January 31, 2006
2006 State of the Union
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
As Prepared For Delivery
Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, Members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
Today our Nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken from her so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King.
Each time I am invited to this rostrum, I am humbled by the privilege, and mindful of the history we have seen together. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement. We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history and it has been my honor to serve with you.
In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong and together we will make it stronger.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 5322 words, total size 31 kb.
Blind Men
General Michael Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Agency, spoke at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006. Read these
few short paragraphs about the NSA program created by President Bush's still-unseen executive order (bold below is mine):
The purpose of all this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us, and NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, a judgment made by American intelligence professionals, not folks like me or political appointees, a judgment made by the American intelligence professionals most trained to understand al Qaeda tactics, al Qaeda communications and al Qaeda aims.
Their work is actively overseen by the most intense oversight regime in the history of the National Security Agency. The agency's conduct of this program is thoroughly reviewed by the NSA's general counsel and inspector general. The program has also been reviewed by the Department of Justice for compliance with the president's authorization. Oversight also includes an aggressive training program to ensure that all activities are consistent with the letter and the intent of the authorization and with the preservation of civil liberties.
Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.
This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda.
You know that story about the blind men and the elephant?
The media and the blogosphere are grasping at things, swearing that from what they can feel, they have the snake in hand. But they haven't really touched a snake, have they? They just touched just something that they assume is a snake, and have proclaimed out loudly that it is a snake, and we have laws against having snakes.
Well, the NSA story is a new animal in the zoo and I've touched ... something, part of it, far away from where everyone else is standing and yelling. I can only sense a fraction of it, but I've touched just enough to think I've got something different on my hands that what anyone else has touched so far, and a zookeeper I've come in contact with has provided a vague confirmation of, "yeah, that's something different, all right."
I don't know what I've got. But I know it is something quite different than a snake, and I know just enough to know that the people grasping at snakes are wrong about what they are touching, and that laws against snakes do not apply.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The people who are screaming about this are the same people who will scream that Bush did not do enough next time there is a terrorist attack.
Posted by: Shoprat at January 31, 2006 10:22 PM (TXgwt)
2
Agreed. I've attempted
a legal and policy analysis of the NSA program, concluding:
"[w]e're not tapping Al Qaeda so Alan Dershowitz can persuade Robert Blake's jury that Osama's glove is too small. Rather, we want to kill Bin Laden and destroy his organization. We're not questioning underlings at Git'mo about unlicensed firearms--we seek intel about fellow terrorists both to prevent further attacks and to roll-up the existing organizations. . .
he President has the primary responsibility, and Constitutional power, to defend America--if need be via warrantless national security wiretaps. The fact that such communications may transit to/from the U.S. heightens the danger and elevates the need for intel. Even without the knowledge or consent of any other government branch."
Posted by: No Oil for Pacifists at January 31, 2006 11:58 PM (lQxqX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 30, 2006
Because You Wouldn't Want to See Her Cry...
Blog food for years...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:49 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Cindy, go back to Caracas!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 31, 2006 05:57 AM (wZLWV)
2
It must have taken you hours to find a pix of her crying....usually she's got an ear to ear grin...typical of a mourning mother.
Posted by: Maggie at January 31, 2006 09:55 AM (QKXCW)
3
Give a fella a warning next time you do that. Almost lost my breakfast.
The woman is pathetic.
Posted by: Anh at January 31, 2006 10:38 AM (ohEm6)
4
Wow, she's cute! Does anyone know if she's dating yet?
Posted by: Kevin at January 31, 2006 11:25 AM (o/IMK)
5
I wonder if someone will speculate if she "forgot to take her meds"?
I have no comment on her and her motives. The MSN, in my opinion is using her and egging her on.
Posted by: Chief RZ at January 31, 2006 01:58 PM (iNTGz)
6
Kevin: yeah, didn't you know she and Hugo Chavez had a fling? Those Latin lovers.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 31, 2006 02:02 PM (Xm4xl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Zawahiri Filibuster Fails
"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies," he said, referring to Bush. "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses." Via Fox News.
Really?
Dr. Zawahiri, it seems those same "Muslim masses" think so much of you, that instead of rallying around your cause, they've left you hopping from cave to cave in what most citizens of the world would deem a wasteland. You are guarded not by the best and brightest Islam has to offer, but by illiterate brainwashed children and opium smugglers, living in a part of the world no civilized person wants.
Enjoy your "victory."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:24 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It seems that the Sunnis in Iraq are now fighting against him. The masses do not seem to love him.
Posted by: Shoprat at January 31, 2006 10:24 PM (TXgwt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Alito Filbuster Fails
Via Fox News (no link yet) "It's over."
Pour over-excited Teddy an extra couple of bottles, because the sure-to-fail filibuster of Judge Alito just did precisely that. It failed.
Barring a miracle, he will be Justice Alito by this time tomorrow evening.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:36 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You sound excited about this. What the heck is wrong with you CY!?!? My understanding is that if Alito is confirmed is that there will be back alley abortions and the apocalypse will come, followed by global warming and starving poor people! Well, something like that - Sen. Kennedy was hard to understand when he 'splained it to me.
Also, if he's confirmed, I heard he will ban all ice cream.
Posted by: Kevin at January 30, 2006 10:01 PM (o/IMK)
2
While I do value privacy of citizens, and we're still not clear what powers Alito will say the President should be given in regards to the NSA, I still think all these court procedings have shown just how disgraceful Washington, especially the liberal Democrats, has become.
As much of a liberal moonbat as Ginsburg is, he was confirmed with something like a 98% or maybe even 100% majority. But yet, Alito might be confirmed with 60%, maybe that high.
Posted by: Nick at January 31, 2006 10:15 AM (6Kpkq)
3
58 votes. Alito is in! Someone send Justice Stephens some advertisements extolling the joy of retirement!
Posted by: Kevin at January 31, 2006 11:27 AM (o/IMK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 29, 2006
Revolting
Do you want to fully understand why many people no longer trust the infotainment industry? Examine just this small sample from the Feb. 6, 2006 issue of
Newsweek, in an article called
Palace Revolt (emphasis mine):
Counsel to the vice president is, in most administrations, worth less than the proverbial bucket of warm spit, but under Prime Minister Cheney, it became a vital power center, especially after 9/11.
This is what passes for reporting today for Newsweek, and is not the only example of Democratic Underground-quality commentary in this group effort from Daniel Klaidman, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas.
There is one bright side, however. Unlike another shoddily-sourced, politically-driven Newsweek article, it does not appear anyone will immediately die as a result.
This time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:54 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This stupid story was highlighted in the MSM browser window also. I ignored it as soon as I recognized the Newsweek byline.
Posted by: docdave at January 30, 2006 02:21 PM (UiwG/)
2
They act like it is some big scandal when someone working for the President actively obstructs him and is fired. I guess they forget travelgate and all the other Clintoon firings done just because of cronyism and personnel conflict or the all the firings FDR, JFK and many more administrations did. At least Bush fired these clowns because they were putting the country in danger.
Posted by: Oldcrow at January 30, 2006 05:42 PM (x65Sm)
3
iranian nuclear energy;a very discussable topic for the media around the world especially those who are against iran and do prefer to satter sorts of news that make iranians worry about thier situation.dishonest europeans did not try to fulfil their promises after iran eu3 negotiations in tehran 2 years ago.despite the effective and sensible confidence building that iranian officials have taken ,europeans conversely have tried to grow more dishonest and turn this very simple dossier into a controversial issue.they only pretend that iranian program is threateninf and jeopardizing ,while they ignore this fact that the most destructive nuclear arenas are located in israel soil and zionists are enjoying to see the world view has turned on them.Possession of peaceful nuclear energy is the definite right of IRANIANs.gary
Posted by: gary at February 02, 2006 01:22 AM (pbd4i)
4
Gary -- or as you are known at home, Hamid Reza Mehrabi, of Hamid, Khorasan, in the Islamic Republic of Iran -- we just aren't buying your sincerity, Bubba.
