A Tradgedy In Arizona, Politics On The Hudson

Today, in Arizona, Jared Loughner, 22 years old, walked into the middle of a public meeting being held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) and opened fire, killing five, including a 9 year old girl and Arizona's senior Federal District Court Judge, John Roll. He injured many more, including Rep. Giffords whom he shot through the temple at point blank range, the bullet passing through her brain before exiting her skull. Rep. Giffords is currently in critical condition, but apparently able to talk which, according to physicians, is a very positive sign.

----------------------------------------------------------



Update: The child murdered was Christina Taylor Greene. See her bio at Weazel Zippers. The total number killed is now six.

----------------------------------------------------------

No sane American can do anything other than mourn this act of brutal mass murder. Why Loughner committed this act is as of yet not known, though his internet rants suggest that he was delusional at best. This from Fox News on some of Loughner's internet postings:

"Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner," one of the videos says, in words appearing on the screen. "This video is my introduction to you! My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don't dream - sadly. . . . The majority of citizens in the united states of America have never read the united states of America's constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws," the video's titles say. "In conclusion, reading the second United States constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!"

. . . In other videos, Loughner calls the people of District 8, his Ariz. district, illiterate.

In a bizarre equation that Loughner appears to mean as example of deductive reasoning, he concludes that "the police are unconstitutional."

In yet another rant verging on the paranoid, he says:

“I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen.”

He lists reading under interests, as well as "conscience dreams," and among his favorite books are "Mein Kampf," the "Communist Manifesto," "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World."

In a comment posted on MySpace three months ago in connection with a video about Pima Community College, Loughner wrote: "Hello, I know you’re illiterate! This is the greatest protest for exposure into a wrongful act. The school is breaking the constitution. If you watch the video then you’ll understand. The teachers are taking advantage of you in the first and Fifth Amendment. The United States Constitution, which is the law, can be broken at this school. Thank you and goodnight! Jared"

---------------------------------------------------------

Update: From of Legal Insurrection, ". . . a women who claims to have known the shooter claims that he was fairly left-wing as of a few years ago . . ."

Update 2: This from the Arizona Daily Star on Loughner's apparent mental problems:

A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was "obviously very disturbed."

"He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts," said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College's Northwest campus.

Sorenson doesn't recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident.

Another Pima classmate, Lydian Ali, said Loughner would frequently laugh aloud to himself during the advanced-poetry class they attended. Only about 16 people were in the class, so Loughner's behavior stood out, Ali said.

"It almost seemed like he was on his own planet, because his comments would have nothing to do with what we were talking about," Ali said. . . .

--------------------------------------------------

This was, quite simply, a horrendous act by a person deep in the throws of psychosis. This mass murder was political only in the sense that psychosis can be considered political - which it cannot. Indeed, given the facts above, it would be the height of irresponsibility to attempt to assign any sort of blame to either side of the political spectrum for the actions of Mr. Loughner. But that has not stopped the NYT, with the blood still wet on the street and the bodies not yet cooled in the morgue, from firing the first salvos suggesting Loughner's violence is tied to the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin:

. . . Last March, after the final approval of the Democrats’ health care law, which Ms. Giffords supported, the windows of her office in Tucson were broken or shot out in an act of vandalism. Similar acts were reported by other members of Congress, and several arrests were made, including that of a man who had threatened to kill Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.

And in August 2009, when there were demonstrations against the health care measure across the nation, a protester who showed up to meet Ms. Giffords at a supermarket event similar to Saturday’s was removed by the police when the pistol he had holstered under his armpit fell and bounced on the floor.

During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map, which later removed the crosshairs symbols. . . .

So someone tell me how any of that is germane to Loughner's motivations or obvious psychosis? None of it is, but I am sure the NYT's not so subtle attempt to link Loughner to the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is only the first of many efforts to come. It is intellectual dishonesty on a despicable scale. These people have no shame and will twist / politicize anything for political gain.

All this despite the fact that the vast majority of political violence in Obama's America, to the extent it arises from a discernible ideology, arises from the left. No need to let facts get in the way of the narrative, however. And do recall that it was a left wing strategist who opined in November that "what Obama needs is another Oklahoma City moment."

Update: At Crooks and Liars, "We don't yet know why the shooter -- identified as a 22-year-old man named Jared Laughner -- shot Giffords and a number of other people; we'll learn more as the day progresses. But it's impossible to survey the events so far and not come to the preliminary conclusion that this was yet another awful act inspired by right-wing hate rhetoric."

At Jack & Jill Politics, "Tea Party Sympathizer Shoots Rep. Giffords, Kills/Wounds Others"

Gawker: "Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin's 'Crosshairs'"

Firedoglake - "Sarah Palin's Hit List"

Politics Daily - "Sarah Palin Blamed By Bloggers For Shooting Of Gabrielle Giffords"

Enron Advisor Paul Krugman - "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing."

