…reporting World War II. Strategy Page has given me a bunch of satirical essay ideas today:
HUNDREDS OF SAILORS STILL TRAPPED UNDERWATER
Victims’ Families: Pearl Rescue Efforts “Disgraceful”
WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS SUPERBOMB PLANS
Catholic Bishops Condemn Secret “Manhattan Project”
FDR WITH MISTRESS IN DEATH ROOM
Warm Springs Scandal
When Jim McGreevey declared that he was a “gay American,” I declared him a bisexual American, with much disagreement in my comments section (though Tammy Bruce agreed with me). Well, now it turns out that his “boyfriend” (who claims to be straight) says that I was right:
Through lawyers, Cipel had threatened to sue McGreevey for sexual harassment shortly before and after McGreevey’s resignation. A lawsuit was never filed.
“I think McGreevey had no choice. There was a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. And he didn’t know what to do, and his advisers told him, ‘come out first,’ and he would be perceived as the victim” and thereby gain control of the story, Cipel said.
While he said McGreevey did make sexual advances toward him on several occasions, Cipel said the former governor also frequently spoke about heterosexual encounters, including sex with prostitutes on trips to Germany and the Dominican Republic.
“I believe that Jim McGreevey is bisexual,” Cipel said.
Color me unsurprised.
FreeAlabamistan writes about the cult of the media.
Why are we watching AP repeat the same basic mistake that CBS committed with Dan Rather’s fake-but-accurate National Guard debacle?
Two words: “Everybody knows.” Anyone who has studied anthropology, sociology or mass psychology understands how false beliefs can become conventional wisdom within groups if (a) high-status individuals within the group advocate the belief, and (b) there is no one inside the group to dispute the false belief.
That, in short, is the herd-mentality explanation of why liberal bias pervades the MSM. It’s also the explanation of the Heaven’s Gate cult (whose members acted on the belief that they must commit suicide in order to be taken aboard a cosmic mothership traveling behind the Hale-Bopp comet). Where group membership is dependent upon shared belief, where skepticism of key beliefs is viewed as disloyalty to the group, and where non-believers are stigmatized, marginalized and excluded, the truth or falsehood of group beliefs is moot. Logic and evidence, so far as they might undermine belief, are unwelcome. This is how it becomes possible for groups to act upon false beliefs.
It’s one of those stories too good to fact check, because they want so badly to believe anything bad about Iraq (read: bad about Bush).
I wonder what the center picture is on this web page? And what the “15” means? Years until it flies…?
[Update late morning]
As a commenter notes, it’s not Chinese, but Korean, which I should have known by the name of the publication.
I wonder what the center picture is on this web page? And what the “15” means? Years until it flies…?
[Update late morning]
As a commenter notes, it’s not Chinese, but Korean, which I should have known by the name of the publication.
I wonder what the center picture is on this web page? And what the “15” means? Years until it flies…?
[Update late morning]
As a commenter notes, it’s not Chinese, but Korean, which I should have known by the name of the publication.
Krauthammer, on the “Iraq Study Group”:
Everyone now says that the key to stopping the fighting in Iraq is political — again, as if this were another great discovery. It’s been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach. The military price would have been prohibitive and the victory ephemeral without a political compromise. And that kind of compromise — vesting the Sunnis with proportionate political and financial (i.e. oil) power — is something the Shiites, at least those now comprising the Maliki government, seem incapable of doing.
The U.S. should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: if he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the U.S. will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, move much of its personnel to Kurdistan where we are welcome and safe, and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a new coalition that would.
The key to progress is political change within Iraq. The newest fashion, however, is to go “regional,” engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This idea rests on the notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq.
Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq — which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.
A true “realist” would recognize that we are in fact at war with Syria and Iran. Stories like this certainly make it hard to avoid that conclusion:
According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
Krauthammer, on the “Iraq Study Group”:
Everyone now says that the key to stopping the fighting in Iraq is political — again, as if this were another great discovery. It’s been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach. The military price would have been prohibitive and the victory ephemeral without a political compromise. And that kind of compromise — vesting the Sunnis with proportionate political and financial (i.e. oil) power — is something the Shiites, at least those now comprising the Maliki government, seem incapable of doing.
The U.S. should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: if he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the U.S. will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, move much of its personnel to Kurdistan where we are welcome and safe, and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a new coalition that would.
The key to progress is political change within Iraq. The newest fashion, however, is to go “regional,” engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This idea rests on the notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq.
Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq — which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.
A true “realist” would recognize that we are in fact at war with Syria and Iran. Stories like this certainly make it hard to avoid that conclusion:
According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
Krauthammer, on the “Iraq Study Group”:
Everyone now says that the key to stopping the fighting in Iraq is political — again, as if this were another great discovery. It’s been clear for at least a year that a military solution to the insurgency was out of our reach. The military price would have been prohibitive and the victory ephemeral without a political compromise. And that kind of compromise — vesting the Sunnis with proportionate political and financial (i.e. oil) power — is something the Shiites, at least those now comprising the Maliki government, seem incapable of doing.
The U.S. should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: if he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the U.S. will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, move much of its personnel to Kurdistan where we are welcome and safe, and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a new coalition that would.
The key to progress is political change within Iraq. The newest fashion, however, is to go “regional,” engaging Iran and Syria in order to have them pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This idea rests on the notion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in stability in Iraq.
Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq — which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.
A true “realist” would recognize that we are in fact at war with Syria and Iran. Stories like this certainly make it hard to avoid that conclusion:
According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
This isn’t particularly profound, but it’s interesting to see a growing awareness of transhumanism and its implications among the non-technical commentariat. Mona Charen on life extension:
Let’s stipulate that for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it (i.e., most Americans), science will make it possible for people