May 11, 2007

When Antiques are Outlawed, Only Outlaws with Have Antiques

Where did AFP dig this up, the Smithsonian?

While the blurred edges and inadequate lighting make a positive ID very difficult, it certainly appears that AFP might be using a century-old 1903 Colt Hammerless pistol in this obviously and admitted staged photo related to the Virginia Tech massacre.

Update: Speaking of guns lost in time, an eagle-eyed Glennstapundit links to a gun control article at the Huffington Post, noting that the guns in the photo aren't real; they're Airsoft.

You would think that some subtle clues would encourage the HuffPuffers to question the authenticity of the weapons pictured--perhaps the grenade launcher component slung under the barrel of the gun held by the guy in the white shirt might have clued them in, or the fact that the rifle in question was a prototype cancelled in 2005--but apparently these little details slipped through the cracks.

They do give the Associated Press photo credit, however, and I wonder if the AP might have botched it as well.

Update: According to Canada.com, the AP photo shows firearms on display at an NRA convention in Pittsburgh, PA. A quick Google search indicates that the convention was held in April, 2004. The firearms in question appear to be part of a "hands on" display focusing on next-generation military combat rifles.

They are decidedly not for sale in Virginia, as the Huffington Post article seems to imply, and could not be sold to civilians under federal law, as all of the firearms displayed are automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.

The Huffington Post is lying with pictures, just not in the way we originally thought. Thanks to SayUncle's "Quack" for catching the photo's origins.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Mort Kondrake's Final Solution

Writing today at RealClearPolitics, Mort Kondrake's basic solution to the problems poised by the Iraq War is genocidally specific:

Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty." Right now, the administration is committed to building a unified, reconciled, multisectarian Iraq - "winning clean." Most Democrats say that's what they want, too. But it may not be possible.

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

There is a certain simple genius to Kondrake's formulation.

If you don't like the problems poised by 20% of the population, simply eliminate the problematic population.

Why would anyone object?

Allah tackles this "solution" as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Please Tell Me This In't True (UPDATE: It Isn't)

I've long felt that Democratic leaders (not most Dem voters, who I think are generally good folks) will stoop to any level to achieve their political goals, but if the following conversation relayed to HotAir.com is true (and I have strong doubts, but would like them put to rest), then heads should roll:

XM Radio’s Quinn & Rose made the allegation that DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date, on their show, The War Room, today. After I discussed the story via phone with both Quinn and Rose today, here’s what they sent me.

Quinn & Rose relate specific allegations from an anonymous source that claims to be in a position to know of a conversation between Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback.

I encourage you to read the account in full.

If correct, Sebelius willfully lied when she stated she did not have enough National Guard troops to respond to the Greensburg tornado, and she did so at the direct requests of Democratic National Committee Chairmen Howard Dean and Democratic Senator Dick Durban of Illinois.

I'd typically discount such claims as conspiracy theorizing, except for the fact that several Democratic governors are now voicing the same concerns, from Maryland's Martin O'Malley, to North Carolina's Mike Easley and Arkansas' Mike Beebe, and with equally questionable reasoning.

Easley states that our state's National Guard could handle the largest natural disaster we face, a hurricane, but bases his complaint on the fact that we aren't equipped to handle a pandemic. This is a devastatingly shallow response: in the case of a pandemic, the surge capacity of our medical system would fail far before out National Guard will.

Were other Democratic governors prodded to a response by Dean as Sebelius reportedly was?

Did Sebelius, Chairwoman of the Democratic Governor's Association, make a call to Democratic governors on behalf of Dean? Or did Easley, Beebe, etc merely respond to a media inquiries?

Frankly, I don't know how much "meat" there is to this story, or if it is true, but think that if Howard Dean would disclose his personal home, DNC, and cell phone calls to the 785 area code for May 5, we could potentially rule out this story fairly quickly.

If the story does pan out to be true—and I do have strong reservations, as to date, it is based upon a single anonymous source—Sebelius should be impeached on ethics violations, Dean should step down, and both they and any other government officials that may be involved should be investigated for charges of conspiracy and racketeering under federal RICO statutes.

I sincerely hope that state and national Democrats would not stoop to such a level.

Lets see those phone records, Dean-o, and put these rumors to rest.

Update: Hot Air is now reporting that the DNC has sent cease-and-desist letters to XM Radio and the Free Republic, stating that the claims made were "demonstrably, uneqivically, and absolutely false."

Let's hope so.

Update: Brownbeck denies the call as well.

Stick a fork in this one.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Surrendercrats Threaten War Effort, Military Pay

Once again, Congressional Democrats show which side they support in the Iraq War, and it isn't ours:

The Democratic-controlled House voted Thursday night to pay for military operations in Iraq on an installment plan, defying President Bush's threat of a second straight veto in a fierce test of wills over the unpopular war.

