Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs.
Various newspapers, April 8, 2003.
A ‘Liberated’ Orphanage Searches for Its Children
“The orphanage had been home to 107 girls and boys whose parents were killed or imprisoned, or were unable to care for them. As the Americans advanced on Baghdad, they mistook the orphanage for a jail or prison and released all the children who were there.”
New York Times, July 6, 2003.
Thanks to Atrios
William Safire, July 7, 2003:
“We?ll probably see 7 percent unemployment before the year is out.”
“The CEA [Council of Economic Advisers ] reports the President?s Jobs and Growth package will result in higher levels of economic output and jobs starting this year ? 2003.”
Much has been written about Bush’s Bring them on comment. The response has ranged from anger that the President would taunt would-be attackers so to Andrew Sullivan’s it’s all part of an extremely well thought out and devious plan.
The news this morning is that three more soldiers were killed in two separate attacks. It’s clearly unfair to blame further attacks on Bush’s comments. They had been taking place before, and will continue to do so for some time. What is entirely ludicrous in my view is to suggest that “we’ve got them (terrorists) exactly where we want them.” So far, those who have endorsed Bush’s taunt have equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists, allowing them to suggest this is all part of the war on terrorism. Just like going to Iraq in order to destroy its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever weapons are eventually found in Iraq, it seems unlikely at this point that they posed any kind of imminent threat. Iraq’s ties to bin Laden remain extremely speculative (to put it kindly.) Hussein, a murderous tyrant to his people, had shown little proclivity to targeting Americans. Until (and unless) we can find clear evidence that would be terrorists who would otherwise not be in Iraq now are and that they are being apprehended by US forces, there is no basis for concluding that the war on terror is “helped” by having soldiers shot in the back of the head at close range.
Otherwise, US forces are now battling an enemy that was otherwise occupied before the war. We are not fighting those terrorists that had the means and the ability to attack us. If that’s what we want, shouldn’t we be sending more troops back to Afghanistan? The place is a mess and bin Laden is alive. “Mission accomplished?” We fear not.
On June 30, the blogger known as the Dissident Frogman (DFM) wrote about a trip he had taken to Normandy. There he visited the Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy.
What happened?
The opening paragraph of his post does not mince words:
If you planned it, you may want to cancel your visit to the Mus?e M?morial de la Bataille de Normandie (Memorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy) in Bayeux.
Why you ask?
The authorities at the Museum could not explain the “removal” [sic] of the American flags that would normally fly between the French and British flags at a monument, as well as those offered in two places in the gift shop.
Was the outrage, and the post to his blog, warranted? Sadly, no.
In fact, it would be hard to imagine a post that would be off the mark by a larger margin. The very spectacular inaccuracy made the post the stuff of internet legends, the kind that will forever be spun by those who would like to believe it, and debunked on Snopes.
Upon further review the facts of the case are:
Having been made aware of the facts (by others) the DFM posted an apology of Clintonesque proportion: long and rambling, taking every opportunity to lash out at his critics and arguing the problem was that people misunderstood his original post.
Nice try.
Read the rest of this entry »
Rush opines:
“All I know is that Jack Romanos was at Simon & Schuster when my book printed 2 million original copies. [It was the] first time in non-fiction it had ever been done, it has not been done since …“
Jack Welch’s “Jack: Straight from the Gut” was published in September 2001. Its initial print run? 2 million copies.
How long does it take to determine how many copies of a given book have been sold in its first few days/weeks in the stores?
Commenting on reported sales numbers of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Living History, Rush Limbaugh argues:
“He’s [Simon & Schuster CEO Jack Romanos] lying about how many copies they’ve sold ? they don’t know yet how many copies they’ve sold. It takes them six months to do audits to pay their authors royalties.”
But in 1993, we just knew how many copies of Limbaugh’s “See, I told you so” were sold, after two days no less:
“By its second day in the stores, Limbaugh’s second book had the biggest early sales of a hardcover book in publishing history. That’s what the man himself let slip on his radio show, and as he says, he purveys only the truth.”
PS: According to Amazon, the hardcover edition of Limbaugh’s book was published in November 1993. The quote above is from December 1, 1993.
So argues Joseph Farah, commenting on: homosexual sex, group sex, consensual incest, sex with animals and polygamy.
Ezra Levant, in January of this year:
A theory: Could it be that France and Germany are protecting Saddam because they have something in Baghdad to hide from any would-be U.S. liberators?
Would a U.S. occupation show that France and Germany continued to help Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, in violation of the UN sanctions? Could they be so amoral, so ungrateful to America?
We are about to find out.
Have we found out yet?
(PS: The answer in this case is, sadly, yes!)
Thanks to Roger Ailes for pointing out today’s Thomas Sowell column about the Supreme Court’s decision on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action case. Sowell argues that the NYT “dismissed the dissenting arguments of Justice Clarence Thomas.” Ailes says the argument is a “crock of crap.” It turns out it’s much, much worse.
Sowell argues that the NYT prevented “its readers from knowing what the arguments are against it [affirmative action.]”
Really? Sadly, no!
Let us count the ways:
The article quotes the following from O’Connor’s opinion:
“holistic” and “individualized”
“context matters when reviewing race-based governmental action under the Equal Protection Clause.”
“are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear,”
This compares to the following quotes from Thomas’ dissent:
“I must contest the notion that the law school’s discrimination benefits those admitted as a result of it,”
“cruel farce of racial discrimination.”
“The law school tantalizes unprepared students with the promise of a University of Michigan degree and all of the opportunities that it offers,”
“These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”
“test subjects,”
“Who can differentiate between those who belong and those who do not?”
“The majority of blacks are admitted to the law school because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the `beneficiaries’ of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement.”
“The question itself is the stigma ? because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed `otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination.”
“forced to choose”
“Michigan has no compelling interest in having a law school at all, much less an elite one.”
The article has 21 paragraphs. 6 are devoted exclusively to O’Connor. Two cover both justices. The other 13 deal with Thomas’ dissent, and include examples of bias about his dissent such as:
“Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs of the libertarian Cato Institute and long an admirer of Justice Thomas, said that “without question, he is speaking from the context of someone who’s pulled himself up by the bootstraps.” In an interview, Mr. Pilon added: “It may seem incomprehensible to liberal do-gooders that there are people who want to make it on their own.””
When will the NYT stop its campaign to deprive its readers from knowing the arguments against affirmative action?
Sowell, having lied about the contents of the NYT article, closes with: “Media bias is still alive and well at the New York Times, and so apparently is the spirit of Jayson Blair.”
Sadly, the only things alive here are Sowell’s inability to read a newspaper article, as well as his willingness to appeal to an unrelated (although entirely justified) criticism of the NYT. Rather than invite his readers to read the Supreme Court opinion, he should invite them to read the NYT article.
US begins counterinsurgency war in Iraq
Gwinnett Daily Post, GA – 15 Jun 2003
US Begins Bid to Crush Iraq Insurgents
ABC News, 30 June 2003