Squiggler

Reading Recommendation: MY FATHER MY PRESIDENT

Last week I saw two interviews with Doro Bush Koch that piqued my interest in her new book, My Father My President. I got my start in politics working for the Victory '88 campaign of George Herbert Walker Bush and Dan Quayle. From my work on that campaign, I went on to work for a Member of Congress. I got to attend the Inaugural Ball for Bush 41 and it was a thrill I will always remember. So, the other day, I mentioned the book in a conversation with my son and last night he brought me the book as a gift. Turns out, he loves biographies and figured if he gave me the book, he could borrow it back later.

I'm about halfway through it now and it is fascinating. I knew that GWHB was a lovely man of honor and integrity from working on the campaign, but the love that comes through in this book brings tears to my eyes over and over. The kind of tears one cries at a wedding or a happy ending of a film. The pictures alone are worth the price of the book.

So we are adding My Father My President to our Recommend Reading list. Get your copy today. (This is a good price at Amazon, my son paid $28 at Barnes and Noble.)

Enemy spys, infiltrations, Bill Gertz tells all ...

With all that is going on in today's world with the brouhaha over the terrorist interrogation in Congress, the Plame/Wilson case, the Mary O. McCarthy case and its nefarious links to the VIPS and our intense need for foreign intelligence, the new book by Bill Gertz is an eye opener.

From Bill Gertz: How America's most dangerous enemies are infiltrating our government to steal secrets and use them against us.

Enemies 
by Bill Gertz      

With America engaged in a high-stakes war against jihad, effective counterintelligence -- the process of identifying and catching foreign spies --is more important than at any time since the Cold War. Yet even after the national trauma of 9/11, argues investigative reporter Bill Gertz, American counterintelligence is getting worse, not better. In Enemies, Gertz reveals how foreign governments and terrorist organizations are actively spying within the United States and stealing our most vital secrets—on our nuclear weapons, missile defenses, efforts to defeat global terrorism, intelligence sources and methods, cryptographic codes, sensitive foreign policy dealings, and much more. And most astonishing of all, our leaders are doing nothing to stop the theft.

Enemies stunningly reveals:

• The untold story of one of the most damaging enemy spy penetrations in U.S. history -- and of the FBI’s criminal negligence and cover-up in the matter
• Why the repeated calls for intelligence reform since 9/11 have gone unheeded
• How al Qaeda and other terrorist groups use official identification, uniforms, and vehicles to infiltrate secure areas and carry out attacks
• Why Russia has as many spies in America today as it did at the height of the Cold War
• How Communist China’s intelligence and influence operations may have reached the highest levels of the U.S. government
• How some 35 different terrorist groups target the United States through espionage
• A startling account of the many enemy spies the U.S. has let get away
• How in November 2005 the U.S. government rolled up a massive spy ring that had been stealing U.S. defense technology for more than twenty years
• How a Cuban mole operated high up in the Pentagon—undetected—for sixteen years
• How the U.S. can defuse the North Korean threat through aggressive counterintelligence
• How enemy spies have infiltrated every single U.S. national security agency except the Coast Guard -- including the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Department, the State Department, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency
• The gross ineptness that led U.S. officials to hound an innocent man while the real mole -- one of the most infamous spies in U.S. history—operated right under their noses
• How the U.S. is overwhelmed by spies even from our so-called friends, including France, India, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and many other countries
• The alarming truth about the utter disarray at the nation’s top counterintelligence office, and why it leaves America vulnerable to foreign threats
• A remarkable case study showing how the U.S. can infiltrate terrorist groups and other foreign organizations
• Why the 2005 arrest of a Filipino spy in the White House should have set off alarms -- but didn’t
• Why aggressive counterintelligence represents the only real protection against terrorists and enemy spies -- and why the U.S. bureaucracy has nearly destroyed our counterintelligence capabilities

My choice for best American novel

George Will has a really interesting piece, Gone with the Wind Indeed, up on RCP.

WASHINGTON -- Confined to her bed in Atlanta by a broken ankle and arthritis, her husband gave her a stack of blank paper and said, ``Write a book.'' Did she ever.

The novel's first title became its last words, ``Tomorrow Is Another Day,'' and at first she named the protagonist Pansy. But Pansy became Scarlett, and the title of the book published 70 years ago this week became ``Gone With the Wind.''

You might think that John Steinbeck, not Margaret Mitchell, was the emblematic novelist of the 1930s, and that the publishing event in American fiction in that difficult decade was his ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' Published in 1939, it captured the Depression experience that many Americans had, and that many more lived in fear of. Steinbeck's novel became a great movie and by now 14 million copies of the book have been sold.

But although the $3 price of ``Gone With the Wind'' ($43.50 in today's dollars) was steep by Depression standards, it sold 178,000 copies in three weeks and 2 million by April 1938, when it ended a 21-month run on the best-seller list. By now nearly 30 million have been sold. About 250,000 are still purchased in America every year, and 100,000 elsewhere. ... More

Margaret Mitchell's story of the antebellum south and its great heroine, Scarlet, came into my life when I was thirteen and had a huge impact on me. I first became aware of the book because of a scavenger hunt when one of my Mother's friends showed up at our door wanting to know if we had a copy. I was the only one home, so I went and searched the bookshelf and there it was. After loaning it to the family friend for the hunt, I began to wonder about a book that would be so popular, it would make it on to an adult's scavenger list list.

I was always a curious child, I loved to read, and never was I more curious than during that time of awkward puberty. So, when the book was returned, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. Up to that point my childhood reading had consisted of the Oz books, Nancy Drew mysteries, the Lassie books, National Velvet, and books of that genre. Gone with the Wind was what I thought of as my first grown-up book. It was also the first book I guiltily sneaked from my Mother's bookshelf to read. After that, I made my way through most of the rest and there was probably a good reason why my Mother wouldn't have been too happy to know her barely teenage daughter's mind was being formed by some of the more risque novels. My Mother had adopted Kahil Gabran's "Tomorrow is Today's Dream" as her personal motto, which she was fond of reciting, and after I read GWTW, I would always add under my breath, "yes and tomorrow is another day." A naive Yankee teenaged girl daydreaming of being a southern belle.

I don't like to read novels more than once. The exception is Gone with the Wind. I've read it at least four times at different ages in my life and finally, when I was in my late twenties, I saw the movie for the first time. I know that now you can watch the movie on TV, but it really is a "big screen" movie and should be seen that way.

When Powerline did its twenty best American novels and left Gone with the Wind off the list I was both surprised and disappointed. My list would put it at number one. I think George Will would have it on his list as well.

More Coulter madness ...

This post ......

That detestable harpy

By [email protected] (krempasky)

I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right.

Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals...

John Murtha: (Coulter) The reason soldiers invented "fragging."

Absolutely disgusting. I have very little love for Mr. Murtha - and I recently agreed with his opponent Diana Irey when she said his words and actions of late were not that of a patriot. But there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.

Update [2006-6-14 19:9:15 by Moe Lane]: Hi, Moe Lane here. I've noticed that there are a lot of people defending Ms. Coulter in comments below, on various grounds. That's your privilege; but if Ann Coulter had come on this website and uttered that quote in comments I would have banned her on the spot.

Keep that in mind when deciding how thoroughly you wish to emulate her.

...... really pisses me off. I was going to write a comment at Red State, but I'm so angry over this issue, there is no way to put that in a short comment. Besides, if I told them what total bullshit I think their response and the whole post is, I'd get banned. These are the same types of people who as kids would take their ball and go home when they didn't get picked first or because they got picked to be "it" or cried because they missed the last chair in musical chairs. They were the tattletales and the ones who have grown up to insist on banning dodge ball and jungle gyms. Phony baloney hypocrites and p.c. wimps.

The Far Right and the Far Left are two sides of the same coin. If they want to "ban" commenters for saying something they don't agree with (and both sides do on a regular basis) then they have no one but themselves to blame as they become more and more out of touch. Take immigration ... the far right is driving the immigration issue, for reasons those of us who live on the border have yet to discern. They threaten law makers with a no vote on election day and yet they have no clue about the actual problems. They insist on it being their way or the highway. And now the wrath of some of these idiots on the right have turned against one of their own with a political correctness that puts even the most ardent and strident lefty to shame.

They ignore the truth of Coulter's statements and wring their hands and cry "disgusting" because she says what most of us know or have said in private. Neither Coulter nor anyone else is suggesting that Murtha should be fragged as that would be disgusting. But, officers who behaved and spoke and acted against the rank and file with an elitist and insufferable attitude are the exact reason fragging came into being. Fragging is despicable, Coulter speaking about it, and/or analogizing about it, is not. No matter how you slice it, Murtha is an idiot Moonbat and senile old man who needs to go.

