Thursday, 1 May 2008

“His Hateful Rants”

I leave you this fine evening with a column by Susan Estrich.


If you want to be elected president, you must persuade people to vote for you. In order to persuade people to vote for you, you must address them. What better way to address large numbers of people than to appear on America’s most-watched news channel? See here for a New York Times story about Hillary Clinton’s appearances on the Fox News Channel. The moonbats must hate this. They’d rather lose the election than associate with Fox.


It’s the first of May and guess who’s in first place in the American League East Division? Break up the Rays!

A Year Ago


Samuel Scheffler on State Terror

Terrorism, as I understand it, standardly involves the use of violence to generate fear with the aim of destabilizing or degrading an existing social order. State terror, as I understand it, standardly involves the use or threat of violence to generate fear with the aim of stabilizing or preserving an existing social order.

(Samuel Scheffler, “Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive?The Journal of Political Philosophy 14 [March 2006]: 1-17, at 11)


There were 28,617 visits to this blog during April. That’s an average of 953.9 per day. My readership is gradually increasing after the change Michelle Malkin made to the way her blogroll is presented. I feel as though my readership is more honest now. Thanks for visiting.

From Today’s New York Times

To the Editor:

We object to “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand” (front page, April 20) and its assertion that military analysts are tools of a Pentagon propaganda machine.

We have never stated anything about defense or national security that we did not believe to be true. Equally important, we also have served the essential wartime function of helping civilians be better informed about our military, our enemies and how the war is being conducted.

Those of us who had a similar arrangement with the Clinton administration are confident that what you have been reporting is really old news.

We have said and will continue to say what we truly believe after looking at all information and facts available to us through the prism of our extensive professional military experience.

Suggesting that we intentionally misled the American people for partisan political purposes or some quid pro quo personal gain is an unconscionable attack on our honor and long service to this nation.

We participated in Pentagon briefings and television and radio network interviews chiefly because our hosts believed we had the credentials to do so as military professionals.

We will continue to speak out honestly to the American people about national security threats. Like our military service, we consider it our duty.

Thomas G. McInerney
Paul E. Vallely
Charles T. Nash
William V. Cowan
Wayne Simmons
Clifton, Va., April 25, 2008
The writers are, respectively, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, a retired Army major general, a retired Navy captain, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a retired United States intelligence officer.

Note from KBJ: I’m not at all surprised by the New York Times hit piece. Progressives are dogmatic. They are so confident that their own views are correct that they question the motives of those who disagree with them. “You support the war in Iraq? Why, you must be a shill of the Bush administration!” It never occurs to them that there is a case to be made for the other side, and that people are persuaded by it.

Note 2 from KBJ: Here is what I wrote about the story the other day.