Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. Training the Iraqi Police - explaining to the skeptical press corps
2. What's up with Iranian Weapons in Iraq? - Speaking out of turn?
3. Optimism in Iraq - Caldwell and John F. Burns
4. The Income Inequality Issue - The Widening Income Gap is a Reflection of the Widening Skill Gap
5. The Libby Trial - Could you have testified for eight hours and not be caught in a misstatement?

Download
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

Training the Iraqi Police - explaining to the skeptical press corps

One of the most glaring problems with Iraqi security today is corruption and incompetence in the police force. The Iraqi Army gets relatively high marks, but the police have been plagued by problems ever since the occupation began. The person most responsible for fixing this problem is Major General Ken Hunzinger. Last week the Pentagon arranged for a blogger conference call with about ten volunteer bloggers, including me, to ask questions of the Major General. Unfortunately, my recording equipment was unavailable, so I could not preserve it for the podcast. But he appeared a few days later at a Pentagon arranged press briefing in Baghdad to cover the same material. I'm going to play some of his opening remarks, where he went through the problem and solution that he has instituted to improve the effectiveness and loyalty of the Iraqi police force. I have tremendous respect for Hunzinger, and the work he has been doing.

Play clip.

After this nice, thoroughly convincing introduction, they opened it up for questions. Listen to this one by someone named Michael, perhaps Michael Ware from CNN, the network that routinely censored their reports from Baghdad during Saddam's rule to preserve their access for their reporters. The skepticism just drips from his voice as he recites a litany of defeatist language. The audio has a few problems, but the attitude gets through.

Play clip.

Hunzinger nails it. If you don't believe in the effectiveness of our training, come on down, big boy. If this was Ware's question, I think it's time for him to come home. His objectivity is completely gone.

What's up with Iranian Weapons in Iraq? - Speaking out of turn?

Last Sunday the Pentagon arranged a briefing by "senior intelligence officials" to disclose to the press evidence of Iranian weaponry in use in Iraq to kill U.S., coalition, and Iraqi soldiers. It seemed like a good idea to show proof that the Iranians were up to no good. They had clear evidence of Iranian manufactured weapons with recent dates discovered in the hands of insurgents who identified themselves as being Qods Forces, which is an elite Iranian military organization. So they brought the press in to show their stuff. But within days the briefing has become a SNAFU of enormous proportions. General Pace was quoted as saying that there is no evidence that the Iranian government ordered these actions. Others have back pedaled away from what seemed to many as a clear example of warlike actions on the part of Iran. It turns out that at the Sunday briefing, these "senior intelligence officials" had said a few too many things and were being thrown under the bus by higher ups in the Pentagon. To explain the situation, the Pentagon had another blogger conference call to explain the situation. I was able to get my recorder set up for that one, on Wednesday morning at 5:30 am PST, I stumbled out of bed to record this clip. Major General Caldwell was the briefer, Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters asked the question about the background briefing and Pace's walk back.

Play clip.

I can't figure out why we want to walk back from the accusations against the Iranian government to the current wink-wink posture. Surely an unequivocal statement of Iranian government involvement would be more effective than long, convoluted statements about intent vs. action. Thankfully, we have one by the Commander in Chief. No offense to Major General Caldwell, but this description of the issue is a little clearer:

Play clip.

Thank's for clearing that up Mr. President. Clearly the administration feels that "senior intelligence officers" stepped out of their bounds in the Sunday briefing, and they felt a walk back was needed. It's up to us to connect the dots, I guess.

Optimism in Iraq - Caldwell and John F. Burns

Later in the blogger conference call I asked Major General Caldwell how he was able to stand up the the pessimism of the Michael Ware's of the press world. I hope my sycophantic question was not too much of a softball. I actually do listen to his press conferences. Deal with it.

Play clip.

Movable battalions of Iraqi expeditionary forces. Sounds promising. I'm optimistic that if we can just prevent the defeat-o-crats in the Democratically controlled Congress, we can be permitted to win there. Hugh Hewitt had New York Times reporter John F. Burns on his radio show last week. Hugh described Burns on his web site:

John Burns is rightly regarded as the preeminent war correspondent of his time. I interviewed him in the first hour today, and he is certainly the best representative the MSM can put forward

During the interview Burns had this to say about the American military.

Play clip.

How refreshing to hear such laudatory comments from someone who works at the New York Times. I hope he doesn't lose his key to his desk at the Grey Lady for these comments. Can you imagine R.W. "Johnny" Apple saying this?

The Income Inequality Issue - The Widening Income Gap is a Reflection of the Widening Skill Gap

The Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Ed Lazear was on C-SPAN's Newsmakers podcast last week to take questions from reporters. He was asked about income inequality, the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This trend has always upset the left. I remember in Margaret Thatcher's last round of questions in the House of Commons before she retired, she was asked about this problem. Her response was to ask the honorable questioning MP if he would prefer that everyone be at the same level of poverty. Lazear was asked about this issue, and he hit it out of the park, in my opinion. She then goes into the democratic talking point about the tragedy of the untrained worker. It's all about equality of opportunity, not outcomes..

Play clip.

I'm glad he is in charge of advising the President on Economics. Can you imaging the disaster that would ensue if John Edwards, he of the "two America's" canard picked someone like Paul Krugman to be his adviser? Hide the cat, indeed.

The Libby Trial - Could you have testified for eight hours and not be caught in a misstatement?

I've not blogged much about the Scooter Libby trial, but I have followed it somewhat. With experts like the passionate lefties at FiredogLake, or Tom McGuire at Just One Minute, or Byron York at National Review Online, I have nothing to add. But I did listen to a tape from C-SPAN consisting of one hour of the eight hours of Libby's Grand Jury testimony. Can anyone say for certain that they could survive eight hours of grueling and relentless questioning by a professional prosecutor like Fitzgerald without misstating anything? Listen to this clip from 25 minutes into the first hour of Libby's grand jury testimony, where Libby is caught in the lie that he doesn't recall telling Ari Fleischer or Tim Russert about Plame.

Play clip.

It goes on like that for a full hour, and there are seven more just like it.

Byron York this morning on the Corner on National Review Online added this:

I have a new story about Lewis Libby's decision not to testify at his perjury and obstruction trial:

For the defense team, the question never hinged on whether the jury needed a chance to hear Libby talk about his role in the CIA leak affair. The question was whether the jury needed another chance to hear Libby talk about his role in the CIA leak affair. And the answer was: eight hours is enough. Eight hours refers, of course, to the length of Libby's earlier testimony to the grand jury. The trial jury heard a recording of it all -- a laborious process that took ... three days. So by the time Libby had to decide whether to testify, the jury had already heard a lot of Lewis Libby testifying. But -- and this is a point largely unexamined by trial observers -- jurors also heard a lot of Patrick Fitzgerald questioning Lewis Libby. And Libby's defenders are betting that jurors took from those recordings an impression not only of the defendant but of the prosecutor. And the impression that Libby's supporters hope jurors will have is that of a prosecutor trying too hard to find a crime where there was none.

After listening to that clip I would think that Fitzgerald could have indicted a ham sandwich. And we all would have been much better off if he had.