The 221-205 vote was largely along party lines and sent the measure to a cool reception in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is seeking a compromise with the White House and Republicans.

The bill was passed by House Democrats only as an act of political gamesmanship with our soldiers lives, as they that knew it would likely die in the Senate.

The continuing failure of anti-victory House Democrats to deliver a viable war funding bill is already impacting the military:

Delays in getting an emergency supplemental war-funding bill approved are causing disruption within the Defense Department, particularly among programs at home, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today. The Army has slowed spending in numerous areas to free up money to fully fund wartime costs since President Bush vetoed war-spending legislation because it set a date for the return of combat forces from Iraq, Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.

The bill included $93.4 billion to help fund U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terror, but stipulated that U.S. combat troops be out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2008. It also included costs unrelated to the war.

Bush vetoed the bill because he rejects establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals, insisting that such decisions must be based on conditions in the war zone.

Gates told Congress today that delays in getting a spending bill approved are having "a growing impact here at home."

"The Army is already trying to cope with this," he said. Spending in various programs has slowed or stopped altogether, he said. Defense contracts are being withheld; hiring of civilian employees has slowed; and bases have begun resorting to month-to-month service contracts for services and supplies.

The failure of Democrats to fund our military at war has some U.S. Servicemen wondering if their paychecks may stop. It sounds like it's time for an important action alert:

Is it possible airmen might not get paid due to the rising costs of the war?

That's what many airmen have wanted to know since the Pentagon requested to divert $1.6 billion from the Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to the Army.

The Air Force has sent conflicting answers in the past three weeks. Last month, the Air Force hinted in a statement sent to Stars and Stripes that it was possible such a move could affect airmen’s paychecks.

On Monday, an Air Force spokeswoman said that would "never" happen. A day later, Maj. Morshe Araujo said she made a mistake and such a scenario could happen if the money is not returned.

However, the Air Force is optimistic about the money being restored.

"I misspoke," said Araujo, a public affairs officer in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. "If the money is not returned or restored, there is a possibility."

Some might argue that servicemembers are underpaid, but it is not believed there has ever been a time in modern history that troops have not paid, especially while the country is at war.

Chet Curtis, director of Policy and Communications for the Air Force Association, said he couldn't recall off the top of his head whether such a thing has ever happened.

The association, an independent nonprofit Air Force advocate group, is calling upon its members to contact the Bush administration and members of Congress and urge them to boost funding for the Air Force.

The association put out an "Action Alert" on its Website under the headline: Air Force Funding Critical.

Although the Air Force is confident Congress will pass a supplemental bill and restore the funding to the personnel accounts, the service said on Tuesday it needs the money to pay their people.

But just remember...

...they support the troops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:39 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 10, 2007

Governor Blanco Slammed for Tornado Response

Did I say Blanco? I meant Sebelius.

Different Kathleen, same self-serving incompetence.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:44 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Will the Democrats Fold on War Funding?

The always excitable liberal John Aravosis thinks they might:

It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.

I'd point out that Aravosis is hardly a reliable source, so take his hysterics for what they are worth until you see an actual bill passed.

(H/T Instapundit, who notes that without the very conservative Democrats that Aravosis wants deposed, Democrats would still be the minority party.)

Update: Washington Post reporters seem to think Aravosis' hysterics may be off the mark, at least in the House:

ouse Democrats declared yesterday that they will vote on an Iraq spending bill that could cut funding for the war as early as July, defying a threat from President Bush that he would veto the proposal.

Even Senate Democrats called the House proposal, scheduled for a vote today, unrealistic. Senate leaders met with White House officials yesterday to try to find a bipartisan option to fund the war through the summer. But there appeared to be little progress in those negotiations, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned lawmakers that the debate is beginning to delay Pentagon operations.

The one area of agreement seemed to be that U.S. officials want the Iraqi government to better contain violence there. Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Baghdad yesterday to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other officials. He urged them to help end fighting between rival Sunni and Shiite factions, to make progress on revising their constitution and to better manage their oil revenue.

The House proposal would extend war spending through July, rather than September as Bush has requested. White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president would veto the bill because of its spending restrictions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, said: "Our bill will fully fund the troops, honor our commitment to our veterans, hold the Iraqi government accountable and end the war."

Pelosi's pronouncement is of course delusional, as Gates states in the same article that the Democratic refusal to issue a viable bill is already beginning to delay military operations, possibly including the purchase of Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles:

The armored carrier has a grim black slash across its side, burn marks on the door and a web of cracks along the window.

