Rumors have long swirled that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved the 444-day Iran hostage crisis, with no less than five hostages coming forward to accuse him publicly of being one of the ringleaders. Other former hostages have said they were uncertain if Ahmadinejad was involved, while others deny his presence.

From time to time the story reemerges with a new twist, and this time that twist was provided by Russian online daily Kommersant, which ran an English-language article with accompanying pictures that seem to show a young Ahmadinejad leaning against the wall of the American embassy in Tehran the day it was stormed.

Texas Rainmaker is convinced that the man in the photo is Ahmadinejad, while Daniel Pipes isn't sure, and Allah flatly says it isn't the Iranian president.

Who's right?

I decided to see if I could get a professional to weigh in on the controversy, and so I sent a short email to several forensic photographers and biometrics experts asking their opinions, based upon the version of side-by-side comparison photo provided at Hot Air.

Certified Forensic Photographer Alexander Jason responded. His verdict?

With the one 1979 photo alone for comparison, it is not possible to make a strong conclusion about that man being the same man in the later photo. However, based upon an analysis of the 1979 photo and other, recent photos of Ahmadinejad, it is my preliminary conclusion that these are NOT the same person.

Some time ago, I was asked by a governmental group to perform an analysis of similar old and new photos. I still had a collection of the recent photos and I used some of them for my analysis.

While there are substantial similarities in the faces and hairlines, it is possible to have such similarities among different people, particularly when they are from a relatively homogenous racial population. The only significant difference I could detect was in the beard grown pattern: Specifically in the area beneath the lower lip. In the older photo, the man appears to have a dense, full beard in that area. In more recent photos of Ahmadinejad, he appears to have relatively sparse beard growth in that area. For that reason, based on the one old photo when compared against more recent photos, it is my opinion that they are two different people.

See the attached image.

Mr. Jason's well-trained eye caught what most of us would have missed. The armed man leaning against the embassy wall in November of 1979 has much more facial hair in the chin area than does Ahmadinejad in the present day photograph. And just in case anyone wants to speculate that Ahmadinejad could have suffered from male pattern chin baldness over time, Mr. Jason has that covered as well.

We may never know who the man with the battle rifle leaning against the U.S. embassy wall in 1979 was, but based upon the photo provided by Kommersant and Mr. Jason's analysis, that man is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

* * *

On an unrelated note, Mr. Jason also has an interesting perspective on the JFK assassination.

Who says those working in forensics can't have a sense of humor?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 5 kb.

Ralph Peters penned a powerful editorial in this morning's New York Post advocating that the strongest measures be taken to impose order in Iraq, even if that order goes against the wishes of Iraq's elected government and comes at the barrel of a gun:

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.

Of course, we've made a decisive shift in our behavior difficult. After empowering a sectarian regime before imposing order in the streets, we would have to defy an elected government. Leading voices in the Baghdad regime - starting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - would demand that we halt any serious effort to defeat Shia militias and eliminate their death squads.

[snip]

From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.

To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that? Are we willing to kill mass murderers and cold-blooded executioners on the spot?

[snip]

Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. In the end, the future of Iraq will be determined by its people. The question is, which people?

While Peters discusses Iraq specifically, much of what he says—particularly of our fantasy of a "universal code of behavior" and our enablement of terrorists—can be more or less directly applied to the budding nuclear terrorist state of Iran.

Iran has already developed long-range missiles that can reach Israel and most of Western Europe, and they are in the process of developing ICBMs capable of hitting the United States. Iran is also in the possession of MIRV warheads to sit atop these missiles designed to deliver a nuclear payload.

At the same time as they refine the technology to deliver nuclear warheads, the Iranian leadership has clearly and repeatedly threatened the existence of Israel, and has indeed stated that they are more than willing to accept a retaliatory nuclear strike if it means eliminating the Jewish state, as Ron Rosenbaum recounts this morning at Pajamas Media:

Back in 2002 I initiated a major controversy among Jewish writers by daring to mention the possibility of a “second Holocaust”—-the destruction of the State of Israel, most likely through a nuclear exchange. I quoted Iranian mullah Hashemi Rasfanjani declaring that Iran would not be particularly upset to lose 10 or 15 million people in a nuclear exchange with Israel if it resulted in the extermination of 5 million Jews there and left a billion or more Muslims alive. Basically he was saying that there was no deterrence. Many didn’t want to face this, think the unthinkable and whined that one shouldn’t say such things aloud, one shouldn’t think so pessimistically, foolishly boasting of the Israeli nuclear deterrent Rasfanjani’s stance made irrelevant. (You can read about this controversy in the anthology of essays on anti-semitism I edited, Those Who Forget the Past).

Alas a Second Holocaust is now virtually Iranian state policy.(although their leader denies the firs tone). Today Drudge links to a report that Iran’s nuclear program is nearly complete. And to a speech by Bibi Netanyahu in Los Angeles in which he says “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany”. He then adds the despairing “No one cared then. No one cares now.”

The problem is that even if the world did care, it might not make a difference.

Despite repeated threats against Israel's very survival in specific and that of the rest of the world in general, Iran has been allowed to push through with their nation's nuclear program without any serious attempts by the world community to stop them.

Have we, as a world community, decided that the state of Israel and the more than 6 million Jews, Christians, and Arabs who live there and the almost 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are superfluous? Judging by the anemic actions of the world community, I think Rosenbuam's suggestion that the world—including the government of the United States—does not care that Iran seems to have every intention of attempting to "wipe Israel off the map" is entirely correct.

Certainly, we will all feel really bad when Iran carries through with it's threat, but that sentiment will do very little for the 15-20 million people that will have died in the coming nuclear exchange while we stood by watching, unbelieving that the Iranians would do precisely what they told us they would.

