Snapped Shot a photojournalism criticism site run by Brian Ledbetter, has gone dark due to legal threats from the Associated Press for copyright infringement for reproducing their images in order to critique them:

It's Been Fun
We have been informed that the Associated Press takes issue with our use of their images on this website, and until I'm able to resolve this matter with them amicably, I'm going to have to take the site offline.

Please feel free to e-mail me if you know more about this kinda thing. I'm posting a copy of the AP's letter below, for full disclosure.

Background
Snapped Shot is a site that deals with the criticism of photojournalism. The industry is inaccurate in its reporting, it falls for terrorist propaganda too easily, and in general, the photos that you see presented as "news" on a daily basis are nothing more than fluff. This site has, from the beginning, intended to correct that by presenting specific instances of bias or inaccuracy along with commentary as to why said photographs are inaccurate. I have never drawn a profit from this website, and have never received compensation for any of the "copyrighted" works that are owned by the AP. Furthermore, I have always been careful to give full credit to the wire photographers who have taken the pictures, and have even interacted cordially with a handful of them.

What The?
So why is the AP seeking action against me? I am not making any money off of their work. I am not a mainstream "news" site ala Yahoo, Google, or Breitbart. So what's the deal? Is the Associated Press uncomfortable with the content of this website? Have I struck a nerve too close to home? No idea, but if you're a lawyer that deals in intellectual property, I'm ready to become your new best friend...

Ledbetter includes a scanned copy of the letter from the Associated Press at the link above.

I've long been under the impression—perhaps wrongly—that reproducing photographs for the purpose of criticism was within "fair use" guidelines.

I am familiar with Snapped Shot and have worked with Mr. Ledbetter on occasion and his site, the best I can recall, did seem to satisfy the general guidelines of fair use as many of us understand them.

If the Associated Press has determined that it is in their best interests to sue to keep from being criticized by bloggers, this will be a very unsettling development. I certainly hope that is not the case.

I've just sent an email to Paul Colford of the Associated Press asking for specifics of why Ledbetter's site came to their attention, and hopefully he can shed some light on their motivations as this story develops.

Update:

Colford responds:

I have nothing to add beyond the letter from AP, except to underscore that this is a copyright matter.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:16 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

Barack on Guns: Yippie Ki Neigh?

I sent the following to the Barack Obama campaign's media contact page earlier today. I'll be very interested in their response, providing of course that they do respond.

There seems to be so ambiguity on Senator Obama's stance on various aspects of the ownership of firearms that I would like to get cleared up.

According to the campaign web site, his view on firearms ownership is as follows:

"Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

This statement does not address a key reason that literally millions of Americans say they own firearms, which is for self defense.

What is Senator Obama's position on Americans owning firearms for legal self defense?

Related to that question, what is Senator Obama's position on the licensing of Americans to carry concealed handguns, which is now a legal option in 40 states?

The campaign statement does not address literally tens of millions of firearms legally owned by Americans at this present time for reasons other than hunting and sport shooting, including handguns, which at one point in the Illinois legislature Mr. Obama said he would like to see banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that handguns should be banned in America? If he does not still support a ban on handguns, why has his position changed?

Also on his Illinois legislative record are statements that he would like to see all semi-automatic weapons banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned in America? If not, what semi-automatic weapons does he view as being acceptable for civilian use, and why has his position changed? Please explain his views in as much detail as possible.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'll be very interested to see if Obama maintains his previously held and rather absolutist positions on the subject, or if he has, as was speculated this morning, flip-flopped on the subject to pander for votes.

I suspect that if Texans knew of his previous record, they may want their hat back.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:51 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

1 None of the three likely next presidents are going to be any friends to gun owners.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 29, 2008 03:07 PM (5hXBq)

2 Regardless what he says, he's anti-gun as far as self-defense. He can say whatever; he'll sign any anti-gun legislation and appoint anti-gun judges. He's on record recently saying that Chicago and Washington D.C. ordinances are reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: capitano at February 29, 2008 03:08 PM (+NO33)

3 indeed, the "so ambiguity" is palpable.

Posted by: bend at February 29, 2008 04:45 PM (JJNnh)

4 Q: Is Obama a gun grabbing liberal? A: Yes. End of question and answer session.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 29, 2008 07:01 PM (La7YV)

5 So Obama believes the Founding Fathers felt it was important to add skeet shooting and popping squirrels to the Bill of Rights? Hmm. Those constitutional law classes he taught must have been interesting...

Posted by: jt at February 29, 2008 07:19 PM (MLKeF)

6 As a proud gun owner (I'll challenge any one of you to a shoot-off at 25 yards with a GI .45) and defender of the 2nd amendment, it's tough to be absolute on this amendment. It's that qualifying phrase that makes this a sticky argument. SCOTUS, if I remember right, is supposed to rule on this for the first time since the 30's, and that'll be interesting. I'm not a big fan of DC or Chicago's law, but I honestly don't know if it's unconstitutional and anyone who says different doesn't know his Constitutional law. That's why this upcoming case will be watched so intently.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at February 29, 2008 09:36 PM (Bx4FB)

7 It's that qualifying phrase that makes this a sticky argument. Its not a "qualifying phrase", its a statement of rationale. Do you know what the statutory Federal definition of "militia" is? There is one.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 01, 2008 08:09 PM (5hXBq)

8 (I'll challenge any one of you to a shoot-off at 25 yards with a GI .45) I will take that challange. Come on down to my range sometime . Anyway. All I can say to this story is this. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 11:08 PM (9V6Vj)

9 "There seems to be so ambiguity on Senator Obama's stance on various aspects of the ownership of firearms" To be fair, he is ambiguous on every issue.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 02, 2008 11:26 PM (sHuCu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Is Barack Obama black enough to be president of the United States? Is he too black? Does he belong to a church that is too radical? Is he too unpatriotic? Too Muslim? Is he too Â… Somali?

My latest article is up at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

An iffy idea in the making, as published in Military.com:

In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.

The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.

"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.

"The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials," he said in an interview with military bloggers this month.

So far, the U.S. military has helped the Iraqi army purchase 43,000 rifles - a mix of full-stock M-16A2s and compact M-4 carbines. Another 50,000 rifles are currently on order, and the objective is to outfit the entire Iraqi army with 165,000 American rifles in a one-for-one replacement of the AK-47.

"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."

My immediate response upon reading this is simple: which defense contractor most benefits from this deal, and how much did they pay to make it happen?

I don't know if that is a fair question to ask, but I'm being as honest as I know how: transitioning the Iraqi military to the M16/M4 family of weapons has all the hallmarks of creating or exacerbating a problem, not solving one.

Why?

While I hate to disagree with Col. Scott, stating that the M16 is a more "durable" weapons system than the AK verges upon being an outright lie.

As a matter of fact, the M4 variant of the M16 finished dead last in a recent U.S. Army Small Arms reliability test in an environment that was designed to test the weapons in a heavy dust environment... an environment very much like Iraq. The M4 finished behind the XM8, Mk16 SCAR-L, and HK416—weapons systems developed precisely because the U.S. military want a more reliable weapons system than the M16/M4.

The M16/M4 that the military is passing on to the Iraqis has a hard time functioning even when in the hands of American soldiers who are trained to practice rigorous weapons maintenance. The Iraqi military and police forces, which have come to trust the AK's ability to function in almost any environment and despite shoddy maintenance, are going to be in for a rude, and for some, unfortunately fatal learning experience as a result.

While the M16/M4 has some benefits over the AK, such as accuracy, and weapons commonality between U.S. and Iraqi forces would ease logistical concerns, this sounds like a political move as much as anything, which brings me back to my initial question—who benefits from this, financially?

Did Colt or FN (our primary M16/M4 suppliers) do any lobbying for this arrangement?

I hate to be suspicious over motivations, but the pros of going for shared small arms commonality and logistics doesn't quite seem to be as strong or stronger than staying with a weapons system that the Iraqis already know and understand, and is proven to work in their environment.

If aging AKs are the issue, it would seem to make far more sense to simply supply them with new AKs... would it not?

Tell me I'm wrong, folks. I want to believe this is more than a backroom deal.

Update: Uh-oh:

Colt had relied on a series of lobbyists in Washington, but now Keys, a decorated veteran who played an important role in the 1991 Gulf War, has taken on more of those responsibilities himself.

"I knew a lot of guys up on the Hill," he said, referring to Congress. Among those is Rep. John Murtha, the powerful Pennsylvanian who is the highest-ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Keys' uncle, Thomas Morgan, also represented western Pennsylvania in the House and served as mentor to Murtha when he first arrived in Congress in 1974.

"You couldn't have a better guy than him, with his experience," Murtha said of Keys. "When he tells you something, you can take it to the bank. No matter how good a lobbyist is, talking to the president of the company means more."

Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, recently brought Murtha to the Hartford area to meet with local defense contractors. Keys and Murtha clearly had a strong rapport, he said.

Since 1994, Colt Defense has had a series of contracts with the U.S. military for its M4 carbine rifle, a version of the venerable M16 with a shorter barrel that advocates say has proven useful in urban fighting in Iraq.

Colt has been pushing to supply more for American troops at war, homeland security operations and U.S. allies around the globe.

"Right now, Colt is in a better position that they were a year or two ago," said Dean Lockwood, an industry analyst with Forecast International in Newtown. "They seem a lot more focused on what their goals are."

A "smoking gun" by no means, this relationship between M16/M4 manufacturer Colt's President and John Murtha is at least enough to raise eyebrows.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | Comments (76) | Add Comment
Post contains 928 words, total size 6 kb.

1 If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them?

Posted by: Techie at February 28, 2008 01:40 PM (AV8Z6)

2 A properly maintained M16 is more accurate than an AK. Otherwise, the AK is a superior weapon.

Posted by: Old_dawg at February 28, 2008 01:47 PM (pRfvl)

3 you are correct, it's an out and outright LIE that the M-16/M-4 family is more reliable! This is coming from a former Marine, too! You can take a dump inside an AK-47, then run over it with a freaking bulldozer, and it wills till fire! If you break wind in the general direction of an M-16, it jams! That doesn't even take into account the whole stopping power issue! An AK-47 will stop a charging Cape Buffalo in it's tracks. In Iraq, we've had numerous military members killed, because they shot Jihadis with the M-16/M-4, only to get shot dead in the back when the kept on moving thinking they were dead, and in fact, the Jihadis jump up and shrug it off. A colleague of mine, who is currently in Falluja, say that standard training now is for all Marines to put, time and ammunition allowing, a minimum of TWO M-16 rounds into each Jihadi; preferable one in the head and one in the chest area, to ensure they stay down! So, this is crap, and the question by the above poster is too idiotic to even respond too! My take, we WANT the Iraq military to have M-16's/M-4, so we KNOW who the "good guys" are, and who the "bad guys" are, they will be the ones carrying the AK's! Additionally, if any M-16's/M-4's show up in the hands of any Jihadis, the serial numbers will show where they came from, and thus can be traced back to the sympathizers inside the Iraqi Military who are passing them out or selling them! No serial numbers on AK's, only Model types/numbers! And considering the M-16's/M-4's are an inferior weapon compared to the AK's; we'd actually be levelling the playing field a bit, by arming the Iraqi military with them, and hopefully, some leaking out to the Jihadis! Actually, in hindsight, this is a pretty brilliant deception plan; plus we get to put a Billion dollars into the Colt corporation's pocket! A Win-Win for everyone! How's that for being cynical?

Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at February 28, 2008 01:53 PM (BPJn5)

4 An AK only is better than a M16 in one way, that is that it can take more neglect on maintenance than the M16. Everything else about the AK is horrible. Horrible accuracy, horrible ergonomics, horrible weapon sights, ineffective rainbow-shooting cartridge, no modularity, no way to attach optics/light/laser/etc. Look, I am not saying that the M16 series is perfect, but the dust test results were insignificant from an end users standpoint. Seriously, if you dump 600 rounds at once, you might end up with two failures to feed on the M16 versus one on one of the other rifles. Big deal.

Posted by: Jason at February 28, 2008 02:15 PM (OSSCz)

5 I wonder, how much of the scorn aimed at the M16A2/M4 comes from the poor reliability of the Vietnam era M16 - which has been seriously improved upon in the later versions of the weapon. Personally, I'd like to see them chamber the sucker for 7.62mm and see what happens.

Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 28, 2008 02:21 PM (yiMNP)

6 Yes you would rather be hit with a round from a M16 or M4 than a round from a AK47. And, you would be more likely to be.

Posted by: bcismar at February 28, 2008 02:34 PM (zhVlW)

7 I would also bet that the Iraqis wanted this - not because the M-16 is a good or bad weapon - but because it's what the cool kids use, and the Irqis want to be cool too. And then they'll want to pimp them out with multiple Picatiny Rail attachedments, etc. Well, I loved my Elcan sight, but that's just because I was proabably too blind to be a really good shot wihout it at over 200m.

Posted by: holdfast at February 28, 2008 02:42 PM (Gzb30)

8 I'm blindly speculating, but perhaps one benefit of this could be a way of denying logistics to the insurgents. If it's known that a lot of 7.62 ammo from Iraqi Army/Police stockpiles is falling into the hands of insurgent groups, a switch to 5.56 rounds, which probably aren't of much use to Kalashnikov toting insurgents, could help to stymie the flow of ammo to the enemy. Of course, that discounts how easy it probably is to get 7.62 ammo in Iraq anyhow...

Posted by: Andrew Kreitz at February 28, 2008 02:51 PM (MLgSS)

9 If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them? Maybe because defense contracts with our military are subject to the same lobbying? Just throwing that out there.

Posted by: Randolphus Maximus at February 28, 2008 03:05 PM (EDyEG)

10 And don't forget, the guys who invented the AK now chamber the latest versions of the AK74/100 series in 5.45 & 5.56. And Knight's armament did make an M4 version for the green beanie types that took Ak mags, called the SR-47. And Armalite is making a modern version of the AR-10 that fires 7.62 NATO. Besides why should we give the Russians money in defense contracts? The reason they're looking for an M16/M4 replacement is mostly in looking for weight reduction. They want to put all the whiz bang optics, grenade launchers, shotguns and flashlights and other super soldier aids they can think of on a package lighter than whats available now. the whole reason the xm8 exists is because they couldn't get the OICW's weight down enough, so they split the rifle and greande launcher apart.

Posted by: Iblis at February 28, 2008 03:09 PM (LG/8H)

11 all the people that knock the m-16 platform forget that the biggest reason that the round is ineffective is that by the rules of the hague convention, we are required to use ball ammo... if we used hollow point or soft point ammo, the 5.56 would perform exactly like it does in deer and other game here in the US, extremely well... sure the AK is durable, but so is a cinder block, that doesn't mean that i want to get into a fight with one... the M-16 is lighter, easier to shoot, easier to aim, more accurate, has a lower recoil, and lighter ammo than an AK... the trade off is that the M-16 needs to be cared for and cleaned a lot more... but since the primary source of 5.56 is fairly clean burning ammo, this isnt much of a problem...

Posted by: chris at February 28, 2008 04:16 PM (A+Pqo)

12 I agree with Andrew. There may some favorable graft here, but I would guess the primary reason is to help keep the ammo in the good guys' hands.

Posted by: TallDave at February 28, 2008 04:32 PM (oyQH2)

13 I could think of one scenario where reequipping like this might make some sense. Suppose there's a someday future where Iraq becomes more or less quiet, and Uncle persuades his Iraqi friends to lend him a brigade or three to go to places like Afghanistan ? It would be good to be able to tie said Iraqis into the US supply chain. I'm thinking of the US and the ROKs in Vietnam. Nobody would have predicted that deployment in, say, 1953.

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at February 28, 2008 05:12 PM (HVtOM)

14 I know it's fun to create a conspircy theory out of all this, particularly when it involves Jack Murtha. But the fact of the matter is that, right now, the US is Iraqs main supplier of military hardware and will be for the foreseeable future, no matter who wins in November. It is just a lot easier to supply the same weapons that we use along with the same ammunition, which is a lot more to the point for ongoing logistics. And plus it's better for us to be providing an American weapon made in America than a Chinese or Yugoslavian knock off of a Russsian design.

Posted by: iaintbacchus at February 28, 2008 05:12 PM (mYHGQ)

15 Been there done that. Given a choice between the M16 and the AK, I'll take the 16 every time. As for putting two rounds into every Haj, hell, I'd do that if I had a tank. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice (Words to not die by!). RickM MSgt USMC (Ret)

Posted by: RickM at February 28, 2008 05:14 PM (Rl4K1)

16 I fail to understand the problem with American arms manufacturers making money selling to allies during this war or any other. Why shouldn't American arms be supplied to Iraq? Why would it matter if it is a backroom deal? Why would America be better off if Iraq uses weapens from another country? Doug Santo Pasadena, CA

Posted by: Doug Santo at February 28, 2008 05:19 PM (UJ+v4)

17 Listen to RickM, he knows what he is talking about. Anybody who thinks any modern military small arm round guarentees instant one shot stops is living in a hollywwod Rambo fantasy land. Anyone who thinks the .30 cal AK round is so wonderful should google Fackler and Stockton. The Russians abandoned the 7.62x39 for a round much closer to what the M-16 uses. That should be a clue.

Posted by: Mike P at February 28, 2008 05:27 PM (n+rlg)

18 The AK is more reliable because the chamber gases push a piston to actuate the breach cycle, whereas the M16/M4 ejects the hot gases directly onto the bolt face. Mix powder residue with dust and you have a jammed rifle. This is a design flaw that's been recognized for 40 years. The XM-8 (a variant of the HK G- was supposed to be the replacement - it has the accuracy of the M16/M4 plus even better reliability than the AK. But the brass decided not to fund the switch because they felt the M16/M4 was "good enough", and there were better uses they could put that billion+ dollars to.

Posted by: Eric at February 28, 2008 05:32 PM (eSqCK)

19 Feel like I stumbled onto DU by mistake. You don't want to speculate about motives, you say, but you haven't done anything else here. Some of the comments read like loser's laments from the caliber wars. Why not consider a cleaner not to say less PMS'd explanation: that Iraqi commanders and officials, after long and close examination of the M-16 family, were impressed? What would you think if your experience of assault rifles was restricted to the AK?

Posted by: madprof at February 28, 2008 05:33 PM (ls3PC)

20 An objective summary of forces carrying AKs versus those carrying M-16s shows the guys with M-16s are winning.

Posted by: Max at February 28, 2008 05:35 PM (RO9Ei)

21 About that recent "test": The M-4 ostensibly did 'worse' (actually in one very important area no one ever mentions it did better than the rest) on a test that may or may not have had any correlation to reality. Love or hate the M16/4 for whatever reason you want to give (I'm no big fan of it)- but that test proved NOTHING to me as to which weapon tested was "best". If this thread runs to form, it has to be only a matter of seconds now before we hear the first calls for bringing back the M14

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at February 28, 2008 05:41 PM (gbTkf)

22 Ironic-funny that the very people (Murtha and the Democrats) who work hard to demonize and deny EBR's (Evil Black Rifles) to Americans will turn around and cut a deal to sell them to Iraq... AK's may be as reliable as a brick shithouse but you can't *hit* with them reliably because the sights are are crude as a day-old turd in the shithouse, and the bullets don't group past 150-yards they patterns -- which is why we like to engage Jihadis with aimed-fire (not spray and pray) at 200, 300-yards - a comfortable distance from which to comply with their Allah-oriented wish fulfillment.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 28, 2008 05:43 PM (VNM5w)

23 The US military uses the M16 for myriad reasons, some good (an emphasis on accuracy of aimed fire), some not so good (with rare exceptions we don't use something somebody else developed.) The main problem I see with the Iraqis adopting that weapon system now? When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service. When your AK (47 or 74) variant breaks you take it to the scrap heap and get issued a brand new one. And both processes cost about the same... At 300 meters out in the open desert, I'd want the M16 over an AK. At 50 meters, in urban terrain I'd want to switch.

Posted by: ThomasD at February 28, 2008 05:53 PM (ldJmT)

24 While the M4 is inferior to the G36 and the HK416 and so on, they didn't test it against the AK. Of course a bunch of latest generation 21st century rifles are going to beat the M4, which is an improvement on a 40 year old weapon. It's still a lot better than an AK. You can test this yourself by buying civilian versions of each. Civilian target versions of the M16 win matches. AKs never, ever do. Reliability is fine if you clean the damn thing, and I've had AKs jam on me. They aren't immune to malfunctions. No, the M4 is not the best rifle on the planet. That's a seperate story than the Iraqi M16s. Why give the Iraqis M16s? Well, we have a lot in inventory. Since the army is not only smaller, but using the M4, all the old M16s are still around in storage. Also, if the bad guys are using AKs, they can't rob the Iraqi gov't for ammo. Lastly, eventually our NATO allies who used to be Warsaw Pact are going to run out of AK ammo. Are we supposed to start making it for our Iraqi allies? Or are they going to be relying on China or Russia to make it for them? I suppose they could make their own, but it makes sense to standardize with the US. We're going to be there a long time, so sharing ammo makes sense. In short, the Army's refusal to switch to a more modern weapon is questionable, but switching an ally to a better weapon than the AK is not.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 28, 2008 05:55 PM (LuxOT)

25 Let's see, 165,000 rifles with how much ammo? Consider training, backup etc. And it eliminates the possibility of hostile forces using the ammo... The weapons aren't the reason - it's the ammo supply. By changing to a Western supplier it's possible to start discussing additional heavier weapon systems. Rather than outfitting them with everything all at once, start with something basic. It also may reduce ammo supply problems they might be experiencing, particularly when you're outfitting larger and larger units, and we don't want Russia (or China) to be their supplier.

Posted by: FastFire at February 28, 2008 06:01 PM (henZv)

26 Any mass-produced firearm will never match up to competition grade weapon systems. That said, the M16/4 platform has facilitated a means for our troops to kill a whole heapin' pile of insurgents, whilst the insurgents have killed very few of our troops with thier AK's by comparison. Gimme an M-16 anyday. I'll hit what I can see.You can't say that for an AK. Besides, if the Iraqi's ever get squirrely, we control the ammo supply and replacement parts if they are using US made weapons. I see the decision as paractical and tactical. I still HATE Murtha though.

Posted by: SSG Frank at February 28, 2008 06:02 PM (naj8w)

27 Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the dozens of western-built AK clones re-chambered for NATO ammo? You can use the same ammo without having to re-train the entire army on how to maintain the weapon? Hell, a lot of those clones are made by our allies - you can even get diplomatic points by placing an order through them.

Posted by: Independent George at February 28, 2008 06:02 PM (sDj6f)

28 "If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them?" Dude, if you need someone to answer this for you, then you need to seek some professional help.

Posted by: paul a'barge at February 28, 2008 06:06 PM (T3gfS)

29 Dear SMSgt BRING BACK THE M14! "Spray and pray" versus well aimed and placed shots is what makes the difference. I've had both AKs and 16s stove pipe on me. But I'll double tap you at 300yds with the 16. I'd be lucky to hit the building you are in with an AK at that distance.

Posted by: RickM at February 28, 2008 06:10 PM (Rl4K1)

30 I agree with Andrew. I do, too. And besides complicating insurgents' logistics, it'll make it easier to identify if future diversions occur (and telling the combatants apart, making impersonations more difficult, etc.). From a COIN perspective, it makes sense, though there'll be inevitable snafus in the changeover period. I'd also note the story on the test program last year specified ammo diversions to insurgents, and Gen Petraeus's support for the program (though he certainly emphasized the FMS aspect). I'm willing to suspend skepticism for a bit.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at February 28, 2008 06:11 PM (kvmX6)

31 Now, I'm no expert on this subject, but I think the primary rationale for this switch is both reasonable and compelling: when our troops go into battle together with their Iraqi counterparts, they will be able to share weapon parts and ammo. This will vastly simplify the supply-chain for joint operations, just as having standardized ammunition with our NATO allies has allowed us to do in the past. For that reason alone, this switch makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: GD at February 28, 2008 06:12 PM (bk0GK)

32 There are a whole host of issues raised here, and many of the comments are smart and I won't repeat them. This is not news - the switchover to the 5.56 mm round was announced some months ago. The Iraqis got used to their AKs, and want to stick to what they know. The trainers taught them that they can shoot more accurately with the M16A2 than they can with the AK (which is a brute force blunt weapon compared to the accuracy of the M16). The Irais, once again, got used to area fire (spraying rather than aiming, and the AK is right for this type of fighting). The U.S. trainers are attempting to teach them to aim - in other words, do it like a real Army. There are indeed maintenance problems with the M16A2 / M4 / SAW, but regular cleaning has kept them functional in theater. The 5.56 mm round is a tumbler and thus does major damage upon flesh entry, although technically it is supposed to be a more "humane" weapon (which is why NATO adopted it as the round they would use). And yes to the above comments that the DoD should spring for a replacement for the M16 (although this really means Congress funding it, doesn't it?). The bottom line is that this story has multiple facets, and is not really amenable to pigeonholing into one category (like this is outlandish corruption). There is certainly corruption in every institution (and who knows, there may be here too), but here I think they have their reasons for the switchover. That said, I think the Iraqis want their AKs back. And finally, anything Murtha is involved with must be corrupt by definition, so I am hoping that his involvement in this was minimal or non-existent. BTW, I am not saying anything here that wasn't reported in articles on this months back.

Posted by: Herschel Smith at February 28, 2008 06:16 PM (Yb06A)

33 WOULD YOU RATHER THE IRAQIES BUY FROM THE FRENCH? THE GERMANS?, THE ITALIANS..CHECKS ETC? AS LONG AS THE IRAQIES CAN PAY FOR GOODS...BUY AMERICAN I SAY.

Posted by: JAYCEE at February 28, 2008 06:22 PM (Z8SO4)

34 Yes the AK is tougher and lower maintenance than the M16 and the 7.62 has more knock down power however, it is far more accurate and you can carry more ammo as well as the fact that the AK is crap on full auto if you can hit the broad side of a barn from two meters away with an AK you are a really really good marksman with that said I would really like to see the M16 get bumped up to a 6.8mm round it is controllable on semi-auto and full auto and weight is somewhat mitigated. I have a friend who has a 6.8mm M16 analogue, I have an AR-15 and I have to tell you the 6.8mm is sweet.

Posted by: Oldcrow at February 28, 2008 06:27 PM (5Oi0g)

35 Let's see, 165,000 rifles with how much ammo? Consider training, backup etc. And it eliminates the possibility of hostile forces using the ammo... The weapons aren't the reason - it's the ammo supply. By changing to a Western supplier it's possible to start discussing additional heavier weapon systems. Rather than outfitting them with everything all at once, start with something basic. It also may reduce ammo supply problems they might be experiencing, particularly when you're outfitting larger and larger units, and we don't want Russia (or China) to be their supplier.

Posted by: Fastfire at February 28, 2008 06:32 PM (henZv)

36 We could talk about which rifle is technically superior but I think you all are missing the point: "The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East." Who cares which damn rifle does what when. This is a political and cultural statement by the Iraqi governmnet. Terrorists use AK-47s. Iraq is no longer a terrorist state. Great news as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Pete at February 28, 2008 06:32 PM (yoTtm)

37 If you jammed your M16, you aren't maintaining it properly.

Posted by: Spade at February 28, 2008 06:35 PM (sl0W4)

38 Skepticism is healthy, but I don't see a big problem. A) We don't make AK-47s. If we're to supply the Iraqis, it should be with something American made. B) This could be a huge symbolic victory. This war is as much about perception as it is tactical victories. To see American arms replace the old commie guns will be a visible sea change. C) I don't have a problem with an American company making money off of something that has to be done anyway.

Posted by: Craig at February 28, 2008 06:40 PM (JaZKM)

39 "When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service." Uh, there are many companies that sell parts for the civilian versions (no full-auto or burst fire) of the M-16 and M-4. I can go right now to http://www.jtdistributing.com or a number of others (blocked by the spam filter) and order a catalog or the parts. In the US, the lower receiver has to be purchased through a licensed dealer with appropriate paperwork, but any hobbyist who can legally buy one can put on whatever parts he/she wants to make a customized rifle out of it. And many do. The rifles are used for everything from shooting garden-destroying groundhogs and plinking at beercans to serious national rifle competitions. There are web forums devoted to the topic, like http://www.ar15.com and many, many people who aren't "highly trained armorers" manage to safely build, maintain, repair and customize these rifles.

Posted by: Barry at February 28, 2008 06:47 PM (lxp2D)

40 "When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service." Uh, there are many companies that sell parts for the civilian versions (no full-auto or burst fire) of the M-16 and M-4. I can go right now to a number of them (blocked by the spam filter) and order a catalog or the parts. In the US, the lower receiver has to be purchased through a licensed dealer with appropriate paperwork, but any hobbyist who can legally buy one can put on whatever parts he/she wants to make a customized rifle out of it. And many do. The rifles are used for everything from shooting garden-destroying groundhogs and plinking at beercans to serious national rifle competitions. There are web forums devoted to the topic, and many, many people who aren't "highly trained armorers" manage to safely build, maintain, repair and customize these rifles.

Posted by: Barry at February 28, 2008 06:48 PM (lxp2D)

41 Hell, if reliability and throw-weight are your concerns, then ditch the rifles and buy everybody shotguns...

Posted by: DensityDuck at February 28, 2008 07:02 PM (5npD/)

42 Whatever the reason I wish they'd expedite the switchover and maybe the price of 7.62 x 39 would drop back to something resembling reasonable. Not that many years back I was buying laquered case Rooskie stuff at 1000 rds for $69... it's doubled plus a bit more over the last few years. Geez... I've got a couple racks of SKSs to feed. Darn you George Bush!

Posted by: Gun Trash at February 28, 2008 08:00 PM (qHLgP)

43 I'm afraid the problem isn't a matter of which is the superior weapon, (yes, it is obviously Eugene Stoner's right-hand). But it is rather a problem of military culture. The M-16 was designed to be used and maintained by a literate soldier with at least two years of high school education and could be trusted to perform minimum maintenance requirements without constant micromanagement and coercion. The AK-47 was designed to be used by an illiterate peasant, who has just been clubbed, thrown into the back of truck and informed that (A) he has just been drafted,(B) here is his AK-47 and he will be given ammunition for it only three minutes prior to going into battle because (C Prime) he isn't trusted to do anything except run away if he gets the slightest chance. So keep in mind the Blocking Units behind you, will shoot you if you even think about turning around. This article "Why Arab Armies Loose Wars" (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html) identifies the real problems with equipping the Iraqis with any variant of the M-16. The Iraqi army is probably the best army in the Arab world by now,(it's officers actually eat the same food as it's enlisted men...shocking). But that doesn't change the fundamentals of Arab military culture. M-16 variants are high maintenance weapons, particularly in a desert environment. In an Arab army any small arms maintenance, more involved than a simple cleaning, will be conducted at a regimental if not a divisional level. And that's not just a matter of an Arab army's high rate of illiteracy, although that doesn't help. When an Arab soldier learns a technical skill, he knows he has become valuable so long as he and only he possesses that skill. This is why manuals are always hoarded, why classes are never taught and why cross training never happens in an Arab army. Right now the Iraqi army is better than this common model but only because we have our thumbs on their necks. Relieved of that pressure they will revert to their cultural norms. On the plus side if there is corruption at work, it was almost certainly initiated on the Iraqi side of the house. It's a real show of progress for them. They are finally making enough money to bribe U.S. Congressmen.

Posted by: Cataline at February 28, 2008 08:17 PM (Jso0L)

44 Could this be a move to bind themselves to the US and thus reduce the chance that we may pull out and leave them hanging. Using our systems would motivate our companies to stay friendly with/protect the Iraqi government. Enlightened self interest on the part of Colt et. al. is a great hole card for them to play if the Dems win in the future

Posted by: jones at February 28, 2008 08:55 PM (tlqrE)

45 Bottom line: an assault rifle round, M-4 or AK, has about half the muzzle energy of a WWII infantry round. That's the price of controllability in full auto. There's only so much you can with that level of energy. Original 5.56: 55 gr round moving fast, thinly jacketed, rifling twist a little slow so it tended to tumble and break up. About as much stopping power as you could get out of the cartridge (w/o breaking the Geneva Convention) but lousy penetration. I've personally seen a revolver hit in the frame by one of these during a gunfight. It made a big chip, maybe 1/2" wide by 1/8" deep and knocked the guy down (it was holstered), whereupon he got up and was back in the fight. A .308 would have ruined the gun and him, too. Then they went to the SS109 (I thin), heavier, slower bullet, thick jacket, steel tip under the jacket. Good penetration, lousy stopping power since it just drills on thru. That's the tradeoff. The 7.62x39 makes a little different tradeoff. Bigger, heavier, slower bullet. Probably better stopping power and greater penetration BUT a more arcing trajectory and thus lessened chance of hit at longer ranges (derived from the cartridge -- the AK itself is also a less accurate platform, but as has been pointed out, a more reliable one).

Posted by: Dave Hardy at February 28, 2008 08:57 PM (mMJyS)

46 I looked into the dust test, and the XM-8 has about 6 mils average error twice the 3 mils average aiming error of the M-4 at the start of the test. Why? the operaing rod of the XM-8 moves when you shoot, and throws your aim off. By comparison, the aiming error of the AK-47 is about 10 mils. That means the average round hits 10 inches from the point of aim. Some more, some less. At 200 yards, that is 20 inches. Inside of 50 years the AK is superior. Of course, a 12 gauge shotgun would be better yet, with number 1 shot launches 25 each .30 caliber projectiles (3 inch magnum). Number 1 shot at those ranges penetrate all the way through unarmored human bodies. The M43 round used in the AK47 moves about as fast as the old US .30/40 Krag round, but has the bullet weight of the old US .30 Carbine. It may penetrate, but the ingress hole is .30, the exit hole is .30 and between the round will flip over and begin travelling tail end first. Like the old 7mm Mauser round used by the Spanish in Cuba, soldiers only die if the round penetrates brain, heart, or spinal chord. as noted by T. Roosevelt in his book on the Rough Riders. Of course with modern body armor, the head, heart, and spine are partially protected. The probability of death from a single round goes from 30% without body armor to 3% for a soldier hit around body armor. No wonder we are more concerned about IEDs and RPGs, and we feel rather comfortable giving out AK-47s to anyone who is even modestly of good will. The M855 round is used in the M-16 and M-4, like its predecessor the M193 round. When it hits flesh at shorter ranges, meaning greater than 2500 feet per second, it fragments. The enemy will usually bleed out, but this takes a while, so he will often try to make it back to a safe house, thus compromising the safe house. Tactically, soldier training teaches to shoot, and shoot again until the target stops resisting.

Posted by: Don Meaker at February 28, 2008 09:02 PM (RXNGp)

47 Oops. that should be inside 50 yards the AK is superior.

Posted by: Don Meaker at February 28, 2008 09:04 PM (RXNGp)

48 If you want a superior weapon, consider the M14. If it gets mud in the barrel you can just fire it to clear the obstruction. With a selector shaft lock, you can go to town. It also has a little more range and accuracy, if you care about such things. The M1 was pretty good too, but you can tell the troops who used it by their lack of a right thumb. By the way, I was told that by the end of Vietnam, we had captured enough AKs to equip our whole Army with them.

Posted by: wGraves at February 28, 2008 09:28 PM (CEmd0)

49 I would add that since the sound of the AK-47 is rather easy to differentiate from the M-16, in a gunfight if you hear an AK firing - blast it! Why have allies firing weapons that sound like the bad guy's guns?

Posted by: Jon Richards at February 28, 2008 09:30 PM (Pl/xb)

50 Fact is it's probably misguided to expect a third world army to keep up the cleaning regiment required for the M16. That is why Ak's are so popular around the third world. The only real benefit besides logistics that I can see in switching them to M16s is it makes Iraqi Army ammo less likely to be stolen and sold on the black market as nobody else in the region (except Israel perhaps) would use that caliber.

Posted by: rjschwarz at February 28, 2008 09:45 PM (0V1dF)

51 Another point that I haven't seen mentioned here; if the entire Iraqi army buys M16's, and then a couple of elections down the road they decide to switch sides (It's been known to happen!) then we can cut off their supply of replacement parts, which may slow them down a bit. Sort of like the Iranian Air Force's F-14's, that they purchased back when the Shah was in power. When the Ayatollah took over, his Air Force was quickly reduced to daytime VFR flight, when they could no longer get American avionics parts.

Posted by: Ken Mitchell at February 28, 2008 10:08 PM (Ylh3T)

52 Wow, check it out, a bunch of guys arguing about AK vs AR on the internet. Have you guys ever noticed that this discussion just goes on and on and on and on? Whole generations have fought wars, gone home, had kids, and gotten old while idiots have discussed this ad nauseum. Here's a question: If the AK is so f'n great, how come it keeps losing? If the M4 is such a POS, how come it keeps winning? Hell, maybe the Iraqi's want U.S. rifles 'cause it's good for morale. Since, you know, they got thier asses kicked using AK's. Because the AK is a LOSERS weapon ('Vietcong!' Oh, shut up.). Maybe the the Iraqi's have decided to learn to SHOOT, instead of spray. The idea of the AK's superiority in the field is a myth. It's just not true. Deal with it.

Posted by: john at February 28, 2008 10:09 PM (J1NCF)

53 I don't have a problem moving Iraq into the 5.56mm family (as much as I would prefer to be shooting a 6.8 or 7.62), but choosing the M16/M4 over superior NATO competition is ridiculous. If Colt ever lost a major weapons contract to a NATO competitor, maybe it would make a better assault rifle. It is entertaining to read Colonel's opinions on the reliability of M16/M4s when a vast majority of the soldiers actually carrying the weapon would prefer a rifle with either more stopping power or less proclivity to jam or both. Colt clearly has some important folks in their pocket.

Posted by: crunkgator at February 28, 2008 10:13 PM (aC18j)

54 Since we shrank our army by about 10 divisions, we have a whole lot of arsenal refurbed M-16s in storage. Hmmm, if the Iraqis were to pay the US Army for those rifles, it might be enough to pay for keeping American troops in Iraq for a few extra months even if Congress cuts funding for Iraq. Just saying... The Kalashnikov is a better rifle for half assed third world armies that don't maintain their equipment and who just spray and pray. The M-16 is better for professional armies like ours and like the kind of army that we are building for Iraq. The Israelis developed the Galil rifle based on the Kalashnikov action. It is now relegated to rear echelon troops while their infantry uses M-16s. Is it possible that the Israelis have some idea of what they are doing? As for the endless "M-16 is teh suck" debate, a lot of the failures to stop are with the M-4 which has a 14 inch barrel instead of the standard 20 inch barrel of the M-16. Those missing 6 inches cost a lot ov velocity. Instead of a small bullet going very fast, you wind up with a small bullet going not so fast. You are roughly in .22 magnum rimfire territory. A bull pup design makes a lot of sense if you want a rifle that is short enough for scrambling in and out of vehicles and yet has a barrel long enough to work well with the 5.56 cartridge. The 7.62 X 39 mm Kalashnikov cartridge has almost identical ballistics to the .30-30 cartridge used for deer hunting. Why would we go back to the wimpy .30 caliber M-14? Let's bring back the trap door Springfield. That .45-70 cartridge has some real stopping power. And the single shot feature requires that you aim and make each shot count.

Posted by: Mark in Texas at February 28, 2008 10:27 PM (zoTIM)

55 I see a whole lot of armchair commandoing in this thread, a lot of urban myth sort stuff, and not a lot of common sense. As for the M16s being more durable - don't confuse "durability" with "reliability". How many of you have talked to soldiers who have to train IA to shoot, or who are familiar with their weapons? I consistently see complaints that many of the AK's they are issued are junk, in terms of parts, assembly, or materials, since they have a wide variety of makes on them. I also hear consistent comments that the Iraqis want what the Americans are using, to the point that trainers feel the need to ditch their M16's for AK's on the range for credibility reasons. It's not like we're forcing this on them. As for the M16 itself, it is reliable ENOUGH, and powerful ENOUGH, to get the job done, "dust test" or no "dust test". Anyone vigorously arguing otherwise is either bored or on crack. Personally I think it would be better for them to stick with new production AK's like they'd been supplying to them, for maintenance reasons, but this is not the end of the world. (and Dale in Atlanta - there most certainly are serial numbers on AK's, and while they'll show more penetration than anything in 5.56, they're not any more likely to "stop a charging buffalo" than a 30-30, which they're quite similar to in terms of ballistics)

Posted by: Tim in TX at February 28, 2008 10:35 PM (Bo+Bw)

56 And those AR15 parts that are reasily available from various domestic distributors... Say, for example the bolt or bolt carrier... Cost about as much as an entire AK does to produce... And you DO NOT shoot a barrel obstruction out of any 7.62x51 rifle. Not unless you want to destroy the rifle and possibly yourself. Oh, and the M-14 is completely uncontrollable when switched to full auto. Substantially worse than an AK in full auto.

Posted by: ThomasD at February 29, 2008 12:35 AM (ldJmT)

57 All I want to know does all this mean the price of .223 going up or going down? I know, I know probably up like every thing else. I just like shooting the stuff.

Posted by: Phasta at February 29, 2008 01:56 AM (49937)

58 I've shot both of them. The AK is sloppy made, less accurate, and the ammo weighs more. The M16 breaks down for cleaning in virtually no time at all, which promotes more frequent cleaning. The M16 is lighter, better for pointing and aiming (two distinct combat techniques). The M16 has better sights and is easier to carry. The only reason to prefer the AK is the price. You want to go into battle with a cheap weapon? In guerilla oufits, that's a factor. In a country that has oil up the kazoo, go for the better weapon, the M16. http://calling-muggins.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Muggins, San Jose, CA at February 29, 2008 02:52 AM (miUm9)

59 The M-16 IS a better weapon. It is lighter and more accurate. Well maintained and in the hands of a well-trained infantry man, it will kill the enemy better at effective engagement ranges than the AK... ...when it fires. And herein lies the rub. Even a well maintained M-16 is less reliable per thousand rounds fire than a poorly maintained AK-47. The question becomes, will Iraqi soldiers find themselves in the position of having to fire a lot of rounds from a very fixed number of less-than-well maintained rifles without immediate access to maintenance and logistics? If the answer is yes, the AK is a better choice. That's why we gave it to them in the first place.

Posted by: Glenn at February 29, 2008 03:10 AM (qL3Qm)

60 'The AK is more reliable because the chamber gases push a piston to actuate the breach cycle, whereas the M16/M4 ejects the hot gases directly onto the bolt face. Mix powder residue with dust and you have a jammed rifle.' no actually, the gas travels down the gas tube from the gas port at the end of the barrel to the gas key on the bolt carrier causing movment to the rear. 'If you want a superior weapon, consider the M14. If it gets mud in the barrel you can just fire it to clear the obstruction. With a selector shaft lock, you can go to town. It also has a little more range and accuracy, if you care about such things.' ahh yeah, call me up when you try that little trick I will bring my jump bag to control bleading on way to hospital i just love the old akv M-16 et al arguments, of course someone always pipes in on the M-14, being a Marine, the M-16 series of rifles never failed me, PROPER maintenace is the key. as is with most things you have to make allowances, we prefer to have an accurate rifle as to one that could be argued as being more reliable, that is just simple mechanics until they devlope man portable rail gun.......

Posted by: DaJarhead at February 29, 2008 07:37 AM (LtzEm)

61 I think we will see much more US preferred trade out of Iraq over the next decade. You buy from and sell to your allies to help them stay strong.

Posted by: jimmy at February 29, 2008 09:55 AM (vbY8u)

62 Well, could the us be aiming to mold the Iraqi army into something similar to the Turkish model? From what I understand, the Turkish army is professional, competent, and relatively secular. Oh and they tend to keep the local political parties in line (they've been know to throw coups if the gov't turns not to their liking). At least in the past, they've been decent allies to the US. They also use a decent amount of US equipment. Maybe this is the start for Iraqi?

Posted by: John Magee at February 29, 2008 10:00 AM (ZalQF)

63 Iraq borders NATO..which makes it a potential NATO country. For relatively poor countries...NATO is a great deal..you're expected to pay 3% of GDP for defense...and you get the worlds largest, most sophisticated defense umbrella. The subject of Iraq's potential NATO membership was broached in 2006 - http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/02/iraq-wants-to-join-nato.html Politically, it is the wrong time for anyone to be pushing NATO membership. Putin still has his panties in a twist over Georgian membership..there are still some within Iraq that have their heads stuck in the "occupation" mentality rather than "How do we defend our country without spending 50% of GDP against our big neighbor Iran." But if one is looking at a 10-20 year horizon, Iraq would be a logical extension of NATO.

Posted by: SoldiersDad at February 29, 2008 11:52 AM (1nD6K)

64 John, I must correct your above comment. The Turkish army does not execute a coup when "the gov't turns not to their liking." They have been tasked with ensuring that Turkey remains a secular state. This is a much more specific responsibility. Still, your larger point generally holds; a professional, secular army in Iraq should prove useful against any would-be religious radicals.

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at February 29, 2008 11:56 AM (RJSy/)

65 I did my four in the USMC infantry, part of it as a coach out on the rifle range at 29 Palms. Even properly maintained, used by professionals, and exposed to the elements for only short periods of time, the M-16 jams at a rate I consider to be unacceptably high. The major reason for this it the round. The .223 just isn't powerful enough to drive a mechanically-simple semi-auto action. And with greater complexity comes a greater potential for problems. Could we field a semi-auto that has comperable or better accuracy than the M-16, but is as simple mechanically and reliable as an AK-47, chambered for a .30? Of course we could. (And the M-14 fits this description to a large extent.) We'd just have to give up on every rifleman being able to utilize auto or burst fire.

Posted by: Parzival at February 29, 2008 01:00 PM (jKUAh)

66 Wow, check it out, a bunch of guys arguing about AK vs AR on the internet. Have you guys ever noticed that this discussion just goes on and on and on and on? It's one of the gunnie equivalents to the eternal Mac/Windows debate, the ford/chevy debate, or any number of other unresolvable arguments.

Posted by: rosignol at February 29, 2008 01:15 PM (A9g2a)

67 As stated earlier, the M16/AK47 or M16 versus the rest will go on forever. 1. I have heard from people who use the M16 family for a living that the M16 is a much better weapon than most would have you believe. 2. The size of the round is a consequence of a US decision years (at least twenty, probably more) ago to downsize the NATO standard round from 7.56 mm to 5.56mm. In fact the early M16 type (not the original name) were produced in 7.62mm. I would suggest that Colt could quite easily adjust its manufacturing to cater for a larger round. However, a decision to increase the size of the round would be extremely costly to a large number of countries. 3. There are a number of reasons the AK47 is the most numerous military firearm around the world. a. The reason most heard is that it is so robust that even the below average peasant can pull one up out of a rice paddy and it will fire as soon as you charge the weapon. b. The least heard, and probably the real reason so many AK47s are available, is that the Russians gave millions away to anyone who would lift a weapon in the direction of the West. The manufacturer of the AK47 has complained that it is hard to sell the 5.56mm version because the AK47 was basically given away and no-one wants to actually pay for an updated AK.

Posted by: davod at February 29, 2008 09:24 PM (llh3A)

68 The reason they swapped is simple. The M16 series weapons is all and all a better weapon. Both the external and terminal ballistics are better. M855 Ball terminal ballistics. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg 7.62x39 terminal ballistics. http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg 7.62 NATO terminal ballistics. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%2520Profiles/M80.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm&h=257&w=651&sz=176&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=gkqEX0ieBXFK-M:&tbnh=54&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3D7.62%2Bballistics%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG You will note that during the first rotation in the yaw cycle the 5.56 will disintegrate. This is a good thing as it causes more internal damage. So there is two for the 5.56 zero for 7.62x39 Now onto reliablility. That dust test was a crock of crap. It was overseen by a congressman that can not even spell M4 correctly. Here is a recent test conducted by MARCORSYSCOM and a few army guys. http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/ M16 3 AK 0 Now onto operability. You have a round that has better terminal effects (kills bad guys faster). It has a lower recoil (so follow on shots are easier to place), you can carry more of these rounds. So why is this a bad thing? Please tell me how the AK series weapons is so much better. M16 series weapons 4. AK zero. Please keep in mind that most of those that talk about how good the AK is do not even know the differences between the AK47 (hardly in use anymore) and the AKM. I have trained some of the Iraqi SOF guys. They are a good bunch, and when gave them some older M16A2s they were so impressed that they literally dumped their AKMs right there on the spot.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 12:41 PM (9V6Vj)

69 Sorry for the double post. But I forgot to add something to my last post. I am sure some guys have talked about how they had to hit a guy multiple times before he went down, when using the M4. First off, shot placement is everything, there is no such thing as a one hit kill unless you hit them in the sweet spot. Now that being said, for the round to fragment during its yaw, it has to be traveling at or above 2800 fps. From the twenty inch barrel on the M16 series weapons, it will stay above this velocity out to about 300m depending on conditions. Now because the M4 and M4A1 have shorter barrels, it has a lower muzzle velocity, and as such will drop below 2800 fps sooner (about 120m), that is why it is recommended that if using the M4, you use the MK262 MOD 0/1 round, it will fragment at lower velocities, so you keep your lethality out to a greater distance. And because it is a slightly heavier round, and a much more flat shooting round, it will hold its velocity better than the M855 Ball.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 12:55 PM (9V6Vj)

70 Sorry for the double post. But I forgot to add something to my last post. I am sure some guys have talked about how they had to hit a guy multiple times before he went down, when using the M4. First off, shot placement is everything, there is no such thing as a one hit kill unless you hit them in the sweet spot. Now that being said, for the round to fragment during its yaw, it has to be traveling at or above 2800 fps. From the twenty inch barrel on the M16 series weapons, it will stay above this velocity out to about 300m depending on conditions. Now because the M4 and M4A1 have shorter barrels, it has a lower muzzle velocity, and as such will drop below 2800 fps sooner (about 120m), that is why it is recommended that if using the M4, you use the MK262 MOD 0/1 round, it will fragment at lower velocities, so you keep your lethality out to a greater distance. And because it is a slightly heavier round, and a much more flat shooting round, it will hold its velocity better than the M855 Ball. Now all that being said. In my ten years in the Corps. I can say that 95% of the malfunctions I encountered with my M16s and M4s were because of the magazines, the aluminum mags are crap, that is why we have started going with the steel mags. Sure they are a bit heavier, but they greatly increase the reliability of the weapons.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 12:59 PM (9V6Vj)

71 guys there is one reason and one reason only that we use the m16 is because the infantry board makes these specifications like a particular fire rate, and accuracy requires at different distances, that it past certain tests, anyway, the AK can not pass the accuracy tests, period. That's it. As for which is the better weapon, I think that soldiers who have used AK's will tell you the AK is better, soldiers who have used the M16 will say that it is better. Better is a relative term, the most important thing is the soldier, not the weapon. In the american army it doesn't matter how good this or that weapon is, which grenade launcher is better, which armored vehicle is better, what matters is that the army puts out these specs, then whoever best meets those specs makes it and then the army gets it and they better be happy with it. The whole idea of what a rifle means is changing. It used to be a rifle was a primary means of attack and defense. But now, the rocket launcher should the primary means of attack and defense, while the rifles are just there to protect the rocket launcher. I think our army would still be the most lethal force on the planet if they just had ak-47's and rpg's. It's the training the matters the most.

Posted by: eric taylor at March 01, 2008 01:25 PM (1FZ4f)

72 "I think that soldiers who have used AK's will tell you the AK is better, soldiers who have used the M16 will say that it is better. Better is a relative term, the most important thing is the soldier, not the weapon." While you are correct in saying that it is the warfighter that makes the fight, not the weapon, you also have to admit that the weapon does play a part in it. Say you have two forces, that are basically equal in training, one is using a substandard weapon, one is not. Which force does better? Also, what do you say to those that have used both the M16 and the AK in combat, and training?

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 02:40 PM (9V6Vj)

73 Damn I hate not having an edit function. "The whole idea of what a rifle means is changing. It used to be a rifle was a primary means of attack and defense. But now, the rocket launcher should the primary means of attack and defense, while the rifles are just there to protect the rocket launcher." You seem to be a smart person, and have a basic knowledge of the subject matter. But this is dead wrong. It is still the standard infantry guy on the ground that is the primary. Everyone else is just supporting them, and that my friend is not going to change anytime soon.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 02:43 PM (9V6Vj)

74 well matt, I think we are seeing more and more urban conflict, partly because of this, and partly because warfare has turned to smaller elements, and smaller conflicts, the soldier with the m203 has become more important (and I think we need a stronger grenade launcher than the 203) but you're right i'm just another civilian that has never been in combat.

Posted by: eric taylor at March 01, 2008 08:51 PM (1FZ4f)

75 Eric. My previous post was not an attempt to belittle you in anyway, and neither is this post. It is simply an attempt to educate people. Now while you are correct that we are seeing more and more conflict in urban areas, that does not mean that the rifle is no longer the number one weapon that we engage targets with. As a matter of fact, because of collateral damage, it is used more than any other weapon system in our inventory. "and I think we need a stronger grenade launcher than the 203" Google EGLM. While the 203 is important, it is still not the focus. Combat can be done without it. And it can not be used more than it can be (if that makes sense to you). If it were as important as people would have you believe, then people would not have dumped their M230s at the FOBs so they could carry more ammo for their rifles. I hear a lot of people talk about intermediate barrier penetration when talking about small arms. And the fact here is, neither the 5.56 nor the 7.62x39 does well there. But once again, anymore, if you can not see your target, then you can not fire at it. So that is not as big of a factor as most think. Also, in the cases where we can fire at what we can not see. the M855 ball is better at penetrating barriers than the AK's M67. Chinese steel core does slightly better than the M855, but not much. And if we are really worried about barrier penetration then we will use black tip. But this comes at a cost, because there is zero core separation in target. Then again, there is no core separation with the M47 or Chinese steel core either. The one and only small arms weapon system that does very well at barrier penetration is the M2 HB.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 09:53 PM (9V6Vj)

76 Anyway. After all that has been said. I would like to respond to the OP. "Tell me I'm wrong, folks. I want to believe this is more than a backroom deal. You are wrong. It is more than a backroom deal.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2008 11:02 PM (9V6Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft shares the news of another possible election year meltdown at CBS News.

60 Minutes recently aired the claim that former Alabama governor Don Siegelman went to jail not for corruption, but because he belong to the wrong political party, and that the investigations that landed him in jail for bribery were politically motivated.

One of the most explosive claims made was that Karl Rove was involved in an attempt to entrap Siegelman:

Now a Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has come forward to claim that the Siegelman prosecution was part of a five-year secret campaign to ruin the governor. Simpson told 60 Minutes she did what's called "opposition research" for the Republican party. She says during a meeting in 2001, Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political advisor, asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife.

"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley clarifies.

"Yes, if I could," Simpson says.

She says she spied on Siegelman for months but saw nothing. Even though she was working as a Republican campaign operative, Simpson says she wanted to talk to 60 Minutes because Siegelman's prison sentence bothers her conscience.

Simpson says she wasn't surprised that Rove made this request. Asked why not, she tells Pelley, "I had had other requests for intelligence before."

"From Karl Rove?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson says.

Today's Birmingham News has Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, asking CBS News to either provide evidence of the charges, or publish a retraction.

"Only the most committed anti-Rove/Bush activist could swallow such a tale," party chairman Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, wrote in the letter to "60 Minutes."

"If you are unable to publicly produce hard and convincing evidence that backs the outrageous charges you aired to millions of viewers across the nation, I ask that you publicly retract the story on your next broadcast."

Gateway Pundit has posted the full contents of Hubbard's letter.

Rove has specifically denied the story, stating:

"It never happened," Rove said in a telephone interview. "Seeing where I was working at the time, a reasonable person could ask why I would even take an interest in that case."

CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:

• Proof that Jill Simpson ever worked with the Alabama Republican Party beyond simply being a volunteer, seemingly the easiest fact to verify or disprove.
• Proof that Simpson ever did "opposition research" for the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove.
• Proof that Simpson had been in contact with Rove.
• Proof that Rove asked Simpson to take compromising photographs of Don Siegelman

If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.

If CBS News and 60 Minutes cannot substantiate the claim, then they are in the position of now having published a second false presidential election year story (Rathergate's forged documents prior to the 2004 election being the first), and the network's reputation in general and 60 Minutes reputation in specific will be heavily tarnished.

Frankly, I doubt that 60 Minutes would risk running this story without having vetted Simpson to the best of their ability, so I would be surprised if they cannot quickly prove some sort of involvement by Simpson in the Alabama Republican Party beyond volunteer level. If they can't do that, they are toast—fully discredited as a news organization, in my opinion.

