He makes the ankle-biters look puny...

After being exposed to so much of the infantile carping and sneering of Paul Krugman, it's a keen pleasure to encounter an economist one can admire! Australian Tony McDonald just jumped in and did a great job of work.

The Daily Telegraph | Economist who became a hero:...Before he returned after 10 months service in January, Mr McDonald rose through the ranks of the provisional authority to be senior adviser to Iraqi finance minister Kamal al-Gailani. He helped get payments out to a million pensioners and 1.3 million civil servants through a chaotic banking system.

In a letter to Treasurer Peter Costello, Iraq administrator Paul Bremmer said he "often acted solely upon Tony's macro- economic advice".

Under Saddam, the tax system consisted mostly of imposts on business and very high tariffs, designed to maintain the regime's monopoly on smuggling. Banks were not linked and money was safer "under the bed". Pensioners were paid $US4 a month and public servants' pay depended on how much they contributed to the regime's coffers.

"We were essentially dealing with a gangster economy. No one was happy with it but people had to live within it," he said."It is in the process of being rearranged to be very much more simple, with much more objective measures of overall income."...

Some things change less than you imagine...

Peter Burnet writes:

We tend to imagine that appeasement in the 1930's was an expression of collective fear whereby people cowered in their homes and, somewhat guiltily, refused to concern themselves with Hitler’s threats or his victims. In fact, it was an aggressivly idealistic force that was marked by a gradual demonizing of those victims, a preoccupation with the “underlying causes” of totalitarianism, a scorning of moral distinctions, utopian dreams and a constant blaming of all things Western and democratic for– well, just about everything. For many, it was an inspiring, cutting edge cause that filled young and not-so-young hearts with a sense of noble purpose and the conviction they were fighting for a just and peaceful world.

"two and a half million refugees have returned..."

Tom Bowler pointed me to this interesting piece on Tony Blair and Afghanistan:

...Mr Blair denied that Afghanistan was a "forgotten country". He said: "It is neither forgotten nor is it a country that is going backwards." Conceding that there was "more to do", he said: "The actual prognosis for Afghanistan is good. Sure there are big problems. These nations are failed states of total and absolute degradation. You don't turn them around in two or three years so they become first world countries en route to joining the European Union. It's not like that for a country like Afghanistan."

He said it was "absolutely wrong and unfortunate" if people thought no progress had been made in Afghanistan over the past two or three years.

"There are five and a half million kids in school including over two million girls who were banned from school. The economy has grown by 30 per cent this year and is expected to grow by 20 per cent. The most telling statistic is that two and a half million refugees have returned to Afghanistan," he said.

Donald Anderson, chairman of the select committee, issued a statement challenging his own committee members. "The Independent report is more newspaper spin than any considered view of the committee as a whole," he said...

It's called "voting with your feet." People are also streaming into Iraq. It's the Left's worst nightmare. (Since at least 1917.)

Pray tell, how many people are pressing into the areas that the UN is "protecting?" How many of the many many French incursions into Africa have resulted in places people want to get into?

Unsound advice...

Joe Carter has a thoughtful critique of General Zinni, A General Misunderstanding.
From his conclusion:

...I have the utmost respect for General Zinni, a man who served his country with honor and distinction. In fact, if this were a different era, I’d even support his nomination as Secretary of Defense. His ideas -- containment, forming international coalitions, preferring stability over democracy -- could form the foundation for a Cold War-era defense policy.

But we are not locked in a standoff with the Soviet Union. The UN doesn’t possess the legitimacy it once had. And we are fighting radical Islam rather than communism. Gen. Zinni’s ideas once had relevance. But that day has long passed and we cannot afford to listen to such unsound advice. Even when it comes from one of the good guys.

More on the Abu Ghraib seven...

Remember the seven Iraqis...hands chopped off? And American doctors and hospitals donated time and effort to help them? Gave them amazing prosthetic hands? That seemed to me like a fascinating, heartwarming story. One that would sell newspapers.

President Bush greeted them at the White House yesterday. Good for him. But our vile despicable America-hating press doesn't consider that "News Fit to Print." Us morons of the public need to be shielded from news that doesn't make America look bad, and doesn't help Kerry.

...But the New York Times, which has offered perhaps the most hysterical coverage of the prison scandal, mentioned not a word in Wednesday editions of the seven torture victims.

That other elite media cheerleader for the U.S. prison scandal, the Washington Post, was nearly as bored as the Times by the Abu Ghraib seven, offering only a few scant references to the Oval Office event in its Wednesday editions.

After introducing the Iraqi torture victims, Bush went on to thank the Texas businessman and surgeon who made their rehabilitation possible and offered to take questions from the reporters on hand.

But the only "torture" journalists wanted to discuss was that allegedly perpetrated by U.S. troops.

"Mr. President, can you say why General Sanchez is being replaced as the top commander in Iraq? Is that in any way related to the prisoner abuse scandal?" asked the first questioner.

