be·guile [bi-gahyl]
1. to influence by trickery, flattery, etc.; mislead; delude.
se·di·tion [si-dish-uhn]
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006
 

October 6, 2006:

Bob Woodward's State of Denial released just in time for the 2006 election.

Silly us, we thought that newspapers were about news and that news is not "timed" for release for maximum political effect as the author admitted during a recent interview.

It was just my Imagination...

(our apologies to the Temptations, some of whom are rumored to be Condistas , click to listen)

Bob Woodward's State of Denial has been released just in time to be used by the Left as ammunition in the 2006 election -- and with an eye to the future, the 2008 election.   Dr. Rice is a central character in this written "docudrama."  It is "flying off of the shelves" and in its third printing since its release last week. ( Huffington Post)

However, "political novelist Bob" will have to be "rehabilitated" by the Left.  Not all that long ago, he was a target of the Left after his last two books ( Plan of Attack , Bush at War) gave lukewarm positive portrayals of the Bush administration.  It is an article of the liberal faith that nothing that President Bush has done, is doing, or will ever do can be positive to any degree whatsoever.  By citing Woodward, the Left will have to turn up the volume of their hysteric invective even further to drown out questions as to how someone whose credibility they so viciously attacked is now "Exhibit A" in their case to the American people that the Bush administration, and its key members (including Condi) have intentionally misled the American people and bungled the War on Terror -- especially in Iraq.  (click here for liberal attacks on Woodward.)

Why anybody from the Left, or Right, pays attention to Woodward is remarkable. Even Barnes & Noble, that makes millions selling his books, has a "Meet the Writers" profile that is not very complimentary.

Perhaps the only journalist who can claim to feature both Judy Belushi and Ronald and Nancy Reagan on his list of enemies, Washington Post editor and Watergate watchdog Bob Woodward is famously (purposefully?) a lightning rod for criticism. Woodward raises as many eyebrows for his anonymous sourcing as he summons applause for his scorched-earth approach..., yet greetings from the nation's book critics and journalists don't always read like love letters.

His own newspaper, the Washington Post, has in the past threatened to expose his "confidential" sources.  (NYT) The Group Accuracy in Media has questioned whether Mark Felt, a former FBI official, was really the mysterious source "Deep Throat" when Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal. (AIM) His journalistic talents include almost psychic abilities to report on unspoken thoughts and feelings. His most famous, or infamous, interview was with the dying CIA director Bill Casey that later appeared in another Woodward book, Veil. Most other credible observers at the time described Casey as incoherent, at best, the victim of a brain tumor and its treatment. Woodward contends that he was able to approach an acting CIA director in his hospital bed avoiding all security measures, a 24/7 security detail, as well as any potential corroborating witnesses that could confirm what was said (or that the interview even took place) and then extract amazingly candid answers from a man who had recently undergone brain surgery and never regained the ability to speak intelligibly prior to his death.  Mrs. Casey, the CIA director's wife, publicly called Woodward a "liar" and was never sued for defamation.  ("Can you trust Bob Woodward?" NewsMax , Debunking Bob Woodward," Swans)

Unfortunately, we'll have to become familiar with Woodward's book as it will be used as by liberals now, and in 2008. While reading it, keep a pencil and a highlighter handy. Highlight Condi-related paragraphs, then critically re-read those paragraphs. How much is based on the unspoken thoughts and feelings of the sources? What, if anything, can be verified by another source? Is opinion framed as fact? Etc. Then, work on sound bite responses of no more than 7-8 seconds while pretending to be Ann Coulter. If she's too edgy for you, and if you're old enough to remember the Mad Magazine series, "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions" re-read one, or two, of these old books (Amazon) to get into the proper frame of mind. When you're done with your "homework" e-mail us. We'll post the best responses on our blog, or website.

October 10, 2006:

Kim Jong Il still a nuclear virgin?

With all the credibility of an adolescent male bragging to his friends about his sexual exploits, the North Koreans are insisting that they are no longer "nuclear virgins."

In his article, US doubts that test was nuclear, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reports that his sources have doubts as to whether an actual nuclear event occurred.  Delays, small yield, and lack of a definite nuclear "signature" are seen as evidence of a failed test, or a staged event for the benefit of foreign observers and potential customers.  (Like Iran?)

