Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Women of the Nazi War Machine

Monday, July 19th, 2010

New York Times:

Amid the horrors of the Holocaust, the atrocities perpetrated by a few brutal women have always stood out, like aberrations of nature.

Nazi WomenThere were notorious camp guards like Ilse Koch and Irma Grese. And lesser known killers like Erna Petri, the wife of an SS officer and a mother who was convicted of shooting to death six Jewish children in Nazi-occupied Poland; or Johanna Altvater Zelle, a German secretary accused of child murder in the Volodymyr-Volynskyy ghetto in Nazi-occupied Ukraine.

The Nazi killing machine was undoubtedly a male-dominated affair. But according to new research, the participation of German women in the genocide, as perpetrators, accomplices or passive witnesses, was far greater than previously thought.

The researcher, Wendy Lower, an American historian now living in Munich, has drawn attention to the number of seemingly ordinary German women who willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories as part of the war effort, to areas where genocide was openly occurring.

“Thousands would be a conservative estimate,” Ms. Lower said in an interview in Jerusalem last week.
Only 1 or 2 percent of the perpetrators were women, according to Ms. Lower. But in many cases where genocide was taking place, German women were very close by. Several witnesses have described festive banquets near mass shooting sites in the Ukrainian forests, with German women providing refreshments for the shooting squads whose work often went on for days.

Ms. Petri was married to an SS officer who ran an agricultural estate, complete with a colonial-style manor house and slave laborers, in Galicia, in occupied Poland. She later confessed to having murdered six Jewish children, aged 6 to 12. She came across them while out riding in her carriage. She was the mother of two young children, and was 25 at the time. Near naked, the Jewish children had apparently escaped from a railroad car bound for the Sobibor camp. She took them home, fed them, then led them into the woods and shot them one by one.

She told her interrogators that she had done so, in part, because she wanted to prove herself to the men.

She was tried in East Germany and served a life sentence.

Just wow. Insane times. I can see why people would show some reticence about writing it down.

Seven Reasons Why You Can’t Build a Political Party Around Moderates

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Hawkins explores each one; but my favorites are #2 and #4.

2) Because moderates tend to be much less ideological, less knowledgeable about politics, and less informed than liberals and conservatives, it’s entirely possible that even if our candidate’s views are closer to their views, they won’t be capable of figuring it out (That’s exactly how it worked with McCain and Obama, for example).
4) Moderates may not know a lot about politics, but they do at least know that they can’t trust the press. So, how do they decide whom to vote for? I would suggest to you that many of them largely base their decisions on anecdotal evidence.

What do I mean by that? Let’s take the current election. What did a moderate voter hear from his liberal friends about Obama? “He’s the greatest hope for America! He’s wonderful! He’ll solve all our problems!” Now, what did that same moderate hear from his conservative friends about McCain? “He’d probably be a lousy President, but he’d still be better than Obama.”

In other words, if conservatives aren’t enthusiastic about their nominee, moderates are going to take cues from that and cast their votes accordingly. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so counter-productive to antagonize conservatives in an effort to draw in moderates.

As I pointed out lately, we suffer from a tragic loss of good judgment when we figure out how to use words like “centrist,” “moderate” and “extremist.” We don’t have a very good picture of what an “extremist conservative” is. Most of us, across all different kinds of ideological regions on the spectrum, think that has something to do with being mean. Lacking compassion. Unpleasant. Stingy. Reactionary. A bit of a dickhole. Exclusionary. You get the picture. A Grade-A1 USDA Prime piece of jackass.

Here’s how I see it:

Human history tells us something important about human nature, and what it tells us is altogether unflattering: The things that are most reliably demonstrated to be bad ideas, are the ones we try the most often. That’s just the way it is.

I mean, overall. Not across the board. Some things work quite well, and we do those things often too. Let’s make murder illegal. When people show they don’t care about breaking the law, let’s lock them up. On those, there really isn’t very much disagreement.

Let’s take money away from people who have it, and give it to those who don’t…

…that’s been tried so many times. It’s supposed to create some kind of wonderful society, one where no one is ever left wanting for anything. It’s had hundreds of years to work out that way. And it hasn’t yet. We’re still waiting on it. And our resolve to keep trying it again and again, has in recent generations become something of an obsession. We’re like the wolf licking at the razor blade, faster and faster as he gets more and more of a taste of blood.

Let’s show compassion to those who kill our wives and children, by letting them out of prison, and when they see our compassion they’ll stop killing. That’s another one.

You know, it really isn’t fair if you just come up with an idea, you get to copyright it and own it, as if you did some “real” work when all you did was think of an idea. Knowledge should belong to the world.

Stop asking her father for permission to marry her. Naive stupid young girls who just want a sexy appealing party-stud, and don’t care about a man’s financial stability, should have the final say in who’s going to knock ’em up.

Businesses lack compassion. Let’s force them to stop business-ing, and when we need the things those businesses make, let’s put the government in the business of doing that business-ing instead. Because anyone knows when it’s compassion you want you should make a bee-line straight to the nearest government bureaucrat who’s thirty seconds late for his lunch break, and there you’ll find all you can handle.

