Confederate Yankee: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

March 28, 2007

Out in Left Field

I hate to say this, but Gateway Pundit is voyaging into conspiracy theory territory on this one.

First, he's unable to differentiate between unrelated bomb attacks elsewhere in Iraq (Ramadi and Abu Ghraib) and the two truck blasts in Tal Afar. How he can be so far off, I don't know... but he is.

Second, he is insisting that any additional information that becomes available in later stories about this event are indicative of a conspiracy, coverup, or shift of some sort. An early report that indicates police involvement is not negated by the discovery that elements in addition to the police may be involved. That is why they call them "developing stories."

I confirmed this story this morning before posting on it originally, and just learned moments ago that Alaa Al Taii, MOI Communications director has annouced a joint investigation by the Interior Ministry , Ministry of Defense, and and the Ministry for National Security is beginning, and that Interior Minister Bolani will personally be involved, and will visit the scene in Tal Afar tomorrow.

The incident reported by the Associated Press' Sinan Salaheddin as cited in my previous post appears to be correct, and the conflicting accounts are over details, not over the essnetial substance of the story.

This incident is not a hoax, some sort of conspiracy, or blame-shifting operation in effect. Our allies snapped, and massacred between 45-60 men.

As inconvenient and horrible as that is, it is the apparent truth.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Send a Chickenhawk to War

Time and again, we've heard liberals call conservative bloggers "chickenhawks," and tell them that if they care so much about the Iraq War, they should go join it (interestingly enough, I do know of a single liberal blogger that has volunteered to go serve in the Afghan theater, the war they ostensibly support. I've never claimed liberals were smart, nor consistent).

Now is the time that my liberal readers have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If they care so much about conservatives going to Iraq, here's a chance to finance a trip.

The Pentagon has extended an invitation to send a pair of RedState bloggers to Iraq, and they are currently attempting to raise $7500 to make this trip happen.

Ante up, guys.

You might finally realize your dream of placing conservative bloggers in a position where they might come under gunfire, thereby giving Charles Karel Bouley and other Huffington Post bloggers a chance to say they deserved it. "What goes around comes around," etc.

Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.

Good luck finding one.

Update: Oh Bartleby! Oh, the stupidity! Noted lefty war-reporting plagiarist Sean Paul Kelly decided to call the Redstate bloggers that are planning to embed "chickenhawks," without bothering with the little detail that one of the bloggers, Jeff Emanual, is a former USAF Spec Ops TAC.

Confronted with the fact that Emanuel has already served, Kelly offered up a lame, "well, since so many soldiers are doing two and three tours, why not enlist again?"

As I addressed to "Lex Steele" in the comments:

Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.
No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.
Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?
Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.

Update: Well, doesn't that beat all.

We do have a liberal blogger that has requested to go to Iraqi along with the two from Redstate. Can anyone at RedState contact the Pentagon to see if they have room for a third blogger?

I don't always agree with the politics of Gun-Toting Liberal, but I typically respect his opinion, even when I disagree with it. He's intelligent and thoughtful and I think it would be an excellent idea to include him on his embed. If they will arrange for him to make the journey, I hope you'll help finance his trip.

Upon his safe return, I will be very interested to see how visiting Iraq may affect his feeling about the war, for better, or for ill.

Correction: It was GTL co-blogger Alexander Paul Melonas that is interested in embedding.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:45 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

1 In a nutshell, RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. We want to send Jeff and AcademicElephant, who henceforth insists on being known by her real name, Victoria Coates. = chicken hawks Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes. Good luck finding one. = chickensh*ts

Posted by: Boss429 at March 28, 2007 10:54 AM (a+Mxg)

2 What obligation do liberals have to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, and why should we want to? Your assertion doesn't make sense. We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:01 AM (7IB7k)

3 Lex, I never said you had the obligation to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, but as liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq, I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to send several there. Granted, we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence (If you need citations of this for proof, I can find oodles of references to Michelle Malkin's trip, and how liberal bloggers and their commenters hope she would go out without the military unit she was to embed with, with the clear implication that they'd prefer to have her die), but at least they chose to go. I also stated you might want to financially support any liberal blogger who might want to see the war firsthand and write about it, but I don't think that I've seen a single attempt by a liberal to get embedded... have you? If run across one, I'll gladly promote their singular effort, and do what I can to make sure they know what equipment and protection they will need to both chronicle and survive their trip. I'm sure that the conservative bloggers who have embedded and who are embedded now would help as well, if asked. You also assert that: We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able. You neglect to mention that if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere. Certainly, with all the brainpower and patriotism in the liberal blogosphere, there must be someone calling for liberals to volunteer for duty in the "good war" in Afghanistan. Isn't there? Perhaps not. Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy. No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight. Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex? Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:43 AM (9y6qg)

4 It was not GTL who offered himself to the Pentagon, it was me, Alexander Paul Melonas; one of his co-contributors. However, thank you for the kind remarks about the Gun Toting Liberal, and indeed, I again state my desire to accompany those from Redstate on their journey.

Posted by: Alexander Paul Melonas at March 28, 2007 02:36 PM (nRapB)

5 CY- Re: 'good war' Call me naive, but if you enlist, do you have a choice in your theater? -CZ

Posted by: ChenZhen at March 28, 2007 03:01 PM (IkiL2)

6 ChenZhen: I think you're right. Pat Tillman volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, but ended up getting shot in what he called an illegal war in Iraq.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:25 PM (7IB7k)

7 Cpl. Tillman was shot on a mountianside in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and I have never read him saying that he thought it 'illegal'. (In fact as I recall, he refused all contact with the media his entire time in the Army, so I would love to hear how that story got started...) That being said, the idea of 'orders' kinda mess up that whole volunteer for your 'preferred theater of conflict'. You goes where they tell you. But hey, Lex, it makes a great line. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: MunDane at March 28, 2007 05:13 PM (/qH+3)

8 Wow, Lex. I'm surprised you'd write that without at least googling it first. Is that the sort of thing people are saying? Where'd you get that information from?

Posted by: paully at March 28, 2007 06:03 PM (75YCX)

9 You guys don't understand. This is typical Lex. He makes statements and then refuses to back them up - and once he is shown to be wrong he changes the subject. Typical of the left.

Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:11 PM (ybfXM)

10 I was wrong about Tillman's place of death, obviously. He did serve in Iraq, though. As for his political views: "Mary Tillman said a friend of PatÂ’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan Â— a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, 'Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.'"

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 08:42 PM (W27N0)

11 CY: liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq They mean that war supporters should fighting in Iraq. I think I can speak for most liberals when I say we don't much care if you all do your blogging from Iraq or not. That is why I said it doesn't make sense for you to expect liberals to pay to send Red State bloggers to Iraq. we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence I don't believe that at all. I don't know anyone who wants reporters or soldiers to die in Iraq, or who thinks it's okay to burn soldiers in effigy, or who wants to abolish Christmas. Each of these is a misguided or dishonest attempt to portray liberals negatively. There simply aren't many people who believe those things. if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere How about the supporters of the Iraq war step up? That's where we need to people most. My side thinks Iraq is a disaster, and not just for a lack of manpower. You all think it's winnable, so go help win it. liberals ... [are] attempting to set the stage for a defeat in [Iraq] That's a cynical way to put it. Most people in this country have decided the war was a mistake, or at least that it was too poorly waged. We don't want defeat, rather we don't know what a win would look like, thus we wish to quit pouring our youth and treasure into it. in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, No. and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight. Sure! It's unAmerican to compel citizens to fight in wars they find immoral or illegal. Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex? No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war. Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals. Again, those were Ward Churchills. I don't know anyone who would condone treating the flag that way. You're saying that this is an American war, and thus all Americans are equally responsible for participating. No one should have been asked to fight the war in the first place. It is a disaster and this is reflected in its unpopularity among Americans.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 09:28 PM (W27N0)

12 I responded to your comments over at The Gun Toting Liberal but stopped by here with them as well. I respect you and your blog very much, but I have to say that in order for your position to be entirely fair, we would have to evaluate the results of the Pentagon having invited Red AND Blue bloggers to go to Iraq. Oh wait...they didn't do that. They invited ONE side of our very polarized blogosphere, didn't they? Now if BOTH sides were asked to go and (as you suspect) the liberal blogger swiftly declined - THEN your point would be valid and accurate. "They" want one voice coming out of Iraq and I submit "they" should be set apart as the fearful ones for refusing to lay the groundwork for objectivity. And also (just as a little FYI), GTL is an honorably discharged veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks again for bringing attention to this and for discussing it with the GTL.

Posted by: Megan at March 29, 2007 01:24 AM (Gq5Wi)

13 Lex, I don't believe all liberals want conservative bloggers to meet their bitter end, I do see that very few moderate liberals (if any) condemn those on the far left spewing such hate (flag burners, soldier burners, defacation, hope you die stuff...) Speak out against it if you see it as wrong. I do against the far right. Many do go help to win in Iraq/Afgan. It is all one war whether you choose to believe it or not. Right now we are trying to stabilize both countries and remove the radicals. We are trying to give them a chance at freedom like we were given during the Revolutionary War. Don't they deserve a chance? Both countries? Most people in this country do NOT believe the war was a mistake, they believe it was headed in the wrong direction, we now have new direction and it appears to be working, while it seems to be working, the DEMS in congress want to cut the funding out from under the troops and put out an arbitrary withdraw date. One word for that, STUPID. That is NOT supporting our troops. Whether you believe in the war or not, don't punish the troops. A miliary member does not choose where he/she goes. They cannot choose to fight in one area and refuse in another. They sign up to defend the United States no matter where/when called upon to do so and all that join are fully aware of that obligation. It is not dark ages mentality, it serves a very real purpose, stability. Bluntly, WE are there for YOU. Problems with the war, Congress should be your outlet, not the Military. You said "No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war." Don't pity us, we all knew what we were getting into and most would do it again if needed, even if we don't believe in the "war", it's for the U.S., not ourselves.

Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 06:05 AM (JYeBJ)

14 Actually, what I'm gathering is that the bloggers at Red State initiated the contact with the Pentagon four months ago, not htat the Pentagon contacted them. I wrote one of the bloggers at Red State making the trip, and will be able to follow up soon and verifiy that for sure, and pass along the contact information to get the embed process started to Alex as soon as I have it. I don't know of you read Michael Yon, Michael Fumento, of the other bloggers who have embedded or attempted to embed in Iraq, but the Pentagon doesn't seem to much like any embeds, regardless of political stripe. I'll have a post up on that subject later today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 29, 2007 07:27 AM (9y6qg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 27, 2007

HuffPo: Tony Snow Deserved Cancer

Ah, the commenters at the Huffington Post are at it again:

I admit my bias shows with these stories. I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya.."

Oh, hang on. that wasn't a commenter, but a mainstream (for the Huffington Post) HuffPo blogger, Charles Karel Bouley.

You guys remember Charles Karel Bouley, don't you ? He's the nice gentlemen that thinks God killed Boy Scouts in revenge for discriminating against gays. No, really.

Class of the Huffington Post, indeed.

Update: Allah has a roundup.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

March 26, 2007

Bush Responsible for Iranian Adulterers Being Stoned to Death For Past Millennia

Right, Andrew?

According to Sullivan Logic, the Iranian people, who have a culture thousands of years older than our own, could not function as a society until George W. Bush came along to show them how to act, for better, or for worse. Or at least the worst part.

It has been a very long time since anyone has accused Andrew Sullivan of being overly logical or coherent, and I don't think we are in any danger of anyone making that argument anytime soon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

March 06, 2007

Final Deep Thought on The Libby Conviction, Before I Dismiss It For Eternity For The Relatively Minor Case That It Is

Thank God Scooter Libby was convicted. If he been acquitted, an irate Jane Hamsher would have depleted the global supply of black ink for months.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:43 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm curious. Are you being disingenuous by writing "Libby conviction" and don't mean to include Libby sentencing, any Libby appeals, or a possible Libby Supreme Court Consideration or a possible Libby pardon? I don't think the story is over by a long shot. Who knows, in addition to any of the possible to probable events I mentioned above, there might actually be some new revelations of one type or another. But if you do mean to say 'never means never' about the whole still evolving story, will you let the fly on your wall put up a few posts about you scratching the itches?

Posted by: Dusty at March 06, 2007 05:14 PM (GJLeQ)

2 If there's any "proportionality" in the sentencing, he'll get about a $2,000 fine and be picking up litter for a week. Compared to Sandy Burglar, who like did a real crime involving national security, Libby spit on the sidewalk.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 06, 2007 05:28 PM (5OYu4)

3 Barring anything earth-shattering, Dusty, I don't intend to write about Scootergate anymore. Out of more than 1750 entries, his name has appeared on the pages of CY a grand total of 19 times, and most of those in passing. I've just never much cared about this minor case. Of course, the left think it's huge, but as much as they've hyped it, it isn't that big of a deal to most folks. Most people don't know who Libby was, and frankly don't see what the big deal is. I know who he is, can sort of understand why some people care, but frankly, could never get into it. sorry.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 06, 2007 06:05 PM (HcgFD)

4 CY - there are other sites that specialize in Plame, such as Just One Minute. The fact is that the case shows an absolute in the fact that our judicial system is corrupt at it's foundation. We have prosecutors that have run wild with power (i.e. Nifong, Earle, Fitzpatrick, etc.) and are not being held to reasonable ethical standards. We, as a country, are seeing further degradation of our rights in this case. It is a downward spiral that will lead...well...who knows where. If you are interested in deeper analysis of the case visit JOM. The owner of the site, Tom Maguire, also links to many other sites that have covered this fiasco in detail. Bottom line - it is a sad day for the American judicial system.

Posted by: Specter at March 06, 2007 09:29 PM (ybfXM)

5 You're dropping the lede. It's not the case... it's what the case represents and covers up. Go back to Wilson's 1999 trip and see all the countries he said were trading uranium (if you have time, check out his export/investment company there), then see who he worked with, how many of those were on the Kerry campaign and donors (including Priest's hubby, another huge story), and McCarthy (and her hubby as well, huge story), who got her her job, the list of those who covered Africa along with her, which docs disappeared a la Sandy and who authored some of them... and believe it or not, Rockefeller's name comes up a lot as well. Oh and that little Able Danger thing. Then you can view EPIC, VIPS conferences from before this came up... and you will see how huge this is. This was/is a coup. No black helicopters or tinfoil, seriously. I started a graph on this and followed everything along with blogs like Free Republic, Stratasphere, Just One Minute and many others. I'm shocked that you never looked deeper, you're so thorough. I totally agree re: Jane Hamster, sheesh.

Posted by: Ali at March 07, 2007 11:02 AM (hDlfX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

46kb generated in CPU 0.0153, elapsed 0.081 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.071 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3086
Files: 28
Bytes: 58.6M
CPU Time: 2:11
Queries: 159141

Content

Posts: 3653
Comments: 35960

Feeds

March 28, 2007

March 27, 2007

March 26, 2007

March 06, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds