My wife and daughter and I begrudgingly left Orlando yesterday morning and rolled back into North Carolina late yesterday afternoon. It was fun to visit with my sister-in-law's family in West Palm Beach for a couple of days before introducing my wife and seven-year-old daughter to Uncle Walt's dream. My only regret that we couldn't stay longer. Things have changed a lot in the 24 years since I last visited ORlando, but the experience of this past week is one I'll treasure for years to come.

Here's a picture we snapped of ourselves in Epcot at the Kodak Incredible Picture Lab in Epcot.

I'm just as ugly as ever, but the wife and kid sure are cute.

I'll be back online and back up to my normal posting frequency within the next 48 hours or so, and will try to get something out later this afternoon.

I want to thank my brother and blog designer extraordinare "phin" for keeping you all entertained with his guest-blogging. Should you ever want a web or blog design or your own, consider contacting him and his partners in crime at Apothegm Designs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fascinating hypothesis, isn't it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halliburton.

Of course.

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

Update: I should have seen this coming, huh?

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

How good of an idea is this?

Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.

The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.

The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.

"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said.

The armed services have long barred members of the military from sharing information that could jeopardize their missions or safety, whether electronically or by other means.

The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends.

My gut reaction? While I can understand the infrastructure demands that these and similar sites place upon defense networks designed first and foremost with military applications in mind, the ban once again shows a fundamental lack of understanding by military officials the importance online communications can and should play as part of a modern military's communications strategy.

Predictably, users of these sites will simply shift to similar sites that are not banned, and the military will waste more time and resources attempting to keep up in an ever-expanding, cat-and-mouse challenge as our ever-resourceful troops find new ways to keep lines of communication open with their stateside friends and family.

Instead of attempting to muzzle communications between soldiers and their social networks, the military should encourage communications between the troops in the field and their friends and family members back home. Time and again, the most positive messages coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan are those being voiced by our soldiers to friends and relatives in emails transformed into in blog entries and newspaper editorials.

The War on Terror is every bit as much a war of pixels and pictures and mindshare as it is a war of bullets and bravery. al Qaeda and the various insurgent groups know this instinctively, and dominate social networking and file-sharing sites. The Pentagon should engage their own Army of Davids and have our troops counter terrorist propaganda with their own frontline perspectives. Instead, those in senior positions who do not understand the communications battlespace plan to flee the online field, ceding it to the enemy.

There is no other way to address this than to call this flawed policy what it is: military communications shortsightedness of epic proportions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Vast swathes of the Internet are mysteriously down today, affected by a peculiar virus specifically targeting keyboard drivers at university women's studies programs, academic journals, and certain political Web sites around the world. The virus corrupts specific DLLs and renders keyboards inoperable.

The virus appears to be emanating from a specific CNN.com Web server.

Computer users from these locations loose the ability to use their keyboards after viewing this particular story, where al Qaeda terrorists attempted to turn a all-girls school under construction north of Baghdad into a giant bomb.

The virus, dubbed "Cognitive Diss," does not yet have a patch developed, though antivirus teams are said to be hard at work.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

A reliable source passed along the following:

Fact Sheet
Army Operations Security: Soldier Blogging Unchanged

Summary:

• America's Army respects every Soldier's First Amendment rights
  while also adhering to Operations Security (OPSEC) considerations to
  ensure their safety on the battlefield.
• Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of ourSoldiers are of utmost importance.
• Soldiers, Civilians, contractors and Family Members all play an integral role in maintaining Operations Security, just as in previous wars.

Details:

• In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or
  her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate
  supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving
  guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that
  Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public
  forum.
• Army Regulation 350-1, "Operations Security," was updated April
  17, 2007 - but the wording and policies on blogging remain the same from
  the July 2005 guidance first put out by the U.S. Army in Iraq for
  battlefield blogging. Since not every post/update in a public forum can be monitored, this regulation places trust in the Soldier, Civilian Employee, Family Member and contractor that they will use proper judgment to ensure OPSEC.
• Much of the information contained in the 2007 version of AR530-1 already was included in the 2005 version of AR 530-1. For example, Soldiers have been required since 2005 to report to their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer about their wishes to publish military-related content in public forums.
• Army Regulation 530-1 simply lays out measures to help ensure operations security issues are not published in public forums (i.e.,blogs) by Army personnel.
• Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication. However, AR 530-1 does mention if someone later posts an E-mail in a public forum containing information sensitive to OPSEC considerations, an issue may then arise.
• Soldiers may also have a blog without needing to consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer if the following conditions are met:
  1. The blog's topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe
     publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
  2. The Soldier doesn't represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
  3. The Soldier doesn't use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.
• Army Family Members are not mandated by commanders to practice OPSEC. Commanders cannot order military Family Members to adhere to OPSEC. AR 530-1 simply says Family Members need to be aware of OPSEC to help safeguard potentially critical and sensitive information. This helps to ensure Soldiers' safety, technologies and present and future operations will not be compromised.
• Just as in 2005 and 2006, a Soldier should inform his or her OPSEC officer and immediate supervisor when establishing a blog for two primary reasons:
  1. To provide the command situational awareness.
  2. To allow the OPSEC officer an opportunity to explain to the Soldier matters to be aware of when posting military-related content in a public, global forum.
• A Soldier who already has a military-related blog that has not yet consulted with his or her immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer should do so.
• Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic.

The source suggested this was a "climb down" on the part of the Army. I honestly don't know enough about the original set of orders, or how they were enforced within the Army, to comment, but will link those who do when they post.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

Over the weekend, milblogger Jim ("Uncle Jimbo") Hanson was asked on CNN:

Let me ask you quickly, Jim, there's been a lot made of the media improvements by the insurgents, that they're doing a great job of getting their message out. What are we going to see from our military as we move forward against that press machine, when they try to balance it?

The military's response, written by an Army Major, borders on incompetence.

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result.

The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

I certainly understand the military's concerns about operational security, but this order takes us precisely in the wrong direction.

We need a greater flow of information, more firsthand accounts from our frontline soldiers, explaining to us in stark, sometimes vulgar language the exact nature of the war and the enemy we are fighting.

Military blogs, or milblogs, are the only way for frontline soldier to directly relate their experiences to the American public without the filters placed upon them by either the media or their military commanders.

Blog entries from Neil Prakash who formerly wrote at Armor Geddon, provided an irresistible, riveting account of the Battle of Fallujah from the viewpoint of a tank commander involved in the brutal house-to-house fighting. Prakash won a Silver Star during the battle he chronicled, and in writing about his experiences, provided a vivid window into the war that no reporter could emulate, a perspective that no dry MNF-I press release could convey.

At the time, Armor Geddon was perhaps one of the finest of milblogs, and did more to provide a real reflection of the conditions on the ground than any news anchor or wire service report. Armor Geddon became one of the first and most prominent casualties of the OpSec war. Prakash's blog fell silent on October 4, 2005.

One can only imagine what he could have accomplished in communicating the war effort since that time, had the military not decided to silence his voice.

Armor Geddon is just one of a galaxy of milblogs that could envelop the media organizations of the world, organizations that rely upon stringers, bureau reporters, and multiple layers of editors to provide a sterile, detached view of the war and the men fighting it.

Milblogs can and should be among our strongest assets is a war that is as much about perception as execution. Thousands of military bloggers, describing everything from excruciating boredom, to the rush of surviving the shot that just cracks past, milbloggers can serve not only as our first line defenders, but our first line of information.

If we want to win a war that is as much about information as it is about actual counterinsurgency, few can win the American public better than the American soldier or Marine communicating directly to the American people from their hearts.

I hope Army brass realizes this mistake before their concerns over operational security loses the war by not communicating "why we fight" to the American people.

Update: It's purely speculation, of course, but a couple of veterans in emails to Michelle Malkin have raised the possibilty that the new regulations were put in place as a response to harsh criticism of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments.

The timeline--the order was issued April 19, well in advance of that particular defeatist comment--is wrong on the facts, but it raises an interesting possibility in principle: is it possible that Democratic pressure may be behind the Army's gag order?

Sure, Wonkette and others are quick to jump the gun and predictably "blame Bush" for the order, but like others buying that particular storyline, they obviously don't read milblogs.

Military bloggers are certainly not all fans of George W. Bush, but one thing is for certain, and that is that the overwhelming majority of them are strongly against the "retreat in defeat" plans that Democrats have been pushing since before the 2006 elections.

