I don't look at them much, but sometimes I see myself disparaged on liberalist blogs (I think that's a better word than liberal, which doesn't really apply) for my "obsession" with the Oil-for-Food scandal. What's a little corruption, they seem to be asking (when they are not busy bashing me as an apostate)? After all, graft is pandemic. Why get so excited by one case? Well, the answer, my friends, is blowing in the London Timesonline today...

TWO former French ambassadors have admitted earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of oil that Iraq had assigned to them under the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, had given him the oil vouchers as thanks for his lobbying efforts on behalf of Iraq, Le Monde said. He was serving at the time as a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN SecretaryGeneral.

It's not just about graft. It's about the preservation of fascism for money. You down with that, liberalists? Think about it in your hearts. This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives and all the rest of that left-over Eighteenth Century sports terminology. This is about real human beings who were living in a country where the dictator tossed people in paper shredders while his minions bought him protection on the UN Security Council. No thriller writer could get away with a plot like that, but Saddam Hussein did... with the help of his buddies Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan.  Thursday, October 13, 2005

www.rogerlsimon.com

*

*

ANOTHER NOBEL INSULT

Deranged “anti-war” British playwright Harold Pinter has been given the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Previous LGF entries about Pinter’s rabid anti-Americanism:

Pinter Goes Mental
Moonbat Playwright Rant  Thursday, October 13, 2005

DUTCH MAY BAN THE BURQA

The Netherlands may become the first Western country to enact a partial ban on the most visible symbol of radical Islam’s subjugation of women: Dutch unveil the toughest face in Europe with a ban on the burka. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

THE Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world.

The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman’s face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.

Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.

The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.

Mrs Verdonk admitted that a complete ban on the garment would be legally tricky because of freedom of religion legislation. However, she said that she would prohibit the garments “in specific situations” on grounds of public safety. The ban is likely to be enforced in shops, public buildings, cinemas, train and bus stations and airports, as well as on trains and buses.

PROGRESSIVES MANIPULATING GOOGLE

People keep emailing me to say that if you type “failure” into Google’s search form and hit the “I’m feeling lucky” button, you get this page at the White House web site. This is true, and it’s been the case for more than a year.

Snopes.com explains why; the progressive fringe is deliberately manipulating Google’s search results: Snopes.com: Politics (Someone Set Us Up the Google Bomb).

The interesting part is that Google doesn’t object.

According to the New York Times, Google hasn’t taken umbrage at the prank and (presumably) isn’t taking steps to counteract it:

Craig Silverstein, Google’s director for technology, says the company sees nothing wrong with the public using its search engine this way. No user is hurt, he said, because there is no clearly legitimate site for “miserable failure” being pushed aside.

Moreover, he said, Google’s results were taking stock of the range of opinions that are expressed online. “We just reflect the opinion on the Web,” he said, “for better or worse.”  Wednesday, October 12, 2005

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

*

PAINFUL ADMISSION OF PROGRESS AT THE GRAY LADY

Part of the limited amount of enjoyment one gets from reading the New York Times editorial page comes from seeing how they acknowledge what should be celebrated as good news. During Republican administrations, that usually means a healthy dose of caveats, irrelevancies, and redirected credit intended on convincing people that the good news amounts to little more than potential bad news, and if it doesn't turn out badly, it all happened in spite of the Republicans in charge. Today's acknowledgement of the success in establishing a democratic political dynamic in Iraq provides a delightful case in point:

It has been hard to make sense of America's involvement in Iraq for a long time now. Arguments that our soldiers are risking their lives to protect the United States from terrorism, or deadly weapons of mass destruction, have come to nothing. The only logical basis for staying the course has been the hope that in the end, Iraqis can be put on the road to a stable, inclusive government. That hope has come close to extinction many times. But today it seems a little more substantial.

Just days ahead of Saturday's vital constitutional referendum, representatives of rival religious and ethnic communities in Iraq hammered out their most significant political compromise. With American diplomatic prodding, the dominant Shiite and Kurdish parties agreed with a section of the Sunni Arab leadership on changes that should make it easier for Sunni voters to accept a badly flawed draft constitution because they offer assurances that it can be drastically amended a few months later.

Note the construction style in almost every paragraph; only the second paragraph, excerpted here, and the fourth stray from the mold. Each paragraph starts out with some gloomy statement on what the Times sees as reality. Each statement relates back to American efforts to create this democratic environment, either directly or indirectly; The absence of even this minimal basis for consensus before now had made it difficult to take the whole American-orchestrated constitutional exercise seriously. That combination is a blueprint for national fragmentation and prolonged civil war.

My personal favorite is this little non-sequitur: Hope is not the same thing as optimism. It isn't? Since when?

The torturous process of actually saying something meaningful about the Iraqi agreement on a new constitution in the days ahead of the vote grinds on through eight paragraphs written in this stultifying prose, as like a bad pop song with an unrelenting, unchanging bass line. It takes that long for the Times to admit that the developments this week give greater hope for unity after the plebescite and for greater Sunni participation in democracy thereafter. The editorial approaches masterpiece status for sour grapes and for burying the lede. Even its title, "A Flicker Of Hope In Iraq", makes this major step forward seem little more than a mere footnote in an encyclopedia of misery.

Cheer up! We liberated 25 million people from a genocidal dictator, helped them create a National Assembly, watched as over 8 million of them voted freely lasy January, and now see them peacefully negotiating the laws under which they will govern themselves. Perhaps the Gray Lady finds democracy too distasteful for her scrubbed hands, but the rest of us find these developments very pleasing and reason for hope of eventual unity and peace.

Or if you can't cheer up, at least hire someone who knows how to write an honest editorial.  Thursday, October 13, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

SUNNI DIVISIONS

By Bill Roggio

The constitutional compromise has created an open division between a Sunni party and an Islamist group. The Islamic Iraqi Party, the most influential Sunni-led political party, rescinded its opposition to the constitution and advised its followers to vote “yes”. The Victorious Army Group immediately declared war on the Islamic Iraqi Party, stating the party an instrument of “Jews and Christians… against the Muslims in this decisive battle between a constitution made by Allah for His creation.” According to the Victorious Army Group, the Islamic Iraqi Party “should receive from the mujahideen their fate.”

Other Sunni groups are reconsidering their stand on the constitution. The Conference of the People of Iraq, a Sunni party, has also voiced their support for the constitution. The Sunni Endowment is also backing the constitution. From the statment by the Sunni Endowment; "As a way out of this ... dark tunnel and to avoid starting all over again from scratch ... the Sunni Endowment has decided to support the Iraqi Islamic Party in voting 'Yes'... Living under a flawed law is better than chaos and anarchy ... What counts for us is educating people to take part in the next election to produce honest people capable of changing or amending articles that are not in the country's best interests."

A declaration of war from the Victorious Army Group has yet to be issued.

Like Zarqawi, the Victorious Army Group appears to be shunning the sage advice of Zawahiri (who Dan Darling, in his analysis of the Zawahiri letter, describes as the most pragmatic leader in al Qaeda). For some Islamists, the need for ideological purity overcomes the practical nature of their situation. It is unwise to create more enemies during a time of war, and even more unwise to alienate your potential base of support.

Zawahiri knows this is folly, as the support of the Muslim community is vital to their cause; “In the absence of this popular support, the Islamic mujahed movement would be crushed in the shadows.” If their potential allies must be put to the sword, then there is little hope of the required greater public support. The actions of Zarqawi and groups like the Victorious Army Group only serve to push their radical terrorist movements further into the shadows.  Thursday, October 13, 2005

http://billroggio.com

*

*

ASSAD'S CONTRIBUTION

www.coxandforkum.com

*

ANOTHER KATRINA MEDIA MYTH DOWN THE DRAIN

Remember the "toxic soup" that flooded New Orleans, the one that the media widely reported was so polluted that mere momentary exposure could burn the skin and create potentially mortal illness for Katrina victims? As with the widespread gunfire, rapes, and murders, the toxic soup turns out to be another media myth. The Washington Post reports that an extensive look at the floodwaters reveals that its composition appears equivalent to floodwaters anywhere else:

The floodwater that covered New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was not unusually toxic and was "typical of storm water runoff in the region," according to a study published yesterday.

Most of the gasoline-derived substances in the water evaporated quickly, and the bacteria from sewage also declined over time, the scientist leading the study said. The water's chief hazard was from metals that are potentially toxic to fish. However, no fish kills have been reported in Lake Pontchartrain, where the water that once covered 80 percent of the city was pumped.

"What it most looks like is the storm water that is present in New Orleans every time it rains," said John H. Pardue, an environmental engineer at Louisiana State University, who headed the team whose research was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. "We still don't think the floodwaters were safe, but it could have been a lot worse. It was not the chemical catastrophe some had expected."

Of course, this is good news for the people of New Orleans who had to suffer from exposure to the water, but other than that, it makes little difference. The damage caused to structures comes from the water itself, as well as the mud and silt that come along with it. The rot that sets into structures throughout the basin will likely require total or near-total reconstruction efforts.

It does, however, demonstrate the toxic combination of hyperbolic media and sensational events. Not content with reporting the news that happened before their eyes, media outlets had to reach beyond the news to report events that never happened, all without doing even basic research to determine the veracity of their reports. How difficult would it have been for NBC or the New York Times to get a test of the water before unleashing reports on the so-called toxic soup? How about getting reporters to verify accounts of rapes and murders by the score before airing such rumors to a repulsed nation?

How many people did these reports turn away who might otherwise have offered assistance?

Laughably, the media gave itself a big pat on the back within days of the Katrina disaster, declaring themselves vindicated after a year of CBS memo debacles and Eason Jordan embarrassments. Only much later can we see that they learned nothing over that past year and have moved themselves even closer to the National Enquirer in terms of credibility. Instead of congratulating themselves, the media needs to eliminate the hysterics that drive the news coverage during unfolding catastrophes to make sure that they don't contribute even more damage to the victims and the nation.  Thursday, October 13, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

According to the updated paperback edition of David Blum’s 60 Minutes expose, Tick . . . Tick . . . Tick . ., Dan Rather threatened to take his "fake but accurate" story about President Bush's national guard duty to the New York Times if CBS didn't promote the broadcast. But after the story was shown to be based on forged documents, Rather claimed he had doubts about veracity of the memos all along.

After the show was in the can, Rather reportedly asked why the network wasn't promoting it. When told that it couldn't because (a) the head of CBS hadn't seen it, (b) CBS's lawyers hadn't seen it, and (c) the White House had not yet been contacted for comment, Rather reportedly threatened to go to the Times. He later backed down.

According to Blum's book, though, on the night before his on-air apology, Rather confessed to a CBS executive producer that he’d had doubts about the veracity of the memos all along. “I knew when I did the [document consultant Marcel] Matley interview that something wasn’t right with all this,” Responding to Blum's claims, a CBS spokesperson said, “I have no way of verifying this, these were private conversations.” The spokesperson also noted that this material wasn't in the 224-page report of the CBS investigation. Rather himself was overseas and unavailable to comment.

Via Little Green Footballs.

JOHN adds: Brent Bozell has more at Human Events: "Lame Attempts to Rehabilitate CBS".

What is it with liberals who leave the country and immediately start to encourage anti-American sentiment abroad? This time it's Al Gore, who talked to reporters in Sweden. The news headlines are about Gore vowing that he isn't running for President, but here's the rest of what he said:

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country.

"Routinely torturing people"--is that enemy propaganda, or the official position of the Democratic Party? Is there still a difference? If we're routinely torturing people, then why do those who get caught go to jail? And don't Gore and other liberals who travel abroad realize how much they are damaging the United States by recycling this nonsense?

For the rest, it's the usual parallel universe of the Democratic Party. The administration is trying to "control and intimidate the news media." Sure, we've all seen how intimidated the media are. That's why they never say anything critical of the administration. It would be more accurate to say that the media have tried to control and intimidate the Bush administration.

And I like the one about "taking money from working families and giving it to the most wealthy families." Sure, I remember the surtax Congress imposed to support the rich. Just once, I'd like to see a reporter ask Gore or some other liberal what in the world he's talking about when he makes that kind of statement. (You'd think the press would do it, too, since they're so intimidated by President Bush.)

Actually, though, Al Gore is one of the few rich Americans who really is supported by taxes paid by working families, since he receives a federal pension for his service in the Senate and as Vice-President. If he really means what he says, all he has to do is refund his pension to the federal treasury. What do you think the chances are he's doing that?

The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.

Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:

About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.

I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.

With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.

The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.

So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.

The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.

So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending. But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.

Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.

Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through." Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.

And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.

The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.

But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.

Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world). Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.  Wednesday, October 12, 2005

http://www.powerlineblog.com

*

SCHROEDER GOES OUT KICKING AND SCREAMING...

*

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.