In January and February, the Republican national, senatorial and House campaign committees raised a combined $38.5 million, according to disclosure reports. The Democratic committees raised $9 million.
Most interesting are the outraged responses from university officials, particularly Journalism school Associate Dean Chris Callahan who said:
"It was cruel, hurtful, racist and not something I would want in my publication"
Racist? Huh? How is calling people who blow up children in cafes "terrorists" racist? Uber-PCism at its finest.
The left only seems to have the ability to be outraged by one action at a time, so it's good to see Israel taking advantage of this window of opportunity.
Books not Bums!
Teach don't Preach!
Anti-war is Anti-education!
The best arguments for conservatism are made by simply listening to liberals.
Check out the Command Post where a number of bloggers - myself included - with be posting the absolute latest on the liberation of Iraq.
This comment was logged by Mike Overs the BBC's "Have Your Say" section:
As a lifelong Socialist, I cannot believe that a Labour Prime Minister can have become so distant from the views of his supporters. I always had a question mark over Mr Blair, but the events of recent weeks have confirmed in my mind that this man is neither a Socialist, or even a Democrat. I am totally devastated that, approaching my sixtieth birthday, I feel deeply ashamed to be British.
Very right, Mr. Overs, Tony Blair is not a Socialist, and that's why he was able to bring Labour back from the dead after the Thatcher revolution.
Why is this a warning for the left? Remember what wins. Not your Socialist, anti-war, Vietnam era liberalism, but Clinton/Blair centrism. If the Dean wing succeeds in hijacking the Democratic party, it could be a very abrupt sunset for the party.
Tomahawk cruise missiles twice came within minutes of taking out Saddam Hussein in surgical strikes on Baghdad. US intelligence pinpointed the dictator at a private house just outside the Iraqi capital. President Bush ordered a bombardment of the property, hoping he could topple Saddam in the first wave of Operation Iraqi Freedom strikes. But Saddam escaped just 30 minutes before the rockets, which were launched in a pre-dawn attack, smashed into the hideout.
Some say if we act, we become a target. The truth is, all nations are targets. Bali was never in the front line of action against terrorism. America didn't attack Al Qaida. They attacked America.
Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back. But even if we were, it wouldn't avail us.
Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded round the world, the carnage they could inflict to our economies, our security, to world peace, would be beyond our most vivid imagination.
Read the whole speech.
The reason America is America and France is France is that, unlike the French, when free people of the world need America's assistance, we step up. As disgusted as we are with the French we would never leave them defenseless. The problem is they know that, and that's why they play politics when we request aid - they know we'll never do to them what they're doing to us.
The BBC has an analysis of Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins' stirring speech to the Royal Irish Regiment. Military historian Gary Sheffield says of the oration:
"This sounds quite odd and curiously old fashioned in the ears of early 21st Century Brits. But it brings out the fact that the military's values today are still those of an older generation - loyalty, respect and, up to a point, deference, are needed if you are to believe in these words."
Loyalty and respect are values no longer understood by the post-modern residents of Europe? Simply amazing. This is why our current split with Europe is not a debate over tactics, but a fundamental disconnect over how we view the world.
Mmm . . . irony . . .
This week President Bush asserted that he had given diplomacy adequate opportunity. But many Americans and a large segment of the international community, including the United Nations Security Council, believe that diplomacy has not run its course — arguing that containment coupled with U.N. weapons inspectors was working.
President Bush also argued that the U.S. must go to war now before Saddam has a chance to augment his arsenal of forbidden weapons or deliver them to terrorists. But there is no way Iraq can produce weapons of mass destruction while U.N. inspectors are patrolling the country, and Saddam has no incentive to give such munitions to terrorists while the U.N. is still debating his fate.
Equally unpersuasive is President Bush's assessment of the costs and benefits of war. Ending Saddam's dictatorship and destroying Iraq's remaining caches of illegal weapons would be desirable outcomes. But this must be balanced against the cost in human lives and the potential harm to America's security interests — and it is here that the president's calculus falls short.
I was going to have a nice evening Fisk, but then I realized what’s striking about this piece is not how wrong Klare is but how he rehashes arguments that have been thoroughly discredited time and time again. If he doesn’t agree with the right’s responses to the arguments he puts forth, fine, but tell us why. He instead seems to pretend that his analysis hasn’t been repeatedly answered by the right. It has, and I wish the left had the courage to address the right’s real arguments as opposed to straw-men set up for the purpose of avoiding real debate.
"Democrats want to talk about education, the economy. They want to talk about local issues. . . . It's hard to conceive of a Democrat running a national campaign on national security because it just doesn't resonate with our voters."