Like most of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Anbar province, this one has been hit as many as three times by enemy fire and bomb blasts. Yet, to date, no American troops have died while riding in one.

But efforts to buy thousands more carriers — each costing about $1 million — could be delayed if the White House and Congress do not resolve their deadlock over a $124.2 billion war spending bill.

About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up in the legislation. The spending plan has stalled because of a dispute over provisions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

At a hearing last month, lawmakers urged the Army to get more of the carriers to the battlefront as quickly as possible. The vehicles, with their unique V-shaped hull that deflects blasts outward and away from passengers, are considered lifesavers against the No. 1 killer in Iraq — roadside bombs.

Military leaders say the carriers have reduced roadside bomb casualties in Iraq by as much as two-thirds.

Milblogger "Teflon Don," who drives an MRAP, says of the vehicles in a recent frontline post:

The operations officer for the cavalry's parent unit came by and mentioned that troops pushing south towards us had hit multiple IEDs, and lost men, but "there wasn't much to be done, because they don't have route clearance". I wished for the hundredth time that there were more of us.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims she wants to, "honor our commitment to our veterans," but as past and former doomed House bill show, all she is actually accomplishing is making sure that our soldiers and Marines don't have the equipment they need, and as a result, more American soldiers are dying.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Now Or Later

They keep telling us we're not at war with Iran:

U.S.-led forces conducted a raid in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City early Thursday, killing three militants as they tried to break up a cell accused of smuggling weapons from Iran to fight U.S. forces, the military said.

The raid was part of the military's 12-week-old Baghdad security plan, meant to tackle the Sunni-led insurgents and Shiite militias and bring order to the violence-wracked Iraqi capital.

Just after midnight, a joint U.S.-Iraqi force on a raid in the southern part of the Shiite slum of Sadr City, came under fire from two buildings, the military said in a statement. After a gunbattle, the soldiers called in an airstrike that killed three armed insurgents, it said.

The force was searching for a cell suspected of smuggling weapons, including the devastating explosively formed penetrators, from Iran, the military said. The group was also accused of sending militants to Iran for training, the military said. The force detained four of the suspected militants during the raid, the military said.

This on-going Iranian involvement in Iraq should force Americans, particularly Congressional Democrats and waffling Republicans, to consider what will happen if American forces precipitously withdraw from Iraq. Iran, accused of training thousands of Shia insurgents and supplying weapons to both Shia and Sunni insurgents, is posing to fill the vacuum left by an American withdrawal.

If Democrats are successful in their neo-copperhead attempts to force an American withdrawal, many experts and long-time journalists expect that the Iranian attempts to take over Iraq by proxy may result in genocide and a clear PR victory for al Qaeda. Others rightly fear that such a threat will draw Saudi Arabia into a regional war based in Iraq, where Shias funded, trained, and equipped by Iran, will square off against Iraqi Sunnis trained, funded, and equipped by Saudi Arabia.

If the proxy war is contained to Iraq, the overwhelming numerical superiority of Shias in Iraq may very well lead to a either a mass exodus of Sunnis, or a mass genocide dwarfing the civilian casualties of the Iraq War thus far. The failed state would presumably fall under Iranian control from Baghdad south.

If the war is not contained to Iraq, and open hostilities break out between Iran and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf States such as Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, we could very well see a more expanded, more violent version of the 1984-87 Tanker War. In that conflict, which resulted from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Iran and Iraq began targeting merchant shipping in an attempt to cut off each other's oil exports. Seventy-one merchant ships, including oil tankers, were attacked in 1984 alone, forcing Lloyds of London to increase insurance rates on tankers and leading to a twenty-five percent reduction in Gulf shipping. Since the 1980s, advances in military missile technology has made it possible for all sides potentially involved in a regional war to unilaterally stop all Persian Gulf shipping. The result of such a stoppage would threaten global oil supplies, and the economic and national security of many nations.

This is at a minimum. It could get much worse.

A U.S. pullout in 2008 could potentially lead to an economically-necessitated re-invasion of Iraq and a direct conflict with Iran within the next five years.

While Iran's naval and air force assets could be theoretically be reduced with minimal U.S. losses, a scenario predicted by DOD strategic planning contractor VII, Inc. called "Yalu II," in a January 2006 document called "Iranian President-Islamic Eschatology: Near Term Implications," posits that the Iranian military may respond to their air and naval shortcomings by sending up to 350,000 conventional Army forces, supplemented by roughly 1,800 tanks and 2,300 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, across southern Iraq. This scenario was presented by VII before threats of a wider regional war were being discussed. I would add to VII's assessment that Iran may do more than invade southern Iraq, and may opt to attack Saudi Arabia though Kuwait, threatening, at least on paper, King Khalid Military City, the Saudi Persian Gulf city of Jubail and the Saudi military bases concentrated around Jubail, and the Saudi Capital of Riyahd itself.

