Via the CalPundit, this interesting story about modernizing unions in Las Vegas. Sounds like a success- are there other opinions or things not metioned here that should be noted?
John Cole started Balloon Juice early in 2002. Those who have followed along know that this has been quite the journey.
Good Week For Diplomacy
The two papers of record both claim it has been a good week for this administration. First, the WaPo:
It has been a week of sweet vindication for those who promulgated what they call the Bush Doctrine.
Beginning with the capture of Saddam Hussein a week ago and ending Friday with an agreement by Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi to surrender his unconventional weapons, one after another international problem has eased.
On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany set aside their long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq and agreed to forgive an unspecified amount of that country’s debt. On Thursday, Iran signed an agreement allowing surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities after European governments applied intense pressure on the U.S. foe. On Friday, Libya agreed to disarm under the watch of international inspectors, just as administration officials were learning that Syria had seized $23.5 million believed to be for al Qaeda.
To foreign policy hard-liners inside and outside the administration, the gestures by Libya, Iran and Syria, and the softening by France and Germany, all have the same cause: a show of American might.
Now the NY Times Op-Ed page:
James Baker III is quickly showing how old-fashioned diplomacy can advance Washington’s policy objectives. In his first trip as President Bush’s Iraqi debt negotiator, Mr. Baker met with five European leaders and emerged with declarations endorsing a substantial write-off of the $40 billion in old loans and accrued interest that Baghdad owes major developed countries. The five countries Mr. Baker visited, together with the United States, account for roughly $25 billion of those obligations. That’s only a start
Kicking Their Own Assess
Apparently, the DNC weblog is groupthink central, and interfering opinions should not be posted.
Damn Unilateralists
Those Bloody Unilateralists, Blair and Bush, are at it again:
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction but now plans to dismantle all such programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday.
Bush said Libya’s decision — which would open the country to international weapons inspectors — would be “of great importance” in stopping weapons of mass destruction in a global fight against terrorism.
Britain and the United States have been talking about the issue with Libya for nine months, Blair said.
“Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner,” Blair said in England.
Too bad Bush still hasn’t had his lessons from Dean yet– imagine how much better this would have gone if Dean had taugh him a little something.
Literacy Programs for Democrats
I am going to start a general literacy program for Democrats, since the schools seem to be failing them and they simply can not comprehend even the smallest of sentence. Today’s example is from Pandagon:
John Cole gets very angry that Democrats are critcizing Bush for having failed to attend even a single funeral for troops who have died in Iraq. He then links to his debunking of the issue. Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don’t attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died. Bush, by contrast, has done none of this which, despite Cole’s protestations, makes the criticism entirely true. And even if no past presidents had done it, why shouldn’t they? Bush was the one who wanted to go to war, these men died on his initiative. As such, shouldn’t historical precedent take a backseat to common decency, and Bush should hold a memorial, attend a funeral, or at least lay a wreath down somewhere?
Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won’t go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they’re biological containers or something similarly weird now), it’s about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president’s political gain from the war. It didn’t end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it’s beneath him and anyone else who professes to “support our troops”. One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.
Anything more than “Taxes good, Bush bad” seems to be beyond the level of reading comprehension of the modern left anymore. Ezra (who wrote this, and not Jesse- the mistakes point that out quickly) links to the ‘debunking,’ but either failed to recongize the differences, or failed to read it. Let’s go through it one more time, and let’s try to remember that this information came from the History News Network:
Lyndon Baines Johnson – According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.
Richard Nixon – Richard Nixon does not appear to have attended the funerals of any soldiers killed in Vietnam. He did award posthumous medals of honor to the families of several soldiers on 22 April 1971 and on several other occasions. On Veterans day in 1971 he visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. In 1973 he met with the family of Colonel William Nolde after the colonel was buried in Arlington Cemetery. Colonel Nolde was killed on January 27th, the night before the cease-fire went into effect.
Jimmy Carter – According to the New York Times, Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980.
Ronald Reagan – Ronald Reagan attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. In 1983 he attended a service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in connection with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of 241 people. In 1987 he attended a service at Mayport Naval Station in Florida for the sailors killed on the USS Stark.
George H.W. Bush – President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. (The NYT, citing Marlin Fitzwater as a source, indicated that the president did attend several such funerals. But no details were provided.)
Bill Clinton – Bill Clinton attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.
After the terrorist bombing the Murrah building in downtown Oklahoma City he publicly grieved with the families of the victims at an event that was regarded at the time as a turning point in his presidency.
