January 07, 2006

Can Collector

Ward Brewer has a thing for collecting tin cans. Really big "tin cans," like E-01 Cuitlahuac / DD-574 John Rodgers, a World War II Fletcher-class destroyer he picked up from the Mexican Navy in December.

Now he's found 50 MK-6 Depth Charges from 1942-43.

You kinda get the feeling if you send him to the scrap yard looking for a spare water tank, he'd come back with one of these, don't you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:13 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Geez, I thought I was the only one up at this hour working...and actually, I didn't know there was any other kind of water tank.

Those depth charges are kind of cool, aren't they. I've always been a great fan of "big gun go boom". And yes, both you and Phin get a crack at the first ride on her. She'll do 42 knots.

As Glenn would say, "Heh..."

Posted by: WB at January 07, 2006 12:38 AM (5IPf9)

2 really? 42 knots? I didn't think depth charges went that fast, though I'm not sure offering folks a ride on them is a way to keep your friends... literally.

Or, did you mean the destroyer? ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 07, 2006 01:16 AM (0fZB6)

3 Weeeeellllllll, that would all depend.

You bein' fer us, or agin' us?



There may no longer be a Confederate Airforce (they changed the name to be politically correct), but you can rest assured there's gunna be a Confederate Navy...

Posted by: WB at January 07, 2006 12:56 PM (q708A)

4 next nyt headline: "U.S. Heavy Losses at Battle of the Bulge would have been Less if Nukes Used."

Posted by: marquisdegallifet at January 07, 2006 08:33 PM (lH6Yp)

5 My, my. One could get into a bit of mischief with 50 Depth Charges!

Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 09, 2006 11:40 PM (HlMf9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 06, 2006

Courage to Stand

Via the Washington Post:

The residents of Ramadi had had enough. As they frantically searched the city's hospital for relatives killed and wounded in bomb blasts at a police recruiting station Thursday, they did something they had never publicly done: They blamed al Qaeda in Iraq, the insurgent movement led by Abu Musab Zarqawi.

"Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said Khalid Saadi, 42, who came to the hospital looking for his brother, Muhammed.

Muhammed, it was later determined, was one of 80 police recruits killed by the terrorist attack on a recruiting line of 1,000 Sunni police force applicants in a town that had formerly assisted, sometimes actively, al Qaeda terrorists.

But that is not the entire story of yesterday's suicide bombing in Ramadi.

After the attack, the prospective recruits returned to the blood-stained streets, reformed their lines, and continued the screening process to become police officers.

The media breathlessly covers the moment-to-moment carnage of the day. They cannot understand, nor provide context to, the courage of a growing, increasingly tough anti-insurgency movement in Iraq. It is one thing to talk tough, but another thing entirely to stand for your beliefs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:41 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 05, 2006

Pat Robertson: Left Behind

Ever hear of the very popular apocolyptic fiction series Left Behind?

The general plot revolves around the Rapture, an End Times event where all true Christians will be carried up to Heaven and those who are not true Christians will be left behind.

Pat Robertson make be one of the most famous ministers in America, but comments like these makes me think Pat better get ready to wave as others go by:

US evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for "dividing God's land" of Israel, igniting his latest trademark controversy.

As the Israeli prime minister battled for life, Robertson seemed to suggest to viewers on his "700 Club" television show that Sharon was being punished for his policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his.

"You read the Bible, he says, 'This is my land.' And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he's going carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No. This is mine.'"

Robertson, who frequently provokes outrage with his remarks, said he was "sad" to see Sharon fall sick, and that he was a "very likeable person."

"I prayed with him personally. But here he is at the point of death. He was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or the United States of America."

"God said, 'This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone.'"

These comments betray a man who seems to think he personally knows the will of God.

I think about one guy knew that, and he had a family connection. Anybody else claiming knowledge of divine will seems to strike me as a false prophet, and more than a little bit of a joke.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:33 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Dine and Dash Pacifism

via an email from Phin, this breathtakingly perfect analogy from Cake Eater Chronicles:

in the restaurant of life, pacifists dine and dash. They're thieves. They eat the good food, they drink the good wine, they enjoy the ambience of the restaurant, but when the tab comes to the table, they get up and run because they won't pay the bill.

Make sure you read it all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:54 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Problem of Parenting Pancakes

This is simply too surreal (via Captain Ed):

PALESTINIAN society disintegrated further yesterday as gunmen from the ruling Fatah movement tried to kidnap the parents of an American activist who died trying to halt the demolition of Gaza homes, while other militants destroyed part of Gaza's border wall with Egypt - killing two guards...

...Yesterday's rampages began at about 2am, when six gunmen, angered over al-Hams's arrest, attempted to abduct charity workers Craig and Cindy Corrie, whose daughter Rachel was killed three years ago by an Israeli bulldozer.

Rachel Corrie AKA Saint Pancake, for those of you unexposed to her before, was an idealistic, clueless, and quite possibly accidental American terrorist supporter accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to protect a home covering the opening to a Palestinian weapons-smuggling tunnel.

Rachel Corrie burns a hand-drawn American flag

What. Freaking. Idiots.

As Captain Ed says, the most destructive thing Israel ever did to the Palestinians was set them free to murder and rob themselves into oblivion. That they would attack their own allies (Egyptians and/or the Corries, take your pick), just shows them even more incapable of governing themselves than we ever thought possible.

I wonder if the idealistic Corrie family will wise up before they, too, are killed for a Palestinian state that is nothing less than a self-perpetuating wasteland.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:54 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 04, 2006

Hello, Swanny

This could get very interesting:

Former Steelers star Lynn Swann declared his candidacy for Pennsylvania governor Wednesday in the city where he made his name in professional football.

He told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday afternoon that he made up his mind to run in the fall, after spending months weighing support at events around the state.

Swann, a Hall of Fame receiver and longtime TV football commentator, faces three other candidates in seeking the Republican nomination for governor — his first run for political office. The winner of the May 16 primary would likely face Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, who is expected to seek a second four-year term.

If successful in his first bid for political office, Swann would become Pennsylvania's first black governor.

According to the article, Swann is polling ahead of the other two Republican candidates, and tracks behind only current Democratic Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell.

Swann has released very little about his proposed platform at this date and I'll withhold judgment until I see something, but one has to think that Swann's current charisma and past athletic triumphs as a Steeler are both strong assets, as well as his potential ability to cut into an black* vote that typically goes unchallenged for any Democratic candidate, regardless of actual worth.

Swann himself thinks that Democrats have "taken the African American vote for granted," and he is indeed right, just as Republicans have taken for granted that black will not vote for a white conservative. But what about a black conservative candidate?

If Swann can garner a significant portion of the black vote, it would make the demographic something it has not been in a long time: politically relevant.

Why would I say such a thing? Am I saying black voters aren't relevant or that they've been wasting their votes? Not at all.

Let me borrow from a comment I made on a another post here last month.

The huge supermajority of blacks—over 80% in many areas—seem committed to voting for any Democratic Party candidate no matter who. There is no reason for either party to waste finite resources in trying to court a demographic whose vote is seemingly set in stone.

The big, nasty secret here is that any group 80%-90% in lock-step with one party is politically irrelevant to both parties.

By being so deeply in the pockets of Democrats, Black leaders have rendered their demographic irrelevant politically. Ever wonder why nobody talks about black voters in elections except in passing, while the parties are concerned with currying favor with much, much smaller Cuban, Arab, Hispanic, or Asian minorities? Now you know. Black voters have made themselves irrelevant by giving away all of their political capital to one party. "Why buy the cow" indeed.

Simply ask yourself:

Why should Democrats waste time and political capital to appease a group that will still vote for them no matter what they fail to do in office? Why should Republicans commit resources to those who will reject them, no matter how hard they try? This has been the “common wisdom.”

If Swann can make a strong showning among black voters in Pennsylvania and Michael Steele can make a strong showing in the same demographic in Maryland's racially-charged Senate race, then black Americans will no longer be able to be ignored by Democrats, and Republicans will feel that efforts to reach out to black communities are worthwhile.

Regardless of which party retains the most influence, a less-lopsided demographic tilt that puts black back in play as a valued voting block is good for black communities not only in Pennsylvania and Maryland, but elsewhere in America.

* I say “black” in this post because of a article I read recently somewhere online talking about the huge cultural difference between African Americans and Americanized Africans, noting that these are two very different demographics. As the issue at hand seems to cut across both groups, I think I'll stick with “black” as a general description. I'll try to link in the article later once I find it again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:37 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Under-Mountain Miracle

The twelve missing miners feared dead in West Virginia have been found... alive.

Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, more than 41 hours after the blast, family members and Gov. Joe Manchin said.

Bells at a church where relatives had been gathering rang out as family members ran out screaming in jubilation.

Relatives were yelling, "They're alive!"

Manchin said rescuers told him the miners were found.

"They told us they have 12 alive," Manchin said. "We have some people that are going to need some medical attention."

A few minutes after word came, the throng, several hundred strong, broke into a chorus of the hymn "How Great Thou Art," in a chilly, night air.

Of course he isn't safe. But he's good. *

Update: Early AM reports turned out to be false. 11 of 12 miners found were deceased. Only one miner, Randal McCloy, is clinging to life in critical condition.

The rumor started when people overheard communications between rescue team and the comand center and misunderstood calls that rescuers found 12 miners and were checking their vital signs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Goodnight, Ahmadinejad

Iran is trying to die:

Iran is secretly trying to obtain technology and expertise needed to build a nuclear weapon, according to a leaked intelligence report that threatens to deepen a rift with the West over its nuclear programme...

The report concludes that scientists in Tehran are shopping for parts for a new ballistic missile with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the Guardian said.

And die quickly (h/t Ace):

The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there will be no dialogue with Europe because it is a waste of time. This point was underlined by the Iranian leader during his first appearance in front of the committee of foreign affairs and national security of the mullah-run majlis.

