Confederate Yankee
June 09, 2006
Zarqawi Strike Aftermath
AllahPundit digs this up from the Times of London:
Al-Zarqawi's second wife Israa, in her late teens, and their 18-month-old baby, Abdul Rahman, died in the strike, Jordanian officials told The Times. Israa was the daughter of Yassin Jarrad, a Palestinian Islamic militant, who is blamed for the killing in 2004 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, the Iraqi Shia leader.
Officials also said that Jordan would not allow the body of al-Zarqawi to be buried in his native country.
I guess I should feel sorrow that Zarqawi's wife and child died, but I can't seem to find my sympathy right now. Israa is the daughter and wife of terrorists, and the world is diminished by her loss no more than it was when Eva Braun died, and perhaps less.
Abdul Rahman, some are sure to note, was only an 18-month old infant, and it is true that he has done nothing wrong. He was however, the son and grandson of terrorists, and odds were that he would have grown into the "family business." If Uday and Qusay Hussein are any indication, he could have grown up to be even more of a sociopath than his father.
But the violent termination of the al-Zarqawi bloodline isn't the only news of note in this
Times article. The move to center stage of Zarqawi's suspected successor shoots holes in one of the most firmly held liberal lies about the war, that Iraq had no ties with al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion:
...al-Zarqawi's likely successor was an Egyptian national, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, whom the radical leader first met in 2001 at a terrorism training camp in Afghanistan. Al-Masri, who has a $50,000 (£27,000) price on his head, is believed have come to Baghdad in 2002 on a mission to set up al-Qaeda's first cell in Iraq.
al-Masri was setting up al Qaeda cells in Iraq
prior to the 2003 invasion?
So much for the liberal lie that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (well except for
Abu Nidal. And
Abu Abbas. And
Abdul Rahman Yasin. And—oh, you get the point)
Look for this "fact" to be hammered again and again as long as al-Masri remains alive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:03 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Abdul Rahman, some are sure to note, was only an 18-month old infant, and it is true that he has done nothing wrong. He was however, the son and grandson of terrorists, and odds were that he would have grown into the "family business."
That's beneath you CY.
As you know, the battle against Islamofascism is primarily about winning hearts and minds. How do you expect moderates in the Middle East to trust our mission there if you value the life of a baby so lightly?
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 09, 2006 11:16 PM (T8RbL)
2
The kid was born 18 months ago, concieved 27 months ago, that kid was a war baby, concieved during the darkest days of terror in Iraq, and Zak's "spiritual advisor" who is also dead, and a terrorist was named "Abdul rahman." So in all likelihood the kid wasn't just the son and grandson, he was the equivalent of a godchild to a terrorist, and a namesake for the same guy.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 09, 2006 11:29 PM (QTv8u)
3
Wickedpinto & CY -- You're disgusting. It's okay to kill babies that were conceived during the war? Babies with certain names? Babies whose parents or godparents or grandparents committed a crime? Or do you require two out of three?
You're betraying the heritage of your country (assuming your from the US). My US celebrates the rule of law and the inalienable rights of the individual.
Aside from the heartlessness of what you say, consider the pragmatics. Our aim is to spread democracy. The cliche is that you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun. In other words, we have to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims. There is no way in hell we can do this if moderate Muslims believe -- rightly, in your case -- that we hold their lives as less important than our own.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 12:55 AM (T8RbL)
4
Cyrus?
I'm not celebrating the death of a child, I'm just not that mourneful about it. My America sanctions the slaughter of children for eugenics (downs babies being aborted, reduced digit development, or inconvenient time of conception) and I disagree with that. Fewer children have been incidental victims in the opposition to complete barbarism, than the OH! so civil application of abortion.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:17 AM (QTv8u)
5
(continued)I will tell you this. It is FLOGGING horrible! that these guys can come home after slaughtering nearly 100 people at the imam ali mosque (which approximately times with the conception of this child) and go home and engage with their TEENAGE wife, in order to create a new victim of the vile and hateful practice of extreme islamic lunacy.
I didn't pick that kids fate, Fed didn't pick that kids fate, heck, we didn't even pick the mothers fate, since she is just a womb with a mouth, a mouth that should never be used. It wasn't the pilot that picked their fates, it wasn't the commander that picked their fates, it wasn't Rumsfeld, or the President. It was the Father, and Husband of those individuals who did so.
See? You think in western terms. If you knew that at any moment, you might be gunned down, you would spend all your time with your wife and children? If you thought a bomb might be sighted in on you, would you live in the same home as your newborn baby?
It is HORRIBLE! that that child died, but, all things considered? I rather that kid die, with his father, than 100 more people die in Iraq at the hands of that childs father. If it offends you? Call it a 12th trimester abortion. That might make it easier.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:17 AM (QTv8u)
6
Our aim is to spread democracy. The cliche is that you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun.
Actually, we are spreading freedom, in the form of democracy. The thing is that freedom is an act of the people, we can't control people, but we can control process, the process we can manipulate to the goal of freedom is democracy, much more easily than others, because, if we keep our guns trained on autocrats, the people might realize that they are free, even when the F up and elect autocrats. This is IN FACT the first "imperialism" of self determination in the history of the world outside of the US Revolution.
And you changed the talking point. It USED to be "you can't pursue peace with violence" I think that was a (DAMN! it's late) the guy who churchhill replaced? ARGH! slogan of that guy. ARGH! ( I SO KNOW IT, I hate forgetting things I should be able to recall in the same way that Cyrus remembers that Bush is Hitler)
Even though about 50 years before Churchill, Clausewitz, the greatest military mind that ever was, described peace as "the removal of ability, and ultimately will of the nation to wage war" You are assuming that we are Pax Romana, when in fact, we are (though I'm an atheist) Pax christos. We don't spread the peace of America, we are hoping for the peace of freedom, and choice.
Kinda a bitch to oppress a nation that likes doing as it pleases within SIMPLE rules.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 01:27 AM (QTv8u)
7
CHAMBERLAIN!! Thats the guys name.
Man, I SO had to remember that before your pathetic memory of history and the world Cyrus.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 03:31 AM (QTv8u)
8
My, how "touchy-feely," Cyrus. I take no joy in this child's death, I just pragmatically realize what he would likely become, and therefore, don't feel any diappointment in his loss, either.
If you are a Democrat, Cyrus, "your America" celebrates the slaughter of millions babies a year for the sake of convenience and the abdication of responsibility, so give it a rest that this one made it past the age that you would normally kill it.
At some point, you must also realize that democracy was, is and will be spread at the barrel of a gun, and almost always has been. Our country was kickstarted by the Shot Heard Round the World, fought a bloodly war to maintain that nation, and used the American fighting man to bring freedom and democracy back to Europe twice in the past century.
The alter of democracy always requires the sacrifice of the blood of heroes, Cyrus.
Of course, that's my America. Your's may be something different.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2006 06:05 AM (0fZB6)
9
It's okay to kill babies that were conceived during the war?
Actually in the USA its apparently still OK to kill'em even while their still in the womb.
I would suggest you anger is misdirected given the orders of magnitude differences in the rates of "baby killings"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 10, 2006 07:48 AM (zPSD1)
10
Well said CY and WickedPinto.
Posted by: Ali at June 10, 2006 07:54 AM (hDlfX)
11
So Jordan won't allow that POS to be buried there? Anyone know any pig farmers that could lend a hand?
Posted by: Tim at June 10, 2006 10:09 AM (WiHUE)
12
Two or three people noted that we abort babies in this country. Do you really mean to say, we abort babies in the US, therefore we need feel no remorse in killing an 18 month old in Iraq.
My, how "touchy-feely," Cyrus.
Not as much as you might think. The reason I'm upset is because your "justified killing" idea is all too common. It serves to alienate the very people that we need to trust us. You say you want democracy, but you act as though your primary concern is revenge. Our effort is doomed if the average Iraqi believes we are acting out of revenge.
If we want these people to trust us, we must recognize the humanity of their innocents.
At some point, you must also realize that democracy was, is and will be spread at the barrel of a gun, and almost always has been.
That's simply wrong. "Democracy doesn't flow from the barrel of a gun" is a cliche. You could bring up Germany or Japan, but in neither case did we fight to win hearts and minds.
Our country was kickstarted by the Shot Heard Round the World
No, that was the one that killed the Arch Duke before WW I. Sure we fought for our independence, but that was not a case of King George trying to force democracy on us, it was a battle against a tyrant.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 10:58 AM (T8RbL)
13
I for one don't favor the whole "hearts and minds" theme. You win wars by destroying the enemies will to fight, not by making him your buddy. Nobody likes the idea of our heroes killing babies, but as General Sherman put it, "War is cruelty, and you can not refine it" and "the harsher it is fought, the sooner it will be over". Sherman knew what he was talking about. His brutal campaign in Georgia shocked the Confederates. One reason that General Lee gave for not launching a guerilla insurgency of his own when it was obvious that the end was near was that his men would become "bands of marauders and the enemy's cavalry would...overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit." Terrorising the enemy WORKS.
The more HUMANITARIAN course is to fight this war brutally because it will shorten it. Let every would-be terrorist thug know that his decision to join with the killers will result in the death of everything he holds dear. The insurgency in Iraq is so severe because those people didn't even realize that they were defeated. To them, the war is still on because they retain the will to fight. We have to fight this war, Cyrus, and we must win. Let's make this PERSONAL. We killed Ghadaffi's family too and it shut him up. I say we end this war quickly and stop crying about one teenager and a baby. What does that mean against the lives of millions and the chances of peace in this century? Get yourself a sense of perspective, man.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:44 AM (DYb4r)
14
Don't Dine with the Terror Turds!!!
Posted by: Boghie at June 10, 2006 12:10 PM (/nAX/)
15
Cyrus' thoughts are somehow overlooking the reality of the situation. This is a war. Zarqawi was the top murdering, slaughtering, father, son, mother, daughter and baby-killing terrorist in the war zone. He brought the fate to his family himself. As posted above, if you are on the run, during a war, and there is a price on your head, and the United States Military is the one after you, you don't bring it around your family. That is the reality. We will win this war, without any help from the sensitive-war minded like Cyrus.
Posted by: DJ at June 10, 2006 12:49 PM (rg8dK)
16
Thrill -- I for one don't favor the whole "hearts and minds" theme. You win wars by destroying the enemies will to fight, not by making him your buddy.
Winning hearts and minds is the key to counter-insurgency. I don't think that there is any debate about this. Brutality towards the innocent makes the Iraqis lose faith in us.
DJ -- Cyrus' thoughts are somehow overlooking the reality of the situation. This is a war.
That's not true. The innocent die in every war, and the Iraqis can accept an amount of it. My point is that it is counter-productive, and contrary to our heritage, to dismiss the killing of the innocent as just.
Just the other day the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq said exactly what I am saying, "There is a limit to the acceptable excuses. Yes a mistake may happen but there is an acceptable limit to mistakes." Don't give me any baloney about the MSM or tell me he's being taken out of context either, you know he said that and you know what he meant by it.
Or is the Prime Minister on the other side too?
Brutality is not the answer here, and lots of you are coming down on the wrong side.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 02:26 PM (T8RbL)
17
WickedPinto -- I don't mean to ignore your other posts. You seem to be going in a couple of different directions in your late-night posts. Please let me know if I've left anything unaddressed.
No one is saying that babies will not die in war, that always happens. All I'm trying to say is that the US doesn't kill a baby and then say it was the father's fault. It's counter-productive and wrong. Do you expect Iraqis to trust the US more or less when we kill a baby and then, instead of expressing remorse, say it was the father's fault? Every time we kill an innocent it pushes relatives towards the insurgency's side. Again no one is saying we can prevent this, but it is the right thing to do on every level to express remorse, or barring that just saying nothing. There is no advantage to blaming the Iraqis for the baby's death.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 10, 2006 02:36 PM (T8RbL)
18
Cy, the Iraqi government must win the "hearts and minds" ultimately. They will never do so if the people perceive them as being weak and effeminate like an American liberal.
It is well understood in the Arab world that reprisals extend to family members. We don't need to high five each other if a kid gets killed, but it is not a reason to avoid taking a shot at the child's evil father.
Little niceties like these will have to fall by the wayside if we're ever going to win this war against extreme Islamism.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 03:17 PM (DYb4r)
19
Hate to spoil your rant Cyrus, but if you followed the news, later updates by Mgen Caldwell stipulated that no children were killed. Do you have something that contrdicts that?
If in fact the baby was killed, it is sad. Al Zarqawi was personally responible for killing untold Iraqi children. In fact he and the other thugs have used children as human shields and booby traps. Even the MSM has reported those facts. The MSM has even documented the extraordinary risks our troops take to avoid harming children and innocents. Unfortunately, cannot give them blanket amnesty because they use children so despicably. Because if you do they will kill you. And I do mean you, personally. Because if we do we will lose over there, and if we do then we will eventually lose over here.
Finally, the idea of winning the "hearts and minds" of Islamofacists is simply fallacious. It is not even worth contemplating. The only way they will be defeated is to root them out wherever we find them and close up their safe havens. When the governments of the Mid-East finally learn that there is a terrible price to pay for allowing hateful filth to be preached to their youth, then perhaps "hearts and minds" will change--in a few generations. Until then, strength, vigilance and unremitting resolve are our only defenses.
Posted by: Bob Gilkison at June 10, 2006 03:21 PM (21N7A)
20
I give up. I've tried to post a reply for half an hour and keep getting an "objectionable content" error.
CY -- does mu.nu give you a list of forbidden keywords? I'm tired of guessing.
Thanks.
Posted by: Cyrys McElderry at June 10, 2006 05:14 PM (T8RbL)
21
I agree with you, Cy, I've had the same problem lately.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 05:34 PM (DYb4r)
22
Wow, that's really cold. I think we should all be happy Zarquai can’t plan more terrorist attacks, but at least mourn the loss of an innocent child’s life.
Your argument that the child would grow up to be a terrorist also kind of sounds like the excuse that pro-life supporters use to justify the abortion when the parents are in poor, involved in crime, drugs, etc., etc.
Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:40 PM (v3PXK)
23
Thrill, you're just dead wrong. Brute force is not the only key to winning a war. If it was, our "shock and awe" plan would have ended the war early on, The Taliban wouldn’t be gaining strength right now in the South of Afghanistan, and Vietnam would have been remembered as a great American victory.
Moreover, unmitigated military force may stop an insurgency for a period of time, but it creates a legacy of opposition that often blows up in the ruling regime's face. This is what happened in Argentina in the 70s under the military junta.
Winning hearts and minds is especially important in a war against terrorism. It prevents normal citizens from becoming radicalized and joining terrorists. If we turn normal citizens against jihadists and the internal Iraqi insurgents, they're more likely to join the army or the Iraqi police forces. The sooner Iraqis can fight the insurgency on their own, the sooner our boys get back home. I think we all want that here.
Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:42 PM (v3PXK)
24
I'm not saying you can win the hearts and minds of hard-line Al Quaeda members; defeating those type of people is where the use of force is necessary. It's the normal citizens we have to worry about.
Also, don’t ignore the larger picture here: the war on terrorism. Engaging in a brutal war in Iraq, will only give Al Quaeda more propaganda, creating more terrorists in the rest of the world.
Or we could just go with Thrill’s machismo-drenched plan and kill 'em all (ye-haw) and feel like big men. Because Sherman's tactics in 19th Century America are totally applicable in 21st century Iraq. It's practically the same war.
Also, this Questionable Content filter is ridiculous. CY, lay out some guidelines so we know what triggers the QC filter.
Posted by: Keram at June 10, 2006 05:51 PM (v3PXK)
25
It serves to alienate the very people that we need to trust us...If we want these people to trust us, we must recognize the humanity of their innocents
Harry Truman had exactly the same type call to make -- he went with the bombs too.
Who's judgment do I have more faith in - Truman's or yours? I'll take Truman's, history vindicated, judgment every time.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 10, 2006 05:56 PM (zPSD1)
26
"hearts and minds" is necessary if we are to make Iraq a Vassal state. We aren't doing that. What we are doing, is eliminating individuals, and groups that are standing in the way of the will of the people, and enforcing simple INTERNATIONAL rules governing the basic allowable behaviour of a nation.
As described by the UN ironicly.
We need the hearts and minds only if our goal is to make iraq the 51st state, thats not our goal.
We kill the people we don't like, let the people decide, if we don't like their decisions we give them the rope to hang themselves by.
I've said this so many times. The beauty about democratizing the world? it' isn't peace, or freedom or the great millenial global community. It is that for the will of the people to be counted, they must stand up and proclaim themselves. Once democracy exists, like in "palestine" theres no one to blame for the repurcussions but yourself.
As for abortion, it's fair game. I'm sick of this stupid tyranny of the uninformed. (thats what I sometimes call the whole "for the children" argument, cuz children are stupid, it's one of the things they do very well, they are stupid until they are informed, and the fact I have a phrase for it proves how often that argument is used.) If you have a problem with a 12th trimester abortion, then you should have a problem with a 1st-3rd.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 10, 2006 06:21 PM (QTv8u)
27
No Keram we did not use "shock and awe" in Vietnam or Iraq. That's just one thing you've got wrong. We held back in Vietnam and we're showing too much restraint now. In Sherman's day, he dealt with attacks on convoys, disruptions of communications, kidnappings, and acts of sabotage on the part of Confederate raiders much as our troops deal with the insurgents. You want more recent examples? We only showed compassion to the Germans and Japanese after waging the most horrific war ever on a civilian population. The result? Peace.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 06:33 PM (DYb4r)
28
Since his destiny seems so predetermined,would you have favored the abortion of this child?
Is there a list of crimes that you would follow to decide which childrens deaths would be greived or not greived?
Posted by: Master of Thieves at June 10, 2006 06:34 PM (rXcVL)
29
Well, I just combed through writings by Sun Tzu, Sun Bin, Miyamoto Musashi, Machiavelli, Alfred Mahan, Clausewitz, Liddell Hart, Ralph Peters, John Keegan, and David Hackworth. They come from a broad spectrum of cultures and time periods and not one of them advocates "grieving for" the enemies children and making nice with him UNTIL he surrenders. I'm curious to know what the basis is for your military strategy there, Keram Bonaparte. The Islamists think that we are weak and have no resolve and unfortunately, they're right about the liberals and the press.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 06:47 PM (DYb4r)
30
Really, you just went through all of that? In 15 min.? Impressive.
If you'll notice, I never said that we shouldn't have attacked Zarquai. I only said that when innocent life is taken, we at least recognize and mourn those caught in the middle. READ: Not the terrorists.
Also, your “recent examples” are of warfare fought between states. The times have changed; we're no longer fighting states, but independent, decentralized groups like Al Quaeda. I'm all for learning from the past, but you also have to recognize when the times have changed and adjust. Terrorism is a wholly new form of warfare that combines guerrilla tactics with advanced forms of propaganda. Total war was a military theory that addressed state vs. state warfare, and does not address fighting an insurgency or international terrorism.
Moreover, total war would result in large-scale civilian casualties, especially considering the fact that insurgents can blend in with the rest of society. These deaths would be used by Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups to recruit more troops. Remember, terrorist groups have used events like the firebombing of Dresden as an example of the West’s indifference to human life.
Total war does not adequately address our current situation. That's why I'm against total war. Not because I want to coddle terrorists or cut and run.
Posted by: Keram Bonaparte at June 10, 2006 08:45 PM (v3PXK)
31
While we are trying to "win hearts and minds," the heartless killers are seeking to wipe out our behinds. I am sorry that an 18 month old child got in the crossfire of Terrorist Abu Z and his minions. I was devastated when I read about 2 year old Christine, an American child who was on one of the doomed planes on 9/11/01. I was not too devastated to wish death to the scumbags who planned her death. Now I am resolved more than ever that our Military, the finest in the world, will keep hunting and bagging the vile creatures AKA Terrorists.
After hunting season is over, I will be willing to entertain the "hearts and minds" theory.
God bless our Military and God bless America.
Posted by: Belle Patriotic at June 10, 2006 09:24 PM (BJYNn)
32
VERY well done master of thieves. However here's the difference.
The target of the bomb, wasn't the child, it was his vile, and inhuman parent.
The only target of a vaccuum tube in a chicks slit, is the child.
Abortions are targeted assasinations of children.
Death of anyone in the area of a murderous scumbag is un-intended, and incidental.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 11, 2006 12:46 AM (QTv8u)
33
The times have changed; we're no longer fighting states, but independent, decentralized groups like Al Quaeda
AQ aspires to be a state and claim nation sized turf. The new Caliphate and all that kinda prophetic stuff they yammer on about...
I take OBL at his word on this.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2006 06:43 AM (zPSD1)
34
All arguing aside - the fact that the "insurgents" - or as Cindy Sheehan calls them - "freedom fighters" - hide behind civilians to attempt to gain a tactical advantage is a disgrace. Even Hussein used this during Gulf War I. It is unfortunate, but if you choose to do this during war, there will be civilian casualties. It is sad, but it is reality. And the fact is that the insurgents know this. They know they make targets of innocents, but they don't give a crap. Anyone who decides to hide behind his own family is even worse.
BTW - Viet Nam was nowhere near shock and awe. McNamara would not let the military do what was needed until it was too late. The servicepeople who fought there literally had their hands tied by the government.
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 09:33 AM (ybfXM)
35
It sounds more like YOU have a problem with the fire bombing of Dresden than the Islamists, Keram. Dresden was a calamity and although it was of questionable necessity, the destruction of German cities made it clear to the German people that continued resistance was suicidal and that future aggression would result in the destruction of their nation and culture. War is SUPPOSED to suck and can't be the clean, surgical little thing you want it to be if it is to accomplish anything. What can you say about Gulf War 1, when Saddam could claim victory simply because he was still in power? Because we did not go far enough, we had to go back and are paying a higher price. If we do not push it now, we may find the future bill far too high to pay. The softness you're in favor of will do nothing but get more of our troops killed.
Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 01:13 PM (DYb4r)
36
Yes, I do have a problem with Dresden. Most military historians (with the benefit of hindsight) say it was unnecessary. I don't blame those leaders that planned the attack; they were doing what they thought was right at the time. I only ask that we learn from history and try to avoid those mistakes in the future.
As I’ve said before, total war does not address international terrorism. I'd rehash the points I made above, but I don't feel like repeating my arguments again. So far, you have not addressed the international nature of the Iraq War, instead opting to explain why we won WW II. I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on this issue, if you have any.
I agree with Specter that the choice of the enemy to hide behind civilians is a reality, and as such, civilian deaths are going to happen. But resorting WW II methods as Thrill has advocated (large-scale bombing campaigns, I assume), would simply be taking civilian lives without any guarantee of killing insurgents. Gurrilla warfare takes such an approach into account. For example, part of the reason Ché Guevara’s “focista” theory of guerrilla warfare advocated fighting in dense jungles and mountainous regions was so that bombing cities like we did in WW II would have no effect on their ability to wage war.
Total war would also undermine the newly elected Iraqi government. Even more, such a campaign would also cause and international outcry, which has the potential to hurt economic and political agreements. I’m glossing over this now because I realize we’re way off topic, but just read “Power and Interdependence” by Keohane and Nye. It’s a little dated, but I think the implications of the book point out why a unilateral, total war in an age of interdependence is impossible.
From what I’ve been reading, our troop level is our main problem, but that’s for a whole different post.
In respect to CY, I'd also ask that if you want to continue this debate, e-mail me. We're way off topic right now.
Posted by: Keram at June 11, 2006 03:41 PM (XuYRk)
37
What I favor is sponsoring the removal of the Saudi royal family from power, increasing the number of troops in Iraq, expanding the war onto Syrian and Iranian soil if needs be, forcible resettlement of hostile neighborhoods and villages within Iraq, actively funding, recruiting, and training an insurgency of our own in Iran, retaliatory destruction of terroists' families' homes in Iraq, and expanding the facilites of Camp X Ray to accept all members of the liberal media and Air America. How's that for starters?
Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 05:01 PM (DYb4r)
38
Also, you're wrong about two more things: I have not called for large scale bombing as the only solution to international terrorism. I do however, think that we should have rules of engagement that favor the lives of our troops over a hostile or indifferent population. If an area such as Fallujah must be cleared of terrorists, I would prefer it be flattened from the air rather than risk the life of a single infantryman.
Second thing is that economic interdependence does not prevent wars. That it would was common thinking right before the First World War. It's even arguable that interdependence makes war MORE likely.
Posted by: Thrill at June 11, 2006 05:08 PM (DYb4r)
39
The story has changed.No baby was killed.
Posted by: Little Debbie at June 11, 2006 05:09 PM (rXcVL)
40
I think what is interesting is that depending on the Iraqi theater, the ROE are different. Doesn't that seem like it could confuse troops? Especially as you move them about - anybody know if that happens on a regular basis?
I will say that Z-man got what he deserved. He was responsible for more innocents being killed than anybody in Iraq since Hussein. It's unfortunate that he chose to hide with civilians, but so be it. mega-hundred pound bombs - even laser-guided - do not discriminate well.
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 06:48 PM (ybfXM)
41
And Little Debbie - that is the most cogent point of this argument. The news media jumped the gun again.
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 06:49 PM (ybfXM)
42
And Little Debbie - that is the most cogent point of this argument. The news media jumped the gun again.
Posted by Specter at June 11, 2006 06:49 PM
True dat....and and a few bloggers too!
Posted by: Little Debbie at June 11, 2006 08:21 PM (rXcVL)
43
Thrill, love your comment. Like I was saying all along, if the US have been more thorough in eradicating the old Baath leaderships, and supporter at the begining of the war we would not have Sunni foolish enough to harbor terrorists. The Sunni should have been make to thank Allah everyone morning that they are allow to live much less make any demand. We should have encourage the Shi'ites to slaughter the Sunni, the Siithe deserve that much from decades being terrorize by the Sunni and the Baath Party. It was a mistake by the US to be "neutral" on the ethic issue. We should have supported the right of the Shi'ites to get revenge. Divided the country in two, the Kurd and the Shi'ites.
Posted by: Anh at June 12, 2006 02:25 PM (ohEm6)
44
"We should have encourage the Shi'ites to slaughter the Sunni, the Siithe deserve that much from decades being terrorize by the Sunni and the Baath Party."
Wow, I've seen a lot of crazy things advocated on this blog, but REPRISAL GENOCIDE??!??!?!? ARE YOU KIDDING???!!! You do realize that’s the same kind of logic the Hutus used to start the Rwandan Genocide, right?
How about putting people on trial for their crimes and seeking justice? Doesn't that make more sense than irrational killings? And we all know how much stability comes from ethnic strife, ask Rawanda, or Sudan, or Bosnia.
Have we really become so distanced from war that advocating an attack on the entire region and genocide sound like good ideas?
It's also ethnic, not ethic. Ironic that you'd use that word because you apparently have no ethics.
I'm through with this blog.
Posted by: Keram at June 12, 2006 10:39 PM (UYGwc)
Posted by: Specter at June 13, 2006 07:23 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Loose Lips
After reading this post at the Corner (h/t Instapundit)and just a few minutes of internal deliberation, I decided that we need to find the man in this article and make an example of him to others:
The Americans had gotten close before, but Mr. Zarqawi had always managed to get away. He was an elusive and wary figure who knew well how much the Americans relied on high technology to track down suspects: he and his men refrained from using cellphones, knowing how easily they could be tracked. Instead, American officials said, they relied on handheld satellite phones, manufactured by a company called Thuraya, to communicate with one another. The Thurayas were more difficult to track.
Indeed, what the Americans had always lacked was someone from inside Mr. Zarqawi's network, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who would betray him — someone close enough and trusted enough to show the Americans where he was.
According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Mr. Rahman's meeting with Mr. Zarqawi. The source's identity was not clear — nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint Mr. Zarqawi's location without getting killed himself.
"We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi," the official said.
This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I'm talking, of course, about the “Pentagon official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified.”
Once again, the Pentagon leaked classified National Security information to the
New York Times. Once again, the
Times published this information with reckless disregard for the lives it puts in danger.
We had an asset inside al Qaeda, one that helped us find and kill al-Zarqawi and seven of his top lieutenants. This same asset could have presumably stayed hidden and provided further intelligence, helping roll up other senior terrorist leaders in al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, dismantling their network from the inside. Perhaps he or she could have shortened the war to some extent, and in doing so, could have saved the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or more likely, save the lives of the Iraqi soldiers, police, and civilians who have been the focus of the brunt of al Qaeda's attacks.
Instead, the Pentagon leaks continue, and this asset was compromised within one day of al-Zarqawi's end.
Evil men who could have been compromised will continue to haunt this earth. The blood of good men—and women,
and children—will continue to soak Iraqi soil. All because of a simple betrayal that this anonymous Pentagon official no doubt sees as nothing, or almost nothing; a simple favor for a journalist.
But this “favor” can cost lives in a war far from over, and this “favor” is a form of treason, a form of espionage, and a form of sabotage, one that should be exposed and prosecuted with ruthless aggression.
When people talk in war, people die. It's time to root out those that talk, and put them where they belong.
6/11/06 Update: It's like
Chris Muir can read my mind...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (83)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Agreed. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle these leakers are on - they're harming vital national security assets and should be held accountable for such leaks.
Posted by: lawhawk at June 09, 2006 10:31 AM (0vFVj)
2
It's about time that we had a few public hangings to give the rest of these idiots the message. They just don't get it. How many Al Quaeda operatives might there be in Mesopotamia?
Posted by: Specter at June 09, 2006 10:45 AM (ybfXM)
3
Just a thought (and Christopher Hitchens hinted at it as well) there may be no insider. This could be a psyop to divide AQIZ and cause AQ at large to cut off ties. No way to know for sure. But if the effect is the same, in this one single case, hurray for the "leaker" if it keeps these guys from knowing who to trust and ruins their support from the AQ at large. That might actually have more of an impact than any further targeting this informant could provide.
Posted by: Ray Robison at June 09, 2006 11:12 AM (CdK5b)
4
The way I heard it described, someone told us who his religious mentor was and we followed that guy around for two weeks until they showed up at the same place. If that was the way we were lead to him, along with the fact that we rolled up 17 other not-so safe houses (presumably also on this informant's information) his usefulness was probably done. BTW - he collected $10K up front and will be receiving the balance of his reward - $24,990,000 - well, probably now.
Everything I described was "open source" - on the radio yesterday.
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at June 09, 2006 11:23 AM (tM0AO)
5
ABCNEWS blog is reporting that a captured aide told on Z.
ABC Blog
As early news and matured news gets reported on this, the rest of the weekend is going to be really interesting.
If the report you cited is true, the leaker needs to be dealt with with extreme prejudice. QED
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 09, 2006 11:33 AM (jHBWL)
6
Probably a sanctioned leak. If so, do your criticisms stand?
Posted by: matt at June 09, 2006 12:23 PM (Km/4b)
7
I also thought it was psych-ops as well: claim an insider helped so everyone who survives distrusts each other. But that is too complicated. A little reflection leads to the realization that to get the guy always required someone on the inside. So the "leak" only confirms the obvious.
Posted by: Ian at June 09, 2006 12:24 PM (UDJId)
8
Yet allowing cheney/libby and others to out valerie plame who was working on Iran wmd is ok...hypocrite!
Posted by: madmatt at June 09, 2006 12:34 PM (J8hqn)
9
What the ever-loving Hell does the unrelated revelation of Virginia-bound CIA desk-jockey's name have to do with this crrrent incident whatsoever? The correct answer, for those of you with Daou Syndrome, is "nothing."
As for "special" people like matt, my stance on Plame was and is this:
I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case, at which point I hope justice is served.
Hypocritical? I think not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 09, 2006 12:54 PM (g5Nba)
10
newenglanddevil: News story I read this morning said the person we followed perished in the raid along with Zarqawi.
I'm also more of the opinion that this "leak" was psyops than anything else. If in fact it was an unauthorized leak, though, lock him/her up.
Posted by: Lex at June 09, 2006 12:59 PM (Aj+nl)
11
I hadn't thought of that. If this was just a case of loose lips someone needs jail time.
One other possibility though: maybe the asset essentially revealed his identity while betraying Zarkawi, or perhaps he requested a relocation as part of the deal.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 09, 2006 01:05 PM (T8RbL)
12
Lex, if you read my post carefully, you'll note that the informant did not meet with Zarqawi. The informant told us who to follow. And the guy we followed is dead. The informant is... ???
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at June 09, 2006 01:06 PM (tM0AO)
13
It was reported BEFORE Z got nailed that he had become a loose cannon in al Qaeda and was about to be wasted, either internally or externally. So, once again, BushCo is doing bin Laden's bidding, just like we did when we pulled our basis out of Saudi at bin Laden's demand. You who think that there actually is a "war on terror" have so drunk the Koolaid.
Posted by: TinHat at June 09, 2006 01:22 PM (V/xkP)
14
Folks, I wish you'd put just a little more thought behind your comments. There is already a tremendous amount of distrust within al Qaeda, and adding more simply makes it more difficult to recruit, infiltrate, and turn assets.
This does not pass the sniff test to be a sanctioned leak. Any disruption more suspicion could cause, is in no way near as valuable as a senior member that could have rolled up all of al Qaeda's senior leadership in Iraq.
Now, as McCarthy notes, the leaker provided enough information about him to threaten this asset's life. He will mostly likely be pulled if we can get to him, or killed if we can't, and in either event he is of no futher use.
This was a bad leak.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 09, 2006 01:33 PM (g5Nba)
15
CY - is the information I described information that came from the leak or is it information which was open source? If what I described was part of the leak then I agree with you. If the DOD made it a press release - then even if it's a stupid press release, it isn't a leak.
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at June 09, 2006 01:39 PM (tM0AO)
16
tinhat,
just what was your source for "pulled our basis out of Saudi"? As far as I know, we never had permenant bases in Saudi Arabia. Just some room to work in Saudi bases. At least from what I heard when I was there. But I am sure your source will be much more informed than a guy who was actually there, as you libs usually think. BTW, your other problem, the z meister was not an AQ loose cannon. If OBL wanted the z meister gone, he would have been gone. Al that Juan Cole crap is really beginning to stink up the place. The z meister had a long relationship with OBL who saw him as uncouthed and brutal, the exact guy he needed in Iraq. Do not mistake an order by OBL to tone things down a bit as an order to stop slaughtering Iraqis. Or else al Qaeda would have stopped it. Sorry for the harsh reality check.
Posted by: Ray Robison at June 09, 2006 01:44 PM (CdK5b)
17
NED, I refer you back to the article quoted [my bold]:
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Mr. Rahman's meeting with Mr. Zarqawi.
The Pentagon official knowingly leaked classified operational intelligence. It was no press release.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 09, 2006 01:48 PM (g5Nba)
18
Careful what you wish for -- it might be Rumsfeld.
Who may have done so on super-secret orders from the Vice President.
Dick just loves outing secret agents, don't ya know.
Posted by: robert lewis at June 09, 2006 01:52 PM (+J4wd)
19
Daeth to the leakers!!
Death to Karen Hughes!!!
Posted by: Robert at June 09, 2006 01:59 PM (VTtVl)
20
I don't see how the Valerie Plame scandal pertains here.
On the other hand, as NewEnglandDevil pointed out, there was a huge reward, so likely the informant was an opportunist, not an asset. In that case nothing of value was leaked.
Actually make the $26 million -- Bruce Willis pledged to kick in another million.
Looks like somebody decided to get his 72 virgins in this world instead of the next.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 09, 2006 02:41 PM (T8RbL)
21
A pentagon based leak like this came either from:
A civilian appointee
or a military officer under orders from a superior and/or a civilian appointee.
Still comes down to selective leaking from someone put there by Rumsfeld or one of his people...sure you want a firing squad? Go ahead.
Posted by: jeff at June 09, 2006 03:08 PM (z/Bt9)
22
"I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case, at which point I hope justice is served...
Hypocritical? I think not."
Right, because you will take everything you hear regarding this leak with a mine full of salt until a special prosecutor lays out the case against the leaker, at which point you hope justice is served.
Both get the mine full of salt treatment, right?
Hypocritical?
Posted by: Craig at June 09, 2006 03:12 PM (Z1Ezc)
23
Craig, the people in Plame case all profess innocence, and indeed, semo are speculating that Fitzgerald may eventually drop the case at this point because of the apparent lack of evidence.
In this case, the official told to the reporter that he was passing along classified information that he wasn't supposed to. That is a confession.
Do you, or do you not understand the difference?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 09, 2006 03:20 PM (g5Nba)
24
In case I was too subtle for Confederate Yankee:
For this case:
"This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I’m talking, of course, about the “Pentagon official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified.”"
For Plame, did he write:
"This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I’m talking, of course, about the “Administration official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because the identity of NOC's are classified.”
Or, did he write:
"I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case..."
Posted by: Craig at June 09, 2006 03:21 PM (Z1Ezc)
25
Last I checked, no Bush administration official has been charged with leaking Plame's identity. BTW, did it ever occur to anybody that may be because it wasn't a Bush Admin official? Seems if Fitzgerald had so a strong case, we would have seen that by now. Libby was charged with lying to the FBI, but it seems that is not really a big deal to dems anyway.
Time
"A VOICE FROM THE PAST (2/28/01 [a.m.]): Former housing secretary Henry Cisneros, who was among those granted last-minute pardons from the former president, tells the Dallas Morning News that Clinton granted his pardon in part to remedy the "extremes" of the independent counsels. Clinton reportedly told Cisneros (who was accused of lying to the FBI about payments he allegedly made to a former mistress) that he suspected the HUD chief was investigated because he was close to Clinton."
So if Libby gets convicted of lying to the FBI, it is only fair that he get a pardon......right? heh
Posted by: Ray Robison at June 09, 2006 03:29 PM (CdK5b)
26
This is plain stupid.
None of us know about internal Pentagon matters or if this was an unoffical or offical leak. We can sit here and speculate and call for firing squads, but all that's going to do is get us nowhere. Let the Pentagon handle this. If this is as serious a leak as CY's sensationalist post makes it out to be, the Pentagon will handle it.
Posted by: Keram at June 09, 2006 03:32 PM (WnypL)
27
I have a response, but for some reason it's getting a 'questionable content error'.
No, there's nothing profane or name-calling in it.
So, I can't post it.
Posted by: Craig at June 09, 2006 03:33 PM (Z1Ezc)
28
It's entirely possible that the "leak" was a deliberate falsehood planted by the CIA to confuse the enemy. Suppose the CIA does not have a source in the enemy camp: wouldn't it make sense to pretend that it did in order to sow confusion and mistrust? Granted, the CIA's past record of conducting black ops does not inspire confidence that they could act with this degree of subtlety, but it's possible.
Posted by: DBL at June 09, 2006 04:06 PM (A4zYZ)
29
The same tactic has been used by US intellegence regularly for at least 40 years in both foriegn and domestic actions. The fastest way to break up a conspiracy is to ensure that the conspirators can't trust each other. I think the leak was deliberate.
Posted by: Iaintbacchus at June 09, 2006 04:15 PM (mYHGQ)
30
Perhaps he or she could have shortened the war to some extent, and in doing so, could have saved the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or more likely, save the lives of the Iraqi soldiers, police, and civilians who have been the ...
Dude, please. Are you serious? Zarqawi was the *justification* for conflating Al Qaeda (which he was not even involved with at the time we invaded) with Saddam Hussein.
We had multiple chances to take him out, and it's been documented that we let him continue to run around in northern Iraq, where Saddam had no influence or power, so we could use the fact that he was there (in opposition to Saddam, no doubt) to justify the inane Bush/Cheney theory that Saddam was working with terrorists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Spare us the crying about loose lips.
Posted by: KC at June 09, 2006 04:39 PM (qHqBF)
31
I am inclined to think it is psy-ops myself. CNN is now reporting that some of the data came from satellite phones. The NYT reported this am that the terrorists use them because they think they cannot be traced, or as easily traced. they even know the name of the manufacturer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/world/middleeast/09raid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin By saying we can track them, we may reduce their ability to use those phones.
It is hard to fathom this kind of leaking at this level of specificity unless we want that information in the open.
Posted by: masaccio at June 09, 2006 04:48 PM (unNNA)
32
Stupid liberals at the NYT just gave our latest tricks away! Now they won't use cell or sattelite phones or the internet and will have to use carrier pigeons!
Oh, wait - maybe that weakens their organization.
Nevermind.
Posted by: KC at June 09, 2006 04:58 PM (qHqBF)
33
A little reflection leads to the realization that to get the guy always required someone on the inside. So the "leak" only confirms the obvious.
Of course -- but you'd like it to be crafted so someone else you'd like to see get dead gets to take the blame rather than your guy.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 09, 2006 05:30 PM (zPSD1)
34
Gotta love all the TinFoilHats comin out. It's another conspiracy dreamed up by Rove to take the heat off, right? What a bunch of maroons....
Posted by: Specter at June 09, 2006 05:39 PM (ybfXM)
35
Zarqawi Snitch in Custody of Jordanian Police for Months
The U.S. does not approve of torture, claims President Bush. Does anyone have any doubt that Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, the Iraqi customs inspector who turned on Zaqarwi after being arrested and held for months by the Jordanian police, talked as a result of being subjected to torture? Connect the dots. More here.
An Iraqi customs agent secretly working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror cell spilled the beans on the group after he was arrested, Jordanian officials tell ABC News. Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly was arrested by Jordanian intelligence forces last spring.
Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses. Karbouly also admitted to his role in the kidnappings of two Moroccan embassy employees, four Iraqi National Guards and an Iraqi finance ministry official.
In a videotaped confession, Karbouly said he acted on direct orders from Zarqawi.
So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?
Posted by: Arte Nelson at June 09, 2006 09:18 PM (6m7WW)
36
One more time for the freeking retarded left wingers. Plame was nothing but a 'clerk' at the CIA. She drove in and out of the facility daily in an open vehicle. Everyone in D.C. old enough to have a drink knew who she was and what she did. Her and traitor Joe were out and about showing off and bragging every weekend. Get a life. forget about the clerk.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 09, 2006 09:27 PM (wKh5O)
37
How many times must we be lied to and misled by the powers that be for you wingnuts to realize that this "leaker" was putting out just exactly what the Pentagon and White House WANT YOU TO BELIEVE?? This wasn't a leak, it was a f*ucking press release. You guys are so gullible that you probably believe Saddam: a) had something to do with 9/11 b) had weapons of mass destruction c) being overthrown made the US safer rather than more dangerous. You lot need to question authority, including Fox News and Rush.
Posted by: Bill Malmsrom at June 09, 2006 10:01 PM (moCxP)
38
Jesus Christ, but that is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on the Internets. Could you be more of an ignorant clown?
Wait, I already know the answer to that. Of course you can. There is no lower bound to conservative stupidity.
Posted by: Scrapmetal at June 09, 2006 10:28 PM (Z5SGj)
39
He wasn't an asset, he wasn't an informer, he was a stoolie.
I don't think our side gives a lick about him now that he's served his purpose.
The problem with conspiracy theories, is that for there to be a conspiracy it requires too many people know about the conspiracy. They might be ignorant of the outcome, but they are part of the conspiracy. It takes very little to out them. ZAK! was engaging in conspiracy, thats why, once it was exposed, and operational info was gathered that it was easy to destroy him, and engage in the fruitful raids that followed.
He wasn't an asset, he wasn't a sell-out collection $25 mil, he was a stoolie begging not to be executed in Jordan.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 09, 2006 11:38 PM (QTv8u)
40
Scrapmetal, I DO agree with your well argued and cogent point that there is no lower bound to conservative stupidity. I am also impressed with the conciseness of your moronic name calling. It truely adds to the discussion at hand.
Posted by: Bill Malmsrom at June 10, 2006 01:23 AM (moCxP)
41
Again, some far from erudite blogger calls for hanging a leaker on the pretense that he or she is harming national security. And ConYank does this without having the slightest notion of how contrary to American principles his imbecilic rant is. 10 to 1 ConYank has never left the bench/sideline in his life to serve his country in any capacity.
Posted by: Will at June 10, 2006 09:08 AM (FpSIN)
42
Iraq's National Security Advisor and a Jordanian official confirmed that an inside source was the key. I hardly think the Pentagon "leak" gave away anything.
Posted by: Rodney at June 10, 2006 09:41 AM (whIs1)
43
So you people are conspiring to MURDER a Pentagon official? I will enjoy giving this information to the FBI. As luck would have it, one of my friends is married to an agent. I hope all you traitors enjoy what you get.
Posted by: Drindl at June 10, 2006 01:24 PM (v6UPq)
44
Posting in multiple parts to fit in size limitation.
"So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?"
You have to understand, that for the right wing, that is not the issue.
The real issue is that they enjoy feeling powerful.
It's why they contort situations into creating an enemy, with only one solution - to imprison, kill, or at least dominate them. They'll frame issues in ways there's only one answer; how can you 'trust' an enemy not to attack you? You can't, so you must kill him first.
It's why they are so worhipful of the military power, the big weapons, the troops - because they think of all that as part of their own power, protecting them. It feels good, and nyone who raises any issues of the just use of power, the overspending on the military, is taking away their feeling of power, and so that person will be attacked blindly. They're a coward, they're supporting evil and terrorists, they're naive fools who would cause the fall of our country, whatever the attack of the day is. It's why they have to neutralize any military figures who challenge them - swift boating Kerry so he's not a 'real' war hero but a creep who faked his own injuries and wrote the reports for his medals, the generals who are selling out to write a book for money, and so on.
Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2006 03:34 PM (VmbVS)
45
Part 2:
It's why the right will always accept any excuse about something the enemy does wrong to say we're justified in attacking; even if you could prove the enemy was 'better' than us in the issue at hand, it just wouldn't matter because the bottom line for them is the desire for the power.
Now, it'll never be put so nakedly to them - there are always propaganda messages to tell them that that's not the case, they only the most noble principles are being served, and that we have the highest standards for our conduct - but it's a nudge nudge wink wink situation, where real reports of things like secret CIA prisons and extraordinary rendition for torture - even the president hiding the info from Congress - Just Don't Matter to them, becuase it's part of their power.
It's not that they're evil people who knowingly support wrong; it's that they are locked into the propaganda giving them a perfectly reasonable way to look at the issues, and they don't really look at the contrary facts.
This is why even the greatest nations doing evil, becoming tyrannical, is so damned easy.
The right doesn't see who is really their enemy, and so they support the wrong policies thinking they're opposing a real threat when they're really just being manipulated most of the time to support things for completely different reasons.
Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2006 03:35 PM (VmbVS)
46
Part 3:
Of *course* Reagan invaded Grenada to 'protect American Medical students'. Of *course* drug offenses were the real reason for our invading Panama and removing Noriega. Of *course* we weren't involved in the aborted coup against Chaves in Venezuela.
The right wing just pays their taxes to support the machine, which is their only real role to play in the system, and accepts the messages designed to keep them complacent in doing so.
So, the argument of 'since we torture, how are we different' doesn't really carry any weight with them; the answer need be no more than 'it's for our side, not theirs'. If we're the ones in jeopardy of being tortured, we can get on our high horse about how wrong it is and use it as an issue; when we're the ones doing the torturing, out come the explanations that the saving of innocent lives justifies the torture of those who choose to do evil.
Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2006 03:37 PM (VmbVS)
47
Part 4:
What we have here is the textbook illustration of just HOW 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'. What we should do is to question how to pursue just goals with just means, and use our power with such limits, more than we do.
But all those nicities fall by the side, as noted above, much of the time as our country lets the crooks and the evil lead us to harm and problems because of the lack of vigilence by too many citizens to preserve our principles and to restrain our leaders.
Principles move from being something we follow, to something we claim to have to justify our wars.
What can we do? Try to spread the truth, and get 51% of voters to see things clearly.
Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2006 03:38 PM (VmbVS)
48
Visiting lefty here; thanks for a great blog.
Coupla quick points -- first, if this really is a case where info that could have been gained only by torture, then it was bloody well worth it. It would be better, though, if the current administration at least didn't make it so obvious to the entire world -- and to our enemies -- that we're engaging (at one remove, by way of "rendition") so much in this torture. It takes away the single most valuable weapon our country has ever had: our moral authority as the beacon of freedom and righteousness that we have historically at least tried to portray ourselves as, and often been viewed as being. We enjoy much greater success in the world in all our legitimate aims (the ones that have to do with spreading freedom and democracy; not to mention the ones that have to do with securing markets, resources, or strategic alliances for the sake of power alone, rather than to further the spread of liberty) when we do so in ways consistent with the stated intent of those aims. Our moral force is the equal or superior of an awful big chunk of our armed force -- and is a force multiplier when they are used together.
I may have it a space linit; second point in next post.
Posted by: smartalek at June 10, 2006 06:18 PM (dstZ6)
49
Second point: Isn't it interesting how nobody here has yet brought up that time (I think it was August '04?) that the Bush administration outed an Al Qaeda double-agent in Pakistan (name was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan; google it), choosing to take the political benefits of a major intelligence success, at the price of burning the source. While it would be nice to believe that this leak/press briefing/whatever were part of a sophisticated psy-op on our enemies (yes, they ARE our enemies to almost all of us on the left, too; if you claim otherwise, you’re either lying, stupid, or deluded. This isn’t 1968, and ain’t nobody here chanting for Osama the way a small bunch of deranged psycho hippies chanted for Uncle Ho.), it's at least as likely that it's just the same old "let's make political hay" move, even if it comes at the cost of future triumphs.
Posted by: smartalek at June 10, 2006 06:19 PM (dstZ6)
50
Smartalek, with all due respect, you are not sounding like a 'lefty' when you suggest a policy of continuing torture, but just hiding it better for pr reasons. I would't even assign that nasty view to the right, other than the corrupt few of them.
There's a reason why the 'moral advantage' has benefits, it's because we're behaving morally.
The point is not to play a Machiavelli wannabe and use the issue of morality for political gain.
That's the point that involves choices: do we value 'effectiveness' more and an 'ends justify the means' approach, or do we value certain standards of human decency which lead us to make some sacrifices for them?
You want to have your cake and it it too, but that is not only dishonest, it undermines the very ability of nations to 'do the right thing' and get anycredit for it, as suspicions are increased about anyone claiming to do so when some lie.
What we need is more transparency to what our government is doing, not less.
If we need to do something, let's stand behind it, and argue for it. Others can disagree.
But we'll get some credit for the honesty. And it's the right way to do things, including for a democracy, where the peopel are supposed to have some choice about the policies tey vote for rather than be lied to and denied the information on what the government does in their name.
I do not support the torture, period. My position has a cost, and I think it's worth paying.
Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2006 07:25 PM (VmbVS)
51
smartalek makes a good point. The administration has outed one of its own moles before to reap political gain. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a similar situation.
If that turns out to be the case, I look forward to reading CY's "execute Bush" post.
