January 14, 2006
Gore Executed, Bush Crowned
Former Vice President Al Gore was summarily executed by members of the Republican National Commitee just after midnight Saturday, two days before Gore was to give a speech
denouncing the threat the President poses to the Constitution.
At the same time, Democratic member of Congress were rounded up by stormtroopers of the Secret Service and shipped off to concentration camps in the darkest corners of northwest Maryland.
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post were closed by crack elements of the Texas Air National Guard loyal to Bush, and ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN were appointed censors reporting directly to Scott McClellan.
-OR-
Al and his MoveOn.org cronies are listening to the orb again.
I'll let you decide which.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:15 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
CY, this picture is perfect, Algore is the looniest guy that was ever one heartbeat from the presidency in my lifetime!
Posted by: Tom tbo at January 14, 2006 09:27 AM (Ffvoi)
2
Tom tbo-
Yeah. Draftdoger Dick Cheney is a real mensch.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 14, 2006 09:51 AM (hGNke)
3
Oh yeah, get my hopes up with the headline....
Posted by: stratguy1961 at January 14, 2006 10:08 AM (MRcpw)
4
Potatoe.
J. Danforth Quayle
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 14, 2006 10:12 AM (hGNke)
5
(sigh) It's po-TAH-toe, man. Good grief...
Posted by: Ric James at January 14, 2006 10:24 AM (W4uO6)
6
We all know that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is not quite that brazen, yet! Though perhaps once it has finalized its merger with the Zionist World Entity, and Big Business it will roll over our civil rights, and convert us all into Evangelical Fanatics bent on killing gays, blacks, and Jews (yes, oddly enough). But by then our to president will be Dick Cheney because he is running the whole thing any way. And the only one things that can save us from this fate, are Iraqi Insurgents and Communists. Oh, Also McCarthy will rise from the grave and hunt down every Hollywood actor, screen writer, and director.
Posted by: Vlad at January 14, 2006 10:26 AM (OjpND)
7
Arthur, which is worse, a draft dodging VP or a draft dodging president?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 14, 2006 10:31 AM (owAN1)
8
We all know that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is not quite that brazen, yet! Though perhaps once it has finalized its merger with the Zionist World Entity, and Big Business it will roll over our civil rights, and convert us all into Evangelical Fanatics bent on killing gays, blacks, and Jews (yes, oddly enough). But by then our to president will be Dick Cheney because he is running the whole thing any way. And the only one things that can save us from this fate, are Iraqi Insurgents and Communists. Oh, Also McCarthy will rise from the grave and hunt down every Hollywood actor, screen writer, and director.
Gee, Vlad, did you write all that without some help? You must be from the same school of 'thought' as Russell Tice - Psychotic Paranoia University. Do you check your closets and under the bed for the
boogeyman frequently too?
Maybe you should just take your meds with some warm milk and take a nap to calm your fears.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 11:05 AM (AaKND)
9
OK, Artie ... Let's look at a short list of Democrats who may have crawled under the rug when their country may have needed their service:
How about Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Richard Durbin, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, John Edwards, Patrick Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Russ Feingold, and many others. None of them was in the military service either.
In what branch did you serve, Artie?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 11:12 AM (AaKND)
10
Never served in the military cancelled spy.
On the other hand I've never been in any hurry to commit forces to dubious military expeditions nor to cast aspersions on fellow citizens patriotism like Mr. Cheyne who may disagree with me politically.
Big difference.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 14, 2006 12:52 PM (UnGrU)
11
You are pretty funny, Artie.
On the other hand I've never been in any hurry to commit forces to dubious military expeditions nor to cast aspersions on fellow citizens patriotism like Mr. Cheyne who may disagree with me politically.
You just referred to Dick Cheney as a draft dodger. That is not casting aspersions on a fellow citizen? Duh!
And I guess it is you who is the real
Mensch? Not in my book.
You write some pretty ignorant things, don't you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 01:22 PM (AaKND)
12
The vp is a draft dodger.
He declined the opportunity five times to defend our nation while at war. Pointing that out is hardly an aspersion.
Note that I didn't cast doubt on his love of country as he does with his political opponents.
I firmly believe Dick loves his country. Where else such a mediocrity and shirker rise to such heights?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 14, 2006 01:33 PM (UnGrU)
13
Ummm....for those of you who keep pointing fingers at, and deriding people like Cheney and Quayle, I think you should be careful of what you say. Not only are we tracking you, but I'll give you two names that point out the great leadership of the Demoncratic Party:
Teddy "Splash" Kennedy
Howard "AAAIIIIYYYYYEEEEEEEE" Dean
So much for brains....
Posted by: Specter at January 14, 2006 01:56 PM (ybfXM)
Posted by: ron at January 14, 2006 02:21 PM (6krEN)
15
Wow, that orb is really glowing! I hope it ain't nukular, because that firebreathing Gaia freak is about to flame from his righteous mouth depths of his hate. Implosion forth coming.
Posted by: syn at January 14, 2006 02:38 PM (21Ssw)
16
BWAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!!!!
LMAO!!!
Love it!
Posted by: inmypajamas at January 14, 2006 05:12 PM (IoB4s)
17
For Arthur's benefit...
How about Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Richard Durbin, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, John Edwards, Patrick Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Russ Feingold, and many others. None of them was in the military service either
Retired Spy, you forgot one -
William Jefferson Clinton.
Is that casting a dispersion? I certainly hope so!
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 14, 2006 08:31 PM (owAN1)
18
A modest proposal: Let us trade all our dissidents for Iran's and North Korea's? We hand over all those leftlibs here who suffer under the brutal dictatorship of Bush; in return we import all the "Democratic elements" in those liberated countries--who, I predict will start voting Republican...
Posted by: marquisdegallifet at January 15, 2006 03:15 AM (lH6Yp)
19
Dear Mr. Spy
Thank you for your therapeutic advice, having tried it, I am felling a lot better. I don't know who Mr. Tice is but I am indeed an alumni of PPU. I still have my aluminum foil mortarboard. I graduated with a Masters in Sarcasm, and Crazy Conspiracy Theory Fabrication.
Posted by: Vlad at January 15, 2006 06:51 PM (N+nVw)
20
I am not laughing. A couple years back, I probably would have laughed, but not now. When the real and the absurd get too close to call, humor disappears. We have a president, a vice president, and an attorney general all goofed up on the idea of torture, open-ended imprisonment, warrantless surveillance, and much, much more. We have a citizenry (or a portion of the citizenry) that panics when some guys of "Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent" try to buy cell phones in a WalMart. The military and the CIA are getting a bit restive after being repeatedly used as scapegoats for the administration's misadventures (now
that's an assassination scenario people should be concerned about). As I said, I am not laughing.
On its own, though, the picture is a hoot.
Posted by: Grace Nearing at January 15, 2006 07:21 PM (y6n8O)
21
Yeee Haaaa! Looks like the KOS Kiddies, MoveOn.org, Democrats dot com and The Democratic underground have all arrived for the party.
Hope you enjoy the continuing saga of making total fools of yourselvs. We find it rather entertaining. Sad but entertaining ....
Did Michael Mooreon give you permission to be out after dark?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 15, 2006 08:21 PM (AaKND)
22
You repubs having a group wet dream? Anyone who even remotely thinks this shit might be a good idea is invited to explain how any of it comes within shouting distance of the American way of life.
Go ahead. . . .Try.
Gore Executed, Bush Crowned
Former Vice President Al Gore was summarily executed by members of the Republican National Commitee just after midnight Saturday, two days before Gore was to give a speech denouncing the threat the President poses to the Constitution.
At the same time, Democratic member of Congress were rounded up by stormtroopers of the Secret Service and shipped off to concentration camps in the darkest corners of northwest Maryland.
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post were closed by crack elements of the Texas Air National Guard loyal to Bush, and ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN were appointed censors reporting directly to Scott McClellan.
Posted by: Timothy McGrath at January 15, 2006 10:44 PM (yYnV2)
23
Uh, Timothy, I hate to break it to you, but you are apparently the
only person to visit this thread who think this is anything other than blatant satire.
Sad, but true...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 15, 2006 11:22 PM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 13, 2006
Zawahiri Killed?
Via
MSNBC.com:
U.S. officials told NBC News on Friday that American airstrikes in Pakistan overnight Thursday were aimed at the No. 2 man in the al-Qaida terror organization — Ayman al-Zawahri.
One official said intelligence indicated a strong possibility that Zawahri was in the Pakistani village at the time of the airstrike, but there is no confirmation that he was killed.
Pakistani officials say U.S. aircraft, apparently CIA Predator drones, fired as many as 10 missiles at the residential compound.
Interestingly enough, a Predator circling overhead was able to capture this image seconds before the missile strike, with subtitles.
Osama bin Laden hasn't been heard from in over a year, and some sources think he died of kidney failure in mid-December and was buried in Iran. If the DNA squeegeed off surrounding rocks verifies that Zawahiri was killed, who does that leave in charge of al Qaeda?
Update: Here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oops.
No Zawahiri.
A few shepherds, their wives and kids.
Darn.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 14, 2006 12:45 PM (UnGrU)
2
Hmm... seems like Arthur almost seems happy that it wasn't.
Hmm...
Posted by: former marxist at January 15, 2006 01:48 PM (XLfe+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Truthout's Accidental Truth
Left wing
truthout has breathlessly issued a
press release claiming they have a document proving that President Bush authorized NSA wiretaps prior to 9/11/01.
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
And what does that declassified document (PDF) reveal? Just the bottom half of the cover page alone reveals quite a bit:
Now let me ask you the same three questions I asked at Balloon Juice:
When was this document prepared?
December, 2000, but deriving from NSA Manual 123 Dated February 24, 1998.
Who was President during these dates?
William Jefferson Clinton (January 20, 1993 - January 20, 2001).
When was Bush inaugurated?
January 20, 2001.
Without even going past the cover sheet, it appears that the NSA programs covered by this particular document date to Bill Clinton's second term, from three years before Bush took office.
I'll have to finish reading the document at a later time, but this seems to be hardly the smoking gun that truthout claims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:57 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Nice catch. It helps to actually read these documents before screaming AH HA BUSH LIED!!!
Posted by: See-Dubya at January 13, 2006 05:28 PM (sCZnt)
2
I think you're on the right track, but just one clarification: The "derived from" on the front page refers to the document giving instructions on the classification level of this (and other) documents (NSA/CSS Manual 123). It tells the reader what the reference used to determine the classification of the document in question, and does not necessarily refer to the contents of that particular document.
Posted by: Will Collier at January 13, 2006 05:32 PM (JosDu)
3
Boy, that was an illegible comment. Let me try again:
"Derived from" on the cover page refers to the classification guide used to determine what level the document is classified at, not to the date the particular contents of this document were created. It may or may not have any bearing on the policies listed within; we can't know without seeing both documents.
That better?
Posted by: Will Collier at January 13, 2006 05:35 PM (JosDu)
4
Sorry, guys...you should read the document (and understand the issue) before drawing incorrect conclusions. The NSA has been in existence since the 50's. The breadth of their wiretapping powers has broadened only recently. The point isn't the one you are making. Clinton complied with the wiretapping laws and used the proper courts to get permission before wiretapping. The Shrub didn't. The document clearly states (if you had bothered to read it) that the NSA will follow the existing laws when wiretapping American citizens. The Shrub ignored those laws. That's called breaking the law. No President is above the law. Get it?
I know "ignorance is bliss"... but it's still--ignorance. Try reading the material and understanding the issues before celebrating your "aha!" moment.
Posted by: Unknown Candidate at January 13, 2006 05:43 PM (8U0QP)
5
Almost right... based on the little sliver offered, the title page appears to be from December 2000, when Bill Clinton was the lamest of lame ducks (post-election, pre-Bush-inauguration). The 1998 reference is the book that tells you why this document is classified. Think of it as "I wrote this in 2000 using the rules defined in 1998".
Posted by: tom at January 13, 2006 05:52 PM (NXhAs)
6
Wow...you're really clever, calling President Bush "The Shrub."
This president was authorized to prosecute actions against terror by Congress. He exercised legitimate executive power, with congressional approval, and some malcontent leaked this to the press. The only law that was broken was the leaking of classified info.
