Go. Now.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Shelby Steele, author of A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America, eviscerates Hillary Clinton's pandering MLK Day "plantation" speech in today's WSJ OpinionJournal.

An excerpt:

Mrs. Clinton came to Al Sharpton's MLK celebration looking for an easy harvest of black votes. And she knew the drill--white liberals and Dems whistle for the black vote by pandering to the black sense of grievance. Once positioned as the white champions of this grievance, they actually turn black resentment into white liberal power. Today, Democrats cannot be competitive without this alchemy. So Mrs. Clinton's real insult to blacks--one far uglier than her plantation metaphor--is to value them only for their sense of grievance.
Mrs. Clinton's husband was a master of this alchemy, and his presidency also illustrated its greatest advantage. Once black grievance is morphed into liberal power, it need never be honored. President Clinton notoriously felt black pain, won the black vote, and then rewarded blacks with the cold shower of welfare reform. And here, now, is Mrs. Clinton sidling up to the trough of black grievance, eyes wide in expectation, but also a tad contemptuous. It is hard to fully respect one's suckers.

Ouch.

Steele continues:

Precisely because Republicans cannot easily pander to black grievance, they have no need to value blacks only for their sense of grievance. Unlike Democrats, they can celebrate what is positive and constructive in minority life without losing power. The dilemma for Democrats, liberals and the civil rights establishment is that they become redundant and lose power the instant blacks move beyond grievance and begin to succeed by dint of their own hard work. So they persecute such blacks, attack their credibility as blacks, just as they pander to blacks who define their political relationship to America through grievance. Republicans are generally freer of the political bigotry by which the left either panders to or persecutes black Americans.

No one on the current political scene better embodies this Republican advantage than the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

I've been working toward this idea in past posts and comments, pushing the idea that one party cannot address the needs of all people in an ethnic group, because people within any ethnic group have different economic and social realities. Race does not equal party affiliation, or at least it shouldn't.

I don't know if it is properly a disagreement with Steele, but I'd say that while Secretary Rice might be the most visible example of black conservativism, others are as well or better equipped to handle electoral office.

Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell has more experience as an elected politician, and simply lacks the national stage that Rice currently occupies. If he wins in Ohio (where he is currently ahead according to Zogby), the small government champion Blackwell may be in a position to think about a 2008 run at the GOP nomination for the Presidency, precisely because unlike other GOP hopefuls, Blackwell has a solid reputation as a true fiscal conservative. If you can find any other Republican candidates with his fiscal track record, please feel free to correct me.

Blackwell's small government leanings and his history of broad, cross-party appeal in Ohio should translate well across the country, and Rice's obvious foreign policy experience would balance the ticket. I for one would like to contemplate a Blackwell/Rice run for the GOP in '08.

Quite frankly, I don't see a Democratic ticket that could hope to compete.

Others blogging this topic:
Dr. Sanity
Austin Bay
Kobayashi Maru
(via Memeorandum.com)

Update: Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom riffs along nicely. Check it out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

You would hope that the UPI's Pentagon correspondent would have enough gun savvy not to make this boneheaded statement:

Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute.

That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.

I hate to tell Pamela Hess, but by 1876 Gatling guns could fire 400-1,200 rounds/minute, and modern electrically-driven Gatlings can fire 4,000-6,000 rounds per minute. Every single gun I own (none of them machine guns) is capable of more than 60 rounds per minute. Poor knowledge, or poor editing? You make the call.

In addition, Metal Storm, the company fielding this "new" technology, had been around with weapons that can fire a million rounds a minute since 2003, and they put the 40mm launcher on Dragonfly UAVs in 2004. Has UPI discovered UAVs yet, or are they still working with those Sopwith Camel prototypes?

Way to be on top of things, UPI.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I am not a huge fan of trolls.

Trolls, of course, are a web denizen that pops up from time to time to post provocative, but not usually insightful or enlightening, comments to a message board or blog post.

Some trolls can actually be useful in that they can be manipulated to prove a point, often without them knowing how they are being used. But in general, trolls are pests, and they exist to annoy.

For the past months I've allowed several trolls to remain posting in the comments of Confederate Yankee, but as time goes on, I've noticed that while one or two in particular are useful for illustrative purposes, others exist to merely disagree and annoy.

These trolls do not engage in substantive debate, and refuses to justify arguments with either sourcing or logic. As of tonight, I'm going to start banning trolls on a case-by-case basis.

Those that serve a purpose will remain, those that don't... well, you won't see them anymore. I won't embarrass them by naming them, they simple won't be around in the future.

They can, or course, start their own blogs. It is a free country, despite what they sometimes claim.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:34 PM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

A Jawa.

On March 12th of 2005 (later updated on March 14th) I wrote a post about a series of messages on the jihadi forum alm2sda.net about how to make various weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons, by a poster calling himself ahmed_assalafil. I had first heard about Ahmed's messages from a website that I frequent which monitors jihad forums, Internet Haganah. Included in Ahmed's messages was the claim that the poster had information on how to make a nuclear bomb, along with some rudimentary (and erroneous) instructions on Hydrogen bomb construction. He was seeking help translating the allegedly secret materials into Arabic.

Head over to The Jawa Report for the rest of the story about how a blogger played a part in convicting Jordanian-born, would-be terrorist Mohammed Radwan Obeid.

While you're there, make sure to wish Rusty a happy two-year anniversary.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Considering their past track record of funding "the other side" in Fallujah, protesting against wounded American soldiers (with signs that read "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist Here to Die for Halliburton"), and cuddling up with neo-copperhead John Murtha, I suppose it should be hardly surprising that the left wing radicals of Code Pink would appropriate and badly PhotoShop a photo of Iranian women fighting for freedom for their anti-freedom message.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:43 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that the United States of the Perpetually Offended has a new victim this morning, as the lefties have their knickers in a twist over comments made by one of their own, former Jimmy Carter speechwriter and MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews.

When interviewing the Dumbest Man in the U.S. Senate™ Joe Biden, Matthews stated:

I mean, he [Bin Laden] sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore.

Predictably, various Crooks and Liars (click the link, they have the video) are upset with Matthews, including Peter Daou, who hyperventilates:

DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left.

Perhaps before getting all huffy, Daou should keep in mind a few facts: Eastwood never uttered, "Make my day, pull out of Iraq now," and it was your dear Mother Sheehan with her "absolute moral authority" that considered Iraq and Afghanistan "almost the same thing," advocating the same pull-out as bin Laden.

Nor has bin Laden quoted Silver or Limbaugh, because they support the war against terrorists, and they don't protest against U.S. soldiers while they recover from combat wounds like the fanatics of Code Pink.

Bruce Willis has million-dollar bounties on the heads of bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Zawahiri. How much does Babs have up? How about Tim and Susan?

Malkin also makes her position on terrorists clear, so I doubt you'll find that Osama is a big fan of hers, either.

But MikeyÂ… well, Mr. Moore is another story entirely.

Bin Laden pulled material from Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 for one of his videotaped rants in 2004, a fact that Moore himself bragged about:

There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)

And Moore himself has suggested repeatedly that there were improper relationships between the Bush and the bin Laden families, a position the fringe left echoed repeatedly, directly and indirectly as recently as yesterday.

Lefists have no shame in associating Bush with bin Laden, but when a more logical association is made between the left and radical Islam's shared hatreds (Bush), shared goals (U.S. out of SW Asia), and shared rhetoric (Michael Moore's words), it seems to hit too close to home. Perhaps what liberals are really dealing with are their own issues of guilt-by-association.

Perhaps they should associate with a better class of people.

Update: Day by Day seems to concur.