Andrew Sullivan - "An Assassination?" - highlighting Sarah Palin's likely culpability for this political violence.

And much more from the venomous left-wing twittersphere at Flopping Aces . .

Much more from Instapundit: "Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?"

Update: Loughner's internet vids, compliments of Legal Insurrection:

Read More...

Summary only...

For Every Dark Cloud . . .

. . . there is a silver lining.

On this day - when the far left holds all the reigns of power, when they are spending our country into penury, when they are putting the nails in the economic coffin with cap and trade, and when they now threaten to turn us into a third world dictatorship by criminalizing political differences . . . there is still some very good news. If I read this right, the NYT, that left wing rag which bears much responsiblity for our current situation, is closing in on economic collapse. They have debts of $1.3 billion and effective cash reserves of only $34 million. Further, "in the past year, the Times cut its dividend, mortgaged its headquarters and borrowed $225 million at a hefty interest rate from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim." Their stock is currently trading under $5 a share. This is a company that, prior to Pinch moving it hard to the left at the beginning of this decade, was trading at over $50 a share.

As far as I'm concerned, this is proof that God exists.

Read More...

Summary only...

NYT Editor Responds To Questions On The McCain Hit Piece

Today, the NYT editor, Bill Keller, and others appear in the NYT answering questions on the McCain hit piece sent in by e-mail.


_______________________________________________________

This today from the NYT editor, Bill Keller:

Q. I must say that the McCain article left me embarrassed for your paper. So little substance, but trumpeted prominently as though you somehow had the goods on him or were raising burning questions. It makes it look like your reporters or editors had an ax to grind. I hope they didn't. Question: Do you read the coverage of your coverage? Did you see the piece at slate.com ridiculing your paper for this? Doesn't it smart?

A. I think we all expected the reaction to be intense. We knew from our experience last year, when word leaked out we were pursuing this story, that Senator McCain's operatives would set out to change the subject by making the story about The New York Times rather than about their candidate. That's a time-honored tactic for dealing with potentially damaging news stories. . . .

If Mr. Keller thinks that the reaction to their article is because of McCain operatives, I am wondering if he is not the model for the photo at the top of this post? Does the fact that this hit piece has brought out Rush Limbaugh, Laurie Ingram, and just a bevy of folks on the Democratic side (see round-up here) to McCain's defense suggest in any way, shape or form that the reaction is being driven by McCain operatives rather than horrified disdain by the general public for the vague innuendo in this dirt mining operation? Dirt mining is fine and a real public service that journalists provide. But when there is no dirt, publishing the dust and hoping it sticks is goes beyond the bounds of ethical journalism and into the plane today occupied by the NYT.

Keller continues:

A . . . I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.

And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. . . .

Anyone who thinks there was a legitimate journalistic purpose behind the innuendo published by the NYT is likely a card carrying member of the George Soros fan club. And does Mr. Keller perhaps seem a bit condescending to the unwashed masses for their inability to see the NYT noble purpose in publishing this McCain hit piece? Amazingly, Mr. Keller freely admits that the purpose of the article was to suggest the appearance of impropirety:

A . . . According to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. The story cites several examples, and quotes friends and admirers talking of this apparent contradiction in his character. That is why some members of his staff were so alarmed by the appearance of his relationship with Ms. Iseman. And that, it seemed (and still seems) to us, was something our readers would want to know about a man who aspires to be president.

Clearly, many of you did not agree.

Its at least nice to see Keller still maintains the ability to speak in understatement.

One of the most commonly heard questions I heard yesterday was, is this all that the NYT has on McCain? Is there nothing else backing up this story but innuendo and anonymous sources? Managing editor Jill Abraramson's answer as to the NYT's decision to go forward with anonymous source suggests they have emptied the dump truck. Dust is still flying, but no mud to be found. Do read the whole article.

I would imagine that the NYT will long rue the decision to run this incredibly ill advised piece on McCain. I will be watching their stock values closely.

Read More...

Summary only...

Where There's Smoke . . . (Updated w/McCain Response)

Where there's smoke, there is the New York Times, a lighter, some dried bull patties for fuel and the Republican nominee for President. The NYT has done the mother of all hit pieces on McCain, implying an extra-marital affair 8 years ago, doing special favors for lobbyists, and raising the Keating 5 scandal from 20 years ago. They end by using a quote from McCain to imply that he is a "hypocrite."








___________________________________________________________

Update: Don't miss the Times editor, Bill Keller, trying to justify the McCain hit piece.

The NYT page 1 lead today is an incredibly long 58 paragraph story entitled "For McCain, Self-Confidence On Ethics Poses Its Own Risks." It is an unusual title. But by using that title, the NYT is digging in the dirt a mile below the surface to find every fact that they can spin to make John McCain look like something other than a "straight talker." It is the mother of all hit pieces. This is not reporting, its agenda journalism. Do read it here.