And it isn't just the fact that you lie about
who you are, its about the fact that you've been caught regarding your
revealed plans for nuclear weapons.
I simply must
get a better class of troll.
Bring in James Carville!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2006 01:38 AM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ABC's Woodruff, Vogt Injured By IED
ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman were both seriously injured today in Iraq as the result of an IED detonated in an ambush. AP, via
ABC News:
Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were hit by an improvised explosive device near Taji, Iraq, and were in serious condition at a U.S. military hospital, ABC News President David Westin said.
The two were embedded with the 4th Infantry Division and traveling with an Iraqi Army unit.
The U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad confirmed that the ABC News team was involved in an attack but declined to provide further details to The Associated Press. An official military statement was expected to be issued later Sunday.
Reuters has more details about both men.
Woodruff, 44, is from Michigan and joined ABC in 1996. He has reported from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, from Italy for the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI and from Yugoslavia during the conflict in Kosovo. He had also covered the Justice Department in Washington.
Vogt, 46, is Canadian and lives in Aix-en-Provence in France. He is an Emmy award-winning cameraman and filmed the aftermath of the Asian tsunami from Sri Lanka.
Neither AP nor Reuters mentions any possible casualties among the Iraqi or American soldiers traveling with Woodruff and Vogt. Whether this is typical media myopia or the result of the military not releasing casualty data remains to be seen.
I sincerely hope both Woodruff and Vogt have a full recovery, but I find that I care more about the Iraqi and American soldiers fighting for the future this fledgling democracy.
American soldiers experience war in Iraq months at a time. Iraqi soldiers and police are there facing danger on a daily basis, with no respite but victory or death. A reporter looking to get "street cred" in a quick in-and-out 24-72 hour junket without really bothering to learn what is really going on the way, say, Ernie Pyle or Kevin Sites, or Michael Yon has, just doesn't touch me the same way.
I wish them both a speedy and full recovery all the same.
1-31 Update: My point proven:
"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.
Not to me, gentlemen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
1
It is impossible to offer prayers or best wishes (depending on your own beliefs) for Woodruff and Vogt without including the same for American and Iraqi service people and civilians. I too wish both men a full recovery. I hear that they both suffered severe head injuries, which does not bode well - but hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Specter at January 29, 2006 12:18 PM (ybfXM)
2
I wish Woodruff and Vogt well, but it is very difficult for me to muster any more sympathy for people that are paid in one month what it takes those soldiers a year of more to make, expecially considering the soldiers are in harms way 12 or more months at a time.
I pray for them all.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 29, 2006 01:38 PM (owAN1)
3
You will probably ban me from this site for saying so, but your complaint that Woodruff might have just been attempting to get some "street cred" is so indecent as to place you among those commenters who deserve no respect whatsoever. Shame on you. This man has four children and a wife. He is compassionate, decent, honest, and he did not have to go to Iraq. No one would have thought the worse of him if he didn't. But he went. And from various reports, he was in a Iraqi vehicle, not an American vehicle, when the convoy was hit. (I am still awaiting confirmation on that issue.) In any event, he went to Iraq to spend time with the troops. To report from there. He's an anchor for God sakes, and therefore to expect him to be Ernie Pyle is simply unrealistic and beside the point. The man went to Iraq and put himself in harm's way to report life from the soldier's perspective, if only for a day or too. He did what right wingers want - he went into the field to report the truth. And he got hit by the enemy. And you are not "touch[ed]."
You are the embodiment of the right wing today. Shame on you. After all, have you no decency?
Posted by: mkultra at January 30, 2006 12:05 AM (6P4ql)
4
I hope for a speedy recovery for both Bob Woodruff & Doug Vogt . I also believe that this embedding w/the troops in Iraq is a lousy idea. It's not only life threatening, it's an extremely dangerous way to get news to network viewers. I say, in order to stay out of harm's way, we should bring the journalists & the troops home now.
Posted by: Rick at January 30, 2006 12:39 AM (SXdAj)
5
I want to thank all the unsung heroes of this unholy war; every special-ops sniper that takes out a terrorist saves the lives of 50 or more people; Iraqis and American alike.
Posted by: Tom TB at January 30, 2006 05:47 AM (Ffvoi)
6
mkultra,
I'm sorry to inform you of reality, but this kind of reporting is often done for "street cred" - instant credibility for career advancement - whether you like that inconvenient fact, or not. That he cannot gather the "soldier's perspective" in a quick junket seems to be beyond your grasp.
As for reporting the truth... well he would have certainly put an interesting spin on what he was unable to actually grasp in his short trip. I'm sorry if I've simply seen too much of this kind of reporting to feel that he could have brought how anything other than some filler footage to go with the preconceptions that he brought with him.
He wasn't interested in truth anymore than you are.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 30, 2006 06:50 AM (0fZB6)
7
Rick,
You just don't quite grasp the "kill them thre so we don't have them killing us here" concept.
Color me unsurprised. And please,
please try to tell me their were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 30, 2006 07:17 AM (0fZB6)
8
According to Michelle Malkin, there were 4 American soldiers injured in the IED attack. No information on whether Woodruff & Vogt were in an American vehicle, but it appears so.
Posted by: old_dawg at January 30, 2006 11:20 AM (mvlLy)
9
I had a friend killed by an IED last week. He and another soldier in his vehicle were killed. The driver and interpreter are still in the hospital in serious condition.
http://bluestarchronicles.blogspot.com/2006/01/american-strength.html
They were soldiers trying to train Iraqi soldiers. Doing it day in and day out.
I wish the reporters a complete recovery as well. But I hope we don't forget the ones who are making long-term sacrifice with little or no recognition.
Posted by: beth at January 30, 2006 11:42 AM (X6tm3)
10
Redneck-Yankee or whatever you call yourself.
You sir, are a #@&* FOOL!!
Posted by: wayne's world at January 30, 2006 04:41 PM (TzDq4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 28, 2006
Big Bang Theory
Carnival of Cordite .45 is up and well worth reading, especially
this little gem from
Hell in a Handbasket.
It seems that the U.S. military has tired of the anemic stopping power of the 9mm FMJ cartridge chambered by the current issue Beretta M9, and is looking to return to the .45.ACP with the JCP (Joint Combat Pistol) program.
The new gun has to be of modern design (sorry, 1911 fans), with a minimum 8 round magazine as standard, while also having the capability to seat a 10-15 round extended magazine. The gun also has to have rails incorporated in the design (to attach equipment such as small flashlights or electronic sights). Strategy Page has more information, and Global Security has the details.
While James at HiaH seems to think Sig Sauer has this contract sewn up, probably with some sort of P220 variant, I think the field is far more open than he might expect.
For example, Heckler & Koch has current working relationship with U.S. Special Operations Command and uses their excellent Mark 23 for elite units right now, and their smaller USP platform would also seem to be a top contender.
The Ruger P-Series of semi-autos has developed an excellent reputation for rugged reliability among law enforcement and civilian shooters, and a P345 variant could also be what the doctor ordered.
Smith & Wesson has new autoloader on the market called the M & P (Military and Police) chambered commercially for in 40S&W, 9mm and 357Sig, that is a platform that should be able to be built to house the .45 ACP, and otherwise seems to meet the JCP general requirements.
