If he didn't want this guy bagging his daughter wouldn't Necrotizing fasciitis or some other flesh eating bacteria have been quicker?

From Fox News:

The father-in-law of the 31-year-old man under federal quarantine with a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis is one of the leading TB researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, FOX News has learned.

Dr. Robert Cooksey, who works in the CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, confirmed to FOX News that he is the father-in-law of Andrew Speaker, a personal-injury lawyer who practices in his father's law firm in Atlanta.

Asked by FOX News whether it was possible that he had passed along the dangerous strain to his son-in-law, Cooksey said, "Absolutely not." He added that he "works in the lab" and "is not authorized to talk about that."

I've heard about fathers being overprotective of their daughters and all, but this guy has taken it to a new level.

Overheard in the halls of the CDC Atlanta Office just moments ago: What do you call a personal injury lawyer with a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis? A good start.

Too soon?

Posted by: phin at 02:57 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

... they used to enjoy long fireside chats while dressed as Thelma and Louise.

Wait, wrong FBI Director.

Freeh endorses Giuliani and will serve Saint Andie's cabana boy as his campaign's senior homeland security adviser.

Freeh's endorsement is viewed by supporters as a boost to Giuliani's image as a strong leader against terrorism and crime in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On the campaign trail, Giuliani has asserted that he and his fellow Republicans have the best approach to deterring terrorism.

"Rudy Giuliani's optimistic leadership is responsible for making the city of New York what it is today, one of the safest largest cities in the country and a place where the world feels safe to visit," Freeh said in a statement prior to a news conference.

"No one knows better than Louie Freeh what it takes to fight crime," said Giuliani.

Freeh, whose eight year-tenure as FBI director was marked by a long-running feud with
President Clinton, also will serve as senior homeland security adviser for Giuliani's campaign and will head the candidate's Delaware campaign. Freeh lives in Wilmington, Del.

Posted by: phin at 02:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

...and that's not the only probe he's hoping for.

In a word pandering.

Apparently teh Silk Pony doesn't realize he's become, or doesn't have a problem with being, a whore.

Many of Edwards' proposals — from cutting greenhouse gas emissions to investigating oil industry consolidation — have been the subject of numerous hearings in Congress this years*, as has* calls by Democrats to make automobiles more fuel efficient.

I'm guessing this is news because Silky is spewing it. Which is why I'm voting for Fred!. After he annexes Mexico we can go ahead and pick up Venezuela. See, I've just laid out a plan for petroleum independence, I could be a contender!

* The AP are has do be English majors.

Posted by: phin at 12:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

...because the phrase War Criminals and Nazis is much more fitting.

Let's begin at the end of Andie "Patron Saint of the Man Pooter" Sullivan's article.

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.

Of course calls for the death of the Bush Administration is nothing new from the party of Love, Peace and Patriotism. If a few thousand more Americans have to die while they're at work in their offices, just so we can ensure the Freedom Fighters are comfortable in their cells, so be it and who the hell are you to question their Patriotism, you nazi bastard.

The part of the document Andie's hoping you didn't read or given the typical Neocon's lack of reading comprehension hoping you wouldn't understand:

1. The sharpened interrogation may only be applied if, on the strength of the preliminary interrogation, it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries.
2. Under this circumstance, the sharpened interrogation may be applied only against Communists, Marxists, members of the Bible-researcher sect, saboteurs, terrorists, members of the resistance movement,...
3. The sharpened interrogation may not be applied in order to induce confessions about a prisoner's own criminal acts...

Personally, I place the value of human life above my concerns of safety for a terrorist. But maybe I'm being unrealistic and we should just follow Saint Andie's lead and push for a kinder gentler form of questioning:

I guess Pablo the bikini-clad-pool-boy should question Saint Andie.

Posted by: phin at 10:55 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

... there is no middle ground.

via ace:

Crying Over Spilled Semen
Why women who don't use condoms feel happier [ed: an so do their herpes laden partners].
The finding that women who do not use condoms during sex are less depressed and less likely to attempt suicide than are women who have sex with condoms and women who are not sexually active, leads one researcher to conclude that semen contains powerful—and potentially ddictive—mood-altering chemicals.

Study author Gordon G. Gallup, Ph.D., a psychologist at the State University of New York in Albany, also found that women who routinely had intercourse without condoms became increasingly depressed as more time elapsed since their last sexual encounter. There was no such correlation for women whose partners regularly used condoms.

Gallup's survey of 293 college women also found that those who did not use condoms were most likely to initiate sex and to seek out new partners as soon as a relationship ended. "These women are more vulnerable to the rebound effect, which suggests that there is a chemical dependency," says Gallup.

