Confederate Yankee
April 03, 2007
Drudge Might Have Been Right
If this is accurate, will I have to issue an apology for my apology now?
I only ask because I just stumbled across an account from an AFP journalist at the John McCain press conference in Baghdad, confirming that a reporter was giggling
during the press conference:
"I studied warfare. I'm a student of history. If you control the capital city of a nation you have a significant advantage," countered McCain as one reporter giggled at the back.
Considering how this same article describes how the "slightly incredulous" journalists who covered the press conference "openly scoffed afterwards," it doesn't seem that far-fetched that someone in the press corps might have taken the opportunity to slip in a mocking comment in a stage whisper, just loud enough for fellow journalists to hear it, but not loud enough to be picked up by microphones directed at McCain.
If the press conference official that leaked to Drudge was standing behind the last row of reporters as I've seen them do in the past, he might have been in a position to hear someone quietly mocking McCain's comments, even if those comments were perhaps meant from private consumption.
If
Raw Story is correct, Michael Ware happened to be sitting in the back row at that press conference, just where this AFP reporter places the giggler.
Let the games begin, again.
Update: Nope, Drudge is still wrong. The giggling reporter was not Ware, and the press conference was not interrupted, according to
Raw Story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:47 PM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Holy Jokers, Batman! I just added an excerpt and link at 2007.04.03 Iran/Brit Hostage Crisis Roundup -- Time Out On US Causing Hostage Crisis -- Iran releases new pics of captive Brits-- Deal to release British sailors in the works? ...
Posted by: Bill Faith at April 03, 2007 02:28 PM (n7SaI)
2
"Drudge Might Have Been Right"
You mean "Drudge might have exagerrated a non-story".
Your welcome for the correction.
Posted by: Mike at April 03, 2007 04:44 PM (Zge8p)
3
You mean You're, of course.
And you're welcome for a real correction, not just one that suits your personal preferences.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 03, 2007 05:07 PM (HcgFD)
4
Who cares?
Using the new fake but accurate standard, its pretty safe to say he wanted to do it, so therefore he did it.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2007 06:42 PM (22lCG)
5
Was the AFP reporter identifying the giggler the same AFP reporter you can't trust because their MSM bias makes them put the word "terrorists" in quotes?
Just asking.
You guys really don't need much evidence to believe whatever you want to believe. Then again, not too surprising -- you fell for the WMD story hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by: Pennypacker at April 03, 2007 07:20 PM (/erTa)
6
Penny,
Of course we did. I mean all of that started the day Bush took office right? Nobody before Bush ever claimed that Hussein had WMD, right? LOL. When a leftists like you can admit to the truth, then we might take you seriously. But until then you are simply another Rosie O'Donnell - a person with absolutely no intellectual honesty, let alone cajones.
Posted by: Specter at April 03, 2007 08:18 PM (ybfXM)
7
Thanks for the proof-read.
My statement still stands. You have no evidence. All you have is speculation and hearsay.
Unless you have talked to a reporter that was at that conference and saw Ware "heckling" McCain, then you have something. If not thanks for playing.
Posted by: Mike at April 03, 2007 11:21 PM (Zge8p)
8
I'm pretty sure that Dick Cheney killed a panda. I have no evidence, other than the word of a police captain in Baghdad... Still, the burden of proof is so low these days.
Posted by: ts at April 04, 2007 08:27 AM (ILyRW)
9
Specter --
Actually, nobody before Bush used a phony claim of non-existent WMDs to start an illegal war of aggression.
YOU'RE welcome for the correction.
And, quite frankly, I have no problem being compared to Rosie O'Donnell, as she has both more intellectual honesty (not to mention brainpower) AND more COJONES (you're welcome for that correction, too) than you will ever dream of.
Posted by: David in NYC at April 04, 2007 01:34 PM (VVVSQ)
10
What if there was a second giggler on the Grassy Knoll? Somebody call Powerline!
Posted by: scarshapedstar at April 04, 2007 02:17 PM (glUhi)
11
What if there was a second giggler on the Grassy Knoll? Somebody call Powerline!
Funny you mention that... it seems there may have been, but the AFP journalist who wrote the article, Jenni Matthew seems unlikely to admit who the person was.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 04, 2007 02:34 PM (9y6qg)
12
Awww....c'mon...You're not gonna stop trying to pound that square peg into the round hole NOW, are you? The reporter was French! Maybe Michael Ware threw his voice! C'mon, there's all kinds of wingnuttery you can still milk out of this...
Posted by: Michael at April 04, 2007 02:51 PM (IBS+E)
13
If only there were a video of the news conference--then we could begin to understand just what kind of hell John McCain had to endure.
Posted by: calling all toasters at April 04, 2007 03:00 PM (vdzoO)
14
How about posting on the real story? What McCain said was laughable. (giggle-worthy)
Set aside that he took more than 100 soldiers, a few armored humvees, and a handful of helicopters away from whatever important business they may have had for his desperate photo-op. (there's some real support for our troops!)
Who cares if a reporter or two laughed at this clown? He is a joke. I hope he and Graham enjoy their bargain prayer rugs. That's all they're gonna get out of this ill-advised vacation.
Seriously, give this one up. Hey, I got something for you! Did you hear that Nancy Pelosi wore a head scarf while she was in Syria? She DID! What a... um... WOMAN-HATER!
(feel free to use that)
Posted by: Jersey Citizen at April 04, 2007 03:29 PM (fDnUd)
15
Drudge is still wrong? Drudge is always wrong but that doesn't stop him from ruling your world
Posted by: klyde at April 04, 2007 06:39 PM (zo8Zw)
16
Nobody before Bush ever claimed that Hussein had WMD, right? LOL.
Actually, no president prior to Bush ever claimed that the WMD Saddam might have had constituted a threat to the U.S. requiring a massive ground invasion of Iraq.
And certainly nobody in their right mind claimed that Saddam had the capability to produce nuclear weapons, much less that "he has reconstituted nuclear weapons," as Cheney professed.
Perhaps if your arguments were supported by facts, Specter, you wouldn't need to resort ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: ryeland at April 04, 2007 06:41 PM (qlm9M)
17
Oh my, this is just too much fun. Your heroes have been disgraced, your candidates are a complete joke and your ideology lies in tatters.
I can't imagine a better time to be a liberal. Wait. How about 2008?
Posted by: James Christopher at April 04, 2007 07:23 PM (fk2zG)
18
Speaking as a journalist who has been to lots of press conferences, we often giggle and make smart assed comments to each other when the person giving the press conference says something incredibly stupid or painfully obviously wrong. So what? Being an elected official does not automatically make you an expert on anything, nor does it mean I have to treat you like royalty.
Posted by: rev.paperboy at April 04, 2007 07:26 PM (5Ybxi)
19
Not sure this McCain story has legs to it. I think we all know this was mainly a photo-op for the Straight Talk Express and, really, would you expect a Republican to give an honest assessment on this disaster in Iraq?
But Lindsay Graham, now there's a story worth covering. He knows how to drive a hard bargin! 5 prayer rugs for $5.00! Talk about tough negotiations. Of course, bringing a 100 US soldiers and 5 helicopter gunships to the marketplace might seem like 'overkill', but you won't go home empty handed.
Truth be known, the merchant today said he gave him the rugs. Who could blame Lindsay for twisting this little story; I mean, taking 5 rugs for nothing from a merchant scratching a living in Baghdad would come across as a rather heartless gesture. Much better to say you paid for them, even if you didn't. Gotta love them Republican values.
Posted by: Innocent Bystander at April 04, 2007 07:48 PM (+JNxq)
20
I confess. I giggled when I read that someone might possibly have giggled. I also snickered, snorted, and guffawed.
Posted by: myself at April 04, 2007 09:00 PM (dUpQV)
21
Someone that cared enough about their country only had to google "1998 IAEA UN report on Iraq" in 2002 to discover the weapon's inspectors had certified that 98% of the weapons Iraq agreed to destroy after the Gulf War were indeed destroyed, and the remaining 2% either destroyed but not logged, or never existed. In other words, when Bush sent the UN weapon's inspectors back into Iraq in early 2003, it was exactly as Hans Blix described: " A wild goose chase." There was nothing there. Of course, Georgie B NOW says Saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors back in", which only serves to illustrate his ignorance or delusional state.
But research would take work, which is too hard when one can just fill their head with neocon talkinghead nonsense.
As far as Liberals go, I'll stick with MY favorite president George: "It is my fervent hope that we have established a LIBERAL NATION".
George Washington
You can keep your Male Cheerleader, yeah?
Posted by: farang at April 04, 2007 09:10 PM (nsVec)
22
Don't surrender so easily. I think this story needs the equivalent of a "surge". Get some of your dead-ender friends together to claim the story is really true. Make something up that ties this all nicely together and declare yourselves victors and move on to a new Jamil Hussein.