The stickier point is proving her explosive charge that Rove told her that he wanted her to catch Siegelman having an affair. That seems like it will be very difficult to prove, and if she cannot prove it, then the 60 Minutes story never should have run.

Stay tuned, folks... however it breaks it promise to be very interesting.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 5 kb.

I first saw this damning Barack Obama video last night at Powerline, which also provides a rough transcript of Obama's radical plan to disarm America's military.

It's bizarrely, almost suicidally pacifist in nature. Watch for yourself.

This was obvious not a polished video prepared by the Obama campaign for release. Teh video quality stinks, and the message can only hurt him among moderates of both parties, leaving us to ask the obvious questions of, why was this filmed, when was this filmed, and where did it come from?

The person who posted the video to YouTube is jcjcd, an apparent Hillary Clinton supporter and Celine Dion fan, but that is all we know at this time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:29 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is what happens when you let people with little real world experience run for office. The RNC for what it's worth, needs to get this video out on the airwaves. Immediately after The Messiah defeats Shrillary...

Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 27, 2008 03:36 PM (La7YV)

2 IF this is real--and it certainly appears to be real--BO comes across as a suicidal moonbat leader. Slow down weapon systems? External review board to save money? Halting "failed" missile defense systems? did this moonbat study ANY history at all?

Posted by: iconoclast at February 27, 2008 05:01 PM (M+wD9)

3 I don't recall, but isn't fissile material required for nuclear power plants?

Posted by: SouthernRoots at February 27, 2008 05:28 PM (EsOdX)

4 OK... gonna get flamed for this, and I am NOT an Obama supporter... (Personally ALL of the candidates this year stink to high heaven) But Unfortunately, from experience, he makes a LOT of good points. #1) Getting rid of Missle Defense: This has been an up and down subject for years... we had it in the 50's, we got rid of it in the late 60's, we brought it back to life in the 70'/80's, and killed it in the 90's... every ten years or so we try another shake at an ABM weapon... ends up being a money pit. 2) Killing Future Weapons Development: All I have to say is the V-22 Osprey, the F-22 Raptor or whatever its called and then a slew of other 'high speed high cost' projects that really suck... Take the Stryker for instance. The crews generally hate them (from those I speak to in Kuwait and Iraq) and the concept of a rubber tired war-truck in this day and age? Never mind that they seem to be made out of kevlar dipped in gasoline (trust me... every one that ever came to Arifjan from up North is a flame gutted wreck) C'mon... The Stryker would never had made it out of the box if Shinseki didn't have a job waiting for him with the company that makes it... Heck: (see no swearing this time Bob!) The Marines just cancelled the MTV according to foxnews; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333154,00.html as its overweight and not what the grunts in the field want. Not a bad idea. #3) Nukes: I know they are needed as a preventative measure, but what are we going to do otherwise? Nanoweapons? Just MHO\ Flame Away.

Posted by: Big Country at February 27, 2008 06:02 PM (SIzGZ)

5 Will all the money saved be put into a new free government cheese program?

Posted by: wjo at February 27, 2008 11:11 PM (+kTjY)

6 BC, No flames but maybe a contrary opinion on the stryker (and second had at that . According to Michael Yon (www.michaelyon-online.com), the Stryker's are excellent machines that afford their brigades much more flexibility...it's not really the 'greatness' of the machine but the tactics employed along with it, if my memory serves. If you haven't read his info, I'd suggest it. That said, you've got some first-hand experience that I don't so I will have to try to reconcile what you've said with what others I trust have said. SouthernRoots: Yes, nuclear fission plants need fissile material - generally U-238 enriched to around 5-10% of rather specific isotopes. Nuclear weapons must be enriched much more. (Off topic - that's why Iran's enrichment program is questionable. They now have enough operating centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for weapons.)

Posted by: Mark at February 28, 2008 10:51 AM (4od5C)

7 How about putting all that saved money into a government initiative to rebuild our infrastructure? A new take on the old New Deal CCC? I'm tired of hearing about bridges falling down and regional blackouts. Or if all else fails, how about paying off some of the soon to be $10 trillion US debt? Either way, more Americans are employed and there's a lot less need for government cheese.

Posted by: iaintbacchus at February 28, 2008 05:21 PM (mYHGQ)

8 Mark - You basically got it right. You want about 5% U-235 with the rest as U-238 for a power plant. Subs and carriers used much higher enrichment. What's really funny is that fissile uranium and other elements are found NATURALLY. We don't make the stuff, except for the transuranic elements like plutonium. It's like trying to ban lead from the world. I suppose he plans to supply carbon-free power via hope and change.

Posted by: OmegaPaladin at March 01, 2008 12:49 PM (R+4Bq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Growing a new culture of victims.

An armed man who burst into a classroom at Elizabeth City State University was role-playing in an emergency response drill, but neither the students nor assistant professor Jingbin Wang knew that.

"I was prepared to die at that moment," Wang said Tuesday.

The Friday drill, in which a mock gunman threatened panicked students in the American foreign policy class with death, prompted university officials to apologize this week to Wang and offer counseling to faculty and students.

Anthony Brown, vice chancellor for student affairs, said the university was testing its response to shootings of the sort that have shaken campuses around the country. "The intent was not to frighten them but to test our system and also to test the response of the security that was on campus and the people that were notified," Brown said.

The mock assailant—a campus police officer—quickly established control over the classroom, and the students did exactly as he demanded until the drill was over and police rushed in to "subdue" the attacker.

After the ordeal, some students stated that they were prepared to jump out classroom windows. The instructor said he was "prepared to die."

And yet, even after the recent slaughters at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, none of the students reported that they were preparing to fight for survival, or that they had thoughts of actively defending themselves and their classmates.

Have we completely breed the violence of self-preservation out of this generation?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:35 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

"Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, who plans to campaign for Nancy Pelosi's House seat, is presently in Egypt protesting military trials in Egypt of members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In an interview with al Jazeera, Sheehan proclaims that the Muslims Brotherhood are "the moderate voice here and they are the ones who are actually working for democracy."

The Brotherhood qualifies as "moderate" as any group that espouses:

• forming a global caliphate based upon fundamentalist sharia law
• the forced segregation of men and women
• second-class citizenship for all non-Muslims
• supports suicide bombings against civilians
• actively preaches Holocaust denial

Sheehan is now back doing relatively newsworthy things after a short self-imposed exile, but it now seems that the same mainstream media that once seemed to hang on her every word and tear would rather now treat her as an invisible woman.

I can only surmise that she represents a change they no longer believe in.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:43 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

In his inaugural address in 1961, facing possibility of a war that could end life on earth, John F. Kennedy refused to back down and concede the liberty of free peoples to communists behind the Iron Curtain, stating memorably:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

The Center for American Progress, USAction, MoveOn.org, VoteVets.org, Service Employees International Union, Americans United for Change, and MoveOn.Org, led by John Edwards, have decided that they will not honor the pledge of John F. Kennedy, and that they will spend $20 million in order to prove JFK's words hollow.

These chocolate bunny Democrats—sugary and smooth on the surface, melting under the slightest heat and pressure to expose a void inside—will spend this money trying convince Americans that we are not noble, that we are selfish, shallow, weak and untrustworthy, and that we should turn our backs on Kennedy's famous pledge:

...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

They want you to be like them: without honor, without substance, and without hope.

John Edwards and Barack Obama want you to know that they will not pay any price, bear any burden, meet the slightest hardship, support new democracies, or oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Perhaps Barack Obama can explain how the generation-defining call-to-action of John F. Kennedy was "just words."

And that he can put a price on liberty.

Update: Did Senator Joe Lieberman drop by today before speaking in the Senate?

"I have thought a lot about this war, and I cannot help but wonder at a moment like this what some of the political heroes of my youth who are Democrats would think if they were here and could see and listen to this debate and read this resolution.

"I think of President Kennedy who declared: 'We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'

"In my opinion, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.

"I ask my colleagues: Do these words have meaning, have significance? Or are these just words?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.

Photo caption incompetence from the Associated Press (and here and here):

A Turkish army Super Cobra helicopter flies over an artillery unit and its crew after taking off from a military base in Cukurca in Hakkari province at the Turkey-Iraq border, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008, Turkish F-16 fighters and helicopters flew into northern Iraq on Sunday as elite commandos shake Kurdish rebels in a major ground operation across the border that has drawn criticism from the U.S.-backed-Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish leaders.
(AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

Not even close. The helicopter in the photo is a unmistakably a variation of the UH-60 transport helicopter, with a four-bladed rotor and slick sides. That any self-respecting photo editor covering a military beat could mistake that helicopter for the distinctive, menacing shape of the twin-seater Super Cobra attack helicopter boggles the imagination.

Bonus: Soldier, hold your fire and clear your muzzle. Kabooms are not fun, however they are caused.

Update from the Associated Press: Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations for the Associated Press writes via email:

The photo captions you have challenged on your site were corrected (to Black Hawk) at 5:21 p.m. yesterday, such as this one:

Caption

** CORRECTS HELICOPTER TYPE ** A Turkish army Black Hawk helicopter flies over an artillery unit and its crew after taking off from a military base in Cukurca in Hakkari province at the Turkey-Iraq border, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008, Turkish F-16 fighters and helicopters flew into northern Iraq on Sunday as elite commandos shake Kurdish rebels in a major ground operation across the border that has drawn criticism from the U.S.-backed-Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish leaders. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

Credit where credit is due, the erroneous captions were replaced later the same afternoon, though it still boggles the mind that such a mistake was made in the first place.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:11 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 3 kb.

Something is missing from this CNN story.

The story now begins:

A man in a wheelchair blew himself up Monday in a northern Iraqi police station, killing three National Police officers, including a commander, police said.

The attack also wounded nine officers on the police force, which the Iraqi Interior Ministry operates.

The bombing in Samarra raises concern about the recent tactics employed by insurgents in Iraq. Bombs have been placed inside dead animals and hidden in carts. And in recent days, vagrants have been involved in bombings.

"As a sign of desperation, some of those terrorists resorted to some new methods and techniques," said Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's security plan.

The lede as it now reads is one of how desperate the terrorists in Iraq are becoming, and the lengths to which they must now go to stage a successful attack.

An earlier version of the story had a slightly different take, but now seems to only exist as a ghost in Google's cache.

"Innovative tactics " versus "signs of desperation."

A journalist's point of view can be quite illuminating from time to time, can't it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

Despite no publicly-reported plots or arrests related to threats against the life of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the media keeps hoping to make his possible assassination an issue:

There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Mr. Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.

"I've got the best protection in the world," Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview, reprising a line he tells supporters who raise the issue with him. "So stop worrying."

Yet worry they do, with the spring of 1968 seared into their memories, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in a span of two months.

We've covered this ground before. An Obama assassination fantasy seems to primarily be a media construct.

Spreading paranoid assassination fantasies has become something of a cottage industry among certain segments of the media and far left blogosphere, where at least one unhinged blogger has already determined that Halliburton and Blackwater are guilty of the crime.

The people who write these assassination fantasies are not worried that Obama will be targeted. There are far more worried that he will not be assassinated, and thus live to not meet to the impossibly high expectations he and his supporters have built for his campaign and his candidacy.

Obama the candidate is far more a myth than a man, and as he takes a commanding lead in the Democratic nominating process, his actual positions, record, and experience show him to be a strawman of good intentions and precious little substance. Even his cult-like followers know deep-down that no one person can live up to the fantasy they have constructed around his name, and so in dark places they do not publicly want to address, they want want an escape from the inevitable and all-too-human let-down that he, as a real flesh-and-blood man, will be.

For some, an assassination fantasy is that escape mechanism.

It is far easier for people to live with a memory of what might have been, than face the bitter truth of a candidate that has remarkable communicative abilities, but a radical political philosophy that will wilt under the scrutiny of the moderate middle in a general election.

A martyred ideal is far more useful to some than a flawed candidate, and so be prepared to see more such "trigger" stories as we get closer the the election, but don't expect to see him fall or to even be targeted for his ideas. Obama is an unlikely target for a political assassination precisely because he promises so little in substance. He can be beaten by ballot far more easily than by bullet, a political calculus even radical fringe groups easily recognize.

If he is targeted, it will be by another John Hinckley, Jr, someone unhinged, and perhaps driven to the crime by delusions of fame and the media's own dark "audacity of hope."

If such a tragic happening should come to pass, the media will only need to look in the mirror to find the culprit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

A few points:

• Lieutenants command platoons. Captains command companies.
• The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance, split up a rifle platoon and ship half of them to Iraq and the other half to Afghanistan. They train to work as a team. This simply would not occur, ever.
• There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On occasion, American forces (especially Special Forces) have used Soviet weapon designs, but they have done so by choice, not necessity.

In the clip above, everything Barack Obama said was a lie... probably including the part where he said he spoke with an Army Captain (has anyone checked to seek if Deval Patrick spoke with Jesse McBeth?).

This leaves us with two possibilities.

Barack Obama is a liar. He (or someone he plagiarized) simply made the tale up out of the whole cloth.

Barack Obama is a rube. Anyone with any sense of how the military works at all would immediately sniff this out as a series of false stories. Perhaps Barack Obama, the man who would be Commander in Cheif, is so ignorant of all matters military that he could be easily fooled by a fraud.

Neither possibility says anything good about Obama.

Update: Over at ABC News Blog , Political Punch, Jake Tapper gets in touch with the officer in question and states that Obama's claim was therefore true.

Uh, no.

Obama claimed:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

The captain confirmed that he was then a lieutenant when he took command of a rifle platoon of 39 men, and that 15 men that platoon were assigned to other units. While many of them ended up being deployed to Iraq as part of other units, that does not equate Obama's assertion that the unit was divided.

We then find out that when this officer "didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees," he was referring to practice ammunition for two kinds of heavy weapons while in Fort Drum, New York.

As for having to capture Taliban weapons he stated, "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka" on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal."

Obama's most crucial, explosive claim, that ": They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief" remains utterly and completely false.

And that part, it seems, he made up by himself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:05 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 4 kb.

1 As soon as I read about that claim, I wondered what the hell he was thinking, and who had fed him that story.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 22, 2008 08:44 AM (ZJ/un)

2 You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it. I don't believe him either, but your argument isn't that great.

Posted by: rube repub at February 22, 2008 08:49 AM (MyDKI)

3 Perhaps you missed the either/or construction, rude repub. You might want to try reading the post again. It could be that Obama is supremely ignorant.

