Friday, May 28, 2004

Hillary v. Federalists

As John Fund points out today, Hillary went out of her way to assail the respected Federalist Society at a seemingly non-partisan event:
This week Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn't resist politicizing an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Sponsored by the Northside Center for Child Development in Harlem, the occasion featured stirring speeches by actors Ozzie Davis and Ruby Dee, as well as one by Robert Carter, the counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund at the time of Brown. Mrs. Clinton was there to receive an award but surprised everyone by using her speech to attack the Federalist Society, a highly respected group of conservative legal scholars and law students that counts dozens of federal judges in its membership.

In her mind, though, the group apparently is a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring back Jim Crow. "Their idea is that the America that has been created [by the Brown decision] is not the America they believe in," she told the surprised crowd. "They want to turn the clock back on America and the goals we all have." The attack was nothing short of bizarre. Liberal scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Walter Dellinger have frequently participated in Federalist events and have never considered its viewpoint outside the mainstream. Indeed, the society's seminars are a popular Washington ticket for Beltway intellectuals of every stripe. But Mrs. Clinton has once again shown that behind the moderate facade she has adopted in the Senate, she deep down remains a liberal ideologue.
I will sieze the opportunity to recommend Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House, published by the self-same Federalist Society.

The book arrived in the mail today and I spend an hour with it at lunch. Fun stuff. It has the Federalists' ranking of the presidents (top 3: GW, AL & FDR) and a short, readable sketch of every president by such celebrity writers as Glenn Reynolds, Bill Bennett, John McCain and cetera. It's fun and informative, and buying it delivers the added bonus of supporting an organization Hillary despises.

Nick Berg, the Left and the Terrorists

Professor Walid Phares comments on the Western Left's misunderstanding of the slaughter of Nick Berg:
But the beheading of Nick Berg cannot be understood as something that America caused. Abu Musab al Zarqawi ordered the kidnappings of Americans and others months ago. Before and after Fallujah’s last episode, the terrorists resorted to "collect" the victims. On one of their audio websites, they called them "assembled sheep" (Tajmeeh al khawareef) who were to be "sacrificed" at will.

Thus, whether Abu Ghraib happened or not, al-Qaeda was building its human ammunition depot. Berg's ordeal was not a direct result of Abu Ghraib. Al-Qaeda does not care when prisoners are mistreated. For them, the big picture is to weaken and humiliate the U.S. and to prevent the rise of an Arab democracy. This is why al Zarqawi stops at nothing to create chaos and fear in the region so as to undermine American efforts. But the Western Left ignores this dynamic and, as a result, steps into al-Qaeda's trap - and helps to cause additional bloodshed in Iraq.
Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: Cox & Forkum.

A cartoonist's take on the media in Iraq

This cartoon pretty well sums up my views on media coverage of Iraq. For those not wanting to follow the link, a journalist stumbles on the four terrorists about to execute Nick Berg and says,
Excuse me fellas... How do I get to Abu Ghraib prison?
Hat tip: isntapundit

A fix for news junkies

The front page of the hard copy version of over 300 newspapers is now online in one place. Sortable by geography or by title of paper. Click on the thumbnail to see a bigger version.

Unfortunately, the site has no archive of old front pages, although this feature may appear one day.

Hat tip: Rantingprofs

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Who will be the next president?

Hillary will be the next president.

Yes I'm serious.

Not because of a dramatic turn of events at the Boston convention. Rather, W will be re-elected, and HRC will be hard to beat in '08.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

How little things change

Becoming involved in a lawsuit is like ‘being ground to bits in a slow mill; it’s being roasted at a slow fire; it’s being stung to death by a single bee; it’s being drowned by drops; it’s going mad by grains.’ Hundreds and hundreds of people are exposed to such torture each year, some of them actually choosing to initiate the process. They invariably find the experience painful, protracted, and expensive. Yet there remains a queue of victims impatient for their turn...
- Charles Dickens, Bleak House, 1853
Quotation from Collaborative Law Alliance of NH

Amnesty International moves further from relevance

In its just-released annual report, Amnesty International "did not mention human rights concerns in Cuba, China, North Korea or most of the former Soviet Republics," according to UPI.

AI's summary of its own report reads as follows:

Huge challenges confronted the international human rights movement in 2003. The UN faced a crisis of legitimacy and credibility because of the US-led war on Iraq and the organization's inability to hold states to account for gross human rights violations. International human rights standards continued to be flouted in the name of the "war on terror", resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture – often solely because of their ethnic or religious background. Around the world, more than a billion people's lives were ruined by extreme poverty and social injustice while governments continued to spend freely on arms.

You are reading correctly -- the only country that AI's summary mentions as a perpetrator of human rights abuses is the U.S. No mention of terrorists as human rights abusers. No mention of countries that routinely torture their own citizens.

Radical terrorism is the gravest threat to global security, and yes, to human rights, in my adult lifetime. And it is the US-led war on terror that AI chooses to take on?

Good grief.

UPDATE: LGF is on the case in a post entitled Amnesty International Hits Bottom, Digs citing this from AFP:
The United States has proved “bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle” in its fight against terrorism and invasion of Iraq, Amnesty International charged.

In its 2004 report on the state of human rights around the globe, the London-based group cited grave violations in dozens of other nations.

But it targeted in particular the “war on terror” initiated by US President George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 for sanctioning human rights abuses in the name of freedom.

The unilateral nature of the conflict to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq had additionally “virtually paralyzed” the United Nations’ role in guaranteeing human rights on a global level, the Amnesty report said Wednesday.