Ultimately, such a direct assault on Saudi Arabia would probably lead to an Iranian defeat as their supply lines would be very vulnerable to Saudi Arabian and allied air superiority, but by then, Iran would have either captured or destroyed Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil terminals and wells. Were this scenario to play out, this would mean that Iran would control or would have destroyed 32% of Gulf oil production, based upon 2003 estimates.

This sequence of events is of course speculative.

Iran may very well be content to use their Shia militia allies to overthrow Iraq internally, and confine themselves to isolating Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds instead of eliminating them wholesale. They would then control roughly 20% of Persian Gulf oil exports directly, while still being able to threaten the 90% of Persian Gulf oil exported by supertanker through the Straits of Hormuz as they continue down the path of developing nuclear weapons.

What is the best way to head off either scenario?

The answer is obvious: keep Coalition forces engaged in Iraq targeting Sunni and Shia extremist cells like the one American soldiers attacked today. Force the Iraq government into making progress on unresolved issues, and perhaps consider replacing Prime Minster Maliki if he fails to make progress, by supporting other candidates for the position. Keep engaging Sunni and Shia moderates, while building up Iraqi police and Army forces. While internal Iraqi groups are relying on external forces to build their powerbases, America should continue to support that national cultural, political, and security needs of Iraq. Continue the COIN strategy to root out insurgents and develop regional and national Iraqi unity. Continue to support insurgent movements in Iran to destabilize the mullacracy.

It should be blindingly obvious to all sides concerned that a failure to resolve the political and security needs of Iraq now will only necessitate a later, perhaps larger and longer military reentry into the region, after what many predict will be a large and unnecessary loss of civilian lives.

After four years of muddled strategies, real progress is being made in Iraq. Al Anbar, long the home of the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda's launching ground, has turned against al Qaeda and is joining the political process, developments that have been reported on scarcely in the western media. A similar movement is now emerging in Diyala Province, as Iraqis target, hunt and kill al Qaeda terrorists and the insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq.

You will have a very hard time discovering this through the traditional media, however, as they tend to underestimate the importance of such tectonic cultural shifts which are very hard to translate into a press dominated by "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy.

The groups primarily active in an opposition to the "surge" of American troops are al Qaeda and their allies in the Islamic State of Iraq, who are staging their own counter-surge, aimed as much at western media as the Iraqi people.

If you note news accounts of the last several months as the surge began, the types of attacks in Iraq shifted.

Sectarian attacks have dropped substantially, as al Qaeda and the ISI have shift to an intensified pattern of often randomized car and truck bombings meant to capture media attention and draw away from the fact that their internal support within Iraq is faltering. The goal of their media campaign is transparent; make it appear that the situation on the ground in Iraq is unchanged or becoming worse, thereby increasing American resistance to remaining in Iraq, even as their own base of support falters and threatens outright collapse.

Indeed, the U.S. military and astute observers predicted this, and so they expect an increase in spectacular media-generating attacks on civilians and Coalition military and police casualties as these forces more forcefully project themselves into areas and increase pressure on anti-government forces.

If you listen to our men in the field—not the Washington politicians who say they will refuse to believe signs of progress, or lie about what they have heard—you will hear many opinions, but the one most common is that they see a real difference in Iraq since the implementation of the COIN strategy. They are even petitioning Congress for courage, and not to give up, even when it is their lives on the line.

We're going to have to finish this war. The only question is whether Democrats lead the cut-and-run now and give al Qaeda and Iran a clear victory setting up a potential genocide, or whether or not we continue the successes now being seen in al Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala.

The later approach will save for more Iraqi and American lives in the long run. I hope we have strong enough leadership that we only have to fight this war once, but with Democrats still attempting to surrender to al Qaeda and other Islamofascists, and the far left increasingly in bed with Islamofascists, I fear all we may accomplish is a brief, bloody intermission before we refight this war on a larger, bloodier scale.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 09, 2007

John Edwards: Working the Nutroots

John Edwards: Personal friend of the paint-chip-eating stepchild of that "other America" known as Truthers.

As Ace notes:

The Democrats' position on physical reality, it seems, is increasingly nuanced.

