Via Central Command:

Iraqi and U.S. forces have removed more than 4,200 mortar rounds from a major weapons cache found outside of an abandoned military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk Sunday.

The buried rounds were discovered by Iraqi Soldiers Sunday morning. The Soldiers removed about 800 mortar rounds before realizing that the cache was much larger than they originally thought. U.S. Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team were called in to help excavate the munitions and secure the area.

The ammunition was buried under concrete blocks with dirt mounded on top. All of the ammunition removed so far has come from one mound located in a field full of similar mounds. The explosives ordnance disposal team at the site expects to find more rounds as the search expands throughout the field.

I'll be interested to see if the shells are all conventional munitions in nature, or if perhaps there is something potentially more interesting in the mix.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogger John in Carolina has been pressing NY Times public editor Byron Calame for a retraction for false claims made by Lucian Truscott IV attacking the United States Military Academy at West Point and the Cadet Corpsin an Op-Ed, "The Not-So-Long Gray Line.''

In the Op-Ed (now hidden behind the Wall of Irrelevance known as Times Select) Truscott IV claims:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

There was only one problem with Truscott IV's claim as noted by John in Carolina:

Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I don't know of any historian who's ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

Faced with this easily verifiable falsehood, you would think that the Public Editor would print a retraction.

You would be wrong. John is now asking for your advice.

I'd start by first reading both posts linked above, and then drop Byron Calame a note.

Lying should not be called "figurative language," even in the New York Times.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:17 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Finalists will be announced and voting will begin tomorrow, December 1, 2005.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Nancy Pelosi must be putting her finishing touches on her speech declaring that we should unilaterally withdraw from Detroit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm sure you've heard about this story:

Nevada Senator Harry Reid thinks Osama Bin Laden was killed in last month's earthquake in Pakistan.

Speaking Wednesday on News 4's Nevada News Makers, Reid says he was informed today that Bin Laden may have died in the October temblor.

"I heard today that he may have died in the earthquake that they had in Pakistan, seriously." Reid says that if that is the case, "that's good for the world."

Is Harry Reid is basing his comments on pure speculation? He wouldn't be the first if so, but that isn't what he said.

He stated, "I heard today that he may have died..."

If Senator Reid's source is from the intelligence community and was given to him in his role as a Senator, his intelligence clearance should be reviewed. If (and only if) he is guilty of providing national security informaiton to the press, Senator Reid should not only lose his clearance, but lose his Senate seat and possibly face criminal charges.

More at PJM.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

The L.A. Times just cannot stand the fact that another news organization might push a myopic one-sided view of the War on Terror... at least one that conflicts with their own, myopic one-sided view, that is.

Jeff Goldstein responds as well as I ever could, so go read it over there.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

MoveOn.org cares so much about America troops that they...

wait for it...

can't even identify American troops.

But hey, they're getting better. This was actually their third attempt.

They originally tried this one:

This was their second choice:

Better luck next time, losers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Ahmadinejad saw a bright light, alright...Zzzap!

Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

"He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

"I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Baztab.com reported that during the meeting, Ayatollah Amoli said that "carrying out promises and restraining from fooling people" is the most important duty, presumably of officials . However, it is unclear whether that comment is made in reaction to the claim made by Ahmadinejad.

Critics And Skeptics
Iranian legislator Akbar Alami has questioned Ahmadinejad's apparent claims, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims.

I'd suspect that Ahmadinejad's chances of dying a natural death just decreased tremendously...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:46 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen pens a column entitled More Than a 'Mistake' on Iraq that is not only incorrect, but bordering on delusional.

Cohen states:

A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

Both senators have a point, of course. They were told by the president and members of his War Cabinet -- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In particular, those three emphasized Iraq's purported nuclear weapons program. As late as August 2003, Condoleezza Rice was saying that she was "certain to this day that this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." To be charitable, she didn't know what she was talking about. [emphasis mine]

In denying that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had in the past pursued a nuclear weapons program, or that it had biological and chemical weapons and had used them, Richard Cohen shows that he is under the influence of the H5N1 strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and his grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

The U.K's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (PDF), otherwise known as the Butler Report, stated that :

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

The British government stands behind this information to this day, which pre-dates Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

On January 1, 2003, The Telegraph reported:

United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.

Or perhaps Cohen should read Saddam, the Bomb and Me, from Mahdi Obedei, one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, in the New York Times:

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

The use of chemical weapons in the 1980-Iran Iraq War was well known:

The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

The use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians was equally infamous.

For Richard Cohen to claim that administration officials "didn't know" what they were talking about when they stated Saddam "had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them," is to rewrite history, severing all ties with reality and credibility.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.

Nine days have passed since the first excited rumors surfaced that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi may have died in a dawn raid in Mosul November 19. Shortly thereafter, remains were sent for DNA tests, and it was said that was "highly unlikely" that al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

That was over a week ago, and "highly unlikely" is still all we have from official sources.

But what is "likely?"

It is likely that a conclusive DNA test can be performed in five days or less from commercial sources, and it is probable that samples with as high a priority as al Zarqawi's would be determined before then.

It is perhaps likely that in the event of al Zarqawi's sudden termination, that U.S forces would intentionally keep quite about his death for a period of time, as the uncertainty in the chain of command could cause terrorists to make mistakes that might expose them.

It is highly unlikely that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead... but it isn't impossible, and nor is it highly unlikely that his death would be played out with not-quite confirmations and partial denials lasting as long as feasibly possible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

I knew Marion didn't raise that boy properly, but I never thought he'd take $2.4 million in bribes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

President Bush gave an immigration-related speech today at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona today, promising...

Nothing.

Bush, via Bloomberg:

"Together with Congress we are going to create a temporary worker program that is going to take pressure off the borders, bring workers out of the shadows,'' Bush told border patrol agents today at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. ``People in this debate must recognize that we will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary worker program."

No, Mr. President. You could not be more wrong.

We will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we have leaders serious about protecting our borders, Mr. Bush, and you have not shown yourself to be serious in this task.

This proposal is nothing but a smoke screen, one that does not in any serious way address the problems of stopping the illegal cross-border traffic of illegal aliens, drugs and suspected terrorists.

Mr. Bush's guest worker program is laughable; my farcical Punjis for Peace program involving bamboo pit traps is far more likely to succeed.

If you do not care about border security, Mr. Bush, at least have the courage to say so. Do not patronize me with empty words.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:19 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I am sorely disappointed in the president's lack of a firm stand on this illegal alien issue. For someone so interested in limiting unnecessary collateral damage during war, he is ignoring the collateral damage going on inside our national borders by the unintended consequences of this issue; the draining of our hard earned tax dollars. We have to speak louder, because Washington isn't hearing the real concern of the population. As I read the poles, National Security - the war is issue one, and National Security - the border is issue two. We cannot reward a blatant disregard for our laws by legitimizing the lawlessness through programs. We must back up and enforce our existing laws, period.

Posted by: Old Soldier at November 28, 2005 07:03 PM (9ABza)

2 I generally support Mr. Bush but I feel he is really dropping the ball on illegal immigration. Unfortunately, I do not see him changing in this area anytime soon.

Posted by: Shoprat at November 28, 2005 07:40 PM (I6DQp)

3 Step 1: Close the borders (with fences). Step 2: Purge America of illegals. Step 3: If we need more legal immigrants, open the border to them. Give preference to foreigners who are not illegal immigrants. What the heck is so complicated? Who would be made unhappy by this plan? Someone make a list, so I can add it to a 'people I don't respect' list or something Will this plan take time? Yup, get to work! As I've said before, they have until November 2006 to get it started, or I'm staying home on election day. I'm not voting Democrat, but I can't in good conscience vote Republican either if they can't put a simple black and white plan into action.

Posted by: Kevin at November 28, 2005 11:08 PM (Eq/i5)

4 To Kevin. I can't tell you to vote but you may want to look at the whole picture before you decide not to. Illegal immagragion is a huge problem but there are a lot of policies out there that can go either way. Every vote counts. If you vote, the others in the race need two votes to trump your one, if you don't, they only need one.

Posted by: Retired Navy at November 29, 2005 06:11 AM (y67bA)

5 I certainly hope to vote. All that is required to get me back into the Republican camp is one single bill. A vote by the House and Senate on an identical bill to begin building a fence down there. 11 months is plenty of time to vote on a bill. They've had 5 years to get it going, and so far nothing. If they can't pull it off by November, then there is really no point to support them. To me, they are just acting like Democrats but spelled with a capital 'R'. If the government suddenly became controlled by the Democrats, I can't see too many changes. My taxes would go up, and the left would suddenly see the virtue of helping out Iraqis and understanding why we need to stay the course. That's about it. Perhaps if the Republicans lose some votes, they will get scared and actually do what their base wants them to do?

Posted by: Kevin at November 29, 2005 07:25 AM (Eq/i5)

6 Try to look at a bigger picture. If the Democrats gain and the Republicans lose there could be a shift to the left. Taxes going up would be a small step, Dean would try to ram home his raising the minimum wage which could devastate the economy, small business would become a thing of the past. Hillary would be set up to be a Major threat in the next presidential election, not just a serious one, The war on terror would become a joke because of the pressure of the left and the Democrats have no real agenda for 1. the war, 2. the border, 3. Social security (I still believe the TSP plan would be benificial)and I am sure CY and Old Soldier could name a lot more than I can. Look at the whole thing and choose the best, abstaining (like the weak in congress) never works in my opinion.

Posted by: Retired Navy at November 29, 2005 08:18 AM (BuYeH)

7 Shhh! *whispers* You're gonna blow it! To be honest, there is only a very small chance that I won't vote, and if I vote, there is no chance I will vote against the Republican ticket. But they need to know that we are not happy. It worked so well with Miers that I really think the same tactic should be applied to the borders and spending. As a Reagan Republican, those are the only two unfinished policies I'm concerned with. They've had almost 5 years to get these things done. It's time to scare them into action. At the very least, if they haven't gotten around to fixing these 2 huge problems, I will vote for the non-incumbent Republican in the primaries. I won't have to look at where he stands on issues, because I will already have determined where the incumbent stands. I agree that it would serve no purpose to let the Democrats come to power again to further damage our nation. But can you agree that the Republicans in charge at this point are only doing marginally better? Something has to be done to spur them into action. B*tching about not voting is the best idea I have. If you have a better plan, please tell me, because all I want is results.

Posted by: Kevin at November 29, 2005 12:42 PM (Eq/i5)

8 Glad to hear the vote is still on. Old Soldier contacts his reps, you can contact yours and tell them what you just told us, you are not happy and if you don't do something you will vote the incumbant out and put in a ringer. I also hate to type this and will deny deny deny that I ever did (no matter if it's glued and pasted somewhere else again) but the Democrats do well on that issue, that is they voice thier opinions LOUDLY. Something moderates and moderate conservatives rarely do. Speak up and speak out, let your voice be heard and known but don't give up or in. I did 20 years in the Navy and voted very few times because of one reason or another, then it hit me, why am I putting my life on the line for others if I don't do it myself. Make the best choice with the representation out there and cast your ballot.

Posted by: Retired Navy at November 29, 2005 02:21 PM (cqZXM)

9 Kevin, I do believe you are onto something there...

Posted by: Old Soldier at November 29, 2005 06:16 PM (9ABza)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Previous:
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

In Part 1 of the series we show that Sigfrido Ranucci's film lies about a napalm attack in the Vietnamese village of Trang Bang in 1972. Despite the fact that this infamous incident was immortalized on film in photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning photo, it didn't keep Rannuci from trying to blame a South Vietnamese Air Force mistake on Americans. Ranucci's film lied.

In Part 2 of the series we show that Ranucci's film lies about, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah." But Ranucci's film does not show so much as one helicopter, and Ranucci's "rain of fire" was nothing more than two white phosphorus shell bursts along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. Ranucci's film lied.

And Ranucci's film continues to lie again and again and again.

This time, we'll examine the bodies the "white phosphorus victims" of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

White Phosphorus Pathology
Forensic Pathology is a branch of medical science concerned with analyzing medical evidence for crimes. When applied to the battlefield, forensic pathology can determine if certain wounds are consistent with different kinds of weapons.

In Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Sigfrido Ranucci's film shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

But what are the characteristics of white phosphorus weapons?

To answer this question I turn to former Marine Grant Holcomb. While a Captain and the Operations Officer for 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment from August 1990 to April 1991, Holcomb's unit conducted a minefield breach in Operation Desert Storm. He is an honor's graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School.

He states:

WP catches fire spontaneously in air, burning with a white flame and producing clouds of white smoke - a mixture of phosphorus(III) oxide and phosphorus(V) oxide. The proportions of these depend on the amount of oxygen available. In an excess of oxygen, the product will be almost entirely phosphorus(V) oxide.

When integrated as part of a projectile, the weapon effect is derived from a chemical reaction. However, a WP based weapon is not a chemical weapon.

