Senator Wayne Allard responds in the Rocky Mountain News to those who assert Bush lied about Iraq.
« November 20, 2005 - November 26, 2005 | Main | December 4, 2005 - December 10, 2005 »
Senator Wayne Allard responds in the Rocky Mountain News to those who assert Bush lied about Iraq.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 09:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Great news in the Global War on Terror:
Al-Qaeda's third-ranking leader has been killed by a missile fired by an American drone in Pakistan, near the Afghan border, NBC television news reported yesterday.
Egyptian-born Abu Hamza Rabia, who is said to head al-Qaeda's international operations, was among five people killed in a blast at a house where they were hiding in North Waziristan on Thursday. President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan confirmed Rabia's death yesterday.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 09:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Gerard Baker's column at Times Online:
[T]he “Bush lied to us” whine is much worse when it comes from the mouths of those who insisted only three years ago, in voting for the war, that they were taking a heroic stand in defence of national security. Half the Democratic members of the Senate — oddly enough, including all those with serious presidential aspirations — John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden — voted for the war in 2002. The awful truth about many of these people is that their cynicism in distancing themselves from their support for the war is only matched by their cynicism in originally supporting it.
...
These were the ambitious Democrats who thought they had learnt the lessons of 1991. Then you may recall, the vast majority of the party’s senators voted against the first Iraq war. . . . So, confronted with a similar choice in October 2002, they did not want to be on the losing side again. If it was another cakewalk, and they had voted against it, the damage to their credibility as presidential candidates would be irreparable.
...
But it wasn’t a cakewalk. And now they’re trapped. So they resort to the defence of the coward throughout history: “He made me do it.” Most Americans have better memories.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 08:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Posted by Jason Heppler on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 08:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Despite all the excitement about blowing up the tallest building in Sioux Falls, the zip feed tower, it didn't go down. Here's the KELO-Land report.
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 06:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Posted by K. Blanchard on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 04:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Posted by K. Blanchard on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 09:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Elliot Cohen today gives an insightful reading of a central clash in American foreign policy, that between realists and idealists. I find this speaking to my own soul since I would consider myself a realist with strong idealistic leanings (in reality, I'd consider myself a democratic realist). I think the best critique of the Bush foreign policy is the realist critique. The left-wing critique smacks of insipient Marxism: the Bush administration went to war because of a clandestine arrangement with capitalists (e.g. the oil industry) to extend the reach of capitalism so as to enrich the entrenched capitalist elite. The realist examination of Bush is more plausible and much more, dare I say it (I dare! I dare!), realistic. The problem with the Bush Doctrine, the realist would say, is that it starts on a false assumption, that within every human heart beats the yearning for freedom. No, they'd say, there is no natural yearning for freedom, only a natural yearning for power that can realize itself in many different forms of government, not just democracy. And there might be some people who really believe, for example, it is more important to have a government that fits the will of God than to have a government that promotes human freedom (this of course assumes God is agnostic about human freedom). But the point is the Bush bases his foreign policy on a fundamental falsehood: that all humans long to be free and that American has both the duty and the ability to promote human freedom in the world. Realists would call this a "pie in the sky" foreign policy doomed to failure. It is best to make peace with corrupt human nature and the corrupt governments it inspires.
Of course, the realist critique, as Cohen suggests, isn't very liberal. Liberals (of the classical and contemporary kind) believe in universal human rights; we used to call them natural rights. These rights are articulated in the Declaration of Independence. We are all naturally equal. Part of that equality is the equal possession of certain natural rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of government is to protect those rights. All just government is by consent (although the DOI is silent on what "consent" means). These aren't just the rights of British citizens living in America in 1776. These are, the DOI proposes, the rights of all people in all places for all time. If this is true, and American has the ability to protect the rights not just of her own citizens but for people the world over, does she not have the duty to do so? As we learn in the recent Spiderman movies, with great power comes great responsibility.
But how do we know when to protect the rights of other peoples and when to leave that up to that institution that is most directly responsible for protecting their rights, namely their own governments? Since American can't really protect everybody's rights, when do we know when to use American power abroad in the name of protecting rights, and when is that a foolish or abusive use of American power? There is no formula. It takes judgment. Cohen reminds us that the fact that America will necessarily have an inconsistent foreign policy does not mean that American foreign policy is fundamentally unjust, which is another claim one hears from some quarters of the Left. Luckily, there are liberals (of the contemporary kind) such as Christopher Hitchens, Martin Peretz of The New Republic and Paul Berman who recognize that the cause of promoting human rights is benefited, not undermined, by an aggressive yet prudent use of American power.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 08:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
That little stick attached to the left side of your steering column is called a "turn signal" and it isn't there just for looks.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I am taking some grief for the statement "The idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the Left angry." If I had a do-over I would have written "some of the Left" or "important factions of the Left." I was attempting to say that parts, but not all, of the Left would like the US to lose in Iraq. But while I was attempting to paint with a narrow, rather than broad, brush, I should have been more careful in my language.
