Mark Steyn:The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled

Mark Steyn has release another article, The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled, that deserves reading. Steyn's basic premise always is that Middle East stability is a Very Bad Thing not a Very Good Thing because it creates a hothouse for human monsters (e.g., Saddam, the Taliban, the Iranians, et al). Even if Bush's actions create a bigger mess it cannot be worse than that "stability" that brewed 9/11.

Here's Steyn:

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.

Steyn then gives a list of local improvments in the Middle East since the Iraqi Jan 30^th elections when he poinst out something that suprised me:

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes.

Wow! That is a "Cats and Dogs living together" story if I ever heard one. Of course I don't know how widespread this phenomena was. There was a inability to find any pictures of the ritual post terror-attack Palestinian celebrations; so there seems to be movement in the right direction.

I also wonder about those Palestinians who “expressed anger” at the terrorists who were threatening “their” peace. Were they here all along? Were they just keeping quite before because Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat would have them killed if he were still alive?

Just asking.

via Lucianne.

White House St. Patrick's Day minus Sinn Fein

I love the Bush Whitehouse. Now Bush is snubbing Irish terrorists. What next? Maybe he'll begin snubbing supports of Hamas, like Chariac.

According to Swissinfo, The White House is likely to celebrate St. Patrick's Day this yearwithout inviting members of Sinn Fein or any other political parties from Northern Ireland.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Long overdue. Now maybe Blair will grow a pair of balls and demand that that the Irish elect leaders who are compromised by terrorism.

Dublin and London blame the Irish Republican Army for a $50 million (26 million pound) bank robbery in Belfast in December and accuse leaders of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political ally, of sanctioning the raid. Sinn Fein and the IRA deny involvement in the robbery.

The White House was expected to make a final decision this week, but it was likely to decide against inviting leaders of Northern Ireland's political parties, including Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, for the traditional St. Patrick's Day reception.

Syria's Dead End

I've just encountered a new—at least new for me—blog named Syria Comment. In a post entitled Syria's Dead End, Joshua Landis stated:

The Hariri assassination has placed the Europeans in a very awkward position. If they don't agree to economic sanctions, the US will accuse them of sanctioning murder. Bashar's blunders have cut the legs from underneath Europe. A few days ago, when the Canadian PM claimed that the Lebanese situation was a delicate one and that Syrian troops played an important role in maintaining security, he set off an uproar. Opposition members and supporters alike forced him to retract his statement. When Solana &mdash the EU foreign minister — initially said that Europe's relationship with Syria would not change until the author of Hariri's murder had been found, his words were drowned out by Tsunami of American and French accusations. Europe will have to give way to America on the Syria-Lebanon question. Chirac has stated that Lebanon is France's Iraq. All Europe will soon be confusing Beirut with Baghdad.

HAHAHAHA! Chirac thinks that Lebanon is France's Iraq? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Chirac is having delusions of adaquacy again.

All of that aside, Joshua Landis wrote a very interesting "inside baseball" post regarding the situation in Lebanon and Syria. Consider it required reading.

hat tip to Lucianne.

Postscrpt:
All added emphasis is mine.

Beloved Leader has found a practical use for France

Beloved Leader (no, not Bush, Kim Jung Il, silly) has some advice for Bush:

He could buy Malta and use it as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Med. And use France as a bombing range.

As Glen Reynolds would say: Heh.

The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Wow! What an article!

Left coast conservative columnist (I felt weird typing that phrase) Cinnamon Stillwell explains her “road to Damascus” switch from a standard California leftist to being a conservative in her article, The Making Of A 9/11 Republican.

As one of a handful of Bay Area conservative columnists, I'm no stranger to pushing buttons. Indeed, I welcome feedback from readers, whether positive or negative. I find the interplay stimulating, but I am often bemused by the stereotypical assumptions made by my critics on the left. It's not enough to simply disagree with my views; I have to be twisted into a conservative caricature that apparently makes opponents feel superior. They seem not to have considered that it's possible to put forward different approaches to various societal problems and not be the devil incarnate.

But in some ways I understand where this perspective comes from, because I once shared it. I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (Cinnamon) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

The leftists’ most annoying characteristic is their relentless assumption of moral superiority.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. … I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. …

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

Notice her leftist colleagues had absolutely no sense of shared fate with their fellow countrymen. Their indifference is the sort that would be slightly more appropriate if they were citizens of another country, not this country. In a way, this is logical. Most leftists have a transnationalist outlook and consequently don’t have an emotional attachment to our country; they can’t hide it.

The other noteworthy point is the total lack of compassion shown for their country and for the 9/11 victims. This indifference is shows her leftist colleagues are complete moral midgets.

Of course the same group of said moral midgets can be guaranteed to assert that they have the most refined sense of moral ethics available. Why during the 80’s, when Africans of European decent denied English common law rights to Africans of African decent in the country of South Africa these same folks—or folks just like her colleagues—were picketing the South African embassy. But let jihadist racial cleansers kill 3,000 Americans on our mainland and “Bush got his war!”

[Adopting a Colombo tone of voice] Just one more question: where did Cinnamon Stillwell work on September 11, 2001? Did she work as a columnist in a newspaper back then? If yes then this means that her co-workers—the same moral midgets who were smugly indifferent to 3,000 American deaths on the mainland—were employed by the mainstream media! Think about the mindset of those who work in the MSM the next time you’re viewing or reading its products.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

Although my initial agreement with voices on the right centered on the war on terrorism, I began to find myself in concurrence with other aspects of conservative political philosophy as well. Smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics and the benefits of living in a meritocracy all became important to me. In truth, it turns out I was already conservative on many of these subjects but had never been willing to admit as much.

In my search for like-minded individuals, I also gravitated toward the religiously observant. This was somewhat revolutionary, considering my former liberal discomfort with religious folk, but I found myself in agreement on a number of issues. When it came to support for Israel, Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists were natural allies. As the left rained down vicious attacks on Israel, commentators on the right (with the exception of Pat Buchanan and his ilk) became staunch supporters of the nation. The fact that I'm not a particularly religious person myself had little bearing on this political relationship, for it's entirely possible to be secular and not be antireligious. Unlike the secular fundamentalists who make it their mission in life to destroy all vestiges of America's Judeo-Christian heritage, I have come to value this legacy.

So I became what's now commonly known as a "9/11 Republican." Living in a time of war, disenchanted with the left and disappointed with the obstructionism and lack of vision of the Democratic Party, I threw in my hat with the only party that seemed to be offering solutions, rather than simply tearing away at our country. I went from voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 to proudly casting my ballot for George W. Bush in 2004. This doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with Bush on every issue, but there is enough common ground to support his party overall. In the wake of this political transformation, I discovered that I was not alone. It turned out that there are other 9/11 Republicans out there, both in the Bay Area and beyond, and they have been coming out of the woodwork.

Like many a political convert, I took it on myself to openly oppose the politics of those with which I once shared world views. Beyond writing, I put myself on the front lines of this ideological battle by taking part in counterprotests at the antiwar rallies leading up to the war in Iraq. This turned out to be a further wake-up call, because it was there that I encountered more intolerance than ever before in my life. Holding pro-Iraq-liberation signs and American flags, I was spat on, called names, intimidated, threatened, attacked, cursed and, on a good day, simply argued with. It was clear that any deviation from the prevailing leftist groupthink of the Bay Area was considered a threat to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

It was at such protests that I also had my first real brushes with anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel sentiment on the left -- inexorably linked to anti-Americanism -- ran high at these events and boiled over into Jew hatred on more than one occasion. The pro-Palestinian sympathies of the left had led to a bizarre commingling of pacifism, Communism and Arab nationalism. So it was not uncommon to see kaffiyeh-clad college students chanting Hamas slogans, graying hippies wearing "Intifada" T-shirts, Che Guevera backpacks, and signs equating Zionism with Nazism, all against a backdrop of peace, patchouli and tie-dye.

…In the end, the blatant anti-Semitism on the left, even among Jews, only strengthened my political transformation. I was, in effect, radicalized by the radicals.

But more than anything, it was the left's hypocrisy when it came to the war on terrorism that made me turn rightward after 9/11. I remember, back in my liberal days, being fiercely opposed to the Taliban and its brutal treatment of women. Even then, I felt that Afghanistan should immediately be liberated, as Malcolm X once said in another context, by any means necessary. But when it came time, it turned out that the left was mostly opposed to such liberation, whether of the Afghan people or of the Iraqis (especially if America and a Republican president were at the helm).

Indeed, liberals had become strangely conservative in their fierce attachment to the status quo. In contrast, the much-maligned neoconservatives (among whose ranks I count myself) and Bush had become the "radicals," bringing freedom and democracy to the despotic Middle East. Is it any wonder that in such a topsy-turvy world, I found myself in agreement with those I'd formerly denounced?

Cinnamon Stillwell’s complaint regarding “liberals [becoming] strangely conservative” and liberal hypocrisy are breathtakingly bland. I much prefer to apply Christopher Hitching’s observation regarding Noam Chomsky to them: the left’s support of the underdogs has mutated into support for the mad dogs.

My riposte to Hitching’s comment is that this is nothing new; the left has always supported the mad dogs of this world. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro all got a pass at the time from the American left.

All of this means is that there is nothing strange about today’s leftists' behavior; the left’s primary technique has always been framing indictments against the U.S. The left never felt the need to be internally self consistent because the indictments were never sincere in the first place; they were all just another weapon to attack the U.S. with.

The war on terrorism is nothing more than the great struggle of our time, and, like the earlier ones against fascism and totalitarianism, we ignore it at our peril. Whether or not one accepts that we are engaged in a war, our enemies have declared it so. It took the horrors of 9/11 to awaken me to this reality, but for others, such lessons remain unlearned. For me, it was self-evident that in Islamic terrorism, America had found a nihilistic threat that sought to wipe out not only Western civilization but also civilization itself.

The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas, stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed "progressives." Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists.

In the end, history will be the judge, and each of us will have to think about what legacy we wish to leave to future generations. If there's one thing I've learned since 9/11, it's that it's never too late to alter one's place in the great scheme of things.

Why does Cinnamon Stillwell assume that the left’s sympathies are “misguided”? The left supported tyrants such as Stalin when he was starving his farmers to death and they support a tyrant like Castro today. What’s the inconsistency?

Hat tip to KelliPundit.

Postscript:
I added all the emphasis in the quoted article.

Well it looks like somebody in Damascus is hitting the panic button

The Daily Tory-Graph reports that Syria has cut a secret deal where Iran will hold Iraqi atomic weapons scientists that have become too hot (dare I say radioactive?) for Syria to handle.

Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.

BU-WHA-HAHAHAHAHA! I love it when these self-esteemed tough-guys begin cracking.

There’s a lot of intestinal infortitude going around recently. Just last year Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi decided to give up his nuclear weapons program after he saw where it got Saddam: in a U.S. cage.

Isn’t it a wonder how these same guys are so much more self-confident when a Democrat is U.S. president? Today Syria's President Asad is assuredly cursing his wretched luck that that Kerry wasn’t elected president in 2004.

This just hasn’t been Asad’s year. First of all, Bush was reelected. This is not good, not if you’re Syrian President Asad. In fact, if you’re President Asad then that has the potential to be fatal. Second, Bush calls him out—in major speeches such at the State of the Union Address—for “creating instability” in the Middle East. Instability is a code word for providing support for the al Qaeda and Baathist death squads operating in Iraq. Then the Syrian instigated assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister has backfired real badly and created yet another justification for Bush to change the regime in Damascus. And now he’s being busted holding Iraqi nuclear weapon scientists.

Way to go Bashir! If you’re trying to bump yourself to the head of the “regime change” line you’re certainly going about it the right way!

Anyway, the Daily Telegraph article has even more interesting points:

The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.

Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.

American intelligence officials are concerned that Syria is secretly working on a number of WMD programmes.

They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Yup, Asad is showing himself to be a such a fast learner. NOT! This exactly how Saddam got himself free room, free board and free attorneys to defend him in his upcoming crimes-against-humanity trials.

Sheesh, Muammar Gadhafi is crazier than a tree full of coons and he figured this one out last year. Bush is blessed with unusually stupid enemies—and I’m not just referring to his political opponents.

Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon.

Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus.

So he thinks the Iranians will help him develop his bomb after they get theirs working? That’s really stupid. Nobody every wants the nuclear club to get any bigger once they join it and the Iranians are no different.

And just what Asad is going to do about it if the Iranians develop a nuke with the assistance of the Iraqi weapon scientists and Iran reneges on the agreement to reciprocate? Sue them? Invade a nuclear Iran? HA!

The Syrian offer comes at a time when Iran is under close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating claims that Iran is maintaining a secret nuclear bomb programme.

The Iranians couldn’t care less about the UN. For them it is “go nuclear or bust!”

And now this late-breaking new: The Scotsman reports that Syria handed Saddam’s half-brother over to us as a “good will” gesture. (Too late for you, Asad!) Anyway, here the details on this:

A HALF-BROTHER of Saddam Hussein, who was one of his most reviled enforcers, has been arrested in Syria on suspicion of bankrolling anti-coalition insurgents, Iraqi officials said yesterday.

Sabawi Ibrahim Hasan, a strongman who once served as a head of Saddam’s feared security services, was held after nearly two years on the run. Syrian authorities captured him and handed him over to Iraq in an apparent goodwill gesture.

He was number 36 on the deck of 55 most-wanted Iraqis issued by United States troops after Saddam’s fall in April 2003. He also featured in the US list of the top 30 people sought for supporting the insurgency.

Yeah, right; a “good will” gesture, huh? That was more like a “please don’t change my regime” gesture. That’s so not enough to let Asad off the hook. Saddam’s missing WMDs are believed to have been passed to Syria during the few months before the war and hidden in Lebanon's Bekaa valley and we want them--all of them.

Mark my words; in pursuit of these WMDs Bush will go through Syria and Lebanon like a Tasmanian devil—and he will find them.

Asad is doomed.

Man who aspired to assassinate Bush educated in Saudi funded Islamic high school

Little Green Footballs reported some details about the guy who intended to assassinate Bush that somehow were hardly reported in the MSM: he was educated in an Islamic high school funded by the Saudis:

Mainstream media identified Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the US citizen charged with conspiring to assassinate President Bush, as "a former Virginia high school valedictorian." Sounds pretty respectable, eh?

What they didn't tell you: he was valedictorian of the American madrassa known as the Islamic Saudi Academy, and his father worked at the Royal Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC. Rusty Shackleford has details: Terrorist Son of Saudi Embassy Worker Attended Saudi Run School.

Jawa is all over this one.

Hat tip lgf

Fred Barnes is flogging a Cheney Presidency

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard is talking up the idea that Cheney could run for president. Yes, I know Cheney has specifically stated that he wouldn’t consider it. One of the reasons he hasn’t run before is because he couldn’t raise the needed money and one of the reasons for inability to fundraise is that he was too much of an insider and has a—how you say—somewhat colorless personality.

Things are different now. Everybody is now familiar with Cheney and I think that the GOP fund-raising apparatus would line up behind him if he decided to run.

While my intellectual preference for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008 is Cheney my emotional preference is for Condi Rice. Hillary is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and I would just love to see Condi dismembering Hillary in the debates.

That being said, I think that it may be best for Condi to have four to eight years experience as VP before she advances to president. Of course, there are an untold number of circumstances that may derail her chances of making it to the presidency as of now her odds are as good as anyone’s.

In fact, I think I’d just as happy with either a Cheney- Rice ticket as a Rice-Cheney ticket.

Discover the Network

David Horowitz has just released a new site named Discover the Network which combines a nifty visual display applet, a search engine and a database populated with over 1,500 leftist organizations, groups, institutions and individuals.

The site is still new and I encountered a few bugs in its search engine operation. The site is still quite usable even in the presence of these bugs and I assume these defects will eventually be corrected. I have high expectations for this site. After playing with it for short while I am now thinking of it as a means for "googling leftists".

Try it! You'll Like It!

Top aide to al-Zarqawi captured

The Jerusalem Post has an article (AP), that, reports:

Iraqi forces captured a top aide to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who leads a bloody al-Qaida-linked insurgency believed behind a relentless wave of car bombings, kidnappings, and beheadings across the country, the government said Friday.

We're getting closer and closer to al-Zarqawi; hopefully we're on the verge of bagging that snake.

Dogs and Cats living together: the Spiegel speculates that Bush might be right afer all

The German periodical, Spiegel, in an ephemeral fit of lucidity, published an article that acknowledges that Bush was right all along and German public—along with Chancellor Schroeder—were wrong. Nobody needs to get their hopes up or anything, this is the same magazine that published this trash about the U.S.; I doubt anything has really changed.

Anyway, for what it is worth, here are a few selected quotes:

Germany loves to criticize US President George W. Bush's Middle East policies -- just like Germany loved to criticize former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, when he demanded that Gorbachev remove the Berlin Wall, turned out to be right. Could history repeat itself?

Don’t look now, but it already has in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don’t wake up fast enough your going to miss Syria, Iran and North Korea. Of course it doesn’t matter if you’re awake or not because you won’t have a damn thing to do with any of it unless you count selling arms to Syria and nuclear reactors to Iraq.

Like Bush's visit, Reagan's trip was likewise accompanied by unprecedented security precautions… the Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate -- and the Berlin Wall -- and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.

“Realpolitik looks different”, eh? Well how real is your realpolitik? Right now your realpolitiklooks damn unrealistic. After all, you would have us believe that it was your realpolitik that caused you to take what you assume that Bush’s failures in Afghanistan and Iraq were unavoidable.

But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination -- a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany.

The German left—and all other “lefts”—opposed German unification because it would mean another reduction in the real estate controlled by—and the people enslaved by—communism.

There is more of this drivel in this month’s article ; if you want to read it. I don’t see why you would, next month they’ll be bashing the U.S. again.

Tim Blair: ROVE'S BRILLIANT PLAN

According to Little Green Footballs, Tim Blair and IowaHawk are in some kind of competition to out-satire Congressman Maurice Hinchey’s monumentally stupid theory that Karl Rove manufactured the Texas Air National Guard memos that Dan Rather got himself fired over.

I’ll recite the background details for those of you who missed the first part of the story line because you were still buying popcorn in the lobby.

Last Sunday, Feb 20^th, 2005, LGF posted an account of an incident where Democratic Congressman Hinchey began expounding, in front of a live audience, about his theory that Karl Rove was behind the fake memos that terminated Dan Ra^ther’s career. It just so happened that a certain member of the audience recorded Hinchey’s impromptu mental alchemy. Anyway, the gist of Hinchey’s brainstorm was that Karl Rove supposedly needed a way to distract attention from Bush’s alleged draft dodging and concocted obviously fake memos that were to be passed to Dan Ra^ther with the intent of creating a distraction from the primary issue: Bush’s draft dodging. Here’s Hinchey:

the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had ’em. They didn’t care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.

Now there are a couple of little, minor details that are only blindingly obvious to those who have working minds:

First, if the memos were such obvious fakes then why would anybody expect competent journalist, who are skilled in the art, to fall for them in the first place?

Second, how can Bush dodge a draft that he isn’t eligible for? Put another way, members of the military can’t be drafted for military service because they are already in the military.

These blindly stupid flaws in Hinchey’s theory actual have a function: they mask a number of rather run-of-the-mill stupid flaws in his theory

Now Hinchey has gone on al CNN and tried to rationalize smearing public officials with groundless allegations.

Predictable, the loons at DU (Democratic Underground) are hi-fiving each other over Hinchey demonstrating his willingness to smear public officials with groundless allegations. That’s to be expected.

OK, that just about wraps up the background to Tim Blair’s satire. I expect everybody recognizes players such as Ann Coulter, Gannon, Murdoch, et al. Let’s roll the tape:

Democrat congressman Maurice Hinchey, speaking on CNN, persists with the idea that Karl Rove devised the fake Rathergate memos:

It doesn’t take an awful lot of imagination if you’re thinking about who it is that might have produced these false documents to try to mislead people in this very cynical way. It would take someone very brilliant, very cynical, very Machiavellian, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to come up with the name of Karl Rove as a possibility of having done that.

Is Karl Rove truly that brilliant? Using contemporaneous reports and several eye-witness sources, this site is able to reconstruct the events of last August at Evil Rove Headquarters, located many miles beneath the earth’s surface:
(Rove enters the Chamber of Destruction and greets his assembled operatives)

Rove: Gentlemen. Ladies. Mr. Gannon. Mr. Murdoch.
(Various responses: “Hiya!” “Howdy.” “G’day.")

Rove: People, you have done good work. You have tirelessly attempted to undermine John Kerry’s bid for the presidency. And yet the latest polling shows that Kerry may still win.
(Murmured complaints: “Dang!” “This is soooo not happening.” “Can’t compete with a Magic Hat.")

Rove: Silence! I cannot tell you how much this disappoints and angers me.
(An assistant appears at Rove’s side with a baseball bat. He is waved away)

Rove: But now is not the time for fault-finding, or skull-crushing. Now is the time for action. Serious action. In fact, the most serious action it is possible for us to undertake.

Murdoch: You don’t mean ... ?

Rove: Yes. It is time for us to deploy the Doomsday Device.
(Several reel from the table in shock; two are ill)

Rove: Mr. Gannon, please fetch the Device. And put some pants on, for God’s sake.

Gannon: Y-yes sir. Right away, Mr. Karl, sir.
(Gannon exits the room; the anxious conspirators listen as the sound of several vaults being sequentially opened echoes throughout the Chamber. Presently Gannon returns, carrying a briefcase)

Rove: Open it.
(Gannon enters the security code—DAILYKOS—and the briefcase springs ajar. Looking away in fear and torment, he nudges the briefcase towards Rove)

Rove: And now it is time. Time to unveil our most hideous, most perfect plan. (Rove grips the briefcase with both hands) Do you people truly know of the evil that man can attain? Do you know of the Dark Lord’s majesty? Do you know of a terror so sublime that any lesser atrocity—Salem; the Holocaust; our coming assassination and cannibalism of the Pope—will from this point on make you giggle like little girls? Behold!

(Rove removes from the briefcase several sheets of paper. He studies them intently; every eye in the room is trained upon him. Finally, Rove speaks ...)

Rove: This is the frickin’ Doomsday Device? A bunch of bogus National Guard memos? What the hell?

Clarence Thomas: Well, what we thought we’d do, see, was hand these over to the media and ...

Rove: Oh, come on! These are dated 1972 but they’re in Microsoft Word! Hellloooo! You think anybody in their right mind will fall for these? Oh, look here; you haven’t even changed the default settings! Why, I could type these up at home!

Ann Coulter: With respect, sir, the plan was to ...

Rove: Plan? Plan? Listen, legs, this plan wouldn’t fool a Kennedy! Or a crack-addicted homeless person! This so-called plan wouldn’t rate a segment on Air America! This plan I’m looking at wouldn’t be posted at Democratic goddamn Underground! This half-assed, retard plan isn’t worth the ...

Hugh Hewitt: Actually, we were thinking of giving the memos to Dan Rather.

Rove: Proceed.

BU-WHA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Where do "Oil for Food" shills go when that caper ends?

The witty Steve Grahram's recent post,Scott Ritter Turns Tricks for Bloody Dinars, (subtitle: The REAL Whore of Babylon Squeaks Anew) notes that disgraced former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has a new gig, which I will let Steve tell you all about.

