Henry Hyde died today at age 83. He had heart bypass surgery last July, and never quite recovered.
He was a gentleman, and he will be missed. Condolences to his family, friends, and constituents.
Think Progress, under the category 'radical rightwing agenda', informs us that John Ashcroft was asked at the University of Colorado if he would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding.
Apparently, Democratic Representatives Jerrold Nadler and William Delahunt have introduced the American Anti-Torture Act of 2007 which would outlaw the practice. This is good: we need clarity on this issue so those fighting the War on Terror know if waterboarding is legal or not. The fact that clarifying legislation is necessary rather proves that waterboarding is not an illegal practice. And if Torquemada himself is willing to be subjected to the practice, well, is that not also proof that it is not only legal, but also not tortuous as well? Remember: no one ever volunteers to undergo real torture.
By Ken McCracken at 11/28/2007 05:44:00 PM
The outcome of the Annapolis Conference, which begins Tuesday and will last for three days, is pre-ordained: it will accomplish nothing, and will prove to be a complete waste of everyone's time. The Conference is intended to bring the Arabs, Palestinians, the UN Security Council member states and Israel together to resolve issues on the way to the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians do not want peace, however, their Arab allies do not want peace, and the Palestinians are in the midst of a civil war such that any nascent achievements from Annapolis will quickly be undone.
Syria decided to join the conference, once it learned that the issue of the Golan Heights might be on the table. The Golan Heights are an extremely strategic part of northern Israel (annexed in 1981), a natural tank trap of stone on a plateau that dominates the surrounding country. The Syrians used it as a fortress to reign terror down upon the Israelis until the Israelis seized it in 1967, and the Syrians are not getting it back, nor should they. Syria is not really serious about the conference anyway, sending a deputy foreign minister instead of the real thing, whom, it is being reported is going for no other purpose than to sabotage the conference and make sure no Arab states attending decide to recognize Israel.
The usual wonderful good faith and outreach to peace that the Arabs customarily show. No wonder this conference is doomed to fail.
Update: Hamas, naturally, has anything but peace in mind, according to spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk - "Resistance to the Zionist enemy will intensify through the West Bank and Gaza, because Annapolis will expose the uselessness of the process and its destructiveness."
Is he making the point here that no diplomacy is less deadly than the 'just keep talking for the sake of talking' obeisance paid to diplomacy by the peaceniks? Someone had better email this article to Dennis Kucinich.
Another Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, claimed that Hamas can make its rocket attacks deadlier by packing them with more explosives.
Yeah, these people want peace alright.
By Ken McCracken at 11/26/2007 03:54:00 AM
Putin's thugs have gone too far:
Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, leader of the opposition Other Russia coalition, was beaten and arrested for resisting arrest, and will sit five days in jail. He was at a Moscow rally calling for Vladimir Putin's ouster.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
By Ken McCracken at 11/24/2007 01:55:00 PM
Of course not, according to the sycophantic MSM, the correct meme is that the Democrats will triumph over all in '08 because . . . well it is hard say why, given the following:
Democratic frontrunner: inexperienced, very high negatives, political tin ear. Could cause the downballot to collapse if nominated.
Republican frontrunner: executive experience (no on-the-job training necessary, Hillary), charismatic, good political instincts (either Rudy or Mitt fits this description).
Democrats: 11% approval rating for a Dem-majority Congress. Enough said. Remember how many of the freshman Republicans after '94 got swept back out of the House in '96? Dems are trying hard to repeat history.
Republicans: unfortunately, they have a natural knack for being effective only when in the minority.
War in Iraq
Democrats: we can still have a defeat, if we just try harder!
Republicans: proven right about the Surge. Continued abatement of violence vindicates Iraq policies, takes Iraq off the table as an issue. Evaporates the Democratic 'mandate' from '06.
Democrats: higher taxes are the answer to every problem, in every context, all the time.
Republicans: American like lower taxes. Who, seriously, votes to have their taxes raised?
Democrats: what's that?
Republicans: it ain't pretty, it ain't perfect, but at least wetake it seriously.
Democrats: let's turn them all into Democrats as soon as possible.
Republicans: this is priority for many Republicans, independents and Democrats. We've learned that now!
Old news: Jack Abramoff, Bernard Kerick, Duke Cunningham.
New news: Norman Hsu, Fujian busboys, William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana).
