March 30, 2007
A Message to the Democratic Party Leadership
From
YouTube:
Cpl Chris Mason recorded a video message for the Democratic Party Leadership before he was killed in action in Iraq. Chris was killed by Al Qaeda terrorist. He produced this video on November 12th 2006 at FOB Summerall. This video just recently worked its way to me (his dad) on March 23rd 2007, now I am posting it to the internet for him. It reflects his beliefs about the war in Iraq, the people of Iraq, freedom, why he joined the US military, what he expected after joining the military, and if the warriors lost in the war will be lives wasted.
Cpl Mason was killed on November 28th, 2006 by Al-Qaeda Terrorist forces operating in Iraq.
He was laid to rest December 12th 2006, exactly thirty days after making this video statement to the Democratic Party Leadership.
From Chris Mason's memorial web site:
He was killed in "The War on Terrorism" by Al-Qaeda terrorist forces in a small town "Siniyah, Iraq." Chris was ambushed and killed by Al-Qaeda terrorist while he was moving into position to provide fire support for his fellow paratroopers. They had come under heavy small arms fire from Al-Qaeda forces and could not disengage. He died soon after being hit by an IED, but DOD has him being killed by small arms fire, during a firefight with Al-Qaeda at the same location. Bottom line is he was doing what needed to be done for his country..
The President of the United States, George W. Bush, authorized on Feb 1, 2007 that the following quote be placed on Chris's headstone.... "We Will Not Tire, We Will Not Falter, And We Will Not Fail" with the president's signature affixed there after.
There are few men who will pick up a weapon and fight for this country, and my son was one of the few. He died standing toe to toe with Al-Qaeda.
Strength and Honor son, I stand proud for you. Airborne.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:38 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.
1
A far better tribute to a son than ... I don't even want to mention her name in the same post, she doesn't deserve it.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 31, 2007 12:34 PM (ot4TW)
2
All Americans have a duty and a right to voice their views. Most now believe that the war in Iraq was not in the best interests of their country.
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:19 PM (TcoRJ)
3
"What would the world be like without the influence of America in it?
I choose to believe that because of America this world is a better place. And that the people of this world are given better opportunities each day that passes by."
Cpl Chris Mason
FOB Summerall
November 12th 2006
Posted by: Jeff Williams at March 31, 2007 05:50 PM (bynqQ)
4
All Americans have a duty and a right to voice their views.
Right? Sure.
What is this "duty" you speak of though?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 31, 2007 08:43 PM (yikpN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
James Dobson Can Kiss My...
...grits.
I am really and truly getting quite perturbed with the sanctimonious self-importance of one James Dobson. From CNN, about Fred Thompson:
In an interview with "U.S. News & World Report," Dobson said, "I don't think he's a Christian."
A Thompson spokesman quickly contested Dobson's statement, saying "Thompson is indeed a Christian. He was baptized into the Church of Christ."
But a declaration of Thompson's religion will not be enough for Dobson, who is viewed as being widely influential with evangelical Christians, a key Republican voting bloc.
"We were pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer," said Nima Reza, a Dobson spokesman. "Thompson hasn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."
Many evangelicals would prefer it if Doctor Dobson would simply shut up, and quit attempting to speak for us.
The last I checked, James Dobson cannot peer into the soul of Thompson, any more that he can see into the heart of any other man. For him to question whether someone else is a Christian, or "Christian enough" speaks of his own quite human arrogance, not of any divine knowledge.
Perhaps it is time for Doctor Dobson to recall that "clearly communicating" one is a Christian is quite different than actually living as one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Dobson truly gives evangelicals a bad name. Shame on him for making a derogatory statement about the faith of another man, something Jesus never did. Dobson is a disgrace and will be recognized as such by all except those who share his unfortunate lack of humility.
Posted by: martin at March 30, 2007 04:20 PM (LS8NJ)
2
One thing I always keep in mind when listening to Dobson is that he is psychologist and not a theologian or political scientist. The further he gets from his field, the less weight I give to his statements and pronouncements. And I am an evangelical, also.
Posted by: MikeM at March 30, 2007 05:42 PM (myTC8)
3
Dobson is that he is psychologist
The inmates are running his asylum ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 08:20 PM (yikpN)
4
James Dobson saying that Fred Thompson isn't a Christian, but Newt is- makes me wonder how much an endorsment costs?
Posted by: Kurt P at March 31, 2007 02:28 AM (zC35V)
5
Thompson's current wife is younger than is oldest daughter. Social conservatives might have a problem with that
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:21 PM (TcoRJ)
6
What Jack meant:
"
I hope and pray Social conservatives might have a problem with that"
And as for Dobson, I see that someone needs a room in the asylum right next to Pat Robertson.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:41 PM (+F2EC)
7
i think Kurt P hit the nail on the head... unfortunately.
Posted by: David at April 01, 2007 03:00 PM (tGHYV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
EFP Importer Captured
And the Iranian dominoes in Iraq
continue to fall:
U.S. and Iraqi forces detained a suspect linked to networks bringing sophisticated roadside bombs into Iraq during a raid Friday in the main Shiite district in Baghdad.
[snip]
The suspect, who was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, was believed to be tied to networks bringing the weapons known as explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, into Iraq, the military said.
It did not name the suspect or the groups he was accused of having ties to, but the U.S. military has asserted in recent months that Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Quds force have been providing Shiite militias with weapons and parts for sophisticated armor-piercing bombs. The EFPs are responsible for the deaths of more than 170 American and coalition soldiers since mid-2004, the military says.
The most important "nugget" to be gleaned from these three short paragraphs is that the man who was apprehended was part of a network importing explosively-formed penetrators into Iraq.
There are those on the political left here in the United States who have attempted to provide Iran with a figleaf for their involvement, implying that the EFPs used against American forces were indigenous weapons because some captured EFPs were made using some components—primarily the short sections of pipe used to form the canister containing the copper disk and explosive charge—that came from various parts of Iraq and other countries in the region. The man captured was part of a network smuggling in completed munitions, not components.
I'd also note that Judi was wrong in his the terminology he used to describe the weapons the network was smuggling in to Iraq. Sadly, this is a consistent problem among Associated Press reporters. I'll give Judi the same advice I gave his superior, Kim Gamel: Learn the Tech, or Take up Baking.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:33 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I find this whole EFP concept fascinating. I'd never heard of them before I read about them here. It seems hardly possible that a can with explosive in it could be so intricately controlled that the explosion could turn the lid of the can into a missile-shaped projectile (am I understanding the whole thing correctly?), but I guess someone figured out a way.
What I don't get is where they're set up. Are they buried in the street and shoot up into cars? How does the whole aiming thing work?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 07:10 PM (yKnlO)
2
EFPs are placed to shoot laterally, not vertically. Aiming them is not all that difficult, in that they are typically placed very close to the side of the road. To make the chances of a hit higher, they are occasionally placed in clusters, each pointed in a slightly different direction for more of a shotgun-type effect.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2007 10:45 PM (HcgFD)
3
Doc, you just need to read more science fiction; David Drake was describing them in his "Hammer's Slammers" series years ago. ;-)
Hard science fiction these days is more like someone's 5 or 10 year product research proposal.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:45 PM (+F2EC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh, My
I can fully appreciate the fact that our ideological opposites don't support the war in Iraq and would prefer that our military be recalled. I can even accept some of their rationalizations, even though I think they are purposefully downplaying the
full-on genocide that would be the likely result of their retreat-at-any-cost mentality, of what they view as a
Republican war in Iraq. To be fair, the Iraq War isn't the only thing liberals see as a "Republican war." They seem to think
everything is the result of one
Republican War or another, except, perhaps, their own War on Hyperbole.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:44 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1519 words, total size 10 kb.
1
If the left sucseeds in pulling out of Iraq we will have to go back in 3 to 6 mo but it will be all out war with the rest of the world incluede
Posted by: Rich at March 30, 2007 12:03 PM (EblDJ)
2
I'm receiving mixed messages from the Right. When the issue is the death of actual Iraqi kids, many Rightist bloggers say, "That's too bad. I guess they shouldn't put their kids in harm's way. Acceptable collateral damage. That's war." When the issue is ending American deaths in Iraq by pulling out, the Right says, "But what about the children? If we leave, the children will die!"
Which is it?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 01:21 PM (nrafD)
3
they are purposefully downplaying the full-on genocide that would be the likely result of [a retreat]
The civil war started and accelerated under our watch. What makes you think we can stop it?
We're in 3,200 of our finest and half a trillion dollars. At some point we will have to stop digging. The price we've paid already is too much in relation to our chance of healing the civil war and establishing a democracy. Better to quit now and make some wise choices with our remaining resources than to continue bleeding in the deserts of Iraq.
The evidence that we can win is thin. We've had several plans and initiatives, but none has had a lasting impact. Petraeus is maybe off to a good start. What do we do in say six months if things are no better? Get a different General? A new initiative?
We can't side with the Shia. They are too cozy with Iran, and we would be partially responsible for the deaths of untold Sunni. We can't side with the Sunni, because they are the ones killing most of our troops.
If genocide (maybe sectocide is a better term) is going to occur, it's going to occur. The events occurring in Iraq are simply too big and too hard for us to get a handle on.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 30, 2007 05:24 PM (xRKGN)
4
I'm receiving mixed messages from the Right.
I suggest re-tuning the tinfoil hat. The capacitance is out of whack.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 08:19 PM (yikpN)
5
I understand fully Purple Avenger's reluctance to actually address the issue. There's no defense, so he falls into his "The Best Defense Is..." mode: the old tinfoil hat cacaraca.