I could add to this list ALL day…don’t tempt me…

So here’s what an “extremist conservative” really is. An extremist conservative looks at all those bad ideas we’ve put into practice many times already, that have never worked out one single time, and does what common sense people do. He says “fuck it.” He dumps it all in an outhouse, then he moves the outhouse building so no one can ever find the dumbass idea he just dumped in, and pours cement in the hole so the dumbass idea can never be used again even if it’s somehow found. If he’s even more extreme than that, he decides to do it even sooner. And if he’s the most extreme conservative you’ll ever know and you’ll ever meet — he uses his intellectual gifts to figure out why this is a dumbass idea that’s never going to work.

What’s a liberal do? He says let’s give it another try.

A moderate liberal says let’s try just a little bit of it.

An extremist liberal says let’s never give up trying no matter what.

And the moderate conservative? Well, the sad, vicious truth of it is these people are just liars. Liars or dupes. History says “the dumbass idea never worked once” and the liberals say “don’t you dare believe that, it’s an ‘urban legend’.” And the moderate conservative says “Alright! You guys know best!”

Meanwhile, the dumbass idea never worked because it’s never gonna work.

And the guys who notice it hasn’t worked and can’t work…we call them “extremist conservatives” so we can give ourselves an excuse to keep trying it.

That’s the truth. Dress it up however you want, but that’s how it is.

Top Ten Pain in the Ass Taxes in History

Friday, August 28th, 2009

I’m late to the party here. AskMen put this up on tax day, April 15. It’s a good little nugget of research, handy for restoring the sense of perspective…or reminding yourself of what an inherently antisocial thing the tax really is…whichever seems appropriate to ya.

England only showed up twice in the list, or three times, depending on whether you think a pre-Norman Saxon society is English or not.

I’m not having much faith in the list-maker’s sense of judgment here about taxes. America’s death tax didn’t make the cut. Neither did capital gains, or the tax hike on the “wealthy” that started in the early 1930’s and continued onward from there. But it’s so outrageous that poor Al Gore has to pay a tax on his Nobel Peace Prize…when Gore’s sole contribution has been to lay the groundwork for what might very well turn out to be the most idiotic tax in all of world history.

If there was an cluelessly-unintentional-irony tax, you’d be going on the IRS’s installment plan right about now mister list-maker guy, and you’d be paying on it awhile.

D-Day, 2009

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

In front of you, over the steel helmets of other men, you can see the flat surface of the bow’s landing ramp still held in place against the sea. Soon you are in range of the machine guns that line the beach ahead. The metallic dead sound of their bullets clangs and whines off the front of the ramp. And the coxswain shouts and the bullhorn sounds and you feel the keel of the LST grind against the rocks and sand of Normandy as the large shells from the boats in the armada behind you whuffle and moan overhead and the explosions all around increase in intensity and the bullets from the guns in the cliffs ahead and above shake the boat and the men crouch lower and yet lean, together, forward as, at last, the ramp drops down and you see the beach and the men surge forward and you step with them and you are out in the chill waters of the channel wading in towards sand already doused with death, past bodies bobbing in the surf staining the waters crimson, and then you are on the beach.

It’s worse on the beach. The bullets keep probing along the sand digging holes, looking for your body, finding others that drop down like sacks of meat with their lines to heaven cut. You run forward because there’s nothing but ocean at your back and more men dying and… somehow… you reach a small sliver of shelter at the base of the cliffs. There are others there, confused and cowering and not at all ready to go back out into the storm of steel that keeps pouring down. And then someone, somewhere nearby, tells you all to press forward, to go on, to somehow get off that beach and onto the high ground behind it, and because you don’t know what else to do, you rise up and you move forward, beginning, one foot after another, to take back the continent of Europe.


Picture from Images of War.

United in Hate with America’s Foes

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Dr. Sanity revisits her Four Pillars of Socialist Revival:

In the few short months that the dedicated leftist Barack Obama has been in the White House, we have seen a rapid acceleration of the “forces of revolution” rising to overth[r]ow this country. Obama’s World Apology and America Bashing Tour is nothing if not a crystal clear delin[e]ation of the sides of this battle. There is no dictator or tyrant he won’t abase himself to, or belittle his country for; there is no ally that he is not willing to give up or betray in order to demonstrate his willingness to submit to Islamic bullying.
All four of these strategies arose from the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical dead-end that traditional Marxism found itself in toward the end of the 20th century. Fortunately, postmodern philosophy has led them out of the “wilderness” of rational thought and objective reality, and brought them to the promised land; which, as it turns out, is a neo-Marxist revival, accelerated by the fascist goals of leftist environmentalism.

The intellectuals of the left have been unable to abandon their totalitarian/collectivist ideology, even after communism and national socialism proved to be crushing failures in the 20th century. But the new face of their same old tired ideas has been rehabilitated and madeover by their clever adoption of postmodern metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Slowly, but relentlessly, the dogma of multiculturalism and political correctness has been absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last two decades–and after the end of the cold war, it has been accelerating. Slowly but relentlessly they have found new ways to discredit freedom, individuality and capitalism.

Hat tip: Gerard.

If the Giant Step Stumbled

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

…and if the small step was the last one. The speech Nixon would’ve given, if Armstrong and Aldrin weren’t able to get back.

While Neil Armstrong’s immortal lines “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” have entered history, 233 other words, written for a tragedy that everyone hoped would never happen, were consigned to an archive and forgotten until now.