If a piece of WP hits clothes, it will burn through it. If WP hits skin it will burn deeply in to the flesh and cannot be put out by covering it or splashing it with water. Marines are told to cut burning WP particles out with a knife. It does not "splash" like a liquid and will subsequently leave very distinctive scars. There is absolutely no mistaking a WP burn. [my bold]

So white phosphorus leaves distinctive burns that easily burn though clothing and go deeply into the flesh.

But Where Are The White Phosphorus Burns?
As stated earlier, Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

We will now make a brief examination of screen captures of 19 bodies captured from the low quality film to determine if any deep, distinctive burns are present on any of the bodies. As Confederate Yankee strives to be a work-safe blog, I will provide a link to the picture being discussed instead of embedding the image. The time of the still image capture from the film is included should you want to make your own analysis from other, perhaps higher quality versions of the film. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1826 words, total size 13 kb.

The Washington Post is the gift that just keeps on giving today, with the post Sympathetic Vibrations telling us what we already; liberals are bad for the morale of our soldiers, and the vast majority of Americans know it:

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

It gets worse for the Party of No:

Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

Roger Simon notices this shift, and also notices action star Bruce Willis is making a movie based upon Michael Yon's chronicaling of Deuce Four, First Battalion, 24th Infantry. My money is on Willis to personally play Deuce Four commander LTC Erik Kurilla.

When this pro-democracy, pro-military film comes out, opinions on the war will continue to swing back towards supporting our troops, and the liberal special interest groups and politicians that tried to undermine the War on Terror will be hoisted on their cowardly petards.

The DNC better hope that Willis doesn' get his movie out before the 2006 elections. If he does, the Democrats will be in for a world of hurt they assuredly deserve.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Cindy Sheehan waits for people at her book signing near the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex., where she spoke to a crowd of about 100 people. Source

Via the Washington Post:

As in August, when she galvanized attention and made headlines for days with similar protests, there were songs and speeches and demonstrators holding signs reading "Bring the Troops Home" near the main entrance of the 1,600-acre ranch where Bush has been vacationing since Tuesday.

Unlike then, when hundreds came from all over the country for major events at the two campsites named after Sheehan's son, who was killed in Iraq, Sheehan found herself addressing a crowd of only about 100 Saturday afternoon. The large tent where supporters had erected a stage hung with the banner "Speak Truth to Power" was only partially full. In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd.

Cindy Sheehan's cancerous celebrity had been built up around her belief that her son Casey Sheehan, an American soldier, "died for nothing." Cynical left wing political activists and the media immediately gravitated to her, and began distorting the war, comparing it to Vietnam. But Iraq is not Vietnam.

In fact, Iraq is the reverse-Vietnam, and Mother Sheehan will become even more lonely as the public becomes aware of her constant, America-hating lies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:51 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Its long been an open secret, but at least one liberal is coming clean about their two-faced positions on supporting the troops in Iraq.

Via Newsbusters.org:

It was a classic "gotcha" moment.

Ellen Ratner, the short, liberal side of The Long & the Short of It on Fox & Friends Weekend, just let the liberal cat out of the bag. Discussing the Democrats' approach to Iraq withdrawal proposals, Ratner admitted:

"If you got [Dem leaders] in a room off camera everyone agrees, but people are trying to look tough on security so the Democrats can win the House back in 2006."

Jim Pinkerton, the long, conservative side of the equation, pounced on this rare bit of Dem candor:

"Viewers should note that Ellen basically said that Democrats will think one thing and say another."

Uh, duh...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't often agree with Ms. Ratner, but I have on occasion. This I have to say; She says it like she sees it. I mostly disagree with her, but she is certainly someone I could have a discussion with. If the Democrats had more of her ilk, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Good news though! They don't, and they're not

Posted by: Kevin at November 28, 2005 11:13 PM (Eq/i5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Read this article, and you'd get the impression that there is a tank-killing, airplane-destroying rifle being bought by drug dealers, survivalists, and terrorists en masse.

It is too bad that almost all of what they write is inaccurate hyperbole.

For example:

When U.S. soldiers need to penetrate a tank's armor from a mile away, they count on a weapon that evolved from the garage tinkering of a former wedding photographer.

There is not a single tank made since early in World War Two that could be penetrated by an armor-piercing bullet from a .50 BMG. Not one. Only unarmored vehicles (which can be penetrated by literally any rifle, including a .22) and lightly-armored personnel carriers are threatened by .50 BMG rounds.

The .50-caliber rifle created by Ronnie Barrett and sold by his company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., is the most powerful firearm civilians can buy.