The NYT insinuates that McCain had an affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist, eight years ago. The NYT has uncovered nothing that could be called evidence under any possible definition of that word. McCain denies it. Iseman denies. No one the NYT interviews asserts that there was an affair. At no point do McCain or Iseman ask the NYT reporters to define the words such as "affair," "sexual relations" or even "is." The NYT does not establish any time when McCain and Iseman were even alone together. The sited sources the NYT dredges up that even suggest an appearance of impropriety are anonymous. Yet the NYT spends the bulk of their 58 paragraphs dredging up every fact they can to suggest otherwise.

The NYT replays the facts of the Keating 5 scandal from 20 years ago in which McCain played a minor role and for which he received a reprimand. Those facts are well known and in the public record. They are hardly front page news today. In fact, I would think the facts rank ever so slightly below drug use.

There is no indication whatsoever that, post Keating 5, McCain has ever done any favors for lobbyists in situations where his own views of what was best for the nation differed from the act being asked for by the lobbyist. Yet despite that, the NYT examines every personal tie that McCain has to every lobbyist, implying without citation to a single instance that McCain acted inappropriately. The NYT tells us that there are lobbyists working for McCain. Yet, once you get very near the 58th paragraph, the NYT finally tells us that McCain has often gone against the desires of lobbyists with whom he had any sort of relationship. Smoke by the cubic mile, innuendo by the dump truck full, facts in support thereof - zero.

You have to love this bit of hyper partisan reporting. After bringing up the Keating 5, allegations of an affair with a lobbyist, and allegations of favoritism to lobbyists in general, the NYT writes:

With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centerpiece of his own pitch to voters.

Credentials? To call what Obama has "credentials" stretches the meaning of the term beyond recognition. Obama has no credentials for the job of presidency. What Obama has is some small record - and I can't wait to see the details of that comparison.

So far, in the past year, we have Obama voting against our national security to support the tort bar in their attempt to strip the immunity provisions from the FISA reform bill, we have him voting against a free trade pact with South Korea in support of the Unions, we have him voting for the Unions to strip employees of their right to decide whether to unionize by secret ballot. And that is the tip of the iceberg. What about the near 100 million in earmarks Obama has asked for this year. Do any of those earmarks feed into campaign donors? When one looks at the differential between Obama's rhetoric and his reality, it becomes no difficult feat to imagine his photo in Webster's under the entry for "hypocrisy." What pure and unmitigated bullshit this is.

The rule in writing a story designed to influence your audience is to close with the strongest line you have - the one you want your listeners to most remember. So how does the NYT, after 58 paragraphs of smoke but no fire, end their article - with a mea culpa to its readers for printing this tabloid trash? Of course not.

"Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” [McCain] wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy."

And there is no question whatsoever that the timing is significant. The NYT regularly holds their bombshells so that they will land at precisely the time to do the most damage. How many confidential leaks, held in some cases up to a year, have we seen published on the eve of major votes - or on the eve of the 2004 election. The vast majority of the "facts" reported in this piece are between 8 and 20 years old. This 58 paragraph piece of trash was timed to insure that it does not derail McCain's bid for the nomination, but to completely delegitimize him before he can begin to attack Obama. What utter low life scum slither through the halls of the NYT? Their stock value cannot reach $1 a share quick enough for me.

Update2: Here is the video of John McCain's response to the NYT hit piece in a news conference today:



Update 3: From the Politico - "Aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have released a remarkable 1,500-word document outlining what his campaign calls 'some of the facts that were provided to The New York Times but did not end up in the story.'" See the full text here.

Update1: TNR has the backstory on the NYT hitpiece as well as some observations of their own:

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

Read the entire article.

And now John McCain has responded to this story at a press conference he called in Toledo. Here is the story from Fox News:

With his wife, Cindy, standing by his side, John McCain lashed out Thursday at a report in The New York Times that revisits the Republican presidential candidate’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and rebuked the paper for spreading false rumors.

The Times article described how campaign aides kept him and lobbyist Vicki Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

McCain called a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, to slam the paper for embellishing his committee activities on Iseman’s behalf.

“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” he said.

. . . The article, published in Thursday’s edition of the Times but released the day before on its Web site, rehashes rumors spread during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

. . . McCain, 71, and Iseman, 40, long ago denied ever having a romantic relationship, . . .

The Arizona senator said his campaign had been repeatedly contacted by the newspaper about the story.

“For months The New York Times has submitted questions and we have answered them fully and exhaustively, and unfortunately many of those answers were not included in the rather long piece in the New York Times,” he said.

McCain lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to steer clear of McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting before the 2000 campaign after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about Iseman.

Speaking with FOX News, Weaver said he met with Iseman at Union Station in either 1999 or 2000, he can’t remember which year, for about five minutes. The nature of the conversation was not about romantic involvement, but instead about how she was going around telling people how much enormous influence she had on McCain.

