I just heard a segment on Fox News in which they pointed out how the misleading language of both politicians and pundits has distorted the discussion, similar to this post of mine a few weeks ago.

They specifically called out the phrases “unilateral,” “rush to war,” and “ally,” and pointed out that many of the so-called “peace protests” often turn violent. They also called Reuters on their continuing refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist.

I just heard a segment on Fox News in which they pointed out how the misleading language of both politicians and pundits has distorted the discussion, similar to this post of mine a few weeks ago.

They specifically called out the phrases “unilateral,” “rush to war,” and “ally,” and pointed out that many of the so-called “peace protests” often turn violent. They also called Reuters on their continuing refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist.

I just heard a segment on Fox News in which they pointed out how the misleading language of both politicians and pundits has distorted the discussion, similar to this post of mine a few weeks ago.

They specifically called out the phrases “unilateral,” “rush to war,” and “ally,” and pointed out that many of the so-called “peace protests” often turn violent. They also called Reuters on their continuing refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist.

Supposed leftist Mark Grueter has an interesting essay on the “self-righteous dupes” who would keep Saddam in power.

Most of the same people that oppose a war against Saddam opposed the war in Afghanistan, as well as the war on terrorism in general. And they are making very similar arguments in all cases, which, when simplified amount to something like, ?a war will do much more harm than any good.? However, their dire predictions about Afghanistan were shown to be false. The campaign did not create a humanitarian catastrophe, scores of people did not starve to death (6 million was the estimate); millions of refugees did not pour over the border; it did not become a ?quagmire.? (Refer to any of the literature coming out of the Left, in September and October 2001 especially, for examples of these claims). Civilian casualties were avoided whenever possible, in part because of the precision technology mastered over years of massive military budgets. Noam Chomsky and his co-thinkers like to cite a former professor of mine, Marc Herold, who calculated that US bombings have killed 3,000 Afghani civilians (?at least?) and counting. Herold derived this figure from a collection of European and Arab newspaper reports. The presumed and often stated objective of this tally is to demonstrate moral equivalence between the 9/11 incident and US retaliation.

All other non-Pentagon, usually left-leaning efforts to add up the numbers have yielded much lower results (approximately 1,000 was the highest). And there is an important moral and intellectual distinction between premeditated killing, which is murder, and unintentional killing or killing in self-defense, which is not. The long-term effect of the raid will almost certainly end up saving many more lives (and provide improved lives for millions more) in the long run than those that were taken away. This is grim business for sure, but as long as the ?principled? Left refuses to engage in this complex, necessary debate it cannot have an impact on actual policy. In this sense Hitchens is correct – the Left is ?irrelevant.?

He once again exposes the current left as not so much for anything, as against Amerikkka.

Martin Walker explains why the proclamations of Tony Blair’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

Martin Walker explains why the proclamations of Tony Blair’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

Martin Walker explains why the proclamations of Tony Blair’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

How can this story be true? I was told that we’ve been much too distracted by the unnecessary attack on Iraq to wage the “war on terrorism.”

Here’s an interesting backstory on TWA Flight 800. I don’t have any other information on it, only Jack Cashill’s take, but if he’s correct, there was clearly a lot of hanky panky going on in the investigation. I don’t have any firm opinions about what actually happened, but as in the Vince Foster case, I don’t lend much credibility to the official report.

It will be interesting to see if any media besides World Net Daily pick this up.

Apparently the Dixie Chicks made some comments the other day in London about being ashamed to share a home state with the President.

“I feel the president is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world,” Maines said in the statement. “My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.” And while Maines maintains her beef with Bush, she’s much more supportive of the United States troops.

“While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost,” Maines said.

It wasn’t reported whether or not she had any fright, or even mild concern, about all the innocent lives that are currently being lost under Saddam’s brutal regime.

I can’t imagine that this will be helpful to their record sales. It seems to me that few people will go out and buy an album because they hear an artist say something with which they feel political sympathy, but I’m sure that there are many, particularly among their audience, who will boycott them over stupid statements.