By Ken McCracken at 11/23/2007 11:59:00 PM
A picture of U.S. troops on Thanksgiving in Europe, 1944, lifted from James Lileks:
Not one of those guys can take their eyes off those birds. Can you blame them? Heh, I wonder if any of them has had a shower since Normandy.
This is poignant picture - these guys still had to face some of the very toughest fighting of the war, in the Battle of the Bulge, Arnhem and crossing the Rhine. I wonder how many of them made it.
By Ken McCracken at 11/22/2007 09:24:00 AM
Joe Klein is worth reading - he's partisan, but well able to call Democrats out on their stupidities. 'Stupid' certainly describes the Democrats on national security, both stupid as a practical matter, and stupid as far as politics. Klein tells the Dems in his article The Tone-Deaf Democrats that opposing FISA reform hands the Republicans a great line: that the Democrats favor a 'terrorists' bill of rights'. Opposing funding for the troops in order to wrangle withdrawal dates from Iraq, especially now that victory may be upon us, is also obviously dumb politics.
Now Glenn Greenwald is also partisan, but he is also deeply dishonest. Unfortunately, some people take him seriously, and the leftists are giving him kudos for assaulting Klein. Greenwald quotes this from Klein's article:
Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that -- Limbaugh is salivating -- would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.
Greenwald thinks he brilliantly skewers Klein, exposing Klein's a) ignorance, or b) secret blood alliance with Rush Limbaugh, by pointing out two grievous errors in Klein's analysis: that FISA applies not only to U.S. citizens, but to resident aliens as well, and more importantly, that FISA does not require warrants for calls not coming into the U.S.
The third option, that the genius Greenwald thought of but disingenuously did not mention, is that Klein did not include those details because they are completely irrelevant and beside the point. Brevity is the soul of wit, Glenn, something Klein has learned and you haven't.
Many of Greenwald's flying monkeys went to berate Klein at the Swampland armed with just as much knowledge of FISA as could be found in Greenwald's post, plus whatever they could Google in five minutes' time. Read some of the comments and see how Klein gets treated. I ask you: does the Right treat anyone like this when they say something the 'base', whatever that is, doesn't agree with them? Maybe so, but I can't think of any examples. I remember Ramesh Ponuru taking heat for claiming that bin Ladenism is driven by the West's depraved morality. Hugh Hewitt took heat over the Harriet Miers nomination - but all seems to have been forgiven and forgotten with those two.
Compare and contrast the treatment of Joe Lieberman, who has been thoroughly e-xcommunicated.
Here is what the flavor of the day had to say about this over at FirePlugPuddle:
Me, I think we need to scrap the lot. All the DC elites who supported the war and continue to cheer it on, all the misguided media shills, all the Righty screamers and know-nothing NeoCons need to be handed their pink slips and put to work in a prison laundry. Chris Matthews? Buh-bye. Tim Russert? Smell ya later! Joe Klein, Mickey Kaus, Peter Bunny Beinart, and Bill Effing Kristol? All of you are, like, so FIRED.
. . . and their little dog Toto, too.
Man, they don't just want to throw the rightwing under the bus, they want to throw everyone under the bus. This should give us on the Right pause for relief, for this is the Democratic base.
By Ken McCracken at 11/22/2007 12:56:00 AM
Here is a website chock-full of disaster that some of you may like. It is the GlobalIncidentMap.com, and it highlights terrorist acts and 'suspicious activity' throughout the world as it happens. In addition to the usual bomb blasts, it also notes stories such as Swedish 'indian' activists committing hundreds of acts of sabotage against SUVs. Or a rabbit that died of anthrax at the University of New Mexico.
The website also has a map that displays the locations of mosques in some parts of the United States. No particular incidents or threats, just . . . mosques. As if they are contagious or something. It makes me wonder about the motivations of this site's creators.
Anyway, for you paranoids out there - this site ain't gonna help!
By Ken McCracken at 11/21/2007 12:49:00 PM
"Researchers discovered what might be called the bimbo delusion by studying mens ability to complete general knowledge tests after exposure to different women. The academics found that mens scores fell after they were shown pictures of blondes."
I think this is because in the presense of blondes, mens' blood rushes from their brains to somewhere else.
By Ken McCracken at 11/17/2007 11:49:00 PM
It's like a textbook case right out of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. Ron Paul enthusiasts have been busted by the feds for striking coins as a protest against the Federal Reserve Bank and America's 'unsound' currency. There is nothing wrong with producing commemorative coins, for example, but passing them off as legal tender (by calling them 'dollars') is pretty much guaranteed to earn the ire of the Treasury Department.
Naturally, the fact that the jackbooted thugs at the FBI are taking exception to crackpots issuing rival, unauthorized currency means that we need Ron Paul all that much more:
"People are pretty upset about this," said Jim Forsythe, head of the Paul Meetup group in New Hampshire, who said he recently ordered 150 of the copper coins. "The dollar is going down the tubes, and this is something that can protect the value of their money, and the Federal Reserve is threatened by that. It'll definitely fire people up."
The Federal Reserve is 'threatened' by obtuse attempts to undermine our currency? You don't say.
By Ken McCracken at 11/17/2007 03:53:00 PM
A big democratic contributor was just busted in Texas for practicing law without a license, perjury, and impersonating a sheriff's deputy.
The impersonation charge is quite interesting:
"In that case, police reported that a naked woman ran from Celis' home to a convenience store, claiming she had been in a hot tub and groped against her will. Celis quickly followed her into the store, wearing a bathrobe. He flashed a sheriff's deputy badge from a nearby county and told police at the store that he would take custody of the woman, police said."
Celis has also been arrested on charges he held himself out as a lawyer, and even owned a controlling interest in a law firm even though he is not a lawyer. He was also indicted on perjury charges.
According to the story above, Celis has contributed thousands of dollars to candidates, including Hillary Clinton, and according to OpenSecrets.org, Chrisopher Dodd.
Ed Morrisey also has this to say about Celis:
How important is Celis? In the last three cycles, Celis donated over $110,000 to Democrats. Donations went to John Edwards, Claire McCaskill, Ken and John Salazar, and especially the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the DNC, the latter two of which accounts for almost half of those donations. Hillary Clinton received a maximum donation of $2300 from Celis in March, presumably for her primary fund. He's a fairly heavy hitter, especially here in Texas.
Candidates don't always know who is donating to their campaigns. It isn't necessarily a reflection on the candidate's integrity when unsavory contributors end up in the news. But the ever-growing list of indicted, felonious and illegal contributors to Hillary's campaign sure does seem like a bit more than a statistical blip. Does Hillary Clinton have any contributors who are on the up-and-up?
By Ken McCracken at 11/17/2007 03:06:00 PM
Oh look, the jackbooted thought police have big weepy eyes and cute little noses! They don't want to harm you - they want to help you keep your thoughts pure, and keep you away from any ideas or images that aren't pre-approved by the government. For your own protection!
This image and similiar ones will soon appear on screens in China every half-hour, merrily reminding the viewers that they live in a fascist state.
(h/t Glenn Reynolds).
By Ken McCracken at 11/15/2007 05:14:00 PM
You want to have an open mind. You want to understand that other cultures, nations and religions have different ways of doing things. You want to be tolerant, and understand that other folks see things differently than you do.
And then you read stories like this:
A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.
But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
There is no getting around it. A society that does this is our enemy.
By Ken McCracken at 11/15/2007 04:07:00 PM
Scientists can't predict the weather two weeks from now, but we are supposed to believe that they can predict it 20 years from now with infallible precision?
Of all the potential causes of global warming - the natural ebb and flow of the climate, sun activity, bovine flatulence , etc. - we know for certain that human pollution is the only cause?
Is it possible that human pollution is only partly responsible for global warming?
Do we even know if it is reversible at this point, assuming we caused it in the first place?
We are supposed to upturn our economies for that? While letting the really big polluters such as China escape any costs for it?
Even if there is global warming . . . so what? It will take thousands of years to reach the 23 feet of ocean rising Al Gore claims will happen, and the oceans have risen mere centimeters in the last century or so. Are humans now suddenly incapable of adapting to climate changes that have occurred many times before throughout our development as a species?
Global warming has indeed occurred innumerable times before, at levels far higher than we are experiencing now. And yet . . . how did the polar bear as a species survive?
Here is the real question: how do we know this isn't some scam by radical environmentalists to destroy capitalism by other means? It isn't as if they haven't used scare tactics and specious theories before . . .