Likewise, the second reporter's question had nothing to do with the genuine torture victims sitting in front of him.

After two more off-topic questions, the president thanked the reporters and ended the session. [link]

Utterly disgusting. And also a form of theft--the editors who suppress interesting stories for political reasons, or from a general loathing of the things ordinary Americans find heartwarming, don't own the paper. The stockholders do. Their profits are being sacrificed to please the lefty whims of the employees.

Infuriating, but it's one more reason to savor the crushing of the Democrats next November...

Update: Take a look at this, in Volokh.

Things you might have missed while reading about prisoner abuse, Chalabi, prisoner abuse, Chalabi, al Sadr, prisoner abuse, bombed out wedding, Chalabi and prisoner abuse...

Chrenkof is back, with Good news from Iraq, part II 

You've seen the first installment - now prepare for the sequel. Because guess what? There's more good news from Iraq that every day slips under the radar or gets lost among all the bad publicity. So, after the phenomenal response to the first "Good news from Iraq", and back by popular demand, here's more good news from Iraq that you might have missed while reading about prisoner abuse, Chalabi, prisoner abuse, Chalabi, al Sadr, prisoner abuse, bombed out wedding, Chalabi and prisoner abuse...

The one I liked most:

In fact, the economy is going so well, that hundreds of thousands of Iranians... are believed to have crossed into Iraq since the fall of Saddam, looking for work, setting up businesses and buying property...

It's called 'voting with your feet." Some of the estimates claim millions of Iranians. Of course all those Iranians may cause problems. But they are also both coming for and causing economic development.

Keep 'em in mind when the ditzy crowd says we aren't accomplishing anything in Iraq. Iranians are "voting" the opposite. SO, lefty Democrats, how many people are moving to Cuba to enjoy your much-touted "worker's paradise?"

"Why stand we here idle?"

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.

--Patrick Henry

"are we going to be OK if the coalition forces left the country..."

Is there hope for Iraq? My friend Andrew thinks the Iraqis will tear themselves apart once we leave. But oddly, none of the Iraqi bloggers I read seem worried about the question...

Firas writes:

For a Monday it shouldn’t be so traffic jam in Baghdad, but it is today, with a very hot weather and imagine how it is to drive long distances…….. Any way what I noticed for the few passed days that we have many many check points by IPs [Iraqi Police] in all over Baghdad and they are started new procedures that we even forgot about for about a year now. They are stopping cars without license plates and stopping imported cars with license plates from UAE or Jordan if its being drove not during ministries working hours. I even saw an IP car modified for arresting criminals or any street disturbance which wasn’t seen before because what was left of the IPs and what we started with after April 2003 wasn’t ready to arrest anyone actually they were ready to be killed or beaten by the armed gangs in all over Baghdad who are starting to disappear or being arrested and send to Abo Ghraib jail……….I even was invited to a friend wedding last Friday with my family and we went out the party at 10.00 PM and they weren’t finished yet and the streets were secured all our way home………And there is a very important thing to tell here, all that is with out the coalition forces help anymore, I mean the IPs started to depend on their own resources and doing there job by them selves.

Few weeks ago I was thinking about a very important matter which is, are we going to be OK if the coalition forces left the country or we will face the kayos again……..Until a month ago I used to feel that we need the coalition forces to stay in streets, but now I can say and for sure that if the coalition forces left or stayed inside bases then we can depend on the IPs and the ICDCs and later on the Iraqi army to secure those who are working hard to rebuild the country. But we will need the coalition forces or what ever it’s turning to after the beginning of next July to help rebuilding new methods of working and procedures for our new establishments and ministries. That’s something is really needed after the corruption we had before April 2003 when the ext regime used to pay its employees less than two US Dollars a month and expect them to keep going to work spending about five US Dollars a month for transportation only. You can imagine how was it difficult to live those days....

I think the "Iraqis (or Afghans, or former Soviet Republics) will slaughter each other if the strong leader is removed" line has always been mostly a comfort to those who hate risk and love stability. And who have lost the belief in Liberty as something worth taking risks for. You always hear it from comfortable Western outsiders. Never from the people actually affected.

No Iraqis (except the Ba'athist elite) ever said, "Please leave Saddam in power. We are terrified of the possibility of civil unrest."

#158: Job-o-Meter

KRUGMAN TRUTH SQUAD

You've all heard of the one-trick pony of circus fame. Well Paul Krugman in Delusions of Triumph (05/25/04) has now become a one-trick economist. Once again it’s jobs, jobs, jobs. The reason is simple. Every other measure of U.S. economic performance is stellar. So if you want to grind a partisan ax you find the weakest statistic and pretend it reflects the entire economy. This must be the 5th or 6th recycling of the same "jobs" column.