In Edwards defense, he didn't seem to have a clue what the Truther was referring to, and perhaps we can all rest easy knowing that a Democratic Presidential candidate and former U.S. senator is ignorant about the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Somehow, that isn't making me feel any better.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:39 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Insurgent Rocket Misses Cheney in Iraq; Democratic Forum Irate

A rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad depressed one of the largest online Democratic communities today, when members of the Democratic Underground discovered that Vice President Dick Cheney survived the attack:

According to Wikipedia, the Democratic Underground claims more than 101,000 registered users, and the online community has been investigated by the Secret Service for past threats.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:19 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Close Enough

If you use bloglines and have the ABC News International feed, you might have seen something like this today:

It you actually clicked the link, however, you'd end up here.

Do you have questions about situation in Darfur? Send your questions and see them answered next week on our 24-hour news network, ABC News Now.

Screen Cap:

I've got a question, Terry: Why can't ABC News tell the difference between Darfur and Iraq?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:31 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Little Early This Year: CY's Hurricane Survival Guide

I'd not planned on reposting this for several more weeks, but Andrea has other ideas.

WARNING: This is not comprehensive hurricane survival guide. I've only been through a few, and hardly consider myself an expert. Anyone who claims to be able to tell you everything you need to do to survive in every situation is lying. Adjust the following accordingly to your circumstances, but remember the only way to beat a hurricane is to not be there when it arrives.

Before the Storm: General

• Listen to the radio, watch television news, or read online news sources to keep abreast of developing tropical systems. Keep close track of storms that may head in your general direction. Don't be caught flat-footed.
• Know the hurricane evacuation routes for your area. By a state map or better yet, an atlas that can provide you with parallel routes away from an impending storm.
• Make sure any vital medical prescriptions are filled in advance of an impending storm.
• Make hotel reservations further inland several days in advance "just in case." Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
  

Before the Storm: Around the House

• Secure any lightweight objects outside the home. Bikes, toys, plants and other outdoor items can be carried away by wind and water, often at unpleasant velocities.
  
• Board up your windows if possible, or tape them with duct tape in an asterisk pattern (*) if that is your only option. This serves to reinforce the glass, and in the event of a window shattering, may keep the shattered glass together so that it falls to the floor instead of spraying.

Before the Storm: Transportation

• Fill your gas tank several days in advance, and keep it topped off.
• Check your vehicle's fluids, and belts, making sure to top off your windshield washer fluid and coolants.
• Make sure your tires are in good shape, and make sure your spare tire is inflated.
• Make sure your tires have adequate tread. See manufacturers guidelines.
• Leave when storm impact seems imminent. Do not wait for the official evacuation order if you can leave earlier.

Before the Storm: Personal

• Create a "bug-out bag."
  This is an emergency evacuation bag of bare essentials you make need in an emergency. In this bag (preferably a backpack) include:
  1. a small battery-operated AM/FM radio, and fresh batteries for same.
  2. two waterproof flashlights and/or battery operated lanterns with fresh batteries for same.
  3. cell phone (and charger).
     
  4. disposable lighter and waterproof matches.
  5. personal toiletries including toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, hand sanitizer, and other personal hygiene products as applicable.
  6. a first aid kit with painkillers, bandages and band aids.
  7. duct tape (min. 2 rolls)
     
  8. sturdy pocket knife
  9. hammer & prybar
  10. box of 8D nails
  11. blankets (multiple)
  12. clothes
  13. socks
  14. raingear
  15. study boots
  16. general-purpose leather gloves
  17. enough non-perishable, ready-to-eat food and water (1 gallon per person per day) for three days.
  18. last but not least, all insurance information, property, vehicle, life, and medical.
• create a contacts list. Include a I.C.E. "in case of emergency" number.
• put an I.C.E. notification with your ID and store it in your cell phone.

Before the Storm: Evacuation

• pack bug-out bag, and supplies including food and water into vehicle.
• make one last check to make sure outdoor items are secured.
• cut off all electrical switches, appliances, televisions, lights, etc.
• before you leave, contact your I.C.E. person and let them know where you are going and when you expect to arrive.
• make sure all windows are closed tightly and locked.
• lock all doors.
• leave.
  
• anticipate high winds and driving rain. Stay calm, drive cautiously. Allow plenty of time to arrive at your destination. Beware of standing water.
• Call your I.C.E. contact when you arrive safely.

During the Storm
Moving away from the hurricane will most likely reduce the effects of a hurricane, but it cannot eliminate risks entirely, even hundred of miles inland.

• Duct tape windows in asterisk or "star" pattern (*). stay away from windows. draw blinds and curtains, if possible, to contain glass in the event of a window breaking.
• stay inside, away from windows and doors especially during the eye of the storm. Winds restart again quickly with extreme velocities as the eyes passes and the wind shifts 180 degrees.
• stay near interior walls. If the winds are very strong move into an interior bathroom where the building is likely to be strongest.
• do not leave unless flooding is imminent or you are instructed to do so by authorities.

