Confederate Yankee
March 21, 2007
Red Meat. Season Well With Large Grains of Salt
It's based upon unconfirmed reports from unknown informants, but the allegations made in this story could be interesting if corroborated by another source:
Iraqi insurgents, guerrilla fighters and death squads are being trained in secret camps in Iran with the blessing of top Tehran leaders and at least three senior Iraqi political figures, an Iranian opposition figure said Tuesday.
Would-be Iraqi fighters are smuggled into Iran, schooled in everything from sniper techniques to explosive devices and sent back to Iraq to wage war on U.S.-led coalition forces, Alireza Jafarzadeh said at a news conference.
It is important to note that Jafarzadeh has worked for the Mujahedin al-Khalq, an anti-Iranian terrorist group, and presently leads the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting think tank.
Perhaps the most interesting part of his claim is his specificity of those named as being among the Iranian leaders involved in the plot.
Jafarzadeh said Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are closely connected to the training. He said Abu Ahmad Al-Ramisi, governor of southern Iraq's Al-Muthanna province, and two members of Iraq's National Assembly are also involved.
He identified one as Hadi Al-Ameri, who he said is chairman of the legislature's security committee and head of the Badr Corps, the Iran-based military wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The other is an assembly member known in Iraq as Abu Mehdi Mohandas, he said.
Before the day is out, I expect that a fevered left-wing blogger (or ten) will state that the Bush Administration is behind Jafarzadeh's comments, and that these comments will be used to justify a military attack on Iran.
I don't think that is the case.
If there is any Administration involvement behind Jafarzadeh's charges, it seems that the goal of such specific charges would be to embarrass the Iranian government to stop or restrict their involvement in funding and supplying violence in Iraq.
It is known fact that Iran is supplying anti-government forces within Iraq with weapons—the confiscation of more than 100 Iranian Styer HS50 sniper rifles
proves that beyond any reasonable doubt—but blaming Iran the nation is far easier for the mullacracy to dodge than are charges levied against individual Iranian officials.
Will specifically alleging the involvement of key senior Iranian government officials have any impact in slowing the flow of weapons, funding, or training from Iran to Iraq's anti-government forces? I somewhat doubt it, but at this point, it may be the only option on the table.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:02 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes, huge grains of salt. We don't need another Chalabi throwing us any more curveballs.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 21, 2007 01:35 PM (oC8nQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Inadequate Response to a Father's Loss
Yesterday in his Chicago Tribune blog "Change of Subject", Eric Zorn wrote about a two-page letter written to President Bush by Richard Landeck, father of Captain Kevin Landeck. Captain Landeck and Staff Sgt. Terrance D. Dunn were soldiers of the Tenth Mountain Division killed by a roadside bomb on February 6, south of Baghdad.
Richard Landeck said he mailed his letter to the President a little more than six weeks ago, and has yet to receive a response.
The letter, written two days after his son's death, is printed in full on Zorn's blog, but I'll replicate it here as well.
Feb 4, 2007
Dear Mr. Bush:
This will be the only time I will refer to you with any type of respect.
My son was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007. His name is Captain Kevin Landeck.
He served with the Tenth Mountain Division. He was killed while riding in a Humvee by a roadside bomb just south of Baghdad. He has a loving mother, a loving father and loving sister.
You took him away from us. He celebrated his 26th birthday January 30th and was married for 17 months. He graduated from Purdue University and went through the ROTC program. That is where he met his future wife. He was proud to be a part of the military and took exceptional pride in becoming a leader of men. He accepted his role as a platoon leader with exceptional enthusiasm and was proud to serve his country.
I had many conversations with Kevin before he left to serve as well as during his deployment. The message he continued to send to me was that of incompetence. Incompetence by you, (Vice President Richard) Cheney and (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. Incompetence by some of his commanders as well as the overall strategy of your decisions.
When I asked him about what he thought about your decision to "surge" more troops to Baghdad, he told me, "until the Iraqis pick up the ball, we are going to get cut to shreds. It doesn’t matter how many troops Bush sends, nothing has been addressed to solve the problem he started."
Answer me this: How in the world can you justify invading Iraq when the problem began and continues to lie in Afghanistan? I don’t want your idiotic standard answer about keeping America safe. What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with 9/11? We all know it had to do with the first Iraq war where your father failed to take Sadaam down.
Well George, you have succeeded in taking down over 3,100 of our best young men, my son being one of them. Kevin told me many times we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq and they could not do their jobs as soldiers. He said they are trained to be on the offensive and to fight but all they are doing is acting like policemen.
Well George, you or some "genius" like you who have never fought in a war but enjoy all the perks your positions afford you are making life and death decisions. In the case of my son, you made a death decision.
Let me explain a few other points he and I discussed. He said when he and his men were riding down the road in their Humvees, roadside bombs would explode and they would hear bullets bouncing off their vehicle. He said they were scared. He thought "why should we be the ones who are scared?" He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night vision glasses because as he said "we own the night" and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and "take them out." He said, "I want them to be the ones that are scared." He was denied permission. Why? It made perfect sense to me and other people who I told about this.
When he was at a checkpoint he was told that if a vehicle was coming at them even at a high rate of speed he could not arbitrarily use his weapon. He had to wave his arms and, if the vehicle did not stop, he could fire a warning shot over the vehicle. If the vehicle did not stop then, he could shoot at the tires. If the vehicle did not yet stop he could take a shot at the driver. Who in their right mind made that kind of decision?
How would you like to be at a check point with a vehicle coming at you that won't stop and go through all those motions? You will never know!
You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego's of politicians like you, your "cronies" and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.
My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you... not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.
I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!
Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don't try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night... we certainly don't.
Richard Landeck
Proud father of a fallen soldier
Eric Zorn's position on the war is abundantly clear and permeates his blog entry like grease on a paper bag, and so I'll skip his unseemly attempt to hijack Richard Landeck's grief, and focus on the letter itself.
I first read Mr. Landeck's letter on Zorn's blog last night. The anger, anguish, and loss he feels over what he sees as the needless death of his son has to wash through all but the hardest of hearts. Richard Landeck clearly loved a son he will never see again, never watch mature, raise children, and grandchildren...
I could not easily come to terms with the hurt and rage behind Landeck's letter, the loss of his son, framed by what both the grieving father and the lost son thought of the Iraq War. I still can't.
I cannot imagine sending a child to fight a war in which neither my child nor I believed, nor the pain that Mr. Landeck, his wife, daughter, and widowed daughter-in-law must now endure as the result of Captain Landeck's death. There is a huge void now in their lives that will never be filled, one that cannot be expressed. Others will see the pain and sense the loss, but they be unable to address it, and they will feel shame. There simply are no words to sooth a wound to the soul.
My own response, couched in that same embarrassed shame of not knowing what to say, is unfulfilling, and inadequate.
I somewhat suspect that President Bush has not personally seen Mr. Landeck's letter. Even if he has, what precisely would he say? What should he say? How do you respond to a grieving father that hold's you personally responsible for his son's death?
Would Richard Landeck have felt any less rage, anger, or loss if his son had been killed by an IED in Khandahar, Afghanistan? Would Kevin's death have been "better" if he had died fighting another war started by this same President? Somehow, I doubt the suffering of the Landeck family would have been much less.
We cannot fill that part of our lives where a fallen loved one once stood.
Mr. Landeck has exercised the option to feel that his son's mission and death were not worthwhile. He has every right to feel that way, to question the competence of the leaders that placed his son in combat, the commanders on the ground that declined Captain Landeck's requests for a certain specific type of mission, and the rules of engagement.
Mr. Landeck has that right, but is doesn't mean he
is right.
Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor the generals, nor the colonels, are responsible for the deaths of Captain Landeck and Staff Sgt. Dunn on February 6. The names of the man or men who planted and triggered the roadside bomb that took the lives of these soldiers may never be known.
What is known is that these men, and others like them, will continue to plant roadside bombs, detonate VBIEDs in markets or in front of police stations, killing and wounding scores of soldiers, policemen, and civilians until men like Captain Landeck stop them.
Sixty-three years and seventeen days before Kevin Landeck died, correspondent Ernie Pyle
wrote about the death of another U.S. Army Captain highly regarded by his men.
The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow's body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.
One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That's all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.
Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain's face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I'm sorry, old man."
Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:
"I sure am sorry, sir."
Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.
And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.
I sure am sorry, Mr. Landeck.
It is an inadequate response to a grieving father, but it is all I have to give.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 AM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Its sad that the lessions in Iraq are paid for in blood, but we have learned from them.Here's part of an article quoted in Ace's blog
Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.
"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."
Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 21, 2007 10:16 AM (oC8nQ)
2
In terms of the ROE's, Landeck is absolutely right. You fight to win, or not at all. I hope Petraeus is correct in having taken care of this problem, but I can't overcome my skepticism.
This thing could have been settled long ago had we only let our boys do what they do best. We should have figured that out from the first assault on Fallujah.
Posted by: Pablo at March 21, 2007 10:40 AM (EErm0)
3
I commented on this web site over one year ago that we were into another Vietnam. This letter sums up that very fact. The politicians are at it again in setting rigorous ROE's so that the papers back home will not be critical of our great leaders. If we are to fight a war then fight it, otherwise leave.
As to night patrols that the Captain desired. The British were in a similar situation in the Middle East in WWI. There answer that significantly curtailed the same problems that we face was to patrol at night and kill anything that moved.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 21, 2007 10:59 AM (G5i3t)
4
Whatever you might think about the rest of that sad letter -- the father's recriminations about ROE's seems exactly right.
Why wasn't his son allowed to go night hunting? It seems ridiculous to forbid that. He was right -- let the other guys be afraid.
Posted by: Bill Moon at March 21, 2007 12:03 PM (qmM4O)
5
I am intrigued by your challenge that no one in several years on Extreme Games has made a cogent argument in favor of our continuing presence in Iraq. I thought I would take a stab at it, and I hope this exercise proves useful.
The only purpose for the Iraq incursion or wars is to prevent the use of WMD, in particular VX gas or detonated nuclear bombs, in the United States. The war in Iraq was begun with this purpose, and continues with this purpose.
Lesser considerations include standing by our ally Israel, and protecting our source of petroleum until we make the transition to non-petroleum energy sources.
Although the administration talks about a stable and democratic Iraq as a stabilizing force in the Mideast, I believe they are simply trying to forestall a return of a Baath party dictator or a similar dictator, with enormous petrodollar funds and a desire to provide WMD to terrorists.
Saddam Hussein had major nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
His chemical weapons program killed 5,000 Kurds, and was reported to be the only use ever of VX in war.
VX, discovered in England in 1953(?) has a lethal dose roughly the size of Lincoln’s eye on a penny. It is available as an aerosol, passes through skin, works quickly, and lingers.
Saddam had massive amounts of VX.
Saddam's nuclear program was primarily located in Libya.
Libya has a population of 6 million, a GDP of $30 billion (roughly one fourth of the Massachusetts economy), and a 75% literacy rate. Their nuclear program was built in an immense underground complex, and encompassed up to 20,000 scientists with a budget of $20 billion. The money and technicians came largely from Iraq.
When Libya was caught red-handed and gave over the nuclear equipment to the US, most of the program, including whereabouts of most technicians, has remained a deep secret. I can only surmise that there are details of participation of other Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and thus secrecy was preferred. The nuclear equipment and materials are now kept in Tennessee. Saudi Arabia was the main source of funding for the Pakistan nuclear program.
Libya was not the only location. Iraqi intelligence officials were working in Mauritania, intended as a launch site for ballistic missiles to threaten the US.
Had the Libya program been completed, Iraq would have had 10 crude nuclear devices a year.
Saddam Hussein was not an ally of Al-Queda, in fact, he was somewhat opposed to it. He did sponsor terrorism. Of course, his main opponent was Iran. He perceived his other enemies as the United States, and Israel.
Where did they go? Most of the WMD and the manufacturing equipment were taken to other countries, most likely Syria and Lebanon in the weeks leading up to the war.
And in the end, this is not so important because of the easy technology to create more VX and more biological toxins. If a government with enough money wants to get into the WMD business, it’s not hard, and many small countries have such programs.
A nuclear bomb is much harder to manufacture, as the centrifuges needed to refine the Uranium or Plutonium are expensive and hard to operate. They can be heard from satellite by their distinct electromagnetic signatures, so they are a hard secret to keep.
The war against Iraq has ended the Iraqi Nuclear, Biological and Chemical threat against the west. For this fact alone, I am truly grateful. Iraq has so much oil, and so much money, that an Iraqi government willing to fund terrorists would be a huge disaster, and it is to preclude this that we remain fighting in Iraq.
Why has the war gone so badly?
Most counter-insurgency efforts lose badly. In Africa, look at Algeria and most of French Equatorial Africa. In Asia, look at Vietnam. The last insurgency that lost was Malaysia in 1955(?).
It doesn’t seem to matter if we treat the populace nicely or bomb them mercilessly. If the insurgents are willing to die for their cause, they always win.
Most casualties in Vietnam were from mines. Many more died from ambush tactics. American generals will say, ”We never lost a battle!” but do not realize that insurgent tactics depend on inflicting terror and casualties, not winning battles.
Torture gave us little useful information in Algeria. (Battle of Algiers was a sensational movie!) and little useful information in Vietnam. In both situations and in Iraq, the enemy had better intelligence.
The American military has the pernicious habit of each branch of the service unwilling to take less money that the other branches. Shame on the Navy and Air Force for not permitting the Army a larger budget during a time of greater needs.
There should never be even a moment when US soldiers have less than the best equipment, in superb condition. We leaned in WWII that inferior Sherman tanks, “Tommy-cookers” cost many Allied lives. So too, our present vehicles are considered inadequate and dangerous compared to vehicles made in other countries.
There are an enormous variety of vehicles designed to do well if they hit land mines or are ambushed by grenades. While US tanks are superb, the other vehicles are marginal, and cost many US lives.
We are still using the M-16 rifle, and they still jam if you look at them funny.
What a mistake not to have enormous, comfortable prison camps where suspected insurgents can be kept for months or years as POW’s. No torture, just keep these guys from causing trouble.
What a mistake not to offer jobs to all the young men in Iraq who then turn to gangster behavior to make their living.
It was impressive to see the high vote turnout in Iraq, but that means little when a small insurgency can continue terror.
Army officers have a peculiar blind spot. After Blackhawk Down, the officers saw only a few casualties, and thought things were going well. As we saw the soldiers being dragged through the streets, the citizens of the United States reacted with shock.
The military is so used to hearing of thousands of casualties in the battles of history, so relatively low casualty figures are seem as success. The loss of three US troops per day is seen as a very acceptable loss to the military. For US civilians, that number is high. For Bush-haters, that number is unconscionable.
What next? Advice for President Bush for the next two years…
I am going to suggest that we adopt the ‘Clinton’ military policy of absolutely minimizing US casualties.
We should confine our activities to providing fire support, including air strikes and artillery, for the Iraqi troops, from fortified bases away from population centers.
We can provide training, supplies, and prison care for captured insurgents.
We already use roughly 25,000 soldiers for hire. We should double this number.
We should lessen our goals to that of preventing Iraq from falling into the hands of a terrorist supporting government. Other than that, they can fight each other until they are all dead and gone.
Our job is to prevent a terror supporting dictatorship in Iraq, and help find terrorists everywhere around the world.
Our additional job is to get tough on all purveyors of equipment that can be used to make WMD.
