...are now open for nominations.

Ahem.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

[Note: Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre is a recently released film from Italian Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, and was directed by Sigfrido Ranucci. Thanks to Sgt. B of The Gun Line for the tip in this post at Argghhh!]

Starting with a lie

Kim Phuc, as shown in Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre

Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre, begins with a scene of horrified Vietnamese civilians fleeing a village after an air strike. Many are injured and burned by napalm, including a young girl who stripped naked to escape her burning clothes. The narrator of the Italian film explains that:

This is how a photo can speak about war, in Vietnam. Kim Phuc, age nine, whose fragile, naked body mutilated by the napalm thrown by the Americans, running, arms outstretched to escape death. It is 1972, and the image will circle the globe over...

Except this is alternative history.

On June 8, 1972, at approximately 1:00 PM, AE-1 Skyraiders belonging to the South Vietnamese Air Force based at Bien Hoa, bombed and strafed the outskirts of the village of Trang Bang near the Cai Dai pagoda. American forces were not involved in any aspect of this tragedy.

Nick Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize photograph

Phan Thi Kim Phuc says actions by photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut that day saved her life.

But it was the South Vietnamese Air Force, and not Americans who rained fire upon the village of Trang Bang. It is an act of great arrogance and/or incompetence that Rai News 24 would try to rewrite the events surrounding one of the most famous photographed events of the Vietnam War.

Sadly, this is the mark director Sigfrido Ranucci makes throughout this truly incompetent and dishonest film.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

A great letter, via California Conservative.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:16 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Pajamas Media officially emerged as Open Source Media (AP story here) today, and I am honored to be among the founding 70 or so bloggers.

I think we will do quite well, but it is already making some dead-tree types nervous... probably because we do check facts, and we can, for example, tell the difference between someone groping themselves and giving a thumbs up (bottom picture). We can also tell the difference between "stop" and "drop" in a writer's commentary.

Mr. Wolcott may consider us rabble; others seem to consider us revolutionary.

Perhaps we're “rabblutionaries.”

Update: Apparently his name is "Wolcott" not "Walcott." Corrected.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:52 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Frist showed his political cowardice Tuesday, co-sponsoring an amendment to a spending bill that undermines the troops and the war on terror. As Residual Forces said in utter disgust, "Bill Frist is dead to me."

More on this tomorrow. Right now, I'm so pissed I can't see straight, and I don't want to say something I do not mean.

Update: Swift Boat Veteran Tom "River Rat" Mortensen does a wonderful job conveying the feelings I share in this letter faxed to Republicans senators who voted for the resolution. I'll just let him talk for me:

Senator,

Re: The American Surrender Resolution of 2005

I am named for an uncle who gave his life in the Pacific in 1942 for the freedom of this nation and its principles. My father lost a lung to bunker oil in the waters of the Pacific in 1943 for this nation and its principles. I carry shrapnel from two combat wounds and wear a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and two Purple Hearts acquired while defending this nation's principles on the rivers of Vietnam in 1968 and ‘69. I believe this grants me moral authority to say what follows.

I finally became a committed Republican in 1972 when a Democratic Congress voted to defund support of our allies in South Vietnam. That act of moral cowardice and treachery to our founding principles led to the death of millions in the killing fields of Southeast Asia.

Your vote yesterday in favor of what I'm calling the “American Surrender Resolution of 2005” is a travesty unparalleled in post-Vietnam American history. Your cowardice in face of an electorate deliberately misled by Democrats and a traitorous National Media is beneath contempt. It will lead directly to the death of now uncountable Americans and Iraqis and their graves will lie directly at your feet. Senator, you are a moral coward and the worst type of political panderer.

This vote provides direct aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Thus Senator, you have no right so serve in elective office. I will work tirelessly to assure you are removed from office at the earliest possible date. I will spare no treasure or waking moment in this quest and anticipate the moment I can spit on your political grave.

I do commend with all honors the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too cowardly Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. You should look to them for the courage you obviously lack.

Disrespectfully,

G. Thomas Mortensen
USA S/V Anticipation
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Now hold on there a minute, ConYank. Sen. Warner's & Frist's compromise headed off the Demistan's proposed measure that demanded a timetable for withdrawal. Instead this bill calls for progress reports. President Bush has finally begun to stand up to the "Bush lied" meme. These progress reports can be another opportunity to use the bully pulpit.

Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at November 16, 2005 08:59 AM (JSetw)

2 Why so "pissed"? In manageing the big picture,(Victory)I'm sure it is tough to get it precise at every turn. One wants to put some presure on the Iraqis that they must be vigorous in assuming control of their destiny without sending too much hope to the "insurgents." Seems to me that things are unfolding as they should.

Posted by: Brian at November 16, 2005 02:29 PM (MyYr7)

3 I haven't been to your blog before, but I like it. You are doing a good thing here. You have written on your Template: "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state." Yep... just like Louisianna! (Pun intended) Good job. Regarding this particular post, don't know enough about this just yet to make a comment. Wouldn't want to speak on something I know nothing about. You might take me for a moonbat or something!

Posted by: Gayle at November 16, 2005 03:31 PM (4jhqP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A: Truth and Unicorns

Q: Can you name a few things you won't find in the Democratic Party?

Looking at these...

Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Editorial on Pre-War Intelligence
President Delivers Remarks at Elmendorf AFB on War on Terror
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror

...it looks like Rove wasn't asleep or distracted after all, and was apparently giving the Democrats just enough rope.

Remember: it isn't the fall, but the sudden stop at the end.

update: James Wolcott has airly linked in and decided to pass judgement after visting from the Open Source Media blogroll. Sorry you're so touchy, James. Was it something someone said?

...and James, its the sudden stop at the end, not the sudden drop. In addition, the young lady in the picture was rather clearly giving a "thumbs up" gesture, not fondling her breast.

Perhaps the fact-checking is what really upsets you?

Update 2 Apparently his name is "Wolcott" not "Walcott."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.

I've come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from the foreign media regarding the error-riddled white phosphorus "crockumentary" produced by Rai News24, but it is another thing entirely for a writer for a major American news organization based in our nation's capitol to uncritically repeat such "news", as has William M. Arkin in his Washington Post piece, "White Death" Is A Losing Strategy.

Arkin begins:

The military's use of white phosphorus during operations in Fallujah last year is making its way around the world media and blogosphere, with the claim being that the United States has again shown its inhumane side by using munitions normally reserved for smoke screens and target illumination to terrorize insurgents and kill civilians.

So the United States is "inhumane" when it decides to “terrorize" insurgents? Cry me a river, Mr. Arkin. I can't seem to work up the same amount of sympathy that you can for those that murder unsuspecting civilians on a near daily basis. Note that Mr. Arkin slyly works the language to portray killing civilians as a co-equal goal of the military mission in Fallujah, along with killing or capturing terrorists.

At least you can't accuse Arkin of hiding his biases.

The United States used "chemical" weapons, says the Italian media. A "war crime" says GlobalResearch.ca. "Illegal" and "banned" weapons say others. "White Death" says the African Mathaba.net.

He couldn't find any reputable news sources, but these will work well enough for his purposes... Just don't ask if the claims they make are "credible." They unequivocally are not.

The U.S. government's handling of the allegations has been typically clumsy and confused, fueling the controversy.

Thank the all-but-useless State Department for not being able to clearly state that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and that the military does not intentionally target any civilians with any of our weapons. Even a blind hog will find an acorn every once in a while.

But what is most interesting here is why the Army chose to use white phosphorus as a terror and anti-personnel weapon, and why critics insist on labeling it "illegal" without ever recognizing the contradiction in their argument. Because the fight over white phosphorous has become so heated, it is likely that the military will stand firm behind its present policy and the commanders won't be held accountable.

Again, Arkin proves no compelling evidence at all that white phosphorus was used against civilians, nor can he justify his choice of calling a munition that has been in the conventional military arsenal of the majority of our allies and enemies, a "terror" weapon. It is an intentional misuse of language by Arkin, and a craven act. In addition, Army Field Manual (FM 3-6) states:

The purposes of incendiaries are to cause maximum fire damage on flammable materials and objects and to illuminate. Incendiary materials used include gasoline, gels, burning metals, incendiary mixes, and white phosphorus.
To be effective, incendiary munitions should be used against targets susceptible to fire or heat damage. A considerable part of the target must be flammable, so the fire can spread.

It might be another scientific shock to Arkin, but human bodies, made primarily of water, are not considered flammable by the military, and therefore, are not thought of as anti-personnel weapons.

It is also interesting that Arkin wants military commanders to be "held accountable" when he cannot even provide evidence that they did anything wrong, unless, perhaps, in Arkin's opinion it is simply criminal enough to be in the military while President Bush is in office.

Skipping down a few paragraphs we find:

The documentary shows close-ups of Fallujah civilians, badly burnt, their skin dissolved or caramelized. An Iraqi biologist in Fallujah is interviewed, saying, "a rain of fire fell on the city," burning people's flesh, but strangely leaving "their clothes intact."

This is sheer conjecture, by a highly-biased and suspect source, presented as fact.

Watch the crockumentary and you will see many bodies—well, not many actually, though they repeat then again and again to make it appear there are more than their actually are. Some are clearly wearing military load-bearing equipment as you would inspect an insurgent might, Many of the other dead and wounded, in fact the majority, appear to be military-aged men. As the insurgents are not in the habit of wearing uniforms, it is quite a stretch for the Italian documentary makers to claim these were civilians.

Further, Arkin does not have any basis for claiming that the state of the bodies had anything to do with specific weaponry without an autopsy performed by a trained pathologist, preferably one with military experience. The bodies in the video most often appear to be in advanced stages of decomposition, not suffering from burns, unless the easily observable maggots on some of these bodies were present before the people died.

And while some may consider it a minor point, it would also make sense to mention that the Iraqi biologist in question has been accused of being a supporter of the insurgency... if one was trying to be objective, that is.

Arkin also misses the large, obvious lie embedded in this segment: white phosphorus, which burns hot enough to melt light steel and iron, would most certainly burn through cloth. This is not up for debate, Mr. Arkin. It is a scientific fact.

The fact that the clothes are intact on the bodies shown is strong evidence towards disproving white phosphorus as being the cause of death. But don't believe me, Mr. Arkin, call a local university chemistry department.

Obviously, fact checking is not on Arkin's agenda, it gets in the way of his message.

A year ago, Arab media was filled with reporting that the United States also used napalm and incendiary weapons in Fallujah. Islam Online, a Qatar-based website, reported that U.S. forces used "chemical weapons and poisonous gas." According to the State Department, the claim was soon "posted on hundreds of Web sites." Even the UK Sunday Mirror carried reporting that the U.S. was "secretly using outlawed napalm" in Fallujah

He has no evidence, but once again more unsupported insinuation seems to be enough for him. Arkin refuses to do the minimal legwork it would require to find out if any Mark 77s were expended in Fallujah during the assault. They were no known sightings of the massive fireballs characteristic of such weapons, cited by so much as a single credible source. Not one.

The Pentagon categorically denied the use of any chemical weapons, but the U.S. government did admit that the Marines had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in 2003, and the admission became conflated with the denial.

The U.S. further painted itself into a corner arguing that although it had removed its last napalm bombs from its arsenal in 2001, "napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed."

He doesn't have any evidence, but he'll still insinuate his predetermined storyline. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

Finally, the U.S. said that phosphorous was used only "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

That was from the State Department, which can't figure which end of a gun to point, and should never have been involved in this conversation.

Arkin then goes on to repeat this partial story, the he finds (not surprisingly) on a far left wing blog:

A year later, after the Italian documentary, the U.S. was again denying, but this time there was no denying that the claims about the use of white phosphorous appeared valid. Dailykos reported that the March 2005 edition (pdf) of the Army's official Field Artillery Magazine contained an article -- "The Fight for Fallujah" -- by three Army artillerymen that said:

"We used it [white phosphorous] for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosives]. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

First, American military forces never claimed (to the best I can determine) that we did not use white phosphorus in the battle for Fallujah. White phosphorus was primarily used as a screening agent, a luminary, and as an anti-material weapon, as doctrine indicated. The "shake and bake" missions were a perfect example of this doctrine, and worked only because the insurgents know that white phosphorus is typically employed as a screening agent.

As the article stated, white phosphorus was used for screening mission so American forces could advance during the battle. The "shake and bake" mission were a "potent psychological weapon" because WP dropped upon their position made them fear they were about to be the immediate victims of an overrun attack by United States Marines. Marine forces were better armed, better armored, and better trained than their opponents, and the insurgents knew this. They tried to fall back to a more defensible position, but were mowed down by high explosive (HE) shells during their retreat. White phosphorus shook them, and HE cooked their respective gooses.

It is also interesting that rkin and his friends at Daily Kos couldn't seem to find this information in the Field Artillery Magazine article:

...TF 2-2 IN encountered few civilians in its attack south.

How willful do you think that omission was?

After skipping a few paragraphs, we find Arkin blathering on:

I for one am reluctant to pronounce whether the use of white phosphorous for "shake and bake" missions in Fallujah and the evident blundering use of white phosphorous in areas known to be occupied by civilians is illegal.

You shouldn't be reluctant at all. Civilians were given almost a week to evacuate by U.S. forces in the most telegraphed offensive of the war. It was well known that Fallujah was going to become a major urban battleground. The insurgents chose to heavily militarize an urban environment, and by giving civilians plenty of time and advance warning to evacuate the city, the military has every right to claim that Fallujah was an urban battleground ,but that it was not a battleground expected to contain civilians. The Army soldiers Arkin so eagerly quotes above prove that, in fact, civilian contact was rare.

Neither am I buying the State Department's line that the use of white phosphorous in this way -- that is, to possibly inflict unnecessary suffering -- is not "illegal" use. What I'm sure of is that the use of white phosphorous is not just some insensitive act. It is not just bad P.R. It is the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way. It is a representation of a losing strategy.

Tell me, Mr. Arkin, what do you consider necessary suffering? The suffering of American soldiers, perhaps? Or perhaps better yet, can you indicate a single weapon that has not inflicted, by your definition, "unnecessary suffering."

White phosphorus used in Fallujah was not "ill thought out and panicked" as Arkin ignorantly describes, but is part of a well thought out, carefully crafted and well-practiced doctrine that has evolved over many decades of theoretical and practical use. Every credible source indicates that white phosphorous was used exactly in the ways U.S. military doctrine stipulates during the battle of Fallujah.

There is indeed bad PR being spread, but it is Mr. Arkin and his ilk spreading it.

Other posts on the White Phosphorus crockumentary:

Popham, Meet Sites
Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
Crow. The Other White Meat
Be Careful What You Wish For
Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud
The WP Controversy
Yet More WP

Update: Jeff Goldstein joins the fray as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:26 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1973 words, total size 13 kb.

1 If you are a leftist, you can ignore any fact that gets in the way of a higher truth.

Posted by: shoprat at November 15, 2005 06:34 PM (BewsC)

2 I like white phosphorus, napalm, gas bombs, daisy cutters, nuclear subs and stuff such as that. Our enemies need to remember that we can blow them to smithereens much worse on all levels than any of their murder bombers. That is what this columnist misses completely, that we are at a war, not a party.

Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at November 15, 2005 07:11 PM (9oivZ)

3 Damn straight! We are at a war we created to overthrow a country which was doing absolutely nothing wrong at the time. The UN disagreed - oh, remember how the US criticises other countries who carry out an act w/o UN approval? Anyhow, we, the GD US of A own this unholy earth and by God we have the right to bomb, incinerate and fornicate against any country that pisses our GOP off. Because God is on our side - same God we don't allow in our schools and government? These colors don't run - they kill!

