People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

He Asks; I Answer

James Taranto, in Best of the Web yesterday, asks the following:

What's a 'Hope Weiner'?
I provide the answer.

Joisey: Stay Too Long, It'll Start Growing On You

The state of New Jersey decided it needed a new slogan in order to lure tourists to the Garden State (at least they aren't going to give names to their biking trails, as some beanbrain here in Virginia has done). Here, according to John Curran of The Washington Times, are some of the entries submitted by Jersey residents:
  • "Bada Bing! Choose New Jersey"
  • "New Jersey: It Always Smells Like This"
  • "New Jersey: Come Glow With Us"
  • "New Jersey: You Got a Problem With That?"
  • "NJ: How You Doin'?!"
  • "Most of Our Elected Officials Have Not Been Indicted"

There are actually a couple of submissions that have my vote:

  • "From Ol' Blue Eyes to the Boss: Jersey Is Singing Your Song"
  • "Born to Fun."

Of course, I like mine the most - "Joisey: Stay too long, it'll start growing on you." For those of you not aware of it, New Jersey is the chemical industry capital of the worl... Oh, never mind.

Words Can Be Such Pesky Things

So I'm reading an article in the New York Post this morning entitled, "NYPD Bias Squad" (link). It's about these three female New York City police officers who have filed suit because they feel they've been discriminated against by their supervisor.

What caught my eye was this:
Retired veteran Detectives Mary MacGregor, Luz Farley and Carolyn Gray had a history of promotions and positive reviews during their long careers with the NYPD until Inspector Elton Mohammed, who is black, took over their elite unit in 2001, LaPietra charged.
"... their elite unit ... "

Now, when you think of an elite police unit, you normally think of SWAT or some similar paramilitary police organization - hard-charging, smash-mouth, fearless, take-no-prisoners kind of law enforcers.

In this case, it turns out, the women "had long worked in a unit specializing in background checks for job applicants ... "

Hello? They were doing background checks? An "elite" police unit?

Are you sure about your choice of words?

Quote Of The Day

"I was wrong," wrote John Edwards in The Washington Post Sunday, repudiating his vote to authorize military action against the Saddam Hussein regime in September 2002. Well, yes, he was wrong. Then, a prudent political calculation for a Democrat with national political aspirations was to support the Bush administration's effort to get Saddam to disarm or take his regime down by force. Now, the prudent calculation to maintain your viability within the late-2005 Democratic Party is to run as far away from your unfortunate 2002 vote as possible -- by presenting yourself as yet another victim of the supposed deception foisted on the American people. -- Todd Lindberg, "John Edwards On The War," The Washington Times, November 15, 2005

NY Times Still Defending Clinton

The editorial staff at the New York Times has now concluded that President Bush, without doubt, misled the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now they're going to MoveOn to the deeper subject of -- why. It's in his code words apparently. Like George W Bush ever needs or has ever used code words.

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance.

But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true. (link)

A counterargument that starts out with "none of it has to be true" is a sign of a very weak argument.

As to the charge that the Clinton administration had the same intelligence that the Bush administration used as justification to bring down the worst mass-murderer in the 1970's and 80's, well, even the Times doesn't argue that point. The editorialist simply says it sn't important.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.
What this genius is saying is that Clinton took that same evidence as Bush received but came to a different conclusion about it. What Clinton actually did - and this will escape the Times columnist - was that he came to the exact same conclusion - Saddam Hussein had WMD, but Clinton chose the more cowardly - and totally ineffective - way of dealing with the problem. He chose to talk Saddam into oblivion. While thousands more Iraqis were being murdered by his decree.

I'll bet the New York Times staff had to think long and hard about this rebuttal to President Bush's counterattack against the pro-terrorist left in this country. Too bad they couldn't come up with a better argument.