They are contained in a typed memo from President Richard Nixon’s speechwriter, Bill Safire, to White House chief of staff Harry Haldeman, dated July 18, 1969 – two days before the landing was due.

Chillingly entitled “In the event of Moon disaster”, the stark message brings home just how dangerous the mission was.

If Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin had been stranded on the Moon, unable to return to Michael Collins’s orbiting Apollo 11 command ship, Nixon would have called their widows then addressed a horror-struck nation.

“Fate has ordained that the men who went to the Moon to explore in peace will stay on the Moon to rest in peace,” he would have told the watching millions.

These brave men know there is no hope for their recovery but they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

“These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

“They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.”
Once the speech had been delivered, Mission Control would have closed communications and a clergyman would have conducted a burial service like the one used at sea.

The memo lay dormant for decades in Nixon’s private papers in America’s national archives, laid aside once the astronauts had completed their perilous mission.

Of course a lot of things can change in the cultural climate of a nation in forty years, especially in its political echelons. So it’s worthy of note that no mention is made…things didn’t work out too well here, because of the greed of a few billionaires and the Failed Policies of the Johnson Administration.

After all, much was messed up in the late 1960’s. But back in those days, every once in awhile, shit-happened. It wasn’t absolutely, positively necessary to find a lightning-rod scapegoat for every single disaster.


Saturday, April 18th, 2009

Doctor Frankenstein

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Did he create the monster that is rampaging through our economic village?

In 1985, aged 30, Mr. [Michael] Osinski and the woman who was now his wife moved to New York, and he landed his first job on Wall St with Salomon Bros as a programmer. “In the pecking order, the computer guys were slight above the typing pool, figuratively and literally,” he said. “We were a necessary annoyance for the traders.”

But that was all about to change. Just two years earlier, finance firms had started experimenting with “securitisation”, the process of turning mortgages into securities designed to spread the risk to lenders and investors.

When Mr Osinski asked his manager how these securities worked, he was told: “You put chicken into the grinder and out comes sirloin.” His boss added perceptively that the bonds were also a guarantee of employment for computer programmers.
Mr Osinski bounced around various Wall St firms and ended up in 1995 with the company that supplied the software for nearly all the big finance houses. It was also around now that a client asked him to enhance his software to include a new ingredient – “subprime” debt. Mr Osinski’s reaction was excitement at the prospect of both new customers and new challenges.

The loans were so-called because they were made to people who failed to meet standard, or prime, borrowing requirements, presenting a higher risk that was covered by charging much higher interest rates than for borrowers with good credit histories.

With house prices rising year after year, the theory was that people could simply refinance their properties at higher values and take out new loans as their repayments increased. The laws of house price cycles were collectively forgotten or ignored, and lenders and borrowers alike were caught up in the wave of hubris, greed and naivety.

It’s a fascinating story. Perhaps I’m biased…but it seems to me the guilt Mr. Osinski bears for our financial crisis, is on par with the guilt shouldered by a gun manufacturer in the wake of a murder/suicide. He built the freakin’ tool. Just like Shane said about the sidearm — it’s as good or as evil as the man that carries it.

“It is certainly unnerving when you see the world crumbling around you and you have an intimate knowledge about how that process came about,” he said.

He has regrets every day, but they are tempered with the belief that others misused, sometimes fraudulently, his work. “One thing, don’t portray me as a monster,” he said, before going back to emptying the oyster cages he had just recovered from the sea-floor.

You know what we used to call this in my first job? GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This Is Good LX

Monday, March 30th, 2009


Future Present
Posted on March 29th, 2009 by Scipio

Our archeologist, while rummaging among the ruins of our fallen civilization, met a ghost from the long dead race of Americans. The wraith boasted much about what we had been as a people.

We died in the hundreds of thousands to end slavery here and around the world.

We invented Jazz.

We wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg address.

We went to the moon to see how far we could hit a golf ball.

We lifted a telescope into orbit that could see to the edge of the universe.

When people snuck into the country against our laws, we made parking lots and food stands off to the side of the road so they wouldn’t get hurt, and we let them use our hospitals for free, and we made their children citizens.

We didn’t care what God you worshipped as long as we could worship ours.

We let the People arm themselves at will. Just to make sure.

We gave everybody the vote.

We built Disneyworld. Just for fun.

We had a revolution so successful it was still going strong two and a quarter centuries later.

We had so many heroes, even at the end, that we felt free to hate them and burn them in effigy.

We electrified the guitar.

We invented a music so compelling that it rocked the world.

The archeologist asked, “If you accomplished all of this, then why did your nation collapse?” The ghost answered, “Because we went insane.”

“Please explain.”

The ghost took a breath and said, “We traded beauty for ugliness, truth for lies, liberty for comfort, love for indifference, responsibility for frivolity, duty for entertainment, history for sound bites, and children for pleasure. We had gold, but we tossed it aside and replaced it with cleverly designed dross. We turned men into women and women into men and marveled at our new creative power. We stopped looking up to Heaven and began to keep our gaze firmly fixed on the ground. We abandoned the old God for a host of hip, cool and slick new ones.”


“Those new gods turned on us. At first they granted us our every wish. They laughed with us. They danced with us. We all ate, drank and made all sorts of merry. All of us exulted in our power. And then…” Here the ghost stopped for a moment. His mouth was half open as if trying to speak. His body shuddered as it remembered an ancient terror. “But there were some among us who felt something was wrong, dreadfully wrong.”