Not quite accurate. While the 50. BMG is currently the most powerful centerfire rifle cartridge in wide distribution*, Barrett is far from being the only manufacturer making these rifles. They are offered by Accuracy International, Anzio Ironworks, Armalite, and more than a dozen other rifle manufacturers.

It weighs about 30 pounds and can hit targets up to 2,000 yards away with armor-piercing bullets.

This is accurate, though finding an area where you can see a target 2,000 yards away is somewhat problematic.

That kind of power has drawn a customer base of gun enthusiasts, Hollywood actors and Barrett's most loyal buyer, the U.S. military, which has been buying Barrett's rifles since the 1980s and using them in combat from the 1991 Gulf War to the present.

Also true.

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners or penetrate rail cars and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

This rifle has drawn plenty of ignorant critics, including, apparently, the Associated Press. A .50 rifle is less likely to bring down a commercial airliner than any other kind of rifle. Why?

The vast majority of .50 BMG rifles are single-shot weapons. The odds of hitting an airplane moving several hundred miles an hour with a single bullet from a 30-pound, handheld or bipod-mounted weapon are extremely remote, and the odds of a single half-inch wide bullet hitting anything of significance on an airborne aircraft verges on the impossible. (Publicola explains in exquisite detail why shooting an aircraft at range with a .50 BMG is highly improbable.)

Rail cars and storage tanks are a legitimate target for a .50 BMG rifle, but it is far easier to acquire or manufacture explosives that would cause far more damage to the targeted structure.

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst with the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, says the guns should be more regulated and harder to purchase.

The gun can now be bought by anyone 18 or older who passes a background check.

"They're (.50 caliber) easier to buy than a handgun," Diaz said. "These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack. Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

Mr. Diaz, of course, is guilty of extreme hyperbole. .50 BMG-chambered weapons are not "easier to buy than a handgun" except in his fevered imagination.

The Barrett M82 pictured in the MSNBC-version of this Associated Press article retails for $7,500. Most single shot .50 BMG rifles range from $2,600 upwards. For this reason, no national sporting good stores carry this caliber of firearm, nor its ammunition, which costs $3-$5 per cartridge. It is prohibitively expensive for all but the most affluent customers. Only a tiny fraction of gun shops across the nation stock such a firearm, whereas almost all typically stock dozens to hundreds of pistols.

If 50 BMG rifles are the "ideal weapons of terrorist attack," then why hasn't a .50 rifle ever been used in a terror attack anywhere in the world? Not once have I ever heard of an incident reported where a .50 BMG rifle was used in a terror attack, not can I find any evidence of such an attack.

Nor can I find any evidence that "dangerous elements" gravitate towards such a weapon. More people have walked on water than have been assaulted with a .50 BMG rifle.

Mr. Diaz's hyperbole verges on being a bald-faced lie.

The guns are used by most civilians for hunting big game and in marksmanship competitions.

I'd be very interested to see who the Associated Press find who uses such a weapon for hunting. At roughly 30 lbs and five feet, these rifles are far too impractical for hunting purposes based upon size and weight alone. They are simply too heavy to carry afield. In addition, the .50 cartridge is not useful as a hunting round, being vastly overgunned for every big game animal on the planet.

Long-range target shooting with .50 BMG rifles, on the other hand is rapidly growing in popularity, as the existence and growing membership of the FCSA and .50 BMG-capable target ranges proves.

Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane.

"I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat."

This has been previously addressed. .50 BMG rifles are very unlikely to successful carry out an attack against an aircraft. While Mr. Jay may claim terrorism expertise, he seems to have gathered his firearms and aeronautical knowledge from Hollywood.

"I don't understand what good" is not a valid legal argument in this country. While not understanding a good use for something might be a reason to outlaw everything from foosball tables to the Wonderbra for Mr. King, his potential fear of Wonderbras and guns doesn't have to ruin the enjoyment of such products for everyone else.

Barrett and gun advocates say the gun's power has been exaggerated and doesn't pose a threat to citizens because the weapons are too expensive and heavy to be used by criminals.

As I've been saying...

The heavy recoil of the Browning made it nearly impossible to shoot without it being mounted on a turret, but Barrett's rifle reduces recoil to the point where it can be shoulder-fired, while the weapon rests on a bipod.

Actually, the 84-pound weight of the M2 Browning all but negated recoil, but made sturdy mounts necessary.

There are enough things in this world to worry about in this world without the Associated Press manufacturing hysterics. Don't you agree?