Who really has more to lose from a vocal military blogosphere? Is it the President, who has supported the military and their shared mission and still fights for it, or the Democrats, who seek to undermine every soldier's sacrifice and the Iraqi lives they are trying to protect?

NOTE: Any no, I don't personally think Democrats are behind this.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:21 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 6 kb.

Last week I confronted RedState blog for a post by "streiff" attempting to say that they had a photo of an American GI "flipping off" an Associated Press photojournalist by the name of Maya Alleruzzo. Another Redstate contributor, "Thomas," went on further to claim that the picture in question was PhotoShopped.

Neither claim was true.

This is the photo in question:

The caption that ran with the photo at the time stated:

Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

The caption incorrectly cites Lockett as a Staff Sgt, when he is actually a SFC, but that is a much more trivial matter. What does matter is that Redstate never issued a correction for their false claim, even when I sent them an email alerting them to my previous post, which clearly shows an CY-enhanced photo showing that the finger shown is actually SFC Lockett's trigger or index finger.

Clearly, Lockett was not "flipping off" the AP photographer.

Over the weekend I got in touch with MAJ Joseph (Joe) R. Sowers, 3rd HBCT/3rd ID Public Affairs Officer, who contacted the soldier in the picture, Lockett, directly.

Lockett clearly states:

In the picture, it is my trigger finger outside of my trigger well. I would never give a reporter, nor any Iraqi citizen, a middle finger. I am more professional than that. I am a SFC in the United States Army and proud of what I do.

Now that SFC Lockett himself unequivocally supported what the enhanced photo clearly shows, will "streiff" and "Thomas" at Redstate have the common decency to apologize for their incorrect claims and issue either a correction or a retraction? I certainly hope so. Their credibility hangs in the balance.

As for the Associated Press photojournalist, Lockett's commanding officer, COL Wayne Grigsby, had this to say:

In my opinion, Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent photojournalist who accurately portrayed the Sledgehammer Soldier executing his duties to standard, to include, his weapon on safe and his finger outside the trigger well.

Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent representation of the media. Her efforts allowed us to showcase the outstanding work of our great young Soldiers that we would otherwise have not been able to do. We consider her an honorary member of the Sledgehammer Team. We would welcome her back in the brigade at any time.

Journalists make mistakes. So do bloggers. The only way for any of us to maintain our credibility is to admit those mistakes, and attempt to correct the record.

I hope that Redstate will therefore correct their claims regarding SFC Lockett and photographer Maya Alleruzzo. They unfairly attacked the professionalism of SFC Lockett, and misrepresented the esteem with which the 3rd Heavy holds Alleruzzo, apparently for their own amusement.

Faced with the facts, Redstate should do the right thing and correct their inaccurate, defamatory post.

Update Mike Krempasky just discovered that the general comments form at Redstate has apparently been down for at least a week, which is why no one there got or responded to my messages.

Erick's response, on Redstate, however, is sad; a non-apology apology, blaming everyone else.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

Redstate is currently running a post by "streiff" called AP is Popular with the Troops that claims to show an American soldier on patrol in Iraq "flipping off" the Associated Press photographer, Maya Alleruzzo.

Blackfive provides a link to the original caption that IDs the soldier as:

Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

On first blush, it appears to be exactly what RedState and Blackfive describe. But sometimes, even pictures can tell less than the whole story.

I got an email from Michael Yon this morning that including the following:

Bob,

You are the man for this. Maya Alleruzzo, currently a photographer for AP, is getting flack. I know Maya and she is very pro troopÂ…

I would email to Redstate directly but their email address is on my laptop (somewhere else). I think it's just a mistake because the people at Redstate have their hearts in the right place. Maya is out here in the worst parts of Iraq and she's a treasure -- though I know her association with AP puts her into harm's way.

I'm trying to run down Staff Sgt Lockett, who would be the ultimate authority on what was occurring in this picture. If I get a response, I'll be sure to post it. In the meantime, I trust Yon, who seems to know Alleruzzo, and the work of Alleruzzo herself. In addition to taking photos for the Associated Press, Alleruzzo occasionally writes.

Does this author of this article strike you as the kind of person our soldiers would flip off? How about this one, detailing the courage of a paralyzed Iraqi officer?

I don't think so. This sounds like the kind of photographer/journalist that soldiers would love to have around.