Posted by: jpe at June 10, 2006 07:27 PM (TLt+4)
52
Scrapmetal, I DO agree with your well argued and cogent point that there is no lower bound to conservative stupidity. I am also impressed with the conciseness of your moronic name calling. It truely adds to the discussion at hand.
This is a perfect example of what is expected by the wing nuts after the introduction of the unwritten false equivalency policy of the purported liberal MSM a couple of years ago.
You see, dude - when a post is so stupid as to preclude any "discussion" on the basis of merit, there simply is no reason to debate one can only make sense of the lunacy by humor and name calling.
And, truely [sic] even you can see that, right?
For god's sake, even the author of the blog entry here has quit defending his inane theory. And that says quite a lot, don't you think?
Posted by: KC at June 11, 2006 01:19 AM (VC5sN)
53
(The earlier blocked post, part 1)
"Craig, the people in Plame case all profess innocence, and indeed, semo are speculating that Fitzgerald may eventually drop the case at this point because of the apparent lack of evidence."
Yes, Scott McClellan assured us that Rove and Libby said they had NOTHING TO DO with the leak.
That was false, we now know.
"In this case, the official told to the reporter that he was passing along classified information that he wasn't supposed to. That is a confession."
So, when Rove and Libby discuss Plame's identity with reporters, that's not a confession, even though they then lie about having done so until they are caught; but when a Pentagon official discusses the leaker's identity with a reporter, that's "a confession".
Posted by: Craig at June 11, 2006 03:18 AM (VmbVS)
54
(Part 2)
Identity of a NOC, identity of a source - both are things that are not supposed to be leaked.
Harm to our non-proliferation efforts, and exposing the people who co-operated with Plame to danger, and undermining the confidence of future people in their identity being protected; harm to our anti-terrorism efforts, exposing the source and his family, undermining future trust of sources in their identities being protected by the Pentagon.
Administration official discusses NOC id with reporters; Pentagon discussed source id with NBC.
These sound awfully similar. In fact, the main difference now is that we know the motive for the Plame leak was the worst sort, political in nature, in response to Wilson's revealing an embarrassing truth (which the White House had to concede within the next couple days) as they tried to attack Wilson through his CIA NOC wife. We don't know the Pentagon official's motive. "Do you, or do you not understand the similarities?"
Posted by: Craig at June 11, 2006 03:18 AM (VmbVS)
55
Uhhh...Craig,
You might want to study up on PlameGate before you get your shorts twisted too much further. First off - NOONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH LEAKING PLAME'S NAME. Get it yet? Why do you think that is? Could it be that it wasn't illegal to mention her name.
DO you know about UGO? Unidentified Government Official? The one who tol Woodward well before Libby talked to any reporter (weeks....)? Guess not. Why hasn't he been charged with leaking the name? Get over it.
Remember that part of either statute that would have to be used to charge illegal leaking is that the "agent" had to be posted abroad sometime in the last 5 years. Not the case here. The other thing is that the CIA has to actively attempt to protect the agent's ID. So when Hadley was called and told Cooper (was it cooper - i think so) that she worked for the agency that part got thrown out. What we have is a multimillion dollar boondoggle that ends up being he said/he said. Geez...try studying the data.
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 09:45 AM (ybfXM)
56
Specter,
I didn't say it WAS illegal: I'm saying it was wrong.
If you can't see that it was wrong, then you are sadly blinded by partisanship.
At best, you have remained terribly uninformed and accepted a dishonest version of the facts.
If Bush came out tomorrow and said, "Here are all the names of the democrats who are undercover for the CIA", it may not be illegal - thecan and should be able to have authority over classification exceeding the government's, since he's the people's agent - but it'd be wrong.
The 5 year requirement is for the statue - not for being a NOC who has a terrible impact if exposed.
First, you have offered no proof she was not on an overseas mission in 5 years; second, the question of whether she was is irrelevant to the issue of the harm it caused and the wrong it did. If you don't know the story on NOC's, you can get a good summary from James Bamford's latest book.
You are the one who needs to get the facts, on hw she was working on WMD proliferation issues, and how her contacts are put in jeopardy by her exposure, and the effect it has both on people being willing to trust the CIA for confidentiality and agents' trust. Agents are very upset.
And I don't want you to post the right-wing nonsensical fallacies like how exposing her name to Cuba years ago accidentally makes her useless for undercover work in, say, the Middle East. There's no 'unfriendly regimes newsletter' where they share the info.
If we can have undercover cops work for years in the samed city, getting exposed over and over as they arrest drug dealers and others, and still be effective for more undercover work, we can sure as heck have an agent exposed to Cuba and be useful.
Posted by: Craig at June 11, 2006 01:16 PM (VmbVS)
57
uhhh....Craig...what contacts did she have? Do you know? Besides some MSM report? C'Mon....she was identified in the NIE as a desk jockey. Some undercover work. Same in the SSCI. No laws were broken. And you still never answered the question about UGO. So much that you know....
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 07:11 PM (ybfXM)
58
Specter, you are spewing nonsense to try to win a partisan point you are wrong on.
As the handy Wikipedia notes:
"Former CIA official Larry C. Johnson, who left the CIA in 1989, indicated Plame had been a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." Later, he wrote that "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.""
It also quotes the Washington Post on her role:
"The Boston Globe also editorialized: "Once before, Plame was caught up in a case illustrating how costly it can be for a CIA officer to be in danger of having her cover exposed. The agency called Plame home in 1997 in fear that Aldrich Ames, the notorious Soviet mole inside the CIA, had revealed her true identity to his KGB handlers.... Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president."
So, what contacts did she have? The ones you might expect as she is investigating WMD proliferation under a cover, working in the nuclear industry, not to mention whoever had trusted her in her work until she was recalled following her exposure to Russia.
One difference: Aldrich Ames exposed her once and is spending a long time in jail. The current officials did the same basic thing and are escaping accountability because of loopholes in the law, but that doesn't change the fact it's wrong.
As for the UGO - irrelevant. Woodward was given a lot of confidential information, rightly or wrongly; he was writing a book friendly to Bush's role in the Iraq war. Did he publish her name in the newspaper or book? No. If he had, he'd be the one in some trouble, but Libby and Rove are.
You are out not to discuss the truth, but to try to prove a lie because of your partisan bias.
Posted by: Craig at June 11, 2006 10:53 PM (VmbVS)
59
Clarification: I'm not saying you know it's a lie, and are posting it knwoing that.
I'm saying it is a lie told by others, and you are believing and repeating it because you are blinded.
Posted by: Craig at June 11, 2006 10:54 PM (VmbVS)
60
Larry Johnson? Have you heard of VIPs - the ex-CIA officers that advocate the leaking of national secrets? Guess not - he's a founding member. Just because he was CIA does not mean he actually knew Plame. Get a grip. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. You really need to look deeper into this whole thing. It is intriguing. What about UGO? Wasn't just Woodward - it was Cooper too. Keep up Craig.
Posted by: Specter at June 11, 2006 11:01 PM (ybfXM)
61
You are irrational, in the common right-wing manner - character assassination to totally dismiss someone based on any criticism you can find of them. When Johnson lists the years Plame was overseas since 2000, you respond by saying he supports releasing national secrets, as if that disproves his statement. Your little group - well, not little enough - loves this approach. Ten people say something you don't like? Well that one was an advisor to Kerry, and the next once complimented Al Gore, and the one after was a supporter of Murtha's pull out the troops now defeatism, and so on for all ten - so everything they said is wrong. Irrational.
OK, show me where Cooper published her name beforethe officials leaked to Novak to publish.
If I used your bad reasoning, next I'd point out I've met Joe Wilson and heard the story firsthand, so if you haven't, then you are obviously wrong and ignorant on everything and have to meet him before you can say another word.
But why don't we not, and stick to the facts, which you have a score of zero on at the moment.
p.s. Johnson did not need to know Plame to say what he said.
Your changing the topic from what he said to whether he knew her is just another error.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 03:11 AM (VmbVS)
62
p.p.s. The CIA lawyers reviewed the case to see whether there was sufficient cause for investigating a crime from the leak. The CIA that is part of *Bush's* administration.
The lawyers can read. The law says in its few sentences that the crime required overseas service in the last 5 years. The lawyers had access to her travel history. The lawyers decided the incident SHOULD be referred to the justice department for investigation.
Just a little logic shoud tell you overseas service in the last 5 years is implied.
Maybe you should get some of your info from somewhere other than make-it-up right-wing places.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 03:15 AM (VmbVS)
63
p.p.p.s.
Cooper isn't exactly a guy supporting your argument that Rove and Libby did nothing wrong.
From wikipedia:
"Rove and his attorney do not dispute TIME Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's contemporaneous email and subsequent grand jury testimony, as related by Cooper himself, that he first learned Plame's identity from Rove."
Of course there's an innocent explanation for Rove's saying:
"Cooper's TIME Magazine article describing his grand jury testimony noted that Rove said, "I've already said too much.""
And from Dkosopedia:
"Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that ..."he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This ...statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 04:05 AM (VmbVS)
64
One more time for the freeking retarded left wingers. Plame was nothing but a 'clerk' at the CIA. She drove in and out of the facility daily in an open vehicle. Everyone in D.C. old enough to have a drink knew who she was and what she did. Her and traitor Joe were out and about showing off and bragging every weekend. Get a life. forget about the clerk.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 9, 2006 09:27 PM
If she was such a low level clert, why did the CIA ask the "Justice department to agressively pursue the source of the outings? You righties like to paint this as a partisan attack on your God-boy W by pant, pant, "THE LIBERALS" but it was initiated by the CIA because a deep cover operative's cover was blown along with the background corproation set up that was bearding the whold operation. Only the CIA knows how many agent's covers were blown by this Bush/cheney/Rove dirty trick.
Posted by: Bill T. at June 12, 2006 08:44 AM (IRP7g)
65
It is sad that there has been no mention of the fact in this blog or the mainstream media that the Bush Administration was asked three times by the Pentagon to eliminate Zarqawi when they knew his whereabouts (sources: NBC and Washington Post)in the run-up to the war due to the concern by the State Department that Zarquawi would do the things he ended up doing; and three times the Bush Administration denied permission to take him out before we invaded. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent synopis as to the why (I will let you draw your own conclusions, http://zfacts.com/p/653.html).
My conclusion based on all available reading as to why Bush denied permission on three occasions to assassinate Zarqawi prior to our invasion is that he didn't want to destroy his "link to al Qaeda".
So once again, politics trumped policy, dozens of our soldiers and hundreds of innocent civilians died because of those decisions, and everyone is running around crowing about the death of Zarqawi with a only a few knowing the history of why he stayed alive so long.
Posted by: Julien Boyance at June 12, 2006 12:20 PM (X8TGw)
66
Actually, Julian, al-Zarqawi was not the primary link to al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri was. He's still around, and is rumored to be stepping into the leadership role now that Z-man is dust.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2006 12:28 PM (g5Nba)
67
Way to miss the point, CY.
The military having three request to go after al-Zarqawi, the administration denying them all in order to keep him around to strengthen their case for war (the war they said they didn't want, lying), and the casualties from Zarqawi are the issue; whether there was another guy too is irrelevant.
I'd say thanks for playing, but you didn't. You avoided the game.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 12:54 PM (Z1Ezc)
68
Hold on a minute.
You've been griping since 2003 that we went into Iraq illegally even after we went to UNSC repeatedly, got the AUMF, and even had hundreds of incidents where Saddam instigated combat by firing up on U.S. airplanes in the No-Fly War, and yet all of a sudden, you complain becuase we didn't take the unilateral step of invading Iraq and dropping bombs on al-Zarqawi while we were still trying to negotiate a resumption of inspections?
At the same time, haven't many leftists been saying that Iraq had no terrorist ties?
Either al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion, or it wasn't. You can't keep changing your claims to make your cause de jour.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2006 01:22 PM (g5Nba)
69
"Hold on a minute.
You've been griping since 2003 that we went into Iraq illegally even after we went to UNSC repeatedly, got the AUMF, and even had hundreds of incidents where Saddam instigated combat by firing up on U.S. airplanes in the No-Fly War, and yet all of a sudden, you complain becuase we didn't take the unilateral step of invading Iraq and dropping bombs on al-Zarqawi while we were still trying to negotiate a resumption of inspections?
At the same time, haven't many leftists been saying that Iraq had no terrorist ties?
Either al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion, or it wasn't. You can't keep changing your claims to make your cause de jour."
You can, obviously. That works both ways - you're saying that we had every authority to implement no-fly zones unilaterally not in any treaty or UN resolution, to keep our forces on the border, attack their air defenses, and invade the nation to remove the government, but not kill Zarqawi.
You're trying to have it both ways as much or more than the other side.
This is a common fallacy, to hold the other side accountable for supposed inconsistencies while ignoring your own, mirroning inconsistencies. So why don't we skip it, and hold people accountable to their own positions.
In that case, you cannot use any position or inconsistency by others to defend your own.
(Nor can others).
So, why don't you try answering the issue of the White House blocking the military at least three times from killing Zarqawi, for politics, allowing him to kill many more people, only using your own positions, and not trying to mix in the views of war opponents and leave the issue unanswered?
If you're just a blind partisan who can do nothing but support one side right or wrong, say so.
Otherwise, answer the question and admit fault where needed.
And then, I'll answer for my own issues with Zarqawi and the war, but you can't hide behind it.
Remember - it's the republicans who own the White House and made the decisions, who are accountable.
Your argment is so weak, it's like answering the charge about Reagan trading arms for hostages after he said he woudln't, or pulling out of Lebanon after saying we'd not back down to acts of terror, by finding some democrat who said we should negotiate with terrorists.
It's not the point - the point is holding him accountable within his own stated views.
He's accountable both for whether his stated views are the right policy - and for following them.
In this case, the White House played politics and cost innocent lives for those politics.
Even if the democrats would have not killed him for some reason such as not violating Iraq's sovereignity - and it's not at all clear that's the case - at least they'd have said why and taken responsibility, which this president has not done. Instead, he's lied about the policy.
He wants it both ways - as you do.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 01:36 PM (VmbVS)
70
So the United States "unilaterally" imposed a no-fly zone, Craig?
That must be very shocking news to the United Nations Security Council, which passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as part of a humanitarian mission to keep Saddam from using more of his WMDs on the Kurdish people. France and Great Britain also provided aircraft for this "unilateral" act.
It is also important to note that the various air forces flying in protection of the Kurdish people to the north and the Shiites to the south did not go on purposeful bombing missions against their air defenses as you imply, and they only fired when threatened. This defensive engagement of Iraqi AA sites was an act of self-preservation, and a far cry from the pre-emptive acts of aggression that you would call for with a offensive strike on ground targets in Iraq.
Even you should be able to tell the difference between defensive fire in support of a humanitarian mission, and the problems of launching a pre-emptive air strike.
That you would try to make these two kinds of missions equivalent is quite telling, and more than a little reprehensible.
So, too, is your attempt to conflate you new desire to have bombed al-Zarqawi at some point in the past with the political realities of four years ago.
At that time, we were ramping up for war, but hoping that Saddam would bow out, and either choose abdication (which was eventually refused by his Arab neighbors) or resume full U.N. inspections. We were still holding out hope of a diplomatic solution. If the President had followed your "bomb Zarqawi first, diplomacy be damned" solution, it would have been a catastrophic blow to any hopes of a peaceful resolution, not to mention an act of aggression for which you would now be calling for his impeachment.
You really need to come up with a realistic expectations, Craig. You cannot ask Bush to have been omnipotent, and go ahead and bomb targets in Iraq knowing that Saddam would chose war anyway despite his other available options.
I don't want anything two ways, Craig. I want you to be honest, and face the historical facts as they were, not to obfuscate them to match your hindsight and ideology.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2006 02:46 PM (g5Nba)
71
"So the United States "unilaterally" imposed a no-fly zone, Craig?
That must be very shocking news to the United Nations Security Council, which passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as part of a humanitarian mission to keep Saddam from using more of his WMDs on the Kurdish people. France and Great Britain also provided aircraft for this "unilateral" act."
The unilateral act was by the US/Britain/Franch, without UN authorization.
In fact, even one of the three you cite, France, soon bailed and said "We have believed for a long time that there is no basis in international law for this type of bombing".
As the BBS reported:
"The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.
However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."
Now, the US was awfully selective in its protection of the Kurds. After Bush encouraged their fighitng Saddam, the administration decided that it didn't like the idea of the instability after all, and the kurds were killed in large numbers by Saddam without the US stopping it.
Finally, after Kurds had fled to other unhappy nations, the US created the 'safe' areas it was protecting in the North, so the Kurds could return and be protected from Saddam. Oddly enough, the same US-protected area is where Zarqawi operated his WMD camps, without the US intervening, to the surprise of congressional visitors, but as discussed, the White House needed its lie about 'WMD terrorist camps in Iraq' implying Saddam was operating them.
Saddam was legally entitled to shoot the aircraft violating his airspace after the agreement.
"It is also important to note that the various air forces flying in protection of the Kurdish people to the north and the Shiites to the south did not go on purposeful bombing missions against their air defenses as you imply, and they only fired when threatened. This defensive engagement of Iraqi AA sites was an act of self-preservation, and a far cry from the pre-emptive acts of aggression that you would call for with a offensive strike on ground targets in Iraq."
Bull. Wikipedia lists some of the reported hundreds of civilian casualties:
"Baghdad says more than 300 civilians have died in these attacks, with the some of the most serious incidents being:
* 2001 20 January: Six killed in raid in southern Iraq
2000
* 6 April: 14 civilians killed and 19 wounded
1999
* 28 July: Eight killed and 26 injured in northern Iraq
* 18 July: 14 civilians killed in raid on southern Iraq
* 13 May: 12 killed when planes hit residential area in the north of the country
* 28 February: Oil exports cut after attack damages pipeline in Mosul
* 25 January: About 20 dead in attacks on Basorah region"
"Even you should be able to tell the difference between defensive fire in support of a humanitarian mission, and the problems of launching a pre-emptive air strike.
That you would try to make these two kinds of missions equivalent is quite telling, and more than a little reprehensible."
The American Prospect describes the use of the anti-air attacks for 'cover' for broader attacks:
"For more than a decade, the United States has played a lethal cat-and-mouse game over Iraq, carrying out increasingly provocative patrols, sometimes drawing Iraqi fire or radar targeting, and then launching widespread bombing or missile strikes. Since 1991, thousands of such sorties have been carried out. And since 1998, when fighting intensified, at least 300 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. and British attacks."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html
"So, too, is your attempt to conflate you new desire to have bombed al-Zarqawi at some point in the past with the political realities of four years ago.
At that time, we were ramping up for war, but hoping that Saddam would bow out, and either choose abdication (which was eventually refused by his Arab neighbors) or resume full U.N. inspections. We were still holding out hope of a diplomatic solution. If the President had followed your "bomb Zarqawi first, diplomacy be damned" solution, it would have been a catastrophic blow to any hopes of a peaceful resolution, not to mention an act of aggression for which you would now be calling for his impeachment."
You're just printing lies now, whether or not you are aware they are.
First, you conveniently completely leave out the actual language used by Bush at the time, bacause it's an embarrasment to you now, about how the requirement to avoid war was for Saddam to 'disarm' from his WMD - something we now know he was telling the truth when he said he had.
And your even worse falsehood is on the inspectors - the inspectors *did* have adequate access before the war. Hans Blix, the head of the inspection team, was the authority responsible for reporting to the UN whether Saddam was cooperating.
His messages to the UN in early 2003 were that while the cooperation was not perfect, it was sufficient for the inspectors to do what they wanted, that the inspections could be expected to be completed within a few months, and that he specifically recommended against taking any military action against Saddam over the issue of cooperation at the time. The opposite of what you said.
In fact, it's because Bush wanted war that he refused to give Blix the few months - it was precisely because Blix finishing and concluding there were no WMD would completely remove Bush's war justification that Bush had to go to war before that happened.
This is why you saw all the administration talking heads talking about the threat of 'mushroom clouds' being the first indication of whether he had WMD, and so we had to act now, not in a few months. Outrageous lies.
"You really need to come up with a realistic expectations, Craig. You cannot ask Bush to have been omnipotent, and go ahead and bomb targets in Iraq knowing that Saddam would chose war anyway despite his other available options."
Excuse me. I'm the one with the reasonable policy.
Bush himself said that the only justification for war was the WMD issue, by saying that if Saddam disarmed WMD, there were not be war. Let's take him at his word.
Let the inspectors finish the inspections for a few more months; later in 2003 we'd have known there were no WMD, and there would not have been any war. You should be able to understand that.
"I don't want anything two ways, Craig. I want you to be honest, and face the historical facts as they were, not to obfuscate them to match your hindsight and ideology."
I am, now you try.
I'm still waiting for you to hold Bush accountable for his denying the military attacks not because he couldn't do them for political reasons, but because he wanted the lie available as if Saddam had the WMD camps, with the misleading phrase 'terrorist camps in Iraq'.
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm"
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 03:44 PM (VmbVS)
72
So Craig,
The UN didn't approve the resolution for the no-fly zones? And the Hussein regime didn't target UN aircraft with their AA defenses while they were flying on their side of the no-fly lines? What a maroon.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 06:44 PM (ybfXM)
73
"The UN didn't approve the resolution for the no-fly zones?"
No. In fact, the US wanted specific no-fly zone language in the resolution and it was removed.
"And the Hussein regime didn't target UN aircraft with their AA defenses while they were flying on their side of the no-fly lines?"
The topic is Iraq shooting at US, British and, initially, French aircraft in their airspace.
"What a maroon."
The conversation with you is over. If the next post by you doesn't begin with an apology, then I do not plan to read past that first sentence. It if it does, a strict probation may be granted. Obviously you are not able to have a rational discussion, instead acting like a four year old.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 07:00 PM (VmbVS)
74
Of course, if this turns out to be disinformation designed to set terrorists at one another's throats, then the person who "leaked" the report is acting to further US goals, while those who are insisting on an investigation are imperiling the war effort
Posted by: trrll at June 12, 2006 08:01 PM (LmbWp)
75
Craig,
Sorry Craig - no apology 4U. Too bad if you don't like what I say. It is no skin off my teeth to not talk with a government-Bush-hating-left-leaning-MSM- brainwashed weenie. So what? I'm so sad. Don't let the door hit you on the...behind...on your way out. LOL
But more to your points. You should take all of the UN resolutions into consideration when you opine. Have you read them all yet? Bet not. You seem to pick up a lot of your "facts" from MSM and leftie web sites. However, there are sources for information other than those.
Added together, under the UN Resolutions there was ample authority to protect the innocent using no-fly zones, and in fact many of them relied on Chapter VII of the UN Charter. One of which (but not all-inclusive) is:
RESOLUTION 687 (1991); Section H; Line 32:
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
Read it here.
Note - that under several UN Resolutions, member nations are authorized to use "any means" necessary to enforce the resolutions. Figure it out - Did the UN come out and say, "Hey - US, UK, France, and Turkey - we did not approve this so stop!" No! Russia and China objected to the no-fly zones and that was it. The UN did not condemn it - in fact the colors of the aircraft were the UN colors. Get over it. It was approved no matter how you want to rewrite history to fit your POV. Done deal.
And since you like Wiki so much, try this article:
Operation Northern Watch, the successor to Operation Provid e C omfort, was a US European Command Combined Task Force (CTF) charged with enforcing the United Nations mandated no-fly zone above the 36th parallel in Iraq. Its mission, which began on 1 January 1997, included monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council directives.
The coalition partners of the United States, United Kingdom, and Turkey provided approximately 45 aircraft and more than 1,400 personnel to support Operation Northern Watch. The joint U.S. forces of some 1,100 US personnel, included sailors, soldiers, as well as sorties from every arm of the Military of the United States, with the exception of the paramilitary United States Coast Guard.
The original mandate from the Turkish government allowed the operation to continue for 6 months. Turkey subsequently approved two 6-month extensions, but indicated that it would not become a permanent mission.
The final combat air patrol occurred on March 17, 2003 (from the Incirlik Air Base). Six weeks later, the Operation concluded with an official stand down on May 1, 2003.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 08:21 PM (ybfXM)
76
More:
Review this site also. It contains the text of the UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002, along with a letter to General Al-Saadi which reiterates that:
On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.
So I guess targeting operations within the no-fly zones with AA constitutes that Iraq was ensuring the safety of such operations. Yea Right.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 09:01 PM (ybfXM)
77
"Sorry Craig - no apology 4U."
The last words I plan to ever read from whatsisname. It's actually a nice feeling!
I suggest it to others. You don't miss out on anything skipping a name-caller like that.
Trrll, good point. Of course, you can't really tell if it was an accident, or a trick, so I tend to just ignore it - though in this case, I suspect it might be true, as it was first leaked by some others in the middle east.
Just as we now have witnesses we'd rather not have coming out saying the US was stomping on Zarqawi.
That they took him out of the ambulance; as they stomped on his chest, demanding he identify who he was, blood would come out his mout and nose. That went on for some minutes. Dunno if it's true, but don't think we planted that story. And I think it's pretty inexcusable if true.
Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2006 09:28 PM (VmbVS)
78
Craig,
Let's not talk about the following from your previous post. I will just point out some interesting things that you failed to:
Craig Said:
Bull. Wikipedia lists some of the reported hundreds of civilian casualties:
Baghdad says more than 300 civilians have died in these attacks, with the some of the most serious incidents being:
* 2001 20 January: Six killed in raid in southern Iraq
2000
* 6 April: 14 civilians killed and 19 wounded
1999
* 28 July: Eight killed and 26 injured in northern Iraq
* 18 July: 14 civilians killed in raid on southern Iraq
* 13 May: 12 killed when planes hit residential area in the north of the country
* 28 February: Oil exports cut after attack damages pipeline in Mosul
* 25 January: About 20 dead in attacks on Basorah region
Would you mind posting a link to the Wiki article? I can't seem to find it. On the other hand, I did find the BBS article - and imagine this - it says what you say Wiki said. Maybe you were just confused. But in addition to the list of "deaths" you quoted - based on numbers from Baghdad who we know would never have lied back then - there was another paragraph you left out:
The US and British air forces have disputed some of these figures, and insist they never target civilian areas.
Imagine that - at the bottom of an MSM article they put in a qualifier that what they presented might not be true. Wow.
You might also want to check out Wiki's article on the AUMF. It has some interesting points - like:
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Now - Craig - with all your superior intellect, maybe you can inform someone as lowly as me as to why so many official government and UN documents refer to the no-fly zones you say were not ever authorized.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 09:34 PM (ybfXM)
79
I don't care if you answer Craig. I can make just as much of a fool of you without your participation. LOL. What a maroon.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 09:36 PM (ybfXM)
80
Here's how good Craig is:
As reported in the Times of London:
Once the soldiers had established the man was not a threat, they started to kick him in the chest, said [Ali] Abbas and an Iraqi policeman also there. “They kept kicking him, shouting, ‘What’s your name?’, but the man only moaned and said nothing,” said Abbas.
Same story in NYT:
Another person who identified himself as a witness to Mr. Zarqawi’s final moments, interviewed Sunday on Al Jazeera satellite network, made no mention of soldiers striking the man and suggested that American soldiers tore open his clothing in what appeared an effort to revive him.
“The Americans came afterward, they took him out of the ambulance, put him on the ground, and ripped his dishdasha,” the witness, Ali Abbas, said in the interview on Al Jazeera. “They were pressing on his chest, wanting him to speak or to respond, and they brought a bottle of water but he didn’t take it.”
So who do we believe? The neighbor Ali Abbas, or the other witness Ali Abbas? Get a grip Craig. You might try also looking up the reports on the autopsy which showed no signs of any sort of beating.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 09:42 PM (ybfXM)
81
well....missed a closing blockquote I guess. But this is way too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 09:43 PM (ybfXM)
82
Craig's favorites from the Rules of Disinformation
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Posted by: Specter at June 12, 2006 10:07 PM (ybfXM)
83
Wow, 5 posts or so to skip from whatisname namecaller. He doesn't take a hint, does he.
Just rudely keeps on posting after being told the discussion is over.
Looks like he killed the thread pretty well, and folks are making a good choice to skip his posts.
Posted by: Craig at June 16, 2006 01:16 AM (VmbVS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 08, 2006
This is CNN
As you can see in the screen capture above, CNN appears almost disconsolent that Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike late yesterday afternoon, lamenting with the headline, 'al-Zarqawi Betrayed.'
CNN also shows a prominent picture on the CNN.com home page not of al-Zarqawi, or of celebrating Iraqis, or of President George Bush, or of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, or anything else of major importance to this story, but focuses instead of neighboring home destroyed in the airstrike.
It seems that CNN would like to focus on something, perhaps anything other than marking al-Zarqawi's death as a victory for the coalition, and the network that turned
a blind eye to Saddam's terrorism seemed
almost delighted to feature a video clip breathlessly proclaiming "(Watch how attacks turned nearby houses to heaps of cinder blocks --3:23)".
Whether more
sympathy for the devil or corporate echoes of Eason Jordan disgraceful tenure, CNN seems bound and determined to tarnish any positive news coming out of Iraq, even news as big as the death of a terrorist mastermind.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:25 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It was interesting to note this morning I was listening to coverage on both Fox and CNN on XM while driving to work. Fox was exploring the short and long term political ramifications and discussing Zarqawi's death as a positive for Iraq and the region. They had Ambassador Paul Bremer on and interviewed him as well.
CNN had Nick Berg's father on, who is anti-war, anti-Bush, he was talking about how he felt, and how the Bush Administration was wrong and that Zarqawi's death would inspire the insurgents fight more and create more bloodshed.
The contrast between the two couldn't have been more clear.
Posted by: Chris at June 08, 2006 03:46 PM (MKqlk)
2
Have you seen the video? There was no house near-by. The farmhouse shown in the photo was THE targeted house and the only one for for several hundred meters. I am not surprised that they would try to brign some semblance of tragedy to this glorious news.
Posted by: Rey at June 09, 2006 01:12 AM (9GKsp)
3
C N N - Criminally Negligent Network
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 09, 2006 06:23 AM (owAN1)
4
Well....I'm sure we have the gps coordinates for CNN around here somewhere. Ooops...sorry....just a random thought.
Posted by: Specter at June 09, 2006 10:34 AM (ybfXM)
5
You people are hilarious. You can't be serious right? Way to sensationalize a non issue!
Keep putting up straw men and knocking them down. Besides, anyone who knows anything knows that the Liberal Mainstream Media wants nothing more than for the Muslim Hordes to overrun our country, rape our women, make them wear Burkhas, and have us all face Mecca a coupla times a day.
Start talking about real issues like gay marriage. Maybe we can do something like gay internment camps or something.
Posted by: KC at June 09, 2006 04:48 PM (qHqBF)
6
KC,
We knew it all along. 'Bout time somebody admitted it.
Posted by: Specter at June 09, 2006 07:42 PM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lost In Translation?
Perhaps Juan Cole should call his blog Poorly Informed Comment:
[my bold]
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced Thursday morning that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed, along with 7 aides, in a gun battle with US and Iraqi troops at Baqubah.
Of course, the article Juan Cole linked to said
nothing of the sort:
Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been killed in a joint U.S. and Iraqi military raid north of Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced on Thursday...
How he could get the most basic of facts wrong—that al-Zarqawi was
killed in an airstrike—in such a widely reported story, is absolutely astounding.
Perhaps he's having
translation issues again?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:02 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To be fair, its not entirely clear based on that one story he linked to, as to just what kind of a raid took place, whether it was a gun battle or air strike.
However, if he hasn't corrected it by now, based on all the other news stories out there confirming it was a air strike, well...
(And I just checked, he hasn't.)
Later,
Posted by: Cicero at June 08, 2006 10:23 AM (S35wq)
2
Any kind of dead will do, as far as I'm concerned. I hope the maggot suffered before he died.
But why in the world are you reading Juan Cole, anyways? :-)
Posted by: Temujin at June 08, 2006 02:20 PM (kLowS)
3
And to think that they denied this man a position at Yale!
Posted by: D. Carter at June 08, 2006 02:29 PM (OnQ6k)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Is...
Update:Perhaps not too surprisingly, some
Democrats are taking this as an opportunity to retreat, and
Texas Rainmaker notes that the hive--well,
mind isn't quite the right word--at the Democratic Underground is already in overdrive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:12 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Left will certainly be upset about this. Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. They will praise Bush and our military for a job well done. Oh wait, never mind.
If we would have elected Kerry in '04 and cut and run like his cohorts would have convinced him to, this thug would still be alive somewhere.
Go Team!
Posted by: bws at June 08, 2006 07:37 AM (yPLbt)
2
NPR isn't even excited over it. They report this great news but then shift over to "...but we still can't find BinLaden." sheesh.
Posted by: Mr. Bubble at June 08, 2006 10:46 AM (/MZFq)
3
Real comments from Daily Kos:
“Bush’s idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?”
“Why is he dead again just now? I wonder if Karl’s getting indicted tomorrow…”
“Those pics of Abu Z look like they just thawed him out just in time for the elections.”
“Zarqawi was quite probably a psy ops job in the first place, so what does that make his “death”? …Keep your eyes on the prize….Haditha.”
“Just in time to hide the fact they’re trying to cut the estate tax for the uber wealthy”
“Yes the timing of Zarqawi’s death does seem too good for Bush to be true. It reeks of distraction politics. ”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/8/75854/67368
Posted by: Kos = Baathist at June 08, 2006 11:55 AM (Gi7oA)
4
I live in the SF Bay Area - the local liberal leaning talk radio station did not even have the news on this mornings "breaking news" reports. The lead story for them - The race for Governor. Next - Alleged Voting abnormalities. Next - 3 or 4 districts, reporters re-capping what measures won/lost etc.
NOTHING about Zarqawi. Amazing. I suspected right then that the antiwar left would spin it negatively.
Posted by: Cheryl at June 08, 2006 12:08 PM (iB7ZQ)
5
Our guys at their best!
Posted by: Tom TB at June 08, 2006 12:59 PM (y6n8O)
6
body: room temperature
soul: much much hotter
Posted by: Kevin at June 08, 2006 06:07 PM (+hkUo)
7
Great site! Just stumbled on it. Just sit back and let the libs scatter and chatter and watch as their ship continues to sink. New Orleans will be clean as a whistle in a year. The Iraqi and Afghani conflict will turn around when, not if, but when we wipe the floor with Osama and his wacky bunch. And then, finally, the economy will remain strong. Then, Mit Romney will run and bury Billary Clinton and any other pretender to the throne under a pile of red states. Libs and stippers might not make the world a better place, but they sure make it entertaining.
Posted by: John at June 08, 2006 06:11 PM (bpQk3)
8
"strippers", not stippers. There, now my crazy tirade will make cents, uh, sense.
Posted by: John at June 08, 2006 07:28 PM (bpQk3)
9
how long before the ACLU files suit against the individual soldiers for killing this poor innocent man????
Posted by: tw at June 08, 2006 07:41 PM (3Qz3W)
10
The spinning on the left has absolutely no traction. They didn't have their mudder tires on and quickly sunk in up to the hubs. Now they need a tow to get out, but they forgot their winch. Ahhhhhhhh....
Posted by: Specter at June 09, 2006 10:37 AM (ybfXM)
11
[Chris_Tucker]
"Go clean yourself up. You Dead."
[/Chris_Tucker]
Posted by: Macker at June 11, 2006 03:10 PM (0zaL9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Veracity of Haditha Witnesses is Questionable
I'm starting to understand why the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has been working so long to develop physical evidence and forensics to base their Haditha investigation on.
Dan Riehl notes in comparisons of "witness" interviews in various media outlets that few if any of the Haditha witnesses are credible. One of the witnesses even admits to knowing that an
IED blast was imminent.
This information would in no way make it acceptable for U.S. Marines to shoot civilians (in Haditha or anywhere else) without just cause, but it does make this incident far more complex than many initially thought.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is one reason why I have been saying and writing that we should reserve judgment concerning the Haditha story until the investigation comes in. That should not be too much to ask given how the Marines put their lives on the line for our country, taking on nasty and dangerous tasks in insurgency hotbeds.
I recommend for reading: (i) Andrew Waldron's article "Haditha: Reason for Doubt" that was published June 6, 2006 on FrontPageMagazine.com; (ii) On Line Wall Street Journal writer James Taratino's publication of an e-mail from a U.S. military officer in Iraq concerning the media manipulation by insurgents, posted with the caption "Soldier in Iraq Says the Press is a 'Puppet for the Insurgents'," June 7, 2006 on NewsBusters (newsbusters.org); and (iii) Michelle Malkin's exposure of the London Times for publication of a photograph of dead Iraqis in Haditha in connection with the alleged Marine massacre when in fact the photograph was of dead Iraqis at the Haditha stadium who actually had been exected by insurgents (the London Times has apologized for its "error").
Posted by: Phil Byler at June 08, 2006 10:15 AM (5rVtL)
2
If this event is proven to be false, Congressman Murtha should be sued by the marines involved, by the families of the marines and the Department of Defense!!
Posted by: Dave Zimmerman at June 11, 2006 12:10 PM (EX7DJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 07, 2006
Young Americans
Raw.
That one word sums up what I've seen in the trailer of Pat Dollard's
Young Americans (link on this page definitely NSFW), a documentary shot over seven months in places like Fallujah and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq with U.S. Marines.
Dollard was injured in an
IED attack on his Humvee on February 18.
The HMMWV Dollard was in when it was destroyed by an IED in Ramadi, Iraq.
Unlike others reporting events in Iraq who were injured by IEDs, a
Google News search reveals just one only article about Patrick Dollard in Iraq. I guess if you aren't reporting the
right stories you don't deserve much of a mention.
The
trailer I viewed for Young Americans is, if anything, excruciatingly raw, often vulgar, but almost certainly real footage of how frontline Marines act after the networks retire back to the Green Zone.
Private Zachary Kother (left), Pat Dollard (center), Lance Corporal Eric Cybulski (right). survived the IED attack that killed Lt. Almar Fitzgerald and Corporal Matthew Conley.
Dollard himself is something of a controversial figure, a former Hollywood agent and producer (read more
here) that looks like a cross between
Anthony Perkins and
R. Lee Ermey who generates strong opinions from those who know him.
All the footage taken in Dollard's seven months in Iraq in Ramadi, Fallujah and other part of the "Triangle of Death" were shot by Dollard himself or the Marines he was with, and the 600 hours of high-def footage is being edited into a 15-20 hour ultra-reality series for cable.
Dollard's "Young Americans" trailer isn't pretty, isn't politically correct, and isn't going to be liked by many people.
In short, it's war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I saw the trailer the other night, and I've been thinking about it since.
"real" and "powerful" are the descriptors I'd use.
"i don't want your love, and I don't need your respect", the words from the soundtrack, pretty much say it all.
These guys are so committed, so good, that the blatherings of the left aren't even a flea bite to them.
And flashing photos of Kerry, Dean, Moore, and various traitors while the song screams "**** you" makes a point that the left might just want to take notice of, but probably won't.
Posted by: rickinstl at June 08, 2006 09:57 AM (MvmeX)
2
Actually, the NY Times ran a really well written story on Dollard in their Arts section about a month ago. The article has since become a "Times Select" article, but here's proof:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=Patrick+Dollard&srchst=nyt
Posted by: Keram at June 08, 2006 10:37 AM (X/ioP)
Posted by: chris Muir at June 08, 2006 06:14 PM (+CRDT)
4
To me, Dollard resembles a young Jack Webb. Not a bad thing.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 09, 2006 11:08 AM (jHBWL)
5
I too would watch this when it's ready to air! I wonder which cable channel will air it?
BTW, what's that song used in the trailer?
Posted by: Macker at June 11, 2006 03:27 PM (0zaL9)
6
according to a comment on the H/I site, the song is Blood For Blood's "Ain't Like You"
Posted by: Jackson at June 12, 2006 10:25 PM (rZpOI)
7
I heard it's going to be on HBO, not sure if it's fact or rumor.
Posted by: susan at June 14, 2006 11:56 PM (4RqHJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Other Than Honorable
Today, quite a few news outlets and blogs are discussing the case of Army 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer in the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Washington, who has stated the intention to refuse deployment to Iraq with the rest of his unit this month. His stated reason?
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
If Watada follows through with his stated intentions, he will likely be the first military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. Further in the article, Watada's father explains his son's reasoning:
His father — Robert Watada, a retired Hawaii state official — was opposed to the war in Vietnam, and was able to do alternative service in the Peace Corps in Peru.
And Robert Watada said he laid out the "pros and cons" of military service as his son considered joining the service in the spring of 2003 as the invasion of Iraq was launched.
"He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country."
After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration.
In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.
So Watada's basic argument is this: he joined the U.S. Army several months after the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, because he believed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). For reasons not clearly stated, Watada then determined that in his mind, "that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," and that he didn't have to deploy in what he regarded as an "illegal" and "immoral" war.
Watada's stance has garnered the support of many on the far left, presumably from the
very same web sites and blogs where he "read up on the war" and became convinced that "there was 'intentional manipulation of intelligence' by the Bush administration."
I might have some sympathy for Lt. Watada's position if he had formally stated his opposition to the war to his superiors in his nearly three years of continuous military service until this point. Instead, he withheld these sentiments until his deployment orders were issued. Watada's newly-pronounced idealism reeks of an attempt to cover for other mortal flaws in his own character, shows a profound lack of loyalty to his men, and betrays an absence of any true and binding morality.
Soldiers do not get to pick and choose their wars, yet hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardsmen, and Reserves have cycled into an out of Iraqi in the past three years of war, and while many perhaps felt that this war was not one they would chose, they followed their lawful orders to deploy.
They do not do this because they love combat, nor death, nor deprivation. They give up families, stability and even their lives, because of honor, duty and loyalty. They do this because of bonds between soldiers that civilians such as you or I will never truly understand.
Ehren Watada has betrayed the men in his command. He has shown that his fear of dying, and flailing political sensibilities are stronger than is sense of duty and loyalty to his men, and be betrayed his oath and his commitment to this nation.
Based upon the previous convinctions of other soldiers and sailors, Watada will likely be court-martialed and demoted, perhaps sentenced to prison, and when he is finally excreted from the military criminal justice system, it will be with with a Other-Than-Honorable (OTH) discharge, with which he will be able to continue to live out an other-than-honorable life.
Update: Kim Priestap at
Wizbang and
Michelle Malkin have more.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:29 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Get rid of him, the Military doesn't need the likes of him. He used the system to get what he wanted but when it was time to give back, he is trying to bail.
We, as military professionals, don't pick and choose what war is or isn't lied about, we go where the Commander and Chief tells us to go. (This one had Congressional blessing).
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 07, 2006 01:35 PM (JYeBJ)
2
I feel sorry for the men who have trained under his command. His statements are a betrayal of their trust in him, whether he goes through with this or not. There are things that once spoken cannot be unsaid.
Posted by: Joan at June 07, 2006 02:26 PM (y6n8O)
3
Treat him just like Eddie Slovik. Give him what he deserves!!
Posted by: lip at June 07, 2006 03:33 PM (EJHD4)
4
Right or Wrong, he's got some huge balls.
Posted by: cdb at June 07, 2006 03:46 PM (uPLKw)
5
cdb - I disagree with you. If he agrees to court martial and takes what comes, then maybe I would agree with you, but you know he is going to fight the right of the Army to even try him and he'll try to cut some cushy deal. Doesn't takes balls to be inconvinenced for a little while.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 07, 2006 03:54 PM (jHBWL)
6
His team is already fighting it in the press. They don't realize that the Military Courts could care less about how the press will respond, at least I hope they still don't care. It would be a shame if the bent over for the liberal news media just because they may be afraid of some bad publicity.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 07, 2006 07:40 PM (QOQy9)
7
The Army places a great deal of trust and authority in the officer coprs. I fully expect this little twerp will get maximum punishment IAW the UCMJ. With a General Courts Marshal he could get hard time and/or a bad conduct discharge or even a dishonorable discharge. In view of the fact that his unit is on orders to a combat zone, he could end up with a dishonorable. I'm confident the Army will not be swayed by the liberal left nor the media (same thing).
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 07, 2006 08:00 PM (owAN1)
8
Surely there must be some snow drifts of vital national security interest up in Attu or Shemya islands that would warrant being guarded personally by this fellow?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 07, 2006 09:07 PM (gf5iT)
9
What he's doing seems pretty brave to me. I disagree with it, but he would be in little danger as a Lt. in Iraq (don't they all hang out in the green zone?), but he's (hopefully) facing jail time for his stand. I think it's despicable what he's doing, but it's probably not fair to call him a coward or anything.
Not even close to the bravery needed to actually patrol the streets of Iraq of course.
Posted by: Kevin at June 07, 2006 09:26 PM (+hkUo)
10
I can't say for sure but what it seems to me is this.
He got his free educations courtsy of the U.S.Army, He gets as much leadership training/experience (3 years isn't much) as he can and when things don't go his way, he starts to cry 'Lies-Lies-Lies'. Add to that the defense team he hired started playing to the Liberal media and blogs right away to gather support. Now that looks like (to me) he is hoping to sway enough of the courts decision to get either an "Other than Honorable" or even "Dishonorable" discharge. Either way he wins, he gets to go to his Liberal home and get a job from one of his Liberal connections that don't care about what kind of discharge people get anymore. The only gamble he is taking is possible jail time, that hasn't really happened in a long time for refusing orders, people just get booted out.
He's not brave by any stretch, he's just using the system to get what he wants. I hope he does get some jail time, though it's unlikely.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 05:09 AM (nFSnk)
11
I will defer to the veterans here on this topic, but this statement of "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war" is news to me. I would think that would create lots of problems, especially in a combat zone.
Colonel: "You men take that hill!"
Lt: "I'll have to consult my lawyer or perhaps the UN before I can do that, sir."
Posted by: Rob at June 08, 2006 07:05 AM (BFtAQ)
12
It is the duty of every soldier/sailor to "OBEY the orders of those appointed over them" (Quotes are part of the oath taken when swearing it), the regulations state 'all LAWFUL orders are to be followed' and when given by higher ranking officers 'all DIRECT orders are to be followed'.
He disobeyed all of that.
Like I said, he is trying for the court of public opinion hoping the military will quickly shove this under the rug.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 07:48 AM (lNB+R)
13
Well, the oath part is for enlisteds, I guess Officers don't have the Obey part in theirs. That makes you wonder there dosen't it.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 07:52 AM (elhVA)
14
This man has no courage and no honor.
Someone will be assigned to replace him and that person will be at risk in Iraq. Pray for that soldier.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 08, 2006 08:21 AM (jHBWL)
15
Retired Navy,
Thats the enlisted oath, the Officer one is slightly different in that part.
The easy thing to due would be to not say anything. Taking a stand would be the hard thing to do.
Posted by: CDB at June 08, 2006 08:59 AM (uPLKw)
16
CDB
I know they take a different oath, but they are under the same UCMJ.
I also believe he is taking the easy way, not the hard way. To live up to one's promise/word even when it includes going to Iraq, is harder than bailing out on your troops that were looking to you for guidance. I am sure he is looking for an easy discharge and dosen't see jailtime because that is the line he is being fed by those that are "supporting" him.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 11:10 AM (Mv/2X)
17
As I see it according to this individual. The war was just as illegal yesterday, last week, last year or when we liberated IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. Also when he was getting a free education paid for by our tax dollars. Now when it is time for him to meet his obligatons under his appointment he suddenly has a conscience concerning this illegal and unjust war. Whoever says this guy has ball is full of crap. He is a gutless coward that used the system and does not deserve the right to wear the uniform of this country and should be incarcerated and DD for his refusal to obey a lawful order. And must pay back all of the costs incurred by the Govt for his housing and education that he recieved. The lefties love this crap and the anti-war crowd is beating the drum. Hopefully they will have to bake him a cake. (With a file in it.)
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 08, 2006 11:40 AM (JYeBJ)
18
If, God forbid, Watada's replacement is wounded or even killed in Iraq, will Watada have the "balls" to apologize to that man's family? What will he do to comfort them?
How did he end up in a Stryker Brigade? Did he volunteer? Did he have opportunities to go into "non-combat" roles, but instead choose roles that could put him in combat? Has this been planned?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 08, 2006 12:26 PM (jHBWL)
19
I come from Hawaii and share the same last name as Ehren. This is the first time in my life that I am ashamed of my name. This guy put me through hell yesterday with all the people coming up to me and asking me if I was related to this guy. I was so ashamed. Thank god, I'm not related to him. Ehren, to put it simply you are a disgrace to the Asian race and the people of Hawaii. You are nothing more than a coward...plain and simple. You enlisted in the military...what the hell were you thinking when you joined to begin with? You have no right to be living in the United States. I can't believe your father supports your decision. If you were my son, you'd be disowned by now. Do the right thing, and show your patriotism.
Posted by: In Hawaii at June 08, 2006 02:36 PM (rEqqI)
20
Its not you nor your name that is a disgrace, just him.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 08, 2006 06:33 PM (QOQy9)
21
Should've just got his education then let them know he is gay.
Posted by: Robert at June 09, 2006 02:54 PM (VTtVl)
22
Unlike the oxymoron title of your website, you are simply a moron.
Posted by: uracoward at June 16, 2006 01:14 PM (pTLZZ)
23
Well, I am an 8-year Army veteran and former US Army CID agent who understands the duty of a soldier to disobey unlawful orders and I totally support Lt. Watada.
Posted by: Debbie Clark at July 01, 2006 11:00 PM (tiYGN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 06, 2006
Breaking: LAW in Durham
WRAL TV (no story link yet) in Raleigh is reporting that two light antitank weapons have been found by a contractor working at a home in Durham, NC. A weapons disposal team is on the way from Fort Bragg.
More as the story develops.
Blind Speculation: I'm going on a hunch that if a contractor found these in a home being renovated, they may be older rockets, perhaps 70s-era
M72s... and they very well could be inert.
Update: Via
WRAL:
Authorities said a contractor found two suspected rocket launchers under a Durham home early Tuesday evening.
According to police, the contractor was doing work on a rental property on Midland Terrace around 6:30 p.m. when he discovered found two items that appeared to be lightweight anti-tank weapons in a crawl space under the house.
Police evacuated residences in the immediate vicinity and blocked Midland Terrace between Faucette Avenue and Cheek Road. Durham, state and federal authorities responded to the scene after the discovery. Authorities said that a bomb squad from Fort Bragg is expected to arrive at the scene overnight to inspect and dispose of the device.
According to authorities, no one was injured by the weapons. Police are trying to determine where the devices came from and how they ended up in that location.
Google Maps shows us that the suspected anti-tank weapons are in one of
these homes not too far from the I-85/U.S. 70 interchange between Floyd Drive and Aiken Avenue.
Hopefully, members of the Duke University Lacrosse team were not among the renters.
6:49 AM Update: WRAL states that Fort Bragg EOD has removed the devices and confirms that "two items originally believed to be two anti-tank weapons -- each measuring around two feet in length" are in fact inert.
Their length and description all but confirms them as the disposable launcher tube-and-firing mechanism of the obsolete M72 LAW, which is 24.8 inches long (closed), or the reloadable M190 training variant of the same weapons system.
I suspect that the tube assemblies were obtained as souvenirs, and I cannot immediately find any applicable firearms legislation that would indicate that the possession of such devices would be illegal, since they cannot readily be made into functional weapons.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:08 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Hopefully, members of the Duke University Lacrosse team were not among the renters."
Maybe it was that crazy Jeep Jihadi's crash pad?
Posted by: Dinah Lord at June 07, 2006 05:42 AM (y6n8O)
2
I was reading WRAL this morning and they say no explosives were in the cannisters.
Posted by: Tim at June 07, 2006 05:49 AM (5rYy9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shooting Messengers
Ann Coulter, she of 9/11/01 "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" fame, has released her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism and has quickly (and predictably) generated a media firestorm with her rhetoric.
A key graph of her book that has generated a significant amount of heat in the liberal blogosphere after
Today Show host Matt Lauer read this portion of her book on the air, regarding a group of 9/11 widows:
"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
Think Progress has a
transcript of the entire exchange, in which Coulter attacks what she calls the "left's doctrine of infallibility."
Lauer was predictably almost speechless, and most of the liberal blog reaction proved that they either didn't understand the meaning of her commentary, or it didn't have an effective rebuttal for this line of attack.
Peter Daou of
The Grit and Steve Soto at the Left Coaster
were reduced to griping about the fact that Lauer interviewed Coulter, and never sought to engage Coulter's point. The point, of course, was simply this: personal tragedy does not bestow omnipotence upon the bereaved.
The particular group Coulter reviles is a group of just four 9/11 widows sometimes known as "the Jersey girls" that did, in fact use the celebrity afforded by their spouses deaths on 9/11/01 to make
plenty of noise in support of John Kerry's Presidential run in 2004. These women do have the right to voice their opinion, and the right to politicize that opinion on stage as loud as the public is willing to bear. But just as certainly, the fact that they were made widows because of a horrific terrorist attack did not grant them unassailable credibility or inherent wisdom.
Excessive hyperbole aside, Coulter was right on this point.
Despite the much-mocked and paraphrased fallacy of Maureen Dowd (before she was walled up Amontillado-like behind the wall of
Times Select) that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute," the death of a loved one does not automatically grant intelligence or insightfulness or Truth, nor does it grant a Writ of Veracity, where the speaker can no longer be challenged because of the shield of personal loss.
Both sides have been "grief pimps" at times, trotting out survivors of one tragedy or another who conveniently fit their political needs of the day, but is it s a disingenuous person indeed that
attacks the messenger for this, instead of an obviously perverse message.
The so-called Jersey Girls have my sympathy for their personal loss, but they are not qualified to preach unopposed about matters of public policy.
No one is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:41 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Perhaps you should try to help instruct Ann Coulter on how to be civil. As you just demonstrated, it is possible to make a point without being a complete jerk. Ann, unfortunately, is a shrew and is incapable of doing what you just did.
"Excessive hyperbole aside"? Coulter's whole existence is about excessive hyperbole.
Posted by: Pug at June 06, 2006 04:31 PM (r5zYa)
2
The point, of course, was simply this: personal tragedy does not bestow omnipotence upon the bereaved.
Who said it did?
They have already, same as you or I or Coulter, the right to voice their opinions. Their personal experience serves only to add weight, or not, in others' eyes. In mine it does. (How do you feel about MADD, by the way>) It's not just a strawman to go after these women on these grounds, it's a particularly grotesque one.
Posted by: Thom at June 06, 2006 06:01 PM (3jLID)
Posted by: reliapundit at June 06, 2006 06:06 PM (LBB4m)
4
True on all accounts, however, the hyperbole is EXACTLY why we're discussing this matter right now..Would it national or blogosphere news if you had made the argument you just did without resorting to hyperbole...I can see the headlines "confederate yankee makes great point about moral authority"...all over the place. Sometimes it takes hyperbole and shock to get those who normally dont respond to reason to begin on their path....
Posted by: redxiii at June 06, 2006 07:42 PM (uHZyh)
5
Similarly, vets pimp out their vet-dom (see, eg: vets against Kerry). And, to reach across the partisan divide, I couldn't agree with you more: the cult of experience is far too prevalent.
Posted by: jpe at June 06, 2006 08:27 PM (C4b0r)
6
Sometimes it takes hyperbole and shock to get those who normally dont respond to reason to begin on their path.
Um....I don't think anyone that doesn't already sleep with a Coulter doll (*shiver*) would respond positively to that kind of rhetoric. I think what you mean is that it gets headlines, whereas CY's far more sensible, reasonable way of expressing the point will never wind up with him being followed by paparazzi.
Posted by: jpe at June 06, 2006 08:30 PM (C4b0r)
7
Fed, I like the post.
I think Coulter is way to viperish, but in this she is the only prominant (spelling?) individual willing to say something that everyone else offers up caveat upon caveat before correcting the incorrect assumptions and demands made by these women. The hot blonde "911 widow" just can't shut her friggen MOUTH!
My family almost lost their house due to de-regulation of the trucking industry that temporarily put a halt on new hiers while the transport corp's were re-aligning, does that make me an expert in interstate transit? NO!
My parents divorced. . . . TWICE! does that make me a proffessor of contract law or whatever the hell it is called? Obviously not, I don't even know how that is defined.
I joined the Marine Corps, does that make me a master tactician? NO!
One SMALL experience doesn't make you an expert, and these individuals, the women in particular aren't even experienced directly. They are VICARIOUS in their experiences, they play up their victimhood, of vicarious loss, not their specific first hand experience, to gain the celebrity.
"feel for me!" "Love ME!" "I know what I'm talking about I knew someone who has been there, but they are dead, so don't worry, I telepathicaly know exactly what they were experiencing at the time so I am a fully qualified and valuable expert in these matters."
The Jersey girls might have had good intentions, but THEY with their moral authority created 2 of the most convoluted, and thoroughly unmanageable beuracracies this nation has known. Mad about DHS? Blame them, Mad about NSA? Blame them, Mad about FEMA you can blame them.
Their moral authority did a LOT of damage. I knew a lot of people who are dead, I didn't inherit their wisdom. This isn't Stranger in a Strange land, where I grokked their flogging wisdom, while feeding upon their corpses, but that won't keep these self righteous individuals from feeding at the trough of dead peoples.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 06, 2006 09:34 PM (QTv8u)
8
The right had their own 911 widows that made a fuss over the Freedom Museum, and their assertion of moral authority was equally absurd.
Posted by: jpe at June 06, 2006 11:06 PM (C4b0r)
9
Follow the careers of the Jersey Girls and you'll find that they turned grief into greed within days of 9-11. They're only concern is money and i'm here stick a camera in my face.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 07, 2006 12:23 AM (y6n8O)
10
Scrap? I wouldn't say JUST greed. I DO believe they had grief, but I think they also had an opinion of self that they were willing to capitalize on. I remember watching an interview with the hot blonde widow, where she called herself smart at least 3 times in a 4 minute interview about her own grief.
I never call myself smart, though I would call her stupid. thats a big difference.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 07, 2006 01:37 AM (QTv8u)
11
Yankee: The point, of course, was simply this: personal tragedy does not bestow omnipotence upon the bereaved.
Thom: Who said it did?
Me: I believe one of the first was Maureen Dowd when she said "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." Lots of people have said it since then. Most angry liberal websites agree.
Posted by: Kevin at June 07, 2006 03:30 AM (+hkUo)
12
Kevin, follow that up with all the Kerry and Murtha followers that say they know better because they were in the service, neither of them were there going through what our men and women are going through in Iraq now. Yet, they "Know better".
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 07, 2006 05:15 AM (y67bA)
13
I agree with the comments made by Coulter. I am glad that someone will come forward and wade through the bull and say what is apparent. When I watch the news and these women are consulted as if they are some type of authority, it sends me through the roof. I sympathize with them in their grief, but their period of grieving is over and has nothing to do with the national agenda. If they offer an opinion on policy, it can be debated as anyone else who offers a position. What really steams me is because their emotionalism was allowed to structure policy it has robed us of our freedoms. We now have the TSA, Homeland security and other origanizations that are totally useless but restrict our daily lives. Coulter has finally said what policy should be and that is carrying the war to the Muslims and only the Muslims and not allowing government to bother those that are not the problem (like me when I try to get on a plane).
Posted by: David Caskey at June 07, 2006 10:22 AM (6wTpy)
14
Ten Muslim high-jackers caused the deaths of these women's husbands; do they ever talk about that?
Posted by: Tom TB at June 07, 2006 10:54 AM (wZLWV)
15
Tom TB wrote:
"Ten Muslim high-jackers caused the deaths of these women's husbands; do they ever talke about that?"
I'm sure we can both agree that ten or nineteen or how ever many Muslim high-jackers there were should not have been able to come into our country undetected and do what they did. You believe that it was only the Muslim high-jackers. I don't. I believe there were traitors on the inside who helped them. Either way, we need to find out the truth about what happened on 9/11 and make sure it never happens again. The 9/11 widows are fighting for that.
Posted by: Chris at June 07, 2006 05:11 PM (AnNQc)
16
Anybody that agrees with that nutjob Ann Coulter needs to get their heads out of their asses.
Why isn't anybody talking about the mothers who created MAAD? Aren't they doing the same thing that these 'Jersey Girls' are doing?
What I would love to know is, why focus on a skinny attention whore like Ann Coulter, who only voices extremist views for sales and attention.
To say she is right with her assertion only proves the idiocy that the right has based their pathetic platform on.
Matt Lauer should've taken her apart, but she is smart because she will never go on a show where the hosts will really question her. Matt had her flailing and you could honestly see her adam's apple shaking in her pencil shaped throat. LOL
I dare that self righteous ugly broomstick of a woman to appear on 'The Daily Show'.
Posted by: SamTejada at June 07, 2006 07:07 PM (0r7I4)
17
Ann made the statement in her book. Matt Lauer made sure it was one of the qoutes that he questioned her about. She defended her statement well.
Ann's point is a good one. These women can complain about Bush, the war, whatever - No big deal. But just because they had a terrible loss, it does not mean that they are off limits in challenging their assertions and statements. The left wants them free to bash Bush at every turn, without allowing anyone the opportunity to engage them in dialogue - callign it "immoral" to "attack" grief stricken widows.
How has the MSM treated the widows that support Bush? Are they booked onto all the shows? Are they invited to speak all over the place? Are they allowed to say anything they want, without challenge, against Jack Murtha or John Kerry?
Fast forward - Hillary is having fits, newspapers and tv outlets are having fits. Some other politicians are having fits.
Thanks you Ann. You've managed to knock some things off the "front page", at least for awhile.
The same people that, two days ago, were complaining about why we were "wasting" our time on the Marriage amendment - weren't there more "important" things to talk about? are now using all of their free time complaining about statements by a conservative author. Funny.
Sam - Most MAAD mother's work apolitically. They just want drunks off the roads - something all of us (except the drunks) are in agreement with. Not a valid comparison.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 07, 2006 11:25 PM (jHBWL)
18
Don't call those widows "Jersey Girls". I'm the real thing and they're f&cking offensive to me. Got to agree 100% with everyone who hates their guts. They're reveling in celebrity and cashing out big time on a tragedy. They made the rabid celebrity, which Monica Lewinsky got, after she was exposed for sucking Clinton's wancker, look like a "Girl Scout" just trying to sell her "cookies". These widows are shameless whores, profiting off of their husbands demise, and Coulter is way too tame in the way she expresses herself.
Posted by: JerseyGirl at June 08, 2006 08:20 AM (/3KuV)
19
I think that Ann is right on. Now, some people just don't respond to sarcasm, but too bad. I think that Matt was shocked that he couldn't rock her(ANN). He wanted her to slip and say "the widows shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion" On the contrary, Ann was saying they are allowed to have an opinion, just like Ann, Matt or anyone else, but they shouldn't be immune to criticism for their opinions just because of their situation. I love Ann because she totally comes out, guns a blazing and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about political correctness, thank God someone is doing this.
Rock on Ann!!!!
Posted by: mamabird at June 09, 2006 09:40 AM (8iClG)
20
Right or wrong about her comments, the tragedy here is that Ann Coulter is listened to by anybody.
She makes up shit in her head and passes them off as facts to support her views.
She should not be part of any serious discourse because she has proven (through made-up "facts") that she is not to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Robert at June 09, 2006 03:40 PM (VTtVl)
21
What "made up facts" are we refering to? I know in her books she backs almost every single fact with a reference.
Why is it that when any Conservative speaks up they are automatically dismissed by the left as "making up facts", when in fact they can show where they got the info. but let any Lib. spout off and we have to bow down at their "gems of wisdom" and most Liberal "facts" don't seem to get checked by anyone other than Conservatives. Are Liberals just fooling themselves? I shall go and ponder that.
Posted by: Mamabird at June 09, 2006 05:23 PM (8iClG)
22
Great commentary from both sides... I really enjoy hearing the points of view from both sides.
I am a voting Democrat & I cannot think of a single Democratic politician that I would support at any level in 2006 or 2008.
I am looking forward to reading Ann's book and will swap it with any liberal, I will read what you want and then we can discuss.
Posted by: Ed of Tampa at June 10, 2006 10:15 PM (wZLWV)
23
Ann Coulter is poison..No godfearing Democrats. If she wants a one party society(they exist) What are her aims? civil war. Give me the balance that comes from a two party system. "there are bad republicans but there are no good democrats"..How can this be of value to our country. Ann Coulter would have been hung as a witch by her own ilk two centuries ago. The creator gives you a choice..She has chosen poorly.
Posted by: ray at June 12, 2006 04:37 PM (rf03a)
24
Ann really went over the top on the jersy girls, its unfortunate this is necessary in todays status. Laurr sandbagged her; but what would you expect from an absolute liberal jerk. I suspect that there was true sorrow for the widows for a time,any other comments made by them is fair game
Posted by: BS of Lancaster at June 23, 2006 07:48 PM (RVFh0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Higher Standard
Think of this CNN report the next time you here a member of the media or a hyperventilating liberal blogger intone that the military is whitewashing potential war crimes in Iraq:
Seven Marines and a Navy medical corpsman are being held in the brig at California's Camp Pendleton, as commanders weigh possible charges against them in connection with the April 26 killing.
[snip]
An attorney representing the Navy medical corpsman, expressed concern that the media frenzy surrounding the case "has contributed to the current conditions my client is enduring at the Camp Pendleton Brig."
"There are known terrorists incarcerated in military facilities around the world who enjoy more freedom and less restriction than he is experiencing," Jeremiah J. Sullivan said in a statement issued to the media.
"During the one brief period per day he is allowed to utilize the recreational yard, my client remains shackled at the hands, waist, and ankles. Anytime he walks within the recreational yard he is escorted by at least one military prison guard who grasps onto his waist shackles at all times. The balance of his time is spent in solitary confinement," Sullivan said.
If this account is accurate, then captured al Qaeda terrorists confined at Guantanamo Bay have more freedom that do U.S. military servicemen and women that have not yet been charged with a crime.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:28 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
ought not charges have been brought before this guy is held in such condition?
Posted by: steve sturm at June 06, 2006 01:24 PM (A+QwG)
2
Not really, conditions are more stringent than for a soldier I knew in 1980, busted for drugs, cuffs & ankle chains, did police call on Ft Carson until his time was up then out the door with a DD. In this case however, there must be evidence of sufficient weight that they'll be incarcerated at all. However, www.strangecosmos.com has posted a letter from a marine to Sen Murtha which reminds us that the initial charges are not the sum total. That fellow was found innocent of the charges incl 2 counts of murder and other war crimes. In this case like that one the procedures must be followed. If found innocent, they'll be freed, if found guilty then they'll face punishment as the court directs. For the rest of us we'll have to wait on the outcome.
Tim
Posted by: Tim O'Reilly at June 06, 2006 03:41 PM (bLDNj)
3
Is it me, or is something afoot? Murtha pops off about "cold blooded murderers" a scant 3 weeks ago (oh what Heroism!), the nuts on both left and right heightened the drumbeat - and today - Nada. Zip. Not even Murtha throwing out a last hurrah for another 'attaboy. Yet, the MSM is focusing (rather intently IMO)on another "attrocity" of 7 soldiers allegedly murdering ONE Iraqi. What's up? I really doubt that our glorious MSM has decided to LET THE FACTS OF THE MASSACRE come to light. IMO, it appears they have dropped that whole Massacre story. We know SOMETHING happened. The MSM has decided not to leak anymore "details" from their "unamed sources close to the investigation"???? What gives?
Posted by: Cheryl at June 06, 2006 04:58 PM (iB7ZQ)
4
Cheryl,
It is probably more of the rush to find similar (at least in their minds) situations to prove how immoral we and out troops are.
Posted by: Specter at June 06, 2006 08:16 PM (ybfXM)
5
The politically charged screams of the left wing anti-americans have convicted every member of the military of 'unknown' (we'll make up the charges later) crimes that there's not a chance in hell even if they are 100% innocient that they will ever gain their lives back. May as well hang themselves in the cell right now and get it over with.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 07, 2006 12:27 AM (y6n8O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Rather Dim View on Atrocity Reporting
Former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather apparently advocates the killing of newsmen who report on suspected war crimes.
In "Lone Star," an unauthorized bio of Rather out this September, Alan Weisman writes that [Morley] Safer "has not been a friend of Rather's for years, since their days in Vietnam." The final straw came when Rather took over for Safer not long after Safer's jolting report about the burning of a Vietnam village by a platoon of U.S. Marines.
"When Rather replaced me . . . he went to a group of Marines and said, 'If I were you guys, I would have shot him.' Or words to that effect," Safer tells Weisman. "And that my report should never have gone on the air." Asked whether Rather had ripped his fellow newsman to cozy up with the troops, Safer bristles, "Who the hell knows why? Have I ever confronted him about it? No. Now we just have a polite relationship."
Of course, this might not mean that Gunga Dan would support shooting
today's reporters.
He might just have a different perspective on this war entirely.
Praise be to
AllahPundit for the link.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Remember this: there have been atrocities, small or large, in EVERY WAR. IF the Haditha accusations prove more or less true, IT DOES NOT CHANGE the legitimacy of pursuing the war AND the peace in Iraq!
It is STILL a courageous, righteous and just decision, and STILL appreciated by most of the people of Iraq!
Posted by: Karridine at June 06, 2006 10:03 PM (JofWr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"A Link In A Great Chain"
General
George S. Patton's Normandy Invasion Speech:
"Be Seated."
"Men, this stuff we hear about America wanting to stay out of the war, not wanting to fight, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, not ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."
"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Every man is frightened at first in battle. If he says he isn't, he's a goddamn liar. Some men are cowards, yes! But they fight just the same, or get the hell shamed out of them watching men who do fight who are just as scared. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour. For some it takes days. But the real man never lets fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to this country and his innate manhood."
"All through your army career you men have bitched about "This chickenshit drilling." That is all for a purpose. Drilling and discipline must be maintained in any army if for only one reason -- INSTANT OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS AND TO CREATE CONSTANT ALERTNESS. I don't give a damn for a man who is not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready. A man to continue breathing must be alert at all times. If not, sometime a German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit."
"There are 400 neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily all because one man went to sleep on his job -- but they were German graves for we caught the bastard asleep before his officers did. An Army is a team. Lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fucking. We have the best food, the finest equipment, the best spirit and the best fighting men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor sons-of-bitches we are going up against. By God, I do!"
"My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit, either. The kind of man I want under me is like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Lugar against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand and busted hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German: All this with a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you."
"All real heroes are not story book combat fighters either. Every man in the army plays a vital part. Every little job is essential. Don't ever let down, thinking your role is unimportant. Every man has a job to do. Every man is a link in the great chain. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells overhead, turned yellow and jumped headlong into the ditch? He could say to himself, "They won't miss me -- just one in thousands." What if every man said that? Where in hell would we be now? No, thank God, Americans don't say that! Every man does his job; every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important to the vast scheme of things. The Ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the Quartermaster to bring up the food and clothes to us -- for where we're going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man in the mess hall, even the one who heats the water to keep us from getting the GI shits has a job to do. Even the chaplain is important, for if we get killed and if he is not there to bury us we'd all go to hell."
"Each man must not only think of himself, but of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this army. They should all be killed off like flies. If not they will go back home after the war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men."
"One of the bravest men I ever saw in the African campaign was the fellow I saw on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were plowing toward Tunis. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at that time. He answered, "Fixing the wire, sir." "Isn't it a little unhealthy right now?," I asked. "Yes sir, but this goddamn wire's got to be fixed." There was a real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time."
"You should have seen those trucks on the road to Gabes. The drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting around them all the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of these men drove over forty consecutive hours. These weren't combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it -- and in a whale of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost. All the links in the chain pulled together and that chain became unbreakable."
"Don't forget, you don't know I'm here. No word of the fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell became of me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamn Germans. Someday I want them to raise up on their hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the goddamn Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again.'"
"We want to get the hell over there. We want to get over there and clear the goddamn thing up. You can't win a war lying down. The quicker we clean up this goddamn mess, the quicker we can take a jaunt against the purple pissing Japs an clean their nest out too, before the Marines get all the goddamn credit."
"Sure, we all want to be home. We want this thing over with. The quickest way to get it over is to get the bastards. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin. When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually, and the hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one. We'll win this war but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans we've got more guts than they have."
"There is one great thing you men will all be able to say when you go home. You may thank God for it. Thank God, that at least, thirty years from now, when you are sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knees, and he asks you what you did in the great war, you won't have to cough and say, 'I shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named George Patton!'"
"That is all."
God Bless the veterans of
the Great Crusade launched on this day in Normandy, France in 1944, and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that today carry on that same fighting spirit.
Update: BlackFive has
far more.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If he gave that speech now he would have to stand down for sensitivity training.
Posted by: David Caskey at June 06, 2006 09:13 AM (6wTpy)
2
The Greatest Generation endured the Depression,defeated the Nazis, socialists, communists, Imperial Japan, rebuilt Europe and Japan, found a cure for polio, invented open heart surgery, put a man on the moon and the Baby Boomers have come up with MTV and 12 million illegal invaders. God bless "The Greatest Generation". They must be turning over in their graves seeing what Boomers have done to the country they sacrificed to defend.
Posted by: Jeff 1 at June 06, 2006 10:36 AM (25qu6)
3
Sensitivity training, hell! He would be labeled and extremist by some career Pentagon bureacrat, marched out to a podium to apologize for his "insensitive" remarks, and unceremoniuosly shown the door. Just like a an Admiral I served under in the mid 90's! Welcome to the "United States fo the Offended"
Posted by: khmllr at June 06, 2006 10:42 AM (x/T0s)
4
If all of our politicans had this mentality America would be such a better place and we would not be dealing with islamic terrorist, liberals, commie's or socialist. Maybe this "War on Terror" will produce a another great leader, maybe we should just clone Patton and let the fun begin!
Posted by: Boodge at June 06, 2006 10:54 AM (ISE4+)
5
I am a 'Boomer' and I must take exception to Jeff 1's analysis of all the Baby Boom Generation. I volunteered for the military and combat duty in Viet Nam (as did many 'Boomers') and it was Baby Boomers who elected Ronald Reagan who ended the Cold War. I could give more examples. We 'Boomers' do have our useless scumbums for sure, but remember, it was the 'Greatest Generation' that raised the Boomer scum, gave us the no win war in Viet Nam etc. Apparently there were alot of rear echelon yellow bellies who procreated after "The Big One-WW II" but didn't heed the words of General Patton. MY father, a WW II Marine veteran of three island campaigns taught me right along with many other Boomer parents. So let's not tar all Boomers. I don't appreciate being lumped with the likes of Bill and Hillary et al.
Posted by: Jim P. at June 06, 2006 10:55 AM (bgRAn)
6
Thanks so much for posting that CY, I'm teary. The greatest generation indeed. You never know what you've got until it's gone.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 06, 2006 11:40 AM (eMGg4)
7
Jim P. you stole the words right out of my mouth. I'll add that Jeff didn't get here spontaneously, there had to be a boomer in there somewhere, so he's unhappy with his parents. I'm sure that they find that interesting.
Posted by: Mike H. at June 06, 2006 11:46 AM (Wb/8Y)
8
Thanks so much for posting that CY, I'm teary. The greatest generation indeed. You never know what you've got until it's gone.
Gone, Hell. They're being reinforced.
The Old Guard is dead or dying, but a new Greatest Generation is being formed as we speak in the deserts of al Anbar, the jagged mountains of Afghanistan, and in the steamy jungles of the Philippines and a thousand other places we may never hear of.
Today’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are as brave, as noble, and as heroic as their grandfathers—no more, no less, and they are doing the same deadly work of destroying another guise of fascism.
It would be nice, perhaps, to have all Americans understand the stakes of this war and why we must win, but you go to war with the media that you have, not the media that you would like to have.
The media and the left refuse to confront the realities of Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam, and so this Next Great Generation fights under-supported and under-appreciated.
Our Greatest Generation continues to be made, insuring that as the elder Generation passes, it does so knowing that essential Liberty stands well-protected.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 06, 2006 12:06 PM (g5Nba)
9
Ironic that in this day and age of incredible communications technology, no one communicates as clearly as one who no such advantages, but had to rely on gut feelings and simple phrases to change the world.
Posted by: I.M.Pistov at June 06, 2006 12:09 PM (nghlK)
10
CY -- Wow. I really was moved by the post, and I was trying to show you what it is I like about your blog and that I appreciate you hosting comments from someone you disagree with. I'm disappointed that you took it as an opportunity to snipe. Would you rather that I went away? That's not a rhetorical question. I've been polite and tried my best to present my viewpoint clearly, but if you just want an echo chamber then I don't see the point anymore.
--Cyrus
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 06, 2006 12:21 PM (eMGg4)
11
Cyrus, I was pointing out that we are creating a new Greatest Generation that is being under-recognized as heroes because politics have become more important to some than either human liberty or patriotism.
If you find that my stating what I hold to be a self-evident fact as "sniping" then it is indeed your right as an American to be offended and go elsewhere if you so desire. I welcome people of other viewpoints to debate but beg no one to stay or go.
If I sound a bit snippy, it's because I just had my lunchbreak and made the mistake of scanning through a comment thread at the Democratic Underground.
It's enough to sicken anyone.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 06, 2006 12:46 PM (g5Nba)
12
CY -- I read too much into your reply to me then. I was thin skinned there.
First let me point something out to you Boomers who resent being lumped in with other Boomers. You can talk about women, blacks, Jews, Boomers, or anyone else as a group. There's nothing wrong with this if you treat members of that group as individuals, right? What you are asking for is political correctness.
The right has lost its way. The greatness of the Republican party is in personal responsibility; a man should be judged by his accomplishments, not his birth, and the cream should rise to the top. Look at Bush: his character was never tested. He never learned a trade. He was a playboy for most of his life. He'd be nobody now except for his birth. On this very day he is pushing for legislation that will allow him, Paris Hilton, Mary Cheney, etc to inherit millions of dollars that they didn't earn tax free. These people don't want the cream to rise, they want aristocracy. As an American nothing gripes my ass like an aristocrat.
Bush wanted war but didn't have the guts to do it right: a draft and a wartime tax. It's a bedrock conservative principle that you don't pay for wars on credit. How long will these guys get away with the crazy notion that you lower taxes to raise revenue? How many times has he raised the debt ceiling now? Would you let your children do that with their credit cards? Shinseki was absolutely right about too few troops. Bush Sr was a war hero and an amazingly accomplished person; he knew that the aftermath of toppling Saddam would be a nightmare. Bush Jr. thought he was done in 2003. He'll be Mr. Mission Accomplished for the duration of recorded history.
The right is eager to attack Clinton and Gore and Kerry as losers. However each of them worked hard all their lives. Clinton has not much backbone, but he is a self-made man, and as president he was an effective administrator and diplomat; Bush is neither of these things.
You want to think that Bush's "principles" or "moral compass" is his saving grace. Here's his principles: yesterday he denounced gay marriage to try and score some points with religious groups. Here's his "instincts": he attacks a secular country in a war on Islamic fascism, while Iran really is building WMD and Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone in the world.
You all can complain that I'm not supporting the troops, but this isn't true. I don't know what it means for them to win at this point. I don't see much indication of the Iraqis pursuing democracy, especially compared to the enthusiasm they have in killing eachother. All we can do now is stay in control so that Shia don't take over. Wouldn't be better off now if we could engage Iran millitarily?
We're constructing permanents bases in Iraq. How do you square this with building a democracy? The administration clearly doesn't intend to leave.
As usual thanks for hosting and considering my opinions CY.
Best,
Cyrus
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 06, 2006 01:59 PM (eMGg4)
13
We're constructing permanents bases in Iraq. How do you square this with building a democracy? The administration clearly doesn't intend to leave.Kind of like those permanant bases that we still have in Germany and Japan, where democracy clearly never took root...
Posted by: marc at June 06, 2006 03:28 PM (oLZks)
14
Cyrus- I don't resent Jeff 1's lumping me with the Boomers who gave us MTV and the illegal immigrant flood. I wanted him to know that not all of us Boomers are of that stripe and to know that it was the WW II generation parents that are at least partly responsible for those Boomers being the way they are. I should have put a smiley face at the end of my sentence about not appreciating being lumped with Bill and Hillary, so everyone would understand that I am not resentful or brooding, but merely don't want Jeff and his generation to think all Boomers are like them- ie: Viet Nam Vets, and Reagan voters don't appreciate being thought of that way :-) Bill and Hillary are, in my opinion, self serving narcissists and not the kind of people I was raised to respect, admire or emmulate. I couldn't follow the rest of your post, it didn't seem to logically follow my earlier post.
Respectfully,
Jim P
Posted by: Jim P at June 06, 2006 03:45 PM (bgRAn)
15
What are you talking about? Patton DIDN'T INVADE NORMANDY. He invaded North Africa, Siciliy and came into Europe well after D-Day, but on D-Day he was in Britian as part of a ruse to make the Nazis think he was going to lead a bigger invasion at Calais.
Posted by: Radcliffe at June 06, 2006 04:25 PM (2TFAz)
16
Jeff is RIGHT. The Baby Boomers aren't worth the crap that came out of the ass-holes of those men who died. So that you could lament about your present day problems and woes. Patton would have been cashiered out of the service by the likes of KERRY, CLINTON, KENNEDY, DURBON, etc, etc..
I'd like to kick the ass of the journalist who made it known that Marines killed civilians in Iraq. We had the same moaning during the Vietnam War. Who cares that a few civilian Iraqis died because of combat. Who cares? I DON'T...Cry babies. That's all you are. That's all you'll be. I was born during that "Depression".
Posted by: Tony at June 06, 2006 05:12 PM (Ffvoi)
17
Radcliffe, I'm not sure what point your comment has.
At this moment in history, Patton commanded both the First and Third U.S. Armies in England.
The First Army was entirely fictional, but the Germans didn't know this. The threat of Patton invading France at Calais froze 18 German divisions in the region for almost two months. At this moment in time, deception was his primary mission.
He also had the very secret, very real command of the Third Army, which broke out of the Normandy hedgerows on August 1 as part of Operation Cobra.
Patton did give this speech, his most famous, prior to the invasion of Normandy. I'm not quite sure of your point.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 06, 2006 05:27 PM (0fZB6)
18
Folks, I'd like to remind you that this is a "G-rated" blog, despite this rather rare entry where the profanity in the main post was a matter of historical record.
Please refrain from language that would keep posts and comments from being "work-safe."
Thank you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 06, 2006 05:31 PM (0fZB6)
19
IF OLD 'BLOOD & GUTS' WERE ALIVE TODAY, THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ WOULD BE OVER.
Posted by: RALPH BARBER at June 06, 2006 05:34 PM (x8usJ)
20
With the exception of LT.General Mattis,most of the military has way too many perfumed princes and princes who fit Patton's description of weenification right now,we have em' in Congress,Both parties,and all of our government entities,and they have too much influence inside our schools as well,as some have posted they would've tried to force him out,anyway,for saying words such as this,too bad we don't have anybody saying that to those dingies in Washington because they need to hear these comments too.
Posted by: Lisa Gilliam at June 06, 2006 06:44 PM (IKZ20)
21
CY, thanks for posting this. =) I had read it once before and almost forgot how good it was. It must have been amazing to hear it.
Cyrus-
I think you must be talking about a Kerry and Gore from an alternate dimension.
Kerry married two wealthy women; it's debatable that he's ever worked at anything, except marrying money.
Gore's father was a well known political figure (and bigot), and certainly had many of the same advantages that you ascribe to President Bush.
As for Bill Clinton, he may have come from a somewhat 'broken' home, but making an insane ROI in futures and the whole Madison Guaranty/ fundraising/Whitewater property buy-in smacks a bit of elitism, don't you think?
As for your statement that people like the President want an aristocracy, that's just plain silly. The top 50% or so of wage earners pay a whopping 95%+ of the taxes. Something like 83 or 84% of all taxes are paid by the top 25%. You know those top 50% of all wage earners include middle America as well as well as small business owners, right? Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government; gripe at Congress because it spends money as if it grows on trees.
As for the President being a diplomat and leader, if the people I have to play footsie with are Putin and Chirac, pardon me if I pass on the 'diplomat' part of the job description. Being a 'diplomat' doesn't necessary mean being effective.
Funny thing about Iraq, too... they manage to keep making milestones toward democracy. Shaky ground sometimes, but it's progress. This is a perfect example of why I get frustrated with libs; they have short attention spans. When the next new shiny object comes in to view, you turn your attention there and eschew the previous shiny object and say it was rusty, inferior and generally defective; they expect everything to be quick and perfect. How do you take decades of tyranny and dysfunction and turn a country around on a dime? It's not possible; the former Soviet satellite states are still battling with separatists, corruption and scandals and it's been 15 years.
Your tantalizing comment hinting that libs see Iran as a threat to be dealt with is a red herring; if that is the case, why aren't they all lined up saying we should carpet bomb Iran's enrichment facilities to the stone age? If 'dealing with Iran' is the right thing to do, then we should do something, shouldn't we?
As for Iraq not being a threat to anyone in the world, you forgot the millions of Iraqis... or don't they count? Didn't Saddam gas his own people? Didn't he host a terrorist camp near Salman Pak? Wasn't Zarqawi enjoying the Iraqi weather for a while? I try to not wait to be swarmed with bees before I destroy the nest. Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.
Posted by: linlithgow at June 06, 2006 09:33 PM (pd+a8)
22
My respect for Patton.
He recognized the Soviet menace, then made the mistake of LETTING IT BE KNOWN publicly that he was willing, nay EAGER, to stop that menace NOW!
They pulled him out of the war.
We let USSR fester for another 40 years, meanwhile killing another 10-20 million of its own (and other) citizens...
My respect for Patton!
Posted by: Karridine at June 06, 2006 09:47 PM (JofWr)
23
I agree with most everything that I've read here, except the part about the killing of civilians in Iraq. Who cares if a few civilians get killed? I do. Or should I say 'murdered'? I'm not talking about the little shavers in that other town where there had also been reports of a massacre, but where in fact some loving Iraqi moms and dads thought it prudent to have their kids in the same house where an Al-Qaida puke was being harbored-- and Puff the Magic Dragon got called in to entertain. No. That stuff happens.
But to shoot a little kid in cold blood, anywhere? If any of our guys did that, I say volunteer 'em to be beheaded. Do Americans do such things? Hell, yes. William Calley should have been executed for what he did in Viet Nam. Did it happen in WWII and we just didn't read about it? Yep. Pops was a grunt in the 9th Infantry...humped N. Africa, Sicily, France, The Hurtgen...and he tells of a guy they found was volunteering all the time for prisoner escort...but the Germans weren't showing up in the rear.
So, are some of us like the murdering terrorist scum that seem to be running 98% of the "cradle of civilization"? Yes. But damn few, and the fewer, the better. You shoot a child in cold blood around me, brother, there'd better be someone in between us who thinks you deserve a fair trial.
Posted by: SgtRock at June 06, 2006 11:18 PM (J/2LK)
24
Linlithgow -- Kerry married two wealthy women
So?
it's debatable that he's ever worked at anything, except marrying money.
Not so! He went to Nam, was an activist, then passed the bar and worked for years as a humble prosecutor, then senator.
Gore's father was a well known political figure (and bigot), and certainly had many of the same advantages that you ascribe to President Bush.
Sure, Kerry was born rich too. Gore is working hard now on global warming, because he feels that is the highest use of his life. My point was that Bush's resume is pathetic in comparison to these other men.
As for Bill Clinton, he may have come from a somewhat 'broken' home, but making an insane ROI in futures and the whole Madison Guaranty/ fundraising/Whitewater property buy-in smacks a bit of elitism, don't you think?
Look I don't feel strongly about Clinton. He was a Rhodes Scholar, probably the highest academic honor. He lost money in Whitewater I thought? Anyway to this day I don't understand what he did there. He was never charged with anything, and it sure wasn't for lack of trying. He is much closer to the American idea of the ambitious man rising to the top than Bush is.
As for your statement that people like the President want an aristocracy, that's just plain silly. The top 50% or so of wage earners pay a whopping 95%+ of the taxes.
I don't understand your point, not at all.
Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government
No they don't. They pay 20% by and large, that's what cap gains and dividends and interest are now. Warren Buffet complains that his secretary has a higher tax bracket than he does. You appear to be grossly misinformed. Do you like having a higher tax rate than Paris Hilton? It gripes my... hindquarters.
Being a 'diplomat' doesn't necessary mean being effective.
Okay...
Funny thing about Iraq, too... they manage to keep making milestones toward democracy. Shaky ground sometimes, but it's progress.
The elections are encouraging, but as I said I'm convinced that the Shias and Sunnis are so inimical to eachother that I can't see them trusting eachother enough to have effective leadership.
This is a perfect example of why I get frustrated with libs; they have short attention spans. When the next new shiny object comes in to view, you turn your attention there and eschew the previous shiny object and say it was rusty, inferior and generally defective; they expect everything to be quick and perfect.
I'm not a liberal, but your characterization of liberals is puerile. It's no less tiresome than when liberals say "conservatives are heartless".
How do you take decades of tyranny and dysfunction and turn a country around on a dime? It's not possible; the former Soviet satellite states are still battling with separatists, corruption and scandals and it's been 15 years.
You're right. However, the administration told us that we were invading Iraq because they had WMD and were willing to use them on us. I'm fine to with asking our soldiers to fight under those conditions. If they had said, we need to sacrifice our youth and untold billions to bring democracry to Iraq, I would have said, take a hike. I wish the people of Iraq well, but I couldn't look into the eyes of a young soldier and say, go risk your life to help these people. This is especially tragic now IMO, as I can't envision what success would look like there. The problems in Saddam's Iraq were not our fault.
Your tantalizing comment hinting that libs see Iran as a threat to be dealt with is a red herring; if that is the case, why aren't they all lined up saying we should carpet bomb Iran's enrichment facilities to the stone age? If 'dealing with Iran' is the right thing to do, then we should do something, shouldn't we?
Again I don't generally speak for liberals. I do think we should do something about Iran. I guess I'm not following you here.
As for Iraq not being a threat to anyone in the world, you forgot the millions of Iraqis... or don't they count? Didn't Saddam gas his own people? Didn't he host a terrorist camp near Salman Pak? Wasn't Zarqawi enjoying the Iraqi weather for a while? I try to not wait to be swarmed with bees before I destroy the nest. Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.
Sure, Saddam is the worst manifestation of humanity, sure. But he WASN'T a threat to anyone when we attacked. Charles Duelfer, Bush's man to run the WMD investigation, said, "We were all wrong." You guys seem to think it's okay that Bush made a mistake. It's not, he screwed up tremendously. Bin Laden wants to force moderate Muslims pick sides, and that's exactly what the invasion of Iraq is forcing.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 07, 2006 11:31 AM (T8RbL)
25
Marc -- Kind of like those permanant bases that we still have in Germany and Japan, where democracy clearly never took root...
That is an interesting point. However there wasn't an insurgency in either of those cases. There are lots of people in Iraq who view our troops as religiously unclean and so forth. It is not at all obvious that the eventual government of Iraq will in fact want our troops to stay on. Clearly this isn't something the administration is planning on. The figure I heard was 14 permanent bases.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 07, 2006 11:36 AM (T8RbL)
26
Cyrus,
Some interesting points, but you're wrong on the last post.
There was an insurgency in Germany that lasted quite a while and actually caused some real problems. Good ol' History Channel.
As for the next "Greatest Generation". I couldn't agree more. The men and women I served with were some of the bravest, most honorable people I will ever have the privilage of knowing. Not perfect mind you, as noone is, but truly Great all the same. I have complete faith in our future if people of this caliber still volunteer.
Just my 2 cents...
Posted by: rick at June 07, 2006 05:46 PM (cU7n5)
27
Last, first. No, there wasn't a real insurgency in Germany, though there had been plans for one. From what I last read about it, a total of either one or zero people were killed by it, the the one possible was a German Mayor. I forget the name of the operation.
But now on to real meat. Cyrus, Cyrus, Cyrus. Bush had no resume? Governor of the second biggest state in the country (I bet he'd governed more "constituent hours" than Clinton had when he went to DC)? Yale grad? Prosperous business leader? (I know, the left sees business as a necessary evil to support the government, but most of us out here know that it's business and not Uncle Sugar that creates wealth.)
No, his IQ isn't up there with, say, Ann Coulter's (and I dare you to read her rez and tell me she ain't wicked smahhhht) and as an Engrishi teacher I can't condone his massacre of my mother tongue, but, hey, who's perfect?
Clinton is a bright fellow, but he's nobody's genius. Jimmy Carter was probably the smartest of our recent presidents, and look what he did to us! Check that--look what he's still doing to us! His greatest legacy will be having bought North Korea the time to get nuke weapons. In spite of having been privy to what a LA-LA-land NK really is (as was I, during and after the Carter admin) and the fact that they had adhered to no agreement of substance EVER, he stuck his beak in in the name of peace just as Clinton was finally going to lay the hammer down on their nuke program, and got them TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT! Which they broke, and when the jig was up said, "Oops. We lied. So spank us." So when airy-fairy Seattle goes up in smoke some day, thank that very intelligent man for it. I'll take Reagan and common sense to a Rhodes Scholar or a Naval Academy/GaTech/Union College grad and leftist government any day.
You're right...Saddam wasn't a real threat when we attacked...and he could have proved it by letting the inspectors do their jobs. Of course, when a tape of one of his cabinet meetings--during which he admitted the plan was to just wait the inspectors out and start up when they leave--surfaced last year, it got very little play in your side's media. Of course, given Saddam's unblemished past (hmmm...not many infidels were among the million-plus who died during the Iran-Iraq war, nor were many infidels gassed in Kurdistan, nor were any infidel women raped or kidnapped from Kuwait)we should have known that he would allow his country to go to war with a country that had, a decade earlier (i.e., back when we actually believed a Soviet-equipped army was worth a crap) beaten him in a hundred hours...just to prove how misunderstood he was!
That said, I say screw it, let the United Nations take Iraq over...they wanted it so badly. I b'lieve we can get our troops out of there pretty quickly. Have them face north, do a right face, and march.
And Gore...a hard-oh-so-hardworking man. He's hard at work on his 2008 campaign. Or save the world...from all of those evil Republicans who think there should be actual debate on the subject of global warming, rather than Michael Moore...I mean, Al Gore just telling us that he has researched it and no real scientists disagree (if they were real scientists, after all, they would agree), telling us all we've got to do is screw up our economy while allowing China, Korea and India to keep pumping crap into the air...and it'll be Peace Train time, baby.
Posted by: SgtRock at June 07, 2006 11:18 PM (J/2LK)
28
SgtRock -- Dangit I'm a conservative. I'll play "token liberal" for today only.
Bush had no resume? Governor of the second biggest state in the country (I bet he'd governed more "constituent hours" than Clinton had when he went to DC)? Yale grad? Prosperous business leader?
My point was that his resume doesn't display personal initiative, and in that sense it is weak. He became Governor because of his birth. He went to Yale because of his birth. He wasn't a prosperous business leader. He failed trying to lead two oil companies and got bailed out by his daddy's friends. He made his fortune by selling the Rangers after the taxpayers built them a new stadium under his watch. Loverly.
Clinton is a bright fellow, but he's nobody's genius. Jimmy Carter was probably the smartest of our recent presidents, and look what he did to us!
My point about Clinton was that he demonstrated far more personal initiative than Bush did, I mentioned the Rhodes Scholar thing as a way that he worked hard to distinguish himself. I agree about Carter.
it got very little play in your side's media.
IMO the biggest problem with the media is that it's owned by people like Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon. I grant there are lots of liberal elitists working in the media, but as a problem they are a distant second. There's an element of city mouse/country mouse here too.
let the United Nations take Iraq over
I don't think any of the UN members are eager to send in troops, for Kofi Annan or George W. Bush.
And Gore...a hard-oh-so-hardworking man. He's hard at work on his 2008 campaign. Or save the world...from all of those evil Republicans who think there should be actual debate on the subject of global warming, rather than Michael Moore...I mean, Al Gore just telling us that he has researched it and no real scientists disagree (if they were real scientists, after all, they would agree), telling us all we've got to do is screw up our economy while allowing China, Korea and India to keep pumping crap into the air...and it'll be Peace Train time, baby.
Why do you hate Gore so much? I don't want him as my president but I believe he's a good man, and he does work hard.
I grew up around a university and could tell you stories about liberalism that would have you rolling on the floor. Not once did I ever hear anyone wanting to ban Christmas or cripple the economy or etc etc. People like Limbaugh and Coulter say these things to get people excited.
There isn't a debate about global warming. This is not a media elitist thing, or an Al Gore wants to ruin the economy thing. There is a terrific preponderence of scientists who haven't any doubt that it's real. It seems the ultimate in liberal mushy thinking simply to ignore the problem.
Best,
Cyrus
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 08, 2006 01:28 AM (T8RbL)
29
Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government
No they don't. They pay 20% by and large, that's what cap gains and dividends and interest are now. Warren Buffet complains that his secretary has a higher tax bracket than he does. You appear to be grossly misinformed. Do you like having a higher tax rate than Paris Hilton? It gripes my... hindquarters.
Ask Governor Corzine of NJ how he kept all his money while working for the stock firm..Also the new Secretary of the Tresaury. How did he make all that money and kept it. They pay nothing thats close to what you pay.
Posted by: Tony Racemus at June 10, 2006 11:37 PM (wZLWV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Never Say Die
One of the best sporting comebacks I've ever seen.
Well, since the 1992 Peach Bowl when my beloved
Pirates came back to beat N.C. State 37-34 to cap off a 11-1 1991 season, anyway.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:30 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I can't believe I only got tickets for game one. Now I've got to deal to with the scalpers for tomorrow's game. What a game though. I wish they'd just blow them out in the first period rather than waiting until the third and being so dramatic about it. It's a lot of stress to watch them do that.
Posted by: Chris at June 06, 2006 10:40 AM (Vv7V0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 05, 2006
I Guess She Hates Him, Too
I guess reminding Cindy Sheehan that the UN (not the U.S.) imposed sanctions on Iraq, that the Koran flushing never happened, and that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon (or no more than TNT is a chemical weapon) and that it is no way related to napalm and that it cannot be "enhanced" by it, wouldn't do much good.
Support the troops? I support only those who are NOT supporting the exploitation of the Iraqi people, and those who do not allow the war profiteers to carry on with their death and destruction all for the sake of an opulent lifestyle. I do not support those who are supporting a criminally insane and treacherous foreign policy.
Interestingly, Cindy Sheehan's son Casey "supported the exploitation" (by her definition, not mine) by volunteering to go on a rescue mission into Sadr City. It cost him his life.
I guess Cindy hates him, too.
(h/t
Allah)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:46 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They still find Cindy "news"?
Posted by: Maggie at June 05, 2006 01:33 PM (lC4Ui)
2
I so wish we could all get together and fill out the paperwork to have that woman put in a nice padded room somewhere.
She just ain't gonna go away.
Posted by: Patty at June 05, 2006 06:42 PM (EJVBR)
3
Heard she was starting a hunger strike. From the pix of her fat belly it will take a while to slim that slime ball down. I'll hold her down first. Who's got the eco-suit. Don't want to touch that nastiness!
Posted by: TICKETPLEASE at June 06, 2006 12:19 PM (MF225)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Matter of Priorities
A rouge nation with budding nuclear weapons capabilities is being run by a cult obsessed with End Times eschatology, and threatens ten of millions of lives in southwest Asia. Sectarian violence continues in Iraq. We're importing poverty in record amounts through a southern border that leaks like a sieve, and Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab and back on the road.
Mr. President, if you really think I care about
gay marriage right now, you're out of your ever-lovin' mind.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:42 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I agree. Who could care about the marriage issue with all that is necessary to fix. My own list would include the death tax, reducing the size of the government and its spending, eliminatig the TSA (take the fight to the Muslims, not the little old ladies) and changing homeland security so it is not a superficial organization (actually eliminating it would be good too). Eliminate welfare. Make health care affordable (even as a physician it is not for me). Drastically reduce the average citizens exposure to the government and regulations.
Posted by: David Caskey at June 05, 2006 08:53 AM (6wTpy)
2
Add Congress to the list of those who have their priorities all out of whack. Of course, they're thinking about what this will do for them politically in November, and not what they're doing for us over the long term.
Posted by: lawhawk at June 05, 2006 09:14 AM (DaNDN)
3
Left or right,red or blue...I think you have expressed the feelings of all Americans.
Bravo!
Posted by: Johnny Yuma at June 05, 2006 11:55 AM (rXcVL)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 05, 2006 12:24 PM (3nKvy)
5
Evangelicals make up a larger percentage of the base and is peeling off more and more Dems so I can see where this is actually smart politics. Who knew politics would happen during an election year?
Posted by: Stormy70 at June 05, 2006 02:41 PM (YRPBe)
6
I'm sick to death of "politics as usual". You have voiced my utter frustration in four sentences. Thank you.
Posted by: lady redhawk at June 05, 2006 03:33 PM (SkAw4)
7
Meanwhile, did anybody notice the Dow shed 200 points, the housing bubble looks to be deflating, the dollar is losing value, and the price of oil is back in the $70 range. I'm not saying one thing or the other about gay marriage, but it sure doesn't win any fiscal conservatives' votes.
Posted by: Mr. K. at June 05, 2006 04:46 PM (kZFAr)
8
Woah. That post knocked me off guard. I honestly didn't expect that from this blog. You just recieved like +25 respect points in my book for cutting through the partisan spin and getting to the real issues.
Kudos.
Posted by: Keram at June 05, 2006 05:46 PM (UYGwc)
9
Did you mean rouge nation, or a rogue nation? There's a pretty big difference

Posted by: Kevin at June 05, 2006 05:53 PM (+hkUo)
10
"Did you mean rouge nation, or a rogue nation? There's a pretty big difference

"
Not on this side of the blogosphere. I actually thought it was quite witty, until I realised it was probably a typo :-(
Posted by: Mat at June 05, 2006 08:11 PM (kVBtr)
11
Ha, ha, ha! I agree that the timing is terrible. I remember the first petition that I signed for this amendment was in 2003. I know that wasn't the first time the amendment was talked about. I know Bush believes in the amendment, but he should have done something about it during his first term, not in an election year. Right now it seems that he is taking attention off of the immigration issue.
Yes, I am also FAR more concerned about the Iranian Hitler.
Posted by: Ata at June 06, 2006 11:45 PM (lj0yb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Atrocity of Atrocities?
It is but one of several atrocity cases that you will find the press laying at the feet of American Marines in Iraq, but the death of Hashim the Lame strikes me as among the most curious, and potentially the most troubling.
Other incidents in Iraq have led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of American Marines. Haditha was the incident that triggered the current media frenzy, and is under investigation as a possible war crime after 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by a Marine unit after an IED attack killed on of their own.
In Ishaqi, a disputed number of women and children were killed after an air strike was called in on a house that was engaging Marines with intense small arms fire. The Marines were cleared after an investigation determined that men with ties to al Qaeda, including an al Qaeda financier, initiated the firefight. The financier was pulled alive from the rubble and is now in U.S. custody.
In both of these incidents, the Marines were responding to immediate provocations. If Iraqi accounts of the death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad al-Zobaie are correct, this killing had no such immediate trigger.
The official Marine account and the version of events told by Iraqi villagers
could not be more different:
Members of the Marine foot patrol under investigation in the case said they came upon Hashim digging a hole for a bomb near his home in the Sunni Arab village of about 30 homes near Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. The Marines said they killed Hashim in a brief gun battle and that they found an AK-47 assault rifle and a shovel by his side.
According to accounts given by Hashim's neighbors and members of his family, and apparently supported by photographs, the Marines went to Hashim's home, took the 52-year-old disabled Iraqi outside and shot him four times in the face. The assault rifle and shovel next to his body had been planted by the Marines, who had borrowed them from a villager, family members and other residents said.
The family members of al-Zobaie have agreed to allow an exhumation and autopsy, which should she light onto which version of events is more accurate. I'm hoping that the Marine account is accurate for the simple reason that the alternative—that Marines singled out and premeditated the murder of a cripple for unknown reasons—is so difficult to contemplate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:05 AM
| Comments (0)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
June 04, 2006
The Silence of the Lambs
If you visit the always useful memeorandum.com to see how the blogosphere is responding to the arrests of 17 terrorists in Canada, you'll notice something: not a single left-of-center blog of note will discuss it.
Not
yesterday afternoon.
Not
last night.
Not
this morning.
Ace of Spades noticed this phenomenon last night,
and writes:
Not a word about it at has-been harridan Jane Hamsher's combination blog-slash-application for voluntary state psychiatric confinement.
The Daily Kos mentions it as a single item in an open thread about three other news stories, the other three fairly trivial.
Mostly Open Threads are opened. Later in the day, "Georgia" posts this:
Open Thread
by georgia10
Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 05:03:58 PM PDT
It's a slow news day...so what's going on in your corner of the world?
Yes, very slow news day, Georgia. So what's going on? Well, in the state you either live in or share the name of, two Muslim extremists -- or, should I say, Terrorist-Americans -- are named as co-conspirators with the Toronto megabombers.
So, no big whoop. Go back to sleep.
Nada at former Democratic strategist (or something) Peter Daou's "The Grit" blog. He does have time to mention Haditha, of course.
Nothing at Atrios, despite a higher post-to-open-thread ratio today.
Nothing at Jesus' General... though he does think he's pretty funny for showing American kids at a gun range, with a caption saying "GOOD," and Palestinian kids parading with guns, with a caption saying "BAD." Apparently it is lost on him that the American kids shoot at targets, whereas the Palestinian kids (who are younger) shoot at human beings.
Oh, and blow themselves up in pizzarias.
Nothing on Andrew Sullivan. He talks about -- yes, wait for it! -- Haditha and the other alleged "massacres," and also about how much spiritual support disco-pop-synth band Pet Shop Boys have provided him.
Otherwise-- radio silence.
IS ANY LEFT WING BLOGGER COMMENTING ON THIS STORY AT ALL?
Or is it too dangerous to alienate readers by presenting discomfiting facts?
Why, one would almost imagine that a victory in the War on Terror is unwelcome news to them. It's almos as if it's... bad news for them or something.
One could almost venture to postulate, even, that their political and personal interests are precisely aligned with the terrorists'.
Almost.
The Man That Liberals Hate Most
lays on the snark:
Somehow, I have a feeling someone's civil rights were violated during all this “investigating” and “probing.” And if that's the case, well, then the terrorists will have already won.
Although to be sure, lots of buildings and public transit venues in a number of countries remain intact as a result—and thousands of innocent civilians were probably spared. Still, small consolation indeed if it turns out some “spy agency” somewhere plucked a conversation out of (cyber)space and used it to zero in on these guys.
Keep an eye on Glenn Greenwald's site for updates and analysis on how, during these overlapping probes, the Constitution was shredded.
Yes, the "true patriots" are silent as the grave on this subject. This "unpleasantness" reminds them
we are at war, which tends to destroy the wall of illusion they've been laboring to build since 9/11/01 that we are isolated and safe.
I'm sure they'll snap back later today. They can't let reality intrude over fantasy for too long, you know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:23 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hi CY. Just picked up this little ditty at "Martini Republic"
June 3rd, 2006 Which border should we seal?
Now, if the Mounties just arrested seventeen “inspired by Al-Qaida” would-be terrorists in Toronto…
Those upstate New Yorkers better get in touch with their inner minutemen in a hurry.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 01:49 PM (hj9lA)
2
It'll appear in the festering swamps once they figure out how to blame it on W.
I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Peg C. at June 04, 2006 05:40 PM (BCvPl)
3
Should we call these people cold-blooded terrorists yet, or should we wait until the full investigation and trial is over?
Someone might suggest that doing so could taint the investigation, although I think that kind of talk is bunk in most situations.
Posted by: Keram at June 04, 2006 05:47 PM (UYGwc)
4
"Should we call these people cold-blooded terrorists yet"
Terrorist wannabes maybe. But since they were Canuk citizens, the term "criminal conspiritors" might be more appropriate.
That means they will actually be criminally charged, and publicly tried and punished for their actions.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 07:05 PM (hj9lA)
5
Glenn Greenwald's site had someone tangentially related to the Canadian arrests - but it was about how right wing sites were crowing that this shows the worthiness of US electronic eavesdropping.
Go figure.
Posted by: lawhawk at June 05, 2006 06:23 AM (DaNDN)
6
Canada's version of DU (Rabble.ca) has already started blaming Bush & Harper.
Posted by: Gary at June 05, 2006 10:10 AM (N/gIs)
7
Looks like we're fencing off the wrong border. This is the second time the terrorists have come out of Canada (1999 New Years)
Posted by: Mike Meyer at June 05, 2006 06:34 PM (8IIOd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 03, 2006
Close to Home: Terror Sweep in Canada
Via CNN:
Canadian police on Saturday said they have prevented a major al Qaeda-inspired terror plot to attack targets in southern Ontario.
Twelve adults and five young people were arrested, authorities said.
"This group took steps to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate and other components necessary to create explosive devices," said Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell in a statement.
"To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."
The detained suspects are all men, Canadian residents "from a variety of backgrounds" and followers of a "dangerous ideology inspired by al Qaeda," said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in a news conference.
The targets were all in Toronto, CNN's Jeanne Meserve reported at least one source as telling her.
The charges include: participating in terrorist group activity, including training and recruitment; the provision of property for terrorist purposes; and the "commission of indictable offenses, including firearms and explosives in association with a terrorist group."
What authorities are not saying—and will almost certainly not confirm—is the distinct possibility that this plot was uncovered via the NSA foreign intelligence surveillance program that the
NY Times tried to label a “domestic spying” program. As most international communications into North America filter through U.S. switching equipment, it seems logical that if international communications were involved, the NSA would be the lead agency handing off information their counterparts in Canadian border police and intelligence agencies.
CNN also suggests—but doesn't support—is that this raid could be tied to the London terror raid conducted Friday that foiled a suspected
chemical weapons plot.
Update: Via
Stop the ACLU, it appears that internet monitoring was indeed responsible for helping
break the al Qaeda cell:
The investigation began back in 2004, when CSIS was monitoring Internet sites and tracing the paths of Canadians believed to have ties to international terrorist organizations. Local youths espousing fundamentalist views drew special attention, sources say.
[snip]
Four months after authorities began to fear that Canada might have its own homegrown terrorist cell, two Americans entered the picture.
Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen of Bangladeshi descent who had attended high school in Ontario, and Syed Haris Ahmed, 21, a student at Georgia Tech, boarded a Greyhound bus in Atlanta on March 6, 2005, and travelled to Toronto to meet "like-minded Islamic extremists," a U.S. court document alleges.
The NSA program, as repeated described, tracked targeted communications between terror suspects in the United States, and other countries... like Canada.
I think we have a winner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:02 AM
| Comments (59)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It certainly looks like the Canuks are doing an excellent job of fighting the terrorists in Ontario so they won't have to fight them in British Columbia.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 11:45 AM (hj9lA)
2
"A winner?" what do you mean? Let me point out that there is no evidence either way that the CSIS acted outside the (Canadian) law, while our President brags that the NSA, by his assumed authority, acts without warrants.
What say you, CY? Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not? Should US Citizens on American soil be held without charge or counsel? Are we a nation of laws, or men?
Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 03, 2006 11:53 AM (Hf1QS)
3
"to be monitored" is redundant in my previous post.
Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 03, 2006 11:59 AM (Hf1QS)
4
as is "without warrants". My apologies for sloppy editing.
Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 03, 2006 12:00 PM (Hf1QS)
5
Long live the memory of one of our greatest American patriots, Sir Patrick Henry "Give me liberty or give me death".
Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up their freedoms in order to achieve security deserve neither".
I for one simply ain't skeered. The menace during WW II was real and truly threatened our way of life. Yet we didn't need or impliment such intrusive oversight here at home.
Why is everyone so skeered now..?
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 12:16 PM (hj9lA)
6
hogwild,
The menace during WW II was real and truly threatened our way of life. Yet we didn't need or impliment such intrusive oversight here at home.
Wrong. Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII. Prior to the US entry into the war the Roosevelt administration gave British intelligence broad latitude in operating in the US even up to the point of letting them abduct legal US resident aliens and take them to interrogation centers in Canada.
The major difference between then and now is that Fascist had no significant presence in the US whereas now we have hundreds if not thousands of potential attackers operating on US soil. Terrorism does present a threat to our way of life because history has shown that liberal states that cannot maintain basic security tend to collapse into authoritarianism. It is safer to nip such threats in the bud than to let them build to the point where people start to panic.
Posted by: Shannon Love at June 03, 2006 02:40 PM (zXMU7)
7
There is no terrorist threat.
Posted by: Michael Moore at June 03, 2006 02:43 PM (gf5iT)
8
hogwild, I hope your post was with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
We can go through chapter and verse about the wonderful things we did to support civil rights back during WW II. If you consider gathering anonymous phone records (not even tapping the contents of the calls mind you) anywhere along the lines of the Japanese Internment Camps then you've obviously slipped a cog or two.
Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves from people like those rounded up in Canada.
Posted by: Rob at June 03, 2006 03:22 PM (30+nb)
9
Rob -
Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves from people like those rounded up in Canada.
Within or outside of the law?
Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 03, 2006 03:49 PM (Hf1QS)
10
"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." - Ronald Reagan
-
Ben Franklin, domestic spy
Reader Jeff T. writes:
The misquotation of Franklin in the argument about "domestic wiretapping" strikes me as particularly amusing in light of Franklin's role as one of the premier intelligence agents during the Revolutionary War. The CIA has a nice summary of the intelligence activities undertaken in that war, and no one is so prominent as Franklin, including in covert activities. More to the point here, Franklin was a member of the original committee, appointed by the Continental Congress, to review and publish intercepted communications from England. Hmm, Benjamin Franklin: Domestic Spy!
Read the whole thing:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004368.htm
Posted by: b at June 03, 2006 04:15 PM (wIDom)
11
Shannon,
"Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII."
I'm sure they were, especially if the white resident aliens were from Germany or Italy and placed international communications. We didn't have to worry about the Japanese because we had em all interned (locked up).
"The major difference between then and now is that Fascists had no significant presence in the US whereas now we have hundreds if not thousands of potential attackers operating on US soil."
Sorry to inform you, but the fascists were actual whole nations that declared war on us, and were very capable and nearly did place large armies on our soil. Terrorism is simply a concept, a means for individuals with little power and little national support. Terrorism has been around since the beginning on mankind, and you advocate nipping it in the bud..?
Oh, and let's see, how many islamic terrorists have been caught and convicted in America. Less than a handfull. Your mention of hundreds and thousands of them hiding over here ready to pounce show just how brainwashed, panicked and skeered you really are.
Face the facts. 9/11 (Boo..!) was executed and financed mostly by the Saudies. There's a bunch of them in Gitmo right now. Guess how many Iraqi's are in there.. ONE. Our national priorities have certainly been grossly misplaced.
Yes Rob.. I'm a great fan of satire.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 04:28 PM (hj9lA)
12
No wonder you're wrong about so much, hog: you simply don't get those all-important details right. A prime example is your butchering of the Franklin quote. You misquoted:
Those who would give up their freedoms in order to achieve security deserve neither".
The correct version of this quote is quite a bit more specific (emphasis added):
"they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I trust you are smart enough to figure out why those qualifiers are important.
Someone who knew a tiny bit about the law (and I'm certain you find him a villian as well spoke of these words in this speech:
Franklin's quotation is often answered with Justice Robert H. Jackson's admonition that the Constitution's Bill of Rights is not a "suicide pact" - that blind and unreasonable insistence on liberty will ultimately threaten the very existence of liberty.
There is an obvious tension between these two sentiments. On the one hand there is a legitimate concern that we not sacrifice those very freedoms that make us American in the name of protecting America. On the other hand, we cannot allow those who would destroy America use our liberties as weapons against us. In order for there to be liberty in America, there must be an America.
Liberties have always been given up temporarily in wartime, to return when the time of danger is passed.
Unlike the Germans who slipped ashore in WWII that FDR had executed, today's enemy has tehintent on bringing in nuclear weapons--city killers.
This is a different game with much higher stakes, and the rules must change accordingly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 03, 2006 05:04 PM (0fZB6)
13
I see bat guano is back spouting the party line with nothing to back him up as usual. Soon he'll start cussing at people because they won't just accept his version of things. LOL. Just a stain on the porch...
bat...just so you know - most people, including congresscritters, have dropped the objections to the NSA programs. Not only that - they approved Hayden to run the CIA. Get a Grip!
Posted by: Specter at June 03, 2006 05:41 PM (ybfXM)
14
bat,
Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not?
What? Case in point - want to show one article that says this is happening? Just one - not Kos now - a real article.
Posted by: Specter at June 03, 2006 05:43 PM (ybfXM)
15
So there is no doubt in anyone's mind, especially the shallow ones, the folks that defend your freedoms and liberties give up some of those very sme freedoms and liberties. It is voluntarily done so as to preserve your freedom and liberty.
Anyone on the left have a clue of what I write? And you categorically object to the infringement of terrorist's freedoms (within our borders) to unabatedly plot to destroy us? You've got a lot to learn about liberty and freedom. Those who have fought for freedom have a different perspective on its value.
You've also got a lot to learn about our openly proclaimed enemy. 9-11 is in the past; so is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would anyone like to see them repeated? Doesn't it make sense to do everything in our power to prevent another such attack?! Well, it does to those who give their lives in defense of your freedoms and liberties.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 03, 2006 07:32 PM (owAN1)
16
Thanks for pointing that out CY. I interpet "essential" to mean constitutive or indispensible. In this case, our constitutional and indispensible liberties. Are you suggesting we must dispatch with them for all time, becausing terrorism ain't going away in our lifetimes. Or is terrorism just a little temporary thing..?
I'm sure you remember the cold war that President Reagan effectively ended. Fingers were never very far away from that button that would destroy our ENTIRE country. It went on for many years without us giving up any essential liberties. And there were quite a few suitcase bombs out there as well. The stakes were certainly much higher back then.
Just WHO are we at war with..? It's impossable to to be at war with a concept. Do we give up our essential liberties in the face of a concept that's been around forever and always will be..?
Only if you believe in totalitarianism. Or are so skeered you'll give it all up so big bro can pretend to protect you while he's looking over YOUR shoulder.
When we give up our essential liberties in the face of terrorism guess who wins.. OBL (still at large). After all, he attacked us because he hates our freedoms, right..?
Or, will the war on terror be over when we finally catch him? You know, just a little temporary thing.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 07:41 PM (hj9lA)
17
"You've also got a lot to learn about our openly proclaimed enemy. 9-11 is in the past; so is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would anyone like to see them repeated? Doesn't it make sense to do everything in our power to prevent another such attack?! Well, it does to those who give their lives in defense of your freedoms and liberties."
Old Soldier, I am five year wartime veteran who obviously cares deeply about the defense of our freedoms and liberties. I ain't about to give up any of them without a fight.
Just exactly who is our proclaimed enemy responsible for 9/11..? OBL or Saddam.? We got Saddam, so does that mean the war will be over if and when we finally get OBL..?
The PNAC letter seems to answer that question quite nicely.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 08:01 PM (hj9lA)
18
hog, do you really believe that tripe you spew?
Enlighten those of us who doubt your claims... please tell us what freedom and liberty you have given up lately? Give us one concrete example of a freedom or liberty that you have given up.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 03, 2006 08:01 PM (owAN1)
19
Spec(ula)ter, this is far too easy. You set the bar very low.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html
If you have trouble reading the article and following the links, find a grownup to help you.
Good luck!
By the way, I'd like to change my handle here to "Persistent Vegetarian."
Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 03, 2006 08:23 PM (Hf1QS)
20
Shannon Love -- "Wrong. Wiretaps, telegram intercepts and reading mail were all done on a routine basis during WWII." Only lunatics don't want the government monitoring Al Qaeda communications. The point is that they are monitoring the communications without a warrant.
Rob -- "If you consider gathering anonymous phone records..." Wrong, the records have telephone numbers attached. Mapping phone numbers to names is trivial. And they are tapping contents. "Heaven forbid we should actually try and do something to protect ourselves" of course we should, but the defining characteristic of the US is civil liberties, including the right to privacy. In letting that go we lose our edge.
CY -- first, I meant to thank you for the links in another thread about the recent success in recruiting for our armed services. I was wrong about that. You said, "Liberties have always been given up temporarily in wartime, to return when the time of danger is passed." Bush just compared the WOT to the cold war. There will always be terror... Anyway, I don't see that Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War.
Old Soldier -- "please tell us what freedom and liberty you have given up lately?" Privacy was taken from us.
CY -- "This is a different game with much higher stakes, and the rules must change accordingly." Not true. The US has faced direr threats without allowing warrantless domestic spying.
In grade school I learned that my patriotic duty was to protect the constitution. Warrantless domestic spying is clearly contrary to that. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than feel that I've forced my successors to live in a police state.
If you live in fear of terrorists, you are in fact cowering. There is a word for people that cower.
I say police state because if the executive is allowed to spy without judicial oversight, there is nothing to stop him from using intelligence for political purposes. I don't trust anyone with that power, and that is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.
You all need to think back on what the US is. It's not meant to be a safe haven, it's meant to be a democracy. I'm particularly confused about this because most of you on this list believe in limited government.
Finally, it should be noted that warrantless wiretap evidence would be thrown out of court, and therefore we can't even try Al Qaeda members in our court system.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 03, 2006 08:36 PM (eMGg4)
21
I stake my Persistent Vegetarian claim thus.
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 03, 2006 08:37 PM (Hf1QS)
22
Hear, hear, Cyrus. And let's remind our cowed companions here about the Supremes Court's decision in Youngstown Co. v Sawyer, which determined that the Constitution doesn't give the Administration the power to legislate or act outside the law even in time of war.
What is it about these people that they hate America so?
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 03, 2006 08:49 PM (Hf1QS)
23
Cyrus, I gave up "privacy" for 31 years to defend your freedoms and liberty. I defy you to give me one example of your privay being taken away from you. Does anyone have a right to "privacy" that will lead to the destruction of thousands possible millions of our citizens when it is known that just actions are being planned and plotted against us (as a nationof infidels)?
If you extend absolute freedom and liberty to those who would destroy us you do nothing to protect your freedom and liberty.
Now get off the legality of the NSA activity. It has FISA court oversight, congressional Intelligence Committee oversight, has been tested in the SCOTUS and has passed muster. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal.
And for the record, we are NOT a democracy - we are a democratic REPUBLIC. There is a big difference - look them up.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 03, 2006 09:13 PM (owAN1)
24
CY, you quote Justice Jackson to justify the Executive putting constraints on liberty. Here's more Jackson, from the Youngstown decision:
The Solicitor General seeks the power of seizure in three clauses of the Executive Article, the first reading, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Lest I be thought to exaggerate, I quote the interpretation which his brief puts upon it: "In our view, this clause constitutes a grant of all the executive powers of which the Government is capable." If that be true, it is difficult to see why the forefathers bothered to add several specific items, including some trifling ones.
The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And, if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that this clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power, but regard it as an allocation to the presidential office of the generic powers thereafter stated.
He goes on to discuss the scenario we have now, a President who sends troops into battle and assumes "War Powers":
I cannot foresee all that it might entail if the Court should indorse this argument. Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may, in fact, exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture.
(My emphasis). Do not blithely stand by and allow a King to sieze our Republic.
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 03, 2006 09:14 PM (Hf1QS)
25
bat,
IF you will remember, I trashed your Younstown theory weeks ago, using Jackson's own words. Get beyond it. Remember what your famous Justice Jackson said at the bottom of his opinion in this case - the single case, and minority concurring opinion, that you put all your hopes in:
We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence.
You see? Even Justice Jackson says that in matters of war and security the President has powers granted by the constitution. You must remember that what he was referring in his opinion was whether or not Truman had the right to nationalize the steel company. Clearly, he did not. You are desparately attempting to use this case in a completely different context. Won't fly.
Your original statement that I challenged in today's thread was:
Should unwarranted surveillance of US Citizens communicating with US Citizens on American soil continue to be monitored without warrants, without oversight, or not?
I challenged you to find a reputable article that states that what was done was illegal. You came back with a Wired story about a CIVIL lawsuit against AT&T. In the first paragraph of the article:
Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications company, which alleges that AT&T cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.
Gotta laugh first of all at Wired's wording here. What surveillance program? Gathering call records and not content of phone calls? But they are trying to make it sound worse than it is. Yet - this is not a CRIMINAL trial nor INVESTIGATION. It is simply a civil matter. And you have to laugh even harder when you look at Klein's provided "proof" and all it shows is that there was some additional equipment and procedures. Nothing in any of those documents about where the so-called data ended up. Pure speculation there.
But where is the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION oh Vegetable Oil? Haven't even seen a call for one from the DOJ, the Congress, or anyone but the moonbat guano left. Get a Grip!
Maybe you can get someone to read to you and explain what was actually said. Way to easy to deconstruct your nonesense.
Posted by: Specter at June 03, 2006 09:31 PM (ybfXM)
26
Old Soldier --
"Cyrus, I gave up 'privacy' for 31 years to defend your freedoms and liberty. I defy you to give me one example of your privay being taken away from you. Does anyone have a right to 'privacy' that will lead to the destruction of thousands possible millions of our citizens when it is known that just actions are being planned and plotted against us (as a nationof infidels)?"
First, I will always have a special place in my heart for combat veterans, spies, and anyone else who places their life in danger for this country, so I thank you for your bravery.
I take no joy in telling you what our Fourth Amendment says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What did you fight for, if not our Constitution? And if we lay aside our laws out of fear of terrorists, are we not cowards? Seriously, what did you fight for?
"It has FISA court oversight, congressional Intelligence Committee oversight, has been tested in the SCOTUS and has passed muster. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal."
You're simply wrong. One of the FISA judges quit as a protest to the Administration's disregard for FISA. That's what warrantless means in this situation, as FISA is the group that grants warrants. Incidentally, see http://www.epi c.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa:
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Report reveals that the government made 2,072 secret surveillance requests in 2005, a record high and 18 percent more than 2004. None of the requests were denied by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secretive body that issues the warrants."
It is cake to get these warrants. The only excuse not to is that Bush wanted to run a huge dragnet, which of necessity means violating the Fourth Amendment.
"Just because you don't like it doesn't make it despotic nor illegal." No, just because you do like it, or it makes you feel safe, does not make it legal.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 03, 2006 09:50 PM (eMGg4)
27
These guys had "THREE TIMES" the amount of ammonium nitrate that was used to blow-up the Murrah Federal building in OK City in 1995............................Can you imagine the damage caused by such an explosion?