Posted by: Pablo at February 22, 2008 08:51 AM (yTndK)

4 You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it. In what way is, "he got the rank wrong", "they don't split up platoons", and "there has never been an ammo shortage in Afghanistan" not evidence?

Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 22, 2008 08:53 AM (ZJ/un)

5 I'm not supporting what Obama's saying, but it's possible he's referring to a reserve unit. Why they would split up a reserve platoon any more than a regular unit, I don't know.

Posted by: just_some_guy at February 22, 2008 09:17 AM (xIFnn)

6 CY, I have an entirely innocent question. I know enough about regular Army organization to agree with you that a regular Army platoon would never be commanded by a captain or be split up in the way described. However, I know a lot less about the organization of Special Forces units. Is it possible that Obama was talking to a Special Forces officer, somebody who a) commands a platoon-sized unit despite being a captain; b) regularly splits his unit into smaller detachments that go wherever they're needed; and c) often finds himself and/or his men so deep in enemy territory and so far from resupply that they use enemy arms and ammo in order to conserve their own?

Posted by: wolfwalker at February 22, 2008 09:19 AM (eUc4O)

7 Special Forces don't have platoon sized units, to my knowledge. At least not outside the HHD and Support elements. From what little I saw while TCS'd to 5th Group (I stayed with HHD, didn't play with the ODA's at all) it seemed like their chain went from ODA (A-team) to the Battalion to the Group. Don't hold me to that though - there may have been things I did not see. As for splitting up units, I could see that if a reserve or National Guard Unit had some of it's personnel get cross-leveled to other units in order to fill out their TO&E, prior to the home unit being activated - especially with the new "24 months home" rule. And the person he "heard from" might have been a 1LT platoon leader in Afghanistan, and then promoted prior to when Obama "heard from" him. But I still think he ought to be called on it to name his source - the ammo thing sounds rather suspicious.

Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 22, 2008 12:03 PM (yiMNP)

8 Obama is a Democrat politician....lying about the military is a requirement to succeed in that endeavor. Of course, to an audience of Democratic party members, this sort of lie doesn't need any more corroboration than "I heard from an Army captain...." of course, the MSM will either bury this gaffe or print a few more lies to 'support' it. Enough repetitions and it will become common knowledge.

Posted by: iconoclast at February 22, 2008 12:22 PM (TzLpv)

9 I thought that the President doesn't give money to the troops directly, he has to have it approved by Congress? Isn't the Democrat controlled congress the one threating money for the troops in an effort to curtail the wars? You'd think a presidential candidate would know this. I guess its just easier to blame Republicans and Bush than actually know anything.

Posted by: Matthew at February 22, 2008 01:00 PM (1R6cr)

10 No wonder The Messiah is so popular, he suffers from the same BDS his cult members do. I'd say this is unbelievable, but that'd be lying as well.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 22, 2008 01:22 PM (La7YV)

11 I don't think St. Barack's lying, in the sense of knowingly offering falsehoods. He may even absolutely believe the "facts" that some staffer has dredged up. The "facts" are probably, at best, snippets of ancedotes taken out of context. I think St. Barack's just a bozo who has no clue what he's talking about, and is more interested in using his alleged facts to Bash Bush and the Republicans than he is in whether his alleged facts bear any relation to reality, which, as CY points out, they don't.

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at February 22, 2008 01:37 PM (HVtOM)

12 In fairness, it is possible that he talked to a captain who'd commanded a platoon while he was a lieutenant, but who has since been promoted. Of course, that would only account for one of many issues CY has identified. When so many accuracy issues exist, you have to start thinking "Bagdad Diarist" or "Dan Rather." BO should name his sources, but naturally he won't.

Posted by: CaptainVictory at February 22, 2008 02:13 PM (9qRr1)

13 Friends, it is always unwise to be fair to the unfair. Certainly, in our private affairs such a thing as this obvious invention is a) unfalsifiable and b) trivial... or it would be if the stakes were not so high. Let us not forget that the good manners and dignity of our servicemen allowed John Kerry to get away with decades of deceit which, yes, included himself. DO NOT go soft on these people. Sure, they are just morons, BUT THEY ARE MORONS THAT WILL RUIN US ALL IF THEY GET TO THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT. Sorry for yelling but this is important. DO NOT be fair to a libby whether it is Barack or Hillary or your sainted mother. Be 1% more fair than they are to us and that is as much fairness as we can afford. True.

Posted by: megapotamus at February 22, 2008 02:14 PM (LF+qW)

14 Via The Corner, I found a post by Jake Tapper at ABC's website. (I'd provide a link, but the comment-editor is refusing it.) Thumbnail summary: Tapper says he found Obama's source, got the direct story, and it works out pretty much as SSg Jeff suggested uptopic. The "Army captain" (who remains nameless) was a lieutenant at the time he was talking about. He took command of a rifle platoon with 39 men, but a total of 15 were reassigned to other units, no replacements were provided, and he eventually deployed to Afghanistan with 24 men. The supply problems involved parts and ammo for 40mm grenades and .50-cal machine guns, NOT the standard M16 rifles. On occasion they used AK-47s and Soviet-made heavy machine guns, but only for convenience sake. There's also a mention of the well-known problems with getting armored humvees in-country. In other words, while the story is apparently true as stated, none of this is new. It's already well known that the Army had severe supply and materiel problems in 2003 and 2004. And corrective measures have already been taken -- were taken, in fact, as soon as the problems became known to the senior command.

Posted by: wolfwalker at February 22, 2008 02:54 PM (eUc4O)

15 I still think it is a crock. The problem is not that what he said isn't strictly true, it's the fact that the impression is entirely innaccurate. 1) I challenge you to find a unit that didn't have shortages during training. And I mean ever. We had shortages when I trained for Bosnia, we had shortages at basic, and we had shortages in my train-up for Afghanistan. Would I have liked every one of my guys to fire at AT4 before I got in country, sure, was it going to happen? Hell now. 2) Humvees are chronically short. I've never heard of a unit in history that had everything they requested or wanted. Precious few even made it in theater with what is on the TOW, again, embrace the suck, Shi'ite happens. 3) The unit being split and sent to 2 different theaters, and people being reassigned to different units are 2 entirely seperate animals. While BHO's comment could have been interpreted either way, at the very least it appears he insinuated they were split and sent.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 03:27 PM (r3L6K)

16 * TOE, not TOW.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 03:28 PM (r3L6K)

17 One personal anecdote. We had the little squad radios that operated from the helmet, had the little mics that came down. I can't be more specific, because we never received the wire that connected the mic to the radio itself, so we all went out and bought walky talkies. Now, did we bitch and moan about how that magificent bastard Rove was too busy screwing over the Alabama governor to properly supply us? No, it was the army. You expect that to happen. Doesn't make it right, it just makes it customary. If I showed up in a unit, and they gave us everything we were supposed to have, I would worry, and/or wonder how I ended up in SF.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 03:33 PM (r3L6K)

18 The problem is not that what he said isn't strictly true, it's the fact that the impression is entirely innaccurate. I agree. And I'm not saying it wasn't a lousy, rotten thing to say, especially the way he said it. I'm just saying that to call it a _lie_, in the same sense that Rathergate or John F'n Kerry's Tale of the Magic Hat was a lie, is apparently inaccurate and doesn't make our side look good. Assuming, of course, that Tapper's post is truthful.

Posted by: wolfwalker at February 22, 2008 03:53 PM (eUc4O)

19 I don't know, I think intentionally stating something in a way so as that the vast bulk of people will misinterpret is coming pretty damn close to the line. The way Obama made it sound was the unit was split and sent 2 different places, and with so little ammo they had to steal it from the enemy. The reality is, individual members were reassigned, and the unit used enemy weaponry on occassion (which literally EVERYONE I ever met did) and he didn't get ammo which is not intrinsic to the TOE for the unit he was in. i also was light infantry, we couldn't get MK19 rounds either, because on the books, we weren't supposed to have them.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 04:00 PM (r3L6K)

20 Whilst all of the above does shed a more understandable light on each individual event/fact, it doesn't address a point I've heard elsewhere, namely that Marine rifle platoons have 39 men. Army rifle platoons as are being discussed here, typically comprise of 36 men.

Posted by: Elydo at February 22, 2008 04:10 PM (1/Ayo)

21 No wonder Obama thinks Iraq is a failure, he's living in 2004.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 22, 2008 04:12 PM (oC8nQ)

22 What's on paper and what happens on the ground are different at times Elydo. When I did a combat squad patrol, it NEVER had 9 guys which is what I was autorized on paper. It had my 9 (minus anyone on leave) then added a medic, a FO, and usually 2 gunners. My guess is that it is 36, and the weapons teams (240G) got farmed out to each platoon, making it 40 or so. Each unit had their own way of doing it that seldom matched what you had on paper.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 04:15 PM (r3L6K)

23 Understandable and conceivable Ortner, my thanks for the reply.

Posted by: Elydo at February 22, 2008 04:30 PM (1/Ayo)

24 I note that the raving, drooling lunatic John Cole is having none of this. After considering the Jake Tapper story he concludes in a blog post, typically riddled with bad grammar and misspellings: "...I would take this a grain of salt when you compare it to the vault of knowledge these bloggers have procured over a lifetime of arranging GI Joe dolls while watching betamax copies of Uncommon Valor in the basement apartment they rent from their parents. I know it is a tough call, but I am gonna go with Obama, Tapper, and Phil Carter on this."

Posted by: Terry at February 22, 2008 04:30 PM (AiJXe)

25 Three other problems with Jake Tapper's "fact-checking" that you don't mention: 1) The source is 100% anonymous, so we need to take him at his word on it; 2) The story, if true, is 4-5 years old. Obama was talking as if this were a current issue; 3) At the end of Jake Tapper's article, he does some editorializing which shows he's not really objective about this issue, which lowers my confidence a bit.

Posted by: John Rohan at February 22, 2008 05:09 PM (IC+yR)

26 One sign of a man, CY, is that he can admit he is wrong when he is proven wrong. You just failed that test miserably. But you hang in there, my friend. One of these days you are bound to get something right.

Posted by: Len at February 22, 2008 06:19 PM (2nAiN)

27 I don't really get where you see that Len. Obama said that " They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief." And the guy who was the genesis for the entire tale said: "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. So how exactly is CY wrong? I'd say this one is roughly a push at best.

Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at February 22, 2008 06:30 PM (haPfS)

28 what? The messiah, he be a liar, say it ain't so.

Posted by: Boss429 at February 22, 2008 07:34 PM (O3voc)

29 Ok, I have not read everything here yet so excuse me if I address something that has been discussed already.

You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it. I don't believe him either, but your argument isn't that great.

Would you like me to post links to the doctrinal publication that outlines what happens who is deployed with who and where with what gear, or will you trust this old salt dogs word? The FEBA is never more than a few hundred meters forward of the FOB in both Iraq and Afghan. SOF will deploy independently at the Team level (depending on what the mission is). A SOF team is headed by a Major (sometimes a very senior Capt) but being split from the team is not unusual, but will not be in different theaters. Hell, the smallest unit that will be deployed over two theaters is a REGIMENT . That is three infantry BATTALIONS (but in WWII battalions would sometimes be split into separate theaters). Yes paper does not always dictate, you will not always have your full TO&E. But the things that the idiot above said, simply did not happen. PERIOD!!! Flat out, the idiot lied, just as he has been doing. Hell look at his voting record and make your own conclusions (be advised you will need the ability to think outside the box to see through the BS).

Posted by: Matt at February 22, 2008 09:22 PM (9V6Vj)

30 Len, it looks like you just failed your own test. The Obamessiah has been proven wrong in all but one respect, yet you cannot admit it. Of course, I doubt that will bother you, since you are apparently well-versed in holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to. I wish you good day only as a matter of form, sir.

Posted by: C-C-G at February 22, 2008 09:29 PM (Txk9z)

31 The essential problem, which we will likely encounter again and again all the way to November, and potentially beyond, is that Obama's entire campaign is already an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. As soon as he begins to open his mouth on military (and most other) matters, acting as though he is some kind of authoritative objective observer able to weigh the meaning and import of whatever anecdotes some Captain or Lieutenant tells him, he's already lying - even if he happens to get all or most of the particulars right. We can put aside for the moment the deeper differences on the war underlying his comment. What's interesting to me is that he did manage to get some of his facts right, but still imposed a completely improper conclusion on them (that equipment shortages caused by the evil Bush were so severe that our soldiers were sent into the field effectively unarmed). He can be expected to do this kind of thing regularly when on unfamiliar turf. That's the good news. The bad news is that a) many of his supporters don't care, b) voters in general are unlikely to sweat the details, c) he's going to spend all Summer boning up on the subjects that might lead him to expose his ignorance. So, in the absence of a major foul-up, the objective for his opponents will have to be weave his relatively minor errors together with his main stated positions into a narrative of dangerous incompetence, mistaken intentions, and arrogance on the big questions. Anything else will dissolve amidst a welter of disputed and forgotten details.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at February 22, 2008 10:27 PM (8aPVo)

32 The essential problem, which we will likely encounter again and again all the way to November, and potentially beyond, is that Obama's entire campaign is already an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. As soon as he begins to open his mouth on military (and most other) matters, acting as though he is some kind of authoritative objective observer able to weigh the meaning and import of whatever anecdotes some Captain or Lieutenant tells him, he's already lying - even if he happens to get all or most of the particulars right. If we aside for the moment the deeper differences on the war underlying his comment, it's also interesting that he did manage to get some of his facts right, yet still imposed a completely improper conclusion on them (that equipment shortages caused by the evil Bush were so severe that our soldiers were sent into the field effectively unarmed). He can be expected to do this kind of thing regularly when on unfamiliar turf. That's the good news. The bad news is that a) many of his supporters don't care, b) voters in general are unlikely to sweat the details, c) he's going to spend all Summer boning up on the subjects that might lead him to expose his ignorance. So, in the absence of a major foul-up, the objective for his opponents will have to be weave his relatively minor errors together with his main stated positions into a narrative of dangerous incompetence, mistaken intentions, and arrogance on the big questions. Anything else will dissolve amidst a welter of disputed and forgotten details.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at February 22, 2008 10:28 PM (8aPVo)

33 So, basically what you are saying, is he is not fit to lead. But those uneducated in the subjects of discussion will continue to be fooled because he talked pretty. Got it, thanks.