Of course, a closer look at the image may tell the story on its own.

I've cropped and enlarged the photo, and done some extremely high-tech phalanges modeling. Count the fingers, folks.

Unless Staff Sgt. Lockett is related to the Six-Fingered Man from The Princess Bride, the photo itself seems to provide the debunking. The bones extending from the wrist (crude gray lines) through the pinky finger define the outside shape of Lockett's glove and the hand it contains, and from there it is a simple matter to merely count the remaining knuckle impressions (shown with white dots) on the glove itself to account for the ring, middle, and index fingers.

It is the index finger you see alongside the M4 receiver, with the other three fingers (middle finger included) curled around the pistol grip of the carbine.

It seems a blogosphere retraction is in order.

Update: I'm very disappointed with Redstate at the moment. I sent them an email alerting them to the apparent fact that their claims were false, and to date, they've refused to issue a correction.

Apparently, they're either not monitoring their email, or are possessed by their own brand of "truthiness."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It looks like he has what ever finger he desires on the safety. Some put an index, others the middle. Big deal.

Posted by: David Caskey at April 24, 2007 08:48 AM (G5i3t)

2 much ado about nothing....

Posted by: jon at April 24, 2007 08:51 AM (5/OOn)

3 The safety's actually on the other side, and is flipped with the thumb. One of the safety rules is to keep your finger straight and off the trigger, as seen in the pic. When you're rolling with a condition 1 weapon, that's how your finger always is. Good catch CY, and nice high-tech phalange modeling. Did you do that in a CSI lab?

Posted by: paully at April 24, 2007 08:58 AM (/7U2B)

4 And you felt you needed to call the other blogs on it why? I suspect you think you are doing the right thing however it didn't advance anything and alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion.

Posted by: Rightmom at April 24, 2007 09:07 AM (0lpqx)

5 I think it was a two-fold purpose: a) To protect and recognize journalists who are on our side b) To show the left that a widely read rightwing blog isn't afraid to call bullshit and will strive to maintain integrity, even if something happens to agree with what lots of us would really like to see

Posted by: paully at April 24, 2007 09:33 AM (/7U2B)

6 And you felt you needed to call the other blogs on it why? I suspect you think you are doing the right thing however it didn't advance anything and alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion. I can't actually beleive you feel this way. I am doing the right thing by reporting the facts, no matter where those facts lead us. This AP photographer was not being flipped off. If you read the two links to articles she has written, she seems to have a deep respect for both American troops and our coalition allies, and the sacrifices they have made. We don't have enough honest journalists out there, and I'll do my damndest to defend the good ones against obviously wrong attacks. Publishing this post "advances" the truth, the very thing we hammer the media the most to provide. Instead, you advocate nothing less than the flip side of trutherism. Your basic message is "Screw the facts. This is what I want to believe." This is warped, wrong, and dishonorable. I will not apologize for attempting to publish the truth and correct inaccurate information, no matter who issues it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 24, 2007 09:46 AM (9y6qg)

7 Nice job CY. I bet we would never see a post like this at DU, FDL or KOS.

Posted by: Specter at April 24, 2007 10:05 AM (ybfXM)

8 Posts like this are what make me respect this blog, even though we're on opposite sides of the political aisle. And Pally is right. My weapons instructor would have smaked me upside the head if I ever placed my finger on the trigger unless I was ready to fire. Hoo-uh, Bob, for keeping things straight. On a side note, if I was on my third tour, I would be tempted to give someone the finger, but the photographer would be way down on the list.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 24, 2007 10:53 AM (kxecL)

9 I think he is flipping the bird but he is doing it to keep his photo out of the press and thus himself and family more secure, a common tactic. He probably doesn't know or care who the photog is or works for. Just a thought

Posted by: Ray Robison at April 24, 2007 01:45 PM (z62e3)

10 alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion. Please tell me that Rightmom is a parody. I know people deceive themselves in order to remain happy, but very few will actually admit it. From there it's a short trip to the padded room...

Posted by: scarshapedstar at April 24, 2007 03:24 PM (glUhi)

11 Well....it was fun while it lasted. Until I saw the photo enlarged I figured that he was doing what all of us thought he was doing! Michael Yon's email put everything into it's proper perspective regarding Maya Alleruzzo.

Posted by: lib_NOT at April 24, 2007 04:05 PM (WKFlK)

12 Good catch CY. Keep up the truth instead of the "truth".

Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 04:10 PM (NiTuu)

13 Rightmom couldn't be more WRONG. Keeping the media honest is a noble cause, and one that bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum, embraced with zeal, and as such it is imperative that we keep our own backyard clean. Not sure if this came from Mike or Bob - but it is spot on: “If we’re going to hammer the media for corrections and retractions when they blow a story, we should do the same with ourselves,” Bob - you did the right thing, and I hope Matt and Redstate step up like you did. Rightmom --- shame on you!

Posted by: Huntress at April 24, 2007 04:16 PM (Dqxeq)

14 I know it's been a bunch of years but the M16s I carried had the safety/selector switch on the left side of the receiver (as does the civilian version I own)...or have the years fogged my memory? He would appear to be right handed and the 101 patch from a previous tour is on his right shoulder so the picture hasn't been "flipped" (is that even possible with digital cameras and printing these days?). Side note - what are those red "tubes" on his right chest. Look like shotgun shells to me but ...?

Posted by: Piper 17 at April 24, 2007 06:52 PM (fCKeb)

15 Rightmom, if CY is right, I completely agree with you. My son is in Charlie troop of that Squadron, and I sent him the picture and article from "Blackfive". I read CY every day and agree with most of his thoughts. But, I am like you, what is the purpose or victory in finger f**king my dreams. It is a harmless gesture that for all intents and purposes brings a cheer to those with blood in this game. Defiance is only one ingredient that makes up the spirit of the American fighting man. I believe that this soldier is letting everyone at home know that all is well and under control. I sleep better knowing that troopers like him are there. I don't buy what CY is selling.

Posted by: DickB at April 25, 2007 01:45 AM (MQjIE)

16 I've sent this link to Snopes.com. They are great at tracking down this sort of thing, and seem to play right down the line, politically.

Posted by: Ian at April 25, 2007 01:17 PM (RVKqG)

17 Kudos for your correction, and shame on Redstate! Having read those articles by the AP reporter/photog in question, I cannot imagine that rightmom could have such a cavalier attitude about getting the record straight! Good for you, CY. Advice to rightmom, go read those articles, then tell CY you're sorry.

Posted by: DagneyT at April 25, 2007 04:26 PM (AAEEI)

18 Well I tried with both hands and when the bird comes up you still have part of the index showing...When you use the index they all fold to the inside from middle to little and can't be seen...

Posted by: Tincan Sailor at April 25, 2007 05:36 PM (L4HGI)

19 Good job. Thanks for posting the truth.

Posted by: sj at April 25, 2007 10:32 PM (vvodJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"Nappy-headed ho's" had been overused, so he went with the next best thing.

Sure, tbogg's a hypocritical racist, but making a racist attack on a conservative black woman is perfectly acceptable behavior for liberals.

Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.

Update: tbogg's comments echo those of Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau from April 7, 2004, which prompted this response:

Recently, TrudeauÂ’s political observations ran a red light in referring to the nationÂ’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a black woman, as "brown sugar." Frankly, the political satire in the April 7, 2004 Doonesbury escapes me and most women I know, black or white, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women. In doing so, it is decidedly unfunny. The only purpose served by this cartoon strip is that it proved one sad fact: despite the contentions of many, in 21st century America, race and gender still matter.

[snip]

The fact is that black women at the apex of power have struggled long and hard for respect. The struggle still continues. This is why in this context, references to black women as brown sugar are not funny. It reminds us of the historical exploitation of black women in America. It reminds us that there are those who believe that no matter how accomplished we may become, no matter how educated we are, and no matter how many books we read, black women should remain in "their place," figuratively or literally. This place is one that is out of public view.

tbogg joins a long list of liberals that feel it is their right to use racial slurs against black conservatives.

Some of these past racial attacks on Secretary Rice included Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic strip having President Bush refer to her as "Brown Sugar," Ted Rall's cartoon suggesting she was a "house nigga" needing "racial re-education" and Jeff Danziger depicting her a the slave "Prissy" from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Additionally, former entertainer Harry Belafonte referred to Secretary Rice as a "house slave" and "sell-out," while NAACP chairman Julian Bond called her a "shield" used by the Bush Administration to deflect racial criticism.

