Saturday, September 30, 2006


I thought I'd point out a little message board exchange from the other day. I often go to Eric Snider's website. He wrote for the BYU paper when we were freshman and I've followed him ever since. He doesn't normally get into politics, but asked a political question on his blog about Keith Olbermann. Olbermann is an idiot masquerading as an erudite commentator. I responded to the post, as did a few others, and I thought the exchanges worthy of linkage.

The lefties who respond seem unlikely to be swayed by anything I might have said. Just the same, I'll never turn down a chance to speak the truth, especially about a guy like Olbermann. Chris Muir, who writes the Day by Day comic, had this to say about Olbermann the other day.

I concur. Fortunately Olbermann's ratings are pretty pathetic.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Bush lays it down

There has emerged some furor over the National Intelligence Estimate, portions of which were leaked to the New York Times (big surprise) last week. President Bush has responded quite well to the issue, and his answer to the question of whether the Iraq War has made us more susceptible to terror is worth relaying in its entirety:

President Bush yesterday, answering a question about the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, which the White House said it would make public:
Question: Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

President Bush: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.
Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.
The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.
You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on Sept. 11. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.
We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.
You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.
This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.
Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.
I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI [director of national intelligence]. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.
And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Nicely done.

Friday, September 22, 2006


I am going to deal with Chavez on the Spanish Phrase of the Day, where you can also see a video of Lowdogg, Jr.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The Left and Terror

I wanted to write a longer post, but have no time. For a clear idea of the point I wanted to make, just read James Taranto's Opinion Journal from last Monday. The first section is the key one, and my feeling is complete agreement. The Left as presently constituted has no business leading this country through the War on Terror.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Pondering "The Path"

As a follow-up to the furor over ABC's miniseries, The Path to 9/11, I wanted to point out some good commentary, as well as provide my own impression of the film.

The writer of the screenplay has an op-ed in today's WSJ (Opinion Journal page). He does a good job of relating the compromises that have to be made when making a film, especially on such an expansive theme. He also successfully addresses the shortfalls in both administrations on the terror issue.

What is key about The Path was how it made me feel. It took me about a week to watch the whole thing, and although there were some slow parts, I would say that it was generally captivating. The final 30 minutes are quite moving, and it was impossible to contain the mized emotions of sadness and anger. My anger today is different than the anger I felt 5 years ago, and its because of the way that the Left has handled the politics of the War on Terror. I plan to buy the film. It doesn't matter if it is 100% true to life. It tells the story that needs to be told and leaves the viewer with a clear idea of where our enemies stand.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Barone on Plame

Michael Barone points out a nice article on the Plame issue. His synopsis is helpful and worth a look.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Good Journalism

This is what journalism is all about. Slate published an article by David Plotz where he attacked Frank Rich for some comments he made last Sunday (9/10). Frank Rich is one of the worst commentators around, as partisan as it gets, and in this case downright wrong.

Rich mentions a photograph snapped on 9/11 and draws conclusions about what the subjects were feeling. Plotz disagreed with his assessment, and requested that the subjects contact him to provide their side of the story. One of them did and his response is quite different than what Rich imagined.

The benefit of Plotz work is that it shows just how twisted Rich and many of his colleagues are. His take on the photo was as negative and condescending as could be. But there is an even bigger problem- it is LAZY. In this case I am less concerned, because anything that undermines Rich's credibility is good for America.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Path

I have been watching "The Path to 9/11" and find it riveting. Although I am only 22 minutes into it my first impression is positive.

As a follow-up to my Friday piece, I thought this post from TigerHawk was appropriate. He concurs with my feelings about the way that Democratic outrage will increase viewership. He also has some insightful posts from other bloggers on the matter.

Here is a roundup from Instapundit.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Clintonista Revisionism

You may have heard of the controversy surrounded an ABC film called "The Path to 9/11." It portrays events during both the Clinton and Bush administrations leading up to that day. It's source material is the 9/11 Commission report, which much of the media has conveniently forgotten is the product of a bi-partisan panel they once adored.

I first heard about the film when Michael Barone screened part of it a few weeks ago. He found it riveting, and thought that it was a helpful reminder of the enemy that we face.

During the last few days stories have emerged of Democratic discontent with the film. They think it is misleading. They have even demanded that it be pulled from the air in its entirety if it is not altered. Even the New York Times TV critic has entered the fray, with a review that blends critical 'commentary' with her own political views. I don't think her readers will notice, as their groupthink has them in a MoveOn state of mind.

So the Dems are steamed about a piece of media, on ABC no less! How refreshing! As it is, they have made so much of this story that the interest in the film has only intensified. Just as the furor over the NSA surveillance program did no harm to the Republicans, this will only make the Dems look bad (and guilty).

Friday, September 01, 2006

Plame Flame-out

Well folks, as I predicted, the whole Valery Plame brouhaha has turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Here's what I wrote back in July of 2005:

I get the feeling that the Left is putting all their hopes and dreams into this Rove/Plame "scandal" and will ultimately end up dissapointed.

Here's what today's WaPo just wrote:

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue....

The article continues, finally realizing as many pundits have, that Mr. Wilson himself is the one to blame for the "ruining" of his wife's career.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate indeed.