TIME MAGAZINE....IS THERE ANY MORE DOUBT?
Actually ... this might be a blessing. Every once in a while we need a stark reminder of the bias of the mainstream media. I think this pretty much does it.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
THE SILENCE OF GEORGE TENET
WHEN RICHARD NIXON ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, Richardson didn't do the dirty deed.
Rather, he resigned in protest.
And when the same command came to Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, Ruckelshaus didn't go dutifully along.
He, too, refused the odious order, resigning even as the White House fired him.
"There wasn't any question in his mind or mine," Ruckelshaus said, recalling the decisions he and Richardson made back in October of 1973 to defy the president.
"What I was being asked to do by the president was fundamentally wrong," he told me. "I just couldn't do it."
When Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to sign a welfare-reform bill because he felt it would hurt poor people, Edelman didn't put career ahead of conscience.
Instead, he resigned in protest.
"I just found in my gut that I couldn't stay there and be involved with the implementation of that policy," Edelman says. "It was as simple as that."
There's something deeply admirable about people high up in the pantheon of power and prestige willing to put principle ahead of position.
Now comes the sorry example of George Tenet, former director of Central Intelligence, who helped the Bush administration make and market its argument for war with Iraq.
A man who left office meekly, long after the war was a fait accompli, Tenet now tells us -- in a book that has earned him a multi million-dollar advance -- that privately he had qualms about the Bush administration's conduct, including its manipulation and misrepresentation of intelligence.
Having given Bush and Cheney cover as they built a fraudulent case for an ill-conceived invasion -- and then having accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom in what looked for all the world like a reward for his loyalty -- Tenet portrays himself as a man who struggled inside the government to counsel caution to ideologues intent on war.
Certainly the former CIA director doesn't bear primary responsibility for this foreign-policy fiasco. That distinction lies with Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz & Co.
Yet if the careerist Tenet had had courage and convictions, he might well have slowed, and perhaps even changed, the march to war.
Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty" and "The One Percent Doctrine," has offered some of the most perceptive accounts of the way this administration has operated, particularly post-9/11.
"If Tenet had stood up and said there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that when it comes to WMD, what we are relying on is supposition and not real evidence as traditionally defined, it would have made it extremely difficult for this administration to go forward based on the way American history had been written up to that point," Suskind said in an interview.
That, however, is not what Tenet did. Instead, by his own admission, he kept quiet, issuing no public alarms as the truth was twisted to build the case for war.
"No one had elected me to go out and make speeches about how and where I disagreed on thorny issues," he writes.
When a CIA analyst expressed concerns about working on the October 2002 intelligence estimate that would obviously be used to marshal support for war, Tenet told him: "Look, we don't make policy. Our job is to tell the people who do what we know and what we think. It's up to them to decide what to do about it."
But Tenet's many rationalizations notwithstanding, "If the Bush administration was misrepresenting the intelligence the CIA was expressing, he had an obligation to let us know that," says US Senator John Kerry.
That's exactly right.
And despite Tenet's anger at having Bush's team of world-class buck-passers point to his now-infamous "slam dunk" comment about WMD, his own account -- that his remark wasn't about the certainty that Iraq had WMD but rather about strengthening the marketing of that claim -- is long leagues short of exculpatory.
Pressed Wednesday on CNN about whether he should have spoken out or resigned before the war began, Tenet replied: "I know that we acquitted our responsibilities consistent with our values."
That statement, pregnant with unintended irony, is all too obviously accurate.
It is both the truth and the tragedy of George Tenet.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
WHAT PART OF 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION' IS CONFUSING?
-- Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Around the world, an unacceptable number of families and children live in the most abject and hopeless poverty any of us could imagine. No one can fault any of these people from trying to escape these gut-wrenching conditions and pursuing a better way of life. Certainly we can all agree that more must be done to lift-up countries that are drowning in a sea of their own population unable to attain economic stability. As Congress looks to adopt a new illegal immigration policy, we must not forget that the root of the problem lays within countries that lack the economic and political resources needed to support a fully developed nation.
Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters marched the streets of major cities throughout the country demanding rights such as citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. The illegal immigration issue has always elicited strong emotions from many people but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of rewarding those who have broken our laws with something as precious as citizenship.
