South Dakota Politics

Zarqawi Alienates His Political Base

When George Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, he clearly alienated much of his political base.  Not to be outdone, Bush's chief enemy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has made himself an enemy in his own home town by engineering a strategic strike against a wedding party.  From the Aberdeen American News:

ZARQA, Jordan - In this rundown industrial town where the al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was born, residents expressed anger, skepticism and dismay Saturday that one of their own could be behind Amman's triple bombings that killed 57 people, mostly Arabs and Muslims.

"If there were still any people with any sympathy left for al-Zarqawi, it's gone now. It has backfired on him," said Zuheir Najjar, 45. "What does an attack on a wedding with women and children have to do with fighting the Americans?"

Al-Zarqawi's group, al-Qaida in Iraq, sought in a Web statement to justify the attacks, accusing Jordan's government of launching a war on Islam and supporting the U.S. presence in Iraq.

But in the desert town of Zarqa, 15 miles northeast of the capital Amman, many regarded Wednesday's bloody attacks as a barbaric act that had nothing to do with Islam.

It is perfectly clear to most people in the Middle East that al-Qaida is the enemy of all civilized people. 

Interestingly enough, one of the dead in Amman was important in Hollywood. 

The death toll rose to 57 - including three U.S. citizens but excluding the bombers - following Friday's death of Mustapha Akkad, the Syrian-American filmmaker who produced the ''Halloween'' horror movies. Akkad, 75, of Los Angeles, suffered serious wounds and a heart attack in the Hyatt bombing, which instantly killed his 34-year-old daughter, Rima Akkad Monla, an American living in Beirut.

Has Tim Johnson Lost It?

A little nugget from an American News article about a Brown County Democrats meeting, which featured Tim Johnson as a speaker:

Johnson talked of budget woes, embattled GOP leadership and the "obviously fabricated" information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as Republican problems Democrats can benefit from in 2006 elections.

The article does not illuminate beyond this.  I wonder if Sen. Johnson would help us out by telling us which parts of the WMD information were "obviously fabricated."  I point to Quentin's post to show that Democrats once held the exact same views that George Bush did and does.  If you go here you see that Tim Johnson (and Tom Daschle) voted to authorize war in Iraq.  If the WMD information was "obviously fabricated," why did it take Sen. Johnson over three years to figure out this obvious fabrication?  Why did the Senate Intelligence committee reject the idea that the administration had politicized intelligence regarding Iraq?  I wonder who is obviously fabricating information. 

Daschle During Election Year on WMD

Since the debate is heating up again, this article from last year in the Rapid City Journal is worth noting:

Daschle satisfied with war progress

By Denise Ross, Journal Staff Writer

PIERRE - Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

He said he is not upset about the debate over pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, an issue that has dogged President Bush as Democratic presidential contenders have slogged through the primary season.

Churchill

Another member of the Ward Churchill investigation as quit:

A second member of an investigative committee reviewing research misconduct charges against University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill has resigned from the panel, CU announced Friday.

Robert A. Williams, a professor of law and American Indian studies at the University of Arizona, is the latest to leave the committee in the wake of revelations that he lauded Churchill as an "important scholar" and praised his qualities as a "public intellectual when it comes to the field of American Indian studies."Williams joins Bruce E. Johansen, a professor of communication and Native American studies at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, who resigned from the panel this week. Like Williams, Johansen's earlier praise of Churchill was recently highlighted on a Web site critical of Churchill.

Dr. Williams hasn't released any statements yet, so I can't give you his side of the story.  On Thursday, Dr. Bruce Johansen also left CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.  As of now it is unclear whether the university will replace those two or just continue the investigation with the reduced panel.  Churchill is under investigation for seven charges, including plagarism and historical fabrication.

UPDATE:  CU issued a press release.

Glenn Reynolds Challenges Democratic Patriotism

A devastating attack on the Democrats, via Prof. Reynolds.  One should quickly note that he questions only the patriotism of those spouting the "Bush lied us into war" line.  I guess that would include Tom Daschle.  My opinion is that Reynolds may go too far, but it is intellectual food to chew on.  Some highlights from Reynolds: 

The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way -- and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.

And yes, he should question their patriotism.  Because they're acting unpatriotically...

UPDATE:  Reader Kathleen Boerger emails:  "Could you do me a favor and define 'patriotism' please?"

I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war, simply because your donor base wants to hear them.

Patriotic people could -- and did -- oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism --which today's revisionist history suggests.

My personal favorite is this email that Reynolds received, published by Reynolds in a later post:

How is the constant repetition of, ‘Bush fooled me, I didn’t know what I was doing!’, help the Democrats? How will they stand up to the perfidy and guile of our real enemies and sometimes allies? Maybe someone can work that into a winning campaign slogan, but it’s beyond me. How about “We’re Dumber than Bush!”?

Update: Some thoughts from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

Glenn Reynolds has thoughts on patriotism and how it relates to dishonest criticism of the war effort here and here.  I don't recall ever having called anyone unpatriotic, and I don't intend to start now. But I do think it's clear that the Democrats are putting their partisan interests above the national interest in winning the war against the Islamist fanatics--not by criticizing or dissenting from the war effort, but by making charges against the administration that they know to be false, for the sake of partisan advantage. Call it what you will; lots of adjectives, none of them flattering, come to mind.

Kerry Did Offer McCain VP Slot

Old news, but interesting news, from David White in the American Enterprise:

It was only one year ago that Newsweek ran its post-mortem on the 2004 Presidential election, culling more than a year’s worth of reporting that the magazine had pledged to keep secret until the final votes were cast.

 

Thanks to that pledge of secrecy, both candidates offered Newsweek reporters unprecedented access to their campaigns, allowing them to observe, record, and witness the event for the history books. The resulting narrative was well worth their effort.

 

The most remarkable section, however, was the validation of a long-standing rumor of the 2004 campaign: Senator John Kerry did, in fact, offer Senator John McCain the Vice-Presidential slot. 

 

Described by Newsweek as an “outlandish” offer, Kerry’s courtship “was longer-standing and more intense than previously reported.” It began in August 2003, was offered on at least seven separate occasions, and Kerry even proposed to “expand the role of Vice President to include Secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy.”

 

McCain, according to Newsweek, told Kerry that he was “out of his mind.”

