Texsanity

Friday, October 10, 2003


MOORON:"THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT""

From Jeff Jarvis via Tim Blair:

Michael Moore says on the Today Show: "There is no terrorist threat."
Lester Holt, shocked, says is there not evidence of a terrorist threat just two miles away? Moore says, "How many people died because of terrorisn last year? None." He calls the bombings of the World Trade Center "occasional, horrible incidents."


A tornado ripping through a city is an "occasional, horrible incident"; I hardly think hijacking four planes and using them as bombs to attack New York and Washington can be classified the same way. Unless you are completely unhinged...which Michael Moore is.

I guess there was no Japanese threat after Pearl Harbor either? Just another one of those "horrible incidents".

Why Michael Moore idiotic rants are considered relevant enough to get him on the Today Show for an interview is beyond me. Perhaps they still think his schtick is funny. If so, they've got a strange sense of humor.


Monday, October 06, 2003


JOSEPH WILSON'S "PERSONAL MISSION"

Joe Wilson now says that the alleged Bush Administration disclosure of his wife's CIA status has endangered her life. This doesn't square with what the CIA told Robert Novak when he called to discuss the story before publishing it:

"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."

According to Clifford May, Plame's status was far from a secret. Referring to Novak's July 14 column, May writes "That (Plame's CIA employment) wasn't news to me. I had been told that - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

May also points out that, Mr. Wilson has been an outspoken critic of Bush's policy towards Iraq:

Mr. Wilson is now saying... that he opposed military action in Iraq because he didn't believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he foresaw the possibility of a difficult occupation. In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion, Mr. Wilson told ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat."

Equally, important and also overlooked: Mr. Wilson had no apparent background or skill as an investigator. As Mr. Wilson himself acknowledged, his so-called investigation was nothing more than "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" at the U.S. embassy in Niger. Based on those conversations, he concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any [sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq] had ever taken place."


Apparently Joe wasn't so concerned last week when considering book and movie deals:

"We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie," he told the Washington Post for a story published Wednesday.

And his partisan leanings have to make one question his motives:

He also has made no secret of his Democratic political leanings, the Post reported, telling the daily he plans to support Senator John Kerry's campaign to oust President George W. Bush.

He worked in the 1980s for Al Gore and has maintained close ties to other leading Democrats, the daily said.


This clearly indicates the position he was coming from during his "investigation":

Wilson also has mocked the Bush administration's reasons for the war, saying in April, "This is not a war of liberation. ... We have greatly offended the entire Muslim world with this war."

As does this quote:

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

I'm having a hard time taking these accusations seriously. Wilson is flip one moment and concerned about his wife's safety the next. He is obviously a partisan politcal adviser to John Kerry who has worked with Al Gore and Tom Foley in the past. His animus towards the Bush Administration pre-dates the his July op-ed piece and the subsequent "outing" of his wife in Robert Novak's column.

If his wife had really been compromised why did he wait until now to protest it? Novak's column was released in mid-July, more than two months ago. Did it really take him that long to figure out the danger or is there another motive at work here?

My bullshit detector is starting to sound off pretty loud.


Sunday, October 05, 2003


IMMIGRATION

This seems like a no-brainer issue to me. Why does it stir up so much debate? We have immigration laws; there is a way for people outside this country to legally enter it and work here. If we think we need more Mexican nationals in this country then we should raise the legal quota accordingly. What we should not do is allow people to enter this country illegally and then provide them social services as if they were citizens.

What is the deal with this "don't ask - don't tell" policy that local governments have with INS? If somebody is here illegally and we find out about it then they should be immediately deported. That would encourage people to use legal means to enter the country.

A couple of facts from the Center for Immigration Studies:

" Although they comprise 4.2 percent of the nation's total population, Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty and 12.5 percent of those without health insurance. Even among Mexican immigrant families that have lived in United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, more than half live in or near poverty and one-third are uninsured

Even after welfare reform, an estimated 34 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 25 percent headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program, in contrast to 15 percent of native households. Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, still have double the welfare use rate of natives."


We don't need to import poor, uneducated people into this country. If Vincente Fox is so concerned about the people of Mexico then maybe he should spend more time improving the educational system and the economy there and less time lobbying the US government to give amnesty to illegals.

The United States has a right to set any immigration policy it wants and to enforce that policy strictly. That is what the people of this country want (California expressed that sentiment at the polls and that would be the response here in Texas too) and politicians in Washington, including the president, need to start paying attention.

Is it too much to ask that we have a rational immigration policy?


RACE PIMPIMPING KNOWS NO COLOR EXCEPT GREEN

Ron Kirk was Dallas' first black mayor (and a damn good mayor at that) who was defeated in his run for the U.S. Senate against John Cornyn. I voted for Kirk for mayor but not for the Senate (no way I wanted a Democrat majority there). He was generally sensible and pro-development and did a good job. He lives in my neighborhood and I occassionally see him at the grocery store or Starbuck's although I don't know him.

You would think that he would have been overwhelmingly supported by the black leadership in Dallas during his Senate run - not only because he's black but primarily because he's a Democrat. You would be wrong.

In this week's Dallas Observer, Jim Schultze, in a piece titled "Is Laura Miller a Racist?", reveals that the head of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, ostensibly a "civil rights" group, wanted his normal "tithe" in exchange for support:

"In the letter, Nash urged member clergy to tell their parishioners not to vote for Kirk because the Kirk campaign, according to the letter, had declined to pay the IMA for its support: 'In years past the political operatives have gotten paid major dollars to deliver the black vote...They want and need our people, and they want us to encourage our congregations to support them at the polls, but without providing adequate compensation to make this happen...The campaign is theirs, not ours!...We will not allow [gubernatorial candidate Tony] Sanchez or Kirk or their representatives to come into our churches to campaign.' "

I don't know how much this affected Kirk's support but it is absolutely disgusting that Nash expects bribes to be paid for his political support. Disgusting but unfortunately not surprising.


Home
Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=