My Photo

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

From the Mystery Lovers Book of Quotations


  • Liberal principles are all very fine as long as they leave you with something to have principles about. -- Jack Higgins

  • Sweep everything under the rug for long enough, and you have to move right out of the house. -- Rachel Ingalls

  • It's hard to live a reputation down. Especially when your actions live up to it. -- Michael Z. Lewin

  • A prompt man is a lonely man. - Elmore Leonard

  • You know who casts the first stone? The guiltiest bastard in the crowd. -- William McIlvanney

  • Life is the process of finding out, too late, everything that should have been obvious to you at the time. -- John D. MacDonald, "The Only Girl in the Game"

  • We gave her everything. But it wasn't what she wanted. -- Ross MacDonald, "The Underground Man"

  • Sanity is sometimes a matter of going on, outwardly, as if everything is all right. -- Mary McMullen, "Prudence Be Damned"

  • People without brains are always dangerous. -- A.E.W. Mason, "The House of the Arrow"

  • Everybody needs a little improbability in their life. -- Reginal Hill, "Deadheads"

Read This

Visiting Kids

  • 98henrygeorge
    Pictures from our trip to East Texas to see our twin sons, our new daughter in law, and the grand-critters, Frog, Henry & George W.

« The Weary Listener Speaks of Old Women in Hats | Main | The Cookie Debate Today »

Open Season on Harpists Begins Today

Today is the first practice session with my harp partner, Carla, as we gear up for Christmas performances. It remains to be seen whether the debilitating stage fright that descended upon me last year will reappear this year. After 30 years of performing one thing or another - piano or voice - and then a successful first Christmas season on the harp, I'm not sure what happened last year, in my second season. Maybe 100% memorization of the music will help. I hope so. There's not much point in playing the harp if you cannot play in front of others, except to use it as a form of private torture or to calm fractious dogs in my living room (it always makes them immediately sleepy).

Meanwhile, what's in the news today other than John Edwards' big televangelist moment, promising John Kerry could make the wheelchair-bound walk if he was elected president. Just when you thought there was nothing Kedwards wouldn't say to get elected, they go even lower than that!

On the subject of the violence being inflicted against Bush-Cheney campaign offices and volunteers and voters, Michelle Malkin wonders how many hate crimes it takes before the MSM spots a trend?

Hello, reporters? Is anybody home? Is it my imagination, or do I hear pins dropping in the grievance corners of America's otherwise victim-friendly newsrooms?

For the past several weeks, the Internet has been buzzing with story after story of election-related mayhem aimed at Bush/Cheney supporters. Some have downplayed the incidents as run-of-the-mill pranks. Others claim that "both sides are doing it" equally.

Yes, both Democratic and Republican signs have been torn. Yes, there has been juvenile behavior on both sides. But left-wing activists have escalated their campaign attacks to a seemingly unprecedented level. We have gone from simple mischief to open-season malice. And the supposedly objective reporters who are always so willing to connect the dots to expose the politics of hate are now whistling past the smashed windows and flaming signs and bullet holes.

**********

The Washington Post takes a tortured look at Kerry's management style. I say tortured because Kerry obviously substitutes information for core beliefs instead of measuring information against core beliefs, and the Post had to get into all kinds of contortionist positions to find positive ways to portray this. It's an interesting read. Here's the part of his modus operandi I'll bet a certain billionairess regrets:

He has three dozen domestic policy councils, two dozen foreign policy groups, an expanding corps of consultants, and many informal advisers he calls -- about 15 per night -- before going to bed.

I'm coming to bed, honey, but I just have a dozen more phone calls to make!

Here's another part that illustrates the difference between a debater and a leader:

Before setting a course of action, he regularly engages aides and friends in long discussion and argument, often playing devil's advocate to probe for weaknesses and, if he finds them, insisting on more information until he believes he can argue all options equally well.

It is an approach that wears down even loyal lieutenants, particularly when choices seem obvious, but one they say is built into the way Kerry operates.

I get a sense of deja vu from all this. Bill Clinton was also a sponge for data and a late-into-the-night debater. I don't think we as a nation gained much from that, but Al Qaeda and the other Islamofascist terrorists gained an eight-year lead in their war against civilization.

If you're going to go to war against the United States, which they did, it's better to have a sponge in the Oval Office than someone who is going to come and drop a daisycutter down the mouth of your cave. The terrorists must be sweating this election as much as we are.

All in all though, if you're analyzing John Kerry, it's better to focus on his management style, no matter how flawed, than to focus on his attempts to pander to outdoorsmen.

Geoffrey Hunt has a handle on leadership today in The American Thinker:

Prescription drug plans, health care cost policies, social security, environmental protection and campaign finance reform do not define a nation. Ideology that inspires people everywhere to realize the ideal of liberty, that provides a model of democracy and vindicates moral principle, under God, defines our nation. It was true in 1630; it is still true today.

Only one candidate for President understands this.


************

Here's a look at things to come on November 3, and explains why the Democrats, in a preemptive attack on the election, have been orchestrating so many fraudulent voter registrations in places like Colorado and Florida:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson warned Tuesday that if the November election ends in controversy, Democrats will fight back much more fiercely than they did after the 2000 election. Jackson's remarks before a meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California at San Francisco's Herbst Theatre reflect a readiness by Democrats to start a legal ground war over perceived voter irregularities.

Here's another one.