Posted by: flounder at April 04, 2007 09:13 PM (g1hge)
23
Tonight on the News Hour, Lehrer made Petraeus sweat BB's over the Mc Cain tour. I felt sorry for the guy; him trying to spin ever tighter circles around being "just a soldier". Rumsfeld would have slapped the crap out of him if he was still around. I have to say watching him tells me the whole thing is even WORSE than I imagined.
Posted by: yofish at April 04, 2007 10:16 PM (WLEJg)
24
Ok, show's over, let's move along, ok? Hopefully, next time (or sometime soon) CY will finally *get* the idea that the guys presently leading the Right are hypocrites and liars (virtually all of them) and he'll be more careful about posting whatever they spew. Geez, I've actually begun to feel sorry for him and his fellows...once upon a time Conservatives had a real sense of honor (it'd be nice if someone were to resurrect that concept and return to it as a movement) and all of the foot soldiers on the Right are left holding the bag, as it were, making excuses for the morons who have forgotten basic conservative principles. When you add in gossip mongers like Drudge to the mix, they end up having to defend a seemingly endless chain of disasters, big and small, and it's got to be mighty wearying. So lay off him for a while and let him catch his breath....alright?
Posted by: Arlington Acid at April 05, 2007 03:58 AM (F3Leu)
25
You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days looking for things to get excited and indignant about. Are you really unaware of how foolish you look?
Bush, McCain and the rest of your heroes are lucky that people aren't rolling in the aisles shrieking with laughter at their every utterance. "If we aren't victorious in Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home"? Hysterical. Oh, you mean he's serious.
Posted by: Bob Hopeless at April 05, 2007 05:02 PM (OYaj1)
26
But... but... but what does this have to do with the real story, which is Michael Ware's unproven drinking problem?
What is it with you wingnuts that you can't admit you're ever wrong? It's not as if you guys haven't got enough practice in being fallacious.
Posted by: jurassicpork at April 05, 2007 09:28 PM (C7rrY)
27
The London Times had an April report from Iraq which stated that 21 of the workers in the market McCain and Graham visited were shot to death the next day. Laugh if you want, but there is a Real World out there.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1604931.ece:
"The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress."
Posted by: MedallionOfFerret at April 06, 2007 12:33 AM (E/BKJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BREAKING: AFP Reporter Doesn't Like Terrorists
Actually, it would be more accurate to state that Jenni Matthew doesn't like the word "terrorist."
In an operation targeting presumed Al-Qaeda fighters near Anbar's former rebel town of Fallujah, a US warplane killed six "terrorists" in an air strike while forces on the ground arrested another seven, the military said.
Perhaps I'm just reading too much into the tone of the overall article, but it seems that Jenni Matthew detests having to use the word terrorist to describe, well, terrorists.
She doesn't like to assign blame to them, either:
Since the launch of a massive security operation in Baghdad in February, Iraqi and US troops have reduced execution-style killings in the capital, but car bombings carried out by suspected militants remain a major headache.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious fact to Ms. Matthew that when people carry out car bombings, they are not
suspected of anything; they are militants,
period. As somebody once said, "words means things," and to label those guilty of manufacturing and detonating bombs often targeting civilians as "suspected" militants is deceptive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:20 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The scare quotes are kind of odd, but the fact remains that not everyone who gets killed by U.S. forces in Iraq is a terrorist.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 03, 2007 03:53 PM (a2v8j)
2
But everyone who builds car bombs is.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2007 06:43 PM (22lCG)
3
Ohhhh....but PA, Doc believes that car bomb makers/detonators are only suspected of performing those things. LOL.
Posted by: Specter at April 03, 2007 08:22 PM (ybfXM)
4
As much as it pains me to do so, I'm 50% with CY.
It's stupid to say that someone carrying out a car-bombing is a "suspected" militant. No, they ARE a militant for carrying out that action, regardless of your view of the ethics of their action.
On the other hand, putting "terrorists" in quotes does make sense when you're considering a bomb. I don't care how "precise" a precision munition is, by any standard you don't know exactly who you killed when 500 lbs of ordnance explodes. Please explain to me how this could be otherwise, absent absolute perfect (and in a real sense impossible) real-world intel.
Posted by: Pennypacker at April 04, 2007 02:10 AM (M20pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lesson Unlearned
"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
--Winston Churchill, Harrow School, 29 October 1941
Oh, how the
mighty have fallen:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday that his government would have to take increasingly tough decisions if 15 captive sailors are not quickly released.
Iran captured 15 of Britain's sailors and marines and then paraded them in front of cameras repeatedly for propaganda purposes in
direct violation of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners, and all Blair can muster are more empty, spineless rhetoric.
John Derbyshire takes the deliberately
provacative stance that:
I certainly think that those British captives who have let themselves be put forward on Iranian TV, that woman wearing a headscarf, and the young man apologizing to the Iranian gangster-rulers, should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty when they get back to Blighty, with shooting definitely an option.
If Derbyshire is to shoot all those who were derelict in their duties, he should be sure to bring along enough ammunition to dispatch a substantial portion of the chain of command of the British Navy and the Blair government itself. All were, and continue to be, abject failures in dealing with a crisis that they allowed to occur.
The simple fact of the matter is that Iran was the aggressor, and the British Navy, acting under orders from Blair's government, were the enablers. Iran is clearly to blame for the kidnapping, but Blair's government allowed the kidnapping to take place when it had the means and the ability to blow the Iranian pirate fleet out of the water, if it only had the fortitude and sense of self preservation to do so.
I don't agree with Blair's spinelessness, any more than I agree with his fellow countryman
Patrick Cockburn taking the coward's way out, blaming the
United States for the kidnapping (a story that is a mish-mash of old information and
unsupported conjecture).
This isn't the first Iranian attempt to capture western Coalition soldiers to use as bargaining chips. Cockburn's uninformed speculation that the British soldiers were kidnapped in response to U.S. forces capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq is flatly, factually wrong; Iranian forces ventured into Iraq in an attempt to capture U.S forces
back in September, well in advance of the Iranian operatives' arrest that Cockburn says is the trigger for the kidnapping. What is criminal is that the British Navy were aware of the attempt in September, and another attempt to kidnap American soldiers during a
raid on Karbala that saw five U.S soldiers killed, and did not take any obvious steps to protect their soldiers, sailors and marines before the attack, did nothing during the attack, and has done nothing since except utter empty rhetoric.
No, the United States is not remotely responsible for the capture of these 15 Britons. Iran is responsible for the brazen attempt, invading 1.5 miles into Iraqi waters to attempt the kidnapping, and the British are responsible for letting a much weaker foe steal their personnel without even attempting to defend them.
Cockburn wishes to blame others for his countrymen's kidnapping. Perhaps he should focus less on assigning blame to others, and recognize that the problem plaguing Britain is the inaction, lack of a sense of self preservation, and lack of honor of the British people themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:51 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I cannot express how distressed I have been with the response of the British in kidnapping of naval personnel, I really expected much more from Tony Blair. I am beyond angry at the Iranians forcing the female to put on the hijab, they would have to kill me first and I mean that literally.
Posted by: Rightmom at April 03, 2007 10:44 AM (0lpqx)
2
I would much rather see a court martial for the commanders who allowed this to happen. There's no excuse for allowing two inflatable boats to get so close to Iranian waters without proper fire support. EU Referendum notes that the Coalition Task Force that the HMS Cornwall commands includes two US Navy Cyclone class patrol boats. Those ships have the speed and the firepower to take on the Iranians.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 03, 2007 11:45 AM (oC8nQ)
3
PLACING RESPONSIBILITY OR BLAME ON SOME ONE OR SOMETHING ELSE IS MUCH EASIER TO DO THAN STANDING UP AND MAKING YOURSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. THIS HAS BECOME THE LIBERALS WAR CRY. "NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO" ITS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT.
Posted by: RICHARD DAUGHERTY at April 03, 2007 12:07 PM (g0cTX)
4
Richard, directly to the left of your "Z" on a QWERTY keyboard is your shift key. Directly above that is your Caps Lock key.
Please press that now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 03, 2007 12:15 PM (9y6qg)
5
increasingly tough decisions
Sounds like they're prepping the dreaded comfy chair for deployment.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2007 06:45 PM (22lCG)
6
Thanks for the positive feedback guys. Makes us Brits chuffed to chips that we stood alongside you in the whole war deal. Pleased to help. Don't mention it. So nice to be remembered when comradeship is so often forgotten nowadays...
Posted by: Tripper at April 04, 2007 04:10 PM (+OyfQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ware Outburst Apology
As noted in an update to this post, Matt Drudge apparently got April-fooled when he posted a "Drudge Exclusive" that CNN reporter Michael Ware heckled John McCain during a press conference in Baghdad. Video of the press conference shows that Ware did not say or do anything unprofessional during the press conference.
I typically do "that journalistic thing" and try to find a corroborating source for any news article I write about, but that isn't always easy to get, especially in the case of exclusives. As a result, when I run across an exclusive, I try to judge the credibility of the source, and the apparent validity of the information based on surrounding events.
