Confederate Yankee
July 23, 2008
A Russian "Greenlight" to Attack Iran?
That is one intriguing interpretation of today's disclosure that Iran would be getting the long range Russian surface-to-air missile system known as the S-300PMU-1 (SA-20), and that the system would be deployable in as soon as six months from their expected September arrival.
The Russians no doubt relish the contortions the West is going through over Iran's nuclear program, but at the same time, their intelligence organizations are telling them that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons and missile technologies that can also threaten Russian interests.
By selling the Iranians advanced weapons systems and then disclosing their most likely deployment dates, the Russians are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They've outlined the outside window of Iran's greatest vulnerability to an air assault on its nuclear program and command and control facilities. It only remains to be seen now whether or not American and Israeli leaders will strike with enough force to irreparably destroy key elements of the Iranian nuclear program, or if they will make the deadly mistake of trying to avert a nuclear war "on the cheap."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:58 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Doesn't Russia still have a treaty with Iran authorizing Russia's unilateral intervention in the event of a violation of Iranian soverign territory?
Is a divided Iran a la Germany 1945-1991 in the offing? The Russians still want/need a warm water port. Iran has a bunch of coast on the Caspian sea as well as the IO...
Posted by: Gus Bailey at July 23, 2008 01:39 PM (LZarw)
2
Well this isn't diffinitive, but: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21207
Posted by: Gus Bailey at July 23, 2008 01:41 PM (LZarw)
3
The S-300PMU is notable for being capable of ballistic missile defense as well as anti-aircraft roles.
The smart money is on a late-October deployment target - a lot of people are sure the Israelis are going to wait until after the US Presidential elections to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Posted by: cirby at July 23, 2008 02:12 PM (C0p6T)
4
I think a better indication of a green light would be the Russians announcing when they will receive payment in full.
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2008 09:03 AM (1Lzs1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Sunshine Patriot
Grim at Blackfive tears Obama a new one:
They say "victory has a thousand fathers," but to Sen. Obama, the Surge is a bastard.
Grim is responding, at least in part, to
Joe Klein's meltdown, in which the panicking journalist attacked John McCain for pointing out that McCain is willing to lose the election in order to win the Iraq War, while Obama has been committed to losing the Iraq War as a plank of his political platform since 2006.
Obama's shift was a calculated appeal to the far left progressive base, a move which eventually helped him lock-up the Democratic nomination. He has stuck to that commitment. Even now, as Obama made clear to Couric, he would not have supported the surge.
His record of statements related to the war on Iraq is extensive and well-documented. He was opposed to the war from the start as noted in his over-hyped 2002 speech,
adopted the position in 2004 that a withdrawal without victory " would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective" and a dishonoring of the sacrifice of American soldiers.
By 2005-2006, Obama had made his final evolution, changing positions again and committing to unconditional withdrawal for his presidential run;
victory was no longer on his agenda.
On October 22, 2006, Obama proclaimed the urgent necessity for "all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq." That change was decidedly not in the direction of stepping up our war effort by sending additional troops—a shift advocated by some conservative critics of administration policy and at that point being seriously considered by the White House and the Pentagon. Quite the contrary: the change Obama had in mind was to initiate, as quickly as possible, a "phased withdrawal" from Iraq. There was to be no more talk from him about leaving a "stabilized" situation. Nor, for Obama, was the issue debatable. His latest predictive judgment was that "We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve."
It is clear that since 2006, Obama had far less interest in winning the Iraq war than he did withdrawing American troops. Getting
out was Barack Obama's primary concern. Winning was not. John McCain's charge that "I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign" is deadly accurate.
Joe Klein can shriek all he wants that McCain's line of attack is "scurrilous" and "smacks of desperation," but the simple fact remains that Obama's record, scant as it is, betrays his character. It shows him to be what Thomas Paine described during our own nation's founding war as
a sunshine patriot:
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
When times in Iraq became toughest, Barack Obama wilted. When tyranny threatened, he committed to conceding the field. Being a politician, and a liberal at that, he proudly made his desire to run away from conflict and abandon the Iraqi people to whatever fate befell them part of the central core of his campaign.
"
Vote for me. I shirk from difficulty. " he seemed to be saying. "
Vote for me. I will not require sacrifice.
Vote for me. I promise safety.
Vote for me. I will bend to your will."
And such is the core of his appeal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:44 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now I understand what the auras around Obama's head in all the media photos are to represent: He's a sunshine soldier and lightworker!
Posted by: redherkey at July 23, 2008 11:21 AM (kjqFg)
2
I think we just reached the tipping point in the Iraq war on the media front. They have finally found it easier to admit that we are winning in Iraq than to try to defend Obama's miserable record. By declaring Mission Accomplished, they can now remove Iraq as a major issue of the 2008 election.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 23, 2008 12:52 PM (oC8nQ)
3
By declaring Mission Accomplished, they can now remove Iraq as a major issue of the 2008 election.
That's OK, the Surge more or less did that already, the media is just following along.
This election, if I am any prognosticator (and I may or may not be), is gonna be about gas prices and Obama's steadfast opposition to new drilling. On that issue, as on Iraq, Obama is stuck between the desires of the majority of the voting public (get more oil on the market through drilling) and the desires of the rabid nutroots who provide much of the Democrats' financial support (who want America to go back to the horse and buggy day). He's gonna try his best to weasel his way past both groups, and I daresay he won't succeed.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 23, 2008 04:45 PM (e+Bm0)
4
...who want America to go back to the horse and buggy day.
Obviously we need to institute mandatory equine sports in high school. A few minutes with some of the horses I've met would cure them forever.
Posted by: Grim at July 24, 2008 09:21 AM (8EGln)
5
Actually, Grim, I take that back... they want us to go back to pre-horse days... using horses to pull buggies would be "animal cruelty."
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 04:57 PM (e+Bm0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Iraq We'd Have If We'd Heeded Obama
Why, I agree with every word.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:43 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If we heeded Obama's words from the past, The United States would be the world's looser, second to the victims of Saddam Hussein’s torture and killings, Al Qaida would be running ramped, and the greatest military humiliated and degraded. Obama gave no support whatsoever to our military personal and the efforts that made the current situation a success. And he has the audacity and gall to visit the Middle East like he was a sitting president and tell them how to do things! This is so unbelievable and embarrassing I can’t believe it.
Posted by: Ron at July 23, 2008 08:45 AM (Qt7Qv)
2
Let us also remember that if we had listened to Obama and abandoned Iraq, we would have given Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted: a humiliating defeat for America at the hands of the brave and noble mujahideen. Osama bin Laden expected, and was betting on, retaliation for September 11th. He also was betting on America running once it had it's nose bloodied, just as he learned from Vietnam. If it weren't for President Bush, General Petraeus, and the brave men and women of our fighting forces, Barack Obama and the majority of democrats would have handed Osama bin Laden the victory he so desperately wanted.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at July 23, 2008 11:32 AM (d5LvD)
3
I should add that Osama bin Laden learned the lesson of America running from Vietnam from the history books, while he learned it personally in Somalia. He could have easily propagandized about defeating America twice.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at July 23, 2008 11:46 AM (d5LvD)
4
There was a time when Democrats knew how to win wars. Since Korea, they have been satified with less and less. With our two party system, enemies need to be sure of who occupies the White House before any overt acts. Republicans respond vigorously to attacks even if the response in unpopular. Something about taking the oath of office seriously.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 23, 2008 05:21 PM (J5AYY)
5
Might I point out for the sake of argument that winning and losing wars does not really break down along a Republican-Democrat divide.
Nor are Republicans really famous for "responding vigorously" to attacks.
Please remember President Nixon's complete inaction when the North Koreans tested him in 1969 by shooting down a USAF spy plane, killing the two dozen airmen on board. Nixon responded just as weakly as LBJ had a year earlier when the North Koreans seized the USS Pueblo.
Please also remember that it was President Nixon who lost the Vietnam War when public opinion forced him to withdraw the U.S. Army and Marine Corps before the ARVN were ready to stand up on their own, and even as the NVA occupied huge chunks of South Vietnam.
Finally, President Reagan retreated from Lebanon after the massive casualties suffered by the Marines in the barracks disaster of '83.
Examples of Democratic inaction and retreat can also be cited, of course.
The truth is simply that the American public has little patience for long, drawn-out foreign adventures, and (as in Vietnam) can force politicians of both parties to Bring the Boys Home.
The only reason this has not happened in Iraq is because the war is being fought by an all-volunteer force. If eighteen-year-old American kids were being drafted en masse and shipped to Iraq, the American people would have shut the war down by now.
Just a thought.....
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 23, 2008 10:22 PM (vTJkv)
6
Thanks for the history lesson, Keith.
It doesn't change the fact that on Iraq, victory/defeat breaks quite nicely along Elephant/Donkey lines, with a few stragglers on each side (Mr. Lieberman, please stand up).
I do love the way you prepared the red herring, tho.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 07:15 AM (e+Bm0)
7
CCG, you cite the party fault lines regarding the current Iraq War. Fair enough. Previous correspondents, however, were reaching back to the Korean Era to demonize the Democrats as pushovers and the Republicans as tough guys. That's the unfair point to which I was responding. No red herrings involved!
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 24, 2008 08:07 AM (vTJkv)
8
Gee, the only comment I see regarding pre-Iraq wars actually admitted that "at one time, Democrats knew how to win wars." I see nothing in that statement to justify the venom you spewed, since every war between WWI and Vietnam (inclusive) were started during a Democrat's stay in the Oval Office.
Again, lovely preparation of the red herring, but I'm not in the mood for fish, nor is it Friday, nor am I Catholic.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 04:59 PM (e+Bm0)
9
CCG, you can't be serious when referring to the "venom" I supposedly "spewed"!
Gee, I thought I just wrote a short, polite note in response to some anti-historical comments!
No venom, no red herrings.... just a reminder that (whatever the diehards of either party want to believe) both Republicans and Democrats have had good moments and less-than-glorious moments in the execution of foreign policy.
What are we even disagreeing about?!
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 24, 2008 07:42 PM (vTJkv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 22, 2008
Obama: Surge Was An Unnecessary Success
Katie Couric—well known for creampuff interviews—nonetheless presses a befuddled Barack Obama into admitting that even with today's perfect 20/20 hindsight, he'd still reject the surge.
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
What character... admitting to 25 million Iraqis that their lives are nothing more than marks to be counted against in a ledger, chits with a firm price. Gives you pause when considering what he'll do if allowed into office to socialize your healthcare, doesn't it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OK, let's try this the civil way:
Obama says his approach was "to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation." How does that equate to putting a price on 25 million Iraqi lives? Especially when the folks that blog here seem to think that Sunnis and Shias have no problems cooperating with one another at all.
It's worth noting that there's a decent argument to be made that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, and that our very presence in Iraq put a lot of Iraqi lives in jeopardy.
Many conservatives in America might not share your apparent sentiment that you cannot put a price on human life. If they did, they wouldn't push for extensive tax cuts when millions of Americans (not Iraqis) go without health insurance and, effectively, adequate health care all the time.
You certainly have a good argument on your side that Obama's approach to Iraq has been inconsistent and, to your way of thinking, wrong. But to pretend that Obama or any other human being would cavalierly write off 25 million lives of ANY nationality seems a mite incredible.
That's really the problem caused in the last eight years, the Karl Rove school of thought: it's not enough to debate your political opponents (Democrats), you have to vilify them (evil Commie bastards) and then destroy them. It's why the Republican Party lost the COngress in 2006, and why they may well lose the White House in 2008. Think about it: if Obama is clearly so inadequate as a candidate for President, how on earth could he ever get elected? Only if a majority of Americans are somehow disapproving of the current Republican approach to governance.
Go ahead. Blast away. :-)
Posted by: Diogenes at July 23, 2008 01:57 AM (PMlL4)
2
"It's worth noting that there's a decent argument to be made that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, and that our very presence in Iraq put a lot of Iraqi lives in jeopardy."
Whether or not we 'should have gone in' is not really relevant to the facts in this case dio. We are there, you play with the cards you have you know? He's basically saying that if he had been the one pulling the trigger; he would have put the Iraqi nation under his ego-swelling bus and diverted everything somewhere else. And damned if even he knows what would have happened (or damned if he even seems to care).
I just can't believe that $15m Katie asked those distracting questions to Mr. H&C08
Posted by: Lord Nazh at July 23, 2008 03:33 AM (sBNzZ)
3
Obama is certainly the protege of reverend Wright. Not only does his overheated sermonizing mimic the manner of the Trinty Church pulpit players, but when he's challenged to defend his statements, actions, or positions, he acts the way Wright did at his audacious press conference: indignant, condescending, dismissive, insulting. Has the nation already forgotten how Obama wilted from the intense pressure of the televised "debate", when the reporters were "asking him too many questions" ? This guy gets flustered in the heat of a Katie Couric interview, and he's gonna stand up to Ahmadinejad?
Posted by: Joe at July 23, 2008 04:14 AM (IHkXF)
4
"Think about it...how could he get elected"
With the help of an utterly complicit media that simply will not show the man for anything like what he really is.
Besides the WSJ, who covered this one?
http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-shady-teamsters-deal.html
Some blogs, and that's about it.
The guy consistantly shows poor judgement. If it weren't for that first wave of teenager in college who think that haveing a black president is the answer to the worlds problems, this guy would never have gotten off of the ground.
His background shows his inexperience, and even for being that inexperienced, he's got a lot of weird connections going on in his background.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/
Read around in there for a while and see why this guy shouldn't be president.
Hope/ Change...pfft.
Posted by: Xerock at July 23, 2008 05:37 AM (kX5hh)
5
It's reassuring to find someone as optimistic as Diogenes. "
f Obama is clearly so inadequate as a candidate for President, how on earth could he ever get elected?" By that logic we can substitute the name of any person who actually was elected President and be assured that that person was adequate.
Posted by: Dave at July 23, 2008 10:31 AM (gv18Z)
6
There is nothing civil about Diogenes. Unfortunately the real Greek Diogenes past by the house of both this one and our Obama and found them wanting. We know what has happened without them. Diogenes use your powers of foresight and tell us what Saddam and Qusay would have been up to low these few years. Would they have seen the errors of their ways and mended their behavior? Would they have used the vast oil wealth to bribe, undermine and finance actions against us? I don't know about anyone else, but listening to Obama respond to both ABC's and NBC's questions. Obama sounds like a well spoken fool. He is the product of affirmative action. No doubt he was the big bullshitter on campus. Anyone who went to college knows one. Diogenes, if this lop is elected President, are you willing to be responsible for the damage he will do? Put your life up.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 23, 2008 12:04 PM (W3y8V)
7
Thanks to most of you for politely telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, as opposed to "ripping me a new one" as is often the case here. Except , of course, Z, who insists I'm not civil, because he knows me (and Obama) so well.
Saying Obama is a product of affirmative action starts to hint at your real objection, Z, doesn't it? It's not true, of course, that he was admitted to Columbia and Harvard Law via affirmative action, but even if it were true, you don't graduate magna cum laude and as president of the Law Review due to affirmative action. Do you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about college boys, Z? Because it sure sounds like it. Really, there's no crime involved in using one's brain.
On the subject of getting flustered by a Katie Couric interview, what about McCain's talk with the little lady? This is exactly what concerns me about McCain.
"On Katie Couric tonight McCain says:
Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as -- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.
One problem. The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html
You can read all the tea leaves you want and declare that Obama is totally lacking in anything resembling a smidge of character, and that's your opinion. You've also dismissed out of hand all of McCain's "gaffes". Do none of these "gaffes" ever give you one second of doubt or concern? I'm very very concerned that McCain has lost a step, and this latest episode certainly adds to that concern.
Posted by: Diogenes at July 23, 2008 12:30 PM (PMlL4)
8
The surge, Diogenes, was not just a military operation. It was a strategy, which involved military components. Even if the Anbar Awakening occured before the Surge officially began, remember that it was the work of the Surge that leveraged, reinforced, and amplified the Awakening and made it possible for all of the diverse political pieces to come together instead of fall apart. You guys on the Left are so keen in invalidating the efforts of our American service people and policy planners but have no clue as to the hard work that went into the Surge success that now seems so inevitable and easy that you discount the very efforts that made the success possible. Can you imagine if the Surge failed even after the Anbar Awakening, if the Sunnis fought al-Queda but at the same time banded together to form a stronger insurgency? Oh yes, that would require imagination, intellect, and a modicum of good will towards one's country. My bad.
Posted by: mbabbitt at July 23, 2008 01:47 PM (p/jtE)
9
That's not the issue with the sirge, or at least, it's not the issue I was raising. The issue I raised was McCain's erroneous recollections of how it all went down. And, to take it a step further, his fairly arrogant putdown of Obama for not even understanding the history. Obama doesn't understand McCain's history on this point because McCain's recollection of history is flat out wrong.
But I guess I'm the only one here who sees a potential danger in an old man taking charge when he doesn't have it all together anymore.
Posted by: dioegenes at July 23, 2008 02:22 PM (PMlL4)
10
Do none of these "gaffes" ever give you one second of doubt or concern?
If Obama's gaffes don't give you one second of doubt or concern, why should McCain's give us one second of doubt or concern?
Sauce for the goose, sir.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 23, 2008 04:50 PM (e+Bm0)
11
Speaking of gaffes, Mr. Diogenes, it's rather silly for you to be harping on McCain's when Obama doesn't even know what Senate committee(s) he belongs to.
You sure you wanna continue to talk about McCain not having it all together? At least he knows what committees he's on.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 23, 2008 05:32 PM (e+Bm0)
12
I often wonder if Democrats can remember things that happened the day before yesterday, other than how much an ounce of doobie cost.
They always seem to forget that Iraq had ignored multiple UN resolutions, to allow UN weapons inspectors in, and had defied all time-tables and ultimatums, contrary to the agreed upon terms of the cease-fire terms of Operation Desert Storm.
That had they not tied Bush 1's hands we could have gone all the way to Baghdad and taken Hussein out in 1991.
That had Bill Clinton not been such a wuss we could have had Bin Laden from the Sudanese, thus no 9/11, and no Iraq War.
That the consensus was that Iraq had WMD, and Saddam Hussein had gassed his own people.
That most of the elected Democrats (Senate and Representatives) voted to go into Iraq.
That Al Qaeda flocked into Iraq, and were defeated by our military, and duh, they were getting killed over there instead of over here.
That we are still fighting a GLOBAL War on Terrorism.
...and that the US has not been attacked since 9/11.
Posted by: art at July 23, 2008 05:39 PM (3DErI)
13
"[T]hat's money that could have gone into Afghanistan."
The Democrats always favor "something else." They want to fulfill the objective "some other way."
They don't want oil, nuclear power, or natural gas -- they want wind. They don't want troops in Iraq, they want them in Afghanistan.
In truth, they're in favor of NOTHING, but they're too hypocritical to say so.
Posted by: Larry at July 23, 2008 07:22 PM (noIIk)
14
OK, is anybody going to comment on McCain? You've danced all around it.
"Well... the Dems did this.... the Dems did that... Obama said this...."
What do you have to say about John McCain completely mssing the complete chronology of the surge -- not just messing up a few dates, but getting it completely inside out -- and then, today, digging himself even deeper with a totally incomprehensible "answer".
Rule One when you find yourself in a hole: quit digging. McCain must have forgotten that rule, too.
Posted by: Diogenes at July 23, 2008 08:43 PM (PMlL4)
15
And Obama doesn't even know what Senate committee(s) he's on.
Kinda gives new meaning to "confused," doesn't it, Diogenes?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 23, 2008 10:12 PM (e+Bm0)
16
C-C-G, will you ever realize that this isn't some stupid kid's game of "gotcha"? It isn't how many gaffes my guy has in relation to how many gaffes your guy has.
I have NO IDEA what would possess Obama to say he was on the Senate Banking Committee when he isn't. That's pretty dumb.
But McCain claims he should be President because of his vast foreign affairs experience, yet he continually messes up on his very area of "expertise". He gets countries confused all the time. Now he tries to rewrite history in Iraq re: the Anbar Awakening and the Surge (and he has the balls to mistakenly call out Obama on that topic, claiming Obama doesn't know the history!).
And you're playing infantile "gotcha" games. Grow up and recognize the issue, please.
Posted by: diogenes at July 23, 2008 10:27 PM (PMlL4)
17
No diogenes -- you and your fellow Obama accolytes need to get your messiah back on the truth track.
You are always hung up on McCain's supposed Suni vs. Shiite gaff, but you see nothing wrong with Obama's outright lies about his involvement with the Senate Banking Committee. You see nothing wrong with a foreign policy wimp (with the advice from over 300 advisors) who changes his story according to the audience he addresses.
Tell me, diogenes, just where does your Obamassiah stand on the major issues that concern American citizens? Don't give me your usual crap about nuance and Carl Rove -- just the real facts, diogenes, that is if you have the intelligence and patience to dig them out!
Posted by: Mescalero at July 23, 2008 11:40 PM (8w+SF)
18
This ignorant, arrogant marxist has no business running for president. Liberals whine about the possibility of putting guns in the hands of children and yet they want to hand over the power of the United States to this empty suit.
Posted by: William Fortner at July 24, 2008 12:00 AM (YnfH9)
19
Thank you, Mescalero. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 07:18 AM (e+Bm0)
20
Pits bulls, plain and simple. Trained for one thing: attack, attack, attack. It almost looks like you go out of your way to avoid addressing McCain's weaknesses. The whole issue of McCain not understanding that the Surge did not cause the Awakening, and then either lying his way out, or getting more and more confused in the process. You guys just ignore it completely, and "respond" with a highly educated "Oh, yeah? Well, your guy is a Commie!" You don't even have enough courtesy to call Obama by his name... it's always a punchline for your would-be comedians.
Well, it really makes no difference, guys. Obama's gonna be the next President. Better start getting used to it.
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 09:21 AM (PMlL4)
21
Wow, now the story behind Obama's "false claim" that he's on the Senate Banking Commmittee:
Obama goofed. He was talking about a bill that he sponsored that was approved by the Senate Banking Committee. Instead of saying "my bill" he said "my committee".
Wow. Earth-shattering stuff.
Almost exactly like McCain's explanation of the Surge chronology. I paraphrase:
Well, you see, ummm, the Anbar Awakening was part of..... a counter-insurgency. And then the Surge came in 8 months later. Now, the Surge is the same thing as a counter-insurgency. Well, no, not the same thing, but a counter-insurgency is part of a Surge... no, wait.... a Surge is part of a counter-insurgency.... (is that what Lieberman told me to say?).... yeah, that's it! Look at the words, right? SURGE.... counter-inSURGEncy. See? It's the same thing!!
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 09:59 AM (PMlL4)
22
Look in the mirror, diogenes. We point out Obama's idiotic claim that he was on the Banking committee, what do you do? Attack McCain.
Obama will only be President if something supernatural intervenes. Otherwise his empty suit status will be shown long before November. Despite their vocal status on blogs and talk radio, there just aren't enough kool-aid drinkers to win the election for Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 05:14 PM (e+Bm0)
23
Jeez, C-C-G, do you actually read at all? The very first thing I did was address Obama's gaffe:
Obama goofed. He was talking about a bill that he sponsored that was approved by the Senate Banking Committee. Instead of saying "my bill" he said "my committee".
You (and, if it gives you comfort, many others here) have one speed: ATTACK. You know nothing else, you understand nothing else, you do nothing else. And it explains not only your actions on this particularly little blog, but it also explains your world view. You identify your true-blue buddies first, and then look to level everybody else in sight.
Sad.
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 05:21 PM (PMlL4)
24
"Well, there you go again," to quote a famous Republican. You're attacking me once again.
Keep it up, please. Keep showing all us neanderthals how a superior person debates using personal attacks.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 06:33 PM (e+Bm0)
25
Follow the chronology please. (Does EVERYBODY on the right have this issue?)
You commented that Obama's statement about being on the Banking Committee, and you ended "Kinda gives new meaning to "confused," doesn't it, Diogenes?"
Last evening, I responded: "I have NO IDEA what would possess Obama to say he was on the Senate Banking Committee when he isn't. That's pretty dumb."
This morning, I Googled to see what was out there on this issue because, at that point, I hadn't heard anything about it except for your comment. I found what I thought was a reasonable explanation of Obama's mistake, so I posted:
"Obama goofed. He was talking about a bill that he sponsored that was approved by the Senate Banking Committee. Instead of saying 'my bill' he said 'my committee'."
You responded: "We point out Obama's idiotic claim that he was on the Banking committee, what do you do? Attack McCain."
So yeah, I questioned your willingness to read, and reposted my original statement: OBAMA GOOFED.
No personal attack against you there, C-C-G, at least not until you ignored not one but two admissions that Obama screwed up in his comment.
(Memo to self: quit wasting your time.)
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 07:36 PM (PMlL4)
26
"Well, there you go again," attacking me.
What was that you were saying about us having one speed, "ATTACK"? Look in the mirror.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 07:54 PM (e+Bm0)
27
In fairness to the moderator of this blog, I'll stop new.
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 07:58 PM (PMlL4)
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 07:59 PM (PMlL4)
29
Let me quote the late Stokeley Carmichael commenting on the Johnson Administration's credibility problems during the Viet Nam War -- "Credibility gap, there ain't no credibility gap, he's lying!"
Got that diogenes, I've waited for years to use this expression against marxist fellow travelers, brain-dead liberals, and the occasionally misguided Republican like yourself. Regarding Obama's Sderot gaff, he just plain ole lied, period.
He's flip-flopped so much that after he threatened the usual liberal-white-guilt zombies and black racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with his principled stances against the left/Green railroading of three innocent Duke LaCrosse players for rape as well as his calls for fairness in the Jena 6 case, he then betrays the confidence he established with my wife and myself by pandering to the worst hypocrites to ever set foot in this country -- those crooks living on San Francisco's billionaire's row, a few of which I got to know and despise as a graduate student at UC Berkeley.
Posted by: Mescalero at July 24, 2008 10:40 PM (8w+SF)
30
Yes, of course, you're right. Obama lied. He figured that, even though he's on an international tour with three network anchors, more press than you can shake a stick at, and almost as many folks that are eagerly awaiting even the slightest misstep -- cameras and mikes everywhere he turned -- he'd be able to get away with a lie like that. I mean, it's next to impossible to find out who's a member of the Senate Banking Committee and who's not, right? It's not like it's a matter of public record, available on all sorts of governmental and/or non-governmental websites, right?
Of course, one may wonder what he would gain by lying like that, but... awwww never mind, he's a just lyin', thievin', no-account Commie.
Nope, ole Barry HUSSEIN Obama thought he'd get away with that one. Thank God somebody was awake enough to alert us to his pernicious lies!!!
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 11:46 PM (PMlL4)
31
Sorry Diogenes but McCain is more correct than you your leftist pals and the Obamanation about the surge. While the Sunnis began to rebel against the AQ (oh, that's right, the Obamanation says no AQ in Iraq, my mistake) around 9/06, four months before the surge was effectuated, the blessed Col. McFarlane, instituted a new counterinsurgency strategy with the assistance of Gen.Petraeus in Anbar Province, that became the basis for the surge strategy later used throughout the rest of Iraq. To that end a mini surge was performed, with about 4,000 extra troops being used in Anbar, especially in Ramadi (before the official surge started). Their encouraging success laid the groundwork for the change in US policy/strategy in the war. To those who credit the Anbar Awakening without the surge (the surgeophobics) you should review the latest charts by Gen. Petraeus showing casualty rates, etc., and you will see that until the surge took hold, the Sunnis even with the additional troops had so so success. Even today, the Sunnis of Anbar are aghast at talk of removing US troops such as the radical leftist proposal by Obamanation. I am disappointed with Maliki, that he would give any credence to the Obamanation cause if the Obamanation had his way Maliki would be hanging from a lamppost with AQ and IRGs dancing in the streets of Baghdad. Had I been Pres Bush, and Maliki made this abominable statement I would have stated, PM Maliki has stated that the war is over and that the troops can come home in sixteen months. The US is not an occupying power but came to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictatorship. Now that the legitimate gov't of Iraq has made it's choice, I have asked the Coalition military officers to draw up a plan to hand all the remaining 8 provinces in Iraq, that are still under US control back to the Iraqis, as the Iraqis believe that they are fully capable of administering them. I have further directed the Coalition Forces to draw up plans to withdraw two brigades a month from these eight provinces, and to draw up plans to withdraw the majority of the rest of our forces from Iraq under PM Maliki's time horizon, so that by the end of 2009 only a residual combat force will be left in Iraq. While these withdrawals are occurring, of course the Administration remains open to further discussions of the continued basing of coalition forces in Iraq. We wish the Iraqis well on their march to complete sovereignty. That would have called Maliki's bluff and made him crap in his pants, and high tail it away from the Obamanation.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at July 25, 2008 04:32 PM (W88Qb)
32
Yeah. The press is eagerly awaiting Obama's every mistake, you "Republican"-Obamican. That's why they get shivers up their legs when he speaks! The fact is, Magic Negro knows that his gaffes & misrepresentations are underreported (with some exceptions) and he takes full advantage of it.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 25, 2008 10:24 PM (sk9If)
33
Re: Gaffes
I haven't seen anyone post Obamanation's claim, "I've already campaigned in all 57 states."
Posted by: Otto at July 27, 2008 05:17 PM (vsHEm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mac & P.C.
"Hi. I'm P.C."
"And I'm—wait a second, don't I get to go first?"
"Not as long as there is a New York Times."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:23 AM
| Comments (61)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Why can't real debates be this entertaining?
"I'm like Windows Vista." Buggy and full of crapware? You have a point.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at July 22, 2008 10:19 AM (oba11)
2
Bwahahaha! Great job, Bob.
Posted by: Kim Priestap at July 22, 2008 11:25 AM (Nuy9n)
3
Pretty good - missing many of Obama's "um's" and "ah"s" when he is off the teleprompter, though.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at July 22, 2008 11:33 AM (EsOdX)
4
Pretty funny. Must have taken a lot of work and a whole lot more thought. Although I might have thought twice before potraying McCain in a computer scenario, since he admitted he's still learning how to log onto a computer.
By the way, what was McCain's answer to his Iraq-Pakistan border flub? Or is that the point: he doesn't have one, but it's really OK because it happened yesterday and he's already completely forgotten yesterday morning? :-)
Posted by: diogenes at July 22, 2008 12:37 PM (PMlL4)
5
You mean someone actually reported on McCain???? Stop the presses!!!!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 22, 2008 04:31 PM (kNqJV)
6
G.W. Bush is literally a monkey! :-\
Posted by: brando at July 22, 2008 04:35 PM (qzOby)
7
That was funny. It reminds of stuff that www.thenoseonyourface.com does occasionally. They had one about the first presidential conversation between BHO and Iranian wackjob Ahmahdinejad. Here is the link: http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/page/5/
Scroll about a third down the page.
Posted by: Penfold at July 22, 2008 04:37 PM (lF2Kk)
8
By the way, what was McCain's answer to his Iraq-Pakistan border flub?
I'll give you the same answer you gave about Obama's 57 state flub.
McCain made an error.
Case now closed.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 22, 2008 05:20 PM (e+Bm0)
9
Hold the presses!
"Israel is a strong friend of Israel's." -- Barack Obama.
You see, whenever McCain makes a flub, you can count on Obama to go one better. However, I believe St. Barack is running far ahead in the flub race at the moment.
Posted by: Just Askin' at July 22, 2008 09:36 PM (esv00)
10
It's not just a race to see who can avoid flubs.
If you're concerned about Obama not realizing that Israel is, of course, a friend of Israel, then sound an alarm. If you're really worried that Obama doesn't know how many states are in the U.S., alert the media.
If you're not sure whether or not McCain can tell the differences between the Shias and the Sunnis, you got a right to be very concerned. If you're not sure that McCain realizes fully well that it isn't the Iraq-Pakistan border that's a ssrious problem, but the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, you got a right to be concerned.
The kind of flub Obama tends to make seems to be the same kind of flub that McCain made in not keeping the Green Bay Packers straight from the Pittsburgh Steelers. "No harm, no foul."
When McCain is running on his vast experience in foreign affairs, and he consistently has problems keeping the players straight, it's an issue. How serious th eiissue us depends on each individual voter's perceptions.
Posted by: diogenes at July 22, 2008 10:13 PM (PMlL4)
11
>If you're not sure whether or not McCain can tell the differences between the Shias and the Sunnis, you got a right to be very concerned.
Are you referring to his statement that Iran was/is supporting AQ and other sunni groups in Iraq?
He was correct. Iran was.
>If you're not sure that McCain realizes fully well that it isn't the Iraq-Pakistan border that's a ssrious problem, but the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, you got a right to be concerned.
This answers itself. If anyone really thinks that McCain doesn't fully realize the borders then that person is an idiot.
Posted by: Vince P - Chicago at July 22, 2008 10:27 PM (kCih8)
12
diogenes--
Yeah right! Obama and his weak-kneed legions will march valiantly into Waziristan and capture Osama and his Egyptian deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri tomorrow without a shot being fired with the sitting war criminals at the UN saying nothing. One has to question whether the Obamessiah has ever heard of the Curzon Line, international law, and just a few other fundamental things like that. Given his past speeches, he has shown that his knowledge of history and international relations is less than acceptable
Question to you, diogenes, if the Pakistan ISI-controlled Taliban can make arbitrary incursions into Afghanistan, why can't we make incursions into the so-called "ungovernable" western provinces, dominated by war criminals, which the Pakistanis and their western apologists call Waziristan? By the way, have you taken a good look at a map of that area, especially the western part and that place called Baluchistan, recently? Why do I get the feeling that people like you can't think, spell, and come up for air when required, much less vote intelligently during elections?
Posted by: Mescalero at July 22, 2008 10:30 PM (8w+SF)
13
OK, guys, you are all the experts. There was no film clip of Lieberman desperately trying to correct McCain's flub on the Shia-Sunni issue.
Mescalero? I don't have the specific knowledge you seem to about the Pakistani border. I'll freely admit that. But I would point out: (1) I'm not running for President, and (2) I sincerely doubt that McCain knows much more about it, either.
I'm sorry -- McCain's making too many flubs on foreign affairs for me to believe that he's capable of keeping this stuff straight in his mind anymore. Sure, if you sat him down and walked him through it all, I'm pretty sure you could get him to give correct answers most, if not all, of the time. But a President needs to be sharper than that.
As I had said before, elsewhere on this blog I believe, I would have voted for McCain in 2000. Not in 2008, though. He's lost more than a atep.
Just one person's opinion. You don't (and won't) agree with me, and that's fine. That's what makes a horse race.
Posted by: Diogenes at July 22, 2008 11:25 PM (PMlL4)
14
BTW, I'm watching Hannity and Colmes right now, and it's sad to hear the new "slogan" that McCain took out for a test run today. Obama would rather lose a war than lose a campaign?
I thought McCain wasn't going to go negative?
I thought McCain wouldn't question Obama's patriotism?
Sounds like desperate times call for desperate measures, eh? Sounds like McCain will abandon at least some of his principles in a vain attempt, it seems, to grab a headline.
Posted by: DIogenes at July 22, 2008 11:30 PM (PMlL4)
15
In order to get published in the NYSlimes all McCain had to do was sent the following:
I agree 100% with Obambi's article.
John McCain (R)
Instant front page center.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 22, 2008 11:34 PM (I4yBD)
16
DIogenes, Since when is telling the truth going negative? And he did for the first time in the campaign tell the 100% truth about Obambi.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 22, 2008 11:37 PM (I4yBD)
17
diogenes--
It takes all I have to keep me from unloading on the uniformed, so-called Republicans for Obama like yourself (by the way, I don't believe you are a Republican). Tell me, diogenes, how many muslim Americans do you really know? From what you have posted, that answer has to be close to zeeeero!
Do you really believe that Sunni and Shia muslims are unable to cooperate with each other? If you believe this unbelievable crap, say so and I will refer you to numerous volumes that should convince you and, hopefully, the unconvinceable likes of yourself and the likes of Arthur Ochs "Stalinist pimp" Sulzberger, jr.. However, given the real world, which you and your like do not inhabit, I won't hold my breath. So much for John McCain's gaffs, which are trivial compared to yours as well the Obamassiah's. By the way, do you, and your uninformed likes understand that there is a very specific geographical difference between Israel and Jordan????? Your messiah doesn't think so. Get off the McCain gaffs, diogenes, Obama's gaffs (we in the real world call them distortions) are far worse, but we can't count on the brain-dead MSM to cover those criminal acts against the American electorate.
Posted by: Mescalero at July 23, 2008 12:04 AM (8w+SF)
18
Excellent, very well done. Made my day.
I only wish I could hear something like that live.
I'm not excited with all that Senator Mccain promotes, but
by G-d we need a crusty tough SOB right now, and you
won't find many tougher than John McCain.
He's honest, he's damn tough, he knows the face of evil,
and he will not back down, or sell out his principles or his
country. He has been tested, tried and found true. He is
trusted, admired and feared by friend and enemy alike, as
our Commander in Chief should be. G-d Bless him
and protect him.
I'm honored to vote for him, and thankful for the opportunity.
Thank you for your work, Confederate Yankee.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Posted by: Peter Warner at July 23, 2008 12:28 AM (exBaq)
19
Never said Shia and Sunni couldn't cooperate. But the "sectarian violence" is largely based on those two sects -- and you can throw in the Kurds (yes, I know, they're not a scet of Islam) for good measure. There's no doubt that Shia and Sunni will have to cooperate, if democracy is to last in Iraq.
Don't care if you don't believe I'm a registered Republican and voted for every Republican presidential candidate from 1976 up to 2004.
Don't care even more for the overly gung ho, testosterone laced diatribes here. I know I'm greatly outnumbered, but jeez.... If you believe for a second that ANY true American would like our country to lose a war -- which would obviously result in further loss of American (and Iraqi) lives -- well, all I can do is shake my head in disappointment. I don't doubt McCain's motives for a minute, nor do I doubt the character he showed forty years ago. But I do question his competence in 2008. Disagree all you want, but the hostility in dealing with anyone who disagrees with you doesn't serve you or your candidate well. That act won't play outside the confines of this little cyberworld you've created here.
So go ahead, unleash the dogs of war once again, and spew your bile. I thank God that there are some guys like you, that we can unleash in wartime, but I also thank God at least as much that we have a system that allows for other viewpoints, and can curb your enthusiasm when needed.
Anerica should have, and does, have room for differing viewpoints. People who don't agree with your views up and down the line are NOT necessarily enemies of the state, no matter how hard you try to portray it that way.
What are you going to do when Obama wins on November 4? Blow a gasket?
Posted by: Diogenes at July 23, 2008 12:56 AM (PMlL4)
20
Diogenes: You misunderstand; I am not a McCain supporter. I believe he is mediocre at best. However, Obama is worse than a novice. He is totally unprepared for being a senator, let alone assume the office of president.
The issue was verbal flubs, and Obama's are legion. The degree of the slips is immaterial at the moment, as neither Obama or McCain hold the presidency. The fact that so many overlook Obama's errors, flip-flops, and outright lies does not bode well for the future of this nation. Unfortunately, it may require Obama occupying the oval office for the majority of citizens to realize just how much Obama is out of his depth.
Posted by: Just Askin' at July 23, 2008 12:57 AM (esv00)
21
"If you believe for a second that ANY true American would like our country to lose a war -- which would obviously result in further loss of American (and Iraqi) lives -- well, all I can do is shake my head in disappointment."
Wow. Are you serious?
The cornerstone of Modern Liberalism is that US Servicemen are the biggest terrorists in the world. And yet you claim that not a single American wants America to lose wars and/or be destroyed? You even used all caps on the word "any".
Here's one.
Columbia professor Nick De Genova called for a million Mogadishus. Yes. He wants 18 million US Servicemen slain. Try to imagine what that would mean. Holocaust ~4million. Rawanda~800k.
And yet he wants 102 million American casualties.
The popular phrase Liberals would use for something like that is "Chickens come home to roost."
Shake your head in disappointment at yourself.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 08:52 AM (qzOby)
22
No, brando, I won't. Because I said "ANY true American." I fully realize that in a country of our size, there's bound to be a certain number of people that believe ANYTHING, so I know there are some in this country who would be more than willing to lose this war and kill American kids in the process, just to prove a point. That's why I added the word "true."
I don't consider them "true" Americans.
But I also reject out of hand your jingoistic assessment that "liberals" feel this way. No, most liberals and moderates do NOT feel that way.
It's not an "either/or" situation. I (and millions of other Americans) do NOT have only two options available to us: either completely agree with you and your opinions, or be thrown into a gross overgeneralization that we side with those who would rather lose a war than win a campaign, or make a political point.
That just plays into the Rove mentality: agree with me and all of my ultra-conservative hawk viewpoints OR be labelled a chickenshit Commie dove radical.
America's a great country, with a lot more room for competing ideas than you give it credit for.
Posted by: diogenes at July 23, 2008 12:48 PM (PMlL4)
23
So now Nick De Genova isn't actually an American?
Hahahaha. Sure.
You want to play word games on weither or not you personally consider an American citizen a "true" American or "sort of" American. Weak sauce.
You don't get to pick that. INS does.
Don't throw the word Moderates in there, when we're actually talking about these Liberals. And don't insuinuate I'm a Conservative. I'll forgive you for that, just this once, but be sure you've learned your lesson and don't do it again. See, I've absolved you before you repented. Even Jesus doesn't give that deal.
"That just plays into the Rove mentality: agree with me... OR be labelled a chickenshit Commie dove radical."
Very well then.
I know you don't agree with me. You've been clear. My position is that the killing of 18 million American Servicemen would be bad. Agree to disagree I suppose. I know I won't change your mind. You really shouldn't have denied that these people exist, but you seem pretty locked in your ways.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 01:13 PM (qzOby)
24
As RR would say, "There you go again...."
Here's the two options you offered:
(1) Agree with you, or
(2) Announce I want to see 18 million U.S. servicemen killed. (Although where THAT number comes from, I don't know; I didn't think the surge was THAT big.)
Sorry, but I don't want either option. Nor do most liberals, or moderates, or conservatives. Only the lunatic fringe (on either side of the political spectrum) would advocate what you proposed. That's what I meant by "true" Americans -- the vast majority of us somewhere inside those fringes. I wasn't referring to whether or not they were technically U.S. citizens or not, but thanks for the patronizing attitude.
Posted by: diogenes at July 23, 2008 02:30 PM (PMlL4)
25
I got it. You openly disagree with me. Roger that. I won't try to change your mind, because I know it's not possible. I'll just address others.
Just so other folks understand the scope of the horror of what's been advocated, here is something to put it in perspective. Try to imagine it.
9/11 was a horrible, murderous attack which shook our nation. The holocaust would be like 9/11 happening every single day, for over 3 and a half years. Try to comprehend that.
Now what this Columbia University professor advocated would be like 9/11 happening every single day, for almost 77 years.
But don't question their patriotism.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 03:57 PM (qzOby)
26
Now what this Columbia University professor advocated would be like 9/11 happening every single day, for almost 16 years.
That's much better.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 04:03 PM (qzOby)
27
Oh, wow, we don't get to "question the patriotism" of Obama or any of the other lefties, but now Diogenes is declaring himself the ultimate arbiter of who a "true American" is?
Good God, the arrogance of these lefties.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 23, 2008 04:56 PM (e+Bm0)
28
I guess the difference, C-C-G, is that I don't declare that all of you who disagree with me are traitors to the United States, that you aren't patriotic simply because you don't see things the way I do.
Disagree all you want, launch silly disparaging snarklines all you want, dance around every issue you desperately want to avoid -- but that doesn't make your opponents unpatriotic, except in your own narrow little mind.
Posted by: diogenes at July 23, 2008 08:50 PM (PMlL4)
29
It doesn't matter simply that you disagree.
What matters a great deal is the precise nature of the disagreement.
Some of the things that CY and other regular posters say, I disagree with, but that's ok. I understand that folks aren't in lockstep with my opinions.
But generally, they don't think that Che is an awesome guy, they don't pine for the overthrow of our republic, and they don't rejoice when Americans are beheaded. If you think that those values are unique to just this website, then you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.
I especially get a kick out of your last line. So Prof De Genova is actually patriotic? It's simply that I've labeled him as unpatriotic in my "narrow little mind"?
Really? Like Really? Like for realsies?
I gotta tell ya; that's one of the more unreasonable things I've heard recently. I guess we're just cut from a different cloth.
I'm going to go ahead and be bold on this one, and declare that he is pretty much unpatriotic.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 09:57 PM (Gs5OS)
30
brand, I don't know who peed in your Cheerios, but your comments are completely off the wall.
1. I've never mentioned Che and I wouldn't say that he was "an awesome guy".
2. I don't "pine for the overthrow of our republic" and I've never said anything remotely close to that lie.
3. I really don't "rejoice when Americans are beheaded" and that's stereotypical of your nonsense. I'd get really upset about that assertion, except it ain't worth the effort to get worked up over someone ignorant enough to say something like that.
4. I have no earthly idea who "Prof. Nick De Genova" is. I've never heard of him, other than your comments. I cannot and would not comment upon his patriotism, or lack of same, and I doubt I really would be interested in knowing who he is; if I've gone this long in life without encountering him, I figure it might be an omen. And if he's a guy who thinks #1, 2 and/or 3 are good things, then I'm better off not knowing him.
This is further proof of what we get when we try to demonize everyone who disagrees with us in the least.
Nonsense.
Posted by: diogenes at July 23, 2008 10:14 PM (PMlL4)
31
Not everything's about you. Maybe you should reread that.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 11:04 PM (Gs5OS)
32
"If you believe for a second that ANY true American would like our country to lose a war..."
There are plenty.
And apparently there are plenty who rush to their defense.
"I don't know who peed in your Cheerios"
C'mon. Let's not get weird. Let's keep the pee where it belongs. In Denver hippie throwing jars.
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2008 11:36 PM (Gs5OS)
33
Hippies? What decade are you living in , brando? Actually, skip it. It ain't worth discussing.....
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 09:24 AM (PMlL4)
34
You're not sure what decade it is? Heck yeah it's worth discussing. If you literally don't know what decade it is, then it would behoove of you to find out.
Well, I'm here to help. Blogs are fun, because sometimes it gives me an opportunity to teach. The year is 2008. You might even say it's the Ought Decade.
That was my good deed for the day.
About your fixation with urine, I wish you'd knock it off. Peeing in food? C'mon. If you want to discuss these Liberals in Denver that were caught stockpiling jars of urine to throw at the Cops during the upcoming DNC convention, well...
I think it's gross, but that's just me.
Let me guess what your position is. If I think for even one split second that those hippies are anything but pro-American, then you'll throw a temper tantrum and demand that anyone that disagrees with you is ignornat.
Nope. Throwing urine is ignorant. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Posted by: brando at July 24, 2008 10:14 AM (qzOby)
35
Hippies disappeared decades ago. As, evidently, did the majority of your brain cells.
Keep painting those who disagree with you on any point you raise as a radical leftist. You may come to realize it someday (although I'm not hopeful) but others will realize that there's all of us, across the political spectrum, and then there's you and a few likeminded souls, little dots on the far right of the spectrum.
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 12:47 PM (PMlL4)
36
Painting?
I'm reading your words, and I'll be sure to quote you later. I've been forgiving and rightious, while you've been crazy and evil. I can only help you if you put forth some effort too. I'm still willing to provide some guidance, but I'm going to need to see a little more honesty and sincerity from you. Redemption is still available.
Dude, you don't even know what decade it is. You have a urine fixation, you believe in omens, and you believe that De Genova is patriotic.
And then you claim that I'm the one who is ignorant and that half of my brain is actually gone.
Awesome.
You might not believe this, but it was good to meet you. You've confirmed a few things about Liberals that I'll be sure to bring up to some of my friends that lean liberal. I'm don't think they will appreciate the way you've been representing them.
That pee tangent you went on still werids me out.
Yuck.
Posted by: brando at July 24, 2008 01:43 PM (qzOby)
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 04:20 PM (PMlL4)
38
So, let's get right to the heart of the matter, diogenes. Am I in your "true American" category or not?
I can't wait to see how you spin that one.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 24, 2008 05:16 PM (e+Bm0)
39
Easy: yes. I don't see you as a traitor to your country, which is what I was really trying to say, pretty inarticulately at that point, I will readily admit.
Does that mean I agree with your viewpoints? No, not for the most part. But I don't have any reason to qestion your motives.
Call it "spin" if it makes you happy. I'm just trying to put some deep feelings I have into words. I'm getting sick and tired of jerks who insist I'm less than a full-fledged American just because I won't buy into their particular narrow world view.
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 05:25 PM (PMlL4)
40
Anyone still believe this diogenes person was a die-hard Republican? Strange, isn't it - how every other left winger spewing HopeyChangey boilerplate is a "life long conservative." If these people are going to lie I wish they'd at least be more original.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 24, 2008 11:09 PM (sk9If)
41
Thank you, sir. Once again, you've exposed us:
Since you know "the truth", anybody who has a different viewpoint has to be a "liar".
Posted by: diogenes at July 24, 2008 11:49 PM (PMlL4)
42
I never said dio-chimp was lying - just that I love how every other liberal commentator is ex-Republican, voted for Reagan, etc etc. If someone added up the numbers I bet all the Republicans from Reagan to Bush II would have won with roughly 125% of the vote.
Oh, and anyone with a different POV from Dio is a KKK member.
Slimeball.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 25, 2008 10:19 PM (sk9If)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 21, 2008
Why Are Snub-Nosed Revolvers Suggested for New Shooters?
One of the co-bloggers at Ace-of-Spades has asked for advice on a handgun for CCH carry, and as a quick click over there will attest, there is no shortage of advice. Some of the advice provided so far is solid, most of it fell into the moderately helpful category, and some of it is simply ignorant or irrelevant to the question asked.
What was fascinating about the suggestions made was the overwhelming "conventional wisdom" recommendation of a short-barreled .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolver offered by many of those who responded.
A snub-nosed .38 revolver can be an excellent concealed carry gun—I currently have one in my possession that I've carried recently— but I don't know that I agree with some of the
reasoning offered by those suggesting such a revolver for a new shooter with "little girly hands."
The basic snub-nosed revolver has great reliability, is uncomplicated, and in the ever-popular .38 Special, has decent stopping power when paired with modern defensive ammunition. That said the downsides are that it is thick through the cylinder (which can make it harder to conceal), and the short sight radius and heavy double-action trigger pull on most of those coming from the factory can make it difficult to shoot well, particularly for people with "little girly hands."
[FYI, my standard for "shooting well" is roughly defined as being able to put 5 shots in 9-inch paper-plate at 5 yards in less than 4 seconds from low-ready or a retention position, which isn't a very high standard, but is defensively adequate. Many people can do that in half the time.]
In contrast, good DAO semi-automatic subcompact pistols abound, and they can be far easier to learn to shoot to our "shoot well" standard, and often in a shorter amount of training time.
Whether you want to plug the merits of a Kahr, Springfield Armory XD, Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, Kel-tec or something else is irrelevant to me, but the design philosophy behind these pistols seem to have resulted in numerous advantages over similarly-sized snub-nosed revolvers.
Most of these pistols are thinner than revolvers (at their thickest points), have a longer sight radius, a more manageable (typically longer and lighter) trigger pull, and a greater choice of ammunition (I'm thinking 9mm and .40 S&W in particular)that is less expensive and has a better reputation for stopping fights than the .38, without kicking as hard or with the blinding flash of a .357 Magnum. Semi-autos also offer a distinct advantage in reloading times and capacity, but as most shootings average 3-4 shots, this shouldn't be a deciding factor.
So tell me: why are snub-nosed revolvers so repeated recommended for new shooters, even by people who prefer semi-autos for their own use?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:54 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't carry (or even own) a functional firearm, but if I was going to get one (and I reserve for myself and others the right to do so) I might well consider a revolver (my uncle many years ago had one I think he called a "44-40" that I would like to have--not very concealable unless you ar 6 feet tall).
The reason: Not a semiautomatic or automatic--I see DC still won't issue a permit to Heller because has a "bottom-loader".
Besides, I just like the look of a revolver.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:21 PM (OmeRL)
2
I now know that .44-40 is a kind of ammunition.
I dunno what kind of a revolver it was, except to the little-kids-eyes my memory has to use, the barrel was in the range of 16 or 18 inches long and the men shooting it ended up pointing it skyward after each shot, and they were shooting a stuff on the far side of a cotton field.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:44 PM (OmeRL)
3
Might have been mor that 18 inches, it was pretty long.
And nickel (silver? chromium?) plated.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 21, 2008 01:45 PM (OmeRL)
4
I believe one of the major reasons is reliability and simplicity. I own both a revolver and an automatic- and anyone can clean and use a revolver easily, whereas dissassembling a semi-auto intimidates a lot of people and most people dont know how they work so if you are just starting out- it's one less item to worry about. just load ammo and squeeze the trigger. I prefer my semi-auto for it's high capacity and it's ease of reload, yet at a glance I can tell everything is working perfectly on my revolver.
Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2008 02:09 PM (P9kuM)
5
One reason is absolute reliability. A Smith & Wesson Chiefs Special is a five shot handy little gun that puts a new cartridge under the hammer with each pull of the trigger. Double action pull on the model 36 is smooth and even. The pistol is light and very accurate. Auto loaders are great for those who practice a lot as if there is a misfire they can quickly cycle the slide, loading a fresh cartridge. Charter Arms and Taurus also make quality stubbies. For my favorite a Colt Cobra at 14 ounces and a six shot cylinder.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 21, 2008 02:46 PM (J5AYY)
6
I would agree with the previous posters that reliability and ease of maintenance are in the revolver's favor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 21, 2008 04:36 PM (TUWci)
7
In short, simplicity (primarily) and reliability in a package that can meet some minimal concealment standards and has a track record of being at least minimally effective.
Selecting a handgun for a specific purpose is subject to many constraints (cost, ammunition effectiveness, concealability, etc ad nauseum). Finding the optimum solution is challenging, and a basic snubby meets several criteria at minimal cost. Autoloaders would seem to be technical superior in combat situation (may have higher roundcount, faster reloads, etc), but a mechanical failure when the chips are down could be fatal to a shooter who chose not learn to shoot well or who didn't really bother to learn how the weapon functions.
Without knowing the depth of the individual's commitment to training, something that goes "bang" when you pull the trigger (or if not then you pull the trigger again) is an appealing recommendation. It's not an ideal solution: a 155mm howitzer has more stopping power, ninja training would make an Airsoft pistol deadly in 99 ways, and a Desert Eagle 0.50 of Cloaking would be easier to conceal. But a snubby covers many of these bases at a very basic level. It compromises on some, including accuracy, recoil, ammo capacity/reloads, and trigger pull (although single action is an option with hammered models), but finding something that is totally optimized is a null set.
All of CY's technical points are very valid (and align with my own personal views of what is right _for me_). Personally, however, I prefer to recommend snub revolvers for gunless folks new to shooting, especially those I don't know. Better still, IMHO, is for the gun buyer to handle and fire as many different kinds of guns as they can before purchasing their expensive tool.
Posted by: alphacharlie at July 21, 2008 06:05 PM (Ed7LL)
8
This sort of advice is a hangover from the 1970's when there were few semiautomatic pistols on the market, virtually all were full sized pistols, and virtually all had reliability problems. The revolver has always been the historical default handgun in America until the 1980's when semiautomatic pistols (hereinafter referred to as "pistols"), particularly the Glock, began to be available in great numbers. These weapons came, and continue to come in a wide variety of sizes, weights and configurations and are easily as reliable as revolvers.
I recall a gentleman of a prior generation who was advising a state law enforcement agency in the late 70's. His advice for choice of handgun for general issue was a five shot Smith & Wesson "snubby." He also recommended that only four rounds be carried in the cylinder and that the hammer rest on an empty cylinder for safety (!?) reasons. Bad advice for several reasons. I'll get into both shortly, but note that the empty chamber idea was valid for 1890's Colt single action revolvers because the hammer, if struck, could fire a round. Modern double action revolvers all have hammer blocking mechanisms to prevent this sort of accidental discharge.
Here are the facts about "snubbies." They were originally developed because of the obvious deficiencies of full sized revolvers which are large, heavy, hard to conceal, and sized for the hands of full sized American males. Snubbies are much smaller, more delicate in frame and grip, tend to weigh less, and are easier to conceal. However, there are substantial tradeoffs imposed.
Recoil: Recoil is a function of the energy of the cartridge and the configuration and weight of the handgun. There are two types of recoil: Actual and perceived. A given .357 magnum round will produce "X" amount of actual recoil in a given revolver. However, the recoil perceived will tend to be very different for a 200 pound man and a 135 pound woman. All revolvers tend to impart more actual and perceived recoil than semiautomatic pistols because the design of revolvers places the plane of the bore (the barrel) much higher above the hand than pistols. The higher the bore is above the hand, the more recoil will be experienced by the shooter.
Weight: Snubbies tend to weigh considerably less than full sized revolvers, particularly if their frames are made of aluminum or other light weight metals. However, lighter revolvers have less mass and will have more--often substantially more--actual and perceived recoil.
Accuracy: Snubbies tend to have only rudimentary, not adjustable, sights. Their shorter barrels, 2" as opposed to 4" or more on full sized revolvers, also result in less accuracy, particularly at ranges beyond a few yards. Short barrels also do not allow a cartridge to fully burn its powder charge, resulting in large and spectacular muzzle flash, which is a tactical detriment, particularly indoors or in other enclosed spaces. While working for a police agency that required all officers to carry full sized S&W .357 magnum revolvers with 4" barrels, we used to joke that even if we missed the bad guys, they'd be incinerated by the muzzle blast!
Action: Snubbies have double action trigger mechanisms. While safe and reliable, they tend to be heavy and difficult to manage, particularly under stress. Historically, police officers engaging in gunfights with revolvers had only about a 25% hit record, and this is at ranges of 6' and less! The lighter the revolver, the cruder the sights, the shorter the barrel, the more difficult it is to shoot accurately.
Capacity: Snubbies commonly hold only five rounds in .38 caliber. Some models are available with six round capacity, but these tend to be little more than full sized revolvers with 2" barrels and slightly smaller grips.
Reliability: Revolvers tend to be quite reliable. Pull the trigger, they generally go bang. However, they do malfunction (not jam. A jam requires tools to clear. A malfunction can be cleared in the field without tools). A bit of grit under the ejector star, for example, can freeze the action, rendering the weapon useless and can be very time consuming to clear.
Summary: Snubbies, while more concealable than full sized revolvers, tend to hold less ammunition, are harder to shoot accurately, have more recoil and muzzle flash, and while quite reliable, can malfunction and common malfunctions are difficult to clear.
There are those who argue that revolvers require less training than pistols, but this is inaccurate. Revolvers and pistols have differing manuals of arms. While pistols require more training initially, particularly in malfunction clearance, double action revolvers require substantially more training than pistols in trigger control. Yet, all common malfunctions in pistols can be cleared in four seconds or less. The same cannot be said of revolvers. And remember that 25% hit probability for cops? With pistols, it's 75%+.
One should not discount revolvers entirely for all people and all applications, but contemporary pistols are as accurate, and often more accurate due to longer barrels, better triggers and better sights. They are light, flat and concealable, have greater ammunition capacity and can be reloaded much more rapidly, it's easier to carry extra ammunition for pistols, they have less muzzle flash and recoil, and are not only as reliable as revolvers, but when they do malfunction, can be returned to service in the field within seconds. Oh, and they're much easier to clean than revolvers.
The bottom line? Choose an effective firearm/cartridge combination, receive competent initial and continuing training, practice regularly, and carry it. The old maxim that the man with one handgun is to be feared more than the man with many is true.
Posted by: Mike at July 21, 2008 06:17 PM (xm8w/)
9
Just one addition to Mike's post. Corbon DPX uses a powder that burns faster, but you do not suffer from additional recoil, and there is reduced flash. From my 3 inch the flash at night is no worse than out of a six inch barrel.
I am a big .45 guy. But I am of the firm mind that you carry the largest caliber that you can reliably hit three from the holster at 15 yards after being stressed out in under 4 seconds. If you are not at minute of soccer ball then the round is too big for you.
All this being said. If my 5'1" hundred and nothing wife can handle a Taurus 617 in .357 mag, a .45 long colt mountain gun, and her Glock 36 then so can your friend given some training and a lot of practice.
You can not go wrong with a wheel gun, so long as you make good decisions. I carry one now and again.
I really do not like the Glocks. They are a brick and do not fit my hand well. I always seem to be several inches high from the holster. Yes I could train myself around that. But why when my CCII works just fine for me.
A good steel framed wheel gun with a 2 or 3 inch barrel running the right ammo, and a bit of training would do him well. But depending on how tall he is, he may be able to conceal a four inch.
Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2008 07:27 PM (rHW2R)
10
Nothing wrong with a revolver but a snubbie takes a lot more effort and a LOT of practice to learn to shoot at all well. A light-weight little thing is gonna snap in their hand worse than My First Makarov, the trigger guard is gonna rap the knuckle blue, and the short barrel isn't conducive to leading bullets to the target.
I would not start a beginner out with a snubbie and make his or her world all the more painful and difficult - if it's difficult to make hits on paper they won't even carry it and the utility goes way down.
There is no one-size-fits-all individual or situation. Some people don't like or feel comfortable with the reciprocating action of a semi-auto - or they might have arthritis and can't grasp the slide to rack it and do clearance drills, or simply the only thing they will consider is a revolver. Let the user make the choice that suits them in terms of familiarity, cost, and function - if they learn about and gain exposure to new stuff along the way they can change their own mind - it's ALL up to them.
A 4-inch barrel S&W Model 10 was THE standard for a long time, and is plenty to begin with - and part of learning to carry concealed is learning HOW to carry concealed, with the proper holsters and belts and stuff.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 21, 2008 07:28 PM (VNM5w)
11
Revolvers are safer and simpler for the casual gun user. They are easier to learn on as well. But, you are correct, a small 9mm like the Kahr is a good choice.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 21, 2008 09:00 PM (4dvk3)
12
Hand guns are one thing. I think that it varies significantly for the individual. A woman would want a gun with a grip that is small and a profile that would conviently fit in a purse. That would be enough of a deterant for most bad guys. I would think that anything over .22 caliber would do. As to a man, that would depend on where he is. I carry a 9 mm in the car, but I obviously have plenty of room.
For home defense you have another catagory. A friend of mine owns one of the largest gun and shorts distribution network in the US. He swears by a short barrel, pump shotgun. The louder the pump mechanism the better. He feels that this carries a universal language that says "leave".
Posted by: David Caskey at July 21, 2008 09:01 PM (H44J6)
13
With regard to semiautomatic pistols, there are two springs that need to be in tune with each other, the magazine spring and the operating spring. The magazine spring is highly compressed, the operating spring is not. Because of that, over time, the magazine spring will tend to change its tension over time, and hence, go out of tune. This isn't a problem if you shoot often enough to detect a problem before you need the pistol in an emergency.
The springs in the revolver don't need to be in tune with each other. Because of that, you can put a loaded revolver in a desk, in a safe, and 30 years later, take it out and it will work every time.
On the other hand, the automatic in its usual carry condition has fewer openings where dirt, mud, sand can enter. It is less susceptable to abuse than the revolver. If you use a revolver in sandy, muddy conditions, start by getting a flap holster.
Posted by: Don Meaker at July 21, 2008 09:02 PM (SybPa)
14
Actually, I believe the very best one is the one that the shooter is most comfortable with. Comfort makes for more practice and fewer mistakes as a result of that practice. After all, it ain't looks, size or loud noise that gets the job done, it's all about accuracy. Reckon that's true of a lot of things.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at July 21, 2008 10:31 PM (Qv1xF)
15
New shooters get caught-up on the idiosyncracies of a semi-auto: safety, hammer drop, mag release, etc. Invariably they forget which is which.
That being said, any shooter should become well competent with their chosen firearm before deciding to carry it anywhere. Pick the gun that feels best, research it well (as this person is wisely doing) and then go with it and be comfortable in your choice.
Posted by: Fargo Refugee at July 21, 2008 11:01 PM (MQVqX)
16
"Hand guns are one thing. I think that it varies significantly for the individual. A woman would want a gun with a grip that is small and a profile that would conviently fit in a purse."
Purse carry is just about worthless. What is likely to be the first thing a bad guy takes? Guess what, if he was not armed, he is now.
Not purse carrying also gives you options.
Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2008 04:12 AM (rHW2R)
17
Semiautomatic handguns are more difficult for new shooters to use reliably and safely, as Manson disciple Squeaky Fromme learned when her .45 did not fire at President Ford, despite all her pulling on the trigger (she had not chambered a round after loading the magazine in the pistol). Snubbies on the other hand are harder to hit the target with, at more than conversational range.
The tradeoff between reliably firing, but maybe missing, with a snubbie wheelgun, versus the more complex requirements for gun handling before the bang occurs with a semiauto, is often resolved in favor of the more reliable "bang."
Practice practice practice....
Posted by: Mikee at July 22, 2008 09:34 AM (zN7nu)
18
Simplicity. New shooters may be intimidated by the mechanics of a semiauto. You can't get much simpler than a revolver. No magazines to deal with, just insert rounds into the cylinder. No slide to pull back to chamber a round, just squeeze the trigger (assuming your revolver is double-action).
Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2008 02:26 PM (BZsWa)
19
I don't recommend revolvers for new shooters - I recommend what feels good in the hands, is caliber enough for the use it will be put to, is able to be held and aimed so that it *can* be used for that use, and doesn't cost a fortune to buy or maintain (e.g. ammo cost).
All that said, if the buyer wants a revolver, fine! I have a S&W .357 revolver. But it's not what I would carry; for that I'm carrying one of my semi-autos. This is because of the sentimentality attached to the firearm, but even moreso is I have only a cheap nylon pancake holster that, while it has a thumb-strap, I wouldn't really want to carry the revolver in other than to the range and back.
Posted by: Lysander at July 22, 2008 04:43 PM (ShW/G)
20
Whatever you decide to carry, take it to the range, get competent training, and practice, practice, practice. There was a story in our local paper recently about a confrontation between an armed holdup man and a seasoned sheriffs deputy. The deputy fired several shots at close range and missed every one. Fortunately the skell didn't do any better but he did get away. Practice, practice, practice.
Posted by: glenn at July 22, 2008 06:27 PM (zp+Xy)
21
Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 23, 2008 09:54 AM (H44J6)
22
"Matt,
You need to get to know more women. Most of the women in our area that carry keep the weapon in the purse. That is the only place available to a woman. As to taking the purse. A bad guy will certainly do that if he can get close. A good Southern woman will have her hand on the gun long before he is any where near."
Then you need to educate them as to the tactical disadvantage they place themselves at. And please do not tell me it is the only place they can carry.
Stress is a major factor regardless of the level of training they receive, and should someone get their purse away from them before they can react, they are done and over with. There are many other viable explanations as well. But I really do not care to go into them unless you feel you need the explanation.
Posted by: Matt at July 23, 2008 07:32 PM (rHW2R)
23
For an unsophisticated to average shooter: the snub-nosed revolver is still the best alternative. Light-weight, uncomplicated = reliable, EASY-TO-USE (without a huge amount of practice), and accurate (enough). Suggestions: Smith & Wesson 638/342, Taurus 851CIA, Charter-Arms Bulldog.
For a sophisticated shooter: A semi-auto would be a viable alternative. Many alternatives exist -- but initial and on-going practice are critical -- especially with double-action weapons.
Posted by: deMontjoie at July 27, 2008 06:44 PM (D4bPm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lost in Translation
I was out of town and missed the Maliki withdrawal kerfluffle over the weekend, but it looks like it was likely much ado about nothing anyway, and perhaps nothing more than a translation error, even according to the Obama-backing Times.
Frankly, I'm just glad we're at a point where Iraq is beginning to stabilize enough that we can realistically begin to discuss drawing down American assets in Iraq in victory—quite a bit different circumstance than the long-held Democratic Party position, which was (and still is) for a reckless withdrawal with all possible speed, regardless of what that withdrawal with mean to Iraqi civilians or to the region.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:30 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have been watching the devaluation of the dollar with some interest. Yesterday I was reading on our response to the threatened British invasion of Egypt over the Suez and the fact that we stopped that action by threatening to devalue their currency. Could it be that we are facing something similar? The Bush administration has been very complacent over the loss of the value of our currency and the European Union has bent over backward to maintain high interest rates and thus a strong Euro and Pound.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 21, 2008 11:12 AM (H44J6)
2
A strong currency has both advantages and disadvantages. It hurts exports, but makes folks want to invest in your country's financial instruments (b/c a hard currency usually is the product of fairly high absolute interest rates).
So, if the Bushies are interested in promoting exports, then not propping up the dollar is not necessarily a problem.
The wild card, of course, is the private sector, which can devalue a currency far faster than most central banks can prop them up. The Europeans went to the Euro in part b/c of currency arbitrage (interestingly, George Soros was one of those folks) which devastated the "trading bands" that had governed relations among the pound, franc, mark, lire, etc.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 21, 2008 12:16 PM (MQiLC)
3
Lurking,
I realize the nature of the economics of currency. But my concern is that our current weak dollar is really bring down the economy. Certainly those interest that benefit from exporting have done very well, in fact the Dems should insist on a windfall profit tax on them! But if the president and his group began to talk of supporting the dollar, even that would help the current situation. That is unless they feel they are being attacked. It just seems that something is not right in this respect and is outside the usual economic forces.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 21, 2008 03:12 PM (H44J6)
4
Personally, if the official position of the full Iraqi government (meaning the parliament as well as the Prime Minister) is that we leave, I say we go... but I suspect the official position of the Iraqi government would probably be vastly different from what they tell reporters.
It's an old political dodge... tell reporters one thing, then do another. In fact, weren't there rumors that Obama's campaign had done that, say, with regard to NAFTA?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 21, 2008 07:01 PM (e+Bm0)
5
What does leaving "in victory" mean these days? The administration has changed the definition so many times, I can't keep it straight.
Posted by: Cheney's Other Priority at July 21, 2008 08:55 PM (VR9d+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Overflies Iraqi Mass Graves
Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama overflew the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Najaf today, where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible even from altitude.
Senator Obama was on his way to meet with American soldiers completing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in Kuwaiti ports, while miles away Iranian and Saudi delegations were meeting in an emergency summit in Kuwait City in an effort to keep the Iraqi Civil War from boiling over into open regional conflict. Both sides have accused the other of providing advanced weaponry and training, while faulting American leaders for the bloody collapse of the Iraqi state.
Except, of course, none of that really happened.
Barack Obama is in Baghdad today for one reason and one reason only: the current President wisely ignored the first-term Senator's repeated calls to abandon the Iraqi people, and instead listened to advice to change commanders, strategy, and tactics in Iraq. The resulting COIN doctrine implemented by American forces under General David Petraeus and a surge of American forces into Iraq coincided with a popular Sunni revolt against the al Qaeda-led insurgency known as the Awakening movement, which was followed by the fracturing of the Shia Madhi Army and other militant groups.
If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, and some of the world's most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war would possibly be playing out. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort.
Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dang straight, CY ... bookmarked for quoting.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt at July 21, 2008 11:53 AM (FL9H9)
2
"overflew the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Najaf today, where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible "
Just what in the hell are they talking about? There is NO SUCH THING visable except for what one would call the 'standard' Baghdad cemetary... granted it's a bit full but having overflown the area for the past 5 years, I call shenanigans on this one...
Posted by: Big Country at July 21, 2008 12:25 PM (niydV)
3
This could have easily happened. I sort of wonder what it was about Saddam and Qusay that so endeared him to Barrack that B. Hussein opposed ousting this wonderous pair? We know as an Illinois state senator, BO did not have access to intel those on in the U.S. Congress had. Maybe his judgement was based upon the teaching of William Ayers and Jeremiah A. Wright. If you are going to run a campaign based upon judgement, it best be demostrated as good judgement as opposed to what Obama has displayed. Cy depicted here, an accurate picture of what would have happened if the faulty judgement of Obama the first had been followed.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 21, 2008 01:00 PM (jseGi)
4
BC:
Except, of course, none of that really happened.
The first two paragraphs are satire, my friend.
Posted by: Mark at July 21, 2008 01:10 PM (w/olL)
5
Sorry I didn't pick up on that... it just sounded like something the Lamestream Media might put out there...
Posted by: Big Country at July 21, 2008 04:21 PM (niydV)
6
If Barack had had his way, though, it very easily could have.
Thousands of Iraqis are alive today because we shed our blood to protect them.
I don't know (and honestly don't care) what lefties think about that, I am darned proud of it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 21, 2008 05:33 PM (e+Bm0)
7
...where the mass graves for an estimated 240,000 victims of sectarian violence killed since 2007 were visible even from altitude.
Please don't even joke about this. I still hear people quote the Lancet numbers as though they were the gospel truth. Engram at BackTalk has being doing the best analysis on this. See his latest post Casualties in Iraq, June 2008 .
Posted by: huxley at July 22, 2008 07:14 AM (KrCIM)
8
Consider this, though: if Saddam were still in power, BHO might well be going to Iraq anyway, to pay homage to the most powerful man in the Middle East. With his oil revenues, and with his WMD programs restarted and in full swing, having crushed the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ia in the south, feared by his neighbors and courted by the West, Saddam might well have had the world economy by the short hairs.
Obama's supporters may well believe that his Magic Unicorn would have intervened to prevent such a thing from happening. But here on planet Earth, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Posted by: Brown Line at July 22, 2008 07:14 AM (OMiLl)
9
Saddam had no problem hosting useful idiots. He would have loved having the junior senator from Illinois be used for his own propaganda. Obama would be running for president right now claiming that our sanctions had killed a million or more Iraqi children.
Posted by: john b at July 22, 2008 07:39 AM (6Cp0G)
10
BHO's big fallback answer is that he opposed the invasion at the start. In response, nobody has really cornered him on what the status of the Middle East would be now with Saddam still ensconced.
Posted by: edh at July 22, 2008 07:47 AM (zeNt+)
11
What is often left out of the picture is that everyone want most if not all the troops out of Iraq. Obama's plan is arbitrary, get them out ASAP even if it means snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The current plan is to remove the troops when they are no longer necessary and Iraq is stable. The current plan seems be working so perhaps the prophet of change should recognize this.
Posted by: Bill K at July 22, 2008 07:55 AM (Du6dT)
12
Bill K, your comment is right on. Isn't it surreal that he isn't doing this?
Posted by: K T Cat at July 22, 2008 08:32 AM (ML6gQ)
13
Actually the problem with us doing nothing in 2002-3 is that Saddam would now be getting a $400 million-a-day oil income, sanctions would be off (we need the oil), and he'd be racing the Iranians for the bomb. Oh, yeah, and killing Shiities and Kurds, but no one would say a word.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at July 22, 2008 09:36 AM (roJck)
14
"Oh, yeah, and killing Shiities and Kurds, but no one would say a word."
Out of sight, out of mind. That seems to be many the motto of many lefties concerned with "human rights". They agonize over the people who have died in the last few years but act like those hundreds of thousands who died under Saddam's reign never existed. Was there ever one worldwide march about them? Not hardly.
Posted by: kcom at July 22, 2008 09:53 AM (GjT73)
15
Oh, and where are they, and where have they been, on Zimbabwe?
Posted by: kcom at July 22, 2008 09:54 AM (GjT73)
16
Doesn't Abdul Yasin still call Iraq home? Has anyone ever found this chemical mixer for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
Posted by: Frank Warner at July 22, 2008 10:26 AM (EWzXW)
17
Why do people think Saddam would have remained in power? Isn't it likely that one of his sons and/or generals would have overthrown him by now? Given what we know about them, isn't it very likely that having Uday or Qusay in charge would have been much worse than having Saddam in power and the result would have been more than civil war, but a regional conflict. (Given that Saddam was ready to restart his weapons programs and we know he had over 500 tons of yellowcake [that's now been purchased by and delivered to a Canadian company], isn't it likely that Iran would have accelerated their nuclear program and we'd now be on the precipice of a nuclear exchange?)
Posted by: Joe at July 22, 2008 05:43 PM (FyFB2)
18
Uh, Joe... Saddam had survived as President of Iraq since 1979. There's no evidence that he'd let the reins of power slip from his hands enough for anyone not completely loyal to him to get within artillery range of his exalted tuckus.
Or do you have some secret evidence the rest of us poor schmucks aren't privy to?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 22, 2008 05:52 PM (e+Bm0)
19
Why do people think Saddam would have remained in power? Isn't it likely that one of his sons and/or generals would have overthrown him by now?
That's what the shredders were for. If there's one thing we should give GWB credit for it's eliminating hte need to deal with Uday Jr. in the 2060 election.
Posted by: Bandit at July 24, 2008 09:35 AM (/R+6i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 18, 2008
Still No Good Explanation for Obama's Plan For A State Security Apparatus
Our good friends on the far left have plenty of snark to drop in this post, suddenly finding an aversion to Third Reich analogies after seven years of BushHilter and comparisons of the RNC to Nazis.
What they have not done, nor even seriously attempted, was to explain the comments the media so carefully edited-out of a speech that Obama recently gave, where he advocated a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the nation's military.
As I noted in my last comment to that post, "national" means United States, or domestic in nature, not a international force. Security means "police."
Unless Obama was uttering "just words," he was advocating domestic state security. That he would make plain his intentions to make his SS "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the strongest military in the history of Planet Earth should be a cause for concern for everyone, and not just because he's talking of creating another massive bureaucracy and colossal tax burden.
Why does a free nation that already has the FBI, ATF, and DHS on the federal level, SBIs, state police, and highway patrols on the state level, in conjunction with local sheriffs and police agencies, with the backing the Army and Air Force National Guard and Coast Guard units for the most extreme emergencies, need an additional national domestic security apparatus dwarfing all current federal law enforcement agencies, equal in power and scope to the military?
How does the Democratic frontrunner make a call for such an alarming organization, and the media not report it. Worse, how do they get a way with erasing those words from transcripts of the speech?
I'm getting a lot of snark from those on the political left for stating that I didn't like Obama's plan any better in the original German, but precious few explanations of why a free nation would need such an imposing force, one only useful against it's own citizenry.
Update: closing comments due to surge in comment spam.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:41 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Can he call it The American Protective League ?
Please?
Seems to fit will with his other ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Protective_League
Or maybe The Assault Detachment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Jon's got more on this over at our blog,
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/07/07/dont-worry-mr-godwin-has-been-notified.aspx
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at July 18, 2008 01:42 PM (ppKzH)
2
The name will be Security Service (SS) and the uniform will include brown shirts. The will assist in insuring your children learn spanish, that you are not the owner operator of an unauthorized SUV and your thermostat is set to the prescribed tempurature. This service (the SS) will be useful to be sure dissatified citizens who have been moved from urban areas onto collective farms do not try to make unauthorized excursions to Mexico or Canada.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 02:41 PM (J5AYY)
3
Oh, for God's sake! Read or listen to his speech! He wasn't referencing a need for American Brownshirts; he was saying that we need to spend the same time, money, and effort in trying to put together a civilian (i.e. diplomatic) force that is devoted to national security as much as the military. "Speak softly AND carry a big stick" instead of just swining our big stick all the time, as Bush (and, moreso, Cheney) do.
Posted by: diogenes at July 18, 2008 02:48 PM (PMlL4)
4
diogenes, if he was referencing a diplomatic corps, then whey doesn't he say so? Why does he specifically and repeatedly reference security forces?
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
He doesn't say anything about diplomacy here (defined as negotiations between foreign states or groups), and speaks only about his national security force.
You have a problem with reading comprehension; Obama may have a problem with speaking comprehension (saying what he actually means), but what he actually said is unambiguous.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 03:14 PM (xNV2a)
5
Diogenes, he didn't say "diplomatic"; he said, "national security." He also used the word "force," a word not usually associated with bureaucracies that don't use the government's monopoly on the legal use of force to accomplish their ends. You hear of a "police force," not a "force" of diplomats or ag inspectors. How many times are he and his supporters going to have to rely on the defense of "I know you understand what you think I said, but what you heard isn't what I meant," defense.
Not to mention the fact that just-as-well-funding this force would require additional expenditures by the federal government equal to those of the military. He's already on record proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending before this announcement. Where's the money for that just-as-well-funded force going to come from?
Posted by: Diffus at July 18, 2008 03:20 PM (MR/ge)
6
Diffus, not to worry. Obamameister has spoken about what cuts to the military he plans to make. Weapons systems we do not need. Greatly reduced funding to the missle defense system. A plan do dispose of our nukes. Go to youtube and look up his 52 seconds to defeat speech. The money saved on military expenditure and new taxes on thel rich (those not on welfare) will fund his new Republican Guard.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 03:44 PM (J5AYY)
7
READ WHAT HE SAID, PLEASE!
"As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer.
"So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
It's right there, if anyone wants to take the time to listen and try to understand, instead of listening to find ammunition against the man.
Now, if you want to switch horses in midstream, you have every reason to wonder where the $$$ will come from. THAT'S a valid issue and a valid concern. But quoting words out of context won't advance that debate one iota.
Posted by: Diogenes at July 18, 2008 03:46 PM (PMlL4)
8
We will never hear a viable explanation on this. Hus sycophants are already suggesting that Obammy never said the offending words.
Posted by: Snooper at July 18, 2008 04:38 PM (D1GTw)
9
Our last post on this is from this morning and we have been writing about it since the article I read in the AARP
Posted by: Snooper at July 18, 2008 04:42 PM (D1GTw)
10
Diogenes, the fact that he said the words you quote doesn't change the fact that he also said the words the others have quoted.
Sorry, Diogenes, Obama is truly calling for a national security force. Spin all ya want, you won't change that.
But, don't worry... he'll soon flip-flop on that one, just like he has on the Surge, FISA, public financing of campaigns, etc...
Posted by: C-C-G at July 18, 2008 06:40 PM (e+Bm0)
11
Diogenes, please explain why we cannon continue to rely on the military for our national security? We have city police, county sheriffs, highway patrol, state police, the FBI and the National Guard. I really would like to know what national security objectives Obama has in mind that would require such a force as he describes. Could they be the ones to enforce your children learning spanish? Would they seek out those who own and operate unauthorized SUVs? The mind boggles.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 06:56 PM (J5AYY)
12
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III, that speech cracked me up. When I heard it I thought......I keep my thermostat at 70 degrees during the day and 68 at night. I like to sleep when it's cool. I didn't know I was supposed to ask England, France, Cuba, North Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada, etc..if that was ok. Obama made it sound like 72 was too cold, hell, I'd be sweating at 72. Obama is such an intellectual nitwit.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 07:02 PM (kNqJV)
13
Hmmm... I wonder if these new state security services will be in charge of enforcing Obama's mandatory service requirement?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 18, 2008 07:46 PM (e+Bm0)
14
The new organization will be called the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Posted by: American Muslim at July 18, 2008 08:29 PM (QL2F8)
15
Maybe we can call it the National Main Security Directorate (RHSA). Herr Obamessiah hast ein gut idee.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 18, 2008 09:48 PM (onLkk)
16
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
You people are just...man, I don't know what you are, but it's bad. Look at the words. Look at what he actually said. He's talking about a civilian force helping the goals of our Armed Forces --- not the police, not the FBI, not the friggin' Coastguard, the military. You know, the people we send overseas to do the things we need done? That's who he plainly intends this force to augment. The military is damned effective at what it does, but it doesn't do everything. Obama thinks that we need another organization to fill in those gaps. If you don't think we need something like that, fine. But don't just make up a bunch of silly paranoid stuff just because you don't like the man.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 18, 2008 10:52 PM (zJ1py)
17
You want a concise explanation of what he was talking about? Here it is:
We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.
He thinks that we need to do more than just blow the bad guys up. He thinks we also need people who have the sort of skills and training that will allow them to fix things afterwards. You know, that whole hearts and minds thing. Winning the peace, etc. I seem to remember that sort of thing being important.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 18, 2008 11:01 PM (zJ1py)
18
He simply wants to organize the black panthers and the nutty followers of Islamic Louie Faroutandgone into a military unit to control the streets of America, and you. I've always said he is a dangerous man and the left wing nuts will find it out the hard way. No matter what happens as a result of these idiots I will die laughing at them.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 18, 2008 11:18 PM (GAf+S)
19
It's getting really obvious that nobody here gives a damn as to what he actually said or what he actually meant. This is getting to be more like "Last Comic Standing" in that you all are trying to come up with a better punch line than the last joker.
Why don't you just give it up, admit that you don't really have a reason why you hate the guy so much, and that you don't need a reason to hate him and mock him? It'd be a lot more intellectually honest than what's going on here!
(Besides, bottom line, we all know what your real objection to Obama is, don't we? You're just coming up with all this other crap for "cover.")
Adios, dimwits!
Posted by: diogenes at July 18, 2008 11:48 PM (PMlL4)
20
OK diogenes, you tell us: WTF is he talking about? Explain it please! America really needs an in-depth understanding of this unaccountable proposal, maybe you can provide it? I for one sure as HELL do not like the sound of it!
A "civilian national security force"??!!
Posted by: Ed at July 19, 2008 03:38 AM (STi8t)
21
Ed, try getting your mom to read this to you: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/070708mt_obama_transcript/
Posted by: Dr Zen at July 19, 2008 03:39 AM (xSW6n)
22
Diogones, Sophist and Zen - pretty typical of your ilk - if someone doesn't understand, they way you want them to understand, the context and text then it's because they are 'dimwits' or need to have an adult explain things to them. Thank God you guys weren't around to advise Martin Luthor while he was writing his 95 Theses.
A 'civilian national security force', whether an extension of diplomatic agencies or a separate agency entirely, is neither warranted or necessary. We already have diplomatic agencies. Sophist pointed out that 'He's talking about a civilian force helping the goals of our Armed Forces --- not the police, not the FBI, not the friggin' Coastguard, the military.' and 'He thinks we also need people who have the sort of skills and training that will allow them to fix things afterwards.' - Ever hear of the State Department? That's their job. Creating a separate agency to fulfill this role will only expand government unnecessarily. Of course that may be what he wants - he's a socialist and the answer to any problem is more government. Change we can believe in.
Diogones pulled the previous segment of the speech to provide 'context'. You might be able to parse it to read that his call at the end of the quoted section as one to expand the agencies he referenced earlier (and thus the correct 'context'). But he doesn't. The man has professional speech writers for heaven's sake. They know that if he wanted to imply that agencies like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Energy Corps needed to be expanded then that last line would read something like "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have *THESE* civilian national security force(s) *BECOME* as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.".
He said 'a' civilian national security force. This implies a separate organization and not an expansion of existing agencies. This is an unnecessary expansion. Change we can believe in.
As CY already pointed out - we already have 'civilian national security forces' at both the Federal and State levels. Is he calling for a reorganization of these agencies? Combining state and federal agencies into one cohesive force? I don't parse his words that way. Maybe I just don't 'understand'. I do know that it's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 19, 2008 07:25 AM (Kw4jM)
23
Security means "police."
You better let the US Air Force know this. When I was in, we had what were called SPs. That stood for security police. But, if they mean the same thing, isn't that redundant?
Posted by: fauxmaxbaer at July 19, 2008 08:04 AM (llghH)
24
Diogenes, we're just reading his words; his actual, spoken words.
Now, if you want to ignore some of his words, that's your right... you can be just as ignorant as you want. But you can't force us to ignore them just because you want us to.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 08:15 AM (e+Bm0)
25
That stood for security police. But, if they mean the same thing, isn't that redundant?
Redundancies abound in American English.
One obvious one is "ATM machine." ATM itself stands for "Automatic Teller Machine," so "ATM machine" really means "Automatic Teller Machine machine."
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 08:17 AM (e+Bm0)
26
(Besides, bottom line, we all know what your real objection to Obama is, don't we? You're just coming up with all this other crap for "cover.")
If you had 18 July at 11:48 PM in the "When will the lefties finally play the race card" pool, please come to the ticket window to collect your prize.
Posted by: TheGonz at July 19, 2008 08:44 AM (HoHg+)
27
Maybe you say ATM machine. I just say ATM because I know that the M stands for machine.
Posted by: fauxmaxbaer at July 19, 2008 09:21 AM (llghH)
28
DanIrving:They know that if he wanted to imply that agencies like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Energy Corps needed to be expanded then that last line would read something like "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have *THESE* civilian national security force(s) *BECOME* as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.".
He said 'a' civilian national security force. This implies a separate organization and not an expansion of existing agencies.
Seriously? You're going to base your paranoid fantasies on the use of "a" rather than "these"? Doesn't that seem a little, um, thin? From the Military Times interview:
I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.
You people frothing about fascism are aware that we have civilian agencies working in national security, right? That we have a State Department? If you don't read it with the intent of finding phrases to misrepresent, Obama is fairly clearly stating his plans to reemphasize the role of State and associated agencies in contrast to the current administration's emphasis on Defense. It's pretty simple, actually. If you're looking for an explanation of why nobody else has noticed Obama's plan for an American Gestapo, it's because it's a figment of your imaginations. Nobody who read his statements without a strong bias against Obama would see anything like what you're talking about. Get a freaking grip.
Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 09:39 AM (k8PBw)
29
Larv,
Come back when you decide to dispense with the ad hominem attacks and maybe I'll deign to read what you write.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 19, 2008 11:25 AM (Kw4jM)
30
Oh, please get off the pedestal, Dan... you're crowding Barack already!
Obama said what he meant and meant what he said. And anyone is entitled to debate whether or not more $$$$ needs to be spent in the civilian areas (State Dept, etc); I've not argued against that, and it's a legitimate difference of opinion. What most of us who don't see things your way are saying is that this drivel about Obama Gestapo Brownshirts is pure fantasy, driven by an innate bias against all things Obama.
And, sorry, but one step removed is deciding that "these" would have been the correct choice instead of "a". See, Dan, you don't get to write Obama's speeches, and neither do I. As a matter of fact, if you bother to look at the prepared text of the speech, the two sentences that bother you so damn much aren't even in the text.
What I for one would like to see is, if we can ever get past this meaningless quibbling over fantastical nonsense, why you guys feel that McCain is a better choice. Taking potshots at anybody who's on TV 24/7 isn't that tough. Tell us why McCain is the better choice... and don't weasel out with "Well, ANYBODY would be a better choice than Obama."
On Iraq alone, the events of yesterday and today seem to indicate that both Bush and al-Maliki have, in their own ways, conceded that Obama's insistance that U.S. troops be removed within 16 months is, well, correct.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 12:59 PM (PMlL4)
31
Words mean things to me. "National Security" means being part of knowing America's enemies and making sufficient preparations to thwart or defeat attacks and threats. "Just as powerful, just as strong" means this "civilian national security force" will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies. By "civilian", I take it to mean that this "force" could or would be used where the American military cannot, inside The United States. I'm thinking baby-blue helmets, which would clash with brown shirts, but not red ones.
Why would I interpret Obama's words to be so fascist? Twenty years with Wright, unrepentant terrorists friends, communist associations, his wife, his parental influences, his other writings proving his liberal totalitarian belief,.... Mostly, it's my forty plus years experience picking truths from tiny data points of evidence. That experience was gained from some years working for NSA, where I interpreted Russian and did some cryptography stuff. Later, I got more personal experience with the human organism going to medical school, where solving puzzles is still the game. Obama is not a puzzle to me, not as a political animal nor as a human being. He is a danger to American liberty and to The Republic. Did I mention, he's black?
Posted by: twolaneflash at July 19, 2008 01:14 PM (05dZx)
32
Dan, you might want to look up just what ad hominem means. It doesn't cover the labeling of paranoid fantasies as such, particularly when an explanation of that labeling is offered. An ad hom would've been something like "Don't listen to anything Dan says, he's a raving nutbar with Obama Derangement Syndrome." See, it doesn't engage with anything you said, just calls you names and diverts the argument to whether or not you are in fact a raving nutbar. That's not what I did. I said that your interpretation of the remarks in question was ludicrous and disingenuous, and quoted material to support a contrary interpretation. I realize that it's easier to just dismiss all opposition as illegitimate instead of engaging with it, but it's pretty damn weak.
Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 01:20 PM (k8PBw)
33
Gee,I thought we already have a militia composed of citizens to handle these sorts of things.How well regulated this militia is may be another case for SCOTUS.
Posted by: Elle at July 19, 2008 01:44 PM (9H/Re)
34
Thanks for making Obama's point so clearly, twolaneflash.
" 'Just as powerful, just as strong' means this 'civilian national security force' will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies."
Uhhh, not necessarily. Part of our problem is believing that the ONLY thing we need to protect American security is guns, bombs, rockets, ships, etc etc etc Somewhere in that mix, many of us might argue, are things like "brains", "diplomacy", "logic", "reason", "cooperation with Allies", etc. It's kinda been a forgotten option after eight years of Bush/Cheney, but history has shown that it is, in fact, sometimes achievable.
"I'm thinking baby-blue helmets, which would clash with brown shirts, but not red ones."
Uhhh, keep thinking. Do you see any flying monkeys in the mix? Great big guys with black fur hats and long-tailed coats, wielding battle axes? A melting witch?
And, in your incredible NSA-trained political mind, you were able to determine that Obama is (1) a terrorist, (2) a fascist, (3) a communist, and (4) a totalitarian. Wow. Could it be that after examining all those "tiny data points" you've developed an extreme case of myopia?
And no, you didn't mention that Obama is black, until you did.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 01:58 PM (PMlL4)
35
Oy vey iz mir mit den meshugena goyischem.
What Obama said: "I should add, by the way, that part of the change that I want when it comes to Army and Marine structures is the mix of training that we’re providing and mix of personnel that are in these forces.
"I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just hasn’t been done...
"That also means, by the way, that we’re going to have to, I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force.
"I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War.
"And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."
Notice, please, the importance of the function of the word, "THAT," in the last paragraph. "We need THAT wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight" and "we should reinvent THAT apparatus as well."
Source is that Obamamaniacal left-wing rag, the Military Times, link is http://tiny url.com/57do9o
Is that the SS? Is that the SD? Is that the NKVD?
No. According to the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, which created it, it comprises all of the civilian agencies that perform national security missions.
That Act created, among other things, the Defense Department (uniformed national security) and the Central Intelligence Agency (civilian national security), and the National Security Council (civilian national security).
In the Act we read that the goal of the Act "is to provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States" through the "establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security."
For further discussions of civilian national security agencies, please see National Security Presidential Directive 1, "Organization of the National Security Council System," (February 15, 2001), which says "national security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe."
Those interests are advanced by uniformed and civilian national security agencies alike. Among the members of President George W. Bush's National Security Council is the Secretary of the Treasury (not in uniform).
Now, is that easy enough to understand?
Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies at July 19, 2008 02:22 PM (seDRE)
36
Very interesting, Hemlock.
However, the interview reported on by the Military Times is not--I say again, is NOT--the speech (which was public, not given solely to one publication) that CY is referring to. The speech CY is writing about can be found at two sources, here and .
You can stop swirling the red cape, we won't charge at it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 03:09 PM (e+Bm0)
37
Oops, that second link got messed up... so here it is again.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 03:10 PM (e+Bm0)
38
If he wants another force "just as well-funded" as the military isn't that sort of a budget buster?
Of course, if he cuts the military budget in half then that money could be applied to the Obama-force.
Posted by: Arthur at July 19, 2008 03:13 PM (X+B2A)
39
"National Security" means being part of knowing America's enemies and making sufficient preparations to thwart or defeat attacks and threats.
No.
"National Security" means nothing more than making our nation secure, and believe it or not there are methods beyond blowing people up.
"Just as powerful, just as strong" means this "civilian national security force" will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies.
Also no.
"Just as powerful, just as strong" has nothing to do with tanks and aircraft carriers and laser-guided whatevers. It's about the kind of soft power that can sometimes make using tanks and aircraft carriers and laser-guided whatevers unnecessary.
By "civilian", I take it to mean that this "force" could or would be used where the American military cannot, inside The United States.
For the last time, no!
Seriously, in what sort of fever-dream state do you have to be read "civilian" as code for gestapo? As other posters (posters on you side of the debate, I might add) have already pointed out, we already have some civilian branches of the national security apparatus who do their work outside the country. "Civilian" simply means "non-military". I mean, duh.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 19, 2008 03:15 PM (zJ1py)
40
"Oh, please get off the pedestal, Dan... you're crowding Barack already!"
That did sound rather elitest I'll admit. See? Already I'm miles ahead of Obama - I didn't accuse you of misunderstanding me!
"Obama said what he meant and meant what he said. And anyone is entitled to debate whether or not more $$$$ needs to be spent in the civilian areas (State Dept, etc); I've not argued against that, and it's a legitimate difference of opinion. What most of us who don't see things your way are saying is that this drivel about Obama Gestapo Brownshirts is pure fantasy, driven by an innate bias against all things Obama."
I'm not the one enspousing the Brown Shirt meme. Simply posting on this site does not mean I agree with other posters nor the author. My bias isn't against all things Obama, rather all things socialist. I'd be doing the same thing with anything Hillary said (and getting beat up by my wife for doing so).
"And, sorry, but one step removed is deciding that "these" would have been the correct choice instead of "a". See, Dan, you don't get to write Obama's speeches, and neither do I. As a matter of fact, if you bother to look at the prepared text of the speech, the two sentences that bother you so damn much aren't even in the text."
This somehow makes it better? That he would be so inarticulate when he went off copy? Words mean something. In this particular speech he wasn't talking about enhancing existing agencies - he was talking about a seperate agency altogether. Do I think it will devolve into Schutzstaffle propotions? No. Do I think it's the wrong action to take, creating another unnecessary government agency? Yes.
If this isn't what he ment to say. I am indeed 'misunderstanding' his postion then he hasn't done a very good job and explaing said position in a clear and articulate manner. This is exacly the thing our current PoTUS gets slammed for on a regular basis and if it isn't good enough for a Republican President then it isn't good enough for a potential candidate.
"What I for one would like to see is, if we can ever get past this meaningless quibbling over fantastical nonsense, why you guys feel that McCain is a better choice. Taking potshots at anybody who's on TV 24/7 isn't that tough. Tell us why McCain is the better choice... and don't weasel out with "Well, ANYBODY would be a better choice than Obama."
Why should we have to defend McCain? Why is it automatically assumed that someone attacking Obama is automatically FOR McCain? What if I endorsed Bob Barr? Nadir? Cynthia McKinney? How about this - McCain is a better choice because he's less of a socialist than Obama.
"On Iraq alone, the events of yesterday and today seem to indicate that both Bush and al-Maliki have, in their own ways, conceded that Obama's insistance that U.S. troops be removed within 16 months is, well, correct."
Off Topic but does show his lack of foreign experience. You don't tell the bad guys when you are going to raid their building just like you don't tell them when you're not going to patrol their streets or eat your chow. The words Maliki spoke and what was realeased to the press have already been shown to be dissimilar. What both Bush and Al-Maliki have concurred on is that there needs to be a plan in place for withdrawl. I agree with that assessment. I also think it shouldn't be linked to a specific timetable but rather to certain milestones. Having 10 of your 18 provinces fully under your control is a good start for the Iraqi government. Having Al-Anbar, once decried a lost to Al Qaida, almost ready to be turned over is a significant point in their favor as well. Having a government that has made progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks, while not a success, is definately a significant point. In fact, that's an improvment on 13 additional benchmarks in the last year - they got more done than our own Congress.
Now on to Larv:
Dan, you might want to look up just what ad hominem means. It doesn't cover the labeling of paranoid fantasies as such, particularly when an explanation of that labeling is offered. An ad hom would've been something like "Don't listen to anything Dan says, he's a raving nutbar with Obama Derangement Syndrome." See, it doesn't engage with anything you said, just calls you names and diverts the argument to whether or not you are in fact a raving nutbar. That's not what I did. I said that your interpretation of the remarks in question was ludicrous and disingenuous, and quoted material to support a contrary interpretation. I realize that it's easier to just dismiss all opposition as illegitimate instead of engaging with it, but it's pretty damn weak.
Alright, I concede your point. You were just being insulting not actually conducting and ad hom - my mistake you sniviling sack of refuse with the congnizant capacity of a moldy rock. I actually did read what you wrote and maybe you just misunderstood me. (see I can do it too).
'You people frothing about fascism are aware that we have civilian agencies working in national security, right? That we have a State Department? If you don't read it with the intent of finding phrases to misrepresent, Obama is fairly clearly stating his plans to reemphasize the role of State and associated agencies in contrast to the current administration's emphasis on Defense. It's pretty simple, actually. If you're looking for an explanation of why nobody else has noticed Obama's plan for an American Gestapo, it's because it's a figment of your imaginations. Nobody who read his statements without a strong bias against Obama would see anything like what you're talking about. Get a freaking grip.'
For one, I'm not 'you people' and yes I am aware that there are already existing agencies to fill the role that Obama outlines. My point is that Obama doesn't seem to think there is an existing agency in place to fill this role. Quibbling an 'a' for a 'that' is thin? Have you lost what small capacity for understanding you had left after the labotomy? The man aspires to be President of the United states. If what Diogones said is true, then he went off copy and spoke from the hip, or his mind or from wherever it is he pulls these gems from. Words mean something as you were so gracious to point out to me - you can't sling one then say later that you actually ment something else. You can't go on record saying others are misunderstanding. You take your lumps, say 'my mistake, what I ment was ..' and drive on. Obama, instead, choose to obfuscate. Classic politician.
BTW - I actually did read the Military Times piece. I agree with a lot of what he says in it. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. I also agree with C-C-G: it's entirely beside the point.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 19, 2008 03:37 PM (Kw4jM)
41
We have an ATF, FBI, INS, state police, local police, etc, etc. Why do we need a militia no matter how innocent?
Posted by: David at July 19, 2008 03:57 PM (9jD2J)
42
Dan,
For the record, the second part of my post wasn't directed specifically at you, so apologies if you took it to be. Both the host and several commenters are making ludicrous accusations of fascism, and that was directed at them. But I should have been more clear about who I was referring to.
If you wish to limit yourself to the rather odd argument that Obama's use of "a" instead of "these" in unplanned remarks indicates a desire to create some mysterious new agency, I suppose I can't stop you. But yes, it's thinner than tissue paper. His specific citation of several existing agencies, notably the State Department itself, in the immediately preceding remarks would seem to undercut it, for one thing. The fact that you're able to squint and see what you want to see in his words doesn't mean that they're careless or obfuscatory either, just that you're reading for ammunition rather than comprehension.
BTW - I actually did read the Military Times piece. I agree with a lot of what he says in it. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. I also agree with C-C-G: it's entirely beside the point.
How so? It's Obama speaking to exactly the same issue as in the speech. Between the two, it is utterly inescapable that he's talking about reemphasizing or extending the roles of existing civilian diplomatic agencies. He specifically references State, USAID, and the Peace Corps. There is nothing in either about Stasi-esque national security squads or new agencies to supplant the existing ones. Except that "A", of course, which as we all know proves that Obama is a socialist. QED.
Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 04:44 PM (k8PBw)
43
Folks, I've read the transcript and I think I even watched the video clip once or twice, and I still have the same reaction to Gilderoy Obama's words:
I don't understand what the hell he's talking about.
What does he mean by "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as our military]?" I know how conservatives interpret it, I know how liberals interpret it, but I don't have any idea what he actually meant by it. I personally do not connect "national security" with diplomacy or technical-assistance teams. Nor do I connect it with ordinary police functions. "National security" to me means one thing and one thing only: the active defense of our sovereignty and vital interests at home and around the globe. That is and always has been the job of our military. A "civilian national security force" appears to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: wolfwalker at July 19, 2008 06:54 PM (yjUAw)
44
Hey, Larv? Sophist? Are you beginning to get the feeling that many (if not most) of those who say they simply can't understand what Obama meant kinda WANT to pretend like they don't understand?
When a speaker says a whole bunch of things on the same topic, and then kinda wraps it up at the end, it's perfectly OK to connect the thoughts. You don't have to go "Well, where did THAT come from?"
It's like watching a guy drop a red water balloon from ten stories up, then going to street level and finding a wet spot splattered all over the sidewalk, with little bits of red latex scattered in the area. And saying, "Well, we didn't see exactly what happened... how can we be sure that this is from the water balloon that we just saw getting tossed?"
(And, if I really wanted to get snotty, they would wonder "Do you think some Commie-Fascist-Democrat types did this when we weren't looking?"
And if any of you truly don't understand what Obama was trying to say, then I apologize. And I understand why you're voting for McCain or whatever splinter candidate you wanna vote for. When you finish 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy and you take your policies from Bush's playbook, it's a lot easier to offer "Straight Talk" because you're not really capable of nuanced differentiation... or words exceeding two syllables.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 09:15 PM (PMlL4)
45
Words matter, senator, now explain yours.
Or don't explain them, your constituency of brain-dead fanatics won't care either way.
Obama for Big Brotha 2008!
Posted by: Saltine at July 19, 2008 10:45 PM (MQVqX)
46
If you don't get it now, saltine, you never will. His words are clear enough, if you want to listen. Instead of haughtily issuing orders to a Senator. "Now explain yours" indeed. Buy a dictionary and figure it out for yourself.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 11:10 PM (PMlL4)
47
Larv,
Thanks for being an adult. I take back all the mean things I said about you.
The MT piece came after his speech. He used it as an opportunity to clarify on what he had said previously. So in the context of his entire stance, yes he isn't going Schustaffle on us.
I don't mean to bemoan the *a* for *that* argument but it's telling that a candidate for high office doesn't get the same flack given to the current incumbent. If you can't articulate what you really mean when you go off copy then what are you going to do when meeting with foreign powers? Obama has made a lot of boneheaded comments these past few months and yet he's given a pass and it's our fault for 'misunderstanding'. If he can't say what he really means maybe he should just stay on copy.
And no, the 'a' doesn't prove he's a socialist. His policy does.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 20, 2008 07:28 AM (Kw4jM)
48
it's telling that a candidate for high office doesn't get the same flack given to the current incumbent.
An excellent point, Dan. Can you imagine the media uproar if Dubya said that there were 57 states, or that we didn't have interpreters in Afghanistan because they're all tied up in Iraq?
If you're not sure how the MoveOnMedia would react, see Quayle, Dan.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 09:02 AM (e+Bm0)
49
For further discussions of civilian national security agencies, please see National Security Presidential Directive 1, "Organization of the National Security Council System," (February 15, 2001), which says "national security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe."
Uhnnnnhhh...
I do not see the Department of State listed here. Clearly, the PSD includes Defense, arguably it includes NSA/CIA. I could live with AID, Ex-Im, etc. as part of "...US...interests..."
But State?
The O-and-Savior's problem is now, and always has been, "off-script" comments. He says stuff that is ....jolting?.....astounding?....completely inane? (take your pick). In the case at hand, he said something that clearly meant OTHER than what he meant--and even the "clarification" you cite is a stretch, at best.
Can't wait for him to have no-precondition "chats" with Ach me I'm a nutjob--or Putin.
Posted by: dad29 at July 20, 2008 12:56 PM (OryIh)
50
If you can't see how the State Dept. could figure into some, if not all, of those missions ("defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe"), well, it just shows how single-minded our system is under Bush/Cheney: if we can't blow it up, it doesn't exist.
It's apparent that few of you are diplomats in waiting. You're warriors! (I Am Xena, Hear Me Roar) Nobody makes good diplomacy movies; everybody loves a good wartime blood-and-gutser. But hang in there, you definitely have your place. Sooner or later we usually release the hounds of war.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 01:34 PM (PMlL4)
51
You are either blind, stupid or both diogenes. Obama was, in that speech was covering a variety of needs. When it came to security, Obama said we could not continue to rely on our military to meet the security requirements we (he and Michelle) have set. Diogenes, why was this not it the transcript of the speech? Surely, a wordsmith like yourself can prevaricate their way out of this. One look at Obama's past associate. Who's ideas appealed to him in his formative years? Could you catagorize them as liberal? How about socialistic? I think the name Marxist and even Communist is closer to the mark. That is a fact Diogenes. Bill Ayers is more that a liberal democrat. Next, why is it Obama needs aditional security forces here in CONUS (continental United States)? Is it because he cannot rely on the military to carry out actions agains U.S. citizens? If there were a created crisis, could a militia, made up of Obamites, forcefully disband congress and arrest our military leaders in the Pentagon? Who would enforce a Presidential decree of a gun ban? You want to look at worst case senario with McCain and best case senario with Obama. Fact is, Obama has never lead a thing yet he want and believes he can lead this Nation to change. Change what? Our form of Government? Our freedom to servitude? You want America to take a chance on a Chicago politician with no leadership experience and an unproven track record along with proven faulty judgement. Why?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 20, 2008 01:52 PM (jseGi)
52
Jeez, nice frothing at the mouth there, guy. How did you manage to keep the Rev. Wright out of this conspiracy you have formultaed in your mind?
I mean, I believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, but your paranoia greatly exceeds mine.
(Cue: This is where you avow that only God-fearing patriots like yourself, with clear thoughts and cogent insights, can save truth, justice, and the American Way.)
Have a begl and another cup of coffee.... decaf this time.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:11 PM (PMlL4)
53
Jeez, nice frothing at the mouth there, guy. How did you manage to keep the Rev. Wright out of this conspiracy you have formultaed in your mind?
I mean, I believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, but your paranoia greatly exceeds mine.
(Cue: This is where you avow that only God-fearing patriots like yourself, with clear thoughts and cogent insights, can save truth, justice, and the American Way.)
Have a bagel and another cup of coffee.... decaf this time.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:11 PM (PMlL4)
54
Sorry for the stutter!
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:15 PM (PMlL4)
55
diogenes, if he was referencing a diplomatic corps, then whey doesn't he say so?
The State Department already has its own security apparatus -- the DSS.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 20, 2008 03:31 PM (loWAm)
56
I note that Diogenes didn't bother to answer any of the points Zelsdorf made.
Just pointing that out for those who aren't capable of seeing the obvious due to their ideological/partisan blinders.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 04:16 PM (e+Bm0)
57
The reason, C-C-G, is that Z is totally off topic. This post was about Obama announcing, in his July 2 speech, the coming of Brownshirts to a neighborhood near you. That is, simply, a load of crap, and it's all been laid out numerous times here. Now Z has changed to discussing Obama as a Socialist, how he's never accomplished anything in his whole life, etc etc Oh, and I almost forgot: Z somehow got into discussing a hypothetical armed insurrection taking over Congress. I kinda think that, whoever gets elected in November, the likelihood -- even the possibility -- of an armed insurrection is not only kinda small, but really quite fantastical. So no, I didn't explain to Z how that would play out. No sense chasing a crazy man down a rabbit hole, y'know? And Bill Ayers is about as relevant as the Mad Hatter. You want fantasy? Go buy a ticket to "The Dark Night." It's got a more realistic plot than this nonsense.
You want to talk about leadership, I will concede that Obama doesn't have a proven track record. But take a look at McCain? What has he led in his political career? No, I'm not diminishing his service as a Navy pilot, but c'mon, that was forty years ago. What has McCain led in the last four decades? Answer: nothing. He hasn't even been a leader of the Republican Party, as he's always made his reputation as a "maverick." The only time he's really been center stage is when he was implicated as one of the Keating 5. As a result, he championed campaign reform, and got McCain-Feingold passed.... which most Republicans now vilify as an unconstitional restraint on rich Republicans' ability to buy elections.
There's risks in electing ANYBODY President; you never know for sure what's gonna happen down the road. But, given McCain's anger management issues and his already confessed willingness to have American troops remain in Iraq for a hundred years, I'll take my chances with Obama and the extremely thin possibility of him taking down a Democratic Congress with an AK-47 and a Molotov cocktail.
"And they all lived happily ever after."
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 07:13 PM (PMlL4)
58
Diogenes, you're obviously forgetting his leadership of the Replacement Air Group in Florida, which he took over 1n 1976, at a time when the squadron had, as even the NY Times admits, a "mediocre record." When he left, again according to that Bible of liberalism, the NY Times, they had all their planes flying and had received their first Meritorious Unit Citation.
It may have been over 30 years ago, but that's still more leadership than Obama has shown in the 46 years of his life.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 07:30 PM (e+Bm0)
59
Good Lord, if THAT is supposed to be a meaningful dividing line for presidential candidates, then we are in worse trouble than onybody realizes.
A Meritorious Unit Citation for getting all of the unit's planes to do what planes are supposed to do (i.e., "fly") forty years ago????
McCain can't tell Sunnis from Shias, and he thinks it's a problem that Russia is currently dissing Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed in 15 years! He panics when a reporter asks him about Viagra, and he needs to be reminded how he voted on any given issue. He's against Bush's tax cuts until he isn't anymore, and he disdains evangelicals until he needs them to get elected, whereupon any evangelical preacher who wants to give him a "Say Hallelujah!" is A-OK in McCain's book.
McCain in 1988, I would have voted for. McCain in 1992 , I might have voted for. McCain in 2008, when he is sadly clueless about where he even is half the time? No way.
And all you guys can see is how OBAMA might pose a threat to our existence? What if McCain starts a war with Czechoslovakia?
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 08:05 PM (PMlL4)
60
if THAT is supposed to be a meaningful dividing line for presidential candidates, then we are in worse trouble than onybody realizes.
So what organization has Obama ever fixed that was broken?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 20, 2008 08:10 PM (loWAm)
61
And, refresh my memory, Diogenes, what leadership had John Kerry shown when all you lefties were saying that he was the best choice back in 2004? He served as "second banana" a couple of times, around the same time McCain was turning his squadron around, but never in the top seat.
Doesn't even get a "nice try," Diogenes. If you had half a brain you would have seen that question coming a mile off.
Oh, and 1976 was 32 years ago. Not 40. At least get your math straight.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 08:21 PM (e+Bm0)
62
C-C-G, you are a master at finding distinctions without a difference.
And Purple Avenger, that's the point: if you want to step back and be honest, none of these guys show that much more leadership than the next guy. If you ain't the lead dog, the view's the same.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 09:04 PM (PMlL4)
63
If you can't see how the State Dept. could figure into some, if not all, of those missions...
Even if I concede that, WHY in Hell didn't The O-and-Savior SAY THAT? What's so damn hard about saying "..civilian entities such as State, AID, etc.,..." instead of "civilian security [whatever]"?
Back to Square One. The guy opens his mouth and inserts his foot, or both of them.
Not ready for prime-time, Diogenes.
Posted by: dad29 at July 20, 2008 09:13 PM (OryIh)
64
If you ain't the lead dog, the view's the same.
Precisely, Diogenes.
So why are you in the Party of the Donkey continually pushing candidates with no leadership experience? Senator Gore had never led anything in 2000 (though it could be argued that he has done so since, we're talking about what he had done at the time of the election), Senator Kerry had never led anything in 2004, and now Senator Obama has never led anything in 2008.
Maybe that has something to do with why you lost in 2000 and 2004, hmmm?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 09:23 PM (e+Bm0)
65
I'm not a Democrat, C-C-G. I'm a reigstered Republican, and voted for every Republican presidential candidate from Ford to Bush in 2000. It isn't about party labels, it's about the men. McCain had a decent record forty years ago (maybe even 32 years ago, if you want to be precise) but look at the man: he's clearly past his time. He never once made me think that America may get better with him at the helm. And sorry, Obama does that with me. No, he's not the Second Coming, but after eight years of outright lying from Bush/Cheney, and after their criminal behavior into misleading this country into war, I'm willing to take a chance on making things better.
But, again, this post started with ridiculous wild-eyed accusations of incredible proportions against Obama. NONE OF US will be able to make this country one iota better if we insist on pursuing Karl Rove politics. It IS okay to debate issues without using every dirty trick to totally destroy the opposition.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 09:49 PM (PMlL4)
66
Heh... oh, the old "Republican turned to Obama" spiel.
I believe it less than I believe those folks that call into Hannity and Levin with the same story. It's clearly what Rush would call a "seminar call," now we have a "seminar commenter."
You may now attack me for listening to talk radio. I'm ready for it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 10:01 PM (e+Bm0)
67
I really see no point in parsing his words on any level. He says whatever the writers write for the day. Tomorrow he will say something else.
One thing I heard him say that I do believe is that people project their desires onto him. The presidential candidate equivalent to a television green screen. The most unqualified (serious) candidate to run for the office in my lifetime.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at July 20, 2008 10:15 PM (PBTsv)
68
diogenes--
From your response to Larv posted at 9:15 PM on 19 July:
"…And if any of you truly don't understand what Obama was trying to say, then I apologize. And I understand why you're voting for McCain or whatever splinter candidate you wanna vote for. When you finish 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy and you take your policies from Bush's playbook, it's a lot easier to offer "Straight Talk" because you're not really capable of nuanced differentiation... or words exceeding two syllables"
You're headed for a cliff on this one. Can you name the Union Civil War general who placed first in his class at West Point, who lost every major battle, and was willing (as a presidential candidate in the election of 1864) to let the Southern Confederacy, slaves and all, secede from the United States? Can you name the Union Civil War general who placed dead last in his class at West Point and never lost a major battle? Oh, and yes, this last individual took his policies out of which failed US President's playbook? Be careful when you use "nuance versus straight talk", diogenes, because you're not very good at it.
I say this as a defector from the Obama camp. My wife and I were favorably impressed by Obama's stand against the leftist railroading of three innocent Duke University students on the Lacrosse team for rape. In fact, he was the only presidential hopeful to do so at the time. We were also impressed with his call for fairness in the racially-hyped Jena, LA case where Hillary Clinton, thinking she had the black vote in the bag, declared the Jena situation to be a "teachable moment". At this point in time we felt that Obama showed real leadership potential. Hillary, obviously, did not.
Then came the other news, about Obama's more than casual involvement with unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, his association with the highly anti-Semitic Professor Rashid Khalidi, now of Columbia University, his association with (now deceased) Prof. Edward Said, the individual who literally turned Middle East Studies at American Universities into a bad joke, and then his association with the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. A person is known by the company he keeps, and Obama is no different. Obama may have thrown some of these folks under the bus for now, but will he go back and bring them on board in his administration if he is elected president? I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anyone else participating in this blog thread know. I was not satisfied with his obfuscation on his involvement with these individuals as were millions of other Americans. Now we literally don’t know where he stands on any of the major issues facing Americans in the upcoming presidential election, hence our obvious concerns about his comments on 2 July.
Bob Owens brought up a legitimate question that the Obama camp needs to answer. Perhaps making complete analogy to the Nazi SS is extreme, at least that's how I see it for now. The fact is that Obama is advocating a parallel organization that in the end will be a major rival to the U. S. Department of Defense for budget, areas of responsibility, influence and God only know what else. The analogy to the SS is relevant in this context in that the SS competed with the German Army for influence and weapons and did not report up the same chain of command as the German Army. Hitler’s contempt for his Army generals is well known. Anybody even remotely familiar with the history of World War II knows that cooperation between German Army and SS combat divisions was not the best. God only knows how many communication walls existed between these two organizations at that time.
In your response to Zelsdorf posted at 2:11 PM on 20 July you state:
"...Have another begl (sp?) and another cup of coffee...decaf this time."
My suggestion to you diogenes is stay off coffee, any coffee, period! In fact stay away from booze and bottled water as well. We know what Obama said, and it is up to Obama, not his acolytes like you, to explain what he meant by “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded”, on 2 July.
Posted by: Mescalero at July 20, 2008 10:20 PM (CHpGi)
69
You can add to the 72 documented lies the fact the the birth record Hussein O provided to KOS is as phony as Blather Rather's documents. Someone at the stockyard must be good at forgery. No document exempt. Funny that when Hussein lies thousands of democrats lie. Just like the real Hussein and his Republican Guard, and just like the Republican Guard the dhimmi's who follow the new Hussein will fold like a wet dish rag when faced with a real gun.
I got a good laugh at his lie last week when he said he didn't speak a foreign language when he stated in 2006 (recorded interview) that he spoke Arabic and a little Spanish. Was he lying then or lying now? Probably both, he's a natural born liar and has mooched off the taxpayers all of his adult life. I still don't hate him or any other person on earth, but I trust a rabid skunk more than I trust him.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 21, 2008 12:03 AM (I4yBD)
Posted by: 钢托盘</a at March 06, 2009 09:46 AM (rRj/C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SHOCKER: Media Gives Up On Losing Iraq; Transitions to Plan to Lose Afghanistan In Its Stead
We always knew they were unable to accept victory, so it perhaps shouldn't come as much of a surprise that a U.S. media unable to secure defeat in Iraq has given up on betraying that democracy, and is instead executing a pivot, beginning an attempt to lose the Afghan war instead.
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a startling 45 percent of Americans said they do not think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting, despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which provoked the war in the first place.
The growing disenchantment with the Afghan deployment hasn't reached the level of national frustration with the Iraq war, but after more than six years with U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan and violence on the rise, Americans are becoming increasingly wary about the country's involvement.
As mentioned just yesterday, many of today's top writers, anchors, columnists, editors, producers and publishers cut their journalistic teeth during the Vietnam War era, and have never been able—nor is there evidence there there ever been a serious attempt—to shift away from covering wars through a Vietnam-era lens.
For them, wars are never worth fighting. Their editorial focus will always be:- a push for withdrawal instead of resolving a conflict through victory;
- playing up U.S. casualties, while downplaying or ignoring enemy casualties;
- dramatic emphasis on unexpected U.S. setbacks, with a minimization of tactical and strategic successes;
- a one-sided focus on U.S. military-attributed civilian combat casualties, while largely ignoring civilian casualties caused by opposing military forces;
- an emphasis on finding Americans tired of or opposed to the conflict suffering low morale, with no attempt to present opposing populations as anything other than a stoic, unyielding monolith whose primitive will cannot be broken(so we might as well go home);
- a one-sided focus on indirect traumas suffered by the civilian population, while ignoring the poverty, healthcare, and human rights concerns caused by the opposing forces;
- an over-reliance and benefit of the doubt given to those alleging accounts detrimental to U.S. interests, where that means giving credence to allegations of civilians harmed by U.S. military operations without evidence of such harm (already commonplace in Afghan War reporting, where it seems U.S. bombs consistently hit only wedding parties made up of innocent women and children) while often ignoring direct atrocities performed by the opposing force against civilians;
- attempted moral equivalence—masked as "objectivity"— between U.S. forces and political and/or ideological movements famous for cruelty.
Journalists have been conditioned to report through such a distorted perspective that it is little wonder at all that even the "good" and "just" response of a war against the Taliban for their role in the attacks of 9/11 must now be twisted in such a way that it can be reported from the only perspective the media knows (or more accurately, cares to know) in viewing and covering wars fought by Americans. While the U.S. military has adapted to fighting new kinds of conflicts, the media is still using corrosive and corroded story templates older than much of their target audience.
"Modern" war coverage is an utterly self-defeating, self-loathing enterprise, and we bear much of the blame for what we see, for we still accept and still consume a defective news product. What motive do the media have to change, if we, the news consumers, don't clearly articulate to the industry why we are no longer buying failing newspapers, or believing that news outlets are acting without preconceived biases? We have let them stick to what is for them, a comfortable agenda.
ABC News is in no way alone in their tonal shift in Afghan coverage, as other outlets doubtlessly came before them, and certainly more news outlets will follow. They are still fighting the last war using the tactics and strategies they are most comfortable with. They are fighting to lose.
Will we let them?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:27 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Excellent post. Preaching to the choir, but excellent post. The only objection I would take would be to the risk of an over correction in reporting in the vein of your second bullet point. Obviously the MSM hyper-emphasizes US causualties while ignoring the enemy's. We should not tolerate the inverse either. Kill counts while tactically significant, especially for the trigger pullers, can artificially mask strategic goals, ala Vietnam.
We should expect our media to report the FACTS of engagements, including total forces engaged, WIA, and KIA on each side. More importantly we should not be denied analysis to the strategic importance (or insignificance) of victories or setbacks. The refusal of the MSM to report in this fashion reduces them to nothing more than propoganda flaks for the enemy, which in time of war used to be considered treason...
Thank you for the space.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at July 18, 2008 09:56 AM (LZarw)
2
.. but .. but .. Afghanistan is the "good war" .. or so we have been told.
Posted by: Neo at July 18, 2008 10:46 AM (Yozw9)
3
The media is worse than the terrorists. They actually have half the nation "held hostage". So sick of this bull.
Posted by: Ryan at July 18, 2008 10:48 AM (eplNU)
4
Oooh! Ooooh! I know! I know! We're losing cause we don't have translators in Afghanistan because they're all in Iraq! The Obamamessiah said so!
Of course, no one told him that they speak a different languages in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that doesn't matter, a translator is a translator, right?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 18, 2008 06:45 PM (e+Bm0)
5
The Fourth Estate is a FIFTH COLUMN. May they all burn in hell....soon.
Posted by: joyce at July 18, 2008 09:02 PM (4gHqM)
6
Glad to see the stab in the back theory isn't dead. Keep it up guys.
Posted by: Cheney's Other Priority at July 19, 2008 10:47 AM (FkzgB)
7
I've absolutely had it with the American press. My contempt for the institution could grow, I'm sure, but it has reached a point that I've wiped them all away. I have no respect for what they are as an institution any more.
The way they have handled Obama - since they built him up with some of the most incredible cheerleading I've ever seen over a year ago - was what pushed me over the edge fully recently.
But this kind of stuff is systemic too...
On my blog, when talking about the media's use of Iraq War II -- I'd bring this up with short, snotty comments about "Where is the war in Afghanistan? Is it still going? Chance of success there is much, much worse than in Iraq, but why don't we hear about Afghanistan? Why doesn't it matter?"
Well, of course, now it matters --- because reporting about Iraq can no longer suit their needs - because progress has become too good to lie about.
So, what to do? It is an election year, right?
Well, heh --- there's Afghanistan...!!
Posted by: usinkorea at July 19, 2008 01:11 PM (+io21)
8
ABC news doesn't bother to tell you that Mr. Sholom Keller is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War. Does that fact change how you read his quote?
I bet it does.
Dig into the article a little more and I'll bet you find more stunts like this one.
Posted by: Steve White at July 19, 2008 10:59 PM (wJgSR)
Posted by: 钢托盘</a at March 06, 2009 09:43 AM (rRj/C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Worst House Speaker in History Labels Bush a Total Failure
Legislators fear for their lives, simply because they come to work. Some have been assassinated by car bombs, others by gunfire, while simply going out among their constituents. During their legislative meetings there is always the (increasingly) slight risk of a mortar attack or a suicide bomber. And yet a fractious Iraqi Parliament just learning democracy has still accomplished far more than the U.S. House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi.
Her horrid leadership has managed to drag Congress to the lowest approval ratings in history. Pelosi's Congress is polling nine points lower than Nixon's just ten days before he resigned.
So Nancy... dear... I think you might have a wee bit of a projection issue going on.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:56 AM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To keep it simple - Nancy - look who's talking.
Posted by: Bandit at July 18, 2008 06:58 AM (nX3lF)
2
The Democrats have a common sense plan.
Blame Bush.
Posted by: Ed at July 18, 2008 08:18 AM (RyS+L)
3
She is so bad, even the Nutroots dislikes her.
Posted by: William Teach at July 18, 2008 08:39 AM (gTlfZ)
4
Pathetic analogy. Voters tie Congress with Bush regardless of which party controls it. When Obama defeats McCain, and Bush departs, we'll see whose approval rating is still in the toilet.
Posted by: Tom at July 18, 2008 09:49 AM (mpUOQ)
5
anyone with just a modicum of sense can see that pelousy and her little friend harry(stuff makes me sick) ried are the biggest drag on the democrat surrender crowd since pontious pilot was still in flight school.
Posted by: randy at July 18, 2008 10:05 AM (DBLki)
6
Tom, you're the one drawing false analogies, but it is a nice attempt at spin. Voters tie Congress to Congress. Bush and Pelosi have been diametrically opposed since she gained power; there is no conflating her unpopularity with that of Bush. She earned her scorn all on her own.
As for your second contention that Congress' approval rating would rise with an Obama victory, it is just that... a contention. Despite what you would prefer, we're having an election, not a coronation, and Obama still has to win, which becomes less likely every time he or his wife open their mouths. It has been a long time since I've seen a more gaffe-tastic candidate during an election cycle, and his internals and outside polling all confirms his lead is much tighter than it should be at this stage of the campaign in these circumstances.
Second, an extremely liberal President with an extremely liberal Congressional and more than likely rubber-stamp Congress means one thing to Americans: hold on to your wallets.
Sure to fatally wound an ailing economy by raising taxes on businesses and individuals, create crippling inflation, and anger our allies while appeasing our enemies, there exists the distint possibility Obama, Pelosi, and Reid could redefine the basement of public policy polling.
Nice delusions you've got there, Tom, but no cigar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 10:12 AM (xNV2a)
7
Pelousy is just insane....only a true ObamaBot like Tom cannot appreciate that she will drive the Dem unfavorability to the heavens...I become mote confident that the R's will keep the WH and the Senate everyday!
Posted by: Moultrie at July 18, 2008 10:48 AM (ft+1C)
8
Hey, let's not be too mean to Pelosi.
I mean, in addition to all of the normal problems confronting someone in her position, she has to worry about avoiding direct sunlight, stakes, and holy water, too.
Posted by: cirby at July 18, 2008 11:06 AM (C0p6T)
9
Nancy said the same thing about her plastic surgeon. Her husband and I concur. Failure, Nancy is thy face.
Posted by: twolaneflash at July 18, 2008 12:31 PM (05dZx)
10
You can't tie Congress' low rating to Pres Bush's. If they were tied, Congress' rating would be three times higher because Pres Bush's approval rating is three times higher than Congress and more than twice as high as Peelousi's rating. Americans are beginning to sniff that the dems really want to destroy the economy and national security, what with their anti energy obstructionism and their dutiful concern for terrorists in Gitmo and throughout the world. If they continue, Repubs may pick up many seats, when months ago it looked like a drubbing.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at July 18, 2008 12:34 PM (W88Qb)
11
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at July 18, 2008 12:44 PM (gIAM9)
12
uh I have not kept count. but it seems that Pres. Bush has got more of what he wants nancy, ummm on second thought may be not
Posted by: rwallis at July 18, 2008 01:27 PM (CX4en)
13
She was babbling on and on she started to sound like Obama. You just had to tune her out.
Posted by: Michele at July 18, 2008 06:03 PM (I4yBD)
14
Interesting, Tom... lemme try to understand your particular brand of logic.
The Democrats are running down President Bush, which, because the White House and the Capitol are connected in the minds of the "bitter Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles," also means that the Democrats are running down Congress, and the leaders thereof... specifically Pelosi and Reid.
So, when Pelosi is calling Bush a "total failure," she is also--because of that linkage you say exists--telling the public that she is a total failure, because the bumpkins in flyover country can't tell the difference between the Oval Office and the House Chamber.
And by running down the President, they are--by your own statement, Tom--running themselves down, thus decreasing their own chances at reelection.
My, my, who knew that Pelosi, Reid, et al could be so altruistic as to sacrifice their own political careers in order to rid the nation of this "total failure."
--OR--
You're spinning so fast and furious, trying to cover up the MoveOn-dominated Congress' abysmal record that you failed to even consider the end result of your own logic.
I vote for the second one.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 10:01 PM (e+Bm0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 17, 2008
Herr Obama's Security Service
Barack Obama's recent call for "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the nation's military didn't sound any better than it did in the original German.
Does that perhaps explain why those comments are being suppressed by a compliant media?
Update: Anyone know what a "conbatant" is?
Snark at excitable Andy's spelling error aside, his defense of Obama is an original one, essentially, "Bush is Hitler, Obama is only Himmler."
Why, that's just far more reassuring isn't it?
[Comments closed due to spammers]
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama's only responding to the recent Supreme court decision, now that it's been recognized that a "well organized militia" is permitted to have guns.
How else can we permit people to have guns, if such a militia doesn't exist? Sheesh...
Posted by: redherkey at July 17, 2008 11:04 AM (kjqFg)
2
I'm glad this is getting continuing coverage in the blogosphere. We posted about Obama's "civilian national security force" about 10 days ago and are amazed that this story remains mostly unreported.
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/07/07/dont-worry-mr-godwin-has-been-notified.aspx
Posted by: Exurban Jon at July 17, 2008 11:08 AM (N0doa)
3
I bet they are supposed to wear brown shirts.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 11:21 AM (jseGi)
4
Coming after so much talk about volunteer community service organizations, it's possible that Obama is not talking about any sort of military or police force but rather is just using puffed-up language to imply that such organizations protect our national security just as much does our military. But given all his messianic and fascistic rhetoric, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: pst314 at July 17, 2008 12:23 PM (OA547)
5
Oh, come on, Mr. Owens, a link to the freakin' Gestapo!
Best,
Keith
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 17, 2008 03:08 PM (vTJkv)
6
You would have prefered what, Mr. Nolan, a link to the Komityet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti? The People's Commissariat for State Security? The Stasi? You're the historian so tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was being nice in choosing the state security force with the least amount of blood on its hands.
Obama's closest, earliest and longest-running influences are New Left Marxists, old school communists, and radical bomb-throwing (literally) progressives that subscribe to ideologies that gave birth to some of the most horrific agents of "state security" ever known.
When someone of his pedigree starts talking of creating a national security force as powerful, strong and as well-funded as the most powerful military in the history of the world, it is time to be very concerned about his intentions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2008 03:34 PM (xNV2a)
7
Hi, Mr. Owens. I probably shouldn't have said boo, because I really don't know what Senator Obama is talking about. Neither did the writer over at HotAir, who managed, at least, not to bring up images of the freakin' Gestapo.
Truth be told, I often don't know what the young senator from Illinois is talking about.
I'm not exactly on fire for Obama. Sure, he's articulate. Sure, he's charismatic. And, yeah, I suspect his heart is in the right place. But he's so damn untested.....
In any event, I just can't buy into the image of Obama being a dangerous lunatic Marxist.... and no matter what oddball things are said in a speech here and there, I know sure in hell there ain't gonna be any Gestapo in the United States of America no matter who becomes President.
Incidentally, if any recent politician has begun to bend this country into neo-fascist territory, it would be Bush, not Obama.... but even as much as I dislike Bush (and I say that as a guy who ALWAYS voted Republican before George W. came along), I always find it ridiculously over the top when Leftists tried to pin the President as a Nazi.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop buggin' you with comments as irrelevant as these! Have a great day!
Best,
Keith
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 17, 2008 03:55 PM (vTJkv)
8
I looked back in the archives to see if you were a small government libertarian.
Funny, you weren't too concerned when the current president was claiming the power to lock U.S. citizens arrested in the USA forever, without a hearing or a right to a lawyer.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/207264.php
Or the power to spy on all communications in this country.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/212498.php
Seems to me you would be all in favor of a Gestapo.
Posted by: galoob at July 17, 2008 04:20 PM (GFaLW)
9
The WorldNutDaily crew is at it again. If you look at the transcript of the speech, and listen to the YouTube audio, it's clear that Obama didn't follow to the letter the speech as drafted throughout the entire speech. It's not uncommon at all that the "transcript" printed in daily newspapers is actually the prepared text distributed to the media BEFORE the speech itself.
And if you read the draft of the speech and listen to the audio in context, it's more than likely that Obama was referring to putting as much money into civilian channels as military channels to secure our nation;s defense. As in: There are diplomatic ways to try to secure America's security that don't necessarily require sending in the military to wage war. Both military and civilian resources need to be available to achieve a comprehensive security.
But hey, go ahead and assume the worst, and imagine little brownshirts wandering all over the American terrain, if that's what gets you off.
At least Obama realizes that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore,so we won't be sending military or civilian forces over to Eastern Europe with a 1990s road map. Will McCain?
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 04:35 PM (PMlL4)
10
Diogenes (you are so misnamed) are those brown shirts going to be in all 57 States? Czechoslovakia did once exist. Where are the 7 new states coming from? I listened to the speech he gave (video on Hot Air). There is no mistaking what he said. He advocates a separate security force armed and funded equal to the U.S. Military. Why? To insure you keep your thermostat a the prescribed temperature and that your children are learning Spanish? Will Bill Ayers be in charge?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 05:28 PM (J5AYY)
11
The context of the speech was comparing/contrasting the $$$$ we spend on the militaryt vs. the $$ we spend on the diplomatic service. Try to be at least a little intellectually honest. Obama's being torn up for being too liberal, and yet he slips a reference of putting together a new brownshirt brigade into a speech, in isolation? He never mentioned it before, and he hasn't mentioned it since?
Obviously, if you have your mind made up that Obama is the Antichrist, you'll never give him the benefit of any doubt, but get real.
By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error. But, if you take a look at the primary schedule, I believe there might have been 57 primary contest, when you factor in Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington DC et al. "Czecholoslovakia" (when you repeatedly say it) isn't a slip of the tongue. Not knowing the difference between Shias and Sunnis is not a slip of the tongue.
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 05:44 PM (PMlL4)
12
Diogenes, you yourself need to "get real."
50 states + Guam + US Virgin Islands + American Samoa + "Democrats Abroad" + DC does NOT equal 57.
Simple math should not be beyond you.
The lengths some people will go to defend the Obamamessiah... sheesh!
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 06:28 PM (e+Bm0)
13
And Puerto Rico makes 56. My hunch is that there may be one more out there that we haven't accounted for, which would make it 57. But it's not worth anybody's time to figure it out, is it?
Posted by: Diogenes at July 17, 2008 07:10 PM (PMlL4)
14
At least Obama realizes that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore
Perhaps he should clue in Sam Nunn(D-Georgia), the guy who has been mentioned as a possible Obama VP; he thinks Czechoslovakia still exists too.
Then again, Obama likes to refer to "Mesopotamia" so I wouldn't exactly rate him as a geography expert.
Posted by: Pardo at July 17, 2008 07:22 PM (MQVqX)
15
Actually Obambo said he had been to "57 states and still had one left to go" which means you need to account for 58 total states and territories.
But hey, we shouldn't be picking on Barack, I mean the guy was a community organizer and that is experience enough to be POTUS.
Posted by: Thomas Churlington III at July 17, 2008 07:26 PM (MQVqX)
16
You're right, I forgot Puerto Rico. My error.
Diogenes, you were the one attempting to defend the 57 states comment... so you tell me which is the 57th state.
Or, you could just admit that you goofed, that the Obamamessiah goofed, and leave it at that. But you don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty to do that, do you?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 07:55 PM (e+Bm0)
17
If you're going to play games like this, guess what the first use of 'homeland security' was? Where did that concept first show up? Try googling Heimatschutz:
At the end of the First World War Heimatschutz groups appear in Austria to protect German culture. In 1930 these groups become part of the Austrian government. In 1933 become part of the Vaterländische Front (Front of the Fatherland). When Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938 the Vaterländische Front was disbanded and the Heimatschutz groups became part of the SA and later the SS.
I did laugh out loud when I first heard the term.
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:11 PM (gm6mQ)
18
Your concern is duly noted - & about 5 years late.
Can you say "Blackwater"?
Go on, say it.
BLACKWATER.
They're most definitely NOT a rhetorical point in some pol's speech - they exist, they're not legally limited the way regular cops or soldiers are - & they ought to frighten the hell out of you. They've already acted in a manner either violent or coercively intimidating to law-abiding Americans, including US troops in Iraq. Where was your outrage in 2005 or 2007?
Posted by: jim at July 17, 2008 08:12 PM (Kyveh)
19
Holy cr-p! Confederate Yankee (is that better, you delicate Confederate, you?) suddenly cares about government power, an aggressive lawless executive, and the erosion of civil rights. Someone check the temperature in Hades (is that also better for you? wouldn't want to offend your delicate ears).
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:14 PM (HX0Df)
20
I think Obama meant to refer to the number of primary contests, and it's not surprising that he didn't know the exact number. Remember that some states (like Texas) had two contests, a primary and a caucus. We can spend our energy second-guessing a harried and stressed out candidate or we can talk about something meaningful.
Posted by: RBZ at July 17, 2008 08:15 PM (06B2Q)
21
We can spend our energy second-guessing a harried and stressed out candidate or we can talk about something meaningful.
Or we can do what CY wants: talk about how Obama's LIKE A NAZI!! OMG
It's fun!
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:17 PM (HX0Df)
22
Do you ever watch Obama and ask yourself why he's in the race? What really drives him?
Watch him with the volume turned off. He's really not that good. Pan left, look up. Look like Christ. Pan right. Look up. Look like Moses sharing the message of God. Look right. Wince. Look left. Wince. Back and forth, never connecting with anyone in the audience like Reagan or Kennedy would. Poseur all the way, and not an exceptional one at that.
His command of issues is about that of a penny stock "merchant banker" we put in jail after running four companies into the ground through blatant market manipulation and fraud. This fellow would study a real CEO for a day or so, and then adopt his mannerisms and language at about 90% the effectiveness. If you knew the material, you knew something was always slightly off. Probe them (if you ever could get past their evasiveness and other con techniques) and you'd eventually find no substance. Just a phantom. If you chased them on an issue, they'd ink up the water like an octopus, leaving you grasping at nothing. Misdirection, shifting the issues, absurd counter attacks, etc. were all common. Idiotic comments about citizen armies may be just some of that intended to get us arguing about something he'll only later deny and claim we're kooks for suggesting it. It's remarkably nonunique and pathetic for a presidential candidate, but he has no leadership qualities, no experience and only a marginal intelligence. What else is he going to do?
The good news about most of those types is that they're easily bought off, seeking mere millions. The bad news is those who discover these fools as puppets to do their bidding. I'm curious if we'll find connections to Soros or some other exceptionally intelligent yet ruthless type behind this mediocre poseur.
Posted by: redherkey at July 17, 2008 08:19 PM (kjqFg)
23
RBZ, I ain't the one that brought it up in this thread. I am just pointing out the absurd lengths you Obamamaniacs will go to in order to defend your Obamamessiah.
And your argument doesn't make him look any better... does he not know the difference between a state and a primary contest?
Are you also unable to just admit that your Obamamessiah has goofed?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:20 PM (e+Bm0)
24
The other translation of 'homeland security department' is Reichssicherheitshauptamt, which like the homeland security department was a crisis induced merger of security services, in this case the Sicherheitsdienst, Kriminalpolizei and Gestapo, in September 1939.
Again, naming the homeland security department after to Nazi organization was a bit odd.
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:21 PM (gm6mQ)
25
The fact is, Obama is a Nazi and a Communist and a terrorist, he does the fist jab with his wife, he is also hard left and hates the USA. He will outlaw Christianity and the Free Market. Its not too late to cancel the elections, I only trust bush and Cheney to keep order and keep us safe.
Posted by: Gary Ruppert at July 17, 2008 08:27 PM (EkC04)
26
Are you also unable to just admit that your Obamamessiah has goofed?
You're right, moron. We need a president who's filled volumes of books with quotes that make him sound like he's mentally retarded. Awesome! We've already got one!
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:28 PM (HX0Df)
27
Here comes the BDS... what is so hard, Ted, about saying, "Obama made an error" or "Obama was incorrect"?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:38 PM (e+Bm0)
28
Oh, for the record, all you Obamamaniacs, I have no problem saying Bush was wrong on several occasions... such as Harriet Miers, "comprehensive immigration reform," and other issues.
Can you be that honest about Obama's mistakes? I doubt it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:43 PM (e+Bm0)
29
Also, you do know that Gestapo, short for Geheime Staatspolizei, translates as 'secret state police' and not 'civilian national security force'? I cannot come up with any Nazi agency that translates to 'civilian national security force.'
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:43 PM (gm6mQ)
30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
Scroll down and count the total number of primaries and caucuses. There were 57. So Obama thought there were 58, and he called them "states. instead of "primaries and caucuses." DISQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
God, you people are morons.
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 08:46 PM (ihIKc)
31
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology as I am his deeply held conviction that the answer to all the world's problems, large and small, is just another government program here, and a slight tax raising over there. He is a man intent on building a government big and powerful enough to give you everything, purposefully turning a blind eye to the fact that a government powerful to provide it all, can take it all... and typically does.
He thinks he is clever enough to make it work.
He isn't.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2008 08:47 PM (HcgFD)
32
A "moron" is someone who confuses a "state" with a primary or caucus.
And no, it's not a disqualification... it is, however, very instructive to watch you people rush around and defend the Obamamessiah for what should simply be admitted was a mistake.
You are so deep in the tank for Obama that you cannot bring yourself to admit that he simply is a normal human who makes mistakes!
That's the hilarious part of all of this. If one of you would just say, "Obama made a mistake," you'd prove my entire point in this thread wrong.
But you can't do it.
Hope that Kool-aid is tasty.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:50 PM (e+Bm0)
33
"The fact is, Obama is a Nazi and a Communist and a terrorist, he does the fist jab with his wife, he is also hard left and hates the USA. He will outlaw Christianity and the Free Market. Its not too late to cancel the elections, I only trust bush and Cheney to keep order and keep us safe."
Man, you should be a comedy writer. that was some of the best fiction i have read in a long time. Good to know, of course, that you don't believe that. Right?
Posted by: Fred Jones at July 17, 2008 08:56 PM (FKJRi)
34
Uhhh, C-C-G, buddy? Wanna check to see what I said at the outset?
"By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error."
Error = mistake = wrong. At least, in English.
Saying that Russia has recently threatened Czechoslovakia (not once, but twice in the last week) isn't exactly the same.
Not being able to tell the difference between Shias and Sunnis when it's so vital to what's happening in the Middle East is downright criminal.
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 08:57 PM (PMlL4)
35
Obama made a mistake.
Feel free to move the goalposts yet again.
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 08:57 PM (ihIKc)
36
CY writes:
"Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology"
CY you should engage the ideas you don't like instead of claiming that mentioning "civilian national security force" as a short hand for the notion that civilian (non-military) agencies have national security functions somehow even suggests that Obama wants a Gestapo, which is just assuming your conclusion. Where is your problem with what Obama actually said?
For instance, could you tell me which additional fearsome programs Obama is actually suggesting?
As for tax increases, those are coming. Or inflation. Or cutting social security benefits for current retirees and those close to retirement. That's just the way the government budget adds up. Fighting an expensive war and bailing out the mortgage GSEs is going to cost money, and Obama didn't create these problems. He'll just have to fix them.
Seriously, do you think calling people Nazis works to persuade? Do people calling Republicans Nazis strike you as insightful and persuasive? If not, why should it work the other way around?
Posted by: Stefan at July 17, 2008 08:59 PM (gm6mQ)
37
Ahh, I do apologize, Diogenes. You did, in fact, admit the error.
Congrats, Commie. You've taken your first step towards being a conservative; admitting Obama can be wrong.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 09:00 PM (e+Bm0)
38
Clearly, Bob Owens is not aware of the internet tradition of Godwin's law.
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 09:01 PM (ihIKc)
39
Quit bothering the Messiah™, he has important work to do. The guy made a decision based on the facts, its just that he decided to research the facts after making his decision. Sorta like the surge.
I would point you to the Obama website for proof but it seems that his staffers have scrubbed his previous disapproval of said surge.
Hope and Change and a Bunch of Other Stuff '08!
Posted by: Beth from Oregon at July 17, 2008 09:11 PM (MQVqX)
40
Whaaaaaat? The Tinted John Edwards made a mistake? Perish the thought! I guess Rolling Stone will have to reissue a new mag without the halo around Obama's head.
Wait...am I allowed to criticize the guy or would that make me a racist?
Posted by: CaG at July 17, 2008 09:15 PM (MQVqX)
41
Aww Gary Rupert, we missed you!
I can't believe the irony in calling out Obama for big gov't and spending. Wow. Just...wow. Blinded by ideology, I s'pose. Couldn't possibly have happened with ol' Bush in the Whitehouse.
Posted by: phewd at July 17, 2008 09:27 PM (cIfHT)
42
turning a blind eye to the fact that a government powerful to provide it all, can take it all... and typically does.
Obama isn't turning a blind eye, he is counting on his blindly adoring brain dead followers to turn a blind eye. You think a man who considers himself "the one" doesn't expect to have iron-clad control once he gains power? He is Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, PolPot, or name your own brutal dictator, doing a good job fooling the fools as a masquerading snake oil salesman.
Posted by: Sara at July 17, 2008 09:31 PM (Wi/N0)
43
Folks, the Nazi meme started when the conservatives began seeing Obama being able to repeatedly fill arenas and other huge venues with excited fans, before the primary had even ended. They're simply jealous. They wish their own candidate could do that, instead of being barely able to fill a high school gym.
So, when trying to grapple with this enormous and embarrassing disparity they're seeking anything that can turn what appears to be a gigantic enthusiasm gap into something sinister.
We can just sit back and enjoy it, pointing and laughing.
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 10:40 PM (HX0Df)
44
Somewhat on topic. Obama called for the creation of a civilian national security militia equal in power and funding to the U.S. Military as his plans for national security cannot be fulfilled by our military. What about the National Guard? Wonder what Obamameister plans to call this new security aparatus? Security Service (SS) has a nice ring to it. A force to make sure citizens do not make unauthorized trips to Mexico or Canada. I think Bill Ayers should be in charge. He knows what temperature we should keep our houses. We need a security force to make sure no unauthorized person owns or operates a SUV.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 10:53 PM (J5AYY)
45
I disappointing to see that comments on this blog subject seem to be far off the real issues. You can lip-fart all you want about the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet-controlled East-German STASSI, but that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that Obama has, without doing his mandatory homework, advocated a organization that emulates the Nazi SS, not the Gestapo, and not the Soviet-controlled East German STASSI. I'm still searching for comparable Soviet organizations established by Yousef Vissaronovich Dhugashvili (that monster called Joseph Stalin!).
To the Obama apologists, go back and take the time to listen to what this guy is saying. Is he advocating a organization with the same power, weapons, budget and influence as the current US military? Is he advocating that this organization will be subject to the same ethics standards imposed on the US military? I don't think so. Why do I get the feeling that Obama, whose political career was launched by the criminal terrorist likes of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (as well as Mike Klonsky) are now showing up in Obama organization activities, but neither the Obamasiah nor his acolytes seem to have the answer. Why???
For those of you on the thoroughly illiterate left, do take the time to read Richard Rhodes' book "Masters of Death" if you want to know what Nazi mass murder was all about. At the same time, read Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", "Stalin, the Breaker of Nations", and "Harvest of Sorrow", as well as Brent and Naumov's "Stalin's Last Crime' to establish a meaningful perspective on what happened in the 1930 -- 1950 timeframe in the Soviet Union and its East European puppet states. Tell me what was the difference between Stalinism and Fascism? For those of you stuck on the myth that Saddam would never collaborate with Al-Queda fundamentalists, do take the time to read Jan T. Gross's "Revolution from Abroad" to learn about the bat guano associated with how Stalin would have never collaborated with Hitler in 1939. In the end there is no difference between Saddam/Al-Queda and Hitler/Stalin. Got that folks??
Posted by: Mescalero at July 17, 2008 11:17 PM (Gwatu)
46
Did you even listen to the tape at Hot Air? He's not talking about an armed civilian national security force. He's talking about how the programs that preceded that line will improve our national security. He talks about civilian volunteers for environmental work, helping vets to find jobs, strengthening the Peace Corps, etc. It's not an armed militia. Is there anything that you will not take out of context?
Posted by: Fauxmaxbaer at July 18, 2008 07:48 AM (llghH)
47
"Is there anything that you will not take out of context? "
He's not taking anything out of context. He's putting the world into context - his context. It all makes sense if you start from the premise that conservatism is the one true way and that your job is to lead others into the light - even if it means you have to disregard the old notions of right and wrong.
Posted by: Faust at July 18, 2008 07:53 AM (+dx2l)
48
Do you guys happen to know that one of the few things that our Founding Fathers agreed on is that we should NOT have a standing military?
In fact, the second amendment that you turn into a fetish object, was created specifically to prevent the US from having a standing army, because, the thinking went, if we had a "well-regulated militia" we wouldn't need to have a bunch of generals warming seats in the Pentagon.
So pardon Senator Obama all to hell for suggesting something that the Founding Fathers wanted, but that we as a country have mostly forgotten while military contractors make lawmakers and vice-presidents rich.
Oh, if you want sources for the bit about the Founding Fathers not wanting a standing army, you can start with Madison, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. If you google their names, you'll find out who they are.
Posted by: PopeRatzo at July 18, 2008 07:58 AM (q6xG/)
49
These far left wing fanatical nut jobs have been calling Conservatives and Republicans Nazi's for years.....decades even. Then one reference here and they all go bezerk. What a bunch of intellectually dishonest Marxists.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 08:09 AM (kNqJV)
50
Do you guys happen to know that one of the few things that our Founding Fathers agreed on is that we should NOT have a standing military?
I wonder if they consulted General George Washington about that, right before they sent the standing military (under his command) to fight the redcoats?
You do realize that the guys in the blue coats were members of our military, don't you?
Good lord......how do you even manage to sign onto the internet?
Posted by: RW at July 18, 2008 08:31 AM (mHiW8)
51
These far left wing fanatical nut jobs have been calling Conservatives and Republicans Nazi's for years.....decades even.
Surely adopting one of those effective left wing nut job tactics is a smart move. Is this the way CY's sort conservatism works now? Any other fanatical left wing nut job ideas CY wants to pick up? Seriously, what makes imitating these sort of silly nut job tactics a good idea?
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 08:35 AM (gm6mQ)
52
Look who else in on the Obama line here...drumroll...Defense secretary Gates:
In the campaign against terrorist networks and other extremists, we know that direct military force will continue to have a role. But over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. What the Pentagon calls “kinetic” operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. ...Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. .... As a career CIA officer I watched with some dismay the increasing dominance of the defense 800 pound gorilla in the intelligence arena over the years. But that scenario can be avoided if – as is the case with the intelligence community today – there is the right leadership, adequate funding of civilian agencies, effective coordination on the ground, and a clear understanding of the authorities, roles, and understandings of military versus civilian efforts, and how they fit, or in some cases don’t fit, together.
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 11:47 AM (gm6mQ)
53
More of DoD Secrtary Gates:
America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long -- relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.
Sounds like Obama: a) civilian agencies are important to our national security strategy and b) they need well-funded. I know, crazy talk.
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 12:01 PM (gm6mQ)
54
Not even a very nice try, stefan. Are you that blinded by his Holiness that you can't even correctly read Gates' speech?
Gates was clearly pointing to continued failures at the State Department and CIA that have resulted in the DoD having to pick up the slack for both diplomatic efforts and intelligence gathering. He wants these existing agencies to do their damn jobs, so DoD can focus on doing there's.
Obama, on the other hand, specifically said he wanted a "national security force."
"National" means United States, or domestic in nature, not a international force.
Security means "police."
Unless Obama was uttering "just words," he was advocating domestic state security, such as all the wonderful agencies of the various countries listed in comments above.
That he would make plainly state his intentions to make his SS "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the strongest military in the history of Planet Earth should be a cause for concern for everyone, and not just becuase he's talking of creating another massive bureaucracy and colossal tax burden.
Why does a free nation that already has the FBI, ATF, and DHS on the federal level, SBIs, state police, and highway patrols on the state level, in conjunction with local sheriffs and police agencies, with the backing the Army and Air Force National Guard and Coast Guard units for the most extreme emergencies, need an additional national domestic security apparatus dwarfing all current federal law enforcement agencies, equal in power and scope to the military?
I'm getting a lot of snark from you lefties, but precious few explanations of why a free nation would need such an imposing force useful only against it's own citizenry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 12:25 PM (xNV2a)
55
What about Jim's observation about Blackwater, a private mercenary army funded by the taxpayers? Didn't they terrorize Katrina victims? Are they subject to rules of law or military conduct?
Posted by: ignatov at July 18, 2008 12:40 PM (uDJ23)
56
Please don't bowdlerize the original quote. Molly Ivins was referring to Pat Buchanan's speech before the 1992 Republican Convention when she said his speech “probably sounded better in the original German.”
Posted by: bonnie tamres at July 18, 2008 05:48 PM (rQ1Uq)
57
Ivins didn't coin the phrase, bonnie she just borrowed it. I remember hearing it as far back as the mid-80s, and I rather suspect it went back quite a bit further than that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 06:11 PM (HcgFD)
58
CY, to liberals time began the first time they heard or experienced something
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 06:55 PM (kNqJV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is The U.S. Media Ready to Concede an Iraqi Victory? Can the Democrats?
I don't think it is an exaggeration to claim that Michael Yon has spent more front-line time with combat forces in Iraq than any journalist for any media organization, so it bears noting when he claims that "...the Iraq War is over. We won."
When another well-traveled independent, Michael Totten, pens a post stating that he is "reluctant" to claim that the war is over—noting that insurgencies don't have official end points such as surrenders—but then provides evidence that it is certainly trending in that direction, it is time to pay attention.
Both Yon and Totten make very well be correct; what remains in Iraq is not a military action best described as a "war" in a conventional sense, and with violence continuing to abate and various militant factions increasingly unable to mount sustained operations of any intensity or duration, calling it even an unconventional war is something a stretch.
Whatever conflict remains it is not a "war," and we can let others quibble over whether the best description of what now remains is a peace-keeping mission, a police action, or something else.
The Sunni insurgency is finished. The sectarian civil war is over. The conflict against al Qaeda in Iraq has been reduced to intelligence-gathering and SWAT-like raids against surviving stragglers and fractured terrorists cells. The Madhi Army has been broken, its leaders killed, captured, or forced to flee to Iran, while the rank and file have faded away as their fellow Shia turned over their weapons caches and turned in militiamen that were often merely criminal thugs. Attrition among Iranian-backed "special groups" has also rendered them incapable of sustaining more than random attacks.
Barring an unforeseen and at this point unlikely and dramatic reversal, the Iraq War is over, and we—and more importantly, the Iraqi's—won.
The U.S. media is beginning to begrudgingly concede to a new reality, but only obliquely. CNN (and Fox News) ran an AP article this morning about bored young soldiers in Iraq seeking action in "the real war in Afghanistan," because they are not seeing any combat in Iraq. It isn't however, a concession of what should be increasingly obvious.
It will be hard—and for some U.S. media outlets that took an extreme position based more upon attempts to shape the politics of the war instead of reporting the news of the conflict, almost impossible—for the U.S. media to admit that the Iraq War ended in victory. The New York Times is one of these outlets that will have a very tough time, as will the McClatchy chain of newspapers, various magazines including TIME and Newsweek, cable news channel MSNBC, and all three networks. Various fringe outlets, particularly those with strong left-leaning politics such as The Nation or Mother Jones, or online outlets such as the Huffington Post or other liberal blogs, may attempt to somehow "redefine" their way into a "loss" by changing the definition of victory, or they may simply decide to never address the subject at all, and hope instead it fades away while they draw their readers elswhere.
For those outlets that made the conflict in Iraqi an editorial attempt to "fight the last war," it will be a bitter defeat. Many of today's top writers, anchors, columnists, editors, producers and publishers cut their editorial teeth and felt at the height of their power at a time when the media shaped a narrative that ended a war and brought down a president that indeed, was a crook. But despite five years of attempts to frame it as such, Iraq was never Vietnam in the desert. The U.S. media was never able to break out of that mindset to any degree, and indeed, relished in the comparisons.
So sure were they of a U.S. defeat that they even made using local propagandists as journalists and sources part of their standard reporting, with little or any probing, vetting, or serious questions asked. From repeatedly seeking comment from an Association of Muslim Scholars openly aligned with the Sunni insurgency (typically without disclosing those insurgent ties), to regularly citing phoned-in reports from anonymous police and military sources miles or even provinces away as they called in one fake massacre after another with reckless abandon, wire services ran fake news without an attempt to vet the stories, because it fit the narrative. It didn't matter that mosques weren't burned with people inside. It didn't matter that dozens of beheaded bodies reported in sectarian violence simply didn't exist. Such stories, real or fake, portrayed the war they wanted.
Reporters and editors who ran such stories were not only not fired by their news agencies for their continued incompetence. Some were instead promoted. There was no penalty for faked or exaggerated news, because it was the extreme, the diabolical, and the hopeless that these news agencies wanted to print, and they weren't all that concerned about where the stories came from.
Now, without another defeat to place on the mantle, U.S. media outlets are unsure of how to act. While even British and Australian newspapers were declaring victory almost a year ago, American outlets simply can't make the admission that they fought the last war, and that a Congress they pushed to help lose the war was unable to hand them the defeat they think we deserved.
Ah, Congress.
Though Democrats have controlled the House and Senate, had public option on their side (thanks to the cooperative shaping of the news), and fiercely antiwar leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Congressional Democrats were shot down over 40 times (was it over 50? I lost count) in attempts to lose the war by defunding or underfunding it.
And while the media's own attempts to frame a lost war were horrific, it was duly elected Congressmen and Senators who attacked the Presidential Administration, the military commanders, and even the solders on the front lines with the most viciousness. To this day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Harry Reid refuse to admit that the war in Iraq is not lost, and is instead very close to being (or is already) won. John Murtha has not apologized to Marines he accused of cold-blooded murder, even as charges against all but one have been dismissed (the last has yet to come to trial).
And then there is Barack Obama.
A gifted speaker with the hardest of hard-left roots, the political neophyte and presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee has refused to admit he was wrong on the war, and though unassailable facts overran his narrative of defeat, he clung and (continues to cling) to a plan for a panicked retreat designed to create a security vacuum and lose a war he thought should never have been fought.
The media, enamored with their Obama as their last best hope for defeat, will follow him in fawning praise as he make a superficial swing through the region to "talk" to military commanders—be assured, he has no intention of actually listening—about the war in Iraq. In the end, will no doubt still return with Dubya's bulldog tenacity to his predetermined plan of defeat. His storied, heavily self-promoted anti-war wishes and a determined cry abandon the conflict at all costs has been the root cause and defining issue his campaign. Obama will cling to it with the grim, fatalistic determination of a suicide bomber.
The U.S. media has pinned their hopes on Obama as their best and perhaps only hope of bringing about an end to the Iraq war that they can cast as a defeat. Are they ready to concede that the Iraq War was won?
Not as long as they have any hope at all that Democrats can salvage a defeat.
Update: Rick Moran has related thoughts on Obama's strange redefinition of "victory" through surrender at Right Wing Nut House.
Having issues with spammers. Comments closed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:25 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So, if the war is over in Iraq, then there isn't any problem with Obama or McCain (or even Bush for that matter) immediately bringing home the vast majority of troops. Or shifting them to Afghanistan.
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 12:10 PM (PMlL4)
2
Only if you are an idiot, diogenes, or someone actively seeking defeat for political advantage, like Senator Obama.
An "immediate" withdrawal is a logistic impossibility. Period. It cannot happen. We have too many men in theater, and too much costly equipment to remove. We cold not pull out in even Obama's 16 months, without leaving hundreds millions, if not billions of dollars in equipment behind, which we would obviously have to replace. And you want "immediately?"
In addition, any sudden, spastic, and arbitrary reduction in force without provisions for a smooth transition to adequately-supported Iraqi forces--a hair-brained scheme championed by the freshman Senator--would create a security vacuum the Iraqis acknowledge that they are not yet ready to fill.
To do what Obama--and obviously you--desire is to create a situation where the security gains made and peace won could potentially be lost. It's a brilliant plan if your intention is to enable rogue militiamen or criminal gangs while allowing terrorists a chance to escape or reform their cells. It's an excellent scheme if you hope to undo gains made by a new democracy, and you see a possible upsurge in violence against civilians tired of war as a political opportunity. If your goal is a desperate bid to hang an albatross around a Republican President's neck and you don't mind risking the lives of the Iraqi people, it's a brilliant idea.
To what end do you want an immediate withdrawal? So that a bunch of bitter left wingers can crow over the bodies of the civilians you helped kill, just so you can say, "I told you we should never have come here?"
It’s a pathetic truism, but a truism nonetheless: when you hear liberals discussing plans for a military withdrawal, you can be sure a genocide is around the corner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2008 12:58 PM (xNV2a)
3
"Whatever conflict remains it is not a "war," and we can let others quibble over whether the best description of what now remains is a peace-keeping mission, a police action, or something else."
I agree. War and mission are not always the same thing. The troops are coming home, and security is being handed over to the Iraqi's one province at a time as they are ready to handle it. I look forward to hearing Obama's 'opinions' once he gets back from Iraq. Should be entertaining.
Thanks. This was an excellent post.
Posted by: Jim at July 17, 2008 01:03 PM (F2N1M)
4
as for the iraq war-i'm sorry white flag waving liberal left wingers.WE WON THEY LOST-admit it,there is no shame in admitting you and your fellow barack hussein osama supporters were wrong.now we really can say "mission accompished"!and now off to afghanistan to kick some more ass!
Posted by: sean at July 17, 2008 01:12 PM (Qu0t4)
5
I would think that the question of withdrawing our armed forces or not (or how many) would and should depend on what their next mission is. What should have been amply demonstrated in the last couple of years to anybody that follows real world events in OEF and OIF, the military, our military, does more than just break things and kill people.
I find it fascinating that the oft repeated mantra of "withdrawing the troops"(by liberals) is voiced nowadays out of what appears to be sheer habit. Perhaps it's some Pavlovian response?
Perhaps it's not been fully recognized by folks, but we (the US), have a strategic presence (the US military in sizeable numbers and demonstrated capability) in the strategic center, of one of our (US) main stragegic interests (the Middle East oil fields). One would think that after realising this, even the most dimwitted would be urging us to capitalize on this fact. Does this mean a continued military presence? Damn, don't know, maybe. It's above my paygrade. Looking at US history, we still have troops stationed in many of the other places where we've liberated people. At their own request I might add. Why not let the political process work that out?
During some of my more cynical moments I wonder if the thought of losing that vision of the "last helicopter out of Iraq" is the only thing that keeps the left repeating their mantra of "BRING THE TROOPS HOME". Cheer up, it'll all be over soon and the left can move on to rewriting the history books about how the Iranians won the Iraqi war.
Posted by: Barney at July 17, 2008 01:15 PM (gbTkf)
6
Are the Democrats ready to concede an Iraqi Victory?
There are six phases to every project
1) enthusiasm,
2) disillusionment,
3) panic,
4) search for the guilty,
5) punishment of the innocent,
6) praise for the non-participants.
We will know when the Democrats break into phase 6.
Posted by: Neo at July 17, 2008 01:45 PM (Yozw9)
7
diogenes,
So, if the war is over in Iraq, then there isn't any problem with Obama or McCain (or even Bush for that matter) immediately bringing home the vast majority of troops. Or shifting them to Afghanistan.
Judging from your comments, you must have driven your parents nuts on summer vacations with your "Are we there yet?" routine.
Your comments further betray unfamiliarity with military SOP when it comes to redeployments of troops and materiel. There's no way you can load vehicles onto ships or aircraft until they've been thoroughly cleaned, maintenanced, and inspected--wouldn't want to import any nasty plant, animal, or insect life into the U.S., now would we? Cleaning and inspecting equipment for shipment either back to the States or elsewhere takes a lot of time. The generals are right when they say there's no way they could properly do this in 16 months--they might even be hard-pressed to do it in 24 given all the procedures that must be followed thanks to Customs, OSHA, EPA, et. al.
As for an Afghanistan "surge," you may not be keeping up with current events. It's clear that a significant reinforcement of troops in that theater is already in the planning stages and, to a certain extent, may already be quietly under way.
The MSM has been--dare I say it?--"crowing" about that recent battle in which 9 of our troops were killed. It was a tactical set-back in that area of the country and a tragic loss, no doubt about it. However, the MSM'ers would do well to remember that even though George Armstrong Custer and 250+ troops were KIA in a single day at the Little Big Horn, within months the same Indian warriors who won that battle were dead, exiled in Canada, on the run, or back on reservations. They got lots of headlines...and still lost the war.
Posted by: MarkJ at July 17, 2008 05:00 PM (ZFVlP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 16, 2008
Flapjack's Gone Daft
We never could have anticipated that Barack Obama would be so un-schooled as to think that the nuclear genie can be be put back in the proverbial bottle, that military or dual-use technology can be selectively unlearned, but there he goes.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.
He added, "The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."
How can Obama claim he will stay "one step ahead of threats of the 21st century," by pretending 20th century technologies can be selectively recaptured and caged?
How can he claim to be ahead of 21st century threats, when he won't face the problems generated by 6th century ideologies?
And does anyone believe that his naive pacifism will be reciprocated by tyrants and dictators?
Obama's speech is filled with platitudes, but we're electing a President, not a bubble-headed pageant winner, and the first-term senator is proving yet again that he simply doesn't have the judgment for the job.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (42)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Flapjack has got his own show on the cartoon network.
Sorry, the system won't let me post a link.
"The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack"
Posted by: iamnot at July 16, 2008 03:57 PM (onj4J)
2
Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT); the new "Prophet"!
Posted by: DaleinAtlanta at July 16, 2008 03:59 PM (BPJn5)
3
Obama seems to want to run a campaign entirely by bumper-stickers.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 16, 2008 05:52 PM (e+Bm0)
4
This is not surprising, and it will make the Dems feel good. He takes the same policy on gun control.
Posted by: Matt at July 16, 2008 06:50 PM (rHW2R)
5
The only country 'Barack Hussein Obama', 'Osama' Bin Laden and the real Saddam 'Hussein' want or wanted to disarm nuclear weapons in is the USA.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 16, 2008 08:33 PM (GAf+S)
6
God help us when we scrap the last warhead and the President-for-Life of Lower Wazootistan says "Oops! I just found a half dozen leftover Soviet warheads in the basement of the Presidential Palace! Who's gonna be top bid?"
Except we won't know about that until the one with the green crescent painted on it shows up in DC.
Ha ha! What riotous fun and wacky hijinks shall ensue!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 16, 2008 09:35 PM (G8YYJ)
7
this guy is Thick as a Brick,what a maroon.I,m tellin ya ,if this wazoo is elected,its gonna be a loooong 4 yrs. stock up on ammo today cause he/they are gonna tax the heck out of it since he/they cant take you weapons.
Posted by: 1903A3 at July 17, 2008 07:29 AM (0JFRo)
8
Meanwhile, he also wants to scrap our defensive capability. ?????
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at July 17, 2008 09:58 AM (73P68)
9
gone daft? he's *been* daft since jump street.
Posted by: redc1c4 at July 17, 2008 10:04 AM (EVovU)
10
this jerk hasn't even finished surrendering in afganistan yet, and he's talking about going into pakistan and starting something with a nuclear armed nation. his war will be ok, little me (harry) will say "i like b.o.'s war."
Posted by: randy at July 18, 2008 10:40 AM (DBLki)
11
How can the Obamanation claim to be at the forefront of the 'next' war (hell he was opposed to the present war and probably was opposed to all the conflicts the US successfully and/or unsuccessfully engaged in during the past thirty years) when he proposes no production of new fissile materials, elimination of missile defense, destruction of satellite wartime capability, slowdowns or eliminations of new weapons programs and reductions in defense budgeting to go to Africa and his civilian combat forces. All told sounds like unilateral disarmament and nuke moratoria prevalent in the leftwing during the 1980s. Yeah, change, that's the ticket.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at July 18, 2008 12:43 PM (W88Qb)
12
""... we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element of our nuclear policy," Obama said."
How does he plan to stop any country from building a bomb? I'd like to know EXACTLY how he plans on eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the globe. Too bad the press will never ask for specifics.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 20, 2008 11:49 AM (HpOT3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
While the Media Slept...
...another province, Diwaniyah, was handed over to Iraqi government control.
This means that for the first time, a democratically-elected Iraqi government is in charge of a majority of the country (10 of 18 provinces). The largest province and former home of the Sunni insurgency, al Anbar, is on the cusp of being handed over as well.
You would think that turning point such as the Iraqis taking over the control of the majority of their country would be a moment that editorial writers, always looking for moments pregnant with symbolism, would gush over.
Alas, Iraq isn't as newsworthy with victory so near at hand (and with the anointed candidate faltering so badly), and so this milestone goes all but unreported.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:18 PM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Not unreported, but framed with a certain flair. The WaPo reported it under this headline "Bombings Kill 22 in Iraq's North
Attacks Coincide With U.S. Handover of Southern Province"
Buried on page A14.
Sheesh!
Posted by: CoRev at July 17, 2008 07:36 AM (0U8Ob)
2
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/17/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at July 17, 2008 12:42 PM (gIAM9)
Posted by: K T Cat at July 18, 2008 10:20 AM (ML6gQ)
4
Do we HAVE to repeat this??? News of this kind coming out of Iraq doesnt get reported because it doesnt do one single thing to help Michelle Obama's children get through dance class or piano lessons or help her pay off the $600 earrings she bought with her share of the national bribe...er, stimulus.
Additionally, good news out of Iraq distracts us from gazing at the Lightworker.
C'mon, people. This is fundamental.
Posted by: mike d at July 18, 2008 12:54 PM (Ug3ki)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ya-hooey!
Remember this picture from yesterday?
It is still on Yahoo's photostream with the (still active) caption:
US soldiers secure the area at a newly installed check-point at the Babadag training facility in Tulcea, Iraq. A string of suicide attacks against Iraqi security forces killed at least 37 people on Tuesday, including 28 when two suicide bombers blew themselves up among a crowd of army recruits, security officials said. (AFP/Daniel Mihailescu)
Sharp-eyed CY reader BohicaTwentyTwo pointed out the obvious visual clues that the photo and caption quite simply doesn't match up.
The soldiers in the photos were wearing MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System) training equipment, and the blank-firing adapters on the end of each weapon (more obvious on the bright red adapter on the M4 in the foreground, though the pull-ring on the MG's black-firing adapter in the turret in the background was also clearly visible).
As blank-firing MILES training gear makes it impossible to "secure" anything, it was obvious that the photo was mis-captioned. A second look at the photo also revealed that an obsolete BDU woodland camo pattern was mixed with the new ACU camo pattern used by the Army, and the HMMWV in the photo was an unarmored version also painted in woodland, whereas the HMMWV presently deployed to Iraq is the desert tan up-armored version. Even the foliage in the background seemed suspect. A quick scan of photographer Daniel Mihailescu's work also placed him in Romania less than five days earlier. How did he get to an obscure corner of Iraq so quickly?
I was quick to blame the AFP for this error (considering their history of photo captioning errors, it was a reasonable assumption), but as slublog first noted in the comments at Hot Air, the caption above was not the caption that ran with the original photo.
This was (click here for larger).
The caption sent out by AFP (as was the screen cap sent by AFP above as evidence) read:
ROMANIA, BABADAG : US soldiers secure the area at a new installed check-point at Babadag training facility in the county of Tulcea, during a joint task force-east rotation 2008 training exercise, on July 14, 2008. Over 900 US military personnel participates at the training exercise meant to train US and Romanian soldiers in simulated combat situations as well as improving the mixt [sic]team working capabilities on the war fields like Iraq and Afganistan. AFP PHOTO / DANIEL MIHAILESCU
The photo in question had nothing to do with the events in Iraq. As noted above, the Babadag training facility in the county of Tulcea is in the country of Romania.
This photo:- Was recaptioned by Yahoo;
- Was recaptioned to associate it with events that occurred roughly 1,500 miles away, and a day later;
- Did not be long in Yahoo's "Iraq" photostream at all.
We knew before that the originators and publishers/end users can fake photos and/or captions to create fauxtography.
Thanks to Yahoo's caption manipulation, we now know we have to worry about the middlemen as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:00 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's nuts! And kinda makes me angry. I mean how is the general public supposed to know it is being misled?
Posted by: Kat at July 16, 2008 11:06 AM (2TFxH)
2
The new media motto, 'anything to make a lie appear true'.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 16, 2008 11:23 AM (I4yBD)
3
What was their motive? Just laziness by the Yahoo employees, who needed an Iraq photo and thought they'd make it up? That's my guess.
Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes at July 16, 2008 02:53 PM (u6JCa)
4
The left will do anything to smear our troops
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 16, 2008 03:23 PM (kNqJV)
5
I wonder what action AFP will take against Yahoo for altering their content? I cannot imagine they are too happy about that - that's their turf!
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 16, 2008 05:14 PM (TUWci)
6
I've asked Yahoo why they faked the caption on a picture which so clearly shows a training exercise in Romania, not a battleground in Iraq.
I don't expect an answer.
Posted by: Troika37 at July 17, 2008 09:35 AM (Wy7pz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2008
O'Hanlon: Flapjack's Position on Iraq "Height of Absurdity," Hints ObamaMessiah Is Too Incompetent for Presidency
Michael, tell us how you really feel:
Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.
"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."
Actually, that is exactly what he is intoning, he just doesn't want to be blamed for suggesting it: Barack Obama shouldn't be president.
The presidency doesn't come with training wheels, which O'Hanlon, most conservatives, many moderates and independents, and an increasing number of Democrats (to their horror) are starting to realize as they weigh the candidate's possibility of success.
Obama lacks executive experience, leadership experience, has no record of bipartisanship or significant legislative accomplishments, and has padded his resume to a shameless degree. With zero governing and wafer-thin legislative experience, he is running his campaign entirely on personal charisma and vague promises.
But Obama's storied charisma is wearing thin, and his gimmicks—such as labeling every unfavorable eventuality or troubling flaw in his hoped-for ascendancy a "distraction"—are starting to be picked up on, and picked apart.
His speeches, like the one he gave today, incorporate not just the nuance and shading of truth we expect from politicians, but outright, direct and unambiguous falsehoods based upon how he wishes the world was, not how it is.
Obama claimed in his speech today:
Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge.
That is a direct lie. Iraqi has made significant progress in 15 of 18 fronts, according to the U.S. embassy. I'd note that this is far more progress than the U.S. Congress has made during a comparable time period. Obama isn't part of the solution for Iraq's government. He's part of the problem in America's.
They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country.
Really?
Try Solar powered infrastructure improvements, at that.
You'd think that a Democrat would like the fact that Iraq is "going green" as it reinvests in it's infrastructure. Instead, he, like his fellow elected Democrats, dally in Congress as they have for decades, philosophizing about energy sources that might be at some point in the distant future, while ignoring practical solutions to our current energy needs. We'd all love to live in world of cute fuzzy bunnies and unicorns where utterly clean energy sources existed, but that mythical source doesn't yet exist, and isn't powering the machines at the local neonatal intensive care unit, keeping our little miracles alive.
Most Americans understand that and deal with those practicalities. Congressional Democrats such as Barack Obama don't.
They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.
That too, is a lie, as the passing of amnesty laws and the releasing of hundreds prisoners (including Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein) was one of those key sticking points of a new government including Iraqi Sunnis that sat out the country's formation.
Nor did Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ever call for a timeline for withdrawal; his statements were misinterpreted, and were literally lost in translation. This a fact Obama doubtlessly knew before claiming Maliki said this in his speech, but it was convenient lie for Obama, and one he desperately wishes were true. He needs it to be true. He'll pretend it is true.
But it isn't.
Betraying a radical politicized worldview that is more cult theology than a practical governing philosophy, Barack Obama is beginning to scare his political enemies and most ardent supporters alike.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:04 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Where are all the lefties?
Posted by: Matt at July 15, 2008 05:39 PM (rHW2R)
2
Obama is a craven liar and his leftist fools are beginning to see that for all their supposed superior intelligence, they have yet again nominated a incompetent boob who stands no chance of being elected President.
Thankfully for our country.
Posted by: LogicalUS at July 15, 2008 09:15 PM (ETOgT)
3
CY:
I'm confused. Are you saying that Obama isn't the messiah who will transform Americans into angels?
Do you mean to say that he is a mere politician from Chicago who gulled the lunatic Left into believing his guff? Am we really not the ones we have been waiting for?
I am shocked and appalled at your usage of reasoning skills. How very Conservative not to let your heart trump your brain.
Posted by: wjo at July 16, 2008 09:46 AM (+kP2/)
4
This is a good idea and can be used here. The Coast Guard has used solar power for ATONs (Aids to navigation - buoys and lighthouses) for years. I also know of one solar powered warning sign on I-96 in Michigan (it is on a sharp turn and the sign warns of a traffic ramp just past the curve).
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 16, 2008 05:25 PM (TUWci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Framing Obama
Matthew Yglesias wants to get into a framing discussion and attempts to argue than an ABC poll was unfair to his man-crush/candidate.
Without nailing down the dishonesties in Yglesias' attempts to recast McCain's position, let's get into the specifics of what will be lost by Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.
Logistically, it is deemed quite improbable, verging on impossible, for U.S. combat forces to perform an orderly withdrawal in 16 months. A withdrawal of personnel is possible, but at the cost of leaving behind hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in taxpayer-purchased equipment that would have to be repurchased stateside, increasing future government debt, promising us yet another tax increase courtesy of Obama.
A commenter of his (Allan) claims that "Obama supports removing our troops from Iraq in an orderly process," but that is the height of fantasy; those who work in logistics have noted that his plan would promote chaos and unnecessary stresses on the supply chain and limited port facilities that have to process, decontaminate, pack, and ship outbound equipment and supplies.
This is simply the logistical argument, ignoring the dangers of a too-quick handover in provinces where Iraqi forces are still not deemed capable of taking the lead. Considering the stellar progress and trajectory of security gains and government progress in the last year, it is possible that in 16 months that the Iraqi security forces can take the lead in the eight remaining provinces where the U.S. is in charge of security, but it would be foolish and counterproductive to predetermine the removal of the safety net U.S. forces would still provide as Iraqi forces become more competent and confident.
Unless, of course, you have some vested interest in defeat.
Then there is the simple common-sense matter of which troops Obama wants to remove (combat forces). As a Iraqi war soldier or Marine (I forget which) remarked last week, who's going to be left in Obama's Army in Iraq, cooks and truck drivers?
Who is going to protect our remaining troops and positions and backstop the Iraqis if Obama pulls out our combat troops? Supply clerks? Dental hygienists?
Obama's plans for Iraq, like all of his other plans, are formulated with the impulsiveness and lack of concern for the unintended consequences of international affairs we'd expect from a neophyte government official not even one term removed from an inconsequential and lackluster state government stint, and a responsibility-free community organizer job before it.
Like so many things attached to the name Obama, his withdrawal plan for Iraqi is based upon irresponsible promises divorced from what he can actually deliver without causing far more hurt, a truism of his campign that can just as readily be applied to his domestic and foreign policy perscriptions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I thought the Dalai Obama was going to formulate his Iraq plan in consultation with commanders on the ground. I haven't seen any evidence of consultation. Why is he announcing a plan in advance of his visit? It seems like more empty rhetoric from an empty suit.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 15, 2008 09:45 AM (i/fLn)
2
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 15, 2008 09:45 AM - "I thought the Dalai Obama was going to formulate his Iraq plan in consultation with commanders on the ground. I haven't seen any evidence of consultation. Why is he announcing a plan in advance of his visit? It seems like more empty rhetoric from an empty suit."
Hussien's supporters just wouldn't accept his meeting unconditionally with US military commanders, as this type of treatment is reserved specifically for democratic allies (such as Iranian nutjob - Amadinejad). Nancy Pelosi fully approves, as she gives Amadinejad full credit for the fruits of US soldiers blood sweat and tears - in making the surge a success.
Announcing a plan prior to actually visiting Iraq is just further proof of the Obamessiah's omnipotence, and not part of the empty suit's regular song and dance! Ummm boppa oooo mauh mauh... uh uh uh oh.... Obama lama ding dong! OOoooooo!
Posted by: GL at July 15, 2008 03:24 PM (vpAFg)
3
Little known fact:
When George Washington was a boy, he got a new hatchet and was eager to try it out. He went to the prized cherry tree and began whacking. (the tree that is)
When his father discovered the cherry tree’s absence, he asked George, “George, what happened to the prized cherry tree?” To which George replied, “Father, I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” To which his father replied, “Then you shall have 10 lashes boy.” To which George replied, “Perhaps I was inartful in my truth-telling. What I meant to say was that my friend Benedict told me that it was not a cherry tree and it would be a good tree to practice with my new ax. So I chopped it down thinking it was not the prized cherry tree. So in effect, I did not chop down the cherry tree. I’m reshuffling my friends at this time.”
Posted by: Neo at July 15, 2008 04:50 PM (Yozw9)
4
And the logistical argument is a good one to use as it isn't an attack on his person, but an attackon his experience and judgment. How you get form here to there (and vice versa) is something very few take into account.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 16, 2008 05:31 PM (TUWci)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
AFP Blows it Again Maybe Not This Time [Updated]
[See the final update at the bottom -- ed.]
So I'd like AFP to explain one simple thing to me about this photo:
US soldiers secure the area at a newly installed check-point at the Babadag training facility in Tulcea, Iraq. At least 28 people were killed when two suicide bombers blew themselves up in a crowd of recruits on an Iraqi army base in an area known to be a stronghold of Al-Qaeda fighters.
(AFP/Daniel Mihailescu)
Just how is it possible that U.S. combat forces are protecting the site of the Babadag training facility in Tulcea, Iraq when equipped with non-lethal MILES gear that fires nothing but blanks?
And do we even train with MILES gear in Iraq?
I call shenanigans.
Update: The vehicle in the photo a non-up-armored HMMWV, painted in an obsolete woodland camo pattern (as are the vests of both soldiers, and helmet cover of the solder in the HMMWV), a pattern no longer used by U.S. forces in Iraq.
This picture is probably several years old, and is probably taken somewhere other than Iraq.
The photographer, Daniel Mihailescu, was theoretically in Bucharest, Romania, just five days ago, in order to take this picture. Is it even a practical possibility that the sports photographer even get from Bucharest to Iraq in less than five days?
They have the details of the event completely wrong.. did AFP they credit the wrong photographer as well?
Update: Wrong Date, Wrong Country, Wrong Event. They did, however, credit the correct photographer. Thanks to slublog in the comments at Hot Air.
Final Update: After continued digging involving the help of the U.S miltary and AFP itself, the source of this screw-up has been confirmed, and it isn't the AFP.
Surprise!
Details tomorrow; even bloggers have to sleep.
(h/t CY-reader BohicaTwentyTwo)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:56 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Would they be wearing the woodland camo colors in Iraq too? It looks awfully green in the picture.
Posted by: Sebastian at July 15, 2008 09:20 AM (q/ins)
2
What a bunch of asshats. This is clearly training in CONUS.
Posted by: The Fastest Squirrel at July 15, 2008 09:24 AM (z62e3)
3
Hey, I wore woodland cammies in Iraq! Of course, that was during Desert Storm.
Posted by: James Joyner at July 15, 2008 09:52 AM (2samc)
4
Its a recent picture, they both have ACU's on. The reason for the woodland camo on the HUMVEE and kevlar cover is most like the result of being in the reserves or national guard. I am in the reserves and our vehicles and equipment are still woodland camo
Posted by: jacob at July 15, 2008 10:05 AM (mDH4K)
5
Its most likely either a KFOR exercise or training at the JRTC at Fort Polk. I can't tell, but the Soldier to the right looks like he has the old PASGT helmet and not the ACH, so it is either an old photo or a reserve or NG unit.
Posted by: Baker at July 15, 2008 10:20 AM (4nuZr)
6
No, the photo is real. These soldiers are part of Maybe President Obambo's new military exploratory committee. Bullets hurt people and cause pain so from now on no live rounds will be used and the soldiers will just yell "BANG"!
Posted by: Gripper at July 15, 2008 10:26 AM (MQVqX)
7
Guys -
Read the bumber numbers. That's 18th MP BDE, an active duty unit. Odds are 50-50 that this was taken at Ft Bragg or Ft Polk, during a training exercise. I highly doubt that picture is anywhere in the Gulf, given the presence of MILES gear. That's some unit training for their rotation to Iraq or Afghanistan.
In any event, there's no way in hell they're guarding anything with BFA's on their weapons.
Posted by: Brant at July 15, 2008 10:27 AM (5Qy10)
8
Thanks for showing the right photo. I know when I link to the Yahoo photos and they add more, the wrong photo shows. I had faith you would find the right one. And that's some mighty fine foliage they got going on in the background.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 15, 2008 10:31 AM (oC8nQ)
9
Ok well actually in 2003-2004 and even up till 2005 there WERE units using woodland cammo vehicles, I deployed with the Hawai'i based 2nd Bde 25th ID, and ALL our vehicles were woodland cammo. RFI took care of the helmet covers and we got the ACHs in-country. The MILES gear can't be explained away though. I'm willing to bet its either a Guard unit, or an MP unit, judgeing by the 18th Bde. More likely an MP unit. As to where it was taken, well that's anyone's guess unless they can tell what unit it was and when it was taken
Posted by: Doc B at July 15, 2008 11:01 AM (R9l8s)
10
Nice catch. How prominent is AFP (i.e. Agence France-Presse) located at afp.com?
Posted by: Mark30339 at July 15, 2008 11:09 AM (nqCwQ)
11
"Securing the area"... with blank deflectors (that's what those red things on the ends of the barrels are).
I don't think so.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at July 15, 2008 11:47 AM (yiMNP)
12
To add just for fun: The vehicle itself: M-998 Variant with NO uparmor package. (Standard mil-spec class 2 glass, no extra armor visable, standard windshield wipers) Standard turrent ring, (new turret rings are armored up, powered, and called the 'turtle' cause thats what it looks like) No AC unit visable, (yeah just about all of the HMMWVs now have either integrated air conditioning or add-on units) Standard radiator (front grill shows no mdifications that I see on a daily basis) and FWIW, the lights aren't taped over as 98% of them are up north, and even down here in Kuwait (train the way you fight.) and lastly, That type of bumper grill is also VERY rare in Iraq... usually they have a MUCH heavier one. Just my 2 Cents.
Posted by: Big Country at July 15, 2008 12:08 PM (niydV)
13
Just read the Hotair updates. I could understand the French having problems telling the difference between training weapons and real weapons (what, too soon?), but not being able to tell the difference between Iraq and Romania?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 15, 2008 12:15 PM (oC8nQ)
14
There isnt even a Tulcea, Iraq
Posted by: Web at July 15, 2008 12:55 PM (ORNl2)
15
Maybe "Tulcea" is the mangled French pronunciation of "Tulsa".
Posted by: buck at July 15, 2008 01:54 PM (Rjnj1)
16
I thought under the potential new ROE under the possible President Obama even yelling "Bang," was unacceptable unless it was first vetted by the lawyers and then only allowed to be spoken at no more than 60 decibels in case of those being "shot" at that are sensitive to noise?
Posted by: Pat Patterson at July 15, 2008 02:00 PM (6SDmD)
17
Babadag is in Tulcea, ROMANIA. It's a V Corps training facility. This is a recent photo, but not in Iraq. See Hotair, Slublog.
Posted by: Cyfir at July 15, 2008 02:13 PM (4nuZr)
18
Anyone familiar with firearms would recognize that the weapons had blank adaptors. Blank adaptors cover the end of the muzzle and allow a weapon firing blanks to retain enough back pressure to chamber another round. Without the blank adaptor each blank would have to be chambered manually. Firing live rounds through a weapon with a blank adaptor would cause the weapon to explode in the firer's face.
Keeping the barrel of weapon unobstructed is one of those day-one things you learn if you've ever been taught anything about guns. I think this would be called a "teaching moment" for some of the media.
Posted by: CW at July 15, 2008 03:14 PM (7vYjW)
19
Tulcea and Babadag are in Romania.
Posted by: mircea at July 15, 2008 05:28 PM (A0bT7)
20
Like who cares? They pulled a file photo out so mental midgets like you can waste time complaining. Wow, we learn amazing pieces of trivia from bloggers, sure beats the dreaded MSM.
Posted by: Jakester at July 15, 2008 07:06 PM (YTXSo)
21
Jakester, if we're wasting time complaining, what are you doing when you're complaining about our complaining, hmmm?
Talk about a distinct lack of logic...
Posted by: C-C-G at July 15, 2008 07:39 PM (e+Bm0)
22
Good call, Jakester, this has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity or accuracy of the media, their high editorial standards, and their vaunted layers of fact checking.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 15, 2008 08:28 PM (G8YYJ)
23
As someone said earlier, that truck is a M998. To the reservist earlier, yes some reserve units do still have old trucks, and old uniforms, but when they are activated they get the new uniforms, and they fall in on the vehicles and equipment of the unit they are doing the RIP with in theater, they do not take their old trucks with them.
That is something you would know if you had deployed.
Posted by: Matt at July 15, 2008 08:48 PM (rHW2R)
24
This isn't AFP or the photographer's fault. They correctly captioned the photo. The Yahoo editor is the one who altered the text.
Posted by: joey at July 15, 2008 09:52 PM (gs06g)
25
Its never your fault, always blame it on someone else.
Yeah that sounds about right.
Posted by: Matt at July 16, 2008 10:34 PM (rHW2R)
26
The only other thing that I noticed was that leaves are not found in any desert, unless they are non-native the only green comes from riverside tropical plants that resemble a tall aloe plant.
I also would like to note that it probably wasn't taken in the south. Ft. Benning and Ft Bragg are surrounded with weeping willows, and that looks more like an elm. I really can't tell for sure.
I would guess Colorado.
Posted by: lawrface at July 16, 2008 11:41 PM (eLCnd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2008
Just Following Orders?
Does knowing of serious crimes being covered up by your superiors compel a moral obligation to expose the crimes, even if it potentially costs you your career to blow the whistle?
More than substantiated 300 Vietnam-era war crimes, and more than 200 possible war criminals were never prosecuted, even though those in charge had the opportunity to seek justice for rape, murder, torture, and other atrocities... so who is to blame?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:47 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As someone involve in internal investigations into law enforcement misconduct I can tell you that no agency wants to either acknowledge or stop internal misconduct. Most agencies when confronted by internal misconduct that is not high profile ignore it, excuse it, or hide it. There is just not any concern for right or wrong in most government agencies. Just concern for bad publicity. Even better if the person who brings bad publicity does not have a protector or is not white.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 14, 2008 10:14 PM (onLkk)
2
If he (Gard) wasn’t the commander, no he wouldn’t have had court-martial authority. But it would be interesting to see what recommendations he made. Did he recommend further investigation? Pursuing court-martial for those allegations substantiated? Did he make a recommendation that no good could come from “picking at the scab” that was just forming over the wound of Vietnam?
Curiously, he says the report went out “over his signature”. It’s either his report, or it ain’t.
Posted by: XBradTC at July 15, 2008 01:48 AM (pSXbN)
3
The mind reels at the hypocrisy and opportunism being displayed here.
Let me try to explain. When John Kerry's Winter Soldiers first spoke out about the issue of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam in 1971, they were dragged through the mud by the right-wing (from the Nixon Whitehouse on down to editorial writers, and, eventually, author Guenter Lewy) as a pack of liars and frauds who hadn't even served in the military, let alone in Vietnam.
When Kerry ran for president in 2004, the whole liars-and-frauds meme regarding the Winter Soldiers was reanimated by the right-wing in order to tar the Democratic candidate. The Swift Vets for "Truth" were most active in this smear campaign, followed closely by Scott Swett, Jugs Burkett, and Sean Hannity over at Fox News.
The Confederate Yankee himself recently took umbrage at Brian DePalma's factually-based movie (Casualties of War) about a rape-murder committed by members of the 1st Cavalry Division in 1966, arguing that the movie was actually fiction and an insult to the troops.
Even more recently, in the messages following a recent CY article about Colonel Bud Day, the Confederate Yankee's readers renewed the old right-wing smear that Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were liars in speaking out about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam.
But, now, in order to cast aspersions on a retired general linked to the Obama campaign, the Confederate Yankee is quite willing to discuss the hundreds of war crimes committed by U.S. Army troops in Vietnam, confirmed by the army's own CID, and subsequently covered up by the powers that be during the 1970s.
Doesn't that mean that John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers are owed a HUGE apology?
And, please, the cover-up described in this post did not originate with that retired general. The White House and the Department of Defense wanted the whole issue of war crimes to go away after the public-relations debacle that was the Lieutenant Calley court-martial of 1970-71.
Remember the Calley case? Two infantry companies from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Division, supervised from above by the task-force commander, the brigade commander, and the division commander, burned down three hamlets (including, most infamously, My Lai 4) on March 16, 1968, in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. In the process, some 500 unarmed Vietnamese were killed by U.S. infantryman, their platoon leaders, and one of their company commanders. (Yes, officers were pulling triggers on women, children, and old people along with their stressed-out nineteen-year-old grunts.)
The army could have court-martialled dozens of officers and men for their role in the My Lai massacre. Death sentences would not have been out of bounds for what happened that day in March of '68. Instead of seeing justice done, however, the army pinned the whole mess on one incompetent lieutenant named Calley (who certainly did his share of killing, no doubt), while letting everyone above and below that hapless platoon leader off the hook.
Remember that the American public rallied behind Calley, bombarding the White House with telegrams decrying the lieutenant's conviction. As a result, President Nixon intervened in Calley's behalf; in the end, the convincted murderer did a couple years of house arrest, never seeing the inside of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
When the Commander in Chief personally intervenes on behalf of a war criminal found guilty by the army's own judicial system it's pretty obvious which way the wind's blowing.
Thus, the entire military establishment allowed the hundreds of other cases that could have been prosecuted to disappear down a black hole.
You want to blame this now on one general?
Crazy, just crazy. And, like I said, doesn't this mean that the years of right-wing smears against Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were pure B.S.?
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 15, 2008 04:18 AM (vTJkv)
4
Keith,
I asked for your opinion (as a Vietnam War historian) on the milblog post that was the basis for this article, before/em> I wrote this post. While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.
Now?
Just a little late.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2008 05:57 AM (HcgFD)
5
Keith, if Kerry really DID witness war crimes (insted of just making stuff up...) didn't HE have a responsibility to report them? And by report, I mean to actually inform his chain of command and request charges of the JAG's office, and not just to babble on to Congress and the unwashed brigades of the antiwar movement?
Kerry did not in fact speak to the JAG; he did not go up his chain of command to report war crimes and request charges. Instead he waited until he was out of country and had 'self-seperated' from the Navy to make claims that he did not at that time and never did at any subsequent time support with facts.
If the Winter Soldier claims were truthful, and Kerry was truly a conscientious officer and good American (instead of a self-serving and ambitious lout), why didn't he report and give evidence so there could be prosecutions? If the claims were true and accurate, didn't his reticence mean that murderers and criminals were allowed to remain in the military and continue their acts- putting civilians in danger?
Either Kerry was telling the truth- and his failure to exercise due diligence as an officer and a gentleman resulted in failures to investigate and prosecute war crimes... or he was a publicity-seeking scut who lied to Congress in pursuit of headlines and political prominence. Which one was it? And which Kerry do YOU stand by?
Posted by: DaveP. at July 15, 2008 07:11 AM (6iy97)
6
Crossposted from Pajamas Media piece:
Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk’s piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.
If you had read it (I assume you’re not intentionally “covering it up”), you would know that the military most certainly did NOT have “the legal option to pursue all 203 suspects even after they were discharged.” As Greyhawk himself pointed out, the military may only prosecute “ex-soldiers” who are retired and drawing pay (I include certain reservists per UCMJ). And those “ex-soldiers” could not have been prosecuted by a civilian court under any circumstances.
I look forward to seeing the correction in your piece.
I enjoyed my conversation with Greyhawk, a blogger who seems genuinely interested in the facts.
I invite anyone who’s interested to read that comment thread:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030528.html
Posted by: skylark at July 15, 2008 01:22 PM (NfU2F)
7
DaveP:
Kerry did not testify at WSI. He never said he personally witnessed the crimes and abuses WSI participants testified to.
Posted by: skylark at July 15, 2008 01:25 PM (NfU2F)
8
And yet he brought them up, time and again, as if he had. Who was he trying to convince? Why the insistance on repeating hearsay? Are these the actions of an officer and a gentleman?
Posted by: Dave P. at July 15, 2008 01:30 PM (q6tuN)
9
Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk's piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.
I wrote my post on July 11. You began commenting on July 12, after I'd read the post at Mudville and composed my own. It's more than a stretch to claim that I "ignored" something that didn't exist when my article was composed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2008 01:39 PM (xNV2a)
10
(Crossposted at Pajamas Media)
To Bob Owens:
Well, it would be a “stretch” if you had posted your piece on the 11th or even the 12th. The fact that you posted it on the 14th makes it more of a reasonable assumption.
But thanks for clearing that up. We both agree that you did not intentionally ignore the thread.
I look forward to seeing your corrections, now that you do have more information.
(Let me know if you’d like more links for your research.)
Posted by: skylark at July 15, 2008 08:32 PM (BHBKp)
11
(Crossposted at Pajamas Media)
Empowering a military prosecutor to investigate why senior military officials of their era refused to prosecute substantiated war crimes charges for almost four decades should provide both men with precisely what they desire.
Well, empowering any sort of investigation might prove embarrassing for a few folks, that’s for sure.
Like maybe the 1973-1975 Secretary of Defense who declined to push for prosecution of substantiated war crimes charges, and who sat on the information for all these years.
Yes indeed, Bush homeland security advisor and McCAIN CAMPAIGN ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR James Schlesinger sure has some ’splainin’ to do.
WaPo
Not to mention his successor as secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
Not to mention the Secretary of the Army who declined to press charges, Howard Callaway. Possibly he didn’t want to jinx his chances at his next job, as campaign manager for Gerald Ford. Of course Ford knew all about the report anyway, as it also went straight to the White House.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:28 pm
Posted by: skylark at July 15, 2008 08:34 PM (BHBKp)
12
DaveP wrote:
And yet he brought them up, time and again, as if he had.
Could you give some examples, please?
Posted by: skylark at July 15, 2008 08:46 PM (BHBKp)
13
Mr. Owens, sorry about any communication screw-ups, but when you wrote me, I tried to explain that I'm currently checking out with terminal lung cancer, and don't have loads of time on my hands to answer correspondence. (I'm too busy cryin' for myself!) Sorry that I didn't respond BEFORE you wrote your piece.... but I would have basically written to you personally what I posted at your blog, anyway.
In any event, as new information comes in, it's easy to update, rewrite, etc.
To the rest of y'all, it is beyond amusing (or disgusting) that you keep calling Kerry and the Winter Soldiers liars when the evidence from the government's own archives is overwhelming that U.S. atrocities in Vietnam were a major problem, and, further, that they were covered up by just about everyone in the chain of command.
More later.....
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 15, 2008 09:38 PM (vTJkv)
14
(Crossposted at PM)
Bob Owens wrote:
While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns and have an impact on shaping this article was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.
And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?
Posted by: skylark at July 16, 2008 12:12 AM (BHBKp)
15
I'm currently checking out with terminal lung cancer
My prayers are with you, sir.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 16, 2008 07:20 AM (e+Bm0)
16
And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?
Having read both your material and Mr. Nolan's opinions?
Truthfully? Not much.
Like it or not, De Palma's war films were both fictionalized accounts presented by a director with a clear perspective and publicly-admitted political agenda. That they use the description "based on real events" is your big clue that much of what is contained is poetic license--fiction--even if parts or even large portions are true in the broad details. You're welcome to read that post, and tell me where I was wrong.
I don't know much about the Winter Soldiers and haven't commented on them much as a result, and would not presume to answer for others.
I do know that the overwhelming majority of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record, and indeed, I've even seen strong, possibly ironclad evidence that he did lie about some of his record, such his claim of sailing into Cambodia on a river than never crosses out of Vietnam. And there is the sticky detail that he has never released his records.
Frankly, I find the "everybody else did it, too," defense of Gard to be pathetic; if his superiors (including Schlesinger, Rummy, white House officials, or anyone else) were behind letting these crimes go unpunished, then those still surviving should "hang" as well.
Gard, in my mind, is something of a hypocrite for calling for McCain to be held accountable for everything he's ever said or done, when Gard may have followed the laws of that time and his chain of commands wishes, but proved to be a moral failure for participating in a whitewash of war crimes.
If there truly was no mechanism to try any of those 203 men--and that would depend on them being all draftees, and as I understand it, none of them career soldiers who retired or who are drawing disability or other military benefits--then a correction may be in order. I find it rather doubtful, however, that all 203 men, and 300+ incidents, were committed only by draftees and other men that could not be touched by the laws of that time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 16, 2008 10:13 AM (xNV2a)
17
Well, thank you, CCG.
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 16, 2008 03:41 PM (vTJkv)
18
Quick response, Mr. Owens:
1.) I'll give you this: Casualties of War was indeed a melodramatic mess of a movie, with a wholly invented fragging scene near the end. The crux of the story was absolutely true, however, to include the fact that no one in a leadership position gave a damn about the rape and murder committed by the squad leader and three of his men.
The non-fiction book was much better, but included even more U.S. war crimes than shown in the movie: the rape-murder wasn't the first time that unit had gotten out of hand. Of course, the book also pointed out the abuse metted out to those hapless villagers by the Viet Cong, too.
2.) I'll give you that I think Kerry's tales of crossing into Cambodia could easily be exaggerations.... but I've hardly met a veteran (including retired generals and holders of the Medal of Honor) who don't exaggerate a bit when talkin' about The Nam.
Anyway, that Cambodian stuff is small potatos. The Swiftees for the "Truth" hammered a guy with a rock-solid Silver Star (see Bill Rood, Doug Reese, etc), who was held in high esteem by all but one of his crew, as a coward, an incompetent, a war criminal with a dishonorable discharge.
All those charges fall apart upon close examination.
As do the Swiftee's tales of the Winter Soldiers all being fakes and liars.
3.) What would you have had Brigadier General Gard do? Steal all those war-crimes files and hand them over to The New York Times a la Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers?
Had he done so back in the '70s, the right-wing would have slaughtered him as a traitor smearing the names of brave soldiers who had not technically been convicted of anything.
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 16, 2008 03:52 PM (vTJkv)
19
To Bob Owens:
And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?
Having read both your material and Mr. Nolan's opinions?
Truthfully? Not much.
In which case your snarky "too late" note to Keith Nolan was pointless.
Frankly, I find the "everybody else did it, too," defense of Gard to be pathetic; if his superiors (including Schlesinger, Rummy, white House officials, or anyone else) were behind letting these crimes go unpunished, then those still surviving should "hang" as well.
Except that of all of those, Gard was the only one NOT in a position to "let these crimes go unpunished."
Gard, in my mind, is something of a hypocrite for calling for McCain to be held accountable for everything he's ever said or done, when Gard may have followed the laws of that time and his chain of commands wishes, but proved to be a moral failure for participating in a whitewash of war crimes.
Possibly it is in your mind, because I don't see anywhere that Gard has called on McCain to be held accountable "for everything he's ever said or done." Unless you know of another instance where he did that, this is exactly what he said:
Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."
So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.
Gard article
If there truly was no mechanism to try any of those 203 men--and that would depend on them being all draftees, and as I understand it, none of them career soldiers who retired or who are drawing disability or other military benefits--then a correction may be in order. I find it rather doubtful, however, that all 203 men, and 300+ incidents, were committed only by draftees and other men that could not be touched by the laws of that time.
I never said there was "no mechanism to try any of those 203 men." I said the only way those who were discharged could be tried in a military court would be if they were retired or in limited cases, reservists.
And of course it wouldn't depend on them being draftees. Enlistees can be discharged without taking retirement as well. Being a recipient of disability benefits does not make you subject to the UCMJ.
Persons subject to UCMJ
In any event, none of them could be prosecuted in a civilian court, which I believe was one of your main points.
I look forward to seeing your corrections.
Posted by: skylark at July 16, 2008 10:43 PM (5zvdj)
20
To Bob Owens:
I do know that the overwhelming majority of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record
Demonstrably false.
Crew directory
and indeed, I've even seen strong, possibly ironclad evidence that he did lie about some of his record, such his claim of sailing into Cambodia on a river than never crosses out of Vietnam.
Also demonstrably false.
December 1968
February 1969
And there is the sticky detail that he has never released his records.
He has. Just not to your satisfaction.
What exactly is missing from the records he's published or made available for inspection?
Be specific, please.
Posted by: skylark at July 16, 2008 10:49 PM (5zvdj)
21
"The overwhelming number of men who served with John Kerry denounced him for his war related record."
Sorry, but that is blatantly, and demonstrably, false.
For example, just try to find any of the 25 guys who were present at the incident for Which Kerry received the Silver Star who "denounced him for his war related record". In fact, there are none.
If one is trying to make that statment due to the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" being "against Kerry", well, that just doesn't wash. Most of those guys never saw Kerry in Vietnam, much less serve with him.
Doug Reese
Posted by: Doug Reese at July 18, 2008 03:50 AM (oaZdE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 117 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.5732 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5285 seconds, 401 records returned.
Page size 353 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