What was his old gig you ask? I so glad you asked! After he quit inspecting Iraq for weapons he began creating pro-Saddam Cockumentaries! MEMRI reported:

On January 25, 2004, the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada published a list of approximately 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's oil vouchers. [1] The report evoked reactions from many of those included in the list as well as from the Arab media, among them apologists for Saddam's regime. The fact that so many have opted for silence may give credence to the list's authenticity

[…]

Shaker Al-Khaffaji (7 million barrels) advanced $400,000 to Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. Ritter produced a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections, which in his telling were corrupted by sinister U.S. manipulation.

Ritter's motto: Will shill for Oil.

Anyway, here's Steve Graham:

Scott's new job, which ought to be prison laundry, is writing for AL JAZEERAH! Think about that for a minute. Scott Ritter, the patriotic Marine. Scott Ritter, who loves his country. He's writing for an outfit even more biased than the crew at 60 Minutes. Not just anti-Republican bias. Anti-AMERICAN bias.

Scott, you asshead, why don't you just buy yourself a dishcloth and a rocket launcher and get it over with?

Here's a quote from one of Scotty's fifth columns:

The highly vaunted US military machine, laurelled and praised for its historic march on Baghdad in March and April of 2003, today finds itself a broken force, on the defensive in a land that it may occupy in part, but does not control.

My God, it's Tokyo Rose with a penis.

David Spade for DNC chairman?

Here's a good article by Gloria Borger, Meet the new party of no, that humorously starts by ripping the Democrats for having an answer for everything: No! I mean, of course, that "No!" is the Democrats' answer for anything proposed by Republicans. Here's a teaser:

As it turns out, Howard Dean is not the best choice to lead the Democratic National Committee. If the party is looking for a new spokesman, there is a better choice--David Spade (with apologies to his Capital One ad):

Social Security reform? No. Clear some judges? No way, Jose. Find some agreement on national security? Nyet.

Democrats fear Social Security reform will work

The Daily News (Newburyport, Massachusetts) has an article, Democrats fear Social Security reform will work, that basically states what I already think abut the Democrat's actual motives. Here are some teasers:

Reid says Bush's proposal to let younger workers — and only those who want to — divert some of the Social Security taxes they pay into their own private investment accounts would turn that program from a guaranteed retirement safety net into a "guaranteed gamble."

I guess Reid ought to know about gambling, given that he represents Las Vegas ...

and

so far, seems to be the best scare tactic the Dems can muster. Bush wants to allow you to control some of your own money. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I swear, the Democrats should just switch mascots — replace the donkey with the Cowardly Lion. It's not just that they want to help the helpless. They want to force all of us to think we're helpless

and here's the best quote:

I think the greatest fear Dems have is not that elders will return to poverty, but that more of them actually might be able to lift themselves out of it over their working lifetimes. Democrats need poor people who think only government will save them, and they need them to stay poor.

That is not some right-wing insult. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey recalls Moynihan telling him that the reason Democrats are so afraid of Social Security reform is because it might make people wealthy, "and they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans."

That, I suspect, is what scares Harry Reid more than anything.

CIA predicts EU crackup in 15 years

The Scotsman has an article, CIA gives grim warning on European prospects, regarding a CIA report that forecasts a probable EU breakup by 2020.

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

Well that seems to be a rather understated. The EU is nothing but a collective of European nations that have agreed to synchronize their welfare state schemes and economic rights policies “upward” so that no nation can escape the EU’s suicide-pact-like consequences.

This synchronization of disastrous policies means that the European nations will—most likely—hold formation right up to the point where they crash into the ground together. My guess is that nobody, except the British, will bale-out soon enough to avoid a common disaster.

Anyway, it seems to me that Europe will become increasing irrelevant as it implodes. To say that such a failure “[undermines] its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role” is strangely coy.

It adds that the EU’s economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

Reflecting growing fears in the US that the pain of any proper reform would be too much to bear, the report adds that the experts it consulted "are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform".

The EU is also set for a looming demographic crisis because of a drop in birth rates and increased longevity, with devastating economic consequences.

The report says: "Either European countries adapt their workforces, reform their social welfare, education and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations [chiefly from Muslim countries] or they face a period of protracted economic stasis."

As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

"potentially triggering tensions" — Oooo... Ya think?

The report predicts that America’s relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

"The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it," the report adds. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question."

Defence spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, is likely to fall further behind China and other countries over the next 15 years. Collectively these countries will outspend all others except the US and possibly China.

This also means that the EU nations will become even more of a basket case before they go into the final stages of failure. Expect even less military spending. I would say that we should expect even less relevance from the EU nations but I cannot see how they can have any less relevance than they have now.

Put another way, watch for the EU to transmogrify into a Canadian-league geopolitical powerhouse: an ignored, invisible, impotent, effete, effeminate and mincing international metrosexual that is literally good for nothing. This stage is located between now and the eventual collapse.

The problem then becomes, I suppose, is that, yet again, the U.S. will find that it is in her self-interest to rescue Europe from yet another self inflicted disaster.

Why would it be in our national self-interest to help them? To prevent them from being converted into an Islamofascist satellite. The negative birthrates of the old European stock coupled with the positive birthrates of their Moslem emigrants means that Europe is already well underway to being an Islamic outpost.

A new European governmental structure of some kind will emerge following a major collapse. The question becomes “who’s influence will dominate shaping Europe’s post-collapse government, the U.S. or the mullahs?”

Of course, if Islamofascism isn’t defeated by 2020 then one of factors contributing it survival is European interference with our War on Terrorists. Put another way, their deliberate interference with our war on terrorists will also mean that we will be forced to rescue them from their self-inflicted collapse.

(sigh)

I guess irony is that the U.S. will end up having to rescue the EU countries—a mob of vain and dangerously wooly-headed and retarded countries, whose first and most basic impulse regarding all the world's ills is to find the American responsible for them—from a crises that they will be solely responsible for.

The expected next technological revolution will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster China and India’s prospects, the study predicts. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders. But whereas the US will retain its overall lead, the report warns "Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies".

For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships, such as those with Russia or North Africa, given the inter-dependence of pipeline delivery, the report argues. But this means the EU will have to deal with Russia, which the report also warns "faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care and a potentially explosive Aids situation".

Russia also borders an "unstable region" in the Caucasus and Central Asia, "the effects of which - Muslim extremism, terrorism and endemic conflict - are likely to continue spilling over into Russia".

The report also largely en dorses forecasts that by 2020 China’s gross domestic product will exceed that of individual western economic powers except for the US. India’s GDP will have overtaken or be overtaking European economies.

Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations their standard of living need not approach European and western levels to become important economic powers.

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.

Iiieeeee... my eyes!!!

Must..find..antidote..for..turning..into..stone

Hunting Killer Rabbits in a pond near you SOON!

Bob White emailed this bit of irony Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter.

Naming a war machine "Jimmy Carter" can only be accomplished via willful indifference to both logic and evidence. It simultaneously makes a U.S. Naval war ship seem only threatening to us and proves that someone, somewhere, has a really, really sick sense of humor.

I must hurt the miscreant very badly.

Welcome to the Healthcare System of the Future!

The future that the Clintons aspired to, anyway. I think I speak for most Americans when I say that I would rather have my leg taken off than have a Canadian style health care system and this article, Die in Britain, survive in the US, in the British politcal Journal, The Spectator, explains why.


Here's a teaser:

Suppose you come down with one of the big killer illnesses like cancer. Where do you want to be — London or New York? In Lincoln, Nebraska or Lincoln, Lincolnshire? Forget the money — we will come back to that — where do you have the best chance of staying alive?

The answer is clear. If you are a woman with breast cancer in Britain, you have (or at least a few years ago you had, since all medical statistics are a few years old) a 46 per cent chance of dying from it. In America, your chances of dying are far lower — only 25 per cent. Britain has one of the worst survival rates in the advanced world and America has the best.