Posted by: Jim Bob Moneybags at November 15, 2005 08:50 PM (JW/T0)

4 Honestly, I read this and just gave a yell. I can't believe they're pushing this slime in our own newspapers! Al Jazeera, yes, Daily Kos, yes, THE WASHINGTON POST? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? And then you read the comments...

Posted by: Cutler at November 15, 2005 08:55 PM (5f4Yy)

5 A few things: the state department has a long and glorious history of misstating defense department matters. That is why I called this quote in the documentary into question in my debunking of the fakeumentary at: www.confederateyankee.mu.nu I do not believe they do this on purpose, but because most of the "statees" have no military background. The other point, the fakeumentary shows (whether from fallujah or not) scenes of illumination rounds falling under parachutes (harmless) and WP for smoke being deployed in an airburst that is not over any type of structure. This is to screen movement. Why smoke at night? Night Vision technology is becoming cheaper and it is very plausible that the enemy had them. And they have surely gotten NVGs off the battlefield. Don't confuse this with thearmal imaging which can see through smoke. Also, good binoculars can be used to improve night vision, as I found out during Desert Storm. And WP smoke can be put on the enemy to confuse and scare them, it has very low probability of a kill. They had much better weapons to kill with then WP. There is no mysterious chemical cloud that burns!!!! Burns occur from contact with the flame. The smoke is harmless. If you set up a laboratory experiment, you could possibly set up the conditions to kill with WP smoke, but there is near zero probability in practical use. The cloths would burn. Soldiers would have MOPP gear. Good enough talking points?

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 15, 2005 10:50 PM (4joLu)

6 Pathophysiology: White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing. Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation. Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST segment depression, T wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").

Posted by: Dr White at November 16, 2005 08:34 AM (JW/T0)

7 "...Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus. If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin..." Accordingly, the fact that exposed areas of the bodies skin (face and hands) are burned but the clothes are (at least partially) intact seems to be consistent with massive use WP burning in air with many left burning particles hitting the ground at a later time. The combined effects of this burning powder and of the highly hygroscopic and corrosive oxide dust[8] could indeed be the cause of the injuries on the bodies reported on 9 November by RAI.

Posted by: Dr White at November 16, 2005 08:41 AM (JW/T0)

8 Any tool that causes the most casualties to the enemy with the least danger to our troops is the tool for the job. No one bitched when we dropped 15,000 pound fuel bunkerbusters on Tora Bora. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." George S. Patton Hooah! Phantom Driver Proud father of an American Soldier

Posted by: Phantom Driver at November 16, 2005 11:01 AM (gLr9P)

9 Yo Phantom, The US wasn't forced into war - you started it - unprovoked claiming the enemy had weapons of mass destructions. Yet, they didn't and although you claim to be the loving democracy your army has no problem using weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq used WP agains't the American army then the US would say, "Smoking gun", see they are bad and deserve to die. Glad you are proud of your son - you should be. Yet, maybe you should start questioning the government that runs your country and armies.

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 16, 2005 11:27 AM (nXTeA)

10 Dr White- You provide evidence to make your case...but the context and knowledge of the U.S. military application is important. "Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model." This paragraph refers to the ingestion of WP as evidenced by “Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys.” While this is certainly possible that it occurred on the battlefield, there is no evidence presented in the documentary. There are no toxicology reports from legitimate sources (that I am aware of) to make the case that this happened to any civilian, much less on the scale stated by the fakeumentary. The video itself shows WP being deployed in open empty terrain, evidence to the contrary of what the fakeumentary claims. Also, the U.S. Army M825 uses WP embedded felt wedges. The specific purpose of this embedding is to keep the chemical contained to the wedge vs. being dispersed into the air in a mist. Granted some would come off, but very little and I would argue not enough to create the conditions you cite other than the presence of epidermal burning and worse case subcutaneous, but not ingested in quantities indicated for lethal dose and certainly not enough to form a corrosive cloud. Also you state: “the fact that exposed areas of the bodies skin (face and hands) are burned but the clothes are (at least partially) intact seems to be consistent with massive use WP burning in air with many left burning particles hitting the ground at a later time.” I think this is directly at odds with your reference: pathophysiology. “If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin.” I also think it is at odds with your reference again: “In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.” This means oxidation causes the injury. Oxidation is a fancy word for fire, not chemical corrosion. I also conclude that you indicate this would require massive amounts of WP in the air to burn. There is zero indication that this occurred in Fallujah as the evidence is provided in this fakeumentary. Or can you rule out that the bodies that appear burned are possibly due to exposure, explosions, or non WP related fire? If so, I would like to hear it. thanks

Posted by: Robison at November 16, 2005 11:54 AM (CdK5b)

11 Exposed Driver, Saddamm Hussein used WMDs at least eleven times that we are aware of. 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and roghly other 1000 radiological elements were captured after the fall of Baghdad, and are now in safekeeping in the United States. IEDs containing Sarin and Mustard gas were used against U.S. forces in May, 2004. There was ZERO question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had WMDs and had used them; the question was, and still is, "what happened to the WMDs Saddam declared he had at the end of the 1991 Gulf War?" Iraq was home ot four known terrorist organizations, and Baghdad was home to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, perhaps the two most famous terrorists in the world prior to Osama bin Laden, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb-builder in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, was also a guest of Saddam Hussein. White phosphorus is a conventional weapon that is, to the best of my knowledge, issued and used by every member of NATO. Your ignorance of what WP is doesn't make it a chemical weapon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 16, 2005 11:55 AM (g5Nba)

12 Yet, they didn't and although you claim to be the loving democracy your army has no problem using weapons of mass destruction Wow, Exposed Idiot you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a clue: when the exalted U.N. Weapons Inspectors were looking for WMDs, WP wasn't on their list.

Posted by: Jordan at November 16, 2005 08:12 PM (xEXsr)

13 To Jordan - . . .and prior to 9/11 an airplane was just a source of travel. To Yankee - the 1.8 tons of uranium and radiological elements captured by the US were being used by Iraq for what? To Yankee - The IEDs you mentioned - I believe plural was wrong and singular IED was right. Certainly a remnant or two from the past hardly supports a claim that Iraq is a threat to the US by stockpiling WMDs. To Yankee - There absolutely is NO question that Sadam HAD WMD. Hum, were did he get the weapons?, hum, I think I remember reading the ole USA. Good job guys!!! Guess it was okay back then to use them against Iran, but lordy don't use them against the US. To Yankee - Lastly, the US is home to alot of bad people too. Maybe China should attack the US? Hey, odd that no one denied "The US wasn't forced into war - you started it"

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 17, 2005 11:43 AM (M7BWM)

14 Exposed, you remember wrong. The US did not supply Iraq with WMD.

Posted by: Lugo at November 17, 2005 01:21 PM (aklAt)

15 Ah, you so wrong Lugo. "Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere." See - http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm or - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,861902,00.html

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 17, 2005 02:58 PM (M7BWM)

16 And what, praytell, did Americans provide, ED? Sarin? Flamethrowers? Gas chambers from Sears? I'm just dying to find out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 17, 2005 05:38 PM (0fZB6)

17 To Jordan - . . .and prior to 9/11 an airplane was just a source of travel. What are you babbling about? WP has never been classified as a WMD.

Posted by: Jordan at November 18, 2005 02:25 AM (pLJN7)

18 Did I miss something? Did you really just quote a report from Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to implicate the U.S.. Please guys, tell me I didn't just see that. I am too depressed by that. I'm going home.

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 18, 2005 10:50 PM (4joLu)

19 exposed , you are wrong in your assumption that U.S started the war. The 1991 Gulf War started with the Iraqi army invading Kuwait and ended in a ceasefire agreement between the Coalition forces and Iraq, the terms of which Saddam's goverment repeatedly broke; after 14 or so innefective UN resolutions and 9/11 President Bush's new foreign policy was basically 'no more screwing around', fair enough imo. Saddam continued to screw around. The UN continued to screw around. The MSM continues to screw around!! So, who started it? yah, twas Saddam Hussein... ho hum

Posted by: majah at November 21, 2005 05:47 AM (h2Hcc)

20 You people think I am crazy for calling WP a chemical weapon - Well, your own damn leaders think it is!!! Americans are soooo freaken dumb and arrogant! File: 950901_22431050_91r.txt Page: 91r Total Pages: 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL Filename:22431050.91r PATHFINDER RECORD NUMBER: 16134 GENDATE: 950504 NNNN TEXT: ENVELOPE CDSN = LGX854 MCN = 91107/02896 TOR = 911070142 RTTCZYUW RUEKJCS0771 1070142-CCCC--RUEALGX. ZNY CCCCC HEADER R 170142Z APR 91 FM JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC INFO RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC RUEAHQA/CSAF WASHINGTON DC RUEACMC/CMC WASHINGTON DC RUEKCCG/USDP-CCC WASHINGTON DC RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC RUEALGX/SAFE R 160504Z APR 91 FM CDR500THMIBDE CP ZAMA JA//IAGPD-OP-CM// TO AIG 9149 RUCJACC/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//J2// RUSNNOA/USCINCEUR VAIHINGEN GE RUEDBIA/CDR513THMIBDE FT MONMOUTH NJ RUAGAAA/CDR501STMIBDE SEOUL KOR//IABDK-PH// RUAGAAA/CDR524THMIBN SEOUL KOR//IABDK-CX-PC// RUAJMAB/FOSIF WESTPAC KAMI SEYA JA//CSG// RUEOADA/9TIS SHAW AFB SC//INO// RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU BT CONTROLS SECTION 001 OF 002 SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 243 1050 91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR). SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES (U) WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- DOI: (U) 910300. REQS: (U) T-8C2-2650-01-90. SOURCE: [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS -- A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS ALONG THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER, AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING "DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. 2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] 3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT. 4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY. //IPSP: (U) PGW 2650//. //COMSOBJ: (U) 211//. ADMIN PROJ: (U) 252132. INSTR: (U) US NO. PREP: (U) 500TH MI BDE. ACQ: (U) TOKYO, JAPAN (910409). DISSEM: (U) FIELD: NONE. WARNING: (U) REPORT CLASSIFIED

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 23, 2005 01:18 PM (M7BWM)

21 E.D., you are so far behind the mental curve on this I can't even see your headlights. This was completely debunked before breakfast yesterday: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/134779.php Think Progress has already been throughly humiliated over this, as their "secret Pentagon evidence" is nothing more than the transripts of a phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Apparently critical reading is not one of those skills you picked up at cut 'n paste school. James Bond you ain't.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2005 01:33 PM (g5Nba)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Our friend Ward Brewer, CEO of Beauchamp Tower Corporation, was on Raleigh, NC's News-Talk 680 WPTF this morning, talking about Operation Enduring Service, a bid to build a small fleet of disaster response cargo ships from obsolete ships no longer needed by the United States Navy.

See previous posts here talking about the former USS Orion and USS Howard W. Gilmore and here starring the former USS San Diego.

Of course, I wasn't able to listen to the show, so if anyone in the Raleigh area heard it, please let me know how you think it went.

You've almost certainly heard a lot about the blog initiative Porkbusters sponsored by N.Z.Bear at The Truth Laid Bear and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. I haven't said much about it, not because I don't support it (I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package), but because so many others have done a much better job saying what needs to be said (As a side note, that is why you don't see me offering a lot of commentary on SCOTUS nominations).

The driving idea behind Porkbusters was to cut wasteful government spending, called "pork," to help pay for the massive clean-up and recovery costs associated with the catastrophic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina (and later, Hurricane Rita).

These colors don't run. Somewhere between Gretna, LA, and Waveland, MS
(Taken By a Hope Chapel Hurricane Relief Team Sept. 17-22, 2005)

While independent of the Porkbusters, Operation Enduring Service is the near-perfect execution of the Porkbusters project. Operation Enduring Service will save American taxpayers $100 million dollars spent to scrap retired American naval ships, overseas. It will efficiently use the salvage and sale of certain ships to pay for the scrapping of less desirable vessels, and will actually generate enough profits to help pay to upgrade and refit several ships to be used in future disaster relief efforts.

The project will even help teh economies of storm-tossed Gulf states by creating between 1,500-3,000 shipbuilding-related jobs.

Operation Enduring Service will save $100 million in wasteful government spending, creates thousands of jobs in the Gulf States devastated by hurricanes this past year, and will build a fleet of disaster response vessels that will greatly enhance our nation's ability to respond to future disasters, at no cost to the taxpayer.

We are literally talking about a privately-funded and self-supporting "Salvation Navy" that will greatly assist FEMA and become the most technologically advanced ships available for use by the United States Coast Guard.

The USS San Diego is but one U.S Navy veteran that looks to return to service as one of the nation's first Fast Response Emergency Cargo Vessel/Rescue Ships.

Corporate donors will pick up other costs of preparing these ships for service, and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary will crew these vessels, but we have to get them first, and time is running very, very short.

The legislation required to make this happen is dangerously close to falling by the wayside. It has to pass before Congress ends this Session, in approximately one week, or the corporate sponsors will be forced to pull out.

BTC has obtained the support of a number of Congressmen and Senators. Each of the senators has the ability to submit this legislation for Operation Enduring Service and should be contacted via phone, fax or electronically and encouraged to submit this legislation immediately.

Senator Cochran, (R-MS) (Chairman of Appropriations)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
Internet Contact Form

Senator DeWine, (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Becky Watts has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Senator Shelby, (R-AL)
Phone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416
Ryan Welch has the legislation for his office
senator@shelby.senate.gov

Senator Sessions, (R-AL)
Phone: 202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Stephen Boyd has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Without this legislation the Corporate Donors will withdraw, the ships will no longer be available and the emergency relief program will collapse.

This is not a partisan exercise; each and every one of us has been directly affected by the recent hurricanes and will be affected again.

This requires immediate action, of the project will collapse. Contact with your House Representative and Senators, let them know the senators above have the legislation to make this happen and to support it or to submit it themselves.

Questions and comments can be directed to:

Email: info -at - btcorp.us
Website: www.btcorp.us
Weblog: www.btcorp.us/mt

Thank you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 6 kb.

h/t The Anchoress:

Senator Jay Rockefeller's alledged meetings with representatives of enemy states in advance of the Iraq War, if true, should lead to an investigation under the Logan Act.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

According to USA Today, appropriately enough, today:

Bush's job approval rating sank to a record low 37%.

Interesting.

We're all well aware of the effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome (h/t: Instapundit), but the media's related and less-widely known Bush Poll Amnesia (BPA) shows no signs of abating.

BPA is indicated by the presentation of the various lows in Bush's approval rating during his presidency as occurring in a vacuum, independent of the other 42 preceding presidential administrations. For example, CNN's headline:

Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low

This information is breathlessly presented, without providing any context as how Bush might relate to previous administrations, in such a way that the reader might just infer that George W. Bush is the Worst President Ever™.

But according, once again to USA Today on 10/17, that isn't true. As a matter of pure fact, Bush is still tied for have the "best/worst" numbers of any president since 1963:

Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time or another that were lower than Bush's current rating. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%.

Bush's numbers are on par with those put up by Clinton and Ford, slightly better than Reagan and Johnson's, and are far better than that of Nixon, G.H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, but you won't often find that mentioned in most poll-related articles due, apparently, to serious cases of Bush Poll Amnesia.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean says the Democratic National Commitee will not apologize for racist comments made by Maryland Democrats against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

As if to prove his point, Dean then slandered John M. Kane, Maryland's Republican Party leader, falsely claiming that Kane asserted Dean was anti-Semite.

I love Howard Dean.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

The Central Intelligence Agency isn't perfect, but to suggest there is no difference between CIA and al Qaeda personnel is far over the line, even for the traitorous cesspool that is the Democratic Underground.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, recently released a film titled Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre accusing the United States military of using chemical weapons against civilians in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Immediately, and without question in most instances, left of center media outlets and political blogs trumpeted the "fact" that white phosphorus was used to create deadly clouds of poison gas, killing unknown scores of Iraqi civilans as they slept in their beds.

But who are the documentary's experts, and can they be trusted?

The Documentary "Experts"
Noted anti-American communist and serial fabricator Guiliana Sgrena was one "expert" who came armed with her opinion, but without any actual evidence. In the film she explains that the terrorists who took her hostage for several months did not want videotaped evidence of U.S. attrocities to leak out.

Jeff Englehardt, a former soldiers and left-wing poltical blogger has been roundly debunked for his erroneous claims about the physical properties of white phosphorus, has now apparently retracted his claims, while claiming that the Rai film team (that let him go on at length) misquoted him.

Another "expert witness" journalist mentioned in the video is actually Mark Manning a retired deep sea diver (not Mark Manning, the acid-tripping lead singer of Zodiac Mindwarp and The Love Reaction), who coincidentally, has his videotapes of alledged atrocities conveniently stolen before another living soul could view them, apparently by a cash rich street bum with ties to George W. Bush himself.

Even the U.S. helicopter video that the documentary presents as evidence of U.S. brutality has been exposed as fraudulently edited footage taken from another battle entirely.

One might begin to question the credibility of Rai's experts...

A Real Expert Speaks
But some experts are rather difficult to refute, and former U.S. Captain Robison (full name and current employment have been witheld for security reasons), a Confederate Yankee reader, is such an expert.

Captain Robison has over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

He had this to say:

I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.

I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.

The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn't be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.

The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.

The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.

An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

I hasten to add that Captain Robison is a perhaps the single most qualified person to examine this documentary so far.

He graduated with a B.S. Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa, and has graduted the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Signal Officer Adanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Airborne and Air Assault.

Further, in addition to his outstanding artillery and medical background, he is also a video expert, contracted under DIA to provide analysis of captured Saddam regime video, documentation, audio, and computer media. Later, his team analyzed captured insurgent media, and analyzed thousands of videos to determine intelligence value. His team provided support that assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein and later provided intelligence of insurgent activities.

He had this to say in specific about the video itself:

I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.

1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me...

   Contrary to the documentary claim that hellicopters were shooting fire, there are no helicopters in that video segment. There is a split second airbust and if you freeze the picture at the right instant, the airburst lights up the sky. There are no helicopters present. This proves a false claim by the documentary creators in what may be the most significant portion of the video...

   ...I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.

2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam's regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

The soldiers in the video , however were a bit more complicated for the fomer Captain:

I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. [Note: his story was about a civilian car traveling at soldiers at a high rate of speed, and the soldiers firing on the vehicle. --ed.] But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence” of chemical weapons.

The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".

How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.

The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.

Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.

Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP.

Hogwash.

Furthermore about Jeff Englehardt (and for the record, I noticed this too):

He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.

Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That's about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown.

But for Captain Robison, perhaps the most damning evidence of fraud comes from contradictions in the very video itself:

The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story” is the pictures of dead animals.

The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.

First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn't show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don't look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.

And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts” not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other.

After reviewing all of this evidence, he states:

By introducing these “facts” in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator's full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.

Captain Robison then floored me with this firsthand experience as he reacts to reading this story at Daily Kos, regarding Marines talking about using white phosphorus in screening missions:

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it. [my bold]

Unless someone at Daily Kos or Rai News24 can present me with convincing evidence that Captain Robison died due to his exposure and is now a zombie, then I think this "crockumentary" can now be listed as thoroughly debunked.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:09 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 2070 words, total size 13 kb.

Riots continue in Paris for a 17^th straight night:

Dozens of youths threw trash cans at police and attacked sidewalk shops in a main square of Lyon on Saturday night in the first clash between rioters and police in a city center after more than two weeks of violence in France, according to news reports.

Youths stormed through the historic Place Bellecour in Lyon, France's third-largest city, located in the southeastern Rhone Valley region, even though the city had imposed a nighttime curfew on minors not accompanied by parents. Police fired tear gas to disperse the youths, and 10 people were arrested, officials said.

It is surprising to most of us, I think, that these riots have continued unabated for more than two weeks. While the overall violence has tapered off it's highest point (according to the burning car metric), their seems to be some indication that the rioting may again intensify.

Interestingly enough, at least some tourists aren't worried.

Arjang Ahmadpour, 20, a student from Los Angeles waiting in line in a cold drizzle to take the elevator up the Eiffel Tower, shrugged off concerns about the unrest. "People asked me, 'Oh, you're going to Paris? Aren't you scared?' " he said.

His response, he said, has been, "They're not going after tourists."

It seems these days that the most dangerous thing to be in France, is French.

Update: The riots seem to have ignited the pen of Russ Vaughn, as well as French automobiles.

Paristine
Jacques and his frères are surely weeping
Les pauvres immigrès have caught them sleeping,
Paysans revolt, their emotions churning,
What's that odeur? Is Paris burning?
Within the banlieues there's no joy
Among les jeunes who are sans emplois
What, take a job? Not the way to go;
We'd rather riot, torch your Peugeot.

Ah, Mother France you took us in,
Then left us with no way to win.
We're not ègal, not garçons blanc,
We've no real chance to earn a franc.
No, what we are, we're useful fools,
For leftist dreams, just brown-skinned tools.
So the Rèpublique's butt is in a crack,
Give your merci to Jacques Chirac.

We'll breed you into minority,
Till only mullahs hear your plea,
And Shari'a rules throughout your land,
A Frenchman steals, he'll lose his hand.
Your licentious lifestyle, long extolled,
Will leave your women stoned, dead cold.
But everything will turn out fine,
In the Muslim Republic of Paristine.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

... it's all about me.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

A Special Veteran's Day Edition is up, including a little post I tossed together. Check it out.

Hand-in-hand is a Report From A Marine In Iraq from Never Yet Melted that spends some time discussing weapons the Marines use.

Perhaps it isn't much of a shock, but the M-16, M-4, and SAW get ripped for constant jamming and having pathetic ballistics. Really? A prarie dog cartridge isn't up to snuff for killing bad guys?

Who knew?

Interestingly enough, the favored firearms in Iraq are modern versions of throwbacks... but I'll make you click over to find out which ones are being redeployed en masse.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Via The Corner:

It's about these guys.
It's about these guys who do what they are asked to do for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom.

And it's not just for this country. It's for the world. It is time for terrorism to stop. And the United States is the country that can stop it. And that's what they're doing over there."

That was actor Bruce Willis, talking about Duece Four LTC Erik Krillia's unit if you read Michael Yon as you should, before offering one million dollars of his own money for the heads of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

The President is mad ans hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

You can access the full text of the speech here.

The Democrats long ago grasped the concept that a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth. They may yet discover that a "truth" manufactured in such a fashion quickly comes undone when exposed to the light of day.

The NY Times actually appears to have played this one down the middle.

Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Goldstein, and Gateway Pundit have more, though Scott Ott might have the most accurate comment on the day's speech yet.

Update: George W. Bush's speech today scared Ted Kennedy so bad that his hands quite shaking.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

The USS San Diego is but one U.S Navy veteran that looks to return to service as one of the nation's first Fast Response Emergency Cargo Vessel/Rescue Ships.

Beauchamp Tower Corporation has created Operation Enduring Service which will rebuild and refit obsolete military ships to provide state-of-the-art emergency relief and disaster response at no cost to the taxpayers and a savings to the government of at least $100 million.

In addition, the rebuild/refit of these ships will result in the creation of approximately 3,000 jobs in the areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while increasing the operational capability of the United States Coast Guard.

A number of organizations and corporations are working closely with Beauchamp Tower Corporation to make this happen, including:

• United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
• Dell Computers


• Microsoft Corporation
• Sherwin Williams
• Bender Shipyard
• Alabama Shipyard
• IPSCO Steel
• Erikson Aircrane Heavy Lift Helicopters
• AEPCO Shipyard
• ERM North America
• KME Fire Apparatus

and many, many more.

But due to time constraints, the legislation required to make this happen is dangerously close to falling by the wayside. It has to pass before Congress ends this Session, in approximately one week.

BTC has obtained the support of a number of Congressmen and Senators. Each of the senators has the ability to submit this legislation for Operation Enduring Service and should be contacted via phone, fax or electronically and encouraged to submit this legislation immediately.

Senator Cochran, (R-MS) (Chairman of Appropriations)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
Internet Contact Form
Senator DeWine, (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Becky Watts has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form
Senator Shelby, (R-AL)
Phone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416
Ryan Welch has the legislation for his office
senator@shelby.senate.gov
Senator Sessions, (R-AL)
Phone: 202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Stephen Boyd has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Without this legislation the Corporate Donors will withdraw, the ships will no longer be available and the emergency relief program will collapse.

This is not a partisan exercise; each and every one of us has been directly affected by the recent hurricanes and will be affected again.

This requires immediate action from every one, contact with your House Representative and Senators, let them know the senators above have the legislation to make this happen and to support it or to submit it themselves.

Questions and comments can be directed to:

Email: info -at - btcorp.us
Website: www.btcorp.us
Weblog: www.btcorp.us/mt

Please help these Navy veterans return to serve their nation once more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 4 kb.

Via YNet:

Two of the three suicide bombers that struck three luxury hotels in Jordan's capital Amman on Wednesday are believed to have been Iraqi citizens, CNN reported Thursday.

According to the report, Al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the bombings in a website posting. Three blasts occurred almost simultaneously Wednesday evening at the Hyatt Grand Hotel, the Radisson SAS and the Days Inn hotels, killing 57 people and wounding hundreds.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has, once again, miscalculated horribly:

Sameeh Khreis has spent years demanding justice and more rights for jailed Islamic extremists. But on Thursday, he joined thousands who took to the streets across Jordan to condemn the militants behind Amman's triple hotel bombings that killed 59 people.

"This is disgusting. We will never tolerate such terrorism," Khreis said, marching with 2,000 others in Jordan's capital.

"Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" they shouted, denouncing the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for the blasts but later, confronted with mounting protests, took the rare step of trying to justify the attacks on Arab civilians.

Bringing the war "home," targetting Arab civilians, has been a horrible decision for the terrorists. There is a saying that "you don't crap where you eat."

They have not learned that lesson, and one must wonder if they will before they lose their remaining public support.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.