Update 2: The defense rests. (h/t K-Lo)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

1 April 1 already? My the rhetoric is heating up. Television talking heads comparing a vocal critic of the administration with a mass murderer. Nice touch that. Folks like Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly WOULD indeed be incensed being compared to Bin Laden. Yet their authoritarian bent, utopian vision and acute self righteousness are characteristics they share with the zealots in the Middle East.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 10:15 AM (hGNke)

2 And yet, I see you have no problem with that same vocal critic alledging ties between that same mass murder and the adminstration. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 10:30 AM (g5Nba)

3 The really interesting similarities in what OBL said in his recent audio tape are so very apparent when comparing OBL's quotes and quotes from the Donkeys: Insurgents are winning the conflict in Iraq and [be] warned that security measures in the West and the United States cannot prevent attacks there. The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong. The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by. The first quote was from OBL. The other two are from so-called prominent Democrats. Looks like OBL is getting his talking points from the same source as Artie - the Democrats.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 10:47 AM (OP00Y)

4 I by no means proved your point CY. Feeble as it was. Rather I confirmed your bias. Not the same thing. Likewise it isn't my fault the Bushes are friendly with so many Saudis including but certainly not limited to the Bin Laden clan.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 02:41 PM (DEot0)

5 Elderly Soldier- With your heroes questioning the patriotism of ANYONE opposing this administrations policies it is precisely the time to call them what they are. Authoritarian zealots has a nice ring to it. Flip side of the radical Islamists.

Posted by: arthurStone at January 20, 2006 02:46 PM (DEot0)

6 Mr. Stone: I have no need to question your patriotism, since you have none. Folks like Code Pink are actually giving aid (money) to the enemy. I would call that a treasonous act. Have you given money to Code Pink, Mr. Stone?

Posted by: Former Marxist at January 20, 2006 04:50 PM (XLfe+)

7 Heard of them for the first time today.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 06:00 PM (DEot0)

8 You just first heard of the Code Pink people today? Have you been in a 'spider hole' for the past six to nine months?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 06:14 PM (OP00Y)

9 arthur, I'm not real sure there is any hope for you, fella; you trust no one in an administration that is bent on keeping your head attached to your body. They are also determined to make as difficult as possible for the radical Islamic terrorists to initiate another attack on our homeland. You're certainly entitled to your paranoia; you seem to wear it like a red badge of courage. At the rate the Democrats are going, though, you will probably be paranoid for many more years.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 06:23 PM (owAN1)

10 RS- I only have so many hours in the day to cruise right-wing blogs and websites. For me it's only a hobby. For you guys it seems to be a way of life. Sorry. And OS- I'm not paranoid at all. Merely disagree with a number of administration policies. The paranoia is all yours. Shouting treason anytime one poses a question or two.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 06:59 PM (DEot0)

11 There is a big difference between "posing a question or two" and making baseless accusations. Even you should realize that, Artie.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:46 PM (OP00Y)

12 "The paranoia is all yours. Shouting treason anytime one poses a question or two." Okay, arthur, this was addressed to me specifically, so back it up!

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 09:10 PM (owAN1)

13 What bothers me about the Chris Matthews remark is that it's cheap, lazy, and intellectually sloppy. Sadly, that's pretty much the state of cable news "analysis" programs. There isn't a single element in these shows that is designed to actually advance a meaningful debate about any topic, and for good reason: that's not the objective of these programs. What is the objective of the programs? Well, your theory is as good as mine. For the viewers, though, these shows are not informative and not entertaining. They're incredibly repetitive because they feature the same roster of guests week in and week out who parrot their respective group's assigned talking points. Regardless of one's political leanings, you have to look at the format and at the hosts of these programs and wonder: this is the best that can be done?

Posted by: Grace Nearing at January 21, 2006 12:33 AM (Ffvoi)

14 Arthur, How could you miss the news the other week when Code Pink gave John "I'm a Veteran" Murtha the "Pink Badge of Courage" for his stand to pull the troops out now. BTW - I went and look up AL "I Took The Iniative" Gore. Sure enough, the guy deserves credit for proposing several key pieces of legislation to help fund research into the use of high speed networks. But, Clinton echoed the words, and what AL actually said was far from an explanation of what he thought he was saying. He said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet." That, for anyone hearing or reading the words does not sound like, "I proposed some key bills that enabled the internet research to move further in the interest of our country." Very different - shows sloppy thinking.

Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 12:47 PM (ybfXM)

15 Old Soldier- The Murtha/Benedict Arnold connection you forged somewhere here at CY is as good a place as any to begin a discussion of your view that dissent = treason.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 05:11 PM (DEot0)

16 Specter- As I've posted before. There is only so much time in the day to deal with the breathless 'scoops' on right-wing blogs where the Murtha/Code Pink thing had a great many knickers in knots. The item isn't particular newsworthy elsewhere.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 05:13 PM (DEot0)

17 Arthur, I seen to recall indicating that Arnold had fought honorably for the colonies during the revolutionary war prior to turning traitor. I do draw a parallel between Arnold's honorable service and Murhta's honorable service (although there have been some disparaging comments lately about Murtha's service) but I do not recall indicating I believe Murtha should be indicted for treason. I will state unequivocally that when his words are posted on al Jazeera that our enemy is probably taking aid from his remarks. My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity. Right wrong or indifferent, George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief and he solely is responsible to lead this country in this war. If you and others don't like that, come up with some viable ideas that will put your party in the White House again, or sponsor an amendment to change the constitution.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 21, 2006 05:40 PM (owAN1)

18 Stoned, You know, your arguments cause me to laugh constantly. Because you haven't seen it, it isn't true. Because places like the NYT don't cover it, it isn't true.But, just because your favorite, quickly sinking and soon to be extinct, new outlet didn't cover it, other places did. Not only blogs, but also at least one paper. Check this: Murtha's new allies

Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 08:43 PM (ybfXM)

19 Oh my God this blog is a riot! For my first salvo, let's look at old soldier's comment. "My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity." So if discussion is healthy and dissent is not healthy, then what is there to discuss? How great the food is in Iraq, how Condi is such a dish in that very flattering haircut, how George Bush is the greatest leader of all time? No dissent, which means disagreement, so this is obviously what you are looking for? Not much of a democracy, huh? Retired Spy, you quoted this statement- "The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by." I know that I have not had first hand experience in Iraq, and as I certainly respect those young men and women who are serving their country, no matter what hairbrained scheme it sends them on in whatever bass ackward country it sends them to, I can say for some certainty that their conditions are less than what are written about in the MSM. And while this quote may seem like a lot of crap to some people, and just a pile of rhetoric to many of you, ask a few soldiers who are there what the hell is going on. I work in the great state of Washington, and where I work we have quite a few soldiers from Ft Lewis come down to just relax and hang out. Since the start of the war, I don't know how many young men and women have gave me the look, that thousand mile stare. And I have been fortunate that I have had the chance to speak to many of these young men, and they usually stop before they get out what they really thought of Iraq and what went on, but a few have not, and you get an eye opener. I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they? So, you all can go on and on and blow your butt trumpets till the cows come home about how great we are, and how discenters are unpatriotic. My family has given an officer to EVERY war that this country has fought, and I personally am considering going ROTC to serve my country(I am a junior in college), with the possibliity of service in the middle east. I believe in national service, but not national servatitude, especailly to a liar. And if you cannot understand the difference, there is a serious problem.

Posted by: sputnik at January 21, 2006 08:49 PM (DaIFo)

20 sputnick, First off....I've spoken with many soldiers who served in Iraq, and my son is off to boot camp soon. Maybe before you toot your own horn you should visit several of the blogs from active service people and/or their families. And maybe you should read some of the articles published by honest journalists embedded with the troops to get the real story. Finally - remember this - Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered to go back to Iraq. Now why would he do that if conditions were so bad, if the cause was so unworthy? I know dozens of men and women who have been there once and volunteered to go back. If what you say is true, why would they? BTW - your nickname says it all...

Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 08:56 PM (ybfXM)

21 You write, Spaceman: "I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they?" Gee, Spaceman, you talked with ONE soldier who had been in Iraq? How impressive is that? What sort of body armor would have protected anyone from an IED? These things are made from artillery shells. Evened armored vehicles cannot withstand that sort of blast. You don't know much about warfare and military ordinance, do you? The oblique reference to Hitler was a nice touch. Shows your level of intellect. And, lest we forget, you had to imply that Bush is a liar too. And you wonder why no one chooses to engage in debate with you? You are just a damn fool and a waste of time!

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 09:29 PM (BRgB4)

22 Sputnik, I'll forgive your youth, but not your arrogance and insolence. If you feel that the war is only because of a lying megalomaniacal out of control president, then my advice is to let your family contribution to the military end with your father. Remember, you are about to swear an oath that will place you under his command. If you cannot separate politics from mission, you would best be advised to not enter service. Should you actually take that oath and join the military, you will soon learn what dissent can do to an organization, a mission, an enemyÂ’s resolve to continue the fight, and the nation as a whole. Once youÂ’ve learned that lesson, you come back and lecture me about dissent and the food in Iraq or CondiÂ’s haircut. Now if you would like to round out the message that comes back from Iraq, go visit Walter Reid and talk to the wounded. Talk to the kids with prosthetic legs that want to go back to Iraq; the kids missing an eye or arm that want to go back to complete the mission. Then you balance what youÂ’ve heard some REFMs whine about and what the real heroes have to say. IÂ’ve been in two shooting wars and another shooting conflict during my 31 years active duty in the U.S. Army, so donÂ’t be so quick to marginalize my thoughts and statements.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 21, 2006 10:19 PM (owAN1)

23 I'd like to pose a question to all the lefty trolls spamming this site: Who would you rather see win the current war on terror, in Iraq? The United States, or the assorted teror organizations arrayed against it? Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc. Whose side are you on? Ours? Or theirs? A related question: When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West?

Posted by: trentk269 at January 22, 2006 01:51 AM (AduKl)

24 Who would you rather see win the current war on terror, in Iraq? Define your terms. As the old drinker Flann O'Brien said, your argument is fallacious, being based on licensed premises. Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc. Lalala. When did you stop beating your wife? Try asking less dumb questions. What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis. I would also like to be on a yacht with several nubile models right now. What's your plan to get there? No, be specific. When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West? You beg the question. Right now, sans bomb, Iran could ensure that the US is driven out of Iraq. It has many more effective weapons already at its disposal.

Posted by: ahem at January 22, 2006 02:43 AM (0BZdf)

25 Another Gadfly Troll in our midst ... Do you have some specific policy or alternative course of action in the war on terrorism that you wish to share. Can you even articulate such a course(s)? Or do you just think you're too cute to require an original thought process? Any moron can ask questions. The gifted offer solutions.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 08:17 AM (BRgB4)

26 Ahem, I thought about using your O'Brien quote until I reread you comment. I found your arguments to be based upon feeling and emotion, rather than "premises." It was nice of you to stop by, though, to remind us why it is so important for grownups to control the government. We shall work just a little harder this election cycle, just for you.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 22, 2006 09:39 AM (owAN1)

27 ahem, What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis. Great - what is your plan for getting there? Oh...don't bother I know. I'll enumerate it for you: 1) Support Murtha for reelection 2) Give groups like Code Pink lots of money to send to the "freedom fighters" 3) Get our troops out now. 4) Have Kerry join the Kos Kooky Kidz to show how mainstream the left really is 5) Come up with yet another "scandal" (I mean it's already January 22 and no new scandal from the left yet this year - and that after a record year last year....get movin guys you're losing your momentum) 6) Help Splash get off the bottle, find him a club that doesn't discriminate, and give him the keys to lost of fast cars and innocent women 7) Get the troops out now (added for emphasis) Don't use every means available to fight the war on terrorism (instead alienate the centrists in your own party and drive them to the right - good, sound strategy) 9) Doctor as many pictures as possible and make up as many fabrications and spins to make it look like there has been no progress in Iraq 10) Chip in a few bucks to help the NYT make money again 11) Start establishing legal defense funds for Reid, Dorgan, and those poor, defenseless terrorists 12) Cut and run and leave the Iraqi's defensless and finally 13) Pull the blanket over our eyes and hope nobody comes looking to hurt our own country - killing innocent men, women and children. Oh yeah I forgot to mention turn our backs to Iran's president who point blank said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. What is that you say, ahem? You say that isn't the left's? (oh....I'm being prejudicial by saying that four-letter-word "left" - Maybe I should use "progressives". Naw....snort....that makes it sound like they have a plan) Would you care to tell us all about the "real plan"? Because all we see is the crap above. And you say the right has no plan....Get a grip. Geez...this is fun. I could hav made the left's plan at least a few hundred items longer...but it is such a "winner" with just this much.

Posted by: Specter at January 22, 2006 09:51 AM (ybfXM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Raw Story has a detailed 42-page defense of the President's "inherent constitutional authority" to conduct warrantless investigations of enemy forces to dissuade attacks upon the United States.

While I'll let the legal eagles sort out the complex nuances of the language, it appears to my untrained eyes that the document is a fleshed-out version of this five-page DoJ briefing (PDF) released December 22nd, and it seems like they're making the same points I discussed here after reading about the briefing.

The document cites copious case law, the President's inherent Constitutional authority under Article II, and a FISA exemption granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

It also makes the argument that if FISA is shown to conflict with the President's Article II Powers, then FISA is unconstitutional.

This is going to be very interesting, but I'd say unless the President's detractors can come up with a new argument I haven't heard of yet, then his powers to conduct this kind of warrantless surveillance will be upheld to the great consternation of those libertarians and leftists that do not understand the responsibilities on the Executive during a time of war.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:08 PM | Comments (63) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

A "new," poor-quality audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden claims in part, according to CNN:

"We have seen explosions in many European countries. As for similar operations taking place in America, it's only a question of time. They are under way, and you will hear about them soon."

Unless I have missed something, we have not seen explosions in "many European countries," with the last successful large scale terrorist attacks occurring on July 7, 2005 in London. The last well-publicized attempted attacks occurred exactly two weeks later on July 21, 2005, when three botched subway station bombs and one bus bomb led to no casualties and the capture of all four suspected bombers.

There have been no successful attacks since then, making the alleged bin Laden threat sound like a pre-recorded sound bite—perhaps the kind of vague, generic sound bite a dying leader might leave to rally the troops after his death.

While this is perhaps a tape meant to inspire al Qaeda's foot soldiers (or perhaps serves to function as an attack order), the boasting of attacks that either never took place or are far out of date would seem to lend soft credence to the theory that al Qaeda's one-time leader is, as Mercutio said in Romeo & Juliet, "a grave man."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

Splash three:

A Pakistani security official on Thursday said at least three top Al Qaeda operatives were believed killed in a U.S. missile strike last week, including an explosives expert on the U.S. most-wanted list and a close relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri...

he U.S. Justice Department names Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, as an explosives expert and poisons trainer who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan...

The official named two other foreigners as suspected killed in the missile strike: Abu Ubaida, whom he said was the main operations chief for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, which lies opposite Pakistan's Bajur tribal region where Damadola is located; and Abdul Rehman al-Misri, an Egyptian and close relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.