Have we chosen to abandon them to this fate? Have we already forgotten in such a few generations that we stood solemly amid the blood and ashes and swore "Never again?"

Let's rewrite one of the Peter's paragraphs above:

Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis Israelis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq Iran (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. In the end, the future of Iraq the world will be determined by its people. The question is, which people?

Which people, indeed.

Does a mullahcracy intent on exterminating more than six million people (along with 10-15 million of their own citizens as a result of Israel's dying retaliatory strike) get to choose the future of this world through nuclear genocide? Or do we make the difficult and deadly decision to end the mullacracyÂ’s reign, crushing their nuclear aspirations and their leadership before they can carry out their intentions?

Our choice of genocides is amazingly simple: we either wipe out Iran's apocalyptic Hojjatieh mullacracy (perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of lives) and their budding nuclear weapons capability and delivery systems, or we will watch on as horror as our inaction leads to the fiery deaths of tens of millions, including 6 million Jews, 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and 10-15 million Iranians.

Rosenbaum is wrong when he says that we might not make a difference. We clearly can make a difference, but much to our shame, I fear that we will choose not to.

Note: More here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:37 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1256 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Let me get this straight. One of the leading arguments for not reducing troop levels in Iraq is that it would increase violence. Another is that it would look like an admission of failure on Bush's part. And now Peters is suggesting that the only "sane" (for some value of sanity) option is to basically re-invade a country we already occupy, overthrow the government WE PUT INTO PLACE IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY, and start executing people like Pol friggin' Pot. Remember the purple fingers? Those fingers are now flipping us the bird. And Ralph Peters wants to kill them for it.

Posted by: legion at November 15, 2006 12:54 PM (3eWKF)

2 "...tens of thousands of lives... or tens of millions..." While I agree with the premise (we must crush Iran now, or else) I think the above is the equivalent of any moral equivalence I've seen anywhere. In a proper morality, the lives of the enemy are not compared in cost-benefit analysis of the lives of our own citizens or military personnel. If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it. Anything else is a decision to kill US soldiers for the sake of the enemy, which is treason. I do not know if it's possible to crush Iran's mullocracy, nuclear program, and means to re-estabish either, without a massive (or nuclear) strike at this point. If not, then we had better strike them before they strike us.

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2006 03:09 PM (YyTqJ)

3 If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it. You, sir, are a filthy, amoral bastard. And you have no idea what the word 'moral' means.

Posted by: legion at November 15, 2006 04:42 PM (3eWKF)

4 Legion: You've slung personal attacks, but failed to make any argument at all.

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2006 05:11 PM (YyTqJ)

5 Aside from the moral argument, there is also a practical one. By use of "surgical strikes" to remove a dictator and his top staff, we allow the population to preserve the culture that created the dictatorship, and which would re-create it if we didn't occupy it (as in Iraq). One reason why Germany and Japan did not revert to their previous behavior is that we crushed their will. Broken, utterly defeated, humiliated, with no way to convince themselves that their old behavior "worked", they were ready to make a change.

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2006 05:21 PM (YyTqJ)

6 OK Bearster, here goes. Being our enemy, or being another religion, does not remove someone from the realm of humanity. Dehumanizing and demonizing the enemy can make it easier for troops about to go into direct conflict to fight, but when those tactics are used on civilians back home, it cheapens the value of all life. You say: In a proper morality, the lives of the enemy are not compared in cost-benefit analysis of the lives of our own citizens or military personnel. If we had to kill 10,000,000 enemies to save one US soldier, morally we ought to do it. That's not a 'proper morality', Bearster. It's evil. Especially when you have other options besides killng those 10M. I don't think it's a good solution to the situation in Iraq, but if we brought every one of our soldiers home tomorrow, no more would die there. Iraq isn't realistically capable of threatening the US or anyone else, and won't be for decades. Why isn't that a viable option? Yet you seriously propose a nuclear strike on Iran, something that would kill millions of people, as the most viable option. And rather than even making the limp effort of something like 'you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet' to defend the deaths of the countless innocent civilians such an act would cause, you go fully into genocide mode - as though any conflict between our culture and another is entirely the fault of the 'others' and their inherently inferior culture. One reason why Germany and Japan did not revert to their previous behavior is that we crushed their will. Broken, utterly defeated, humiliated, with no way to convince themselves that their old behavior "worked", they were ready to make a change. And if you actually believe that, you are not merely arrogantly amoral, you're also a complete raving idiot. I pity you, and I fear for the future of both America and the entire human race.

Posted by: legion at November 15, 2006 06:11 PM (3eWKF)

7 Bearster-- I'm not sure about Germany, but another big reason Japan was unable to revert is because it was written into their constitution that it's illegal for their SDF (self defense force) to deploy. They had to re-write a part of their constitution recently to allow a unit to deploy to Iraq for humanitarian missions. Being crushed and humiliated is a perfect breeding ground for someone to step up, give a forlorn country an identity, and have another go at it. Post WWI Germany is a perfect example of this, and the apathy of her neighbors enabled it. I think the main reason that each country didn't revert (or in the case of Japan, be made into a slave colony by the rest of Asia) is because the US took a proactive role in not allowing it to happen. (Japan also didn't have any resources, and again, the rest of Asia would have happily taken their revenge on Japan, maybe making it a worker's paradise, if the US didn't establish a strong presence there.) To assume that people will come to the conclusion (as a nation) that their old behavior simply didn't work and it was time to make a change may be giving them a little too much credit. Plus behavior is inextricably linked with culture, and people aren't real big on forsaking it, particularly in Asia where tradition is so important. My 2 cents.....A little off topic, and probably totally off base, so take it for what it's worth.

