The Pendragon's Hall

Is the Left ever going to quit? Congressional Democrats are on the rampage, declaring that while Bush is right, Clinton and company also believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Bush's administration had far more intelligence and better intelligence on Iraq at its disposal than any previous Democratic administration. If it weren't so maddening, it would be downright hilarious. Democrats are actually telling the world that the Republicans have better information and intelligence than they do. This is not news to anyone with an eye on current events. But even this attempt at self-denigration falls flat because it simply is not true. Clinton was working with years of UN weapons inspectors reports at his disposal, with the civilized world free to come and go in Iraq as they would please. Bush was working with secret intelligence gathered during five years in which Saddam Hussein would permit no weapons inspection or outside influence into the country unless carefully guarded by his henchmen. The fact that both approaches yielded essentially the same answer is a tribute to the truth, not the falsehood, of the allegations. Saddm Hussein had WMD and he was prepared to use them if necessary. If he no longer had them by March of 2003, when his downfall occurred, it was not because he never had them or because he had complied with international regulations. How soon we forget: in October 2002 Saddam agreed to let UN weapons inspectors back in the country. I was afraid he'd slip through our hands again. But within a few months, as inspections were gaining steam and Saddam was telling the world he was destroying his illegal weapons, he again chose to kick inspectors out. Why? I'd venture a guess they were getting close. He still had time. Iraq is a country the size of California and covered in deep sands; porous borders between like-minded terrorist states Iran and Syria would prove useful and his allies in Europe like France, Germany and Russia tied the US and our allies up in useless diplomatic wrangling to buy him time. Furthermore, why is it terrorists are constantly targeting our troops, focusing all their attention on suppressing insurgency so they can do nothing else? I'd venture another guess: if our troops were not so occupied, they could search in earnest for the weapons, which might lead to uncomfortable situations. It's not hard to understand. Unless you're a PH.D educated at Berkeley.

Iraq is reminding me more and more not of Vietnam but of the American Civil War. There's an old saying that "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and I think the Left may be about to discover it. Lincoln was none too popular during the summer of 1864 and had there been such diabolical inventions as public opinion polls, no doubt sentiment would have been running high against the war and favoring a speedy resolution even at the cost of all the Union's war aims. Yet in November of 1864, the northern public overwhelmingly re-elected Lincoln. When they thought about it, they decided they wanted to stick with the war, particularly as Grant and Sherman began proving we could win it. Now those who opposed the Civil War are on History's black list while Abraham Lincoln is widely recognized as our greatest president. This from the man who almost lost his own party's nomination for re-election.

The NFL continues to pique my interest. Several great lineups this week, all impossible to call but I'll take a stab at it.
Cardinals @ Rams: Rams by 3.
Panthers @ Bears: Panthers by 7.
Lions @ Cowboys: Cowboys by 10.
Jaguars @ Titans: Jaguars by 12.
Dolphins @ Browns: Dolphins by 3.
Saints @ Patriots: Patriots by 14.
Raiders @ Redskins: Redskins by 3.
Eagles @ Giants: Going out on a limb and calling the Giants by 6.
Steelers @ Ravens: Steelers by 3.
Buccaneers @ Falcons: Falcons by 1.
Seahawks @ 49ers: Seahawks by 2.
Bills @ Chargers: Chargers by 14.
Colts @ Bengals: Bengals by 3.
Jets @ Broncos: Broncos by 11.
Chiefs @ Texans: Chiefs by 13.
Vikings @ Green Bay: Vikings by 3.

I see in the Buffalo newspapers that a Democratic African-American won a landslide election as mayor in the city of Buffalo recently. He outscored his Republican opponent 64% to 27% and the newspaper breathlessly declared that the Democratic Party had been given a "mandate to reform" the city government. I will be the last to deny that Buffalo stands in need of a lot of reform, and I don't know enough about this Brown fellow to say whether or not he's a good choice. I don't like Democrats but some I know are honorable people and if he calls for an end to corruption--and actually carries through on it--and encourages financial responsibility then he is probably a good man for the job. It's interesting though that 64% of a hugely-Democratic city is considered a "mandate to govern" when 51% (2004) or even 61% (1972) of an evenly divided nation for a Republican president is not considered authority to govern. Add to the 51% overwhelming majorities for the Republican party in both Houses of Congress and it sounds like a mandate to me, particularly if Buffalo's electing a Democratic mayor (again!) is one.