That aside, do I have evidence that portions of the Left want America to lose in Iraq? Here is Christopher Hitchens rhetorically (I think) asking "Losing the Iraq War: Can the left really want us to?"
How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?
Do we remember these words from Michael Moore?
First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not �contractors� in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.
Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
...I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
What do we say about a person who says that Americans attempting to rebuild Iraq are nothing but "war profiteers"? What do you conclude about a man who thinks that those who kill American soldiers are not "the enemy" but in fact are morally equivalent to the American revolutionaries? Does this sound like a guy roots for American success in Iraq? Do we need to be reminded that this man was given a place of honor next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention? I don't claim that Michael Moore speaks for the Left, no one could claim that mantle, but he obviously speaks for an influential portion of it. (For a critique of Moore, especially Fahrenheit 911, see Hitchens here).
How about International ANSWER, the sponsors of many of the anti-war protests? Here's what Byron York reports regarding an ANSWER rally in 2003:
ANSWER is an outgrowth of another group called the International Action Center, a San Francisco-based organization that showcases the work of Ramsey Clark, the Johnson administration attorney general who has specialized in anti-American causes. Both ANSWER and the International Action Center are closely allied with a small but energetic Marxist-Leninist organization known as the Workers World Party, which in its turbulent history has supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Chinese government's crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Today, the WWP devotes much of its energy to supporting the regimes in Iraq and North Korea.
The WWP devotes much of its energy to supporting the regime in Iraq. Is it foolish to suspect their anti-war motives? Do I need to remind readers that aforementioned Ramsey Clark just flew to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein at trial?
Might there be portions of the Left, such as ANSWER and Michael Moore, that stand disappointed at American successes in Iraq? I report; you decide. And if you are on the left and don't support these positions staked out by Moore and ANSWER then you are not part of the Left that wants America to lose.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 10:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Apparently the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center is attempting to obstruct military recruiters in schools:
Kaleb Kroger, a young cooperator with the Peace & Justice Center EYES WIDE OPEN! project will be interviewed [on Nov. 30 showing of KELO TV]. EYES WIDE OPEN! is the Center's effort to intervene in the military recruitment of young people in our schools.
On a related topic, Kieran Lalor, an Iraq war veteran and Pace University law student, has a column in the New York Post concerning the Solomon Amendment. Power Line and the Volokh Conspiracy have more.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 09:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
More on Senator Dorgan's connection to Abramoff. A number of other prominent Democrats were also connected to Abramoff.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 09:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I like politics and I like sports even more but I'm getting tired of somebody in Congress pushing for a hearing on everything they dislike about sports. This is absolutely ridiculous no matter which party you belong to.
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 09:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Our friends at CCK often chide us for not holding Bush responsible for this and that. By way of making amends, let me hold Bush responsible for this, from Yahoo News:
The U.S. job market rebounded last month from a hurricane-induced slowdown as nonfarm employers added 215,000 workers, according to a government report on Friday that showed the economy on solid ground. The closely watched Labor Department report also said the unemployment rate held steady in November at 5 percent, just off the four-year low of 4.9 percent hit in August.
"This fits with an economy which is just humming along here at close to potential," said Kathleen Stephansen, director of global economics at Credit Suisse First Boston in New York. The report, which showed job growth widespread across industries, nearly matched expectations on Wall Street.
But of course no economic news is good news at the New York Times, or at least not during any Republican administration.
Upbeat Signs Hold Cautions for the Future
Beat that for a sour grapes headline! Now digest the first paragraph:
Gasoline is cheaper than it was before Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. Consumer confidence jumped last month and new- home sales hit a record. The stock market has been rising. Even the nation's beleaguered factories seem headed for a happy holiday season. By most measures, the economy appears to be doing fine. No, scratch that, it appears to be booming. But as always with the United States economy, it is not quite that simple.
Now check out the next paragraph:
For every encouraging sign, there is an explanation. Consumer confidence is bouncing back from what were arguably some of its worst readings in years. Gasoline prices - the national average is now $2.15, according to the Energy Information Administration - have fallen because higher prices held down demand and Gulf Coast supplies have been slowly restored.
The Kausfiles comment on this his hilarious:
It's indeed deeply disturbing to learn that higher gas prices have held down demand, causing those prices to fall back to a level at which demand begins to rise again! It's almost as if some insidious law was at work--as prices rise, demand declines! As supply increases, prices fall! You can't win! ... P.S.: The price drop might be alarming if the decline in demand for gas reflected a general economic downturn. But that doesn't seem to be the case. What the NYT's Vikak Bajaj ominously describes is the market working exactly as it's supposed to, coupled with successful rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. It appears to be "quite that simple." ... P.P.S.: Nor can I spot any "cautions for the future." ....
