The words "honesty" and "Hollywood" don't belong in the same sentence for a very good reason. Sally Field, bungling her Emmy acceptance speech and being played off-stage as she went over her allotted time, had her closing comment cut off when she utter "g-d d-mn" on tape-delayed "live" television.

Normally, this would be hardly worth mentioning, as profanity is routinely edited out on these kinds of shows (as it was on at least two other occasions last night) and babbling stars are often played off the stage (as also occurred last night) as they prattle on past their allotted time.

Field, professional that she is, timed a mild anti-war comment to come out prefaced by profanity as she was being played off the stage. According to a quite dishonest L.A. Times Tom O'Neil:

Producers of Sunday's Emmy telecast bleeped best drama actress winner Sally Field in the midst of a controversial acceptance speech attacking U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" she said when the sound went dead and the camera suddenly turned away from the stage so viewers would be distracted. Chopped off were the words "god-damned wars in the first place."

Filed was not "in the midst" as O'Neil reported, but already over her allotted time as the music came up and she was being played off the stage. Likewise, as Don Surber notes, she was far from being the only celebrity to have their profanity edited out of the show.

Predictably, blogs in the community-based reality such as Think Progress and the aptly-named Crooks and Liars are quick to make the unsupported accusation that this was the result of "censorship" by Fox , and left out the pertinent details that Field was using profanity and already over time when she made her rote comment.

Obviously, these troubling facts aren't relevant to the story they would prefer to tell.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:21 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, thanks to this I might continue my fund-raising efforts for a few more days.

I haven't been outside to check the damage to any great degree yet, but know that the straight-line winds in my area were strong enough to damage homes under construction within view of my house, down trees, and lift my rather substantial grill into the air and toss it into my neighbor's yard. I'll retrieve it tomorrow, but my guess is that it's toast.

If anyone hasn't donated yet and could, I'd appreciate it.

I really liked that grill.

Update: Picture added above. For us, that's all we lost, and for that I'm very thankful.

Talking to folks in the area and surveying the damage, it appears out area took a hit from a very minor tornado (there were a total of six in the area, all blessedly weak). Not a lot of damage in my neighborhood, but there was in the older neighborhood nearby where there were far more mature trees, a lot of which lost branches, and several large oaks that were totally ripped apart.

Nobody got seriously injured or killed, and that is what really matters.

The "Liberal Braintrust" Update: It seems that several lefty bloggers have seized upon this post as proof of great hypocrisy on my part, as I've stated publicly on several occasions that New Orleans should not be rebuilt in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The reasoning behind not rebuilding New Orleans is scientifically-driven and practical in nature. The Mississippi delta silt upon which the city was built is rapidly compacting, and hence the city itself is literally and inevitably sinking. This is combined with the fact that the marshlands protecting the city are eroding at a rate of 25-35 square miles/year, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with noted scientists from coastal and marine studies programs including LSU, have stated the geological inevitability of the city merging with the Gulf of Mexico prior to 2100, and quite possibly by 2050 or sooner with the landfall of any major hurricanes (which Katrina was not when it hit; New Orleans suffered category 1-2 winds), or a sudden rise in sea level, which could occur if global warming is as dramatic as some expect.

Simply put, New Orleans is a sinking hole in a swamp surrounded on three sides by hungry waters: rebuilding the city with an anemic patchwork of small levee improvements is a colossal exercise in stupidity, when relocating the population is a much more intelligent and more viable long-term option. It may also ultimately lead to a far greater loss of life the next time the city is inundated.

Liberal Logic: New Orleans = Bobs' Grill.

Somehow, this bit of scientifically-supported common sense means I'm a hypocrite because I extended my already running week-long yearly fundraising effort, mentioning specifically late Friday that that I'm going to need to replace my storm-tossed grill.

Said grill was up-ended and tossed into my neighbor's yard by what appears to be a very small tornado that spun out of a line of thunderstorms that developed quickly as a line of storms passed through Friday evening. The line of storms was the leftovers of what was Humberto, the storm that hit minimal hurricane status before it made landfall on Texas last week and quickly dissipated.

According to these esteemed liberal thinkers, asking my readership to continue a voluntary fundraiser is the exact same thing, somehow, as demanding billions of taxpayer dollars from the federal government to replace a city doomed by geology, oceanography, and hydrology.

Perhaps if I lobbied taxpayers for the funds that argument would have some merit, but I'm not applying for a grant, or demanding that taxpayers fund anything. I didnÂ’t do that. I extended a pre-existing weeklong fundraiser where I asked for voluntary donations from my readers. My "crime" was continuing a voluntary fundraiser for a specific reason?

Heaven forbid. How do I live with myself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:49 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 10 kb.

1 CY, are you around Asheville? I'm in Monroe and we had something similar a few weeks back. I don't think anyone has been able to determine exactly what knocked down 23 electric polls starting at my place. It was either a tornado, lightening, or what most believe a microburst. Do you have any information about a town up there called Sylva? I have an old friend who lives up there. Well, more like an ex who still hates me but I hope she's ok.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 15, 2007 03:14 PM (Lgw9b)

2 Sorry CI, I'm near Raleigh...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 15, 2007 09:21 PM (HcgFD)

3 Sorry about your grill. I live in a coastal area up north and we get funky little gale storms all the time when things start to go flying. But I have to say that seeing the photo documenting the tidy little disaster of your grill made me laugh out loud. You see, I had just clicked over after having read some god awful report on the godawfulness that is Iraq's infrastructure (you know: very little electricity, a shortage of potable water, an outbreak of cholera, food distribution problems, and the like), and I thought, How typically American. A toppled-over grill is a calamity. Just shows how fortunate we are.

Posted by: Grace Nearing at September 16, 2007 03:21 AM (DMnkh)

4 "I really liked that grill." I bet you say that to all the grills.

Posted by: Bill Smith at September 16, 2007 05:28 AM (4FExI)

5 That was some wild weather Friday. I was watching a tornado try and form near the Triangle Town Center mall. Fortunately, just didn't have the energy at that time. Sorry about the grill, CF.

Posted by: William Teach at September 16, 2007 08:29 AM (NaHh8)

6 I want a grill just like the grill that harried the neighbors' yard.

Posted by: Sissy Willis at September 16, 2007 03:05 PM (Q6JEL)

7 Also, if you didn't mourn the loss of your grill, the terrorists would have won.

Posted by: Sissy Willis at September 16, 2007 03:17 PM (Q6JEL)

8 Looks like an original "Charbroil". Can't get those anymore. I still have the grates if that is all it takes--I've been meaning to try and build a replacement for mine, but I probably won't get it done in this lifetime.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 16, 2007 06:23 PM (QwUYy)

9 It's actually a version of this Royal Oak. I like cooking with charcoal more than gas, but they don't make them heavy enough to stay on the ground around here, apparently. Kinda scary something about a hundred pounds like that can get airborne. Grace, what you say is so true. Bill, Sissy...get help. ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 16, 2007 07:02 PM (HcgFD)

10 Why should we help you replace the grill if you're going to keep on living in a hurricane area? You're living on 'sand' like the foolish man and it will just be washed away again.

Posted by: Michael at September 17, 2007 09:11 AM (c900z)

11 Show some initiative, man. Just use your burning cross the next time you want to grill some weenies.

Posted by: Luke Duke at September 17, 2007 10:40 AM (6Nz4N)

12 If I remember correctly didn't say that we shouldn't pay to rebuild NO? But now we should all chip in for your crappy grill? I think this is just a warning shot from God - you had better get your life right with Him or it will only get worse from here.

Posted by: frankly at September 17, 2007 10:55 AM (rjqvO)

13 Michael, you're obviously not bright enough to get this, but living over 130 miles from the ocean. I'm not what would typically be considered any more of a "hurricane area" than is San Antonio, Texas. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, however. You did come from a blog that thinks that there is some sort of equivalence to be made from me asking my readers to donate private funds if they so desire because they like my blog, and the demand to use public tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans. It is rather pathetic how far they'll go to set up a false moral equivalence, but it is even more pathetic that their readers allow themselves to be so easily fooled.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 17, 2007 11:01 AM (EPsu8)

14 Well, I'm sure you donated plenty of money to America's Second Harvest or some other charitable organization when Katrina blew through.

Posted by: Run Up The Score at September 17, 2007 11:27 AM (P8MNB)

15 You tell 'em, CY! You are *so* right: there's no equivalence between asking the Public to fork out their hard-earned cash to save a city and asking the public to fork out their hard earned cash to save a grill. Quite apart from the fact that one involves a capital "P" and the other doesn't, a grill is like waaay more important.

Posted by: Andrew at September 17, 2007 11:35 AM (R09+d)

16 CY: What are those round, circular doohickeys attached to each leg of the barbecue? Hint: they aren't meat tenderizers. Maybe, just maybe, you might want to move stuff you don't want to lose into the house or garage when a hurricane blows through.

Posted by: Bob's Trick Knee at September 17, 2007 12:22 PM (y67bA)

17 Well, I'm sure you donated plenty of money to America's Second Harvest or some other charitable organization when Katrina blew through. Well, our church took in a few refugees when they came to Raleigh and we contributed to helping htem get clothing and housing, and our church also sent down teams to help rebuild (which is where I got many of the Katrina damage photos used ont his blog). I couldn't go because of work commitments, but I did help collect food, clothing, and money for survivors in the aptly-named Waveland, Missisippi, which was hit directly by the storm surge. We "adopted" a retired couple that had moved there only months befor the stormm and got them some basics as they waited for their home to be rebuilt. We prayed for them, and continue to send letters back and forth with them, providing the psychologicla support that is every bit as important as money, with "Tom" becoming my daughter's pen pal. I'm also very much involved with Beauchamp Tower Corporation, a not-for-profit that is attempting to get the federal government to turn over some "moth-balled" ships slated for the scrapyard, which will be retrofitted by civilian and corporate donors to provide major disaster emergency response. I communicate directly with BTC CEO Ward Brewer, though that isn't anything I've talked about much on my blog lately. What we're talking about is something I've dubbed the "Savaltion Navy," and what may become the greatest part of our nation's mass disaster response planning. That said, what have you done, Run? And other knee, there was no hurricane here, just a line of thunderstorms which spun off tornadoes. Not that you come here from a blog smart enough to know the difference between hurricanes and tornadoes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 17, 2007 12:32 PM (WwtVa)

18 BTW, the BTC OES effort is just so much vapor. The idea suffers from several fatal flaws: 1.) the ships are generally unsuitable for relief operations unless massively retrofitted; 2.) BTC hasn't anywhere near the monies needed to accomplish the repairs and mods; 3.)many of the ships require significant environmental remediation--another cost BTC can't fund.

Posted by: Bob's Trick Knee at September 17, 2007 01:29 PM (cqZXM)

19 It depends on the ships being targeted, BTK, and there are specific candidates in mind. You are not in a position to determine how much the remediation will cost, or for that matter, know the assets, commitments, or capabilities at BTC's disposal. Like so much you spew, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 17, 2007 01:36 PM (WwtVa)

20 It seems to me that you lost your grill due to your own carelessness. If we come in and purchase you a new grill, you will have no incentive to properly take care of that one either. Pretty soon, you'll be leaving your grill out in all manner of nasty weather, and we'll be buying you a new one each week. It'd be grill-welfare. Incidentally, I live in Durham and went through pretty much the same storm. As it started, I went outside and moved my grill in the garage, like any reasonable Conservative would do. You should learn to do the same. Perhaps the financial burden of having to replace it yourself will teach you that lesson, and maybe a bit of self-reliance as well.

Posted by: Conservative Scholar at September 17, 2007 01:36 PM (l8GOp)

21 Michael, you're obviously not bright enough to get this, but living over 130 miles from the ocean. I'm not what would typically be considered any more of a "hurricane area" than is San Antonio, Texas. You were obviously not around for Hurricane Fran.

Posted by: barry at September 17, 2007 02:03 PM (2Sabn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Advertising Age dissects how my observation earlier this week helped shape this week's news:

MoveOn told ABC's Jake Tapper that the group paid $65,000 for a Sept. 10 ad accusing General David Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House" in his status reports on Iraq. The Times rate card implies that weekday, full-page, black-and-white cause, appeal or political ads cost $181,692.

A post on the blog Confederate Yankee soon noted the disparity. "While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays 'sticker' prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal," his post said. The New York Post picked up the story yesterday, running a piece headlined "Times Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for 'Betray Us' Ad" and followed up with another article and an editorial today. "Citing the shared liberal bias of the group and the Times," the Post wrote, "one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the 'family discount.'"

Mr. Giuliani, speaking in Atlanta yesterday, demanded that the Times apologize and offer him the same price.

Standby basis
But MoveOn bought its ad on a "standby" basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn't appear on the Times rate card -- but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000.

In other words, all the attention came as a result of the New York Times not putting their standby pricing on their rate cards, and the majority of the angry pixels expended in this incident were more than likely "much ado about nothing."

An interesting take on the eventual non-event from Dan Riehl:

I won't pretend that Print isn't significant when it comes to the news game today, that would be foolish. But I would add an additional point, or two. Being the topic of the news agenda is a far different thing than setting said agenda. And if it weren't for New Media, particularly blogs in this case, this particular agenda item would likely have never even been set. Duh!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

The New Republic has a writer named James Kirchick who got righteously indignant when a HuffPo writer plagiarized his original work.

Says Kirchick:

There is no worse offense in the journalistic profession than stealing someone else's work and those who do should be named, shamed, and driven out of the profession altogether, never to write again.

Oh James... I think we can come up with just a few journalistic offenses more damning than mere plagiarism.

Here's a few for starters.

Unquestioningly run fake stories of American atrocities, where you can't even correctly pin down even the country in which one of them takes place.

Allow a police force to be accused of murder based upon a claim that was disproven with a simple Google search.

Blatantly lie to your readers and your fellow journalists about fact-checking said stories beforehand.

Hide the marital relationship between the dishonest author and your staff fact-checker for as long as possible, and then fire the person who discloses it.

When you try to justify the fact you didn't do basic fact-checking before you ran these stories by citing experts in your "re-reporting", keep them anonymous and in the dark, asking them only vague, almost meaninglessly general questions. That way, they don't know how they are being used, and they can't be given the whole story (because if they knew all the facts, they'd tell a quite different story).

Refuse to acknowledge or print the testimony of authorities and witnesses that directly contradict your claims, and refuse to answer any of the substantive criticism leveled against you, while alleging that others aren't allowing the truth the come out, so that you can avoid resigning in disgrace for another day.

These things might be just a bit worse than putting your name on someone's else's story, but I think we all agree with your preferred punishment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm tickled that Charles Hurt of the New York Post picked up and ran with the ball on this story, which now seems to have generated a surprising (to me) degree of interest. In addition to Hurt's article, Brent Bozell got to talk about it on Fox News Live, and I caught the tail-end of it being discussed on Rush Limbaugh's radio show briefly yesterday.

ABC's Jake Tapper, who first reported what Moveon.org paid for their ad, is on the story again today and reveals that a conservative organization who ran a full page ad the next day paid "significantly more."

Oops.

It appears that the NY Times may take a much bigger hit to their the credibilty and the bottom line than they ever anticipated as a result.

I doubt stockholders will be pleased.

(h/t Allah at Hot Air, who kindly remembers where this conflagration over the deep discount started.)

Update: Thanks.

Update: This is growing far more than I could have ever expected. Fred! and Rudy pile on. and Hot Air has the audio and video. Uncle Jimbo has filed a complaint with the FEC, and though I won't pretend to have the first clue on whether or not this has any "bite," a commenter over at Ace's place discovers something that looks like where they could have potentially run afoul of the law.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Did I say "unload on?" I meant echoed:

At this wind-swept base near the Iranian border, the main points of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress were met with widespread agreement among soldiers: The American troop buildup is working, but the military needs more time.

Most of the soldiers at FOB Delta, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, were out on patrol or sleeping when Petraeus' comments were broadcast late Monday and Tuesday in Iraq.

But some heard it and others have read about it, and say they agree with their commander's assessment.

Staff Sgt. Matthew Nicholls of the 71st Medical Detachment, visiting FOB Delta from his post in southern Iraq to do an assessment, said the military still needs time to clean up mistakes made after the 2003 invasion, including the need to build an Iraqi army from scratch and to secure the borders.

"I think our initial assessment was too rosy," he said after reading about the hearings while sitting in the library at the recreation center. "It takes time to build an army and I think we should've secured the borders right away."

The 36-year-old from Mobile, Ala., also said American politicians need to be more understanding.

"They can be critical because they are politicians and their main goal is to be re-elected, but they see a much more limited piece than the troops on the ground," he said.

[snip]

Sgt. Nathaniel Killip, 24, of Indianapolis, caught part of the general's presentation on TV and said he agreed that withdrawing all U.S. troops or setting a date to do so before Iraqi security forces have proven themselves ready to take over would open the doors for insurgents to attack.

"They're just going to lay back and wait until it's a softer target," he said.

No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls."

Off-Topic Update:Support citizen journalism. (hey, I only ask for donations one week a year... the other 51 weeks are free!)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 8 kb.

At this point in the Scott Beauchamp/The New Republic scandal, only two questions really matter:

1. Have the editors of The New Republic spoken with Scott Beauchamp since his July 26 statement outing himself?
   
   
2. If so, does Beauchamp still stand by his stories as he then claimed?

There are several reasons to ask this question now, starting with the fact that we know Scott Beauchamp has very recently been available for interviews.

It was quite easy to verify this: I sent in a request for an interview with Private Beauchamp several weeks ago. When he turned it down this past week, it verified that he had returned from COP Ellis to FOB Falcon. His log-in to his MySpace page on September 6 also corroborates his return.

Under intense pressure to provide support for the stories that have tarnished the magazine's image, Franklin Foer was no doubt first in line to try to speak with Private Beauchamp once he returned to FOB Falcon. It would also be reasonable to assume that because of their previous relationship, Beauchamp would choose to speak to Foer or other editors of The New Republic if he chose to speak with anyone at all. Could we interpret the magazine's continuing silence to mean that Beauchamp himself has backed away from his previous claims?

If Franklin Foer cannot get Scott Beauchamp to provide supporting evidence for the claims he posted, then Foer has an obligation and a duty to retract all three of Beauchamp's stories.

The problem with doing so, however, is that the retractions would also show that "the Editors" previous claim that "the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published" to also be a dishonest fabrication, and that deception would demand editorial resignations at TNR as well.

Update: I made a few minor tweaks o the text above, but nothing substantial.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 8 kb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged MoveOn.org for their full page "General Betray Us" advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?

I'd like to know if advertising rates of the New York Times are determined by the political message taking up the ad space, and whether or not a discrepancy in such rates, if one exists, is something that they owe it to their readers to disclose.

Update: According to Jake Tapper at ABCNews, the ad cost MoveOn.org approximately $65,000, running in the "A" section of the paper.

And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad.

If Tapper's numbers are correct, MoveOn.org paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays "sticker" prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal.

Note: For those who can, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Last summer or early last fall (I'm too lazy to look which at the moment), I had a week-long fundraising effort here at Confederate Yankee, where readers were kind enough to provide me with enough funds to buy a laptop to replace my aging and dying Dell 733R from which I'd been researching and writing. I was humbled and awed at your outpouring of support.

This year, I'll not be needing any new equipment, and I do't have any particular dire needs that the Lord won't take care of for me. He's granted me everything I need and most of what I want, including something else my wife and I have been wanting for a long time:

As I said, the important things are taken care of.

That said, I'd still like to ask my readers for a couple of bucks, if they can spare it.

I promise I'll put it to good use. Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Great news! Congrats, Bob!

Posted by: marykatharine at September 10, 2007 09:48 AM (3toqq)

2 Congratualtions to you and your wife. Relish all the spare time you enjoy now.

Posted by: 1sttofight at September 10, 2007 09:52 AM (T714S)

3 "... This year, I'll not be needing any new equipment ..." Looks like the equipment you have is working pretty good! Wishing you and your wife and new baby all the best!

Posted by: John Pennylegion at September 10, 2007 11:45 AM (GHyUE)

4 Congratulations!

Posted by: seawitch at September 10, 2007 11:52 AM (BCDZE)

5 Congrats! Your next ten-fifteen years are the pinnacle of the human existence in my experience and the greatest test of being a Man. Savor this time, gird yourself for the tests that are to come.

Posted by: DaveW at September 10, 2007 01:43 PM (lrfik)

6 Yup - congratulations! Enjoy every hour of sleep you get now. It will become a fond memory Boy or girl?

Posted by: Timothy S. Carlson at September 10, 2007 02:46 PM (uBBUD)

7 congrats! I know what it is like my wife just gave birth to a little girl wed the 5th. both are healthy and at home.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2007 04:22 PM (siQqy)

8 Hey, congrats! Many blessings to you, the better half, and the new addition.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 07:18 PM (viASe)

9 Congratulations!!!!! Better load up on sleep now, 'cuz you ain't gettin' any after wee one arrives.

Posted by: GradualDazzle at September 10, 2007 07:29 PM (iHegN)

10 Congratulations to you and your wife, Bob.

Posted by: Dusty at September 10, 2007 08:06 PM (1Lzs1)

11 3/23? My wife is a couple of weeks ahead of yours. Right now we're thanking the Gods for Zofran. (Write it down! Ask for it by name!)

Posted by: Richard Riley at September 10, 2007 10:45 PM (LibFF)

12 Very cool. Start working on your reduced-sleep-training program now...

Posted by: mrkwong at September 10, 2007 11:20 PM (G8Eo0)

13 3/23? Hey, that's my birthday! If it is a boy, and born on that day, David is a good name.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 11:49 PM (viASe)

14 Excellent! Congratulations.

Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 11, 2007 09:15 PM (YcNsA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'll ask all of my readers to please check out Pajamas Media after noon (Eastern U.S.) today [update: it's up now], and see what you think of my exclusive interview which should be coming online right about then.

In the meantime, Michelle Malkin and her team at Hot Air released a crushing "Vent" today, interviewing Michael Goldfarb, the writer for The Weekly Standard that broke the story with his post, "Fact or Fiction?" on July 18, and also paying a surprise visit to the offices of The New Republic to try to get in to see Franklin Foer.

Watch the whole thing.

All in all, this is going to be a very bad day for Franklin Foer and The New Republic, who by now, just wish this story would go away. What they don't seem to grasp is that at this point, they are the story.

We know that the events Beauchamp wrote about in "Shock Troops" were fabrications, and that has become something of a non-story at this point.

Now, what has become a far more important story is the devious means by which the editorial staff of The New Republic has sought to cover-up their own inadequacies. If they had simply admitted in the beginning that they did not adequately check Beauchamp's stories because they never thought that the husband of a staffer would so boldly and blatantly lie to them, then this would have blown over weeks ago, with minor consequences.

Instead, The New Republic launched an investigation "re-reporting" the story, and tried to justify the unjustifiable with a combination of willful deception and obfuscation. They've attempted to deceive or hide information their readers, fellow journalists, at least one of the experts they claimed supported the veracity of the story, the blogosphere, and the United States Army, in a pathetic attempt to justify a minor incompetence, and in the process, created a significant scandal.

In the end, if TNR owners CanWest Mediaworks hopes to retain any corporate credibility at all, a purge of the defective detectives that make up the editorial staff The New Republic is certainly warranted.

They've run out of second chances.

Update: Read all of my Beauchamp/TNR related coverage here. For those of you who have the means, please consider supporting citizen-journalism (specifically, mine).

Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:52 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Who...

• ...claims that Democrats in Congress have failed to listen to the will of the American people to stop the Iraq War by surrendering?
• ...claims that we're sacrificing the blood of American soldiers for the greed of corporations?
• ...considers Noam Chomsky one of the West's greatest thinkers?
• ...thinks that the news media are right-wing tools, loyal to an empire-hungry dictator?
• ... still uses the worn-out "no blood for oil" argument?
• ...blames America for global warming?
• ...loathes capitalism, and thinks we are just pawns to a creeping globalism?

Select from:

1. Keith Olbermann
2. Osama bin Laden
3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
4. all of the above

The correct answer is...
more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

According to several news organizations, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, perhaps better known as the Jones Commission Report, states that Iraq's national police force is so broken that they should be disbanded and began over again from scratch.

So says the U.K's Times Online:

The Iraqi national police force is riddled with militia and corruption and should be disbanded, a panel of retired US military officers has told Congress.

The 20-member panel also said today that the Iraqi Army was incapable of acting independently from US forces for at least another 18 months, and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven".

[snip]

The commission members, who spent three weeks in Iraq this summer and conducted 150 interviews, were most damning about the Iraqi national police. They said that its parent body, the Interior Ministry, was a ministry "in name only" and rife with sectarianism and corruption. The entire 26,000-member police force should be scrapped and rebuilt anew, they said.

Ann Scott Tyson and Glenn Kesler of WaPo echo a similar account:

Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq rejected an independent commission's recommendation yesterday to disband the 25,000-strong Iraqi national police force, saying that despite sectarian influences the force is improving and that removing it would create dangerous security vacuums in key regions of the country.

Looking at these and other contemporary articles on the subject, a casual reader skimming the headlines would likely come away with the impression that we've got to fire all of Iraq's policemen and start over from scratch.

But what you would probably gather from these accounts is not a full and accurate representation of what the commission says [the report actually says far more, and covers the Iraqi military as well, but we're focusing on this one aspect for the moment]. I know, because I have a copy of the 152-page report in front of me right now.

The Jones Commission does advocate the disbanding of the 25,000-man Iraqi National Police, but what neither article mentioned is that the NP is the smallest element of the various police forces under the Ministry of the Interior.

The Commission states something quite different regarding the much larger and widespread Iraqi Police Service in their conclusion on page 108 of the report:

Conclusion: The Iraqi Police Service is incapable today of providing security at a level sufficient to protect Iraqi neighborhoods from insurgents and sectarian violence. The police are central to the long-term establishment of security in Iraq. Tbe be effective in combatting the threats that officers face, including sectarian violence, the Iraqi Police must be better trained and equipped. The Commission believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of the Interior become a more functional institution.

There are more than 200,000 civilian personnel in the Iraqi security services, and the commission indicates that the biggest problem for the bulk of those police officers in the Iraqi Police Service is that they undertrained and under-equipped. Tehy also state that if they received the training and material support they need, they are expected to improve rapidly.

Funny how the media reports forget to mention that on page 102, the Commission notes that in 2004, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team requested funding for 6,000 police advisors to train a force of 135,000, and that Congress only approved funds for 1,000 advisors. Today, the Iraqi police have over 230,000 officers, and only 900 international police advisors and roughly 3,500 military personnel filling these necessary advisory roles.

Harry Reid and the Democrats keep shrieking that it is time for a "change of course" in Iraq.

Perhaps they could start by providing the police with the funding for the advisors they need, which by the way, is another Commission recommendation that you won't hear too many Democrats repeating.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 627 words, total size 4 kb.

A Hill reporter relayed to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO's The Corner just how desperate the Democratic leadership is becoming:

The Democratic leaders are laying it on thick. I was at a press conference this afternoon with Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Murray. They referred to the Petraeus Report as the “Bush Report” about a half-dozen times. Reid even went so far as to correct a reporter when she called it the Petraeus Report. “You mean the Bush Report don’t you?” he said.

They must really want the report to come across in the press as administration hackwork rather than an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq.

The fact of the matter, however, is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Charles Shumer, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have a vested interest in deceiving the American public. They have invested far too much time, energy and credibility in a U.S. defeat.

These so-called leaders are not being honest with you.

In accordance with Public Law 110-28 (PDF) asked for by this same Democrat-led Congress:

The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

This is the "Bush Report," written by the Administration. There is no other report being delivered by General Petraeus for the White House to influence.

Quite to the contrary, it is the professional assessment of officers in the United States Army in Iraq that will largely shape the President's report.

Further, the Congress dictated in Public Law 110-28, that:

Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

There is no "Petraeus Report" for the White House to manipulate.

What there is is verbal testimony of General Petraeus to Congress as they requested. Where does the General get the raw data and refined intelligence that he is basing his recommendations upon?

I asked that question of Colonel Steven Boylan, U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer to the Commanding General of Multi-National Force Iraq, David Patraeus.

Col. Boylan states:

I can assure you that the words and information that are being used by General Petraeus are from MNF-I...

As with any organization, the staff assists the head of the organization with the preparation and development of the materials used, by gathering the data, preparing slides, collating information, etc. This is and has been done by MNF-I, not any other organization.

The words that everyone will hear on Monday, September 10th and Tuesday, September 11th are his words and his assessment as part of the joint assessment between Ambassador Crocker and himself.

There is no "Petraeus Report," for the Administration to influence.

The material that General Petraeus will use in his testimony was developed from information provided by American soldiers, and no other organization. As General Petraeus told me via email on Sept 3rd:

The Ambassador and I are going to give it to them straight and then allow the folks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue make what clearly is a national decision.

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives are desperate to discredit the straightforward information General Patraeus will provide, and the integrity of the General himself.

Perhaps you should start wondering what they don't want you to hear.

Update: Additional thoughts from JeffG at Protein Wisdom.

... and here come the confused. How hard is it to read the law or do basic research?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 650 words, total size 4 kb.

1 They have to dis-avow it before it hits the street, or it might make sense. I had fleeting thoughts of being a politician at one time, thought about the types of people I would have to deal with (all sides), shuddered, went and took a shower and felt better.

Posted by: Retired Navy at September 07, 2007 05:13 AM (Mv/2X)

2 On my last self-evaluation at work I graded my performance in all categories as excellent. A couple of my coworkers complained about the lack of value or criticism in such self-evaluations. They thought it was a farcical waste of time. I convinced them how wrong they were when I pointed out all my coworkers who felt better about themselves and our jobs because of the excellent marks we gave ourselves.

Posted by: Brendan at September 07, 2007 06:25 AM (1f5WT)

3 Okay, I have to admit to being confused here. The law states, as you show here (and some other folks pointed out on another thread), that there was NEVER to be a "Petreaus" report. There was only ever going to be a report from the White House. Everyone, from the WH press secretary to lowly bloggers, has been referring to this report, all summer, as the Petreaus report. How are Sen. Reid and Co. deceiving anyone by calling the report by its proper name? They're not saying the Bush testimony. They're questioning the veracity of this highly, highly touted "report". I'm trying to wrap my brain around this entire line of criticism and it just plain doesn't make sense to me. There is no Petraeus Report, there's only a White House Report based on Gen. Petraeus' report, but Petraeus is going to give us the straight dope when he testifies, so Sen. Reid is undercutting the report that General Petraeus isn't going to write by calling it the Bush Report, which is what it is. Call me crazy, but I just don't see it. Also, one of the things they don't want us to hear, at least unchallenged, are things like "There has been a 75% drop in sectarian violence" when there's been no such thing (even when you don't count someone shot through the forehead as a victim of sectarian violence...because everyone knows that being shot in the back of the head is the only way sectarian violence kills).

Posted by: J. at September 07, 2007 06:48 AM (8PABH)

4 According to Petraeus's own remarks he's going to give Congress the facts on the ground and that it isn't going to be colored by the Administration. Nobody is complaining that Congress will challenge Petraeus's remarks. That would be a good thing. However, what Reid and Company are doing is implying that Petraeus's testimony is some sort of political campaign. That's just nonsense.

Posted by: Jason at September 07, 2007 07:31 AM (yIEot)

5 J, it's really quite simple: the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to undercut the credibility of General Petraeus by dishonestly stating that he is a sockpuppet for the White House. The rest is wordplay.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 07, 2007 07:46 AM (0BhZ5)

6 J, you really shouldn't be confused. As I pointed out to you on the previous thread, it is within the realm of reason and good use of the English language to call Petraeus testimony a "report." It's merely an oral report as opposed to a written one. Please, attempt to comprehend what you are speaking about before putting fingers to keyboard.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 09:03 AM (viASe)

7 Friday Smackdown...Yeah!

Posted by: T.Ferg at September 07, 2007 09:06 AM (2YVh7)

8 What they're trying to do, IMO, is damage control. They are about to be hit by one of the biggest examples of BLOWBACK in recent political history. When they were crafting the language of HR 2206 (which became PL 110-2 , it was hip to be anti-war. None of the Democrats knew about Phantom Thunder, either. PL 110-28 was signed May 25. Phantom Thunder, the first combat offensive of the surge, started on/about June 15. You gotta give Bush some credit here. He's Texas Two-Stepped the Democrats, again. He got them to approve Petraeus and the surge, got them to approve emergency supplemental appropriations, then Petraeus used the surge and the money to start kicking ass and taking names. Confederate Yankee: MASH Here for the ACSIM Congressional Page. It is a good resource for information on military authorizations and appropriations (good if you're a federal contractor, too!).

Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 10:01 AM (38EUg)

9 I wonder if the Dems would call Petraeus a liar if he came back and said the surge was a miserable failure. Somehow I doubt it. But if he comes back and says it's working, then he is a liar and it's actually the "Bush Report". These trolls make me sick. It doesn't matter what's best for our country. Only what's best for the Democrat Party.

Posted by: jbiccum at September 07, 2007 10:11 AM (Rd4s4)

10 It's hard to see much honesty at work with these Democrats and other anti-war advocates. Anything that undercuts their position must be attacked however it can be with no quarter given and never giving an inch--as we saw in the TNR/Beauchamp affair and are now seeing with Gen. Petraeus. I believe that a principled opposition of the Iraq War is possible, but mostly that's not what I'm reading or hearing from its opponents.

Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 11:12 AM (rOvvS)

11 Huxley, Truth be told, the most principled opposition to OIF comes from the so-called "paleo-conservatives," such as Pat Buchanan. Their opposition is ideologcally and intellectually honest. As Michael Totten wrote once, liberals should have gotten behind OIF and the liberation of Iraq as the great progressive cause of our time. Empowering and enfranchising women. Democratizing a subjugated people. Establishing a liberal democracy in a place where it had not existed. Even government healthcare, schools and infrastructure projects abound. What's not for a liberal to love in Iraq?

Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 11:34 AM (38EUg)

12 Dave -- I'm not quite clear what a paleo-conservative is, though I'll take your word for it. Frankly I still consider myself a liberal and I support the Iraq War for pretty much the reasons you list. I thought opposing fascism and religious intolerance, while promoting democracy, rights for women, gays, and individuals were bedrock for liberals. Those are my values. I can understand some skepticism to support a Republican President's war, but I find the utter closed-mindedness and outright viciousness my former comrades express towards Bush and the war to be profoundly disappointing. Did I miss the memo that said that freedom and democracy only counted as values when they could be used to attack the United States?

Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 11:52 AM (rOvvS)

13 Huxley, Since being tagged with the "neocon" term sometime earlier this year (I had to look it up to see what it was), I've become pretty sure that a paleo-con is a Cold War era conservative cut from the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (a man I adored enough to enlist for). I always thought that to liberals, all of us on the right look the same. On the ideological spectrum, I consider radical Islamists so far the right of both of us that I think we ought to be able to put aside domestic political differences and work together to defeat a common enemy. No matter how we might differ on what the word "freedom" really means, we ought to be able to agree that what the Tangos have in mind isn't close to either of our ideas of freedom.

Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 12:04 PM (38EUg)

14 Dave, It certainly seems to me that 99.9% of Americans ought to be able to put aside political differences to defeat radical Islam. I'm continually surprised that about half the country doesn't get that. So, good to meetcha! There was a time that the right did look all the same to me. So I'm also surprised by the differences between the neocons and the James Baker-style Republicans. I don't know how I should be labeled these days. It seems that these days to be a genuine liberal makes one a conservative. A lot of liberals seem to me to be more accurately termed leftists. Interestingly, they no longer want to call themselves liberals--as HRC mentioned her preference to be called progressive. Fine with me. I still think liberal in the classic sense is a term worth preserving.

Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 01:15 PM (Qt1f1)

15 Despicable conduct by the Dems in an effort to smear a good man (and by all accounts, a brilliant strategist). I wish I could say I was surprised. Unfortunately, no matter what the situation on the ground seems to be (and I will say that it seems premature to declare victory), a certain number of lawmakers appear hell-bent on declaring defeat (also prematurely). Their refusal to listen to Petraeus only further invalidates them.

Posted by: Nathan Tabor at September 07, 2007 04:53 PM (6fTrU)

16 Huxley, There are no Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Atheists or whatevers in a foxhole. Frankly, I think that's where we are. We're in a foxhole, we're well armed, well trained, well commanded and well funded. We know who the enemy is, and what their objective is. We can settle our petty differences soon enough, but out there... There's a bunch of Tangos who want us all either dead or paying the tax. And I ain't planning on either.

Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2007 07:36 PM (N3OI9)

17 Ya know what I find humorous? It wasn't that long ago that the Dems in Congress were (rightly) castigating Bush for not listening to the generals. Now who's not listening to the generals?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 07, 2007 08:03 PM (viASe)

18 Dave -- I once tried to explain to an anti-war friend the basic difference between her position and mine. Those who support the Iraq War believe we really are at war. Those who don't, don't. The rest of the discussions--like this business with Gen. Petraeus--are a sort of shadowboxing. The anti-war folks proceed from the assumption that the war is wrong, morally and realistically, and therefore they only use information that validates that viewpoint, as CCG notes. Obviously if Petraeus returned to Washington with news of gloom and doom in Iraq, he would be a great hero like Daniel Ellsberg and there would be none of this undercutting and gainsaying. I find this approach intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: huxley at September 07, 2007 10:06 PM (Qt1f1)

19 Huxley, liberalism/leftism is itself intellectually dishonest. To proclaim that you want to expand freedom while circumscribing it through an expanding state is intellectually dishonest. To say that you will make people's lives better by taking away their hard-earned wages through taxes is intellectually dishonest. And to declare that we would be safer by not pursuing those who seek to do us harm is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright stupid.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 09:52 AM (viASe)

20 What's not for a liberal to love in Iraq? The fact that it won't succeed without 500,000 troops in country.

Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 12:02 PM (K1Emm)

21 VoR, then how is it getting better there with far less than that? Even your own Democrats are saying so. Methinks I detect flailing.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 01:01 PM (viASe)

22 VoR, then how is it getting better there with far less than that? Even your own Democrats are saying so. By what metric are things getting better? Attacks may be down in Anbar, or wherever we concentrate the troops in any given month, but that doesn't mean the situation in the entire country is getting better. Of the 18 benchmarks laid out, only 3 are considered to be showing "progress".

Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 02:18 PM (K1Emm)

23 VoR: Ask Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA).

Posted by: C-C-G at September 08, 2007 04:23 PM (viASe)

24 Ask Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA). So what, you found a dem who thinks there's progress. That's not what I asked for -- a metric by which to measure success in Iraq.

Posted by: Voice of Reason at September 08, 2007 11:08 PM (K1Emm)

25 "However, what Reid and Company are doing is implying that Petraeus's testimony is some sort of political campaign." I wonder what they will be doing after the session? Oh yes, appearing Fox. You people really are suckers for a PR campaign, aren't you? It is almost as if you enjoy it.

Posted by: Rafar at September 10, 2007 04:34 AM (kkgmI)

26 "That's not what I asked for -- a metric by which to measure success in Iraq." What metric would YOU measure success in Iraq?

Posted by: Dan Irving at September 10, 2007 11:34 AM (zw8QA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Until they are about to talk.

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Shumer and Democratic Senators/Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were among those Senators who voted to confirm General Petraeus to his position as commander of American forces in Iraq without a single objecting vote, 81-0, on January 26, 2007.

They did not question the capability of the 1974 West Point graduate and Princeton PhD when they had their chance to reject him. Nor did they denounce or even raise serious doubts about allegiences or partisanship then, when they easily could have stated their disgreement with a simple "no" vote.

What a difference 223 days and the fear of success makes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

They're calling it, "Lightning Hammer II," and it seeks to build on the gains made in pushing al Qaeda out of Baquba and surrounding areas in Diyala Province.

About 14,000 Iraqi security forces stationed throughout Nineveh province and 12,000 U.S. soldiers are conducting the operation, which started Wednesday evening.

The military said the operation "follows Lightning Hammer I ... to deny al Qaeda safe haven in the provinces" of Salaheddin, Nineveh, Diyala, and Kirkuk.

The military said the original Operation Lightning Hammer -- August 13 to September 1 -- ousted militants from the Diyala River valley, northeast of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province.

"Al Qaeda cells were driven from Baquba in Diyala due to Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the Diyala River valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and Multinational Division-North.

I'd tell you more, but right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot more to tell. As of this particular moment, CNN seems to have the only account of this 26,000-man offensive in northern Iraq, and I'm unable to find any story related to a new Iraqi offensive on Google News.

Now, it could very well be that there are reporters and photographers embedded with those units taking part in the offensive that simply haven't had time or opportunity to file reports, but it is a matter of record that the wire service and larger individual news organizations largely missed out on the start of Lightning Hammer I in Diyala Province, and once the operation was underway, they only entered the battlespace very briefly--some literally staying just hours--before helicoptering back to Baghdad.

If America wonders why we get so little good news coming out of Iraq, they might want to consider that at least part of that reason is because news organizations aren't where the news is occuring.

Update: CNN seems to be merely reporting highlights of the military press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070906-05
September 6, 2007

Operation Lightning Hammer II expands pursuit of al-Qaeda Multi-National
Division - North PAO

TIKRIT, Iraq - Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition Forces continued
their relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq by launching
Operation Lightning Hammer II, Wednesday evening.

The operation, involving approximately 14,000 ISF, partnered
with more than 12,000 CF, is spearheaded by Soldiers from the 4th
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, partnered with members of the
2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions, and Iraqi Police forces stationed
throughout Ninewa province.

In addition to the thousands of Soldiers and their ISF
counterparts participating in Lightning Hammer II, attack helicopters,
close-air support, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles and tanks
compliment the combined effort. This operation follows Lightning Hammer
I in the series of offensives to deny al-Qaeda safe haven in the
provinces of Salah ad Din, Ninewa, Diyala and Kirkuk. Operation
Lightning Hammer I, from Aug. 13 to Sept. 1, succeeded in driving enemy
elements out of the Diyala River Valley, northeast of Baqouba.

"Al-Qaeda cells were driven from Baqouba in Diyala due to
Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the
Diyala River Valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," said
Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and
Multinational Division-North. "Our main goal with Lightning Hammer II is
to continue to pursue and apply constant pressure to the terrorist cells
operating in MND-N, and destroy them where they attempt to hide."

"Our combined forces' commitment to hunt al Qaeda and its
operatives remains as strong as ever," said Mixon. "We will not rest
until al Qaeda in Iraq is driven from northern Iraq, and Iraqi citizens
have a safe and secure homeland."

I'll see if I can make contact with PAO covering this operation and provide more information as it becomes available.

Update: I checked in with the Task Force Lightning PAO, and he told me that there are a total of 11 embedded journalists in Northern Iraq. A grand total of one is from a major wire service, and five of them are in Diyala. The remaining northern provinces of Ninewa, Salah Ad Din, and Kirkuk have a total of two embedded journalists each.

How many of them are actually covering operations related to Operation Lightning Hammer II is unknown.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

On CNN:

Three terror suspects held in Germany planned to carry out "imminent" and "massive" bombs attacks on a U.S. air base and Frankfurt's international airport, according to prosecutors.

The suspects, two Germans aged 22 and 29 and a 29-year-old Turk, received terrorist training in Pakistan and had close ties to al Qaeda, according to Jorg Ziercke, president of Germany's Federal Criminal Investigation Office.

Ziercke said the group was united by a "hatred against American citizens" as it planned attacks against Frankfurt airport, a popular international travel hub, and Ramstein air base, a major transit point for the U.S. military into the Middle East and Central Asia.

The group had amassed 680 kg (1,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide to make bombs, German federal prosecutor Monika Harms told reporters on Wednesday.

Harms said the three suspects also planned to attack bars and restaurants popular with Americans.

She said the planned attacks would have been among the biggest yet on German soil. Possible scenarios would have been car bombings used in simultaneous attacks.

Officials said the hydrogen peroxide could have produced a bomb with the explosive power of 540 kg of TNT.

The article goes on to speculate that the attacks could have been planned to have occurred on September 11.

The bombers were clearly attempting to build triacetone triperoxide (TATP) bombs, a favorite of terrorists that nevertheless often fails because of its instability. Occasionally it explodes during the production/bomb preparation steps, and other times, an improper mix leads to a bomb that either burns instead of detonating, or fails to ignite at all.

Frankly, until we know more about them and learn about their amassed equipment and technical know-how, I'm going to be quite skeptical that they could have manufactured high-grade TATP in quantities sufficient to build successful bombs of the size this report suggests. I may very well be wrong, but after the failures of the second London bombers, and the Glasgow bombers, I have very little faith in the competence of the surviving al Qaeda bomb builders remaining in Pakistan and Afghanistan who train terrorists such as these.

Update: I just contacted Yassin Musharbash, one of the two Spiegel reporters who have written the definitive post on this terrorist event thus far (h/t: Hot Air, which has an excellent round-up, as always).

He has confirmed my earlier hunch that triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, was the specfic peroxide-based explosive that these suspected terrorists were planning to use. This was the same kind of explosive used successfully in the 7/7 London tube bombings, and then fizzled in similar attacks just two weeks later on 7/21.

Pajamas Media is following the story as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:26 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

Over at Hot Air, Bryan has a nice catch this morning about UPI-alleged attack on a power-generating plant in southern Baghdad.

Bryan has a contact that works at the plant, and states it was not attacked when UPI ran the article, that they were not damaged nearly as bad as UPI states, and was only attacked two days later.

Per Bryan's request, I contacted the Army PAO in that sector, and found out that there was indeed an attack that day, on a power substation in that sector:

The attack on the substation definitely happened, as did the attack on the fire truck. I just saw photos of the burned out building and fire engine.

But, it is a small facility, and the article exaggerates the impact of the attack. Did people lose power as a result? Probably- those serviced in that immediate neighborhood. But, power is intermittent throughout Doura, so to insinuate that the loss of this station is the cause of a city-wide loss of electricity isn't exactly accurate either. It sounds like another example of one smaller event happening, but then being made into more than it actually was.

The main Doura power plant is still operating per normal output.

There is a huge difference, of course, between substations, which are small relay stations commonly found distributing power to adjoining residential and commercial districts here in the United States as elsewhere in the world, and power stations, where coal, other fuels, or nuclear power is used to generate energy in a much, much larger facility.

Details, details.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:50 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

If you are a supporter of the on-going counter-insurgency plan in Iraq, you can find all sorts of news to support why we should stay in Iraq.

You could start with President Bush's al Asad photo-op yesterday, where the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Ambassador Crocker, and Commanding General Petraeus met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Presidnet Talabani, and Vice Presidents Medhi and al Hashemi. Critics point out that the meeting was a merely a six-hour stop and photo-op for the President, and as such, was a public relations stunt. That the brief visit was designed as a public relations tool is beyond doubt. The undeniable fact remains that al Anbar, a province deemed all but lost according to classified Marine Corps Intelligence reports leaked to the press just a year ago, has now become so quiet that our leaders and the leaders of Iraq knew that the base was safe enough for a public meeting, without any apparent fear of a rocket or mortar attack by insurgents, or of suicide attacks by terrorists, or of anti-aircraft missiles being fired at the two large jets bringing in the American delegation, or the helicopters that (I presume) brought in the Iraqi senior leadership.

In addition to this public meeting of leaders in an area once deemed lost just a short time ago, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped in half at a time they were expected to actually rise, al Qaeda-aligned terrorists and insurgent groups have either turned, or become hounded and hunted in al Anbar, Diyala, and elsewhere. Some supporters are suggesting that what future history may regard as the turning point towards victory is either occurring, or may have already occurred.

For war detractors in our political classes, in the media and on the activist left, the war was lost long ago, and every day merely means another American mother will lose her soldier-child in a lost cause. To them, the war possibility of a turn-around in Iraq is unthinkable, any apparent progress is an illusion, or merely a matter of temporary gains before an inevitable fall.

Both sides are looking to make what they can of the much-anticipated "Petraeus Report" (which, as Sheppard Sheffield points out, is actually something of a myth).

Those on the right will take the local and regional gains made in al Anbar and Diyala and other areas of the country as signs of success, and corners possibility turned. Those on the left will note what is essentially a British surrender to Shia militias in Basra, the decidedly mixed security results in Baghdad itself, the continuing meddling of Iran, and what is largely a failure of the central Iraqi government to make significant progress towards reconciliation as signs of inevitable failure. As in any on-going conflict, both sides have plenty of ammunition to continue supporting their pre-conceived opinions, and they have a right to share those opinions.

What I would prefer not to see, however, is the continuation of a disturbing trend by some in the media and blogosphere towards unfairly mischaracterizing and in some cases blatantly attacking the credibility of our military, in most cases without just cause.

The techniques used to attack the credibility of the military vary widely.

Some come from minor, conspiracy-minded fringe players and are easily brushed aside with a laugh, but others, provided with a more legitimizing platform in a national news outlet, are more troubling.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald is one example, as he blatantly lied back in June as he accused of military public affairs system of deception when he stated:

All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

A simple look at the actual press releases from the PAO system immediately and conclusively debunked Greenwald's claim, but it has not stopped him, nor other critics, from attacking the credibility of the military, even as they studiously avoid almost every sympathetic media misstep.

The New Republic ran a series of brutal fantasies concocted by a U.S. Army private as real without any attempt to fact check them, instigated a cover-up that purposefully concealed the identity of sources that they said supported the story, arguably deceived these same sources, and hid countering testimony collected from other experts, only to blame the military for stone-walling their investigation. In fact, the author of this fiction has the ability to answer media requests, and instead has thus far chosen not to take them.

But minor media and bloggers aren't the only ones attacking our troops.

Hollywood directors are releasing the first of a seriesanti-war films, and the vangard of this effort, Redacted, redacts reality to push an anti-soldier, anti-war political agenda.

The leader of the United States Senate declared that the "surge" was lost before it even began, and declared in April that he would not believe any future news provided by General Petraeus that contradicted that, essentially assaulting General Petraeus' integrity. Later, John Murtha lied while claiming that the White House was using General Petraeus as a political prop, and criticized Petraeus for not meeting with Congress. Not only had General Petraeus met with Congress, he actually took time out of his schedule to brief Murtha and Pelosi privately.

Both sides, right and left, have their own political agendas. Sympathizers in the blogosphere and in media organizations large and small bring their own biases to the table as they discuss war policy. That is understood, expected, and perfectly understandable.

What is not understandable is why critics feel it is necessary to attack the troops as they attack the mission. They claim to be able to support the troops while critcizing the mission, but in practice, that is often not the case.

When General Petreaus comes back to the United States to brief the President and Congress, he will not do so as a partisan. He promises that, “The Ambassador and I are going to give it to them straight and then allow the folks at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue make what clearly is a national decision.“

He will speak for the American military, as the Commanding General of our forces in Iraq. He will not speak as a Republican General, or a Democratic General, but as a General of the Army of the United States of America. He will provide the facts, and let us discuss, decipher, and no doubt, spin what he reports.

Fine. Let us spin the data and the findings to support our political viewpoints.

But please, let's do so without attacking the integrity of those who serve, which is a tactic becoming more common, and repulsive, as time goes by.

Update:: corrected Matthew Sheffield's name in the text above.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 1150 words, total size 8 kb.

Former Hollywood agent, Pat Dollard gets to the bottom line.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.