Confederate Yankee
May 24, 2007
Blame It On Cheney, And Those Evil, Evil Joos
At least when Andrew Sullivan spins off into the more paranoid recesses of his mind, he retains the minimal sense to claim he's just "airing a theory."
Not so with Steve Clemons, who wants full credit for his
recent meltdown:
Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
A fascinating hypothesis, isn't it?
Unfortunately, the "logic" of Clemons claim has a few small—almost imperceptible, so tiny that you wouldn't hardly notice—flaws.
One of those infinitesimal flaws is the theory that Israel would have spent 6.5 billion dollars to procure 25
F-15I "Ra'am" and 102
F-16I "Sufa" long range strike fighters and easily another couple of billion on munitions, training, maintenance, etc, in beginning to prepare for strike on Iran's nuclear program in the past decade, only to decide to lob a few anemic cruise missiles instead.
I get the mental image of
Baseball Bugs winding up in a frenetic and convoluted windup only to deliver an impossibly slow slowball against the Gashouse Gorillas.
Does Clemons honestly think that Israel has been preparing for this possibility for well over a decade—well in advance of their decade-long procurement and training operations—just to launch an attack that would almost certainly fail to seriously disrupt Natanz, and would not even touch the other underground sites where Iranian nuclear weapon development is thought to be occurring? Obviously, he does.
He is also flatly wrong about cruise missiles not needing overflight rights—the need to acquire overflight rights exists as much for missiles as they do for aircraft, and ours were suspended by both
Saudi Arabia and Turkey in March of 2003, just as an example—and conducting such an overflight without permission could be viewed as an act of war by Israel's neighbors.
Israel will also obviously be bombarded by Hezbollah (And possibly Iran and Syria) for
any strike on Iran, so to set themselves up to suffer massive rocket attacks like those of
less than a year ago hoping that Iran would target U.S. forces in Iraq for retaliation is, well,
a bit daft.
Why, precisely, would Iran choose to attack formidable American forces in Iraq in retaliation for an Israeli attack? American Air Force, Marine, and naval airpower completely own air superiority in the Persian Gulf and over Iraq, and so any attempt of Iran to physically venture into Iraq would amount to a rewrite of the
Highway of Death on an epic scale, leaving the Iranian mullacracy in a severely weakened state. What would Iran have to gain?
Or is Clemons implying—merely "floating a theory"—that Cheney, the Joos, and Ahmadinejad are all in cahoots, and want a war in which all sides suffer losses for no real gain? Who benefits from such lunacy?
Halliburton.
Of course.
Sniff: I should leave the snark to Ace. The man is a
master.
Update: I should have seen
this coming, huh?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:45 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Why, precisely, would Iran choose to attack formidable American forces in Iraq in retaliation for an Israeli attack"
Gee, I dunno, maybe because our forces in Iraq are sitting ducks for them? It won't be highway of death redux. All they have to do is give the signal to their proxies in Iraq, the Badr corps, the Mehdi Army, who have been basically sitting on their hands these last few years. If those guys start moving against us en masse it will not be a pretty picture.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 24, 2007 05:54 PM (N8M1W)
2
Look CY we can put this off and pretend Iran is buddy or we can suck it up and GIT ER DONE. Maybe you need to show some SPINE
Posted by: Karl at May 24, 2007 06:04 PM (e+LpB)
3
Clemons is delusional. Cheney plotting against Bush?
By the way, the largest stockholder in Halliburton was Lady Bird Johnson. Probaly her heirs now.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at May 25, 2007 01:10 AM (0pd9m)
4
If those guys start moving against us en masse it will not be a pretty picture.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 24, 2007 05:54 PM
Yeah for them, recall the battle of An Najaf? Lets see a Company of Marines wiped out 5000 Mahdi Army amauters in a few days. Right now the kill ratio in Iraq is up around 200 terrorists to one of ours it is even higher if all you look at is squad level fire fights. It would be a dream come true if they actually exposed themselves in a in company size fights instead of being the cowards they are and using IED's.
Posted by: Oldcrow at May 25, 2007 03:59 AM (q7b5Y)
5
Clemons and the Democratic foreign policy elite paint the Iranians as ten feet tall. They are manifestly not. Iran did reasonably well to push Saddam's army back to the frontier in the 1980's, but then resorted to human wave stuff that the Iraqis were able to throw back. Now they are firing off antiquated missiles and producing new fighters based on the old Northrop F-5 Tigershark. And yes, there's the Quds force. But it's not as if the Revolutionary Guards are the Werhmacht, okay?
I mean, they'd have trouble keeping up with the Hitlerjugend Panzerdivision. They're good, but in a stand up fight, trained U.S. infantry will slaughter them.
State and Defense are ramping up the two-sided diplomacy to encourage the Mullahs to negotiate. They won't. They'll do something stupid over the summer and attack us by way of Israel. I can almost guarantee this. It's what fascists do. Clemons and the Democrats can't accept this because they've psychologically bought into the notion of Puppemaster Cheney, Chimpy, and Hapless Condi conspiring to start a war with the innocent Iranian Nazis.
It's really quite funny. It's akin to blaming Hitler's march into the Sudetenland over bad feelings left over from the Versailles Treaty. But that's the kind of high wierdness you get over at the Reality Based Community.
Posted by: section9 at May 25, 2007 09:38 AM (H6lGz)
6
Oh, shoot, I almost forgot. Clemons didn't mention the Worldwide Zionist Banking Conspiracy with their Hooked Noses. So I will.
JOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!
JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!
AND THEY'VE GOT CRUISE MISSILES! AND FIGHTER BOMBERS! AND HAMENTASHEN!!!
AND RUGGALAH!!
Actually, you should try the chocolate ruggalah, especially around Purim. And I speak as a good Gentile. Goes great with your worldwide Jewish Konspiracy.
Posted by: section9 at May 25, 2007 09:41 AM (H6lGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Funk You
Joe Klein, Keith Olbermann, Brian Ross, etc., I think this is directed at you:
"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.
"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).
[snip]
"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."
That refrain should be familiar to you by now, as similar thoughts are echoed across the blogosphere and in conversations with active-duty American servicemen almost universally.
But Funk isn't done. He doesn't leave out those of you who say you "support the troops, but not the war."
"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.
Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."
Feel ashamed yet? Probably not. After all, he's just one soldier, and he's no Jesse MacBeth.
(H/T
Blackfive)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:52 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm sympathetic to this, I am, but I couldn't disagree more. And shame? Tell it to the people who have screwed the pooch on this war that's made this prolonged occupation necessary.
How can I support the troops and not support their mission? Easy. I was one of the troops, and there were several missions I was involved in that I didn't think were, in the long term, the right policy. But I went, I did my best, and I came home to resume my life as a citizen.
My great-great-grandfather was the color bearer for the 42nd Georgia Infantry and although I'm proud of his heroism and honorable service, I think the Confederacy was a mistake.
The common foot soldier of the Wehrmacht fought bravely and tenaciously, and from a military perspective, I can honor his service and courage in battle, but no one can say he fought for a noble cause.
So it is possible to support soldiers and oppose the war. In fact, I make the argument that wanting to bring these soldiers home and not wanting to squander their service in a mission that is unsupported in tangible ways by this administration, is backing our troops and their families.
Those who make this statement, in my opinion, are swallowing the hard right's line as the GOP scrambles to find a scapegoat for their failures and the media and the left are awfully convenient bogeymen.
I often wonder when it is OK to protest our government's decision to go to war. If Americans listened to you and other well-meaning people, we couldn't speak before we sent troops, because that's undermining the mission before it begins, and we can't say anything during the conflict because that's not supporting the troops, and we can't say anything after the men come home because that's just pointing fingers and living in the past.
So, if you disagree about a war, when can you speak?
I find it disingenuous to hear people like Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and other voices of the right make this claim. I remember what Rush said during Kosovo, and I've read about the legislation Boehner proposed, calling for a timetable to pull out of Somalia. Politics over principle, as usual. There's your shame.
So, while I am sympathetic, I believe soldiers like this one are being ill-used by people much more concerned with playing CYA than they are in actually conducting this war in a way that might lead us to victory.
The soldiers, as always, are doing their jobs. It's the people who were supposed to rebuild Iraq and instead used it to enrich themselves or were too inexperienced or incompetent to do their jobs that have let our troops down and inspired our enemies, not the voices of outrage on the left.
Far too many people in America seem to think that liberty and love of country means shutting up. Nothing could be further from the truth. This nation was built on dissent and since men were brave enough to die for my right to speak freely, I'm at least brave enough to use that right.
That's one reason I attach my name to every one of these comments.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 24, 2007 03:51 PM (kxecL)
2
Well said, David. It boggles the mind to think that "supporting the troops" means keeping them indefinitely in an intractable sectarian conflict, being killed at a clip of 100 a month, while the idea of redeploying our forces out of Iraq, which will SAVE hundreds if not thousands of our soldiers' lives, would somehow be doing them a disservice.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 24, 2007 06:04 PM (N8M1W)
3
thank you for your comments. you sound like a realist with a true grasp of what is and is not happening in this war. thank you for your service to our country, on the battlefield and back home.
Posted by: miss lou at May 24, 2007 06:42 PM (hL5HB)
4
Well said, David.
CY, if you really want people to know about when the troops are kicking butt over in Iraq, write about it more. You seem to have plenty of military connections and you've had a good smattering of stories in this vein in the past. So let's bulk up the coverage. Bloggers are supposedly the new journalists, so instead of playing media of watchdog on the Washington Post — which 1,324,308,665 other blogs already do on a daily basis — do some reporting and report on the troops over in Iraq.
Or I'll put it this way: I really don't care if the media mis-reported what model of gun some psychopath in Nebraskahoma used to kill some people. I want to read the stories you claim the MSM is ignoring.
Posted by: dmarek at May 24, 2007 07:28 PM (p+Ao3)
5
I'm sorry, David, but you're dead wrong. To oppose the mission is indeed to oppose the soldier. I do not believe you have ever been a soldier yourself. The internet protects you; you can say what you like.
You are indeed ill-using this soldier, and the soldiers in my family who are fighting honorably. The soldiers in the Wehrmacht did NOT fight honorably when they fought for that ignoble cause. If your claim is that it is honorable for soldiers to shut up and do the wrong thing because they are ordered to, you have a very strange idea of honor.
Yes, use the term "hard-right" and buzz-names like Rush Limbaugh to stir up hatred against our troops, knowing full well that that is what you are doing. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
You have every right to come out against the war and our troops, and say so every chance you get.
If you were honest, you would stop lying. You are lobbying against our troops, and against all that is decent. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt you have even that much humanity.
Patricia K. Larkins
Posted by: Trish at May 24, 2007 08:15 PM (l8/v1)
6
Yes, use the term "hard-right" and buzz-names like Rush Limbaugh to stir up hatred against our troops, knowing full well that that is what you are doing.
Patricia,
It would be hard for me to hate the troops as I have two nephews in theater right now. One is a career officer, a Major, with a Stryker Brigade. The other is a surgeon with an FST.
I hear the anger in your voice, and I understand. I believe your anger is misplaced, but that's OK. If it makes you feel better to think I'm working against our soldiers, I think that's sad, but understandable.
But I am not lying. I just have a different idea of what it means to be an American.
You can assume I haven't served, and that's your right. But I've given you no reason to doubt me.
I know this won't help, but I'll trot out my bona fides anyway. I enlisted in 1969, was trained at Fort Monmouth, Fort Huachuca and Fort Bragg. That should give you a pretty good idea what my MOS was. I spent the next two years in Central and South America. Had I studied French, my service would have been far different. So it goes.
My brother served as an officer in Vietnam. My sister was a career officer, retired a few years ago as a Major. She's a veteran of Desert Storm and proudly displayed her airborne and air assault wings.
My father was an officer in WWII in the Pacific, his brother was KIA on Iwo, with the Fifth Marines.
My wife's father was with the 82nd, dropped into Normandy in the early hours of June 6. Her grandfather was an aide to Omar Bradley, a graduate of West Point and her brother is an Annapolis grad and a Navy flier out of Pensacola.
I was short-listed to write Tommy Franks' memoirs, but did not get the contract. It was an high compliment to be considered.
It is my pleasure to shoot competitively with graduates of the three military academies every year, the only enlisted man extended that honor.
No one has a greater respect for the warrior profession than I do.
But I don't have a lot of respect for politicians, especially those politicians who ducked service when their time came, and I have no respect for a party that thinks so little of a soldier's sacrifice that they put a Purple Heart on a band-aid and work behind the scenes to cut our soldiers' combat pay.
So, you and I may disagree about whther I can support our troops and still oppose this war, but don't ever doubt my loyalty, patriotism or sincerity.
We have a difference of opinion. As Mark Twain said, that's what makes a horse race.
I hope your family members come home soon and whole. And thank you for your sacrifice. Being a military family is never easy.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 24, 2007 09:50 PM (tk0b2)
7
David T.,
You should really have your own blog. Your comments are way too long and obscure to be worth reading most of the time. If you want to write lengthy diatribes, maybe CY would let you guest blog. Other than that - get your own!
You talk about average americans and what they believe. But how hard is it to gauge those reactions when all you see in MSM is how terrible the war is. ALL YOU SEE. Show me how the majors portray it any differently than that. Yet we know that the whole story is not out there where "average" people read it. And you are disingenuous every single time you say it. You know this is true, but you will never admit it. So show me MSM stories about the progress in infrastructure, about burgeoning economy, jobs, schools, security in many areas, etc. etc. etc. You can't and you know it. And I guarantee for every one you can find, I can show 50 from that day that are negative to the US. Put up.....
Posted by: Specter at May 24, 2007 10:04 PM (ybfXM)
8
You talk about average americans and what they believe.
Specter,
No, I don't. I talk about what I see and what I believe. I would never presume to talk for anyone else.
And yes, I agree with you that too much of the media focus on the bad things happening. I'd like to hear more of the positive side of the soldiers' accomplishments. Believe it or not, I want us to succeed in Iraq. Nothing would make me happier.
But it's tough when reporters can't get out into Baghdad because it's too dangerous. How many journalists have died covering this conflict, 60-70? That tells you something right there.
I want to be wrong about this war, but everything I read, and I read widely, not just the MSM, tells me that the Bush administration has made our situation worse than before, that their incompetence has made us less safe than before.
But I put my hope in Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency. I'm hoping he can figure this out.
As for my writing long posts, I'm a novelist, I tend to write long. Sorry. But you obviously don't read them so why do you care?
And I do have my own blog, but it covers far different subjects than this blog.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 24, 2007 10:34 PM (tk0b2)
9
In WWII what did the media report?
How many enemies we killed that day.
In the Iraq War what did the media report?
How many of our soldiers died that day.
Nuff said.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 25, 2007 04:45 PM (NiTuu)
10
In WWII what did the media report?
The media weren't working for the enemy in WWII.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 09:45 PM (VgTsb)
11
The media weren't working for the enemy in WWII.
PA, please read about the Dolchstosslegende. Just like in Weimar Germany, all the socialists back home are to blame for your defeat. (To make the circle complete, you should throw some blame toward Jews, too. There's a good right-wing tradition for that kind of thing.)
Posted by: Random Guy at May 26, 2007 03:55 AM (K1Emm)
12
Random Guy, of course Socialists are right-wing, as in National Socialists. Moron.
Posted by: SDN at May 26, 2007 09:36 PM (hd9Lv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush's Wars are Safer For the Military that Clinton's Peace?
It sure sounds odd but that is what the numbers seem to show in regard to military fatalities during the current and most recent administrations.
I'd be interested in countering arguments, should anyone feel like making them, though the figures provided may make a certain amount of sense in one context.
Anecdotally speaking, I recall that the various sports teams at my high school seemed to take more injuries in scrimmages than in games. Coaches often attributed such injuries to a lack of focus and less than full intensity on the part of the injured when other athletes were scrimmaging at "game speed."
Could it be that like athletes, soldiers take their "games"--real combat--more seriously than they do their practices, and are therefore perhaps more prone towards dangerous mistakes during peacetime drills and exercises than in combat?
David Petraeus, our commanding general in Iraq, could be a microcosm of these phenomena in his own right. Never wounded in war, he was shot in the chest in 1991 during a training exercise when a soldier tripped and his weapon discharged, nearly costing Petraeus his life.
I’ve got no easy answers here, and would love to get your opinions in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Our troops are safer
Were on a historic realinement in the ME
Punchline --- the traitor leftys want to LEAVE!!!
WHY???? Do they want the standard of living to fall when we lose are oil? They cant stand to say Bush is a hero? MAYBE THEY LIKE TO LOSE
Think about it leftys
Posted by: Karl at May 24, 2007 11:15 AM (e+LpB)
2
It could be a case that, being deployed, soldiers and Marines aren't back home getting killed via DUIs (their own and others) and other stupid stuff that normally happens around bored members of the military.
What I haven't really seen is anything that has broken it down by "cause of death" - how
aren't soldiers dying currently is something I think I would find interesting.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at May 24, 2007 11:17 AM (yiMNP)
3
SGT Jeff- Murdoc actually breaks down the numbers from the Defense Dept.
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
The point of the post is not to say that there are less fatalities today- (adding in all fatalities puts Bush slightly higher than Clinton- lower than Reagan)- but that this war has been fought brilliantly when you compare fatalities to other US wars and with what has been accomplished.
Posted by: Jim Hoft at May 24, 2007 11:37 AM (mLkAh)
4
The numbers are for different things: it's total military deaths for the Clinton era and battlefield deaths for Bush.
These aren't comparable sets. (someone else on Gateway Pundit's site finds the comparable numbers and prorates out the Bush figures, and gets something like 11k deaths to Clinton's 7.5k.)
Posted by: jpe at May 24, 2007 01:18 PM (+rmhC)
5
The DOD has active duty deaths (combat and otherwise) through 2006 available here (pdf). The 2006 numbers are preliminary and subject to change. This is only fatalities of course, and non-fatal casualty numbers are much higher, so to call these years "safer," even if the fatality numbers supported it, would not be accurate. Less deadly maybe, but not safer. In any case, here are the numbers;
1993 - 1213
1994 - 1075
1995 - 1040
1996 - 974
1997 - 817
1998 - 827
1999 - 796
2000 - 758
Total - 7500
2001 - 891
2002 - 999
2003 - 1228
2004 - 1874
2005 - 1942
2006 - 1858
Total - 8792
That's an average of 937.5 per year during the Clinton years, and 1465.33 per year during the Bush years through '06.
Posted by: mantis at May 24, 2007 03:07 PM (ONTnT)
6
I hate to drop an "amnesty bill" in the punch bowl here -- The Lord knows I'm no Clinton fan -- but we didn't just stop suffering non-combat fatalities when we invaded Afghanistan. As much as I hate to call attention to it I think the linked Gateway Pundit post is comparing apples to oranges. I added an excerpt and link to my 2007.05.24 Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/"The media sucks" Roundup
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 24, 2007 03:25 PM (n7SaI)
7
Petraeus also suffered a broken leg on a parachute jump.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at May 25, 2007 01:14 AM (0pd9m)
8
Have to agree with Mr. Hoft...This war has been fought brilliantly and extraordinarily well. When the numbers of KIA are measured against each war in the same 5 year time span-no President has ever seen such low numbers-ever. Just think back to one week in Viet Nam, think it was during the TET Offensive and over 7,500 US soldiers died. That is almost double the number we have lost in 5 years in the ME under the G.W. Bush leadership.
Obviously the President isn't the training officer but pretty clearly his appointments have been in the interest of the troops not the politicians judging by the splendid and easily compared results to just one previous war. Were you to look at the numbers from the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Korea-it is truly mind-boggling and borders on the near miraculous.
IMHO, no president has been faced with as many catastrophes as this President: 9-11, near total wipe out of our economy (you can't talk to a banker or economist that isn't appreciative of the hoops the administration went through to see the economy recover), Hurricane Katrina, et. al. History, if it is remotely fair, will record Pres Bush right up there with Lincoln if not higher.
So with heartfelt appreciation, God Bless our troops, God Bless America and God Bless George W. Bush!
Posted by: Conneticut Yankee at May 25, 2007 06:08 AM (LIQ4q)
9
You have to take into account the large number of severely wounded troops. That said, in peacetime the military engages in a lot of high risk training that produces a lot of fatalities. I was a Navy Pilot in the 80's and we lost a whole lot of people during exercises and training.
Posted by: dan in michigan at May 25, 2007 08:29 AM (uSI6F)
10
Wow, Conneticut (sic) Yankee...Tony Snow in his utmost hagiographic mode couldn't have put it any better himself. There aren't many diehard Bush cultists like you left hanging around. Bravo, sir.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 25, 2007 08:35 AM (N8M1W)
11
Such sarcasm....to bad only 29% of the public feels that Congress is doing a good job.
Posted by: Specter at May 25, 2007 09:12 AM (ybfXM)
12
And those who think they are are more cultist than anything else I've seen.....
Posted by: Specter at May 25, 2007 09:13 AM (ybfXM)
13
Reminds me of an interview I saw during the first Gulf War. It was with an officer in an RAF Tornado squadron. The media with in a sh*t state over the fact that the Brit's had lost 4 Tornados early in the war(largely the result of very dangerous low-level runway busting missions). The RAF officer pointed out to the reporter that in relation to operation hours and sorties flown, their loss in the war were actually lower than during peace time exercizes in Britian and Europe.
Posted by: Tbird at May 25, 2007 12:02 PM (aVjye)
14
From TBR News' "The Dishonored Dead" (2005):
"There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense has deliberately not reported a significant number of the dead in Iraq. The actual death toll is in excess of 10,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded (and a published total of 25,000 wounded overall,), this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 2,000+ now being officially published.
"In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate over 10,000 dead, over 25,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes, courts martial and so on.
"The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed *on the ground* in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and *not* reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. This, we note, was the overall policy until very recently. Since it became well known that many had died at Landstuhl, in Germany, the DoD began to list a very few soldiers who had died at other non-theater locations. These numbers are only for show and are pathetically small in relationship to the actual figures."
From TBR News, 2007:
"Note: Viewers of TBR News who would like a copy of the original Department of Defense Supplemental Casualty lists from 2003 to mid-2005, showing facsimiles of the actual casualties, as opposed to the heavily redacted official listings, may write to [name available at link below] at [e-mail available at link below] for a full copy of the original documents. This list is free of charge. As of May 12, 2007, [name available at link below] has sent out 25, 321 lists."
...
"This original listing showed that as of mid-2005, the death count in both Iraq and Afghanistan topped 10,000 with 20,000 seriously wounded. By 2007, the death toll has risen to over 15,000 (and rising daily) with officially reported serious woundings (requiring out-of-theater hospitalization) at 50,508 as per a report published in the New York Times of January 30, 2007.
"Also not discussed are the over 10,000 desertions (from March, 2003 to date)."
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2689.htm
Posted by: j at May 25, 2007 01:39 PM (4AjM8)
15
J, you might want to get into the habit of verifying the veracity and credibility of your sources.
Joy Behar and Rosie O'Donnell have more credibility than this man, whatever his real name is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 25, 2007 01:58 PM (9y6qg)
16
This keeps getting better... or at least more amusing.
One of the many aliases of the guy who writes "TBR News" is "Gregory Douglas" is a Holocaust denier, and may have been the first guy to "air the theory" that the Bush Administration and Israel orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
He is also purported to be a document and art forger and enthalled with the Nazis when he's not authoring articles on Karl Rove's gay orgies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 25, 2007 02:18 PM (9y6qg)
17
are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite? even BUSH is right twice a day....
Posted by: j at May 25, 2007 04:02 PM (4AjM8)
18
Least folks, I am dealing with facts that anyone can find at the DOD sites, Search, Wikipedia sites or even, when still uncertain making a few phone calls and talking to whoever would know the issue up close and personal. As a former TV anchor/reporter closely related to the US military, am absolutely appalled at the mis-reporting and genuine ignorance of the enemy exhibited by today's journalists, even from time to time on Fox. Though for the most part retired, and am still writing and TRIPLE verify 'facts' (independent verification) before publishing. That is something apparently neither monitored nor done by today's major media outlets for the most part run by Viet Nam era fogies whose only success in life was to discredit whatever administration was in office.
The spin is constantly negative as it should be in one sense-the press is yet another check on government next to the three branches. But lying, deliberately looking for ways and means of discrediting this administration utilizing half truths or outright lies as in J's piece, is not just outrageous but beyond the pale.
My degrees are in political science so do not feel any obligation to MSM (mainstream media) or a political party except to learn the truth. A little bit of homework, deliberately looking for both positive and negatives can only leave one in genuine awe of the Bush administration. For the most part- and those of you with close military connections can verify this pretty easily-look at the number of attempts to horrifically attack the US, have been thwarted from each branch of the service working on anti-terrorism task forces throughout the country, nevermind those plans uncovered by the FBI and Homeland Security teams. It is boggling but perhaps not reported simply because the administration doesn't want the enemy to know just how much the agencies do know about them. The only place I fault the Bush administration is, perhaps, not letting the public know how extraordinarily dangerous this enemy, Al Qaeda really is.
PS-Would love to have Snow's job but don't think they hire over-60 types!
Posted by: Conneticut Yankee at May 25, 2007 04:29 PM (1S6+l)
19
"But lying, deliberately looking for ways and means of discrediting this administration utilizing half truths or outright lies as in J's piece...."
for all of your guff, you've shown us none of that to be true, CY, but you have, quite accidentally, spouted out some truth in your spiel: "A little bit of homework...can only leave one in genuine awe of the Bush administration." ahhhh... "a little" homework, yes; just pray don't do too much of it.
Posted by: j at May 26, 2007 01:15 AM (4AjM8)
20
J, your article was speculation at best and offered absolutely nothing. This is a tad more realistic for starters-3 independent sources:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/fallen.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2007.04.html
Posted by: Conneticut Yankee at May 27, 2007 03:09 AM (U3n80)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
At It Again
The Associated Press got their facts wrong on yet another firearms-related story today, something I know that readers will find absolutely shocking.
In
this story about Moscow, Idaho gunman Jason Hamilton, they made two glaring fact errors regarding the firearms used in Hamilton's deadly Sunday rampage.
They waste no time, blowing the facts in the lede.
A man who went on a deadly shooting rampage with two high-powered assault rifles was supposed to have surrendered his firearms after being convicted of domestic assault, authorities said Wednesday.
