Imperial Requiem

ex-Generals and strategy

2006-05-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a weird post, because I'm pretty sure I don't have all the info on the topic. But I want to make this post, if only to generate some healthy stepping stones for criticism and debate on the issue.

Alot of ex-generals from the 80's, 90's, and even a few generals who served in the GWOT have take the time to bash Rumsfeld and his Iraqi War Plan. Specifically, they're bashing him for not putting "more troops on the ground" in Iraq during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. They might be right; they might be wrong. I don't want to make the mistake of engaging in partisan attacks on them because frankly, they ARE military, and as such, they deserve my undying respect and they deserve every bit of honor.

However, Rumsfeld also deserves that same respect and honor, and I will also balk at even the ex-generals making ad hominen attacks on him. If they want respect, give him respect too, and shitcan the "he's killing American soldiers!" schtick. It makes them sound whiny, defensive, and it does not serve in the stead of an arguement. They'd be far better off articulating their own positions, rather than trying to give the media red meat in going after Rummy. Oh, and I'm not even sure what they're doing- in terms of the red meat attacks- is allowed in the military, active or not active duty.

However, is the "more boots on the ground" concept an actual strategy? Or is it a "it wasn't my idea!" type of pass-the-buck excuse? It's no secret that the generals in the US Army are very much anti-Rummy. This comes from a bunch of different viewpoints. Some are Cold Warriors (like Ralph Peters, btw) who don't like the fact that Rumsfeld wants to change the US military away from the hidebound concepts of massing armor and infantry for cataclysmic confrontations with the WARSAW PACT, or something in Asia. Rumsfeld wants to create a US military that can meet massive conventional war scenarios, but also meet more local insurgency and quick deployment scenarios as well. He's put the emphasis on basically re-creating the US military on a SPECOPS/Marines format. This is also part of why the Army's pissed off; they're being told to become the Marines. Full disclosure- I support Rumsfeld's plans in reshaping the US military in this fashion. I'm also willing to say that he's made mistakes, but I mean that in the same way that Ulysses Grant or George Patton made mistakes.

Another group are the Clinton-era generals, who may have been political generals who got their job by kissing ass like politicians do. That may be the case, but I think it's more a case of their views of the US military in the post-cold war era. Without the Soviets and the Iraqis "contained" after 1991, they turned to do more global peacekeeping operations rather than head on military confrontations. It was something more on the lines of a cost-benefit analysis and corporate managed system than what you had before the 1990's and after. Their track record was one of very timid action- the aftermath of Mogadishu, Bosnia, Kosovo, Operation Desert Fox, and the response the USS Cole and Embassy Bombings. Limited operations, with limited insertion, and limited gains (as well as limited to no casualties). It could well be a top-down arguement from the Clinton Administration (which admittedly had more of a law-enforcement attitude) than something designed from the military, but these generals would probably not have liked the idea of a "storm of steel" vis a vis the 1980s or the 2000's. Casualty lists and political polls meant everything to them, one way or the other. They never would have done OMAHA Beach, but rather, would have timidly accepted doing UTAH Beach.

Neither of these two groups do I really have any fault with. They served their times well, and still should speak up and make criticism. But is their criticism in regards to Rummy I think have a few problems:

1) What would "more boots on the ground" actually accomplish? They weren't needed in the actual Operation Iraqi Freedom (and you could make an arguement the shutdown of the Turkish/Northern Iraqi front did more to hurt the Coalition than not having a 500,000 man army). They aren't needed now. During the fall of 2003 through to the fall of 2004, would it have made a difference? My personal feeling is that they could have a better arguement for saying that Rumsfeld's Pentagon didn't react quickly enough to the insurgency, rather than any other arguement. That being said, he DID react to the insurgency by the fall of 2004 and frankly, from then to the present day, the US Army has done pretty well, despite what the media's saying.

2) In going with the fact that the US Army has preformed well since the fall of 2004, why have they not pointed this out? And what also, would they have done in the stead of Rumsfeld? I have heard no actual fleshed out strategies for dealing with the insurgency/terrorists in Iraq other than the "boots on the ground" concept and alot of complaining about combat casualties. They may have an arguement I haven't seen, though. But without that arguement, their "boots on the ground" statments come off as far more like talking points than anything else. I think this is important, because alot of what I'm hearing is hyperbole, and there's not enough real constructive criticism going on.

3) Notice also that we're not hearing anyone complain from SPECOPS, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force? Why is this just an Army issue? Shouldn't it be a issue that crosses throughout the Armed Forces? I could be wrong here, and that there have been other branches complaining, but I don't see that. It's just the army. Why is that the case, and why haven't the other branches been speaking out?

4) With the ex-generals who were not involved in the GWOT, how much of what they're saying comes from their inside sources in the military, or from watching the mainstream media? How much reliance should I or shouldn't I place on their statements? On top of that, I do know a few of them have books coming out- General Zinni does- and that their statments are clearly timed to coincide with their book tours. Should their statements then be construed as timely advertising for their book tours? With Zinni, I find it highly disengeuous to be playing this game at this time (not necessarily for those who DON'T have books out).

5) Also, what about the Iraqis? Is there any complaints coming from their commanders? So very little of the debate actually centers around the fact that the whole arguement is taking place right in the middle of Iraq. Seriously, shouldn't the generals on both sides of the arguement be taking into account that there are other players involved in the game here? This also includes the Coalition forces. Speaking of them, why haven't I heard their ex-generals complaining as well?

6) Some current and former generals have also come out in support of Rumsfeld. Why doesn't this get played up more, and what kind of criticism do the ex-generals who don't support Rummy have to say about their support of him?

7) Bush handily won the military vote in 2004. They also are re-enlisting far ahead of the targeted numbers. Asides from the normal gripes that soldiers deal with, I haven't heard much from them at all during this whole debate. hy doesn't any of these arguements deal with the common soldiers?

8) Throughout American history, there have been many issues of civilian-military command. Lincoln and McClellan never got along- to the point where Lincoln demoted and fired McClellan. Burnside also completely screwed the military over worse than anything Macnamara could have done in 'Nam. FDR (and everyone else) hated MacArthur; that's why Eisenhower was chosen as the Supreme Allied Commander. Patton also repeatedly got himself into trouble during WW2- and he was the US's best general. Truman fired MacArthur when he got bitchy about the Korean War and started openly defying Truman's orders. Clinton fired General Clark when he disobeyed orders and damn near started a conventional war with Russia during the Kosovo War. And I'm reading a book on the Yom Kippur War- the Israeli commanders constantly clashed; the Egyptian commanders constantly clashed. But they both effectively fought the war. And so did the Union Army in the Civil War, and the Allied Armies in WW2. Should this problem also be viewed within this same prism? The whole story needs context. Is this the right context, or should there be another one? I personally view this as just one more notch in the whole arguement over civilian-military command, and it's just broken out into the open more thanks to the 24/7 news cycles.

This could all be pedestrian, but these questions need to be answered. As it is, neither the ex-generals (with the possible exception of Zinni, who I think is clearly playing the political shell game) nor the Rumsfeld camp are in the wrong at this point. So much of it's muddled by the red-meat-gotcha journalistic attitude of the mainstream media. These generals- on both sides- should not be given a free pass just beacuse of prevailing political attitudes on either side of the spectrum. Criticism is healthy; demagogurey is not. Let's ask real policy and strategy questions, please, and not engage in "baby-seal killer!" type of whining.

UPDATE: A few more points I want to add:

9) Why haven't these ex-generals also gone after Bush and Tommy Franks? What is it about Rumsfeld that makes them go after him, and not the others?

10) why is the media playing up Colin Powell's position in all this? It's been proven already that Powell was behind the push to go to the UN, which backfired, and then Bush turned towards Rummy and Wolfowitz for the war plans. So Powell basically felt he was "betrayed". Spare me that whiny bullshit. Powell's adept at the political game and he has had an axe out for Bush for years now, ever since Rummy won the arguement over the Iraqi War. He's spent all his political capitol trying to say "neener neener, I told you so!" if only so he can get back at his rivals in the Bush Administration. He's proven himself to be politically adept at being a grade A schmuck. I don't trust a goddamn thing he says on this issue, if only because of where he stands on it. I'd rather listen to Zinni, and I don't want to at that.

11) If these ex-generals are so intent on getting rid of Rumsfeld, who do they want Bush to replace him with? I pray they're not thinking Powell, because that would be the stupidest shit I've ever heard. I haven't heard any names being bandied about; and I also haven't heard any reason to kick Rummy out during the middle of the GWOT. Is that a smart idea? What kind of message would that send to the troops, and to our enemies? Would it be one of "hey, we got someone better in place to kick ass!" or would it be "Gee, all we need to do is prove to the ex-generals that we can cause casualties and they'll always have the trump card of playing political musical chairs with their SecDefs!" I think it would be closer to the latter.

Looking Ahead Part 3

2006-04-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

Now that I've dissected the immigration and national security issues to an extent, what else is there to touch upon? Oh, yeah, the fact that the Dems are going to make the mid-term elections all about impeaching Bush. You don't think so? Russ Feingold is trying to Censure Bush right now, in Congress.

So far, most of the Democrats in Congress have maintained silence on this issue, or have tried to dodge it. But with Feingold's act- which was designed to jumpstart his 2008 Presidential campaign- it's now on the table for the mid-term elections. Give the Dems Congress, and they'll try to impeach Bush. Nevermind that Cheney will be President, and most likely Frist will be VP (because, frankly, the Dems won't get the Senate). Sure, the Dems will ignite their base with such tactics, but even the mere mention of it will do the same for the GOP.

And with a GOP base that has been apathetic towards their Congressmen, the Dems have just given them a reason NOT to be apathetic anymore. They'll put asides their differences with most of their candidates, and vote for them just to NOT have a Coup de'etat. And they'll also get alot of moderate dems to refrain from voting for the more unhinged ones. They'll think "gee, we're doing exactly what the GOP did to Clinton. This isn't right." And they'd be right (for the record, while I deplored Clinton's actions, I also deplored the call for impeachment over the Lewinsky stuff).

Things could still change between now and November. They could completely back off of this agenda. Or they could go full force for it. But as it stands, this issue just gives the GOP initiative for the fall.

Looking Ahead Part 2

2006-03-31T12:05:00.000-08:00

The second issue that's going to affect the 2006 mid-term elections is the issue of immigration. In fact, it already is. There have been pro-immigration rallies throughout Souther California in the recent weeks, and they've been heavily covered by the news media, new and old.

The problem with those rallies is that they're getting the kind of attention that they don't want. Many of the immigrants in the rallies were seen carrying Mexican flags- not American flags. And alot of them were espousing pro-Mexican rhetoric. When you get images of illegal immigrants taking down an American flag and hoisting up an Mexican flag, and then putting an American flag upside down underneath it, on American soil, you know they've just lost 95% of middle America (Michelle Malkin). Here's some more info: Michelle Malkin 2, Dallas News, and Captain's Quarters. In conversations with regular Americans, people are starting to get fed up with the immigrant problem in the US. I don't mean the immigrants who want to be here, legal or illegal. Most of the immigrants that are in the US are from Mexico- and a great deal of them don't support America, and are actually sent here by the Mexican government, to add the money they make to the Mexican economy. Why should the US support people who are mooching off our economy? By and large, in my conversations with average Americans, they don't like this. At all.

And this isn't an issue that the Democrats want to reach the surface. Years ago, they would have been able to say that those that opposed the immigration were "racists" and "unamerican". At this point, that rhetoric will sound shallow when faced with the type of shennanigans that were going on at the pro-immigration rallies, which were featured on mainstream news. A wide swath of America doesn't like what they're seeing.

It remains to be seen if the Republican party will get behind this issue- Bush already is, proposing work visa programs and amnesty programs for the illegal immigrants who want to be in the US, and tougher measures in keeping immigrants out. To be frank, why else would there have been a meeting between Bush, Vincente Fox, and Stephen Harper (the new Canadian PM) this past week? They watched the news, and all saw that the illegal immigration issue had jumped the shark.

The problem for the Republicans (as well as the Dems) in Congress is that they see the Latino community as a voting bloc. They're mostly right, and that bloc basically can have an impact on elections. However, those that are against illegal immigration represent a far greater bloc. As the issue is being presented to the public- this is the type of issue that the Dems don't want to be a factor in the mid-term elections. They know they can get snazzy headlines with this, but they won't be able to get the voters with stupid crap like what I posted. It's out in the open, and it will have a ripple effect.

Looking ahead Part 1

2006-03-30T19:43:00.000-08:00

Since the Democrats want to look ahead to the fall elections, I might as well do that, too. The Dems apparently decided to pull their heads out of the ground long enough to issue their foriegn policy strategy: THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN

Pardon me while I laugh. There are other bloggers who have stated that they believe that the Dem's strategy feels like some powerpoint session that they pulled out of their ass (Brian Dunn). The sad thing is, is that those bloggers are pretty much right. The Dems plan boils down to:

-We'll get Osama! Somehow! But we will! And we'll also raise the dead! Somehow! But we will!

-We'll pull out of Iraq because we have no idea how to fight a war and win it. But we'll go fight Osama! Somehow! But we will! And we'll save you $150 on your Geico bill, too!

-Oh, we'll fight him and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Somehow! Never mind that would mean war with Pakistan, who's ALLIED with us in the Global War on Terror. But we will!

-We'll increase the number of Special Forces while completely ignoring the state of the regular armed forces. Just don't tell anyone that this is codeword bullshit for "we'll pretend to fund SPECOPS while we cut the rest of the army, again. And turn the Global War on Terror over to the UN."

- We'll stop nuclear proliferation with Iran and North Korea by talking sternly to them! We'll send those bad boys to their room! Nevermind that they're already laughing at us! We'll laugh at ourseves too! We will!

- We'll pretend the NSA is illegal as long as a Republican is in office. And conveiniently forget that Democrats in office have used it for the same purposes.

- Bush is wrong, we're right, neener neener neener. See? We told you we're right. Therefore, we are right.

That's what it boils down to. There's nothing in there that actually talks about real concrete policy issues, or fundamental strategies. It's all a hodgepodge of catchphrases designed to try to sell you a retail product that they don't have any expertise talking about. Much of it's "what Bush says, we're against" without saying what they're actually for or even really denying that Bush is actually wrong about it (just that he's FOR it, rather than them being for it first). In short, it's nothing more than rehashed crap from the Kerry campaign. Gee, that helped them out in 2004, didn't it?

I considerably doubt that they'll be able to gain a foothold on this issue. Most of the polls out in the media consistently underrepresent Republicans and overreperesent Democrats and their allies among independents. Republicans also tend to do better on election day, on average, than the Democrats do. Part of this is because they're focused on grassroots campaigns and mixing it with a national strategy. The Dems have not had one since 2000. All they have are a base who is reflexively anti-Bush, and not much else. That's not enough to win in November 2006.

It does help the Dems that the GOP seems to be floundering right now, but if all the Dems can do is come out with a lame PowerPoint presentation of rehashed failed concepts for their foriegn policy strategy, it's not as if they're doing great, either. This is an issue in which they're signaling that they're going to shoot themselves in the foot with, once again.

Here are some other links talking about the Dem's plan:Big Lizards, Big Lizards 2, Captain's Quarters and TKs

They're still at it

2006-03-06T11:18:00.000-08:00

Some of the so-called Conservatives out there are still whining about Iraq. As in my previous posts, Derbyshire along with CliffMay, Francis Fukuyama, and William F. Buckley, are continuing their rants against the Iraqi war, if only because they believe that the situation there is untenable, and, more to the point, they never signed on to nation building after deposing Saddam.

For the first part, they point to the issue of the potential for Civil War in Iraq, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque as the flashpoint. To this, I say: stop watching CNN, MSNBC, and reading the NY Times. Start readingBill Roggio's The Fourth Rail- http://billroggio.com/ and Threats Watch- http://threatswatch.org/. Both sites posit a far more complete view of what's going in in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. There was no civil war- there was an attempt to create a civil war, but it's an attempt that by and large, failed. But those writers, editorialists, and pundits all screamed bloody murder the moment that the Mosque was blown up; they didn't bother to wait for follow up information that would vaildate their claims for a full-blown civil war; they didn't bother to read beyond the basic mainstream media (who do NOT have the ability to understand the GWOT with their media structuralization and ideologies); and they've never been to Iraq.

And yet, guys like Derbyshire get the chance to pontificate to people who HAVE been to Iraq- that they have less worth then the Derbyshires of the world. Ralph Peters was in Iraq recently, during the unrest that happened after the bombing of the Mosque. And yet, all Derbyshire and his ilk could do is say "he reported from a Humvee, that's not really visiting Iraq" (paraphrased). Um, well......that's more than you've done, Derbyshire. You get a free pass at bitching when you do exactly what Ralph Peters does, and nothing less. Oh, and now that things are calming down (to an extent) in Baghdad, what do these writers have to say for themselves? A simple "oops" won't suffice.

The second point irritates me even more: That they don't care one way or the other that Democracy should be exported to Iraq or the Middle East, and that their sole goal was to eliminate Hussein as a threat to the US and the West. To that, I have just this to say:

Why can't the Middle East become a democracy?

Their reponse is that Islam is not suitable for Democracy, and that that Arab people don't ultimately want Democracy. Well, as for Islam + Democracy, we just don't know. It's never really been tried before. To say that it won't work is an assuption without any facts behind it. But what we DO know, is that the people of the Middle East want prosperity and economic freedom. They've taken to that pretty effectively- when they've been allowed it. And the easiest way to ensure economic freedom is through democratic governments. Socialist, autocratic, or Tribal governments won't work in the globalized world of today. That effectively leaves them with democracy. And why shouldn't they get their chance at democracy? Because they're, well, not American? Or European? That they bow 5 times a day to Mecca? And don't drink wine? I hope you readers see where I'm going with this: I can't help but think that the simple, underlying reason that these writers don't want to see nation-building and democracy in the Middle East is because they are not American, Europeans, Judeo-Christians, and as such, are lower than the former, and deserve their lower stature. IE; I find it a fundamentally racist arguement. I want to hesitate from saying that, because it really veers into potential ad hominen territory, but I can't shake it. The whole "they're not us, and thus are not worthy" arguement that I'm seeing them make I just find utterly vile. And so goddamn stupid that it's the type of strategy that would make counter-insurgency operations in the overall GWOT virtually impossible. It's be a magnet for AQ and their sister organizations to rally anti-American rhetoric around.

All these writers want is to replace Hussein with another dictator who's just be "our son of a bitch". And what, pray tell, would that really accomplish? That we're only looking out for our own self-interests, and are willing to trample over everyone in order to get it? That once we depose Hussein, we leave, install a puppet regime, and leave them to their own devices? With Al Qaeda and other terror organizations inside and outside Iraq? That's really bright. I just find it irresponsible- on the left or the right- to want to pull out or just not STAY in the first place, when what we're really doing is waging an offensive struggle that will take decades to complete. Their strategy does nothing more than create a holding pattern throughout the world. That's like trying to fight WW2 from Britain, and never launching a sea/land/air invasion of the European mainland.

Oh, and speaking of WW2, wouldn't you say that the rebuilding of Germany and Japan into democracies went pretty well? What does that say about our potential for nation building? And, as for their commentary that "democracies don't necessarily not fight other democracies", other than the Hamas controlled PLO, when has that happened? Yes, terrorists can use democracies for underground organization and resources, but it's not like France, Britain, the US, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Italy on a governmental or mainstream societal level conspired with the terrorists to launch terror operations. That's nothing more than a straw man arguement that's just there to make the writers look good and goes nowhere. I'd rather spend more time arguing about the merits of our actual CI operational plan than theoretical conceptualizations that would even annoy most Wall Street brokers.

So, what else is there to say about these writers? Time will tell, but I for one, don't want to be associated with their increasingly unbalanced rhetoric and ad hominen attacks. Get in a HUMMV and go to Iraq. Or read from people who have. And learn.

Democracy Matters, part 2

2006-02-03T10:37:00.000-08:00

In doing some more thinking about the democracy issue in Palestine, I must point out that there is the chance that Hamas will turn it's back on it's terror past and work towards rebuilding Palestine from the rubble that Fatah had left it in, and hopefully work alongside Israel in this regards. But considering there terrorist past, I'm not holding my breath for this. That being said, the Likud was originally Menachem Begin's party, and his Irgun- Jewish terrorists- eventually joined the Israeli government and Begin became Prime Minister of Israel. Irgun was never heard from again. So there's always the possiblity of terrorists disarming. But I'm not holding my breath.

The other issue that I've seen arise is that somehow, democracy matters little in the Global War on Terror. There are posts at National Review Online from Ian Murray , John Derbyshire , and Andy McCarthy discussing the merits of promoting Democracy abroad, and in the GWOT. They basically say that Democracy, while worthy, is a bitch to establish in an area of the world that doesn't necessarily have it, will take a long time, and shouldn't be the main focus on the GWOT. They believe that the search for WMDs and terror networks should be.

To start off, I think it's a mistake to go the WMD/terror network route as the primary route. Make no question, denying the terrorists those type of weapons and diluting and/or destroying networks is something that needs to be done. No one wants to see rouge states selling Al Quaeda or Islamic Jihad nuclear weapons. And we want to destroy Al Quaeda, as well. But that's only a facet of the arguement, since, as they have said, there are alot of other terror networks that exist, and it's unrealistic to destroy all of them. This is where their arguement fails- the first part, is that they're clearly looking at the GWOT position from a very presentist standpoint: Iran. They're trying to take what was a democracy + WMD + terrorist issue for Afghanistan and Iraq, and turn it into a rouge state + WMD + terrorism issue with Iran. I'm not saying they're not right or wrong about it, but rather, that its the wrong arguement to make.

Ultimately we're going to face another one of their myriad terrorist groups, fighting Al Quaeda all over again. That's what their future leaves us with- playing whack-a-mole for the next 50 to 100 years. Now, what happens if you change the conditions in the middle east, make a middle class a viable option and foriegn policy in the hands of elected lawmakers whose jobs rest on not pissing the world off (and in turn pissing their bosses- the people- off)? Is terrorism more or less of a proposition in those regions? Hell, let's put it this way: now that Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia are moving towards their own version of democracy, where are the terrorists? Maybe they're getting funding from those countries (they're definitely still getting funding from parts of the Saudi Royal Family). But are they having a grand old time on the ground? Hell no. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they are facing off against the American army and getting their asses handed to them. But more to the point, they've been totally rejected by the Iraqi and Afghani people, who really don't want a Shari'ia Islamic state and have lived under tyranny for too long to like it. The Iraqi and Afghanis are fighting their own battles against the terrorists. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is ostracized, and terrorism will be seen in the light of the bombing of Rafiki Hariri, their former Prime Minister. And the Saudis? In the midst of fighting what amounts to a civil war with Al Quaeda, they pulled a 180 and moved towards democracy- still fledgling- but a move nonetheless.

So, where does this leave us? With fledgling democracies. Yes, it'll be a bumpy road, and it won't be American or even European style Democracy. But does anyone see these nations wanting to openly or even covertly fund terrorists? Heck no. Muslim terrorism works on feeding off of resentment and hate- especially towards the west. The NRO writers are forgetting a key part that makes democracy work: Capitalism. Giving each person the chance to make their own life in economics goes a long way towards solving the problems of the middle east, which has economies that became stagnant a long time ago. Al Quaeda themselves have admitted that the democratic movements have hindered them greatly- almost as much as fighting the Americans.

One of the NRO writers said that exporting democracy fails for the US- and uses Haiti as an example. That's nothing but a straw man arguement, Haiti is a former french colony that quite frankly, isn't worth the US putting alot of money into(and we haven't, like we are with Afghanistan and Iraq). Haiti just can't survive as a soverign nation like Portugal or Singapore can. It should have been absorbed into a larger coalition/conglomeration a long time ago, but the anti-colonialist mentality we're in will keep that from happening for the entire Caribbean. Thus using Haiti as an example completely pulls it out of it's context, and tells me that the NRO writer wasn't even attempting to play fair. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Haiti become stable and democratic. What about 2nd world countries that we could elevate to 1st world democratic and capitalist societies? Taking a third worlder like Haiti is ALOT more of a pain in the ass than taking Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea, El Salvador, and the Phillipenes and turning them into soverign democratic/capitalist states. Did it take time? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes. Will we be right all the time? No- Cuba and Vietnam were clearly mistakes. But my point is, is that none of those states will turn back to their barbaric pasts, nor would they even consider supporting terrorism. It's concievable that individuals within those countries could pull off terror cells within those countries, but the govermnents and police structure are actively searching for them. It's alot harder to pull terrorism off in countries that don't want it.

This brings me to my last point: the Global War on Terror is about many different things. On one hand, it's about removing rouge states that have WMDs that want to sell it to terrorists. On another hand it's about destroying terrorists. And lastly, it's about bringing democracy to the regions of the world that could concievably be state sponsors of terrorism. Al Quaeda and its ilk worked well in the 1990s only when they had explicit state support. You need all three strands (and there are prob more that I'm not thinking of) in order to combat terrorism. The NRO writers are probably right- we won't be able to destroy terrorism. We haven't destroyed Naziism or Communism. It's still there. But we can certainly destroy it's ability to project itself outward. There hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11 for a reason. They can't reach us. And I'm sure, after London, they won't be able to reach the UK again. Same with Russia after Beslan.

It's almost as though the NRO writers are disdainful of the prospect of freeing the middle east from the funk it's been in since the inception of Arab nationalism. Like the region's not worth it (btw, I'm not sure that' s not some sort of passive view of "damnit, they're not us. They're poor muslim arabs! Screw them! They shouldn't get what we have!" mentality in there, and that saddens me). And they're despairing at the long term goal of eliminating the ability of the terrorists to project themselves- as if that's nothing but a pipe dream. They want something more local- fighting Iran and Al Quaeda. That's fine and well, and I want both the local and long term goals, but their viewpoints will do nothing to change the situation. In 10 years from now, if we fought like they wanted us to- we'd have another dictatorship in Iraq, Afghanistan would be a morass again, and we'd still have Al Quaeda to fight. We'd have given AQ setbacks, but the conditions in the Middle East would be the same as it was on 9/10. This would be like doing just an air war over Germany in WW2- it'd probably destroy significant parts of the Wehrmacht, but it wouldn't destroy Germany. We'd still be fighting them. We'd still be fighting the terrorists too, only they'd have a leg to stand on.

Democracy matters, folks. It's at least more hopeful for the middle east than what they had previously. It might seem quaint- and it might create a new form of democracy- but it's not unattainable. Only those with short visions fail to see what Germany and Japan have become.

Democracy Matters

2006-02-01T20:06:00.000-08:00

In President Bush's speech last night, he talked about how the oppressed of the world want freedom and liberty, and that democracy is the best way to give them that. He also mentioned that democratic countries don't war with other democratic countries, and that it is the best way to eliminate the terrorist menace that the world's currently facing. I have to agree with these statements, in that since the creation of functional democracies, they have not gone to war with one another in approximately 200 years of history.

Democracies CAN go wrong, though. The French Republic failed, descended into the Reign of Terror and then the dictatorship of Napoleon. Germany's Weimar experiment failed utterly- either the Communists or the Fascists gaining control in 1932/33 would have dissolved the Reichstag. Even the United States had it's Civil War over different concepts of democracy and liberty.

But here's the rub: Democracy has to work when there's a functioning system that allows for the democratic process. And that means you have to have political parties that are willing to play the political campaign dance, and build party platforms. And both parties ultimately have to be offering different things, rather than just be rivals for power with nothing to hold the center together. That brings me to the situation in Palestine.

There are folks that are saying- both on the left and the right- that the Palestinian election showed that Bush's words are nothing but hollow idealism. The Palestinians did vote in a relatively free and clean election, and they did have a choice- between Fatah and Hamas. And Hamas won the election, and still want to destroy Israel. That must mean that the will of the people of Palestine have been answered, and that democracy doesn't necessarily bring about peace and stability.

Well, yeah, sometimes democracies can be really shitty, and could cave in. But was the Palestinian elections democratic? Let's be clear: it was an election. That does not mean that it was democratic. But wait, you say, there were two parties with divergent issues involved in the election, Hamas and Fatah. Theoretically, Fatah was not calling for the destruction of Israel. But realistically, they were mouthing placards to the western media in english, while going to rallies in Palestine and asking for war in arabic. Neither had the best interest of Israel in their minds. Some are saying that Hamas was more willing to fix Palestine up in the election- to improve it's roads, schools, and hospitals- while Fatah was willing to basically give the people the status quo. However, considering their foriegn policy goals are their main reasons for existence- neither has any track record of providing services for the people other than as a by product of their terror systems.

That leads me to believe that ultimately, the election was about two things. First, it was about gang rivalries- two groups largely with similar ideas but who both wanted power, and all the trappings that came along with it. The second, was that neither party really had a platform- and anyone saying that Hamas really will fix the roads is missing the forest for the trees. For all intents and purposes, this was a one party election- both parties concepts ultimately dovetail together. There wasn't much of a choice here- and Gaza itself is effectively entirely a Hamas stronghold. There was no Fatah presence there. This isn't a democracy, it's one giant party masquerading as two parties. Sure, they probably won't get along, but that has more to do with "my hand's in the cookie jar, and yours is not" than "we disagree with your energy policy, it's not a realistic proposal based on your bugetary constraints, and we'll block it in Parliament/Congress". And both parties are definitely well versed in terror tactics in their own backyard. They don't like dissent. That makes it a one-party system that's not afraid to use terror and muscle in order to keep the streets theirs.

Just look at the fledgling democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (yes, even Saudi Arabia) and compare them to the situation in Palestine. In all cases, they have actual political parties that have actual political platforms that are generally dedicated to the rule of law, and are in political debates in their various governmental institutions. Even in Lebanon, while Hezbollah is still around, they are isolated and ostracized from the rest of the Lebanese government. The Palestinian people have had themselves an election- but they don't know the first thing about having political parties represent them. They have gangs who have controlled them by fear and intimidation for the better part of 15 years.

So, going back to Bush's statements- democracy works, when you have people who want it and are willing to live within it. It doesn't work when you have people who want nothing but power for themselves and the only thing that differentiates the various factions is weather or not they'll harass you today or tomorrow. If Hamas wanted to be responsible for the people, they'd immediately recognize Israel, drop their war with them unconditionally, and accept whatever borders the Israelis want to give them. They'd then get the money and support they need from the international community. But they will instead continue their mad dream to topple Israel- and suffer the consecquences. The Palestinians just voted for a different brand of gun. The Israelis will vote on which party will best protect them and govern their country. They don't fear the leadership of the Likud, Kadima, or Labor parties.

I don't think the Palestinians know what their system is, other than naked agression and gang warfare. Great election, folks! Maybe they'll vote to make new roads after Hamas gets them into a disastrous war with Israel.

Stupid media issues

2006-01-28T13:14:00.000-08:00

There are times when the media just shows it's colors, and you can't help but just feel the whiplash hitting you. Recently, Ann Coulter was at a conference and she made a statement where she wished that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens would be off the Court. Preferably by poison (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060127121209990005&ncid=NWS00010000000001). There's only one problem:

She was joking. What she said, EVEN in the article, was "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

But the liberal media (in this case, the AP) can't be bothered to separate their loyalties to the left from actually telling a news story, or in this case, a NON-news story. It's in essence, a hit piece on Coulter, which is nothing new. I may disagree with her on topics, but in this case, she's not doing anything. Her position was that she wants more conservative justices on the SCOTUS in order to overturn Roe V. Wade. And that the best way to do that is to get rid of the more liberal justices from the court. She's a constitutional lawyer, folks. She knows how the court's run- and that there will probably always be a mix of liberals and conservatives on the court. And she even said she was joking- and pointed out to the media that was what she was doing.

Knowing full well they'd run screaming off to the presses with her comments. And to top it off, the article's nothing but a "I really don't like Coulter, and SEE, SEE! Conservatives are EVIL!"type of piece. Why? This is how the article ends:

Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.
At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.
She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."

Now, if the article was to be just about her views on SCOTUS and her remarks, that's fine. But to add this in tells me that the writer had NO intentions of portraying Coulter in a fair light. She wants the reader to join in the boos of the audience. She wants the readers to side with her on the crack cocaine issue. The writer- who, by the way, remains anonymous (conveinient, eh?)- The last two paragraphs have no standing as to the actual article's focus, and are just there to make sure that the reader gets their viewpoint about how evil conservatives are- and that a majority of people disagree with them (in this case, a clearly partisan audience). It's a bait and switch- making the reader feel as though more people disagree with her than really do.

Oh, and the article's link? It's "Coulter Wants a Justice Gone: See her Poisonous Remark"

And I don't think the AP was joking. It's no small wonder why people are tired of the mainstream media.

Pakistan-American issues; AQ on the run

2006-01-22T11:51:00.000-08:00

What happened about 2 weeks ago in the remote border mountain regions of western Pakistan may well be a watershed moment for South Asia. What the media (outside of FoxNews) isn't telling anyone is that the American covert hellfire missile strike on a village in that remote region of Pakistan is that it targeted- and killed- top level Al Qaeda members (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986). We definitely got the head bomb-maker for AQ, Abu Khabab al-Masri (aka Midhat Mursi) and many of Zawahiri's (the #2 guy in AQ) top aides as well.

Of course, the media's playing up how Pakistan is all pissed off that the US killed "civilians" in their country, and how they were just "villagers". Bullshit. The Pakistanis have admitted that there were at the minimum 5 to 6 AQ members at the village. And on top of that, the early rumors were that the US did in fact kill Zawahiri, and then the Pakistanis backed off that claim, to revert to their "civilians" claim, and then switched that to what we're hearing now, about the mid-range AQ members being killed. Again, I smell a great deal of bullshit.

We know that the villagers pulled bodies out of the wreckage of the missile attack, and buried them elsewhere. That strongly smacks of them trying to hide something. And it also says that these "villagers" aren't really villagers, but rather, direct supporters of AQ. And their deaths mean nothing to anyone, since they were knowingly aiding AQ terrorists who would bring the wrath of the US military down on them if they were found out. And they were. And the Geneva Convention doesn't put the onus on us to protect these "civilians" but rather, for the terrorists and/or enemy combatants to take it upon themselves to protect them.

And on top of all this, we get two more things happening. The first is that Bin Laden himself issued a tape. In that taped speech, either OBL or someone pretending to be OBL (rumors about his death, which are very credible, have not been silenced with the tape), wanted a "long term peace" with the United States if we were to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. That says that he's realizing how badly he's gotten his ass kicked since 2001, and how badly Iraq has gone for him. To be honest, he may actually really be sincere about leaving Iraq, since he's lost ANY chance of getting that country back, even with us leaving. And he doesn't quite trust Zarqawi anymore, either. The other thing is, is that the tape comes on the heels of the Pakistani attack- and it may well be an indication of how badly AQ was hit there. It very well could be a PR offensive- make everyone think things are ok, swell, great, blah blah blah. He sees how the Dems are playing in Congress, and is hoping they'll force some sort of negotiations on Bush- but he misses that the President's now a lame duck and can care less about Congress, and that the American public is increasingly hostile to the Democrat's anti-foriegn policy.

