When fliers were posted around GWU's campus recently claiming to hate Muslims, the University Administration vowed to punish the perpetrators severely, including expulsion. Now that the school discovered that the fliers were actually posted by Leftists, including a self-described socialist, GW administration is suddenly less concerned. I doubt there will be any further cries for expulsion. Powerline has more.
You'd never know it, but anyone check the S&P this week? Media continues to ignore whatever good news has happened in the Bush administration but that's expected.
I'm not saying the economy isn't cooling off. We're due for a cool off. Just sayin that GW deserves a little credit for the shambles of the economy he inherited in 2001. S&P 500 has roughly doubled since his tax cuts were passed.
The US Budget Deficit has declined once again to its best level in 5 years, to 1.1% of GDP. Another way to look at it is, it's declined to its lowest level in 5 years even after considering the higher spending levels that took place in 2002 and 2003 due to 9/11 and the severe recession which he inherited from the previous administration.
While we hear a lot about this administration's propensity to spend and how horrible it is that the deficit level has averaged 1.5% of GDP during Bush administration's first 6 years (compared with Clinton administration's first 6 years of 2.5%), we don't hear a lot about what are the budget deficit in other countries. For example, the UK deficit is at 2.7% of GDP and it's almost NEVER talked about in the UK press. In France it's at 2.3% of GDP. In Germany it is at 1.7% of GDP. In Italy it's at 2.4%. Just want to bring that up as those are the four largest economies in Europe.
This whole talk about budget deficits in the US press is by and large a sham used as a tool to attack Bush and his tax cuts which liberals despise. A deficit of 1.1% is nothing, and after considering that most states are running surpluses, the deficit is all but wiped out in the US. I predict that if a democrat makes it into the presidency we will never hear of our budget deficit ever again, just as was the case when Clinton was in office.
While I don't have the specifics of why a Republican Senator's anti-Moveon ad was denied by Google, it's quite well known which way Google swings on the political spectrum. (Ever notice why leftwing blogs are typically ahead of conservative blogs in terms of priority on web searches?)
Yes, it's a public company and subject to a (somewhat) independent Board (which includes Al Gore), but its executives have also made no secret of their liberal leanings.
Has there ever been a President in the history of the U.S. that was more anti-American than Jimmy Carter? Even Clinton, who has plenty of faults, has more class than to go out trash-talking his country on a regular basis.
Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents to cover up President Clinton's shortcomings related to Bin Laden and terrorism. He was lucky enough to escape serious penalties or jailtime. And now he's back advising Hillary! Read ithere.
I wonder if the media would treat this the same if Scooter Libby (who was, by contrast to Berger's misdeeds, a saint) became an advisor to a GOP candidate.
North Korea has agreed to disclose all nuclear activities and shut down their Yougbyon nuclear facility by December 31st. The US will lead these efforts and will be allowed into the country during the next couple of weeks. I seem to remember those Bush critics saying that while multilateralism was the only acceptable option in Iraq, many of them also said that unilateralism was the only way to go in North Korea. Well, seems like we've gotten some results.
Now, this may be pie in the sky, and we're being conned once again as Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton were during the 90's. It might happen again. But if it is legit, then isn't this a Nobel Peace Prize type of accomplishment? Jimmy Carter thought so. I hearby recommend that JC either fork his prize over to the White House or the Nobel Committee to consider this accomplishment.
All major US networks have all but ceased reporting in Iraq, now that news has become incrementally better, however Al Jazeera, if it can be trusted continues to report. According to Al Qaeda themselves, in Iraq:
We proclaim to the Islamic nation the martyrdom of the leader Abu Usama al-Tunisi, one of the longest-serving fighters of the Jihad [in Iraq].
Al Tunisi was in charge of foreign fighters moving into Iraq. One US general said a note was found at the scene which beckoned for help saying:
He's surrounded, communications have been cut and he's desperate for help.
In other operations, US forces killed 18 and captured 28 terrorists in Diyala and in Salahaddin they killed 8 and captured 7.
Yep - sounds like Democrats know what they're talking about. Democrats (actually all politicians0 should ask themselves some questions in the run-up to elections. One, are Al Qaeda considered terrorists? Two, are they a threat? Three, is Al Qaeda only considered a threat in Afghanistan or is it possible that Al Qaeda must be considered a threat elsewhere? And lastly, if Al Qaeda is a threat, and they are in Iraq, as everyone now admits, why shouldn't we fight them there?