Don't look now, but we're within spitting distance of the DJIA level of 10,700 that Clinton bequeathed to George Bush amidst an economic downturn.

And while the GDP continues to grow at the strong pace of 3.8% per annum (per annum is a Latin phrase meaning "for the entire annum"), inflation is quite tame:

Wall Street was encouraged by the latest reading of the Labor Department's Consumer Price Index, which measures how much consumers pay at the retail level. The CPI was unexpectedly flat for June, while "core" CPI -- with food and fuel costs removed -- edged just 0.1 percent higher.

Sound to me like someone's going shopping.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorism is never really terrorism to many, but this is doubly true in Israel.

I'd been an Israel critic when I was younger. I stopped being so after the second Intifada, deciding, finally, that the right-wing Israelis were right-- the Palestinians were not interested in a negotiated peace, but in an ongoing process of terror by which they would eliminate the state of Israel more or less entirely.

But there was little passion in that opinion. It was, as they say, Someone Else's Problem, ultimately.

9-11 changed that. When the same sort of bastards murder your countrymen, you suddenly find yourself having a much more genuine emotional empathy for a nation that's put up with hundreds of terrorist attacks over the years.

I doubt the London bombings will do much to change the not-so-stealth anti-semitism of the British. But there's always hope.

Perhaps they've told themselves, over the years, that the Jews must be doing something to provoke the Palestinians; otherwise, why would assumedly-rational people keep blowing themselves up in restaurants?

Maybe Brits will start realizing they didn't do very much at all to provoke, much less deserve, the recent carnage, and perhaps there are people who just can't be reasoned with. People who are committed to a murder-cult, and for whom the act of taking an innocent human life is the ultimate communion.

And if they realize that about their own terrorists, maybe there's a chance they'll figure out something very similar is going on in Israel.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Not much MSM interest in the life sentence for the scholar of terrorism who treasonously incited others to commit terrorism against America.

I'm sure David Gregory is working on a big story about it, though.

I've never been so sure of anything in my life.

Because, you know, I'm an optimist. And also: a diagnosed mental retard.

Lorie Byrd Is Almost On F'n' Fire: She'd take Democrats' and the media's newfound concerns about security leaks had the Democrats themselves not leaked so much confidential information in the past, while the media yawned.

David Frum Weighs In: Howie Kurtz poses a hypoethetical: What would the media reaction be had been had a Democrat leaked confidential information to damage a poltical enemy?

Frum notes we already know the answer, because Linda Tripp's confidential Pentagon files were released to impugn her -- and that was definitely a crime, not maybe-sorta-kinda a crime, as is the case in l'affaire Plame -- and the media and the permanent government of bureaucratic Washington yawned.

I don't remember a special prosecutor being appointed.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Paul Berman was mentioned in that article linked below. He's mentioned much more prominently in a book review quoted, it seems, in full, by NormBlog.

Apparently Berman's book Terror and Liberalism has changed at least one mind. The reviewer confesses complete error in his thinking -- not in detail, he remarks, but in fundamentals.

The reviewer quotes Berman's analysis of the French left's response to the rise of Hitlerism-- to excuse it, to suggest that perhaps it wasn't all that bad (Weren't Jews guilty of at least something? Obviously the Germans must be angry with them for a reason), and then finally to actually support the collaborationist government imposed by the Nazis after the invasion:

To see the old process at work, one only has to look at how a large chunk of the world's liberal opinion has got itself into the position where it can't support Iraqi and Afghan liberals, socialists and feminists. You think the worst thing in the world is the developed countries because they brought the First World War, which to be fair is a charge worth making, or globalisation and McDonalds, which to be fair is a charge that is infantile. You are confronted with totalitarian movements, which are worse, and your first thought is to blame them on the West. Your second is to make excuses for them. Your third is to betray your comrades. Your fourth is to go up to the totalitarian movements and shake them by the hand.

As the Arabs say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The left seems to believe that on some level, perhaps unconscious, and can't quite bring itself to condemn lunatic barbarity simply because it seems opposed to the sorts of things they're opposed to as well -- American military power, globalization, capitalism, etc.

Would that more on the left realize that aphorism is a guideline, not a rule. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy, too. This is probably the case when the enemy in question annouces, with little equivocation, that he hates you with a black passion and would like to murder you, no matter how progressive and tolerant your politics might be.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, when he announces that he hates you especially, because you are, after all, the ones most aggressively pushing the vile ideas of secularism, equality for women, more latitudinarian attitudes towards sex, and of course the crazy idea that homosexuals and victims of rape shouldn't be stoned to death.

Thanks to "someone."