If you are a man and you are diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate in Britain, you are more likely to die of it than not. You have a 57 per cent chance of departing this life. But in America you are likely to live. Your chances of dying from the disease are only 19 per cent. Once again, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America at the top.

Read the article. Savor your good fortune that you were born here.

This article describes the consequences of the system the Clintons were purposing to inflict on you and your family. Don’t’ worry for the Clintons, however, I know that they would had already designed some escape-hatch beforehand—they always do.

Like the ghost of Christmas future, this article is a forewarning of the consequences of wrong choices.

Hat tip to New Sisyphus.

Scott Ott: Eason Jordan Quits, Bloggers Mull Next Target

Proprietor of the Scrappleface satire site, Scott Ott, has just posted this fake news item.

New Sisyphus to MSM, re: Easongate: deal with it

New Sisphus observed the resignation of Eason Jordan by saying to the MSM:

Deal with it.

A good way to start may be by hiring a replacement for Eason who doesn't think that U.S. troops operate death squads targeting journalists or who doesn't think it's a good idea to gain cheap popularity with European elites by irresponsibly dragging our country's honor through the mud.

Hmmm.... New Sisphus pointed out something that I hadn't picked up on: Eason Jordan converted U.S. soldiers into death squads members.

That leads to my observation that what we're seeing is the typical leftist inversion: In my world U.S. soldiers are fighting al Qaeda death squads. In Eason Jordan's world U.S. soldiers are the death squads.

Seeing the Elephant

Joe Galloway has an article that I’m basically reciting. He published an email written by a soldier in Iraq.

The email itself is an example of superb writing. Any commentary I might add would just sully the effect, so I’ll just save it for another post.

WASHINGTON - The Internet, which fills our inboxes with spam and scams every day and keeps our delete keys shiny, occasionally delivers a real keeper, such as the words below, which were written by a graduate of West Point, Class of 2003, who's now at war in Iraq.

We tracked down the author, who gave us permission to quote from his letter so long as we didn't reveal his name.

Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant." This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've seen men tell lies to save lives: 'What happened to Sergeant A.?' The reply: 'C'mon man, he's all right - he's wondering if you'll be OK - he said y'all will have a beer together when you get to Germany.' SFC A. was lying 15 feet away on the other side of the bunker with two medics over him desperately trying to get either a pulse or a breath. The man who asked after SFC A. was himself bleeding from two gut wounds and rasping as he tried to talk with a collapsed lung. One of them made it; one did not.

"I've run for cover as fast as I've ever run - I'll hear the bass percussion thump of mortar rounds and rockets exploding as long as I live. I've heard the shrapnel as it shredded through the trailers my men live in and over my head. I've stood, gasping for breath, as I helped drag into a bunker a man so pale and badly bloodied I didn't even recognize him as a soldier I've known for months. I've run across open ground to find my soldiers and make sure I had everyone.

"I've raided houses, and shot off locks, and broken in windows. I've grabbed prisoners, and guarded them. I've looked into the faces of men who would have killed me if I'd driven past their IED (improvised explosive device) an hour later. I've looked at men who've killed two people I knew, and saw fear.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've seen a man without the back of his head and still done what I've been trained to do - 'medic!' I've cleaned up blood and brains so my soldiers wouldn't see it - taken pictures to document the scene, like I'm in some sort of bizarre cop show on TV.

"I've heard gunfire and hit the ground, heard it and closed my Humvee door, and heard it and just looked and figured it was too far off to worry about. I've seen men stacked up outside a house, ready to enter - some as scared as they could be, and some as calm as if they were picking up lunch from McDonald's. I've laughed at dead men, and watched a sergeant on the ground, laughing so hard he was crying, because my boots were stuck in a muddy field, all the while an Iraqi corpse was not five feet from him.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"I've bought drinks from Iraqis while new units watched in wonder from their trucks, pointing weapons in every direction, including the Iraqis my men were buying a Pepsi from. I've patrolled roads for eight hours at a time that combat support units spend days preparing to travel 10 miles on. I've laughed as other units sit terrified in traffic, fingers nervously on triggers, while my soldiers and I deftly whip around, drive on the wrong side of the road, and wave to Iraqis as we pass. I can recognize a Sadiqqi (Arabic for friend) from a Haji (Arabic word for someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, but our word for a bad guy); I know who to point my weapons at, and who to let pass.

"I've come in from my third 18-hour patrol in as many days with a full beard and stared at a major in a pressed uniform who hasn't left the wire since we've been here, daring him to tell me to shave. He looked at me, looked at the dust and sweat and dirt on my uniform, and went back to typing at his computer.

"I've stood with my men in the mess hall, surrounded by people whose idea of a bad day in Iraq is a six-hour shift manning a radio, and watched them give us a wide berth as we swagger in, dirty, smelly, tired, but sure in our knowledge that we pull the triggers, and we do what the Army does, and they, with their clean uniforms and weapons that have never fired, support us.

"I've given a kid water and Gatorade and made a friend for life. I've let them look through my sunglasses - no one wears them in this country but us - and watched them pretend to be an American soldier - a swaggering invincible machine, secure behind his sunglasses, only because the Iraqis can't see the fear in his eyes.

"I've said it a thousand times - 'God, I hate this country.' I've heard it a million times more - 'This place sucks.' In quieter moments, I've heard more profound things: 'Sir, this is a thousand times worse than I ever thought it would be.' Or, 'My wife and Sgt. B's wife were good friends - I hope she's taking it well.'

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."

I got my ears boxed by INDC

Yesterday I received a short note from, Bill, the proprietor of INDC Journal, informing me of a breach of blogger trackback etiquette.

My transgression was to register a trackback with one of his posts where my trackedbacked (is that a word?) post had neither a link nor any reference to his post.

Bill pointed out that this was considered a “frowned on” breach of etiquette.

OK, I didn’t know that said link was a requirement, but I do now. I had thought trackbacks were permissible if the trackedback post was germane and on topic.

My apologies to Bill and—since he isn’t the only one I’ve done this to—everyone else I’ve annoyed. I won’t do it again.

Eason Jordan knew MSM's culture would protect him

Yesterday Eason Jordan, a news executive at CNN, decided to resign due to the firestorm of criticism that CNN was drawing over his accusations that U.S. troops tortured and targeted journalists. In an Washington Post article recapping the account of this incident was this tidbit:

Steve Lovelady of Columbia Journalism Review e-mailed his verdict to New York University professor and blogger Jay Rosen: 'The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail.'

Abovitz, the Davos participant whose blog (is there anyone left in America who doesn't have one?) is called Fix the World, says in an interview that Jordan meant what he said about soldiers targeting journalists and that his later backpedaling was 'running, hiding and evading.'

'He was going on a rant and he thought he was among friends,' Abovitz says. [emphasis mine—johnh] 'I thought, if this is true this is the most horrible thing I've heard about the United States military in a long time.'

Abovitz says he had 'no idea' his post would cost 'a big news guy' like Jordan his job. 'What I do regret is that the level of accountability should not just be on one person. Is he the only one who's made a mistake and should be held accountable? Is it just the right wing going after Eason Jordan? It quickly became an agenda, right versus left.'

Note Abovitz's perception of why Eason Jordan permitted himself to speak freely: he thought he was among friends. Meaning that Eason Jordan believed that those present would protect him with their silence. This begs the question: who did Eason Jordan automatically assume would protect him? Well, for starters, he assumed that nobody in the audience—which was largely comprised of journalists—would alert the world of his slander against the U.S. military. He also believed—evidently correctly—that David Gergen wouldn’t voluntarily out him.

Obviously he didn’t count on the possibility of a blogger in the audience, however, but this is beside the point I’m trying to make. My point is that Eason Jordan knew that he could safely smear the U.S. military as he pleased because he was among MSM journalists. Put another way, Eason Jordan knew that a room full of journalists was an excellent risk if he felt like publicly smearing the U.S. military because they wouldn’t out him and not single journalist there disappointed him.

