Quote of the day comes from the NY Sun:
The big news out of the most recent Democratic presidential debate was that two of the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, endorsed the Bush Doctrine that is at the core of our current president's foreign policy.
Color me shocked.
We've heard over and over again that the Bush administration's spending is out of control. But according to Investor's Business Daily, that isn't necessarily true if measured against the "most important" yardstick of all — spending as a share of GDP:
Spending as a share of GDP is the most important measure of the size of government, since it measures what government actually takes from the national economy. . . .
So rather than a "record" spender, as some claim, Bush is actually below average. . . .
Many on the right have criticized Bush for too much spending, at times rightly so. But this has been picked up by Democrats, who now style themselves as fiscal conservatives. They're not. . . .
Money quote:
For the record, Bush came into office in January 2001, a time of unique challenges both to our nation's economy and to its security. They included a stock collapse that erased $8 trillion in national wealth in the space of a few months, a first-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil that killed 3,000, and a recession that Bush inherited but didn't cause.
If Bush had pushed to cut the budget in 2001, he might well have been impeached for economic incompetence. A decline in spending would have hurt the economy in the short run, extending the recession and making the recovery in jobs even tougher.
The relevant facts are that, over the past three years, federal spending as a share of GDP has been remarkably stable: 20.2% in 2005, 20.3% in 2006 and 20.2% in 2007. And over the same period, the deficit has been cut in half as a share of GDP.
Fredrick Kagan writes about the tide turning in Iraq and GW's visit today, calling it the Gettysburg of This War:
Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield, west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. He brought with him his secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi. In other words, Bush called together all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency, this was it.
In writing this article, Kagan hints at a comparison between Lincoln and GW Bush. Given that our nation is bitterly divided, as it was during the civil war, and given the number of souls freed by each man, the comparison may be more apt than most will admit.
After a small slew decisions today, the WaPo has come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court Leans Conservative:
Four of the five cases announced today were decided by the conservative majority led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., as the divisions that narrowly but decisively split the justices on social issues were on full display. . . .
Today's decisions added to the court's rising number of 5 to 4 votes this term, substantially higher than last year's total. A few of them favor the court's liberal wing, but conservatives are on a recent roll.
Predictably, the Red Rag NY Times is up in arms about the decisions, printing a small slew of articles and editorials in protest. Indeed, the editorial spells out the Times' view in no uncertain terms: Three Bad Rulings.
Whether the rulings are "bad" or not depends entirely on one's point of view.
The court upheld the right of a principal to suspend a student who promoted drug use by creating a banner that proclaimed, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". In light of the lack of discipline in our public schools, I don't know that a restriction on children's free speech is uncalled for.
The court split hairs in ruling that tax money could be funneled to faith-based initiatives if the source was the executive office rather than congressional decree (which is prohibited by precedent). But the unspoken conclusion is that precedent may be overturned by this court if the proper case presents itself. In other words, a bad precedent created by a liberal court may be overturned in the future.
But the high point of the day had to be the loosening of restrictions on free speech as a result of the Constitution-shredding McCain-Feingold. The court ruled that the only advertisements that can be kept off the air in the days before an election are, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
Describing and then dismissing the rationale for the advertising restrictions, Chief Justice Roberts used a phrase that seemed to sum up the new majority’s view toward campaign finance regulation. “Enough is enough,” the chief justice said. . . .
It may be only a matter of time before the court reconsiders its 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the entire law, or at least expands its Monday decision to strike down any restriction on advertising. Three of the five justices in the majority, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, declined to sign the chief justice’s opinion because it did not take that step.
Even before the last election I was vocal in my feelings that Bush's domestic policies are little short of disastrous. But the conservatation* of the Supremes offsets that a little.
* Shakespeare made up over 3,000 words. Allow me this one.
Update: Liberal spin is gearing up on this one. Check out this headline: Supreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions.
Ann Coulter notes that Lexus Nexus has 476 articles about Pelosi's achievement of becoming the first woman Speaker, yet when Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State there were only 77 articles written (half in Ebony, Jet, etc.).
What liberal media?
Coulter lists notable Bush appointments:
Humorous Coulter Quote:
A New York Times profile of Rice at the time waited until the last sentence to note in passing that Rice was "only the second woman, and the first black woman, to hold the job." (In a separate column by me, it was noted that Rice was the "first competent woman" to hold the job.)
