Tuesday, November 18, 2003
N. Korea
Go here and read the comments for an interesting debate about what "multilateral" means.
My take is that the people who claim that the US is acting "unilaterally" really mean that the US is not following each and every suggestion advanced by other nations who are advancing their own interests.
(0) comments
My take is that the people who claim that the US is acting "unilaterally" really mean that the US is not following each and every suggestion advanced by other nations who are advancing their own interests.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Iran's Nukes
Why is it that I think the IAEA wouldn't have been able to find any corpses at Auschwitz? If they continue with this kind of stellar work, nobody will be able to find any corpses in Tel Aviv either -- everyone will have been vaporized.
(0) comments
Monday, November 10, 2003
Gore on National Security
So Al Gore took the Bush Administration to task over the weekend, claiming that Bush is using terrorism as an excuse to take away Americans' civil rights and consolidate power in the Nazi Republican party. Ho hum. What else is new?
To restate the obvious yet again, it is as dependable as the sunrise that critics of the Administration's handling of the terrorism threat never, ever tell us what they would have done differently, nor offer any constructive suggestions about how to improve national security. As I have noted previously, it's a lot easier to be a critic than a playwright.
Not only that, but it appears that the Democrats regard national security as merely another wedge issue that they can use for political gain (see below, Nov. 5 post).
Um ... excuse me, but don't you Dems remember that a little over two years ago some 3000 people died in the most devastating sneak attack ever mounted against our nation, and that we currently have over 110,000 troops in harm's way in Iraq? I agree with Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) that using secret intelligence information for political gain during wartime is tantamount to treason. Heads should roll, indeed, but don't hold your breath.
(0) comments
To restate the obvious yet again, it is as dependable as the sunrise that critics of the Administration's handling of the terrorism threat never, ever tell us what they would have done differently, nor offer any constructive suggestions about how to improve national security. As I have noted previously, it's a lot easier to be a critic than a playwright.
Not only that, but it appears that the Democrats regard national security as merely another wedge issue that they can use for political gain (see below, Nov. 5 post).
Um ... excuse me, but don't you Dems remember that a little over two years ago some 3000 people died in the most devastating sneak attack ever mounted against our nation, and that we currently have over 110,000 troops in harm's way in Iraq? I agree with Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) that using secret intelligence information for political gain during wartime is tantamount to treason. Heads should roll, indeed, but don't hold your breath.
Friday, November 07, 2003
Fish or Cut Bait
Victor Davis Hanson has a must-read essay here.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Democratic Politics and National Security
This memo was aired by Sean Hannity yesterday on his syndicated talk radio program.
Interesting, is it not, that the same people who are complaining that our intelligence community is incompetent are willing to compromise what sources we do have for their own political gain?
Senator Rockefeller's (D-WV) comment about the memo (scroll down a few paragraphs) is not only spin, it's lame spin. Like when a lawyer presents a terrible brief with obvious errors to a judge, and upon being challenged tells the judge "My secretary wrote it." (I've actually seen it happen -- the judge's reaction was not pretty.) Duh!
I watched Neil Cavuto interview Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) this afternoon on Fox News. All Rangel wanted to talk about was Rumsfeld's recently leaked memo and how the SecDef "has no plan" for Iraq (those talking points are stale, Charlie!). When directly asked about the Dem memo by Cavuto, Rangel claimed he didn't know what was in it. If that's true, it's one of the best recent examples of "ostriching" that I've seen. Of course Rangel, like all the other critics of the Iraq campaign, offered no ideas on how to do it better, but at least he didn't advocate immediate withdrawal. (It's so much easier to be a critic than a playwright, isn't it?)
In contrast Steven Den Beste nails it again with this lengthy post about a politician who was an American first.
(0) comments
Interesting, is it not, that the same people who are complaining that our intelligence community is incompetent are willing to compromise what sources we do have for their own political gain?
Senator Rockefeller's (D-WV) comment about the memo (scroll down a few paragraphs) is not only spin, it's lame spin. Like when a lawyer presents a terrible brief with obvious errors to a judge, and upon being challenged tells the judge "My secretary wrote it." (I've actually seen it happen -- the judge's reaction was not pretty.) Duh!
I watched Neil Cavuto interview Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) this afternoon on Fox News. All Rangel wanted to talk about was Rumsfeld's recently leaked memo and how the SecDef "has no plan" for Iraq (those talking points are stale, Charlie!). When directly asked about the Dem memo by Cavuto, Rangel claimed he didn't know what was in it. If that's true, it's one of the best recent examples of "ostriching" that I've seen. Of course Rangel, like all the other critics of the Iraq campaign, offered no ideas on how to do it better, but at least he didn't advocate immediate withdrawal. (It's so much easier to be a critic than a playwright, isn't it?)
In contrast Steven Den Beste nails it again with this lengthy post about a politician who was an American first.