I'm also very impressed with Springfield Armory's XD 45, a variant of the striker-fired XD family of pistols.
For both the Smith & Wesson and Springfield Armory pistols, my only concern with whether or not the companies had prototypes developed in time to submit for this contract bid.
The Glock 21 is reportedly not in the running because of licensing issues.
Regardless of which design wins, it is nice to see that our soldier will once again be armed with a pistol cartridge that actually provides decent stopping power.
Now if the military will only get rid of the outdated M4/M16 in 5.56mm NATO in favor of a rugged, reliable modern rifle (bullpup, anyone?) firing a cartridge designed for killing something larger than a groundhog...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:12 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hoo-rah. About time the military went back to the reliable 45.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 28, 2006 02:34 PM (mBZ68)
2
About f***ing time. How many times do we have to relearn this lesson? Interesting that the .45 was adopted the last time we fought Muslim fanatics in the Philippines.
My vote is for something in the Para Tac series -- DAO and 14+1 rounds of .45 ACP. I have a small Para and love the trigger. Okay, it's Canadian -- so what?
http://www.paraord.com/product/product.html?id=49
Posted by: Sharpshooter at January 28, 2006 05:48 PM (EjOo0)
3
I don't have any experience with the P345, but I do have an older-model Ruger .45 auto, the P90. Built like a tank, eats anything I feed her and begs for more. I wouldn't flinch taking it into battle. I might get another one...just because it's that good.
Posted by: TexasRugerman at January 28, 2006 06:07 PM (pwKnk)
4
I have a couple of Rugers in the lighter weight 9mm (P89 and P95) and have never had one jam, fail to load, anything. Pull the trigger, it goes bang. They seem to make a reliable weapon.
Posted by: Fish at January 28, 2006 06:34 PM (KpjA/)
5
.45 shmortifive. If you want a pistol cartridge with
STOPPING power you settle for nothing less than a .44 mag. The .475 or .500 Linebaugh would be even better but would require a revolver. Even the .44 mag requires a revolver, as a reliable auto hasn't come along yet (Desert Eagles are too persnickety). Figuring the services won't go back to revolvers (although I don't know why) the next best thing is a .400 Corbon. Any auto that shoots the .45 ACP could be rebarreled to .400 Corbon. (It's a .45 ACP necked down to .40.)
A 1911 type auto probably isn't in the running, but there are some really accurate pieces out there from great makers like: Les Bear, Kimber, Para Ord, as well as some others.
I agree, woodchuck season is over, it's time to put the .223 away and pick up a real rifle cartridge. The 7.62 is still a hard utility round to beat. The .300 Winchester Short Magnum would be a great replacement, but that would entail a commitment to change the crew served weapons as well. It may be time for a complete overhaul. What do you think?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 28, 2006 06:36 PM (owAN1)
6
If they would let the troops use Federal's Hydroshock ammunition in the 9mm (jacketed and not a hollowpoint)none of this would be necessary, IMHO.
Posted by: Perfesser33 at January 28, 2006 06:53 PM (0Wzo3)
7
They, the military, could do worse than bring back a variant of the famous M1, the rifle that won WWII. The 30-06 had plenty of stopping power and range, and if you ran out of ammunition it made a handy club or spear (with bayonet).
Posted by: docdave at January 28, 2006 08:15 PM (f6hqX)
8
Old Soldier,
I gotta disagree with you here. Power is useless if it can't be expended in the target, and a .44 Mag using FMJ overpenetrates, and has no more effective stopping power than a .45ACP, while being much harder to shoot (at least for those who don't handle recoil well), requiring a much larger weapon, and being able to carry fewer rounds for the same amount of weight.
I don't know about the .400 Corbon. If I'm going to have a cartridge the same size and magazine capacity, I'm in favor of a bigger bullet and larger hole instead of more velocity. More velocity also translates into more wear, shortening the life of parts.
The 7.62 is a great round and so it the .30-06 , but neither is practical in a true assualt rifle-sized package. I'm sure more competent minds have though about it, but what about simply taking the existing 5.56MM, necking it out from .223 to .250-.270, and using a heavier 80-120 grain bullet with a more modern powder?
You could still use the same size rifles and SAWs that we use now, but you'd have a more potent round that is as accurate and more powerful than a 5.56mm, but has less kick than a 7.62mm and can carry more ammo.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 28, 2006 11:09 PM (0fZB6)
9
CY, that's a good idea, we could just issue new uppers and mags to existing M-16's to at least make them a deer rifle! The late Col. David Hackworth, who was in Vietnam when the M-16's were first issued, never quit hating the "toy rifle" as he called it, despite all the upgrades through the years.
Posted by: Tom TB at January 29, 2006 07:07 AM (Ffvoi)
10
CY, I think there is a bit of confusion between us. I’m not advocating for the .44 magnum for military applications. Believe me I understand the military requirements for carrying more ammo which seems like a wasted trade off to me. If I fire one round and take out my target FOR SURE, then why do I need all the other rounds? M9s fit a requirement for people that can’t shoot very well – at least they have a lot of ammo – maybe one round will be a winner. I own a Beretta 92S, Italian made stainless automatic. Nice gun for euthanizing dogs and cats, but not an adequate combat piece. The military M9s are terribly inaccurate as compared to my Italian made 92. Mass production, I guess.
Oh, by the way, there’s no such thing as “over penetration” when you are trying to kill an enemy combatant. The .45 does not have that great a ballistics/energy table either. Neck it down to .400 and speed it up and the energy delivered to the target is better than a .45 and significantly better than a 9mm. It’s kinda like a .38 compared to a .357.
Necking the 5.56 out almost returns it to its routes, the .30 Carbine cartridge – a useless round. No, if you’re going to give an infantryman a suitable tool to be used in the open at range as well as shoot through wooden doors and walls, it really needs to be at least .30 caliber pushed by a lot of propellant. That’s why I favor the .300 Winchester Short Magnum. It has better ballistics than the old standard .30-06. There are many new technological ways to control recoil in an assault weapon; gas ports, buffers, etc. At a minimum, return to the 7.62.
In Vietnam, I carried an off the books M14 as my individual weapon when I flew. I wanted commonality with my M60s and I wanted a reasonable chance of taking out an enemy at a range that was in my favor. I didnÂ’t want to be shake-hands close to be effective with the old 1911Â’s we were issued. My back up short range gun was a Winchester 1895 pump action 12 gauge riot gun with OO Buck. Yeah, IÂ’m the type guy that brings his .44 to a knife fight.
In my book, harder hitting at longer range is the only way to go. My home defense gun is a .44 Magnum Super Black Hawk. I don’t expect to be in a fire fight; I expect to kill an intruder with one round – even through walls and doors.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 29, 2006 01:30 PM (owAN1)
11
Welcome back to combat to the venerable .45. I have a Colt M1991A1 on my nightstand for unexpected visitors. What a nice piece, and it really packs a wallop.
PS to Old Soldier_ if you use that .44 in your house at night, be prepared to go temporarily deaf and blind. Make sure the intruder is down when you do.
Posted by: barry at January 30, 2006 05:58 AM (kKjaJ)
12
I carry a Colt defender .45 ACP and it is the best pistol I have ever carried, as far as accuracy it kicks straight up and back instead of torgueing to the side a little like most short .45's do, at 15 yards or less the accuracy is as good as any longer barreled gun which is the range most handguns are used in.
Posted by: Oldcrow at January 30, 2006 02:08 PM (JYeBJ)
13
My main concern shooting indoors is situational awareness and overpenetration. If you, like many folks, live in an apartment or a home in a neighborhood (which is most folks I know), even a directl hit has a good chance of going through the suspect and multiple interior walls when using most certerfire ammunition. You run a real chance of hitting someone other than the person you meant to shoot, which is every responsible gun owner's nightmare.
For that reason, I highly recommend frangiable ammunition. It blows apart on contact and reduces overpenetration through structures, while hitting the target like a contact shotgun wound, causing massive trauma.
Some years ago, someone ran a series of tests of handgun stopping power, trying many calibers and many different loading on sheep, which have a chest cavity roughly the size of a human. I think it was called the Strassbourgh Tests, but I might have the name wrong.
They would shoot the sheep through the chest, and see how long it took for the sheep to drop, and they would them perform a post-mortem forensic analysis of the damage as well to see how rounds performed on real flesh and bone.
I recall the MagSafe Defender and Glaser Blue frangiables in .45 ACP being the most deadly handgun bullet avialable at that time, out performing all FML, RNJ, semi-wadcutter, and hollowpoint ammunition under the typical home invasion scenario of an unarmored target at close range.
I'm sure the .400 CorBon is a hot little round with plenty of energy, but I'll keep my customized Sistema M1927 .45 stoked with Glasers for now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 30, 2006 02:29 PM (g5Nba)
14
CY,
I use Federal Hydra-shok 185 grain for defense when I carry in out in public. Target practice I use 230 grain FMJ. I load Glazers when at home. You are correct I would not use a heavy load in a .45 if I lived in an apartment or any other type of home connected to another for that scenario I would use glazers only, my house is standalone on 1/3 acre and is brick.
Posted by: Oldcrow at January 30, 2006 05:30 PM (x65Sm)
15
Look around for some pictures of the Brits trying to shoot that bullpup design of theirs while prone. Look at where their head has to be.
I'll pass on the bullpup for a combat arm, thank you.
Posted by: bud at January 30, 2006 05:51 PM (nv1SZ)
16
The M16A2 weighs as much as an FN Para FAL, and for all intents and purposes is single fire. Noone bothers using the malfunctioning 3 round burst. Why not just adopt a modern FAL?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm
The 5.56 was adopted because of a logical decision based on fundamentally flawed data. More ammo is nice, but pointless when you need to fire 3 or more times as many rounds to penetrate barriers and kill people at long range. USE ENOUGH GUN! If that means having an overpowered cartridge 75 percent of the time, fine, it will save your ass when the guy is behind a palm log or cinder blocks.
If it were my decision I would go back to using a shortened FN FAL, possibly with folding stock, and rifle grenade attachment on the front. Then switch to using either a Vektor SS77 or MG3 as the machinegun and completely scrap the squad automatic concept, you can do the same thing with a drum mag for a GPMG, which the Germans made in WW2 for the MG 38.
Posted by: eg at January 31, 2006 09:15 PM (ctaxq)
17
.44mag? Yeah, because there is a gun that can be handled by the average 18 year old. And when he does touch off that round, heart pumping, sweat from his eyes, and he MISSES the bad guy, who is not standing still, but has a less powerful, higher capacity weapon, that he can shoot quickly, our hero gets pinned down. Then the enemy's buddy advances on our hero and kills him. That's called SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
The good thing about extra rounds... IS EXTRA ROUNDS!!!! I can shoot at five hundred yards in the prone, calm heart beat, at a steady target, that I have figured the wind for. After a run? NO! Best I can hope for is to keep rounds on him so he can't acurately shoot back, or engage with an RPG, then I call for a more precision weapon... LIKE A TANK!!! .300 WSM? Guys who hunt with them don't even like to shoot more than 20rds at a sitting. Who wants to fight with 300 rds through one??? And how well will they shoot it after 50 rds from the recoil pounding their shoulder????
The gun to go with is the one the most soldiers can shoot well, and that has high capacity with good accuracy. Then you get most of your people, inflicting lots of hits or suppresion fire, and having the ability to do so for a relatively long period of time. Then you can MANEUVER and KILL THEM.
Yeah and the M1 garand? We used muzzleloading rifles during the American revolution. We don't need to go back to that either. The M1 is heavy, (remember 150lbs of gear approx total) It only holds 8 rds at a time, it can't easily be topped off, You go in with one or two rounds when you should have done a tactical reload... Technology progresses for a reason. And it's long!!!! Not so good for room clearing..._
Oh CY, I'm pretty sure its 28 rounds not 18 for the 6.8 SPC in a standard 30 rd M16 mag. That would be a good round to go with. Improved ballistics, low recoil, high capacity, that is the right direction.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383
Posted by: MCLT at February 17, 2006 07:08 PM (vxUWk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 27, 2006
Prances with Wolves
As a
fake scholar,
fake artist, and fake Indian, I always though the story of Ward Churchill would be hard to beat.
Timothy P. "Nasdijj" Barrus, an Opie-looking wannabe Navajo who killed off two imaginary children on his way to a national magazine award that he parlayed into three nonfiction books about people who never existed, before he got into writing gay porn while living as the father of a suburban white kid while at some point faking involvement as a soldier in the Vietnam war, takes the cake:
After the Esquire piece, Nasdijj published "The Blood Runs Like a River Through My Dreams" in 2000, followed by "The Boy and His Dog Are Sleeping" -- which won a PEN award -- and "Geronimo's Bones." He wrote that he was the son of an alcoholic Navajo mother and a white cowboy father who raped and beat him. He said he grew up in migrant labor camps.
His former brother-in-law, Stephen Cheetham of Lansing, said Barrus had no such life. Cheetham said he hadn't seen Barrus since the 1970s, but over the years his two children told him what they heard of Barrus from their mother.
"I had heard that he was writing stories under different names," Cheetham said Thursday. "Something about how he claimed to be a Vietnam veteran at one point, claimed to be a Native American Indian at another point.
"His parents were a very middle-class, working, typical American family. He was never involved in Vietnam, he was never a Native American Indian, his parents weren't Native Americans -- there wasn't anything like that in his past."
It gets weirder:
In the 1980s, Barrus gained attention in some gay circles as a writer of pornography; other gay writers didn't think his work sounded authentic.
"I had some serious doubts about how gay he ever was," said Lars Eighner, a writer of gay literature who had mainstream success with his books. "It's a house of mirrors when you deal with him."
Barrus' third novel was about gay soldiers in Vietnam, but taken as a fictionalized memoir. Eighner said his gay literary friends didn't believe Barrus was ever in Vietnam.
I think he called that book Victor Charlie In My Chocolate Factory.
In a shocking related story, militant gay liberal activist John Aravosis of Americablog was discovered to be none other than David Hasselhoff.
Rusty is having fun with this story as well.
Update: Read Navahoax in the LA Weekly which broke this story and also has a link to "Nasdijj's" blog.
And Phin's got a song...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I was thrilled when Rush mention the Raleigh News and Observer on his show today, and how they broke this story. Nice to see the N&O do a good job on this.
Posted by: William Teach at January 27, 2006 07:12 PM (V5vwb)
2
I think he called that book Victor Charlie In My Chocolate Factory.That's priceless!
