Thursday, May 27, 2004

Soledad O'Brien, Republican Hack? Part II

From today's American Morning, this is Ms. O'Brien describing the speech given yesterday by Al Gore (all emphasis added.)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: I think it's fair to use the word rant in this speech that he gave yesterday. And he said "utter incompetence upon the part of the president has made the world a far more dangerous place." Here's what else he had to say. Let's watch it.


O'BRIEN: He went on and on. He talked -- he called for the immediate resignation of Ronald -- Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, other people as well. So do you think that that kind of rant -- and he got a little more animated as he went along. That part was kind of calm. Does it make an impact?

Perhaps Ms. O'Brien's style of journalism, which mixes actual news with a hearty dose of insults, is better suited for Fox News. Or "The Tough Crowd," with Colin Quinn.


Soledad O'Brien, Republican Hack?

From Tuesday's American Morning:

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Some of the president's political enemies (emphasis added) are downplaying the impact of a plan for Iraq he talked about last night.

Enemies? Enemies are Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi, my dear. The President's "political enemies" are properly referred to as opponents or democrats.


Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Sounding The Horns Of Moria

"A Small Victory" Tantrum Alert Level =
Mecha Godzilla - High

ASmallVictory.net is a fascinating website. In between quaint, and often thoughtful reflections on her home life, the site's purveyor, Michele, unleashes angry, impassioned rants against liberals; accusing them of everything from being anti-American to being soft on terrorism.

In an effort to help our readers (if we have any) things fall apart will begin grading these tantrums in a method similar to that used by the Terror Alert Chart. However, rather than colors, this system will be based in Godzilla monsters (who know a thing or two about throwing a tantrum.) It goes as follows:


Godzilla - SEVERE
Mecha Godzilla - HIGH
Gamera - LOW

Now on with the show...

Today, Michele issues a massive diatribe concerning the war on terrorism. In addition to making several Lord of the Rings references and spitting in the face of the latest report by The International Institute of Strategic Studies, she argues that the US is locked in a war of civilizations with the Arab world. Michele postulates that the single solution to this clash of cultures is an even more expansive military strategy, extending the theatre of operations for the war on terrorism all the way into nuclear-armed Pakistan. In short, she argues, war is the only answer.

It's the war that will, in the end, save us from doom. While all these forces are gathered in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, we need to let our troops loose to do the right thing.

Interestingly enough, while Michele's piece targets unspecified liberals, ("That includes you with the anti-war sign. And you, with your conspiracy theories", she quips) perhaps it is Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at whom her gripes should be directed. Mr. Lugar had this to say about the use of military influence in combating terrorism.

From the Boston Globe:

"Military action is necessary to defeat serious and immediate threats to our national security. But the war on terrorism will not be won through attrition, particularly since military action will often breed more terrorists and more resentment of the United States," the Indiana senator told an international audience of more than 300 students of diplomacy graduating from the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

"Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and building alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development worldwide, and controlling weapons of mass destruction, we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism" that could kill thousands if not millions, Lugar said.

"The United States, as a nation, simply has not made this commitment," he said. "We are worried about terrorism, but the evolution of national security policy has not kept up with the threat. We have relied heavily on military options and unilateral approaches that have weakened our alliances."

And from USA Today:

"To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities," he said.


Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton administrations for not adequately funding the foreign affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy.

Apparently, Mr. Lugar believes the pen, or in this case the dollar, is truly mightier than the sword.


Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Proof Of Liberal Bias On College Campuses

Hofstra University Young
Republicans, Class of 2004

These clowns will no doubt be crowned "king for a news cycle" within the conservative community. After all, they're rallying against the overbearing liberal atmosphere on college campuses.

Except this proves some campuses do not maintain that kind of an atmosphere. Clearly, conservative students at Hofstra had not been forced to enter a Ben Shapiro-like state of political self-regression in order to maintain their GPA and social status.


Afghanistan What? Bin Laden Who?

If Secretary of Genius Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are the President's "most influential confidants," that makes Hughes the defacto Under Secretary of Genius, right? Isn't that precisely why the White House called her in from Texas this week to hammer out the President's prime-time speech?

I mean, this is Karen Hughes. She wouldn't do something like allow the President to open last night's speech by discussing the war on terror and not mention Osama bin Laden or Afghanistan, would she?

From the speech:

We've also seen images of a young American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare, and all the bounds of civilized behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action of ours, and would not be appeased by any concession. We suspect that the man with the knife was an al Qaeda associate named Zarqawi. He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well. The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory, and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings, and more murders of the innocent around the world.

SHORTER BUSH: Forget everything you've heard about Afghanistan and bin Laden. That's sooooo 2001. All of us cool kids in the war on terrorism are talking about Iraq and Zarqawi now.

Interestingly enough, the site of last night's speech, the Army War College, was the source of a paper published in January declaring the war in Iraq an "unnecessary" detour in America's fight against terrorism.
Also from last night's speech, this:

Iraqi oil production has reached more than two million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq.

The typical American, now paying about $2.00 per gallon on average for gas, must be thrilled to hear about how well Iraqi oil production is going. Any chance some of those barrels are heading this way?


Monday, May 24, 2004

Monday's Douchebag? [CBT]

The Corner is buzzing over a new Pew survey which shows that most journalists identify themselves as liberals. I'm more interested in knowing whether or not most of the writers employed by The National Review identify themselves as journalists, because their collective knowledge of the craft seems to have been gleamed from old Superman comics.

Take this post from Tim Graham.

MONDAY'S LEAD? [Tim Graham]
Robert Moran of the Knight-Ridder reports that there is no evidence that the U.S. clumsily shot up a wedding party last week. These charges of U.S. killing of women and children led the network newscasts Wednesday night. What will they report now? And how much emphasis will they give it?

As usual, one glance at the article linked to by Graham proves that Robert Moran of Knight-Ridder does not, in fact, report that there is no evidence of the US shooting up a wedding party. What Mr. Moran actually reports is that the US military claims there is no evidence of them shooting up a wedding party. In other words, what Graham positions as some sort of definitive, "last word" investigation is actually just a short piece relaying the military's official position.

Making Graham look even more foolish is this AP report, (courtesy of Pandagon) issued early Monday morning.

A videotape obtained Sunday by Associated Press Television News captures a wedding party that survivors say was later attacked by U.S. planes early Wednesday, killing up to 45 people. The dead included the cameraman, Yasser Shawkat Abdullah, hired to record the festivities, which ended Tuesday night before the planes struck.


"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video which runs for several hours.

In the words of Perry White, "Great Ceaser's ghost!"


Sunday, May 23, 2004

Zing You Very Much

This from Just One Minute (referencing this story):

Bush falls off his mountain-bike; according to Drudge, "Kerry told reporters in front of cameras, 'Did the training wheels fall off?'... Reporters are debating whether to treat it is as on or off the record... Developing...".

OK, get past your first reaction, and open your mind to the possibility that this was a topical quip. Apparently, it was only yesterday that Bush was using a training wheel metaphor to describe Iraq:

"He talked about ‘time to take the training wheels off,"’ said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio. "The Iraqi people have been in training, and now it’s time for them to take the bike and go forward."

That might have provided the inspiration for Kerry's attempt at humor; I suspect that will be the explanation, anyway.

How could anyone get the impression that Bush's training wheels comment was not the inspiration for Kerry's remark? Maybe I'm just "open minded"...

UPDATE: Surprise, surprise. Over at A Small Victory, Kerry's joke went over the princess's head. Singing her familiar song of outrage, Michele starts off with a little, "You want this petty, childish man as your president?" Then after a Mothra-like tantrum, she concludes with, "As far as insults go, I've seen a lot worse. But this just makes Kerry look stupid and small."

Hmmm... Speaking of worse, where have I seen a media-gaffe worse than this? That's right, I remember like it was yesterday...

From that bastion of liberal values, Tucker Carlson (via that other bastion of liberal values, the National Review Online):

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

And later in the same piece, from an author commenting on the Carlson article:

For sheer ugliness, nothing else in the article matches Bush's remarks on the death penalty. (When he sees Carlson's horrified reaction, Bush "immediately stops smirking": " 'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.'")

Two questions:

1) Why has the liberal media given little to no attention to this very much on-the-record comment?

2) You want this petty, childish man as your president?