Scary Nancy Pelosi

Yes, the content is scary.  Those garish grins punctuating the Frankensteinian means of construction of the health care reform legislation ought to give us nightmares on top of the normal nightmares.

I do try to refrain from making fun of people over their appearance, but Pelosi and Rangel in that scene, in all seriousness, reminded me of nothing so much as one particular character in a legitimately funny Onion lampoon.

So guess which one.

Here's a still to facilitate comparison:

It's the same smile, I tell you.

White House tries to boot Fox from press pool interview: Other networks object

Just ... wow.



Shame on the Obama administration.

Props to ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC.

Economic stimulus

On Wednesday I heard a caller to a conservative radio talk show arguing that the economic stimulus package making its way through the legislative process is legit. Waving aside suggestions that the bill represents wasteful spending, he assured the host that government spending was economic stimulus.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard, apart from the fact that it is trivially true in economic terms. Consumer saving through investment and consumer spending also constitute economic stimulus. Pretty much any movement of money through the system is economic stimulus, leaving as the exception pretty much only those folks who bury their money in a wooden chest in the yard or stuff it inside a mattress.

If the economy truly requires a gigantic spending bill from Congress then Congress ought to ensure that the bill contains those measures with the greatest immediate stimulative effect. According to that measure, the Democratic-controlled Congress has failed President Obama and the nation. The bill they produced absurdly suggests that each and every government spending bill should be labeled as a stimulus package.

I have been tracking Obama's early emphasis for his presidency. The pathetic performance of the Democrats on this stimulus package has probably done more than anything else--including Obama's tax-cheating appointments--to damage the new presidency.

If the Democratic Party was interested in supporting Obama then they should have worked much harder to produce the type of bipartisan bill that Obama originally proposed. Apparently they weren't interested in doing that. Instead, they loaded it with the normal list of pet programs.

Fred Hiatt lends a hand with that Senate Intelligence Report

Editor Fred Hiatt of The Washington Post preemptively spills the beans on my project involving the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the administration's prewar statements of intelligence.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

(...)

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

I'm surprised to find the mainstream press willing to take on the report as Hiatt does, so major props to the WaPo and Hiatt. As for me, I'm not that surprised to find the report lacking in any substantive proof that Bush lied, for I have investigated a variety of such claims over the years and found them almost invariably without merit.

Hiatt notes the same fact that Power Line pointed out about the report. Aside from the minority view appearing near the end of the report, it excludes consideration of prewar statements from Democrats such as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.). Hiatt appropriately faults the report for that omission, and goes on to criticize the report for trivializing the issue of faulty intelligence leading up to the war by, in effect, papering it over with "Bush Lied" bumper stickers.

Hiatt could have added that the report demonstrates an appalling level of cynical partisanship from Democrats in the Senate.

Willing to go to bat for Eliot Engel?

I posted about Rep. Eliot Engel's disgraceful and fallacious attempt to undermine Gen. David Petraeus' trustworthiness earlier. "Duane" popped by to offer something like a defense of Engel's comments. Turns out that a blogger went to bat for Engel right about the time I was blasting him.

Petraeus thanked Engel for the opportunity to defend the piece, because "I stand by it." He noted that it contained several notes of caution, in which he said there were still many challenges ahead in Iraq. (That's true, but any honest reading of the whole piece will indicate it communicates a sense of positive momentum that cannot be easily reconciled with the past three years of lack of progress toward the U.S. handoff to Iraqi troops.)
(Minnesota Monitor)

Ah, if only I had high-paying advertiser for every time I'd seen the "any honest reading" ploy ...

Eric Black wrote the entry, and I'll address my reply to him.

Eric, there's absolutely nothing difficult about reconciling a short-term positive assessment of momentum with a long-term negative observation of momentum, in principle.



The green arrow represents a short-term assessment of progress.
The dark blue bracket represents a long-term trend of negative progress.

The blue bracket can never contradict the assessment given at the green arrow unless said assessment makes predictions about progress that fall into the blue bracketed area. I don't see anything remotely like that. Engel failed to point out anything like that. Black followed Engel's lead.


The line I graphed does not represent an attempt to realistically graph progress in Iraq, just in case there's any doubt on that point.


*****

Petraeus before the House

Hopefully I can be one of the first to make fun of the pathetic swipe at General Petraeus taken by Rep. Eliot Engel (D, New York).

Engel brought up an editorial written by Petraeus, published in the Washington Post, that gave an assessment of progress in Iraq. Engel asked why, given the op-ed, people should believe what Petraeus was saying before Congress.

Petraeus thanked Engel for bringing up the topic, and assured Engel that he could provide an answer.

"I stand by it," Petraeus said.

He went on to say that his assessment in 2004 was accurate. Indeed, if you read it over there isn't much in the way of wild predictions or claims.

Petraeus also pointed out that his assessment predated the destruction of the "Golden Mosque" (Feb 22, 2006), not that he needed a rationale for justifying any failed predictions. This was as strong as the op-ed got:

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.
(Washington Post)

So, Engel committed a fallacy of the complex question, including in his question the false premise that Petraeus' op-ed was not good information, for the purpose of supporting an ad hominem attack on Petraeus.

Shame on you, Rep. Engel.

Listen to the generals ...

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong," Biden said.
(Breitbart.com)

That's Senator Joe Biden, before he has listened to General David Petraeus' testimony before the Senate.

Of course, some distinct hints of Petraeus' intent have been made known through prior interviews and preliminary leaks, but the "listen to the generals" ploy does not ring true, here--not that it ever did.