By definition, "assault rifles" are not high-powered.
Further, they are selective-fire, meaning they can be fired semi-automatically (one bullet at a time for each trigger pull) or automatically (multiple shots per trigger pull), with the mode of fire determined by a selector switch on the weapon. Neither of these firearms had that capability.
And what were the firearms used?
Hamilton used an AK-47 assault rifle and a Springfield M-1A rifle, both bought legally before he was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend in 2006, Duke said.
I'll state that the Associated Press flatly blew it here.
AK-47s are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (requiring an extensive, nearly prohibitive background check), and none have been imported or manufactured for civilian sale in the United States since 1986. Because demand among collectors is much higher than supply, a true AK-pattern rifle would probably cost between $16,500-$20,000, using
this site as a guide.
A janitor, Hamilton would not likely be able to afford such a firearm.
He carried out his attacks with a rifle that looked like an AK-47, but it is no more an AK-47 than
this 1987 Pontiac is a Ferrari.
New let's refer back to the lead for one second.
If you recall, it said two "assault rifles" were used. We've already established the fact that neither weapon fit the definition, and that one of those firearms could only be termed an assault rifle based upon how it looked. The other firearm doesn't even look like one.
This is the Springfield Armory M-1A.
Even by the most tortured media definition, the M-1A is no assault rifle or assault weapon. It is most properly categorized as a battle rifle, and it is typically valued in both military and civilian shooting circles for it's long-range precision. As such, it is very popular in target competitions.
Once again, the media blew the facts in a firearms-related story.
Surprising, I know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Clayton Cramer reports that the AK was a full-auto--most interesting, given the occupation of this guy.
See: http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_05_20_archive.html#7616480687916982506
Posted by: dad29 at May 24, 2007 12:17 PM (zF52N)
2
They're not dumb, they want to scare people with the term. "Rifle" doesn't cut it. Firearm? Nope. Ah, "Assault Rifle!" Scary!
Since they're not interested in accuracy it's pointless to go on at length about it, you're only preaching to the choir.
I guess there might be a few followers of the rabid gun-ban crowd who might read and seriously consider a lengthy explanation/definition, but it's doubtful.
Don't get me wrong, it must be pointed out every time they are inaccurate (intentional or not). The use of the term "assault rifle" is one of my pet peeves so thanks for pointing out that they care more about embellishing a story than telling the truth.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 24, 2007 12:31 PM (HZBaW)
3
I've noticed this on "true crime" shows as well: Full auto sound effects over survelliance video of a perp firing what is eventually identified as an SKS.
Posted by: Fox 2! at May 26, 2007 11:21 PM (7xwjI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Support Amnesty Through Ignorance
I was listening to local talk radio North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston this morning when I got in the car, and they were talking to Larry Wooten from the North Carolina Farm Bureau and another supporter of the Kennedy-Kyl pro-amnesty immigration "reform" bill, and I have never heard so much blatant, purposeful deception on the public airwaves since our former President delved into the deeper meaning of the word "is."
These two men attempted to say that the illegal aliens working on North Carolina farms contributed enormous amounts of money into social welfare programs when they used fake Social Security numbers, since they could not collect on the money they put in. They purposefully skated around the fact that illegals take far more out of social welfare programs than they put into them in taxes, and the dirty little fact that many farmers pay at least part of their illegal workforce "under the table" so that they do not contribute any taxes at all.
They claimed that North Carolina's agriculture industry would collapse without the amnesty bill... a blatant lie. What a tough immigration law
would do is raise wages for the 75% of natives and legal immigrants, by decreasing the number of illegal immigrants that are willing to take "under the table," tax-dodging rates of pay
below minimum wage.
After listening to their purposeful deceptions for several minutes, I called into the radio show, and afer several busy signals, asked the screener if it was even worth trying to hang around long enough to ask these men a couple of questions. He said it depended on my my comment; they were slammed with calls, most of them on one side of the issue.
I told him I wanted to ask a simple "yes/no" question on whether or not either of the men had actually read the entire bill they were supporting.
The screener laughed a little and stated that the calls coming in were overwhelmingly
for the amnesty bill, which surprised both of us, as the general population of North Carolina, like the general population of the
rest of the country, is against the amnesty bill. He said he thought that the guests may have "loaded the deck" by having their constituents lined up to call in, a supposition supported by the fact that the overwhelming of the callers were in the agriculture industry. He moved me to the front of the call line.
And so I asked my question: "Have either of you read the entire bill you are asking us to support?"
I don't recall which one answered, but it didn't matter: the guy who did hemmed and hawed about how he read the
North Carolina-related provisions. In other words, "no." The other guy didn't attempt answer the question at all.
They haven't read the amnesty bill, but they want you to support it.
That should tell you something.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:39 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, thats why I read your blog everyday! Reality.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 24, 2007 08:58 AM (NiTuu)
2
I just noticed, is it called Kennedy-Kyl now? McCain must of pulled his name off it when he saw the tidal-wave coming.
Posted by: jbiccum at May 24, 2007 09:01 AM (NiTuu)
3
"The screener laughed a little and stated that the calls coming in were overwhelmingly for the amnesty bill..."
You should have asked a follow-up question of how many phone calls have they received of people supporting the bill WITHOUT a Hispanic accent?
John
Charlotte, NC
Posted by: JohnMc at May 24, 2007 09:17 AM (tFJ2V)
4
I sometimes tune into WPTF while driving into the Park each morning and usually can only stomach Jack Boston for a minute or two. When he's not talking about himself or the "stars" he hangs out with, he showing his blissful ignorance on most every subject. God lord, it's like listening to PBS.
Posted by: Martin at May 24, 2007 11:44 AM (Bhe/R)
5
Has anyone looked at the guest worker provisions in that bill? It's the old Bursaro program from the 40s all over again. Only this time half our work force isn't off fighting the second world war.
This is the end of living wages for anybody without a college degree.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 24, 2007 05:33 PM (mYHGQ)
6
I heard the show and the question. I was like wow good question. Then it hit me. These talking heads know less of what is in the bill than I do. These people who are suppose to be experts know nothing. This goes for Burr and Dole also. I doubt if they have read the bill from back to front. When did our elected leaders start voting for things that they have no idea what is in it? We should require that they sign off on every bill that they have read and understand every bill voted on. Like we do with CEO and income statements. this would trim bills down form 1000pgs I think..
Posted by: Bill at May 25, 2007 06:51 AM (M5zWC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 23, 2007
The Most Ethical Congress Ever
Meet the new boss, yadda, yadda, yadda:
A bitter legislative quarrel in the House, played out in the parliamentary vocabulary of reprimands and motions to table, raged on yesterday as the Democrats pushed back a Republican attempt to officially chastise Rep. John Murtha, the combative Pennsylvanian whom Speaker Nancy Pelosi unsuccessfully backed for majority leader after the Democrats won control of the House in November.
Murtha had threatened Mike Rogers of Michigan for attempting to kill one of Murtha's pork barrel projects for a failing government agency in his district in front of a group of Republican representatives. Even thought Murtha was caught dead to rights in front of multiple witnesses, Democrats voted along party lines to table to motion, effectively killing the reprimand.
Nancy Pelosi
supported Murtha, a fact too hard to swallow even for reliably left wing sites such as
Capitol Hill Blue, who described Murtha in its headline as a "bully" while attacking his "unethical" past.
For his part, Murtha sat in a darkened corner of the House floor with cronies,
laughing as the reprimand was defeated along party lines.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:22 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is somehow surprising to you? Why would the current congress be any different than the last congress? Oh wait, I forgot, there wasn't a single scandal in the last congress, and now that democrats are doing what politicians do they take heat for it?
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 08:38 PM (88FOa)
2
Doing what politicians do? nice.
"I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bill, because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever." -Murtha
roger that.
Posted by: brando at May 23, 2007 09:19 PM (rDQC9)
3
Thats politics. I am pretty sure Tom "The Hammer" Delay was just as bad. You just don't like it because he is throwing his political weight around.
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 10:32 PM (88FOa)
4
I am pretty sure Tom "The Hammer" Delay was just as bad.
Maybe, maybe not. Some supporting quotes would help your case greatly.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 24, 2007 04:48 AM (zrtnQ)
5
Posted by JW NC at May 23, 2007 10:32 PM
That single statement isn't just throwing his weight around, it is abusing his position and authority. As a leader, everyone should have the same rights to put an earmark in for a vote.
On the earmark subject, I personally think all of them should be illegal.
A bill should stand on its own, if it can't make it, Earmarks (aka BRIBES) shouldn't be offered in for a vote.
Posted by: Retired Navy at May 24, 2007 05:17 AM (PJ4Iq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
They All Look Alike to CNN
You would hope that after being in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, that a major news organization such as CNN might be able to tell the difference between U.S. soldiers and their Iraqi counterparts.
You would hope.
The uniform is clearly Iraqi (
this is what our Army's uniform looks like), and the weapon is obviously a Soviet-designed variant of the
RPD squad automatic weapon (SAW) carried by Iraqi security forces and insurgents alike, but
never issued to regular U.S. military forces.
Refusing to identify the nationality of the soldier isn't "wrong," but it is certainly imprecise, and by saying that he "searches for missing comrades," most people would logically infer that he was a U.S. soldier, as it is indeed U.S. soldiers that are missing. He is our ally, but he is clearly
not a member of the U.S. Army. CNN is sloppy, but at least they aren't running enemy propaganda as news
today.
Meanwhile, AFP
has no problem identifying the soldier as Iraqi, but I guess they're simply paying more attention.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:52 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Of course, the Iraqis are at least in part wearing old US Army BDUs, and the US Army has not completely traded in BDUs for the new ACUs. Thus, the uniform is not such a giveaway as you imply. The weapon is a different story...
Posted by: Anon at May 23, 2007 12:58 PM (O8pjo)
2
You're right that is a old U.S. pattern... it is the six-color "chocolate chip BDU pattern phased out after the First Gulf War in 1991.
The U.S. Army first went into combat with the three-color "coffee stain" DCU in Somalia in 1993, and that desert pattern DCU was standard issue to U.S. Army units for the 2003 invasion. They began to transition over to the ACU in 2005.
This uniform should be a clear giveaway to anyone familiar with American and Iraqi military units, as the BDU was being phased out of the American Army 14 years ago, and was not issued at all to combat units in this war, and all in-theater Army combat units should have transitioned over the to the ACU by now.
CNN is a nearly a full evolution of uniforms behind.
I guess we should be relieved that they don't think we're still issuing tri-corner hats.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 23, 2007 01:24 PM (9y6qg)
3
I think this is, at worst, an imprecise editor writing an imprecise headline. I could make a case that our Iraqi colleagues are also our comrades, but really, this isn't such a big deal.
And for me it was the helmet.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 23, 2007 03:11 PM (kxecL)
4
Mr. Film Noire sayeth "this isn't such a big deal"
No it IS a big deal our Boys DO NOT want to be confused with the terrorists!!!!
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 03:19 PM (BKFQg)
5
Welcome to the Confused News Network. Not exactly their first mistake, probably not their last. I added an excerpt and link to my 2007.05.23 Iraq/Iran Roundup.
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 23, 2007 07:05 PM (n7SaI)
6
The temperate and hot weather battle dress uniforms have not been phased out. Chapter 3 of AR 670-1 (3 February 2005 is the current revision) prescribes its use. I imagine that most of the people wearing it in the middle east are NG or reservists--or Iraqi troops--but it has not gone away.
It certainly didn't go away in 1993--we were issued replacement temparate BDUs when I redeployed from Bosnia in 1996, and it was still being issued in when I retired in 2002.
The weapon may give it away, but I understand that some of our troops have been authorized to use Soviet variant weapons, especially when operating with foriegn troops who use them. This helps logistically, since they can use the same ammunition source.
Besides, this screen shot only says the soldier is looking for "comrades." We are operating alongside Iraqi troops--doesn't this make them our comrades? In that sense, it is quite accurate.
But any little nitpick to slam CNN, right? Since it's CNN, no one wants to assume that the guy on the ground knows more than anyone writing on a blog might know. Looks weird to bloggers, so the liberal media has done it again.
Turns out it's you boneheads who are discussing things you know nothing about.
And before CY can get all self-righteous about the "bonehead" remark and call me uncivil, someone will call me a traitor because I don't have BWS (Bush Worship Syndrome), so I guess it will all come out in the wash.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 23, 2007 07:34 PM (zQxAD)
7
Wow must be a slow news day or something because your attack on CNN for this article seems like it is grasping.
Comrade-
A person who shares one's interests or activities; a friend or companion.
Friend-
# A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
# A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.
# A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.
I would say that "A soldier searching for missing *friends* in Iraq" is accurate. What is the big deal with that?
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 08:30 PM (88FOa)
8
No it IS a big deal our Boys DO NOT want to be confused with the terrorists!!!!
You know, you can always tell when someone's skipped his meds when he uses selective ALL CAPS and a pocketful of exclamation points.
Confused with terrorists? Uh, Karl, that soldier in the picture is one of our allies. You can tell because our allies wear a uniform and the mujahadeen and other insurgents do not. That's what makes them so hard to shoot.
A simple concept, really, but I can understand why you'd find it a difficult one to grasp.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 23, 2007 08:57 PM (tk0b2)
9
David,
The reason why some (not pointing fingers) find this to be a big deal is they think the war is between the US and everyone that is Muslim. Which to me just seems ignorant and narrow-minded.
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 09:17 PM (88FOa)
10
Faery Pants -- We have had war with Iran since 1979. we are at war in Iraq. The Saudis did 911. Pakistan harbers Al Qaida. We are basicly at war with every muslim country and at peace with all NON-muslim countries what do you call it???
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 10:18 PM (BKFQg)
11
I call it ignorant and narrow-minded, which is the reason we will not accomplish our goals in Iraq. It is hard to try to encourage peace if we view everyone in the country as the bad guy. I guess you don't want to be peace, ever.
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 10:48 PM (88FOa)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 23, 2007 11:03 PM (Af3/m)
13
I don't believe this is a serious issue ("A soldier," "comrades," both acccurate enough for a photo title), but certainly pointing out an ongoing PATTERN of inaccuracy merits mentioning.
It's not like we don't hear relentless harping from the left every time a Republican belches or farts.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 24, 2007 12:44 PM (HZBaW)
14
So misleadingly labeling a report as inaccurate is one way of "pointing out an ongoing pattern of inaccuracy?"
Only if the "ongoing pattern of inaccuracy" you are pointing out is your own.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 25, 2007 07:46 AM (oJ/ze)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2007
Forcing War: Brian Ross, ABC News Undermine Non-Military Plan Against Iran
And here I thought the media were against war with Iran.
I'll be very interested to see whether or not the Justice Department will attempt to prosecute anyone in the intelligence community who leaked this information, as they obviously should. I doubt that Brain Ross or the staff of ABC News will be tried for criminal offenses (including treason), though the majority of comments posted on the Blotter's comment thread clearly favor that action... at least those they haven't yet deleted.
Ross and ABC News have purposefully undermined the
non-military removal of a government that is a proud state sponsor of terrorism. If Ross and ABC News are successful in derailing covert non-military attempts to replace the Iranian government, then a military option may very well end up being our last remaining option.
If we are forced into a war because ABC News torpedoed our last, best hope at a non-military solution to the problem of Iran's militant, expansionist, Shia Islamist government, then the resulting deaths on both sides will belong in part to ABC News executives and Brian Ross.
Should that eventuality come to pass, the Federal Communications Commission should seriously consider suspending or removing ABC's broadcasting license as a warm up, and move on to more serious legal remedies from there.
Update: As is their pattern, the staff of the Blotter quickly removed my comment to their post that echoed the sentiments expressed in this blog entry.
ABC News gleefully exposes classified national security information, but apparently cannot tolerate some criticism of their own dubious operations. I can only wonder how many other criticizing comments they have deleted.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:30 PM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Brian Ross should be tried as a traitor. HE KNEW what he was doing.
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 12:06 AM (BKFQg)
2
"If we are forced into a war because ABC News torpedoed our last, best hope at a non-military solution to the problem of Iran's militant, expansionist, Shia Islamist government, then the resulting deaths on both sides will belong in part to ABC News executives and Brian Ross."
Hyperventilate much, CY?
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 23, 2007 12:50 AM (N8M1W)
3
daveTM, Arbotree is short a couple of chickin mcnuggetts if you know what I mean
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 01:15 AM (BKFQg)
4
Karl, I'm with you big guy but you have to keep up with the rest of the squad. It's "chicken" but we know what you mean. Keep your head down and your mouth shut, it would help if you know what I mean.
Posted by: mt at May 23, 2007 01:37 AM (OouOg)
5
I'd presumed we'd been doing this sort of stuff right along. If not, then we've been too nice.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 23, 2007 04:48 AM (73HJO)
6
'"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.'
And for 10 points, which administration deliberately outed a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets?
Posted by: Gridlock at May 23, 2007 06:32 AM (FKRiP)
7
Great. Anti-Americans in Iran have been making hay over Mossadegh for over fifty years. This will keep them going for another fifty. When will we learn that the best way to get democratic reform is to keep our mitts off of it?
Posted by: sj at May 23, 2007 07:41 AM (HoalW)
8
I am without words to express my extreme disgust. They CANNOT be allowed to get away with this!!! TREASON!!!
Posted by: jbiccum at May 23, 2007 07:49 AM (NiTuu)
9
With all due respect, guys:
When the "MSM" does something that you feel undermines a war effort, they're traitors.
When they do something that you feel pushes forward a war effort, they're traitors.
If they seem to want to end the war in Iraq, they're responsible for the deaths.
If they promote the war in Iran, they're responsible for the deaths.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 23, 2007 08:07 AM (Klsor)
10
First you don't want me to buy a pony. Now you want me to send it back. Make up your mind, Marge.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 23, 2007 08:33 AM (Klsor)
11
Wonder how long my comment lasts:
I've not watched ABC news in 10 years and this is just another example of why. If you have any proof it is illegal, submit it. Otherwise shut the hell up.
P.S. since you are ignorant of history, Abrams got sent up for withholding information, and the Iran contra issue was about bypassing the Boland amendment, a specific law related to disallowing funding "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua."
Is there a similar law in relation to Iran? If not, then there is absolutely no corollary here with Iran-Contra.
Posted by: Buddy at May 23, 2007 08:40 AM (aGQVo)
Posted by: Buddy at May 23, 2007 08:46 AM (aGQVo)
13
Yeah, and I'm sure whatever harebrained scheme the CIA comes up will work perfectly. Lemme guess, we'll make the Ayatollah's beard fall out, and then slip an exploding burkha onto Ahmedinijad's wife.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at May 23, 2007 08:51 AM (uRp/m)
14
Chances are, this information was leaked intentionally by the government, as a part of the program to intimidate iran. Sadly, "leaking" by "anonymous" sources who are actually using their anonymity as a tool to feed officially sanctioned information into the press is a lot more the norm than "brave whistleblowing" these days. The press should not report based on anonymous sources when those sources are not whistleblowers with legitimate worries about what would happen to them if it were known that they were leaking.
Posted by: Chris Green at May 23, 2007 09:23 AM (l8CpG)
15
Sounds like a little Phy-Ops to me...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at May 23, 2007 09:45 AM (L4HGI)
16
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at May 23, 2007 10:04 AM (6+obf)
17
Such plans are ALWAYS at the ready, I'm surprised when one becomes public and people appear shocked by it. We don't "know" if, in fact, such a plan is currently in play (ABC is not a reliable source for such information).
I suspect ABC news, or sources willing to talk to them, wouldn't know the difference between a plan that was solely on paper and one that was actually in effect, or how to report the difference, or would, in fact, be honest that there IS a difference.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 23, 2007 11:51 AM (4OtLH)
18
And for 10 points, which administration deliberately outed a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets?
If the preznit does it, that means it isn't treason!
Posted by: moron at May 23, 2007 12:17 PM (gxZAP)
19
amusing. torture and illegal wiretapping and opening the mail of americans is good, and freedom of the press is bad. how is life behind the looking glass?
Posted by: jay k. at May 23, 2007 01:07 PM (yu9pS)
20
(LOL QUOTE)a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets? (/LOL QUOTE)
It's Valerie Plame! SUPER-SPY EXTRAORDINAIRE! She was *this* close to putting the kaibosh on the whole Khan nuclear proliferation ring, ending Saddam's reign of terror without violence and normalizing relations with the "Death to America" mullocracy. All before putting her twins to bed.
Posted by: no-one at May 23, 2007 01:10 PM (+4D4A)
21
I always thought Bush would win. The bottom line is a game of chicken is always, "Who would rather crash than lose?" In the end, when it came down to a question of who was more willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, the Democrats blinked.
Posted by: trrll at May 23, 2007 04:01 PM (6ORla)
22
Just for information's sake, but they've (so far) left my scathing comment up.
Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at May 23, 2007 05:24 PM (mT12M)
23
When will we learn that the best way to get democratic reform is to keep our mitts off of it?
Yea, that scheme worked out pretty well with Hitler and the Soviet Union didn't it?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 23, 2007 07:36 PM (zrtnQ)
24
Yeah, Avenger, lets talk about WWII. Hitler was elected Chancellor by the same government that we helped force on Germany after WWI. Add to that a massive war debt to keep their economy in even worse shape than the rest of Europes and you've got a recipe for another world war.
Another example of is how the CIA overthrew a democratically elected but not sufficiently pro American gonvernment it Iran in the late 50s and installed Shaw Prevadi. The direct result was the revolution that put the Ayatollahs into power.
You wingnuts have gotta quit romantacizing WWII.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 24, 2007 05:24 PM (mYHGQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Also, The Sun Came Up Today
Allegations in today's Guardian that Iran may be supporting Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda in Iraq in anti-surge operations may come as a shock to some, but I can't imagine why:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.
Iran is not "secretly forging ties" with al Qaeda; they've
had them all along, possibly as far back as the 1996
Khobar Towers attack. al Qaeda operatives, including the
9/11 plotters have long used Iran as a gateway to Afghanistan, and al Qaeda operatives have
lived in Iran since the fall of the Taliban.
That Iran would use "their" al Qaeda to hook up with al Qaeda operatives and other Sunni insurgents in Iraq to pursue their shared goal of forcing the United States out of Iraq is not only unsurprising, it is tediously predictable.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:31 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Firstly, the al Qaeda "ties" with Iran are being as implausibly played up as they were with Saddam's Iraq. Of course the Iranians are holding al Qaeda members. They hope to trade them for the MEK that we are holding in Iraq and have been for some time. The Khobar Towers connection is pure speculation. Quoth your provided article, "Al Qaeda, the commission determined, may even have played a 'yet unknown role' in aiding Hezbollah militants in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers. . ." Hmm, may even have played a yet unknown role, eh? Convincing. Let us not forget that Tehran fed us intelligence during the overthrow of the Taleban. There was no love lost on that border.
To the instant case, it is possible that the Iranians are backing the Sunnis, but it would a dangerous game for them. If this speculation is correct and the goal is to force us out of Iraq, they will, if successful, have to deal with the Sunni militants themselves afterward. They are, after all, the blood enemies of Tehran's own Shi'ite allies in Iraq. That seems like it would produce way too much blowback for the Iranians to accept. This risk may be outweighed by the Iranians' desire to bleed us dry faster.
On the other hand, blaming Iran for everything has become a hobby in both Iraq and Washington and it's similarly possible that this is just more calculated disinformation.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 22, 2007 02:24 PM (mydDl)
2
Color me shocked. Shocked! I linked.
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 22, 2007 02:25 PM (n7SaI)
3
sj:
Another of those who feels the Iranians wouldn't play with AlQaeda because they are Sunni. The iranians are talking directly with the Gulf States. Why wouldn't they be working with Al Qaeda?
Posted by: davod at May 22, 2007 02:32 PM (RdotW)
4
Davod,
It's not that Iran won't work with Sunnis, it's the Iran is not likely to get along with the hardline Salafis (read al Qaeda types) who think that Shi'ia are not really Muslims. These are the "takfiris" (excommuncators) that you'll regularly hear Muqtada railing against.
It's difficult to form even a short term relationship of convenience with people who want you dead, and the Iranians are unlikely to find many people they can work with on the Iraqi Sunni side once they elimiate the Salafis and the Ba'athists. This is doubly so considering that any aid given to these people would likely be used against Iran's allies in Iraq (the Shi'ite parties). Again, it is possible that Iran might back such people so they keep fighting the U.S., but, especially with an American withdrawal looking more likely, it is a very risky proposition for them. No doubt their plan for the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is Iran-backed Shi'ite parties rolling over the Sunnis and getting rid of the Salafis and Ba'athists once and for all with good old-fashioned genocide.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 22, 2007 03:04 PM (mydDl)
5
It's obviously ridiculous to think that Shi'ites would ever ally themselves with Sunnis. It's as absurd as say, Hitler allying with Stalin.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 23, 2007 02:22 AM (hnl8M)
6
You will of course dismiss it because the author is Seymour Hersch, but I would love to hear an intelligent response:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."
Posted by: Random Guy at May 23, 2007 02:33 AM (K1Emm)
7
Time for "Chicago Rules" when dealing with Iranian operatives.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 23, 2007 07:38 PM (zrtnQ)
8
So? What is the US going to do about it? Nothing! If we do anything more than bomb them we would have to withdraw troops from Iraq in which those on the right would view as a defeat.
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 08:53 PM (88FOa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Virginia Tech Shooter Had Plenty More Ammo
Seung-Hui Cho fired less than half of the 377 rounds of ammunition he brought with him into Norris Hall on April 16 before commiting suicide after killing 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech:
The gunman who killed 30 people at a Virginia Tech building was "well-prepared" to continue his shooting spree with more than 200 additional rounds of ammunition, a state panel was told Monday.
Police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall, where Seung-Hui Cho killed 25 students and five faculty members before committing suicide on April 16, State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty told a panel investigating the massacre. Cho also shot two other students elsewhere.
"He was well-prepared to continue on," Flaherty said.
Cho fired 174 shots from two handguns on the second floor in a span of nine minutes, taking his own life at 9:51 a.m. as police on the stairwell approached the floor, Flaherty said.