Posted by: paully at November 15, 2006 06:18 PM (yJuX3)

8 That's not a 'proper morality', Bearster. That's precisely the morality calculus Truman employed in deciding to nuke Japan. An est 500,000 US military casualties against a couple of Japanese cities and thousands of civilians.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 15, 2006 06:54 PM (l8HpH)

9 Y'all missed my point. If there is a way to eliminate Iran's capability to wage terror war against the US through its proxies, and to eliminate its capability to develop a nuclear bomb, I am all ears. Let someone propose something feasible. I say "eliminate" because appeasement is irrational, and there is no kind of persuasion that works on people who are immune to logic. My point was that if you must wage war, then you owe a moral duty to the poor schmucks you send to fight it. You must promise them: "we will not waste your lives!" This is in addition to the moral duty to protect the lives of innocent American citizens (that's us, by the way). This means if you can save their lives--or ours--by killing more of the enemy, then you must do that. There is no number that changes this principle. It is not an equation that is "balanced". The purpose of a response is not to serve a self-defeating notion of "proportion" but to prevent them from doing it again. If one must wage war, then one must fight utterly to win, to win as swiftly as possible, and with the minimum possible cost to one's own. If one must wage war, then one must do so without hesitation, without half-actions, without partial committment, without mercy. By the very moral code Legion is espousing here, we're "successful" in Iraq. Our troops are there being sacrificed to protect the lives of Iraqis. Bush feels this is the moral way to wage war. What's wrong with it? Why not send thousands of innocent American military personnel to save tens or hundreds of thousands from death, slavery, or even from poverty?? The perverted moral code of altruism doesn't offer an argument. Meanwhile, the enemy is laughing at our moral weakness, even as they raise the ante. Iran, let's not forget, is run by an apocalytpic mass-murdering madman who has convinced me that he wouldn't mind going to paradise if he could kill us in the process. Do you disagree with this premise, or only with the implication? We could simply hope he doesn't mean it. But hope is not a plan. We could try appeasement. Maybe it will work better this time, somehow? We have one choice. We can either destroy Iran's capacity to wage war, or we can let them raise the ante with nuclear bombs. P.S. What is monstrously immoral is to have mercy for the enemy, but none for innocents. The gut-wrenching sight of people burning--or jumping--to death from the WTC will be nothing compared to nuclear bomb, or even a dirty bomb, dropped on NY. What if they do it to several cities at the same time?

Posted by: Bearster at November 15, 2006 08:47 PM (YyTqJ)

10 This is what I am hoping for. The US will continue with the moral bull as expressed in the threads so far. This will enable and encourage the terrorist or Muslims (same thing) to indeed do somehting terrible such as a nuclear device in New York or one of the other northern cities. That will trigger the economic catastrophy that has been as sure thing with the extraordinary personal and national debt we have. As some point the South will get the idea once again that we can truly be free. We can then make our bid possibly with the assistance of the Muslim world. So we really do win!!

Posted by: David Caskey at November 15, 2006 09:22 PM (6aPuF)

11 David, seriously -- up your meds.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 15, 2006 10:22 PM (l8HpH)

12 Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov't erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel). Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Posted by: 5th of November at November 16, 2006 06:32 AM (F7awS)

13 Purple, Unfortunately, I feel I have to be serious on this. It sounds like sarcasm or trying to be funny, but look at the reality of the situation. The US is like a stack of dominos. One thing that pushes us in the wrong direction and it will fall apart. So, if terrorist preformed a nuclear explosion in NY then the financal situation will begin to unravel. With the debt that all owe, this will not take much to elicit a severe depression. Now, many of us do not feel exactly "free". Several sections such as the Pacific region already desire to bust up the Union. You will argue that we are the most free nation on earth and that may be true, but if you compare our situation to that before 1860, we are basically slaves. I am one of the 10% that actually pay taxes in the US and am beginning to be very mad at local, state and federal governments wanting more. This is one small example, I could provide an endless list of ways the government infringes on us (try getting on a plane). As such, the South represents a section that has interest and goals that do not go parallel with the NE of the US that seems to constantly tell us what to do. So ultimately the South will go its own way. Moralize about the use of weapons of mass distruction all you want. If you want this country to survive as is, you better start killing and getting control of alot more Muslims. As for me, I am looking to a brighter future.

Posted by: David Caskey at November 16, 2006 09:48 AM (xxoPt)

14 My point was that if you must wage war, then you owe a moral duty to the poor schmucks you send to fight it. You must promise them: "we will not waste your lives!" This is in addition to the moral duty to protect the lives of innocent American citizens (that's us, by the way). This means if you can save their lives--or ours--by killing more of the enemy, then you must do that. There is no number that changes this principle. It is not an equation that is "balanced". OK, that's something I can agree completely with - the context of actual conflict. I can't agree with something like that as a pre-emptive or preventative move, however, and I didn't gather that focus from your earlier comments. By that standard, FWIW, I believe the atom bombs on Japan were actually justified - we were already at war & committed to victory; I don't see the same level of threat (yet) from Iran. Why is that important? Why let Iran get even closer to the brink? Because of exactly what they (and NK also) are doing now - saber rattling. Right now, we're in the process of trying things below the level of open warfare to get Iran off their current course. Yes, appeasement is pointless, but there are other tools we can use. They may not work against Iran, but I believe we are morally obligated to try them before the 'nuclear option'. The problem, with Bush's preventative war policy (and what it sounds to me lilke you're proposing) is that the _next_ country that nears nuclear capability _won't_ make any noise about it. They'll just drop it on whichever enemy they feel poses the greatest threat to them at the time. It actually makes us _more_ likely to be struck by nuclear terrorism, not less. P.S. What is monstrously immoral is to have mercy for the enemy, but none for innocents. The gut-wrenching sight of people burning--or jumping--to death from the WTC will be nothing compared to nuclear bomb, or even a dirty bomb, dropped on NY. What if they do it to several cities at the same time? You do remember, don't you, that Iraq (and IIRC Iran also) had _nothing_ to do with that attack? And that the US is doing just about nothing to locate the guy who did? And that the leading support structure for that asshat was (and possibly still is) Saudi Arabia? Just sayin'...

Posted by: legion at November 16, 2006 10:21 AM (3eWKF)

15 I strongly disagree with the estimation here for the loss of lives if Iran has a nuclear bomb. It is maybe 5% of the estimation in my circles. Imagine you were the Iranian president, and you have just been handed with the nuclear weapon. If you fire at Israel now, Israel fires back, and the whole thing is over. You are no longer the Middle East super power you have been for the past years, you loose your chance in bringing to the coming of doomsday, which the Iranian regime is with no doubt committed to, and you are just left to leak your wounds while Israel is leaking its wounds, and maybe the second half of the Jewish people of the Diaspora rejoin to educate their kids to reestablish Israel once the soil and the water are recovered, which according to the Iranian view is a very likely script, seeing that they feel it is the world's guilt over the first holocaust, that had enabled the establishment of the first Israel. It would be much more reasonable of them, in view of their agenda, to: 1. Cooperate with global spread terror groups that can take their nuclear bombs to places they either can't reach by missiles or they would prefer to use terror cells rather than missiles, because missiles would have a sender address to retaliate, while bombs activated by terror cells would not. Note that for that purpose it would be much better for them to use Sunni terror groups than Hizb-Allah for example, because the harder it is to prove the source to retaliate, the more time they are going to gain to go on with their agenda of bringing back the Imam. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume they would use whatever terror group that has the "best" proven ability to strike successfully, and maximize the ability of the nuclear bombs, by hitting major targets. 2. Strike as many incapable of retaliating targets, before they strike Israel. Once they strike Israel it would be over for them. Our stated policy is that a strike by Iran would not mean 10-15 millions deaths in Iran, but the destruction of the whole of Iran for 300 years. You can count on it being true, and Iran knows that as well. So why not start with making sure that "betrayers" in the Muslim world end their way, and that only "pure" Muslim practicing societies for the satisfaction of Allah are left to great the Imam? You would be surprised of how crucial that is on their agenda. It is not the charismatic call that can unite Muslims behind them, not like "Death to Israel", but it is not less important to them, and they have been practicing the promotion of that agenda with no less efforts than the agenda of sabotaging any chance of peace with Israel and its neighbors. Take into consideration that the very existence of Israel makes them the leaders of so many Muslims and justifies what ever they do in the eyes of their public. So they won't loose this "joker" until they are ready and have made all the arrangements for the coming of the second Imam to feet their view of how the world should look greeting it. And this brings me to another major cause of deaths the estimation you have shown does not take under consideration. Because Muslim states that are considered to be traitors in the eyes of Iran, such as Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and all of the states that have cooperated with the west, or fought Shiites in their own regimes, know exactly how serious Iran's threat to them. That's why a nuclear bomb to Iran by no means can only mean that. It with no doubt means a hysterical race towards that bomb among those countries, and then among the whole Middle East, by any regime that has oil to fund those aspirations. That means that a whole out nuclear war is no longer a question of "if" but rather a question of "when". It also means that to include only Israel's and Iran's casualties in the estimations for the loss of lives due to a nuclear Iran is in my (and others in Israel) humble opinion completely mistaken.

Posted by: an Israeli at November 16, 2006 07:19 PM (7A241)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's been barely a week since the 2006 midterms, and WaPo Ruth Marcus is wasting no time on judging Nancy Pelosi's leadership thus far.

Her grade for Pelosi for stating she would "lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," and then backing John "Abscam" Murtha for House majority leader?

Not Good.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:20 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Harold Meyerson has a particularly odd editorial posted this morning in the Washington Post, insisting conservatives are in denial:

On their journey through the stages of grief, conservatives don't yet seem to have gotten past denial.

Republicans may have lost, conservatives argue, but only because they misplaced their ideology. "[T]hey were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism," George F. Will, conservatism's most trenchant champion, wrote on this page last week.

Their mortal sin, in this gospel, was their abandonment of fiscal prudence.

They doffed their green eyeshades and gushed red ink. "The greatest scandal in Washington, D.C., is runaway federal spending," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the true-blue conservative who is challenging Ohio's John Boehner for the post of House Republican leader.

Holding conservatism blameless for last week's Republican debacle may stiffen conservative spines, but the very idea is the product of mushy conservative brains unwilling to acknowledge the obvious: that conservatism has never been more ascendant than during George Bush's presidency; that the Republican Party over the past six years moved well to the right of the American people on social, economic and foreign policy; and that on Nov. 7 the American people chose a more pragmatic course.

I bed to differ with Mr. Meyerson, on several points. First, while there are doubtlessly some conservatives in denial about why Republicans lost, it seems most of those reside inside the Beltway. From the Rove-influenced push for an ineffectual Mel Martinez to be RNC Chair, to an all-but-rigged push to install the same failed leadership into power on Capital Hill, it is the Beltway drones that seem to be in denial over why Republicans lost, not the rank and file conservatives in the rest of the country.

Denial is a stage of grief that most conservatives that I have come in contact with (either online or in person) skipped right past. In fact, most conservatives seem to have been rather pragmatic and have avoided the grief process altogether.

If you want to see an acute application of political grief for comparison, I suggest you instead look to prominent liberal personalities after the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Michael Moore was so depressed by Bush's 2004 win that he couldn't get out of bed for three days. Actor Vincent "Private Pyle" D'Onofrio "Lost his ****" and had to be treated by paramedics because of Bush's 2004 win.

Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder, actor Alec Baldwin, former Kennedy Press Secretary Pierre Salinger and film director Robert Altman were just some of the liberal voices who were confirmed to have said they would leave the United States because of electoral results, though Salinger was the only one to follow through on his "threat."

