Saddam Hussein goes on trial today for 143 of his hundreds of thousands of murders. Take a few minutes to read this eyewitness account of his crime from an Iraqi doctor who, as a bewildered seven-year-old, lost 35 relatives that day in 1982.
Read what he says of Saddam's prisons, including Abu-Ghraib where his grandfather and aunt died, and consider how contemptible is Massachusetts' Ted "Hogshead" Kennedy who in 2004 declaimed that Saddam's torture chambers had reopened under U.S. managment.
Omar Ali of Iraq the Model met this man at a copy shop in 2003 where he was duplicating photos of his lost and murdered relatives in hopes of finding their remains. For many Americans the most haunting image of 9/11 was of the thousands of photographs posted in downtown Manhattan by relatives of the dead and missing. Multiply by a hundred cities, 30 years, and over 300,000 dead and you begin to comprehend post-Saddam Iraq.
Open post trackbacks from: Stop The ACLU, The Political Teen, Mudville Gazette.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Not Exactly An Ozzie and Harriett Crime Rate
Newspapers around the country reported yesterday that 2004's murder rate was the lowest since 1965. Major violent and property crimes also fell a little over 2% last year. So are we back to the good old days before exploding illegitimacy rates and a deteriorating culture sent violent crimes skyrocketing? Not exactly.
One-hundred years ago the homicide rate was less than 25% of the 2004 rate of 5.5 per 100,000 people. The murder rate climbed steeply to nearly 10 per 100,000 in the mid-1930s and then fell below 5 for most of the 50s and early 60s. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in his book On Killing, the aggravated assault rate serves as a close proxy statistic for attempted murders. And the aggravated assault rate has increased dramatically since the 1950s even if the murder rate has not. Criminologist Anthony Harris estimates today's homicide rate would triple if medical and rescue technologies had not improved since the 50s.
Grossman was kind enough to email me an excerpt from his new book On Combat when I asked him for more detailed source citations for his writing on this topic. He argues that in comparing today's homicide rate with the 1930s and before we ought to multiple today's rate by ten for a true comparison:
One-hundred years ago the homicide rate was less than 25% of the 2004 rate of 5.5 per 100,000 people. The murder rate climbed steeply to nearly 10 per 100,000 in the mid-1930s and then fell below 5 for most of the 50s and early 60s. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in his book On Killing, the aggravated assault rate serves as a close proxy statistic for attempted murders. And the aggravated assault rate has increased dramatically since the 1950s even if the murder rate has not. Criminologist Anthony Harris estimates today's homicide rate would triple if medical and rescue technologies had not improved since the 50s.
Grossman was kind enough to email me an excerpt from his new book On Combat when I asked him for more detailed source citations for his writing on this topic. He argues that in comparing today's homicide rate with the 1930s and before we ought to multiple today's rate by ten for a true comparison:
Since 1957, the U.S. per capita aggravated assault rate (which is, essentially, the rate of attempted murder) has gone up nearly five-fold, while the per capita murder rate has less than doubled. The reason for this disparity is the vast progress in medical technology since 1957, to include everything from mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, to the national 911 emergency telephone system, to medical technology advances. Otherwise, murder would be going up at the same rate as attempted murder.
In 2002, Anthony Harris and a team of scholars from the University of Massachusetts and Harvard, published a landmark study in the journal, Homicide Studies, which concluded that medical technology advances since 1970 have prevented approximately three out of four murders. That is, if we had 1970s level medical technology, the murder rate would be three or four times higher than it is today.
Furthermore, it has been noted that a hypothetical wound that nine out of ten times would have killed a soldier in World War II, would have been survived nine out of ten times by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. This is due to the great leaps in battlefield evacuation and medical care technology between 1940 and 1970--and we have made even greater progress in the years since. Thus, it is probably a conservative statement to say that if today we had 1930s level evacuation notification and medical technology (no automobiles and telephones for most people, and no antibiotics), then we would have ten times the murder rate we currently do. That is, attempts to inflict bodily harm upon one another would result in death ten times more often.
Consider, for instance, some of the quantum leaps in medical technology across the years. Just a century ago, any puncture of the abdomen, skull or lungs created a high probability of death, as did any significant loss of blood (no transfusions) or most large wounds (no antibiotics or antiseptics), or most wounds requiring significant surgery (no anesthetics, resulting in death from surgery shock). Also, consider the increasing impact of police methodology and technology--fingerprints, communications, DNA matching, video surveillance, and others--in apprehending killers, preventing second offenses, and deterring crime.
Each of these technological developments, in their place and time, should have negated the effects of weapons evolution and saved the lives of victims of violence. When assessing violent crime across any length of time, we should ask what proportion of trauma patients survive today, and what proportion of those would have died if they had 1940-level technology (no penicillin), 1930-level technology (no antibiotics), 1870-level technology (no antiseptics), 1840-level technology (no anesthetics), or 1600-level technology (no doctors, no anatomy).
The medical technology continues to move forward, saving ever more lives every year. In an article entitled “New Battlefield techniques,” NY Times reporter Gina Kolata interviewed Dr. Paul K. Carlton Jr., the recently retired surgeon general of the Air Force. He told of field surgeons who carry everything needed in a backpack, including “sonogram machines the size of cassette recorders, and devices the size of a PDA that can do a complete laboratory analysis on a drop of blood.”
Dr. Carlton used the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as an example of what is now possible.Of 250 seriously injured patients, only one died. "It was the lowest died-of-wounds rate in the history of war," he said. One man suffered a catastrophic wound to his rectum, prostate, anus and bladder. The ghastly injury plunged him into shock immediately, but one of the backpack surgical teams got to him right away and did a damage control surgery. Then, he was put on an airplane equipped as a critical care unit and flown a few thousand miles to another hospital for another surgery to stabilize him. Then he was flown to Germany for reconstructive surgery. "He's home with his family now," Dr. Carlton said. In any other war, he added, "he would have been dead."A little over a year later, in the invasion of Iraq, new bandages with a powerful clotting agent that can stop arterial bleeding were introduced, providing yet another major leap forward in lifesaving medical technology. That same technology is also holding down the murder rate back home.
Landmarks in the Evolution of Medical Lifesaving
- c.1690: French army institutes first scientific, systematic approach to surgery
- c.1840: Introduction of anesthesia overcomes surgical shock
- c.1840: Introduction in Hungary of washing hands and instruments in chlorinated lime solution reduces mortality due to “childbed fever” from 9.9% to .85%
- c.1860: Introduction by Lister of carbolic acid as germicide reduced mortality rate after major operations from 45% to 15%
- c.1880: Widespread acceptance and adaptation of germicides
- c.1930: Sulfa drugs
- c.1940: Penicillin discovered
- c.1945: Penicillin in general use, and ever-increasing explosion of antibiotics thereafter
- c.1960: Penicillin synthesized on a large scale
- c.1970: CPR introduced on wide scale
- c.1990: 911 centralized emergency response systems introduced in U.S. on wide scale
- c.2002: Harris, et al., landmark study by U.Mass and Harvard, published in the journal Homicide Studies concludes that med tech advances since 1970 have prevented approximately three-out-of-four murders
Fumble Averages Favor Skins
Turnovers are the big story of the Redskins' season thus far. Last week I noted the team's dramatic offensive improvements over last season, and mentioned that a poor turnover differential was likely keeping points down. The turnover differential worsened against the Chiefs on Sunday and now stands at -8 for the season (30th in the league). For comparison the differential for all of last season was just -1--meaning they took the ball from their opponents about as frequently as they gave it back through all 16 games.
Here's the good news: The law of averages should correct most of the Redskins' turnover problem as the season continues. Let me explain. When an offensive player fumbles the ball we would expect the defense to gain possession about 50% of the time because the same number of players on each team are fighting for a ball that is bouncing randomly around the field. You could argue that offensive players tend to have better hands and thus have the advantage, or that defensive players have the advantage because they face the ballcarrier while offensive players are turned away blocking. But the real-world split seems close enough to 50-50 that variances can be explained by statistical noise. For example, during the 2003 NFL season the defensive team recovered 54% of all fumbles. In 2004 defense was again favored with a 52% recovery rate, but so far this year the offense has a slight 51% advantage.
The good news for the Redskins is that they've been horribly unlucky at recovering both offensive and defensive fumbles this season. How unlucky? The Redskins' offense has recovered just 22% of its own fumbles (2 of 9). The defense has fared even worse, recovering just 11% of opponent fumbles (1 of 9). The probability that the team would recover 3 or fewer of 18 fumbles is just 1 in 250. A "normal" fumble recovery rate of 50% would bring their turnover differential to a much less worrisome -2.
In case you're wondering whether the Redskins simply have a team loaded with spectacularly bad fumble recoverers, last season their offense and defense combined for a 49% recovery rate. Around the league in 2004, the New Orleans Saints bested all with a 61% recovery rate and the Philadelphia Eagles trailed the pack at 37%.
The real areas of concern are interceptions and sacks, of which the defense has just one and five, respectively. For comparison, at least 30 NFL players have two or more interceptions, and 12 players have five or more sacks.
Current Washington Post Redskins articles: Turnovers offset positives. Portis feeling better. Gibbs fined for thought crimes. Turnovers change game plan.
Here's the good news: The law of averages should correct most of the Redskins' turnover problem as the season continues. Let me explain. When an offensive player fumbles the ball we would expect the defense to gain possession about 50% of the time because the same number of players on each team are fighting for a ball that is bouncing randomly around the field. You could argue that offensive players tend to have better hands and thus have the advantage, or that defensive players have the advantage because they face the ballcarrier while offensive players are turned away blocking. But the real-world split seems close enough to 50-50 that variances can be explained by statistical noise. For example, during the 2003 NFL season the defensive team recovered 54% of all fumbles. In 2004 defense was again favored with a 52% recovery rate, but so far this year the offense has a slight 51% advantage.
The good news for the Redskins is that they've been horribly unlucky at recovering both offensive and defensive fumbles this season. How unlucky? The Redskins' offense has recovered just 22% of its own fumbles (2 of 9). The defense has fared even worse, recovering just 11% of opponent fumbles (1 of 9). The probability that the team would recover 3 or fewer of 18 fumbles is just 1 in 250. A "normal" fumble recovery rate of 50% would bring their turnover differential to a much less worrisome -2.
In case you're wondering whether the Redskins simply have a team loaded with spectacularly bad fumble recoverers, last season their offense and defense combined for a 49% recovery rate. Around the league in 2004, the New Orleans Saints bested all with a 61% recovery rate and the Philadelphia Eagles trailed the pack at 37%.
The real areas of concern are interceptions and sacks, of which the defense has just one and five, respectively. For comparison, at least 30 NFL players have two or more interceptions, and 12 players have five or more sacks.
Current Washington Post Redskins articles: Turnovers offset positives. Portis feeling better. Gibbs fined for thought crimes. Turnovers change game plan.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
New York Muggers Safe Again
New York muggers are safe again thanks to Eliot Spitzer, who's coordinated with (read threatened) Ebay to ban the sale of stun-guns to New Yorkers.
Then again, the thugs of New York might prefer stun-guns be legal after all."You wouldn't want these used in either illegal activities or horseplay," Spitzer spokesman Paul Larrabee said. "Dangerous devices should not be in the hands of those unable to properly use them and you certainly don't want them used in any criminal activity."
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Skins Better Off Good Than Lucky
The Washington Redskins' luck turned in a big way the first three games of this NFL season as they defeated Chicago, Dallas, and Seattle by a total of six points. But luck is a shaky foundation for rebuilding a football dynasty. The sputtering offense, retooled in the offseason by Joe Gibbs and his staff, produced a total of just 43 points in the first three games--nine less than Green Bay dropped on soggy New Orleans last Sunday. Worse, last year's sterling defensive unit looked a bit tarnished after losing several key starters in the offseason and giving up big yardage to Dallas and Seattle.
I expected the bubble to burst resoundingly at Mile-High stadium last Sunday, especially after watching Denver shred Kansas City two weeks ago on Monday night. The Broncos repeatedly gashed the Chiefs' defense for big gains on the ground, and the Chiefs once-great offensive line barely slowed the Broncos' pass rush as Denver cruised to a 30-10 win. So as hard as it was to watch the Redskins' last-second rally fail on a missed two-point conversion (I didn't actually watch it thanks to the NFL's byzantine TV market rules*), I'm feeling better about their chances for a playoff berth after the 21-19 defeat.
The game was one that leaves you scratching your head in disbelief after comparing the stat sheet and the score. The Redskins outgained the Broncos by nearly 200 yards, had 25 more plays, a seven minute time-of-possession advantage, nearly three times as many first downs, gave up no sacks, had just one turnover and still lost (Denver had a slight edge in penalties and rushing yards). The Redskins' luck did run out in Denver as they had a safety overturned on an arguably invalid invocation of the infamous "Tuck Rule"; a 54-yard field goal wiped off the board by a false start penalty (special teamers around the league seem especially fond of the yellow hankies this year); a 38-yard field goal blocked; and a two-point conversion pass to a wide-open receiver tipped away near the line of scrimmage. Any one of those plays could have turned the game into a win.
Here's the encouraging part: They've just been through a second four-game preseason with Mark Brunell as the starting quarterback and the offense has improved each week. The Redskins have two new receivers, a reworked offensive line, and are still tweaking their offseason improvements. Because Patrick Ramsey was the starting quarterback through the entire preseason, Brunell had very few game-condition reps with the starting offense. But the offense has already improved dramatically over last season, even though the points have been slow coming.
Despite playing the 3rd, 10th, 17th, and 18th ranked defensive teams the Redskins offense has improved in the following areas from 2004 to 2005 (league rankings in parentheses):
(Aren't fan delusions sad?)
* I can best sum up the NFL's TV market rules like this: If the local team is playing at home, any other game you're interested in won't be on TV. I believe I once briefly grasped the formula completely, but immediately fell unconscious for 30 minutes and woke up confused again. In this instance, those of us in the Atlanta market were treated by FOX to every excruciating minute of the Philadelphia Eagles' 33-10 disassembly by the Dallas Cowboys. To. The. Very. End.
Here's how ridiculous it got at one point (remember, the local affiliates can show highlights of the banned games, but no live action): The Eagles-Cowboys game is winding down just as the Redskins begin driving for their final score. Surely they'll switch to the game now! I'm rushing back and forth from the TV to the computer to refresh the NFL.com live game stats. The Eagles-Cowboys game ends and FOX returns to the studio where James Brown drones on-and-on and shows highlights of the blowout that just ended! Back to NFL.com: Oh, my gosh! The Redskins just scored to pull within a two-point conversion of tying the game! Back to FOX: Brown's still blathering. Wait! They're switching to the game! Nope, they're showing a highlight of the Redskins' touchdown and refusing to cut to the game even for the two-point conversion try! Back to NFL.com: Oh, no! The conversion failed! Back to FOX: Still in studio. Going to a commercial. Ok, now they're showing a highlight of the failed conversion. Sheesh!
And don't tell me to buy DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket. I've tried that twice since we moved to Atlanta and both times the Redskins stunk and appeared on regular TV something like eight or nine times to boot!
Current Washington Post stories on the Redskins: The Broncos game. Skins need turnovers. Sally Jenkins. Tony Kornheiser. Kornheiser on Lavar. Michael Wilbon. Arrington in the doghouse.
I expected the bubble to burst resoundingly at Mile-High stadium last Sunday, especially after watching Denver shred Kansas City two weeks ago on Monday night. The Broncos repeatedly gashed the Chiefs' defense for big gains on the ground, and the Chiefs once-great offensive line barely slowed the Broncos' pass rush as Denver cruised to a 30-10 win. So as hard as it was to watch the Redskins' last-second rally fail on a missed two-point conversion (I didn't actually watch it thanks to the NFL's byzantine TV market rules*), I'm feeling better about their chances for a playoff berth after the 21-19 defeat.
The game was one that leaves you scratching your head in disbelief after comparing the stat sheet and the score. The Redskins outgained the Broncos by nearly 200 yards, had 25 more plays, a seven minute time-of-possession advantage, nearly three times as many first downs, gave up no sacks, had just one turnover and still lost (Denver had a slight edge in penalties and rushing yards). The Redskins' luck did run out in Denver as they had a safety overturned on an arguably invalid invocation of the infamous "Tuck Rule"; a 54-yard field goal wiped off the board by a false start penalty (special teamers around the league seem especially fond of the yellow hankies this year); a 38-yard field goal blocked; and a two-point conversion pass to a wide-open receiver tipped away near the line of scrimmage. Any one of those plays could have turned the game into a win.
Here's the encouraging part: They've just been through a second four-game preseason with Mark Brunell as the starting quarterback and the offense has improved each week. The Redskins have two new receivers, a reworked offensive line, and are still tweaking their offseason improvements. Because Patrick Ramsey was the starting quarterback through the entire preseason, Brunell had very few game-condition reps with the starting offense. But the offense has already improved dramatically over last season, even though the points have been slow coming.
Despite playing the 3rd, 10th, 17th, and 18th ranked defensive teams the Redskins offense has improved in the following areas from 2004 to 2005 (league rankings in parentheses):
- Yards per game - from 275 to 367 (30th to 8th)
- Yards per play - from 4.3 to 5.1 (31st to 18th)
- 3rd down conversion rate - from 32% to 47% (28th to 2nd!)
- Rushing yards per carry - from 3.7 to 4.1 (29th to 11th)
(Aren't fan delusions sad?)
* I can best sum up the NFL's TV market rules like this: If the local team is playing at home, any other game you're interested in won't be on TV. I believe I once briefly grasped the formula completely, but immediately fell unconscious for 30 minutes and woke up confused again. In this instance, those of us in the Atlanta market were treated by FOX to every excruciating minute of the Philadelphia Eagles' 33-10 disassembly by the Dallas Cowboys. To. The. Very. End.
Here's how ridiculous it got at one point (remember, the local affiliates can show highlights of the banned games, but no live action): The Eagles-Cowboys game is winding down just as the Redskins begin driving for their final score. Surely they'll switch to the game now! I'm rushing back and forth from the TV to the computer to refresh the NFL.com live game stats. The Eagles-Cowboys game ends and FOX returns to the studio where James Brown drones on-and-on and shows highlights of the blowout that just ended! Back to NFL.com: Oh, my gosh! The Redskins just scored to pull within a two-point conversion of tying the game! Back to FOX: Brown's still blathering. Wait! They're switching to the game! Nope, they're showing a highlight of the Redskins' touchdown and refusing to cut to the game even for the two-point conversion try! Back to NFL.com: Oh, no! The conversion failed! Back to FOX: Still in studio. Going to a commercial. Ok, now they're showing a highlight of the failed conversion. Sheesh!
And don't tell me to buy DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket. I've tried that twice since we moved to Atlanta and both times the Redskins stunk and appeared on regular TV something like eight or nine times to boot!
Current Washington Post stories on the Redskins: The Broncos game. Skins need turnovers. Sally Jenkins. Tony Kornheiser. Kornheiser on Lavar. Michael Wilbon. Arrington in the doghouse.
Monday, October 10, 2005
John Fund Turns On Miers
John Fund changes his mind about Harriet Miers in a big way. He first took a wait-and-see approach, but after interviewing "dozens of her friends and colleagues" he says
UPDATE: Paul Mirengoff disagrees:
That would be the same party that's forgotten what small government means. The same party that wasted political capital creating a massive new Federal entitlement when they should have been fixing the old ones. The same party that forgot about term limits and non-partisan redistricting as soon as they were comfortably ensconced as the majority. The same party that restricted political speech with another campaign finance reform bill. The same president who signed that bill into law after saying it was unconstitutional during his campaign. The same president who's done little but pander on illegal immigration.
And we were supposed to grit our teeth and bear the foolishness because it was all leading up to this: The opportunity (again) to replace 2-4 Supreme Court justices and change the direction of the court for a generation. Sorry, but I'm finished with forbearance. Time to pay the bill.
I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.Fund then recites a litany of assurances just like those we're hearing now for Miers originally given in support of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Read the whole thing. It's extremely important.
UPDATE: Paul Mirengoff disagrees:
In the case of Harriet Miers, though, we are not even talking about someone in the O'Connor mold--we are talking about someone who might be another O'Connor but is just as likely to vote with Scalia in the vast majority of big cases. In this situation, it seems imprudent to blow up the confirmation process---and possibly the Bush presidency and the Republican party--to block her nomination. Thus, conservative senators should be prepared, barring new and damning information, to vote in favor of Miers.But earlier in his piece Mirengoff cut to the heart of the criticisms of the Miers nomination:
In any case, conservatives justifiably feel disappointed that they should have to rely solely on the president's legal and psychological acumen as they try to become comfortable with his nominee. There were at least two dozen candidates, including women, African-Americans, and Hispanics, whose conservative bona fides would have been apparent to the naked eye. Bush's rejection of these candidates in favor of Miers feels like cronyism or political weakness.That's exactly right. Bush went to the mat for a dozen(?) Federal appeals court nominees who were proven strict constructionists. When it comes to the most important judicial nominations of all why won't he do the same? I haven't yet heard a satisfactory answer, and I do think this issue is worth blowing up the Republican Party.
That would be the same party that's forgotten what small government means. The same party that wasted political capital creating a massive new Federal entitlement when they should have been fixing the old ones. The same party that forgot about term limits and non-partisan redistricting as soon as they were comfortably ensconced as the majority. The same party that restricted political speech with another campaign finance reform bill. The same president who signed that bill into law after saying it was unconstitutional during his campaign. The same president who's done little but pander on illegal immigration.
And we were supposed to grit our teeth and bear the foolishness because it was all leading up to this: The opportunity (again) to replace 2-4 Supreme Court justices and change the direction of the court for a generation. Sorry, but I'm finished with forbearance. Time to pay the bill.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Sekulow for Supreme Court
Like many conservatives I was stunned by President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The only plausible point in Bush's favor is that he believes Miers to be a reliable conservative who can be confirmed with a minimal expense of political capital, giving him time to flog languishing legislation on social security and a host of other issues early in his term. But he may have underestimated conservatives' deep desire for a political battle royal over judicial nominations and constitutional interpretation.
Frankly, I'm tired of supposedly conservative office-holders who shy from defending the eminently defensible view that constitutional interpretation should be based on what the Constitution actually says. The central function of the Constitution is to serve as a buffer against vicissitudinous political opinion--a function which directly conflicts with the constitutional origami of leftist judges. That's not a difficult point to make. But rather than proudly defending that point when, for example, a nominee like John Roberts comes under fire for his Federalist Society membership, Republican leaders instead downplayed his involvement.
Here's some perspective on just how cowed are conservatism's Republican representatives: Consider that those who oppose abortion in all circumstances (21% according to this 2005 Harris poll) outnumber U.S residents who are black (13%), hispanic (14%), or liberal (18%). They are statistically tied with the 23% who would allow abortion in all circumstances. Consider that abortion is consistently one of the single most important issues among Republican voters. And consider that majorities of both conservative and liberal constitutional scholars believe that Roe v. Wade was a horribly reasoned case.
And yet, while Democratic senators candidly make support for Roe the sine qua non of judicial mainstreamism, bork-wary Republicans scrape and scrounge for nominees who are closet-conservatives at best. Despite controlling Congress and the Presidency for several years Republicans have failed to end partial-birth abortion--which is opposed by a huge majority of Americans. Nor have they seriously made the case for blaming their failure on Roe or linked it to Democratic obstruction of judicial confirmations.
So when will conservatism have won in America? When a Republican president unashamedly nominates Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ultra-conservative American Center for Law and Justice, to the Supreme Court. I'm not joking. And the fact that you think I'm joking shows how firmly the left still controls political debate in America.
Sekulow has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court bench. He's been named one of National Law Journal's "100 Most Influential Lawyers" and one of The American Lawyer's top 45 public-sector lawyers. His post-academic credentials are nearly as impressive as those of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the last Democratic nominee to the court, and the justice who is most nearly Sekulow's polar opposite.