I suspect, but certainly cannot prove, that Cho chose to take his life when he did because he heard the sounds of police shooting through the locks on the first-floor doors he had chained shut, and he did not want to risk of being wounded by police and captured.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
May 21, 2007
McLiar
The Iraq War claims another veteran who was against it... sorta:
Jesse Adam Macbeth, 23, formerly of Phoenix, garnered attention on blogs and in some alternative media after he began claiming in 2005 to have been awarded a Purple Heart for his service, which he said included slaughtering innocents in a Fallujah mosque. His story was contradicted by his discharge form, showing that he was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003 because of his "entry level performance and conduct."
A complaint unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in Seattle charged him with one count of using or possessing a forged or altered military discharge certificate, and one count of making false statements in seeking benefits from the Veterans Administration.
Macbeth's public defender, Jay Stansell, declined to comment.
Organizations that opposed the war, including Iraq Veterans Against the War, posted videos or statements containing Macbeth's claims on their Web sites. In one videotaped interview, a skinny, stuttering Macbeth, dressed in a camouflage jacket, described slaughtering hundreds of people in a mosque: "We would burn their bodies ... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque," he said.
On the upside, we've finally found MacBeth
a uniform that fits him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:46 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He sure looks pretty in orange. Hope his sell mate thinks so, too.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 21, 2007 04:18 PM (mYHGQ)
2
Being a active duty serviceman, I have a problem with these "veterans" that will do anything to disgrace the uniform that my brothers and sisters wear, then use it for their personal agenda. Hopefully this clown gets a judge who is prior military or a reservist....
Memo to Macbeth - asked for the tossed salad....
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at May 22, 2007 10:03 PM (I6QiV)
3
Sadly, his version will live on in the hearts, minds and blogs of America's enemies.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 24, 2007 12:48 PM (HZBaW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fore!
File this under "not a PhotoShop, but it should be."
You can clearly see three Lebanese soldiers in combat fatigues (and the helmet of a fourth) as they cover their ears while firing a mortar against the Fatah Islam militant group outside of Tripoli, Lebanon.
But who is the forth guy in the phone, apparently wearing a brown polo shirt, seemingly obvious to the mortar firing at his feet,
smiling as he talks on a cell phone? He looks more like an executive on a golf course than a soldier on the battlefield.
This is odd, even for Lebanon...
Note: The inset is my own, and is not in the
original.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:28 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To me it looks more like he is simply out of uniform. The brown shirt is his uniform undershirt, and if you look at his foot, it looks like a uniform trouser bloused into a combat boot.
I think that what looks like a collar is something hanging around his neck, or a cloth covering it (protection from the sun or to soak up sweat), or even the bunched-up collar of his undershirt.
Except for the way he is holding his hand I can't think of any reason to think he is talking on a cell phone except that this would explain why he is not covering his other ear (or perhaps he has only one arm--not uncommon among armies that fight a lot, though it begs the question of why in that case he would serve in a "combat" unit).
It may be that this unit communicates with its headquarters using cell phones, or he is actually holding some sort of tactical radio and got caught off guard when the mortar fired--which explains the grimace that indeed looks an awful lot like a smile.
Since I know that troops often operate without uniform shirts, especially when it is hot (and they lack discipline), this seems a simpler explanation than "some guy with a brown golf shirt was talking on a cell phone during a mortar firing operation").
Nonetheless, it doesn't help that the guy looks a lot like George Clooney. Just goes to show how two people looking at the same photo see different things.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 21, 2007 03:28 PM (8/oI9)
Posted by: Paul A'Barge at May 21, 2007 05:06 PM (T3gfS)
3
Mayhaps he's the local munitions rep?. He must be deaf in his left ear.
Posted by: markm at May 22, 2007 06:09 AM (hVOTO)
4
Now I am not an artillery guy, or even an Army guy (Go Air Force!), but I am not sure why all the other troops are covering their ears. Small mortars don't make that much noise when they fire. We are not talking about big howitzers here! ;-)
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot at May 22, 2007 12:18 PM (jJaYT)
5
That might be Mr. Black or Mr. White, or perhaps Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Cohan. Those gentleman are known to travel widely and provide advice in such situations.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at May 23, 2007 09:19 PM (hASmp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I See Vague Dead People: The New Best Way to Lie
Knowing the intense scrutiny that their photographers face following last summer's Adnan Hajj incident, most news organizations are carefully reviewing photos taken by journalists in the Middle East before publication, to make sure they havne't been modified. They are, however, still failing to question the captions they use to describe photos, which can also be used to deceive news consumers.
The two photos shown below have been published in the past 24 hours, and are a prime example.
AFP ran the following
photo and caption yesterday:
Palestinian mourners carry the body of Hatem Hmeid, 15, during his funeral in the Jabalia refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip. Eight people were killed in a new Israeli air raid in Gaza on Sunday just hours after Israel's security cabinet gave the army the go-ahead to ramp up operations against Palestinian militants.(AFP/Mohammed Abed)
Reuters ran
this photo and caption today:
Palestinians pray near the bodies of nine Palestinians killed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza May 21, 2007. Israel launched more strikes against Gaza militants on Sunday, killing nine Palestinians in two aerial assaults, including one that struck the home of a prominent Hamas politician, security officials said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)
View the pictures and the captions that these news organizations provided with them, and you're looking on what may appear in your local, regional, national, or international news outlet of choice.
What you will probably take away from these photos is that once again, those dastardly Israelis are once again slaughtering defenseless Palestinians while targeting militants. Both captions mentioned that Israel was targetting militants, but both avoided mention that the dead pictured were apparently those same militants, and not innocent bystanders. Considering the names of the photographers, I wouldn't be too surprised if that vagueness was by intent.
The pictures, however, tell us a bit more than the captions would indicate.
Look closely at the photos above, and then take a gander at
this photo in the Guardian Newsblog.
Hamas supporters on the left, with the green flags, Fateh on the right with yellow flags. Photograph: Laila el-Haddad
If seeing is believing, the dead in the pictures in the AFP and Reuters photos were militants wrapped in the flags of Fatah and Hamas.
Palestinians?
Yes, they most were.
Civilian victims?
I suspect not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:33 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I forget, who is lobing unguided missiles into civilian populations?
Posted by: Mekan at May 21, 2007 01:41 PM (hm8tW)
2
I can't help but notice that the markings on the flags(?) or shrouds(?) on the dead in the first two photos, are of different color and type than the very clear Hamas and Fatah flags in the last photo. Green in particular is, I understand, a holy color to the Muslims. It's no suprise to find a body wrapped in it at a funeral.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 21, 2007 03:32 PM (mYHGQ)
3
Why do you think that the two sides might not wrap innocent bystanders killed in military strikes in the relevant flag? Even if not militants, once killed by Israelis are they not martyrs, and therefore deserving of respect (or at least exploitation as martyrs for their public relations value)?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 21, 2007 03:33 PM (8/oI9)
4
Is that first one a Fatah flag? Looks suspiciously like Hezbollah to me.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 22, 2007 06:04 AM (K/lgF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
They'll Stand Up, But We Won't Report It
MNF-I has issued a press release detailing the repelling of a large-scale terrorist attack by Iraqi Security Forces this past Wednesday:
Iraqi Security Forces countered several terrorists who targeted bridges, transition jails, police stations and a combat outpost with vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, sporadic small-arms fire and indirect mortar attacks throughout the evening.
"This was a total team effort on the part of the Iraqi Security Forces and emergency responders," said U.S. Army Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. "This Iraqi team showed the people of Mosul that they are resolute in their efforts to defeat this very cowardly, desperate enemy while protecting innocent civilians."
The first wave of attacks consisted of three VBIEDs, which targeted the Badush Bridge northwest of Mosul at 5:15 p.m., and was followed by another VBIED attack at the Aski-Mosul Bridge west of the city at 5:45 p.m.
Two more VBIEDs exploded outside a police station and a transition jail during the first wave. The first VBIED was a dump truck, which detonated upon reaching the entrance to the station. The driver of the second VBIED attempted to enter the compound but was killed by Iraqi Security Forces.
As the driver of the second VBIED was killed, terrorists attempted to breach the transition jail to release prisoners by using small-arms fire. However, Iraqi Security Forces quelled the attempt and kept the facility secured.
The second wave of attacks involved another dump truck VBIED parked outside a southeast police station at approximately 7 p.m. As the driver abandoned the vehicle, he was seen by Iraqi Police and was killed as he was fleeing the area. The Iraqi Police immediately cordoned the vicinity before detonation. No casualties resulted.
Small-arms fire erupted during the second wave at seven police stations throughout the city and one combat outpost. In all cases, Iraqi Army and Police repelled the enemy and killed at least 15 terrorists and turned back the remaining opposition.
"The Iraqi Security Forces are in the lead, and they are certainly a capable force," said Twitty. "Their reactions to the attacks [on Wednesday] only serve to prove their ability to destroy and remove terrorists. Their actions demonstrate their commitment to this city and its people. I am extremely proud to serve beside them."
Stars and Stripes indicates that up to 200 insurgents may have been involved in the May 16 attacks.
If these accounts are close to being accurate (and there have not been any conflicting accounts that I am aware of), the Iraqi Security Forces in Mosul performed extremely well, repelling a large scale (company-sized ), multi-wave attack with no outside support from U.S. forces.
CNN
covered the story, adding:
Mosul police spokesman Gen. Saied al-Jabouri said intelligence reports suggested the attacks were coordinated by al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq -- which he said were "two sides of the same coin" -- and were an effort to free at least 300 inmates from the al-Faisaliya prison in Mosul.
Al-Jabouri said seven of the 10 vehicle-borne bombs were suicide car bombings and that a key bridge, many buildings, shops and homes were destroyed during a six-hour period starting late Wednesday afternoon.
A U.S. military source said the bombs killed 10 Iraqi police officers, one Iraqi soldier and two civilians. He credited the Iraqi security forces for these "minimal casualties," saying it "could have been much worse if they were not doing their job."
"The ISF dealt with it, showing the people they are trained and ready," the U.S. military official said.
Al-Jabouri said Iraqi troops, backed by the U.S. military, fought with insurgents for two hours across Mosul, killing 15 of them and one Saudi national.
You would hope that the major news organizations would report the successful repulsion of such an attack as the victory it was, and as an example of success that can be won by Iraqi military and police units. al Qaeda and the ISI are the insurgency's "varsity" in Iraq, and when placed head-to-head against Iraq's best, they lost a battle in which they had apparent advantages in surprise and firepower.
This should be regarded as significant news.
But it is very difficult to find many major western news outlets carrying a report of the events in Mosul on that day, quite an odd development considering the size of the attack. This is especially odd when you consider that these same news outlets were able to print dozens of stories about a pair of ABC journalists killed in Mosul on May 18, just two days later.
I understand that the deaths of two journalists in Iraq is very important to those in news-gathering industry, but I don't think I'd be wrong in state that a rare and sophisticated company-sized attack by al Qaeda and the ISI being repelled by Iraqi security forces is a far more important news story than the deaths of two reporters, both for those in the news business, and those new consumers around the world.
The Iraqi security forces thwarted a major assault and an attempt to free 300 prisoners, and suffered minimal casualties in a serious engagement.
That's news.
It's too bad there seems so little interest among professional news organizations in reporting it.
Update: Heh:
Is there any way we can get Al Qaeda on record as supporting carbon dioxide production? Seems like the only way to get the MSM's interest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:57 AM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I feel reasonably certain that if the AQ/ISI assault had succeeded in freeing the war criminals from that jail the MSM would be hailing, yes, hailing, it as a Dien Bien Phu for the Iraqi government forces.
That fits in better with the MSM's preferred narrative.
Posted by: bubba at May 21, 2007 12:49 PM (r0Bun)
2
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
LOCKHART: And, Joker ... where's the weenie?
JOKER: Sir!
LOCKHART: The Kill, JOKER. The kill. I mean, all that fire, the grunts must've hit something.
JOKER: Didn't see 'em.
LOCKHART: Joker, I've told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants—Winning of Hearts and Minds--okay? And combat action that results in a kill--Winning the War. Now you must have seen blood trails ... drag marks?
JOKER: It was raining, sir.
LOCKHART: Well, that's why God passed the law of probability. Now rewrite it and give it a happy ending--say, uh, one kill. Make it a sapper or an officer. Which?
JOKER: Whichever you say.
LOCKHART: Grunts like reading about dead officers.
JOKER: Okay, an officer. How about a general?
A few laughs.
LOCKHART: Joker, maybe you'd like our guys to read the paper and feel bad. I mean, in case you didn't know it, this is not a particularly popular war. Now, it is our job to report the news that these why-are-we-here civilian newsmen ignore.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 21, 2007 01:00 PM (dOcZ9)
3
Hey Man, Nice Shot
Cordially,
Uncle J
Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at May 21, 2007 01:06 PM (SZag9)
4
A little too much shochu there, John?
Sorry, I mean, what a powerful statement about military reporting from a Hollywood movie. And it was from a fictional Vietnam, too. How apropos.
Naturally, civilian reporters would NEVER have a conversation like the Joker / Lockhart one above, and everything that shows up in a Hollywood movie about the character of the US military in 1968 is certainly true today, right? Don't even need to think to know that, right, shochu?
Posted by: hontou? at May 21, 2007 01:22 PM (ALjam)
5
It also would have been nice for the media, in spring 1968, to have reported that the Tet offensive had essentially destroyed the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force and severely attrited the NVA--and that was during the administration of a Democratic president. I'm not holding my breath for the MSM to pull its head out anytime soon for the current occupant of the White House.