Some liberal in past elections were so distraught over past elections that new psychological conditions were the result, with the serious Post Election Selection Trauma and satirical Bush Derangement Syndrome as a result.

No, Mr. Meyerson, most conservatives outside the Beltway were disappointed with the results of the election, but we understood why we lost.

The nation is unhappy with the way the War in Iraq is being fought. The nation is disgusted with greed in the form of pork-barrel politics symbolized by the Bridge to Nowhere, and runaway federal spending a Republican Congress and President supported. The nation was dismayed with how slowly and ineffectively the federal government reacted in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and by corruption both financial and sexual as personified by Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley. Immigration and stem cell controversies also alienated voters.

As for Meyerson's asinine statement, "that conservatism has never been more ascendant than during George Bush's presidency" I have but a simple two-word reply: Ronald Reagan.

But for all that Mr. Meyerson got wrong in his fundamental misunderstanding of the conservative mind, he did get something right when he concluded that Republicans ran a 2006 campaign "devoid of new ideas."

Hopefully, the conservative base will be able to reverse that course in elections to come.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 5 kb.

Heads should roll.

Early on in the Lebanon war, there was a photograph published by both U.S. News and World Report and Time Magazine, which according to captions published with the picture was of a burning Israeli jet, shot down by Hezbullah missiles. The blogosphere was quick to call B.S. on the photo, and the widely-circulated story was that the photograph was actually that of a tire dump.

Well, it seems that the photographer responsible for taking the photograph, Bruno Stevens, has finally sounded off on Lightstalkers, explaining the photograph and telling the true story of how things ended up the way they did. He also notes that the site was not a tire dump, but was rather an old Lebanese Army base that had either been hit by an Israeli jet, or by a misfired Hezbullah rocket (both possibilites he appears to have recounted in his original captions). The key point that Bruno makes is that, while he sent in a fairly balanced caption to accompany the photograph, the wire services rewrote the caption completely, changing the pertinent facts surrounding the story. Where have we heard that before?

As Ace notes in his post on the subject:

That makes three representations thusfar by Time:

1) Hezbollah did not score a huge victory by shooting down an IAF jet.

2) The target was clearly legitimate.

3) Not only was this a legitimate Hezbollah target, it was parked on a Lebanese Army base, demonstrating cooperation between the Lebanese Government -- depicted as an innocent and abused third-party to this conflict by the media.

To compound the magazine's duplicity, Time refused to run a different picture that showed a Hezbollah rocket launcher disguised as a civilian truck on a Lebanese Army base.

To put it mildly, Time editors mislead their readers, and while I'm not a lawyer, this journalistic malpractice would certainly seem to meet at least a layman's understanding of fraud, if not something worse.

Why would Time do something so risky, so dishonest, so stupid?

As I wrote back in August, follow the money:

Story after story, photo after photo, dead and distraught Lebanese civilians clog the mediastream, building a false, grim montage of a war in which primarily Israeli soldiers and Lebanese civilians die.

This is not the whole truth of this war, but a partial truth developed through complacency and an apparent willful disregard to report the facts on the ground. Instead of seeking and publishing the entire truth, newsrooms have decided that they will publish the stories and images framed by foreign, mostly Arab Muslim reporters, even though their own cultural interests in these events are a clear and undeniable conflict of interest precluding even a pretense of unbiased reporting.

This is beyond bias, it is a reckless and willful disregard for reporting the whole truth in favor of reporting "news" that is easier to sell in a larger world media market. The casualty statistics are there, but the media sticks to the narrative they have helped create because while honest reporting is a goal, the business of the media business is business.

If it "bleeds it leads," but only if what leads sells advertising. News consumers around the world consume the news that more closely matches their perceptions of how reality should be, and stories critical of Hezbollah, stories that show their failures and deaths, don't sell in world population featuring 1.3 billion Muslims that hope for Israel's demise, or at the very best are indifferent to their fate. It is anti-Semitism by cashflow, a pocketbook jihad that buys the media's silence.

And yet, the photographer cannot be blamed here; it was the Time photo editors that made the willful decision to run a dishonest caption at odds with the description provided by the photographer, while suppressing another photo that shows apparent collusion between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah.

This goes well beyond a mistake. Time has made the willful decision to slant, cover, and conceal news on behalf of a terrorist organization.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:12 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 679 words, total size 5 kb.

Yeah, not an exact quote, but pretty much on the mark:

The race to be the No. 2 House Democratic leader turned nasty Tuesday, with challenger Rep. John Murtha accusing opponents of "swift-boat style attacks" that hark back to his days being investigated in the FBI's 1980 Abscam sting.

Murtha won endorsement Monday from Nancy Pelosi, who is widely expected to be the House speaker. But Murtha is opposed by some liberals who say they are not happy with the Pennsylvania lawmaker's pro-gun and anti-abortion record. Others say Pelosi took a wrong turn in backing Murtha over her current deputy Rep. Steny Hoyer because Murtha's record is marred by ethics questions of the type Pelosi pledged to clean up in Congress.

"I am disconcerted that some are making headlines by resorting to unfounded allegations that occurred 26 years ago. I thought we were above this type of swift-boating attack. This is not how we restore integrity and civility to the United States Congress," Murtha said of the ample press coverage of his link to Abscam and more recent negotiations he made as ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Committee.

To date, Murtha hasn't yet accused his fellow Democrats of torpedoing his nomination "in cold blood."

Yet.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Iran can quit lying about their intent to use their nuclear program for peaceful means:

International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

The report prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. As well, the four-page paper made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

Plutonium is an important by-product of the fuel cycle in operating nuclear reactors, producing almost a third of a nuclear power plant's energy.

The problem? Plutonium (Pu) should not logically exist outside of nuclear power production, and Iran does not yet have that capability. Bushehr is to have Iran's first production reactor, but it is still under construction.

That would seem to indicate that either Iran is importing plutonium, or that it has an undeclared reactor, which is admittedly far less likely, but technically possible. In any event, both the plutonium and enriched uranium found at the waste site may serve to push Israel closer to mounting a pre-emptive strike against Iran, which would in turn likely re-ignite Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel from Lebanon, putting UNFIL's "peacekeeping" forces in the middle, precisely where Hezbollah would prefer them.

It looks like a wider war in the Middle East may be coming sooner rather than later, and I'm increasingly convinced there is very little that anyone can do to stop it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, we've got our own show:

The first and only tradeshow, conference, and media event dedicated to promoting the dynamic industry of blogging and new media. If you are currently blogging, vlogging, podcasting, producing some other form of new media content, thinking about joining the exciting industry of new media or just want to know what this whole blogging phenomena is all about then you need to be at BlogWorld.

The inaugural event will take place in Las Vegas November 8th and 9th at the Las Vegas Convention Center with an exclusive corporate only conference November 7th.

The show floor will feature an abundance of products and services designed to help bloggers and new media entrepreneurs improve the look and functionality of their blogs, increase their readership, and monetize their blog. Bloggers will find suppliers like Broadband ISP's, Web hosting companies, blog publishing software, podcasting services, RSS syndication services, new media advertising networks, news readers, aggregators, computer hardware and software, widgets, badges and plug-ins, Wi-Fi services, affiliate program partners, and much much more!

Thousands of bloggers and other geeks let loose on Sin City... what could go wrong?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Aside from this? http://patterico.com/2006/11/11/5377/lap-dancing-illegal-in-vegas/

Posted by: Ric James at November 14, 2006 11:24 AM (X4IDg)

2 The place survived Comdex for many years, it's doubtful you can do more harm.

Posted by: Jeff at November 14, 2006 11:46 AM (yiMNP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you happen to be al Qaeda and Iran, the answer may be yes:

Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa'eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran.

[snip]

The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.

Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.

A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The Baker/SecDef nominee Gates Commission seems primed to tell us that they want to negotiate with Iran and Syria, currently the two leading state sponsors of Islamic terrorism, who in addition to supporting the insurgency in Iraq, are apparently also plotting a coup in Lebanon while rearming Hezbollah and Hamas. This new and as-yet unconfirmed report by the Telegraph now sees Iran trying to further engage al Qaeda to the point of hoping to influence its leadership.

Iran, a nation ruled by the apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect, is pursuing nuclear weapons, having already developed and/or purchased long-ranged missiles and MIRV warheads only used for delivering nuclear warheads.

al Qaeda, a major terrorist group that has already successfully struck inside the U.S once and failed on numerous other attempts, has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the 1990s. Is anyone on this smug commission watching where this is headed?

al Qaeda: "Hey, your nuclear weapons development got on my terrorism!"

Iran: "Your terrorism got on my nuclear weapons development!"

Both: "DEATH TO AMERICA!"

It's like a Reese's Peanutbutter Cup from Hell, and the Baker Commission is trying to tell the world that it is safe to swallow.

Sorry boys, but I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

The blogger that styles himself "Gen. JC Christian, patriot," surrendered intellectually early this morning, collapsing under the unbearable weight of his own ponderous ad hominem argument.

Apparently his disaffected Finchiness is highly disturbed--perhaps even gob-smacked--at this post, where I replicated an email I sent to the President, asking him to commit fully to winning the war in Iraq.

The good General was apparently unable to logically explain why we should engage in the rapid retreat favored by so many on the far left. Trying to explain an anti-humanitarian position that would lead to a far wider civil war or even genocide is obviously too difficult a task for a cynical faux diety. Much better to trot out the "chickenhawk" meme again instead.

We all know that one by now, don't we?

Essentially, the argument is that anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and join the military. But the messenger is not the message, dear General, and this tired dismissal falls apart miserably when poked with even the smallest twig of logic.

Do you really want to make the argument, General, that you cannot comment upon or have an opinion on any subject in which you aren't a paid professional?

That would certainly clear up much of the war-related controversy in the blogosphere and the media. Very few liberals have the professional background General Christian would require for commenting on war-related issues, including the good General himself. Only soldiers would be able to discuss the war, and they overwhelmingly support continuing the mission.

General Christian's post wasn't meant to be fair, just dismissive, and it should hardly be surprising that someone so intellectually lazy would be caught in his own poorly-constructed trap.

Update: As so many of my liberal "guests" can't seem to keep a civil tongue in their heads, comments are now closed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:45 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

The 2006 Weblog Awards is open and looking for you to chose your favorites in 46 categories.

Go forth and nominate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Arado-something-or-other has decided that he has to see the war for himself, and went and got embedded.

If you could, drop the guy a coin or two, and please tell him that this is not the kind of body armor he needs, no matter what Ace may say.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Matt Drudge has a typically bombastic headline running, CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK, which links to a Bill Gertz article in today's Washington Times that is only slightly less dramatic:

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes.

The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.

According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.

If you're looking for me to debunk this story I'm sorry to disappoint you. I simply can't, other than to quibble over the details.

A submarine that tops out at 22 knots cannot overtake or as Gertz states, "stalk" a carrier battle group that cruises somewhere between 27-32 knots. What the Chinese can do is plot a course for the battle group, and place a submarine in position in advance of it, and wait for the battle group to steam to that location, as did the German U-boat wolfpacks of World War II.

The Song was likely vectored into position by PLAN (the People's Liberation Army Navy... I know, don't ask), and waited under minimal electric power until the American battle group closed in on their position. It was an ambush, not a stalking, and considering the stealth of this breed of diesel/electrics, it is possible that if the battle group was unprepared, it could run into such an ambush, despite my earlier thoughts to the contrary left on Hot Air's post on the subject.