By Ken McCracken at 11/13/2007 07:02:00 AM
Mickey Kaus linked to this article calling it "Steven Bochco's answer" as to why the recent spate of liberal hate-America movies out of Hollywood are all dismal failures. Well, the article oddly has no author listed anywhere (unless I am blind and missed it) so I will have to take Mickey's word for it.
'Bochco' quotes Lew Harris, editor of Movies.com:
"People want war movies to have a slam-bang adventure feel to them ... But Iraq is a difficult war to portray in a kind of rah-rah-rah, exciting way."
How do we know that? It hasn't been tried. It is also absolute nonsense. Think . . . Black Hawk Down. That movie did very well at the box office portraying American soldiers in an extremely tough situation blowing away enemies of America. What is so difficult to grasp about that? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results . . . it is safe to say that Hollywood has lost its mind.
There is a profound justice in all of this. The wretched 'Lions for Lambs' is so unwatchable, and doing so poorly at the box office, that it might imperil MGM's ability to finance films. When is Hollywood going to look beyond its own bubble and start making movies that actually appeal to the American people . . . or at the very least don't turn them off? At some point, the bottom line will have to count for more than producers making movies just to please each other.
Between this and the writers' strike, Hollywood is in a deep quagmire from which it might not emerge. Is that really such a bad thing?
By Ken McCracken at 11/12/2007 08:54:00 PM
This is a funny little moment - after Hillary Clinton gives a press conference in Waterloo, Iowa on Veterans' Day, the American flags on stage just start taking a nosedive.
Many see this as a sign . . .
P.S. Is that the lovely and talented (ahem) Huma "Darkstar" Abedin in the background? She almost looks like the flag-tipping culprit there.
By Ken McCracken at 11/12/2007 03:50:00 PM
RealClearPolitics has a piece up by David Shribman of the The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called Clinton & Giuliani: Each is What the Other is Not that points out that, wow, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are very different from each other. His conclusion - that Hillary and Rudy are like fire and ice, almost literally - is correct, but the way he gets there is a bit odd. Here is the first oddity:
"the entire 2008 election is a referendum on Hillary Clinton, who isn't even president."
It's called an election, not a referendum, and yes, when a candidate has not yet been president it is entirely fair to criticize their non-presidential history. Shribman then comes up with this head-scratcher:
"Ordinarily, with an economy in confusion if not upheaval and with an unpopular war being prosecuted by an unpopular president, you might think that the election would be about the sitting president. But, apart from anti-Bush barbs tossed to the Democratic masses like pieces of raw meat, President Bush is the missing man from the 2008 contest."
He is the 'missing man' because he isn't allowed to run again in 2008. The Democrat candidates have, however, been running against President Bush - that is obvious from the debates. That is a mistake, and a mistake that Shribman thinks is good politics apparently.
Shribman then puts together a string of howlers:
They define each other. Mr. Giuliani is intuitive; Mrs. Clinton is cerebral. Giuliani is deeply emotional; Clinton is deeply rational. Giuliani has a habit of demonizing his opponents; Clinton is accustomed to being demonized.
Hillary is 'deeply rational'? We often hear such paens to Hillary's awesome intellect, but is there any proof she actually possesses above-average intelligence apart from the usual hagiographic tripe from the MSM? Shribman, by calling Giuliani 'intuitive' in comparison is attempting to call Giuliani 'irrational', especially compared to the human computer that is Hillary Clinton. Shribman should know that no one becomes a highly successful federal prosecutor without a very high intelligence quotient. My guess is that Hillary does not possess the brain power to do that job.
As for Giuliani demonizing his opponents . . . that has been true, but Hillary, the think-skinned Queen of Smashmouth Politics is far more adept at dishing it out than taking it. She is hardly a victimized naif in this department.
By Ken McCracken at 11/09/2007 12:57:00 PM
Here is the best proof that waterboarding is not torture: no one volunteers to be tortured, ever. No one volunteers to have their skin blowtorched until it melts like a candle, or hung tied up over a bar like the parrot's perch torture, or have holes drilled into their head, or their body beaten until their internal organs are scrambled.
Yet here we have activists out on the street pretending waterboarding is the real thing. We are supposed to hold up the nomination of a potential attorney general's nomination over this? We are supposed to be ashamed of the Bush administration over this . . . hazing ritual? And it isn't even illegal? I can see why . . . as far as tortures go, this is pretty tame stuff.
