Friday, May 27, 2005
E. J. Dionne and an "Assault on the Media"
E. J. Dionne claims that attacks on Newsweek's report of flushing a Koran down the loo in Guantanamo constitute a "sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power." Yet Dionne himself writes
So, what Newsweek reported was false, but any challenge to that false reporting constitutes an attack on the free press. In Dionne's world, the media may freely write fake news and attack anyone who challenges them on it as being opposed to a free media.
Let's be clear: Newsweek originally reported that an internal
military investigation had "confirmed" infractions alleged in "internal FBI
e-mails." The documents made public Wednesday include only an allegation from a
prisoner about the flushing of the Koran, and the Pentagon insisted that the
same prisoner, reinterviewed on May 14, couldn't corroborate his earlier
claim.
So, what Newsweek reported was false, but any challenge to that false reporting constitutes an attack on the free press. In Dionne's world, the media may freely write fake news and attack anyone who challenges them on it as being opposed to a free media.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Howie Kurz Protecting Newsweek
Howie Kurz fails to distinguish between Newsweek's reporting that a military investigative report found that Koran desecration actually occurred and the mere reporting of allegations of such desecration by Islamic detainees. Kurz writes
Newsweek's story was not that detainees had alleged Koran desecration. That was old news. The White House and Pentagon would not have reacted to that. Newsweek's story was that the American military investigation would report that the allegations were, in fact, true.
More reports of allegations by detainees of Koran abuse do not substantiate Newsweek's story even if they wer "seen by Isikoff's source." They also do not cast White House reaction to that story in a "slightly different light."
Just to review: Newsweek made a specific error, saying this would
be in a forthcoming military investigative report, and had to apologize and
retract. But that never meant there was no Koran desecration--in fact, The Post
reported such a charge in 2003 (as did other outlets later), but the charges
were always attributed to detainees. Even these documents (which I'll bet were
seen by Isikoff's source) atrribute the allegations to detainees. But that casts
the outraged White House and Pentagon reaction in a slightly different light,
doesn't it?
Newsweek's story was not that detainees had alleged Koran desecration. That was old news. The White House and Pentagon would not have reacted to that. Newsweek's story was that the American military investigation would report that the allegations were, in fact, true.
More reports of allegations by detainees of Koran abuse do not substantiate Newsweek's story even if they wer "seen by Isikoff's source." They also do not cast White House reaction to that story in a "slightly different light."
Saddam and Al Qaeda
The MSM and Democrats have long asserted as a matter of faith that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda. They attacked as ignorant anyone who challenged this article of faith. Now Premier Allawi has released information taken from the archives of the Iraqi secret police that indicates connections between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. A report indicates that
The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public
information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam
Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and
the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian
militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the
leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of
another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.
It will be interesting to see how much of this will be verified in the coming months. I assume that every day, more documents from the Iraqi secret service, which is said to have kept meticulous records, are being reviewed and translated. There is no doubt about Saddam's support for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as we have noted many times; the question is one of degree. It
seems likely that the American left's hysterical insistence that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorist groups like al Qaeda will look very silly one day.
It will also be interesting to see how much of this will be reported in the New York Times and other MSM.
a
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
New York Times and the Deal
The New York Times opined regarding the recent deal to end debate on President Bush's appellate court nominees without the need for the "Constitutional Option":
At bottom, the agreement is about postponing any ultimate showdown until
the president is called on to nominate a Supreme Court justice. That seems
sensible. The Supreme Court is what everyone has had in mind during all this
jockeying over procedure. Although the appeals courts have an increasing role in
the judicial system, a Supreme Court nomination is the only time that most
Americans really focus on confirmation issues.
The Times correctly concludes that the compromise only postpones any ultimate showdown until a Supreme Court nominee is named. At that point, Democrats will come under extreme pressure from the liberal interest groups to oppose any nominee that appears at all likely to question Roe v. Wade.
Whether this compromise was sensible or not remains to be seen. Certainly, more Americans will focus on the debate of a Supreme Court nominee rather than "mere" appellate court nominees. This will raise the stakes for both parties as to how the voters react to their conduct of the debate. Will the voters see the Democrats as ideological obstructionists doing the bidding of their puppet masters, the liberal interest groups? or the Republicans as risking Democratic intransigence by changing rules to force the approval of the President's nominee?
Perhaps the seven Republicans who worked hard to come up with this
peace plan will feel invested enough in their achievement to use their
considerable leverage to press Mr. Bush to make a reasonable, centrist
choice.
Perhaps the seven Democrates "who worked hard to come up with this peace plan will feel invested enough in their achievement to use their considerable leverage to press" their collegues to accept a conservative nominee who applies the law. Of course, the Times would never look for Democrats to seek compromise and reasonable approaches to differences of political philosophy.
Readers will recall that Justice Brown has called the New Deal a "socialist revolution" and praised a series of early 20th-century Supreme Court decisions in which worker health and safety laws were struck down as infringing on the rights of business.
The Times attacks Justice Brown for expressing a political opinion that it disagrees with, but fails to show any link between that political opinion and her judicial decisions. Justice Brown has a constitutional right to express her opinion as to the New Deal and other issues. The real question is whether her judicial decisions follow the law. Nothing indicates that Justice Brown has failed to apply the law in all cases.
In return, the seven Republicans appear to have
promised - or at least vaguely indicated - that they will protect the Democrats'
right to stop progress on two other nominees, including William Myers III, a
former lobbyist for mining interests who would otherwise end up serving on a
California appeals court that considers many critical environmental cases.
The Times seems to see service as a lobbyist as a disqualification for appointment to the Federal bench. Would the Times apply this standard to a lobbyist for an environmental group? If lobbying indicates a predisposition in judging cases it applies equally to both sides of the issue. Would this disqualify ACLU lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, insurance defense lawyers? Oops. We seem to be disqualifying everyone.
Lawyers represent clients and take positions that support the clients' interests. That does not indicate in any way that they cannot subsequently make an opposing position as a judge in applying the law. The Times simply shows its ignorance in suggesting that lobbying for mining interests should disqualify a lawyer as a potential judge.
While the idea of letting the majority rule is at the heart of much in American democracy, it has little to do with the Senate, where some members represent 10 times as many people as others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.
Does the Times suggest that only those situations in which the minority "actually represents more American people" justifies the use of filibuster? This merely indicates the desperation of the Times in trying to find justification for that which it has opposed in the past. Will the Times support Republican filibusters of Democratic judicial nominees or will they be calling for the end of such filibusters?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Revenge of the MSM.
Kevin Drum warns the Pentagon that it will regret raising questions about Newsweek's article on the Koran incident:
By the time this is all over, I suspect the Pentagon is going to be sorry it ever made a fuss over the newsweek item in the first place. Every reporter in town is now going to start investigating this stuff, and the results are not likely to be pretty. Stay tuned for a fusillade of deeply researched stories about allegations of religious desecration by American troops starting in about
a week.
Is this the professionalism of the MSM? You challenge one of our guys and we'll dig and dig until we find something to get even. Does Kevin suggest that the Pentagon and others should have remained silent in the face of an erroneous Newsweek article?
Undoubtedly, "allegations of religious desecration by American troops" can easily be found. As many have written, Al Qaeda trains its followers to make such claims. A Training Manual found in England included suggestions that captured Al Qaeda agents complain to courts of mistreatment. The real issue is not the existence of such allegations but their validity.
In addition to training its agents to make claims of mistreatment, the Training Manual also teaches Al Qaeda to torture and murder captives in order to obtain information.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
New York Times - Fair and Balanced?
Political discourse continues to fall to new lows as politicians attack each other in the most personal ways. One would hope that the media would attempt to raise the level of discourse rather than contributing to its deterioration. If a recent article by the New York Times provides any indication, this hope continues in vain.
The Times in its lead paragraph describing the Republican Majority Leader and the Democratic Minority Leader described them as
Is this the sort of "candor" that Senator Frist should engage in when he describes Senator Kerry?
The Times in its lead paragraph describing the Republican Majority Leader and the Democratic Minority Leader described them as
One is a wealthy surgeon still considered new to the Senate but with an eye on the White House, the other a former lightweight boxer and police officer whose flashes of candor sometimes get him into trouble - like calling President Bush "a loser" in a speech to students.Describing President Bush as a "loser" constitutes an example of one of the "flashes of candor" by Senator Reid? This is the sort of gratuitous, mean-spirited comment that demeans rather than enlightens our political life. The Times should call the Senator on this rather than seeming to compliment him for his "candor."
Is this the sort of "candor" that Senator Frist should engage in when he describes Senator Kerry?
Newsweek Fiasco
Hugh Hewitt points to the MSM's treatment of corporations that make mistakes:
When American corporations screw up, the American media
whales on them day after day, week after week, and year after year. Think the Exxon Valdez, Unocal and Bhopal, The Ford Pinto, Enron.
Hugh accurately describes reality. His analysis also applies to the MSM treatment of mistakes by the military. Think the endless front page articles of Abu Graib in the New York Times.
However, the misconduct in the treatment of American corporation in the past does not justify continued misconduct in the treatment of Newsweek. Undoubtedly, this indicates too much optimism, but the MSM should learn from this error by their sister corporation and apply it to all who make errors in the future.
Friday, May 13, 2005
"Nuclear Option"
As Democrats and the MSM tell us of the long hallowed tradition of the filibuster against judicial appointees, certain simple questions come to mind.
Why can the defenders of the filibuster only point to the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas in 1968 as precedent? Supporters of the "nuclear option" argue that Fortas lacked majority support to win confirmation. In fact, the issues that led to opposition to his promotion to Chief Justice were so serious that they ultimately led to his resignation from the Supreme Court.
If filibustering of judicial nominees were in the hallowed tradition of the Senate, more than one debatable precedent could surely be offered. Furthermore, the lack of a filibuster of Clarence Thomas eloquently refutes the existence of such a "tradition."
With the massive outcry against his nomination and the close confirmation vote of 52-48, surely his opponents would have filibustered the nomination if, in fact, the tradition had been recognized at the time.
While the present rules of the Senate permit a filibuster of judicial nominees, the tradition of the Senate does not.
Why can the defenders of the filibuster only point to the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas in 1968 as precedent? Supporters of the "nuclear option" argue that Fortas lacked majority support to win confirmation. In fact, the issues that led to opposition to his promotion to Chief Justice were so serious that they ultimately led to his resignation from the Supreme Court.
If filibustering of judicial nominees were in the hallowed tradition of the Senate, more than one debatable precedent could surely be offered. Furthermore, the lack of a filibuster of Clarence Thomas eloquently refutes the existence of such a "tradition."
With the massive outcry against his nomination and the close confirmation vote of 52-48, surely his opponents would have filibustered the nomination if, in fact, the tradition had been recognized at the time.
While the present rules of the Senate permit a filibuster of judicial nominees, the tradition of the Senate does not.