Why We Fight

Via The Corner, here is an interview Rita Cosby did with actor Bruce Willis and embedded reporter Michael Yon.  Bruce, I now forgive you for The Whole Ten Yards.  Let me start with the picture referenced in the interview:

BRUCE WILLIS TELLS RITA COSBY HE WILL OFFER $1 MILLION TO ANY CIVILIAN WHO TURNS IN OSAMA BIN LADEN, AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI OR ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI
Secaucus, NJ - November 11, 2005 -- In an interview that aired last night on MSNBC's "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct" (9 p.m. ET), actor Bruce Willis told Cosby he would offer one million dollars to any civilian who would turn in Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Willis talks to Cosby about his support for embedded blogger Michael Yon, and the actor says he is in talks about a possible film about the Deuce Four, the soldiers Yon is embedded with in Iraq. 
Following is the complete transcript of the interview. "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct" airs weeknights from 9 - 10 p.m. ET. Angie Dorr is the executive producer.
********
COSBY:  Getting stories out of Iraq is not easy.  Bruce Willis found that out firsthand when he went over to visit U.S. troops serving in Armed Forces.
        Tonight, we are rejoined by an independent blogger who is bringing back some amazing pictures and stories from Iraq, Michael Yon.  And also again with us is actor Bruce Willis, who is back with us on the phone.
        It's great to have both of you here.  You know, Bruce, I want to start with you.  Last night, we talked a little bit about what's happening over in Iraq.  You said the media isn't covering the full story.  What are we missing?
        BRUCE WILLIS, ACTOR:  I am baffled to understand why the things that I saw happening in Iraq, really good things happening in Iraq, are not being reported on.
        Michael has been over there, was embedded with the members of the Deuce Four, you know, the battalion that actually won the battle for Mosul, that -- Michael, correct me if I'm wrong -- these are the guys who allowed the election to take place, the election that happened just, you know, a couple months ago, to take place, which is, you know, just a monumental thing.  And it's not being reported on.
        COSBY:  You know, Bruce, you know, let's face it.  A lot of celebrities have not been over there.  A lot of folks in Hollywood have been very critical of what's happening in the war.  Do you think, if a lot of your colleagues in Hollywood went over there, saw it for themselves, they'd have a different opinion?
        WILLIS:  I absolutely think that.  I think we live in a global world. And I think that -- I think America is just too isolationist.
        And a lot of big choices are being made.  You know, to say this is not our fight, when this is the same fight that this country fought 60 years ago and the entire world fought 60 years ago, for the same kind of terrorism, the same kind of thing.
        This is not a new war.  This is not a new kind of fighting.  This is the same fight.  And it's back.  And it's time for it to stop.
        COSBY:  You know, we've seen some of these amazing pictures that we're showing here.
        You know, Michael, there's a photo I want to show of a soldier and a baby girl, in particular.  Here it is.  Why is this photo so meaningful, Michael?
MICHAEL YON, EMBEDDED BLOGGER: Well, I shot that photo on a day when a suicide or homicide car bomber ran into one of our Stryker vehicles, injured a couple of our soldiers, and, unfortunately, there were a lot of children who had crowded around to wave at our people.
        And the attackers had every opportunity to just wait a couple of blocks and attack our guys later, without the children being around, but instead chose to attack straight through the children.
        And Major Bieger, who is in the photo, found the little girl -- her name is Farah -- and decided he wanted to get her to the hospital as quickly as possible.
        And so he picked her up, wrapped her in a blanket, and loaded her into one of our vehicles and started to take her to the hospital as fast as possible.  And unfortunately, little Farah died en route.
        We went back to that neighborhood the next day, and the people there actually welcomed us with open arms.  They welcomed us into their homes.
        We got into a firefight there again the next day.  And the people in that part of the city began to give us more and more information about the terrorists until it got to the point where -- it's very dangerous to be a terrorist now in Mosul, because...
        COSBY:  You know, it's incredible to hear these stories, Michael.  I mean, it's amazing what you went through firsthand.
        And, you know, Bruce, you know, as you're hearing these stories from Michael, I understand why your jaw just dropped when you saw these pictures.
        Are you thinking, maybe at some point, you know, playing a role with the Deuce Four?  Is that something maybe you'd consider?
        WILLIS:  We are talking about that right now.  But it's not really about the film.  It's about these guys.
        It's about these guys who do what they are asked to do for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom.
        And it's not just for this country.  It's for the world.  It is time for terrorism to stop.  And the United States is the country that can stop it.  And that's what they're doing over there.
        And there is -- I have no idea why this country is not getting the information that Michael Yon has, you know, access to, is, you know, showing people.  It's just not getting out, and it's baffling.
        COSBY:  You know, Bruce, in 2003, you admirably offered $1 million for the capture of Saddam.  I have to ask you, because just last night we had on our show so many of those pictures, those horrific pictures of what happened in Jordan.
               And right now, we've got three thorns in our side.  We've got Zawahiri, of course, who is Osama bin Laden`s right-hand guy.  You've got Osama bin Laden himself.  And then you've got al-Zarqawi, the Iraqi who everyone believes is behind the mastermind of the attack, just those horrible attacks on three hotels just last night.
        Are you prepared even right now to maybe offer $1 million for one of them?
        WILLIS:  Well, that was a conversation I was having with members of the military.  I've since been told that military men and women cannot accept any reward for the job that they're doing.  It was more about my passion for trying to stop Saddam Hussein.
        COSBY:  Would you offer that if somebody else, let's say a civilian, is willing to turn one of them in and finally put this to an end?
        WILLIS:  Yes, I would.  Yes, I would.
        I want to live in a world, and so do the Iraqi people want to live in a world, where they can move from their homes to the market and not have to fear being killed.  And, I mean, doesn't everybody want that?  Who doesn't want that?
        COSBY:  You bet.
        And, Michael, I'm going to give you just a few seconds.  What are you most proud of?  I mean, your pictures just really show the heart and soul there.
        YON:  I'd actually like to say something about Bruce Willis.  He's one of the men who has had the courageous to stand behind the troops.  And the troops absolutely respect and love Bruce Willis.
        He came out to the Deuce Four redeployment ball in Seattle.  And I wonder if he realizes just how much they appreciated that.  And it's just so good to see a man of his stature throwing his entire weight behind our people who are in harm's way.
        COSBY:  It's terrific.
        WILLIS:  Thank you so much, Michael.
        COSBY:  And hats off to both of you guys, not just Bruce.  And, Bruce, thank you so much for being with us.
        And, Michael, keep up the great work you're doing.  Those pictures are amazing.  And please come back, both of you, anytime.  Thank you.
        WILLIS:  Thanks very much.  Keep it up, Mike.
        YON:  Thanks, Bruce.
        WILLIS:  OK, buddy.
        COSBY:  Thank you guys very much.
        YON:  Bye, Rita.
        COSBY:  Thank you.

