Confederate Yankee
May 29, 2008
Yon: The Buck Stops
The story of the misleading DC Metro memo issued by the Department of Defense continues as Michael Yon digs into the authenticity of the memo's origins and skewers a critic in the process.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:54 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Marine Removed From Duty For Proselytizing in Fallujah
From Multi-National Force – West PAO, via email:
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq – A Coalition force service member was removed from his duties today amid concerns from Fallujah's citizens regarding reports of inappropriate conduct.
Multi-National Force - West initiated an investigation into reports that a coin with a Bible verse written in Arabic was distributed to Iraqi citizens as they passed through a Fallujah entry control point. If the allegation is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken.
"Regulations prohibit members of the coalition force from proselytizing any religion, faith or practices," said Col. Bill Buckner, MNC-I spokesman, "and our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy."
"This has our full attention," said Col. James L. Welsh, chief of staff, Multi-National Force - West. "We deeply value our relationship with the local citizens and share their concerns over this serious incident."
This was
reported earlier today by McClatchy, but quite frankly, when a news organization runs items under the tagline "truth to power," by an author also published by al Jazeera, I like to get confirmation first. I've got a request in for more details on this, and will update again if they have additional information.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:49 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If McClatchy said it, I'd pitch it.
If they said the San Joaquin Delta has water in it--I'd go check.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 29, 2008 03:40 PM (z6wiy)
2
"Marines Fear Only God-No Others"..Sgt. Grit bumper sticker...if a U.S. Marine handed out such a coin, then as Teddy Roosevelt would say,BULLY" in other words FANTASTIC. No matter how much mainstream media, Liberal Amerika tries to remove God from our society, courageous folks pop up on their own. You can take the Marine out of Christ's Chapel but you can't take Christ out the Marine. That's a little bit convoluted, but you get the idea. Semper Fi! Do or Die!
Posted by: Michael H Boyce at May 29, 2008 06:44 PM (No9B+)
3
This is pretty boneheaded if true. Lets see one of these coins, shall we? But that said, there is no reason a Christian should not proseletyze in Iraq but it just is not within the soldier's duties. Islam is spread here in the West. Why should potential jihadis be denied the grace of the Gospel? Seems like something that should be encouraged, just not practiced by government functionaries.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 30, 2008 11:40 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pelosi: Surge Failed, Iran Rules Iraq
The special kind of delusion it takes to believe that Iraq was irretrievably lost in 2006 is still alive and well and in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party.
Speaking with the San Francisco
Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insisted that the surge failed, and insists that if there is any progress, it is
because Iran allowed it.
Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn't happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.
Cue the flaming skull.
Pelosi's needful delusions means that dictator-loving, Jew-hating 9/11 conspiracy-theorist
Cindy Sheehan is not the most insane candidate vying for California's Eight District House seat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:07 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Nancy Pelosi has become Colonel Nicholson from The Bridge of River Kwai. So obsessed with proving herself superior and her enemy (GWB) wrong, she's lost sight of who the real enemy is. Truly disgusting.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at May 29, 2008 02:49 PM (d5LvD)
2
Yes, it is incredibly horrible to point out that Iran stopped the fighting between two Iranian-backed groups.
If you don't want Iraq to depend on Iran's "goodwill," maybe you should have thought twice about empowering a government controlled by Iran.
It is amusing that every time the surge fails, it is bailed out by people that conservatives hate: after the surge killed more people throughout most of 2007, violence was curbed (somewhat) by Sadr's cease-fire, and when the surge touched off a civil war in Basra, the Iranians stepped in and stopped it.
It must really gall conservatives that their boogymen like Sadr and the Mullahs keep bailing out Petraeus....
Posted by: Volp at May 29, 2008 02:53 PM (JGJFa)
3
What Nancy? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all of the cognitive dissonance in here.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 29, 2008 03:06 PM (oC8nQ)
4
Comrade Pelosi just wants to take you to the promised land, where she will be the dictator. Of course, if she had a brain she would know that the drive-by media parrot can no longer make it so. That's what living in the past does for you.
Jimmuh Carter, the father of Iran and modern terrorism is looking for company, this time with nukes. I doubt Israel is going to sit still for being 'wiped out'.
Posted by: bill at May 29, 2008 03:14 PM (7evkT)
5
Yes, and in Nancy's World....
1. We won the American War of Independence because "The British allowed it."
2. San Francisco is now located in the United States because "Mexico allowed it."
3. The North won the Civil War because "the South allowed it."
4. The Allies won World War II because "Hitler and Tojo allowed it."
5. We won the Cold War because "The Soviets allowed it."
Nancy Pelosi: Worst.Speaker.Ever.
Posted by: MarkJ at May 29, 2008 03:18 PM (ZFVlP)
6
Hopefully your post was sarcasm Volp.
Posted by: BobbyD at May 29, 2008 05:07 PM (huc4x)
7
Ouch, it hurt when my jaw hit the floor. Her world view is so divergent from reality that its literally a little scary that she is an elected official (even if she does represent a place as loopy as San Francisco).
The surge has been successful not only on the security side but also on the diplomatic side where most of the initial objectives have been met. This has been despite Iran’s arming of terrorists not because of it.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 29, 2008 05:22 PM (gkobM)
8
The more the successes of the surge become obvious, the farther out into outer space the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have to go to continue to make their outlandish claims of failure.
San Fran Nan seems to be following in the footsteps of people like Lord Haw-Haw, Seoul City Sue, Tokyo Rose, and Baghdad Bob.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:21 PM (+icbL)
9
Yes, and in Nancy's World....
1. We won the American War of Independence because "The British allowed it."
2. San Francisco is now located in the United States because "Mexico allowed it."
3. The North won the Civil War because "the South allowed it."
4. The Allies won World War II because "Hitler and Tojo allowed it."
5. We won the Cold War because "The Soviets allowed it."
If I may continue:
6. Nancy Pelosi is in Congress because "The Republican Party allowed it."
7. George W. Bush is in the Oval Office because "The Democratic Party allowed it."
Those two right there should make Nancy's head explode.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:36 PM (+icbL)
10
Man, I thought Vietnam anti-war screwballs were messed up when they spit on grunts coming home...this new version of Amerika blockading recruiting stations, bombing recruiting stations, openly supporting our enemy in print, politics and in the name of the Demokratic party is going way beyond the acceptable. I think it's time CA, NY and all other left wing liberal states supply their own DoD made up of the Code Pink types and truly see what their version of society will turn out like. They can then gaze with longing eyes across their border at the Free US of A and dream of days gone by.
Posted by: Mike Boyce at May 29, 2008 06:54 PM (No9B+)
11
Mike Boyce,
The Vietnam anti-war screwballs never spit on returning war vets. It's a made-up story, just like "the surge is working", "Saddam was a threat to the US", and W is "a compassionate conservative".
Posted by: Robert in BA at May 31, 2008 08:34 AM (zKYT8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Obama Preacher Problem
I emailed Allahpundit yesterday, wondering why Barack Obama's favorite lynching advocate priest and spiritual mentor of 22 years quietly saw his endorsement drop away from the faith testimonials page at barackobama.com.
As you may remember, Father Michael Pfleger has a history as a radical leftist, and the long-time friend of Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan once called for a local gun shop owner to be dragged into the street by an angry mob and "snuffed out."
That outburst didn't get him removed from Barack's list of supporters, but Allahpundit thinks that he
may have found the rant that did.
Does Barack Obama know
any sane people?
And while we're on the subject: Why is Barack Obama still a member of this church? Why does he expose his children to such hatred by calling this congregation home?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:56 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Trinity United... the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:22 PM (+icbL)
2
And, of course, good ol' Obama tries the old tired trick of making the problem man disappear, and fails.
Seems Obama really doesn't know much about politics outside of The Chicago (Democratic) Machine. In the real world, a cover-up is frequently more damaging than the original "scandal," and this ain't ancient Egypt where you can just obliterate the record of someone by chiseling their name off the walls.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 09:20 PM (+icbL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Moon: Operative Word in Iraq is "Hope." Obama: Let's Change That.
Despite their best intentions and willing accomplices in some press outlets, Democrats have apparently been unable to convince the international community that time stopped in Iraq in 2006.
"Notable progress" has been made in Iraq despite persistent problems, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday at an international summit to promote peace in the violence-wracked country.
"If we were asked to use just one word to describe the situation in Iraq today, I would choose the word 'hope,'" Ban said at the Stockholm, Sweden, conference. "Iraq is stepping back from the abyss that we feared most."
Barack Obama, of course, refuses to see any signs of progress in Iraq as a matter of policy and self-interest. His campaign is wedded to the leftmost fringe of the Democratic Party, who insist that failure is the only acceptable opinion in Iraq. The freshman senator from Illinois still publicly advocates headlong retreat from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if elected, and will not be swayed by stark warnings from international experts and regional governments that such a retreat would reverse all the gains paid for by coalition casualties, and perhaps trigger events as severe as a regional war that would impact energy markets and economies globally.
Right now, the greatest threat to Iraq's future isn't Iran, militants, or sectarian divides, but an inexperienced defeatist from Chicago.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:28 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Even the BBC's coverage of Iraq is becomming less doom and gloom and taking a more (cautiously) optimistic approach.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425314.stm
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 01:19 PM (zTc9q)
2
Obama may be inexperienced at defeatism but he's got the lingo down cold.
Posted by: Tim at June 01, 2008 11:28 AM (WiHUE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Dem Offers Forced Servitude to "Honor" Slain Students
What could possibly go wrong?
Students in North Carolina's private and public colleges would be required to mentor public school-age children to receive a bachelor's degree after 2012, under a bill filed this week.
Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, named the proposed community service program in memory of two college students who were shot to death earlier this year – Eve Carson, the student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Abhijit Mahato, a Duke University graduate student.
The bill would require any student seeking a bachelor's degree to spend 20 hours per semester mentoring and tutoring a public school-age child. The bill doesn't specify for how many semesters the mentoring would be required.
It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Two college students were murdered by street thugs who were drop-outs, so Rand's obvious reaction is to force more college students to spend time with failing students that come from similar environments as the killers.
If Rand wanted to actually do some good, perhaps he could get on board with organizations pushing for allowing CCH holders to carry on college campuses, instead of providing a victim delivery service.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The bill would require any student seeking a bachelor's degree to spend 20 hours per semester mentoring and tutoring a public school-age child.
CY - I think mentoring and tutoring are the wrong words. Indoctrinating would be a better description. Those children are future voters after all!
Also, how do you make this mandatory for students at private colleges in North Carolina as a degree requirement unless the college or student receives state aid?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 29, 2008 10:20 AM (i/fLn)
2
As far as I know, most college students are dope smoking slackers that I wouldn't let near my child. Really, think about it, what the hell would a 20 year old have to offer as a mentor? Life experience? Wisdom? Tattoo advice?
Posted by: dan in michigan at May 29, 2008 10:35 AM (uSI6F)
3
Dan... a high school diploma?
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at May 29, 2008 11:14 AM (yiMNP)
4
Gah.
First with this "well rounded" garbage-- Lookie! My grades weren't good, and I didn't have a job, but I was on the cheer squad!-- and now with forced community service?
*gag*
Posted by: Foxfier at May 29, 2008 07:58 PM (3aOlt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stay Classy, Google
They can't be bothered to post a simple tribute to fallen servicemen who fought for the freedoms they enjoy, but find the time to post about a rather pointless accomplishment by a mountaineering New Zealander and his Sherpa guide.
If they find out that Hillary didn't dodge conscription and was a RNZAF navigator during World War II, will they end his tribute as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am slow to jump on Google for not doing a Memorial Day theme for the reason that Google, while an American corporation, caters to an international user base. While Memorial Day is a distinctly American holiday, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay's Everest summit is an internationally recognized event. I think that this is the reason why Google failed to theme its homepage for Memorial Day but did so for the Everest summit, not b/c Google was trying to snub the American armed forces.
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 02:07 PM (zTc9q)
2
I'm quick to call that seditious dis-information conglomerate 'googlag'.
'Don't be evil' is simply newspeak for 'globalism - and at any cost'.
Did you hear that ViaCom is suing googlag / youtube for one billion dollars in copyright infringement?
This comes on the heels of allahtube telling Sen Lieberman 'are you kidding?' when asked to take down jihadist propaganda.
One more in a long line of abuses and 'eff you America' which googlag shows a corporate propensity for....
Simply search my site for 'don't be evil' and you'll see a whole catalog of googlag's disdain for individual liberty & public decency all across this globe.
My recommendation: don't be evil - don't use googlag or allahtube.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 29, 2008 03:17 PM (//Ayq)
3
Lone Star: Google refuses to do Memorial day. They run different sites around the world as needed, and will celebrate other U/S. only holidays. They also celebrate non-U.S. Holidays.
If they were like Clusty, who never changes for anyone, it may be different. But it isn't like that at all. They simply refuse to do Memorial Day.
Posted by: JP at May 29, 2008 04:39 PM (Tae/a)
4
LoneStar, Yahoo and Ask.com also serve international audiences, and yet they found a way to honor our fallen heroes.
Not to mention that fallen American servicemen have made a lasting impact on the rest of the world. If not for their sacrifice, you might be speaking German today.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 05:39 PM (+icbL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 28, 2008
Just the Facts, Sam
Would someone please provide ABC News' Sam Donaldson with some facts?
It is perhaps progress in
this commentary piece for a journalist to admit that Obama needs schooling— I do find it amusing that he refers to McCain as "the professor" and Obama as "his callow student"—but he grossly overestimates the size of al Sadr's faltering organization by an enormous amount, while downplaying Madhi Army defeats at the hands of the Iraqi security forces in recent weeks.
Iraq will almost certainly be one of the central issues in November -- if McCain is lucky it will remain relatively calm with casualties relatively low. But there is a wildcard named Moqtada al-Sadr, the 34-year-old Shiite leader of a 2 million man army.
When the surge began, al-Sadr instructed his army to lie low. Why fight an increased American force? But we all saw what happened a few weeks ago when al-Sadr loosed his men in Bashra and Bagdad -- violence flared, casualties spiked -- before calling another truce.
I'd like for Mr. Donaldson to explain where he got a figure of 2 million for the collection of neighborhood militias, street gangs, and "special groups" that make up the JAM (Jaish al Mahdi). Most estimates of the group have not put numbers larger than roughly 60,000 strong at any point in the conflict, and present numbers are said to be in rapid decline even now because of their
growing unpopularity among Iraqi Shia.
I'd also like Donaldson to justify his dishonest portrayal of events in Basra and Baghdad. In both cities the Madhi Army suffered horrific losses at the hands of Iraqi security forces before suing for peace out of a sense of self preservation, and in both cities, Iraqi soldiers and police continued to relentlessly push into neighborhoods formerly dominated by Madhi Army thugs event after these "treaties" were agreed upon. In Basra, Iraqi government forces now rule virtually uncontested as they continue to carry out targeted strikes against wanted members of the Madhi Army. GoI security forces entered Sadr City with an unexpectedly large number of soldiers equipped with heavy armor, surprising the militiamen, who have yet to formulate a response.
Donaldson is obviously as much an Obama cheerleader as he is a journalist, but his 37-years in the business don't give him the right to make up his own reality.
Stick the facts, Sam. One Dan Rather at a time is enough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:19 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Walter Cronkite.
Tet caused Walter to declare defeat, and although we won by a large margin, the statement became fact in the minds of the People. Sammy Boy is attempting to Walter the facts.
Posted by: JP at May 28, 2008 03:46 PM (Tae/a)
2
Sam Donaldson's op-ed can be explained very simply:
Namely, Sambo's hairpiece has tentacled into his brain and it's now doing all of his thinking and writing for him.
Look at this pic and tell me it ain't so:
http://www.pnc.edu/cd/news/newsphotos/Donaldson_Sam.jpg
Posted by: MarkJ at May 28, 2008 04:15 PM (ZFVlP)
3
Sam got his data from the same place Dan Rather got the Bush Air National Guard documents.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 04:34 PM (+icbL)
4
If I am not mistaken, there are only about five million men in Iraq who are Shia Arabs more or less of military age (i.e. between 14 and 60). Sam Donaldson fancies al-Sadr has a stupefying ability to inspire participation. (Recall that al-Sadr's electoral vehicle won 0.8% of the vote on the last occasion he fielded a stand-alone slate).
Posted by: Art Deco at May 28, 2008 05:15 PM (ewZQX)
5
When did the definition of "news" become --- "Telling people what is likely to happen weeks (or months) down the road?"
Turing "news" coverage into weather forecasting has gone hand-n-hand with turning it into a vehicle for opinion-giving (a.k.a "analysis").
Please, tell me, "EARLIER today, John McCain said concerning Iraq policy 'blah blah blah blah.'"
And leave out the, "This will likely mean come election time that if blah blah blah"...
Just the news ---- what happened yesterday....please....
Posted by: usinkorea at May 28, 2008 05:24 PM (qObWH)
6
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2008 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 May 29, 2008 02:07 PM (gIAM9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Most Ethical Congress Ever Rides Again
With stories like this popping up with disturbing frequency, no wonder Congress has such dismal approval ratings.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:43 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, you don't realize... "ethics" to a lefty means "a handy tool to get those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans out of office," it's not something they actually believe in. All lefties believe in is power, power, and more power.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 02:12 PM (+icbL)
2
Shirley [Golub] explains, "This coming Thursday, May 29 at 10AM (ET), one of my volunteers will dress up in a chicken costume and go up to the West Steps of Capitol Hill, where they will gather with video cameras on the steps of the House of Representatives. What I am hoping to accomplish with this is to demonstrate just how truly useless it is to send a chicken to Congress."
Posted by: Neo at May 28, 2008 07:50 PM (Yozw9)
3
Congress has dismal approval ratings because "impeachment is off the table".
Posted by: Robert in BA at May 31, 2008 08:36 AM (zKYT8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Always Back a Winner
Iraqi soldiers carry M-16s as they stand guard in Sadr City. AFP Photo by Ali Yussef
If the Iraq War is "lost" as journalists, politicians, and other Democrats continue to shrilly insist, then why is the Iraqi military choosing American weapons?
It isn't because American M16s are better than AK-47s for the needs of the Iraqi military (
they aren't), but because Iraqis are impressed by American soldiers and want to emulate them.
Do you think they would be so eager to adapt our gear if we were losing?
Me neither.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:40 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I may be putting too much into this but...
The soldiers are probably using the weapons they are given and the ammo they don't need to pay for is the ammo used. But you are right, the US weapon does show a solidarity with the US soldiers. What I am impressed with is how the lead soldier is holding his weapon. The trigger finger is in a safe/ready position. They aren't carrying the weapon like gangs or thugs.
Posted by: mekan at May 28, 2008 09:52 AM (hm8tW)
2
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that US troops are training them and that US Foreign Military Sales promote US military contracts has nothing to do with the fact that the Iraqi army has US military weapons. Nothing at all... Fact is, the M16s jam in the dust, which is why all the US troops switched to M4s or other weapon systems. AK47 is still more reliable, cheaper, not as accurate but in an urban setting, just as good if not better than the M16 rifles.
Posted by: J. at May 28, 2008 09:57 AM (Da6a7)
3
I may be putting too much into this but...
The soldiers are probably using the weapons they are given and the ammo they don't need to pay for is the ammo used.
There is no doubt at all that they will carry what they are issued (and that decision was ultimately made well above their pay grade, as my link in the article shows), but it is equally true that the Iraqi soldiers want to emulate American soldiers. They covet the M-4 and M-16, want the same sunglasses and goggles, and other American gear.
As Mike Yon just sent via email, "They like M16s because we use them."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2008 10:02 AM (xNV2a)
4
Fact is, the M16s jam in the dust, which is why all the US troops switched to M4s or other weapon systems.
You do know that the M-4 is a "chopped" M-16, is less functionally reliable than an M-16, and fires 5.56 ammo at much lowers velocities because the barrel length of the M-4 is 5.5 inches shorter, leading to reduced terminal performance?
Nah, of course you didn't.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2008 10:08 AM (xNV2a)
5
Isn't the M16 a much more complicated and sophisticated gun to maintain and operate than the AK47? Can we draw the conclusion that this is more antidotical evidence that the training of the IA continues apace? Thanks.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at May 28, 2008 10:27 AM (d5LvD)
6
I'm sure the weapons were chosen for a variety of reasons and subsidized but we do know that the country is awash in AKs and ammo including vast numbers in Iraqi army stores. Functionality may not explain it, nor the supply issues but they could have armed themselves from stores for nothing per unit, just maintenance and refurb. They have not.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 28, 2008 10:45 AM (LF+qW)
7
You guys are all overthinking this. The simple answer is that its all a Rovian plot to enrich Haliburton (betcha didn't know they sell guns too) using Blackwater to force the Iraqis to buy M16s. Why use all that tiring logic when a nice neat conspiracy theory will do?
Posted by: Tim at May 28, 2008 10:57 AM (3Wewy)
8
Actually I think the reasoning was because the M16 is more accurate than the AK47 and there are advantages to having ammo and weapon commonalities with your allies.
And the Iraqis are now our allies.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at May 28, 2008 11:17 AM (yiMNP)
9
Comparatively speaking, the M-16 is a finesse weapon next to the AK-47. Just like pirates who preferred the cutlass for boarding actions, the AK-47 is easy to use and care for. It also is heavy and less accurate. Further, it is primarily used in full automatic mode. The M-16 is more like a saber or rapier. It is just as deadly in the right hands as its brutish cousin.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 28, 2008 12:54 PM (oC8nQ)
10
All the speculations aside (Another of the many reasons the IA and IP are looking at using the A4 and M16 is the terrs and AQ do not use those often. Easy to spot the baddy if'n his weapon is vastly different than yours) I'm most glad to see the Trigger Discipline on these guys. I've been hearing and seeing more and more stories about the IA and IP taking to full US style tactics and training. Like duck to water. This shows in the blow up as he has his finger out of the guard, but ready. Outside of Israel, one doesn't see that in the MidEast. They are even getting officer material that doesn't treat the enlisted as slaves and dogs. Be a shame to cut these guys off at the knees like Obama and his comrades would love to do.
Posted by: JP at May 28, 2008 03:39 PM (Tae/a)
11
SSGT Jeff and JP are making the same point in two different ways... the Iraqi military is clearly throwing its lot in with the US Armed Forces, both in terms of weapons and ammo used (as Jeff pointed out) and training and tactics (as JP said).
The Iraqis are clearly expecting us to come to their aid if needed, and Obama and his cronies are threatening to pull the rug out from under them.
Nice way to treat our allies, Senator Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 06:04 PM (+icbL)
12
What is more impressive than the fact the Iraqi soldier is holding an American weapon is the way it is being held: muzzle down, hand over the trigger with the trigger finger alongside the magazine -- not on the trigger.
Contrast that to the typical photo of a terrorist holding a weapon -- pointing up, finger on the trigger, Allah help us if the safety isn't set.
Them soldiers are learning
Posted by: Mark L at May 29, 2008 07:47 AM (bWB5j)
13
Umnnnhhhh....neither.
I thought that Congress had jammed through a request for Colt Industries' M-16/M-4 weapons for the Iraqi army....and that was facilitated by Congr. Murtha, a very close pal of the Chairman of Colt Industries.
Posted by: dad29 at May 29, 2008 09:07 AM (CyfiL)
14
Just back from Baghdad and the IAs I saw and talked to all pretty much LOVE the M-16A2s that they have been given. It's a "I 'wannabe' just like the Americans" kind of thing... also a lot lighter which they like, and from what they told me (in broken eeeeng-glish) and from what I could unnastand, it (the M-16) doesn't carry the 'symbolism' that an AK does and makes it easier on joint ops with US Troops to tell the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys'...
Posted by: Big Country at May 29, 2008 11:50 AM (niydV)
15
Thought I doubt this is the primary reason for IA forces carrying M16s, might it have something to do with the distinct sound of an AK47 as opposed to that of an M16/M4? In Vietnam, if American GIs hears AK47 chatter, they knew it was enemy fire. I assume the same principle applies in Iraq (or would if only the IAF were using AKs). Knowing who is doing the shooting obviously helps the soldier maintain tactical awareness. Just a thought.
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 01:13 PM (zTc9q)
16
It also has to do with the fact that inside 300m the M16 has better terminal effects on target than the AK series weapons.
Posted by: Eric at June 01, 2008 10:33 AM (9V6Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 27, 2008
The Problem of Having Your Work Misrepresented in the Village Voice...
...is that so few people read it that you're unlikely to see enough web traffic from them to know they've even brought up your name.
That they got the
facts wrong is almost irrelevant, but amusing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:38 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
villagevoice.com gets 403,000 monthly uniques. You get 10,000.
But hey, Quantcast probably has liberal bias too.
Posted by: Notnowjohn at May 28, 2008 11:43 PM (lxlUq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Barack's Imaginary Uncle, Bad Memory, or Bad Reporting?
So Barack Obama's uncle helped Patton's 3rd Army liberate the concentration camp at Auschwitz, which is a neat trick, considering that the 3rd Army never made it into southern Poland. It was instead Russians that liberated the camp, and if that wasn't embarrassing enough for the rookie Senator, his mother was an only child.
Still going on the assumption that his material grandparents knew how many children they have, it would seem apparent that his Kenyan father's side must have provided the uncle that helped liberate the camp, or Obama was lying on Memorial Day about his family's military service. Could he really be that dumb?
Something has to be off here... there is no way he would simply create an uncle. If his mother was an only child, then the uncle wold have to be on his father's side, but I somewhat doubt that Kenyan Luo tribesmen left Africa, and served in either the 3rd U.S. Army under Patton or the Russian Army.
As we missing something here, or is Obama blatantly lying about his family's military sacrifices in a Memorial Day speech?
Update: Only CBS News'
Maria Gavrilovic and WaPo's
Karl Vick seems to have the "uncle at Auschwitz" claim, which does not appear in Obama's
prepared remarks and can't be heard . Either Obama ad-libbed a line afterward and can't be
in the video and the media was only working from prepared remarks (which happens more often than you'd suspect) , or Gavrilovic both implausibly made up that same claim.
Update: The Obama camp has responded, and indicates that it was not Obama's uncle (he didn't have one) but his great uncle that served in the 89th Infantry Division, and the camp he was part of liberating was not Auschwitz in southern Poland, but Ohrdruf, part of the Buchenwald camp system, in central Germany, which was liberated four months later.
The Washington Post
isn't impressed, and for good reason. It wasn't a "lie". He just didn't get any of the truth right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:49 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To repeat someone else's comment elsewhere, it musta been his Uncle Joe! (The same "Uncle" after whom Country Joe was named...Ok I'm officially a geezer.)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at May 27, 2008 12:07 PM (VNM5w)
2
Maybe he meant great uncle. I referred to my great aunt as my aunt, colloquially.
Seems like we should check before we start accusing him of lying, as it ruins our sides credibility if we're wrong.
Posted by: Alcibiades at May 27, 2008 12:09 PM (kMPMr)
3
Not that the genealogies available are anywhere near accurate, but the ones I found online list no uncles. A great uncle makes sense, but geographically it seems to be a stretch. I could also understand if the Senator meant another camp that may have been liberated by the US.
Posted by: Mekan at May 27, 2008 12:45 PM (hm8tW)
4
Alcibiades: it doesn't matter if he was calling his 3rd cousin twice removed "Uncle", he wasn't with the 3rd American Army when it liberated Auschwitz ... since it did NOT liberate Auschwitz and was probably busy fighting in the Bulge at the time.
Posted by: Lord Nazh at May 27, 2008 01:07 PM (sBNzZ)
Posted by: Richard1 at May 27, 2008 01:36 PM (xJ+oA)
6
Obama is telling the truth. His family and his uncle are Stalin Communists. They liberated Auschwitz.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at May 27, 2008 01:43 PM (zC8Dg)
7
The reason it isn't in the transcript is because his remarks about his Grandfather's service and the Uncle were part of an answer during a Q&A session after his prepared remarks.
Flopping Aces has the video:
The Messiah’s Gaffes The MSM Who Ignores Them
Posted by: S at May 27, 2008 01:53 PM (Wi/N0)
8
Sorry, you have to go to about 4 min. in on the video to get to the right part.
Posted by: Sara at May 27, 2008 01:54 PM (Wi/N0)
9
Obama's mom was not in the WWII generation - the linked article has her graduating from high school in 1960. Even if she'd had a brother, it's unlikely that he would have been old enough to serve. I'm guessing that the mythical uncle is/was actually a great uncle and Auschwitz was Barry's generic name for a concentration camp. Ignorance of European history is not at all unusual for Barry's generation.
Surely he's not dumb enough to make up something so easily fact-checked - is he???
Posted by: Diogenes at May 27, 2008 02:30 PM (2MrBP)
10
Maybe he meant "Frank" (AKA Frank Marshall Davis .. "I was a Communist and a subversive and a threat to Hawai`i.").
Posted by: Neo at May 27, 2008 02:47 PM (Yozw9)
11
The uncle/great uncle thing doesn't matter that much.
It's the statement that the Americans liberated Auschwitz. It's like Hillary stating "There was a saying in the White House during the 90s, if a place is too poor, too dangerous to send the President...then send the First Lady."
Clinton and Obama know they are lying. This isn't even a bending of the truth. And still they choose to lie in the most spectcular fashion.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at May 27, 2008 03:14 PM (zC8Dg)
12
Foxnews can't get the story straight either(from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/):
"Obama was raised in part by his grandparents, and his father served in the second World War."
IIRC, Barry's father was born in 1948. Pretty sure Fox mean't grandfather.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 27, 2008 03:32 PM (2MrBP)
13
If Barry has any relative with a plausible claim to serving in Europe during the Big One, okay. Thing is it seems unlikely from public information that this is possible, much less true. What is becoming ever more clear is that this guy just makes things up on the fly. Hillary of Tuzla likewise. Kerry with his seering recollections and Bog Dog with examples too numerous to meter are in similar straits. And the press covers for them. Of course the pressies are likely about as unfamiliar with US history as Barry of the 57th State. But we haven't ALL forgotten. Not yet. If this is crap it is the lowest attempt to suck the valor of better men since Kerry's. I guess that wasn't so long ago.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 04:30 PM (LF+qW)
14
Who makes up an uncle, dips him in a dream,
Fakes a little sorrow, and collects up all the cream?
Obama-man can, the Obama-man can
Yes, the Obama-man can 'cause
He mixes it with bull and makes the lie taste good.
Posted by: twolaneflash at May 27, 2008 04:34 PM (05dZx)
15
The real question is, can Obama spell "potato"?
Most people here will get the reference. A Republican makes a simple gaffe, and he is endlessly hounded. A Democrat makes numerous gaffes, and the MoveOnMedia is silent.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:07 PM (+icbL)
16
Just surfing around my favorite conservative sites, and found that NRO's Corner blog has located a press release from Obama's campaign:
“Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II – especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
If the Obama campaign expects this to close this issue, they're probably wrong. The obvious question is, doesn't Obama believe in not speaking definitively about things he is not sure about? This probably would have been passed over if he'd phrased it as "...I believe it was Auschwitz, but I could be mistaken..."
Makes one wonder if Obama is so egotistical as to believe that he is incapable of getting even the smallest fact wrong.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:30 PM (+icbL)
17
Obama is a superhero and seeing dead people is one of his superpowers... the other is dumbing the mind of voters! Let's pray that the voters come to their senses by November! Keep smiling and God bless! Padre Steve
Posted by: Padre Steve at May 27, 2008 08:46 PM (EPAL6)
18
Buchenwald or Birkenau? Shia or Sunni? Which is it Barack? Which is it John? I guess I care more about Shia and Sunni right now...Hitler's dead right? Where's Bin Laden...is he Sunni or Shia...I can't remember.
Posted by: G Rob at May 27, 2008 10:08 PM (Ps4Rz)
19
Auschwitz, Buchenwald, 57 states, or 50 states, what's the difference, folks? Presidents "have people" for piddley little details like that.
Posted by: Bill Smith at May 27, 2008 10:12 PM (mjSzj)
20
So the mastermind gets the country wrong, the army wrong, the camp wrong, and the relative wrong. You can trust him to get the details right when he's president!
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 27, 2008 10:32 PM (LHaZf)
21
Here's my site covering the liberation of that camp.
http://ohrdruf.simmins.org/
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at May 28, 2008 04:50 PM (ZXtMw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dumber Than Bush, Dumber Than Quayle
I pretty much ignored political news this weekend, only to find out that the top story on Memeorandum.com this morning was of a gaffe Barack Obama made regarding Memorial Day.
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
As you may imagine, "I see dead people" is a crack being
used in blog posts with a great degree of derision and amusement as the freshman Senator's opponents have a field day with his
fficial&client=firefox-a">chronically gaffe-prone campaign.
Obama's latest unintelligent statement behind us, Jimmie at the Sundries Shack
accurately snipes:
After this campaign, I swear, I don't want to hear one more person crack wise about Dan Quayle ever again. Quayle had a couple very unfortunate gaffes and was forever painted as immature and plain old dumb.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has enough gaffes to his credit to start a fleet of charter boats and not a single soul in the MSM has even breathed the "D" word about His Deific Changiness. His goofs are coming at a rate of a couple a week now, far more than Dan Quayle ever did and certainly more than George Bush, who has become the Golden Standard of Chimpitude to the left for his verbal advenures[sic].
He makes excellent points.
Quayle was hammered by Democrats as a vice presidential candidate in 1988 for being too inexperienced, serving just two terms in the House and one full-term in the Senate before being selected as George H.W. Bush's running mate two years into his second Senate term(versus Obama, who announced his run for President 1/3 the way through his very first Senate term).
Based upon his weak debate performance against Lloyd Bentsen and a series of frankly stupid comments he made as a candidate and vice president, Quayle was hammered an an intellectual lightweight worldwide.
When Bush '41 was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat in 1991, the world
seemed terrified:
Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Britain this week also puzzled over a political system that allows a man of relatively little national experience to stand next in line to the leadership of the world's most powerful nation.
In Italy, La Repubblica in Rome referred to what it called America's "cardio-constitutional crisis," and Il Giornale of Milan heard echoes of European history in Mr. Bush's situation.
In a front page editorial on Tuesday, Il Giornale said, "The invincible President becomes politically vulnerable because of his heir, just as, in the centuries of the dynasties, the absence or the frailty of a successor could undermine the most powerful of kings."
In Germany, a dispatch from Washington that appeared Tuesday in the General Anzeiger of Bonn described the American President as "the most powerful single person in the world" and noted how "carelessly" the American political system chooses its Vice President.
"Dan Quayle may grow with the position as did Harry Truman," the report said. "But the world would rather put its destiny into the hands of a man who has already proven himself."
One of the bluntest reactions came from The Financial Times of London, the bible of the city's business and banking community. In an editorial on Tuesday, the paper wrote: "Mr. Quayle was a cynical political choice in 1988 and, thankless as the Vice President's job often is, he has done little since to convince that he is qualified to serve as chief executive in his own right."
In Paris, Le Monde on Monday called Mr. Quayle "a man who inspires, rightly or wrongly, more jeers than confidence" and wondered whether Mr. Bush would now change his mind about keeping him on the Republican ticket in 1992.
And yet, for all the fear he inspired, Quayle was smart enough that he knew not to start his political career at the home of domestic terrorists who are still proud for attacking their nation, and who still harbor a fondness for cult-leading murderer Charles Manson.
Obama?
He did.
Quayle didn't attend a church for two decades built upon a "religion" that is a mix of Marxism, racial identity politics, and Christianity.
Obama did, and as a matter of fact, he's still a proud member of that congregation.
Quayle didn't follow a radical, racist pastor espousing conspiracy theories and hate. He didn't include among his other decades-long mentors a radical priest who espouses support for the murder of people he doesn't like. Obama?
He did, only recently dropping Pfleger's endorsement from
barackobama.com where it resided
between endorsements from Rev. Delman Coates and "Eileen P.".
Quayle—along with most third-graders—even somehow seems to know how many states there are in the United States, something Obama
hasn't yet grasped.
Barack Obama is far more prone to foolish associations and questionable statements Dan Quayle ever was, and yet has compiled more collective idiocies in just one campaign that Quayle has managed in his entire political career.
Our current President, George W. Bush, is lambasted by the political left for a Quayle-like tendency for verbal gaffes known as
Bushisms and is widely regarded by them as an idiot, (even as he has somehow outsmarted them into winning the White House twice), and yet the worst of Bush's 7+ years in office is only on par with what Obama offers up as standard fare.
The same press that excoriated Bush and Quayle for lesser offenses is giving Obama a free pass for a continuing series of verbal stumbles, stumbles that would have them tied up in knots denouncing the intelligence of Republicans. Is it because Obama is an African-American that they refuse to question his intelligence, or is it because he's a Democrat?
If the former, the media is racist; if the latter, they are biased to the point of being incompetent. Perhaps they are both. Andrew Sullivan was a
Quayle apologist who is now firmly behind Obama and seemingly blind to his faults. Other members of the media
are just as bad, or worse.
Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama isn't an idiot.
Barack Obama is pretty, he reads a teleprompter beautifully, and when given the time to compose a speech, he writes beautiful words as well, empty though they so often are. He just doesn't do well when forced to think on his feet, or under pressure.
By that standard, he is "dumber" than Bush, and "dumber" than Quayle, issuing forth a staccato beat of misstatements and empty platitudes when under the slightest pressure. That should not be a surprise. He's a remarkably shallow candidate with a considerable record of ducking responsibility and hard decisions in his meager legislative record, and is utterly lacking of any meaningful executive experience.
It would nice for the press to acknowledge these truths. It would be nice of the to recognize that Obama isn't the Messiah.
He isn't even a decent
Brian.
Update Good Grief.
Two huge gaffes in one speech?
Has anyone copyrighted the term "Obamanation" yet?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:41 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama also claimed on the weekend that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz. Curious since the Red Army liberated Auschwitz and the US never entered Poland. What use is a Harvard education if it dosnt let you lie convincingly during a run for president?
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 27, 2008 11:24 AM (gkobM)
2
Um, when we flog a pol about idiotic gaffes perhaps we should also pay attention to the difference between what Obambi passes out as "standard fair" Unless they have changed English since I was in school the term is "standard fare".
Posted by: Peter at May 27, 2008 01:10 PM (I4yBD)
3
Good point, Peter. Fixed now. I never claimed fluency, just a couple of degrees. :-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 27, 2008 01:46 PM (xNV2a)
4
Obama's accolytes prove the long term plan of the US Ed system - MTV meets Affirmative Action
Posted by: Bandit at May 27, 2008 02:08 PM (/R+6i)
5
Even with this torrent of stupidity pouring hourly from the Lamb of Chicago the preening continues. Barry could never be less than genius, could he? He is smarter than Edwards and might be as smart as Hillary, that is all we can really allow on the evidence. This puke is actually even ignorant by Democrat standards which is saying a mouth full. In debate with McCain can he hold it together on live national TV with his witlessness at the mercy, not of the press corps or fellow Gramscians but from McNasty hisself? Doubtful.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 04:34 PM (LF+qW)
6
As I asked in another thread, can Obama spell "potato"?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:09 PM (+icbL)
7
More to the economic point, I have talked with several oil people high in the industry (we have a boom going here in Shreveport). They have all indicated that if Obama and the Dems get the government, they are capping the wells before paying excess taxes. Thus, his election could be an economic storm.
Posted by: David Caskey at May 27, 2008 07:29 PM (OlIp9)
8
I posted on this subject http://becauseimright-nocomme1.blogspot.com/2008/05/barack-youre-no-dan-quayle-and-no-thats.html a week or so ago, concentrating more on a sort of side by side comparison of Quayle's experience and qualifications and Obama's. There is simply no way to look at their records and not conclude that Quayle was much more qualified: more expeienced, more accomplished, etc.
Obama is Quayle without the brains. The fact that the media has given this low-ender a free ride is one of the great journalistic scandals of our time.
Posted by: Nocomme1 at May 27, 2008 09:20 PM (/Xg66)
9
But, Obama isn't a Republican, so his false steps can't mean he's stupid.
Only Republicans have it written in their party constitution that they can only nominate idiots for president. Inductive logic tells me this, because as far back as I can remember or check, they have only nominated idiots. I checked all the media reports. All idiots.
And clearly Harvard must just hand out MBAs to kids of rich, important people. Or, Bush Sr. had the CIA pressure them into giving the son a degree....
....Yeah....That's the ticket...
Posted by: usinkorea at May 27, 2008 10:21 PM (VfiuX)
10
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/28/2008 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 May 28, 2008 10:25 AM (gIAM9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2008
Arlington
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
May we always strive to be worthy of the sacrifice they made.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 26, 2008 12:23 PM (+icbL)
2
Great, now I'm crying. I don't know if Trace Adkins is from a military background but this song captures so many of the men & women I know.
I remember.
Posted by: Silvera at May 26, 2008 04:15 PM (9xBZn)
3
Thank you for posting this song. We are indebted to those at Arlington, and this song captures that very well.
Posted by: Nina at May 26, 2008 04:52 PM (cHSOu)
4
As I said at the 3rd Memorial Day Ceremony I attended back home with my parents, brother, nephew, a few hardy local citizens, and the VFW/American Legion Honor Guards/Leaderships -
Thank you Veterans, both living and dead, for perfoming a duty I could not do...
Thank you, CY, for this post.
The rain has been falling here since that first ceremony this morning in fitting tribute...as it has been from my eyes.
Posted by: Mark at May 26, 2008 09:34 PM (KDHro)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 23, 2008
Thrill Kill Hill
Oh no,
she didn't:
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
I never thought I'd see the day that a candidate would suggest that part of the reason she's remaining in the race is the possibility of her rival being murdered.
If someone informs her that the
Obama assassination myth is merely media projection against "bitter" and "clingy" Americans, will she finally go away?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:40 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But Hillary isn't the first person to raise the issue. Didn't Michelle Obama herself initially object to her husband running because she feared he'd be assassinated?
Posted by: zuzuspetals at May 23, 2008 04:23 PM (7ynR1)
2
Given the viral conspiracy emails, books, circumstantial evidence, laws of probablity, and the Clintons strong arm obstruction of investigations regarding their involvment with Vince Foster and a veritable laundry list of other former Clinton associates who have (often suspiciously and mysteriously) left the gene pool...she actually said this?
Dude.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at May 23, 2008 05:35 PM (GrBA3)
3
I dunno, I'm pretty tired of the obama campaign crying foul every other week. Does anyone really believe Sen. Clinton mentioned Kennedy because she thought Obama might be assassinated?! I honestly think she just wasn't thinking about the assassination part of that analogy, she was trying to make the point that the primary isn't actually OVER. Perhaps she's so singularly focused on winning that she wasn't thinking about that event in any other light but the fact that a new front-runner had to be chosen... which is rather in character for Ms. Clinton I think.
Posted by: K-Det at May 23, 2008 05:43 PM (fD4zt)
4
Dang, that is one big, hairy hand holding the gun!!
Posted by: Chey at May 23, 2008 05:50 PM (gEmvd)
5
Personally, I want Hillary to stay in the campaign. The longer she is in, the more chance of the Dems fracturing.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 23, 2008 06:08 PM (WLr2t)
6
Agree with K-Det. I never felt she was implying anything about assassination. Why should she? No upside. She was just making a familiar historical reference, and subconsciously probably trying to ally herself with Bobby Kennedy's surging candidacy. More alarming in all this is the constant speech policing and offense-taking.
Posted by: Rein at May 23, 2008 08:29 PM (uf8br)
7
Wow, thank God for Rein and K-Det: after reading about this in various places all day, this is the first time (and twice in the same place) that I've found some people that feel about the same way I do about the comment.
Posted by: ECM at May 23, 2008 09:19 PM (q3V+C)
8
Far worse than Hillary's assassination comment is the accompanying photo which displays her ignorance of firearm safety. With her finger on the trigger, who or what is she about to shoot?
It is unfortunate that so many of those who portray firearms as evil have so little experience with them. If Hillary actually spent some time at the range she would:
a) Learn proper firearm safety, and;
b) Realize that a firearm is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton -- finger OFF the trigger!
Posted by: Just Askin' at May 23, 2008 09:30 PM (esv00)
9
I'm no fan of the Hill but that's a crock and lot
of Bull about nothing.If someone is stupid enough
to whac the Ob the results will make Watts look
like a sunday picnic...As for Hill and the pistola
nice Photoshop...
Posted by: Gator at May 23, 2008 10:06 PM (uaTZE)
10
Gator:
You're right! I missed the photoshop. Unless Hillary's right hand has somehow transformed into a man's.
(Hmmmmm. Could be...)
Posted by: Just Askin' at May 24, 2008 12:10 AM (esv00)
11
Unless Hill's got an extra joint between her wrist and her elbow, this is a photoshop, and not a very good one. The line of her forearm changes right at the end of her jacket. To say nothing about the size of the hand.
Not that this renders CY's story incorrect or irrelevant, mind you. He didn't suggest that the picture was legit, he's just using it as a visual on the RFK assassination reference.
Posted by: Ric James at May 24, 2008 08:19 AM (AS/pd)
12
I was going to answer Just Askin's question With her finger on the trigger, who or what is she about to shoot?: she's thinking "Go ahead, Barry; now I want you to run..."
Posted by: Casey at May 24, 2008 01:37 PM (RJSy/)
13
Everyone is forgetting Bill Clinton's mention of Bobby Kennedy.in his speech to BBC some years ago.He almost went into tears over Bobby Kennedy. I personally thought it ws to cover up his involvement with the death of John Kennedy Jr. the typical Bill Clinton crying cop out, as when he faked a breaking voice on "wi-ife," when he said, "I hurt my wi-ife."I think Hillary meant, you never knowbut her dreaming under self probably meant, Obama might be murdered.
Posted by: barry titus at May 24, 2008 09:29 PM (TOCBx)
14
I'll take HRC at her word, but still must point out how incredibly stupid and politically tone deaf this comment makes her out to be.
Any way you cut it, her comparison to the 1968 primary is BS, and to invite the assasination discussion was beyond foolish.
Put some marmalade on that toast.
Posted by: Old Dad at May 25, 2008 02:08 PM (JQwWt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hairballs and Hellfires
In what I think is a fairly well-balanced article about the significant increase in the use of U.S. Hellfire missiles during the recent campaign against Shiite militiamen in Baghdad's Sadr City came this utterly bizarre claim:
One of Zahara's uncles, Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi, 34, a taxi driver, and her grandmother, Um Fadhil al-Koreishi, were killed by the blast.
"The heart of this family has been ripped out," said Alaa Rahi Shaie, 29, another uncle, who was stoic in describing the death of his brother. "This is his blood," he said, indicating red splotches in front of his home. "And the remains of his head are over there."
He pointed at a large mound of dirt. A group of young boys dug out the remains and then showed visitors a black bag filled with clumps of hair and scalp.
Family members and neighbors said they didn't see anyone in the area fire rockets. Two black funeral banners hung outside the battered home to honor the dead.
I'm sure some of my readers are more familiar with Muslim burial rites than I (just about anyone would be), but I've always been under the impression that Muslims were very careful to respect the dead and bury them as intact as possible shortly after their demise. Banners honoring the dead are nice. Not treating their remains like kabob scraps is nicer.
Does the claim here of the remains of Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi's head being unceremoniously dumped in a sack and buried by the family in a dirt pile where children perform ad-hoc exhumations strike anyone else as being odd, even for what we've heard of Iraq?
As for the apparent premise of the article that AGM-114M Hellfire II missiles take an inordinate number of civilian lives... well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Hellfires are preferred for being one of the most accurate missiles currently deployed, and it has the added benefit of having a smallish explosive warhead, making it somewhat less dangerous than some other weapons systems that we could deploy.
The
Post does not make any attempt to distinguish how many of the 251 Iraqis killed by Hellfire missiles were Shiite militiamen, Iranian-trained " Special Groups" operatives, and how many were real non-combatant civilians.
While the
Post article was less than clear on this point, it seemed possible that Uncle brains-in-a-bag could have been one of the two men
loading rockets into a vehicle who were watched for hours before being killed, and grandma might have simply had the misfortune of having her son followed home by a missile. Or they could have been innocent bystanders... we simply don't know.
We do know that the video accompanying the article shows several strikes on obviously armed fighters (including a large group caught red-handed firing rockets), with no obvious civilians nearby. Still, in urban combat civilians will always run the risk of being casualties, and we are making attempts to minimize that possibility now through tactical decisions made, and in the future via new weapons systems. The 5.3 lbs
Spike missile, at just over two-feet long will hopefully provide just as much precision with less collateral fragmentation than the Hellfire in future urban conflicts.
Even then, the best advice for civilian in urban conflict areas is simple: don't stand to close militiamen and terrorists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:03 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I ran across a You Tube site that had videos from US military action mostly in Iraq. Much of it was aerial footage from drones or bombers or helicopters but also some ground units. The aerial footage often had the radio traffic with it and showed things like camera crews going through the process of asking permission to launch a drone's missiles or clearance for a bomber or helicopter to fire.
The spread of the Internet and broadban access is giving us more and more opportunity to bypass our "trustworthy" media to get around how they filter things.
For example, how often have you see the press quote the US president or CIA chief or some 4 star general as the article quotes family members on the street in Iraq?
How often does the press simply relay the words that come out of the US government's mouth ---
--- without some qualifier????
It's BS.
But, more and more, the media is becoming irrelevant....
Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:07 PM (cwn6C)
2
As odd as it may sound, there are strict rule in war. Rule one is to protect non-combatants - civilians, wounded and prisoners of war. Rule two is to make combatants easily distinguishable from non-combatants. That is why members of the military wear uniforms. French Partisans attacking Nazis in Paris wore arm bands. Combatants must carry their arms openly and not conceal them. Military organizations are required to have a chain of command who may be held responsible for enforcing these rules. These measures are not there to save soldiers, but to protect civilians.
Al Sadr's Mahdi Army respect none of these rules. They do not evacuate their civilians; they use them as human shields. They wear civilian clothes and hide their weapons. They launch rockets, detonate IEDs and fire mortars from residential areas full of civilians. All of these violations are war crimes. I hope the "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army are held accountable.
Our armed forces have rules of engagement that require a target be clearly identified before they receive authorization to strike. If you are firing a mortar and run into a nearby house, do not be surprised if an AGM-114 is right behind you. As for the collateral damage from a Hellfire, it is a relatively small precision guided weapon that weighs about 100 lbs and will usually hit its target.
Finally, our opponents have excellent media exploitation capabilities. In fact, our media are willing accomplices in this propaganda campaign. Why should we believe anything the MSM media releases? I do not.
Posted by: arch at May 24, 2008 07:30 AM (pKbp9)
3
As I remember, we were not allowed to exhume bodies of the dead in, I think Hadditha, because of Islamic burial requirements.
But now they just throw the head in a bag, bury it in the backyard, and dig it up to show any reporters that just happen by?
Something smells funny here.
Posted by: Scott at May 24, 2008 08:01 PM (al/0C)
4
I do not find civilian casualties funny and I don't take their deaths lightly, but....
No armed force, past or present, has taken better care to avoid killing innocents than the US, Israel, and British today. The US alone has taken 4,000 deaths and some 40,000 wounded in combat that sees innocents killed by those same troops as an exception not the rule. Gone are the days of Dresden or the fire bombing of Japan.
Posted by: mekan at May 25, 2008 09:45 PM (JJmRm)
5
Isn't disseminating enemy propaganda during a time of war treason?
Posted by: Smarty at May 26, 2008 12:41 PM (Jk5cI)
6
Yeah well, its only the WaPO after all.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 26, 2008 04:35 PM (DqXz5)
7
While it is certainly possible that utterly uninvolved people mightbe injured or killed in one of these strikes, we know that the jihadis are explicitly trained to a) deny their involvement, of course and b) fabricate slanders against whomever as a strategic attack on the opponents will. This is nothing new at all. But could we hope, a bit, that the press might ask for a smidge of corroboration? The head in the bag... Come on. It's not quite as ridiculous as the unfired bullets hitting the lady's house but close enough.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 11:16 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Getting it Right
As human beings, journalists make mistakes. We (I pretend at being one from time to time and actually get paid for it, so I have to include myself) sometimes make a lot of mistakes, or a string of mistakes.
People understand that. They get that we make mistakes—and get this—
actually find us more credible when we admit just how badly we screwed up a story, as long as we explained how it happened, and make an honest effort to improve. when we bury our heads in the sand, and refuse to admit obvious mistakes or failures in our reporting, assumptions, editing, or conclusions, we hurt only ourselves.
Right, Dan?
I've been advocating that approach for
quite a while now and hope I practice what I preach. At least
one person believes I'm doing okay, though I know there is plenty of room for improvement.
Another person I know who constantly works to improve his work is
Michael Yon. I don't think he needs much introduction to my readership, and his work as a combat journalist has always stood on its own. Yon is also big on focusing on integrity as a writer, and it is something he has harped on on his site, in interviews, on the phone, and he tells me in his book as well, which I will eventually read once
somebody starts sleeping through the night.
Yon
published a military memo on his site Wednesday which quickly got the attention of the online community. The sourcing was solid. It was authentic, no doubt about it.
Many bloggers, the military community, and their supporters were quickly outraged over the content of the memo, which alleged that military uniformed personnel we being targeted for verbal abuse by anti-war fanatics. Just as quickly, online anti-war activists claimed that this was false, even noting (though they phrased it differently) that they were too craven and cowardly to berate men and women that could easily beat them into pulp.
I was immediately interested by the report and
posted on it, and thought it might be something interesting to follow up on in more detail.
As I did so, Yon pointed out via email that some in his comments were calling it a hoax, and asked me to pursue the story. You can ready about what I found in a post this morning at
Pajamas Media.
Now, that may not sound like a big deal, but when was the last time that a journalist at one newspaper encouraged a journalist at another to follow up on his work and check for inconsistencies? How often does it even occur within the same news organization? It very well may happen. In fact, I hope it does... but we don't often see the results of such a check-up, and far to many times we see stories that are utterly false that go uncorrected—*cough*—
Brian Ross—*cough*—and the same mistakes or falsehoods reiterated another day.
Yon is interested in
getting it right. Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it
right instead of just getting it
out while feigning perfection, the public's respect for them wouldn't be collapsing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it right instead of just getting it out while feigning perfection...
It's worse than that. Too many of them want to get something out that will bulldoze public opinion in the correct direction, and the fact-gathering process needn't be complete, but only sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Posted by: Micropotamus at May 23, 2008 11:42 AM (YeWPs)
2
More kudos to you and Yon
Micro has it very right as well. Ever since Watergate, almost every MSM 'journalist' is/has been trying for that "seminal scoop". Whether the facts actually support their preconceived conclusion or not.
Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2008 02:05 PM (4od5C)
3
I heard The New Republic does it all the time...
And speaking of double checking...
You might want to take a look at this AP facade
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2rT2wzhviymfyfyRdmdKw6tciagD90O9DJ80
by the same guy who worked with others to write the Nogunri (infamous) famous article.
Another blogger has taken it apart fairly well:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/05/20/rehashing-korean-war-era-executions/
But I thought this was up your ally and might be something your readers would like to know about.
Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:15 PM (cwn6C)
4
Read the post and the memo.
It doesn't sound like much any way around.
The memo didn't seem to me like it was offering much of an alarm. Having lived in South Korea, and having watched a lot of the armed forces network, to catch shows in English, you see all kinds of public service announcements.
Someone heard of an incident involving a uniformed soldier and someone shouting anti-war items and sent out a fairly tame memo.
I could see myself doing the same if my job in the military had to do with public safety or public relations.
It isn't as if a Defense Department spokesman went on CNN claiming frequent physical attacks on GIs in DC by anti-war activists....
Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:27 PM (cwn6C)
5
usinkorea: The attacks start in subtle ways. Those of us who have been through it once are probably more sensitive to the subject. We've seen how teachers work it, telling innocent 7 year olds that "God doesn't listen to prayers for baby killers," landlords saying, "no pets, no soldiers/sailors," employers saying, "you might get transferred or try to push a military agenda, so I can't hire you." After that is when it becomes more blatant. Nasty ridiculing remarks in stores, malls, at the gas station, even in church, spitting, garbage cans of raw sewage dumped on a member in uniform, picket lines with screaming a$$holes outside your residence or place of business, your car keyed because it has a base sticker.
We remember! We have promised never to let it happen again.
Posted by: Sara at May 23, 2008 02:50 PM (Wi/N0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2008
Welcome to the Show!
Yochi J. Dreazen posts an article titled U.S. Delays Report on Iran Arms in the Wall Street Journal, May 21:
The U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter.
The military had initially planned to publicize the report several weeks ago but instead turned the dossier over to the Iraqi government, these people said. The Iraqis are using the information to pressure Tehran to curb the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives into Iraq, these people said.
Me, writing here at
Confederate Yankee on May 8 in a post titled
Why You Won't See the Iranian Weapons We've Captured in Iraq:
...hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.
The press conference was delayed in hopes that an Iraqi delegation to Tehran bearing evidence of Iranian weapons captured by U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent fighting could resolve the issue as a matter between the two neighboring states.
Unsurprisingly, Iran has disputed the evidence, and as a result, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered a special committee to compile evidence captured by both American and Iraqi forces. Once the evidence is compiled, it is hoped that this would help inform the committee in putting forth a coherent Iraqi policy on Iranian involvement in smuggling weapons into Iraq. That policy will be presented to the Iranian government in hopes of stopping Iranian smuggling of weapons and preclude a conflict between the two nations, according to U.S. military sources. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-88 that claimed approximately one million lives when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and the political goals of neither Shia-dominated government would be well-served by a return to conflict.
Perhaps by June, the media will also come to
my conclusion on what this means to Ira
nq/Iran relations, as well.
It is getting harder and harder for the media to keep up with the turn of events in Iraq. Many had been wedded to the "quagmire" theory of assumed stasis leading to assured defeat and withdrawal, a theory still coveted by most senior Democrats and the online activist left. They bitterly cling to this theory because of the amount of political capital they have invested in it, even though that theory is being directly countered by evidence mounting at a blistering pace.
Iraq is not free from terror or outside influence and will not be for years to come, but the facts are that the insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and rogue militias in Iraq are collapsing before the onslaught of increasingly fierce and competent Iraqi security forces, civilian-provided intelligence, and gutsy civilian leadership, backed by U.S. forces. We'll leave it for the historians to decide at which point the corner was turned and victory was assured, but some things are certain.
Anyone still attempting to claim that coalition and Iraqi forces are fighting in a lost cause or a endless quagmire as of mid-May, 2008, is doing so in direct opposition to the facts on the ground.
Your only response should be wondering what they are trying to sell you, and why.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:54 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY - You deserve a big pat on the back for being ahead for your analysis.
One correction suggestion: "Perhaps by June, the media will also come to my conclusion on what this means to Iran/Iran relations, as well."
Iran/Iraq?
Posted by: Mark at May 22, 2008 10:36 AM (4od5C)
2
Obammy has married himself to defeat. McCain, whatever his many flaws and errors, has married himself to victory. I have long thought that Hillary, whatever her campaign stances, would fight the war aggressively once in office and responsible for our security. That, of course, is one of the things that dooms her in the primary. In any event, we will have a clear choice, at least on the war. That is if Barry doesn't walk back his positions any more. Maybe he is educable himself after all. Sadly, Dem primary voters are not.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 22, 2008 12:06 PM (LF+qW)
3
The elephant in the room is that the Left could concede the point that Iraq has been won, thank Bush for more or less destroying al Qaeda and quickly move on to the position it had on 10-Sept-2001.
The conservatives and Republicans would probably regret the day that this happened, but, thankfully, the Left see this as a lose-lose situation.
Posted by: Neo at May 22, 2008 05:01 PM (Yozw9)
4
Let me guess - the Iraqis do not want to make this a public issue yet because they do not feel secure in their own forces yet. As that belief in the steadiness of the Iraqi forces becomes stronger Iraq will take a harder stance towards Iran. Perhaps they are being over-cautious, but I guess they are putting the screws on the Mahdi Army and other groups so that they can then turn and publicly say "Butt out" and be confident they can make it stick.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 22, 2008 06:51 PM (TUWci)
5
"...move on to the position it had on 10-Sept-2001."
Move? They are already there.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 22, 2008 06:53 PM (TUWci)
6
...thank Bush for more or less destroying al Qaeda...
And that right there, Neo, is why they'll never do it. The lefties will thank Bush for something about the same time lions become vegetarians, and not before.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 22, 2008 07:29 PM (WLr2t)
7
The Left in this country has never really gotten over our defeat of the USSR. For those of us who remember the Cold War, we remember how most Democrats were committed to losing that war.
Now we have a new war for them to try to lose. And winning this one is driving them completely around the bend (a short drive, admittedly).
Posted by: iconoclast at May 23, 2008 12:37 AM (xgHWw)
8
Your correct icono.They didnt like when we won over the russkis,they didnt like it when kicked ass on Tet,and they damn sure dont the fact that Pres.Bush has done something right in Iraq. Just saying.
Posted by: 1903A3 at May 23, 2008 08:17 AM (0JFRo)
9
PS.. I agree w/Mark CY, Outstanding job!
Posted by: 1903A3 at May 23, 2008 08:19 AM (0JFRo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 21, 2008
He Says, She Says: The Propaganda War Continues In Iraq
Associated Press reporter Bushra Juhi:
Two Iraqi officials said the shooting occurred about 5:30 a.m. in the Obeidi neighborhood after three roadside bombs targeted joint U.S.-Iraqi troops. But the U.S. military said its forces were not involved in any events in the area.
It was not clear who opened fire after the explosions. Eleven bystanders were killed and one person wounded, one of the police officials said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.
AP Television News footage showed the body of a man in a track suit covered by a blue blanket and another body in a blood-spattered wooden coffin nearby.
AFP offers a
near identical account also claiming 11 bystanders (innocence implied) were killed, in accounts obviously coming from the same Iraqi police sources. Insurgents and their sympathizers have routinely masqueraded as police officers throughout the war, and news outlets have dutifully published their accounts, many of which we later determined to be entirely false.
SGT Brooke N. Murphy, MNF-I PAO, responded immediately to these claims via email:
We can definitely state there was no IED attack on a U.S.-Iraqi convoy
in Obeidi at dawn this a.m. That's not talking about any particular
area, we do not discuss ongoing operations. I can state we specifically
target those committing a violent act or about to commit a violent act.
We would warn residents against moving toward any engagement, especially
when armed. We absolutely do not target law-abiding Iraqi citizens.
So there were not 11 (innocent) bystanders killed. Who died? Anyone? As a matter of fact, yes.
Murphy then sent a breaking MNF-I release that states that 11 Iranian-backed "Special Groups" forces were killed in New Baghdad:
Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers have killed 11 Special Group (SG) criminals in an ongoing operation in the New Baghdad security district in eastern Baghdad, May 21.
MND-B Soldiers observed as a special groups militant, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, exited a sports utility vehicle. The individual scanned the area and motioned a suspicious truck forward. Then Soldiers then watched as the militants emplaced an improvised-explosive device.
They engaged the suspect with small-arms fire and killed him.
Nearby, MND-B Soldiers encountered four SG militants, who were armed with AK-47 and RPK rifles, travelling in a SUV. They engaged the vehicle and killed the four militants.
MND-B Soldiers engaged and killed another SG militant carrying a rocket-propelled grenade. At another location in New Baghdad, MND-B Soldiers noticed a SG militant armed with a modified AK-47, who was conducting reconnaissance from a vehicle in a suspicious manner. The Soldiers engaged the armed SG militant and killed him.
Nearby, MND-B Soldiers spotted a militant in an alley. The SG militant moved away from the alley, holding an AK-47 in a firing position. An MND-B Soldier engaged and killed him. Another SG militant, who was driving a tan SUV in New Baghdad, made several passes by MND-B Soldiers.
He stopped the vehicle and attempted to hand an AK-47 to his SG militant cohorts. An MND-B Soldier shot and killed him.
Who do
you trust to have the story right, the anonymous media robo-calling police sources, or a named Army soldier issuing formal releases?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:22 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
After the Byrding of Haditha, Abu Grahib, Beauchamp and a host of others I think we can safely conclude that many of our citizens believe the worst of our fighting forces WITHOUT any evidence of any sort.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 21, 2008 11:29 AM (LF+qW)
2
CY. Can you please link the last part? Thanks.
Posted by: Eric at May 21, 2008 10:07 PM (9V6Vj)
3
AP has an article about an airstrike in Beiji that killed eight people, including two children. Local officials say they were all civilians, but the military says there were 6 Al Qaeda militants. Further, in the photo section, there are photos of a funeral from Beiji. AP Photos on Yahoo still has them being called Shepards.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 23, 2008 08:14 AM (oC8nQ)
4
Neither of your links address the topic you were talking about. Are you eating paint chips?
Posted by: Eric at May 23, 2008 02:41 PM (9V6Vj)
5
Any time you see "It was not clear who ... ", it's usually clear enough "who."
Posted by: DoorHold at May 25, 2008 10:39 AM (bjHm2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
But They Support the Troops
Michael Yon emailed early this morning to warn me American soldiers are being given a travel warning by the federal government.
The sad part? It isn't overseas, but related to what are now only verbal assaults on the
Washington, D.C. metro.
Recently, there have been local incidents in which military personnel have been verbally assaulted while commuting on the Metro. Uniformed members have been approached by individuals expressing themselves as anti-government, shouting anti-war sentiments, and using racial slurs against minorities.
It sounds like we've got a few disciples of the William Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn wing of the Democrat Party still active. Fringe leftists haven't murdered uniformed government officials
since 2002 in anti-war, anti-government violence, but it is an election year, and tensions are already running high.
This isn't the kind of "hope" and "change" I think most of us expected.
5/27 Update: This one is for those authors and moderators of blog entries at the
Village Voice, as they don't seem willing to
correct misinformation they spread even after being contacted by both Michael Yon and myself. Despite their assertions to the contrary, I went to great lengths to correct this story, spurred on by Yon.
I not only wrote the Pajamas Media article debunking the substance of this claim; I also wrote
a separate article for this very blog, though I didn't update this particular post, because at that point, this post was old news pushed well down the digital page. Perhaps I should have done so.
That doesn't excuse Edroso's laziness and unwillingness to actually read the blogs he claims to for the
Voice, or for their unwillingness to publish my response to them as of 5:47 PM today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:38 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/21/2008 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 May 21, 2008 10:28 AM (gIAM9)
2
The Metro always has lots of passengers. The troops will have to how restraint.
I hope other passengers come to the defence of the troops.
Posted by: davod at May 21, 2008 11:18 AM (llh3A)
3
And it seems that the authorities are suggesting that military folks travel in civvies if possible, rather in those 'provocative' uniforms.
That's wrong. Whatever happened to 'millions for defense, and not one cent for tribute'?
Hiding out in civvies is a form of appeasement. Will the dear little lefties like us better if we look more like them?
Joe Lieberman nailed it yesterday, with a surprising quote from none other than Dean Acheson: "No people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies".
And that goes in spades to our military personnel, who will never make themselves inoffensive to our domestic enemies by hiding out of uniform. Better to confront the beast in the open, and make public the savage behavior of the anti-American goons (whose parents were the ones spitting on returning Viet Nam vets, and who never were properly called to account).
And maybe, indeed, someone will step out of the crowd and forthrightly shorten the proboscis of one or more of the uniform-attackers. We can only hope.
Posted by: Micropotamus at May 21, 2008 01:11 PM (YeWPs)
4
Shades of Vietnam. I remember when the word went out in the Navy, no more uniforms worn off base, no more "military" haircuts that would make you stand out, even when in civvies, cautions on when to show your military ID card as identification. We were even cautioned by one ship's command to not hang "welcome home" banners for our loved ones when the ship returned from a 9 month deployment so as not to "offend" the neighbors and draw attention to ourselves.
When I hear stories like this post, it angers me to my very core.
Posted by: Sara at May 21, 2008 02:00 PM (Wi/N0)
5
I remember those good old days too. When a fellow graduate student learned I was a veteran at our first departmental orientation party, he said "you don't belong here you fascist. We'll get rid of you."
I earned a MA with thesis and nine hours toward a PHD in four semesters. When a job counselor told a Navy friend and me we needed to hide our military past if we wanted good employment, I dropped out and farmed. Sad to say some of those grad students grew up to become college professors who warp our children's minds.
Posted by: James at May 21, 2008 02:54 PM (7Plbe)
6
I ride the DC Metro everyday and I haven't see any of this behavior, but I'm not near the Yellow line. Every troop I see in Union Station gets a handshake and a "Thank You".
Posted by: Jonn Lilyea at May 21, 2008 05:15 PM (H9PcE)
7
To heck with that! Wear the uniform properly and PROUDLY. I did. They'll only make comments once, if properly "counselled".
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at May 21, 2008 07:32 PM (GAL+4)
8
Sooner or later, one of these anti-war folks will go just a little too far, in front of reasonable witnesses, and the soldier/sailor/airman/marine will teach them why you don't mess with someone who's been trained for combat.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 21, 2008 07:45 PM (ub+LC)
9
CCG: I hope not, because then the soldier/sailor/airman/marine will get busted by his chain of command. This is the 'Zero Tolerance' military, and getting into fights while in uniform (and especially busting up a civvie while in uniform) may very well be a career-ender... certainly will be a career-ender if the anti-military jerk in question manages to get his story (about how he was assaulted by a vicious, sadistic Bushitler-clone murderer-in-uniform, just for exercising his patriotic right to dissent) into the media.
I'd rather them have to put up with a few minutes of obnoxious behavior by a total jerk than have them wreck their careers by acting out.
I didn't say it was right, I just said that's what will happen.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 21, 2008 08:47 PM (3Aj1g)
10
True, Dave, but then again, just one of them getting their nose bloodied might convince a fair number not to try anything with the uniformed services. A lot (note, I didn't say all) of the anti-war types are plain and simple cowards, and won't take a chance on getting hurt by someone who is willing to make a sacrifice (his career) to make it easier for his buddies to walk around in the uniform they're honored to be able to wear.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 21, 2008 10:48 PM (WLr2t)
11
My uncle told me that when he came back from Germany in the 70's, some hippy threw a bottle of urine at him when he was in uniform.
I filed that in the memory banks.
Posted by: brando at May 21, 2008 11:14 PM (LXoqQ)
12
CCG - It's not the member of the military (in uniform or not) who needs to confront these idiots. It's you, me, and the rest of us who truly support the troops! As was said above by John Lilyea...walk up to the Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine/Coast Guard, tell them "Thank you", and shake their hands. If they are being harrassed by some unwashed miscreant, do this IN FRONT of them and then put yourself between. Don't say anything to the loser(s). It is better YOU get assaulted than the member of the military...plus, YOU have more ability to defend yourself in this case than the uniformed S/S/A/M/CG.
Posted by: Mark at May 22, 2008 10:48 AM (4od5C)
13
It just so happens that I'm going to be in DC over the 4th of July on R&R... maybe I should wear my ACUs and roll around on the Metro for a few hours and see if anyone has anything to say to me? Mind you I stand 6 Foot 4 and Weigh in at 360 Lbs... and not a bit of it fat... (hence the handle 'Big Country')
Wonder how many hippies I can fit into one of them there garbage cans/recycle bins? It'll be reeeeeaaally interesting to see.
Posted by: Big Country at May 22, 2008 02:54 PM (niydV)
14
Mark, your suggestion and mine are not mutually exclusive... why not do both?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 22, 2008 05:51 PM (WLr2t)
15
Remember, phone cameras are a big help.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 22, 2008 07:04 PM (TUWci)
16
Because it would be 'bad' for the service member to retaliate in any way. Now, if they were to be seen 'helping' a civilian supporter against a vile miscreant, the I agree with you. Thanks to Mikey for a way to document such an event.
Posted by: Mark at May 22, 2008 07:52 PM (KDHro)
17
But, see, none of this actually is happening.
Just as not one soldier was spat upon by hippies during/after Vietnam. It's all a myth.
How do I know? Profs tell me so:
http://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Image-Memory-Legacy-Vietnam/dp/0814751474
So, when you read about it happening today, understand that it's not really happening. And if it is, pace Jerry Lembcke, it's actually conservatives doing it, out of disrespect for the troops (for not having won).
Of course, it's all in the definitions. Apparently, somewhere along the line, Lembcke concluded that if there weren't ENOUGH stories in the press, and no film of soldiers/sailors/Marines/airmen being spat upon, it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen to every soldier/sailor/Marine/airmen, then the whole thing is an "urban legend," made up in the aftermath by conservatives.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/
And, yes, Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 22, 2008 08:10 PM (9Dnrq)
18
Whether happening or not...my point still remains that our duty is to protect Service Members if such an occasion arises.
Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2008 02:57 PM (4od5C)
19
Remember one thing here. If one of those idiots assaults you, the service member is duty bound to protect you.
Posted by: Eric at May 24, 2008 05:45 PM (9V6Vj)
20
so where's the correction bob? you figured it out in pm, why not update here?
Posted by: rapid at May 27, 2008 03:18 PM (oEV28)
21
so where's the correction bob? you figured it out in pm, why not update here?
I did, slick. Folks don't often read updates pushed well down the page, so I made an entirely new post out of it and emailed dozens of bloggers on the subject. I'll post a link here as a formality, but as I've posted now two additional articles on the subject, I'm not sure I see what good it will do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 27, 2008 04:36 PM (HcgFD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 122 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1352 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1108 seconds, 174 records returned.
Page size 133 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.