Confederate Yankee
March 28, 2007
On the Brink?
RIA Novosti (Russia) reports that American forces seem to be preparing for a combined air and land assault on Iran:
Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
Feh.
I strongly doubt that there is anything to this account, with the possible exception that we might be positioning forces in a bluff. I don't claim to know the dispostion or concentration of American ground forces within striking distance of Iran, but I don't think that a force sufficient to stage an invasion of Iran could be drawn up without
any word leaking out.
Then again,
these accounts sound a little ominous, and make
my crystal ball sound pretty accurate, even though I question the timing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:51 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Judging by its general content and tone, I wouldn't put too much stock into anything on the Atlantic Free Press site.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at March 29, 2007 01:37 AM (pXHYd)
2
Looking at the source it seems a little far fetched. Besides, it's six months too early.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 07:08 AM (Hr52v)
3
Well, gee, Iraq is on Iran's border and there's a surge going on. Also, we know that men and equipment are going to the insurgency through Iran, so putting troops on the border seems like a pretty good idea to me. It doesn't mean we are getting ready to invade. Although two carrier groups are in the Gulf not doing much at the moment.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 29, 2007 07:17 AM (oC8nQ)
4
It doesn't yet matter whether there's any truth to it or not. All that matters is: How much damage can we do to the Bush administration using this information?
Let the protest marches begin.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 29, 2007 11:12 AM (jfa7N)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Out in Left Field
I hate to say this, but Gateway Pundit is voyaging into conspiracy theory territory on this one.
First, he's unable to differentiate between unrelated bomb attacks elsewhere in Iraq (Ramadi and Abu Ghraib) and the two truck blasts in Tal Afar. How he can be so far off, I don't know... but he is.
Second, he is insisting that any additional information that becomes available in later stories about this event are indicative of a conspiracy, coverup, or shift of some sort. An early report that indicates police involvement is not negated by the discovery that elements in addition to the police may be involved. That is why they call them "developing stories."
I confirmed this story this morning before posting on it
originally, and just learned moments ago that Alaa Al Taii, MOI Communications director has annouced a joint investigation by the Interior Ministry , Ministry of Defense, and and the Ministry for National Security is beginning, and that Interior Minister Bolani will personally be involved, and will visit the scene in Tal Afar tomorrow.
The incident reported by the Associated Press' Sinan Salaheddin as cited in my previous post appears to be correct, and the conflicting accounts are over details, not over the essnetial substance of the story.
This incident is not a hoax, some sort of conspiracy, or blame-shifting operation in effect. Our allies snapped, and massacred between 45-60 men.
As inconvenient and horrible as that is, it is the apparent truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:05 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Reuters:
Gunmen rampaged through a Sunni district of the northwestern Iraqi town of Tal Afar overnight, killing about 50 people in reprisal for bombings in a Shi'ite area, Iraqi officials said on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite, ordered an inquiry into reports the gunmen included policemen from his Shi'ite- dominated security forces, an official in his office said.
That doesn't sound like what you wrote CY.
"The incident reported by the Associated Press' Sinan Salaheddin as cited in my previous post appears to be correct, and the conflicting accounts are over details, not over the essnetial substance of the story."
Conflicting accounts! I'll say!
Posted by: Dan at March 28, 2007 03:54 PM (1Q8ID)
2
Linked at 2007.03.28 Iraq/Surrendercrat Roundup
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 28, 2007 07:28 PM (n7SaI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stalking the Dying
It seems to be a new trend for some with particularly low moral fiber.
From liberals celebrating that White House Spokesman Tony Snow has cancer (see
here from
Tom Elia, and comments captured
here from the
Washington Post), to a particuarly insane former Los Angeles teacher (also a liberal) by the name of
Eliot Stein tormenting the fans and daughter of Cathy Seipp as she lay dying by pretending to be her on a similar web site with her name in the URL, and renoucing her life's work.
For once, I simply lack the words to describe how deplorably monsterous some of those on the political left have become.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:38 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It shows an extreme lack of character, wherein such a person has been consumed by their partisan leanings. I've seen such behavior by nutjobs on both sides and regardless of the politics involved it isn't pleasant. I for one am more conservative but as much as I dislike Kenney, Pelosi, et al. I do not wish them any harm nor would I ever rejoice over it. What I would like is for them to permanently retire from politics, preferrably by being tossed out on their keisters by the voters. Yet that's all.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2007 03:25 PM (Ynv7t)
2
I'm with ya John. And thanks for your service to our country!
Posted by: Dan at March 28, 2007 04:26 PM (1Q8ID)
3
You reading this too Lex? Aren't you proud of your party and leaning?
Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:06 PM (ybfXM)
4
Since Lex hasn't responded yet, let me stand in:
"But Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson! And Dobson, and that Phelps guy! You're all meaner and more corrupt!
Boogity-Boo!"
There.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 29, 2007 11:45 AM (O9Cc8)
5
Wow, you guys sure got us there. We just got out of the meeting in which we received our orders on what to believe today, and sure enough at the top of the agenda was Wish Death Upon Our Political Opponents. I'm so happy that you guys have the fair and balanced judgement to see that we liberals are, in fact, all exactly alike.
By that same token, you guys must all be a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis.
Posted by: Pennypacker at March 31, 2007 12:58 AM (M20pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Send a Chickenhawk to War
Time and again, we've heard liberals call conservative bloggers "chickenhawks," and tell them that if they care so much about the Iraq War, they should go join it (interestingly enough, I do know of a single liberal blogger that has volunteered to go serve in the Afghan theater, the war they ostensibly support. I've never claimed liberals were smart, nor consistent).
Now is the time that my liberal readers have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If they care so much about conservatives going to Iraq,
here's a chance to finance a trip.
The Pentagon has
extended an invitation to send a pair of RedState bloggers to Iraq, and they are currently attempting to raise $7500 to make this trip happen.
Ante up, guys.
You might finally realize your dream of placing conservative bloggers in a position where they might come under gunfire, thereby giving Charles Karel Bouley and other Huffington Post bloggers a chance to say they deserved it. "
What goes around comes around," etc.
Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.
Good luck finding one.
Update: Oh Bartleby!
Oh, the stupidity! Noted
lefty war-reporting plagiarist Sean Paul Kelly decided to call the Redstate bloggers that are planning to embed "chickenhawks," without bothering with the little detail that one of the bloggers, Jeff Emanual, is a former
USAF Spec Ops TAC.
Confronted with the fact that Emanuel has already served, Kelly offered up a lame, "well, since so many soldiers are doing two and three tours, why not enlist again?"
As I addressed to "Lex Steele" in the comments:
Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.
No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Update: Well, doesn't that beat all.
We do have a liberal blogger that has
requested to go to Iraqi along with the two from Redstate. Can anyone at RedState contact the Pentagon to see if they have room for a third blogger?
I don't always agree with the politics of
Gun-Toting Liberal, but I typically respect his opinion, even when I disagree with it. He's intelligent and thoughtful and I think it would be an excellent idea to include him on his embed. If they will arrange for him to make the journey, I hope you'll help finance his trip.
Upon his safe return, I will be very interested to see how visiting Iraq may affect his feeling about the war, for better, or for ill.
Correction: It was
GTL co-blogger Alexander Paul Melonas that is interested in embedding.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:45 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In a nutshell, RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. We want to send Jeff and AcademicElephant, who henceforth insists on being known by her real name, Victoria Coates. = chicken hawks
Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.
Good luck finding one. = chickensh*ts
Posted by: Boss429 at March 28, 2007 10:54 AM (a+Mxg)
2
What obligation do liberals have to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, and why should we want to? Your assertion doesn't make sense.
We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:01 AM (7IB7k)
3
Lex, I never said you had the obligation to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, but as liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq, I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to send several there.
Granted, we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence (If you need citations of this for proof, I can find oodles of references to Michelle Malkin's trip, and how liberal bloggers and their commenters hope she would go out without the military unit she was to embed with, with the clear implication that they'd prefer to have her die), but at least they chose to go.
I also stated you might want to financially support any liberal blogger who might want to see the war firsthand and write about it, but I don't think that I've seen a single attempt by a liberal to get embedded... have you? If run across one, I'll gladly promote their singular effort, and do what I can to make sure they know what equipment and protection they will need to both chronicle and survive their trip. I'm sure that the conservative bloggers who have embedded and who are embedded now would help as well, if asked.
You also assert that:
We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.
You neglect to mention that if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere. Certainly, with all the brainpower and patriotism in the liberal blogosphere, there must be someone calling for liberals to volunteer for duty in the "good war" in Afghanistan. Isn't there? Perhaps not.
Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.
No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:43 AM (9y6qg)
4
It was not GTL who offered himself to the Pentagon, it was me, Alexander Paul Melonas; one of his co-contributors. However, thank you for the kind remarks about the Gun Toting Liberal, and indeed, I again state my desire to accompany those from Redstate on their journey.
Posted by: Alexander Paul Melonas at March 28, 2007 02:36 PM (nRapB)
5
CY-
Re: 'good war'
Call me naive, but if you enlist, do you have a choice in your theater?
-CZ
Posted by: ChenZhen at March 28, 2007 03:01 PM (IkiL2)
6
ChenZhen: I think you're right. Pat Tillman volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, but ended up getting shot in what he called an illegal war in Iraq.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:25 PM (7IB7k)
7
Cpl. Tillman was shot on a mountianside in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and I have never read him saying that he thought it 'illegal'. (In fact as I recall, he refused all contact with the media his entire time in the Army, so I would love to hear how that story got started...)
That being said, the idea of 'orders' kinda mess up that whole volunteer for your 'preferred theater of conflict'. You goes where they tell you.
But hey, Lex, it makes a great line. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: MunDane at March 28, 2007 05:13 PM (/qH+3)
8
Wow, Lex. I'm surprised you'd write that without at least googling it first. Is that the sort of thing people are saying? Where'd you get that information from?