On a lighter note, I would like to offer my predictions for tomorrow's NFL games:
Arizona @ Detroit: Detroit by 10.
Baltimore @ Jacksonville: Jacksonville by 3.
Houston @ Indianapolis: Indy by 14.
Kansas City @ Buffalo: KC by 1.
Minnesota @ New York Giants: Giants by 7.
New England @ Miami: Miami by 6.
San Francisco @ Chicago: Chicago by 7.
Denver @ Oakland: Raiders by 2.
New York Jets @ Carolina: Carolina by 14.
Green Bay @ Atlanta: Atlanta by 12.
Saint Louis @ Seattle: Seattle by 4.
Washington @ Tampa Bay: Tampa Bay by 1.
Cleveland @ Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh by 21.
Dallas @ Philadelphia: Undecided, leaning towards Dallas.

I'm so proud of them. The Senate today voted to "strip rights" from terrorist prisoners in Guantanamo Bay by denying them the right to sue their captors in American courts. To Leftist newspapers like today's New York Times this is inconceivable. Interesting how rights only come into the picture when non-citizens accused of terrorism against the US and our allies are concerned. When citizens of the US, like our soldiers or civilian workers, are captured, the immediate response is: "Too bad. Now they're going to get tortured because we invaded Iraq." How about we apply this logic to terrorist prisoners? "Oh too bad. Now he doesn't get the beef steak because he shot unarmed women and children or hatched a plan to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge." Or how about, even, "He's getting the rough treatment because he and his 'brotherhood' have been taking pot-shots at our soldiers for months and now the soldiers get to fight back"? I am further impressed that RINO Lindsey Graham is the sponsor of this amendment to a military funding bill. The really good thing is, with the liberal Senate already approving, the conference committee probably won't kill it when it comes before the much more conservative House. The best thing about it all though is that this law comes to nullify a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that allows terrorists access to American lawyers. It's really about time somebody stood up to the judiciary and I'm proud to say it looks like it's going to be Congress.

I watched the famous "documentary" Supersize Me tonight. I had of course heard of it, and I am of course as convinced as anyone that obesity in the US is a problem. Statistics rarely lie. I also agree that more responsibility is needed on the part of the fast food industry and the people using it in order to help curb this epidemic. I sympathize with the guy making the movie. This, however, is where my praise for this project ends.

His experiment of eating nothing but McDonald's for a month was completely unnecessary. His use of statistics, his interviews with experts and with people eating the fast food would have made a completely convincing documentary without destroying his own body. Furthermore, the way he set it up was to portray the worst case scenario: what person really eats nothing but McDonalds? The most extreme people he interviewed admitted to eating there "three times a week". This does not equal three times a day, by the way, in case you have trouble with the English language. To proceed for thirty days as planned when by day eighteen he was making his point was dangerous and unnecessary. Had he called it off then, I think we all would have believed him. I hear through the grapevine that he is suing the fast food corporations now too. Great. So now we have another instance of a whiny American doing himself in and blaming society. I agree with him that something should be done about obesity and the fast food industry isn't helping. But suing them to get money is not going to help either. People will still be obese. He started out with the right idea: expose the hypocrisy in the school system. You can't give them one period of recess, one class on nutrition and feed them fast food and then load them up with homework so they can't get outside to play and expect anything else. This is where real change could take place. Until we get to where the real teaching is being done, suing McDonalds will just make the victims feel more victimized and they will never learn to change the way they are by doing something. But this is, after all, the American way.

Mort Zuckerman (That's some pig! Sorry--a little reversion to my childhood days.) wrote an unusually balanced editorial for U.S. News & World Report this last week about the new anti-Ira War screed emanating from Congress. His point is the one that Conservatives have been making for the last three years: everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass production--Democrat, Republican, Eastern communist, or Western European socialist. Republicans did not "create" evidence supporting their war; they went with what they knew at the time. It's really the only thing you can judge a person's actions by. Harry Truman had intelligence that the Japanese were ready to fight to the death and that invading the island would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. After he dropped the bomb, information surfaced that perhaps there would have been a Japanese defection and an invasion might have succeeded. That doesn't matter. Truman took what he knew at the time and acted on it. This is what makes a decisive leader great. (Personally, given what I know of Japanese culture and the subordination they were in to their emperor at the time I doubt that the revisionists are correct--I think an invasion would have been tenfold more costly both to America and Japan.) Zuckerman concludes his article on Iraq, writing: "The failure to have developed a more accurate assessment of Saddam's secret weapons program doesn't mean that going to war was right--and it certainly doesn't justify the way the war was excecuted. These are subjects worthy of grave attention. But to impugn the integrity of our leading officials and poison the atmosphere in which this country is fighting a war is irresponsible politics and it ought to be stopped." I don't know about all of that--I still am relatively sure he had weapons of mass destruction and believe the war was fully justified (after all, the UN tied everything up for fifteen months before the attack began, and these rather porous borders to Syria and Iran which are now teeming with terrorists could have been handy once again). But Mr. Zuckerman's title gets it right: "Foul-Ups--Not Felonies." The media is always willing to believe that mistake made in a Republican administration were deliberate attempts to mislead the public...somehow Bill Clinton just got made a Republican, but I digress. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Clinton and his cronies in 1998 said all the same things that Bush and his people did in 2002. But I've said it before, and I think I'll say it again: the only thing a conservative president can do to please these people is die or bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Anyone who owns a car will not sleep well in Paris tonight. You'd think being both French (the country whose new national motto is "Peace at any price") and Muslim (a practitioner of "the religion of peace") would make these people harmless little lambs but, surprise! They're tearing the city apart and now it's spreading to other cities. I guess there still are some people who can fight in France--its own insurgents. True to form, French police have taken bullets but apparently not returned any. It is unknown at this time whether this was because the government has refused to authorize them to enforce the peace or whether they bought their bullets from the Iraqis. The little darlings set fire to a 57-year-old woman who was using a walker. Mohommed would be so proud. At issue? The death of two 17-year-old boys who electrocuted themselves while hiding from the police. I have a suggestion: if French Muslims don't want the police to chase their kids, then let's have their kids stop breaking the law. It's a novel one and the black community in the inner cities of the US haven't taken it yet either, but it would be well worth trying. One lesson we should all learn from this: you can preach the goodness of "the noble savage" but in the end, a savage is always going to behave like one.

I see the man who got fewer black votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in modern history is now trying to battle his way back. Senator John Kerry is proposing a new Rosa Parks statue somewhere in DC. Coming as it did right after the funeral, obviously it's a political stroke. With early Civil Rights workers now the heroes of the hour, no one will want to vote against it. And if Senator Pathetic up there can get it passed, he can get credit for being The First To Think Of It. To give him credit, it's not that bad an idea. I admire Rosa Parks and her bravery, but these Lib Dems can't even let her have her moment in the spotlight...for the right reasons this time. Clinton gave an eulogy, don't ask me why, at her funeral, which turned into another "I-am-God" routine in which he claimed that as a nine-year-old white boy he "strongly approved" of what Parks had done and chose to sit with the blacks. Now Kerry brings his bill. If a Republican did anything remotely like this, the press and the Democrats would be screaming, "Politics!" But of course we all know the reason that they're doing this: to make people forget that when push came to shove in 1964, more Democrats were aligned against the Civil Rights bill than Republicans. So...they can sit in the back of the bus or they can build a new statue, but they wouldn't give them something more lasting...equal rights.

That's more like it. President Bush's nomination of Federal circuit Judge Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has Senate Democrats in a fury. Senator Schumer tried to demonstrate his relevance by declaring that Alito could be a new Rosa Parks--how, I'm not exactly sure. But overall he shows contempt for the man and for his appointment. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who influenced Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, claimed he was "disappointed." The fun part of this is that Reid says Bush dared not to "consult" with Senate Democrats, and said he had written the President to offer his help in finding a "consensus candidate." Earth to Democrat: You were fine with Harriet Miers; all the Dems were. But she was not a consensus candidate. And the President of the United States does not have to dictate to a minority party on the brink of imploding like the old school Federalists. To quote one of your own: We're coming; you're going. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.