Friday, August 13, 2004

And Bush is the liar, right?

No media bias. No, none at all.
Neal Boortz: War stories
Read it, then comment if you think this isn't an illustration of leftist media bias.

Big Mistake - Cease-fire talks under way in Najaf: "Shiite and interim Iraqi government leaders began cease-fire talks Friday with the forces of radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf, Iraqi authorities said."

That's their prerogative, as it is their country. However, they will not win control of that country until groups like al-Sadr's are wiped out entirely. So long as they are only promising to stop fighting, they will continue to resurrect themselves.

If only... - Bush: America better off with his leadership: "'The world's safer. ... Libya's no longer a threat. Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror,' Bush said in an exclusive interview on CNN's 'Larry King Live.'
'There are 50 million people that once lived in tyranny now living in societies which are heading toward democracies,' he said.
Bush also promoted improvements at home.
'The economy is growing. We've overcome a recession and corporate scandals, a stock market decline and an attack,' he said. 'And yet we've recovered and our economy is getting better. The education system is getting better because of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Medicare law has been strengthened so seniors will have prescription drug coverage starting in 2006.'
The president also said he would still choose to go to war in Iraq if he had it to do all over again -- even knowing everything he now knows about the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
'I will argue that Saddam Hussein out of power has made the world a better place and a safer place,' he said. 'We thought we'd find stockpiles. The whole world thought we'd find stockpiles. ... But what we do know is Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, and after September 11th, a risk we could not take was that he would share that capability with our enemies.'
Bush, who was joined for the interview by his wife, Laura, also took issue with a proposal by Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry to set a six-month time frame to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
'That says to the enemy, 'Wait for six months and one day,' or it says to the Iraqis, 'The Americans aren't serious,'' Bush said. 'The timetable is this -- not one day more than is necessary, and the commanders on the ground will let us know when."

If only he can continue to speak this plainly and clearly throughout the campaign, and get the press to repeat it, I can't see how he'll lose.

What is the world coming to?
First this: "It happened recently to Police Chief Ian McCollin, who was in his car when he spotted a driver looking befuddled at an intersection.
Thinking the man might be lost, McCollin stopped on the side of the road. The man pulled alongside of him, rolled down his window and announced he was looking for an officer to arrest him because he was drunk."

And now this: "That's the label the San Francisco Examiner has given Bob Bernstein. After vandalizing the home of Burlingame, Calif., resident Mike Mellema and spray-painting the message 'Satanic Cult Here' on the property, Mr. Bernstein added the words 'I did this' along with his cell-phone number. The next day, he turned himself in to the police. Mr. Mellema says that he is perplexed because he belongs to no religious groups and his house has no political signs out front. 'I saw the phone number on the driveway and I said, 'OK, pal, you're nuttier than a fruitcake,'' he told the paper."

What is petty crime coming to when all of the criminals are turning themselves in?

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Let's have a little truth, shall we?
OpinionJournal - Featured Article: "'First lady Laura Bush defends ban on stem-cell research' is how the Philadelphia Inquirer spun Mrs. Bush's talk. A sampling of other headlines shows the Inquirer is far from alone: 'Rethink the stem-cell ban' (Des Moines Register); 'Stem cell ban stays, despite Reagan pleas' (Newark Star-Ledger); 'Kerry says he'd reverse stem cell ban' (The Grand Rapids Press); 'Kerry 'would lift stem cell ban' '(BBC), and on and on. You get the drift."

So what are the true facts of this so-called "ban" on stem-cell research?
1)Private research is in no way restricted by government mandates, or the decision handed down by President Bush that many claim acts as a ban.
2)Since 2001 (the first year that federal money was given to stem-cell research), funding has almost doubled, from $306 million to over $521 million.
3)Bush's decision does limit apportionment of federal money for this type of research to existing lines, rather than creating new ones.

So, what does this mean?
Research continues, and advances are being made. Federal money cannot be used to create new embryonic stem-cell lines, or to encourage the destruction of embryos. There are also no restrictions on adult stem lines, which do not involve embryos of any sort.

Ok, enough of the truth. Now, I open the comments section to whatever spin you might like to apply.

UPDATE [8/12/2004 - 18:40]: Thanks to Matto for his post in the comments. He points to an article written by the publisher of JunkScience that further elaborates, and with very specific detail, why Bush's position on stem cell research is the only reasonable one, and why Reagan's position is untenable, based primarily on the science behind it.

Monday, August 09, 2004

It's nice to be right - Franks takes blame for 'mission accomplished': "'I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping,' Franks said.
'On the first of May when Bush did what he did, I was proud of him because he did what I, as the commander, had asked him to do,' Franks said in an appearance at the National Press Club. 'So if there's a mistake there, it's mine, not a plot. So I thought I'd share that with you. '"

No, as some of you might expect, I'm not defending some previous claim that Bush was right to say that the mission was accomplished (though I think as things stood, he was -- and we have not resumed major combat operations, so what he said is accurate). The point of this post is that I've always thought General Franks was an honorable man, and his willingness to admit his mistake is good evidence of that fact. So, three cheers for Tommy Franks.

(On a side note, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs suffered a stroke today. Even if he is an adviser to the Kerry campaign, let's pray for a speedy and full recovery. He's a good man who has served his country well, no one deserves to suffer the lasting effects all too common with a stroke, and he has the coolest last name on record.)

I want somebody fired - U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting': "Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said."

How can our government possibly be so stupid as to leak information that would jeopardize our ability to catch more Al Quaeda operatives? Somebody needs to lose his job. (And save your comments, because no, I don't think it should be the President).

UPDATE [8/13/2004 - 18:22]: It appears I want the New York Times fired: "It seems that as far as I or anyone else can determine, the New York Times was the first to publish Khan's name. The NYT reporters know whether they were given Khan's name by Pakistani or US officials, and their initial story sourced it to 'a Pakistani intelligence official.' The NYT reporters know whether any US officials confirmed the name before or after the NYT published it. Any 'controversy' over the disclosure Khan's arrest has been created and maintained by the NYT."

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Exactly Right
LILEKS (James) The Bleat: "So I don't want to spend 9000 words on the Swift Boat vets right now. There are two tales here: the story, and how the story will be played in the dino media. I have nothing to add to the first and it's too early to comment on the latter. This is not about Vietnam. This is about character, and this is about spin. Over the next week there's going to be a lot of discussion in newsrooms about what this story means, and how the mainstream media's handling of the charges will affect their image. They can tear the story down to the foundation and root for the truth, or they can hide behind he-said-they-said reportage. It's their Waterloo. We'll see."