The second thing is that Zawahiri made a taped speech, too (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_zawahri). It could well be just an old tape someone put up online just to have it there, but it could well be AQ trying to say "hi, Zawahiri's sitll around, and we're all one big happy family". Why would they do that, especially after the Pakistani bombings? And why not before?

Zawahiri is probably dead, or at least his security has been compromised. We've just rendered him either useless as an AQ operative from a security standpoint, or we've turned him into goo. And AQ's basically sending signals with both OBL and Zawahiri's tape that we did just that. This hurts them badly, from a PR and manpower standpoint, since the people who are replacing them in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly what AQ had before. If they lose their heads, they'll probably splinter into different regional factions, all with their own funding and resource polls independent from one another. In fact, that's pretty much what happened in Iraq with Zarqawi.

And that brings it full circle back to Pakistan. I can understand why their gov't would be upset- especially if the US miiltary pulled the missile attack operation off without telling the Pakistanis. But odds are, the Pakistanis were in the know from the get go, and what they're doing is just trying to distance themselves from whatever fallout there is from the bombing. They get to have their cake and eat it, too. I really don't have a problem with that, since they ARE a soverign nation, and should by all rights bitch about whatever they want to. Musharraf has to walk a fine line in dealing with the moderate and radical segments of Pakistan in issues like these. As long as he doesn't go out of his way to really piss off the US, I don't have a problem with him eating his cake.

Of course, the media in general is trying to pretend that the US didn't kill any AQ terrorists there, and that they were only civilians. Oh, and they're playing up that the Pakistanis are rioting over it. Typical leftist-agenda-as-journalism reporting, with America as the big bad imperialistic bully who doesn't care about the little guy. Oh, and those lovely photos you're seeing from Pakistan, of the protesters? They claim it's in the thousands, but I saw a photo, if you look really closely (I'll try to track it down, it'll be hard) you see that the crowd ends down the street. Which means that most likely, the crowd numbered between 500-1000 people. Not "in the thousands". And since that photo, I've seen more and more photos go for the "close up in with the crowd, make it look like there's more than there really are" schtick.

No wonder the media's falling apart around us- they're too busy saying "gotcha! gotcha, you motherfuckers!" while everyone else is busy trying to fight- and win- a war. They're missing that there IS a war going on, and that instead, are pretending that everything the US military does is somehow wrong, without telling us why, or how to fix it.

Go fix yourselves media. Maybe you should start singing the "Battle Cry of Freedom" while we pound more terrorists into sand.

Wrestling notes

2006-01-14T12:30:00.000-08:00

While we're not going to get the much anticipated fight between Chris Matthews and Zell Miller anytime soon (although political junkies would love to see it, left or right), there are some things I'd like to see happen in 2006 in the wonderful world of wrestling. Some of it's going to be pipe dreams, but some are likely.

- Since Edge is the WWE World Champion on Raw now, I'd like to see him hold the title until WrestleMania. It doesn't make sense for him to be a transitional champion. Use him. I don't particularly care about John Cena, the former champ, and they'd probably be better off just turning him heel and getting him away from the type of matches he was forced to put on as a face.

- With Edge as champ, they really should think about giving him RVD for WrestleMania. The WWE is going to face some serious competition from TNA now, and if they don't do something with RVD this year, they'd better be prepared to lose him to TNA. Give him the title, and let him run with it, or forget he ever existed. Since this is the WWE, the land of the giants, they'll probably forget RVD exists, and that'll be that.

-They'll never do the WrestleMania match I'd love to see, since they don't have the balls do to it: Edge vs. Matt Hardy, after Matt wins the Rumble. They botched that feud last year, and they won't really be able to get another shot at it. Plus, Matt's not what they want as title contender, since he's not big enough (but knows more about wrestling than most do).

- Angle as champ on SD is cool, but it feels very much like a transitional reign, a "we're sorry for fucking you over with John Cena. You were right, we were wrong." type of thing. I could see him losing it to Orton, or facing Rey at WrestleMania for the title. Or Rey/Orton at WM.

- The midcard sucks in the WWE. They're using stopgaps of Booker T, Randy Orton, and Chris Benoit (all former world champions) on Smackdown because they've failed to elevate any young talent, and the guys on Raw- Shelton, Carlito, Masters, etc., are all busy being buried and told that they have no talent. Shelton's a fantastic in-ring preformer, and probably the best pure athlete that the WWE has, outside of Kurt Angle. And Carlito's finally being allowed to do more than punch and kick someone. Masters just sucks. Oh, and the Cruiser division's a joke. TNA's headlining their X Division and the WWE can't be bothered to showcase anything other than plodding giants. Yawn.

- I'd at the least like to see the WWE give Carlito and Masters a tag title run, ease them into some sort of winning position. And get rid of Masters' entrance, it sucks. Push Chavo Guerrero on Raw, I'd love to see him get the recognition he (and his family) deserve with at least a Intercontinental Title run. I'd love to see a Shelton/Chavo feud. As for Smackdown, I'd like to see them do more with MNM, which is a really good tag team (and Melina's HOT). Continue to develop Lashley, even though he'll never be a Brock Lesnar nor a Bill Goldberg. Still, he's got potential.

- In TNA, I'd like to see title runs by Monty Brown and Christian. Both are long overdue, and ready for it. It's nice to have Sting in TNA, but they really should use him to build younger talent. Oh, and Abyss needs a strong title run- or at least feud- as well. He's been held down too long.

- As for Jarrett, give him a few title shots, but don't give him the title after he drops it. He needs to go without a title for a while, like Hunter in the WWE.

- TNA needs to sign Samoa Joe longterm. And while I'd like to see them pull out the Daniels/Joe feud, they should have Joe lose to another young X Division star.

- Continue to develop Austin Aeries, Alex Shelley, and Chris Sabin. I think Alex Shelley's the most polished of all of them- if only because he knows what to do before a live and videotaped crowd. Prehaps give Shelley or Aeries the title from Joe.

- Sign more young talent, TNA. They could develop the tag team division more by bringing in BJ Whittmer and Jimmy Jacobs, as well as Lacey's Angels (Izzy and Dixie) from Ring of Honor. It'd be a break from having only America's Most Wanted, Team 3-D, and The Naturals. Sign Jay Lethal before the WWE does- he's what Shelton Benjamin SHOULD be.

- No Hogan at WrestleMania. I'm not keen on a Shawn Michaels/Vince McMahon match for WrestleMania, either. My dream WrestleMania 22- Edge vs. RVD vs. HBK for the WWE title, Orton vs. Rey for the World Title, Hunter vs. Undertaker (possibly Hell in the Cell), Angle vs. Benoit, Chavo vs. Shelton IC title ladder match, MNM vs. Mexicools vs. Regal/Birchall Tag Titles, Booker T vs. Matt Hardy US Title Match, Lashley vs. JBL No Holds Barred Match.

-Something needs to be done involving Bret Hart- either in the WWE or TNA. Please don't have Dusty Rhodes as the new Raw GM. Someone needs to bring back Brock Lesnar.

-And I'd love to see more attention paid to with Ring of Honor.

2006 Predictions

2005-12-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

These prediction things are always dicey, since you never really know if you're going to be right or wrong (and sometimes if you want to be proven right or wrong). But anyways, here goes:

- The GOP will gain two seats in the Senate, possibly more. Anything over 3 seats in the Senate and 10 seats in the house, Dean loses his job as DNC head. It won't help matters when Dean, Pelosi, and Reid all call George Bush a "worse terrorist than Osama Bin Laden".

- The mid-term elections will focus heavily on national security issues, and the GOP will hit gold with the illegal immigration issue. The Dems will try to stonewall like they did in 2005, but only to find that the public really doesn't like political partisan bullshit like "we killed the patriot act" at all. The President ends 2006 with a 60% approval rating.

- Zarqawi will be killed in Iraq, in a gun battle at the Syrian border. Bashar Assad will be assassinated in Syria by senior military officials, who request multiparty peace talks with Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq.

- Israel will strike at Iran sometime early in the year, setting their nuclear program back by a few years. The EU and UN will bitch, moan, and whine at Israel and do nothing. Bush makes fun of them while signing a mutual defense agreement with Israel.

- mid-year the Iranian people will revolt (or at least begin to) when their tgovernment doesn't do anything to fight back against Israel. There will be alot of hot Iranian protest babes.

- The MSM will completely ignore the Iranian revolution. Bloggers will cover it.

- The Merkel government will collapse in Germany, and no one will care. Chirac will become even more of a lame duck, with Sarkozy and de Villepin jockeying for power. And there will be more riots in France, possibly also terrorist attacks.

- there will be at least two major terror attacks in 2006; one will be in Europe. The other will either be in the United States or Israel.

-The Dow Jones will break 11,100 points.

- Kofi Annnan will resign from the Secretary Generalship at the UN. Despite strong campaigning, Bill Clinton will not replace Kofi.

- Hillary will get a second term as Senator in NY, but she will face tough chanllenges from the left and right in the election.

- Hillary will end up not running for President in 2008 because of her Senatorial campaign pledge to not run for the Presidency in 2008.

- The Pistons will win the NBA championship against the Spurs.

- The Mets will make the playoffs, but the Yankees will not when their pitching staff breaks down in June.

- Barry Bonds will return to baseball noticably thinner. He'll hit homers, but nothing like he did in his career years.

- Spielberg's Munich will garner $55 million in the US box office (and get some $70 mil from foriegn BO), proving that he doesn't carry the weight in the box office that he used to. Yet his film will get three oscar nominations, and he'll win best director. Brokeback Mountain will win best picture, and no one will care.

- The Patriots will win the Super Bowl once again. Eli Manning will win a playoff game; Peyton Manning will not.

- J.K. Rowling will decide to make an 8th Harry Potter book.

The failure of Munich

2005-12-26T08:27:00.000-08:00

I had high hopes for Stephen Spielberg's movie, Munich earlier in the year. But those high hopes were eroded with each passing month, when I learned more and more about how Steve was putting the movie together. He never researched into the PLO or Mossad, both of which offered to open up their archives for his film- and then went public with their consternation when they heard nothing but silence from Steve and his crew. And when thety found out that the movie was being based off of an old book from the 1980s called Vengeance, both sides agreed that the book was bad history, and crap. When you get Mossad and the PLO agreeing with each other on something- that counts for something. Lastly, the screenplay was written by Tony Kushner, who is an admitted far leftist who's been on record stating that he wished that Israel didn't exist. Oh, joyous of joys, that's all going to make me want to see the movie.

Well, to make a long story short, I won't be seeing the movie. I'm not happy with the moral equivalency that Spielberg plays with in the movie- the whole 'if you fight back you're no better than the terrorists are" mentality doesn't jive with me. For alot of good reactions towards the movie, check out Powerline's post here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012652.php.

I'll add a few cents to the arguements that are made at Powerline and the sites they also link to. The first is that if Spielberg's so intent on making the statement that "the good guys are no better than the bad guys" then what's the answer to that? He apparently never makes a case for how Israel- and America- should react towards terrorism. I don't think it's to give in to terror (although Kushner probably would want to), but if Spielberg's going to spend an entire film bitching about Israel's anti-terrorism policies (which are still in place today, btw), then he should at least attempt to find a solution to it. If he can't, then the film's just another film in the long laundry list of leftist films that don't have any answers to the problems we face in the modern world today, just alot of screaming and carrying on. That's not an arguement, Steve.

The other problem that I have is that we're beyond the stage where simply capturing terrorists doesn't work anymore. The Israelis- and people today- are dealing with a culture that doesn't respect being sent to jail as a true punishment. They're used to the centuries of tribal warfare which basically would have whole families wiped out in response to an aggrievement. Not jail time- systematic eradication of their bloodline. That's how they have learned to fight, and respect their opponents. I do believe that if you can jail them- and give them a life sentence (like they did with Carlos the Jackal) you can do good with it, but there are too many governments out there who are pussyfooting their own terrorism laws. Some get jailed for a few years, and are let free. And do more mayhem. That doesn't scare them, one bit. And sometimes the court of law is too slow to deal with people who are fighting a war- not a gang action- and they're more capable of eluding the police than the police are of being able to catch them. Thus the military option should always be on the table. In present day, the American or Israeli option would be to take out the Black September group before they could kill civilians- by any means necessary. They've stopped taking hostages in Iraq for a reason, folks. We locate and kill them where they stand. They respect nothing but force, and are seriously rethinking their strategy against the American military after our response to 9/11.

In the end, Steve, I'll just say this: don't go to Israel. Ever. They have long memories, and won't forget Munich. And they won't hesitate to make an example of you.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukhah!

2005-12-25T14:39:00.000-08:00

To one and all, Merry Christmas and a very Happy Hanukhah! And a special shout out to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, who are doing such an honorable and worthy job fighting for freedom and our security. Rock on, guys and gals. Hope everyone's having a fun time, and not drinking too much eggnog or wine.

And what the hell is a fruitcake, anyways?

What I want for the holidays

2005-12-16T11:10:00.000-08:00

Since folks don't know what to get me- and I had no way of getting to a fucking computer with spare time for the past few days (very irritating to me), I'll now post what I've been looking for recently, for gifts:

I. Books:
- Poison Elves: The Mulehide Years (it's the first graphic novel of Drew Hayes' works, kinda hard to find outside of Amazon)
- Batman: Dark Victory (another graphic novel, pretty well known)
- Babylon 5: The Scripts: Volume 1
- Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of Midway (by Jonathan P. Marshall)

II. DVDs
- Sin City: Unrated Edition
- Ben-Hur (the new 4 disc set)
- TNA: Wrestling Anthology (can only be found at Wal Mart)
- Batman: The Animated Series- seasons 3 and 4
- Those Who Hunt Elves Collection
- Steamboy

III. video games
- Heart of Iron II
- Half-Life 2 or F.E.A.R. (PC)
- Civilization IV
- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
- X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse (PS2 or GameCube)
- Mario Kart DS
- Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time (DS)

IV. Soundtracks
- Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring Extended 4-disc soundtrack
- Wheel of Time Soundtrack

V. Toys and miscellaneous
- Master Grade Gundam Model 1/100 scale- Full Armor Zeta Gundam (FAZZ)
- Master Grade Gundam Model 1/100 scale- Super Gundam
- Master Grade Gundam Model 1/100 scale- Sazabi

Happy Holidays to all my favorite schmucks

2005-12-16T10:54:00.000-08:00

To those that are intelligent and honest humans, I wish you all a happy holidays. It's a fun time of the year, despite the snows in the north and the long lines at the malls. To the rest of you- the far left naboobs and the anti-american shitbags- I give you a lump of coal. However, the guys I'm giving coal to have given me- and you all- a wonderful gift. What's that, you ask? They just set the table for the 2006 mid-term elections, that's what. The whole imbroglio over the Patriot Act's extensions means that they're going to refight the 2002 and 2004 elections all over again in 2006. And the Democrats will lose. Bush's spent about a month of hard campaigning for his position- after spending most of the year not on that message (ie: Rove was busy). And in one month, even the slanted MSM polls have Bush at around 50% public approval of him. Imagine how it'll be in a month from now. And the same polls show that the Dems are very off base with their cut and run chickenshit talk about Iraq. And what's also going on is that McCain is going to lose the 2008 nomination, badly. His torture compromise with the President, and his role in the whole Patriot Act fiasco will probably doom him for 2008. So, thanks for the gift, guys. But you're still only getting coal.

Idiocity at the AP

2005-12-01T17:15:00.000-08:00

I usually go to Yahoo Sports! to get some up to date sports news that doesn't require alot of graphical uploading (ie; I'm looking at you, ESPN.com, your site sucks) and have annoying popups. In order to get there, I have to go through Yahoo News, which basically culls reports from all over the place. That in itself, is fine, but the reports usually come from Reuters, the AP, and UPI. And all are staffed with morons who pretend their journalism degree means a damn, and play the role of analyst.

Case in point: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_crumbling_coalition_1;_ylt=Ah4imk.bf4xadhy1ubCeYE1X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

That's possibly the most asinine article I've read in years. It's replete with wishful thinking, pulling facts out of context, and wrapping it all up as thought it's actual news, and not their finger up their nose.

Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops. Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and
South Korea' name reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.

Yes, Bulgaria and Ukraine are removing their forces from Iraq, and that's been in the works for a while now. Ukraine in particular, after last year's Orange Revolution, were almost assuredly going to step down, with their new gov't not wanting to continue pretty much ANY policy that the previous (Russian-oriented) gov't had. That's understandable, and ultimately, has very little to do with Iraq. But the writer, Mr. William J Kole, doesn't bother to go into that. As for Bulgaria, I'm not sure why they're leaving, so I won't go into that. But the Ukraine did the right thing- stayed for another year before their withdrawal would not hurt anything. He also misses THAT point. Oh, and increasing pressure on Washington? They've known about this for a while, Mr. Kole. And what part of the 403-3 vote in Congress didn't you get, sir? That pretty much shut the Dems who were playing political footsie with Iraq up.

And the second part is what really riles me up. Yes, if the coalition forces left Iraq that's exactly what would happen. But the way he is framing it is telling me that he's not interested in any factual evidence (there's no rumblings about those countries' leaving Iraq), but rather a snide way of pretending that his wishful thinking- that he wants people to cut and run from Iraq- is actually news. It isn't, Mr. Kole, and your editor should have slapped you down for it, or told you to get hired to do editorials. Damn shame they didn't.

"The vibrations of unease from within the United States clearly have an impact on public opinion elsewhere," said Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington. "Public opinion in many of these countries is heavily divided."
Although the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq dwarfs the second-largest contingent — Britain's 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region — its support has shrunk substantially.
In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave. In the spring, the Netherlands had 1,400 troops in Iraq. Today, there are 19, including a lone Dutch soldier in Baghdad.

Guess what, Mr. Kole? The Iraqis are standing up, and their numbers are far larger than the coalition's forces could be. Yes, in the months after OIF there were over 300K soliders, but that was for COMBAT OPERATIONS, you fucking moron. Those troops were increasingly not needed for police work, which is what they would then have to do- and only the Japanese, Polish, British, Australian, and South Koreans are really trained to do that. And he proves me right, becuase they're "non-combat" personnel. Which means that they're increasingly not needed. Why would the Dutch leave 19 soliders in Iraq, but pull out the rest of their forces? Does that make any sense, other than from a pure logistics standpoint? No, it doesn't. That reflects a "what-is-needed-in-the-country" mentality instead. If they wanted to pull out, they'd pull out like Spain did, or even like the Ukraine is. I guarantee that those 19 soldiers that they have there are for essential tasks- and that the rest of them were removed because, Iraqi soldiers and police forces stepped up to take over.

And the first part pisses me off. He cites a think tank that is predominantly run by European and UN military analysts and experts. They may be located in Washington, but I don't think that they think like the US military or Coalition forces, at all. What he's attempting to do is to try to use their statements to present a factual side to his arguements, without having to post any evidence up to support it. That's not evidence, Mr. Cole.

In his strategy for Iraq, announced Wednesday, President Bush said expanding international support was one of his goals. He also seemed to address the issue of more allies withdrawing. "As our posture changes over time, so too will the posture of our coalition partners," the document says. "We and the Iraqis must work with them to coordinate our efforts, helping Iraq to consolidate and secure its gains on many different fronts."

"expanding international support" on one hand, and then "seemed to adress allies withdrawing" on the other? Make your mind up, Mr. Cole. It can't be both, it can be one or the other. And what Bush is saying isn't that he sees his allies leaving, but that situations on the ground will change for everyone- Iraqis, the US, and the Coalition. That doesn't mean anyone will leave, add more troops, or whatever. What it does mean, is that Bush is trying to tell the media morons like Mr. Cole that Iraq will present different issues for the Coalition next year than it did this year: and everyone will have to change their plans accordingly. Mr Kole, nothing stays the same in military situations- if you'd have bothered to take Military History 101, you'd have learned this. That's what Bush is talking about. What Mr. Kole tried to do is to take Bush's statement out of context, wrap it around his own fancy wordplay, and pretend to say that "see? Even Bush is saying this!" Do that to a civilian Mr. Kole, and that's libel.

At least 2,109 U.S. service personnel have died since the beginning of the Iraq war, according to an Associated Press count. At least 200 troops from other countries also have died, including 98 from Britain. Other tolls: Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, one each.

It's kinda funny: I remember when the media refused to admit that there WAS a Coalition of the Willing, and that it was just the US, Britain, and a few bought allies. Guess that much got through to them. And the 2,109 mark is both correct and disengeuous. Ever since the OPENING of combat operations with OIF in March 2003, that's the overall number of combat deaths. But, when you bother to actually look at the numbers, there are over 300 combat deaths against Hussein's Iraqi Army. And then the leftover number includes not just combat fatalities, but also non-combat fatalities- sickness, suicides, traffic accidents, etc. That's not a unsubstantial number, folks, and soldiers that die of sickness or suicides would have pretty much died of it in the US or in Antarctica, so is that really a theatre of operations issue? No. Plus, traffic accidents are the fault of both the American and Iraqis, which is not a reflection of the theatre of operations, either. And of the leftover number there that includes both combat fatalities in offensive operations and also in terrorist attacks. For the former, fatalities are EXPECTED by the military in the very nature of offensive actions. So, in the end, we're left with how many dead? I haven't done the math, but it's less than 2,109. And btw, just for a reminder: we've captured over 83,000 terrorists in Iraq. And the number of KIA terrorists hasn't been fully itemized yet. And it's taken us from March 2003- December 2005 to get their faulty 2, 109 number......where we sustained more casualties on ONE DAY during World War 2. At OMAHA Beach, we suffered over 3,000 casualties, and at least 1,000 dead. And that was just at OMAHA Beach- there were 4 other Beachheads on June 6th, 1944. Is Mr. Kole to tell me that the D-Day landings were a horrific tragedy because well over 1,000 American servicemen died fighting there, and that we should have abandoned the beaches to the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS Panzer Divisions? Or better yet, how's this: Antietam remains the bloodiest single day of fighting for the United States Army. On September 22nd, 1862, the Union lost some 12, 410 casualties, with 2,108 killed, and the Confederates suffered some 13, 724 casualties with some 2700 killed. And that war would rage on until 1865, for 2 and a half more years. Historically, our casualties and fatalities are low in the Global War on Terror.

And I'm also sorry to report to Mr Kole, but it's a soldier's job to fight and die. They're well aware that they might be called into action and die for their country. They don't want to, but it's in their job description. And if you have a sword- you better use it, or you'll lose it. The French and British learned that the hard way in the run-up to the Second World War. And so did the Israelis in the 1973 War. And so did America on 9/11. So spare me the "oh no, soldiers are dying!" bullshit. It's their job. It's tragic that soldiers do die in battle, but this is what they're trained for. They're not little kids who need band-aids whenever they fall off their bikes. Don't treat them as such.

Struggling to shore up the coalition, Bush stopped in Mongolia on his recent Asia trip and praised its force of about 120 soldiers in Iraq as "fearless warriors."

I love his wording here. I could easily rewrite it to say "Giving thanks to the lesser known members of the coalition, Bush stopped in Mongolia on his recent Asia trip and praised its force of about 120 soldiers in Iraq as "fearless warriors". If you weren't working for the assclowns at the AP, you'd have been fired for that, Mr. Kole. Under my watch, you most certainly would have.

Underscoring mounting opposition in nearly all coalition countries, a poll published in Japan's Asahi newspaper this week showed 69 percent of respondents opposed extending the mission, up from 55 percent in January. No margin of error was given.

Reference one in order to try to reference all? That doesn't work that way. Prove that there are others, or shut the fuck up. Oh, and btw, how many governments have conservatives in power? And how many have liberals? Lets see, for anti-war liberals- France, Venezuela, Cuba, and Spain. Neutrals- Ukraine, Canada, Russia, China, Germany, Mexico. Conservative governments: all of East Europe, Italy, Germany, USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. Voters have spoken, in that regards deciseively. Oh, and in the US, did you see the Poll that came out a week or so ago (I forget which one, will link to it when I get the chance to) in whicn 2/3rds of the country saw the Democrats as playing politics with Iraq, and that it was hurting troop morale? No wonder why the Dems voted along with the Republicans to vote against withdrawing from Iraq. They may be political opportunists and want to pander to the moveon.org crowd, but they knew how the American voter thinks.

South Korea, the second-largest coalition partner after Britain, is expected to withdraw about 1,000 of its 3,200 troops in the first half of 2006. The National Assembly is likely to vote on the matter this month.

That's called standing down, and doing so in a way that makes sense both politically and militarily. It sends a signal that those troops aren't needed in the country. If South Korea wanted to pull out because of political issues- why leave over 2,200 troops in Iraq? That makes no sense, nor does Mr. Kole realize the plotholes of his arguement.

Italy's military reportedly is preparing to give parliament a timetable for a proposed withdrawal of its 2,800 troops. Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government has said it plans to withdraw forces in groups of 300, but in accordance with the Iraqi government and coalition allies.

Again, smart withdrawing plans. How does this hurt the Coalition, when they're standing down in accordance with the Iraqi gov't and Coalition allies?

Poland's former leftist government, which lost Sept. 25 elections, had planned to withdraw its 1,400 troops in January. The new defense minister, Radek Sikorski, visits Washington this weekend for talks on Poland's coalition plans, and the new government is expected to decide by mid-December whether to extend its mission beyond Dec. 31.
"Some formula of advisory-stabilizing mission could remain on a smaller scale, of course, and our commanders are prepared for several variants," Col. Zdzislaw Gnatowski of the Polish army's general staff told The Associated Press.

There probably will be a reduction of Polish troops, but they'll retain some force in Iraq. This basically proves me right about the Ukraine: the new gov't wants to change from what the old gov't was doing. Only here, Mr. Kole actually sees it. The fact that they're in DC to negotiate pretty much tells me that they're going to have some form of advisory/peacekeeping role still in play.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, head of the Australian Defense Force, has said about 450 troops in the southern province of Muthanna could leave by May. Australia has about 900 troops and support staff across Iraq.

The southern portion of Iraq is pretty stable, and you hear very little from it. That's why they're probably getting sent back to Australia. Oh, and btw, the Aussies have sent MORE troops to Afghanistan in the time being. So removing them REALLY is nothing but "they're not needed".

Many coalition members have pledged to stay in Iraq for all of 2006; at least one, Lithuania, has committed to the end of 2007. And the coalition is still drawing new members, most recently Bosnia, which sent 36 bomb-disposal experts in June.
"We are getting letters of gratitude from the U.S. commanders for our peacekeepers' excellent service," said Ilgar Verdiyev, a Defense Ministry spokesman in Azerbaijan, which has 150 troops in Iraq and is one of the few mostly Muslim countries to contribute.

Ah, at the very fucking bottom of the article, comes this. There WILL be coalition forces in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, and they're sitll adding members to it. So, um, what was the point of the article, Mr. "I am a reporter! not an analyst!" Kole? Gee, you think it was to try to play the "let's pretend that Iraq is Vietnam" card? No, it must be some sort of unofficial Christmas gift to President Bush for the AP's thanks for helping free 20 + million Iraqis from the Husseni regime. And I think the Cubs will win the World Series next year. Right.

Bottom line is this: The AP is against Bush, against the Iraqi mission, and doesn't want to see reality. Articles like this are just case in point, a journalist who all of a sudden thinks he's a military-political analyst with years of research and training under his belt, just so that he can score a few brownie points at bashing Bush. Go to hell, AP. And Mr. Kole? I'll see you in class, one of these days. And promptly fail your ass.

baseball stuff

2005-11-25T17:11:00.000-08:00

I'm a lifelong baseball fan, and a diehard New York Mets fan. Yes, I was a Mets fan during the early 1990's, when they had the "worst team money can buy". At least I'm not a Devil Rays fan. Or a Cubs fan. Heh.

But what's great about baseball is that there's the season, and then there's the offseason. Where trades and free agent signings are made, and teams get to look bloody brilliant on paper. Which brings me to this year's offseason, so far. The three major trades that have gone down have been:

-Mets trade minor leaguers Mike Jacobs (with 1 month of pro experience) and Yusimeiro Petit to the Marlins for Carlos Delgado and $7 million.
-Phillies trade Jim Thome to the Whie Sox for Aaron Rowand (and the Phillies eat half Thome's contract).
- Red Sox send a bunch of minor leaguers to the Marlins in exchange for Mike Lowell, Josh Beckett, and Guillermo Mota.

All three trades are big, and all have huge ramifications. The biggest IMHO is the Red Sox deal- the Marlins are having a fire sale, and the Sox fleeced them. They get one of the best young power pitchers in baseball- Beckett, a gold glover third baseman in Lowell (who may not hit, but with his defense, who cares?), and the real steal of the deal is Guillermo Mota. I'm no fan of Mota on a personal level- being a Mets fan I've seen him be a chickenshit coward (ask Mike Piazza)- but the man can pitch, and he'll shore up the Red Sox's bullpen. If Foulke can't close, Mota will- and with Timlin and Papelbon in the bullpen, that's a good thing for them. Yankees take notice.

The Thome/Rowand deal is something that helps both teams, because the White Sox needed a good first baseman, while the Phillies needed an outfielder, and wanted to create more room for their rookie first baseman (who's going to be a star) Ryan Howard. And the White Sox may still re-sign Paul Konerko, the first baseman that got them to the World Series last year with 40 homers. If Thome can regain his All-Star form, he'll be a force for the White Sox. And Rowand's the type of player that the Phillies can use productively- gets hits, fields well, and hits .270 or so. Good stuff, and they save money. Smart deal for both teams.

The Mets deal, as a Mets fan, I have checkered thoughts about. One on hand, the Mets getting Carlos Delgado is a big hit, since his bat is what the Mets were missing last season. He'll easily hit over .300, hit 30-40 homers and drive in between 100-150 RBIs. But Delgado was almost a Met last season- and he wasn't because his agent is a complete jerk, and he said he didn't want to come to New York. I'm hoping that there's no residual antagonism between both sides. Also, the Mets traded away Yusimiero Petit, one of their prized minor league pitching prospects, who would probably have gotten a mid-season callup in 2006. I don't mind the Mets trading away Mike Jacobs, who prob won't be the first baseman that Delgado is (but still produce for the Marlins), but trading away pitching, when their starting rotation's not exactly young (they've got Glavine and Traschel on it, while both are good, they're not spring chickens). But if the Mets get to the World Series next season, it'll be worth it, I guess. I just don't want Petit to now become a 20-3 1.90 ERA 250K pitcher for the Marlins. Suck Petit suck!

More trades will come, I'm sure. Manny Ramirez will probably be traded shortly, as will David Wells and Javier Vasquez. Jeff Kent, Paul Lo Duca, Juan Pierre, Lyle Overbay, Dennys Baez, Aubrey Huff, and Barry Zito are all potential trade bait. Of course, other names could come up that I haven't thought of.

Suffice to say that the Red Sox, Mets, and White Sox all bolstered their chances for successful 2006 seasons.

Stocks are up, economy is good

2005-11-25T17:00:00.000-08:00

As of the close of the bell today, the Dow Jones is at 10931.62, while the NASDAQ is at 2263.01. The Stock market's basically making the best gains in 4.5 years, since 9/11. And the economy is growing at roughly 3.8% a clip each quarter, which beats out pretty much everyone else. This is also happening in the midst of the hurricane season, where Katrina and Wilma did extensive damage throughout the Southern Gulf region, bringing New Orleans to a standstill. And yet the holiday shopping season has just begun!

Oh, and I doubt you'll get the media to say anything good about the economy. Perish the thought. They'll probably find some poor schmuck who just got fired by Wal Mart to tell them about all the eeeeeeeeevils of Wal Mart. Or try to tell everyone how there are "Two Americas" like John Edwards did last year during the election. Yeah, that's gonna work.

While President Bush has only tangenitally had an effect on the economy (primarily the increase in defense spending and the tax cuts) it'd be nice for them for once to applaud the economy doing good under his presidency- especially when he inherited the Presidency with an economy that was already under recession, long before 9/11.

Naaaaaah. They'll bitch about Iraq like it's 1969. And then do their 6 billionth "hair care products that can cause cancer" infotainment bullshit.

Like anyone cares. Bravo to the American economy for giving the mainstream media the middle finger. Keep up the good work, America!

A Wonderful Weekend

2005-11-21T19:50:00.000-08:00

The weekend that Bush and the GOP had was a really good one. To start off with, Bush started the week by hammering away at the Dems antiwar criticism, the Dems shot themselves in the feet with their anti-war talk (Rep. Murtha’s political stunt), and then got burned badly with the GOP move to call for a vote for or against withdrawing from Iraq. And then Bush went off to Asia for State visits to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Mongolia. And Bush looked very, very Presidential in Asia. Oh, and to top it all off, the UN is now admitting that Saddam DID have WMDs in Iraq, but either destroyed or dispersed them prior to the Coalition invasion in 2003- and this what the documents that we’ve gotten since the fall of Baghdad have told us.

So it was a good weekend if you’re Bush and the GOP. And a very bad one if you’re a antiwar Democrat, or were hoping that it’d work against Bush. I guess the mantra for the Dems right now is "oooooops". I mean, really, did they expect Congressman Murtha’s "Cut and Run" speech to be allowed to float in Congress without a retort? Especially after Bush and the GOP made it clear that they were going to continue their attack on the Dems’ war record- how they voted for it and then tried to make it sound like they never did? Please, get a new leadership. I saw the GOP’s concerted attack as of LAST weekend. Murtha’s statements were so far beyond the pale that there was no way the GOP wouldn’t respond to it. And the fact that Murtha has been saying this for a while- and the Dems are trying to pass him off as a "hawk" on Iraq is total bullshit. It was a cheap political stunt that they orchestrated with a mid-level (at best) Congressman who they could ditch if the going got tough (and it has). The vote in Congress was just the icing on the cake- and they know that they can’t revisit it in 2006 during the mid-term elections because the GOP already called them on it.

Their entire platform was exposed as total political lies, and cheap sniping- on issues of national security, no less! The best they could do was bitch that the GOP was going after Murtha’s record and his patriotism. Not only is that trying to change the subject, but it’s also an ad hominem attack. It boiled down to a "We don’t like that you have an argument, so we’re going to pretend that you are evil and want to destroy the good and honorable Rep. Murtha." They should be ashamed of themselves, but they have no spines. And in all this, they’ve totally forgotten what impact it will have on the soldiers. And the fact that the vote was so lopsided shows what the American public really thinks- and spits in the face of the so-called polls. We’re not pulling out of Iraq, anytime soon, and the Dems now face the real possibility that when the smoke clears, they’ll have lost their anti-war base. Boo fucking hoo.

Bush’s visits to Asia signaled another sea change- he went from dealing with the media’s nitpicking over the whole "Plame Game" stuff, to setting the agenda overseas while looking good at it. Think about it, if you’re the average American voter, what matters more to you- yet another media attempt to manufacture a Watergate type scandal, or the president talking about trade, democracy, Chinese/American relations, the Global War on Terror, and North Korea? I’ll take the latter for $500, Alex. The Dems look like chump change right now, not only because of the thumping they got in Congress, but also because Bush’s actually doing his job. Notice how the mainstream media’s NOT going out of their way to showcase polls right now? Gee, I wonder why. Oh, and Karl Rove’s back on the job too, now that the stupid Fitzgerald stuff is all but over. Ever wonder why Alito was so warmly received by the GOP, and how fast the GOP’s unified response was to the Dems antiwar bitching? Wanna bet the last few months Rove was forced to be isolated from the White House? And that now he’s not?

And it was a really bad weekend for the terrorists, and the antiwar crowd in general. First, the bombings in Jordan went as I predicted they’d go- all of Jordan is now pissed off at them. Zarqawi’s family itself denounced him, and 200,000 Jordanians marched in protest against the terrorists, and in support of King Abdullah. Yeah, I think that went astoundingly bad for them. On top of that, the UN issued a report that states that Iraq, prior and during the 2003 Coalition invasion, got rid of their WMD stocks by sending them elsewhere- Jordan, Turkey, Holland…….and Syria (http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323). The UN is no friend to the US, and this is what they are saying. If you’re the antiwar crowd, and you’re STILL saying that "Bush lied, people died" then you’re dreaming, and really don’t actually care about the issue at hand- you just want to lash out at Bush, one way or the other. Thank god that Hussein and Zarqawi aren’t in the position to threaten anyone with WMDs. Even the UN can see that. Why can’t the goddamn Dems see that? Oh, and you’ll have to dig into the media to find it- like the MSM wants you to have a brain on this. Perish that thought! You’re not paid to think! I await the day the Alien and Sedition Acts are brought into affect. With glee.

Oh, and I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which was quite good. So, it really WAS a good weekend, for me!

Eddie Guerrero: Viva La Raza: 1967- 2005

2005-11-19T20:12:00.000-08:00

Eddie Guerrero was a professional wrestler, having a career that spanned over 17 years in the industry. He’d worked for the New Japan Pro Wrestling, ECW, WCW, WWE, and TNA promotions, as well as spending time in various Mexican promotions. He passed away this past Sunday, from heart failure- the repercussions of his past drug use, and him overworking his body. He was only 38 years old, and leaves behind a wife and three kids. Before I continue, I would like to send my condolences to the Guerrero family, the WWE, and all the people Eddie was friends with. He touched many, and will be remembered by many.

I can’t claim to have known him as a person, but I did know him as a wrestler, and his death hit me hard. Partially because I had watched him grow up in the ring, from the mid-1990’s to present day, into one of the best performers in the world. I remember seeing him in ECW, wrestling fantastic technical matches against the likes of Dean Malenko, and thinking about how good his future in the industry would be. To this day, one of my proudest wrestling moments (as a fan) was when Eddie won the WWE Title from Brock Lesnar, at the No Way Out 2004 PPV. And what sucks even more, is that Eddie was set to win his 2nd WWE title the day that he passed away.

Eddie was a fantastic in-ring worker, blessed with a blend of in technical and Mexican Lucha Libre high-flying styles. His time in Japan (where he wrestled for New Japan as Black Tiger II) also helped him refine his skills. Over time he would become a very good mike worker as well; he went from having a bland character to having one of the most charismatic heel characters in wrestling at the time. But Eddie never got the chance in WCW to refine those skills, because he developed a drug addiction and he would get into a drug-caused major car accident which left him hospitalized for months. Eddie would return to wrestling 6 months later, but his drug addiction did not stop, and he became more and more enmeshed in it.

Eventually Eddie would leave WCW and it’s political situation for the WWE, where there were "greener pastures" for talent like him. After fits and starts, Eddie got over as the "Latino Heat" and his character was well liked by the fans and the WWE. He became multi-time Intercontinental Champion. He, along with guys like Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho, were seen as the "go to guys" in the WWE (and unlike WCW, WWE management had every intention of pushing them at that time). But Eddie would hit rock bottom; he was fired from the WWE for his drug use (but Vince left the door open for his return, if he cleaned himself up). Eddie’s wife also divorced him. But Eddie picked himself up, became a born again Christian and got himself cleaned up. He proved to his ex-wife that he was clean and remarried her (and would have their 3rd child in their 2nd marriage), worked on the independent wrestling circuit until he could get a job working for a major promotion- and he went back to the WWE in 2002. He would remain clean for the rest of his life. And that’s where his career would take off.

In 2003, he started a heel tag team with his nephew, Chavo Guerrero, called Los Guerreros. They were natural as a tag team, and played up this whole "we’re lying, cheating, and stealing latinos" gimmick for all it was worth- and it was funny as hell. They ran promos where they cheated at golf against some preppies, pretended to be pool cleaners, and schmoozed the ladies with their Latino Heeeeeeeeat. Eddie was clearly the better wrestler of the two (although that’s not a knock on Chavo) and eventually he embarked on a solo career in late 2003, winning the US Heavyweight title, and establishing himself as a face (good guy) against Chavo (who remained a heel [bad guy]). And the fans loved his character- from his bouncing lowrider entrance, to him handing his opponent a steel chair when he ref wasn’t looking, and pretending to be hurt (and the opponent would get DQ’ed for it), and to him just putting on great technical efforts. Eddie had the total package- great in the ring, could work with darn near anyone, and he was fantastic on the mike. That’s why in 2004 he won the WWE title from Brock Lesnar, in Anaheim, California. The reaction the fans had- and Eddie had- was huge. Eddie was seen as not only a good wrestler, but a "people’s champion". He would defend the title in one of his best matches ever, against Kurt Angle at Wrestlemania 20- and at the end of the show, Eddie’s best friend, Chris Benoit would win the World Heavyweight Championship. Both wrestlers celebrated in the ring at the end of Wrestlemania, proving that the "technical workhorses" of the company could indeed win titles.Eddie’s title reign would be short, though. He wasn’t comfortable at the time holding onto the belt while the ratings were not great, and his matches against JBL weren’t great. He felt the pressure getting to him, and rather than face his demons head-on, he gave the title up. He’d spend the rest of 2004 regaining his confidence, and in 2005 Eddie embarked on a nearly year long feud with Rey Misterio, one of his close personal friends (in real life) and former tag team partner. It’s probably the feud of the year, with a fantastic Ladder Match at Summerslam. Rey beat Eddie 7 straight times, until Eddie finally would win on the 8th shot. Eddie was clearly comfortable again, and ready for the title- which he was to win this past Sunday, since Dave Batista- the WWE champion- has a back injury which will keep him out of action for a while. But Eddie would never get to taste glory again.

In death as in life, Eddie Guerrero will always remain in my heart as a champion, one of the greatest wrestlers ever, and a genuinely funny guy who I had watch mature as the years go by. I remember watching him in WCW, thnking that he’s much better than they were letting him be. I remember how happy I was for him that he’d gone to the WWE- only to break his elbow in his first WWE match. And I enjoyed his storyline with Chyna, the on-screen relationship they had with each other and the exposure it gave Eddie. I agreed with the firing of him for his drug issues- and watched as Eddie put his life back together again. I remember him coming back to the WWE in 2002, and seeing him in a IC title ladder match against Rob Van Dam- and it was like a "welcome back, Eddie" match. His time in the Los Guerreros tag team and then as a solo wrestler again were among the best stuff I’ve seen, and it was great to see Eddie at his best- personally and professionally.

Him winning the WWE title was both a huge shock, and also very satisfying. Eddie deserved to be a main event star- and he had that potential to be a breakout star, crossing beyond just wrestling (like Austin and The Rock did). We’ll never get that, now. The "Eddie, Eddie, Eddie" chants will dim. Fans will move onto the "next big thing". And I’m sure his death won’t be the last wrestler’s death that will shock and move us to tears.

But Eddie’s place in wrestling is assured. Eddie Guerrero’s legacy will carry on- from the Guerrero Family, to his friends, to all the wrestling fans he’s touched. Whenever someone does a Five Star Frog Splash, I’ll think of Eddie. Whenever someone does a heelish smirk, I’ll think of Eddie. And whenever someone wins the World Title, I’ll see how they compare to Eddie.

And you know what? None will.

Rest in Peace, Latino Heat. Viva La Raza! ¡desea vivo el campeón!

Happy Veteran's Day

2005-11-11T20:12:00.000-08:00

I know it's late in the day, but it's never to late- or early- to say happy Veteran's Day to our brave soldiers, in the past, present, and future. May you all keep kicking ass and above all, cherish honor, valour, bravery, and love for our country. Keep yourselves safe, and you'll be in our thoughts and prayers, always.

Is this the Ramadan Offensive?

2005-11-09T12:18:00.000-08:00

There have been hints that there would be terror attacks coming, from various sources: British intelligence said the "sky was dark" while the Aussies issued terror warnings, warnings about terrorism in France, and there were rumblings about terror in the SouthEast Asian area. Well, it looks like all of them were pretty much on target.

First, there was the bombings in India, by Kashmiri separatists and Islamic Militants(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4388292.stm). Then there was the (still) ongoing riots in France, which are being seen more and more as organized actions, rather than mindless rampages (does anyone really need me to link this?). On top of that, there were the terror arrests in Britain ( http://smh.com.au/news/world/terror-charges-for-three-in-the-uk/2005/11/05/1130823406980.html?oneclick=true) and Australia (http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/11/07/afx2323321.html, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18149_Got_15_in_Australia&only ). And on top of that, there's the still unfolding situation of terror bombings in Western Hotels in Amman, Jordan.

Is this the so-called Ramadan offensive that's been prophecised? I say so-called, because I don't even know if there really WAS a Ramadan offensive in the planning- all these actions could well have absolutely no ties to one another. But if this is what's been in the planning, in some instances you can see it as a stalemate, and in other ways, you can see it as a wash. That isn't to make light of any of it- the bombings in Jordan are serious business, as is the terror arrests in Australia. And France is a topic in and of itself. But the terror arrests alone signify a key weakness in planning for the terrorists: they rely too heavily upon foriegn nations to have lax security in order for them to strike. That doesn't meant that there isn't lax security in Australia, Britain, or Jordan (or even France)- but it does mean that whenever there is an increased presense in police and security detail, the chances of the terrorists to pull anything off are dramatically reduced.

And if this is the Ramadan Offensive, it may well be a sea change in how Al Quaeda and their sister organizations are operating. In short, it may well be a case of "get our forces the hell out of Iraq and focus elsewhere" since they clearly are not winning in Iraq. And that focus may well be to hit non-American western allies, and probably to focus more on Europe and other middle eastern targets (not named Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran). The arrests in Britain, Australia, and the riot offensive in France all point to this. And the Jordanian action could well be tied in primarily for it's timing- and of who they targeted (western hotels).

And that brings me to asking a simple question. What have the terrorists achieved in their "offensive"? In Britain and Australia, absolutely nothing, since parts of their organizations were captured. And in the case of Jordan, the bombings will probably have the effect of pulling the government more towards the Westerm anti-terrorist position. And as for France, that's the wild card- will the French ultimately cave into the demands of the muslim and immigrant population? Or will they take action against the rioters and their supporters? If they cave into the violence, they'll come off not only as politically neutered on the international stage, but they'll be politically paralyzed internally. And otherwise, alot of this is left up to the responses of the western nations (and I think Jordan's response will be tough, and in any respect, they think more like a western country [overall] than a middle eastern country). France's should be obvious; they're just waffling the whole thing, trying to politically sweep it under the rug, like they always do. And in Australia and Great Britain, their responses, as swift and dramatic as they are, must come as a huge shock (but that's the risks they run).

Embarassment of idiots II

2005-11-04T08:55:00.000-08:00

The media, in all their glory, have decided that the 2,000th military death has happened in the Second Gulf War. And, of course, they're trumpeting it as though it's the horn that will start the apocalypse. And the, um, reason? Because 2,000 is! a! big! number! that! they! think! they! can! bash! us! over! the! head! with!

While in no way do I want to make light of the deaths of American (and coalition) servicemen and women who have fought valiantly, bravely, and honorably for a just cause, the media doesn't particularly care about them. If they did, they'd also showcase the thousands of soldiers who have been wounded in combat, as well. And those numbers, btw, dwarf the number of the dead. But those soldiers can still talk, while the dead can't. So it's not necessarily a good thing for the media members who want to play this game to put a live mike in front of them, because frequently, those soldiers tell the media how wrong they are.

And before I continue, let me say that the "2,000 deaths" number is actually a misnomer. It's including soldiers that die outside of Iraq (but included in the GWOT), non-combat deaths (training accidents, car accidents [which are frequent, btw], suicides, natural causes/disease, etc), and the number of deaths that were against an actual Iraqi army in 2003. Thus, it's acutally ALOT less that have been killed fighting against the current "insurgency". And it's taken with no regard, as has been stated, about the wounded soldiers- which many return to combat. Hell, there've even been amputees who have returned to combat action. And it doesn't include the numbers of soldiers who re-enlist- which is high as it is- even though the media's trumpeting gloom and doom with the "2,000" deaths.

But the New York Times takes the cake in this one, and in the worst possible way. Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003793.htm) broke this story a few days ago, and it's a doozie: the NYT basically was caught red handed trying to edit down a fallen soldier's (Cpl. Jeff Starr) farewell letter to make it look like it was a fatalist account that jived with their quagmire meme for Iraq. But the full letter was anything but that, and it was a glowing account of how proud he was to do the work he was doing in Iraq- and how proud he was about how well the Iraqis are doing (check the link for the full text). And to make matters worse, the NYT isn't returning any messages to the Starr family, who are quite understandably, pissed off. And it doesn't end there...(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003821.htm) when other readers of Malkin wrote into NYT, and specifically to the writer of the article, they got this back:

"There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr."
He then had the gall to berate the reader: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

Yes, Mr. Dao hasn't been to Iraq either. Nor has he faced combat, and is not a soldier. That's a pathetic line of reasoning, and quite frankly, Mr. Dao should have his press credentials revoked. He's a sick, sad, and piss-poor excuse for a human being, who doesn't know the difference between what his editors are telling him to write, and what journalism is. Mr. Dao failed to make the connection between the passive-agressive censorship he did with the letter, and how THAT alone is dripping of anti-war sentiment. Btw, Mr. Dao, don't be suprised if the Starr family takes punitive action against you, in a court of law. And no, the judge won't let you pontificate like the snippy asshole you seem to be. And I'm also sure that the NYT won't be happy with you, after the Starr family is finished gutting the remains of you and the NYT.

Anyways, this is where the left and the media are at, right now. It's so obvious that they don't care about the actual soldiers. Nor do they care about the war itself. All they care about is being "right" in any way they can manufacture it, and how it'll affect a political alignment that they hate (namely, the classical liberal line of Bush, Blair, Howard, et al). Sorry Mr. Schulzberger, you're not getting a return to the 1960's any time soon. And I do hope that the editors and the staff of the NYT are buying lots of Pepto Bismol.

Lots.

And lots.

UPDATE: here is a exhaustive look at the whole NYT mess, along with stuff about the "2,000" deaths in the Iraqi war, at the Mudville Gazette: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003757.html

Embarassments of the idiots

2005-11-04T08:26:00.000-08:00

I was originally going to write this post up about the failure of the Democratic party (again) to have an effect upon American politics, but I'm glad I waited, for a few reasons. With the ongoings in France and other global issues sprouting up, I was able to get more info as things emerged from the woodworks. So, I shall cry "Havoc!" and let out the dogs of war.

I'll start things off with the current state of the Democratic party. As far as political strategizing goes, they effectively tried to tie their stature into the end result of the Valerie Plame investigation. And when all it turned up was Scooter Libby- and for reasons that had nothing to do with the investigation in the first place- the Dems have no ammo to work with on this political scorecard. To be honest, they should have known that they'd get nothing out of the Valerie Plame case- but the need to pander to their base was too great (and too tempting a fundraising ploy) and a great deal of Democrats probably believed their own BS about it, as well. Otherwise they'd have seen that Patrick Fitzgerald's office was telling everyone that A) Cheney's not involved and B) Rove's only ancilliarily involved, on the same level as Libby is. I guess they missed the part of the press conference that Fitzgerald had, where he said that the investigation was NOT about the Iraqi war.

But that's what the Dems were hoping. They were hoping that it'd deal directly with the intelligence issues that lead to the war, and that they could bash Bush with "no WMDs! Bush lied, people died!" meme they have. So, Fitzgerald effectively gave them nothing but some sour candy when they expected an Aston Martin. And on top of that, the media tried to cover for the Dems, by trying to frame the whole Libby indictment as another WaterGate. Earth to the media....America spent the next two days asking "who the hell is Scooter Libby? This just feels overblown." So a convoluted investigation is about to wrap up in which the Dems get nothing. Oh, and to make matters worse for the Dems, Bush nominates a new candidate for the Supreme Court: Samuel Alito. Yes, that was the sound of Harry Reid screaming, when Bush announced Alito.

What that meant is that the Republican party reunited as a whole in supporting Bush, and many have expressed their thanks that Bush stood by his 2 term pledge to push for supreme court justices that were conservative. And it also meant that Bush nominated someone who's in the mold of John Roberts, with impeccable credentials and a very strong paper trail of 15 years of judicial service. The Dems knew that Bush was going to jump big time in the polls, and for once they were right (Bush regained at least 5-7% points just by nominating Alito). So, with the Fitzgerald investigation fizzling for them, and Bush nominating Alito, what do the Dems do? Simple! They pull a trick out of their hats that no astute political player would ever do: they tell the world that they have absolutely nothing on the agenda, other than to have one hissy fit after another.

Harry Reid forced a one night shutdown of the Senate ostensibly over the prewar intelligence issues earlier in the week. That was the first time that's ever been done (it's been done by both parties, jointly, but never by one party). If you want to find a quicker way to piss the majority GOP party off, I don't know if you can find it. Pure and simple, the plan was to try to shift the "debate" to something that the Dems could manufacture a "debate" about in which they look great and wonderful against whatever straw man they prop up. Firstly, the GOP leadership called them on it, and secondly, it even confused the media. Nothing came out of it, other than the Dems whining about their talking points, and coming off as totally manufactured in a bad way. I think many Dems were even embarassed by the naked display of crappy politics.

The bottom line is that you DON'T tell the public and the other party, in a bold manner, that you have nothing to add to the political discourse. That's what the Dems just did. They told the GOP and America that they had hitched their ride on the Fitzgerald investigation, and were pissed that they didn't get what they wanted. And, they had no contingency plans in case the investigation didn't give them what they wanted. They could have quickly shifted the topic to something else- anything else- but they didn't. They're STILL marching to that beat, folks. And they're getting nowhere with it, fast. What they did with the Senate shutdown was an ill advised stunt, which generated at the most a 24 hour publicity window for them, and then the news went back to Alito, Bush, et al.

Oh, and ANWR just passed yesterday. That big bugaboo of the enviro-left for years and years is now on it's way to becoming fact. And this doesn't even factor in the foriegn issues that have fallen into Bush and the GOP's lap, either. Oh, and Mayor Bloomberg (who's technically a Republican) is about to win a landslide election against Freddie Ferrer in New York City, the likes of which the city has never seen. Even Democrats in the middle of one of the bluest states in the Union are voting for Bloomie. And the Dems have nothing to add to any of this. Nothing.

Talk about a giant waste of political space. Somewhere I think Machiavelli is crying.

Not a bang but a whisper

2005-10-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

Pat Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case finally came out with indictments today......but they have nothing to do with the case. And no one important in the Bush White House was even charged with anything (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html).

This effectively amounts to a kerfluffle. And a rather weak one, at that. Does anyone care that "Scooter" Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice? I'm sure Libby does, and I for one hope that he can find he's innocent (because on those charges, he' got alot of explaining to do). But as for the rest of the White House? Nada. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Condi, Card, et al. are all in the clear. Well, Rove isn't completely but I think that nothing will come of it (if they haven't yet, they won't, now). This effectively amounts to a non-issue to the continuance of the Bush Presidency. All the talk about Bush being a "lame duck" and completely screwed because of the Plame case are overblown, and quite frankly, being thrown out there by political hacks and wannabes who really have nothing better to do than live, breathe, and die for the Beltway 24/7. Guess what, CNN? America doesn't give a ding dang darn about Scooter Libby. I give this a week, before it's forgotten.

The media, as usual, flubbed this. They acted like it's the WATERGATE OF THE 21ST CENTURY (italics mine, intent was theirs). They cut out soaps in mid-day to showcase this farce as though it's Watergate, Iran-Contra, and WhiteWaterGate/Monica all rolled into one. To be honest, there are bigger stories out there (Harriet Miers and the Iranian President unveiling his master plan to eliminate Israel) and this just doesn't cut it. The Plame case was incomprehensible to begin with, and the public at large doesn't really care about it- especially since they know darn well that the media's been out to get Bush for quite some time. So this is nothing new for them.

Oh, and probably as early as next week, Bush will be announcing the new SCOTUS pick to replace Harriet Miers. If it's a McConnell or Luttig or Brown, that'll be bigger news than anything that happened this past week. Well, unless Israel and Iran go to war within the next month or so.

I really can't wait for 2006, when Katrina/Rita, Plame, Miers, etc, etc, are all behind Bush...and the Dems have to actually go before voters. And the media will have overplayed themselves in 2oo5 too much to be effective in 2006. Again.

And no one will remember who Scooter Libby is by then. Sorry Scooter, but your name will be off the headlines and buried in page 58 by mid November.

Hubris

2005-10-21T11:37:00.000-07:00

I just saw the headline at National Review Online, where at The Corner, they said:

"THIS MOMENT CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP FROM REPUBLICAN SENATORS, WHO SHOULD GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND TELL IT THAT THIS NOMINATION WILL NOT WORK AND SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN." [Kathryn Jean Lopez]Our new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate.

Now, I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with Harriet Miers, per se. But I do have a problem with HOW they are saying it. Who's at charge in this debate, NRO? You, Bush, or Congress? The way that they ultimately word it, the power brokers are......NRO. I really don't think that their editorial will matter ONE IOTA to the Senate. Simply because not everyone in the Senate jumps at the mere mention of NRO. It's influential, for sure, but it's not what the New York Times is for the Democrats. So, stating that their "new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate" is more or less NOT about Harriet Miers; but about NRO themselves. They want to exert their influence (as well as they should want to), and Miers is just the means and the ways to do it. The problem is that they're not being honest about it; they want their Shangri-la and they'll have a hissy fit if they don't get it. They want to set the table in the debate, and be the end-all to the debate. That's not really debating- that's dictating. Yeah, try to talk to the Senate, but don't try to make your arguement the only one that's out there.

Another thing that alot of pundits have been doing in regards to Miers, is that they've been assuming things about her that we just don't know about. Some have been saying that she's "going to have to cram for constitutional law in three weeks"- well, how do they know that she will have to? Or not have to? How about the upcoming hearings she'll go through- just because some of the Republican Senators will grill her doesn't mean anything. She could handle the questions with grace and ease, or she could flub them. But the pundits are automatically assuming that she'll flub them. Why? I don't know. They're not looking at her impartially, is what it means. They wanted someone else- which NRO has stated that they wanted- and will fight for that. And as a result, the views about Miers isn't so much about HER, as it is about THEM being right. Btw, much of the folks at NRO and the Conservative establishment were also against John Roberts, to start things off (and eventually warmed up to him). How quickly people forget. The whole thing nauseates me, the high school bullshit we're dealing with, here.

The problem is, is that they might NOT get someone else, and might NOT get their candidates. They don't even know what they really want, and parts of their arguement that they're making against Miers is hypocritical. I mean, they wanted Congress to have an up or down vote on the nominees for SCOTUS, but here they are now, advocating a dismissal of Miers BEFORE she's even gotten a chance to defend herself. And they also wanted a nominee who was outside of the elite law school positions, to bring a different and more practical viewpoint of law and studying law to SCOTUS. And here they are now, arguing precisely against such a candidate.

And they might also alienate significant parts of Congress and the President. Yeah, I don't think that NRO is getting any interviews from the entire Bush team, right now. That's the price you pay for being uppity jackasses, folks.

For counterveiling viewpoints, look here http://hughhewitt.com/ here http://powerlineblog.com/ here http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/marvinolasky/2005/10/20/172028.html and here http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2005/10/undecided-no-more-on-harriet-miers.html

Looking to the future

2005-10-19T14:45:00.000-07:00

Democrats seem to be thinking that there's some sort of shift in the air, politically speaking, that Republicans are breaking apart and the Democrats will win in 2006 and then 2008. They point to Katrina/Rita, DeLay's indictment, the PlameGate story, and the Harriet Miers fallout as the main reasons for the GOP problems which will lead to a Democratic victory in the near future.

One very big problem: does anyone think any of those problems will exist come 2006? Let's face it, Katrina/Rita was a huge mistake by the media to overplay, and increasingly the real news about the hurricanes is coming through. Plus, by 2006, no one will really remember the media spin on the hurricane. And it'll be a non-issue come 2008. Oh, as an asides, it HAS done something the Dems don't want to see; the GOP listening to it's base and cutting costs and taxation dealing with the hurricanes. It'll be very hard to run against GOP candidates who are in the process (or would join the process if new nominees) of cutting taxes in the here and the now.

Secondly, there's the Tom DeLay indictments, which the Dems are jumping with glee over, since they ostensibly get to tackle one of the most powerful GOP leaders, and pull him out of the political game. Quite simply, the whole trial is a farce. The charges against DeLay are so thin that the prosecutor had to go fishing to find a grand jury that would press charges- and tried to hide that fact. The prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has a long history of trying to bring Tom DeLay down, and the current situation that Earle's in is a really bad one- he jumped the gun and realizes that no one (unless the judge is a moveon.org type) is going to buy it. And he'll be out of a job by the end of the year. It's also had the effect of giving DeLay and the GOP an added incentive to close ranks with one another, rather than bicker amongst each other.

The whole Valerie Plame story is effectively overblown, and I'm not even sure where or what it's doing at the moment. But suffice to say that it doesn't look likely that anyone will get charges pressed against them, unless the Special Investiagtor could produce evidence about who leaked the info about Valerie Plame (if, in any event, that info means she's a covert operative) and smack a few people with conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges. But that's highly unlikely.

And lastly, there's Harriet Miers. At the end of the day, I really don't think many GOPers will vote against her in Congress. The only way she won't get nominated is if she completely flubs the Senate committee hearings. And I think that's highly unlikely. Bush will get his way on this- and the GOP knows that if they reject Miers (effectively to have Bush nominate "their" preferred candidate), there's no sure bet that Bush will get any chance to nominate McConnell, Lutting, or Brown. Plus, this issue isn't going to kill the Bush administration, or the GOP. It'll end up as just another media story fizzling.

Well, now that I've effectively taken straw man arguement that the Dems uphold against the GOP, what do I see happening in the 2006 and 2008 elections? Barring another major terror attack in the US, I think we'll see a few things happen:
1) With America once against watching for politics (it's a mid-term year, after all, in 2006) Bush will help the GOP campaign across the US. Bush alone drums up votes; the Dems don't have anything to counter that with.

2) The GOP message will be most likely centered around tax cuts/spending cuts, continue the GWOT, energy issues, and securing the borders. The Dem message? They've effectively admitted that they really don't HAVE any issues, just noisy rebuttals of anything the GOP says. I mean, if the GOP's message is "we like butter" the Dems would follow with the message of "no to butter!" That's effectively where their campaign and platform is at, right now.

3)By 2006, the US will start to pull troops out of Iraq (unless there's an Iranian invasion of Iraq, or an American invasion of Iran/Syria), and that'll effectively take the "no blood for oil!" rhetoric off the table. It'll become a non-issue. Not to mention, if the Dems DO try to use their anti-war rhetoric in 2006, it'll not only feel old, but trite, and piss alot of Americans off, once again. One of the major failings of the Kerry campaign in 2004 was that he could never reconcile his largely anti-war platform with the American people; he could rant about how bad he thinks the Iraqi war is going (and most of the country didn't buy it), but when it came time to substantiate his arguements, he waffled it every time, and ended up being stuck with absurdist statements that amounted to "Put me in office, and not only will I walk on water, but I'll make Iraq grrrrrreat!" And that's not even covering the issues dealing with Iran and Syria. Going into 2006 and 2008, do the Dems want to once again be seen as chickenshit on defense issues? Or, to put it bluntly: if Bush wanted to declare war on Syria, or launch airstrikes against Iran, would the Dems want to risk the political fallout of them holding a Daschle-like (remember Daschle's "Bush is a failure" speech the DAY AFTER combat operations commenced in Iraq? Senator Thune does.) hissy fit with the rest of the nation watching? They can get away with the Mother Sheehan crap now, because no one's really watching. But in an election year? For an example, even Kerry had to give a harsh speech against the Bin Laden tape that came out a few days before last year's election.

4) Mounting energy problems will most likely force this issue to the forefront in 2006 and 2008; Katrina and Rita have already done that (and that'll probably be their lasting impact) to some extent. The rising costs of heating oil this winter will continue it. The country does need an energy overhaul; more domestic drilling for oil and possibly a return to nuclear energy. The GOP will put forth a multi-front arguement for this; the Dems will just let their anti-intellectual and anti-capitalist eco-activist groups speak for them. That'll amount to a non arguement- and it'll completely disregard anything the GOP will say. It'll look like this: GOP- "We want drilling for oil, and new refineries built in the US to offset our dependence on the global oil industry. Also, it could boost GDP twofold; more US money being used in the US, and extra export industry for the US. Secondly, we want a return to nuclear energy- with better safeguards and efficient controls that before." Dems- "No! Don't listen to the Halliburton people! Live for the forests! Protect the wildlife of America- they'll be worth the hit your wallet will take! And down with American energy companies! They are Evil! Evil! Evil!" I know it's a bit overblown, but that's essentially what their arguement will come down to. Alot of hot air. Also, expect NASA to come up, and see how both sides handle it.

5) Possibly the most contentious issue will be illegal immigration. The Dems will fight this tooth and nail, but they'll fail because of a simple reason: The Global War on Terror. I expect the GOP to turn the immigration issue into a terror security threat. That'll take alot of wind out of the Dems' multiculturalist rhetoric that they'll bring forth, simply because the Dems have all but waived a white flag at dealing with national security. And with the polls showing that 2/3rd of the US wants a stronger illegal immigration policy, the Dems really can't win this, even with their media friends helping them.

6) If things continue the way they are, Bush won't have any 2nd term scandals or slowdown to really deal with. Nixon had WaterGate; Regan had Iran-Contra; Clinton had Monica. Bush has....nothing, of yet. And I don't think PlameGate will count for anything but a really osbscure farce. That alone will help Bush to formulate plans for 2006 and 2008.

7) God help the Dems if Rudy Guiliani or Condoleeza Rice run for President. They have nothing (including Hillary) who can beat either of them. Nothing.

Magazines play games with history

2005-10-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

The American Society of Magazine Editors just released their list of the"40 greatest magazine covers in the past 40 years"(http://www.magazine.org/editorial/13730.cfm). I have two reactions to it: the first is to yawn, the second is to snort at it's lameness.

I'll be fair, some of the covers are classics- who could forget the National Geographic cover of the Afghani woman from the mid 1980s? Or the Life magazine's 1969 photo of Neil Armstrong on the Moon? And I'm fishing to understand a few of them: like the Andy Warhol in a Campbell's Soup Can one (Esquire 1969), which doesn't really go anywhere or say anything. And it strikes me as very......small minded. Not in any ideological sense, but in a "do you honestly think that the people from 1980 through to present day give a flying rat's ass about the avant garde movement?" I mean, today you could ask alot of folks about Andy Warhol, and they'd just give you a blank stare. So it's historical worth is dubious on that level. And then there's Blue, Oct. 1997. I just don't get that. At all.

Otherwise, it's a yawner because it just tries to uphold the magazine editor's political ideologies as a dominant force. That kind of naked maneuvering is usually called "projectionism", basically to project your personal feelings or beliefs onto an issue in which it doesn't necessarily relate to directly.

Let's face it- the Entertainment Weekly cover of the Dixie Chicks isn't famous. No one's going to give a crap about it a few years from now. Same goes for the Ellen Degeneres "I'm Gay" Time 1997 cover (btw, she's not "gay" she's lesbian. Grammatically speaking, the cover says she's happy, not a lesbo. If Ellen was a guy, the meaning would be true, but as it is, it's not), which was really overblown back then, and in fact, got her tv show off the air simply because alot of folks started watching it to see the hubbub......and found it not to be funny. Don't get me wrong, I like Ellen's standup, her talk show's fun, and she did a GREAT job in Finding Nemo. But the cultural and historical impact of her Time cover is really limited.

Take examples like these and what are you left with? The Magazine editors wanted to portray what they thought was culturally and historically relevant, but they made the mistake of superimposing their own views of what's relevant and not upon the nomination process. No one really cares about the Dixie Chicks and Ellen. They should know this, it's not a hard thing to figure out. It's like someone asking me to list the greatest tv shows of all time- I'll include Babylon 5, Batman: The Animated Series, and Family Guy. Why? Because I like them. And that's effectively what I'm seeing here, with this list of magazine covers. They ultimately liked the Dixie Chicks, and Ellen. And we're all damned if we don't like it, as well. Because they chose it and we better accept it!

Lastly, look at the issues that dominate the list (there is some overlap):
-gun control (1 cover)
- anti-corporations/business/capitalist (3 covers)
-Vietnam (3 covers)
-Gay/Lesbian issues (1 cover)
-anti-religion (1 maybe 2 covers- if you include the Wired one)
-anti- republican (2, maybe 3 covers- if you include the Newsweek election one)
-anti- flyover country (1 cover)
-"Oh, that muslim extremist stuff is overblown, so I'll build a straw man arguement up and make it a silly farce" (1 cover)
-anti- Bush (1 cover)
-Pro Bill Clinton (1 cover)
-women (or men) in provacative poses, either clothed or unclothed (8 covers)
-women/minority rights (3 covers)
- 9/11 (3 covers)

And there you have it. If their political views weren't obvious by now, all you'd need to do is look at the "George W. Bush as Alfred E. Neuman" The Nation, 2000 cover. Firstly, The Nation is a leftist magazine which is effectively a socialist rag; at least the New Republic has pretenses towards centrality and occasional bursts of decency. But The Nation? No, I wouldn't want to touch them, unless I'm adhering to a strict political ideological line. And that's what the ASME editors are clearly doing; creating a structure of history that's devoid of Republican or moderate thought or ongoings. I mean, there's nothing referencing 1989 with Europe and the USSR. It's as though Carter, Regan, and Bush sr. never existed (gee, I wonder why- the former's an abject failure as president, and Regan's one of the greatest presidents of the 20th Century). What about Challenger or Columbia? Or the Oklahoma City Bombing? Gulf War 1, or the current Global War on Terror- I'm sure they could have found something from the Afghani War, the Fall of Baghdad, Madrid, Beslan, etc, etc. What about Newt Gingrich? Ariel Sharon? How about anything on the refugees from Vietnam?

What about any right-wing magazines? No National Review? I'm sure they had something to add. But why then, the preponderance of leftist magazines- Life, Time, Newsweek, The Nation, The Economist, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, and Esquire?

I think they're just fundamentally trying to hide the real history, which they know is coming. It's going to hit them like a freight train at full bore, in the coming years. Regan's funeral was a wake up call to these guys; America came out to support a great president one last time. The media couldn't shake the belief in Regan and his ideals from the American public. That kind of public show of support is what they fear- that they will be relegated to the dustbin of history, just like their Soviet comrades. So they pretend they know what's relevant and what's not. Because if they don't try to hide the truth from us, there'll be hell to pay. We're only now just waking up to the realities of Vietnam and the 1960's, and the real legacy both have left us. And we're not happy.

Btw, it's a safe bet 20 years from now that there'll be a statue of George W. Bush in Baghdad, praising him and America's committment to Iraqi freedom. And ASME? The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley( 1792-1822) says it best, about how the future will view ASME and their ilk:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Oh, go pound sand

2005-10-16T07:55:00.000-07:00

Congrats to the Iraqi people for successfully voting yesterday, in what appears to be mostly uninterrupted voting, with little terrorist activities throughout the country. Even the Sunnis voted in record numbers!

An extra shout out goes to the Iraqi and Coalition forces, who did a bang up job of ramping up security and pinpointed offensives in the Al Anbar province. I surmise that the bombing of a Sunni political party's headquarters a few days ago was the last straw that broke the camel's back- and why we're seeing Sunnis vote in larger than expected numbers.

The terrorists mounted some 13 attacks this election. Thirteen. While the last time out, they managed some 300+ attacks (most of which were highly ineffectual). Neither time, they were able to influence the election, and with increasingly null and void results. This pretty much shows that the terrorists fighters are stuck on the border territories, fighting the coalition forces just to keep their rear supply lines open (and are failing at that). It also shows that foriegn influence from the Syrians, Saudis, and Iranians isn't working.

Oh, and a giant middle finger to the American media, who completely overlooked the elections in favor of bullshit news in the US. I'm sorry, but the Nazi riot in Toledo, Harriet Miers' nomination, and the rain in the Northeast really do take a backseat to the Iraqi story. Shame on you- even Fox News- for not agressively pushing the Iraqi story. It really is a "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. The news is so dominated with people who think that overt conflict and struggle is the dominant form of news, and good happenings, well, just don't matter. They don't get raitings. Plus, the CNN/CBS/ABC bastion of news doesn't want the American public to know the good things of Iraq. Something like the Iraqis voting in elections, with little terrorist activities....would put giant egg on their faces. If you'd been watching their programs, you'd think that the Iraqi war was going bad, and we were on the verge of having a civil war there. But then news like this breaks out, and if they let the genie out of the bottle, a whole slew of questions arises!

This wasn't the media's finest hour. This was one of the Iraqi people's finest hours.

Let's see how you like the other shoe fitting

2005-10-15T11:08:00.000-07:00

I saw someone wearing a Kayne West shirt yesterday, and couldn't help but think:

"Kayne West hates white people!"

Now, Mr. West, how does it feel to get bitchslapped? You better like the bitter taste of it. Bitch.

Smurfs and War

2005-10-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

This past week, UNICEF had a commercial with Smurfs being bombed out of existence by warplanes and tanks, ostensibly to show children that "war kills" in an effort to raise awareness about the plight of child soldiers in Africa. Alot of folks in Europe are A) pissed off with the commercial ("how dare you use the Smurfs like that! I mean, they're the SMURFS!!!") B) wondering why the hell it was necessary, since it's so clearly over the top propaganda C) kids really shouldn't watch it. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/10/08/1128563036327.html?from=top5)

There's only one really glaring problem. It has clearly nothing to do with Africa.

Firstly, in the African wars, there's a paucity of any heavy weaponry. Not many tanks, not many warplanes. Most of the African wars have been fought on a local scale, with infantry and mobile light units (pickup truck with a machine gun attached to it, more often than not). They're local for two reasons- more often than not, they're not state on state violence, but rather, tribe against tribe. That limits their range. Also, they just don't have the money for heavy equipment. It's much easier to buy older machines and simple handheld weapons. The economies in Africa are generally unable to afford the upkeep of tanks, planes, and warships (with exceptions, but the exceptions are well, largely democratic and out of the fighting). So, it's limited to a local range by the sheer lack of any truly significant modern technology, or economical infrastructure. It's largely a 18th and early 19th century style of warfare (along with the 10th century "off with their heads" police state mentality) being done with mid to late 20th century weapons.

Plus, the smurfs are blue. They're not, fuchia, mauve, opal, vanilla cream, or anything else. They're........blue. I'll get to this in a second, but keep in mind that they are BLUE. And not any other color.

Now that I've established that there is little to do with the commercial and Africa, what is the commercial about? I'm tempted to say "why do you even bother asking- you know the answer!" but I won't.

Ok, I lied. I will ask that. The answer really IS easy.

What country out there has modern weapons of warfare- tanks and planes and all that- and is a common enemy of the leftists who hate warfare (except when it's in their interests, or they can forget it is happening!) and routinely depict it's soldiers as baby killers who eat baby seals for breakfast and like putting underwear on people's heads as a form of torture?

The United States of America. They use a commercial ostensibly for raising awareness for the children stuck in the African wars, and make it a not-so-subtle attack on the American military. I mean war kills, right? And soldiers only target civilians, right? And they're dastardly eeeeeeeeevil minions of the Dark Lord himself, right? And they never, ever, ever, ever, ever do anything for the good of the world, right? And the are RED staters who want to ethnically cleanse BLUE staters, right? (I told you I would get back to the blue issue!)

Someone needs to tell UNICEF to go fuck themselves. Preferably, an Iraqi or Afghani should do that. And maybe, just maybe one of these days, UNICEF will need the US military's help. And we'll remember their Smurf snuff film.

Harriet Miers and the Conservative movement

2005-10-06T17:39:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers was the nomination that no one expected for a Supreme Court Justice. I certainly didn't expect it. Hell, I'll admit, I was probably looking forwards to a McConnel or Luttig as Bush's nominee. But that doesn't mean that Miers is a good or a bad nominee, just that I was expecting something else.

The problem I have so far with the Conservative movement is that they were ALL expecting something else, and unlike me, they're pissed off that they didn't get what they wanted. None of us really knows what Harriet Miers is like, yet. She could turn out to be a great Supreme Court Judge, and I'm not ready to dismiss her from the equation just yet. She is Bush's pick; I want to run on the assumption that she's pretty good at what she does. Yes, she's from his administration, and it does have a bit of cronyism involved in there. But when she's on the short list of candidates that the Democratic leadership said they'd consider as a Justice. Maybe this is because they never thought Bush would nominate her; maybe it's because they also see in her a candidate that they won't be hoodwinked like they were with John Roberts. And I don't mean that in terms of "we can fight her, and win" but in terms of " we won't be made to look like giant frickin asses on the national stage with her, like we were with Roberts".

Bush knows that the Dems don't want someone who's so iconoclastically to the right that they have no choice but to pander to their base, and reject that candidate. That doesn't mean that Bush doesn't want to stuff the Dems whenever possible. I'm sure he does (and he probably wishes he had a voodoo doll of Ted Kennedy. But then again, we all wish we did), but you have to pick and choose your battles. With Katrina/Rita still in the fallout stage, John Roberts the new SCOTUS Chief Justice (something the Conservatives forget!), Tom DeLay's legal problems (which are total bullshit, btw), Frist being Frist, and the continuing GWOT (and the upcoming Iraqi elections), Bush doesn't need a fight right now. Oh, and don't forget the 2006 mid-term elections, where the GOP could easily stand to win more seats in Congress.

Imagine this: Bush nominates Janice Brown. The Dems would characteristically freak out, and do whatever they can to block her nomination. The filibuster would come into play, and there would be a shutdown of the Senate, and thus, in effect, the American government. Remember the LAST time that happened, in the 1990s? It wasn't pretty then, and it'd be even uglier now. Especially in a critical moment in the GWOT- the Iraqi Elections. I have no doubt that the elections will go down, and be a landmark in Iraqi and modern history, but it's something that's going to take up ALOT of the gov'ts attention. If Bush has that shutdown of the government coinciding with the Iraqi elections, that only spells bad things.

Thus, this has all the earmarkings of a nominee that may well be the best choice outside of the better choices. I'm not saying that I support her nomination fully, or am against it. But what I am saying, is that I understand what the President's most likely rationalization for it is. He's worked with her for over 10 years, and knows who she is. She doesn't lack credentials nor have an over abunance of credentials (which is why everyone wants to know more about her). Most of the attacks from the right against her have sadly been of the ad hominen variety, comparing her to the candidates that they wanted. How quickly people forget that they did the same thing to John Roberts. They're entitled to want different candidates, but that's not what everyone's going to get, every time out. John Roberts turned out to be a brilliant choice. And all of a sudden, the world's falling in on everyone just because Harriet Miers isn't the candidate they wanted Bush to pick? Please, spare me the high minded indignity. I'm willing to see what she's made of- and if she makes mistakes in the nomination process before Congress, she should be thrown to the wind- but not before.

Bush is definitely looking ahead to 2006 and beyond. He most likely will have another chance at nominating another Supreme Court Justice in the coming years. He sees the GOP as needing to continue to move forwards towards 2006, and also to keep the GWOT going. A governmental shutdown, while it would energize the base, would also create the huge potential for alienating the center, and the moderate Dems. It's the type of thing that could totally backfire for 2006, and Bush knows it. And he also knows that the GOP will need him to help them campaign in 2006- like he did in 2002 and 2004.

So, in conclusion, my message to the Conservative movement is this: stop hyperventaliating. Now. Get over the fact that Bush didn't nominate the next coming of William F. Buckley. Take Miers seriously as a candidate until she makes a mistake. Until then, give Bush your support, since ditching Miers now won't get the Conservatives any closer to a Luttig or Brown- in fact, it'd push them further from it. And start looking at the grand picture. You've already got John Roberts in there- with a whimper, not a bang. The GWOT will continue to be fought.

The establishment needs to grow up. It's not in the best interests of the GOP to constantly hammer at the Democratic party and it's liberals. While it is certainly a part of the GOP functionality to hammer at the Dems, it's not viable every five goddamn seconds. Picking and choosing when to use that hammer is more important than just trying to go for a frontal assault every moment. This isn't a street corner where you and your gang can beat up on the smaller gang- the stakes here are much higher than pandering to the party base every five seconds. Think, damnit. Think.

Katrina: What Went Wrong, Part 2

2005-10-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

Sorry it's taken me so long to do part 2, but I've been busy with schoolwork and the high holidays. Well, I'm here now, so better late than never, right?

I've already covered the local problems, now I'll cover the state problems. Kathleen Blanco was the Governor of Louisiana, and she's tried to say repeatedly that Bush was at fault. The problem with Blanco was that she was hopelessly out of touch with what she needed to do in response to the hurricane. Mayor Nagin shirked his duty, while Blanco was just totally unsuited for it.

To lay it out, Blanco tried initially to declare a state of emergency ahead of the storm, and she requested provisions and shelter from the Federal government. She didn't ask for military assistance (when it was offered to her) at the time. Nagin actually wanted that military assistance either on the state or federal level, because despite his ineptness, he knew that he'd need their help one way or the other (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1102467&page=1).

Blanco also knew that she didn't have enough National Guardsmen to physically handle the task in LA (actually, she didn't call enough up). President Bush was repeatedly trying to get her to give him the ok to bring in troops from the federal level. But, as per Blanco's own admission, she didn't do that until 2 days after the storm. Two full days of underpreforming national guardsmen and failing local resources (the latter's not Blanco's fault, but recognizing their deficiencies for what they were is), while the federal gov't was forced to sit and wait for a go ahead from the state level to get into Louisiana(http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200509220817.asp) . Btw, for reference, Barbour in Mississippi did call ahead for federal aid as soon as possible.

What that means, precisely is that Bush, the military, and FEMA all had to wait to get the majority of their resources into Louisiana and weren't capable of being in place when the levees broke in New Orleans, or even capable of rebuiding the infrastructure (ie; transportation and communication) until AFTER the call went out. What's really scary is that FEMA was already IN Louisiana and New Orleans before the levees broke, which came as a suprise to me. You'd think they were inefficient from listening to the news, but they had services already in place. The problem is twofold- first, FEMA saw that there wasn't enough national guardsmen and knew that the President was unable to get the federal military forces into the state yet. So when they saw how bad it looked in places like New Orleans, they bolted since they had no protection. FEMA did the right thing- they removed themselves from potentially becoming part of the problem. Also, FEMA doesn't HAVE any authority with the military or police, either on a state or federal level. And their main resources are local, not federal, when they first arrive in town. FEMA isn't a first responder, they're more of a second responder within the first week of a tragedy. In this case, they couldn't BE there until Blanco helped get resources from outside the state, in (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_09_11.PHP).

And what does Blanco do, in televised interviews? Cry. While folks are trying to get into Louisiana and get the job done, she's effectively sitting there, and saying "why me?" When you get someone who is totally unsuited for crisis management, this is what you get. She's a political player who got into Louisiana politics through the machine politics route, and proved that when push came to shove, she was no leader. In fact, all she could do was lamely blame everyone else for the problems that went down. That's a key in learning how much of a political junkie she is, and how little she really knows about what's going on. She's no Guiliani- her tears weren't for the dead, wounded, and dispossessed. They were for herself, plain and simple. She wasn't crying for anyone else, but the fact that she knew she was out of her league with the disaster, and bumbled her way through. And couldn't escape it.

And on top of that, was her now infamous quote "Does anyone know anything about buses here?" when she got to NO to try to figure out just what went wrong. Even on the state level, there wasn't much planning done in terms of transportation. The most they planned for was "contraflow" evacuations, using both sides of the roadways for single exits from the areas to be hardest hit. And even that plan was faulty, since the police had concerns about actually keeping it open, and they knew at most, it was a half measure. So, there was no state plan in place that they were training for mass evacuations, especially of the poorer people in the state (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/regan_preston200509061439.asp).

Lastly, the state government KNEW that federal assistance would be limited for the first few days. The federal gov't had repeatedly told Louisiana officials, since the near-miss of Ivan in 2004, that it would take at least 76-98 hours for a federal response to be put on the ground from the moment that assistance as asked for. Plus, it would also take the combined Federal and State resources 10 days to get everyone out, with the plans that were in place. So, the Louisiana officials KNEW how things would turn out, and never made the attempt to fix the system (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/regan_preston200509061439.asp).

They turned to blaming others as their goal, instead. I have a feeling that both Blanco and Nagin will find themselves out of a job very soon. And guys like Rudy Guiliani- a true crisis manager- will just get an extra coating of luster added to their resumes when they're compared and contrasted with the likes of Nagin and Blanco. A shame, really, that so many people were affected by those that couldn't see the forest for the trees, and played the political game until the very end. Nero would be proud, fiddling on his violin.

Louisiana and the Hurricane: What went wrong? Part 1

2005-09-14T14:56:00.000-07:00

Before I say anything, I want to say that there are things that DID go right in the whole Katrina disaster, and that they should never be overlooked. The police and emergency services in Louisiana who stayed on their job in the midst of one of the worst disasters in US History deserve applause. Same as for the National guardsmen and military personell who are risking life and limb to do their job. Same as for the doctors, nurses, and others who did their jobs. And to cities like Dallas who took in many Louisiana residents after all hell broke loose in that state. And to the many others who did good and I haven't mentioned them; you know who you are, and that's what matters, and counts. Thank you.

Now, as for what went wrong- since the media is so adamant that something DID go wrong, I should tackle that. Only what I know is radically different from what the media wants it's viewership to know.

First and foremost, nearly all states have contingency plans in place in case there is a disaster, natural or man-made. I've lived in New York for most of my life; and I'm now in Florida. Those are two states that have long histories of planning ahead for storms and the like, and have dealt with diasters on a wide scale- the hurricane season last year for Florida, and September 11th in New York (actually, twice in New York, if you include the first WTC bombing). And yes, New Orleans had a contingency plan in place to deal with diasters/hurricanes :(http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005372.php). In the plan, the Mayor has the authority to order evacuations in the event of a oncoming diaster, as well as facilitate the means for the evacuation (specifically: buses) . For the people who would be stuck behind, they would have the availability of some secure shelters- mostly well reinforced schools (and nowhere on the list, is the Superdome). Those facilities were meant for handling large numbers of people, and for more than a few hours in a given day. What's even better, is that New Orleans had dry runs for disaster planning in the case of a hurricane, and found out that their actual infrastructure was wholly unsuited to the task.......in 2004 (http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/091904ccktWWLIvanFlaws.132602486.html). They never took the necessary time nor measures to fix the problems, afterwards.

There's only thing- Mayor Nagin didn't follow it. There was no mandatory evacuation of the city well in advance of the Hurricane, (even though the President asked both Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin for one, and there was a voluntary evacuation-http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011549.php, http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/28/hurricane.katrina/ ) and there were far too many people who refused to leave the city. That's where the contingency plan that I mentioned earlier, should have come into play. Those that could leave New Orleans, did. Those that couldn't or refused to leave, either stayed at home or went to the Superdome. Oh, and in all of this, it was the President's idea to push for a mandatory evacuation. Not Blanco. Not Nagin. Someone totally outside the loop in the contingency plan of Louisiana. Who they subsequently began to blame for all their problems, I might add.

Now, out in New York, on Long Island, if you're a resident of Fire Island (or anywhere on the coastline), you're told point blank by the emergency services: get out or we're not coming to rescue you. They will assist you in getting your and your family out of harm's way if you comply, but otherwise, they mean what they say. They have no time nor inclination to want to rescue people who've unnecessarily put themselves in harm's way when they have damage assessment and real search and rescue operations to undertake. They didn't do this in New Orleans. Admittedly, New Orleans is a big city. But no effort was made to initiate any form of evacuation in this matter. The "mandatory evacuation" that was issued, was basically meant to be "if you can get yourself out, do so. We're not going to do anything."

On top of that, the buses that they would have used to evacuate anyone from New Orleans.....never left their lots. And when the flooding began, they were wrecked (http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2005_08_28.html#004725, http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005416.php). The emergency plan that was designed for New Orleans DID call for use of buses in the case of an impending disaster to be used to take people who don't have transportation or are unable to drive (sick, elderly). Now, to be fair, some people were bused to Baton Rogue, and others to the Superdome. But both were half-attempts to move people around, and they didn't even follow the actual plan that was designed. Plus, the buses- and fire trucks and the like- were supposed to be moved to higher ground, as per the contingency plan, anticipating future need for them, and the need to keep them from getting damaged within the danger zone. That wasn't done, either. But Florida (and New York) always does that- it's standard policy. And that's why the buses were stuck in the middle of all this, unable to be used. And Blanco, the governor, takes 3 days to finally realize they screwed up about the buses.

Also, Amtrak asked Mayor Nagin if he wanted to use the last trains that they had in the city(to get some important equipment out of NO) as a way to get people out of the city- but he refused. With those trains, they could have taken quite a bit of people out of harm's way- and he refused(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001529_4.html). If the busing system was intact, and coupled with the Amtrak offer of assistance, not all, but alot of people who were stuck in NO would have escaped the disaster area. Not all- but more than enough to reduce any problems that would later develop. It would also have reduced the strain on relief efforts after the hurricane had left. But, once again, he refused.

And then there's the New Orleans Police Dept. As their cars and trucks stayed in the city.....so did they. They never had a chance to regroup, and go to higher ground and wait out the storm (or at least a significant portion of them didnt) and the levees breaking. And, as will be discussed later in another column, they were effectively forced to supervise the city in their police fashion (both law and order, and resue ops all at once) by themselves. The slow trickle of military aid were not in place to help them restore order yet. And then the levees broke, and the police had to deal with areas that were heavily flooded, their cars useless, and years of neglect on the NOPD took it's toll. At least 30% of the police force left New Orleans for good, and some of them engaged in the same looting they were supposed to stop. And at least two officers committed suicide (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003462.htm). So the mayor's police department was already dysfunctional, and the cracks just burst out into the open with the disaster. To be fair, the police would have had things under control if it was just the storm that hit them, and not the flooding. But expecting rain and not flooding is effectively wishful thinking. Even in their dry run, they anticipated heavy flooding (and they did expect to see flooding) and they should have responded prior to the storm with a comprehensive plan to deal with it. But they didn't.

This stands in stark contrast to the NYPD and NYFD in New York, which on September 11, 2001, were faced with the worst man-made disaster this country has ever faced. Sure, they had problems (their radios didn't work, dooming at least 350 firefighters and police officers to their deaths), but they regrouped and dealt with it, as much as they could. And they did it for months on end, until the last piece of rubble was sifted from Ground Zero, and the last body was given a proper burial. They followed their WTC plan (designed from the previous WTC bombing in 1993), and it worked- they got nearly everyone that they possibly could, out of the building in time. No one quit on them; no one deserted their station; and they proved why they're among the best trained emergency force in the world (they're also highly underpaid for their jobs, but they do it anyways).

Compare that with the New Orleans emergency response. Yes, they did good. But when you have at least 30% of your police force bugging out on you, something's wrong. It says that there's an endemic problem within the system that existed previously, and the hurricane was the breaking point. It was a broken system, waiting for the final snap.

Think about how devastating that is when you've got a serious looting problem and anarchistic gangs running around in NO. Actually, since there's a high crime and unemployment rate in New Orleans, this shouldn't have been that hard to forsee. That's why in LA, when they had their blackout a few days ago, the police were immediately patrolling the streets.

Plus, Mayor Ray Nagin is no Mayor Rudolph Guiliani. Heck, he's no Mike Bloomberg. On 9/11, Guiliani was there, on site, and in fact was tuck in a building's basement do to the collapse of the South Tower. Nagin? He did the exact opposite.He bellowed for federal help, all the while complaining that it was the federal government's fault.And he went for every sound-bite imaginable. Plus, he kicked people out of a hotel in order to give their rooms to him and his staff, during the crisis. And then he announced plans to give NOPD officers vacations to Las Vegas (all on the tab of FEMA) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477597/posts). And he's now bought a house in Dallas (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483434/posts).

Hardly what I'd call Churchillian. He doesn't compare with a Guiliani.

I'll do the State response in the next post, and how they hampered the military assistance from coming into the state- and in light of the problems with the mayor not following his plan, nor having the resources to fight the aftermath of the hurricane- became cruicial.

Katrina: The end of the left's media

2005-09-04T16:44:00.000-07:00

This will probably be the first in many posts about Katrina, the Category 4/5 Hurricane that slammed into the Gulf Coast a week or so ago. Now, I feel somewhat guilty talking about it at all, since I live in Tallahassee, and it bypassed me completely. Not TOO guilty, mind you, but just a little. I will be donating to charity when I get money (should be happening soon, at least), but I don't know which one yet.

Anyways, to start things off: the media, as a whole, has completely bungled the storm. You've got MSNBC and CNN taking time to harangue the President about what he should or should not do; nevermind the fact that they're NOT contingency or Hurricane experts. NOR are they dealing with a complete set of facts, either. It was pure and simple, an attempt at bashing the President, because they think they caught him with his pants down, on this one. And the Media goes hand in hand with their leftist cronies that are prevalent throughout the fringes of the media-sphere. What total bullshit.

Newsflash, to the media at large: the local and state governments failed Louisiana utterly. If you take a look at how things were done in Alabama and Missisippi, it's a whole different world. In those areas, the people there were able to get at least some assistance from the local and state government's emergency services. Why? Because they had good plans in place. In Louisiana, the gov't forgot to do basic stuff. Like remove the elderly and sick. Like bring buses and emergency trucks to higher ground. Along with gas provisions. Moving generators (or backups) to upper floors of buildings, so that they can still function. Oh, and the emergency services were kept IN New Orleans- so that when the shit hit the fan, they'd need just as much help as those stuck in New Orleans. I'll get into all this at a later moment.

But what the media wanted was it's pound of flesh. And they misfired badly. They're attempting to reduce Bush to a caricature, in the very moment that they really need him to act- because the local gov't in Louisiana failed. The only ones who HAVE responed were the Federal government, and they did so largely WITHOUT the help of the LA. gov't. I mean, if you really want to take it to it's logical conclusion, Bush could easily say "Y'all know, if you really need my help, just ask. But since you're all too busy being partisan hacks towards me, in the most vilest sense possible, I'll just sit this one out until you apologize. And mean it." And he can walk off the stage, with the world having to turn it's focus on the vile nature of the media, and their supporters.

Don't get me wrong, the media in the US has always been a nasty affair. It was nasty during the American Revolution. It was nasty during the Civil War. And through the Gilded Age with Hearst and all that. However, back then they never made bones about things- if they were going to be nasty towards Abraham Lincoln, they'd say so. And why. They wouldn't hide behind a facade that's called "MAINSTREAM MEDIA" and pretend they're not partisan. Or that they care about the American people- when all they really care about is power. And they're being cheerleaded on by their friends from the left- be it the Michael Moore types, Sidney Blumenthal types, or the oddball leftist blogger.

The stuff that Bush and the American public have had to deal with is sick-

- Firstly, I really don't need to say that the Democratic Underground (DU) blogs are especially vile in their reaction to all this. If you dare go there, you'll see the true face of the modern democratic party there. I warn you, it's not pretty http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#075247 and http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#075036 Oh, and the GOP website? Nary a nasty word, towards anyone because of the hurricane.

-Mayor Ray Nagnin ranting that the whole thing's Bush's fault, and plays the race card...and the media not calling him on it, one iota. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/entry=17372_Nagin_If_the_CIA_Slips_Me_Something...&only,

- Air America basically repeating the type of whine that Kayne West gave: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/entry=17326_Playing_Politics_with_a_Major_Disaster&only
and this http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#075127

Reuters: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#075212 more http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17374_Outrageous_Reuters_Bias&only

- CNN and MSNBC taking time out to bitch about how they think that the war in Iraq has kept the Feds from mobilzing to help out in New Orleans. (MSNBC; Chris Matthews, and more) http://newsbusters.org/node/806 (some stuff on CNN, comparing it to Fox's workhttp://the-rail.blogspot.com/2005/09/are-cnn-and-fox-covering-same-disaster.html) . (more on CNN) http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/09/cnn_masochism.php. And to make matters worse, even BILL CLINTON yelled at CNN for their red meat attitude: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005360.php

-New York Times using the race card to effectively try to say that Bush doesn't want to help New Orleans out because they're mostly black. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005374.php

- Bush caused Global Warming and therefore caused the Hurricane. http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/damn-right-i-blame-bush.html

- Bush was away playing golf while the hurricane hit land; no wait, they disproved that, so he was playing guitar instead http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#074771

-E.J. Dionne being, well, E.J. Dionne. At least the Washington Post still has Charles Krauthammer. ( )

-And Sid Blumenthal being, wel, Sid Blumenthal. Hey, it's great he's doing this OVERSEAS. Assmunch. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html

- Kayne West- a lame hip hop artist who will be forgotten in two years, using his alotted airtime on a NBC disaster relief show to bitch about how the gov't gave blacks crack, and how Bush hates black people and is intentionally dragging his feet with the Federal response because of that ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168387,00.html). Oh, newsflash, Mr. West: maybe somewhere in your pathetic little rant, you could tell me a little something: how come in all of that crap, you never ONCE ask the African-American community to get some goddamn well earned RESPONSIBILITY? Grow up, assclown.

- The AP taking cheap shots at the US: http://media.nationalreview.com/075281.asp

- Democrats wanting to physically assault Bush: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17365_Dem_Senator_Threatens_President&only

- Robert F. Kennedy, JR. writing from the Huffington Post, proving that the Kennedy family legacy is dead, once and for all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/afor-they-that-sow-the-_b_6396.html

I think that will do, for now. But the left in America is sick. Someone put it out of it's misery already. I've had enough of this damn garbage.

The media's summer swoon

2005-08-26T09:22:00.000-07:00

You've gotta love how the Mainstream media acts when they get a chance to bloviate. The summer months are usually politically dead months, and this year, that's been the case as well. That usually gives the media a chance to create their pet newstories. Let's face it, the media's had little to work with from the actual world- other than the London bombings, what news has there been this summer? The fabricated polls, frothing at the mouth news stories about Cindy Sheehan, talk about the President's gas bill (I kid you not), shark stories, the Aruba crap, and intermittent actual news stories (London, Gaza, etc). Oh, and the media's usual dismisal of real news- like the actual details of the Iraqi constitution, the Able Danger story that's still unfolding, and Michael Yon's reporting from Iraq. Or the militant nature of the Palestinians. But that's expected, when Cindy Sheehan has a photo op she can't afford to miss!

I gladly await September.

We'll get at least three to four things happening in September: the first is that President Bush will give his annual speech to the UN early in the month, which will pretty much have the direct effect of shutting up the media's manufactured circus (which, btw, the media will act like petulant babies about), and it'll completely run Cindy Sheehan off the map (who, btw, will then run herself off the map in a vain attempt to get publicity by shooting herself in the foot, metaphorically speaking). Bush's speech will just happen to also coincide with two other things dealing with the UN: John Bolton's opening salvo of reforms for the UN, and the hammer coming down on the UN for the Oil for Food scam (which will most likely be targeting Kofi Annan directly, shortly).

The second thing that'll be important is the possibility of Congressional hearings into the Able Danger situation with the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission. I say potential, because that could easily be pushed back into the fall. Hopefully, they'll have the Pentagon Lawyers, Clinton DOJ/FBI officials, 9/11 Comission members, and Jamie Gorelick all testify. In public. That'll also have the effect of dragging the news back to reality- the whole idea of national security rather than the nonsensical hyperventiliating we've been getting.

Next there's the implementation of the Iraqi constitution between September and November. For all the media's carping about it, it's actually going to happen. On September 12th, 2001, did anyone think that we'd see a world where there'd be a democratically elected Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon? Plus, there's going to be continued American and coalition fighting against the rear areas of the terrorists in Iraq, who's impact on the Iraqi landscape has diminished dramatically. It will only continue to become marginalized with the political and military situation rapidly falling away from them. By the fall of 2006, if the US and Iraqis keep up the pressure, there will be no real insuregency to talk about.

The last thing we'll see is the "Inside 9/11" documentary. I've seen a few clips from it- and it's really frank, hard hitting, and pulls absolutely no punches. It reminds us all of what we lost on 9/11, and what we're really dealing with. It's something that the media DOESN'T want us to see- because it's a direct reminder of the world we really live in, not the media BushHitlerHaliburtonn fantasy they've created. And combined with the congressional hearings (either in September or October) and the happenings at the United Nations, it'll have a real impact that the mainstream media won't be able to ignore. President Bush nearly always does good in the fall and winter months, rather than the summer.

And then there's October. That'll bring us to the local election season all across America- which means that the media will have to divide their time between messing around on the macro scale along with the local scale. Way to hamper their resources. Plus, there's baseball playoffs. Think anyone will care about what Cindy Sheehan and Chuck Schumer have to say when there's major baseball rivalries at play in the playoffs?

The media's got it's work cut out for itself. I'll just revel in their pain.

Israel, Part 5

2005-08-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Gaza pullout is commencing in full force, now. The media, as usual, is spinning this wildy out of proportion. You'd think that there's alot of protests and violence on behalf of the settlers vs. Israeli soldiers, if you paid attention to the Media's version of events.

According to NRO http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_14_corner-archive.asp#073049, far more settlers have left Gaza voluntarily, without the Israeli military and police having to step in. And of the settlers who haven't left yet, most aren't putting up a fight. It's been more symbolic than confrontational, and only a minority within a minority are actually putting up real resistance. Shame on them, of course, but at least I can understand their frustrations. Not only that, but most of them are of the ultra-orthodox variety, and most of them don't serve in the Israeli army on any level (the religious are exempt from serving). The average Israeli REALLY doesnt like the religious settlers doing that, and then thumbing their noses at everyone else. If there's one thing you can get most Israelis to agree on, it's that the Ultra- Orthodox sects have gotten far more than they ever should have, and it's time to slap a bunch of petulant children down.

You'd think the Media would be happy that the Israelis are leaving, but apparently, the media isn't. After all this time of their "Israelis are Nazis vs. the Peace Loving Palestinians" media blather we've gotten in the past 20+ years, they sound somewhat sympathetic towards the settlers. It's a huge leap of logic, here.

But then again, maybe not. They'd rather Israel be in Gaza and the West Bank to peddle their mantra. Since they're no longer going to be in Gaza and the West Bank, the Israelis and Palestinians will be two separate states (effectively going to the 1967 borders in those regions), and the Palestinians won't be able to cry bloody murder towards the Israelis much, anymore. Plus, it'll become more and more apparent that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace, but rather, just want to eradicate Israel. So, the media will have to explain why Israel and Palestine are at war....as separate nations. And after the Palestinians launch an attack on Israel that'll basically be un-spinnable. And then they'll watch the Israeli ass-kicking (probably from their Baghdad Hotel, heh).

So I guess the media's upset that they're losing their nookie. Oh well, tough loss. Argentina can cry me a river, some other time.

Also, nice to see Mr. Derbyshire finally stop being Mr. Contrarian at NRO and say something constructive for once http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_14_corner-archive.asp#073065. Nice to see someone else talking about what I've been talking about.

UPDATE- What everyone's forgetting is that the Gaza pullout is in the long run, really a minor issue. For an issue that will have greater impact on the future of Israel, look no further than the growing nuclear threat out of Iran. With Israel no longer in Gaza and the West Bank, that'll free the Israelis up politically and militarily to deal with the Iranians very shortly. Assuming the United States, Afghanistan, and Iraq don't, first.

And then what?

2005-08-13T12:16:00.000-07:00

One of the main news stories that the mainstream media has foisted on us this past week has been the Saga of Cindy Sheehan. For those of you who don't know, she's a mother of a soldier who died fighting in Iraq, and she's now camping outside of President Bush's Crawford, Texas home, ostensibly to get Bush to talk to her, but really to spread her viewpoints that A) she thinks her son died fighting in a wrong war and B) to get out of the war as fast as we can.

A mother's love for her son isn't something that I can have any qualms about, whatsoever. I can totally understand her anger and grief over the death of her son. And it's her right to vent her frustrations and grief in any way that she wants to. If she wants to talk to President Bush, that's fine. If she wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, that's fine too. I can only respectfully disagree with her on that.

There are a few points to make, though.

#1)Cindy Sheehan is not the only mother of soldiers who have died fighting in Iraq. She does not speak for them, nor should she ever attempt to. Problem is, is that she's effectively trying to muscle her way into that position. It's one thing to grieve and emote that grief in a physical manner, but it's another thing to shamelessly use that grief to place yourself in an unassailable position in which others who grieve similarly cannot even voice their own countervailing opinions. By the way, what Cindy Sheehan is doing is not new; in every major war that the United States has been involved in, mothers of fallen soldiers have done similiar things to what she's doing. She isn't unique, in that regards.

#2) The people around Cindy Sheehan are absolute disgraces. They, unlike her, I can drag through the mud as far as I want to. They're actively using her grief and the death of her son for purely political purposes, and they're totally naked about it. They don't really give a flying hoo-hah about her or her son. It's just just another attempt to bash Bush, bash the war, and peddle their far left and right wing ideologies . And the mainstream media's letting them get away with it, since they are just as craven in their political agendas. If they really cared about our servicemen, they'd bother to find out A) how they died B)what they felt about dying and C)the whole picture about the situation in which they died. If they did bother talking about the Iraqi civilians and terrorists who have died, it would have the effect of actually diluting the American servicemen's deaths, by the sheer numbers involved, and the actual operation contextualization of the soldier's deaths.

#3) I can take Cindy Sheehan to task though, for two things. One, why meet with President Bush? What does she possibly think it could do? He won't leave Iraq. She should know this. Ultimately, it comes down to a self-serving photo-op for her, which really doesn't advance her anti-war agenda or the war effort. But it will serve to advance HER. She'd be a bigger person in leftist circles because of it. Shame on you, Cindy Sheehan. You're about to turn your son's death into a political circus just for your own purposes.

The second problem is that she hasn't thought her anti-war statements through- what do we do after we've pulled out of Iraq, as she wants? What about the Iraqis who will surely die in the power vaccum that our premature pullout will create? Do she give a damn for their deaths? And what about our own national security- what will a pullout's ramification mean to it? How many people will die for that? And does Cindy Sheehan really care about those eventualities, in the case of a premature pullout? Or would the short-term glee she'd get be all that matters? Once again, it's not about her son, but about......HER.

Lastly, I mean no disrespect to Cindy Sheehan about her son's death and her grieving. But I really think that the way she's going about doing this, is all wrong. Her son served faithfully to the country, and died of his own volition- saving soldiers even when he was told he didn't have to. But he did anyways, and was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for his bravery. Cindy Sheehan knows this- and she has in fact stated it. But that's been thrown out the window, and she sings a different tune now.

I say let her grieve. But stop putting video cameras in front of her, and let's see how much longer the grandstanding that we've gotten so far continues.

9/11 Commission Report

2005-08-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

When the commission report on the 9/11 attacks came out last year, I had two reactions to it:

#1) it was probably as close to definitive as we'd get until more classified documents became available

#2) it was a cheap grandstanding attempt by Congress to "do something", and it quickly got mired in the usual burecratic and political crap of Washington.

Well, not only were my two reactions close to right- they've basically been confirmed with the release of new information about the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission. Defense Intelligence had been running an intelligence operation for years prior to 9/11, called Able Danger, and in 2000 had identified Mohammed Atta (and his cell) as Al Qaeda operatives. And when they tried to hand the info off to the CIA and FBI, they were blocked by Clinton administration officials, who wanted to keep the various intelligence agencies from sharing information. So, in short, the Clinton administration probably had at least some inkling of what's going on- but intentionally wanted to play civil liberterian activism with the intelligence agencies. And, as a result, the information that the various groups all had never became available to one another, and they were never able to connect the dots. Able Danger Briefing

Oh, and you'd think after the US got lucky with the millenium bomber in 2000, they'd have gotten a damn brain about this stuff, right?

Well, here's where it gets better. Apparently, the 9/11 Commission Report knew about the Able Danger intel, but didn't do anything about it. It's not in the Report itself, nor was anything mentioned of it. Ever. And when the media got wind of Able Danger, the Report's staff tried to deflect criticism, and ended up changing their story a few times over Report's Changing Their Tune . That tells me that they definitely covered something up. One of the 9/11 Commissioners was Jamie Gorelick, who was involved in the Clinton White House law staff, and was directly responsible for the "intelligence wall" that was built up between each of the intelligence agencies to keep them from talking to one another. At this point, it's pretty obvious now that the Commission has alot of explaining to do- and probably also should force Gorelick to take the witness stand before the Senate Intelligence Committee. In public, no less. It boils down to the Clinton administration screwing up in the days before 9/11- which we already knew (and history will prove that to be Bubba's lasting legacy)- but the extent of the coverup that took place after 9/11 to protect the image of the Clintons and their close associates.

Gorelick, Gore, Berger, Bill, Hillary, Reno, Christopher, Tenet, Albright, and Cohen should all be put to the test. They'll complain that the Bush administration's getting a free pass here- but the info doesn't reflect upon the Bush administration. It reflects upon the previous one- and besides, Bush gets bashed daily by the leftist media. At the least, we'll get to the bottom of the actual problems involved in the intelligence community (of which the intel community still should shoulder it's own share of the blame). We may also see criminal charges pressed against various Clinton officials if they've been involved in a cover up (and remember, Bubba's OUT OF OFFICE. He won't be able to save them from a Bush White House and GOP Congress).

This probably will end up being a mid-term election (2006) issue that could explode for the Democrats. They'll have to distance themselves big time from anyone who's been touched by Clinton (either of them). And if they don't they'll probably get dragged down with them. The Dems can lose big if 9/11 effectively is seen as their fault (which I think it largely is, anyways, at least from the US gov't side of things). Once again, they'll come off as weak- and craven- when it comes to national security.

Hillary's got her work cut out for her next year (and 2008). If this rises anywhere close to the top, her political career is finished. (Hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

Israel, Pt 4

2005-08-07T07:50:00.000-07:00

Ariel Sharon's cabinet has gone ahead with the first stage of the Gaza pullout, and Finance Minister Netanyahu resigned in protest http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164977,00.html. That would seem like a big deal, right? Well.......in parliamtentary politics, yes and no. Firstly, the loss of Netanyahu from Sharon's cabinet will hurt, since he really was an effective Finance Minister. But before I get into more details, I'll say something about the actual pullout plan.

9,000 Israelis will be moved out of Gaza settlements. 21 settlements in Gaza, and 4 more in the West Bank. That averages out to about 360 settlers per town, if you include all 25 of the Gaza and West Bank settlements (or about 429 per if you just work with the Gaza settlements). That's it. Now, ask yourselves why a disproportionate number of Israeli soldiers should be needed to protect those tiny hamlets? And let's be realistic here- these ARE hamlets, in the middle of territory that is at least passively hostile to them. And they're NOT dismantling the largest Israelis settlements in the West Bank (those have well over a few thousand settlers in them, and actually have good relations with their Palestinian neighbors). And in Israel itself, the settlements were never seen as anything more than a political bone thrown to the ultra-orthodox (who don't have to fight in the Israeli army, to boot [although some do]) way back after the 1967 and 1973 wars. They're not economically viable, they're a drain on military resources, and they are really politically useless.

So, the hubbub about the pullout basically comes from two directions: one, it's pure political grandstanding, and the other, is a cautionary tale against giving the Palestinians- a people who are largely living a lie of victimization and a cult of death- anything that seems like a victory. And the reality is, is that the majority of the commotion surrounding the pullout is politically motivated. Netanyahu has pulled this stunt before, and he'll do it again. In fact, it's fairly common in Israeli politics. It amounts to having a temper tantrum when you don't get what you want in parliamentary politics. However, it's something of a shrewd move by Netanyahu. He remains loyal to the core base of the Likud party, and he emerges once again as the strongest rival and probable successor to Sharon, when he either steps down, or is forced into elections.

The other contentious issue, that the pullout will give the Palestinians a false sense of "we won! nyah nyah nyah!" is definitely a serious issue, but Sharon's made it clear- and has acted on it- that the Israelis are doing this for their own reasons, and really just want the Palestinians to go away. This is effectively a fighting withdrawal, and the Israeli army has been allowed to use whatever force is necessary to punish the Palestinians who either get in their way, or try to do terrorist attacks. In effect, it's basically a permanent restructuring of the Israeli border, which has never really been solid. And it's the exact opposite of Ehud Barak's rather shameful withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which was a pell mell retreat in which the Israelis had to leave behind equipment, munitions, and supplies. The IAF was even called upon to take out Israeli weaponry that they'd left behind so that the Lebanese (and Syrians) wouldn't get ahold of it. Not so in Gaza and the West Bank. Sharon's also had very limited contact with the PA over the pullout, signaling that his policy is going to be one of isolating the Palestinians, and thus, completely ripping up the flawed "road map" plans. The Palestinians have no cards to play at this game of poker, and the Israelis are making it very clear to the PA that they know this.

UPDATE: An added piece of news, is that Netanyahu actually voted last week for the pullout, and this week he resigns. It does sound Kerryesque (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011276.php), but it's really just how Israeli politics plays itself out. Thus, I'm not listening to much of Netanyahu's commentary on why he resigned, since it's pretty much superfluous. But that he supported- and then withdrew his support for- the disengagement plan tells me that he's really playing the usual political shell game, and not really worried about long-term problems.

Israel, Part 3

2005-08-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

Somewhat running paralell to what I've been saying about Israel and Palestine, is Dafydd ab Hugh's commentary at Captain's Quarters- http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/. He raises a good point, looking at the situation from another angle about the long-term prospects for Palestine.

If the Palestinians are a soverign nation, and they launch rocket or military offensives against Israel (managing to take down the wall, or going over it), what will the Israeli response be?

Since the Israeli far left is pretty much dead in the water, we'll be seeing the leadership of Sharon and the Likud (and their allies) in power for some time now. That means that we'll probably get a really harsh response from the Israelis, in the event of a Palestinian offensive or attack on Israel. Plus, it will also allow the other Middle Eastern countries- Jordan, Egypt, etc., to voice their concerns with the Palestinians through the Israelis. Probably non-support for the Palestinians (who they've never liked) and conditional "no comments" about Israel (basically, a blank check for Israel to do whatever the hell they want). At the most, they'll probably take a pro-active role in cleaning up Palestine AFTER the Israelis are finished wiping the floor with Hamas and their ilk.

You see, there's a huge difference between running a terror organization, and fighting a shadow war from afar than there is as a nation-state, and running a (largely) conventional war with manpower and resources brought to bear. The PLO found out about that the hard way in 1971-1972 when they failed to overthrow the gov't in Jordan. And again when they set up camp in Lebanon, and the Israelis kicked them out. Both were military campaigns- not police actions. What the terrorists turned soldiers will face, isn't going to be targeted assassinations, but rather, hell from on high.

Lets' say that there's a massive rocket attack on Israel from Palestine in 2012, and it kills a few hundred Israeli civilians. What will the Israeli response be? They'll immediately launch airstrikes against the Palestinian areas which launched those missiles- and has anyone ever seen what multiple hellfire missiles can do to a city block? That's just the opening phase of the war. Then the Israelis would take out the entire Palestinian communication and transportation lines, and then send in the IDF. That's a grand total of 6 hours into fighting.

So if the Palestinians are smart, which I don't think they are, they'll build an actual country. If they're stupid, they'll find out that their short-term gains will lead to long-term headaches for them.

Israel, pt 2.

2005-08-04T19:11:00.000-07:00

With the Disengagement post having been done, I'll add some commentary about some recent ongoings in Israel. What alot of folks don't know, is that the far left and far right in Israel have routinely resorted to terrorism against their own people when they feel it's justified. The left in Israel does that with the anti-military stuff (protesters who block IDF stuff, help Palestinian terrorists, etc), while the right in Israel does that with anti-Israeli gov't and Israeli-Arab stuff. Basically, the guy who killed Yitzakh Rabin was a far right-winger. And occasional riots against Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians have been done by far-right wingers.

So, enter what happened today, in Jpost. Yes, it sucks that a far right-winger like that guy flew off the handle and killed people. That's the first thing that pops into my mind. The second thing that pops into my mind is the Israeli-Arab reaction. One one hand, I can understand their fighting against the terrorist, and killiing him. I'd probably do the same. On the other hand, the sheer rage that they exhibited was childish, and stupid. It tells me one thing: That they're more than willing to go where the Israeli terrorist went to. And their politicians rabble roused just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would. Great.

Stuff like this just pisses me off:An enraged witness to the incident said, "If this attack had occurred in a Jewish neighborhood and the attacker was Arab, he would have been killed immediately. The police came and they didn't do anything!" he said. "The police didn't even shoot the attacker – they were holding him alive in the bus."

Yep, definitely the same crap you hear from the ghettos in NYC, whenever a cop shows up. Blame them, never the actual criminal. Can I slap him? Please? Someone goes nuts and all he can do is play the victimization card.

And then there's the topper to all this garbage:

Hadash MK Muhammad Barakei, who had joined the mobs in Shfaram, blamed the attack on what he said was a campaign of incitement by Jews against Arabs. "This is not the act of a single individual extremist," Barakei said. "It comes from a culture of incitement."

Um, wow. A lone gunman that Shin Bet's (Israeli internal security, think FBI) been trying to track down for weeks now, equivocates with a terror campaign? With this giant ball of shit, slapping him would be too nice. And notice that he immediately turns it into a political talking point. Wonderful. Oh, and notice that he completely overlooks that it's a town full of both Israeli Arabs, Muslims, DRUZE, and CHRISTIANS. Talk about who's being racist? I say the Israelis should shitcan the multicultural bullshit, and take him down a peg or two. In the environment that Israel lives in, they don't need crap artists like him. I hope he rots in hell.

Me, I have but one thing to say to them: Grow the fuck up. Yes, a lone gunman did a horrible act of violence. Take your anger out on him, and his ilk, by all means. But their reactions so far, have been totally childish, and irresponsible. They managed to do the same damn thing that the Israeli terrorist did in reverse- label all Israelis as killers, effectively. Wonderful job, fuckwits.

It'll take some time before both sides clean up the slobber that they've left on the floor in all this ruckus. Get me a paddle, and I'll start spaking some children.

Israel and Disengagement

2005-08-04T18:11:00.000-07:00

I'll start with the basic stuff here, and then work my way up to the current issues in the next post. So bear with me, for a sec here- I need to lay some foundational groundwork to make this understandable.

Since I am Jewish, and I nominally consider myself a Zionist, I tend to follow stuff that happens in Israel. No, I've never been there (but would love to visit), but I do have family living there. By and large, Israel's a very nice place to live in, despite what the media may have folks think about it being a haven for terrorism. The occupied territories- Gaza, the West Bank, and the Jewish settlements in those regions, are where the majority of the terrorism takes place in (and the Golan Heights, but that's a different story).

Now, the Disengagement plan that Ariel Sharon has is pretty simple- the Israelis would unilaterally leave the Gaza and West Bank areas, including most of their settlements, except for a few military bases and major settlements. The whole purpose behind this is to reduce the risk of Israelis facing terrorism, and reduce the strain on ZAHAL(Israel army) of being constantly under fire from it. Plus, the Israeli gov't is basically doling out money to the Palestinians, as long as they're controlling the territories. And the border wall that the Israelis have built around their demarcation lines with the Palestinian territories have proven to eliminate about 98% of all terrorism.

If Israel leaves the territories, they:
1. Can move significant military units elsewhere (ie; Golan Heights)
2. Reduce the risk Israeli citizens face by terrorism with the wall
3. Reduce gov't expenditures in regards to Palestine dramatically
4. Reduce political pressures from outside of Israel to all but mollycoddle the Palestinians
5. Make the Palestinians become their own problem, and see how they like having to build a society.

Yes, the Disengagement plan is controversial. But I don't think its unpopular, though. There are very, very few Israelis actually living in the Settlements, and most of them are ultra-religious (which, btw, explains why the political fighting over the Disengagement plan has been so contentious. Never mix politics with religion, folks). All told, between the Ultra-religious and the settlers, there are probably no more than 650,000 of them in all of Israel. And that's a country of approx 7-9 million people. So they really don't mean a damn, in the long or short run. They just make for great newsprint for those on the right (Likud Party) who want death to the Palestinians and see the Disengagement plan as a retreat for Israel. They also serve to help those that are from the far left, who hate Sharon as much as the left in the US hates Dubya. That, in a nutshell, is how Parliamentary politics work (no, I am NOT getting into Israeli Knesset internal mechanics. Very annoying). Oh, and the American (and European) media doesn't see what I see, since they don't follow Israeli stuff on a regular basis, so they invariably get things wrong.

Don't get me wrong- I wish there was an easier solution than dismantling the settlements and handing the keys over to the Palestinians- which means handing the keys to Abbas and Hamas in both territories. That, in the short run, IS a bad idea. But in the long run, it's a GOOD idea. Here's why:

#1 Israel no longer has to worry about policing the actual territories. They can just worry about the border security with the wall, and occasional puitive raids to stop terrorists from shelling Israel.
#2 Abbas, the PA, and Hamas will have to actually run their own darn country, and eventually, people will get tired of blaming Israel for everything. They'll realize that the people in power aren't giving them food or jobs, and start to change things
#3 There's an internal civil war already brewing in Palestine, somewhat low key at the moment, but it's basically a fight between Hamas and the PA. The PA controls the West Bank (which, btw, you don't hear anyone in Israeli or foriegn media yapping about), and Hamas effectively controls Gaza. Eventually, one side will cave in to Israeli ovetures, and side with the Israelis in order to defeat the other side. My take is that the PA will eventually go that direction. They're more like a mafia unit than a terror organization, anyways.
#4 Hamas works well as a terror organization, but their abilities have been seriously downgraded with the destruction of much of their leadership being assassinated by the Israelis. They also are a cult of death, rather than a governing body. With Europe slowly changing their views on terrorism as a whole (thanks to the Van Gogh assassination and the Madrid and London bombings) it'll be hard for them to view Hamas as a squeaky clean cutesey leftist organization that's out for the goodwill of the people. Not when their soldiers routinely do the Nazi salute. Not when their children are instructed to appear at rallies with guns. Not when even after becoming their own "nation" they will continue to be bloodthirsty towards Israel (even after getting pretty much what they "want").
#5 With terrorism worldwide on the long-term decline, the Palestinians are in a bind. They're going to have to find money and support from somewhere- and the Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, and Iranian money trails are drying up. They're all scared shitless of the Global War on Terror, as well as dealing with their own internal problems. The Palestinians are going to quickly get shunted off their "things to do" lists. Which leads back to #2.

In the short run, it'll be a pain in the ass for Israel to deal with the new Palestinian Authority, however they set it up. The greatest fear is that they'll work with Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups. That may happen, but AQ and their sister groups have largely stayed OUT of Israel and the PA. Partially because the constant drone of terror in Israel dilutes itself (as they are finding out in Iraq), and partly because the Palestinian groups are largely secular, with a veneer towards religion. Sharon actually has a very strong majority of the population supporting the Disengagement plan, and the protests that have been arrayed against it have been very limited, at best. It's nice that the protesters can muster a few thousand......but that pales in comparision to what other protests have been like, in Israel and throughout the world. The settlers are such a minority in Israel, that they're not going to dictate national policy at this late stage in the game.

NYT: our reporters are god's children, everyone else can go to hell

2005-08-04T14:35:00.000-07:00

Just when you think the mainstream media can't go any lower, they do. The NYT gets themselves into a whole stew of trouble by trying to go after the Supreme Court Justice nominee John Robert's adoption papers of his kids ( Drudge Report).
Their slimeball tactics don't suprise me, since that's what they'd jump for at the first chance against anyone in the GOP. But what really pisses me off, is that they want to hold Judith Miller, their star reporter who's now in jail because she wouldn't divulge her sources about the whole Valerie Plame case, up on a pedestal of saintliness.

So, lemme get this straight: they'll dive into anyone's records if it helps their far leftist means (and irregardless of whatever ethical issues may abound), but when it comes to someone else trying to get to the bottom of something (legal) that they're involved in, they act like petulant children who don't want to clean their rooms up about it, and carp about their constitutional rights, and blah blah blah blah.

I have no sympathy for the NYT whatsoever. Judith Miller deserves to be in jail because she's tried to mess up investigations before, and it's a stern lesson to the media as a whole (ie; you don't have special rights. Now grow the fuck up). The NYT is in a bind, because they know that if Miller did anything wrong (and outside of conjecture and speculation, there's no evidence that I know of to say they did anything wrong) they're screwed just as much. As a corporate entity, the NYT will take whatever blows that Miller will leave them. And as for the Roberts issue, they'll probably spend the next few days backtracking from their slimeball tactics, and will also find nothing of worth, other than the destruction of another ethical standard of the high and mighty media.

Their hypocrisy is staggering, and future historians will wonder why anyone ever bothered to treat the NYT with anything but disdain, and all but charge them with treason. The NYT of yesteryear is long dead, and it's current format is also slowly dying out. It'll be a miracle if they have any impact upon the 2006 and 2008 election years. (Hat Tip: HughHewitt)

Newsday update

2005-08-04T14:27:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Newsday's forgotten about the whole "London bombers did it because of Iraq" meme they tried to spread earlier in the week. Tells me one very simple thing: it was bullshit to begin with. If they followed up on it, that would have meant that there was at least a source that they can backtrack with, but they didn't do any follow-up work on it. Nor did any other major newspapers even mention it. So, Newsday got to do a shrill article that most readers of the newspaper would look at the cover page and the headlines, and never think twice about it. Good job, Newsday, on your shoddy journalistic practices and shrill leftist campaigning and talking points.

On top of that, they're being shrill and sappy about the casualties in Iraq in the past few days. There hasn't been any outcry from the families of the fallen soldiers (who, btw, I give my utomst condolences and my pride to, with their sons and daughters having died fighting for our country's continued freedom)- and in the NY Post, there was more of a spirit of fierce determination from the military famiies. But that didn't stop Newsday (and other mainstream media) from their disgraceful talking points meme of "we'll cry a river for the fallen soldiers, so long as it allows us to pretend to give a damn while pushing for our anti-Bush and anti-military ideology". They don't care about the soldiers one iota- and articles like those just show how crass and stupid they really are.

It's no small wonder that Newsday's readership is dwindling (especially since Kerry only won Suffolk County, the main powerbase for Newsday, by 1,000 votes), and advertising is down for Newsday (gee, you think the ad scandal with Newsday has anything to do with both?). Maybe a more moderate tone from Newsday- and a less shrill and sloppy journalistic approach would help them regain readers. But I somehow doubt Newsday would find a pulse if someone gave them a stethoscope.

UPDATE: The Marines who were killed earlier this week, it turns out, were effectively killed in retaliatory strikes by the terrorists in the western parts of Iraq, west of Baghdad (For more info, check out The Fourth Rail). What that means, is that as usual, the media ignores the acutal contextual background for the story in order to go with their BS sob story. The marines died in a forward combat zone, where they were actively taking part in offensive operations (or getting ready to, in jump off areas). They fully expected to have to absorb any attacks the terrorists might throw at them. Does it suck that they were killed? Yes, it does. You never want to see an American soldier make the ultimate sacrifice. But knowing the actual details of their deaths makes it alot more understandable, rather than cheesey sob stories that Newsday and the rest of the mainstream media wants to pull over our heads.

We're fighting the terrorists in their own rear lines. Expect casualties. Also, expect us to win- the terrorists have shown that they can't stand and fight modern armies, and the deaths of the marines earlier in the week don't change that one bit. Shame on Newsday and their ilk for playing pathetic partisan politics with the families of the fallen Marines, and with the actual effects of the war. I wonder if Ernie Pyle is rolling in his grave.

Newsday at it again?

2005-08-01T09:27:00.000-07:00

In the August 1st Edition of Newsday, they have a major article on the London bombers- saying that the Bombers did their attacks because of Iraq (Newsday Article). I was immediately suspicious since no other major news website or newspapers reported the same story. Even Newsday calls it "reportedly" which is code word for "we can deny that we said it was the truth down the line." Yeah, sure, whatever.

It's a source that comes, apparently enough, from Correre della Sera, an Italian leftist newspaper that even Newsday doesn't directly source, and I can't find it at their website. It's not even the major news story on Newsday's website. But it is on their regular daily newspaper- front page and all that.

No one- not even CNN, not the AP, not any other Italian or British news service- is taking this seriously. And since Newsday's even looking like they're shunting the article aside, that they've got egg on their face. I don't doubt that there will be bombings because of Iraq, but the timing of the bombings is key.

I'll reserve final say until after the authorities and intel services are finished with their investigations and interrogations. But I will say that the article seems to be a cheap shot that's geared towards manufacturing the claim that Iraq caused more terrorism than previously. I mean, Newsday has:
1. A poorly sourced article from a Italian news service that isn't fan friendly to the US
2. no one else is talking about their claims at this moment.
3. Why use a Italian news service, fail to mention who they are directly, and actually show NO evidence that Omar Hussain actually said anything- nor talk about Correre della Sera's own sources?
4. Isn't it convienient to use a leftist foriegn newspaper as your key source? How many people will bother to actually translate their articles?
5. How would the news come out this early when the investigations have really just begun?
6. Why post it up on the daily newspaper (but not the main webpage, as of this moment) prominiently? That screams of projection, and trying to shove it in the readers' faces, like you want them to think it's true? The way they handled that aspect of it seems to be too much like the leftist blogs online, and reduces credibility of the article.

It's too early to say that Newsday's wrong, or that they are right. But I will say that their follow through on the article is shoddy at best, and is poor journalism at work. It won't suprise me if the whole story fizzles for Newsday, and they lose more readers because of their poor standards. They lost me years ago, as it is, with their pompous attitude and penchant for insulting their readers' intelligence.

Vacation

2005-08-01T09:24:00.000-07:00

I was away on vacation for the weekend at Gettysburg, and came back late Sunday night. Have no fear, I'll have pictures and posts about Gettysburg posted up in short time. Just have to wait to get some of the photos developed.

Otherwise, a great time was had by all. Great weather, great service, and one of the best maintained battlefields in the world. I'd definitely recommend going to Gettysburg- and I look forwards to going back, in the future.

Next year, I'm already considering doing either Antietam, or a Fredericksburg/Chancellorsville/Spotsylvania battlefield tour.

Video Game stuff

2005-07-27T18:21:00.000-07:00

I'm currently playing a PS2 RPG, Atelier Iris: Eternal Mana, and it's a great game, except it falls for the same trap that every RPG does. You send your team against a level boss, and what does the boss do? Kills your most essential character before you even get a chance to attack. I hate that. Damn AI's who cheat. Now I probably have to spend another 5 hours leveling my characters up. Sigh.

Otherwise, I just picked up a new Strategy/RPG game for PS2, Makai Kingdom, and Atelier Iris pissed me off enough to hold off on it for a while, to check out Makai Kingdom.

As for the fall, I can't wait for Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. I've been a Zelda fan for quite some time, and the newest entry into the Zelda catalog looks to be a knockout winner. You probably won't see me online much, the week after the game comes out. Heh.

Family will get Kingdom Hearts 2, so I won't have to run out to buy that game, but I will play it. And there's a few other RPGs that are upcoming that I'm interested in (Dragon Quest VIII, Magna Carta, Battalion Wars, etc). And Star Wars: Empires at War for the PC.

Other than that, I'll probably steer clear of the Xbox 360 until spring of next year, at the earliest. I might get a Nintendo DS, since there's alot of really good games coming out for that system. Word of advice (since I used to work in the video game retail biz): don't buy a PSP until midway through next year. There's few good games for it, and won't be many more for a while.

In regards to...

2005-07-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, Catherine Baker Knoll, the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, crashed a funeral for a Marine, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, who died in action in Iraq. What she did next, was disgusting, to say the least. She handed out business cards, as if she was on a campaign trail, and said that "our government" (meaning the State of Pennsylvania) is against the war. (links to articles on it, are- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05204/542520.stm, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_24_corner-archive.asp#070700, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16805_Antiwar_Lt._Gov._Crashes_Marines_Funeral&only)

Let me see how I want to handle this one.

...

...

...

Go to hell, Catherine Baker Knoll. As fast as you can.

Finally

2005-07-22T09:45:00.000-07:00

I'll admit it, I'm a wrestling fan. I've been one since the late 1980's, fondly remembering Hulk Hogan vs. the Ultimate Warrior way back in Wrestlemania 6. I know how the industry works, both inside and outside the ring. Alot of folks yammer about wrestling being "fake" and "entertainment" but very few athletes can do what wrestlers do, and these guys go out there 300 days a year, to entertain everybody. Most wrestlers have a 10 year lifespan as effective wrestlers, before age and injuries catch up to them. I'm more a fan of straight up athletic competition than some of the storylines in wrestling, though. Don't get me wrong, there are alot of storylines that I love, and some promos (mike work) that are really good. But there are times when they get silly, or just go over the line.

And the WWE went waaaaaaaaaay over the line a few weeks ago. And apparently, they've finally paid the price for their antics.

The WWE had a muslim-American wrestler, Mohammed Hassan (who I think is Italian-American with Iranian heritage, and yes, I know that he's not Arab while they portrayed him as such), and they made him a "heel", or a villain, who would complain that he's being unfairly treated because of his muslim heritage thanks to 9/11. While he was doing his whiny and bitchy character, it was bearable, even if I didn't see much out of him as an in-ring worker (limited move-set). But the WWE kept pushing him and pushing him, when it was clear that he wasn't ready for such a push, nor was he deserving of that push. And then came the July 7th edition of Smackdown!- the same day as the London Bombings. They ran a terrorist angle with him, where he sent out his compatriot, Khosrow Daivari, to fight the Undertaker, and it ended up with a bunch of guys wearing ski-masks and military garb running out, beating the Undertaker up, and carrying Daivari out like a martyr, to the glee of Hassan.

To be fair to the WWE, they tape Smackdown! every Tuesday, and neither the WWE nor UPN (the network channel their show airs on) was able to edit out the footage in the aftermath of the London Bombings. But the inevitable backlash came, and as of last night, the WWE is done with the Mohammed Hassan character- UPN effectively told the WWE that they never wanted Hassan on their tv station, again (and I suspect Spike TV, the current home of RAW, and the future home of Raw, USA, told the WWE similiar statements). The WWE has since put up a statement on their website (WWE.com) talking about the Hassan situation, and admitting that they won't have Hassan on their shows anymore (however, Hassan is still a part of the WWE; they're likely to repackage his character and do something new, but the Hassan we had seen, is done for).

I'm glad that Hassan's done for. It was a bad move by the WWE, when they could have had a monster face (good guy) on their hands if they played him as a pro-american muslim-american. Most of the WWE fans are pro-america, or at least really don't want politics shoved at their face in the manner the WWE was doing. Hassan never deserved the attention they were giving him- at the expense of other top of the line wrestlers, who were effectively forced to "carry him", or to make him look good in their matches. It also showed a tremendous lack of common sense by the WWE, in letting their writers get as carried away as they did, with his storyline. I'm all for being controversial (and the WWE is usually very good at it- they've treated Gay and Lesbian storylines, and mentally retarded characters with a suprising amount of respect and civility), but there are lines that you really don't want to touch upon. Y'see, the WWE is largely run by Vince McMahon, and the writers he hires to work on his wrestling product. The writers aren't wrestling fans, for the most part- they're hollywood writers who are hired to bring the more "soap opera" and "shock value" aspects to the shows.

The Hassan situation clearly underlines how little they know about wrestling, and how insulated they are from the outside world. That's been the problem with the WWE in the past few years; the fans will want certain wrestlers pushed, or they'll see a rising star- and the WWE will ignore them, and push their chosen golden boy down the fans' throats (only to admit they were wrong, down the line). That's why wrestling has gone through a down period, since the fall of WCW and ECW, back in 2000-2001.

I just hope the WWE learns their lesson from all this. Pay attention to the fans, their environment, and the wrestling product more. Give the fans what they want, rather than try to tell the fans what they want. And above all, don't be stupid and insult the fans like they did with Hassan.

Stupid Questions I expect for John Roberts

2005-07-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

John Roberts, President Bush's SCOTUS nominee, will eventually go before the Senate Judiciary comittee and have to face what will amount to an inquiry. Here are a sample of questions I expect the Democrats to ask him:

- "What do you prefer, Mr. Roberts, Pepsi or Coca-Cola?"

- "Can you say Sandy Sells Seashells by the Seashore, five times fast?"

- "What is spam made of? And can we outlaw it?"

- "Who is a bigger idiot: Ben Affleck, or Tom Cruise?"

- "If the terrorists attack us again, can we blame Santa Claus? And if we do, would you question our patriotism?"

- "Did you see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Is it any good? I might want to take my grandkids to see it."

- "Is Tiger Woods human? Or does he come from the same planet that Lance Armstrong, Michael Jordan, and George Lucas come from?"

- "Have you ever met Jack Bauer? And if so, do you think he'd give me an autograph?"

- "I'm sorry, can you skip me for now? I'm busy playing World of Warcraft."

The Terrorist will know they've lost when.......

2005-07-20T13:15:00.000-07:00

The terrorists will know they're defeated and that continued resistance is all but hopeless when Iraqis:

- start wearing Oakland Raiders jerseys

- play baseball better than the Japanese

- start asking for the next Halo game

- walk around town, saying "the following takes place between 11:00am and 12:00pm in real time"

- start rioting when someone tells them the ending of the most recent Harry Potter book.

Check and Mate

2005-07-19T15:11:00.000-07:00

The fact that Bush is announcing his Supreme Court nominee tonight pretty much tells you what he thinks of the whole Plamegate stuff: absolutely nothing.

He just dragged the media by the scruff of their necks into a real discussion, about real things. And all he had to do was give them the political eqiuvalent of "boo!".

I would hate to have to play poker against Bush.

Plamegate stuff......yawn.

2005-07-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't been covering the whole Plamegate stuff, since I find 99.9% of it to be redundant, and the usual character assassination stuff that the liberal media tries to hit us with. Yawn.

I think by now, the media would know that all the Prez has to do is wait them out for a few weeks, and he'll have to do absolutely nothing. It'll blow over, as it usually does, and the press will get a nice tounge lashing from the special prosecutor (that they wanted!), who'll tell them what really went down, which probably amounts to nothing more than the CIA being institutionally corrupt and playing the worst kind of partisan politcal games......the sloppy kind that messes national security up.

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame will end up as pariahs in the US. I'd strongly recommend that they move out of the US, if only to spare us all the embarassment of having to throw eggs at them.

And Karl Rove? He'll still be the Sith Lord the left always wants him to be. Heh.

London: Reprecussions

2005-07-14T11:10:00.000-07:00

What will the immediate and long term effects be of the London Bombings? And not just in Great Britain, but throughout the world?

Some, are obvious, and I'll deal with them first:
- Increased anti-terror legislation in Great Britain, and a serious examination of the muslim society in Britain as a whole. Anyone who's not a British citizen may well find themselves deported. Oh, and polls in Britain have already been signaling that the terrorists screwed up, big time. Blair got a boost in the polls, obviously- and it also signaled that the anti-war opposition just got huge egg on their face. The BBC is increasingly becoming irrelevant, as well.

- In the US, President Bush gets a boost in his Global War on Terror policy issues. He also gets an easier chance to bring Europeans aboard on the GWOT.

- Berlusconi used the occasion to crack down heavily on suspected terrorists in Italy. 142 suspects were arrested in a single day, last week.

- Spain's still the surrendering sock-monkey of the 21st century.

- The G8 summit ended with a renewed push for Europe to get serious about the GWOT. And all the other touchy feely stuff was shuffled asides, largely.

As for the stuff that it will effect, in the future:

- France and Germany will rapidly come to a breaking point. They're going to have to deal with their own local populations sooner rather than later, and they know very well that the London bombings could easily have been in Paris, or Berlin. But Schroeder and Chirac are too wrapped up in their egocentric governments to be able to change course at this late stage in the game. Since Germany's got elections upcoming later this year, this is especially problematic for Germany, since they're the most logical choice for a terror attack now (well, outside of Italy). What ramifications that will have on central Europe, one only knows. Schroeder is going to need to develop a backbone, very fast.

- The mainstream media just took a sustained hit by the London bombings. They can't peddle their "I told you so" messages without folks throwing tomatoes at them, which is precisely what's happening in Britain. The BBC is under alot of fire, and the best news is really coming out of Sky News. Even the anti-war newspapers are operating under, at best, restrained political commentary. They also know that there's absolutely NO chance that they can use the bombings to pull Britain out of Iraq. Especially since, as far as we know, the terrorists are using both Iraq AND Afghanistan as a crutch for their bombings (this could, of course, change as the terror investigation continues). And by tying them together that makes their anti-war position even harder to maintain.

-The muslim community in the UK and greater Europe is now going to increasingly come under fire. They operate under very different laws throughout Europe than they do in the US. Whatever Bill of Rights they have is vastly different from the one in the US. So, they're going to have to work with the British and European governments on the latter's terms, to solve the problems that a minority of their constituencies are giving them. It'll be a chance for them to stand up for their adoptive countries, or to find themselves shut out of that society, or removed from it.

-With the killing of the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq and the Israeli bombing coming within the same week as the London Bombings, even the Middle East will make the connections between all three. Obviously, it'll be at varying degrees, but attacks like these will only serve to make the Middle East, in it's Post-Iraqi election role that much more introspective.

- Lastly, George Galloway will finally shut the fuck up.

Get a grip!

2005-06-30T10:53:00.000-07:00

If anyone reads National Review's website (NRO), they generally are a very good place to look for news, opinions, and occasional silly stuff (they rib each other about their geekiness). But sometimes they act like they're a bunch of "know-it-alls" because.......they are "know-it-alls".

Thus comes the President's speech. I liked it. It wasn't meant for them, it was meant for the average layperson and voter who had probably been listening to the Democrats carp for the past few months while Bush tried to find a voice on the domestic agenda (I think he did, but others would disagree, but that's for another topic). . It was time for Bush to set the record straight, and he did that. He didn't need to hit a home run, but it's safe to say that he at least hit a double into the gap between center and rightfield.

Enter NRO. Some of them get what the Prez was intending to do. But others wanted him to do more. Um, like, what? What more could he have done? Asked to get the Democratic leadership into a wrestling ring, and like a good Texan, bring out some Austin 3:16 ass-whoopin, middle fingers, and Stone Cold Stunners (yes, folks, I'm a wrestling fan. That's for another time)? That's not gonna happen. He did what he needed to do- no more, no less. He wisely stayed away from histrionics, and from reaching too far into the party base's rhetoric.

NRO sometimes comes across as though they wish they had written his speeches. And that colors their writings at times, about the Prez's works. I wish they would just realize that he's got more to do than reach out to NRO, and that it doesn't help to bite your lips over things like that.

That's gotta hurt, part 2

2005-06-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

I've done some research on Max Hastings, and he's an interesting fellow, to say the least. He's a former journalist who's got credentials as a military historian. However, he's more of a journalist than a military historian. The problem is that he can't separate his journalistic tendencies for sensationalism and objective historiocity properly. A simple google search of "Max Hastings" gets alot of criticism from him, both for his journalistic and historical works.

My take, from a cursory glance at his screed about Iraq (in my previous post), and from reading about some of his historical works, as well as criticisms thereof, is that he is a journalist masquerading as a military historian. That isn't to make light of his works, but a blunt statement. Historians aren't supposed to delve into sensationalistic attitudes, unless they're giving the reader of their books a heads up as to why they are, in a particular point in the book.

Hastings' most recent book is Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945. The better part of the book is that it covers alot of first person accounts of the war. That's his worth, as a journalist, to find those and give them meaning. But as a military historian, I have problems with his assertion that the German Wehrmact was the best army of the war. From 1939-1942, it was. But that's only because no other army was able to field a large enough army with enough combat experience to match them, on any level. Yes, the Wehrmact was brilliantly lead by Guderian, Rommel, and others. In that time frame, who did they go up against, that was on their level? It wasn't until 1942 that Patton, Zhukov, Timoshenko, and others started to make their presence felt. But enough about high command.

In Hasting's book, he has the opinion that the US and British militaries didn't match up to the Germans. He probably takes his cues from Martin van Creveld's Fighting Power and Russell Weigley's Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany. I take my cues from Peter Mansoor's GI Offensive In Europe: The Triumph of American Infantry Divisions, 1941-1945 and Michael Doubler's Closing with the Enemy: How GIs fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945. What the latter books deal with is that they believe that the American GI's fought far better than they get credit for.

The reality is that the Battle for France was not the large scale wheeling maneuvers of the Soviet Front. By and large (other than the Fall of France and the Rhineland campaigns) the ETO was a static battle, largely fought in small squad combat. Contrary to popular opinion, the American and British forces often didn't have the materiel advantage that most people think they did. In Normandy, for the first three weeks, it was a rush between the Allies and the Germans to rush forces into the area- and in that scenario, the Germans had the better supplies at hand, even with the Allied bombing campaign. Plus, the German units in the area were a mix of both highly trained combat veterans (Panzer Lehr division comes to mind) and raw units. The Americans mostly had units that were highly trained, but a great deal of them had never seen combat. Let's not forget, the Allies were spending a great deal of time bringing soldiers, equipment, and materiel into France during this time frame. What they had in hand, was largely what they had to fight with. Just because they have crates of stuff at the docks doesn't equivocate with what the guys at the front have.

The Normandy campaign itself was reduced to small squad combat, mainly due to the hedgerows and the close proximity of each town to one another. American units were forced to clear out each hedgerow one by one. This was accomplished in roughly three weeks- and then the Americans were able to unleash OPERATION COBRA. The hedgerow activity and small arms combat (probably best exemplified, btw, in Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan) were overlooked by the Falise Gap and the total destruction of Panzer Lehr. But that doesn't take anything from the American and British forces which created the conditions for COBRA to be unleashed, by overtaking German positions, bit by bit. Highly trained soldiers became highly trained combat veterans. And against some of the best the Wehrmacht had to offer, they were able to clear the ground. Normandy allowed the Allies to unleash COBRA, and the subsequent Falise Gap and ANVIL were responsible for the German retreat from France, which enabled the American armies to engage the Germans in mobile warfare, for a few months. While it's not indicative of a true engagement between American and German forces, it is a testament to Patton's 3rd Army, which he turns into the calvary force that he always envisioned mechanized units to be.

Hastings, and those that support him believe that what happens next is a testament to the German army- Operation Market Garden. They believe, ultimately, that the Wehrmacht was able to stall the Allied drive to Germany at this point. One one level, yes, they were. Operationally, the plan was poorly thought out, and there were far too many chances for the Germans to bottleneck the whole plan. Plus, Montgomery ignored intelligence that indicated that the Germans were in force at certain areas along the path for the plan. That made it hard for the soldiers to achieve their objectives.

What did happen, was 2 Panzer divisions faced off against the British airborne light infantry units at Arnhem. The light infantry units managed to hold the Wehrmacht off for 2 weeks in brutal urban combat (with no air support for either side) until they were finally forced to retreat. Market Garden's mistake was that it represented a choke-off point for the Allies, in that they weren't able to bring their main forces to bear (since so much of their materiel was far behind the lines), and the Germans were falling back on their own supply lines. The forward positions of the Allies was too far from their resource lines, and as such, they were forced to hold their positions until they could reinforce their front lines. That's what actually happened. Even with a successful Market Garden, the Allies would have had to wait until early 1945 to launch their final offensive into Germany. The Allies and the Germans settled into static warfare, once again, in the Huertgen Forest, and the Vosges- terrain which made mobile and heavily mechanized warfare prohibitive. Dense forested canopies, rocky and hilly terrain, very few major roads (or any that would hold heavy weaponry) limited what both sides could bring to bear. Also, fighting in the Huertgen Forest and the Vosges was a shift in operational strategy: to attack towards the Ruhr, rather than straight for Berlin. And the Allies had to reprovision their frontlines, so what the battles ended up being were alot of small unit clashes between American and German forces- and the Germans also had the Siegfried Line. The clashes were brutal, and they were controversial. Too few historians cover both campaigns, and of the historiographies that exist, too often historians take them for face value. This site and article could probably explain the Huertgen campaign better than I could- http://members.aeroinc.net/breners/buckswar/hist_text.html. But the bottom line is that the American forces managed to clear out areas that were defended by the Germans, with troops that were often pushed to their breaking points. That doesn't sound like an army that's inferior to the Germans- but rather, is capable of standing up to the Germans on what's largely an even playing field. Yes, their casualties were high, but they achieved their objectives.

What Huertgen and the Vosges represent, is a unified front (Broad Front Strategy, so to speak) that keeps units from forming salients and having to reinforce the salients. Also, the Germans frequently used hardpoints that were cut off by their opposition as ways to flank and surround them. Einsenhower didn't want to deal with that- so he opted to destroy all German opposition at each junction rather than have to deal with repositioning forces (especiall in that terrain) just to consolidate their gains. The "Broad Front Strategy" also is slower than the mobile warfare that typifies some of WW2- but it was the right strategy for dealing with the terrain and region they were in.

Unfortunately, the Huertgen and Vosges campaigns are overlooked because of the German offensive in December, 1944- Wacht Am Rein (Watch on the Rhine- commonly known as "The Battle of the Bulge"). The Germans' breakthrough came at a point on the front where the American soldiers were being rotated through- where soldiers who were in need of some R&R went to, and other units who were green were sent to. The area was largely a "quiet zone" so the Allied commanders thought it was safe to put them there- but their intelligence was wrong, and that takes the biggest blame for the German offensive being so potent early off. It was a classic mismatch; combat veteran German troops which were heavily reinforced by armor and airpower up against green and tired American forces, at a point in their front where they're not heavily reinforced. The best the Americans could do (and often, did) was to hold off the German onslaught and fall back to better positions. Once the Germans faced fresh units- like the 82nd Airborne in Bastogne- their offensive began to be stalled. Once again, it was light infantry up against Panzer divisions, and the best German efforts to dislodge them failed. While the fault for the German breakout does lie with the Allied high command, the victory against them also goes to the same command. They didn't blink when they were faced with a crisis, and that's a testament to their own abilities, and will to win.

The containment and breaking of the German forces would go from January to February 1945. Afterwards, it was Patton and the Rhineland campaign, where he was able to unleash the full materiel arm of 3rd Army, against an increasingly broken and spent German forces. For the topic at hand, the Rhineland campaign's not important to discuss, simply because the German army was in full deterioration.

One point I will add, is that the German army benefited from a command structure that developed from 1935-1945, and soldiers gained experience with the Rhineland in 1936, the Spanish Civil War, and the Czech invasion of 1938-1939. The Americans and British soldiers didn't have that luxury. The Americans in particular, had a 100,000 man army in 1940- and boosted it up to a 1 million man army by 1941, but were largely untrained, had no armor, and just the bare bones of a military structure in existence. Plus, they didn't have the major combat experience the German officer corps did, coming from WW1. They had some....but not enough. More often than not, the Americans had to truly learn their experiences fighting in the field, for the first time. Also, the 90 division limit for the American forces in the ETO basically meant that only a certain amount of American forces would be in contact with the Germans at any given moment. The Germans did send significant portions of their combat trained veterans to fight the Allies in Western Europe- and they fought well. However, the German forces were fighting a defensive war- and it's always easier to fight defensively, than it is to fight an offensive war. By late 1944, the American forces were not the same forces that had gotten their collective asses handed to them at the Kasserine Pass in 1942.

Hastings is essentially a journalist who occasionally likes to write about military history. From what I've read of his works and the criticisms of them, he doesn't do a great job of handling his sources and his biases well. From the Iraqi war screed he had, he never bothered to research on the Armed forces fighting in Iraq. He basically scanned the media reports. How about reading some after action reports, Mr. Military Historian? Or how about interviewing American and Coalition solidiers in the field? He didn't do that. Which tells me that he most likely research the high command of the Allies- and not the actual military battles as they were fought, unit by unit. He also has a disdain for the American armed forces, that exists throughout his written works. It's a shame because he does some good work. But his historical worth is limited.

That has to hurt

2005-06-25T17:23:00.000-07:00

This is a brilliant fisking of a Max Hastings article that was in the UK Guardian (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-40390.asp).

Painful. Really good job. Please don't read Max Hastings unless you've got some Irish Cream nearby.

In fact, make that alot of Irish Cream.

(Hat tip: Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail: http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/06/another_failed.php)

Another Blow for the Insurgency

2005-06-25T10:11:00.000-07:00

Generally the terrorists in Iraq have been able to go after civilians since they're soft targets (but it's apparent even amongst their leadership that those are nothing more than a red herring, they don't do anything for the terror cause). But they also occasionally take the risk of pulling off a set-piece battle with stand-up military units, often against Iraqi forces they feel that they can handle. They usually try to mass a large force against isolated Iraqi police units, or training camps.

Not so this time. http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/06/another_failed.php

The terrorists made the mistake of thinking that they'd be able to go after the Iraqi police ad infinitum, I'm guessing. They also figured that they needed to change tactics, once again, since the civilian bombings have been getting them nowhere. But when you have 10 terrorists killed, 40 captured, and an untold number wounded out of a force of 100 fighters, things aren't looking so good for the insurgency in Iraq. There are a few developments that are important to this:

#1 The Iraqi police held their own, on their own. They required no assistance from the Iraqi military (although they were probably on standby) and were able to completely break the assault force. That's a stunning accomplishment in it's own right, for ANY police force in the world.

#2 The Iraqi police had hundreds of tipoffs from Iraqi civilians that there was an assault coming. That enabled them to prepare for it, and to invite them to their own personal Verdun. The terrorists have already lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Badly.

#3 The Iraqi civilians actually joined in the fighting, helping the police take out the assault force. This is not only a testament to the fact that the Iraqi police and coalition have won the hearts and minds of Iraqis, but it also tells that the leadership of the terrorist insurgency is broken. They can't effectively mass assaults on anything of worth, allowed their operation to become known to the locals, and didn't realize that they were walking into a trap.

This effectively is a turning point in the war- the more Iraqi police that can stand up to the terrorists, the less effective the terrorist will be in maintaining a large scale presence in Iraq. The Coalition forces have been playing a game of escalation with the terrorists- to see how fast each side can bring their manpower to bear in Iraq- and the Coalition's about to win this. There's the Coalition forces, then the Iraqi military forces (the core of which is at least 1 or 2 regiments strong now), and now the Iraqi police forces. What happens, if by year's end, there are some 500,000 (or more) combined Coalition/Iraqi forces in Iraq? The terrorists don't have more than 30,000 "soldiers", in all, dispersed throughout Iraq with which to combat that. Their time as an effective force is just about up, unless they make drastic manpower changes.

And for a historical anecdote: manpower changes didnt save the Reichswehr in 1918; they didn't save the Wehrmacht in December 1944; and they didn't militarily save the Viet Minh in 1968. Those were military forces on the verge of being rendered broken. I think that's where the terror insurgency is, now. Time will tell how they spend their last gasps- will it be a Kaiserschlact, Ardennes offensive (Wacht am Reihn), or the Tet Offensive? Or will they just pack their bags up, and leave?

Short term and long term thinking

2005-06-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

I'm still trying to understand why the Democrats are so hot to bother about the Guantanamo Bay Detention Centers. What, ultimately, is their point? In their rancor and their discussions about it, what do they propose to do in the stead of GTMO? And is it having any effect.

Well, as to the effect, they don't have much to stand on: a Rassumssen poll has about 70% of Americans saying that the terrorists at GTMO belong there (http://rasmussenreports.com/2005/Gitmo.htm). And of the poll, only 14% of Americans agree with the rantings of Senator Durbin (where he equivocates GTMO with the Nazi death camps, and the Soviet Gulags). In a separate poll, from USA Today (which I would normally NOT link to) about 2/3rds of the country want to keep GTMO in operation (Ihttp://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2005-06-20-poll.htm). Fair reminder, the USA Today poll is of "adults" and not voters. Methinks that a more scientific poll would be akin to the Rassumssen poll. Anyways, I think it's safe to say that the Democrats have miscalculated badly on the whole GTMO conversation. It's a dead issue from their end of the spectrum- and there is going to be hell to pay for the likes of Senator DicK Durbin (D-Il).

What this leads me to, is a discussion on the short term and long term with the political games that are being played today. The first part is that the Democrats are saying what they're saying now, simply because they don't feel the pressure of voters just yet. Next year is the mid-term elections- not this year. So they think they're getting a free pass in the meantime. The problem with that is that next year, they're going to have to come to the table with something meaningful to offer. They're essentially pandering to the 20% of the US population which happens to be the Democratic party's base of support. That leaves the GOP with about 60-70% of the population to work with (methinks that's been the GOP's problem; they don't know how to handle such a population shift just yet). Messages like their GTMO rantings aren't resonating at all with the majority of the American population- and their short term gains with their base won't matter in 2006 (and 2008 if this keeps up) when they have to reach out to the majority of Americans, once again.

Things could change, of course, but the rhetoric that they're utilizing in the present doesnt bode well for them. What happens if the situation in Iraq changes- for the better (which it is)? What happens, if by spring next year, their whinings about Iraqi security are moot, because the situation's stabilized? What about Iran, and North Korea? Are they going to extend their obstructionism and whining towards any potential confrontations with them, as well? And what if there's a major terror attack in the US? How will they respond to it? It should be obvious how the GOP will react to issues about Iraqi security, North Korea, Iran, or a major terror attack. Everything that the Dems have been complaining about may well be moot by next year.

The short term gains they are aiming for in the present aren't really anything to write home about. And the long term gains that they're aiming for are probably pipe dreams (within the realm of likelihood, but just barely so). The game they're playing is a very dangerous one- in which the more Durbins they create, the worse off they'll be for 2006, when people will be paying more attention.

They really are smarter than you think

2005-06-22T14:28:00.000-07:00

For a while those who were against the Iraqi war (both on the left and right) were complaining that the Bush administration hadn't set up any postwar planning for Iraq prior to the war. To an extent, we can all agree that there wasn't enough. But, contrary to popular belief, they did have postwar plans, and the whole "neo-conservatives want war, but don't think about the peace" concept is essentially dead in the water.

This link's to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense (for Policy), who laid out the groundwork and rules for the postwar Iraq to the Senate Foriegn Intelligence Comittee. I'm acutally suprised that no one on the committee's spoken about this stuff (or if they have, in a vocal manner): http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/speech/feb_11_03.html

The big thing with postwar planning is that you just don't know what you're going to get from the ashes, prior to the war starting. For example, in your pre-war planning you want to use building A to house the waterworks projects in Baghdad after the war, but building A's blown up during the war (for whatever reason), so much for that plan. Go find a buliding B. Realistically, building the postwar before there IS a postwar, isn't something that you're going to be able to do. You need to take an assessment AFTER the war, in order to do that. And in the end, I can't fault the Bush or Blair administrations too much for not getting everything right with the postwar planning, prior or after the war.

And it'd be wise for the media to stop playing "gotcha!" on this, when bloggers can just as easily throw eggs at their face, once again. I mean, the media has totally underestimated the Bush administration repeatedly (why should they stop?), but c'mon, there's gotta be a breaking point in their stupidity. Of course, like with Regan, it may take them over 20 years to realize that. And it'd be even smarter for the media to get analysts who can TELL THEM THIS STUFF rather than rely upon hack political reporters with ideological axes to grind for their bylines.

Sigh. At least future historians will have an easy time of this.

(hat tip: The QandO Blog- http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2069)

Changing Roles

2005-06-18T13:04:00.000-07:00

There's been a recent noticable change in Iraq- that the American forces are now fighting border battles with insurgents, while Iraqi forces are maintaining security in the heartland of Iraq. Here's a list of the most recent operations in Iraq, and who's doing what, and where:

Operation Matador: Iraqi/Syrian border, American forces
Operation New Market: central Iraq, Iraqi forces with American support
Operation Thunder/Lightning: central Iraq, combined Iraqi and American forces
Operation Dagger: Iraqi/Syrian border, combined American and Iraqi forces
Operation Spear: Iraqi/Syrian border, combined American and Iraqi forces

That's the major offensive operations that have been undertaken the past few months in Iraq, and they all show a new dynamic for the war in Iraq. More and more often, the Iraqi forces are taking a major role in major offensives, which tells that they have troops that are capable of conducting themselves in independent action in large scale operations (ie; not police or SPECOPS ops) and are aquitting themselves well on the battlefield. This frees up the American and coalition forces to do more offensive operations along the Iraqi border regions (primarily the borders of the Anbar province), which have had the effect of disrupting the terrorists' communication and transportation lines throughout Iraq. It's no small suprise that alot of the terrorists leaders have been captured in this time span; we're catching them on the run.

I'd probably give a good estimiate for the amount of terrorists who've been captured to be around 3-5,000 in the past few months, and probably another 1,000-1,500 killed in combat. And all the terrorists have to show for it is hitting soft targets which create more blowback for them than anything else. And with Sunni Iraqis joining the gov't in larger and larger numbers, expect the Iraqi police and military forces to just grow, exponentially within the next year. With the growth and combat training of the Iraqi military, they'll take over more and more of the military situation in Iraq, allowing the coalition forces to act as a support role. It won't suprise me if the coalition forces end up being used to normalize the situations on the Iraqi borders- even if it means hitting the supply lines of the terrorists in Syria or Saudi Arabia.

The bottom line is that it's a race of time for the terrorists- they need to flood Iraq with fighters or else they'll eventually reach a choke-off point when the borders are effectively sealed, and the Iraqi gov't to build more and more military units. The problem for the terrorists is that they can only send in a limited amount of fighters, while the Iraqi gov't could concievably (and are) getting alot more soldiers than the terrorists can handle.

And the talk about America's will to win is not realistic. Even among the Americans who supported Kerry, there was a significant number of them who wanted him to stay in Iraq for the time being. And the polls that are out- saying that America is "increasingly against the war" are essentially left-wing polls [i]designed[/i] to tell you what the left wing newspapers or newsshows want you to think (ie; they're weighted, and have poor question choices). In the end, the Democratic party is also not giving any real discussions as to any alternatives to fighting the terrorists in Iraq- they're too busy calling Gitmo a Gulag and Auschwitz. They don't have the public backing them- and they really know it. I'd estimate about 65-75% of the country would like to see the US win and stabilize Iraq, within the next 2-5 years. Americans, ultimately, want to win.

NYC and real estate

2005-06-07T07:41:00.000-07:00

There's been an ongoing controversey over the building of a football stadium on Manhattan's west side, since it would cost at least $1.2 billion overall to build, and $600 million for the New York taxpayers. Sounds daunting, doesn't it? Not really.

It's opponents don't want to spend that kind of money on a football stadium, and that's a valid arguement. I'd rather see the Jets owner, Woody Johnson, spend more money than he is on the stadium plan. At the same time, plans for the stadium to be built in Queens do make sense, and would cost everyone less. I can't argue with that, either.

But I will make a statement: has anyone seen how New York City looks, these days? Sure, there are great things like Central Park (thank you, Rudy), but there's also alot of crap intermixed with the great stuff. And New York City suffers from the same thing that most cities do: too much central planning for projects that were out of date the moment that they were implemented. That means that large parts of NYC look like they just walked out of the 1960's, and are already past their prime. I mean that both architecturally speaking, and also technologically speaking. The power grid in NYC is designed for the 1960's. Many municipal buildings are also backwards. Too many train stations and city streets look like they were built in the 1940's..........because they WERE built then. Businesses are leaving NYC because of idiot politicians who think that taxes and money comes from trees, and thus, investment in NYC goes poof. And along with that, goes any restructuring of the city.

And to top it all off, the upper west side area that the Bloomberg administration wants to build the Jets' stadium is dead real estate right now. Why not build it up? Would it be expensive? Yes. Would it be a monumental construction project? Yes. Should rebuilding Ground Zero come first? Yes, although that should have been done already (Pataki's fault). And here's my answer:New York deserves it. New York's a great city, when they want it to be. No one has a better New Year's celebration. New York sports fans are the greatest- we don't riot like in other cities, when our teams win or lose. And we've got a great tradition of supporting the arts (even though a few anti-establishment artworks we all could do without). And New York hasn't had a football team since the Jets played at the old Polo Grounds.

The stadium would, in reality, be a financial windfall for NYC. We'd basically be paying taxes and GET BACK more from it, just from the basic revenue it would generate. It would revitalize the upper west side, as well as spur investment into NYC. And most likely, it would bring New York the Olympics in either 2012 or 2016. The financial windfall THAT would bring also would far outweigh the costs. And it would spur rebuilding on a massive scale not seen since the 1960's, and remake NYC for the 21st Century. Bloomberg's right about this- he's a businessman who sees both the short end and long term of the deal. You don't win unless you take risks, and this is a risk that's worth it. But the same politicians who can't find a way to rebuild Ground Zero want us NOT to build the West Side Stadium. For god's sakes, folks, at least tout that you are effective in one thing, before telling folks that you're not for another!

And I'm not even getting into Cablevision's war against the stadium, suffice to say that Cablevision should stick to being a cable provider, and never own a sports team again. Their track record with the Knicks and Rangers is an absolute embarassment, and they have NO right to yell about the Jets wanting a new stadium. George Steinbrenner has more to say than they do- and he doesn't care.

Rebuild NYC. Don't make me look at eyesores like Jamacia Station anymore, ok?

Newsday, hire an editor

2005-06-07T06:35:00.000-07:00

In the most recent issue of Newsday, they're not even trying hard. They've got an article on the Supreme Court's decision to bar legalizing medicinial marijuana (or something like that- I really don't care about the issue), but the article in Newsday HAD to have a picture of a lady, sitting next to some plants of hash, crying. Now, was that necessary? Or was it a cheap assed stunt to try to get people to take sides in the arguement? I can care less about the issue itself- but Newsday's tactics are petty, and not worthy of a newspaper of record. Any editor worth their salt would have seen that for the advocacy slant it is.

Then Newsday trys to shift the whole Amnesty International mess onto the Bush administration by basically admitting that they don't need information about Guantanamo Bay- that they intrinsically know that crap happens down there. Yawn. Actually, I'd be more realistic, and take a quick look at the recent polls that have come out saying that about 75% of the nation trust the military, while only about 25% of the nation trusts the media. Newsday convieniently overlooks the media's "GOTCHA!" rantings about Gitmo in their mad rush to try to find something, anything, even the littlest detail, to hang on the military about Gitmo.

And Amnesty International's admitted it was all essentially a publicity stunt. Word to the wise, Newsweek found out what happens when you bullshit around with the greater middle east. I'm waiting for the media to find out what is really TOO far for the American public to take- and what it will cost them. And I say this because Newsday's editorial about Gitmo and Amnesty International is part and parcel of the problem- bitch about the military, it gets printed, irregardless of it's irresponsible nature, and the material harm that it can cause the United States.

When the Media finally does go too far, it will cost us all, both in terms of a media that's no longer able to function as a part of the first amendment, and the degraded American view that the media's given us overseas. When the US really does do wrong- they should be there to tell about it. But the problem is, is that they've been crying wolf for far too long now, and can't act in that fashion. Newsday and their ilk just don't want to admit that their stories don't have any evidence, rely on hyperbole, and cheap tactics to get people to agree with them, even in the basic newsprint. I see the end of where they're going with this, and it isn't pretty. I just don't want to see how many American lives it will cost us.

UPDATE: while doing some extra thinking about it, Amnesty International, Newsday, and their ilk could have done a better job of talking about real trouble spots in the world- like Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Darfur. Instead, they're playing cheap "we hate the Bush Administration game" and really don't care for the real suffering in the world. I would much rather see action against the muderers and rapists in Darfur and Zimbabwe, than whining about weather or not someone actually peed on a Koran. As a matter of fact, I'd very much like the conversation to change to Darfur and Zimbabwe. If the United States is going to get positive about Africa, those are the areas that they easily could do it within. And it would do well to stem the tide of Islamicism from Africa, while promoting American goodwill- kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Hear it

2005-06-06T12:14:00.000-07:00

Hear the sounds of the crashing waves around you.

Hear the sound of your heart pounding in your chest, as you stagger to the shoreline.

Hear the sounds of your men screaming, as they as they try in vain, to shout over the din of artillery and small arms fire that's all around them.

Hear the sounds of men givng their last breaths to this world, having been shredded by artillery fire.

Hear the sounds of men with grim determination to get the job done.

Hear the sounds of the waves crashing once again, but only with the sounds of more men staggering up the beach.

Hear the sounds of a distant nation, praying in their myriad ways, for your job to be done, for your glory, and for your salvation.

Hear the sounds of a nation that's not too far away, crying in anguish and despair. Their numbers tell their story.

And hear the sounds of your children, your great-grandchildren, and your grandchildren's children, who continue to fight in your name, and honor in present day- be it in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other place where freedom needs to be made free.

Hear it. Cherish it. Honor it. Here's to those of OVERLORD and ANVIL. We continue to fight in your honor.

Hear Old Glory salute you, in the wind, throughout the passages of time.

Post-Memorial Day thoughts

2005-05-31T12:19:00.000-07:00

I'm posting today, instead of yesterday to illustrate a point: I believe that every day should be Memorial Day. We should honor our fallen soldiers every day, in whatever private or public manner we choose to.

And I mean honor them- cherish their lives and their deaths, and make it mean something. Not play silly games with naming all the American dead from Iraq on Nightline just because it its a blatant attempt at nakedly voicing your anti-military screeds. It's service only tells the story they want us to believe; they don't bother talking to the hundreds of thousands who have lived and continue to fight the good fight in Iraq. Honor them by saluting them, and telling them (and their families, who sacrifice greatly as well) that they've done their job well.

We should also honor those that have fought and lived for our country and way of life, and are still serving overseas. Their sacrifices may not be the ultimate ones, but they are a burden on us all, as well. And while I'm at it, I'll extend those thanks to the soldiers of foriegn countries who are also in harms' way, fighting alongsides American soldiers. May they all continue to fight the good fight, and come home safely.

Keep kicking ass, take names, and honor us all. God bless.

Newsday, again

2005-05-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

There are two articles in recent Newsday papers; both create the atmosphere of insinuating that there's a "civil war brewing in Iraq" when in reality, it's alot of editorial fluff, with very little sourcing (that doesnt' actually say anything important), and a total dismissal of ANY military analysis from either the Americans, the Iraqis, or the coalition. Even if you check Newsday's website, they try to hide that Operation New Market is underway in Iraq. But it's one of the main leads at Fox News' website.

One article was written by Mohammad Bazzi, who's apparently reporting from Beiruit. Unless he's actually shuttling back and forth between Iraq and Lebanon, he's making long distance phone calls on Newsday's tab. His most recent article Iraqi Civil War? What's interesting is that he talks to people who could, tangenitally, be figures in Iraq. But often he doesn't, and we're left with people who it's clear he's using as a cheap prop to make his story work. It's an old tactic- say that A= C but you can't prove or even come up with ANY evidence of C, so you get someone to talk about something that could be B, and then you do A + C= B.

He even gets his evidence wrong- like this:

It is unclear how long al-Sistani and Shia politicians will be able to
restrain young Shia militants. One such force is the militia loyal to renegade
Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which fought extended battles twice last year with
U.S. forces. Al-Sadr's militia surrendered most of its weapons to the Iraqi
government, but its members are still difficult to control because they do not
look to senior clerics such as al-Sistani for guidance......Against this backdrop of violence, al-Sadr appeared publicly last week for the first time in nine months. He accused the United States of inciting sectarian hatred and called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. He also urged his followers not to retaliate against Sunnis.

I think it's more a case that Al-Sadr has no real support anymore. That's why no one gives a damn for him. He recently had an anti-American rally a few days ago, and only 6,000 supporters showed up in three cities. That's it. I'm guessing the largest group was in his slum territory (Sadr City), and that's a really pathetic showing. He's got no real base of support, and he's trying to find out what he can and can't get away with, politically. The rallies are harmless, and if he wants to complain- let him. That Bazzi completely overlooks this, is suprising. He makes Al-Sadr out to be a big bad boy (and he's right, he's NOT a nice guy), but he doesn't look at the reality that he is not a power broker on any level. And Al-Sadr hasn't been quiet AT ALL for the past few months, it's just that reporters haven't been doing a great job of reporting about him. He's been complaining on and off about the political process in Iraq for months now.

In the article he cites killings that have happened through Iraq (mostly the Baghdad area)- but doesn't come up with any actual reasons for A) why they're dead B) who killed them and C) what the government and local authorities are doing about it. It's all insinuation. And may I remind you, that it's a news artice- NOT an editorial.

His lead is the most telling part of it all-

The signs of sectarian warfare are everywhere in Iraq these days: clerics assassinated outside their mosques, dozens of execution victims turning up in ditches and car bombers inflicting heavy casualties on the country's Shia Muslim majority.
Nearly four months after Iraq's election, when millions of Iraqis defied insurgent threats by voting for a new parliament, sectarian violence now threatens to drag the country into civil war. Most victims so far have been Shias targeted by Sunni insurgents. But the recent discoveries throughout Iraq of more than 50 bodies - men from both sects, apparently abducted and executed - highlight a new problem: a wave of retaliatory killings between Sunnis and Shias.
It is the worst-case scenario that many Iraqis have feared since the insurgency's early days: that persistent attacks against the Shia community would drive Shia militias to seek revenge against Sunni civilians, prompting a new cycle of violence that would destroy any hope of dampening the insurgency and bringing Sunnis into the political process.

Problem: he doesn't actually have ANY evidence that the killings were retaliatory. He doesn't cite anything to say that they are. He just insinuates that he THINKS thats what it is. I'm pretty sure that it's the insurgents trying to make it look like someone else is doing the killings. Keep in mind, that not all the insurgents are car bombers- and that many of them don't actually want to die. They're cowards, and don't particularly like the concept of fighting American and Iraqi soldiers in combat. Thus, they capture people off the streets, kill them, and then let it pass off as reprisal killings. Actually, they've been doing this for a while. And it's suprising that Bazzi really can't find all that many people to talk to- on the streets (keep in mind that he's not IN Iraq)- to tell him what's going on. Thus, why he's all but stuck with bad evidence and misleading insinuations. I've seen better reporting from people INSIDE Iraq. And his total misreading of both Operation Matador and New Market are also telling. He doesn't think the US military is worth talking about.

And he also gives himself a cheap mulligan, with his "its the worst case scenario" line. Yeah, it is the worst case scenario- and if he's wrong about it, he'll just say that it was "a scenario that I kept an eye out for". Actually, he works for Newsday, which isn't the nicest newspapers to the US military, nor to the Bush administration. Articles like his are the norm, while they completely ignore the US military at any chance they can get. Hell, it's movie reviewers review movies according to their political content (I'm not kidding- go read John Anderson's Master and Commander: Far Side of the World review).

Here's my idea to Newsday: send him to Iraq, and let him do his reporting there. If he refuses, stop taking articles from him. I'm actually interested in finding out WHEN he went to Lebanon- before or after the Cedar Revolution? If it was before the Cedar Revolution, I want to know how long it is before he's kicked out of the country. Because he will be. I've seen a few articles from him already, and they each have the same falliacies. I'll keep an eye on his works in the future, and report anything here, at Imperial Requiem.

So much for property value......

2005-05-24T11:29:00.000-07:00

Gotta love this, from Tim Blair's blog: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/tinfoil_house/

Heh. That house must do a GREAT job of baking potatoes during the summer!

Good news comes in pairs

2005-05-18T10:25:00.000-07:00

With all that bad news that the world can generate, there's also good news that warms the soul, and tells you that everything's worth it.

-The first tidbit is from Kuwait, where Kuwaiti women have been allowed to vote in elections- Kuwait approves Women's political rights. Kuwaiti women will now be able to vote and hold office in their country. Kuwait's been a steadfast ally of the United States and has been far more pro-western than any other muslim nation in the world. They have been alot more accessible to the West, and as a result, they have not had the blinders on that some other muslim nations have had. All they needed was the right political moment for democratization to come- and put the process into play. Bravo to the Kuwaitis, and the best of luck to them in their newfound freedoms.

- The second tidbit comes from Syria of all places. Syria Heralds Reforms, But Many have Doubts:

Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts....

Most prominent among the reforms will be a recommendation for a new party law, said the officials, analysts and diplomats. It would envision the formation of parties as long as they are not explicitly based on ethnicity, religion or region. While this is potentially a dramatic step, analysts caution that even if the Baath Party recommends the change, enacting a law could take a year or more. Also, the party is not expected to surrender its constitutionally enshrined position as "the leading party of both the society and the state."

As part of the reforms, the government is expected to enact a law providing for free elections of 15,000 members of municipal councils in 2007. The congress is also expected to endorse the free market as the country's economic orientation -- a break from the party's slogan of "unity, freedom and socialism."

The Baath Party's 21-member leadership, still including many septuagenarian colleagues of Assad's father, will likely be purged, analysts and officials said. The number may be reduced to 15, with only a handful -- perhaps three or four -- carried over from the current leadership. It would mark another step in Assad's consolidation of power and could open the way for the inclusion of powerful relatives like his brother, who heads the elite Republican Guard, and brother-in-law, who heads the feared military intelligence.

It's a step in the right direction, although it seems to me that Assad wants to keep as much control over the situation as possible. The problem is, is that controlling change doesn't work the way you plan. I'm pretty sure that Assad is buying all his logical answers he's presenting us with- but the problem is that the world doesn't work that way. By opening the gates just a little bit, he's creating the situation where those in his country will demand more than just what he's prepared to give them. And how he reacts to their reaction remains to be seen. Plus, the world around him is already skeptical of his plans, and will view them as part and parcel of his Iraqi and Lebanese problems.

The fact that he might be trying to consolidate power- at least for the time being- may well be a plan to allow his country to democratize with as little interference from his own political rivals (ie; his father's supporters). It could also be that the limited democratization that he's installing is nothing more than a window dressing for his consolidation of power. But it's still good news, for a country that generally gets kicked at repeatedly while it's down. I'll remain in a wait and see mode as to what actually happens in the country. But I will say that the situation IS ripe for a democratic change to take effect- either with Assad at the helm, or with him swept away by the laws of unintended consequences. And that's good news, indeed.

The news is weak in Newsweek

2005-05-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

By now everyone knows about the whole Newsweek fiasco, and I'm not going to do too much backtracking on it. If need be, you can check outFox News, Little Green Footballs, and Wretchard's always good Belmont Club. Now that Newsweek has admitted that the article was basically false, and that their anonymous source was crap, they're now trying to find a way to say that their editorial standards are still good.

They're not good. The sheer force of will that the editors and spokespeople of Newsweek are putting forth tells me that they know they're screwed. It's like being in a police interrogation, and you say "But I didn't rob Austin's Pawn Shop!" and the police respond with "No one mentioned which pawn shop it was, yet."

The problem is that there may well be nothing that authorities can DO to Newsweek to punish them for their stupidity and callousness. Sure, Newsweek could save us a bundle of time and energy by firing anyone involved in the incident, turning a nice portion of either their profits or ownership over to the military (who were directly affected by the false allegations), and requesting that any journalistic licences that the fired people had be revoked. But that won't happen.

I think that the advertisers and retailers of Newsweek should- and some will- jump ship over this. It's not going to go away, and their credibility is shot to hell now. No one wants to be seen standing next to the condemmed. Newsweek is going to lose ALOT of money with this.

If Congress actually acts on something- and subpoenas's Newsweeks' staff to find out who their "source" was, that would also hurt them. If any of Newsweek's staff is caught lying on the stand- they're screwed. And the embarassment would be double if their sources turn out to be really incredulously bad. Congress could also pass laws that allow individuals, organizations, and institutions to sue media companies and individuals to have their anonoymous sources brought out into the open. That would be a nice check and balance against the media overdoing it, which they currently are doing.

If they're really sure of their sources, they can stand by it and stare down the people who are suing them. But I think that would prove to be the exception to the rule- and that it would force the media to self-censor their works. For once.

Real Nightmares

2005-05-15T10:09:00.000-07:00

As usual at the Cannes movie festival, it's a joygasm of tinfoil leftists and numbskulls, who have been so pampered by riches, prosperity, and fame that they no longer understand the concept of freedom and democracy. Y'see, folks in the Hollywoods of the world have grown accustomed to barking orders at lesser people around them- and by lesser, I mean people who aren't other top billed directors, producers, actors and actresses, and that sort of thing (apologies to those that don't give a shit in H-wood, like James Woods). You're not a friend of theirs if you can't provide some gratifying ego boost to these people. It probably explains why they're so eager to accept conspiracy theories and leftist rantings- they get to have their ego boost while not having to A) think hard about it and B) actually be amongst the lesser people.

If they wanted to talk to conservatives, they'd probably have to talk to middle America- you know, NASCAR fans. Perish that thought! They take the easy way out, and go for the college crowd, and the West/East coast mentality.

That brings me to "Power of Nightmares" a documentary that's screening at Cannes. It's about how the US and British governments have "exaggerated" terror fears for their own personal political gain, since 9/11. Wow, talk about calling the Kettle black. I love it when these documentaries bitch about politics- yet they play the same political game that they rail against! Isn't "Power of Nightmares" exaggerating an exaggeration? And for political gain? Reifenstahl would be proud of the producers of the documentary.

Anyways, I live in New York. I remember that September morning, and I don't want to see it again. And I surmise that no one else does, either. Documentaries like these want to forget that we live in a world in which there are those that don't like us- and will go to any lengths to make sure that we feel their anger. It's also a vain attempt to discredit those that stand to benefit the most from the War on Terror, of course- Bush, Blair, and their respective political parties. It's also a convienient way to slide 9/11 into a separate category of pity and remorse, without having to actually tackle the political, military, and cultural issues that revolve around it. It's pathetic, really, since their views are really THAT transparent. It's ultimately a callous and mean-spirited view of the world, in which anyone who doesn't agree with you gets ass-reamed in any way you can administer it. I'll probably end up seeing the documentary, just so I can go on record as having seen it- which is probably more than the documentarians have done with New York, Washington DC, and and Pennsylvania. Ground Zero doesn't mean anything to these folks.

When these people talk about how Bush and company are exaggerating the war on terror, you respond with this:

9/11 was the third major attempt at a terror attack on NYC since 1993. Does that sound like an exaggeration? Or a reality check? Oh, and had the planes hit a few hours later on that day, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands. Think about that for a sec.

And to the tinfoil celebs in hollywood- you tell them this: how many lives are you willing to risk on the chance you're not right? Disregard soldiers from your calculations- they're soldiers. Count civilians only. What happens if the A.Q Khan nuclear black market found it's way to Al Quai'da? or Islamiiah Jemmiyyah? How many hundreds of thousands are you willing to risk- not just in America, but throughout the world? And would you be willing to live with the number that you end up with? Or would you just mouth another "I'm sorry, world" for the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands, in an attack that dwarfs 9/11? Sorry doesn't cut it in the real world, Hollywood.

The problem with the celebs is that they're not about to do any research on anything- they'll just continue to mouth platitudes without thinking hard. That's the beauty of America and most democratic countries- you don't need to think hard or watch most of what you say. They can shrug off their comments for now- until it's too late. That's why they love documentaries like these- it lets them continue to not think for themselves, and they can go back to their "hard work" at making movies. To them, the world is their plaything, and everyone else be damned.

Get out of their sandbox! Now!

Operation Matador

2005-05-12T15:29:00.000-07:00

I've been reading up on the current major military operation in Iraq, Operation Matador. Some of the better news is at Chester (The Adventures of Chester) , Belmont Club (The Belmont Club) , and Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail site ( Fourth Rail). Basically, the Marines have encircled positions along the Syrian-Iraq border that correlates with the center of Iraq (basically think of the region as a funnel for troops to come in from Syria towards Baghdad), and are using air and ground fire to pin the terrorists down in their defensive positions. It's early in reporting so far, but the reports that are coming out of the area have stated that some of the fighters that the American forces are facing are wearing Syrian uniforms, and that many of them have recieved some degree of combat training that could only be gotten from a standing army (ie; they aren't the dime a dozen suicide bombers and IED planters you find. These are hardcore fighters who will fight to the death if need be). The fighters apparently are making every attempt to fight to the death, since the Coalition forces have brought in heavy weaponry and major airpower to reduce the area to rubble. I'm also left wondering how fast the Syrian military ran from the area, and how much of an abject lesson they're going to take from this.

It wouldn't suprise me if the current spate of terror attacks in Iraq are acutally responses- albiet feeble ones- from the terorrists to try to relieve pressure upon their border "fortresses". If they can get American forces to divert attention elsewhere, they might be able to break the cordon that's tightening around them. Problem is, is that the attacks that they're perpetrating throughout Iraq aren't working. Sure, they're killing innocent civilians in numbers, but it does not have any worth on a strategic or tacitcal level. They're aiming at soft targets, and those targets are really indefensible by the coalition forces in the manner that the terrorists are going after them. They can't protect them in the fashion that the terrorists want them to- with heavy concentrations of manpower- and the terrorists probably know this. It's also a testament to their lack of leadership and resources. If this is the best they can do against a major military offensive by the coalition forces, they will have no alternative but to either leave Iraq, or accept the amnesty of the Iraqi government.

Oh, and the near capture of Zarqawui and the capture of his computer have apparently paid dividends. Anyone want to take guesses on how much the computer has helped coalition forces in preparing Matador?

Newsday in LaLa land

2005-05-12T10:43:00.000-07:00

Newsday is essentially one of the usual followers of the New York Times, and as such, their articles are your typical arrogant and dismissive leftist tripe. Their prose is generally vapid, and distant, like their writers have never met a real human being in a very long tine. You'll never see an article in the news section actually coincide with centrist or right of center thinking. You might occasionally see a sop to the center/right with an article by Krauthammer or David Brooks, but that's the exception to the rule.

So, enter the 5/12/05 article "Iraq on edge of Civil War" http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines by Timothy M Phelps. I'm going to play with this for a while, so bear with me, folks.

"An unchastened insurgency sowed devastation across Iraq Wednesday as experts here said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it."

Wouldn't calling it an "unchastened insurgency" be an editorial slant, to begin with? I mean, you're dismissing the fact that they have had an absolutely horrid track record of late. Blowing up civilians in soft-target areas gets them nowhere, folks. And Newsday ignores Operation Matador's tactical and strategic worth, as well. And I'm pretty sure the lead there was your typical conclusion with an answer to follow stuff you see from the left these days.

"In the course of the day: Four car bombs detonated in Baghdad; a man wearing explosives at an army recruitment center in Hawija, north of Baghdad, blew himself and many others up; a car bomb exploded in a marketplace in Tikrit, north of Baghdad; and the country's largest fertilizer plant was heavily damaged by a bomb in the usually quiet southern city of Basra. Meanwhile, U.S. Marines were winding up a remarkable pitched battle against surprisingly well-equipped and determined insurgents on Iraq's western border. Some 76 Iraqis were reported killed and more than 120 wounded in the one day of violence."

This tells me that they have no intentions of actually TALKING about what's happening on the ground; instead, that they want to just tell you what they WANT YOU TO BELIEVE is going on. Notice their dismissal of Operation Matador in all it's forms. Hey, Newsday, hire a goddamn military analyst for once, will you? Ever think that the bombings that you're seeing are a reaction to Matador, and the fact that Zarqawi has almost been caught twice? Y'think? Oh, and since when was Basra quiet?

With security experts reporting that no major road in the country was safe to travel, some Iraq specialists speculated that the Sunni insurgency was effectively encircling the capital and trying to cut it off from the north, south and west, where there are entrenched Sunni communities. East of Baghdad is a mostly unpopulated desert bordering on Iran.

Name them if you can, and cite info. If not, shut up and move along. If you can't name them and you just rely upon the boogeyman of "anonymous sources" that means that you CAN'T verify your information and are just saying it to make it look like the guys who appear later in the article verify it for you. Oh, and why don't you ask the military directly about what's going on in Baghdad? Afraid you won't like their answer?

"It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

If Mr. Lang is such a high and mighty guy, why is he NO LONGER IN THE PENTAGON?!?!?! It wouldn't suprise me if he was a Clinton appointment who got shoved out the door when 9/11 happened. But since he's not in the Pentagon today, his views are suspect- as well as the reasons he's talking to Newsday. He would know full well what the Newsday reporter wants from him. Oh, and explain why the Sunnis are now flocking to join the military (I'll cite: Belmont Club, Chernkoff, Bill Roggio. Oooh! I did better than this article already!), the insurgents are mostly foriegn fighters and sunni baathists who are essentially just fighting in the sunni triangle area? Notice you rarely hear anything out of the Shi'ite and Kurdish areas? Gee, I wonder why. Maybe Mr. Lana Lang could give me an answer. But then again, he's no longer in the Pentagon and doesn't have contacts nor actionable intelligence.

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. Incidents in the past two weeks south of Baghdad, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.Also of concern were media accounts that hard-line Shia militia members are being deployed to police hard-line Sunni communities such as Ramadi, east of Baghdad, which specialists on Iraq said was a recipe for disaster.

Again, name your sources, unless you're afraid I'll laugh at them. Oh, and "civilians on both sides being slaughtered"? The majority of the attacks in Iraq are in the Sunni Triangle - and the article essentially agrees with me, pointing to the "south of Baghdad" part. Get a friggin map, will you? That's the Sunni Triangle! Anything else is random. And military units have been used throughout Iraq- with very good results. The only reason that the Sunnis haven't had those military units in Iraq policing their areas is that they didn't sign up for the government to do so initially. They are now, and they're not complaining about the units that are there.

"I think we are really on the edge" of all-out civil war, said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.He said the insurgency has been "getting stronger every passing day. When the violence recedes, it is a sign that they are regrouping." While there is a chance the current flare of violence is the insurgency's last gasp, he said, "I have not seen any coherent evidence that we are winning against the insurgency."

He's an NYU professor who may have had contact with the Coalition forces. I want to know what those contacts were. And I want to know who he voted for in November. Ten bucks says it's Kerry. And he's a law professor- get a military historian or actual strategist to do your military analyst work for you, not a law professor. I'm not saying that Mr. Feldman is not a great law professor- but that's his field, not military strategy. Get someone else with credentials next time.

"Everything we thought we knew about the insurgency obviously is flawed," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations. "It was quiet for a little while, and here it is back full force all over the country, and that is very dark news."The increased violence coincides with the approval of a new, democratic government two weeks ago. But instead of bringing the country together, the new government seems to have further alienated even moderate Sunnis who believe they have only token representation.

Who the hell is this? And let's not forget that the insurgents were quiet because the IRAQI PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR HISTORY. IN RECORD NUMBERS. AND THE TERRORISTS WERE DICKLESS TO STOP THEM. And this lady somehow seems to think that the new gov't is alienating ethnic groups without saying how. That's once again, coming up with the conclusion before you have an arguement. Develop an arguement, please!

That is a joke," said Sunni politician Saad Jabouri, until recently governor of Diyala Province, in an interview here. "The only people they allowed in the government are ones who think like them," he said of the majority Shia faction, who mostly come from Islamic parties.Military and civilian experts said the insurgency seemed designed to outlast the patience of the American and Iraqi peoples.

And this is supposed to impress me? You quote a fringe Sunni politician, who acts like every other politician in the world and bitches loudly, and then slide in more anonymous sources?

"I just think this Sunni thing is going to be pretty hard," said Phebe Marr, a leading U.S. Iraq expert reached in the protected Green Zone in Baghdad. "The American public has to get its expectations down to something reasonable."Lang said there is new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime carefully prepared in advance for the insurgency, with former Iraqi officers at the core of each group. They are well coordinated and have consistently adjusted their strategy, he said.

Lemme guess, Phebe Marr is a NGO person, right? Care to tell me what that person is DOING IN IRAQ? He sounds so phoney otherwise. I mean, he could be wearing a tutu for all I know. And it could also be a girl, and I'm screwing the gender up here. I apologize to all Phebe's out there for the misunderstanding. Won't happen again, I assure you. And then the author goes back to citing Mr. Lana Lang. Great. Can you keep your "sources" in order? And he's doing a piss-poor job of actually getting information, just conjecture that's taking the form of analysis. That's not analysis- that's babbling. I have not heard one thing that's actual evidence yet. Yawn.

Now the 140,000-plus U.S. troops in the country are mainly "a nuisance" factor in the insurgents' overall goal of preventing the new government from consolidating."They understand what the deal is here," Lang said, "to start applying maximum pressure to the economy and the government and make sure it will not work." Their roadside bombs are intended to keep U.S. forces inside their bases, he said.

Now I KNOW he was thrown out of the Pentagon, if he ever worked there. This crap is nothing but CRAP. The US military in Iraq goes where it wants to, when it wants to, and how it wants to. The IED's have been nuisances to the US military and they were generally there to hit convoys, not the US miitary itself. The insurgents can't get NEAR the US bases unless they're really lucky. Planting IEDs are done on main roads and throughways, generally, since they're bound to hit something, eventually. And it's hard to police those roads effectively. And the guy's basically reading page 1 from Guerilla handbook 101. Duh, of course the insurgents are trying to destabilize the gov't. But have they had ANY success in it? No, they haven't. The gov't is going about it's business regardless, people are joining the new gov't, and the insurgets- terorrists- have no alternative to the gov't. Not even a civil war. It's foriegn fighters and Sunnis fighting against Sunnis. That's not a recipie for civil war. That's an end-run attempt to subjugate a segment of the population to your will, in order to gain some level of support in order to destabilize the gov't. And it's not working. And this guy doesn't really give any real evidence as to any destabilization in Iraq- just conjecture and hearsay from so-called sources. That's not evidence, bubba.

All the while the insurgents are gaining strength, he said. "The longer they keep going on the better they will get," said Lang, a student of military history. "The best school of war is war."The Sunni insurgents could win the battle if they persevere long enough to sour U.S. voters, Feldman said.He said, "There is no evidence whatsoever that they cannot win."

Now we get to the point of the whole sordid piece, don't we? Mr. Phelps, please stand up, and realize that you just want to play your Vietnam fantasies all over again, kick Bush out of office, and pretend that the War on Terror never happened. Right? How else would we get a cheap shot of "sour US voters" in there, otherwise?

NOW Lang is revealed as a "student of military history"- he goes from being a former Pentagon bigwig to a "student of military history". What is Mr. Lana Lang precisely? Is he Pentagon lite, or is he someone off the streets? If you work in the Pentagon, YOU ARE A STUDENT OF MILITARY HISTORY. Why then, the need to say that? Maybe.....because he isn't? And that you need to remind yourself that he is? Or your writing sucks? If you can't keep your sources straight, you're a bad poker player.

It's an article rife with bad sourcing, no analysis that's worth a damn, does NOT talk to the US, Coalition, or Iraqi militaries on ANY LEVEL, and talks to fringe sources outside of the US and Iraqi gov'ts only. It's a pathetic attempt at passing off non-experts as experts, in order to make the conclusion that the author starts off with as valid, without really giving any arguement to any of them. It's utterly unconvincing, and frankly, it took me 20 minutes to eat it alive. Go back to journalism school, or better yet......go to Iraq. And as for the insurgents having evidence that they can't win, I'll give it to you:

El Salvador.
Afghanistan (after 2001).
Ireland (1970's IRA).
Jordan (early 1970's).
Philippines (1898-1902).
Confederate States of America (1861-1865).
FARC (Columbia).
Congo/Zaire.
German Civil War (1918-1919).
Algerian Civil War.
Chechnya.
Ukraine.

Habeus Papam!

2005-04-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

It's official, Cardinal Ratzinger is the new Roman Catholic Church's Pope- Benedict XVI. He's essentially a continuation, for the most part, of the leadership of John Paul II, and he's the Papal Press Secretary and Doctrinal enforcer, so he's gotten a reputation for being a traditionalist and very principled. Heck, when he was drafted into the Wehrmacht in WW2, he deserted because he didn't like the Nazis, or Hitler. And spent the rest of the war in a prison camp.

That's principle.

Oh, and the entire non-talk radio and Fox News coverage of the new Pope can be summarized like this:

ULWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGH!!!!!

Followed by headless chickens running around into things. Great unbiased job the stinking lot of you have done to day. Go research for once, will you? It's not hard.

And it's principled.

Wither China

2005-04-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

This is a great post by Wretchard at Belmont (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/04/taiwan-and-china-this-is-copy-of.html), and while it does do a great job of listing the potential pitfalls for both the US/Taiwanese side and the Chinese side in the event of a Chinese invasion attempt on Taiwan, I think it misses one key point: It focuses far too much on the Chinese acting in a rational fashion. What happens if their economy tanks? What happens if there is a major political fallout in China? How will they react to such events? Taiwan may seem like a shot in the dark that could generate wonders for them, potential pitfalls be damned. Hitler invading Russia was a stupid idea, strategically speaking, but he did it anyways. Al Quaeda attacking NYC and Washington DC was also incredibly dumb, but they did it anyways. And that doesn't even count out innovative strategies that none of us have thought of.

Still, it's a great post, and well worth a read.

All that's "left" is the whining about Iraq

2005-04-04T22:42:00.000-07:00

Alot of mainstream media outlets and left of center commentators have been talking about how the Iraqis have been taking a while to build a government. It's been two months, and they're sorting out the messy details of forming a government, and picking the right people to head the right positions.

And they're complaining about it being two months since the elections.

Yawn.

I wish someone would thwack them upside the head......and remind them how long it took this very country to get the American Constitution. Anyone remember the boondoggle that was the Articles of Confederation? That lasted until 1789. And the Continential American Army defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1780 (the treaty wasn't ratified until the following year, and the last British troops left New York in 1783).......and 9 years later, they finally had an effective government. I'm not even touching the French Revolution and THAT fallout.

It takes time to build a government. It won't take as long as it took some guys named Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson, but the Allawis will get it done, sooner than later.

And what will the whiners have to say then, when they shift their attention to yet another topic? They thought Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be Black Hawk Down 2.....oops.
They thought that the terrorist insurgency was going to make Iraq another Vietnam....nope.
They think that the Iraqis can't get a constitution in order (why, btw? Because they're......Arabic? Lord, think of the racial overtones of their thinking!)

Methinks they'll realize they've hit rock bottom when they start complaining about the color of the paint in Iraqi municipal buildings. Heh.

Al Qaeda and a straw man arguement

2005-03-31T08:50:00.000-08:00

Tigerhawk (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/03/al-qaedas-grand-strategy.html), a fellow blogger, attended a lecture by Michael Doran, who's an assistant professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton (was overlooked last year for tenure because, ostensibly, he didn't follow their academic mantra. Sigh). Read the article at the above link, it's really good.

I do have some points of contention with it, however. I think that Al Qaeda does indeed have a "long term strategy" for dealing with the anti-muslim forces inside and outside of the greater Middle East. But I think their view of it is flawed, and largey consists of building a straw man arguement. They fight modernity, but they don't really bother to understand modernity. In short, they make great use of technology when it benefits them, but they don't really see how it affects the greater scale of things. They don't see how teaching the youth of Iraq and Afghanistan higher end jobs will change their cultures and economies. They don't see the nation-state concept that exists today as a true construct, and they ultimately dismiss Egyptians for Egyptians and Iraqis for Iraqis (Doran makes that point, but only so far). The governments of modern Middle East (well, prior to 9/11 in most cases) were repressive and held all the keys to the economy, technology and communications. They were the reason that the muslim world is down the educational chute. It has nothing to ultimately do with the muslim religion, or the overall cultures of the region. It has everything to do with backwards regimes trying to keep power for just a little bit longer, and using the faucet of radical Islam against the west as a convienient way to keep the repression that they need, going. What better way to keep the people away from Microsoft than to tell them that Microsoft is evil? (ok, no laughing folks. Windows is evil, but that's besides the point)

What happens when those repressive governments go away? In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, what happens when their constituencies are given alternatives to autocratic rule- a real chance at a middle class, entreprenurial chances, and a real education system? Plus, as Doran noted, what happens when radical Islam clashes with the local views on Islam? Shiites, Afghanis, and Kurds rejected that ideology. Al Qaeda's allies don't even follow that mantra- Ba'athists are secular in concept, after all. And the Saudis are pragmatists. I think they realized that the oil industry will be changing dramatically over the next 30 years (Iraq and ANWR are just parts of that) and that it would be best NOT to piss off an America which no longer views Riyadh as a strategic interest, but a liability.

And the Western culture was brought TO them, rather than kept at a distance, like before 9/11, and make the West to be some mythical boogeyman who they don't really get to see, and ever get a chance to view through anything but a skewed camera. Americans are involved actively in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they can see firsthand westerners. Businesses are establishing contacts. They're getting new avenues of media (please, for the love of all that is holy, can they NOT get American Idol?!), as well. The West is no longer a mythical boogeyman. Americans are a part of their lives, now.

Ultimately, what Al Qaeda has is a straw man arguement. Their strategy in basis is sound, because they realize that they won't be able to win a quick victory over the west, even in the middle east. But they presume that the West will get themselves into a quagmire inside the Middle East, and that it would become too expensive for the West to stay......and then the Middle East would be ripe for Al Qaeda's picking. It presumes far too much that the Americans will follow their script, and will essentially roll over and die when they are told to. It presumes that technology, education, and democratic nationalism won't have as much of an effect in the short or long term. It requires far too much of a static situation on the ground other than repeated insurgencies throughout the Middle East (which has already proven to be a waste of time against American forces). We're already seeing a sea change in how the Middle East views the west- democracy is making inroads throughout the Middle East. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to one extent or the other, have embraced some form of democracy, or will be shortly. And the greatest victory of Al Qaeda since 9/11 was in Madrid, not the Middle East. They failed in Shahikot. They failed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They failed in Najaf. They failed in Fallujah. And they failed in the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, spectacularly.

No plan ever survives encounter with the enemy, as the old saying goes. Al Qaeda just learned that the hard way. Don't expect your opposition to play the tune that you ask them to dance to. Al Qaeda is learning from their mistakes, but it remains to be seen if they can ultimately get around finding other ways of changing the situation on the ground. I don't think they will, and I think that in 10 years Al Qaeda will really be a spent force. Islamia Jemmiayh and Abu Sayyaf will remain around longer, and eventually, Indonesia will become a new front in the War on Terror, but the rest of the Middle East will most likely not be a factor- unless they choose to tell Indonesia to knock it off.

Why fight the West?

2005-03-16T20:37:00.000-08:00

In doing some thinking, how often in the past few hundred years has the Western Culture been actually defeated, in pitched battle, with a non-western culture? I'm definitely on a Victor Davis Hanson vibe here- but my thinking is slightly different. I want an actual ratio of victories/defeats, rather than just examples of victories. I'm debating how far back I should go- to the Roman era? Or to the Pax Britannica era?

If I go with Pax Britannica era theres:
Isandlwana (Zulu Wars)
Chillianwalla (2nd Sikh War 1848-1949)
Little Big Horn (Plains Wars, Custer's Last Stand)
Adowa (Italy in Abyssinia)
Russo-Japanese War(1904-1905)
Pearl Harbor (1941)
Singapore (1941)
Dienbienphu (1954)
Franco-Algerian War (1954-1962)

An asides: I'm sure I don't have all of it listed, and if I don't please don't hesistate to let me know. I don't consider the Vietnam War to be an American defeat; the Americans never lost a battle against the Viet Minh and their NVA counterparts. You can thank the American media for their coverage of that war for the assumption of an American defeat. And the Israelis never lost in Lebanon, either. It was a political decision to leave in the late 1990's, which had little to do with the acutal military situation on the ground, which was largely static. Only the Palestinian terrorists turned it into a PR coup (which, btw, they do frequently to pretend that they actually did something). And Mogadishu was an American victory, as well. They achieved their objectives, despite having no armor and artillery. It was a mistake for the Islamofacists to bother copying the hit and run tactics of Mogadishu; the Israelis and Americans now only attack in urban situations with overwhelming force, or in precision raids that have local overwhelming force.

As one can note, the major victories are largely Japanese, and for good reason. The Japanese followed the west in their military planning and culture. They weren't afraid of building a military capable of fighting the west on their terms, and exploiting stupid mistakes by western commanders. Otherwise, in nearly all the other conflicts, the western commanders and political leaders made arrogant mistakes that lead to their downfalls. They underestimated their opposition, and essentially created their own defeats. If this is what the non-west can do against the west, why the hell did the Islamofacists bother attacking the United States? This isn't to say that there won't be setbacks in the War on Terror (there will be, like Madrid), but by and large, at the end of the day, the result will be the same as it was in nearly every other war that the west lost a battle in. The Zulu nation was defeated; the Sikhs were defeated; the Plains Indians were defeated; the Abyssinians were defeated in 1935-36; and the Japanese were defeated in 1945. Only the French never followed up on their military defeats in French Indochina (and the Americans did militarily defeat the Vietnamese; the media never let the homefront know about it) and in Algeria. Thus, Bin Laden and his cronies elsewhere in the greater Middle East will evnetually join a very long list of non-western cultures that have ended up on the ash heap of history by making the very stupid mistake of fighting the west.

And btw, before I get someone yapping at me about colonialism, I do not support any of the colonial wars in any way, shape, or form. I'm being an objective historian, so knock the PC crap off.

ANWR finally gets passed

2005-03-16T17:35:00.000-08:00

ANWR, the proposed plan to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge area, has finally been passed by the Senate, 51-49. About time that they got around to doing this. Sure, it'll take some 10 years to get oil really coming from ANWR, but that's 10 years of investments, construction, and a partial redesigning of the economics of oil for the United States. In 10 years, there will be oil for the United States coming from ANWR, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That means that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezeuela, and others will find themselves adrift in a wholly new game. OPEC will be a thing of the past- at least as it's currently constituted. It would be a VERY smart thing for Mubarak to go ahead with his democratization plans NOW, and not play any stalling game. Why? Because in roughly 10 to 15 years his country will be losing money and would have to seriously cut back on it's programs and gov't spending in order to survive. They'll need innovation and leadership in order to do that. In an ossified dicatorship that Mubarak has provided them with, that would be next to impossible. In a democracy, that would seem feasible. And as for Saudi Arabia, they need to do more than just go towards democracy- they need to kill the funding that the Wahabi sect of Islam is putting forth for the terrorists. If they don't do that now, they'll find themselves as the playthings of the terrorists- and the process would be reversed: the terrorists would be funding the Saudis to keep pumping their propaganda. The Saudis know full well how easily the United States defeated the Taliban and Hussein's Iraq. They don't want to be next.

So, here's to more oil!

Harvard Follies

2005-03-15T18:01:00.000-08:00

I'm not on the up and up with all the story, but I know the basics of the Larry Summers vs. Harvard Faculty situation. Suffice to say, the recent news bothers me (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150549,00.html), but its one of those things that kinda HAS to happen. Harvard has exposed themselves to the mainstream of America, and America is going to find them to be giant idiots. If they fire Summers, they're seen as intolerant academics who don't care for free speech and real divergence in viewpoints; if they don't fire him, they'll be seen as incompetent and toothless academics. And also intolerant. But, the long term effects of the whole ordeal will be that Harvard will lose alot of it's luster, and will get hurt in their funding and recruitment. If you're a potential recruit for Harvard, what will the effect of a intolerant academic climate mean to you? Simple: go somewhere else. I've been to more than a few colleges so far, in my academic studies, and there's generally alot of freedom to talk about different topics, without fear of any reprisals or harsh recrimination.

Here's some blogger links to the story- check them out, they do better commentary than I do, on this:
Instapundit: http://instapundit.com/archives/021799.php (lots of links for the subject)
Powerline:http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009844 (WFB quote. 'nuff said)
NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_13_corner-archive.asp#058358
Lubos Motls: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/sad-day-for-harvard.html (might be the most comprehensive of the Harvard sites. And Bravo to him for standing up for common sense)

Sgrena: How much of a liar?

2005-03-11T11:35:00.000-08:00

By now most folks know about the basic story about the Italian Journalist, Guiliana Sgrena, and her events in Iraq. To recap, she was abuducted by terrorists in Iraq, and an Italian secret agent went to free her (with, presumably, a ransom payment). But then, her accusations were that US troops fired on her car, and killed the agent, and wounded her. She claimed that the US soldiers were out to kill her, because, well, they're US soldiers! Gasp! They kill baby seals for fun! Oh, the humanity! And of course, the leftist media in Europe ate her words up without bothering to do any fact checking.

And now her whole story is collapsing around her. First, only an idiot would try to run through a US checkpoint in Iraq- on one of the most dangerous roads in Iraq. And the American soldiers would have given fair warning that there A) was a checkpoint upcoming and B) followed the rules of engagement. Sgrena's statements were that there were "300-400 bullet holes in the car" and that she "was able to pick up bullets that fell into backset with her hands". Firstly, if American troops were to fire that many bullets at her- she'd be deader than dead. Secondly, if they wanted to kill her.....why is she alive and well, having been sent to a hospital by American soldiers? And thirdly, why have pictures of her car (http://wheels128.blogspot.com/2005/03/sgrenas-car-proves-she-lied.html) (hat tip: Jawa Report and House of Wheels) shown that it's pretty much NOT shot up? There are a few bullet holes in it.....but not many. And then Sgrena goes and changes her story, saying that American soldiers fired at her from the REAR of the car (I guess she saw the pictures herself, and realized that she's full of crap, so she changed her story).....which would either indicate A) that she's just making this up as it goes by or B) whoever was in the car completely blew the checkpoint, and chucked the rules of engagement out the window (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004041.php hat tip: Captain Ed's). Apparently, the US troops had NO foreknowledge of the resuce attempt (or the whole ransom issue, but I'll get to that), and all they saw was an unmarked car barrelling down on them on one of the most dangerous highways in Iraq.

And at Captain Ed's blog (also above link), there are also reports that the Italian military in Iraq didn't even know about the rescue attempt. It could be for multiple reasons:
- they didn't want the Americans to know about the ransom
- they didn't want to let the Italian military know about the ransom (they'd have pressured to do a REAL rescue attempt)
- Someone screwed up in the negotiations for her release, and forgot to tell the chain of command (American AND Italian) what was going on.

The folks at the Jawa Report (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu) are speculating that Sgrena was never kidnapped. And that the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to throw a monkey wrench into the Italian and American efforts in Iraq. Sgrena has certainly tried to do that since the event. I don't know if the speculation will pan out, but it does raise alot of good questions.
1. Sgrena went to Iraq to present an anti-American view of the war, and the American military.
2. Sgrena all but admitted that she'd search out for the terrorists, and get their stories.
3. The kidnappers of Sgrena were unknowns, with a name that doesn't jive with the normal names for terrorist groups (Mujahedeen without Borders?!?!?!).
4. Sgrena's kidnapping "just happened" to take place when she was on the cell phone with another reporter.
5. Much of the info about her abduction and clash with American forces have come from sympathetic colleagues and friends, who are not considered unbiased sources.
6. Sgrena was released a month to the day of her capture.
7. Why in the hell would Berlusconi pay ransom money out of his own pockets for a rabid anti-American communist reporter?
8. Why didn't the American and Italian military commanders know about the rescue attempt?
9. Why did Calipari- the agent- use an unmarked car that offered no protection and identification markings- knowing that they were going into a hostile area?
10. Why did the terrorists warn Sgrena about the "Ameircans wanting to kill her"? Do terrorists normally give their victims such consideration?
11. Why does Sgrena's story keep changing? And the American story does not?
12. Why was Calipari's body flown directly to Italy for a state funeral? Was there ever an autopsy (I think there wasn't)?

It would not suprise me if the Italian government was hoodwinked into paying millions of dollars for what may well turn out to be a fake abduction. And that the Italian government knew it was fake, and tried to cover it up. Calipari may well have gone to extradite Sgrena from Iraq, and either A) the mission blew up when they ran into the American checkpoint, B) Sgrena knew that Calipari had uncovered the truth about the abduction, and staged a attack on their car, and then set the Americans up for the blame.

This is, of course, pure speculation. But there are enough holes in Sgrena's story that you can bet top dollar that SOMETHING fishy is going on here. She's already proven to be a liar multiple times, and her motives are pretty clear. At the rate that the story is unraveling, we'll get to the bottom of it sooner rather than later.

Baseball's here!

2005-03-03T14:02:00.000-08:00

Spring training is in the air, and all's right with the world. The Pirates and the Royals have equal chances to win the World Series, as the Yanks, Cardinals, and Red Sox have. At least, for now, until the season begins.

At least this will tide me over, until the regular season begins. Lord knows, I've been in withdrawal since the Super Bowl. There's no NHL, and the NBA sucks these days....so that left me awaitin' for Baseball. Rejoice, for spring is here!

Nut shot to European Appeasers

2005-03-02T14:32:00.000-08:00

And I thought I was harsh! This is by Mathias Dopfner, in an editorial from Die Welt (one of the larger German newspapers), and it spares no scorn for Old Europe. Here's a link (free): http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=252132&attrib_id=7575, and here's a snippet:

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

Read all of it, it's good stuff. Europe is like a old, beaten up, and washed out boxing contender. They're tired, and don't want to lift a finger to save themselves. Would be a shame, if they could bother to let me give a damn.

Who's Out of Touch?

2005-03-02T11:22:00.000-08:00

There are two groups out there who are completely out of touch with reality. The first is the obvious one- the dictators of the greater Middle East. Well, the remaining ones, at least. The second are the leftists who can't see the forest for the trees (not that they ever did. But they do like the trees, at least in principle- Could someone tell Greenpeace that the pine cone air freshener smell went out of vouge in the 1970s?).

With the Middle Eastern dictators- Bashar Assad takes the cake. At least the mullahs in Iran are realizing that they're between a rock and a hard place. They're looking to curry favor with Europe, China, and Russia before they do anything else. Its smart compared to what Syria's been up to. The assassination of Hariri in Lebanaon, and the Syrian-backed Tel Aviv bombings are the actions of a brain dead intelligence service, that doesn't realize how dramatically things have changed on the ground. There were very successful elections in Iraq, and there were even semi-free elections in Saudi Arabia (it's a start, I'll give them that). And Hosni Mubarak has ordered the Egyptian Constitution to be changed, to allow for single, secret ballots for presidential elections in Egypt (that might have to do with the growing anti-Mubarak sentiment in his country. Anyone think he wants to end up like Hussein?). In the two weeks since the assassination, the Syrians must know by now that they've bungled badly. It's lit a united front of anti-Syrian Druze, Christian, and Sunni Lebanese against the pro-Syrian gov't in Lebanon, and the Syrian army (plus Hizbullah) in Lebanon. They've gotten a resignation of the Lebanese cabinet in one fell swoop, and have gotten the Syrians to leave ASAP. I don't believe for one second that the Syrians MEAN to leave anytime soon. They're just trying to buy time, to wait for the dust to settle and reassert themselves. I don't think they'll have that luxury. Either the Lebanese anti-Syrians or the American lead coalition (in Iraq) will force the issue. I'd rather see it end peacefully, and see Assad step down quietly from Syria. I DONT want to see a repeat of Tiannamen. Alot of folks don't want to see the Israeli army sitting in Damascus either, but that might be a welcome alternative. But the bottom line is, is that Syria is the poster boy for stupid dictatorial pet tricks. They're so behind the times that their usual "blame it on the zionists! And their American overlords!" schtick isn't sticking. Even in Palestine......where no one was apparently happy with the Tel Aviv bombing.

Then there are the leftists. They are at least admitting that there is a change in the world, that democracy is coming to the Middle East......but they don't want to admit HOW or WHY it is there. There's a New York Times Editorial (http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/020922_keller.html - that's a free link to it, via Roger L Simon) that all but sings the praises of Bush's foriegn policy (ie; Democracy or die) while never admitting that it was Bush, or the Iraq war, that gave us the current domino effect. At least they're admitting that Bush was right, but they're far behind the ball on this (and maybe, just maybe the whole Valerie Plame situation has them praying to GOD that Bush doesn't sue them for all they're worth). Same with Ed Kilgore (http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1416) writing in TalkingPoints Memo. He admits that the Lebanese situation is good, but just wants to paint Bush as being lucky to be in office when everything's gone down. Nice of them to miss the Lebanese opposition directly referencing Bush and the Iraq war/election as reason #1 for being able to have their Cedar Revolution. Same goes for Jon Stewart for pulling the same stunt. And then there's the article of Matt Yglesias (got it at NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/057265.html where they still haven't stopped laughing) where Mr. Yglesias goes on to pooh pooh Lebanon as not being all that important to American interests. What, that its a giant middle finger to Syria doesn't count? And that this will infinitely make Israeli security easier, with the eventual death of Hizbollah? These guys are at least paying attention to the news, lest they get egg on their face (at least at a further rate than they already DO have). But by ignoring Bush, or his foriegn policy, they're still not understanding the key elements that are at play here. They don't want to give up their motherload arguement- that the Iraq War was illegal! War Crimes! Torture! Bush is a Terrorist! blah blah blah- and realize that they've been playing with the wrong deck of cards all along. They remain petty as hell, and are still putting their hands over their ears like a bunch of arrogant children. This isn't to say that the march to democracy in the greater middle east is going to be a cakewalk- far from it- but this is to say that far too many just don't seem to care about others. And that's the problem with leftists (the majority of the Democratic Party these days), they just want power, and they don't care who gets in their way. If the Lebanese mean more power for Bush- the hell with 'em. If the Iraqis mean more power for Bush- the hell with 'em. If Americans mean more power for Bush- the hell with 'em, too.

I have a better idea for the Democrats, and their far leftist leaders. See that dodo? Follow it.

Sorry

2005-03-02T11:19:00.000-08:00

Sorry I've been way for a bit, had personal, college, and work stuff to attend to.

Shall be blogging more often, now.

Something is rotten in the state of syria

2005-02-15T11:08:00.000-08:00

Got this from Foxnews.com, via an AP report:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — A powerful bomb tore through the motorcade of a former prime minister Monday, killing him, carving a 30-foot hole in a street and turning armored cars into burning wrecks. The devastation harked back to Lebanon's violent past and raised fears of new bloodshed in the bitter dispute over Syria, the country's chief power broker.
The blast wounded 100 people and killed 10, including the main target: Rafik Hariri, a billionaire businessman who helped rebuild Lebanon after its civil war, but had recently fallen out with Syria.

All signs point to Syrians pulling this one off, since Hariri had recently begun to side with opposition groups to the Lebanese gov't and it's Syrian overlords. Either the Syrians knew that he was Up To Something, or they made an overt example of their power over Lebanon. Regardless, it was stupid, from a geopolitical standpoint. It focused attention on the Syrian/Lebanese relationship in ways that Syria DOESN'T want any attention focused upon. Plus, it all but declares open season on the Syrian gov't and forces in Lebanon for the Lebanese opposition groups. They will now increasingly look towards agressive action against the Syrians rather than just protesting. Still, how braindead are the Syrian intelligence and military leaders? Iraq and Afghanistan are now free by force of (American) arms, Egypt/Jordan/Israel/PA have just made joint agreements and are all but set to act as a military alliance, and there are calls for the democratization of the middle east from President Bush to opposition parties in many countries, be it Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran........and even Syria. The Syrians just made it that much easier for the opposition groups to find a partner willing to help them air their disagreements....and back it up. What happens if the opposition parites in Syria ask the Israelis to help them free Lebanon, and in exchange, the Lebanese would eradicate Hezbollah, and completely recognize Israel and their mutual borders with Lebanon? Does anyone think that the Egyptians and Jordanians would object- especially after what appears to be a Syrian led assassination of a Lebanese opposition leader? I think not.

Bashar Assad is playing with fire right now, and he probably knows it. Well, fire up the BBQ, Mr. Assad, because it's only going to get hotter now. Just pray to whatever god you pray to that it's not a hellfire missile that is what makes it hotter.

It's been a bad week for Leftists

2005-02-11T20:11:00.000-08:00

It's one of those weeks- where you find hardcore Leftists debating whether or not to finish off their last bit of Bourbon, or Jack Daniels. Firstly, Howard Dean is all set to become the new DNC chair. Now, never in my wildest dreams did I think that this would happen. I thought saner voices in the Democratic Party would wake up, realize how much of a walking time bomb that Dean is, and pick someone much more centrist (like Tim Roemer, for one). But no, they kept on going, full sail ahead with Dean.

My analysis is that Dean's not going to do a great job. He'll keep the Democratic base energized. But he won't be able to do anything beyond that; he'll lose alot of longtime Democratic supporters and their money, and he also will fail to make red states turn blue anytime soon. If anything, Democrats will win whatever elections they do win, in spite of his leadership. I predict, barring unforseeable changes, that Dean will last until the 2006 mid-term elections, where he will prove to be ineffectual in changing the downward trend for the Democratic Party. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if he gets booted earlier than that. Anyways, if their goal is to just be the "obstructionist party" then they won't get much of anywhere, anytime soon. They will not advance any new ideas, but just throw out the same tired crap from the last 30 years (which, somehow, never gets implemented, over and over and over again, so that they can STILL complain about it the next year). Nearly every major bill will have a Republican's name on it, and many bills stand to be history making. Social Security, Tort reform, military spending, and judicial oversight will all be Republican-based in conceptualization.

Then there's Lynne Stewart. She's now convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists (the Blind Shiek, Omar Abdel-Rahman) by smuggling transmissions to their terror groups from his jail cell, when she had signed legal documents stating that she wouldn't. Oops, the feds caught her on tape. And then she all but admitted it by doing press conferences for the Blind Sheik. And now she's sitting there, crying for herself, becuase she's about to get a maximum of 20 years behind bars. I have no pity for wretched monsters like her.

She's typical of far leftists- anything to destroy the west, especially America. And screw whoever gets in their way. Oh, but at the same time, the far leftists MUST be left alone, because they MUST be revered with messianic glee. Or, if you do touch them, they start screaming "Martyr! Martyr! Martyr!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's all a sham, and a pretty pathetic one at that. You have to be seriously messed up to truly think that by helping a bunch of terrorist thugs, you'll create a utopist socialist world where everyone frolics about in happy go lucky nakedness. That 60's crap is long gone, and I for one, and glad that Stewart got what was coming to her. Plus, it's a warning to far leftists that they're on notice- the American legal system will increasingly no longer work in their benefit.

Both are nails in the 1960's flower power ideology's coffin. Dean is always a soundbite away from saying the things that the left doesn't want you to hear them say (but privately, they really do mean it), and ruin the Dem party from that standpoint. Lynne Stewart will be a source of ridicule for years to come, and she's just made the gov't's job fighting the war on terror from the legal front that much easier. Hell, she singlehandedly made it darn near impossible for leftist lawyers to get close to the Gitmo detainees.

Thanks a bunch, guys. You add years to my life, with your stupidity. Take another swig from your shot glass, you'll need it.

Musings

2005-02-04T14:28:00.000-08:00

The CNN story continues to spiral outwards. Much of the mainstream media hasn't caught wind of it- yet. I surmise that will change when one of them decides that it's much more fun to take down one of their own rather than support them with their silence. It's a business, and that's what happened to CBS, previously. But right now, the Bloggers are the ones keeping track of the whole story. At this point, CNN's tried to issue conflicting statements trying to whitewash what Eason Jordan did or didn't say, and they're basically trying to make the whole issue go away before it can get larger. My gut feeling is that their actions to date will only make the matter worse.

I really wish that I knew what the force dispositions of the Iranian and Syrian armies were right now. By that, I mean where they're situated, what their units are compromised of, and what type of depth (offensively and defensively speaking) that they present. I cannot rule out that they will try something- openly or covertly- before the mid-summer elections in Iran (ostensibly for Presidential elections, but that's really a farce). Those elections will probably be....interesting to watch unfold, if only because it's a powderkeg waiting to happen. The Syrians and Iranians will need to do something to change the status quo, one way or the other, before that happens. Diplomatically, they can buy some time by negotiating with the United States, especially over the WMD issue. But that doesn't solve the long term problems, and I don't know if they have any sort of consensus to undertake that type of domestic/foriegn policy interplay. If their force dispositions are defensive in nature, that would probably signify that either A) they can't make a decision on what to do or B) their positions are designed to communicate a willingness to find another solution outside of force of arms. But if their dispositions are offensive in nature, jump-off points for an extended campaign for all intents and purposes, then that would mean that they most likely are discarding the political options, at least until they can use their unsheathed sword to effect a change in the political landscape. If anyone has good info on their military's current situation, I'd be more than willing to listen.

SOTU, and more

2005-02-03T08:41:00.000-08:00

I liked President Bush's SOTU speech, although I preferred the inauguration speech's florid inspirational messages more. The SOTU speech was more of a "nuts-and-bolts" speech, at least for the domestic portion. Bush's plan for Social Security is fundamentally sound, and one that I support, being under 30 years of age. What I do find interesting, is that Bush leaves alot of options open to use- both options that were raised by Democrats and Republicans. This essentially leaves the ball in the Democrats' court. If they want to play the obstructionist route, then they'll basically be punting on this issue, and all but leave it up to the Republicans to handle it. That will bode really badly for 2006 for the Dems. All it will tell the public is that the Dems don't want to bring any ideas forth, and have been hijacked by the far leftist fringe of the party that doesn't know how to adjust to the 21st century. If anyone, in the near future, sees a Democratic Congreessman wearing a tin-foil hat, you've been forewarned.

The other major portion of Bush's speech raised my eyebrows, in a good way. Bush wants to see Democracy and freedom spread to the greater Middle East. He singled out Saudi Arabia and Egypt for democratic reforms, and put Syria and Iran on notice. The Afghani and Iraqi elections have both had a tremendous impact upon the region, and it's putting a great deal of pressure for change on the various countries. Jordan, for one, is instituting greater voter reform. I happen to agree with the blog A Daily Briefing on Iran (http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com) about what the President wants to do with Iran. He'll exert diplomatic and political pressure on Iran to change, and support the people of Iran's push for freedom. This will probably be where Europe and America slowly rehabilitates their relationship, but I can't help but think that Europe will try to whiff on this every chance they get. Iran knows that Europe is weak, and if Europe is given the point duty on this, the Iranians will exploit it for all it's worth.

Syria may, on the other hand, get a much more direct reckoning than Iran will. There's been an unofficial border war between American/Coalition and Syrian troops ever since the Coalition forces secured Iraq. Many of the terrorists and Ba'athists have either gone to Syria ti hide, or are using Syria as a staging ground for terror attacks into Iraq. And that doesn't even include the state of war that exists between Syria and Israel. Bush might choose to make an example of Syria to the Iranians, in a more direct fashion.

However, the Iranians and Syrians both know that they only have a short window of opportunity to do whatever damage that they can to the Coalition efforts in the Middle East. Time will tell what they intend to do, but I cannot discount that they will make the Coalition fight for every inch of support and ground that they can gain- be it diplomatically, economically, or militarily. Do not count on either of them to remain on the defensive or at least give the Coalition forces the initiative, forever. Time will tell.

Oh, I did get misty seeing the hug between Safia Taleb al-Souhail and Janet Norwood at the end of the speech. Great moment, and it truly signifies the real deeper understanding between both America and Iraq. Two truly grateful nations, proud and respectful to one another, in times of great joy and great saddness. I truly hope that the anti-war activists and fringe radicals can even try to grasp their emotional courage. And I hope they are ashamed of themselves today.

I salute you, Safia Taleb al-Souhail. I salute you, Mr. and Mrs. Norwood. You do us all proud.

CNN implodes, part 2

2005-02-02T20:28:00.000-08:00

I just realized something- that the 1-2 punch of Turner and Jordan's comments do mean something when taken together, rather than as separate incidences. They represent the overall atmosphere of CNN, when given the chance to truly speak their minds. It's essentially a window into how they operate, at least on an intellectual and moral level. It's a wholly reactionary attitude to the changing environment around them. It also shows that there's probably no way that Jordan can truly be held accountable for his actions, other than from external sources. If two of the top heads of CNN- Turner and Jordan- can make truly stupid and dangerous statements like they have, who in CNN can stop them? I want them to do the right thing- apologize to the US military, and censure Jordan in one way, shape or form. But I also dont' want to sound vindictive, because no one really wants to watch a slow train wreck, but we all inevitably do. Right now, the ball is in the bloggers' court, and it's up to us to hold CNN to the journalistic standards that they should be adhering to.

More Media issues- CNN implodes

2005-02-02T16:06:00.000-08:00

The head chief of CNN's news divison. Eason Jordan, was caught at the international conference at Davos, talking about how he knew that American soldiers were targeting journalists for assassination in Iraq. Now, this would indeed be big news if it could be substantiated. But Barney Frank, to his credit, challenged Mr. Jordan to produce any proof. And Mr. Jordan could not, backpedaled quickly, and ended up saying that 'it was just a rumor'. Right now, the story's big on the 'net, and I first got wind of it at the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/054944.html).

How bad does this sound? The Chief of CNN talks about rumors that are that potentially damaging? Is there something wrong with this? You bet there is. It's unprofessional, disrespectful, and downright scary. Jordan thought he could get away with the statement, until Mr. Frank did the journalistic thing- ask to back it up. Think about it for half a second: he thought he could get away with it. Plus, it was to an international audience, who may be much more suspectible to believing it without factchecking it- because, after all, this IS the head of CNN that we're talking about.

CNN is in hot water now, and rightly so. It would be one thing if it were true, but by all apperances, it doesn't look like it's true. It looks, sadly, like another "gotcha!" media moment combined with a heavy dose of tin-foil paranoia. I wonder how, once the news breaks out beyond the realms of the 'net, it will affect the bottom line for CNN. Does anyone think that CNN will get ANY recognition from the US and Coalition militaries? How about their stockholders? Or their advertisers? This is going to hurt them far more than Fox News taking viewers away from them ever will.

And Mr. Eason's trying to whitewash the incident by 'clarifying' his statements, in emails to various blogs on the 'net. That tells me that someone at CNN is worried about the story, and that it can only get worse. Now, to be fair, someone at CNN is probably trying to protect their own, which I can understand. But that still doesn't excuse Mr. Eason's arguements. And thanks to the work of Captain Ed (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/) and others, it's now become apparent that Mr. Eason's remarks weren't a one night show. In fact, he's repeated similar accusations before, in 1993, 2002 and 2003. Plus, he's one of CNN's point men in establishing ties with Saddam's old regime for CNN back in the 1990's- and CNN admitted that they knew of atrocities and assassination attempts committed by the Saddam regime, but remained mum about it in order to keep their soft reporting from Baghdad intact. To be perfectly honest, I'm suprised that no one has taken CNN to task over their actions in supporting the Saddam regime, and in the manner in which they did it. They're, for all intents and purposes, accessories to murder (and in some cases, probably mass murder).

Keep in mind, this whole story comes barely a week after Ted Turner, owner and founder of CNN, opens his mouth and compares Fox News to Hitler and the Nazis. Both incidences are separate, but it's a 1-2 punch that really doesn't look good for their image. As bad as CBS is, their problems are miniscule compared to what CNN will be facing. I'll keep updating as I get news.

For some additional links, check out
http://www.Hughhewitt.com
http://powerlineblog.com
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

To Hell with the Media

2005-01-28T20:41:00.000-08:00

I wish that there was some form of Sedition Acts in service today, in full force like they were during World War 2, becuase the media really needs a swift kick in the ass in the present day. Firstly, there's the article from Townhall.com, called "Fourth Estate or Fifth Column" by Thomas Sowell (got word of it via Powerline): http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050125.shtml, where he talks about how the media reports in Iraq. Basically the only casualties that the media gives a rat's ass about are the American ones, and tangentially the Iraqi ones. They don't care how many insurgents and terrorists that the Coalition forces take out, or if the battles were military victories.

The other article is by the American Journalism Review, called "Quitting Kabul", by Kim Hart (got this one from Captain's Quarters): http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3815, where Hart discusses how the media has all but abandoned Afghanistan, in favor of Iraq. To be fair, the article does talk about how there is an emerging Afghani media which is taking up some of the local slack for journalism (hence, they can be used as stringers or freelance work), and that parts of the country are hard to reach, both physically and technologically. But that doesn't excuse the media from their poor track record in Afghanistan since 2003.

My take on these trends? The media doesn't want to realize that WE ARE AT WAR. Plain and simple, the media is operating on a level that thinks that President Clinton is still in office, and that if they only make Bush look bad, things will be better. Part of the problem with that, is that they have not really taken into account the logistical nature of the conflict that we're currently involved in. It's highly likely that they didn't plan on having the journalistic material and manpower to cover both Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's probably not the reason why the mainstream media is covering the news the way that they are. They WANT the American forces to lose the war. And at this point, they NEED the American forces to lose the war- they've spent too much money and manpower hyping their point, to turn back. They're spinning for spinning's sake at this point. They're also trying desperately to protect their viewpoint, their Vietnam driven ideology, which is increasingly becoming seen as a sham (case in point; historians are now getting a radically different view of 'Nam than they used to. Anything written prior to the 1990's is generally seen as innacurate), and is proving to be useless in the present day. This amounts to a desperate rear guard action, which will only end in their slow extinction. But not before they put the lives of American servicemen and women at risk, and endanger the coalitions' mission in the Middle East.

Now, eventually someone's going to bust the mainstream press on this, and I don't mean like the CBS Memogate story. I mean in terms of someone bringing hard proof that the mainstream media is working either with the terrorists, or deliberately trying to change the real news to the controlling news that they want (ie; turning American victories into defeats). What happens then? When they get "outed" in that fashion, what will their response be? And what will the public- and government's response- be? I almost long for that day, because it will represent a true watershed in the evolution of the media, and also, a return to real journalism. Plus, it'll help the war effort, rather than the childish yelling we're being subjected to.

I have a sinking feeling, that if the media acted like they are today during WW2, the generals in command would have ordered them shot on sight.

Congrats to Condi, and other points of interest

2005-01-26T18:16:00.000-08:00

Firstly, I want to congratulate Condoleeza Rice on becoming the first African American female Secretary of State. She deserves it, and her body of work- beyond just her term as National Security Advisor- shows that she's the right person for the job. It certainly will be interesting to see what happens when she has to meet with various Muslim and Arab leaders around the world, and tells them "I'll drive".

On the other hand, the handful of Democrats who bitched about her on the Senate floor, and held her nomination up for a few days is really pathetic. You'd think that the Dems would be smarter than to play crass obstructionism like that, but some of them don't seem to be getting the hint. Partially, I think that some of them are trying to "cover their asses" about the whole WMD issue, since they DID say the same things that they're now complaining about the Bush administration, prior to the Iraqi invasion. The other part is that they're trying to humor their own far left base, or at least pretend that their base is larger than it really is. Both are signs that they're off the beaten path, and are basically going as low as one can go, in politics. I mean, for crying out loud, eventually the republicans in Congress will get a backbone, and do something about it. As it stands, virtually none of the Democratic platform will get through Congress; the best the Dems can hope for is to negotiate with the Republicans for some leverage. And even that gives the Republicans the initiative, and with the way that the Dems have been handling things, they're using their response time to just whine and bitch. Not good for 2006, so far.

All the Democrats have been able to come up with are rants that "Bushlied!Bushlied!Bushlied!" or "Something's wrong in Iraq; we don't know what it is, but apologize and pull the troops out of Iraq so we can bitch at you some more, m'kay?" Neither of those are really worthwhile arguements, and they make the Dems look even smaller and petttier, and highly unattractive. And stunts like Harry Reid's staffer protesting at the Inauguration (and getting arrested for it) also comes across as highly childish. The whole world was watching that inauguration- and Mr. Reid allows his staffer to essentially have a hissy fit? Does any of this make any sense? Does it come as a suprise that Bush's approval ratings jumped after the election?

Does anyone think that we'll be hearing from Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Dayton, Kerry, and Harkin by 2006? I think not.

Thoughts on the Inauguration speech

2005-01-22T13:58:00.000-08:00

I've had a few days to think the President's Inauguration speech over, and also to see some of the pro and con responses. To be fair, I haven't paid too much attention to the leftist responses, because a good portion of them are knee-jerkism at it's worst, and fail to grasp why the left needs to rebuild their ideology from the ground up. And the best critiques of the President's speech happen to come from the right, and some from the same 'neocon' area that Bush himself comes from. But I happen to think those critiques are wrong, and that the President's speech was not only brilliant, but also a clarion call for not just America, but also for the world, for generations to come. It's probably the most significant Presidential inauguration speech since Kennedy's.

Now, why are the right wing commentators wrong about the President's speech? For a few reasons. Firstly, the speech wasn't aimed at them, per se. It was aimed at the rest of America which is still unsure about what the country should do in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan/Iraq. It was also aimed at those in countries that are not free, and their leaders who keep them from freedom. Those that were freed from Communist control with the fall of the Soviet Union directly looked towards Regan's leadership against the 'evil empire' as their inspirations for overthrowing communist dictatorship. And those that look to free themselves from dicatorship- either the remaining socialists or theocratic ones- will look towards Bush's leadership and this speech as their inspirations. Did those critics bother to remember the situation in places like Iran and North Korea, where there appear to be growing dissident movements? Think about what this speech will have on those areas. It will have the effect of a 500 kiloton bomb being dropped onto the situation there, and for good reasons. What happens when a protester in Iran, with a sign that says "help free us America", at a demonstration that the Khamenist government trys to suppress while being filmed, gets onto Fox News? Does anyone in their right minds think that Bush won't act?

The other problem is that the critics ignore the realism in Bush's speech. He knows that the expansion of freedom won't be done overnight: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." What that means, simply, is that the US will use all available resources to aid whoever they can, when they can. That doesn't mean that we'll get ourselves embroiled in the Congolese War, or yammer about what to do about China and Russia. Bush also realizes that much of the work will remain AFTER he leaves office: "The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. " Here, Bush is actively telling everyone "hey, be patient, even Regan wasn't in office when the Soviet Union fell." He's also saying that there will be times when America will have to deal with other issues, as well. What that means, who knows? But if there's a looming Taiwanese/Chinese War on the horizon, you'd bet your bottom dollar that Bush (or his successors) isnt going to be able to afford to pay any attention to Somalia.

The last reason that they're wrong is that they primarily grew up and were active during the Cold War. Many are Reganites, who couldn't concieve of the dangers that this world currently faces, in the time we live in now. And this isn't to knock them, like William F. Buckley, or Peggy Noonan, who are great Americans. But it is to say that their mentality is different from what Bush is looking for- and what they are looking for. They saw his vision in the first 4 years of the Bush Administration- and it feels like they're now getting cold feet. Sure, there are things that need to be reworked, and concepts that need to be reexamined now that they've met reality, and not just idealism. But that doesn't mean that Bush's concepts, as a whole, are not fundamentally sound. Look, the only reason that Iraq is the way it is, is because of the American mainstream media. They hate Bush with a passion, and will do whatever it takes- even working with the enemy- to discredit any idea or initiative that Bush brings forth. The Iraqi War has, overall, been a resounding success, despite the fact that the media continues to harp on the WMD charges, troop casualties, and terror bombings in Iraq. The Reganites' view of the world was one in which the Soviet Union needed defeat, but preferrably not one in which nuclear war was the primary resort. Today, they see the world still through that prism, and play the cautious road wherever possible. I think Bush sees that America will just be dealing with the terror threat for quite some time to come, and that taking the cautious road will only lead to more American deaths.

The speech was very significant, and those that are nitpicking it just tells me that they didn't really want that speech, or just can't grasp it's ultimate meaning. It could also be that they'd built themselves up so much that ANY speech would have ended up being a letdown. I'd love to see what they would have wanted Bush to say, instead. And the handicaps would be simple: Bush was going to use his speech for international purposes (keep in mind, he has the SOTU speech up next), and that Bush wasnt going to fall for the media's shell game about Iraq.

Oh well, we're only human, I suppose. You can't please everybody.

UPDATE: Check out http://powerlineblog.com/ for more editorial perspective on the Bush speech, striking up similar issues that I bring up. It's quite good, and worth the read. There are more than one posts, so scroll down.

ABC, Part 2

2005-01-21T11:39:00.000-08:00

Apparently, ABC couldn't help themselves, and they ran the funeral stuff anyways. It's not on the web, since ABC is probably sure that the 'net will savage them if they put it there- but it's too late, and the 'net has already responed. Here's the text originally spoken by Peter Jennings, gotten from NRO's The Corner (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_16_corner-archive.asp#051833):

"In Rockport, Texas today, just about the time the President was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb....His brother told a local paper that as much as Matthew wanted to be home, he was very proud of what he was doing in Iraq. And it is something you hear from so many people in the services, including the ten thousand who have already been wounded."

To be fair, I'll say that Jennings DID say that the fallen soldier supported the war effort, and that he wasn't alone in saying so. But at the same point, ABC clearly wanted to go for a cheap shot. Amazing, isn't it? This is what the 1960's have wrought on our journalistic standards. What the reporting from the Vietnam War has given us is nothing more than hackwork journalists who invent the news to fit their own agenda, and will stop at nothing to smear the people or ideas that get in their way, and forget whatever collateral damage that they accrue along the way. In the long run, they'll find themselves sitting next to the dodos, but in the short term, they fail to pay their real respects to fallen soldiers like Matthew Holloway. Their vileness is breathtaking in it's stupidity.

ABC hits the Fever Swamps

2005-01-19T22:23:00.000-08:00

ABC News wanted to play "balanced" news with the Presidential Inauguration, by also doing a story on a military funeral on the same day, of any soldier that died in Iraq. Apparently, ABC was asking if anyone knew of any military funerals that were on the 20th, so that they could "cover" it. ABC took the article down, once they realized that the 'net got ahold of the info, and someone got a brain there. Here's the archived article, which I got from the Captain's Quarters blog (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/):

Funerals for Iraq War Casualties
Honoring Fallen Heroes on Inauguration Day
Jan. 19, 2005 — For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.

Frankly, I'm disgusted with ABC's news division right now. In short, if someone fought and died in Iraq, and were buried on the 19th, or the 21st, then ABC doesn't care about them, because they don't give them a news story with which to bash the President. Nevermind that they don't care about the soldiers who died in Afghanistan, or soldiers that might die in the Tsunami relief efforts. That was a new low for ABC, and it was very, very arrogant of them to try to pull such a stunt. I know some folks who have, or are currently serving in Iraq, and I want them to come home safely (not before kicking some serious ass). If they were to die while overseas, I'd want their funerals to be solemn and remembering affairs. Not cheap political fodder for folks who can't get it through their damned heads that they lost the election and are losing their grip on the media control of this country. No, ABC just wants to rant and rave and pretend that their voice means something more by sticking a boom mike at a six foot hole in the ground. Dan Rather's the least of the media's problems right now.