Related:

In Defense of Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's 'Godless' Hits NY Times #1 Spot

Ann Coulter's latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" will debut at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction on June 25, 2006, reflecting an extraordinary first week of sales.

More Defense of Ann Coulter

It amazes me that liberals are in such a furor over Ann's comments about the 9/11 widows, especially after they barely raised an eyebrow at Ward Churchill's likening of World Trade Center workers to Adolf Eichmann.

GAG of the Day! David Carr on Ann Coulter

In an article entitled "Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior", David Carr says:

You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.

Well, Mr. Carr, it says quite literally what a pathetic, green-eyed, P.C. hack and idjit moonbat you are. Not to mention disingenuous.

Related:

In Defense of Ann Coulter

In defense of Ann Coulter

Via Instapundit:

ED MORRISSEY: "Ann Coulter, meet Ted Rall."

Hugh Hewitt: "Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediately. This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting."

My general strategy these days is to ignore Coulter (Ted Rall, too), and if everyone did that things would be better. But yes, this deserves to be condemned. Of course, she's managed to troll Hillary into condemning her, probably assuring a bestseller slot.

Don't feed the trolls.

Okay, we are taking the easy way out and quoting Glenn Reynolds who in turn quotes others. Why? Because I watched Ann Coulter's original interviews yesterday, the ones causing so much controversy today and, I'm sorry all you p.c. fanatics out there, even you conservative ones, I have to agree with Coulter. Would I have been quite so harshly personal in my own remarks, no, probably not, but that does not change her core point. Coulter essentially makes the point that those who were relatives of the victims of 9/11 who have chosen to "go political" and "go public" lose their right to "victim" status. She also makes the point that the reason the left wants them to retain the "poor victim" status is so you or I or she cannot adequately respond or refute the partisan remarks they make in their political speeches and activism simply because they are relatives of victims. Coulter's argument is correct and the p.c. crowd are just flat wrong.

Coulter does not trash "victims" she trashes those who trade on their pseudo-victim status, wearing it like a badge and then hiding behind that status so that their remarks take on some kind of "godlike" pronoucements. We saw it with Cindy Sheehan. No matter what she did, whether it was cavort with communists or align with the craziest of crazies, we were supposed to let her spew her venom because she was supposed to be a grieving mother. This is hogwash.

Ed Morrisy says:

Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths.

Sure it would be despicable if that is what Coulter did or is doing. She isn't. I'm shocked that Ed so twists the situation. No one is impugning the grief except the women themselves. They are wearing it on their sleeve and saying, "nah nah nah nah, you can't touch me, I can say any despicable thing I want, because I'm grieving." And how any of this denies them their humanity is beyond me. The terrorists denied their loved ones their humanity. As far as I can see, those on the campaign trail and out disparaging the President, our troops, and the entire enterprise put in motion because of the loss to the entire nation are the ones who are despicable and emotionally denying humanity to everyone else.

These women ARE NOT victims. They are the relatives of victims. They deserved our comfort and caring, but at some point they need to sit down and shut up or move on in their grief from the anger stage to the acceptance stage. They've made millions of dollars and Ann points it out. I don't begrudge them the money. I don't begrudge them their grief. I understand grief. I went into a total tailspin after my Mother died in 2004. But, like a friend said to me, "get over it, get on with your own life."

I expect this controversy will remain in the news until another one comes along. One thing is a given, the left wing needs its victims and it needs to convince you that you are a victim, whether of 9/11 or racism, or sexism, or gayism or whatever ism in order to control you. If you don't believe me, look at how the illegal aliens have been turned into our latest victims. The "Jersey Girls" are out stumping for the likes of John Kerry and cutting campaign commercials, this makes them politicos and makes their crying and grief a campaign strategy first and to say we cannot respond because a relative of theirs was killed on 9/11 is hogwash and makes me extremely angry. Ed, Glenn, Hugh, et al ... you are flat out wrong! You are wimping out on this one.

Related:

Michelle Malkin:

Unfortunately, lost in all the hype and hyperbole on both sides is the central point about the absolute moral authority the MSM confers on victims they agree with--while victims whose politics they do not share can't get the time of day. Ann told Sean Hannity today she hopes her comments will demolish the "liberal infallibility" the MSM confers on its faves. (Video here.) Ironically, IMO, the facade has already eroded considerably--thanks to new media, talk radio, Fox News, etc. Case in point here. [... more]

Lorrie Byrd (Wizbang)

I remember the Rabinowitz piece well. If you haven't read it, read it now. If you have read it, like me, you will likely want to re-read it. I can't say that I agree with all of Coulter's comments. In fact, I agree with Captain Ed, especially about Coulter's comment, "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Ann Coulter was right, though, about the way the MSM treats people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan. The same "moral authority" declared for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls is not extended to all victims, though. Just ask Debra Burlingame. Ann Coulter raises a good point about the way those on the Left use victims to attack the President, and then claim them to be beyond reproach due to their victim status. I just wish she chosen her words more carefully.

Dorothy Rabinowitz piece

MVRWC:

Yep, the blogosphere’s all abuzz with chatter about Ann Coulter ripping on a bunch of left-wing 9/11 widows. The “Jersey Girls,” I guess–funny, I’d never heard of them until Ann Coulter and all the outraged pundits on the internets brought them to my attention. (All publicity is good publicity, etc….)

I know Ann Coulter drives people crazy with her rhetoric, BUT…who here hasn’t criticized that “Mother” Sheehan moonbat in the same way? What’s the difference?
Maybe Hugh Hewitt hasn’t. I’m not too sure if there are too many others on our side (or from the left, for that matter) who haven’t, though. Lord knows we at MVRWC certainly have. I just don’t care about this group, although I suppose all this publicity for them is going to force me to notice them now.

:yawn:

Flopping Aces:

How is this not accurate?  Well, the enjoying their deaths part is a bit over the top but she is trying to make a point, and bloggers such as Ed Morrissey, Rick Moran, & Hugh Hewitt are helping Ann make the point by denouncing Ann's comments as cruel to the widows.  They can't be touched because they lost their husbands. Baloney.

Is it harsh?  Sure. A small number of widows have made claim to a moral authority on the War against Terror.  They cannot be questioned because their husbands died…..give me a effin break.  Why must everyone tiptoe around these things?  Always PC, gotta make sure no one is offended.

But she [Coulter] was indeed accurate. ... much more

The Anchoress, while essentially agreeing with Coulter's main point, takes a far more temperate view and has issue with Coulter's harsher remarks:

The fact is if someone on the left, a Ted Rall or someone, used Coulter’s words against Burlingame, or a Gold Star Mother who publically supports the war, it would be reprehensible, and we’d be all over him for it. When someone in grief has decided to exploit that grief politically it is incumbent upon the rest of us to (once their actions have moved beyond grief and into giddy activism) question whether their motives are entirely pure…but it is absolutely necessary that we do so in a temperate manner that does not bring us down into the muck, or take the focus off of the issue at hand. In the end, all Coulter did was discredit herself and make the rest of us look very mean-spirited and grotesque…her valid point is lost in her inflammatory rhetoric; she does that all the time. Ugh.

Having said all that, if there were ever two women who absolutely deserve to go at each other it’s Coulter and Hillary Clinton. Coulter oversteps and Clinton (ever-brave when she is at absolutely no risk to herself) exploits. And Coulter comes back with a right hook that should effectively shut Clinton down. Two women who consistantly leave themselves open for shots to the chin. Coulter, I think - even though I don’t much like her - is still the braver of the two, and she takes round 1. Ding, Ding! Back to your corners, girls and don’t swallow that stuff in your mouths, it’s pure poison; just spit it out. ... more

And leave it to MacRanger to sum things up nicely:

Ooooh! I like it. Straight shot to "center mass".

Somebody book her on Countdown with Keith (spitwad) Olbermann!

I'm getting a copy and post a review later.

UPDATE: Coulter's getting taking flak for her take on the "Jersey Girls". Michelle Malkin reminds that Coulter isn't the only one with an opinion on the JG's politics and agenda.

As on cue Hugh Hewitt gets on his high horse again. Hugh, Ann may not be subtle, but someone had to say it.

Nuff said.

UPDATE:

David Letterman: Ann Coulter Is A Bitch Who Should Be Murdered By OJ Simpson

By Ace

Bah-ZINNNGGG! As a lot of people noted yesterday, while some conservatives pile on Coulter's over-the-top statements, the liberals indulge in murder-fantasies with impunity. And so it goes. Dave? Look, you were big in the eighties. But you're old. And irrelevant....

Godless

We noted that Ann Coulter's new book is hitting the stands today in our 666 post. Now we have an advertising promo that was delivered to our email a few minutes ago. Sounds like vintage Coulter.

Dear Fellow American,

My name is Ann Coulter, but to listen to liberal pundits tell it I am Cruella DeVil, Bloody Mary and Lizzie Borden all rolled into one -- with none of the warm, welcoming, nuanced non-judgmentalism of a Hillary Clinton!

If you think I have gotten under the skin of self-styled liberal 'intellectuals' before, just wait until they read my newest soon-to-be bestseller Godless (and you can get it absolutely free just for trying HUMAN EVENTS).

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless, I throw open the doors of the Church of Liberalism and show you:

 

• Its sacraments (abortion)
• Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
• Its martyrs (like Soviet spy Alger Hiss)
• Its clergy (public school teachers)
• Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
• Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
• And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But I debunk the myth of the "rational" liberal guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method and expose the truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

In Godless, you will see how liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.

The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged.

So, call me intolerant! But, when have I ever cared about what a liberal thought?

You can get my newest book Godless -- absolutely free -- when you start a risk-free trial to the conservative flagship publication HUMAN EVENTS. HUMAN EVENTS is my editorial home and the only publication that I make sure to read every week.

Why? Because, HUMAN EVENTS has helped bust the conspiracy of furious spin the liberals use to keep Americans misinformed, since 1944 -- longer than any other weekly publication -- and is the one paper to have published my columns through thick and thin.

Order today and you can get a free copy of my book, plus my weekly column delivered to your home with the unvarnished truth contained in HUMAN EVENTS.

My liberal critics won't enjoy my book (the truth hurts), but I'm sure you will.

Thanks,

Ann Coulter
Legal Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and best-selling author of How to Talk to a Liberal, Slander, and Treason

Who knew?

Who knew that Laura Bush had a bit of a catty side? Hard to believe, but I'll bet she delivers her snark with class.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX APRIL 02, 2006 19:02:31 ET XXXXX

LAURA BUSH SAYS HILLARY KEPT BAD HOUSE; WEST WING DECORATIONS WERE GAUDY, OUTDATED 

Recommended Reading

Although this book by Tammy Bruce has been around for a few years now, I think it is one of those that deserves some new circulation, especially in light of the tone of discourse today. The first sentence of this book reads, "If she can't be controlled, she must be stopped." In the opening of the book the speaker is an ultra-feminist who has a relatively conservative female talk show host in her sights. Today we have extremist Muslims saying to the whole world, "if we can't control your speech, we'll stop you from speaking." -- most likely by killing you. It makes the character assassination envisioned by the militant feminist seem pretty tame by comparison. I don't agree with Tammy on every issue, but I have changed my initial opinion of her formed back in the mid '90s, and I now genuinely admire her for having good old fashioned common sense. And I give her alot of credit for having the guts to buck her comfort zone and speak that common sense to anyone smart enough to listen.

From a 2002 Free Republic review:

LIBERAL ACTIVIST ADMITS: THE LEFT IS AT WAR WITH OUR FREEDOMS!

"Tammy Bruce isn't your average feminist activist. Instead of participating in the Left's ongoing attempts to silence free speech, crush dissent, and bring American society into lockstep with the liberal elite's agenda, she's speaking out against it - with a unique insider's view of the Left. In The New Thought Police, she bravely exposes the hypocrisy of those who are quick to charge conservatives with "hate speech," and takes on all the sacred cows: gays, race-baiters, feminists, multiculturalists, and many more! She even confronts the duplicity of the news and entertainment establishments and the dishonesty of academia."

This book is only available on pre-order right now, but those who have read advance copies give it glowing reviews. The author, Glenn Reynolds, is known around the blogosphere as the Instapundit.

The full title of the book is:  An Army of Davids : How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths (Hardcover)

Just in case you are wondering, that's us ... individuals.

Order now and the book will ship as soon as it arrives from the publisher.

Boxer's New Book

California Conservative reviews Barbara Boxer's new book. Read the review here.

        Their Conclusion:

       Don’t buy the book. Just read her press releases. They’re free.