Michelle Malkin has a fascinating behind the scenes look at a NY Times story on the 2,000th military death in Iraq. They chose to publish an excerpt from a letter written home by a fallen soldier, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr,
”I kind of predicted this,” Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ”A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”
The soldiers uncle wrote Michelle to let her know that,
Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey’s story.
They chose to use a single sentence that was taken from this paragraph,
“Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”
As Michelle said, “Now you know what the Times left out. Now you know the rest of Corporal Starr’s story.”
The NY Times Motto: All the news that fits our agenda.
Condi Demonized By USA Today: I’m sure by now you have seen Condi’s “demon eyes” photoshop hachet job by USA Today.
Red State is questioning the breakdown of a CNN poll.
The choice of phrasing was totally at the discretion of the reporter and the editors. A slight plurality of adults, when choosing between a conservative, moderate, or liberal, prefer a conservative. That fact cannot be gleaned from CNN’s article, and the impression given is precisely the opposite
Now we have Republican Bill Frist siding with quasi-socialist Hillary Clinton in a demonization of the oil companies for record profits.
Oct 27, 2005 ̢?? WASHINGTON (Reuters) РAmid record-high earnings from oil companies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday ordered a Senate hearing with testimony from major oil company executives on why energy prices are high.
The unexpected announcement by the chamber’s top Republican showed the growing political pressure as American consumers brace for higher winter heating costs at the same time energy companies are reporting fat profits.
This is just great. Finally an issue Republicans and Democrats can agree on, excessive taxation of profitable companies. Are you kidding me? This is far more depressing than the price of gas.
And what about that high price of gas? Michelle Malkin points us to this,
In fact, oil cost about 50% more per barrel in 1979-80 than now when adjusted for inflation.
It is also ironic that the very people who have helped create the current energy crunch are now looking at companies profiting from their failed policies for a handout.
It is the liberals who have been against exploration and production in this country for thirty years. They have passed laws and made it virtually impossible for energy companies to invest in E&P. They say no to new refineries (last one built in 1976) to nuclear power (20+years), to more drilling in the lower 48 states, in the Gulf and in Alaska, to onshore liquid natural gas facilities and oceanic wind farms within view of their summer retreats.
Republicans should be making these points, not linking arms with them in an effort to demonize the industry for profiting from their mistakes.
What has been the result of these failed policies?
Since 1981, petroleum industry employment has declined, as the numbers of oil and gas wells drilled, operating refineries, and wholesale jobbers have declined.
The dramatic spike in gas prices this past quarter was a direct result not of a lack of oil, but of a lack of refining capacity. Oil comes out of the ground as a thick sludge. It has to go through a costly and time consuming process before it becomes the gas that we put in our cars. That is called refining. When we have no capacity to refine oil, we end up with shortages of gas at the pumps and that is what happened post-Katrina.
So now the Pander Police on Capitol Hill are gunning for the oil companies for making profits off of their three decade record of anti-energy, anti-exploration and production policies. Makes perfect sense, no?
What would such a tax accomplish? In this case, we have a history to go on. In 1980, President Carter signed into law the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act, enacted in concert with the gradual dismantling of domestic oil price controls that were in effect throughout the 1970s. The law, which was repealed in the late 1980s, established excise taxes as high as 70 percent on the difference between the selling price and a price set by law.
Economic theory suggests that such a measure would discourage exploration. Drilling for oil is very risky, and investors will take that risk only if they believe there is some chance they will make great profits. Take away the profits, and drilling will stop. It doesn’t matter that the tax doesn’t, as in the Dorgan bill, apply to new wells. Are oil companies really to believe that similar laws won’t be passed again?
In 1990, the U.S. Congressional Research Service studied the effects of the 1980s tax, and found that it had exactly the predicted effect. U.S. production was reduced, and reliance on foreign oil increased sharply. Reinstating the tax would, Congress’s research agency concluded, “make the U.S. more dependent upon foreign oil.”
Where were they when the oil industry lost more jobs between 1986 and 1992 than the steel or auto industries? Where were the press conferences then?
As economist Kevin Hasset of the American Enterprise Institute said this week,
After all that the people in the hurricane areas have experienced in the past few weeks, it’s almost sadistic to threaten them with the re-imposition of a tax that did so much harm to their economy in the 1980s. If Congress wants to do something about high prices, they need to consider measures that will increase supply, not reduce it.
Sadistic but predictable. Predictable that liberals would be looking for a handout from a successful company (Hello Microsoft!). What is pathetic is how quickly the GOP has joined in this effort.
Did these politicians reach a hand out to the industry when it was down?
Many shareholders and industry executives have a far different perspective on current oil, natural gas and gasoline costs than do their consumers. They remember how the oil price surge of the late 1970s, amid turmoil in the Middle East, went bust in the early 1980s.