"The president, defined the attempts by the governments of the past 16 years to bring to the table a dialogue with Europe and to try and reduce tensions, as a waste of time which has so far not produced any tangible results for our country."

Playing a dangerous game with very little skill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all but assuring that he will be the final President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sometime between now and mid-March, air and special forces from at least one nation and possibility more will likely launch a series of debilitating strikes from which the current radical Islamic regime in Iran will not be allowed to emerge. Any U.S. involvement will not be content to only blunt Tehran's nuclear ambitions, it will, by necessity, seek to topple them from power.

Some worry that an assault on Iran will result in Iran engaging in cross-border attacks into Iraq. These fears are probably warrantless. Decapitation strikes to destabilize the Iranian government and cripple command and control capability will likely result in Iranian forces either holding their positions, or deploying to try to prop up the current regime against an expected internal uprising.

Even an attack order is not likely to initial much more than a few isolated, grossly-overmatched air-to-ground battles that would result in something akin to the 1991 Gulf War's Highway of Death or 1944 Normandy's Todesgang "Death Road" of the Falaise Gap. While Iran boasts an army of 350,000 men, 200,000 are poorly-trained conscripts, and most of their frontline equipment is of questionable repair or is obsolete.

I would not be surprised at all to find Iran under a transition to democratic government by March 13, 2006, with a correlating decline to follow in insurgent activity in Iraq.

I also suspect MoveOn.Org will start a "No Blood for Persian Carpets" campaign that will not resonate with middle America, and Bush's approval rating as a result of these strikes will pass 60%.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:56 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 03, 2006

What Kos Didn't Learn From History

Kos was in laughably rare form yesterday (h/t Byron York at The Corner):

When our nation was founded, we had men of real character and courage fighting for their nascent America, one in which liberty and freedom trumped the authorative tendencies of the monarchy. Patrick Henry gave words to those efforts:

"Give me liberty or give me death!" ...

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every "boo!" that comes out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth. They like to speak about how tough they are, even though they send others to fight their battles and couldn't last a day in places like Iraq, or Sudan, or the El Salvador of my youth, or any other war-torn nation....

The breathtaking cowardice of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists knows no bounds. They hide behind the American flag and our genuinely brave men and women in uniform. It's bad enough that they wouldn't deign to join the boots in the ground in Iraq. But now they make a mockery of our Constitution, for the very values that motivated our Founding Fathers to put their lives on the line to combat the unchecked powers of the British monarchy.

I have news for you, Kos, my little historically-retarded liberal, and it isn't just that the UTF stands for “Union of Failed Teachers.”

A skilled orator of his day but never a soldier, Patrick Henry was a "chickenhawk" of the first order by Kos' cheap and tawdry definition, a charter member of what would later become the "101st Fighting Keyboardists."

Wonder if Kos will die when he discovers that Patrick Henry was the forerunner of Mark Levin?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:04 PM | Comments (67) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Markos emulates Patrick Henry; he incites others to go fight for his liberties. Let him continue to post himself far to the left in the upper echelons of the DNC; it will be to our advantage come Nov. The louder and more radical Markos and followers remain, the more the centrists will move right.

Besides, CY, were you truly expecting a moonbat to check facts?

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 04, 2006 08:30 AM (X2tAw)

2 There is a difference: Because he was a revolutionary, Patrick Henry actually put his happy ass on the line (or do you think the British Army would not have gladly hanged him for his skilled oratory?

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders, on the other hand, risk only the occasional rogue pretzel.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 08:51 AM (n2Agn)

3 Again, the chickhawk meme is an utterly foolish one, most often preached by those who cannot win a rhetorical battle, and hope to win the debate by being the only voice in the room. How... brave of our liberal friends.

The fact is that the military overall, you will note, continually meets or exceeds its recruitment goals both with new recruits and with re-enlistments. There been no call for a draft (except, as I may note, for a call by Democrats for purely cynical political notions that was then voted down by even the Bill's own sponsor).

If the truth be known, many of the conservative bloggers that are the biggest thorns in the liberal balloon are typically men in their mid to late 30s and above, outside not only of what the military prefers, but many are outside of what the military will even allow because of the simple fact of age. Many of conservative bloggers are too old for military service. Some others cannot serve for physical reasons.

Of course liberals purposefully overlook the fact that many conservative bloggers have served or do serve in the military in a number that far exceeds the service of their liberal critics. In fact, and entire subculture of blogging called milblogging is dominated by active duty and reserve military bloggers who are—not surprisingly—overwhelmingly conservative in their political views.

Some, most notably Bill Roggio and Michael Yon, not only served, but to become embedded reporters to find out the truth on the ground in Iraq first hand. Can any liberal honestly claim to have cared enough about what was going on in Iraq to have even tried the same? I cannot think of any.

Liberal bloggers are quick to ask what conservative bloggers have done and disdainfully ask what risks they have faced. It is a credit to conservatives that we are largely above such a childish argument that the vast majority of Americans outside the liberal echo-chamber finds entirely unconvincing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 04, 2006 09:37 AM (g5Nba)

4 And when, exactly, did you put your happy ass on the line for freedom and democracy, Fat Bastard?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 04, 2006 09:39 AM (AaKND)

5 My dear Spy-- I haven't. I have a daughter in uniform, though.

Which is not the point. After Pearl Harbor, even though there was already a draft, there were lines around the block to enlist.

Those who profess to support the war in Iraq but are unwilling to put their own asses on the line for it are... well, never mind. Rebel boy is no doubt already thinking about banishing me from this blog-- can't have a contrarian voice on the right, it would put a hitch in the goose-stepping.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 10:01 AM (n2Agn)

6 Oh, and by the way-- all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?

There's the entirety of the Young Republicans organisations-- right smack dab in the middle of the age of service. You guys could really lobby them to join in the Great Crusade.

Ah, well, its been fun-- but I expect to be expelled for this horrid heresy. Such a shame.

You want to have some fun, come on over to TheNewsBlog and say the same stuff.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 10:05 AM (n2Agn)

7 Even when his illogic is explained away, Fat Bastard just muddles along to the next muddle-headed argument, advocating the liberal position of the forced conscription of children... for their conservatives relatives political beliefs, no less.

As I've always maintained and as Fat Bastrd's broken philosophies continue to betray, the group that today styles themslves as "liberals" are not advocates of freedom, and brook no dissent that isn't theirs.

Fat Bastard then, rather pathetically and with transparent hopefulness, desires to be banned so he can retreat to his echo chamber and away from arguments he cannot hope to win.

Run away if you must, FB but your presence here amuses me, as you are a very very useful teaching tool. Banning you at this present time would be a mistake.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 04, 2006 11:23 AM (g5Nba)

8 ”Those who profess to support the war in Iraq but are unwilling to put their own asses on the line for it are...”

Fat B, are you aware that the majority of military vote GOP and therefore can safely be assumed to be more conservative than liberal? That supports a postulation that more conservatives (who support the war) join than liberals who do not. In fact I’d love to hear of a recent enlistee who joined because he/she DOES NOT support the war. Do you have an example? Anyone who enlists in the U.S. Army or U.S. Marine Corps today can pretty much rest assured he/she will find himself/herself in either Iraq or Afghanistan; just like when I joined in 1967 I fully expected to go to Vietnam (which I did).

”Oh, and by the way-- all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?”

See my statement above. The occasional liberal’s offspring that rejects their liberal indoctrination and thinks conservatively for himself/herself joins because he/she actually supports defending this nation. There may be an exception or two, but certainly they number in a miniscule minority. Case in point; Casey Sheehan believed in what he was doing whereas his mother obviously does not.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 04, 2006 12:18 PM (X2tAw)

9 What illogic, o Confederate? Did I say anything about "forced conscription?"

I did not.

I simply expect those who support this war of aggression with words (as you clearly do) to support it and the military by joining them.

Regardless, from your posts I gather that the "popularity" of the war is immaterial; the Executive has the power to go to war anytime he wishes for any reason he wishes against any body that he wishes.

Ergo your apparent belief that disagreement with this particular bit of unpleasantness amounts to treason.

Now, as for illogic-- where is the illogic in expecting those who support this war to join up and go fight it?

Your comparison of Patrick Henry to those Iraq war supporters who won't sign up just won't wash. If Patrick Henry had been picked up by the British Army he would not have died in 1799 at the age of 63. He would have been hanged.

What do you and your fellow keyboardists risk? Certainly not the opprobium of your readership-- last I got into a discussion on your blog you banned me right damn quick. And other than that odd rogue pretzel, you're surely not risking life and limb.

How many of you have spent some time at Walter Reed, talking to the men and women coming back from Iraq minus hands, legs, eyes...?

Damn few. Yet such folks have the temerity to slime Jack Murtha, a decorated Marine, a former DI and a mustang who retired a colonel. A decorated combat veteran smeared for calling this war a mistake. (but then, you folks do have a tendency to slime decorated combat veterans, don't you?)

No, Southron-boy, I don't see the illogic. What I see is your simple, obvious hypocrisy.

You all SAY this war in Iraq is necessary, unavoidable, and utterly righteous. Yet so very few of you are willing to sign up for it.

You seem to believe this war is worth someone's blood, but not the blood of anyone you care about.

You can howl for one president's head because he lied about consensual sex, but you can contort yourselves into the most absurd positions to defend a president who breaks the law, says he breaks the law, and says he will continue to break the law.

This Imperial Presidency appeals to your innate need to control.

All of which leads me to wonder where the libertarians on the right went-- they're surely not controlling the Elephant Herd Party nowadays.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 01:09 PM (n2Agn)

10 Old Soldier-- do you have any idea how many enlistees are black and latino? Do you really believe those soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are also supporters of Mr. Bush? (bear in mind that black support for the president hovers around 2 percent).

There are a lot of people in uniform that are neither Republicans nor are supporters of Republicans-- they're Americans. And as Americans, they have the right to disagree with the political leadership (though not to disobey the orders of that lawfully constituted political leadership, which is another matter entirely).

Are Republicans and conservatives the only 'good Americans?'