If you want a one-sentence reason why I'm a Republican, this is it. National Security doesn't resonate with Democratic voters? How sad is it that Democrats not only don't see the President's most important job as defending our country, but actually don't think it's important at all?
It's common on the left and even more common among isolationist libertarians to charge that the United States is, or is becoming, an "empire" because of interventions abroad. Hearing it the other day, I was struck by how utterly absurd the term is. If this is an empire, where's the emperor? Where's the territorial control? Where's the tribute flowing from overseas possessions? Saying the word empire is the wrong one doesn't imply that U.S. foreign policy is correct, merely that another term is needed. A 21st-century representative democracy with a large regulatory bureaucracy and many overseas involvements may be problematic. But it isn't an "empire" unless that term just means "a government I don't like."
Now I'm not saying that America is becoming an empire - arguments that we're attacking Iraq over oil or out of some Zionist inspired desire to conquer Arabs are plainly absurd - but if one does believe this attack is motivated by such desires, it is correct to call the action imperial. While normally associated with emperors and territory, the word’s etymologically derived from the Latin imperium, to rule or command. This does not always mean direct annexation over the subjugated state. Consider, for example, Napoleon's France - by anyone's definition an empire. Throughout Europe he established puppet regimes as a means of indirect control over the continent. This is how, in their bizarre reality, the Left sees our designs on the Middle East and thus the cry of imperialism. They may be wrong factually, historically, and morally - but at least they're not wrong grammatically.
Simon Cowell told one of the singers (who had a country voice): "I think you should replace the girl in the Dixie Chicks."
... as do people who argue that a man who does this and this should remain in power another day.
My conscience does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? ...now tell me true.
Responding to a raucous pro-American rally in the Ivory Coast:
American diplomats thought the feelings were a fluke -- faux adoration, if you will. They didn't even come out to talk to the protesters.
"All this American gaga will end," says a U.S. diplomat who asked not to be named. "They have French on their brains. They will come back to the French soon. They will forget about us."
believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions proceeding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Nice work Tony.
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
The 18 nations in Bold are all European Nations. Can someone explain to me why the anti-war movement continues to claim that Europe is opposed to military action?
The first amendment guarantees only that the GOVERNMENT will not infringe on people's speech. In the Dixie Chicks situation the goverment hasn't said peep. The radio stations (who are a business) have responded to their customers (listeners) and have decided to pull the Dixie Chicks due to their comments. This is precisely the way the first amendment is meant to work. EVERYONE has a right to speak (as the Chicks did), but if people don't like what you are saying then they can act (within the law and certainly in our economy the most effective act people can take is through their pocketbooks) against you.
The only thing the first amendment guarantees is that people can stand on a soap box and tell us their point of view. It doesn't mean that every person MUST be given free airtime. Every person can publish their own paper and try to sell it or give it away, but not everyone is entitled to publish an editorial in an established paper.
It isn't censorship if the WSJ doesn't want to publish a letter from an anti-war group. It may be a bad business decision to not have a fair and balanced debate, but they are not OBLIGATED to do so.
Until people understand the purpose and the implications of the first amendment I fear we will continue to focus on IF people are being treated fairly and not on WHAT the person is saying.
Most factories and shops in Zimbabwe's main cities have closed in response to an opposition-called strike.
The BBC's Lewis Machipisa in Harare says that the army has been deployed following some violence in the Harare suburb of Epworth.
Correspondents say this is the most successful anti-government strike since President Robert Mugabe's controversial re-election a year ago.
Hopefully the west can offer some support to the people in their fight against Mugabe.
Here’s the money quote from a government police inspector:
"The police will meet them head-on. We will be very ruthless with them, but within the limits of the law."
Charming government, isn’t it?
More evidence that the French know they really screwed up:
France's ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, said Tuesday that his country might re-think its position on war with Iraq if Saddam were to use biological or chemical weapons against coalition forces.
"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Jean-David Levitte said.
This is why there isn't going to be a fundamental shift in transatlantic relations following an attack on Iraq. France is desperate to see the UN remain relevant and has already started to position itself as an ally during the rebuilding of Iraq. While Bush can certainly reject offers of aid, as many on the right would love to see, he won't and, frankly, he'd be stupid to.
Let me pose the opposite question though. What if, instead of trying to make concession to stave off an attack, Saddam says "you know what, America is right, I do have nuclear weapons and if an attack is launched against Iraq Tel Aviv (or London or even Paris) will be eliminated"? What would the American reaction be? I'd guess we'd call his bluff, but couldn't this scenario make life even more difficult for Blair? If I were Saddam, this is the gamble I'd try.
"It's a shame that Rachel Corrie died the way she did. It's shameful that she lived the way she did."