Ginsberg, confirmed with a 96-3 Senate vote, was a director of and general counsel for the ACLU before becoming a Federal judge. National Review's Edward Whelan summarized Ginsburg's pre-confirmation opinions thusly:
Current Washington Post articles on Miers nomination: Miers Profile, Colbert King's Miers schaudenfreud, Miers life in Dallas, Bush refuses to withdraw Miers.
Frankly, I'm tired of supposedly conservative office-holders who shy from defending the eminently defensible view that constitutional interpretation should be based on what the Constitution actually says. The central function of the Constitution is to serve as a buffer against vicissitudinous political opinion--a function which directly conflicts with the constitutional origami of leftist judges. That's not a difficult point to make. But rather than proudly defending that point when, for example, a nominee like John Roberts comes under fire for his Federalist Society membership, Republican leaders instead downplayed his involvement.
Here's some perspective on just how cowed are conservatism's Republican representatives: Consider that those who oppose abortion in all circumstances (21% according to this 2005 Harris poll) outnumber U.S residents who are black (13%), hispanic (14%), or liberal (18%). They are statistically tied with the 23% who would allow abortion in all circumstances. Consider that abortion is consistently one of the single most important issues among Republican voters. And consider that majorities of both conservative and liberal constitutional scholars believe that Roe v. Wade was a horribly reasoned case.
And yet, while Democratic senators candidly make support for Roe the sine qua non of judicial mainstreamism, bork-wary Republicans scrape and scrounge for nominees who are closet-conservatives at best. Despite controlling Congress and the Presidency for several years Republicans have failed to end partial-birth abortion--which is opposed by a huge majority of Americans. Nor have they seriously made the case for blaming their failure on Roe or linked it to Democratic obstruction of judicial confirmations.
So when will conservatism have won in America? When a Republican president unashamedly nominates Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ultra-conservative American Center for Law and Justice, to the Supreme Court. I'm not joking. And the fact that you think I'm joking shows how firmly the left still controls political debate in America.
Sekulow has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court bench. He's been named one of National Law Journal's "100 Most Influential Lawyers" and one of The American Lawyer's top 45 public-sector lawyers. His post-academic credentials are nearly as impressive as those of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the last Democratic nominee to the court, and the justice who is most nearly Sekulow's polar opposite.
Ginsberg, confirmed with a 96-3 Senate vote, was a director of and general counsel for the ACLU before becoming a Federal judge. National Review's Edward Whelan summarized Ginsburg's pre-confirmation opinions thusly:
When a Republican president nominates a judge who is as open and unabashedly conservative (or even libertarian) as Ginsburg is liberal, with virtual certainty of his confirmation, we'll know conservatism controls the battlefield of political debate. But for now our elected leaders are still afraid to join the fray.Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.
Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.
Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.
...
The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.
Current Washington Post articles on Miers nomination: Miers Profile, Colbert King's Miers schaudenfreud, Miers life in Dallas, Bush refuses to withdraw Miers.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Cohen Contracts Krugmanitis
Richard Cohen insists President Bush follow the fiscal restraint of Lyndon B. Johnson, of all presidents, and raise taxes to pay for the Iraq War. He accuses Bush of irresponsibly throwing away huge tax surpluses and demands a choice between guns and butter. Cohen usually has lots of unkind things to say and his column today is no exception:
For Bush, facts are neither hard nor inescapable. He believes in "magical math"... Bush...came into office -- as he did life itself -- with a huge surplus. He spent it...But look past the snide insults and there's not much substance to Cohen's charges. He spills a well of ink comparing Iraq and Vietnam (again), but conveniently fails to mention any hard numbers beyond counting the war-dead in Iraq--which he anticipatorily rounds up from 1,900 to "almost 2,000." Here are the hard numbers: Vietnam cost the United States a total of $111 billion nominal dollars from 1964-72. That works out to 1.34% of the nation's GDP for those eight years. Iraq will cost about $250 billion even if we maintain present spending rates well into 2006. That's .72% of GDP over just 3 years. The direct economic burden of Vietnam was therefore about five times that of Iraq. Then you have the indirect costs. The Vietnam War shrank America's productive workforce by 8.7 million for at least two years. The 58,000 war-dead were permanently removed from the labor force. They never built businesses, paid taxes, invented new products, etc. (They certainly did make an essential contribution to America's general security and prosperity, but that's a hard number to quantify economically.) These indirect costs of the Vietnam War are easily 50 times that of Iraq. (See here for the Vietnam cost breakdown and here for GDP numbers.) The "huge surplus" for which Cohen pines resulted from an unusual convergence of three elements: Helpful demographic trends which swelled Social Security receipts; surging capital investment which reduced unemployment and spiked income tax revenues; and President Clinton's overwhelming fondness for butter. From 1992 to 2000, surplus Social Security receipts doubled from .8 to 1.6% of GDP. From 1997 to 2000, individual income tax receipts jumped from 9.0 to 10.3% of GDP. And from 1992 to 2000, defense expenditures were slashed from 4.8 to 3.0% of GDP. These three factors combined for a surplus of .8 to 2.4% of GDP from 1998 to 2000. Remove them and the $236 billion surplus in 2000 turns into a $150 billion deficit. Remove the Social Security surplus altogether as you would if federal budgeting occurred outside Wonderland and that's a $225 billion deficit. (See here for a comprehensive overview of federal budget numbers.) Politicians of both parties prove over and over that huge deficits are the only check to their spending. Since 1962 the budget deficit has averaged 2.7% of GDP. That's the real deficit, not the Wonderland deficit which papers over congressional plunder of the federal 401k in an accounting fiction that dwarfs Enron's by several orders of magnitude. During the Bush presidency the real budget deficit has averaged 3.3% of GDP--not good, but no worse than normal considering the economic and security challenges faced in his term. Given political realties, it seems our choice is really between the European model of high taxes, high unemployment, tepid growth, and moderate deficits; and the American model of low taxes, low unemployment, rapid growth, and high deficits. That doesn't seem like a tough choice to me. UPDATE: This piece applies to today's E.J. Dijonnaise column so I'll link it in as well.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Major Blogs with Regular Open Posts
For bloggers: Here's a list of popular blogs which offer regular open posts you can link to publicize your blog. I've included their ecosystem classification as of when I added them. I'll update the list periodically.
Higher Beings
Higher Beings
- Little Green Footballs - Open post each morning, but registration closed.
- Eschaton - Multiple daily open posts.
- Mudville Gazette - Open post nightly.
- Stop the ACLU - Occasional open posts.
- The Political Teen - Daily open post.
- Basil's Blog - ?
- Indepundit - ?
- Cafe Oregano - Occasional open posts.
- Bright & Early - ?
- Jo's Cafe - ?
Bush: Rita is New Orleans Mop-Up Operation
NEW ORLEANS - President Bush announced today that Hurricane Rita, likely to make catastrophic landfall near Houston, was his "mop-up operation to finish exterminating poor and black New Orlinians who fled to Texas."
Bush, aka God, said it saddened him to do this to his home state, but "the people of Houston knew there would be severe consequences for attempting to thwart [his] judgment by harboring Superdome refugees."
When asked why he hated poor and black Americans Bush said, "I have no malice toward any American. Poverty numbers are up and this is part of my plan for getting them back down."
When asked why the government didn't help the poor by simply giving them the billions to be spent on Katrina relief, Bush laughed and said, "That's where my omniscience comes in handy. I already know they'll just spend it on drugs and booze. And we wouldn't get back much tax revenue that way because the poor don't pay taxes in America. Your way would cut a bunch of government agencies and contractors, like Haliburton, out of the loop. And I still owe my supporters a huge debt for helping me steal the 2000 election. My plan will stimulate the economy and keep this recovery on the move up."
Bush said he was comfortable admitting to being selected, not elected, in 2000 because "there are no witnesses to testify against [him] now that [late Supreme Court chief justice William H.] Rehnquist has been called home."
Bush promised to be more open about his future machinations. "Now that the secret of my divinity is out it's no fun pretending Karl Rove is the brains behind everything anymore," Bush said.
Bush also disclosed that Senator John F. Kerry did once possess a magic hat given to him by a cherub posing as a CIA agent in Cambodia. The hat was part of a complex plan to discredit Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.
"Are you sure you aren't the devil?" asked one member of the Whitehouse press pool.
In response Bush smirked, winked, and said, "Well, we have a sayin' back in Texas that one man's God is another man's devil," before ascending into the clouds.
Bush, aka God, said it saddened him to do this to his home state, but "the people of Houston knew there would be severe consequences for attempting to thwart [his] judgment by harboring Superdome refugees."
When asked why he hated poor and black Americans Bush said, "I have no malice toward any American. Poverty numbers are up and this is part of my plan for getting them back down."
When asked why the government didn't help the poor by simply giving them the billions to be spent on Katrina relief, Bush laughed and said, "That's where my omniscience comes in handy. I already know they'll just spend it on drugs and booze. And we wouldn't get back much tax revenue that way because the poor don't pay taxes in America. Your way would cut a bunch of government agencies and contractors, like Haliburton, out of the loop. And I still owe my supporters a huge debt for helping me steal the 2000 election. My plan will stimulate the economy and keep this recovery on the move up."
Bush said he was comfortable admitting to being selected, not elected, in 2000 because "there are no witnesses to testify against [him] now that [late Supreme Court chief justice William H.] Rehnquist has been called home."
Bush promised to be more open about his future machinations. "Now that the secret of my divinity is out it's no fun pretending Karl Rove is the brains behind everything anymore," Bush said.
Bush also disclosed that Senator John F. Kerry did once possess a magic hat given to him by a cherub posing as a CIA agent in Cambodia. The hat was part of a complex plan to discredit Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.
"Are you sure you aren't the devil?" asked one member of the Whitehouse press pool.
In response Bush smirked, winked, and said, "Well, we have a sayin' back in Texas that one man's God is another man's devil," before ascending into the clouds.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Skins Win! Skins Win! Skins Win!
Unbelievable! The Redskins win on back to back deep touchdown passes to Santana Moss in the last three minutes of the game, the first on a fourth-and-15 play! This is how the Redskins have usually lost to the Cowboys over the last few years. Is this the end of the seven-year-curse--just 1 Redskins win in the past 15 tries? The announcers said Bill Parcels was 77-0 when leading by 13 or more in the fourth quarter. For Redskins fans this game will rank as one of the most memorable moments of all time--like rookie Darrell Green running down Tony Dorsett from behind to stop a breakaway touchdown run in 1983.
One Dallas fan held up a sign in the second half reading, "Danny Snyder Bought the Redskins but Dallas Owns Them." I think Joe Gibbs just paid off the mortgage!
Seriously, though, post-makeover Jerry Jones does make a good homecoming queen!
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Maryland's Gosplanites Busy Again
Radio station WTOP in Washington, D.C reports that Maryland lawmakers are bothered by high gas prices. The pol's are demanding answers from oil and gas suppliers and considering legislation against price gouging.
They must have forgotten about that little law they passed in 2001 mandating minimum gas prices to protect independant service stations from competition with big chains like Sheetz and Wawa! Why not skip to the point and set the darn price at whatever they want it to be?!
UPDATE: Atlas Blogged reminds me that Maryland's brain trust stopped Wawa from offering free coffee with fill-ups last year. That was deemed a violation of the minimum price laws. Is it just me or are the governments of Maryland and San Francisco, CA disproportionately highlighted for their asinine legislative proposals? Hmmm. Annapolis and San Francisco are near the 39th parallel, as are Beijing and Pyongyang, capitals of the principal remaining communist countries on earth. Verrrry interesting.
They must have forgotten about that little law they passed in 2001 mandating minimum gas prices to protect independant service stations from competition with big chains like Sheetz and Wawa! Why not skip to the point and set the darn price at whatever they want it to be?!
UPDATE: Atlas Blogged reminds me that Maryland's brain trust stopped Wawa from offering free coffee with fill-ups last year. That was deemed a violation of the minimum price laws. Is it just me or are the governments of Maryland and San Francisco, CA disproportionately highlighted for their asinine legislative proposals? Hmmm. Annapolis and San Francisco are near the 39th parallel, as are Beijing and Pyongyang, capitals of the principal remaining communist countries on earth. Verrrry interesting.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
FEMA Smoking Gun
William Arkin at The Washington Post finds the smoking gun behind FEMA's Katrina screwups. Ready for this? It's that the Bush administration is too obsessed with WMD and terrorism.
Now that's a nice inversion of the typical criticism we've heard from the left this week, which says the response to Katrina proves we can't handle a terrorist attack. A few words about that in a moment, but first back to Arkin.
His sophisticated analysis (I'm almost embarrassed for him) amounts to adding up the headings and subheadings in key homeland security planning documents to reach a priority score of 1,287 for terrorism and WMD versus 45 for hurricanes and all other natural disasters. He argues that Michael Brown was "set up" for failure by these misplaced priorities.
The giant flaw in his approach is that mother nature has a rather limited arsenal of large-scale disasters that play out much the same way over and over and over. (Ok, if you throw in supernovas, comets, giant meteors, black holes, giant flaming worms from beneath the earth's crust, and various other sci-fi phenomena the list can grow, but there's not much we can do about those anyway!)
Terrorists, on the other hand, have few natural limits when formulating their concoctions of evil. Attacks involving nuclear weapons, engineered plagues, nerve agents, aerosolated anthrax, or toxic chemicals would strain local response and cleanup capacities in ways that natural disasters don't. Coastal states already know how to deal with hurricanes; the South and Midwest understand tornadoes and floods; and California can handle earthquakes. Of course they still take plenty of foresight and cleanup, but they're dealt with repeatedly, and the really bad ones like Katrina are mostly a matter of scale. Chlorine tanks, however, don't explode in Chicago every year. Nor are office buildings routinely filled with anthrax in Atlanta. Simply enumerating and explaining these variegated considerations to local officials requires quite a bit more verbiage than do earthquakes and hurricanes.
The other side of the left's opportunistic criticism, that Katrina proves we can't handle a terrorist attack, is just as wrong. We've been hearing this stupid line all week--even from a few Republicans. If you believe it, I have a challenge for you: Peruse Homeland Security's terrorist attack scenarios to your heart's content, and let me know when you find the one that floods an entire city with water and wreaks devastation with 150-200 mph winds over hundreds of square miles. Find the one where the city must be evacuated by only boats and helicopters. Find the one with downed trees and smashed buildings strewn over hundreds of miles of roadway. And find the one we'll know about days in advance but can't stop because it roars along with the kinetic energy of a dozen atomic bombs. God forbid that we must ever respond to a WMD attack; but Katrina didn't tell us anything about it. (The coming decontamination of New Orleans is probably the more realistic test.)
Arkin's brilliant solution is splitting FEMA out of Homeland Security to protect it from the administration's infatuation with terrorism. Now I'll be the first to agree that creating the Department of Homeland security was a dumb idea. But will restacking the the agency letter blocks again really make things better? People like Arkin who belieeeeeeve that giant federal bureaucracies can work rapidly and efficiently are part of the problem. It. Doesn't. Happen. Frankly the only reason the military actually gets things done is that the warriors at the point of the spear can die when they screw up. Tying a few FEMA officials to an Outer Banks pier in front of Ophelia might best improve the agency's alactrity next time.
Side Note: Arkin claims the National Planning Scenarios document he references is "making its public debut here for the first time." (When will it make it's second private debut!) I'm not sure why he says that. The planning scenarios in this document have been discussed all over the Web. Maybe he means the newest version? Or maybe he doesn't google much.
Now that's a nice inversion of the typical criticism we've heard from the left this week, which says the response to Katrina proves we can't handle a terrorist attack. A few words about that in a moment, but first back to Arkin.
His sophisticated analysis (I'm almost embarrassed for him) amounts to adding up the headings and subheadings in key homeland security planning documents to reach a priority score of 1,287 for terrorism and WMD versus 45 for hurricanes and all other natural disasters. He argues that Michael Brown was "set up" for failure by these misplaced priorities.
The giant flaw in his approach is that mother nature has a rather limited arsenal of large-scale disasters that play out much the same way over and over and over. (Ok, if you throw in supernovas, comets, giant meteors, black holes, giant flaming worms from beneath the earth's crust, and various other sci-fi phenomena the list can grow, but there's not much we can do about those anyway!)
Terrorists, on the other hand, have few natural limits when formulating their concoctions of evil. Attacks involving nuclear weapons, engineered plagues, nerve agents, aerosolated anthrax, or toxic chemicals would strain local response and cleanup capacities in ways that natural disasters don't. Coastal states already know how to deal with hurricanes; the South and Midwest understand tornadoes and floods; and California can handle earthquakes. Of course they still take plenty of foresight and cleanup, but they're dealt with repeatedly, and the really bad ones like Katrina are mostly a matter of scale. Chlorine tanks, however, don't explode in Chicago every year. Nor are office buildings routinely filled with anthrax in Atlanta. Simply enumerating and explaining these variegated considerations to local officials requires quite a bit more verbiage than do earthquakes and hurricanes.
The other side of the left's opportunistic criticism, that Katrina proves we can't handle a terrorist attack, is just as wrong. We've been hearing this stupid line all week--even from a few Republicans. If you believe it, I have a challenge for you: Peruse Homeland Security's terrorist attack scenarios to your heart's content, and let me know when you find the one that floods an entire city with water and wreaks devastation with 150-200 mph winds over hundreds of square miles. Find the one where the city must be evacuated by only boats and helicopters. Find the one with downed trees and smashed buildings strewn over hundreds of miles of roadway. And find the one we'll know about days in advance but can't stop because it roars along with the kinetic energy of a dozen atomic bombs. God forbid that we must ever respond to a WMD attack; but Katrina didn't tell us anything about it. (The coming decontamination of New Orleans is probably the more realistic test.)
Arkin's brilliant solution is splitting FEMA out of Homeland Security to protect it from the administration's infatuation with terrorism. Now I'll be the first to agree that creating the Department of Homeland security was a dumb idea. But will restacking the the agency letter blocks again really make things better? People like Arkin who belieeeeeeve that giant federal bureaucracies can work rapidly and efficiently are part of the problem. It. Doesn't. Happen. Frankly the only reason the military actually gets things done is that the warriors at the point of the spear can die when they screw up. Tying a few FEMA officials to an Outer Banks pier in front of Ophelia might best improve the agency's alactrity next time.
Side Note: Arkin claims the National Planning Scenarios document he references is "making its public debut here for the first time." (When will it make it's second private debut!) I'm not sure why he says that. The planning scenarios in this document have been discussed all over the Web. Maybe he means the newest version? Or maybe he doesn't google much.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
AP Coins a New Anti-Bush Line
AP runs a story today headlined, "Over 40 Bodies at New Orleans Hospital." The lede:
NEW ORLEANS - On a day when President Bush declared "there is recovery on the way" in New Orleans, officials made a ghastly discovery of more than 40 bodies inside an evacuated hospital.
Prediction: For several weeks we'll get a running count of the bodies discovered in New Orleans "since President Bush declared 'there is recovery on the way'." Wait and see.
UPDATE: We get results! (Heh) The story was partially rewritten 3 1/2 hours later. It's now headlined, "Flights Resuming Into New Orleans Today," and begins:
NEW ORLEANS - Officials got ready for the arrival Tuesday of the first commercial flight at New Orleans' airport since Hurricane Katrina hit, and the coroner said autopsies were planned for the bodies of at least 44 people found at a hospital.
You can read the original version here and the updated version here. After a quick search it appears that only the UK Guardian still has the original version on it's site. A search of Yahoo News pulls up links to the original article but the links actually point to the new version. A number of other newspapers appear to have rewritten the lede before posting the article. The story was written by Adam Nossiter. It might be interesting to check out what else he's written lately.
UPDATE: The link at the top of the post again points to the original article as posted on Yahoo News. AP continues to update the story with new information so perhaps they weren't embarrassed by the original lede.
UPDATE: Thanks to Stephen Spuiell of the NRO Media Blog for the link!
Monday, September 12, 2005
Bitt Enders
Last week marked a big milestone for Bilges: After eight months of gradually accelerated blogging, culminating in a burst of post-Katrina commentary, I attracted links from some of the majors. Big thanks to Michelle Malkin, Sean Hackbarth of The American Mind, and especially Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog.
Since there's clearly a giant untapped market for my opinions I'm starting this semi-regular 'Bitt Enders' feature today.
Thousands of Desperate Columnists
Don't miss this entertaining piece of writing from Irish columnist Newton Emerson on the American press reaction to Katrina.
Go Pats!
When I learned of the NFL's opening-night lineup of unpatriotic, Bush-bashing musicians I decided to black-out the TV until after kickoff. When I heard that Kanye West was booed "thunderously...for much of his number" I regretted my decision. Bostonians, I'm sorry for half-heartedly rooting against your team. Now please do something about those two senators...
All the Wrong Lessons
The San Diego City Beat publishes a riveting firsthand account from inside the Superdome by UC San Diego employee Paul Harris. But some jarring discordances are sprinkled through his narrative, such as when, with order disintegrating in the dome's darkness, he snidely comments that:
Was he really thinking this at the time? Does liberal Bushophobia run so deep? Or did this line of thought coalesce to conform with regnant press memes after his escape to San Francisco? And more:Our anger toward FEMA and the Bush administration grew. We truly believed that we might die. Spoken or unspoken, most of us knew that if our resources and soldiers were not in Iraq, we would have had more than enough troops and support.
He was worried his group was moved from the Superdome because of racism! But let's be realistic. Anyone who stands out in a hostile environment is more likely to become a target. His group was mostly white and mostly foreign--doubly different from most of those in the Superdome. Is this racism? Is it racism for an American in Iraq to use taxis for one-block trips in Basra? That's what journalist Steven Vincent neglected to do and the result was his kidnapping and death. When Americans in Central America hire bodyguards against kidnapping are they also racists? Racism is real among both blacks and whites. But it's not racism to realize that a white in a mostly black ghetto is more likely to be targeted by racist black criminals than another black. Harris goes on:Fortunately, a soldier, Staff Sgt. Ogden, saved our group of 100. I am thankful beyond words for the work he did in arranging to get us out. I don’t know if he did this because he liked us, or he knew we were in danger, or if it was racism, or if he realized that if one of the international students was raped or murdered that would be a huge embarrassment for President Bush.
They wrote graffiti blaming the federal government for Katrina! This whole thing reminds me of the liberal writer (I can't remember his name) who recently had a stroke, woke up from his hospital bed, and first thing was upset to remember that Bush beat Kerry! Talk about backwards priorities. All is Not Well On the Anniversary of 9/11 Is it not a sign of the enervating intellectual debauchery of our culture that on the anniversary of 9/11 two of the most prominent stories in the blogsphere are the unveiling of a Flight 93 memorial modeled after the Islamic crescent and CNN's proud demand to show the bodies of Katrina victims as they are discovered? That's the same CNN who, as has been pointed out by many others, refused to show the bodies of 9/11 victims for fear of inflaming American opinion against our enemies. Post Bias The Washington Post ran a long story on New Orleans and Katrina this past Sunday. It has more problems than I have time to comment on, but I couldn't resist highlighting one gem:Finally, we made it out of the Hyatt under armed guard after more false hopes. We wrote our thoughts down on plywood inside the lobby, many of them about the federal government and how its inaction could have killed us, and how it led to the suffering and deaths of many others.
Is there any doubt that the reporter's ears perked up, that his grin grew a little wider when he heard this? Would it have merited mention if the phones were in Germany, say, or South Korea? Of course not. But it fits the Bush-caused-Katrina story line doesn't it? Yet it tells us nothing really. How many of the phones are in Iraq? One? Two? A dozen? Do National Guard communication plans normally depend on satellite phones? If so why didn't they buy more? Is there any doubt that with a slight twist of fate--say a Mississippi Guard unit gets cut-off in Fallujah and takes heavy casualties--we could be reading that the incompetent Bush administration didn't send enough satellite phones to Iraq?The federal disaster response plan hinges on transportation and communication, but National Guard officials in Louisiana and Mississippi had no contingency plan if they were disrupted; they had only one satellite phone for the entire Mississippi coast, because the others were in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)