from Zogby showing that a majority of Americans now favor military action against Iran:
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
Remember when Barnett Rubin "reported" in August that:
They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."
The unsourced rumor was picked up by George Packer at the New Yorker, among others. Now if anyone from Cheney's office was giving "instructions" on how to roll out a war with Iran, I didn't get the memo, so I'm going to stick with my previous explanation for the increased support--the left has done a terrible job of laying out their case against a strike, or maybe it just isn't possible to lay out a persuasive case against a strike. In any case, if 35-40 percent support was considered "plenty" by the veep, what do you think he'll make of an outright majority? And what does George Packer make of it?
WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor, and regular DAILY STANDARD columnist Irwin Stelzer has come in at #68 on the Telegraph's list of the most influential American conservatives. Stelzer is wedged in between David Brooks--a former senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD--and WWS pal Erik Erikson of RedState.
These lists are obviously subjective, but I'm surprised Stelzer didn't rank higher, though perhaps his influence is felt greater in Britain, where he has been referred to as "Murdoch's representative on earth," and has been the subject of some outrageous stories in the British press. Consider this one from the Observer, published in October 2004:
Last spring was seen as a brutal example of who really runs Britain. Stelzer visited Blair in Downing Street. Soon after, the Prime Minister made the biggest U-turn of his career by announcing a referendum on the European Union constitution, a matter on which he had originally said he would not budge. Political commentators were in no doubt: Stelzer had threatened Blair with an ultimatum that, unless he let the people decide, the Eurosceptic Murdoch would order the Sun and the Times to withdraw their support and back the Tories at next year's general election.
'Think of all the pieces of silliness you've just said,' admonishes Stelzer, 72, stepping out of the media's fabled shadows to give his first newspaper interview. 'Number one: I would threaten the Prime Minister. That's an idea that's crazy. The Prime Minister is standing there being threatened by 600 people almost every day in Parliament but doesn't cave in. They can question his job; Rupert Murdoch can't do that. I know "it's the Sun wot won it" and all that - that's great stuff - but I don't really believe it.
True or not, our hearty congratulations to Dr. Stelzer.