The president and vice-president need speech therapy. Please, no more stupid grins. Please, no more stumbling sentences
Every speech they make should include references to nuclear weapons, nerve gas, or smallpox or anthrax toxins, either describing our success in tracking down terrorists with such weapons, or identifying countries developing such weapons.
I have never served in the military, so my opinions do not reflect that of an experienced soldier, but reflections of a concerned patriot.
Posted by: kwillcox at March 21, 2007 01:17 PM (WcUWX)
6
kwilcox -- Saddam Hussein had major nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
David Kay, the man Bush appointed to conduct the search for WMD in Iraq, said "We were all wrong." No one in the administration issued a correction.
Sometime afterward we found 500 expired nerve gas weapons, which Charles Dulfer, Kay's successor, said were less dangerous than items found under a kitchen sink.
Nuclear weapons are incredibly valuable. Do you think that Saddam would pay to develop a nuclear warhead in Libya and then sit around and hope that Qaddafi would hand it over to him? He tried that once before. He entrusted his air force to Iran before Gulf War I so that the US wouldn't destroy his planes. Guess what? Iran kept them. How trusting do you think Saddam would be that Libya would hand over a weapon which would put them among a handful of elite nations?
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 21, 2007 02:43 PM (7IB7k)
7
Lex - What makes you think the nerve gas weapons were "expired"? Binary shells have a long shelf life. And, comparing Saddam's close relationship with Libya, another Arab country with whom he had no quarrel, to his relationship with Persian Iran with whom he fought a bitter 8 year war is not very convincing.
kwilcox makes one erroneous assumption, though, in claiming that insurgents always win. In fact, a successful insurgency is more an exception than a rule.
Posted by: Bart at March 21, 2007 03:59 PM (LnNoC)
8
Shining Path, Red Brigades, Bader Meinhoff, etc
All kaput.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 21, 2007 04:41 PM (M+Nj2)
9
Bart: I was wrong, David Kay said this as well, and the other fellow's name is Duelfer, not Dulfer.
Anyway, here's Kay's quotation on the 500 shells:
"less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."
To me that's expired all right.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 21, 2007 05:08 PM (7IB7k)
10
We have a son, too. He's 15 years old but he has the mind of 9 month old and he always will, even though he has a normal life expectancy. We have never known our son as a thinking person and we never will, unlike Mr. Landeck and his family.
Our son is brain-injured from a immunization. He was born with a rare immunological condition and is one of very few people that the CDC says should not be immunized. Unfortunately, however, we did not know this before he was immunized and suffered permanent brain damage. His condition and prognosis have been confirmed by doctors at highly regarded medical institutions throughout the US that we consulted in our search for answers to his condition.
I'm sharing this story because sometimes life isn't fair and, in the worst cases, the unfairness affects our children rather than us. We have two choices when this happens. We can look at life through our grief and bitterness, but when we do that it will gnaw at us and everyone around us forever. Or we can move on and make the best of the life we have. Having a spiritual foundation helps a lot.
I hope Mr. Landeck can move past his bitterness and grief, and may God bless his son for his service to our country.
Posted by: DRJ at March 21, 2007 06:07 PM (UGd8i)
11
Yea Lex thats why the US government spend millions of dollars to de-mil even older chemical weapons. Next time can we just store them under YOUR sink?
Posted by: tracelan at March 21, 2007 10:37 PM (ZlXVq)
12
Lex: 'Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who believes the shells represent weapons of mass destruction, asked: "If you took that material and got it out of the country and took it to a metropolitan area, what would be the impact?" Maples replied, "I think conceivably it would have a very large impact."'
I tell you what, you're so certain, let's have a contest. I'll take something from under my sink and rub it into my arms and, you take some of those chemical weapons found in Iraq and do the same. The guy who has the least reaction wins. It'll never happen, of course but, it's fun to visualize you squirming out of it.
Posted by: Bart at March 21, 2007 10:46 PM (LnNoC)
13
tracelan & Bart,
Weldon is very likely a felon, and beyond that he's a lunatic. Before being booted out of office he said "the jury is still out" on WMD, so even he was not willing to assert on record that Saddam had WMD.
I guess you two know more about biological weapons than David Kay, the man appointed by Bush to conduct the weapons search. Bush should have hired you two.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 12:55 AM (7IB7k)
14
forget kay--you can go back to marine veteran of gulf war I and weapons inspector in iraq scott ritter's testimony on iraq's nuclear/biological weapons capabilities to find out what its taken kay and bush and blair and america four years to realize: sure, hussein had the *desire* to rebuild his program, but didn't have the *ability*. ritter was there for nearly a DECADE specifically tasked with making a case for hussein's *ability* but repeatedly came up short.
just read ritter's book, "iraq confidential," to learn how the Agency and the DIA and the israelis conspired to hamstring the inspections process--they didn't WANT the verdict on iraq to be "does not constitute a viable threat". every trip home--to tender his report on the scant evidence for wmds found--ritter was sidelined, his character besmirched, his opinions shouted down, his findings buried. when he would return to iraq, he would be perpetually tailed by an Agency man masquerading as part of the UN team because he'd become a liability.
like i said, ritter was a marine veteran of ops desert shield and storm, and after seeing fellow soldiers fall ill from the "gulf war syndrome" (likely side-effects of vaccine A treatments or exposure to the spent uranium used in US shell casings), NO ONE wanted to see hussein's secret cache of wmds exposed more. so why not believe the vet?
besides, the arm-chair analysts can shout all day long about the wmds "most likely" getting carted off to syria, or qadaffi's cozy relationship with hussein (as if all of those byzantine middle-eastern relationships are as solid as, say, the washington-london or beijing-pyongyang axes), but the stark reality is that the bush team gave us EVERYTHING they had in the old files PLUS some when they made their case for war. do you honestly think they'd have played up niger yellowcake when they had a libyan underground nuclear complex funded by saddam? either the bush cabal is stupider than anyone has thus far imagined or there was more there than meets the eye that someone doesn't want publicly known (like the flash-in-the-pan story about halliburton supplying iran with *nuclear reactors* a few years back--domestic reactors, to be sure, but nuclear reactors just the same.)
and if folks like "kwillcox" still won't be convinced that the US knew *all about* what comprised hussein's program, just shove alan friedman's "spider's web: the secret history of how the [reagan-bush] white house illegally armed iraq" (written in 1993) in their face.
richard landeck would've grieved his son had he died in afghanistan, of course. but having lost his boy in *iraq* gives him every right to be grief-stricken AND pissed...
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 03:42 AM (aR1dK)
15
That would be Scott Ritter, Al Jazeera columnist, who claimed the U.S. rigged the Iraqi elections.
This would be Scott Ritter, who took $400,000 from an Iraqi-American businessman to film a WMD Documentary in 2000, that was apparently financed with U.N. Oil-For-Food money.
This would be the same Scott Ritter that also continues to claim that those damn Israeli Jews are continuing to push U.S. into war with Iran.
Scott Ritter has twice been arrested by police for attempting to meet underage girls he met on the Internet.
Pardon me for not taking the word of a bribe-taking Jew-hating conspiracy-minded pedophile.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2007 06:22 AM (HcgFD)
16
Pay attention Lex. I said CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Now you are talking about biological weapons.
I was talking about places like CAMDS or JACADS among other.
All of those chemical weapons were much older than anything found in Iraq.
Since you seem to think these old chemical weapons are so safe, I'll ask again:
Next time can we just store them under YOUR sink?
Posted by: tracelan at March 22, 2007 09:16 AM (ZlXVq)
17
The ROE for the first few years of the war have been horribly restrictive and I too pray that General Petreus will put an end to that. It's been said many times that if our guys were allowed to fight, the war would have already been won. But let's not kid ourselves. The reason the ROE were restictive is because of the 24/7 media driven culture we live in. War is ugly and innocents will die. It is we, the people, that must allow the politicians to release the dogs of war to do their duty -- world condemnation and media scutiny of every accidental civilian death be damned. Our men and women of the fighting forces are the best we have and their sacrifices are more than we can imagine. The least we can do is support them in their efforts and that means allowing them to make war, and make war to win. That will not always be pretty, but it is necessary. Support the troops, let them win.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at March 22, 2007 09:34 AM (d5LvD)
18
Lex - attack Weldon all you like. He just asked the question. The reply from Maples was "I think conceivably it would have a very large impact."
Posted by: Bart at March 22, 2007 09:57 AM (LnNoC)
19
tracelan,
Pay attention Lex. I said CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Now you are talking about biological weapons.
Like it makes a difference.
Contact the administration ASAP with your insight about the 500 shells! Bush wants nothing more than to find WMD in Iraq. He gave up and called off the search long ago. It's unpatriotic of you to hoard this trove of knowledge. You are a man of destiny. I feel lucky to have made your acquaintance, however brief.
Bart --
Lex - attack Weldon all you like. He just asked the question. The reply from Maples was "I think conceivably it would have a very large impact."
It amazes me that you can think this is a big deal when neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc heralded it. Certainly the 500 shells were not worth $500 billion and 3200 soldiers, at least not to most of us. Perhaps you think this was well spent though.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 10:46 AM (7IB7k)
20
There's no reason for Bush to herald something that's already been proven. We all know that Saddam was never going to cooperate with inspectors and was never going account for or clean up his previous weapons programs or give up the possibility of having a future weapons program once the heat was off.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 22, 2007 11:01 AM (oC8nQ)
21
CY,
Al Jazeera published a Ritter article, but it's inaccurate to imply that he works for Al Jazeera. That network has published articles by many Americans.
Ritter stated unequivocally that he was unaware of the ultimate source of funds for his documentary, and that there was any tit-for-tat involved. He's got a long and distinguished military career, including working directly for Schwarzkopf, so it's easy to believe that he's patriotic.
This would be the same Scott Ritter that also continues to claim that those damn Israeli Jews are continuing to push U.S. into war with Iran.
AIPAC is hawkish on Iran. Anyway, why do you imply that Ritter is anti-semitic because he disfavors bombing Iran? Lots of folks who aren't anti-semitic, and lots of Jews, don't wish to engage Iran militarily.
As for the pedophilia thing, I know of only one charge, and it was eventually dropped, so legally Ritter's record is clean.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 11:22 AM (7IB7k)
22
lex said it better (and nicer) than i could, yankee. reminds me of a line from a movie lawyer--pertaining to a witness with a seedy background--i heard once: "I always wondered why, if she was a whore, she also had to have bad eyesight."
truth is the casualty here, even if one of the only ones shouting it was a "bribe-taking Jew-hating conspiracy-minded pedophile." the "pedophile conspiracy theorist" was **right**, you guys wrong. i'm sorry that galls you so...
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 11:33 AM (aR1dK)
23
Bohica22:
There's no reason for Bush to herald something that's already been proven.
What baloney. Bush doesn't even pretend that we found WMD. Nobody in his administration does. You are paranoid. You feel like the MSM is lying to you, but in reality not even Bush asserts that he found WMD. Instead he pretends like "marching Democracry" was his goal all along, or at least he did until it became apparent that that ain't gonna happen. Now I'm not even sure what his rationale is. Wait, I do--he wants to bomb Iran.
We all know that Saddam was never going to cooperate with inspectors
But the inspectors made hundreds of searches in every place they desired and found nothing, yet Bush hurried to war nonetheless. I'm sorry that you in a coma during 2002-2003.
and was never going account for or clean up his previous weapons programs or give up the possibility of having a future weapons program once the heat was off.
You're hedging. On top of that, this is certainly no justification for $500 billion and 3,200 soldiers.
Reality is not your friend.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 12:24 PM (7IB7k)
24
"But the inspectors made hundreds of searches in every place they desired and found nothing"
Ha! talk about reality being your enemy. Saddam NEVER granted the unconditional and unrestricted access to inspectors mandated by UN resolution. Oh, and saying that Saddam didn't have a current weapons program, but wanted to have one in the future isn't hedging one's bets. Burying a nuclear centrifuge in your back yard, that's hedging one's bets.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 22, 2007 01:51 PM (oC8nQ)
25
Saddam NEVER granted the unconditional and unrestricted access to inspectors mandated by UN resolution.
That's worth $500 billion and 3,200 soldiers? Anyway it's misleading. There's no place the inspectors wanted to get into where they didn't. They would have looked in more places, but Bush abruptly brought them home so he could attack.
"Burying a nuclear centrifuge in your back yard"
Where do you get this stuff?
Again, Bush has no pretense of finding WMD, yet you are saying he did, only he won't admit it for reasons you won't disclose. You are a Ward Churchill of the right.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 02:19 PM (7IB7k)
26
Bob, your sentiments strike me as exactly right on this. I've been struggling with Mr. Landeck's letter for a couple of days now.
Kevin Landeck is from Wheaton, IL, the same town I live in. I didn't know him, but learned about him from reading the local stories, and almost went to his services, but didn't. I was sorry later that I didn't, when I saw the pictures of the schoolkids lined up for his funeral procession, and his wife saluting his casket, etc. I was sufficiently moved to write this, Godspeed, Capt. Kevin Landeck, trying to capture my own conflicted feelings and my sorrow for a young man gone too soon. Quite a few of those pics at that link too.
The ROE's were definitely too restrictive, but that is nothing new to those of us who follow these things closely. So good on ya, Gen. Petraeus, for clarifying these ROEs, and maybe fewer fine young people like Kevin Landeck will be sacrificed because of it.
Bottom line, let's win the damn thing, so these young lives are not spent for nothing.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at March 22, 2007 02:37 PM (gRKpB)
27
"Where do you get this stuff?"
Its called the real world, welcome.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 22, 2007 03:14 PM (oC8nQ)
28
you aren't digging deep enough, Bohica:
"But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he’d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he’d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam’s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime. If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth.
Soon, not only was Obeidi no longer a marquee name for the Bush team, he was incommunicado. Whisked off to a safe house in Kuwait, with no access to phones or the Internet, he waited in vain for what he thought had been offered to him: asylum in the United States and green cards granting permanent residency to him and his eight-member family.
...
[W]ith the Obeidi case, the message being sent by the Bush administration to Iraqi scientists being interrogated in Iraq is a troublesome one: if you don’t tell us what we want to hear, you won’t be rewarded. In fact, things might even get a little unpleasant for you. As [Former U.N. inspector David] Albright points out, provisional green cards can be arranged very quickly; among those so favored, for example, was the Iraqi man who tipped off the U.S. military to the whereabouts of Pfc. Jessica Lynch. 'I think they’re just keeping him under wraps,' said Albright."
get that?
"...the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program."
who's living in the *real* world here?
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 03:52 PM (fd/rX)
29
source for the above:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3068200/
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 03:54 PM (fd/rX)
30
MSN is tying two stories together. I never said that the aluminum tubes were proof of a current nuclear weapons program. Hell, I never even mentioned the tubes. I am only asserting exactly what is said. That Iraq HAD a nuclear weapons program and they buried it, literally, to keep it hidden, waiting for the world to lose interest. I for one am glad Saddam was hung by the neck before he would get this chance to put this program back together.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 22, 2007 04:10 PM (oC8nQ)
31
"Oh, and saying that Saddam didn't have a current weapons program, but wanted to have one in the future isn't hedging one's bets. Burying a nuclear centrifuge in your back yard, that's hedging one's bets." --Bohica
"Saddam had never reconstituted his [NON-nuclear] centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime." --Mahdi Obeidi, Iraqi scientist-cum-Agency source
hmmm... whom to believe?
