This Angers Me

In today's Baltimore Sun, Lawrence Wilkerson, a one-time aide to Colin Powell writes a piece entitled "Is US being transformed into a radical republic?"

His thesis is that America has somehow lost it's way. That America ceased being good and departed down a bad path when George W. Bush was elected President. He says America came not from a revolution but from an evolution. He brings up our refusal to ratify Kyoto (that happened to fail ratification under Clinton, but never mind) and a failure to sign on to the International Criminal Court as sure signs we are Hell-bent on the road to ruin. He cites rendition, torture, energy ineptitude (whatever that means), denial of global warming, etc., etc. etc.

In other words, all the hot buttons the left uses. All the time. Incessantly.

He proves absolutely none - not one - of his statements. Just uses emotional phraseology and rhetoric to the point - and well past it - of propaganda. Mr. Wilkerson is quite fond of comparing the administration to the people who ran the Terror in France after their revolution. He is quite adroit at conjuring the Robespierre's and the Jacobeans.

Mr. Wilkerson is also, quite obviously, a hack, a shill and a partisan.

No, sir. Our country was not founded in an evolution as you state. It was - most definitely - founded by a  revolution. We broke - completely - with our putative masters in Europe. I see no reason why, more than 200 years later, we need to suddenly bow to them. I see no reason to apologize to Europe and submit to their judgment. I see no reason to apologize for trying to bring freedom to areas that have never seen any such thing.

And I most definitely see no reason to listen to, or even respect, someone like you. 

THIS One Should Really Get Bradley Going!

Mark Steyn on global whatever.

Lest people get the wrong idea, Bradley is not a bad sort. I rather enjoy our occasional run-ins.

Songs In The Attic

No, not the Billy Joel album of the same name. That album was made to get people interested in some of Billy Joel's earlier work after he became famous. Oddly, I was a Joel fan early on in his career. I think the only album (on vinyl, too) from his early years that I don't own is Cold Spring Harbor. I never bought it because the sound quality was so bad (I heard it at a friend's house). So I bought Songs in the Attic only because it was made up of live versions of his older songs.

The real subject of this post, then. Today, my wife and I went to buy a new hand lawn mower. Our old John Deere became almost impossible to start last year and besides, we really needed a self-propelled one with the hills we have now. So we abandoned the children, jumped in the truck and headed up to the city. It was a lovely spring morning. The trees are leafing out, the grass is green again, losing the grayish-brown winter color. Occasionally, the greening forests we passed would have a startling jolt of purple flowers, vivid against the still dark woods.

We chatted a bit while the radio played, turned almost too low to hear. Mostly we glanced around and admired spring unfolding around us. The fields we passed still looked forlorn, waiting to be planted before they, too, could join in the glorious greening. Occasionally, one of us would point out to the other something particularly pretty or noteworthy. The radio, almost at a subconscious level played gently. 

Then, just as I was at the top of the exit ramp waiting for traffic to clear before I turned, I heard something on the radio. I quickly reached for the volume control and turned the music louder. The obviously Cajun inspired tune lilted through the cab of the truck. Without even thinking, I began to sing along.

My wife, who really should be used to this by now, looked at me with a surprised look as I sang along in near perfect time and with exactly the right words. She said, "Honey, you scare me". I asked her why she said that and she couldn't believe I knew the song. I answered her that the song was by Louden Wainwright III, of course I knew it. Then the announcer came on and confirmed that the song was performed by exactly who I said it was.

So what if I know all the words to Dead Skunk?

UPDATE: After reading this post, my wife pointed out that I had left out her most important quote. She said, "What scares me is there is a Louden Wainwright I and II."

Rearing His Head Again

Well, that Osama fellow has popped his head up again. Calling again for a war against the crusaders. Which kind of puts it into perspective, when you think about it. Osama has a medieval mindset. He's also calling for his followers to deploy to Sudan to fight the UN.

That's interesting, don't you think? If he thought his forces (so to speak) were winning in Iraq why would he pull them out and send them to Sudan? I suspect this is more telling about how badly they are failing in Iraq.

Anyway we managed to get a picture which explains how he's been able to hide so successfully even with all the reward money on his head. Our agents have been looking for Osama bin Laden.

Tell them to look for Osama bin Llama instead…..

At What Point?

Do you start to realize that trying to push an agenda cripples the truth? There is a remarkable series of corrections in the New York Times today that shows just how bad this has gotten. In an effort to paint the Bush Administration in the worst possible light, they ran a story stating that the Houston public school system was being severely strained by 30,000 Katrina evacuees. Only today they tell us that the correct number is 5,475.