Posted by: Matt at February 22, 2008 11:00 PM (9V6Vj)

34 We may have thought Bill Clinton was "slick" but I think that his lies will look small compared to what Obama will say. Barack Obama cannot be trusted.

Posted by: Tundra Politics at February 23, 2008 01:49 AM (fRuXr)

35 Two other notes: 1- Obama's response isn't "Our men are underequipped, so we need to spend more money making this end!" or even, "Our soldiers are underprepared, and there must be hearings and procedural changes!" His response is, "Our soldiers are underequipped... so let's surrender in another field of battle!" Little logical disconnect here. 2- Considering the relative world importance of Iraq and Afghanistan, including their relative populations and economies; considering the relative sizes of the deployments to both; adding in in the relative difficulties of accessing either one: if you had to short one of them to fully supply the other, which one would it be?

Posted by: DaveP. at February 23, 2008 02:25 AM (q6tuN)

36 Senator Obama states that he was always against the war. Where is his written proof, since he was not in the Senate to vote on the issue.

Posted by: Stan at February 23, 2008 01:55 PM (rTqW7)

37 One other important thing to note about Jake Tapper's post is that there really was no fact checking done at all. Tapper uses the same anonymous sourse that Obama used for his anecdote. A source that continues to only be known to Tapper, BHO, and BHO staffers. However, I would caution against getting too hung up on whether or not this guy is really in the military. The focus neeeds to be on not only the facts of the allegation, but on the fact that he's talking about things that took place back in 2003 - 04. Not things that are going on currently. Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at February 23, 2008 11:06 PM (ON55K)

38 Being a politician implies liar. Politicians are a proper subset of the set of liars.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 24, 2008 04:59 PM (ERV3B)

39 You guys just jump all over something and embarrass yourselves. The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR That Captain is also a West Point grad. Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion. THe ammo shortage was during training. Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool.

Posted by: John Ryan at February 24, 2008 11:10 PM (TcoRJ)

40 "The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR That Captain is also a West Point grad. Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion. THe ammo shortage was during training. Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool." Actually, bright box. We already discussed that possibility many moons ago. Try reading the replies before you mak yourself look a fool.

Posted by: Matt at February 24, 2008 11:52 PM (9V6Vj)

41 "The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR That Captain is also a West Point grad. Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion. THe ammo shortage was during training. Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool." Actually, bright box. We already discussed that possibility many moons ago. Try reading the replies before you make yourself look a fool.

Posted by: Matt at February 25, 2008 12:01 AM (9V6Vj)

42 Matt, looking like a fool is John Ryan's only talent. He tried it on BlackFive and got his head handed to him in spades (five of spades, perhaps?) so now he's back here.

Posted by: C-C-G at February 25, 2008 12:17 AM (Txk9z)

43 So, this Tapper fellow thinks "fact checking" means calling the same person Obama did? Call me crazy but I thought "fact checking" was making sure what the Captain said was accurate.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 25, 2008 09:23 AM (Lgw9b)

44 Don't you people ever get sick of being wrong all the time?

Posted by: Sarcastro at February 25, 2008 11:21 AM (L761i)

45 The idea behind anonymous sources in news reports is that if it might be damaging to the source to have his identity published, the reporter substitutes his own credibility for that of the source. We might presume that Tapper has done enough legwork to know that the source is actually a captain, used to be a lieutenant, and commanded a rifle platoon in Afghanistan. Further, he is certain enough that the details of the story are true that he risks his credibility on them. If you don't trust him, that's your choice, but this is how things work. Assuming, as I do, that the story is accurate, it is illustrative of the question brought up by Obama. He is not arguing that, given that we have forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the wrong choices are being made in the tradeoffs that we face. He is saying that these tradeoffs should have been better considered before we committed forces to Iraq, and people who supported the invasion of Iraq excercised poor judgment. It's obvious what side of this I come down on, but I think it's worth stepping back and actually considering what Obama said.

Posted by: Evan at February 25, 2008 11:28 AM (DOLiJ)

46 Look, guys, wipe the egg off your faces, cool down, and THINK for a minute. Obama said the story came from a captain who had commanded a platoon. Key word: HAD. The statement is absolutely true. You just jumped to conclusions. If I mention that Colin Powell once commanded a battalion, does that make me a liar because he retired as a 4-star general? Obama said the platoon in question went to Afghanistan under-strength becasue 15 of the soldiers got sent to Iraq. Again, ABSOLUTELY TRUE. He never said that "the platoon got split into two separate parts and one of those got sent to Iraq." Again, you went running off to a conclusion that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's statement. Fifteen of those soldiers got pulled from the platoon, re-assigned elsehwere, and ended up in Iraq. It's just tiresome. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Posted by: Craig at February 25, 2008 12:04 PM (s/3Xo)

47 I think I know how to resolve this: So let's say that Obama flatout lied in how he represented this story. And let's say that McCain flatout lied in how we represented his shopping trip in the Baghdad market. And let's say that GW Bush lied about our reasons for going to war in Iraq, the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, our policy on torture, and domestic wiretapping. There, now everyone's even.

Posted by: rapid at February 25, 2008 02:01 PM (c7CKN)

48 Hello Foot! Hello Mouth, it's been a long time! No it hasn't, 'ol buddy.....

Posted by: Von Cracker at February 25, 2008 02:27 PM (ZrAQw)

49 Hello Foot! Hello Mouth, it's been a long time! No, not really, it hasn't....

Posted by: Von Cracker at February 25, 2008 02:28 PM (ZrAQw)

50 OK! Now I'm going for my 3rd deleted comment. That's fine and totally within your rights to delete my comments. Just next time, please, do the right thing and make sure of the facts, before you just flat-out call someone a liar. You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, or to someone you're supporting. From this point forward, if you can apply the same standards to your *own* actions, you can help make the world a better place. Thanks, ~j : )

Posted by: jim at February 25, 2008 05:30 PM (QAh+h)

51 Sorry to interrupt this afternoon's regularly scheduled chorus of insults, but it seems the Army's Chief of Staff should read this blog so he could learn the truth from the real experts: Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons. But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

Posted by: cactus at February 26, 2008 07:04 PM (MlRBQ)

52 I was a soldier in Iraq at the time this took place. All I can say to you, is that ignorance is bliss. I don't support Obama for president, although I'm glad he's brought light to what was a very real problem. "The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance... They train to work as a team..." It did. Have you heard the term "cross-leveling". It was a crazy thing they did that put soldiers with a different unit to fill the holes, making their unit unprepared to deploy. I was (obviously) not in a rifle platoon, but an ordnance - ie: Ammo Supply! "There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan." I wasn't in Afghanistan, but I was well aware of shortages. See, infantry and other units on the offensive had priority. When it came time to train to do convoy security when things hit the fan in Ramadi, we had minimal ammo to teach our cooks how to operate a 50-cal before they ventured out into the Anbar province without an "escort". The results? Accidental discharges because soldiers "manning the gun" barely knew how to load it, let alone understand that there was no safety on it. "Anyone with any sense of how the military works at all would immediately sniff this out as a series of false stories." Anyone with a sense of how the military works, would understand that the likelihood of this claim being false barely exists. Ask the soldiers who've been on the ground and you'll be probably be surprised by the horror stories. No offense intended - I just wish more people would notice the shortcomings, rather than spend time discrediting those who do. Our soldiers lives are depending on it.

Posted by: Rachel at February 28, 2008 10:20 AM (+KIW9)

53 Rachel, was this story about Iraq? No it was not... it was about Afghanistan, and soldiers that I know and trust (sorry, I don't know you) who have served there said the claims made or insinuated by Obama were false and/or misleading. We've already established that the shortage of ammunition occurred at Fort Drum, not in theater. This was from the captain himself, the same captain Obama used, who also said bluntly that contrary to Obama's claim, "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons." Yes, there are shortages in wartime. There have been since the first caveman ran out of rocks, and they will no doubt occur for thousands of years into the future, which is why logistics is such an important part of combat. The fact remains at the end of the day that Obama misrepresented the Captain's story into a lie to attack the President.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 28, 2008 11:08 AM (6NuxK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance, at Pajamas Media.

His long-held desire to ban entire classes of firearms won't play well in "flyover country," and could cost him the 2008 election.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems like everyone is talking this morning about this New York Times article about John McCain.

The heart of the Times article states only:

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Why were these staffers "convinced the relationship had become romantic"?

Did they see McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, in a sexually-suggestive or compromising position?

Was there any physical evidence of a "romantic" relationship?

Did either McCain or Iseman tell anyone that they were involved in such a relationship?

The four NY Times journalists that share the byline on this story—Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Lebaton— do not provide answers to any of these basic journalistic questions. They failed to do their jobs.

This is not a news story, it is an extended insinuation. At best, it is half-formed journalism. At worst, it is naked, partisan advocacy.

If presented with the thin claims published in this Times story, many of the more credible bloggers, regardless of political affiliation, would have passed on publishing this story. They've worked too hard and too long to build their reader base and establish their credibility as citizen-journalists.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr, publisher of the Times, apparently has no such qualms about risking the reputation of the newspaper grown to prominence by previous generations of his family. It is easy for him to squander what he himself did not earn, but then, we knew that a MoveOn.org discount ago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Back in 1986, Time and other news organizations attempted to whip up hysteria about a new firearm on the market, the Glock 17, attempting to state that it could pass easily though airport metal detectors, and therefore become a favored weapon for terrorists or hijackers:

Noel Koch, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently left his Pentagon office toting an overnight bag and rode to Washington's National Airport. Koch breezed through three airport metal detectors and into the departure lounge. That was as far as he planned to go. Inside his carry-on bag, Koch had concealed a 9-mm handgun that weighs only 23 oz. and is made partly of superhardened plastic. When disassembled, the Austrian-made weapon, known as the Glock 17, does not look like a firearm. Only its barrel, slide and springs, which are metal, show up on airport scanners. The polymer handgrip, trigger guard and ammunition clip that complete its profile as a gun do not set off the security devices.

High-technology weapons have created a terrifying dilemma for airport officials in their war against terrorists. Already, new guns made entirely of plastic are being developed. Easily concealable handguns like the Glock, along with hard-to-detect components for putty-like explosives that are also readily available, give air pirates an edge that officials are finding increasingly difficult to counter.

The manufactured Glock hysteria was of course false; the barrel, slide, sights, and of course the pistol cartridges themselves are made of dense metals, and the promised "new guns made entirely of plastic" have never materialized on the consumer market.

Yesterday I ran across another attempt to create a false hysteria, this time about painted guns.

Yes, really.

The CNN.com video story from affiliate KPNX reporter Brahim Resnik in Phoenix warns about the evils of painted guns, specifically firearms they state are painted like children's toys. The reporter gets support from Bryan Soller of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.

"Somebody points it at an officer, and he hesitates, at which point he could get shot, or worse, the officer could react and take the life of a child..."

The reporter then keys in on Jims Gun Supply, one of dozens, if not hundreds, of retailers that offers Duracoat a firearms refinishing paint that comes in almost any color, and is typically used to refinish firearms, providing a self-lubricating, durable finish that provides rust-protection, camouflage and/or a custom look.

The story opens by focusing on a "Hello Kitty" themed AK-pattern rifle in pink and black, and then shows a picture of the company web site's photo page, and then going on to assert that "But the larger worry is that children being drawn to candy-cane colors..."

The story then transitions to a teacher, who states, "Just being a teacher, any child would think that was a toy..."

The story, just 63 seconds long, ends with a voiceover by what appears to be the same AZFOP official featured earlier in the report.

"Apparently it is legal. It's frightening to law enforcement."

The obvious point of the story is to frighten parents into thinking that their children could easily come across a real weapon that they think is a toy, and that law enforcement officers could either kill a child carrying a Durocoated firearm, or be shot by a criminal armed with one. Is is a story that manufactures a controversy out of a nonexistent problem.

Duracoat is primarily purchased by law enforcement and military customers, but it has a growing following among hunters (who typically prefer matte or camouflage) and sport shooters (who sometimes select bold color schemes) and others that want a unique look for their firearms.

This manufactured controversy is not new. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg gave it a go in 2006, and the newspapers treated him like the idiot he was (PDF).

Common sense goes a long way towards debunking this story, but as we know, that is all too often in short supply in our country's media. Let's take this story apart, focusing on the two main claims.

Brightly-painted Durocoated firearms are a threat to children.
If you bother to Google Durocoat and have any knowledge of the kinds of firearms you'll typically see receiving a professionally applied Durocoat finish, you'll quickly note that while any firearm can be Durocoated, the overwhelming majority of those featured are firearms that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars even before being Durocoated.

People who care that much about their firearms are not going to leave them laying around for children to find as the story falsely implies. After that much of an investment in the base firearm and the additional cost of having ti professionally refinished, owners will typically secured these firearms in gun safes or make sure they are otherwise protected, as would be any expensive investment.

There are precisely zero documented incidents of a child finding a Durocoated firearm and playing with one, or of law enforcement officers firing up a child carry a Durocoated weapon.

A far more common and realistic threat
We do know, though, that parents buy their children hundreds of thousands of airsoft guns every year, firearms that often are to the naked eye nearly exact copies of real firearms.

Can you spot the difference?

Other than a plastic or painted orange tip on many models, these firearms found commonly at retail outlets and sold by the dozens to suburban children are the same size, weight, and shape of real firearms, have realistic actions and moving parts, and can be had as cheaply as $25, or less.

In far wider circulation that Durocoated firearms, these fake weapons are far more likely to be encountered by police, or used by criminals without easy access to real firearms, but who can purchase a plastic copy and a can of black spray paint to cover the orange cover without any problems at all.

And yes they have been used in crime... by children and adults as well. Both of these linked incidents came with in the past two weeks, but the reporter would rather focus on an unlikely potential tragedy that has never apparently occurred.

Brightly-painted Durocoated firearms are a threat to police.
If realistic airsoft guns—one of the most sought-after Christmas gifts in 2007— aren't filling our nation's morgues with the bodies of children mistaken for thugs by our law enforcement agencies, why are Durocoated firearms—even those with bright colors and odd color schemes—a greater threat?

When I was a child (and going back generations), cap guns that looked and sounded almost exactly like real firearms were commonplace as a staple of a young man's toy box.