"I never said that the aluminum tubes were proof of a current nuclear weapons program." --Bohica
they aren't, apperently, proof of a *past* nuclear weapons program, either:
"...the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program." --Mahdi Obeidi, Iraqi scientist-cum-Agency source
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 04:24 PM (fd/rX)
32
Bohica22, I remember the rose garden incident now. Those 12 year-old centrifuge *components* (not even a working centrifuge, much less uranium) are a far cry from a WMD program much less the actual WMD we were promised in the buildup to the war.
So we've got 500 expired chemical shells and some centrifuge component buried under a rose garden. Yes or no, is this justification for 3,200 soldiers and $500 billion?
Bear in mind that while we've been tied down in Iraq, North Korea and Iran have been actually developing nukes, and Pakistan's been selling nuke components on the open market.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 22, 2007 05:02 PM (7IB7k)
33
in north korea's case, the bush admin has actually been helping out:
"US grants N Korea nuclear funds
Wednesday, 3 April, 2002, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors."
....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm
read that last part carefully...
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2007 05:21 PM (aR1dK)
34
Jon, explain to me what a non-nuclear centrifuge project is?
Lex, the only people currently tied down in Iraq are the Third Infantry Division. Are you suggesting we use them against Iran to stop their nuke program? Damn, you're quite the hawk. CY has only suggested air strikes and an aggressive naval blockade against Iran. He never went as far as to send M1s to Tehran.
Oh, and calling Bush out on partially following through on a CLINTON plan to appease the NorKs is low, especially since all of Kim's funds are currently tied up in Macau.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 23, 2007 08:20 AM (oC8nQ)
35
Lex and Jon are just twisting themselves into pretzels trying to deny the obvious, which is that Saddam manufactured, possessed and employed WMD in the past and only a fool would believe he had no intention of doing so in the future. What is it that makes this basic, elementary truth so difficult to grasp by the usual suspects? Shrunken hippocampus?
Posted by: Bart at March 23, 2007 10:08 AM (LnNoC)
36
now this conversation just got stupid and boring.
"A centrifuge is a piece of equipment, generally driven by a motor, that puts an object in rotation around a fixed axis, applying force perpendicular to the axis. The centrifuge works using the sedimentation principle, where the centripetal acceleration is used to separate substances of greater and less density. There are many different kinds of centrifuges, including those for very specialised purposes." --Wiki
needless-to-say, these aren't exclusively used for nuclear purposes.
s'long, B.
Posted by: jon at March 23, 2007 11:05 AM (k9t8G)
37
Stupid, I'll afree with you there. A gas centrifuge, like the one Obeidi was working on, has only one purpose. Pretending Iraq's secret centrifuge project was for anything other than uranium enrichment is as stupid as you can get.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 23, 2007 12:22 PM (oC8nQ)
38
Occaisionally the French unearth caches of munitions from the Great war - chemical rounds. when they do they evacuate everyone in the area and carefully haul them away to be disposed of.
Old chemical rounds are dangerous.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 23, 2007 01:17 PM (O9Cc8)
39
Bohica22, Bart:
"So we've got 500 expired chemical shells and some centrifuge component buried under a rose garden. Yes or no, is this justification for 3,200 soldiers and $500 billion?"
Yes or no?
Mikey NTH - David Kay, weapons inspector appointed by Bush, said the 500 shells are less dangerous than what people have under their kitchen sinks. No one in the administration contradicted him. Just deal with it.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 23, 2007 01:23 PM (7IB7k)
40
Lex, you speak of the WMD issue as if it was the only issue went went to war with Iraq. It is just one of almost two dozen reasons listed by the White House, though certainly the one that got the most press.
The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire.
Of course, if you needed it, you could bring up the fact that Saddam attacked U.S. and British forces constantly in what became known as the No-Fly Zone war, with a serious increase in incidents starting in December, 1998.
You may very well be right about Saddam's WMDs (though I happen to know someone in the DIA who is working on a book suggesting otherwise), but that is not the only reason to justify the invasion.
As for why we remain now, I posted on WaPo yesterday why over continued involvement is worth the lives we've given and will give. They botched my paragraph breaks, so I'll reintroduce them:
Lots of self-styled experts here, I see, most of which couldn't find Amel if I gave them a map of Baghdad, don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, and probably think JAM is something you spread on toast. Overwhelmingly, it is this same crowd that strongly advocates pulling out of Iraq posthaste, with little regard and absolutely no understanding of precisely what effect that would have.
Iraq is arguably engaged in a conflict that is not quite a civil war, and if the Coalition forces withdraw precipitously, there are indications that the Iraqi government, still trying to establish the monopoly of force needed to ensure security, cannot hold.
The expected result of a collapse is a true civil war, devolving into an attempted genocide of Sunnis by Shia extremists.
Saudi Arabia has already publicly stated that if this occurs, they will provide military aid and funding to the Sunnis to keep their co-religionists from being wiped out. At the same time, Iran will increase as they have already been increasing their military support of the Shia, in hopes of establishing control over Iraqs oil fields in the south of the country.
Bluntly put, the immediate pullout of American forces that the so called pro-peace, anti-war crowd would instead likely lead to a regional war perhaps proxy, or perhaps evolving into direct combat between Saudi Arabia and Iran, occurring primarily on Iraqi soil. The human toll of such a conflict will dwarf that of the war weve seen in Iraq thus far, with Iraqi civilians taking the brunt of the casualties.
I think that it would not be unrealistic to suggest that the casualties of such a conflict could, in one year, equal or surpass all the deaths attributed to the Iraq War we are presently engaged in. If the conflict stalemated into long war such what we saw in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iraq War, we might expect to see perhaps similar number of dead and wounded, roughly a million.
This, of course, does not account for the global economic problems that would arise as the result of the near-certain shutdown of the Persian Gulf and the oil transported through it for the duration of the conflict. In the United States we'd suffer much higher gas prices and likely enter a recession. A few hundred thousand people would lose their jobs and their homes, and perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand people dying indirectly as a result.
We'd be getting out of it fairly easy.
Developing nations would suffer far worst, with economies of some nations collapsing, and civil war and rebellions possibly resulting.
Here is the essential reality far too many Americans are unwilling to admit: We broke Iraq. Whatever we meant to do, we made this mess, and like your mother told you countless times as a kid, when you make a mess, you are responsible for doing everything you can to clean it up.
The Petraeus plan, which includes the so-called surge, is our last best hope for stabilizing Iraq, and well know, and know obviously, within a year whether or not Iraq can be stabilized.
Over the course of the last three years of the war, weve lost roughly 850 soldiers killed and had another 6,800 or so wounded per year. Is it worth risking another 850 deaths and 6,800 soldiers wounded to implement the Patreaeus plan and perhaps keep a much wider war from killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and crippling the oil-dependant economies of developing nations?
That is a decision each of you will have to make, and if objective, the answer should be obvious. If you do look at everything Ive laid out for you, however, and can still state that the correct course of action is a full and immediate withdrawal, then you have gone far beyond being partisan, and have become something else entirely.
Executioners.
There is your answer, Lex. We broke it, and we need to give our best effort to fix it. It is worth the 3,200 lives we've lost, and the 850 will will likely lose in the next year if it keeps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands from dying. It is worth 6,800 more wounded soldiers to head-off a projected genocide and regional war, and the likely shutdown of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf which will hurt developing nations even worse than our own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 23, 2007 02:15 PM (9y6qg)
41
Lex. The answer is yes. Those shells and centrifuge components prove that Saddam was in clear violation of UN Resolution 1441 and about 10 other resolutions as well as the agreements signed by Iraq at the conclusion of the first Gulf War. This along with Saddam's willingness to work with terrorists of all sorts, makes me believe that we made the right decision in invading Iraq. I have some problems with how the reconstruction was mishandled, but that doesn't change my opinion that we did the right thing.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 23, 2007 02:55 PM (oC8nQ)
42
"The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. [He] attacked U.S. and British forces constantly in what became known as the No-Fly Zone war...." --yankee
you mean he tried to re-invade kuwait? he re-launched scuds against israel? he rebuilt the nuclear programme israel destoyed in 1981? b/c THOSE were the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, not the acceptance of the "no-fly zones".
not that it matters now that saddam is dead, but this is exactly how history is re-written: saddam never ratified or recognized the no-fly zones, so to "violate them" was not a violation of the cease-fire. yet this was cited as one of the 'violations' saddam had to be held accountable for.
if, for example, the US were to invade its southern neighbor (oops! we did that already) and a multinational army were to invade the US in return imposing "no-fly zones" on the US between the 35th and 45th parallels, would the US accept that? of course not! no sovereign nation would! UN resolution 681*, ratified by iraq in 1991, never mentioned these "no-fly zones", so they shouldn't (if one wants to be 'fair&balanced') be cited as an example of hussein's belligerency.
besides, he was most aggressive when the white house gave him leave: the toppling of kassem in 1963 (supported by the CIA and DIA at the time) and the invasions of iran and kuwait. april gillespie, the US ambassador to iraq gave him tacit approval for the invasion of kuwait, telling him, on the eve of the invasion,
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."
this was cited in newspapers at the time, as was his slaughter of the kurds in 1988 (about which reagan-bush said/did nothing). why doesn't this sink in with you when discussing the man? after all, our relationship with hussein didn't begin in 1990...
*read it in full here:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Posted by: jon at March 23, 2007 09:36 PM (k9t8G)
43
Lex asked: 'Yes or no, is this justification for 3,200 soldiers and $500 billion?"'
Uh... YEAH! Were you around on September 11, 2001, Lex, or were you locked in a mental ward somewhere? Oh, that's right, there was no connection between Saddam and the instability afflicting the Middle East, breeding terrorism against the US. Well, except for this:
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So, you would prefer to maintain the sanctions, enriching Saddam personally as well as all the Oil-for-Food scammers, causing far more deaths in Iraq than have died as a result of the war and its aftermath, and breeding terrorists like flies justifiably enraged at the treatment of the Iraqi people as geopolitical pawns, and lull yourself into a false sense of complacency that Hitler would never ally with Stalin, or rather Saddam would never ally himself or make use of Osama and his gang, or any of the other terrorists whom he supported and sheltered, to attack us.
That's not just stupid, Lex, it is sublimely stupid.
Posted by: Bart at March 24, 2007 12:13 AM (LnNoC)
44
So, Jon, Saddam was really just a nice guy who was misunderstood and we are no better than he, is that your basic point? I have only one question, because I am perplexed: who, exactly, are you expecting to be receptive to that message?
Posted by: Bart at March 24, 2007 12:16 AM (LnNoC)
45
bart, you don't sound perplexed, you sound really, really confused. uhhhmm...tell me again where i said saddam was "nice"? yeeeaahh...get back with me on that.
oh, and bart--meet NIE. NIE, meet bart.
Posted by: jon at March 24, 2007 01:03 AM (k9t8G)
Posted by: jon at March 24, 2007 01:13 AM (k9t8G)
47
Bart,
That's a great link, except for one thing. Guess who said this: "We have no evidence that Saddam was involved with the 11 September attacks."
Now guess who said this: "Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris
and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."
Wihtout doubt we would be much better off having finished the job in Afghanistan and getting Bin Laden, rather than hurrying into an unrelated misadventure in Iraq.
Saddam was a brutal tyrant, not a jihadist. Yes he gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers, but as PR. He was the furthest thing from a religious man, and he and the religiously-motivated Bin Laden distrusted each other.
That first quotation above is from George W. Bush. The second one is from Osama bin Laden.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 24, 2007 01:52 PM (7IB7k)
48
CY: We broke it, and we need to give our best effort to fix it.
I agree that this is a noble sentiment, but where we differ is that I don't think we can win. Our military forces are the greatest the world has seen, but their hands are tied. If we are too aggressive, we kill innocents and breed that many more terrorists. Our soldiers are trained for war, and they are being asked to be policemen.
I've quoted retired General William Odom here a number of times. He was in charge of the NSA under Reagan. He makes a convincing argument here that we have no upside in staying in Iraq.
Also, poll after poll shows that the Iraqis want us to leave, and greater numbers feel this way over time. How can we introduce a democracy if they don't want us there in the first place?
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 24, 2007 01:59 PM (7IB7k)
49
Bohica22:
Q: "So we've got 500 expired chemical shells and some centrifuge component buried under a rose garden. Yes or no, is this justification for 3,200 soldiers and $500 billion?"
Your answer: Yes
I wish it was your job to announce troop deaths to family members: "Your son made a noble sacrifice. Through his death we were able to unearth centrifuge components from under a rose garden in Iraq. You can sleep well tonight."
I'm sure you can see that following this course we will destroy our army and go broke over the coming years: next up we have Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea to attack, because each of these is hostile to us and has far more nuclear capability than Saddam did.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 24, 2007 02:09 PM (7IB7k)
50
CY:
From this poll of Iraqis:
-----------------------------------
17. There can be differences between the way government is set up in a country, called political systems. From the three options I am going to read to you, which one do you think would be best for Iraq now?
Strong leader: a govt headed by one man for life
2005: 26%
2007: 35%
Islamic state: where politicians rule according to religious principles:
2005: 14%
2007: 22%
Democracy: a govt with a chance for the leader(s) to be replaced from time to time:
2005: 57%
2007: 43%
18. And which of these systems will be best for Iraq in five years time?
Strong leader: a govt headed by one man for life
2005: 18%
2007: 26%
Islamic state: where politicians rule according to religious principles:
2005: 12%
2007: 22%
Democracy: a govt with a chance for the leader(s) to be replaced from time to time:
2005: 64%
2007: 53%
28. Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?
3/5/07:
Better 21%
Worse 69%
No effect 10%
30. Thinking about the political action of other people, do you find each of these items to be acceptable or not acceptable?
Attacks on coalition forces
Acceptable 51%
Not acceptable 49%
-----------------------------------
We're four years, 3,200 soldiers, and $500 billion dollars in, and fewer Iraqis support democracy than did two years ago, and more support an Islamic state or a dictator. Perhaps worst of all, 51% of Iraqis think it's acceptable to harm US troops.
I just don't see any upside.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 24, 2007 03:26 PM (7IB7k)
51
Dear mr Landeck,
I wish to address a couple of points yu brought up in your letter. You asked why your sonn was not allowed to conduct patrols at night to find terrorists who were planting bombs. Do you recall a speech made by a Democratic Senator named John Kerry in which he painted an image of American troops kicking in doors and terrorising the citizens? There is part of your answer.
In talking about why his men could not shoot at a speeding vehicle in self defense do you remember another Democratic Senator John Murtha who made much of this matter and we now have 8 Marines pending trial for doing just that.
Have you heard of Lt Pantino? He did just such a thing and was also put on trial.
Your anger is misdirected. It is others who through their constant crictism of how we conduct war that have caused such restrictive rules onto our fighting men and women. It is those who constantly manage to get their soundbites on the news that are critical of America and her forces thereby giving the enemy the hope that they will win.
The terrorists know exactly how to beat America and it isn't on the battlefield but rather by shaping and twisting public opinion.
Posted by: Lakeruins at March 24, 2007 06:56 PM (lnbFN)
52
Lex:
As far as your poll results are concerned, interesting that you focus only on a particular date and ignore previous results that would contradict your point of view. Or, were you pro-invasion in November of '05? At least then you'd be consistent. Polls are cyclical and, there is no reason to expect that they will not go up again as the security situation improves again.
You claim: "Saddam was a brutal tyrant, not a jihadist."
Stalin was a brutal Communist tyrant, not a Nazi. Then he signed a non-aggresion pact with Hitler that paved the way for the partition of Poland. You're whistling past the graveyard, dude. Fortunately, for your sake, there were clearer heads in charge when the time came to take action.