Their bodies were among those believed to have been taken away Taliban/al Qaeda sympathizers after the strike. I'd rather have them on a slab with a meat thermometer in them to be certain, but I suspect that the reason thy can confirm their deaths is that they left behind a significant amount of DNA, even if their bodies were not recovered.

Congressman John Murtha, when reached for comment*, declared us defeated and said he was concerned that, "the withdrawal of the Predator drones, the smoking hole on the ground, and the number of dead al Qaeda fighters made it look like victory"...

Yeah, it kinda does.

The NY Times has more details.

*No, not really.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

On DebbieSchlussel.com:

You've no doubt heard that, today, the ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America--filed a lawsuit against the government for NSA "spying" (interesting that there was no such lawsuit when Bill Clinton was doing the same thing--Remember "Echelon" and "Carnivore"?).

Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I've already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government's activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name.

Her contact page is here. And yes, I did.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:11 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

This is interesting:

COLIN Powell yesterday warned that Iran was heading down the same path as Iraq had done before the 2003 invasion and could not be trusted to tell the truth about its nuclear programme.

The former United States secretary of state said he believed Iran posed a serious threat to the rest of the world in the same way that Iraq had done, and he refused to apologise for the action the US took against Saddam Hussein's regime.

However Mr Powell, who was in Glasgow to address a Jewish group, admitted that the military campaign against Iraq was based on "bad intelligence" and that it was now clear that Saddam had not managed to amass any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Powell said it was clear that negotiations with Iran had come to a dead end and efforts now had to concentrate on preventing it taking the same path as Iraq had done.

Powell does not, however, call for military action... yet.

Increasingly though, the question seems to be more a question of "when" western allies might push for more severe measures, not "if." A nuclear weapon developed by an apocolptic Islamic cult in Tehran (one so crazy Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't touch them) is not something that the free world can easily allow, but it will come at a price.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Coalition nations relatively little compared to what we could face with a military response to Tehran's insistance on developing nuclear weapons.

In Iraq, we completed the military invasion and more than two years of occupation so far for less military casualties than we expected in the battle for Baghdad alone.

In Iran, we would face what most agree is a more competent military than what we faced in Iraq, and we would most likely be forced to engage them in full-spectrum warfare, not just an air war.

While air assets and special forces might launch attacks to shut down known Iranian nuclear sites, our conventional forces based in Iraq would have to prepare to repel possible Iranian overland counterattacks.

In addition, western naval and Marine forces would be forced to seize control of the Persian Gulf, and the Guld of Oman, particulary the Iranian-controlled islands in the Strait of Hormuz.

It perhaps then, no accident that the nation's newest and largest aircraft carrier, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan has deployed to the western Pacific, where it could reposition to the Persian Gulf region relatively quickly. We also know that the 122nd Fighter Wing of the Indiana ANG is deploying up to 72 F-16s to "southwest Asia" in their largest deployment since the Berlin Crisis in 1961.

I hope Iran will back down, becuase I do not desire another middle eastern conflict if it can be avoided. But allowing a genocidal end times cult to possess nuclear weapons is not something the world can allow, even if that cult runs a country.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:14 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

Some weak-hearted souls left of the political center have taken issue with this post, in which I stated that the civilians killed in the CIA Predator Hellfire missile strike on a compound in Damadola Pakistan were hardly innocents.

New information about the strike confirms that the compound destroyed in the attack had been used as a meeting place on more than one occasion by "significant terrorist figures" in the past and that "there were strong indications that was happening again."

Leftists, simply appalled that several children died, are unlikely to point out the fact that this stronghold belonged to a smuggler of gems and precious stones, not a "jeweler" as some news outlets have reported. Nor are they like to mention that the area was under the control of the militant Mamond tribe and a Taliban stronghold from which al-Zawahiri had married one of his wives.

Pakistani officials confirm that Egyptian aides of terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed, with conflicting reports of 4-12 terrorist bodies (Ed Morrisey presumes them to be the high value al-Qaeda members) being removed by unnamed people after the strike. In addition, four bodies that could not be readily recovered in the wake of the strike (presumably trapped under the structure) have been identified as terrorists.

Smugglers, terrorist supporters, and high-ranking terrorists died. I'm sorry about the kids, but I'd call the strike again all the same. Their deaths are regretable, but war often is.

Update: Make that terrorists, smugglers, and an al Qaeda chemical weapons expert/master bomb builder. (h/t Jim Lynch at Bright & Early)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Al Gore, former Vice President and Patient Zero of Bush Derangement Syndrome, responded to charges of hypocrisy by White House Press secretary Scott McClellan via left wing Raw Story:

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

When does refuting a hysterical, error-prone and contradictory speech by a law school dropout (even a famous one) justify the appointment of a special counsel? If anything, the fact that the case laid out by Gore is full of lies and distortions undermines his credibility to a staggering degree.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

Perhaps the former Vice President should read this December 22, 2005 letter from the Office of Legal Affairs in the U.S. Justice Department which specifically addresses these legal questions.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Mr. Gore, which charges are factually wrong?

The Clinton/Gore administration conducted warrantless physical searches without implicit authorization under FISA, and asserted the Article II powers to do so, just as President Bush justified his executive order for NSA surveillance under Article II powers, with the colorable argument that the AUMF gave him statutory authorization as well. Mr. Gore, President Bush has far more legal cover than any of your administration's actions on this front. Talk to someone who graduated law school—say liberal constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein, or your own associate attorney general John Schmidt—and perhaps you'll find a more informed opinion.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law.

Mr. Gore, who are your "many legal experts?" Further, how many of them are directly or indirectly related to the Democratic Party? The NSA surveillance operation that you have not even seen was reviewed by two Attorney's General, Justice Department legal teams, NSA legal counsel, and White House counsel. Again, who are your experts?

If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

As I noted here:

What this NSA executive order matter will boil down to in the end is a separation of powers issue.

Did Congress have the legal authority to bind the Office of the Presidency in conducting warrantless searches performed for national security reasons, stripping the executive branch of an inherent constitutional power?

Every President from the dawn of international wire communications well over 100 years ago until 1978 assumed this right, and the courts have always deferred to this particular power inherent to the Presidency. This is supported by case law and precedent, and is summed up in the five-page Department of Justice briefing (PDF) delivered last week. In short, the Department of Justice seems willing to make the case that Bush was well within his constitutional powers...

Even after passing FISA, Carter himself did not feel strictly bound by it, nor has any President since, from Reagan, to George H. W. Bush, Clinton, to George W. Bush. They have all asserted (and over the past two weeks, their DoJ attorneys have as well) that the Office of the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence. This power has been assumed by every president of the modern age before them, dating back, presumably to the Great Eastern's success in 1866 of laying the first successful transatlantic telegraph cable. From Johnson, then, through Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft, through Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, to FDR and on to Truman, Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and into the Carter administration, the Presidency has had the inherent and unchallenged power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security reasons.

This is a simple, unassailable fact, not matter how loudly demagogues shriek.

As the movie says, Mr. Gore, "reality bites."

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

Again, it is Mr. Gore that has been creative with both history and facts already presented. Far from condemning the President's program, most credible legal experts find that the NSA surveillance authorized by the President is justified by both Article II of the Constitution and statutory authorization of the AUMF provided by Congress to wage war, in which foreign intelligence operations are recognized as a component of military power. It is a shame that a man just a heartbeat away from the presidency has so little knowledge about the powers and responsibilities of the office.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."

Which we will have, Mr. Gore, in spades.

Not only have your liberal friends in the ACLU and the terrorist-coddling Center for Constitutional Rights and their friends from the HAMAS-associated Council on American-Islamic Relations (though not those members already convicted of terrorism, I'd wager) filed suit, but the Administration is looking forward to testifying about the program in early February in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Please, continue to "bring it" Mr. Gore. You're proving to be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Howard Dean.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:32 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 1018 words, total size 9 kb.

Former inventor and Vice President Al Gore's speech today, thought by many inside of his therapy group to be enlightening, is seen as conflicting with both past and present reality according to experts not currently afflicted with BDS, or Bush Derangment Syndrome.

Gore admitted shortly after his speech today that his current required dosage of ziprasidone just isn't working the way it used to. Gore had been medicated since claiming during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 9, 1999 that "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Gore is said to still be dealing with the mental fallout of the realization that the concept of the hypertext system that powers the Internet, like the 2000 election, belongs to a Bush.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:36 AM | Comments (60) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just the fact that he said the NSA program effected "huge" numbers of Americans shows how ridiculous this is.

Posted by: Specter at January 17, 2006 08:29 AM (ybfXM)

2 Just remember, Al Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee, and never demanded a recount there. I guess they knew things about him that we are finding out now.

Posted by: Tom TB at January 17, 2006 09:42 AM (6krEN)

3 I thought it was an excellent speech. That many of you are lining up to hand your rights over to this administration doesn't mean the rest of us are. Criticizing the president's programs is not harmful to the nation. The president and the nation are not one and the same. Repeat as necessary.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 10:28 AM (hGNke)

4 Old Soldier- The eavesdropping is secret old boy. So I can't say if me or thee have been listened to. But based on the performance of our gov't agencies over the years spying on US citizens during the Vietnam era and such I'd have to say, given the increased abilities of the NSA, it's certainly possible we both have been. Mr. Gore has reason to be pissed. But the misdeeds of this administration (which are legion) were his subject not an election stolen from him. That's another speech I wish he'd make.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 01:03 PM (UnGrU)

5 Poor Al Gore. He's channeling the spirit of Clement Vallandigham.

Posted by: Zhombre at January 17, 2006 02:13 PM (Xm4xl)

6 Dang. Forgive me I keep forgetting we're at 'war'. What with the absolute lack of sacrifice by any of us here at the homefront it's hard to remember. As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home. But resist the idea of another invasion of a large Middle Eastern nation please. Detracts from what we need to do and provides additional recruits for our opponents.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 04:16 PM (UnGrU)

7 Remember, Arthur-- anyone who disagrees or (horrors!) opposes Mister Bush is a)crazy; b)delusional; c)filled with partisan malice.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 05:42 PM (pEWm6)

8 Well, look who showed back up. Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional), but it was Democrats who came up with the diagnosis of "Post Election Selection Trauma" to self-diagnose the flawed coping skills of some of their own, so take that for what it is worth. As for partisan malice, Fat Bastard, you've shown quite a bit of it on this blog, denoucing very nearly everyone who disagrees with you as a racist, then turning tail and running when I challenged you to apply the same standards to a very specific set of Democratic racists. Back on topic Gore both lied in this speech as a factual matter (see the third link in the original article for a point-by-point refutation), and he engaged in unsupported hyperbole. I'm sorry if Mr. Gore has gone further than he should have in front of a rabid (and unfilled) crowd, but as an adult, he has to take some reponsibility for his own actions. I'll be very amused, Athurstone and Fat Bastard, to see just how scarce you make yourselves when the NSA program is proven constitutional and the Executive Branches Article II powers are confirmed, and I'll probably be even more amused by your cries of a conspiracy and coverup. That's why I so enjoy being a conservative. You liberals are always amusing, even if you can't be taken seriously.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 17, 2006 06:15 PM (0fZB6)

9 Actually, Mr CY, if you get into Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine, a previous administration was also wiretapping without a court order. Happened all through the 8 years of that particular administration. Taped the phone conversations of Strom Thurmond. Taped the phone conversations of John Boehner. Used something called Project Echelon. And while The First Black President sold 50 years of nuclear secrets to Communist China, Al Gore was providing the same deal to the Russians. Amazingly the old Gray Witch was silent on those matters.

Posted by: Former Marxist at January 17, 2006 07:06 PM (XLfe+)

10 Not everyone who opposes Bush is crazy, delusional and filled with partisan malice; but if you see someone who is indeed crazy, delusional and filled with partisan rancor, they probably oppose Bush.

Posted by: Zhombre at January 17, 2006 07:34 PM (mBZ68)

11 Hey Arthur and Fat, Any news on the Fitz front? I mean such a big scandal and we've spent almost $1M... And talk about delusional - Teddy "Splash" Kennedy said today that he would quit the "OWL" club as soon as possible - he said that even though he paid them $100 per year he did not really belong to the club... Let's see how you guys try to spin that one. And note my post above where I noted that Gore said that "huge" numbers of Americans have been spied on. Hmmmm.....secret program....I wonder how he knows? Must be divining with Splash....

Posted by: Specter at January 17, 2006 08:14 PM (ybfXM)

12 "As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home." Didn't Clinton try the "law enforcement" angle before 9-11? Arthur, you really need to evaulate what is going on in this world today. When was the last time the police or the FBI fought a war? Do you honestly believe our police/FBI would be effective in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else our hunt for al-Qaeda takes us? This is NOT a war we can afford to prosecute in a "law enforcement" manner.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 17, 2006 08:23 PM (owAN1)

13 Uh... no, I left for two reasons-- one is, I have a real job that takes up a significant amount of time. The other is that I really couldn't even see the point of trying to argue with people who beleve Saddam Hussein was complicit in the September 11 attacks. As for blanket accusations of racism-- my dear boy, I never, for instance, accused nor even considered Old Soldier to be a racist. I disagreed with the Old One in a respectful, collegial manner. I find it difficult- no, impossible to respect neoconfederates. At least, those that run away from the history of their cotton-pickin' Reich (after all-- if the secessionists themselves say that they were leaving the United States in order to protect the institution of slavery, who are we to argue?). I have more respect for the Stormfront types with whom at least you know where you stand. Ahem... returning to the subject at hand-- I know how much you folks hate Al Gore (oooo, it reeks of KKKlintoon!), but just what lies did he tell?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 10:24 PM (pEWm6)

14 Old Soldier-- again, with respect, I think that's the only way to do it. Terrorists are small numbers of people; and as horrifying as their acts are, essentially they are nothing more than crimes. The way to catch mass-murderers is always the same-- intelligence, investigation, and plain old gumshoe work. (You might send something a little heavier than a squad car to ultimately take them down, of course; but the problem with these guys is always going to be finding them.)

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 10:28 PM (pEWm6)

15 FB - simple enough. Gore stated that "huge" numbers of innocent americans had been spied on. What do you consider huge? And what is considered "innocent"? As I said before, it's pretty obvious that someone in the US speaking with a known terrorist cell phone in the middle east is not just ordering a pizza. So hence, Gore lied. Spin it different, but before you try go and look at the text of his speech.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:01 AM (ybfXM)

16 No, Old One, of course not. But then, since the terrorists primary weapons are simple car-bombs and rifles (and boxcutters on airplanes, but that horse is out of the barn; no planeload of passengers will ever let a few people with boxcutters take that airplane without a fight), they just can't do a helluva lot to us from the mountains of Tora Bora. The ones who hijacked the aeroplanes on that wretched day had spent a long time right here in the US. HERE is where the targets are; here is where the killers have to be to access the targets, and here is where plain old gumshoe police work will do the job. As for military work-- you're already well aware that I agreed with and fully support the policy of destroying the Taliban as a cohesive government and military force. It is my considered opinion that Iraq has taken our eyes off the ball. If we wanted to support democracy and help promote "freedom," we would have been much better served by focusing on Afghanistan and getting the damn job done there.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:08 AM (pEWm6)

17 Spector: Huge? In my opinion, ONE is HUGE. How many times must the law be broken before its considered actual lawbreaking? After all, the last president was impeached over telling a lie about a consensual affair while under oath; even though that lie was immaterial to the case at hand. THEN it was called perjury. Now, I'm not going to try to get into the legal minutiae; but according to some senators I've seen quoted, it appears that the FISA law was broken. What does it matter the number, WHEN THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:14 AM (pEWm6)

18 CY wrote: Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional)... And from CY's home page: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state. Hmmmm.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:21 AM (hGNke)

19 FB- Nice post(s). I totally agree that Iraq is a huge waste of money, people and political will keeping us from dealing with the actual threats we face.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:24 AM (hGNke)

20 What a combo! Artie and Fat Bastard. It does provide us with some entertainment, though, because they are both so easy to prove both foolish and dead wrong. These two make all sorts of statements - as does the unhinged Al Gore - and they are following the same premise: Bush broke the law. As with Ailing Al, who admitted that he did not know any of the details of the NSA surveillance program, and who, himself, did not finish law school, these two are claiming to know the law. I challenged these two on several occasions to explain where in the U.S. Constitution or the actual provisions of the FISA statutes they can show evidence of wrongdoing. It is obvious that these two just bully and bloviate without citing specifics. Neither have even read any of the laws or Court decisions. I am pretty certain of that. If they had they could maybe be more convincing. I could write volumes on these issues, but I'll let CY, Old Soldier and others cover that for a while. I just had surgery yesterday morning, and the pain is still a big detraction. Bring it on, boys! I know others can deal with your lunacy without even breaking a sweat.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 10:45 AM (wjIba)

21 I think there's where we part company, Old Soldier; but I think it an amicable parting. My wish to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda is for plain ol', good ol' retribution. My country was never one for starting wars ('til recently, of course, but I digress) but it was hell on wheels for ending them. (Mr. Taliban, your folks murdered a bunch of ours. GIVE THEM UP, OR WE WILL STOMP THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU.) Again, having SF and the Delta boys hike all over the mountains and find that bearded son-of-a-bitch is in my opinion A VERY GOOD THING. (just as an aside, there's a very primitive part of me that wants Bin Laden's head literally on a pike outside the White House, replete with crows-- too many episodes of HBO's Rome, I think...) But I still believe domestic police work (and I mean honest police work, not illegal wiretaps, not torture, not abrogating the civil and human rights of our people) is our best bulwark against further attacks.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:51 AM (pEWm6)

22 Retired Spy- May not be quite as cut and dried as you would have us believe. "Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:54 AM (hGNke)

23 sigh it's the retired spy who believes Saddam Hussein collaborated in the September 11 attacks. You don't believe the administration broke the law; others believe they did. Meanwhile you carry on, bloviating (such an interesting word; so applicable to mindless right-wing blowhards) about how unhinged Gore (and I and Art) must be. Per usual, attack those who raise questions; don't address the issue. Carry on, Spy.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:55 AM (pEWm6)

24 You two are really pathetic - Arthur an Fat Bastard. You never have anything to back up your statements, and then you quote someone like Grover Norquist as a source? RS has challenged you two to provide some facts from FISA and other statutes and court decisions to support your statements, and you quote Grover Norquist? RS is right. You two are far too easy.

Posted by: Moshe at January 18, 2006 11:58 AM (wjIba)

25 FB, You say that a law was broken. Which one? Want to point to a specific one instead of speaking it because someone who supports your side has programmed you to say that? Even FISA allows the president to do warrantless electronic intelligence gathering for up to a year if it is determined that someone is an "agent of a foreign power". Now before you speak, check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA. This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism". Go from there to part (b) of that section. There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activitise that in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition could include US citizens. Next you should read Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802. Here is what you will find: (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)? All that aside, the president is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:19 PM (ybfXM)

26 Gauntlet thrown down...time to put up or shut up....

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:20 PM (ybfXM)

27 Uh, Moshe-- cool name, by the way-- I can link you to the US Code for FISA; you may read to your hearts content. Mostly dull lawyer-speak; but here you go. But I'm not here pretending to be a lawyer; and I'm not going to get embroiled in the lawyerly details. You support the Regime, therefore you believe no crime has been committed. Others, as CY mentions on another thread, believe that a crime has been committed and have filed suit accordingly (of course, since CY considers the plaintiffs to be "terrorist coddlers," "liberal," and "Hamas associated," their arguments are wrong and pointless). The Stone's comment regarding Grover Norquist simply indicates that even staunch right-wing Republicans are questioning the Administration's behavior in this matter. Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men. Not a hand any elephant would want to bite, I would assume? Specter (it would be so much more interesting if you spelled Britstyle: SPECTRE is so much more appropriate to your mindset), with regard to how Fitz is doing: one megabuck spent so far, with the Vice-President's Chief of Staff currently under multiple indictments. Judge Starr: 45 megabucks spent to demonstrate that Bill Clinton is partial to fat girls. With such cognitive dissonance...

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:35 PM (pEWm6)

28 Gauntlet thrown down... (zziiiiip!) and promptly pissed on. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend to be one. But I go back to the fact that serious lawyers, journalists and elected officials disagree with you.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:39 PM (pEWm6)

29 And quite a few agree with me. But note that I at least provide evidence.....

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:56 PM (ybfXM)

30 Ummm....the law suits were not filed saying anyone broke the law. They state that first amendment rights to free speech may have been abrogated. Big distinction. I can't picture the ACLU being able to arrest people......

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:58 PM (ybfXM)

31 BTW - name these serious lawyers. and journalists aren't lawyers either so what makes them qualified/ Because they have to generate controversy to sell papers? Gotta feel bad for them cuz they are on the path of the dinosaur....look at the declining readership and stock value at LAT, NYT, WaPo.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 01:00 PM (ybfXM)

32 Specter- Thanks for all the verbiage. Very interesting. Still it's even more interesting that Republican stalwarts aren't buying. I mean as a knee-jerk liberal I can be expected to do no less (ha ha). But Paul Weyrich? Why do you suppose that is? They certainly aren't brainwashed liberals. Could it be the administration isn't acting in quite the manner they claim to be? I mean perhaps the degree of eavesdropping is very different in type and quantity from that which they claim. Could it be the legal advice they are receiving is incorrect? Could it be they are common criminals after all? We'll see won't we?

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 01:35 PM (3StSI)

33 Arthur, Yes...we will. But I don't suspect any time soon that any court will take up this. I'll also point out that Cass Sunstein, a liberal, constitutional scholar, lawyer, and judge, has weighed in on this and said that from his perspective no laws were broken. The other thing to remember is that if Congress passes a law that infringes on the president's constitutional powers, then by definition the law is unconstitutional. So far, only circuit level courts have made any rulings. Also FISC, the FISA court, in the UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW, in Sealed Case no. 02-001 said (emphasis mine): The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the PresidentÂ’s constitutional power. So here we see the actual FISA court saying that they think the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches. Every case I have seen referred to so far says the same thing.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 02:06 PM (ybfXM)

34 Y'know, if you could just send Ol' Al back down here to Florida, we could 'Baker Act' him into a nice hospital. He'd get the care he so obviously needs. 'Cause, after all, we care.