No, the story here is not necessarily the apparent Chinese success in a cat and mouse game that has been playing out between submarines and surface ships for decades, but the fact that this story was leaked to Gertz, and that it was leaked now. Gertz himself provides the reason for the leak:

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

Move over New York Times. The Old Gray Lady may lead in publishing information that hurts U.S. interests, but the Department of Defense has been known to selectively leak on occasion, and this leak seems to have the military exchange program with the Chinese clearly in the crosshairs.

The exchange program, which dates to 2002 is said to be extremely one-sided. Chinese military officers and technicians have been invited to see U.S. military exercises and "sensitive" facilities, and China has refused to reciprocate. In addition, Admiral Fallon has restricted U.S efforts to conduct intelligence-gathering operations against China, leading us to be even more in the dark than we should be.

The Song-class submarine may have targeted Admiral Fallon's carrier group, but by leaking the story to Bill Gertz when they did, it is clearly the intention of the Department of Defense to sink Fallon and a program that they consider to be a risk to national security.

Damn the torpedoes. There's a dangerous admiral to be sunk.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

The following letter was emailed to President George W. Bush at the White House this morning, asking him to rededicate America to winning the War on Terror.

Send your own comments to the President via email comments@whitehouse.gov, over the telephone at 202-456-1111, or via fax at 202-456-2461.

Dear President Bush,

"These are the times that try menÂ’s souls."

So Thomas Paine began a series of pamphlets in late 1776 called The American Crisis, and in which he continued, "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot may, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

All around you lies a nation demoralized, yet not yet defeated, waiting upon your steadying hand to find a solution to the problems of modern-day Mesopotamia.

Shia, Sunni, and Kurd slaughter each other along with our soldiers in what seems to be an unending campaign of bloodshed. This war is meant to sap the spirit and soul of not just one country, but legions of the faithful of many languages and creeds, across national and international borders.

Indeed, many in this land have lost hope in the noble ideas that founded this nation, and now clamor for a retreat to our own shores from those who would strike at us here as they have in the past. These well-meaning but misguided souls seek for no more blood to be spilled, for no more lives to be lost in a brutal, grinding war that sees our national will and our thirst for peace and justice challenged.

But we are made of sterner stuff, and what they do not understand is what you must know in your heart to be true, and that is simply this; there can be no peace in this war or this world without victory.

We live in a time where cynicism lords over self-sacrifice, where absent a call to rise above the mundane, the backbenchers and the critics are given voice by the simple absence of dedicated call to duty.

Early on in this great campaign you spoke to and for all of us when you said, "Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country, with courage and concern for others because this is America. This is who we are."

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have heard your call, and answered to it magnificently.

Yet it seems in this dark hour that many Americans have forgotten who we are and what God set us upon this Earth to do. I firmly believe that you, a man of great Christian faith and conviction, were elected not to serve just the United States, but GodÂ’s will in spreading to the dark corners of the world both hope and freedom. It is for these two things that American and Iraqi soldiers rise every morning in a struggle that sometimes seems insurmountable, against a foe both wicked and depraved.

We must succeed, Mr. President.

It is my heartfelt conviction that God put us upon this Earth to strike out against those who would subjugate, oppress and terrorize those who should be free into an uneasy silence. This silence that will only be broken by further explosions and cries from the wounded and dying if we chose this time and this date to retreat. A retreat from Iraq, however it is phrased, is a victory for the forces of Islamic terrorism.

We must draw that "line in the sand, " here, and now, from which will not retreat.

I ask you to do what only you can, and that is to commit American totally to victory in Iraq. History has shown us that wars are not won with half measures, but with an overwhelming commitment of both manpower and conviction.

I beseech you to commit our reserves to the fight in Iraq, as many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of soldiers that the mission requires, in order to break the will and the bodies of those who fight for chaos and tyranny.

There have been many who have called Iraq "another Vietnam," but what they do not realize is that Iraq can be a Vietnam for the forces of terrorism for which they cannot withdraw without a resounding defeat. They have committed their all—their ideology, their material, and their manpower—to driving our alliance with the common man and woman in Iraq asunder. We must not fail them, or else, we will fail ourselves.

Should those who fight for freedom yield to those who fight for chaos, oppression, and tyranny? I say, emphatically, that the answer to all terrorists of every stripe must be "No."

Mr. President, I ask that you rededicate yourself and our nation to winning the war against terrorism currently being waged in Iraq. We fight not just for their freedoms, but our own.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Bob Owens

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.

Says the American Thinker (via Instapundit):

The Baker commission seems to be doing a lot more than just re-thinking Iraq. It appears to be copiously leaking a Vietnam-type cut-and-run plan that will leave the Gulf far more dangerous than it is now. The Vietnam model looks like a “face-saving” retreat by the United States—just like that one that left Vietnam a Stalinist prison state with tens of thousands of boat people fleeing and dying, and next door in Cambodia, two or three million dead at the hands of Pol Pot.

BakerÂ’s press leaks seem designed to test public reaction to the cut-and-run plan.

President Bush's nominee to replace Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates, a survivor of the Iran-Contra scandal who helped draft the Baker cut-and-run strategy.

Let's be very clear on who Robert Gates is; he is part of the problem, a leftover of the failed policies of realpolitik that helped create modern terrorism. His return to public service is a recipe for losing no just in Iraq, but in the larger War on Terror. He has as much business being Secretary of Defense as Harriet Miers had being on the Supreme Court.

Norman Podhoretz captured the failures of the Baker/Gates generation quite clearly as they led the run from terrorism in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations:

In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.

Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.

Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).

These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500 antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.

In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still.

