It was a fun ride for Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee, I'm sure, but just remember, gentle readers, everything was not as they said. There's a lot of Hollywood mixed in with the mythology of Deep Throat. Now that we know the name, whistle-blowers will be back in fashion for a while, until one fingers Hillary Clinton, of course.
UPDATE: Editor & Publisher has some info that backs up my point:
Adrian Havill, author of "Deep Truth," recent biography of Woodward and Bernstein, talking to Salon: "Woodward and Bernstein both said 'All the President's Men' was gospel, and that they didn't embellish. For one thing, they described Deep Throat as a heavy smoker -- but Felt stopped smoking in 1943. There are still things that don't jibe, and I think we still need to look at them.
"Felt suggested in many interviews, and in his own memoir in 1979, that anyone who would reveal the kind of information Deep Throat did would be a traitor. Now today, we have many people lauding Felt as a patriot and an American hero. A lot of so-called Watergate experts have got to be wondering about today's news, but I think one reason that all of them, and I myself, were wrong is because Felt made so many remarks about being a traitor; if that won't throw you off, I don't know what will."
Other journalists have stated that Felt always told them as well that this man Deep Throat is nothing short of a traitor. Obviously, Felt was either pulling all the stops to cover his tracks or (more likely) he's extremely conflicted about what he's done. However, he's probably realized that since he helped take down Nixon, in the MSM he'd be considered a hero, so might as well enjoy it before he dies.
UPDATE: William Gaines, the University of Illinois Journalism Professor who fingered Fred Fielding as DP, still has some reservations about this recent revelation.
UPDATE: While he believes Mark Felt's confession, Alexander Haig has some concerns similar to Professor Gaines'.
Just more evidence that Deep Throat is an amalgam.
There's one problem here...there was no Deep Throat. He is an amalgam of several sources, but perhaps Felt preferred to meet in dark parking garages. We'll see.
UPDATE: The good Captain has an excellent take that I think, says it all.
UPDATE: Buzz Machine's take on the Washington Post and their "no comment."
UPDATE: Wizbang has a link to the Vanity Fair article.
Certainly On The Road is a great novel and Kerouac left an indelible mark on American Literature, but you only hear about him as far as the beatniks go and the evolution into the 60s. I'm very interested to hear about this other side of Kerouac that seems to be swept under the rug. Is it indeed true that he hated the hippie movement? Was he a racist? There have been biographies written about him, of course, but I don't want to spend vast amounts of reading time with either a love-letter bio or a hit-piece. Is there anyone out there that can enlighten me on this man?
You read this stuff and you almost forget that George W. Bush has 3 years and 8 months left in the White House.
C'mon W, do it! Show everyone why I voted for you.
"As Oscar Wilde said, sometimes the most bitter trials turn out to be blessings in disguise," Galloway said Thursday. "In America, people pay huge sums of money to hear you speak."
Oh dear God, please let him come to Las Vegas. That would be so freakin' sweet! I've always wanted to be a heckler!
I should talk to CafePress about making some concert t-shirts. How about, "Galloway American Tour '05, The Stalinist Pride Is Back!"
Nothing against Karen Hughes, she's great, but correct me if I'm wrong...she has almost zero diplomatic experience. Yet, Voinovich thinks she's a better person for the job. This is messed up.
Ed. - Alright, enough of the Oscar speech, you haven't won anything...back to business.
P.S. I almost forgot Tim Shell who checks out the site every day, and my very first visitor, Chris Anderson. Thanks guys.
Ed. - I said back to work!
The new D-N-C chairman tells The Associated Press that taking black voters for granted is a long-standing problem for the party. He says that's a mistake he's trying to fix.
Dean says it's no longer enough to say "vote for us because we were so helpful during the civil rights era." He adds black voters find it annoying that Democrats ask them for their votes just weeks before elections instead of being in the community.
The former presidential candidate is marking 100 days as the party's boss.
Ed. - I'm sorry, did he just say the Democrats were so helpful during the civil rights era? Did I read the wrong history books?
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
11:03...Starts out expressing how horrified he was at what happened in Afghanistan.
11:05...Says of all the items in the story, the part about the Koran in the toilet didn't leap out at him or the Pentagon. Charlie ask if he realizes now that it should have. He says yes, a cultural lesson has been learned.
11:07...Charlie can't seem to say the word "toilet," he prefers "commode." Heh.
11:10...Spikey says source had never done him wrong. Always been solid. Had number of conversations with the source about drafts of the Southcom Report that looked at abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Koran allegations were NOT in the infamous FBI memos that detailed wrongs at GB. He regrets he didn't make that clear in the article. Source described to him the female interrogator that "sexually tortured" (my words, not his) a detainee. Lapdances? These thugs never had it so good.
11:16...General Jeffrey Miller, Commander of Guantanamo in 2002 before being sent to Abu Ghraib in Iraq in 2003...that's who the story was supposed to be about. That he sanctioned overly aggressive tactics at GB and then at AG. Connect the dots, and so on.
11:22...Says Senior Pentagon official got the whole article and only said he didn't like the wording of certain things, so they changed some wording. The source didn't say anything about the Koran, but he says that's no excuse for him or Newsweek. However, after the article was published, they still didn't hear anything from the Pentagon about it, which he believes shows that both Newsweek and the Pentagon were ignorant to how the Muslim world would react.
11:28...Gets an angry call from a Rumsfeld aide (DeRita?) saying the article is killing them and tells him that his information is wrong. Spikey finally reaches his source who says he told him everything as he remembered it, that the report had references to the Koran and the "commode," and so on. Spikey said are you sure you read this in the Southcom Report. Source said, that's what he believed it to be...meaning he wasn't sure it was actually the Southcom Report he say Koran story in it. D'oh!!
11:32...Good question by Charlie..."Do you believe it happened?" Spikey dodges, says they have retracted the report and continue to follow the story.
11:40..."Do you believe the White House saw an opportunity to pin several deaths on the you and the media?" Spikey dodges again...says he doesn't want to get into that, but he admits that Newsweek gave them a club and with some zeal, the White House based them with it.
11:42...Says Rush Limbaugh's charge that Newsweek wanted the story to be true because it discredited the military is not true. I'm doubtful that Spikey himself wants to hurt the military, his bosses, however....
11:53...Interesting closing comments...Spikey points out that this media scandal didn't have fabricated information. (Take that CBS).
Ed. - I'm inclined to believe Spikey that this was a story that they misjudged as far as the effect it would have on Muslims and that he simply got burned by his source. I still think, however, that the editors at Newsweak, because of the institutional group-think, are more inclined to have a blind spot when writing about the U.S. Military. A similar story about a different institution may have raised more eyebrows earlier than this one did. That's the deep-rooted bias of the MSM that every once in a while bites them in the ass. They may not realize it, and I'm being generous here, but there is a blind spot, either conscious or subconscious that leads to situations like this. Harold Evans...I'm looking in your direction.
UPDATE: Here's an article on the interview.
UPDATE: So what does this mean? Is 24 over? Will it go on without Sutherland, or is it the perfect ending to the perfect show? Hmmmm...
UPDATE: Okay, Fox just told me I'm an idiot. 24 will be back, as will Jack. Thank God. I'll be watching in January.
UPDATE: Alex McClure has a more optimistic view over at PoliPundit. It's somewhat convincing, but it's gonna take a lot of work from the Blogosphere to counter MSM propaganda.
UPDATE: Don Surber says it is the Dems that got burned. He also has several other takes from around the Blogosphere. The more opinions I read, the more I realize that was indeed a true compromise. How do I know? Because hardly anyone is happy about it, on either side. Both sides have plenty to bitch about and plenty to crow about. I fell really sorry for the two judges that will get screwed by this...but I'm also joyous that Harry Reid produced a big television ad for nothing. Hee Hee!
