A Kerry Adviser Leaves the Race Over Missing Documents. Samuel R. Berger resigned amid criticism over his improper handling of classified documents on terrorism. By By ERIC LICHTBLAU. [The New York Times > Home Page]

If the New York Times cannot make this look good no one can. Since they are the ring leaders of the media bias craze I thought they would be the nicest to Mr. Berger's plight. They stressed that the removal of the documents was inadvertent but said little else. Since they won't ask the probing question that is on my mind I will. I would like to believe that this was a simple mistake but the material he removed is confidential. The rules are well known and strict. A former National Security Advisor should be very familiar with the rules concerning the handling of confidential documents and the consequences of breaking the rules. How is it that a man advising Bill Clinton and John Kerry on national security matters could make this type of "inadvertent" mistake with high profile confidential documents? Is our former National Security Advisor sloppy? What does this say about the quality of his advice on national security matters and the character of Mr. Berger? A man of character would of  returned the material when he first detected that he had made the mistake. He or she could then admit that they had made an "inadvertent" mistake and move on with their life. It appears he did not return the documents for several months. He returned some of the documents when the National Archives I asked about them. A search warrant was issued and several documents are believed to have been inadvertently discarded! By my reckoning there was more than one mistake here and only one of the mistakes can be "inadvertent". I always wondered why Bill Clinton's friends and advisors did not try to do more to stop him when he started his affair with Monica. What were they thinking? Now I think I have seen a glimpse of the character of Clinton's inner circle and it is not pretty. His association with the Kerry campaign is now a liability that will be hard to get rid of.

Media voices proliferate from the left and right.

[Via Christian Science Monitor | Top Stories]

A fascinating article that continues a string of articles about media bias. I recently reviewed which television newscasters I watch and my preference for quite some years remain the newscasters on PBS. This has been reinforced in recent years as I have detected an obvious slant to the news by CBS, ABC, and NBC. I prefer that my newscasters present opposing viewpoints and not try to overtly influence my decision.

. . . is pretty close to what I said. Investors.com, a site of Investor’s Business Daily, discovers the liberal bias in the media and asks a blunt question:

Using the median ADA rating of the 435 members of the House of Representatives as the most appropriate definition of a centrist voter in America, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today and CBS Evening News are not just liberal. Their ratings are much closer to the Democrats’ average ADA rating in Congress than they were to the center, and miles from the Republicans’ average rating.The liberal point of view is very important in America. It is needed to provide balance and ensure everyone’s ideas are heard. The crucial question now is: At a time of war and future terrorist risk to our country’s safety and open way of life, will the liberal media’s bias help defend and protect us or weaken and undermine us?

Which is about the same question I wrote in “Dueling biases” last May. I wrote that there are only four possible outcomes to the present war, only one of which is positive for the United States specifically or the West generally. Then –

For the news media, I ask you: which outcome do you want? It is not possible to pretend neutrality here, for the power of the media to frame the public’s debate is too great to claim you are merely being “fair and balanced.” There literally is no neutral ground here, no “God’s eye view” of events, and hence no possibility of not taking sides. One way or another, what you print or broadcast, what stories you cover and how you cover them, what attention you pay to what issues and how you describe them – all these things mean that you will support one outcome over another. Which will you choose? How will you support it? These are the most important questions of your vocation today. But you are not facing them at all.

The question is still urgent, and a lot more people are starting to realize it. (via Bill Quick)

[Via One Hand Clapping]

AlphaPatriot has an excellent summary posting about what the United Nations itself recently said about Saddam and WMDs.

And here is a post about what Afghanis and Iraqis think about how things are going in their countries. Seems they are more optimistic about their futures than Americans are. Among other findings: In Afghanistan:

Sixty-four percent of people thought the country was heading in the right direction, with just 11 percent saying it was going the wrong way. …

In Iraq, an independent polling firm found:

73% approve of new Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who says he wants to crush the insurgents and foreign terrorists disturbing the peace of his country. …

Things are going much better in the two countries than is being reported here in the States. But you knew that.

[Via One Hand Clapping]

Stephen Hayes takes Knight Ridder to task over sloppy journalism. I do not mind too much that I continue to find the major media producers to have a political agenda or “view” as the New York Times put it. I do mind that it encourages sloppy journalism. Here is part of Stephen's comments:

The authors continue:

In its report, the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed CIA analyses that found that while there had been contacts between al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence officials during the 1990s, “these contacts did not add up to an established relationship.”

Again, not true. The report is misquoted. According to Conclusion 93 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report the “contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.” [emphasis added] How many terrorist groups have “established formal relationships” with their state sponsors? State sponsors often–but not always–prefer to keep their terrorist connections loose and informal so that they might avoid detection, deniability being a major goal of states that use terrorists to do their dirty work.

Okay, I confess that I enjoy the humor at Imao. Someday I will repent.

Though some think the Iraq War wrong, I think Iraq war right just like Bush. I even came up with a bunch of reasons:

* Lots of Iraqis are dead – bad ones!

* It made for good T.V.

* Saddam was an evil man and now he's dead – or at least he will be after due process of law.

* Since the war on Iraq, there have been no Iraqi attacks on American soil.

* Instead of having to travel all over the world to track down and shoot terrorists, they flocked to Iraq for us to shoot them in one place.

* "Iraq" and "attack" rhyme, so war just makes sense.

* Now the most potent Weapon of Mass Destruction currently in Iraq is the U.S. military.

* Since Iraq will now have its own democracy, maybe they will import some of our slimy weasels.

* By having so much anger in the Middle East directed at us, we've given the Jews a break.

* If it weren't for the war, the election would be all about dumb crap like Medicare and gay marriage.

* Setting Iraq free from tyranny sets the course for the rest of the Middle East to evolve into modern democracies by 4012.

* The war made Michael Moore angry… hopefully bringing him closer to his inevitable heart attack (I just hope he doesn't fall on any children).

* We pissed most of the world off, and, frankly, we hate most of the world and like pissing them off.

* If we waited to attack until we had France's permission, we would have to hold off until most of Europe was invaded by Iraq… which could have taken months longer.

* With all the practice liberating Iraq, Iran, which is an only one letter difference, should be easy.

* Dude, we like so killed Uday and Qusay.

* Oil! Sweet, sweet oil! Muh ha ha ha!

* Lot's of bad people are dead; what's not to be happy about?

[Via IMAO]

I was talking to a friend yesterday about this movie. I am not planning on seeing the movie since I think Spiderman 2 is a much better choice for my $9. I guess he hadn’t read some of the reviews that I had read so I did a little research and here is my best choice. I decided to post it so it would be easier to find again. Enjoy!

 

---

Fahrenhype Update – Categories: News, The Culture, Movies – Tim Curlee – [email protected] @ 11:36:14 am

For those of you who still intrigued by the lies of Michael Moore, here are a few articles and blogs worth a gander:

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, hardly conservatives, speak out about Moore’s distortions (excerpts):

n his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic””not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998””five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,” said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.”

Richard Cohen, a liberal, doesn’t like the movie and doens’t believe it help those who are opposed to the war. Excerpts:

I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. One of my notes says “John Ellis,” who is a cousin of George W. Bush and the fellow who called the election for Fox News that dark and infamous night when the presidency — or so the myth goes — was stolen from Al Gore, delivering the nation to Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia, and plunging it into war. A better synopsis of the movie you’re not likely to read.

Moore’s depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival — lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore’s movie, though, suggests this is happening — a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq — weapons of mass destruction and Hussein’s links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.

Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore’s assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.

Dave Kopel has a great link debunking Moore’s myths. Also check out Moore Watch and Fahrenheit Facts.

Finally, Bill Hobbs thinks Fahrenhype is good for Bush.

I pointed out yesterday how the world tends toward chaos, disorder and lawlessness, not peace and harmony.Comes now a lead editorial of the Wall Street Journal that observes Sudan’s murderous history and makes the same point. Cataloguing the failures of Europe and of other Muslim states to halt the genocide there, the WSJ points out that only the United States has taken any sort of steps that hold promise of peace. The lesson?

The lesson of Sudan is that the world is a Hobbesian place outside the U.S. sphere of influence. Sudan’s social contract is straight out of “Leviathan”; citizens are guaranteed security only if they abide by the absolute authority of a monarch.The real problem, as everyone knows but no one will admit, is Sudan’s murderous regime. But Mr. Annan and company can’t abide regime change, and in any case the U.S. military is too preoccupied to make that happen. That means we’re left with diplomatic pressure and visits like Mr. Powell’s, which are better than nothing but don’t solve the long-term problem.