As a campaign professional, he said he didn’t want anyone saying they had influence over McCain so he met with her and told her to quit boasting, especially since McCain was making lobbying legislation at the time. Weaver said the conversation with Iseman and other related topics were well vetted by The Boston Globe during the New Hampshire primary in 2000.

But McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation, and denied that his aides ever tried to talk to him about his interactions with Iseman.

. . . Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager in 2000, told FOX News on Thursday that the campaign never had deep concerns about the relationship with Iseman or allegations of illicit favors for her client.

“I never had a single instance where this was a major issue in our campaign or any kind of an issue. And the idea that a decade later they have somehow uncovered some kind of a mystery is ridiculous,” Davis said.

Campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker likened the report to a “kind of gutter politics.”

“There is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career,” she said.

Davis said the newspaper “didn’t say that there was anything improper here. They just tried to imply it. They didn’t say he had done anything for this lobbyist or this lobbying firm but they tried to imply it. If they are going to go this kind of route, why don’t they tell us where they got the information?”

. . . The McCain stories also allege that the Arizona senator wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman’s clients.

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain’s request “comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process” and “could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.”

McCain addressed the letters Thursday, saying: “I said I’m not telling you how to make a decision; I’m just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. I believe that was appropriate.”

Read the entire story.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi Political Progress Leaves Few Places For The Left To Move The Target

The New York Times editorial board is in obvious distress today as it opines on "(some) progress" in Iraq. As political and military progress in Iraq is making it ever more difficult for the far left to articulate ostensible grounds for legislating defeat, the ever changing narrative is becoming comical - and the left's motives transparent.







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq is far from being out of the woods, but its trajectory is clearly in the right direction. To a neutral third party looking at the progress just being announced out of Iraq, it would have to look exceptionally promising. Peace is descending on large sections of the country, al Qaeda is defeated strategically throughout much of the country, and the Iraqi government has just made some very big strides towards accomplishing those things that it needs to do to bring about reconciliation and create a functioning country. A month ago, it passed a de-Baathification law to allow low and mid-level Baath party members back into the government. Today, the Iraqi Parliament passed a law outlining the scope of provincial powers and set a date for provincial elections, passed a budget that provides for fair distribution of funds, and voted on a general amnesty for many detainees.

One such neutral third party is Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, an acerbic critic of the war whose anylases of Iraq were, until recently, permanantly linked at the bottom of the NYT opinion page. Cordesman wrote yesterday:

No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the US provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.

Read his synopsis here, and the full report here. But our Democrats and their far left supporters are not neutral third parties.

When the war in Iraq went bad following the Feburary 2006 al Qaeda bombing of the Samarra Mosque, the Democratic leadership adopted a strategy to completly embrace defeat as a means to discredit Bush, discredit the conservative ideology, and as a means of attaining partisan power. This was an act of cynical expediency for most. They of course can't say that, since they would be exposing themselves as "unpatriotic" for putting partisan gain over the national security and best interests of the nation during time of war. But it was fairly transparent early on - and now the transparency is taking on elements of absurdity as the justifications for legislating withdraw become ever more surreal. You can watch the evolution of their strategy through the NYT, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

Pre-Surge: (January)

The initial strategy was to stop the President from actually trying to win in Iraq by delegitimizing the surge. The opening salvo was fired on January 9, 2007, when the NYT attacked the President's just announced counterinsurgincy strategy as the "same old set of failed approaches and unachievable objectives," opining that what we needed was to an exit strategy out of Iraq's "brutal civil war."

The NYT also introduced the ridiculous meme Harry Reid credited to General Petraeus, that there can be "no military solution" in Iraq, therefore there is no reason for the surge. Yes, General Petraeus did say there could be "no military solution" in his confirmation hearing while discussing his proposed counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, he did so immediately before stating "Military action is necessary to help improve security." Ignoring that latter qualifier, Reid and the left used the Petraeus quote to justify their calls for surrender all the way through September.

Build-Up to the Surge (Prior to June)

By March 29, 2007 the nascent counterinsurgency operation had just begun, the full buildup was still two months away, but some real progress was being noted on the ground. The NYT was having none of that and was still trying to end the surge before any real success could be achieved, opining "Victory is no longer an option in Iraq." Clearly it wasn't an option for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who were doing all they could to stangle the surge in its cradle.

Harry Reid, for his part, actually surrendered on camera to al Qaeda on April 20. Fortunately, our military did not receive the surrender orders.

Not yet ready to give up on giving up - on April 26, 2007, the NYT characterized the surge as a "failed approach," ignoring all of the security gains that were by then clearly evident. Three days later, the NYT's lead was a story on the amazing security gains being brought about by the Anbar Awakening - two words that have yet to be used by the NYT editorial board to this day.