Posted by: paully at March 28, 2007 06:03 PM (75YCX)
9
You guys don't understand. This is typical Lex. He makes statements and then refuses to back them up - and once he is shown to be wrong he changes the subject. Typical of the left.
Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:11 PM (ybfXM)
10
I was wrong about Tillman's place of death, obviously. He did serve in Iraq, though.
As for his political views: "Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, 'Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.'"
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 08:42 PM (W27N0)
11
CY: liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq
They mean that war supporters should fighting in Iraq. I think I can speak for most liberals when I say we don't much care if you all do your blogging from Iraq or not. That is why I said it doesn't make sense for you to expect liberals to pay to send Red State bloggers to Iraq.
we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence
I don't believe that at all. I don't know anyone who wants reporters or soldiers to die in Iraq, or who thinks it's okay to burn soldiers in effigy, or who wants to abolish Christmas. Each of these is a misguided or dishonest attempt to portray liberals negatively. There simply aren't many people who believe those things.
if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere
How about the supporters of the Iraq war step up? That's where we need to people most. My side thinks Iraq is a disaster, and not just for a lack of manpower. You all think it's winnable, so go help win it.
liberals ... [are] attempting to set the stage for a defeat in [Iraq]
That's a cynical way to put it. Most people in this country have decided the war was a mistake, or at least that it was too poorly waged. We don't want defeat, rather we don't know what a win would look like, thus we wish to quit pouring our youth and treasure into it.
in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military,
No.
and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Sure! It's unAmerican to compel citizens to fight in wars they find immoral or illegal.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war.
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Again, those were Ward Churchills. I don't know anyone who would condone treating the flag that way.
You're saying that this is an American war, and thus all Americans are equally responsible for participating. No one should have been asked to fight the war in the first place. It is a disaster and this is reflected in its unpopularity among Americans.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 09:28 PM (W27N0)
12
I responded to your comments over at The Gun Toting Liberal but stopped by here with them as well.
I respect you and your blog very much, but I have to say that in order for your position to be entirely fair, we would have to evaluate the results of the Pentagon having invited Red AND Blue bloggers to go to Iraq. Oh wait...they didn't do that. They invited ONE side of our very polarized blogosphere, didn't they? Now if BOTH sides were asked to go and (as you suspect) the liberal blogger swiftly declined - THEN your point would be valid and accurate.
"They" want one voice coming out of Iraq and I submit "they" should be set apart as the fearful ones for refusing to lay the groundwork for objectivity.
And also (just as a little FYI), GTL is an honorably discharged veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Thanks again for bringing attention to this and for discussing it with the GTL.
Posted by: Megan at March 29, 2007 01:24 AM (Gq5Wi)
13
Lex,
I don't believe all liberals want conservative bloggers to meet their bitter end, I do see that very few moderate liberals (if any) condemn those on the far left spewing such hate (flag burners, soldier burners, defacation, hope you die stuff...) Speak out against it if you see it as wrong. I do against the far right.
Many do go help to win in Iraq/Afgan. It is all one war whether you choose to believe it or not. Right now we are trying to stabilize both countries and remove the radicals. We are trying to give them a chance at freedom like we were given during the Revolutionary War. Don't they deserve a chance? Both countries?
Most people in this country do NOT believe the war was a mistake, they believe it was headed in the wrong direction, we now have new direction and it appears to be working, while it seems to be working, the DEMS in congress want to cut the funding out from under the troops and put out an arbitrary withdraw date. One word for that, STUPID. That is NOT supporting our troops. Whether you believe in the war or not, don't punish the troops.
A miliary member does not choose where he/she goes. They cannot choose to fight in one area and refuse in another. They sign up to defend the United States no matter where/when called upon to do so and all that join are fully aware of that obligation. It is not dark ages mentality, it serves a very real purpose, stability. Bluntly, WE are there for YOU. Problems with the war, Congress should be your outlet, not the Military.
You said "No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war."
Don't pity us, we all knew what we were getting into and most would do it again if needed, even if we don't believe in the "war", it's for the U.S., not ourselves.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 06:05 AM (JYeBJ)
14
Actually, what I'm gathering is that the bloggers at Red State initiated the contact with the Pentagon four months ago, not htat the Pentagon contacted them. I wrote one of the bloggers at Red State making the trip, and will be able to follow up soon and verifiy that for sure, and pass along the contact information to get the embed process started to Alex as soon as I have it.
I don't know of you read Michael Yon, Michael Fumento, of the other bloggers who have embedded or attempted to embed in Iraq, but the Pentagon doesn't seem to much like any embeds, regardless of political stripe.
I'll have a post up on that subject later today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 29, 2007 07:27 AM (9y6qg)
15
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/29/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at March 29, 2007 10:25 AM (6+obf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lowe Point
I've admired the job former N.C. State star Sidney Lowe has done as the coach of State's basketball team in his first year. He's simply a classy person.
His son, apparently is not.
The 21-year-old son of North Carolina State basketball coach Sidney Lowe faces charges in two armed incidents, including one in which a UNC-Greensboro student from Raleigh was shot in the back.
Police at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro said Sidney R. Lowe II surrendered to authorities Tuesday and was charged with eight counts, including felony aiding and abetting attempted armed robbery, in connection with Saturday's shooting and attempted robbery inside Weil Residence Hall.
Greensboro city police filed 14 additonal charges, including felony assault, in connection with a home invasion that took place on March 16.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:45 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Rampage in Tal Afar
Simply awful:
Off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men, police and hospital officials said.
The policemen began roaming the town's Sunni neighborhoods on foot early in the morning, shooting at Sunni residents and homes
A senior hospital official in Tal Afar said at least 45 men ages 15 to 60 were killed and four others were wounded.
Police said dozens of Sunnis were killed or wounded, but they had no precise figures. The shooting continued for more than two hours, the officials said.
Army troops later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew was slapped on the entire town, according to Wathiq al-Hamdani, the provincial police chief and his head of operations, Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri.
Tal Afar is a city of 220,000, and unlike their neighbors, the residents are nearly all Turkmen. the city's population is roughly 60-percent Shia, and the city is divided into 18 neighborhoods along tribal lines.
Middle East Online reports that the dead were found handcuffed and blindfolded, shot in the back of the head, execution style. The revenge killings took place shortly after the truck bombings, in the Sunni neighborhood of Wahada. It is not yet known why this particular Sunni neighborhood was targeted.
The rampage ended with the arrival of an Iraqi Army unit.
Time reports that the Iraqi Army has already arrested 18 Tal Afar policemen for the killings based on eyewitness accounts from the victim's family, and also stated that Shia militiamen participated in the attacks.
The Tal Afar police have been confined to barracks and that police from Mosul (30 miles to the east of Tal Afar) were moving in to provide security. Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri is moving in to take control of the operations on the ground, and to presumably start an investigation.
The massacre--there is no other way to describe it--was in response to
two truck bombings carried out by Sunni militants yesterday that killed 63 and wounded 150.
The Sunnis already distrust the Shia-dominated police forces, and the two-hour revenge attack is sure to sour relations even more.
How much relations will sour depends in large part on how the Iraqi police forces themselves respond to the attack. Confining the local police to their barracks is the first step, but it is necessary for an investigation to immediately begin, and for those responsible for the attacks to be arrested (if there are more than the 18 captured so far) and tried for their crimes.
If there is any good news at all to report from this massacre, it is that the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army was able to move in and arrest many if not all of those responsible for the attacks and restore order without U.S. involvement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:50 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That is awful. It's exactly the sort of thing that makes people like me believe that our troops have no way to win in Iraq.
For the Sunnis to accept democracy, they must agree to give the Shia most of the political power, the same Shia who the Sunnis have repressed for decades. They must accept the authority of the Shia police, including the ones who handcuff and execute Sunnis. They'd be putting themselves in a position where they pay taxes to fund these people's salaries. What is the chance that the Sunnis are going to accept this peaceably?
It's too much to ask of our troops to solve these problems. They are trained for combat, not for babysitting.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:14 AM (7IB7k)
2
Gateway Pundit has doubts about the reporting:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/alert-likely-media-skunk-in-tal-afar.html
Posted by: Jeff at March 28, 2007 01:27 PM (yiMNP)
3
A response to Gateway Pundit's post is here.
I like GWP, but his is way off on this one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 03:08 PM (9y6qg)
4
It's exactly the sort of thing that makes people like me believe that our troops have no way to win in Iraq.
McVeigh must have really bummed you out about American democracy too then.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2007 03:14 PM (YaVN7)
5
Purple Avenger -- No, McVeigh didn't shake my faith in US democracy. Rather, you made a poor analogy. We had long had a solid democracy when McVeigh struck, as opposed to the current effort to form one in Iraq. McVeigh was a fringe element of the US, whereas the Shia/Sunni conflict cuts into mainstream society. Sunni/Shia relations are a major facet of Iraqi society, unlike McVeigh's affiliations.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:03 PM (7IB7k)
6
Here's a thought: perhaps what Iraq needs right now is more guns... and Iraqis willing to use them.
Perhaps these marauding policemen and militia goons wouldn't have been so brave, breaking into people's homes, had the townspeople been on the other side of the door with an AK47 of their own. Perhaps there would be fewer roadside massacres, where insurgents force people off a bus and shoot them, if the bus riders were armed and ready to shoot (think of the American west: what was more likely to deter Indian attacks, the unarmed stagecoach or the one with a guy sitting next to the driver with a Winchester on his lap?).
It's interesting that here in America, where we champion our right to bear arms to protect us from dangers the police can't or won't do anything about, we aren't more vocal in calling for Iraqis to have the same level of personal protection.
Oh, and I have thought about whether more guns in Iraq would present a problem for our troops and think (from the safety of my chair) that the answer is no... the Iraqis who want to take shots at US troops already can...
Posted by: steve sturm at March 28, 2007 04:53 PM (sWhRW)
7
Linked at 2007.03.28 raq/Surrendercrat Roundup
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 28, 2007 07:28 PM (n7SaI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2007
HuffPo: Tony Snow Deserved Cancer
Ah, the commenters at the Huffington Post are at it again:
I admit my bias shows with these stories. I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya.."
Oh, hang on. that
wasn't a commenter, but a mainstream (for the Huffington Post) HuffPo blogger, Charles Karel Bouley.
You guys remember Charles Karel Bouley, don't you ? He's the nice gentlemen that thinks God killed Boy Scouts in revenge for discriminating against gays.
No, really.
Class of the Huffington Post, indeed.
Update: Allah has a
roundup.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:15 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Look down to post #17. Brouley explains that it isn't just Fox News that gives you cancer, But Bush, Cheney and Rove:
"OK, by the amount of evil email and actual death threats I have received, obviously you all misunderstood what I was trying to say or I was not clear. I believe that negativity can manifest inside the body. Just as stress can lead to strokes and heart attacks, high blood pressure, I believe if you surround yourself with vitriolic and terribly negative people like Cheney, Bush, Rove and the lot, it's bound to have a physical effect. Does he DESERVE cancer, no, no one does. But when you are in such a horrifying atmosphere the physical is bound to pay somehow. And AS I SAID, I wish him a full recovery and support of family and friends. But just as good things happen to bad people, isn't the converse of bad things happening to bad people true? I do not count Tony Snow as a good guy. He has publicy questioned my patriotism at the behest of his boss. I don't like that. But again, that doesn't mean I want him to have cancer.
By: karel on March 27, 2007 at 08:47pm
Flag: [abusive] "
Posted by: jimboster at March 28, 2007 07:44 AM (gWJnP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sewage Flood Engulfs Gaza Village
Revolting beyond description:
At least five Palestinians including two toddlers drowned in a “sewage tsunami” today, when a water treatment reservoir burst its embankment, flooding a village in the northern Gaza Strip.
The deluge, triggered by the collapse of a system aid organisations had long warned was dangerously overburdened, submerged dozens of homes in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Nasr beneath a cesspool of foul-smelling effluent.
Two women in their 70s, a teenage girl and two boys aged one and two died in the flood. At least 15 people were injured and local medics say scores more are still missing.
This AFP picture pulled from Yahoo! News photos gives you an idea of how massive the sewage spill was. The waters these men are paddling in are full of bacteria and human waste. I cannot even begin to imagine the stench or the near total destruction this breach has created in the village of Umm al-Nasr.
I know from reading hurricane-related coverage that the mold and bacteria that can result from other kinds of flooding mandate that some buildings be razed as a result. I would imagine that by western standards, any structure inundated with raw sewage would almost certainly have to be destroyed, but I fear that in Umm al-Nasr, many of the residents, primarily poor Bedouin shepherds, do not have the resources to rebuild, and will endeavor to reoccupy their bacteria-infested homes. If this occurs, I suspect the death toll will sadly increase from disease.
As is so often the case involving anything in Gaza, the story's political overtones were among the foul things that quickly rose to the surface.
The Hamas movement, the leading partner in a newly formed Palestinian unity government, blamed the disaster on a foreign aid boycott slapped on the Palestinian Authority a year ago when the Islamist hardliners first came to power. Israel and the West consider Hamas a terrorist outfit.
In a statement, Hamas said: “The overflowing of the [reservoir] is one of the results of the suspension of international aid to our people, which is preventing the government from improving and developing infrastructure.”
To the credit of the
Times, they deftly debunked Hamas in the immediately following paragraph.
As far back as January 2004, UN aid agencies in the Gaza Strip had warned that the sewage treatment facility was operating far beyond its capacity and posed a grave danger to nearby residents.
Also sadly stereotypical was how residents responded to the interior minister who rushed to the scene to inspect the damage. What did the residents feel? Justifiable outrage.
And recoil.
Hopefully the people of Umm al-Nasr will receive aid to help them cleanse and rebuild their village. It's too bad Hamas and other Palestinian groups let the water treatment facilities deteriorate to such a deadly condition in the first place.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:34 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Receive aid to clean up the mess? When are these animals going to do something for themselves?
They have been living off the international teat for years. When are they going to do something for themselves other than trying to kill as many Jews as they can.
They can all rot in Hell as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: 1sttofight at March 27, 2007 02:18 PM (rrCtY)
2
That's a pretty ignorant comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the last time Bedouins tried to do much but eek out a meager living. I don't seem to be able to find many accounts of shepherd suicide bombers, or Jihadi sheep.
Just as all Muslims are not fanatical fundementalists, all Palestinians are not fanatical zealots thirsting for the blood of Jews, and I don't even know that the Bedouins consider themselves Palestinians.
Try a little human empathy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 06:30 PM (HcgFD)
3
Why don't you just stick it up your ...?
Posted by: 1sttofight at March 27, 2007 11:13 PM (rrCtY)
4
Its clear Hamas is unfit to govern no matter how much money they have. Surely there is a bulldozer and some dirt somewhere in Gaza.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2007 04:48 AM (YaVN7)
5
That picture of the truck covered in Hamas excriment reminds me of the Keystone Kops.
Posted by: Dan Irving at March 28, 2007 09:43 AM (zw8QA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Surge at Home
Via Instapundit, Frank Warner notes that public opinion on the progress of the Iraq War is slightly more optimistic:
One little-publicized finding of the new Pew poll is that, compared to last month, Americans now are slightly more optimistic about the Iraq war.
The portion of Americans who believe the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" for the United States increased from the all-time low of 30 percent in February to 40 percent this month.
This bump in support comes just as E.J. Dionne calls the battle for a free Iraq "a conflict that grows more unpopular by the day." Which day in March?
In the last month, the percent of Americans saying the war is going "not too well" or "not well at all" dropped from 67 to 56.
I'd caution that the influx of American soldiers into the Baghdad security plan is just beginning, with the full force of the "surge" arriving in June, even as Democrats
futily push forward with their
plan to lose the war.
It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.
If definitive progress is made in coming months, it will be very interesting to see how that affects the polls, and the actions of House and Senate Democrats. Bills to lose the war by setting artificial and arbitrary deadlines are being set up for a Presidential veto, and it will be very interesting to see if Pelosi, Murtha, etc will continue to attempt to lose the war if measurable progress is made in the coming months.
I doubt that the most strident anti-war critics will be silenced by any hope of victory, and it could be interesting to see how Democrats attempt to placate their radical base if further progress occurs.
Update: Brian attempts to answer the question, "
How's that surge going?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:10 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There have been quite a few 'news articles' recently regarding the home front. The first one was about how the 'protest movement' wasn't as active as it was in Vietnam. The second article was about memorials for fallen soldiers. In that article they failed to make the distinction between memorials that truly attempt to honor soldiers and the 'peace memorials' that attempt to make a political statement. Today, I saw an article that, once again, seemed to be complaining about the fact that most Americans are not directly affected by the war in Iraq. There seems to be quite a bit of nostalgia held by the media and by the protest movement for the good old days of Vietnam. Look through the political cartoons on Yahoo and you will probably catch at least one Nixon reference.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 10:39 AM (oC8nQ)
2
I think that you are already seeing the Democrats move on the issue given their proposal for a "secret" schedule of surrender.
Posted by: Wexford Cowboy at March 27, 2007 11:25 AM (ZfdFI)
3
this concept of "losing" the war is interesting. let's say the surge works. not that it is working incrementaly...let's say it flat out works. the civil warriors lay down their arms. baghdad is stable. we can start to safely draw down troops in a rational manner. does that mean we have "won" as those of you who see foreign policy as a football game like to say? let's check the score...al queda will be able to operate in iraq at a much higher level than they ever could before. in fact we will need permanent bases there to keep al-queda in check. afghanistan will still be a country where the taliban is on the comeback. iran will have far more influence than they had before. we will be no closer to annihilating the religious extremists who...and i love it when fear-mongers say this...WANT TO KILL US. we will have propped up an extremely weak, extremely corrupt government. sorry folks...this is a no-win situation.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 12:01 PM (yu9pS)
4
It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.
Yes, that will be interesting.
However, will you still be interested if the surge has the same results as all the past surges, and public support of the war continues to decline? Something tells me you won't.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 12:30 PM (qf8D8)
5
The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).
As for "winning the war," which war? The Iraq civil war or the "War on Terror?" No matter what Bush pushes they are NOT the same.
The "War on Terror" is centered in Afghanistan, not in the "al Qaida Recruiting Center" Bush has made of Iraq.
Iraq is a civil war and we should not be there, and WE will not "win" any war there. If we want to actually win a war it has to be in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Tecknomage at March 27, 2007 01:20 PM (eoprt)
6
Jay, I don't think Iraq will become the Al Qaeda haven you think it will be. There seems to be quite a bit of Red on Red going on.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 01:37 PM (oC8nQ)
7
bohica22...what on earth is going to stop it?
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 01:41 PM (yu9pS)
8
The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).
Hmmm... a lot was said in that one little sentence.
Technomage, is his wisdom, apparently think that I should perhaps trust those who have a self interest in putting out "bad" news? Presumably, he gets his news directly from insurgent videos posted to Youtube, and accepts no substitutes.
I've got a slightly more divergent reading list.
I read the feeds of the major wire services and newspapers, talk directly (rarely by phone, mostly via email) with non-combatant actors in the war zone, usually at least once a week, and get, in digest form, English-language transcriptions of Iraqi radio, television and newspapers every now and again when my source can provide it. Mostly, these people have a self-interest in describing reality as accurately as they perceive it.
As for Technomage's other talking points... well, he says exactly what I'd expect he would, considering that he admits he refuses to believe anything good in Iraq can be possible.
For Technomage and others like him here and elsewhere, continuing to believe what he has already determined to be the truth is by far the most important thing. Simply put, losing has become a matter of faith for him and others like him, and anyone who is willing to consider the good along with the bad is a heretic.
It doesn't make these folks bad people, but when someone immediately states up front he is unwilling to consider any point other than those that support his predetermined outcome, I find it rather difficult to take him, or others like him, very seriously.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 01:58 PM (9y6qg)
9
i know losing is a rnc talking point. i want to know what we are "winning". at best after 4+ years it's a wash. saddams out. irans in. al queda is in. so what have we accomplished?
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 02:14 PM (yu9pS)
10
"what on earth is going to stop it?"
The Iraqis themselves will stop it. They are just now beginning to realize how one-sided their 'relationship' with Al Qaeda has become. Iraqis don't want Iraq to become another Afganistan. Hell, the Afganis didn't want Afganistan to be another Afganistan. That's why the Taliban collapsed so quickly. Turns out life in the Fundimental Islamic State is really crappy, and when offered an alternative, they go for it. Sometime it takes a little push or a little time, but eventually people learn that when terrorists run your country, it eventually turns to sh!t. Check out Gaza these days if you don't believe me.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 02:23 PM (oC8nQ)
11
Losing is a RNC talking point? It's an interesting alternate reality you inhabit. The rest of us see Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, etc leading the charge to establish arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, not anyone else.
It was liberal anti-war protestors that burned an American solier in effigy last week and defecated on the American flag.
Losing is beyond a talking point for Democrats. Losing the Iraq war is now an article of faith.
Liberals see this as a Republican War, not an American one, and in the warped "reality-based" world you inhabit, you've convinced yourselves that an American loss is a Republican loss and a Democratic victory. You hate our President so much that you've chosen to side against your own country. You should be ashamed.
In four years, what have we accomplished?
We've killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam's spawn that were, according to many, even more brutal and sadistic than even their father. This presumably saved a future gneration or two of Iraqs from an even more bloodthirsty dictator. Their father, Saddam Hussein, saw his dictatorship overthrown, and free elections held not once, but twice, to establish a representative government in a land where no one living had ever experienced one. It is struggling, floundering and corrupt in spots, but making progress.
Saddam, a brutal dictator that financed terror, provided sanctuary to such noted terrorists as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the man who built the cyanide-laced bomb used to attack the World Trade Center in 1993), started two wars than led to more than a million deaths, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers and ordered the torture and assassination of an unknown number of his fellow Iraqis, was tried by a court system operating from a new and free constitution, judged guilty, and put to death.
As a direct result of our attack on Iraq, Lybia gave up a WMD program (including a fledging nuclear program) and the long-range missiles it was developing to carry them.
As for the actual war itself, you seem to be sleeping though the news today.
al Qaeda is under attack on all sides, including from their former Sunni insurgent allies who are now increasingly of the opinion that the only good member of al Qaeda is a dead member of al Qaeda. The suicide bombings in Tal Afar today are a direct result of al Qaeda turning on their former insurgent allies, who are now in negotiations with the Iraqi goverment, while joining the IA and IP by the hundreds. al Qaeda, already decimated, has been forced to join up with other groups, and there it some expectation that with the current rate of attrition, the simply will not survive the next year in Iraq, with Sunni, Shiite, and Americans all gunning for them. A major car bomb cell cell that has killed up to 900 was destroyed today. That's progress.
The Shia militias which became a threat thanks to Iran, are without their leader al Sadr, who fled the country for Tehran over a month ago, and Coalition forces are talking with the "good" JAM to fill the power vacuum with pro-Iraqi sentiment, jobs and public works. Iran has had more than 300 of their network in Iraq rolled up in the past weeks alone. EFP attacks are way down. There are signs of progress in Iraq, because the average Iraqi doesn't want war.
The biggest threat to these Iraqis aren't the terrorists that Iraqis themselves are increasingly hunting or turning in, but American Democrats determined to lose the war to score a political "victory" against a President that they hate more than they love the concept of liberty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 03:28 PM (9y6qg)
12
first...it's not a republican war...it's bushs war. and the idea that dems want to lose it is a rnc talking point you love to parrot.
second...libya gave up these weapons as a direct result of us attacking iraq? check your facts. i know that's what bush wanted you to think. it's not the way it was.
third...in todays news al-queda is being driven from iraq. if that is true, then they will be driven from a place they weren't in before we got there.
fourth...you last graph is just a delusional rant.
finally...look...alot of what you list is exagerated, a lot is wishful thinking, and a lot of it doesn't really matter to the safety of the u.s. i stand by my statement...after four years this thing is basically a wash. there is no winning at this point. i know thats disappointing for those rooting for your favorite team...but that's the reality of it.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 04:26 PM (yu9pS)
13
i want to be really clear...there's no winning and there's no losing...everyone is so wrapped up in this partisan pissing match. at this point iraq is what it is...maybe it gets a little more stable. maybe it doesn't. how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it? we have spent trillions of dollars when you look at the long term implications of this thing. what analysis justifies the expenditure. and al queda is right out there...still.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 05:18 PM (yu9pS)
14
how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it?
I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 27, 2007 05:33 PM (YaVN7)
15
Jay, you hit the nail on the head. This isn't about winning or losing to those of us who are simply concerned with issues like war, peace and regional stability.
However, that has never been a GOP concern. They wanted a "win" so that they could continue to invade and conquer other Middle Eastern countries. This is spelled out very clearly in the Project for a New American Century.
(As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger.)
Now that even the most delusional republicans are realizing that their war is lost (inasmuch as there will not be any endzone dances and fists in the air), the most important thing for them now is to not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008. They desperately need a democrat to blame for all this, so they can avoid a painful moment of self-reflection.
To the republicans here: Iraq will be a disaster for a long time to come, regardless of whether you call win, lose or draw. The cause of that disaster will continue to be the US occupation. The cause of that occupation will continue to be the hubris of the Bush Administration. No amount of time is going to change those facts, only how you're able to spin them.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 05:34 PM (3VkmI)
16
I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.
So, Purple Avenger, how much have you done for your country? Typing up rants and cheering on unnecessary wars does not count.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 05:37 PM (3VkmI)
17
c'mon, paul--go easy on 'em. these are the guys who shout to the rooftops that this is WWIII or an existential clash of civilizations but scurry away muttering excuses every time the army recruiters drive by. if they won't be tempted to get out from behind their computers in suburbia and rush to the front lines in this mammoth, manichaean struggle with islamo_____ (you fill in the blank) after something like 9-11, what are you expecting of them?
so let them blast libruls for "hat[ing] our President so much that [they]'ve chosen to side against [their] own country [and] should be ashamed" (if they're so afraid of The Surge collapsing, and with it the West, why aren't they enlisting?)--just don't be expecting any of them to pull a pat tillman any time soon.
Posted by: jon at March 27, 2007 06:02 PM (k9t8G)
18
Sorry:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008.
Should be:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2009.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 06:26 PM (3VkmI)
19
The Sunni and the Shia will never reconcile. It's too late. What evidence is there that they will? None.
The surge is not going to change this fact. The Shia militias and their Iranian backers control the interior ministry and domestic security forces. The Sunnis do not trust them and never will. Nothing America does in Iraq will change this fact. Only partition or civil war will change this fact.
The surge will not and cannot disarm the Shia militias. The surge will not and cannot end the emnity between Sunni and Shia. The surge will not and cannot end the supply of arms and money to the Sunni guerillas.
The Sunni and the Shia will simply wait until we leave. And then they will kill each other. And don't even get me started about the impending war for Kirkuk.
The American political right is simply incapable of understanding these dynamics. But then, they are the same people who thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and we would be greeted as liberators. They are the same ones who thought we would be down to 30,000 troops in country by 12/2003. They are the same ones who said Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
American troops should not die in order for an Iranian backed regime to take over Iraq.
Bush planned to lose this war and he has lost it.
Posted by: mkultra at March 27, 2007 07:01 PM (ASUDI)
20
"As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger."
The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther? The PNAC does talk about a permament military presence in the region, but they have never mentioned permament bases in Iraq, much less 14. The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us? Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 28, 2007 07:49 AM (oC8nQ)
21
"If definitive progress is made in coming months..."
If....
You guys have been saying "if" for over four years now.
If cows could fly, we'd all have to wear hardhats.
Posted by: jm at March 28, 2007 09:37 AM (b2Kid)
22
ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.
Posted by: geordie at March 28, 2007 11:28 AM (9sWoZ)
23
Et maiores vestros et posteros cogitate, geordie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:34 AM (9y6qg)
24
I do, Confederate Yankee. That's why I am afraid.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791
Posted by: Geordie at March 28, 2007 11:40 AM (9sWoZ)
25
The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther?
I'm not a part of that 9/11 Truth Movement, no. However, I do value the truth, which certainly distinguishes me from you.
The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us?
Ask Bush.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.
Yes, but transport what? How about transporting the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? As the oil industry is well aware, peak oil will occur eventually if it hasn't already. That is expected to cause drastic disruption to the global economy. Who will rise to the top? How about the country that has 14 permanent military bases conveniently located near the oil wells?
Do you ever wonder why, when the Iraq war appears to be a failure on just about every level, that Bush and Cheney still appear optimistic? Could it be that they are trying to achieve different goals from the ones that they stated at the outset (all of which have either failed or were unnecessary)?
Posted by: Paul at March 28, 2007 02:53 PM (/2KfF)
26
Yeah, the surge is really working! That's why the US Embassy just ordered all its workers to wear flak jackets whenever they leave the embassy (which is in the Green Zone, supposedly the safest place!--where rockets are raining down daily!) And as for Shia-Sunni cooperation, how about that massacre of Sunnis yesterday when Shia POLICE went berserk and exacted revenge on Sunni civilians--yeah, that's really worth losing American soldiers for! After all, Bush is getting the good news from two DENTISTS for God sake who probably get dictation from Karen Hughes--why don't he and McCain walk hand in hand through Baghdad--since it's so safe and all.
