July 26, 2006

House of Cards

I've long held, as you see above, that "liberalism is a persistent vegetative state," but at no point could I ever have predicted that it was as inbred and corrupt as the story unfolding around Sexion, an American blogger living Norway, seems to indicate.

The entire sordid situation is too bizarre for me to accurately replicate, so I'll send you to Matthew Sheffield's explanation of events as they are currently understood.

Read it.

Seriously.

Because if you don't, the rest of this post won't make any sense.

Apparently, disgraced journalistic fraud and technorati-addicted freak Jason Leopold (hi Jason, yes I see you, go stalk someone else), several of Leopold's sockpuppet identities, ex-CIA Joe Wilson defender (man what a bad time for that) and former media darling Larry Johnson, and Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story (the liberal "Drudge Report") are all involved in a bizarre web of... well, I'm not exactly sure. But it involves fake sock puppet identities, attempts to discredit a Daily Kos diarist and Seixon, allegations of a conspiracy theory, and what appear to be threats against Seixon and his family by Johnson.

Read this post by Ace, and follow the whole bizarre thing at Seixon's blog.

Jason Leopold, a disgraced journalist with a history of admitted mental illness and drug addiction, allegedly created (and seems to presently create) false identities and false emails to attempt to discredit critics on the Internet. His former colleague at Raw Story, Larisa Alexandrovna, jumps in supporting these attempts to discredit at least one of these critics. A former CIA and State Department Counter-terrorism official, Larry Johnson, loyal to all things Joe Wilson, is apparently threatening bloggers and their families across international borders.

"crosspatch" offers a plausible explanation for these attacks in the comments of Sexion's latest post:

What it seems to be is that their whole community is based on faith. For example, that Bush "stole" the elections in 2000 and 2004 is a fundamental principle in their world. Now they have no actual proof of this and this is all based on a plausible scenario. When you begin to expose people like Jason as liars or catch them making thigs up or spreading falsehoods, it risks bringing down their entire community they have so carefully built and nurtured. In other words, what you are doing is speaking heresey. You must be attacked and run off so that you don't "poison the minds" of other believers. But unlike the rank and file "believers" people like Larry are in the college of cardinals on their religion. They have a great deal to lose. People like Johnson, Wilson, Dean, Kos, et al have much to lose if people don't believe their scenarios anymore. If people stop believing that Rove controls the world and that Rumsfeld is dictating Israeli military strategy, then their entire little empire is lost and they are no longer celebrities as their own status is reduced.

[snip]

You are being treated this way because you are a threat to Larry's status and all the "plausible scenarios" that have been trotted out to support the community that shares those beliefs. Fact is their enemy when it is at odds with their beliefs.

An interesting hypothesis.

Not surprisingly, this same comment would describe the motive for Glenn Greenwald's alleged sock puppetry and his reputed recent, after-the-fact "evidence tampering."

What do these liberal luminaries—Jason Leopold, Glenn Greenwald, Larry Johnson, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame—and the rest of the "reality-based" machine have to lose if their house of cards falls apart?

Quite a lot, from several angles.

Financially, Greenwald, Wilson, and Plame all have current or future books whose success obviously hinges on the credibility of author.

Larry Johnson has quite the media career going for himself, with many appearances in major international media, but if his credibility is damaged or he is shown to be unstable(which seems to be a developing story), his media spotlight would quickly dim, and his value to BERG Associates would certainly diminish.

Likewise, (writer) Leopold's Truthout and (editor) Alexandrovna's Raw Story, leftists news sites with already questionable credibility, have much to loose if their writers and editors are caught as frauds, or show that they can be easily duped.

Of course, the much larger picture, which "crosspatch" correctly identified, is that if these and other central figures in the "reality-based" community are exposed as charlatans and dupes, then an entire series of allegations that form the potential base of growth for the progressive moment falls apart.

This is going to be fun to watch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 25, 2006

The Longest Trip Home

Long-time readers of this site know that one of my pet interests is Operation Enduring Service, an effort of not-for-profit Beauchamp Tower Corporation to make the best practical use of retired U.S naval vessels currently facing the cutting torches of scrapyards.

Most of my focus has been on one aspect of OES, the creation of a disaster response fleet I long ago dubbed the "Salvation Navy." Negotiations for that part of the program are currently being worked out at the highest levels of state and federal government, but another part of the program hasn't received as much attention, and that is the restoration of World War II-era warships, beginning with the DD-574 John Rogers, the last of the serving Fletcher-class destroyers.

DD-574 John Rogers served in the Pacific theater of World War II, serving in raids and amphibious landings in places with names like Tarawa, Wake Island, Bougainville, Kwajalein Atoll, and Guam, where Rogers fired more than 3,600 shells to knock out Japanense defenses. Rogers also served of Iwo Jima and the invasion of Okinawa, and in July of 1945, participated in what was the deepest naval penetration of the war. Destroyer Division 25's anti-shipping sweep that came within 1½ miles of the Japanese shoreline. John Rogers steamed into Toyko Bay in September of 1945, having fought in almost every major offensive campaign of the Pacific theater.

John Rogers was decommissioned after the war like many destroyers, and was transferred to Mexico in 1968. The destroyer was renamed the E-01 Cuitlahuac in honor of the Aztec emperor. On July 16, 2002, more than 60 years after being launched, the longest-serving Fletcher was retired by the Mexican Navy.

But that was not to be the end of the story.

On December 7, 2005, 65 years to the day that the Japanese launched an attack on Pearl Harbor plunging America into World War II, CEO Ward Brewer of Beauchamp Tower Corporation signed a transfer agreement to return the ship to American hands.

Tomorrow, Ward Brewer's team from BTC, milblogger John Donovan of Argghhh!, and documentary film crew will fly to Mexico to tow John Rogers from the Mexican Pacific coast to the shipyard in Mobile, Alabama where the last serving Fletcher-class destroyer will be restored for future genrations.

In the coming days, follow the story of the Rogers repatriation at Argghhh!, starting with John's first post, A Series of Fortuitous Events. I'll also have commentary here at Confederate Yankee.

It has been 63 years since the DD-574 was launched on the Texas Gulf Coast, but the John Rogers is finally beginning the longest trip home.

Update: The Operation Enduring Service Weblog is back up and running at a new address: http://www.btconline.us/mt.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Odd Man In

I haven't been paying too much attention to the Joe Liebermann/Ned Lamont Democratic primary battle in Connecticut, other than to read blog commentary from the progressive "Nedheads" and smirk, but this post has me thinking it could get a lot more interesting:

The most interesting question about the possibility that Connecticut Democrats could deny Joseph Lieberman renomination is whether that would help or hurt the senator's political prospects. Or, for that matter, the Democratic Party's.

That's because even if Lieberman loses the Aug. 8 Democratic primary - and the newest polling data says that is a real possibility - he would be a huge favorite for re-election as an independent come November.
And if that is the case, it would not be hard to write a scenario in which the real loser from a Lieberman defeat to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont might be the Democratic Party itself

That would especially be the case if Lieberman's good friend Sen. John McCain of Arizona becomes the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and picks Joe as his running mate.

There are a couple of good nuggets to mull over in just those few paragraphs.

First, what would a Lamont primary victory really mean?

It would be a huge victory for the Kossaks and their ilk, beating an incumbent with a progressive political newcomer (who is leading 51%-47%, barely within the margin of error, in the latest Quinnipiac University poll). But that moral victory aside, would the primary election cement a win for Lamont in "blue" Connecticut?

Probably not.

Primary voters in Connecticut, (or so I've read here and there) tend to be far more liberal than their fellow Nutmeg State voters, which seems be be true when you consider the state's electoral map in the 2004 Presidential elections. True, John Kerry trounced Bush in Connecticut 55% to 44%, but the county-by-county map shows a state that while Democratic in makeup, was hardly a progressive monolith. The state itself is solidly Democrat, but there doesn't seem to be an overarching affinity among Connecticut voters for the rabid netroots politics favored by Lamont's most vocal supporters. It is quite possible—perhaps even probable—that Lamont could win the primary battle, but lose the war for the Senate seat in a state that is Democratic, but moderately so.

And how Paul Brown think that this battle in Connecticut may affect '08?

If Lieberman were to win as an independent it would give him great influence, not just in the Senate, but as the face of a new politics that transcends party labels.

Although he has pledged to caucus with the Democrats if elected as an independent, he would be a bigger player than even today as the party's former vice presidential candidate.

And he would be an awfully attractive running mate for McCain, not to mention other potential Republican
White House hopefuls.

A fusion ticket with a Republican Presidential candidate (please not McCain) and Lieberman as a Vice Presidential candidate would be even more competitive than the Cheney/Perazzi ticket I've secretly been holding out hope for. Cheney/Lieberman, anyone?

Quite frankly, the Lamont primary challenge is tough to view as anything other than a liability for the overall Democratic Party's long-term chances, even if the Frothing Few think that a Lamont primary victory would be a long-term triumph for the netroots.

Look for the wailing and knashing of teeth to continue.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Prepare the Virgins

The U.S. military has churned through the Taliban over the past month, killing more than 600 terrorists during Operation Mountain Thrust.

Why isn't this on the front page at CNN.com?

Don't be silly. That "800-lb marlin spears fisherman" story is so much more a pressing world event...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 24, 2006

Maryland Democrat Rapes Mail Order Bride

In Maryland, Democratic Senate candidate David Dickerson has just been charged with beating and raping his 19-year-old mail order bride.

The response from the nutroots was immediate and predictable.

Why Does This Seem Like Some Sort Of Set-Up??? Is He really a Democrat or just someone "posing" as a Democrat! You see, I've become way over the line "cynical" these days. I wouldn't put it past the Repukes to have someone out there stating he's a Dem, but all the while a Repuke.

I need MUCH MORE information & background on this one. I don't doubt that some Democrats can be THIS stupid, but right now??? Right before an election where the Dems seem to be gaining some ground?? I wonder.

Or shorter, "ROOOOOOOOVE!!!

This message brought to you by the Democratic Underground, where the nuts never fall far from the tree.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Toddler-Threatening Community Rides Again

Not content to attack the individual children of Cheif Justice John Roberts and blogger Jeff Goldstein, they now wish to kill Alan Dershowitz's children:

Forgive me for this but Alan Dershowitz's children should be hit by a 5000 lb. bomb made by an American military-industrial corporation, sold to Israel, and misfired into his home. Then he can talk to me. I will offer my sincere condolences. Then we will get drunk and talk about relative culpability. I'm sorry Alan. You're scum. Among the people in history that would gladly bitch-slap you are Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, Nelson Mendala, Bishop Tutu, Pope John Paul II, and me. We'd all like to smack you for being a prick.

In Booman's defense, at least he didn't state that he wanted to molest them first.

h/t Protein Wisdom

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Yo ho, yo ho...

... the pirate's life for me.

Err, well, not me, but I did have a tiny role to play in it.

John of Castle Argghhh! is going on a little boat ride that you have to read to believe.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Silence of the Informed

Arlen Specter has written an Op-Ed in the Washington Post that is apparently giving the left side of the blogosphere convulsions this morning, entitled, Surveillance We Can Live With.

The section of Specter's editorial that seems to be giving most liberals fits is where Specter (according to them) misunderstands the Youngstown decision:

Critics complain that the bill acknowledges the president's inherent Article II power and does not insist on FISA's being the exclusive procedure for the authorization of wiretapping. They are wrong. The president's constitutional power either exists or does not exist, no matter what any statute may say. If the appellate court precedents cited above are correct, FISA is not the exclusive procedure. If the president's assertion of inherent executive authority meets the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" test, it provides an alternative legal basis for surveillance, however FISA may purport to limit presidential power. The bill does not accede to the president's claims of inherent presidential power; that is for the courts either to affirm or reject. It merely acknowledges them, to whatever extent they may exist.

Anonymous Liberal writes:

Good lord. Can someone please get Senator Specter a copy of Youngstown?

[snip]

Seriously, if Specter had written the above-quoted paragraph on a constitutional law exam, his professor would have flunked him. His description of the interplay between statutes and the president's article II authority runs contrary to the long-established Youngstown framework, which--as the Court's various opinions in Hamdan demonstrate--all nine of the current Supreme Court justices accept as controlling.

As Specter should know, there is a world of difference between what a president has the power to do in the absence of a statute and what he has the power to do in the face of a statutory prohibition. That's constitutional law 101.

Much has been made of Specter's willingness to legislate in the dark. He has, after all, agreed to sponsor legislation legalizing a program about which he has not even been briefed. But far more disturbing to me is his apparent inability to get his head around a basic principle of constitutional law. As I noted last week, the very wording and structure of his bill--like his op-ed--reflects a fundamental misconception of presidential authority. And there's really no excuse for that. Someone on Specter's staff really does need to sit him down and force him to read Youngstown. Or if he doesn't have time, footnote 23 of the Hamdan decision will suffice:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent
congressional authorization, to convene military commissions,
he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper
exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.

Senator Specter, please pay special attention to the phrase "whether or not." That's the key. It doesn't matter whether the pre-FISA cases you cite in your op-ed held that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. A duly enacted statute, like FISA, may nevertheless place enforceable limits on the president's authority. This is not controversial.

If this as not controversial as Mr. Liberal and Marty Lederman state, then why is this issue still being debated at all?

Surely, if the issue is as cut-and-dried as these folks seem to suggest, then the army of NSA staff lawyers that specialize is this area of law and have reviewed the details and legality of the program would have condemned the program before it was implemented.

And yet, in the years before the program was exposed by the New York Times, not one patriotic NSA lawyer has "leaked" the damning details of the story to defend the nation.

Nor has the program been a concern for the man in charge of implementing it, General Michael Hayden, who knew its details. Nor has it apparently been a concern for the NSA team in charge of the program's implementation and monitoring. If the program was so clearly out of bounds as all of these expert pontificators suggest with their thorough lack of knowledge of the program, certainly some of the incriminating details of the program would have found their way to the Times. And yet, the literally dozens of people who know the program best, including the NSA lawyers that specialize in this are of law and the professionals that implemented it, a bevy of White House Counsel, and career Justice Department lawyers, have kept mum.

For that matter, the ten FISA Court judges that were briefed on the program have also kept quiet; surely if they had objections, they could have resigned from the court with no penalty, sending a very loud message. And yet, they have refused to do so.

Are we to assume, then, that all of these federal employees, many of which have public service dating back to prior Administrations, are so willing to give up essential liberties and are such Bush sycophants that they would willing engage in the undercutting of the U.S. Constitution?

This seems to be at the root of the libertarian and liberal allegation, in my non-legally-educated mind. In their ever-present desire to condemn the Administration, they presume that those who do know the program best are willing accomplices to the undermining of the nation. I could perhaps accept this explanation if so many people were not involved, but that is not the reality of the situation.

Uninformed doubters are of course free to object to the program quite strenuously as they have and certainly will continue to do, but from where I sit, the silence of the informed speaks volumes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:36 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"We are all Hezbollah now"

No, not this demonstration in London, but this equally shameless CNN reporting in Lebanon:

Politics creeps into the ward like the blood that runs on the floors. "Clearly he is Hezbollah," says one of the doctors outside the room -- sarcastically referring to 8-year-old Mahmood, whose screams can be heard from the hallway. His screams now blend with the wails of his mother, matching the baby's cries.

The hospital ward begins to teem with members of the international press. They all have blue flak jackets that say "press" on the front. They carry microphones, cameras, radios and satellite phones, and have local guides to translate.

Today, as I finish I am sitting in the same spot and the shells are still falling. Hezbollah rockets are firing toward northern Israel. I can imagine another reporter, in another flak jacket, standing over an 8-year old Israeli boy.

I'll finish by asking another question: Are any of us making a difference?

Certainly these "journalists" are trying to make a difference. CNN reports on this conflict have been reliably biased, and this is no exception, which becomes apparent if you read the rest of this article.

Focussing on the always sympathic victims, the women and young children killed and injured by Israeli bombs, the CNN reporter studiously avoids questioning the Lebanese Shia culture that supports and lionizes Hezbollah even now.

That would be too much like real, unbiased reporting, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Red-Faced League

As of late, Gaius seems to be channeling Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as he "finds" Sherlock Holmes comments on not one, but two unrelated instances of blogosphere sock-puppetry.

Among liberal bloggers, it's spreading like the avian flu.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Why Liberals Can't Win Wars

Ive seen some stupid posts reading liberal blogs, but with the exception of anything from Oliver Willis, this faux "we care about the troops" post from Billmon piggy-backing on Christian Science Monitor excretion (currently now offline—were they embarrassed of it?) might be the new gold standard:

Earlier this week I linked to a commentary from William S. Lind in which he warned that war with Iran could result in the loss of the 140,000 man army America currently has bogged down in Iraq. This may have seemed far-fetched, given the enormous military disparity between the two sides. But Col. Pat Lang, a former intelligence officer, explains how and why it could happen:

American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq . . .
Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long.
(Christian Science Monitor, via No Quarter)

There's a saying: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. And in the case of the U.S. Army, they talk it about a lot. This has been true almost as long as there's been a U.S. Army. During the 1944-45 campaign in Europe, for example, each U.S. division consumed 650 tons of food, gas, ammo and other supplies per day -- roughly three times what the German Army managed to get by on. Logistical requirements have only exploded since then. Those lobster tails they're eating at Camp Victory don't grow on the trees.

If the supply lines back to Kuwait were to be cut -- or even seriously interdicted -- the U.S. military presence in Iraq would quickly become untenable. I'm not even sure the Army could scrounge enough gas to keep the tanks and Humvees moving, given that Iraq already suffers from a severe refining capacity shortage and must import most of its gasoline from Kuwait.

He then breathlessly (and no doubt hopefully) adds:

In other words, in the event of a real world war -- as opposed to the kind that pundits pontificate about on Fox News -- Centcom would either have to "pacify" the transportation routes through southern Iraq quickly and ruthlessly (which might not be possible, given the troops available and the possibility some Iraqi units might turn on their putative allies) or try to evacuate some or most U.S. forces from Iraq, either by air or ground.

We're talking, on other words, about a potential debacle -- the worst U.S. military defeat since Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor? Err, no. Laughably, no.

Billmon, thank you for once again proving why when it comes to discussing military matters, liberals aren't ready to move up from the kid's table.

Here is the reality of the situation.

According to credible sources Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army may number as many as 10,000 Iraqi Shia militiamen possessing mainly small arms (AK-47, light machine guns, RPGs). Only perhaps a tenth of that force has even minimal military training. Even with Iranian Revolutionary Guards providing some more modern weaponry and training, the Madhi Army has decisively lost every conflict it has engaged in against coalition forces in the past two years, including recent raids carried out by Iraqi government forces. A Madhi Army of lightly armed, poorly trained, and poorly led militiamen cannot hope to perform the feats required to fulfill the sick fantasy shared by Billmon and the CSM. Presently, it is a bit more occupied with not getting erradicated like crabgrass.

But what if they had help?

The quote Billmon pulls from the CSM article speaks of the "Badr Brigades."

I see that the crack staff of the CSM and Billmon are really up with current events, as the Badr Brigades haven't been called that for three years now, restyling themselves the Badr Organization and joining in the political process as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition.

They've played a lead role in fighting the insurgency around Karbala, and while occasionally at odds with the British forces in southern Iraq and seen as a sectarian militia by most, it has neither the manpower nor the weaponry (even with covert Iranian Revolutionary Guards support) to pose a military threat should it suddenly decide to forego the gains it has made as part of the political process. The several thousand man organization is even more lightly armed than the Madhi Army.

So who, praytell, will supply the OPFOR in "a 'shooting gallery' 400 to 800 miles long" that Billmon so fears?

The only discernible force left is Iran proper, and indeed, Pentagon planners have envisioned and planned for a multiple responses to the scenario of Iranian forces made a stab across the southern tip of Iraq in an attempt to cut off U.S. forces.

Sadly, the loss of life would be tremendous in such a campaign, but the victor of such a struggle has never been in doubt.

The Iranian Army numbers 350,000 with 200,000 being poorly trained and equipped (by U.S. standards) conscripts. It has only one true armored division and two mechanized infantry divisions, with no real air force or Navy to speak of, and air defenses severely outmoded even with the recent addition of Soviet TOR-1 batteries.

Iranian tanks—mostly T-72 variants that originated in the 1970s and T-54/55s that were originally designed at the end of WWII—would be the tip of the Iranian spear. Along with the hundreds of mostly-outdated infantry fighting vehicles they can bring to bear, these would all be inviting targets for allied air forces that unquestioningly own the airspace in the region.

Any southern invasion by Iran would be a replay of the Highway of Death on a massive, tragic scale.

This wuld be nothing like another Pearl Harbor as Billmon so hysterically intones, and would far more likely be another highway 80 in the first Gulf War, or the closing of the Falaise pocket Todesgang, or "death road" of World War II that sealed the German defeat in Normandy.

Start to finish, such an invasion would last less than a week, causing a discernable wrinkle to the supply lines (which would simply reroute westward for a short time) but fail miserably in its primary aim, while losing the bulk of the military force projected into Iraq in the process.

Of course were the Iranian invasion and massacre to come to pass, rest assured Billmon to be among the first to call for war crimes trials against the United States for crushing the Iranian invasion.

Of course, he'd probably screw that up as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 23, 2006

Stealth Retraction

Baghdad Bob works for Al-Reuters... or maybe Yahoo!

"Look at these pictures! These are the pictures you are not supposed to see!"

Nothing like a screaming red border around the frame and PICTURE KILL in all caps to get people to ignore the pictures you don't want them to see. And just in case people aren't sure which pictures, reshow all four, and post them on a major internet news site.

[note: content of all four images were digitally airbrushed out by me -- ed.]

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 PM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 21, 2006

Enough

Pajamas Media blogger Eugene writes amid the air raid sirens in Haifa:

A few minutes ago the sirens started again in the distance; they were so faint that we were only made aware of them by watching Haifa on TV. Like Pavlov's dogs we react to the stimuli dutifully, almost mindlessly. It's a second nature now. But this time it was different.

On the way down we heard a large boom, my neighbor phoned his daughter across town as soon as the radio announced that Haifa was hit. Up until now he seemed to me the calmest person down there, but his expression changed. "It hit near you? The windows exploded?" His arm unknowingly touches the wall to support himself, "don't cry, don't cry.. Are you ok?". He hangs up and with resolve says that he's going down there, no tears but he's already changed. With shaking fingers he calls somebody else about the car...

There is something in the American psyche that resulted from never having been on the receiving end of enemy fire. Our veterans of course knew that feeling. It haunts some, and filled others with a resolve to live each day to the fullest, as they knew how fleeting and precious each and every individual minute on this earth is. On September 11, 2001, we were jolted out of the false calm we had created for ourselves in this world.

For many, if not most, that feeling of immediacy slipped away when more attacks ceased to occur, and we mentally retreated to that safe place, that false illusion, that we held before.

"It" is something that happens "over there."

A 17-year-old Israeli listening to air raid sirens and not-so-distant explosions, the war is immediate for Eugene. "Over there" is across town, as people try to kill him for simply being born who and where he is.

We have no concept of that here, not really. Try as I might, I can't relate to rockets raining in from above, death hanging in the air on a contrail, wondering if those I care about—laugh with, love—are dead or dying.

And so we expect that despite all the signs of escalation—the reservists being called up, the troops massing at the border, the intensifying bombardment—that somehow, there will be someone who finds a reason to stop, to halt the madness, to call it all off before it is Too Late.

But it is too late. It has been for quite a while.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran and their puppet Syria, have passed some sort of a breaking point not easily defined where Israelis seem to have said enough.

As so the bombardment of Lebanon continues, and the troops mass, waiting for that moment when they surge over the border. They go rifle in hand, knowing that any moment could be their last, hoping their sacrifice will buy lives back home from an enemy that wishes to drive them into the sea.

They should show no quarter, take no prisoners, but be filled with a terrible resolve that there will be no "next time."

As Onkar Gate stated Wednesday from the Ayn Rand Institute (h/t Cox & Forkum):

To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor.

[snip]

If we truly seek peace, we must reverse this perverse lesson. We must proclaim the objective conditions of peace. This means declaring to Arab nations that Israel, as a free country, has a moral right to exist, that the Arabs and Palestinians are the initiators of the conflict and that aggression on their part is evil and will not be tolerated. And it means encouraging Israel not to negotiate and compromise with its current assailants, but to destroy them.
Only when the initiators of force learn that their actions lead not to world sympathy and political power, but to their own deaths, will peace be possible in the Middle East.

Eugene will never know peace a long as Hezbollah remains. Israel must crush Hezbollah, and Lebanon too, if it refuses to evict these terrorists in their midst. Many Lebanese will die in coming days, and many of them will be civilians, but only through that terrible lesson will they learn that allowing terrorism is supporting terrorism.

I simply hope that the survivors on both sides learn, so that this lesson does not have to be taught again soon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Master of Puppets

Roughly 24 hours after the Glenn Greenwald sock puppetry scandal broke, it appears folks on both sides have already firmed up their positions, floating all sorts of theories. Let me see if I can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 You get points for the Metallica reference, that's for sure.

As for what folks are saying about Greenwald, I think that Greenwald doesn't really have a good excuse.

There is a good circumstantial case that he's engaging in sockpuppetry, and his defense that others can access his account from his house is undermined by the style of those other identities being suspiciously similar to each others' writing style.

So, it could be:
1) Glenn engaging in sockpuppetry himself;
2) Someone else in Glenn's house engaging in sockpuppetry;
3) A completely random and innocent convergence of postings saying substantially the same thing;
4) A combination of 1 and 2

I think the odds of #3 are quite low. It could be any of 1, 2, or 4, but the end result is that Glenn doesn't look good no matter what, unless Glenn and his cohort(s) come clean. Honesty and all that counts for something.

Posted by: lawhawk at July 21, 2006 10:39 AM (rRNqo)

2 As with the LATimes case this stinks of ego preening even fawning over oneself.

A really smart guy would sock puppet and dis himself (unfairly, of course) and then preen as duped defenders jump in.

That would however, take confidence.

Posted by: lonetown at July 21, 2006 10:49 AM (6q//N)

3 This is a great post, very concise. A few comments:

--It has to be emphasized that Greenwald's roommate, the main suspect other than Greenwald himself, is Brazilian and presumably a native speaker of Portuguese, not English. I've studied foreign languages for most of my life, and have taught English as a second language for two years, and no one is going to convince me that the posts were written by a Brazilian. No way.

--Another commenter (at Patterico I believe) has taken a look at the verbage used and has found some overlap in several rather obscure expressions among Greenwald's posts, and some of the alledged sock puppets.

--I'm not sure there are any serious legal ramifications to all this. No one has been harmed, and there was no material gain to be acheived from the posts. However, the damage to credibility is something else entirely. Who could take him seriously after this?

--The whole episode is too embarrassing to admit, and probably impossible to prove without depositions, which aren't going to happen. Greenwald can hide behind plausible denial and ignore our discussions. What else could he do? If he admitted to this, he would be finished.

Posted by: Gotta Know at July 21, 2006 12:22 PM (Qoe61)

4 And one more: Where are Greenwald's water-bearers--Ellison, Wilson, etc--now that he needs them? Why have they suddenly gone quiet? Why are they not stumping and reminding us of Greenwald's credentials?

Posted by: Gotta Know at July 21, 2006 12:50 PM (Qoe61)

5 Then again, I suppose Greenwald could have mulitple personality disorer, and his alternative personalities find it necessary to support the dominate one. Without his knowledge and on his own computer, of course.

Posted by: Sybil at July 21, 2006 01:12 PM (hqlzt)

6 There's a NEW, WICKED cut (mentioning YOU by name) on this GG debacle, up at "BrainSurgeryWithSpoons
dot blogspot dot com"

Its funny AND scathingly skewering!

Ellison? Meet Wilson...

Posted by: Karridine at July 21, 2006 10:36 PM (IdJum)

7 I comment on many blogs, and always with a different name on each blog to eliminate the search engine tracking capability of a persons persuations.

I am a non important zit on life, but at least I don't have cheerleaders exorting me.

I wish I could be as socially aware and give breaking news. However that goes back to my prior admission of being a zit.

Hey at least I am not a lurker!

Posted by: dubiousnerd at July 21, 2006 11:03 PM (1aM/I)

8 As I have said before. Glenn always uses his own name on my blog, as you say he has here Bob.

You make a very good argument. The way I see it though no matter if the truth ever comes out or not. This only makes Greenwald a martyr in the lefts eyes. It will not harm his credibility at all.

Hilzik only lost his blog because he was accountable to an MSM entity (LA Times). He didn't even loose his job and he is a professional journalist.

The left never stopped loving Hilzik and defended him as well.

The right already thinks little of Greenwald so even if you are right, I don't think it changes anything.

Posted by: The Ugly American at July 22, 2006 12:51 AM (Qugk5)

9 I agree with Ugly. It's ironic, whether Greenwald has credibility or not as far as the right is concerned is really neither here nor there. It's more important to his fans, and judging from the comments on his site he has quite a few.

Personally, if I were convinced a conservative blogger were playing sock puppets in the way that Greenwald probably did, he'd be through as far as I were concerned, I would never, ever go to his site again. I would be embarrassed.

But then, I would also never spend time on a guy so hell-bent on tooting his own horn, and a pretty mediocre horn at that.

