Saturday, December 31, 2005

Another QotD

For those who haven't been keeping up with the Quote of the Day from Random Nuclear Strikes, (and if you haven't been reading RNS, it's your loss) I bring you a quote so good it must be repeated.

World War I led not to ‘Democracy’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to ‘Four Freedoms’, but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.

If peace were the goal of today’s intellectuals, a failure of that magnitude – and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale – would make them pause and check their statist premises. Instead, blind to everything but their hatred for capitalism, they are now asserting that “Poverty Breeds Wars”.

But the question is: What Breeds Poverty?

If you look at the world of today and if you look back at history, you will see the answer: The degree of a country’s freedom is the degree of its prosperity.

Every last damn war after WWI was started by a Leftist ideology. Don't forget that Nazi was an abbriviation of "Nationalist Socialism". Korea was the Chinese and Soviet Communists attempting to expand. Viet Nam, as well as being yet another fuckup tossed into our lap by the French, was communism's expansion into South East Asia after they were stymied in Korea. Saddam Hussien was a staunch Stalinist, with heavy ties to the Soviet Union, and to Russia in later years.

In fact, the only conflict that the USA has been involved in after WWI where the country we faced was run by a government with political leanings to the "Right" was our war against the Taliban. The killing fields of Cambodia? Perpetrated by communists. Pol Pot and the Khamer Rouge? Communists. Grenada? Communists. The very ideologies that the Left shrieks for with abandon have killed hundreds of millions of people in the past century, and yet the Left demands that we surrender to it's delusional fantasies.

The next time some asshat talks about how great it is in Cuba, kick them in the nuts. They're mentally damaged and cannot be reasoned with.

Friday, December 30, 2005

Sun Tzu on Spying

Read points 1 through 8.

The Art of War: The Use of Spies

Whomever leaked that NSA information should suffer the punishment that has been traditionally visited upon Traitors.

More about that at Michelle Malkin

Thursday, December 29, 2005

My Choice for Worst American in History: Jimmy Carter

(John Wilkes Booth gets my vote for second worst American in history, Al Gore is third worst, the managing editors for the New York Times and the Washington Post tie for fourth, LBJ gets my vote for fifth, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda tie for sixth, Bill and Hillary Clinton seventh, Henry Blackmun is eighth, James Earl Ray is ninth, Jesse Jackson and Noam Chomsky tie for tenth, Ted Kennedy and George Soros tie for eleventh, and Rev. Fred Phelps is twelfth.)

All Things Beautiful asks for nominations for the Ten Worst Americans of All Time. And why not? Just a couple months ago we had this big nation-wide poll/debate for the Greatest American in history. At the time it got a lot of media exposure, kind of like American Idol, right up until the winner was announced. (It was Reagan!)

Ed Morrissey responds with his Ten Worst Americans of All Time list, chock-full of historical goodness, or badness rather. He puts Jimmy Carter at number 10:
...after a promising beginning of his post-presidential career of building houses for the homeless, Carter has inveigled himself into so many foreign-policy crises and made them exponentially worse that it’s becoming more and more difficult to believe it isn’t done with purpose. His efforts to defuse the North Korean crisis deflected what had been until then a rather effective strategy by Bill Clinton to use a military threat to stop Pyongyang from producing nukes. After Carter jumped into the negotiations uninvited – violating the Logan Act – Carter’s prestige within his party and the US forced Clinton to accept the ridiculous Framework agreement that allowed Pyongyang to go nuclear within months. Carter has done the same with Haiti as well, and has traveled the globe to support many a leftist dictator or autocrat as long as they opposed American interests.

But the real reason Carter winds up here at #10 is because he singlehandedly almost lost the Cold War and allowed the start of the Islamofascist terror war during his single term in office. His naiveté in dealing with the Soviet Union, captured perfectly by kissing the jowled cheek of the Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev, led him to believe that worldwide Communism was here to stay and that we could do nothing about it. He also assured Americans that we had nothing to fear from the Soviets, who really weren’t bad guys – right up until they invaded Afghanistan. Even then, his response in boycotting the Olympic Games of 1980 has to remain one of the most embarrassing examples of displayed impotence in our nation’s history.

The winner in that category, however, also belongs to Carter. In November 1979, after pulling his support from the Shah in the highly strategic nation of Iran and watching him fall to an Islamist uprising, the same nutcases sacked our embassy in Teheran, an undeniable act of war. Instead of giving an ultimatum for the return of our embassy and the release of our diplomatic staff, Carter sat for 444 excruciating days, doing little except pleading publicly for mercy. He staged one – one! – military response to the crisis months later, which failed miserably. The failure to act not only allowed the rickety Khomeini government to survive, but gave Islamofascism a tremendous boost of prestige throughout the Middle East. It also allowed Iran to become a center for the funding and direction of terrorist activities for the past three decades, a legacy that has finally engulfed us since 9/11.

Other administrations have made their own mistakes in remaining blind to the threat of Islamist terror, but Carter played midwife to it and enabled it to survive when he had every opportunity and a perfect casus belli to kill it in its cradle.
Carter's withdrawal of support from the Shah of Iran put the Mad Mullahs in power. Did this liberate the Shah's 3,000 political prisoners? No. The dictatorship of Ayatollah Khomeini put most of them up against walls alongside 20,000 "pro-Western" Iranians and killed them by firing squad. Women became property. Western music banned. (It has recently been re-banned.) One year later, Iran was engaged in a war with Iraq. As the U.S. had sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, in the Iran-Iraq War the U.S. sided with Iraq to oppose Iran's Islamic fascism and, in theory, stop it from spreading. Granted, that mistake wasn't Carter's fault, but if he'd nipped the Islamofascist problem in the bud, maybe the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, numerious terrorist bombings, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We'll never know. Jimmy Carter is the one who first allowed terrorism to become diplomatically acceptable. He countered the kidnapping of American diplomats by a foreign nation's government with... with what? Talk about impotence!

I can still remember the years that Jimmy Carter was President. What I remember the most was inflation - the highest inflation since the Civil War. During Carter's presidency, the dollar lost more than half its value, more than half of its purchasing power. In response, Carter enacted price controls and rationing, which caused incredibly long lines and, if anything, made prices go up even more. An economic genius Carter was not.

You know, I think Jimmy means well, but he has screwed up everything he has touched with the exception of Habitat for Humanity and that Israel-Egypt treaty. He should have stuck with building houses and stay away from foreign policy (i.e., repeatedly stabbing our country in the back).

Ok, so he did that Mid-East peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Was that a good thing? Yes. Was it heroic or courageous in any way? No. Begin angered his own political allies by returning Sinai to Egypt, endangering his leadership position in democratic Israel. Sadat knew that he quite likely might be assassinated for making peace with Israel (and assassinated he was). Jimmy Carter risked nothing. All he did was supply the meeting place.

"But he received the Nobel Peace Prize three years ago," you say? Bwaah! And Arafat (inventor of the bomb-belt) got one in 1994, too. (This year, the Nobel Prize went to Mohamed ElBaradei, for enabling Iran to become a nuclear threat presumably.) Carter's award, according to Nobel Peace Prize Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge, “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [i.e., George W. Bush] administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg [i.e., poke in the eye, or slap in the face] to all that follow the same line as the United States.” Carter was given the Peace Prize for opposing America abroad. Knowing that he was awarded the Peace Prize not out of merit but as a "kick" at his own nation’s elected President and the American people, Jimmy Carter accepted the prize and the $1 million that came with it. If Jimmy had had an ounce of dignity, he would have rejected the prize and the money. The prize is now displayed proudly at the Carter Center.

When President Carter was struggling with the Iranian hostage crisis, former Presidents Nixon and Ford had the dignity to stay out of foreign affairs. Carter has no such dignity and his interference has hurt our country. Jimmy Carter is good buddies with some of the worst dictators in the world, including Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Why won't Carter speak out, not for the dictators but for the oppressed?