Jon: Yeah, we've created legions of new terrorists like the ones who in the 90's hit us at the Khobar Towers, Dar es Salaam, and Nairobi, assassinated CIA employees in Northern Virgina, attemped to blow up LAX, bombed the USS Cole, bombed the WTC the first time, and eventually took down the WTC on 9/11/2001. Why, in the last five years we've been hit... well, I'm sure we've had a building or two blown up and hundreds of civilians killed. We must have, because otherwise, you'd have to be full of sh__.
Posted by: Bart at March 24, 2007 10:13 PM (LnNoC)
53
And, Lex, I can't help but make one more, undoubtedly futile, effort to penetrate that thick skull surrounding your pea-sized brain, because my point appears to have sailed right over your pointy head.
Saddam had everything to do with Al Qaeda attacking the US because AQ's primary grievance against us was the mistreatment of the Iraqis under the sanctions and the presence of US troops in the region enforcing the UN mandates.
And, they were right.
It was a horrible situation and it had to end, but not in a way that left Saddam victorious, in power, and free to rebuild his WMD capability and launch new aggressions.
Did I get even a blip of mental activity there? Anything? Bueller?
Posted by: Bart at March 24, 2007 10:31 PM (LnNoC)
54
bart, i feel your frustration--must SUCK to have bush of all people saying saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 when you are so convinced that he did! @&^%$# bush! folk like you just *know* hussein had something to do with it--if only the prez could see what you see!!
and the various intelligence agencies like the NSA and CIA and DIA--how can they be so stooopid to not see that the 90s were, like, way worse than the last 5.5 years!!! who gives a sh_t about jakarta, bali, madrid, london, beslan--look that one up--as well as the usual spate in israel, baghdad, and afghanistan: those weren't in america and don't count!! those spooks don't know like our bart-boy knows or they wouldn't draft a NIE that COMPLETELY contradicts him! mofos!!
you see, i *do* feel your pain, being at war with both the prez AND the intelligence aparatus of the US...
(btw--i never did hear where i called hussein "nice"...)
Posted by: jon at March 24, 2007 11:13 PM (k9t8G)
55
Bart:
"As far as your poll results are concerned, interesting that you focus only on a particular date and ignore previous results that would contradict your point of view."
Not at all. I reported the one and only poll of the sort that I'm aware of. I notice you didn't address the substance of the poll whatsoever.
"Or, were you pro-invasion in November of '05? At least then you'd be consistent. Polls are cyclical and, there is no reason to expect that they will not go up again as the security situation improves again."
Polls are cyclical only insofar as the underlying attitudes are. Either way it's beyond flaccid as an argument. Was I pro-invasion in '05? I haven't a clue what you're getting at.
"Stalin was a brutal Communist tyrant, not a Nazi..."
So? What light does it shed on Saddam? You are blathering.
"Saddam had everything to do with Al Qaeda attacking the US"
Not according to Bush they didn't. Re-read the quotation above.
Your latest arguments are hardly worth replying to they are so weak.
"that thick skull surrounding your pea-sized brain"
That's your true colors right there: when losing an argument, act like a jerk.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 24, 2007 11:14 PM (7IB7k)
56
Lex: flatlining.
Jon: wetting his pants.
Pitiful.
Posted by: Bart at March 25, 2007 02:12 PM (LnNoC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 20, 2007
Iraqi Police, Tribesmen Brutally Suppress Anti-Coalition War Group; Dozens Killed While Attempting To Speak Truth To Power
Or at least that is how Keith Olbermann is likely to report it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:32 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Haditha Photo Seems to Question Wuterich's Memory
I missed the 60 Minutes interview of Marine Frank Wuterich that Allah discussed on Hot Air yesterday, and therefore can't dispute nor affirm the Neil Boortz claim that the interview was, "one of the most outrageous displays of media bias ever."
What I will comment on briefly, however, is the screen capture Allah was able to grab of a photo showing the bodies of the five Iraqis that Wuterich said he suspected of planting the IED, and then shot as they were running away.
The picture is grainy and not of great quality, and I don't have the detail I would generally like to have, but I'll make an observation all the same:
I don't think these men were running, from anyone.
The bodies are closely clustered together within steps of the car in which they were traveling. A person standing still, if shot with a killing wound or multiple wounds, often falls in place. They may get up and move locations, but based upon what I interpret as pooled blood in the admittedly sub-par photo, I don't think that occurred.
It is
highly unlikely, if this men had decided to run, that:
- they would have taken off in unison;
- that Wuterich would have been able to react, fire, and fatally hit five running men within feet of the vehicle.
- that they would have fallen in unison if on the move when shot.
It isn't
impossible that this occurred, but I think it is very unlikely.
Now, we don't know if the bodies of the men have been touched. I think that if they had been moved (dragged) that blood trails would have been in evidence, even in a picture with quality this poor. I think that if they have been touched, they might have been rolled over to see if they were still alive, but I don't think they would have been turned to face the opposite direction.
In general, I'd expect someone shot during the first few steps while attempting to flee (which would almost have to be the case if the Wuterich account can be correlated in any way to the photo) would fall headfirst in the direction that momentum would take them. I'd also find it unlikely that a person taking just a few steps would generate enough momentum to somersault.
All that said, look at the orientation of the bodies in the photo.
Two bodies (labeled 1 and 2) are oriented clearly with their heads generally toward the car, which makes it doubtful they could have been moving away from the vehicle, at least at any speed approaching a run. The body closest to the camera, labeled 3, is roughly in the position you might expect of someone standing still when shot, then falling backward. The black box I drew, merely for illustrative purposes, gives a
very rough idea of where the shots appear to have come from, based upon a number of guestimates, factoring in the position of the white car, and the object in the top right that would have likely screened these men from view of anyone much further back down the road.
The photo, bad as it may be, seems to validate the
Dela Cruz version of events, and based upon Dela Cruz's own description of what he did to one of the bodies, might even explain why the stain near the head of the body labeled 2 appears to be lighter in color than the other dark stains around the bodies in the photo.
This, of course, does nothing to establish the guilt or innocence of Wuterich, nor any of the other Marines. It does nothing to establish a state of mind, nor a motive.
What is does suggest, at the very least, is that Wuterich does not recall events as the photo seems to suggest they took place.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:39 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, I read Boortz's article. I'm disgusted by his offhand dismissal of the deaths of women and children as an acceptable byproduct of war. If we're going in, as the current rationalization of the war goes, to make life better for Iraqis, then it seems counterproductive to kill them in the process.
Also: did anyone see this photo of the Bush speech? If we're sticking with the meme of the Associated (with terrorists) Press as being the publicity arm of Al Qaeda, what is the hidden significance of this composition?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 20, 2007 06:13 PM (EN69q)
2
The guy should never have gone on television.
There is to much room for manipulation.
I do not know what the truth is.
I do know that early on there appeared to be serious questions as to the veracity of the claims being made and of the Iraqis making those claims. One example is that there were no reports of the "atrocities" at meetings of the military and Haditha beaurocracy.
I would also suggest that this just another instance of so-called conservatives or pro-military civillians running scared at the instant the merest possibility of guilt appears.
If what I heard about these marines being locked in solitary confinement and given short rations for months before being charged is true, then there is something seriously wrong with the military justice system.
If I had any influence I would spend my time looking for some high profile law firm willing to provide pro-bono representation to these men.
Posted by: David at March 21, 2007 08:20 AM (8l/EC)
3
It is fairly clear to me that the bodies represent the fact that the individuals tried to run. If you assume that the firing came from your black box, then the bodies are all moving away from that area and the car. Granted they did not get far. As to the orientation of their faces and heads, when one is shot they spin, convulse and are often moved to check for life or weapons. So that argument is meaningless.
As to women and children being killed, that is too bad but I would assume them to be enemy combatants untill proven otherwise. If you don't like them being killed, don't send in the weapons.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 21, 2007 11:09 AM (G5i3t)
4
I'm not familiar, with the whole story here but your analysis seems flawed. Reiterating Caskey's point about the position of the bodies being meaningless; that there's some sort of science to how a body moves in response to trauma is a myth left over from "JFK."
Second, how long does it take for someone to open the door of a car and start to run? A couple of seconds? What if you're in the middle seat and someone is trying to run ahead of you? Another second?
Do you know how many rounds I can fire from an assault rifle in those seconds? Certainly enough to kill 5 men clustered together. Depending on angles and such, they might even be hit by the same bullets.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at March 21, 2007 02:48 PM (RvTAf)
5
As to women and children being killed, that is too bad but I would assume them to be enemy combatants untill proven otherwise. If you don't like them being killed, don't send in the weapons.
I stand in awe of your callousness.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at March 21, 2007 05:59 PM (N8M1W)
6
Where's the Green Helmet Guy I wonder....
Posted by: Macker at March 21, 2007 09:41 PM (Mcw0l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Give Dumb a Chance
Anti-War protestors support the troops... by burning them in effigy, of course.
This display just boggles the mind for sheer stupidity, but then,
consider the source:
Truly, how many more Christian Muslims must die?
Bong water is not an acceptable tea substitute, kids.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:53 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This proves that you can never underestimate the left's ability to accidentally parody themselves.
That, and the placing of a Muslim symbol on a Christian cross will probably get a fatwa of death on the protester from Iran.
Too priceless.
Posted by: Remulak MoxArgon at March 20, 2007 11:33 AM (SssYg)
2
Maybe the guy that made the peace symbol that looks alot like the Mercedes icon made these, too.
How many helpers set these up and none of them noticed?
Posted by: Retread at March 20, 2007 12:40 PM (mtsTe)
3
Priceless. Wonder if they figured it out yet.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 20, 2007 01:58 PM (8kQAc)
4
They probably think that all religons will be able to get together peacefully once we end our immoral profane war. Cognitive Dissonance ain't just a reiver in Egypt. Although this does remind me of one quote, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 20, 2007 02:05 PM (oC8nQ)
5
They could only be dumber if they put the cresent on a Star of David burial marker.
Posted by: David at March 20, 2007 03:10 PM (K8BtQ)
6
"They could only be dumber if they put the cresent on a Star of David burial marker."
David, look at the sign. There's a cross and a Star of David at the bottom corners, but is that a cresent in the top corner? If so, then "Dumber Accomplished".
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 20, 2007 03:36 PM (oC8nQ)
7
ohh,,, i dont have words,, you said all
Posted by: Daily Horoscopes at March 20, 2007 06:22 PM (zMp8q)
8
Bong water is not an acceptable tea substitute, kids.
No, but it probably will reasonably replace the Fleets enema they need to treat their otherwise terminal fecal impaction.
Posted by: baslimthecripple at March 20, 2007 07:43 PM (3BZvk)
9
Those crosses must have taken hours to construct, paint, and plant - no doubt requiring an entire short bus full of leftards.
And yet, in all those moron-hours, it never occurred to any of them that there's something... well, not quite right.
I imagine the whole cross-eyed gang deliriously attempting high-fives in a honking splatter of drool and snot. Way to make a point, guys!
Posted by: lyle at March 21, 2007 04:10 AM (TJhvb)
10
hEY ARE THESE THE SAME CHANTING STUPID THINGS LIKE make love not war make freinds not enemies THEIR STUPID ALL THE WAY
Posted by: SPEAROW at March 21, 2007 09:44 AM (K3hNB)
11
This is astonishing. But I know leftweirds here in Europe that think that the Gateway Arch in St. Louis is a monumnent to McDonald's.
This must get around.
Posted by: Hunter at March 21, 2007 10:18 AM (eV/H5)
12
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen coming from the left, and that's saying something.
Posted by: doppelganglander at March 21, 2007 03:34 PM (v+G9H)
13
I don't see the 'stupidity' here. It's simply a 'mash up'.
The Cross represents American soldiers who have died - many are Christian.
The Crescent represents Iraqi's who have died - many are Muslim.
The Crescent is representative of the Musilm faith in the same way the Cross is representative of the Christian faith.
The dead have died together thus making their religious affiliation sort of irrelevent and sort of all mixed together in tragedy and death.
Should this display have made Crosses and Crescents seperate?
Posted by: Matt at March 21, 2007 04:32 PM (nBr99)
14
Matt,
You're thinking too hard...
Posted by: Mr. J. Beaudeine at March 21, 2007 07:24 PM (Iuwqu)
15
Brought to you by the same people who overlooked the problem with using the default settings of Microsoft Word to forge a document ostensibly typed around 1970...
I don't see the 'stupidity' here. It's simply a 'mash up'.
The Cross represents American soldiers who have died - many are Christian.
The Crescent represents Iraqi's who have died - many are Muslim.
The Crescent is representative of the Musilm faith in the same way the Cross is representative of the Christian faith.
The dead have died together thus making their religious affiliation sort of irrelevent and sort of all mixed together in tragedy and death.
Yes, that's it! The duality of man. The Jungian thing. Sir.
Posted by: LagunaDave at March 21, 2007 11:17 PM (Az0k7)
Posted by: lyle at March 22, 2007 02:48 AM (ZQFKG)
17
LagunaDave
It's not really duality because both religions are not opposites. And if American Soldiers are labeled as 'good' then I don't consider Iraqi civilians 'bad'.
What's funny about your Full Metal Jacket quote is the cynical humor with which it was written about American thinking with regards to war.
Pogue Colonel goes on to say:
"Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over."
Posted by: Matt at March 22, 2007 12:42 PM (nBr99)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Questionable Caption of the Day
I don't think there is a lot to this AFP photo and caption, but there is just barely enough to make it interesting.
The
photo shows a pair of parked HMMWVs on the left, a single U.S. soldier running, and a mostly hidden HMMWV that appears to have been hit by an IED between two large trucks that may (or may not) be recovery vehicles.
The caption reads:
A US soldier takes cover as a roadside bomb targets a US convoy in Baghdad's Bayaa district. Meanwhile, Iraq hanged Saddam Hussein's former deputy Taha Yassin Ramadan as the nation entered the fifth year of the US-led war still battling a raging insurgency and sectarian conflict.(AFP/Wissam Sami)
The caption is present tense, and is is quite possible that combat engineers have detected another IED near the site where the one HMMWV was disabled. It is not uncommon of insurgents to place multiple IEDs at an ambush location.
That said, there is no sign that the attack happened with the immediacy the caption suggests.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that mounted vehicle patrols in Baghdad typically do not bring recovery vehicles with them, and yet, it appears that two recovery vehicles are positioned in front of and behind the damaged HMMWV. The close proximity of the two other HMMWVs in the picture on the left-hand side (both in relation to the damaged vehicle, and to each other), strongly suggests that security had already been established and the site cleared of other possible IED threats.
Then there is the fact we see recovery vehicles and no movement other than the one soldier, suggests that those soldiers in the damaged HMMWV have already been evacuated from the area.
An
AP picture taken in the same neighborhood on the same day seems to be from the same incident (the door in the street the AP photo also seems to match up with the missing door in the AFP photo), and states that casualties were medevaced by helicopter from the scene. This would have happened in advance of a vehicle recovery effort. Perhaps more telling, the AP caption mentions only one bomb.
Is the AFP exaggerating the immedicacy of this photo in order to sell it to news outlets? It's impossible to tell from just a pair of photos, but it would not be all that surprising if that turned out to be the case.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:30 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just a quick word for people who ain't been there. The patrols do not take recovery assets out with them. This picture had to have been taken at least an hour after the HMMWV was destroyed. EOD would have already cleared the area of other IED's.
