A CIA agent has been fired for leaking classified information to the media:

CIA officials will not reveal the officer's name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.

One official called this a "damaging leak" that deals with operational information and said the fired officer "knowingly and willfully" leaked the information to the media and "was caught."

The CIA officer was not in the public affairs office, nor was he someone authorized to talk to the media. The investigation was launched in January by the CIA's security center. It was directed to look at employees who had been exposed to certain intelligence programs. In the course of the investigation, the fired officer admitted discussing classified information including information about classified operations.

The investigation is ongoing.

A Justice Department spokesman said "no comment" on the firing. The spokesman also would not say whether the agency was looking into any criminal action against the officer.

Gee... I wonder who it was?

In all seriousness, this is damaging for certain political factions within the CIA, and was almost certainly a shot across the proverbial bow by Porter Goss, the former agent hired by the President to clean up the Agency. It will be very interesting in the days to come to see if this was an isolated incident, or if this is simply the first in a series of house-cleaning moves long overdue.

Note: A.J. Strata concludes that the CIA was fired for leaks that led to the N.Y. Times publishing the original NSA wire-tapping story. The CIA does appear in the NY Times article, but this AP story ties the firing to the Washington Post's secret prison story from late last year.

Update: Rick Moran brings up the very interesting possibility that since no evidence that the secret prisons ever existed, that the operation that brought down CIA officer Mary McCarthy may have been a sophisticated "sting" to target leakers (h/t Captain Ed).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:02 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.

I'll be in meetings most of the day today, but to tide you over, check out what Ray Robison has uncovered regarding documentation that seems to support the theory that Saddam Hussein was looking into nuclear weapons, here, here, here and here.

Robison, a current military operations research analyst and a former member of the Iraq Survey Group for the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been able to dig up newspaper articles, original Iraqi documentation, and satellite photos of the base where nuclear testing is rumored to have occurred.

Interesting stuff.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

When Red America/Washington Post blogger Ben Domenech was caught plagiarizing multiple articles, the Washington Post allowed him to resign within the week.

Now that Golden State/L.A. Times blogger Michael Hiltzik has been caught plagiarizing multiple personalities, will the L.A. Times have the integrity to "allow" Hiltzik to resign as well?

Pre-publication Update: The answer appears to be yes.

Notice from the Editors

The Times has suspended Michael Hiltzik's Golden State blog on latimes.com. Hiltzik admitted Thursday that he posted items on the paper's website, and on other websites, under names other than his own. That is a violation of The Times ethics policy, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.

Interestingly enough, when Domenech was caught plagiarizing, quite a few conservative bloggers let him have it. Why aren't any liberal bloggers condemning the dishonesty of Hiltzik?

Further Update: Hiltzik's Golden State Blog has suddenly ceased to exist.

Is this a temporary condition, or how the L.A. Times decided to solve the problem?

Yet Another Further Update: The blog is back, but Michael Hiltzik is still suspended.

Oy...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, asks the media do what it can to overthrow the Bush Administration. Within legal bounds, of course:

No matter which party they generally favor or political stripes they wear, newspapers and other media outlets need to confront the fact that America faces a crisis almost without equal in recent decades.

Our president, in a time of war, terrorism and nuclear intrigue, will likely remain in office for another 33 months, with crushingly low approval ratings that are still inching lower. Facing a similar problem, voters had a chance to quickly toss Jimmy Carter out of office, and did so. With a similar lengthy period left on his White House lease, Richard Nixon quit, facing impeachment. Neither outcome is at hand this time.

Lacking an impending election, or a real impeachable scandal, what does Mitchell plead?

The alarm should be bi-partisan. Many Republicans fear their president's image as a bumbler will hurt their party for years. The rest may fret about the almost certain paralysis within the administration, or a reversal of certain favorite policies. A Gallup poll this week revealed that 44% of Republicans want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. Do they really believe that their president will do that any time soon, if ever?

Democrats, meanwhile, cross their fingers that Bush doesn't do something really stupid -- i.e. nuke Iran -- while they try to win control of at least one house in Congress by doing nothing yet somehow earning (they hope) the anti-Bush vote.