Three conditions were listed as justifications for a war: Evidence of an imminent attack on the United States; evidence of Saddam’s complicity in the events of September 11; or United Nations approval of an attack on Iraq.
The first two conditions are sensible; and I agree that they have not been met. But the final point about U.N. approval makes nonsense of the moral groundwork laid by the first two. If a military action is morally wrong, then surely it remains wrong no matter how many other nations vote otherwise. Maybe their votes can be bought by American dollars? The Vatican’s repeated reliance on the U.N. suggests that the organization’s appeal to senior officials in the Vatican is that of a war-stopper, rather than as an embodiment of Catholic principles.
Exactly. What is inherent in "world opinion" that automatically bestows upon its decisions moral legitimacy? How does the mere fact that “everyone’s doing it” confer legitimacy on an otherwise immoral action? Bethell’s postulation that the UN is more of a “war-stopper” than anything else, is a theory that can certainly be extended to virtually the entire anti-war crowd.
This is why the French refuse to enforce its own resolutions. The UN was simply a tool for stopping American action and, once that tool was proven useless, they had no trouble in discarding it. Unfortunately, during the next crisis, we’re going to let the French use the Security Council in exactly the same way it has with Iraq.
A 72-hour ultimatum "is in the right ballpark," the administration official said.
First off, this is not an official statement or timeline. My guess is this is an intentional leak. Tonight Bush won't say anything about a definite timeline but instead will use "immediately" or something to that effect. It will then be incorrectly assumed that Saddam's deadline is in 72 hours. Bush might choose to wait that long, or we can go in 24 hours to regain the element of surprise. Either way, the 72 hour comment really changes nothing.
It’s worth thinking about what Jacques Chirac has accomplished with his anti-American diplomatic offensive, which even France’s foreign minister is said to have called the equivalent of shooting the United States in the back. I think the answer is “nothing good for France.”
He slightly misses the point, however, on one crucial issue:
It seems pretty clear what Chirac wants a decline in American influence around the world, and particularly in and around Europe. (Chirac is even said, in terms unattractively redolent of Milosevic, to favor a kind of “cultural cleansing” to eliminate American intellectual and aesthetic influences.)
So will he get what he wants? Likely, the reverse. Had France kept its promises of the fall, and not tried to impede an American invasion, it would likely have retained a good deal of influence in Iraq. The Bush Administration would probably have wanted to encourage French involvement, in order to avoid the appearance of American imperialism and unilateralism. Given France’s historical ties to the region, and demands on American attention elsewhere, France might have wound up with more power in the world than it possessed before.
Reynolds, it seems, misses the extent to which these two points are truly independent. His assertion that French power would likely grow if they had teamed up with America from the get-go is correct. However geopolitical power is a zero-sum game. Who would this new French power have come from? Our two best friends, the Spanish and the British, most likely, but also the Germans and New Europe. Everyone but the Americans, thus doing nothing to accomplish France's primary goal. We can certainly question the wisdom of this goal, but, if it had to be Chirac's primary objective, going along with the United States was simply not an option.
Joseph Coors, who used his brewing fortune to support President Reagan and help create the conservative Heritage Foundation, has died at age 85.
Coors, whose grandfather founded Golden-based Adolph Coors Co. in 1873, died Saturday in Rancho Mirage, California, after a three-month battle with lymphatic cancer.
In the 1970s, Coors began providing money and his famous name to start the Heritage Foundation, the influential think tank in Washington, D.C.
1) Be concise. We know all the arguments. We know France sucks. We know Saddam is a horrible dictator that kills his own people. Anyone who isn't already convinced isn't ever going to be convinced.
2) Along that same line, don't get into legalities. Beyond the underlying idiocy of the concept of international law, it's an argument you cannot win. Don't get bogged down by tangential arguments.
3) You've gotten this far by putting your head down and plowing forward. Has it been diplomatically pretty? No, not always. But we're here - and I'd argue you've been basically successful in the first phase of the liberation of Iraq. Stick with what works. Keep plowing ahead.
4) So what to actually say? "Material breech" and that it has become clear that Hussein, despite months of intense diplomatic effort, has no desire to ever comply with the treaties he made agreeing to dismantle his WMD. Put the emphasis on him and his agreements, not so much on UN resolutions. Therefore the only hope for full disarmament can come with the removal of Hussein from power.
5) The timetable for abdication should be "immediately." Don't give dates but certainly don't leave ambiguity about the imminence of an attack.
Then all there is to do is wait 24 hours or so and order the attack.
ESPN Classic is running several of the Irish's greatest victories today in honor of St. Patrick. ND just beat Michigan in 88, now they're off to play Miami that same year.
Gonna be a great day.