Now For The Important Stuff

A review of the new Pride and Prejudice film.  I want to say that I have a passion for baseball, duck hunting, and...Jane Austen. 

Bush Hits Back at Daschle et al

Former Senator Tom Daschle, while considering a presidential run in 2008, has been saying that he and other Democrats were "misled" during the debate over the Iraq war.  The AP reports that Bush hit back today in his Veterans Day speech:

President Bush forcefully attacked critics of the war in Iraq on Friday, accusing them of trying to rewrite history and saying they are undercutting American forces on the front lines.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

Defending the march to war, Bush said that foreign intelligence services and Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced at the time that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.

He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.

He said they also know that the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.

Other SDP writers have noted this new piece in Commentary, which debunks the Democrats' "we were misled" position by reviewing all the past Democratic statements about the danger of Iraq:

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

On This Veteran's Day

November 11 was originally set as Armistice Day, the end of World War I, which officially took place on November 11, 1918.  In 1938, legislature was passed that dictated November 11 "dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as 'Armistice Day.'" 

"Remembering the elevens" would remain the custom until 1954.  After having served in World War II and the Korean War, the 83d Congress amended the 1938 Act by replacing "Armistice" with "Veterans."  The legislation was approved on the 1st of June 1954, and November 11 became a day to honor veterans of all wars.

In 1968, the Uniforms Holiday Bill guaranteed three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays:  George Washington's birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day (Native American Day).  Under this bill, Veterans Day was shifted to the last Monday of October (though many states still continued to celebrate on its original date).  The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed on October 25, 1971. 

President Gerald R. Ford changed this.  On September 30, 1975, he signed a law that returned the observance to November 11, beginning in 1978.

Today we take the time to honor and remember all of our veterans, past and present.  We're proud of your courage, proud of your sacrifice, and may God bless you. 

OTHERS PAYING TRIBUTE
Stars and Stripes:  A day for those who served and those who serve
NRO:  Generations of Valor: Fathers and sons at war
Ralph Bennett:  I Am Privileged to Know Them
Read the latest from Michael Yon

RELATED
The movie Jarhead isn't getting rave reviews.  In fact, it appears to be as poor as the book was.
Oliver North:  Rotten to the Corps
Rocky Mountain News:  'Jarhead' a viciously dishonest lie

McCain Amendment

Power Line:  On the McCain Amendment

Happy Veterans' Day

And it used to be called Armistice Day to mark the end of WWI.  So happy that day, too.  I am going celebrate by going duck hunting.  May I be more successful than the Australians at Gallipoli.  One nice thing about ducks, they usually don't shoot back. 

SD & Katrina

Here's something to be proud of:

South Dakota schools raised $24,061.45 through the Department of Education’s Kids for Katrina Relief fund-raising initiative. The money will go to Louisiana schools most impacted by the storm.

I think I speak for everybody here at SDP when I say congrats and I'm proud of these students for that achievement.

Cheney & His Annual Hunting Trip

Aberdeen American News:

PIERRE, S.D. - Vice President Dick Cheney left South Dakota on Thursday after visiting for his annual pheasant hunting trip.

Cheney arrived at the Pierre airport in a 12-vehicle procession. He waved to a small crowd as he entered the plane and left the airport about 12:45 p.m.

This marked the fifth year Cheney has gone pheasant hunting in South Dakota as vice president.

He arrived Monday and stayed at a private hunting lodge near Gettysburg.

Brookhiser on the French Unpleasantness

Loyal readers may wonder why I and my SDP colleague Mr. Heppler are paying so much attention to the French riots.  Speaking in my own case, when the Republican White House is at 36% in the polls, the woes of France are a lot more fun to talk about than domestic politics.  Its a very important story, at any rate.  Richard Brookhiser has a delicious essay in the New York Observer.

Americans should not take unseemly unsatisfaction from the spectacle of France’s riots. Oh, why not? Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, the French leadership shines and stinks. Dominique de Villepin, with his pompadour and his potted biography of Napoleon; Jacques Chirac, protected only by the presidency from the slammer — these jewels in the crown of Gallic civilization thought they could earn the affection of their Muslim helots by truckling to Saddam Hussein: you’ll love us, even though you chop wood and haul water, because we take oil for food bribes.

 

But now, after more than a week of arson and uproar, it turns out that France’s Arabs don’t like France any more than we do. Now maybe Froggy knows what we feel like: we liberated them, and were rewarded by 60 years of ingratitude. They kissed Saddamite ass, and are being rewarded by son et lumiere.

But Brookhiser notes something that has been only lightly reflected on by the American Press. 

Americans also have to get used to the relative calm of these riots, at least in the early stages. When the lid blows off here — and it is greatly to our shame that this should be so — people die. Fifty-five people were killed after the Rodney King verdict. Yet for 10 days what we saw from France was burning stores, cars and buses. A crippled woman almost died in a firebombed bus, but she was carried out by the heroic driver. One person died on Monday. This is mild, not only by our norms, but by the standards of French history. How many thousands died in the Algerian rebellion, or the Paris Commune, or the June days? One must conclude (talk about squinting for silver linings) that both sides are pulling their punches.

 

It is easy to see why the cops should be pulling their punches. The establishment simply doesn’t know what to do. In the early going Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy talked about “zero tolerance” for “scum.” But the French government seems to have reflected that a policy of zero tolerance may require the use of maximum force. If you’re serious about zero, then you have to be willing to do anything. And how are you going to do that when the actions you refuse to tolerate are being committed by members of an ethnic minority that is edging towards one-tenth of the population, and a quarter of the country’s young people?

And that is the real terror in the heart of France.  It is that nothing can be done.  The rioters will one day be the French, at least as defined by the people who live in France.  Still, if one has to have riots, better that cars should burn instead of people. 

Lying About Iraq, Revisited

Real Clear Politics blogger Tom Bevan comments on Kevin Drum's response to Norman Podhoretz's "Who is lying about Iraq."

France's Last Chance?