Posted by: david_76528 at March 20, 2007 02:38 PM (JQe3J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
DOJ Document Dump
The House Judiciary Committee has posted more than 3,000 emails released by the Justice Department in regards to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department.
I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to dig through the documents, but maybe you do.
The documents are posted, and more will be posted, on the House Judiciary Committee
web site in the right hand column in PDF format, 50 emails per PDF. If you find anything interesting, please post your findings in the comments. Please provide the text you cite, what you think it means, and which PDF document it came from.
This story has certainly evolved into a scandal, but for all the embarrassment and grandstanding, I still don't see where anything illegal has occurred. Have I just not been following this closely enough?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:46 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, what happened to my last comment? It contained two hyperlinks with quotations from each. What was your problem with that?
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 20, 2007 11:59 AM (7IB7k)
2
Oh, I dunno... the fact that this comment thread is for folks talking about what they've found in the DOJ emails, and your comments were not?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 20, 2007 12:03 PM (9y6qg)
3
You post says: "This story has certainly evolved into a scandal, but for all the embarrassment and grandstanding, I still don't see where anything illegal has occurred. Have I just not been following this closely enough?"
My comment was specifically in response to that. The links I provided present a case for obstruction of justice.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 20, 2007 12:07 PM (7IB7k)
4
Aside from the catch-all of obstruction of justice, the real issue isn't legality, but ethics. It's almost identical to the allegations that Clinton used the IRS to harass opponents; that may not have been illegal, but certainly was deeply unethical and scandalous (assuming ex arguendo it occurred).
Posted by: jpe at March 20, 2007 12:18 PM (+rmhC)
5
Fair enough, Lex. I apologize.
I'm reposting your comment:
"Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired."
--Link
"Four months after the San Diego United States Attorney's office launched an investigation into whether he had accepted bribes from defense contractors, and little more than a month before he pled guilty to those charges, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) signed on to a letter criticizing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's 'lax' handling of immigration crimes."
--Link
Posted by: Lex Steele (by C.Y.) at March 20, 2007 12:22 PM (9y6qg)
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 20, 2007 12:41 PM (7IB7k)
7
The Dems talk about how the US Attorneys should not be a political issue, but they sure have worked hard to make it one.
Jan 9, 2007
"Recently, it has come to our attention that the Department of Justice has asked several U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions by the end of the month, prior to the end of their terms without cause."
Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt3-10070319.pdf - pgs 9,10. Starting on page 12 are Feinsteins statements and news articles starting Jan 16, 2007 to make this a political issue.
All of the "fired" USAs had expired terms, the latest one being Carol Lam whose term expired Nov. 18,2006. See pages 20-28 here : http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-5070319.pdf
All were notified Dec 7, 2006 that they would not be continued. They were not told to "resign by the end of the month" as Feinstein and Leahy contend. Most of their resignations take effect between late January and early March.
Cummins left because he had indicated (April 06) he would not stay for the entire second term.
Also within these pages are some of the reasons (just cause) DOJ did not want to continue with these USAs.
Issues listed:
- Management
- lack of energy
- judgment
- case management system not used
- morale has fallen
- use of time management
- focused too much time on personally trying cases than managing USAO
- pattern of insubordination
- temperament issues
- extensive focus and travel outside of district
- most fractured office in the Nation
Of course, according to the Dems, the USAs do serve at the pleasure of the Executive and the President can replace USAs at will - but apparently "at will" means "by and with the consent of Congress". I thought that only applied to nomination confirmations....
I lost track of which document, but in some of the emails, it looks as if at least the Senators of the States where these USAs are were notified at around the same time as the USAs - early December, 2006.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 20, 2007 02:29 PM (EsOdX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Choosing Victims
Kristin Collins of the Raleigh, NC News & Observer is all about feelings today, in a near-hysterical lament about the impact of immigration enforcement on local illegal alien families. Pardon me while I grab a tissue:
Maricruz and her husband had lived illegally in the United States so long she had almost forgotten it was a crime.
Then, on Jan. 24, her husband disappeared.
U.S. immigration officials arrested him and 20 other workers at Smithfield Foods' gigantic Bladen County slaughterhouse. They drove him to Georgia and locked him up as an illegal immigrant.
You know Kristin, you just aren't making a strong enough case for their victimhood. Could you try a little harder?
Yeah, now this is what I'm talking about:
Maricruz said it was well-known in her village near Acapulco, in the Mexican state of Guerrero, that there were well-paying jobs at the Bladen County plant. Two of her brothers had already made their way to Tar Heel and were working for Smithfield.
In Mexico, they lived with her parents -- a dozen people in a two-room house. Her husband earned money picking crops. The pay at Smithfield started at about $8 an hour. To them, it was an incredible sum.
They rented an apartment in the Robeson County town of Lumberton, about 100 miles south of Raleigh. Eight years ago they had a son, Andy, a U.S. citizen who has never seen Mexico.
Maricruz got a part-time job cleaning rooms at a hotel. Juan enrolled in English classes. They joined a Catholic church. They spent weekends with their extended family, all of whom lived within a 20-mile radius.
They regularly sent money to their families in Mexico, paying for their daughter to enroll in a university there. They started paying on a piece of land in Mexico, so they could one day return.
Maricruz said she never worried about their immigration status. She seemed only vaguely aware that their residency in North Carolina was illegal and said she didn't realize, until her husband's arrest, that they could be deported.
And then, on that Wednesday in January, Juan didn't arrive to pick her up from work. Smithfield officials told her only that her husband no longer worked there, she said.
Eight days after his disappearance, Juan called from Georgia's Stewart Detention Center.
"He told me not to cry," Maricruz said, "that he was OK."
But they do cry
A few weeks after the arrests, a group of families gathered in a Catholic church in Red Springs to tell their stories. Children played in the corners. Teenagers talked of their fears that their mothers would also be taken. Wives cried at the thought of returning to Mexico. Parents pleaded for the return of their grown children.
All said they had no idea why their family members had been chosen for arrest from the plant's more than 5,000 workers, about half of whom are Hispanic. All, including Maricruz, said their relatives were longtime Smithfield employees who had never been convicted of a crime.
Now,
that's how you establish a good victimhood piece. Establish the "American Dream" aspects of their lives, while overlooking as much as possible the fact that they are criminally in this country. Collins refuse to ask the obvious question: How can these "victims" pay a
coyote to smuggle them across the border (mentioned elsewhere in the article), buy false birth certificates and social security cards, and then claim of the woman she profiles:
She seemed only vaguely aware that their residency in North Carolina was illegal and said she didn't realize, until her husband's arrest, that they could be deported.
Kristin Collins isn't a reporter looking to find answers to obvious questions. She is an advocate transparently interested in promoting a cause.
To advocate for her cause, Collins overlooks stories that have been of far more importance to her English-speaking readers. That or perhaps Collins doesn’t know two other writers at the
N&O, Thomas McDonald and Marti McGuire, who wrote recently. about an illegal alien that
killed a father and son in a hit-and-run accident that saw a father and his nine-year-old son burned beyond recognition. The killer, Luciano Tellez, had twice been convicted of drunk driving in North Carolina, but had not been deported. Leeanna Newman was killed by
another drunk illegal behind the wheel on Feb 6. Illegals account for 5-percent of NC's population, and yet they account for
18-percent of our DWI arrests and a string of recent deaths. It is an epidemic Collins ignores to promote her chosen cause.
This isn’t professional journalism. This is naked advocacy supporting criminal behavior.
Collins goes all out to get one side of the story.
The illegal alien families she profiles are allowed to be victims. Those that have been killed by illegals driving drunk apparently are not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:58 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
No one seems to mention the victims in the US as a consequence of allowing illegals to work here. Sure there are the stories of the definite lawless but how about the millions of situations were one has lost his job as a consequence of illegals brought in to undercut his pay. An individual can not fight back by trying to accept a lower pay scale as much of the cost of an employee is government mandated and only avoided by using illegals.
I wonder if the government realizes that if it does not enforce its laws or randomly does so that the law in general becomes irrevalent to the citizens of that country? This spills over into other areas of justice so that we no longer have respect for enforcement.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 20, 2007 09:27 AM (G5i3t)
2
You have no idea who these people are and what they represent to the U.S. CY you need to take a trip to Mexico or Central America to understand who these people are and what they are doing in the U.S.
I live here, consequently, I see their culture from the inside on a daily basis. And it isn't pretty. They believe they are entitled to whatever they can take, be it from you, or anyone else that gets in their path. They are NOT good citizens here. Why would anyone think that would change because they have moved 3,000 miles to the north?
The governments here actively encourage them to go, because they send remittances,(cash), that help keep the local economies afloat. El Salvador is a prime example. The single largest sector of the economy is based on remittances; more than the total of all other exports or sources of income, incuding the tax base.
Posted by: Bill at March 20, 2007 10:13 AM (f+EPI)
3
So, he makes $8 and hour and she has a part time job. Depending on overtime, he grosses less than $20k. If she makes less, together they probably gross less than $30k. Take away ~16% for SS and Medicare taxes and they probably bring home less than $24k net.
They send money back to Mexico which means they have less than $24k to live on. If this puts them close to the poverty point, do the taxpayers subsidize the rest? Sure, they be making more money than in Mexico, but aren't the expenses of living here going to be proportiantely higher as well?
If they are near the poverty point, why would we want to encourage more people to come here illegally to live at the poverty level?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 20, 2007 10:51 AM (EsOdX)
4
My grandfather came here illegally in the early part of the last century. He worked hard as a lumberjack, in coal mines, as a carpenter, as a farmer. He paid taxes, registered for the first WW draft, had a family, sent his sons off to the second WW. I don't think you conservatives actually know any immigrants, or you're willfully ignorant of the character or situations of the many good people who keep your food prices low.
Posted by: Pennypacker at March 21, 2007 03:18 AM (M20pt)
5
Did you understand me when I said I live here in Central America? Do you honestly believe I could live in a foriegn country for more than five years and not know something about the people that surround me? Habla la lengua? You are getting the dregs,(and worse), that no one here wants. Why is this hard for you to understand?
Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2007 06:26 PM (f+EPI)
6
Hey pennypacker, most of my ancestors came over here fairly recently, so I know something about them and what their lives were like. So don't presume to tell us what we do and don't know.
As for this blog post, may I remind you of an important point that it makes? A nation has the right to control its borders and to screen those who wish to immigrate. Or do you wish to welcome criminals too? You might also speak to native-born American poor people, who worry about increasing job competition from immigrants. If you really care about people you should pay attention to them too.
Posted by: pst314 at March 21, 2007 09:50 PM (lCxSZ)
7
So don't presume to tell us what we do and don't know.
Fine, your family made it, as did mine. (Mine were illegal Finns -- your ancestors maybe legal, maybe not.) Tell me what you know or don't know about today's immigrants, legal or otherwise. Please speak from your personal experience. Explain also how the restaurants you enjoy could be cheaper without the dishwashers doing their work. Or the produce you buy. Or the tree you need cut down.
Posted by: Pennypacker at March 23, 2007 01:06 AM (M20pt)
8
Pennypacker, don't feed us that 'they are doing jobs that American's don't want to do' canard. The reason we have lower food costs has nothing to do with illegals washing dishes. It has everything do do with being a country where the Rule of Law reigns supreme and having a vibrant economy based on free-market capitalism.
I'm the son of an immigrant. A legal immigrant. She didn't jump the fence but rather through hoops so she could be here legally. Illegals are basically spitting on her efforts. I take it as a personal affront. They are criminals and should be deported.
Posted by: Dan Irving at March 23, 2007 08:09 AM (zw8QA)
9
Just to be clear - I'm all for easing immigration restrictions (not amnesty - those here illegally are crimminals and should be kicked out). I think diversity is our greatest strenth.
If you want to be an American you should be able to walk into a U.S. Embassy, pledge your allegiance to this country (ie give up your native citizenship) then be given your SSN and be told your dues are due on April 14th.
Posted by: Dan Irving at March 23, 2007 08:13 AM (zw8QA)
10
My parents had a joke about how my mother's ancestors came on the Mayflower and my father's ancestors met them as they landed.
I am trying to politely inform you that the illegals entering the U.S. are, by and large, not the people you think them to be. I make this statement based on my many years living in Latin American countries. Here, scoff-laws are extremely common, the norm, in fact. In general the people here do whatever they want to do, when they want to do it. Every day is a challenge and a struggle.
Here the poor are very poor and the rich very rich. Little or nothing in between. Some go to work, but when I ask them why they want to go to the U.S. they tell me that even the poor there have two cars and that the governmet will give them what they need to live. Being poor does not excuse one from recognizing authority and obeying the law. The act of violating an international border here gets you jail time and deported.
Posted by: Bill at March 23, 2007 10:52 AM (f+EPI)
11
Pennypacker, don't feed us that 'they are doing jobs that American's don't want to do' canard. The reason we have lower food costs has nothing to do with illegals washing dishes.
I have never argued that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans don't want to do. There are Americans who would gladely do those jobs. But if there were no foreign workers to compete against, the red-blooded Americans doing their jobs would ask for more money. And your food prices would go up. It's simple economics. If you were really a free-market capitalist, the immigrant problem wouldn't bother you at all.
But I suspect that the anti-immigrant hysteria doesn't have anything to do with economics, it has to do with a distrust of foreigners.
Take your pick, you can't have them both. (BTW, I'm a so-called liberal, but did I like Clinton? No, because I didn't like NAFTA and other policies that destroyed the blue-collar America that gave me my own opportunities. I knew where my priorities were, despite ideology.)
Posted by: Pennypacker at March 25, 2007 02:44 AM (M20pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 19, 2007
30,000 Strong
The Gathering of Eagles in Washington, DC this past weekend was huge; the National Park Service estimated that 30,000 supporters showed up. Michelle Malkin was there, and has an excellent roundup, complete with photos.
The socialists, communists, anarchists, radical Muslims and others in the pro-defeat crowd were unable to deface the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as they had done in anti-war marches in the past. Momma Moonbat, Cindy Sheehan, was at her borderline-insane, America-hating
worst.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:02 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
as they had done in anti-war marches in the past
surely you have a source on this?
Posted by: dogbot53 at March 19, 2007 12:29 PM (a4yCF)
2
I don't know about the Vietnam Memorial, but I know that at the last protest in DC, they spray painted the steps to the Capitol Building.
Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of thewest front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.
According to the sources, police officers were livid when theywere told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. "They were the commanders on the scene," one source said, who requested anonymity. "It was disgusting."
After police ceded the stairs, located on the lower west front of the Capitol, the building was locked down, the source added.
A second source who witnessed the incident said that the police had the crowd stopped at Third Street, but were told to bring the police line in front of the Capitol.
Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint "anarchist symbols" and phrase such as "Our capitol building" and "you can’t stop us" around the area, the source said.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 19, 2007 12:44 PM (oC8nQ)
3
30K? That's the best you could do in support of the war?
Posted by: ts at March 19, 2007 01:48 PM (ILyRW)
4
ts, 30K was 10:1 compared to the anti-war group. As reported by my neighbor who was there accidentally.
Posted by: CoRev at March 19, 2007 03:48 PM (Hr52v)
5
First: The Park Service doesn't do crowd-size estimates any more, and hasn't for a few years now.
Second: I'm not really clear on what crowd size means in this context. If, in fact, the Eagles group was larger--and I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that it was--what does that mean? On the basis of this one day of protest and counterprotest, are we saying that a majority of Americans actually support the war?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 19, 2007 06:58 PM (/Wery)
6
What I think Americans support Doc is not retreating without finishing the job. Simple.