After the Storm

• stay off the road and away from affected areas until authorities clear the area for your return.
• watch for downed power lines and other debris in roads.
• be very careful of standing pools of water and especially flowing water. It is ofnte deeper and more powerful than it appears.
• watch for displaced wildlife. poisonous snakes, fireants, and abandoned pets. all can present hazards.
• watch for dangerous debris.
• lookout for injured people and animals. Call authorities if possible.
• do not become a tourist. go home, and stay home.
• secure your property. take stock of any damage. Catalog damage for insurance purposes.

Again, this list is hardly comprehensive, and cannot anticipate special needs or unexpected situations. It is however, a start, and can help you get ready for the 2007 storm season.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:37 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama Wasn't Wrong

He was just using a Lancet estimate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Little Competence Would Be Nice

It should probably come as no small wonder that the majority of the American people are against the War in Iraq; getting faulty misleading or inaccurate or even purposefully biased information does that.

Time and again and again, our soldiers and Marines tell us that the war they are fighting in Iraq is not the one being reported in the professional media.

Karin Brulliard's article in today's Washington Post is a prime example, starting with the headline, "Bombs Kill 20 in Sunni Insurgent Stronghold."

It may come as a bit of a shock to both Brulliard and her WaPo editors, but Ramadi has not been an insurgent "stronghold" by any practical definition for months.

Newly commissioned Iraqi police, tribal militias and Sunni and Shia Army units have been consistently rolling back al Qaeda and aligned insurgents in Ramadi since the founding of the Anbar Salvation Council last year.

The bulk of al Qaeda and its supporters have fled Ramadi, have no bases and control no large swathes of territory, and take to the streets openly at the great risk of being shot by either local citizens, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army soldiers, American Army soldiers, or Marines. Just a tip to the Washington Post: if they don't control the ground, you can't call it a stronghold.

Even beyond the headline, Brulliard and the Post show an ignorance that is hard to ignore:

Iraqi army Lt. Col. Thamir Ahmed blamed the attacks on the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. He said the body of one of the bombers was found by authorities 300 yards from the car he detonated, still strapped in the driver's seat.

Perhaps in a Harry Turtledove alternative history novel al Qaeda could be considered a "Sunni insurgent group" in Iraq, but not in this world.

al Qaeda was, is, and remains an international terrorist group, and is composed mostly of foreign fighters, even in Iraq. The dead suicide bomber, like up to 90% of suicide bombers before him, was likely a foreign-born, non-Iraqi terrorist crossing into Iraq from Syria.

It makes it difficult for consumers of the Washington Post and other news organizations to make informed decisions about the war when the reporters themselves miss crucial distinctions, misreport facts, and mischaracterize the events and actors of the conflict. I could perhaps understand misstating the nature or character of one of the groups acting in this conflict early in the war, but as the conflict has been on-going since 2003, the media has very little excuse for these kinds of inaccuracies.

A little competence would be nice.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Strict British Gun Laws Fail to Save English Officer

An officer tentatively identified as Pc Richard Gray was killed by a gunman who turned the weapon on himself:

The armed response unit officer has been widely named as Pc Richard Gray.

The gunman is said to have killed himself following Sunday's shooting in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, which was reported to have come after a row.

West Mercia chief Paul West said the PC's family was "understandably devastated". He was reportedly praised recently after tackling a gunman.

As noted above, the dead officer was recently praised for tackling another suspect armed with a semi-automatic pistol.

It has been said thousands of times, but bears repeating: criminals that ignore other laws will also ignore firearm laws. The end result is that only law-abiding citizens will be disarmed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:35 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Four More Arrested in 7/7 London Bombing Plot

Via CNN:

British police arrested the wife of one of the July 7, 2005 suicide bombers as well as three other suspects in early morning terror-related raids Wednesday.

While the identities of the suspects have yet to be officially released, sources told CNN the woman being held is 29-year-old Hasina Patel, the widow of Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 7/7 suicide bombers.

Patel and two men aged of 30 and 34 were arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Counter Terrorism Command in the West Yorkshire, England area. A fourth man, 22, was arrested in West Midlands.

A statement from Scotland Yard said, the four were arrested under the country's terrorism laws "on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism."

The arrests were made in a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation," the statement said, as part of an ongoing investigation into the July 7 attacks on London's transportation system that killed 52 people and injured 700.

The arrests are part of an on-going investigation to help roll-up the support network that enabled four suicide bombers to carry out the series of attacks that occured almost to years ago, and more arrests are possible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:13 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 08, 2007

The Iranian Minefield

A Pajamas Media exclusive:

Maj. Martin Weber, an explosives expert, is trying to walk through a political mine field with me.