This video is supposed to illustrate the horror of waterboarding, but all it does it mock the real thing. That woman might as well be yelling "you don't want to talk? Do you want THE COMFY CHAIR?" It has convinced me that it is not torture, and should be widely practiced against our enemies.
By Ken McCracken at 11/07/2007 04:54:00 PM
John Murtha once said that bringing federal money to his district "is the whole goddamn reason I went to Washington." And he sure doesn't let that conflict with his anti-war principles . . . when the two meet, the greenbacks win every time.
He is chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and as such he has steered quite a volume of military spending toward his western Pennsylvania district, including $293 million in spending on CROWs, the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station which is specifically designed for use in places like Iraq.
So our troops can murder more " innocent civilians in cold blood," I suppose.
By Ken McCracken at 11/07/2007 01:15:00 PM
Well what do you know, at the merest whiff of adversity Hillary Clinton folds like a dinner napkin. Susan Estrich stated that Hillary "doesn't make mistakes", but of course that was untrue long before Hillary's disastrous debate performance last week (Norman Hsu, anyone? A scandal doesn't disappear just because the MSM won't cover it). Hillary was ill-served by a media that refused to challenge her, and by milquetoast rivals who couldn't fight their way out of a dressing room. As a result, she was left scrambling and confused when Tim Russert asked her a perfectly reasonable and run-of-the-mill question: does she support Eliott Spitzer's drivers' licenses-for-illegals program for New York? This was perplexing for Hillary because she was probably thinking "Tim, aren't you supposed to be protecting me? Why the hard questions?!??" Hillary doesn't know how to respond to hard questions, because she hasn't been asked any yet.
Now that poor debate performance is taking a toll on Hillary, according to the latest Rasmussen poll. The poll shows that Hillary has lost 6 percentage points against her next closest so-called rival, Barack Obama in New Hampshire.
The licenses-for-illegals program brought out the absolute worst in Clinton in both substance and image. She was at first in favor of it, showing that she panders to her base at the expense of the majority sentiments of Americans on this issue, showing how out-of-touch she is. (that same Rasumussen poll shows that "just 19% of Democratic Primary Voters in New Hampshire believe that drivers licenses should be made available to undocumented workers"). Then she flip-flopped once she figured out how unpopular the program was, showing how indecisive and unprincipled she is also. Finally, she attempted to obfuscate the issue through confusing clarifications, to the point where no one knows where she stands now. She out-Clintoned herself.
Oh I am sure that a diligent investigator could go to her website or call her campaign and find out what her latest stance on the issue is. Doesn't it seem like a huge waste of time however, considering how easily her principles change? She will maintain any given stance only as long as it proves expedient to do so.
By Ken McCracken at 11/07/2007 09:21:00 AM
If you think through the consequences of attacking Iran preemptively, the risk-reward ratio seems most unfavorable.
The best-case upside is that Iran is disarmed permanently, and everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts it. What are the chances, really, that will happen?
The worst-case downside is appallingly bad. It could rally the Iranian population behind that mullahs - a population that right now is very unhappy with their leadership, and somewhat pro-American. That would all be swept away, and even worse, it could rally the majority Sunni muslims behind the minority Shi'ites in Iran in a way no other event possibly could. It would be the polarization of the West versus Islam that Osama bin Laden has long been seeking. It could end the disunity in the Muslim world that thus far has worked to the West's advantage.
'Anti-zionism' is the one tie that binds Muslim states that otherwise would be enemies. Israel does not need to participate in a preemptive strike for it to be the target of Muslim ire around the world - the assumption will be that the U.S. is merely doing the zionists' bidding. Reason enough to attack Israel, in their view. If you are concerned about Israel's security, think of the chances that Iran might attack Israel preemptively. It may or may not happen. If Iran is attacked, however, it becomes a certainty, with the rest of the Middle East quite possibly joining in. Lebanon, too, is put at risk as Hezbollah becomes activated in the conflict.
It would make things in Iraq terribly difficult. Iran has been a very bad actor towards Iraq, this is an understatement. It is nothing, however, compared to the resources and manpower they would throw at Iraq in the event of the outbreak of war. Think of the damage they have already caused in a clandestine way, and now multiply that, and add overt military operations versus Iraq on top of it. Afghanistan is likely to be even more vulnerable.
Iran has the support, money, and safe haven to prepare terrorist strikes against the West that al-Qaeda now lacks. Iran would certainly call on what remains of al-Qaeda to help in its terror war against us. There are already operational ties between al-Qaeda and Iran. War with Iran would certainly result in an outright alliance.
The mullahs are not that bright, they woefully underestimate the strength of the U.S., and they are bound to eventually offer a reason to attack that even the Europeans and much of the Islamic world will support. We cannot wage war against Iran successfully until they are completely isolated, and they are not at that point now. Also keep in mind that Iran's biggest threat is an internal one. Iran is prone to labor and student strikes, protests from ethnic minorities (such as the Azeris), opposition parties and even terrorist groups operating against the regime. It is actually quite amazing that the mullahs have not yet been toppled.
Attacking them may in fact be the only thing guaranteed to save them.
By Ken McCracken at 11/04/2007 12:44:00 AM
Stephen Spruiell at the Corner debunks Bill Clinton's slick claim that he has expedited the release of all of his White House documents held by the National Archives. It became an issue this week during Hillary's debate debacle last Tuesday, when moderator Tim Russert asked this:
Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?
Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.
In response, Bill Clinton said that this question was 'breathtakingly misleading'. You can see Bill Clinton's rather testy response in this post.
The hyperbolic denial and gruff response are rather reliable tells that the Clintons are trying to squirm out of something. Bill Clinton has the right to hold back documents for twelve years after the end of his administration, which is 2012. Bill Clinton did send a letter to the National Archives requesting that documents be released early - with a few important exceptions, however. One exception was this: "7. communications directly between the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature; . . . "
Spruiell then asks "That's exactly the passage Russert asked about, almost word for word. How is that misleading?"
Put aside the impossibility of a question being 'misleading' for a moment. The simple fact is: the documents that are germane to this presidential campaign, the ones that will answer the questions about the depth of Hillary's involvement in the Clinton administration, are being held back until 2012. The fact that Bill Clinton has speeded up the release of documents that are completely irrelevant to the campaign does nothing to dispel the notion the he is covering up for Hillary, and in fact now amplifies it.
The new media is shredding what once would have been a solid Clinton denial. Now, you can see the letter for yourself, the debate in which the question was asked, and Bill Clinton's weak and embarassing response. The Clintons could get away with this kind of garbage during their administration, but not now.
Update: Spruiell has much more about this issue, including the fact that the Clintons' personal attorney Bruce Lindsay has veto power over what documents are actually released. Gee, do you think he might use that power as a way to protect Hillary?
By Ken McCracken at 11/03/2007 12:52:00 PM
If liberals and anti-war activists were really all about getting our troops out of Iraq, you would think that they would be trumpeting the good news there. It is now indisputable, by any metric you choose to look at, that things have improved remarkably in Iraq. Michael Yon reports on the growing belief in Iraq that "al-Qaeda is defeated." Attacks are down significantly, leading Jonathan Karl at ABC to proclaim:
" . . . nobody over here is anywhere near ready to declare victory. But the military statistics tell an unmistakable story. Violence in Iraq is down. And down considerably.
Baghdad's marketplaces are slowly coming back to life, as violent attacks in Iraq have fallen to less than half of what they were a year ago. Until recently, the trends had been deadly and consistent, violence steadily increasing to an all-time high in June. Since then, however, attacks have fallen four straight monthsin every category.
Here is graphic proof that violence is down precipitously since the Surge began, from General Odiero via the Weekly Standard:
And yet, the response to this and other good news from Iraq by the left is wilful disbelief. Not relief that the war is ending, because the war ending is a disaster for the left. If the war is not a quagmire, lost, and unwinnable that would make them . . . wrong. It would also make America victorious, and it is hard to say which does them more psychological harm. If their true concern was the safety and well-being of our troops, they would be screaming that the war is won and so we must bring our troops home. But no, their concern is political victory and being proven right, and both are now slipping out of their grasp. They will not, and cannot, ever admit that Iraq is anything but a complete disaster, even when their own liberal media tells them otherwise. They certainly won't admit it in order to help get our troops home, because the left openly loathes the military and holds them in contempt.
So expect the left to get even crazier as their denials of success in Iraq become more and more implausible, expect them to move the goalposts, and finally, when all hope is lost and victory become too obvious even for them to deny, expect them to claim that all their whining and caterwauling is actually what made victory possible.
By Ken McCracken at 11/02/2007 12:29:00 PM