The Washington Post (as well as the rest of the MSM) views the French riots as devoid of any religious or political content.  Tony Blankley, author of The West's Last Chance, provides more precise commentary about the riots.  He says:

This is not about Muslim poverty (the Islamist terrorists who hit London all had good jobs. Mohammed Atta, who struck us in New York, was well-born and came from a prosperous family.) It is about radical Islamist self-confidence and contempt for the West. And, it is about Western weakness.

According to Power Line, Blankley basically predicted this in his book.  Check out the whole article.

RELATED
For more critique on the WaPo editorial, read John Hinderacker's comments.
CQ:  French Riots Come After Multiple Warnings Of Islamist Attacks
The European Dream Keeps Getting Better
MM:  The French Solution:  Pay Off the Rioters

France

The Captain has a great post on the French riots that I recommend reading.  Notable:

Does anyone remember the outcry that occurred when George Bush didn't get on TV in the 24 hours after Hurricane Katrina and make a personal expression of sorrow? That outcry resulted from a natural disaster, not a threat to the authority of the government. Chirac has yet to make any significant speech to his country as head of state in the face of a direct challenge to French sovereignty. It's as if the entire French command structure has forgotten why it exists. Instead of standing for French law and order and defense of French interests -- the natural role of the executive in any form of government -- Chirac has gone into hiding and his staff has prepared a slate of bribes.

Save Our Reefs!

Now THIS is ironic:

Environmental group Greenpeace has been fined almost $7,000 (£4,000) for damaging a coral reef at a World Heritage site in the Philippines.

Though, it couldn't have been their fault.  Instead, Greenpeace blames someone else:

Greenpeace agreed to pay the fine, but blamed the accident on outdated maps provided by the Philippines government.

Al Qaeda Approval Rating Lower than Bush's!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi seems to have a real knack for public relations.  Here are pictures of a anti-Zarqawi protest in Jordan. 

Here is a wedding picture from the ceremony that the suicide bomber disrupted.

The Bride and Groom each lost a Father. 

POTUS '08 Watch

In addition to Daschle, Joe Biden appears to be running for president.  Excerpt from the Washington Post:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) seems to have made up his mind to enter the 2008 presidential race, based on reading between the lines of a letter he sent to a potential donor last month and obtained by The Fix from the camp of a potential presidential rival.

"I'm running," Biden writes. "You know better than most fundraising is a never-ending story."

A Biden spokesman chose not to comment on the letter. While Biden does not specify the race to which he is referring, it seems improbable that the appeal is aimed at raising money for a reelection race. Biden is up for a 7th term in the Senate in 2008 and has not faced a serious challenge in decades.

San Francisco

Measure H, recently passed in California, has to be a violation of the second amendment.  I understand SF is one of the most liberal cities in the United States, but this is getting out of hand.

Also, remember the 8-3 resolution back in July that rejected moving the USS Iowa to SF as a floating museum?

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has an update on the NRA's lawsuit against Proposition H.

Happy Birthday, USMC!

Today marks the 230th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps.  On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress created two battalions from the Continental Marines, thus forming the U.S. Marine Corps.

"The brave have always defined what the rest of us wish to be. But bravery is misunderstood. It’s not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it."
- U.S. Marines Corps

Semper fi.

Michelle Malkin notes others that are paying tribue.

Churchill

The latest update on the Ward Churchill investigation:

A University of Nebraska professor has resigned from the committee investigating research misconduct allegations against University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill after questions were raised about his objectivity.

"Basically, I believe that the committee will not be able to concentrate on its necessary business as long as attacks on me are providing a distraction," professor Bruce Johansen wrote in an e-mail Wednesday to the Rocky Mountain News.

Johansen, who teaches Native American studies in Omaha, was one of five people appointed to the panel looking into Churchill's academic record. His objectivity came under fire from Jim Paine, a Colorado resident who hosts a Web site called PirateBallerina.com.

Bruce Johansen has an editorial in the Rocky Mountian News defending himself.   

Defending the Indefensible?

I want to say a word on behalf of oil companies, who are under attack it seems.  It seems odd for us to worry about the status of our economy and then be upset that a major economic sector is "too profitable."  I want to state quite clearly that I believe in wise corporate citizenship and that profit is not the only reason for companies to do business.  There is such thing as economic justice apart from profit, although it is amazing how closely tied these concepts are to each other. 

Let's say some members of Congress get their wish and punitive laws are passed, taxing away some of the oil industry's profits.  But who is the "oil industry"?  Is it just a couple of rich Texas fat cats sitting in some high rise in Houston?  What about all the Average Joe workers who are employed by oil companies?  Do you want to threaten their jobs by assaulting the oil industry?  What about retirees?  I suspect many of us have pension funds that are invested in the oil industry.  We may have an interest in oil industry profitability and not even know it.   And surely some Average Joe oil industry retirees have been compensated with company stock. Don't the oil companies have a responsibility to share holders to make a profit and increase the value of the stock?  By taking away oil company profits you are by definition taking money away from current and future retirees of all sorts all over the country.  Anyone with a 401K might find his account going in the toilet because oil industry stock is being forced down by government attacks on oil profits. 

And what about high prices in times of crisis?  Price increase is a way to moderate demand in times of supply shortage, as happened in the wake of Katrina.  A quick story.  On the Gulf Coast of Texas some cities became upset because every time a hurricane threatened the plywood sellers would jack their prices.  "Price gouging!" people cried.  In response, some cities tried to control prices.  So when the next hurricane threatened the government artificially held down the price of plywood. The result?  A run on plywood and a massive shortage.  Because price was artificially low, people bought more plywood than they really needed.  That's how price controls supply and demand.  In the wake of Katrina, if price had been artificially lowered by the government you can bet that significant areas of the country would have simply run out of gas. 

As I say, I have sympathy with those who demand good citizenship on the part of corporations, and the mindless drive for profit is not just.  But I suspect most people going after the oil companies are doing so out of a wrong headed self-righteousness, not out of a clearly thought out plan for what is best for the average American.   The important thing is to do right by the country as a whole, not simply make ourselves feel better by bashing easy targets like oil executives. 

California Votes NO! And its probably a good thing.

I hate to see ARNODE embarrassed like this, and hate even more to see the teacher's unions crowing.  But if California is the most dysfunctional state in the Union, and it probably is, its largely because of the initiative process.  Schwarzenegger's attempt to do an end run around the legislature probably looked daring and heroic, but it really isn't the kind of thing that encourages good government.  And much as I would like to see a more reasonable system for drawing legislative districts, giving the process to an independent panel involves perils of its own.  If the people of California one day get tired of a state government that doesn't work, they can change it by voting Republican.  No gerrymander, however effective, can restrain popular will when it is really aroused.  Oddly enough, the rejection of all eight initiatives on the ballot was probably the most sensible thing the electorate could have done.

