The latest in the blogs
Haven't been blogging too much lately, so I decided to do a roundup of what other bloggers are covering.
Michelle Malkin reports on the demonizing of Condi. No surprise to me. This is just further evidence of media biased. Everyone is biased. You, me, everyone. It is the nature of being human. I can only tell you about the world through my perspective, a perspective which (like everyone else's) is biased. To not be biased is to not be human. BTW, USA Today has since yanked the photo.
Right Wing Nuthouse has a round up of the whole Plame affair. Fitzgerald has announced their will be no indictments announced today, much to the dismay of the controversy hungry MSM. It is clear that no actual crime was committed in the outing of a CIA agent (no one involved was a 007 or a NOC or whatever). Indictments will likely be handed down for obstruction of justice. This is a two year investigation. If nothing comes of it, that's two years of time and tax payers' money down the tube. Fitzgerald is going to get a lot of shit for it. More than likely Scooter Libby or even Karl Rove will be indicted and receive a slap on the wrist. Both Libby and Rove have said they will resign if indicted...something a left winger would never do. In any case, this will be largely forgotten by the 2006 election and completely forgotten by 2008.
John Hawkins lists rebuttals against Harriet Miers for SCOTUS. I respect John, but he's got his knickers in a knot over Miers. Up until now, I've been willing to wait until the hearings to make a decision on Miers. Lately, though, I think it might be best to withdraw her for the sake of the Republican party. There are plenty of others who are qualified for the SCOTUS that would make conservatives happy. At this point we just need to get past the controversy, and replacing Miers will do just that.
Roger Simon reports on an article that shows people are generally fed up with both political parties. I can agree with that. The Democrats have come unhinged with their Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Republicans don't have the spine to stand up to Democrats. If the Republicans don't get their shit together quick, they'll find themselves losing seats in 2006 instead of gaining them. That said, they likely won't lose Congress. The Democrats don't have much of a platform outside of stopping Republicans. Republicans made that same mistake in 1996. They couldn't come up with a good reason for people to vote against Clinton. They nearly lost Congress and the got their butt handed to them on a rusty platter in the Presidential election. You can't get elected unless you can explain why you are better than the other guy, and Democrats have thus far failed to do that.
Victor Davis Hanson writes about apologizing for the war on terror.
We may think we are projecting the strength of our values when we chastise our troops for sometimes resorting to unpleasant actions in order to win against a brutal enemy. But in fact, the message we send is that because we have doubts about our cause and our beliefs, we will second-guess and scrutinize our own behavior in the midst of a hard fight. Wars are ugly and cruel, as all violence is. To think that one can fight a brutal enemy within utopian parameters is to court failure and defeat. This does not mean that anything goes, obviously. But we have to be realistic about where those impassable limits lie, given the sort of irregular war being fought. We can argue about those limits later, but burning the bodies of dead murderers to my mind is a long way from actions completely out of bounds, especially if such actions will save the life of even one American and take us one step closer to achieving our goal. After all, we've had ample proof for decades that being nice and tolerant doesn't cut any ice with those who fancy themselves the warriors of Allah.
Indeed. Faltering in the face of terrorists can only hurt us. We can and will win the war on terror, but not if we cower in the face of political correctness and fear of persecution by the weasels in the world community.
Powerline comments on the President's speech to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' wives group. (Hat tip Ace of Spades.)
From the speech:
The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory.
Powerline comments: "It is rather pathetic, frankly, to compare the soaring vision of freedom that President Bush has elaborated over the past five years to the cramped, hateful hectoring the Democrats have produced during the same time."
Taking the rest of the day off. No more blogs, no more work. I'm off to do wind sprints, because I love abusing myself.
Michelle Malkin reports on the demonizing of Condi. No surprise to me. This is just further evidence of media biased. Everyone is biased. You, me, everyone. It is the nature of being human. I can only tell you about the world through my perspective, a perspective which (like everyone else's) is biased. To not be biased is to not be human. BTW, USA Today has since yanked the photo.
Right Wing Nuthouse has a round up of the whole Plame affair. Fitzgerald has announced their will be no indictments announced today, much to the dismay of the controversy hungry MSM. It is clear that no actual crime was committed in the outing of a CIA agent (no one involved was a 007 or a NOC or whatever). Indictments will likely be handed down for obstruction of justice. This is a two year investigation. If nothing comes of it, that's two years of time and tax payers' money down the tube. Fitzgerald is going to get a lot of shit for it. More than likely Scooter Libby or even Karl Rove will be indicted and receive a slap on the wrist. Both Libby and Rove have said they will resign if indicted...something a left winger would never do. In any case, this will be largely forgotten by the 2006 election and completely forgotten by 2008.
John Hawkins lists rebuttals against Harriet Miers for SCOTUS. I respect John, but he's got his knickers in a knot over Miers. Up until now, I've been willing to wait until the hearings to make a decision on Miers. Lately, though, I think it might be best to withdraw her for the sake of the Republican party. There are plenty of others who are qualified for the SCOTUS that would make conservatives happy. At this point we just need to get past the controversy, and replacing Miers will do just that.
Roger Simon reports on an article that shows people are generally fed up with both political parties. I can agree with that. The Democrats have come unhinged with their Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Republicans don't have the spine to stand up to Democrats. If the Republicans don't get their shit together quick, they'll find themselves losing seats in 2006 instead of gaining them. That said, they likely won't lose Congress. The Democrats don't have much of a platform outside of stopping Republicans. Republicans made that same mistake in 1996. They couldn't come up with a good reason for people to vote against Clinton. They nearly lost Congress and the got their butt handed to them on a rusty platter in the Presidential election. You can't get elected unless you can explain why you are better than the other guy, and Democrats have thus far failed to do that.
Victor Davis Hanson writes about apologizing for the war on terror.
We may think we are projecting the strength of our values when we chastise our troops for sometimes resorting to unpleasant actions in order to win against a brutal enemy. But in fact, the message we send is that because we have doubts about our cause and our beliefs, we will second-guess and scrutinize our own behavior in the midst of a hard fight. Wars are ugly and cruel, as all violence is. To think that one can fight a brutal enemy within utopian parameters is to court failure and defeat. This does not mean that anything goes, obviously. But we have to be realistic about where those impassable limits lie, given the sort of irregular war being fought. We can argue about those limits later, but burning the bodies of dead murderers to my mind is a long way from actions completely out of bounds, especially if such actions will save the life of even one American and take us one step closer to achieving our goal. After all, we've had ample proof for decades that being nice and tolerant doesn't cut any ice with those who fancy themselves the warriors of Allah.
Indeed. Faltering in the face of terrorists can only hurt us. We can and will win the war on terror, but not if we cower in the face of political correctness and fear of persecution by the weasels in the world community.
Powerline comments on the President's speech to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' wives group. (Hat tip Ace of Spades.)
From the speech:
The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory.
Powerline comments: "It is rather pathetic, frankly, to compare the soaring vision of freedom that President Bush has elaborated over the past five years to the cramped, hateful hectoring the Democrats have produced during the same time."
Taking the rest of the day off. No more blogs, no more work. I'm off to do wind sprints, because I love abusing myself.
posted by CT at 10/26/2005 02:48:00 PM
<< Home