“How so?”

There’s more…much more. What’re you still doing here?

Tim Wood

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

A student of history dares to compare Obama to Hitler.

Is stigma, alone, enough to discredit the point he’s made? Just yell “Godwin!” and walk away? Really?

by Tim Wood
2008 December 1

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten – fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two years. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money, yours and mine. And that is three times the 700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not, they now control us.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the messiah was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department-by-department, person-by-person, bureaucracy-by-bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the indigent, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media; did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ‘CHANGE’. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think that I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years, a shorter time span than just two terms of a U.S. presidency, it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors, all with the best of intentions of course. The road to Hell is always paved with them.

Obama’s Cabinet

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Well…I’m sure things will work out much better from here-on-out. Presidential administrations very often straighten-out and fly-right after stumbling out of the gate. It happens frequently. Frequently. Let me think…lemme think…

I’ll get back to you on that.

On the other hand, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen one cartoon sum up such a big mess, with just the right mix of biting humor and poignancy. Adam Zyglis, Buffalo News.

Everything You Know About the Vietnam War is Wrong: Part One

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Fellow Right Wing News contributor Kathy Shaidle.

This is not optional-reading…or shouldn’t be.

“Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.”

— Eddie Adams, photographer who took the (widely misunderstood) photo above

Failed Presidential Cabinet Appointments

Friday, February 6th, 2009

From 1789 to right this very minute, guess how many there’ve been?

Go on, take a guess, try to get it in the ballpark.

The Decade of Anarchy for Its Own Sake

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

And nobody can tell it better than Daphne. Boy, she really rights good for a chick*.

One day you’re sitting at the kitchen table eating your pancakes, watching your apron clad mother pour your dad a cup of coffee with one hand while spooning oatmeal into your baby brother’s mouth with the other. The next day, dad’s gone, something called divorce explodes in your house, and mom’s showing up for meetings with the Mother Superior in a mini skirt and go-go boots. Or worse, she’s hanging out upstairs in Lila’s apartment, drinking Sangria, reeking of cheap incense and pot, wearing love beads and painting anti-war posters with smelly hippies.

Daycare and babysitters became the norm. Not enough money was a constant. The word no a daily refrain to any request. Meals eaten in front of the TV, strange boyfriends enter and exit the stage with frequency, untended children in outgrown clothes roam the neighborhood, the man named Dad abdicates into a pale ghost of a figure, if not a distant memory. Small vestiges of the life before still remain, but they aren’t enough to keep a child moored on solid ground. The parents are striding headlong into the age of personal fulfillment, dragging their hapless kids along for the ride with the last vestige of adult responsibility they possess.

But everybody’s happy, right? Millennia old social conventions and chains of traditional expectation had been broken, adults were free to follow their whims without condemnation from the neighbors and society at large. Patriarchy had been buried, women had rights, Vietnam had been lost. The air was sweet in the land of no remorse or consequence. Until it wasn’t anymore.

Hat tip to Blogger Friend Buck.

*Yeah, I’m just being a smartass. A chauvinist-pig, homonym-confused smartass.

Teenage Guide to Popularity

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

It needs to be said, and I’ll tell you why: Among the hobgoblins on the innerwebs who want to do some arguing with me about what a great, great President the peanut farmer was, and how Obama is going to make us great like that once again, some three-quarters of them were born after we fired him and replaced him with Ronald Reagan.

The rest of them won’t say when they were born.

We ran from Vietnam like a bunch of scared big girls. The economy sucked. Cynicism and selfish, destructive behavior was rampant. Cars were hideous junk painted ugly “earth tones” like crap brown, condensed-milk yellow, ketchup-stain red, and garbage can green. (My father’s giant boat of a ‘73 Ford LTD was that color. Driving it was like trying to pilot the Hindenburg on the ground.) Fashions made men and women look like clowns.

Actually, my recollection was that fashion made men look just like women, and women look just like men. It was the decade of “Deplore l’Difference.”

I think that sums up the whole thing right there — anybody who was anything, should live out their existence as that thing, with just a hint of regret for being it. Men shouldn’t be happy to be men, women shouldn’t be happy to be women, America shouldn’t be happy to be America, veterans shouldn’t have been proud to be veterans, rich people should’ve regreted being rich, white guys should’ve wished they were black, black people should’ve wished they were white, straight people should’ve wished they were gay, blue-collars should’ve wished they were white-collars and vice-versa.

Remembering The 70’s had some more recollections:

For those of tender age who don’t remember President Jimmy, please do your homework. He remains the worst President in modern history. Inflation at 20% plus,oil prices through the roof, impotent regarding our hostages in Iran, double digit interest rates, the US as the laughing stock of the World, etc., etc. His solution to high oil prices for the winter: “Wear a sweater.” Please, Jimmy, hide for another twenty years! He only came out of hiding the last few years because none of the little yuppies know his record. From his recent comments, he’s either senile or a traitor.

Wear. A. Sweater. Yeah, that’s another one…people who had furnaces had to pretend they didn’t have one.

Live apologetically. That just about sums it up.

New Deal Wasn’t Big Enough?