Posted by: lawhawk at January 27, 2006 08:57 PM (57H55)
3
The story was broken by the L.A. Weekly several days ago, in an 8,000-word investigation. The N&O story is a follow. you can see the original story, "Navahoax," as well as Nasdijj's blog postings, at www.laweekly.com
Posted by: tom at January 27, 2006 11:33 PM (cZFDo)
4
I was born on the island Mannahatta, and my tribe moved to Quinnecticut, which in Mohegan means "Tidal river in the land of Casinos". I will part my long hair in the middle, dye it black, go to Hollyweird and sell my script about love between gay cowboys and indians!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 28, 2006 07:28 AM (Ffvoi)
5
"Prances with Wolves." Heh. You've got a brilliant future ahead of you, CY.
Posted by: greg at January 28, 2006 11:36 AM (20/vO)
6
Next he'll be writing a book about his story of being a Gay Confederate Yankee or did he do that already?
Posted by: Sweets at February 10, 2006 04:10 PM (wF+hb)
7
Sweets,
It's
been done.
But I'm sure he was just "prison gay..."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 10, 2006 04:17 PM (g5Nba)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Freedom to be Offended
Per haps if they didn't act like cattle – Holocaust-denying, occasionally explosive cattle - then an "Annual Stampede Report"
wouldn't be necessary:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked for an apology from KFI-AM 640 host Bill Handel, who allegedly made fun of the deaths the same day they happened during a segment he called the "Annual Stampede Report."
A spokeswoman for KFI, which is owned by Clear Channel Communications, did not immediately return a message left Thursday. Handel's producer, Michelle Kube, also did not return calls for comment. Handel had left work for the day and attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.
At least 363 pilgrims were killed and hundreds injured in a stampede Jan. 12 in Mecca, where thousands of people were rushing to carry out a symbolic ritual of stoning the devil.
According to the civil liberties group, Handel imitated the people screaming and then joked that the Muslims at the pilgrimage should use a helicopter to monitor pilgrimage traffic, as is done in Los Angeles with the freeways.
CAIR, which has alleged ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the ACLU, needs to develop a sense of humor. If they can't, I'm sure Michael Jackson has room of them in his abaya in Bahrain. (If you click the link, Michael is the woman on the left side of the picture).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:31 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Mr. Handel hit the nail right on the head....The CAIR, ACLU, and anybody else that don't like it can get the hell out of my country....LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER..!!!!
Posted by: Lyn Dyer at January 27, 2006 04:41 PM (sftOD)
2
I will begin to take them seriously when they ask Hamas to apologize for being terrorists, and ask them every day until Hamas aspologizes.
Posted by: Kevin at January 27, 2006 11:11 PM (o/IMK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Flights of Insanity, Leaving From Gate 3
Oddly, enough,
they only want flights to New York, Washington. DC., and Shanksville, PA.
Silly Mullahs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:11 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Unbelievable.....
I laid out my conditions for this to happen on my site
SpecterVision
Posted by: Specter at January 27, 2006 11:08 AM (ybfXM)
2
Oh, grant the clearance... our Air Defense Batteries could use a little live fire practice!
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 27, 2006 04:23 PM (owAN1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 26, 2006
Escape and Evade
I received this via email today.
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has already started her 2008 presidential campaign by aligning herself with the military and pretending to be tough on terror. Fortunately, the ultra-liberal Hillary has yet to brainwash all of the voting public in to believing that her symbolism is really substance. Many have never forgotten that when she was co-president for eight years she was quoted as saying: " I loathe the military."
It was captioned:
The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo---perhaps because she's never understood our military to begin with.
By the way, save yourself the trouble of searching for photos of Senator Clinton with John McCain. I already checked.
(h/t Old Soldier)
Update: Am I the last person to see this? Well, while we're sorta on the subject. (h/t Phin)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:52 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
1
An oldie, but goodie. That photo's been floating around for a while, but hasn't lost its relevance. Hillary is no friend to the military.
Posted by: California Conservative at January 26, 2006 11:07 PM (f2ERQ)
2
Hillary's been pretty transparent ever since last year when, realizing that the Republican party's biggest issue(other than dodging idiotic portside rhetoric from the left on Iraq) was border security, she threw her hat into that arena with great fervor, hoping to attract moderates from the right.
Claiming to support the troops has been the biggest bunch of BS the left has been putting out -- I got pretty good exposure to that scene back in September, when I was in DC on business and got to attend a counterdemonstration against the wingnuts who congregate outside Walter Reed every Friday night. A few hours prior to the demonstration I was inside the hospital complex and had the opportunity to meet some of the patients, among them amputees who had made their profound sacrifices in Iraq.
These guys have no use for their liberal "supporters", whose actual mission is to "sympathise" with them that they sacrificed "for nothing".
These people are beneath contempt.
It is common knowledge that the Clintons gave the military short shrift during that disgrace of an administration, and the very idea of Hillary playing up to the U.S. Armed Forces at this late hour is ludicrous, only the least informed among the voting public could possibly swallow that without immediately needing the Heimlich Maneuver.
Hillary, like the rest of the liberals who purport to support our troops, is beneath contempt.
Furthermore, CY, thanx for the trackback. :-)
Posted by: Seth at January 27, 2006 02:45 AM (s1XiY)
3
Now that's a funny picture. Look at the smile on the guy's face. He's on the verge of cracking up....lol
Posted by: Specter at January 27, 2006 11:12 AM (ybfXM)
4
I worked for the Navy in DC at the beginning of the Clinton prsidency. As I recall the Clintons liked the military so well that they forbade the wearing of any military uniforms in the white house. I also heard rumors that Mrs. Clinton engaged field grade officers as waiters at several white house functions. That sounded over the top but after outlawing uniforms I am willing to consider it. Anybody else ever hear that story?
Posted by: George at January 27, 2006 03:36 PM (DP8Kr)
5
They don't look even a little bit like they'd have anything to say to each other outside Hillar's blatantly transparent photo op.
Posted by: Seth at January 27, 2006 10:48 PM (3Z9LX)
Posted by: pst314 at January 29, 2006 11:54 AM (7cTig)
7
The book "Dereliction of Duty" recounts a number of examples of the Clintons' hatred of the military and contempt for patriotism. It's by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson (USAF retired) who carried the nuclear football and saw them up close.
Posted by: pst314 at January 29, 2006 12:03 PM (7cTig)
8
It will be very hard for Hilry to hide her true ultra-liberal nature in a campaign, because at some point she will have to pay homage to the groups that have put her in position to run, the NAG's, Gay Rights, Wacko Enviro's, ect.
Posted by: LJ at January 29, 2006 11:00 PM (wZLWV)
9
Best photo I've seen this day! THANKS
Posted by: chrys at January 30, 2006 12:57 AM (1y0qr)
10
I guess as of right now I'm the last one to see this. I haven't seen it before now.
What a great photo!
Posted by: beth at January 30, 2006 11:45 PM (X6tm3)
11
hillary is not able to make up her mind, she first supports bush, and then says she is against war on iraq.... what is she up to??
btw, I dont trust women, not that I deny their rights, but my experience stands testimony to the fact that women are much more venimous than men..... I would rather enourage someone who is honest but has not made up his mind yet, than a woman addicted to power and control and changes her mind in the hope she wins votes....
Posted by: ouzian at February 02, 2006 02:58 AM (vqJCZ)
12
Sure - in military survival school they taught him to cross his fingers as a way to say "just kidding."
Posted by: C Nelson at February 08, 2006 05:26 PM (23QGT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
That "Magic Hat" Must Be On A Little Tight...
This is simply
too bizarre:
Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, he told CNN.
Kerry said he told a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and urged that they join him. Kerry said he has the support of fellow Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.
Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move could backfire.
The junior senator from Massachusetts appears to have inhaled some sort of hallucinogic mold off the brim of his magic hat. Is he really so tone deaf as to think this is a good idea?