What realpolitik accomplished under Reagan was to build the confidence of terrorists. This same "do nothing" approach was continued under the first Bush Administration, thanks once again to political strategies favored both then and now by men like James Baker and Secretary-designate Robert Gates.

Robert Gates had a hand--never firmly proven, but never really in doubt--in the disasterous plan to attempt to negotiate with terrorism in Iran-Contra.

He also was part of the brainrust, err, braintrust, that urged Iraqi Shia to rebel again Saddam Hussein, only to stand by and watch when as many as 100,000 Shia were killed when they failed to support the rebellion they instigated in 1991.

Robert Gates has no business being the Secretary of Defense during a war on terrorism. He did far too much to help create the current problem to be relied upon to fix it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:44 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 692 words, total size 5 kb.

The Jawa Report is breaking news:

The Jawa Report has obtained evidence that Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, was once connected to radical clerics Omar Bakri Mohammed & Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing.

If the Jawas are correct, the hippie that sang "Peace Train" was doing fundraisers for organizations linked to al Qaeda.

Yusuf Islam is supposed to release another albm this month called "An Other Cup," including a cover of a tune called "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood."

There's a joke in there somewhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I just saw a short clip on Fox News where the Iranian government showed grainy, near-overhead footage of a U.S. aircraft carrier, and claimed this was evidence that an Iranian drone was able penetrate U.S. fleet radar and air cover, a story also covered by Breitbart.com.

Um... no.

Iran actually made this claim once before back in August (in the video clip above), going as far as say that their drone repeatedly circled the USS Ronald Reagan before it was even noticed, and that the U.S. attempted to shoot down the drone, but failed. Iran, or course, had zero evidence to support that claim.

But the apparent proof that Iran's latest "drone" video is fake may be contained in the footage itself.

The grainy footage shows what is undoubtably the angled deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier, but on that carrier deck are aircraft, including what appears to be a different fighter on the port waist of the deck than the F/A-18s, EA-6s, and E-2Cs one would currently expect on modern U.S. carriers. Could those planes be F-14 Tomcats?

The Iranian's imply their video was taken during military exercises in the past week. The F-14 Tomcat was retired in February. If Iran means to imply that this video was taken during their war games of the past week and the video released does indeed show retired aircraft, it would suggest that Iran was lying.

But Iran wouldn't lie, would they?

Update: Russian news sites are disputing the authenticy of the video.

They should. Expecting that a drone could penetrate the nine ship-mounted radars of a Nimitz-class supercarrier, plus the AWACS radar on the E-2C Hawkeyes it has aloft at all times, plus AEGIS-equipped ships in the carrier group, plus the radar of aircraft flying close air support, and be able to then circle directly above the carrier at an altitude of at least several thousand feet and return in one piece is something that, quite frankly, only an idiot would believe.

Mmmmm... Crow: Not F-14s on the port waist, but almost as large F/A-18Cs, ans clearly shown in this much better video. The angled rudders are a dead giveaway. In other words, the video is not necessarily old footage, though whether or not the U.S. knew of the drone is still up in the air.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Michelle Malkin interviews some the surviving Doolittle Raiders and Hornet crewmen over at Hot Air.

Background on the Raiders here, and here.

A special thanks to these brave veterans, the other 25 million surviving veterans of past wars, and the millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that served before them to to ensure our freedoms.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:39 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

The British people may not have any interest in fighting Islamic terrorism, but Islamists certainly have an interest in fighting them:

British authorities are tracking almost 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 individuals, the head of Britain's MI5 spy agency said, adding that many of the suspects are homegrown British terrorists plotting homicide attacks.

In a speech released by her agency Friday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said MI5 had foiled five major plots since the July 2005 transit bomb attacks in London.

Speaking to a small audience of academics in London on Thursday, Manningham-Buller said officials were "aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy."

"What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten?" she said. "No, nearer 30 that we currently know of."

She said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 cells involving more than 1,600 individuals who were "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that liberal comedian pundit Bill Maher (if you've never heard of him don't feel bad; the comedian label is something of a misnomer) intends to play "the outing game" according to an interview he did with Larry King on CNN. His targets, as you may well expect, will be prominent Republicans he feels might be gay.

The liberals at the Huffington Post and always acrid John Aravosis of AmericaBlog are absolutely livid that Maher's naming of RNC Chair Ken Mehlman was edited out of later rebroadcasts of the King interview.

For those on the "tolerant" left, it seems that being gay and Republican--or for that matter, almost any minority and a Republican-- is a sin of the first order. Punishment for this "sin" is the practice of being "outed," whereby liberals that hate prominent Republicans for their policy differences also pronounce them gay in a public forum, whereby other liberals can join in and share in hating them for the compounded sin of being gay and Republican.

In this worldview practiced by too many liberals, one's views on social security reform, healthcare, taxes, defense matters, foreign policy, trade, the death penalty, abortion, religion, etc, are all superceded by which gender you are attracted to.

What this means for homosexuals according to liberals, is that even though you might favor small government, low taxes, a strong military, an aggressive foreign policy, closing the borders to illegal aliens, free trade and 90% of the planks on the Republican platform, you are a traitor if you aren't liberal. If you are gay, goes their logic, you must, by their decree, be liberal.

If not, you'll face such lovely, constructive, adult perspectives such as these culled from the HuffPo comment thread:

Out the gay bastards who undermine their own lives by working for the GOP....

Gay Republicans are guilty of self-loathing and by serving a party that's harmful them they feel relieved of their guilt. Maschochists.

The great sin, in their warped perspective, is that of hypocrisy.

But what people that hold to a slate of political ideas that are conservative across the board, and happen to be gay? Should they suborn the larger part of their belief system to their libido just to appease someone else's radical politics?

I'd say making someone a social and political slave to their sexual attractions is the greater hypocrisy, but what do I know.

I'm one of those intolerant conservatives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:41 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.