Saturday, January 17th, 2009

Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at some more sudden hairpin-turning liberal looney logic that subtely deluges us lately:

Traditional conservative custodians of the budget can’t say much. They are largely discredited on matters of finance. During the last eight years of Republican prominence in Congress and the White House, the government borrowed as never before.

Liberals in turn have suddenly rewritten their own economic history. They used to claim the great surge in government under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression with deficit spending and federal jobs programs.

But many historians have argued instead that unemployment and slow growth remained high throughout Roosevelt’s first two terms — until the Second World War scared us all into a fit of national mobilization that alone ended the ongoing 13-year depression between 1929 and 1941.

Now here’s the irony: Liberals suddenly agree that only the Second World War stopped the Depression, after all! So they now argue that we need a new New Deal far greater than the old New Deal. In other words, they want to re-create the urgency of World War II to get government to grow and spend big-time.

Their argument is that if FDR failed to stop the Depression, it wasn’t, as conservatives insist, because he turned to unworkable government solutions, but rather because he didn’t try big enough ones.

The Road to Serfdom

Saturday, January 17th, 2009

Yeah, you really should put down what you’re doing and go read up. If, after skimming, you don’t agree it was worth your time to do so, I can pretty much promise you weren’t doing anything worthwhile when you got interrupted.

It was written by one F. A. Hayek between 1940 and 1944, and effectively predicts the world’s struggles with socialism in the years after World War II. The trailhead is the wartime necessity of “coming together for the greater good”; from there, even after the cessation of hostilities, the slope just becomes steeper and more slippery. People become acclimated to the notion that any challenge can be overcome we if can just be persuaded to put aside our sniveling, greedy little individualist ambitions and somehow be bludgeoned into following a few more rules.

But whose rules? After the last shovelful of earth falls on the casket holding the shattered remnants of libertarian spirit, we come across a problem of Too Many Chiefs Not Enough Indians. A strong opinion, it turns out, is not such a rare and precious thing; if it were, we’d seek out a wise man. But there is much power available to whoever came up with the plan that shall reign supreme, and this culminates in quite a different state of affairs. Endless bickering, squabbling…a wise man isn’t what’s needed, we just need someone strong. We need unity, gosh darn it, and if it doesn’t come naturally we will force it. That will make things better.

The prosperity and happiness of “everyone” depends on it.

It’ll really make you think about things. Or it should.

Hat tip: Classical values.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Sanders Got His Way

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

The plaque will be changed. All the background info you need is behind the link.

Commenter MNice speaks for me:

For those who were awake when it happened, the 9/11 atrocities DID lead to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole world knew that the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators, and were thus accessories after the fact in their war crimes. There were very strong indications that Saddam Hussein was also providing material support to al-Quaida and there was a high perceived risk that he would [provide] them with weapons of mass destruction. There was no question that Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, not once, but many times. 9/11 made it foolish to ignore that problem any longer, given what we knew at the time. The original plaque was historically correct. Senator Sanders is wrong for trying to obfuscate and obscure the facts.

Anthrax isn’t much discussed when we talk about possible connections between 9/11 and Iraq, or whether it was reasonable at the time to tie the two of ’em together. It should be:

…the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), one of the military labs that analyzed the Daschle anthrax [spores found in letter mailed to Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader at the time of the 2001 anthrax attacks], published an official newsletter stating that silica was a key aerosol enabling component of the Daschle anthrax. The AFIP lab deputy director, Florabel Mullick, said “This [silica] was a key component. Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

Inconvenient truths. Don’t worry, they is no more.

Standard Bearer?

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

I cannot find a source for this, anywhere. But I’d already researched all these facts, most of ’em anyway, at the time they rolled into my mailbox…at least, I was already aware of them at a thirty-thousand-foot level.

I don’t fault anyone for hearing of these tidbits and making a decision to dismiss them, and I don’t fault anyone for their indictments and grudges against Republicans who were deferred for pimples on their asses, or didn’t serve, or failed to fill out their billets in the Texas Air National Guard, or what-not.

To do both, however — to dismiss out-of-hand these things said against loyal democrats, and to embrace wholeheartedly the “high-grade dirt” dished out against influential Republicans — is an egregious sin of ideological puritanism. Or plain ol’ intellectual dishonesty. And it’s widespread. The effect is we now have a plurality of generations of people who are entirely unaware of what has really taken place…

Ted Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquiddick; As soon as cancer was found, I noticed the immediate attempt at canonization of old Teddy by the main stream media. They are saying what a “great American” he is. I say, let’s get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history.

1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it.. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him

2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops, the man can’t count to four. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him like “he” charged President Bush received.

3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris , never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. imagine a person of his “education” NEVER advancing past the rank of Private.

4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver’s license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959, amazing!!!

5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a “state secret” until in the 1980’s when the report was unsealed. Didn’t hear about that from the unbiased media, did we.

6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur’s keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.

7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, after passing several houses and a fire station. Then two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began “calling in favors”, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn’t call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy’s “political enemies” have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne’s family received a small payout from the Kennedy’s insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy’s family paid their attorney’s bills… a “token of friendship”?

8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the “standard-bearer for liberalism”. In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries.

9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of and increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the Pious grilling he gave the last two Supreme Court Nominees, as if he were the standard bearer for the nation in matters of right. What a pompous ass.

