Confederate Yankee
March 15, 2007
Khalid Sheik Mohammed Confesses
I have very little to add to what has already been said about Mohammed's confession, and think Jules Crittenden covers my disgust with Mohammed's self-aggrandizing quite well:
It’s all a matter of language and perspective. We’re really just the same. Until you remember that virtually all his intended targets in the Twin Towers were civilians. Every one of his intended targets in Bali and Mombasa was an innocent vacationer. All his targets on all those airplanes. It is inequivocably murder carried out not to achieve any military objective, rather for whatever political or symply psychological advantage and economic damage might be achieved by terror and chaos. He did it to impress people. He wraps himself in history and distortion and calls it war. It is revolting, and it is bullshit, but it is his right. He is allowed to speak and say whatever he wants in advance of the judgments that await him. And we can look at this vile filth, and consider it for what it is worth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:33 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Four al Qaeda Militants Sentenced to Death
Now, if they can only capture the three of them that are still on the run, they might be able to carry out the sentence:
Jordan's military court on Thursday sentenced to death four Iraqi al-Qaida militants charged with terror attacks on Jordanians in Iraq. Of the four, only one is in custody while the other three remain at large and were tried in absentia.
The court also handed down sentences to 10 others in the case also at large and believed to be in hiding in Iraq ranging from 15 years in jail with hard labor to life imprisonment.
The group's alleged mastermind, Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, was charged with leading the group of 14 in plotting attacks on trucks with Jordanian license plates on Iraqi roads to murder those on board.
As things continue to
fall apart for al Qaeda in Iraq, I find that the execution of these death sentences are
quite likely, whether or not these men ever see a Jordanian jail first.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:45 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
March 14, 2007
Clinton Won't Withdraw From Iraq
This won't endear her to the netroots, but then, what could? For those Democrats that have a toe in reality, however, Hillary just showed that she may be the first grown-up running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well, almost:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
It is good to see that Hillary recognized the need to help support the Iraqi government, but her statement about not protecting Iraqis from sectarian violence, "even if it descended into ethnic cleansing," is troubling.
If "President Hillary" is serious that she would take no action in the event of an attempted genocide, then her behavior would verge upon criminal. If, however, Clinton is merely issuing "tough love" to encourage Sunni, Shia, and Kurd to work together, then her pronouncement makes far more practical sense.
It will be interesting to see how or if the other Democratic candidates will try to shift their positions as they watch Hilliary outmanuver them to the electable middle.
Update: Captain Ed critiques Clinton's statement
more harshly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey, don't we all remember the Clinton Doctrine? Remember how it worked in places like Rwanda and Kosovo? This is just the latest chapter in the Clinton Legacy...
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at March 14, 2007 10:44 PM (I6QiV)
2
Stop me if you've heard this one.
Remember this hillbillery?
Hillary Urges Start of Troop Pullout in 90 Days
By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 05:28:14 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
On Hillary Clinton's website today, she unveils a new message on Iraq.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.
"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
Two faced Liar pukes up whatever this donk thinks you want to hear!
Hillary also has a clear message for President Bush:
"If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.
More...
How is this Hillary message different from the last one?
At a January 17 news conference after visiting Iraq, Clinton repeated her call for a phased redeployment as a way of pressing the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for security. But she stopped short then of proposing a deadline for doing so.
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP!!!
Remind you of anyone?
Posted by: Dan at March 14, 2007 11:52 PM (1Q8ID)
3
Screw those little brown people. I mean, like, do they vote in our elections? Probably a bunch of right-wingers anyway. Ain't that right, Hillary?
I excerpted and linked at 2007.03.15 Surrenderpolitik update.
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 15, 2007 02:48 AM (n7SaI)
4
would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing
Hey, what a little genocide among friends?
Posted by: phin at March 15, 2007 07:51 AM (CQcil)
5
Another highly-calculated statement from Hillary. I'm sure she knows exactly what she's said before, what she meant this to say, and how it'll play out next. Means nothing since every word coming out of her mouth is suspect, but it'll do what she wants it to do.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 15, 2007 01:50 PM (fqCcC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When You Care Enough to Scrape Out the Very Best
Abortion e-cards. Great.
Allah asked a good question...
What about all the upbeat cards?
My contribution:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:22 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
You Lost Another One?
I owe the French an apology. Until now, I thought that France was the only nation capable of losing a war that they were not fighting.
According to YNET News, yet another senior Iranian officer has
gone missing:
Three weeks ago the Iranian armed forces command in Teheran lost contact with a senior officer who had been serving in Iraq with the al-Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, according to a senior Iranian official cited in the Wednesday edition of the London-based Arabic daily al-Sharq al-Awsat.
The Iranian source said that it is still unclear why contact with the officer, Colonel Amir Muhammad Shirazi, was lost. "It is possible that the American forces in Iraq arrested him along with a group of 13 Iranian military and intelligence officials," he said, adding that this is just one of the scenarios being investigated by Tehran.
Of course, this begs the question, "What was a senior Iranian al-Quds force commander doing in Iraq if he wasn't supporting the insurgency?" Don't expect the
NY Times to dig too deeply into the existence of Colonel Amir Muhammad Shirazi, much less his disappearance.
The article also claims that another Iranian colonel was sentenced to death by an Iranian court for collaborating with American forces in the war Iran is
not waging in Iraq, and that "dozens" of Iranian officers have also defected.
These allegations should be taken with a shaker of salt until they can be confirmed, but if these allegations are correct, Iran is hemorrhaging both intelligence and operatives at an alarming rate.
Update: This is too rich.
I picked up a link from Salon.com's
Blog Report, and now instead of discussing the disappearing Iranian officers that were the subject of the post, I have Salon's liberal readers attempting to defend the 20th Century accomplishments of the French military.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:23 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"You Lost Another One?" Is that a Red October reference?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 14, 2007 12:30 PM (oC8nQ)
2
You do recognize that insulting the French as a nation of cowards is pretty low considering that they lost 212,000 men fighting the Germans in WWII and 1,397,800 fighting them in WWI as our ally while our loses in these wars, especially cosidered in relation to population, were tiny--even if you don't count the significant civilian deaths, the French lost 3.5% of their people 1914-1918 and 1.3% 1939-1945. America has never had to suffer like that.
Before you make another dumb anti-French joke, please bear in mind how much of a price they paid fighting on our side.
Posted by: Jim Harrison at March 14, 2007 02:05 PM (EBYJI)
3
You're claiming that in WWI and WWII the french lost hundreds of thousands fighting "on our side"? It would be more honest to say that we were fighting "on their side", seing how it was their very existance as a country that was at stake.
They weren't our ally, we were theirs.
Posted by: brando at March 14, 2007 02:14 PM (uZ35s)
4
brando,
Like how the French were "fighting on our side" for our survival during the French and Indian War?
Like the saying goes, "if it weren't for the French, people like you would be speaking proper English".
Posted by: Robert at March 14, 2007 02:42 PM (VTtVl)
5
I don't get this. WW1 we won, WW2 we won, Indochina we lost but we fought, Algeria we won but That @#$%%^ de Gaulle abandoned the Algerians anyway. The war on terror we are in process of winning (see French special forces in Afghanistan) so what is it ? Sorry but the memory of my 2 Verdun vet grampas and resistance fighter dad prompts me to ask...
Posted by: leFrancais at March 14, 2007 03:00 PM (87cbz)
6
Jim, I never said they were cowards, I just said they were militarily incompetent. If one word describes the French military experience of the 20th century better than "incompetent" that word would be "Chauchat." I'll let you Google that on your own.
By listing their casualties, all you have enumerated in their ability to stop bullets, and many of those casualties can certainly be attributed to incompetence in French military leadership and tactics, which was, you know, the point of my comment.
leFrancais, not to twist the screws too deep, but you "won" WWI because of the British and Americans coming to your aid. You lost in WWII in less than a month (May-June, 1940), and you "won" only after the British and Americans once again did the bulk of the fighting to retake France and conquer Germany. To beat Germany, we killed over 19,500 French soliders fighting for the enemy.
Funny how selective our memories are, when we want them too be...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2007 03:17 PM (9y6qg)
7
In spring 1940 Gal. Petain called the Brits to honor their commitment to the war by putting more aircrafts on the line as the air war was destroying the allied ground forces. The answer was a withdrawal of the RAF from France this was followed in July by the attack at harbor of the French fleet in North Africa, 1,297 French soldiers were killed by their "friend", with allies like these who needs enemies...
Posted by: leFrancais at March 14, 2007 03:29 PM (87cbz)
8
Jim, WW2 is not the same as the French and Indian War. You're about 200 years off. hahahaha. Jim = pwned.
Posted by: brando at March 14, 2007 04:46 PM (uZ35s)
9
Gee...I thought this thread was about the General that Iran lost somewhere in Iraq.
Posted by: Specter at March 14, 2007 05:32 PM (ybfXM)
10
He might be supporting the Shiite government/militia rather than the Sunni-led insurgency. That's of course if, unlike the President and his advisors, you care to acknowledge the difference.
Posted by: ray alexander at March 14, 2007 06:57 PM (epZs4)
11
You guys need to quit bashing the French. Napoléon Bonaparte was a helluva guy and a proven winner. Well except for that whole syphilis thing and Waterloo. But everybody has one or two quirks / missteps.
Viva la Francis!!!
Posted by: phin at March 15, 2007 08:07 AM (CQcil)
12
Some need a refresher course in history.
First, WWI. There would not have been a WWI if the French had not felt obligated to full fill there treaty with Russia despite the stupidity of the situation. Austria had done the same thing in the Balkins that we did some 80 years later. Russia responded by moblizing the troops and France then felt it necessary to do the same. If they had said stop at some point, then the war likely could have been avoided. But that is doubtfull as they really wanted to get back at the Germans for the Franco-Prussian war. When we entered the war, the French were beat. If not for a few Marine units, the whole thing would have been a German victory or at least a better result in the subsequent treaty discussions. As it was the French brought about WWII with their very stupid demands of the beaten Germany.
With WWII the French immediately roled over and died. If the English had not distroyed the fleet, then it would have been German. As it was the British begged the French to sail to GB but their honor would not allow it. Subsequent to the surrender they were an ally of Germany and actively fought against the US and Britian in North Africa. They did the minimal amount to free France after the invasion. They certainly went overboard in the treatment and cruelty to the Jews while "occupied".
So if any nation deserves derision, it is France.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 15, 2007 09:48 AM (dTdEN)
13
For those not acquainted with the history of french warfare, a brief primer can be found here:
Concise French Military History
http://silflayhraka.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_silflayhraka_archive.html#90229835
Posted by: ef at March 15, 2007 10:31 AM (BpCQY)
14
Napoleon was Corsican, not French. He grew up speaking Italian. France's previous military hero was Joan of Arc, and she wound up burned at the stake. The only ultimately successful French military leader I can think of was Charles Martel, back in the 8th century when the Franks were still a (mostly) Germanic tribe. At some point, the Franks turned into the French, and a nation of fierce warriors became a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
I'm sure that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon staffers are working out plans to take out France's nuclear capabilities when, not if, it finally falls into Dar-al-Islam. Any hope I had that the French would regain their sense of self-preservation died after they surrendered to a bunch of juvenile delinquents throwing rocks and setting cars on fire.
As for the Iranians, I'm sure the more rational members of the Revolutionary Guards are realizing what any military historian could have told them: When a Western army and a non-Western army meet, the non-Western "soldiers" usually either surrender or die, unless they're fighting the French. Since the French are busy hiding from the Taliban in Afganistan, and surrendering to jihadis at home, it's American and British troops that the "nonexistent" Iranians in Iraq are dealing with.
Plus, the average jihadi doesn't have to worry about Saudi Arabia or Yemen being invaded because of his actions. Iran, on the other hand, would have been invaded instead of Iraq if Saddam hadn't kept poking the US in the eye for over ten years, and the Guards know it. The less insane members of the military (defined as those who don't think the Mahdi will come down from Heaven and save them at the last minute) are probably doing everything in their power to keep that from happening, even commiting treason if necessary.
Posted by: Eric at March 15, 2007 08:01 PM (h+Qz9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On the Gonzalez Mess
While I've tried to keep up with my reading on the subject, you might note that I haven't posted yet on the U.S. Attorney's story. Quite frankly, it has me confused over whether it is really important or not, but I feel somewhat better this morning when I discovered (via Ann Althouse blogging at Instapundit), that the far more capable legal mind of Orin Kerr is also unsure:
On a more serious note, I haven't written about the U.S. Attorney's story because I'm having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. More broadly, I have longrunning objections to the extent to which DOJ is under White House control, objections that this story helps bring to the fore (although my objections are based on my views of sound policy, not on law).
At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting. Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they're getting a bad rap.
So in the end I don't quite know where I come out based on what we know. Without knowing where I come out, I don't feel I have much helpful to add. I realize that this may mean I am missing a big story. Perhaps this will prove to be a simply huge scandal, and in time it will seem odd that we weren't all blogging about it. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I read a story and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Quite frankly, I don't think we know what we don't know in regards to this issue, and I think that some of the political posturing we're seeing, such as Senator Chuck Shumer's
statement, "This has become as serious as it gets" is merely that--posturing.
It is worth noting that Shumer is cited in this same Dana Milbank column as being "the Democrats' point man in the Valerie Plame investigation," an investigation which found no illegal activity is the release of Plame's name, and only convicted Lewis Libby for lying about his involvement. Hot air is one of Shumer's specialties.
Another person with legal experience, prosecutor
Patrick Frey, notes that the White House released emails related to the case that apparently show that the White House had good reason for firing many of the prosecutors, including failures to prosecute drug cases, failure to prosecute illegal immigrants, failure to investigate charges of voter fraud, and failures to carry out Administration policies. Many Presidential Administrations have fired
all U.S. Attorneys when they came to power, including the Clinton Administration, for no reason other than pure politics. That the Bush Administration fired these Attorneys for cause seems, well,
refreshing, if that is indeed what occurred.
The scandal, such as it is, seems to revolve around Attorney General Gonzales' inept handling of what should have been a minor issue at best.
Is there any fire to go with this smoke?
Again, we may not know what we do not know, but of what we have seen presented thus far, the Democratic cry of scandal seems based on very thin evidence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some of the details that you are missing:
1) San Diego US Atty Carol Lam had just put away Duke Cunningham and was pursuing a case against CA congressman Jerry Lewis and others when she was fired.
2) Lam and others USA's had glowing performance reviews when they were fired, which is of course inconsistent with the notion that they were fired because of failure to pursue immigration or drugs or what have you.
3) The administration lied at least six times about the firings.
4) Unlike what I've seen from numerous sources, Clinton replaced 93 Attorneys General at the beginning of his presidency, just like Bush '41. This is way different from removing active Attorneys General
5) John McKay (a Republican) in Seattle got calls complaining that the did not pursue a case against Christine Gregoir in her close governor contest against (R) Dino Rossi. McKay said he didn't see any evidence of crime in the recount. Nevertheless he was summarily replaced.
So the obvious impression is that the administration fired these USA's out of pure partisanship.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 14, 2007 12:21 PM (7IB7k)
2
Arguing about these issues as if they were part of the usual left/right debate is a bit misleading. The problem isn't right wing economic or social policy. What is novel about the Bush administration is not that it adheres to conservative principles--in fact it often doesn't--but that it represents a reversion to the spoils system of the 19th Century. We are talking about a specifically political evil. The modern White House is Tammany Hall for the whole freaking continent. But history never really repeats itself. The American government is vastly larger than it was in the 19th Century. We're not talking about getting your cronies a few jobs at the custom house or securing the bid on twenty-five cannons. The corrupt political system promoted by the Republicans is correspondingly more dangerous to everybody's liberty and certainly vastly more expensive than anything Boss Tweed or the plutocrats who manipulated Grant ever dreamed of.
The worst thing about the federal attorneys issue is not that some of them were kicked out because they didn't protect crooked Republicans or wouldn't conduct bogus prosecutions of Democrats. What worries me is what the attorneys who haven't been sacked have been doing all along.
Posted by: Jim Harrison at March 14, 2007 02:26 PM (EBYJI)
3
For #5-- that's because there WAS a great deal of evidence put forward that makes it very likely the blue areas had major voting problems. G00gle it if you'd like-- I'd fire someone who saw absolutely no evidence of a crime in that junk.
(funky spelling because the phrase tripped a spam filter, somehow.)
Posted by: Sailorette/Foxfier at March 14, 2007 03:35 PM (Nv4xT)
4
If Gonzalez had fired these USAs and had to seek Senate approval for their replacement, the issue would have died for lack of any fire. But altering the PATRIOT Act to eliminate the need for Senate approval combined with the botched handling seems to have provided enough kindling to actually have some heat.
Figures that a perfectly legal act would cause the storm instead of all the other "illegal" acts in the last 6 six years. Not including all the stupid acts.
Posted by: TJM at March 14, 2007 04:20 PM (4yUfq)
5
Yes, Bush gets to hire and fire. He and his minions cause their own problems when they deal with it the way they did.
This wasn't a national security issue that needed to be kept secret; this should have been done out in public view.
"Mistakes were made"? For crying out loud, how tone-deaf can the Attorney General be?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 14, 2007 05:34 PM (/Wery)
6
It's not just the Dems who are crucifying Gonzales, John Sununu of NH says he should go too.
Can you tell which GOP Senators are up for re-election in 08 yet?
Sickening. It's one thing to wash your hands of Gonzales if he'd committed a crime, but doing so in the court of public opinion is a major problem.
The White House needs to get this under control. They've let the media blow this way out of proportion and it's time to fight back.
Let's see some of that famous "White House message discipline" from Karl Rove.
Posted by: Jared at March 14, 2007 07:40 PM (4xUWs)
7
You guys are supporting a crooked administration. It's time you faced the music. Bush doesn't have supporters any more. He has accomplices.
Posted by: Jim Harrison at March 14, 2007 10:37 PM (plYXr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jimmy Can't Read
It appears that James Cameron's claim to have found the tomb and ossuaries of Jesus Christ and his family, which were never taken seriously by biblical scholars, may have resulted from an inabilty to properly read and translate the Greek writing on at least one ossuary.
The film and book suggest that a first-century ossuary found in a south Jerusalem cave in 1980 contained the remains of Jesus, contradicting the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Ossuaries are stone boxes used at the time to store the bones of the dead.
The filmmakers also suggest that Mary Magdalene was buried in the tomb, that she and Jesus were married, and that an ossuary labeled "Judah son of Jesus" belonged to their son.
The scholars who analyzed the Greek inscription on one of the ossuaries after its discovery read it as "Mariamene e Mara," meaning "Mary the teacher" or "Mary the master."
Before the movie was screened, Jacobovici said that particular inscription provided crucial support for his claim. The name Mariamene is rare, and in some early Christian texts it is believed to refer to Mary Magdalene.
But having analyzed the inscription, Pfann published a detailed article on his university's Web site asserting that it doesn't read "Mariamene" at all.
The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame," was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara," meaning "and Mara." Mara is a different form of the name Martha.
According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher," but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha."
"In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary ... to Mary Magdalene or any other person in biblical, non-biblical or church tradition," Pfann wrote.
In the interest of telling a good story, Pfann said, the documentary engaged in some "fudging" of the facts.
Okay, an inability to read
and an apparent willingness to deceive.
Somehow, I doubt anyone is all that surprised.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:03 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There is no historical evidence that Jesus and the two Maries continued living in Palestine while there is convincing evidence that they traveled to India. The fist detailed research was published a hundred years ago by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-190
in his book Jesus in India (www.alislam.org, www.tombofjesus dot com) referring to many ancient sources. Graves of Jesus is well known in Srinagar India and that of one Mary in Murree in Pakistan.
Posted by: Syed Sajid Ahmad at March 14, 2007 11:43 AM (j+83b)
2
CY, I agree completely with two posts in a row! (Pace "don't ask/don't tell" and now this about bonehead Cameron). What's the world coming to?