Posted by: Mike Filancia at March 29, 2007 09:24 AM (Cba1c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2007
A Different Second Amendment
Coming across on Drudge:
SENATE STAFFER BUSTED FOR CARRYING WEBB'S LOADED GUN... Phillip Thompson, executive assistant to Senator James Webb (D-VA ), has been arrested by Capitol Hill Police on Monday for 'inadvertently' holding the senator's loaded gun, according to a person close to the investigation. A Senate staffer reports that Thompson was arrested for carrying the gun in a bag through security into a Senate office building while the Senator was parking his car. Thompson was booked for carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) and for possessing unregistered ammunition. According to congressional rules, congressmen and senators, not staff, are allowed to have a gun on federal property. Developing...
Let me see if I understand this:
Congressmen and Senators can bring firearms into heavily-protected federal buildings guarded by permanent on-duty police officers, but residents of Washington, DC are not allowed to have weapons to defend themselves or their families in their homes.
Nope, no double standard here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:44 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just so. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Posted by: Actual at March 26, 2007 07:02 PM (oAqnG)
2
Bob, Bob, Bob...
You just don't get it. The Legislators need those guns to protect themselves from the citizens of DC who DO NOT HAVE ANY guns, because private ownership of handuns, and ammunition, apparently, have been outlawed. So the citizens of DC are a present danger to members of congress, because of the guns that they do not have. Because they are outlawed.
Do you understand now? It's quite simple, don't you see?
The private citizens of DC do not NEED to own guns, because guns have been outlawed, and therefore there ARE no guns in DC -- except those carried by cops, and congressman, who need them... Oh what's the use?
Bob, you just do not understand nuanced thinking. Guns don't kill people, people k..oh....wait -- oh, you'll just never get it.
Posted by: Bill Smith at March 26, 2007 08:32 PM (bdmCE)
3
HA!!!! Its TRUE!!!!
Outlaw guns and only CROOKS have them.
P
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 27, 2007 05:08 AM (Mv/2X)
4
Have you ever considered all the exemptions that our elected representatives allow themselves. For instance, they do not have to go through the rediculous security at the airports that we commoners are forced to indure. I am sure we could list numerous other situations.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 27, 2007 09:13 AM (G5i3t)
5
An infuriating part of the fight over our Right to bear arms: The powerful and wealthy are always excluded from restrictions.
Do you think Chuck Schumer et al. are protected by a nearby firearm? Sure they are. Does he believe the lower classes deserve to be able to protect themselves? No he doesn't.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 27, 2007 10:39 AM (SC+cn)
6
Posted by David Caskey at March 27, 2007 09:13 AM
The one I like the best is they don't do Social Security, They have a seperate retirement system set up just for them.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 27, 2007 10:54 AM (WGcw3)
7
They are also allowed to smoke in all the legislative buildings on the Hill.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at March 27, 2007 12:20 PM (hYY4f)
8
Yes, Chuck Schumer has a carry permit in NYC. I'm sure he's a gun lover, just wants to make it as difficult as possible for his subjects to be one!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 27, 2007 02:41 PM (CZc15)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush Responsible for Iranian Adulterers Being Stoned to Death For Past Millennia
Right, Andrew?
According to Sullivan Logic, the Iranian people, who have a culture thousands of years older than our own,
could not function as a society until George W. Bush came along to show them how to act, for better, or for worse. Or at least the worst part.
It has been a very long time since anyone has accused Andrew Sullivan of being overly logical or coherent, and I don't think we are in any danger of anyone making that argument anytime soon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:15 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Ted Rall: Kill the All
In a cartoon ostensibly about the options for Iraq available to General David Petraeus, cartoonist Ted Rall states in one panel:
Hate to admit it, but Saddam knew what he was doing after all. Too bad we had to hang the bastard!
What did Rall's Saddam suggest?
Troublemakers, eh? Kill them. Kill their families. Kill everyone who's ever met them.
Rall must not have had room in the panel for "...and let God sort them out," though it certainly seems implied.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:10 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Zhombre at March 26, 2007 06:18 PM (v72Rn)
2
What he said.
CY, you know you have to wash your eyeballs out with bleach after looking at a Rall strip.
Posted by: Retread at March 27, 2007 07:23 AM (mtsTe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Army's Worst Recruiter
Look past the overwrought editorializing of Pam Spaulding to focus on the anti-gay and probably racist tirade ascribed to U.S. Army recruiter, Sgt. Marcia Ramode, from an official army.mil email address.
Ramode is required to display professional courtesy, even if she fervently disagrees with someone else's opinions or lifestyle. If these emails are legitimate, then Ramode should face a disciplinary hearing, and I suspect, a court martial.
The irony of this, of course, is that the person Ramode was attacking in these emails could hardly be a less professional soldier than Ramode herself.
Update: A certain liberal buffoonist apparently has reading comprehension problems, and cites the closing paragraph of this post to say saying I'm attacking the gay man who was the target of Sgt. Ramode's tirades.
Perhaps being "reality-based" means, in his mind, that he can simply make up whatever meaning he wants out of what someone else writes (it sure seems to work for Glenn Ryan Ellers Wilson Thomas Ellensberg Greenwald), but he has his facts completely turned around.
Those of us with a reasonable grasp of conversational English language might note that the comment closing the post above criticizes Sgt. Ramode for being very unprofessional, and that the gay civilian she was arguing with would make a better soldier than she.
Somehow, this is an "attack." I guess liberals consider the insinuation that someone might be a decent soldier to be offensive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've never heard of an E-5(SGT) being a recruiter. Usually its an E-6(SSG) or E-7(SFC) position. Its possible that she works for Recruiting Command, but is not an actual recruiter or that her email name is just out of date, but its all slightly fishy.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 26, 2007 12:27 PM (oC8nQ)
2
"The irony of this, of course, is that the person Ramode was attacking in these emails could hardly be a less professional soldier than Ramode herself."
This person posted his resume on Monster or somewhere and she tried to recruit him. He explained he wasn't interested in joining the Army because he was gay and that set her off. Apparently he was no saint either but she probably cost her herself her job. OTH selling long distance phone service sounds like an easier job than recruiting these days.
Posted by: markg8 at March 26, 2007 01:22 PM (zOOAq)
3
A court-martial would be a bit much. But a Letter of Reprimand, or perhaps an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) would be just fine and dandy. Not to mention appropriate.
Posted by: Buck at March 26, 2007 01:35 PM (+mUsD)
4
There's something about that email image displayed on that web page that doesn't pass my smell test. If this recruiter really wrote that, she needs to be executed for being too stupid to deserve air.
Going beyond the gay statements are the racist remarks. I served over 20 years ago and I never heard such talk even in private. The military has been one of the most racially tolerant places I have even been in my entire life and people succeed on their merits as individuals. I have a hard time believing this is real. (I would want to see the full transaction headers of those emails, for example) But if they are real, the person responsible should receive no mercy.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 26, 2007 04:23 PM (pxZRL)
5
Bohica,
No, Ramode's a real recruiter. She's a detailed 92 series (quartermaster) NCO assigned to Brooklyn, NY.
The Army is so short that even first-tern E-4s are being assigned to recruiting. E-5 Recruiters and Drill Sergeants are increasingly common sights.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... at March 26, 2007 08:11 PM (CaURv)
6
Still seems fishy. Recruiters tend to be rather busy. Why waste time following up a dead end by getting into an email flame war with someone who has no chance of being recruited. IRR, where'd you get that she's a quartermaster? I didn't see her MOS come up anywhere in the links or articles? Do you have an inside track on this? When I was an XO for an AIT unit we had an E-5 Drill Sergeant Candidate, but he had to finish BNOC before going to Drill Sergeant School to get his round brown.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 08:11 AM (oC8nQ)
7
"The irony of this, of course, is that the person Ramode was attacking in these emails could hardly be a less professional soldier than Ramode herself."
Well, he's NOT a soldier, nor did he ever claim to be. DUH!
Posted by: bill bozz at March 27, 2007 12:53 PM (gQb0l)
8
Why do bloggers always seem to blame comprehension problems on their readers? Your sentence was poorly written. A reader shouldn't have to slow down in order to figure out exactly what you're trying to say.
Also, I think you're misusing the word "overwrought."
Posted by: gordo at March 28, 2007 12:11 AM (F8/9N)
9
Gordo... it's pretty clearly a delicately phrased insult to the unprofessional recruiter.
Probably, folks tend to "blame the readers" because there are a large number who simply can't be bothered to use reading comprehension.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 29, 2007 11:43 AM (Nv4xT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I Fought the Lawn...
...and the lawn almost won.
I rented a rear-tine tiller to cut through the red clay and rock so that I can reseed my backyard over the weekend.
Fun thing rocky soil; tilling isn't easy anywhere, I suspect, but when you've got a 400 lb machine bucking every few feet when it hits a softball-sized rock, it takes a heavy toll on both the machine and operator. The yard killed the tiller. I broke off no less than four tines in the rocky soil, and perhaps as many as six. The folks I rented it from couldn't even get the engine to re-fire to unload it, and told me that it was going to have to be retired.
Sunburned, blistered and sore, I'm not feeling too good myself.
Light posting expected today due to work-related meetings.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:35 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Been there, done that, got the blisters to prove it.
I've since decided that, if it's green, it's lawn.
Posted by: old_dawg at March 26, 2007 07:33 PM (p/rH0)
2
Give up on grass; the soil here is too acidic and clay-ee to support it. However, now's the time to load up the 'fertilizer sprinkler' thingee on wheels with sulpher instead. This will promote moss growth, which is a two-fer: green, no mowing necessary.
Posted by: Cindi at March 27, 2007 02:11 AM (asVsU)
3
Nobody said the price for sweat equity and curb appeal was free.
Posted by: markm at March 27, 2007 06:17 AM (hVOTO)
4
Must have been some pretty hefty rocks to break off the tines.
I've had to do what you're trying but in a soil that wasn't quite so rock strewn nor clayey. Ended up letting it revert to moss after spreading enough lime to make it look like it snowed. (Heavy rain washed most of it away.) Shade also from some massive oaks (hence the acid soil) contributed to that decision.I felt like I had "wasted" two summers.
Posted by: joated at March 27, 2007 03:23 PM (H+ly+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 23, 2007
Peacekeeper Cargo Plane Shot Down in Somalia
A witness claims it was hit by a SAM during its ascent. Details are still sketchy right now, and there doesn't seem to be any word on how many people were on the plane, or if anyone on the ground was killed or wounded as a result of the plane coming down.
As of yet it doesn't look like anyone has taken claim for the attack, but the obvious suspects are Somali Islamists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I hope everything is okay with you and you are just taking a break from posting.
Posted by: tracelan at March 26, 2007 08:00 AM (ZlXVq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Landscape of War
I'm not familar with Mike Gudgell of ABC News, but his "Reporter's Notebook" article about what he is seeing in Iraq is a must read.
A taste of Gudgell's article, starting on page 3:
According to the U.S. military, a group of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters recently entered a small village east of Baghdad and announced they would be back and would take several houses for their base. When they returned two days later, their convoy was attacked by villagers. The military found out when the villagers told them to come out and pick up bodies and prisoners.
The numbers of civilian deaths are down a little but that's only a small part of the story. It's the little things together that make the difference. It might be too early to tell if this is a tipping point in the war, but it does appear as though the momentum has changed.
There's a long way to go, but there is room for some hope. It depends on your perspective; those snapshots and keyhole views of the broad landscape of what is a living war.
I
strongly urge you to read the entire article. Gudgell is matter of fact, and pulls no punches.
More, please.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: David at March 23, 2007 11:26 AM (nlcUo)
2
Crap. I botched the HTML in the link.
Should work now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 23, 2007 11:32 AM (9y6qg)
Posted by: David at March 23, 2007 11:38 AM (nlcUo)
4
Not to worry. CBS is still solidly on the defeat train.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 23, 2007 01:01 PM (iL8d7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Silencer
This is U.S. Army General Vincent K. Brooks.
He might look familiar as the man once known as the "the face of the U.S. military" for his role as spokesman for U.S. Central Command during the beginning of the Iraq War, He was the former chief PAO (Public Affairs Officer) of the US Army. He is currently the deputy commanding general - support for Multinational Division-Baghdad.
Vincent Brooks is also the general that has just threatened to kick Michael Yon
out of Iraq.
A general emailed in the past 24 hours threatening to kick me out. The first time the Army threatened to kick me out was in late 2005, just after I published a dispatch called “Gates of Fire.” Some of the senior level public affairs people who’d been upset by “Proximity Delays” were looking ever since for a reason to kick me out and they wanted to use “Gates of Fire” as a catapult. In the events described in that dispatch, I broke some rules by, for instance, firing a weapon during combat when some of our soldiers were fighting fairly close quarters and one was wounded and still under enemy fire. That’s right. I’m not sure what message the senior level public affairs people thought that would convey had they succeeded, (which they didn’t) but it was clear to me what they valued most. They want the press on a short leash, even at the expense of the life of a soldier.
Brooks was chief PAO when the miltary wanted to kick Yon out of Iraq in 2005 over his the "Proximity Delays" and "Gates of Fire" dispatches, and apparently Brooks still harbors a grudge. Now that Yon finds himself in Brooks' territory again, it appears he has taken special interest in trying to kep Yon from doing his job.
Austin Bay
weighs in on the witch hunt:
This is stupid... Telling Michael Yon to exit the theater is the WWII equivalent of telling Ernie Pyle to quit filing dispatches.
With terrorist propaganda blanketing the Internet, General Brooks seems intent on silencing one of the few long-term combat journalists in Iraq that can offer a competing voice.
Not a smart move, at all.
Update: Yon speaks about the media war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:50 AM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well in the words of Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré it
looks like the man is stuck on stupid!!!
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at March 23, 2007 09:52 AM (L4HGI)
2
BROOKS? OMG. During the Pentagon/Michael Yon photo kerfuffle, Brooks helped end that (I e-mailed with him about that). What is he thinking doing this to Michael Yon? He should know how much popular support Yon has (and isn't Bruce Willis making a moving based on Yon's writings on the deuce-4?). Idjit.
Posted by: E.V. at March 23, 2007 09:59 AM (bOV0H)
3
This is ridiculous. Is there some way to get in touch with this guy or his superiors? Better yet, is there some way to talk to their entire chain of command and point out that they're actively working to ensure that the NYT and CNN have an effective stateside monopoly on telling the American public how the war is going?
Posted by: Q_Mech at March 23, 2007 10:03 AM (kZs4o)
4
This guy is the classic Staff Puke, I hate these guys who are more worried about carving out their own little sphere of influence than they are about winning a war. Always willing and able to quote policies and procedures, but never anywhere near the sound of battle.
Posted by: SgtP_USMC at March 23, 2007 10:23 AM (WHn2F)
5
His dad is Gen Leo Brooks, the guy who dropped the bomb on the MOVE house in Philadelphia and set off a fire that destroyed a neighborhood.
Posted by: sylvia at March 23, 2007 10:32 AM (GFvki)
6
None of this is new. The Military has been working hard to keep the press contained since the first gulf war.
Props to Michael Yon for not letting them. I'll be reading his site regularly. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at March 23, 2007 10:45 AM (mYHGQ)
7
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at March 23, 2007 11:49 AM (kNjJk)
8
Someone asked what can be done. How about emailing Brooks and copying Petreaus,
I've had it with these personal vendetta's by men like Brooks and LtCol Barry Johnson. I blogged about him and included a copy of an email I sent him when he lied about why he denied Yon's embed. Once that email was posted...things heated up!
Email Brooks, then post the email, go viral. Brooks lost when he infringed on Yon's intellectual property with Mike's iconic photo of Major Beiger cradling Farah.
He promised after losing that battle he would not stand in the way of Mike embedding again.
He lied.
He is standing in the way of winning the media war against our enemies, and doing so while enacting a personal vendetta!
Brig. Gen Brooks is doing our war effort more harm than good. Time for him to pay for his incompetence, his selfishness, his overinflated ego, and for another vendetta on the part of CPIC towards Mike Yon which, yet again, amounts to censorship.
Posted by: Huntress at March 23, 2007 12:08 PM (VjD24)
9
I just sent an e-mail to President Bush urging him to remove Gen. Brooks and the rest of the PAO's who are more interested in protecting their own image than letting a great "reporter" serve America.
One e-mail won't make a difference, but hundres and thousands will.
Posted by: GoAmerica at March 23, 2007 12:34 PM (v+vnd)
10
I just added an excerpt and link at "Let's send Ernie home."
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 23, 2007 12:43 PM (n7SaI)
11
As far as I am concerned, Michal Yon is writting some of the best stuff I have ever seen about a war. For some staff weenie looking for another star to get upset when somthing that is not all positive is written is just, well, SOP for a lot of officers. Trying to get him out of country is as bad as always complaing about the MSM only running negative stories. You have to take the good with the bad.
Maybe this General can retire and take a position with Al Gore and state the PC position for everyting.
Posted by: Garu at March 23, 2007 12:59 PM (VkkMj)
12
Just want to clarify, while Mike was moving towards a lawsuit against the Army for copyright infringement, the lawsuit didn't materialize after
Brooks caved in and settled under pressure that was created by millbloggers.
I have Brooks email addy, if any would like it, email me.
Posted by: Huntress at March 23, 2007 02:24 PM (Dqxeq)
13
Thanks for the article. I had never heard of Mike Yon and I voraciously read through his blog and it is amazing. He is able to maintain a POV that is as objective as is humanly possible. He writes with a humanity and intelligence that are without parallel.
Thank you for raising my awareness. Now what can I do to help?
Posted by: Pete at March 23, 2007 02:47 PM (OWDoH)
14
Thank you for raising my awareness. Now what can I do to help?
Contact the Army Public Affairs (web site) and ask them to attempt to provide functional accomodations and workspaces for journalists covering the war. Better internet access (broadband) would greatly help, as is lockable and reasonably climate controlled storage to hold their expensive communications gear when off base on assignments.
Politely tell General Brooks himself: vincent.brooks@us.army.mil of the value of Michael Yon's writing, as well as the writing of other embedded journalists, and explain why you think it is in the Army's best interests to allow these brave men and women function without threats of censorship or expulsion.
Contact the White House and your congress people.
Write your local papers.
There are all sorts of things you can do to help, and I'm sure you can think of more things to do on your own. Just remember to be firm, fair and supportive.
Our troops deserve the best, and that includes the best embedded journalists to honestly cover their war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 23, 2007 03:03 PM (9y6qg)
15
The democrats have their partisans in the officer corps. Who gave this guy his star ... Clinton or Bush? My guess is that he is a Clintonista.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 23, 2007 03:44 PM (pxZRL)
16
A comment over a CQ made good sense. When Yon picked up a weapon and fired at insurgents, he placed all other journalists at risk of being enemy targets because the enemy can no longer be sure that journalists are just reporters.
If I were a 100% civilian journalist, I probably wouldn't want to be within 100 miles of Yon at this point. He isn't really a journalist anymore, he is a paramilitary combat reporter.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 23, 2007 04:49 PM (pxZRL)
17
It might be helpful if the pretense that journalists are somehow above or completely outside the war was challenged a little more often.
Good luck to Mr. Yon.
Posted by: charles austin at March 23, 2007 05:03 PM (c3IoD)
18
I hate the idea of Michael Yon being kicked out of Iraq as much as anybody, but I think some of you are throwing WAY too much invective at Brooks without A) knowing for sure that he wants to kick Yon out, and B) hearing his side of the story.
Brooks could be the BIGGEST Michael Yon fan, and still reasonably threaten to send him home under certain circumstances.
Posted by: Marty at March 23, 2007 05:25 PM (n42Oj)
19
"If I were a 100% civilian journalist..." ---crosspatch
You would likely be sucking back brewskis in the Green Zone, sucking up to your colleagues, congratulating yourself on 'telling truth to power', and filing stories about how the sky was still falling, and the evil Bushitler was DOOMED.
I could hardly care less what this 'type' thinks, and I have the suspicion that Mr. Yon would also be quite content with the 100 mile 'civilian journalist' exclusion radius. If only it was a much larger distance.
Posted by: dougf at March 23, 2007 05:28 PM (NWPMk)
20
If you want to know why we are in trouble in Iraq, you need look not further than these gutless politically correct flag officers.
Posted by: john floyd at March 23, 2007 07:44 PM (EXSZG)
21
Cross patch who ever made that comment over a CQ is an ass. You claim that if you were a 100% civilian journalist, I probably wouldn't want to be within 100 miles of Yon at this point. He isn't really a journalist anymore, he is a paramilitary combat reporter.
Well Brian Williams IS a 100% civilian journalist and he begs to differ:
Brian Williams, anchor and Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News, from his blog The Daily Nightly:
At a later date, I plan to share some residual notes from our travels in Iraq -- including some recommended reading. One link that cannot wait another day is the blog of Michael Yon. Michael is a Special Forces veteran who is now a unilateral embedded journalist. His dispatches are the most true-to-life that I've ever encountered -- raw writing from the soldier's point of view. He is best-known for one in particular, called Gates of Fire, a gripping account of a firefight that required him to briefly revert from journalist back to soldier in order to save American lives. I had the pleasure of getting to know him on this trip, and it is easy to see why he enjoys near-rock-star status among members of the military, both active and retired.
Posted by: Huntress at March 23, 2007 07:57 PM (VjD24)
22
Mr Crosspatch,
I say, speaking as the parent of three currently serving sons, If that was my son under fire and I found out that you had the opportunity to help him and chose to allow him to die... Well, you would be a hell of a lot safer in Iraq!
To those "journalists" who hold their, somewhat disreputable, profession in higher regard than their duty to their fellow citizens and claim to be "A CITZEN OF THE WORLD" I say that the only way for you to maintain a clear conscience (should you be so afflicted) would be to renounce your US citizenship, liquidated your US assets, move to Paris (or Berkley), get a UN passport and pay your taxes to whatever corrupt, neo-socialist sock puppet is running that worthless organization at the moment. Then if you still feel no obligation to assist my dying son in distress at least I won't have the additional irritation of your claiming the right to call yourself my peer.
Posted by: edgeofacrimony at March 23, 2007 08:07 PM (/HpH2)
23
I don't want General Brooks' e-mail address. I want the e-mail address of his superior officer, and *that* officer's superior officer.
Mailing address would be nice, too, to send a nice paper letter.
Posted by: NahnCee at March 23, 2007 08:33 PM (p1fbb)
24
Crosspatch has a fake Townhall.com link. In Vietnam, medical officers chose to go armed and avoid the red cross armband of a noncombatant. Why ? A medical officer was one of the longest held VC POWs. Ernest Hemingway went armed as a war correspondent in France after Normandy. Ernie Pyle was shot by a Japanese sniper.
I'll take Michael Yon's reports over the couch commandoes of the Green Zone.
Posted by: Mike K at March 23, 2007 08:33 PM (RiG6Q)
25
Last week I wrote to the JCS when Michael’s problems first started. Michael needs assistance now and the military needs to learn to deal with the media. No need to create enemies. I have since written to the President and now this to the general.
vincent.brooks@us.army.mil
Sir,
I have been providing financial support for Mr. Yon since he starting covering the war against Islamic fascism. I have at times disagreed with his conclusions, but I totally respect his reporting; all of it , the good, the bad and the ugly. He is a modern Ernie Pyle; one of the type we need for this generation and this war.
When I served, I don't remember anyone like him reporting from Vietnam. We also need media support to counter the terrorists media savvy and Mr. Yon is one of the few who consistently aligns himself with the troops. Please do your best to provide support for his efforts and, as well, all of the reporters in the Iraq. Many of the major media journalists have agendas and/or have editors that rewrite their stories to fit their positions; agendas that I, and most likely you do not support, but being on their "good" side is much better than creating an enemy with one who has a loud media voice.
I thank you for any consideration you may give to assisting Mr. Yon
Posted by: amr at March 23, 2007 08:36 PM (CZc15)
26
This just makes me irate. What is this guy, a double-agent?? He's obviously not on OUR side.
I never cease to be impressed with the outstanding quality of our military personnel on TV, in interviews, in articles. Brooks is a perfect example of the opposite quality. With U.S. generals like this, who needs Sadr, OBL and their ilk?
He's obviously a Democrat.
Posted by: Peg C. at March 23, 2007 09:05 PM (S0aeA)
27
Peg says,
"I never cease to be impressed with the outstanding quality of our military personnel."
But OF COURSE. We all know how much Republicans support the troops. They LOVE them. They WORSHIP them. They're not merely human, they're Superman, Captain America, the greatest superhuman heroes the world has ever known!!
But wait; this is different. Confederate Yankee writes a post about how this general supposedly wants a single journalist out Iraq for selfish reasons. So suddenly he's no longer Superman. No; now he's a double agent; a collaborator; a traitor; a coward; a Communist; a terrorist; and - Oh My God, No - A DEMOCRAT!!
Reading this blog is like doing an internship in a mental hospital. I mean, what the hell must it be like to go through life with the miniscule brain of a grunting, ignorant savage like Peg, and the other members of the Republicanism cult? The paranoia, the fanaticism, the hatred; to view every human being as a likely traitor and enemy at the drop of a hat. Personally, I'm unfamiliar with any details about either Yon or Brooks, and wouldn't dream of reaching a conclusion about this story without checking out some additional facts. But of course Peg and those like her have no need to observe such niceties before loudly declaring that a general should immediately be cashiered out of the Amry for treason. In short, though I have no particular interest in this story, it's always a real pleasure to check in on this blog to be reminded what makes Republicanism among the most widely loathed - and loathsome - political ideologies anywhere on the planet.
Posted by: legaleagle at March 24, 2007 12:20 AM (CvPDs)
28
Legaleagle,
I would bet you have done some time in a mental hospital, but I doubt it was as an intern. The only paranoia, fanaticism or hatred I detect on this string has come from you. However, so you won't be disappointed here is my version.
I agree that "to view every human being as a likely traitor and enemy at the drop of a hat" is a very disturbing trait and that's why I don't read Kos or DU anymore.
As for not being familiar with details of either Yon or Brooks, The answer to that is called research. You have a computer use it for something! To me it seems that if the General were doing his job he would be known for something more than trying to infringe someone else copyrights and a personal vendetta to censor the press.
As for the idea of a "Republicanism cult" I have to laugh. The Democrat party has set itself up in the minds of its members as being synonymous with the national government. They think that they are the natural ruling party of this country and would like to be the only one. If they were competent they might have an argument, but their record speaks for itself in that respect. They see their power as being more important than honest elections, economic health, integrity in governance, national security, human rights... It is obvious that they really have no ideas or agenda other than to see that no one but them gets to run the country (and collect the bribes) and if they happen to run the country into the ground in the process (remember Jimmy Carter) they will blame it on George Bush or anyone else who happens to be caught usurping their rightful station.
As for that "most loathsome political ideology" title I have an alternate candidate. Socialism, the gift of our sophisticated european cousins whom we all wish to emulate, in all of its forms large and small, bigotted and cruel, overbearing and insinuating, intrusive but impersonal.
Socialism has been the most destructive plague that ever afflicted the human race. It has destroyed more lives than any single disease and more than most of them combined. Well over 200 million people died in the 20th century alone the victims of one form of this disease or another. That doesn't even count the enormous numbers of helpless drones produced by utter dependence on the welfare state. I know its the utopian ideal, but it is an insult to human nature. But Hey, to make an omlet you have to break eggs, right comrade? And the best part is that our Democrat friends are happy to coexist with it, to embrace its icons, to learn its lessons, to preach its gospels and to inject its filthy, alien virus into our political system.
I'm always tempted to ask the moron with the "Che" t-shirt if he also has one of Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler or Himmler or Eichman? Since one psychopathic murderer is pretty much the same as another to me.
I'll just bet you're saving that Robert Mugabe for a special occaision... Non?
If "Republicanism" is so loathed around the planet why is it that every one of the most murderous two bit dictators in the world have two things in common; first an autographed love bite from Jimmy Carter on the rim of his anus and secondly the desire to pass his blood soaked regime off as a republic?
Republican and sometimes proud of it.
Posted by: edgeofacrimony at March 24, 2007 02:38 AM (/HpH2)
29
Legaleagle,
Some how I smell a troll...Well slick I must be
your worst nightmare,a Democrat who is revolted
and disgusted by what passes for the party today.
And I'm no big fan of Dubya and the politicaly
correct way the war has been run.As for Brooks
he is what Col Hackworth refered to as a perfume
officer and that ain't good...One thing you can
say is Bush at least has a set and that is sure
as hell going to be hard to find in the Senate or Congress.NO cajones!!!.75% of the public has
forgotten 9-11 and 90% don't belive we are in the
fight of our lives for freedom and to keep our
way of life the way it is now...All you have to
remember is Awyn al-Zawahiris words to America
Convert to Islam or die!!!.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow at March 24, 2007 05:45 PM (L4HGI)
30
Lord, lord. Intro: I'm a retired officer/NCO/private, otherwise known as a mustang. Into the Marines as a slick-sleeve, out of the Army as a LTC, intelligence branch (don't dislike the Marines - I'm proud to be one - it's a story about a 2LT...)
1. If a former soldier could watch his comrades at hazard without picking up a rifle, he's a moral zero.
2. If a journalist with no experience did the same, he's either
(A) A coward, or
(B) If he felt he was more of a hazard than a help, a smart guy.
3. I don't know the whole story behind our PAO general. I distrust anybody in PAO on (lack of) principle. However, let's admit the obvious: By shooting, Mike did IN FACT break a rule Since when does the military ignore breaking rules? You may examine it and decide on a slap on the risk, but you don't ignore broken rules. A GO I once worked for had a sign behind his desk he had made as a 1LT: "When you walk by the violation of a standard, you just set a new standard." Truth. Give Brooks a break until you know all the facts.
4. Leagleeagle, if you are in fact in law (I don't say legal professional because you obviously aren't very professional) then I hope I meet you in court. Ad hominem makes a lousy legal analysis. If that's the best you can do, I'd make leagleeagle mincemeat out of you in three sentences, and I'm still a 1L. You actually had some reasonable points (see #3, above) but who noticed in your flatulent blast of name-calling?*
*PS: I added this last because you probably don't know what 'ad hominem' means. Look it up in the dictionary; it's under "A".
Leagleweasel (and proud of it). Leagleweasels chase ambulances instead of cars.
Posted by: leagleweasel at March 24, 2007 11:51 PM (ia34O)
31
I notice that legaleagle has nothing to respond with.....and it's been almost 24 hours. LOL. Maroon.
Posted by: Specter at March 25, 2007 09:52 PM (ybfXM)
32
The Troll ran out of gas...
Posted by: Jack Sparrow at March 25, 2007 10:07 PM (L4HGI)
33
i know gen.brooks and i don't buy ANY of this hype. i think it is one sided garbage and gen. brooks should be commended for doing a fine job in iraq and not stooping to defend himself from these absurd allegations...
Posted by: jen at March 26, 2007 09:10 AM (0spB7)
34
Jen:
No allegations have been made about Gen Brooks.
His actions have been documented. He lied about standing in Mike's way, he caved under the face of guilt for copyright infringement, and he paid a monetary price for that. He did issue the eviction order,and he has stood in the way of both Mike Yon and other media which serves to create enmity with people who are working on the same team.
I won't print the other information I have found out about BG Brooks, or his father, but suffice to say, it's ugly.
Posted by: Huntress at March 26, 2007 10:06 AM (Dqxeq)
35
Crosspatch said:
"When Yon picked up a weapon and fired at insurgents, he placed all other journalists at risk of being enemy targets because the enemy can no longer be sure that journalists are just reporters."
In the specific circumstances in which that happened Yon himself could have been dead had he not picked up that weapon. It is total and absolute nonsense that mainstream media journalists are "nuetral"; they are not. In the leftist/liberal academia they are taught advocacy journalism and the United States, our military and our troops in Iraq are the last people in the world they want to be advocates for. The only "news" from Iraq that mainstream media journalists are interested in is the "news" that fits their advocacy position - they are against the war, period, no matter what.
Michael Yon is 100 times more 'nuetral' than any mainstream media journalists because he simply goes to where the troops go and reports what he sees, warts and all.
Posted by: Wuli at March 26, 2007 01:49 PM (lT7Qu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2007
Edwards to Suspend Campaign... or Not
So says The Politico, which seems to have been overwhelmed by a pair of links from Drudge.
John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, an Edwards friend told The Politico.
"At a minimum he's going to suspend" the campaign, the source said. "Nobody knows precisely how serious her recurrence is. It'll be another couple of days before there's complete clarity."
Other news outlets, including Fox News and CNN, are running screamers that report otherwise. It looks like
The Politico jumped the gun.
CNN gets their story posted
first:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday his wife's cancer had returned but his bid for the White House will go on.
John Edwards said tests this week had shown his wife, Elizabeth, had cancer in a rib on her right side. He said the cancer is treatable but not curable.
Elizabeth Edwards said she was "incredibly optimistic" and said her expectations about the future were unchanged.
John Edwards will apparently continue his doomed (okay, perhaps not the best word) Presidential campaign, even though his wife Elizabeth appears to have had a resurgence of cancer.
Frankly, I don't know whether to commend them for their courage as a family in trying to push on with their lives throught the cancer's return, or whether the candidate should be condemned for continuing an unlikely run despite Elizabeth's incurable cancer coming out of remission.
In any event, I'll be praying for Elizabeth Edwards tonight, hoping that God spares her from this cancer, and what appears to be her husband's naked ambition.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:47 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Poor Ben, busted twice with misinformation in less than 3 days.
Tough start for the kids at Politico.
Posted by: Davebo at March 22, 2007 12:23 PM (YkTE1)
2
From the bit of the pc I saw, Elizabeth Edwards said she expects to be doing tomorrow and next week and for months to come what she's been doing with the exception of seeing a bit more of her doctor. In her place I think I might tell the Silky Pony to continue with the campaign. For the short term she expects to carry on fairly normally and may not want him focusing exclusively on her and the illness.
How they organize their private life is their business and I don't think I even need to have an opinion about it. I wish her well and hope she beats the odds.
I should and do have an opinion of his politics because he's put himself out there to campaign for the nomination. But that opinion is for another thread. I'll simply wish Elizabeth Edwards the best in this one.
Posted by: Retread at March 22, 2007 02:36 PM (mtsTe)
3
Man, that is a really, really sorry comment. Naked ambition? Maybe his wife really, really wants him to continue running? Maybe it would make her feel better? I'm married and I can tell you that my wife would probably tell me to do the same thing, no matter what. But that doesn't mean I know anything about the Edwards' situation, which is why I won't say anything as blatantly insight-less and mean-spirited as you do.
Posted by: Xanthippas at March 22, 2007 03:20 PM (018Z+)
4
By the way, here's a better response:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/theres_no_after.html
Posted by: Xanthippas at March 22, 2007 03:24 PM (018Z+)
5
Xanthippas,
As I posted in a comment to Hot Air:
Women are tougher than men, and as Elizabeth loves him, she wants him to push on with his campaign and their life together as if nothing was wrong. She wants the continuity, and what she thinks is best for him. And who knows? Maybe it is what’s best for him.
But I don’t think it is best for her. Political campaigns are notoriously grueling, as both of them should well know. I do not see how a campign can have any positive effects on her health. John Edwards should know this.
He should put his wife and children ahead of a dark horse campaign. We have so little time on this planet to be with the ones we love, and it appears that he intends to spend the next year (perhaps less) of that time courting everyone but the one he should care about the most.
I don’t know what John Edwards considers “family values,” but they apparently aren’t any kind I would recognize.
Were you ever in this position--and I sincerely hope you never are--I would hope that you'd have to good sense to ignore your wife's noble effort, and put her well-being before your career.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2007 03:36 PM (9y6qg)
6
Yank - you do realize this is a death sentence right? Survival of Stage IV beyond five years is less than 20%. They know this and are making a decision to forge ahead. Exactly should John Edwards do? Stay at home and watch his wife die?
Posted by: Brian Despain at March 22, 2007 06:35 PM (whVcs)
7
Exactly should John Edwards do? Stay at home and watch his wife die?
Don't be obtuse.
John and Elizabeth Edwards have an older daughter Cate in her early 20s that is old enough to have pleasant memories of her mother. They have two children under the age of ten, however, that are unfortunately going to have limited time with her.
The time they are wasting pursuing an almost certainly futile dark horse candidacy would be much better spent, in my opinion as a parent of a child the same age, in building memories for their two young children. Instead, John Edwards will continue tilting windmills. As I've already stated, campaigns are exhausting to those in the best of health; how can a rigorous campaign schedule help her? It could threaten her health, and also cuts into family time and memories that could be made.
It is , in my opinion, reprehensible behavior for a husband and father.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2007 10:39 PM (HcgFD)
8
I think you have to look at the time line to death here. Ms. Edwards will not die in the next year. I fact she will likely live for at least 5 years. This will be a very painful existance and she will be extremely sick secondary to chemothearpy. But the fact is that life must go on and despite the terrible illness Edwards has to do what is necessary. Actually, Ms. Edwards was likely told that this day would come considering the circumstances associated with the original discovery of her cancer.
One thing though, these two have made a considerable amount of money screwing hard working physicians and their insurance with fabricated law suits. Think of the physicians lives this creep has ruined with his law suits.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at March 23, 2007 10:21 AM (G5i3t)
9
Confederate Yankee
John Edwards is not being reprehensible. Nor is his wife - who has made this decision with him.
Marriage is between two people; not one. They have made this decision together. This is not one side being irresponsible to the other one's wishes. Perhaps you are sincere but you must believe they too are sincere. I have no doubt that they have discussed in depth their goals, their aspirations, their love for each other and the things most important to their lives. But it important to note that many people who have cancer do not just give up living or give up their goals - or the goals of the ones they love. They continue on as best they can.
The Edwards are going through this together. Give them the common decency to continue to campaign together.
Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2007 04:04 PM (nBr99)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
al-Sadr Spokesman Captured; Held For Karbala Attacks
Two brothers with ties to Muqtada al-Sadr have been arrested for their role in the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala two months ago.
From
CNN:
"Over the past several days, coalition forces in Basra and Hilla captured Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali and several other members of the Khazali network," the U.S. military said in a statement.
Qais Khazali has been known to reporters as a spokesman for al-Sadr's political movement, and Reuters news agency reported that Khazali is a senior aide to the anti-American cleric.
Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, a Shiite militia, is suspected of being involved in Iraq's sectarian violence.
The U.S. military said the Khazali network is "directly connected" to the January killings in Karbala, the Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.
On Wednesday, a U.S. official said the brothers were suspected of being part of a network using weapons known as explosively formed projectiles or penetrators. Bush administration officials have alleged that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force have provided these munitions to Shiite groups in Iraq.
Those
grains of salt I spoke of yesterday? They just got smaller, especially when considered with
other developments, all of which are providing more evidence that the Iranian role in the Iraq War may be larger than we were previously aware, and potentially growing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:28 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Cartoon Justice
The editor of a French satire magazine has been acquitted of insulting Muslims by re-publishing cartoons of Mohammed.
Paris will begin burning this evening.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:09 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 22, 2007 10:37 AM (oC8nQ)
2
....et plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Posted by: Actual at March 22, 2007 04:01 PM (Mhg3b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 162 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.2227 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2063 seconds, 165 records returned.
Page size 144 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