In this particular case I had to consider the source,
Matt Drudge. Drudge does occasionally screw up on his exclusives, but typically, as a news aggregator, his site turns out to be more often than not accurate. I'm sure that there are those of you who will dispute this, but don't confuse the
accuracy of what he typically features on his site with the apparent
bias he harbors in deciding
which stories to promote.
Michael Ware had just
spoken derisively of John McCain, and so it seemed possible that the events could occur. It seemed that the story could be accurate, based upon Ware's recent outburst and a
pattern of reporting that betrays his biases.
Those of us who linked the Drudge account, including myself, screwed up and linked to an inaccurate story. I apologize to my readers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:07 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks, CY. This is much better than the "UPDATE" other sites append to the very bottom of the offending post.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 03, 2007 08:51 AM (a2v8j)
2
If you can just get to about a 90% error rate and offer no apologies or corrections, you will qualify as Main Stream Media.
Posted by: old_dawg at April 03, 2007 11:01 AM (7nc0l)
3
Thanks for clearing that up, CY.
To show Ware's bias or unreasonableness you quoted him as saying: “I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.” It has since emerged that McCain assembled a small army to escort him on his stroll through Baghdad. McCain's hypocrisy exonerates Ware's comment, right?
FWIW I don't know anything about Ware. All I'm addressing is the one remark.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 03, 2007 11:34 AM (xRKGN)
4
The pro victory senator and presidential candidate had an appropriate security detail. No it is not hypocrisy and does not exonerate Ware's comment.
Posted by: Eddie Colletta at April 03, 2007 02:33 PM (9UEu0)
5
Eddie,
You believe that McCain requires 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apaches and a bulletproof vest for a stroll through a safe neighborhood. What do you suppose he would require in an unsafe neighborhood?
You may as well argue that the earth is flat.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 03, 2007 03:27 PM (xRKGN)
6
Lex, he wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe he was saving that for Detroit.
Not only did he take extraordinary measures for his own safety he put everyone in the markets lives at even more risk than usual in an attempt to try prove his boneheaded statement correct.
And the next day 22 people from that market were murdered.
Posted by: esther at April 06, 2007 08:35 PM (EC4Yg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 02, 2007
Ninety Percent of Success is Just Showing Up
So perhaps the braintrusts of certain liberal blogs might want to get all of their facts straight before pitching a hissyfit over the fact General Petraeus ended up giving a Republican-only briefing last month.
It turns out that invitations to the videoconference were extended to both Democrats and Republicans, but
no Democrats showed up.
Perhaps they were out of spit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:26 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have it on good authority that the Congressional Democrats have switched to the new Google BETA internet access product and are having a bit of a problem with their communications. I would post the URL but the spam filter rejects URLs from that domain. But the URL is the main WWW site with /tisp/ tacked on the end of it.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 02, 2007 05:55 PM (y2kMG)
2
In a recent poll 17 percent of Democratic congressman identified General Petraeus as a character from the movie '300.'
Posted by: Zhombre at April 02, 2007 06:36 PM (v72Rn)
3
Out of brains/balls is more like it ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 06:36 PM (22lCG)
4
It seems as if the liberal blogs spend most of their time linking to each other. And they use those links as evidence.
Bizarre ...
Posted by: muckdog at April 02, 2007 10:55 PM (s/Vux)
5
Posted by Zhombre at April 2, 2007 06:36 PM
I thought he was that metal dude in Star Wars 1,2,&3.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 03, 2007 09:43 AM (8Ms63)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Feingold/Reid: Retreat Now, and We Can Still Lose This
Russ Feingold and Harry Reid say that the war in Iraqi isn't being lost fast enough, and will sponsor a retreat bill in the Senate that would largely defund the war and require a pullout to begin 120 days after the bill became law.
Meanwhile, on the ground in al Anbar, soldier/blogger "Teflon Don" speculates that the insurgency may be reaching a
tipping point.
I'll try to keep writing about the winds here in Al-Anbar. I'll go out on a little bit of a limb and say that the insurgency is quickly approaching a tipping point. If things continue as they are right now, our military won't need a surge to chase the terrorists out of Anbar- the citizens will do it for us, which is as it should be. It's beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated), and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.
He concludes this thought-provoking post by stating:
It's a big job, but I think we may have finally learned enough forgotten lessons from places like East Timor, Vietnam, Ireland, Malaysia, and others that it just might work this time.
Color me hopeful.
It might not come as much of a surprise to discover that others on the ground in Iraq are also seeing these same hopeful signs, which is perhaps why Reid and Feingold are so desperately trying to push to lose the war now before signs of a positive change become more widely known.
Perhaps Harry and Russ should do a
little reading.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:04 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Why wait a year? Why don't they try it right now?
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 02, 2007 03:43 PM (6s+nG)
2
Don't get carried away by those reports. Remember, we're fighting against two different groups in Iraq and good news on one front doesn't mean we're making progress across the board:
One group is the terrorists, who we may very well end up beating, with or without the help of the Iraqis.
The second group is the Iraqis who would rather fight than share power and resources. There are too many of them, to paraphrase Golda Meir, they love their kids less than they hate their so-called countrymen, and they're prepared to carry on the fight for generations to come, so we'll never defeat them so long as victory is defined as them all holding hands and singing campfire songs. The best we can hope for is that our surge will force them to hide for awhile, long enough for Bush to again declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring our troops home... after which they're emerge from their hiding places and pick up killing each other.
Posted by: steve sturm at April 02, 2007 06:57 PM (XBWtm)
3
The second group is the Iraqis who would rather fight than share power and resources.
Which is why the oil revenue sharing plan and so many tips rolling now we can't handle them all right?
Time to recharge your flux capacitors Steve - you're still time warped to 12 months ago.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 07:09 PM (22lCG)
4
I won't argue that there aren't some Rodney King Iraqis. There just aren't enough of them to do much good. So what that there's an oil sharing agreement? Agreements over there are meant to be broken. And tips? How many of them are simply one faction's crazies dropping a dime on the other side?
Sorry, but for all of Bush's grandiose thoughts about the 'Iraqi' Army and police force taking control, he has failed to realize that there is no such thing as 'Iraq'. The people there don't owe their allegience to Iraq, they owe it to their fellow sects. And just as Shiite soldiers won't take to coming down on fellow Shiites (just look at Maliki's record for confirmation), neither will, for example, Sunnis cotton to having Shiite soldiers come down on them.
The best we can hope for is a partition where the three sides can do a good enough job of deterring the other two sides from attacking that there exists a cold war of some kind (certainly better than the shooting war going on now)... there is no hope, at least not in my lifetime, nor that of my grandkid's grandkid's, of there ever being a truly peaceful Iraq. And unfortunately, the occupant of the Oval Office is too stupid and/or stubborn to realize that.
Posted by: steve sturm at April 02, 2007 07:49 PM (XBWtm)
5
It's beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated),and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.
Yes, Al Qaeda's use of bigger attacks is evidence that they're almost at their "tipping point". Gotta love that argument.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 02, 2007 08:00 PM (N8M1W)
6
Yes, Al Qaeda's use of bigger attacks is evidence that they're almost at their "tipping point".
Anyone with a few functioning neurons can see why. Fewer, but larger attacks means they're running out of competent bomb makers.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2007 05:15 AM (22lCG)
7
"... the war in Iraq isn't being lost fast enough, ..."
Oh, they don't want the war to end before the next Presidential election. If we leave before the job's done and things go from bad to worse, as they likely will, they'll have to accept the blame. So expect them to drag this out long enough for candidates to proclaim, "If elected, I will end this war." In the meantime, they will pass appropriate funding.
Posted by: DoorHold at April 03, 2007 12:19 PM (M+7fQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Vermont Plots Succession From Union
I say we let them.
No War for
ice cream!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:45 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Considering the date on the article, I wonder if he's joking.
Posted by: MikeM at April 02, 2007 11:41 AM (myTC8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Creative Gun Reporting
Somehow, I just don't believe that the reporter who wrote this San Mateo County Times story, Christine Morente, was actually there (h/t Michelle Malkin):
KIMBERLY SHRUM grips a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver and aims at a target 25 yards away.
Bang.
A hot shell casing hits the floor, joining hundreds of others littering the concrete at Jackson Arms Indoor Shooting Range in South San Francisco.
Just to point out the obvious to the oblivious, the scenario described above simply
cannot happen.
Morente stated Shrum is firing a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. Shell casings remain in the chamber of a revolver until manually removed by the shooter; they cannot as Morente described "hit the floor" as a result of pulling the trigger. The automatic ejection of a fired shell is physically impossible with revolvers.
These is basic firearm design fact not open to discussion. What does appear to be open for discussion is whether or not Morente was actually at the Jackson Arms Shooting Range with Shrum as her article implies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:24 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The reporter was probably there, but doesn't know what a "revolver" is. I would venture that the reporter things "revolver" is a synonym for any handgun and doesn't know that it is the name for a specific design that does not eject its shell casings and must be manually un/loaded.