Semen contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood.

...

Gallup says he has since replicated the findings with a sample of 700 women and will examine whether "semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression...

Really, she said they were going to examine whether "semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression. Rise up men! No longer do women control the only bedroom commodity. Okay, sure they're still in control, and they get half your stuff, but at least we have a bit more bargaining power, maybe, if we weren't such suckers.

and from Dan Collins posting at protein wisdom.

The Porn Myth
...I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”

When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.

She must feel, I thought, so hot.

ITS.FOR.YOUR.OWN.GOOD.YOU.IGNORANT.HUSSY.

Sorry, where was I, oh yeah, because nothing says the sexy at the beach like a burkini clad woman:

Posted by: phin at 10:52 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

...and Fred!'s making a run for the White House.

If your political adviser looked like that you'd listen too.

The Politico is reporting that Fred! is going to announce his bid for the Presidency over the Fourth of July Holiday, and that his wife, Jeri, will wear a star spangled bikini throughout the race.

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

Thompson, the "Law and Order" star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.

Thompson's formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson's first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem of what they consider his folksy, populist appeal.

Okay, Jeri might not be in the bikini, but it'd be a whole lot cooler if she was. Plus, they'd have the 18 - 32 year old male and LUG (lesbian until graduation) vote nailed down.

Think about it: Double D or Shillary: Who's significant other would you prefer to check out during the State of the Union addresses? If they could even get Billy Jeff to show up.

When asked about his platform Fred! said instead of amnesty he'll annex Mexico and send the ingrates who booed Rachel Smith packing for Venezuela. Okay, he's not admitting to the annexation part, but he know he's got a way with the pretty ladies, so we could count on him to at least send in a couple of special ops teams to deal with the unruly mobs when they taunt our wimminfolk.

Really why the hell would you boo a young lady who looks like this in a bikini:

Wondertwin powers activate!

The only logical explanation for the booing. They're pissed a majority of American women still have most of their teeth and weigh less than 200 pounds after the age of 40. Side question and yes I realize its stereotypical and probably bigoted, but here goes anyway. What is it about the Mexican diet that keeps the men relatively fit as they age while the women, um, expand exponentially?

Go ahead, call me a bigot and remember to insult my southern heritage while you're at it, but don't forget to answer the question.

Posted by: phin at 10:17 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Miss America proves something that very few Miss Universe hopefuls knew, that they're subject to the laws of gravity. Damn you Sir Isaac Newton...

A 20-year-old dancer from Japan was crowned Miss Universe 2007 on Monday night, marking only the second time her country has won the world beauty title.

Dressed in a black, red and purple Japanese-style gown, Riyo Mori nervously grabbed the hands of first runner-up, Natalia Guimaraes of Brazil, just before the winner was announced. Then she threw her hands up and covered her mouth, overcome with emotion...

Riyo Mori hypnotizes unsuspecting judges into thinking she can fly like an eagle.

...Miss USA Rachel Smith, who slipped and fell to the floor during the evening gown competition and was jeered by the Mexican audience during the interview phase, was the contest's fourth runner-up...

...Smith was booed during her interview and several audience members chanted "Mexico! Mexico!" until she spoke in Spanish, saying "Buenas noches Mexico. Muchas gracias!" which earned her applause. Mexico has a fierce rivalry with its northern neighbor.

Apparently the "fierce rivalry" doesn't apply if you want to sneak across the border. Which if all Mexicans are as easily distracted as the crowd in attendance instead of a fence we should just have recordings of President Jorje Bush and Teddy K. blairing Buenas noches Mexico. Muchas gracias!". Now that would be a sooper-dooper virtual fence and couldn't be any less affective than the border protection we have now.

Missing from this year's contest was Miss Sweden, whose country is one of the few to win the crown three times. Isabel Lestapier Winqvist, 20, dropped out because many Swedes say the competition does not represent the modern woman.

Thus the trap and alibi had been planned out. I keep telling you guys, you just can't trust an Ice Wop. Next year they'll probably kidnap Miss USA and replace her with some drunken hobo like Parasite Hilton.

Posted by: phin at 02:40 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 3 kb.

The underwear gnomes have left Crawford Texas.

At least she's finally admitting to being an Attention Whore.

I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from CaseyÂ’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times. ...

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Let's just hope that she's gone through "the change" so we don't end up with any little peace warriors running around as Saint Cindy and Father Hugo continue to nurture their relationship.

The cabby said he recognized my girly by the back of her head.

Posted by: phin at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Alternatively Titled: How can Bobby Flay challenge troops to a throwdown in the Mojave Desert when the US Military can't get civilians in Iraq the ingredients they need to "toss salad". Brevity is key, and all that.

While you were lounging around sipping mojitos and dreaming of replacing the Rosie "Patron Saint of Truther Conspiracy Theorists" O'Donnell on the view ace was all over the fake, but real, but accurate food shortage memo reported by our friends and neighbors at the WaPo. The Flopped Aced one has a pretty good synopsis of the entire escapade.

Being the good little storm troopers that we are we're wondering why the ever military friendly main stream media reporters aren't receiving their daily allotments of syrup or jelly. Which, if you're a deviant and I know you probably are, you'd know is critical for tossing salad (a search not safe for work, easily sickened or pure of heart, but if you're kinky go for it).

There really are lots of questions that go unanswered here.

• What type of knucklehead uses Flappy the flag waving wonder eagle instead of the official emblem / seal / logo of the US Embassy in Iraq.
• Who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp? Who put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong? Who put the bop in the bop sh-bop sh-bop?
• Why did Parvaz Khan a Human Resources Officer create a PDF of the "document"?
• Is Gleen Ellers Thomas Francis Nancy Greenwald behind this whole shenanigan? He was quoted by congress or the senate or something

I guess it is kind of hard to find a decent US Embassy Logo to use, I mean it was on the second page google's image search.

On the upside we've got Romentum and if anybody will get to the truth behind this whole fire melting steel thingy Ron Paul will and damn it, he'll get put an end to this illegal war we're waging, pronto.

This message was approved by Flappy the salad tossing wonder eagle.

He likes syrup.

And don't blame me or Flappy if you're disturbed after googling "toss my salad", you were warned.

In desperate woman news. It looks like Jessica Simpson and that no talent hack John Mayer are done, over, fineto. If you're not familiar with John Mayer, he's the guy that sang a song about my body being a wonderland. If you're not familiar with Jessica Simpson:

For those of you upset by the lack of "hard-hitting" "serious" reporting around here, well, I'll start as soon as the WaPo and ABC do. Which means you'll all be welcoming CY's return week's wend.

Posted by: phin at 01:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

Enjoy your vacation, but always, remember them.

Also: The lyrics from Trace Atkins' tribute, Arlington (Video available here).

I never thought that this is where I'd settle down.
I thought I'd die an old man back in my hometown.
They gave me this plot of land,
Me and some other men, for a job well done.

There's a big White House sits on a hill just up the road.
The man inside, he cried the day they brought me home.
They folded up a flag and told my Mom and Dad:
"We're proud of your son."

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

I remember Daddy brought me here when I was eight.
We searched all day to find out where my grand-dad lay.
And when we finally found that cross,
He said: "Son, this is what it cost to keep us free."

Now here I am, a thousand stones away from him.
He recognized me on the first day I came in.
And it gave me a chill when he clicked his heels,
And saluted me.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

And everytime I hear twenty-one guns,
I know they brought another hero home to us.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
We're thankful for those thankful for the things we've done.
We can rest in peace;
'Cause we are the chosen ones:
We made it to Arlington.

Yeah, dust to dust,
Don't cry for us:
We made it to Arlington.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:53 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm still not quite sure why CY volunteered to let me guest blog, unless he's looking for ace type posting, without teh funny, snide remarks and esoteric wit. Which if you're familiar with ace's site leaves us with poking fun at Andy "Patron Saint of the Man Pooter" Sullivan, a mutual hatred of Ice-Wops and pr0n.

If you're unfamiliar with my work, which you almost assuredly are, most recently I've been posting at agent bedhead, who was nice enough to take me in when I got too lazy busy to post at my own site. I'm also as CY mentioned part of the team at apothegm designs and responsible for the design of this site, which to those ever cleaver and uniquely refreshing liberal commenters means I'm a bigot hoping to enslave brown people so they'll pick my vast nonexistent fields of cotton and call me masta.

Anyhoo, enough about me and on with what this blog needs.

Since I've already numbed your minds enough and posted a link to an Snow Porker getting his, I'll bring on teh pr0n.

How's this news? Well the Australian lass pictured above, Kylie Minogue, is according to the bosh desperate for a man. She was engaged to a French(man?), so more than likely she's still as pure as the driven snow. Me, I'd take care of her, but I'm happily married, so I figured I'd let you guys have the first, um, crack at her. Consider yourselves warned, she's a naughty little minx, so you'd best be, "up" to the challenge, so to speak.