"Of course, we are as Muslims very much unhappy with Newsweek bringing a matter so serious in the gossip column. It's really something that one shouldn't do, that responsible journalism shouldn't do at all. But Newsweek story is not America's story. That's what -- that's what we understand in Afghanistan. America has over a thousand mosques. I have gone and prayed in mosques here in America; I've prayed in Virginia; I've gone and prayed in Maryland; I've been to a mosque in Washington. And thousands of Afghans have been to mosques here in town, and as a matter of fact, tens of thousands of Muslims are going on a daily basis to mosques in America and praying."
Ed. - Heh.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian TV says the country's supreme leader has ordered hard-liners to reconsider decision barring reformists in June presidential elections.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Ed. - If you're not going to reform, you at least have to give the impression you want to reform, especially in the current Middle East climate. You're days are numbered, Khamenei.
UPDATE: The reform-minded citizenry of Iran had threatened a voting boycott if reformists' candidate were banned from the Presidential election. If that happens, it gives more credence to charges made by the United States and other western nations that Iran is a despotic regime (like it's debatable). Remember, in international diplomacy, it's all about appearance.
Barton said he witnessed no physical abuse at the jail, but he believes some prisoners had been 'softened up' before they arrived in an induction process known as 'purgatory'.
"Softened up?" "Purgatory?" Has someone told Michael Moore about this? He'll know what to do.
First, just a regular review. It was a very good movie, the far superior movie of the first three chapters. Is it better than Empire Strikes Back as some have been saying? I want to say no. It's a hard one to call, but I'm of the school of thought that you just can't compare movies from different eras. Making a choice, I'd have to say Empire Strikes Back is still the king. The high points of Sith include a superior performance from Ian McDiarmid as the Dark Lord. A classically trained actor, McDiarmid gives the film some acting heft the series has lacked without Alec Guinness. The character General Heinous was excellent...I would have like to have seen more of him. We all knew what was coming, but it didn't matter, that's what we wanted to see...the coolest villain in film history, Darth Vader...but alas, only for a few minutes.
Now for a more political review. There's been a lot of talk about the possible political pronouncements made in the movie that are critical of President Bush and other "right-winged" politician. Fuel has been added to the fire with George Lucas' own words and a parody ad by Moveon.org portraying Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist as a real-life Dark Lord.
Here's the problem with this analogy...it gives George Lucas far too much credit. He is indeed a film genius, creating this world that is so unique and made him billions of dollars, but as far as being a political theorist, (if that is indeed one of his goals) he fails miserably. The dialogue and actions in this film can be skewed to support any political school of thought. Many mention the line in which young Anakin is told that you can't deal in absolutes, and later Anakin tells Obi-Wan, "if you're not with me, then you're my enemy," similar to President Bush's, "if you're not with us, you're against us." The idea that Bush and his political brethren are trying to turn democracy into tyranny is laughable. A closer real-life example of what is going on in this movie would be more accurately embodied in "democratically" elected Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. If you don't believe me, just read the news about Chavez, watch the movie and you tell me.
The reason the movie fails as an anti-Bush screed is there is so much contradiction. When Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) has the Dark Lord beaten and at the mercy of his sword, he tells Anakin that he has to finish him off, he's too powerful for us to allow him to live. Anakin says, no, he needs to be put on trial.
Put on trial...sounds a lot like what Howard Dean would have us do with Osama bin Laden (but not Tom Delay) if we ever capture him. If Windu had been allowed to kill the Dark Lord, it would have ended everything and the good guys would have won, but it was not to be.
Near the end, when Anakin and Obi-Wan are having it out, Obi-Wan says, "don't you see? Chancellor Palpatine is evil!" Anakin replies, "From my point of view, he is good." Enter Postmodernism! There is no good and evil, it's all about your perspective. But Obi-Wan disagrees with this, "then you are lost," he says. Is Obi-Wan a believer in the Bush Doctrine? But I thought he said, no absolutes? Anakin turns to the dark side because he gives in to his emotions rather than reason. Sounds like if you want to avoid the dark side you should study the works of Ayn Rand.