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 14, 2007 12:24 PM (7IB7k)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 13, 2007
Unacceptable Opinions
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, infuriated many yesterday when he said in an interview that he thought homosexual behavior was immoral, and likened it to adultery:
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
As you may imagine, all the usual suspects were there to quickly condemn Pace's comments, including one liberal blogger that hoped to organized a petition drive to have him fired. To date, Pace
refuses to apologize.
I've got very mixed feelings about this particular story.
I personally dislike "don't ask, don't tell."
The official military position, as I understand it, is that they don't want openly gay soldiers serving in the military because it could cause dissention in the ranks. As openly gay soldiers have served in armies worldwide for thousands of years--including our Greek friends portrayed in the now-playing "300"--I find that argument especially weak, if not insulting to our soldiers. Are proponents of "don't ask, don't tell" trying to convince us that our military men and women are so fickle, mentally weak and easily rattled that the mere
presence of openly gay soldiers in the ranks is enough to topple our military, or at the very least, reduce its combat effectiveness? If so, our top generals must be far more afraid of
Cirque du Soleil than al Qaeda.
No, I think that "don't ask, don't tell" comes down to anti-gay bigotry in our military, which is notoriously conservative (and I mean socially, not politically, though that probably applies as well). The policy implemented during the Clinton Administration was a mistake then, and continues to be a mistake now, causing the military to lose potential applicants that are intelligent, skilled, and otherwise exemplary material, solely on the basis of sexual preference. We have lost good soldiers because of this, as well as intelligence assets, including Arab linguists that are already in short supply. "Don't ask, don't tell" is hurting the War against Islamic terrorism in very measurable ways.
But for all that is wrong with the policy, I'm even more appalled by the hysterical responses of some of those who have taken issue with Pace's comments. Apparently, Pace's
opinion is too much to handle for some oppressively self-righteous gay advocates, including one that is
calling for Pace to resign, and another, John Aravosis, that
shrieks so shrilly that it only reinforces the stereotype that some in the military have against allowing gays to serve. Apparently, these blogger-advocates are quite content to exercise their freedom of speech, while attempting to punish Pace for exercising his. What they advocate is nothing less than censorship, pure and simple, and in a hysterically cartoonish way at that.
If John Aravosis, Pam Spaulding, etc want to help convince our military that allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly is in our nation's best interests, then by all means, they should help develop a compelling case to prove to Congress and the military that is policy is outdated and counterproductive. If advocates truly want gay and lesbian Americans to have the opportunity to serve their country, then they should fight for that right with logic, reason, and intelligence.
Instead, they attempt to claim victim status once again, and hope to shame Pace into retracting his comments, or force his resignation. Quite simply, they hurt their cause with a call for censorship instead of reasoned debate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:14 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually, GEN Pace has apologized, just not for having opinions:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=10601
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at March 13, 2007 03:39 PM (yiMNP)
2
I agree with the idea behind the policy for the simple reason that in the military there are, at least in some instances, still communal showers and there should be the expectation that you are not showering in the presence of someone who finds you sexually attractive, without your consent or knowledge. There is a simple solution, build private showers. I don't like the policy, but I can understand how a person regardless of gender or sexual orientation may not like the idea that he or she is being ogled by someone they are not, nor would be interested in.
Posted by: Ennuipundit at March 13, 2007 03:46 PM (etxGA)
3
Sgt Jeff: Thanks for the URL about Pace. Yes, I think Pace apologized very well. He is dedicated to serve his country, and follow orders from above, even if he, personally has a problem with it. I, personally have no problem with gays in the military, or anywhere else, and I don't like the bad faith approach of "don't ask don't tell'. Sexuality is often very inconvenient in military life. Canada has openly gay/lesbian soldiers, and they manage. Militaries have always had gays, lesbians, and heteros, living cheek by jowl. Winston Churchill (who was Lord of the Admiralty twice) remarked that sodomy in the Royal Navy was endemic and perennial.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 13, 2007 06:17 PM (L/SIz)
4
My view on allowing openly gay folks to serve is mixed -- I don't think that anyone shuold be denied the opportunity to serve, but I'm not so sure that the Marine Corps is quite ready for it quite yet. Let them serve, but make sure to budget in the insane amount of man hours that will be spent on legal proceedings.
It always irritates me when high-level representatives make irresponsible comments like that. From the time a person steps on the yellow foot prints at recruit training, they are told that they are ambassadors of the Marines Corps 24/7, and that they will be held to the highest standards at all times. If comment like that made to the media by a Lance Corporal would cause shockwaves and result in punishment, why should he be any different?
Making the comparison to adultry is ridiculous too -- adultry is rampant to the point of almost expected in the armed services. What happens on deployment stays on deployment, right?
Posted by: paully at March 13, 2007 06:23 PM (75YCX)
5
Are proponents of "don't ask, don't tell" trying to convince us that our military men and women are so fickle, mentally weak and easily rattled that the mere presence of openly gay soldiers in the ranks is enough to topple our military, or at the very least, reduce its combat effectiveness?
It's not the military's fault that our civilian leadership can't get their shit together and come to a consensus on whether openly gay Americans should be allowed to serve in uniform. For the record, I think they should. And, since it's a civvie issue, I think Gen. Pace was out of line amking such public statements.
"Don't ask, don't tell" isn't my idea of a perfect compromise either, but I've come to respect it much more after my hitch in the service. Here's why. Prior to 1992, gay Americans who wanted to serve were forced to lie on their entry paperwork, providing a ready made character-flaw (dishonesty) to be used against them later.
But "don't ask" is a legal order, follow it, and you can serve as a gay American with your honor intact. Without denying who you are. It's not perfect, but hey, life isn't fair. And for me, it was more important to do my bit for the war effort than it was to flaunt my sexuality for activist purposes. There are plenty others like me, I assure you. All made possible by "don't ask."
(BTW, I was an Arabic linguist, followed my orders, and was rewarded with a trip to Iraq and a chance to do the job I signed up to do. Please don't buy into this "Gay Arabic linguinsts will win the war!" hype of the gay activist Left. They're simply seizing on news of linguist shortfalls for their own cynical ends. They don't give a shit about winning. And I'm posting as Anon because I want to remain elidgble to go back if recalled. Something these high minded activists will never understand.)
Posted by: Anon at March 13, 2007 06:34 PM (qJ3GC)
6
It is hard to justify allowing openly gay soldiers to serve when we don't allow openly adulterous hetero soldiers to room together. The issue is not that gay people serve, but that the military must give official cognizance and protection to them beyond that offered to hetero soldiers. Here are only a few concerns that soldiers have raised with openly gay people in the military as a protected class not subject to the same UCMJ that the rest of us are:
- Lesbian Drill Sergeants recruiting from enlistees. This already happens, but the policy change would protect them.
- Gay leaders assign dangerous duty to someone other than their lover, as will happen among heteros when we fully integrate women into the combat branches.
- Barracks being separated into Gay and Straight ssections, just like they used to be separated by race.
The military exists to fight our wars, not serve as a social experiment.
Posted by: Old_dawg at March 13, 2007 06:37 PM (0NZst)
7
The military has no say in the matter. The ban on open homosexual conduct is federal law, passed by Congress. (10 USC 654)
And it's fun to note that the policy is a ban on conduct, not status. You can be straight as an arrow, but if you engage in homosexual conduct, you can be separated.
Conversely, you can be gay as can be, but if you don't act on it, you're fine.
Posted by: Army Lawyer at March 13, 2007 06:44 PM (d4X7I)
8
If homosexuals get to shower with those they are attracted to, then hetrosexuals should sue to be able to have the same rights as gays. That is to be able to shower with members of the oposite sex. Like a previous poster stated, the military is not a social experiment. They are trained to kill people and break things. We pay them to do it better than anyone else. Considering what is at stake when we utilize our military. Anything that hinders the operation thereof, and that should be left to those doing the job, should be banned. That is, only if victory in battle is a priority. Hence the lefts mission to include openly gay people in the military.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at March 13, 2007 08:43 PM (QpC8Q)
9
Maybe Gen.Pace,by stating his true opinion, wants to be fired. Maybe he doesn't care for the CIA's Gates oversight of the Pentagon. Didn't the Sec. of the Army also resign the other day over the Walter Reed stink? Perhaps there's just unhappiness with the new CIA overlords/Democrats promotion of the Walter Reed scandal and their continual attack on the US military.
Posted by: Bob at March 13, 2007 09:14 PM (kD3eu)
10
It's pretty bad precedent to apologize for your opinions.
Posted by: Kevin at March 13, 2007 09:40 PM (/ndDU)
11
when you get thirsty do you pour water in your ear?
when you get hungry do you put food on top of your head?
no; it's not normal or natural.
so... why is it okay for a man who is horny to wanna put his blank inside another man's blank?
just asking.
i mean: is there such a thing as deviancy or not?
does it matter if it has a genetic component or not?
pedophiles may have a genetic diathesis for attraction to children. addicts to drugs.
does that make pedophilia and drug addiction normal or okay?
just asking.
seems to me normal is a very useful thing for societies.
sure sure sure: so too is liberty.
but liberty without natural law is libertinage.
and "do what thou wilt" cannot be the whole of the law without lawlessness breaking out all over.
bottom-line: hate the sin; love the sinner.
treat non-normal people with the respect they deserve and within the law.
as for the military: old dawg and zr3 make good points.
Posted by: RELIAPUNDIT at March 13, 2007 10:03 PM (iLtL+)
12
I agree with the General that homosexuality is immoral. The Scriptures are too plain. The fact is I was in the Navy in the 80s and joined the Army for the sole purpouse of going to Iraq. I was in Yusefiah where 2 of my comrades were kidnapped and brutally murdered and I got 3 purple hearts. I dont think that gays should be in the military. I am sure that women would not want a bunch of men taking showers with them and lusting after them in the showers. I know for a fact that when I had to take a shower with other soldiers that if I knew there was a gay in there I definatly would just have to go dirty. I would not want a man that was gay in the shower looking and lusting. It just makes common sense just like men dont take showers with women and vice versa. Neither straight men nor women would want to be lusted after anytime by the same sex but especially when at war. We have enough problems and this is just common sense. If I knew before enlistment that I would have to take a shower and undress in front of men who lusted after me I would not join.
