Wow.
First comes coalition authority (via the Washington Post)
Then the department of agriculture from the IG.
Then the department of education from the IG.
Then the FDA from a watchdog group.
Bam.Bam.Bam. And right in the middle of election season.
One can forgive the FDA, I guess, because it involved actions resulting from legislation in 1992. But the other three? No excuse.
These Republicans sure know how to govern....
This is my first posting on how Bin Laden has won the war on terror.
First, the issue, what are/were Bin Laden's goals? The answers, perhaps
1. To cause the US government to take away freedoms of its citizens.
2. To cause Americans to turn on each other due to fear of another attack.
3. To interrupt the western culture.
4. To strengthen terrorist resolve and his brand of Islam.
My goal is to look at the news and document how Bin Laden or Al Qaeda is winning this war.
Our goal should be to do what we can to keep our essential freedoms and not to give up our culture, simply because Bin Laden wants us to.
First in the series:
The ban on handbaggage on international flights. This is very inconvenient, but innocuous on its face. But, it is impacting our culture.
Today, NPR documented how the ban is preventing musicians from traveling. Specifically, musicians insist on carrying their instruments with them (a prudent move when your instrument is a 300 violin, I would say).
Sore: Bin Laden 1, US 0
There were many reasons to be for a war in Iraq. But there were only a few reasons to oppose it:
1. You are against all war (that is not me).
2. You were against this war because Bush lied (again, not me, Bush had not been proven to lie that much in March 2003 and I was still on the 9/11 patriotic thing).
3. We could not win the way Rumsfeld proposed to fight it. With minimal troops, a small coalition, and no plan. This was me.
In March 2003, I thought going into Iraq was not a bad idea in theory. But, when adminisration officials said it would be a cakewalk, I cringed. I knew, just knew, that we wouold be in there a long time. Sure we would win the war, but there was no plan for an occupation.
Boy, was I right. The NYTimes today is an example. Strained Army Looks to the Guard for Relief.
In the Corner, Larry Kudlow misrepresents the Laffer Curve solely as a theory that lower taxes will result in lower taxes.
While that is part of Laffer's theory, as I understand it, it is not all. Laffer's point was that the tax rate affects revenue, such that taxing 100% or 0% will result in no tax revenue and that the maximum revenue generation is somewhere in between.
A legitimate argument for Kudlow to have made is that Bush's policies seem to have moved us to a point on the revenue curve that is more efficient.
What it does not mean (assuming that the tax cuts are the only reason behind increased revenues) is that more tax cuts will lead to more revenue or that fewer tax cuts would lead to less revenue. All it means is that we are better situated on the Laffer Curve than before.
If we could only get that damned government spending down, Bush might have done one thing positive for this country.
Apparently, Ramesh Ponnuru does not like some of the stuff on TPM. Oh, well.
First, he engages in ad hominen attacks on another blogger. Faux pas for someone who fancies himself an intellectual.
In any case, he must know Mr. O'Beirne. How about arranging for an interview of him to explain exactly what he did do at DoD.
And, a 29 year old in charge of a country's finances? Well, I guess it is ok, but there aren't many billion dollar companies out there that would hire a 29 year old to do the job. And to suggest that there were not more qualified government employees willing to take the task is a joke.
Why should we believe Ramesh? He, apparently, is relying only on his personal contacts from the person accused. As any prosecuter knows, the only person with an incentive to lie is the accused. Again, send out an investigative journalist to see what happened, if you do not trust the Post.
And of course, Mr. O'Beirne did not respond to the reporter, so we have no idea what he thinks, except, perhaps from Ramesh's reports (which are non-attributable).
And a 24 year old to reinvent the stock market? Again, couldn't you find a more experienced trader to do the job?
The bottom line is that I might hire one of these two to run my $300,000 a year business, but to run even a multi-million dollar company, I would think twice and, if a 29 year old was hired to run a billion dollar company, the board of directors would be run out on a rail (unless her name was Paris Hilton, maybe). Nothing against her, but I just cannot see how she could possibly have been qualified for the positon, unless she was a savant. Further, good for her getting the job. It is a feather in her cap, as it is for the young man.
And then K-Lo gets involved, defending the selections. Maybe it is a coincidence, but how do two reporters for such a distinguished magazine happen to know at least three of the people involved in the article (out of 5 attacked)? Sounds suspicious to me.
The bottom line is that I doubt NRO's defense. They are defending their own, which is admirable.
But, as I said in a previous post, I really would not give a damn, had these people done a good job. If we are going to fail in Iraq, we should at least put out the first team. Not the lapdogs.
He has taken two positions on torture and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The first position was that "the United States does not torture." How do we know? Because he says so. Anyhow, he was confident enough in his position, as was the CIA, that no legislation was required.
But, apparently, his say so isn't good enough anymore. Now, he thinks that some of the things the CIA did was torture. At least it appears so, as he is trying to get Congress to define torture to protect the CIA.
But, I think it is a ruse. I believe the CIA have used and will use the same tactics, with or without a law.
Ok, I just read that the candidates will spend $500,000,000 on the next election.
Is it me or do other people have a problem with this? It's not that I care how much they spend, but, if someone is going to spend $250,000,000 for something, that someone, and those who are financially supporting that someone, will want some quid pro quo.
Nah. That couldn't be it.
Anyone got any ideas?
How can we trust the government?
Up until this month, we have told our children to eat their spinach.
Even Popeye at his.
Now this:
What do we tell the children? My son, 7 years old and heretofore a Democrat, is becoming a Bush supporter...
Qualification: Be a loyal Republican.
I'm sorry, but running a war and rebuilding a country requires the MOST qualified people we have. Not a bunch of political hacks.
In this country, we have a bunch of people qualified to be executives, to be CEOs of a large enterprise, just ask the CEO's of companies like GE, HP, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Exxon, and Oracle, among others, and they will tell you they are the best of the best and that is why they are paid millions of dollars a year, each.
So, when we want to rebuild Iraq, who do we hire to do the job? Our great CEOS?
As the Washington Post Reports,
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
In other words, political hacks.
Now, I have got nothing against political hacks. Had they done a good job of rebuilding Iraq, I would be among the first to show my admiration.
But, when they ruin a country the way they did Iraq, I become incensed. Is it no wonder we have spent almost a trillion dollars in Iraq and seen very little good come out of it.
Given how Bush has handled the economy of this country, I am not suprised. Disappointed. Yes. Angry. Yes. Suprised, no.