For all of the reasons stated above, as well as prolonging the Cold War - for having done more to harm the U.S. than any other American I can think of - Jimmy Carter gets my vote for Worst American of All Time.

Like I said...

...sometimes life does make sense.

In light of all the attention paid to the GOP's problems in the last few months, the Democrats' numbers are quite striking. Months of aggressive Democratic attacks on President Bush and the Republican party, on subjects ranging from the war in Iraq to the NSA wiretaps to the "culture of corruption," have led to...lower numbers for the Democratic party.

The Corner on National Review Online

Higher Education?

Via Hugh Hewitt comes a piece from the Weekly Standard about how college enrollment of men is steadily dropping.

It's a well written piece, and I would suggest that everybody read it through. However, the first thought in my head after reading it wasn't "Oh gosh, we have to get more men into higher education!" Sad to say, the first thought in my head was "Gosh, you mean that men don't want to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to attend an environment that is hostile to masculinity as a whole, derides male actions, turns the entire male gender into criminals, and espouses such a bias against while males that any other ethnic or gender based group automatically gets a leg up? Not surprized."

If there is any establishment that is a home to hard-core Leftist radicalism, it is college campuses. And hard-core Leftist radicals are anti-male, anti-WHITE male in particular. Where else are the Founding Fathers described as a "bunch of old dead white guys"? Where else is the act of sex described as "rape"?

Look at Affirmative Action and Title IX in higher education. If you're black, red, brown, female, or listed in any of the other so-called "disadvantaged" groups, you're placed far ahead of white males in terms of entrance standards, financial aid, and even groups that you can join. There are "Women's Studies" classes on many college campuses today. Where are the "Men's Studies"?

If you step back and look at the big picture being presented by the majority of colleges today, the message being sent to young white males by universities and colleges is a resounding "We don't want you here."

When a message has been broadcast long and loud, don't be surprized when people start listening.

Britain Braced For More Snow And Ice

No wonder they hate us.

Britain is bracing itself for more icy blasts and heavy snow with even colder conditions moving in.

Workers have already been greeted with freezing and icy weather as they return to work after the Christmas break.

Kent, eastern England and eastern Scotland have experienced the most severe weather conditions.

Some areas of Kent were reported to have received as much as 12 inches of snow

Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Norfolk, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire have also suffered persistent snow showers.

The snow is causing severe disruption on the roads and railways.

South Eastern and Thameslink train services were among those hit by the wintry conditions, while some major routes in Kent suffered closure or lane closure.
The failure of Bush to ratify Kyoto will have wide-ranging effects like these for DECADES, at least.

Britain Braced For More Snow And Ice

Death to America! . . . But Keep Those Checks Coming

Not sure what this means:

Some 38 percent of all 1,759 Palestinian respondents said they “strongly support,” and 27 percent said they “support,” “al Qaeda’s bombings in the USA and Europe”; 19 percent said they “oppose,” and 16 percent said they “strongly oppose,” those attacks.

Reconcilable Differences on National Review Online

NSA and Wiretapping and Dhimmocrat hysteria

I haven't written much about the whole NSA wiretapping deal, because for the most part I've just been sitting back and watching the show as it evolves. But if there's one thing I've learned about politics, you have to wait for the hysterical squeals and screams of the Dhimmocrats to subside a bit before you can get to the truth. Because the Dhimmocrats have only two goals in mind, to the exclusion of all else: Defeat G.W. Bush, and regain power. And if America goes down in flames while they pursue those goals, hey, so what? In their mind, it's justified, because they love power more than anything else in the world.

However, as is the usual case, once the Left's bleating and whining has gone down, the rest of the story begins to come out, with rather disastrous effects for the Donks.

There are a few writers/bloggers who's thoughts on the subject are pretty clear, and I think are worth being linked to. The first,, dismantles a Dhimmocrat lawyer by the name of Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald has been drafting reams of essays, all of which boil down to "Bush is a lawbreaker and must be put in jail, so that the BusHitlerChimpyMcHalliburton Crime Junta can't ruin the world anymore."

The problem with Greenwald's arguments, hell, the problem with ANY of the Left's arguments from the past thirty years, is that they all follow the same script. Construct a really nifty sounding preposition, and then come up with flaming assloads of "facts" to back it up. Now, if you were to follow Greenwald's preposition that Bush broke the law, you would not be able to refute any of Greenwald's evidence. However, the key words are "IF you were to follow Greenwald's preposition". manages to completely derail Greenwald by showing that Bush didn't break the law, thereby turning all of Greenwald's hysterics into a whole bunch of empty shouting by an idiot.

Cold Fury also has a post up about Greenwald, although this one is much less polite. It seems that Mr. Greenwald takes exception to being shown for a buffoon on the internet, and attacked one Al Maviva, who was much too polite to respond in kind. However, that didn't stop one of the other people who post on Cold Fury from responding for him.

I didn't much like it when this pompous jackass Glenn Greenwald called my co-blogger Al Maviva dishonest, simply for posting an off-the-cuff analysis of potential WH and DOJ legal justifications for foreign survellience. I liked it even less when the lying sack of ... fertilizer contended Al had deliberately misquoted FISA, when in fact it was the not-too-bright Greenwald who was misquoting Al. Most of the time, I let this kind of progressive revisionism go - correcting liberal lies is a full-time job I'm just not interested in. But not this time, punk. This time, I want an apology. Since I know you candy-assed progressives don't have enough personal integrity to admit you're wrong, let alone apologize for being a putz, I'll just have to settle for insulting you right back.

Now, you might think that once these self-righteous progressive lawyers with over-inflated egos are shown to be mere partisan hacks, they would display enough personal integrity to be ashamed of making obvious lies and distortions. Especially since it turns out Al was exactly right, while Glenn was exactly wrong, on the very point Glenn misquoted lied about. Silly conservative; you must remember their progressive agenda forgives all such transgressions - as long as they're the ones transgressing, of course. After all, you have to break a few eggs to hatch a Known Fact .

Al may be too gentlemanly (or show too much professional courtesy) to call Greenwald a phony and a hack, an incompetent boob who can't understand simple statutes, a liar who can't see past his ideological blindfold, or a liberal dimwit who thinks any disagreement with the World According To Greenwald must be a lie; but that doesn't mean I can't. A little advice to anyone unfortunate enough to have retained this clown in a three-piece suit: you might want to think about alternate, competent representation. Greenwald can resort to all the ever more desperate and technically obtuse refinements of his "Bush Lied!" meme as he likes; meanwhile, his erstwhile supporters are quietly backing away, reduced to hoping this kerfuffle will become another accepted truth, one of the Known Facts in the "reality based community". But I'll be watching you now, Glenn. I'll be happy to point out all the lame-ass and half-baked legal "opinions" you post from now on, even though (thank God) I am not a lawyer. But then, you're not much of one, either.

Mmmmmm, I love the smell of shredded Leftists in the morning! Check out the post, it's got more links to back it up than most blogs have in their entire content.

And third, Protien Wisdome takes the entire Leftist meme to task by stating a few basic facts that the Dhimmocrats refuse to accept; mainly that the NSA was not checking or wiretapping phone calls from one American citizen to another, it was intercepting calls from a known terrorist agent outside the country to people in the USA.

Which brings me to my point of the whole mess, a point which I haven't heard too many people make in the recent outcries. I hear Dhimmocrats hollaring about "Constitutional Rights", which I find absolutely hilarious because as far as I know, the entire Dhimmocrat Party platform consists of different ways to remove my constitutional rights one by one, starting with my right to keep and bear arms. But anyways, have any one of these braindead fucktards stopped to think about the fact that Constitutional Rights do not apply to someone who is NOT a United States citizen?

It's really simple: If you are not a citizen of the United States, then you cannot claim to have any rights under this country's founding document. So long, claims of 4th Amendment abuse. Right to privacy? Right to free speech? Right to peaceably (yeah, right!) assemble? Let me make this very clear:

If you are a foriegn national speaking to a known member of a terrorist organization who is outside the USA, conversing on different tactics which will be used to attack this country or it's military, then YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO JACK SHIT!

Despite the Dhimmocrat's claims, it is that simple. In fact, I would go further: If you are a foriegn national and a known member of a terrorist organization, I don't care if you're outside the USA or not. I don't care if you're in Pakistan or New York City. I want you wiretapped. I want your privacy completely demolished. You're attempting to destroy my country, and I don't want you to so much as sneeze without someone at the NSA knowing about it. I want to know what you had for dinner, what you drank, who you met with, what you said, and what you wrote down. I want your fucking emails being read by the FBI. I want your movements tracked, your contacts discovered, and your attempts to destroy everything I hold dear cut off at the knees.

And if that sticks in the craw of the Dhimmocrats, too fucking bad. Maybe they should try rooting for the USA for once in their fucking putrid lives, instead of cheering for anyone and everyone who would oppose and destroy this country.

Link to found via the ever readable Baby Troll Blog.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

"America is OK with NSA"

It's funny to think how many times the Left have said: "We've got the Smirking Bastard now!!!" only to find themselves mired in crestfallen disappointment yet again.

What a pitiable cabal they are...


UPDATE: It should be noted that, sometimes, life makes perfectly good sense. Such a lofty realization occurs to one when one views the New York Times' financial picture:

I almost feel sorry for the poor dumb bastards.

Bowl Mania

Yes, it's bowl week. The Dick List has a round-up of this year's douche bowls. A sample:
...In other bowl news, hotel heiress Paris Hilton absolutely demolished Cuban dictator Fidel Castro at the Chlamydia Bowl by the score of 72-14. Hilton's margin of victory- 58 points- is the largest ever recorded at any douche bowl game. "I've really made great progress this year" said Hilton as she left the field. "To be more despised than a brutal murdering dictator in such a convincing fashion really says something about me and the image I've worked so hard to create..."

Facts, Meet Brain

First, a quote from The Glittering Eye:
"The sad truth is that no matter how fervently you may want something (or, perversely, fear something), that of itself will not cause the desired (or feared) event to happen."
Or as Mick Jagger put it:
"You can't always get what you want."
Jack Welch adds,
"Face reality as it is, not as it was or as you wish. . . You have to see the world in the purest, clearest way possible, or you can't make decisions on a rational basis."
Dr. Sanity remarks,
"When both sides are convinced that the other side is deluding themselves, it becomes extremely important that SOME ADULT SOMEWHERE examine the external reality and follow a process of reason to assess the truth."
Ok. Well, check out this process of reason from some adult somewhere, then come back here and tell me again how Iraq is a quagmire.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

So I was reading around today.....

And yessiree, there's quite a bit of interesting information out on the web. These links via Instapundit:

Successful Democrat Blogger can't afford Blue State

Yep, our deranged pal Markos "Screw 'em" Zuniga can't afford to live in a state that follows the very values that Kos himself espouses!

You see, this is why I consider most Leftists to be mentally damaged. Here we have the perfect example of Leftist values at work. California is the respository of every Leftist mantra and mindset that the Dhimmocrats could think up from extreme eco-freak regulations to taxation of damn near everyone, and it's biting the Leftists in the ass.

And yet those Leftists refuse to see the effects of their ideas. Those Leftists ignore what is right in front of them and continue to push for more bad ideas. The Dhimmocrats are like the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail".

King Aurther: Look you stupid bastard, I've just cut your arm off!
Black Knight: No you didn't.
King Aurther: It's lying right there!
Black Knight: ...... It's just a flesh wound!

And this just has to be read: Tim Blair

Molly Ivins and James Carville lied to the American people! Well, not really, but they did repeat information that was later shown to be false—which is the same thing, if you’re one of them Bush-hatin’ folks, yessir (must ... stop ... channelling ... Ivins).

Outstanding! Of course, holding the Dhimmocrats to the same standards that they themselves use on everyone else is just plain mean! (If you listen to the whining surrender monkeys that is). What's the moral of the story? When some college student claims that he's being watched by the FBI for reading a book, verify verify verify.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Another breach in the wall between religion and government

Avert your eyes, Lefties. The Spitzer Space Telescope folks (read: JPL/NASA) were not to be outdone by the NSO. So this is no "holiday tree" celebration. I give you a small portion of their infrared image of the


Limits of Democrat Compassion

Now we all know that homeless people are Democrats 'cause Republicans are all "rich" and evil and hate homeless people, so it's up to those generous Democrats to provide for these unfortunate souls in their time of need. UNLESS the homeless vote Republican:

"[Ted] Hayes is a big tower of a man who looks like he could have just as easily played in Bob Marley's band as be Los Angeles's pre-eminent homeless advocate, which he is. In 1993, Hayes founded Dome Village, a community to house homeless people and instill in them a "philosophy of self-governance, responsibility, productivity, volunteerism and respect for individuals," thereby providing "avenues for homeless people to seek empowerment and make a break from the chronic cycle and psyche of homelessness."
Apparently, multi-millionaire retired attorney Milton Sidley never expected Ted Hayes to be a Republican, either. Sidley, you see, is the landlord for Dome Village, which currently pays Sidley $2,500 per month, plus property taxes, for the right to occupy the formerly blighted encampment site.
[A]n article earlier this month..mentioned Hayes's political leanings. Perhaps Milton Sidley--a partisan Democrat who contributed $4,000 to the John Kerry campaign in 2004--noticed the article: all of a sudden, the landlord has announced that Dome Village's rent will increase by over 630% when the lease comes up in late 2006. Each month, Dome Village will have to come up with $18,333 plus property taxes in order to stay afloat, or the residents will face homelessness once again. According to a recent press release from Dome Village, when asked about the rent increase, Sidley replied, "This Democrat is tired of supporting Ted and his Dome Village."

Fahrenheit 1861

This is great.

Bull's Eye

From Cox & Forkum

Dungy web site is down

Don't mean to be a ghoul or anything, but: why? And how, so quickly?

Within 16 hours of his death, his web site was taken offline. How did that happen? Why did someone say: "James is dead. Someone contact MySpace and have them terminate his site." or even "James died. I have his password, I'm going to shut his site down."

This ghoul smells something fishy.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Christmas Spirit at the National Solar Observatory

Click for full image.

Tony Dungy's son has died

Have you seen [what appears to be] his web site?

Holy moly

If you haven't read Kevin Baker's essay "Reasonable People" yet, go do it now please.

No, I can't quote just one part of it. It's that damn good.

Found via Eternity Road.

(By the way Tim, if you're looking for a new addition to our blogroll, I can't think of two better blogs than those I've just linked to. And anyone being bombarded with anti-gun propaganda needs to read ALL the essays on the Left side of Mr. Baker's blog.)

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

I'm busy as hell

It might be the holiday season, and some of my dear readers may have some time off, but the military doesn't rest. When I was an MP, I found out that there are three occupations that don't get holidays or weekends:

Law Enforcement, Medical, and Food Service.

If you want to enjoy your free time, do not go into any of the above named employment fields. Because those occupations don't have any free time. Even though I've switched my field in the Army, I'm still a little short on that whole "free time" concept. However, I signed up of my own free will, so complaining about it will do little good. It will, however, explain why I've been such a lazy asshole when it comes to posting. Today is no exception. Therefore, I present to you without comment, these two posts, both of which contain more truth in a few kilobytes than the entire Dhimmocrat party has contained in decades.

First, Lee of Right Thinking.

The last major war the United States was involved in was Vietnam. The modern Democratic Party leadership all came of age during that war, as did most of the editorial staff in the manistream media. It wasn’t just a defining moment in the modern American left, it was the defining moment, the prism through which the left would view the world from that moment on. Vietnam was justification for every pacifist tendency that every liberal has ever had. When they said that war didn’t solve anything, they could point to Vietnam. When they wanted to show the consequences of war, they could point to Vietnam. When they wanted to show the failure of military force as a tool for political change, they could point to Vietnam. It was the last major war this country was ever involved in. Sure we’ve had military operations, from Grenada to the Gulf War to the Balkans, but Vietnam our last big one, and it was a war we ended up losing. Vietnam has been their de facto answer for everything for the past 30 years.

Iraq threatens their entire belief system.


The Democrats and the left cannot have this. The US has been in the “lose” column for so long now, That’s been one of their main sources of political strength. They must prevent, at all costs, the US from getting to a point where this was can be chalked up as a win. If we get a win then we negate the rallying cry of Vietnam. The next time a war is proposed and someone mentions Vietnam, we can point to Iraq as an example of just how many legitimate problems war can solve. Conversely, if they can get Iraq declared a loss, then they’ll have a pattern. “We’re two for two!” So the next time someone proposes military force, the lefties will get to pull out Iraq and Vietnam. Their message will get new life breathed into it for the next forty years.

This is why they will stop at nothing to prevent President Bush from winning this war. A win in Iraq means that their whole “War Solves Nothing” argument becomes virtually worthless, a relic of a bygone era. And that terrifies them.

Iraq must be a loss at all costs. The future of left-wing political activism is at stake

And Analog Kid's Corrolary

I think that Lee has it half right.

It is my belief that they have two reasons for opposition to the war. While Lee has hit one x-ring with his thoughts, the other target to be hit is the left’s need to implement socialist ideals in America that was interrupted by September 11th and then again by Bush’s attempts at stemming the tide of radical Islam.

They know that we won’t be listening to, among other things, their rhetoric on socialized medicine while we’re listening to the news about the daily happenings in Iraq. They know that it will be impossible to implement sweeping gun control when we’re thinking about madmen with bomb belts lighting themselves off in the mall or taking an elementary school hostage.

In their minds, if we could just get out of Iraq ASAP, they could get back to telling people how wonderful Canadian medicine is with their taxpayer funded doctors and how crime free Europe is without all those nasty guns.


Girls With Guns

I love these.

Oleg Volk

A favorite:



I have tears running down my face.

Asian Backstreet Boys Funny Vid - Google Video

Especially check out 02:10.

For Every Democrat

This one is just for you.

President Bush did not lie.

And one more time, for those who just don't seem to get it.

President Bush did not lie.

Something for Dave


Merciful Lord

This is all from Drudge. Sometimes these "flashes" disappear there so it is excerpted below.



Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."


Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Wall: disgraceful, shameful, insulting, stupid, horrific, underhanded, terrible, hypocritical, inhumane,...

When have banana republic kleptocrats ever come up short of pompous adjectives?

El Presidente Fox responded to the House vote authorizing a high-tech barrier across 700 miles of the Mexican border with all the raging indignation we've come to expect from Latin Leftists. I appreciate his efforts to relieve me of any confusion about this matter. It must be a really, really good idea.

Reuters and AP channel the outrage of Mexicans:

"Our president should oppose that wall and make them stop it, at all costs," said Martin Vazquez, 26, at the Mexico City airport as he returned from his job as a hotel worker in Las Vegas. "More than just insulting, it's terrible."

I want that bag

Attractively attired, over-fed, and nicely accessorized fems struggle for dignity. Or something.

Gorelick on Executive Authority

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.

"It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." - Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994
She sings a different tune today, as one might expect.

The Corner on National Review Online

You're Fired

Ronald Reagan on the striking air-traffic controllers

“We killed the Patriot Act.”

As President Bush signs the Patriot Act into law, Harry Reid smiles and Pat Leahy checks his camera.


Monday, December 19, 2005

Iraq's Parliamentary Elections - December 15th, 2005

8 million voted in January, 10 million voted in October and 15 million Iraqis voted in their first Parlimentary Elections. Iraq is now a constitutional democracy. Eighty Percent turned out to vote in Saddam's home province.

An Iraqi Family Reports:
The picture looks so good it is hard to believe my ears as my father is telling me all this. Iraqi media is very upset and angry at Ramsey Clark who they feel is giving the enemy fuel for their fire. As well as the Scottish MP George Galloway is doing tremendous damage to the democratic movement in Iraq. The Iraqi media accuses them both of taking "Oil for loyalty" money as they call it. A great thank you again to this great country of ours from the Ajinas in Iraq & the U.S.A for freedom, self rule and a bright future.

An administration official has some details :
Turn-out in Fallujah estimated at 220,000. It was 20,000 in October. 50,000 in Ramadi v. 5,000 in October. 40,000 in Western Anbar v. several hundred in October.
There were 6,250 polling stations, and a total of 35 security incidents. That's down considerably from January and October. Fatalities were one U.S. soldier, 10 Iraqi civilians, two Iraqi security forces, and one terrorist. The U.N. reports that no polling places were closed because of security incidents.
Voting was extended by one hour to accommodate crowds, and 97 1/2% of voting centers were open and ready to go by 10 a.m. local time.
There are reports of voter fraud in localities, but nothing major, and there was some voter intimidation in Anbar.
Ballot counting has started and will take at least two weeks.
This is how the process works going forward: Within 15 days of the certification of the results, the Council of Representatives (COR) is convened. At its first session it selects a speaker and two deputies by an absolute majority. Then, the COR selects a presidency council--a prez and two vices--by a two-thirds majority. This is where the problem enters in.
There's no deadline for selecting the presidency council. Therefore there is a danger this could really slip and take forever. Zal will have to be leaning on them very, very hard.
Once the presidency council is selected it has 15 days to agree unanimously on a prime minister designate. He has to come from the party with the most seats. It is thought likely that the presidency council and the prime minister--perhaps the speaker too--will all be agreed to together as part of a big package deal involving three or four parties.
Then, the prime minister designate has 30 days to select a cabinet (most important slots: interior and defense) and come up with a ministerial program, all of which are submitted to the COR for approval by an absolute majority.
Finally, the are all sworn in.

A Sunni Arab Reports:

"Before, we had a dictator, and now we have this freedom, this democracy," said Emad Abdul Jabbar, 38, a teacher acting as supervisor at the Ahrar school polling site. "This time, we have a real election, not just the sham elections we had under Saddam, and we Sunnis want to participate in the political process."
A 60-year-old merchant, Abdul Kader al-Saffar, and his wife, Ammal Abdul Razzaq, 40, who voted with their three sons, agreed. "We have found candidates in this election we can trust," Mr. Saffar said, referring to the Iraqi Consensus Front, a moderate Sunni group that had several of its political workers killed during the campaign.
Another thing many Sunnis seemed to agree on was the possibility of a reconciliation between the Americans and the Sunnis, and a distancing of the Sunnis from some of the Al Qaeda-linked insurgent groups. Many were critical of American troops, saying, as Mr. Saleh did, that "they came as liberators, but stayed on as occupiers." But pressed on the question of an American troop withdrawal, most seemed cautious, favoring a gradual drawdown.
"Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home," said Mr. Sattar, the store owner. Told that this sounded similar to President Bush's formula for a troop withdrawal, he replied: "Then Bush has said it correctly".

A Sunni Arab Leader wants a Coalition Government

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A leading Sunni politician said Friday his party would be open to an alliance with secular Shiites and Kurds to form a coalition government to run the country once the results are in from this week's parliamentary elections. "We will not accept the exclusion of any segment of the Iraqi people unless they themselves don't want to participate," said Adan al-Dulaimi, a former Islamic studies professor who heads a Sunni Arab bloc that is now expected to have power in parliament. U.S. officials view al-Dulaimi, who heads an alliance called the Iraqi Accordance Front, as a possible intermediary who could persuade some Sunni-led insurgent groups in restive Anbar province to join the political process after boycotting previous votes.
Shiites account for about 60 percent of the country's 27 million people. Shiite politician, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, said the Shiites would try to form an "inclusive" government even if they don't have to. He accused "some foreign embassies" of "working very hard" to manipulate the results. Under the newly ratified constitution, the party with the biggest number of seats gets first crack at trying to form a government that can win parliament's endorsement. A government with strong Sunni Arab representation could help defuse the Sunni-dominated insurgency and allow the United States and its coalition partners to begin removing troops next year.

On Friday, General George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters in a video teleconference that he will make recommendations in the next few weeks about troop withdrawals from Iraq. "We should not expect the insurgency to just go away because of yesterday's great success," Casey said. "But we should expect it to be gradually weakened and reduced as more and more Iraqis adopt the political process and the root causes of the insurgency are addressed by the new Iraqi government and by the coalition." He expects the force level will drop back to 138,000 by early February. By late next fall, the Iraqi military should be able to largely take the lead in the country's defense, with continued support from U.S. and coalition transition teams.
"We just had the election, we're doing our assessments, and I'll make some recommendations in the coming weeks here about whether I think it's prudent to go below that baseline," said Casey, adding that the two extra battalions that were sent to Iraq for election security will be heading home in January.
But he made it clear that U.S. forces will still be in the lead in portions of Iraq until sometime in 2007. Depending on the progress of the new Iraqi government ministries, he said it will take until then for Iraqi security to be able to completely take control of its forces across the country. As Iraqi security takes over, U.S. troops will be able to withdraw. And even with Iraqi forces in the lead, some levels of U.S. support would still be needed for support. There are about 153,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now. Casey also said the Iraqi police forces would not be able to take charge of internal security until late next year or early 2007.
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Samir Sumaidaie, pleaded with the United States to stick with Iraq until it is stable. "I believe that yesterday was a great day for Iraq. It was a great day for freedom," he said. "I think it was a turning point and the beginning of the end of terrorism in Iraq." Casey said conditions along Iraq's border with Syria have improved, leading to a decrease in suicide bombings. He said coalition operations have restored Iraqi control of the border and the Syrians appear to have taken steps to pick up foreign fighters coming through there. As a result, he said, suicide attacks declined from more than 60 last June, to less than one a day this month. In contrast, he said Iran appears to have meddled more than any other border country in the Iraqi election. "And I believe that they will continue to attempt to influence the formation of this government over the coming weeks to get a government that they believe is supportive of their interests," he said. "That is worrisome and it is a challenge for us." Battles between various factions of the insurgency, particularly in Sunni-dominated regions of the country, helped tamp down election-day violence, he said, as Sunni's fought back against al-Qaida efforts to prevent them from going to the polls.

Meanwhile, we continue to make steady progress rebuilding Iraq:

Brig. Gen. Bill McCoy is "Mr. Fix-It," commanding the nerve center of U.S.-led reconstruction, where 500 convoys a week and $10 billion in goods and services are distributed through Iraqi ministries. He's overseen more than 3,000 projects, most of them completed. "The biggest challenge is working in this environment where it's hard to get out," says McCoy. "It's hard to make a difference fast." But the effort, officials say, is paying off. The new Iraq is beginning to prosper. Since the war, the average Iraqi salary has increased 100 times, from $2 to $200 a month. Unemployment has been halved from 60 percent to 30 percent. And more than 33,000 new small businesses have been created. Many, like Hussein Shabibi's bakery, were created without any government help. Business is good - hundreds of affluent customers a month spend up to $50 for one of his designer cakes. "They couldn't buy my cakes before the war," says Shabibi. But the challenge ahead is rebuilding Iraq during an insurgency that's taking a huge bite out of the U.S. reconstruction budget. About $4 billion has been spent so far on security alone. Just this week, Iraqi contractors abandoned a Baghdad school site and fled to Jordan under threat. There are hundreds of similar cases. "We finished a school, they're teaching in a school, and a terrorist comes in, drags the teachers out and murders them," says McCoy. But now the U.S. is trying a model that's worked in Afghanistan, pioneered by Zalmay Khalilzad, now the U.S. ambassador in Iraq. Provincial reconstruction teams - PRTs - are U.S. military units that also provide humanitarian help, including on-site construction, medical aid, even teaching government skills to locals. "Establishing PRTs is a new addition to our strategy of success in Iraq," says Khalilzad. But is there success when even oil production - Iraq's chief export - is below prewar levels, due largely to sabotage by insurgents? Mr. Fix-It says he will fix that, too. "I think they believe if they continue this attack that we'll tuck our tails and run," says McCoy. "That's not going to happen."

Indeed, General. Unless Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Murtha, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and the Democrats who follow their defeatist leadership get their way. Just last month they attempted a push for immediate withdrawal in a naked attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. McCoy is right, though. Cut-and-run is not happening. We will be victorious in Iraq and there will be hell to pay for a those who invested themselves in our defeat.

On Friday, the House passed House Resolution 612 “Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.”

The text of the bill states:
Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and
Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;
(2) the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
(3) the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
(4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;
(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
(7) the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and
(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.

The Democrats presented a resolution praising Iraqis for the elections as well. Difference between the two? Our resolution mentioned "victory" 7 times, theirs didn't mention it at all. Ours passed 279 to 109. Who voted Yea and who voted Nay? Yea - 218 Republicans 59 Democrats Nay 108 Democrats 1 Independent. 32 gutless Democrats and 2 gutless Republicans voted "present." Pelosi and Murtha voted Nay.

Nancy Pelosi went crying to the cameras:
"Once again the Republican majority brings to the House floor a divisive resolution to denounce those who disagree," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

Can't ask that people take a stand on whether or not we should be committed to victory in Iraq, eh Nancy? She's all about being "divisive" as long as it's not her party being divided.

Friday, Murtha (D-Mogadishu) had this to say:
“We’ve got nation building by the U.S. military, and that’s not a mission for the U.S. military,” Murtha said. “I’ve said this over and over again: They’re not good at nation building. You’ve given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can’t do it.”

Guess the news that we'd created a constitutional democracy in Iraq the day before eluded him.

Just in case anyone wondered what the official Democrat plan for Iraq was, Nancy made sure to remind us that they don't have one:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

A strength? Sure, Nancy. Just keep telling yourself that.
"Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

What Nancy really meant to say was "President Bush broke it, so he bought it. I, as a leader in the Democrat party, will not offer any constructive advice because I want us to lose."
Representative. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day [Rep. John] Murtha offered his plan [for immediate surrender], "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

Sure ya will, Rahm. Luckily, Bush has always had a plan, and a dedication to victory, and we are seeing the positive results of that now as Iraq has officially become a constitutional democracy with improving economic and security conditions. No thanks to the Democrats.
There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Thanks for clearin that up, Nancy.

Protein Wisdom has a roundup of some Lefty Blogs Reaction to the Iraqi Elections, and The Officer's Club observes: "They either 1) Pretended the elections never happened or 2) Mocked today's historic vote."

It's sad when we get more recognition for our success from the UN than we do from elected Democrats in this country:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told President Bush Friday that he was pleased with the vote in Iraq as they discussed ways in which the international community could provide help in Iraq, the White House said. Annan told Bush that violence in Iraq was low, voter turnout was high and that the Iraqi people had cleared another hurdle "on the road to democracy," said Federick Jones, spokesman for the National Security Council.

This, from today, will really send the Democrats into hysterics:
Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq’s violent Anbar province say they are ready to cooperate with the United States. They are seeking to extend a temporary truce honored by most insurgent groups for last week’s elections but say they want the United States to reduce military raids and increase development projects for their vast desert province, The Washington Times reports. Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of a prominent Sunni bloc, said insurgent groups had prevented violence from interfering with Thursday’s elections, the newspaper said. The truce resulted from weeks of negotiations between U.S. officials and insurgents. Sunni religious leader Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the United States. “We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans,” Hemaiym said. “As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative.”

Along with the elections, I'd consider that a serious and substantial "benchmark of success".

File under "D" for "Duhh"

A new study conducted by UCLA as found that the mainstream media has a Liberal bias.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

And in related news, scientists have discovered that water is wet, the sky is blue, and Michael Jackson is creepy.

Seriously, is there any point to doing surveys and studies like this anymore? Every one or two years, a study comes out that shows time and time again that most journalists are to the left of the American center. Just last year, this survey by the Pew Research Center found that Liberals outnumber Conservatives in the national media by 5 to 1. That same survey showed the media to be far left of the American center on a variety of issues.

Add in forged national guard memos, fake stories about the Koran being flushed down the toilet, hurricane Katrina coverage, and every other exposed Liberal media cause of the week. It doesn't matter. Liberals will never acknowledge the monolith that is the Liberal media. The New York Times could be printed on red paper with a hammer and sickle stamped on every page and the Eric Altermans of the world would still be asking "What Liberal Media"? This new study, which comes not from a bunch of RWW's like us, but from a bastion of loony leftists like UCLA, probably won't change their mind either. Arguing with a Liberal on this issue is like watching the scene from the movie "Heathers" where Winona Ryder clasps her hands over her ears and screams "Mary had a Little Lamb, Little Lamb, Little Lamb!!!!"

Interesting though, that they found that The Wall Street Journal news reporting is very Liberal, and that NPR is much more moderate. I'm not totally surprised to hear that though. The front page of the WSJ does not reflect the Conservatism editorial page.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

We're screwed

First, psychic and astrologer Helane published this prediction:

WINTER: We are seriously starting a brand new weather pattern. Storms are bigger than ever, The north especially St. Paul, Minnesota and Upstate NY will see its worst winter in memory. Record breaking snow fall.It is just a horrible winter, many people are isolated.

Then, atmospheric scientist Judah Cohen drops the other shoe.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Back in the Saddle Again

For those who live in more temperate climes, let me be the first to fill you in:

Puerto Rico is f**cking hot. More on that later.

I finished my schooling right on time. Made the Commendant's List, which is limited to those who finish with a 95% or above average. Some schools lists are the top 20% of the class, but we had sixty students, so they went with the former rather than the latter. I missed making Distinguished Honor Graduate by this much, but a Ranger beat me on the Physical Fitness test. That's not exactly a black stain on my record, if you know what I mean.

I spent most the time in the classroom, and then the last four days were in the field, applying everything I'd learned. It might be December, and you all might have snow where you live, but it was 85+ degrees down here, and humid as all hell. Not only that, but the area where we were conducting movement had grass as tall as I was, along with other vegitation that could be described as "ungodly". I managed to do everything I had to do, and get the maximum score, but I also needed three bags of IV fluid in two days. After coming back from one mission, my legs were cramping up so bad I had to walk straight-legged. I went over to the medic and just said "Stick me. Now, please." I had drank a gallon and a half of water on that mission as well, but I was sweating it out as fast as I could drink it.

And now I'm back, and seeing that I have a lot to catch up on. After reading DW's posts on the NY Slimes and the Washington Post, I feel like I have to link these two articles, just to illustrate how biased and foul the Lame-Stream media really is.

Victor Davis Hanson

For some time, a large number of Americans have lived in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell. If you get up in the morning to read the New York Times or Washington Post, watch John Murtha or Howard Dean on the morning talk shows, listen to National Public Radio at noon, and go to bed reading Newsweek it surely seems that the administration is incommunicado (cf. “the bubble”), the war is lost (“unwinnable”), the Great Depression is back (“jobless recovery”), and America about as popular as Nazi Germany abroad (“alone and isolated”).

But in the real adult world, the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty. Unemployment is low, so are interest rates. Growth is high, as is consumer spending and confidence. Our Katrina was hardly as lethal as the Tsunami or Pakistani earthquake. Thousands of Arabs are not rioting in Dearborn. American elderly don’t roast and die in the thousands in their apartments as was true in France. Nor do American cities, like some in China, lose their entire water supply to a toxic spill. Americans did not just vote to reject their own Constitution as in some European countries.

The military isn’t broken. Unlike after Vietnam when the Russians, Iranians, Cambodians, and Nicaraguans all soon tried to press their luck at our expense, most of our adversaries don’t believe the U.S. military is losing in Iraq, much less that it is wise now to take it on. Instead, the general impression is that our veteran and battle-hardened forces are even more lethal than was true of the 1990s — and engaging successfully in an almost impossible war.

Nor are we creating new hordes of terrorists in Iraq — as if a young male Middle Eastern fundamentalist first hates the United States only on news that it is in Iraq crafting a new Marshall Plan of $87 billion and offering a long-oppressed people democracy after taking out Saddam Hussein. Even al Jazeera cannot turn truth into untruth forever.

Instead, the apprentice jihadist is trying to win his certification as master terrorist by trying his luck against the U.S. Marines abroad rather than on another World Trade Center at home — and failing quite unlike September 11.

Captain's Quarters

In my post below, I ask whether the world has finally gotten the message that all people of all backgrounds want and deserve freedom, as demonstrated by the Iraqi elections. Media watches might expect that serious newspapers around the world will address the lessons to be drawn from this historic event. Not at the Paper of RecordTM, however; the message -- and the elections -- seem to have escaped the attention of the editorial board at the New York Times.

The RSS feed for the Opinion page at the Times just updated with tomorrow's articles. Here's what readers of the Times will see addressed by the opinion leaders of what was once the most influential of all American dailies:

* Don't rush to renew the PATRIOT Act (even though it's about to expire after four years)
* The Red Cross may not be motivated to fix its problems
* Chad hasn't benefited from its discovery of oil (but then again, neither have we in ANWR)
* A demand for moral clarity on torture

Wait -- perhaps one of their guests addresses it instead. Er, no. Tim Harford talks trade reform to benefit poor farmers, Robert Kennedy really likes wind power until it blocks his view of the stars (more on that later), and Pankaj Mishra writes about the West vs Islam ... in Turkey. Even behind the Times Select Firewall of Sanity, Paul Krugman forgoes his usual Chicken Littlism on Iraq in favor of discussing conflicts of interest in health care.

Did the Times miss the story? Or are they just hoping that the rest of us did?

Read both. It's a stark example of just how off-base the Lame-Stream media is with it's lies, hysterics, and unfounded accusations. Hey, have you heard how great the economy is going? If you read the NY Slimes, you wouldn't have. The economy is still red hot, as it has been for the past three years. Screaming along. Growing faster than ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE.

But the Lame-Stream press doesn't want to print that. It might go against it's bias.

Friday, December 16, 2005

NY Slimes - Propaganda Machine

Finally, I'm off work and able to enjoy more of the propaganda of the day. Let's look at today's NY Slimes, shall we? First headline: "Supporters of Patriot Act Suffer a Stinging Defeat in Senate - Supporters are well short of the 60 votes needed to bring the anti-terrorism act to a final vote, leaving it in limbo." Ooh. Double wammy! Not only do terrorists get a major break, but the democrats reestablish the fabled "supermajority" rule that has been in place ever since they lost the majority in the Senate in 2002. We must be the only country in the world where the minority party gets to call the shots. No wonder this is the lead story - the Slimes must be in party mode! Let's see, second story: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the National Security Agency has spied on hundreds of people inside the U.S." Not only is this report another blatant attack on the President, but it puts our national security at risk. To see why, see here, here and here.
The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
It seems like anything the CIA touches gets leaked to the Slimes. (Amazing, isn't it?) Turns out the NY Slimes has been sitting on this story for more than a year, and chose this time to release it not only on its own pages but on the pages of newspapers across the country. (I question the timing.) Special council Fitzgerald should investigate the NY Slimes and all the security leaks they have been getting instead of the Plame game.

The Post: a little Truth mixed in with the Propaganda

The front page of the Washington Post is a great example of propaganda in journalism. In the upper left of their front page (online version), we see a picture of a man and his dog walking across what looks to be dry, heavily cracked mud and the headline is, "2005 Continues the Warming Trend," so they are starting with the obligatory gobal warming pitch. The top headline in the center of the page reads, "Bush Allowed Domestic Spying in 2002 Order - President authorized NSA eavesdropping operations with post-9/11 order, despite previous legal prohibitions against such tactics." At least they got the obligatory stab at the President out of the way early. Actually, now that I look, the rest of the front page is a verbal assault on our nation's President, too. That's what it's all about though, isn't it? Attacking the President. Every. Single. Day. Nothing unusual there. Next on their front page we have, "Sen. McCain Takes the Lead - Torture ban compromise becomes an awkward dance in which President Bush must follow." So now we are to believe that Senator McCain is telling the President what to do, reinforcing the "Bush can't think for himself" meme. (Funny. I thought this week's angle was that the President does not listen to others - that he lives in a bubble.) This story from the Post further paves the way for a McCain run for President in '08, which wouldn't be as good as Hillary but better than any other Republican the Post's editors can think of. Next we have, "Experts Cautious on Iraq Vote - Analysts say high turnout and little violence during elections is a positive step but not a turning point." What would we do without the Post's duplicitous "experts" and "analysts?" Actually, we'd do pretty well, particularly in Iraq. I'm wondering how they can call this "news" without collapsing in a fit of laughter. Next we have the Post's lead opinion piece apparently, which starts with "The struggle for Mideast democracy will be a human triumph if it succeeds -- but not, by itself, a victory for American national security." The 'Post didn't have articles like this when we invaded Kosovo or Somalia. Explain to me how Kosovo or Somalia made our nation more secure.

But, speaking of troops, I did find this article in the Post yesterday which is not an article at all but a letter from a US Marine. It was not mentioned on their front page of course, but at least they printed it. Maybe they're slipping. (I can dream, can't I?) The letter is so good, I think I'll just 'post' the whole thing right here:
The Truth On the Ground
By Ben Connable

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

The writer is a major in the Marine Corps
I think the disparity in opinion is due to the fact that 99% of Americans have not spent a day on the ground in Iraq and only know what the Post and other mainstream media propaganda outlets tell them. Much of the information we receive from our most trusted sources is false - if people don't see the world clearly then they can't make decisions on a rational basis.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Another senior moment with John "over-the-horizon" Murtha

From CNN:

"Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a usually hawkish Democrat who has called for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- criticized Bush's policy again ...."

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can't do it."

Previously, the "hawkish" Representative mentioned:

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.'”

Matthew Rothschild asks idiotically in TheProgressive:

"Bush has trapped himself with his own rhetoric of “total victory” and “finishing the job.” And then, of course, there’s Cheney and Rumsfeld who still want that oil and those military bases.

The question is, how long can Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld defy a majority of the American public and an increasingly restive Congress?"

Today, CNN provides the answer:

"One final thing," writes Rothschild.

"While Murtha is not the bastard child of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, as some of Bush’s attack dogs snarled, it is gratifying that Murtha is making some of the very arguments that the peace movement has been advancing all along."

So does that makes Rep. Murtha another confused hawkish pacifist Democrat? Maybe. Or he could just be nuts.

It happens. My senator, Jim Jeffords, appeared in the House of Representatives one day, and was told that he was in the wrong chamber. Then he announced his retirement. (I would link this story, but all references have been purged from the MSM. The record survives only in blogs.)

Another Fake Headline

From AFP: "Bush defends Iraq war, says he will attack another nation if necessary"

The article is about a speech that US President Bush gave yesterday. I actually watched the speech in question on C-Span, and Mr. Bush never said what the AFP is reporting he said. Of course, he did not say that he would "not" attack another nation if necessary, either. Jacques Chirac didn't say that he would not attack another nation, so should we conclude that Jacques is a warmongering cowboy? Who writes these headlines, anyway?

Remembering those who paid for the Iraqi election

Army Sgt. Philip A. Dodson, Jr.

42, of Forsyth, Ga.; assigned to the 148th Forward Support Battalion, 48th Brigade Combat Team, Georgia Army National Guard, Forsyth, Ga.; died Dec. 2 of injuries sustained earlier that day when his truck accidentally rolled over at Tallil Air Base, Iraq. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Philip L. Travis and Spc. Marcus S. Futrell.

Dodson was responsible for repairing generators, but he had volunteered to be a machine gunner on convoys three days a week, according to his father.

Sergeant Dodson leaves a wife and a 16-year-old daughter.

Marine Lance Cpl. Adam W. Kaiser

19, of Naperville, Ill.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif.; attached to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward); killed Dec. 1 by an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Fallujah, Iraq. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Daniel J. Clay, Lance Cpl. John M. Holmason, Lance Cpl. David A. Huhn, Lance Cpl. Robert A. Martinez, Cpl. Anthony T. McElveen, Lance Cpl. Scott T. Modeen, Lance Cpl. Andrew G. Patten, Sgt. Andy A. Stevens, and Lance Cpl. Craig N. Watson.

Lance Corporal Kaiser is survived by his parents, Wade and Christine, both of Romeoville; a sister, Sarah; and a twin sister, Amanda.

Army Staff Sgt. Aram J. Bass

25, of Niagara Falls, N.Y.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed Nov. 23 when his unit came under direct fire during combat operations in Baghdad. Also killed was Sgt. William B. Meeuwsen.

Military officials aren't releasing many specific details about Bass' death, but did tell his wife, Breanne Sterner, that he was shot while trying to save another soldier in Baghdad.

"I just want them to know he was very, very special, and he was proud of what he did," Sterner said. "It was something he loved to do and I know that he was proud to do it.

UPDATE: That is a picture of Staff Sergeant Bass; this link states that Sgt. Bass served three years in the Marines prior to joining the Army.

Love Thine Enemy

Ann Coulter wonders why Republicans in government feel the need to deify those who attack them.

Iraqi Election Roundup... Gateway Pundit.

A New Beginning

Scenes From A New Democracy

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Where's that confounded Plan???


They had a plan to fix Social Security, Education, and stuck up people, too, but Diebold robbed them of their chance to Plow Forward.

Plan Plan, who's got the Plan?

Harry Reid just went on national TV and said the President "is still not focused on what needs to be done in convincing the American people and showing the American people what his plan is in Iraq." Well, I suppose it's hard to see or hear the plan if your eyes are closed and your ears are plugged. By the way, when's the last time the Dems had a plan?

PREVIOUS: Gulag. Gulag. Who's got the gulag?

Portraits in Moonbattery

The Tookie Williams Vigil at San Quentin

Monday, December 12, 2005

Polls and Sunni Arabs Make Liars of Donkeys

Now we can't quote them! That's "questioning their patriotism". I've no doubt that they love the socialist utopia they dream of transforming the United States into. They just don't love it as is. And they justify their traitorous calls for retreat (and many other foul behaviors) with their disdain for "the current administration". Let's start this one with more pronouncements of doom by (current) leading Democrat and media darling - John Murtha (D-Mogadishu) on our fight for victory:

“There’s no way you can win a war when not only have you lost the hearts and minds of people, when you have become their enemy,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a press conference at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia.

Murth says "we can't win". His solution is to get our troops out of Iraq (it is lost after all), and attain victory by engaging in diplomatic deliberations with Abu Zarqawi. And this time, he says it's because we've lost hearts and minds. Really?

More than 6 in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in June 2004.
61 percent say local security is good up from 49 percent in February 2004.
51 percent say they feel safe - nearly double what it was in June 2004.
Confidence in the Iraqi Army, up from 39 percent in November 2003 to 67 percent now
Confidence in the police, up from 45 percent to 68 percent.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months.
70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively.
In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones now it's 62 percent.
Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled.
More families now own air conditioners - 58 percent up from 44 percent. Which may have something to do with Iraqis opinion of their electricity infrastructure as 54 percent say it's bad in their area, although that's down from 64 percent last year.

Interest in politics was 39 percent in an Oxford survey in November 2003, 54 percent in February 2004 and 69 percent now.
76% of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week.
6 in 10 Anbar residents have confidence that the elections will lead to a stable government.
70 percent approve of the new constitution.
Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader" (they miss Saddam.....awwwww).
When Iraqis instead are asked which of these systems they prefer not now, but in five years' time, support for democracy is a bit higher - 64 percent

70 percent including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike want Iraq to remain a unified country
88 percent of those in Sunni areas want a unified Iraq, compared with 56 percent in Shiite provinces
99 percent of Iraqis support women voting or working as medical doctors

The Future:
69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year.
70 percent think security nationally will improve in the next year.

52% of Iraqis say coalition forces should remain until security is restored or longer.

10 to 13 point gains in ratings of local crime protection, security and medical care, as well as in the still-problematic areas of electric supply and jobs.
While most of these ratings have improved since February 2004, fewer Iraqis now say these conditions are better than they were before the war. That could reflect both dimmer recollection and an unwillingness to give the war credit for positive change. The measure above, rating conditions without relying on recollection, is the more reliable one.

Leftists love to claim that we can not win militarily as if our Strategy for Victory in Iraq was comprised solely of military means. They are intentionally blind to our political progress in Iraq precisely because they must satisfy the "we can't win militarily" meme. They know that the Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size PLANNED for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007. By claiming defeat now and citing troop reductions when and only when they are warranted, they will attempt to save face. We've known all along that we can't win without the military component or the political, or the economic.

Al Qaeda calls the upcoming elections in Iraq "Satanic". They aren't willing to negotiate, Mr. Murtha. The home grown portion of the Iraqi "insurgency" is comprised of former Ba'athists loyal to leftist humanitarian hero Saddam Hussein, and they had previously hoped that their sugar-daddy and his leftist comrades around the globe would be able to thwart the effort to democratize Iraq and that they would be returned to their previously undeservedly spoiled existence - Shia Muslim (Arab) and Sunni Muslim Kurd be damned! We'll, that didn't work out for them. They boycotted the first election, and progress continued. They defied al Qaeda a little in the constitutional referendum in an attempt to spoil it, but it succeeded. Now the choice for Iraq's Sunni Arabs is black and white: Lay down their arms and participate in the December 15th elections to elect proportional representation in Iraq's new democracy, or continue their bloody and futile fight to return to the ways of the past. How are they choosing?

FALLUJA/RAMADI Iraq (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack. Guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Graffiti calling for holy war is now hard to find. Instead, election campaign posters dominate buildings in the rebel strongholds of Ramadi and nearby Falluja, where Sunnis staged a boycott or were too scared to vote last time around. "We want to see a nationalist government that will have a balance of interests. So our Sunni brothers will be safe when they vote," said Falluja resident Ali Mahmoud, a former army officer and rocket specialist under Saddam's Baath party. "Sunnis should vote to make political gains. We have sent leaflets telling al Qaeda that they will face us if they attack voters."

Keep in mind this is the same Abu Zarqawi they are referring to that once wrote Osama bin Laden lamenting the "poor Sunni (Arabs)". This is the end of their love affair. As an aside, isn't it funny how the Sunni Arab group - al Qaeda can issue a call to defend the regime of Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Arab Ba'athists (while in the same breath proclaiming that a partnership with the global left was to both groups' advantage) and Democrats go out of their way to stand common sense on its head denouncing links between AQ and Hussein? Now, thanks to our pursuit of democracy for all Iraqis, including the ex-Ba'athists, the goals of Iraqs Sunni Arabs and Al Qaeda are at odds.

Dec. 19, 2005 issue - Ahmed Duraid is ready for a new era. Like almost all of his neighbors in Adhamiya, a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency along the Tigris River in central Baghdad, the 35-year-old clothes vendor boycotted Iraq's National Assembly elections last January on the advice of Sunni fighters and influential political groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars. But the consequences for Adhamiya were severe: shadowy religious militias with ties to the Shiite-dominated government began arresting, kidnapping and sometimes murdering young Sunni men in the neighborhood; Duraid felt unprotected, even abandoned, by the country's new leaders. "We didn't participate, and the others took power alone, and this is the result," Duraid told NEWSWEEK.
Saddam Hussein once ruled Iraq with brutal predictability. In the political realm, nobody had to think, or to choose, or to compete. You did what you were told, and when elections came around, you voted for Saddam. But today, as the ex-dictator stands trial for atrocities, even some Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers are beginning to acknowledge the power of the ballot box. Duraid and his fellow residents say they've learned from their mistake: they plan to participate in the Dec. 15 vote for a new National Assembly.
This new determination has transformed the atmosphere of places like Adhamiya. Posters for the Iraqi Consensus Front—a slate consisting of the three main Sunni parties—have sprouted on walls and lampposts. Candidates are drumming up votes in mosques and meeting halls. On one street corner last week, a mute 10-year-old boy enthusiastically passed out cards adorned with photos of Salih al-Mutlaq, a popular Sunni politician. "Iraq now is at a crossroads," reads a political leaflet distributed in Sunni neighborhoods, urging people to vote next week. "Either unity, dignity and security... or division and bloodshed."
Everyone in Iraq has a sense of urgency. U.S. diplomats, convinced that the insurgency can't be defeated by military means alone, see the elections as a vital chance to find a political solution to Iraq's seemingly intractable problems.

Stop. No one EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER promoted a strategy that called for "military means alone"...EVER. EVER! President Bush has consistently cited the need to democratize Iraq in order to succeed against the insurgency and the terrorists that oppose a democratic Iraq. What we are seeing RIGHT NOW is that his strategy is succeeding in ending the home grown insurgency. In other words (never to be printed in the likes of Newsweek) - BUSH WAS RIGHT! :)

"Growing numbers of Sunnis, meanwhile, realize that pursuing a guerrilla war against the Americans and shunning the political process won't end their marginalization."

That sounds familiar!

" For many Iraqis, the trial of Saddam is also a reminder of the pitfalls of a one-party state. (In days of emotionally charged testimony, victims of Saddam's regime told stories of torture, rape and murder.) Even some insurgent groups are encouraging people to vote. "We will participate, and we have called on all of our battalions in Anbar province and [the rest of] Iraq to take part," says Abu Baraa, 35, a fighter for the Islamic Army in Fallujah.

Nobody is saying that a heavy Sunni turnout will end the violence: radical Islamic militants loyal to Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi have vowed to continue their terror campaign until they establish an Islamic state in Iraq.

Indeed, just today, President Bush said that the violence (which leftists in the Democrat party and the press are myopically focused on) will not end with the elections. But changes, there WILL be:
"But the Bush administration, which has seen one "turning point" after another lead nowhere, believes this one could be different. "If you have a government that comes out of participation by all communities," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told NEWSWEEK, "then resistance against it is illegitimate."

Note that "the Bush administration" said nothing that can possibly be construed as "this time it will be different, we will end the violence". Now we know who Newsweek considers "Nobody" as I said, they are generally focused on "the violence". For if there is "violence" they can focus on it instead of the good stuff. And if the meriad of "turning points" got us "nowhere", then how did we end up here?
Zarqawi routinely targets moderate Sunni leaders for assassination. Half a dozen Sunni politicians have been killed in the past six months, most of them prominent moderates. Two weeks ago Ayad al-Izi, a well-respected cleric and National Assembly candidate from the Iraqi Islamic Party, was gunned down minutes after giving a conciliatory speech to high-ranking members of a Sunni tribe. "He created a wave of acceptance around the political process, and that scared some people," says Alaa Makee, a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party. Despite the threat of violence, most observers believe that the Sunnis will achieve large gains in the elections.

Again, we see that Democrat claims run contrary to the reality they so desperately hope no one notices. There is no way to square the success in the realm of Iraqi public opinion alone with the defeatist rhetoric of the Democrats today. Look out Donks, December 15th is going to be a REAL "Benchmark for success", no thanks to you.