Posted by: Forrest Langley at March 14, 2007 12:18 AM (wlQTg)
13
The shower trailers in nearby Mahmudiyah have single stalls, so don't worry about a gay dude looking at your ding ding. Gay dudes are in the military right now, and I'm sure one of them has seen you naked. OH NO!
Posted by: brando at March 14, 2007 03:53 AM (uZ35s)
14
I have two comments. First, when you join the military, you give up certain rights. One of those rights is the freedom to live where you want to live and who you want to live with. If they say you have to move into barracks and share a living space with another soldier not of your choosing, its basic respect for the individual that he or she shouldn't be housed with someone who is sexually attracted to them. What would happen if a college forced a homosexual to room with a hetersexual who didn't want to live with the other? Who's rights are being violated? The second point is not PC, but harsh reality. There is a lot of sex going on in Co-Ed military units. LOTS and it can't be stopped. Enlisted with enlisted, NCOs with enlisted, officers with NCOs. Its just a fact that one has to deal with. All co-ed units have their soap operas to deal with, some are worse than others. Letting gays serve openly will make matters worse, much worse, not only for the Co-Ed combat service and services support units, but our frontline combat units.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 14, 2007 08:49 AM (oC8nQ)
15
Army Lawyer - thanks for the info. I had always been under the impression that the policy was a presidential order.
10 USC 654 is part of Public Law 103-160, enacted in November 1993.
Who controlled Congress in 1993? Who signed the bill into law in 1993?
It also appears (I am not a lawyer) that 10 USC 654 has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court.
The point is, those laying the blame on (any) president, the pentagon, generals or admirals, the defense department, or secretaries of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. are being dishonest.
The root of the law lies within Congress. The President is executing the law and all the others are following the law - whether they personally agree with it or not.
People that truly believe this law to be bad should be pounding on Congress.
Those who believe that politics must occur will beat on the President, Pentagon, and Defense instead, because they can get more camera time and print space.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at March 15, 2007 12:02 PM (EsOdX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Air America Offers to Host Republican Presidential Debates
Please understand that this is meant purely as a snub by the floundering liberal radio network.
On the other hand, if the state Republican chairmen of Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or New Hampshire accept the offer, Air America can revel in something entirely new on a liberal talk radio network... listeners.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:41 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Air America can't afford to "host" anything. If they were to "host" they would have to "charge".
Posted by: RRRoark at March 14, 2007 12:48 PM (wQeBW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Second Verse, Same as the First
If you read either Left Behind from last week or The United Left of Defeat from yesterday, then this editorial from the Washington Post today might sound very familiar:
The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.
If anything, the WaPo editorial is more targeted in exposing the cynical nature of the "slow bleed" Democrats. Not only does this Executioner's Congress not care about the fate of the Iraqi people or the larger Sunni-Shia regional war that may result from their craven political acts, they also want their genocidal proposals implemented in time to benfit them politically. I know that I alluded to this, but this editorial takes them head-on in their defeatism.
I
said it yesterday, and will reiterate it again today:
On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.
Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.
They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.
I never thought I would live to see a day where a substantial portion of the American poltical establishment placed party politics above national security.
Sadly, that day has clearly arrived, as even the national media are beginning to pickup.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:01 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Shorter Cy: Having failed to instill a representational Democracy in Iraq, we must now give the Iraqi people a voice in our Congress.
...and you're still as wrong in this post as you were in the others about which party places, "their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."
As I reminded you in the last post bin Laden's goals are being furthered by the Republicans, and the Republicans alone:
“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”
“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”
“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.
Posted by: Frederick at March 13, 2007 09:59 AM (2SHkX)
2
Ms. Pelosi has also invoked that leftist incantation "for our children" as a reason to accept defeat and retreat, without once mentioning Iraqi children. What of them once we "redeploy?" I'd like to hear her direct answer (as if it were possible for her to give one) to the question, "What happens to the children of Iraq once we leave the country?"
Yes, I know the children are paying a terrible price right now, but which scenario gives them a better chance for a positive future? Completion of our mission? Or defeat? Does Ms. Pelosi care? You wouldn't know it from anything she's said so far.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 13, 2007 12:11 PM (wEn0O)
3
Frederick
"Bin Ladens goals are being furthered"
What, like getting 1000s of his soldiers killed in Iraq by US marines and Iraqi infantry?
Like being ousted from his one safehaven and forced underground?
Like being forced so deep into hiding/oblivion by US special forces that he hasnt been heard from in more than TWO YEARS?
Like Iranian commanders defecting to the US?
Like the arab states agreeing to allow Israeli overflights for purposes of bombing missions on Iran?
Like his top lieutenant, Al Zarqawi being killed by US bombs?
Does anyone besides me find Fredericks blind acceptance of 2 year old Bin Laden propaganda as "proof" of Al Qaedas success to be somewhat odd? (or just plain idiotic?)
Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 12:20 PM (+BgNZ)
4
By the way, if Bin Ladens 2 year old propaganda about "bankrupting" the US was correct, wouldnt unemployment be above 4.5%?
http://origin.mercurynews.com/business/ci_5406267
If we were bankrupt Id think we'd be more like France or Germany in the 10% range.
Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 12:27 PM (+BgNZ)
5
blind acceptance:
Iraq War costs projected at upwards of 2 Trillion dollars.
A Birth tax of $36,000 on every child that is born.
National debt load is a fiscal time bomb
As the national debt approaches a staggering $9 trillion, roughly $240 billion will be spent this year paying interest on the half that's held by public creditors (of which Japan and China are the largest). That translates to about 11 percent of projected tax revenue.
...By 2040, we could be looking at debt held by the public being 300 percent of GDP
GOP Kool-Aid...free, drink up.
Posted by: Frederick at March 13, 2007 12:55 PM (2SHkX)
6
Federal Deficit Down Sharply in 2007
Associated Press
"WASHINGTON — The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending.
The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year.
That improvement came even though the deficit in February hit $120 billion, up 0.6 percent from last February's deficit of $119.2 billion.
One factor that contributes to higher deficits in February are the refund payments the Internal Revenue Service is mailing out during the month to people who have filed early tax returns. The February 2006 imbalance was the largest monthly deficit for that year.
In the current budget year, which began on Oct. 1, the government had larger-than-expected surpluses in December and January."
But then again, you cited a left wing columnist in the SF Gate to support your economic calamity narrative, as well as Bin Ladens assessment of Al Qaedas progress as proof of same, so you wouldnt know anything about swallowing Kool Aid, would you Freddie?
Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:09 PM (+BgNZ)
7
I agree we carry a massive national debt load, but you'd have to be a serious ignoramus to claim that this isnt a very long standing problem.
http://concordcoalition.org/press/1998/980930_budgetdebt.html
5.4 trillion dollars in national debt, most of it spent on "paying interest" on money owed to "Britain and China"
Hey, who was President in 1998 anyhow?
Democrat Kool Aid. Tastes like Nancy Pelosis bunghole.
Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:15 PM (+BgNZ)
8
Let me see if I have the Frederick playbook down:
1. Cite enemy propaganda (specifically- a speech given by the ever truthful mass murderer: Osama Bin Laden) as proof of Bush's failures in the war on terror
2. Bitch about 7 trillion in national debt of which a large portion represents payment of interest under Bush, but dont bat an eyelid under Clinton when it's 5.4 trillion in which a large portion represents payment of interest
And then claim you arent "partisan"
Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:34 PM (+BgNZ)
9
I think you're absolutely correct that the left is not America First. However, I think it's not quite blind, selfish political opportunism. They are 'We Are The World'-firsters, where nationhood means nothing. They would like the UN to lead us. They would like borders and wars to be obsolete. They would like religious belief to be obsolete. They don't want anything incovenient to disrupt progress towards those states of being, where no one in the world has to worry about anything. All those things above have certain aspects about them that are good (as well as bad). But, a strong US vigorously defending it's and the West's position in the world they believe to be a major roadblock to their Nirvana. They refuse to understand that their are a lot more aggressive forces out their that will harsh their journey than GWB and the US. - They are, as they always have been, Totalitarianism's Useful Idiots.
Posted by: Mark at March 13, 2007 01:54 PM (+45yf)
10
Frederick, you need a basic understanding of economics. "Iraq War costs projected at upwards of 2 Trillion dollars.
A Birth tax of $36,000 on every child that is born."
First: Costs are not debt. They are paid by the full faith and CREDIT (taxes and borrowing) of the US Govt. Only the borrowed part is debt.
You are drinking the MSM/Dem's kool aid re: the massive debt. It is not massive. It is actually a relatively normal load as a percentage of the GDP. One thing they seldom tell you unthinking liberals is that we have had debt as far back as 1780. We CANNOT pay off all of our Fed debt. Too many retirement accounts would be put at greater risk. Remember the brouhaha over "Social Security Private Accounts"?
Instead of just spouting, think. Please.
Posted by: CoRev at March 13, 2007 03:11 PM (Hr52v)
11
Somewhere (I apologize for not remembering where) a commenter commented that the only way to get the Dems on the right side (USA) of the war was to let them have full control of the government. Then they would defend the USA with passion and dedication--probably because they were defending their grip on power, but I am extrapolating there.
That is, of course, just another way of restating Bob's point: Dems in general (not every one, of course) care more about getting and using political power than anything else in the world. Very old news, but few ever seem to notice.
Posted by: iconoclast at March 13, 2007 03:49 PM (lHYQX)
12
That translates to about 11 percent of projected tax revenue.
Not bad. I remember when debt service was closer to 20% of tax revenues
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 13, 2007 04:54 PM (eEBfB)
13
"On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first." Very well said, and I think it's key to understanding the left. The theme song of socialism is the "Internationale". Socialism is seen as a global movement, and countries should be subsumed under that. Socialism, as most French politicians will tell you, requires the defeat of the US. This is because the US is unrepentantly capitalist, and successful. Therefore, it must be destroyed.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 13, 2007 06:54 PM (L/SIz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore
At least he'll aways have his Oscar, even if his documentary isn't supported by the data:
"I don’t want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made "the most important and salient points" about climate change, if not "some nuances and distinctions" scientists might want. "The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger," he said, adding, "I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand."