Surge Begins Full Operation (June)

By June, sectarian violence in Iraq had been brought down by two thirds from its pre-surge high in January and the Anbar Awakening was starting to spread outside of Anbar province. While Iraq had been on the brink of "civil war" prior to the surge, it was clearly far back from the brink by June.

Regardless, trying not to confuse the issue with facts, on July 8, the NYT editors wrote that Iraq was engulfed in a "raging" civil war and, because of that, "[i]t is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." You have to love these folks for their utter refusal to let facts stand in the way of their narrative.

Just a little over two weeks after that editorial, two former opponents of the war, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollock of the left of center Brookings Institution penned their now famous op-ed in the NYT, "A War We Might Just Win." Hospital beds filled that morning with Congressional Democrats and their supporters who had choked on their cornflakes while reading the newspaper over breakfast.


The Petraeus Briefing (September)

After the O'Hanlon piece was published, the NYT editorial board simply ignored Iraq until near the end of August, when a flurry of editorials appeared in advance of General Petraeus's scheduled briefing to Congress. On August 31, the NYT began hyping a GAO report that told of little progress being made by the Iraqi government towards meeting the "benchmarks" and, based on old data, only minor security gains. As the NYT opined, "Iraq’s leaders have neither the intention nor the ability to take advantage of calm, relative or otherwise." And in case you didn't get the message, NYT essentially repeated the same editorial again a few days later.

The September 9 editorial ranks as one of my favorites. The NYT turned reality on its head, claiming that Petraeus was politicaly motivated and could not be trusted. Further, the NYT claimed that Petraeus's credibility and that of his commanders in Iraq was questionable - because they disagreed with the NYT / Congressional Democrat's characterization of Iraq. It was a masterpiece of hutzpah that any connoisseur of fine bullshit has to truly appreciate.

The biggest push to end the surge came on September 11, after General Petraeus had testified before Congress and the nation on progress in Iraq. The NYT, parroting Hillary, accused General Patreus of providing "false" information, citing to "recent independent studies [that] are much more skeptical about the decrease in violence." Further, the NYT argued, "[e]ven if the so-called surge has created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it."

Unfortunately for the left, most people believed General Petraeus and were willing to give him time to make the surge work. Go figure. Though that didn't stop the NYT from banging the same drum several more times that month - but it was all for naught. When that didn't work, Iraq disappeared from the editorial pages and the news. The war was over - for the NYT at least.

Thankfully, there were other sources of news, otherwise everyone would have missed Osama bin Laden's State of the Jihad address in October when he came about as close to declaring a strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Iraq as we will ever see. As bin Laden characterized it, "the darkness [in Iraq] is pitch black." Perhaps General Petraeus was telling the truth after all.

The Issue of War Funding (November)

It wasn't until late November that the NYT again took up the issue of Iraq, finally conceding - very grudgingly - to the blindingly evident security gains. The NYT argued that the security gains didn't matter because the central government was not moving towards reconciliation:

There have been some advances since President Bush sought to salvage his misadventure by sending even more troops into Iraq. Violence has declined and Al Qaeda in Iraq is said to be weaker. But Mr. Bush’s main argument for his escalation — that it would create political space for Iraqis to work together and achieve national reconciliation — has proved wrong.

But poor Harry Reid couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge the security gains. With violence down near to levels not seen since the inititial invasion and with peace breaking out over much of Iraq, Reid channelled the spirit of Baghdad Bob, telling a reporter: ". . . Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. ... The American people are losing."

Reconciliation (January - Present)

The horror of horrors struck the far left on January 13. The Iraqis passed a de-Baathification law that would allow former Baath party members to reenter government service and to collect pensions. Reconciliation - the centerpiece of the left's ostensible justifications for legislating defeat - was being taken away from them. They went into denial.

One can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I am sure a sudden outbreak of tourettes suddenly infected the occupants of the offices of Congressional Democrats and the NYT editorial board.

The Washington Post reported on the passage of these laws. WaPo interviewed the Shia and Sunni legislators involved in the drafting, debate and voting on the law. Not surprisingly, they were all very upbeat:

. . . "It's a good step for many reasons," said Falah Hassan Shanshal, who leads the parliamentary committee overseeing the legislation and is a member of the Shiite party loyal to influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "First, it condemns all the crimes carried out by the Baath Party and its bloody regime. And this law will allow us to search for and detect every single person who committed a crime against Iraqis."

Supporters of the measure say it is intended to ease the restrictions that prevented former Baathists from holding government jobs. Shanshal acknowledged that certain people joined the Baath Party not for ideological reasons but out of necessity, and for people who have not committed crimes, "it is possible for them to return to public life."

But members of the largest Sunni coalition in parliament agreed to the new measure. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the group's leader, said the legislation was fair to low-ranking former Baathists and allowed the higher-ranking Shubah members to receive pensions, "which I consider good and acceptable."

See here. The NYT was having none of that. They were in panic and denial. In their editorial, they wrote:

The Iraqi Parliament has finally done something that the Bush Administration, and many others, considered essential to political progress in Iraq: it passed a law intended to open government jobs to former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

What should have been heralded as an accomplishment, however, may only serve to further reinforce the bumbling nature of President Bush’s ill-conceived adventure in Iraq. No one, it seems, has a clear sense of what the law will do. Some suggest it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets in — a sure-fire way to fuel political tensions rather than calm them.

. . . Administration officials continually lower the bar for Iraq. Now they admit that the law is not perfect but say it begins to set fairer standards. Iraq’s presidency council still must approve the law and could yet make improvements. Iraqis are going to have to do a lot better to make their country work. Withdrawing American troops may finally persuade them to do that.

Read the article here. The NYT seemed in such a rush to condemn this law with inuendo and speculation that they were too busy to talk to the Sunni and Shia legislators involved in crafting and debating the law. But you have to love the conclusion and the note of desperation evident in it. The NYT is hanging on tooth and nail to the meme that surrendering and leaving Iraq still remains the panacea to force reconciliation, despite the passage of the reconciliation law. This is priceless, really. Even a writer of decent fiction couldn't make up stuff like this.

But you can't get anymore surreal than Nancy Pelosi and her response to this de-Baathification law. She dismissed it during a CNN interview the other day on the grounds that it had occurred . . .
. . .
(wait for it)
. . .
"too late."

Yes. That's right. Reconciliation does not count in her alternate reality because it did not occur in time. The House Democrats apparently passed a double secret time limit. If only Maliki and Bush had known. Amazingly, Wolf Blitzer let her get away with that response without challenge - or at least no challenge I could hear over my laughter, but I digress.

Moments later, I did hear Ms. Pelosi justify calling the surge "a failure" when Blitzer pushed her on the issue. She did not do it by citing to any facts; rather, she just screamed twice: "Its a failure. Its a failure." There is nothing like watching Pelosi revert to the intellectual level of a 5 year old. If she had not been sitting down while saying that, I am pretty sure she would have been stomping her feet. And had Blitzer challenged her further to provide some actual factual justification for her bald assertions, there is no doubt that CNN's audience would have been treated to the sight of Pelosi putting her fingers in her ears and humming loudly.

But back to the NYT and today. One can feel the NYT is, in fact, progressing through the five stages of grief. You could feel them working through their denial earlier in response to the de-Baathification law, and now they have moved into the stages of anger and acceptance:

Making (Some) Progress in Iraq

Good news is rare in Iraq. But after months of bitter feuding, Iraq’s Parliament has finally approved a budget, outlined the scope of provincial powers, set an Oct. 1 date for provincial elections and voted a general amnesty for detainees. All these steps are essential for national conciliation.

As always in Iraq, it is best to read the fine print. Final details of the legislation aren’t known. The country’s three-member presidency council must still sign off. And then the laws have to be implemented. . . .

We are, of course, cheered by the news that representatives from Iraq’s three main ethnic groups — Shiite, Sunni and Kurd — finally saw some benefit in compromise.

Read the entire article. I have no doubt that they are not using the word "cheered" according to any known dictionary definition. I think it far more likely that the copy editor inserted that verb in the place of several explatives and a verb describing some type of sexual act.

But something else of import is evinced in the NYT editorial. For the first time in over a year, the NYT didn't call for the immediate withdraw of our troops. This is huge. The NYT editorial board is off message. They have surrendered surrendering - or something like that.

I have yet to hear Pelosi and Reid - or Hillary and Obama - respond to this latest great news for Iraq and America. Given the NYT is usually on key with the far left, this might mean that Pelosi and company are about to give up the ghost on legislating defeat in Iraq. But I seriously doubt it. Stay tuned. The entertainment value of this looks like it will only continue to rise as the Democratic arguments for legislating defeat in Iraq become ever more surreal, and their motivations ever more transparent.

Read More...

Summary only...

The New York Times & The Subversion of Democracy

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- - - - 2nd Am., U.S. Const.

The NYT does not care what the people who drafted our Constitution intended it to mean. Nor does the NYT want to go through the trouble of using the process provided in the Constitution to amend it. Such an amendment would express the clear and democratic will of the nation. What the New York Times wants is for our judicial branch to advance the neo-liberal agenda, irrespective of all. This subverts democracy. It is the type of judicial activism embodied in the theory of a “Living Constitution.”

This today from the editorial board of the NYT on the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety.

.. . The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

Posing this as a neo-liberal / conservative issue always amazes me. Contrary to what the NYT asserts, the division on the Supreme Court is between originalists and judicial activists. It is not a liberal / conservative divide. It’s the difference between originalists, justices who believe that they are constrained to decide Constitutional issues within the framework of what they believe was the intent of the drafters, and judicial activists who act as unelected supra-legislators, sometimes with decidedly non-liberal results.