The NYT is, as always, a fundamentally dishonest enterprize. It wants G.W.Bush to stay on the ropes, so the best possible news has to be soured.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 07:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Ryne is offering his take on the recent debate about free speech in academia. Speaking of speech, Senator Tim Johnson was at the USD School of Law yesterday discussing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I'll have more details tomorrow.
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 05:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Like Bill, I have no idea what a loggia is. In fact, I would be that your average South Dakota doesn't know what a loggia is (much like how the average South Dakota doesn't live in a $3 million mansion).
For my own benefit and the benefit of our readers, I looked up the word loggia. In this context, I believe the following definition would be most appropriate (courtesty of dictionary.com):An open-sided, roofed or vaulted gallery, either free-standing or along the front or side of a building, often at an upper level.
Since they say a picture is worth a thousand words, here is a picture of a loggia courtesy of the old DVT site.
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 05:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Or so says the Washington Post, a substantially liberal newspaper of record. From their December 1st Editorial:
THOUGH YOU wouldn't know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy for Iraq outlined yesterday by President Bush. The president denounced those who would "cut and run" from the country and in turn was lambasted by Democrats for inflexibly staying the course. In fact, many Democrats in Congress agree with the principal elements of Mr. Bush's "strategy for victory," which are to build up a representative Iraqi government and security forces to defend it in the next 12 months while gradually shrinking the numbers and duties of U.S. troops.
This is, of course, correct. Bush has been trying to dig his approval ratings out of the hole by accusing Democrats of wanting to cut and run. Democrats are jumping up and down on his head trying to keep him in the hole by accusing him of wanting nothing more than to "stay the course," as if Bush intended to stay indefinitely with no plan for wrapping up. Both views are largely distortions.
Mr. Bush rejected the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal, saying he would "settle for nothing less than complete victory." But such a timetable already exists, drawn up by the generals who report to Mr. Bush and supported by leading Democrats: It calls for the reduction of American forces from 160,000 to 100,000 during 2006. Such a "phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq" was endorsed by the Senate two weeks ago by a vote of 79 to 19. Notwithstanding the endorsement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) yesterday of the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for withdrawal within six months, many senior Democrats oppose an immediate U.S. pullout. Democratic senators such as Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) agree with Mr. Bush's description of the dangers of allowing al Qaeda's forces in Iraq to claim a victory or permitting Iraq to collapse into a sectarian civil war.
Some Democrats clearly do want immediately withdrawal (6 months is immediate for all practical purposes), and there is a reasonable argument for this. If the Iraqis have a clear idea that our departure is imminent, they will have a stronger motive for taking responsibility and doing the right thing. And perhaps the presence of American troops is the only thing that keeps the war going. So announcing that we are withdrawing as soon as possible is the best way to ensure victory in Iraq and get our boys home.
The trouble is that once you turn "immediate withdrawal" into a reasonable strategy, as I just did, it becomes almost indistinguishable from the strategy we are in fact pursuing. The only difference is that the timetable is more realistic. Even if we tried to get out "immediately," it will take a lot longer than six months. So far the Iraqis have been meeting every target on the timetable. I'm guessing we will stick to it.
As for what we have achieved, here are the words of Gerard Baker, writing in the London Times:
Success [in Iraq] is articulated not in the indicative but in the subjunctive: potential threats removed; future wars that don’t have to be fought. It is numbered in the unenumerable: the slow awakening of human freedom; the steady, incremental spread of dignity it brings to people cowed and trampled for decades.
And yet it leaves its mark in tangible ways, even in the turmoil of Iraq. In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can’t it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.
One thing the English know how to do is speak English.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 03:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Stephanie Herseth is entertaining the idea of a senate run in the future. Excerpt (reg. required):
During the question-and-answer session, students asked a wide range of questions regarding issues such as the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties and whether she was considering a Senate run in 2008.
"I'm pretty sure (Sen. Tim Johnson) is running in 2008, so I'm focused on getting re-elected to the House," Herseth said. "I hope to build some seniority."
She added that she would be open to a different position if she felt she could better serve her constituents, but does not have a 10-year plan when it comes to her political career. She encouraged her teenage audience to not become too set on one goal, as well.
"Politics is a lot about timing," Herseth said. "Timing you can't predict. That's why I think you would all do yourselves a disservice, as would I, if in your public service pursuits you have a 10-year plan. There's so much that could happen that you could miss opportunities to serve your constituents as effectively as possible."
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 12:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
John Thune comes off looking pretty good in this interesting story about Senatorial (and one congressman's) reading habits. I find some responses inspiring (McCain likes Hemmingway, Brownback likes the writings of a British abolitionist). On the hand, Lisa Murkowski was deeply moved by Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don’t by Jim Collins. Why? It inspired her to fire her whole staff when she moved to DC. That says something about her soul, and I am not sure it's good. Still, she comes off better than Trent Lott, who can't think of any book besides his own. I wonder if it has pictures? And poor Jim Demint. Captured by the siren song of Tom Friedman. I guess Demint is beguiled by Freidman's omnipresent black crew neck shirt. Here's what Thune said. Oh, and Senator, I recommend the Martin Gilbert biogrpahy of Churchill:
Some members of Congress struggled to come up with a book off the top of their heads. But Sen. John Thune (R.-S.C.) had no such problem.