Origami DVD

Is this thing awesome, or what?

The Origami DVD Player is a portable DVD player concept that could be manufactured with a new e-paper (a full-color flexible display technology) being developed by Mag-Ink in Israel. As a product, it would target the business traveler who wants a convenient way to watch DVD movies. For this user, portability is a key requirement, but they are not interested in sacrificing their viewing experience and are willing to invest extra money for a higher quality product.

Privacy Rights

Here is the always thoughtful Joe Knippenberg on the interesting Ninth Circuit case of  Fields et al. v. Palmdale School District et al.  Perhaps you heard about this case.  This school district had first, third and fifth graders take a survey for a research team.  The survey asked the students how much they thought about the following:

a. "Touching my private parts too much."
b. "Thinking about having sex"
c. "Thinking about touching other people's private parts."
d. "Thinking about sex when I don't want to."
e. "Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside."
f. "Not trusting people because they might want sex."
g. "Getting scared or upset when I think about sex."
h. "Having sex feelings in my body."
i. "Can't stop thinking about sex."
j. "Getting upset when people talk about sex."

Mind you, seven year olds were asked these questions.  Some parents sued arguing that their privacy rights were being violated.  Parents, they argued, should have the right to decide what their kids hear about sex in school. 

See Joe's article for more of the facts, but I think Joe has it just right.  While I think the parents are right to be angry (apparently key information was willfully withheld from permission slips parents signed), I do think that the parents take an overbroad view of the Constitution's guarantee of privacy.  The crime of this decision, if you will, is that the very liberal Ninth Circuit thinks that a so-called privacy right exists so 14 year-old girls can get abortions without their parents knowing, but no privacy right exists so parents can keep sexually explicit questionnaires from their children.  This is one of the problems with "rights talk"; it undermines legitimate authority (say, that of parents) along with less legitimate or even illegitimate authority. 

There is no doubt that there are kinds of privacy rights in the Constitution.  The uncontroversial 3rd Amendment against quartering soldiers suggests that one's home is sacrosanct.  The 4th Amendment says the same about one's home and also one's person when it comes to searches by the authorities.  The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination can be seen as a kind of privacy right.  But one will search in vain for the Constitutional language that provides for a generalizable right to privacy.  That is why Justice Douglas had to look in the "emanations" from the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, which in laymen's terms means the fringes of the fringes, to find such a right.  Surely we 21st Century Americans demand more privacy than Americans in years past, but that does not mean that our heartfelt desires automatically rise to the level of Constitutional right.  Perhaps if one believes in a broad right to privacy, one should try convincing a majority of one's fellow citizens instead of inventing new Constitutional rights. 

Rathergate

TigerHawk:  Fisking Mary Mapes: Resisting the revision of Ra^therGate

Patriot Act, Again

I want to print in total a letter this website received from Gary Gregory, who blogs at Civil Liberties Watch.  I will respond after this letter:

Widespread Apathy: The Greatest Danger We Face Today

The greatest danger to American Democracy today is apathy and I'm talking about widespread apathy.  Apathy defined in the World Book dictionary is "a lack of interest in an activity or indifference."  I see too many Americans not taking an interest in studying the laws our government makes (Patriot Act,etc.), examining how these laws relate to our Constitution, and actively petitioning the Congress to repeal those laws that violate the Constitution.  The existence of our democracy and civil liberties will come down to how much of a vested interest the majority of the populace will take in these matters.  If we do not want the government to curb any more of our civil liberties then we as a nation have to speak up day in and day out.  I challenge my fellow Americans to examine the Patriot Act and other Homeland Security measures.  It is surprising how much one can learn about them by just taking a few minutes out of each day to surf the Internet.  You can download the Patriot Act and read it for yourself.  Many in Congress did not even take the time to read the Patriot Act, first passed after the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.  This ought to have alarmed most Americans.  Unfortunately, it did not.  We have often heard that Freedom and Democracy come with a price and it is true.  Many of our first patriots had to sacrifice their lives and reputations to secure the democracy we live in today.  Many of the Founding Fathers risked imprisonment or a public hanging from the British for dissenting against the Crown.  Even writing those cherished words in the Declaration of Independence came with a high risk to the lives of its authors.  The point is that all Americans are responsible for maintaining their liberties.  If we are not willing or do not care to stand up for our liberties spelled out in the Constitution then we will eventually lose all of them.  With the passage of the Patriot Act and the resulting enforcement of its provisions, we have begun to see that our government is not always interested in upholding the Constitution or protecting our civil liberties.  This should be a wake up call to all Americans that protecting democracy begins with the individual.

Mr. Gregory's passion is matched only by his lack of grasp on the facts.  I have blogged on the soundness of the Patriot Act here and here.  One can also read short editorials by the Manhattan Institute's Heather MacDonald here and here.  I repeat what I have said before: there is virtually nothing innovative in the Patriot Act.  Everything in that act is subject to judicial review.  Most every power in the Patriot Act was already possessed by the government in its powers to fight organized crime.  The Patriot Act extends those powers to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. 

Mr. Gregory's error is fundamental.  In Federalist #23 and Federalist #44, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, argue that where the ends of government are legitimate the appropriate means are assumed.  Here is Madison in #44: "No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included."  There is no doubt that protection against foreign terrorism is a legitimate end of the federal government.  The Patriot Act is a useful tool to that end while respecting our dedication to judicial review in criminal investigations.  Mr. Gregory should start to ponder whether not being blown up by terrorists is also a civil liberty worth protecting.  Mr. Gregory also sent the above email to a reporter at the Rapid City Journal and to two members of Congress: Stephanie Herseth and Ron Paul (R-TX).  I know Rep. Paul shares Mr. Gregory's false view of the Constitution, but I hope Rep. Herseth puts the protection of American citizens above a dangerous and false interpretation of the Constitution. 

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

That's the title of Norman Podhoretz's piece in Commentary.  It isn't so much that he offers new evidence, but simply lays out the facts.  He concludes:    

And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

As John Hinderacker noted, "[t]hat is, of course, what the Democrats' effort to rewrite history is all about."

Michael Barone on the 2005 Election

If the Republicans had won either New Jersey or Virginia, I'd be arguing that this was striking victory for the party, surely indicating success in 2006.  Since they didn't, I'll go with Barone:

Democrats, after their victories in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, are arguing that these results, together with the national polls, show a repudiation of the Bush administration. Republicans are arguing that these were just local contests, with no national implications. They're both right and both wrong.

What strikes me most about the two state elections is how similar the results were to those in 2001 in the same contests. Virginia 2001: Warner (D) 52 to 47 percent. Virginia 2005: Kaine (D) 52 to 46 percent. New Jersey 2001: McGreevey (D) 56 to 42 percent. New Jersey 2005: Corzine (D) 53 to 44 percent. Republicans appear to have won, narrowly, the other two statewide offices up in Virginia this time; they won one and lost one four years ago. Republicans went into the 2005 election with 60 of the 100 seats in the House of Delegates; they emerged with 59 votes.

And Taranto:

It's normal for the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races to be subject   to overinterpretation by political junkies, who go through withdrawal every   odd-numbered year and are desperate for a fix. But in truth, they have not been   reliable bellwethers, as evidenced by the preceding four:

 

• 1989. Democrats won open seats in both races. In 1990 Democrats made     modest gains: one Senate and eight House seats.
     
   
 
• 1993. Republicans won both races, with incumbent Jim Florio going     down to defeat in New Jersey. (Virginia governor's races are always open,     as the governor is limited to a single term.) In 1994 Republicans won a victory     that actually was stunning, taking control of the Senate for the first time     in eight years and the House for the first time in two generations.
     
   
 
• 1997. New Jersey re-elected Republican Christine Whitman, and Virginia     also elected a Republican. In 1998 the Democrats gained a handful of House     seats, while the Senate was a wash.
     
   
 
• 2001. Democrats reclaimed both governorships, at a time when President     Bush's approval ratings were in the stratosphere. In 2002 Republicans made     modest gains, which were sufficient to retake the Senate from Jim Jeffords.

Only in 1993 were the New Jersey and Virginia races a precursor of major change.   In 1997 and 2001 the parties that lost the two governorships went on   to make gains in the following year's midterm elections. The only pattern we   can see here is that in every election for the past 20 years, the president's   party has lost both the New Jersey and Virginia governorships.

Kaine Elected Governor

In a not so surprising result, the Democrats keep the Virginia State House.  This will be generally interpreted as a sign of Bush's weakness.  And fairly so.

Interestingly enough, redistricting reform measures in Ohio and California were defeated.  This probably helps Republicans, as they now benefit from gerymandering districts as much or more than Democrats. 

SD '06

There are lots of updates to the SD '06 Wiki, so stop by and check it out! 

mon peugeot est sur le feu*

Signs of progress!  The crowds of immigrants in French cities only burned 1200 cars last night.  Almost back to normal.   Some comments on the European social model from Joel Kotkin, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

State-directed capitalism may seem ideal for American admirers such as Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The European Dream," and others on the left. Yet it is precisely this highly structured and increasingly infracted economic system that has so limited opportunities for immigrants and their children. In a country where short workweeks and early retirement are sacred, there is little emphasis on creating new jobs and even less on grass-roots entrepreneurial activity.

Since the '70s, America has created 57 million new jobs, compared with just four million in Europe (with most of those jobs in government). In France and much of Western Europe, the economic system is weighted toward the already employed (the overwhelming majority native-born whites) and the growing mass of retirees. Those ensconced in state and corporate employment enjoy short weeks, early and well-funded retirement and first dibs on the public purse. So although the retirement of large numbers of workers should be opening up new job opportunities, unemployment among the young has been rising: In France, joblessness among workers in their 20s exceeds 20%, twice the overall national rate. In immigrant banlieues, where the population is much younger, average unemployment reaches 40%, and higher among the young.

*my Peugeot is on fire!

 

Daschle Watch

From the 11/8/05 edition of The Hotline:

DASCHLE: Leaving The Door Open

     Ex-Senate Min. Leader Tom Daschle continued his TV tour:

On being in IA: "I don't know what the future holds, but this isn't part of it. This isn't by some design built to create the foundation for something later. If it happens it will happen."

Asked if Pres. Bush lied to him on Iraq: "I think that there are mistruths. ... Lie is always a strong word, but I think we were misled, there's no doubt. And the question is, were we misled intentionally or were we misled erroneously by just bad intelligence? I think it may be a combination. We don't know, but that's what the fight on the Senate floor this week is all about."

What is a "mistruth"?   More:

On his political future: "I don't know that either. All I know is that I enjoy supporting my party, speaking out, working on issues, and being part of this ongoing process to present our party to the country. And I'll keep doing it."
     FNC's Colmes: "It's not out of the question that you would once again perhaps appear in a race somewhere down the road?"
     Daschle: "No. It's not."
     Colmes: "The door is open?"
     Daschle: "The door is open."
     Colmes: "And Iowa is a nice place to think about these things?"
     Daschle: "Well, without being cute about it, you know, I'm here because I've been invited by good friends but -- you know, and I love Iowa, but it's not my design to come to Iowa to run for president" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 11/7).

On WH Dep. Cos Karl Rove: "I think he ought to resign. I think anybody who has been called upon to be in a position of responsibility as he is owes it to the American people to be more forthcoming than he's been. And I don't think he deserves to be there."

On why Dems shutdown the Senate: "First of all, to get the facts. We'd been trying to get the facts for two years. ... We wanted to do was draw attention to this issue. And force Republicans to do something they said they would do for two years. Every time I would asked Bill Frist, he would say we are going to do this. We're going to find a way to call the session and have this debate. They never did. Finally, I think Harry Reid and the Democrats lost patience. And good for them, the time had come for them to take this action, and it got the results that we wanted."

On Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist campaigning against him: "I thought it was wrong. ... There ought to be a time when you govern and time you do politics. I mean, once that election is over with, it ought to be coming together and working on the hill in a bipartisan way as much as you can. There are going to be differences, deep philosophical differences. But there ought to be a time when you work together. And this is counter to all of it" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 11/7).

UPDATE:  She doesn't get it.

 

France

The Captain is noting that the French had early indications of a coordinated action against France.  Excerpt:

The riots in France have little connection to the Islamist terrorist offensive against the West, if the American media coverage gives any indication. However, alert CQ reader Mr. Michael points out that both American and French media sources warned of coordinated Islamist action against France in the weeks before the riot. Agence France Presse even had a quote from the maligned Nicolas Sarkozy noting the imminent nature of the threat in its 9/27 dispatch:

An Algerian Islamist organisation, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), has issued a call for action against France which it describes as "enemy number one", intelligence officials said Tuesday.

