As I was reading the news story about Senator John Kerry vowing to support only pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court, it occurred to me just how difficult it must be to be a Democratic presidential candidate today.
It doesn’t do much good to have a reporter somewhere if he/she can’t actually report what’s happening. That’s why Eason Jordan’s op-ed piece in the April 11 New York Times is such a shock and such a disappointment. Jordan is the chief news executive at CNN.
Welcome to Baghdad. The pictures broadcast in the United States and around the world this week showing the Iraqi people, with the help of U.S. Marines, tearing down Firdos Square's 40-foot statue of the dictator who brutalized this country for 24 years were magnificent.
The task of reconstructing Iraq--more its civil society than its physical infrastructure--is entangled with the less urgent task of reweaving the frayed relations between America and France and Germany, and with the optional task of rehabilitating the United Nations.
Liberals are no longer a threat to the nation. The new media have defeated them with free speech – the very freedom these fifth columnists hide behind whenever their speech gets them in hot water with the American people.
The recent deaths of journalists in Baghdad are more than just personal tragedies. Both the chances that these journalists have taken and the indignant reactions by the surviving journalists are a sad sign of a growing lack of realism in our times, especially among the intelligentsia in the media and in academia.
Have you seen the April 7 issue of Time magazine? It appears that last week the Coalition of the Willing lost the war -- and to Iraq, not to the Red Army, not to the Wehrmacht, not Napoleon's Grand Army, but to Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.
Iraq, of course, is by far the story of the hour. The magnificent rescue of Jessica Lynch; the awful death of columnist Michael Kelly - perhaps the best columnist of the time, and a top thoroughbred in any newspaper's columnar stable (a columnist who, if pure writing and not ideology were the principal measure, would have won the Pulitzer).
Arab government officials and military officers, visiting the Near East and South Asia Center for Strategic Studies in Washington last week, frantically asked their American hosts if Iraq was only the beginning of U.S. military intervention in their region.
Even though I often write as though I know something about taxes, I could not possibly finish my tax return by April 15. Begging the IRS for more time has become an annual certainty, although IRS auditors must be glad to put off looking at my oversized return as long as possible.
Those of us whose pessimism about our country's social degeneration sometimes borders on despair have been given a reality check by the dedication, discipline, and decency of our troops in Iraq, as well as by the advanced technology of the military equipment they use. There is more than a little hope there.
Now that the United States has decimated the Iraqi forces in such astonishingly short order with phenomenally few casualties the already exercised antiwar contingent is bound to be beside itself waiting for the next war-shoe to drop.
A recent poll found a quarter of the French are rooting for Saddam Hussein to win the war. A pox on all their maisons, but it's the majority of the French who still want the United States to win -- after months of Americans lampooning French military history -- who interest me.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is very bright and very witty and a public figure who rivals Barbara Walters for omnipresence. But he can also be counted on to attempt an invidious construction of almost any feature of American life that can possibly be represented as anti-black, his latest being the charge that we ought to abandon the volunteer military and go back to a draft.
With the Islamic connection seemingly undeniable in the Asan Akbar grenade case—the black Mulim engineer was heard by other soldiers immediately after the attack ranting, “You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children.”
American soldiers have been disobeying orders. According to The Washington Times, some members of the Army's Civil Affairs Brigade stationed at Umm Qasr are routinely tucking extra cases of bottled water into their Humvees to distribute to thirsty Iraqi civilians.
In our recent survey of 1,000 adults, we asked, "As of today, who of the following do you think is the best leader to deal with the situation in Iraq?" Along with Bush, we listed former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and former Vice President Al Gore.
The simultaneous news coverage of the war in Iraq and the rape scandal at the U.S. Air Force Academy exposes again the feminist double standards and hypocrisies.
Irrespective of the debate over which department and agency should do what in Iraq and what role international organizations should play, there is a bigger issue of how we approach Afghanistan, Iraq and all of Central Asia and the Middle East post-Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
Many of those who oppose military action in Iraq cite the cost as a principal reason. Before the war, they often exaggerated the monetary outlay, the loss of American lives, the danger of a long war and other concerns in order to discourage U.S. engagement. They were wrong.
With war still raging, the State Department is planning to hold a “Baghdad Conference” a mere six weeks after the conflict ends to determine an interim leadership and to establish a framework for its new government—something that many inside the administration fear could give the House of Saud undue influence in a post-Saddam Iraq.
Asked for the good news about homeland security, Rep. Chris Cox, the California Republican who chairs the new Homeland Security Committee that oversees the new Homeland Security Department, says the government is learning how to have ``actionable'' threat assessments.
Guess: Who is the Only "Top Congressional Leader" to Exempt Some Staffers From the ACA? | Daniel Doherty
Bill Clinton: If the Website Gets Fixed, No One Will Be Talking About Obamacare in “Four or Five Months” | Daniel Doherty