What followed were nearly 20 years of mostly depressed prices, which also depressed the industry’s earnings and stock prices.
San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron, for example, earned no more in 1998 than it had in 1985.
Coca-Cola, by contrast, earned nearly five times as much in 1998 as it had 14 years earlier.
Wow! Coca-Cola must be stopped! They are making obscene profits by addicting our children to sugar! Where is the FTC, the FBI? What time is the press conference calling for an anti-trust investigation? See what a joke this is.
This is short-term thinking, political pandering and bad policy all wrapped into one.
UPDATE: Who has obscene profits from high oil prices?
Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies’ Profits
“Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenuesâ??more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period.”
Hat Tip: TaxProf via Instapundit
It should go without saying (unfortunately it doesn’t these days) that each and every death of a US service member in Iraq is a tragedy. These young men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us back home. It is humbling to think of their sacrifice and my thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.
Liberals claim that their deep compassion for the troops leads them to believe that the best thing we can do for them is to “bring them home”. Have you talked to these people? Their sense of moral superiority is palpable.
Bringing the troops home now, before the job is done, would disgrace the ultimate sacrifice that these courageous men and women have made. That would be like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be the exact opposite of what the liberals claim, leaving Iraq would dishonor their service and their sacrifice.
By any historical perspective, in any military conflict in the history of the world, 2,000 dead after 3 years in Iraq is an incredibly low number. The pre-war estimate for the invasion alone was three times that high. Is that harsh to say, sure it is. One dead is a tragedy and I’m sorry for not only each and every death, but each and every injury, each family that is separated, each child who misses their mother or father. However, let’s be real about what we are doing. We are in a war and that means that many of these brave soldiers will be killed in combat.
“But Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11“. Answer me this. If Iraq presented such a danger to the US and her interests that regime change was the official policy of this government under Bill Clinton, how could that be LESS of a priority after 9-11?
If we elect a liberal to the White House in this day and age, what are we saying to the Islamo fascists? We will only defend ourselves if we can do it without putting our troops in harms way.
If we adopt the strategy proposed by John Bleeping Kerry this week and withdraw from Iraq, we would be handing a victory to the terrorists. Somewhere, the Islamo fascists are laughing at how easy this was. Usefull idiots are in large supply in the Democrat Party.
In WWII 2,000 servicemen died by the Summer of 1942. Should we have thrown up our hands then? Great achievements require great sacrifice. What we have done in Iraq IS a great achievement, if we finish the job.
Liberals used to feel good about liberating 25 million people from tryanny, what happened? Why are they so eager to throw them back into chaos and leave Iraq?
What are we fighting for and why don’t liberals see or understand the importance of this mission? We are trying to stamp a Democracy in the heart of Middle East. If we are successful, we have charted a new course for the world for the next 100 years. Liberals do not want to admit it, but some of the benefits are already apparent, Lybia gives up WMD, Syria kicked out of Lebanon and being held to account for the assissanation of their PM, elections (albeit imperfect) in Egypt, Democracy in Ukraine, etc. This is a goal worth pursuing. This is an honorable mission worthy of our support, not our vilification. Why do liberals avoid the strategic issues involved in this mission? You never hear them talk about these, only body counts, misconduct by the troops and reasons to cut and run and hand AlQaeda a major victory.
The leadership of the Democrat Party is doing the work of AlQaeda in America. Let’s call them what they are, Domestic Insurgents. Time and again in correspondence between leaders of AlQaeda they talk about the importance of using the media to sour public opinion in this country. That is the identical strategy of people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer and a host of others. People in the US Senate should be able to distinguish between dissent and dishonest demagoguery. When they can’t, what does it say about them…and their supporters?
Aren’t there enough legitimate things to criticize about this war? The post-war planning, the lack of preperation for the insurgency, the lack of armor and why it took so long to fix, the treatment of detainees. There are numerous things to criticize. Even with all that, it does not really have anything to do with the importance of succeeding at this mission. Democrats have a “can’t do” attitude that is on full display right now.
If we left Iraq and the country was thrown into a civil war, the savages took over and ran roughshod over the entire region, I think that would be ok with certain members of the Democrat Party simply because it would be a defeat for George Bush.
The bottom line in all of this is that success in Iraq is such a worthwhile mission that if it took another two years and 2,000 dead solders, it would be worth it from a national and global security perspective. Those 4,000 brave men and women would have reshaped the world and given all of us a much better chance at a peaceful future.
Some say that is a worthy and noble mission to be proud of. That those who gave their all did it for a great and just cause.
Others are liberals.
Update: Have you seen MoveOn.org’s disgusting ad yet? Do it before you eat. Hat tip: MichelleMalkin
Say what you will about his current predicament, but this is funny.
Published in Today’s Wall St. Journal in response to Governor Vilsack’s (D-Iowa) charge that President Bush and the GOP are fiscally irresponsible and that we need to raise taxes on the “rich.” Does it ever get old for these hacks?
While I agree spending restraint is vital, the cuts Gov. Vilsack suggests merely nibble the edges. The largest unfunded liabilities are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. President Bush and the GOP have proposed fundamentally reforming both massive entitlements, which threaten to devastate our economy if left untouched. Gov. Vilsack and his fellow Democrats have done nothing but demagogue and marginalize these initiatives (Health Savings Accounts and Individual Retirement Accounts).
The governor then proposes raising taxes on the “rich.” Wow, what a novel concept. Is it any wonder Democrats consistently lose elections? They ignore the empirical evidence that across-the-board marginal tax cuts increase tax revenues to the federal treasury, reduce the deficit, and increase investment, employment and economic growth.
In contrast, every time taxes are raised, especially on society’s productive members (the “rich”), tax revenues, investment, employment and economic growth have always decreased. Remember Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation” and economic “misery index”?
Gregg Jackson
Co-Host of “Pundit Review Radio’
680 WRKO Boston’s Talk Station
BostonWrite to The Wall Street Journal
Letters intended for publication should be addressed:
Letters to the Editor
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, N.Y. 10281
Danny Glover of National Journal’s excellent blog, Beltway Blogroll, has an interesting post today on the impact of bloggers on the political process in Washington DC.
Interesting question especially coming on the heals of last week’s Blog Summit on Capitol Hill.
The bottom line is that on the big issues, bloggers are batting zero. Their only significant policy claim to fame this year occurred at the Federal Election Commission. The blog swarm against that agency arguably forced it to draft a less sweeping plan for applying campaign finance law to bloggers — but even that war is not over yet because the FEC has not finalized the rules.
Bloggers are not powerless in policy circles and actually are gaining influence. Otherwise, official Washington would pay them no mind whatsoever — no conference calls with political chieftains, no question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers, and no other forms of outreach. But bloggers today are not as persuasive or as intimidating as they might like to believe.
For now, they are a lot like an unruly, reform-minded pack of zealots who won election to the House a decade-and-a-half ago and became known as the Gang of Seven. As Republicans in a Democratic-dominated Congress, that rabble-rousing minority within a minority, including one lawmaker who once wore a bag of shame over his head on the floor, had little impact on policy. But they did make enough noise to expose scandals and force change at the House bank, restaurant and post office, and they prepared the way for a GOP takeover four years later.
The as-yet-unanswered question about bloggers is whether they also are sowing seeds of change today that will yield fruit tomorrow.
I wish I could say, “No your wrong, look at this, that or the other thing.” The impact, in DC at least, has been muted. I do think blogs have had a substantial impact on other areas such as grass roots activism, fundraising and on the media. We discussed this very issue with Danny on his recent visit on Pundit Review Radio.
Dealing with politicians who are hostage to spe$ial intere$t$ is another question. It will take time. How many reformer politicians have gone into DC and then just been enveloped by the inside beltway infrastructure? Hundreds? Thousands?
The way for blogs to break through on Capitol Hill is to pick off a congressional candidate or two, then they will be able to move up a few rows in the bus. I think the Thune Senate candidacy in 2004 was the first where blogers had a significant impact. We need to see more of that, whether it is coming from the left or the right. A couple of high profile defeats, brought about in large part by activist bloggers, will go a long way in getting the attention of the entrenched elites on Capitol Hill.
We are in the first inning of this blog/citizen journalist/new media phenomenon, so as Danny mentioned, there is room for improvement and hope for the future.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Daniel Solove of Concurring Opinions has a different, more positive take,
I donâ??t agree. As I blogged earlier, I believe that the blogosphere has been playing an extremely important role in the Miers appointment process. While the true power of the blogosphere has yet to fully be manifested, it has been a large part of the pushback against the nomination.
I also believe that bloggers have helped shape the debate on the issue. The blogosphere has led to many experts, who might just get a soundbite in the print and TV news, having a much larger influence in shaping the debate. The mainstream media has picked up on this and turned it into a lead story for the Miers nomination. The eyes of the media and those inside the Beltway are looking at the blogosphere to guage the way the debate is progressing.
There do not seem to be many sure votes in the Senate for Miers, and it is becoming difficult for Senators to support Miers without believing that theyâ??ll take a big political hit. In essence, a set of virtual confirmation hearings are being held in cyberspace, and the fate of the nomination may well be decided before the actual hearings in the Senate even begin.
It was our pleasure to welcome Mark Tapscott, veteran journalist, blogger and Director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation, to Pundit Review Radio .
Mark has been leading the charge reporting on the OU suicide bomber investigation. His blog, Tapscott’s Copy Desk, and has already broken a number of stories.