But even here, Krugman is running out of gas. We are setting up a “Krugman Job-o-Meter” based on the chart he used in his April 9, 2004 column (see Squad Report #149). The hatched extension in the chart below shows the pattern of job creation since that column was written. We will update it monthly (the next report is June 4th). Krugman will certainly never show this chart again!

Dum-de-dum-dum.

[The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions. ]

Wow. I never heard of this guy...

The guided-missile destroyer Chung-Hoon, named for World War II hero Rear Adm. Chung-Hoon, sits in a dock at Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., after it was turned over from Northrop Grumman Ship Systems to the Navy during ceremonies Monday. The destroyer will be commissioned Sept. 18 in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and will be home-ported at Naval Station Pearl Harbor as a member of the Pacific Fleet. Chung-Hoon, who died in 1979, received the Navy Cross for his leadership after a kamikaze attack in 1945 left several of his crew dead and his ship, the USS Sigsbee, severely crippled.
William Colgin, The (Pascagoula) Mississippi Press / AP photo

More on the 70-Year Cycle...

In one of my posts on the subject of party realignment, and the theory of 70-year cycles of realignments in American politics, Lance Jonn Romanoff posted a comment and suggested the book Nemesis of Reform by Clyde Weed. I'm reading it with great interest. Thanks! (and thanks to Zev for suggesting Grand Old Party. Also very good.)

The book is about how the Republicans reacted to the realignment that made the Democrats the majority party in the 1930's, after Republican dominance since the Civil War. I probably won't find time to write about the book in any way that does it justice. But I've encountered a number of interesting items that seem to parallel things that are happening now.

One is that the Republicans reacted to the move leftward of the country and the Dems by moving further right! The polarization of politics increased. This was disastrous for the Republicans electorally. It seems to have happened because the most energetic Republican interest groups were those who felt most threatened by the New Deal. The energy of the party was in the "antis." And because many centrist or Progressive Republicans were supporting Roosevelt.

There was also an enormous failure of perception. Republican leaders couldn't really see or grasp what was happening. They failed to see that the sectional politics they knew were being replaced by class-based politics. And after their heavy defeat in 1932 they began to imagine things were getting better. Contributions were up, as bankers and industrialists reacted to Roosevelt's policies. Republicans felt energized, (and polling hardly existed then, so their data was poor.) They were utterly wrong.

I don't think the 1930's Republicans had any good short-term options. And I don't think the Democrats have any today. We are in a WAR, and Kerry and company can't fake being strong on defense. It's like Kerry trying to be a regular guy but blowing the details of eating cheesesteaks or pizza. No dice. You can't fake it. And even if there were no war, the long Democrat dominance means there is a huge and pressing backlog of reforms that haven't been done because they conflict with Democrat interest groups. Clinton tried to fudge this by being a "New Democrat." But his heart really wasn't in it, and if it had been he would have lacked the necessary support in his party.

The latest lying spin...

The Paper Formerly Known As The Paper Of Record (To borrow Rand Simberg's phrase) is forced to report that lab reports confirm the Sarin found in Iraq. But they are downplaying it like mad, mentioning the minor symptoms of those who handled the shell, but not mentioning the thousands it could have killed if the Sarin had been properly mixed and dispersed.

And pushing the new "stockpile" spin.

...Saddam's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was the Bush administration's chief stated reason for invading Iraq, but U.S. weapons hunters have been unable to validate the prewar intelligence that described those stockpiles...

This is just as much a lie as the "imminent threat" lie. (but of course any lie is justifiable if it shows "Bush lied.")

Go here to see what was actually said. State of the Union, January 2003. Scroll down to near the bottom. Notice something? Every single thing Bush said about Iraqi WMD's is still valid! Still TRUE! Still cause for concern.

Thanks to Powerline for the links.

The Internet routes around obstacles...

Says a pompous idiot:

..The press isn't reporting bad news from Iraq because they hate America, they're reporting bad news from Iraq because there's lots of bad news in Iraq...

Says someone who actually knows:

...The enemy has returned to the tactics of the weak….primarily coming after us with IEDs. And not with very much success. The Marines are very competent at finding the things now and, more importantly, local Iraqis, Iraqi Police, and Iraqi militia are telling us where they are or destroying them on their own. That is a significant step towards our ultimate goal. Much of our effort has turned to training Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); both on joint patrols and in training centers we have built over the last months. Result is a quantum improvement in ISF confidence and capabilities and the development of trust and camaraderie between ISF and the Marines conducting the training.. This training combines with our efforts to improve the quality of the average Iraqi life…hard to shoot at someone who is building you a school. The RCT has put almost $5M against schools, clinics, water projects, sewage projects, and ISF infrastructure. We are starting to see the fruits of our efforts This is a mission requiring patient persistence and it is working. Please keep that in the back of your mind when the nay-sayers start screaming...
C.A. Tucker
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps [link. RTWT]
CO, RCT-7.

There is both good and bad news from Iraq. They should both be reported, but the Media Wing of the Democrat Party only reports the bad. Then Pompous gets to say, there's lots of bad news in Iraq.

If you are reading this you are part of "routing around obstacles." The campaign of suppressio veri suggestio falsi won't last forever. In fact, I'm expecting it to unravel just around October.

Nineteen hours in the air. No smiling flight attendants. No reclining chairs. No in-flight movie...

You should take a look at this, just so that, when next you are suffering the misery of air travel, you can put it all in perspective.

They do seem to have lots of leg room...

Thanks to Donald Sensing

Kerry lies about American traditions...

So, will he be called on it? Only by bloggers...

Mr Kerry said, concerning his peculiar plan to not be nominated at the convention:

"Once again, the Republicans don't know history, and they don't know facts," he said. "The truth is that it used to be that the convention, after nomination, traveled to the home or the state of the nominee to inform them they've been nominated. Woodrow Wilson was at his house in Princeton, N.J.; Harry Truman was in Independence," Mo., he said. "They're trying to make an issue out of something that they're surprised by, because . . . they're very upset someone might have a way of neutralizing their advantage."

Betsy Newmark disposes of the rubbish about Truman just by pulling a biography off the shelf...

"So it was nearly two o'clock in the morning when Truman and Barkley at last made their entrance, striding onto the platform as the band played "Hail to the Chief." (Truman by David McCullough, p. 640-641)

A little bit of Googling failed to tell me if Wilson was at his convention, but he certainly was nominated at the 1912 convention in Baltimore. And re-nominated at the 1916 convention.

Why do I bother with these details? Because if BUSH said such a thing, certain people would cherish it as evidence that the President is a deep-dyed liar and ignorant...The quote would be passed from hand to hand for decades...smirked over.

Plus I'm annoyed by that "Republicans don't know history" crack. don't bet on it. We've got lonnng memories, you turkey. We haven't forgotten a great many Democrat dirty tricks...If you want to talk Wilson, we are aware that Republicans didn't stand aside and sneer that WWI was "Wilson's war," and pretend we were too fastidious and "moral" to help out. Nor did we stand aloof from Mr Roosevelt's war. Or Truman's, or Kennedy's, or Johnson's wars. WE REMEMBER, you treacherous phonies!

You want to talk TRADITIONS? It's our tradition in time of war for Americans to pull together!

Update...story worth reading.

Remember this story about seven guys who had their hands chopped off by Saddam? There's a heartwarming update in the WaPo:

... Last week, the men had recovered enough for the final fitting of their bionic hands, microprocessor-assisted marvels that receive instructions from the brain via electrodes attached to muscles in the arm. The Iraqis are training themselves to fire the right muscles to control hand functions, a process that will take months. Already, they can throw balls, shake hands, raise a glass.

Agris and North will go back to Baghdad with the seven in early June to make sure they have the proper medical support. Agris has arranged to visit other amputees, and he will help Baghdad hospitals upgrade their knowledge about amputations and prosthetics.

"The thing that'll win hearts and minds is the humanitarian effort, not guns," Agris said. "You take care of someone's child, not only do you help the child but you win over the family. And the family talks to the neighbors and you win over the neighbors. It just escalates."

He thinks Al Fadhly, Joudi, Kadhim, Salah and the other three men -- Laith Aggar, Hassan Al Gereawy and Al'aa Hassan -- will change some minds, too.

"I think we're going to see a ripple effect, especially with a guy like Al Fadhly who's got a job working for the coalition's new TV station. They're bringing back a different attitude, a different look." ...

Outside Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are, from left, Qasim Kadhim, Salah Zinad, Nazaar Joudi, Laith Aggar, Al'aa Hassan and Basim Al Fadhly. They and three others were ordered by Saddam Hussein to have their hands amputated in 1995.
Photo Credit: Don North

Steps on the road...

The thoughts of parents when the oldest kid graduates from High School are many and varied, and beyond my poor powers as a writer to do justice to. For me, proud and sad and wondering if one is about to be "kicked upstairs" as a new generation emerges and elbows its way to the center of the stage. Astonishing how we sent our young boy to a boy's high school and now suddenly there are all these men. Big competent confident brutes.

Now our guy is headed off to college in the heartlands. North Dakota. To a school where his blond hair and Northern European extraction won't put him in an odd minority. Where Bondoc and Lacayanga and Huypungco are not ordinary last names. A place where I bet high school graduates are not draped with leis! You can see some in the background of the picture...

The oldest struggle of human kind...