Likewise, criminals have been modifying firearms for years for various reasons, including spray painting them to look like children's toys, for many years. I even recall seeing an episode of COPS (or perhaps a show like it) where a pump shotgun recovered in a gang raid had been spray-painted to look like a SuperSoaker water gun, complete with an empty soda bottle on top faking the water tank.

There are millions of fake guns that look real, and it is easy for a criminal to conceal a weapon, make a real gun look fake, or even disguise it as another object entirely.

How do law enforcement officers deal with such an issue? Despite the hysteria assisted by Bryan Soller of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police (who apparently doesn't trust Arizona police officers not to shoot citizens with concealed carry permits, either), it comes down to the elements of proper training, situational awareness, and common sense.

Its sad how often those elements are absent when incompetently researched or flatly biased firearms-related stories hit the media, all too often scaring the public with false controversies and unrealistic threats. Sadly, like nearly ubiquitous airsoft guns, this incompetence and bias in the media is something we've become accustomed to over time.

Update: Say Uncle has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1327 words, total size 10 kb.

Oy vey.

So what did Michelle Obama think of the United States before her husband decided he wanted to run the place?

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," she told a Milwaukee crowd today, "and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

I saw this quote yesterday, but with more pressing concerns at hand, I let it pass. In the blogosphere, others weighed in.

As it turns out, the Boston.com quote wasn't entirely fair, leaving out the context of the quote.

Here is the more accurate quote:

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

James Joyner has a nice round-up of reaction to the story.

The differences between the boston.com quote and the Breitbart quote are that the Breitbart quote provides fuller context, quoting the sentences immediately preceding and following the inflammatory statement that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

At ABC News blog Political Punch Jake Tapper gets a "clarification" from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton:

"Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change."

I certainly hope that is the idea that Mrs. Obama meant to convey, as it would be unseemly to have a potential First Lady say that she has never been proud of her country until her husband ran for it's highest office, not to mention more than a little arrogant and self-centered.

This is not Mrs. Obama's first controversial statement, and almost certainly will not be her last as the race for the Democratic nomination continues.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

I've held recently, both here on CY and on Pajamas Media, that Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is remarkably light on substance, if extremely gifted as a public speaker.

We are now hearing that the soaring oratory he gives may not entirely be of his own:

"Don't tell me words don't matter," Mr. Obama said, to applause. " 'I have a dream' — just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words? Just speeches?"

Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor's race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.

" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words? Just words?" Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' — just words?"

Barack Obama obviously used Deval Patrick's language and apparently even inflections in delivery in a speech he delivered over the weekend. Hillary Clinton's campaign has been attempting to capitalize on the borrowing, and insists upon calling it plagiarism.

Is it?

According to plagiarism.org (citing Merriam Webster), plagiarism is:

1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Did Barrack Obama meet any of these definitions when he used elements of Deval Patrick's 2006 speech?

It is unclear whether or not that Obama was attempting to pass off Patrick's language as his own, but once could certainly make an argument that he did. It is certain he did not give Patrick credit for that language he borrowed during the course of the speech. Is that plagiarism? As a textbook definition, yes.

It remains to be seen how seriously others will view the offense, but it is obvious that the candidate of "change" is not as full of fresh ideas as he would like to portray.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

A futile effort, to say the least:

In the event of an emergency on North Carolina State University's campus, officials would send out text messages to faculty, students and staff.

Getting people to sign up to receive the "WolfAlert" messages is another issue.

Of the 40,000 faculty, students and staff at N.C. State, only 10,000 have registered their phone numbers, despite campus-wide advertising. For those who have signed-up, school officials plan to test the system this week.

N.C. State isn't the only campus trying to get this type of system off the ground. On North Carolina's 110 public and private college campuses, new safety measures have quickly become the priority.

"Our challenges are population and geography. We're the largest in terms of students and area," said David Rainer, N.C. State's associate vice chancellor for environmental health and safety.

Last year, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper formed a task force to look at crisis communication plans at colleges and universities. The task now is to make sure those plans work.

The plans being used will do very little to stop the next Virginia Tech or NIU.

Keeping involuntarily committed people from being able to purchase firearms and getting the mentally ill treatment are laudable goals, but messaging systems and alarms are reactive in nature, and would not have saved a single life at either of the universities when gunmen rampaged through classrooms in a matter of minutes. In both instances, the events would have been over, or almost over, before an alert was even issued.

These are feel-good solutions, but in general are not real solutions to stop a threat as it is occurring. They are designed merely to speed emergency response to those who are lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught, or to keep a shooter from moving from one building into another after catastrophic events have already started. If you happen to be in the room or building when such an unlikely assault takes place, there is little that can currently be done to save you.

In such situations, only luck can save you if you are unarmed. I'd like to see university administrators in North Carolina rationally discuss the pros and cons of allowing faculty, staff and students in off-campus housing with concealed carry permits to carry their handguns on campus. I can find little evidence of such a conversation having occurred.

Perhaps university administrators are under the impression that by posting policies declaring university campuses "gun free" that they in fact are. I know for a fact that is not the case from my own university days, when I knew of at least three students who chose to carry pistols because they did not feel (rightfully) that university police officers, while diligent, could be relied upon to be there at the precise moment they were needed if a violent crime was visited upon them.

This was over a decade ago. University shootings were virtually unheard of at the time, and those I knew to carry did so because of a fear of sexual assault or armed robbery on or near campus.

Those I speak with now are now typically staff and faculty-aged, and while those fears of being a victim of a case of individual violent crime are still valid, I've heard some talk from staff and faculty would would feel safer if they had the means to legally protect their fellow staff members and students if a school shooter happened upon their classroom or administration building. They aren't looking to be heroes. Like most in the education field, they only want what is best for their students, and they tend to agree that life is one of their students continuing interests.

Not all university staff and faculty are comfortable with the idea of fellow faculty and staff being armed—in fact, I'd hazard a guess that most are probably uncomfortable with the general concept of having to face the fact that firearms are indeed on university campuses. They would rather pretend them away.

But firearms are on university campuses across North Carolina, and they always will be as long as distant parking lots and night classes exist. Instead of making self-defense illegal and typically be practiced by those with no formal training, it would perhaps be far wiser to allow those who have undergone the legal training, shooting qualifications, and background investigation to earn a CCH to legally carry a defensive handgun on campuses.

Allowing CCH to legal permit holders is not guaranteed to stop any specific crime on college campuses, but what it does do is give qualified citizens the option, and that is a discussion worth having, and far more likely to help prevent or stop a violent crime on campus than a belated text message or siren.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:38 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 805 words, total size 5 kb.

Sure trumps a steak dinner.

Kathryn (we'll call he Kate) was born six weeks early at 3:58 PM on Valentine's Day, and this picture was taken while she was than an hour old in neonatal intensive care. After running a series of tests, our little fighter was moved into the nursery with the full-term children, 100% healthy and hungry. The staff regards her as something of a little miracle. I certainly agree.

My wife Christine is doing remarkably well after her c-section, and we're getting ready to have breakfast. Big sister Maya will be by after school to see her new sister again.

Blogging is probably going to be light.

Life is good.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:29 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

1 She's sooo, cute. You're one lucky SOAG, Bob. Congratulations.

Posted by: Dusty at February 15, 2008 08:05 AM (GJLeQ)

2 Congratulations, son. She's a beauty. Best to Momma. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at February 15, 2008 08:16 AM (Pyd3M)

3 Congratulations, Bob. It's an amazing thing, isn't it?

Posted by: Pablo at February 15, 2008 08:22 AM (yTndK)

4 Congrats! Now where's my cigar! /jk

Posted by: Dan Irving at February 15, 2008 08:23 AM (zw8QA)

5 Woohoo! I THOUGHT that you weren't doing much online lately - now I see why. Congratulations to you and your wife! BTW, my mother's birthday is the 15th.

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 15, 2008 08:29 AM (dzXNT)

6 congrats, Bob!

Posted by: Frank G at February 15, 2008 08:38 AM (Ydps9)

7 She's gorgeous! Absolutely beautiful, congratulations. Now get some sleep!

Posted by: pajama momma at February 15, 2008 08:41 AM (f3xJa)

8 Congratulations. Life, indeed, is good.

Posted by: Mark L at February 15, 2008 09:02 AM (AfORa)

9 She looks wonderful. Congrats.

Posted by: brando at February 15, 2008 09:05 AM (qzOby)

10 Congrats on a beautiful new addition, Bob!

Posted by: C-C-G at February 15, 2008 09:40 AM (Txk9z)

11 Congratulations.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at February 15, 2008 09:51 AM (WpYbd)

12 Congratulations to you and your (now enlarged) family. God bless all of you. It was a busy day in the conservative babysphere -- Wyatt Earp (Support Your Local Gunfighter) and his wife had a son.

Posted by: bRight & Early at February 15, 2008 09:54 AM (E725N)

13 Best Wishes!

Posted by: Tony B at February 15, 2008 09:58 AM (187Jq)

14 Congratulations ! She's beautiful.

Posted by: Bradley at February 15, 2008 10:05 AM (8DaCp)

15 Precious!

Posted by: w3 at February 15, 2008 10:09 AM (Qv6bq)

16 Congratulations on the new tax deduction. Glad everyone is healthy.

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 15, 2008 10:09 AM (0pZel)

17 Congrats!

Posted by: t.ferg at February 15, 2008 10:20 AM (2YVh7)

18 Congratulations! May her life be filled with light, love, health, prosperity, and happiness.

Posted by: Laughing_Wolf at February 15, 2008 10:37 AM (0N2E8)

19 Congratulations, Bob. May the road always rise in front of her and the sun shine brightly on her face.

Posted by: Mark at February 15, 2008 10:41 AM (4od5C)

20 Congrats! I wish the very best for you guys. Not that you'd be interested, but I almost died in birth, myself, and look how big and strong I'm now

Posted by: Anonymous Reader From Finland at February 15, 2008 11:03 AM (RkwYf)

21 Congratulations!!!

Posted by: Penfold at February 15, 2008 11:06 AM (lF2Kk)

22 BOB! Congrats to you and yours on this glorious occasion! May her life be filled with pleasure and goodness and my the Good L*rd Bless you all! Best wishes!!! Billy

Posted by: Big Country at February 15, 2008 11:28 AM (SIzGZ)

23 Congrats!

Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at February 15, 2008 11:34 AM (ppKzH)

24 Congratulations, Bob. Well done.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at February 15, 2008 12:35 PM (iL2/6)

25 What a wonderful gift. She is beautiful. And I love her name. Congratulations to you and Mom.

Posted by: Sara at February 15, 2008 01:04 PM (Wi/N0)

26 Congratulations! Now with three gals in the house you are truely in deep doo-doo! How are you going to get anything done when you're twisted around three little pinkies? ;-)

Posted by: joated at February 15, 2008 01:23 PM (d/RyS)

27 What a beauty! Congratulations to you and your wife. Very glad to hear that all is well. What a Valentine, eh?

Posted by: Phoenix at February 15, 2008 01:33 PM (4N2f4)

28 What a beautiful little girl. So glad she's healthy even thought she's early. I'm proud to share my Valentine birthday with her. Beverly

Posted by: Beverly Williams at February 15, 2008 01:48 PM (d/RyS)

29 So, when is she gonna blog? hoho, C

Posted by: Chris Muir at February 15, 2008 02:07 PM (Qn+aj)

30 Congrats! Looks like a future Marine Aviator to me.

Posted by: DaveW at February 15, 2008 02:12 PM (YGhCF)

31 What beautiful and poetic Valentine's Day gift - the birth of a beautiful healthy baby! God Bless, Mom, Dad, Big Sister Maya, and newcomer Kate!

Posted by: Tara at February 15, 2008 03:12 PM (Dqxeq)

32 Whoo hoo! What a present! I am sure not very many people got a darling as sweet as yours. Glad to hear all is well with both your wife and the little one.

Posted by: Suzi at February 15, 2008 03:30 PM (h/khF)

33 Kate: May love and laughter light your days, and warm your heart and home. May good and faithful friends be yours, wherever you may roam. May peace and plenty bless your world with joy that long endures. May all life's passing seasons bring the best to you and yours! You are totally beautiful!!

Posted by: Maggie45 at February 15, 2008 03:46 PM (D1oYx)

34 (surfed on over from LGF) What a precious - & she's so big! Bless you all!

Posted by: Susan at February 15, 2008 04:10 PM (rUIye)

35 One hour after being born six weeks early? That's one of the healthiest newborns I have ever seen! Gratz.

Posted by: Aplomb at February 15, 2008 05:58 PM (2lZrY)

36 Makes you realize whats important huh, Congradulations Christine and Bob on the birth of a beautiful baby.

Posted by: D-lo at February 15, 2008 08:18 PM (4FSAp)

37 Congratulations.

Posted by: Tarheel at February 15, 2008 08:33 PM (5EyBQ)

38 Congratulations.

Posted by: mescalero at February 15, 2008 10:12 PM (78keD)

39 What a cutie she is. Congratualtions.

Posted by: Retread at February 16, 2008 06:36 AM (j74de)

40 Another olive shoot. What a blessing. To help young Kate's nervous system continue to develop apace, I strongly encourage your wife to start scorfing down sardines. The essential fatty acids will favorably alter the fatty acid profile of her milk.

Posted by: Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) at February 16, 2008 07:57 AM (w2kpq)

41 Outstanding! What a beautiful little girl. Congratulations to you both. Welcome to the world, Kate. Listen to the old man, he knows stuff.

Posted by: maxx at February 16, 2008 08:41 AM (bFNvP)

42 I'm looking right now at my oldest daughter who was born seven years ago last week, also six weeks premature. Life is a good and wonderful thing, if a bit scary at times like this. Good luck and have fun! Thanks for the pic and the memories.

Posted by: Douglas Winship at February 16, 2008 08:43 AM (hcQ3t)

43 Congratulations. Children are a great blessing to the world because they embody hope for the future. God bless you all. chsw

Posted by: chsw at February 16, 2008 08:47 PM (KUTuD)

44 Bob, Congratulations! I can't think of a better Valentine's day gift for you and your family. Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at February 17, 2008 11:16 AM (ON55K)

45 Mazal-Tov!

Posted by: Mohammed the Teddy-Bear at February 17, 2008 04:36 PM (27Dth)

46 Simply beautiful....congrats..!!!

Posted by: Jaded at February 19, 2008 08:19 AM (0lpqx)

47 Life is excellent. What a beauty!

Posted by: baldilocks at February 20, 2008 12:59 AM (7kLWM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment