February 12, 2008

The Obama Flag Flap

The blogosphere began buzzing yesterday afternoon because of a Cuban flag superimposed with a picture of Che Guevara that was flown in an volunteer, unofficial office for Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Houston, Texas, captured by a local Fox News affiliate.

Allahpundit likened it yesterday to be the equivalent of flying a Timothy McVeigh flag in a John McCain office, and noted that if that had occurred, media outlets would have more than likely made more of an issue of it than they have in this instance.

I don't however, share the condemnation heard yesterday of the Obama campaign itself over this particular story from some of my friends on the right. I think James Joyner's take on the issue is even-handed, in that:

...Che is a terrorist who shouldn't be honored by decent people. Che worship (or, alternatively, the wearing of Che t-shirts as a statement without the slightest clue of who he was) seems to be a phase that certain left-leaning activists go through in their youth; it generally passes. Driscoll's characterization of it as "juvenilia" is spot on.

For reasons I'll certainly never understand, a contingent on the fringe left does and has long had a special affinity for this particular terrorist, but that in and of itself should not reflect upon Obama, unless he also shares those views or had advance knowledge of such a flag being placed in this volunteer-established office (which I strongly doubt).

What the flag may come far closer to representing is the historical cluelessness of some potential voters, and the sad flocking to cults of personality by those who feel politically marginalized, as noted by the U.K.based satire site Anorak News which said dryly:

"...The stakes could not be higher in the battle between Ron Paul and Barack Obama for the hearts and minds of America's young people, as this picture shows."

But it isn't just the young and uninformed who flock to such cults of personality, as we've all seen our fair share of Paulites and Obama supporters of every age and education level.

There are many people who feel politically lost who will flock to those voices that offer seemingly easy "change," whether that voice offers workable solutions or empty platitudes.

Considering that this story is largely confined to the blogosphere at this moment, there is probably very little desire in the official Barack Obama campaign to issue a statement against the displaying of this terrorist-hyping flag in a volunteer office. Though it would be a nice gesture, such a refutation may make this into a larger story than it would otherwise be.

Cuban-Americans, however, may find this political calculation to be less than satisfactory.

It is rather sad that the Obama campaign is in a position where it had to decide whether denouncing a terrorist is a smart move, but when a candidate runs on a platform offering so little substance or experience, being quiet and vague is perhaps precisely what they are counting on.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:46 AM | Comments (61) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"Ready, Fire, Aim"

"Act, then think" Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner stopped a planned urban combat training exercise by Company A 1st Battalion 24th Marine Regiment last week, and has been under considerable fire from the public since his decision. He still defends the decision today:

"I spoke with Major Brooks of the United States Marine," Finkbeiner said in a news release Monday. ""I conveyed my sincere regret for the failure to communicate within the administration and any inconvenience that caused the U.S. Marines Corps. Finkbeiner had offered to allow the Marines to use abandoned buildings on the outskirts of Toledo.

The mayor said he made the decision not to allow the Marines, Company A 1st Battalion 24th Marine Regiment from Grand Rapids, to perform their training maneuvers downtown beginning Friday in downtown Toledo because the presence of armed soldiers in the central business district would have alarmed residents.

"The CBD (Central Business District), particularly on a weekday afternoon, was not available for military staging operations. (Ten thousand to 14,000) men and women would have been departing their offices in downtown Toledo on Friday afternoon with a major military training unfolding, including the use of weapons being discharged with blanks," said Feinkbeiner said.

The mayor's office has been flooded with calls from people from across the nation, asking him to apologize, according to the Toledo Blade.

Among those voicing frustration with the Mayor are members of the Toledo Chamber Commerce, one who wrote in an email that, "all of the community suffers unnecessarily because of the unfortunate action of the Mayor."

The Toledo City Council, in conjunction with county officials, are attempting to make amends with a resolution that will be introduced later this morning that will provide an abandoned mall as a training location for the Marines.

In addition, the resolution will offer to pay the Marines for the lost training costs, and offers to pick up a free night's stay for each of the 200 Marines anywhere in the city, and will provide passes to area restaurants and events. They will also apologize on behalf of Toledo to the Marine Corps.

Finkbeiner, described as an "arrogant bully," but one person close to the story, will face a City Council resolution expected to pass 12-0.

02/13 Update: The resolution passes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 11, 2008

The Unbearable Lightness of Obama

Eight Years of "Billary" was enough for most of us. Are we ready for "Barichelle?"

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.

"Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

The campaign veterans shut up. They knew that Mrs. Obama's opinion and advice mattered more to their candidate than anything they could say.

Considering his lightweight resume featuring no executive experience on any level and only fleeting legislative experience of less than one term in the U.S. Senate, do we really want a presidential candidate to run his campaign on feelings?

But when a candidate has nothing more substantial to fall back on, perhaps the feelings in Barack Obama's heart is all he has left... that, and the advice of Michelle Obama, who unlike her husband, does have some executive experience (though in healthcare, not government).

As Hillary Clinton fades and Barack Obama's sweep of Democratic primary and caucus races over the weekend give him the momentum going into Tuesday's votes in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., both Obamas will come under increasing scrutiny as they seem poised to take the nomination from once-favored frontrunner Hillary Clinton in a tight Democratic race.

So what do we have in the Obamas? Barack Obama has, in less than one term, established himself as the Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. More liberal than Harry Reid. More liberal than Barbara Boxer. More liberal than Dick Durbin. He has, in his short career, established himself as the most extremist Democratic Senator. He speaks mightily and often of "change," but is America ready for the radical progressive, socialist agenda his record suggests, and that his campaign avoids mentioning? Based purely on his track record, he seems too liberal to lead France, much less represent the greater population of the United States.

Michelle Obama has been mostly out of the limelight compared to the other spouse of the candidate in contention, but her advice to her husband to run with his heart—"Feel -- don't think!"—is terrifying advice to give a man who would have nuclear weapons under his control when the next terror attack takes place on American soil, and eventuality which one day will occur, and one that could quite possibly occur during the next presidency.

As Bill Whittle noted in Tribes, feeling, caring people such as Obama are great to be around when things are going swimmingly, but as we saw when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Kathleen Blanco melted in her role as chief executive of Louisiana, you do not want them in charge when the crap hits the fan.

Barack Obama has never faced a true crisis. He has never faced calamity. His character, judgment under pressure, and strength in a crisis have never been tested. He is woefully inexperienced in a leadership role. All Barack Obama has is his emotions... or at least, that is all he has shown us, and what his wife advises him to show.

Perhaps he is, down deep, made of sterner stuff. But he has not shown it. He instead issues threats against nuclear-armed states, while promising to lose the war in Iraq as recently as just days ago.

He promises the " audacity of hope" because the paucity of his substance is so revealing. Without his brilliant gifts as a motivating speaker, he has little. As the Bard might say, Obama is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

We can do better than a candidate that excels only at oratory, and who would be shell-shocked as one of the most unqualified presidents this nation has ever known.

We deserve better.

We can do better.

Yes, we can.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 08, 2008

With Romney Gone, It's Thompson Time in the Veepstakes

Mitt Romney's gracious withdrawal yesterday at CPAC effectively cemented the Republican nomination for Arizona Senator John McCain, a candidate that I don't particularly like, but one is that is still far superior to either the empty promises of "change" from Barack Obama (presumably from partial presidential incompetence, to total), or the similar economy-killing socialist politics of a character-free Mrs. Clenis.

That support for McCain, however, is very fragile, and could easily be crushed or increased by the presumptive nominee's choice of running mate.

As both Scott Ott and Stephen Green have noted, Fred Thompson would make an excellent Vice Presidential running mate for McCain, balancing McCain's fiery temper and RINO leanings with sound conservatism based upon Federalist principles. That Thompson brings some regional balance to the Arizona Senator's ticket is also something others might note, but I find less important that his principles (full disclosure: Thompson became my favorite for office after Roger L. Simon and I interviewed him for Pajamas Media in November.)

Other conservatives, of course, could be an acceptable choice, but if McCain wants the support of the conservative wing of the party he has so often fought with, he needs a sounds conservative choice as his Veep, not a fellow RINO.

If McCain chooses a fellow liberal Republican—say, for example, social conservative theocrat, but economically liberal and internationally buffoonish Mike Huckabee, or South Carolina's amnesty-loving fellow RINO Senator Lindsey Graham—then any hopes McCain has of the tentative truce between his campaign and the conservative wing of the Republican Party are dashed.

We have nothing but flawed characters remaining in this election, but McCain, for the moment, is the less offensive choice for many. He could go a long way towards building a winning coalition if he recognizes the hopes and fears of his own party by asking a conservative such as Thompson to join him on the ticket, without compromising the "Maverick" reputation that moderates and independents seem to value in his candidacy.

The ball is is McCain's court. We can only hope he plays it wisely.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:16 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Scotland Yard: Blast Killed Bhutto

In The Sun:

British officials are set to release a summary later today of a report on the probe into PPP Party chief Bhutto’s December 27 death.

Scotland Yard investigators said Bhutto died from a severe headwound as she was thrown by the force of the blast.

They also said that the attack was carried out by a single person who blew himself up after opening fire, not by two as authorities had originally reported.

The finding supports the Pakistani Government’s version of events.

But what about the bullet theory, seemingly supposed by video? As I noted December 31:

While the new film shows her hair and shawl moving, however, it is not conclusive.

Unlike the Zapruder-filmed assassination (YouTube) of John F. Kennedy, however, there is not the spray of flesh and bone one might have expected from a pistol blast at near contact range of approximately six feet.

The ballistics expert interviewed by Channel 4, Roger Gray, notes the concussive blast of the bullet hitting her hair and shawl and suggests that it indicates a bullet strike on the left side of Bhutto's head. There were not, however, any direct signs of an invasive impact to Bhutto's skull as seen with Kennedy, just the movement of her hair and shawl. One might think that a bullet hitting Bhutto on the left side of the skull, penetrating, and exiting the right side of her skull would have shown signs of exiting in the form of a spray of blood and bone, which was not evident in the film footage.

So while it is probable that Bhutto was struck by a bullet, it is not conclusive, and the government account of her hitting her head cannot be conclusively ruled out.

In short, Scotland Yard seems to bring us back to square one: the seemingly bizarre Pakistani claim that Bhutto was killed when the blast threw her against the right rear sunroof latch of the armored car in which she was riding. The claim, however, is the only one that seems to make logical sense if the assassin's bullet did in fact miss.

Ever helpful, the Bhutto family has refused a request to have an autopsy performed, and her political party instead issues forth absurd claims that she was killed with a laser.

It seems that the Bhutto family is far more concerned with supporting the story of her martyrdom by an assassin's bullet than seeking what may be a less glamorous martyrdom by the force of the suicide blast throwing her skull against the right rear sunroof latch. If they continue to refuse an autopsy, we can only surmise they are more interested in preserving mythology than divining the facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:17 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 07, 2008

Biting the Bullet

I don't like John McCain. He is no better than my third-place choice for President, and I cannot drum up any enthusiasm to vote for him in November.

But I will.

I frankly don't care if he plans on trying to make nice at CPAC today. Whatever olive branch he extends will be quickly forgotten once he finally clinches the nomination from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, two candidates that so far refused to concede, but have very little chance of turning the tide of McCain's improbable run for the nomination. Once nominated, McCain will tack even further towards the center as his leftward lurch continues.

I don't like John McCain, but I will vote for him. I won't stay home in protest. I won't write in another candidate, either. This election is too important for that.

The eventual Democratic nominee, whether it is inexperienced committed socialist Barack Obama, the most liberal voter in the Senate, or the woman of a thousand scandals, Hillary Clinton, who preemptively declared that any report of good news coming out of Iraq would be a lie, is unacceptable as President. Both promise higher taxes, a far more intrusive and meddling federal government, and defeat in the war against Islamic extremism. This is the actuality of the "change" they refuse to clarify in their vacuous campaign speeches.

Love him or hate him, McCain has something both Democratic candidates lack: meaningful experience. Obama has served less than one full term as a U.S. Senator, following just two full and one half-completed term as a state Senator. Clinton has completed one term in the U.S. Senate, and only a third of her second term. She has no prior national experience as an elected politician... unless you think being an acquiescent First Lady to the Philanderer-in-Chief counts. Frankly, that she lacks the self-respect to ditch a serial sex abuser such as William Jefferson Clinton says all about her character (or lack of it) that I need to know.

By comparison, McCain served two terms in the House of Representatives, and has been a U.S. Senator since 1986, and while I've often disagreed with his positions, he cannot be accused of being a weathervane politician.

So while I do not like John McCain, he is what we have left among the candidates that will attempt to work with both parties, who hasn't adopted a fringe ideology (or tried to hide it), and who has meaningful experience on the federal level, who did not take his seat in the Senate merely as a stepping stone to higher office. As purely a pragmatic calculation, he's the only candidate still running in either party that won't screw this country up too bad during his term.

During some elections, that may have to be enough.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement. It isn't supposed to be.

McCain for President. Or we're really screwed.

Update: Romney steps aside.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (98) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

At PJM: Gunning For a Concealed Carry Permit

While most of you were getting ready for the Super Bowl, I was in a concealed carry course to obtain certification to apply for North Carolina's concealed carry permit.

What did I learn?

That I need a lawyer small enough to shove in a holster.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 06, 2008

Acts of Desperation

I wrote several days ago about how the use of mentally-disabled suicide bombers showed just how desperate al Qaeda in Iraq in was/is becoming, stating:

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

A story published today showing that al Qaeda is now training children to carry out attacks merely confirms that theory.

Al Qaeda propaganda tapes released by the Pentagon reveal a possible new trend in the group's terror strategy in Iraq.

The tapes, obtained by FOXNews and later released to the media, are training videos showing black-masked Iraqi children between 6 and 14 being taught how to hold AK-47s, how to stop a car and carry out a kidnapping, how to break into a house and how to break into a courtyard and terrorize the individuals living there.

Footage aired for reporters showed an apparent training operation in which the boys are shown storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons.

They also are seen being taught to use rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

"These were young boys all masked and hooded, all outfitted with weapons; adults were doing the training," said Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq.

"Al Qaeda is clearly using children to exploit other children to get the interest of Jihad spread among teenagers far and wide. They use this footage on the Internet to encourage other young boys to join the jihad movement."

al Qaeda has been forced to a point where it is recruiting children to fight for it in Iraq, attempting to indoctrinate them at a young age to become acolytes of terror. While this is hardly unknown in terrorist cultures outside of Iraq—it is disturbingly common to see Palestinians indoctrinate their children this way—it has been very rare in Iraq, where al Qaeda has a desperate need for fighters now, not years from now. The children al Qaeda is training are trained for current operations.

This strongly suggests, like did the use of mentally disabled women last week, that al Qaeda is increasingly unable to find military-aged men in Iraq to carry out their attacks.

Last week at liberal blog Newshoggers, Libby called the use of mentally-disabled female suicide bombers as " a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that" before asking, "Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful."

The quite obvious answer that she should have been able to grasp on her own was that we are successfully countering al Qaeda, using the exact COIN doctrine that she and her fellow liberals still refuse to recognize as working.

al Qaeda is forced to go to such lengths as using the mentally infirm and impressionable children as foot soldiers precisely because the COIN strategy being implemented by coalition military forces and Iraqi security forces and CLCs, is depriving the insurgents and terrorists of their base of support. Without popular support from significant sections of the population, insurgencies are doomed to fail.

While horrific and speaking a great deal about their depravity, these acts show that al Qaeda in Iraq and associated insurgent groups and criminal gangs are increasingly desperate. The proven COIN doctrine being implemented against these groups is increasingly more effective. Far from being able to brilliantly adapt, al Qaeda in Iraq has once again been proven itself to be incapable of long-term success, or even survival.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 05, 2008

"A Vote For Huckabee is a Vote for McCain"

That charge has been leveled against Mike Huckabee since it became obvious he could not hope to win the Republican nomination after the South Carolina and Florida primaries, and it has been a charge that Huckabee has vehemently denied.

We'll just add that to the long list of his lies.

Mike Huckabee won the first of 21 states being contested by the Republican presidential candidates on Super Tuesday, pulling out a victory in the West Virginia Republican convention.

Huckabee won in the second round of voting, even though Mitt Romney led after the first round. The former Arkansas governor won with 51.5 percent to Romney’s 47.4 percent, pulling ahead after John McCain’s delegates apparently defected to his side.

The convention had to go into a second round of voting after no candidate took a clear majority the first time. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was knocked out, and Huckabee, Romney and McCain moved forward.

Paul finished fourth with 10 percent among the 1,133 participating delegates in the first round, while Romney took 41 percent and Huckabee took 33 percent. McCain, who started the day in New York City before heading to California, reached the second round with 15 percent.

But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround in the second round, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state.

Don't get me wrong—for McCain, denying Romney a state he should have won, especially a winner-take-all state, is smart politics.

But I don't want to hear any more that the Huckster from Hope is campaigning because he still has delusions becoming the nominee. That ship sailed long ago. He's still in this race for one reason, and one reason only: to trip up Mitt Romney, and ensure a McCain victory.

I only wonder what promises Huckabee extracted from John McCain in return for his role as spoiler.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:29 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obligatory Super Tuesday Predictions

Allahpundit has his up as does Scott Elliott of Election Projection, as no doubt does every other political blogger under the sun.

On the Democratic side, it doesn't seem like either Obama or Hillary will grab enough delegates to land a knockout punch. Advantage: Obama. This final blow to Hillary's seeming inevitability from earlier in the campaign means that it may be a true free-for-all after all of tonight's delegates are awarded. My prediction? No clear winner.

John McCain, despite being only slightly more conservative than Hillary, looks to pull decisively ahead in the race for the Republican nomination unless Mitt Romney stages some surprising comebacks... and frankly, I don't see that happening. McCain won't win enough delegates tonight to clinch the nomination, but he might pull enough that Romney (sorry, Hugh) and Huckabee concede the nomination in coming days. Advantage: Obama.

We're a long way from November, but if current trends continue this is going to get ugly for Republicans. For conservatives, with no candidates in the hunt at all, we've already lost.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 04, 2008

AFP: Something Old is New Again

Agence France-Presse (AFP) the oldest news agency in the world and the largest French news agency, has been caught recycling two-year-old Congressional subcommittee testimony as current news.

On Sunday, AFP released an article, "US Qaeda strategy fatally flawed; analysts," which opened:

In its ideological struggle against Al-Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.

That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.

"The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, (and) not towards understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

"This is a monumental failing not only because decapitation strategies have rarely worked in countering mass-mobilisation terrorist or insurgent campaigns, but also because Al-Qaeda's ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources.

"Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks," Hoffman added.

What AFP neglected to mention is that the quotes from Professor Hoffman were issued in written testimony to The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities in February of 2006. The testimony can be found in a PDF document published at the RAND Corporation web site on page 5 and a "dowdified" quote from the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6.

This written testimony was issued eleven months before President Bush proposed the "surge" of American troops into Iraq, almost eleven months before General David Petraeus was confirmed as the new Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq, and a full year prior to the beginning of the buildup of American forces beginning in February of 2007 as part of the new Strategy for Iraq.

The AFP article, written in present tense, in no way indicated that it was citing obsolete information as current news.

The information is so obsolete as to render the article itself as fraudulent in nature. Agence France-Presse should immediately retract this article, and explain how such "journalism" ever made it to press.

Thanks to CY reader Cameron Gilchrist for the tip.

Update: I updated with the correct page numbers from the RAND PDF. I had originally pulled the page numbers 21 and 22 from this version of the testimony.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 01, 2008

How the Mighty Have Fallen

Two suicide attacks on pet markets in Baghdad today have left approximately 100 killed and twice as many wounded. Both attacks used women "with Down's syndrome" according the the Daily Mail and less specifically, they were described as "mentally disabled" according to CNN.

Both bombs appear to have been remote detonated. These women probably did not know they were carrying explosives at all, and it would probably be fair to include them among the victims.

The ever-objective, ever-unbiased New York Times saw fit to exclude the horrific detail of their alleged mental disabilities from their reporting of the day's massacre. It might upset their readers, and cause some confusion over who the real enemy in Iraq is (George Bush).

With tedious predictability, bloggers on the political left jumped with self-satisfaction at the opportunity to write about the attack, "proof" in their eyes, at last, that the "surge" of American forces into Iraq, which they so reviled, was a (blessed) failure.

Kevin Hayden wrote mockingly at the American Street:

How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?

It's not working so hot for Iraqis.

But Exxon seems to think it's peachy. I wonder if they plan to send flowers and a thank you note to the families of the 3943 US troops who died to make Exxon richer than 2/3rds of the planet's countries.

How many troops per gallon does your car get?

His deep and abiding concern for the men, women, and children killed in the attack, and those injured, must have been saved for a later post.

At Newshoggers, Libby was quick to jump to the occasion to declare the war lost:

I've never understood how people were lulled into thinking the surge really succeeded in establishing security in Iraq. It seemed rather apparent, even to my under-schooled eyes, that the surge was a gimmick. It reminded me of those bait and switch promotions that unscrupulous retailers used to engage in. The surge raised the violence to greater levels and then lowered the numbers with artificial manipulatons [sic] to a level that had been judged unacceptable when the surge began. But all that too many Americans seemed to notice was that the levels dropped. For some reson[sic], the relative metrics just didn't register.

The surge, you see (like spell-check) is a gimmick in Libby's eyes, and the very real drop in attacks and casualties around Iraq because of the application of COIN doctrine is just the result of artificial "manipulatons," whatever they may be.

Both, of course, miss the larger picture in their desire, their need to prove their worldview right. But she is right in one regard... she is "under-schooled" in how this war is being fought, and why it is being won.

These attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers. They have been used several times, including twice earlier this month in Diyala.

This tells us several things.

First, it tells us that al Qaeda in Iraq recognizes that attempts to use male suicide bombers and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), their preferred method of suicide attacks for those seeking martyrdom, are no longer effective. These attacks fail because the combination of coalition military forces, Iraqi security forces, and neighborhood militias, known as "concerned local citizens" (CLCs) creating a security system that increasingly works, and makes it very unlikely that these preferred attacks will succeed. There is also some speculation that the influx of would-be foreign suicide bombers into Iraq is drying up.

Today's attacks also tell us that al Qaeda in Iraq is getting very desperate in seeking the high-casualty attacks that they so value. They were forced to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel, and use not only women (which they'd prefer to subjugate), but mentally disabled women at that, suggesting that finding willing volunteers is becoming ever more difficult.

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

Update: The NY Times has updated the original article to now include a contribution from Mudhafer al-Husaini. It now includes commentary about the mental disability of the suicide bombers... buried 15 paragraphs into the now much longer story.

IHT still has up an original version of this story as it ran earlier, which I've copied into the comments as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (102) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 War is lost?

Then we probably should get to producing our own oil, domestically.

That is the dems backup plan, right?

Posted by: paul at February 01, 2008 04:11 PM (YQWyY)

2 What's totally, especially, nastily disgusting about this is that people with Down's synderome are among the most loving and unconditional people that exist - an exact opposite of the terrorist filth.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 01, 2008 04:42 PM (VNM5w)

3 Arabic societies tend to take a protective approach to the mentally ill. If these women were truly mentally disabled it will show how desperate AQ is and provoke a backlash against them. Remember how the Iraqis reacted when AQ bombed the children when they were lined up for a candy hand out by American Troops? This is a big Haram, AQ overplayed their hand big time.

Posted by: John at February 01, 2008 04:53 PM (YhP9J)

4 But Michael Moore told me these people were like the Minutemen! It's like you can't trust anyone anymore . . .

Posted by: Al at February 01, 2008 05:08 PM (hEYEP)

5 Another new low... the unfortunate part is that the families of these poor women were probably happy to have them serve as 'explosive delivery systems' The mentally ill, retarded and otherwise less fortunate (menatlly and physically handicapped) in Islamic/Iraqi society are seen as a burden and a mark of shame. Another wonderful example of the "Religion of Peace and Love" at work... I can't wait to get back there to get back in the mix... (BTW Bob: did you recieve that email I sent a week or so ago?)

Posted by: Big Country at February 01, 2008 05:10 PM (CN5H8)

6 DirtCrashr is exactly right. These folks are sweet, loving, straightforward and guileless. To use them this way is beyond depraved. The lefties using this as fodder for their anti-American screeds are also depraved.

Posted by: Peg C. at February 01, 2008 05:11 PM (S0aeA)

7 Actually, the AQ types mitigate their responsibility by insisting that the mentally ill are especially loved by Allah and that their martyrdom in his name is especially honorable.

the families, on the other hand, may have provided these women to AQ types in "marriage" as they are probably poor, unable to care for them appropriately and not expecting any other dowry except what they may have been happy to receive by the men who bought them.

I recall the use of the down syndrome boy that turned out the parents sent him with the mujihadeen because they were poor and the mujihadeen promised to take care of him.

riiiggghhht

I do want to know how they figured out so fast that the women were "down syndrome" when the kind of explosion that took place was probably big enough to leave little but the head for identification. and that fast, too. My guess is, the family immediately suspected they had alleviated themselves of their children to the worst of the worst.

Posted by: kat-missouri at February 01, 2008 05:22 PM (io+Si)

8 manipulatons - the subatomic particle believed by progressives to emmanate from penumbras and Dick Cheney, see also unicorns, Kool Aid.

Posted by: anon at February 01, 2008 05:32 PM (evspJ)

9 These attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers.
It's also not the first time they've resorted to abducting the mentally disabled then using them as suicide bombers.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/02/new-techniques-of-resistance.html

Those AQ types sure are brave!

Posted by: Boss429 at February 01, 2008 05:44 PM (ArYV3)

10 Bob, why are you surprised that Copperheads hiss?

Posted by: SDN at February 01, 2008 06:08 PM (4z1R8)

11 kat: I do want to know how they figured out so fast that the women were "down syndrome"

Maybe someone gave them a hand. Trisomy-21 causes unusual fingerprints.

Posted by: Dick at February 01, 2008 07:01 PM (pAfcG)

12 The NYT said they were mentally impaired about half way through the article.

Posted by: DLS at February 01, 2008 07:16 PM (Gxawq)

13 Um, it clearly states what you claim it does not right in the article.

I'm just surprised someone didn't point it out before I (and DLS above) did.

Posted by: The Ghost of Gary Ruppert at February 01, 2008 07:25 PM (Ne591)

14 Splodey dupes.

Posted by: Dan Collins at February 01, 2008 07:26 PM (RQNRm)

15 Heh. Dan Collins.

Aren't you the guy who was stalking your ex-girlfriend or something over at Jeff "Klonopin" Godlstein's place?

Posted by: The Ghost of Gary Ruppert at February 01, 2008 07:28 PM (Ne591)

16 Oh, yeah. You're from the Googling=stalking fold.

Posted by: Dan Collins at February 01, 2008 07:34 PM (RQNRm)

17 He's right, you know, Bob. That rather salient detail is listed in about paragraph 7, and then to be called into question.

Posted by: Dan Collins at February 01, 2008 07:39 PM (RQNRm)

18 DLS, Ghost, etc...

The NY Times updated the story this afternoon to include those details. The original article read:


BAGHDAD: Twin bombs struck two markets in central Baghdad on Friday, killing dozens in the worst attack in the Iraqi capital for many months.

One bomb hit the Ghazil pet market, the scene of another deadly bombing in November when 13 people were killed.

The second bomb hit minutes later and barely two miles away at the New Baghdad pet market. Both markets are on the east side of the Tigris River, and both are in mainly Shiite areas. But they are popular with both Shiites and Sunnis.

Early reports put the death toll from both attacks at more than 50. The bombings were carried out by women suicide attackers wearing explosive vests, witnesses said.

American military commanders have noted in recent months that in areas where there are many checkpoints insurgents have begun using suicide vests instead of vehicles to carry out bombings because they are easier to sneak past road blocks and barriers.

Ghazil is closed to most vehicles by head-high concrete blast barriers. The New Baghdad market has guards and barbed wire but no blast walls.

At the New Baghdad market, army units sealed off the area and set up checkpoints following the explosion. Bloodstained feathers mixed with melting sleet. At a popular roadside bird market, stall holders said a woman suicide bomber blew herself up at around 10:30 a.m., just as they were getting news of the Ghazil bombing a few minutes earlier.

"We were just talking about the first bomb when it happened," said Abbas Muhammad Awad, 54, a pigeon seller. "There was not enough time for people to leave because it was only five or 10 minutes between the bombs."

The Associated Press reported that the death toll at Ghazil was at least 46 people, quoting police officials. Witnesses said the Ghazil attack happened at around 10:15 a.m. The second explosion killed at least 18 people and wounded 25, The AP reported.

The Ghazil market has been a regular target. It was also struck a year ago in January when 15 people died. Last November's deadly attack, in the crowded bazaar in the shadow of the Mosque of the Caliphs, caused a scene of carnage, and even then was a cruel reminder that the decline in violence in this city is relative and may not last.

At the New Baghdad market on Friday, Yahya Omran, 50, showing multiple scars from one of the previous bombs to hit the market, complained that despite repeated requests the authorities had failed to erect a concrete blast wall to protect the market as had happened at other markets.

"I came back to work here because I have to pay rent and I need to support my family," he said. "I thought everything was starting to get better but then this happened. I think things are going to get worse. It's chaos."


An original version of the Times story was captured for posterity in the International Herald Tribune.

Mudhafer al-Husaini's contribution to Ferrell's article (bring it to its current form) came long after I published this blog entry, but thanks for playing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 01, 2008 07:49 PM (HcgFD)

19 You seem to forget that many of the Sunni embraced AQ as vengeance against the Americans who deprived them of their supremacy in their country, only to turn against them when it was clear what kind of people AQ are.

Posted by: Dan Collins at February 01, 2008 08:05 PM (RQNRm)

20 Note: I just cleaned out troll/troofer comments and those responses by regulars related to them.

Let's stay on topic, folks.

Thank you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 01, 2008 09:57 PM (HcgFD)

21 You realize, CY, that we could completely destroy Al Qaeda, give Iraq a fully functioning democracy, and bring peace and tolerance to all sections of Iraqi society, and the rabid anti-war lefties would still call it a "failure" for the US.

In their world, everything is a failure for the US, because no successes for the US are permitted, ever.

Posted by: C-C-G at February 01, 2008 11:35 PM (HVE86)

22 AQ is simply trying to help their friends and supporters the democrats win an election. Then they will all join church and be good little boys and girls. AQ has a long way to go to catch up with the murder of babies comitted by doctors using the liberal democrat laws.

Posted by: Scrapiron at February 01, 2008 11:58 PM (d/RyS)

23 Is it wrong of me to be absolutely raging with hatred for these despicable, predictable leftists feeling joy over this attack because they think it's a "win" for their "side". I swear to God I hate them as much as AQ. They are literally the enemy within and I think they should start being treated the same. I've had it.

Posted by: Stephen at February 02, 2008 01:03 AM (qetyY)

24 Stephen, there is a very special place in hell for those lefties.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 02, 2008 03:46 AM (Lgw9b)

25 I read that one of the women had a stall in the market.

More evidence of the effectiveness of the surge. AQ used a mentally retarded woman who had a stall in the market to get the bomb through security.

Posted by: slp at February 02, 2008 05:06 AM (e5wiG)

26 ...i think it's wrong to call these mentally disabled women "suicide" bombers.

because they did not knowingly die for al queda's terrorist cause.

Posted by: john marzan at February 02, 2008 07:52 AM (8Bd0+)

27 For once you're right, Donnie Dumbshit, I mean, "Gomer" - Bush is the enemy, and has been for eight years.

Posted by: Winfield Mcmurtrey at February 02, 2008 08:42 AM (ZgQEC)

28 From Newshoggers:

Update: Typos corrected with thanks to my human spell checker. For the record, assuming it's true, I think it's just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down's women to perpetrate the bombings but I don't see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that. Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful.

Slime.

There is nothing "brilliant" about strapping explosives to a mentally deficient person and sending them into a crowd of people.

Posted by: TomB at February 02, 2008 10:28 AM (obdGM)

29 You really need to read several of Libby's posts at Newshoggers to get a feel for how comprehensively vacuous she is as a blogger. The topic is unimportant. Hugo Chavez is one of her favorites - you can't spell Hugo without Hug.

I'm fairly certain she did not get her spot over there due to her brain power. Is she related to any of the others?

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 02, 2008 11:00 AM (0pZel)

30 Anyone care to guess whether waterboarding qualifies as a brilliant adaptation?

What a POS.

Posted by: Pablo at February 02, 2008 12:35 PM (l0iVz)

31 Peg C: The lefties using this as fodder for their anti-American screeds are also depraved.

Nothing I wrote attacked America or Americans.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 02, 2008 01:43 PM (sE9YG)

32 My critique was directed at the current administration. I added that an oil company (though I meant all oil companies) has profited from the president's decisions.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 02, 2008 01:45 PM (sE9YG)

33 The last time I looked, criticizing one's government was a longstanding practice of many Americans, left, right and middle.

C-C-G: You realize, CY, that we could completely destroy Al Qaeda, give Iraq a fully functioning democracy, and bring peace and tolerance to all sections of Iraqi society, and the rabid anti-war lefties would still call it a "failure" for the US.

I'd be thrilled if Al Qaeda was destroyed, globally. I believe most of its leadership is scattered through several countries, with very few in Iraq. I also do not believe any country can be gifted with democracy. That's like saying an unwilling patient can be successfully treated by a shrink. Many Iraqis likely would prefer a representative democracy but the majority of the government they got from the first rounds of voting is composed of too many who seem motivated by theology and personal gain than objective representation.

It's a rhetorical device to call my opinions 'rabid' simply because you disagree. Flame wars are so 1990s...

Stephen: Is it wrong of me to be absolutely raging with hatred for these despicable, predictable leftists feeling joy over this attack because they think it's a "win" for their "side". I swear to God I hate them as much as AQ. They are literally the enemy within and I think they should start being treated the same. I've had it.

It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war. In no way have I, for example, expressed joy at any attack, nor do I engage in smug 'told-ya-so' BS because I fully recognize that war is unpredictable and fraught with numerous tragedies. I don't comprehend why this makes me an enemy of anyone, beyond being politically an opponent of this administration. You're welcome to hate me but I'll be damned if I know why you would.

Among my friends, left and right, I know of none that fit the sterotypes you propose, either.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 02, 2008 01:45 PM (sE9YG)

34 Sorry for the multiple comments. It was all one, but your spam filter kept blocking it till I broke it into three.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 02, 2008 01:47 PM (sE9YG)

35 Kevin, you're hated because of your vicious anti-American and anti-military views. It's really quite simple. Calling terrorists "brilliant" for strapping on bombs to retarded women tends to make most normal people react in a negative manner to such seething rage against ones country.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 02, 2008 04:58 PM (Lgw9b)

36 umm. did you read the nytimes article to the. . . uh . . . middle of the page?

"Iraqi security officials said the women were mentally disabled, but offered no conclusive evidence."

how's your grill btw? our thoughts are with you!

Posted by: jcroot at February 02, 2008 07:20 PM (oEV28)

37 it was in the print version of the nytimes (not a subscriber but live next to some of those liberal chicken f*ckers) this morning as well. they're really going out of their way to bury it on the left column of the front page.

Posted by: jcroot at February 02, 2008 07:29 PM (oEV28)

38 I'd, scroll up, Bob answered that. The Times changed the article, he has the original I

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 02, 2008 07:29 PM (3i9HP)

39 so they tried to bury this fact yesterday but decided that they should just come out with the truth today? I mean really, what could this possibly serve? how does the intellectual level of the bombers serve either a liberal or conservative, pro or anti-war, agenda? seems like, as the print and online version said today, it's still not clear if they were mentally challenged or not because no conclusive evidence is as of yet available. really not trying to troll here but I guess I just don't get the conspiracy angle.

Posted by: jcroot at February 02, 2008 07:36 PM (oEV28)

40 Kevin, I really doubt that your name appeared in my comment, since I hadn't heard of your existence before about 30 seconds ago.

Therefore, you are merely assuming that I meant you, personally, when I wrote about rabid anti-war types. In point of fact, if you would not react as I surmised, then I probably wasn't referring to you at all.

Guilty conscience, mayhap? Or just trying to bend things so that it looks like I am attacking you?

Posted by: C-C-G at February 02, 2008 07:51 PM (HVE86)

41 Kevin In CY comments section: It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war. In no way have I, for example, expressed joy at any attack, nor do I engage in smug 'told-ya-so' BS because I fully recognize that war is unpredictable and fraught with numerous tragedies.

Kevin on his blog: How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?



But Kevin, I thought you said you didn't participate in smug I told you so BS? I thought you said you didn't take joy in any attack? Could have fooled me...
Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at February 02, 2008 10:05 PM (ON55K)

42 Just so I've got this straight, warbloggers are allowed to look at the levels of violence in Iraq and comment on the effectiveness of the surge, but the 2/3 of America who disagree with you are not.

Sure, that makes sense.

BTW, you know how many suicide bombings there were in Iraq in the year before Bush launched his REALLY GREAT IDEA THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Why, that would be zero.

Ideas have consequences.

Posted by: joe at February 03, 2008 12:51 PM (knTRC)

43 The last time I looked, criticizing one's government was a longstanding practice of many Americans, left, right and middle.

Come see the repression inherent in the system!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 03, 2008 02:02 PM (NV3P1)

44 Joe, there were no suicide bombers pre-war because the former government of Iraq was the kind that the Islamofascists want to recreate there... a brutal thug of a dictator who shoots anyone who doesn't vote for him, jails elementary school kids for the perceived "disloyalty" of their parents, and fills mass graves all over the countryside.

I bet that's the kind of government you'd like to see back in Iraq, hmmm?

Posted by: C-C-G at February 03, 2008 03:41 PM (HVE86)

45 "It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war."

It is also wrong if your hatred is driven by a mis-characterization of the war.

See what I did there?

Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 03, 2008 04:41 PM (La7YV)

46 Superb post. I have linked to it.

Posted by: Bob Agard at February 03, 2008 05:48 PM (cnhhj)

47 Hmmm... the left side of the aisle has been getting quieter and quieter...

Posted by: C-C-G at February 03, 2008 07:09 PM (HVE86)

48 "Kevin, you're hated because of your vicious anti-American and anti-military views. It's really quite simple. Calling terrorists "brilliant" for strapping on bombs to retarded women tends to make most normal people react in a negative manner to such seething rage against ones country."
Cap..how can you make such a callous and venomous statement? Kevin I remind you IS a part of your country.

Posted by: chris lee at February 04, 2008 02:59 PM (6x0Nb)

49 "Hmmm... the left side of the aisle has been getting quieter and quieter...
"
Your spam filter blocks alot of comments.

Posted by: chris lee at February 04, 2008 03:10 PM (6x0Nb)

50 The Iraqi people are caught between the past brutalities of Sadaam, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" altruism of US Oil geopolitics and Al Qaeda's Islamo-Fascist militaris,. Greek Tragedy.

Posted by: chris lee at February 04, 2008 03:13 PM (6x0Nb)

51 What part of the country is called "IS?"

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 04, 2008 04:28 PM (Lgw9b)

52 CI:

Mr. Lee has a difficult time utilizing punctuation. If I may suggest a rewrite of his post's last sentence:
"Kevin, I remind you, IS a part of your country."

Amazing how two simple commas, in my opinion, bring his meaning forward. I take issue with this meaning, however, as Kevin does not appear to WANT to be part of these United States as they are, but of something completely different.

Posted by: Mark at February 04, 2008 06:06 PM (4od5C)

53 Yeah..maybe I should learn to take these cyber-cawfee tawks mo seriously. But the general mean spiritedness and desperation to avoid confronting your contempt for the diversity of opinion in YOUR country's body politic is manifest in the dodge of your phony pedanticism.

Posted by: chris lee at February 04, 2008 07:33 PM (qTV/d)

54 Chris, if we were truly anti-diversity of opinion, would you still be permitted here?

But try posting something conservative on DailyKOS and see how long it lasts.

Take the blinders off, before you run into a tree, like George of the Jungle.

(Now watch, he'll make a comment about that George and the one in the White House.)

Posted by: C-C-G at February 04, 2008 08:57 PM (HVE86)

55 '...desperation to avoid confronting your contempt for the diversity of public opinion...'

Does anyone have a Gobbldeygook to Engish dictionary?

Posted by: Pablo at February 05, 2008 09:04 AM (g2SZo)

56 "Does anyone have a Gobbldeygook to Engish dictionary"
It's just tedious us vs them. That's the general tone. Mean, dismissive, petty STOPS to dialogue. And I will BET yer all church goin' Christians, too.

Posted by: chris lee at February 05, 2008 10:35 AM (6x0Nb)

57 We are fighting an insurgency more than anything else. The US gov't strategy is one of attrition and long term occupation..the establishment of a protectorate at US taxpayer and Natl Guardsmen expense. It's extremely unlikely that you will be able to graft on a democracy to an area that believes in Sharia, patriarchy and theocratic rule. We are clearly not as gung ho on liberal reform in countries like UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This is a "self-serving" altruist intervention.

Posted by: chris lee at February 05, 2008 10:46 AM (6x0Nb)

58 "attrition and long term occupation...the establishment of a protectorate at US taxpayer and Natl Guardsmen expense."

Like, say, Germany and Korea? Will we make them little Americans? No. But we might be able to get a stable, partially free, partially democratic country, like France or Belgium.
We aren't reforming everybody else because we can't take on the entire Arab world at one time. Now, if we wanted oil, I suspect that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would have made a better target, don't you think?

"It's just tedious us vs them. That's the general tone. Mean, dismissive, petty STOPS to dialogue. And I will BET yer all church goin' Christians, too."

As a general rule, pots ought not to critique the pulchritude of the kettle...

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 05, 2008 11:39 AM (dzXNT)

59 Grey ..I will demonstrate debating THE ISSUES. You will notice my avoidance of name calling. Now..The diff between the occupation of Germany and Korea is that those occupations were/are NOT war zones. As far as your point about SA and Kuwait..IF OUR CRUSADE IS FOR FREEDOM ALONE..don't you think it would INCLUDE pressure on those countries , supposedly our allies, as well? I argue that we don't because our MAIN objective is a more or less stable trade environment which we have in Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The object is not cheap oil, the object is the control of supply. "We" don't want it to be cheap we want prices high and under "Our" control. The main argument I am making is that the behind the scenes players, The Saudies, International Energy Companies, Dubai based Halliburton are all hiding behind mouthpieces using words like "freedom, sacrifice, patriotism and democracy" because that sells better than "geo-political advantage and control of commodity supply lines."

Posted by: chris lee at February 05, 2008 11:55 AM (6x0Nb)

60 Just hit em with the dusk-orb chirs. Even though you smokescreen for this, I'm not buying it. I still don't think that using the mentally handicapped to massacre people is noble. Argue harder.

Posted by: brando at February 05, 2008 01:07 PM (qzOby)

61 "Just hit em with the dusk-orb chirs. Even though you smokescreen for this, I'm not buying it. I still don't think that using the mentally handicapped to massacre people is noble. Argue harder."


eg: the curveball distraction.
1. what's a dusk-orb and what does it have to do with this discussion?
2. WHERE AND WHEN did I EVER say anything about mentally handicapped suicide bombers?

Posted by: chris lee at February 05, 2008 01:10 PM (6x0Nb)

62 Mr. Lee:

Please note my attempt at correction was to clarify your comment. If my attempt was incorrect, please fix it yourself. You will also note, I do not name call in general unless severely provoked. Furthermore, that name calling is generally rather abstract as opposed to 'personally vicious'. Yes, you should take these "cyber-cawfee tawks mo seriously" if you truly want to win converts to your side of the discussion. Since you don't, your posts usually get flamed and your arguments get summarily dismissed...and you are left wondering and angered as to "why".

The general problem I have with your comments in this thread (and others) is they stray from the point of CY's post. That point is rather simple: the MSM is biased followed by his evidence. Mentally handicapped women were used by AQ in a suicide attack. The NYT originally reported this fact though attempted to bury it below the fold. Then the NYT omitted the fact in subsequent reporting. Your comments have ranged from basically "Bush's fault" to "simple economics makes no sense in the ME" to "everything in Iraq (and the world for that matter) is controlled by a cabal that wants it this way". None of which have been supported sufficiently and almost all of which are more or less "off-point".

If you wish actual debate – then posit your position, lay out your logic, and give supporting evidence. When the counter comments come along, then you should address the issues raised, explain your logic more specifically if needed, and provide even more evidence supporting your position. Failure to do so means you invalidate some, if not all, of your original position. On the other hand, successfully defending that position will garner you respect and, possibly, adherents.

Posted by: Mark at February 05, 2008 02:37 PM (4od5C)

63 ...and, Mr. Lee, your last comment under #2 is precisely my point.

Posted by: Mark at February 05, 2008 02:47 PM (4od5C)

64 I accept some of your points. This is however an informal on-line debate club. People respond in silly, irreverent and even insulting ways, people respond in well thought out threads. People modify the direction of an original post and so on. My comments are not that far off topic and people are expected to be free to respond or reply as they wish.

Posted by: chris lee at February 05, 2008 02:59 PM (6x0Nb)

65 I agree with you that people are free to respond and also that this is an 'informal debate club'. However, that agreement is conditioned upon stating your points clearly...that means "without ambiguity". When your posts lack proper punctionation, your written words can be twisted rather easily. I believe this was the topic of another post by CY about the recent 'study'...and we had basically the exact same exchange.

Now, as to people who 'respond in silly...", I suggest you mention those with a "XYZ - that was a silly response and I deem it not worthy of further discourse" (or some such) OR simply ignore them and watch them explode.

Informal debate club or not...that is no excuse for sloppy debating.

Now, since this post by CY was originally about why the NYT decided to try to hide the fact the bombings were done by two mentally handicapped women, how about a statement on that instead of the many near non-sequitors you utilized.

How about answering this simple yes/no question:

Do you or do you not agree the NYT was faulty in their reportage in this instance?

Posted by: Mark at February 05, 2008 10:19 PM (P8ylB)

66 No.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 09:11 AM (6x0Nb)

67 Mark..your "Elements of Style" lecture has merit. However I still maintain it's a dodge. Alot of the "dustups" I have had on this board, have been over the inability of constructive discourse and debate to progress because of what I argue is a "spiritual" malaise in the American Body Politic. The inability of people on either side of the aisle to work thru opposing viewpoints without tired rehashes of cliched labels like "moonbats, Republicons, Bushbots and the like". Often my replies are rushed off at work, or done on a friends faulty computer. In the end this is sort of recreational rhetorical exercise. I am not going to fact check and footnote everything I say and truth be told if Cap Inf wants to keep up his rants against "lefty idiot traitors" I'm really not going to lose any sleep over it.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 09:26 AM (6x0Nb)

68 Chris, speaking of dodges, I notice that in maintaining your "We armed Saddam" position vis a vis multi-use industrial chemical sales ("plausible deniability!" you say), you repeatedly refused to answer this very simple question: Should we or should we not sell chlorine to countries with nasty governments?

If you're going to toss "inability of constructive discourse and debate to progress" stones around, it would be more effective if you weren't standing in your glass house. We have a teachable moment upon us.

Posted by: Pablo at February 06, 2008 10:41 AM (yTndK)

69 No. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas. We should not. Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts. I believe the context of my statements in THAT discussion was that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham. Our policy was to invade whether they had them or not. My issue with you is that you want to parse statements like that and avoid the substance of my argument.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 11:31 AM (6x0Nb)

70 Chris (dropped the "Mr. Lee" since we seem to be getting somewhere now):

Yes, it was a lecture and thank you for paying attention to it. Dodge or not, I felt it couldn't hurt and might actually raise the level of debate.

Thank you also for your answer to the question I posed. For what it is worth, my answer to that question is "Yes". It is an opinion question for which the answer can be explained by general examples instead of specific evidence.

I agree with you about the malaise. Most of the electorate is willfully ignorant of "the issues" of the day and just as willfully intolerant of perceived contrary positions. To wit, any media bias whether through filtering information or flooding the information stream with "one-sided" opinion only re-enforces that malaise. The press is extremely powerful - note the coverage of the Abu Ghraib shenanigans and the lack of coverage of Jihadist torture...or the Mohammed cartoon fiasco compared to the various attacks on Christian(s)[ity]. Therefore, I find your answer to my question (your opinion) to be wrong. (notice the use of 'general evidence' and the lack of specific links)

Your admitted "recreational rhetorical exercise" is noted as you stated...an excuse, not a reason. All I ask is for you to put a bit more effort into your comments, if only for clarity. I also ask all other commenters to please refrain from "name-calling" and address the merits of comments. This will have a very good effect on "constructive discourse".

Now Pablo has brought up a re-hash of a previous "dustup" and it is quite appropriate in this current context. If I remember correctly, you stated something along the lines of "your understanding was...". Where you failed on your end of the constructive discourse was in admitting that your 'understanding' was incorrect...though I believe you did edge toward exactly that later on if memory serves.

I freely admit that I sympathize with CapInf's opinions (and many other regulars here), but then I am a jingoist and my positions are colored by the belief that Country comes first.

Posted by: Mark at February 06, 2008 11:57 AM (4od5C)

71 Excellent clarification of your position, Chris.

I'll let Pablo inform you of the reasons your contention on "our policy" is incorrect. (Unfortunately, I also generally post from work and have spent too much time already today doing so.)

Posted by: Mark at February 06, 2008 12:03 PM (4od5C)

72 Mark..I don't follow your argument about the NY Times article. Like the Lefty Blogger you are using to article to fit YOUR agenda. I think it's a leap to say the NY Times is sympathetic to Al Qaeda because they omitted the comment about the bomber's mental disability. I think a correct presumption would be ANYONE who straps on a bomb and kills innocent civilians is deranged, remember- this is a paper that plays to a large Jewish NYC pop who hears stories of Palestinians doing the same thing.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 12:24 PM (6x0Nb)

73 Yeah Chris, I'm sort of weird like this, but integrity matters to me. After you tried to use the premise that daylight, sunlight, and dusklight, might not all come from the sun; you pretty much threw away the right to be taken seriously. For the rest of your life. That's how the dusk-orb is relevant.

Who's knows? Maybe it was your friend's faulty computer that made you lie.

Posted by: brando at February 06, 2008 02:07 PM (rDQC9)

74 No. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas.
So, you'd deny clean water to the citizens of a country because their government is distasteful?
Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts.
So, we shouldn't sell any food or medical equipment to Burma? Would you say that no country should sell them anything? Would you have us pursue such a blockade in the UN?
I believe the context of my statements in THAT discussion was that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham.
Thing is, Chris, that we did indeed ban sales of chlorine to Iraq. And this is the result of that action. Do you find that to be a tolerable situation, and do you see why it became clear that Saddam needed to go? Notice the date of that piece. 1998, the same year this piece of legislation was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
My issue with you is that you want to parse statements like that and avoid the substance of my argument.
The substance of your argument was that we armed Saddam, and in effect created him and kept him in power. Allow me to quote you:
My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons..he was basically an agent and client. Then JUST LIKE NORIEGA. ..He suddenly became public enemy number one and american boys and girls had to clean up the mess that the weapons dealers and foreing policy experts started.
Your premise is false and the substance of your argument is incorrect, as has been amply demonstrated. Now, if we're going to forward the debate in an honest fashion, we're going to have to agree to acknowledge facts. If we're not going to do that, derision should be expected. Your call.

Posted by: Pablo at February 06, 2008 02:11 PM (yTndK)

75 1."No. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas.
So, you'd deny clean water to the citizens of a country because their government is distasteful?" Reaching...
2.
"Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts.
So, we shouldn't sell any food or medical equipment to Burma? Would you say that no country should sell them anything? Would you have us pursue such a blockade in the UN? "
Didn't we push economic sanctions against Saddam for years..?
3. "The substance of your argument was that we armed Saddam, and in effect created him and kept him in power. Allow me to quote you:
My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons..he was basically an agent and client. Then JUST LIKE NORIEGA. ..He suddenly became public enemy number one and american boys and girls had to clean up the mess that the weapons dealers and foreing policy experts started.
Your premise is false and the substance of your argument is incorrect, as has been amply demonstrated. Now, if we're going to forward the debate in an honest fashion, we're going to have to agree to acknowledge facts. If we're not going to do that, derision should be expected. Your call. Posted by Pablo at February "
The substance of my argument is THIS> We are not driven by merely humanitarian concerns in our policy toward Iraq. Whether he had chem weapons or not was secondary to the fact that he was sitting on huge oil reserves and had the power to destabilize markets, he was also a nuisance to our trade partners in the region. He was CALLED a client, whether for helicoptors, "water" or whatever we sold him then he was CALLED an enemy. It's all about who get's to describe the situation.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 02:35 PM (6x0Nb)

76 "Yeah Chris, I'm sort of weird like this, but integrity matters to me. After you tried to use the premise that daylight, sunlight, and dusklight, might not all come from the sun; you pretty much threw away the right to be taken seriously. For the rest of your life. That's how the dusk-orb is relevant.
"
I still don't know what you are talking about. I slept thru "Metaphor Class" at school.

Posted by: chris lee at February 06, 2008 02:52 PM (6x0Nb)

77 Reaching...
Not at all. In fact, we did just that in a time that you claim we didn't care at all about chemical weapons in Iraq. Do you approve of that sanction and its result? That's the question is on the table. You dodged it.
Didn't we push economic sanctions against Saddam for years..?
Yes, but not a complete trade embargo which is what you're suggesting. Burma is also under sanctions. Do you feel that we should not sell food and medical supplies to Burma? That is the question on the table. You dodged it.
The substance of my argument is THIS> We are not driven by merely humanitarian concerns in our policy toward Iraq.
Approximately 3 hours ago, the substance of your argument was "...that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham. Our policy was to invade whether they had them or not." Humanitarian concerns haven't been a part of this discussion until I just brought them up. Do you even know what your argument is, chris, or does it only matter that you be arguing? That's not going to advance the debate or improve anyone's understanding. He was CALLED a client, whether for helicoptors, "water" or whatever we sold him then he was CALLED an enemy.
Not in the geopolitical/military sense. Iraq was a Soviet client state, and a major arms customer of the French and the Germans. Are you saying that because we sell food and medical supplies to Burma that it is our client state? Is China our client state?

Posted by: Pablo at February 06, 2008 03:46 PM (yTndK)

78 Pablo: Thank you for digging up those salient points and showing Chris the holes in his arguments.

Chris: With respect to my point on the NYT. What is the purpose of a free press according to the Constitution? Why was that right included in the 1st Amendment? If you take a good look at the text and some of the case law found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1 , you'll have a better understanding as to the reason I find the NYT to be reprehensible in this (and many other) case(s).

Now, I'll give a somewhat concise reason as to why I believe the NYT is wrong in their reportage in this case: By attempting to bury (aka – NOT report) on the mental capabilities of the bombers, the NYT failed to give a full and accurate account. By failing in this duty, they abrogated their responsibility to every single reader. This failure, intentional or not, removes credibility from the rest of their reporting. If a ‘friend’ lies or tells half-truths to you constantly over an extended period of time, what level of credence will you give the next thing they tell you? None? Half? Full? I submit, you (and I for that matter) would kick that ‘friend’ to the curb and do your best to never speak to them again.

Such is my level of respect for the NYT (and most of the MSM) anymore. I still read and listen to them, but I rarely believe anything they write or say anymore. There have been too many examples of lies and half-truths for me to invest any credibility in them. And yes, that includes FSN (though to a lesser extent since I’ve found they do a better job than most others).

Posted by: Mark at February 07, 2008 12:00 AM (P8ylB)

79 Pablo: Thank you for digging up those salient points and showing Chris the holes in his arguments.

Chris: With respect to my point on the NYT. What is the purpose of a free press according to the Constitution? Why was that right included in the 1st Amendment? If you take a good look at the text and some of the case law found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1 , you'll have a better understanding as to the reason I find the NYT to be reprehensible in this (and many other) case(s).

Now, I'll give a somewhat concise reason as to why I believe the NYT is wrong in their reportage in this case: By attempting to bury (aka – NOT report) on the mental capabilities of the bombers, the NYT failed to give a full and accurate account. By failing in this duty, they abrogated their responsibility to every single reader. This failure, intentional or not, removes credibility from the rest of their reporting. If a ‘friend’ lies or tells half-truths to you constantly over an extended period of time, what level of credence will you give the next thing they tell you? None? Half? Full? I submit, you (and I for that matter) would kick that ‘friend’ to the curb and do your best to never speak to them again.

Such is my level of respect for the NYT (and most of the MSM) anymore. I still read and listen to them, but I rarely believe anything they write or say anymore. There have been too many examples of lies and half-truths for me to invest any credibility in them. And yes, that includes FSN (though to a lesser extent since I’ve found they do a better job than most others).

Posted by: Mark at February 07, 2008 12:16 AM (P8ylB)

80 Sorry about the double...waited 10 mins before trying it again. Should have waited 11

Posted by: Mark at February 07, 2008 12:18 AM (P8ylB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Looking for Advice On a Carry Gun

This Sunday, while the vast majority of my fellow Americans will be preparing to watch the New York Giants get obliterated by the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl (and for the record, I'm pulling for the Giants...sorry Eli, it's going to be a long day), I'll be taking the concealed carry class required to obtain my concealed carry permit here in North Carolina.

I'll most likely be shooting either my own M1911-A1 .45ACP clone to qualify during the shooting qualification portion of the class, or perhaps my brother's Springfield Armory XD Compact 9mm. My other brother will be shooting his Glock 23 .40S&W, and my Dad will be qualifying with his Ruger, also in .40S&W.

Once the class is over (anticipating I pass... and I expect to), the next step it to apply for the permit. Between 30-90 days after that, if all goes well, I should have my North Carolina-issued concealed carry permit, which is good in 30 other states (PDF) thanks to reciprocity agreements.

But what to carry?

My steel-framed, 5"-barreled 1911 is a great gun, but at over 40 ounces loaded, I don't want to try to lug it around all day, and the fact it is a full-size service pistol makes it a tiny bit difficult to conceal on my rather thin frame (I'm 6'3" 165 lbs). I am, in short, looking for a dedicated carry gun.

I've immediately ruled out pocket pistols, both ultra-tiny semi-autos and revolvers chambered in .17, .22, .25, .32 and .380. While small handguns such as a Beretta Bobcat or the entire line-up from North American Arms are very easily concealed, they are difficult to shoot well due to small grips and tiny sights. Combine that with questionable stopping power, and I'm just not interested.

After doing some online research, shooting a bit, and talking with both some owners and gun shop folks, I've decided on the following criteria:

• either 9mm or .40 S&W caliber in a pistol, or .357 Magnum or .44 Special in a revolver.
• less than 30oz in weight, but more than "airweight."
decent grip size—I hate "pinky dangle."
• good sight picture.
• under $500.

I'll also betray a preference for semi-auto pistols over revolvers, predominately because that is what I'm used to shooting, but also because they are typically easier/faster to reload.

That said, here are the contenders I have so far.

Springfield Armory XD Subcompact Pistol

Taurus 617 .357 Magnum Revolver

Taurus Millennium Pro Pistol

Charter Arms .44 Special Bulldog

CZ 2075 Rami Pistol

Kahr CW Series Pistol

So that's what I'm looking at right now. For those of you gun nuts out there, based upon my criteria, which would you choose... or would you suggest something else entirely?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 31, 2008

Predator: 12 13, Al Qaeda: 0

I wrote earlier this week about militants killed in a missile strike in Pakistan. At the time, I speculated that they were going after "high-value targets" (HVTs), and speculated that the attack may have been a U.S. Predator drone strike like the one that targeted al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2006.

According to Michelle Malkin, It looks like they may have targeting someone else, as noted in this Reuters article:

A leading al Qaeda member in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, a Web site often used by the group and other Islamists said on Thursday.

A banner on the Ekhlaas.org site said Libi had fallen as a martyr, without giving further details.

It was not immediately clear if Libi's death was linked to a suspected U.S. missile strike that killed up to 13 foreign militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region this week.

The attack had targeted second or third tier al Qaeda leaders, according to residents in the tribal area.

Tribesmen in the area had said a deputy of Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader, had been staying there and was among the dead, according to an intelligence official.

It remains to be seen if any other high-ranking al Qaeda figures were among the 12 killed, and whether or not it was, in fact, a U.S. drone operating well inside Pakistan. An earlier AP report seems to suggest that possibility:

A resident said an armed drone may have carried out the strike.

"We could see a small, white plane flying over the village for the past several days," villager Dildar Khan said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said he had no information about any missile strike.

The government often uses airstrikes to attack militants in areas that its ground forces and artillery cannot reach, but some of the aerial attacks near the border in recent years are believed to have been launched by missile-armed U.S. drones flying from Afghanistan.

Authorities in both the U.S. and Afghanistan have denied knowledge of such operations.

Sure they do. It doesn't make the terrorists any less dead.

More from Reuters, which also leans towards a predator strike in Pakistan:

An intelligence official, however, told Reuters on Thursday that based on information gleaned from tribal contacts there were seven Arabs and six Central Asians killed.

He said the attack was believed to have been carried out by a pilotless U.S. Predator aircraft flown across the nearby border with Afghanistan.

"The missile appeared to have been fired by a drone," the intelligence official said.

The Pakistani authorities have not confirmed the attack, and the Pentagon has denied taking any action, but the Defense Department does not speak for the Central Intelligence Agency, which operates Predators that the tribesmen say carried out the attack late on Monday.

Villagers saw two drones flying over the area before the attack. They didn't see the missile being fired but one heard a plane's engine before the explosion.

The same report states that in addition to Abu Laith al Libi, Obaidah al Masri may have been another target of the attack. al Masri was reportedly the leader of the 2006 UK-based plot to bomb transatlantic airliners.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:02 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Silence of the Media Lambs

A current employee of the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, had this to say: "It is mind-boggling. I've sent personal emails to my contacts at ABC, at CBS, at the New York Times, and the Washington Times. No one is even responding to my emails. They call me back about other things, but as far as Sibel [Edmonds] is concerned, anything touching on that subject gets overlooked, gets ignored."

"Why?" this reporter asked.

"Reporters are terrified of the State Secrets Privilege and being subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. No one wants to wind up like Judy Miller — in jail."

What are they covering up? If Annie Jacobsen is correct, nuclear treason at the State Department.

Why?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NY Times Sets Up Hillary For A Fall

In 2005, Bill Clinton accompanied mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, provided dictator Nursultan A. Nazarbayev with a propaganda coup that undermined American foreign policy and glossed over Kazakhstan's dismal human rights record. For Clinton's trouble, Giustra walked away with shared mining rights to 1/5 of the world's known uranium reserves.

Clinton subsequently picked up $131 million dollars in donations and pledges from Giustra for the William J. Clinton Foundation as a result, including a donation of $31.3 million within months of the mining deal being finalized.

On the surface, this sounds like peddling influence for cash—and truth be told, I can't easily come up with any other rational explanation.

This is rather a bizarre time to be publishing an accusation of an incident that occurred several years ago, with only days left before Hillary Clinton engages Barack Obama in the Super Tuesday Democratic presidential primaries, and occurring just days after the New York Times publicly endorsed Clinton as their candidate of choice.

Are we to believe that the Times editors were unaware of the pending article on Bill Clinton's apparent influence peddling when they gave Hillary their endorsement less than one full week ago?

In a large news organization it is indeed possible that the editorial staff who wrote Clinton's endorsement was unaware of the pending Bill Clinton/Giustra article... but I doubt it. And it is the Times editors that chose when to publish an article that was not locked into a specific time-sensitive news cycle, but was, as they say, "evergreen." This could have waited until after Super Tuesday, without a loss of importance... but then it would lack the colossal political influence that this story now may have.

Publishing the Clinton/Giustra article on this day, so close to Super Tuesday, seems indicative of ill intent on behalf of the Times.

Perhaps Hillary isn't their real choice for President after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:09 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 30, 2008

It's Your Fault That You Hate Us

Via Ace and a sarcastic review by Kevin D. Williamson on NRO's Media Blog, comes an article by Poynter Institute Senior Scholar Roy Peter Clark, entitled The Public Bias against the Press.

And yes, he's quite sincere.

He begins:

The public bias against the press is a more serious problem for American democracy that the bias (real or perceived) of the press itself.

This is a fascinating claim. Clark argues that a healthy degree of skepticism in the American public for (real or perceived) media bias is greater than the actual damage caused by biases held by journalists and promulgated in their reporting.

Let's look at a hypothetical example to test Clark's theory.

The War in Iraq is very much a divisive subject in our culture, and is ripe for the introduction of bias by both those reporting a given story on the war, and those reading it.

Featured on Google News this afternoon is an article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Thom Shanker of the New York Times, entitled, White House Shows Signs of Rethinking Cut in Troops. The lede of the article begins:

Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq, President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force.

In that one sentence there are two examples of unsupported editorializing caused by the bias of the reporters:

• that if the cuts don't continue past this summer, that Democrats are likely to be "infuriated," and;
• that concerns among military planners would be "renewed."

Neither author supports the contention that a further reduction in force beyond pre-surge levels would cause Democrats to be "infuriated," and an objective accounting would have noted that, time and again, civilian and military leadership have stated that they would determine troops levels in Iraq based upon conditions on the ground. All Senators and Congressmen, knew this from the very beginning of the troops build-up. Quite simply, there s nothing for them to be infuriated about [note: For a more honest look at what this actually means, William Arkin has a much more even-keeled entry on the subject at the Washington Post blog, Early Warning.

Second, there is no evidence that concerns would be "renewed" among military planners, as they knew before the first surge soldier's boots hit Iraqi sand that the size of the force on the ground after the surge was contingent upon conditions. There concerns are no doubt real, but the biased lede and the implicated that this something "renewed" or unexpected, is rank editorialism featured in a news outlet that has, by the way, taken a quite public editorial stance against the war.

According to Clark, my long-held distrust of the media—honed over years of finding factual inaccuracies and demonstrable hidden biases in their reporting, and doing so again here—is a serious threat to American democracy.

He would have you think that an informed public is a threat to democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he is actually lamenting—and is either (amusingly) too biased, too inarticulate, or too dishonest to share—is the demise of the media's role as gatekeeper.

It has become increasingly difficult for a self-selected group (in this case, journalists) to alter or shape public discourse by the selective filtering and dissemination of knowledge. We live in a newly wired world, with a much wider flow of information to be be shared, compared, and analyzed by almost anyone, not just editors and journalists.

Mr. Clark does not lament a threat to democracy.

He resents that his profession must now take part in it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:22 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 as you intimated, it can no longer be ignored that the internet in general and the blogosphere in particular have exacerbated the public's distrust of the (old) media--clark and his ilk despise the fact that blogs keep a running tab on the biases and inaccuracies in the MSM, and have shown an admirable willingness to jump headlong into issues that the Old Guard has been reluctant to touch. i would very much like to see a case-by-case study done of how many stories were only broached by the MSM *after* online (read: "the public") forums had been discussing them for some while.

Posted by: j at January 30, 2008 05:49 PM (miTHt)

2 Bush did it.

Posted by: Snooper at January 30, 2008 06:08 PM (iiF+U)

3 Did you just link to Arkin? I remember what Arkin wrote before, and I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say 'honest' and 'even-keeled'.

I'm not derailing the topic, cause I agree 100% with the central theme? I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff.

Posted by: brando at January 30, 2008 08:25 PM (rDQC9)

4 Mr. Clark's assertion about the failure of the public to trust the media can be reduced to a brief dramatization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWSkSqBdWM

Posted by: Zhombre at January 30, 2008 09:31 PM (OYgj4)

5 I think Mr. Clark just wants a world where everyone listens to and does not question the man on the TV screen.

1984, anyone?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 30, 2008 09:55 PM (HVE86)

6 Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

These are UN Sanctions and credit cards.

17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

Posted by: JC at January 30, 2008 11:42 PM (KNudP)

7 Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

These are UN Sanctions and credit cards.

17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

This is the start of an economic collapse and credit scores going down.

Posted by: JC at January 30, 2008 11:44 PM (KNudP)

8 Watching your demise take place in real time sucks. Clark may not get over it, but I will.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: Pablo at January 30, 2008 11:58 PM (yTndK)

9 I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff.

Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

Posted by: Pablo at January 30, 2008 11:59 PM (yTndK)

10 That is one reasonable conclusion to a study of media credibility conducted by Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn. As a good Catholic boy growing up in the 1950s, I was devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But no such devotion can I feel to the prejudiced conclusions some scholars and politicians have drawn from this survey.

Q. What in the everloving hell is that?

A. Evidence that Clark feels that fealty to journalism ought to be rooted in faith.

I'll beg to differ.

Posted by: Pablo at January 31, 2008 12:02 AM (yTndK)

11 My colleague Rick Edmonds reminds me that many people who come to the press without prejudice form their biases after failing to recognize themselves or their values in the news.

At which point they should be fired. Memo to journalists: The news isn't about you. It's about the facts as they exist...or at least it should be.

Posted by: Pablo at January 31, 2008 12:06 AM (yTndK)

12 Troop size was always determined by the civilian leadership. Perhaps you have forgotten that the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was forced into early retirement after saying that 250,000 troops would be needed.
As far as needing proof that the Democrats would be infuriated, I find that a strange comment from someone who repeatedly talks about BDS.

Posted by: John Ryan at January 31, 2008 09:17 AM (TcoRJ)

13 As usual, John Ryan, your grasp of the facts is sadly lacking.

Gen. Pace was not renominated because he would have faced stiff opposition from the Democrat controlled Congress.

Here, read it from your own lefty mouthpiece, NPR:
Gates said that until recently, he had intended to renominate the Marine general for another two years, but that after consulting with senators in both parties, he had concluded that "the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past and not on the future," apparently suggesting that reconfirmation would meet stiff resistence in Congress.

"I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and Gen. Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Asked by reporters whether the decision had anything to do with Pace's conduct of the war in Iraq, Gates replied: "It has absolutely nothing to do with my view of Gen. Pace's performance."
You should know by now that you can't get away with making up facts here like you can at DU, John Ryan, so why don't ya just go back there and leave us in peace?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:38 AM (HVE86)

14 Oops. That's what I get for posting without my glasses on. The blockquote in the above post should include the two paragraphs below the one that's already blockquoted.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:57 AM (HVE86)

15 Maybe Mr. Clark has a point to some degree. Your own example demonstrating the bias is misleading. Take the lead paragraph of MOST article and it will by itself tend to show bias. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to grab the reader's interest, not present supporting facts. That's what the rest of the article is for. The rest of the article (if read) does go on to state tensions between Gen Casey, GWB, SOD Gates, anon WH officials, etc that would seem to back up the statement about concerns of military planners. Basically, there were statements to the point that winning in Iraq is MORE important than the overall health of the millitary (don't read that as NOT important, just less important). Based on new statements from GWB and others, it looks like the possible outcome of the surge is to have a bigger presence in IRaw, so I don't think its wrong to summarize that there are "renewed" concerns about the strain on the military.

As far as the first point, the NYT articles says "likely" not definitely and based on the Democrats opposition to the war and based on statements made by the President and the Generals in the past, its not a reach. I'm sure there will be some Democrats ticked off by this...

Anyone can cherry pick facts to support their cause or agenda. IMO, maybe what Clark is trying to say is that cherry-picking facts may be dishonest but they are still most likely still facts (just not all of them or entirely accurate). When others criticize the reporter, they aren't typically disputing the facts as much as trying to discredit the reporter. Don't like the message, kill the messenger 21st century style. If you can discredit the messenger, no one will believe anything that is said. Thus discrediting the media, means no one believes any of the media...

Posted by: matta at January 31, 2008 10:22 AM (jRTMP)

16 Says Clark: "But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance. In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media..."

And off he goes, wrapping himself in the flag of journalism and crying that democracy is threatened.

I concur here with CY. After years of swallowing 'news' stories spoon-fed by journalists, and raging powerlessly at the obvious attempts therein to shove public opinion one way or another, I say more power to those allegedly 'unprecedented attacks'. My three decades of letters to editors, mostly suppressed on receipt, had miniscule effect on public awareness. No doubt Clark approves.

Clark says there have been two decades of these 'attacks'. Not having time to listen to media critics through the slow serial port of talk radio, I've only noticed cogent identification and exposure of media bias (almost always to the benefit of lefty Democrats) since blogs became well established following 9/11. Of course, having the vast Internet resources for immediate fact-checking (hat tip Ken Layne) of journalistic asses greatly enables those exposures of tendentious, opinion-steering articles.

And I say, that if there's a threat to democracy attached to journalism, it comes from that self-righteous crusading by the journalists themselves. How can Clark defend it, when the red-state mindset and traditions (to put an extremely crude handle on it here), which are held by about half the population of the US, are habitually denigrated or excluded from consideration by eager journalists who are out to 'make a difference' via striking verbal blows on behalf of righteousness?

Let him defend against the assertion that journalists (print and TV) are a self-selecting clique (oh, excuse me, 'profession') who do not practice diversity of opinion, and who do practice selective exclusions, and who do not put news items in perspective when numbers are involved.

I say that they've made their own antidemocratic bed, now let them lie in it and shiver at the winds of (horrors!) exposure of their cherished biases. The good old gatekeeping days are being steadily lost to them.

Posted by: Hank at January 31, 2008 10:29 AM (YeWPs)

17 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/01/2008 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 January 31, 2008 12:09 PM (gIAM9)

18 You people act like the MSM is owned by Joan Baez and Jerry Brown. Ever read the New York Posst or Daily News? Ever seen Fox or ABC ? All of the talking heads are moderate Repubs or Democrat s who have cocktails together in their expensive homes after they go at each other.

Posted by: chris lee at January 31, 2008 04:59 PM (qTV/d)

19 Chris, look at the relative proportions of left-leaning media outlets vs. right-leaning ones.

Oh, what am I saying, you'll never accept facts that disagree with The Narrative. The Narrative is all, The Narrative cannot be wrong, so anything that disagrees with The Narrative must be suppressed.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 07:32 PM (HVE86)

20 That's sooo cheap and mean. What do you describe as "left-leaning". Define your terms. James Carville doesn't come near MY definition of radical.

Posted by: chris lee at January 31, 2008 08:08 PM (qTV/d)

21 If you need someone to define those terms for you, sir, you probably need to label your shoes so you can get the right one on the right foot. Methinks you are stalling.

However, just to shut you up, try this report from UCLA... hardly a neocon stronghold.

Or this one (.pdf) from the University of Chicago.

There are many more, those are just two that my search turned up.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:44 PM (HVE86)

22 Don't bother arguing with Chris. The sky is a different color in his world.

And he's flaker than a bowl of breakfast cereal.

Just lean back and enjoy his entertaining, performance-art-esque displays of grade-A Lefty Crazy.

Posted by: DaveP. at January 31, 2008 10:12 PM (1AZTv)

23 I'm almost done with the cat toy, Dave. I just wanna give him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 10:24 PM (HVE86)

24 Oh the irony of being talked down to by Bush/Cheney supporters about honest mediation and truthful disclosure.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 07:27 AM (qTV/d)

25 Give em the dusk-orb chris!

Posted by: brando at February 01, 2008 08:20 AM (rDQC9)

26 Ahh, I see Chris has pulled out Lefty Canned Response #4B... SO predictable.

How about speaking to the merits of the articles I gave you, Chris? Or is that too hard for you?

Posted by: C-C-G at February 01, 2008 08:56 AM (HVE86)

27 I like what Tom Wolfe said about the term "Liberal Arts"..it's rooted in Roman times as what you would teach to a "free" man..(liber)> What would you want a slave to think? Unquestioning loyalty to authority..the state, the church..Hopefully the press would have a bias toward "free thought, free speech, free inquiry, etc"..ok, let 'er rip guys.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 11:58 AM (6x0Nb)

28 CCG..I read the first (UCLA) report but there is no way I am going to read through forty three pages on the PDF to wrestle with your point of view. First of all maybe a "free" people has a liberal bias in general..second of all I think "the press" means the overall big picture for outlets of information and opinion. I think any responsible citizen should check out several sources, investigate their owners and their motives and decide for themselves.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 12:15 PM (6x0Nb)

29 @chris:there is no way I am going to read through forty three pagesHe didn't come here for an argument; he came here for abuse.

Posted by: Old Grouch at February 01, 2008 01:15 PM (LVagT)

30 The Poynter Sisters Institute?

Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 01, 2008 04:50 PM (VNM5w)

31 Chris, if a free people has a liberal point of view, why do so many lefties in the press try to hide their viewpoint? You'd think if it would help them with popularity, they'd be advertising themselves as the most liberal network around.

Your reply, in short, fails the laugh test miserably. But then the Old Grouch is right... you didn't truly come here for a real debate, you wanted to sling some mud and are now probably amazed that you're getting your head handed to you on a regular basis.

If you ever decide to make a cogent, logical argument, I may respond. Until then, however, I am probably not going to waste a lot more bandwidth on responding to you.

Posted by: C-C-G at February 01, 2008 11:41 PM (HVE86)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

AFP Revises History

In an article previewing the possible damage to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a result of the Winograd Report into Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, AFP's Ron Bousso echoes a questionable claim about the 2006 Israeli War against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon:

It is expected to focus on Olmert's controversial decision to order a massive ground offensive in south Lebanon 60 hours before a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement was due to take effect on August 14.

Thirty-three Israeli soldiers were killed in the offensive launched just one hour after the final version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was presented to Israel.

Major Tomer Buhadana was one of those wounded during the last 48 hours of war, which in all killed 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

The Lebanese killed were "mostly civilians?"

The Daily Telegraph noted during the conflict:

Although Hizbollah has refused to make public the extent of the casualties it has suffered, Lebanese officials estimate that up to 500 fighters have been killed in the past three weeks of hostilities with Israel, and another 1,500 injured.

Lebanese officials have also disclosed that many of Hizbollah's wounded are being treated in hospitals in Syria to conceal the true extent of the casualties. They are said to have been taken through al-Arissa border crossing with the help of Syrian security forces.

A UPI account noted that:

Israel failed to kill Hezbollah's top members, and the organization continued to function throughout the war.

But Hezbollah lost more than 500 men, even though it confirmed only some 60-odd killed. Israel identified 440 dead guerrillas by name and address, and experience shows that Israeli figures are half to two-thirds of the enemy's real casualties. Therefore, Amidror estimated, Hezbollah's death toll might be as high as 700.

Both of those links were pulled from a media analysis by Steven Stotsky of The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) which sought to provide an actual account of the Hezbollah and civilan dead, arriving at a rough estimate of 500-600 Hezbollah fighters among the roughly 1,000-1,200 Lebanese killed—roughly half of the total.

A December 2006 review of the July 12-August 14 conflict by the Boston Globe cited a total of "More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and combatants" killed, and of those, Hezbollah fighters comprised between 250 and 600 of that figure, depending on the source. The same Globe account also notes that the Lebanese government does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah fighters in their official toll of 1,086 dead, as it "can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms."

StrategyPage reported:

Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.

Instead of "mostly civilians," the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 created roughly 1,000-1,200 fatalities in Lebanon, and clearly a significant number of them, roughly half, were Hezbollah fighters.

Bousso's claim for AFP that "mostly civilians" perished as a result of the war is both technically inaccurate and editorially deceptive.

Update: Reports indicate that Bousso was wrong on the main contention of his article as well, that the report was likely to be "a damning indictment of his [Prime Minister's Olmert's] role in the 2006 war in Lebanon."

AP:

The final report into Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon concluded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not fail in his handling of a key battle and that his decisions were reasonable, defense officials said Wednesday.

It doesn't seem that AFP gets much of anything right, does it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Tears for Johnny

You can almost hear the tears hitting Nedra Pickler's keyboard:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

Be strong, Nedra. You've still got Barack, even if his hair isn't nearly as pretty. That said, I wonder to which of the two Americas Edwards will retire...

Will his chose his $6 million, 102-acre estate in Chapel Hill, or his million-dollar beach estate on gated Figure Eight Island?

Courage, Johnny.

Courage.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:13 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Thanks, Florida

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.5481 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4769 seconds, 540 records returned.
Page size 455 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.