Confused? That's because Lucas is a great science-fiction film-maker, but he's no John Locke.
Enjoy the film and the entire series for what it is and should be...a great story of, yes, good (eventually) conquering evil.
UPDATE: Lockjaw has a similar view. (Hat tip: Polipundit)
UPDATE: The good Captain gives his review of RofTS highlighting some of the confusion as well.
From everyone I've talked to, it sounds like Lucas will have the last laugh. After two crappy movies, everyone is saying this is a masterpiece. We shall see. I got my ticket on Fandango for a matinee show tomorrow afternoon.
(Photo courtesy A.P., Hat tip: Wizbang)
As far as the politics involved, real Star Wars fans don't give a crap. They don't care about Lucas' latent liberalism, they only care about the characters they love.
As soon as I see it, (hopefully this weekend) I'll give you the final word on the subject. (Yes, I'm be pompous)
The party's congressional leaders, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, sat down with Dean for a heart-to-heart talk. They politely urged him to restrain his rhetoric, to organize rather than inflame. Dean thereupon buried himself in the ''red'' states of Republican America to seek Democratic converts, giving the impression that he was heeding the pleas of the congressional leadership.
Dirty Harry Reid, the man who called President Bush a loser and is currently smearing Republican judges, is urging Dean to restrain his rhetoric.
Hoge points out that while Galloway was entertaining, he was also rude by American standards. No one ever talks to a Senator like that during a committee hearing. In the end, it could backfire. However, this again is the boxing analysis.
11:23pm...George Galloway is on now. Wow! Galloway names Norm Coleman the most pro-war, pro-Israel (wink, wink), neo-con in Washington. A lot of Republicans are getting really jealous right now.
Galloway is bragging about having been a strong critic of Saddam while "America and Britain were arming him." Galloway is really good at spouting talking points. I've heard the charge of Donald Rumsfeld arming Saddam several times today.
Lot's of talking points here. Thinks the Republican Party will pay a heavy price for the war. I guess the electorate decided the 2004 elections was too early to make them pay.
Says the elections in Iraq have changed nothing. Charlie is mildly taken aback. Galloway says the Iraqi government is full of puppets. Charlie finally getting a little fired up...finds it hard to believe the Kurds are puppets. More talking points.
I've watched Charlie Rose do countless interviews and it just seemed to me during this interview that he was somewhat surprised at what he was dealing with, finding it hard to be sympathetic with someone that he would like to sympathetic with.
Well, that's it...Galloway will return to London a hero to his constituency. I gotta call it like it is...he is a master politician. He had every talking point down and even knew all the right American venacular to use. I say to the hate-America Left, dump Chomsky...make this guy you're Pope.
Senator Norm Coleman...one of my heroes since his days as Mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota (where I once lived) was brilliant in that he wouldn't play Galloway's game. He let him spout off, then asked him a series of questions very professionally. Galloway later dismissed Coleman as "not much of a lyncher." Not the point, George. Surprisingly, it was Senate Carl Levin that seemed to lose his patience with Galloway at certain points. Galloway even goofed and accused Levin of supporting the war...a notion that Levin disabused him of in quick fashion. Thus, this proved that Galloway was just shooting into the darkness at anything that might be there.
Very interesting stuff. Check out WILLisms for a little history. I have a strange feeling about this. Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but it seems like Coleman's got something up his sleeve. Remember, Galloway was under oath. Hmmmm.....
UPDATE: I rule! Wizbang alerted us to this story from the BBC in which Coleman states:
"The theatre, the dramatics - I was not looking at that. I had one goal and it was to make a record."
UPDATE: Austin Bay puts it best:
"This confrontation will continue. I don’t see Coleman backing down because he believes he has solid legal evidence. Galloway will fight in the court of public opinion– and he’s opted for brazen and brassy. Brazen and brassy plays well on television. It won’t play well in front of a judge. Will this confrontation go to trial? If it does, the venue Galloway should fear is Iraq. If Galloway conspired with Saddam, it was the Iraqi people’s blood that paid for Galloway’s oil."
UPDATE: WILLisms has the latest on a new job performance poll on our boy Harry. Looks good on the surface, but then you find not everyone is onboard with his filibuster fight.
"We have yet to see what's at the root, if anything, of the Newsweek story. But I think it's telling that some bloggers have devoted much, much more energy to covering the Newsweek error than they ever have to covering any sliver of the widespread evidence of detainee abuse that made the Newsweek piece credible in the first place. A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to "Fuck Allah," after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran? Yes, Newsweek bears complete responsibility for any errors it has made; and, depending on what we now find, should not be let off the hook. But the outrage from the White House is beyond belief."
So according to Andy, journalism is not about facts but about perception. If a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, for example, yes, I would deem that a very likely scenario. But without facts to back up such a claim, would it be ethical for me to run with the story? And besides, I'm just some dumb pajama-clad blogger...Newsweak has nothing but professionals and layers of editors...shouldn't they be the poster-boys of journalistic ethics and creeds like "just the facts." I don't dispute that there have been some actions taken by our military that have been over the line, but Andy is showing a lot of ignorance if he thinks fake menstrual blood equates a war crime. Those soldiers that went over the line at Abu Ghraib, if you will recall, are being tried for their crimes...remember the England girl? And for fuck sake, Andy, this is a dirty business. Lives are at stake and these detainees have information that can save lives. Bring them to me and I'll do whatever it takes to get that information out of them, with no regrets.
Andrew Sullivan is still a hero of mine, but it's sad to see he's embraced the Dan Rather credo, "fake but accurate."
A Muslim throwing pages of the Koran in the toilet??? What I'd like to see now is a bunch of American plumbers rioting in protest.
Rumsfeld just put it simply, which was a nice touch. Paraphrasing, he said "people lost their lives and that's a real shame." He said it in such a way as to make Newsweak's staff feel about 2 inches tall. I doubt it worked, though.
Naturally, everyone is up in arms, but amazingly Fox is not apologizing. The first paragraph of this AP story is priceless:
President Vicente Fox refused to apologize Monday for saying Mexicans in the United States do the work that blacks won't — a comment widely viewed as acceptable in a country where blackface comedy is still considered funny and nicknames often reflect skin color.
Okay A.P., we get the point. While I don't agree with Fox's comments, I almost admire him for sticking to his guns. It's kinda like the old Southern Democrats who would say, "yes, I'm a racist, and I'm damn proud of it." It's stupid...it's idiotic, but at least he's being consistent instead of offering a fake apology.
What's really sad is Fox's Mexican-racism. He talks about how great Mexican workers are, yet he's willing to let them flee to the United States instead of staying home and building a better Mexico. Sounds a lot to me like what President Bush calls "soft bigotry."
They've had a 90% turnout...more proof that when given the opportunity, people in impoverished countries will vote.
"Those big media 'four layers of editors' can't find their behinds with six hands and Fidel Castro's flashlight."
MORE: The Powerline boys comment on what is rapidly becoming Newsweek's darkest hour...in my opinion, not Newsweek's opinion of course.
AND MORE: Cassandra lays into Newsweek.
No backtracking, yes Uzbekistan is an "ally" of the United States by supplying use of their air base, but Uzbekistan's government is very good at playing both sides of the political spectrum...they're also a strong ally of Russia, unlike the other former Soviet states that are giving Russia the cold shoulder. Uzbekistan is an authoritarian dictatorship that will hopefully fall at some point, but hopefully not to Islamofacists. Right now, it's hard to tell where the power lies amongst the opposition and where it's all going to lead, but Jim-Rose.com will always route for the side that represents freedom, military base or not.