America's North Shore Journal performs an analysis of Poverty in America 2005 with some surprising results, such as:
| Average Poverty Rate First Five Years of an Administration | |
| Reagan | 14.5% |
| Clinton | 14.1% |
| Bush 43 | 12.3% |
Go read the whole thing.
Technorati tags: Poverty, Economic Classes, American Economy, Exploding Liberal Myths, Exposing Media Lies, Stopping the Spin.
Blogs represent the voice of the people–often against the most powerful elements in our society–so they do represent a kind of high-tech democracy in action. ...Update: Today's other must read is a Front Page Magazine article that starts out with comments from Karl Rove in a recent interview in which he said that the internet has created a healthy dialogue on the right, helping to gain influence and broaden the appeal. However:Still, I have to wonder, why do media commentators devote so much attention to radically left-wing blogs–especially when these blogs hardly represent the views of SUV-driving, church-going, baseball-loving moms and dads? ...
The fact of the matter is that Democrats simply cannot control their left flank for very long–hence the ascendancy of the conservative movement. No matter how much the Democratic Party chieftains claim that abortion is a tragic choice ... no matter how much they talk about personal responsibility and getting able-bodied men and women off the public dole ... their liberal colors eventually show. This is why, despite claims that the Democrats are going to enjoy an electoral blow-out this fall, it would be wrong to count the party of Reagan out.
Among Democrats, my sense is that the blog world has tended to strengthen the far Left of the Democratic Party at the expense of liberal, but somewhat less liberal, members of their party. It has tended to sort of drive their party even further to the Left rather than focusing on good ideas that would help unite people around common goals and common purposes. Instead, the Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger — hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent.As you can imagine, this stirred things up a bit on the lefty blogs and FrontPage doles out some of the best of the best. A sample:
I hate Rove as much as I hate Bush and all republicans, and I hate the fact that Rove said we are filled with hate. That is sooo hateful!! I wonder how far we can get riding this emotion called hate?Read it all to bring a smile to your face.
Bush and the neo-conservatives understand, like Thucydides, that the security of a state is enhanced when it is surrounded by others that share its principles and interests. CRB editor Charles Kesler shows them in his contribution to The Right War? how they might be more clear-thinking about those principles and interests: Compassionate conservatism is as problematic abroad as it is at home.We cannot say with any certainty whether or not the Bush Doctrine will succeed. But critics of the doctrine should note that adherence to a particular theory is no guarantee of success. American foreign policy has tried a realist approach (Nixon) and a traditionalist (Carter), and both failed. The Bush Doctrine too will fail, if it is not applied with prudence and blessed with good fortune.
Technorati Tags: Foreign Policy, American Foreign Policy, Bush Doctrine.
While Iraqis all over the world joyfully showed their ink-stained fingers by holding up their digit or by making a peace sign, this Iraqi soldier is clearly making a "W" sign.He couldn't be making a political statement, could he?
First, the White House released an unclassified version of the strategy for winning in Iraq, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (also available in original PDF format). The document clearly outlines why we are fighting in Iraq and how we are going to win: by pursuing a three-pronged strategy consisting of a political track, a security track and an economic track.
Second, the president gave a speech to Naval Academy students at Annapolis, noting that this is the first year that the entire student body consisted of those who volunteered to serve their nation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
In the speech, the president promised to continue laying out his strategy and identify the progress that we are making. But today was reserved for one area: training Iraqis to take the place of our soldiers so our men and women can come home:
In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to the victory in Iraq, and that's the training of Iraq security forces.I encourage everyone to go read his entire speech, but here are a few highlights that spoke to me:
He told us why we are fighting in Iraq:
Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. ...He outlined the progress and success of training Iraqis to hold onto their new democracy:The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th. Those terrorists share the same ideology with those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, murdered tourists in Bali, workers in Riyadh and guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. Just last week they massacred Iraqi children and their parents at a toy giveaway outside an Iraqi hospital.
This is an enemy without conscience, and they cannot be appeased. If we're not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.
Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.
In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions, made up primarily of United States Marines and Army, with six Iraqi battalions supporting them.He made a backhand swipe at some naysayers:The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties, yet in most situations the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces and securing ground that had already been cleared out by our troops.
This year in Tal Afar it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces, 11 Iraqi battalions backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battlespace, hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods, block by block.
To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order. And reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope. ...
Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it. And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum.
Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition.He addressed the "exit strategy" issue:To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own. It must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries.
Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy.
As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard.
The facts are that Iraqi units are growing more independent and more capable. They are defending their new democracy with courage and determination. They're in the fight today and they will be in the fight for freedom tomorrow.
And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down. And when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation.He supplied a more direct response to his attackers:
Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe they're sincerely wrong.He even had something to make those in or associated with the Axis of Evil uneasy:Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, "Setting an artificial timetable would discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people."
Senator Lieberman is right: Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally.
Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends.
And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.
To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.
Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens.Critics were quick to come out of the woodwork on this one. In fact, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued a response to the president's speech even before the president finished speaking.
The main criticism is that there's nothing new here, that we are still "staying the course". This may play to those that either didn't hear the speech or don't read the transcript, but I thought the president did a good job of showing how our strategy had changed to meet the realities presented on the ground.
The most important point, however, is that the White House silence has been broken. The president has a clear, multilevel strategy, our forces are altering mission posture when conditions call for it, and there is are documented goals for defining success.
Overall, I believe the president did a good job. His intent was not to restructure policy or lay out an "exit strategy". His intent was to "sell" the war to the American people. This was a marketing job made necessary by the loud voice of the left.
And when viewed as a marketing speech that is the first in a series of marketing speeches, I judge it a success. That is, it is a very good start. If followed up by a series of speeches that address other strategies and documents other successes, then the American people will turn their backs on the fifth column and the hysterical rantings of Democrat extremists.
Of course, choosing the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas (when most of the public is distracted by more base and selfish pursuits) for launching this counteroffensive is somewhat questionable.
The difference of a "timeline" vs. a "plan" is vitally important. Dean and his liberal cronies want to know, right now, exactly when our last troops will be pulled away from protecting the fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
The president, of course, has a "plan" which sets out a series of events that take place, one building on the other, until the country has a good chance of standing on its own. Unlike the frequently fickle and factious left, the president put his plan into place way back in 2003 and is still following it today. Iraq is getting quite close to completing step 5 (write a constitution) and step 6 (ratification) is scheduled for Saturday.
If the constitution is not ratified, then the Iraqi people must return to step 5 and do it again until step 6 is successful. A plan allows for that — a timeline would become nonsensical in that event.
Meanwhile, al-Qaida is hoping that Dean is successful and the United States cuts and runs according to a timeline rather than a plan:
In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader says the U.S. "ran and left" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.The similarity to Vietnam is of paramount importance in this debate. In Vietnam, the press waged a sociopolitical war on the war effort and the military and forced the withdrawal from an engagement that we were winning. They are attempting to do the same in Iraq. To allow them to succeed will be to show the United States is a paper tiger after all, to be dismissed as a gutless adversary in the drive to establish a Muslim state."Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran and left their agents - is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."
Further, al-Zawahri's letter shows the geopolitical importance of Iraq:
"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri writes.Replace a few words and you will see an eerie echo of the president's vision. It would be perfectly natural for the president to say,: It has always been my belief that the victory of freedom will never take place until a democratic state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world. This is our long-term plan: expel the terrorists from Iraq, establish an democratically elected authority and take the gift of freedom to Iraq's despotic neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.The letter lays out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
Thankfully, the president will remain president long enough to see the first fruits of his plan — before the left and their media mouthpieces can make the American public "go all wobbly" on the war on Islamofacism.
Update: The Director of National Intelligence has published al-Zarqawi's letter in its entirety.
Update: Powerline weighs in on the letter from al-Zawahiri.
Don't get me wrong, I'm tickled pink that Bush didn't nominate gun-grabbin' Gonzalez, but to pass over great picks like Priscilla Owen and (my fav) Janice Rogers Brown? And talking about gun-grabbers, does anyone know anything about Miers' stance on the Second Amendment? The War on Guns notes that Miers speaks supportively of Project Safe Neighborhoods. That's a strike against her right there.
I thought I voted for a conservative — twice. President Bush has demonstrated that he is on the liberal end of that label — twice.
Let's see how the 'sphere is reacting:
This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers' top two credentials:[HT to Just a Bump in the Beltway]Loyalty...and a little inside information.
So far as I can tell, Miers' qualifications include a tolerable resume and a fierce loyalty to President Bush. And in an administration predicated on loyalty and cronyism, that's all it takes.