That is not a small error folks. Being off by a factor of six?

Then they criticize the Small Business Administration for not loaning enough money to Katrina victims. They state the agency only gave out $336 million. Then today correct that figure to $842 million. 

That is not a small error, either. That would be understating the amount by 60%.

Those kinds of "misstatements" cross a line, in my mind. They change a story critical of administration policies into outright, blatantly false propaganda. Running a correction after the screaming headlines does nothing to correct the damage the false report did. The Times knows that.

So I ask the intellectually honest people who lean left: How much of your criticism of Bush is built of the lies that outlets like the New York Times pimp? How much of what you believe to be true is actually only Times truthy?

Maybe 60% is a good starting point.

UPDATE: Powerline on the Times' corrections.

Damaging Secrets

Here's a little thought experiment: Let's say you have a secret. You did something in the past that is hideously embarrassing and maybe even a bit illegal. It's something you never tell people around you for fear of what they would think of you. One day, you tell someone that you trust your secret. This is someone you've known for years and believe is worthy of entrusting with your deepest, darkest secret.

Your friend tells the secret to a local reporter who writes an expose' on you and what you did. 

Would you ever trust that friend again? I submit your answer would be: "Hell, no".

That is exactly the damage that Mary McCarthy and her fellow travelers have done to the United States and to the CIA and NSA. They have destroyed an enormous amount of trust and crippled the ability of the intelligence-gathering services to function. Who in their right mind would ever trust information to the CIA right now? Knowing that it is full of political hacks rather than professionals?

The portrayal of the leakers as heroic whistleblowers and of the press as heroic truthtellers masks the fact that their actions may have completely destroyed the credibility of the agencies involved. Undoubtedly there are some people who will never tell the CIA what they know for fear of being exposed by CIA officers with a political agenda. Who tells secrets to people who cannot keep their mouths shut?

In their excess of zeal to damage the Bush Administration, the media and the political hacks that seem to be entirely too numerous in the CIA ranks have simply lost all perspective of the damage they are doing. The Pulitzer committee reinforces the bad judgment by rewarding the reporters, and by extension, the rogue officers.

We will all pay dearly for what these people have done somewhere down the road.

UPDATE: One thing I love about the blogosphere is the immense amount of expertise and knowledge that is available out there. Finding new-to-me blogs is always a lot of fun. The enormous flurry of activity over the McCarthy story just gives me a chance to find places like Groupintel. On the more left side is Glenn Greenwald, who I think is looking at this strictly on partisan lines instead of seeing the damage this causes the US itself. Readers will note that my criticism of McCarthy is damage based rather than politically based. Her political contributions are of interest but are not compelling.

UPDATE: The Real Ugly American takes a firm stance on Greenwald.

Flirtin’ With Disaster

Yeah!! we’re travelin’ down that lonesome road.
Feel like I’m dragging a heavy load.
Don’t try to turn my head away,
I’m flirtin’ with disaster every day.
Flirtin’ with disaster, baby,
Y’all know what I mean.
You know the way we run our lives,
It makes no sense to me.
I don’t know about yourself or,
What you plan to be - yea!!
When we gamble with our time,
We choose our destiny.*

The New York Times, self appointed arbiter of what top-secret information should be published, continues to try to politicize the military. Most of the time, the Times seems pretty contemptuous of the military, that is, unless, they think they can use the military to advance their political agenda. Today they publish a story detailing how lower ranks in the military are debating over the (media generated) furor caused by the revolting retired generals.

Only if you read the story, most of the blame is being laid squarely at the feet of the generals themselves:

An Army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform.

One Army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, and 75 percent believed that he should remain. But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.

I have enormous respect for the men and women who serve this country in the military. I'm also from a family with a long history in the Army. I am also totally repelled by the media attempt to stir up debate and unrest. This country has managed to maintain an admirably apolitical military for the most part. That tradition should stay intact.

The media is flirting with disaster here, and every American, left or right, in or out of uniform should be very upset with this. "When we gamble with our time, we choose our destiny."

* Molly Hatchet, Flirtin' With Disaster, 1979

UPDATE: This is positively brutal.

UPDATE: James Joyner on this subject. He points out that military officers (and enlisted personnel) have got a history of lively discussion of many things, including politics. Which, I know from experience is quite true. What's different here is an open attempt to influence civilian politics. That's the danger, to my way of thinking.