10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a better description than “great American”.

If you want to excuse all of the above because you like his political agenda, then fine. Just admit that’s what you’re doing, and I don’t wanna hear you trying to recruit people into hating Bush & Cheney because “he was born on third and thought he hit a triple.” There’s a saying about throwing stones when you live in a glass house, knowwhatimean?

George W. Bush’s Legacy

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Jon Swift is predicting George W. Bush will be remembered by history as one of our great Presidents.

Me? I don’t think there’s any question about it.

Although the White House has sent around its own talking points highlighting the President’s accomplishments, I don’t think they go far enough. So I have put together my own list of talking points, which should convince anyone why George W. Bush belongs on Mount Rushmore, along with Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the other guy.

I’ve been watching old Boston Legal episodes lately — pretty much everyone who knows me, and has seen it, has sworn up and down that I’d get hooked on it. They’re right, to a point, but there is one thing that bugs me.

Reports that you’d never in a million years know it was written by a lefty, I’m afraid, are mistaken. I can tell a lefty wrote it. I can tell this quite easily. Oh, the lefty lawyer says what lefties would say, that’s realistic enough. How his good bud the tighty-righty lawyer responds…some authenticity there, too. It’s what passes by without comment.

No, it isn’t the stuff about George W. Bush being an idiot. I know lots of conservatives who think Bush is an idiot. This I find realistic enough. It’s the little things. The things that pass by uncommented-upon. Here, I’ll give you an example —

The beady-eyed liberal lawyer thinks Guantanamo should be shut down. The entire episode degenerates into a debate about “this administration has kept us safe” versus “people disappearing in the dead-o-night being tortured.” Yeah, real people do argue that way, too.

Here’s the problem: The show makes the mistake of trying to address both the “Should the United States torture people” conundrum, and the thing about “Does the Constitution apply to non-citizens.” Now, the latter was decided at the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Wrongly, actually. And no I’m not saying that to address my own opinions, or what the old-n-pudgy Captain Kirk character should be saying — I’m saying what a strict-constructionist conclusion would have been. Hamdi was not a reasoned decision; it was not supposed to be. It was an “I like this and I don’t like that” decision.

But this lefty argument was presented not so much as a conclusion of the Hamdi decision, which wasn’t mentioned at all — it was presented parallel to that. So here’s the argument that was presented: Yeah, Guantanamo may or may not have to exist in order to continue to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks — but the Constitution forbids what we’re doing, like it or not. This is where the argument falls down. If it’s all about championing the death of common sense for the sake of the written law, well…the Constitution doesn’t apply to these detainees, like it or not. (At least, in the way it was described in this episode.) The left-wing argument was one of adhering to the sensibilities of nameless-faceless-strangers with regard to this legal matter over here, and then ignoring the sensibilities of nameless-faceless-strangers to uphold written statute over common sense with regard to that legal matter over there. And both of these whiplash-pretzel motions were necessary to preserve the desired conclusion of the argument, that we needed to shut Gitmo down.

All of this could be a legitimate argument, one suitably legitimate to discuss over scotch and cigars on the balcony of a law office. But it’s rather silly for that pretzel-reasoning to pass by without comment or challenge between two ideologically-opposed good-buddies. The old-n-pudgy Captain Kirk guy’s comments, instead, were used to further define what an adorably silly curmudgeon his character was…his lines had something to do with how a lot of other tyrants needed to be taken out, “and not because they’re brown people.” That’s the trouble with Manhattan humor. It’s only good when it’s potent as a tool to change real elections, and it’s only potent as a tool to change real elections when it asserts things that are not true.

But getting back to George Bush’s legacy. Quick: Name me a President that is a bad President, because he was a do-er. There are none. Presidents are bad Presidents because they’re awash in scandals, because they let things happen, because they were ineffectual, because they appointed their moral reprobate friends to high, influential and powerful positions.

Do-ers are remembered fondly, as our very best Presidents. They’re remembered even more fondly, if & when some among his contemporaries despised what he was doing. And when there were a whole lot of such contemporaries who despised what he was doing, he’s remembered by history even more fondly still…even if some of the objections to what he was doing, were in fact quite reasonable. Read some of the arguments against what Lincoln was doing. Read some of the comments against what Jefferson was doing. Read what the critics of Teddy Roosevelt had to say. Very good, morally upstanding, sturdy, reasoned arguments…far more respectable and durable than “BUSH KNEW!!1!”

Mind you, I disagree with Swift about Bush’s face being carved into a mountain. Won’t happen. But, those other gentlemen did make it up there. And this would have been quite a silly prospect to some of the folks who lived at the same time, and had things to say against what those guys were doing.

Viewed in that light, George Bush’s legacy is not only much rosier than what you usually hear of it, but in all likelihood, it’s more secure than most.

Hooray For Inflation

Saturday, December 27th, 2008

The video put up at Another Rovian Conspiracy just before Christmas is an absolute must-see.

Especially now, because what just happened to our country might not be so much a repeat of nineteen ninety-two, as nineteen thirty-two. And the notion that the Great Depression ended because of Roosevelt’s policies, rather than in spite of them, is now moribund. Facts are not kind to it.