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 01:59 PM (n2Agn)

11 Fat Bastard said:


Did I say anything about "forced conscription?"

I did not.


Of course you didn't. You merely said:


...all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?


Yes that was you, Fat (sad) Bastard. Trapped in your broken loop of illogic you then opine again:


I simply expect those who support this war of aggression with words (as you clearly do) to support it and the military by joining them.


Again, we've covered this ground. Republicans and conservatives are overwhelming represented in the military, in conservative blogging, military blogging in general, and the new field of embed reporting.

Perhaps what we should be asking you, Fat Bastard, is why Democrats and especially self-described liberals such as yourself are chronically underrepresented in the military, even well before the 2000 elections that put Bush in office.

As for Patrick Henry, he unadoubtably faced for more risks than I and some other who cannot join, but not nearly as many as Michael Yon or Bill Roggio or Neil Prakash or Austin Bay or Lt. Smash or Baldilocks or Mustang 23 or MDG or Major Chaz or many of the hundreds and thousands of other milbloggers and bloggers who have been on the frontlines as soldiers. These men (and women) have all faced bullets and IEDs or the possibility of them, and at least one in the group above was awarded a Silver Star for his actions. Do not dare judge them as being less worthy than Patrick Henry. They've risked as much or more.

Patrick Henry was a great speaker, but he was no citizen-soldier. They indeed risked life and limb as have thousands like them. My comparison stands now, greater than ever.

The rest of your oratory, as always, is empty.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 04, 2006 02:01 PM (g5Nba)

12 Which is not the point. After Pearl Harbor, even though there was already a draft, there were lines around the block to enlist.

Posted by Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 10:01 AM

Well, it seems to me your not letting truth get in the way of any of your statements FB but just so you know, I was a Recruit Division Commander just after 9/11 and we had to add extra racks to our barracks to get the people in.

War is never worth anyone's blood, but Freedom is. Just ask the people in Iraq. My brother-in-law and my nephew asked them directly while they were over there and they all (everyone they talked to) said it was and is worth it. They want us there and are glad we did what we did. We are Free in our society, why shouldn't they be?

We are free only because someone helped us out in the beginning (France if you can believe that one) and we have been repaying that debt ever since. It's not only noble but right that others have the rights and Privileges that we enjoy (most Americans don't even think about).

I was also in the gulf during Clintons presidency, that was also the time that Saddam was allowed to take pot shots at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. The only real repurcussions were some blown-up radar dishes. They just got more from France or Germany and were back in business. (that in itself was an act of war by the way, each time.)

Posted by: Retired Navy at January 04, 2006 02:11 PM (WGcw3)

13 The “logic” of the chickenhawk meme is very simple: if you support the war, you must join the military to fight it, or else you are a hypocrite. The object, of course is to stifle dissent that liberals don’t approve of, not any sort of honesty, not matter what they say.

According to their “logic:”

To support the death penalty, you must kill someone.

To support gay marriage, you must marry someone of the same sex.

It is an argument of fools, requiring you to commit your entire life totally to each and every opinion you hold, without relying on experts in the field to do it for you.

If you want to live in a house, you should work as a builder.

If you want people to take out your trash, you should work at the dump.

If you want police or fire protection, you must become a police office or firefighter.

Another gaping logical chasm that Fat Bastard and other liberals can’t wrap their tiny brain around is the entirety of what they propose. They say they want everyone who supports the war to join up, or to not have an opinion heard. Let’s play along for a moment

If all the supporters of George Bush who supported the war and all Democrats who supported the war (and God forbid, don’t remind them that many did, or their little heads will explode) joined the military, then it would be a military, by a very conservative estimate, 60 million strong.

By way of comparison, the United States Army at its height of greatest mobilization was just 8 million in May, 1945. We would have to mobilize two American soldiers for every single Iraqi man, woman and child according to their brilliance.

It would be physically, economically, and logistically impossible for a country the size of the United states to equip and maintain an army of the requested 60 million member size demanded in the fevered liberal mind under their own criteria. We would have destroy all of the liberals favorite social programs to grant their wishes, from Social Security, to Medicare, the Medicaid, to Midnight Basketball. We of course, would also be forced to draft all non-members of the military into civilian defense-related jobs to support such a massive military.

The meme is simply, and completely asinine, and no one who subscribes to it should be taken seriously.

Please feel no need to be gentle with them. Sometimes stupidity simply needs to be exposed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 04, 2006 03:10 PM (g5Nba)

14 Evasions, pure and simple. I never said anything about conscription; but I did ask about volunteering. I never said anything about forcing someone to join, but I ask why haven't they? Or, for the greybeards, are they encouraging their sons and daughters to volunteer? (and once again, my own daughter is in uniform right now; my son-in-law was a SEAL in Desert Storm)

You have many many excuses (we're too old, we couldn't afford an army with that many enlistees, blah blah blah)-- but that's all they are. Excuses.

The chickenhawk meme, as you so eloquently name it, is neither simple nor stupid. It's a recognition that you and others like you want other people's kids to fight in this war.

Those of you who so loudly proclaim the righteousness of this war-- WHY AREN'T YOU ENCOURAGING YOUR LOVED ONES TO ENLIST?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 03:34 PM (n2Agn)

15 Ah, your wicked wit has pierced me to the quick. I must change... I must...

CLAP HARDER!

Meanwhile, our boys and girls are getting shot at... with the apparent complicity of our so-called Iraqi allies.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 03:39 PM (n2Agn)

16 FB what the heck are you rambling about? Who are you to know what or why someone joins the military? Let alone BLACK AMERICANS... But now that you brought that up about 2% voted republican. Every Black conservative that speaks is admonished by the self proclaimed leaders of the black community WHY? Well here you go. DEM's cater to the minority vote (Pay Them) give them what they want "free money" so why work? Why get an education? Just perpetuate the cycle of dependency. That gives you all that free time to stand on the street corner and drink booze from a paper bag. Using scare tactics and pulling the race card. Wailing about how conservatives don't care about blacks. I grew up poor, as poor as any black american and in a large family. I joined the military to get an education and I haven't looked back. I was blind but now I see. I care about all people. But when do you draw the line between individuals that really need help and the ones that are a drain on our society. The great society was devised as a way to give people a "A HAND UP" not "A Hand Out". We are looking at two or three generations of entire families that are on welfare. I as well as a lot of people including Black Americans are tired of this. We all are paying for it year after year. I would rather spend my tax money on the military. You know why.... Because I would say that about 60 to 80 percent of minorities see the military as a way out and a way up. Learning a skill and getting educated and voting Republican.. (just kills you doesn't it). I personally know friends that are black and democrat thought that during the last election that Bush supported bringing back the draft. A black DEM. tried that Charlie Rangle Dem. N.Y. Because he felt there was a disproportional number of minorities in the military. Well DUH... they are there because they want to be..... I grew up in a predominatley all democrat houshold. Preached to all my life how the "Dem's were for the working man". F.B. thats B.S. I'm curious how the folk's in NYC feel about the tran. union strike? Another Dem. backing org. that could have used the money that they were fined to offset the retirement plan. What do you know about Heros? Most real heros don't talk about their medals or what they did to legitimately receive them. Not like your buddy Kerry. Murtha is a disgrace to even call himself a Marine and he is not helping. Most of the active duty Marines I have talked to would spit on him. Murtha is his own worst enemy. His latest escapade was calling for people not to join. Now who is going to defend your freedom? YOU.... I hope you sleep well under that Blanket of Freedom tonight that my friends and family are providing you and every other American. Thank You C.Y. for letting me vent a little.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 04, 2006 03:40 PM (Mv/2X)

17 And there we go. Find a real, decorated veteran (and in Jack Murtha's case, one who has consistently supported the military even when it went against the rest of his party's wishes; as well as one who visits Walter Reed regularly) and slime him.

Oh, and those Negroes, they're just lazy and want to take money out of your pocket.

Ri-iight. Thanks again.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 04:21 PM (n2Agn)

18 Still trapped in his meme, Fat Bastard can’t grasp what he has already been told time and time again. It is sad, really. He defends an indefensible position, as is his right, and he’ll keep chanting it no matter how many people point out the gaping holes in his logic.


Republicans, usually Conservatives are the core of the military. They have been, and will continue to be in the future.

Republicans, usually Conservatives do encourage their family members to serve their country, at a far greater rate than you will find from liberals, who are busy trying to ban recruiting for the military on both college and high school campuses.

Conservative political bloggers are far more likely to be in the military than any other kind of blogger, and milbloggers, including those I keep citing, are overwhelmingly conservatives.

The Army is not large enough to support all conservatives who support the war. To do so, it wold have to be more than seven times larger than the U.S. Army at the end of World War II.

The “you are a hypocrite if you support it but can’t do it yourself” chickenhawk meme is an asinine argument that falls apart completely when any logical reasoning at all is applied against it.

Conservatives support the troops even when they aren’t family members, proving that the war is not just a personal interest issue, but an ideological one as well.


If he can’t get these basic facts correct, I guess any meaningful conversation is beyond him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 04, 2006 04:39 PM (g5Nba)

19 Another dramatic case of projection, projecting your paranoia on somebody else. Markos is a total moron and probably a coward as well. I doubt there are any of his crowd in the military. Most probably they wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold and would shit or faint if someone pointed a gun at them. They are all parasites living on the freedoms secured by someone else.

Posted by: docdave at January 04, 2006 07:29 PM (X4XCR)

20 Faithful Patriot:

You probably won't understand this, but the reason most such "black conservatives" are held in such low esteem by most black Americans is that they haven't the balls to stand up to their white masters. Take for instance Mr. Bennett's assertion that to be born black was to be born criminal. Yet where were the "black conservatives" like Michael Steele?

But then, you probably didn't take that as evidence of bigotry.

And this is the problem that you and yours face: you are not qualified to define what racial bigotry is. You would like to tell most black Americans that what they have is what they deserve and that they should be happy about it. You believe that black people want nothing more than to take the hard-earned money from your pocket and blow it on drugs and cheap wine.