"The only way to teach France to behave is jihad and the Islamic martyr," the group's leader Abu Mossab Abdelwadoud, also own as Abdelmalek Dourkdal, was quoted as saying in an Internet message earlier this month.

"France is our enemy number one, the enemy of our religion, the enemy of our community," he was quoted as saying. ... Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that the risk of terrorist attack in France is "at a very high level... There are cells operating on our territory."

Iraq

SD Straight Talk:  Short Term Memory

Moore Hypocrisy

Did you know that Michael Moore owns a couple thousand shares of Halliburton stock?  This little bit of tidbit and irony comes from Peter Schweizer's latest book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do):  Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.  I don't have this book yet, but its on my list.

Check out this great interview conducted by NRO with Peter Schweizer. 

Speaking of books, this one seems awfully timely.

Daschle & Kerry

Washington Post:

Iraq: A Litmus Test for Democrats in 2008?

In the last ten days, two Democrats contemplating the 2008 presidential race -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle -- have called for a specific timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

In a speech Wednesday at Northwestern University, Daschle proposed a phased withdrawal of 80,000 of the roughly 150,000 American troops in Iraq beginning in January, a month after Iraq's December elections. Under Daschle's plan, all National Guard and Reserve units deployed to Iraq would be included in this withdrawal, which would be complete by the end of next year. The remaining 70,000 troops would be removed from the country by December 2007.

Kerry, in an address at Georgetown University on Oct. 26, proposed the removal of 20,000 U.S forces immediately following the December elections, with the "bulk" of American military forces out of the country by the end of 2006.

Both men follow in the footsteps of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (D), who proposed a similar timetable earlier this year and was the only one of the Democratic senators considering the 2008 presidential race not to have supported the 2002 use-of-force resolution that essentially authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

With public sentiment toward the war continuing to falter, we may see more potential Democratic presidential candidates coming out with their own proposals to get the United States out of Iraq.  Proposing a specific plan for exiting Iraq may be the best way for potential candidates, many of whom supported the war initially, to show the Democratic base that they would not have made that decision if they knew then what they know now.

KELOLAND has more on Daschle.

Biden

New Hampshire Union Leader:

Biden on Democrats
Too many elitists? No kidding

SEN. JOE BIDEN, D-Del., made some interesting comments during his Manchester stop Tuesday night. He said too many Democrats were elitist and even unpatriotic, and he blamed them for helping Republicans paint the entire party as out of touch with America.

Biden noted that some Democrats had even questioned why he wore an American flag pin on his lapel.

The senator has been refreshingly honest about his run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Further honest comments like those he made Tuesday night might hurt his chances within a party lurching increasingly to the left. But the Democrats need to hear them.

The anti-American left has seriously damaged the party, and unless more high-profile Democrats take them on, theirs will continue to be the minority party in America.

More Fraud (and Lack of Fact-Checking)

Note this:

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey’s claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey’s book, “Kill, Kill, Kill,” was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he’s spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey’s claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn’t.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey’s own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

I'm not sure what's more disgusting, the fact that he made all this up or that the media just took it all at face value.  Disgusting.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has more.

Daschle Mentioned

The Philadelphia Inquirer (reg. required):

Many Democrats believe it's good politics these days to say that they were lied to. This message, actually a rite of confession, is designed to help their erstwhile pro-war politicians get back in sync with the party's liberal antiwar base. That's especially important for some of the original pro-war Democrats who want to run for president in 2008. After all, liberal voters tend to dominate the Democratic primaries, and they're expecting to hear apologies.

Hence, Sen. John Kerry (who wants to try again) said in a speech on Oct. 26: "The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth... knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq." Hence, Tom Daschle (the deposed Senate Democratic leader, who is weighing a campaign) said in a speech Wednesday that senators voted incorrectly because "on so many fronts, we were misled."

Daschle '08

It's getting more serious.  I introduce to you our latest blog:  Tom Daschle President 2008

Buffalo

Star Tribune:

LEOLA, S.D. -- With her almost comically friendly Rottweiler, Elie, ranging on her flank, Mary Miller angles her farm truck up a gently sloping hillside on the Nature Conservancy's 7,800-acre Ordway Prairie, sailing through grass turned a wavy, glistening gold by fall and morning fog.

She crests the hill, and there they are on the slopes below and beyond: buffalo.

The great bearded beasts seem motionless, as if toys set in the gauzy bluestem and faded goldenrod of South Dakota's prairie pothole region. But they drift as they graze, 250 shaggy hay bales moving in the mist. A calf bounds ahead as massive heads swing to register the intruders on the hilltop, and low grunts ripple through the herd. Elie whimpers and scampers into the truck's cab.

Hotline on Daschle's Prez Ambitions

From today's edition of The Hotline:

DASCHLE: Putting "The D" In Des Moines

      The Dems must "be proactive in offering new ideas" if they hope to capitalize on the "incompetence" of the GOP, said ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) at the 11/5 J-J Dinner in Des Moines. Daschle accused the Bush admin. of having "Katrina-ized the federal government" and he said that "the presidency of George W. Bush is effectively over."
      Speaking to more than 1K IA Dems, Daschle said he is "much more interested" in helping the party "like I'm doing tonight" than in joining the '08 WH field. Daschle said that while "I have no plans and don't expect to have any plans to run for president," he said, "we'll see what the future holds." SD consultant Nathan Peters said of Daschle: "There are a number of South Dakotans who would like to see (him run). I think he's still a very strong leader in the Democratic Party."
      Discussing the state of the GOP with all of its "infighting that we're seeing now," Daschle said that it is moving from "one failure to the next" on issues such as Social Security, the federal budge and the Iraq War. However, IA GOP exec. dir. Cullen Sheehan dismissed Daschle's criticism and argued that the ex-Sen.'s '04 defeat "underscores that Iowa Democrats are out of fresh ideas" and they "continue to recycle the failed policies of the past" (Dorman, Mason City Globe Gazette, 11/7).
      Looking forward, Daschle said that "it's not a given" that '06 and '08 "will be good Democratic years." However, he posited that "given the direction and the environment, the backdrop is far more conducive to Democratic victories than we've had in a long time" and that "does give us a leg as we start looking at these elections more seriously." He noted that the energy issue "is just one example where government can specifically give this debate about the future of the country some meaningful direction" (Glover, AP, 11/5).
      Daschle said that he "didn't expect" that the Bush admin "would be mired in as many difficulties as they are now experiencing." Negative perceptions of the Iraq War, the Libby indictment and the increasing budget deficit "have created a vastly different environment from what we saw just a year ago," Daschle said in an interview. He believes that Dems must have propose ideas that "go to the soul of our country." For example, he wants the Dems to "talk again about social justice." Daschle mentioned Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) as one of the Dems' new national faces and "credited" him as the new DLC Chair "with helping the party gather ideas" (Beaumont, Des Moines Register, 11/6).



