O. C. Register on Al Qaeda in Iraq

The O. C. Register agrees with the LAT concerning Bush's comments on Al Qaeda in Iraq. The OCR calls Bush's comments dishonest, which arguably is stronger than the LAT's "tendentious trope," but not as cute.

The OCR argues that Bush has offered no evidence for his argument that if the U.S. leaves Iraq too soon, Al Qaeda in Iraq will have the kind of safe haven that the Taliban had in Afghanistan. But how much evidence is needed to make this argument stick? It seems obvious that a principal aim of Al Qaeda in Iraq is to force out the coalition and take control of Iraq, else why are they killing people? Once they take control, they will be Iraq's government and will have as much power as Saddam Hussein had before the invasion.

The OCR argues that the only argument for staying much longer that has a "shred of intellectual respectability" is that the invasion and subsequent mismanagement "unleashed such dangerous and violent forces that" the U.S. has "a moral responsibility to try to calm things down to a stable situation before" leaving.

That's Colin Powell's "you broke it, you fix it" argument and it requires a narrow understanding and interpretation of U.S. responsibilities in the world, besides which it's focused on the past. It assumes that the U.S. was guilty of wrong doing in getting rid of Saddam Hussein and therefore must do penance. If there was no wrong doing and no guilt and therefore there is no penance then what are the responsibilities of the world's most powerful nation? Apparently, the OCR believes we have none.

The LAT covers the Tour

The LAT's coverage of the Tour de France today consists mostly of stories about doping, some going back a couple of years or more. Apparently, the LAT thinks readers aren't interested in the Tour, only in the doping. Or perhaps they figured that anyone interested in the Tour would have already gotten whatever news they wanted from the terrific TV coverage of the event on Versus.

LAT on Al Qaeda

The LAT, in an editorial today, calls President Bush's message on Al Qaeda "tendentious trope." "Don't believe Bush, believe us," is the editorial's message. Jihadist are like cockroaches, the LAT argues. Killing a few hundred or a few thousand won't matter. Until an American president focuses on the root causes of jihadism and removes them, nothing will change. Until then, we may as well give up, the LAT seems to say.

Iraq's Interior Ministry

The LAT's Ned Parker reports today on the front page that Iraq's Interior Ministry is a mess, made up of conflicting political groups who often settle differences by killing each other. Perhaps, but Parker gives few clues about how he knows this. He repeatedly cites Iraqi and American officials for his story but he doesn't name them or otherwise identify them. He does name two sources whom he quotes but the vast majority of references to sources refer to people who may or may not exist.

Swimming in Baghdad

Inside the LAT today is an article by female reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske about taking a swim in a women-and-children-only pool in Baghdad. It's well written and interesting and shouldn't be missed.

Doyle McManus and News Analysis

Today's LAT has a piece on the front page by Doyle McManus labeled "News Analysis." The point of the piece is (blank), its based on (blank) and it contains the following new information: (blank). Fill in the blanks. As a suggestion, try "unknown," "unknown" and "none."

McManus included a few quotes, which is better than not including quotes. He said "polls show" without identifying which polls he had in mind. He painted Republicans as lost or losers and Democrats as plausible winners and right on most issues.

McManus and the LAT need to do better. Being in the news business implies you have a duty to report the news -- unbiased and objectively.

The outcast tax

The LAT argues today in an editorial that a 61 cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes won't finance the increased costs in the SCHIP program for long because it will discourage people from smoking. The LAT suggests that once that happens Congress should come up with a fat tax, then a lawyer tax. Pretty funny, but why not a tax on dumb editorials?

LAT on executive privilege

This morning, in an editorial, the LAT argues that Congress should press the President to"embrace a compromise" and allow presidential advisers like Rove and Miers to testify "for the record but not under oath." And, the LAT argues further, "the besieged Bush" should announce his surrender the same day he reveals that Alberto Gonzales "wants to spend more time with his family." That day will never come.

The LAT declines to accept that Congress has spent six and one-half months investigating the US attorneys firings and has yet to reveal any wrong doing other than bureaucratic bungling. The Justice Department has provided Congressional Democrats with 8,500 documents and Dems have interviewed scores of people under oath, including Gonzales. The president has offered to allow Miers, Rove and others to meet with Congressional investigators to answer questions -- just not under oath and not on the record. The president's offer has been rejected.

