SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LindyBill3/27/2007 3:55:38 PM
   of 793790
 
Best of the Web Today - March 27, 2007

By JAMES TARANTO

QT and Run
For some time now, Democrats and a few Republicans have been calling on America to set a firm date for retreat from Iraq. One obvious objection is telling the enemy when we plan to leave ensures that such a departure would amount to a surrender. Never fear. Sen. Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, has an answer, as the Washington Post reports:

Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret. . . . Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

But does Pryor really think Congress and the Iraqi government can be trusted to keep a secret? Yes and maybe!

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets "all the time."

What if the president's withdrawal plan didn't include a deadline? Or what if it leaked, through leaders in Iraq, to insurgents?

All worth considering, Pryor said. But in the meantime, "at least you'd have a plan."

Well OK then! All we need is a plan, and this plan is nothing if not well thought out. The enemy will never see us going!

Heat on the Hill
No, he wasn't just glad to see a Capitol Police officer, the Washington Post reports:

A top aide to Sen. James Webb was charged yesterday with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, U.S. Capitol Police said.

The staffer, Phillip Thompson, told police that the gun belonged to Webb (D-Va.), authorities said. Thompson also said he forgot that the gun was in a briefcase and meant no harm, they said.

Thompson, 44, a longtime friend of Webb's and the senator's executive assistant, was jailed pending an appearance today in D.C. Superior Court. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

Webb, who describes himself as a Second Amendment advocate, has a concealed weapon permit in Virginia, but that's no good in the District of Columbia, whose antigun laws are among the nation's most restrictive. Apparently, though, Webb is permitted to have a gun at the Capitol, under certain circumstances:

Any senator who has a gun permit and wants to bring a gun onto congressional property must unload the gun and make sure it is "securely wrapped," [Sgt. Kimberly] Schneider said. In this case, the problem was that the gun was loaded and that Thompson was not registered to have it, she said.

So members of Congress are allowed to carry guns on Capitol Hill whereas law-abiding citizens are not? Wasn't Newt Ginrgich supposed to have made congressmen live by the same rules as the rest of us?

Are You Experienced?
A recent essay in the New York Times Week in Review section underscores a bit of journalistic bias that may prove crucial in the 2008 presidential campaign. The piece, by Ryan Lizza, notes that most of the major candidates lack "the kind of governing experience traditionally seen as a prerequisite for White House service." Rudy Giuliani was a mayor. Barack Obama has been in the Senate barely two years, and John Edwards quit after a single term. Mitt Romney "can point to a four-year term as governor of Massachusetts as the sum total of his governing experience."

You can contrast this to John McCain, who has been in the Senate more than 20 years and Congress 24 years altogether. And you can also contrast it to the Democratic front-runner . . . but wait a minute.

Although Lizza suggests that Hillary Clinton is more experienced than her Democratic rivals, he never fleshes this out. Why? Well, if you look at Mrs. Clinton strictly from the standpoint of elective office, she is only slightly more experienced than Edwards, having just begun her second Senate term. If experience outside Washington counts, Obama has her beat, having served eight years in the Illinois Legislature.

Ah, you say, but Mrs. Clinton was in the White House for eight years, as first lady. Why didn't Lizza mention this? Probably because to mention it is to raise uncomfortable questions about Mrs. Clinton's character. After all, Bill Clinton was impeached, and the events that motivated the wrongdoing for which he was impeached call into question the integrity of the Clinton marriage. Mrs. Clinton, in other words, may owe her "experience" to her willingness back then to make a sham of her own personal life.

Gore With Audacity
Barack Obama has a penchant to stretch the truth, argues The Politico's Mike Allen. He offers some examples that are reminiscent of Al Gore's 2000 exaggerations:

Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Ala., Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: "I'm in Washington. I see what's going on. I see those powers and principalities have snuck back in there, that they're writing the energy bills and the drug laws." . . .

But not only did Obama vote for the Senate's big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions, and his Senate Web site carries a news article about the vote headlined, "Senate energy bill contains goodies for Illinois." . . .

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts [in his 1995 book, "Dreams From My Father"] about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin" in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that "seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack." The Tribune reported: "Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, 'It might have been an Ebony or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?' (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)" . . .

As another example, consider Obama's stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the "Bloody Sunday" voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," he said, "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."

Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: "I meant the whole civil rights movement."

Of course, what sank Al Gore in 2000 wasn't his penchant for taking liberties with the truth. It was cynicism.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

o "One man with courage makes a majority."--attributed to Andrew Jackson

o "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin D. Roosevelt

o "The buck stops here."--Harry S. Truman

o "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John F. Kennedy

o "Fans are pretty discerning. I think they'll have a terrific ability to say, 'Well, that's crock or this isn't,' and kind of get a read on it."--John Kerry

Guilty!
David Hicks, an Australian convert to Islam, has pleaded guilty to war crimes, making him the first man convicted under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The New York Times report includes the standard complaints about Guantanamo:

The Pentagon had originally hoped to begin trying detainees in the spring of 2002, but the Bush administration's system for military tribunals has been the subject of lengthy legal challenges. The Supreme Court struck down the administration's first plan for tribunals last June, ruling that a principal flaw was that the president had established them without Congressional authorization. . . .

In addition to the legal challenges, the policy of holding "enemy combatants" without charges for as long as five years has drawn international protest, including from allies of the United States.

Of course, under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants may be held for the duration of the war. Hicks may soon be sprung from Guantanamo:

Lawyers have suggested that he might serve out the remainder of any sentence in Australia. Asked whether Mr. Hicks might be back in Australia by the end of the year, a military prosecutor said, "The odds are pretty good."

How is it that a conviction for war crimes is a ticket back to Australia for Hicks? That just seems perverse.

Sacrificial Lambs
A story in the Christian Science Monitor about Iraq and sacrifice makes this weird assertion:

The burden of the war on terrorism has fallen exclusively on the nation's young--the current generation known as the Millennials, born beginning in the 1990s and known for their penchant for conformity, public service, and duty, says William Strauss, a prominent generational historian and author of 10 books.

We take the pedantic view that the 1990s consist of the decade from 1991 through 2000. But even if you think the decade started in 1990, people born then are at most 17 years old today. How could they be doing all the sacrificing when they're not even old enough to join the military on their own?

Say What?
" 'Ask a Ninja,' OK Go Win YouTube Awards"--headline, Associated Press, March 26

The Key to Immortality
"Aspirin Protects Women From Dying of Any Cause"--headline, Bloomberg, March 26

What Happens After We Die?
"Traffic on I-10 Eastbound Near Downtown Slows After Death"--headline, Houston Chronicle, March 26

'That'll Be a Quarter'
"Vegas Police Recommend Charges Against Pacman"--headline, WABC-TV Web site (New York), March 26

But Why Did She Ever Start?
"Woman Stopped Wearing Girdle of Live Crocodiles"--headline, Associated Press, March 26

News You Can Use
"Don't Sleep With Your Friends Just to Get Attention"--headline, East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Ariz.), March 27

Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Woman Hurt in Fracas; Duck Unscathed"--headline, Daily Herald (Everett, Wash.), March 24

o "Bill Clinton a Fan of '24' and 'I Love Lucy' "--headline, Reuters, March 26

o "Coleville Man Doesn't Fall for Internet Scam"--headline, Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat, March 26

o "14 Accused of Corruption in a New Jersey City"--headline, New York Times, March 27

o "LA Times Cancels Guest Editor Program"--headline, Associated Press, March 27

Shock the Monkey
"The head of a Plano school district facility that houses exotic animals said Monday he fears for his professional future there after saying he believed that a local pet owner was having sexual relations with his rhesus macaque monkey," the Dallas Morning News reports. But apparently it was all a big misunderstanding:

Mr. Crawford said he did send a tape for the monkey to listen to, but that he was probably crying when he recorded it and that it contains nothing but comforting baby talk. He said there was nothing sexually suggestive on the tape and called Mr. Dunlap's initial conclusion "ridiculous."

"I don't have sex with my monkey. That's absolute crap," Mr. Crawford said. "Why would I do that? I gave him an audiotape, but it didn't have anything like that on it. It said, 'I'm coming home, I'm coming to get you. Daddy's coming, he's coming to get you,' " Mr. Crawford said.

Mr. Dunlap said that he made a "gross error" and that his interpretation of the tape was just that--his and no one else's.

"I interpreted what I heard and saw in my own way, and I can't say that's correct. It's just me, what I think. I can't argue with Mr. Crawford about what he meant," Mr. Dunlap said. "I took it on surface value about what he said. I just don't want to deal with it anymore. He may be totally honest and right in what he thinks about the way he sounded."

It's all so tragic and embarrassing, but maybe one day we'll be able to laugh about it.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Thomas Dillon, Andrew Fink, John Williamson, Lewis Sckolnick, Al Dubinsky, Neal Sanders, Nathan James, Paul Dyck, John O'Donnell, Reid Matthews, Monty Krieger, Timothy Knowlton, Daniel Bryant, David Lemire, Bob Desmond, Joseph Burns, Erik Johnson, Mark Hageman, Jack Watson, David Sealey, Roger Reini, Kathleen Sullivan, Scott Wright, Glade Roper, Matthew du Mee, Michael Goldberg, Rhonda Cisneros, Jerry Rhoden, Frank Walter, Grant Schaumburg, Andrew Robinson and Bob Morrison. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

URL for this article: opinionjournal.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext