Confederate Yankee
June 04, 2007
Thanks Again, Jorge
Traffic was tied up for hours this morning thanks to a fatal wreck that the local media is attributing to another suspected drunk-driving illegal alien.
Read between the lines:
Authorities believe alcohol was a factor in a fatal accident on Interstate 40 in Raleigh.
According to the Highway Patrol, a 54-year-old man in a Chevrolet Tahoe crossed the median onto westbound I-40 near the Wade Avenue exit, striking another vehicle. Troopers said the driver of the second vehicle died in the accident.
Investigators said the Tahoe then struck a Ford Mustang. The driver of the Mustang was injured.
According to the Highway Patrol reconstruction team, tire tracks left by the Tahoe suggest the vehicle was going so fast through the median that it was turned sideways.
The driver of the Chevrolet Tahoe was taken to WakeMed. His extent of his injuries is not yet known. There is no word yet on his blood-alcohol content. The Highway Patrol is also looking into the driver's immigration status.
For those of you not familiar with North Carolina's immigrant problem, 65% of all Hispanics in the state--
more than 300,000--are illegal.
That population has contributed heavily to drunk driving accidents in our state, including some high-profile local accidents.
Three were killed in November in Sanford by a drunk illegal who had already been arrested once for driving without a license, and another illegal with two previous DWI convictions
killed a father and son in early March. These are just three local examples of American families shattered by drunken illegals that got behind the wheel. I could provide more from other parts of the state and other states without Google breaking a sweat.
Our federal legislators, and President Bush fail to stop these criminals at the border. Our state legislators and governors make policy decisions that turn some states (including my own) into magnets for illegal immigration, essentially inviting illegals into our cities and towns, and for what, cheap labor?
Well, I hope that lower payroll for the casket makers and grave diggers is passed along to the victim families.
I'm sure that saving money on burying their loved ones will make everything okay.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:16 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Same thing happens in FL with disturbing frequency.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 04, 2007 01:51 PM (Sr5ZD)
2
There are two things that a NC candiate (for any office) can say to get my vote:
"I want to send these criminals back to where they came from." and "I want to introduce school vouchers."
Posted by: Dan Irving at June 04, 2007 02:21 PM (zw8QA)
3
Yes. since their 'guests' in our country why cant they at least obey our laws??
Posted by: Karl at June 04, 2007 03:25 PM (+Z9xC)
4
Quite a few of them think this is their country. In a few decades it will be if we keep on this path.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 04, 2007 09:11 PM (Sr5ZD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I'm Back
My wife and daughter and I begrudgingly left Orlando yesterday morning and rolled back into North Carolina late yesterday afternoon. It was fun to visit with my sister-in-law's family in West Palm Beach for a couple of days before introducing my wife and seven-year-old daughter to Uncle Walt's dream. My only regret that we couldn't stay longer. Things have changed a lot in the 24 years since I last visited ORlando, but the experience of this past week is one I'll treasure for years to come.
Here's a picture we snapped of ourselves in Epcot at the Kodak Incredible Picture Lab in Epcot.
I'm just as ugly as ever, but the wife and kid sure are cute.
I'll be back online and back up to my normal posting frequency within the next 48 hours or so, and will try to get something out later this afternoon.
I want to thank my brother and blog designer extraordinare "phin" for keeping you all entertained with his guest-blogging. Should you ever want a web or blog design or your own, consider contacting him and his partners in crime at
Apothegm Designs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:54 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
June 01, 2007
Tommorrow starts here Todday

I'm thinking whoever typed in the banner had best be looking for a new job todday. 'cause that sppell checker deal, it ain't working out so hot.
Posted by: phin at
11:22 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It isn't just the banner, the smaller, repeating format gets it wrong, too.
Posted by: Retread at June 01, 2007 02:07 PM (P/AfD)
2
I blame global warming.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2007 02:11 PM (WzMpV)
3
I blame global warming.
Purple,
That was funny. Thank you.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 01, 2007 02:47 PM (kxecL)
4
Purple, don't you mean global warmming?
Or is this another example of Hillary pandering to us dumb southerners. First, it was the accent, now she's spelling wrong.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at June 01, 2007 03:11 PM (oC8nQ)
5
It's not a typo. See here.
Posted by: abwtf at June 01, 2007 03:49 PM (FJ/ua)
6
"Tommorrow, tommorrow; I'll love you tommorrow, it's only a daze away"
Posted by: Tom TB at June 01, 2007 07:39 PM (A5s0y)
7
I really feel that Hillary has my best interests in mind and is reaching out to me.
Posted by: Tom Morrow at June 01, 2007 09:05 PM (vORDe)
8
You expected a banner designed by collectivists to NOT have misinformation?
Posted by: Dusty at June 02, 2007 02:40 AM (GJLeQ)
9
...and that's not even a hard word, like potatoe.
Posted by: Ahenobarbus at June 02, 2007 07:58 AM (6MrxL)
10
On an office building in town the new business put up a large professionally made sign in metal that says.
Notary Republic
Its spelled properly.
Posted by: NortonPete at June 03, 2007 12:35 PM (fVuwW)
11
Somebody should give her a link to the BLS website. Unemployment at 4.5%, and for folks with college degrees the rate is 1.8%. We're at full employment ALREADY!
If Hillary wins, does it mean we can all just stay home and let the rich folk pay our way? I wouldn't mind sucking down margaritas pool-side and telling the waitress, "Oh, Bill Gates will be picking up the tab. And bring me some cheese sticks with the next margarita."
Posted by: muckdog at June 03, 2007 01:06 PM (O8Hhk)
12
We're at full employment ALREADY!
I'm completely confident the Democrats have a plan to rectify that situation.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 04, 2007 10:50 AM (Sr5ZD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 31, 2007
How not to welcome your son-in-law into the family...
If he didn't want this guy bagging his daughter wouldn't Necrotizing fasciitis or some other flesh eating bacteria have been quicker?
From Fox News:
The father-in-law of the 31-year-old man under federal quarantine with a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis is one of the leading TB researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, FOX News has learned.
Dr. Robert Cooksey, who works in the CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, confirmed to FOX News that he is the father-in-law of Andrew Speaker, a personal-injury lawyer who practices in his father's law firm in Atlanta.
Asked by FOX News whether it was possible that he had passed along the dangerous strain to his son-in-law, Cooksey said, "Absolutely not." He added that he "works in the lab" and "is not authorized to talk about that."
I've heard about fathers being overprotective of their daughters and all, but this guy has taken it to a new level.
Overheard in the halls of the CDC Atlanta Office just moments ago:
What do you call a personal injury lawyer with a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis? A good start.
Too soon?
Posted by: phin at
02:57 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So it turns out the guy who was warned not to travel and did so anyway is a personal injury attorney? And married the daughter of the guy who knows most about how to treat his TB? You can't make this stuff up!
Maybe those passengers on the flights he took could get John "Silky Pony" Edwards to sue him. I expect he'll need work after the first primary or so.
Posted by: Retread at May 31, 2007 03:04 PM (P/AfD)
2
After seeing the daughter, I would almost be willing to get a dread disease in order to bang her.
Posted by: 1sttofight at June 01, 2007 12:55 AM (51r8a)
3
But isn't the real issue here Bush's attack on the CDC’s budget:
– 2002: Proposed a $174 million cut.
– 2003: Proposed a $1 billion cut, with no new funding for preventive health divisions working on TB.
– 2004: Proposed an increase of “less than 1 per cent.”
– 2005: Proposed a $263 million cut, while simultaneously proposing a $270 million increase in abstinence education.
– 2006: Proposed a $500 million cut which would have slashed grants to state and local health departments like the Fulton County Health and Wellness Department involved in this week’s TB-scare.
– 2007: Proposed a $179 million cut, in addition to unspecified plans for more CDC “savings.”
– 2008: Proposed a $37 million cut, including “massive funding cuts in proven health protection programs.”
Posted by: Frederick at June 02, 2007 08:11 AM (6MrxL)
4
Of course it is, Frederick. It always is -- always.
Posted by: Mike at June 02, 2007 08:17 AM (G9Hfm)
5
Mike: Of course it isn't Bush's fault. The guy was trying to get back in the country not leave. Maybe he was getting US medical care mixed up with the excelllent care provided in Cuba.
Posted by: Davod at June 02, 2007 01:38 PM (RdotW)
6
Good research Fredrick. Think that one of our number one concerns is that we will have a biologic attack by terrorist. Yet we have no answer for the newer strains of smallpox and numerous other new/old diseases such a TB. But is our great leader worried about this? Is he worried about terrorist crossing the borders? No, he and out previous part are worried about how much pork they can mine and making their 20 million friends feel good. So, do we really have a war on terror, or are we all dupes?
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at June 02, 2007 08:54 PM (mk/ht)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ex-FBI director endorses Giuliani ...
... they used to enjoy long fireside chats while dressed as Thelma and Louise.
Wait, wrong
FBI Director.
Freeh endorses Giuliani and will serve
Saint Andie's cabana boy as his campaign's senior homeland security adviser.
Freeh's endorsement is viewed by supporters as a boost to Giuliani's image as a strong leader against terrorism and crime in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On the campaign trail, Giuliani has asserted that he and his fellow Republicans have the best approach to deterring terrorism.
"Rudy Giuliani's optimistic leadership is responsible for making the city of New York what it is today, one of the safest largest cities in the country and a place where the world feels safe to visit," Freeh said in a statement prior to a news conference.
"No one knows better than Louie Freeh what it takes to fight crime," said Giuliani.
Freeh, whose eight year-tenure as FBI director was marked by a long-running feud with
President Clinton, also will serve as senior homeland security adviser for Giuliani's campaign and will head the candidate's Delaware campaign. Freeh lives in Wilmington, Del.
Posted by: phin at
02:08 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Edwards wants probe of high gas prices...
...and that's not the only probe he's hoping for.
In a word
pandering.
Apparently teh Silk Pony doesn't realize he's become, or doesn't have a problem with being, a whore.
Many of Edwards' proposals — from cutting greenhouse gas emissions to investigating oil industry consolidation — have been the subject of numerous hearings in Congress this years*, as has* calls by Democrats to make automobiles more fuel efficient.
I'm guessing this is news because Silky is spewing it. Which is why I'm voting for Fred!. After he annexes Mexico we can go ahead and pick up Venezuela. See, I've just laid out a plan for petroleum independence, I could be a contender!
* The AP are has do be English majors.
Posted by: phin at
12:37 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I confess I'm still mystified as to why Edwards is taken seriously by anyone. Very little experience relevant to the job he's after, and a class-warfare shtick that ceased to make any sense after the Industrial Revolution. Who are his supporters again?
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at May 31, 2007 08:51 PM (fFqQZ)
2
Who are his supporters again?
The clinically insane. They deserve representation too you know.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 02, 2007 08:08 AM (3hI9m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saint Andie isn't calling the Bush Administration Hitler...
...because the phrase War Criminals and Nazis is much more fitting.
Let's begin at the end of Andie "Patron Saint of the Man Pooter" Sullivan's
article.
Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
See he's not calling them Hitler, because, you know Hitler was doing a world a favor by getting rid of those filthy Joos, its the Nazi Party's misguided questioning techniques that Andie wants you to think of when you think of Bush and his Henchmen.
Of course calls for the death of the Bush Administration is nothing new from the party of Love, Peace and Patriotism. If a few thousand more Americans have to die while they're at work in their offices, just so we can ensure the Freedom Fighters are comfortable in their cells, so be it and who the hell are you to question their Patriotism, you nazi bastard.
The part of the document Andie's hoping you didn't read or given the typical Neocon's lack of reading comprehension hoping you wouldn't understand:
1. The sharpened interrogation may only be applied if, on the strength of the preliminary interrogation, it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries.
2. Under this circumstance, the sharpened interrogation may be applied only against Communists, Marxists, members of the Bible-researcher sect, saboteurs, terrorists, members of the resistance movement,...
3. The sharpened interrogation may not be applied in order to induce confessions about a prisoner's own criminal acts...
Andie would hope you'd skip the part about only applying "sharpened interrogation" to terrorists who
"it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries" and follow along in his inference that Bush, his Administration and those questioning terrorists are war criminals.
Personally, I place the value of human life above my concerns of safety for a terrorist. But maybe I'm being unrealistic and we should just follow Saint Andie's lead and push for a kinder gentler form of questioning:

I guess Pablo the bikini-clad-pool-boy should question Saint Andie.
Posted by: phin at
10:55 AM
| Comments (42)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hell, if she's doing the interrogating.....
Posted by: Nico at May 31, 2007 11:34 AM (51ePm)
2
"The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death."
Hmmm. So Sully supports the death penalty for those who use torture - clearly he therefore wants us to make every conceivable effort to enforce this on all those using that recently discovered (and so colorfully illustrated) middle eastern torture manual? Or is it only US citizens who have to follow laws -- the rest of the world clearly having evolved beyond the need for such a crude concept?
All kidding aside, I could at least sympathize with Sully if he were spouting this one sided and self destructive pap in the name of some religion - after all, (some) religions do place principal above all, on grounds that (religiously sanctioned) suffering in the now will result in a greater reward in the afterlife.
But this isn't driven by religious principal - it's a purely secular principal, and which therefore advocates suffering without any sort of recompense other than presumably the clearing of one's own conscience; a conscience in Andy's case that writes off the slowly-being-killed kind of suffering happening to captured servicemen and random civilians in Iraq as "all Bush's fault" in order to free up more quality time for flagellating himself over the (non-lethal) discomfort being inflicted on those in US custody who not only want him dead, but killed by way of either a live burial or having a wall toppled over on him.
Andrew Sullivan is a mindless bitch who will never get around Bush's- and conservatives'- resistance to gay marriage, no matter what size of clue by four reality beats him over the head with. This is the true Andy, the one who lay (semi) dormant prior to the gay marriage thing, until the veneer was torn away exposing him as a silly, immature, posing, over educated dolt.
Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2007 11:41 AM (FAHM2)
3
Scott, Andrew didnt say he supports the death penalty for torturers. He is stating an empirical fact. When the Nazis did what we do now, they were executed.
'Or is it only US citizens who have to follow laws -- the rest of the world clearly having evolved beyond the need for such a crude concept?'
Try it the other way - the US is evolved to a point further than the terrorists. We rely on law - that's what makes us better than them, and we must preserve it.
The rest of your post was kind of gibberish, unfortunately, but that's the way it goes!
Posted by: Mick at May 31, 2007 01:30 PM (L8Iin)
4
There is only one name for an American that, when faced with an enemy that hates the concept of a nation based on humane principals and the rule of law, immediately sacrifices those principals and rule of law for a temporary (and false) sense of security: "COWARD"
Posted by: Jim at May 31, 2007 01:31 PM (vmNEB)
5
Mick,
Sadly your version of "evolution" would still have planes being used as weapons against our innocent citizens.
A quick question for you.
Hypothetically you have a terrorist in custody and know he has knowledge of an attack that will take place within the next twenty-four hours would you rather:
A) Use what Saint Andie calls torture and leave a terrorist with recurring nightmares of a woman seeing him naked. or
B) Have another attack against our citizens.
We've already determined, from the article Andie sited, that these guys aren't giving up the information when being asked nicely. You're under a deadline. Its A or B, nightmares or thousands of American Kids who won't see their mom or dad ever again.
Posted by: phin at May 31, 2007 02:01 PM (CQcil)
6
I don't know why the Republicans are so keen on torture that every one of the candidates except the one who knows the most about the subject, McCain, played quien es mas macho during the debates.
The truth is, torture doesn't work.
If you don't believe me, Google Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran's piece on interrogation, the paper that is required reading for all Marine interrogators.
If the classics don't move you, read Mark Bowden's article in last month's Atlantic on how Task Force 145 cracked Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s inner circle—without resorting to torture—and took out al-Qaeda’s main man in Iraq.
If you don't have time to read both articles, let me summarize: Torture does not work. Being a decent human being does work.
With torture we sacrifice the moral high ground, our founding principles and the humanity of the interrogator and what do we get in return? Bupkiss.
So why are all these GOP candidates so eager to endorse a tactic that doesn't work? My guess is it's because it's an easy and cheap way to look tough, especially if you've never served.
But that's just a guess.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 31, 2007 02:03 PM (kxecL)
7
'Enhanced Interrogation' sure got those Fort Dix six caught. Oh wait, it was all those super duper provisions of the patriot (sic) act. No? Wait, it was some dude at Wal-Mart who thought there was something odd about the 'training videos'. I'm sure glad the constitution was trampled to find those Fort Dix Six! oh wait...
Posted by: Mark at May 31, 2007 02:13 PM (zwNmS)
8
Would it be worth waterboarding someone to stop NYC from being vaporized by a nuclear bomb? I think so.
"The truth is, torture doesn't work."
"If you don't have time to read both articles, let me summarize: Torture does not work. Being a decent human being does work."
Let me get this straight, asking a terrorist really nicely will work better than torture? Does it work when time is of the essence? Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't we water-board Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Then didnt he spill the beans about a whole bunch of stuff?
Posted by: jbiccum at May 31, 2007 02:58 PM (Rd4s4)
9
jbiccum,
Hey, like I said, don't believe me. Believe guys who have been there and done that.
I tend to trust people with real, hands-on experience and results.
But if you think the blow-dried Mitt Romney knows more about torture than John McCain, I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 31, 2007 03:06 PM (kxecL)
10
"'Enhanced Interrogation' sure got those Fort Dix six caught. Oh wait, it was all those super duper provisions of the patriot (sic) act. No? Wait, it was some dude at Wal-Mart who thought there was something odd about the 'training videos'. I'm sure glad the constitution was trampled to find those Fort Dix Six! oh wait..."
Clearly it isnt the answer in every situation, but it does have its place. What if your mother or someone else close to you was saved because some low life jihadist was water-boarded, would you still be sarcastic about it?
Understand this is the most dangerous foe I think we have ever faced. They dont have a country of origin. They dont wear uniforms. They will kill anyone in any number to further their cause.
Honestly, I dont think waterboarding is torture. Nor do I think underwear on the head is torture. To me torture is a blow torch and a pair of pliers, or maybe cutting someones genitals off. That stuff is just plain wrong, and our enemies do it everyday.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 31, 2007 03:12 PM (Rd4s4)
11
"But if you think the blow-dried Mitt Romney knows more about torture than John McCain, I guess we'll just have to disagree."
No man, I agree with you completely. I just don't think underwear on the head or waterboarding is anything close to what John McCain went through. Do you agree with that?
Posted by: jbiccum at May 31, 2007 03:15 PM (Rd4s4)
12
jbiccum,
Yes, I agree with you on that. But this torture lite doesn't get us anything except the disgust of the rest of the world.
I did a quick search on KSM to see if maybe I'm wrong and waterboarding really worked in his case. I found a lot of sources you would probably dismiss that said it didn't and the most objective source I could find was Newsweek. Here's part of what they said:
"In recent interviews with NEWSWEEK reporters, U.S. intelligence officers say they have little—if any—evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture. It is clear, for instance, that Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family. (KSM reportedly shrugged off the threat to his family—he would meet them in heaven, he said.) KSM did reveal some names and plots. But they haven’t panned out as all that threatening: one such plot was a plan by an Al Qaeda operative to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge—with a blow torch. Intelligence officials could never be sure if KSM was holding back on more serious threats, or just didn’t know of any.
So I still don't see why we should give up the moral high ground and our principles for a technique that doesn't work. Don't get me wrong. I'm no bleeding heart, and I have more than passing acquaintance with the intelligence community, and if I thought it did work I'd give it the green light.
But all the evidence I've seen says it doesn't. I know an MI officer in Iraq right now and he should be home soon. We've talked about this before and he's tougher than I am (hell, he's tougher than 100 men I know) but he wasn't convinced either, and this was right after Abu Ghraib, a place he was very familiar with. His bottom line? He wanted his men to have the license to use harsh interrogation techniques, but he saw that the blowback from Abu Ghraib probably wasn't worth it.
I still have an open mind on this, but I'm disgusted by the macho posturing of guys who've never walked the walk.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 31, 2007 03:30 PM (kxecL)
13
jbiccum -
Yes, waterboarding is torture. So is not being allowed to sleep for weeks on end and being nearly frozen to death. These are all techniques created and tested by our most brutal enemies (Stalin's Gulag, Nazi Germany, North Vietnam, etc), and is now being endorsed by the Republican party and our President.
The choice you give of "ask nicely", or tortue, is a false choice. As suggested to you by another individual, try doing a little research about interrogation by the people that actually do it for a living. Nearly every single one will tell you that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" either fail, or send you down the wrong path.
I would much rather die free in a nation of principals, rule of law and a higher moral code than our barbaric enemies, than sacrifice the basic principals this country was founded on.
Posted by: Jim at May 31, 2007 03:34 PM (vmNEB)
14
Now we're back to if you have never been a torturer you have no right to talk about torture.
Posted by: davod at May 31, 2007 03:38 PM (RdotW)
15
davod,
Now we're back to if you have never been a torturer you have no right to talk about torture.
No, not at all.
But you can listen to people who are interrogators, and read about cases where a technique either worked or it didn't.
It's too easy to swagger and talk tough, that's all I'm saying.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 31, 2007 03:50 PM (kxecL)
16
I want to play!
Hypothetically you have a prisoner in custody and know he has knowledge of an attack that will take place within the next twenty-four hours. You decide to torture him to get this information. In the course of employing your favorite enhanced interrogation techniques, the prisoner gives up his information, but dies shortly thereafter.
You alert your security forces to stop the attack. They report back that there was no attack planned after all.
Do you:
A) Explain to his Widow and kids that "in order to make omelettes, sometimes you have to break a few eggs," give them a few hundred bucks for their trouble and send them on their way.
B) Figure the idiot had it coming. He wouldn't have been in detention if he wasn't guilty.
C) Say to yourself, "the only good sand ------ is a dead sand ------."
Posted by: Big Jim at May 31, 2007 05:13 PM (O6m74)
17
"The rest of your post was kind of gibberish, unfortunately, but that's the way it goes!"
Mick, I do feel badly for you, but please don't blame your lack of reading comprehension on me - Ritalin will do wonders for your ADHD, just ask your mum to run you down to the doctor's for a prescription (service provided pro bono, BTW - no need to thank me).
(Although from the entirety of your post it looks like you'll also need to graduate from high school to understand the words with more than two syllables now that you're able to maintain attention span for longer than a paragraph, but that's the way it goes!)
Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2007 06:54 PM (FAHM2)
18
Phin,
Sure I've heard similar versions of that story.
And even though that horrific little scenario never actually occurs in, um, reality, for the sake of arguement I'll accept your hypothetical
construct here provided you allow me to pick the method of tortu ... interrogation.
Fair enough?
So instead of underwear and waterboarding--this would be an attack that endangered the lives of thousands, who knows, maybe millions of innocent American lives--let's just posit that we are certain we can break this terrorist by raping his child in front of him. Sure, that's brutal, but weighed up against the lives of millions, why not?
We could drill his teeth without anesthetic. Have him drawn and quartered. Pour molten lead onto various parts of his body.
Honestly, I can't think of any action toward this terrorist scum whatsoever, however vile, unthinkable, or un-American, that couldn't easily be justified by this scenario. Can you?
But wait, that couldn't be why this scenario is being offered up? Could it?
Posted by: Big K at May 31, 2007 07:04 PM (UGN3h)
19
Big K,
I haven't seen any of the torture techniques used by Americans that cause harm to anyone other than the terrorist.
As a parent I'd never go along with the raping of anyone's child or punishing and innocent to get information from someone else. There are lines that can never be crossed. As for the other methods that would inflict harm on said terrorist and in return save the lives of innocents, or even just one, you're damned skippy.
I have no problem with it at all and wouldn't have a problem sleeping at night.
How can I justify such actions? I also support the death penalty and have no problem with it being proactive enforcement.
As I'd mentioned, some lines should never be crossed. Yet if it takes killing a terrorist to prevent them from killing others I have trouble differentiating between that and a police officer killing someone who has brandished a weapon and is seriously threatening to kill a hostage.
Given the choice between one of the victims of 9/11 and Mohamed Atta being maimed or killed, I'd choose the wellbeing of the victim every time.
The choice of sacrificing an innocent person isn't at play, nor was it ever discussed. However, sacrificing a terrorist, to save the lives of innocents was. And to be blunt, No I can't think of any action against a terrorist's person that that would be off limits if they pose an imminent threat.
Call me uncivilized if you want, but at least I'm honest about it.
Posted by: phin at May 31, 2007 07:32 PM (YgMQV)
20
phin,
You say this isn't about the choice of sacrificing an innocent person, but it is. Last year we released two Afghanis from Gitmo who were guilty of nothing more than telling a joke about Clinton, a joke that was misunderstood by our interrogators as being a threat on the a president.
I won't make a joke about certain intel ops being absent a sense of humor, but I could.
So, indeed, we are talking about innocent people being swept up and tortured, for information they don't have. If you have any sense of empathy, put yourself in that Afghani jokester's sandals. Wouldn't you tell them anything to stop the waterboarding? Thank God, I've never been in that position, but I'm not sure how long I could hold out. I'd tell them something. Anything. I'd make stuff up.
Have you ever been jolted by a field phone? I have. Every GI who has been bored, with a field phone, has put their fingers on the terminals and given it a twist, just to feel what it feels like. I don't know how I could hold up if those terminals were attached to my huevos and there was an eager phin on the crank, ready to give it a whirl. And don't tell me we haven't done that because I know better.
I know we've stood kids on hand grenades, on the spoon, the pin pulled, and questioned their familes. Their mothers and fathers knowing that if the kid gets tired, which she will, she'll slip off that frag and Ka-Boom, she's toast, and they don't give it up because they don't know. That's real world, phin, not hypotheticals like a suitcase nuke and Jack Bauer has 24 to get 'er done. That's what we, the USA, have done in Central America.
So, there are those in intel who have gone on record, with results, saying that torture doesn't work.
Do you feel so confident now about our use of waterboarding? Are you so sure that as a nation we should be doing these things in your name and my name?
Because I'm not. I'm not.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 31, 2007 10:28 PM (tk0b2)
21
Have any of you guys done any serious research into how waterboarding is done and why it's been used since at least the Inquisition? Why are you convinced it's just "torture lite"?
I'll repeat an offer -- I'll pay $10K to anyone here who will endure 60 minutes of this at my hands.
Posted by: Random Guy at May 31, 2007 10:40 PM (X1Llr)
22
before anyone talks about whether or not waterboarding is torture, I suggest they see a video of it here.
This reporter is an ex-Navy SEAL and as such had endured waterboarding before as part of his training in resistance to torture techniques. I think all the Keyboard Kommandos need to watch this before they try to claim that it isn't 'torture'.
And it's only about 7 minutes, not 60, before he has to tell them to stop.
Posted by: nina at June 01, 2007 06:12 AM (yvKBl)
23
I agree 100% waterboarding is torture. I've seen the videos / done the research and watched men way better than me crack just a couple of minutes into it. I'm not saying it isn't.
I am however, and will go to my grave, with the opinion that we shouldn't take the methods we've currently improved off the table if they're being used on someone who has information and is a member of a terrorist organization.
I too David remember the guys we released from Gitmo and its a shame and hopefully they weren't tortured. Now if they were joking while they were setting an IDE it's one thing. But yeah, I'd be in a world of trouble if a Clinton joke earned a trip to Gitmo.
As I've stated, I'm not for the blanket approval of torture techniques. However, if we catch someone sneaking across the border with half the fixings of a bomb to wipe out a couple of hundred people I don't think we should tie the hands of our interrogators.
Now the same goes in Iraq. If we catch someone in the process of planting an IDE we can be 99% certain that they're not trying to improve traffic flow and there's a good chance they'll have information that could lead to other bombs or terrorists.
Granted they may not crack, however there is a chance they will.
Yes, if somebody is getting ready to light up my 'nads I'll tell them I'm the Queen of England if thats what they want, but a pop or two I'd probably tell them if I knew were the other IDE's were planted and I damned sure wouldn't lie if they were going to get popped for giving wrong information.
Sorry, I'm a pig headed bastard, admittedly. But if there's a chance we'll get information from somebody who is a KNOWN terrorist that will save the lives of one innocent Iraqi we should go for it. I don't give a damn if the guy has nightmares and pees on himself every time it thunders.
Terrorists, from all organizations IRA, FARC, Militant White Supremacists, Islamic, I don't care. They're human only by birth, other than that they're animals. I won't place value on someone's life who is willing to kill a room full of toddlers to advance their cause. Okay maybe they're worth the bullet and power it'd take to send them to hell, but that's about it.
Posted by: phin at June 01, 2007 08:26 AM (CQcil)
24
How can waterboarding someone be considered "sacrificing" them? I'm pretty sure nobody has ever died or even had any lasting damage from it. I could be wrong, but I think when it is done there are trained medical staff standing by at all times.
Posted by: jbiccum at June 01, 2007 04:59 PM (Rd4s4)
25
I'm pretty sure nobody has ever died or even had any lasting damage from it.
On what do you base that? Wishful thinking? Why wouldn't someone have lasting psychological damage from being tortured?
Posted by: Random Guy at June 01, 2007 09:02 PM (/erTa)
26
but I think when it is done there are trained medical staff standing by at all times.
jbiccum,
What do you think this is, summer camp? Trained medical people standing by? You have got to be kidding. What? Do you think this is some kind of frat prank? I have news for you, when the CIA swoops in and hauls your butt to Yemen in an extraordinary rendition, you can give up all thoughts of civilized behavior. Trained medical staff. Sure. And then they give you milk and cookies and a Batman band-aid.
And phinn,
That's my point here. We're not talking about a squad taking a guy who caught burying an IED. That s**t's going down no matter what the ROE say.
No, I'm talking about the President of the United States saying that these techniques are legal. Do you comprehend the can of worms that opens up? Do you fully understand what that means about our adherence to the Geneva Accords?
This makes us a lawless nation, a rogue among the civilized nations. It's one thing to turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate, let the chips fall, it's a whole other ball game when you codify these techniques. Because when you do that, we cross into some mighty dark territory.
Front line, stuff happens. With POWs, there are rules. McCain understands that. The other GOP candidates don't. Now ask yourself what's different between McCain and the other candidates.
Yeah, that's right.
If that doesn't make you second guess your admittedly understandable impulses, then I don't know what will.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 01, 2007 09:35 PM (tk0b2)
27
It's one thing to turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate, let the chips fall, it's a whole other ball game when you codify these techniques.
This is the key point, and thank you David for making it. All of the Jack Bauer scenarios that people trot out are irrelevant. The truth is that in 99.9999% of the cases there's very little reason to believe that this guy who you picked up, who probably is a bad character by any standard, is about to kill a million people, or a thousand, or a hundred, or even 10 people. And even if he is, how do you know that he knows anything at all? And if he doesn't, what of your morality when you torture him for 72 hours? The difference is an official policy vs an extreme, and entirely hypothetical, scenario.
I don't draw parallels with Nazis lightly, believe me. But I can assure you that the "good German" working for the SD in the Third Reich was making the exact calculation the apologists for American torture are making today.
On a last point, I believe that when you claim that you're working on the side of the good guys, that you actually ACT on the side of the good guys. If you don't understand this point then I probably should take my business elsewhere. (Which you might actually appreciate!)
Posted by: Random Guy at June 02, 2007 01:47 AM (K1Emm)
28
Sometimes I like to cover myself in cheese-whiz and sing I'm a little tea pot.
-- comment edited by phin, because Rasaposa has potty mouth and can't be civil.
Posted by: Rasaposa at June 02, 2007 07:39 AM (iM34J)
29
This reporter is an ex-Navy SEAL and as such had endured waterboarding before as part of his training in resistance to torture techniques.
If its OK to use on our own people in training, why is it not OK to use elsewhere?
Jimmy Carter gassed me with chemical weapons at Ft. Dix back in the 70's!
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 02, 2007 08:15 AM (3hI9m)
30
"Andie would hope you'd skip the part about only applying "sharpened interrogation" to terrorists who "it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries" and follow along in his inference that Bush, his Administration and those questioning terrorists are war criminals." - Phin
Actually Phin, Sulivan specifically highlights the part of the memo that you suggest he doesn't want the readers to notice:
"As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan."
Posted by: Cameron G at June 02, 2007 02:01 PM (KEFtG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 30, 2007
A whore or a prude, either path leads to sexual enlightenment...
... there is no middle ground.
via
ace:
Crying Over Spilled Semen
Why women who don't use condoms feel happier [ed: an so do their herpes laden partners].
The finding that women who do not use condoms during sex are less depressed and less likely to attempt suicide than are women who have sex with condoms and women who are not sexually active, leads one researcher to conclude that semen contains powerful—and potentially ddictive—mood-altering chemicals.
Study author Gordon G. Gallup, Ph.D., a psychologist at the State University of New York in Albany, also found that women who routinely had intercourse without condoms became increasingly depressed as more time elapsed since their last sexual encounter. There was no such correlation for women whose partners regularly used condoms.
Gallup's survey of 293 college women also found that those who did not use condoms were most likely to initiate sex and to seek out new partners as soon as a relationship ended. "These women are more vulnerable to the rebound effect, which suggests that there is a chemical dependency," says Gallup.
Semen contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood.
...
Gallup says he has since replicated the findings with a sample of 700 women and will examine whether "semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression...
Really, she said they were going to
examine whether "semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression. Rise up men! No longer do women control the only bedroom commodity. Okay, sure they're still in control, and they get half your stuff, but at least we have a bit more bargaining power, maybe, if we weren't such suckers.
and from Dan Collins posting at
protein wisdom.
The Porn Myth
...I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”
When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.
She must feel, I thought, so hot.
Just remember ladies, the burka isn't oppressive, it's sexy.
ITS.FOR.YOUR.OWN.GOOD.YOU.IGNORANT.HUSSY.
Sorry, where was I, oh yeah, because nothing says the sexy at the beach like a burkini clad woman:
Posted by: phin at
10:52 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
First we discover that sex is fun, now we discover that it may actually be addicting.
Will the species stop at nothing to continue?!?!?
Posted by: iamnot at May 30, 2007 12:25 PM (onj4J)
2
Isn't it equally possible that women who insist on the use of a condom are more responsible, that is, they worry about the consequences of their actions? Understanding the responsibilities that accompany sexual activity they wouldn't immediately jump in the sack with the next guy who came along nor would they be as inclined to worry when time elapses between encounters. All their conclusions can be explained via psychological differences between the samples.
Or, semen is a powerful drug.
Which sounds more likely?
Posted by: DoorHold at May 30, 2007 12:48 PM (+G23B)
3
First, any "burkini" clad woman would be attacked by the morals police in Iran.
Second, your friend chose her lifestyle. She was not coerced into it. That has a lot to do with the psychology of what her choices mean to her.
Lastly, the study only examines injections and not oral dispensing.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at May 30, 2007 02:37 PM (WdHqZ)
4
Is it entirely beyond the realm of possibility that the reason some women don't use condoms is because they (gasp!) WANT CHILDREN?
Posted by: Trish at May 30, 2007 08:13 PM (C9KHN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Double D to make a go of it...
...and Fred!'s making a run for the White House.

If your political adviser looked like that you'd listen too.
The Politico is reporting that Fred! is going to announce his bid for the Presidency over the Fourth of July Holiday, and that his wife, Jeri, will wear a star spangled bikini throughout the race.
Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.
Thompson, the "Law and Order" star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.
Thompson's formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson's first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem of what they consider his folksy, populist appeal.
Okay, Jeri might not be in the bikini, but it'd be a whole lot cooler if she was. Plus, they'd have the 18 - 32 year old male and LUG (lesbian until graduation) vote nailed down.
Think about it: Double D or Shillary: Who's significant other would you prefer to check out during the State of the Union addresses? If they could even get Billy Jeff to show up.
When asked about his platform Fred! said instead of amnesty he'll annex Mexico and send the ingrates who
booed Rachel Smith packing for Venezuela. Okay, he's not admitting to the annexation part, but he know he's got a way with the pretty ladies, so we could count on him to at least send in a couple of special ops teams to deal with the unruly mobs when they taunt our wimminfolk.
Really why the hell would you boo a young lady who looks like this in a bikini:

Wondertwin powers activate!
The only logical explanation for the booing. They're pissed a majority of American women still have most of their teeth and weigh less than 200 pounds after the age of 40. Side question and yes I realize its stereotypical and probably bigoted, but here goes anyway. What is it about the Mexican diet that keeps the men relatively fit as they age while the women, um, expand exponentially?
Go ahead, call me a bigot and remember to insult my southern heritage while you're at it, but don't forget to answer the question.
Posted by: phin at
10:17 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is too late for me. Not even Fred could make me come back to either of the two parties that act as if they are members of family royalty. I am done. I will no longer implore others to vote.
Posted by: mekan at May 30, 2007 01:10 PM (hm8tW)
2
By not voting, you are voting for Shillary's communist dream.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 30, 2007 01:52 PM (Rd4s4)
3
I would say it is due to division of labor, not food. In New Mexico the women work inside and spend much of the day sitting (and seriously working). The men are active outside if the farm (or near my hometown, they own orchards
Posted by: David at May 30, 2007 02:36 PM (A4ZWd)
4
You know, I've had the same question about my Italian kinfolk...the women are smokin' when young but once they hit 40...
Posted by: Nico at May 30, 2007 02:56 PM (51ePm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 29, 2007
Dirty Scandi Trips Miss USA, Miss Japan becomes Miss Universe
Miss America proves something that very few Miss Universe hopefuls knew, that they're subject to the laws of gravity. Damn you Sir Isaac Newton...
A 20-year-old dancer from Japan was crowned Miss Universe 2007 on Monday night, marking only the second time her country has won the world beauty title.
Dressed in a black, red and purple Japanese-style gown, Riyo Mori nervously grabbed the hands of first runner-up, Natalia Guimaraes of Brazil, just before the winner was announced. Then she threw her hands up and covered her mouth, overcome with emotion...

Riyo Mori hypnotizes unsuspecting judges into thinking she can fly like an eagle.
...Miss USA Rachel Smith, who slipped and fell to the floor during the evening gown competition and was jeered by the Mexican audience during the interview phase, was the contest's fourth runner-up...
...Smith was booed during her interview and several audience members chanted "Mexico! Mexico!" until she spoke in Spanish, saying "Buenas noches Mexico. Muchas gracias!" which earned her applause. Mexico has a fierce rivalry with its northern neighbor.
Apparently the "fierce rivalry" doesn't apply if you want to sneak across the border. Which if all Mexicans are as easily distracted as the crowd in attendance instead of a fence we should just have recordings of President Jorje Bush and Teddy K. blairing
Buenas noches Mexico. Muchas gracias!". Now that would be a sooper-dooper virtual fence and couldn't be any less affective than the border protection we have now.
Missing from this year's contest was Miss Sweden, whose country is one of the few to win the crown three times. Isabel Lestapier Winqvist, 20, dropped out because many Swedes say the competition does not represent the modern woman.
Thus the trap and alibi had been planned out. I keep telling you guys, you just can't trust an Ice Wop. Next year they'll probably kidnap Miss USA and replace her with some drunken hobo like Parasite Hilton.
Posted by: phin at
02:40 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
All I can say is, Ai Chingau!
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 03:33 PM (kxecL)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 29, 2007 06:55 PM (VgTsb)
3
I'll have you know I'm a happily married man.
Posted by: phin at May 29, 2007 07:16 PM (YgMQV)
4
A lot has been said about Mexicans booing the US contestant. This is nothing new. I went to Mexico in the mid 60's to help build churches. We were pelted with rocks and generally looked upon as scum. We were not doing anything controversal (even with the Catholic/Protestant divide). The fact is that Mexicans hate us with a passion. The more I have thought about a fence the less attractive it seems. The best option would be to take over the government and make Mexico a territory.
Posted by: David Caskey at May 30, 2007 09:54 AM (sHwkr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saint Cindy to quit stalking George Bush
The underwear gnomes have left Crawford Texas.
At least she's finally admitting to being an
Attention Whore.
I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times. ...
I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.
Let's just hope that she's gone through "the change" so we don't end up with any little peace warriors running around as Saint Cindy and Father Hugo continue to nurture their relationship.

The cabby said he recognized my girly by the back of her head.
Posted by: phin at
02:00 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I feel sorry for her in that she got sucked in by the Left to promote their agenda and is now being dropped like a hot potato.
Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2007 04:17 PM (ag9hj)
2
I don't disagree, Mike, but you can't ignore the ugly things the right wing said about her. Liddy called her an anti-Semite because she referred to the culpability of the neocons, which Liddy said was "code for Jew."
This woman has been ill-used by left and right and I find it disgusting.
When we resort to using Gold Star mothers for political advantage, it is a shame for our country.
I saw a mother during Vietnam attack the Lieutenant in charge of the honor guard, screaming at him, saying he had killed her son, and he stood there and took it, knowing she was bereft and because of her grief, not responsible for the things she was saying.
When Sheehan took her grief public, we all should have turned our heads. It is a dark time for our nation that we did not.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 09:59 PM (tk0b2)
3
She will not be having any more children she had a hystorectomy, remember she buried her uterus in Texas. Good Riddance!
Posted by: Jaded at May 31, 2007 10:41 AM (0lpqx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hummelgate, a food shortage in Iraq?
Alternatively Titled: How can Bobby Flay challenge troops to a throwdown in the Mojave Desert when the US Military can't get civilians in Iraq the ingredients they need to "toss salad". Brevity is key, and all that.
While you were lounging around sipping mojitos and dreaming of replacing the Rosie "Patron Saint of Truther Conspiracy Theorists" O'Donnell on the view
ace was all over the fake, but real, but accurate food shortage memo reported by our friends and neighbors at the WaPo. The Flopped Aced one has a
pretty good synopsis of the entire escapade.
Being the good little storm troopers that we are we're wondering why the ever military friendly main stream media reporters aren't receiving their daily allotments of syrup or jelly. Which, if you're a deviant and I know you probably are, you'd know is critical for tossing salad (a search not safe for work, easily sickened or pure of heart, but if you're kinky go for it).
There really are lots of questions that go unanswered here.
- What type of knucklehead uses Flappy the flag waving wonder eagle instead of the official emblem / seal / logo of the US Embassy in Iraq.
- Who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp? Who put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong? Who put the bop in the bop sh-bop sh-bop?
- Why did Parvaz Khan a Human Resources Officer create a PDF of the "document"?
- Is Gleen Ellers Thomas Francis Nancy Greenwald behind this whole shenanigan? He was quoted by congress or the senate or something

I guess it is kind of hard to find a decent US Embassy Logo to use, I mean it was on the second page google's image search.
On the upside
we've got Romentum and if anybody will get to the truth behind this whole fire melting steel thingy Ron Paul will and damn it, he'll get put an end to this illegal war we're waging, pronto.
This message was approved by Flappy
the salad tossing wonder eagle.

He likes syrup.
And don't blame me or Flappy if you're disturbed after googling "toss my salad", you were warned.
In desperate woman news. It looks like Jessica Simpson and that no talent hack John Mayer are done, over, fineto. If you're not familiar with John Mayer, he's the guy that sang a song about my body being a wonderland. If you're not familiar with Jessica Simpson:

She used to be perfect.
For those of you upset by the lack of "hard-hitting" "serious" reporting around here, well, I'll start as soon as the WaPo and ABC do. Which means you'll all be welcoming CY's return week's wend.
Posted by: phin at
01:16 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Awww, the poor widdle diplomats can't get fresh fixin's for their salad bar.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 30, 2007 08:04 AM (oC8nQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 28, 2007
This Memorial Day... (Bumped)
Enjoy your vacation, but always, remember them.
Also: The lyrics from Trace Atkins' tribute,
Arlington (Video available
here).
I never thought that this is where I'd settle down.
I thought I'd die an old man back in my hometown.
They gave me this plot of land,
Me and some other men, for a job well done.
There's a big White House sits on a hill just up the road.
The man inside, he cried the day they brought me home.
They folded up a flag and told my Mom and Dad:
"We're proud of your son."
And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.
I remember Daddy brought me here when I was eight.
We searched all day to find out where my grand-dad lay.
And when we finally found that cross,
He said: "Son, this is what it cost to keep us free."
Now here I am, a thousand stones away from him.
He recognized me on the first day I came in.
And it gave me a chill when he clicked his heels,
And saluted me.
And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.
And everytime I hear twenty-one guns,
I know they brought another hero home to us.
And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
We're thankful for those thankful for the things we've done.
We can rest in peace;
'Cause we are the chosen ones:
We made it to Arlington.
Yeah, dust to dust,
Don't cry for us:
We made it to Arlington.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:53 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That was touching. What? No, I just got something in my eye, that's all.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 25, 2007 10:27 AM (oC8nQ)
2
Is that one of those electronic trumpets that the US Army had to introduce because of a lack of trained trumpeters?
Posted by: Max at May 25, 2007 11:16 AM (VRb5p)
3
In Arlington? Get a life, Max.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at May 25, 2007 11:40 AM (yiMNP)
4
While buglers are few and far between and anyone can volunteer to be on the base Honor Guard (in addition to regular duties), the Arlington Detail is the real deal--a full time assignment.
I posted the following at Blackfive but it fits the topic here too:
Gentlemen and ladies of the mess, a toast--to our fallen comrades!
I played trumpet in high school. During my last 10 years of active duty, I volunteered my services for the base Honor Guard wherever I was stationed. In Utah snow, Alabama heat, Georgia thunderstorms, Hawaiian breeze and California smog, I stood to the side of the firing squad, or sometimes alone when no other Honor Guard was present. For several hours a week (including weekends) it would be my honor to pay respects for those who had served.
It's been a year since my last Taps--for my stepfather. God rest them all. -cp
Posted by: cold pizza at May 25, 2007 02:24 PM (VOA2U)
5
Just so happens the wife and I are going to see them this weekend. It will be her first time to DC and she's excited.
Have a nice M Day, CY.
Posted by: Dusty at May 25, 2007 02:25 PM (GJLeQ)
6
Thanks for keeping it classy-less Max.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 11:35 PM (VgTsb)
7
Just got home from helping my son and other scouts from the area place flags on veteran's graves. There were a few veterans putting up a new flag, performing a rifle salute, and yes, even one of them played taps.
Was with my daughter a couple of years ago at Arlington. Visited the national cemetery at Vicksburg with my parents a few years ago and several years ago, during the 50th anniversary celebration of the liberation of Holland, visited Margraten - though our trip there was a coincidence.
It is humbling to think of all that served and all that lost their lives in the service of our country.
Rest in Peace.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at May 26, 2007 03:09 PM (EsOdX)
8
Thanks for the post CY. Time for everyone, including Max, to remember the honorees.
Posted by: Specter at May 27, 2007 11:23 AM (ybfXM)
9
let's remember ALL of them...
_______________________________________________________________
Asked to Serve Again, a Soldier Goes Down Fighting
By Dan Barry
HOLLYWOOD, Md. The sniper fired. It was a clean shot, if there is such a thing. And down for good fell another American soldier.
His name was Sergeant James Dean, but everyone called him Jamie. He was the farm boy who fished, hunted and tossed a horseshoe like nobody else. He was the guy at the end of Toots Bar, nursing a Bud and talking Nascar. He was the driver of that blue Silverado at the red light, his hands on the wheel, his mind on combat horrors that made him moody, angry, withdrawn. Now here he was, another American soldier, dead. Only Sergeant Dean was killed at the front door of his childhood home, the day after Christmas and three weeks before his redeployment, shot by a sniper representing the government for whom he had already risked his life in Afghanistan. His wife and parents received the news not by a knock on the door, but by gunfire in the neighborhood.
“If they had just left him alone,” says his wife, Muriel.
In the summer of 2001, weeks before Sept. 11, Jamie stunned his family by enlisting in the Army; he was 23. A woman had just broken his heart, yes, but he explained that he wanted to experience life beyond installing air conditioners in confining St. Mary’s County. And his younger sister, an Air Force medic, had been talking up the military. From April 2004 to April 2005, Jamie served in Afghanistan, far from the Chesapeake Bay. Now and then he’d talk to family members by telephone. “Just, ‘Hi, I’m fine,’ ” his mother, Elaine, says. “Or, ‘It sucks here.’ ”
Jamie came back quieter in the summer of 2005, with “DEAN” tattooed on his upper back and a cobra tattooed on his muscle-defined arm. But he kept private any changes beneath the skin, his mother says. “ ‘You don’t want to know, Mom,’ he would always say.” One night at Toots, while drinking a beer, he met a woman named Muriel whose bluish-green eyes entranced him. The couple became inseparable, cobbling together a family that included her two children, three dogs and a cat. Muriel’s good for Jamie, people said, even without knowing how she was nudging him to get counseling for nightmares so bad they would both wake up soaked in sweat.
“The patient states he feels very nervous, has a hard time sleeping, feels nauseous in the a.m., and loses his temper a lot, ‘real bad,’ ” reported a Veterans Affairs evaluation from December 2005. “Was nearby an explosion that destroyed an Humvee with four G.I.’s killed in front of his eyes.” “The patient is tired of feeling bad,” it said. Jamie was prescribed some medication that did not seem to work at first. (“Cries for no reason,” said a report in February 2006.) His doctor adjusted the prescription. Things got better, it seemed. Jamie returned to air-conditioning work. He donned a white tuxedo and married Muriel in a summer ceremony at the Elks Lodge. He sang some country-western karaoke and talked about getting his wife to go deer hunting. A few days after Thanksgiving, a FedEx truck delivered an envelope to the Dean farm just as Jamie was about to go hunting. It was a form letter of redeployment, as impersonal as a bank statement.
“It was downhill after that,” Muriel says. He withdrew from the present, it seemed. He drank more, and took his medication less. Finally, on Christmas Day, he and Muriel returned from a family gathering with plans to watch his favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys, on television. He went out to buy some beer — but went to Toots Bar instead. She called him, and he came home, livid. He smashed some glasses, said something about winding up in a body bag, and sped away in his Silverado. He wound up at the family home, alone, talking on a cellphone with his sister, Kelly, saying things like: “I just can’t do it anymore.” When his sister heard a gunshot, she called 911.
The deputy sheriffs arrived at the isolated farmhouse around 10 p.m. and quickly determined that Jamie was drunk, agitated and carrying a shotgun. He told the deputies to back off. Based on something a family member had said, the police knew that Jamie had other shotguns in the house, but they mistakenly believed he was an Army Ranger. “Rambo,” his mother says ruefully. At 4:19 in the morning, the police shot dozens of tear-gas canisters, smashing the windows in front of Jamie’s horseshoe trophies, piercing walls decorated with garland. Several minutes later, Jamie fired shotgun pellets in the general direction of a police car parked at least 50 yards away. Then he sat down on the back porch.
A situation in which an armed man was in his own house, alone and a threat to no one but himself, had now escalated into a military action. On the ground, men with guns; in the sky, the whop-whop of helicopters. Now and then, Jamie would respond to some movement or sound with a shot into the ground or into the air. Around noon, two negotiators pulled up to a family friend’s garage, where Jamie’s loved ones were cloistered a half-mile away. His wife was pacing. His mother was bracing herself. His father, Joey, was staring into the woods. The negotiators asked them to say gentle things to Jamie into a tape-recorder. Muriel remembers calling him baby, saying she loved him and asking him to come on out.
At 12:25, a negotiator talked briefly by telephone to Jamie, who indicated he might come out; “I’m going home,” he said. Then the police cellphone’s battery died.
At 12:34, Jamie was reached again by telephone, but the volume was low and the negotiator could not make out what was being said.
At 12:45, the police cut power to the house and began shooting more tear gas through the front and the back of the house.
At 12:47, an armored vehicle called a Peace Keeper pulled up to the house. Jamie opened the front door and, according to the police, pointed his 20-gauge shotgun at the vehicle. A state police sniper, positioned in a garage 70 yards away, took aim.
Later, a spokesman for the Maryland State Police would say the department was reviewing its actions, but would refer to a statement by its superintendent, Col. Thomas E. Hutchins, in which he said that Sergeant Dean bore “sole responsibility.” The police could not walk away, the colonel had said, because the soldier had the potential to do harm to himself or to others. Later, Richard D. Fritz, the state’s attorney for St. Mary’s County, would criticize the state police as using tactics that were “progressively assaultive” and “most unfortunate.”
In the end, he would say, this paramilitary operation was “directed at an individual down at the end of a dark road, holed up in his father’s house, with no hostages.” And later, the Dean family would be left with the mess of absence. Jamie’s blood on the cream-colored carpet. The dozens of holes in the walls. The family photo albums that still carry the whiff of tear gas, burning the eyes.
But at that moment, in the early afternoon of the day after Christmas, they heard the gunfire in the distance, and they knew another American soldier had fallen.
_______________________________________________________________
http://nytimes.com/
Posted by: j at May 27, 2007 03:52 PM (4AjM8)
10
Every Memorial Day we drove to my grandmother's house in Western Pennsylvania and took her out to my uncle's grave. I remember all the tiny flags over the field, hundreds of them, and the lines of cars, all the families laying flowers on the headstones of the boys.
They're gone now, my father and grandmother, and I live hundreds of miles to the south. I wonder who takes care of those graves of all those boys who remain young in their pictures, proud in their uniforms, eager to be off to see the elephant.
I can't even write about my friends' names on the wall. I still see their faces, 35 years later, and it's too hard.
Children. We send children. We should run things backwards, let the children have their time and send just us old men.
There would be far fewer wars I expect. Far fewer.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 01:58 PM (kxecL)
11
J.
INteresting that you use an extreme example of a extremely emotionally disturbed returning soldier that reflects .0000000000000001% of returning vets.
Makes me wonder about your sincerity about "honoring" our troops.
Makes me think maybe your pursuing a political agenda. Oh- its from the NY Times? Say no more.
If anyone could ignore the 100s of thousands of vets that served in Iraq and came home only to lead normal, happy lives with their families, to focus on a terrible but isolated incident to represent all vets, its the NY Times.
Propagandists all think alike.
Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 02:01 PM (KTgUG)
12
David
"Children. We send children. We should run things backwards, let the children have their time and send just us old men"
INteresting pithy remark
I wonder how we would have fared in Normandy if the average soldiers age was 50
I guess its food for thought (but not really)
Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 02:05 PM (KTgUG)
13
TMF,
One of the few things I did well in basic training was run the obstacle course. I ate that thing up. Took to it like a kid takes to a jungle gym.
Ten years after my ETS I had a chance to run the course at Quantico. I was in my early 30's and still felt like a kid, but the first wall I came to I tried to scale like I had before and it felt like I had concrete in my pockets. My body had betrayed me, had edged into middle age without warning.
So no, old men can't scale Pointe du Hoc, sadly for our kids. And sadly for us, too.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 02:57 PM (kxecL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2007
who i are and what this blog needs
I'm still not quite sure why CY volunteered to let me guest blog, unless he's looking for ace type posting, without teh funny, snide remarks and esoteric wit. Which if you're familiar with ace's site leaves us with poking fun at Andy "Patron Saint of the Man Pooter" Sullivan, a mutual hatred of Ice-Wops and pr0n.
If you're unfamiliar with my work, which you almost assuredly are, most recently I've been posting at
agent bedhead, who was nice enough to take me in when I got too
lazy busy to post at my
own site. I'm also as CY mentioned part of the team at apothegm designs and responsible for the design of this site, which to those ever cleaver and uniquely refreshing liberal commenters means I'm a bigot hoping to enslave brown people so they'll pick my vast nonexistent fields of cotton and call me masta.
Anyhoo, enough about me and on with what this blog needs.
Since I've already numbed your minds enough and posted a link to an Snow Porker getting his, I'll bring on teh pr0n.

How's this news? Well the Australian lass pictured above, Kylie Minogue, is according to the bosh
desperate for a man. She was engaged to a French(man?), so more than likely she's still as pure as the driven snow. Me, I'd take care of her, but I'm happily married, so I figured I'd let you guys have the first, um, crack at her. Consider yourselves warned, she's a
naughty little minx, so you'd best be, "up" to the challenge, so to speak.
More of what this blog needs, food pr0n, is on the way, with pictures, just as soon as I get the ham, ribs and sausage off the smoker.
Since absolutely none of this interests 99.92735% if CY's normal readers I'll have analysis of what blind hogs, sadly no and the democratic underground have in common and how they've changed my life for the better. But first, pork.
Posted by: phin at
02:22 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you think she's hot, check out her little sister Dannii.
Just do a search.
Belive me.
Posted by: Dan at May 26, 2007 02:58 PM (JfUNh)
2
I agree whole heartedly that she's hot, the problem is she ain't desperate. If she is she isn't nearly as desperate as she'd have to be for me to have a shot.
Kylie on the other hand, she's launched a search party and that's my kind of desperate...
Posted by: phin at May 26, 2007 03:14 PM (YgMQV)
3
Having read that Kylie Minogue is easily bored in bed clarify the meaning of the word bored. Years ago I made my living as a tool & die maker, in that industry bored means the past tense of enlarging a pre-existing hole.
Posted by: Dave at May 27, 2007 07:16 AM (3+0jc)
4
For the record, I approve of this new theme.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 27, 2007 07:55 AM (VgTsb)
5
网站优化 - 镇江网页制作 - SEO优化 - GOOGLE左侧排名 - 硬件防火墙 - Wow Power Leveling - Warhammer Power Leveling - Aion Power Leveling - Buy Wow Gold - Cheap Wow Gold and Wow Gold - Maple Story Mesos - AOC Power Leveling - Maple Story Power Leveling - SilkRoad Power leveling - 淮安网
Posted by: ewq at April 28, 2009 09:59 AM (efOqY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
See You Later, Alligator...
I'll be offline (and outdoors) in sunny southern Florida for the next week, so I'm turning over the keys of CY to my brother "phin" of Apothegm Designs to do with as he will.
Frankly, I'm scared. He's been known to be a little... warped.
I'll be back to inspect the damage and resume posting on June 4.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
May 25, 2007
McCain Aide Blasts Obama
"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
That's going to
leave a mark.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:22 PM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't know who that aide to McCain was, but given the rate of service in today's GOP, my guess is he wouldn't know which side of a Claymore to turn toward the enemy (and if you don't get that joke, ask someone who's served).
Bob, I find it ironic that after all your past dismissals of the chickenhawk offense, you now find it amusing.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 25, 2007 09:32 PM (tk0b2)
2
McCains done. The poor cornered dog will bite every time. He get bored with Mitt Romney that quick?
Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 25, 2007 09:44 PM (6MrxL)
3
"given the rate of service in today's GOP"
And how many years did General Obama spend in uniform?
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 25, 2007 09:58 PM (n7SaI)
4
but given the rate of service in today's GOP
Which is precisely what?
Educate me.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 11:30 PM (VgTsb)
5
I suspect David, like many anti-war leftists, is a charlatan. He has about as much military experience as Bill Clinton. Or John Edwards. Or Obama Whatshisname
In either event, Duncan Hunter served in Vietnam and has a son in Iraq
McCain served.
Who on the Democrat ticket has?
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:02 AM (cGtRE)
6
Look, Dave, we understand you are disapointed that your party capitulated to George W. Bush.
We understand that the surrender loving wing of your party (i.e., you) failed, again, to convince the majority of the American people that losing in Iraq is in the interests of this country.
Its demoralizing being a minority. It difficult when your party takes you for granted and uses you as a pawn to gain power, but tosses you under the bus when the going gets tough.
And you'll believe harry and nancy when they talk anti-war and anti-gop and anti-Bush in the coming months. Youll believe them. A sucker is born every minute.
If I were you- Id vote for Kucinich. At least he's honest. At least he isnt a talking out of both sides of his mouth dirtball who tells you one thing and then does another.
You probably think Clinton and Obamas votes were "principled" LOL
But you wont vote for the real anti-war candidates- the honest ones. Because you know that power was all you really cared about. Not the troops. Not America. Not security of this nation. POWER
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:08 AM (cGtRE)
7
You all seem to mistake me for a Democrat. Here's a surprise: My favorite candidate would be Chuck Hagel. A conservative Republican.
As for whether I'm a charlatan or not, all I can do is repeat that I enlisted in 1969, was trained at Fort Monmouth, Fort Bragg and Fort Huachuca, spent nearly two years in Central and South America and came home. I was no hero. But I raised my hand and I did what I was expected to do.
(And, as an aside, I use my real name, a name you can Google, a name you can check on Amazon and see some verification as to what I say about my service is true. Can you say the same?)
I also come from a military family and I have family members in theater right now.
Your problem, all of you, is you insist on seeing things as liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. You carry water for a bunch of men, most of whom ducked their own military obligation, who have through hubris and arrogance gotten this country into a very dangerous mess, one that could last for another decade, cost several trillion dollars and who knows how many lives. And it didn't have to happen.
I'm angry about this. I'm angry as a veteran. I'm angry as a citizen. I'm angry as a human being.
That all of you continute to defend this administration and make lame excuses about the liberal media and those traitorous Dhimmicrats only paint you as suckers, being played.
You can continue to be saps. Me, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I am an American and I'm righteously pi**ed off and if you're not, you've got your head stuck somewhere, and I'll let you decide where that is.
Now go ahead and attack me and call me a liar and a charlatan, because it makes it easier for you to ignore what's really going on.
Partisans, blinded by BS, and I'm fed up with all of it.
And I respect Duncan Hunter's service and that his son and McCain's son are both in uniform is honorable. Hoo-uh. But I dislike Hunter's politics and would have voted for McCain in 2000 but not today.
As for veterans in the GOP, all I can say is that they lost any credibility with this veteran when they put a Purple Heart on a band-aid.
As a joke.
I want you self-styled super patriots to remember that this weekend.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 09:35 AM (tk0b2)
8
Well done, Dave.
Spoken like a true partisan posing as a non partisan
Your a good charlatan- an eloquent one- possibly even sincere about your opposition to the policies of this administration-but a charlatan and a partisan nonetheless.
And we who support the efforts of the troops- and General Petraeus- and President Bush and his Vice President- are not "carrying water" for anyone other than the country that we love and the security that it's continued greatness depends on.
If you think the security of this country is not inextricably linked to how things turn out in Iraq- then you are the fool.
If you think "ending this war" (obama) and "bringing home the troops" (clinton) will do anything other than destroy this nations credibility, and make its citizens far, far less secure than they are now, then it is you who has his head where the sun never shines, not us.
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 10:40 AM (cGtRE)
9
TMF,
I'll assume you haven't read what I've posted here before, so I'll try to keep it short.
I agree with you that what happens in Iraq is of the utmost consequence. I sincerely hope Patreaus can pull this off and if anyone can, I believe he's the right man to do it.
Where we disagree is here. I believe this war is so important that at the very least we should do these three things:
1. Put in another 200,000 troops to secure the country, rebuild the infrastructure and train the Iraqis. If this means reinstating the draft, let's do it.
2. Pay for this war. That means higher taxes. It's shameful that we're asking our grandchildren to shoulder the debt of this war.
3. Level with the American people. Tell us that stabilizing this region may take a serious commitment of ten or more years. Right now, only McCain is saying anything close to this. Give us your best estimate as to the cost. Remember, Wolfowitz promised this war would cost us nothing, zero, sip. A half trillion dollars later we know he was wrong, but I'd like to know how wrong. Wouldn't you?
That's a minimum.
But you and I both know these things are not going to happen. So, it's my opinion that if we're not taking this war seriously, how can I ask another man to fight? How can I ask another man to die in a conflict we don't even think is important enough to pay for? Are we so enamored of our SUVs and cell phones and all the crap of our consumer culture that we're not willing to pony up a few hundred more bucks a year in taxes to pay the freight?
Are we so afraid to ask Americans to stand up and do their duty, to actually serve their country in a time of war?
Apparently, we are. So if we're not willing to do those things, make these small sacrifices, how can we ask other men and their families to make the big sacrifices?
That's why I don't support this administration. Not because they're Republicans. Because I don't think they seriously considered the consequences of this war and I don't think they're competent enough to pull off a win. It's that simple.
You can call me a charlatan and question my motives all you like. That's fine. I'm not about to lose sleep over the opinion of an anonymous poster on a blog, believe me.
But you're still backing people who have been wrong about everything, and if that record doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will.
As I said before, you can look me up. Because if men were brave enough to fight for my right to speak out, I'm at least brave enough to attach my name to that speech.
Too bad not all of us feel that strongly about exercising our liberty.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 12:06 PM (tk0b2)
10
Which Presidential hopeful are you supporting, Dave?
Please list 3 reasons why you believe he/she has the best plan for dealing with Iraq.
You're answer will reveal more than any number of your rambling, faux passionate, self congratulatory diatribes.
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 01:07 PM (cGtRE)
11
TMF,
I am not supporting any presidential hopeful. It's a long way to the election.
And I wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominen attacks. I've addressed you with respect, gave you nothing but honest answers, and you feel obliged to call me names and label my opinions "self-congratulatory diatribes."
I don't expect you to agree with me. But please, let's elevate this beyond childish schoolyard taunts because, frankly, it's pretty easy to be brave on the Internet.
You want honest, I'll give you honest. I'm a liberal, that's true, and proud of it. Do you know what that means? It means I believe there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It means I believe we all have an obligation to this country as opposed to the self-promoting policies of Milton Friedman and his political offspring. I believe in equal treatment under the law. And I fear the influence of fundamentalists on this democracy. Fundamentalist don't compromise because they believe their opinions are shared by God, and that's dangerous in a governing priniple that works on compromise.
However, I live my life as a conservative. I pay my way, work hard in a very tough business, believe my father was right when he said the only thing a man has is his word, and have had the same wife, my first, for 27 years.
When I find a presidential candidate who echoes these values and beliefs, I'll support that man or woman.
And as I said before, if you doubt my honesty, you can look me up.
What about you, T? Where are you?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 01:50 PM (tk0b2)
12
I'm still waiting for a number...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 26, 2007 02:12 PM (VgTsb)
13
TMF and Purple: BANG! the leff hook BANG! then the right you two are a dinamic duo for TRUTH
How do you feel now Film Noire??? Ha, ha ha, ha!!!!
Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 03:30 PM (e+LpB)
14
Mr. Avenger, I'll give you a number. Here, how many fingers am I holding up? No. Wrong again.
Now, Karl, I've been meaning to ask you, and I don't want to insult you if it's true, but is English a second language? Because if it is, I won't make fun of your semi-literacy because that would be cruel.
You all have a good Memorial Day.
I am outta here.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 04:17 PM (tk0b2)
15
A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution?
Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it.
That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices.
LOL
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 05:47 PM (cGtRE)
16
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!
THANK YOU TMF!!!
Some leftys at the supreme court invented it. Its a gift wrap for the TERRORISTS is what it is
Anwyway why dont you want your neighbors to know what your doing??? Its the leftys that are MUSLIMS and PERVERTS and TRAITORS!!!
If you want to live in SECRESSY then GO TO CUBA OR IRAN!!!! Your not wanted here leftys
Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 06:44 PM (e+LpB)
17
Ive got no problem with a "right" to privacy being legislated by congress
I just dont think it's in the constitution.
I dont like unelected Judges deciding issues of morality. Thats not what democracy is about.
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 09:46 PM (cGtRE)
18
TMF,
For me, this is the pertinent line of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
I believe that conveys a right to privacy. Others can disagree but then, as I said, that's what makes me a liberal.
Now, if you want to live in a country where your right to be secure from government scrutiny in your house is at the mercy of Congress, then I think you should take your illiterate ally Karl's uneducated advice and find a country that freely violates the security of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects," without probable cause.
If you want to go back to the days when the state had the right tell you and your wife whether you could buy condoms for birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut), then that's where you and I part company.
Don't get me wrong, you have plenty of august legal company on your side but at the end of the day I prefer more privacy rather than less.
I'm funny that way.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 10:15 PM (tk0b2)
19
I see.
This language
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Gives rise to an inalienable right to abort an unborn fetus.
If you say so. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally think deeply moral issues like the issue of abortion were not meant to be legislated by unelected Judges, but rather, by elected members of congress.
I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue. I just dont want some appointed authority telling me whats right and wrong. I want to decide that myself- through my elected officials.
Im funny that way.
Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 11:42 PM (cGtRE)
20
"I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue."
Finally, something we agree on.
You have a solid Memorial Day. It's already been a somber morning here, but I intend to enjoy the rest of the day outside in this beautiful weather we've been given.
Respectfully disagreeable,
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 08:16 AM (tk0b2)
21
You do the same.
And Karl- be sure to up the dosage on those meds.
Your gonna need it.
Posted by: TMF at May 27, 2007 10:16 AM (cGtRE)
22
Late to the party as usual.
David T. - You and I have agreed and disagreed on quite a few things. For what it is worth - (and don't flame me TMF - LOL) - I believe that you are being honest and sincere in your arguments. I know that you are not a troll here - you thoughtfully present your side of any argument, and rarely, if ever, stoop to name calling. And even though some of your posts are rather long, you would be missed around here if you left. We need the opposing, or maybe better, contrasting, POV.
When 911 happened, President Bush told us in numerous speeches that this would NOT be a short war. He intimated it might take decades, and anyone honest enough would realize that. We are dealing with ideologies - those don't change in a few short months, or in a few years. It's more like over a generation. I know you know this - and your solution of putting in more troops has merit, but I agree is not likely.
Did Bush and his advisers bungle the planning? The answer is yes. They set proper strategic goals, but the tactical side was a mess. Remember though, that any tactical plan is only good until the first shot is fired. On the other hand, are we making progress in Iraq? The answer is yes. It is much slower than anybody would like, but it is happening. While I strongly oppose Congress's attempt to micromanage the war (i.e. timetables), I do agree that we need to hold the Iraqi government to standards - Don't misunderstand - they are making progress, but very slowly.
I'd like to see your comments about this NYT article. Here is a nugget:
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,” said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit.”
So it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We can't abandon the Iraqi's like we did Viet Nam. There may be strategic reasons to be there anyways. Even though we messed up to begin with, now we have to finish the job.
Posted by: Specter at May 27, 2007 11:50 AM (ybfXM)
23
We are Not leaving
We are putting the finshing touches on the World Largest Embassy
So longs we keep a PATRIOT in office we will keep that SNAKES NEST in line
TMF::you talk the talk but turns our your FAIRY PANTS
Posted by: Karl at May 27, 2007 03:31 PM (e+LpB)
24
Specter,
Between a rock and a hard place is a remarkably accurate sitrep, and I couldn't agree more.
That's why I'm angry, not as a Democrat or Republican, but as an American.
Thanks for the kind words. I am indeed sincere, just trying to add an alternate POV to people who may not be exposed to another side very often.
And my first draft of this comment was a good 100 words longer, but out of respect for your time, I've cut it.
Enjoy the day. On Memorial Day of all days, we are all Americans.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 03:41 PM (tk0b2)
25
I actually thought there was some intelligent discussion going on here untill I saw some one say,"A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution? Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it. That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices."
Looks like they never read much of the constitution they're preaching about:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There is a right to privacy. It's a part of that whole, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," thing. I still can't figure out how people who love to call themselves "small government" Conservatives will invite the Government in their door at every opportunity.
Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 28, 2007 04:25 PM (6MrxL)
26
The Right to Privacy must be balanced with Common Good. What one person may consider a reasonable search or seizure, another would consider an invasion of privacy. There is a balancing point there and that is what the courts are (should be) watching. I get upset when I see them tip it one way or the other (in MY opinion, of course).
To me, David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says. I still don't agree with everything our President says. (Of course I don't trust many politicians, they ALL lie).
I actually got a kick out of the Claymore joke, I almost sort of agree to a point. I think we need more people in office that have military experience as well.
Specter covered the rest of my thoughs very well.
Posted by: Retired Navy at May 29, 2007 05:39 AM (ppO1W)
27
Ahenbarabus
Yeah, I thought there was some intelligent discussion going on as well. Just, not from you apparently.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
Didnt know that was in the constitution. Oh yeah- because it ISNT.
If your going to talk about something you know nothing about, try to at least get a few facts straight.
Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 08:10 AM (KTgUG)
28
...David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says.
Ret. Navy,
I had to laugh. Even I don't agree with everything I say.
And I'm glad you liked the Claymore joke.
I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here.
Disagreeably yours,
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 08:46 AM (kxecL)
29
"Lefty" Terrenoire said: "I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here."
YES!!!
Heres where Im coming from:
-----------------------------------------
But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”
-----------------------------------------
Either we GET TOUGH and GIT ER DONE or shoar our defenses here in the homeland
NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!!
Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 12:34 PM (e+LpB)
30
Karl
Still a moron I see?
(And Im not talking about your fake persona, but your real one)
Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 02:23 PM (KTgUG)
31
TMF::like I said talk the talk but scratch the surface and RINO
Move to syria or take the TOWL off your heaad and SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!
Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:04 PM (e+LpB)
Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 04:14 PM (KTgUG)
33
I see the cats got your toung FAIRY PANTS I wonder why ((NOT))
Some of us remember a day called 911...
Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:20 PM (e+LpB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What They Don't Let You See
Stare at this.
Now look back again.
I want this seared,
seared into your memory.
This is an image from an al Qaeda torture manual captured in Iraq.
They use this and other techniques to torture Iraqi men and women, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. They also use them when they can capture American and Iraqi soldiers and police.
I'd love to provide you with a link to the Washington
Post or New York
Times article detailing the atrocities contained, but they haven't been written yet. Nor can these articles be found in the Los Angeles
Times, San Francisco
Chronicle, the Chicago
Tribune, or the Philadelphia
Daily News, and you won't see these images on the network nightly news, either.
While we are locked in wars against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq and other obscure places you couldn't find on a map, the American press has decided that you, the American citizen, don't need to see these images.
You don't
deserve to see these images.
The near orgasmic contentment on the face of the torturer as he burns his victim with an iron is too inflammatory, and the American press wouldn't want you to become inflamed towards our enemy during a time of war, now would they?
I can
completely understand where these media organizations are coming from.
They've spent years writing and buying into their own narrative that
America is to blame for the problems in Iraq and that the threat of al Qaeda is
over-hyped... and did I mention,
over-hyped?
If they were to actually show, in stark terms, what al Qaeda truly is and what it is capable of, then the American people might start viewing them as
Very. Bad. People. Such a thing could complicate the
defeat of Chimperor Bush withdrawal plans. It is better to act like such things doesn't exist, and make sure most people miss it.
At the very least, they deserve a hand for staying "on message."
If these (and other) graphic images hadn't been picked up by
The Smoking Gun and the
Austrialian Press (Fox News posted, then retracted a story) you probably wouldn't have seen them at all.
Now consider that most people probably still won't see these images on the television news, or see them in print. They won't because the various news organizations in this and other countries either don't consider them newsworthy, or they consider the images too inflammatory.
Then wonder how much else you aren't seeing and hearing.
Our soldiers tell us time and time and time again that the war they are fighting in Iraq is
not the war being reported by our media.
Do you believe them now?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. CY, your right these men are animals. thats what they do, they torture their own kind. we cant rest till they are crushed. There spreading their torture like cancer with this manual. a bullets too good for them, first we should pop their arms loose from the sockets then the bullet
Posted by: Karl at May 25, 2007 03:09 PM (e+LpB)
Posted by: NolaGirl at May 25, 2007 04:20 PM (R2uQy)
3
Uh, yeah, we GET it. Al Qaeda bad. Wow, what a revelation. Democrats were the ones who wanted to keep the focus ON Al Qaeda, if you recall. We wanted to, y'know, actually finish the job in Afghanistan? Instead we had to sit and watch as Bush the Younger went off on his little side trip in Iraq, creating a power vacuum in Iraq, and providing the ideal sanctuary and terrorist training ground for Al Qaeda. So spare us the sanctimonius lecture on the evils of Al Qaeda when it was your side that has unquestionably been their biggest benefactor.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 25, 2007 06:50 PM (N8M1W)
4
BDS survives in trees....details at 11. Tree huggers blamed.
Posted by: Specter at May 25, 2007 07:23 PM (ybfXM)
5
Absolutely. It's all about the BDS. Hey doc, why is it I have these negative feelings towards the president? Why is that? Could it be because the actions and policies that he and his cohorts have taken are systematically dismantling everything good about this country, taking away our civil liberties, mortgaging our children's futures away with the billions spent on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and unnecessary wars? Naw silly, that would be too logical. Chalk it up to Hollywood and the MSM, brainwashing me into disliking a guy who's in all actuality a great, intelligent, visionary leader, perhaps the greatest who has ever walked the earth.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 25, 2007 08:16 PM (N8M1W)
6
We wanted to, y'know, actually finish the job in Afghanistan?
AQ has effectively been purged from Afghanistan. Even OBL himself has stated Iraq is their front line.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 09:39 PM (VgTsb)
7
Finishing the job meant eliminating the Taliban as an effective fighting force. That didn't exactly happen thanks to the switch of focus to Saddam. Now you've got a resurgent Taliban causing major problems in Afghanistan. And wherever the Taliban gains a foothold, Al Qaeda is sure to follow.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 25, 2007 10:51 PM (N8M1W)
8
Finishing the job meant eliminating the Taliban as an effective fighting force.
Which of course is so very important because of their international presence and terror operations, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 11:32 PM (VgTsb)
9
I thought that it was because they harbored the September 11 hijackers. Isn't that why we went into Afghanistan?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 25, 2007 11:35 PM (xF4Ym)
10
First: Read up on why washboarding is an effective "enhanced" interrogation tool, psychologically brutal and leaving no marks or lasting impairment.
Then: I will pay any of you $10K to endure 60 minutes of this at my hands. You must last the entire time without protest.
Posted by: Random Guy at May 26, 2007 02:13 AM (K1Emm)
11
odd, how the tortured look like the type of devout muslim al-q would seem to attract, fully bearded and all, but the *torturers* look like saddam hussein-type infidel psuedo-muslims al-q is constantly raving about--clean-shaven with simple mustaches and western clothing. those kind of details should not be overlooked. i mean, would *our* US manuals (of any type) show the "enemy" sporting a high-and-tight haircut and fellow US soldiers as bearded? something's not right here....
Posted by: j at May 26, 2007 02:56 AM (4AjM8)
12
The problem is there are two wars.
One is being fought in Iraq by American troops. What makes this war different is the other equally important war that is being fought in the press. The only way AQ can win is if America gives up on Iraq.
The problem is in many ways the American press is on the wrong side of this war. Many American news organizations are actively repeating the propaganda of the enemy for various reasons but the result and goal is the same: to have us surrender in Iraq.
I didn't used to think we'd ever find ourselves in a psy-op war with our own free press, but the last four years are full of unequivocal proof: the MSM is carrying the message of our enemy, and wants us to capitulate to their demands. Even worse, there's an entire political party dedicated to seeing that surrender through: the Democrats.
But this week something very important happened. The Democrats held out against the nutroot fringe of the party and decided to give the troops what they should of had three months ago. While the party's presidential candidates are fully into the surrender mode of the Kos Kids, the rank and file of the Democrats firmly rejected this dangerous, traitorous fringe.
It's too late for the Dems to manage the damage at this point, they are politically dead in '08. The nutroots' civil war will split the party for a generation and assure the GOP is running this country well into the 21st century. Americans will not vote for traitors, losers, or self-serving defeatists. But at least history will look back on the fact that most of the Dems said "enough is enough" and funded the war.
The battle for the heart and soul of the Democrats is raging full force right now. But in the end, it's irrelevant. The people will turn to the GOP to lead the country against the Islamists.
Posted by: Lightwave at May 26, 2007 08:20 AM (4xUWs)
Posted by: Bill at May 31, 2007 09:46 AM (V5kbF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Paging Quality Control
You've got to love those diligent AFP photo editors.
If this is what gets through to publication, it make you wonder what slips through the cracks...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:50 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What the hell happened to that picture? Newsies generally use digital cameras these days. I can't think of any malfunction in a digital camera that would cause an effect like that.
Posted by: wolfwalker at May 25, 2007 02:25 PM (bDuFe)
2
looks like printer ran out of ink
Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2007 03:36 PM (EblDJ)
3
That's from the digital file being corrupted. Could have happened any time after it left the agency.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 26, 2007 11:11 AM (2I/np)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Murtha: I Feel a Direction Change in the Air
And here it is.
Murtha is
just one of many Democrats attempting to regain the support of a Democratic base that
feels betrayed by the Congressional Democrats surrender on their, uh, bid to surrender.
I suppose I should be amused by the sectarian infighting between the Democrats who want us the surrender soon and the Democrats who want us to surrender sooner, but instead I find myself feeling sorry for them, the Iraqi people, and our soldiers, who are telling Democrats that they don't want
their kind of "help."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:43 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Iranian EFP Proxy Captured In Sadr City
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?
US and Iraqi forces captured an Iraqi militant accused of "acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer" on Friday after a fierce gunbattle, the military said.
The joint snatch squad called in an air strike after coming under fire during a raid on the hideout of an alleged weapons smuggling gang in the notorious Sadr City district, a Shiite militia bastion in east Baghdad.
[snip]
EFPs are roadside bombs designed to fire a chunk of molten metal through the toughest armour plating. The United States accuses Tehran of smuggling hundreds of the devices to Iraq, where they have killed scores of US troops.
"Intelligence reports indicate the individual targeted is suspected of having direct ties to the leader of the EFP network as well as acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer," the statement said.
American forces previously captured a suspect in the Iranian EFP smuggling network in
late March. I wonder how much longer it will be until we capture known Iranian Quds Force or Revolutionary Guard Corps officers... other than the ones we've
already captured, of course.
The Iranian EFPs are the most deadly threat to U.S. heavy vehicles; indigenously-made Iraqi EFPs
consistently fail against U.S. armor.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:38 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 152 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1107 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0859 seconds, 167 records returned.
Page size 151 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.