Posted by: Known Quantity at January 13, 2006 05:54 PM (Gm8iP)
7
Note the discussion about the outsourcing of NSA IT Services under Section U (Groundbreaker) which relates to January 2000. Nearly all of the discussion within this document pertains to pre-Bush era.
Whats most amazing is that the NSA had a 3 1/2 day network outage. Could you imaging a private company with the NSAÂ’s budget experiencing such an attrocity.
Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at January 13, 2006 06:06 PM (NTVio)
8
Well....I read the PDF and it does not appear that there is any information in there about warrantless surveilance. It does reference the EO of 1981 and FISA and takes pains to announce (several times) that NSA observes 4th amendment rights.
Although "truthout"
references this declassified paper in its claim that Bush authorized pre 9/11 surveilance, it doesn't cite a particular section. It apparantly is relying on unnamed "sources" of Slate and Risen. There is no "there" there.
Posted by: rls at January 13, 2006 06:11 PM (Lh7Vt)
9
Even more startling is the demographics of the agency:
19% eligible for early retirement
54% with 10-20 years of service
What is not so amazing, during the dot.com run up, you can see how their IT/Scientific staff fled the agency, note the chart on page 34 and look at that steep rise in resignations. Many of the resigned workers turned around and worked as contractors for the NSA for far more money in the private sector.
It's easy to see why the NSA agency has been off its game pre-9/11 most of its talent had fled for higher paying private sector jobs.
Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at January 13, 2006 06:12 PM (NTVio)
10
I read the document also. It is quite clearly (even from the title) a briefing document to be used during the transition of power from one administration to the next. Nothing about wireless taps. It does talk about following the 4th Amendment, but it also talks about needing to adapt procedures and processes due to the explosion of communications from digital sources. Not much there. AHA.
Posted by: Specter at January 13, 2006 06:25 PM (ybfXM)
11
Clinton got around FISA by outsourcing his wiretaps to the British. Once they were done, they just gave us the transcripts.
Posted by: Mark at January 13, 2006 06:45 PM (ftO1D)
12
The wiretaps did not violate the 4th Amendment. The United States, as a sovereign, has a right to inspect things entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests. It’s called the ‘border search exception’ and has been defended in court many times. Think of the wiretaps as voice traffic going through a customs inspection.
Posted by: Preechr at January 13, 2006 07:45 PM (iMiWM)
13
I have to conclude sometimes that many of those who drop in here from the Left side of oblivion must be
brain dead. Despite all that has been written about the NSA process of Intelligence surveillance and its mission, the mentally challenged continue to refer to NSA's 'wiretapping.' Are you totally dense beyond recovery?
NSA does not do wiretaps. It never has and never will, and there is no mention of it anywhere in the referenced PDF file.
The time that document was published is easy to determine. It was after the beginning of FY 2001 (October 2000), and that was stll before Bush entered the White House!!!!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 08:00 PM (AaKND)
14
"The point isn't the one you are making. Clinton complied with the wiretapping laws and used the proper courts to get permission before wiretapping. The Shrub didn't."
"The Shrub ignored those laws."
Got anymore lies to tell us, Mr. Unknown?
Posted by: Known Candidate at January 13, 2006 08:11 PM (ugski)
Posted by: bullwinkle at January 13, 2006 08:41 PM (mFhpu)
16
Known Candidate:
Are you having some problem understanding the English Language? Fog clouding your vision? The Bush tasks are not involving
"wiretaps,"Pookie! Can't you get that through your thick skull?
Contrary to what you noted about Clinton, he
did conduct warrantless surveillance on many, many, many American citizens, and he
did bug Aldrich Ames' home and
did have government officials break in without warrants - and Ames, too, was an American citizen.
Clinton also had the FBI bug suites in hotel rooms occupied by foreign representatives to the World Trade Organization conference on the West Coast. That is illegal even with a warrant, as any place occupied by a foreign dignitary is considered by law, diplomatically protected.
Chew on that a while, Pookie!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 10:45 PM (AaKND)
Posted by: Dan tdaxp at January 14, 2006 02:23 AM (fL1IO)
18
The references to Clinton are a smokescreen. The most important question here is not who did what when, but whether it is acceptable for this to be happening at all.
If there is no judicial oversight, there is no way for us to know who is being 'wiretapped'. As I understand it, that is primarily why FISA was created.
The President who wiretapped indiscriminately was a criminal, using the information for his own political purposes. How do we know that is not happening now, when there is no judicial oversight because it's just too damn inconvenient? Are we supposed to have blind faith in our leaders' innate honesty and goodness? Or do we expect our leaders to follow the laws that have been established to prevent abuses and protect our rights as citizens?
This is not and should not be turned into a partisan issue.
Posted by: Victoria at January 14, 2006 07:38 AM (PaNoT)
19
Who is Clinton? From what the Surrender Monkeys tell me, Bush has always been President. Surely, this is a plot to make Clinton look bad by Rove.
If that sounds sarcastic, it is actually based on what the Dems say on chat boards.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 08:12 AM (V5vwb)
20
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Posted by: Educated, Thinking Progressive at January 14, 2006 10:29 AM (ueaq7)
21
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Thanks for injecting some more humor here. It is always welcomed.
Hmmmm. Looks like Victoria is afflicted with the same malady as Russell Tice - Psychotic Paranoia. Yes, Victoria, George Bush is really concerned with your diet and sex life and alcohol consunption and your new meth lab. Or maybe he is trying to communicate with you like the Lady Loon claims David Letterman is doing.
That is not partisan either. Both George and David are just evil cousins.
Do you really trust anyone, Victoria?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 11:27 AM (AaKND)
22
Retired Spy:
Thank you for enlightening me. I suppose I've been a victim of that shared psychosis of our collective unconscious--Watergate. And, somehow, my fears turned from attacks on all American's freedom to disagree with the president (not to mention freedom of press and right to privacy) to paranoia that my own crazed deviancy would be discovered. After all, only deviants with something to hide fear the power of the great and benevolent Bush. Everyone else desires to be subject to his all-powerful whims, right?
The word that's coming to mind here is 'sheep'.
Posted by: Victoria at January 14, 2006 12:08 PM (PaNoT)
23
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Standard deflecto-lib. Cannot stay on topic, always has to go for the BDS.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 12:22 PM (TFSHk)
24
The word that's coming to mind here is 'sheep'.
Sure, Victoria, all Republicans are just sheep who are blindly following the Shepherd Bush. Or is that Hitler Shepherd Bush? No matter. Any way ya look at it, it's evil.
And how do you describe your own lock-step following of the radical Democrats and the Daily KOS? Do I hear some bah, bah, bah in the background?
By the way, what are those Bush 'whims' to which you refer? Are you saying that the NSA should not be attempting to root out terrorists inside and outside the United States? Looks like you are in the minority, doesn't it?
Are your neighbors aware that you don't care if there are terrorist cells in your neighborhood as long as no one monitors your phone calls?
News Flash! No one cares what you talk about on the phone or to whom - unless you have connections to al Qaeda or some other anti-American terrorist group. There are not enough Intelligence analysts in the entire government to waste time spying on you or other Americans without just cause. You are really not that important to have the U.S. Government worry about you. The principal Intelligence interests are elsewhere. Are you having a hard time comprehending that?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 01:10 PM (AaKND)
25
"Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and 'libruls.'"
Will Bush still be evil, still equal Hitler, and still be a dictator on January 20th, 2009?
Posted by: Porky at January 14, 2006 01:12 PM (T9Ogm)
26
the nsa unfortunately does whatever it want it can shock people to death with their satellites and kill people incidentally mr bush passed a law stating the the cia has the legal right to kill anybody that they think is an enemy in the name of its stupid bullshit national security privelide to kill any us citizen in the name of national security and their invisible mossad cia ect operatives i read usually never get caught is that way they keep tapping my phone because i know the truth.
Posted by: BOB at January 14, 2006 02:47 PM (QCLlJ)
27
I hate to tell you BOB, but they also replaced your decaf with the "leaded" variety...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 14, 2006 02:50 PM (0fZB6)
28
Do you understand punctuation, capitalization, basic English?
I am interested in those death satellites. Sounds cool. Start with Howard Dean, then Fat Ted, Nance Pelosi, etc.
Keep it up, Moonbeam, er, BOB! My Reynolds Wrap stock just keeps going up.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 02:51 PM (TFSHk)
29
This is really a keeper, CY ...
the nsa unfortunately does whatever it want it can shock people to death with their satellites and kill people incidentally mr bush passed a law stating the the cia has the legal right to kill anybody that they think is an enemy in the name of its stupid bullshit national security privelide to kill any us citizen in the name of national security and their invisible mossad cia ect operatives i read usually never get caught is that way they keep tapping my phone because i know the truth.
This 'Bob guy' uses an email handle of 'thesnakespaceship.' Far out, maaaaan! Must have been some snake venom injected to nunb the brain.
A relative, perhaps, of Russell Tice?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 02:59 PM (AaKND)
30
So, Retired Spy, you reveal that you are not a master of fine distinctions.
1) I am not concerned about being spied on personally (It's becoming tedious to repeat myself on this point), 2) Bush has the ability to catch terrorists using the existing FISA court. There is no honest reason for him to avoid judicial oversight (Again, tedious to repeat), 3) My opinions are based on the facts of the case and history, both of which you seem to be ignorant of. Amazingly so, if your handle is accurate.
Incidentally, I have never read the DailyKos. If my opinions sound similar, it is undoubtedly due to the twin phenomenons of critical thinking and rational thought. I know it looks like magic to you that those who use these tools could arrive at similar opinions, but it's actually about as ordinary and necessary as breathing. It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them. Although, I must admit, bludgeoning someone is more fun than engaging in genuine debate of the issues.
BTW, I'm not impressed with the Red Scare tactics you employ. I suppose your beliefs are based on what other people think of your patriotism, right? And you're afraid to disagree because that would be un-American?
You don't really expect to influence my opinion with that tripe, do you? I suppose a child responds to that kind of intimidation on the playground, and we know that the sheep respond to it when it comes from the White House, but it's not an effective debate tactic. It's unfortunate, because I am open-minded and would be willing to have a legitimate argument with you about this topic, but it doesn't seem to be within your abilities. So I wish you well in your reign over the sheep and the lemmings.
Posted by: Victoria at January 15, 2006 01:04 PM (PaNoT)
31
You are pretty humorous, Victoria. You appear to be following the time-tested rhetoric of the Democratic Party when it comes to Republicans.
1. Joseph McCarthy was a Republican, and he discredited himself with his nonsense about Communists under every rock. Those were his "Red Scare tactics." I am a Republican, and I am concerned that the real threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist screwballs who would decapitate you or any other American in a New York minute. Therefore, according to your flabby logic, I am using Red Scare tactics. Are you so naive to believe that there is no threat?
2. Richard Nixon was a Republican, and he was forced to resign as president because of the Watergate fiasco. Also, he had enemy lists, and he authorized spying against them because of his own insecurities. George W. Bush is a Republican, and he wants to deny citizens their privacy by spying on international al Qaeda communications with probable al Qaeda operatives inside the United States. Somehow that seems to be a very poorly constructed comparrison, Victoria, and the logic escapes me completely.
"Critical thinking and rational thought?" I think not. You may be using this surveillance stuff as a "rationale" for otherwise weak accusations against George Bush, but no clear thinking person I know of would say that the paranoia prompting your unfounded fears of George W. Bush is representative of rational thought.
It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them.
I know, I know. The Republicans have cornered the market on pre-conceived opinions and intimidation tactics. And I guess Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other Democrats don't do exactly the same thing with their "culture of corruption" and "Bush lied" claims that they have beaten into the ground? Give me a break, lady.
I have no interest whatsoever in influencing you or your philosophy with my brand of what you call "tripe." I do expect to have learned persons discuss the facts governing the options available to the President in accordance with the law of the land.
The FISA does allow for warrantless surveillance for as long as a year at a time, and that is specified in the Act itself. I suggest you may wish to actually
read the FISA provisions in their entirety. You may also wish to read through a number of FISA Court decisions and decisions by various courts of appeal on the legality of Bush's actions.
While you are at it, read through the wording of the Fourth Amendment and Article II. You may just learn something - if you are open-minded enough to even consider that what the President has done is actually within the law.
Do have a lovely day ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 15, 2006 02:51 PM (AaKND)
32
Ok, I'll bite.
First post here, on joining over at freerepublic and taking this side leap from there.
Retired Spy, please save me the trouble of distilling all of your previous comments, which undoubtedly contain your summary of the legalities of Bush II's actions re: warrantless surveillance.
I'm up to speed on the reading (4th, Article II, FISA, PATRIOT I, WPA, etc.).
On the face of things, it appears that Bush II has circumvented FISA, having not actually ever gotten the requisite FISA warrant, even after the fact of the surveillance.
Blow it out for me, wouldja? What's your stance?
I'm definitely open minded enough to consider all the evidence, if there is indeed any evidence.
Posted by: arbortender at January 18, 2006 06:04 PM (62L5i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
File this under, "We would if we could."
"When it comes to its image, New Jersey really cares," Gov. Richard J. Codey said. "Our catch phrase should hint at our true beauty."
Mission accomplished.
Personally, I liked, "New Jersey: Most of Our Elected Officials Have Not Been Indicted."
For the time being, it's even true.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've been to New Jersey and seen for myself. I am still tramatized 25 years later.
Posted by: olddawg at January 13, 2006 09:20 AM (mvlLy)
2
Southern New Jersey and the shore are lovely.
I could probably find a smoke-belching factory chimney in say, Charlotte, N.C. easily enough.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:12 AM (hGNke)
3
Southern New Jersey and the shore are lovely.
I could probably find a smoke-belching factory chimney in say, Charlotte, N.C. easily enough.
For the first and perhaps only time, I'm going to agree with Arthur. Southern New Jersey is a bueatiful area, and I've thought several times that teh coast creeks and marshes would be a wonderful place to kayak and fish.
Northern, New Jersey, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. While Arthur could find smokestacks elsewhere, I somewhat doubt he could replicate the pervasive stench.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 13, 2006 11:26 AM (g5Nba)
4
I was born in New Jersey, but was raised since I was 6 months old in NC. But still, NJ has scarred me for life...Therapy would just be a waste of time.
I've found these mottos to be self evident:
New Jersey: You Want A ##$%##! State Motto? I Got Yer ##$%##! State Motto Right Here!
or
New Jersey: Come Visit and Feel Better About Your Own State
Posted by: WB at January 13, 2006 12:12 PM (KI8Gc)
5
Northern, New Jersey, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. While Arthur could find smokestacks elsewhere, I somewhat doubt he could replicate the pervasive stench.
Wilmington, NC?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 07:34 PM (UnGrU)
6
Hey...as a resident of South Jersey (Southern New Jersey) I have to object to the comments. We have refineries here, too. Also nukes. We also have Bald Eagles, tiny tree frogs, bears, deer, pristine streams, and too many cars. If you want to learn more about Southe Jersey check out this link
http://www.elktownship.com/sj.html
Posted by: Barbara at January 18, 2006 11:46 PM (wLih8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Can You Here Me Now? BOOM!
This bears watching. Via
ABC News:
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
[snip]
In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: "Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached)." At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.
[snip]
The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:
"Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation," the report said. "Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.
In addition to the uses stated, cell phones such as these tracfones have been used as part of the triggering device of remote control IEDs in Iraq and elsewhere.
Another blog I came across yesterday (I'm sorry, but I forgot which one [updated: here. -ed.]) noted that there seems to be a pattern of terror attacks or attempted terror attacks following videotaped statements released by al Qaeda's resident cave doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Guess who just released a statement last week?
Something to think about...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:52 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.
1
As always a neet little idea which helps the poor and adds to our unique economy is bastardized by the worst that mankind has to offer. Sending fear mongers into a frothing frenzy to quelsh freedom where-ever they find it. There ought ta be a law. Oops guess that what they do. There ought to be a law anyway.
We are not living in a police dominated state do we?
Posted by: ron at January 14, 2006 02:31 PM (6krEN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 12, 2006
Empty Suits and Empty Chairs
Senate Democrats took the better part of four days to assault the character and moral fiber of a composed and dignified Judge Samuel Alito.
But when seven appeals court judges came to testify about Alito's stellar qualfications, the Senators did what modern Democrats do best, as noted by Michelle Malkin:
Chuck Schumer walked out before the judges started to speak. Teddy Kennedy showed up late, stayed for 10 minutes, then left. Pat Leahy put on a dour face for a short time, and also bailed. Dianne Feinstein, to her credit, remained for the duration and asked respectful questions.
These four days of testimony were never about "advise and consent," nor giving Judge Alito a fair hearing, but were instead about partisan demogoguery. As John Hinderaker notes:
...if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these [judges] are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito's judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn't going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn't even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito's colleagues is disgusting.
The Senate Democrats did not want to hear from the appelate judges. The Senators made their scurrilous attacks against a far better man than they, and having failed in their ignoble endevour, they committed to doing what Democrats do best.
They cut and ran... again.
Note: Though it wasn't intentional, it seems that I pretty much ripped off the title and content of this post from Hugh Hewitt through some sort of blogroll osmosis. Freaky.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:55 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I still can't figure out how that Fat Jabba-the-Hut looking Chappaquidick young woman killer blob still gets elected.
I still believe in democracy but when things like that happen it makes you wonder.
I still believe.... I still believe... I still believe...
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 13, 2006 06:31 AM (PJ4Iq)
2
Interesting. The only senator to mention bigot and Alito in the same sentence was a republican. And clearly that was scripted.
The Demos did what they are supposed to do. Probe the background of a nominee to a powerful, lifetime position.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:00 AM (hGNke)
3
Arthur, as ever, you occupy that "reality-based" community that isn't quite the real world.
Did Democrats ask questions, or did they mix in thinly-veiled, probing
personal attacks with rambling, odd speeches about nothing?
Patrick Leahy was creepily enraptured with the concept of strip-searching ten your old girls. Joe Biden was intensely focused like a laser on his favorite subject... Joe Biden.
Kennedy's sole function in this travesty was to levey personal attacks at Alito, insinuating aweful things about a public servant well respected by his peers and technically well-qualified for the postion of Supreme Court Justice. His attempts as "Borking" Judge Alito via a call for the Rusher papers (which were merrily delivered and found baseless) was intense, pathetic, and ultimately ineffective.
Via
MSNBC:
The most vivid personal image to emerge from the hearings was that of Mrs. Alito, who was apparently driven to tears Wednesday by the insinuation from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that Alito may have agreed with some of the bigoted statements in articles in a magazine published by a group called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
Not to be outdone:
Both Biden and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., an anti-Alito witness before the committee, compared Alito’s membership in CAP with membership in the Ku Klux Klan, which lynched blacks in the South. “I take him at his word that he didn't know what the group stood for,” Biden told Today Show host Katie Couric. “But I'm sure required to ask him, just like me asking you, `Katie, were you ever a member of the Ku Klux Klan?’”
When teh seven judges that could have answer the questions that Democrats
claimed they wanted to know the answers to, they all fled, save one.
They weren't interested in probing Alito's judicial background, any more than you are interested in admitting their smears.
Pathetic, but about what we have come to expect from liberals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 13, 2006 11:54 AM (g5Nba)
4
Maybe we should expend our energy questioning terrorists instead of a well qualified Justice. Maybe we can have Kennedy, Feinstein and the like question terror suspects. But of course, that would be cruel and inhumane . . .
Posted by: Marshall at January 13, 2006 01:44 PM (WabmA)
5
Marshall, you may be on to something.
Maybe they'd want to leave us alone then.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 13, 2006 01:51 PM (JYeBJ)
6
Well, I just got off the Daily Ko's trying to grasp their take on Alito.
It gave me a headache.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 13, 2006 02:09 PM (JSetw)
7
Now here's a pefectly good example of rationalizing "logic" without holding it up to the light to see if it stands up to scrutiny. This is what the Left does best ... ahem ... most often. Goes right along with calling anyone who doesn't agree with them a nazi or a facist or a racist (their favorites). No need to actually come up with a coherent coounter-argument if they can call you a name, you know.
The only person to mention Bigot and Alito in the same sentence was a Republican
The statement may very well be a fact, but predictiably one starkly bereft of context (on purpose, of course, because it makes a good soundbyte that is meant to mean the opposite of what it really means when you look at it in context).
See, it turns out that the Democrats aren't QUITE stupid enough to come out and use the word, so they dance around it, implying it at every turn without actually saying it.
When he asked Alito if he was really a closet bigot, he was saying "Everyone sees what you're doing. Enough of this bullsh*t, let's move on".
What Senator Graham did was to point out to the Dems and anyone watching that they weren't fooling anyone by dancing around the word "bigot" while trying to make it stick to a man that they know isn't one. They just need the nation to believe he is one because he can't be relied upon to advance their agenda from the bench, and it's one of the few labels that will get someone of Alito's qualifications dismissed.
Shameless and desparate is what the Democratic party has become.
Posted by: philmon at January 13, 2006 03:18 PM (DRXSB)
Posted by: Alexandra at January 13, 2006 03:57 PM (9JKJs)
9
Oh calm down. Alito is a shoe in for the court.
Nothing at all wrong with taking a close look at the record of a jurist with a lifetime appointment. A man put forth when the extreme right wing of the Republican party shot down the inept Harriet Miers (sp?).
The Demos aren't there to hold the guys coat and lob easy questions. The majority party provides that role.
So don't sweat things. The expansion of the executive branch will continue unabated. Roe v Wade will be overturned and gay marriage will remain illegal. And the Democratic party will be dissolved by executive order.
Happy?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 07:39 PM (UnGrU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Domestic Lying Scandal
ABC News still can't basic facts about the NSA surveillance story correct, as ABC reporter Jessica Yellin proves in her story,
Ex-CIA Lawyer, No Legal Basic for NSA Spying.
She stumbles—or perhaps intentionally misleads—in the very first paragraph of her story:
Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith will testify in House hearings that there is no legal basis for President Bush's controversial National Security Agency domestic surveillance program, ABC News has learned.
The section I bolded highlights a key factual error in Yellin's article, which is this fact that the NSA intercept program was decidedly non-domestic in nature.
Yellin's incorrect assertion is one common to many in the media.
Deb Reichmann of the Associated Press, makes the claim as well, even though she contradicts herself by noting, that Bush "Â…gave the NSA permission to eavesdrop without a warrant on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States."
Josh Meyer and Daryl Strickland get it wrong in the LA Times, as does Scott Shane of the NY Times and literally dozens of other journalists.
Someone please alert the media that a call between people in two countries is, by definition, not domestic. This is sloppy reporting, betraying the fact that the journalists covering this story are ignorant of the subject matter they are covering. Or could another factor be in play?
Certainly, our crack corps of media professionals wouldn't dream of purposefully trying to muddy the waters to push a certain political agendaÂ… would they?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:17 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Me thinks this is not sloppy journalism - it is agenda-izing hard at work! The only way to keep the "issue" alive is if the people perceive the monitoring was done internal to the US borders. This is misdirection intended to herd people to a conclusion that the program was illegal. The truth is in the way of trying to hurt the president - so it has to go.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 12, 2006 05:27 PM (owAN1)
Posted by: Fred at January 12, 2006 05:42 PM (xX+1y)
3
Yes Fred, it is very sloppy... of
you.
The sources I cited were all talking about the NSA story, which has nothing to do with the generic link you provided, that might as well have blamed "America" in gneral. I know it is difficult, but
do try to stay on subject...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2006 06:06 PM (0fZB6)
4
I don't know how to break this to you,
Fred, but the NSA is a DoD organization. I don't see that anyone has confused the two - except you. Did you remember to take your meds today?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 12, 2006 07:45 PM (AaKND)
5
So get a warrant.
What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:04 AM (hGNke)
6
You're showing your ignorance again, Artie.
So get a warrant.
What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
You don't understand the dynamics of the warrant process, nor do you have a clue as to how the NSA collection effort really works.
Getting a warrant through a FISA Court is a bureaucratic process. NSA doesn't just go to the FISA Court. There are many hoops to jump through in the process, and that requires an expenditure of a great deal of very valuable time.
Your new poster boy - soon to become a candidate for someone's butt boy in the slammer - Russell Tice, does not understand how the whole process really works. He was only at the NSA for 6 months before getting the pink slip. And you think
you can write with authority on how the process works? Not too likely, Pookie.
You may want to read
THIS if you really want to have a clearer insight. I know you won't, but I thought I would extend the invitation, nonetheless.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 01:30 PM (AaKND)
7
The warrant process is no where near so onerous as you would have us think. About like dropping off the dry cleaning.
And exceedingly rare to have a warrent denied.
Why are you so willing to suspend the rules?
Posted by: ArthurSTone at January 14, 2006 02:11 PM (UnGrU)
8
You didn't bother to check out the little reading assignment I left for you, did you, Artie?
The rules have not been suspended, Artie. There is no requirement under the provisions of FISA to get warrants for targeting foreign communications. Furthermore, FISA Section 1801 allows for warrantless surveillance with an OK from the Attorney General - and that includes targeting American ends of said foreign communications.
You have not read through FISA, either, have you, Artie. I am reasonably sure that you have not read through the Articles and Amendments of/to the U.S. Constitution, either. I am a certain that you have not reviewed the laws under USC 18, 798, as they pertain to the unauthorized release of classified information and the penalties exacted for such violations.
Come back when you have a bit more of a learned perspective to share - not just more spouting of stuff read at the Daily KOS.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 02:49 PM (AaKND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tactical Seppuku
The
NY Times notes
more friction in the Iraqi insurgency between local insurgents and those loyal to al Qaeda:
The discussion dragged on for seven hours, he said, but did not go well. The local insurgents demanded that the foreigners from Al Qaeda leave Iraq.
"They said, 'Jihad needs its victims,' " Abu Lil said. " 'Iraqis should be willing to pay the price.' "
"We said, 'It's very expensive.' "
The meeting ended abruptly, and Abu Lil and his associates walked out, feeling powerless and angry.
"I wished I had a nuclear bomb to attack them," he said. "We told them, 'You are not Iraqis. Who gave you the power to do this?' "
Antagonism between factions of the insurgency is nothing new, but local citizens increasingly tire of al Qaeda tactics that have little or no regard for the lives of civilian populations. Attacks upon Sunnis, including many joining the Iraqi military and police forces, have increased the resolve of Iraqis to defeat al Qaeda as a matter of own personal protection.
What the Times cannot bring itself to say is what al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi already knows, which is that al Qaeda cannot win against Iraqis in Iraq, and is merely hoping to delay losing in hopes of a miraculous political victory (a precipitous American withdrawal) as advocated by some Democrats.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:36 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
1
A must read article. The best news I have heard in a long time. Though less in scale, it is as significant as the Japanese and Germans turning on each other during WWII.
Posted by: Ray Robison at January 12, 2006 12:54 PM (CdK5b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 11, 2006
Alito-palooza
While I'm not super-interested in the Alito confirmation hearings ("done deal" is the phrase that comes to mind), I know a lot of folks are, and my fellow
Pajamahadeen are all over it with the
Mondo Alito blog.
Update: Partisans won't be swayed, but this won't play well in Peoria.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
Hillary's Heroes
A brave U.S. soldier risks certain death by heatstroke to satisfy the liberal cry for
more body armor. (
Picture source)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh, so that's what the ceramic plate
the study called for. I thought a ceramic plate looked like a ceramic plate.
Is that EOD gear?
Posted by: Fred at January 11, 2006 04:25 AM (xX+1y)
2
When will Hillary learn that ROBOCOP was just a movie!
Posted by: Tom T B at January 11, 2006 04:35 AM (6krEN)
3
'tis called sarcasm, Fred, or in your case sar
chasm: the gaping void between some one who makes a sarcastic comment, and the person who just doesn't get it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 11, 2006 07:04 AM (0fZB6)
4
Okay, now put chemical protective gear on him and watch him melt before your very eyes.
Congress can screw things up quicker than the enemy. I've been on the receiving end of congressionally mandated programs that usually are discarded the moment no one is looking.
In a nut shell; a manufacturer (in this case, body armor) goes to their representative and says, "we can save lives on the battlefield. We have developed this armor system that protects 85% of a soldiers exposed area. All we need is an order for purchase." Next thing you know the Appropriations Bill is amended to include $X million for armor suits for soldiers from Acme Armor Company. The service has no choice but to accept the product, because it was "ear marked" by congressional bill which became statutory.
The military way of developing new systems is quite different. A need is first identified by the end users. That need is then reviewed for development into an acquisition program (or not). Requirements are established, competitorsÂ’ products are reviewed and a source selected. The end product usually fits the need initially identified. It is a longer route, to be sure, but the development of requirements is purely military; not the Acme Armor Co.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 11, 2006 07:24 AM (607j+)
5
There are two problems with the military way, Old Soldier, at least in this particular case. First, to identify the need, many soldiers have to die. Second, the process you describe takes years and during that time soldiers are dying because of ineffective armor and the enemy is developing stronger attach mechanisms.
With the technology developed in the space program there is no excuse for using heavy=weight armor like Yankee describes above. Lightweight materials are available to strengthen protective gear and save lives. The more argument there is and the more delay, the more people die.
Posted by: Sunnye at January 11, 2006 08:19 AM (ywZa8)
6
Sunnye, would you like to don the armor pictured plus a basic load of ammunition, grenades, water, etc. and go house to house in Fallujah for say 12 or 14 hours a day for several days? Oh, yeah, in 100 plus degree heat!
Yes, the military acquisition way takes longer. I never portended it didn't. But the end result is a much more effective system as specified by the warfighter! If there are NASA developed materials that are better than commercially available materials, the acquisition process would ferret them out. A congressman's push for up-armoring of troops now will most likely yield what CY has pictured. ...and the infantryman will not wear it; so where is the benefit? The only result is the armor manufacturer gets richer because of congressionally mandated procurement and the tax payers get poorer needlessly.
In case no one remembers, this is war. People die in war. That's the result. Our goal is to make the other guys die in larger numbers. We could do that much more effectively if the PC police would just shut up and quit demanding our troopÂ’s blood in lieu of collateral blood.
We took unnecessary casualties in Vietnam because of political correctness. We took unnecessary casualties in Somalia because of political correctness and we’re taking unnecessary casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan because of political correctness. War is not a chess game and it certainly is not a gentleman’s sport. Turn the generals loose and let them do what they are supposed to do – win wars! Our military leaders will fight as moral and ethical as possible because that is who we are – but for crying out loud; stop constraining them unnecessarily!
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 11, 2006 08:53 AM (607j+)
7
Well,....
You'll have to trust me on this. We build body armor; the bad guys figure out how to work around it; we build better body armor; repeat this infinitely.
The bad guys have built bombs that will kill tanks. No amount of body armor will help. IEDs are getting better and the ones we don't find first are remarkably effective. We are turning around body armor solutions in record time. The bad guys are doing the same with IEDs.
Sorry, guys. That's the facts.
Posted by: olddawg at January 11, 2006 09:34 AM (mvlLy)
8
Unless I'm mistaken, this particular soldier is still going to be susceptible to having his feet blown off (that looks like standard issue boots), and he could still have his head blown off.
This posting at
Neptunus Lex is quite illuminating on the subject of armor.Somehow the issue reminds me of a story coming out of the days of Vietnam-era attack aviation. A couple of engineers were reviewing the history of aircraft that had landed badly damaged by anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. The junior engineer turns to the senior guy and says, “You know, there’s a real pattern developing here of aircraft taking hits to the horizontal tail and on the trailing edge of the wings. Maybe we should put more armor there?”
The senior engineer, concerned as always with the impact of adding weight to an aircraft design disagreed, chiding the junior guy gently, “No, you’re seeing the pattern exactly wrong. All of the battle damage you see is from aircraft that returned. It’s the places where you’re seeing no damage that we need more armor. Those aircraft didn’t make it back.”Of course, if a 155mm IED shell explodes next to this soldier, his chances at survival are slim to none, but that doesn't seem to matter. Any decision to change a soldier's equipment is a cost/benefit to be determined. If we increase the weight by even a pound, what does that do to combat efficency? The NYT doesn't seem to care about that...
Posted by: lawhawk at January 11, 2006 10:16 AM (eppTH)
9
I can't speak about being on the front lines, my armor consisted of an Aircraft Carrier beneath my feet but I was in the desert and floating around in the Gulf, all I can say is it was bad enough in just a T-shirt, I couldn't imagine all the added layers that don't breath.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 11, 2006 12:37 PM (cqZXM)
10
Why not just get Tony Stark to share the plans for his latest Iron Man suit while we're at it?
(Or low-profile powered armor from Schlock Mercenary for that matter...)
Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 11, 2006 03:41 PM (MKaa5)
11
That soldier's armor is starting to look like the stuff worn by Clone/Storm Troopers in Star Wars.
Posted by: MikeM at January 12, 2006 08:32 PM (/l6pz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More on Ali Fadhil's Rude Awakening
The Guardian is elaborating on the story it broke
yesterday that award-winning Iraqi journalist Ali Fadhil had his home violently invaded in a raid by U.S. soldiers over the weekend. Fadhil
claims:
It began at half past midnight on Saturday when explosives blew apart the three entrances to my house. We thought we had been caught in a bombing, but then a rifle sneaked round our bedroom door and shot a couple of bullets blindly; suddenly our room was filled with the wild sounds of US soldiers.
My three-year-old daughter Sarah woke to this nightmare. She pushed herself on to me and shouted "Daddy, Americans! They will take you! No, no, not like this daddy ..." She tried to say something to one of the soldiers but her tears stopped her from speaking. Instead of blaming the soldier I could see she was blaming me. I tried to calm her down but as I did so the soldier threw me on to the ground and tied me.
They then took me downstairs and made me sit in the living room while they smashed every piece of furniture we have. There were about 20 soldiers inside the house and several others on guard on the roof. A blue-eyed captain came to me holding my Handycam camcorder and questioned me aggressively: "Can you explain to me why you have this footage?"
The details of the raid, which I blogged about here yesterday, are very disturbing if true.
U.S forces should have better training and fire discipline than to blindly start shooting around corners in civilian households. American soldiers should have better discipline than to randomly smash all of the Fadhil family's furniture in a random, spiteful manner. If there is any credence to this story at all, then there should be a through investigation by the authorities.
But is there credibility in Fadhil's story? That is turning out to be an intriguing question.
As I stated yesterday, random "spray and pray" gunfire is not part of any military room clearing training of which I've ever heard. It is extremely counterproductive, as rifle fire in the confines of a dwelling is as potentially dangerous to the shooter's entry team and the shooter himself as it is to any potential hostiles.
Likewise, random, purposeful violence against civilians and their property is at odds with American goals in Iraq. I find it hard to believe that any American officer or senior NCOs would allow the destruction Fadhil alleges occurred in his home at the hands of American soldiers.
For that matter, I find it hard to believe that "a small room, two metres [sic] square, with wooden walls, a refrigerator and an oval table in the middle" could also have enough room for three adult males. All this in a 6'x6' room? Again Fadhil's story seems suspect.
But this story is also easily verified, at least in part.
Gunfire--even just a couple of bullets fired "blindly" as Fadhil alleges-- leaves copious physical evidence behind. Anyone familiar with the various "CSI" television shows know that bullets make hole in what they hit, and that bullets shatter on hard targets, leaving identifiable fragments. They also leave cartridge casings, and even an untrained eye can tell the difference between the 7.62x39mm round used by Iraqi forces and the 5.56x45mm cartridge favored by American forces.
I sincerely hope that Ali Fadhil would not would not manufacture or embellish a story in the hopes of ginning up interest in a Guardian films project he is developing for Channel 4, but at this point, with so many inconsistencies in his story, I'd have to say that anything at all is possible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Two points: 1. The Guardian is a leftist paper highly critical of president Bush and the Iraqi war 2. Reporters for organizations like the Guardian are often embedded with the terrorists that are killing our troops. As far as I'm concern both the Guardian and there minions are fair game since they support our enemies. i.e. a friend of my enemy is my enemy. Do I need to say more?
Posted by: docdave at January 11, 2006 01:39 PM (s65f7)
2
Even if it turns out to be a hoax, The left will cry "cover up!". Remember, all charges against Americans are true and Americans should never defend themselves against lies because their enemies always tell the truth.
Of course these are the same people who believe truth is relative instead of absolute.