It comes down to this: Pouring cream in ditches to rot, while a few hundred miles away, a baby starves and its mother’s body can no longer produce milk. Pigs are slaughtered and left to rot while in other parts of the country, a family sits down to soup made with rotten cabbage because there’s nothing else to eat. Policies like these aren’t part of some urban legend. They really happened. They were really implemented, because those boys in Washington were so smart.

This is the burden of a brain trust. When you’re oh so super duper smart, and you feel the weight of keeping that kind of reputation alive and going strong, you’re forbidden from pointing out the obvious. Every little thing that comes out of your mouth has to have this touch of irony to it, this “you wouldn’t think so, but Bob says it’s true.” You have to contradict common sense, to show how smart you are. Up becomes down, women become men, children become wizened old sages, surrendering your guns becomes an act of responsible self-defense, starvation becomes nourishment.

So in a country filled with starving babies, we pour cream in ditches. In a country where nobody has enough money to spare for the essentials, we create artificial inflation.

There is a phrase that appears repeatedly in Atlas Shrugged that I’m hearing over and over again on the news. I find it alarming that nobody’s taken the time or trouble to re-word it, even slightly. That phrase, just like the ultra-smart people, precedes irony — things antithetical to common sense.

The phrase is “In Times Like These.”

Atlas Shrugged is a story of society’s most intelligent and productive people, being requested to sacrifice themselves, by other people whom the prevailing viewpoint thinks are the most intelligent and productive people. (They’re requested to do this, right before they are forced to.) And so the phrase is repeated over and over again. There’s this mindset that wet has to become dry, in has to become out, and, most of all, self-destruction is by its very nature constructive. Common sense has to be contradicted, because this helps to show how desperate these times really are. Up has become the new down.

It’s a whole different world, one inhabited by people who have the reputation of being super-duper-smart and feel the burden of keeping that reputation alive. So they say dumb things to show how smart they are. Dumb, after all, is the new smart.

Sadly, the Great Depression, just like the economic woes that take place in the here-and-now, occurred on Earth. Right here. A place where up is up, light is light, darkness is darkness, and when a baby is hungry and there’s food around, you feed the baby. This love we have of smart people spouting unnecessarily ironic things, which the rest of us then dutifully follow to demonstrate our commitment to climbing out of this hole that we’re making deeper, will, indeed, make the hole much, much deeper. At least, if our present course is left unchanged.

After all, we’ve shown our capability for following this sad formula before. That’s where this so-called “Bad Economy” can really hurt us. By turning things upside down. Every time I hear that phrase, “In Times Like These,” I become further convinced that this is where we’re headed…because here on Earth, most of the things that make perfect sense in fat times, generally make just as much sense in the lean ones.

Why Infamy?

Sunday, December 7th, 2008

Steeljaw Scribe, not favorably impressed with the way September 11 has been diminished in seven short years to a simple “optional head nod,” is wondering where December 7 is going to go with the passage of time.

I have no answer for this; in fact, I’m inspired to come up with a question.

President Roosevelt commented in passing that this was “a date which will live in infamy.” It was unnecessary for him to go into the reasons why that would be so, and back then it would have been a silly question to ask. After this seven-year media blitz that has successfully muted the horror of September 11, which is December-seven’s tragic grandchild…it has sadly become necessary…as a whole menagerie of viewpoints that would have been patently absurd all those decades ago, are now legitimized.

Here are my offerings.

1. December 7 is a date which will live in infamy because those dirty rotten creepy jerks suddenly and deliberately attacked us, when no state of war existed with us, in order to cripple our fleet.
2. December 7 is a date which will live in infamy because we were caught with our pants down, with our fleet unwisely congregated around a single central point, when it should not have been.
3. December 7 is a date which will live in infamy because our jingoistic policies and our swaggering cowboy mentality had provoked oppressed persons around the world to despise us.
4. December 7 is a date which will live in infamy because it inspired an overly-aggressive foreign polikcy and provoked widespread feelings of hyper-patriotism.

I imagine you could easily round up some “ordinary” Americans who’d be down with any one of those four, perhaps more than one. If that’s the case, it would be dishonest and silly to drone on at length about all the “infamy” involved in this date, without elaborating at some point about why exactly it is there. Seems to me some of those ideas are taken somewhat seriously only because they’re never taken completely seriously.

Being taken seriously can be rough treatment on an untested idea. Let see if they’re up to it.

And if the date remains infamous, but the justification for the infamy is going to rock over time…like a barstool shifting from one leg to another, but remaining the same height…it goes without saying it would be good for our national sanity to admit that’s what’s going on.

Happy Repeal Day

Friday, December 5th, 2008

…and it’s on a Friday. Well, I know how I’m going to be celebrating…

A virtual toast to all you nobodies.

Blood on Gorelick’s Hands

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Thank you Duffy. It’s about time this stuff was pointed out.

This is what happens when public servants mold and shape policies to prove what wonderful people they are. Moderation is the first casualty. Gosh, it just seems to make sense, doesn’t it — if a little of something proves you’re a great guy or gal, a whole lot of it would prove you’re just a walking bundle of amazement, wouldn’t it? “These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance” — Sorry, Jamie. In the real world, people will come to whatever conclusion they want to form. There’s no such thing as a policy that will stop that. Not in a society that allows freedom of speech and freedom of thought. In fact, it’s best just to presume that all politicians are scumbags, and when the time comes to form policies, form them based on that premise. That way nobody has to prove anything.