In his speech, Friedman went over the first three chapters of the book in which he discusses his realization that while taking time off from the proverbial globalization beat to cover 9/11, he had missed several developments.
Friedman is a bit schmaltzy for my taste, but he did present a very persuasive case that we're entering a new era in which the world is not split into sovereign countries or global corporations, but individuals, individuals with more power at their fingertips then at any time in history, and it's only the beginning.
I was a bit surprised to hear a liberal like Friedman, who is more in the "realists" camp on foreign policy, a fiery critic of SDI and Israel, and a big fan of the U.N., to be such a proponent of outsourcing. The biggest surprise in his speech was when he bashed the two presidential candidates in the 2004 election for bashing the concept of outsourcing. John Kerry, he said, criticized outsourcing like it was evil while George W. Bush did everything he could to hide the fact that he believed in it. Truer words were never spoken. Friedman also lamented at the fact that the Enron scandal made CEO's and other corporate types persona non grata when it came to getting expert advice on global changes. Friedman said that in his research for the book, it's the corporate guys that know what's really going on, and they say, "it's only beginning." He even spoke briefly on Blogs during the question and answer session, just mentioning that it's a new form of media that's powering individuals...a fairly neutral statement that sounds rather positive, especially when it's coming from a New York Times journalist.
Friedman is one of those guys that comes very close to getting it in toto, but never quite does. It reminds me of the game we played as kids when you had someone look for something with their eyes closed and you said "hot" "warm" and "cold." Watching Friedman make his way through political and cultural landscape you find yourself saying, "cold, warm, warm, warmer, warm, cold, cold, warm, cold, warm, warmer, super-warm, warm, cold, warm," etc. You're never able to say "HOT!"
However, with this new book, he's very, very warm.
I haven't been this disgusted since Arlen Spector voted both yes and no for Bill Clinton's impeachment. If he doesn't think he's worthy, then don't vote for him in committee. I would have at least some respect for him if he would stick to his principles (or lack thereof), but he's having it both ways. To paraphrase the infantile Harry Reid, WHAT A LOSER.
UPDATE: Pro-Castro influence behind the movement to dump Bolton.
Tune in tomorrow night for some pithy analysis of the speech.
Jonah Goldberg has the best take. And, of course, Joe Conason is mad as hell...no one can bash FDR when he's around (or is it Stalin he's protecting? Hmmmm)
UPDATE: Conason gets his ass kicked by Professor Bainbridge. (Hat tip: Instapundit)
MORE: Howard Fineman has an interesting yet cynical take.
EVEN MORE: Leave it to Pat Buchanan to voice an opinion that makes both the left and the right roll their eyes.
"Our message to the oppressors and their subjects is unequivocal: Free peoples cannot rest while tyranny thrives. Just as we benefit from the blessings of liberty, we have a duty to those who remain beyond its reach. In Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma and elsewhere, millions live under cruel tyrants. Too many governments and international organizations appear willing to sacrifice freedom for what they mistakenly believe will be stability. We know that only the consent of the governed brings stability. And we know that if the world's democracies make liberty the priority of their policy, the days of the dictators are numbered."
Looking at this optimistically, you would think that Georgia and the other fledgling democracies have embraced the Bush Doctrine and will not only try to firmly establish democracy in their respective countries, but work with us to establish democracies throughout the world...i.e. more allies. It may be a little soon to celebrate such a notion, but this can't be looked on as anything but good news.
Theoretically, Churchill and Roosevelt could have refused to cut any deal with Stalin at Yalta. But that could have started the Cold War on the spot. It would have seriously jeopardized the common battle against Germany (at a moment when Roosevelt was concerned with winning Soviet assent to help fight the Japanese, which he received).
Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower was happy to let the Soviets bear the brunt of the fighting as they marched toward Berlin, and he was unwilling to expend American troops on storming the German capital. The only one who was eager to do that was Gen. George Patton, who hoped to take on the Russians as well. Given the domestic pressure to "bring the boys back home," Roosevelt would have been taking a politically suicidal course had he broken with our allies, the Soviets.