And the San Mateo County Times has a readership of somewhere betwen 6 and 9 people. Yes, I am being sarcastic but the two most popular papers in San Mateo are the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. A reporter would be working for the San Mateo County Times if they aren't good enough to score a job at one of the other bay area papers (SF Chronicle, SJ Mercury, Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times). It is a second-string paper with second-string reporters.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 02, 2007 10:56 AM (y2kMG)
2
Let's say the reporter thought "revolver" was a generic term for a handgun. OK, the reporter is reporting on something they don't know anything about, no news there.
What I'm actually ECSTATIC about is the reporter did NOT use the term "semi-auto!" That term is so over-used and overblown I'm just happy to see it NOT used. (Didn't read the linked article though so I suppose I'm fooling myself.)
Posted by: DoorHold at April 02, 2007 12:05 PM (ntSMT)
3
What a moron. Either the reporter wasn't there, or they're dumber than a bag of rocks.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 02:54 PM (22lCG)
4
Don't give her an inch of slack. She said it was a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver. And she quoted the shooter at length about how she preferred the "magnum", so she didn't mean a .357 SIG.
She didn't get confused and call a semi-auto a revolver. As far as I know only Coonan Arms and Desert Eagle made a semiauto in .357 Magnum.
Posted by: See-Dubya at April 02, 2007 04:57 PM (sscnv)
5
HAH!!
I read this same article, and sent the following to this "reporter."
KIMBERLY SHRUM grips a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver and aims at a target 25 yards away.
Bang.
A hot shell casing hits the floor...
No, Christine. That's not how a revolver operates. A revolver doesn't eject hot casings, or hot shells -- not shell casings -- after each shot. [Saying "shell casing" is like saying "suitcase bag," or "software program." UGH!] A semi-automatic pistol operates that way, though, like this one:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=5555670&siteId=181&startImage=1
How could you take the time to go to a range, and then make such a fundamental error in your lede? Words mean things, Christine. Did you see anything on that semi-automatic pistol that ejected that hot "shell casing (sic)" revolving? Are the words "fork" and "spoon" interchangeable?
This is the central part of a revolver:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=5555670&siteId=181&startImage=4 pic is from your own story
The cartridges revolve around the spindle as the cylinder rotates.
I don't know what having been wounded has to do with it, but, yes, women who've carried weapons in the war, and are now home are arming themselves. Sarah Brady's hysterical ranting will fall on very deaf ears with these women. They know what being able to defend themselves decisively with a firearm is like, and are not likely to give that up. They have seen with their own eyes that guns don't kill, people do. No more than chlorine bleech kills all by itself. It takes a terrorist to make bleech a deadly weapon. Is Sarah Brady now going to propose banning, or licensing bleech?
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2007 06:48 AM (bdmCE)
6
DoorHold,
What? The correct term, "semi-auto" is "over-used and overblown?"
How do you do that -- over use the correct term?
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 03, 2007 06:54 AM (bdmCE)
7
I get your point (though I didn't say they used it correctly -- but too often). The MSM inserts that phrase when it isn't necessary; to imply knowledge when it's apparent they have little or none, to make their reporting sound more menacing, redundantly, incorrectly, etc. It's an intentional bias that rankles me no end.
Posted by: DoorHold at April 03, 2007 12:30 PM (M+7fQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How the Democrats Can Win In Iraq
It was all for show:
If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.
"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."
I think Obama is stretching the truth a bit when he says, "no lawmaker wants to play chicken with the troops." Playing chicken with the troops is the
preferred Democrat tactic these days, and passing the recent meaningless pork-laden bills through the House and Senate when they know they could not override a veto are concrete examples of this in action.
What Obama perhaps should have said is that no Democrat wants to
get caught playing chicken with the troops, as John "Okinawa" Murtha has done several times, first when he accused Marines in Haditha of "
cold-blooded murder" well before the investigation had concluded, and just months ago, when he attempted to
undercut deployments by the arbitrary setting of readiness standards which would mark units as unfit for combat if they did not have key equipment before deploying.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:42 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's only playing chicken with the troops if the army keeps people there past the time that they know there will be no money.
Let's say that Bush goes nuts and, during an out-of-body experience, accidentally signs the bill. That still give everyone some lead time. If troops get stranded in Iraq, it would be because of military mismanagement and/or chicken-playing, not because of anything Congress did. If you see the gas tank is dropping toward empty, don't keep driving.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 02, 2007 10:41 PM (FSIeh)
2
Most devoutly to be wished.
Posted by: Wolf Pangloss at April 02, 2007 11:14 PM (tex8j)
3
The left has precluded any chance of a Democratic nimble redeployment to a victory stance on Iraq. If attempted, such a move will elicit derision from the right, laughter from moderate independents, uneasy dancing from center-left Democrats, and screaming rage from the base.
Make that continued screaming rage.
I think the Republicans own Iraq, period.
Posted by: Steve-o at April 02, 2007 11:53 PM (2nDll)
4
Confederate Yankee
Previewing your Comment
A well put together article but your concern of a, "bumbling Republican Party" being, "relegat(ed) to the sidelines for decades to come" is misplaced. Many Repubs were crowing about the same fate for the Dems just one election cycle ago when they held power in all branches of government. Unfortunately that didn't prove to be the case. Predictions of a long term collapse of either side in this war of ideologies seem to be less accurate as the stakes get higher. You can't be defeated if you never give up and I don't see anyone in the mood to give up.
Posted by: Boyd at April 03, 2007 09:01 AM (naEh1)
5
What a fantasy. When an Iraq war spending bill is passed without a timetable for withdrawal, most Democrats will vote against it. To vote for it would jeopardize their re-election funding from Hollywood and the netroots whose opposition to the Iraq war is entirely emotional. For the Democratic leadership to make public pro Iraq war comments would cause the anti-war Democratic base to be more likely to stay at home in 2008. Their anti-war opposition is idealistic (at best), certainly not pragmatic. The anti-war Democratic base is not going to turn pro Iraq war no matter what anyone says. How some of their base staying home (or voting Green) could result in more Democrats elected is hard to see.
Many of the pro-war Democrat and Independent voters voted for Democrats over Republicans in 2006 because of that year's fantasy, that putting the Democrats in power would force them to become serious about the war on terror. Do you see any war on terror seriousness in Pelosi or Reid so far? I certainly do not. Just a lot more Bush Derangement Syndrome. Won't the pro-war Democrats and Independents notice this come 2008? I think enough will notice to lower the number of them voting Democratic. So less + less = more? No way.
No, I think very few Democrats will ever speak of General Petraeus surge as a success. The MSM will be able to convince enough Americans that Iraq is a failure so that both the Democratic and Republican nominees for U.S. President will have to promise to "bring the troops home" at some point during their campaigns. The timetable for withdrawal will then be negotiated between the next congress and the next president. I just hope they don't screw the Iraqi's as bad as they did the South Vietnamese.
Posted by: klrfz1 at April 03, 2007 01:38 PM (dRU6B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Petraeus Interview
John Noonan at OpFor has an interview with Commanding U.S. Gneral David Petraeus posted that is certainly worth a read.
In addition, I'd strongly recommend reading
this Arthur Herman article article on how to win the war in Iraq, which provides the historical background of the COIN strategy currently being rolled out by General Petraeus in Iraq.
Once you've read it you'll wonder why the strategy contained within wasn't rolled out in 2004.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:01 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Once you've read it you'll wonder why the strategy contained within wasn't rolled out in 2004."
My point exactly!
Anyone with a brain would have launched the surge in '04 and would have eliminated the QUDS bases and the Natanz nuclear facility in '06 at the latest when the evidence was first made public. Of course, they would have targeted the insurgent leaders in Syria in '03.
There's a permanent 30% of democrat whackos that will always want a US surrender but the real collapse in support for Iraq is because Bush and the GOP don't really have the balls to win either.
As Patton said, "America hates a loser". You can smell it on Bush. He's morphed into LBJ; he's letting our guys be killed doing just enough not to lose. Rummy and McNamera; two sides of the same coin.
Bush is worse than useless now.
RCL
Posted by: Richard L. at April 02, 2007 12:18 PM (CK4a9)
2
He was smart enough to pick Petraeus.
It should be noted that Lincoln went through a number of generals before he found the right one too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 05:30 PM (22lCG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2007
Michael Ware's CNN Career: Dead, and Loving It
A few days back in the comments at Hot Air I somewhat defended CNN's Michael Ware.
I can't defend this:
During a live press conference in Bagdad [sic], Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."
Senators McCain and Graham flew into Iraq and drove into Bagdad, making stops at an open market and a joint Iraq/American military security outpost before appearing at the press conference.
This is not the first time Michael Ware has taken issue with Senator McCain's comments about early progress in Iraq. Last week, after Senator McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he needed to catch up on the news coming out of Iraq, Michael Ware responded, saying:
“I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”
Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, "I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck... I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here … In fact, I'm drinking now."