As with an ordinary mine field, you have to be very careful where you put your emphasis. Stress the wrong truth and either the left or the right wants to blow you up.

Here at Camp Victory, a sprawling concrete and razor wire American base that wraps around Baghdad International Airport, Maj. Weber was trying to explain how to negotiate that mine field. On the one side he wanted me to know me that the captured weapons on the table before us were — definitely, no doubt about it, absolutely — from Iran. On the other hand, he avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that Iran is supplying America’s enemies inside Iraq.

That simple and obvious conclusion would anger the Democratic leadership in Congress, much of the press corp, and a large swarth of the antiwar set.

Bear this is mind, when you watch this exclusive Pajamas Media video shot in Iraq. The video offers startling new evidence of Iran’s involvement in the insurgency. It is the first up-close, online video showing captured Iranian weapons. These particular weapons have not been shown to the public before.

There is video of the interview at the link.

As a side note, I've been attempting to follow-up on the capture of over 12% of Iran's HS50 precision sniper rifle procurement in Iraq first reported in mid-February, without any response thus far from MNF-I PAO.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Child Mortality Discrepancy?

Writing in the UK Independent, Andrew Buncombe states:

Two wars and a decade of sanctions have led to a huge rise in the mortality rate among young children in Iraq, leaving statistics that were once the envy of the Arab world now comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.

A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania.

Jeff MacAskey, head of health for the Save the Children charity, which published the report, said: "Iraq, Botswana and Zimbabwe all have different reasons for making the least amount of progress on child mortality. Whether it's the impact of war, HIV/Aids or poverty the consequences are equally devastating. Yet other countries such as Malawi and Nepal have shown that despite conflict and poverty child mortality rates can be reversed."

Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq's mortality rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125. While many other countries have higher rates - Angola, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 - the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.

Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison?

According to figures from the CIA World Factbook there are roughly 864,588 live births in Iraq every year (about 31.44 for every 1,000 citizens). In 2003 there was an infant mortality rate in Iraq of 55.16 per 1,000 births, or about 47,690 infant deaths.

In 2006 that infant mortality rate has dropped to 48.64 deaths per 1,000 births. Or about 42,503 infant deaths/year. Or about 5,187 fewer dead infants every year than in 2003.

So is it safe to say that we’ve saved roughly (and these numbers are, admittedly, very rough) 15,000 infant lives since invading Iraq?

Note that the statistics cited by Buncombe are addressing the death rates of children under five between 1990-today, and Port's information isolates infant mortality from the time period of 2003-2006. Those differences noted, there seems to be a huge possible discrepancy between the rough number of 2005 under-five deaths reported by Save the Children through Buncombe (125) and the infant mortality rate of 55.16-48.64/1,000 determined by Port.

Both numbers could be correct, but for Save the Children's figures to be accurate based upon the CIA estimate of 864,588 live births, it would mean that 12.5% of Iraqi children under five, or 108,074 Iraqi children, died before the age of five in 2005 alone.

Does that figure seem plausible?

If it does, why has the professional media done such a miserable job of reporting the staggering losses of children in Iraq, which would seem to dwarf most total estimates of combat-related deaths?

If it isn't accurate, why hasn't Buncombe done a better job of fact-checking his sources?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:15 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

One Dead, Two Wounded Near Fresno State

Details are posted on the Fresno State web site.

The shooter, Jonquel Brooks, is a student, as it one of the wounded victims. The person killed and the other injured person are not students according to the University, but KESQ reports that the deceased is a former student. Neither of the two wounded sustained life-threatening injuries in the shooting that occurred late last night. Brooks has been surrounded in an off campus apartment by a Fresno PD SWAT team, and they are attempting to get him to surrender.

The incident is viewed as isolated, and Fresno State remains open.

Though California already has among the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, expect the usual suspects to use this shooting to push for more gun control.

Update: Not such a great perimeter. The shooter slipped away.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:36 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Clever Little Weapons

Michael Yon's latest dispatch Rattlesnake, chronicles the nighttime hunting of insurgent IED teams in southern Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Straightjacket Sales Set to Skyrocket

Needless to say, I find this collective lunacy extremely depressing:

So, according to the Rasmussen poll, 61% of self-described Democratic respondents believed that George Bush either knew about 9/11 in advance or are not sure if he knew. Only 39% said he didn't know.

In other words, a supermajority of self-identified Democrats think that it is possible that the President knew about the 9/11 terror plot, and that he might have let it happen. I knew Bush Derangement Syndrome was running rampant on the far left wing, but this indicates that a massive majority of rank-and-file Democrats are either Truthers, or are open to the idea of being Truthers, and consider it possible that the President of the United States was a co-conspirator in terror attacks on his own country.