The outrage and indignation displayed by yesterday’s marchers would be justified if it were directed at the right government. The United States is not responsible for the conditions millions of would-be immigrants are fleeing from -- yet many activist groups expect us to be held accountable for a third-world environment overrun with corruption and poverty we did not create. We could grant a mass amnesty right now and it still would not change any of the social, political and economic conditions that are driving people away from their home countries.
When examining illegal immigration reform in America, I have said numerous times that the key to addressing illegal immigration is removing the economic incentive that attracts so many people to our country. Fundamentally, the reason why the United States is such an attractive destination for immigrants is because of the jobs that we have to offer. Combine that with an illegal immigration enforcement policy that has never been truly enforced and it is easy to see why we have more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country hoping to fill the jobs that supposedly Americans won’t do. Or, is it that they won’t do these jobs for what employers are willing to pay illegal immigrants?
Candidly, the 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions more looking to come to America are not at fault for the issues we face with illegal immigration. For far too long businesses in this country have been willing participants in an effort to import cheap labor to fill low-skill jobs. The result has been a depressed market for American low-skill workers and a significant financial burden being placed on the backs of middle-class Americans who must now pay for the health care, education and social costs of this new class of illegal workers.
The Federal Government can no longer be a willing accomplice to the circumvention of our federal immigration laws. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to enforce the law and the only way we can address illegal immigration in America is to hold employers and big business accountable as well. This requires the implementation of a employer verification program so we can distinguish between employers who hire illegal immigrants because they don’t know the difference and those who hire illegal immigrants because they want cheap labor. Once an employer verification system is in place, we can crackdown on the employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Solving illegal immigration begins with giving employers the tools they need to verify employment eligibility. This has become increasingly difficult for employers as document fraud has become a widespread problem as employers are ill-equipped to detect and authenticate workers’ identification documents. A universal, non-discriminatory and tamper-resistant Social Security card would be a practical solution to this growing problem. Currently, there are more than 30 types of identification employers can use to verify employment eligibility. By limiting the burden of documentation to just one, uniform card, employers will finally have the tools they need to comply with the law. We need to separate those who are egregiously violating the law and those who do not have the means to enforce and comply with the law.
Once the employment incentive is eliminated, immigrants worldwide will have to look elsewhere for job opportunities and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into our country will subside. Now there is chorus of people in Washington D.C. who do not believe enforcement first will work, but considering that the federal government has never enforced our laws, it is impossible to know what effect real enforcement will have on stemming the illegal immigration tide.
The only thing Congress could do to make the problem worse is offer another incentive for people to leave their home countries and come to the United States. Call it a comprehensive plan, call it a temporary worker program or a pathway to citizenship, call it amnesty -- the results will still be the same. You cannot address our failures in illegal immigration policy by repeating the failed policies of the past. Amnesty hasn’t worked. Neither has ignoring the problem. Why not try the one thing we haven’t done yet? By enforcing our laws, securing our borders and holding employers accountable, we can avoid repeating our mistakes and live up to our country’s promise of being a nation governed by the rule of law.
THE CNN EXPERTS HAVE FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT
Sorry about the sarcasm ... but why does it take so long for some people to realize the obvious? For years the Commander in Chief of our armed forces has been telling us that pulling out of Iraq would invite disaster; bloodshed on an unimaginable scale. Now it takes a panel of CNN "experts" repeating what George Bush has been saying all along to make it a fact.
Here's a paragraph from the story:
"Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict."
Now what part of that scenario sounds good to you Democrats? Remember .. this is the course of action preferred by your party! Your heroes, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha and the rest of the Defeatocrat caucus have been working for just this scenario! What is it about sectarian violence on a massive scale, an Al Qaeda base for terror in oil-rich Iraq and a broader Middle East conflict that makes them so happy?
It's clear: Iraqis still need our help to build the country they have been denied for so long. Pulling out now would undermine the legacy of every soldier and civilian life lost in Iraq. Defeatocrats are basically saying that those who died serving in Iraq did it for nothing, there will be no resolution worth dedicating to their sacrifice. Nice, real nice. Let's just spit in the eye of every person serving in Iraq. Liberals love this stuff. Me? Not so much.
We can all admit that this could have been handled better, but what's done is done. Can we put aside the partisan bullshit (I won't be able to say that on the air ... sad) and just come together to get the job done over there? Pulling out --- surrendering, if you like -- is the path to disaster. Accomplishing our stated goals can lead to huge dividends for peace.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS BECOMING A RELIGION?
Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" must be pretty inconvenient for Jesus who got the boot! The Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa will provide its guests with copies of "An Inconvenient Truth." This is fanaticism at its best. First it was a slide show, then a book, then a movie about the slide show, then instant Hollywood fame. Now he even gets a hotel. Well isn't that special.
Maybe I should work with hotels to start replacing their Bibles with The FairTax Book! After all, the vice president of Marriott says, "We have a social responsibility." If he wants to be responsible, how about saving his company, and his guests, millions of dollars by implementing the FairTax plan. Talk about responsibility.
What's even more amusing about Al Gore and his global warming campaign is that "going green" is very hip and trendy, particularly among Hollywood celebrities. I know I'm no spring chicken, but Al Gore isn't what I would consider the beacon of cool and hip either. How did he land such a gig? Maybe it's the extra 40 lbs and the fake tan...
And hey, I'm not the first to suggest the global warming movement is actually a religion.
VETO
Democrats are totally invested in our defeat in Iraq. They believe that their chances of taking the White House and keeping the congress in the 2008 elections is to nurture the idea that many American voters have that what they call the "Iraq War", but what is really the Iraqi front in the war against terrorism, is absolutely lost and is only being further pursued by George Bush to achieve some nefarious anti-American and ungodly goals. Democrats know that Americans love winners, and that Americans want to win. If Americans begin to believe that that the achievement of our goals in Iraq is, in fact, possible; that a victory can be won, they will turn against the Democrat's ... and there goes the Democrat majority and a Democrat in the White House.
The Democrat -- and media -- hatred of George Bush has its genesis in the 2000 elections. Democrats did everything they could to bring about a recount in Florida -- but only in those areas which vote Democrat. They worked extra hours to try to disqualify votes from American citizens serving in our armed forces overseas. They pulled out all of the stops to change the outcome in Florida. They held hearings about intimidation of black voters in Florida, but could not come up with one single voter willing to appear before a Congressional hearing to tell his or her sad tale of being turned away from the polls. They tried it all, folks .. and still Bush was certified the winner.
From that moment on Democrats were dedicated to doing everything and anything the could do to destroy the Bush presidency ... and that includes working for a defeat of our country and our troops in Iraq. In pursuit of this goal the Democrats have had the willing help of two other powerful entities. The mainstream media and the Republican Party. The New York and Washington press corps, always supportive of Democrats at the polls, was more than willing to do whatever they could to join in the demonization of Bush. In the meantime the Republicans worked overtime to make sure that those voters out there who were actually in tune with Republican ideals of limited government and maximized personal responsibility would be so massively disappointed that they would sit on their hands when election day came around.
This Democrat urgency in setting a date-certain for surrender is borne of a hint that things might be turning our way in Iraq. With every hint of good news from Iraq Democrats become more determined to end the war before victory can be achieved.
Thank you, President Bush, for vetoing the Democrats surrender bill.
So now we have Harry Reid saying that now the president has an obligation to explain his plan in Iraq to the American people. At the same time Harry Reid has an obligation to explain to the American people his version of the consequences for setting a surrender date for the Iraqi front in the war against Islamic terrorism. Never in the history of modern warfare has a combatant set a surrender date in this manner. You don't say "We're going to surrender in six months." You do say "I'm defeated. I surrender .. NOW." Oh, but wait. I almost forgot. Harry Reid has been saying that we've been defeated, hasn't he?
Let's all have fun now watching the Democrats as they break out in a cold sweat every time news comes out of Iraq that carries even a small hint of success.
Is success guaranteed? No. Could America defeat these Islamic goons if we set our minds to it and pulled out all of the stops? Sure, but we're not going there. Can we win with the tactics not being pursued in Iraq? Yes, but the more the "loyal" opposition in this country condemns our efforts and in so doing gives aid and comfort to the Islamic fascist enemy, the more difficult, if not improbable, that victory becomes.
Someday, I fear, there is going to be a terrible price to be paid for the weakness that the Democrats and mindless peace-at-any-price leftists have caused us to show in the fight against terrorism.