Think about this incident the next time you wonder about where most journalists stand on the U.S. military. This episode reveals the leftist reality distortion field that is such a part of the mainstream media’s culture.

True, David Gergen did confirm Eason Jordan’s statements when Michelle Malkin contacted him but I doubt that David Gergen would have raised the subject first. Let me be explicit, David Gergen—who I believe is particularly reluctant to lie—refused to cover for Eason Jordan when he directly asked about the specific allegations. What am I’m saying, however, is that I feel sure that David Gergen, if given the option, would have kept this story to himself.

Other tipbits about the blogosphere:

Michelle Malkin:

How brave of him to hand in his resignation on Friday night

The Anchoress has some completely scathing comments regarding an Eason Jordan apologist who said that Jordan was “tire-necklaced.”

Welcome PoliPundit readers!

I'm getting a slight Poli-lanche ever since KeliPundit commented on—and linked to—my post that refuted so much of FactCheck.org's hatchet-job on Bush's SS reform.

Welcome to my humble blog, Poli-Pundit folks! I hope you enjoy your visit.

And thank you, KeliPundit, for your kind words about that post.

Pajamahadeen nail another scalp to the wall

ABC News: CNN News Executive Eason Jordan Quits: "

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being 'unfairly tarnished' by the controversy.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted. "

Well done, Pajamahadeen! Our blogzkrieg has taken down another one.

First Rather and now Eason Jordan. Two down and a few hundred to go.

Of course Jordan had to spin it as 'he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.'

Controversy? What controversy? Was there ever a controversy that that CNN is run and staffed by anti-American leftists?

Hat tip to PoliPundit

CNN chief news executive, Eason Jordan, accuses U.S. Troops of torturing Journalists

Recently CNN chief news executive, Eason Jordan, created a firestorm with remarks he made in at the World Economic Forum at Davos Switzerland. At a session—ironically titled “Will Democracy Survive the Media?”—Eason Jordan “asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted”. Eason Jordan subsequently tried to backpedal after he was challenged by U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D).


Now it develops that the same guy who accused U.S. troops of targeting jounalists in Iraq was also accusing U.S. Troops of torturing Journalists in November:

'Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces,' Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.

Fact-checking FactCheck.org’s comments on Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms

After observing FactCheck.org's work during the last election I had come to regard the group as reasonably “fair and balanced”. Meaning, I’ve come to expect any differences between their conclusions and my opinion as an outcome caused by different reasoning—not malice. Not that saying I’ve I liked or agreed with everything they said but I but I didn’t see them as particularly partisan.

Unfortunately, FactCheck.org’s recent analysis of Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms, and whether Bush’s comments regarding SS reform in his State of the Union Address were accurate or fair, is flawed. Their analysis has a few false statements. A few times it unconvincing insinuates that Bush is withholding essential information about the consequences of his reforms when—in my view, anyway—this “withheld” information seemed perfectly obvious to me.

In FactCheck.org’s defense, their analysis doesn’t assign motives, evil or otherwise, to Bush or his statements. That’s good, objectivity means not pretending to have the ability to mind read. That being said, I discern that the person or persons who conducted this analysis are biased against Bush’s Social Security reform and this bias warped their analysis.

I will show that what FactCheck.org has produced is a political attack that is cross-dressed as a “neutral” analysis.

OK, let’s get started. Here is FactCheck.org on Social Security reform:

Summary
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private accounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits.[emphasis mine—johnh] He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.

FactCheck.org’s point, that Bush didn’t specify “what workers would have to give up to get those private accounts” and that the worker would have to give up a “proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits” is a little disingenuous. I’ll play my response straight anyway.

First of all, and I don’t think I’m the only one, I thought it was obvious that personal accounts were a partial exchange for some—but not all—Social Security benefits. Put another way, it is very commonplace to give up one thing in order to get another and it seemed obvious to me that this was another one of those cases.

Also, it is difficult to me to understand how anybody could logically conclude that this plan could ever be expected to:

1. Divert FICA withholding tax from Social Security, and


2. gradually correct Social Security’s fiscal imbalance

unless the reforms also reduced everybody’s load on the system. To be pedantic, reducing the load on Social Security can only mean that everyone draws less money from it.

That’s why personal accounts were selected as a way out of this mess in the first place: they reduce the Social Security system’s load.

Bruce Bartlett writes more lucidly on this subject than I do. Here is some of his commentary:

I have heard more than a few people discuss Social Security reform as if the private accounts will magically fix Social Security without any necessity of reducing benefits. Indeed, they are adamant that there not be any cut in benefits whatsoever, now or any time in the future.

Obviously, such a position is ludicrous. The whole point of creating private accounts has always been as part of a trade-off. Workers would lose future Social Security benefits, which is what stabilizes the system's finances, and the income earned on the accounts will compensate them for this loss.

In order to induce people to make this trade-off, Bush strongly emphasizes that the status quo is unsustainable in the long run. He points often to the fact that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in the year 2042. At that point, current projected revenues from the payroll tax will only cover about 75 percent of promised benefits. The implication is that benefits will either have to be cut across the board by 25 percent or the payroll tax rate will have to rise by about 4 percentage points.

I’m going to address FactCheck.org’s second point, the one about “many retirees … wouldn’t be able to touch their nest egg directly” and so on, later in this post.

Now we’ll pick up in the analysis where we left off.

analysis

Bush made Social Security the centerpiece of his Feb. 3 State of the Union address. He gave more details of how he proposes to change the system -- but left out facts that don't help his case.
Social Security "Headed Toward Bankruptcy?"
The President painted a dire picture of Social Security's finances:

Bush: The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy . And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.

"Bankruptcy" is a scary term that Democrats have used too, when it suited them, but it could easily give the wrong idea. Nobody is predicting that Social Security will go out of business the way a bankrupt business does. It would continue to pay benefits -- just not as many.

The President was a little more specific about that later in his address, while repeating the word "bankrupt":

Bush: By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt . If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

But how severe would those benefit cuts be? In fact there are two official projections -- one by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and a somewhat less pessimistic projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system's trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.

The CBO doesn't project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a "bankrupt" system would continue to provide most of what's promised currently.

OK, lets stop the tape here. FactCheck.org shopped around and found an organization, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that has arrived at a slightly different conclusion: ten whole years. This means that the CBO basically agrees with the Bush administration in general but has a minor disagreement about the time line.

By the way, arriving at different conclusions is easy if you just plug in slightly different assumptions into your models. In these sorts of political fights both the “hawks” (i.e., the pro-SS reform folks) and “doves” (i.e., the anti-SS reform folks) will plug in defensible assumptions that are selected because they yield the results that favor their arguments. The truth is probably between the extremes and I suspect that it is much closer to Bush’s position. Of course this is just my opinion since I don’t have the talent to do my own calculations.

Now regarding the CBO’s assertion that a 78% reduction of promised benefits would be needed as opposed to the administration’s 73% guess: this dispute is over only a 5% difference between the President and his critics. In my view, either reduction is a whole lot worse than Bush’s plan, which calls for a 0% reduction.

Furthermore, the President did not specify what he would do to fix the problem. He again urged creation of private Social Security accounts. But those would be of no help whatsoever in shoring up the system's finances, as acknowledged earlier in the day by a senior Bush administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity:

"Senior Administration Official:" So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.

Well, I have to say that I’m astounded that FactCheck.org understood that the “Senior Administration Official’s” statement, “the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security”, to mean that personal accounts “would be of no help whatsoever in shoring up the [Social Security] system's finances”!

Think about this for a minute: FactCheck.org would have us believe that the Bush administration is conceding, up front, that Social Security reform can be expected to temporarily incur a huge deficit, expose investors to some slight risk that they will experience some loss and, at the end of the day, the Social Security system will be fiscally no better off than it is now. Put another way, FactCheck.org is saying that Bush intends on spending enormous political capital and cause the nation to take on a huge temporary deficit so as to accomplish nothing!

Simply put, the implications of their statement are unbelievable.

The following is a quote from a transcript of the "Background Press Briefing on Social Security," [pdf] which occurred on 2 Feb 2005. This is the same transcript that FactCheck.org has taken their quotes from. I’ve shown the sentence fragment quoted by FactCheck.org within the context of the two paragraphs where it was located. These paragraphs clearly shows that whatever “net neutral effect on [Social Security’s] fiscal situation” might mean, it cannot mean that Social Security’s fiscal dilemma is unimproved.

With respect to the fiscal effects of the personal accounts, in a long-term sense -- and I know those of you who have talked to me have heard me say this before -- but in the long-term sense, obviously, the personal accounts, as we would structure them, would not create a net new cost for the system. To the extent that people put money in these accounts and invest in these accounts, there would be a corresponding reduction in the government's liabilities from the Social Security system that is equal in present value to the money placed in the personal accounts up front. So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.

I would hasten to point out that this is distinct from something like an add-on account, where under an add-on account you actually would have a net new cost because you would have -- you would require resources up front to fund the accounts, but the accounts, themselves, would be creating additional -- or would be a part of an additional program or additional obligations on top of the current Social Security system, rather than addressing existing obligations. So an add-on account would add to the net cost of the system, but the accounts as we are envisioning them would actually be no net cost for the system over time.

My reading of these paragraphs leads me to conclude that the “Senior Administration Official” was trying to say that introducing personal accounts would have a “net neutral effect” with respect to costs to the existing system. Personal accounts would have a “net neutral effect” with respect to costs to the existing system because the liabilities of personal accounts are borne by the private sector.

That being said, the language used in these two paragraphs is not as clear as it could be. This is probably because it is a transcript of a person speaking rather than a written text. When people write they have a chance to review their language and edit or otherwise polish their prose; transcripts are unpolishable.

The “Senior Administration Official” added some confusion when he said, in the same paragraph, “To the extent that people put money in these accounts and invest in these accounts, there would be a corresponding reduction in the government's liabilities” and “personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.” To my way of thinking, when the “Senior Administration Official” asserted that personal accounts would both cause a “reduction in the government's liabilities” and have a “a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security, it made the first paragraph to seem incoherent. I say “incoherent” because I understand “net neutral effect” to mean “no change in the long run”.

It is the second of the two quoted paragraphs that shows that the “Senior Administration Official” (Bush?) was probably alluding to the fact that personal accounts would add “no net cost [to] the system over time.”

In light of these two paragraphs, I find it difficult to understand how FactCheck.org could justify their assertion that a senior Bush administration official “acknowledged” that personal accounts wouldn’t “shore up” the Social Security system’s finances. I conclude that FactCheck.org is being either deliberately deceptive or is way too slapdash to be in the fact-checking business.

OK, now back to FactCheck.org’s analysis.

And that "net neutral effect" is just over the long term, 75 years or more. In the shorter term, creation of private accounts would require heavy federal borrowing to finance the payment of benefits to current retirees while some portion of payroll taxes is being diverted to workers' private accounts. The administration projects it will borrow $754 billion (including interest) through 2015 to finance the initial phase-in of the accounts, and much more thereafter. The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- which opposes Bush's proposal -- projected that $4.5 trillion (with a "t") would be required to finance the first 20 years of the accounts after they start to be phased-in in 2009.

OK, FactCheck.org is noting that the “hawks” and “doves” are forecasting very different peak debts to be incurred by Bush’s proposals. It is prudent to guess that reality is somewhere between these two extremes. To their credit, FactCheck.org did point out that the high estimate was manufactured by Bush’s leftist opposition.

The problem with the deficit spending is that too much of it will threaten the Dollar’s standing as the world’s currency by making the Dollar weaker. Also it means that the U.S. must pay a higher interest on bonds and so on. This worries me.

A friend of mine, Tom G, pointed out that the Treasury would receive a windfall of revenues when the baby-boomers begin to retire and cash in their 401K’s and other tax-deferred investment schemes. He said that the current rules for estimating future deficits are not allowed to factor in such considerations. If true then this means that these deficit projections are inflated to some degree—who knows how much—for procedural reasons.

My thinking is that we should consider increasing tax rates to mitigate the coming deficits. I also reason that since private accounts will increase the annual GNP by a percent or so then the treasury should be receiving additional tax revenues anyway. In effect, the personal accounts will contribute to paying for their transition costs.

Yes, I know, the existing Social Security system could be saved if we are willing to pay additional taxes, so the question becomes "why not just do it that way?" My answer is that I don’t think the existing Social Security system is worth paying higher taxes for and the personal accounts are. Put another way, I think personal accounts are worth the trouble and cost to transition to them.

Private Accounts: A Sure Thing?
The President made those private accounts -- which he now prefers to call "personal" accounts -- sound like a sure bet:

Bush: Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.

History suggests that the President is correct -- the stock market has averaged a 6.8 percent "real" rate of return (adjusted for inflation) over the past two centuries, according to Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. The administration says a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds and government bonds would return 4.6 percent, even after inflation and administrative costs. And the administration also figures that private accounts would need to generate only a 3 percent rate of return to beat what Social Security provides.

But there's no guarantee that history will repeat itself. Markets are inherently unpredictable and volatile. At present, for example, all major stock-market indexes are still well below where they were five years ago.

In this quote, FactCheck.org uses data provided by Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel. Here FactCheck.org points out that Jeremy Siegel has calculated that the U.S. stock market has averaged a 6.8 percent “real” (i.e., adjusted for inflation) rate of return over the last two centuries.

Here is Jeremy Siegel

…stocks are the most profitable long-term investment – providing a premium that offsets stocks’ greater short-term risks relative to bonds and cash. From 1802 through 2003, the broad stock market provided “real” returns – adjusted for inflation – averaging 6.8 percent a year. “On average, you have doubled your purchasing power every decade in the stock market,” he said during his talk, adding that while stocks have failed to meet that average over a few long periods, performance has been remarkably consistent.

The downturn that began when the tech-stock bubble burst in 2000 merely returned the market to normal patterns following a period, from 1981 through 1999, of outsized returns – 13.6 percent a year. “We are right on the trend line,” he said.

Siegel has long argued that stocks should form the core of most small investors’ retirement portfolios….

I’ve discussed Jeremy Siegel and his calculations regarding stock market returns at length elsewhere. Jeremy Siegel has produced several stock market return calculations and I believe they are all correct. I noticed, however, that FactCheck.org selected the calculation that shows the lowest percentage return to quote. Selecting the lowest number is useful as a political weapon because it makes personal accounts seem less attractive. Not there is anything wrong with quoting a low-ball figure, per se, but FactCheck.org should have mitigated the unfairly negative impression it created with other data available from the same authority that FactCheck.org cited.

Finally, regarding FactCheck.org comment:

But there's no guarantee that history will repeat itself. Markets are inherently unpredictable and volatile. At present, for example, all major stock-market indexes are still well below where they were five years ago.

This statement has one true and one false statement. First, FactCheck.org let us know that markets fluctuate; true. Second, it is simply not true that “all major stock-market indexes are still well below where they were five years ago”.

I’ll address FactCheck.org’s false “fact” first. The Dow Jones industrial index is unarguably a “major stock market index”. Figure 1 is a chart showing the most recent five years of the Dow Jones industrial index, from February 2000 to February 2005. The Dow Jones Industrial Index, after five years—which includes the burst of the dot com bubble and the outbreak war on September 11^th—is down only a few percentage points. The same chart makes it obvious that this index was positive as recent as summer of 2001 with respect to February 2000.

Figure 1. Chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Index for the last five years

I find it inexplicable how FactCheck.org could make such a gross error on such an easily verified fact.

