Archive for February, 2008
February 27, 2008
A TEEN ENTREPRENEUR with a Rock Band drum mod. “Yet another example of why kids should play video games.” With video.
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: NAFTA Nonsense Insults Our Allies. “Threatening to renege on a permanent treaty — as Clinton and Obama are doing through their identical vows to ‘opt out’ of the deal — signals loudly that America’s word is no longer its bond. A permanent pact with the U.S., it turns out, isn’t so permanent.”
It does seem odd that two candidates who claim they’re going to “repair America’s world image” want to do so by ditching a treaty and starting trade wars.
OBAMA RESPONDS TO MCCAIN: “There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.â€
The problem with this statement is that, although it’s an article of leftie faith, it’s not true. (Remember how Richard Clarke was worried that Osama would “boogie to Baghdad” if we invaded Afghanistan? It’s not really Obama’s fault though — as an Illinois State Senator when these events transpired, he probably wasn’t paying much attention.) Meanwhile, McCain hits back.
UPDATE: A reader emails:
As a preface, I agree with you on the “not true” part: there were terrorists in Iraq prior to 9/11 and prior to the invasion, and there are terrorists there now; that’s not really at issue for me.
However, this post is at issue: “[t]he problem with this statement is that, although [the belief that ‘[t]here was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq’ is] an article of leftie faith, it’s not true. ( . . . It’s not really Obama’s fault though — *as an Illinois State Senator* *when these events transpired*, he probably wasn’t paying much attention.)”
Obama, in addition to being a state senator, was a law professor at the University of Chicago during the run-up to the war. It’s intellectually dishonest for you to leave out this information and instead belittle a candidate and his views on Iraq by saying that he was just a meager State Senator at the time of the events listed. It’s also somewhat amusing, since you are also a law professor and thus at the time you both had similar credentials – neither of you were serving as U.S. Senators at that time, both of you were law professors.
The difference is that I was paying attention. I promise, however, that a position as a professor of Constitutional Law — or, as Obama actually was, a non-tenure-track lecturer — provides no special insight into antiterrorism. however, I’m including Mr. Hawkins’ email on the off-chance that others think this is as important an omission as he does.
A lawyer accused of trying to bribe a judge also paid two associates $500,000 to convince Attorney General Jim Hood not to file criminal charges against an insurance company over its handling of Hurricane Katrina claims, according to an FBI report in court records.
Plaintiffs lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Cos. soon after the 2005 storm, was afraid the company “was not going to settle the civil cases” if the attorney general’s office filed criminal charges, according to an FBI report filed Monday in the bribery case. . . . Scruggs agreed to pay New Albany attorney Timothy Balducci and former State Auditor Steve Patterson “if they could get Hood to relent on indicting” State Farm, according to a report written by FBI Agent William Delaney on Nov. 2, 2007. . . . Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former Republican U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, donated $33,000 to Hood’s campaign last July. He also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, which in turn contributed to Hood’s campaign. Hood, a Democrat, was easily re-elected to a second term in November 2007.
It just gets worse.
A PLAGIARISM SCANDAL AT THE NEW YORK TIMES? It’s real, but it seems pretty small-bore to me.
SEAN WILENTZ: How Obama played the race card. (Via Taylor Marsh, who thinks closer media scrutiny of Obama is beginning).
IT’S LIKE A DENIAL-OF-SERVICE ATTACK IN MEATSPACE: Comcast packs FCC meeting with hired chair-warmers, keeping interested parties out.
WELL, IT’S PROGRESS: Hillary picks up half a delegate.
POTENTIAL DEMOCRATIC SUPREME COURT NOMINEES: Doug Berman takes a broader look than some have done.
JOHN STOSSEL: Guns save lives.
MORE REZKO SCANDAL NEWS: “In their strongest language yet, federal prosecutors said Tuesday that Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration granted access and influence to Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko because of his prowess as a fundraiser for the governor. Rezko’s role as a key Blagojevich insider is essential to understanding how he was able to extort illegal payments and a campaign contribution from firms seeking state business, prosecutors said in a motion filed a week before Rezko’s corruption trial is set to begin.” (Via NewsAlert.)
IN LIGHT OF MY EARLIER FLASHLIGHT-BLOGGING, which generated a lot of email, there’s this: Test-driving the world’s most dangerous flashlight.
BOB COTTROL AND RAY DIAMOND: Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms.
TAKING A “TRADE TIMEOUT”? TigerHawk is not amused.
More on trade politics here.
MCCAIN LEADS DEMOCRATS IN TENNESSEE according to an MTSU poll.
BOB POOLE ON HOW WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY created intellectual space for the libertarian movement.
IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ON bookshelf etiquette.
COPS AND DOCTORS: Is the DEA blowing it on prescription drugs?
GOP presidential candidate John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama today for saying he’d take action as president “if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.”
McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas “I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaida in Iraq.'”
In Obama’s defense, he probably reads the New York Times, which always calls it “Al Qaida in Mesopotamia.” That may have confused him. Anyway, to Hillary’s undoubted dismay it seems to be turning into a McCain vs. Obama election already.
UPDATE: Reader David Cavalier emails:
There’s an old adage that generals are always fighting the last war. So it is with the latest exchange between Obama and McCain
If you stop and consider it, Obama’s answer is not really an answer. We are not fighting over whether to invade Iraq. We are there. It is happening. That decision was made years ago. He is fighting a battle that was lost in 2003.
The question is what is the next President going to do with the current strategic situation. McCain rightly called him out for implying that there was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq and Obama responded with an irrelevant comment about the past and then some silly boilerplate about being the party of the future. Ironically, it sounds like Obama who is the party of the past.
This has been a rhetorical trick that Obama has used a lot when he gets hit for saying something stupid. He never admits being caught and he changes the subject to a different talking point as fast as he can, claiming that he wants to be about the “future.” Given his tendency to make bizarre and naive statements about foreign policy, I have to wonder how long he can get away with it.
I don’t believe the “flypaper” thesis about Iraq (that the invasion was planned as a trap to lure al-Qaida into a fight on foreign soil), it sounds too much like ex post facto rationalization. That being said, it cannot be denied that al-Qaida, in what was a major tactical blunder, decided to make Iraq the centerpiece of their strategy against the U.S. And they have been suffering some pretty severe setbacks. So it is certainly reasonable to wonder what Obama is thinking when he says we need to pull out of Iraq to fight al-Qaida. They made the decision to have the battle there. He should know that by now.
Indeed he should.
UPDATE: Reader Charles Wilson notes that the “flypaper” theory goes back quite a ways. And, of course, there’s this post.
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY HAS DIED: He’s remembered by many over at National Review.
HEH: Name ’em and shame ’em.