All of this is true...which is exactly the point. We had to make a choice: deal with the Soviet menace now, at a heavy price to ourselves; or put it off until much later, at a very heavy price to the people of Eastern Europe. I'm not saying I wouldn't have made the same decision in Roosevelt's shoes. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have, but who can tell? We were exhausted by war...another one right away may very well have been political suicide, but the price to pay was the freedom and lives of millions of people. That's the Big Yalta Truth. We don't have to like it, but we have to face up to it. President Bush doesn't believe in leaving anyone behind in the struggle for freedom. "Realists" like Heilbrunn believe that you do.
So there you have point/counter-point. It's up to us to decide who's right.
UPDATE: The Iconic Midwesterner has a much more exhaustive (and amusing) analysis.
I spent the first few minutes looking at who put entries on the page, repeating to myself: "who? who? who?" until finally I run across Walter Cronkite. Finding myself bored after the first few words from the most mistrusted man in the Blogosphere, I saw an entry from New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine:
"My name is Jon Corzine, and I'm one of the two US Senators who represents the state of New Jersey. Most people don't really know what a Senator does. In my case, among other things, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to prevent this country from being attacked."
F*&k! I have no one to blame but myself.
This is not surprising. In places like Georgia, Bush is nothing short of a rock star. The countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics are where the people truly understand tyranny and are enamored with Bush's Inauguration Speech in which he put all tyrannical regimes on notice. According to Dick Morris, some have even memorized passages of the Inaugural Speech. With this visit, and the visit to Latvia, Bush puts Russia on notice to play nice. Putin may be losing his way, but he is a transitional figure. Russian politics will move closer to democracy with each leadership change, I predict. Especially if the chess master Kasparov makes a lot of noise.
(Photo courtesy the Associated Press)
It said the offensive, being conducted with U.S. air support in a desert area of Anbar province north of the Euphrates River, was targeting a sanctuary for foreign insurgents and a smuggling route.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
"it (Pew) did nothing wrong and is proud of the $40-million it spent to get other people's money out of politics."
Bottom line, while many are writing Blair's political obituary, his place in history is secure. The British are notorious for not appreciating you in the present but worshipping you years later...just ask Churchill. Blair will be remembered as one of the greats in British politics and he can break bread at my table anytime.
But now, George W. Bush has laid the groundwork for a new kind of conservatism, what leftists dismiss as "neoconservatism," in which we no longer sacrifice the weak in the name of a false "stability."
The question here is, who is the real loser here?
UPDATE: More from Polipundit...and Powerline...and the Captain.
Sen. Reid, the Senate Democratic Leader, will speak to students from U.S. History and American Study classes at Del Sol High School, tomorrow, Friday, May 6 at noon. He will explain to students why he is fighting the "nuclear option", an attempt by Republicans to take away the right of the Senate to use the filibuster in some cases. The Senate may vote on the nuclear option as soon as next week.
Ed. - Maybe I'm living in the past, but isn't this a little over the line? Making a political speech at a government funded school to a group of teenagers? I guess in this age of political rallies at churches (and funerals, if you're in Minnesota) this isn't that unusual.
"A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy. Particularly in the case of a great power like America, it is essential that people know where you stand and assume that you mean what you say."
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Now, as far as the results go...it's looking like Labour holds on to power but loses a lot of ground, while the Conservatives gain significant ground and the Liberal Democrats continue to be a the third place lunatic party, probably only gaining two seats.
For the next week and beyond, expect to see a lot of stories, yes here in America, about Gordon Brown, who will most like challenge Blair for the Prime Minister post at some point. Brown seems more likely to pull troops from Iraq and steer the party back to the left, at least partially. The question this raises is whether that will mean the Conservatives will be in a position to grab power back in a few years or is the electorate moving left. The former seems more likely to me since the Tories made such big gains and they've always been pro-war, just anti-Blair.