I'll be somewhat surprised if Ware receives anything more than a slap on the wrist for his actions. Ware isn't any more of an activist than reporters from other news organizations in Iraq. At least he didn't stoop to hiding his agenda behind imaginary police captains.
Update: Hmmm... I'm starting to wonder if Drudge got "April Fooled."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:17 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How do you know if this is even true? You're just going to take Drudge's word for it? All you wingnuts are the same!
Posted by: Kougar at April 01, 2007 05:34 PM (odvQR)
2
Agreed, where's the video/audio to back this up?
Posted by: NE at April 01, 2007 05:50 PM (8aRD8)
3
So the guy spends most of his time in a bar in the Green zone. We are supposed to be impressed with his journalistic accumen? I don't think so. You can just imagine the sight: a bunch of drunks propping each other up literally)in a smoky room, trading rummors and speculation until it all seems very real, daily fed back hardhitting analysis to the newsroom. What a bunch of poseurs.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2007 05:56 PM (6Hyks)
4
Please Kougar, hold your breath until CNN reports it. Please.
Posted by: Specter at April 01, 2007 08:28 PM (ybfXM)
5
I can easily believe Ware dissed McCain. Regardless his possible bad attitude he isn't the guy that bogged down the most powerful military in history in a fight with a pack of ramshackled ragheads.
Take a look at Ware's report from Ramadi last September
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Commanders_privately_express_needing_3X_0912.html
Does anyone doubt the truth of his report that the commanders off the record wanted 3X the troop numbers Bush allowed?
Ware ends the report on Ramadi, "So this is where American Marines and soldiers go face to face every day with the very organization that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and yet it seems that they're being forced to do so under-resourced and with one arm tied behind -- behind their back."
He nailed it.
Only some Kool-Aid drinking GOP true believer could still believe that Bush hasn't Screwed the Pooch in Iraq. That "Political Capitol" he bragged about in '04 should have powered The Surge but he, more than anyone else in the USA, is in denial about the seriousness of the fight before us.
I totally understand Mr. Ware. When I think of how much I liked GW, of the money I sent him over the years and of how bad he's screwed up I head straight to the liquor cabinet too.
RCL
Posted by: Richard L. at April 01, 2007 09:03 PM (CK4a9)
6
McCain brought 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, two Apache gunships, and a bulletproof vest for his stroll through Baghdad. Ware was absolutely right to call him out. He's a hypocrite.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 01, 2007 10:41 PM (xRKGN)
7
So you must have been ecstatic when Ware turned over the sniper-killing-Americans video to his bosses who then published it? Such support of our troops. And how is it that Ware has such contacts that he got that video? Hmmmmm? No - he's not "connected" to the terror factions in any way. Great job Lex. Keep it up....
Posted by: Specter at April 02, 2007 08:29 AM (ybfXM)
8
Yep - this is the guy who is your hero:
MICHAEL WARE: Absolutely.
I've been tracking the insurgency for over a year now.
I've been joining their groups, visiting then in their safe houses, their villages, I've been travelling with them, I've seen their weapons caches, I've been trying to keep as close tabs as possible over the last 12 months.
From an interview with Traitor Ware here.
Posted by: Specter at April 02, 2007 08:33 AM (ybfXM)
9
Funny how an April Fools joke reveals the inner-workings of the right-wing echo machine, to which this esteemed blog belongs.
Posted by: Pennypacker at April 02, 2007 05:14 PM (/erTa)
10
Sad but not surprising. The United States needs an independent MSM free from the brainwashed left.
Posted by: Mike E at April 02, 2007 05:24 PM (beZKE)
11
here's the video/audio to back this up?
Jamil Hussein has the tapes.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 05:33 PM (22lCG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 30, 2007
A Message to the Democratic Party Leadership
From YouTube:
Cpl Chris Mason recorded a video message for the Democratic Party Leadership before he was killed in action in Iraq. Chris was killed by Al Qaeda terrorist. He produced this video on November 12th 2006 at FOB Summerall. This video just recently worked its way to me (his dad) on March 23rd 2007, now I am posting it to the internet for him. It reflects his beliefs about the war in Iraq, the people of Iraq, freedom, why he joined the US military, what he expected after joining the military, and if the warriors lost in the war will be lives wasted.
Cpl Mason was killed on November 28th, 2006 by Al-Qaeda Terrorist forces operating in Iraq.
He was laid to rest December 12th 2006, exactly thirty days after making this video statement to the Democratic Party Leadership.
From Chris Mason's
memorial web site:
He was killed in "The War on Terrorism" by Al-Qaeda terrorist forces in a small town "Siniyah, Iraq." Chris was ambushed and killed by Al-Qaeda terrorist while he was moving into position to provide fire support for his fellow paratroopers. They had come under heavy small arms fire from Al-Qaeda forces and could not disengage. He died soon after being hit by an IED, but DOD has him being killed by small arms fire, during a firefight with Al-Qaeda at the same location. Bottom line is he was doing what needed to be done for his country..
The President of the United States, George W. Bush, authorized on Feb 1, 2007 that the following quote be placed on Chris's headstone.... "We Will Not Tire, We Will Not Falter, And We Will Not Fail" with the president's signature affixed there after.
There are few men who will pick up a weapon and fight for this country, and my son was one of the few. He died standing toe to toe with Al-Qaeda.
Strength and Honor son, I stand proud for you. Airborne.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:38 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
A far better tribute to a son than ... I don't even want to mention her name in the same post, she doesn't deserve it.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 31, 2007 12:34 PM (ot4TW)
2
All Americans have a duty and a right to voice their views. Most now believe that the war in Iraq was not in the best interests of their country.
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:19 PM (TcoRJ)
3
"What would the world be like without the influence of America in it?
I choose to believe that because of America this world is a better place. And that the people of this world are given better opportunities each day that passes by."
Cpl Chris Mason
FOB Summerall
November 12th 2006
Posted by: Jeff Williams at March 31, 2007 05:50 PM (bynqQ)
4
All Americans have a duty and a right to voice their views.
Right? Sure.
What is this "duty" you speak of though?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 31, 2007 08:43 PM (yikpN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
James Dobson Can Kiss My...
...grits.
I am really and truly getting quite perturbed with the sanctimonious self-importance of one James Dobson. From
CNN, about Fred Thompson:
In an interview with "U.S. News & World Report," Dobson said, "I don't think he's a Christian."
A Thompson spokesman quickly contested Dobson's statement, saying "Thompson is indeed a Christian. He was baptized into the Church of Christ."
But a declaration of Thompson's religion will not be enough for Dobson, who is viewed as being widely influential with evangelical Christians, a key Republican voting bloc.
"We were pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer," said Nima Reza, a Dobson spokesman. "Thompson hasn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."
Many evangelicals would prefer it if Doctor Dobson would simply shut up, and quit attempting to speak for us.
The last I checked, James Dobson cannot peer into the soul of Thompson, any more that he can see into the heart of any other man. For him to question whether someone else is a Christian, or "Christian enough" speaks of his own quite human arrogance, not of any divine knowledge.
Perhaps it is time for Doctor Dobson to recall that "clearly communicating" one is a Christian is quite different than actually living as one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dobson truly gives evangelicals a bad name. Shame on him for making a derogatory statement about the faith of another man, something Jesus never did. Dobson is a disgrace and will be recognized as such by all except those who share his unfortunate lack of humility.
Posted by: martin at March 30, 2007 04:20 PM (LS8NJ)
2
One thing I always keep in mind when listening to Dobson is that he is psychologist and not a theologian or political scientist. The further he gets from his field, the less weight I give to his statements and pronouncements. And I am an evangelical, also.
Posted by: MikeM at March 30, 2007 05:42 PM (myTC8)
3
Dobson is that he is psychologist
The inmates are running his asylum ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 08:20 PM (yikpN)
4
James Dobson saying that Fred Thompson isn't a Christian, but Newt is- makes me wonder how much an endorsment costs?
Posted by: Kurt P at March 31, 2007 02:28 AM (zC35V)
5
Thompson's current wife is younger than is oldest daughter. Social conservatives might have a problem with that
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:21 PM (TcoRJ)
6
What Jack meant:
"I hope and pray Social conservatives might have a problem with that"
And as for Dobson, I see that someone needs a room in the asylum right next to Pat Robertson.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:41 PM (+F2EC)
7
i think Kurt P hit the nail on the head... unfortunately.
Posted by: David at April 01, 2007 03:00 PM (tGHYV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
EFP Importer Captured
And the Iranian dominoes in Iraq continue to fall:
U.S. and Iraqi forces detained a suspect linked to networks bringing sophisticated roadside bombs into Iraq during a raid Friday in the main Shiite district in Baghdad.
[snip]
The suspect, who was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, was believed to be tied to networks bringing the weapons known as explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, into Iraq, the military said.
It did not name the suspect or the groups he was accused of having ties to, but the U.S. military has asserted in recent months that Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Quds force have been providing Shiite militias with weapons and parts for sophisticated armor-piercing bombs. The EFPs are responsible for the deaths of more than 170 American and coalition soldiers since mid-2004, the military says.
The most important "nugget" to be gleaned from these three short paragraphs is that the man who was apprehended was part of a network
importing explosively-formed penetrators into Iraq.
There are those on the political left here in the United States who have attempted to provide Iran with a figleaf for their involvement, implying that the EFPs used against American forces were indigenous weapons because some captured EFPs were made using some components—primarily the short sections of pipe used to form the canister containing the copper disk and explosive charge—that came from various parts of Iraq and other countries in the region. The man captured was part of a network smuggling in completed munitions, not components.
I'd also note that Judi was wrong in his the terminology he used to describe the weapons the network was smuggling in to Iraq. Sadly, this is a consistent problem among Associated Press reporters. I'll give Judi the same advice I gave his superior, Kim Gamel:
Learn the Tech, or Take up Baking.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:33 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I find this whole EFP concept fascinating. I'd never heard of them before I read about them here. It seems hardly possible that a can with explosive in it could be so intricately controlled that the explosion could turn the lid of the can into a missile-shaped projectile (am I understanding the whole thing correctly?), but I guess someone figured out a way.
What I don't get is where they're set up. Are they buried in the street and shoot up into cars? How does the whole aiming thing work?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 07:10 PM (yKnlO)
2
EFPs are placed to shoot laterally, not vertically. Aiming them is not all that difficult, in that they are typically placed very close to the side of the road. To make the chances of a hit higher, they are occasionally placed in clusters, each pointed in a slightly different direction for more of a shotgun-type effect.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2007 10:45 PM (HcgFD)
3
Doc, you just need to read more science fiction; David Drake was describing them in his "Hammer's Slammers" series years ago. ;-)
Hard science fiction these days is more like someone's 5 or 10 year product research proposal.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:45 PM (+F2EC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh, My
I can fully appreciate the fact that our ideological opposites don't support the war in Iraq and would prefer that our military be recalled. I can even accept some of their rationalizations, even though I think they are purposefully downplaying the full-on genocide that would be the likely result of their retreat-at-any-cost mentality, of what they view as a Republican war in Iraq. To be fair, the Iraq War isn't the only thing liberals see as a "Republican war." They seem to think everything is the result of one Republican War or another, except, perhaps, their own War on Hyperbole.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:44 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If the left sucseeds in pulling out of Iraq we will have to go back in 3 to 6 mo but it will be all out war with the rest of the world incluede
Posted by: Rich at March 30, 2007 12:03 PM (EblDJ)
2
I'm receiving mixed messages from the Right. When the issue is the death of actual Iraqi kids, many Rightist bloggers say, "That's too bad. I guess they shouldn't put their kids in harm's way. Acceptable collateral damage. That's war." When the issue is ending American deaths in Iraq by pulling out, the Right says, "But what about the children? If we leave, the children will die!"
Which is it?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 01:21 PM (nrafD)
3
they are purposefully downplaying the full-on genocide that would be the likely result of [a retreat]
The civil war started and accelerated under our watch. What makes you think we can stop it?
We're in 3,200 of our finest and half a trillion dollars. At some point we will have to stop digging. The price we've paid already is too much in relation to our chance of healing the civil war and establishing a democracy. Better to quit now and make some wise choices with our remaining resources than to continue bleeding in the deserts of Iraq.
The evidence that we can win is thin. We've had several plans and initiatives, but none has had a lasting impact. Petraeus is maybe off to a good start. What do we do in say six months if things are no better? Get a different General? A new initiative?
We can't side with the Shia. They are too cozy with Iran, and we would be partially responsible for the deaths of untold Sunni. We can't side with the Sunni, because they are the ones killing most of our troops.
If genocide (maybe sectocide is a better term) is going to occur, it's going to occur. The events occurring in Iraq are simply too big and too hard for us to get a handle on.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 30, 2007 05:24 PM (xRKGN)
4
I'm receiving mixed messages from the Right.
I suggest re-tuning the tinfoil hat. The capacitance is out of whack.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 08:19 PM (yikpN)
5
I understand fully Purple Avenger's reluctance to actually address the issue. There's no defense, so he falls into his "The Best Defense Is..." mode: the old tinfoil hat cacaraca.
The Right seems to use the tinfoil hat theme quite a bit—as much as Lefties are accused of playing the Nazi card.
The tinfoil hat attack is most effective, though, if used correctly. Simply dropping it into the discussion because one can't think of anything intelligent to say doesn't get the job done. It simply says, "I can't think of anything intelligent to say."
The question remains: why are the lives of Iraqi children sacred only in connection with a possible future American withdrawal and a hypothetical genocide, but not in the here and now, when actual children are actually getting killed?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 10:34 PM (yKnlO)
6
CY, the appropriate analogy for what's going to happen, both in casualty count and the Left's responsibility for it, is the killing fields of Cambodia after the Democrat surrender in Viet Nam. Add in the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people who were drowned, killed by pirates, or killed by their own government trying to flee. What Leftards like Doc refuse to admit is that a) there's a difference in children killed because "insurgents" use them as human shields, and deliberate targeting with truck bombs loaded with chlorine, and b) it's better to save most by acting now instead of wailing uselessly as more are killed later.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:56 PM (+F2EC)
7
Yes, SDN, now I understand.
Hypothetical deaths as the result of a political decision you don't like trump actual deaths as the result of a political decision you did like.
Thy will be done.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 01, 2007 09:43 PM (tjGzq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dollard on Limbaugh
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but Pat Dollard was on with Rush Limbaugh yesterday talking about his Marine war documentary, Young Americans. He shot me a YouTube link to the exchange.
For those of you not familiar with the name
Pat Dollard, a bit of brief background may be in order.
Dollard is a former Hollywood agent with an admittedly checkered past, who , with no military or filmmaking experience, took off the Iraq to embed with the Marines to film a
raw documentary. The easily offended need not apply, but if you want to see some video clips,
go here. Definitely NSFW.
Wikipedia offers up
this biographical background:
Pat was a Hollywood talent agent, manager, and producer most known for guiding the career of Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh from his neophyte "sex, lies & videotape" days on up through "Ocean's Twelve" and his multi-picture deal with Mark Cuban's HDNET cable channel. Dollard came from a long line of liberals, and Robert Kennedy, Jr. delivered the eulogy at the funeral of his sister, Ann Dollard. Despite this, Dollard became known as a rare Hollywood conservative in the mid-90's, and is now known as a conservative filmmaker, journalist and pundit. He has been widely attacked by the left for the pro-war stance displayed in early clips of his documentary series "Young Americans". He is becoming known as the right wing version of Michael Moore and Hunter S. Thompson.
Wikipedia also offers up this summary of his
activities in Iraq:
While still running a management company, repping Soderbergh and helping to service Soderbergh and George Clooney's production company at Warner Brothers (Section 8 Films), Dollard decided to do a little side project for a few weeks in the three worst combat zones in Iraq: Fallujah, The Triangle of Death, and Ramadi. What was supposed to be a 2-4 week quickie documentary, morphed instead into a 7 month, graphic, unfettered portrait of the frontline hell of these three combat zones. Dollard lived constantly in the dangerous "hootches" with the Marines he covered, and patrolled with them and was severely wounded on more than one occasion. He shot 700 hours of hi-def footage, as reported by the website "Confederate Yankee". His work has been discussed at U.S. News and World Report, Variety, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, Fox News (Guest Appearance), The Washington Times, and "Vanity Fair".
The Wikipedia bio is a bit scant in describing
how Pat got wounded: Dollard was in Humvees hit by IEDs not
twice, one of which killed two of the Marines he was with, and filled his legs with shrapnel. Crazy, brave, or perhaps a lot of each, Dollard returned each time, and
intends to return again.
Like many embeds, Pat is self-financing his ventures. If interested, you can
donate here. Look for the PayPal button.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:56 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
March 29, 2007
Carry Me
In many ways, this is simply an unremarkable picture.
Scenes like the one above, with
smiling Iraqi children clamoring for the attention of U.S soldiers,
are commonplace throughout Iraq. There is absolutely nothing special about them at all.
Today,
Democrats in the United States Senate passed a war spending bill that would mandate U.S. military forces begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage, with a goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns
noted this morning that if the U.S withdraws, "there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."
If Burns is right and Democrats succeed in instigating a genocide, I wonder who will carry the Iraqi children... and how busy those pallbearers will be.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:01 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
With the amount of lard added to get the minimum number of votes for passage, it is obvious it could not stand on its own even among Democrats. So now we have a bill that not only tries to guarantee defeat (for which Bush would be blamed) but also tries to spend a lot of tax dollars.
Add this to proposed tax changes and such, and now "the Feinstein Connection," and one feels awe at the practices of the party that claims to be for us commoners and previously demonstrated it by inveighing against no-bid contracts, earmarks, conflicts of interest, etc.
Posted by: teqjack at March 29, 2007 04:19 PM (CEphM)
2
Leftists aren't happy until the body counts reach 7 figures.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 06:17 PM (01SjW)
3
I would prefer that the Iraqis start carrying their own kids.
Posted by: steve sturm at March 29, 2007 08:21 PM (XBWtm)
4
I never cease marveling at how Righties like Purple Avenger can see into my brain and discern what I'm thinking.
The most amazing part is how wrong he always is. Always.
If he paid attention, rather than pulling bushwah out of thin air and pretending that it's fact, he'd understand that what Lefties want is for American casualties to end. That's why we want the war to end. We want the death of Americans to stop.
There are no two ways about it. We can't simultaneously want the war to end and soldiers to leave, while still wanting soldiers to stay in Iraq and die. To suggest that the Left feels both ways is foolishness so extreme that it can only be willful.
Do I get to pretend to know what Righties like Purple Avenger are thinking? How about this: "Purple Avengers aren't happy until every last Iraqi girl has been sadistically violated."
My assertion is based on a foundation as firm as his, and it's certainly no more insulting.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 29, 2007 08:26 PM (78ddf)
5
Righties like Purple Avenger
Where I stand
That post has been up for around a year and a half Doc, and I link it on my sidebar.
You're a moron.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:38 AM (01SjW)
6
Doc: don't deceive yourself, the average lefty could care less about american military casualties. you (the royal you, as you may be the rare exception) don't like the people in the military, you don't agree with what they've signed up to do, you don't put the ribbons on your car (and you didn't wear the bracelets 35 years ago), you don't support giving them the resources to keep them safe, you would rather 100 of our guys die than have some mosque damaged or some Iraqi killed, and, if you ever went to Arlington, you don't thank them for defending this country. You don't want our guys out of Iraq because you care about them, you want them out because you can't stand the thought of them - and the guy who sent them to Iraq - succeeding.
Posted by: steve sturm at March 30, 2007 07:45 AM (sWhRW)
7
Purple Avenger:
Yeah, like I said: a Righty. I've read enough of what you've posted here and interacted with you myself enough to know where you stand. If it quacks like a duck...
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 07:59 AM (yKnlO)
8
Gentlemen, please refrain from profanity, and lay off the personal attacks. I'd hate to have to ban anyone, but I'm starting to get a little tired of the carping.
Address the issues/topic instead of attacking each other, please.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2007 08:09 AM (9y6qg)
9
Democrats: Hey, at least when we leave it won't be the children of people who vote for us that are surely going to die, so who really cares?
Is that really their stand? "Die Iraqi children, die!"
Somebody ought to hold their feet to the fire for that (and we know in advance it won't be the MSM).
Posted by: DoorHold at March 30, 2007 12:04 PM (jzOxq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Former Cheif Of Staff Says Gonzales Was Involved in DOJ Firings
I can't claim that I've been following the story of Attorney General Gonzales and the U.S. District Attorney firings case much, as I've had other things I find personally more interesting to discuss. That said, I've scanned the headlines, and today's testimony by the AG's former Cheif of Staff is casting fresh doubts on Gonzales' memory at best, and his honesty at worst:
The former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate," the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
"I don't think it's accurate," Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. "I think he's recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27."
It was disclosed last week that Justice Department documents showed Mr. Gonzales to be present at the Nov. 27, 2006, session in which the firing of federal prosecutors was discussed. That disclosure seemed to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s assertions at a March 13 news conference that he was not involved in talks about letting the prosecutors go.
I said
a few weeks ago that I don't know if the issue of the dismissals is important or not, but if he's lying or has severe memory problems, either would seem to mean he is unfit to continue in his role as Attorney General.
At this point, whether the firings were legitimate or not seems inconsequential. If the United States Attorney General cannot adequately and competently defend himself over an issue that doesn't seem to be remotely criminal, he hardly seems fit to defend the laws of this nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:15 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President's minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of blatant lying.
Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman's interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by "The President's Prevaricators"...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito at March 29, 2007 09:55 PM (kpeoC)
2
either would seem to mean he is unfit to continue in his role as Attorney General.
Torch Reno continued on after Waco. This is nothing compared to that.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 06:19 AM (01SjW)
3
I am not sure that using Reno is an effective way of defending Gonzo
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:24 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Embedded Frustrations
If you are a journalist or blogger who wants to embed in Iraq, good luck making it through the PAO system. As a pair of prominent bloggers tell us on the record, getting into Iraq can be all but impossible thanks to obstacles put in place by the U.S. military's Pubic Affairs Office, and once there, the PAO seems to delight in making the life of an embed a living hell.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:43 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wish we had the luxury to wait to hear the stories of our heroes. 40 years from now, a Stephen Ambrose type could come along and document the courage and bravery of our men and women in combat. This is a different war, one where the biggest influence on the attitude on the home front comes from the stories we hear. In World War II, everyone knew the real stories from our troops because almost every family has someone serving. This is no longer the case. Putting the entire country on a war footing is no longer necessary, but our reporting MUST change too.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 29, 2007 11:38 AM (oC8nQ)
2
General officers are political animals. If Fumento and Yon were starting to become very popular in the blogosphere and attracting a wide following and noted by major conservative talk show hosts, it isn't out of the question that some Clintonistas in the ranks might want to stifle them.
I don't know that this is happening, but it isn't out of the question. General officers are political. You might want to read General Grant's memoirs which are available free on the internet for some examples of just how political things can get in a war (in this case the Mexican war that eventually allowed Texas to become part of the US).
Seriously, these officers have their political loyalties and their promotions do go under Congressional review and approval. I might note that some of these problems have become more severe since Congress changed hands. It could be some career CYA going on.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 29, 2007 12:56 PM (y2kMG)
3
Why would the political makeup of the Army's PAO be any different (in general terms) than the media?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 06:37 AM (01SjW)
4
Excellent post, Bob. I linked from 2007.03.30 Iraq/Surrendercrat Roundup.
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 30, 2007 12:04 PM (n7SaI)
5
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at March 30, 2007 12:29 PM (kNjJk)
6
"Why would the political makeup of the Army's PAO be any different (in general terms) than the media?"
The "forcing" mechanisms are different. If Congress changes hands and the Senate committee that handles general officer promotions gets a new head, the committee head might tell a mutual acquaintance that giving Yon and Fumento a harder go of it might make for a more favorable opinion from the committee later, when/if that time comes. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Politicians don't have a direct influence on the careers of journalists. They DO have a direct influence on he careers of general officers.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 30, 2007 06:49 PM (y2kMG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2007
Feinstein: As Corrupt as They Come
If a story breaking tonight by Metroactive is correct, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California should consider calling Martha Stewart for advice on how to decorate her prison cell:
Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.
As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:44 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It will be "interesting" to see if this is even mentioned by ABC, NBC, etc...
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 29, 2007 01:55 AM (roWez)
2
What story? She's a democrat. I see Cold Cash J. is still holding onto his seat.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 05:21 AM (N02TJ)
3
Posted by Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 05:21 AM
I'm betting Feinstein will hold on for quite a while. Maybe not in any more committee's but against any charges.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 05:35 AM (y67bA)
4
I am 58 so obviously have been watching politics for a few decades. Does it seem that our government is getting more corrupt, more involved in our lives, more restrictive of our freedoms, less responsive to our needs and in general a greater liabilty than ever before? I can not find a period in American history that is worse than the one we are currently in. I have supported the conservative cause through the years, yet they do little to really effect a change except during the Regan years. We just finished 6 years of Republican control of the government and instead of a smaller, better government we are worse off than under Clinton. What can we do to change the situation short of armed revolution???
Posted by: David Caskey at March 29, 2007 09:28 AM (G5i3t)
5
Posted by David Caskey at March 29, 2007 09:28 AM
Vote totally new personnel into office, bar none.
Insist on a bill to law system that is only one measure to a bill (no Tac-On's),if it doesn't pass on it's own merit, it's gone.
No more lobbyists. No more bennies for Congressmen, not even a $25.00 meal.
Term limits, maybe 10 yrs tops.
Congressmen paid on a percentage of thier constituants salaries, averaged.
No longevity seniority in congress. They are equal if they have been there for one day or 10 years.
Problem is to get all in the U.S. to vote out the incumbants and force the new ones to accept what we, the people want.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 11:51 AM (PJ4Iq)
6
Like you said, CY, I'll wait to see how the story develops. Personally, I am not impressed with the innuendo of MetroActive's story. Here's a couple of my thoughts:
MA notes Feinstein inquires about certain projects/proposals and a few years later a Blum connected company announces winning a contract on such. Is the Feinstein inquiry aspect out of the ordinary for her or does she do this on a regular basis? If the latter, is it any surprise Perini or other of Blum connected Co.'s, wins a contract that Feinstein has inquired about during hearings years earlier?
In parallel to the above, my knowledge of Fed Contracts is that the funding is usually in place before a project is put through the Q&E and RFP stages. One would have to show that a Blum connected Co. received preferential treatment in these processes to show other than coincidence.
Those are two on the Feinstein side. As for Perini breaking into the big time of Engineering/Construction Co's, I am not surprised this coincided with taking on Government Work, nor that they decided to take it on. Private work fluctuates with the economy as well as with the waxing and waning of different sectors. Only one thing is steadiest, and that is government work. Their size, reputation and organizational experience pretty much guaranteed a good share of the pie quickly just because of that. As for the suggestion that "Perini shot from near penury in 1997", I think it's just that MA liked the idea of using that cool sounding word to inflate their case, not that it has any real business meaning. Actually, Perini looked pretty good in 1997. It was earlier years that they had considerable losses which were carried forward through 1997.
On the Senate (or MetroActive) side of things, what is Feinstein doing as Chairperson of a Senate Subcommittee from 2002-2006, as MetroActive intentionally states, when the Republicans had majorities? Unless, of course, MA is actively taking advantage of their crappy writing skills to suggest something that is not accurate. Maybe MA is right and it is I who is misinformed by my belief that the party in the majority fills the committee and subcommittee chairmanships with their own members.
More digging is required before there is any reason to compare Feinstein's activities and actions to Cunningham's. Right now it is appearance of appearance of hypocrisy and appearance of appearance of conflict of interest.
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 12:04 PM (GJLeQ)
7
Posted by Dusty at March 29, 2007 12:04 PM
Once the RFP is out there, there are no longer limitations on who is selected for the contract. It no longer goes to the lowest bidder but to the one believed to deliver the best product. If it can be determined that it was steered towards her husbands companies, that should be enough. The funding may be in place in the Govt. but not to the ultimate contractor until the selection is made, and then only as the contract dictates. That is what they need to look into.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 12:22 PM (0EcTE)
8
Dusty, poor dusty. Reading is fundamental. You missed the following in the metroamerica article: "Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.
Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded."
No Competition? Would that be considered preferential? I bet you thoght it was when it was a Halliburton award.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 12:35 PM (Hr52v)
9
No, CoRev, I didn't think it was preferential when it was a Halliburton Award. Yes, reading is fundamental, that is why I checked and corrected my initial MediaActive to MetroActive before I posted.
Thinking is just as fundamental as reading. There are several good reasons for issuing non-competitives. Before I get my shorts in a twist about that, I'd like to know the general character of that process of allowing them and some specifics for the ones as examples. For instance, how much, in dollar value, is put out that way in a year and what percentage do the amounts to Blum connected companies represent. Lot's of non-competitives go out on a rotating basis among the reliable contractors that have long experience with an agency, e.g., a non-preferential check built in the system. Did Blum connected companies get put up front too often? Also, were those dollar values to Blum connected companies above the mean for those products or did the government get a good deal. If not, was there a good reason -- rush order, for example?
Take that second item you quote, the $12M order, the way I read that, that's 3.36M. What were the circumstances? Was it a separate contract? Does it represent several smaller ones? Was it an add on to the contract because the government got such a good price? Specifics, and details are in order before anything of substance can be discerned from the MediaActive blurbs of potential improprieties.
It's good to keep tabs on the folks in DC and it's worth looking into these occurrences to make sure things are on the up and up but, like I indicated before, there is nothing I see so far in this report to merit allegations of corruption, which to be clear, is something I think is a crime in the legal sense, not a political sense. Who knows, maybe Feinstein's actions could fill a football filed sized cesspool. If you want to jump to that conclusion as quickly as you jumped to your conclusion about me with the Halliburton snark, fine by me, but I'll give you directions to a good cliff instead of taking your bet.
-----
Retired Navy, I agree. Q&E's and RFP's are dependent on the circumstances of the project and I do not know all the rules for which process is used or how rigid the process is for military agencies. Aren't pretty much all contracts advertised by law (except the non-competitives, of course)?
From what I know, if you start with the Q&E, usually there is a reduction to three or so for additional info and/or interviews. Professionally speaking, the best rated is then asked to provide a proposal which is then negotiated. If terms aren't mutually agreed to, then the agency goes to the second on the list and repeats the last two steps.
With long run agencies and consistently similar projects year in and year out, the same names tend to show up all the time and they been vetted by years of experience, and some of the process gets thrown out the window for the sake of brevity and cost. I can see where some preferential treatment can ooze into the process and you are right in saying it should be looked into.
I can also see where a rooky to the process looks better than tired old vet contractors who have years of baggage from little or big mistakes that everyone remembers, not to mention the preferential treatment that would appear if a rooky is not taken as an equal in the process once in the system. So, I wouldn't be surprised by a rooky appearing to have a meteoric rise in contracts and the appearance of preferential treatment for a number of reasons, one being because he was taken as an equal in the list of contractors. I wonder, though, isn't there an independent in-house group monitoring the possibility of preferential treatment and corruption? (Used the y in "Rooky" to get past a spam filter stop sign)
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 03:33 PM (GJLeQ)
10
Dusty, sorry for the snark. You are sowing your ignorance. "Sole Source" means what it says. Exigencies exist to expedite contracting, sole source is usually not one of them. All contracts over $25K are supposed to advertised (at least that was the limit when I was in the business.)
Any time a company is awarded 85% of its Fed business as sole source is extremely suspect , UNLESS, the Fed is buying the same product, andand obviously it is the only source.
The same rules, laws and regulations apply to all Executive Agencies. DOD may rewrite them and reissue in their own words, but they are the same in the end.
I don't know what process you were describing in your hypothesis, a letter contract perhaps but it is NOT the normal contracting process. Once a competitive range is established, then it is common to negotiate with all within that range .
With nearly 300M citizens in an oversight role it is uncommon for rules to be bent too far. And in times of emergency, Katrina for example, the post event reviews NEVER take into account the value of of some waste to deliver a need versus doing the correct thing by following all the rules. Imagine waiting 30 days for an announcement for ice after a hurricane.
Any way, I don't know why you are defending Ms Feinstein in this matter. It is no worse than Halliburton, where most of its contracts were multiple orders off a competitively awarded contract.
Remember, the key is 85% of its awards being sole source.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 05:37 PM (Hr52v)
11
Apology is not needed, CoRev, but noted. I guess mine was snark as well. So apologies there by me.
I haven't offered much in the way of expert knowledge, just experience from a having to deal with the process in general from the grunt side of things in Engineering from, I admit now, quite a few years ago.
I should note, however, that Sole Source was not a situation that had occurred to me, so if those are the type of contracts being quoted, further investigation is more worthy of consideration. I wish that was clear in the MediaActive story for then it would have been brought to my attention, but, alas, they make no mention of those types of contracts. Are you sure that is what those contracts were or is that your surmise from experience?
I agree with the sole product scenario exemption as I have encountered them alot and in my situation have to include such in specifications often.
As for the process I briefly described, that is generally the process recommended by AIA, ASCE, NSPE. We don't like pure bidding because 1) we are professionals providing brain power not materials/labor and expect to be treated that way, 2) anyone can play word games in rigging a price to win a low bid via a) the owner's error, b) the owner's naivete, and/or c) the owner's stupidity. That the governement still works on the basis of lowest bid rather than second lowest bid just proves 2) is apt, and dangerously so, and no one need harp too much on the lack of humility in 1).
Lastly, I am not defending Feinstein. I noted MetroActive maybe onto something, but right now -- how can I put this kindly -- the report needs another monkey typing to make a case, for me, anyway, that isn't a clear partisan hit piece but one that offers dispassionate evidence. I agree with what you note about Halliburton and that also means I should want more information of the Blum connected companies' contracts as well as more of Feinstein's record before I judge either their companies' work and/or Feinstein's actions.
BTW, you note the key is 85% of it's awards being sole source. Other than that it does not say sole source, that was for the first item, the one you didn't quote to me. The second which you did quote was 28%. As for the first, the 85% for the Boston Scientific bullet, the amount of $17.8M, doesn't say if that is for 2006 or since it started contracting until Dec 2006. Heck, I don't even know if that 85% got our military 500 SOTA MRI's or just 500 off-the-shelf rectum thermometers. Just another instance of the story not impressing me enough to treat Feinstein the way the left (or even Feinstein) treats Cheney and Halliburton.
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 08:19 PM (GJLeQ)
12
Pelosi's hubby is big in a company that does a lot of shoddy construction in Florida too. Last year there was an electrocution of a workman at one of their homes due to shoddy work.
The FBC (Florida Building Code) had to be emergency amended to account for the scenario that caused the fatality. Now electricians have to ground all steel stud framing because neither the sheetrockers or electricians can apparently be trusted to abide by the prior codes (which would not have prevented the fatality if adhered to), and the inspectors are paid off to let shoddy work slide.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:50 AM (01SjW)
13
I meant to say the prior codes WERE SUFFICIENT to prevent last years fatality if adhered to.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:51 AM (01SjW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 161 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1369 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1205 seconds, 159 records returned.
Page size 131 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.