More of what this blog needs, food pr0n, is on the way, with pictures, just as soon as I get the ham, ribs and sausage off the smoker.

Since absolutely none of this interests 99.92735% if CY's normal readers I'll have analysis of what blind hogs, sadly no and the democratic underground have in common and how they've changed my life for the better. But first, pork.

Posted by: phin at 02:22 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll be offline (and outdoors) in sunny southern Florida for the next week, so I'm turning over the keys of CY to my brother "phin" of Apothegm Designs to do with as he will.

Frankly, I'm scared. He's been known to be a little... warped.

I'll be back to inspect the damage and resume posting on June 4.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

That's going to leave a mark.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't know who that aide to McCain was, but given the rate of service in today's GOP, my guess is he wouldn't know which side of a Claymore to turn toward the enemy (and if you don't get that joke, ask someone who's served). Bob, I find it ironic that after all your past dismissals of the chickenhawk offense, you now find it amusing.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 25, 2007 09:32 PM (tk0b2)

2 McCains done. The poor cornered dog will bite every time. He get bored with Mitt Romney that quick?

Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 25, 2007 09:44 PM (6MrxL)

3 "given the rate of service in today's GOP" And how many years did General Obama spend in uniform?

Posted by: Bill Faith at May 25, 2007 09:58 PM (n7SaI)

4 but given the rate of service in today's GOP Which is precisely what? Educate me.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 11:30 PM (VgTsb)

5 I suspect David, like many anti-war leftists, is a charlatan. He has about as much military experience as Bill Clinton. Or John Edwards. Or Obama Whatshisname In either event, Duncan Hunter served in Vietnam and has a son in Iraq McCain served. Who on the Democrat ticket has?

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:02 AM (cGtRE)

6 Look, Dave, we understand you are disapointed that your party capitulated to George W. Bush. We understand that the surrender loving wing of your party (i.e., you) failed, again, to convince the majority of the American people that losing in Iraq is in the interests of this country. Its demoralizing being a minority. It difficult when your party takes you for granted and uses you as a pawn to gain power, but tosses you under the bus when the going gets tough. And you'll believe harry and nancy when they talk anti-war and anti-gop and anti-Bush in the coming months. Youll believe them. A sucker is born every minute. If I were you- Id vote for Kucinich. At least he's honest. At least he isnt a talking out of both sides of his mouth dirtball who tells you one thing and then does another. You probably think Clinton and Obamas votes were "principled" LOL But you wont vote for the real anti-war candidates- the honest ones. Because you know that power was all you really cared about. Not the troops. Not America. Not security of this nation. POWER

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:08 AM (cGtRE)

7 You all seem to mistake me for a Democrat. Here's a surprise: My favorite candidate would be Chuck Hagel. A conservative Republican. As for whether I'm a charlatan or not, all I can do is repeat that I enlisted in 1969, was trained at Fort Monmouth, Fort Bragg and Fort Huachuca, spent nearly two years in Central and South America and came home. I was no hero. But I raised my hand and I did what I was expected to do. (And, as an aside, I use my real name, a name you can Google, a name you can check on Amazon and see some verification as to what I say about my service is true. Can you say the same?) I also come from a military family and I have family members in theater right now. Your problem, all of you, is you insist on seeing things as liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. You carry water for a bunch of men, most of whom ducked their own military obligation, who have through hubris and arrogance gotten this country into a very dangerous mess, one that could last for another decade, cost several trillion dollars and who knows how many lives. And it didn't have to happen. I'm angry about this. I'm angry as a veteran. I'm angry as a citizen. I'm angry as a human being. That all of you continute to defend this administration and make lame excuses about the liberal media and those traitorous Dhimmicrats only paint you as suckers, being played. You can continue to be saps. Me, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I am an American and I'm righteously pi**ed off and if you're not, you've got your head stuck somewhere, and I'll let you decide where that is. Now go ahead and attack me and call me a liar and a charlatan, because it makes it easier for you to ignore what's really going on. Partisans, blinded by BS, and I'm fed up with all of it. And I respect Duncan Hunter's service and that his son and McCain's son are both in uniform is honorable. Hoo-uh. But I dislike Hunter's politics and would have voted for McCain in 2000 but not today. As for veterans in the GOP, all I can say is that they lost any credibility with this veteran when they put a Purple Heart on a band-aid. As a joke. I want you self-styled super patriots to remember that this weekend.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 09:35 AM (tk0b2)

8 Well done, Dave. Spoken like a true partisan posing as a non partisan Your a good charlatan- an eloquent one- possibly even sincere about your opposition to the policies of this administration-but a charlatan and a partisan nonetheless. And we who support the efforts of the troops- and General Petraeus- and President Bush and his Vice President- are not "carrying water" for anyone other than the country that we love and the security that it's continued greatness depends on. If you think the security of this country is not inextricably linked to how things turn out in Iraq- then you are the fool. If you think "ending this war" (obama) and "bringing home the troops" (clinton) will do anything other than destroy this nations credibility, and make its citizens far, far less secure than they are now, then it is you who has his head where the sun never shines, not us.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 10:40 AM (cGtRE)

9 TMF, I'll assume you haven't read what I've posted here before, so I'll try to keep it short. I agree with you that what happens in Iraq is of the utmost consequence. I sincerely hope Patreaus can pull this off and if anyone can, I believe he's the right man to do it. Where we disagree is here. I believe this war is so important that at the very least we should do these three things: 1. Put in another 200,000 troops to secure the country, rebuild the infrastructure and train the Iraqis. If this means reinstating the draft, let's do it. 2. Pay for this war. That means higher taxes. It's shameful that we're asking our grandchildren to shoulder the debt of this war. 3. Level with the American people. Tell us that stabilizing this region may take a serious commitment of ten or more years. Right now, only McCain is saying anything close to this. Give us your best estimate as to the cost. Remember, Wolfowitz promised this war would cost us nothing, zero, sip. A half trillion dollars later we know he was wrong, but I'd like to know how wrong. Wouldn't you? That's a minimum. But you and I both know these things are not going to happen. So, it's my opinion that if we're not taking this war seriously, how can I ask another man to fight? How can I ask another man to die in a conflict we don't even think is important enough to pay for? Are we so enamored of our SUVs and cell phones and all the crap of our consumer culture that we're not willing to pony up a few hundred more bucks a year in taxes to pay the freight? Are we so afraid to ask Americans to stand up and do their duty, to actually serve their country in a time of war? Apparently, we are. So if we're not willing to do those things, make these small sacrifices, how can we ask other men and their families to make the big sacrifices? That's why I don't support this administration. Not because they're Republicans. Because I don't think they seriously considered the consequences of this war and I don't think they're competent enough to pull off a win. It's that simple. You can call me a charlatan and question my motives all you like. That's fine. I'm not about to lose sleep over the opinion of an anonymous poster on a blog, believe me. But you're still backing people who have been wrong about everything, and if that record doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will. As I said before, you can look me up. Because if men were brave enough to fight for my right to speak out, I'm at least brave enough to attach my name to that speech. Too bad not all of us feel that strongly about exercising our liberty.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 12:06 PM (tk0b2)

10 Which Presidential hopeful are you supporting, Dave? Please list 3 reasons why you believe he/she has the best plan for dealing with Iraq. You're answer will reveal more than any number of your rambling, faux passionate, self congratulatory diatribes.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 01:07 PM (cGtRE)

11 TMF, I am not supporting any presidential hopeful. It's a long way to the election. And I wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominen attacks. I've addressed you with respect, gave you nothing but honest answers, and you feel obliged to call me names and label my opinions "self-congratulatory diatribes." I don't expect you to agree with me. But please, let's elevate this beyond childish schoolyard taunts because, frankly, it's pretty easy to be brave on the Internet. You want honest, I'll give you honest. I'm a liberal, that's true, and proud of it. Do you know what that means? It means I believe there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It means I believe we all have an obligation to this country as opposed to the self-promoting policies of Milton Friedman and his political offspring. I believe in equal treatment under the law. And I fear the influence of fundamentalists on this democracy. Fundamentalist don't compromise because they believe their opinions are shared by God, and that's dangerous in a governing priniple that works on compromise. However, I live my life as a conservative. I pay my way, work hard in a very tough business, believe my father was right when he said the only thing a man has is his word, and have had the same wife, my first, for 27 years. When I find a presidential candidate who echoes these values and beliefs, I'll support that man or woman. And as I said before, if you doubt my honesty, you can look me up. What about you, T? Where are you?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 01:50 PM (tk0b2)

12 I'm still waiting for a number...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 26, 2007 02:12 PM (VgTsb)

13 TMF and Purple: BANG! the leff hook BANG! then the right you two are a dinamic duo for TRUTH How do you feel now Film Noire??? Ha, ha ha, ha!!!!

Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 03:30 PM (e+LpB)

14 Mr. Avenger, I'll give you a number. Here, how many fingers am I holding up? No. Wrong again. Now, Karl, I've been meaning to ask you, and I don't want to insult you if it's true, but is English a second language? Because if it is, I won't make fun of your semi-literacy because that would be cruel. You all have a good Memorial Day. I am outta here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 04:17 PM (tk0b2)

15 A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution? Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it. That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices. LOL

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 05:47 PM (cGtRE)

16 THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!! THANK YOU TMF!!! Some leftys at the supreme court invented it. Its a gift wrap for the TERRORISTS is what it is Anwyway why dont you want your neighbors to know what your doing??? Its the leftys that are MUSLIMS and PERVERTS and TRAITORS!!! If you want to live in SECRESSY then GO TO CUBA OR IRAN!!!! Your not wanted here leftys

Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 06:44 PM (e+LpB)

17 Ive got no problem with a "right" to privacy being legislated by congress I just dont think it's in the constitution. I dont like unelected Judges deciding issues of morality. Thats not what democracy is about.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 09:46 PM (cGtRE)

18 TMF, For me, this is the pertinent line of the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... I believe that conveys a right to privacy. Others can disagree but then, as I said, that's what makes me a liberal. Now, if you want to live in a country where your right to be secure from government scrutiny in your house is at the mercy of Congress, then I think you should take your illiterate ally Karl's uneducated advice and find a country that freely violates the security of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects," without probable cause. If you want to go back to the days when the state had the right tell you and your wife whether you could buy condoms for birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut), then that's where you and I part company. Don't get me wrong, you have plenty of august legal company on your side but at the end of the day I prefer more privacy rather than less. I'm funny that way.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 10:15 PM (tk0b2)

19 I see. This language "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Gives rise to an inalienable right to abort an unborn fetus. If you say so. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally think deeply moral issues like the issue of abortion were not meant to be legislated by unelected Judges, but rather, by elected members of congress. I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue. I just dont want some appointed authority telling me whats right and wrong. I want to decide that myself- through my elected officials. Im funny that way.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 11:42 PM (cGtRE)

20 "I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue." Finally, something we agree on. You have a solid Memorial Day. It's already been a somber morning here, but I intend to enjoy the rest of the day outside in this beautiful weather we've been given. Respectfully disagreeable,

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 08:16 AM (tk0b2)

21 You do the same. And Karl- be sure to up the dosage on those meds. Your gonna need it.

Posted by: TMF at May 27, 2007 10:16 AM (cGtRE)

22 Late to the party as usual. David T. - You and I have agreed and disagreed on quite a few things. For what it is worth - (and don't flame me TMF - LOL) - I believe that you are being honest and sincere in your arguments. I know that you are not a troll here - you thoughtfully present your side of any argument, and rarely, if ever, stoop to name calling. And even though some of your posts are rather long, you would be missed around here if you left. We need the opposing, or maybe better, contrasting, POV. When 911 happened, President Bush told us in numerous speeches that this would NOT be a short war. He intimated it might take decades, and anyone honest enough would realize that. We are dealing with ideologies - those don't change in a few short months, or in a few years. It's more like over a generation. I know you know this - and your solution of putting in more troops has merit, but I agree is not likely. Did Bush and his advisers bungle the planning? The answer is yes. They set proper strategic goals, but the tactical side was a mess. Remember though, that any tactical plan is only good until the first shot is fired. On the other hand, are we making progress in Iraq? The answer is yes. It is much slower than anybody would like, but it is happening. While I strongly oppose Congress's attempt to micromanage the war (i.e. timetables), I do agree that we need to hold the Iraqi government to standards - Don't misunderstand - they are making progress, but very slowly. I'd like to see your comments about this NYT article. Here is a nugget: The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government. “Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by insurgents. “This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.” Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,” said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit.” So it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We can't abandon the Iraqi's like we did Viet Nam. There may be strategic reasons to be there anyways. Even though we messed up to begin with, now we have to finish the job.

Posted by: Specter at May 27, 2007 11:50 AM (ybfXM)

23 We are Not leaving We are putting the finshing touches on the World Largest Embassy So longs we keep a PATRIOT in office we will keep that SNAKES NEST in line TMF::you talk the talk but turns our your FAIRY PANTS

Posted by: Karl at May 27, 2007 03:31 PM (e+LpB)

24 Specter, Between a rock and a hard place is a remarkably accurate sitrep, and I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm angry, not as a Democrat or Republican, but as an American. Thanks for the kind words. I am indeed sincere, just trying to add an alternate POV to people who may not be exposed to another side very often. And my first draft of this comment was a good 100 words longer, but out of respect for your time, I've cut it. Enjoy the day. On Memorial Day of all days, we are all Americans.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 03:41 PM (tk0b2)

25 I actually thought there was some intelligent discussion going on here untill I saw some one say,"A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution? Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it. That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices." Looks like they never read much of the constitution they're preaching about: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There is a right to privacy. It's a part of that whole, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," thing. I still can't figure out how people who love to call themselves "small government" Conservatives will invite the Government in their door at every opportunity.

Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 28, 2007 04:25 PM (6MrxL)

26 The Right to Privacy must be balanced with Common Good. What one person may consider a reasonable search or seizure, another would consider an invasion of privacy. There is a balancing point there and that is what the courts are (should be) watching. I get upset when I see them tip it one way or the other (in MY opinion, of course). To me, David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says. I still don't agree with everything our President says. (Of course I don't trust many politicians, they ALL lie). I actually got a kick out of the Claymore joke, I almost sort of agree to a point. I think we need more people in office that have military experience as well. Specter covered the rest of my thoughs very well.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 29, 2007 05:39 AM (ppO1W)

27 ...David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says. Ret. Navy, I had to laugh. Even I don't agree with everything I say. And I'm glad you liked the Claymore joke. I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here. Disagreeably yours,

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 08:46 AM (kxecL)

28 "Lefty" Terrenoire said: "I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here." YES!!! Heres where Im coming from: ----------------------------------------- But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army. “I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.” ----------------------------------------- Either we GET TOUGH and GIT ER DONE or shoar our defenses here in the homeland NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!!

Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 12:34 PM (e+LpB)

29 TMF::like I said talk the talk but scratch the surface and RINO Move to syria or take the TOWL off your heaad and SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!

Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:04 PM (e+LpB)

30 I see the cats got your toung FAIRY PANTS I wonder why ((NOT)) Some of us remember a day called 911...

Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:20 PM (e+LpB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Stare at this.

Now look back again.

I want this seared, seared into your memory.

This is an image from an al Qaeda torture manual captured in Iraq.

They use this and other techniques to torture Iraqi men and women, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. They also use them when they can capture American and Iraqi soldiers and police.

I'd love to provide you with a link to the Washington Post or New York Times article detailing the atrocities contained, but they haven't been written yet. Nor can these articles be found in the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, or the Philadelphia Daily News, and you won't see these images on the network nightly news, either.

While we are locked in wars against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq and other obscure places you couldn't find on a map, the American press has decided that you, the American citizen, don't need to see these images.

You don't deserve to see these images.

The near orgasmic contentment on the face of the torturer as he burns his victim with an iron is too inflammatory, and the American press wouldn't want you to become inflamed towards our enemy during a time of war, now would they?

I can completely understand where these media organizations are coming from.

They've spent years writing and buying into their own narrative that America is to blame for the problems in Iraq and that the threat of al Qaeda is over-hyped... and did I mention, over-hyped?

If they were to actually show, in stark terms, what al Qaeda truly is and what it is capable of, then the American people might start viewing them as Very. Bad. People. Such a thing could complicate the defeat of Chimperor Bush withdrawal plans. It is better to act like such things doesn't exist, and make sure most people miss it.

At the very least, they deserve a hand for staying "on message."

If these (and other) graphic images hadn't been picked up by The Smoking Gun and the Austrialian Press (Fox News posted, then retracted a story) you probably wouldn't have seen them at all.

Now consider that most people probably still won't see these images on the television news, or see them in print. They won't because the various news organizations in this and other countries either don't consider them newsworthy, or they consider the images too inflammatory.

Then wonder how much else you aren't seeing and hearing.

Our soldiers tell us time and time and time again that the war they are fighting in Iraq is not the war being reported by our media.

Do you believe them now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 4 kb.

You've got to love those diligent AFP photo editors.

If this is what gets through to publication, it make you wonder what slips through the cracks...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

And here it is.

Murtha is just one of many Democrats attempting to regain the support of a Democratic base that feels betrayed by the Congressional Democrats surrender on their, uh, bid to surrender.

I suppose I should be amused by the sectarian infighting between the Democrats who want us the surrender soon and the Democrats who want us to surrender sooner, but instead I find myself feeling sorry for them, the Iraqi people, and our soldiers, who are telling Democrats that they don't want their kind of "help."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?

US and Iraqi forces captured an Iraqi militant accused of "acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer" on Friday after a fierce gunbattle, the military said.

The joint snatch squad called in an air strike after coming under fire during a raid on the hideout of an alleged weapons smuggling gang in the notorious Sadr City district, a Shiite militia bastion in east Baghdad.

[snip]

EFPs are roadside bombs designed to fire a chunk of molten metal through the toughest armour plating. The United States accuses Tehran of smuggling hundreds of the devices to Iraq, where they have killed scores of US troops.

"Intelligence reports indicate the individual targeted is suspected of having direct ties to the leader of the EFP network as well as acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer," the statement said.

American forces previously captured a suspect in the Iranian EFP smuggling network in late March. I wonder how much longer it will be until we capture known Iranian Quds Force or Revolutionary Guard Corps officers... other than the ones we've already captured, of course.

The Iranian EFPs are the most deadly threat to U.S. heavy vehicles; indigenously-made Iraqi EFPs consistently fail against U.S. armor.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

At least when Andrew Sullivan spins off into the more paranoid recesses of his mind, he retains the minimal sense to claim he's just "airing a theory."

Not so with Steve Clemons, who wants full credit for his recent meltdown:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

A fascinating hypothesis, isn't it?

Unfortunately, the "logic" of Clemons claim has a few small—almost imperceptible, so tiny that you wouldn't hardly notice—flaws.

One of those infinitesimal flaws is the theory that Israel would have spent 6.5 billion dollars to procure 25 F-15I "Ra'am" and 102 F-16I "Sufa" long range strike fighters and easily another couple of billion on munitions, training, maintenance, etc, in beginning to prepare for strike on Iran's nuclear program in the past decade, only to decide to lob a few anemic cruise missiles instead.

I get the mental image of Baseball Bugs winding up in a frenetic and convoluted windup only to deliver an impossibly slow slowball against the Gashouse Gorillas.

Does Clemons honestly think that Israel has been preparing for this possibility for well over a decade—well in advance of their decade-long procurement and training operations—just to launch an attack that would almost certainly fail to seriously disrupt Natanz, and would not even touch the other underground sites where Iranian nuclear weapon development is thought to be occurring? Obviously, he does.

He is also flatly wrong about cruise missiles not needing overflight rights—the need to acquire overflight rights exists as much for missiles as they do for aircraft, and ours were suspended by both Saudi Arabia and Turkey in March of 2003, just as an example—and conducting such an overflight without permission could be viewed as an act of war by Israel's neighbors.

Israel will also obviously be bombarded by Hezbollah (And possibly Iran and Syria) for any strike on Iran, so to set themselves up to suffer massive rocket attacks like those of less than a year ago hoping that Iran would target U.S. forces in Iraq for retaliation is, well, a bit daft.

Why, precisely, would Iran choose to attack formidable American forces in Iraq in retaliation for an Israeli attack? American Air Force, Marine, and naval airpower completely own air superiority in the Persian Gulf and over Iraq, and so any attempt of Iran to physically venture into Iraq would amount to a rewrite of the Highway of Death on an epic scale, leaving the Iranian mullacracy in a severely weakened state. What would Iran have to gain?

Or is Clemons implying—merely "floating a theory"—that Cheney, the Joos, and Ahmadinejad are all in cahoots, and want a war in which all sides suffer losses for no real gain? Who benefits from such lunacy?

Halliburton.

Of course.

Sniff: I should leave the snark to Ace. The man is a master.

Update: I should have seen this coming, huh?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:45 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 5 kb.

Joe Klein, Keith Olbermann, Brian Ross, etc., I think this is directed at you:

"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).

[snip]

"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."

That refrain should be familiar to you by now, as similar thoughts are echoed across the blogosphere and in conversations with active-duty American servicemen almost universally.

But Funk isn't done. He doesn't leave out those of you who say you "support the troops, but not the war."

"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

Feel ashamed yet? Probably not. After all, he's just one soldier, and he's no Jesse MacBeth.

(H/T Blackfive)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:52 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

It sure sounds odd but that is what the numbers seem to show in regard to military fatalities during the current and most recent administrations.

I'd be interested in countering arguments, should anyone feel like making them, though the figures provided may make a certain amount of sense in one context.

Anecdotally speaking, I recall that the various sports teams at my high school seemed to take more injuries in scrimmages than in games. Coaches often attributed such injuries to a lack of focus and less than full intensity on the part of the injured when other athletes were scrimmaging at "game speed."

Could it be that like athletes, soldiers take their "games"--real combat--more seriously than they do their practices, and are therefore perhaps more prone towards dangerous mistakes during peacetime drills and exercises than in combat?

David Petraeus, our commanding general in Iraq, could be a microcosm of these phenomena in his own right. Never wounded in war, he was shot in the chest in 1991 during a training exercise when a soldier tripped and his weapon discharged, nearly costing Petraeus his life.

IÂ’ve got no easy answers here, and would love to get your opinions in the comments.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.