“I really like William Manchester’s books on Winston Churchill,” he said. “I just read the one covering the period from 1932 to 1940.” [The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone 1932-1940.] His life is very inspiring to me. I think he had a profound courage when it comes to a politician who had to lead his nation during tumultuous times. I’ve loved and read a lot of Chuck Colson’s works over the years. I’m kind of a big fan of his. He had a book called How Now Shall We Live, and that one was very good. I enjoyed reading the book on John Adams by David McCullough. So those have been really good. Those are fascinating reads. Kind of an inside-the-locker-room look at the Founding Fathers and how the nation came into existence.”
“Those are just a couple off the top of my head I guess,” said Thune. “If I gave it some thought I might have a different answer.”
I guess, over all, what they used to say about scholarly Sen. Pat Moynihan was true: he had written more books than most Senators had read. Hat tip on the whole thing to Joe K.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Friday, December 02, 2005 at 07:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
So as not to upstage Professor Schaff's blog entry below, I post only to say that I enthusastically agree with everything he says.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 11:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
To hear the arguments from some quarters,
college professors, particularly those at public universities, should not blog
if their opinions end up offending some, and indeed they should have their jobs
threatened if they express unsettling opinions.
So I started thinking about professors who blog. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, who actually has challenged
the patriotism of those peddling the "Bush lied" argument, is a law
professor at University of Tennessee. Many of the authors at Volokh are college professors, including Eugene
Volokh himself, who teaches at UCLA, as does Prof. Bainbridge. At No Left Turns, the two most
frequent bloggers are Peter Schramm and Joe Knippenberg, college professors
both. Dan Drezener is also
a college professor.
These blogs could be considered conservative or libertarian blogs. Are
there any left-wing professors who blog? It didn't take me long to find
some. I already knew about Juan Cole,
who teaches at University of Michigan. I found Blog Left,
which features an image of George W. Bush flipping the bird. It is run by
another bunch of UCLA guys. This guy Mark Foster teaches sociology at
a community college in Kansas and says this: "
Given the latest offensive comments by Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly, I have
concluded that "America" is actually a name for a terminal disease,
and the more one lives in the U.S., the more likely one is likely to contract
it." And William Dorman teaches at Cal State Sacramento and runs an anti-war blog. And I found
these sites without trying really hard, and I note that all these left leaning bloggers teach at public institutions.
Should all these people be disciplined by their universities because they
inevitably say things that make some people mad? I bet the people of
Kansas might be upset to know that they are paying the salary of a guy who
calls America a disease.
I have a very liberal colleague who writes for the Aberdeen American
News. I bet his opinions make plenty of people very mad. And, given
the circulation of the American News, I know that more people read his column
than read this site, and he is more to the left of the average South Dakotan than I am to the right. So I suspect he is angering far more people than am I. By the Chad Schuldt logic, he should be disciplined
by the university. After all, I bet some people are mad that they pay the
salary of a man who offends them with his, to them, obnoxious left-wing opinions.
(I note that this is what some people might believe, not what I believe, as I think my
colleague is a good and thoughtful man). Or is it that when, say, Prof. Blanchard blogs
here, that is an offense to the state of South Dakota, but when he writes in
the American News, as he does regularly, then it is perfectly fine? Does my left-wing colleague intimidate conservative students who must take his classes? Lest there be any confusion, I think not. It is all how one runs the classroom, and I know my colleagues, left and right, and I run our classrooms as professionals, not as partisans.
I think that academia exists so that learned people can freely exchange their
ideas with their students and with the public. It is the college professor's job to work in the
realm of ideas, and not just ideas that make people happy or comfortable. Professors of
all stripes, even apparently anti-American ones like the fellow from Kansas,
should be given free rein. Indeed, on this site Prof. Blanchard has
defended Ward Churchill's right to celebrate the 9-11 terrorists without losing
his job, although the fact that Churchill misrepresented his credentials is
another matter.
Is blogging categorically different from writing books, articles, and newspaper
editorials? I would not call it scholarly work, but neither are the books and articles written by the scores of academics who write on sensative subjects and write for a broad, not
scholarly, audience and are published by popular, not academic, presses.
If Chad Schuldt had it his way, all of the blogs I listed above, right and
left, would be shut down by the bloggers' universities. I think the
nation is a better place because these academics voice their opinions, just as
I think the Aberdeen area is better for having both Prof. Blanchard and my
liberal colleague duke it out on the editorial page. Academics are paid,
in part, to air their considered opinions, and when it comes to public universities I
call that a wise use of public dollars.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 09:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 07:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
No Agenda: A Web of Hypocrisy II
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 06:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Our senators and representative respond to Bush's Iraq policy. From the Mercury News:
WASHINGTON - South Dakota's congressional delegation had mixed reactions to President Bush's speech on war policy Wednesday.
Democratic Stephanie Herseth, the state's only representative in the House, said she shares the president's view that training of Iraqi troops is paramount.
"I hope this renewed focus will enable us to begin drawing down our troops in the region at the appropriate time and to continue to turn over a stable democratic Iraq to the Iraqi security forces," Herseth said, echoing many other Democrats.
In his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bush refused to set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals and asserted that once-shaky Iraqi troops are proving increasingly capable.
He did not outline a new strategy for the nearly three-year-old war. Rather, the speech was intended as a comprehensive answer to mounting criticism and questions.
"Today's speech sent a clear message of commitment to our troops on the front line and liberated Iraqis, and one of determination and strength to the terrorists who continue to try to shake our resolve," said Republican Sen. John Thune.
"Redoubling our efforts to train Iraqi security forces will help stabilize the country and enable our troops complete their mission," said Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. "I'm pleased the President recognizes that this goal should be a top priority."
"While I welcome President Bush's comments today, I also look forward to hearing greater detail on what steps the White House will take to bring our soldiers home and secure Iraq," Johnson said.
You can read President Bush's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq here, and the full text of his speech here.
REACTIONS
Jon Henke: Iraq: Do you want a Strategy or Tactics?
Ann Althouse: "Finish" is an exquisite word choice.
RedState: Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Power Line: President Outlines Strategy in Iraq, Don't Believe a Word of It!
Jay Reding: A Strategy for Iraq
RELATED
Times Online: Bruce Willis comes out fighting for Iraq's forgotten GI heros
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 09:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Very good. Read it at National Review. I'll try to blog on the speech itself tomorrow. And by the way, those HOSC tunes that Professor Schaff advertises below are pretty good.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 09:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
WSJ: The MoveOn Coverup
CNS News:
The liberal political group MoveOn.org has yanked a video ad from its website after being criticized for using images of British soldiers to represent Americans in Iraq.
The 30-second ad, which also began running on CNN and cable stations during the Thanksgiving weekend, stated that "150,000 American men and women are stuck in Iraq" this holiday season.
But the ad showed soldiers who were "not wearing U.S. uniforms," according to a Pentagon spokesman who was interviewed by Cybercast News Service Wednesday, approximately two hours before the Internet version of the ad was pulled from the MoveOn.org website.
HT to Instapundit.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 07:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
It was snowing much of the day today in Aberdeen...again. I didn't get a chance to get out with my camera, but maybe tomorrow. Funny enough, I happen to sit in on an event with Aberdeen Mayor Mike Levsen and he made many cracks about the grief he's getting about snow removal. So I kept my strong opinions to myself.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 05:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I suspect my colleagues will disagree with me, but I am disappointed by this article hinting that South Dakota should move up its presidential primary day. I understand the arguments in favor of the state moving up its primary, but what is good for the state may not be good for the nation. It is my considered opinion that the frontloading of presidential primaries produces lower quality candidates than a more protracted process. The frontloaded system rewards front runners at the expense of lesser known candidates, well funded candidates at the expense of those running on a tight budget, and also fails to offer a deliberative selection process. I think the 1972 Democratic nomination contest is a good example of the virtues of a drawn out nomination contest. Long shot George McGovern was able to build on some early successes and build momentum, while the front runner, Edmund Muskie, proved to be an ineffective vote getter, and when he stumbled lesser known and lesser funded candidates had the time to make the case for themselves. Frontloading has also caused the presidential race to start earlier, which is bad for the country as we seldom leave campaign mode to switch to governing mode. Prospective candidates must constantly maneuver themselves for the presidency, since you need to start your campaign at least 18 months before the general election. John Kerry started his run for the 2004 race in December of 2002, or 23 months before the election. That's a problem.
Of course most every state has moved its primary up. So the argument is "Why shouldn't we, since everyone else does it." The "everyone else is doing it" argument didn't work when I was ten, and it doesn't work now. I mean, if every other state jumped off the Empire State Building...
But I recognize reality. Moving up the primary, especially in conjunction with other states as the linked article suggests, would probably bring more attention and more campaign money into the state. That logic is hard to resist, and, alas, South Dakota probably won't resist it.
Update: Denise Ross provides perspective.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 05:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. economic growth was much stronger last quarter than first thought as spending rose more than estimated, while divergent price data on Wednesday left economists puzzled over inflation pressures.
Gross domestic product, a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, grew at a revised 4.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace since the first three months of 2004, the Commerce Department said. Growth had initially been reported at 3.8 percent.