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in "An Inconvenient Truth," which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for "getting the message out," Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were "overselling our certainty about knowing the future."
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe's recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."
Gore's fellow global warming co-religionists will most likely discount the attempt to inject
actual science into the global warming debate. As we well know, science and faith do not always go hand-in-hand.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:38 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When the NYT turns on a moonbat, they're in trouble.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 13, 2007 04:56 PM (eEBfB)
2
algore exposed as a scheming thief!
"Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself".
You knew it was coming!
"Gore has built a 'green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms,' writes blogger Dan Riehl".
Read the rest of this "inconvenient truth" here.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Posted by: Dan at March 14, 2007 07:52 AM (1Q8ID)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ernie is Dead
Mike Yon's latest dispatch, "Ernie is Dead" will be posted soon on Foxnews.com.
"Ernie" is Ernie Pyle, the highly respected war correspondent from Scripps-Howard newspapers who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1944. A collection of 40 of Pyle's columns have been collected by Indiana University's Journalism School
here.
Pyle's most famous column,
The Death of Captain Waskow, shows care, respect, and unvarnished humanity for the American soldier. It is doubtful that a similar column could be printed by today's media, which vacillates between treating our soldiers as unfeeling automatonic criminals and childlike victims. Today, many liberals would refer to someone like Pyle as a right wing propagandist. We just think of him as an American legend.
I'll link Yon's article in an update when it comes online.
Update: Yon's dispatch is now online at
FoxNews.com before transitioning over to the extended entry at
Michael Yon Online.
True to the title, Michael makes some very interesting observations about combat journalism, and dings both the professional media and bloggers as warranted.
The rules, like the times and tents, have changed. Joe Galloway is retired. Journalists who in previous wars might have spent long tours with combat forces are rare. There have been a few, such as Lee Pitts who was here to cover a Tennessee National Guard deployment for a Tennessee paper. Or Rich Oppel of the New York Times, who has been here repeatedly for longer than typical journalists. John Burns needs no introduction. Likewise Dexter Filkins or Michael Ware. But journalists who roam the battlefield with the troops and write freely for long periods are completely gone. That doesn’t mean good journalists are gone. There are plenty of those, but mostly they are somewhere else, or they only come to Iraq for quick tours.
There is the new brand of journalists, the independents, of which I am a charter member. Many bloggers, along with their readers, are changing the face of journalism. Glenn Reynolds, from the immensely popular blog "Instapundit," which I check regularly, calls the new media "An Army of Davids," who are already changing the media by holding it more accountable. A number of very effective blog-storms have provided a needed check to balance the system. Don’t ever fake a photo: Bob at Confederate Yankee is watching.
Huge amounts of blog-energy go into attacks on mainstream media war coverage that might be better spent ignoring the irritant and offering alternative sources, in view of how critical any and all media coverage is to shaping public opinion which in turn determines the outcome of this war. These skirmishes between mainstream and alternative media produce only friendly fire casualties, and neither side can claim a monopoly on accuracy and objectivity. While the reliability and/or agendas of many mainstream media sources are questionable, the blogworld is also often too eager to anoint anyone who's not mainstream as a guru-of-something. If this were the art-world, it would be like anointing anyone with some skill at putting brush to canvas as the "new Rembrandt."
But the dirty secret known to only a few is that many of these "new Rembrandts" are clever forgeries. Some bloggers who advertise themselves as war correspondents with numerous "embeds" in the war, with the implication that they've spent more time on the ground than their mainstream war correspondent counterparts, mostly have spent very little time here, especially in comparison to those mainstream war correspondents.
This week, journalists are all around this area—ABC, Fox, New York Times, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Stars & Stripes (DoD publication) and others, all flagships—but where are the bloggers? Prohibitive costs, very high risks, and an increasingly shrinking market for the work probably contribute to the poor showing. Will the blog-world still maintain the attack on coverage from the mainstream media? Instead of looking for mistakes in some coverage, the common cause might be better served by well-informed bloggers searching all sources for the reports that get it right and driving readers to those.
As if often the case, Yon is direct and offers his honest opinion of the problems of both the media and blogosphere.
Perhaps Yon is right, in that bloggers such as myself should spend more energy directing readers to alternative sources of information, than merely exhaust our resources shooting down erroneous media accounts. I know that in my case, I spent quite a bit of time proving that Associated Press source "Jamil Hussein" was
every bit as much a fake as were the 24 people that never died in AP's Hurriyah mosque attack coverage, but for all my efforts, it accomplished very little. We forced Jamil into silence as a named source, and perhaps causing certain AP executives and reporters some heartburn, but none of them were held accountable for what I still feel is a serious case of journalistic fraud. I still think the story was worth pursuing, but might my efforts have been better spent trying to track down alternative sources? It's tough to know, and may vary from story to story, but it is something I'll now consider as I move forward.
As for the "new Rembrandts," I was a participant in a series of heated email exchanges over the past few days (still on-going) involving Yon and a blogger Yon clearly considers a "clever forgery." I'd prefer not to get into the details as I respect both Yon and the work of the person he suspects, and hope that this is a situation where a lack of clear communications, not deception, is the culprit. Time will tell.
That said, the point Yon makes is correct: we must police our own, just as surely as we police the professional media, and hold both the mainstream media journalist and citizen-journalist (blogger) to similar standards of accuracy and credibility.
The focus of Yon's article is also quite true, in that we have very few combat journalists dedicated to long-term embeds with U.S. and Iraqi forces, and when we lack that perspective, we lose something in our war coverage. I can certainly understand it we simply don't have the journalists willing to commit to long-term embeds with our forces, and certainly understand that most bloggers, which tend to hold other full-time jobs, simply can't afford to self-finance the substantial cost of embedding. I hope however, that if journalists and bloggers are willing and able to embed, that they can get the financial backing of media organizations to embark on that most dangerous of journalistic missions.
Ernie Pyle is dead. I wonder if his successors are being given the chance they need to keep his legacy alive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:27 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We need both activities. If you and your compatriots do not de-bunk falsehoods and inaccuracies, the majority of the people will not be aware of the failures. Michael Yon, Bill Day, and others are doing an admirable job of reporting what is really going on. You need to keep up with your excellent work,also.
Posted by: old_dawg at March 13, 2007 12:40 PM (7nc0l)
2
My bad. I meant Chris Muir, not Bill Day. I salute all the bloggers who have embedded and occasionally support some of them financially.
If George O means that CY is an idiot and a liar, it must mean that George O is a lunatic.
Posted by: Old_dawg at March 13, 2007 06:51 PM (0NZst)
3
Yon's post is another great read, but I'm disturbed about the "clever forgery" mention. I'm not asking you to say who that is, so don't get me wrong. Since Yon has brought it up though, I think the sooner they themselves bring it into the open the better, and let the chips fall where they may.
Looking at it from just my perspective, I use embedded bloggers and milbloggers, along with "traditional" journalists and other sources, to help form my opinion about what is going on in Iraq. Is one of those bloggers a fake? Which one(s)? Does the post I'm now holding cite a soon to be discredited source?
Yon and the other party or parties need to get this out in the open, resolved or not, before it festers. Their readers deserve to know. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Dave E. at March 13, 2007 08:05 PM (86QII)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Duke Lacrosse Rape Case: A Year Later, Coach K Speaks Out
It was a year ago tonight that a stripper in Durham alleged that she was gang-raped at a Duke Lacrosse team party. Today, Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski speaks out:
"The one thing that I wish we would have done is just out, publicly say, 'Look, those are our kids. And we're gonna support 'em, because they're still our kids.' That's what I wish we would have done," Krzyzewski told Bob Costas, a sports commentator who has a television show on HBO. "And I'm not sure that we did -- I don't think we did a good job of that."
For months, bloggers and others have criticized Duke, accusing the university of not standing behind the players as the judicial process unfolded.
Since the spring, defense lawyers have poked gaping holes in the prosecution's case against three former lacrosse players -- David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. District Attorney Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who led the investigation, has resigned from the case and is in a battle to save his law license.
One segment of "Costas Now," an hour-long sports program that airs tonight at 10, will be a one-on-one interview with Krzyzewski, according to Kris Goddard with HBO Sports media relations. According to excerpts from the transcript, Krzyzewski criticizes Duke professors for their criticisms of big-time sports at the university.
"We had almost 100 professors come out publicly against certain things in athletics," Krzyzewski told Costas, "and I was a little bit shocked at that. But it shows that there's a latent hostility or whatever you want to say towards sports on campus. I thought it was inappropriate, to be quite frank with you."
Krzyzewski did not speak on the case as it began last year at the specific request of Duke University President Richard Brodhead. Brodhead seems to have had little problem with the "Gang of 88," a group of Duek Professors that were quick to condemn the players.
Rape charges have since been dropped against the players after teh accuser offered multiple and inconsitent stories, and DNA evidence showed that the accuser had sex with several men at the time DNA was collected, but none of them were Duke Lacrosse players.
Sexual assualt and kidnapping charges are still levied against the players, but those charges may be dropped. State prosecutors took over the case after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong stepped down from the case in disgrace, after allegedly withholding DNA evidence that exonerated the players.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:07 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have followed Duke closely because of its parallel at the US Naval Academy. From Duke we have coined "Nifonged." From the US Naval Academy we have coined "Rempt-Raped."
Very little difference in the cases, with exception that there is recourse with Nifong and little for US Naval Academy Superintendent VADM Rempt.
Woman claims rape. Accused's life ruined. Exacerbated by blind agreement with the victimization message most have received in their "Women's Studies" courses and the sexual assault/harassment training.
Sorry, this is my little rant subject.
Posted by: CoRev at March 13, 2007 08:41 AM (Hr52v)
2
CoRev: Well said. Extreme feminism provides no excuse to abrogate the constitution, or deny due process to the accused, for any crime.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 13, 2007 06:42 PM (L/SIz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 12, 2007
The United Left of Defeat
The Los Angeles Times, of all places, posted an excellent editorial this morning, lambasting the defeatist cant that has been issuing forth from House Democrats, as Democrats responding to their left-wing base have continued their attempt to force a loss in the Iraq War by way of micromanaging our military into defeat.