And since you essentially agree with Mr. Bennetts proposition, well, it's not bigotry, is it? Its just "facts."

Show me a "black conservative" who decries the open racism of Michelle Malkin (who believes that the Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea); or Michael Savage (who believes that last year's tsunami wasn't a tragedy and that Americans ..."shouldn't be spending a nickel on this); or the Council of Conservative Citizens (the 21st century version of the "White Citizen's Councils" of the 1950's.)

Why do you think black people would respect someone who would make common cause with David Duke?


CY:

You're so right.

Republicans represent all that is good, noble and pure about the American Experiment; only conservatives love this country.

Regardless of situation, consideration, or merely the facts on the ground, you are always on the side of good.

Congratulations on your purity of purpose, your nobility of cause.

By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 04, 2006 07:44 PM (pEWm6)

21 Fat and Ignorant Bastard:

Bennett never asserted that to be born Black was to be born criminal. He used statements made by others to illustrate a common misconception. It IS true, however, that the majority of crimes committed in urban areas are committed by black males. Why? Because they comprise the majority of people in urban areas. Is that a condemnation of the black race? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, you are such an intellectually impotent person that you would capitalize on anything in a lame effort to prove a point. Unfortunately, you are unable to prove anything.

... but the reason most such "black conservatives" are held in such low esteem by most black Americans is that they haven't the balls to stand up to their white masters.

That is idiocy in its most rabid form. I guess you think that Condi and Colin and others are just too weak to stand up to the Massa? They have more skills and capabilities and reverence to America than you could ever have. Why? Because you represent all that is weak in America today. You have nothing positive to contribute to anything in this or any other dialog. You just make accusations which have nothing to substantiate them other than hate and loathing. Why? Because you are projecting your own lack of self esteem, purpose and vision. It's just bruised ego and damaged narcisism.

By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

It is working about as well for the Republicans as it is for the Democrats. Heads will roll on both sides of the aisle - or can't you read and comprehend the news that has been available for the past 24 hours?

Show me a "black conservative" who decries the open racism of Michelle Malkin (who believes that the Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea); or Michael Savage (who believes that last year's tsunami wasn't a tragedy and that Americans ..."shouldn't be spending a nickel on this); or the Council of Conservative Citizens (the 21st century version of the "White Citizen's Councils" of the 1950's.)

You've been reading too much fiction from the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan camps, haven't you? Provide some proven quotes to show that any of this tripe has validity - including unimpeachable source information.

You are really pathetic, and I, for one have lost my patience for dealing with someone so devoid of fact, intellect and a capability to engage in honest and meaningful dialog. You are no more that a big, empty bag of hot air. Stick a pin in you and you would probably deflate like a balloon - or like a blowup doll. In either case, emptiness is emptiness. No substance and no depth. Just empty words and flabby accusations.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 04, 2006 09:51 PM (AaKND)

22 Source information for Michelle Malkin? Other than her bleedin' book? Source information for Michael Savage other than recordings of his bleedin' show? You have GOT to be kidding me. Willful blindness?

I never mentioned Michael Moore nor Cindy Sheehan; I was talking about so-called "black conservatives," and why they are despised by the vast majority of black Americans.

Ahem. What Bennett said was that if you wanted to lower the crime rate you could abort all black babies.

Chapter and verse.

And since you clearly agree with that, then you too, my dear sir, are a fucking racist.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 07:12 AM (pEWm6)

23 Spy your good!!!!!!
F.B. when did I impune the Black race? I don't blame African Americans, I blame flaming liberals like yourself that could not or will not take responsibility for the failures of the Democratic philosophy of appeasment. When are you going to let go of your hatred? And as R. S. stated when are you going to have substance and depth? You continue to bloviate,spin or misconstrue someone statements. I was trying to make a point that all people should take responsibility for thier personel actions and not blame others. Many prominent African Americans have stated the same thing and have been ostracized by the black community. Why? Because its the truth and people just don't want to hear it. Then you have raving idiots like Howard Dean blaming whitey. Thats really helpful.... All because Dem's are afraid of losing the minority vote. Oh, by the way I understand perfectly what you are spewing from your excrementitious pie hole... Typical bullshit Lame ass excuses..

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 05, 2006 07:23 AM (JYeBJ)

24 Fat Bastard:

Does the phrase "dumb as a box of stones" sound familiar? That is the perfect description of you and your half-baked accusations.

You need not mention Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan at all. You think and write and spew hate exactly like they do. Then, when you are cornered and shown how utterly ignorant you are, you stoop to using the 'F' word. Aren't you a classic example of the lame-brain liberals who have to use profanity in an attempt to overpower the opposition - by shouting the loudest? No wonder you were never called upon to lead in debating groups.

Cowards have to hide behind a keyboard because they could never survive in a real one-on-one debate with anyone.

Racist? I marched with Martin Luther King in the early 1960's. Where was your bloated self? You say that you are fat, but the biggest bloat is in what you say and write. Gee ... Whata MAN!

I knew that you could not provide source information on anything. Weak-kneed liberals never can. Admit it. You have not even read Michele Malkin's book, have you? If you had you would be able to provide source information and specifics.

You failed to provide the complete quote on what Bennett said on his radio show, didn't you? The exact quote was as follows, bonehead:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

And how can we analyze the truth of what Bennett said? Patriot hit the nail on the head. Liberals have managed to appease the black citizens of this country by throwing them scraps from the table and unearned money taken from the pockets of all other American citizens. They don't want to really get involved in helping their brothers and sisters. They just want their votes.

Unfortunately, black people continue to live a life of dependency - fostered by the idiotic legislation created by the liberals. It is not their fault that they have been led into a life of dependency and unsatisfied expectations. Many see no light at the end of the tunnel and choose lives of crime as a means to an end. MLK is probably turning over in his grave.

Keep it up Fat Bastard. You continue to lose everytime you write a single word or sentence. I guess you are just stubborn - and clueless..

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 05, 2006 09:48 AM (AaKND)

25 Patriot:

A "philosophy of appeasement" requires someone to appease, Patriot. Who are the Democrats appeasing, in your mind, other than those lazy Negroes who want something for nothing?

Spy:

You marched with MLK? Really? That's nice. I don't believe you, but its nice of you to assert it. It was no doubt during your "liberal" youthful days.

As for reading Ms. Malkin's book, you're absolutely right, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read enough of it to believe she's a fucking lunatic... but then, I believe anyone who comes out in favor of concentration camps is a lunatic. As I believe anyone who comes out in favor of torture is a lunatic. Starting to sound familiar?

And thank you once again for bringing up the "appeasement" meme. Those lazy Negroes need to be appeased; give them money and power or they'll riot! Negroes can't read, don't understand history, and are incapable of evaluating policies as they're advanced by the political parties. Nope, they just go with the Democrats because the Democrats give them money. Stupid Negroes!

But of course, since you believe in what Mr. Bennett says, and agree with that statement wholeheartedly, then you can't see it as an expression of white supremacy... after all, you're not a racist, now are you?

Not by your own definitions, at least. A racist is not someone who holds negative beliefs about other people based on their physical appearances; that's rational thinking. One has to wear a white sheet and a pointy hat to be a real racist, doesn't one?

Thanks again for demonstrating my point.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 10:57 AM (n2Agn)

26 Fat Bastard:

Here is something additional on the Bennett quote. It is from someone who really does not like Bill Bennett or Bush or the Republicans. Despite that, he still has the ability to reason - something you have yet to understand and embrace. Referring to the exact quote I cited,

"Even this passage doesn’t quite give the full context of Bennett's remarks, but it gives enough of the context to show the form and content of his argument. It also makes amply clear that he was not advocating the abortion of black babies; that's what he was rejecting. (It is rather odd to hear Bennett criticized for wanting to abort black babies: Bennett is opposed to abortion as such. And it's downright bizarre to hear criticisms of aborting black babies coming from people who think that fetuses lack rights, are dispensable, can be aborted on demand, and should be made more easily available to black mothers. But such are the ways of brazen hypocrisy).

Bennett is offering an argument by reductio ad absurdum [emphasis mine], which takes the form of hypothetically asserting a proposition p, showing that p leads to some obvious falsehood, and then rejecting p on that basis. It's an argument form that one learns within the first few weeks of an introductory logic class.


And where exactly, Fat Bastard, did you get your PhD in logic?

Rhetorical question ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 05, 2006 10:57 AM (AaKND)

27 Aaauuggghhh.

No, you idiot, the issue is not that he advocated the abortion of black babies! That's the standard sidestep of the true issue at hand-- the casual, thoughtless direct association of blackness with criminality.

And you call me thick.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 11:15 AM (n2Agn)

28 You are really pathetic, Fat Bastard. As with so many liberal democrats - or whatever you call yourself - you drop poop all over the place, but you are too blind to avoid stepping in your own droppings.

No one ever referred to our black brothers and sisters as "lazy Negroes" - except you.

You did not provide a direct quote that indicated that Michelle Malkin supported concentration camps. Your credibility remains at ZERO.

Then you say, "Negroes can't read, don't understand history, and are incapable of evaluating policies as they're advanced by the political parties. Nope, they just go with the Democrats because the Democrats give them money. Stupid Negroes!" You are the only one spewing that nonsense. Looks like you are reflecting that psychological aberration known as personal projection.

Then you say something that supports everyone's view that you are dormant of rational thought when you note, "A racist is not someone who holds negative beliefs about other people based on their physical appearances; that's rational thinking. One has to wear a white sheet and a pointy hat to be a real racist, doesn't one?"

You must be a very, very lonely man, Fat Bastard. You are even delusional. You are putting words in the mouths of others that only you have uttered.

Here is a clinical psychologist's take on your condition:

Racist/feminist hypocrisy - Passionate advocating of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, while aggressively proclaiming opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist."

Overemotional perception - Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual effects in the real world, in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them.