But my initial reaction is that it's unfortunate (but not surprising) that for both Supreme Court nominations, the president has chosen well-connected insiders with ties to the executive branch, rather than individuals who are more likely to bring a more "independent" perspective to issues of government and especially presidential power. And appointing his "personal lawyer" from Texas seems very Lyndon Johnsonish, and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism. On the other hand, I'm please that Miers is (a) not from an elite law school; (b) not a federal judge; and (c) spent the vast majority of her career outside the beltway. All good things to bring new perspectives to the Court, and, in the case of (b), break a silly tradition [that Justices MUST be from the federal bench] that has evolved.
Here's another question - when Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she'd be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don't think so. To use a phrase, conservatives really have no "skin" in this game, and quite frankly many likely wouldn't be disappointed if she's rejected, which will at least give the President a chance to nominate someone that could fire up conservatives.
The reports are that senators on both sides of the aisle. Well, if that is the criteria on which she was chosen, that is very disappointing. That is not a position of leadership, but of bowing to pressure.
While President Bush is not playing from a position of commanding strength, to say the least, at the moment, virtual surrender to the Democrats on something this important is hardly necessary.
Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
You know, just when I thought that the worst possible move that the Bush Administration could make would be to nominate Alberto Gonzales, he goes and shows me up.
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection. ...You want a candidate who has "Souter" written all over her? You want a candidate who can't be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.
Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination. "Stealth" nominees have not turned out well for Republicans.PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer -- she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.
Bill Kristol was just on Fox, saying, "it's hard to see this as anything but a flinch from a fight."[HT to Club for Growth Blog]He added that it sends a very bad signal for Bush to pass over distinguished conservative women with strong records who have been fighting for constitutionalism for years for someone with no record. I agree.
What is it professionally that qualifies Harriet Miers for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this A) an affirmative action hire, or B) another instance of Bush Administration cronyism or C) both A & B?
Last Friday, Right Wing News polled 14 bloggers about the upcoming nomination. It is interesting that five of them specifically mentioned Miers as the choice "you really hope Bush doesn't pick". So 1 out of 3 bloggers specifically rejected Miers before she was even nominated!
Blue State Conservative is "having a hard time finding a blogger happy with Bush choice." Ditto!
Time to write my Senator, for all the good it will do. Although I have hope, encouraged by a post from SCOTUSblog:
I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
To the amazement of the scientific community, Europe capitulated and backed away from immediate restraints on a growing American economy.Bush . . . misunderestimated again.Bush won agreement from the G-8 that the world should await further scientific conclusion rather than rush unwise decisions that could deflate economic growth and lose jobs.
Together with the rout of pro-Kyoto forces in the U.S. Senate two weeks ago, the outcome at Gleneagles constitutes a major energy triumph for Bush when he had seemed headed for defeat.
Denmark's Queen Margrethe presented the president with a birthday cake at the Fredensborg Palace.
[The White House] issued a second veto threat Tuesday on any new borrowing that "negatively impacts the deficit."After implementing the eighth extension of the expired legislation (which means no new projects), Congress has finally come up with a version that meets with White House approval.
A similar battle is occuring over passage of a comprehensive energy plan, which Democrats have obstructed for four years. President Bush is applying pressure, insisting that Congress sends him legislation by August. But he won't consider anything that he believes will unnecessarily add to the federal deficit and promises to veto anything that doesn't meet his requirements:
The House bill contains $8 billion in energy tax breaks and incentives to encourage energy-saving technology and more crude oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear production.Hmmm. Doesn't exactly match the whole "anything for Shrub's and Cheney's oil cronies" lie, does it?Bush said with the price of oil above $50 a barrel, energy companies don't need tax incentives to hunt for oil and gas.
| G8 Member | Promises Kept |
| United States | 72% |
| Canada | 72% |
| Britain | 67% |
| Germany | 67% |
| France | 50% |
| Italy | 44% |
| Japan | 39% |
| Russia | 6% |
[Note: The EU, while not a member, also made some commitments and tied with the U.S. and Canada by keeping 72% of them.]
What is surprising is that these are actually fairly high scores, beaten only by the results of the 2000 G8 summit held in Okinawa [so why is Russia allowed to come to thesee summits?].
The high scores reflect well on President Bush, who hosted the Sea Island meeting, Kirton said.The "stumbling moronic cowboy" image takes another hit."George Bush is a really very good multilateralist," Kirton said in a telephone interview from Glasgow, Scotland. "Not only did he host a very successful Sea Island summit but continues to be a very good multilateralist, having America bear its fair share of the burden or more and actually putting those commitments into effect."