Characteristically, it seems that liberal politicians such as John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, along with their strident defenders on the political left, have sought to frame the conflict in Iraq as a Republican-only war. Both in Congress and in the blogosphere, liberals see the Iraq War as a conservative political weakness, and think that by forcing a withdrawal, that they will gain political strength. Indeed, if they are successful in undermining the war effort, you can count on them claiming a victory, however fleeting that "victory" may be.
On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.
Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.
They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.
As I
noted last week, Democrats are quick to call for the end of
American involvement in Iraq, while purposefully failing to mention the catastrophic political and human cost to Iraqi civilians that would result from the arbitrary and complete withdrawal that they hope for. They dare not speak of the all-out civil war that could result, nor the wider Sunni vs. Shia regional war that could develop. They have become an Executioner's Congress, willing to lay waste to Iraqi and other Middle Eastern lives to satisify the needs of their base for domestic liberal political consumption.
These same liberal politicians fail to speak about how a defeat in Iraq will be a major victory for Islamic extremism, and will extend, perhaps by decades, what has been rightfully identified as
Our Children's Children's War. They purposefully fail to inform their constituencies that a loss in Iraq will lead to a rekindling of the same expansionist Islamic mindset that enabled the rise of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamic extremist groups.
Democrats are willing, even eager to hand George Bush a defeat in Iraq, but are unwilling to take credit for the loss they will hand to all Americans. Liberals love to tell us that the War in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, but in their naked cowardice, Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk refuse to mention how much
more of a recruiting tool an American defeat in Iraq would be for these same extremist elements.
That such a Democrat-led defeat would be a boon for terrorist recruiters is obvious, and yet, Democrats will not acknowledge the effect their assistance will provide.
They are unwilling to tell their constituents the obvious truth of their actions, which is that terrorists inspired by a Democratic-led defeat in Iraq would seek to expand upon their Democrat-delivered victory. If Democrats are successful, our war against Islamic extremism will expand, not be brought to a close.
All of these truths are self-evident and readily apparent to those willing to face reality, but the political far left has long ago abandoned reality for something it prefers called a "reality-based" community. They pick and choose the reality to which they would respond, ignoring the inconvenient truth that their world exists only in as much as society's defenders—the same military and police that they typically despise—allow this illusion to survive.
Liberals refuse to address the fact that their plans for a U.S. defeat in Iraq weakens both Iraq and the United States, and that the defeat they long for will increase both terrorist recruiting and the possibility of more terrorist attacks.
The radical Left wing of the Democrat Party is driven by their own short-term political goals and refuses to view the future health and well-being of the United States as a whole as their primary concern. To defeat "George Bush's War," they are willing to sacrifice the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, and the lives of those future generations of American military and civilian families that will bear the bloody costs of their agenda-driven myopia. Of the tens of millions Iraqi lives that hang in the balance, they care even less.
As is evidenced in their words and deeds, liberal political success, however short-lived, is their primary and overriding goal. What is best for America and Americans are matters of ever-decreasing importance among those who would wreck the world for their fleeting, dishonorable moment in the sun.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:16 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You hit the nail on the head. I would like to e-mail your post to the Speaker of the House. I just don't know how.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at March 12, 2007 12:37 PM (rAjoJ)
2
Gee... where to begin...
"On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole."
Unlike the GOP, which continually replaces talented, highly praised professionals with unskilled hacks and cronies (see: US Attys, NASA administration, FEMA, etc, etc.); also, those lovely no-bid contracts with no oversight whatsoever; oh, and the original load of 20-something college-republican clone troopers they stocked the original CPA with.
The Dems haven't been in power in years, but the Bush administration has systematically, and at every oppoprtunity, sacrificed US capability and competence for partisan political gain. I call that treason, and I'll defend that accusation.
"Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."
Dude, what planet have you been living on the past few years? Vindicate the goals of Islamic terrorists? Undermine US credibility? Bush has done that in spades. Terrorist recruitment numbers are through the roof.. why? because of Bush's "God told me to go crusading" mentality. They don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us because they think we're on a mission to destroy Islam, and too many people like Bush are happy to sign on to that bandwagon.
"They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large."
No, we refuse to acknowledge that this administration is competent to ever deliver a victory in Iraq. There's a big difference.
"Liberals love to tell us that the War in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, but in their naked cowardice, Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk refuse to mention how much more of a recruiting tool an American defeat in Iraq would be for these same extremist elements.
That such a Democrat-led defeat would be a boon for terrorist recruiters is obvious, and yet, Democrats will not acknowledge the effect their assistance will provide."
Again, what's the color of the sky where you live? The administration's own numbers show that terrorist recruiting and terror attacks around the world have skyrocketed thanks to this insane invasion. Maybe if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't micro-managed the forces in Iraq (both political and military) onto such a patently wrong-headed direction - stay the course/hit it with a bigger hammer - you might have some potential for eventual success to point to. But it won't ever happen. Not with these idiots in charge.
"To defeat "George Bush's War," they are willing to sacrifice the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, and the lives of those future generations of American military and civilian families that will bear the bloody costs of their agenda-driven myopia."
And that's where you get truly insulting, as well as deliberately dishonest. George Bush cannot win this war. Not now, not ever. From that, keeping our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary to safely withdraw them is blood on his hands, and yours. There will be a horribly bloody civil war in Iraq; Bush's criminally-incompetent mismanagement of the "regime change" and post-Hussein events has guarranteed that. Our troops cannot stop it. Many many innocent Iraqi civilians will die, but that will happen whether our troops stay there 6 more months, or 6 more years, or 60.
Posted by: legion at March 12, 2007 02:46 PM (3eWKF)
3
CY, again and again and again ... Never admit a mistake! It's always the others who are to blame:
"Leftists ... fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."
- The leftists are not needed. The Bush-Administration has been pretty good at doing all this alone ...
... by pro-war propaganda on the basis of an (not-existing) Iraq-9/11-connection
... by the fake-presentation on WMD in Iraq by an American Secretary of State before the Security Council
... by waging a war against the rules of internatonal law
... by Abu Ghuraib, Guantanamo, the CIA-kidnappings of foreign citizens ...
You complain "... the catastrophic political and human cost to Iraqi civilians that would result from the arbitrary and complete withdrawal" - Tens of thousands (if not more) of civilians have already been killed, and more are being killed every day. This is the catastrophy, and it began on March 20th, 2003. Removing the totalitarian, but secular regime of Saddam was a bad move on the chessboard of GWOT: chaos in Iraq, a new front and recruiting area for Al Quaida & Co, room to move for Iran, less stability in the region, more danger for Israel. And on the eve of OIF the Bush-Administration had been warned of all this by friends, but met this with ignorance, arrogance and childish reactions (Remember the "freedom fries"?).
... As you say: "All of these truths are self-evident and readily apparent to those willing to face reality"
Posted by: he at March 12, 2007 03:20 PM (9QHS8)
4
What legion said.
You are the first person I've heard call Murtha a liberal. He regards himself as a conservative. He's renowned for his close ties with the military.
None of the liberals I know view the war in partisan terms. Instead we are horrified about what has happened to the nation we love. We see Dem politicians as spineless for not standing up to W in 2003, and for not ending the war, even though it's the right thing to do and what the US citizens and Iraqis want. Some of us feel exonerated because while we were warning that this war was a bad idea you called us traitors and sympathizers. Now nearly everyone acknowledges that the war was unnecessary and moreover a disaster for US standing in the world.
What do you need to see to convince you that the war was a mistake? All we heard about for months was nerve gas, mushroom clouds, drones, aluminum tubes, yellowcake, etc, and this turned out to be at best incorrect. Then W says it was the CIA's fault, yet gives Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now you all pretend that the war was about promoting democracy all along, even though no one has ever created democracy at the barrel of a gun before.
I don't understand what winning the war means. The Sunnis are primarily the ones killing our soldiers, as in the Sunni Triangle. Yet we can't side with the Shias because they have ties with Iran. The Saudis have pledged that they will support the Sunnis financially if we side with the Shias. The Kurds are forcing all the Arabs out of their territory. There's no incentive for these people to form a democracy with each other.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 12, 2007 03:21 PM (w+yYp)
5
Let me see if I've got Legion pegged correctly as a leftist:
This is a George Bush/Republican/neo-conservative war, not America's.
Unlike the GOP, which continually replaces talented, highly praised professionals with unskilled hacks and cronies (see: US Attys, NASA administration, FEMA, etc, etc.); also, those lovely no-bid contracts with no oversight whatsoever; oh, and the original load of 20-something college-republican clone troopers they stocked the original CPA with.
The Dems haven't been in power in years, but the Bush administration has systematically, and at every oppoprtunity, sacrificed US capability and competence for partisan political gain. I call that treason, and I'll defend that accusation.
Check.
Blinded by internal politics, makes every bit of this a referendum on George Bush, mentions little or nothing about about the effect of this loss on the United States or the Iraqi people.
(see above and elsewhere)
Check.
Is incapable of envisioning any sort of a victory for the Iraqi people, having tied their own success to an American defeat.
No, we refuse to acknowledge that this administration is competent to ever deliver a victory in Iraq. There's a big difference.
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge that the retreat they call for expressly vindicates the strategy issued forth by al Qaeda and other terorist groups.
Again, what's the color of the sky where you live? The administration's own numbers show that terrorist recruiting and terror attacks around the world have skyrocketed thanks to this insane invasion. Maybe if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't micro-managed the forces in Iraq (both political and military) onto such a patently wrong-headed direction - stay the course/hit it with a bigger hammer - you might have some potential for eventual success to point to. But it won't ever happen. Not with these idiots in charge.
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge in any way that the defeat they strike for will be a huge terrorist recruiting tool.
(same paragraph as above)
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge that with a Democrat-provided victory, Islamists would be encouraged to press forward with attacks.
Refuses to address this fact at all.
Check.
Willing to accept and all-out civil war that could result, and the wider Sunni vs. Shia regional war that could develop.
Refuses to address this fact at all.
Check.
I find it amusing the Legion phrases his response differently, but more or less concedes or confirms every point I've made, even as he argues them, reinforcing another assertion made, the disconnect between reality and the "reality-based" community.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 12, 2007 03:34 PM (g5Nba)
6
Boy, you stirred up the unthinking. My personal favorite comment is from "Lex Steele" when s/he says "...even though no one has ever created democracy at the barrel of a gun before."
My response is read history much? Let's see, Us of A, France, even the UK are just a few democracies created from war. Then we can add Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.
Scary aren't they?!? Their view always more correct!
Posted by: CoRev at March 12, 2007 03:51 PM (Hr52v)
7
Now that's a fair piece of writing.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/03/re-united-left-of-defeat.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at March 12, 2007 05:02 PM (DOV3/)
8
CoRev -- 'democracy at the barrel of a gun' is a common expression that you seem to misunderstand. Google for it if you don't believe me. It refers to the idea of an outside power forcing democracy upon a populace. In the case of the US and the UK, it was the populace who obtained democracy themselves.
Germany and Japan aren't good counterexamples either : "Both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, their wartime leadership was thoroughly discredited, and they had long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism."
[citation]
My view isn't always correct, but about the war it's been correct for years, apparently unlike your own.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 12, 2007 05:58 PM (w+yYp)
9
Japan is the PERFECT example of a democracy at the point of a gun. We coerced the them to write a constitution of our liking by holding the Emperor hostage. What part of by the point of a gun does this not fit.
Posted by: David at March 12, 2007 06:13 PM (a1QaH)
10
Oh, yeah, and MacArthur wouldn't let people he didn't like run for office. Nope just a normal peace time transition to democracy.
Posted by: David at March 12, 2007 06:18 PM (a1QaH)
11
'fraid I'm with David on this one. While Japanese folks "drafted their own constitution", they didn't have the final say. Do you really think that Japan 60 years ago would allow women to vote? Or do anything for that matter?
Both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, their wartime leadership was thoroughly discredited, and they had long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism.
Long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism? As far as Japan is concerned, that's a laughable statement. Before the Meiji restoration in Japan (when the emporer was restored to "power", though not exactly true), Japan was a shogunate (feudal military dictatorship). I don't think the shoguns and daimyos gave a damn about "the people" during that time, nor did the people have much of a voice after the meiji restoration, with the kempei-tai running around.
Posted by: paully at March 12, 2007 07:25 PM (75YCX)
12
Busted Lex. Googling does not always come up with with consistent responses.
My literal definition is less convoluted and tortured than yours, Google or not.
Posted by: CoRev at March 12, 2007 08:25 PM (Hr52v)
13
Terrorist recruitment numbers are through the roof.
Where can I find the numbers for this assertion?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 12, 2007 08:46 PM (eEBfB)
14
Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests.
You're talking about Republicans here, right?
We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”
“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”
“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.**
Bamboozled, ever one of ya...
Posted by: Frederick at March 12, 2007 09:08 PM (2SHkX)
15
paully and David --
You are completely off base. McArthur left the existing Japan government nearly intact, minus the Emperor and a few others. He had the Diet pass laws allowing for elections, and pass laws against autocratic practices. The Iraqi government we are trying to set up must be made out of whole cloth. Japan has no ethnic strife or tribalism, whereas Iraq is dominated by these. There was little or no resistance in Japan to the changes McArthur imposed. In Iraq there is a tremendous amount of infighting. Read the paper I cited, it goes into more detail.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 12, 2007 09:59 PM (w+yYp)
16
So a 60 year old imperial constitution equates to a long pre-war tradition of democratic constitutionalism?
I totally agree that it's silly to compare middle-eastern reform and democratization with post WWII Germany and Japan for a bunch of reasons, but not because of their previous "democratic constitutions". The fact that they lived under a strong central government is more important than whether it was a constitutional democracy or not.
Posted by: paully at March 12, 2007 11:44 PM (75YCX)
17
paully,
All you really need to know is that Japan didn't put up any kind of insurgency after their military defeat, and that the existing political organization of the country allowed for an incremental change to democracy. Further there was no ethnic or religious enmity there. We did not force democracy on them with guns, they were willing to cooperate to become McArthur's Children.
Iraq is the opposite. The Sunnis have formed a strong insurgency. The Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds see each other as rivals. There was no national political system save the Baath party with which to introduce democracy in the first place, and as you know that horse done left the stable. Because of the insurgency, and because of the distrust between shia, sunnis and kurds, our soldiers literally would have to force them to cooperate to form a complete government. It's never been done under the best of circumstances, and Iraq is possibly the worst circumstance.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 12:27 AM (w+yYp)
18
Left the formor intact? We convicted and killed the leadership and replaced the administration with 8th army for at least 6th years. No point of gun here.
And by the way, an out of the loop german admiral surrendered to the allies and we RULED germany in 4 sectors for close to a dozen years. Nope no guns here.
Bluntly, Lex, you are a racist. The people of the middle east are incapable of democratic institutions. Lets leave then to their oppressers, they are after all a worthless , inherently undemocratic people. Check. Got it Opression is a GOOD thing for human dirt.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 02:25 AM (93JFq)
19
Lex,
A small point if I may, We are not forcing Democracy at the point of a gun, we are holding the wolves at bay while Iraq wrote their own constitution and hold their own elections. We are giving them a chance, THAT is what Democracy is about.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, we went in there to begin with (the point is now moot, though people still want to argue it). What are we going to do for them NOW? Cut and run saying, "Sorry, you're on your own now, we don't want to play anymore."
There are many things that could have been done differently, it's easy to see in hindsight. Try to see what will happen with foresight.
What is truly our safest course to try to end terrorism? Most terrorists only want complete control, do you want to live under their rules?
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 13, 2007 05:23 AM (zFYjM)
20
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at March 13, 2007 10:05 AM (kNjJk)
21
David -- there was very little insurgency in Japan and Germany, and that's a world of difference. The German and Japanese societies are cohesive, and that's a world of difference.
Do you honestly think it's easier to impose our idea of government on a populace that is fighting us versus one who, in defeat, realizes that their old form of government is flawed? What about onto a cohesive society versus one where two of the factions are openly at war? They are torturing each other, and bombing each other, and you think they are going to respect each other's representatives because Uncle Sam says so. The minority Sunnis have lorded it over the Shia for ages, and you think they are going to put aside their differences because Uncle Sam wants them to.
W expected to find WMD and to be greeted as a liberator. Those didn't happen, and promoting democracy is the only play he has left. In '99 he explicitly said, several times, that he would not engage in nation building.
Your charge of racism is so threadbare as to discount the remainder of what you say.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 11:20 AM (w+yYp)
22
Retired Navy --
"We are not forcing Democracy at the point of a gun, we are holding the wolves at bay while Iraq wrote their own constitution and hold their own elections."
I respect your opinion, but I don't see how to separate the wolves from the Iraqis in general. Sure there are some zealots who would be willing to kill US citizens solely from ideology, but there are many young men who see red when we put a bag over their uncle's head or knock down their door at night or kill their sister or violate their national or religious pride or what have you. Polls show Iraqis suspicious of Western democracy, and that the Iraqis would prefer us to leave.
"What is truly our safest course to try to end terrorism? Most terrorists only want complete control, do you want to live under their rules?"
Occupying Iraq and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis is surely increasing terrorism. A recent study shows terrorism worldwide increasing over the last four years. We're creating a generation of Iraqis that's trained in IED use and combat.
What about Pakistan and Iran? Terrorists are training there as well, and our war in Iraq takes resources away from what we could be doing there. We would be much better off if we'd sewed up Afghanistan and left Iraq to fester.
What to do now? Reagan's NSA head William Odom gave the best problem description that I've heard in a Hugh Hewitt interview. His basic point is that the civil war is going to get as bad as it will get whether we stay there or not. Anyway, polls show that the Iraqis want us to leave. That being the case, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice our soldiers in an attempt to give them something they don't welcome.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 11:35 AM (w+yYp)
23
Lex,
Again I say we are there, right wrong or indifferent. The problem exists and we helped create it. The job is not done. I agree a lot of innocent people are being killed, most by their own corrupt or power hungry countryment/forign terrorists (the wolves). We have gained ground and continue to do so.
I can't speak for all military, but do for myself and many I came into contact throught the years.
Freedom isn't free, never was. Our country is not the only one that deserves it, that should be a HUMAN condition. You mentioned Pakistan and Iran, well, if and when it's possible, we should do something to help. Iran already has the seed of dissent, the young don't want nuclear war and are voicing their opinion.
A lot of Americans talk a good talk and spew forth all kinds of 'Freedom this' or 'Freedom that'. Truth be told, we had help to establish that right. What is wrong about giving others a chance? It took us years as a fledgling republic to get up and stand on our own, it took Germany and Japan around a decade or more. People should have the right to be free.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 13, 2007 01:07 PM (0EcTE)
24
I agree with a lot of what you said. If I shared your optimism that we can get the job done, then I'd agree with you 100%. I suppose I just interpret the news more cynically than you do.
Thanks for the discussion, and best wishes.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 03:27 PM (w+yYp)
25
You too Lex.
My wife would laugh if she heard someone say I was optimistic instead of cynical. Maybe it's my 20 years military, I know what our boys-n-girls can do if congress (all parties) would let them alone to do it.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 14, 2007 04:53 AM (elhVA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Montel Hell
You would expect a former military man like talk show host Montel Williams to take good care of the military families he invited on his show to talk about the stress deployments take on the husbands, wives and children left behind when our armed forces deploy overseas into a combat zone.
Instead, the 22-year veteran of the Marines and Navy ran a bait-and-switch, changing the subject to another topic, the problems encountered by some troops as the result of anthrax vaccinations. Williams heavily skewed reality to present only the side of this topic that would cause the most consternation, referred to the troops as "guinea pigs" repeatedly, and asserted that our military was being treated so badly that no one would ever volunteer for the armed forces again and that the draft would have to be reinstated.