The 339-page document, detailing the human rights situation in 157 nations and territories, reserved the most column inches for the United States, with almost as many critical words also meted out to Russia and China.
UPDATE: At TNR Online Frida Ghitis argues that far from becoming irrelevant, AI is perhaps becoming the problem itself:
In the last year, worldwide conflict has brought turbulence, trauma, and abuse to millions of lives. From the bombed out checkpoints in Kabul and Baghdad, to the interrogation chambers in Saudi, Syrian, and American prisons, to the increasing scrutiny into the daily lives of innocent civilians the world over, the actions of extremists and the reactions of governments have resulted in an atmosphere that conspires against human rights. In the words of Amnesty International, we are living through "the most sustained attack on human rights and international humanitarian law in 50 years." Given this situation, it's a shame that Amnesty, the most venerable of human rights organizations, has decided to stop doing its job. In fact, it could be argued that one of the most serious emerging threats to human rights today is Amnesty's decision to spend a disproportionate share of its limited resources attacking the United States--at the opportunity cost of focusing attention on governments that are slaughtering, enslaving, torturing, and imprisoning millions of people around the world....
UPDATE: Hootinan checks in with this:
As UN troops buy sex from teenage refugees in the Congo and aid workers refuse to do anything about it...
Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.

The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers.
...Amnesty International is calling the United States the worst violator of human rights in the world. Amnesty slams 'bankrupt' vision of US in damning human rights report.
LONDON (AFP) - The United States has proved "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle" in its fight against terrorism and invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Amnesty International charged.

In its 2004 report on the state of human rights around the globe, the London-based group cited grave violations in dozens of other nations.

But it targeted in particular the "war on terror" initiated by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 for sanctioning human rights abuses in the name of freedom.

The unilateral nature of the conflict to unseat Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq had additionally "virtually paralyzed" the United Nations (news - web sites)' role in guaranteeing human rights on a global level, the Amnesty report said Wednesday.

The 339-page document, detailing the human rights situation in 157 nations and territories, reserved the most column inches for the United States, with almost as many critical words also meted out to Russia and China.
Our invasion and toppling of Saddam "virtually paralyzed" the UN's ability to guarantee human rights on a global level? Geez, I was unaware our actions had such an overwhelming effect on the libido of UN workers. Don't you just love it when the United States is singled out and blamed for all the world's ills? Much like Israel is.
UPDATE: Neil Boortz does not pull any punches (scroll down to fifth item):
Amnesty International condemned the war on terror yesterday and said it has flouted human rights and made the world more dangerous. Now ... I'm not saying they didn't, but does anyone remember Amnesty International condemning the terrorist attacks on the United States? I'm just curious. Let me know. While you're doing the research I'm too lazy to do, maybe you can find out if Amnesty International ever condemned Saddam Hussein for his brutality toward his own people.

Two things often elude liberals: facts and consistency. The Secretary General of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, said "As a strategy, the war on terror is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle." Let's pick apart this nonsense, shall we?

Would somebody please tell me how liberating 25 million people from the bloody and brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is an act "bankrupt of vision"? Would Amnesty International care to tell the families whose members were murdered by Saddam Hussein, whose daughters were raped and murdered, that the war on terror has made the world more dangerous? How about the Kurds that were slaughtered? Those who died from Saddam's chemical weapons? That's because it hasn't, and these morons know it. Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons against his enemies, including people in his own country. Now he's gone. Now he's not there to use these weapons again ... and this means that the world is more dangerous? Would someone please explain that concept to me?

This has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with hating the United States of America. To these people, we are not allowed to defend ourselves, at least not without the permission of the United Nations. To these leftists the terrorists are really nothing less than "freedom fighters" and appear to hold the moral high ground. After all, they're just misunderstood people. It's the same thing with Israel. Amnesty International condemns Israel for defending itself. Unbelievable. Once again, the selective outrage of the left rears its ugly head.

Where was this organization on the human rights abuses in Iraq? North Korea? Cuba? The Soviet Union? Remember: it's only bad if America does it. The photos taken at Abu Ghraib by a few are a walk in the park compared to the systematic death and torture that goes on daily in other countries.

The United States doesn't need lectures from a leftist, anti-American "human rights" organization that ignores real human rights abuses in world.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Reuters "reports" on Bush's speech

Last night the President delivered a speech on Iraq. This morning I searched Reuters for news on the speech. The search (for "Bush" and "speech") revealed seven headlines. Six were negative (in the headline, the lede or both) and one -- the partial text of the speech -- was neutral.

Two of the headlines highlighted negative reaction:
  • Iraqis sceptical on Bush speech, want U.S. out
  • Battered Iraqis find no comfort in Bush speech
Two of the articles had typical Reuters scare quotes* in the lede:
  • U.S. Readies Iraq U.N. Resolution Before Bush Speech
    "The United States plans to disclose on Monday the text of a new U.N. resolution that would call for 'full sovereignty' for Iraqis, despite the presence of 130,000 U.S. troops..."
  • Big Four to Pass on Bush Speech
    "The broadcast networks are not expected to carry President Bush's primetime speech Monday night, in which he will lay out a 'clear strategy' for the future of Iraq."
Two others led with sentiments overtly negative to Bush or the U.S.:
  • Bush Speech to Try to Assure Americans on Iraq
    "With support for his Iraq policies at an all-time low, President Bush..."
  • Iraq Wedding Film Challenges U.S. on Air Strike
    "New video footage showing Iraqis celebrating a desert wedding raised more questions Monday about a U.S. air strike last week that killed about 40 people."
And the only one of the crop not overtly negative was a partial text of the speech. (Wonder why Reuters did not see fit to publish the whole thing.):
  • TEXT-Bush Speech on Iraq Strategy

* If you're not familiar with Reuters' use of scare quotes, you should be reading Taranto more often.