And lest we forget, liberal Steve Gilliard's Sambo smear against another black conservative, Michael Steele.

Tolerance. It's a liberal value.

Except when they don't feel like it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:39 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Instapundit, I ran into this article on Gizmodo, where they claim an Apple Ipod saved the life of a soldier by slowing a bullet that hit him in the chest:

He was on patrol in Iraq when he met an armed insurgent carrying an AK-47. Both opened fire, and the bullet heading toward Kevin hit his chest right where his iPod was, which was enough to slow down the bullet to not pierce entirely through the body armor.

It's a great story, and one that is great word-of-mouth marketing for Apple. Too bad it probably isn't true.

Our soldiers wear Interceptor body armor manufactured by a company called Point Blank. Interceptor armor used by our troops in Iraq is composed of an outer tactical vest (OTV) that will stop 9mm bullets, and small arms protective inserts (SAPI) plates made of boron carbide ceramic and backed with bullet-resistant liner that cover the chest, back and sides. These SAPI plates are designed to stop three 7.62 bullets.

An Ipod? Not so much.

If the soldier was shot in a head-on confrontation as the story seems to describe, the SAPI plate on his chest is responsible for saving his life, not a piece of fruity electronic equipment.

Update: Is this story merely an urban legend? I just got a response back from JOC PAO (Joint Operations, Public Affairs in Iraq) suggesting that may be the case:

Hi Bob,

We got another query in on this story yesterday, and have sent it out to
3rd IDs units to see if this guy exists. We have not yet heard anything
back.

I suspect this is one of life's Urban Myths....

However if we get an answer back from the division I'll forward it on to
you!

Regards

Tracy Peyman
Lt Cdr RN
JOC PAO OIC
MNC-I

Something tells me this is likely going to end up on Snopes as a hoax.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:40 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

As noted in an update to this post, Matt Drudge apparently got April-fooled when he posted a "Drudge Exclusive" that CNN reporter Michael Ware heckled John McCain during a press conference in Baghdad. Video of the press conference shows that Ware did not say or do anything unprofessional during the press conference.

I typically do "that journalistic thing" and try to find a corroborating source for any news article I write about, but that isn't always easy to get, especially in the case of exclusives. As a result, when I run across an exclusive, I try to judge the credibility of the source, and the apparent validity of the information based on surrounding events.

In this particular case I had to consider the source, Matt Drudge. Drudge does occasionally screw up on his exclusives, but typically, as a news aggregator, his site turns out to be more often than not accurate. I'm sure that there are those of you who will dispute this, but don't confuse the accuracy of what he typically features on his site with the apparent bias he harbors in deciding which stories to promote.

Michael Ware had just spoken derisively of John McCain, and so it seemed possible that the events could occur. It seemed that the story could be accurate, based upon Ware's recent outburst and a pattern of reporting that betrays his biases.

Those of us who linked the Drudge account, including myself, screwed up and linked to an inaccurate story. I apologize to my readers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must confess that I simply don't get it (well, except for the puppet show, which is predictable to a tedious degree).

So what if Arianna Huffington felt compelled to close her comments, and then started deleting (but not fast enough) hate-filled invective left by liberal commenters? I have to do that every time certain liberal sites link to mine.

It kind of comes with the clientele.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

For whatever reason, Salon.com picked up Amanda Marcotte's latest blameshifting attempt at dodging responsibility for her long track record of anti-Christian bigotry.

Marcotte is as tedious, suspicious, angrily self-righteous, and blissfully unaware of her own culpability as we've come to expect. Following her same tired script, she blames the "patriarchy" and the "right wing smear machine" for her downfall.

Frankly, I'd skip the article itself and read the other blog reaction to the article. Marcotte can't quite seem to grasp that she came under fire as a result of her own bitter words, taken in context.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister has followed Amanda Marcotte in resigning from the John Edwards Presidential train wreck:

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

I don't think I've read enough of her blog to know much about McEwan, but I can say this: she exhibited more class and dignity than Marcotte, even as I find it somewhat ironic that someone who calls my fellow Christians "christofascists" accuses others of unleashing "frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation."

They did denounce the frightening ugliness, Melissa. You should know.

You wrote much of it yourself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:33 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.