The report also showed inflation was milder than first thought. A price gauge favored by the Federal Reserve -- personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy -- rose just 1.2 percent in the July-to-September period, down from the originally reported 1.3 percent pace.
That was the lowest rate of core inflation in more than two years. Economists had expected the index to be revised higher.
Here are some numbers on GDP and corporate profits, for those interested in that sort of thing. Again, this is great news. Our economy has reacted remarkably well against hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Also, new home sales continue as they hit a record level in October; however, here in the Midwest, sales fell by 9.5%.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 04:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I recommend the latest Mackubin Thomas Owens piece as he cites one of my favorite Federalist Papers (#71) and also makes some sober points about public opinion, constitutionalism, and demagoguery. On the other hand, he compares George W. Bush to Reagan and Hamilton, which might be going a bit far.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 04:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Despite the Argus Leader's constant attacks on Governor Mike Rounds, his approval rating still stands at 73%--3rd in the nation.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 04:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
A buddy of mine has been in the recording studio. He and his friend call themselves Hang On St. Christopher (HOSC). You can hear the results here. Pretty good.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 04:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Glenn Reynolds: Lieberman and McCain: Bipartisan consensus on Iraq
By the way, the quote comes from John Kerry.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 04:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Denise Ross on the Rapid City Journal blog is saying that Senator Johnson is sending out press releases saying he is "monitoring" the winter conditions in South Dakota. She also says people in the press get a laugh out of Johnson's press releases where he "urges" this or that:
On KELO, you’ve got Rounds giving specifics of how to get help, how to avoid getting your backside in a sling and just what he was going to do about all of it. In the e-mail, you have Johnson monitoring. (Which, in a way, is a step up from his ubiquitous press releases about him urging this or that, which have led to newsroom snickers about Johnson’s urges and his need to announce them.)
We urge Johnson to take a stand against filibustering Judge Alito.
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 02:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
No idea is more threatening to the university classroom than this: that it is legitimate to interfere with a professor's management of her course or even threaten her with dismissal if she offends her students, her colleagues, or the public at large. A few years ago I sat in a room with a group of honors faculty and honors students and discussed this very question. Several students pointed out that they were offended most frequently by things that their best professors said in their best courses, and that the same professor would offend them by making arguments on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. I suggested that any student who spent four years in college without once hearing anything offensive should sue for malpractice. I was only half joking. Education is necessarily offensive. It challenges ideas and perspectives that we hold dear. That, and only that, can encourage thinking.
The Northern Valley Beacon brought to my attention what strikes me as a failure to defend the idea of higher education. Kansas University announced plans to offer a course with the title “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies.” This course title infuriated conservatives in the Kansas press and state legislature, who brought enough pressure on the Department of Religious Studies to change the title to "Intelligent Design and Creationism.".
Apparently the Beacon sides with the conservatives. I do not. In the interest of disclosure I should acknowledge that I am a Darwinist. I do not think Intelligent Design or Creationism represent serious science. I would never title a course in the way Professor Mirecki did, for I prefer to invite and engage opinions on both sides of these questions. But the view that creationism is a mythology, in the sense of a non-rational belief system, is certainly a respectable scholarly view. Likewise the view, prominent in philosophy of religion, that certain astronomical findings support the idea of a supernatural creator, is also an intellectually respectable view. Someone who wanted to teach a course called, say, "Physics in Support of God," in a religious studies department, should not be prevented from doing so because the title offends some Darwinists, secularists, and atheists. I say let both sides spread out their wares on the university sidewalk and open the marketplace of ideas.
Free speech, in the university, means that Professors and students can make such arguments as they see fit, without fearing for their persons or their positions. If some of the offerings are offensive, so much the better. It means that education is working.
Some of SDP's critics would like to go a step beyond the Kansas conservatives. They would like to punish two of us because we happen to be public employees. They would be all to happy to shut us down in this altogether independent forum on the grounds that public university professors ought not to be allowed to express opinions that they find offensive. They are all for free speech, of course. Its conservatives freely expressing their opinions that they can't tolerate. Here, with Socrates, I take my stand. Men of Athens, I love you and salute you. But I will not stop making arguments. Here I am stationed, and I will not desert my post.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 12:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Rapid City Journal excerpt:
Celeste Calvitto: Conservative group lines up Alito support
Progress for America is the conservative organization that has launched an ad campaign to promote the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court and that supports Bush administration proposals such as changes in Social Security.
The group recently organized a media conference call with four South Dakota Republican lawyers and politicians who support Alito. They talked about why they believe Alito should be on the court and urged South Dakota’s U.S. senators, Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune, to vote to confirm him.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Christopher Hitchens over at Slate has an outstanding piece on "The Perils of Withdrawal":
The situation is bad and possibly deteriorating. In spite of open elections with wide participation, and in spite of the promulgation of a federal-type constitution that controversially privileges Islam, attacks are on the increase and the number of American soldiers already killed in 2005 is almost double the number for last year. Suicide bombers, often recruited from beyond the borders but also generated internally, demonstrate increasing ruthlessness and sophistication. Kidnapping and hostage-taking suggest an overlap between jihadism and organized crime. Warlordism and sectarianism remain toxic. No obvious end is in sight. The situation in Afghanistan, in other words, is giving rise to mounting concern.