Posted by: benning at January 18, 2006 02:46 PM (PGmbh)

35 Thank you for your exquisite analysis, Mr. Blofeld. You're ever so correct that a lawsuit doesn't constitute a criminal investigation. Nonetheless, someone feels the Administration is committing criminal (or at least, extra-constitutional) acts and seeks to get a court to tell the Administration to stop it. So, to recap-- though your (admittedly excellent) legal analysis demonstrates clearly that the law was not broken, others disagree. Thank you again for the scholarly discourse.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 03:21 PM (pEWm6)

36 FB, The problem I was trying to address was your flat out statement that (in your words - caps included)"THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN". Obviously at some point the courts may take this up (but they may not). It's the fact that your side keeps saying that without doubt a law has been broken. In reality, there is huge doubt that a law has been broken - other than Al Gore, Pelosi, Rocky, Splash Kennedy, NYT (et.al.) saying so. Every time I ask, I get no answer as to which law and why, beyond some vague reference to FISA, which everyone has read about, but few people know about.

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 04:11 PM (ybfXM)

37 FB, One other thing. You said: Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men. Can you explain why you would point people to an article published on April 26, 2001, with regards to a matter happening in 2005? I'm not sure I understand....

Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 04:15 PM (ybfXM)

38 The link was to an article that identifies the illustrious Mr. Norquist and his bona fides with the Republican Party. Jeez.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:04 PM (pEWm6)

39 Oh, by the way, Mr. Blofeld- let us split the difference: IF the LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN, what does it matter how often? Once was enough to impeach KKKlintoon...

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:07 PM (pEWm6)

40 And am I assuming correctly, FB, that, simply because Mr. Norquist is a Republican who happens to agree with the crap you are spewing is a basis for declaring him an ally and an expert on Constitutional Law and decisions arrived at in the courts? No one ever claimed that all Republicans are great intellectuals on everything. I have not read any of his learned evaluations and interpretations of the Law on the matter of warrantless searches or surveillance of foreign communications or anything else. Can you cite something pertinent to this discussion? Being knowledgeable on money and finance and taxes does not equate to expertise on the Law any more that an architect has expertise in cosmetics. As always, your flabby logic shows just how transparent and inconsequential most of your arguments really are. And what, exactly, is this Mr. Blofeld reference to the person using the screen name of Specter? Are you just being disrespectful because he has shown you up for the fraud you are?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 11:47 PM (FsLF4)

41 Not the point FB, The fact is that you insist that a law has been broken. So far nobody has proven that. Not once in this matter. But you keep saying it is so, "because you say it is so." That's not splitting hairs. You accuse someone with no proof, no expertise, based on what you have been programmed to say. You provide virtually nothing to back up your claims of illegality, and then when someone actually points to the law you contend was broken you pull a David Letterman (as in I'm not smart enough to debate with you..) by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." Can you read? Read the law for yourself and see what you come up with.

Posted by: Specter at January 19, 2006 10:51 AM (ybfXM)

42 Tsk, tsk, tsk. A Retired Spy should recognize a James Bond reference. The point I made was that not only democrats and not only "liberals" question the legality of the administrations behaviour. Get a grip, willya? Look, Mr. Blofeld-- I will not move to saying "the law HAS NOT been broken." I DID move to "IF the law HAS BEEN broken." I don't know. Based on the relative credibility of the people and organisations making the allegations, I believe the law was broken. I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion. I will not attempt to do so. So bugger off.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 06:43 PM (pEWm6)

43 Didn't much care for the Bond flicks. Read one of Fleming's books, saw the first movie and was bored. Too sexist and unrealistic. You may have had all sorts of fantasies with you and Johnson, FB, but my assignments were in the real world. You needed to find a more credible reference for your thesis than Norquist. Chuck Hagel would have been more convincing than Norquist. As for legal opinion, you can, as Specter noted, read, can't you? Too much work for you?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 07:38 PM (FsLF4)

44 I don't get that, Spy. I mention a prominent Republican to indicate that not all those who question the Administration's behavior are left-wing moonbats (such as my own humble self.) You respond that he's not good enough; I'd be better off choosing someone else. Why? Are you saying that Grover Norquist isn't an example of a prominent Republican? Or that maybe he's not Republican enough? Certainly you're not saying that he's not lawyer enough for his opinion to matter, are you? Bond is fun. Not a treatise on MOUT or CQB or even simple tradecraft; but damn good fun anyway (only James Bond could drive a tank through a wall with the driver's hatch open and not get a speck of dust on his immaculately tailored Savile Row suit!) Dude, you need to get out more.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 09:10 PM (pEWm6)

45 FB- Gets confusing to the true believers when it turns out lefties aren't the only ones having difficulties with the Bushites.

Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:52 AM (hGNke)

46 Write what you will, Oh, reading impaired one ... The national polls still favor the decision Bush made. That would be folks from both parties and the independents.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 11:13 AM (OP00Y)

47 O Spy, who should remain in retirement: The national polls are also in favor or a woman's right to choose. You do realize that you're committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," don't you? Where was it you got your PhD again?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 01:10 PM (n2Agn)

48 I simply stated a fact about poll numbers, and, contrary to what you may 'believe' all Republicans support, I am not at odds with the women who favor their right to choose. But the rulings of the SCOTUS are not based on popularity. They are based on the Constitution. Therein lies the ruling in the final analysis. The illogical argument you have chosen to cite is really as follows: 1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true. This was not posed as an axiom by me or by anyone else. No one claimed that popularity equates to truth; it merely shows the leanings of the majority of people. Democracy is not, in and of itself perfect, nor does the outcome equate to absolute truth. It serves only to illustrate that you and Artie are sucking hind tit.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 03:26 PM (OP00Y)

49 Oh, Spy, that's just so droll! YOU said, "the national polls still favor the decision Bush made." in an ever so erudite rebuttal of my last post. Weak, dude, profoundly weak.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 04:09 PM (n2Agn)

50 It still points out very clearly, FB, that views and positions embraced by you and Artie remain in the minority in popularity AND in the learned views of experts in Constitutional Law, including federal courts and federal judges. Even the FISA Court supported Bush's actions with regard to the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign international communications related to al Qaeda operations. Looks pretty clear to me - and surely not as weak and flabby as your brief lesson in the principles of basic logic.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 09:07 PM (OP00Y)

51 Now you appeal to authority. Keep at it, you could run through all of 'em.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 01:08 AM (pEWm6)

52 And to what do you appeal, FF? I believe you and Artie have outlived your usefulness and your welcome. I don't minf debating with people whp hpld some opposing views, but you and Artie have made an artform out of being total @$$hats. There is no hope for you at all. Nor is there hope for your feeble cause du jour. Surely YOU would not appeal to authority. You have no respect for expertise and learned scholars or persons in positions of authority. It's time for you and Artie to stroke each other elsewhere - somewhere devoid of rational thoughts processes and reason.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 10:15 AM (OP00Y)

53 We're talking about logic here, Spy; a class you seem to have missed on your way to your glorious PhD. To recap: Leftists, traitors, and damn liberals question the Administration's behavior with regard to the FISA domestic spying issues. SOME PROMINENT REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING GROVER NORQUIST, also question the Administration's behavior in this matter. Ergo, NOT ONLY 'LEFTISTS, TRAITORS AND DAMN LIBERALS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIONS BEHAVIOR IN HIS MATTER. Now you could assert that Grover's not Republican enough; not prominent enough; or not lawyer enough for his example to be counted in this analysis. You have not. Instead you say that the polls support Mr. Bush's actions; a clear appeal to popularity. Then you say that various expert entities and unnamed Constitutional scholars agree with you, a clear appeal to authority. Neither of which addresses my central proposition, which is that EVEN PROMINENT REPUBLICANS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHAVIOR. Errhmmm... now where did you get that PhD again?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 12:04 PM (pEWm6)

54 Was there some meaningful point that you were trying to make in the midst of all that empty rhetoric? Did I write something about leftists and traitors and damn liberals as being the ONLY ones disagreeing with the President? Nope That was from you, FB. As I noted in another thread, it's time for you to retreat to your rabbit hole, FB? It really gets your goat that someone actually took the time to research documented evidence to arrive at conclusions - in much the same way as I conducted extensive research to get my PhD. It is obvious that you are too lazy to do either, isn't it?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 01:53 PM (BRgB4)

55 Oh, Spy. I made a simple, frankly factual comment regarding the nature of people who question the Administration's behaviour. You haven't refuted that assertion; you cannot refute that assertion. You offer nothing but hebetudinous, shambling evasions. You got your PhD through Affirmative Action, didn't you?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 07:34 PM (pEWm6)

56 At least I HAVE one! Are you bad-mouthing Affirmative Action? No. I earned all my education through scholarship and hard work and scolastic achievement. In fact, the NSA paid for a large part of it. You do not appear to have either the talent, intellect or energy to put forth serious work to do anything. Anyone can cut and paste stuff. And you have even learned how to use a thesaurus! Too bad you have not learned to put words together as well as those who use the words more fluidly.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 08:40 PM (BRgB4)

57 Shorter Spy: "Nyaah nyaah nyaaah!" Carry on.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 11:55 AM (pEWm6)

58 Now you revert to childish, infantile displays of discourse?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 03:37 PM (BRgB4)

59 "I know what I am, but what are you?"

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 04:16 PM (pEWm6)

60 I'll tell you what I am ... I am totally bored with your convoluted logic, stubbornness, intellectual impotence and insistence on dodging the facts as they pertain to any discussions at hand. You and Artie and the KOS Kiddies can continue your circle jerk masturbation marathon until CY gets really tired of you. I choose to ignore your ignorance and accusations and generalizations based on nothing but left wing psychotic paranoia.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 08:25 PM (BRgB4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Strange as it may seem (or not), New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, not Robert Byrd or Pat Robertson, made the following claim:

Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans _ the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Nagin went on to have an imaginary conversation with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm going to be very charitable with Mayor Nagin, and simply suggest that he take some time off from his job and seek counseling for what may be post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The man is starting to sound less rational than Marion Barry.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

So were the words of U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia as quoted in this CNN article about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That is all that should be said (and all I will quote from this sad article) about the foibles about a man who's legacy we commemorate today.

Sadly, some people are allergic to heroes.

The deeds of a brave and noble man are no longer allowed to exist on their own merits without being provided "context" by those who have provided nothing else with their lives. One can only assume that Steven Spielberg is working on a script now lionizing James Earl Ray.

Pretender Kings will trade upon Dr. King's sacrifice for their personal glory, delivering speeches designed to put the spotlight on them, not the Reverend Doctor and his message. Let's remember Dr. King for the good he did and what he accomplished, not for how others would use his memory for their purposes.

More About Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The King Center
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute
Time Magazine 100 article
Wikipedia entry

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:30 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

Jeff Goldstein, 2mg regimen of Klonopin (clonazepam) aside, is on an absolute tear today.

I was personally most drawn to They call him al-Flipper, al-Flipper..., which takes a look at a possible attempt by terrorists to mine Huntington Harbor (CA), but as the say, start at the top, and just keep scrolling.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

The posts of several days ago that al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in a CIA Predator Hellfire missile strike seems to be incorrect, and the media, particularly anti-American media such as the UK's Guardian, were quick to jump on the fact that 17-18 "civilians," including women and children, died in the "botched" attack.

But was this truly an attack on civilians, and was it really botched at all?

In Europe and America, we tend to think of civilians as innocents, but in an area where many of the men in families are fighters loyal to the Taliban, where foreign fighters are interspersed with the local population and none of the combatants wear uniforms, that classification is an artificial construct.

It is now emerging that such may be the case here.

Via Fox News, the Associated Press is now reporting that the airstrike had a very good reason to target these specific houses:

Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader was invited to dinner marking an Islamic holiday at the Pakistani border village struck by a purported CIA airstrike, but he did not show up, intelligence officials said Sunday, as Islamic groups demonstrated across the country in protest of the 17 people killed in the missile strike.

The two Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that this could explain why Friday's predawn attack missed its apparent target, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Usama bin Laden's top lieutenant.

Al-Zawahiri sent some aides to the dinner instead and investigators were trying to determine whether they had been in any of the three houses that were destroyed in the missile strike that killed at least 17 people, one of the officials said.

Terrorists were targeted at these locations by what appears to certainly be human intelligence working in conjunction with aerial surveillance and targeting. Only a human source (or communications monitoring—perhaps by NSA?) would be able to find out that al-Zawahiri was invited to dinner at this home, and it is reasonable for a circling drone or any operators on the ground to surmise that a small ground of armed men arriving at the specified location at the specified time might very well contain their target. This was not a case of an intelligence failure, but a case of one fewer terrorists showing up for dinner.

Locals, of course, claim that they've never sheltered any Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, which flies in the face of all that is known about a region where the Taliban have been known to operate with the support of the local tribes. Even the left-leaning Guardian seems to refute this claim and support the theory that terrorists may have been in the homes:

One Pakistani official, speaking anonymously, told The Observer that hours before the strike some unidentified guests had arrived at one home and that some bodies had been removed quickly after the attack. This was denied by villagers.

The Fox-carried Associated Press article provides more detail:

Survivors in Damadola denied militants were there, but some news reports quoted unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.

A senior intelligence official said Sunday that 12 bodies, including seven foreigners, had been taken from the village.

He said the bodies were reclaimed by other militants, but another Pakistani official told AP on Saturday that some were taken away for DNA tests. A law enforcement official in Washington said the FBI expected to conduct the tests to determine victims' identities, although Pakistan had not yet formally requested them.

I have no doubt that women and children were killed in this strike, but as information continues to develop, it also seems obvious that the group of terrorists monitored and targeted by the CIA were killed as designed.

The Pakistanis have every right to officially protest the strike, but it was almost certainly approved by Musharraf with a wink and a nod. Musharraf himself warned his countrymen in the wake of the attack:

In a speech shown Sunday on state-run Pakistan Television, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf did not address the Damadola strike directly, but he warned his countrymen not to harbor militants, saying it would only increase violence inside Pakistan.

"If we keep sheltering foreign terrorists here ... our future will not be good. Remember what I say," Musharraf said in the speech, which was made Saturday in the northwestern town of Sawabi.

It is a shame that women and children died in this attack, but the blame lies squarely on the fact that these families made the decision to invite terrorists into their homes. The villagers have no one to blame but themselves, and should perhaps consider inviting a better class of people to dinner.

***

Note: as a small technical note to the Guardian, the use of flares as reported by some eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the use of the Predator.

The Predator drone uses an integrated electro-optical, infrared, laser designator and laser illuminator sensor package, enabling it to see in the dark or through haze, smoke and clouds. Flares are neither carried nor needed by the Predator, and would not be used by special forces to designate a target.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:21 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 864 words, total size 6 kb.

What a friend we have in Ahmadinejad:

In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

The next time a snotty little leftist snorts derisively about religious "fundies" here in the west (and particularly in the United States), I hope he keeps in mind that evangelicals don't have a genocidal desire to trigger a nuclear war to satisfy some hole-bound water-logged anti-Christ.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his apocalyptic sect are so radical that Ayatollah Khomeini refused to associate with them. Is the picture clear enough? We are dealing with fanatics is a position of power never before seen in a nuclear age, and our task is clear.

Perhaps it can be resolved with an M24, or perhaps it must be resolved with flights of F117s, F15s, and F16s, but history has shown us that you cannot negotiate in this life with one so eager to attain the next.

It is time to help Ahmadinejad attain his martyrdom. The future of millions depends on it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:39 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.