Got any recent 2 cents articles I may have missed?
Betcha hadn't seen my latest two ;^)
Yep, it's that time again, folks
Saddam's fiery tirade was filled with fling-down-the-gauntlet 'defiance'. The run-riot burst of torrid contempt, the taunting scorn pouring forth from Saddam's wagging tongue stirred the embers, infusing new life into a sullen media elite of late glumly resigned to another -- yet another -- pending U.S. military triumph.
As maniacal Saddam vented his fury and hate, ranting and raving like a moonstricken lunatic overdosing on steroids, rapping out swollen grandiose, shaking his fist, snarling as he 'threatened' America with certain defeat, the newsies were overcome with full-bloom euphoria.
"President Saddam Hussein warned today that any troops invading Iraq would be 'buried in their own coffins'", chirped the Washington Post.
"The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, digging their own graves", the New York Times quoted Saddam as saying in a national address marking the 14th anniversary of the end of Iraq's '80-'88 war with Iran.
Big Media was sour-as-a-crab no longer. No more of that 'hangdog look' on their mugs.
Indeed, there is something about Saddam, something about the butcher-of-Baghdad which sets the media on fire, galvanizes them passionately; with soul-stirring, heart-thumping thrill, his tantrums seize them; his orations titillate with flushing desire and seduction. They lust after, thirst after, run mad after his blusterings like swarming bees after honey.
In medialand, Saddam Hussein isn't merely a heartthrob, however. To them, he's a walk-on-water symbol, a beacon for all the "poor" and "downtrodden" on earth. He speaks for the 'have-nots'; his is the voice of the powerless, the oppressed, the weak. To liberals, the bully isn't Saddam, but the U.S. In their eyes, Hussein is the victim -- America, the snake-in-the-grass aggressor.
Oh, forget that he gassed 5,000 men, women and children to death; forget that his name has become a synonym for barbarism, his country a metaphor for evil; forget his 8-year long bloody war against neighboring Iran, the one million lives wasted; oh, and forget his brutal invasion of tiny Kuwait, of course.
None of that matters a lick. Naked Iraqi aggression is rationalized in the media as merely a response to provocation by evil imperialism.
To liberals, Saddam is the David boldly battling Goliath.
Indeed, media assessment of Iraqi prowess on the battlefield seems dimensions divorced from reality. Iraqi soldiers are ten feet tall, with bones of iron; alas! even their skin is bulletproof!
America, gird yourself, yep, it's that time again: A drumbeat of stories, in the lead-up to war, of how unbeatable our enemy is. That America is poised to lose. Or get bogged down, Vietnam-style. That our enemy is far more determined to win than we. That our forces lack resolve. That our enemy is better prepared, better led, oh, and -- don't forget -- battle-hardened. That tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers will come back in body-bags.
Meanwhile, Democrats are worried that 'phase two' of the War on Terror -- i.e., toppling Saddam -- is set to launch before November's midterm elections. This is the nightmare scenario for them. In a bid to reassure nervous Democrats, Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, even went so far as to say publically not to expect military action any time soon. Excuses for postponing the war run the gamut, but most are political, not military.
There's no consensus and our allies are against us and the war will cost too much and will take too long and fall is too hot and the fighting will be difficult and the Arabs will get mad and Kofi Annan will get mad and Germany will get mad and France will get mad and al-Qaeda will get mad....blah, blah, blah.
To Democrats, capturing control of the House in November and keeping the Senate matter more than anything -- national security included. They fear war in Iraq will tip the scales in the GOP's favor.
Even the fast-approaching first year anniversary of 9/11 is prompting a good deal of nervousness among Democrat strategists, who feel the momentum is still with the President. Democrat hardliners have tried all year to steer debate away from terrorism to the economy, but to no avail.
The wave of corporate scandals and turmoil on Wall Street appeared to offer Democrats a glimmer of hope, at least temporarily. Despite their aggressive efforts to tarnish the President with corporate wrongdoing, polls show their mudslinging backfired. Particularly irritating to voters was the fuss over Bush's sale of Harken energy stock 12 years ago, a subject which has, over the years, been the target of numerous SEC probes, all of which exonerated the President of any impropriety. Indeed, with enactment of corporate reform and aggressive action against CEO miscreants by the Bush Justice Department, the White House has put Democrats on the defensive. Many of the President's accusers were later found to have taken money from Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc., diminishing their credibility even further.
Moreover, Democrat fundraising has lagged far behind that of Republicans, and many Democrat Senate incumbents now appear in trouble. A new statewide poll in New Jersey has Bob Torricelli locked in a dead-heat with his Republican challenger, Doug Forrester, a relative unknown. In South Dakota's Senate contest, incumbent Tim Johnson appears vulnerable to GOP House member Rep. John Thune. With a one-seat plurality, Democrats have no margin for error.
Another reason for growing optimism among Republicans: The remarkable turnaround in the stock market. From a low of 7,533 on July 23, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has since catapulted almost 1,200 points, closing yesterday at 8,712. The Blue-Chips were up a stunning 255 points on the day, the first 3-day triple-digit sweep in 17 months. Further, Democrat hopes for a double-dip recession appear to be fading, as housing and auto sales continue to gather momentum and speculation of another rate cut by the Fed buoy investors.
I smell victory.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
'BUSH-KNEW!' (The Sequel)
Time magazine gives *historical revisionism* new meaning.
Forget Josef Goebbels. When it comes to unbridled and shameless propaganda, the twisting and perverting of truth to fit a political agenda, the Clinton-lovers at Time are second to none.
Indeed, this time Time out-does even itself.
The "blockbuster" 'cover story', They Had A Plan, by Michael Elliott, isn't journalism -- it's naked proselytizing. Mr. Elliot serves up a plateful of fusty excuses, sprinkles it with thin alibis, as he tries to negate or minimize arguably the most momentous dereliction of the Clinton "presidency": To wit, its failure to tackle effectively the growing menace of international terrorism; principly, the burgeoning threat posed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Under Clinton, al-Qaeda not only survived, it thrived -- spreading its tentacles out of its base in Afghanistan to dozens of countries around the globe. Under Clinton, al-Qaeda became a phenomenal growth industry, prospering beyond its wildest dreams; membership swelled, coffers bulged. The groundwork for 9/11 had been laid; thousands of al-Qaeda sleeper agents, like swarms of killer viruses, would worm their way inside our porous borders.
Under the Clinton & the gang, with impunity would al-Qaeda repeatedly attack the U.S. The group was clearly behind the February '93 (first) World Trade Center bombing, killing six, wounding thousands.
Clinton's response?
Zilch, zero, nada.
Later that year, 18 U.S. Army Rangers were slaughtered in Mogadishu, breeding ground of al-Qaeda terrorists. Their bodies were dragged through the streets, locals celebrating in triumph.
Clinton's reaction?
He turns tail and runs, further emboldening the enemy..
Then, on June 25, 1996, al-Qaeda strikes again. Target: The Khobar Towers apartment building in Dahran, Saudi Arabia. A powerful truck bomb kills 10 American airmen and wounds 400.
Clinton's response?
Zip, zero, nada.
Two years later, in August of '98, al-Qaeda brutally attacks two U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, killing 258, including 12 Americans. Five-thousand were wounded.
Clinton's reaction?
He launches a few cruise missiles, hits a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and some empty tents in Afghanistan. The strikes were seen more as wag-the-dog -- Monica Lewinsky was set to testify before a grand jury in Washington -- than as a response to terrorism.
The next al-Qaeda strike came October 12, 2000. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 sailors, wounded more than 34 others.
Clinton's response?
The Plan! Ah, yes, finally....The Plan!
Uh-Oh....wait a sec...
Only one, itsy-bitsy problem. Clinton, our brave commander-in-chief, didn't want people to think he was doing another 'wag-the-dog', what, with presidential elections looming, says Mr. Eilliot.
So he deferred.
Well, what about after the elections? Why no action even then?
Oh, C'mon! Give Clinton a break, why don'tcha? Can't you see, far more pressing, far more urgent issues needed attention? Handing out pardons, for one; think of how time consuming that can be ....Too many fugitives, too many traitors to pardon, and oh so little time!
Kidding aside, the truth is, there was no "blueprint", there was no "Plan", only a set of disjointed, half-hearted policy "options"; some of this stuff had been kicking around for years -- one as far back as August '98. None were "actionable", none were aggressive enough, none involved real military action in Afghanistan.
In short, the Time article is a sham -- nothing more than a politically motivated shot at the Bush administration by Clintonistas desperate to pass the buck for their own stupidity and culpability.
Culpability? Yes, culpability.
Bottom line: In 1996, Sudan had offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a platter; the offer was rejected. 9/11 was the result.
That's a damning fact of history.
No amount of cunning spin, artful dodging or crafty maneuvering by Clinton-lovers at Time will change that.
Further, the claim that C.I.A. surveillance flights over Afghanistan were halted by the incoming Bush administration is another sick lie.
The Predator drone, as Rep. Peter King explained meticulously on Hardball Monday night, had been taken down in October of '00 -- four months before Bush became President. At the time, a new missile system was being developed. To avoid signature detection by the enemy, missions were stopped. The Pentagon had not completed the project until the summer of '01.
Time magazine, and Michael Elliot in particular, owe the 9/11 families, as well as the President of the United States, a very public apology. His article is tantamount to a hate crime.
Shame on Time.
But don't hold your breath waiting for mea culpas.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"