Posted by: Specter at March 19, 2007 09:12 PM (ybfXM)
7
IOW - they may not like the war, but they do not want to walk away shamefaced yet again....
Posted by: Specter at March 19, 2007 09:13 PM (ybfXM)
8
And the message was for congress. Quit messin around up there. "We are listening, and yo may not like our message."
Posted by: CoRev at March 19, 2007 09:25 PM (Hr52v)
9
Crowd-size means that the pro-military folks were able to organize a much bigger protest than the anti-whatever folks, in much less time.
Posted by: Foxfier at March 19, 2007 11:20 PM (Nv4xT)
10
ts,
The Gathering of Eagles at the Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials were not there to provide support for the War. We were there to protect the Memorials from protesters who disrespect our Country. The Anti-War Protest started in a field just west of the Memorials and then proceeded to parade to the Pentagon where they rallied against the War. The Eagles did not care even a little about the Anti-War rally, after the protestors passed we went about cleaning up the area and visiting the Memorials. Because of the Force of Eagles, even with many thousands of antiwar protestors, the Vietnan Memorial had only a total of 5 police guarding it, and the Lincoln Memorial had a sole Park Police officer standing on its step looking bored. No protestors with malice approached that which we as patriotic Americans view as sacred. Those Vietnam Vets showed that they fought for the protestors 2nd amendment rights to protest, but they were not going to let their memorial suffer the same disrespect that they did returning from the War. I am not a Vietnam Vet, but I am proud I was there standing shoulder to shoulder with those who believe this country is great.
Posted by: Web at March 20, 2007 10:43 AM (r74AR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2007
Wilson Outed Plame?
Sweetness & Light has a fascinating chronology posted this morning that suggests that it was Joe Wilson himself that "outed" the identity of his non-covert wife, CIA analyst Plame, in an attempt to lend credibility to the Niger story he was trying to pitch to various national media outlets, who at the time, apparently didn't see his story as being credible enough to publish.
I haven't followed the story very much even though I know others are completely enthalled with it, so tell me: is there anything wrong with this chronology?
Or did a publicity-hungry Joe Wilson "out" his own wife?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:59 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CIA head Michael Hayden agrees that Plame was a covert agent.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 18, 2007 08:17 PM (7IB7k)
2
Lex, what's your best reason that Fitzgerald didn't prosecute, or even indict anyone for the crime of "outing" her? If Fitz is no longer pursuing this, does that mean that no crime was committed?
Covert from whom? She was listed in 1999 Who's Who as Valerie Plame. Everyone knew she was Joe Wilson's wife. Any agent worth their salt could probably easily find out that she worked at CIA, though they probably wouldn't know exactly what she did there.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 18, 2007 11:44 PM (EsOdX)
3
SouthernRoots:
what's your best reason that Fitzgerald didn't prosecute, or even indict anyone for the crime of "outing" her?
Fitzgerald said that there is a cloud over the VP's office. He said that since Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald has no case against Libby's superiors.
If Fitz is no longer pursuing this, does that mean that no crime was committed?
Of course not. That's a naive question. Consider that Al Capone's prosecutor pursued a tax evasion charge, knowing full well that Capone was guilty of murder and racketeering.
Covert from whom? She was listed in 1999 Who's Who as Valerie Plame. Everyone knew she was Joe Wilson's wife. Any agent worth their salt could probably easily find out that she worked at CIA, though they probably wouldn't know exactly what she did there.
First, you are saying you understand the import of Plame's lost cover better than Hayden does. That's either very impressive, or maybe something else.
Second, sure, an investigator could have determined that Plame was in the CIA, as is the case with many CIA agents. The point you are missing is that no one had heard of her before Novak outed her.
Hayden admits that she was a covert agent, and we know she worked on WMD issues under the cover of a fake arms firm. The CIA referred the Novak incident to Justice. Who are you to say that this is not significant for our national security? You are blinded by partisanship.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 19, 2007 12:06 AM (7IB7k)
4
Actually, Lex, it would be nice if you were clearer in your first statement. Right now, all that is known is that Waxman states that Hayden agrees and Hayden has not testified to that under oath. As such, this is just second hand gossip per the standards those on the left apply to anyone on the right who remains skeptical on the subject.
Now, let's consider the verbiage of Waxman's opening statement. First and foremost, the accusation since Novak's column has been that Plame was covert as defined by the IIPA, which Waxman's opening statement only infers by using the word "covert" at the end as a conclusion. But the arguments put forward only show that Plame's employment was classified pursuant to Executive Order 12598, which is not the IIPA and is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. (By the way, Tom Maquire notes Waxman is wrong here it should be Executive Order 13292 which superseded it in 2003 before the disclosure: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/his_silence_was.html)
The games people play with words and definitions are legendary. It has made this 'scandal' a soap opera. You just add to it by appealing to Waxman's opening statement as authority in the argument here and it doesn't wash.
As for your rebuttal of Southern roots, in it you say, "Second, sure, an investigator could have determined that Plame was in the CIA, as is the case with many CIA agents. The point you are missing is that no one had heard of her before Novak outed her."
Sure, I hadn't heard of her and you imply you haven't heard of her. But Andrea Mitchell had said (paraphrasing) it was well know in the some circle of reporting. Plame noted in testimony under oath (paraphrasing) it was not well known in the cocktail circuit. Her employment cover was a company that did not exist at the address indicated. Her status was compromised in the 1990's by being left in a report sent to the (IIRC ) Swiss consulate in Havana. Lastly she had walked into the CIA building for, what, the last four or five years every morning for work?
The point in my noting the above details is that it isn't important, per se, that the CIA, et al, work to keep her identity secret from us, because we don't care to know because we will fall into the category of not knowing if the CIA works to keep it secret from those who do care. And those who do care ply every source, opportunity, and person that might give those who do care information to identify covert agents.
What happens if the only people (i.e., people who care) that believe Plame's identity is secret are the people who work at the CIA?
The real story here is not that Plame's identity was classified, but that the CIA is dysfunctional. As Fred Thompson said just a few days ago, (paraphrasing) 'The CIA is better at politics than it is at spying.' Insightful.
Posted by: Dusty at March 19, 2007 10:37 AM (1Lzs1)
5
Lex,
"You are blinded by partisanship.".
I am no more blinded by partisanship than you are.
My concern over this matter is that the various facts of the case were swept under the rug due to partisan grandstanding and calls for the "frog marching" of Rove.
From the first, Fitzgerald nor any other "official" has actually come right out and stated that the IIPA law was broken by anyone. There have been a lot of weasel wording and "hemming and hawing", but no such simple statement as, "The IIPA law was broken by the individual or individuals that released the name of Valerie Plame to the press." If Plame was indeed covert and covered by IIPA, I would have expected such a clear and positive statement. Point me to the actual quote by Fitzgerald where he specifically states that the IIPA law was broken.
Since Armitage was the first one that provided Plame's name to reporters and Fizgerald knew that from the beginning, his refusal to indict Armitage speaks volumes to me.
During Judith Miller's time in jail, several media outlets filed "Friend of the Court" briefs claiming that Plame did not qualify under IIPA, though they had spent considerable time reporting that she did in order to "frog march" Rove. So, when it was convenient to try to bring down an administration, she was "covert". When it was inconvenient that the press could possibly be charged with a crime, suddenly Plame wasn't covert at all. Am I more partisan than those media outlets?
Hayden admits that she was a covert agent, and we know she worked on WMD issues under the cover of a fake arms firm. The CIA referred the Novak incident to Justice.
Covert when? In July 2003? Covert as defined in IIPA? In order for there to be a case against Libby's superiors a law would have to have been broken. The only law that I have heard that applies is IIPA.
Was the law absolutely and positively broken? If yes, why does Armitage skate free? If no, then Plame wasn't "covert" under the law and any further pursuit on this issue is political hackery and a waste of time.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 19, 2007 12:53 PM (EsOdX)
6
Dusty: Actually, Lex, it would be nice if you were clearer in your first statement. Right now, all that is known is that Waxman states that Hayden agrees and Hayden has not testified to that under oath. As such, this is just second hand gossip per the standards those on the left apply to anyone on the right who remains skeptical on the subject.
Waxman said this in front of the entire House, and you say it's second hand gossip? Absolutely ridiculous. Show me where Hayden issued a correction.
Andrea Mitchell had said (paraphrasing) it was well know in the some circle of reporting.
A quotation made on the House record is "second hand gossip," yet this is what you bring to the table.
What happens if the only people (i.e., people who care) that believe Plame's identity is secret are the people who work at the CIA?
I'm not attesting to the competence if the CIA. The CIA referred the Novak matter to Justice, so in their minds national security was compromised. I guess you know better though.
SouthernRoots: I am no more blinded by partisanship than you are.
You refuse to believe that this administration did anything wrong, when it could not be more clear. Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. That was a lie. He said he'd launched an internal investigation. That was a lie. So he obviously believed the Plame matter was worth addressing, unlike you, yet hypocritically he didn't actually care. Yet you are utterly convinced that nothing untoward happened. That is blinded by partisanship all right.
Fitzgerald nor any other "official" has actually come right out and stated that the IIPA law was broken by anyone.
Apparently he believes it doesn't apply or that he can't make it stick in court. You're repeating yourself. Again, this proves nothing. The larger question is, did the administration out a covert agent for political gain? The answer is unequivocally yes for anyone who looks at the facts.
refusal to indict Armitage speaks volumes to me.
This is the third time you've trotted this out. As I said the first time, everyone knew Capone was guilty of murder.
Was the law absolutely and positively broken? If yes, why does Armitage skate free? If no, then Plame wasn't "covert" under the law and any further pursuit on this issue is political hackery and a waste of time
For the love of all that's holy, prosecutors don't make a case when they don't believe they can prove the charge. Surely you know this. You can repeat your one point as many times as you want, it does not now and will never prove anything.
The head of the CIA agreed that she was covert, yet somehow you discount this to mean nothing. You say maybe she was not covert under the law? You are splitting hairs. If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity, whether or not it was strictly against the law. And the CIA seems to believe it was against the IIPA. It's rich that you accuse me of being blinded by partisanship.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 19, 2007 01:36 PM (7IB7k)
7
Lex, I watched much of the hearing and I can not say: "If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity,..." Waxman submitted his opening remarks. CIA chose to not change HIS reference to Plame as covert. That is not prima fascia proving your point whether she was covert. Only that they chose not correct Waxman's statement.
And, "... whether or not it was strictly against the law." is exactly the point. If an act does not meet the elements of a law it is not a crime.
Posted by: CoRev at March 19, 2007 04:04 PM (Hr52v)
8
CoRev: CIA chose to not change HIS reference to Plame as covert. That is not prima fascia proving your point whether she was covert. Only that they chose not correct Waxman's statement.
Why did they choose not to correct Waxman? I can give you a good reason why Hayden wouldn't come out and say she was covert -- people in the CIA feel strongly about this.
Why did the CIA refer the case to Justice? Why did Bush say he'd fire anyone involved with the leak? Why did Bush say he'd launch an internal investigation?
And, "... whether or not it was strictly against the law." is exactly the point. If an act does not meet the elements of a law it is not a crime.
Not at all. You could arguably call it treason, among other things. Just because the IIPA is narrow doesn't mean that blowing Plame's cover was okay. She was an operative on WMD issues for heaven's sake.
The only reason why you won't condemn the administration blowing her cover is out of partisanship.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 19, 2007 04:16 PM (7IB7k)
9
You refuse to believe that this administration did anything wrong, when it could not be more clear.
I do not spend every waking moment looking for any and all ways in trying to force out an administration – that is true.
Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. That was a lie. He said he'd launched an internal investigation. That was a lie. So he obviously believed the Plame matter was worth addressing, unlike you, yet hypocritically he didn't actually care. Yet you are utterly convinced that nothing untoward happened. That is blinded by partisanship all right.
Maybe – just maybe – he didn’t fire them because he believed nothing illegal was done. It was worth addressing – if anything illegal had taken place. I’m sure you would have had no problem with Ashcroft or Gonzales investigating this. I don’t know exactly what happened, but before joining in demands to fire Cheney, fire Rove, fire Bush, fire Laura, fire the Chef, etc. ad naseum, proof that a crime was committed needs to be presented.
Apparently he believes it doesn't apply or that he can't make it stick in court. You're repeating yourself. Again, this proves nothing. The larger question is, did the administration out a covert agent for political gain? The answer is unequivocally yes for anyone who looks at the facts.
“Apparently he believes it doesn’t apply…..” Meaning, no crime? List your “facts”.
Was Joe Wilson totally honest in his attacks on the administration? Is Joe Wilson pure as the driven snow, everything he accuses the administration of being the gospel truth? Was Joe Wilson just a media whore shopping his story around? If Plame did send an email recommending Joe for the Nigeria job, should this information not have been made public?
This is the third time you've trotted this out. As I said the first time, everyone knew Capone was guilty of murder.
I agree with you, Bush should fire Capone.
For the love of all that's holy, prosecutors don't make a case when they don't believe they can prove the charge. Surely you know this. You can repeat your one point as many times as you want, it does not now and will never prove anything.
What was your position when the Clinton’s were accused of all those crimes? Was it the same as now – “they committed the crimes, we all know they did, we just aren’t able to prove it – but they’re still guilty”?
The head of the CIA agreed that she was covert, yet somehow you discount this to mean nothing. You say maybe she was not covert under the law? You are splitting hairs. If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity, whether or not it was strictly against the law. And the CIA seems to believe it was against the IIPA. It's rich that you accuse me of being blinded by partisanship.
Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement. Have him testify under oath as to Plame’s status. Hayden has been in his position for a while now, why didn’t he make this statement to Fitzgerald and why didn’t Fitzgerald ever come right out and say , “Ms. Plame was covert. The law was broken. We just can’t nail Bush, Cheney, or Rove for it - dammit.”?
Are you as mournful for the other leaks that have come out? NSA, CIA prisons, Terrorist financing? Should those leakers be pursued as diligently as you want Plame leakers pursued?
Why was Joe sent to Nigeria? Why was Plame involved at all? Why didn't Joe have to sign a secrecy oath about his trip - surely it was sensitive stuff. Why was Joe able to talk to so many reporters about his trip? Why did the 9/11 commission disagree with Joe's statements in his NYT article?
Aside from knowing that Plame worked at CIA, did any of the "leakers" actually, positively know of her supposed covert status? Are Joe and Valerie Democratic operatives? Is this the covert status everyone is upset about being exposed?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 19, 2007 04:25 PM (EsOdX)
10
Southern: here's a good portion of your "argument" which is irrelevant:
looking for any and all ways in trying to force out an administration
Is Joe Wilson pure as the driven snow
I agree with you, Bush should fire Capone.
What was your position when the Clinton’s were accused of all those crimes?
Are you as mournful for the other leaks that have come out?
I will address the following points:
Maybe – just maybe – he didn’t fire them because he believed nothing illegal was done.
Bush said flatly that he would fire anyone involved in the leak. In of itself that assumes that outing her was unacceptable, and undermines your entire argument.
“Apparently he believes it doesn’t apply…..” Meaning, no crime? List your “facts”.
I think it's very bad to out covert CIA agents, whether or not it's specifically illegal. As I said above is arguably treasonous. If they didn't know she was covert, they damn well should educate themselves better. Bush's statements show that he agrees, Bush '41 agreed, the CIA agrees. You are of course free to judge these things however you wish.
Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement.
What's the obvious conclusion from this?
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 19, 2007 04:50 PM (7IB7k)
11
Lex, "Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement.
What's the obvious conclusion from this?"
There are many. You are citing one. OK, now what?.
Posted by: CoRev at March 19, 2007 05:59 PM (Hr52v)
12
Lex,
As usual, you haven't completed your argument. What is the law specifically with IIPA? DO you know? I suspect that you do not. One of the requirements is that the government must be actively protecting the identity of the "covert" agent. How do you explain Harlow and Grenier? You can't. Harlow told Cathie M, and Novak that Plame worked for the CIA. Not much in the way of protection there. Both Plame and Wilson met with a reporter in May where Wilson told the reporter all about the Niger trip. He was with his wife, who was in his bio, and in Who's Who. Why didn't she stop her husband, lyin Joe, from spilling classified info to a reporter? She donated money to Kerry's campaign under her CIA front company 's name. How did this protect her identity. And to boot, Plame did not claim that she was "covert" during the hearings. Instead she said that she had acted as a covert agent at some point in time. Then she went on to talk about a general always being a general. Not the case with "covert" though. Once covert does not mean always covert. She did not fit the IIPA requirements as covert - and I dare you to prove different. You can't and you know it. You just keep spouting FDL and KOS talking points, just like a good brainwashed leftist. Prove your point. Use the law and not opinion. Then maybe we can listen to you.
Posted by: Specter at March 19, 2007 10:01 PM (ybfXM)
13
Specter --
Here's you proving that the US casualty rate is dropping in Iraq:
using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36.
Until you can understand the problem in that reasoning I have no reason or obligation to engage you.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 19, 2007 10:42 PM (7IB7k)
14
You all know, Lex has effectively hijacked this comment thread. The question before us all: what is the viability of the time line suggesting that Plame was outed by Wilson? I for one find it compelling!
Posted by: dbrenna at March 20, 2007 06:52 PM (9z3vi)
15
Lex,
Dipstick. I challenged you to redo your numbers for the last five months (incl. Feb.). The trend line is down. I see you haven't responded to that. So much for honesty - you show none whatsoever. Are you related to Nifong by chance?
Posted by: Specter at March 20, 2007 08:03 PM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Gathering of Eagles
The Gathering of Eagles is today in Washington, DC. It is a gathering of military veterans and proud Americans that will be ther to protect the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ("The Wall") from an anti-war protest sponsered by radical Muslim groups, anarchists, leftover 60s radicals, Marxists, and others invested in an American defeat.
Michelle Malkin and
Bryan Preston will be there, as will
Melanie Morgan and what we expect to be a substantial number of veterans groups and the families and friends of active duty soldiers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
March 16, 2007
FBI: Extremists Might Be Driving Your Kids To School, But Don't Worry About It
Yeah, this is comforting:
Members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States, counterterror officials said Friday, in a cautionary bulletin to police. An FBI spokesman said "parents and children have nothing to fear."
Asked about the alert notice, the FBI's Rich Kolko said "there are no threats, no plots and no history leading us to believe there is any reason for concern," although law enforcement agencies around the country were asked to watch out for kids' safety.
The bulletin, parts of which were read to The Associated Press, did not say how often foreign extremists have sought to acquire licenses to drive school buses, or where. It was sent Friday as part of what officials said was a routine FBI and Homeland Security Department advisory to local law enforcement.
Look, either extremists are a threat--hence the advisory--or they aren't. Informing law enforcement to watch out for known members of extremist groups driving school buses--I'll read this as terrorists until someone gives me good reason not to--and then telling parents not to worry is asinine.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:11 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just one more reason to homeschool.
Posted by: Mrs. PurpleRaider at March 16, 2007 07:57 PM (wnnNy)
2
For sure its those radical southern baptists.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 16, 2007 09:20 PM (ol99f)
3
I saw my kids' bus driver in the deli with a ham sandwich. I think we're ok.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 16, 2007 11:03 PM (y2kMG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sockpuppet Censorship
Oh, the joys of being Greenwald!
In an entry to his blog on Salon.com yesterday, noted sock-puppeteer Glenn Ryan Ellers Wilson Thomas Ellensberg Greenwald
attacked Charles Johnson, the face of the "pony-tailed jazz guitarist/web designer 9/11 liberal" stereotype so commonly associated with modern conservatism.
After briefly mention other denizens of the riech-wing establishment, Ellers Thomas chastised Johnson for comments left by frequent visitors
in a post to Johnson's rather obscure blog about
nauseated footballs.
Wrote Ryan Ellensberg:
But commenters at Little Green Footballs have not only expressed surprise, but outright support, for Mohammed's assassination plot against a former U.S. President. They are out in droves expressing sorrow that Al Qaeda did not have the opportunity to carry out its plot.
Let us first recall that LGF's Charles Johnson was one of the leaders of the Outrage Brigade driving the big "story" -- that made it into virtually every national media outlet -- of how anonymous HuffPost commenters expressed sorrow that the bombing in Afghanistan did not result in Dick Cheney's death. In her post that spawned the media coverage, Michelle Malkin touted Johnson's righteous condemnation that "this kind of sick, twisted thinking is everywhere in the 'progressive' blogosphere...And it's even sicker than it appears at first glance, because many of these freaks want to see Cheney dead so that he can't become president if someone assassinates President Bush."
Yet here are multiple comments from Johnson's standard, regular followers -- all of whom have to register as LGF users, a device Johnson uses to ban commenters of whom he disapproves -- expressing explicit support for Al Qaeda's plot against President Carter:
GREWTEG, the author of the best-selling
How Would a Patriot Act? (who answered his own question by moving to another country) then provided screenshots of seven comments from six commenters, pulled from a comment thread presently 474 comments long. In the part-time Brazilian's defense, he probably completed his Salon.com entry several hours before his 10:14 AM posting time, meaning he was cherry-picking through a smaller, more representative number of comments, which at the time he completed his article was only made up of about 461 comments.
The comments, other than the 454 or so he ignored, are devastating.
The first two commenters, "buzzsawmonkey" (clearly a relative of manbearpig) and "blame canada" are in favor, at least rhetorically, of allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to finish alleged assassination plots against former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
The next three commenters--well, two news ones, and
manbearpig buzzsawmonkey again--repeat the theme.
Glenn Wilsonberg then states:
And more commenters than one can chronicle offered the "justification" for murdering Carter; it's the same "rationale" previously provided by John Hinderaker: namely, Carter is on the side of Islamic Terrorists:
He then posts the two he/they
could chronicle.
Not content to cherry-pick these seven comments from roughly 461 as being representative of the commenters, GREWTEG then decides that since Johnson hasn't deleted these comments, that he must therefore,
ipso facto, QED, E Pluribus Unum, and
carte blache,
agree with each and every one of them! (my bold below)
Can we crank up the outraged media stories? How long do you think it will be before we hear from Howard Kurtz with a front-page Washington Post story, Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity with dramatic television coverage? Having blog commenters cheer on the assassination plots of U.S. officials is big, big, big news, we recently learned.
Here, one of the largest right-wing blog communities which pretends to be opposed to Al Qaeda is expressing support for Al Qaeda murder plots against former U.S. Presidents. The significance is overwhelming and self-evident, and many American journalists have shown how commendably eager they are to transcend partisan differences and rise up in righteous condemnation against this sort of "sick" bile.
And, several important factors distinguish this story from the HuffPost story, making it more meaningful. Unlike Huffington Post, which deleted the comments in question, Johnson has left them on his blog. Even more significantly, Johnson actively and regularly deletes comments he does not like, which lends some credibility to the notion that he approves of these comments, or at least does not find them sufficiently offensive to delete them, the way he does with scores of other comments.
Ah-Hah!
Take that reich-wingers!
Because Johnson does not censor each and every comment on his blog, he is therefore guilty of copious amounts of
non-censorship, clearly a hanging crime under the Brazilian-American Sockpuppet Speech Act of 1798.
As we well know, responsible citizenship requires copious amounts of censorship, from
censoring the networks allowed to carry debates, to
stipulating acceptable public appearances by public servants.
By allowing comments on his blog that may not match his own views, Johnson clearly goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
What does he think this is, a free country?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:35 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, you had me at "Johnson's rather obscure blog." LGF is a little further down my daily blog list (and I'm not a registered lizardoid yet), but I expect to see a few nuts fall from the tree. un-Hingedness is just a minor bug on the R side, while it seems to be a feature of the L. -cp
Posted by: cold pizza at March 16, 2007 12:01 PM (VOA2U)
2
Dude. Do you even know what "censorship" is?
This incoherent post from a man with a long record of comment-deletion to his own credit.
You're a treasure, Bob.
Posted by: tookie at March 16, 2007 01:59 PM (U36mM)
3
Yep, "tookie", or "Capt Howdy," or whoever you want to be today, I do have a long record of comment deletion... all the way back to Day 1 for this blog, in November of 2004, I'm sure.
Most bloggers, no matter what they blog about, do have a long track record of comment deletion, for various reasons. The reasons vary from blog to blog, but many blogs tend to police comments that are offensive and/or profane, off topic, or exist only to sling insults... which is why you've had a comment deleted before. Apparently that hurt your feelings.
I'm really broken up over that.
Really.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 16, 2007 02:44 PM (9y6qg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BDS-CV
Charles Krauthammer has a brutal column up in today's Washington Post called Diagnosis Cheney, focusing on a hit piece by Michelle Cottle in the liberal New Republic. The thrust of Cottle's article, apparently, is an attempt to diagnose the Vice President as being mentally ill because of his history of cardiac disease.
Krauthammer, a
real psychiatrist in addition to being a political columnist, guts the "evidence" provided by Cottle, evidence that is so flimsy that any coherent layman would readily recognize as political, and not psychiatric in nature.
Well, that isn't
exactly true. Krauthammer does amusingly suggest that the 1,900 word
New Republic article may reveal an underlying syndrome from which Cottle may be suffering.
I was at first inclined to pass off Cottle's piece as a weird put-on -- when people become particularly deranged about this administration, it's hard to tell -- but her earnest and lengthy piling on of medical research about dementia and cardiovascular disease suggests that she is quite serious.
And supremely silly. Such silliness has a pedigree, mind you. It is in the great tradition of the 1964 poll of psychiatrists that found Barry Goldwater clinically paranoid. Goldwater having become over the years the liberals' favorite conservative (because of his libertarianism), nary a word is heard today about him being mentally ill or about that shameful election-year misuse of medical authority by the psychiatrists who responded to the poll. The disease they saw in Goldwater was, in fact, deviation from liberalism, which remains today so incomprehensible to some that it must be explained by resort to arterial plaques and cardiac ejection fractions.
If there's a diagnosis to be made here, it is this: yet another case of the one other syndrome I have been credited with identifying, a condition that addles the brain of otherwise normal journalists and can strike without warning -- Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant.
If
memeorandum.com is correct, there has thus far been three blog entries posted on the Krauthammer column, with conservative responses provided by
Betsy Newmark and
Sister Toldjah to date, with an post by liberal Don Q at TPM Cafe be the only attempt at a liberal response thus far.
And
an amusing post it is, with Don trotting out
another long-running platitude in rebuttal to Krauthammer, one that can best be summarized as, "because of the hypocrisy!" (copyright
Jeff Goldstein):
From Don Q:
But you know, psycho- I mean psychiatrist-columnist Krauthammer himself likes to conduct remote diagnoses. Back in May 2004, Al Gore called on Rumsfeld and Tenet to resign, and criticized the conduct of the war in Iraq.
And our buddy Krauthammer, on Fox News with Brit Hume, said that Al Gore was "off his lithium." Lithium, of course, is used to treat heavy mental conditions like bipolar disorder.
Don't you see the obvious
brilliance of Don Q? Krauthammer is a hypocrite because, he, too, made a long-distance diagnosis!
But Don Q's analysis really
isn't that intelligent, is it?
Whether you look at this example, or others that he cites, Don purposefully conflates Krauthammer's flippant metaphorical comments as a political columnist into being serious psychiatric evaluations, which they clearly and decidedly are not meant to be.
Far from showing Krauthammer to be a hypocrite, his post merely goes to show that Don Q lacks the basic mental agility to note that Krauthammer's political commentary and his psychiatric practice are two distinct facets of an accomplished multi-dimensional life. To accomplish his political goals, Don Q purposefully ignores reality to promote his agenda, which amusingly enough, is precisely what Krauthammer catches Cottle doing.
Perhaps this suggests that Don Q should quit tilting at columnists, and see a professional to diagnose his own condition, which seems to be Bush Derangement Syndrome—Krauthammer Variant.
I jest, of course.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The morons probably think Pelosi would become VP if Cheney were to get waxed.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 16, 2007 02:19 PM (ol99f)
2
See ... here's the thing ... Bush will be gone in 21 months. What are they going to do when they can't blame everything on Bush? I imagine they will continue to blame Blame Bush for every ill in the world for at least a decade after he is gone.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 16, 2007 11:20 PM (y2kMG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 15, 2007
Learn the Tech, Or Take Up Baking
As you've probably come to understand by now, reporters that don't understand the subject matter they write about really irritate me. Enter the Associated Press' Kim Gamel (my bold):
The U.S. military said the attack against the Americans began when a bomb went off as a U.S. unit was returning from a search operation, Moments later, a second bomb exploded, killing the four and wounding two other soldiers.
A demolition team that searched the site after the attack found an explosively formed projectile, a type of high-tech bomb the U.S. military believes is being supplied by Iran in support of Shiite militias. The device was detonated by the team.
This is an
explosively formed projectile:
It is a spent bullet, an expended hunk of metal, no longer a threat.
What Gamel meant to write that they detonated an
explosively formed penetrator, one of these:
This is a live explosive device, and a very dangerous one. This is what EOD team destroyed, not the inert slug of metal as Gamel misreported.
It's rather disappointing that we can't trust a professional war reporter for the world's largest news organization to get such important distinctions correct, but a disappointment that is now
hardly surprising.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Funny thing is, Gamel was one of the few AP-Iraq reporters who bothered to check out Jamil Hussein's stories. I wish she'd be more precise.
(She is a she, right? I know a guy named Kim.)
Posted by: see-dubya at March 16, 2007 07:02 AM (7RPwS)
2
I'm not surprised.
These are people who write of semi-automatic pistols calling them "revolvers;" or id a naked bullet as a "cartridge," and more frequently vice versa, and other such ignorance.
"Center Median" AAAAAhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
"Prior Record" YECH!!!!!!
"Rate of Speed" PLEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
"One of the most distinctive jet fighters of all time, the F-14 Tomcat was officially retired in Navy ceremonies today. Its career spanned over 30 years since its inception in the mid-70s."
Span MEANS "stretch/extend OVER" for crying out loud! It doesn't need help! "...spanned MORE than 30 years..." would have been much better,
Which
"Authorities said they were dropping 18 care packages in the area, which each will include clothing, a wool blanket, gloves, waterproof overalls, flares, a flashlight, a hand-warmer and rations."
Return back
"A video of the cone-shaped Goddard vehicle shows it climbing to about 85m (285ft) before returning back to Earth."
One wonders what this writer thinks "return" means. Was the rocket "returning forward" before "returning back?"
--------------
Yes, I've started a file of these inanities.
Hello News Writers?
Words MEAN things. Words are your ONLY tools. Please learn what they mean, and how to use them.
And, if you're covering a war, please at least learn the basics. Why on earth would you want to blow up a spent projectile?
It's that bullet/cartridge thing. It requires some nuanced thinking, I know, but you can do it.