NSA legal, yes it is. NSA need? Without a doubt...........
Posted by: Steve at June 03, 2006 09:58 PM (v93s4)
28
Old Soldier, it appears you can't answer any of my questions, but I'll be happy to answer ANOTHER one of yours. From The Bill of Rights:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Our neo-con government has admitted to seizing my effects, in this case, my phone records. Concrete enough for you..?
And then there's the violation of that pesky little "probable cause" item I take particular objection to.
So again Old Vet, where is the declaration war, just who are we at war with, and when will it be over..? Very simple questions.
By the way, I have always been a conservative, but the neo-cons have hijacked our country and Constitution. Right under your nose.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 10:01 PM (hj9lA)
29
Persistent Vegetarian -- Excellent work on the Justice Jackson quotation.
hogwild -- right, for years I've watched these small men defecate on our currency, embark on idealistic nation-building, celebrate profligacy with our natural resources, and then have the gall to call me a liberal. Strange times.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 03, 2006 11:06 PM (eMGg4)
30
Indeed Cyrus... Such small and easily manipulated individuals these wastrels are. It just amazes me how scared and taken in by the Sraussians decent folks have become.
Thank the Lord 71% of voters have seen the light and recognize the wrong direction our leaders have taken our country.
CY, again my hats off to you, and thank you for allowing dissent and civil discussion on your blog.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 03, 2006 11:53 PM (hj9lA)
31
Batsh** crazy sounds just that, crazy. He can't cite one legal ruling against the NSA wiretaps and since the FISA court went along with it i'd assume they already knew about and approved it. Didn't the SCOTUS already rule on this one in the past. Could that be why the left wing idiots in congress taped their mouths shut.
Any explosive experts on here? I believe from some reloading experience that triple the weight of explosives would actually multiply the explosion far beyond the 1 to 1 ratio. I've also saw the fertlizer/diesel fuel mix used for tearing down mountains in a limestone gravel pit and an overload sends house size rocks several thousand feet. Someone on here must be a real expert, not a graduate (moron) of a failed liberal arts college like batsh**.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 04, 2006 12:58 AM (wZLWV)
32
Just the purchase of the fertilizer would set off alerts across our intel system, due to protections put in place post-Oklahoma City.
I doubt the US would have even let these terrorists receive the material if no other surveillance was ongoing. Under the circumstances, permitting the delivery should just help the Canadians to gain convictions and put the group away.
Despite a lot of speculation going on in the blogosphere, nothing's been reported on this to indicate the Canadians or our NSA had to resort to extralegal or illegal actions to monitor them and catch them redhanded.
And anyone with a smattering of understanding of statistical probability should understand that the NSA monitoring of billions of data packets doesn't increase the likelihood of catching terrorists at all. Illegal or not, it's unbelievably expensive and ineffective. So why give up liberties for a lark that can't even fly?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at June 04, 2006 04:52 AM (4ty6T)
33
Hogwild -
I hate to break it to you, but your phone records are not your property. They are the property of the person, or in this case corporation, who provides you with telephone service as otherwise they have no way to bill you for service provided.
The same is true if a policeman or even your next door neighbor were to stand on the sidewalk and record the identity of everyone who knocked on your door.
What you do and talk about inside the confines of your home are private - unless you (completely hypothetically) have sex with small children in front of an uncurtained window - but the identity of any and all persons entering your home via the public access of the street is a public matter.
Posted by: Adriane at June 04, 2006 05:59 AM (xlEdG)
34
Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war? Or does the constitutional duty of the president to protect and defend this nation prevail? Again does one have the "right to privacy" within which they may conspire to kill thousands of our citizens? Those who used to be conservative apparently believe people have that inherent right. I don't.
The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic; the same as the president, and the same as congressmen/women. The word "domestic" is in there for a reason; care to guess why?
The bottom line is that no one's freedom or liberty or right to be secure in their person has been violate as evidenced by the lack of personal account or even one credible account. The NSA intelligence operation continues without suit because it has been tested and is within the confines of the president's authority under the constitution and prior court ruling.
The enemy being a concept is a hollow argument. Is a "concept" employing IEDs in Iraq killing not just our soldiers, but fellow Muslims as well? Was it a concept that was arrested in Canada conspiring to blow up something/somebody? Was it a concept that flew our own planes into the WTC? The concept is: Islam, Allah, must rule the world. Our enemies are radical Islam's soldiers. They will gladly die during the process of killing some of us (infidels). They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance.
It's fine to disagree with what has and is taking place. If you don't have the nature to actively defend our nation against a declared enemy, that's fine also, just do not hamper those who will.
"So again Old Vet, where is the declaration war, just who are we at war with, and when will it be over..? Very simple questions."
Congress authorized the use military force In the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html).
We are at war with the perpetuators of radical Islam.
The war will end when they no longer attack us (our citizens) because of who we are not.
Simple answers, hog.
Remember, evil flourishes when good men do nothing (to oppose it). To that I would add that evil excels when good men do not recognize evil and unwittingly assist it (useful idiots).
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 04, 2006 06:27 AM (owAN1)
35
I must admit it has been fun watching cyrus and hog and vegetable oil congratulate one another and slap each other on the back for being able to spout party lines at each other.
Cyrus did not even pay attention to what else Jackson said about not circumscribing the powers of the Commander in Chief - especially in times of war and on matters of national security.
Listen - this is real easy so I will go r e a l s l o w for the three of you:
There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation - except from the moonbat guano left. Not one. Congress not only backed away from it, but the voted Michael Hayden, the architect of those programs to run the CIA. It's a done deal. Nobody but you cares any more. Get over it.
And if you are so up in arms about those programs - what did you think about Clinton's escalation of ECHELON in the 90's? Under him, the CONTENT of every fax, email, phone call, virtually every electronic transmission, was monitored via computer for "trigger words". That was a much larger "invasion of privacy" than what we have here. But did you complain? No. Wonder why not? Maybe you were still in diapers then?
As to it being "dirt easy" to get FISA warrants, you had better go back and study. Warrants through that court are handed out on the basis of probable cause. Maybe you have heard of that. The paperwork to establish probable cause is not something that takes a couple of hours to do. What do you think this is - CSI where everything, including 6-week DNA tests is wrapped up in an hour? Between writing the base information and then having it improved up the chain the process takes days. And if you are making that complaint about international calls you are in a whole new ball game. Why is it I wonder that you so fiercly attempt to protect the rights of terrorists? Maybe you are part of Murtha's Code Pink Brigade....
Finally - a judge quite FISA. That is correct. The other judges have indicated they see nothing illegal about the TSP. There has been some indication that Your old pal Rocky was getting leaks from someone on FISA. Gee - Wonder which judge that was? Should be interesting as the indictments start to come down.
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 07:55 AM (ybfXM)
36
"What you do and talk about inside the confines of your home are private"
Adriane: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Phone and medical records are indeed not our property, although we have a reasonable and legal expectation they will remain confidential, with few exceptions. HIPAA comes to mind regarding medical records.
I'm also positive that your idol Rush Limbaugh, who also accepted help from that ogre the ACLU, regarding privacy of his medical records, will disagree with you. I also vigorously supported him on that issue.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 11:05 AM (hj9lA)
37
What about credit reporting and marketing agencies. They have HUGE data-mined databases on every aspect of your life. And they sell that data to whoever wants it. Do you complain about that? No. Geez...you guys should really wake up and smell the coffee. BTW-don't use your credit cards, debit cards, member cards from grocery stores, discount stores, pharmacies and the like. They track every single purchase you make and correlate that with the coupon companies for what you get in the mail. And don't buy anything online. Same thing. Constant invasion of your privacy. LOL
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 12:10 PM (ybfXM)
38
Specter:
I met your specification for an article, and you evidently think moving the goalposts after the fact means my argument is lacking in some way. You also ask me to remember events I had no part in.
You must have stopped taking your meds. You're hallucinating again. Remember? Or does the treatment turn off the teevees in your head?
Scrapiron:
No, the FISA courts didn't know about the NSA international wiretap program. That's the problem: the Administration circumvented FISA, so the NSA had no warrants for its surveillance activity, in clear contravention of the law, and showing the President to have lied to the American people on April 20, 2004:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
President Bush had signed the order which allowed the NSA to wiretap without a court order in 2002.
I believe a President was impeached recently for lying to the American People about a matter which did not affect our constitutional rights.
The reason that there are no legal rulings on the NSA wiretaps is that even the Justice Department's ethics lawyers can't get clearances to find out what's been happening: there is absolutely no meaningful oversight of these Programs.
For the record, the acquisition of phone call information - where, when, and how long - is covered by the definition of Pen Register/Trap and Trace taps, and following Katz v. United States (1967), these require a warrant. This is still true under the (so-called) PATRIOT Act.
Old Soldier:
Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war? Or does the constitutional duty of the president to protect and defend this nation prevail?
Of course the fourth amendment covers them, and so does the fifth. The Bill of Rights covers us all. The law applies to us all. Yes, even the President. Please read the Youngstown opinions.
Second, the President's constitutional duty is not to protect and defend the nation, as Section 1 of Article II makes clear:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
Like you, President Bush tries to move these goalposts. In his Address to the Nation on December 18, 2006, he said:
My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation [...]
It is not. When Bush tells the Republican Congressional Leadership that the Constitution is "just a g*ddamned piece of paper", it should be clear that he is not executing the Office of President faithfully. Without question, the most dangerous domestic enemy of the Constitution would be a President who believed he could act outside the law, and regarded the Constitution as "just a g*ddamned piece of paper". Given your oath and your long and honorable service, do you have a duty to ensure that this doesn't happen? Do not we all?
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 04, 2006 12:22 PM (Hf1QS)
39
Adriane -- "I hate to break it to you, but your phone records are not your property. They are the property of the person, or in this case corporation, who provides you with telephone service as otherwise they have no way to bill you for service provided." The government does not have the right to demand any kind of records about you from any party, without a warrant.
Old Soldier -- "Does the fourth amendment cover those conspiring against us in the manner or nature of war?" The Fourth Amendment covers every citizen, all the time. The executive needs probable cause, or a warrant, to invade our privacy.
Old Soldier -- "The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic". But that's exactly what you're not doing, You are saying that you are scared of terrorists, and therefore we should ignore the Fourth. I don't know how else to explain this to you, so I won't try any more.
Specter -- "There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation - except from the moonbat guano left. Not one." This passes for an argument with you? Suppose Mr. X murders Mr. Y, and no one calls for an investigation; does that make the murder right?
Specter -- "And if you are so up in arms about those programs - what did you think about Clinton's escalation of ECHELON in the 90's? Under him, the CONTENT of every fax, email, phone call, virtually every electronic transmission, was monitored via computer for "trigger words". That was a much larger "invasion of privacy" than what we have here. But did you complain? No. Wonder why not? Maybe you were still in diapers then?" The content is being monitored now. I think it's reasonable to monitor communications in an anonymous way, that true anonymity and safeguards against abuse. In other words, the NSA can listen to any conversation, but needs a warrant to get the information about the people involved. This would protect against the spying being used for political or personal purposes. How do you know what I think about Clinton or what I complained about when? I'm not a Democrat or a liberal. Again, protecting the Constitution is what I feel my duty as a citizen is.
Specter -- "The paperwork to establish probable cause is not something that takes a couple of hours to do. " Wrong, FISA allows warrants to be handed out 72 hours *after* the fact in emergencies.
Specter -- "Don't complain ... about constant invasion of your privacy. LOL" Again, how do you know what any of us think? As a matter of fact I do complain about that. This is getting ridiculous. You seem to be a partisan reactionary.
Scrapiron -- "He can't cite one legal ruling against the NSA wiretaps and since the FISA court went along with it." Wrong, FISA did not go along. FISA is exactly what was circumvented. One of the FISA judges quit as a protest to Bush circumventing the court. I don't mean to be crass, but please try harder to recognize when you don't post in public forums where you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 04, 2006 12:37 PM (eMGg4)
40
Before Specter gets in his cardboard box time machine and tells us I'm wrong wrong wrong, there's a typo in my previous post: the President's Address to the Nation I referred to was on December 18, 2005, not 2006.
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 04, 2006 12:59 PM (Hf1QS)
41
Cyrus,
Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes. Try reviewing the actual laws of which you speak. Not only AUMF, but also the FISA laws. You might find out something you think you know but you really don't.
Oil,
Your original claim was Criminal Illegal. You showed us a civil case article. Nothing about the program being illegal there - it is a civil law suit against AT&T. Show me the article. You can't. In fact if it is such a big deal I'm sure you can find 3 or 4 from just this week. Put up or shut up bat stain on the eaves. I notice you couldn't refute what Jackson said so you changed your point of attack. I did not shift one iota.
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 01:10 PM (ybfXM)
42
Cyrus,
Do some research into how long it takes to put the paperwork together to get a FISA warrant - and then multiply it by hundreds at a time. Get a grip on reality.
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 01:19 PM (ybfXM)
43
Old Soldier: We have Sunnies blowing up people, and we have Shias executing people with death squads. Sounds like civil war to me. we created it, and now we can't stop it militarily. A political solution is all that's left, and that ain't lookin' so good. All wars involve terrorists, even our own civil war. The Confederates had em and so did the Yankees (No pun intended CY...well maybe just a little).
As for the arrests in Canada, most of those scum were criminals like Mcveigh and were actually arrested and presumably will be given due process which we can all witness. They'll be publicly tried and punished for their crimes. Criminals are arrested every day in America, yet many prefer to call the islamocommies terrorists, and immediatly proceed to dismantle our Constitution under the pretence of protecting the people.I don't see that as their real motive. It's simply a ruse gain more power and influence politically.
"We are at war with the perpetuators of radical Islam."
The perps in the case of 9/11 seem to be the Saudie Wahabies and their followers (Radical Islamists). There are lots of them in Pakistan as well. Using your own defination, why haven't we gone after a single one of them..?
"Remember, evil flourishes when good men do nothing (to oppose it). To that I would add that evil excels when good men do not recognize evil and unwittingly assist it (useful idiots)". Well spoken and very true in this case.
There were no Wahabis, zilch, nada in Iraq under the former secular regime. Saddam and the Sunnies kept them in check (Not to be construed as his defense). Our presence in Iraq has unleashed them to our own detriment while we ignored and assisted the real threat.
"The war will end when they no longer attack us (our citizens) because of who we are not."
Using this logic, and noting our leaders response, you are advocating an an open ended conflict with no end in sight. Every country on earth has criminal elements that would like nothing better then to attack us. Reminds me of the PNAC goal of world hedgimony. Such reasoning is pure, arrogant folly, and we will never have the resources or international support to accomplish it.
"They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance."
Your first sentence is utter nonsense. I voluntarily enlisted during the Indochina conflict because The government convinced me the threat to our way of life was real. The release of the Pentagon Papers changed all that. "Fool me once" was all it took to make me a skeptic today.
The second sentence shows how paranoid and skeered you really are. So skeered you would give away all our freedoms for the illusion of your own safety.
Spector, you're next.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 01:19 PM (hj9lA)
44
Specter -- "Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes."
I'm going to let this stand on its own.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 04, 2006 01:20 PM (eMGg4)
45
Speck -
Your original claim was Criminal Illegal
Like that was so groovy man, are you totally like tripping? Are you spaced out? Like, if you paint something like now man, it'll be like so psychedelic man. And when you come down, you'll have like no idea what it was about and that will be way, so like way, so beyond cool! Amazing, man!
Posted by: Persistent Vegetarian at June 04, 2006 01:36 PM (Hf1QS)
46
”Old Soldier -- "The oath I took was to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic". But that's exactly what you're not doing, You are saying that you are scared of terrorists, and therefore we should ignore the Fourth. I don't know how else to explain this to you, so I won't try any more.”
Cyrus, exactly where did I say I was “scared” of terrorists? First off, I’m not scared of anyone. Second, I put a name, an identity to the “terrorists”; they’re radical Islamists. If you don’t recognize the threat they pose to this nation, then you have either lost your ability to reason or are consciously suppressing it.
I’m not advocating for the abandonment of the fourth Amendment; but I certainly do not advocate that our enemy should have the freedom to plot our demise under the protections of our own system. Failing to protect the republic will certainly lead to its demise. Your position is far more dangerous than mine. Should we fail to protect the republic all the freedoms, liberty and privacy guaranteed by the constitution won’t matter, will they?
I’m quite tired of hearing talking points repetitively regurgitated concerning the legality of the NSA programs. One FISA judge quit supposedly in protest (and the leaks stopped, imagine that). If the NSA process was that illegal, why didn’t the whole damned court quit or level charges? I happen to believe FISA is unconstitutional; in that congress attempts to limit the power of the executive branch. It really is time to stop whining about that issue.
You needn’t bother to respond, Cyrus, we obviously have very different perspectives of freedom and liberty and how it should be preserved. We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists. Regardless, take comfort knowing there are rough men who are willing to physically fight, bleed and die for freedom.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 04, 2006 01:45 PM (owAN1)
47
Old Soldier -- Cyrus, exactly where did I say I was “scared” of terrorists? First off, I’m not scared of anyone. ... If you don’t recognize the threat they pose to this nation, then you have either lost your ability to reason or are consciously suppressing it.
Fair enough, you didn't say scared. Below you say 'dangerous'. So in effect you are saying that we should compromise the Constitution because the enemy is dangerous. Still not good enough.
I’m not advocating for the abandonment of the fourth Amendment; If it quacks like a duck...
but I certainly do not advocate that our enemy should have the freedom to plot our demise under the protections of our own system.
That is a downside of the freedoms we enjoy. Traitors in the United States have an easier time than traitors in, say, China.
Failing to protect the republic will certainly lead to its demise. Your position is far more dangerous than mine. Should we fail to protect the republic all the freedoms, liberty and privacy guaranteed by the constitution won’t matter, will they?
True, but we will have died nobly, not as cowards and traitors to our proud heritage.
If the NSA process was that illegal, why didn’t the whole damned court quit or level charges? This is weak.
I happen to believe FISA is unconstitutional; in that congress attempts to limit the power of the executive branch. It really is time to stop whining about that issue.
The framers of the Constitution devised a system called checks and balances whereby no one of the three branches of government trumps the other. They very intentionally limited the power of the executive.
You needn’t bother to respond, Cyrus. Thanks for being civil and thoughtful despite our disagreement. I'm happy to discuss these issues. I hope we can both learn something from eachother.
We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists.
I haven't the slightest doubt that radical Islam is our enemy.
Best,
Cyrus
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 04, 2006 02:14 PM (eMGg4)
48
My Comment: "They are more committed to their "concept" of Islam than you are to the concept of freedom and liberty. You better believe they are real and would kill you in a New York minute if given the chance."
Hog, ”Your first sentence is utter nonsense.” You’ve only served to prove your ignorance concerning our current enemy. A radical Islamist will gladly die in order to kill you. Why, because you are not a Muslim and the radical believes in his “concept”. If you don’t understand and acknowledge that, you are only serving them as a useful idiot.
Hog, ”The second sentence shows how paranoid and skeered you really are. So skeered you would give away all our freedoms for the illusion of your own safety.” You may attempt to transfer your insecurities but it doesn’t change a thing. Label me “skeered” if it comforts you, but only a fool will ignore a declared enemy and allow him free reign of the house. It seems to me that you are the paranoid one, believing that the President of the United States wants to take away all your freedom and liberty. In fact, that borders on dillusional.
Posted by: Old Soldier at June 04, 2006 02:20 PM (owAN1)
49
Old Soldier -- We apparently can’t agree that the enemy is not the federal government but rather radical Islamists.
One more thing. The main reason I distrust this administration is because they attacked a secular nation as part of a war on radical Islam, in fact the only secular nation in the region.
We should have gotten Bin Laden in Afghanistan at all costs, then IMO turned our attention to Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, and where Bin Laden's from, and where his family lives. Saddam was as bad as they come, but he was contained, and he was not a religious zealot, just a run of the mill dictator. Bush Sr. was right. His son is not half the man his father is.
After sacrificing thousands of troops and untold billions of dollars, we are worried that Iraq will turn into a Shia nation allied with Iran.
Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 04, 2006 02:25 PM (eMGg4)
50
"What about credit reporting and marketing agencies."
Specter, I have to LOL at that comparison. We voluntarily apply with and use our financial institutions with the expectation that we keep our end of the bargain. It's perfectly ligit and essential to our economy for those institutions to track and publish the names of those who fail to live up to their contracts. I didn't volunteer my phone records to Big Brother, and he gave me absolutly no due process.
As for the marketing agencies, Don't you just love all that junkmail and spam you get every day. Go on and tell us all what a good thing it is and how much you enjoy it.
"There has not been a call for investigating the legality of either the TSP or the data-mining operation"
Let's see now, All three branches of government are firmly under the control of Repugs. Congress continues to walk in lock step with the Executive branch, who in turn dispatches marching orders to the Judicial. Especially that old anchor baby decendent himself, Alberto. I suspect the legislative branch will begin calling for many investigations after this November.
The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 03:01 PM (hj9lA)
51
Old Soldier says "You’ve only served to prove your ignorance concerning our current enemy."
Put away the Kool-Aide Old Vet. I was very clear and honest about why I served over thirty years ago. And, the dinks would have cut off my B**ls and stuffed em down my throat if they got the chance.
Gotta go , but I'll be back.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 04:36 PM (hj9lA)
52
Not to interrupt yall's spitball fight or anything, if I might comment on the original post?
CY, you seem to suggest that the Canadian terrorists were apprehended at least in part because of wide net internet tracking either by the TSP, or by a similar Canadian program; to wit, "I think we have a winner".
Two points: if this were true, and any sort of (let's say controversial) surveillance program had actually produced results, do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?
Point two: This portion of your quote seems to argue against it too "a U.S. court document alleges".
Posted by: OldMole at June 04, 2006 04:57 PM (lHqTK)
53
One other thing, CY. I do not consider John Ashcroft a villan any more than Michael Brown, just another of many examples of the Peter Principle writ large who occupy positions of authority in this administration. He is enough of an advocate that I did not take his interpretation of Justice Jackson's remarks without reference to the original documents, any more than I would blindly accept assertions by the Daily Kos or NewsMax.
Justice Jackson made that often quoted comment in a dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a free-speech case. The defendant was convicted for breach of the peace, and the lower court's ruling was overturned by a 5-4 majority. http://supreme.justia.com/us/337/1/case.html
Father Terminiello was a Roman Catholic priest (albeit under suspension by his bishop in Birmingham, Alabama) addressing a group called "Christian Veterans of America", who began their meeting with prayer, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and the singing of "America". He proceeded to make some harsh remarks about "Zionist Communists", Morgenthau, Eleanor Roosevelt, and other assorted "scum" (would have made a dull day for Rush late in the Clinton administration). Jackson, fresh from a tour as Nuremburg prosecutor, thought he ought to be locked up.
Posted by: OldMole at June 04, 2006 05:42 PM (lHqTK)
54
Oil,
I see more rhetoric on your part, but no proof.
Hog,
Where are all the calls from the Dem side to investigate? Don't hide behind Republican control (but you have to wonder why that is if so many people seem to like that arrangement). The Dems were very vocal when the NYT first leaked the national security secrets. Oh I know - they shut up cuz the Republicans said, "We are the majority - we vot you shut up." Right? I don't think so. Could it be that they realized that their claims just might be ... well...misplaced? Whether or not you like it, there isn't going to be an investigation into those programs. Hence - not illegal. Whether or not you like it, Hayden, the architect of the programs was voted by a large majority - including democrats. 78-15. Now why would that happen if the things Hayden put together were illegal? Get a grip!
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 06:17 PM (ybfXM)
55
Specter, I'll concede that one. The dems in congress have no backbone, and very little of my respect. Few are willing to stick their necks out this close to the election. And, like I mentioned, the repubs continue to walk in lock step with Shrub, although a few are beginning to break ranks. Good point.
hog
Posted by: hogwild at June 04, 2006 06:53 PM (hj9lA)
56
Honestly Hog - I would like to replace the entire Congress, enact good term limits and start over. Not only are they all corrupt to some extent (or at least enough of them to cast a pall over them all), but they are all constantly in campaign mode. It has to make you wonder how anything real actually gets done.
Posted by: Specter at June 04, 2006 07:29 PM (ybfXM)
57
do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?
Ummm, unless they're total retards, they'd deny it even if true so the net can be cast even wider.
Just because there was arrests doesn't mean the whole deal was rolled up in one go. Now you get to sweat the perps and see if anything else interesting pops out.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 04, 2006 07:56 PM (gf5iT)
58
do you think that this Administration would be silently grinning at a few mentions in obscure blogs, or be announcing it at a full-blown Presidential press conference, pointing to this victory in the war on terror?
Ummm, unless they're total retards, they'd deny it even if true so the net can be cast even wider.
However tempted I might be to use that as a straight line, I think that those I disagree with in this administration are bright, well intentioned, and wrong. I also think that they would consider the destruction of a Federal building in Frostbite Falls a far less horrifying prospect than the loss of either house of Congress in this fall's elections, and would release any proof without question, and without hesitation, as serving the greater good.
Posted by: oldmole at June 04, 2006 09:09 PM (lHqTK)
Posted by: matt a at June 05, 2006 06:15 AM (IHMpz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2006
Live From Kabul
Blogger Bill Roggio is in Kabul, Afghanistan, and has a podcast up at Pajamas Media about the recent anti-American riots.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:24 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 200 >>
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.1474 seconds.
36 queries taking 0.0942 seconds, 349 records returned.
Page size 341 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.