But you thought you had something to prove. And that you could somehow prove it. God only knows what unknown misdeeds, what skeletons in your closet, for which you were trying to atone, to gulp endlessly at some elixir trying to slake the thirst of a guilty conscience.

Whatever. You reformed policy to try to prove what a great wonderful public servant you are…going beyond what the law requires. And then people get killed. End of story.

Thanks a bunch.

George W.’s War

Sunday, June 22nd, 2008

No way to tease it without spoiling it. Just read it.

Operation Overlord’s 64th

Friday, June 6th, 2008

We remember…


Saturday, May 24th, 2008

…is here. Uber-cool timelines, millenium-to-continent matrices, maps galore.

H/T: Maggie’s Farm.

This Is Good L

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

The PictureYou really should head on over to American Digest and read up on Gerard’s conversation with the old guy named Frank.

It’s a lesson for us all about living in our designated segments, however long they may be, in the time stream…with a subtle seasoning involving good old fashioned humility. Having lived in that mini-tropolis for a few years myself, I was fully on board with Gerard’s opening quips about “the city thought it needed such a museum in order to qualify as a first-rate city…There’s a lot of that kind of stuff in this town.” That resonated with me, since I got that impression back in my Seattle days. Distinctly.

Now, I have the distinct impression I was sort of led along down a primrose path for the twist ending, to sort of help the lesson settle in a bit better. It’s quite a twist. It might be lost on most, save for those who have something of a natural interest in photography, genealogy, keepers of diaries…and the like. To those who appreciate such things, this goes into the must-not-miss file. Do yourself a favor, and make the time to read from top to bottom.

Historians Speak for History

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

…insofar as how it will remember George W. Bush.

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can’t be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush’s presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.

“Informal” is right. What if it were more formal, something with more gravity than an anonymous, smarmy remark being compiled into an “informal survey” with more of the same? What if there were stakes involved? Imagine the thinking that would be going on if you asked 109 professional historians to put money down on the answer.

History shows just a few definite trends in figuring out who is “worst”; I don’t agree with them all, but they’re there. And the traits for which history seems to look, aren’t sported in abundance by the current President. They are things like…just off the top of my head…obscurity. Unless you’re a “buff,” you’ve got no clue who the guy was, when he served, what he did. That can apply to Millard Fillmore or Franklin Pierce, perhaps, and who can argue against the statement that those two gentlemen are consistently nominated for the bottom slots. But George W. Bush? In a generation or two, it’ll be tough to remember who he was or what he did? On what planet?

Damage and polarization in the republic…well, that’s a matter of opinion and his critics have a right to theirs. For precedent, we have Andrew Johnson. And who else? Our nation’s other impeached President, Bill Clinton, was certainly a polarizing figure — seems to me I’m entitled to my opinion that he did some damage — I don’t see anyone putting him in the bottom slot. Just a few right-wing nutballs like me. Why, he spoke so eloquently when he told us things that weren’t true, he must’ve been great. But who else did some damage to the country’s sense of unity, and consequently was remembered by history as a crappy President? John Adams is sometimes placed in the bottom half, but never so far as I can recall in the few bottom slots. Andrew Jackson? Franklin Roosevelt? Nope.

Scandal…this has had the effect of flunking out Ulysses Grant here & there, sometimes. But history is beginning to wake up about him. Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, yup. Bill Clinton? Eh. The pattern has been disrupted. Looks like we’re going through a change of direction in how history remembers scandal; she seems to find it arousing lately. Actually, is George Bush’s administration marred by scandal any more than any other? I know we’re often instructed that we should think so. But it can be difficult to assess that in an era when you’re living in it. That’s why we have history in the first place, right?

The big common factor in our historically lousy Presidents, is that they were complacent and they didn’t get an awful lot done. Well, most of the criticism thrown at President Bush, I notice, is awkwardly constructed and cobbled together according to a haphazard design that presumes complacency to be a good thing, since the Commander-in-Chief is regarded by friends and foes alike as anything-but. Okay, then. When you start out with the objective of making him a bad President, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. Not getting an awful lot done? Here again, the criticism for President Bush invariably arises from something he did.

Toppled, Like It Or NotSo now it’s in two distinct areas: Current sensibilities manage to achieve the desired condemnation of the current President, by sustaining values oppositional to what is embraced by “history.”

Now about this thing he did. Was that contrary to the well-being of the country over which he’s supposed to preside?

Well I suppose the fairest answer is going to be that history will take awhile to figure that one out. Suppose history eventually decides toward the negative. Quickly, now — what other President in our nation’s history became a “bad” President, by doing something that was really hard to do, that a lot of people opposed when he did it…but not until just a few weeks before he got serious about doing it? What President became “bad” because he mobilized the military in an operation, with which some among us disagreed, and said operation actually incurred a death toll?

But you really don’t need to get into all that to raise a red flag or two about the study.

It says 98% of them consider it a failure. How high does the number have to be before one is inclined to call shenanigans?

Perhaps what we need, is a study on studies like this one. Who gets ’em going, how they get going, who participates and why. Actually, I’ve got the oddest feeling history is going to be pretty curious about that.

On the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Statement from President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998 on signing the Iraq Liberation Act.

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

Clinton talked. Bush did.