Yeah ... we know. Everyone else is insane. I think you call others "lunatics." Hmmmmm. More personal projection of your own maladies.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 05, 2006 11:27 AM (AaKND)

29 The depth of your insight - and logic and reasoning - is paper thin. You don't even understand the basics of the logic of assocition, do you? I'm a thick idiot? At least I have some education. It appears you have none.

You are pretty comical, though - as CY has pointed out.

Nevertheless, you are really very, very boring.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 05, 2006 11:34 AM (AaKND)

30 I see. Democrats succeed among black people by appeasing them.

Can you explain that concept in a way that does not imply that blacks need to be coddled? Or that blacks want something for nothing?

I assure you, I'm not lonely. Nor am I alone. And your passionate denunciations do nothing to remove what you did say:
Unfortunately, black people continue to live a life of dependency - fostered by the idiotic legislation created by the liberals.

Doesn't this mean that liberals are giving black people something for nothing? And that this is how they are "appeased?"

Your rhetoric reinforces the idea that blacks "want something for nothing," Spy, whether you're willing to actually "man up" and say it flat out.

As for Michelle Malkin-- fine, have it your way. I dare say I've read more of the book than you have; and the very title of the book: In Defense of Internment is prima facie evidence that Ms. Malkin is in favor of concentration camps (or, if that offends your delicate sensibilities, "internment camps").

Congratulations, though, Spy-- its always nice to be able to chat with an avowed white supramacist.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 11:55 AM (n2Agn)

31 Kids, I've about had it with the personal attacks, the smears, and the foul language.

Clean it up, or take it elsewhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 05, 2006 12:08 PM (g5Nba)

32 Bill Bennett, by the way, was responding to a caller who was making a reference to the book Freakonomics, which apparently made the assertion about abortion and the crime rate.

A much fuller transcript of what actually occurred:


From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they’re all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, too. I think as — abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don’t know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well –

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.


Fat Bastard misrepresents what Bill Bennett said, means, and has proven throughout his lifetime.

Color me unsurprised.

And while I still have not read Malkin's book, I would note a huge difference between internment camps, which were holding facilities designed for national defense, and concentration camps, which were designed for the eficient murder and disposal of large numbers of people.

Not a very subtle difference at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 05, 2006 12:22 PM (g5Nba)

33 Forgot the "/" closing the blockquote after ..."tricky". Sorry about that.

The comment after that is mine, not Bennett's.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 05, 2006 12:25 PM (g5Nba)

34 Well... that went well..., didn't it?

I'm curious, FB, what righteous position do you claim by your daughter being in the military? You're very obviously as liberal as the day is long... I would have thought you would forbid your daughter to join the military. I'm just not correlating your reference to a position.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 05, 2006 12:34 PM (X2tAw)

35 Your mistake, Old Soldier, is in believing that a "liberal" cannot love his country, or support his countries soldiers.

But that's okay, you're not the first to make that particular error.

CY:

You can bring up everything else that Mr. Bennett said, and you can try your darnedest to sidestep the point, but it remains nonetheless. Mr. Bennett's bigotry is revealed in his casual association of criminality with blackness.

UNDERSTAND ME: It's quite clear that Mr. Bennett does not condone mass abortions; and that he would consider it a horrendous act. And that's right, insofar as it goes.

BUT-- once again, it is his CASUAL, THOUGHTLESS ASSOCIATION OF BLACKNESS WITH CRIMINALITY THAT IS OFFENSIVE AND RACIST.

There's no way to explain that simple fact away.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 12:40 PM (n2Agn)

36 “/”Your mistake, Old Soldier, is in believing that a "liberal" cannot love his country, or support his countries soldiers.”/”

Did I ask if you love this country? I do not doubt that you love this country. I asked for the position you claim based upon your daughter’s service in the military. Can we try to stay on the question, please? I’m just curious, because I don’t claim any position based on my brother’s Purple Heart, or my other brother’s service, or my uncles’ service, etc. My position is based solely upon my experience.

Please don’t make the claim, “I support the troops, but not the war.” That boat does not float on the sea of logic.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 05, 2006 01:25 PM (X2tAw)

37 F.B. why do you hate the truth sooooo much. I have many friends of different colors and religions and in fact my wife is asian. I never referred to anyone as stupid or lazy. Its just human nature to want something for free. Think about it for just a second... Its always easier to get something for nothing. I also never stated that people enjoy being on welfare. The only way to break the cycle of dependency is to stop the wholesale and unrestricted use of a welfare system that is given to perfectly healthy, normal people. Why is the Democratic Party preferred over the Republican Party among the African American community? Appeasement plain and simple dems stay in power by accusing the right of neglecting the needs of the African American community. How you ask.. Social Program's "FREE FREE FREE"... If you refuse to see the logic in that you are beyond help. I am not accusing anyone of being lazy or stupid, just mislead and lied to. It's only human nature to want something for free. So if you stop giving it away and make people earn it that instills a feeling of pride and self esteem. You cannot make a person go to school if they choose not to and the lame excuses that are being used by the liberals that minorities do not receive nor do they have the same opportunities as whites is just ludicrous. I have no qualms with anyone who needs help, that is what the system was designed for. I stated before I grew up poor...dirt poor. Just as poor as any "underprivileged" minority. I speak from personal experience. If you want a way to better yourself there are plenty of ways to do it.
Furthermore do not refer to me as a racist. I am stating fact. This is not a perfect NIRVANA world. But excuses do not hold any weight with me. If a person wants a better life, and wants it bad enough, they will achieve it. Life is not a walk in the park. But perpetuating the cycle of dependency is not going to solve it. Determination and hard work, works everytime... not setting on your butt and whining and blaming others. You seem very intelligent and well educated, why did your daughter join the service? Which personally I think is outstanding, I really do mean that.. I think that is one of the most admirable thing she could have ever done. I wish your daughter well in her endeavors and I hope she is safe..

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 05, 2006 02:13 PM (cqZXM)

38 Old Soldier:

I must respectfully disagree with you on whether one can support the troops without agreeing with a particular war policy as promulgated by National Command Authority. How many on the right, after all, decried the use of American military power in Kosovo? Disagreement with that particular "war" was very deep among Republicans; yet I certainly hope that they did not hold the men and women in uniform responsible for the decisions of their political leaders.

Good soldiers follow orders and do their jobs, and most of all look out for the guys on either side of them. They cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the civilian relationship. As I once read it, "it always comes down to the poor brave bastards of the Infantry," and those guys (and gals, nowadays) have my support and my prayers regardless of where their orders take them.

I reserve the right to believe the political leadership had its head up its collective arse in ordering the invasion of Iraq; but I pray for the American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines tasked with carrying out those orders.

Faithful Patriot:

I started my political career as a Libertarian; I voted for Ron Paul back in '88 and for Harry Browne in '96. I've always believed that society is best served by laws and policies that provide the greatest degree of liberty for it's individuals.

Unfortunately, a libertarian society requires people to actually act in their own self interest; but I've found that humans can be too damn cussedly mean-spirited that they make decisions that are NOT in their self interest. After all, did it make sense for lunch-counter owners to turn away paying customers because of their color?

Yet that's precisely what they did.

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions of race and racism, black people tend to think of the effects, and white people tend to think of intent.

I'm more than willing to believe that you have no intention of holding racist or bigoted views; but you do nonetheless.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "white privilege?"

You enjoy the fruits of white privilege, whether you "choose to" or not, whether you know it or not. The mere fact that for you, race is not a regular consideration is indicative of your privilege.

That you feel comfortable in believing that most black people are on welfare (they're not), or that black people prefer "handouts to a hand-up" are, again, prima facie evidence of a racist outlook.

As in Bill Bennett's statement, the problem is a casual association of blackness with "welfare queen" or "thug" without noticing that the vast majority of non-white people are neither.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Patriot, but the shoe fits.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 03:58 PM (n2Agn)

39 Patriot:

By the way, my daughter joined the Navy after wasting a whole lot of my money going to college (and going to way too many parties... ) And, her stint in the service has done her a world of good; I cannot possibly express how proud I am of her.

I also mentioned my son-in-law is a former SEAL-- the toughest little runt I ever saw in my life. Looks like a skinny little shit until he takes his shirt off-- he's all steel cords and razorwire. I never worry about my grandson's safety, he has a most bodacious bodyguard.

BUT-- it's one of the reasons that I so abhor this war. I see not some abstraction like "the troops," I see individual soldiers and Marines, getting shot from every direction. I see those same soldiers and Marines killing innocent civilians (and not by choice; but war is a frightful, nasty business and if our boys and girls take fire from ANYWHERE, they're gonna return fire "tout suite", whether its a storefront, a mosque, or a school) and living with the consequences. I see thousands of young men missing legs, arms, eyes, and for what? "Freedom?" How can you "free" a people when they're shooting at you and calling you an invader?

I'm not categorically against the use of military force, far from it. But I am against spending our soldiers blood and our treasure in wars that are not directly in our national interest.

And in my opinion, that describes Iraq.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 04:22 PM (n2Agn)

40 I may still believe you are all wet in your broad assessments of the geopolitical and social/racial/ethnic landscape, FB, but I appreciate the fact that you can be civil if you choose to.

Thank you.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 05, 2006 05:40 PM (AaKND)

41 FB, I, too, desire to express my appreciation for the civility of your latest response. I also wish to extend my well wishes for your daughter and express my appreciation for her service.

Here is an Old Soldier take on the statement, “I support the troops, but not the war.” Genuine support for the troops must include support for their mission – in this case their mission is a victorious conclusion of a conflict/war. “I support the troops, but not the war” attempts to erroneously separate the two elements. They are not separable. E.g., “Go Braves, I hope you lose because I don’t like baseball.” Make sense? Another analogy gets a little more basic. “Troops” are an element used in the prosecution of a mission, just like tanks, or artillery, or helicopters, a rifle, etc. Does it make sense to say, “I support tanks, but not the war?” Obviously troops are human beings and we place a much higher moral and ethical value on people than we do equipment. However, the reality stands.

As for Kosovo; if you will recall the Republicans opposed sending troops to Kosovo before the deployment. For one thing, there was the perception that the deployment was intended to take the heat off Clinton during his difficulties. A stronger coalition was desired since this was strictly a peace-keeping mission and our national security was not threatened. Once the troops were deployed, by executive order, the Republicans ceased their noise (for the most part). Contrast that with the Democrats supporting the deployment of the troops and the invasion of Iraq. Their noise against the war has occurred eighteen months after the start of the war. There were a couple Dems that opposed the war from the very beginning; they have credibility in opposing the war now. But those who supported the initiation of the war and have since turned against it for a political advantage, I find contemptible.

We obviously disagree about the significance of Iraq in providing for our national defense. Like many others, I believe deposing Saddam was definitely in our national interest. To stand up an Islamic democratic republic in Iraq is to our advantage, too. We must deny the radical Islamic terrorists training grounds, finances, logistics, safe haven, etc. I believe our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will help toward that means. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Freedom and liberty are not free. Blood is required to obtain and secure freedom. Our military has always been willing to fight for freedom whether ours or on behave of other oppressed peoples. I have no doubt that some of the severely wounded are bitter about their loss, but I also understand that the vast majority believe in the mission and do not feel their loss is in vain (at least not yet). (That last comment is in regard to a political party’s attempt to cause us to withdraw before we have secured the victory.)

Again, thanks for the civility and may God grant your daughter and all service people safety.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 05, 2006 06:37 PM (9ABza)

42 To all- Likewise for the civility.

Now, Old Soldier, I could hope for "victory" in Iraq; but my read of the strategic and tactical situation currently in Iraq is that we can't win. We're fighting an insurgency that gets better by the day; one that I believe is led by the senior noncoms and junior officers of Saddam's army (you know, those guys with guns that Paul Bremer fired).

Worse, even if we succeed in bringing "democracy" to Iraq, are we prepared to have a democratically elected theocratic government? I've noticed elsewhere here at the CY a lot of anger and fear of the Iranian president. Need I remind you that he was democratically elected? (as were Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, but that is a tangent).

And if we're not prepared to accept a democratically elected Islamic government in Iraq, how can our guys win?

I'd like them to complete the mission, Old Soldier, but I believe that mission is poorly defined and ultimately probably impossible to accomplish.

The fundamental difference between Bush 41 and Bush 43: 41 understood that if you give our boys and girls a CLEAR, WELL DEFINED MISSION (e.g. "Kick Saddam's army the hell out of Kuwait, then come home and have a good cold beer" and THEY WILL GET IT DONE.

"Bring Freedom to Iraq" is NOT a clear mission statement.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 05, 2006 07:14 PM (pEWm6)

43 FB,
I have a response, but must run for the night. Please check back tomorrow.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 05, 2006 08:01 PM (9ABza)

44 FB, if your read of the strategic and tactical situation in Iraq comes from the MSM, you’ve come to the agenda driven conclusion they want you to reach. Try reading some of the mil bloggers that CY listed in a previous comment. They shed a very different light upon what is actually occurring in Iraq. If the troops on the ground thought Iraq was unwinnable, do you think they would reenlist in record numbers while still in the combat zone? If the troops perceived Iraq to be unwinnable, the draft would have to be reinstituted to man the forces. Whether or not the people of Iraq are committed to a republic will only be tested after we stop providing security.

Funny, according to our military leaders, Al-Qaeda becomes weaker with every operation we conduct. Yes, there are still some Saddam loyalists hanging on to the old regime, but they are being turned in daily by their Iraqi neighbors. Their numbers are actually dwindling. (Again, check out the mil bloggers.)

You cannot truly believe that Ahmadinejad and Chavez were democratically elected; running against opponents that espoused a significantly different platform? Even Saddam Hussein was “elected” dictator, er, I mean, president of Iraq. When your life depends upon the name you mark on a ballot sheet, democracy is not evident.

“Bring freedom to Iraq” is every bit as clear a mission statement as “free France, England, Austria, the Philippines, etc., and topple Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.” We also undertook “nation building” after the defeat of Germany and Japan. Food rationing in Germany finally ended 7 years after the surrender. Iraq has more infrastructure today than they have ever had. I’d say we are way ahead of our post WW II accomplishments.

I certainly have no crystal ball and have no way of knowing that Iraq and Afghanistan will remain free democratic Islamic republics. I certainly hope they will; that the freed people will reject the radical Islamic theology. But what I do know is that we, the USA, cannot live from radical Islamic terrorist attacks unless we engage them now and destroy their ability to mount offensive operations against us. I will not accept a status quo that includes a “reasonable number” of attacks and deaths delivered at the hands of these radical Islamic terrorists.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 06, 2006 07:50 AM (X2tAw)

45 I don't get my views from the MSM; all I hear there is happytalk.

As far as how the guys on the ground there feel... absolutely right that they should feel that way. It would be damn hard to put your ass on the line every day if you couldn't believe in what you're doing... although I'm not so sanguine that most of the troops do believe in "the mission."

Also, the Iranian president (I'm not going to chance mangling the spelling) and Chavez were democratically elected. The fact that y'all don't like them doesn't change the fact that they won elections.

Nonetheless, I think my central question remains: is the US prepared to accept an Islamic Republic of Iraq?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 06, 2006 08:42 AM (pEWm6)

46 FB, we must be watching/reading different MSM, because all I see is doom and gloom in regards to Iraq. None of the upbeat events or improvements in infrastructure is ever reported.

Why would we not accept Iraq as an Islamic republic? Did we not start as a Christian republic? We are not at war with Islam; we are at war with a radical faction of Islam. If there was a radical faction identifying themselves with Christianity that were engaging in terrorist activities directed against us, were would be at war with them just as easily. The key is to get Iraq to that democratic republic stage. So far we are succeeding; so let’s not give up just yet.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 06, 2006 10:15 AM (X2tAw)

47 I don't get my views from the MSM; all I hear there is happytalk.

It's obvious that Moveon.org, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, etc. etc. are more to your liking.

Given the dubious content of your posts, I'm not surprised.

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 06, 2006 10:21 AM (gECpl)

48 By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

Quite well, actually.

It seems that prominent democrats including Hillary Clinton had no problem helping themselves to the Abramoff "bankroll".

Once again the democrats (once again) provide another shining example of their hypocrisy.

As another "scandal" blows up in the democrats collective face, Wile E. Coyote comes to mind....

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 06, 2006 11:45 AM (gECpl)

49 Why I typed "once again" twice in one sentence, I can't imagine...

*sigh*

Must be that confounded Halliburton Mind Control Ray wreaking havoc on me.

Damn you Karl Rove! *grin*

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 06, 2006 11:49 AM (gECpl)

50 I just want to introduce something else about the American Main Stream Media that really angers me - and it should anger all Americans.

First, here is the URL reference to a report in the European Press that is worthy of a read.

This story was published elsewhere in the British Press, the French Press, Algerian and Italian and even Pakistani newpapers, to name a few. The American MSM ignored it. Only a short reference was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on page A6. That reference did not tell the whole story. It only noted that 3 Algerians had been arrested. No mention of their mission against the U.S.

The bottom line to all this is that Italian officials, working with new wiretap information they had gathered, arrested three Algerian suspected al Qaeda terrorists in Italy. The first person was arrested on November 15. The other two were arrested shortly thereafter - within weeks.

Quoting the Italian Minister of the Interior, Giuseppe Pisanu, who described what information was uncovered, the news item states, "The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations [in the United States] in a bid to outdo the September 11, 2001 strikes by Al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed some 2,700 people ...."

Why didn't the MSM report this piece of major information on Italy's efforts in the war on terrorism? Very simple: 1. They hate George Bush; 2. They think they smell blood in the water and want to go in for the kill via impeachment proceedings; and 3. The gathering of Intelligence via Italian wiretaps would tend to support Bush's tasking of the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and their associates inside the U.S. The Turkish Press item cited above was published on December 23 - after the beginning of the big uproar over the NYT article on NSA surveillance without warrants.

What if the Italian government had collected information on these goons and been forbidden by some statute to go with the information? What if planned attacks were successful?

It is pretty disgusting when the American MSM is more concerned with their own selfish agenda than in the security if their own country and the physical, emotional and economic welfare of its citizens.

Hang all the F&^%$#ing bastards! Let's start with the NYT scumbags first, though.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 06, 2006 01:02 PM (AaKND)

51 FB notes, "Nonetheless, I think my central question remains: is the US prepared to accept an Islamic Republic of Iraq?"

That is what democracy is all about, isn't it, FB? It is supposed to reflect the Will of the People, right?

Would you prefer it to revert to the totalitarian, secular form of government that existed under Saddam?

The Iraqis don't want that.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 06, 2006 02:28 PM (AaKND)

52 Elephant Man:

Sod off.

Old Soldier:

To be perfectly honest, I didn't really care about Saddam one way or the other.

However, I do have a business contact (in Canada) who was born in Iraq (and in fact was a soldier during Gulf War One). He tells me that his mother and his sisters, who still live in the Kirkuk area, once had electricity and water 24/7. He told me that under Saddam, most people had free health care and a free education (through post-graduate level).

As of this past summer, last time I talked to him, his mom was lucky to have electricity 7 hours a day. They have to go out for water, they don't have running water still. His neice hasn't been in school in over three years.

Saddam was a brutish thug, of that there is NO QUESTION.

But I'm just not so sure that the changes we've wrought are all that good for the majority of Iraqis.

For me, the bottom line was this: Saddam was an Iraqi problem, not an American one.

YMMV, obviously.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 06, 2006 05:41 PM (n2Agn)

53 Oops, sorry Old Soldier-- that was meant for the Spy.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 06, 2006 05:42 PM (n2Agn)

54 Is that the best you can come up with, FB? Maybe you need to memorize some more talking points.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 06, 2006 06:27 PM (AaKND)

55 Hey, I'm the first to admit that one anecdote does not a study make. But having spoken with the man face to face, human to human, I was moved.

YMMV.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 07, 2006 11:25 AM (pEWm6)

56 You noted,

For me, the bottom line was this: Saddam was an Iraqi problem, not an American one.

Well, FB, you may wish to reconsider whether or not the problem with Saddam was solely an Iraqi problem in light of the following, quoted from the Weekly Standard:

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."

You and others interested can read the entire story HERE, if you wish. If, on the other hand, you choose to stick with preconceived notions and ignorant statements from the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, you can do that too.

Indeed, FB, My Mileage DOES Vary ... Would that be MMDV?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 07, 2006 12:39 PM (AaKND)

57 Come on, Spy-- Of course I'm going to listen to John Kerry. Crikey, the man was smart enough to turn a scratch into two purple hearts! He had the brains and the balls to convince his entire chain of command that he deserved a Bronze Star when everyone knows he did nothing for it!

Damn, when you run into Doctor Evil, its smart to give him a listen...

p.s. The Weakly Standard?[chortle, snort, giggle]

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 07, 2006 05:18 PM (pEWm6)

58 You can chortle, snort and giggle all you want, Fat Bastard. The facts are the facts, and you have probably not yet even bothered to read the article, have you?

That loud thud you hear is the sound of all those Democrats fainting at learning this compelling news. Documents and photographs surely beat the hell out of Air America, the so-called CNN situation, er, uh, echo room and MSM talking points, I believe.

Gee, FB, you didn't comment on that little bit about the cowardice of the MSM in not publishing other facts that would support Bush, either, did you? You know, the three Algerian terrorists who were caught as the result of Italian wiretaps? Are you going to claim that it, too, was part of the massive Republican conspiracy to discredit the MSM and the Donks?

YM too MV ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 07, 2006 05:46 PM (AaKND)

59 You dismiss the sites that I cite (ooh, notice the different spelling!); I dismiss those you cite.

But come on-- you gotta admit, a man smart enough to convince the entire United States Navy to give him a high medal he did nothing for... well, damn, you just gotta give him credit for that, now don't you??

You're amusing, Spy.

But as you plan your all-out assault to hang all the evil traitorous liberals("Hang all the F&^%$#ing bastards! Let's start with the NYT scumbags first, though."), remember that some of us believe that gun control means using both hands.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 08, 2006 11:31 AM (pEWm6)

60 Fat Bastard:

My only reference to your hero, Kerry, pertained to the idiocy of one statement - and there are plenty more where that came from. That was about terrorist training camps in Iraq. And you want to make a big story about something other than that one statement. It appears that you are playing a game of dodgeball. You want to divert attention from issues at hand to bring up the total nonsense of his own traitorous past and what prompted Vietnam vets to turn against him? No wonder you were never asked to play on anyone's team.

Did I say that all traitorous liberals should be hanged? I was referring to those individuals who leaked classified information and those who chose to published it. Are you at all familiar with USC Title 18, 798? It specifies the law governing the release or publication of classified information. The penalties are pretty severe. Instead of just getting all wrapped around the axel for Scooter Libby's alleged perjury - not much different in legal interpretation from Clinton's brand of perjury - you may want to see about room reservations in Levenworth for James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, their bosses and their sources.

“I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism,” former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, October 21, 2003

“Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,” Senator Edward Kennedy, October 16, 2003

“The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all,” Defeated Democratic Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, Al Gore, August 2003 - also known as the man who invented the Internet! Chuckle, BWAHAHAHAHA

"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," Defeated Democratic Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, John Kerry, September 24, 2004.

"Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." John Kerry again, September 30, 2004.

I used to tell my students at Southern Maryland University to stay focused and on task in their Lab assignments. You may wish to try to do the same, FB.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 02:56 PM (AaKND)

61 Spy- you really believe there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda (and their attack on 9/11?)

Okay then. Thanks.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 08, 2006 04:38 PM (pEWm6)

62 As I opined in a rhetorical question elsewhere, FB, you are really not very good at this are you? Did I draw such a correlation? No, you did. I am just stating the fact that evidence is available to indicate that Saddam's so-called elite forces DID train some 8,000 terrorist operatives. There is some documentation to indicate, though, that there were mock aircraft flight drills at those three camps. Preparation?

Ya think?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 05:10 PM (AaKND)

63 You do believe it... wow. You probably also believe there were WMD's... oh, they were buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria... yeah, that's the ticket, Syria...

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 08, 2006 06:37 PM (pEWm6)

64 Well, Fat Bastard, you have nothing at all to support your position. I have all sorts of stuff that you cannot explain away, including recovered raw and enriched uranium, thousands of gallons of CBW gases and liquids and powders and projectiles, buried Russian, French and German missiles and weapons, plans and documents and photographs - all of which have been recovered since the U.S. invasion.

Would you like to have a list? Can you explain away each and every one?

I Doubt it.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 07:25 PM (AaKND)

65 Here's another gem for you, Fat Bastard:

“It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together." -- John Kerry, March 20, 2003

Looks like the tiger's stripes - and resolve - have changed just a bit since then.

Does the word, Fraud ring a bell now that reminds us of the strength of his covictions after returning from Vietnam too, when he sold comrades down the drain for solely a partisan political objective?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 10:16 PM (AaKND)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 31, 2005

Happy New Year

I'll be "enjoying" a nasty case of strep throat that has more or less ruined my holiday trip to the in-laws in New York, but I sincerely hope that everyone has a Happy New Year... well except for liberals, who I expect will have another long disappointing year of paranoia, outrage, and failure.

Hey, everybody can't be happy...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 29, 2005

The "Ghost Coast" Is Not Forgotten

Four months after Hurrican Katrina slammed ashore, the catastrophic destruction of the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf coasts have been all but forgotten by the media (and Wikipedia).

On December 14, the Sun-Herald posted an editorial, Mississippi's Invisible Coast asking for at least some media attention by focused on those outside of New Orleans.

It begins:

As Aug. 29 recedes into the conscious time of many Americans, the great storm that devastated 70 miles of Mississippi's Coast, destroying the homes and lives of hundreds of thousands, fades into a black hole of media obscurity.

Never mind that, if taken alone, the destruction in Mississippi would represent the single greatest natural disaster in 229 years of American history. The telling of Katrina by national media has created the illusion of the hurricane's impact on our Coast as something of a footnote.

The awful tragedy that befell New Orleans as a consequence of levee failures at the time of Katrina, likewise, taken by itself, also represents a monumental natural disaster. But, of course, the devastation there, and here, were not separate events, but one, wrought by the Aug. 29 storm.

There is no question that the New Orleans story, like ours, is a compelling, ongoing saga as its brave people seek to reclaim those parts of the city lost to the floods.

But it becomes more and more obvious that to national media, New Orleans is THE story - to the extent that if the Mississippi Coast is mentioned at all it is often in an add-on paragraph that mentions "and the Gulf Coast" or "and Mississippi and Alabama."

Read the whole thing.

The mainstream media has once again dropped the ball. It is up to us to tell the tale of a battered land and a proud people outside of New Orleans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 28, 2005

The Powers of President George

What this NSA executive order matter will boil down to in the end is a separation of powers issue.

Did Congress have the legal authority to bind the Office of the Presidency in conducting warrantless searches performed for national security reasons, stripping the executive branch of an inherent constitutional power?

Every President from the dawn of international wire communications well over 100 years ago until 1978 assumed this right, and the courts have always deferred to this particular power inherent to the Presidency. This is supported by case law and precedent, and is summed up in the five-page Department of Justice briefing (PDF) delivered last week. In short, the Department of Justice seems willing to make the case that Bush was well within his constitutional powers. If anything, Congress may have exceeded their constitutional powers in passing FISA.

Even after passing FISA, Carter himself did not feel strictly bound by it, nor has any President since, from Reagan, to George H. W. Bush, Clinton, to George W. Bush. They have all asserted (and over the past two weeks, their DoJ attorneys have as well) that the Office of the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence. This power has been assumed by every president of the modern age before them, dating back, presumably to the Great Eastern's success in 1866 of laying the first successful transatlantic telegraph cable. From Johnson, then, through Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft, through Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, to FDR and on to Truman, Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and into the Carter administration, the Presidency has had the inherent and unchallenged power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security reasons.

This is a simple, unassailable fact, not matter how loudly demagogues shriek.

FISA is a case of Congress infringing upon the inherent power of the executive branch, and if it comes up as a direct constitutional challenge, FISA will most likely be struck down as Congress infringing upon the constitutional authority of the executive branch to perform foreign intelligence functions.

By creating and using this executive order, Bush merely used a right the executive branch has always maintained since the very first "President George" in 1789.

Note: While I've made the specific case of warrantless wiretapping authority by the President back to Andrew Johnson in 1866, Robert F. Turner in WSJ.com's OpinionJournal takes the case back 216 years to another George's Administration, and beyond that back to Ben Franklin the Continental Congress in 1776.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:34 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Cheering for the Wrong Team

Like addicts jonesing for a fix, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the NY Times just can't help themselves:

Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

If I understand things correctly (and let's be honest, no blogger nor journalist has seen the executive order), the President's order was for national security-related wiretaps, not criminal-prosecution-related wiretaps.

Odds are that all of those terrorists convicted were done so using information from criminal wiretaps obtained via 5,645 requests that were made to FISA courts. This distinction is an important one, and if accurate, utterly undermines the case made by Risen and Lichtblau.

Woe be to Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger.

His reporters are putting the paper in a position where casual (and many not so casual) readers are going to think that the Times utter disregard for the nation's security has morphed into grandstanding, even cheerleading support for convicted al Qaeda terrorists, while not offering any support for either the Times long-running political case against the president, nor the terrorist's attempt to slip prosecution by any means necessary.

Karl Rove simply isn't paying him enough.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 27, 2005

Thunder Over Iran

David Bernstein notes over at The Volokh Conspiracy that there is distinct possibility that Israel will strike Iran within the next few months in an effort to disrupt or destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. As Bernstein himself notes, "this is hardly an original insight."

The Iranians certainly know this, which is why they've entered into a deal to buy 29 TOR-M1 mobile air defense missile systems (another source strongly suggests that the actual number is actually 32 TOR-M1 systems, or the equivalent of two regiments).

Despite the deployment of these new systems however, Israel will not only probably engage Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with the international community falter, they will likely succeed.

Despite the commentary of some "experts," to the contrary, the Israeli Air Force has significant deep strike capability. According to Global Security, the IAF currently has 25 advanced multi-role F-15I "Ra'am" (Thunder) strike fighters, a custom built Israeli variant of the American F-15E Strike Eagle that can carry the 5,000 pound GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" capable of penetrating 20 feet of concrete or more than 100 feet of earth. Congress was alerted to the possible sale of 100 GBU-28s and supporting equipment in in April of 2005, and did not object, making it reasonable to conclude that the IAF probably has both the strike aircraft and the weaponry to take out the most heavily-fortified of Iranian facilities.

IAF F-16I "Soufa" (Storm)

In addition to the deep strike/deep penetration capability of GBU-28-armed F-15Is, the IAF also has "nearly 50" of the highly advanced F16I "Soufa" (Storm) two-seat, long-range interdictors most recognizable for two conformal fuel tanks mounted on the upper fuselage as seen in the image above. These F-16Is are equipped with long-range AMRAAM and short range Python 5 imaging infrared-guided high agility dogfighting missiles in an air-to-air role, or a mix of HARM anti-radiation missiles, Maverick air-to ground missiles, and a large variety of unguided and guided bombs

If Israel opts for a aerial assault, these roughly 75 planes should be more than a match for any air defenses Iran can project. Iranian airpower has suffered significantly since the shah's regime in the 1970s, and land-based radar and SAM capabilities are probably insufficient to the task of defending against modern strike packages.

If Israel opts for an early March strike as some sources suggest, we will know both Israel's and Iran's capabilities in very short order.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Neo-Cops Grow Ever More Unhinged on NSA Story

The kerfluffle around Bush's executive order to the NSA just keeps getting more and more interesting…

On Christmas Eve, Stewart Powell of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer released a column showing that the secret FISA court that is supposed to approve government surveillance efforts was apparently exceeding its authority, forcing the Administration to go around a judicial roadblock to protect the American people:

Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

If the FISA court was being dangerously obstructionist in the Administration's view, then the President would appear to not just have a right, but a Constitutional responsibility to go around the court if he felt American lives were at risk. To act otherwise would be criminal negligence, would it not?

Today's neo-copperheads can't be trusted in matters of national defense, and seem more intent on proving that fact for the foreseeable future. Marshall Grossman vividly proves that point in this article today at The Huffington Post.

Grossman—University of Maryland English Professor Marshall Grossman—apparently doesn't possess the reading comprehension needed to discern the meaning of the following sentence and apply it properly to today's world:

"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."

The above is of course the Fourth Amendment, which Grossman goes out of his way to misunderstand.

He breathlessly intones:

That's it: the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, complete and entire: One, single, gloriously clear, and grammatically explicit sentence. If some enterprising entrepreneur will put it on a tee-shirt, I'll wear it proudly.

In my naiveté I thought a few of us wearing those tee-shirts would be enough to put an end to the inane discussion of whether or not the President has the right to order the NSA to sustain a vast, warrantless, data-mining operation aimed at the international telephone and e-mail communication of Americans. On my stupid reading, the fourth amendment says no twice: no search or seizure without a sworn warrant and no warrant without specifying the places, persons or things sought.

But wait. On the Op Ed page of this morning's New York Times, a couple of strict constructionists from the Reagan and H. W. Bush Justice Departments are out to set me straight. These guys are lawyers. I'm just a guy who makes his living reading and understanding the English language.

But you are not understanding the language Professor Grossman. Either you canot understand it, or you are trying to cleverly lie with it. I'll leave the reader to decide which.

The Fourth Amendment purposefully does not outlaw all searches and seizures as Grossman would intentionally mislead readers, it only outlaws those that would be regarded as unreasonable, nor does it outlaw warrantless searches as legal precedents have shown time and time again. His entire position is predicated upon misrepresentation and ignoring the professional opinions of Justice Department lawyers from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Presidential administrations, applicable case law, legal briefs, and judicial precedent, all of which which inconveniently seems to refute his purposefully obtuse position.

Ever out of his depth from a legal perspective, the good professor cannot even hold his own in an honest reading of the language. Professor Grossman should stick to 17th century English literature.

21st Century national policy matters are clearly beyond his understanding.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:45 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 26, 2005

Victims of the Wave

Today marking the one year anniversary of what much of the world knows as the Asian or Boxing Day Tsunami, which took over 200,000 lives in South Asia. Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of roundups on his site.

Please say a prayer for those that never returned home, and for those that were left behind to face a shattered world without them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

December 24, 2005

The Reason for the Season

⁴ And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

⁵ To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

⁶ And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

⁷ And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

⁸ And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

⁹ And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

¹⁰ And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

¹² And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

¹⁴ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Happy birthday, Jesus, and a Merry Christmas to all.

I'll see you all again on the 26th.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Google Mocks Christ on Christmas Eve

While trying to find a nativity image for my last post before Christmas, I did an search for "baby jesus" on Google.

This is the result.

Notice that the top search result is for a sex toy that mocks Jesus.

Other results on this search results page have more link traffic. A quick review of page's code shows no HTML meta information that should give it a favorable ranking. The page itself has a raw relevance ranking (search word divided by total words) of less than five percent. The only conclusion I can draw is that this page position ranking was done manually by a Google staffer.

Google's message to the Faithful seems obvious:

"Merry Christmas, assholes."

Update: Some folks have made the argument that this is the result of Googlebombing or other SEO tricks. Others say that it is merely the result of Google's search programs. They would absolve Google of all responsibility.

I do not.

Google's algorithms are man-made, coded by human programmers, as are any exclusionary protocols. These people ultimately decide if search results are relevant. I think it is fair to say that a butt plug is not a relevant search result for 99-percent of Google users searching for information on Jesus Christ as a baby.

So either Google has manipulative coders, or a fouled algorithm in their baseline technologies that suggests their massive capitalization is based upon a a house of cards. I'll leave individual readers and investors to make the call.

Update 2: Crooks and Liars calls this post 2005's Worst Post of the Year. Coming from such a den of delusion and paranoia (not to mention abject political failure), I consider it a compliment.

Also, I guess he didn't see this, though technically it isn't a blog post, just the worst idea of the year.

Good Friday Update: As I said previously:

Google's algorithms are man-made, coded by human programmers, as are any exclusionary protocols. These people ultimately decide if search results are relevant.

A current Google search reveals that Google has changed their search algorithm to exclude the sex toy site from at least their top 50 results in a unfiltered search. I was right, liberals were wrong.

Not that this comes as a shock to anyone...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A THIRD Surveillance Scandal

First there was the Bush Executive Order to have the NSA intercept messages outside the country to and from the terrorists that upset liberals. Then the NEST surveillance of predominately Muslims sites for dirty bombs which made them livid.

And then there is this, perhaps the most intrusive surveillance of all.

The ACLU will not be happy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 This is appalling; do these people have no idea that certain “programs” can only be effective if conducted in absolute secrecy? Surveillance under this “program” has existed for a long time without any court issued warrants and has been accepted as being within the constitution for decades. To expose it now is just beyond the pale.

Merry CHRISTmas to all; and to all a goodnight!

Posted by: Old Soldier at December 24, 2005 11:07 AM (9ABza)

2 Nice link. Actually had me going for a bit as I wondered what he was talking about.

Merry Christmas to you.

Posted by: joated at December 24, 2005 01:08 PM (M7kiy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 23, 2005

Which Side Are They On?

You've got to wonder just how fast today's mainstream media would have leaked the breaking of Enigma to the Germans.

From U.S News & World Report:

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

I would certainly hope that U.S. mosques, where terrorists have already attempted to purchase surface to air missiles, are under surveillance for radiological weapons. I should hope they are being monitored for suspicious chemicals and biological agents as well.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the main ingredient in the U.S. News story is the "surprising" fact that - get this - some suspicious Muslim sites were monitored without obtaining warrants. The rest of the story - including the "omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted" - has been public knowledge at least since June 9 of 2002 when much of this same ground was covered by the Boston Globe:

[NEST] teams have been driving around urban areas in vans known as ''Hot Spot Mobile Labs,'' armed with instruments that detect alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Other teams are equipped with backpacks that hold smaller detectors...

...

Though the effort has relaxed somewhat since the October scare, one official said NEST units still go on random, weekly search missions in different cities, focusing on ports, warehouse districts, and other locations where a smuggled weapon might be housed.

NEST teams may have driven their vans onto mosque property to sniff the air for radioactive isotopes. Backpack-equipped NEST team members may have walked through a neighborhood or apartment complex.

The government holds that these sniff tests are legal. Not surprisingly, U.S. News was able to find a dissenting expert.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property -- the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."

U.S. News might have also mentioned that Georgetown University Professor David Cole, "a constitutional law expert," is also the legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, a far left liberal magazine.

It gets worse.

Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use -- without a search warrant -- of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home.

Because of course, sensors used for national security are the exact same thing as local cops making a pot bust. Brilliant comparison, Professor Cole.

Perhaps because of his politics, Cole does not bother to mention the blatantly obvious fact that these radiation-sensing technologies should not violate the "unreasonable search" clause of the Fourth Amendment because of the "special needs" exception.

Nor does Cole mention that going into publicly-accessible driveways and parking lots without a warrant is not necessarily unconstitutional.

You would think that Cole or U.S. News would have tried to seek a more balanced approach to this story.

Of course, if they did, there wouldn't be a story, would there?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.2835 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2512 seconds, 323 records returned.
Page size 324 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.