The Right seems to use the tinfoil hat theme quite a bit—as much as Lefties are accused of playing the Nazi card.
The tinfoil hat attack is most effective, though, if used correctly. Simply dropping it into the discussion because one can't think of anything intelligent to say doesn't get the job done. It simply says, "I can't think of anything intelligent to say."
The question remains: why are the lives of Iraqi children sacred only in connection with a possible future American withdrawal and a hypothetical genocide, but not in the here and now, when actual children are actually getting killed?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 10:34 PM (yKnlO)
6
CY, the appropriate analogy for what's going to happen, both in casualty count and the Left's responsibility for it, is the killing fields of Cambodia after the Democrat surrender in Viet Nam. Add in the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people who were drowned, killed by pirates, or killed by their own government trying to flee. What Leftards like Doc refuse to admit is that a) there's a difference in children killed because "insurgents" use them as human shields, and deliberate targeting with truck bombs loaded with chlorine, and b) it's better to save most by acting now instead of wailing uselessly as more are killed later.
Posted by: SDN at April 01, 2007 01:56 PM (+F2EC)
7
Yes, SDN, now I understand.
Hypothetical deaths as the result of a political decision you don't like trump actual deaths as the result of a political decision you did like.
Thy will be done.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 01, 2007 09:43 PM (tjGzq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dollard on Limbaugh
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but Pat Dollard was on with Rush Limbaugh yesterday talking about his Marine war documentary,
Young Americans. He shot me a
YouTube link to the exchange.
For those of you not familiar with the name Pat Dollard, a bit of brief background may be in order.
Dollard is a former Hollywood agent with an admittedly checkered past, who , with no military or filmmaking experience, took off the Iraq to embed with the Marines to film a raw documentary. The easily offended need not apply, but if you want to see some video clips, go here. Definitely NSFW.
Wikipedia offers up this biographical background:
Pat was a Hollywood talent agent, manager, and producer most known for guiding the career of Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh from his neophyte "sex, lies & videotape" days on up through "Ocean's Twelve" and his multi-picture deal with Mark Cuban's HDNET cable channel. Dollard came from a long line of liberals, and Robert Kennedy, Jr. delivered the eulogy at the funeral of his sister, Ann Dollard. Despite this, Dollard became known as a rare Hollywood conservative in the mid-90's, and is now known as a conservative filmmaker, journalist and pundit. He has been widely attacked by the left for the pro-war stance displayed in early clips of his documentary series "Young Americans". He is becoming known as the right wing version of Michael Moore and Hunter S. Thompson.
Wikipedia also offers up this summary of his activities in Iraq:
While still running a management company, repping Soderbergh and helping to service Soderbergh and George Clooney's production company at Warner Brothers (Section 8 Films), Dollard decided to do a little side project for a few weeks in the three worst combat zones in Iraq: Fallujah, The Triangle of Death, and Ramadi. What was supposed to be a 2-4 week quickie documentary, morphed instead into a 7 month, graphic, unfettered portrait of the frontline hell of these three combat zones. Dollard lived constantly in the dangerous "hootches" with the Marines he covered, and patrolled with them and was severely wounded on more than one occasion. He shot 700 hours of hi-def footage, as reported by the website "Confederate Yankee". His work has been discussed at U.S. News and World Report, Variety, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, Fox News (Guest Appearance), The Washington Times, and "Vanity Fair".
The Wikipedia bio is a bit scant in describing how Pat got wounded: Dollard was in Humvees hit by IEDs not twice, one of which killed two of the Marines he was with, and filled his legs with shrapnel. Crazy, brave, or perhaps a lot of each, Dollard returned each time, and intends to return again.
Like many embeds, Pat is self-financing his ventures. If interested, you can donate here. Look for the PayPal button.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.
March 29, 2007
Carry Me
In many ways,
this is simply an unremarkable picture.
Scenes like the one above, with smiling Iraqi children clamoring for the attention of U.S soldiers, are commonplace throughout Iraq. There is absolutely nothing special about them at all.
Today, Democrats in the United States Senate passed a war spending bill that would mandate U.S. military forces begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage, with a goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns noted this morning that if the U.S withdraws, "there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."
If Burns is right and Democrats succeed in instigating a genocide, I wonder who will carry the Iraqi children... and how busy those pallbearers will be.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:01 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.
1
With the amount of lard added to get the minimum number of votes for passage, it is obvious it could not stand on its own even among Democrats. So now we have a bill that not only tries to guarantee defeat (for which Bush would be blamed) but also tries to spend a lot of tax dollars.
Add this to proposed tax changes and such, and now "the Feinstein Connection," and one feels awe at the practices of the party that claims to be for us commoners and previously demonstrated it by inveighing against no-bid contracts, earmarks, conflicts of interest, etc.
Posted by: teqjack at March 29, 2007 04:19 PM (CEphM)
2
Leftists aren't happy until the body counts reach 7 figures.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 06:17 PM (01SjW)
3
I would prefer that the Iraqis start carrying their own kids.
Posted by: steve sturm at March 29, 2007 08:21 PM (XBWtm)
4
I never cease marveling at how Righties like Purple Avenger can see into my brain and discern what I'm thinking.
The most amazing part is how wrong he always is. Always.
If he paid attention, rather than pulling bushwah out of thin air and pretending that it's fact, he'd understand that what Lefties want is for American casualties to end. That's why we want the war to end. We want the death of Americans to stop.
There are no two ways about it. We can't simultaneously want the war to end and soldiers to leave, while still wanting soldiers to stay in Iraq and die. To suggest that the Left feels both ways is foolishness so extreme that it can only be willful.
Do I get to pretend to know what Righties like Purple Avenger are thinking? How about this: "Purple Avengers aren't happy until every last Iraqi girl has been sadistically violated."
My assertion is based on a foundation as firm as his, and it's certainly no more insulting.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 29, 2007 08:26 PM (78ddf)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:38 AM (01SjW)
6
Doc: don't deceive yourself, the average lefty could care less about american military casualties. you (the royal you, as you may be the rare exception) don't like the people in the military, you don't agree with what they've signed up to do, you don't put the ribbons on your car (and you didn't wear the bracelets 35 years ago), you don't support giving them the resources to keep them safe, you would rather 100 of our guys die than have some mosque damaged or some Iraqi killed, and, if you ever went to Arlington, you don't thank them for defending this country. You don't want our guys out of Iraq because you care about them, you want them out because you can't stand the thought of them - and the guy who sent them to Iraq - succeeding.
Posted by: steve sturm at March 30, 2007 07:45 AM (sWhRW)
7
Purple Avenger:
Yeah, like I said: a Righty. I've read enough of what you've posted here and interacted with you myself enough to know where you stand. If it quacks like a duck...
Posted by: Doc Washboard at March 30, 2007 07:59 AM (yKnlO)
8
Gentlemen, please refrain from profanity, and lay off the personal attacks. I'd hate to have to ban anyone, but I'm starting to get a little tired of the carping.
Address the issues/topic instead of attacking each other, please.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2007 08:09 AM (9y6qg)
9
Democrats: Hey, at least when we leave it won't be the children of people who vote for us that are surely going to die, so who really cares?
Is that really their stand? "Die Iraqi children, die!"
Somebody ought to hold their feet to the fire for that (and we know in advance it won't be the MSM).
Posted by: DoorHold at March 30, 2007 12:04 PM (jzOxq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Former Cheif Of Staff Says Gonzales Was Involved in DOJ Firings
I can't claim that I've been following the story of Attorney General Gonzales and the U.S. District Attorney firings case much, as I've had other things I find personally more interesting to discuss. That said, I've scanned the headlines, and today's testimony by the AG's former Cheif of Staff is casting fresh doubts on Gonzales' memory at best, and his honesty
at worst:
The former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. GonzalesÂ’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate," the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
"I don't think it's accurate," Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panelÂ’s ranking Republican. "I think he's recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27."
It was disclosed last week that Justice Department documents showed Mr. Gonzales to be present at the Nov. 27, 2006, session in which the firing of federal prosecutors was discussed. That disclosure seemed to contradict Mr. GonzalesÂ’s assertions at a March 13 news conference that he was not involved in talks about letting the prosecutors go.
I said a few weeks ago that I don't know if the issue of the dismissals is important or not, but if he's lying or has severe memory problems, either would seem to mean he is unfit to continue in his role as Attorney General.
At this point, whether the firings were legitimate or not seems inconsequential. If the United States Attorney General cannot adequately and competently defend himself over an issue that doesn't seem to be remotely criminal, he hardly seems fit to defend the laws of this nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:15 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President's minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of blatant lying.
Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman's interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by "The President's Prevaricators"...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito at March 29, 2007 09:55 PM (kpeoC)
2
either would seem to mean he is unfit to continue in his role as Attorney General.
Torch Reno continued on after Waco. This is nothing compared to that.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 06:19 AM (01SjW)
3
I am not sure that using Reno is an effective way of defending Gonzo
Posted by: John ryan at March 31, 2007 01:24 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Embedded Frustrations
If you are a journalist or blogger who wants to embed in Iraq, good luck making it through the PAO system. As a pair of prominent bloggers tell us on the record, getting into Iraq can be all but impossible thanks to obstacles put in place by the U.S. military's Pubic Affairs Office, and once there, the PAO seems to delight in making the life of an embed a living hell.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:43 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1891 words, total size 12 kb.