The high level of compliance appears to get beyond earlier divisions over the Iraq war, he said.
"This shows that everybody has bought into what they collectively did at Sea Island and they're pretty much all pulling their weight in being pretty faithful to fulfilling the promises they've made," Kirton said.
In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.
But when asked if he would be tempted to try haggis, he was blunt. “Yes, haggis, I was briefed on haggis . . . No.“Generally, on your birthday, my mother used to say, ‘What do you want to eat?’ and I don’t ever remember saying, ‘Haggis, Mum’.”
The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and by exporting terror.To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
According to figures compiled by Congressional Quarterly and cited by Mr. Thurber, Mr. Bush in his first term had the best record of getting his initiatives through Congress of any president since Johnson.(Thurber is the director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington.)
Can the West ask for a better world leader than Mr. Bush? I don’t think so. At a time when Martin sends his lieutenants into provincial capitals to buy votes with road construction, health “services” and tuition money, and Conservative leader Stephen Harper is being asked to match the bribes, dollar for dollar, Bush is reminding the world that the end of the Second World War marked the beginning of 50 years of oppression by the Soviets in Eastern Europe.Read it all.My town's newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, headlined: “Bush spars with Putin.” Of course, he did no such limited thing. His attack was intended for a more general class of malefactors. Bush apologized for Yalta, the last of the many insults FDR imposed upon the generations who succeeded him, and the first of the many victories the international left enjoyed in the confused aftermath of that terrible war. The apology was offered to all the civilized world for having allowed the crazed ideology of communism free reign; and the slap was given to the several generations of western apologists for the crimes against humanity that resulted. If only our upcoming election could be fought on such high ground.
Journalist Byron York pursues this (and other) topics in his new book Not vast enough, reviewed in the Washington Examiner:
York's chapter on the ACT [America Coming Together 529] is the best part of the book. It thoughtfully examines the rewritten ground rules of politics and also begins to dismantle the myth that the GOP is the rich party. Characters like Soros and other filthy-rich leftists pervade the book, but York doesn't aim to leave the perception that they are exceptions to the rule."People who contributed less than $200 to politicians and parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans," writes York, based on 2002 campaign-finance data. "People who gave $1 million or more to politicians or parties gave 92 percent to Democrats."
The Bush administration retains its capacity to startle, mainly because it has redefined the lazy term 'conservative' to mean someone who is impatient with the status quo.
The latest is bout of protectionism is downright offensive.
The Judicial Watch (of which I was once a member back when I had disposable income) won a court battle to gain access to documents dealing with the infamous night-of-140-Clinton-pardons. The wording of the ruling was pretty clear:
In May of 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Bush Administration’s claim of presidential communications privileges regarding the Justice Department documents “. . .would be both contrary to executive privilege precedent and considerably undermine the purposes of FOIA to foster openness and accountability in government.” Furthermore the Court added that such an extension “. . . would have far-reaching implications for the entire executive branch that would seriously impede the operation and scope of FOIA.”The Justice Department complied by providing 915 pages of blackened pages containing no useful information:
The Bush administration blacked out almost all the information in hundreds of documents before releasing them to a conservative organization looking into President Clinton's controversial pardons four years ago on his last day in office.The documents provided by Justice can be accessed here. But really, don't bother. It takes a long time to download pages colored black and there are an awful lot of them.The only items not deleted from the material are the names of the person who wrote the document and the person it was sent to.
The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things.Amazing. Short-lived, no doubt. But still amazing.
Germany loves to criticize US President George W. Bush's Middle East policies -- just like Germany loved to criticize former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, when he demanded that Gorbachev remove the Berlin Wall, turned out to be right. Could history repeat itself?...But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination -- a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany. ...
Even German conservatives find the idea that Arabic countries could transform themselves into enlightened democracies somewhat absurd.
This, in fact, is likely the largest point of disagreement between Europe and the United States -- and one that a President John Kerry likely would not have made smaller: Europeans today -- just like the Europeans of 1987 -- cannot imagine that the world might change. Maybe we don't want the world to change, because change can, of course, be dangerous. But in a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. In Mainz today, the stagnant Europeans came face to face with the dynamic Americans. We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow. ...
It was difficult not