So the rundown is that LBJ went to two funerals, one to a soldier he had met personally, and one soldier whose father was a White House correspondent- think if Wolf Blitzer’s son had been killed. Nixon visited the Tomb of the Unknowns and a Colonel who was killed a night before the end of the war.
Those are the only PERSONAL funerals that any of the Presidents attended. LBJ knew the people whose funeral he was attending, Nixon went because symbolically this was one of the last few soldiers killed in Vietnam.
Let’s check the other Presidents action: There is no mention of Ford doing anything, while Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton ONLY ATTENDED mass memorials.
I think the notion that previous Presidents went to individual soldiers has been de-bunked, regardless of how bad Ezra’s reading comprehension is. Look at the facts, and look at Ezra’s interpretation:
Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don’t attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died
The past SEVEN Presidents before the current President Bush attended 4 funerals and several memorial services for LARGE EVENTS. Those events include Carter at Desert One memorial services, Reagan for the Beirut bombings, Clinton for the members of the USS COLE.
I might mention that Bush went to a mass memorial for all those killed at the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, keeping in line with the unwritten protocol that has been established by his predecessors.
Let’s look at Ezra’s foolish projection again:
Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won’t go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they’re biological containers or something similarly weird now), it’s about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president’s political gain from the war. It didn’t end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it’s beneath him and anyone else who professes to “support our troops”. One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.
For the last time, this is not the role of the Commander-in-Chief. Generally, I ignore the basic ignorance of the military and military tradition when the left babbles on and on. In my mind, being stupid about the military is a radical improvement from the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s, when they were not only stupid but overtly hostile. Stupid, as in the case of Ezra here, is a dramatic improvement. However, since Ezra insists, let’s go through this one more time. There are multiple reasons a President does not attend funerals of those killed in the line of duty during wartime. These reasons include- which funeral should he attend, why was this soldier’s service greater than any others, is it not the role of the Commander-in-Chief to be the ‘Mourner in Chief’ (ever heard of ministers andpriests?), it sends a message of weakness to the enemy- that this was a tragic loss and not the ultimate sacrifice given willingly in wartime, it shows a lack of national resolve, it will fuel resentment among families whose funeral the President does not attend, the attendance by the President will overshadow the funeral itself- the focuse of which should be a beautiful ceremony for the deceased and the deceased’s family and not the President, and on and on.
As far as the policy regarding the press coverage of flag draped caskets, this is a policy from 3 administrations ago that only recently has been enforced due to litigation. Ezra should know this, although it is apparent there is a world of things he does not know, can not comprehend, or is too lazy to look into.
When we get to the specious claims that the President has not met with wounded soldiers, I guess this was just a fabrication:
I guess Ezra missed today’s papers, too:
The notion that the President is avoiding funerals because he is afraid of negative coverage is simply vile rhetoric from the know-nothing left. I am going to refuse to even discuss this disgusting agitprop from our friends on the fringe left until they can come up a coherent argument better than the one provided here by the lightweight lunatic Ezra Klein.
*** Update ***
Ezra still can’t read.
Ezra states (in defense of his argument babble):
As it goes, past presidents have attended few funerals or memorial services (though they have mostly attended a couple of each), so Bush shouldn’t have to.
Two of the seven past presidents have attended INDIVIDUAL funerals, and I noted the exceptions. LBJ knew the people in the two he went to, Nixon went because the person killed was killed the night before a ceasefire. It is documented. I challenge him to find otherwise, or dismiss his new definition of ‘MOST.’
Other Presidents have gone to MASS SERVICES, and I noted the types of occassion- The Beirut Bombing for Reagan, Desert One services for Carter, the USS Cole bombing victims for Clinton, and the 9/11 funeral that this President attended.
That is it, for the most part. That is all. I also list a number of reasons why the President SHOULD NOT attend funerals, and this is Ezra’s response (again- that reading thing):
Quite basically, Bush has done everything humanly possible to keep casualties out of the media. It hasn’t worked, but they’ve tried damn hard. They have stepped up (as in, this is the first time it will be enforced) enforcement of an old ban on photographing military caskets, reporters are not allowed anywhere near funerals (regardless of the family’s wishes, it’s a law), body bags are now called “transfer tubes”, and despite being at Fort Carson during a military memorial, he declined to attend. Let me repeat, he declined to attend a memorial service he was already at! I guess the reasoning is that Clinton wasn’t there, either.