Posted by: Rick O'Shea at July 22, 2006 08:10 AM (Qoe61)

10 Glenn always uses his own name on my blog

You've checked every commenter's IP?

One data point does not a trend make.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2006 11:46 AM (26Aj9)

11 What GG is alleged to have done is not illegal, but simply dishonest. "Fraud" in the loosest sense. The only psuedo-plausible argument for illegality that I can conjure is that his sockpuppetry amounts to fraudulent testimonials for his book. Yet the "testimonials" are hardly related to his book sales, and are not clearly false (i.e., he's not falsely claiming that buying the book made him lose 30 pounds in 30 days). He's just defending his arguments anonymously, in a manner that creates the illusion of dedicated supporters. Now, if his blog were behind TimesSelect, there might be a legal claim, but he offers his opinion for free. It's only as good as his personal reputation, which he's also giving away for nothing.

Posted by: ss at July 22, 2006 01:02 PM (B56sv)

12 I've had to deal with "sockpuppetry" quite frequently as the administrator of Internet forums and blogs. If nothing else, its dishonest.

But to anyone paying attention this, "revelation" about Mr. Greenwald, comes as no surprise.

Posted by: Warren at July 22, 2006 09:28 PM (kMENv)

13 Of course GG won't lose much credibility among his lefty devotees. But he, and they, have to remember from here on out that he was exposed and humiliated, his denials testifying to the humiliation rather than exonerating him.

GG, I'm sure, despises those on the right who disagree with him; but that doesn't mean that his daily awareness now of having been exposed as having an ego so desperate for confirmation from others that he needed to invent some others to provide it. That's gotta sting. And he's gotta go on now knowing that we're out there shaking our heads and laughing, and wondering who among his adoring acolytes might secretly be doing the same.

Posted by: Levans at July 22, 2006 10:50 PM (7Mu2o)

14 Yes where is Ellison?

Posted by: Jane at July 23, 2006 01:00 PM (Ffvoi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 20, 2006

Babe

Michelle Malkin digs up a picture of a young Helen Thomas.

Smokin'.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Deadly Harvest

As you sow, so shall you reap:

Israeli troops met fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas Thursday as they crossed into Lebanon to seek tunnels and weapons for a second straight day, and Israel hinted at a full-scale invasion.

Israeli warplanes also launched new airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, shortly after daybreak, followed by strikes in the guerrillas' heartland in the south and eastern Bekaa Valley.
The strikes followed bombings Wednesday that killed as many as 70 people, according to Lebanese television, making it the deadliest day since the fighting began July 12.

Russia sharply criticized Israel over its onslaught against Lebanon, now in its ninth day, sparked when Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Israel's actions have gone "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" and repeating calls for an immediate cease-fire.

Russia is somewhat correct; this is "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" as they claim. This is not an anti-terrorist operation, but a quite conventional war.

Would the Russian Foreign Ministry be so kind as to answer what their response would be Hezbollah launched over 1,600 rocket and mortar attacks deliberately targeting Russian civilians? What if Hezbollah had fired these same 1,600 missiles and mortar shells into France?

We know their answer in advance. Beirut would already resemble another Dresden or Hiroshima, and the few hundredShia dead now would number in the thousands.

I can find very little sympathy for the Lebanese Shia who have so closely embraced Hezbollah and their tactics over the past decades. Every suffering Shia child you see in a Lebanese hospital is there because Israel was forced to respond against Hezbollah's incessant attacks.

I have very little sympathy for so-called "civilian" populations that willingly support terrorist groups, whether that population are Lebanese Shias south of Beirut, Palestinians in Gaza, or Pashtun villages in the tribal areas of Pakistan. They accept and often celebrate the terrorists in their midst, accept their philosophies, share their goals, and their successes. The flip side of this is that they must embrace the repercussions against terrorism as well.

Terrorism cannot be eradicated as a tactic if the populations that support it do not pay the price for that support. Terrorism will die when the civilian breeding grounds of terrorist support shares in the pain that terrorism causes.

Lebanon's Hezbollah-supporting Shia are now feeling some of that pain both physically and politically. Whether or not it is enough for them to change their ways remains to be seen.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:42 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

An Army of Greenwalds

Sock-puppeting is the dishonest and unethical practice of posting on web sites and blogs under assumed identities, often to praise or defend yourself.

L.A.Times columnist Michael Hiltzik lost his blog over it, as this practice clearly violated the Times ethics guidelines.

Now liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald stands accused of posting under at least three four five different identities other than his own, using the aliases "Ellison," "Wilson," "Sam Matthews," "Ryan," and "Thomas Ellers" to either flatter or defend himself across a host of conservative political blogs.

All of these identities are apparently tracked back to the same unique IP address in Montevideo, Brazil, where the best selling author of How Would a Patriot Act? lives as an apparent expatriate, fraud, and master sock-puppeteer .

For the details:

Shawn at The Sky is Red can take credit for noting that something was fishy, while Patterico (the man who caught Hiltzik) and Ace of Spades bring the pain.

Update: Greenwald denies the charges, saying in part:

I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address.

It must be a very large house.

Update 2: It seems Greenwald's sycophants aren't real big fans of these allegations being revealed.

Instead they'd rather change the subject by attacking the messenger with false charges of pedophilia, and international sources, and even pictures!

Classy.

Update 3: Greenwald, as evidenced in the quote above, seems to be trying to lay the groundwork for the claim that someone else in his house left the comments, with the obvious insinuation that this boyfriend did so. How loyal.

But "Birkel," posting in the comments at Ace of Spades, seems to torpedo that avenue of retreat as well:

According to Patterico one of the comments including the allegation that the poster/puppet had E-mailed Gleen for his point of view.

If you live in the same house why would you E-mail somebody for their opinion? Does that make any sense?

No it doesn't.

It would make perfect sense, however, for someone building sock puppet identities.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 19, 2006

Bush Vetoes Cancer

As he promised he would do, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have lifted restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research:

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush, speaking at the White House, said after he followed through on his promise to veto the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

In it's reporting, the Washington Post couldn't help but jump at the chance to make a charge it couldn't actually support:

Such research is controversial because it holds the promise of finding cures for major diseases, such as Parkinson's, but requires destroying human embryos to extract the cells.

The reality of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research hasn't been able to get past a single fundamental hurdle that of unrestricted cell division, so that "promise" is nothing but a pipe dream.

Wikipedia reminds of what many of us forgot since high school:

Cell division is the biological basis of life. For simple unicellular organisms such as the Amoeba, one cell division reproduces an entire organism. On a larger scale, cell division can create progeny from multicellular organisms, such as plants that grow from cuttings. But most importantly, cell division enables sexually reproducing organisms to develop from the one-celled zygote, which itself was produced by cell division from gametes. And after growth, cell division allows for continual renewal and repair of the organism.

But cell division must be regulated by the body, and a great deal of the genetic code we carry makes sure that growth is regulated and eventually terminated.

Embryonic stem cells, as I stated before, have a problem with unrestricted cell division.

There is another name for that problem, and many scientists seem to agree that it could take a decade or longer to fix that problem in embryonic stem cell research, if it is ever fixed at all.

Frankly, I'm with the President on this one: I'm against killing human embryos to create cancer, when adult stems cells are already clinically proven to work.

Update: As if cued up for a comic relief, the reliably clueless Oliver Willis writes a breathless post, The Republican Culture of Ignorance and Death, where he repeatedly accuses the president of banning "stem cell research," conflating the two quite different lines of research into one. Of course, this is simply not the case.

In addition, Bush didn't ban any research whatsoever, he merely banned the federal funding of dubious embryonic research. Bush actually increased federal funding of stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas and animals during his presidency.

Once again, Willis shows that the culture of "ignorance and death" is assuredly his own.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:16 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Toddler-Threatening, Sniper-Watching Community

And the spiral downwards towards terminal madness continues among the liberal elite:

I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers.
Only by coincidence searching Memeorandum for other topics of the day did I come across this post by Glenn Greenwald. I felt compelled to ask him a question. Again I am stunned.
Here is my question:

Would you stand there and watch a terrorist shoot at Americans and take a picture?

Here was his answer:

Personally, I would not, because I'm not a jouranlist. But if I were a photographer assigned to that region and to cover the insurgency, of course I would. I'd want Americans to see the reality of the forces we are fighting, rather than suppressing their images...

Glenn Greenwald, ladies and gentlemen, stating in his own words that he would sit there and take pictures as a sniper tries to kill fellow Americans because it's just part of his job.

But don't question his...

Yeah. Whatever.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hearts and Minds

Hezbollah might be trying to claim the title of "The World's Dumbest Terrorist Group."

Already decimated and mocked in continuous air and artillery strikes from the Israeli Defense Forces, roundly condemned by the international community and abandoned by prominent Arab nations in the region, Hezbollah seems intent on inflaming sentiment among the world's Christians and Israeli Arabs, killing several in rocket attacks on Nazareth.

Via Fox News:

A Hezbollah rocket slammed into a building Wednesday in the mainly Arab town of Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus, killing three people, including two children, Israeli authorities said.

Smoke billowed from the damaged a building and its roof appeared mostly destroyed, television footage showed. Local residents ran to the building and helped fire fighters unwind their water houses.
It was not immediately clear if any of the holy sites in the town were damaged.
Mohammed Assawi, who saw the attack, told Israel's Channel 10 that the rocket that killed the two children struck in the middle of a downtown street.

"It's a vacation and it's afternoon so where will they go if not to play in the streets?" he said. "It is unpleasant to say what we saw."

Police later said that a third person was killed and two other people were wounded.

Hezbollah has only two true friends remaining in Syria and Iran, and quite frankly, Syria's support could be made to waiver rather easily with targeted air strikes, destabilizing Assad's precarious regime.

I think Krauthammer is correct: the only correct exit strategy in Lebanon is over the grave of Hezbollah, and there are those that see this as a distinct possibility.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3669 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.3523 seconds, 150 records returned.
Page size 162 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.