Politics in Britain is fascinating and a bit disconcerting. Remember from your history that these people threw Churchill out before they'd even closed the door on World War II and the Tories threw Thatcher out over some silly tax issue. Tony Blair has brought the Labour Party more success than ever thought possible. Will they throw him out? Conventional wisdom says yes. We'll have to see. In the meantime, as I stated previously, Bush should prepare for the worst and plan on the Brits leaving Iraq within a year, but I really doubt that'll be a fatal blow by that time.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
UPDATE: Some quick thoughts on the early returns and predictions:
1) The BBC is predicting that Labour will lose about 100 seats, but still maintain a 66 seat majority. It may be backlash for the war, but we also have to take into consideration that this is the 3rd go-around for Blair and Labour so a landslide is unlikely after having been in office for so long.
2) The BBC also says it hasn't been a very good night for the Liberal Democrats. If there was a strong backlash from the war in Iraq, it seems like they would have faired better. Hard to imagine the anti-war vote going for the Tories.
3) Some are saying Tony Blair may be gone by Christmas as the minority wackos in his party may try to overthrow him. It's possible, but I think that theory strongly underestimates Blair. Regardless, Bush should probable be ready for a British pullout from Iraq at year's end. By that time, however, the time may be right anyway.
The Benton Harbor school superintendent sent a letter to parents saying the song's allegedly raunchy lyrics makes it inappropriate -- even though the marching band wasn't going to sing it.
She says she'll rethink her decision if most parents support their children playing the song.
Richard Berry wrote "Louie Louie" in 1956. It's one of the most recorded songs in history. The best-known version was a hit in 1963 for the Kingsmen.
But exactly what it's about remains a topic of debate.
The F-B-I spent two years investigating the lyrics before declaring them "unintelligible."
However, a study done by professors at University of Missouri-Columbia and Louisiana State University shows when it comes to ethics, journalists rank near the top of the list.
Researchers using a decades-old model for assessing one's morals determined that members of media rank just below seminarians, doctors and medical students.
The results even surprised the researchers.
The test also found the least ethical people are junior high students, who came in behind prison inmates.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Ed. - Heh.
Larry Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W.Va., turned himself in Wednesday morning, FBI spokeswoman Debra Weierman said. He was scheduled to make an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Virginia later in the day, Weierman said.
(Photo courtesy RushLimbaugh.com)
It's the last part that doesn't pass the smell test. There's no way Bush and the gang would let Saddam off the hook. The Iraqi people need their justice, without it, their victory would ring hollow. It's possible he might have met with Saddam, for jollies if nothing else, but not to make a deal. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon shot down the story.
"Will we, by leaving Gaza encourage freedom of expression and a judicial system that protects human rights? Will the incitement in the Palestinian education system cease? Will the terror groups be dismantled? The answer to all of the above is of course, no."
Tough stuff. It's no wonder George W. Bush is a fan of Sharansky, even though Bush has to play up like he's all for a Gaza pullout. Must be diplomatic, you know.
This could have some major repercussions. I'm not an expert, but you have to wonder how much longer Sharon can keep up his balancing act between the two extremes of the Israeli populous. And should Sharon be ousted, the Labor Party will only be all too willing to sell out the country to the Palestinians.
I haven't read Sharansky's book, but I've seen it advertised on a lot of blogs...now I'm thinking I may have to go to Barnes & Noble after work.
"As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
Now there is a legitimate point as to whether this is an effective form of interrogation. The point, of course, is to get them to talk. That may need to be studied. But as far as "torture" goes, forget it. Even the rougher stuff like bending the thumbs, grabbing genitals and smearing fake menstral blood on the prisoners...I still wouldn't expect any sympathy from the American people.
If anything, this is a Saturday Night Live skit waiting to happen. Picture some horny guys dressing up as Arabs going to Guantanamo: "My name is Akbar...torture me all you want with your big American breasts...you can't make me talk. I mean it...you'll have to torture me for months!"