To continue with the NYT's argument for judicial activism:

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

. . . Opponents of gun control sometimes claim a constitutional prohibition on any serious regulation of individual gun ownership. The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” The federal, state and local governments may impose restrictions on other uses — like the trigger guards — or outright bans on types of weapons. Appellate courts followed that interpretation, until last spring’s departure.

Leave it to the NYT to misstate the law. The 1939 case to which they refer is U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). You can find it here. Miller concerned whether the Second Amendment prevented the U.S. government from delaring illegal the possession of a sawed off shot-gun. The Court did not address the scope of an individual right to keep and bear arms beyond saying that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon normally associated with a militia and, thus, fell outside the scope of Second Amendment protections. That’s it. The NYT grossly overstates the scope of the Court’s holding as to the Second Amendment.

And as to the D.C. Circuit case that is now on appeal, that case is Heller v. District of Columbia. You can find the Circuit Court opinion here. The “spurious grounds” upon which the Justices decided the case were nothing more nor less than what they saw as the original intent of the people who drafted the Second Amendment. And it is of some interest to note that the Court relied in part on the Constituional treatise of law professor Laurence Tribe, a man who is nothing if not an old school liberal liberal.

Here is what the “radical” D.C. Court considered to arrive at its conclusion in Heller. Focusing first on the operative clause of the Second Amendment, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” the Court reasoned

1. The language used by the drafters to define to whom the right belonged - i.e., “the people” - was the same language used by the drafters to grant individual rights throughout the Bill of Rights.

2. The history of the Second Amendment shows that it was not a right created by the drafters. Rather it was the memorialization of the established English common law right of an individual to bear arms for self defense.

3. Considering the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.

4. The term “bear arms” can be construed to refer to the military, but a fair reading of that term does not exclude individuals. This finding was based in part on a dissent in a prior case written by Justice Ginsberg and joined by Justices Scalia and Souter.

5. The proposition that the language “bear arms” creates an individual right becomes clearer when considering the preceding language, “to keep.” “Keep” is a straightforward term that implies ownership or possession of a functioning weapon by an individual for private use.

The "radicals" of the D.C. Circuit Court then turned towards the prefatory language of the Second Amendment, that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State:”

1. The term “militia” at the time that the Constitution was drafted meant all able bodied men. It was well established in the law of the time that all such men were to be enrolled in the states' “militias.”

2. All men were required by law to arm themselves at their own expense and to bring their weapons with them to military service.

3. Documents of the era indicate that the Federalists who dominated the First Congress offered the Second Amendment’s preamble to palliate Antifederalist concerns about the continued existence of the militias. But neither the Federalists nor the Antifederalists thought the federal government had the power to disarm the people.

4. Documents of the era show that Antifederalists insisted that an armed populace was not enough, and that the existence of a popular militia should also be guaranteed. This fully explains the prefatory language and the individual right to keep and bear arms by the people.

On the basis of these findings, the District Court held that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to all Americans to "keep and bear" arms. They also concluded that such a right can be subject to reasonable restriction, but that the D.C. laws were unreasonable as written. Accordingly, the Court held that the D.C. ban on handguns was unconstitutional, as was the requirement that any firearms kept in the home be unloaded and disassembled or fitted with a trigger-lock.

The NYT views this case a popular political issue rather than an issue of Constitutional interpretation. Politics is the province of the legislature, not the Courts. The Times wants the Court to legislates its the outcome that will advance their own social(ist) agenda, presumably on some “penumbra of rights” not apparent anywhere but in the minds of activist Judges and the neo-liberals of today’s left. That is why the neo-liberals of today have turned the selection of Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court justices into a political war. They do not want intellectual honesty from the courts, they want activists willing to interpret the Constitution to satisfy their “progressive agenda.”

Lest there be any doubt about that, the NYT concludes

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.

I rest my “fairly esoteric” case.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

The good news out of Iraq is the success of ongoing operations in reducing the level of violence. This today from the Washinton Times:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday that suicide attacks and other bombings in the Iraqi capital have dropped dramatically since last year's high, calling it a sign of the end of sectarian violence. A top U.S. general here said he thinks the drop is sustainable, as Iraqis turn away from extremists. Mr. al-Maliki said "terrorist acts," including car bombings and other spectacular, al Qaeda-style attacks, dropped 77 percent. He called it a sign that Sunni-Shi'ite violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

Continuing with the good news, there is this just released video of an enemy mortar team sent to meet Allah, compliments of MNF-Iraq.



As to individual operations, you will find nothing in the MSM. The military has a press release that rolls up the latest operations in Iraq. Overall, in the last two days, Coalition forces detained 16 suspects, including three wanted individuals, during several operations to disrupt al Qaeda in Iraq and foreign terrorist operations in central and northern Iraq. You can read about the individual operations here.

There is a good story in the Stars and Stripes about ongoing efforts to pacify a mixed Sunni Shia region twenty miles south of Baghdad. And though it’s a few days old, the Long War Journal has a fascinating discussion of the how and why of the decline in violence in Iraq. It is worth your time if you have not read it.

The bad news out of Iraq is that the reduction in violence will not be permanent unless the Maliki government can capitalize on the current situation to bring the Sunnis into the government as equal stakeholders. If the Sunnis are not welcomed into the new Shia dominated society of Iraq and not given there piece of the pie, real problems with disenchantment could develop and the chance for lasting success squandered. Maliki is making an effort to grant amnesty to at least some of the insurgents, which from the sounds of it would include many Sunni. That would be a good step:

. . . Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday announced his latest push for an amnesty program for insurgents, a plan that he said would allow Iraq to move past sectarian warfare.

At a news conference near his office in the Green Zone, Maliki sketched a broad outline of what the amnesty could entail. He insisted that people found guilty of murder or other acts of terrorism would not be pardoned but said the amnesty would cover many of the "misguided" people who cooperated with insurgent groups though had not committed "major" crimes. "All those people will be released," he said.

Read the whole story. That is only a small step, however, and the Washington Post points to what could be a real problem in the process of reconciliation:

The U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local fighters to solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and logistical challenges as U.S.-led forces struggle to manage the recruits and the central government resists incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army, according to senior military officials.

Gen. David H. Petraeus and other top commanders have hailed the initiative to enlist Iraqi tribes and former insurgents in the battle against extremist groups, but leaders of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government have feared that the local fighters known as "volunteers" -- more than 80 percent of whom are Sunni -- could eventually mount an armed opposition, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.

. . . The Iraqi government so far has balked at permanently hiring large numbers of the volunteers, resisting pressure from U.S. commanders to lift caps on the number of police in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Only about 1,600 of the volunteers have been trained and sworn in to the Iraqi security forces, primarily with the police.

"It's admittedly slow progress," said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman in Baghdad, who said the goal now is to have 17,000 hired as police officers.
Last month, the Shiite political alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called on the U.S. military to halt its recruitment of Sunnis. Referring to Sunni fighters, Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie told Washington Post reporters, "The more they depend on the coalition, it is seen as undermining the Iraqi government."

Iraqi officials are concerned about the past behavior of many of the men now working with the Americans, citing problems arising from the infiltration of the police by Shiite militias. "We ended up with a police force that is not loyal to the government and to the country," said Sami al-Askiri, a Shiite legislator and Maliki adviser. "If we copy this and do it with Sunnis, we will just create another problem."

"We have to take the Sunnis inside the police and the army. They are part of the Iraqi society, but we have to check them, we have to check all their backgrounds," Askiri said. "If we do this the wrong way, we will end up with another militia inside the police force, but a Sunni one, not a Shiite one." . . .

Read the entire story here.

That is the bad news out of Iraq. The ugly news comes out of the spin machine that is the NY Times. Their lead article is about how a Dynacorp guard providing convoy security shot dead an Iraqi cab driver on Saturday. The article makes the shooting out to be more of an execution then a security incident. Even accepting the Times portrayal of this incident as accurate, it still has no, or at most, minimal ramification beyond its facts. In terms of our effort in Iraq, it is a bad, but wholly ancillary incident. The Times running this as a lead is just ridiculous.

The NYT is running an article on the speech by Maliki below the fold, though even that they manage to spin as hard as possible by finding someone to contradict the facts as portrayed by Maliki.

The number of suicide attacks, car bombings and other terrorist acts has fallen 77 percent in Baghdad from last year, Mr. Maliki said, adding that 7,000 families had returned to the capital. Together, Mr. Maliki said, the improvements showed “we were able, after eight months of imposing the law, to drive Baghdad from its dark, black days into a brighter time that people feel optimistic about.”

Mr. Maliki’s assertions were the latest in a series of glowing reports he has offered since the start of the security plan in February. And while his assessment of the decline in violence matches that of American military commanders, it was not clear how he had tallied the number of returning families, which officials say have been exceedingly difficult to locate. The significance of the returns is also a subject of debate.

Most of the capital’s displaced people have yet to return, and the number of those leaving still outpaces those returning, according to Dana Graber Ladek, the Iraqi displacement specialist for the International Organization for Migration. . .

Read the entire story here. Not surprisingly, while the Times seems quite willing to disbelieve Maliki and find a source, Ms. Ladek, that will contradict the numbers of Maliki, the Times gives no indication that it made any effort to determine how Ms. Ladek came by her facts, nor why she should be believed rather then Maliki. The stock value of the Times fully reflects the balance and quality of its reporting - trending ever downward.

Read More...

Summary only...