perfidy

From Nordlinger on NRO:

Three Americans and an Israeli soldier are caught by cannibals and are about to be cooked. The chief says, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"

Dan Rather says, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili." The chief nods to an underling, who leaves and returns with the chili. Rather eats it all and says, "Now I can die content."

Al Sharpton says, "I'd like to have my picture taken, as nothing has given me greater joy in life." Done.

Judith Woodruff says, "I'm a journalist to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here, and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job to the last." The chief directs an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Woodruff dictates some comments. "There," she says. "I can now die fulfilled."

The chief says, "And you, Mr. Israeli Soldier? What is your final wish?"

The solider says, "Kick me in the behind."

"What?" says the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the behind."

So the chief unties the soldier, shoves him into the open, and kicks him in the behind. The Israeli goes sprawling, but rolls to his knees, pulls a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shoots the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leaps to his knapsack, pulls out his Uzi, and sprays the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals are all dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Israeli unties the others, they ask him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask the chief to kick you in the behind?"

"What?" answers the soldier. "And have you SOBs call me the aggressor?"

Heh.

You ask, you recieve. Bush is in general a conservative. And he is certainly vastly more conservative than android-American Gore, or any of his likely opponents in the next election. I was upset by his trade policies, when he went protectionist. I am upset with the prescription drug thingie. (Thingie!) I am bothered that he has not increased the size of the military. The tax cuts are insufficient. The airline safety agency is a nauseating joke, and the Homeland Security agency... sheesh. Arguably, this is because I am more conservative than he is.

While I have been occasionally frustrated, especially on matters economic; overall, I am happy with his performance in the war on terror. This is the overriding issue in this time, and I support him and the administration. The mudville nine have so far offered nothing that looks like a real foriegn policy.

I also support the administration because Rumsfeld is fucking awesome.

I also support the administration because it irritates people like Hesiod.

Buckethead, yesterday you wrote:

"Though I have consistently defended the the decision to invade Iraq, and in general support the administration (I am a conservative, after all). . . ."

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is in general a conservative?! He sure isn't, fiscally, and culturally he sends decidedly mixed messages! Well, he IS pro-business in a big way.

Is that what you mean? (he asked innocently, knowing the dangled bait would be taken)

The 101st Airborne and Special Operations troops killed Uday and Qusay in Mosul. Two other Iraqis were also killed, according to this Centcom News release.

Drudge has posted the transcript of his appearance on Crossfire, and its some interesting stuff. Arianna Huffington possibly jumping in the California governor's race, politics and what not. But what was really interesting is the discussion of Mel Gibson's new movie. Drudge, and apparently most of those attending the small screening at Jack Valenti's place, were in tears at the end of it. Drudge said it was:

This is the ultimate film. It's magical. Best picture I have seen in quite some time, and even people like Jack Valenti were in the audience in tears at this screening. There was about 30 of us. It depicts a clash between Jesus and those who crucified him, and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film that showed the perils of life on earth.... those of us, every single person in there, and I'm not talking about tears, I'm talking total tears. It is something Mel Gibson stood back at the end and took questions for about an hour, and he is -- he told me he's tired of Hollywood. That this is it. He's going to do it. He's going to do it his way, and this film, I tell you, is magic. It's a miracle. It's a miracle...

Effusive praise. Drudge also didn't think it was anti semitic. But another interesting quote at the end was this, after the mention of Huffington in CA:

Well, it's going to be progressive with her and Schwarzenegger. I vote for Mel Gibson, however, to run for the governor of California, and he will correct that state in a heartbeat.

In support of Pythagosaurus' views on the RIAA. Well, some of them. Check it out. The King of Pop, el supremo freako, has something in common with our beloved Johno. Whooda thunkit?

Instapundit's alterego, Glenn Reynolds, had this to say about the utility of the Homeland Security agency. I agree completely:

Now Tom Ridge is proving me right, with a new plan to pervert Homeland Security from its antiterror mission to an unrelated one: "The initiative, dubbed Operation Predator, will target pornographers, child prostitution rings, Internet predators, immigrant smugglers and other criminals."

What can we learn from this? Two things. One is that the Department of Homeland Security apparently thinks the War on Terror isn't important enough to occupy its full energies anymore, and that -- in the interest of bureaucratic survival -- it's branching out into the kind of operations that have generally been associated with, well, ordinary law enforcement, even if the targets, in this case, are foreigners...

Since Ridge has, with this initiative, essentially admitted that Homeland Security is no longer urgent enough to occupy the Department of Homeland Security, let's abolish the Department, and pass the savings on to the taxpayers. Not only will this save money, but it will serve as a salutary warning to future Tom Ridges that overstepping the bounds of a mandate is politically dangerous.

Of course, that isn't going to happen.

In a recent comment, NDR (loyal reader #0010) says:

However I think that people examining the current scandal need to reflect how scandals are, in general, seldom about specific actions and events but the things they represent. The hubbub over Iraq-Niger focuses the disappointment felt as few of the war?s goals have been met: the Iraqis are not thankful to the US, their plight has worsened, US troops will not be coming home soon, the US commitment to nation-building will be extensive, Hussein did not pose the threat that the government claimed, and that the intelligence community cannot be relied on to safeguard Americans and concentrate activities related to the war on terror itself.

He is certainly right that the people who are exercised over this scandal probably don't really care about the specifics, and likely don't know where Niger is either. Further, I think that Pythagosaurus' complaints about transparency get to the rest of the issue. The administration, while not lying, has not laid out the case very well, and seems reluctant to talk about why it's doing what it's doing.

If this hubbub is indeed the result of this discontent over the factors that NDR mentions, how justified is it, and why are they complaining?
Much has been made of the discontent of the Iraqi people. Most Iraqis probably want us to go home. But the question is really when - right now, or after we have contributed to the formation of a responsible government, fixed the infrastructure, and generally settled things down. I think most Iraqis would prefer the second option. From reports by reporters actually in Iraq, the word is that they are very happy that Saddam is gone, and they recognize that we got rid of him. They are thankful for that. But, like anyone, they don't want to be ruled by someone else. Happily for them, we don't want to be there forever. Much of what is reported as ungratefulness could more properly be termed impatience.

As for claiming that their plight has worsened, I don't think you can make that argument. One, no more brutal fascist dictator. If their electricity went out for a while, that is a hardship - but its back on now. And certainly lacking electricity does not compare to mass graves.

As for Saddam not posing the threat that was claimed, this is closest to being true. But keep in mind how certain elements would have reacted if Bush had said, in effect, "Saddam is a weakling, his army is pathetic, and we are going to go through him like shit through a goose." He would have been called arrogant (well, more arrogant) and contemptuous of Islam and whatever. He was right to err on the side of caution - he said be prepared for a long war, but we're gonna win. Nothing really wrong there.

As for the WMD part of that equation, see my other posts.

The administration has always said that this would be a long war, and that Iraq was but a single aspect of it. Nation building was not a surprise, nor was the lengthy tours of duty for our soldiers. Since the end of "official" hostilities, the media have reported over and over the attacks on US servicemen, and military morale problems, and so on. But considering that 25 million people who until a couple months ago were under the heel of a brutal dictator are now free - they are behaving well, all things considered. Even though there are several attacks a week, this represents an absolutely miniscule portion of the Iraqi population. And, what the media doesn't mention, most of the attacks are in Saddam's home territory. (I plan on addressing the manpower issue sometime soon.)

Finally, we have known that we couldn't rely on our intelligence services since the early morning of September 11, 2001. That nothing serious has been done is abominable.

The administration has failed to tell people the things that they should know. But overall, things are going well in Iraq. The media is going to report on every soldier or marine killed, but the administration needs to make the case better that progress is being made in other areas. Whenever a problem that the media is bleating about is solved, they don't report that, "Hey, there's electricity now!" Instead, they move onto the next disaster.

So, back here in the states, people are upset about the sixteen words in the SOTU because Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq and is generally falling down on the war on terror. Since that isn't really the case, they are either misinformed, for which we can blame both the administration and the media, or they are pursuing purely partisan advantage by picking at nits.

I think that there are serious issues that can be raised, issues that for the Democrats might have a lot more traction with the general public than, ?Bush lied.? For one, the Saudi thingie. Others include the Homeland Security department, the Patriot acts, and so on. The war happened. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on National Security, they should talk about how we are going to rebuild Iraq, where to go next in the war on terror, and how to apply our principles in a coherent foreign policy. And the current administration needs to be a lot more open about what it is doing.

Reason and Philadelphia-area papers are reporting that on the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security, the Philadelphia Eagles have banned outside food from Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Eagles. Food, it appears, is a hazard to us all.

Philadelphians are furious over this development, as bringing hoagies to the stadium is almost as much a Philly tradition as is soul music, patriotism, and knuckledragging stupidity (Pittsburgh rules! (I love my wife!))

Well, I guess I can let this one go as long as they don't ban D-cells, stupid headgear, and glass bottles from Cleveland Browns Stadium. Right?

I'm a pretty big fan of Howard Dean, and it frosts my cookies to see the Democratic Leadership Congress dismiss him as "unelectable," by which they mean "not on our payroll."

The New Republic recently ran this "agin' him" piece by Jonathan Chait. I thought it was a mildly foolish article that raises a few good points about the dangers posed by the Dean campaign and the potential for his nomination to candidate to go horribly awry (by "horribly awry" in this context I mean Bush winning in a stroll).

Then I forwarded the article to my friend Bootsy, and received in response this gentle fisking:

Prefaced by: I am a raging Deanite:
1. Dean's followers are NOT largely liberal. This is a fallacy perpetrated throughout the media. (resisting urge for conspiracy theory...)
2. Dean does not diametrically oppose Bush. He was opposed to the war, not opposed to all war. He makes a strong case for where we do need to use our military strength and where we do not. In fact, I really can see why Republicans can support Dean. A lot of the issues that the Republican party says they stand for but have lately ignored, especially fiscal responsibility and state's rights, are solid with Dean.
3. I think they underestimate the public's dislike for the Patriot Act.
4. Dean's positions are not unpopular. Fiscal responsibility, pro-choice, health care reform, education reform? Pretty mainstream to me.
5. As a vermonter, I take offense at their generalization of Vermont politics. This is a state with only two gun laws, civil unions, practically socialized school funding, and a very large libertarian element. It is diverse, not extremely liberal. Just ask the guys my dad has breakfast with about Hillary Clinton.

...all this "too liberal" bullshit is code word for "gay lover" and the DNC is just really disgusting me lately. Not only are they distancing themselves from their base but their strategy has proven that it does NOT win elections, I think they are too stubborn and power hungry to give it up.

All true. And all why I think Dean has a better shot than many people give him credit for at winning the primaries and the general elections. He's irascible, he's smart, he doesn't take or give any BS, and he consistently does his homework, thinks about what he wants to say, and admits when he doesn't have a firm answer to a question.

It's like he's from the moon or something.

(And I would like to say, Bootsy is dead on about the "too liberal" epithet.)