************

Kerry's hinky discharge from the Navy still is not a story that is attracting the mainstream media, and when I say that, I mean not in the way they are attracted to possible bad news about President Bush's past. You know, like a school of sharks. So the little old New York Sun is out there with plenty of ocean to swim in today:

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service. ...The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

***********

Meanwhile, David Horowitz discussed the Liberal hate campaign.

***********

It is amazing, when you watch the debates, what a sitting president cannot say. It must take a great deal of willpower.

***********

Finally! Something at which the French excel. This is what they are doing instead of making a lot of annoying phone calls at night.

***********

Michael Goodwin on the NY Times Magazine piece about John "Don't Lose Your Head Folks, Just Think Of It As A Nuisance" Kerry.

After interviewing Kerry's friends and aides, he comes away with a sketchy vision of a Kerry presidency that starts and ends with a dedication to diplomacy. The rest is the author's attempt to fashion a comprehensive Kerry Doctrine - even though he concedes Kerry has not offered one.

"One can infer ...," Bai writes in a typical passage in which he tries to make a cloth out of loose threads, "that if Kerry were able to speak less guardedly, in a less treacherous atmosphere than a political campaign, he might say, as some of his advisers do, that we are not in an actual war on terror."

Right - no war. Try selling that to the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is scary stuff. And for those who read all the way to the end, the author suggests he recognizes the vacuum he has glimpsed.

"I came to understand ... the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism," Bai writes.

His verdict is that Kerry's "vision might have seemed more satisfying - and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign - in a world where the twin towers still stood."

I take that to mean Kerry might have been a good President before Sept. 11, 2001. Sounds right to me.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454716769e200d8353e7a8369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Open Season on Harpists Begins Today:

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Thinking of Breeding Your Pet?

The Harp Is a Beautiful Instrument of Torture

  • Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member
  • Mcpalin_2



  • Finger_1 

  • Libadv



  • Churchilljack




Favorite Quotes


  • ...Western hand-wringers, the great progressive liberals of the Western world, would rather wring their hands, or like Darfur, hold some ... interpretive dance event to save Darfur every week for the next thirty years. The uselessness of liberal outrage is one of the great constants of the modern world. --Mark Steyn

  • President2

  • 061908_2 



  • "Since the Second World War and the beginning of the atomic age, the consciousness of the creative writer, however detached, has been confronted with the specter of the totalitarian state, the growing poverty and helplessness of Western Europe, and the threat of an inconceivably destructive war which may annihilate civilization and mankind itself. Clearly, when the future of civilization is no longer assured, a criticism if American life in terms of a contrast between avowed ideals and present actuality cannot be a primary preoccupation and source of inspiration. For America, not Europe, is now the sanctuary of culture; civilization's very existence depends upon America, upon the actuality of American life, and not the ideals of the American Dream. To criticize the actuality upon which all hope depends thus becomes a criticism of hope itself." -- Delmore Schwartz, 1958

  • "I've got nothing to do and I'm doing it tomorrow." --Elaine Stritch

  • "...He is, like all great funny men, inconsolable." --John Lahr describing a famous comedian

  • In taking our self-examining ethos to these extremes, we have lost a kind of wisdom, wisdom that acknowledges the complexity of human life but can move through it to find the simple truth again. While assessing the intricate failings of our moral history, many of us have lost sight of the simple truth that the system that shapes us is, in fact, a great one, that it has moved us inexorably to do better and that it's well worth defending against every aggressor and certainly against as shabby and vicious an aggressor as we face today. -- Andrew Klavan

  • The elites in Washington, D.C., New York City and the United Nations seem to have plotted a journey to lead America into the New World Order where a cosmopolitan global citizen is no more connected to his country than a sociopath to his fellow man. -- Dimitri Vassilaros

  • "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." --Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, 1983-2005

  • Politics guides much of the media's portrayal of our soldiers. There have been thousands of American heroes in Iraq, but instead the most discussed soldier in the public eye is still Army Pfc. Lynndie England, convicted of abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib. Likewise, there are almost 2,000 mothers of fallen Americans, yet the public recognizes the name only of Cindy Sheehan ("We are waging nuclear war in Iraq").--Victor Davis Hanson

Adopt a Pet!


Listen To This

  • : Perfectly Frank

    Perfectly Frank



  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from The Accidental Harpist. Make you own badge here.
Blog powered by TypePad

In Their Own Words: Democrats on W.M.D.

  • Al Gore, frequent critic of President Bush's handling of the War on Terror and Iraq, was asked whether the facts in his new scary global warming movie are correct: "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
  • en. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
  • Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
  • Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."
  • Howard Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."
  • Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."
  • Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."
  • Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
  • President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
  • French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."
  • Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
  • Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
  • Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
  • The report on [Wilson’s] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.--Joe Wilson's report on his trip to Niger
  • He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.--Joe Wilson reporting to the Senate Intelligence Committee
  • [o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.--Washington Post Editorial Board, during 2001 Inaugural
  • ...without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again... [It's} hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.--New York Times Editorial Board
  • Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.--Ted Kennedy & Robert Byrd in 2002
  • I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.--John Kerry in 2002
  • Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.--Al Gore in 2002
  • We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.--Al Gore in 2002
  • There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.--Sen. Jay Rockefeller
  • In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.--Sen. Hillary Clinton
  • Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.--Sen. Carl Levin
  • There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.--Bob Graham
  • Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.--Nancy Pelosi
  • He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.--Sandy Berger
  • Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.--Madeline Albright
  • If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.--Bill Clinton
  • I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes). --Bill Clinton's NSC Staff, Kenneth Pollack
  • I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate...People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.-- Lawrence Wilson, Dept of State

Blogs for Bush