Lately, Dems are making a big deal about three grown men racing each other to see who reaches Attorney General Ashcroft's bedside first in order to get him to sign off on their proposals. It was childish in the first instance and it is childish to make a big deal of it now. But this whole matter is childish. There is no substance to any of it, just politics. LAT editorials about it are just as childish.

Bush blunt language

The LAT today says Bush used blunt language yesterday in a speech. It must have been profane because the LAT doesn't quote any blunt language.

Incidentally, the LAT never comments on Dems' blunt language, such as Harry Reid's statement that Bush is the worst president ever.

LAT on torture

In a disingenuous editorial today, the LAT inserts an imagined word (the word "but") into a presidential executive order and concludes that the order allows torture, despite President Bush's assurances otherwise and despite wording in the order that, in a fair reading, would make torture unlawful. The LAT cites the opinion of a Georgetown law professor who argued that the order is unclear. Perhaps the law professor sees loopholes in the wording but the intent of the order seems clear. In a court of law, surely a judge or jury would look to the intent of an order to interpret its meaning. Clearly, the intent of the order is to prohibit, under a reasonable man test, acts that are "beyond the bounds of human decency."

LAT: Muslims turning away from terror

In an editorial today, the LAT reports that recent polling suggests that Muslims no longer support suicide bombings and other violence against civilians as much as they used to, and then suggests that Westerners need to do something to encourage or expand the trend. But why put that burden on Westerners? It is Muslims that need to change and that change can only come from within.

LAT reports on Bush speech

The LAT reports today on the speech President Bush gave yesterday in South Carolina. The LAT doesn't just report but digs up a source to counter each point Bush made. We should be grateful those sources weren't anonymous.

Foreclosure hype

The LAT hypes the home mortgage foreclosure problem today while reporting that foreclosures in California hit a record in the second quarter. Ignoring near-record low unemployment, relatively low interest rates and reasonable GDP growth, the LAT seems to suggest that yesterday's 226 drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average proves that the housing "crisis" is dragging the economy into recession. The LAT supports its argument with anecdotes.

The fairness doctrine

The LAT has a piece today in the Business section on the "fairness doctrine," which isn't fair at all, the doctrine that is. The piece is fairly well balanced -- opposing arguments are presented -- but the piece lends dignity to the doctrine, which surely pleases liberals but is offensive to conservatives and, presumably, libertarians.

Religious unconversion

LAT reporter William Lobdell writes today of his near-conversion to Catholicism and his aversion to further reporting on religion for the LAT. Lobdell describes an emotional coming-to-Christ moment at a weekend religious retreat in the mountains. And of lobbying for a job as the LAT's religion columnist/reporter. He writes of investigating and reporting on the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and of taking instructions at Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Newport Beach, California in order to become a Catholic, which he doesn't complete. He also describes his gradual realization that nearly all religions have bad people in them and he concludes that he hasn't the faith to believe in any church. Finally, he says he asked the LAT to remove him from covering religion and to assign him to other reporting.

Lobdell isn't unique. Lots of other people have gone through what he went through, though not as a newspaper reporter/columnist. A journalist of any kind may find it impossible to believe in any religion because they so often deal with negatives that they become cynics. Lobdell may have become a cynic because he seems to give greater weight to negatives than positives about religion generally and the Catholic Church particularly. Bad priests and other religious in the Catholic Church make up a small percentage of the total but they get most of the news coverage. Good priests and the good works that the Catholic Church does mostly get ignored by the press, for reasons that are understandable. People who are considering joining the Catholic Church get a slanted view of the church if they rely on news media for information about the Church.

Taxing barbarians

The LAT reports today on Congressional proposals to tax private equity firms and other investment partnerships at ordinary income rates (presently up to 35 percent) instead of the lower 15 percent rate that applies to long term capital gains and dividend income. Generally, the reporter favors the proposals but offers some opposing views, a mild effort at balance. But no where is it mentioned that a tax on dividends is a second tax on income that already has been taxed at 35 percent to the corporation that paid the dividend. Nor is it mentioned that capital gains are not indexed for inflation, and therefore that capital gains that are attributable to inflation are not really gains at all but are nevertheless taxed at 15 percent. Finally, the reporter doesn't mention that high bracket taxpayers are subject to phase-out of their personal exemptions and itemized deductions, their miscellaneous deductions are limited by the 2 percent rule and the state income tax they pay often is not deductible because of the alternative minimum tax.

The Economist on John Edwards and health care

This week The Economist speaks in support of John Edwards, uncritically publicizing his various proposals. What Edwards proposes is socialism of the sort found in France, something The Economist previously would have opposed.

And, The Economist speaks kindly of Ron Wyden's version of universal health care, which is similar in many respects to the kind of health care found in Canada and Britain.

The Leftist Economist

Lexington this week makes effective argument against the "fairness doctrine" but in doing so reveals its disdain for everything conservative or Republican -- trashing Sean Hanity, calling immigration bill opponents xenophobic and cave men. Those negative descriptions would be all right if The Economist could deliver equivalent negativity towards liberal opinionists. The Economist identifies NPR as liberal, to its credit, but otherwise fails to classify or comment on it.

In a "leader" --what The Economist calls its opinion pieces -- The Economist criticizes Democrats for being opposed to free trade but in the same piece argues for a comprehensive health-care system (like the ones in Britain and France.)

Paulson on taxes

In a piece on the Wall Street Journal editorial pages today, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson did something that previous Bush Treasury secretaries have not done: speak out, take a stand, advocate for a Bush economic policy. Previous secretaries were either timid or distracted, which didn't serve the administration well.

The subject today for Paulson primarily was corporate taxes but what he proposed would affect other forms of doing business (partnerships, S corporations and unincorporated businesses) as well as individual investors. At just the right time, Paulson's arguments take the wind out the sails of Democrats, who plan to raise taxes.

Paulson is right, of course, in saying that taxes on businesses and investors must be lowered to maintain our competitiveness internationally and to preserve our economy. Paulson is right in saying that workers depend on businesses and investors for jobs, whether those workers are employed by businesses, nonprofits or governments, because business earnings and investment returns finance nonprofits and and governments through contributions and taxes, directly or indirectly.

LAT headline: Bush gets a breather on Iraq

The headline refers to Harry Reid's failed attempt to cut off debate on a measure that would have required that U.S. troops begin withdrawing from Iraq within 120 days and complete withdrawal by April 30, 2008.

The author of the piece, reporter Noam Levey, portrayed the loss as a victory, quoting Reid as saying, "We kind of put them to the test today." Levey suggested that Reid's decision to pull the defense appropriation bill from the Senate floor was a masterstroke. He wrote, "Reid's maneuver prevented them [Republicans] from voting on measures that would have simply advised the president to change his strategy." Levey went on to say, "Now, GOP lawmakers may go home for the August recess to face their constituents after voting against a measure that would have compelled Bush to start bringing the unpopular war to an end."

So, Bush got a breather, Republican Senators lost when they won and Dems won when they lost.

Interpreting intelligence

The meaning of each intelligence report that makes the news is subject to interpretation, and misinterpretation. Interpretation depends on point of view. Liberals seem to interpret every report as meaning the sky is falling.

Intelligence is a little like global warming. Liberals blame every warm spell, every drought, every hurricane on global warming.

All day, all night sifting sand

The ridiculous Harry Reid kept senators up all night, for what? For show, to make it appear that Senate Democrats are doing something about the war. To mainstream Americans, senators look like damn fools. They could have spent last night on something productive -- like the budget, immigration or unfunded mandates. Instead, they showboated. Boot Harry Reid, disband Congress.

Trudy Rubin

In an opinion piece published today by the Orange County Register, columnist Trudy Rubin says that by rejecting the advice of critics, President Bush believes "he's cementing his place as another Churchill." How does she know? He hasn't said that. Can she read his mind? Has she somehow invaded his subconscious? Or has she divined it using her exceptional powers?