* The .50 BMG is not the most powerful machine gun cartridge available in a rifle as the Associated Press claims. There are at least three rifle cartridges that have more power. The 12.7mm Russian cartridge uses the same .50 bullet, but has a case length 9mm longer, and therefore can hold more powder (producing more energy, range, and penetration) than the .50 BMG.

The 14.5mm Russian and 14.5 JDJ, while made in smaller numbers and requiring a destructive device exemption, both fire a bullet substantially larger than the .50 BMG, and the 14.5 Russian cartridge generates nearly twice the muzzle energy.

Update As a former member of the British Army's Queen's Own Highlanders reminds me in the comments, A Barrett Light 50 was used by an IRA sniper team between 1992-97, and killed 11 members of the security forces during that time period with single shot attacks.

I would agree with Dave T. that these IRA sniper attacks are indeed terror attacks, they just did not happen to fit the mass casualty definition of terrorism that has become common today and was implied in the AP article.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:17 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1319 words, total size 8 kb.

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan must be proud of their "Minutemen" friends for specifically targeting children with hand grenades hidden in dolls.

These children are the people Cindy Sheehan wants to abandon. She claims to be "heartbroken" that our troops aren't home.

I wish she cared half as much about these children, but hey, they aren't white, or American, so I guess they aren't worth dying for...

Right, Cindy?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:45 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Pat Morita, a sickly child who was told he would never walk (and didn't until he was eleven), later became the most famous fictional karate sensei in history as Mr. Miyagi. He died of natural causes on Thanksgiving at his Los Angeles home. He was 73.

He will be missed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Think Progress has intercepted the following communication and warns of L-tryptophan deployment by U.S. Forces today, and called for our immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and New Orleans.

This is thought to be a far more credible interpretation that their previous release discussed here.

PAAUZFH1 RUEOCSA6054 3252031-UUUU--RHMFIUU.

ZNR UUUUU ZOV RUEOCSA6054 RELAY OF RUEOMCE1058 3252025

P 211800Z NOV 05 PSN 250821H18

FM CJCS WASHINGTON DC

TO ALMILACT

INFO ZEN/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC

BT

UNCLAS

QQQQ

SUBJ: CJCS-ALMILACT MESSAGE 15-05, THANKSGIVING 2005 UNCLASSIFIED//
UNCLAS

UNCLASSIFIED DTG 211800Z NOV 05

MSGID/GENADMIN/CJCS//

SUBJ/CJCS-ALMILACT MESSAGE 15-05, THANKSGIVING 2005//

GENTEXT/REMARKS/

THIS THANKSGIVING WE JOIN AMERICANS EVERYWHERE IN GIVING THANKS FOR THE MANY BLESSINGS WE ENJOY AS CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT NATION. THOSE FREEDOMS FOR WHICH WE GIVE THANKS, HOWEVER, CAME ABOUT ONLY THROUGH TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.

NEARLY 400 YEARS AGO, THE PILGRIMS INAUGURATED THANKSGIVING AFTER SURVIVING THE FIRST HARSH WINTER AT PLYMOUTH. GEORGE WASHINGTON PROCLAIMED THE FIRST NATIONAL DAY OF THANKSGIVING DURING THE EARLY STRUGGLES OF THE REPUBLIC, AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN LATER REVIVED THE TRADITION FOLLOWING THE DARK DAYS OF THE CIVIL WAR. ON THIS THANKSGIVING DAY, WE ARE AGAIN ENGAGED IN A GREAT STRUGGLE, THIS TIME AGAINST TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN THE VALUES WE HOLD SO DEAR. LIKE THOSE BEFORE YOU, A NEW GENERATION OF COURAGEOUS SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, MARINES, COAST GUARDSMEN AND MERCHANT MARINES CONTINUES THE NOBLE TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE NATION. TO EACH OF YOU IN UNIFORM, WE ARE THANKFUL FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND SELFLESSNESS.

MANY WILL PAUSE ON THIS SPECIAL DAY, AND GIVE THANKS FOR THE FREEDOM YOUR SERVICE MAKES POSSIBLE.

ON THIS SPECIAL HOLIDAY, A DAY WHEN DUTY WILL KEEP MANY OF YOU AWAY FROM HOME AND LOVED ONES, THE JOINT CHIEFS JOIN ME IN SENDING YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES OUR BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

SIGNED: PETER PACE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF//

BT

Happy Thanksgiving to all Americans, no matter where in the world you may be.

Note: N.Z. Bear has a Thanksgiving-related topic page up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.