Not enough concern, however, to prompt many calls for a date for withdrawal from Kabul. Is anything to be learned from the difference here? Cindy Sheehan and her co-thinkers do, of course, call for an American retreat from Afghanistan, just as the hard core of the anti-war movement always opposed an intervention there in the first place, but if we take the "withdrawal" argument to have moved to the so-called mainstream since the confused, tear-stained, but stirring speech of Rep. John Murtha, then what are the chief distinctions between the two cases?
Good question. Check out the whole article.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 11:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Here's a fine piece of left wing rhetoric from a commentator on the most popular blog on the web:
Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew (who are generally very anti-arab and palestinian) and an AIPAC whore. This war was fought for O.I.L. (Oil Industry, Israel, Logistics of Military - Military Industrial Complex). He's not Connecticut's Senator, he's Ariel Sharon's.
When can we run a fucking primary against this douche-bag? I'd rather have a Moderate Republican than a Rightwing religious conservative who's alleigance is to other nations.
Now I do not believe that this thinking is representative of the American Left, let alone the Democratic Party. In fact, many of the interlocutors on this KOS thread took him to task for apparent anti-semitism.
But I do think it represents a substantial subculture within the left. Leftist bloggers love to celebrate the stupid things that Pat Robertson says. I am entitled to point out this one. Of course, this commentator is not a person of fame or leadership, so far as I can tell. But that is the point. He represents a portion of the KOS rank and file. And he/she is not alone. Here's Iconoclast:
He[Liberman]'s actually an Israel suck-up. The fact that alot of Bush's foreign policy has been crafted by Republikud's just makes him LOOK like a Bush suck-up.
Republikud. That's a good one. Here's Rickpolitic:
I fully agree, Lieberman will never support any initiative that threatens the security of Israel. He will support any action taken against a country that is considered to be an enemy of the Israeli cause.
To put it mildly, folks who consider the Iraq war to be an oil-grab or a Jewish conspiracy probably do not want us to win that war. Not that I am questioning their patriotism. Unfortunately, patriotism and anti-semitism are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I cribbed the title from Princess Bride. Here's a neat column from the American News.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 05:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Legenday NSU coach and athletic director Clark Swisher has died. His name will live on at Clark Swisher Field.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 04:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Here's an email we received today from a resident of the DC area:
I want some blizzard blogging dammit! It’s 60 in the Nation’s Capital, and you guys get a snow day. Tell us about the ice and snow. I can read WSJ and the Economist on my own.
Ask and you shall receive. I went out and took some pictures this afternoon. You'll notice that there isn't a ton of snow. The problem up here in Aberdeen was not snow, but freezing rain and high winds. Here is a picture of Central High School. Because the sun was in and out today, this is the best picture I could get that shows the ice:
And here's one of campus, featuring what I think is our most attractive building, Lincoln Hall:
Here's an American News article on the harsh weather. Many people here are still without power. Our secretary, who is one of those without power, said that Menards (a Midwest version of Home Depot, for those not in the know) had 50 generators on Monday morning and they all sold right away. But still zero hurricanes in South Dakota history.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 04:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Some history from No End But Victory:
Thomas Dewey and Wendell Willkie were two of the best men to never win the Presidency. Thrice, in 1940, 1944 and 1948, the fellow New Yorkers went down to defeat against Democratic Presidents immeasurably bolstered by the perils and successes of war.
Despite this, neither man made an issue of the war. Certainly there was much to critique: Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic vision was profoundly flawed; the Pearl Harbor disaster was ripe for critique; and Harry Truman’s handling of postwar affairs was hardly sterling. And yet, neither Dewey nor Willkie chose to make partisan or campaign issues of any of these things. Indeed, on the signal event of the era, they remained virtually silent. Why?
Read the whole thing to find out.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 10:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
John Podhoretz on GOP scandals, present and future. I don't think the Republicans will lose Congress next year. Not because they don't deserve to, but because of gerrymandering. Still, it might do some good for the party to spend some time in the political wilderness to remind themselves why they are Republicans in the first place. One of those reasons might be because big government is corrupting, even for Republicans.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 07:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
A powerful piece in the WSJ by Sen. Joe Lieberman today. Highlight:
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
Lieberman provides evidence of progress in Iraq. I guess it could be said that in Iraq we have "Joe-mentum."
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 07:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The Economist, a great British magazine, offers an outstanding argument (and justified criticism of the Bush Administration) on why the United States must not withdraw from Iraq. Excerpts (reg. required):
Why America must stay
...