Posted by: rockindoug at May 21, 2007 01:57 PM (SLEVh)
6
Where'd you go, Shochu? I need clarification. Was that a subtle jab at Kubrick, or toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe?
Posted by: clazy at May 21, 2007 02:10 PM (EWsFM)
7
cy
don't knock the lack of msm attention. they might pull uncle walter out of retirement to announce how this was a major defeat for the allies.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 21, 2007 02:41 PM (TzLpv)
8
Move along, nothing to see here, move along...
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at May 21, 2007 02:45 PM (d5LvD)
9
hontou?[!],
No doubt if I had quoted Homage to Catalonia, your reaction would be several rambling lines of sarcasm pointing out that Iraq and Spain are completely different countries. Forgive me. I will try to use only literal language and simple words going forward. Let me know if this is properly clear:
Official government releases about military conflicts have as their chief purpose not the dissemination of facts, but the furtherance of military objectives. In the instant case, it should come as no surprise that the military is talking up our Iraqi allies, as they have been doing so for the last four years. In that four years, actual performance has consistently underperformed the sunny words. It therefore stands to reason that this is getting little circulation in the “MSM” because (1) it is of questionable credibility and (2) the war is no longer popular enough to relay official puffery as news.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 21, 2007 02:50 PM (dOcZ9)
10
So much for your reasoning skills...
Things don't appear in the MSM due to their questionable credibility??
Paging Dan Rather...
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at May 21, 2007 03:21 PM (xuO8w)
11
I'm with SJ here: if you believe everything the miltary tells you, you are probably working on at least some false information.
If the only evidence that 200 insurgents were involved is a US DOD press release, we can take them for about the same value as the casualty reports out of Viet Nam back in the day.
So if the MSM is not reporting it the way the military describes it, I have to say that it probably didn't happen the way the military described it. Would not be the first time, for certain.
(And what, by the way, is the motivation for the MSM to report the bad but not the good, beyond "if it bleeds it leads?" I see some circular reasoning here--the media doesn't report the good things happening in Iraq because it is liberal, and it must be liberal since it doesn't report the good things happening in Iraq.)
Anyway, "7-10 vehicle born bombs" does not constitute a "large-scale attack" for this old tanker. And they responded with "the backing of the US military." Let me know when they can operate without our help--oh, I forgot, many of them already do, at least when they are off duty. Only we call them "insurgents." "Fighting ISI by day and USA by night" could be the motto of many Iraqi troops and cops right now.
Still, let's say for the sake of argument that the Iraqis are responding effectively and without assistance to large scale attacks now. This means the mission is complete and we can start withdrawing, right?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 21, 2007 03:48 PM (8/oI9)
12
I got it. The benefit of the doubt goes to the enemy. Clear as a bell, SJ.
Posted by: buddy larsen at May 21, 2007 03:50 PM (lCS93)
13
No, Shouchus right about the Stars and Stripes. It's always been pretty much a propaganda rag. We used to read it just to see how much of it we actually verify was BS.
Isn't CNN pretty much mainstream?
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 21, 2007 03:55 PM (mYHGQ)
14
In El Jabal during the first gulf war we sat around one night and counted the number of Patriot Missles it took to bring down a Scud. We came up with 16 on average.
The following day we watched the same attack as protrayed on CNN. They only showed the ones that hit.
It ain't just the Stars and Stripes. CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government.
All I know for sure about this war is they lied about why we were going, didn't send enough troops and have been f**king it up by the numbers for over 4 years now. I'll won't know what really happened there until 10 years after the last troop comes home and neither will any of the rest of you. Since I honestly don't give a damn about any Iraqi, and neither, really, does anybody else posting to this site, I hope that's about the middle of next week.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 21, 2007 04:07 PM (mYHGQ)
15
"CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government."
Wow.
Did you clear that statement through Mr. Jane Fonda, Ted Turner??
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at May 21, 2007 04:16 PM (xuO8w)
16
So if the ISI thwarted such a major attack and suffered minimal casualties in a serious engagement, why not bring our troops home? Seems they are able to do what Bush considered necessary for us to claim victory. Or are we still afraid of "them" following us home?
Posted by: JW NC at May 21, 2007 04:53 PM (88FOa)
17
7-10 VBIEDs do not "constitute a major attack" for the terrorists ?
Oh, sure, for an insurgency to concentrate that level of resources into one zone of attack would be a trivial thing. Especially during a security lockdown period.
I don't know that much about tanks, but UW was my specialty. I wonder Just what would equate to a major attack for some people ? Apparently, some folks think these guys have armored divisions on call ? We need to forget the Cold War -- this is guerilla warfare (terrorism if you prefer). You don't concentrate that level of force without being serious in your commitments.
Ya' think a line of 40 dump trucks moving down the street might arouse some suspicions ?
And if anyone wants to believe that CNN (often relying on the "let's PhotoShop" AP and the "We hate America" Reuters) is less biased (albeit in the opposite direction) than the S&S, I really have little to say to them.
I have been on the scene twice for major events that were covered by CNN, and in both cases what I say was substantially different from what was reported.
I know, who am I supposed to believe, CNN or my own lyin' eyes ?
Setting aside the "glass is half empty/half full" phenomenon, which I recognize I do suffer from, I remain more skeptical of CNN than anything this side of AP or the NY Times. There is a difference between skepticism and silence.
Consider, if a terr says something against US interests, CNN reports "so-an-so alleges." But if the US says something against the terrs, CNN responds with silence. And, as is clear above, too many are very eager to believe the US lies, but that it's enemies don't.
Repeat after me: We are the good guys. If we blow up kids, it's an accident or an aberration. They are the bad guys. When they blow up kids, it's often deliberate.
I really can't make it plainer than that.
Posted by: 1charlie2 at May 21, 2007 04:53 PM (pDkg5)
18
I just added an excerpt and link to my 2007.05.21 Iraq/Iran Roundup.
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 21, 2007 05:03 PM (n7SaI)
19
"CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government."
Who knew that Peter Arnett was reporting news on behalf of the Iraqi Information ministry because the US government wanted him to.
The strange twisted logic that turns CNN into a US proganda organ while simultaneously praising their coverage of the 'human cost of war' under the barrel of an Iraqi gun is beyond this writers ability to understand. Then again, its lately become the spin of the Left to praise 'Baghdad Bob' for his truthful and accurate information.
Posted by: celebrim at May 21, 2007 05:05 PM (Qnlt+)
20
As further proof of the useful shorthands I've picked up for CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/
"Suspected Taliban ambush, 25 dead"
You have to click on the link to see
"25 insurgents dead"
For anyone simply scanning CNNs home page, the picture would be much less optimistic, don't you think ? Only when you dig down do you find the "25 dead" darned-well ought to be dead.
Let's hypothesize another blurb, instead, shall we ?
"Taliban ambush fails."
No less accurate. No hyping (based on my actually reading the 'story' -- it failed). The descriptions is still succinct. But it puts a different face on things, doesn't it ?
Yeah, tell me all about how unbiased CNN is. . . How it's a propoganda arm of the USA. . .
So, here's my useful shorthand: Whenever CNN, AP, or Reuters leads with "nnn dead" without "Coalition," "British," "US" or some other nationalities in the sound bite, insert "bad guys" after the integer. You won't be wrong often.
Posted by: 1charlie2 at May 21, 2007 05:28 PM (pDkg5)
21
SJ and RSS are simply on the other side, and all their comments should be evaluated on that basis.
Posted by: SDN at May 21, 2007 05:47 PM (TIw0n)
22
Let me note for the record that I do not "trust" CNN or really anybody else in terms of actually reporting the facts in a wholly accurate and unbiased way. Basically, determining accuracy in what one reads is a "totality of the circumstances" test. Look at who they cite, who wrote it, what the mood of the country is realtive to the story. This last one accounts for a lot more than people give it credit for. In the run up to the war, the allegedly liberal NY Times, the old grey lady herself, was chering on the war via such luminaries as Judith Miller. They were not alone, virtually every news outlet was giddy with excitement. It was like 1991 all over again. People love a good war that we win quickly. People do not love a war that drags on for years with no end in sight. As the war becomes less popular, the coverage becomes less favorable. Official sources, however, report the same sunny pablum always at all times because it is their mission to keep up our morale, demoralize the other side, and win the hearts/minds to our cause. Bad news has no place in that mission whatsoever.
Now some specific comments:
1charlie2: I disagree with your analysis here as to CNN. I searched CNN's site and news soruces in general and found that when you have "nnn dead", it is not usally bad guys, but a mixed bag of civilians and who knows who else. For example, "Car bomb kills 27 in Baghdad commercial district".
SDN, if the other side is reality, that is certainly the side I am on.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 21, 2007 06:06 PM (dOcZ9)
23
Col Nathan Jessup: Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Posted by: Lakeruins at May 21, 2007 07:20 PM (UWm5O)
24
For me, the most hideous aspect of this war is the venom, the sneering, the snark that spews from the side that refuses to accept that the Iraq mission is vital and justified.
Our brave, all-volunteer forces are fighting an enemy that makes the Waffen SS and the Imperial Japanese look like Victorian gentlemen, and what do so many Americans do? Belittle our troops' efforts. Defecate all over them. Laugh. Minimize their triumphs and maximize their mistakes.
It's enough to make me wish actual physical harm on certain people. At the very least, may they someday meet face to face with the terrorists they claim are both not a threat and at the same time vastly superior to our troops in fighting abilities.
A humane caveat: At the last moment, right before the blade comes down on their pencil necks, may a squad of marines burst in and rescue them.
But only after these languid cynics crap their pants, grovel, and weep for mercy.
Posted by: Tom W. at May 21, 2007 07:51 PM (wBCOw)
25
There are TRAITORS IN OUR MIDST
The war CAN BE ONE and WILL BE dispite them
Our men are tough enough to win the war but the wounds that wont heel are those inflicted by the leftist freaks like SHOCHU JON. WHY DO THEY WANT TO LOSE???
Posted by: Karl at May 21, 2007 09:45 PM (BKFQg)
26
Karl,
I agree the war can be WON, but for the sake of argument please tell me how. Please tell what is victory. Please tell me how long it will take. 5 year, 10 years, 15+ years? Is that acceptable to you?
Anyway, the article is about the media not reporting the victories of the ISI. My question is, if they are having victories without our help, why are we still helping them? And why would not helping them be considered a loss? As Bush said, there will be no clear cut victory (i.e. no surrender), so if there is no clear cut victory why is it so obvious there is a clear cut defeat?
Posted by: JW NC at May 21, 2007 11:13 PM (88FOa)
27
5 year, 10 years, 15+ years? Is that acceptable to you?
I don't know about you guys but I'm willing to stick with it until we are FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period.
If we turn tail and run, the entire middle east will consider us cowards, and arabs NEVER respect cowards. It's mostly because liberals refuse to accept that this war has NOTHING to do with politics, they hate us because of the trash morality and culture constantly being exported from the U.S. by the liberals. They think the can attack us with impunity because they know that few if any liberals in this country have the courage to do what is right for this country, as opposed to what is popular and right for their next campaign. That's right morons we're fighting to make sure you have a world that allows you to be as immoral as you want, and if the terrorists win and manage ever to take a stake in this country, I guarantee, you liberals will be beheaded by those psychos LONG before us moraly minded conservatives. But don't worry, we're still allowed to own guns *blows raspberry*, so we'll protect you when they come.
Posted by: GWC at May 22, 2007 05:23 AM (kRse/)
28
What "other side" am I on, SDN? The one populated by people who spent twenty years as combat soldiers? I don't want to hear your "support the troops" BS. I know a lot of those guys, and I am not the one who is "defecating" on them.
I am not the one who left people in charge of Walter Reed who care more about profit than about our wounded troops because I thought privatizing everything is a good idea.
I am not the one who institutionalized a system of diagnosing wounded soldiers with "personality disorders" so they could refuse them benefits.
I didn't send them to war without proper equipment, and I didn't decide to force a small number of troops to bear the entire burden because I was afraid to pay the political cost of bringing back the draft--or at least increasing the size of the force.
I didn't clamor for a tax cut even as the war against terrorism started because I was more worried about my investments, the stock market, and the economy than I was about winning.
I didn't recommend shopping as a way to win a war because I preferred a polarized electorate and narrowly decided political victories to leading the American people as a team in a fight for our way of life.
I didn't abandon the search for the perpetrator of the WTC attacks so that I could go after a petty dictator--one of many in the world killing his own people--in a misguided attempt to force democracy on people at the point of a gun.
I didn't degrade a war hero's purple heart--and by implication call the US Navy a pack of liars--and reduce it to a political symbol on a band-aid. I didn't accuse a decorated veteran of lying for political purposes even as I supported a candidate for president who could not even be bothered to finish his BS National Guard job because he was too busy working on the political campaign of his father's pal.
I dissented from all of these policies and arguments. The leaders you follow so blindly are the ones who hate--or at least disdain the sacrifice--of our brave men and women in uniform. At least until they need a nice background for a political speech.
If all you got is "SJ and RSS are traitors who hate the troops," then your argument that this war is necessary and that we are winning is a weak one. If cognitive dissonance won't let you face the prospect that the media isn't reporting anything good out of Iraq because nothing good is happening in Iraq, then nothing I can say will get through.
But the best part is that even as you folks accuse dissenters from Decider Bush of treachery and of defecating on the troops, you also fret about the "venom, the sneering, and snark" from those with opposing views.
Thanks, CY. It's been fun.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 22, 2007 06:06 AM (My13t)
29
Well said, Tom W. Methinks you touched a nerve, there.
And, R. Stanton Scott, Thanks for proving Tom W's point with your snarky "dissenters from Decider Bush". It really is all about BDS and two lost presidential elections, isn't it.
Posted by: Dark Jethro at May 22, 2007 07:13 AM (sFb1W)
30
"..FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period."
"If we turn tail and run, the entire middle east will consider us cowards, and arabs NEVER respect cowards."
I guess I just do not see how staying forever makes us look strong if we cannot create security. Also I wonder how you think that Americans (who are lighting rods even in the best of circumstances in the Middle East) can militarily convince people to stop fighting each other. I just don't get it.
I quote for you the POTUSA: "Bush believes if we are going to commit American troops we must be sure there is a clear mission and an achievable goal and an exit strategy." Do you think we have the above? A clear mission? An Achievable goal, and an Exit Strategy?
(I would be glad to give you the URL of Bush's quote, but posting it triggers the spam filter..)
What about this quote from Pat Buchanan: “And what are we doing bombing and attacking this
tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not
belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now
becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face.
And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.”
Humm, seems the "venom, the sneering, the snark that spews from the side that refuses to accept that the Iraq mission is vital and justified." as Tom W. is quoted as saying seems to run on both sides of isle. I would think that genocide would fall into the category of vital and justified, but those opposing the president did not seem to think so.
Posted by: JW NC at May 22, 2007 08:34 AM (88FOa)
31
Don't I hear from military experts that defeating insurgencies can be expected to take 10 to 20 years? If that's how long it takes, that is how long it takes. We cannot leave the job unfinished.
And, being of a conservative bent, I don't look to Pat Buchanan as a voice of reason. That being said, the national security interests of intervening in the Balkans under Clinton were a lot less apparent than the national security interests of going into Iraq in 2003. Just this morning, I read a post relating to the real threat that was the Hussein regime in Iraq that I think puts the lie to a lot of the "we shouldn't have done it" arguments: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2007/05/in_todays_wall.html
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 22, 2007 01:33 PM (fUh66)
32
Al Queda doesn't have elections, nor do they ask themselves how long it will take. They don't have to worry about public perception because besides not really giving a rip what people think they have our MSM providing cover. If instead of every grievance they can put on the front pages slamming our leaders and soldiers they would devote all that ink to all of the attacks worldwide carried out by these extremist there would scant room to report anything else.
The Islamofascists are not only killing Americans. They are killing Thais, Indians, Buddhists, other Muslims (mostly), Africans and anybody else who dares to challenge them.
Posted by: Lakeruins at May 22, 2007 06:49 PM (UWm5O)
33
May I remind everyone that CNN, a generally left-wing source, has also reported this story.
Anyways, it does not surprise me that the Iraqi Security Forces are doing better. May I remind you they are protecting their children too, and as sick and bloodthirsty as the Iraqi public was in 2003, it appears that the sheer magnitude of the human tragedy known as Islamicist intervention has finally sunk in and they may be soon out of their psychosis, as recent events in Anbar with the blessings of tribal big men given to our millitary reflect. Also, the ISF may have seen their own pathetically high casualty rates and taken some lessons. From the description of the operation, it can be conluded that some discipline has been bestowed on the ISF. A few more of these victories, and Bush may not hand a mess to his successor after all.
Posted by: Jeremy Janson at May 22, 2007 08:01 PM (Xd4Q3)
34
What constitutes victory?
When there are no more members of Islamic terror gangs to hunt down and kill. Then the war will be over.
Posted by: curious at May 22, 2007 09:46 PM (TbQ2S)
35
"I don't know about you guys but I'm willing to stick with it until we are FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period."
We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?
Posted by: geekazoid0 at May 23, 2007 03:08 PM (kNLS0)
36
"We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?"
Big difference. Those troops are on a military BASE not patrolling the streets in a hostile country. We are not running elections and providing "security" for the German and Japanies governments.
My question to you is this: Do you think pulling troops out of Afghanistan to put in Iraq should be viewed as a defeat? I mean we pulled troops out of Afghanistan before that job was finished, or did we catch UBL and I wasn't aware of it?
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 08:16 PM (88FOa)
37
"We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?"
Big difference. Those troops are on a military BASE not patrolling the streets in a hostile country. We are not running elections and providing "security" for the German and Japanese's governments.
My question to you is this: Do you think pulling troops out of Afghanistan to put in Iraq should be viewed as a defeat? I mean we pulled troops out of Afghanistan before that job was finished, or did we catch UBL and I wasn't aware of it?
Posted by: JW NC at May 23, 2007 08:16 PM (88FOa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Progress?
Jules Crittenden takes a look behind the headlines to note that the intensive search operations for our missing soldiers in Iraq have led to a dramatic decease in al Qaeda activity in the so-called "Triangle of Death." He's got a dozen links, al worth reading.
Meanwhile, my buddy Michael Yon is in al Anbar, once al Qaeda's base of operations and the heart of the Sunni insurgency, and is
bored out of his mind. This is the second time he's mentioned a lack of action there (here's
the first) in as many days. He could get used to this. I think we all could, American and Iraqi alike.
Other parts of Iraq were not as quiet.
Sheikh Azhar al-Dulaymi, the Iranian-trained mastermind of the Karbala raid that killed five American soldiers killed in late January, was killed in Sadr City by U.S. forces.
Elsewhere in Iraq, seven U.S. soldiers were killed over the weekend, along with dozens of Iraqi civilians.
Eight insurgents were killed and almost three dozen more were captured in a series of raids on Karmah, south of Baghdad.
Elsewhere in the War on Terror, Lebanese Army units fought intense battles with an al Qaeda-aligned group outside Tripoli. Speculation is that the group is backed by
Syrian military intelligence at the behest of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad. The group is apparently led by Shaker al-Absi, a Syrian Air Force veteran that is thought to have fought against U.S. forces in Iraq and who is believed to have had links to al Qaeda in Iraq's former leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to a Washington
Post report, on the terrorists killed, Saddam El-Hajdib , was a suspect in a
failed train bombing in Germany.
Meanwhile, the
McCain-Kennedy Illegal Alien Exploitation and Terrorist Proliferation Bill is under debate in the U.S. Senate. The bill would offer official documentation to illegal aliens without being able to verify who they actually are or where they come from, and would allow terrorists like the three illegal alien brothers who
crossed over the Mexican border at Brownsville and were recently arrested plotting a
terrorist attack on Fort Dix to continue to penetrate this country, now with the added bonus of being able to get legal status.
McCain and Republicans in the House and Senate want cheap labor at indentured servitude prices, while Democrats, knowing that illegals tend to break Democrat roughly 5:1 because of the Marxist/socialist politics of their home nations, hope to use illegals to establish an overwhelming permanent Democratic majority.
In the end, we're looking at a Congress that is willing to pass a law that would enable Osama bin Laden himself to get legal status here in the United States.
That is not a comment I'm making up; it comes directly from
Mike Cutler, a 30-year veteran of the U.S. Immigration Service, who thinks the Senate bill should be referred to as the
Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007.
I hate Mondays.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:37 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"knowing that illegals tend to break Democrat roughly 5:1 because of the Marxist/socialist politics of their home nations"
Is that it, or is it the fact that an otherwise natural fit for the GOP (socially conservative Latino voters) are being driven away by the overt anti-immigration stances of a good chunk of the Republican Party? You'll note that W. has been consistently pro-immigration. That may have something to do with the fact that Karl Rove can count. There are a lot of Latino voters today. There will be far more in twenty years.
Posted by: Shochu John at May 21, 2007 10:24 AM (dOcZ9)
2
First, President Bush has been pro-Mexican immigrant from his early days as governor, and has sought to provide a means of legalization from the beginning. It is not a Karl Rove plot.
While I think this amnesty thing is wrong, very wrong, it is something that has been part of the President's goals from the outset. I don't care if the the illegals that are granted amnesty vote Democrat. I care that we are granting amnesty with our borders wide open. We have not fixed the problem, we have just punted it further down the line. This leaves us vulnerable in many ways, fiscally, socially, and militarily. The fact of the matter is that I don't think anyone would be as upset over amnesty if the mechanism for securing our borders against illegal crossing was in place.
Posted by: Mekan at May 21, 2007 11:02 AM (hm8tW)
3
The way that the comments are phrased is a problem. I know of few people who are actually against immigration. The majority of people that I know that are against this deal have a significant problem with illegal immigration. They view the issue from several points. The illegals have broken the law. Not only in crossing the border, but also in obtaining false idenity (often stealing identity). This makes them criminals on multiple counts. They are also not educated and generally the lower elements of socity. We have enough of those in the country.
The open borders obviously is a security issue that has to be addressed. But has anyone considered what will happen to the illegals if they are made legit? Their employers will then have to meet Federal guidlines regarding them so they will likely lose their jobs, then we will need another 12 million to replace them.
It does the Republicans little good to count on these people as future voters if they are loosing their base. And I feel that is exactly what is occuring.
Posted by: David Caskey at May 21, 2007 11:28 AM (G5i3t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Few Words on Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Etc.
I don't agree with the threats, but I certainly share the frustrations.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:07 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
is that supposed to be "reid"?
Posted by: jon at May 21, 2007 08:00 AM (4AjM8)
2
And now you see why I shouldn't blog until I've had my second cup of coffee. ;-)
Fixed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 21, 2007 08:23 AM (9y6qg)
3
Pat nailed that one alright. Those three have no problems using our soldiers like props in a movie. I use to think t hey work for the other side now I see theyr only side is themself. No there HAPPY to build their career on the backs of our soldiers. They WANT us to lose so they can be big fish in a smaller pond.
LIke Pat Id feel zero remorse no thats too good first Id pop their arms from the sockets.
Posted by: Karl at May 21, 2007 10:40 AM (BKFQg)
4
An angry right-winger? Now there's something you don't see every day. Good find.
Posted by: jpe at May 21, 2007 11:02 AM (+rmhC)
5
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
President Abraham Lincoln
Sounds like they're following a pretty good role model.
Posted by: SDN at May 21, 2007 05:52 PM (TIw0n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 18, 2007
Vogue: Strike a Pose
Q: Who doesn't wipe away small trickle of blood running from their hairline, down between their eyes, off the end of their nose, and around their mouth?
A: A car-swarming
Palestinian, when a Reuters cameraman is nearby.
The photo appears to be a cropped version of
this wider image, which shows the carswarm in progress, and the remains of the mangled militant van hit by Israeli aircraft.
Perhaps I'm too jaded to be objective after last year's Pallywood antics, but I'd guess there's a more than decent shot that his wound came from being jostled in the crowd swarming around the sharp, twisted metal of the bombed van, and not from injuries from the blast itself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:49 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
too bad if his wound came from an israeli strike. if the arabs in gaza want to condone war with israel, superficial wounds like this are the least that will happen.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 18, 2007 04:21 PM (4tMTz)
2
It looks fake. He has no debris on his clothing, so its either a PR stunt, or as you said it came from the car swarm.
Posted by: Justin at May 18, 2007 11:06 PM (NiTuu)
3
Doesn't everyone run to the nearest wreck and climb all over it?
Must be a muslim thing.
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 19, 2007 01:18 AM (51r8a)
4
Is it me or does that look more than a little like Robert Downey?
Posted by: TBinSTL at May 19, 2007 02:50 AM (MSiPb)
5
That pic is phony as a $3 bill.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 19, 2007 08:56 AM (V3P6G)
6
More heart-tugging propaganda from Reuters. Ho hum.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at May 19, 2007 12:39 PM (Z7x7c)
7
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's tired of seeing photos of them with their mouths open.
Posted by: Cindi at May 19, 2007 03:41 PM (asVsU)
8
I'm more than happy to give them something to scream and bleed over.
Much more than happy to do so....
Posted by: WB at May 19, 2007 06:27 PM (Heb/P)
9
Caption: "We need better dentists!!"
Posted by: Specter at May 19, 2007 07:33 PM (ybfXM)
10
You know, I've never actually seen blood that color. . .
Posted by: Trish at May 19, 2007 09:38 PM (+8dXE)
11
We've seen photos of Paleostinians joyfully dipping their hands in, and actually licking, the blood of those they have murdered.
Posted by: pst314 at May 20, 2007 02:09 PM (lCxSZ)
12
Mr. Owens,
Just wanted to inform you of the latest news showing Syrian involvement with Al Qaeda:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b873e949-a572-466a-8660-6ab5f889ec77&k=0
"At least 48 dead as Lebanese army battles Al-Qaida in north"
A cabinet minister said the fighting with Fatah al-Islam, which the government says is backed by Syria, seemed timed to try to derail UN moves to set up an international court to try those suspected of carrying out political killings in Lebanon.
Of course, Syria denies any invovement with this group. I guess the timing of the latest clash, was just a mere coincidence....I mean anything is possible, right?
More here: http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1306836.php/Fatah_al-Islam_an_emerging_threat_for_Lebanon
Posted by: Dude at May 20, 2007 03:22 PM (adC/a)
13
Last comment continued:
It actually is quite confusing to figure out if "Fatah al-Islam" is connected with Syria or Al Qaeda or both. Remember, this is the Middle East, you know....
Around the time of the diplomat's death in Jordan, al-Absi was jailed in Syria on charges of planning terrorist attacks inside that country, according to Lebanese officials. He was released in the fall and reportedly headed to Lebanon where he set up base in the camp, Nahr el-Bared....
In March, authorities arrested several members who they claim confessed to carrying out the attack and identified the detained group's ringleader as a Syrian, Mustafa Sayour.....
On Sunday, Fatah Islam's spokesman in Nahr el-Bared, Abu Salim, would not say if the group was linked to al-Qaida but claimed its aim was to liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and protect Sunnis.....
But Lebanon's national police commander Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi denied Fatah Islam's alleged al-Qaida links, saying it was a Syrian-bred group.
"Perhaps there are some deluded people among them but they are not al-Qaida. This is imitation al-Qaida, a 'Made in Syria' one," he told The Associated Press Sunday.
I tried to put up the url lik for this article, but my comment wouldn't go through with the URL link. Don't know why
Posted by: Dude at May 20, 2007 03:47 PM (adC/a)
14
Jeffrey Dahmer tease. He should be ashamed of himself.
Posted by: NortonPete at May 20, 2007 06:11 PM (fVuwW)
15
what i wanna know is why a palestinian is wearing a canadian tuxedo
Posted by: paully at May 20, 2007 10:57 PM (0osFo)
16
Just remember about 30% of the men in that picture are terrorists. A bullit's too good. They should have their arms popped from the sockets or their eyes gouged first then the bullit.
That one guy squashed a packet of ketchup on his head or maybe he cut hisself with a knife for brownie points. The Arabs cut their heads up in a parade, they cut their childrens head up too. They wear white robes and show the blood. I seen it on LGF. No big deal there kind don't feel pain same as us. These men are heathen.
Posted by: Karl at May 21, 2007 12:00 AM (BKFQg)
17
That's fake. Head wounds bleed like a mother and this guy only has the artistic trickle of blood and none on his clothing. A simple nosebleed can make you look like a stuck pig.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 21, 2007 02:56 PM (O9Cc8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Desperate Non-Wives
Perhaps its just my perception, but perhaps the reason that there are so few men taking wine-tasting and tennis classes in New York City is not that they are uninterested in the subject, but that the men who have these interests are already dating each other.
I'm kidding. Mostly.
Ann Althouse takes another stab at answering the question:
Men prefer to look at something they have decided to do and figure it out on their own. They like to observe, analyze, and discover. They accept the risks and enjoy the excitement of trial and error. They don't like sitting around having someone tell them what to do, and they aren't intrigued by the prospect of meeting women who spend so much time doing something they loathe.
Now, I just made that up, but it was no more made up than the explanation in the article.
Althouse is a lot closer to reality than the loopy NY
Times reporter.
I don't know any of my male friends who would sign up for a class to learn how to do anything; typically if they're interested in a subject, they'll ask a buddy for pointers or just dive right in. The trial and error is part of what makes new experiences worthwhile.
Of course, the choice of activity matters a great deal as well.
Look at the list of classes chosen by these desperate women: "tennis, running, sailing, horseback riding, fitness boot camp and scuba diving classes" and "golf, cooking or music class," and "Thai kickboxing or jazz appreciation."
Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single
straight men in the age groups these women are targeting? Cooking and music classes? Thai kickboxing and jazz appreciation? These might appeal to men when they get older, but
most younger single men have very little interest in these subjects, and even if they did, as Althouse correctly observed, they'd just do it.
If these women wanted to meet men, they'll find out what men like and where they hang out, and
go there.
Somehow, I doubt that advice will lead them back to a jazz appreciation class.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I feel no sympathy whatsoever for any single person in NYC who is incapable of finding a mate. Having lived the the same neighborhood as she did, let me confirm what every single man already knows. GO TO A BAR FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! IF YOU WANT TO MEET A GUY GO TO A BAR, ORDER A DRINK, COUNT TO 10. Here's are three places to start. Molly's on 3rd Ave, Telephone Bar & Grill on 2nd Ave M J Armstrongs on 1st Ave.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 18, 2007 12:39 PM (oC8nQ)
2
I don't know any older men either who are interested in those subjects. When I was interested in meeting men, I started a Monday Night Football Party at my house. Started with 3 guys who I already knew and were good friends and over the next three years the group grew to anywhere from 10 to 30 guys on any given night. As the group grew, I even made it "bring your own beer" but I always had the snacks and comfy chairs or big pillows to lounge on on the floor. At first I felt like I had to play hostess and would jump up and wait on the guys, but as the weeks went on they started treating me like their mascot and began to cater to my needs. Many of these Monday Night Football parties extended over to weekend BBQ's and other casual activities.
A girlfriend who stopped by unexpectedly said the next day, "how does a middle age average looking woman get some of the best looking guys in town to hang out with her?" My answer, "become one of the guys."
I'm happy to say that most of those guys are still good friends of mine and always invite me to any parties they have and this is 20 years later.
Posted by: Pal2Pal at May 18, 2007 01:11 PM (hGL+y)
3
There's only one activity in that list that require classes and that's scuba, otherwise you won't get certified. Maybe sailing because it's not an intuitive activity.
But jazz appreciation? You go, you listen, you appreciate. Or not.
Running? You put one foot in front of the other at a quicker pace than walking. That is called running. Class dismissed.
Horseback riding? There's a reason women enjoy this more than men.
The big problem is the women themselves. They get interested in something because they think men are interested? No. You get interested in something that interests you and then you meet people with the same interests.
Sweet Jeebus, how hard a concept is that to grasp?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 01:20 PM (kxecL)
4
Well that explains why these women are looking for men instead of men looking for them.
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 18, 2007 02:31 PM (51r8a)
5
What the hell do these women want to meet men for in the first place? They claim not to need them; have no respect for them; have made beatin' up on men, particularly white men, the national pasttime; and wouldn't know a real man - the kind worth having - if they fell over one. Which they probably have.
Reap = sow.
Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 02:43 PM (asVsU)
6
Cindi!?!? They're going to pull your card.
Posted by: CoRev at May 18, 2007 03:08 PM (0U8Ob)
7
Nope, CoRev, they can bring it on but it's not gonna happen. I'm a firm believer and practioner of our 2A. Heh.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em; that's what a REAL WOMAN does.
Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM (asVsU)
8
After 12 years in the Marines I have an intense distrust of anyone that goes running with nobody making them. Do people really take classes to learn how? Just move to a bad neighborhood. It worked for me.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 18, 2007 04:35 PM (mYHGQ)
9
Ever since Rudy cleaned up Times Square it's been hard to find a bunch of available guys in one place.
Posted by: Tim at May 18, 2007 08:14 PM (WiHUE)
10
I was living in NYC in the '80s when that guy's parents got tired of paying for a professional student, so he went and started "The Learning Annex" distributed free on the street. You could sign up for courses in basket-weaving, wine and cheese tasting, how to lose a Brooklyn accent, how to get one for an acting job, etc.etc. We would read these at the pubs and wait till the gals came out to party. Never took one of those courses; if I want learn something, I just read blueprints and manuals, or find an expert on my own.
Posted by: Tom TB at May 19, 2007 05:08 AM (h/YdH)
11
"Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single straight men in the age groups these women are targeting?"
Hey! HEY! Scuba diving and golf - not activities straight men are interested in? Wrongo, bub. As someone else on this thread mentioned, classes are mandatory in scuba unless you're not looking to get certified. And, as someone who's enjoyed the sport since 18 years of age, I can tell you that anyone who doesn't feel they need the instruction is playing with his life.
As for golf: well, let's just say that 1) Tiger Woods still signs up for instruction and 2) I don't want to spend 10 years trying to figure it out on my own enough to not be the worst golfer within 50 miles!
I'm 100% with you on the jazz appreciation.
Posted by: Ric James at May 19, 2007 07:16 AM (AS/pd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Palestinian Plot to Assassinate Olmert Foiled
The accused plotter worked for Doctors Without Borders. I'm guessing "first do no harm" principle of Doctors without Borders slipped by him in orientation.
The Israeli intelligence services say they have foiled a plot to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other senior Israeli political figures. Details of the story were released yesterday after Israeli authorities lifted a media blackout.
The plot allegedly centered on Mazab Bashir, a 25-year-old Palestinian from Gaza who worked for the international medical relief organization Doctors Without Borders. According to the Israelis, Bashir was arrested in Jerusalem while he was gathering intelligence for future terrorist attacks.
It is not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to be granted travel permits by the Israeli security agencies if they work for recognized nongovernmental organizations. Bashir held such a permit, which allowed him to travel regularly from the Gaza Strip to Jerusalem, officials said.
The indictment said Bashir made several surveillance tours of the area surrounding Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Jerusalem residence but decided that the building was too well protected. Working with the Palestinian militant group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, he allegedly received hand to hand combat training and used the Internet to find alternative Israeli personalities to target.
Forbes was able to provide details of the
alternative target list:
Once he deemed that the assassination of the prime minister was impossible, Bashir began collecting information on other top Israeli politicians, including Cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman, deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh and Labor Party lawmaker Ophir Pines-Paz.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:31 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Politico: Murtha Accused of Rules Violation
Don't mess with John Murtha's pork:
According to the draft resolution, Murtha shouted at Rogers on the House floor Thursday for offering a motion last week to expose $23 million Murtha requested in an intelligence bill.
Murtha had requested the money to prevent the administration from shuttering the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa.. in Murtha's district.
"I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," Murtha told Rogers on the House floor, according to the draft transcript given Politico.
"This is not the way we do things here -- and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?" Rogers replied.
"That's the way I do it," Murtha said.
According to the article, the National Drug Intelligence Center, "has received repeated low marks from several federal review boards."
If true, it seems that Murtha was trying to support a failed government outpost in his district to shore up his political support at home, at the expense of federal taxpayers... classic "business as usual" politics.
I'd suspect nothing will come of the reprimand attempt. The accusation will likely be entered into the Congressional Record, the reprimand voted upon, and probably fail along party lines. I think the purpose of Roger's filing the accusation was to document the stupidity of Murtha making such a thread in front of multiple Republican congressional witnesses, and to ensure that if Murtha does attempt to make good on his threat, that more serious ethics charges could be on the table.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:12 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Murtha makes Tamany look like Mother Theresa
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 18, 2007 09:27 AM (e2GZl)
2
"That's the way I do it," Murtha said.
He should have at least said, "That's how I roll!" to inject even more comedy into the situation.
What a skull-hammering douchebag.
Posted by: negentropy at May 18, 2007 09:31 AM (27KAF)
3
Business as usual, indeed.
This whole funding issue is completely FUBAR. There is no effort to do the right thing, from either side of the aisle. And for those who don't believe me, I have two words:
Ted Stevens.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 09:37 AM (kxecL)
4
David, there is a difference between Stevens and Murtha. Stevens never threatened anyone. Murtha apparently issued an open threat, in front of a sizable number of Congressmen.
I think that is a distinction with a major difference.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 18, 2007 09:42 AM (9y6qg)
5
No, this is great. Let em slash each others earmarks. There needs to be lots more of this. What would be scary is if they make up and start agreeing to help each other out again...with our money.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 18, 2007 09:57 AM (mYHGQ)
6
Bob,
I forget the details, and don't have time to look them up, but didn't the GOP leadership threaten to challenge a representative's son's campaign if he didn't vote their way? And I think it was for the incredibly flawed and expensive Med bill, but I could be wrong.
My point is, the leadership makes threats all the time, Murtha's mistake was making the threat in public.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 10:05 AM (kxecL)
7
I carry no brief for Murtha, but I don't see the "ethics issue" here. Isn't what he did--"refuse to scratch my back and I'll refuse to scratch yours"--the essence of Congressional logrolling and compromise?
If Rogers backs Murtha, then Murtha will back Rogers. If not, then the backing is taken away.
What is so different here from what has been done for over two hundred years?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 18, 2007 10:26 AM (nrafD)
8
Doc,
Right - the skids need to be greased both ways. But what Rogers did was file a motion questioning Murtha's inclusion of the earmark into another bill. Murtha went apes^&t in public. That broke the rules as normally the back scratching is done in back rooms.
iaintbacchus,
Good point. I say do away with all earmarks.
David T.,
I agree that the problem is on both sides. But there is one difference here. The Dimmies are in charge. They ran on the "NewD irection" theme. They haven't spent one minute doing that. All they care about is oversight and one new "scandal" after another.
This is the second time in two weeks that Murtha has made a total a$$ of himself. And as one of the leaders of the Dimmies in Congress, don't you think it reflects the whole Congressional Majority in a rather poor light? Abscam indeed!
Posted by: Specter at May 18, 2007 11:57 AM (ybfXM)
9
Specter,
You're right. (Thought you'd never see me say that, huh?) The Democrats did run on a new directions theme and that's why I'm so disgusted with them my hair's on fire.
Of course, the Republicans promised to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House and we see how that's going.
I'm fed up with the whole bunch.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 12:10 PM (kxecL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 153 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.7358 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7149 seconds, 219 records returned.
Page size 187 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