Dividing the abuse money

The LAT reports this morning that some abuse victims are getting more money than others and that lawyers may get up to 45 percent of the settlement plus expenses. One lawyer described the making of videos which were used to sell her clients' cases. It sounds as if more than half the $660 million will go to lawyers and expenses.

According to the LAT, victims have mixed views about the money. Some reportedly believe the money appropriately punishes the church; others have different views. But all seemed willing to take it. One woman, a victim of rape by a priest, claimed she was "forced" to accept just $25,000 in a previous settlement. Perhaps that word was the LAT's but its use could be telling if the victim chose it. Use of "forced" could raise the question whether the victim knows the meaning of the word or whether she uses the word casually without considering its true meaning.

Having it both ways

The LAT reports today on the victims who attended yesterday's court hearing concerning the $660 million settlement with the Los Angeles Archdiocese. All the victims quoted, and their attorneys, said they would never forgive Cardinal Mahoney or the Catholic Church and that Mahoney was getting off easy. So why did they settle? Answer: They or their attorneys were afraid of losing at trial. When you have a slam dunk case you do not settle.

Further, the LAT admonished Mahoney, saying he must repair his reputation. That takes some gall. The LAT is supposed to report the news. It should be admonished for failure to do so.

LAT piles on

The LAT had an irresistible impulse and today piled on in an editorial concerning the Los Angeles Archdiocese's settlement with abuse victims. The LAT had nothing new to say and added nothing to the debate. Instead it parroted abuse victims, their attorneys and supporters.

LA Archdiocese settlement

According to the LAT, neither side is happy with the settlement. So why did they settle? Attorneys and advocates for the victims "were skeptical" about the timing of the settlement, which occurred just before the first case was to be tried. But that's when cases are always settled because only then do opponents face the possibility of losing.

The LAT quotes one victim's advocate as lamenting that Cardinal Mahoney will now not be made to testify. If that was critical then the victims should not have settled. Essentially, they gave up that for money.

Sadly, this entire controversy was always about money, with the lawyers being the greatest beneficiaries. The money will not make the victims whole. Those who did the crimes or covered them up will not suffer monetary loss. Those who will pay in the end -- the congregations that make up the archdiocese -- did nothing wrong.

Peggy Noonan on Bush

Yesterday on Opinion Journal, Friday columnist Peggy Noonan expressed her disgust with President Bush and her wish that she could fire him now. Sadly, not much of what she says make sense.

She argues that Bush makes her sick when she sees him during a news conference. He's too happy, she says. He ought to be depressed, about what she doesn't say. Clearly, she's depressed and thinks he ought to be. Bush makes her depressed, she says, by what he says and the way he says it. Specifically, he ought to be depressed like her. That he's not depresses her.

Bush also is too idealistic, she says. He ought to be a realist like her. She's mature and he's not, she suggests. He ought to be more like her. Bush shouldn't be romantic about our country, the beacon it can be to the world, and what the Founders did. He should be more realistic, a tougher customer -- more like her. Why she isn't romantic about our country, believing it to be a beacon to the world, why she isn't romantic about what the Founders did, she doesn't say.

Bush shouldn't believe in principles and ideals, he shouldn't be brave or steadfast, he shouldn't believe that freedom isn't just for Americans. Instead, he should be more selfish and isolationistic she seems to say.

The stock market just hit a record high, the deficit is decreasing, interest rates are low compared with recent decades, home ownership is high, the economy is sound, Americans are free, militarily we are the strongest in the world by far, we have not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11.

We are engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but our casualties are the lightest of any major war ever. Given enough time and resources, we will win both these wars. In any case, these wars do not threaten our existence as a nation unless we surrender as some Americans think we should. We must resist and conquer Islamist terrorism if we hope to remain free. We have an immigration problem and a potentially budget busting problem with unfunded mandates.

None of our problems are insurmountable assuming we are not so consumed by hatred of our political opponents, as some Americans seemed to be toward George W. Bush, that we prefer beating our political opponents to solving our problems .

LAT editorial on capital punishment

The LAT offers irrational arguments against capital punishment in an editorial today, equating a stoning in Iran, an official killing in Communist China, a sentencing of six foreign medical workers in Libya and a mistaken jury conviction in the U.S. Apparently, the LAT sees no difference between totalitarian states and the USA.