This newspaper strongly disagrees [with Congressman Murtha's suggested pulling of troops out of Iraq]. In our opinion it would be disastrous for America to retreat hastily from Iraq. Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm's way.
...
[T]he catalogue of failures thus far does raise serious questions about the administration's ability to make Iraq work--ever. Mr Bush's team mis-sold the war, neglected post-invasion planning, has never committed enough troops to the task and has taken a cavalier attitude to human rights. Abu Ghraib, a place of unspeakable suffering under Mr Hussein, will go into the history books as a symbol of American shame. The awful irony is that the specious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to justify going to war now exists.
...
Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America's aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month's referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month's election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. . . . It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency--the jihadists led by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan. Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.So America does have something to defend in Iraq. Which, for Mr Bush's critics, leads into the most temping part of Mr Murtha's argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security. This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence. Most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.
The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.
If such reasoning sounds negative--America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful--treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr. Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 11:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Denise Ross is writing on Mt. Blogmore about Tom Daschle, who is now telling the LA Times that if the 2002 elections weren't coming Democrats might not have felt so pressured about the Iraq war. Daschle is implying that Democrats may have behaved differently if they didn't have their fingers in the political wind due to an upcoming election. Senator Kennedy says that Democrats got "caught up" in the politics. The LA Times continues:
It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.
Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, "given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration."
But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.
"There was a stampede to vote on this," Kennedy said. "A lot of our people got caught up in it."
Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt "like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn't speak very well of them, because the facts didn't change in the course of one month."
Posted by Quentin Riggins on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 10:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Chad at CCK takes me to task for a recent blog on global warming and rising sea levels. He claims my post made no sense.
Blanchard's argument? Global warming is getting to be such a terrible problem it isn't even worth doing anything about it. In other words, we're doomed, so we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we still have the chance.
In fact, my post consisted of comments on a piece in the British Guardian. And it was Kenneth Miller, a scientist who was in charge of a Rutger's study into sea level rise, and who may know more about the subject than even Chad does, who said that there isn't anything we can do about it. I quote again:
According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.
Actually I don't think global warming is such a terrible thing at all. Its serious, and we should prepare for it. But there is nothing we can do to stop it, but trying to slow it down is probably hopeless.
My conclusion is that, given current technologies, there is simply nothing we can effectively do about global warming. I'm sorry if Chad finds the evidence and logic inconvenient. This does not mean, however, that "we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we have the chance." I am opposed to rape in all cases, even planets. I think that technological progress and increased prosperity across the globe are the only things that can really help. Only rich nations can afford to care about the environment.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 09:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Chad at CCK takes me to task for a recent blog on global warming and rising sea levels. He claims my post made no sense.
Blanchard's argument? Global warming is getting to be such a terrible problem it isn't even worth doing anything about it. In other words, we're doomed, so we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we still have the chance.
In fact, my post consisted of comments on a piece in the British Guardian. And it was Kenneth Miller, a scientist who was in charge of a Rutger's study into sea level rise, and who may know more about the subject than even Chad does, who said that there isn't anything we can do about it. I quote again:
According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.
Actually I don't think global warming is such a terrible thing at all. Its serious, and we should prepare for it. But there is nothing we can do to stop it, but trying to slow it down is probably hopeless.
My conclusion is that, given current technologies, there is simply nothing we can effectively do about global warming. I'm sorry if Chad finds the evidence and logic inconvenient. This does not mean, however, that "we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we have the chance." I am opposed to rape in all cases, even planets. I think that technological progress and increased prosperity across the globe are the only things that can really help. Only rich nations can afford to care about the environment.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 09:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Don't miss Instapundit's excellent post on the "reverse Vietnam." Jed Babbin also discusses "The Vietnamization of Iraq" in The American Spectator.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 07:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Our friends north of the border have ousted the liberal government through a vote of no confidence. Excerpt from Fox News:
TORONTO — A corruption scandal forced a vote of no-confidence Monday that toppled Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, triggering an unusual election campaign during the Christmas holidays.
Canada's three opposition parties, which control a majority in Parliament, voted against Martin's government, claiming his Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to lead the nation.
Captain's Quarters weighs in:
I'm listening to the aftermath on CPAC, where the Liberal apologist wants to tell Canada that Adscam involved "a few Liberals", but that "no one believes that it involved the party as a whole". That apparently will be the line that the Liberals take in this election, along with a scolding tone about all of the great work that the Commons could be doing instead of holding another election seventeen months after the last one.
Well, that's why elections get held -- so that the Liberals can make that argument now that the country knows about the extent of the corruption. If they want to offer up the notion that just a few Liberals involved themselves in the money-laundering and featherbedding that went on in Adscam, I expect that the Tories and BQ will quote extensively from the Gomery report to remind voters of the extent of the corruption, including all of the money that flowed back into the Liberal Party through the government contracts given to cronies of Jean Chretien.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 07:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Recent Comments