1
I wish we had the luxury to wait to hear the stories of our heroes. 40 years from now, a Stephen Ambrose type could come along and document the courage and bravery of our men and women in combat. This is a different war, one where the biggest influence on the attitude on the home front comes from the stories we hear. In World War II, everyone knew the real stories from our troops because almost every family has someone serving. This is no longer the case. Putting the entire country on a war footing is no longer necessary, but our reporting MUST change too.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 29, 2007 11:38 AM (oC8nQ)
2
General officers are political animals. If Fumento and Yon were starting to become very popular in the blogosphere and attracting a wide following and noted by major conservative talk show hosts, it isn't out of the question that some Clintonistas in the ranks might want to stifle them.
I don't know that this is happening, but it isn't out of the question. General officers are political. You might want to read General Grant's memoirs which are available free on the internet for some examples of just how political things can get in a war (in this case the Mexican war that eventually allowed Texas to become part of the US).
Seriously, these officers have their political loyalties and their promotions do go under Congressional review and approval. I might note that some of these problems have become more severe since Congress changed hands. It could be some career CYA going on.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 29, 2007 12:56 PM (y2kMG)
3
Why would the political makeup of the Army's PAO be any different (in general terms) than the media?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 06:37 AM (01SjW)
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 30, 2007 12:04 PM (n7SaI)
Posted by: David M at March 30, 2007 12:29 PM (kNjJk)
6
"Why would the political makeup of the Army's PAO be any different (in general terms) than the media?"
The "forcing" mechanisms are different. If Congress changes hands and the Senate committee that handles general officer promotions gets a new head, the committee head might tell a mutual acquaintance that giving Yon and Fumento a harder go of it might make for a more favorable opinion from the committee later, when/if that time comes. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Politicians don't have a direct influence on the careers of journalists. They DO have a direct influence on he careers of general officers.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 30, 2007 06:49 PM (y2kMG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2007
Feinstein: As Corrupt as They Come
If a story breaking tonight by Metroactive is correct, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California should consider calling Martha Stewart for advice on
how to decorate her prison cell:
Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.
As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:44 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It will be "interesting" to see if this is even mentioned by ABC, NBC, etc...
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 29, 2007 01:55 AM (roWez)
2
What story? She's a democrat. I see Cold Cash J. is still holding onto his seat.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 05:21 AM (N02TJ)
3
Posted by Purple Avenger at March 29, 2007 05:21 AM
I'm betting Feinstein will hold on for quite a while. Maybe not in any more committee's but against any charges.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 05:35 AM (y67bA)
4
I am 58 so obviously have been watching politics for a few decades. Does it seem that our government is getting more corrupt, more involved in our lives, more restrictive of our freedoms, less responsive to our needs and in general a greater liabilty than ever before? I can not find a period in American history that is worse than the one we are currently in. I have supported the conservative cause through the years, yet they do little to really effect a change except during the Regan years. We just finished 6 years of Republican control of the government and instead of a smaller, better government we are worse off than under Clinton. What can we do to change the situation short of armed revolution???
Posted by: David Caskey at March 29, 2007 09:28 AM (G5i3t)
5
Posted by David Caskey at March 29, 2007 09:28 AM
Vote totally new personnel into office, bar none.
Insist on a bill to law system that is only one measure to a bill (no Tac-On's),if it doesn't pass on it's own merit, it's gone.
No more lobbyists. No more bennies for Congressmen, not even a $25.00 meal.
Term limits, maybe 10 yrs tops.
Congressmen paid on a percentage of thier constituants salaries, averaged.
No longevity seniority in congress. They are equal if they have been there for one day or 10 years.
Problem is to get all in the U.S. to vote out the incumbants and force the new ones to accept what we, the people want.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 11:51 AM (PJ4Iq)
6
Like you said, CY, I'll wait to see how the story develops. Personally, I am not impressed with the innuendo of MetroActive's story. Here's a couple of my thoughts:
MA notes Feinstein inquires about certain projects/proposals and a few years later a Blum connected company announces winning a contract on such. Is the Feinstein inquiry aspect out of the ordinary for her or does she do this on a regular basis? If the latter, is it any surprise Perini or other of Blum connected Co.'s, wins a contract that Feinstein has inquired about during hearings years earlier?
In parallel to the above, my knowledge of Fed Contracts is that the funding is usually in place before a project is put through the Q&E and RFP stages. One would have to show that a Blum connected Co. received preferential treatment in these processes to show other than coincidence.
Those are two on the Feinstein side. As for Perini breaking into the big time of Engineering/Construction Co's, I am not surprised this coincided with taking on Government Work, nor that they decided to take it on. Private work fluctuates with the economy as well as with the waxing and waning of different sectors. Only one thing is steadiest, and that is government work. Their size, reputation and organizational experience pretty much guaranteed a good share of the pie quickly just because of that. As for the suggestion that "Perini shot from near penury in 1997", I think it's just that MA liked the idea of using that cool sounding word to inflate their case, not that it has any real business meaning. Actually, Perini looked pretty good in 1997. It was earlier years that they had considerable losses which were carried forward through 1997.
On the Senate (or MetroActive) side of things, what is Feinstein doing as Chairperson of a Senate Subcommittee from 2002-2006, as MetroActive intentionally states, when the Republicans had majorities? Unless, of course, MA is actively taking advantage of their crappy writing skills to suggest something that is not accurate. Maybe MA is right and it is I who is misinformed by my belief that the party in the majority fills the committee and subcommittee chairmanships with their own members.
More digging is required before there is any reason to compare Feinstein's activities and actions to Cunningham's. Right now it is appearance of appearance of hypocrisy and appearance of appearance of conflict of interest.
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 12:04 PM (GJLeQ)
7
Posted by Dusty at March 29, 2007 12:04 PM
Once the RFP is out there, there are no longer limitations on who is selected for the contract. It no longer goes to the lowest bidder but to the one believed to deliver the best product. If it can be determined that it was steered towards her husbands companies, that should be enough. The funding may be in place in the Govt. but not to the ultimate contractor until the selection is made, and then only as the contract dictates. That is what they need to look into.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 12:22 PM (0EcTE)
8
Dusty, poor dusty. Reading is fundamental. You missed the following in the metroamerica article: "Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.
Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded."
No Competition? Would that be considered preferential? I bet you thoght it was when it was a Halliburton award.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 12:35 PM (Hr52v)
9
No, CoRev, I didn't think it was preferential when it was a Halliburton Award. Yes, reading is fundamental, that is why I checked and corrected my initial MediaActive to MetroActive before I posted.
Thinking is just as fundamental as reading. There are several good reasons for issuing non-competitives. Before I get my shorts in a twist about that, I'd like to know the general character of that process of allowing them and some specifics for the ones as examples. For instance, how much, in dollar value, is put out that way in a year and what percentage do the amounts to Blum connected companies represent. Lot's of non-competitives go out on a rotating basis among the reliable contractors that have long experience with an agency, e.g., a non-preferential check built in the system. Did Blum connected companies get put up front too often? Also, were those dollar values to Blum connected companies above the mean for those products or did the government get a good deal. If not, was there a good reason -- rush order, for example?
Take that second item you quote, the $12M order, the way I read that, that's 3.36M. What were the circumstances? Was it a separate contract? Does it represent several smaller ones? Was it an add on to the contract because the government got such a good price? Specifics, and details are in order before anything of substance can be discerned from the MediaActive blurbs of potential improprieties.
It's good to keep tabs on the folks in DC and it's worth looking into these occurrences to make sure things are on the up and up but, like I indicated before, there is nothing I see so far in this report to merit allegations of corruption, which to be clear, is something I think is a crime in the legal sense, not a political sense. Who knows, maybe Feinstein's actions could fill a football filed sized cesspool. If you want to jump to that conclusion as quickly as you jumped to your conclusion about me with the Halliburton snark, fine by me, but I'll give you directions to a good cliff instead of taking your bet.
-----
Retired Navy, I agree. Q&E's and RFP's are dependent on the circumstances of the project and I do not know all the rules for which process is used or how rigid the process is for military agencies. Aren't pretty much all contracts advertised by law (except the non-competitives, of course)?
From what I know, if you start with the Q&E, usually there is a reduction to three or so for additional info and/or interviews. Professionally speaking, the best rated is then asked to provide a proposal which is then negotiated. If terms aren't mutually agreed to, then the agency goes to the second on the list and repeats the last two steps.
With long run agencies and consistently similar projects year in and year out, the same names tend to show up all the time and they been vetted by years of experience, and some of the process gets thrown out the window for the sake of brevity and cost. I can see where some preferential treatment can ooze into the process and you are right in saying it should be looked into.
I can also see where a rooky to the process looks better than tired old vet contractors who have years of baggage from little or big mistakes that everyone remembers, not to mention the preferential treatment that would appear if a rooky is not taken as an equal in the process once in the system. So, I wouldn't be surprised by a rooky appearing to have a meteoric rise in contracts and the appearance of preferential treatment for a number of reasons, one being because he was taken as an equal in the list of contractors. I wonder, though, isn't there an independent in-house group monitoring the possibility of preferential treatment and corruption? (Used the y in "Rooky" to get past a spam filter stop sign)
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 03:33 PM (GJLeQ)
10
Dusty, sorry for the snark. You are sowing your ignorance. "Sole Source" means what it says. Exigencies exist to expedite contracting, sole source is usually not one of them. All contracts over $25K are supposed to advertised (at least that was the limit when I was in the business.)