The most compelling argument against capital punishment is that it involves the taking of a human life, which is precious and sacred, even if poorly lived, because it is God-given.

Two newspapers, one event

The LAT front page headline this morning said, "Redeploy troops, say GOP senators." The subhead read, "Given Warner's and Lugar's clout, their Iraq proposal -- though not a mandate -- is a new obstacle for Bush." Regarding the same story, the Orange County Register's front page blip said, "GOP senators push new plan." Obviously, the Register thought the story wasn't headline news. The Register's judgement was better.

The two newspapers report the facts differently, too. The Register's story reports that the Warner/Lugar proposal would require the administration to submit plans for Iraq to Congress by October 16th and design them to go into effect by year end. The LAT claims the plan would require troop redeployment -- that's in the headline.

The LAT argues that President Bush had a Pyrrhic victory this week when he persuaded Congressional Republicans to wait for a September progress report before challenging his strategy. What that has to do with reporting the news is unclear. Obviously, the reporters thought it important to evaluate Bush's so-called victory, whether or not qualified to do so. Apparently, the editors agreed, for reasons that aren't clear.

Judge on Libby commutation

According to the LAT, Libby's judge has taken issue in writing with the president concerning whether Libby's sentence was too harsh. The judge is defensive. If the judge is confident that he made the right decision, he shouldn't feel the need to defend it. Under the constitution, the president gets the last word on this.

Noam Levey, Dem cheerleader

LAT reporter Noam Levey is back today in the LAT, though not on the front page, "analyzing" Republican senators. His piece could have been written by Howard Dean or Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy.

Hit pieces

When you see, "In private, many officials ..." in a piece on the front page of the LAT you know you're not reading the news but the reporter's opinion represented as news -- what you might call a hit piece. Invariably, such a piece aims to make the Bush administration, a Republican presidential candidate or Republicans generally look bad. Such journalism once was called yellow journalism. Whatever you call it, it isn't journalism but politics disguised as journalism. Among newspapers, the LAT is one of the worst offenders.

Petruno of the LAT

Every time the market goes down, as it did yesterday, LAT columnist Tom Petruno has an article in the Business Section, usually saying he knew it was coming or something similar. When the market goes up, he disappears.

LAT, a left-wing blog

The LAT has become like a left-wing blog: packed with left-wing anti-Bush propaganda. Today's editorial is a case in point. The LAT raves about how Bush should compromise with Congress on the attorneys firings and let his people testify. But Bush already has compromised and Congress has rejected that compromise. The LAT fails to acknowledge that the investigation is a political witch hunt, that Congress has wasted six months on it and that nothing has been found other than bureaucratic incompetence. Democrats in Congress want to hold a show trial where there will be no judge to insure witness's rights are protected. It would be like a trial in the Soviet Union, Iran, Communist China or Zimbabwe.

LAT declares surge a failure

Two weeks after the final installment of "surge" troops arrived in Baghdad, the LAT declares the effort a failure. The rush to judgement embarrasses the LAT and exposes its partisanship for all to see.

LAT on North Korea

The LAT hands a backhanded compliment to the Bush administration in an editorial today but can't resist taking a swipe at "neocons." It seems the LAT can't argue a question pro or con without bad mouthing someone in the process. Without fail, those bad mouthed are conservatives.

LAT, good and bad

On the same page in today's newspaper, we see both the good and the bad of the LAT. The good is a piece by reporters Richard Simon and Will Evans on earmarks. The piece is well balanced, pointing out stupidity and avarice on the part of Congressmen of both parties as well as courage on the part of a few.

The bad is a piece by reporter Richard B. Schmitt concerning the confrontation between the legislative branch and the executive branch over subpoenas issued by the Judiciary committees of both Houses. This piece contains little balance and portrays the legislative branch as holding the upper hand morally, politically and legally. If you're a Democrat, as both the reporter and the newspaper seem to be, then that probably makes sense to you. Otherwise, it seems idiotic.

LAT pushes talking

In an editorial today, the LAT says it can't imagine any material improvement in conditions in Iraq within the next two months. Therefore, it suggests that the Bush administration begin talking -- about an end to the surge and a start to shift U.S. troops into a support role.

The LAT doesn't say why it's forecasting failure. It only predicts that Bush will find it harder to deal with Congress in September than in July, especially if more Republicans abandon Bush as some have done already.

But dealing with Congressional Democrats isn't possible in either July or September. Democrats are beholden to the anti-war left, which wants out of Iraq now, unconditionally. Democrats can't cut a deal that goes against what the anti-war left wants.

Congressional Democrats will try again and again to pull the funding for the war without really doing that. At some point they may succeed. Then the surrender and its consequences will be their responsibility.

LAT bad mouths 6th Circuit

In an editorial today, the LAT argues that the 6th Circuit was wrong to rule for the Bush administration in the NSA surveillance case, mainly because it didn't like the result. The LAT argues for ignoring the standing requirement because it prevents them getting the decision they want. In truth, the lawsuit was a trumped-up case tried at the District Court level by a judge handpicked by the plaintiffs to get the desired result without proving any actual injury. The 6th Circuit put a stop to it, thankfully.

Whitewash

The LAT today tries to whitewash the extramarital affair of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Obviously, he's their guy.

LAT's Noam Levey

In today's paper, LAT reporter Noam Levey, cheerleader for Democrats, once again forecasts the demise of President Bush. You'd think his editors would put a stop to his idiotic theories but apparently they subscribe to them. They could at least tone him down. A newspaper shouldn't be so blatantly partisan.

The Economist on Bush

The Economist has apparently decided to pile on Bush in the same way as Democrats do judging from a "leader" in the July 7th issue. The piece is supposed to be an argument against Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence but The Economist uses the piece to point out all Bush's failings it can come up with, real or imagined.

The piece claims that Michael D. Brown, head of disaster relief during Katrina, was Bush's friend but doesn't explain how it knows that. It argues that Bush is Cheney's puppet, citing a series in the WaPo, but that series doesn't prove that. The Economist asserts that Bush sees himself and "his cronies" as being above the law, but offers no proof. The magazine claims that Bush permitted wiretapping of Americans without authorization and allowed torture at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in "black holes like Uzbekistan." There is no proof that the NSA surveillance was illegal. Bush did not authorize torture at Abu Ghraib. There is proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not authorized. There is no proof of torture by the CIA under Bush.

The Economist's reputation for analytical expertise and objectivity is tarnished.

LAT on adultery

In an editorial today, the LAT defends Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's philandering with newscaster Mirthala Salinas, saying Republicans do it and get away with it so why can't the mayor. It's an infantile argument. There is no defense for adultery. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Dionne on Libby commutation

WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, in his latest column, says he's enraged over President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Among the things that enrages him, he says, is that Bush didn't follow standard procedure and run the question through the Justice Department's pardon office. But that puts procedure ahead of principle and Libby was in danger if immediate incarceration. Judges could have given Libby more time, and that would have given Bush more time to follow procedure, but they declined to. Therefore, Bush had to make the call.

Anyhow, Bush made the right call. Following procedure might have changed the timing but not the result. Dionne seems to become enraged about everything he doesn't agree with. Just the other day he was enraged about the Supreme Court's decision in the schools case. Dionne needs to take a pill.

George Will on diversity

Will's column on the Supreme Court's schools decision should be required reading. He rightly calls people who favor race-based diversity programs -- such as Seattle and Louisville had --"race-mongering diversity tinkerers" and quotes Justice Clarence Thomas as saying "Beware of elites eager to constitutionalize "faddish social theories."

Huh?

In an editorial today, the LAT discusses the pants case, the case of a Washington man who sued a cleaners for $67 million over a pair of lost pants. The LAT attempts to make a point about the case but it seems a pointless effort. There isn't much to say about the case except it was ridiculous and the plaintiff lost.

LAT off its rocker

In an editorial today, the LAT claims that Libby's jury "had to conclude" that Libby "leaked classified information about a CIA operative to reporters on orders from Vice President Dick Cheney." This is a claim that liberals regularly make but it's untrue and they know it.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. No one has been convicted or even charged with leaking classified information. And it wasn't Libby who revealed Plame's identity to reporter Robert Novak. If Libby's jury considered or even discussed the leaking of classified information or the identity of Valerie Plame then Libby's conviction should be reversed.

LAT: Too many contractors in Iraq

How many contractors is too many? The LAT doesn't answer that but suggest that the number we have in Iraq is too many. According to the LAT, 21,000 Americans and 161,000 non-Americans are employed in Iraq as civilian contractors. The LAT emphasizes that the total is greater than the total number of American military. The LAT argues this proves that the U.S. went into Iraq with too small an army.

Apparently, the LAT believes the roughly 180,000 civilian contractors should be replaced by military people. But people should do what they're trained to do. The military is trained to fight wars, not to rebuild the infrastructure or supply food and medicine to Iraqis. For that matter, contractors are better equipped to provide support services to the military than the military itself. If contractors were not used, the total number of military would need to be much larger than it is presently and would need to include experts on the design and construction of aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, ships and submarines, hand guns, artillery, vehicles, tanks, computers and so on. It makes no sense to suggest that the military should not use contractors, but the LAT seems to think that.

LAT: Bush wrong about Libby sentence

Reporters Rick Schmitt and The Hatchetman argue today that Scooter Libby's sentence was just fine and Bush should have left it alone. They quote some angry left-wingers and some anonymous sources in support of their conclusion. They give short shrift to opponents of their view. One thing is clear: The president had the authority to do what he did. What's done is done and it's not going to change, no matter how much the reporters and others squawk.

News Analysis at the LAT

The LAT today has a piece by reporter Janet Hook, assisted by the LAT's former Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus (and perhaps ghostwritten by him), that is labeled "News Analysis." The purpose of the piece is clear. It's to trash President Bush by repeating as many negatives as possible whether factual or not. But why would the editors publish this? It has no news value. In fact, it contains no news at all. And it is not balanced.

Who stepped on Patrick Fitzgerald's tail

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issued a statement contradicting President Bush's argument that Scooter Libby's prison sentence was excessive. Why would he feel the need to do that? The president's decision didn't affect him, criticize him or reflect on him. Fitzgerald's statement was defensive, suggesting he lacks confidence that he acted properly.

LAT chastises Supremes

In an editorial today, the LAT criticizes the nine justices on the Supreme Court for not deciding cases unanimously, for issuing opinions in groups and for too-long written opinions. What the LAT really wants is nine liberals moving in lockstep. Many conservatives would want nine conservative justices moving in lockstep. What we have though is a mixture, and all nine seem to have their own ideas about what the law is or should be. It makes life and the law more complicated but that's not necessarily bad.

LAT on missile shield

This morning the LAT speculates that the U.S. plan to erect an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe is in trouble because both Russia and the two countries in which the shield is to be constructed have populations that are wavering in their support, even though the two governments support the shield. It's hard to know whether there's any substance to the speculation. The LAT doesn't name any responsible sources.

Liberal anguish

Judging from the LAT opinion pages, liberals are frantic about the Supreme Court. One letter-writer says Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying during their confirmation hearings. The trouble with liberals is they think rules don't apply to them. E. J. Dionne thinks the Senate shouldn't advise and consent on Bush judicial nominees. Many liberals, probably most, think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of race. Many think conservatives shouldn't be allowed on talk radio because it's one-sided. Never mind that NPR, PBS, the major broadcast networks and leading newspaper are liberal. Many liberals want to limit speech, never mind that the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech.

The Hatchetman on the front page, again

The Hatchetman, LAT reporter David G. Savage, is back on the front page today lamenting what he sees as the Supreme Court's shift to the right. More accurately, it's a shift back to the center. Most of the Court's decisions that Savage opposes are slam dunks. To support the liberal point of view on these case one must engage in roundabout reasoning and reach far fetched conclusions.

Anyhow, Savage has a new piece today, longer and better balanced than yesterday's. More important, it didn't get top billing. Yesterday, the London bombing story played under Savage's piece. Today, the Glasgow airport story got top billing.