As Jay at Stop the ACLU said:
Many redstate democrats have already demonstrated that they think Alito is deserving not only of a vote, but a yes vote. Obviously Kerry didn't like the way the things were headed, and decided to be the big dog to crash the party. It is possible that the nuclear option may just have to be invoked after all.
I can't see how filibustering an obviously qualified candidate for the court can help the Democrats in any way. The best they can hope for from the general public at large is ambivilence, while possibly scoring points with these folks at best. This is a draw-or-lose situation for Democrats that will only play to the furthest fringe, while potentially costing them votes in the middle.
Update: Let them try. A successful filibuster is now very likely impossible. Michelle Malkin has the roundup.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:57 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Darn, and I was looking forward to seeing a
figurative mushroom cloud develop over the Senate chamber.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 26, 2006 06:49 PM (owAN1)
2
Let Sandra Day O'Conner retire and go home!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 26, 2006 07:55 PM (y6n8O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Challenge For Defarge
"Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a speech Wednesday. "I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
If leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton truly feel that the executive branch does not currently have the authority to intercept communications between suspected terrorists overseas and their contacts in America, they should do something about it more concrete than merely muttering empty partisan rhetoric.
I challenge the Queen of Triangles—or any other Democrat, for that matter—to put forward a bill in the Senate to specifically ban the warrantless intercepts conducted as a result of the President's executive order. Alternately, she should in short order present another bill authorizing "a lawful way" of tracking down the terrorists targeted by Bush's executive order that does not offend liberal sensibilities.
The Senator should put it to a vote for the historical record, if what she says is truly what she feels.
Quite frankly, I don't think she's capable of that level of leadership.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:17 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Obviously Hillary isn't capable of any level of leadership. Bill wasn't either. Too bad, the US suffered as a consequence.
Posted by: Mescalero at January 26, 2006 12:22 AM (K7jHt)
2
Conversely, I'll challenge any Republican to come forward and amend FISA to, "modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion." Oh wait, some one already tried that . . . Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio in 2002.
The Administration shot that down because it was obvious that courts might, "find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional."
Beat on Hillary all ya want, she doesn't have a chance in 2008 anyways, but every time I stop in here you have some new spin justifying Bush's domestic spying. I say new, because each week these arguments get shot down. Stop being a Bush apologist, it's not becoming.
Posted by: Fred at January 26, 2006 08:26 AM (xX+1y)
3
Once again, Fred, you guys on the left are so busy jumping to conclusions that you don't see the obvious (don't feel bad, your buddy Glen Greenwald is much better versed in law, and jumps the shark as well).
The Adminstration clearly believes that they have the authority under the Executive's Article II Powers and the AUMF to carry out his executive order to the NSA.
The fact that the Adminstration rebuffed Dewine's bill does not weaken the Pserident's postion, it actually reinforces the consistancy of his beleif that his authority already existed.
Only if they had supported Dewine's bill would they have weakened their position.
Once again, lefties look at something, and draw a 100% wrong conclusion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 26, 2006 09:01 AM (g5Nba)
4
Fred,
Start reading and listening some more. Even the MSM and top Demoncrats are toning down the "illegal" rhetoric. Another pseudo-scandal.
Posted by: Specter at January 26, 2006 10:17 AM (ybfXM)
5
Even the "always-correct-say-what-I've-been-told-to" Katie Couric, and that outstanding investigative reporter Matt Lauer have changed their terminology. They are now saying, on air, "eavesdrop on suspected terrorists" when 48 hours ago they were using "domestic spying program"
Posted by: Specter at January 26, 2006 11:01 AM (ybfXM)
6
As Specter noted,
Even the "always-correct-say-what-I've-been-told-to" Katie Couric, and that outstanding investigative reporter Matt Lauer have changed their terminology. They are now saying, on air, "eavesdrop on suspected terrorists" when 48 hours ago they were using "domestic spying program"
So, Fred, why are you so lame as to continue the KOS-like rhetoric that insists on using the term "Bush's domestic spying?"
Overcome by dementia at your tender age? Or is it really your ability to engage in rational dialog that is hampered by preexistng notions and rigidity of talking points?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 26, 2006 01:27 PM (BRgB4)
7
The fact that the Adminstration rebuffed Dewine's bill does not weaken the Pserident's postion, it actually reinforces the consistancy of his beleif that his authority already existed.
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I'm glad I checked this tard-shack out one more time.
Posted by: jpe at January 26, 2006 04:30 PM (REIFB)
8
heeeeeee'sssss baaaack....we needed some entertainment. Hey jpe - didya read about Kerry's aborted attempt at a filibuster? What a joke...and you put this guy up for President?
Posted by: Specter at January 26, 2006 08:16 PM (ybfXM)
9
Ya Specter, and then Kattie preceded to get her ass handed to her by Dean, and da da da, Bloggers come out once again and sink the MSM with some fact checking:
ThinkProgress
"Katie then cited a Center for Responsive Politics study as her evidence, but a look at CRP's website show that Democrats accepted no money from Abramoff."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/
You can only tread water for so long.
Posted by: Fred at January 26, 2006 08:22 PM (cZQrj)
10
Fred,
You guys are splitting such fine hairs. Abramoff directed specific clients to direct specific amounts to specific Democratic politicians. Now, you might be able to draw a line between these direct and indirect contributions within the "reality-based" community, but the average American voter sees Abramoff directing funds to politicans through a middleman. And you know what?
They'd be right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 26, 2006 09:10 PM (0fZB6)
11
Fred,
Are you talking about another your stellar leaders:
Howlin' Howie "AYIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE" Dean?
LOL...gotta love the Dem leaders. Kerry who says, before counting votes, that he and Splash "I Can't Figure Out What Clubs I Belong To" Kennedy, "We are going to filibuster." What a bunch....And Hillary who can't even get 30% of the people behind her for Pres. Who else ya got? Howie?
Posted by: Specter at January 26, 2006 10:14 PM (ybfXM)
12
Well, Fred, it appears that Kate and Matt did their research. Per Matt Lauer,
"We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and
technically [emphasis mine] Howard Dean may be correct but while 66% of the money in this situation went to Republicans, 34% of the money not from Abramoff [directly] but from associates and clients went to Democrats."
And you are so bold as to say that Howie handed Katie her ass? Doesn't appear that way. Howie just crawled under a very flimsy technicality.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 27, 2006 10:08 AM (BRgB4)
13
If it looks like ...., smells like ...., tastes like ...., the Howie stepped in it. The majority of the American people want the money, no matter the claim of tainted or not, either returned or donated.
From this
poll:
Do you think elected officials who
received contributions from Jack Abramoff or the organizations he represented
should return the money, donate it to charity, or do you think it is okay to
keep the money?
Return it.....29%
Donate it.....56%
Keep it.....7%
Depends.....3%
Not sure.....5%
And the interesting thing in the breakdown of that question was the way Democrats answered the question:
Return it.....33%
Donate it.....58%
Keep it.....4%
Depends.....2%
Not sure.....3%
So....Freddie....by an overwhelming margin people want tainted money gotten rid of. How do you then say "But it's miiiiiinnnnnnnnneeeee...." and get reelected. Not bright.
Oh and before you try to say the poll was unbalanced like the last IPSOS poll was:
POLITICAL IDENTIFICATION
When you think about politics, do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a
Republican?
1. Democrat 38%
2. Republican 33
3. (Independent) 22
4. (Other) 4
5. (Refused/DonÂ’t know) 2
Posted by: Specter at January 27, 2006 11:24 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 25, 2006
Did Hayden Discredit Tice?
