:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

:: Friday, September 19, 2003 ::

I normally don't do this...and this one is in particularly bad taste (am I allowed to use such a painfully obvious pun here?)...but I just can't resist this bit from insignificant thoughts.

:: Mark 9:32 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

James Jay Carafano on War on National Review Onlinefinds even more distortions from the Bush administration's detractors.

What irony: In opposing President Bush's actions in postwar Iraq, some critics who accuse the administration of engaging in 'revisionist history' are rewriting history themselves.

What sparked their charge was a pair of speeches given Aug. 25 to the Veterans of Foreign War by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In discussing the problems facing allied occupation forces in Iraq, Rice and Rumsfeld referred to problems encountered by occupation forces in post-World War II Germany to show that post-conflict operations are often fraught with danger and difficulties.

:: Mark 9:05 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

J. D. Hayworth on Bush Haters & War on National Review Online continues to search for truth concerning Iraq in the nations major media outlets...and finds little of it.

Repeated ad nauseam is that charge that the Bush administration claimed the threat from Iraq was 'imminent.' Indeed, Gen. Wesley Clark has made that charge a major talking point. But it's rubbish. Here are the president's own words: 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.' Acting before a threat becomes imminent is the essence of the Bush Doctrine. That's why it's called preemption.
Furthermore, there was never a single reason cited by the president to act against Saddam, but several, including human rights, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, regime change, and democratization. Still, the New York Times continues to distort the truth, and in the process contradicts itself.
On September 15, the paper wrote that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were 'the main rationale cited for war earlier this year.' But earlier this year, just before the war started, the very same New York Times wrote that, 'Many liberals have criticized the president's ever-changing rationales for war.…' What both have in common, of course, is that they are negative about the president.
The Bush haters are also befuddled that most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a role in the September 11 attacks. In fact, there is a definite 9/11-Saddam link, although probably not a direct one. Setting aside the question of how much contact there was between al Qaeda and Saddam, it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that set off a chain of events that led inexorably to 9/11.
Don't take my word for it. Here is what Time magazine wrote in the October 1, 2001 issue, published shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

:: Mark 9:02 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

Julia Gorin is not very sympathetic towards Madeline Albright in an edit titled, "Not at Albright", over at FOXNews.com even though she's a woman.

Albright was catapulted to power by a combination of talent for influencing people and a rock-hard determination to not let 'the boys win out,' as she called it. The latter in particular resonated with women, who habitually credit Albright for having penetrated a man's world amid intimidating obstacles. Unfortunately, women often mistake this kind of ambition in a woman for a virtue, their logic being: 'There are enough men in positions of power screwing up the world; it's time to give a woman a chance!'
In April of last year, Albright told Canada's The Globe and Mail that she considers being a woman an advantage in foreign affairs: 'I think women are better listeners and we can relate better on a personal basis, which ultimately makes a big difference in high-level, international relations.'
...

For all the obsessive touting she does of her gender, still unable to get over herself as the first female secretary of state even after flunking the job, this is one Woman who should have aimed lower in life.
Albright has been called 'tough' on issues, an 'outspoken woman who tells it like it is.' Unfortunately, she had a knack for being tough on the wrong issues and a flair for telling it like it isn't. Even after it wasn't. In her time, the woman gave a whole new meaning to the term counter-intelligence.

:: Mark 8:48 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

The Star Tribune has a little editorial piece up entitled, " Truth / Too little of it on Iraq", and it has all of the usual blather about the Bush administrations' "mendacity". Follwing the quote below is the standard left-wing laundry list of alleged administration lies and distortions. Go ahead and read it if you think that you might have forgotten any of them.

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.
In his appearance on 'Meet the Press' Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable.

James Lileks did and had alot to say about it. This is just an excerpt. You should go read the whole thing in spite of Lileks' warning, "Okay. Now comes the gnarly stuff. Bail if you choose; see you tomorrow."

Every day I read a piece like the Strib edit. They all have an inescapable conclusion: Saddam should have been left in power. No, they don’t say that. Yes, the writers would surely insist that Saddam was a wretched tyrant, and the world is better off without him in power, BUT, Baghdad’s electricity service is now undependable. No, but. Yes, but. Perhaps, however. Perfection has not been achieved; the depredations of a three-decade nightmare have not been banished in six months, and that really is the issue, isn’t it. Sorry, what was your question again?
...

I can’t help but come back to the central theme these edits imply: we should have left Iraq alone. We should have left this charnel house stand. We should have bought a wad of nice French cotton to shove in our ears so the buzz of the flies over the graves didn’t distract us from the important business of deciding whether Syria or China should have the rotating observer-status seat in the Oil-for-Palaces program. Afghanistan, well, that’s understandable, in a way; we were mad. We lashed out. But we should have stopped there, and let the UN deploy its extra-strong Frown Beams against the Iraqi ambassador in the hopes that Saddam would reduce the money he gave to Palestinian suicide bombers down to five grand. Five grand! Hell, that hardly covers the parking tickets your average ambassador owes to the city of New York; who’d blow themselves up for that.