I'd love to see Rasmussen poll Democrats to see if they think Karl Rove was actively involved in hatching the plot with KSM and al Qaeda. Then again, I probably wouldn't want to know the results.

Ace sums it up:

The media considers it crazy to believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, and fights this insanity with every tool at its disposal, including outright deception.

On the other hand, the media does not apparently consider it particularly hard to believe that George Bush, President of the United States, had something to do with 9/11. If they did consider such a notion beyond the pale, one would imagine they'd publicize (and implicity mock) those crazed liberals believing that our own President aided and abetted Osama bin Ladin.

But of course they don't. Because it's simply not possible for a reasonble person to believe a sworn enemy of the US, known to have at least some ties with Al Qaeda, could have had a hand in the attacks, but a reasonable person could, according to the MSM, believe that a US President with no ties to Al Qaeda helped facillitate and perhaps even carry out the attacks.

A "reality-based" community? Decidedly and perhaps dangerously not.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:34 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I find that the left has "lost it" when they consider Bush. If they were to look closely at the man, he is closer to LBJ or Carter than to any icon on the right.

Prior to the Iraq war, with my limited knowledge of the intelligence in the region, I did not feel that WMD's were a threat to the US nor did I feel that Iraq was a major player in terrorism (at least not the the extent that Iran and SA are). But the problem with the region is that 50 years of peace efforts have not been able to control the hostility of Arab, Muslims. I was hopeing that Bush would eliminate Iraq as a stepping stone to physical domination of the entire region. I retort on WMD, etc. was I felt a means to mobilize the masses as you could not articulate the real reason for the war to the public. My disappointment with him and his administration has been his failure to follow up with a power policy. Instead he stopped and wants to be nice to everyone. That concept is treated as weakness in that area of the world. This was compounded by the immediate efforts of the left to undermine any foreign policy set forth by his administration. I have then been gravely disappointed by the Republicans who controled both Senate and House at the time to not back their leader and have a get tough policy with the left and the Arabs.

The primary concern in the Middle East is oil. I have no problem with saying that out loud and making it our policy to secure this substance and contro our own destiny, even at the expense of a weaker nation. That is good business sense. When it boils down to foreign policy, we must begin to realize that our own interest and survival need to be number one.

Posted by: David Caskey at May 08, 2007 09:03 AM (G5i3t)

2 When facts no longer matter in a debate there can be no debate. This finding is no different than 'Bush liedeople died', US and Republicans endorse torture, etc.

It just no longer matters what the truth is.

Posted by: Mekan at May 08, 2007 10:28 AM (hm8tW)

3 Well,

After Nixon faked the moon landings its hard to know for sure anymore ;->

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 08, 2007 10:28 AM (n2qMj)

4 I won't get into the "Bush knew" thing, except to raise a tangentially related question: why the hell, when he learned about the attacks, did he just sit there in the classroom? This, to me, has always gone to Bush's quickness of thought and leadership skills, rather than to a his possible involvement in a conspiracy. Cripes, buddy, do something! "The eyes of the world," an so on...

Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 08, 2007 01:18 PM (nrafD)

5 Clearly, there is a surplus "a" in that post, and the final "an" should be read "and."

Carry on.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 08, 2007 01:19 PM (nrafD)

6 Doc, it is possible that the Secret Service wasn't going to move him until they had word that they could. He was scheduled to be there for a set time, and all travel security was set on that schedule. They would have to adjust their plans, make sure the word was out that the timetable just changed, and then move.

He wasn't going to cruise out of the door on a split-second unless there was a threat at that location. And until there is a threat to that location, they are going to stay as close to the schedule as possible.

I don't know for sure, but it only makes tactical sense.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 08, 2007 04:28 PM (B26Fg)

7 I think he just didnt want to scare the kids.

Posted by: Justin at May 08, 2007 10:50 PM (NiTuu)

8 Doc,
What would you have done in the same situation. Fog of war reports about what happened to the first tower, and a realization that the world would look at your next actions/inactions would be on your mind. "Mr. President, a plane has hit the World Trade Center." I remember my first reaction upon hearing the news was that some dang Cessna joy rider hit it. Even CNN with photo's was on that same line of thought. It was not until the second plane hit the Trade Center that, at least I, knew that something big had happened.

Further, do you remember the threat scares at the Capital later. You saw all the people panicking, running for the doors, trying to find their way to safety. They looked like frightened fools, and that is what the opponents of President Bush would be saying. He just can't win.

Posted by: Mekan at May 09, 2007 07:47 AM (hm8tW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.5143 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5042 seconds, 135 records returned.
Page size 139 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.