Propaganda-wise it does not matter if we did it or not. We have been accused and as far as many on the left are concerned, that is conviction. We must know the truth for our own sake, but our enemies will forever believe this man.
Posted by: Shoprat at January 11, 2006 06:35 PM (FKD+M)
3
Shoprat, we don't know if it's true or not, but already you've determined it's likely a hoax and exactly what the "left", which consists of who-knows how many people, is going to scream. Do you think the left hates America? Do think the left blindly blames anything bad on America?
War is ugly, and sometimes ugly things happen in it. We are all humans and we do stuff that is wrong sometimes. Being a Republican doesn't mean you are incapable of these things, and being a Democrat doesn't mean it's all you do.
We HAVE to find some objectivity. This polar hatred is getting us nowhere.
Posted by: JaneN at January 15, 2006 04:13 PM (FnPvv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fired NSA Stalker Admits Role as Times Source
Move over
Bill Burkett, we've got a new player vying for "most disreputable source" status.
Via ABC News:
Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet.
For 20 years, Tice worked in the shadows as he helped the United States spy on other people's conversations around the world.
...Tice tells ABC News that some of those secret "black world" operations run by the NSA were operated in ways that he believes violated the law. He is prepared to tell Congress all he knows about the alleged wrongdoing in these programs run by the Defense Department and the National Security Agency in the post-9/11 efforts to go after terrorists.
Now here is what ABC didn't tell you.
Tice was diagnosed by the Defense Department with psychotic paranoia and fired for apparently violating his security clearances by taking unauthorized peeks into the background of a female Asian employee he thought was a Chinese spy.
I wonder of James Risen realizes that the Ides of Mapes are upon him...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:32 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Pretty disgusting, isn't it, CY? I'm sure that Risen, The NYT and ABC paid the fat pig to appear. Now that he has had his few moments of fame as what the Dems call a 'Courageous Whistleblower,' maybe he can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law under USC 18, 798 for devulging classified information to unauthorized recipients.
Gotta go after Risen and Lichtblau and the NYT now for their role is all this.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 10, 2006 11:33 PM (AaKND)
2
I don't think Tice is the leak source. He has come forward to testify that such operations occured and in his opinion were illegal. The liberals are full of 15 minute famers. Tice is going to prove to me a mistake on the lib's part.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 11, 2006 07:07 AM (607j+)
3
Sounds like your typical federal worker who's been in the cubicle too long.
Posted by: Fed Worker at January 11, 2006 07:18 AM (mBZ68)
4
Nice smear... 1 problem: the factual claims have nevee been deinied, and there are over a dozen sources in the Risen book. Maybe Newsmax will tell you what to think about the rest... but it will be easier, methinks, to go with the whole: "all of the CIA and NSA are commie fags" kind of argument. It'll be easier to wrap your "mind" around, AND it will make a nice bumper sticker for your pick-up truck!!!
Posted by: chuck at January 11, 2006 01:37 PM (Rkk7u)
5
Tice was fired because he stalked a fellow employee and more importantly, broke security protocols, which- big shocker - he did again by going to the
NY Times with his as yet unproven claims. He did not follow the whistleblower process put in place to protect legitimate whistleblowing, and thereby commited a felony. And yes, he was clinically diagnosed as a paranoia, which is something that I suspect quite a few liberals have in common with him.
Which "factual claims" have never been denied?
Two Attorneys General, the Justice Department, the White House Counsel, the head of the NSA and NSA lawyers, along with a growing number of respected constitutional scholars from both sides hold that these NSA programs were, as far as we can tell, plausibly legal.
Time for you to hitch onto some facts, junior.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 11, 2006 01:59 PM (g5Nba)
6
Interesting.
Twenty years at the agency then he makes some noise about possible illegal survellance and he's a 'psychotic'.
The Russians used to do that sort of thing.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:10 AM (hGNke)
7
Boy, Artie ... Do you just specialize in spouting off incorrect information and making idiotic claims? You're surely doing a good job of it.
Donut Boy Tice was at the NSA for a very short time before they did the psych evaluation, and they pulled his clearances and put him in the Motor Pool because he was assessed as being afflicted with Psychotic Paranoia. He had previously been at the DIA. That is where he stalked a fellow employee, claiming she was a spy. DIA should have evaluated him long before he went to the NSA.
DIA was glad to see him want to transfer to the NSA, and NSA was probably none the wiser at first. Things sometimes work that way in the Federal Service - pawn the bonehead off onto another office or agency.
He had no first-hand knowledge of the surveillance program, nor was he qualified to assess its legality or whether or not the exposure of the program was a violation of USC 18, 792. He was just a dumb slug with serious mental problems.
You want him as the poster boy for the Democtats? You can have him.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 03:04 AM (AaKND)
8
Correction: That's USC 18, 798.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 03:10 AM (AaKND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 10, 2006
Starbucks Bomber Sought
Via
Fox News, it looks like someone is brewing for a fight:
Police defused an explosive device found in the bathroom of a Starbucks on Monday. No one was injured.
Authorities were called around 1:15 p.m., after an employee reported finding something suspicious in the store's bathroom. About 100 people were evacuated from the store and apartments above it, and the street was closed to traffic, said Sgt. Neville Gittens...
...In 2003, police said the windows of 17 Starbucks stores were clouded with glue and some of the door locks were jammed. Vandals also posted phony notices purporting to be from Starbucks management announcing the company's intention to abandon some of their San Francisco stores to make room for more locally owned coffee houses.
This appears to be another escalation of the Coffee Wars in which so many lives have been lost, as bean-related violence seems poised to spin madly out of control.
San Francisco authorities are said to be looking for these suspects seen just outside the targeted Starbucks just minutes before the bomb was discovered.
If these suspects are spotted, do not approach them, but instead please call the San Francisco Police Department, or contact them on the set of their latest movie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It was probably nothing more dangerous than a decent cup of coffee, something you won't find at that establishment very often.
Posted by: olddawg at January 10, 2006 08:57 AM (7nc0l)
2
Agreed.
A lot of the stuff they serve and call coffee could be used to strip paint off a ship's hull.
I refuse to traffic the place.
Posted by: WB at January 10, 2006 11:16 AM (7A+rR)
3
I have no idea if they have good coffee or not. When I heard people talking about the $2.50 and $3.50 cups of junked up coffee I knew I'd never set foot in one. Then when I learned it's served in cardboard cups, you have to go to the counter to get it, then balance on small artsy stools at tall tables, and you don't get refills but buy another cup if you want more, that was the stamp. I can go into a local restaurant that serves great coffee, they serve me in a china cup and will keep it refilled as long as I sit there, and it's 40¢. What could Starbucks offer that beats that?
Posted by: Fish at January 10, 2006 04:00 PM (KpjA/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Confirming Alito
You might notice I'm not blogging the
Senate confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Judge Samuel Alito. It isn't because I don't care. It's because I consider his confirmation a foregone conclusion.
Looking at his record, I see even fewer reasons for Democrats to legitimately argue against him that they did against now Chief Justice John Roberts. I think his confirmation is a done deal without anything but a bluff at a filibuster. The only question for me is which Democrats will lose the most credibility with moderates during the proceedings pandering to the liberal "base" that keeps losing them elections.
Volokh, and The Corner will certainly be following the hearing closely, so visit them or your other favorite blogs for more coverage as it occurs.
In my opinion, Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court like waiting for sun to come up in the morning. It's only worth talking about if it doesn't happen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:16 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, when you have that keen intellect of Ted (pour me another one) Kennedy referring to the candidate yesterday as "Judge Alioto", how can anyone take the Donks seriously? And Chuck Schumer? What a pathetic example of a human that one is!
Talk about a "Ship of Fools" ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 10, 2006 10:59 AM (AaKND)
2
Thank God--Jesus Christ-- that we are finally going to have a court that will lay down the law of the land! Finally we'll have national laws that will knock down women, gays, minorities, non-Christians, the disabled, and poor people more than a few pegs. I don't know if you've noticed, but they've gotten a bit uppity over the last century. They need to wake up and realize their role as second class citizens/subhumans that should be grateful to live under the strong moral supervision of great white men. Let Freedom ring!
Posted by: Fronts at January 10, 2006 12:17 PM (/Tmjw)
3
You know, Fronts, those slobbering hysterics might be
slightly more beleivable if the Left didn't try those same kinds of buzzwords during the confirmation of
David H. freaking Souter.
Really, you've got to learn to pace yourself...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 12:52 PM (g5Nba)
4
they're not hysterics, they're sarcastics, and I don't know what you're refering to about Souter, but I'll take your word for it, if they did then they turned out to be wrong, but is there any doubt that Alito and his ilk are hostile to the rights of women, gays, minorities, poor people etc. etc? It's all there in their writing, public statements, etc, its just couched in polite legal langauge. That's exactly why you want to see them confirmed. Why can't conservatives just admit to that? Say what you want about "liberal activist judges" but they make no bones about their work or their views. It seems to me that for all the blustering about correct "judicial temperment" the right wing has been trying as hard as possible to make Alito seem like anything but what he is--a bonafide right wing judge. You talk a good game, but when it comes down to actual legitimate questions about this judges decades long paper trail, all you hear is how "unfair" it is to ask those question and drag the hearings "into the gutter." So just come out and admit it, have the intellectual honest to just say you want a court and a government that privledges the rights of corporations over individuals, to roll back most of the civil rights gained over the last half century, to gut the government's ability to regulate industry, overturn Roe v. Wade, and undermine the seperation of Church and State, this is what the Federalist society has been trying to do for years. So just drop this shit about how "jugdes can't have agendas" or need to be "umpires" because no one is buying it.
Posted by: Fronts at January 10, 2006 01:24 PM (/Tmjw)
5
"...is there any doubt that Alito and his ilk are hostile to the rights of women, gays, minorities, poor people etc. etc?"
You dribble quite a bit, but until you cite cases he has heard as a judge and why you feel certain judicial opinions support your empty, over-generalized contentions, I don't feel compelled to debate against empty hyperbole.
Alito is conservative, but you are so blinded by your fevered liberal myopia that you cannot mark the distinction between
conservative values, which many Democrats have (particuarly among minorities and older voters), and what most Americans would consider
right wing. There is huge range between the two that you can't seem to get your head around, and so you sit around sputtering while the rest of the United States is happy to have such an obviously well-qualified jurist nominated for the court.
As for asking and answering questions abot possible cases that might come before the court, I'd tell you to look up Ruthie G.'s confirmation as a precedent, but you wouldn't understand why. Like the issue of the left's attempt to "Bork" David Souter that you are ignorant of, you are simply too uneducated on the subject matter to have a rational discussion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 01:56 PM (g5Nba)
6
Calm down General Lee, all I'm saying is that if you believe in something then just say it. No, I can't cite case by case examples of Alito's various rulings--although I do know he was consistently the most conservative judge on the 3rd Circuit, a court well known for right-leaning descisions--you're right I don't know enough about constitutional law to make a legal case for why Alito or conservative judges believe what the believe. I'm just a casual observer of politics and culture, I know the message boards of partisan political blogs are hardly the best medium to convey, rational or nuanced discussion, and admittedly my first post was hyperbolic, but at the same time can you really argure that the right-wing in this country thinks that gays or non-christians deserve the same rights as everyone else, perhaps not Alito, but certainly many other influential figures? What I'm trying to say is this: do you have any doubt that once confirmed Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and generally speaking will adjucate from the "Bork, Scalia, Thomas" school of thought, which tends to rule against the things I previously mentioned, am I wrong on this? So why this moronic song and dance around the basic issues, why not just say "I will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as I get a chance"? Or do you think that he was nominated just because he likes baseball? You bring up Ginsburg, who isn't nearly as to the left as Alito is to the right, but did she try to distance herself from her work for the ACLU? (really I'm asking, if she did, then its another example of what I'm talking about.) Alito seems to be trying hard as possible to seperate himself from his record, "CAP, whats that? Who's Ed Meese? I was trying to get a job, who hasn't padded their resume?" When whats best for the country and both sides of the political spectrum is an honest and open accounting of the beliefs of someone who will have a lifetime of power over every person in this country. I suspect--in merely the humble opinion of a hysterical myopic liberal--that Alito won't say what's really on his mind a la Robert Bork, because he would be unconfirmable. Bork "Borked" himself by revealing just how right-wing his beliefs really were, hence ever since then we have this half-ass game where senators ask questions or make statements about what questions can and should be asked, when really what would be better for everyone is an honest forum concerning the views of a man that will hold one of the most important jobs in the world. Now why not just say that you're not too keen on gays, environmental regulation, abortion, or the seperation of church and state? Surely you aren't, and same with Alito, and generally speaking the last 30 years of the conservative movement in this country.
Posted by: Fronts at January 10, 2006 02:34 PM (/Tmjw)
7
Maybe it's time to pull this
Fronts guy's admissions ticket, CY. He/she can neither back up any accusations with cases and facts, nor can the person even discuss the subject matter with even a scintilla of reason and logic. Looks like a waste of server space to me.
Blathering, bloviating blowhard seems like a proper description to me ... Must be someone from the Democratic Underground.
Of course, that's your call.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 10, 2006 03:09 PM (AaKND)
8
Once again, you not only
say you don't know what you are talking about, you go on to prove it.
You call Alito an extremist, and admit you know
nothing about the cases he has decided as a judge. Once
again, you overgeneralize all conservatives as being identical, and all conservatives as being "extreme."
And yet teh American Bar Association, hardly conservative, gives Judge Alito their highest rating. Even the most vocal of liberal activist groups and the most partisan members of the Senate have had to misrepresent Alito severely to make him appear anything close to an extremist.
Why? Becuase he is not an extremist. He is a middle of the road conservative the model of the best conservative Republicans and Democrats of the past century, with few of their shortcomings.
He is not sexist, and Ted Kennedy's slurs to that effect have been proven false with examples pulled from the case law. There is exactly zero evidence that he would run out and overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity as you melodramatically opine.
You have yet to make an argument based upon a single empirical fact, couching everything in terms of your feeling and hyperbole.
If you cannot support your opinions with what you currently know, nor bother to educate yourself to the point where you can have a rational discussion based upon facts instead of lies, half-truths, and unproven assertions, then there really isn't much of a point in having you contribute to this discussion.
Come backs with facts to support your opinions, or don't come back at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 03:17 PM (g5Nba)
9
Okay, I know its not Alito, but maybe you can explain to me Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas?
Posted by: Fronts at January 10, 2006 03:32 PM (/Tmjw)
10
You can't even stay on topic, can you? You're pathetic.
The main point of Scalia's dissent - I'm quite sure you haven't read it - is that while the case was decided properly, the manner at which the court decided the case was improper.
...the Court simply describes petitioners' conduct as "an exercise of their liberty"--which it undoubtedly is--and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case.
What other parts of Scalia's dissent did you not like, where he condemned the importation of foreign laws in U.S. judicial deliberations, or was it where he slammed the court for reconsidering
Bowers v. Hardwick, which is the kind of revisionist treatment you've been accusing Alito of?
Scalia wanted justices to follow the law...
American law... and to use logic and intelligence in deciding important cases. How brutal.
If you read the case you would note that O'Connor, the Justice that Alito is replacing, did not buy into Kennedy's flawed " rationale either and filed a concurring opinion instead of agreeing with his flawed logic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 04:03 PM (g5Nba)
11
CY, I thought you said you weren't going to post about Alito...
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 10, 2006 06:27 PM (607j+)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 07:43 PM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 09, 2006
Rude Awakening
The Guardian (UK) is reporting that an Iraqi journalist working for them received a very rough
wake-up call:
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.
"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."
Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.
"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.
This story, as reported, is shocking and should result in an immediate investigation.
There is the distinct possibility that everything Dr. Fadhil says is accurate, at which point Central Command will have some serious explaining to do.
But as of the time I'm writing this article, every single post being written about this story comes from testimony provided by Dr. Fadhil himself in the Guardian, with no other witness testimony, or physical evidence provided to back his contentions. In addition, some of his charges do not seem to square with American tactics.
His case, as published, is thin.
The Guardian article has no concurring witnesses. In a city of 2 million, no one else heard shots or saw them enter Fadhil's home?
At the end of the article, Fadhil claims, "They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands."
Tied? The American military does not generally tie up its prisoners, but instead uses handcuffs or nylon flexcuffs.
But the strongest evidence for or against Fadhil will be ballistic in nature.
The article seems to assert weapons discharges at two points: when the home invaders "blasted their way into the home," presumably breaching the door, and then, "firing bullets into the bedroom."
U.S forces sometimes use a breaching round to blast locks to gain entry into locked buildings, so I'd expect to find 12-gauge shotgun shell casings at or near the Fadhil family front door. The door should also show obvious signs of being breached, with shot-out locks.
I would also expect to find multiple 5.56mm NATO cartridge casings at, near, and possibly inside the bedroom, as well as bullet holes and 5.56mm bullet fragments.
If this physical evidence is not readily apparent, or the bullet holes, cartridge casings, and bullet fragments are not consistent with U.S weaponryÂ… well, then we might have another kind of story on our hands entirely.
Jayson Ali Blair, anyone?
Note: In case anyone is wondering, the Ali Fadhil in this story is in no way related to the Fadhil family of Iraq the Model, which I confirmed with Omar Fadhil today.
Update: Ali Fadhil has released a no-less-confusing first-person account, discussed here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:27 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 655 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Probably just another hate America story from the Guardian. We know how they act. Remember when Charlie Brooker called for Bush to be assassinated? How's that for editorial control? They are wacked.
Posted by: William Teach at January 09, 2006 06:59 PM (AkiXU)
2
This guy didn't have a library card and tried to check out Mao's Communist Manifesto in Chinese, did he?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 09, 2006 07:24 PM (owAN1)
3
By now have you figured out that this is the same Ali Fadhil who used to blog at Iraq the Model? And whose
current blogroll is properly conservative? And does that change the story for you?
Posted by: maha at January 09, 2006 07:39 PM (k55rZ)
4
I see maha eyeballed the guy and can attest it is the same Dr. Ali Fadhil. Perhaps so, but Dr. Fadhil's previous reporting to the Guardian doesn't fit the profile any more than this newest report does. Stranger things have happened, but maha, dear ...don't climb too far out on that limb til more is known.
Posted by: x_dhimmi at January 09, 2006 09:14 PM (miHE1)
5
Maha, you are as wrong as ever.
The Ali Fadhil that claims being raided is not even related to the Ali Fadhil from Iraq the Model.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 11:44 AM (g5Nba)
6
Actually, this is the Ali Fahdil that was reporting from Fallujah during the Nov 2004 offensive. If I remember correctly, he was, um, embedded with the insurgents and had done what was largely considered to be questionable reporting that the military had blown up a hospital and killed everyone in it (I might be over exaggerating, but I believe that was the gist) when it turned out that US forces had "breached" the hospital along with Iraqi forces, detained eight men suspected of being insurgents and secured the hospital.
After which, Al Fahdil reported that the US and Iraqi forces were denying Fallujans medical care (of course, there was a war going on and if you were a shot up insurgent that tried to go to the hospital, you'd be arrested so I understand that some folks were necessarily reluctant to go to the hospital) and we of course said that we were securing against use as a base by the insurgents. And, if I remember even further, that hospital had been used to fire on troops.
Last, I believe that while he was there he was the guy that insisted all the civilian casualties were caused by coalition forces, the mujihadeen were bately mentioned or were given "good press" and he might even have been the original source of "chemical weapons" use against civilians.
Links with ali's name
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianfilms/fallujah
You'll have to go back further in archives, but I believe that, besides his little film documentary, he was reporting "live" during the "fall".
So, I am not surprised that somebody tagged him as an "insurgent" or at least an associate. Probably had him for a member of their media wing . which, by the way, is not far fetched since there have been a few "reporters" that have turned out to be part of the media wing of these groups; however, I'm sure, once they reviewed his credentials with the guardian and they were verified, that is why he was let go.
As for the breaching comments, I'd say, say that the comment about blowing the lock off and possibly throwing in a flash bang is probably correct since that is a common entry.
It may be unfortunate for Mr. Fahdil that someone noted his associates and reported him.
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 10, 2006 09:01 PM (Rdcm7)
7
The Fadhil name that pops up most often in the Fallujah hospital stories is Fadhil Badrani. All the other information sounds more orless in line withwhat I've also heard.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 09:31 PM (0fZB6)
8
Actually, the US military have paid him compensation of $1,500 for what happened, and nobody from the army is contradicting his story. Therefore, it seems more probable than not that his story is true.
Posted by: Nicola Doherty at March 21, 2006 09:21 AM (ERQA+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 08, 2006
Bitter Anti-Semitic Patholigical Hatred Sells, But Who's Buying?
Some months ago when Cindy Sheehan's book
Not One More Mother's Child was launched, I noted that it had an Amazon.com Sales Rank that I
think (I'm going by memory here) was in the mid 3,000s.
I'd since rather forgotten about Saint Cindy and her tome, until I noticed Goldstein mocked her latest batch of arsenic nuttiness this afternoon as he riffed of her latest post to Michael Moore's site:
“I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,” said George on December 12, 2005. Even if one accepts this very low guess-ti-mate by George, his policies have been responsible for ten times the 3000 deaths on September 11, 2001. By his own admission, he is ten times the terrorist that Osama ever was."
It isn't even worth the effort to rebut Sheehan anymore as she has become a sad parody of herself; the only hope I have is that the MoveOn.org/CodePink wing of the party will help her hold another March of the 29 before the '06 elections.
But all the same, I was wondering how her book sales were doing in the wake of her latest pronouncement. I'm not sure what I was expecting her Sales Rank to be.
I certainly expected something better than this:
113,488 yesterday, dropping to 153,267 today. Ouch. Was it something she said?
By way of comparison, Everyone Poops came in at 2,031 today, and The War Against Toenail Fungus came in at 41,338.
It seems like fewer and fewer people are buying her crap these days...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:31 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
1
15 minutes, Cindy, that's all you get. You're already 5 minutes over! You're time has run out!!!
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 08, 2006 11:23 PM (owAN1)
2
Ouch.
Somebody tell Letterman.
Posted by: reliapundit at January 08, 2006 11:30 PM (Og169)
3
Couldn't happen to a nicer old broad.
Posted by: Fish at January 09, 2006 12:26 AM (KpjA/)
4
Only one reaction to this: ROFLMAO
Keep going Demoncrats. Hold up this woman as being central to your position and then have Howlin' Howie back her up....
Specter
Posted by: Specter at January 09, 2006 07:37 AM (ybfXM)
5
This all just goes to prove:
Everyone Poops. Not everyone wants to watch a grown woman throwing it.
Posted by: The Random Yak at January 09, 2006 12:17 PM (aEG2/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 07, 2006
Thick-Headedness Does Not Count As Armor
I relish when pundits try make profound judgments about a subject they clearly do not understand, like this - yeah, I know -
NY Times article that
breathlessly states:
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
Liberal blog Newshog certainly thinks this is today's Crime of the Century, running the headline Rumsfeld and Armor - Criminal Negligence Or Treason? Smelling a choice to score cynical political points, there has been much faux concern for our troops (from the same one liberals have called Marines murderers and war criminals for 40 years, of course) by loopy Kos diarists and the always amusing Pam's House Blend among others, who don't know what they are talking about any more than did the writer at the Times who cobbled this shoddy article together in the first place.
Lets look at some facts, shall we?
Interceptor armor is relatively new, first being deployed in 1999 as a two-part system, made up of a flexible tactical vest and armor plate inserts. The vest itself is a tactical weave that will stop much shrapnel and pistol bullets up to 9mm on its own, but it will not stop any rifle bullet, nor some shrapnel. The second component of the Interceptor system is a hard 10"x12" ceramic armor plate known as Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPIs) that can withstand multiple strikes from most, but no all rifle cartridges encountered on the modern battlefield.
The Interceptor system used by the Marines (details here) is a marked improvement over the previous PASGT vest, and is available in five sizes. The upgraded version of the Interceptor, which started being deployed in March of 2005, increased the protection with the addition of some side and upper arm protection and can be viewed here (PDF).
But the careful construction of the report defies logic and objectivity.
By design, the Times article shows an inaccurate picture of the Interceptor system provided to the Marines, based upon a false premise. This study only looked at fatalities, those Marines killed by upper body wounds while wearing vests. It excluded all the times where Interceptor vests worked as designed and the Marine survived.
This is akin to judging automobile safety by looking at only wrecks resulting in fatalities, as oppose to those wrecks where fatalities were prevented by good automotive design.
Reporters and clueless critics will not doubt be outraged decades from now when body armor of the day yields similar results against plasma rifles or other military technologies of that time.
There has always been and will always be an arms race between those developing armor and those designing weapons to defeat that armor. It has been that way for tens of thousands of years. It will be this way for the foreseeable future.
It would be smart for these “experts” to pull their heads out of their crawlspaces long enough to glance at a history book before they make fools of themselves yet again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:52 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 670 words, total size 5 kb.
1
It is possible to issue full protective armor that pistol and rifle fire cannot penetrate but it would be too heavy to carry.
Well, actually they do have full body armor that does protect against rifle and pistol rounds. It's called a tank. A bit difficult to do house to house searches wearing one though.
Ground troops always have to maintain a balance between protection and necessities, and the further they are from their supply line the more they need the extra ammunition, water, grenades, etc. When it comes to a choice between carrying more armor or more ammunition, the armor looses every time. Both are heavy but the armor is useless if you can't fight back.
Posted by: Fish at January 07, 2006 07:51 AM (KpjA/)
2
There you go again, expecting the
left to checks facts. Ain't gonna happen so long as it doesn't add to the position.
Fish made most of the points I would make; and a darn fine job of doing it, too, I might add. The average combat soldier weight ten years ago was 230 pounds; which included all the combat gear (rifle, ammo, water, grenades, rations [usually two meals], flack vest, ruck sack, etc totalling about 55 pounds). The average combat soldier today weighs about 265 pounds; a growth of about an additional 30 pounds for about 85 pounds of equipment. We're slowly making individual tanks out of our infantry. Humanitarily, that sounds "
nice", but is impractical in combat situations. Because of the whining about soldiers being killed in HMMWVs (by IEDs) the vehicles have been up-armored to the point of losing mobility and they still can't protect from the IEDs employing artillery shells (like most IEDs).
The whiny left needs to shut up and let the military experts figure out what is necessary on the battlefield and what is not. Pushing this crap onto them in the name of possibly saving 31 lives at the expense of other programs that may save hundreds of lives is just so much over-reaction. War is hell; actual combat is a MF. So unless you want to put your ass on the line, keep your namby pamby whiny suggestions to yourself and let the experts do their jobs. Oh, and
expect casualties in war.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 07, 2006 08:21 AM (9ABza)
3
Oh, and go here and
be proud!
http://www4.army.mil/yearinphotos/2005/
Credit for finding the link goes to
The Neocon Blogger at:
http://rightalways.blogspot.com/
Go over to his site; he's got a post about a sniper shot in Ramadi that will knock your socks off. That's the return on investment for great training that enhances a skill.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 07, 2006 08:51 AM (9ABza)
4
Just curious, the Times story said the upgraded body armor has been available since 2003. My question is, why did the military wait until 2005 to utilize this armor? Thanks
Posted by: Will at January 07, 2006 06:06 PM (ASbRK)
5
CY
On Forbes at http://www.forbesREMOVETHIS.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/07/ap2434673.html (your comment programming doesn't like this link)
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness.
Posted by: Darleen at January 07, 2006 06:11 PM (FgfaV)
6
Will,
There is a difference between available and available in the quantities desired.
Logistics as usual is not very sexy. Until there is a problem.
Currently the manufacturers of the armor are going all out (not possible before contracts are let - which due to Congressional rules take time) to make the desired sets.
Posted by: M. Simon at January 07, 2006 08:03 PM (yN87m)
7
The Left now feigns concern for our soldiers after having encouraged their friends(terrorists or insurgents, take your pick) in Iraq to kill as many of our men as possible. I find them disgusting, and I really do think that there will have to be a reckoning with these traitors when our men return.
As for the armor, it is best to let the individual soldiers decide what they need, and under what circumstances they need it. And I am not going to sit back here at home and second guess the decisions they make.
As for the Left, they don't give a shit about our soldiers, and this is nothing more than BDS. Piss on the Left.
Posted by: Templar Knight at January 07, 2006 08:46 PM (rUyw4)
8
This study only looked at fatalities, those Marines killed by upper body wounds while wearing vests. It excluded all the times where Interceptor vests worked as designed and the Marine survived.
This is akin to judging automobile safety by looking at only wrecks resulting in fatalities, as oppose to those wrecks where fatalities were prevented by good automotive design.
This is a silly criticism and a very poor analogy.
We don't need to look at the cases where the Interceptor armor saved lives because nobody is looking to replace the Interceptor armor, only to make it better. In fact, the success of the existing armor is precisely the reason why some people want to expand its coverage area. If the Interceptor armor coverage is expanded, it will save lives. The only trade-off appears to be additional monetary cost, which is why this issue has a lot of traction.
We're not looking at the equivalent of "automobile safety" here. The question isn't whether it's safe to fight in an Iraq combat zone. The question is, could it be made safer, and is there any trade-off for such increased safety?
A better analogy would be if cars didn't have seatbelts on the passenger side. If hundreds of people were dying in accidents because they were sitting in the passenger seat without a seatbelt, we'd understandably want to know why cars didn't have them. The fact that seatbelts saved the lives of thousands of drivers wouldn't be a counterargument to this criticism; it would merely bolster the claim that seatbelts save lives and should be provided for all occupants of the vehicle.
Posted by: Dave at January 08, 2006 12:17 AM (/j9KS)
9
More armor may not save lives.
You are trading mobility for defence. Wars are not won by defence alone.
For a fighting soldier mobilty is probably more important. Currently soldier go into the field with 80 to 85 pounds of gear. Talk about humping the boonies.
So the real question is how many soldiers lost their lives due to lack of mobility vs those killed due to insufficient armor?
Nothing is cost free.
Posted by: M. Simon at January 08, 2006 05:16 AM (/6nfg)
10
All anyone has to do is visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, Arms and Armor Department. The knights were so overloaded that foot-soldiers only had to knock them off their horses with a rope strategically placed between two trees. Let the guys in the field decide what they want for protection, not anti-military types writing for the N.Y.Times!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 08, 2006 10:24 AM (6krEN)
11
The problem is, of course, logistics. When we finally figured out that we were fighting an insurgency that preferred IEDs and other ambush techniques over pitched battles, the need for body armor became obvious and critical. That is the scandal: body armor that was available in 1999 should have been a top priority.
I'm sure the troops would have hated another heavy and non-breathing layer of armor in the Iraqi summer, until it kept them alive. The scandal isn't liberal hysteria; it's the Government's incompetence in waging this war.
Posted by: Jim at January 08, 2006 10:28 AM (3Ay2k)
12
Thank goodness you wrote this. I was so mad when I saw this story in my local paper, it bothered me all day.
Here's an example of what the story COULD have said:
New Armor Will Save Soldiers in the Future
New individual body armor, long under development by DoD contractors, will save future soldiers' lives in conflicts similar to that currently underway in Iraq, according to a classified Pentagon report.
The study of casualties in Iraq demonstrates that body armor under development will reduce casualties in this type of conflict in the future by up to 80%. The Pentagon is said to be rushing procurement of the new body armor in hopes of saving lives in the current conflict. Purchase of the new body armor is currently underway although manufacturers are struggling with production of a brand new high technology product.
There are concerns among military experts though as there is a trade off between armor and troop mobility. Some experts are concerned that the new armor types may restrict body movement due to its weight and rigidity.
You get the idea. My story is just as true as their's.
Posted by: Dwilkers at January 08, 2006 11:03 AM (/9Qop)
13
If the meadia actually cared about American lives they would be behaving as a cheer leading squad for terrorists and stop trying to screw with national security by leaking classified information.
Posted by: Murray at January 08, 2006 06:20 PM (GgHnO)
14
A question for Dave and Jim. How many hours, days, weeks, months, or years have you engaged an enemy in combat while wearing body armor? If the answer is zero, you might think about bowing out of the conversation.
The NYT is no friend of the military, soldiers, military leaders or this administration. They will sell their collective soul for a story that sheds bad light on any of the aforementioned. The NYT is not suitable for puppy training, little less public consumption as a reputable news source.
If the danged PC crowd would let the military fight as needed, they wouldn't have need for near as much perceived protection, because they wouldn't be that close to the enemy. Tanks and artillery take out the enemy from great distances and minimize friendly casualties. Collateral casualties have a tendency to be a bit higher, but our guys would fair a lot better. As long as the whiny left doesn't want ANY collateral casualties, our guys will die needlessly. Think about that for a minute or two.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 08, 2006 10:30 PM (owAN1)
15
And then there's the really obvious part that just bears a passing mention: A
secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials. It
was a secret Pentagon study, but is no longer because it was leaked. Someone committed a criminal act to release this information. I'm sure someone will eventually find a way to leak the secret plans developed to go after Iran or Syria (which are really contingency plans - things that DoD does all the time to deal with the real world), but they're waiting for an opportune moment to do that...
Posted by: lawhawk at January 09, 2006 09:36 AM (eppTH)
16
The left shows its complete lack of understanding of the military when they jump on these studies as evidence of wrongdoing. From my understanding, the Pentagon is constantly reviewing their practices and procedures so that they can improve performance. Its a constant loop of review, feedback and improvement. The report should not be taken as an sign of failure.
Posted by: Ed Colletta at January 09, 2006 03:44 PM (9UEu0)
17
Let the guys in the field decide what they want for protection, not anti-military types writing for the N.Y.Times!
Hold on -- you're making it sound as if the New York Times is somehow magically going to force soldiers to put on armor which they don't want. I'm not sure what you imagine the NYTimes is capable of, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.
I suspect that the logistics of body armor is driven by money and politics much more than by what the individual soldiers want. Do you have evidence that soldiers don't want the upgraded body armor?
Posted by: jhkim at January 09, 2006 08:41 PM (l3ixn)
18
Do you have evidence that soldiers don't want the upgraded body armor?
Yeah, I do. Beleive it or not, someone actually thought to
ask the soldiers themselves:
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness...
...Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.
"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time,'' said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could.''
The study and their remarks highlight the difficulty faced by the Army and Marine Corps in providing the best level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics are constantly changing.
Both the Army and the Marines have weighed the expected payoff in additional safety from extra armor against the measurable loss of combat effectiveness from too much armor.
The guys who actually wear the stuff--not some clueless Kos diarist or an agenda-driven Times reporter-- know there is a trade-off that has existed since earliest days of warfare, and one likely to exist far into the future.
The soldiers on the ground seem to prefer not being shot at all than being able to absorb bullets. Not very surprising is it?
They soldiers I've read of feel that the addition weight, even including armor, increases their chances of getting shot by slowing them down.
Even the upgraded armor does not protect the head, lower abdomen, mid to lower arms, or legs. More than half a solider or Marine's body is still exposed, without any armor at all.
Some, like the soldier above, wishes he could wear
less armor for more speed. This is a fairly common sentiment. Until armor technology becomes lighter and more flexible, the guys who wear it don't want to carry any more than they already do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 12:43 PM (g5Nba)
19
"
A better analogy would be if cars didn't have seatbelts on the passenger side. If hundreds of people were dying in accidents because they were sitting in the passenger seat without a seatbelt, we'd understandably want to know why cars didn't have them. The fact that seatbelts saved the lives of thousands of drivers wouldn't be a counterargument to this criticism; it would merely bolster the claim that seatbelts save lives and should be provided for all occupants of the vehicle."
Actually, that's about the same kind of analogy. Because people die everyday in car accidents while wearing a seatbelt. Like wearing the armor, a seatbelt doesn't protect a driver in every accident. Making a bigger seatbelt or building a driver's cabin full of bubblewrap and jello may protect a few more drivers, but will impair the ability to drive for most, thus resulting in more accidents that wouldn't have already occured and reducing the ability to drive, the purpose of getting behind the wheel in the first place.
Posted by: Jason at January 11, 2006 07:20 AM (BLx2K)
20
That's funny, how you're blaming the "liberal media" for raising this issue. The grunt-first veterans at Soldiers for the Truth (www.sftt.org), home of the late COL Hackworth, have been trying to get the major news organizations to pay attention to this for months:
"Those of you who have read the series of articles that appeared in DefenseWatch can only share my amazement that it has taken this long for the national media to finally realize that here is a DoD procurement scandal that does not cause citizens' eyes to glaze over."
Posted by: Dan at January 11, 2006 11:24 AM (aoRLD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
John Murtha: Semper Fidelis?
I think regular readers of
Confederate Yankee realize that in my
previous comments about decorated former Marine and current democratic Congressman John Murtha, I've been very careful not to question his patriotism, even though I
questioned his judgement.
That was all until now (following bold mine).
Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has come to national prominence since his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said Thursday night that he worries about "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory."
Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."
John Murtha worries that it looks like the United States might be victorious in Iraq, and that is an outcome that he does not desire.
Let that sink in for a moment.
A ranking Democratic member of Congress has publicly stated that he is against the United States winning a war, and advocates abandoning an ally, a fledging democracy, before it can even defend itself.
I will no longer restrain from commenting on Murtha because of his past military service. Another American military hero turned upon a fledgling democracy once, and he become synonymous with the blackest kind of treachery.
Murtha's treason--and I do now classify it as such-- is even more shameful in my opinion, as he seeks to undermine not only the United States while at war, but he seeks to undermine another nation, Iraq, that has shown a stronger commitment to democracy each time it has been tested at the ballot box.
For all that he once was, John Murtha is a disgrace as a Congressman and to the Marine Corps. If Murtha has any remaining decency, he should resign his position on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
The Marine motto "Semper Fidelis" means "Always faithful" in Latin. For John Murtha, who retired from the Marine Reserves in 1990, "always" lasted just 16 years.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.
1
AMEN! He is a worthless excuse of a human being.
Posted by: scmommy at January 07, 2006 01:40 AM (JyQt4)
2
Murtha specifically misrepresented the comments of Gen Peter Pace to say that Pace, Chairman of JCS, does not believe that we can win militarily in Iraq. Very specifically, what Pace actually said was that we alone cannot win but that it is a cooperative effort among the US, our coillition allies and the Iraqis.
Murtha is, and I do not use this lightly, a liar and deceiver of the most vile sort. He has crossed from holding a contrary opinion to advocating defeat of the US at the hands of the enemy during time of war. Shameful, vile, disgusting.
Posted by: Rickvid in Seattle at January 07, 2006 02:42 AM (VeNvn)
3
I really can't add anything other than to say it is very sad to see a former uniformed partiot turn on his ideals merely for political aspirations. I pitty John Murtha more than I loathe him. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame, because it is at the expense of once honored service.
My Marine friends are referring to Mustha as an
ex-Marine. The meaning behind that label is this: one of the Corps mottos is, "Once a Marine, always a Marine." That applies to retirees and those who separated honorably. To be termed an
ex-Marine is indeed an insult.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 07, 2006 08:43 AM (9ABza)
4
Old Soldier:
I really can't add anything other than to say it is very sad to see a former uniformed partiot turn on his ideals merely for political aspirations. I pitty John Murtha more than I loathe him. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame, because it is at the expense of once honored service.
That is about it in a nutshell, isn't it?
I find this to be a very sad moment in John Murtha's life. Apparent senility has clouded his mind and vision, and it has clouded the service of a once great patriot and hero.
It's time to fade away, John......
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 07, 2006 10:03 AM (AaKND)
5
You should read today's story at PowerLine about the Marine who stood up to Moran and Murtha at yesterday's Town Hall Meeting. They had no idea how to answer him.
Posted by: Specter at January 07, 2006 01:08 PM (ybfXM)
6
It is interesting, too, that a retired general officer stood up at that mutual masturbation celebration of Murtha, Moran and a croud of lefties and ripped Murtha and that idiot, Moran, new ones.
It's highlighted at
Michelle Malkin's BLOG, and there is a downloadable vieo file available at
General Wagner. It is a definite
Must View and Listen.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 07, 2006 01:28 PM (AaKND)
7
"John Murtha worries that it looks like the United States might be victorious in Iraq, and that is an outcome that he does not desire."
No, that's not what he said. He said:
"I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment..."
The difference is obvious to me. He wishes to avoid the appearance of victory because that would be a false victory. What he would prefer is re-deployment of a force large enough to ensure victory. This is a disagreement over methods not ends.
Posted by: brenda at January 07, 2006 08:12 PM (ZJNpC)
8
Murtha was referring to redeployment of troops now in Iraq to points over the horizon, Brenda. One of the spots he cited, for example, was Okinawa!
How in the hell can any military force and all the combat gear and the logistical nightmare that would result be redeployed back into Iraq efficiently if needed? Have you ever been involved in such an undertaking?
Murtha said nothing whatsoever about a much larger force to ensure victory. Do you have some tea leaves that are not available to the rest of us?
Victory for the U.S. and coalition forces is to create an Iraqi fighting force and police force sufficient to enable Iraq to defend itself against what remains of the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq.
Even al Qaeda's number 2 man can see what a foolish old man Murtha has become, and he is capitalizing on that weakness in the American Congress and in the American resolve to finish the job we set out to accomplish. He just thumbed his nose at us again recently, trying to make some believe that al Qaeda has the upper hand. They will if we listen to the defeatist Donks.
Are you sure you're not Fat Bastard in disguise?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 07, 2006 08:52 PM (AaKND)
Posted by: juandos at January 08, 2006 07:00 AM (MKdEb)
10
She's not, although I'm pleased that you would confuse rationality from someone else with my own, humble self.
Now, please, carry on with your de-regueur sliming of anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader...
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 08, 2006 11:33 AM (pEWm6)
11
Au contraire, Monsieur ....
It was precisely Brenda's
lack of rationality and strategic insights in her support of Murtha's military wisdom and force management tactics that led me to conclude that she was really
Fat Bastard in drag ... :-) :-)
I believe you meant
de rigueur sliming, but that is of little consequence. Maybe you are not aware that there is a difference between sliming an individual and sliming a person's policies and professional acumen.
You're really not very good at this, are you?
BNI?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 03:26 PM (AaKND)
12
No I'm not someone else. I've never been here before. I was just taking the the quotes as presented and noting the logical inconsistancy. It didn't seem like a fair comparison when he appears to be saying something other than what the article claims he is. That's all.
"Victory for the U.S. and coalition forces is to create an Iraqi fighting force and police force..."
That isn't going to happen. The factions in Iraq have absoulutly no interest in forming a *national* military force. They *are* interested in protecting their own respective interests and territory though.
My understanding of Murtha's position is that he'd like the US to engage in the larger war against terrorism rather than the what we have been doing in Iraq. Which is based on the false premise that Iraq had *anything* at all to do with 9/11. It did not.
Posted by: brenda at January 08, 2006 04:54 PM (ZJNpC)
13
Goodness, Brenda, I am so humbled to be discussing Iraq and tribal positions and territory and such with such a renown expert in geopolitics:
That isn't going to happen. The factions in Iraq have absoulutly no interest in forming a *national* military force. They *are* interested in protecting their own respective interests and territory though.
Really? It isn't going to happen? I recall folks on your side saying that the elections and constitution and the selection of representatives were not going to happen either. News Flash! They
did happen, didn't they? Gee, could the lefties possubly be wrong again?
Let's check these sentences, OK?
My understanding of Murtha's position is that he'd like the US to engage in the larger war against terrorism rather than the what we have been doing in Iraq. Which is based on the false premise that Iraq had *anything* at all to do with 9/11. It did not.
You refer to a broader war against terrorism, but at the same time you are willing to tie the President's and Department of Justice's hands by watering down the Patriot Act to the extent that it is meaningless, and you want to dampen the efficiency of the NSA surveillance operations against international al Qaeda communications with their operatives in the U.S. Doesn't sound much like a very serious war to me.
You also express absolute certainty that Saddam and his elite forces had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. How about the embassy bombings and the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the developments in the Sudan and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and on the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Are you willing to say, too, that Saddam was in no way involved with the training of some 8000 terrorists at three training camps in Iraq? The U.S. Forces have captured, translated and evaluated some 50,000 pages of captured photographs and documented information from Iraqi files to say that it is YOU that are dead wrong in making such bold and flawed assessments.
Stay tuned for the big hammer that falls on this urban legend of the lefties in the not-too-distant future, Brenda.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 08, 2006 05:49 PM (AaKND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Can Collector
"Where does he get those wonderful toys? "
--The Joker, Batman (1989)
Ward Brewer has a thing for collecting tin cans. Really big "tin cans," like E-01 Cuitlahuac / DD-574 John Rodgers, a World War II Fletcher-class destroyer he picked up from the Mexican Navy in December.
Now he's found 50 MK-6 Depth Charges from 1942-43.
You kinda get the feeling if you send him to the scrap yard looking for a spare water tank, he'd come back with one of these, don't you?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:13 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Geez, I thought I was the only one up at this hour working...and actually, I didn't know there was
any other kind of water tank.
Those depth charges are kind of cool, aren't they. I've always been a great fan of "big gun go boom". And yes, both you and Phin get a crack at the first ride on her. She'll do 42 knots.
As Glenn would say, "Heh..."
Posted by: WB at January 07, 2006 12:38 AM (5IPf9)
2
really? 42 knots? I didn't think depth charges went that fast, though I'm not sure offering folks a ride on them is a way to keep your friends... literally.
Or, did you mean the destroyer? ;-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 07, 2006 01:16 AM (0fZB6)
3
Weeeeellllllll, that would all depend.
You bein' fer us, or agin' us?
There may no longer be a Confederate Airforce (they changed the name to be politically correct), but you can rest assured there's gunna be a Confederate Navy...
Posted by: WB at January 07, 2006 12:56 PM (q708A)
4
next nyt headline: "U.S. Heavy Losses at Battle of the Bulge would have been Less if Nukes Used."
Posted by: marquisdegallifet at January 07, 2006 08:33 PM (lH6Yp)
5
My, my. One could get into a bit of mischief with 50 Depth Charges!
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 09, 2006 11:40 PM (HlMf9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 06, 2006
Courage to Stand
Via the
Washington Post:
The residents of Ramadi had had enough. As they frantically searched the city's hospital for relatives killed and wounded in bomb blasts at a police recruiting station Thursday, they did something they had never publicly done: They blamed al Qaeda in Iraq, the insurgent movement led by Abu Musab Zarqawi.
"Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said Khalid Saadi, 42, who came to the hospital looking for his brother, Muhammed.
Muhammed, it was later determined, was one of 80 police recruits killed by the terrorist attack on a recruiting line of 1,000 Sunni police force applicants in a town that had formerly assisted, sometimes actively, al Qaeda terrorists.
But that is not the entire story of yesterday's suicide bombing in Ramadi.
After the attack, the prospective recruits returned to the blood-stained streets, reformed their lines, and continued the screening process to become police officers.
The media breathlessly covers the moment-to-moment carnage of the day. They cannot understand, nor provide context to, the courage of a growing, increasingly tough anti-insurgency movement in Iraq. It is one thing to talk tough, but another thing entirely to stand for your beliefs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The French could sure take some lessons from these guys.
Posted by: Shoprat at January 06, 2006 07:30 PM (I6DQp)
2
They want freedom so bad, they are trying so hard. They are dying every day for freedom. Just this week, dozens were killed at a police station - people waiting in line to sign up to be police officers. When the bodies were removed, the line formed again. What does that tell you? God Bless our troops and God Bless the Iraq's.
Posted by: scmommy at January 07, 2006 01:45 AM (JyQt4)
3
I appreciated hearing the rest of the story. Thank you.
Posted by: Suzi at January 07, 2006 05:03 PM (dFNyu)
4
Ah, but in the Manila bulletin article it implied that the only reason all those men came back to apply for police jobs was that they needed the money...
Alas, they don't have it on line, but I believe it is this Reuter's report:
Reuters
Insurgents have often attacked Iraqi police and army recruits, who the Americans hope will eventually replace them in the fight against the largely Sunni Arab insurgency, allowing U.S. troops to withdraw.
Many young Iraqi men are drawn to work in the security forces by the promise of relatively high pay, although thousands have been massacred.
Posted by: tioedong at January 08, 2006 01:04 AM (kLyd4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
190kb generated in CPU 0.0817, elapsed 0.1466 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.1183 seconds, 361 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.