OK, now to the “fact” that FactCheck.org got right: that markets will fluctuate. There are two points that need to be made regarding market fluctuations. First, nobody denies that markets fluctuate. For the purposes of personal accounts, investing in the stock market only makes sense in the long run and five years is way too short-run to make any sense. Second, this phenomenon is why folks 55 and older will not be allowed to have personal accounts when the SS reforms are launched. Private accounts need time to recover from stock market reverses and folks who are 55 and older cannot count on having enough time for their personal accounts to recover before they retire.

I would have thought the folks at FactCheck.org should have understood this.

OK, I guess I beat those two paragraphs into the ground. On to the next one.

Benefit Offsets
The President made no mention of one crucial aspect of the proposed accounts -- anyone choosing one would also have to give up an offsetting portion of their future guaranteed retirement benefits. If their investments in private accounts returned more than 3 percent annually over the years, they would end up better off than under the current formula. But if those investments did worse, they wouldn't make up for the portion of benefits that were given up, and the owner of an account would end up worse off. The President didn't explain that trade-off.

Well I don’t think I’m the only one, but I thought that this was an obvious tradeoff. Does anyone actually need to have that explained to them?

The other point is that is worth reciting is that personal accounts’ risks are so low—and returns so high—that they make SS look like a poor investment.

"The Money is Yours?"
The President also glossed over some severely restrictive aspects of the accounts he is proposing, saying flatly "the money is yours."

Bush: In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away .

That's not exactly true.

As described by the "senior administration official," the owners of personal accounts wouldn't be able to touch the money while they are working, not even to borrow. The money would remain in the hands of the federal government, which would administer the personal accounts for a fee which the official said would be about 30 cents per year for every $100 invested.

And even at retirement, the government would control what becomes of the money. First, the government would automatically take back a portion of the money at retirement and convert it to a guaranteed stream of payments for life -- an annuity. The amount taken back -- called the "clawback," descriptively enough -- would depend on the amount of money the retiree requires to remain above the official poverty guideline. That's currently $12,490 for a couple or $9,310 for a single person. Only after the combination of traditional Social Security benefits and the mandatory annuity payments from the private account equal the poverty level would any remaining portion in the account be "yours."

OK, FactCheck.org finally gave me some information that I didn’t know. I didn’t know what would happen to the personal account’s money at retirement.

FactCheck.org is saying several things:

1. You cannot access your personal account for any reason until you retire. Not even for medical emergencies.

2. The goverment will charge you a 0.3% annual fee to manage your personal account

3. At the time of your retirement, the goverment will use part of your personal account to purchase an annuity for you. The income from the annuity, together with your Social Security payout, will guarantee that in the worst case your income will remain above the poverty line. There is a slight risk that the personal account will not have enough money to completely pay for the annuity.

4. Any residual personal account money leftover after the purchase of the annuity is turned over to the owner of the personal account.

Regarding issue 1: you cannot access your personal account for any reason until you retire.

This is reasonable. You cannot access your Social Security account until you retire either, so you’re no worse off in that regard.

Preventing citizens from frittering their nest egg away guarantees that the government’s will always be able to keep its promise that the retirement scheme will be able to perform when citizens retire.

Regarding issue 2: the government will charge a 0.3% annual fee for managing your personal account. This is similar to the management fees for an index fund. For example the Vanguard 500, a S&P 500 index fund, has annual costs of roughly 0.18% while Morgan Stanley’s S&P 500 index fund has annual costs of about 1.5%. (In my view, 1.5% is steep by index fund standards.) Mutual funds charge much more. In summary, a 0.3% administration fee is quite an attractive deal and is comparable to the low cost management fees charged by index funds.

Regarding issue 3: The government will take back a part of your personal account when you retire.

The hostile tone in the phrases “take back” or clawback is misleading. The money “taken back” will immediately be used to purchase an annuity for you. This annuity is your property because you paid for it. The annuity, when combined with your Social Security, guarantees that our retiree’s incomes will be above the poverty line. In theory this means no more poor elderly.

Regarding issue 4: The money remaining in the personal account after the purchase of the annuity is turned over to the account owner. (Party!)

Put another way, at retirement the account owner receives the portion of the personal account remaining after the purchase of the annuity.

At one level, FactCheck.org seems to be insinuating that the money in the personal account is something less than the property of the account’s owner. The subtitle for this section, “The Money is Yours?”, sounds like the it was designed to undermine the reader’s confidence that they would “own” the money.

FactCheck.org also resorted to scare quotes. Scare quotes are a literary device used by writers to distance themselves from the scare-quoted text because they believe the text is inappropriate for some reason. Consider, for example, of how FactCheck.org employed scare quotes in the following sentence: ‘Only after the combination of traditional Social Security benefits and the mandatory annuity payments from the private account equal the poverty level would any remaining portion in the account be "yours."’ In this case FactCheck.org was sending a message suggesting that whatever the money in the personal account might be, they didn’t think you should considered it “yours”.

Now there is no evidence that either FactCheck.org or myself can use to justify the idea that a personal account's money doesn’t belong to the account’s owner, but that didn’t inhibit FactCheck.org from signaling that it might not.

OK, there’s only a small bit of FactCheck.org’s analysis remaining and it mostly recites material from that press briefing without saying anything interesting. I’m skipping over the rest of their analysis.

Summary:
The plan proposed by Bush provides an income sufficient to keep retirees above the poverty line. Retirees receive 100% of their personal account at the time of retirement, either as an annuity or as cash.

Before I go on I want to point out a general principle: Social Security is not intended to provide a comfortable retirement. Put another way, Social Security is not enough to “live” on but too much to starve.

Everybody should understand this up front. Everybody should make provisions for their retirement. It is their responsibility to do this and nobody else.

Social Security is a safety net that prevents the old from starving if something goes terribly wrong in their lives, are unable to work the normal 40 years so as to save for their retirement or—perhaps—are just too irresponsible to save for their retirement

The SS reforms only affects people 55 or younger so most people have plenty of time to figure out a retirement plan before the first people retire under this plan.

Nobody can make me feel guilty because it only guarantees a just-above poverty level income.

OK, that should be sufficient troll repellent. Not that I have any of them or anything.

Conceivable problems.

There is a risk that inflation will diminish the annuities purchasing power. There are two types of annuities: fixed and inflation adjusted. I would think that the annuity would be the inflation adjusted variety. I haven't heard which type it will be, however.

In effect, the private accounts are paid for by the deficit we will incur as we transition to private accounts. Fundementally, borrowing is usually a dumb way to get investment money. I’m troubled by it. On the other hand, the alternatives are worse.

The current average monthly benefit for Social Security retirees is $955 a month, only $200 above the $755 needed for a poverty-line income. This is according to an article on MSBC, “Dissecting the president's Social Security plan”. The President's plan is clearly, on the average, a reduction, from the current SS payout. I say again, anyone with a working brain will have implemented their own retirement plan to supplement the goverment's retirment plan.

FactCheck.org’s scorecard:

They made disingenuous arguments that insinuated Bush was being deceptive about Social Security reform. This was a dishonest technique.

They insinuated that the money in personal account will somehow not fully be “yours”. More dishonesty.

They seemed to make much out of a 5% difference between Bush’s estimate for how much SS benefits would have to be cut, if nothing else was done, and the CBO’s estimate I guess they were trying to manufacture a talking point.

They Dowdified an administration official such that he seem to be saying that SS reform will not cure Social Security’s fiscal problems. Now this is contemptible misconduct. I don’t like liars and FactCheck.org has damaged its reputation for veracity.

They made a blatantly false statement when they stated that all major stock marketed indexes are still well below where they were a year ago. This also builds FactCheck.org’s reputation for lying.

They pointed out that the Bush Administration and the “doves” have very different estimates of the peak deficit caused by SS reform. This is OK. This sort of data should be on the table.

All in all, I have to say I was disgusted with FactCheck.org’s conduct. They have shown themselves to not be a neutral fact checking organization; at least as far as Social Security reform is concerned.