Meanwhile, a severely weakened president retains, and has shown he is willing to use, all of his commander-in-chief authority, and then some.

What are you asking for, Mr. Mitchell? Are you asking you friends in the professional media to gin up outrage and hysteria, in hopes that in a nation of 300 million... no, you couldn't be.

It seems possible:

I don't have a solution myself now, although all pleas for serious probes, journalistic or official, of the many alleged White House misdeeds should be heeded. But my point here is simply to start the discussion, and urge that the media, first, recognize that the crisis—or, if you want to say, impending crisis -- exists, and begin to explore the ways to confront it.

Start the discussion. Urge the media. Confront Bush. And thenÂ…

Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Like others, I noticed with a quite a bit of cynicism the report of immigration raids conducted yesterday with what appears to political timing. Michelle Malkin not only notes this occurrence, she provides a GAO document showing just how shoddy immigration enforcement has been during the Bush Administration, which makes the timing of the raid even more suspect.

It could been far worse, however.

Some politically-timed government raids have ended with a tragic loss of life, like the April 19, 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, TX (timeline via PBS), just as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was coming up for a funding review in Congress. 80 people died in an inferno after an 80-day standoff that started with a botched raid that left 4 federal agents and six Davidians killed.

Interestingly enough, on the same day the immigrations raids were announced, CNN also carried a story noting that six of the seven Davidians imprisoned after the standoff will be freed from prison in the next two months.

I guess we can at least be thankful that these latest politically-timed raids didn't end in a loss of life.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote once before about a group of UC Santa Cruz students calling themselves Students Against War (SAW), who apparently committed felonies by blocking military recruiters from the U.S. Army and National Guard attempting to participate in a job fair on campus.

Three of SAW's leaders, Sam Aranke, Janine Carmona, and David Zlutnick, placed their phone numbers and email addresses on press release fficial">disseminated widely across the internet, in apparent hopes of using this contact information to help organize even larger felonious acts.

Blogger Michelle Malkin posted these publicly available and fficial">still easily found contact numbers, which apparently led to some ill-advised and indefensible threats being made against these student criminals.

In retaliation against Malkin, some radical left wing web sites and blogs have taken the extraordinary step of posting not only Malkin's phone number and already publicly accessible email address, but satellite pictures of her house, her physical home address, and descriptions of her family. Malkin is unbowed. Goldstein is calling for a "very public condemnation and ostracizing" of those responsible for targeting Malkin's family.

I'm a little more direct.

This is the link to the FBI Tips and Public Leads form, which I have used to report several of these sites for possible hate crimes investigations based upon specific language used in some of those pages. Those of you who are guilty of these hate crimes undoubtedly know who you are.

I'd advise sleeping light.

That knock at the door ain't Avon calling, and answering it promptly might save you repair work after the warrant is served.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, perhaps not yet, but you know it's coming:

New Orleans is at the top end of what looks like a gigantic, slow-moving landslide, according to geologists who have been carefully studying the ground movements in the area...

"Not only is southern Louisiana sinking, it's sliding," said geologist Roy Dokka of Louisiana State University.

Like a smaller landslide on the side of a hill, the huge Southern Louisiana landslide has a "headwall" where the slide is breaking away and a "toe" out in the Gulf where the debris from the slide is piling up, Dokka explained. The only difference from a traditional landslide is that this one is far, far larger and it's buried under lots of wet sediments, so it requires very accurate survey measurements to detect it.

The city and an adjoining section of Mississippi are collapsing into the Gulf of Mexico at an ever-increasing rate of speed.

Gulf Coast resident and Hurricane Katrina survivor Seawitch reveals this and other research showing a geologic disaster occurring along the Michoud Fault that runs under New Orleans, including the specific points where the levees were breached during Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Carl Bernstein longs to be relevant again.

His recent piece in Vanity Fair will not provide that relevance, painting him instead as a man whose drive for past glory has reduced him to parroting almost shriek-for-shriek tenants of the far left long proven false or misleading. He has grown intellectually lazy and lethargic, producing a column unworthy of a front page diary at the Daily Kos—or perhaps worse, provides a column that is specifically what one would expect at Kos or the rabid message boards of the Democratic Underground.

It begins:

Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.

John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.

In terms of imminent, meaningful action by the Congress, however, the question of whether the president should be impeached (or, less severely, censured) remains premature. More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

Ignoring the incoherent first sentence that never should have made it past an editor's desk, Bernstein calls for a Bush Administration investigation based upon polling data and the words of a convicted felon shilling a book, and his call for an vague, wide-ranging inquisition "of the conduct of the presidency" is a hopeful wail from a partisan hoping for a witch hunt, based upon... well what, exactly?

How much evidence is there to justify such action?

Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason, while the administration barricaded itself behind the most Draconian secrecy and disingenuous information policies of the modern presidential era.

"We ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people," said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on April 9. "The President of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people Â… about exactly what he did." Specter was speaking specifically about a special prosecutor's assertion that Bush selectively declassified information (of dubious accuracy) and instructed the vice president to leak it to reporters to undermine criticism of the decision to go to war in Iraq. But the senator's comments would be even more appropriately directed at far more pervasive and darker questions that must be answered if the American political system is to acquit itself in the Bush era, as it did in Nixon's.

Oh, the tiredness of it all! Dredging up the one-hit wonder of "what they knew and when they knew it," Bernstein in no way attempts to apply that broad charge to a specific, credible allegation that the law requires. Instead, he hangs it out there, as untended gill net, furtively hoping to ensnare anything and everything that drifts past.

Bernstein, unable or unwilling to bring into focus charges of his own, attempts to make Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter his whipping boy, selectively quoting and rearranging the order Specter's to make it appear that Bush did something illegal and not within his power. But what did Specter say, and how did he say it?

Via the transcript of Fox News Sunday, the actual conversation between host Brit Hume and Senator Specter:

HUME: ...Is it your view that what the president and the vice president, as well, did in that matter constituted a leak?

SPECTER: I don't know, because all of the facts aren't out, and I think that it is necessary for the president and the vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened.

Brit, I think too often we jump to conclusions before we know what all of the facts are, and I'm not about to condemn or criticize anybody, but I do say that there's been enough of a showing here with what's been filed of record in court that the president of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people.

HUME: About the release of this information or what?

SPECTER: Well, about exactly what he did. The president has the authority to declassify information. So in a technical sense, if he looked at it, he could say this is declassified, and make a disclosure of it.

There have been a number of reports, most recently — I heard just this morning — that the president didn't tell the vice president specifically what to do but just said get it out. And we don't know precisely what the vice president did.

And as usual, Brit, the devil is in the details. And I think that there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated.

The president may be entirely in the clear, and it may turn out that he had the authority to make the disclosures which were made, but that it was not the right way to go about it, because we ought not to have leaks in government. We ought not to have them.

And the president has justifiably criticized the Congress for leaking and, of course, the White House has leaked. But we ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people.

[bold mine - ed]

Bernstein reorders and selectively quotes Specter's statements, conveniently leaving out that while Specter would like to know the details of the inner workings of the White House (wouldn't we all?), Specter acknowledges that Bush does have the specific authority to declassify information. Furthermore, on March 25, 2003 Bush amended President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12958 to extend that power to the office of the vice president when acting "in the performance of executive duties." How forgetful of Mr. Bernstein to omit these inconvenient details.

Long on generalities and short on facts, Bernstein attempts to press an already weak attack:

Perhaps there are facts or mitigating circumstances, given the extraordinary nature of conceiving and fighting a war on terror, that justify some of the more questionable policies and conduct of this presidency, even those that turned a natural disaster in New Orleans into a catastrophe of incompetence and neglect. But the truth is we have no trustworthy official record of what has occurred in almost any aspect of this administration, how decisions were reached, and even what the actual policies promulgated and approved by the president are. Nor will we, until the subpoena powers of the Congress are used (as in Watergate) to find out the facts—not just about the war in Iraq, almost every aspect of it, beginning with the road to war, but other essential elements of Bush's presidency, particularly the routine disregard for truthfulness in the dissemination of information to the American people and Congress.