John can blow all the gaskets he wants but it doesn’t change the essential facts of this issue. Bush, or others from his cabinet, should be attending funerals simply so they understand the cost of war. Further, the Bush Administration has done everything humanly possible to keep Americans from seeing the casualties and losses we’ve sustained, which is a cheap way to keep up support for a war. It is dishonorable to launch wars and ask nothing of the American people, up to and including denying them sad moments where they reflect on the human cost of such ventures. Government should not willfully create a disconnect between their policies and their constituents; we should see and know what is occurring, that is how we can make informed decisions.
John accuses me of being “stupid” about the military. Ignoring the schoolyard quality of his rhetoric, he’s out of line. I am advocating that I, and all people, become less stupid about the military. There are people dying over there and that deserves recognition. As it is, we live in an age of bloodless wars where Americans don’t understand the cost of military conflict. That’s not to say that it isn’t often necessary, but we are too free with force and too ignorant of what it actually means. Notice that the only person in the Administration who didn’t want to enter into this conflict was Powell, “coincidentally” the only member of the Administration who had actually been in a war.
This disconnect between the reality of war and the easy victories we see will, sooner or later, lead us into a fight we won’t win, and we’re going to pay dearly in lives for that bit of ignorance. John is set upon aiding this Administration in their secrecy and media-based manipulations of the conflict, a strange position for any conservative to put himself in. If Clinton did this, he was wrong. If Carter did it, he was wrong. Bush is doing it, and doing it on a much greater scale than any of his predecessors, he is wrong and it should not be tolerated.
Ezra is simply wrong or lying about the policy regarding the ban on the military caskets. Since I have corrected him once, and he repeats it, he must be lying. Reporters are allowed to film or attend military funerals- I saw two on the NBC news the other night. They are forbidden from filming remains in transport- in other words, filming the caskets before they have been delivered to the families of the deceased.
The administration has not ‘stepped up’ enforcement of this decade or so old law, but litigation that was enacted when the regulation was put in place has finally been ended, and now the regulation can be enforced as intended.
That is 0 for 2, Ezra. Why are you lying?
The rest is just more of Ezra’s loony left double-speak and tinfoil hat madness. I am not intent on hiding the casualties of this war– the number of dead and wounded can be found easily, and when soldiers are killed it is displayed in every newspaper and on every television show. No one is hiding anything- but we do refuse to play politics with the dead, something that is not beneath Ezra and his ilk. If they are not playing politics with the dead, the whole of his argument is that ‘Hey- war is real tough and people die.’
Deep thinkers, these guys.
BTW- Ezra- ‘Poisoning the debate’ and ‘poisoning the well’ means knowingly and willfully injecting lies and falsehoods into the public and pretending they are the truth. I merely assumed you were semi-literate in my previous post. Now, it is clear you are a liar.
*** Update #3 ***
Still not addressing his lies and mistakes, Ezra now insists that since Ezra himself thinks Bush should attend funerals, Bush is to fault because he is not going to those funerals. Again, no mention of all the reasons why Bush isn’t and the historical context.
At any rate, all aspiring politicians should email Ezra and get his email address or cell phone number. I am sure policy makers and leaders everywhere are dying to know what you think they ‘should’ do. Meanwhile, Jesse chimes in and has his knickers in a twist because I spelled since wrong (it has SINCE been corrected). Someone please go explain the difference between reading comprehension, argument formulation, debate, and a typo.
Those Lovely Democrat Candidates
Reader Jeremey Winer emailed me this lovely tidbit from a Wesley Clark interview:
“We’ve got a president who will go halfway around the world for a photo opportunity but won’t go halfway across town for a funeral for an American serviceman.
“I’ve been to those funerals. I’ve comforted families. … I don’t think you can make good policy at the top if you don’t understand the impact at the bottom of your organization.”
Bush has on only two or three occasions met with the families of fallen servicemen and women, most recently at Fort Carson, Colorado, and he has not attended funerals or greeted caskets returning from Iraq.
WHAT… A… JERK… And as a military man, he has no excuse, he should know better. For chrissakes, how many times are we going to have to debunk this damn meme?
Is there some sort of competition between the Democratic candidates to see who can make the most outrageous statement? Or is that was a Democratic primary is anymore?
LOTR Quiz
Legolas Greenleaf If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Legolas, Elf, a son of the King of Mirkwood. In the movie, I am played by Orlando Bloom. Who would you be? |
(via Rosemary)