Interesting.

Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said about 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

For every person killed about three have been wounded in violence since the war started in March 2003, al-Shemari told reporters during a visit to Vienna. He did not explain how he arrived at the figure, which is three times most other estimates.

The health minister, a senior Shiite official linked to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, also said the United States should hand Iraqis full control of its army and police force. Doing so, he said, would allow the Iraqi government to bring the violence under control within six months.

The "most other estimates" comment likely refers to estimates compiled by iraqbodycount.org, the Los Angeles Times, and the Brookings Institute, which give figures between 48,000-62,000.

You know what this means, don't you?

Obviously, this means the evil neocon war machine must have slaughtered the other half million people reported killed since the 2003 election... probably by strangulation.

Hell of a job, Rummy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:52 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 2 kb.

A powerful sermon on the Iraq War as told through the analogy of a World War II soldier's sacrifice, via Josh Manchester's enlightening post on the sudden multitude of plans for Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Fox News:

Among those expected to hand in resignation letters is the Pentagon's top intelligence official, Under Secretary of Defense Steve Cambone, a close Rumsfeld associate and a key architect in planning for the Iraq war and the War on Terror.

Cambone is the first person to hold the post, and in doing so helped the Pentagon step up its own intelligence gathering assets, a role traditionally overseen by the CIA. The new system led to turf battles between the two agencies in recent years.

This resignation is hardly unexpected, and as the article mentions, more are certainly on the way.

The article also mentions this, which makes me uneasy:

In announcing the secretary's resignation, President Bush said he was nominating Robert Gates, a veteran of the CIA under President George H.W. Bush, to lead the Pentagon. Though closely tied to the Bush family, Gates is considered by many to be an agent of change.

Rep. Jane Harman, the expected next chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Gates would be a good fit to run the Department of Defense because of his intelligence background.

"He will respect the role of civilian intelligence agencies, including the CIA," Harman, D-Calif., said.

Harmon is one of many Democrats that backs John Murtha's "over the horizon" movement of soldiers out of Iraq.

The more I hear about Bob Gates and who is supporting him, the more I come to think he's the "Harriet Miers" nominee for Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Gates, the nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of State was the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser during the failed 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War that may have led to the mass murder of 100,000 Shiite Iraqis:

On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs, destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing immeasurable ecological damage.

The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second costly war.

The obvious question is, "Did Bob Gates have a hand in shaping Bush's call for rebellion?"

If so, would he also partially responsible for failing to support the rebellion, leading to one of Saddam's greatest genocides? I do not know the answers to these questions, but they must be asked before he is confirmed as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense.

While I sincerely hope that the sentiment expressed on Austin Bay's blog that the Gates nomination may political prep for "prosecuting the war even more vociferously," I think that Mr. Gates and the present Bush Administration owe to it to us and the Iraqi people to explain in detail what role, if any, he played in an Administration that instigated, and then failed to support, the 1991 uprisings.

The administration of Bush '41 failed Iraq once when we cried for them to stand up for their freedom. The same personnel who failed Iraqis in 1991 should not be given the opportunity to do so again.

Update: It's up behind an annoying subscriber wall, But Allah says that the Wall Street Journal is on the same page.

One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that itÂ’s only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.

We presume Mr. Gates will be grilled about these and other issues during his confirmation hearings. He should be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 5 kb.

Stick a fork in George Allen. He's done, are are the GOP's slim hopes of holding on to the Senate:

A Democratic takeover of the Senate is appearing likely after an ongoing canvass of votes in Virginia produced no significant changes in the outcome of the hard-fought race led by Democratic challenger Jim Webb, sources told CNN Wednesday.

Wednesday night, with Webb leading Republican Sen. George Allen by about 7,200 votes and the canvass about half complete, The Associated Press declared Webb the winner.

CNN does not declare a winner when race results are less than 1 percent and the potential loser may request a recount vote.

A source close to Allen also told CNN that the senator "has no intention of dragging this out."

Meanwhile, a Webb aide told CNN that he plans a formal news conference Thursday morning to declare victory.

A victory by Webb would put the new Senate lineup at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- who have said they would caucus with the Democrats.

This outcome in Virginia is hardly unexpected at this point, but perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that Joe Lieberman, the Senator that the liberal netroots derided as "Rape Gurney Joe", has potentially become a powerful swing vote in the Senate should he decide to act as such. All the bile and hatred directed at him may not easily be forgotten.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Catching it on Drudge and Rush, and will expect to hear confirmation in Bush's press conference momentarily.

Will update...

Confirmed. Rumfeld was on his way out prior to the election, and our new nominee for Secretary of Defense is Bob Gates, currenty the President of Texas A&M. Bush said that Gates had met with him in Crawford this past Sunday, where I understand he was offered the position. He is the only career officer in the CIA's history to rise from an entry-level employee to the directorship. Gates had previously declined the Director of National Intelligence position now filled by John Negroponte. I'm sure we'll hear more about him in the days ahead, but I simply don't know enoughabout him to know what kind of Secretary he may be at this point.

Mary Katharine has more.

Update: Austin Bay reports that an officer he knows thinks that Rumsfeld's resignation sets the stage for more aggressive action against the terrorists.

That is an interesting hypothesis. If the key issue of the mid-terms for voters was dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the war in Iraq, then a "new direction" could well come in the form of more aggressive, targeted, and tangible offensive operations.

It will be interesting to see if this is indeed the path taken.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

The following is a short list of things I will not be doing in the wake of the 2006 mid-terms:

• Blaming Diebold.
• Staying in bed with massive depression.


• Creating a new election-based psychological malady.
• Lamenting that America has down descended into a (fill in the blank) state.
• Checking out immigration laws to other countries.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Well I just suck at election prognosticating, don't I?

In a national mid-term election billed as a battle against the way the War in Iraq is being waged and against Republican scandals, Democrats waltzed to an easy reversal of power in the House of Representatives and what many expect to be a slim majority in the Senate.

The Democratic Party is to be commended for their victories, and their candidates are to be congratulated.

What remains to be seen, however, is what Democratic electoral success will mean to our domestic and foreign policy.

Domestically, the farthest reaching effect may be upon those that are not elected to office but appointed, as the Democratic majority will be able to shape who is appointed to federal judgeships, including any Supreme Court vacancies that may occur at least until the 2008 election cycle. There are of course some responsible moderate judges to choose from, but I feel that a strict, historically-grounded interpretation of the Constitution is needed on the federal level, and that is most often found in the kind of judges that Democrats are likely to filibuster.

Free trade is also going to be dead, and we can expect taxes to go up through a combination of new taxes and a refusal to renew the tax cuts made by the previous Congress.

We can also expect a "quagmire" as Democrats follow through on their promised "investigations" of the Bush Administration. Some of these are indeed warranted--I know for a concrete fact that the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) is as corrupt as it can be and engaged in illegal activity, as I have personally seen the evidence--and I feel that if the Administration did indeed break any laws they should of course be held accountable.

I fear, however, that honest investigations of deep-seated agency-level bureaucratic corruption I suspect exists will be ignored in favor of investigations of "brand name" targets. I fully expect Democrats to follow through on multiple investigations targeting the President and Vice President based not upon any actual criminality, but on the appearance of impropriety, with the goal of further weakening the Executive Branch and laying the groundwork for the 2008 campaigns.

But what concerns me far more than these domestic issues (at least for now) is what the election means internationally, specifically in the War on Terror.

I can respect the fact that a majority of American voters do not like the way the War on Terror is being conducted. I don't particularly like the way the War on Terror is being fought, particularly in the battleground of Iraq where al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups have joined with state sponsors of terrorism Syria and Iran in an effort to not only destroy any hopes of democracy taking root in the Arab world, but to rally the support of Islamists worldwide.

Fair or not, terrorist leaders around the world openly cheerleaded for Democratic victory. Leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas were among those that publicly stated that they thought much talked about Democratic plans for withdrawal from Iraq would embolden and spread fundamentalist resistance against the United States. al Qaeda's curiously silent Osama bin Laden had pulled for a Democratic victory for the same reasons in the 2004 elections.

Will the new Democratic leadership take stock of these comments and attempt to understand why the terrorists cheered them on to victory? Recent history and breaking news alike suggests that they will not. Nancy Pelosi has already this to say about the War on Terror in Iraq:

"Nowhere did Americans make it more clear that a change is needed in Iraq ... we can't continue down that catastrophic path," she said. "Mr President, we need a new direction in Iraq."

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders such as Charles Rangel and John Murtha have made clear that their "new direction" is a vision of withdrawal, without apparently registering that such a plan would embolden and spread terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have clearly stated:

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

My greatest fear in Iraq is not for the American military, which overwhelmingly wants to stay engaged and finish the mission, but for the 26 million people of Iraq who face a dire future in the hands of a "cut and run" Congress.

If Democrats are able to force a retreat from Iraq, the existing sectarian violence will likely devolve into a full-fledged civil war that the still-weak Iraqi security forces will be unable to stop or perhaps even slow. The possibility exists for Iraq to fall into full-fledged tribalism, with widespread genocide a distinct possibility. If this comes to pass, the United States will have abandoned the Iraqi people twice in two wars after asking for their support, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives. Neither they, nor any other nation on earth, will have any reason to trust commitments America for a long time to come.

Terrorism, instead of being defeated, will have proven to be an effective tactic.

That may be the ultimate legacy of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control of the House of Representatives if the liberal leadership has its way. We can only hope that the Democratic moderates who won most of last night elections can steer their leaders from the rear.

If they cannot, our foreign policy will, quite simply, encourage further acts of terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have made abundantly clear.

Update: Well, that didn't take long.

Update: And it gets worse, quickly:

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement faxed to news organizations in Gaza.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1141 words, total size 8 kb.

I'll be unavailable for several hours this evening as I'll be out suppressing the Democratic vote, but wanted to leave you with some good sites to follow the electoral action till I get home after the polls close.

My stablemates over at Pajamas Media are putting out a ton of good information, including early exit polling from Jeff Goldstein's breakfast table, as will the good folks at Powerline and Powerline News.

The Malkin Media Network will be firing on all cylinders at both Michelle's personal site and at Hot Air.

The Blogfather and Memeorandum.com should round all your needs as a political junkie until we have, you know, something actual to talk about.

You know, like the procession of torches and pitchforks to the Heinz-Kerry mansion if Waffles manages to torpedo this election for liberals like he did the last one...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Dammit.

Pardon my Farsi.

I tried to deliver my traditional pre-election fatwa message weeks ago, but Predators keep blasting missiles into every video-laden donkey that leaves the cave, and the jackass meat covering the mountainside is starting to smell like an ACORN voter drive. Or Michael Moore.

I'm even reduced to wearing last election's campaign buttons.

Nevertheless, as Allah (PBUH) wills it, I have been able to highjack an evil Jew-lover's neo-con blog (at least until the generator runs out of gas again) and I will use it to pronounce the glorious message of al Qaeda:

VOTE DEMOCRAT.

I and my fellow freedom fighters demand this of you, and you will comply.

The American people should bow to fate and accept the glorious defeat that Allah (PBUH) and the Democratic Party have planned for you.

If you do this thing, we shall promise to kill you last, after the Jews, the homosexuals, the uncovered women, the idiot america soldiers, the Christians, atheists, the cast of The View, and the French.

It is only after you do this thing that you will be at peace with al Qaeda... for now.

Well, that, and you must avoid tall buildings, crowded public areas like stories and malls and the stadiums where men in helmets slap each other's fannies after tackling one another (disgusting), the walmart, excetera.

Stay in your home or mosque, and all will be forgiven until the end.

Also, Thank you Senator Kennedy for the talking points.

We will behead you last of all of the infidels.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:28 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Just moments ago on North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston on Raleigh-based News-Talk 680 WPTF, former CBS anchor Dan Rather defended the infamous 60 Minutes story using forged documents to attack President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard as being, "absolutely true," a charge a testy Rather reiterated at least four or five times.

Rather not only defended the report, but the validity of the forged documentation that the report relied on, saying it had never been proven false (despite copious evidence to the contrary).

I've contacted the station, and hope to get audio of that portion of the interview posted later in the morning.

Note: While the show is North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston, Rick and Donna Martinez conducted the interview with Rather while Jack Boston is out fighting leukemia. Our prayers and best wishes go out to Jack and his family.

Update: The Raleigh News and Observer reports on the story.

Update: A reader taped an MP3 (3:34) during a re-airing of the Rather-Martinez interview this afternoon during WPTF's The Bill Lumaye Show. Enjoy!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:39 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

While some pollsters are still predicting massive Democratic gains in today's voting, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times is sounding a pre-emptive retreat:

For a combination of reasons — increasingly bullish prognostications by independent handicappers, galloping optimism by Democratic leaders and bloggers, and polls that promise a Democratic blowout — expectations for the party have soared into the stratosphere. Democrats are widely expected to take the House, and by a significant margin, and perhaps the Senate as well, while capturing a majority of governorships and legislatures.

These expectations may well be overheated. Polls over the weekend suggested that the contest was tightening, and some prognosticators on Monday were scaling back their predictions, if ever so slightly. (Charlie Cook, the analyst who is one of WashingtonÂ’s chief setters of expectations, said in an e-mail message on Monday that he was dropping the words "possibly more" from his House prediction of "20-35, possibly more.")

Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the partyÂ’s spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.

"Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream," said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).

"It would be crushing," he said. "It would be extremely difficult."

Mr. Cook put it more succinctly. "I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide," he said.

Metaphorically, of course (h/t BCB).

Scott Elliott of Election Projection made an uncharacteristic disclaimer on his deadly accurate election formula that was so accurate in predicting the outcome in 2004:

For any election projection formula to be accurate, one of two conditions must be met. Either the data used in the calculations must be reasonably accurate, or the formula must correctly compensate for inaccurate data.

In Election Projection's case, I firmly believe neither condition was met this year, especially in the House. Polling data was very scarce, and the polls that were available were largely suspect in my view. Moreover, the political pundits on whom I relied heavily in my House projections see a much gloomier outlook than I believe is warranted. Combine those two factors and you have a some heavily skewed projections.

It seems like it's anybody's race to win, folks. Make sure you vote.

If you do, you could be rewarded tomorrow morning with thousands of liberal faces looking just like this one... and wouldn't that be worth it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:00 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Insanity, right where you would expect it:

If they steal this again, there MUST be a response.

Our country is finished for good if Tuesday results in a Republican Majority or the absolute unthinkable, A Super Majority.

But if this occurs, even if it marks the End Of America, the ONLY response that should happen is the Beginning of the Revolution to take it back.

This MUST NOT STAND.

This CANNOT STAND.

And if we LET IT STAND, like Benjamin Franklin said, we deserve neither Freedom nor Safety.

At some point we must fight these people.

It might as well be now.

Let us hope that Tuesday will not make it necessary for us to take this country back by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.

I think reasonable people would decode "by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY" as referring to acts of violence, and in this context, perhaps an armed revolt.

This alone is disturbing, but perhaps not unexpected for an isolated hothead.

But here is the thing.

This post was made more than 24 hours ago, and to date, not one of the 27 responses made since this call for revolt "by any means necessary" have disagreed. One person actually agreed. The moderators of this forum, which you would think would be the people to corral such a comment, deleted another comment made later, but let this stand.

Random accusations of massive voter fraud and calls for violent revoltion if they lose are okay here.

Around the bend? Welcome home.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

Bill Whittle has returned.

For those of you not familiar with his name, Whittle is perhaps on of the best essayists on American politics today, and author of Silent America: Essays from a Democracy at War.

Grab a cup of coffee, take your time, and digest it all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

All across yonder 'sphere and throughout the mainstream media, pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators as making "informed" predictions of tomorrow's elections back with the best research they can muster.

Bah. Who needs them?

With so many polls seemingly at odds with one another, they seem almost worthless at making predictions. I think it is perhaps better to admit that the polls are only really decent at noting trends, and at this point, all of the major polls and many of the minor ones are trending away from a large number of pickups for Democrats in the House and Senate to a much closer barnburner finish.

Consider the historical fact that such polls tend to oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans, and I think we stand a pretty decent possibility of seeing Republicans being able to declare victory in both the House and Senate, if by narrower margins than what they currently hold.

Why?

You can't beat something with nothing.
While few American's think that the Republican dominated government is doing a great job, tehy are at least doing something. The Democrats have completely failed to come up with anything approaching a cohesive strategy or message.

Americans dislike losing, and hate surrendering.
We are not a nation of quitters. While few people agree with the current direction of the war in Iraq, we do not like to quit, and we do not like to abandon our soldiers nor our allies. Our allies in the Iraqi government don't want us to go until their country is stabilized. The overwhelming response form our soldiers is that they don't want to go until Iraq is stabilized. Leading terrorists are openly rooting for a Democratic victory, and the Democrats have built an unsteady "cut and run" coalition that their leadership has unwisely decided to run on. As Americans, we hate losing and hate quitting even more. The liberal Democratic views of Iraq are simply unpalatable to many who consider them defeatists.

Tax and Spend fears.
Democrats, this time led by Charles Rangel, have scared the American people with their promise to not extend the current Bush tax cuts and the probability that they will try to raise taxes. I don't personally know anyone who wants to pay more taxes. Do you?

Impeachment Screeching.
The can say otherwise all they want, but Thomas already has them on the record, damned with their own words. If Democrats take control of the House, we'll get two years of investigations targeting the President and Vice President for censure and impeachment. If, like Nixon or Clinton, a President clearly did something wrong in office, the American people can tolerate the mess of an impeachment, even if they don't actually like it. The Democrats, have ever, have done just enough prior to the elections so that many voters know it is on their mind, even as Democrats have failed to make a strong enough case that such investigations are anything other than sewer-level political maneuvers.

Turnover ratio.
Just like in sports, politicians can look at near-term gaffes to influence the final outcome, and most of the mistakes of the past few weeks have undoubtedly come from Democrats, from Rangel calling Vice President Cheney a "son of a bitch," to John Kerry's continuing swipe at the intelligence of the troops that never seems to end. These mistakes have overshadowed any Republican mistakes, and have stifled the Democratic momentum they seemed to have in past weeks, and may have even reversed it.

Weather Woes.
It seems that nobody ever talks about this variable (and so perhaps I'm off base), but weather would seem to have at least some effect on voter turnout, and with many races being very close, weather-suppressed turnouts could hurt some candidates and help others. According to weather.com, the Pacific Northwest is going to be wet and windy, while the South will be rained on all day, with rain hitting the Great Lakes states and parts of the Northeast in the afternoon. The west and Great Plains states appear dry and sunny all day long. My guess is that voters reliant on public transportation may stay home in foul weather, and it seems most of those public transportation voters are likely Democrats. If weather effects are enough to determine outcomes is anyone's guess, but it could be a factor.

Final Prediction.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans hold the House by six seats and the Senate by three.

Update: Scott Elliott's much more scientific and time-tested Election Projection will be updating his final projections during the course of the evening.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:34 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.

In an article published in today's Washington Post, dozens of soldiers interviewed by Post reporter Josh White revealed that the precipitous withdrawal favored by many top Democratic leaders would have "disastrous consequences" for the nation of Iraq, potentially plunging the nation into a widespread civil war:

For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

As I stated previously, a civil war is one possible outcome of the calamitous withdrawal apparently favored by Charles Rangel, Lynn Woolsey and other Democrats that favor forcing the military to retreat by de-funding the war, while other approaches favor by Democrats such as John Murtha's plan to "redeploy" the soldiers to Pacific island bases thousands of miles away would lead to the same bloody disaster, and possible genocide.

Blackfive has been collecting from soldiers stationed in Iraq--the ones that John Kerry still thinks aren't intelligent according to his own web site--and their opinions, while varied, support the war effort even though it is their lives on the line.

A sample from a Marine Sergeant on his second tour in Iraq: more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 2612 words, total size 16 kb.

Along with a handful of other bloggers, I was given a chance by U.S. Central Command to interview U.S. soldiers currently serving in Baghdad, Iraq, specifically, MPs (military police) from the 615th Military Police Company MSC: 89th MP Bde, also known as the "Bloodhounds."

I was able to interview SSG Jason Oliver and SPC Kimberly McGuiness.

Josh Manchester also interviewed SSG Oliver and SPC McGuiness in a podcast at The Adventures of Chester.

SSG Jason Oliver from Cypress, Illinois, has been in the Army 7 years, and is currently the Team Chief for a Police Transition Team in Baghdad.

Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

SSG Oliver: ItÂ’s a tough question to answer. I only see a small portion of the big picture. As a Team Chief for the Police Transition Team it is something that I see and that I report, but I donÂ’t keep count on everything, just report what I see. I do find it is hard to fathom that there have been that many Iraqis killed since 2003.

Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

SSG Oliver: First off, I think that siege is not the appropriate word to use. Yes it has a duel meaning, but when I think of a siege, I think back to Medieval Europe with royal courts placing rival castles under siege and cutting off all outside support, lasting from months to years. So is the city under siege, I don’t think it is. Beyond what the media portrays, there is more to this city that the so called “death squads”. You still see a continuous flow of commerce in and out of the city. I know that the locals live in fear and that many have duel identities, but this to the Iraqi people has become a sign of the times. They have learned to adapt to the ever changing political climate and try to live as normal a life as they can. I cannot count the times when my patrol has traveled through the city with the streets full of life, little street side venders selling the newest gadget in the area, bistros busy with hungry locals standing in line to grab the fresh “Falafel or Kebab” and the females musing about in search of the best cut of meat and freshest fruits and vegetables to serve the family. I read an article the other day about an increasing number of tattoo shops in the Baghdad area. In the article it stated that tattoos are forbidden in the Islamic culture, but some people feel that it is one way that, if they should be killed, they will be identified so the proper notification can be made and the family does not have to grieve more that they have to. The people adapt, they know when most bad things are going to happen, and they take precautionary steps to prevent them from being caught up in whatever may happen. As strange as it may sound, I have a lot of respect for a majority of the Iraqi people. While we are here to help control the chaos, they live in it.

Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

SSG Oliver: I would love to say yes, but it is up to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to come together and end the bloodshed.

Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

SSG Oliver: Good and Bad. All in all, the Iraqi Police try to perform their duties daily, but they do lack things that would make them more effective. Most of the police have minimal training and that is where our job comes into play. The Police Transition Team helps fill the gap by providing training and mentorship to the IPÂ’s to better educate them on the basic police fundamentals. They do, however, need new and better equipment. They use unarmored vehicles to conduct their patrol which puts them at an even higher risk of injury and death. The now this and can sometimes use it to their advantage, but this is not always the case. Overall, the IPÂ’s are as effective as their equipment allows them to be and if they should get the needed equipment, then the IPÂ’s could assume a better role in their respective communities and perform in a more efficient manner.

Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

SSG Oliver: It has been my experience operating in the city that allows me to say that for the most part, both U.S and Iraqi forces are on the same sheet of music. They do work together well, but the Iraqi Security Forces do have advantages that Coalition Forces do not have. We are bound by our rules and regulations were as the Iraqis have more lenient laws which allow them some better opportunities.

Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

SSG Oliver: If your child takes their first steps while holding on to your hands are you just going to let go and hope they continue on their own? No. Most people would continue to support and encourage them until they can continue on their own without support. I feel the same applies here. The Iraqi government is very young and still needs assistance from outside sources so they can develop and grow. The US government has pledged to help build Iraq into a model for the region, and if we were to pull out to early, the Iraqi Government will stumble from its already young state and possibly fall, which would put US forces back into a situation that could possible be worse. We need to stay, maintain and support the Iraqi Government until it can handle all aspects without US assistance.

Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

SSG Oliver: First, I want to thank everyone that supports our troops. This is by far the most important thing. Second, I wish that people back home could see everything that happens here, not just the gruesome stories of a war torn country. There is so much more to everything that the Coalition is doing in this country that goes unnoticed. Things such as seeing Soldiers interacting with the local children, giving them school supplies, toys and even sharing their candy and whatever other things the Soldiers have. I cannot remember when the press ran a story about U.S Soldiers establishing an aid station out in a community that allowed many Iraqis to receive medical attention that they would have otherwise not received. The media needs to rethink the coverage and produce a balance of both the good and bad, and maybe then the world will not think that this is a completely war ravaged country.

SPC Kimberly MCGuiness from Fletcher, North Carolina, is a .50-caliber turrent gunner on a Humvee conducting Police Transition Team duties in Baghdad.

Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

SPC McGuiness: I don't know the answer to that question due to the fact that it is outside of my job to keep track of how many violent deaths there have been. I would say that their have been many but I don't know the exact number.

Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

SPC McGuiness: There are always two sides to every media report. People hear about the bad things because its news worthy. In my experience, it is true that locals are fearful of being kidnapped and executed but I can't tell you for a fact that it is Shiite vs Sunni. There are violent things that happen but you can't really pin point the source of the problem.

Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

SPC McGuiness: I can't tell you for sure if it will let up. You have people in this country that want all Shiite governments and those that want the Sunni's in power and you have that divide between the two. If an understanding can be reached then yes but until that divide closes, it could be sometime before the healing and rebuilding can happen.

Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

SPC McGuiness: I feel as if they had better vehicles, better equipment and more armor on their vehicles that they could perform more efficiently. Also they don't get paid that much and for the amount of danger there is out in Baghdad, the pay doesn't seem to quite add up. They are afraid to die just like everyone else and if they were better equipped it might make them more comfortable in their job.

Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

SPC McGuiness: In my experience, the Iraqi forces and the US forces quite often are on the same page but other times there are things that hinder movement. There are things that the Iraqi forces can do that US forces cannot do and we have to handle situations differently. With the Iraqi forces, Iraq is "their turf" whereas with the U.S we still have soon guidelines and rules that must be followed. There are always going to be some anti-Iraqi forces that think what we are trying to establish is wrong and that take matters into their own hands.

Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

SPC McGuiness: In my experience, what we are doing here is working. Rome wasn't built in a day and it is going to take time. If we were to be pulled out of Iraq too soon, we will find ourselves back here down the road trying to undo what we could have fixed if we would have stayed. We are working on training the IP's how to perform their job's better and better ways to do things so they can support themselves and not be afraid to police one another.

Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

SPC McGuiness: People only see the bad things that happen here. You hardly ever hear about soldiers interacting with the locals and building relationships with the children. Soldiers handing out book bags and school supplies or just a small gesture of giving them candy to show them that we do care and humanize ourselves to them. The future of Iraq is in the people. Yes there are some people that resent the US being here and that will not stop until we leave but there are those that thank us for being here and that they feel safer because we patrol their streets and the crime has been lessened do to our patrols. We are making a difference.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 2340 words, total size 14 kb.

Via Fox News:

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will spend Election Day Tuesday on his first hunting trip since he accidentally shot a companion last February while aiming at a covey of quail on a private Texas ranch.

The vice president, after working at the White House on Monday morning, will head to South Dakota to spend several days at a private hunting lodge near Pierre. Lea Anne McBride, his press secretary, said it was an annual hunting outing and said Cheney spent Election Day in 2002 at the same lodge.

You might think Cheney is attempting to get out of the limelight until the '06 election cycle is over by heading afield with his custom 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun, but it could be that he is instead laying the groundwork for his '08 Presidential campaign.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

You would think that on the day a brutal murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, that everyone but Baathist dead-enders would draw at least some satisfaction from the fact that at long last, the Butcher of Baghdad would pay for his decades of brutality, depravity, and bloodlust.

You don't know liberals very well, do you?

Blondesense's reaction was "ho-hum," after which she went on a multi-paragraph tirade blaming the United States in general and Republicans in specific. As always, we are responsible for Saddam's crimes.

Steve Clemon's at the Washington Note takes the same tack:

The Bush administration gets credit for taking down Hussein, real and in statue, but they too deserve every bit of the credit for unleashing the virulent currents of sectarian killing and convulsion in Iraq, all of the responsibility for removing the chief constraint on Iran's actions in the region, and all of the kudos for giving radical Islamism reward after reward in the region.

Saddam Hussein's head will be a prize that Shia extremists thank America for while they continue to do their best to eradicate Sunnis from Iraq.

Bush deserves all of the credit for the Hussein trial and conviction -- and all of the horrors unleashed around it.

Nice. Apparently they'd rather have Saddam still in power, because they've convinced themselves that would have saved Iraqi lives.

Uh, no (via Gateway Pundit).

Mahablog questions the timing and blames Karl Rove. It's knee-jerk, but instinctive for them at this point.

Georgia10 at Daily Kos asks, "Do the ends justify the means?" seems quite concerned that Saddam may not have gotten a fair trial, and cries yet again for us to abandon the people of Iraq, which she apparently considers a "blood-soaked path to nowhere."

It's never to late to blame America. It's never to late too run.

A "good morning to you" from the American liberal left.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:07 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Fox News:

Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.

The so-called Butcher of Baghdad, who was president of Iraq from 1979 until he was deposed by Coalition forces in April 2003, was convicted of the 1982 killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail.

The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!" as Iraq's High Tribunal announced his sentence.

Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.

It seems fitting that an Iraqi gallows and not an American bullet will put an end to the reign of Saddam Hussein. The allied elite forces of Task Force 20 eliminated his sadistic sons, but I think that Iraqis will attain more closure by executing the Butcher of Baghdad themselves.

Fellow Pajamas Media bloggers Omar and Mohammed Fadhil report from Baghdad:

I was overwhelmed with joy and relief as I watched the criminals being read their verdicts. For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.

Until this moment and while IÂ’m typing these words IÂ’m still receiving words of congratulations in emails, phone calls and text messages from friends inside and outside the country. These were our only means to share our happiness because of the curfew that limits our movement.

This is the day for SaddamÂ’s lovers to weep and I expect their shock and grieve to be huge. They had always thought their master was immortal so let them live in their disappointment while we live for our future.

This is a day not only for Iraqis but a historic day for the whole region; today new basis for dealing between rulers and peoples are found.

No one is above the law anymore.

I was particularly pleased by the way Judge Raouf Rasheed handled the session; he was reading the courtÂ’s decision and at the same time chastising members of the current government for their misbehavior and threatened to throw them in custody regardless of their ranks!

We are living a new era where thereÂ’s much hope despite the difficultiesÂ…our sacrifices have a noble cause, that is to build a new model that obviously terrifies other tyrants.

AllahPundit notes a post written by Omar Fadhil in 2003 when he spoke with a young doctor who grew up in the town where the crimes took place. I'll suggest you read it, and agree with Allah's conclusion:

Thus always to tyrants.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.