The first fundamental question that needs to be answered by and about the president, the vice president, and their political and national-security aides, from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleezza Rice, to Karl Rove, to Michael Chertoff, to Colin Powell, to George Tenet, to Paul Wolfowitz, to Andrew Card (and a dozen others), is whether lying, disinformation, misinformation, and manipulation of information have been a basic matter of policy—used to overwhelm dissent; to hide troublesome truths and inconvenient data from the press, public, and Congress; and to defend the president and his actions when he and they have gone awry or utterly failed.

Once again, the formerly great writer calls for a congressional inquisition into every aspect of the Bush Presidency, but cannot provide a single, specific reason why it should occur. Citing everything from warfighting to domestic disaster response, Bernstein asks for the unprecedented: an apparent play-by-play stenographic record of every decision ever made in an attempt to second-guess and undermine a sitting President, ostensibly expanding congressional and media powers with an impossibly broad investigative self-mandate to usurp those powers afforded to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. It is a coward's call for insurrection that no American President in this nation's history has ever had to endure.

From this fevered cry, Bernstein plunges headlong into a litany of charges made up of theories long debunked and ideas half-baked, made by the anonymous and the vengeful:

Most of what we have learned about the reality of this administration—and the disconcerting mind-set and decision-making process of President Bush himself—has come not from the White House or the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security or the Treasury Department, but from insider accounts by disaffected members of the administration after their departure, and from distinguished journalists, and, in the case of a skeletal but hugely significant body of information, from a special prosecutor. And also, of late, from an aide-de-camp to the British prime minister. Almost invariably, their accounts have revealed what the president and those serving him have deliberately concealed—torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and its apparent authorization by presidential fiat; wholesale N.S.A. domestic wiretapping in contravention of specific prohibitive law; brutal interrogations of prisoners shipped secretly by the C.I.A. and U.S. military to Third World gulags; the nonexistence of W.M.D. in Iraq; the role of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff in divulging the name of an undercover C.I.A. employee; the non-role of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the events of 9/11; the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman (whose mother, Mary Tillman, told journalist Robert Scheer, "The administration tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him"); the lack of a coherent post-invasion strategy for Iraq, with all its consequent tragedy and loss and destabilizing global implications; the failure to coordinate economic policies for America's long-term financial health (including the misguided tax cuts) with funding a war that will drive the national debt above a trillion dollars; the assurance of Wolfowitz (since rewarded by Bush with the presidency of the World Bank) that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for the war within two to three years after the invasion; and Bush's like-minded confidence, expressed to Blair, that serious internecine strife in Iraq would be unlikely after the invasion.

Insider accounts from which disaffected members of the administration, and which distinguished journalists? Bernstein can't be troubled to provide those essential details, and instead dives into a sea of conspiracies unprovable or disproven.

Bernstein will not say that the "aide-de-camp to the British prime minister" he ostensibly cites in reference to the so-called "Downing Street Memos" were composed almost exclusively of high-level summaries composed by British diplomats of conversations had by British intelligence officers and diplomats who were relating what they remembered of conversations they had with their American counterparts about what the Americans thought about what they thought the President said. Why didn't Bernstein go the final step, and connect them all to Kevin Bacon?

Not a single credible witness has come forward to tie the Administration to abuse at Abu Graib, and those who did commit the abuses there were tried and convicted in a court of law. Charges leveled against Marines performing their duties at Guantanamo Bay have turned out to be baseless, and in many cases were made by those who had never set foot on the island.

Bernstein goes as far as to blatantly lie to his readers, stating that the Administration engaged in "wholesale N.S.A. domestic wiretapping in contravention of specific prohibitive law," when not a single credible person connected to the program in any way has ever provided the first shred of evidence that this program was anything other than the specific, targeted intercepts of international communications affiliated with suspected terrorists. I charge Bernstein to provide any evidence of this charge. He cannot, relying instead upon insinuation, hyperbole, and unsubstantiated claims, which not coincidentally, make up the overwhelming majority of his spurious, politically motivated charges.

Carl Bernstein, once a journalist credited with taking down a clearly corrupt President for specific criminal charges, has pissed away his credibility and goodwill American citizens may retain for him in an article that could have been scripted by Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore. It is sad to see a once great man futility tilting at windmills, trying to regain glories and respect long past, but it is even more repulsive when Carl Bernstein would undermine our very system of government with an open-ended inquisition of one branch by another in his pursuit of past glories.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:32 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 2358 words, total size 15 kb.

Glenn Reynolds has a Porkbuster's post up hammering Mississippi Senator Trent Lott for wanting to spend $700 million to relocate a rail line already rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina at a cost of $250 million dollars.

Lawhawk has a post up defending the relocation of the rail line (Reynolds has related thoughts here).

Read both entries and draw your own conclusions.

My church sent mission teams originally to Gretna, Louisiana, and has sent repeated mission teams to Waveland, Mississippi to help Gulf Coast residents recover from the storm. As they drove in and out of the area affected by Hurricane Katrina, they shot hundreds of photos showing immense devastation on a scale few can fathom.

This photo is probably that of the rail line in question. It was shot in coastal Mississippi or Louisiana (it was hard for outsiders to tell which, with all landmarks and road signs destroyed) directly after Hurricane Katrina. The massive damage to the rail bed is obvious.

I don't think that I have a problem with eventually rerouting the railroad to a safer inland path, but I have to ask: why couldn't they have done this before spending the first $250 million dollars?

No matter how you slice it, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

Vikram Buddhi, you've got some 'splaining to do (h/t Drudge):

Buddhi told investigators he posted the message, along with other derogatory messages aimed at the president, but Martin said Buddhi's actions should be covered by the First Amendment since Buddhi would have never actually carried out his threats.

In the various messages posted, Buddhi urged the Web site's readers to bomb the United States and for them to rape American and British women and mutilate them, according to court documents. Other messages called for the killing of all Republicans.

"What was allegedly said certainly is derogatory and may be inflammatory," Martin said. "But there's no real serious threat more than it was chat on the Web."

Martin, of course is citing the First Amendment clause which grants an exception to those who advocate Killing George Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the rape and mutilation of western women.

In the wake of these charges, Buddhi was immediately offered teaching assistant positions by Karachi State University and Yale, which offered Buddhi a John Hinkley Jr. FellowshipÂ…

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:17 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Slimy and spineless, subsisting on a steady diet of debris and feces and preferring to hide in dark, dank places, it seems that the University of California at Santa Cruz chose their mascot of a banana slug wisely.

One week ago, today a group of UC Santa Cruz students calling themselves Students Against War (SAW) committed felonies by blocking military recruiters from the U.S. Army and National Guard attempting to participate in a job fair on campus. According to the exact letter of the law as it is written in Title 18, Part I, chapter 115 Section 2388 (a):

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[emphasis mine - ed.]

Clearly, by willfully obstructing the recruiting efforts, these students committed felonies covered by federal treason and sedition laws, but that has not inflamed public sensitivities. No, what has inflamed the Left is the simple act of conservative Michelle Malkin, who posted the contact information of the organizers from the SAW press release (names since removed) on her blog.

As a result of posting this contact information, the three student activists who led this illegal act - Sam Aranke, Janine Carmona, and David Zlutnick - have been inundated with irate phone calls and emails. Some, perhaps many of them were threatening. The students have since asked Malkin to remove their contact information even though it has been used (and is still being used) by other fringe group web sites to help in their recruiting efforts.

Not surprisingly, the left wants to have it both ways. They want to be able to recruit on their own without objection or impassioned criticism, while they at the same time object to military recruiting by committing felonious acts of treason and sedition, and hope to get away with it without any response.

Blogger Ezra Klein, not surprisingly a Slug himself, wants to generate sympathy for these criminals, calling them:

...young, idealistic kids determined to save the world, feeling their way through uncertain thickets of ideology and unfamiliar collections of ideas, and naive about the dangers of direct political action outside a university's protected confines.

Klein would excuse a felonious act with a good intention, and would make college a place where laws do not apply. In his fantasy world that may be the case, but as Duke university lacrosse team members found out at 5:00 AM this morning, college enrollment is no excuse for committing one or more felonies.

Sam Aranke, Janine Carmona, and David Zlutnick proudly conspired to commit a felonious act against the United States. A few empty emailed death threats are a mild penalty compared to the jail time that they and their treasonous compatriots so richly deserve.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

I've been thinking a lot about sheepdogs lately, if only in the back of my mind. Not the physical kind, of course, but the metaphorical, philosophical beast described by LTC Dave Grossman (Retired), that I was first exposed to in Bill Whittle's excellent "Tribes" some month's ago. Because of Whittle's essay, I've also been doing a lot of soul-searching about what it means to be Grey, and how it all relates to the budding war with Iran.

LTC Grossman's essay "On sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" was forwarded to me this morning in an email by another retired sheepdog and I present it to you in its entirety:
more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:30 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 3519 words, total size 21 kb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Pretend that you are a political "undecided" or a moderate, and you read the Washington Post. You don't follow politics much (you life is too busy for that) and you've run across the following stories.

Who would you rather associate with, the blogger profiled in this Q&A several months ago, or this one revealed today?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

A touching tribute to character at Phin's Blog.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

A few months ago, I sought a picture of the baby Jesus for a simple post I wanted to put up on Christmas Eve, which eventually came to be this post.

However, an innocuous search for “baby jesus “on Google turned up a disgusting, shocking result.

My post on the subject was mocked by some, and it even earned the coveted Worst Post of the Year: 2005 from Crooks & Liars. Considering the source, I took it all in stride, and held my ground. After all, I was a SEO consultant back in 1997, working search engine results for companies before most of those folks put up their first web pages.

I then forgot about that post and the derisive uproar on the left as other things came into view, until I ran across these posts on The Corner this morning, and it reminded me of the search that I made Christmas Eve. On a lark, I Googled "baby jesus" again:

What's missing from this picture? You guessed it: a certain offensive web site result. In my original post I spent a lot of time arguing:

Google's algorithms are man-made, coded by human programmers, as are any exclusionary protocols. These people ultimately decide if search results are relevant.

Of course, I was wrong... wasn't I?

Therefore this new search result, which has dropped the offensive site from at least the top 50 search results for the words baby jesus, couldn't have been the result of an algorithm change or an exclusionary protocol.

It must be a Good Friday Miracle on Google.

Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

To hear Editor & Publisher tell it, you would think that Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick was standing firmly behind his page A1 story from yesterday, where his opening paragraphs strongly asserted that the Bush Administration ignored the "unanimous findings" of a team of weapons experts to purposefully present the American people with false information.

The Post's agenda-driven journalism was destroyed before the first copy of the print edition hit the street.

Warrick's article was a perfect example of modern yellow journalism. He following an increasingly common technique of making a strong assertion in the lede (opening paragraphs)of a story, only providing any balancing coverage much further down in the story, while typically being dismissive of it or giving it little rhetorical weight (Jeff Goldstein provides and excellent look at the phenomena as applied to this story at Protein Wisdom).

Is Warrick really standing firm behind his article? Hardly.

Warricks's new article, hiding on page A18, has backed away from the "unanimous findings" claim that was proven factually inaccurate in his scurrilous lede. A June 7, 2003 NY Times article found by Seixon found that far from presenting "unanimous findings," this third team of experts was "divided sharply" in their opinion of what the trailer represented. Warrick's sources—all anonymous—seem to be contradicting each other, bringing into doubt their credibility.

In addition to the credibility of Warrick's anonymous sources and the discrepanies about the report they issued, all mention of the two teams of military experts that thought that the trailers were mobile bio-weapon labs have been removed from the follow-up story. Unable to address the fact that their existence proves he was presenting a minority view (even one that turned out to be accurate), Warrick seems intent on deleting all references to these contradictory teams mentioned in earlier article. The "smoking gun" has turned out to be what Seixan noted as a "minority report about a minority report."

Is Joby Warrick standing by his story, or is he guilty of spinning, cutting, and running?

I report. You deride.

Update: Blue Crab Boulevard says, "What's 'unclear' here is if Mr. Warrick was aware that he was writing a hit piece or just that bad a writer."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

Via ABC News:

A senior Egyptian al Qaeda member was killed along with other militants during a Pakistani military raid of a hideout in the northern part of Pakistan, sources have told ABC News.
Multiple intelligence sources in Pakistan confirmed to ABC News that they believed Abu Mohsin Musa, also known as Abdul Rahman, had died in the overnight raid.
Rahman was one of the FBI's most wanted men with a $5 million bounty on his head. He was indicted in absentia in a New York court for his alleged involvement in the bombings of the United States embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and Nairobi, Kenya, on Aug. 7, 1998.

Some folks still like to suggest that we're losing the War on Terror, but they tend to miss the simple logistics of the equation. It takes nine months to gestate a potential terrorist, a minimum of 10–15 years before they're ready to carry out even a suicide bombing (that seems to be the Palestinian age floor, at least), and even moderately capable operatives take at least 15-20 years of life to develop. The rare mastermind-quality terrorists don't seem to hit their stride for another five to ten years after that, and they have been constantly decreasing in number since the start of the War on Terror.

While there are critics quick to point out that our actions in various theaters can sometimes prod people to turn to terrorism, I think it safe to say that the majority who choose to engage in terrorist acts were already predisposed to do so because of prior conditioning. If we did not trigger them now, something would likely trigger them at another point.

It take just seconds to make bullet, hours or days to build a bomb or missile, but lifetimes for terrorists to reach level of proficiency. If we see this as a war of production, like World War II, it is obvious that on this level, we are assured of victory. Effective terrorists simply cannot be made and trained faster than we manufacture weapons to destroy them, and ineffective terrorists are simply targets.

Abu Mohsin Musa became just another statistic, his years of experience lost to a weapon that took hours or days to manufacture. The Islamofascists are slowly, painfully learning the same thing the Germans did in World War II. You cannot defeat the United States in a war of production.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

...and apparently, I'm doing okay in Fargo.

I'll be doing my first talk radio segment (ever) on "Hot Talk with Scott Hennen" on WDAY at 11:30 AM (Eastern). We'll be talking about the WaPo "trailers of mass destraction" story I debunked yesterday.

You should be able to listen through the Listen to Hot Talk link.

The Hot Talk blog is here.

Update: I just got off the air. For a first-timer I don't think I did that bad, talking with the host for a few minutes and taking a call from a liberal. I'll update with a link to the MP3 as soon as I have the audio.

Update 2: We have audio (6802K MP3). Rush Limbaugh won't feel threatened.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

We've been "Fristed" again in the illegal immigration debate, and this time House leader Dennis Hastert has joined the chorus of cowardice:

House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.

Yesterday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a joint statement seeking to deflect blame for the harshest provisions of the House bill toward the Democrats, who they said showed a lack of compassion. "It remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony," Hastert and Frist said.

Once again Republican leaders show they are not worthy of leading even their own parties, much less America. Bill Frist, who would like to become President, proves once again why he does not have the spine for the office he seeks. He will not garner my vote under any circumstance.

Increasingly, a third party vote for a truly conservative candidate coming out of either party seems palatable. As Dan Riehl notes:

I hope there's a leader somewhere in that crumbling party, which today appears to be a shadow of itself, full of political whores intent on abandoning principle so as to pimp themselves for votes. If Republicans remain on this co-dependent Democrat path they are on, look for significant third party challenges from the Right. From what I am seeing today, I would strongly consider voting for one now.

The Democrats still can't win elections, but the GOP seem intent on losing them. as they run the party into the ground.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.