The ambushed families were shocked and angered, as can evidenced in an accounting of the ordeal at
SpouseBuzz, a military families web site:
The trouble started during the second taping, when we learned that Montel's agenda with military people wasn't what it had been portrayed to be when our group was invited to attend. And as military families have been burned so often by unscrupulous media members (I'm not attacking the ones who work professionally here!), we probably should have sensed it from the beginning. We were going to be ambushed.
And later:
But it got worse. The show was being presented in the most scaremongering fashion possible. There was only attention given to the worst cases. There was no attention given to those who had experienced no adverse affects, or only the mild swelling and soreness around the injection site, even though we had people like that present with us. There was no mention about the actual percentages such reactions actually occur in. And there was no mention of those, like an EOD friend of mine, who actually requested the vaccine and makes sure to keep it updated.
Finally, we all got up and left during a break before the taping was over. And I should probably add that there was a quite acrimonious exchange with Montel that resulted in one person being escorted out by the show security (who were very polite and professional, for the record). I did say, "You told us this was going to be about deployment, Montel!" to which the reply was, "Please, just leave." If there was any discussion of how deployment issues affect family members after we left, it happened without us. All I can say is that the direction and tone of the show definately made it look like the topic was not going to come up.
Ambushing military families is something that no American should stand for. If you would
politely like to tell Montel Williams that you find his bait-and-switch attack deplorable, please contact the show via
this form.
Our military families deserve better, especially from someone who should understand what these families are already going through with their military family members deployed overseas.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:26 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't remember any ill effects when I got the shots, nor from any with me at the time. Of course we were only a few compared to the many that received them, there are usually allergies associated with ANY vaccine and everyone was warned.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 12, 2007 11:01 AM (cqZXM)
2
Thanks for mustering up the outrage on this topic...now are you going to say anything about Walter Reed? Surely that deserves as much time as Montel, or the Jamil Hussein story...
Posted by: Frederick at March 12, 2007 11:18 AM (2SHkX)
3
I'm so glad you are covering this story. Montel's treatment of these families is outrageous, especially considering he is a decorated veteran himself.
Our military families have gone through enough without being hoodwinked by Montel.
Posted by: lady redhawk at March 12, 2007 01:17 PM (jx05q)
4
Anthrax vaccinations? That's so 5-years ago. If Montel's going to go on a anti-military rant, he should at least find something more current.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 12, 2007 03:04 PM (oC8nQ)
5
It seems that selected, self agrandizing veterans think that becasue they once wore the uniform that qualifies them to deride others who did or still do. Think Kerry, Murtha, Montel at al.
Good company to avoid in my opinion, and I suspect they were good to avoid when in uniform as well. If you know what I mean. *spit*
Posted by: aridog at March 12, 2007 05:46 PM (Qpl4l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 09, 2007
Who Is Writing the Captions for AFP?
As I do from time to time, I was scanning though Yahoo! News images to see if anything interesting might be going on, when I came across the following.
Unless Nancy Pelosi snuck something into law in the past hour or so, the AFP caption writer is apparently going far beyond bias to outright fabrication.
There is a certain amount of editorializing that we are used to in many news organizations, and the "Brushing aside US public opinion" comment is a clear example of that, but then the writer goes beyond editorializing to complete fabrication, whe he or she states (my bold), "the Pentagon is to send more soldiers to Iraq on top of the extra troops announced in January
which may now have to stay in the country until February 2008."
There is no set timetable for the withdrawal of U.S forces in Iraq in February 2008, nor at any other time. The writer is simply making up the news.
And no, I'm not buying the explanation that the writer might mean that the troops announced in January might be there until February 08. As many of the troops of the "surge" announced in January will not even deploy until later this spring or summer, that means their deployments would be roughly 6-9 months long, and that is clearly
not what the writer is trying to convey.
I suspect that is the same caption writer the wrote the
captions here:
I was able to find
several stories discussing Clinton's comments, and yet in neither account can I find Clinton using the term "shabby rehabilitation," nor anything even reasonably close.
Well, that isn't
entirely true.
I was able to find the words "shabby rehabilitation" in one account.
Did AFP crib from the
Iranian-government controlled news agency, or was the AFP caption biased enough that it fit perfectly into the headline of the press agency of a repressive government?
In either event, I'm not sure it matters. What is clear is that our AFP caption writer seem quite content to make up the news as they go along.
Update: Added links to the Yahoo! photos.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:59 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
AFP is run by the French, whose disdain for the truth is matched only by their craven cowardice. But don't just knock the proven surrender-monkies. The LATimes had some photo-shopped Iranian Fars items in their early editions last month. Anything that bashes Bushitler, to these cowards and haters, is journalistically true.
Posted by: daveinboca at March 09, 2007 05:40 PM (MqGsK)
2
Hillary Clinton proposing dramatic changes to improve the delivery of healthcare ... wow, that sounds familiar. Talk about shabby rehabilitation ...
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Posted by: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report at March 09, 2007 07:43 PM (USGUN)
3
"There is a certain amount of editorializing that we are used to in many news organizations, and the 'Brushing aside US public opinion' comment is a clear example of that"
Not true. Public opinion in the US is solidly against the surge, so Bush is in fact brushing off public opinion:
See for yourself.
Unfortunately your blog system won't allow me to make a post containing the name of a popular search engine, so add the missing 'o' to the link above.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 10, 2007 02:41 AM (aLvFF)
4
Good find! Unfortunately its not limited to the AFP.
As for polls. Few are objective data, most are subjective and a product of the questions and demogrqphics. Claims about the evidence of polls need to be heavily qualified to be valid.
Posted by: lonetown at March 10, 2007 10:55 AM (KdCoY)
5
Lex, the first few articles didn't give much info about the polls or their numbers (and the numbers given did not agree), so if you could to post links that are more substantial on the questions and numbers, it would be appreciated.
Posted by: MikeM at March 10, 2007 11:50 AM (myTC8)
6
MikeM: well, here's one:
"Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%."
--USA Today/Gallup
The reason I didn't give a specific link is that I'm often accused of referencing biased sources. Keep looking through the G**gle links, you'll see what I mean.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 10, 2007 12:47 PM (aLvFF)
7
Yes. But the FOX news network is not worthy of nevada democrats because of 'FOX's bias and lack of journalistic standards.'
It has become most apparent that in the West, in general, and in America, in particular, that rational debate and reasonable disagreement has long since been abandoned by the screaming deanie baby leftist utopians and their agents of propoganda.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...."
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at March 10, 2007 04:09 PM (6dPYq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Are They Serious?
Filipino Muslims are protesting against a Christian preacher who said Muslims might have violent tendencies by calling for him to be beheaded.
I'm guessing they won't like
this tee shirt, then.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:07 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The "Religion of Peace" turns it cheek again.
But what do you expect the followers of a misogynistic, murdering, pedofile to do?
Posted by: iconoclast at March 09, 2007 03:16 PM (R5iSO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
This Dana's No Plato
When I first heard that they were making a movie out of the Greek's epic last stand at Thermopylae. In 480 BC, a few thousands Greeks--Thespians, Thebians,and Spartans--held the narrow mountain pass for three days against a Persian forces estimated to be composed of 250,000-2 million men to secure a retreat for the rest of the Greek army.
I was a little disappointed to find out that
the movie was based on a Frank Miller comic book
300 ("graphic novel," whatever) instead of the actual battle itself, and not being a fan of the last Miller-based movie I saw (
Sin City, (which I cut off in disgust after 15-20 minutes because it was more cheesy than a bag of Cheetos), and I planned not to watch it. I still probably won't, but might consider it, if the reviews aren't too bad.
Ace has read a review of the movie, and wasn't too pleased. Not with the movie, but with the whining of the
Slate critic, Dana Stevens.
Here's a taste of Ace's opening salvo on poor Stevens:
Ah, the twitty little snots at Slate, all trying so hard to ape Michael Kinsley's snideness without having the deftness or talent to carry it off charmingly. Where every book, tv show, and movie is evaluated entirely according to how it flatters, or discomfits, their left-liberal mocha-marxist politics.
What's the matter, Dana? Did the big bad men scare you?
Please. Grow up, and stop being such an insipid, screechy girl for Christ's sakes.
From there, Ace
really let's you know what he thinks of her blinders-on review, in
no uncertain terms.
Content warning for language, but then, you knew that.
Update: A
non-wussy review from
across the Pond Canada.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:22 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dana Stevens' review in Slate is more guano from mocha-Marxist moonbats. Makes me want to see the flick for one more reason!
Actually, I'm reading Victor Davis Hanson's A War Like No Other, and the Spartans were indeed very scary, but very effective.
If it makes money, Hollyweirdos like Stevens [who married up like her heroine Huffington to get her job---her eponymonic Sugar Daddy is head of the AFI] will beat a path to its door. But I'm looking for more twittering and squeaking as the moonbat mafioskis get all excited in their twilight zone.
Posted by: daveinboca at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (MqGsK)
2
I watched the trailers and the extras over at Hotair.com and sort of lost interest. The story of the actual war between the Greeks and the Persians is fascinating. I'm not sure I can sit through all of Leonidas' screaming every word out.
Dana Stevens (he, she, or it) is a ditz.
Posted by: olddawg at March 09, 2007 06:47 PM (0NZst)
3
Canada is across 5 ponds.
Posted by: Kevin at March 10, 2007 12:19 AM (/ndDU)
4
I plan to see it today, but I'm pretty sure that it won't be gay enough already based on descriptions.
I mean, like Leonidas has a wife? Seriously...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 10, 2007 04:25 PM (eEBfB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rangers Lead the Way
Glenn got it posted first, but here's another photo of American combat soldiers in Baghdad, courtesy of embedded journalist Michael Yon.
Glenn also does a nice job of linking to other embeds, and reminds readers that these guys are all largely (if not exclusively) reader supported. Want to support the troops?
Head on over and drop a few dollars to support the citizen-journalists that dare to go outside the wire to get you the stories that other media can't or won't provide.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:16 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
March 08, 2007
Radar Gun
Michael Yon saw this on the road between Baghdad and Samarra this morning. Nothing conveys "slow down" quite like a 120mm cannon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:53 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 164 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1326 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1194 seconds, 132 records returned.
Page size 148 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