It is fashionable these days to express distaste for American “unilateralism” and “hegemony.” The unfolding catastrophe in Darfur offers a chilling view of what the alternative really looks like.

Thomas Hobbes was the philosopher who said that the natural state of human life is “nasty, brutish and short.”

The US has not stopped the murders there, but we may be kicking the regional powers into action, something they have avoided for two decades, while innocents died.

[Via One Hand Clapping]

Last Sunday I got into a discussion with some people about Iraq, terrorism, genocide, and the lack of will to stop it. I was somewhat surprised by their knowledge about the various genocides of the last two decades. You really have to work to find information about genocides and the national media continues to be negligent in this area. They knew that opportunities to stop genocides were missed but the responsibilities of the major players were ambiguous to them. I guess they were surprised when I tied together the problems with averting genocides to the problems with controlling terrorism. The UN and Western Europe have been particularly adverse to meddling in “civil” wars even when the situation is rapidly getting out of control and the only opportunity exists to avoid massive loss of life. It is my belief that preventing genocides should be one the UN’s primary missions. The UN sees itself as a father figure. The nice gentle father who loves and encourages everyone. The reality is that they are a poor father figure. When their children desparately need some discipline to grow up healthy, they are absent. Instead of helping promote healing before the conflict gets out of control the UN and the rest of the world is relegated to burying the bodies and tending to the wounded. The damage from the inaction of the few who can make a difference will take a generation or more to fade away.

The root cause of terrorism in the Middle East is the ineffectiveness of governments to be provide jobs and hope. I am sorry to say this but the people in the Middle East are jealous of the large middle classes in the Western world. High unemployment, diminished hope for the future, and jealousy is the breeding ground for terrorists. When more people are employed and poverty is diminished, terrorists will have a harder to time recruiting new members.

It is my belief that most of the people in the Middle East believe that a middle class lifestyle is a reasonable objective in their lifetime. A participatory government is the most effective way to achieve a large middle class. The problem is that an effective model government that incorporates participatory government does not exist at this timefor Middle East countries. There are some potential role models in the Middle East and the US is going to force its version in Iraq. A side benefit of the war in Iraq is the increased willingness of Middle East governments to review and revise their governing style. They have been forced to make a choice and they have chosen to expand the freedoms and opportunities of their people while surpressing terrorists. They paying the price in blood as the terrorists try to topple the weaker governments. Spain has undoubtably given the terrorists greater hopes for success.

So what does this have to do with Iraq. I believe that Iraq under Saddam was a powder keg looking for a spark. Saddam had actively surpressed his people and his grasp on the disadvantaged in his country was precarious. Poverty and hunger was rampamt. Iraq was and still is a potentially great breeding ground for terrorists. Iraq had all of the tools of war the terrorists desired. Although Saddam may not have liked the idea of working with the terrorists, I think a deal was inevitable. Saddam could not keep control of his country without the terrorists leaving him alone. From the perspective of the US a regime change was necessary for its safety and the safety of the world. From the perspective of the people in the Middle East, regime change is a risk but a risk made more palatable by the hope of a middle class lifestyle in their lifetime.

UNSCAM UPDATE:

Many U.N. employees fear reprisals from their bosses if they step forward with information on the Iraq oil-for-food scandal or report other allegations of corruption, according to a shocking internal survey released yesterday.

A recent poll of 6,086 employees and managers released on the U.N. Web site revealed that the staff has little faith in the world body leadership's commitment to ethics and integrity and that most believe that when allegations of wrongdoing surface, they are not properly handled.

The survey, conducted by an outside consulting firm for the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight, also revealed that a large plurality of the staffers feel unprotected from reprisals for reporting violations because the United Nations does not have strong enough whistleblower protection and is run by an "old-boys network."

[Via Instapundit.com]

It is probably taking all of the power of the presidency to keep the UN scandal from unraveling before the Iraqi government change over. Once the Iraqi government gets on its feet, I think the dam will break and the accusations of corruption and bribery will begin in earnest. I would not be surprised if Bush is re-elected that Congress will require UN reform before they will authorize funding. I am guessing that Congress will feel less bold and sure they of themselves if Kerry is elected.

Social security – whose fault?

When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income tax each year,
4. That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

---

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

---

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

---

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this county, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

[Via The Braden Files]