Any time a company is awarded 85% of its Fed business as sole source is extremely suspect , UNLESS, the Fed is buying the same product, andand obviously it is the only source.
The same rules, laws and regulations apply to all Executive Agencies. DOD may rewrite them and reissue in their own words, but they are the same in the end.
I don't know what process you were describing in your hypothesis, a letter contract perhaps but it is NOT the normal contracting process. Once a competitive range is established, then it is common to negotiate with all within that range .
With nearly 300M citizens in an oversight role it is uncommon for rules to be bent too far. And in times of emergency, Katrina for example, the post event reviews NEVER take into account the value of of some waste to deliver a need versus doing the correct thing by following all the rules. Imagine waiting 30 days for an announcement for ice after a hurricane.
Any way, I don't know why you are defending Ms Feinstein in this matter. It is no worse than Halliburton, where most of its contracts were multiple orders off a competitively awarded contract.
Remember, the key is 85% of its awards being sole source.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 05:37 PM (Hr52v)
11
Apology is not needed, CoRev, but noted. I guess mine was snark as well. So apologies there by me.
I haven't offered much in the way of expert knowledge, just experience from a having to deal with the process in general from the grunt side of things in Engineering from, I admit now, quite a few years ago.
I should note, however, that Sole Source was not a situation that had occurred to me, so if those are the type of contracts being quoted, further investigation is more worthy of consideration. I wish that was clear in the MediaActive story for then it would have been brought to my attention, but, alas, they make no mention of those types of contracts. Are you sure that is what those contracts were or is that your surmise from experience?
I agree with the sole product scenario exemption as I have encountered them alot and in my situation have to include such in specifications often.
As for the process I briefly described, that is generally the process recommended by AIA, ASCE, NSPE. We don't like pure bidding because 1) we are professionals providing brain power not materials/labor and expect to be treated that way, 2) anyone can play word games in rigging a price to win a low bid via a) the owner's error, b) the owner's naivete, and/or c) the owner's stupidity. That the governement still works on the basis of lowest bid rather than second lowest bid just proves 2) is apt, and dangerously so, and no one need harp too much on the lack of humility in 1).
Lastly, I am not defending Feinstein. I noted MetroActive maybe onto something, but right now -- how can I put this kindly -- the report needs another monkey typing to make a case, for me, anyway, that isn't a clear partisan hit piece but one that offers dispassionate evidence. I agree with what you note about Halliburton and that also means I should want more information of the Blum connected companies' contracts as well as more of Feinstein's record before I judge either their companies' work and/or Feinstein's actions.
BTW, you note the key is 85% of it's awards being sole source. Other than that it does not say sole source, that was for the first item, the one you didn't quote to me. The second which you did quote was 28%. As for the first, the 85% for the Boston Scientific bullet, the amount of $17.8M, doesn't say if that is for 2006 or since it started contracting until Dec 2006. Heck, I don't even know if that 85% got our military 500 SOTA MRI's or just 500 off-the-shelf rectum thermometers. Just another instance of the story not impressing me enough to treat Feinstein the way the left (or even Feinstein) treats Cheney and Halliburton.
Posted by: Dusty at March 29, 2007 08:19 PM (GJLeQ)
12
Pelosi's hubby is big in a company that does a lot of shoddy construction in Florida too. Last year there was an electrocution of a workman at one of their homes due to shoddy work.
The FBC (Florida Building Code) had to be emergency amended to account for the scenario that caused the fatality. Now electricians have to ground all steel stud framing because neither the sheetrockers or electricians can apparently be trusted to abide by the prior codes (which would not have prevented the fatality if adhered to), and the inspectors are paid off to let shoddy work slide.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:50 AM (01SjW)
13
I meant to say the prior codes WERE SUFFICIENT to prevent last years fatality if adhered to.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2007 02:51 AM (01SjW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On the Brink?
RIA Novosti (Russia)
reports that American forces seem to be preparing for a combined air and land assault on Iran:
Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
Feh.
I strongly doubt that there is anything to this account, with the possible exception that we might be positioning forces in a bluff. I don't claim to know the dispostion or concentration of American ground forces within striking distance of Iran, but I don't think that a force sufficient to stage an invasion of Iran could be drawn up without any word leaking out.
Then again, these accounts sound a little ominous, and make my crystal ball sound pretty accurate, even though I question the timing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:51 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Judging by its general content and tone, I wouldn't put too much stock into anything on the Atlantic Free Press site.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at March 29, 2007 01:37 AM (pXHYd)
2
Looking at the source it seems a little far fetched. Besides, it's six months too early.
Posted by: CoRev at March 29, 2007 07:08 AM (Hr52v)
3
Well, gee, Iraq is on Iran's border and there's a surge going on. Also, we know that men and equipment are going to the insurgency through Iran, so putting troops on the border seems like a pretty good idea to me. It doesn't mean we are getting ready to invade. Although two carrier groups are in the Gulf not doing much at the moment.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 29, 2007 07:17 AM (oC8nQ)
4
It doesn't yet matter whether there's any truth to it or not. All that matters is: How much damage can we do to the Bush administration using this information?
Let the protest marches begin.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 29, 2007 11:12 AM (jfa7N)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Out in Left Field
I hate to say this, but Gateway Pundit is voyaging into conspiracy theory territory on
this one.
First, he's unable to differentiate between unrelated bomb attacks elsewhere in Iraq (Ramadi and Abu Ghraib) and the two truck blasts in Tal Afar. How he can be so far off, I don't know... but he is.
Second, he is insisting that any additional information that becomes available in later stories about this event are indicative of a conspiracy, coverup, or shift of some sort. An early report that indicates police involvement is not negated by the discovery that elements in addition to the police may be involved. That is why they call them "developing stories."
I confirmed this story this morning before posting on it originally, and just learned moments ago that Alaa Al Taii, MOI Communications director has annouced a joint investigation by the Interior Ministry , Ministry of Defense, and and the Ministry for National Security is beginning, and that Interior Minister Bolani will personally be involved, and will visit the scene in Tal Afar tomorrow.
The incident reported by the Associated Press' Sinan Salaheddin as cited in my previous post appears to be correct, and the conflicting accounts are over details, not over the essnetial substance of the story.
This incident is not a hoax, some sort of conspiracy, or blame-shifting operation in effect. Our allies snapped, and massacred between 45-60 men.
As inconvenient and horrible as that is, it is the apparent truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Reuters:
Gunmen rampaged through a Sunni district of the northwestern Iraqi town of Tal Afar overnight, killing about 50 people in reprisal for bombings in a Shi'ite area, Iraqi officials said on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite, ordered an inquiry into reports the gunmen included policemen from his Shi'ite- dominated security forces, an official in his office said.
That doesn't sound like what you wrote CY.
"The incident reported by the Associated Press' Sinan Salaheddin as cited in my previous post appears to be correct, and the conflicting accounts are over details, not over the essnetial substance of the story."
Conflicting accounts! I'll say!
Posted by: Dan at March 28, 2007 03:54 PM (1Q8ID)
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 28, 2007 07:28 PM (n7SaI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stalking the Dying
It seems to be a new trend for some with
particularly low moral fiber.
From liberals celebrating that White House Spokesman Tony Snow has cancer (see here from Tom Elia, and comments captured here from the Washington Post), to a particuarly insane former Los Angeles teacher (also a liberal) by the name of Eliot Stein tormenting the fans and daughter of Cathy Seipp as she lay dying by pretending to be her on a similar web site with her name in the URL, and renoucing her life's work.
For once, I simply lack the words to describe how deplorably monsterous some of those on the political left have become.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:38 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It shows an extreme lack of character, wherein such a person has been consumed by their partisan leanings. I've seen such behavior by nutjobs on both sides and regardless of the politics involved it isn't pleasant. I for one am more conservative but as much as I dislike Kenney, Pelosi, et al. I do not wish them any harm nor would I ever rejoice over it. What I would like is for them to permanently retire from politics, preferrably by being tossed out on their keisters by the voters. Yet that's all.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2007 03:25 PM (Ynv7t)
2
I'm with ya John. And thanks for your service to our country!
Posted by: Dan at March 28, 2007 04:26 PM (1Q8ID)
3
You reading this too Lex? Aren't you proud of your party and leaning?
Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:06 PM (ybfXM)
4
Since Lex hasn't responded yet, let me stand in:
"But Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson! And Dobson, and that Phelps guy! You're all meaner and more corrupt!
Boogity-Boo!"
There.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 29, 2007 11:45 AM (O9Cc8)
5
Wow, you guys sure got us there. We just got out of the meeting in which we received our orders on what to believe today, and sure enough at the top of the agenda was Wish Death Upon Our Political Opponents. I'm so happy that you guys have the fair and balanced judgement to see that we liberals are, in fact, all exactly alike.
By that same token, you guys must all be a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis.
Posted by: Pennypacker at March 31, 2007 12:58 AM (M20pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Send a Chickenhawk to War
Time and again, we've heard liberals call conservative bloggers "chickenhawks," and tell them that if they care so much about the Iraq War, they should go join it (interestingly enough, I do know of a single liberal blogger that has volunteered to go serve in the Afghan theater, the war they ostensibly support. I've never claimed liberals were smart, nor consistent).
Now is the time that my liberal readers have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If they care so much about conservatives going to Iraq, here's a chance to finance a trip.
The Pentagon has extended an invitation to send a pair of RedState bloggers to Iraq, and they are currently attempting to raise $7500 to make this trip happen.
Ante up, guys.
You might finally realize your dream of placing conservative bloggers in a position where they might come under gunfire, thereby giving Charles Karel Bouley and other Huffington Post bloggers a chance to say they deserved it. "What goes around comes around," etc.
Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.
Good luck finding one.
Update: Oh Bartleby! Oh, the stupidity! Noted lefty war-reporting plagiarist Sean Paul Kelly decided to call the Redstate bloggers that are planning to embed "chickenhawks," without bothering with the little detail that one of the bloggers, Jeff Emanual, is a former USAF Spec Ops TAC.
Confronted with the fact that Emanuel has already served, Kelly offered up a lame, "well, since so many soldiers are doing two and three tours, why not enlist again?"
As I addressed to "Lex Steele" in the comments:
Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.
No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Update: Well, doesn't that beat all.
We do have a liberal blogger that has requested to go to Iraqi along with the two from Redstate. Can anyone at RedState contact the Pentagon to see if they have room for a third blogger?
I don't always agree with the politics of Gun-Toting Liberal, but I typically respect his opinion, even when I disagree with it. He's intelligent and thoughtful and I think it would be an excellent idea to include him on his embed. If they will arrange for him to make the journey, I hope you'll help finance his trip.
Upon his safe return, I will be very interested to see how visiting Iraq may affect his feeling about the war, for better, or for ill.
Correction: It was GTL co-blogger Alexander Paul Melonas that is interested in embedding.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:45 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.
1
In a nutshell, RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. We want to send Jeff and AcademicElephant, who henceforth insists on being known by her real name, Victoria Coates. = chicken hawks
Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.
Good luck finding one. = chickensh*ts
Posted by: Boss429 at March 28, 2007 10:54 AM (a+Mxg)
2
What obligation do liberals have to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, and why should we want to? Your assertion doesn't make sense.
We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:01 AM (7IB7k)
3
Lex, I never said you had the
obligation to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, but as liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq, I thought you'd jump at the
opportunity to send several there.
Granted, we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence (If you need citations of this for proof, I can find oodles of references to Michelle Malkin's trip, and how liberal bloggers and their commenters hope she would go out without the military unit she was to embed with, with the clear implication that they'd prefer to have her die), but at least they chose to go.
I also stated you might want to financially support any liberal blogger who might want to see the war firsthand and write about it, but I don't think that I've seen a single attempt by a liberal to get embedded... have you? If run across one, I'll gladly promote their singular effort, and do what I can to make sure they know what equipment and protection they will need to both chronicle and survive their trip. I'm sure that the conservative bloggers who have embedded and who are embedded now would help as well, if asked.
You also assert that:
We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.
You neglect to mention that if the liberals who
claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere. Certainly, with all the brainpower and patriotism in the liberal blogosphere, there must be
someone calling for liberals to volunteer for duty in the "good war" in Afghanistan. Isn't there? Perhaps not.
Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a
Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't
actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.
No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an
American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:43 AM (9y6qg)
4
It was not GTL who offered himself to the Pentagon, it was me, Alexander Paul Melonas; one of his co-contributors. However, thank you for the kind remarks about the Gun Toting Liberal, and indeed, I again state my desire to accompany those from Redstate on their journey.
Posted by: Alexander Paul Melonas at March 28, 2007 02:36 PM (nRapB)
5
CY-
Re: 'good war'
Call me naive, but if you enlist, do you have a choice in your theater?
-CZ
Posted by: ChenZhen at March 28, 2007 03:01 PM (IkiL2)
6
ChenZhen: I think you're right. Pat Tillman volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, but ended up getting shot in what he called an illegal war in Iraq.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:25 PM (7IB7k)
7
Cpl. Tillman was shot on a mountianside in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and I have never read him saying that he thought it 'illegal'. (In fact as I recall, he refused all contact with the media his entire time in the Army, so I would love to hear how that story got started...)
That being said, the idea of 'orders' kinda mess up that whole volunteer for your 'preferred theater of conflict'. You goes where they tell you.
But hey, Lex, it makes a great line. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: MunDane at March 28, 2007 05:13 PM (/qH+3)
8
Wow, Lex. I'm surprised you'd write that without at least googling it first. Is that the sort of thing people are saying? Where'd you get that information from?
Posted by: paully at March 28, 2007 06:03 PM (75YCX)
9
You guys don't understand. This is typical Lex. He makes statements and then refuses to back them up - and once he is shown to be wrong he changes the subject. Typical of the left.
Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:11 PM (ybfXM)
10
I was wrong about Tillman's place of death, obviously. He did serve in Iraq, though.
As for his political views: "Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, 'Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.'"
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 08:42 PM (W27N0)
11
CY:
liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq
They mean that war supporters should
fighting in Iraq. I think I can speak for most liberals when I say we don't much care if you all do your blogging from Iraq or not. That is why I said it doesn't make sense for you to expect liberals to pay to send Red State bloggers to Iraq.
we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence
I don't believe that at all. I don't know anyone who wants reporters or soldiers to die in Iraq, or who thinks it's okay to burn soldiers in effigy, or who wants to abolish Christmas. Each of these is a misguided or dishonest attempt to portray liberals negatively. There simply aren't many people who believe those things.
if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere
How about the supporters of the Iraq war step up? That's where we need to people most. My side thinks Iraq is a disaster, and not just for a lack of manpower. You all think it's winnable, so go help win it.
liberals ... [are] attempting to set the stage for a defeat in [Iraq]
That's a cynical way to put it. Most people in this country have decided the war was a mistake, or at least that it was too poorly waged. We don't want defeat, rather we don't know what a win would look like, thus we wish to quit pouring our youth and treasure into it.
in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military,
No.
and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Sure! It's unAmerican to compel citizens to fight in wars they find immoral or illegal.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war.
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.
Again, those were Ward Churchills. I don't know anyone who would condone treating the flag that way.
You're saying that this is an American war, and thus all Americans are equally responsible for participating. No one should have been asked to fight the war in the first place. It is a disaster and this is reflected in its unpopularity among Americans.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 09:28 PM (W27N0)
12
I responded to your comments over at The Gun Toting Liberal but stopped by here with them as well.
I respect you and your blog very much, but I have to say that in order for your position to be entirely fair, we would have to evaluate the results of the Pentagon having invited Red AND Blue bloggers to go to Iraq. Oh wait...they didn't do that. They invited ONE side of our very polarized blogosphere, didn't they? Now if BOTH sides were asked to go and (as you suspect) the liberal blogger swiftly declined - THEN your point would be valid and accurate.
"They" want one voice coming out of Iraq and I submit "they" should be set apart as the fearful ones for refusing to lay the groundwork for objectivity.
And also (just as a little FYI), GTL is an honorably discharged veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Thanks again for bringing attention to this and for discussing it with the GTL.
Posted by: Megan at March 29, 2007 01:24 AM (Gq5Wi)
13
Lex,
I don't believe all liberals want conservative bloggers to meet their bitter end, I do see that very few moderate liberals (if any) condemn those on the far left spewing such hate (flag burners, soldier burners, defacation, hope you die stuff...) Speak out against it if you see it as wrong. I do against the far right.
Many do go help to win in Iraq/Afgan. It is all one war whether you choose to believe it or not. Right now we are trying to stabilize both countries and remove the radicals. We are trying to give them a chance at freedom like we were given during the Revolutionary War. Don't they deserve a chance? Both countries?
Most people in this country do NOT believe the war was a mistake, they believe it was headed in the wrong direction, we now have new direction and it appears to be working, while it seems to be working, the DEMS in congress want to cut the funding out from under the troops and put out an arbitrary withdraw date. One word for that, STUPID. That is NOT supporting our troops. Whether you believe in the war or not, don't punish the troops.
A miliary member does not choose where he/she goes. They cannot choose to fight in one area and refuse in another. They sign up to defend the United States no matter where/when called upon to do so and all that join are fully aware of that obligation. It is not dark ages mentality, it serves a very real purpose, stability. Bluntly, WE are there for YOU. Problems with the war, Congress should be your outlet, not the Military.
You said "No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war."
Don't pity us, we all knew what we were getting into and most would do it again if needed, even if we don't believe in the "war", it's for the U.S., not ourselves.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 06:05 AM (JYeBJ)
14
Actually, what I'm gathering is that the bloggers at Red State initiated the contact with the Pentagon four months ago, not htat the Pentagon contacted them. I wrote one of the bloggers at Red State making the trip, and will be able to follow up soon and verifiy that for sure, and pass along the contact information to get the embed process started to Alex as soon as I have it.
I don't know of you read Michael Yon, Michael Fumento, of the other bloggers who have embedded or attempted to embed in Iraq, but the Pentagon doesn't seem to much like any embeds, regardless of political stripe.
I'll have a post up on that subject later today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 29, 2007 07:27 AM (9y6qg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lowe Point
I've admired the job former N.C. State star Sidney Lowe has done as the coach of State's basketball team in his first year. He's simply a classy person.
His son, apparently is not.
The 21-year-old son of North Carolina State basketball coach Sidney Lowe faces charges in two armed incidents, including one in which a UNC-Greensboro student from Raleigh was shot in the back.
Police at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro said Sidney R. Lowe II surrendered to authorities Tuesday and was charged with eight counts, including felony aiding and abetting attempted armed robbery, in connection with Saturday's shooting and attempted robbery inside Weil Residence Hall.
Greensboro city police filed 14 additonal charges, including felony assault, in connection with a home invasion that took place on March 16.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
Rampage in Tal Afar
Simply
awful:
Off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men, police and hospital officials said.
The policemen began roaming the town's Sunni neighborhoods on foot early in the morning, shooting at Sunni residents and homes
A senior hospital official in Tal Afar said at least 45 men ages 15 to 60 were killed and four others were wounded.
Police said dozens of Sunnis were killed or wounded, but they had no precise figures. The shooting continued for more than two hours, the officials said.
Army troops later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew was slapped on the entire town, according to Wathiq al-Hamdani, the provincial police chief and his head of operations, Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri.
Tal Afar is a city of 220,000, and unlike their neighbors, the residents are nearly all Turkmen. the city's population is roughly 60-percent Shia, and the city is divided into 18 neighborhoods along tribal lines. Middle East Online reports that the dead were found handcuffed and blindfolded, shot in the back of the head, execution style. The revenge killings took place shortly after the truck bombings, in the Sunni neighborhood of Wahada. It is not yet known why this particular Sunni neighborhood was targeted.
The rampage ended with the arrival of an Iraqi Army unit.
Time reports that the Iraqi Army has already arrested 18 Tal Afar policemen for the killings based on eyewitness accounts from the victim's family, and also stated that Shia militiamen participated in the attacks.
The Tal Afar police have been confined to barracks and that police from Mosul (30 miles to the east of Tal Afar) were moving in to provide security. Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri is moving in to take control of the operations on the ground, and to presumably start an investigation.
The massacre--there is no other way to describe it--was in response to two truck bombings carried out by Sunni militants yesterday that killed 63 and wounded 150.
The Sunnis already distrust the Shia-dominated police forces, and the two-hour revenge attack is sure to sour relations even more.
How much relations will sour depends in large part on how the Iraqi police forces themselves respond to the attack. Confining the local police to their barracks is the first step, but it is necessary for an investigation to immediately begin, and for those responsible for the attacks to be arrested (if there are more than the 18 captured so far) and tried for their crimes.
If there is any good news at all to report from this massacre, it is that the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army was able to move in and arrest many if not all of those responsible for the attacks and restore order without U.S. involvement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:50 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.
1
That is awful. It's exactly the sort of thing that makes people like me believe that our troops have no way to win in Iraq.
For the Sunnis to accept democracy, they must agree to give the Shia most of the political power, the same Shia who the Sunnis have repressed for decades. They must accept the authority of the Shia police, including the ones who handcuff and execute Sunnis. They'd be putting themselves in a position where they pay taxes to fund these people's salaries. What is the chance that the Sunnis are going to accept this peaceably?
It's too much to ask of our troops to solve these problems. They are trained for combat, not for babysitting.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:14 AM (7IB7k)
2
Gateway Pundit has doubts about the reporting:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/alert-likely-media-skunk-in-tal-afar.html
Posted by: Jeff at March 28, 2007 01:27 PM (yiMNP)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 03:08 PM (9y6qg)
4
It's exactly the sort of thing that makes people like me believe that our troops have no way to win in Iraq.
McVeigh must have really bummed you out about American democracy too then.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2007 03:14 PM (YaVN7)
5
Purple Avenger -- No, McVeigh didn't shake my faith in US democracy. Rather, you made a poor analogy. We had long had a solid democracy when McVeigh struck, as opposed to the current effort to form one in Iraq. McVeigh was a fringe element of the US, whereas the Shia/Sunni conflict cuts into mainstream society. Sunni/Shia relations are a major facet of Iraqi society, unlike McVeigh's affiliations.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:03 PM (7IB7k)
6
Here's
a thought: perhaps what Iraq needs right now is more guns... and Iraqis willing to use them.
Perhaps these marauding policemen and militia goons wouldn't have been so brave, breaking into people's homes, had the townspeople been on the other side of the door with an AK47 of their own. Perhaps there would be fewer roadside massacres, where insurgents force people off a bus and shoot them, if the bus riders were armed and ready to shoot (think of the American west: what was more likely to deter Indian attacks, the unarmed stagecoach or the one with a guy sitting next to the driver with a Winchester on his lap?).
It's interesting that here in America, where we champion our right to bear arms to protect us from dangers the police can't or won't do anything about, we aren't more vocal in calling for Iraqis to have the same level of personal protection.
Oh, and I have thought about whether more guns in Iraq would present a problem for our troops and think (from the safety of my chair) that the answer is no... the Iraqis who want to take shots at US troops already can...
Posted by: steve sturm at March 28, 2007 04:53 PM (sWhRW)
Posted by: Bill Faith at March 28, 2007 07:28 PM (n7SaI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2007
HuffPo: Tony Snow Deserved Cancer
Ah, the commenters at the Huffington Post are
at it again:
I admit my bias shows with these stories. I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya.."
Oh, hang on. that wasn't a commenter, but a mainstream (for the Huffington Post) HuffPo blogger, Charles Karel Bouley.
You guys remember Charles Karel Bouley, don't you ? He's the nice gentlemen that thinks God killed Boy Scouts in revenge for discriminating against gays. No, really.
Class of the Huffington Post, indeed.
Update: Allah has a roundup.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:15 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Look down to post #17. Brouley explains that it isn't just Fox News that gives you cancer, But Bush, Cheney and Rove:
"OK, by the amount of evil email and actual death threats I have received, obviously you all misunderstood what I was trying to say or I was not clear. I believe that negativity can manifest inside the body. Just as stress can lead to strokes and heart attacks, high blood pressure, I believe if you surround yourself with vitriolic and terribly negative people like Cheney, Bush, Rove and the lot, it's bound to have a physical effect. Does he DESERVE cancer, no, no one does. But when you are in such a horrifying atmosphere the physical is bound to pay somehow. And AS I SAID, I wish him a full recovery and support of family and friends. But just as good things happen to bad people, isn't the converse of bad things happening to bad people true? I do not count Tony Snow as a good guy. He has publicy questioned my patriotism at the behest of his boss. I don't like that. But again, that doesn't mean I want him to have cancer.
By: karel on March 27, 2007 at 08:47pm
Flag: [abusive] "
Posted by: jimboster at March 28, 2007 07:44 AM (gWJnP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sewage Flood Engulfs Gaza Village
Revolting
beyond description:
At least five Palestinians including two toddlers drowned in a “sewage tsunami” today, when a water treatment reservoir burst its embankment, flooding a village in the northern Gaza Strip.
The deluge, triggered by the collapse of a system aid organisations had long warned was dangerously overburdened, submerged dozens of homes in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Nasr beneath a cesspool of foul-smelling effluent.
Two women in their 70s, a teenage girl and two boys aged one and two died in the flood. At least 15 people were injured and local medics say scores more are still missing.
This AFP picture pulled from Yahoo! News photos gives you an idea of how massive the sewage spill was. The waters these men are paddling in are full of bacteria and human waste. I cannot even begin to imagine the stench or the near total destruction this breach has created in the village of Umm al-Nasr.
I know from reading hurricane-related coverage that the mold and bacteria that can result from other kinds of flooding mandate that some buildings be razed as a result. I would imagine that by western standards, any structure inundated with raw sewage would almost certainly have to be destroyed, but I fear that in Umm al-Nasr, many of the residents, primarily poor Bedouin shepherds, do not have the resources to rebuild, and will endeavor to reoccupy their bacteria-infested homes. If this occurs, I suspect the death toll will sadly increase from disease.
As is so often the case involving anything in Gaza, the story's political overtones were among the foul things that quickly rose to the surface.
The Hamas movement, the leading partner in a newly formed Palestinian unity government, blamed the disaster on a foreign aid boycott slapped on the Palestinian Authority a year ago when the Islamist hardliners first came to power. Israel and the West consider Hamas a terrorist outfit.
In a statement, Hamas said: “The overflowing of the [reservoir] is one of the results of the suspension of international aid to our people, which is preventing the government from improving and developing infrastructure.”
To the credit of the Times, they deftly debunked Hamas in the immediately following paragraph.
As far back as January 2004, UN aid agencies in the Gaza Strip had warned that the sewage treatment facility was operating far beyond its capacity and posed a grave danger to nearby residents.
Also sadly stereotypical was how residents responded to the interior minister who rushed to the scene to inspect the damage. What did the residents feel? Justifiable outrage.
And recoil.
Hopefully the people of Umm al-Nasr will receive aid to help them cleanse and rebuild their village. It's too bad Hamas and other Palestinian groups let the water treatment facilities deteriorate to such a deadly condition in the first place.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:34 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Receive aid to clean up the mess? When are these animals going to do something for themselves?
They have been living off the international teat for years. When are they going to do something for themselves other than trying to kill as many Jews as they can.
They can all rot in Hell as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: 1sttofight at March 27, 2007 02:18 PM (rrCtY)
2
That's a pretty ignorant comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the last time Bedouins tried to do much but eek out a meager living. I don't seem to be able to find many accounts of shepherd suicide bombers, or Jihadi sheep.
Just as all Muslims are not fanatical fundementalists, all Palestinians are not fanatical zealots thirsting for the blood of Jews, and I don't even know that the Bedouins consider themselves Palestinians.
Try a little human empathy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 06:30 PM (HcgFD)
3
Why don't you just stick it up your ...?
Posted by: 1sttofight at March 27, 2007 11:13 PM (rrCtY)
4
Its clear Hamas is unfit to govern no matter how much money they have. Surely there is a bulldozer and some dirt somewhere in Gaza.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2007 04:48 AM (YaVN7)
5
That picture of the truck covered in Hamas excriment reminds me of the Keystone Kops.
Posted by: Dan Irving at March 28, 2007 09:43 AM (zw8QA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Surge at Home
Via
Instapundit, Frank Warner notes that public opinion on the progress of the Iraq War is
slightly more optimistic:
One little-publicized finding of the new Pew poll is that, compared to last month, Americans now are slightly more optimistic about the Iraq war.
The portion of Americans who believe the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" for the United States increased from the all-time low of 30 percent in February to 40 percent this month.
This bump in support comes just as E.J. Dionne calls the battle for a free Iraq "a conflict that grows more unpopular by the day." Which day in March?
In the last month, the percent of Americans saying the war is going "not too well" or "not well at all" dropped from 67 to 56.
I'd caution that the influx of American soldiers into the Baghdad security plan is just beginning, with the full force of the "surge" arriving in June, even as Democrats futily push forward with their plan to lose the war.
It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.
If definitive progress is made in coming months, it will be very interesting to see how that affects the polls, and the actions of House and Senate Democrats. Bills to lose the war by setting artificial and arbitrary deadlines are being set up for a Presidential veto, and it will be very interesting to see if Pelosi, Murtha, etc will continue to attempt to lose the war if measurable progress is made in the coming months.
I doubt that the most strident anti-war critics will be silenced by any hope of victory, and it could be interesting to see how Democrats attempt to placate their radical base if further progress occurs.
Update: Brian attempts to answer the question, "How's that surge going?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:10 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.
1
There have been quite a few 'news articles' recently regarding the home front. The first one was about how the 'protest movement' wasn't as active as it was in Vietnam. The second article was about memorials for fallen soldiers. In that article they failed to make the distinction between memorials that truly attempt to honor soldiers and the 'peace memorials' that attempt to make a political statement. Today, I saw an article that, once again, seemed to be complaining about the fact that most Americans are not directly affected by the war in Iraq. There seems to be quite a bit of nostalgia held by the media and by the protest movement for the good old days of Vietnam. Look through the political cartoons on Yahoo and you will probably catch at least one Nixon reference.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 10:39 AM (oC8nQ)
2
I think that you are already seeing the Democrats move on the issue given their proposal for a "secret" schedule of surrender.
Posted by: Wexford Cowboy at March 27, 2007 11:25 AM (ZfdFI)
3
this concept of "losing" the war is interesting. let's say the surge works. not that it is working incrementaly...let's say it flat out works. the civil warriors lay down their arms. baghdad is stable. we can start to safely draw down troops in a rational manner. does that mean we have "won" as those of you who see foreign policy as a football game like to say? let's check the score...al queda will be able to operate in iraq at a much higher level than they ever could before. in fact we will need permanent bases there to keep al-queda in check. afghanistan will still be a country where the taliban is on the comeback. iran will have far more influence than they had before. we will be no closer to annihilating the religious extremists who...and i love it when fear-mongers say this...WANT TO KILL US. we will have propped up an extremely weak, extremely corrupt government. sorry folks...this is a no-win situation.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 12:01 PM (yu9pS)
4
It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.
Yes, that will be interesting.
However, will you still be interested if the surge has the same results as all the past surges, and public support of the war continues to decline? Something tells me you won't.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 12:30 PM (qf8D8)
5
The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).
As for "winning the war," which war? The Iraq civil war or the "War on Terror?" No matter what Bush pushes they are NOT the same.
The "War on Terror" is centered in Afghanistan, not in the "al Qaida Recruiting Center" Bush has made of Iraq.
Iraq is a civil war and we should not be there, and WE will not "win" any war there. If we want to actually win a war it has to be in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Tecknomage at March 27, 2007 01:20 PM (eoprt)
6
Jay, I don't think Iraq will become the Al Qaeda haven you think it will be. There seems to be quite a bit of
Red on Red going on.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 01:37 PM (oC8nQ)
7
bohica22...what on earth is going to stop it?
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 01:41 PM (yu9pS)
8
The problem with your view is you actually believe the reports for those who have a self-interest in putting out "good" news (spin).
Hmmm... a lot was said in that one little sentence.
Technomage, is his wisdom, apparently think that I should perhaps trust those who have a self interest in putting out "bad" news? Presumably, he gets his news directly from insurgent videos posted to Youtube, and accepts no substitutes.
I've got a
slightly more divergent reading list.
I read the feeds of the major wire services and newspapers, talk directly (rarely by phone, mostly via email) with non-combatant actors in the war zone, usually at least once a week, and get, in digest form, English-language transcriptions of Iraqi radio, television and newspapers every now and again when my source can provide it. Mostly, these people have a self-interest in describing reality as accurately as they perceive it.
As for Technomage's other talking points... well, he says exactly what I'd expect he would, considering that he admits he refuses to believe anything good in Iraq can be possible.
For Technomage and others like him here and elsewhere, continuing to believe what he has already determined to be the truth is
by far the most important thing. Simply put, losing has become a matter of faith for him and others like him, and anyone who is willing to consider the good along with the bad is a heretic.
It doesn't make these folks bad people, but when someone immediately states up front he is unwilling to consider any point other than those that support his predetermined outcome, I find it rather difficult to take him, or others like him, very seriously.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 01:58 PM (9y6qg)
9
i know losing is a rnc talking point. i want to know what we are "winning". at best after 4+ years it's a wash. saddams out. irans in. al queda is in. so what have we accomplished?
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 02:14 PM (yu9pS)
10
"what on earth is going to stop it?"
The Iraqis themselves will stop it. They are just now beginning to realize how one-sided their 'relationship' with Al Qaeda has become. Iraqis don't want Iraq to become another Afganistan. Hell, the Afganis didn't want Afganistan to be another Afganistan. That's why the Taliban collapsed so quickly. Turns out life in the Fundimental Islamic State is really crappy, and when offered an alternative, they go for it. Sometime it takes a little push or a little time, but eventually people learn that when terrorists run your country, it eventually turns to sh!t. Check out Gaza these days if you don't believe me.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 27, 2007 02:23 PM (oC8nQ)
11
Losing is a
RNC talking point? It's an interesting alternate reality you inhabit. The rest of us see Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, etc leading the charge to establish arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, not anyone else.
It was liberal anti-war protestors that burned an American solier in effigy last week and defecated on the American flag.
Losing is beyond a talking point for Democrats. Losing the Iraq war is now an article of faith.
Liberals see this as a
Republican War, not an American one, and in the warped "reality-based" world you inhabit, you've convinced yourselves that an American loss is a Republican loss and a Democratic victory. You hate our President so much that you've chosen to side against your own country. You should be ashamed.
In four years, what have we accomplished?
We've killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam's spawn that were, according to many, even more brutal and sadistic than even their father. This presumably saved a future gneration or two of Iraqs from an even more bloodthirsty dictator. Their father, Saddam Hussein, saw his dictatorship overthrown, and free elections held not once, but twice, to establish a representative government in a land where no one living had ever experienced one. It is struggling, floundering and corrupt in spots, but making progress.
Saddam, a brutal dictator that financed terror, provided sanctuary to such noted terrorists as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the man who built the cyanide-laced bomb used to attack the World Trade Center in 1993), started two wars than led to more than a million deaths, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers and ordered the torture and assassination of an unknown number of his fellow Iraqis, was tried by a court system operating from a new and free constitution, judged guilty, and put to death.
As a direct result of our attack on Iraq, Lybia gave up a WMD program (including a fledging nuclear program) and the long-range missiles it was developing to carry them.
As for the actual war itself, you seem to be sleeping though the news today.
al Qaeda is under attack on all sides, including from their former Sunni insurgent allies who are now increasingly of the opinion that the only good member of al Qaeda is a dead member of al Qaeda. The suicide bombings in Tal Afar today are a direct result of al Qaeda turning on their former insurgent allies, who are now in negotiations with the Iraqi goverment, while joining the IA and IP by the hundreds. al Qaeda, already decimated, has been forced to join up with other groups, and there it some expectation that with the current rate of attrition, the simply
will not survive the next year in Iraq, with Sunni, Shiite, and Americans all gunning for them. A major car bomb cell cell that has killed up to 900 was destroyed today. That's progress.
The Shia militias which became a threat thanks to Iran, are without their leader al Sadr, who fled the country for Tehran over a month ago, and Coalition forces are talking with the "good" JAM to fill the power vacuum with pro-Iraqi sentiment, jobs and public works.
Iran has had more than 300 of their network in Iraq rolled up in the past weeks alone. EFP attacks are way down. There are signs of progress in Iraq, because the average Iraqi doesn't want war.
The biggest threat to these Iraqis aren't the terrorists that Iraqis themselves are increasingly hunting or turning in, but American Democrats determined to lose the war to score a political "victory" against a President that they hate more than they love the concept of liberty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2007 03:28 PM (9y6qg)
12
first...it's not a republican war...it's bushs war. and the idea that dems want to lose it is a rnc talking point you love to parrot.
second...libya gave up these weapons as a direct result of us attacking iraq? check your facts. i know that's what bush wanted you to think. it's not the way it was.
third...in todays news al-queda is being driven from iraq. if that is true, then they will be driven from a place they weren't in before we got there.
fourth...you last graph is just a delusional rant.
finally...look...alot of what you list is exagerated, a lot is wishful thinking, and a lot of it doesn't really matter to the safety of the u.s. i stand by my statement...after four years this thing is basically a wash. there is no winning at this point. i know thats disappointing for those rooting for your favorite team...but that's the reality of it.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 04:26 PM (yu9pS)
13
i want to be really clear...there's no winning and there's no losing...everyone is so wrapped up in this partisan pissing match. at this point iraq is what it is...maybe it gets a little more stable. maybe it doesn't. how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it? we have spent trillions of dollars when you look at the long term implications of this thing. what analysis justifies the expenditure. and al queda is right out there...still.
Posted by: jay k. at March 27, 2007 05:18 PM (yu9pS)
14
how much blood and treasure do you want to throw at it?
I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 27, 2007 05:33 PM (YaVN7)
15
Jay, you hit the nail on the head. This isn't about winning or losing to those of us who are simply concerned with issues like war, peace and regional stability.
However, that has never been a GOP concern. They wanted a "win" so that they could continue to invade and conquer other Middle Eastern countries. This is spelled out very clearly in the Project for a New American Century.
(As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger.)
Now that even the most delusional republicans are realizing that their war is lost (inasmuch as there will not be any endzone dances and fists in the air), the most important thing for them now is to not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008. They desperately need a democrat to blame for all this, so they can avoid a painful moment of self-reflection.
To the republicans here: Iraq will be a disaster for a long time to come, regardless of whether you call win, lose or draw. The cause of that disaster will continue to be the US occupation. The cause of that occupation will continue to be the hubris of the Bush Administration. No amount of time is going to change those facts, only how you're able to spin them.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 05:34 PM (3VkmI)
16
I'll refer you to JFK's inaugural speech for the answer.
So, Purple Avenger, how much have you done for your country? Typing up rants and cheering on unnecessary wars does not count.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 05:37 PM (3VkmI)
17
c'mon, paul--go easy on 'em. these are the guys who shout to the rooftops that this is WWIII or an existential clash of civilizations but scurry away muttering excuses every time the army recruiters drive by. if they won't be tempted to get out from behind their computers in suburbia and rush to the front lines in this mammoth, manichaean struggle with islamo_____ (you fill in the blank) after something like 9-11, what are you expecting of them?
so let them blast libruls for "hat[ing] our President so much that [they]'ve chosen to side against [their] own country [and] should be ashamed" (if they're so afraid of The Surge collapsing, and with it the West, why aren't they enlisting?)--just don't be expecting any of them to pull a pat tillman any time soon.
Posted by: jon at March 27, 2007 06:02 PM (k9t8G)
18
Sorry:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2008.
Should be:
not declare the war to be a lost cause before Jan 20, 2009.
Posted by: Paul at March 27, 2007 06:26 PM (3VkmI)
19
The Sunni and the Shia will never reconcile. It's too late. What evidence is there that they will? None.
The surge is not going to change this fact. The Shia militias and their Iranian backers control the interior ministry and domestic security forces. The Sunnis do not trust them and never will. Nothing America does in Iraq will change this fact. Only partition or civil war will change this fact.
The surge will not and cannot disarm the Shia militias. The surge will not and cannot end the emnity between Sunni and Shia. The surge will not and cannot end the supply of arms and money to the Sunni guerillas.
The Sunni and the Shia will simply wait until we leave. And then they will kill each other. And don't even get me started about the impending war for Kirkuk.
The American political right is simply incapable of understanding these dynamics. But then, they are the same people who thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and we would be greeted as liberators. They are the same ones who thought we would be down to 30,000 troops in country by 12/2003. They are the same ones who said Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war.
American troops should not die in order for an Iranian backed regime to take over Iraq.
Bush planned to lose this war and he has lost it.
Posted by: mkultra at March 27, 2007 07:01 PM (ASUDI)
20
"As an aside, the PNAC's primary objective has always been 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That objective is still in no danger."
The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther? The PNAC does talk about a permament military presence in the region, but they have never mentioned permament bases in Iraq, much less 14. The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us? Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at March 28, 2007 07:49 AM (oC8nQ)
21
"If definitive progress is made in coming months..."
If....
You guys have been saying "if" for over four years now.
If cows could fly, we'd all have to wear hardhats.
Posted by: jm at March 28, 2007 09:37 AM (b2Kid)
22
ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.
Posted by: geordie at March 28, 2007 11:28 AM (9sWoZ)
23
Et maiores vestros et posteros cogitate, geordie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:34 AM (9y6qg)
24
I do, Confederate Yankee. That's why I am afraid.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791
Posted by: Geordie at March 28, 2007 11:40 AM (9sWoZ)
25
The PNAC? What are you, a frigging truther?
I'm not a part of that 9/11 Truth Movement, no. However, I do value the truth, which certainly distinguishes me from you.
The point is moot as we ALREADY have permament bases in Kuwait, Bahrian and Qatar. They actually like us in those countries so why in the world would we want bases where people hate us?
Ask Bush.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Also, a little logistical lession, Iraq is esentially landlocked except for one small unimproved port, Umm Qasr. Meanwhile Kuwait, Bahrian, Qatar and the UAE all have deep water ports capable of taking on the largest of our transport ships.
Yes, but transport
what? How about transporting the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? As the oil industry is well aware, peak oil will occur eventually if it hasn't already. That is expected to cause drastic disruption to the global economy. Who will rise to the top? How about the country that has 14 permanent military bases conveniently located near the oil wells?
Do you ever wonder why, when the Iraq war appears to be a failure on just about every level, that Bush and Cheney still appear optimistic? Could it be that they are trying to achieve different goals from the ones that they stated at the outset (all of which have either failed or were unnecessary)?
Posted by: Paul at March 28, 2007 02:53 PM (/2KfF)
26
Yeah, the surge is really working! That's why the US Embassy just ordered all its workers to wear flak jackets whenever they leave the embassy (which is in the Green Zone, supposedly the safest place!--where rockets are raining down daily!) And as for Shia-Sunni cooperation, how about that massacre of Sunnis yesterday when Shia POLICE went berserk and exacted revenge on Sunni civilians--yeah, that's really worth losing American soldiers for! After all, Bush is getting the good news from two DENTISTS for God sake who probably get dictation from Karen Hughes--why don't he and McCain walk hand in hand through Baghdad--since it's so safe and all.
Posted by: Mike Filancia at March 29, 2007 09:24 AM (Cba1c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2007
A Different Second Amendment
Coming across on
Drudge:
SENATE STAFFER BUSTED FOR CARRYING WEBB'S LOADED GUN... Phillip Thompson, executive assistant to Senator James Webb (D-VA ), has been arrested by Capitol Hill Police on Monday for 'inadvertently' holding the senator's loaded gun, according to a person close to the investigation. A Senate staffer reports that Thompson was arrested for carrying the gun in a bag through security into a Senate office building while the Senator was parking his car. Thompson was booked for carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) and for possessing unregistered ammunition. According to congressional rules, congressmen and senators, not staff, are allowed to have a gun on federal property. Developing...
Let me see if I understand this:
Congressmen and Senators can bring firearms into heavily-protected federal buildings guarded by permanent on-duty police officers, but residents of Washington, DC are not allowed to have weapons to defend themselves or their families in their homes.
Nope, no double standard here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:44 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just so. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Posted by: Actual at March 26, 2007 07:02 PM (oAqnG)
2
Bob, Bob, Bob...
You just don't get it. The Legislators need those guns to protect themselves from the citizens of DC who DO NOT HAVE ANY guns, because private ownership of handuns, and ammunition, apparently, have been outlawed. So the citizens of DC are a present danger to members of congress, because of the guns that they do not have. Because they are outlawed.
Do you understand now? It's quite simple, don't you see?
The private citizens of DC do not NEED to own guns, because guns have been outlawed, and therefore there ARE no guns in DC -- except those carried by cops, and congressman, who need them... Oh what's the use?
Bob, you just do not understand nuanced thinking. Guns don't kill people, people k..oh....wait -- oh, you'll just never get it.
Posted by: Bill Smith at March 26, 2007 08:32 PM (bdmCE)
3
HA!!!! Its TRUE!!!!
Outlaw guns and only CROOKS have them.
P
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 27, 2007 05:08 AM (Mv/2X)
4
Have you ever considered all the exemptions that our elected representatives allow themselves. For instance, they do not have to go through the rediculous security at the airports that we commoners are forced to indure. I am sure we could list numerous other situations.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 27, 2007 09:13 AM (G5i3t)
5
An infuriating part of the fight over our Right to bear arms: The powerful and wealthy are always excluded from restrictions.
Do you think Chuck Schumer et al. are protected by a nearby firearm? Sure they are. Does he believe the lower classes deserve to be able to protect themselves? No he doesn't.
Posted by: DoorHold at March 27, 2007 10:39 AM (SC+cn)
6
Posted by David Caskey at March 27, 2007 09:13 AM
The one I like the best is they don't do Social Security, They have a seperate retirement system set up just for them.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 27, 2007 10:54 AM (WGcw3)
7
They are also allowed to smoke in all the legislative buildings on the Hill.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at March 27, 2007 12:20 PM (hYY4f)
8
Yes, Chuck Schumer has a carry permit in NYC. I'm sure he's a gun lover, just wants to make it as difficult as possible for his subjects to be one!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 27, 2007 02:41 PM (CZc15)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush Responsible for Iranian Adulterers Being Stoned to Death For Past Millennia
Right, Andrew?
According to Sullivan Logic, the Iranian people, who have a culture thousands of years older than our own, could not function as a society until George W. Bush came along to show them how to act, for better, or for worse. Or at least the worst part.
It has been a very long time since anyone has accused Andrew Sullivan of being overly logical or coherent, and I don't think we are in any danger of anyone making that argument anytime soon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.
158kb generated in CPU 0.041, elapsed 0.1405 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.1153 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.