...In 2002, the 'New Guidelines for Teaching History' in New Jersey's public schools failed to even mention America's Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims, or the Mayflower. In the Prentice Hall history textbook, used by students in Palm Beach County high schools, titled 'A World Conflict,' the first five pages of the World War II chapter focus entirely on topics such as gender roles in the Armed Forces, racial segregation and the war, internment camps, and women and the war effort. This is the way we introduce World War II to the students. It is all about this stuff, and not about trying to save civilization from a dark age; not about trying to stop a psychopathic killer who would have in fact destroyed the world. No, no, World War II was what do we think about the gender roles in the Armed Forces... --Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado)

When leftists focus exclusively on Abu Ghraib, they pretend that they are doing so out of "deep moral outrage." They are lying. There may be a few duped fools who just speak for moral reasons, but most of them are lying. We see the same attacks, the same faux outrage heaped on every aspect of American life that might engender pride, and might support our traditions and institutions and freedom.

They are denigrating the liberation of Iraq for exactly the same reasons those textbooks make a mockery out of what we achieved in WWII.

...And now today we find ourselves involved in another struggle... It is the oldest struggle of human kind, as old as man himself. This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state...

--Ronald Reagan

Here or abroad, anywhere you go in the world, every single organization that can be described as "leftist" is anti-American. Because the biggest obstacle to putting the people under the control of the state (and the leftist elites who dominate government) is the United States of America.

We give the lie to all their claims. Every claim that things like "Euro-socialism" make people happy and prosperous is given the lie by the way their brightest and most ambitious people flee to the US. Every claim that people are happy under (fill in the blank) local tyranny is given the lie by the hunger of those people for Green Cards.

Every leftish group on the globe is playing up Abu Ghraib, and ignoring all the good deeds our people do. Every one of them attacks the good and noble things of our history, unless, like the Civil Rights Movement, they can be used to justify intrusive big government. The relentless emphasis on Abu Ghraib is done for exactly the same reason as the relentless emphasis on the slave-owning of some of our country's founders.

New blog on block...

Tom Bowler, who leaves comments around here from time to time, has his own blog now, Trilateral Protocols of the NeoCon Brotherhood, Oooops, just kidding. Pretend you didn't see that, or I'm a dead duck.

The one you want is Libertarian Leanings. Check it out...

300 sets of bedding gear...100 sets of pre-packaged clothing...

You may have heard from our darling newsmedia about how we slaughtered women and children at a wedding in Iraq. Here are some of the wedding trinkets found...

...[Brig. Gen. Mark] Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a way station for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.

"The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing.

"[It is] expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."

At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for makeshift bombs, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan...

Thanks to HD Miller

The Anti-Change Alliance

Mohammed says:

...Finally, I have a question to the anti-change [alliance] and to our friends in the biased media wherever they might be; if all your stories were true and if we were wrong about everything we did, what suggestions would you offer to make things better? what are your plans?

What?! What did you say? I'm listening.

The Anti-Change Alliance. That's it in a nutshell, Mohammed.

Intemperate rant...just skip over it...

When you hear of the so-called consciences of Democrats oozing remorse for the sin of being American, think of this story...

These are the people Democrats are FOR. [Yeah, yeah, I know. Not all Dems.] These are the ones they DON'T criticize, since they are busy with the much-more-important-work of criticizing Americans. These are the slimebags they want to help put into power in Iraq. These are the "victims" they want to protect from the brutality of the Americans. These are the "allies" they are tacitly working with to get Kerry elected:

...I looked off to the left at a frontage road and I saw nine cars in rows of three. There was a line of women in front of all the cars, and some of them had children with them. I thought they were just watching us get attacked, and then men started popping up behind them firing at us - they were using the women as shields!! It took me a second to realize that. They were standing on the hoods of the cars behind the women and children; it shocked the hell out of me. Then we started getting hit with small arms fire, which sounded like golf balls hitting metal. I started firing back at them but I couldn’t get passed the women; they were all I could hit, and they started falling down. The men turned around and ran back behind the cars to fire...(via Zhang Fei)

Keep this stuff in mind when you hear lefty-commentators saying "Abu Ghraib is all of us," and that we are tainted forever and should just slink away in shame and turn everything over to the saintly protectors of Rawanda. Those animals using women and children as shields are OK by them. No leftizoid will express the least morsel of outrage over this. Nor will you read about it in the mainstream press.

They don't care! They. Do. Not. Care! They are cold-hearted bastards, and would gladly turn Iraq over to whatever murderous thugs happen to seize power.

Read the whole story. It's an account of a fuel convoy getting shot-up in Baghdad. It's WAR. It's hair-raising. It's what Democrats are trying to pretend doesn't exist. Because WE are the good guys and WE are locked in desperate global combat with a lot of real bad guys. And any American who reads this kind of thing is going to say, "Why the hell aren't we supporting these men? They are heroes! Why are we putting 90% of our energy into attacking and hampering them?"

"And why, exactly, are our Democrat leaders not bursting with pride just to be part of the same country as these soldiers? WHY?

...We pulled up behind Mathew Maupin's truck, a fellow soldier who was riding with a civilian also, but no sooner did we get behind his truck then his tanker exploded, the truck swerving off the highway, down through a ditch into a bunch of buildings. It was one big ball of flames. Later on, Matt was seen on the Al-Jazeera network as a hostage, and is believed to be still in their custody. After his truck exploded in front of us, we came upon another truck that was laying on its side in the ditch on our left - it was one of ours. There were Iraqi civilian tankers on both sides of us, which the Iraqis use as roadside bombs - when you drive past them they blow them up.

Behind the military tanker on the right, I saw a man lying on his stomach, popping his head up and down to look at us. He just kept popping his head up, I propped my weapon up on the side mirror of our truck and started aiming for his head; I was either going to shoot him in the head or the back, all I could think at the time was, "he is one of the attackers and he is going to blow up both of the trucks as we pass." I saw that he was holding something up in his left hand. It was white. I didn’t know exactly what it was, my heart was pounding so hard, and I was sure it was a remote detonator, but I kept looking and I didn’t fire at him. As we got closer and closer, I saw that he was an American civilian, and he was holding his ID up trying to let us know he was one of ours. When I was in the hospital later on, I saw the same guy on the news, it was Thomas Hamill, who later escaped his Iraqi captors when he heard American soldiers outside the house he was being held prisoner in...

I'm grateful to those men, they are fighting for freedom. For Civilization! They are fighting in one battle of the World War that started 9/11. Fighting for us.

And when I think of all those lefties sitting like buttery buddhas oozing conscience-juice from every pore, steaming and bubbling with loathing of America, enveloped in a sickly perfume of moral posturing, and utterly oblivious to anything that won't help them get back into political power. Forget it, you clowns. You've forfeited the right to lead America. Come November, you're gone...

Just for your info...

If you were wondering whether the President's daughters were really the bimbos portrayed by comedians, this might be of interest:

Bush twins graduate, join re-election campaign
BATON ROUGE, La. -- For years, they have been as elusive as unicorns, shunning the spotlight and taking no part in their father's high-flying political life.

But today, a new corner is turned in the lives of the Bush twins. President Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna, 22, are graduating from their respective universities and plan to join their father's re-election effort, at least for a while...

...Whether Bush wins or loses, Jenna plans to move to New York City to share an apartment with friends and do volunteer work with children, according to People.

Barbara will become a paid staffer, probably this summer, with a pediatric AIDS program based at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, officials said. The job will take her to clinics in Africa...

And if you don't think the newsmedia has two standards, there's this:

"While the Bush girls' predecessor, the similarly protected Chelsea Clinton, projected the reserved image of a shy ballerina, the Bush girls are something different....

Chelsea? A "shy ballerina?" glerrrk! What can I say? Barbara and Jenna, Enjoy life! DRINK UP!

Rising prices tend to self-correct...

Steve Chapman in The Washington Times:

...The market economy's beauty is rising prices tend to self-correct. They stimulate investment, which in time raises output. But if the government threatens to step in every time prices jump, oil companies will see no point trying to expand reserves or boost production.
    The paradox is this: The surest way to get lower prices tomorrow is to put up with higher prices today, The surest way to get higher prices tomorrow is to insist on lower prices today.
    This is a matter not of theory but experience. When Ronald Reagan scrapped oil and gasoline price controls in 1981, critics said prices would soar. They did, but not for long. Supplies rose, consumption fell and prices began a long decline, which left us all swimming in cheap gas and spoiled beyond belief.
    In reality, today's prices aren't so high. Two dollars a gallon may sound onerous, but after adjustment for inflation, it's less than we paid from 1979 through 1985....(via Betsy Newmark)

Not long ago I quoted the Washington Times and some troll commented that, since Sun Myong Moon was one of the founders of the paper, it was tainted, and it should be presumed to be a sinkhole of lies and absurdity, (and also that I was tainted for quoting it.) That was just a bit of the lunacy certain people exhibit at the thought of losing their monopoly on public discourse.

Thinking about it, I would tend to turn the "tainting" around. The frequent good-sense one sees in the Washington Times makes the Moonys, by association, seem a bit less flaky.

Quotes...

...As a conservative who reads a lot and takes an interest in history, I tend to accord some weight to the opinions of past generations. I do not subscribe to the fashionable belief that human beings suddenly got much smarter and more moral around 1965, and that everyone who lived prior to that date was a benighted ignoramus. There are plenty of people long dead who seem to me to have been very smart indeed — much smarter than I, in many cases. It is even possible that one or two of them may have been smarter than the editorialists at the New York Times. I don't know, I don't say this necessarily was so, only that I wouldn't altogether rule it out... [link]

--John Derbyshire

Job Market...

by Jayson at Polipundit:

I say we take our own job market survey.

First rule, be honest. And no spinning. Leave that to the Paul Krugmans of the world.

I'll start.

Up until May 7th, I worked for a national law firm. I then started my own business. I'm single and unattached. [Hint, hint, ladies ;-)] I've gone from being an unhappy lawyer who literally banged his head against a wall each day, to being a happy business owner.

So, on a household survey basis, I'm a wash. On a payroll basis, I'm a minus-1. On a job satisfaction basis, well, let's just say that you'd need a hack saw to get the smile off my face.

R.S.V.P., folks.

My suspicion is that the Household Survey is in fact closer to the truth than the Payroll Survey. And the fact that the press pushes the bad news and ignores the good is good for Bush. They are trying to help Kerry, but they are doing just the opposite. Why? 'Cause the truth will emerge eventually. And if the situation is as good as I think it is, they won't be able to keep the lid on through the election.

In fact, they are engineering an "October Surprise" for Bush. Same for Iraq. The press/Democrat/jihadi alliance (The Axis Of Entropy: Putting sand in the gears wherever reform is attempted!) timed their move wrong. They threw what I suspect is their worst at us in May! Is that stupid or what?

Kinda impressive

From OxBlog

KINDA COOL: India is over 80% Hindu. Last week, they kicked a Hindu nationalist party out of power. A plurality was won by the party led by an Italian-born Catholic. She then stepped aside in favor of a Sikh (who happens to be largely responsible for instigating the economic reforms that have made the Indian economy take off the last few years). The new Prime Minister was officially appointed by India's President, who is Muslim.

Bush lied......Not.

The Washington Times: Editorials:

In September 2000, George W. Bush was surely right to criticize Bill Clinton for playing politics with America's long-term national security. (Mr. Clinton released tens of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in an effort to force energy prices down in order to increase the presidential prospects of Al Gore.) Today, President Bush is right to reject demands from Sen. John Kerry and other Democrats to divert oil from the SPR to the market in order to force gasoline prices down.

Mr. Bush's rationale today is the same as it was nearly four years ago. "The strategic reserve is an insurance policy meant for sudden disruption of our energy supply," Mr. Bush asserted in September 2000. The SPR, he rightly argued, "should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security."...

I suppose I shouldn't harp on the point, but the "Bush Lied" ninnies are so aggravating. Of course after a while the fact that their talking points are all negative, all "anti-Bush," just makes it more clear that they are spiritually and politically bankrupt. They are not "for" anything.

Bush criticized Clinton on a point of principle; the SPR is not a political slush-fund. So what principle guides Kerry here? Of course any successful politician needs to fudge and compromise now and then. I'll give Mr Kerry a pass on some unprincipled tactical maneuvers. But still, one would like to know what he's really for....

Also, here's a snippet from TIME Magazine. The article (this is a teaser) looks like it's going to savor Abu Ghraib like a rare bottle of Chateau Watergate. But the piece in fact shows that Bush is a real leader. Just think back to Clinton and Somalia:

Just down the hall from Donald Rumsfeld's third-floor office at the Pentagon is a high-tech conference room where U.S. generals arrayed around the globe can talk to the Pentagon boss—and with his boss, if he happens to stop by. That is exactly what happened last week when Central Command chief General John Abizaid, appearing via videophone from Qatar, admitted that he was worried about the political fallout back home from the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal. Hearing this, George W. Bush peered back at Abizaid, who oversees two continuing wars in Asia, and told him to ignore the static. "You worry about getting the job done," Bush said. "You let me worry about the politics and the things back here."

(via Brothers Judd Blog)

Hang your clothes on a Hickory limb...

I'll pull the troops out: Kerry
United States Democrat John Kerry promised that, if elected president of the United States, he would pull virtually all American combat troops out of Iraq - away from the "death zone" - by the end of his first term.

Pre-emptive surrender. We can expect the same "campaign contributions" Zapatero got. At least I won't feel bad for him when he loses all 50 states. The "death zone." What BS. Typical liberal, only Americans are real. It's the "life zone" for 25 million Iraqis, and hope for the whole Middle East. But Democrats would gladly sacrifice them for votes. Just as they happily sacrificed millions of Vietnamese to death and "re-education camps" and escape in leaky boats.

In an interview yesterday with AP reporters and editors, he also criticized President George W Bush for damaging relations with allies. There is so much strain in those relationships now, he said, that only a new president can repair them.

They'll love him. And leap to aid him in a program of passivity and appeasement and self-loathing...

"Every president of the last century, Republican and Democrat alike, worked differently from this administration, reached out to other countries and worked with greater respect through international structures," Kerry said.

So Democrats asked the UN and "allies" for permission to fight in Vietnam? I've really got to get a better grasp of history.

"This has been a terrible period of loss of American influence, respect and prestige, and it costs us all across the globe."

Terrorism and regional conflicts have declined across the globe. And many rogue nations are getting nervous and more cooperative. We are winning the War on Terror, though the struggle will be long and hard. The oppressed are with us. But elites everywhere are unhappy with all the nasty talk about freedom and democracy. You can vote for Kerry, so we will be popular at international cocktail parties. Or you can vote for victory, and for liberating the downtrodden...

Saying his goal would be achieved in his first term, Kerry explained: "Look, you may have some deployments of people for a long period of time in the Middle East depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is. I'm not going to tell you we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today."

"Hang your clothes on a Hickory limb. but don't go near the water.." It's a WAR, you dimwit. We are supposed to be in an "active kind of death zone." Dealing death.

Kerry also said he is confident that if he becomes president, he could persuade countries that sat out the Iraq war to contribute peacekeepers. But he said he would not place US soldiers in Iraq under UN command, or under the command of another country."

Oh boy. We've been hearing tons of news about "peacekeepers" recently. Usually something like "Peacekeepers fail to prevent massacre." Or "Peacekeepers hide in barracks while riot rages."

Did you know there were "peacekeepers" in Mogadishu when our guys were being attacked? And who were too peaceful to help fight? Who stood by peacefully while Americans were slaughtered? Hmmm? Mr Kerry? Mr Kerry? I'm talking to you, you useless lump! Is that your plan? Is them the guys whose "respect" we are desperate for? The "allies" we are desperate for? Or did you mean the peacekeepers of Rawanda? Or the "sex-trade" peacekeepers?

One war, two armies...

Lance Jonn Romanoff has an amazing story about a GI who parachuted at Normany, escaped from a German POW camp, headed east, encountered a Russian unit, and fought with them until wounded.

MOSCOW - Of the million World War II veterans who celebrated Victory Day on Sunday, few, if any, can say that they fought for both the U.S. and Soviet armies.

Joseph Beyrle is an exception.

Beyrle, the 80-year-old father of John Beyrle, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy, was on hand Sunday for the Victory Day parade on Red Square, a stone’s throw from the monument to a man who helped bring him back to life - legendary World War II Marshal Georgy Zhukov...

"This idiot is taking advantage of his father’s name"

I feel a bit silly mentioning the blog IRAQ THE MODEL every other day, but really, it's just too cool. I'd love to go to Iraq, but this is the next-best thing. Today Ali is in a cab, stuck in a traffic jam. The driver is from Sadr City, and we learn a lot about what the people are really thinking...

Duty...

I was in a long comment-discussion here. I thought it was over, but then got one more comment. I should let it drop, but hate having my words twisted into something I didn't mean. (Of course I wandered a lot—my meaning was probably fuzzy.) And it seems very significant to me that my points are repeatedly missed. My theme is that there are duties and restraints that fall to an opposition party in wartime. And I think people are either missing the point because they don't want to confront the issue, or because they are psychologically incapable of seeing it. So, responses to some points:

And I really have to laugh at Weidner's claim that the Democrats should have wanted the matter fixed in private. The fact is that the Pentagon had months to fix this in private, and wilfully ignored the problem

You are blurring two things--what we want and what's necessary. Any loyal American should WANT the problem to be fixed quietly if possible, because the publicity has surely encouraged our enemies. If that wasn't feasable then publicity might be necessary and helpful. Democrats, especially in the Senate, have a LOT of potential leverage, but never even tried to use it to put quiet pressure on the Pentagon for reform. There's a difference between being forced to use publicity and leaping on it as a political opportunity. Come to think of it., the Democrats in Congress also had months to try to fix the problem; it went public in January. They didn't try. They didn't care. When the pictures were leaked they grabbed a political opportunity and ran with it.

Weidner's claim that openly criticizing the government only assists the enemy is a shameful, un-American thing to say. Is he claiming we should shut up and let the government carry on without any criticism?

Total distortion of what I said. I've never said the government shouldn't be criticized, and I didn't say criticizing "only assists the enemy." Assisting the enemy is ONE of the things it does. I would be glad to learn that Dems had embraced publicity reluctantly, as a lesser evil. But I don't think they did. The duty of the opposition party in wartime is to support the war, and within that context to make constructive criticisms. And to avoid destructive criticism even if it hurts you politically [And if you don't agree with that statement, make a case. Don't hide behind Abu Ghraib. Confront the issue. Tell me why I'm wrong.]

Weidner says these prisoners weren't innocent, they were "prisoners believed to have attacked Americans." That's an appalling excuse...

I knew that strawman was coming. I'm not making excuses, OK? I'm NOT arguing in favor of prisoner abuse. That's not even the subject here. The subject was how the Democrats reacted, compared with how I feel a Loyal Opposition should react in wartime. The subject is how this is being presented. If Dems wanted to minimize the harm to our cause, they would have been quick to mention that many of these prisoners were probably thugs. If they wanted to maximize harm they would spin things as if they were a bunch of innocents. (Blurring in the process the difference between innocent-because-nothing's-proven and innocent because they did nothing wrong.)

You mention My Lai. That's a very good illustration. We hear about it endlessly. And always presented in a distorted form to make America look as bad as possible. (No, I am not excusing the My Lai Massacre.) No mention is made of the tens-of-thousands of American officers who didn't order civilians fired upon, despite extreme provocation. No mention is