Look Sioux's Talking
      Sioux Falls Argus Leader's Kranz writes that the "centerpiece" of Daschle's message was the difference between Dems and GOPers. Daschle, on GOPers: "They'll try to keep rewarding the haves and shortchanging the have-nots. They keep trying to sell the idea that greed is good, that what America really needs most is just one more tax cut for billionaires." Daschle asked the J-J Dinner crowd, "Is a selfish America America at its best?" Kranz charges that the "potency" of Daschle's remarks "fell short," however, of his call earlier in the week at Northwestern "for beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq" (11/6).
      Daschle, on why he would travel to IA: "It's next to South Dakota."



Daschle In Real Time
      Daschle, on why Dems allowed the Senate Intelligence Cmte to use the Phase 2 plan in the first place: "Well, they fought it all the way. ... We had a lot of votes, we lost the votes. We tried to get it done back then, but when you don't have the majority, it's hard to do those kind of things. But ... we kept persisting, we kept coming back, we kept demanding, and ultimately, by doing what we did this week, we finally got them to go to that last step and get this job done."
      Daschle, asked why Senate Dems don't go after VP Cheney: "We've got to take this investigation wherever it goes, and Democrats have demanded exactly that all the way through. You can either politicize or you can protect the intelligence process, and we've seen too much politicization, and I think we've got to take this investigation wherever it leads" ("Real Time," HBO, 11/5).

European Dream Keeps Getting Better

Rioting has spread across France and claimed its first fatality over the weekend.  You can add that to the scores of policemen and firefighters injured so far.  Apparently several have been shot.  The New York Daily News has this by Richard Chesnoff:

Fact is, this mini-civil war is a long-festering sore that's finally turning gangrenous: the anger of France's increasingly large minority of Muslim immigrants and their children, inflamed and frustrated by what they see as exclusion from the mainstream.

The problem originated in the 1950s and 1960s, when France began importing cheap labor from its former colonies in North Africa. Les Arabes were to do the dirty work and eventually go home. Few did, and today North African immigrants and their families number almost 6 million, more than 10% of the French population.

In a nation that insists immigrants accept the monolithic secular French culture, a great divide has grown. Part of it is the insular nature of Islamic North African culture. But much of it is that "French" France still rejects its North African countrymen.

They don't get good jobs or decent financial opportunities. Their unemployment rate is often as high as 50%. There isn't a single Frenchman or Frenchwoman of North African origin (or black, for that matter) in the cabinet, and only a handful hold any position of rank in the civil and commercial bureaucracy. There are virtually no black or Arab anchors on French TV, or North African cultural presence in the theater or cinema.

While you are watching the scenes of Paris burning you might check out The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, by Jeremy Rifkin.  I haven't read it and neither have you, but its  apparently one of several recent works that praise  Europe as altogether superior and more civilized than the U.S.  Maybe  Chirac should  send a copy to all the rioting youth.

Post on Alito and Planned Parenthood v. Casey

I received this comment from former student Jeremy Lund.  It concerns an earlier post referring to Charles' Krauthammer's comment on Sam Alito's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  Jeremy takes issue with one of Krauthammer's comments. 

Prof Blanchard:

I do not disagree with you assessment of Alito,  However, there is one potentially misleading comment from your  post of 11/3. You cite:

“Supreme Court precedents on abortion had held that ``two-parent consent requirements'' for a juvenile with ``a judicial bypass option'' do not constitute an ``undue burden'' and thus were constitutional. “

 

While “undue burden”  has been language used in abortion cases for years I.E. Akron, the undue burden standard was not adopted by the court until Casey.  To be truly accurate, the undue burden standard was not “precedent” but rather a suggested paradigm shift via dissent/ concurring opinions. 

Jeremy Lund

(former student)

I haven't had time to check this out, though Jeremy thoughtfully sent me a copy of the opinion.  But if memory serves, this is correct.  Only recently has the Court been willing to allow significant restrictions on abortions, and so has had to distinguish burdens that are "undue" from those that are not.  I think that Krauthammer's general point still stands, but I will have to look at the case.

 

Daschle's Northwestern Speech

Denise Ross at Rapid City Journal/Mt. Blogmore has posted on Daschle's big Iraq pullout speech from last week.  She provides a link to the speech.  Ross also says:

Tom Daschle had a big week. He gave a major foreign policy speech on Wednesday (see the post below); he gave the keynote address to Iowa Democrats at their annual statewide meeting Saturday (see the other post below) and he was on a natoinally televised political talk show — the first one for him in awhile.

Kranz on Daschle

Dave Kranz:

It isn’t so much what former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle said. It’s where he said it.

The potency of the comments delivered Saturday to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner fell short of his call earlier in the week at Northwestern University for beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq.

But this time he was standing on the holy ground of the 2008 presidential test, where Daschle’s mere presence accelerated speculation about his political ambitions. He continues to brush aside such possibilities but always adds a “never say never.”

Nevertheless, even though the Des Moines speech was less dramatic than the one a few days earlier, it didn’t sound like he was summing up his career in public service.

Adding to the case that he has something else in mind other than funding his political action committee was a national television appearance on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” HBO show.

There were a lot of salutes and thank yous to the right people from Daschle in Des Moines and then something for everybody, like a good candidate should say.

Differences between Republicans and Democrats were the centerpiece of his message.

“While we take the offense and lead, the Republicans will be sticking with the same banalities, platitudes and false promises they have been concocting since 1980. They’ll try to keep rewarding the haves and shortchanging the have-nots. They keep trying to sell the idea that greed is good, that what America really needs most is just one more tax cut for billionaires, that our highest aspiration ought not [be] to help a neighbor, but to go shopping,” he said.

“Is a selfish America America at its best?” he asked the crowd.