Would the editorialists of the nation be happier if Saddam was still cutting checks to people who blew up not just our allies, but our own citizens? I’d like an answer. Please. Essay question: “Families of terrorists who blow up men, women and children, some of whom are Americans, no longer receive money from Saddam, because Saddam no longer rules Iraq. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Explain.”

In short: the same people who chide America for its short-attention span think we should have stopped military operations after the Taliban was routed. (And they quite probably opposed that, for the usual reasons.) The people who think it’s all about oil like to snark that we should go after Saudi Arabia. The people who complain that the current administration is unable to act with nuance and diplomacy cannot admit that we have completely different approaches for Iraq, for Iran, for North Korea. The same people who insist we need the UN deride the Administration when it gives the UN a chance to do something other than throw rotten fruit.

The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one.

You really should go read the whole thing...and follow all of the embedded links to background stories and corroborating sources. And don't fault James for his attitude. It's not really his. He is actually sharing it with about 69% of the American people.

:: Mark 8:26 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

Now, this is fabulous journalism! USATODAY.com - Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
CNN had no comment.

At least not one that would improve their ratings.... Heh.

:: Mark 8:55 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

Oh, yeah. Go read this one!OpinionJournal - Extra

Many years ago Chris Matthews--now famous on TV--hit on an interesting formulation: He said the Democrats were the 'mommy party' and the Republicans the 'daddy party.' That is, the Democrats were 'nurturers,' concerned with health policy and day care. The Republicans were 'protectors,' taking care of national security and other manly matters. This notion is obviously galling to some. But Mr. Matthews was on to something, and we now find ourselves in a 'daddy party' time.

:: Mark 9:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

Try this one. OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today

The Face of the Enemy
The Knight Ridder news service has interviewed some members of the anti-American guerrilla/terrorist forces in Iraq, and it's clear that this is not a popular resistance movement:
The two cell leaders said their fighters primarily were former Iraqi army officers and young Iraqis who had joined because they were angry over the deaths or arrests of family members during U.S. raids in the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his supporters.
The group also shelters remnants of a non-Iraqi Arab unit of Saddam's elite fedayeen militia force, they said, as well as foreigners who slipped across the country's long and porous borders to battle American troops.
Those who say that the continuing resistance makes the war a 'failure' are deluding themselves. That there are still active pro-Saddam forces is testament to the war's success: Most of these people would have been killed had the major combat part of the war been much longer and bloodier. And, as we've said repeatedly, the presence of non-Iraqi terrorists is a feature, not a bug. Much better to have these people in Iraq, where tens of thousands of American troops can kill or capture them, than in other countries where they'd pose a danger to civilians.

:: Mark 7:52 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

It has been a while since I was last active on this forum. Unemployment can mess up your schedule and priorities like that. Still looking for something new, but I have high hopes for the future.

Hey, if you know of anyone looking for an Active Directory architect/consultant, please send them my way.

:: Mark 11:56 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

Over on the OpinionJournal, John Cornyn asks what we should do in the event of a terrorist strike against memebers of congress. The Constitution requires a majority of senators and/or representative to be present for a vote. Specifically a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number. He, along with others, suggests that a constitutional ammendment to allow for the continued operation of both houses of Congress in the event that, due to death or injury, a majority could not be assembled.

While I am not opposed to the idea in principle, I need to see the proposed wording before I can pass judgement on this. Senator Cornyn(R-Texas) envisions something similar to the 25th ammendment, and I agree with his logic, but we must be very careful to avoid enacting anything that would lend itself to broader interpretation.

Our ability to ensure Congress would be able to continue to function under the current constitutional restrictions is woefully limited. States have power to allow their governors to appoint senators in cases of vacancies, and 48 states have elected to do so. But the Constitution provides no immediate mechanism for filling vacancies in the House, nor for redressing the problem of large numbers of members in either chamber being incapacitated.

Vacancies in the House can be filled only by special election. That takes months to conduct, for reasons of mechanical feasibility, democratic integrity, and the rights of military and other absentee voters.

What's more, it is impossible to address the problem of incapacitated members. If 50 senators were in the hospital and unable either to perform their duties or resign, they could not be replaced. The Senate could be unable to operate for up to four years.

Accordingly, the Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel of former congressional leaders and government officials from across the political spectrum, unanimously endorsed a constitutional amendment to fix this problem in cases of catastrophic attack. Just as the 25th Amendment ensures continuity of the presidency, the proposed amendment would ensure continued congressional operations.

:: Mark 11:53 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...