More From Nick Cohen: Writing in the Guardian, of all places:

The instinctive response of a significant portion of the rich world's intelligentsia to the murder of innocents on 11 September was anything but robust. A few, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, were delighted. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was 'the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos,' declared the composer whose tin ear failed to catch the screams.

Others saw it as a blow for justice rather than art. They persuaded themselves that al-Qaeda was made up of anti-imperialist insurgents who were avenging the wrongs of the poor. 'The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' asked Dario Fo. Rosie Boycott seemed to agree. 'The West should take the blame for pushing people in Third World countries to the end of their tether,' she wrote.

In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.

All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him.

Worth reading in full.

Thanks to Si.

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.

Football Fans and Beyond's takedown of this clown is worth reading again.

Even if you've read it, it's still got a picture of Keira Knightly at the end showing her rather nice midriff.

And, as "someone" points out, I should note that pretty much everything this dirtly little man-whore said was a lie, including, as they say, the "the's" and "and's."

Powerline notes:

He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda.

Not the best citation, but the first one I found. Basically, Wilson's own report said that Saddam attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger, but failed in doing so, as Niger apparently wouldn't play ball or the deal just couldn't be made.

In his "Bush lied" editorial, he simply lied and implied Iraq had never attempted such a thing at all.

It's a bit like the lies about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Saddam Hussein actually offered Al Qaeda a sanctuary in Iraq, but Al Qaeda refused for its own reasons. Liberals' conclusion? No Saddam-Al Qaeada connection. Well, yes... because, thusfar, Al Qaeda had passed on the offer.

They don't like to mention that the offer had been made.

That Powerline piece goes on to question the New York Times' huffing and puffing over the "outing" of "covert" Langley-based paper-pusher and mom Valerie Plame... given that the New York Times itself outed the CIA's entire covert air wing.

All "outings" are equal, but some are more equal than others, it seems.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

And it was tougher for him to do so than for many:

At LanceÂ’s request, IÂ’m proud to announce on Red State Rant that after an extended effort, IÂ’ve finally been accepted back into Uncle SamÂ’s Big Green Gun Club. A little background:

My efforts began on September 11, 2001, when the news about the terrorist attacks in New York City came over the radio. I immediately drove to the recruiterÂ’s office to inquire about reenlistment options. My advance was rebuked, however, due to an ankle injury that IÂ’d sustained two months previous, one which eventually landed me on the surgeonÂ’s slab six months later. Running, and therefore staying in shape, was a painful proposition for nearly a year thereafter. Then my wife and I decided to start our family, a decision that I in no way second-guess, but one which further altered my plans.

As I watched the kick-off of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom from the sidelines, I couldnÂ’t stand the fact that Marines were out there doing what Marines do, and here I was, a man of eligible age, riding the bench. The final straw came on the day that my brother, a career Marine until a back injury put him out of active duty after 15 years, emailed me a photo of himself being sworn back into the Corps as a reservist. That was simply more than I could stand.

I got off my ass, got back in shape, and got on the phone with the prior service recruiter. Skipping all the sordid details of a paperwork nightmare, a little more than a year later, on July 10, 2005, I stood before a Captain with the 4th Marine Division, raised my right hand, and took the oath of enlistment for the second time in my life, sworn-in as a 35 year-old Corporal of Marines (reserve) as my wife and son looked on.

Some question why he'd leave his family to fight for his country. He answers:

I want my children to have a father that they can unwaveringly look up to as an example. I want them to grow up, not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a sense of duty, obligation, and reward. I want to teach them that we don’t always say, “Let the other guy do it.” Instead, I want them to learn that there are times that we must ask, “If not me, then who?” I want to be the best father I can be, and I can think of no better lessons to teach them than the value of honor, integrity, dedication, perseverance, and selflessness. I can offer no better example for my family than to strive to live those values every day in my own personal life.

All of that is a way of life for United States Marines.

And he's not afraid to say it:

In addition to all of that, throw in any applicable clichés regarding patriotism, fighting for our country, etc. They’re all no less true for me than anyone else who has said them, but they have become overused to the point that they have begun to lose effect. I will add one: Revenge. I make no apology for wanting to kill the bastards that want to kill us.

Shit. Killing terrorists might chill their right to dissent. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

He then says he has no illusions about being a "hero." These guys always say that.

Saying you're not a hero... well, that sounds like hero-talk to me.

I'd say that anyone who has to affirmatively deny he's a hero is 90% likely to be one.

Can't say I've been forced to deny it myself.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 625 words, total size 4 kb.

For all the liberal-bashing -- well-deserved, I think -- it bears reminding that the entire left is not in fact tainted with anti-Americanism, anti-semitism, moral equivalency, and terrorist apologism.

It's relatively easy for a conservative to support the war on terror; it's relatively difficult for a liberal to do so, and those who do ought be commended.

I like the cut of this guy's jib:

an Buruma, Luce Professor at Bard College, writes of the “moral paralysis of the left when it comes to non-Western tyrants,” adding: “When Indians kill Muslims, or Africans kill Africans, or Arabs kill Arabs, Western pundits pretend not to notice or find historical explanations, or blame the scars of colonialism…But if white men, whether they are Americans, Europeans, South Africans, or Israelis, harm people of color hell is raised …One could claim this is only right, since we can only take responsibility for our own kind. But this would be a rather racist view of world affairs.”

It's not that it hasn't been said before... it's just refreshing, and encouraging, to hear a liberal say it.

Posted by: Ace at 09:02 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Uh-huh.

Coulter:

Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there."

Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, The New York Times.

In a huffy editorial, the Times suggested there had been a "willful effort" by the Bush administration to slander the great and honorable statesman Saddam Hussein. As evidence, the Times cited Bush's claims about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger, which, the Times said, had been "pretty well discredited" — which, according to my copy of The New York Times Stylebook means "unequivocally corroborated" — "by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the CIA to look into the issue."

So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But — in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" — Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney.

The New Editor:

At the beginning of the interview, Shrum commented that he had never talked to former ambassador Joseph Wilson in his life. However, a moment later Shrum was asserting that Wilson had voted for George Bush in 2000.

I’m sure it’s possible Shrum knows how Wilson voted in 2000 – but the exchange made Shrum look too clever by half.

Of course, the reason Shrum made this assertion was an attempt to draw the controversial Wilson as a non-partisan. But one quick look at publicly available information at opensecrets.org reveals that Wilson is hardly a non-partisan guy.

In 2000, while he contributed $1,000 to George Bush's presidential campaign, Wilson also contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential campaign. In addition, he gave $1,000 to Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and $500 to Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) that same election cycle.

In 2002 Wilson contributed $1,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). He also contributed a total of $1,750 to three others: two relatively unknown congressmen -- Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Nick Rahal (D-WV) -- and a Democratic senatorial candidate in Idaho, former Ambassador to Belgium Alan Blinken.

In 2004 Wilson contributed $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Partisan Democrats don't hate all Republicans. There are some Republicans they like quite a bit. Republicans like Wilson and Richard Clarke. You know-- Democrats posing as Republicans.

The bestest Republicans in the whole wide world.

PS: I'm a Democrat, so liberal Democrats should listen to what I have to say.

I swear. Seriously. One time I saw Katrina VanDerHeuvelvelvelhueven at a coffee joing and I restrained myself from whore-whipping here on the spot. That's kind of an in-kind donation to The Nation magazine.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Let 'em rot:

“I will not admit guilt nor seek the court’s mercy. I do this simply because I am innocent,” al-Timimi said.

Prosecutors said the defendant, a native U.S. citizen who has an international following in some Muslim circles, wielded enormous influence among a group of young Muslim men in northern Virginia who played paintball games in 2000 and 2001. Authorities said they were a “Virginia jihad network” training for holy war around the globe.

...

Nine members of the group have been convicted and sentenced for their roles in the conspiracy, with prison terms ranging from three years to life.

Al-TimimiÂ’s lawyers argued that their client merely suggested that Muslims may want to leave the United States after Sept. 11 because of the potential for a backlash against them.

But he was accused of telling a group of young Muslim men just days after the attack that an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and nonbelievers was at hand and that Muslims were obligated to engage in holy war. He told the group that defense of the Taliban was a requirement and that U.S. troops were a legitimate target, according to court testimony.

Several of the men who heard Al-TimimiÂ’s speech traveled days later to Pakistan and began training with a militant Islamic group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, officials said. Some testified that their goal was to obtain training that would allow them to fight alongside the Taliban, though none actually made it to Afghanistan.

To put it into terms a libertarian can understand: Your rights extend only as far as the blast-radius of your homemade suicide-bomb.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

View screen-capture.

Well, he is sleeping with one, so close enough for the MSM's multiple layers of professional fact-checkers, I suppose.

Thanks to American Barbarian.

Is Google Really MSM?: Well, I don't know if it's Google's headline or, say, some MSM source like the AP distributing the story.

As Otter in Animal House said: "Forget it, he's rolling."

I'm Having Trouble With My Links: Should work now. Fingers crossed.

Note: The headline, I'm told, has since been corrected. But for a while today the eager-beavers at Google or AP were very big on transforming a shaggy-haired bureaucratic hack into a globe-trotting Double-Oh agent with a license to misrepresent.

Oh, and he's a Republican too.

Posted by: Ace at 07:12 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.