China may finally have "had enough" with their recalcitrant neighbor. North Korea's value as a "gadfly" to the US has now been outweighed by the prospect of Asian nuclear proliferation.  Japan, South Korea, or even Taiwan could apply their technological prowess to "going nuclear."  Japan is reported to have 23 tons of "weapons grade" plutonium, enough for 8000 nuclear warheads. Taiwan, who suspended a previous nuclear program, could be have a nuclear device "online" in a matter of months if they receive assistance from another nuclear nation. (Like Israel? Is that why Beijing has been making overtures to them recently?)

International diplomacy has often been referred to as a "chess game," but now it appears that the game has changed to "poker." If the North is "bluffing," who's going to "call?"

October 11, 2006:

Republican House Members ask Condi to say "no" to Mexico.

Mexico's legal system, known for its rampant corruption and "safe haven" policies for fugitives from US justice, has asked for the extradition of Duane "Dog" Chapman for his part in apprehending Andrew Luster who was "South of the Border" living the good life while on the run from multiple rape charges in the US. (See our previous post.)

Embarrassed by the the high profile case and its accusations of incompetence and corruption on on the part of the Mexican authorities; Mexican President Vicente Fox, in the final months of his administration, has asked for Chapman to be returned to a Mexican courtroom to face charges that he illegally detained Luster, a fugitive convicted in California and sentenced to 124 years. Unfortunately, Bounty hunting is a crime in Mexico.

Chapman was arrested by US Marshals at his home in Hawaii in an early morning raid that was reminiscent of when Janet Reno was Attorney General. (Except they didn't burn the house down.) After a court appearance, he was released on bail pending an extradition hearing. No public statements have been made yet by the State Department about their willingness, or lack thereof, to comply with Mexico's request.  Now, twenty-eight Republican law makers, led by Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have sent a letter to Secretary Rice asking her to deny Chapman's extradition to Mexico.  (link)

Speculation has it that Mexican officials are looking to deflect criticism they face over refusals to extradite criminals to the US. And they especially want to remind meddling gringos not to interfere with rich fugitives that pay well for their freedom. Of course, maybe Fox just wants an interesting chapter to add to his memoirs, due out after he leaves office. ("Why I pardoned "the Dog," ought to be good for a lot of talk show appearances on his retirement book tour!)

October 13, 2006

Air America files Chapter 11

Today, Air America, the liberal talk radio network that was launched to counter the success of right wing talk radio shows is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection -- the victim of low ratings and advertising revenue. In a previous blog post, we outlined the reported financial problems of the network championed by Al Franken and Jeanne Garofalo. Air America executives say that they will try to remain on the air while going through "reorganization."

While this may be seen as "good news," there is another liberal radio network, Green Stone Media, launched last month by Jane Fonda, Rose O'Donnell, Gloria Steinem, and other Leftists who have a lot more business saavy than Air America's management.  Their strategy is to remove the "sharp" edge that was characteristic of Air America programming, but we have no doubt that the subliminal political message will be the same.  (See our blog post about Green Stone Media)

October 14, 2006:

It's a vision thing.

Without a lot of fanfare yesterday, Dr. Rice made it a point to officially congratulate Bangladeshi banker Dr. Muhammad Yunus  (PhD in economics from Vanderbilt, 1969) and the Grameen Bank, recipients of this year's 2006 Nobel Peace Prize in economics. He was a pioneer of the concept of "microcredit," the idea of extending small loans to would be entrepreneurs in impoverished, third world nations in an effort to foster economic growth, economic independence, and raise living standards. 

(For more information on "microcredit" see Newsweek, Herald Tribune, NY Times, LA Times, Time Line)

His activities have also made a very positive impact on the lives of women -- improving their educational, social and economic status. ( The Telegraph)  He has been remarkably successful in his pursuits.

(CNN "The birth of micro credit," State Dept., The New Nation, Nashville Business Journal , Wikipedia)

Compared to the large government programs favored by leftists the world over, Dr. Yunus' economic model, based on self-reliance, is much more efficient in achieving goals of growth and eliminating poverty.  It's a very "Republican" kind of idea, and we expect that's why Dr. Rice chose to officially highlight the occasion -- especially since it ties in to the status of women in the third world and the value of international educational exchange programs -- a "pet" cause of Condi's given her academic past.   Surprisingly, this is a private sector solution  that even Bill Clinton ( link ), reported to have lobbied for the Yunus' Nobel Prize, and other leftists can appreciate, as well.  ( Huffington Post)
 

Courtesy of Cox & Forkum, link

October 16, 2006:

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Secretary Rice is embarking on her Asian tour in the wake of UN Security Council sanctions, however mild, being imposed on North Korea. The sanctions agreed upon are analogous to a "time out" for a misbehaved child instead of the "spanking" that he so richly deserves.

For fans of "Super Nanny," North Korea has been told to "go stand in the 'naughty corner' and no desert for a week." 

But in the absence of a viable military option, short of nuclear "bunker busters" against North Korea's hardened targets, the only real strategy that has a viable chance of success is going to be one that is actively supported by the Chinese.  Knowing that the Chinese are only going to act in their own best interest (Who doesn't?), what can be done to convince the Chinese that "putting the screws" to North Korea is in their best interest?  The only leverage that we have with the Chinese is economic.  While many pundits have pointed out that China purchases large quantities of our debt and therefore we are not in a position to expect their cooperation, they fail to understand an axiom of banking:

If you owe a bank $100,000 dollars, the bank owns you.  But if you owe the bank $100,000,000, you own the bank.

In short, a creditor cannot let large debtors go broke.  Yes, they can threaten all sorts of collection activity, but at the end of the day they have to work out some “arrangement” – any arrangement -- or their debt becomes totally worthless.  OPEC found out about this with their oil embargo in the 70’s.  Sure, they could bring Western economies down, but then all of their dollar denominated debt instruments and investments went down with them.  We were educated about this same principle of economics just a few years later when our bankers took OPEC's windfall profits, deposited in

Paper Money, outlines the economics of the seventies.

US banks, and lent money to any 3rd world country that would listen to their pitches.  (Today, these same banks are sending out pre-approved credit cards to high school seniors and college students.)  So much for the theory that we’re powerless against China because of our debt.  (Actually, it’s rather nice of them to send us all of those manufactured goods in return for pieces of paper backed only with the “full faith and credit” of the US government.  In a nation where most of the post-baby boom generation doesn’t believe they’ll ever see a Social Security check with their name on it, what chance do you think the Chinese have of collecting?  Kind of funny, don’t you think?)

Now, we're not proposing a boycott of Chinese goods, although Bill O'Reilly certainly got France's attention with his boycott -- the effects of which are still being felt.  But similar to the "Terror Free Oil" movement, American consumers could chose Taiwanese, South Korean or Japanese goods instead of "Made in China."  Punitive labeling regulations could be passed by a Congress eager to show that they're "tough on those who are 'soft' on terrorism" forcing Chinese goods (and other countries deemed to be less than fully cooperative with anti-terrorist policies) to be labeled with more prominent statements of origin.  (We have it on good authority that such proposals are "on the drawing board" with at least one, or two, Republican members of congress and  congressional candidates.)  On the other hand, countries that take a "hard line" on terrorism voluntarily would display some insignia such as "Terror Free Goods" to gain a competitive advantage over Chinese imports if American consumers began showing such a preference.  And of course, if the Chinese absolutely refuse to help pressure the North Koreans, unlikely since we are their most important market, the US could "go nuclear" on trade and threaten China's MFN (Most Favored Nation) status. 

The Chinese are keenly aware of these possibilities and are becoming increasingly aware that people afraid of nuclear terrorism, buy bomb shelters, shotguns and canned goods -- instead of Chinese manufactured products.   That's why it's no surprise that early reports indicate that the Chinese are stopping and inspecting trucks entering their country from North Korea beginning shortly after the Security Council passed their resolution.  We applaud such measures taken by the Chinese.  You can fax a brief "thank you" message to the Political Affairs Office of the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC at (202) 745-7473.  (Suggestion: Keep it short and to the point.  Do not bring up other, no matter how worthwhile, issues.)  If you do not have a fax machine handy, sign up on our mailing list and put a request in the the comments section, "Please send thank you to Chinese embassy."  We'll send the following:

 
Dear Honorable Officials of the Political Affairs Office:

With this communication I wish to express my sincere gratitude for your support in the United Nations Security Council for sanctions upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), a nation that threatens the security and safety of my country and family.  Additionally, you are to be congratulated for taking the first definitive steps towards enforcing these sanctions by stopping and inspecting trucks and other vehicles crossing the border from North Korea into China.

With best regards for the future,  I remain, gratefully yours,

Your name

A volunteer has promised to bear the cost of faxing the first 2000 confirmed and verified responses received in the next 7 days.  Each response will be sent individually.  If this number is exceeded, we'll seek support from other appropriate organizations.