Last month I dissected an Al Franken appearance on CSPAN and it has now come to my attention someone has done me much better.
Check out LyingLiar.com, a much more comprehensive look at Franken’s claims and words than my own. It is well designed and well written.
The Washington Times reports: Bush to propose spending freeze.
This may be too little, too late, considering the spending under Bush for the last three years, but if he sticks to his guns and vetos a few spending bills that don’t meet this demand, I’ll feel much better voting for him.
However, if he is given a budget out of the Republican congress that he has to veto, I’m going to consider no vote for my Representative.
There is no good reason the Republicans cannot produce a budget with little to no spending increases.
Indeed, people like me may turn them out.
Could this be why?
More…
Last photograph from Mars rover
(via email from Bob J.)
Yesterday Reuters published this gem, Army War College study blasts U.S. war on terrorism. It has been picked up by other outlets and I am sure it will be commented upon by the usual left wing anti-war Bush hating crowd.
This headline is incredibly dishonest, and the text which follows is more of the same.
The ’study’ is actually analysis by a single expert, Dr. Jeffery Record, a “visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College“. The entire report can be found here, in PDF form.
Reuters gives a quote from a Pentagon source
Lawrence Di Rita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said, “There’s no question he’s entitled to his views.”“People are publishing stuff all the time. That’s the value of kind of having people throw analysis out there. You learn even from analysis you don’t agree with. I don’t even want to characterize it as something I don’t agree with because I just haven’t read it,” said Di Rita, adding that he does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.
This gives one the impression that the DoD is spinning the negative ’study’ from one of it’s own. The reporter, Will Dunham, doesn’t bother to specifically tell the reader that the Army War College didn’t commission the study, doesn’t endorse the study and publishes many opinions that may or may not be used as policy recommendations.
Indeed, had the reporter been honest, he might have noted the very first paragraph of this report:
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Had he read on down to the second page, he’d have found this:
The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this monograph as a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism
Had he been a diligent reporter, he might have also checked the AWC’s mission/values statement to discover this:
We promote openness in the exchange of ideas and, as an educational institution, provide a forum for learning. We accord respect to all views and give them a hearing free from prejudice.
Dunham is either lazy or dishonest or both. It is clear he wasn’t interested in presenting this ’study’ in context, or with proper attribution as a monograph.