Posted by: Bill Smith at March 16, 2007 01:10 PM (UvXVP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lawbreaker?
It matters little to me who is in power at the time, but we need to have a unified national voice, and that means the offical federal government representatives, whoever they are at the time, should be the only ones negotiating with foreign powers on behalf of the United States. Period.
I'm not sure that what Howard Dean admits to is illegal, but to my layman's eye, his actions seem
dangerously close (h/t
phin).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:48 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When the hell is Bush going to grow a pair of balls and arrest these people?
Bring on Fred Thompson.
Posted by: 1sttofight at March 15, 2007 02:55 PM (nOcEZ)
2
This is the biggest thing that disappoints me about Bush. He never, ever confronts these ludicrous things head-on. He is losing it in the polls because people don't know the real story - and only he and his admin can tell that. Another case in point - the firing of the US attorneys. Yea - maybe they did not do everything by the book...but I sure as heck would be making a big stink about the fact that Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys in one fell swoop in 1993 and nobody had to hold hearings about that.
Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2007 05:32 PM (ybfXM)
3
a) He's a democrat.
b) Treason is the new patriotism.
a + b = no action
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 15, 2007 06:14 PM (ol99f)
4
I like George Bush! He reminds me so much of Jacques Chirac. Feels like home...
Posted by: leFrancais at March 15, 2007 06:21 PM (87cbz)
5
Specter:
Clinton replaced the USAs at the beginning of his term, as did Bush 41 before him and other presidents before them. That's SOP at the beginning of an administration.
Midterm firings are not standard.
The firings, however, are not the issue. The lies and secrecy are.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 15, 2007 08:46 PM (6++Yt)
6
The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. If the president wants to replace them for political purposes, he should go ahead and do it. He just needs to grow a set of balls and do it openly, facing whatever comes from public opinion.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 15, 2007 08:59 PM (6++Yt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iranian Defector May Soon Be Wanted for Mass Murder
Ali Reza Asghari, the former Iranian deputy defense minister and General who is thought to have defected after years of spying on the Iranian government, is one of six Iranians cited in an international arrest warrant that may be issued by Interpol later this month for the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish Center that took 85 lives.
The six concerned are Imad Fayez Mughniyah, Ali Fallahijan, Mohsen Rabbani, Ahmad Reza Asghari, Ahmad Vahidi and Mohsen Rezai.
Applications for the arrest of Ali Akbar Velayati and Hadi Soleimanpour, as well as Mr Rafsanjani, were rejected.
No-one has ever been convicted of the 1994 bombing - the worst terror attack in Argentine history - and the government has admitted failures in its initial investigation.
Last year it said it believed Iran ordered the attack, and militant group Hezbollah carried it out.
Asghari is though to have been instrumental in
founding Hezbollah in the 1980s, and was a key liasion between Hezbollah and the Iranian government.
The "Mr Rafsanjani" referenced in the article is former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:12 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
All the more reason, I would think, that he'd defect and give up lots of goods on the sinking Iranian regime in order to collect a pardon for past crimes. If we see more of this, and if subsequent reports that hint this is the case, it gives me cause to think that doubt is filtering through many echelons of government in Iran.
It almost makes me think the world outside Iran should be compiling lists of Iranian criminals just to push things along. It might even be good to footnote the lists with "Last ones out with duplicate info won't get a 'Get out of Jail Free' card."
Posted by: Dusty at March 15, 2007 05:50 PM (GJLeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gore Effect Hits Middle East
Ah... Lebanon in April.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:29 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There's no doubt that the earth is warming. The question is whether carbon emissions are causing it or not.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 01:13 PM (7IB7k)
2
Stop breathing. I'll let you know if the Earth gets cooler.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 15, 2007 01:32 PM (oC8nQ)
3
I believe our carbon emissions are a drop in the bucket, most of the warming/cooling is controlled by the big yellow ball in the sky. The (i)warming(/i) debate is moot (to me). Pollution on the other hand is tangable and we do cause that. Take the money they are wasting on seeing if cow farts cause warming and put it into cleaning up farm waste instead and we will be getting somewhere.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 15, 2007 02:01 PM (WGcw3)
4
Hmmm, I'll never get the itallics/bold thinggy right.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 15, 2007 02:02 PM (WGcw3)
5
Retired Navy,
Let's see - we can see that () doesn't work, let's see if BBcode will:
italics
or straight html:
italics
Ah, according to the Preview, straight HTML using the angle brackets (> and it's opposite) does.
Posted by: Jeff at March 15, 2007 03:24 PM (yiMNP)
6
Another Gore effect seems to be his high school teacher type supporters feel the need to bribe students to sign Alberts online petition.
"March 23rd is when he goes in front of Congress, Al Gore Dot Com" says Tom Knudson, a teacher at Northrop High School, encouraging his students, who watched the film, to sign an online petition supporting Gore's initiative in exchange for extra credit.
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/Story.aspx?type=ln&NStoryID=5464
Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2007 04:19 PM (KfqZZ)
7
The problem is not the "global warming" that has taken place since the 70's (remember the "global cooling"?) but the lack of proper perspective in matters of climate. We are currently in a colder climate than at the time of the roman empire or the middle ages... That leads to policies that are downright silly e.g. Al Gore.
Posted by: leFrancais at March 15, 2007 04:39 PM (87cbz)
8
And don't forget that Al spends about 20 times per month in electricity than any normal person....
Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2007 05:43 PM (ybfXM)
9
Not to mention its the same for natural gas, Specter. Al Gore is dangerous in more ways than one.
CY, I'm going to take a guess and say you flipped one too many pages on your calendar a couple of weeks ago.
Posted by: Dusty at March 15, 2007 06:00 PM (GJLeQ)
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 19, 2007 06:34 AM (8kQAc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Emails Suggest Attorney Firings Were Legit
So says Patterico:
These e-mails confirm my conclusion from yesterday: the media is manufacturing a phony scandal out of these firings, and piggybacking it onto the genuine scandal of the Justice Department’s misleading testimony to Congress about the responsibility for the firings. If these e-mails are given a fair reading, they support the idea that U.S. Attorneys were pushed out largely for legitimate reasons relating to the performance of the USAs in question.
It is starting to sound like this furor here is probably more hype than substance. Not that this will placate or convince the more rabid denizens on the far left, mind you, who hold the Bush Adminstration personally responsible for 9/11, global warming, and cooties.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:56 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, what's going on? Did you delete my comment? If so, why? It was calm and factual, whether or not you agreed with it. I had thought better of you.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 12:49 PM (7IB7k)
2
Are you familiar with the term "comment spam"?
It is defined as copying the exact same comment from one comment section and posting it on another, which is precisely what you did.
Please don't do it again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 15, 2007 01:15 PM (9y6qg)
3
I'll just quote Chuck Schumer then:
"Here are some of the falsehoods we've been told that are now unraveling.
"First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.
"It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.
"Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, 'never, ever make a change for political reasons.'
"It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.
"Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.
"It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.
"Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.
"Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.
"Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.
"In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: 'The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.'
"It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's own e-mail. Quote: 'Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.'
"Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance.
"It was Senator Feinstein who discovered that issue. She'll talk more about it.
"So there has been misleading statement after misleading statement -- deliberate misleading statements. And we haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet, but believe me, we will pursue it.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 01:34 PM (7IB7k)
4
Seems to me that quoting Chuck Schumer could also qualify as comment spam....
Andrew McCarthy has a good column on this issue over at National Review. He ends with:
Meanwhile, Attorney General Gonzales’s “when do I run out of feet to shoot myself in?” performance has been more than matched by congressional hypocrisy, especially from Democrats. Most jaw-dropping, but hardly unique, is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Seeking the presidency, she is pandering to her Bush-hating base about the firings. But, when her husband took office in 1993, he terminated virtually all of the sitting U.S. attorneys.
It was an act of sheer political muscle and naked political patronage. It mattered not the slightest bit to the media that many very fine U.S. attorneys — some presiding over very sensitive, politically charged cases (including one in Arkansas involving the Clintons) — lost their jobs. Clinton had the power to do it and he wanted his own people in. Period. And you know what? He was entitled. If a Bush-41 appointee had botched a major case, that would have redounded to Clinton’s detriment. If the administration wanted to focus on health-care fraud or other Democrat enforcement priorities, the president wanted to be sure each U.S. attorney would be, yes, loyal to those objectives. Loyalty — not skill, not ethics — was the difference between staying on or being fired.
So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast.
The President can fire any U.S. Attorney for any reason - maybe he doesn't like the color of their ties. DOJ was stupid because they tried to insert a "lofty" reason instead of just saying that the attornies "wore the wrong color ties".
The President was within his rights to replace these people. None of the replaced attorney's were investigating him. This is a politically manufactured "crisis" that is way out of proportion to the actual events.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2007 02:06 PM (EsOdX)
5
Clinton replaced all 93 attorneys at the beginning of his presidency, as many presidents have done. He replaced two thereafter, one for allegedly biting a topless dancer and the other for choking someone on camera.
This administration fired the Carol Lam, the attorney who was in the midst of following up on the Duke Cunningham corruption investigation, which included an investigation of (R) Jerry Lewis.
John McKay, a Republican US Atty from Seattle, says he did not see any evidence of malfeasance in his investigation of the recount that put Washington State governor Gregoir (D) over Dino Rossi (R). Subsequently Harriet Miers accused him of "mishandling" the recount investigation. Why on earth would a Republican suppress evidence of Democratic vote fraud?
Lam and McKay received 'glowing' performance reviews up until they were fired. As above, the administration has changed its story and outright lied on several points.
John Sununu (R) New Hampshire has asked for Gonzalez to step down.
This is dishonorable behavior on the part of this administration and its enablers, not a partisan manufactured crisis.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 03:29 PM (7IB7k)
6
What was different about how Clinton replaced the 93 was that he demanded they submit their resignations and clear out their offices within 10 days. All other presidents had longer transition periods that staggered the replacements versus an immediate wholesale changeout.
But, it was Clinton's perogative to do this.
Under what conditions would you accept Bushs decision to fire these USAs?
From whom would Bush need to get permission? Should it be held to a vote from Congress?
Would he only need approval from the Judiciary Committee?
Maybe Chuck Schumer is the one to ask.
Who gave Bill Clinton the permission to fire all the USAs?
As for McKay, there was a pile of irregularites with the 2004 election. Several people sent McKay information and neither McKay nor the FBI spoke to them about their information. The impression is that McKay did not even investigate to see if there was fire where there was smoke.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2007 03:58 PM (EsOdX)
7
SouthernRoots:
What was different about how Clinton replaced the 93 was that he demanded they submit their resignations and clear out their offices within 10 days. All other presidents had longer transition periods that staggered the replacements versus an immediate wholesale changeout.
I don't understand what you are trying to prove here.
Under what conditions would you accept Bushs decision to fire these USAs?
The same reason anyone should be fired: poor performance, illegal activities, etc.
As for McKay, there was a pile of irregularites with the 2004 election.
I'm going to take word of a Bush-appointed Republican USA about this over yours. He's a Republican and would have every reason to pursue Dem vote fraud.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 04:29 PM (7IB7k)
8
But Lex,
When Clinton fired 93 it wasn't for poor performance was it? It was simply that he wanted his own people in there. Simple. Not only that, but the US Atty from Ala that was handling the Whitewater investigation got fired and was replaced with a Clinton friend. Add to that the US atty who was investigating Rostenkowski was fired also. But it wasn't political, right? Get a real life.
BTW Lexy - care to plot the Iraq casualty trend line again...just for the last five months? LOL. You might actually be surprised....
Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2007 05:48 PM (ybfXM)
9
Lex - you have totally missed the point. USAs are POLITICAL appointments. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Causing the President displeasure can result in them being fired. Other "normal" firing reasons should also get them canned, but it is legitimate to fire them for lesser reasons.
Maybe me, or someone else in the VRWC, put a call into Bush and told him that we were unhappy with McKay's lack of action (as far as we could see). Maybe Bush agreed with us and decided that McKay wasn't serving the president's priorities.
By the way, it was a Democrat controlled organization that had all the irregularities with the election, but that was a sideshow. Regardless of who is running the election show, if irregularities are rampant - they should be investigated, the whole idea being to have a clean, legal election system for everyone.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2007 06:07 PM (EsOdX)
10
Bush '41 replaced all 93 US Attorneys too. I don't have a problem with that either.
You think it's okay for the administration to fire a US Atty with good performance reviews who is pursuing allegations against congressmen in the same party, and then lie repeatedly about it. I don't. Let's chalk it up to another difference of opinion.
Here's you proving that a rising casualty average demonstrates a dropping casualty rate:
using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36.
That's all anyone needs to say to you in any debate. You don't understand the concept of averages (though to be fair you do seem to be able to compute them). You don't merit a place at the table.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 15, 2007 06:23 PM (7IB7k)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Edwards Campaign Not Poisoned; World Indifferent
I can't for the life of me figure out why someone thought John Edwards was worthy of even a fake anthrax attack, but all the same, it happened yesterday at his campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill:
The white powder in an envelope discovered Wednesday at the national headquarters of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards did not contain anthrax.
The campaign office was reopening today, Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince said.
“The test results of the white powdery substance received yesterday have come back negative, and the authorities have informed us that it is safe to return to the office," Prince said in a statement this morning.
[snip]
A woman working in Edwards' campaign office in Southern Village found the powder at 4 p.m. as she opened mail for the former senator. She immediately threw the white legal-size envelope into a nearby mail bin and rushed to wash her hands, said Jane Cousins, a spokeswoman for the Chapel Hill police.
Police were called to the office at 410 Market St. in the mix of offices, shops and homes in the southern Chapel Hill community. Federal, county and regional investigators were called to assist.
By late Wednesday, the envelope had been taken to the parking lot of the Chapel Hill Police Department several miles away on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
White powder in letters has been associated with anthrax since an attack in 2001 killed five people and sickened 17. The substance was mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Edwards campaign worker did not know to whom the envelope was addressed or where it was from, investigators said. Chapel Hill police said they didn't know whether there was any written message in the envelope.
To date, I’ve seen no mention of this story outside of the local media or in the larger blogs. I guess a fake anthrax attack on Edwards just isn’t worth commenting on.
I've written the several of the law enforcement agencies investigating this incident to see if they could provide further information about the attack. Specifically, I've asked if there was a note or letter in the envelope communicating a possible motive for the attack, and I've also asked whether the letter came through the U.S. Mail or a courier service, such as FedEx or UPS. I also asked if the letter bore a postmark or originating address that might indicate where the letter was mailed from.
I'll update this post if they respond.
Update: The FBI has responded:
The FBI is conducting a federal investigation regarding the suspicious letter sent to the office of John Edwards. We are investigating for any potential WMD issues/violations, and due to its ongoing status, no further comments are being provided at this time.
This is a joint, cooperative investigation between the FBI, Chapel Hill Police Department, Chapel Hill Fire Department, and the Orange County Public Health Department.
I imagine that the other agencies involved will also refuse comment while the investigation is on-going.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
...maybe they were powdered carbon credits???. I do have to say, if I were a certified loon, which i am not, Edwards could not crack my top 100 list of people who need powder mailed to them. Sorry, he just couldn't cut it.
Posted by: markm at March 15, 2007 10:30 AM (hVOTO)
2
It's still wrong no matter to whom it was addressed to. The idiot that did it needs time to contemplate his wrongdoing in the iron hilton.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 15, 2007 02:05 PM (WGcw3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 163 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.2278 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2075 seconds, 189 records returned.
Page size 206 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