A lot of folks have been dwelling on General Michael V. Hayden's
address to the National Press Club on Monday, chasing what I believe to be a red herring, and some chasing that elusive fish with
great vigor.
To me, this was a far more interesting exchange:
QUESTION: Yes, Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist. General, how do you explain the fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA, especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which implements the law at the agency?
GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything except enthusiasm. I don't know what you're talking about.
This response from Hayden seems to confirm two things.
1. By not reporting any concerns to the NSA inspector general, any of the NSA whistleblowers claimed by New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau committed felonies. This is nothing new to most. But as Hayden's response indicates that those most directly knowledgeable about this covert program believe deeply in its success, these claims of multiple streams of insider information inside a highly compartmentalized program seem quite suspect.
One might question just how many sources Risen and Lichtblau actually had, and whether or not these sources had direct access to this program as they claim.
2. Hayden's phrasing ("has been" being current tense) also leads me to believe that all people directly acquainted with this particular program are still involved with the program.
The one named NSA whistleblower, Russell Tice, is not currently part of the NSA, after being dismissed for psychological concerns and security violations.
Taken together, it would seem that the head of the NSA is strongly suggesting, though indirectly, that Russell Tice was never part of this program. That would indeed cast strong doubts about the credibilty of his already suspect claims, as he is a discharged, disgruntled employee.
Bill Burkett, anyone?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:30 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Good parsing. It has always seemed doubtful that any real NSA insiders would leak to the press. The penalties are quite severe and the NSA seems to only hire real team players.
Posted by: Toby928 at January 25, 2006 10:16 AM (ATbKm)
2
Isn't this post missing something? Like the fact that the presnit admitted to doing it?
Posted by: Fred at January 25, 2006 04:26 PM (xX+1y)
3
Bush authorized the NSA program, and that has never been in doubt. What is your question?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 25, 2006 04:30 PM (g5Nba)
4
I was really heartened yesterday when President Bush visited the National Security Agency. Although I retired in 1994, two gentlemen who used to work for and with me were in attendance. The short guy with the gray hair is now an executive there.
I called him last night to let him know that he needs to lose a bit of weight. :-) :-)
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 26, 2006 01:33 PM (BRgB4)
5
What should seem pretty obvious to those folks actually reading between the lines is that Russell Tice probably did not know enough to really be harmful to the NSA program execution authorized by President Bush. Please be mindful of the words I chose to use there, "proram execution."
The U.S. Intelligence Community has been doing this sort of stuff since the days of conventional HF radio communications. In the 1970's we were able to use satellites for collection of foreign
signals in general, emanating from anywhere in the world.
Since those early days of satellite intercept capability, technology has gone crazy in advancement that most of the general public cannot even imagine. Just think back for a moment to the 1970's. We did not have personal computers; we did not have VHS recorders, much less DVD or CD R and CD RW.
Look at the bandwidth capabilities of your Dish Network or Direct TV satellites. Can you imagine how much better receivers are today too?
Folks today are still in a pre 9/11 attitude, and they are still thinking about something as antiquated as FISA and the physical wiretaps and the old NSA Echelon program used during the Clinton Administration.
The boneheaded pundits out there have no idea whatsoever what current Intelligence surveillance technology is capable of doing, and none of it bypasses FISA. All they can think about is "domestic spying."
There is much more that most people will never know. And that is the good news. So let Kerry and Kennedy and the rest of those fools stick their privates in the hot soup. They will all get burned, and the Democrats will be taken to the woodshed once again.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 26, 2006 08:05 PM (BRgB4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 24, 2006
No Patriot
I can't wait to see what Chris Matthews will say about
this:
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
I don't think I need to comment on this, other than to say it will be interesting to see which liberals defend Klein's exposure of the dirty little secret so many of them carry in their hearts.
Coward. Traitor. Liberal.
But I repeat myself...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:58 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
1
As repugnant as Stein's stance is, at least he doesn't pretend to support the troops while denigrating their mission, their leadership, and even their ability to volunteer rather than be coerced into serving. Most antiwar types say "we support our troops" and then make it clear that they believe they are dying in vain- which isn't exactly support.
Posted by: Rob at January 24, 2006 03:16 PM (BFtAQ)
2
person holding that sign should be ashamed of herself
Posted by: mynewsbot at January 24, 2006 04:31 PM (xJMI0)
3
Like the contemptible little weasel that he is, Stein is trying to have it both ways. He puffs out his scrawny chest and declares he's not afraid to stand firm against the idiot masses by admitting that like all liberals, he most definitely does not support the troops. At the same time, he keeps pretending that he does support them, by wanting them to have shorter deployments, better pensions, etc. etc.
Posted by: Van Helsing at January 24, 2006 04:54 PM (h/PtQ)
4
Thank you for bringing to light the true nature of liberals.
Posted by: brando at January 24, 2006 05:08 PM (GTNT6)
5
I hope Joel gets a LOT of play throughout the media. This is the real thinking of today's version of a liberal, rather than the mealy-mouthed, half-hearted BS they usually spout. Let mainstream American hear it.
Posted by: Stratego at January 24, 2006 06:58 PM (wZLWV)
6
Hey - check out the new picture on my site...you may get a laugh out of it.
SpecterVision
Posted by: Specter at January 25, 2006 09:27 AM (ybfXM)
7
We support our troops when they shoot demonstrators.
Posted by: Rurik at January 25, 2006 05:13 PM (8lx0N)
8
Sorry.
That should have read Timothy McVeigh.
Representative of conservatives as these clowns you chose are of liberals?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 25, 2006 07:10 PM (9wvLS)
Posted by: Specter at January 25, 2006 09:23 PM (ybfXM)
10
Specter -
What Artie was trying to say was that Timothy McVeigh was a Republican and that he is probably no more representative of all Republicans than are some Democrats representative of all Democrats.
Joel Stein may not be representative of all Democrats, but that is really meaningless. He does represent some Dems - just as McVeigh may have represented some Republicans.
Joel Stein does not represent all Democrats, but far too many Democrats embrace his anti-war and anti-troops position.
Hugh Hewitt really ripped him a wide new @$$hole in a radio interview. In case anyone has not yet listened to that interview, you can access it
HERE.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 25, 2006 09:34 PM (BRgB4)
11
"Coward. Traitor. Liberal."
You wouldn't say that to my face.
Not more than once.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 26, 2006 02:30 PM (n2Agn)
12
Lighten up a bit, FB. It was sarcasm.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 26, 2006 02:42 PM (BRgB4)
13
I'm just quaking in my boots...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 26, 2006 02:42 PM (g5Nba)
14
No, it's not, Spy, and you damned well know it. "Liberals" have been demonized by the right as 'traitors;' those who think this war was a fools errands are 'traitors.'
CY, I don't really give a shit about whether you're quaking in your boots or pissing in them.
But I still say you wouldn't say that shit to this so-called "liberal's" face.
Not more than once.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 26, 2006 04:21 PM (n2Agn)
15
What are you... five? Gonna start talking about "Mamas" next? Puh-
lease.
I'm sure you're all big and bad and scary, FB, but I'm certainly not impressed by your intellectual capabilites, nor whatever weak threats of physical violence you an come up with.
I'm not sorry if my words stings a little. Perhaps you should be talking with Moore and Murta and other liberal weasels like Stein, so that the bin Ladens of their world don't quote them. Of course, that would require a bit more intellectual courage than you have, and that is why you resort to playground threats.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 26, 2006 04:40 PM (g5Nba)
16
Folks, FB threw an absolute hissy fit after my last response, apparently quivering with rage.
As we've noted in the past, he has problems discussing things like an adult, and so he left a tirade that while long on single syllable words, was quite short of intellectual exertion.
I enjoyed keeping him around as amusing cautionary tale, but he's now worn out his welcome, and has been banned.
Expect him to pop up a few times more, but I can delete and ban another IP in a lot less time than it takes him to generate more bile. Sooner or later, it will sink in.
Sorry to ruin everyoneÂ’s fun.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 26, 2006 06:14 PM (0fZB6)
17
I was all ready to get all nit-picky and point out that the demonstrator is almost certainly a commie rather than a liberal, until FB decided to throw a fit, so: Liberals have a long record of supporting the right of leftists to silence conservatives, so I don't have much patience with liberals either.
Posted by: pst314 at January 29, 2006 12:14 PM (7cTig)
18
hey,iran is so powerful,i suggest no fuckin bug tries to approach them.they have a civilized nation that never look at nuclear energy as a bomb or whatever else these supersticious westerners just dream in their dreams.that is all a political game to ban iran of having peaceful nuclear energy.whhhhhyy nobody tries to blame israel that has stored bulk of bombs in their arsenals??????this is the essence of inhumanity i say and nothing else...gary/germany
Posted by: gary at January 30, 2006 11:22 PM (x/eGT)
19
A pity FB was banned, because I've said such words in the face of a liberal before.
More than once.
How typical of a liberal to cry for freedom of expression until that same freedom is used to insult them -- and then they resort to violence to stop it.
Thankfully, when that time comes, they'll discover that my concealed weapons permit trumps their anti-gun stance. (Hint: never bring brass-knuckles to a gun fight, Sarah Brady fans).
Posted by: Atticus_NC at January 31, 2006 06:22 AM (3lxJi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pushing Elephants: Part 1
I'm not real happy with the Republican Party right now, and would like to see not just a reform, but a restructuring, with a revised GOP platform for upcoming elections. I'll present a single broad topic at a time, and present some ideas. Please discuss in the comments.
Immigration
- A complete, multi-layer physical wall stretching the length of the United States border with Mexico, manned by an expanded, adequately staffed, armed and trained Border Patrol. It should go without saying, but a stronger physical border makes illegal immigration more problematic to those that would enter illegally.
- A decrease in foreign aid and revocation of Most Favored Nation trading status to countries that encourage illegal immigration. Make it financially unpleasant for nations that allow their citizens to illegally enter our country.
- A National ID minimum threshold. This would force states to apply more stringent requirements to obtain official identification. Hiring anyone without a valid, complying ID would be against he law, and any employer violating these standards will face increased civil and criminal penalties, up to and including the forfeiture of assets for repeat offenders.
- A punitive 20% tax on overseas wire transfers by those without a valid, complying ID.
- A robust, interrelated immigration computer system that can track legal immigrants and revoke ID status and residency without compliance, making it impossible for illegal immigrants or visa violators to find or keep jobs or lodging.
- Targeted immigration to help American business, particularly in technology and engineering fields.
- Targeted education visas for students from emerging allied democracies.
- Repeal the practice of automatically awarding citizenship to babies (so-called "anchor babies") born in this country, unless both parents are already U.S. citizens.
The United States of America is a wonderful country that I firmly believe is the greatest nation on Earth, and I can certainly understand many reasons why people from other countries would want to come here. But America's resources, while vast, are finite. We are under no obligation to support other nations nor their citizens, and we have a duty to protect the lives and rights of our own citizens.
Towards that end, we must be able to control our borders and know who is in our country. Illegal immigration must be stopped, illegal immigrants deported, and those that would provide illegals with employment and shelter should pay a high price for their flouting of this nation's laws.
At the same time, legal immigration must be practical to satisfy the needs of American business and to expose Americans to other cultures, while exposing other cultures to the benefits we have to offer as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:12 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Fine ideas all, but remember that we also have to pay for everything. Make sure your ideas include plans to pay for this or that. And sure we'll save billions in the long run, but these things have to be paid for up front.
There's plenty of pork, but getting the politicians to cut it is another thing entire.
Marshall Neal
Posted by: Marshall Neal at January 24, 2006 04:29 PM (Qa0tQ)
2
Hireing illegals is aready supposed to be against the law. Too bad Bush and co. (and corp. and LLC, etc)don't want those laws enforced.
I like the rest, though.
Too bad the RNC wants basically amnesty- they just endorsed Bush's "Temp. worker program."
Posted by: KurtP at January 24, 2006 10:57 PM (H+rgl)
3
Hey....anybody ever lived in Southern California? The hiring of illegals has been going on for many, many decades. I lived in San Diego for 10 years and every morning there would be groups of men standing at certain corners. Trucks would come by and pick up one, two, ten....and off they went to work. This is not a problem that was "caused" by Bush.
Unfortunately, to make $25 in wages for a day, is a lot more than they can get in their own country. And once they are "in" they end up getting free medical care (That was an issue in California when I moved there in 1984 - and it still is.) It's a little hard to completely stop traffic of illegals along hundreds of miles of open territory. How do we accomplish that? Fence - they cut through/dig under/go around.
Just trying to blame a particular administration doesn't do justice to the problem - and it is a problem. Especially now that we have terrorists that could use the same entry methods. We have incursions of the Mexican Army with heavy automatic weapons apparently protecting drug shipments into the US.
So how do we handle it? Put thousands of INS agents out checking every truck with workers in it? We'd get some hits and maybe some fines, but sooner or later we'd stop a truck that had legitimate workers and then we'd have a huge outcry of violating their civil liberties. It's almost a no-win situation. And they've been struggling with it since before the 60's....
Posted by: Specter at January 25, 2006 08:42 AM (ybfXM)
4
Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not advocating a national ID, but a national minimal standard for identification. Is that the same thing?
For example, to get a NC ID, you can use your apartment lease to prove residency and an original birth certificate to establish your proof of age and ID, and neither requirement proves you are in America legally.
I'm pushing for whatever minimum standard proves you are in the United States legally to obtain a certified ID, and then saying you can only legally work if you have this kind of ID.
I do like your additional idea of only allowing money to be wired with valid ID better than my original punative tax idea, but I was trying to offer something to the Democrats. ;-).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 25, 2006 12:26 PM (g5Nba)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 23, 2006
Next Event: the 200-Meter Splatter
Now that Steven Speilberg's moral-equivilence disaster
Munich has once more ripped open the wound of Islamofascist terrorists slaughtering Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, this is
not a brilliant idea:
IRAN put a human shield of 1000 athletes around a key nuclear plant yesterday after Israel indicated it could launch strikes to stop the Islamic state building nuclear weapons.
While Israel would not necessarily target Iranian athletes, a couple of Iranian welterweight wrestlers aren't exactly what one would consider an effective deterrent to Israeli airpower.
Luckily for the athletes, the precision GBU-28s carried by Israeli F-15I strike fighters are ground-penetrating bunker busters, and aren't likely to cause many above ground casualties... though I wouldn't want to be the man on the ground to test that theory.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Big deal. They'll be in good shape to sprint away when the bombs start falling. Handicapped kids in wheelchairs? Now, we're talking.
Posted by: Tom P at January 23, 2006 11:54 PM (0Mdox)
2
With all due respect, as the GBU-28s pass through the area that the "athletes" are standing, there will be collateral damage that will more than likely be fatal.
Not that I consider that to be a problem.
Posted by: old_dawg at January 25, 2006 12:12 PM (mvlLy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
126kb generated in CPU 0.0295, elapsed 0.1305 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.1092 seconds, 298 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.