Well I'm all boarded up. Tomorrow I'll pack up the family and head out.
Mayor Nagen is on WWL TV right now. He says someone at the NHC called him up to tell him that this storm - KATRINA - is exactly the storm that everyone has been fearing for so long. 20-25 foot storm surge (most of the levys were built to 15 feet - but most all have settled a few feet over the years - probably only 12 feet high in most places now).
Mayor Nagen now says that tomorrow he will probably announce the FIRST mandatory evacuation in the history of New Orleans. A mando evac has been scoffed at in the past because many of the folks in NOLA have no transportation - no way to leave. However, apparently the Mayor thinks ordering the evac will help in some measure.
Could be up to 18-20 feet of water in downtown NOLA after the storm passes. It will take WEEKS to pump that amount of water out of the city. Additionally, it will be a hazardous waste nightmare. Only hope now is if the storm turns or greatly detensifies. It would be nice if this thing would speed up too.
I live in a brand new house, in a brand new subdivision. I have about zero confidence that this house will be standing on Tuesday morning. Katrina's eye is predicted to run right over it. I would have more confidence except I've seen how they build these houses. I wish LA had the same building codes as FL does - but we don't. The houses here are built pretty much like crap.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
KATRINA ...
Well, this blog just may go down for a few days due to the approach of Hurricane KATRINA.
I'm doing my hurricane preps now. Just came inside to get away from the Louisiana heat for a few minutes.
Here in Louisiana, if you have any body of water within three miles of your house - that water will certainly have snakes - nasty poisonous snakes. It's likely it'll also have gators. When a hurricane visits - it usually floods - and the residents of the local marsh or lake head for higher ground - and that usually means YOUR backyard. Since hurricane rains can double the size of your grass in the backyard (overnight) - it's a good idea to MOW before the hurricane - and before the creatures start looking for an alternate home. I just finished mowing mine.
Next item will be to board up the house. I have about 40 windows unfortunately - so that'll take some time. On the positive side though, I already keep plywood pre-cut and drilled for my windows. It's smart to do that down here - even Home Depot will scalp you on plywood when a hurricane approaches - so it's best to have it beforehand.
The amazing thing to me is the last time we went through this drill - myself and a few others in the neighborhood were the only one's to board up our houses. Amazing. Most of my neighbors figure insurance will cover their damages and so why bother? My next-door neighbor told me I was crazy for boarding up because the house would blow away anyway in a big storm. I think his exact words were "Well, when your house blows away - at least those windows will still be intact." Thanks alot there, Smart Alec.
Anyway - I'm boarding up. What the hell?
Tomorrow I will be bugging out with the family and heading to my Mom's house about an hour and 15 minutes away in Pascagoula, MS. That's a solid house, well above sea level, over there and has withstood many hurricanes. If this one hits NOLA - then they won't get much wind over there anyway.
Gas station lines are chock full and running out of gas. I'm all gassed up though already.
New Orleans is NOT ready. This storm could hit early Monday morning and the city is not ready - they really weren't looking at Katrina seriously until yesterday afternoon. But now they are - maybe too late. John Gumm, the meteorologist at WWL TV said this morning ...
"What I am trying to do here is convince you to prepare for the worst storm you have ever went through or to heed the advice of emergency management should they call for an evacuation in your area. "
Now, John Gumm is a great weather-guesser. John Gumm has never uttered anything like this in the past when there was a hurricane in the Gulf. If John Gumm says this now - then that means the whole city is in some deep kim-chee if they don't get ready.
You can see the stress on Mayor Nagen's face on TV this morning. He knows that unless a miracle happens to divert this storm away from NOLA - he is about to be overseeing the greatest disaster in the history of the city of New Orleans. There is not much he can do - MANY of the urban poor have no transportation to get out of the city. If the levy's are breached - New Orleans will be a swimming pool.
My advice to anyone reading this blog - if you happen to live well out of the path of this storm - you should probably go and buy gas for yourself now too. New Orleans has so many oil rigs, so many refineries, and so much imported oil comes into the nation down here that you have no reason to smile at our worries down here right now. If New Orleans suffers a calamity - you'll feel it in your wallet - even if you live in Washington State.
I'm doing my hurricane preps now. Just came inside to get away from the Louisiana heat for a few minutes.
Here in Louisiana, if you have any body of water within three miles of your house - that water will certainly have snakes - nasty poisonous snakes. It's likely it'll also have gators. When a hurricane visits - it usually floods - and the residents of the local marsh or lake head for higher ground - and that usually means YOUR backyard. Since hurricane rains can double the size of your grass in the backyard (overnight) - it's a good idea to MOW before the hurricane - and before the creatures start looking for an alternate home. I just finished mowing mine.
Next item will be to board up the house. I have about 40 windows unfortunately - so that'll take some time. On the positive side though, I already keep plywood pre-cut and drilled for my windows. It's smart to do that down here - even Home Depot will scalp you on plywood when a hurricane approaches - so it's best to have it beforehand.
The amazing thing to me is the last time we went through this drill - myself and a few others in the neighborhood were the only one's to board up our houses. Amazing. Most of my neighbors figure insurance will cover their damages and so why bother? My next-door neighbor told me I was crazy for boarding up because the house would blow away anyway in a big storm. I think his exact words were "Well, when your house blows away - at least those windows will still be intact." Thanks alot there, Smart Alec.
Anyway - I'm boarding up. What the hell?
Tomorrow I will be bugging out with the family and heading to my Mom's house about an hour and 15 minutes away in Pascagoula, MS. That's a solid house, well above sea level, over there and has withstood many hurricanes. If this one hits NOLA - then they won't get much wind over there anyway.
Gas station lines are chock full and running out of gas. I'm all gassed up though already.
New Orleans is NOT ready. This storm could hit early Monday morning and the city is not ready - they really weren't looking at Katrina seriously until yesterday afternoon. But now they are - maybe too late. John Gumm, the meteorologist at WWL TV said this morning ...
"What I am trying to do here is convince you to prepare for the worst storm you have ever went through or to heed the advice of emergency management should they call for an evacuation in your area. "
Now, John Gumm is a great weather-guesser. John Gumm has never uttered anything like this in the past when there was a hurricane in the Gulf. If John Gumm says this now - then that means the whole city is in some deep kim-chee if they don't get ready.
You can see the stress on Mayor Nagen's face on TV this morning. He knows that unless a miracle happens to divert this storm away from NOLA - he is about to be overseeing the greatest disaster in the history of the city of New Orleans. There is not much he can do - MANY of the urban poor have no transportation to get out of the city. If the levy's are breached - New Orleans will be a swimming pool.
My advice to anyone reading this blog - if you happen to live well out of the path of this storm - you should probably go and buy gas for yourself now too. New Orleans has so many oil rigs, so many refineries, and so much imported oil comes into the nation down here that you have no reason to smile at our worries down here right now. If New Orleans suffers a calamity - you'll feel it in your wallet - even if you live in Washington State.
Friday, August 26, 2005
QUEEN OF DISASTER
The city of New Orleans is the "whispered" queen of disaster when it comes to hurricanes.
Probably the first question that a weatherman or a news reporter asks when they learn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico is ... "Does it have a chance of hitting New Orleans?"
This is because no matter how many times Pensacola gets pounded with hurricanes - that city will still survive and loss of life will be small.
But New Orleans (NOLA) is a different story. A CAT 2 hurricane, were one to hit NOLA, would cause monumental damage. Anything above a CAT 2 - would likely be a disaster rivaled only by catastrophe's you've seen and heard about in THIRD WORLD countries.
For weather reporters, a big hurricane plowing though NOLA is the "holy grail" of stories. A once in a lifetime chance to cover what is anticipated to be the "mother of all disasters". So when a reporter hears of a hurricane in the Gulf - they want to immediately know if it has a chance of hitting NOLA. Joe Bastardi - from ACCUWEATHER.COM - secretly wishes for a big hurricane to hit NOLA. Any time a storm enters the Gulf - doesn't matter what the "models" say - Joe will always predict for the storm to hit NOLA. You watch - if a hurricane ever does head this way - old Joe will be haulin' brownie down to NOLA to cover it. He knows the stakes here.
Hurricane CAMILLE was the last catastrophic storm to hit the Gulf Coast - in the late '60's - and she missed NOLA, making landfall instead just over the LA/MS state line. Loss of life was high - and the Mississippi Gulf Coast was ravaged - it took a generation to repair the damage.
But that was nothing compared to the disaster potential of NOLA.
There are several reasons that NOLA is a disaster waiting to happen ...
The city of NOLA sits below sea level - in a "bowl". If someone spills a glass of milk in NOLA - the city floods. People working in the city are used to listening to the weather reports when they're at work. They watch the skies and judge if a sudden rainshower might turn into a flash flood that would strand them at work. When the water gets high in the streets - the SUV's are about the only vehicles that can crawl through them - and they are on notice - make NO WAKE that will wash into someone's house. People get upset about that.
And that's just what it's like during your standard "summertime" rain season here.
Another reason for NOLA's disaster potential is the loss of the Louisianna wetlands - which are disappearing each day at a staggering rate. These wetlands - what's left of them - serve as a "buffer" between NOLA and a hurricane storm surge. Since those wetlands are only a fraction of what they were a hundred years ago - it's anticipated that NOLA will be ravaged by storm surges.
But probably the number one thing that contributes to NOLA's disaster potential has nothing to do with the geographic placement of the city. It has to do with the sheer volume of urban poor that reside in NOLA. The numbers are massive. The Mayor of New Orleans cannot even order a MANDATORY evacuation of NOLA because many of these people have no form of transportation to evacuate with. There are no hurricane shelters in the city - usually the Mayor will designate the SUPER DOME as a shelter - in the last desparate hours before a storm hits - just so that people will have a place to go. The safety of that place is a crap shoot though. A direct hit from a CAT 3 or above on NOLA will take many lives.
And the flooding from a hurricane. The building I work in is a six story building in downtown NOLA. During Hurricane Camille - which didn't even hit the city - the bottom two floors were completely flooded. But guess what? Flooding is just the tip of the iceberg because there is so much hazardous material in the city of NOLA that those flood waters will create a massive environmental catastrophe in spreading that stuff around.
With all of the above, most experts believe that there will be no such thing as "rebuilding" this city after a major hurricane comes through. They believe it would just be better to walk away from this place - or swim away from it - and everybody go someplace else! And when that happens - your gas prices are going to go through the roof and so are the prices on imports because a huge chunk of the nation's gas and imported goods comes through this city.
Hurricane KATRINA is now in the Gulf, and some are predicting CAT 4 by landfall and NOLA, again, is in the window of possibility for a strike. So now NOLA goes into the hurricane disaster preparation mode that we all know so well. I hope we don't get hit - but we are certainly "due".
By the way - the best hurricane news comes from WWL TV's John Gumm. When a storm is on the way - I'm on the WWL website reading everything he has to say!
Probably the first question that a weatherman or a news reporter asks when they learn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico is ... "Does it have a chance of hitting New Orleans?"
This is because no matter how many times Pensacola gets pounded with hurricanes - that city will still survive and loss of life will be small.
But New Orleans (NOLA) is a different story. A CAT 2 hurricane, were one to hit NOLA, would cause monumental damage. Anything above a CAT 2 - would likely be a disaster rivaled only by catastrophe's you've seen and heard about in THIRD WORLD countries.
For weather reporters, a big hurricane plowing though NOLA is the "holy grail" of stories. A once in a lifetime chance to cover what is anticipated to be the "mother of all disasters". So when a reporter hears of a hurricane in the Gulf - they want to immediately know if it has a chance of hitting NOLA. Joe Bastardi - from ACCUWEATHER.COM - secretly wishes for a big hurricane to hit NOLA. Any time a storm enters the Gulf - doesn't matter what the "models" say - Joe will always predict for the storm to hit NOLA. You watch - if a hurricane ever does head this way - old Joe will be haulin' brownie down to NOLA to cover it. He knows the stakes here.
Hurricane CAMILLE was the last catastrophic storm to hit the Gulf Coast - in the late '60's - and she missed NOLA, making landfall instead just over the LA/MS state line. Loss of life was high - and the Mississippi Gulf Coast was ravaged - it took a generation to repair the damage.
But that was nothing compared to the disaster potential of NOLA.
There are several reasons that NOLA is a disaster waiting to happen ...
The city of NOLA sits below sea level - in a "bowl". If someone spills a glass of milk in NOLA - the city floods. People working in the city are used to listening to the weather reports when they're at work. They watch the skies and judge if a sudden rainshower might turn into a flash flood that would strand them at work. When the water gets high in the streets - the SUV's are about the only vehicles that can crawl through them - and they are on notice - make NO WAKE that will wash into someone's house. People get upset about that.
And that's just what it's like during your standard "summertime" rain season here.
Another reason for NOLA's disaster potential is the loss of the Louisianna wetlands - which are disappearing each day at a staggering rate. These wetlands - what's left of them - serve as a "buffer" between NOLA and a hurricane storm surge. Since those wetlands are only a fraction of what they were a hundred years ago - it's anticipated that NOLA will be ravaged by storm surges.
But probably the number one thing that contributes to NOLA's disaster potential has nothing to do with the geographic placement of the city. It has to do with the sheer volume of urban poor that reside in NOLA. The numbers are massive. The Mayor of New Orleans cannot even order a MANDATORY evacuation of NOLA because many of these people have no form of transportation to evacuate with. There are no hurricane shelters in the city - usually the Mayor will designate the SUPER DOME as a shelter - in the last desparate hours before a storm hits - just so that people will have a place to go. The safety of that place is a crap shoot though. A direct hit from a CAT 3 or above on NOLA will take many lives.
And the flooding from a hurricane. The building I work in is a six story building in downtown NOLA. During Hurricane Camille - which didn't even hit the city - the bottom two floors were completely flooded. But guess what? Flooding is just the tip of the iceberg because there is so much hazardous material in the city of NOLA that those flood waters will create a massive environmental catastrophe in spreading that stuff around.
With all of the above, most experts believe that there will be no such thing as "rebuilding" this city after a major hurricane comes through. They believe it would just be better to walk away from this place - or swim away from it - and everybody go someplace else! And when that happens - your gas prices are going to go through the roof and so are the prices on imports because a huge chunk of the nation's gas and imported goods comes through this city.
Hurricane KATRINA is now in the Gulf, and some are predicting CAT 4 by landfall and NOLA, again, is in the window of possibility for a strike. So now NOLA goes into the hurricane disaster preparation mode that we all know so well. I hope we don't get hit - but we are certainly "due".
By the way - the best hurricane news comes from WWL TV's John Gumm. When a storm is on the way - I'm on the WWL website reading everything he has to say!
Thursday, August 25, 2005
GATES OF FIRE
Mike Yon has a new report from Mosul up on his site ....
Gates of Fire...
I don't know how he does it, but Mike has a special talent for actually putting YOU in combat with his writing style. From reading his stuff over the last few months - I can tell he's a guy with a good heart - and a patriot too. Wish all reporters were like him.
In this latest dispatch, Deuce Four has rough run. But the spirit of the guys shines through.
One of the things I found interesting was some of the frustration Mike details in "catch and release" terrorists. Also note how he indicates that Iraqi police just marvel in our tolerant, soft touch methods with captured and wounded jihadists.
In one of his other dispatches he tells how Iraqi police caught four terrorists, and took them out on a "ride" during their interrogation. Unfortunately - the police had to shoot one of the terrorists when he "tried to escape". Of course - this was enough "pressure" to get the others to talk.
Great job Mike on this latest dispatch.
Gates of Fire...
I don't know how he does it, but Mike has a special talent for actually putting YOU in combat with his writing style. From reading his stuff over the last few months - I can tell he's a guy with a good heart - and a patriot too. Wish all reporters were like him.
In this latest dispatch, Deuce Four has rough run. But the spirit of the guys shines through.
One of the things I found interesting was some of the frustration Mike details in "catch and release" terrorists. Also note how he indicates that Iraqi police just marvel in our tolerant, soft touch methods with captured and wounded jihadists.
In one of his other dispatches he tells how Iraqi police caught four terrorists, and took them out on a "ride" during their interrogation. Unfortunately - the police had to shoot one of the terrorists when he "tried to escape". Of course - this was enough "pressure" to get the others to talk.
Great job Mike on this latest dispatch.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
OBL'S MESSAGE TO MUSLIM YOUTH ...
This isn't new - but many haven't read it yet. This is a text of Osama Bin Laden's message to Muslim youth (take particular heed in the portions highlighted in red) ...
December 9, 2001
Your brother,
Usama Bin Laden
December 9, 2001
My beloved brothers in Islam,
Assalamu-alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh
We have been struggling right from our youth; we sacrificed our homes, families and all the luxuries of this worldly life in the path of Allah (we ask Allah to accept our efforts). In our youth, we fought with and defeated the (former) USSR (with the help of Allah), a world super power at the time, and now we are fighting the USA. We have never let the Muslim Ummah down.
We should realize that this life is temporary and eventually we have to return to Allah (SWT), the lord of the Heavens and the earth.
"Truly To Allah we belong and truly, to Allah we shall return."
Muslims are being humiliated, tortured and ruthlessly killed all over the world and it is time to fight these satanic forces with the utmost strength and power. Today, the whole of the Muslim Ummah is depending (after Allah) upon the Muslim youth, hoping that they would never let them down.
The Jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) has become Fard-Ain (obligatory) upon each and every Muslim. We advise the Muslim youth not to fall victim to the words of some scholars who are misleading the Ummah by stating that Jihad is still Fard-Kifayah. The time has come when all the Muslims of the world, especially the youth, should unite and soar against Kufr and continue Jihad till these forces are crushed to naught, all the anti-Islamic forces are wiped off from the face of this Earth and Islam takes over the whole world and all the other false religions."
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."
[Surah Al-Anfal]
We ask Allah (SWT) to rank us amongst His Truthful slaves.
Wassalamu-alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,Your brother,
Usama Bin Laden
ABLE DANGER UPDATE
Here’s the status as of today, the following people …
LtCol Tony Shaffer (US Army)
Capt Scott Philpott (US Navy)
James D. Smith (DoD Contractor)
… have all come forward to verify the fact that ABLE DANGER identified Mohammed Atta and his merry band of suicide pilots as early as January / February, 2000 - a year and a half prior to the attacks of 9-11. And although Philpott and Smith haven’t come out yet and specifically said that they told their chain of command about Atta – they certainly know that Shaffer is telling everyone that they did – and they aren’t “correcting” the message he’s sending. Translation – they told their chain of command. Only makes sense since that's about half of the job of a military man - informing your chain of command - about just about everything.
This “allegation” has been in the news for several weeks now – and skeptics have not been able to place a single hole in these men’s stories.
The Pentagon can only say that they can’t find any “documentation” that confirms that ABLE DANGER did what these men say it did.
BUT – the Pentagon will not say a solitary peep about what others who worked with these men on ABLE DANGER say. They have access to these other folks – and some of them are very high ranking – but they won’t tell us what they have to say about this.
Congressman Weldon has told the Pentagon that they should not make any more statements whatsoever about ABLE DANGER until they have completed a FULL investigation. Issuing any more half-cocked statements will make the findings of any Pentagon investigation seem “predetermined” – that’s his word.
Does that sound like the charge of a guy who knows he has a “chink” in his armor? It doesn’t to me. That sounds like a pretty bold warning from a guy who has his ducks in a row and knows he’s bulletproof on the issue. And I have to admit – the identical stories from an Army O-5, a Navy O-6, and civilian contractor are pretty convincing to me.
Any skepticism I may have had that this is the real deal has all but eroded. Unless these 3 guys – and Congressman Weldon are just engaging in an outright conspiratorial lie – then even more people out there exist who will eventually come forward to verify this story.
And more, this blockbuster story has now reopened the whole debate as to whether IRAQ may have played a role in the 9-11 attacks. Liberals have insisted from the outset that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 – and the 9-11 commission backed up their claims in the final report. However, since ABLE DANGER places Atta in the US much earlier than the 9-11 commission does – this calls into question the 9-11 commission’s whole timeline on Mohammed Atta’s actual travel itinerary – and leaves open the possibility that he may have met with Iraqi agents at some point in time as the Czechoslovakian police have insisted all along. Indeed, not only is the 9-11 commission’s timeline on Atta’s travels in question now – virtually everything else in that report is also.
I’m sure there will be more to follow
LtCol Tony Shaffer (US Army)
Capt Scott Philpott (US Navy)
James D. Smith (DoD Contractor)
… have all come forward to verify the fact that ABLE DANGER identified Mohammed Atta and his merry band of suicide pilots as early as January / February, 2000 - a year and a half prior to the attacks of 9-11. And although Philpott and Smith haven’t come out yet and specifically said that they told their chain of command about Atta – they certainly know that Shaffer is telling everyone that they did – and they aren’t “correcting” the message he’s sending. Translation – they told their chain of command. Only makes sense since that's about half of the job of a military man - informing your chain of command - about just about everything.
This “allegation” has been in the news for several weeks now – and skeptics have not been able to place a single hole in these men’s stories.
The Pentagon can only say that they can’t find any “documentation” that confirms that ABLE DANGER did what these men say it did.
BUT – the Pentagon will not say a solitary peep about what others who worked with these men on ABLE DANGER say. They have access to these other folks – and some of them are very high ranking – but they won’t tell us what they have to say about this.
Congressman Weldon has told the Pentagon that they should not make any more statements whatsoever about ABLE DANGER until they have completed a FULL investigation. Issuing any more half-cocked statements will make the findings of any Pentagon investigation seem “predetermined” – that’s his word.
Does that sound like the charge of a guy who knows he has a “chink” in his armor? It doesn’t to me. That sounds like a pretty bold warning from a guy who has his ducks in a row and knows he’s bulletproof on the issue. And I have to admit – the identical stories from an Army O-5, a Navy O-6, and civilian contractor are pretty convincing to me.
Any skepticism I may have had that this is the real deal has all but eroded. Unless these 3 guys – and Congressman Weldon are just engaging in an outright conspiratorial lie – then even more people out there exist who will eventually come forward to verify this story.
And more, this blockbuster story has now reopened the whole debate as to whether IRAQ may have played a role in the 9-11 attacks. Liberals have insisted from the outset that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 – and the 9-11 commission backed up their claims in the final report. However, since ABLE DANGER places Atta in the US much earlier than the 9-11 commission does – this calls into question the 9-11 commission’s whole timeline on Mohammed Atta’s actual travel itinerary – and leaves open the possibility that he may have met with Iraqi agents at some point in time as the Czechoslovakian police have insisted all along. Indeed, not only is the 9-11 commission’s timeline on Atta’s travels in question now – virtually everything else in that report is also.
I’m sure there will be more to follow
IN DEFENSE OF PAT ROBERTSON ...
Let me first start this blog entry by saying that I believe what Pat Robertson said in advocating the assassination of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was unwise. Pat Robertson should not have publicly called for that action.
Having said that … were I advising President Bush on what to do about the Venezuelan situation – my position might be a little different. Feel free to read between the lines.
Liberal pundits are screaming to high heavens this morning about Pat Robertson and claiming that he’s just a “Christian version” of the radical Islamofascist clerics who advocate violence against “infidels”. We must, therefore, condemn Pat Robertson for saying these things or we are no better than the Islamofascists who are waging war against us.
First, let me say that I wish the Main Stream Media (MSM) was as concerned about Islamofascist hate speech as they appear to be about Pat Robertson’s one comment the other day. But the fact is, Pat Robertson’s comments have gotten far more attention from the MSM than all of the hateful comments that Islamofascists have made in the last four years. And that’s just a fact.
But if they wish to compare Pat Robertson to the Islamofascists – I’ll play.
First, Islamofascist hate speech is peppered with endorsement of violence against men, women, and children. Islamofascists routinely defend the killing of the innocent in their Jihad to bring about a one-world Caliphate under Islamic rule. A Caliphate that proudly places the rule of Islam not only over Baghdad – but over Boise, Idaho as well. They vocally endorse any act of violence, in fact all acts of violence, to achieve these ends. No action, no matter how despicable it may be to civilized conscience, is off limits in achieving this goal.
So what about Pat Robertson? Did he advocate likewise? Absolutely not. Robertson simply advocated the assassination of a Venezuelan dictator who is in cahoots with the Islamofascists that seek to bring about the downfall of the United States. Robertson merely advocated violence against a man who is – far from an innocent bystander – in the Global War on Terror. Robertson advocated violence against a man who has blood on his own hands. Robertson advocated a single act of violence aimed at a man who calls Saddam Hussein a “brother” and wants to help Iranians develop nuclear weapons.
So there is NO comparison between Pat Robertson and the Islamofascists.
Even so, how could Pat Robertson – a Christian – advocate killing a foreign head of state?
Very simple – Pat Robertson is one of the growing numbers of people in this nation that recognize that we are in a global struggle against forces that would destroy us. He recognizes that if we don’t get aboard to fight these forces – then we, as a nation, are doomed.
It amazes me today, even after 9-11, most Americans are still plugged into the “Matrix”. Most of us go about our day to day lives in complete oblivion that we are in a fight for our lives here – and the situation is growing more and more desperate everyday.
Most of us realize we are at war – but we still cling to the notion that we can win this war without compromising ANY of our principles. And to that end – even things like “light” torture of a terrorist to gain information about an impending attack – are off limits. And certainly, we maintain that violence against a foriegn head of state is off limits - even if that head of state is a dictator committed to our destruction.
But ...
Ask any cancer surgeon and he or she will tell you … if the cancer is caught early, there is a very good prognosis even using very simple, benign treatment methods and non-invasive techniques.
But as the cancer spreads, as the patient’s condition becomes more and more desperate, radical, invasive techniques suddenly become an option – indeed, the ONLY option.
Now I’ve said this before – we are in a global fight for our right to exist. The Islamofascists are a cancer that, if allowed to spread – will consume us whole. This cancer is NOT in an early stage – it has metastasized – and it may be well beyond “non-invasive” techniques to destroy it.
And that is what Pat Robertson was trying to say the other night.
Of course, the Cindy Al Sheehani’s out there will claim that Hugo Chavez didn’t attack us on 9-11. And of course – they’d be right.
However, Hugo Chavez is a part of the Global War on Terror – and **News Flash!** -- he’s not on our side. Quite the contrary, he’s thrown his chips in with the Islamofascists who seek to destroy us.
He also controls a large amount of oil down there in Venezuela folks – oil that he’s threatened to cut off from the United States.
Now, I’m sure that everyone has noticed gas prices lately – so you know we have a problem with supply. I don’t care about gas prices though – not in the least.
I DO care about our armed forces though. The fact is, our armed forces consume so much oil that it’s practically pornographic. We **MIGHT** not have had to consume as much today if, in the early stages of this cancer – the government had been allowed to expand nuclear power programs for it’s shipbuilding without being molested by the “Greens”. That didn’t happen though – so our ships must now consume tremendous amounts of oil just to fight the GWOT. And the lack of oil has already impacted our forces. Ships returning from deployment are now foregoing some critical training at sea in order to save gas for our fighting forces. However, that’s grinding up our “seed corn” – because eventually those ships and crews have to deploy again into the GWOT and they have to do so at a lower level of training.
The same is happening with our AIR FORCES and our LAND FORCES. Training missions are being scrubbed in order to conserve fuel. This hasn’t impacted our fighting forces as much – just yet. But if the oil supply is “pinched” – it soon will. You think we are losing Soldiers and Marines in Iraq right now – you haven’t seen anything even resembling the losses we’ll take if we have to start grounding their air support and shutting down armored cavalry due to lack of fuel.
This is an “organic” war we’re fighting here folks – a malfunction in one organ impacts the function of another organ – and the result is a chain reaction of grave consequences for the patient.
So, it’s fine I guess, to insist that we will not compromise even a single one of our principles while we fight this GWOT. It’s not, in my opinion, very smart to do that though. We will not stop this cancer by using “non-invasive”, “benign” procedures – it’s too advanced. We may slow it’s growth – but in the end we will simply be passing the real dirty work off to our children who, when faced with complete annihilation – will have to make a choice between survival and even more drastic compromises of principle than we are faced with today.
It’s our choice. We can make the decision to commit to fighting this war with the knowledge that we may have to get our hands dirty and compromise some of our “lightly” held principles. Or we can punt the decision down to our children – who by then will have to compromise MUCH more in order to survive.
This is what Pat Robertson realizes.
Again, I don’t advocate violence against Hugo Chavez – even as dirty as his hands are. However, again – were I an advisor to President Bush, my position on that might be different if it appeared that Chavez was beyond negotiations and was a clear and present danger to our ability to fight the Global War on Terror. I’m not convinced that he is just yet – but I’m not privy to all the information and realities of the situation. Pat Robertson is convinced that he’s seen enough though – and is convinced that we can’t negotiate with Chavez. He might be right.
Now, I’m a peaceful guy – really. And maybe I’m wrong on this – you decide. However, in a chess game – you have to think more than one move in advance. This “game” won’t be over when the Israeli’s evacuate the West Bank. It won’t be over when we install a Democratic government in Iraq and our troops leave. The Islamofascists aren’t going to let us off that easy because their goal is to destroy us. So some amongst us would be wise to consider what our move will be when that happens. Will we have the ability to even make a move then? We need to think about these things and have a plan. Perhaps we can play through this game “clean” – or perhaps we need to commit to the fact that we might have to get a little “dirty”. In either case, losing is not an option here. I think we can all agree on that.
With that said - if and when Chavez cuts the oil off - what move do YOU think we should make?
Having said that … were I advising President Bush on what to do about the Venezuelan situation – my position might be a little different. Feel free to read between the lines.
Liberal pundits are screaming to high heavens this morning about Pat Robertson and claiming that he’s just a “Christian version” of the radical Islamofascist clerics who advocate violence against “infidels”. We must, therefore, condemn Pat Robertson for saying these things or we are no better than the Islamofascists who are waging war against us.
First, let me say that I wish the Main Stream Media (MSM) was as concerned about Islamofascist hate speech as they appear to be about Pat Robertson’s one comment the other day. But the fact is, Pat Robertson’s comments have gotten far more attention from the MSM than all of the hateful comments that Islamofascists have made in the last four years. And that’s just a fact.
But if they wish to compare Pat Robertson to the Islamofascists – I’ll play.
First, Islamofascist hate speech is peppered with endorsement of violence against men, women, and children. Islamofascists routinely defend the killing of the innocent in their Jihad to bring about a one-world Caliphate under Islamic rule. A Caliphate that proudly places the rule of Islam not only over Baghdad – but over Boise, Idaho as well. They vocally endorse any act of violence, in fact all acts of violence, to achieve these ends. No action, no matter how despicable it may be to civilized conscience, is off limits in achieving this goal.
So what about Pat Robertson? Did he advocate likewise? Absolutely not. Robertson simply advocated the assassination of a Venezuelan dictator who is in cahoots with the Islamofascists that seek to bring about the downfall of the United States. Robertson merely advocated violence against a man who is – far from an innocent bystander – in the Global War on Terror. Robertson advocated violence against a man who has blood on his own hands. Robertson advocated a single act of violence aimed at a man who calls Saddam Hussein a “brother” and wants to help Iranians develop nuclear weapons.
So there is NO comparison between Pat Robertson and the Islamofascists.
Even so, how could Pat Robertson – a Christian – advocate killing a foreign head of state?
Very simple – Pat Robertson is one of the growing numbers of people in this nation that recognize that we are in a global struggle against forces that would destroy us. He recognizes that if we don’t get aboard to fight these forces – then we, as a nation, are doomed.
It amazes me today, even after 9-11, most Americans are still plugged into the “Matrix”. Most of us go about our day to day lives in complete oblivion that we are in a fight for our lives here – and the situation is growing more and more desperate everyday.
Most of us realize we are at war – but we still cling to the notion that we can win this war without compromising ANY of our principles. And to that end – even things like “light” torture of a terrorist to gain information about an impending attack – are off limits. And certainly, we maintain that violence against a foriegn head of state is off limits - even if that head of state is a dictator committed to our destruction.
But ...
Ask any cancer surgeon and he or she will tell you … if the cancer is caught early, there is a very good prognosis even using very simple, benign treatment methods and non-invasive techniques.
But as the cancer spreads, as the patient’s condition becomes more and more desperate, radical, invasive techniques suddenly become an option – indeed, the ONLY option.
Now I’ve said this before – we are in a global fight for our right to exist. The Islamofascists are a cancer that, if allowed to spread – will consume us whole. This cancer is NOT in an early stage – it has metastasized – and it may be well beyond “non-invasive” techniques to destroy it.
And that is what Pat Robertson was trying to say the other night.
Of course, the Cindy Al Sheehani’s out there will claim that Hugo Chavez didn’t attack us on 9-11. And of course – they’d be right.
However, Hugo Chavez is a part of the Global War on Terror – and **News Flash!** -- he’s not on our side. Quite the contrary, he’s thrown his chips in with the Islamofascists who seek to destroy us.
He also controls a large amount of oil down there in Venezuela folks – oil that he’s threatened to cut off from the United States.
Now, I’m sure that everyone has noticed gas prices lately – so you know we have a problem with supply. I don’t care about gas prices though – not in the least.
I DO care about our armed forces though. The fact is, our armed forces consume so much oil that it’s practically pornographic. We **MIGHT** not have had to consume as much today if, in the early stages of this cancer – the government had been allowed to expand nuclear power programs for it’s shipbuilding without being molested by the “Greens”. That didn’t happen though – so our ships must now consume tremendous amounts of oil just to fight the GWOT. And the lack of oil has already impacted our forces. Ships returning from deployment are now foregoing some critical training at sea in order to save gas for our fighting forces. However, that’s grinding up our “seed corn” – because eventually those ships and crews have to deploy again into the GWOT and they have to do so at a lower level of training.
The same is happening with our AIR FORCES and our LAND FORCES. Training missions are being scrubbed in order to conserve fuel. This hasn’t impacted our fighting forces as much – just yet. But if the oil supply is “pinched” – it soon will. You think we are losing Soldiers and Marines in Iraq right now – you haven’t seen anything even resembling the losses we’ll take if we have to start grounding their air support and shutting down armored cavalry due to lack of fuel.
This is an “organic” war we’re fighting here folks – a malfunction in one organ impacts the function of another organ – and the result is a chain reaction of grave consequences for the patient.
So, it’s fine I guess, to insist that we will not compromise even a single one of our principles while we fight this GWOT. It’s not, in my opinion, very smart to do that though. We will not stop this cancer by using “non-invasive”, “benign” procedures – it’s too advanced. We may slow it’s growth – but in the end we will simply be passing the real dirty work off to our children who, when faced with complete annihilation – will have to make a choice between survival and even more drastic compromises of principle than we are faced with today.
It’s our choice. We can make the decision to commit to fighting this war with the knowledge that we may have to get our hands dirty and compromise some of our “lightly” held principles. Or we can punt the decision down to our children – who by then will have to compromise MUCH more in order to survive.
This is what Pat Robertson realizes.
Again, I don’t advocate violence against Hugo Chavez – even as dirty as his hands are. However, again – were I an advisor to President Bush, my position on that might be different if it appeared that Chavez was beyond negotiations and was a clear and present danger to our ability to fight the Global War on Terror. I’m not convinced that he is just yet – but I’m not privy to all the information and realities of the situation. Pat Robertson is convinced that he’s seen enough though – and is convinced that we can’t negotiate with Chavez. He might be right.
Now, I’m a peaceful guy – really. And maybe I’m wrong on this – you decide. However, in a chess game – you have to think more than one move in advance. This “game” won’t be over when the Israeli’s evacuate the West Bank. It won’t be over when we install a Democratic government in Iraq and our troops leave. The Islamofascists aren’t going to let us off that easy because their goal is to destroy us. So some amongst us would be wise to consider what our move will be when that happens. Will we have the ability to even make a move then? We need to think about these things and have a plan. Perhaps we can play through this game “clean” – or perhaps we need to commit to the fact that we might have to get a little “dirty”. In either case, losing is not an option here. I think we can all agree on that.
With that said - if and when Chavez cuts the oil off - what move do YOU think we should make?
MSM DOUBLE STANDARD (AGAIN)
I'll be posting a defense of Pat Robertson after this post. I did want to make a short posting though pointing again to the double standard in the MSM.
It doesn't matter what Al Sharpton says - the MSM will still uphold him as a "legitimate" politician.
It doesn't matter that Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan - the MSM gives him a "pass" and allows him to remain - unmolested - as one of the primary leaders of the Democratic caucus in Congress.
Doesn't matter what Dick Durbin says about our troops - or what he calls them - the MSM just yawns and refuses to cover the story until bloggers beat the bejabbers out of them.
Doesn't matter that Ted Kennedy is, inarguably, responsible for a girls death and also guilty of trying to cover it up to preserve his political viability - the MSM gives him a pass and represents him as a Senator of "stature" - and they've done this for almost 30 years in his case.
Doesn't matter that Cindy Sheehan is a left wing extremist who has made such outrageous statements that only about 1% of the extreme liberal left wouldn't be repulsed by those statements - the MSM gives her a pass and refuses to point out these statements.
None of that matters.
But if TRENT LOTT says some nice words about Strom Thurmond at ole' Stroms BIRTHDAY party - Trent MUST give up his position as Senate Majority Leader.
And Karl Rove must resign - even though he hasn't even been indicted by anybody for anything yet! And everything we know about his situation - we know basically due to some "leaks" of dubious reliability.
And the moment Pat Robertson comments that perhaps we should assasinate the Venuzuelan dictator that is a threat to the security of the United States ...
The MSM is immediately ALL OVER HIM.
Let's not forget that there is more than ample evidence of a LIBERAL BIAS in our MSM.
It doesn't matter what Al Sharpton says - the MSM will still uphold him as a "legitimate" politician.
It doesn't matter that Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan - the MSM gives him a "pass" and allows him to remain - unmolested - as one of the primary leaders of the Democratic caucus in Congress.
Doesn't matter what Dick Durbin says about our troops - or what he calls them - the MSM just yawns and refuses to cover the story until bloggers beat the bejabbers out of them.
Doesn't matter that Ted Kennedy is, inarguably, responsible for a girls death and also guilty of trying to cover it up to preserve his political viability - the MSM gives him a pass and represents him as a Senator of "stature" - and they've done this for almost 30 years in his case.
Doesn't matter that Cindy Sheehan is a left wing extremist who has made such outrageous statements that only about 1% of the extreme liberal left wouldn't be repulsed by those statements - the MSM gives her a pass and refuses to point out these statements.
None of that matters.
But if TRENT LOTT says some nice words about Strom Thurmond at ole' Stroms BIRTHDAY party - Trent MUST give up his position as Senate Majority Leader.
And Karl Rove must resign - even though he hasn't even been indicted by anybody for anything yet! And everything we know about his situation - we know basically due to some "leaks" of dubious reliability.
And the moment Pat Robertson comments that perhaps we should assasinate the Venuzuelan dictator that is a threat to the security of the United States ...
The MSM is immediately ALL OVER HIM.
Let's not forget that there is more than ample evidence of a LIBERAL BIAS in our MSM.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
ARE THE DIXIE CHICKS DEAD?
I've always said that the damage the Dixie Chicks did to themselves when they bad-mouthed Bush in Enland was a LONG TERM kind of damage.
Oh yeah, to be sure - there were plenty on the left who ran to their defense after they dis'd Bush - people who didn't even know what country music was, and had never been a fan of it. I remember seeing blogs and exclamations from such liberals saying -- "They're Great!" and "We'll buy their music if the Neo-Cons won't".
Well, where are THOSE fans now?
Appears to me the Chicks are ... DEAD.
Don't believe me? Check out their official website ...
R.I.P.
First of all - if you're a top scoring recording artist - YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WEB PRESENCE.
And it's gotta be good. The Chicks had such a presence at one time - not only that - they charged for a subscription to their website! That's how refined the web operation was.
But a quick review of their site now reveals the following ...
1. All subscriptions TERMINATED - you'll get a refund for any time remaining on your subscription.
2. The subscriptions were terminated under the "guise" that the Chicks were "retooling" their website - well, you can retool without cancelling subscriptions but ... I'll accept that for the sake of argument for a moment. What I won't accept is that this supposedly "hot" "million dollar" act has taken over FIVE months to retool. That's unacceptable for a supposedly "big act".
3. And just what about that "retooling"? See for yourself. Five months and the majority of the links are DEAD. Last post I can find on the site is April 22nd - four months ago. No new news, nothing for fans, no tour dates, no "diary", no "cool stuff".
This is not the way a happy, smiling, money-making band behaves folks. And you can't explain this away with a simple ... "they're having their private time" comment. Real bands don't take breaks like this - by practically shutting down their website. You take a break - your organization doesn't. They keep things running while you're having your "private time".
We may have seen the demise of the Dixie Chicks here (please give me a second as I wipe the tears from my keyboard).
Either that or the Chicks plan to lay low - as in "Will the Beatles ever get back together again?" low. Perhaps they figure they can make a big comeback if they ditch the act for awhile.
We shall see - but the lesson here is clear. They HAD millions of dedicated country fans and were the darlings of all of country music. Then they stupidly squandered a career and a loyal following of fans that would have blessed them for more than another decade. All for the purposes of scoring a cheap shot against the President.
Art and politics don't mix. Paul Stanley of KISS knows this. When asked about his politics ... Paul always says ...
"Politics? Who would care about our opinion on anything political? We're idiots"
Paul's my man! And he's absolutely correct. A musician knows no more about politics than a cab driver or a plumber does - and they often know more than a musician!
Shut up and play - that's what I say.
Oh yeah, to be sure - there were plenty on the left who ran to their defense after they dis'd Bush - people who didn't even know what country music was, and had never been a fan of it. I remember seeing blogs and exclamations from such liberals saying -- "They're Great!" and "We'll buy their music if the Neo-Cons won't".
Well, where are THOSE fans now?
Appears to me the Chicks are ... DEAD.
Don't believe me? Check out their official website ...
R.I.P.
First of all - if you're a top scoring recording artist - YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WEB PRESENCE.
And it's gotta be good. The Chicks had such a presence at one time - not only that - they charged for a subscription to their website! That's how refined the web operation was.
But a quick review of their site now reveals the following ...
1. All subscriptions TERMINATED - you'll get a refund for any time remaining on your subscription.
2. The subscriptions were terminated under the "guise" that the Chicks were "retooling" their website - well, you can retool without cancelling subscriptions but ... I'll accept that for the sake of argument for a moment. What I won't accept is that this supposedly "hot" "million dollar" act has taken over FIVE months to retool. That's unacceptable for a supposedly "big act".
3. And just what about that "retooling"? See for yourself. Five months and the majority of the links are DEAD. Last post I can find on the site is April 22nd - four months ago. No new news, nothing for fans, no tour dates, no "diary", no "cool stuff".
This is not the way a happy, smiling, money-making band behaves folks. And you can't explain this away with a simple ... "they're having their private time" comment. Real bands don't take breaks like this - by practically shutting down their website. You take a break - your organization doesn't. They keep things running while you're having your "private time".
We may have seen the demise of the Dixie Chicks here (please give me a second as I wipe the tears from my keyboard).
Either that or the Chicks plan to lay low - as in "Will the Beatles ever get back together again?" low. Perhaps they figure they can make a big comeback if they ditch the act for awhile.
We shall see - but the lesson here is clear. They HAD millions of dedicated country fans and were the darlings of all of country music. Then they stupidly squandered a career and a loyal following of fans that would have blessed them for more than another decade. All for the purposes of scoring a cheap shot against the President.
Art and politics don't mix. Paul Stanley of KISS knows this. When asked about his politics ... Paul always says ...
"Politics? Who would care about our opinion on anything political? We're idiots"
Paul's my man! And he's absolutely correct. A musician knows no more about politics than a cab driver or a plumber does - and they often know more than a musician!
Shut up and play - that's what I say.
CHICKENHAWK ARGUMENT?
This is sooooo funny I had to post it! Seriously - you gotta read this ... (WARNING - ADULT LANGUAGE) ....
Chickenhawks revisited, revisited ...
Oh, and by the way - anyone remember the "chickenhawk" argument being mentioned when Bill Clinton committed our men and women in uniform to fighting in Kosovo?
Chickenhawks revisited, revisited ...
Oh, and by the way - anyone remember the "chickenhawk" argument being mentioned when Bill Clinton committed our men and women in uniform to fighting in Kosovo?
LITTLE MISS HOT CHICK
This morning I woke up, lit off the coffee pot, checked to see that the 4 cory catfish I put in my aquarium the other day were still living (they were), then sat down on the couch to strum my telecaster a bit while the coffee was brewing. What was I strumming? Well ironically I was strumming an old George Harrison tune … “Give me Love, Give Me Peace on Earth”.
I’m funny that way. Good tune though – genius chord changes and so simple – just like George. I still like George even though he was a pacifist. When it comes to music, you have to be flexible when you’re a conservative – and overlook an artist’s political opinions. Nine times out of ten their opinion will differ greatly from yours. Some of ‘em are over the line – and I won’t listen to them. I just downright boycott ‘em. Springstein and the Dixie Chicks (by the way, appears they are DEAD in the country world now). The Strolling Bones, er – Rolling Stones … won’t listen to ‘em ever again. Cher – I don’t listen to her either although I will acknowledge that that video of hers “If I could turn back time” that she shot on the USS Missouri … you know the one right? The one with the buttless black floss outfit with the Sailors in service dress whites standing around cheering her on? That video is an unacknowledged piece of Naval history and deserves respect – I’ll always believe that. But that was many years ago and I don’t think I want to see Cher “flossing” today.
Anyway, after a verse or two of what I was playing, I turned on the tube to FOX and what do I see? Yep, another gussied-up chick from the Terrorist Rights party complaining that George Bush “doesn’t have a plan to win the war”. She also said we were … “losing”??
You know, I’m assuming here that if I’m informed enough to know that the President has a “plan” for the war. If I’m informed enough to know what that plan is. And if I’m informed enough to know that we are WINNING in Iraq – then why doesn’t Ms. Hot Chick Terrorist Rights party operative know that? Why is she trying to mislead people?
Okay, here’s the plan (complete with “exit strategy”). Bush has said this over and over again from the beginning.
First, stand up a democratic Iraqi government and simultaneously GROW Iraqi self-defense forces that can fight any insurgents in Iraq. These SDF’s will take over the fight from our folks.
Second, once the Iraqi’s have a stabile government (and it doesn’t have to be perfect either) – and the Iraqi SDF’s are capable of defending the government – WE EXIT.
That’s the plan. Why does the Terrorist Rights party put forth people who are so ill-informed to speak for them?
Okay, what do I think about Bush’s plan?
Well, I think it’s a good one – I certainly don’t have one that’s better – and neither does the Terrorist Rights Party. That’s evident from their statements. The only other plan that some of them have put forward is to just hold reveille for the troops tomorrow and tell ‘em to pack up their gear and come home. That’s not realistic – that leaves Iraq in the hands of Al Qaeda.
What’s my opinion on how well we’re doing with the plan?
We’re right on track. The guys I know who are fighting in Iraq tell me that the Iraqi’s are turning against the terrorists – and they’re helping us find more and more of them everyday. They tell me that Iraqi men, young and old, routinely defy terrorist threats and stand in long lines to enlist in the Iraqi SDF’s (including the police force). They tell me that the existing SDF’s are becoming more and more effective and they are whacking the hell out of these terrorists over there. And by the way – they’re telling me that the SDF’s don’t worry about trivial matters such as the Geneva Convention. When the SDF’s capture terrorists – they KNOW how to extract information! They don’t fool around.
So in my view – the plan is working well. So what’s the problem with Ms. Hot Chick?
Well, after listening to her – she has no other plan. She’s unhappy, I guess, that the plan isn’t going “quicker” (she must be one of those “fast food” folks who don’t like to wait in line). She’s complaining that it’s taking “too long” to train up the SDF’s (like she’s an expert and knows what’s involved and how long it should take). She’s complaining that we’re losing more and more people over there (as if Bush never told us that this war would be expensive in terms of American BLOOD). She kind of reminds me of my kids in the back seat on the way to Grandma’s – “Are we there yet, Dad?”
Hey, little Ms Hot Chick – errr, this is a WAR. War doesn’t always proceed at the pace you want it to. And guess what? Mistakes are made.
And … NEWS FLASH … people die.
Oh, and there was one other thing that Ms Hot Chick kept pointing out … that President Bush was wrong on the WMD’s.
Well, I’ll stipulate for the purposes of argument that he was wrong on the WMD’s. Personally, I’m not convinced. WE DO KNOW that Saddam had WMD’s because we know he used them against the Kurds. So we know that there were weapons there at one time. WE DO KNOW that Saddam was behaving like he had them. We know he wanted them BAD and that’s one of the reasons he wanted the UN out of his face. And we do know that Saddam gave a big “up yours” to the UN every time they passed another resolution and we know that Saddam was in cahoots with corrupt governments and UN Officials to profit off the Oil for Food program. We know all this – plus a lot of other dirty little things that Saddam did to his own people. And if a news flash came on the television right now saying “We’ve found the WMD’s in Syria! Here they are!” None of us would be surprised – not even little Miss Hot Chick. You know I’m right on this point.
Oh, and by the way – we also know that SADDAM ENGAGED IN TERRORISM AGAINST THE U.S. Oh yes, and Miss Hot Chick seems to have forgotten this. Remember the plot to assassinate Bush Sr? Guess that doesn’t count though huh? That’s terrorism though – by definition.
But I’ll stipulate there were no WMD’s for the purposes of argument.
Still, what is the point? Who cares? Saddam had to go. Contrary to what the **DISCREDITED** 9-11 commission says – we DO know that Saddam gave at least tacit support to Al Qaeda. We know some of them even trained in Iraq. We also know that when we kicked Saddam out of power – who came to his rescue? Al Qaeda! We also know that Al Qaeda is our enemy – an enemy that we can’t negotiate with and we MUST KILL. We also know that Iraq is just chockfull of Al Qaeda right now – so what’s the hurry in running from them? It’s a target rich environment – plenty of Al Qaeda terrorists to send to “paradise” there. Our boys and girls are shooting them up everyday – open season!
Lest no one forget – Al Qaeda attacked this country on 9-11 and killed THOUSANDS of our people. They also attacked the USS COLE and killed 17 heroes of this country. I, for one, am glad to see a location like Iraq where they are coming to join our fighting men and women in battle! I’d much rather see them there than in my daughter’s kindergarten class with a butcher knife to her throat. I trust in a trained MARINE to kill these terrorists – I’m not so sure my daughter’s kindergarten teacher can do this.
So what point is the Terrorist Rights party trying to make? Why is Miss Hot Chick complaining? For political purposes of course! Miss Hot Chick and the Democratic Terrorist Rights Party are willing to force us into a comprising national security posture for the sake of winning elections. They refuse to acknowledge that our survival as a nation relies our winning this war! They think this is GEORGE BUSH’S WAR – and if he loses it – no harm and no foul on the rest of us out here.
I’m a little different I guess. When I was deployed for the war (both Iraq and Afghanistan) – I don’t remember too many of us wearing a flag with a picture of George Bush on it. My memory can be hazy at times but I distinctly recall we were wearing an AMERICAN flag on our uniforms. I kind of think that that means if WE win this war – then America wins. If we lose it – then American LOSES.
But not Miss Hot Chick – she doesn’t see it that way - and sees no problem with crying about trivial matters - while at the same time she has no plan of her own that she can articulate. She sees no corelation between HER actions ( and the actions of her party) and American DEATHS in Iraq. She doesn't see her actions as benefiting the terrorists we are trying to exterminate.
But that's the ONLY people her actions and words are benefiting. Do you think a PFC in Mosul picks up a paper and reads Miss Hot Chick's comments and says "Gee! I LOVE MISS HOT CHICK! Thanks to her I'm going to fight harder today so we can win this war quicker!"
Not on your life.
Okay – now back to my telecaster.
I’m funny that way. Good tune though – genius chord changes and so simple – just like George. I still like George even though he was a pacifist. When it comes to music, you have to be flexible when you’re a conservative – and overlook an artist’s political opinions. Nine times out of ten their opinion will differ greatly from yours. Some of ‘em are over the line – and I won’t listen to them. I just downright boycott ‘em. Springstein and the Dixie Chicks (by the way, appears they are DEAD in the country world now). The Strolling Bones, er – Rolling Stones … won’t listen to ‘em ever again. Cher – I don’t listen to her either although I will acknowledge that that video of hers “If I could turn back time” that she shot on the USS Missouri … you know the one right? The one with the buttless black floss outfit with the Sailors in service dress whites standing around cheering her on? That video is an unacknowledged piece of Naval history and deserves respect – I’ll always believe that. But that was many years ago and I don’t think I want to see Cher “flossing” today.
Anyway, after a verse or two of what I was playing, I turned on the tube to FOX and what do I see? Yep, another gussied-up chick from the Terrorist Rights party complaining that George Bush “doesn’t have a plan to win the war”. She also said we were … “losing”??
You know, I’m assuming here that if I’m informed enough to know that the President has a “plan” for the war. If I’m informed enough to know what that plan is. And if I’m informed enough to know that we are WINNING in Iraq – then why doesn’t Ms. Hot Chick Terrorist Rights party operative know that? Why is she trying to mislead people?
Okay, here’s the plan (complete with “exit strategy”). Bush has said this over and over again from the beginning.
First, stand up a democratic Iraqi government and simultaneously GROW Iraqi self-defense forces that can fight any insurgents in Iraq. These SDF’s will take over the fight from our folks.
Second, once the Iraqi’s have a stabile government (and it doesn’t have to be perfect either) – and the Iraqi SDF’s are capable of defending the government – WE EXIT.
That’s the plan. Why does the Terrorist Rights party put forth people who are so ill-informed to speak for them?
Okay, what do I think about Bush’s plan?
Well, I think it’s a good one – I certainly don’t have one that’s better – and neither does the Terrorist Rights Party. That’s evident from their statements. The only other plan that some of them have put forward is to just hold reveille for the troops tomorrow and tell ‘em to pack up their gear and come home. That’s not realistic – that leaves Iraq in the hands of Al Qaeda.
What’s my opinion on how well we’re doing with the plan?
We’re right on track. The guys I know who are fighting in Iraq tell me that the Iraqi’s are turning against the terrorists – and they’re helping us find more and more of them everyday. They tell me that Iraqi men, young and old, routinely defy terrorist threats and stand in long lines to enlist in the Iraqi SDF’s (including the police force). They tell me that the existing SDF’s are becoming more and more effective and they are whacking the hell out of these terrorists over there. And by the way – they’re telling me that the SDF’s don’t worry about trivial matters such as the Geneva Convention. When the SDF’s capture terrorists – they KNOW how to extract information! They don’t fool around.
So in my view – the plan is working well. So what’s the problem with Ms. Hot Chick?
Well, after listening to her – she has no other plan. She’s unhappy, I guess, that the plan isn’t going “quicker” (she must be one of those “fast food” folks who don’t like to wait in line). She’s complaining that it’s taking “too long” to train up the SDF’s (like she’s an expert and knows what’s involved and how long it should take). She’s complaining that we’re losing more and more people over there (as if Bush never told us that this war would be expensive in terms of American BLOOD). She kind of reminds me of my kids in the back seat on the way to Grandma’s – “Are we there yet, Dad?”
Hey, little Ms Hot Chick – errr, this is a WAR. War doesn’t always proceed at the pace you want it to. And guess what? Mistakes are made.
And … NEWS FLASH … people die.
Oh, and there was one other thing that Ms Hot Chick kept pointing out … that President Bush was wrong on the WMD’s.
Well, I’ll stipulate for the purposes of argument that he was wrong on the WMD’s. Personally, I’m not convinced. WE DO KNOW that Saddam had WMD’s because we know he used them against the Kurds. So we know that there were weapons there at one time. WE DO KNOW that Saddam was behaving like he had them. We know he wanted them BAD and that’s one of the reasons he wanted the UN out of his face. And we do know that Saddam gave a big “up yours” to the UN every time they passed another resolution and we know that Saddam was in cahoots with corrupt governments and UN Officials to profit off the Oil for Food program. We know all this – plus a lot of other dirty little things that Saddam did to his own people. And if a news flash came on the television right now saying “We’ve found the WMD’s in Syria! Here they are!” None of us would be surprised – not even little Miss Hot Chick. You know I’m right on this point.
Oh, and by the way – we also know that SADDAM ENGAGED IN TERRORISM AGAINST THE U.S. Oh yes, and Miss Hot Chick seems to have forgotten this. Remember the plot to assassinate Bush Sr? Guess that doesn’t count though huh? That’s terrorism though – by definition.
But I’ll stipulate there were no WMD’s for the purposes of argument.
Still, what is the point? Who cares? Saddam had to go. Contrary to what the **DISCREDITED** 9-11 commission says – we DO know that Saddam gave at least tacit support to Al Qaeda. We know some of them even trained in Iraq. We also know that when we kicked Saddam out of power – who came to his rescue? Al Qaeda! We also know that Al Qaeda is our enemy – an enemy that we can’t negotiate with and we MUST KILL. We also know that Iraq is just chockfull of Al Qaeda right now – so what’s the hurry in running from them? It’s a target rich environment – plenty of Al Qaeda terrorists to send to “paradise” there. Our boys and girls are shooting them up everyday – open season!
Lest no one forget – Al Qaeda attacked this country on 9-11 and killed THOUSANDS of our people. They also attacked the USS COLE and killed 17 heroes of this country. I, for one, am glad to see a location like Iraq where they are coming to join our fighting men and women in battle! I’d much rather see them there than in my daughter’s kindergarten class with a butcher knife to her throat. I trust in a trained MARINE to kill these terrorists – I’m not so sure my daughter’s kindergarten teacher can do this.
So what point is the Terrorist Rights party trying to make? Why is Miss Hot Chick complaining? For political purposes of course! Miss Hot Chick and the Democratic Terrorist Rights Party are willing to force us into a comprising national security posture for the sake of winning elections. They refuse to acknowledge that our survival as a nation relies our winning this war! They think this is GEORGE BUSH’S WAR – and if he loses it – no harm and no foul on the rest of us out here.
I’m a little different I guess. When I was deployed for the war (both Iraq and Afghanistan) – I don’t remember too many of us wearing a flag with a picture of George Bush on it. My memory can be hazy at times but I distinctly recall we were wearing an AMERICAN flag on our uniforms. I kind of think that that means if WE win this war – then America wins. If we lose it – then American LOSES.
But not Miss Hot Chick – she doesn’t see it that way - and sees no problem with crying about trivial matters - while at the same time she has no plan of her own that she can articulate. She sees no corelation between HER actions ( and the actions of her party) and American DEATHS in Iraq. She doesn't see her actions as benefiting the terrorists we are trying to exterminate.
But that's the ONLY people her actions and words are benefiting. Do you think a PFC in Mosul picks up a paper and reads Miss Hot Chick's comments and says "Gee! I LOVE MISS HOT CHICK! Thanks to her I'm going to fight harder today so we can win this war quicker!"
Not on your life.
Okay – now back to my telecaster.
ABLE DANGER COVERUP UPDATE
The coverup on ABLE DANGER (AD) appears to be heating up.
In an earlier article, I said that the Pentagon had two options that were basically “telegraphed” to them by the 9-11 commission …
Option 1: Accept responsibility that the DoD dropped the ball when AD produced information about Mohammed Atta and his little band of terrorists or …
Option 2: Discredit the Officers that are coming forth now with news on AD.
Appears I was wrong – the Pentagon has found another option.
OBFUSCATION.
The new option appears to be “limiting” the debate and the entire issue to a “paperwork” hunt.
The Pentagon won’t come out and say that these Officers are lying about AD. What they will say is that “there is no paper trail evidence” to back up what they’re saying. A Pentagon spokesman claimed that it appears there is little more than “memories” to substantiate what LtCol Shaffer and Captain Philpott are saying. The Pentagon is also using terms such as “phantom search” when describing the search for these AD documents. It’s clear they want to limit the whole AD debate to what can be proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – on paper.
Paper that was probably destroyed – on purpose – long ago.
Note to the Pentagon – this issue isn’t about paperwork that may or may not still exist. There are other forms of “evidence” that can prove or disprove this thing.
Let’s just cut to the chase here. These two Officers weren’t the only two working on Able Danger – there was a whole cadre of guys and gals on this team. And that team had a CHAIN of COMMAND. LtCol Shaffer said that the Chain of Command was aware that AD had identified Atta’s cell. He also said that he, himself, went “borderline insubordinate” with a 3-Star on this issue.
It should be a simple matter for the Pentagon to get SWORN STATEMENTS from the AD team, it’s chain of command, and this 3-Star that Shaffer refers to above. If this is all a lie, invented in the mind of a couple of Officers (which is highly unlikely) – then the Pentagon should produce sworn statements from everybody saying that the claims of these officers have no merit.
Ball’s in your court Pentagon – but simply saying that you “can’t find” a piece of paper isn’t an acceptable response.
In an earlier article, I said that the Pentagon had two options that were basically “telegraphed” to them by the 9-11 commission …
Option 1: Accept responsibility that the DoD dropped the ball when AD produced information about Mohammed Atta and his little band of terrorists or …
Option 2: Discredit the Officers that are coming forth now with news on AD.
Appears I was wrong – the Pentagon has found another option.
OBFUSCATION.
The new option appears to be “limiting” the debate and the entire issue to a “paperwork” hunt.
The Pentagon won’t come out and say that these Officers are lying about AD. What they will say is that “there is no paper trail evidence” to back up what they’re saying. A Pentagon spokesman claimed that it appears there is little more than “memories” to substantiate what LtCol Shaffer and Captain Philpott are saying. The Pentagon is also using terms such as “phantom search” when describing the search for these AD documents. It’s clear they want to limit the whole AD debate to what can be proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – on paper.
Paper that was probably destroyed – on purpose – long ago.
Note to the Pentagon – this issue isn’t about paperwork that may or may not still exist. There are other forms of “evidence” that can prove or disprove this thing.
Let’s just cut to the chase here. These two Officers weren’t the only two working on Able Danger – there was a whole cadre of guys and gals on this team. And that team had a CHAIN of COMMAND. LtCol Shaffer said that the Chain of Command was aware that AD had identified Atta’s cell. He also said that he, himself, went “borderline insubordinate” with a 3-Star on this issue.
It should be a simple matter for the Pentagon to get SWORN STATEMENTS from the AD team, it’s chain of command, and this 3-Star that Shaffer refers to above. If this is all a lie, invented in the mind of a couple of Officers (which is highly unlikely) – then the Pentagon should produce sworn statements from everybody saying that the claims of these officers have no merit.
Ball’s in your court Pentagon – but simply saying that you “can’t find” a piece of paper isn’t an acceptable response.
Monday, August 22, 2005
DOW - SEAN PENN
This week I'm renaming my "Dummy of the Week" award - to "Doofus of the Week" award.
And the Doofus this week is ....
(drum roll)
SEAN PENN!
Yep, you can now read Doofus' recent foray into journalism and Iranian politics right 'cheer.
If Sean Penn applied to any public elementary school to teach a five minute class on Iranian history - he'd be laughed out of the principal's office. Not so with the San Francisco Chronicle though - which goes to show you what low standards the MSM has these days.
I tell you folks, the other day I was sitting around the house and I was thinking ... "You know, I'd like to get a lot more informed on Iran - wonder if SEAN PENN would help me out with that?"
And here we have him - Mr. Madonna to the rescue!
Folks, I just "skimmed" his article ... but here are a few things that grabbed me...
"The regal Shah of Iran -- a faithful buddy of British oil executives -- was losing his power struggle with Mussadiq, and in August the Shah abruptly left the country and fled to Rome. The CIA, working as senior partner with Britain's MI6, quickly moved to subvert Iranian democracy."
This was suposedly under the section he wrote to justify why Iranians hate the U.S. Where in the bejabbers did Penn learn his history? Mussadiq wasn't about to bring Democracy to Iran! But according to Penn, if the U.S. had just left well enough alone then Iran would've become the Democratic model of the world. If only ...
Give me a break!
"Western oil companies were back in charge of Iran's oil, and the Shah initiated what turned out to be a quarter-century of political repression, torture, and killing."
Yes Sean, and things have been just "ducky" in Persia ever since he was overthrown - more than a quarter century ago in 1979 - haven't they? Absolutely no political repression, torture, and killing under the Islamofascists right Sean? And all that stuff about political assasination overseas, sponsorship of terrorism - that's all lies too right Sean? And Salmon Rushdie's fears that he'll have his head taken off any day - well that's just him being a little overexcited right Sean?
When describing some Islamofascist Cleric's speech to an Iranian crowd, Penn writes ...
"He goaded the crowd to join the chanting calls for "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!" ... it had always been clear from the Iranian point of view, that the call is related to American foreign policy and does not intend to target the death of the American people."
Glad Sean cleared that up for us. For a minute there, I was thinking that since America is a DEMOCRACY - ruled by the people - then by extension any U.S. foriegn policy is also the will of the American "people". You know, it's kind of like that first line in the Constitution ... how does it go? Maybe "We the PEOPLE". That's kind of the way it goes in a Democratic nation - the government IS the people. Guess Sean was too busy majoring in Iranian history to worry about democratic theory.
But then again, what about all this terrorism that Iran sponsors? Is that directed at any evil Western government? Or is it directed against the innocent civilian populations of those governments?
Got an answer for that Sean?
But my favorite part of this poorly penned publishing of Penn is when he claims that he's half Jewish.
As if the Jews didn't already get blamed with enough!
SEAN PENN - DOOFUS OF THE WEEK. Here's your sign bro!
And the Doofus this week is ....
(drum roll)
SEAN PENN!
Yep, you can now read Doofus' recent foray into journalism and Iranian politics right 'cheer.
If Sean Penn applied to any public elementary school to teach a five minute class on Iranian history - he'd be laughed out of the principal's office. Not so with the San Francisco Chronicle though - which goes to show you what low standards the MSM has these days.
I tell you folks, the other day I was sitting around the house and I was thinking ... "You know, I'd like to get a lot more informed on Iran - wonder if SEAN PENN would help me out with that?"
And here we have him - Mr. Madonna to the rescue!
Folks, I just "skimmed" his article ... but here are a few things that grabbed me...
"The regal Shah of Iran -- a faithful buddy of British oil executives -- was losing his power struggle with Mussadiq, and in August the Shah abruptly left the country and fled to Rome. The CIA, working as senior partner with Britain's MI6, quickly moved to subvert Iranian democracy."
This was suposedly under the section he wrote to justify why Iranians hate the U.S. Where in the bejabbers did Penn learn his history? Mussadiq wasn't about to bring Democracy to Iran! But according to Penn, if the U.S. had just left well enough alone then Iran would've become the Democratic model of the world. If only ...
Give me a break!
"Western oil companies were back in charge of Iran's oil, and the Shah initiated what turned out to be a quarter-century of political repression, torture, and killing."
Yes Sean, and things have been just "ducky" in Persia ever since he was overthrown - more than a quarter century ago in 1979 - haven't they? Absolutely no political repression, torture, and killing under the Islamofascists right Sean? And all that stuff about political assasination overseas, sponsorship of terrorism - that's all lies too right Sean? And Salmon Rushdie's fears that he'll have his head taken off any day - well that's just him being a little overexcited right Sean?
When describing some Islamofascist Cleric's speech to an Iranian crowd, Penn writes ...
"He goaded the crowd to join the chanting calls for "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!" ... it had always been clear from the Iranian point of view, that the call is related to American foreign policy and does not intend to target the death of the American people."
Glad Sean cleared that up for us. For a minute there, I was thinking that since America is a DEMOCRACY - ruled by the people - then by extension any U.S. foriegn policy is also the will of the American "people". You know, it's kind of like that first line in the Constitution ... how does it go? Maybe "We the PEOPLE". That's kind of the way it goes in a Democratic nation - the government IS the people. Guess Sean was too busy majoring in Iranian history to worry about democratic theory.
But then again, what about all this terrorism that Iran sponsors? Is that directed at any evil Western government? Or is it directed against the innocent civilian populations of those governments?
Got an answer for that Sean?
But my favorite part of this poorly penned publishing of Penn is when he claims that he's half Jewish.
As if the Jews didn't already get blamed with enough!
SEAN PENN - DOOFUS OF THE WEEK. Here's your sign bro!
WHAT WAR IS HE COVERING?
Tired of hearing about how badly things are going in Iraq from people who have never been there - like Cindy Sheehan and Teddy Kennedy?
Tired of hearing about how badly things are going from the likes of CNN reporters who don't even have the guts to venture outside the Bagdad Holiday Inn? I'll bet you're tired of Joe Biden aren't you? Yeah, we're all tired of him. Joe can't even write a speech without plagerizing someone else - wonder what makes him (or us) think he could run a war on his own?
Well if you're tired of that - you need to check out Mike Yon. He's got a great post here ...
THE BATTLE OF MOSUL PART II...
This blog should be required reading - because Mike's been in Iraq for a long time and he's got the big picture. So if anyone of us is "tired" of fighting this war - if anyone of us back here on the homefront is just so "fatigued" that we don't think we can stand another day of it. Read Mike's Blog!
And ...
It's required reading for you Cindy Al Sheehani Liberals too! You want credibility in your arguements - then either buy a plane ticket to Bagdad - or read Mike's blog. But don't come at us who've been over there and tell us we don't know what we're talking about!
Tired of hearing about how badly things are going from the likes of CNN reporters who don't even have the guts to venture outside the Bagdad Holiday Inn? I'll bet you're tired of Joe Biden aren't you? Yeah, we're all tired of him. Joe can't even write a speech without plagerizing someone else - wonder what makes him (or us) think he could run a war on his own?
Well if you're tired of that - you need to check out Mike Yon. He's got a great post here ...
THE BATTLE OF MOSUL PART II...
This blog should be required reading - because Mike's been in Iraq for a long time and he's got the big picture. So if anyone of us is "tired" of fighting this war - if anyone of us back here on the homefront is just so "fatigued" that we don't think we can stand another day of it. Read Mike's Blog!
And ...
It's required reading for you Cindy Al Sheehani Liberals too! You want credibility in your arguements - then either buy a plane ticket to Bagdad - or read Mike's blog. But don't come at us who've been over there and tell us we don't know what we're talking about!
SPARE ME THE PEP RALLY
Politicians and pundits on the Conservative side are practically screaming for President Bush to get out there in front of every microphone he can and boost up American morale for the Iraq war. For Conservatives, they view this as a matter of survival for the elections next year.
I’ll address the elections momentarily – but I just want to say one thing on the subject of “morale building” for Americans…
First of all, it’s a given fact that the morale of the troops who are fighting and dieing in this war for us is up to snuff. They’re “hackers” and are proud of doing a tough job and the sacrifices they make. They’re out there everyday putting holes in terrorists in Iraq and picking up their fallen buddies. They get up every morning and do this all day – day after day. They’re not quitting. They don’t want to quit. They won’t quit.
Now we want President Bush to hit the road to bolster the morale of the American couch potato? I’m sorry folks, I have an issue with this. In WWII the folks at home had “victory gardens”. We had rationing. The homefront made all kinds of sacrifices for our soldiers in the field fighting the war. What kind of sacrifices are we making today in a war that is NO LESS important than WWII? Where’s the rationing? Where are the “victory gardens”?
All we do back here is bitch about the war and the price of gas – buy a motorcycle for crissakes!
And what’s your beef with the war? You aren’t fighting it.
The economy is the best it’s ever been – and everyone is yawning and complaining. They’d rather complain about the war and gas.
Well, I’m sorry. I think Bush should skip the cheerleading tour and focus on our guys and gals in Iraq – and in defeating the terrorists, which he’s proven that he is WILLING and EFFECTIVE in doing (unlike recent revelations about Slick Willy’s administration of appeasement).
Folks, there comes a time in the life of a Nation when it either proves that it is worthy of survival or it isn’t. This is one of those times for us. If President Bush has to hold a “pep rally” for us back here who are doing absolutely nothing for the GWOT – then maybe we don’t deserve to survive as a nation. Perhaps a hundred years for us living under Islamofascist rule will wake us up to smell the coffee and realize that freedom isn’t free. Perhaps when the Islamofascists tear up our fist amendment we’ll suddenly realize that it was never “words” that kept us free anyway.
You know, if the American people want to buy into what Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are selling – then perhaps we don’t deserve to be the inheritors of the greatest Democratic Nation the world has ever seen. I know what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be saying right now – and it wouldn’t be “Give Peace a Chance”. Those guys understood what it took to become free – and to stay free. And if we haven’t learned from their example – then we don’t deserve to exist free. Show me where it’s written anywhere that “This is America and it must always be free.” It isn’t written anywhere – not the Bible or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. So let’s get real here.
President Bush has explained the facts of this war over and over again. We were attacked on 9-11 and we lost THOUSANDS. If we’re getting weak knees right now – then shame on us.
So there ya go.
As far as the elections go next year – anyone who wants to vote for the Democrats who seem to be endorsing Cindy Sheehan right now – who am I to try to stop them? This is a free country for the moment – vote for whoever you want. You want to vote for someone that endorses Cindy Sheehan when she says that Osama Bin Laden might not have been the one that attacked us on 9-11 – go ahead. Be my guest. If you believe in her tactics of fighting this war … i.e. “Do nothing” until the Islamofascists are in the streets raping your daughters – then have your wife go out and beat them in the head with a rolling pin. G’head.
But don’t ask me to show up at any pep rallies – I’m good to go over here. I'll pay $4.00/gal for gas and I don't really care if the "housing bubble" bursts or not. Raise my taxes and give more pay to these troops - I'm ready to support. Hit me with some rationing - I'm good with that. I've been over there fighting this war - and I really felt like I was doing something positive for America. Sitting back here at home and listening to a bunch of crybaby's who aren't doing a single thing to keep themselves free is getting a little nauseating to me folks. Others like me are too. It's time for someone else beside your average PFC in Bagdad to prove that this country is worth salvaging.
Times like these I really miss the days when I was deployed fighting in the Afghan and the Iraq War. Every morning I would wake up - and all around me I was surrounded by brave Americans of several generations and both sexes - who were all willing to give their lives that very day if necessary to defend freedom for the folks back here at home. We all believed that Americans cherished freedom and were willing to make whatever sacrifices were necessary to preserve it.
Now I wake up and turn on the news and I find another crybaby complaining that we should repeal the gas tax because gas is too high. Every morning I see some other chick from the "Terrorist's Rights" Party, all gussied up with immaculate hair and lipstick, talking about what a "toll" this war is taking on ... us? What does she know about war? Every morning I wake up and see Cindy Sheehan's picture plastered on the tube.
News Flash - somebody take an 8X10 picture of Cindy Sheehan and put it on one of the tables in a chow hall at the Bagdad Airport during meal hours. Come back an hour later and what kind of horrendous things do you think would have been done to it? That's what the troops think of Cindy Sheehan. They wouldn't give her 30 miliseconds - much less 30 days -- of airtime on Armed Forces Television.
Hey, I'm just speaking the truth here. Everyone is so "beat down" back here on the homefront - like they're sacrificing so much for this war. What gives? Check out these guys and what they're dealing with. Notice any of them complaining?
[Video Clip courtesy of Michael Yon - GO MIKE!]
I’m really not this bitter folks – this is a bitter post though ain’t it? Well, it’s true. And those of us who know what we’re fighting for KNOW it’s true. I ain’t the only one who sees this.
I’ll address the elections momentarily – but I just want to say one thing on the subject of “morale building” for Americans…
First of all, it’s a given fact that the morale of the troops who are fighting and dieing in this war for us is up to snuff. They’re “hackers” and are proud of doing a tough job and the sacrifices they make. They’re out there everyday putting holes in terrorists in Iraq and picking up their fallen buddies. They get up every morning and do this all day – day after day. They’re not quitting. They don’t want to quit. They won’t quit.
Now we want President Bush to hit the road to bolster the morale of the American couch potato? I’m sorry folks, I have an issue with this. In WWII the folks at home had “victory gardens”. We had rationing. The homefront made all kinds of sacrifices for our soldiers in the field fighting the war. What kind of sacrifices are we making today in a war that is NO LESS important than WWII? Where’s the rationing? Where are the “victory gardens”?
All we do back here is bitch about the war and the price of gas – buy a motorcycle for crissakes!
And what’s your beef with the war? You aren’t fighting it.
The economy is the best it’s ever been – and everyone is yawning and complaining. They’d rather complain about the war and gas.
Well, I’m sorry. I think Bush should skip the cheerleading tour and focus on our guys and gals in Iraq – and in defeating the terrorists, which he’s proven that he is WILLING and EFFECTIVE in doing (unlike recent revelations about Slick Willy’s administration of appeasement).
Folks, there comes a time in the life of a Nation when it either proves that it is worthy of survival or it isn’t. This is one of those times for us. If President Bush has to hold a “pep rally” for us back here who are doing absolutely nothing for the GWOT – then maybe we don’t deserve to survive as a nation. Perhaps a hundred years for us living under Islamofascist rule will wake us up to smell the coffee and realize that freedom isn’t free. Perhaps when the Islamofascists tear up our fist amendment we’ll suddenly realize that it was never “words” that kept us free anyway.
You know, if the American people want to buy into what Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are selling – then perhaps we don’t deserve to be the inheritors of the greatest Democratic Nation the world has ever seen. I know what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be saying right now – and it wouldn’t be “Give Peace a Chance”. Those guys understood what it took to become free – and to stay free. And if we haven’t learned from their example – then we don’t deserve to exist free. Show me where it’s written anywhere that “This is America and it must always be free.” It isn’t written anywhere – not the Bible or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. So let’s get real here.
President Bush has explained the facts of this war over and over again. We were attacked on 9-11 and we lost THOUSANDS. If we’re getting weak knees right now – then shame on us.
So there ya go.
As far as the elections go next year – anyone who wants to vote for the Democrats who seem to be endorsing Cindy Sheehan right now – who am I to try to stop them? This is a free country for the moment – vote for whoever you want. You want to vote for someone that endorses Cindy Sheehan when she says that Osama Bin Laden might not have been the one that attacked us on 9-11 – go ahead. Be my guest. If you believe in her tactics of fighting this war … i.e. “Do nothing” until the Islamofascists are in the streets raping your daughters – then have your wife go out and beat them in the head with a rolling pin. G’head.
But don’t ask me to show up at any pep rallies – I’m good to go over here. I'll pay $4.00/gal for gas and I don't really care if the "housing bubble" bursts or not. Raise my taxes and give more pay to these troops - I'm ready to support. Hit me with some rationing - I'm good with that. I've been over there fighting this war - and I really felt like I was doing something positive for America. Sitting back here at home and listening to a bunch of crybaby's who aren't doing a single thing to keep themselves free is getting a little nauseating to me folks. Others like me are too. It's time for someone else beside your average PFC in Bagdad to prove that this country is worth salvaging.
Times like these I really miss the days when I was deployed fighting in the Afghan and the Iraq War. Every morning I would wake up - and all around me I was surrounded by brave Americans of several generations and both sexes - who were all willing to give their lives that very day if necessary to defend freedom for the folks back here at home. We all believed that Americans cherished freedom and were willing to make whatever sacrifices were necessary to preserve it.
Now I wake up and turn on the news and I find another crybaby complaining that we should repeal the gas tax because gas is too high. Every morning I see some other chick from the "Terrorist's Rights" Party, all gussied up with immaculate hair and lipstick, talking about what a "toll" this war is taking on ... us? What does she know about war? Every morning I wake up and see Cindy Sheehan's picture plastered on the tube.
News Flash - somebody take an 8X10 picture of Cindy Sheehan and put it on one of the tables in a chow hall at the Bagdad Airport during meal hours. Come back an hour later and what kind of horrendous things do you think would have been done to it? That's what the troops think of Cindy Sheehan. They wouldn't give her 30 miliseconds - much less 30 days -- of airtime on Armed Forces Television.
Hey, I'm just speaking the truth here. Everyone is so "beat down" back here on the homefront - like they're sacrificing so much for this war. What gives? Check out these guys and what they're dealing with. Notice any of them complaining?
[Video Clip courtesy of Michael Yon - GO MIKE!]
I’m really not this bitter folks – this is a bitter post though ain’t it? Well, it’s true. And those of us who know what we’re fighting for KNOW it’s true. I ain’t the only one who sees this.
CHAMBERLAIN'S GHOST ...
The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has been has been as painful for Israel to execute as a self-inflicted root canal without anesthesia. As the world watches these scenes of exodus from Gaza - we still look to Israel to make even further concessions in the future for the sake of peace in the Middle East.
And to meet our expectations, Israel will make those concessessions. They are following the "Roadmap to Peace" that the United States, with the help of a few other countries, created for them - well, maybe forced on them.
But what of the Palestinians? What concessions are to be made by them? We may have our answer in the form of two mortar attacks that originated on Jordanian soil which apparently Al Qaeda has just claimed responsibility for ...
One mortar was launched at Israel - the only side making concessions for peace right now and ...
One from the same terrorists launched against a U.S. Navy ship moored in Jordan itself.
Even as the U.S. and Israel takes positive steps to bring about a Palestinian nation - the first one in history - we're being attacked!
So the response we get from the Islamofascists for making concessions to the Palestinians is a message of negative reenforcement - not only aimed at the Israeli's who are complying with the "Roadmap for Peace" - but also aimed at the United States - the nation that pushed the "Roadmap for Peace" on the Israeli's and has held them accountable for progress within it.
What we hope to gain out of this "peace" exercise is an independent Palestinian state that can live in peaceful coexistence with Israel. And we also hope to gain a margin of peace from the Islamofascist elements like Al Qaeda that continue to dominate the Islamic world.
That is a hopeless prospect both historically, at the current moment, and for the foreseeable future unless the Palestinians and the Islamofascists change their habits - and beliefs.
Rather than being a "Roadmap for Peace" - this is a "Roadmap for Appeasment".
Palestinian political power is too deeply vested in terrorism to hope for any peace through "appeasement" and Palestinians, in spite of any statements from the Palestinian Authority otherwise, still do not accept Israel's right to exist and are committed to it's destruction. Sufficient evidence of this can be found in the statements of any of the plethora of Palestinian terrorists organizations that flourish even today under the Palestinian Authority. To these organizations, there is no difference between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and Tel Aviv - they are all PALESTINE. They will never end their commitment to Israel's demise.
(Sidenote - according to Cindy Al Sheehani - Tel Aviv is also in Palestine)
And further, the Palestinian CAUSE is too deeply vested in Islamic global extremism to even hope for peace in the Middle East right now.
This is no longer an Israeli vs Palistinian conflict. This is what the neo-Neville Chamberlain's who advocate appeasement haven't picked up on yet.
The terrorism that visited the Munich Games in 1972 may have been about the Palestinians and Israel - but it very quickly "mutated" into something completely different.
It "mutated" into World War IV.
(For clarification - I count the COLD WAR as WWIII - so the GWOT is WWIV)
For those who still have not recognized it - we are now fighting WWIV - and we've been fighting it in varying intensity, yet in complete oblivion, since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979.
When Ayatollah Khomeini led the Islamofascists in Iran to power in 1979, one of his major grievances was Israel. However, the destruction of Israel wasn't number one on his agenda - not even close. It's no mistake that the American embassy in Tehran was singled out for attack that year. And it wasn't singled out because of American support of Israel. It wasn't singled out for attack because of American support of the Shah - which completely evaporated anyway during Jimmy Carter's administration. It WAS singled out because America is the "Great Satan" of the Western, Non-Islamic world. The Iranian Revolution was not just an "Iranian thing" - it was the birth of the Islamofascist Revolution of the World - it was the birth of WWIV - and it's coming to a theater REALLY near you!
People scoff at this assertion today - but I believe that 100 years from now historians will recognize in hindsight what we fail to realize today - that we are in a GLOBAL fight to preserve our Democratic way of life and the Islamofascists are in a GLOBAL fight to spread Islamic fanaticism throughout the world. Their goal will not be realized with the destruction of Israel - and it certainly won't be realized through any agreement or roadmap that creates a soveriegn Palestinian nation while Israel remains intact. Their goal can only be realized through the destruction of the United States and the other Western Democracies.
If Ayotollah Khomeini started this Islamic revolution - it was Osama Bin Laden who inherited it's leadership and spread it globally. The person of Bin Laden, however, is not the Islamo-facist revolution. If he were - it would end when we finally catch him and kill him. It will not end with him though - someone else will pick up the mantle and continue it. We already have clear signs that this is happening now. There is no way that Bin Laden can be taking an active role in leading his Islamo-facist revolution. Leading means communicating and directing and if he were doing much of that these days - we'd have detected his location by now and captured him. He's a figurehead in hiding - and others are doing the "heavy lifting" for both him and his revolution. He could die tomorrow and this thing would not be over - and that's really what President Bush meant when he said "I don't think about him much". Bin Laden isn't our main problem here and Bush has always known this.
If you look at the terrorism perpetuated by the Islamofascists since 1979 - how could anyone conclude that all of it is "just" about Israel? And if you listen to the words of the Islamo-fascists themselves - how could anyone conclude that all of this is "just" about removing Western colonial influences from the Arab lands? All one has to do is listen to every single fanatical Muslim cleric in the world today. They have declared a "Jihad" on the West and that Jihad won't end with the simple anihilation of Israel - even if we gave it to them on a silver platter. Radical British Muslim clerics speak lovingly of their dream that Britain herself will be a part of the Islamic Caliphate someday - and the same can be said for radical Muslim clerics in the U.S. And you really don't want to know what the clerics in Saudi Arabia say about this - they are preaching a brand of hatred that is truely terrifying - or should be - to all of us in the world of the "infidel". Their words also make it clear that this war is about global Islamic domination - and elimination of Jews and "Infidels".
Do we think that these radial clerics are just kidding around here? Do we think that somehow they do not enjoy the vast support of the Arab / Islamic world populations?
If that is what we believe - we're seriously mistaken.
It's no accident that we haven't captured or killed Bin Laden yet. Despite being the undisputed most hunted man in the history of the entire human race - he has evaded us. Despite having the largest bounty placed on a human head in the history of civilization - he has escaped us. He's been successful in this for one reason - the Islamic people support him and protect him.
The same can be said for Zarqawi in Iraq. Even when we've gravely injured him - he still evades us because the people support and protect him also.
We have been unable to disrupt the flood of Islamic suicide bombers. Let's think about this for a second. A suicide bomber is a "one time" use commodity - yet there seems to be no end to the number of Islamo-fascists who eagerly step up to the plate to don a "suicide vest". No movement resorts to suicide as a form of warfare unless (a) the movement is in it's "death throes" - i.e. the Japanese in WWII with their Kamakazes or ... (b) the movement has an infinite supply of willing candidates.
The Islamofascist movement is certainly NOT in it's "death throes". They realize they have the popular support of their people and can keep up these types of attacks for generations if necessary. However, they don't have to keep it up for "generations". They only have to keep it up long enough to gain a nuclear weapon. At that point - they won't need too many suicidal biological assets. One or two will be enough to make the entire world stop and take note.
The Islamic "bomb" exists now in Pakistan - and it is tenuously protected by one man ... Pervez Musharaff. He is really all that stands between the Islamo-facists and that bomb. Musharaff came to power in Pakistan via military coup in October, 1999 - and he has run a pitched battle with Islamofascists to maintain control of the country since then. Fortunately for us, Musharaff is a sharp guy and has been able to keep the extremists under control through the use, and threatened use of military force against the extremists - as well as some skillful political manuevering. The good news here is that there are indications that Musharaff is winning his battle against the extremists and is solidifying his control over them. But the fact is, if he looses his grip on Pakistan - then the "Islamic Bomb" is likely to come under the control of the extremists.
We should all say a prayer for Musharaff every night before we hit the sack.
But even if Musharaff maintains control of the "Islamic Bomb" in Pakistan - Iran most certainly will develop it's own. At that point, the dance is over - and the Islamic extremists will have the bomb. The West will be unable to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We'd be much better off to forget about devising ways to prevent Islamo-fanatism from gaining nuclear weapons - and start concentrating on ways to deal with it when they do.
A nuclear capable Islamofacist enemy is inevitable and it could happen as early as tomorrow morning if we wake up and find that Musharaff has been muscled from power by the fanatics in Pakistan..
The point is - what we've seen so far in the Global War on Terror - WWIV - has been nothing but fun and games. The really scary stuff is just around the corner.
In this worldwide view of Islamo-fanaticism, we can see that ISRAEL is only one of the battlefronts. Neville Chamberlain's approach to the rising German threat was to appease Hitler. Hitler readily agreed to sign the document that Chamberlain hailed as "Peace in our time". We all know what followed.
The Islamo-facists are no different. The Oslo accords and Bill Clinton's attempt to save it practically gave the Palestinians their own nation for the first time in history - virtually everything they wanted (except the complete destruction of Israel). The result was a complete breakdown of the process and an aggressive renewal of Palestinian terrorism.
Every step forward toward peace, every consession, every compromise made by the West and Israel has been met with increased violence from the Islamo-facists. It should be clear to us on this side that we are dealing with an enemy that views civility and compromise as evidence of weakness.
When viewed in the context of terroristic activities over the last 30 years - it should be clear to us that the only gains we have made toward reducing terrorism have come on the few occasions when we refused to compromise with the terrorists - and if necessary - confronted them.
In the four years since 9-11, shortly after which the Global War on Terror began - we have had no further attacks inside the U.S. We have had no U.S. embassies overrun, or bombed - anywhere in the world. No airliners hijacked - nor cruise vessels. We have had no futher incidents like the USS COLE bombing. The mortar attack on the U.S. Navy ship in Jordan this morning cannot even be compared to the USS COLE. So for four years of aggressive fighting in the GWOT - the terrorist attacks against have been virtually ZERO. Find any four-year period during Chamberlain's, ahem - excuse me -- CLINTON's administration when we weren't attacked?
But what of the attacks against us in Iraq you say? That's a war - and that's were we WANT to take the attacks. Well-equipped, TRAINED Soldiers such as our stand a fighting chance against terrorists - Kindergarten schoolchildren in Omaha, Nebraska do not! And for all our casualities in Iraq - we have taken THOUSANDS of terrorists out of action. That's something that Bill Clinton can't claim.
And the attack in Britain on 7/7 - even the British government, who has every reason to wish that the attack were linked to global Al Qaeda - are now saying that it looks like the work of cell(s) completely internal to Britain. The follow up attack on 7/21 was a bizarre, impotent effort. The two attacks achieved only one goal - in solidifying British resolve to prevail over internal Islamic radicalism - and that's certainly no victory for Al Qaeda. Britain has already begun rounding up and deporting Islamo-fascists that, before the attacks, moved about the country and spoke their venomous hatred with complete freedom. So these attacks did nothing positive for the global vision of Al Qaeda.
There is no doubt that, since 9-11, we have severely wounded the ability of the Islamofascists to coordinate global attacks of terrorism. And we have severely curtailed, and perhaps eliminated, their ability for LARGE SCALE attacks such as 9-11.
Contrast the last four years with the decade preceding them. A decade when we did little to confront the Islamofascists - a decade when the terrorists knew we weren't serious about going after them - a decade when terrorism and Islamofascism grew like a plague.
The answer is to confront them - not to appease them. And that is why the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will simply encourage them.
Bush, aside from the "Roadmap to Peace" - is on the right track. We have made some tremendous, stunning gains in the Islamic world as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush's one error here may be in the faith that he placed in his own people (that would be you and I) to see this Global War on Terror through though.
Anyone who thinks that Israel's pullout from Gaza will result in peace is seriously deluding themselves. Like it or not - Israel and the U.S. have found themselves a common enemy in Islamofascism.
And this fight has just begun!
And to meet our expectations, Israel will make those concessessions. They are following the "Roadmap to Peace" that the United States, with the help of a few other countries, created for them - well, maybe forced on them.
But what of the Palestinians? What concessions are to be made by them? We may have our answer in the form of two mortar attacks that originated on Jordanian soil which apparently Al Qaeda has just claimed responsibility for ...
One mortar was launched at Israel - the only side making concessions for peace right now and ...
One from the same terrorists launched against a U.S. Navy ship moored in Jordan itself.
Even as the U.S. and Israel takes positive steps to bring about a Palestinian nation - the first one in history - we're being attacked!
So the response we get from the Islamofascists for making concessions to the Palestinians is a message of negative reenforcement - not only aimed at the Israeli's who are complying with the "Roadmap for Peace" - but also aimed at the United States - the nation that pushed the "Roadmap for Peace" on the Israeli's and has held them accountable for progress within it.
What we hope to gain out of this "peace" exercise is an independent Palestinian state that can live in peaceful coexistence with Israel. And we also hope to gain a margin of peace from the Islamofascist elements like Al Qaeda that continue to dominate the Islamic world.
That is a hopeless prospect both historically, at the current moment, and for the foreseeable future unless the Palestinians and the Islamofascists change their habits - and beliefs.
Rather than being a "Roadmap for Peace" - this is a "Roadmap for Appeasment".
Palestinian political power is too deeply vested in terrorism to hope for any peace through "appeasement" and Palestinians, in spite of any statements from the Palestinian Authority otherwise, still do not accept Israel's right to exist and are committed to it's destruction. Sufficient evidence of this can be found in the statements of any of the plethora of Palestinian terrorists organizations that flourish even today under the Palestinian Authority. To these organizations, there is no difference between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and Tel Aviv - they are all PALESTINE. They will never end their commitment to Israel's demise.
(Sidenote - according to Cindy Al Sheehani - Tel Aviv is also in Palestine)
And further, the Palestinian CAUSE is too deeply vested in Islamic global extremism to even hope for peace in the Middle East right now.
This is no longer an Israeli vs Palistinian conflict. This is what the neo-Neville Chamberlain's who advocate appeasement haven't picked up on yet.
The terrorism that visited the Munich Games in 1972 may have been about the Palestinians and Israel - but it very quickly "mutated" into something completely different.
It "mutated" into World War IV.
(For clarification - I count the COLD WAR as WWIII - so the GWOT is WWIV)
For those who still have not recognized it - we are now fighting WWIV - and we've been fighting it in varying intensity, yet in complete oblivion, since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979.
When Ayatollah Khomeini led the Islamofascists in Iran to power in 1979, one of his major grievances was Israel. However, the destruction of Israel wasn't number one on his agenda - not even close. It's no mistake that the American embassy in Tehran was singled out for attack that year. And it wasn't singled out because of American support of Israel. It wasn't singled out for attack because of American support of the Shah - which completely evaporated anyway during Jimmy Carter's administration. It WAS singled out because America is the "Great Satan" of the Western, Non-Islamic world. The Iranian Revolution was not just an "Iranian thing" - it was the birth of the Islamofascist Revolution of the World - it was the birth of WWIV - and it's coming to a theater REALLY near you!
People scoff at this assertion today - but I believe that 100 years from now historians will recognize in hindsight what we fail to realize today - that we are in a GLOBAL fight to preserve our Democratic way of life and the Islamofascists are in a GLOBAL fight to spread Islamic fanaticism throughout the world. Their goal will not be realized with the destruction of Israel - and it certainly won't be realized through any agreement or roadmap that creates a soveriegn Palestinian nation while Israel remains intact. Their goal can only be realized through the destruction of the United States and the other Western Democracies.
If Ayotollah Khomeini started this Islamic revolution - it was Osama Bin Laden who inherited it's leadership and spread it globally. The person of Bin Laden, however, is not the Islamo-facist revolution. If he were - it would end when we finally catch him and kill him. It will not end with him though - someone else will pick up the mantle and continue it. We already have clear signs that this is happening now. There is no way that Bin Laden can be taking an active role in leading his Islamo-facist revolution. Leading means communicating and directing and if he were doing much of that these days - we'd have detected his location by now and captured him. He's a figurehead in hiding - and others are doing the "heavy lifting" for both him and his revolution. He could die tomorrow and this thing would not be over - and that's really what President Bush meant when he said "I don't think about him much". Bin Laden isn't our main problem here and Bush has always known this.
If you look at the terrorism perpetuated by the Islamofascists since 1979 - how could anyone conclude that all of it is "just" about Israel? And if you listen to the words of the Islamo-fascists themselves - how could anyone conclude that all of this is "just" about removing Western colonial influences from the Arab lands? All one has to do is listen to every single fanatical Muslim cleric in the world today. They have declared a "Jihad" on the West and that Jihad won't end with the simple anihilation of Israel - even if we gave it to them on a silver platter. Radical British Muslim clerics speak lovingly of their dream that Britain herself will be a part of the Islamic Caliphate someday - and the same can be said for radical Muslim clerics in the U.S. And you really don't want to know what the clerics in Saudi Arabia say about this - they are preaching a brand of hatred that is truely terrifying - or should be - to all of us in the world of the "infidel". Their words also make it clear that this war is about global Islamic domination - and elimination of Jews and "Infidels".
Do we think that these radial clerics are just kidding around here? Do we think that somehow they do not enjoy the vast support of the Arab / Islamic world populations?
If that is what we believe - we're seriously mistaken.
It's no accident that we haven't captured or killed Bin Laden yet. Despite being the undisputed most hunted man in the history of the entire human race - he has evaded us. Despite having the largest bounty placed on a human head in the history of civilization - he has escaped us. He's been successful in this for one reason - the Islamic people support him and protect him.
The same can be said for Zarqawi in Iraq. Even when we've gravely injured him - he still evades us because the people support and protect him also.
We have been unable to disrupt the flood of Islamic suicide bombers. Let's think about this for a second. A suicide bomber is a "one time" use commodity - yet there seems to be no end to the number of Islamo-fascists who eagerly step up to the plate to don a "suicide vest". No movement resorts to suicide as a form of warfare unless (a) the movement is in it's "death throes" - i.e. the Japanese in WWII with their Kamakazes or ... (b) the movement has an infinite supply of willing candidates.
The Islamofascist movement is certainly NOT in it's "death throes". They realize they have the popular support of their people and can keep up these types of attacks for generations if necessary. However, they don't have to keep it up for "generations". They only have to keep it up long enough to gain a nuclear weapon. At that point - they won't need too many suicidal biological assets. One or two will be enough to make the entire world stop and take note.
The Islamic "bomb" exists now in Pakistan - and it is tenuously protected by one man ... Pervez Musharaff. He is really all that stands between the Islamo-facists and that bomb. Musharaff came to power in Pakistan via military coup in October, 1999 - and he has run a pitched battle with Islamofascists to maintain control of the country since then. Fortunately for us, Musharaff is a sharp guy and has been able to keep the extremists under control through the use, and threatened use of military force against the extremists - as well as some skillful political manuevering. The good news here is that there are indications that Musharaff is winning his battle against the extremists and is solidifying his control over them. But the fact is, if he looses his grip on Pakistan - then the "Islamic Bomb" is likely to come under the control of the extremists.
We should all say a prayer for Musharaff every night before we hit the sack.
But even if Musharaff maintains control of the "Islamic Bomb" in Pakistan - Iran most certainly will develop it's own. At that point, the dance is over - and the Islamic extremists will have the bomb. The West will be unable to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We'd be much better off to forget about devising ways to prevent Islamo-fanatism from gaining nuclear weapons - and start concentrating on ways to deal with it when they do.
A nuclear capable Islamofacist enemy is inevitable and it could happen as early as tomorrow morning if we wake up and find that Musharaff has been muscled from power by the fanatics in Pakistan..
The point is - what we've seen so far in the Global War on Terror - WWIV - has been nothing but fun and games. The really scary stuff is just around the corner.
In this worldwide view of Islamo-fanaticism, we can see that ISRAEL is only one of the battlefronts. Neville Chamberlain's approach to the rising German threat was to appease Hitler. Hitler readily agreed to sign the document that Chamberlain hailed as "Peace in our time". We all know what followed.
The Islamo-facists are no different. The Oslo accords and Bill Clinton's attempt to save it practically gave the Palestinians their own nation for the first time in history - virtually everything they wanted (except the complete destruction of Israel). The result was a complete breakdown of the process and an aggressive renewal of Palestinian terrorism.
Every step forward toward peace, every consession, every compromise made by the West and Israel has been met with increased violence from the Islamo-facists. It should be clear to us on this side that we are dealing with an enemy that views civility and compromise as evidence of weakness.
When viewed in the context of terroristic activities over the last 30 years - it should be clear to us that the only gains we have made toward reducing terrorism have come on the few occasions when we refused to compromise with the terrorists - and if necessary - confronted them.
In the four years since 9-11, shortly after which the Global War on Terror began - we have had no further attacks inside the U.S. We have had no U.S. embassies overrun, or bombed - anywhere in the world. No airliners hijacked - nor cruise vessels. We have had no futher incidents like the USS COLE bombing. The mortar attack on the U.S. Navy ship in Jordan this morning cannot even be compared to the USS COLE. So for four years of aggressive fighting in the GWOT - the terrorist attacks against have been virtually ZERO. Find any four-year period during Chamberlain's, ahem - excuse me -- CLINTON's administration when we weren't attacked?
But what of the attacks against us in Iraq you say? That's a war - and that's were we WANT to take the attacks. Well-equipped, TRAINED Soldiers such as our stand a fighting chance against terrorists - Kindergarten schoolchildren in Omaha, Nebraska do not! And for all our casualities in Iraq - we have taken THOUSANDS of terrorists out of action. That's something that Bill Clinton can't claim.
And the attack in Britain on 7/7 - even the British government, who has every reason to wish that the attack were linked to global Al Qaeda - are now saying that it looks like the work of cell(s) completely internal to Britain. The follow up attack on 7/21 was a bizarre, impotent effort. The two attacks achieved only one goal - in solidifying British resolve to prevail over internal Islamic radicalism - and that's certainly no victory for Al Qaeda. Britain has already begun rounding up and deporting Islamo-fascists that, before the attacks, moved about the country and spoke their venomous hatred with complete freedom. So these attacks did nothing positive for the global vision of Al Qaeda.
There is no doubt that, since 9-11, we have severely wounded the ability of the Islamofascists to coordinate global attacks of terrorism. And we have severely curtailed, and perhaps eliminated, their ability for LARGE SCALE attacks such as 9-11.
Contrast the last four years with the decade preceding them. A decade when we did little to confront the Islamofascists - a decade when the terrorists knew we weren't serious about going after them - a decade when terrorism and Islamofascism grew like a plague.
The answer is to confront them - not to appease them. And that is why the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will simply encourage them.
Bush, aside from the "Roadmap to Peace" - is on the right track. We have made some tremendous, stunning gains in the Islamic world as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush's one error here may be in the faith that he placed in his own people (that would be you and I) to see this Global War on Terror through though.
Anyone who thinks that Israel's pullout from Gaza will result in peace is seriously deluding themselves. Like it or not - Israel and the U.S. have found themselves a common enemy in Islamofascism.
And this fight has just begun!
Saturday, August 20, 2005
BODY ART ...
Just when you think you've seen it all in the world of art ... along comes something unexpected. I won't use the words "bizarre" or "strange" in this case - because I've seen so much stuff passed off as "art" in the last decade that I'm basically so numb I'm not surprised by anything I see now. But this one is a little "unexpected" ...
Bodies: The Exhibition...
Hey, I have an idea - can we just make a resolution right now for the whole human race and just agree to leave dead decomposing bodies out of "art"? And don't tell me that they're not decomposing either. Sure, they're preserved through some high-tech silico rubber encapsulation thingamejobber. But if there's organic matter in there anywhere (and there is) - and it's not being nurished by respiration and blood and nutrient circulation (and it ain't) - then it's, by definition, decomposing - rotting. This is not the kind of thing you want in your dining room folks - nuff said on that.
The article above is clearly slanted in favor of this display, and the authors are falling all over themselves to justify it. They've pointed out here that, by cracky, people are getting educated by this stuff. One woman who viewed the exhibit found proof that "evolution" couldn't be true - the human body is just too darned complicated - it would have taken God to design this thing. Another guy decides to quit smoking because of the smoke damaged lungs in the exhibit. Another person changes their mind on abortion because of the fetus' on display.
Hey, that's great - I'm glad that people are getting educated. I don't have a problem with a medical education exhibit - put all the rotting cadavers in there that you want. But this isn't primarily a medical exhibit. This is being passed off as ART - any medical education it provides is a secondary or tertiary byproduct. The authors of this article completely miss this point. When you spend an entire article writing about an art exhibit - and the only good thing you can say is what an education it is - then what you're saying is that the ART sucks.
(Now I hear some saying out there "Awww, Come on Vercingetorix, this really isn't an art display - it's a medical display." And I might agree with you except the authors of the article above state that it's an ART exhibit in the first paragraph of their article. I'll conceed the issue is a bit "gray" here and the line's a little fuzzy about what exactly this exhibit is.)
And honestly, I don't think this particular exhibit is so bad - my fear is for what comes next. This particular exhibit isn't disrespectful in my opinion - but what of future exhibits?
We know that, as humans, there are always those amongst us who will push the limits. So what's next? What kind of poses are we going to put these corpses in? What kind of positions? How will we dress them? How will we use them in "politically oriented" art?
Maybe the next thing around the corner is a corpse cruicified to a cross?
Maybe a couple of corpses locked in a homosexual (or for that matter - heterosexual) embrace? Corpse erotica? Do you really trust the "artists" out there to use their good judgement and NOT take us there? The BTK killer got off on this kind of stuff - but I really don't think it's good for "prime time" and general public consumption folks. And once you let this cat out of the bag - some sicko "artist" is going to take us there and then use the Bill of Rights and his or her freedom of speech as justification for doing so. And the ACLU will come to his or her defense. Do we really want to play in that sandbox?
Maybe corpses with things stuck in 'em? Goodness knows where and goodness knows what - use your imagination.
Don't say it won't happen - it most certainly will. All anyone needs of proof that I'm right here is to look at the art of the last couple of decades. There's a lot of gross and disgusting stuff out there. And my examples above are "powder-puff" - there are a lot of "artists" out there who possess a much more perverted imagination than I do. They'll do stuff with corpses that you and I can't even imagine now.
And what about "Artist's Rights" - doesn't an artist have a "right" to access the tools of his trade? Don't artists have a right to have a constant and steady stream of corpses that they can create their art with? And where do they get these bodies? And who will these bodies be?
My personal opinion - I was born a non-famous child. I've lived a non-famous life. I'll die very non-famous. I don't want to be famous as a corpse permanently preserved in a golf pose holding a putter.
I'd like to just place a motion on the floor that there are plenty of things out there to create "art" with - let's just leave the dead alone okay?
Anyone give me a "second" on that?
Bodies: The Exhibition...
Hey, I have an idea - can we just make a resolution right now for the whole human race and just agree to leave dead decomposing bodies out of "art"? And don't tell me that they're not decomposing either. Sure, they're preserved through some high-tech silico rubber encapsulation thingamejobber. But if there's organic matter in there anywhere (and there is) - and it's not being nurished by respiration and blood and nutrient circulation (and it ain't) - then it's, by definition, decomposing - rotting. This is not the kind of thing you want in your dining room folks - nuff said on that.
The article above is clearly slanted in favor of this display, and the authors are falling all over themselves to justify it. They've pointed out here that, by cracky, people are getting educated by this stuff. One woman who viewed the exhibit found proof that "evolution" couldn't be true - the human body is just too darned complicated - it would have taken God to design this thing. Another guy decides to quit smoking because of the smoke damaged lungs in the exhibit. Another person changes their mind on abortion because of the fetus' on display.
Hey, that's great - I'm glad that people are getting educated. I don't have a problem with a medical education exhibit - put all the rotting cadavers in there that you want. But this isn't primarily a medical exhibit. This is being passed off as ART - any medical education it provides is a secondary or tertiary byproduct. The authors of this article completely miss this point. When you spend an entire article writing about an art exhibit - and the only good thing you can say is what an education it is - then what you're saying is that the ART sucks.
(Now I hear some saying out there "Awww, Come on Vercingetorix, this really isn't an art display - it's a medical display." And I might agree with you except the authors of the article above state that it's an ART exhibit in the first paragraph of their article. I'll conceed the issue is a bit "gray" here and the line's a little fuzzy about what exactly this exhibit is.)
And honestly, I don't think this particular exhibit is so bad - my fear is for what comes next. This particular exhibit isn't disrespectful in my opinion - but what of future exhibits?
We know that, as humans, there are always those amongst us who will push the limits. So what's next? What kind of poses are we going to put these corpses in? What kind of positions? How will we dress them? How will we use them in "politically oriented" art?
Maybe the next thing around the corner is a corpse cruicified to a cross?
Maybe a couple of corpses locked in a homosexual (or for that matter - heterosexual) embrace? Corpse erotica? Do you really trust the "artists" out there to use their good judgement and NOT take us there? The BTK killer got off on this kind of stuff - but I really don't think it's good for "prime time" and general public consumption folks. And once you let this cat out of the bag - some sicko "artist" is going to take us there and then use the Bill of Rights and his or her freedom of speech as justification for doing so. And the ACLU will come to his or her defense. Do we really want to play in that sandbox?
Maybe corpses with things stuck in 'em? Goodness knows where and goodness knows what - use your imagination.
Don't say it won't happen - it most certainly will. All anyone needs of proof that I'm right here is to look at the art of the last couple of decades. There's a lot of gross and disgusting stuff out there. And my examples above are "powder-puff" - there are a lot of "artists" out there who possess a much more perverted imagination than I do. They'll do stuff with corpses that you and I can't even imagine now.
And what about "Artist's Rights" - doesn't an artist have a "right" to access the tools of his trade? Don't artists have a right to have a constant and steady stream of corpses that they can create their art with? And where do they get these bodies? And who will these bodies be?
My personal opinion - I was born a non-famous child. I've lived a non-famous life. I'll die very non-famous. I don't want to be famous as a corpse permanently preserved in a golf pose holding a putter.
I'd like to just place a motion on the floor that there are plenty of things out there to create "art" with - let's just leave the dead alone okay?
Anyone give me a "second" on that?
Friday, August 19, 2005
CINDY SHEEHAN ...
I was going to write another article on Cindy Sheehan, but this post represents what I would have said in it perfectly (and unbelievably - it's from the LA Times) ...
Who speaks for Casey Sheehan ...
Here are some other great articles ...
I like Ann Coulter - not just because she's intelligent and aggressive - but because she's also HOT! Then again, maybe I find her HOT because she's intelligent and aggressive. Oh well, I'll ask a shrink someday. Anyway, here's her article ...
Commander in Grief ...
The final article is also from the LA Times. I don't agree with everything in it but it's fair and balanced and makes one think ...
Moral Authority on a Slippery Slope ...
Cindy Sheehan has left Crawford - reportedly to visit her ailing mother in the hospital. The protest in Crawford - again reportedly - will go on. It will be interesting to see what new "face" replaces Cindy at the helm of this protest. Ideally, they would want another "grieving mother" to assume this substitute role - but they may not have a willing one. My guess is that someone down there from MOVEON.ORG or one of the other radical groups will step eagerly up to the plate to keep the press interested. And my predicition, if this happens, is that "substitute" will completely botch the PR effort for them and we will glean a clearer picture through the MSM that these folks are WAY OVER on the radical side of the fence. Always trust in a liberal ideologue's ability to push their opinions too far. They are their own worst enemies.
Who speaks for Casey Sheehan ...
Here are some other great articles ...
I like Ann Coulter - not just because she's intelligent and aggressive - but because she's also HOT! Then again, maybe I find her HOT because she's intelligent and aggressive. Oh well, I'll ask a shrink someday. Anyway, here's her article ...
Commander in Grief ...
The final article is also from the LA Times. I don't agree with everything in it but it's fair and balanced and makes one think ...
Moral Authority on a Slippery Slope ...
Cindy Sheehan has left Crawford - reportedly to visit her ailing mother in the hospital. The protest in Crawford - again reportedly - will go on. It will be interesting to see what new "face" replaces Cindy at the helm of this protest. Ideally, they would want another "grieving mother" to assume this substitute role - but they may not have a willing one. My guess is that someone down there from MOVEON.ORG or one of the other radical groups will step eagerly up to the plate to keep the press interested. And my predicition, if this happens, is that "substitute" will completely botch the PR effort for them and we will glean a clearer picture through the MSM that these folks are WAY OVER on the radical side of the fence. Always trust in a liberal ideologue's ability to push their opinions too far. They are their own worst enemies.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
NEW MILITARY RECRUITING FORM ...
I'm in the military - active duty. I served in the Afghanistan War and the Iraqi War (and may go back). I believe in the war and believe we're doing good things over there for the Iraqi's - and to defeat terrorism around the world - I'm not a Chickenhawk.
When you enlist in the armed forces, you have to sign a lot of paperwork. All kinds of paperwork. Privacy act disclosures, Drug disclosures, Code Of Conduct affirmations, etc.
In light of recent news, I think we may need a NEW form for recruits to sign and here is my proposal for one ...
I, ___(Last, First, MI)___, who wish to enlist in the armed forces of the United States of American do hereby disclose and affirm the following ...
That my __(Fill in name of relative here ... example: MOTHER)__ is a LEFT WING LOONY BIN and a member of the Democratic (Terrorist's Rights) Party. Additionally, my aforementioned relative also subscribes to an unrealistic PACIFIST IDEOLOGY and is known, through personal statements, to be __(list other anti-social condition here ... example: ANTI-SEMITIC).
I am not responsible for the opinions of my aforementioned relative - in fact - I hereby disassociate myself from any of his or her opinions or activities. In the event of my heroic death serving this country - it is my wish that the people of the United States of America disregard any childish or wacko statements or actions he or she takes on my behalf. Further, no left-wing liberal looney tunes organization (that normally spits on military servicemembers and calls them "murderers") -- even while pretending to "care" about me has my permission to use my name to promote their political agenda or raise money.
I make this declaration freely and without mental reservations. I hereby also declare that I am enlisting in the armed forces of the United States voluntarily and not through any form of conscription or draft. I consider myself a PATRIOT of this country and fully support the actions of my chain of command - including my Commander In Chief. If I should fall in combat, please remember that I did so in the service of this country and that I freely gave this service to defend FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD - WHICH IS THE LEGACY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. In this manner, I would like to be remembered.
Signed this _____ day of ____, 20__.
______________________________
SIGNATURE
When you enlist in the armed forces, you have to sign a lot of paperwork. All kinds of paperwork. Privacy act disclosures, Drug disclosures, Code Of Conduct affirmations, etc.
In light of recent news, I think we may need a NEW form for recruits to sign and here is my proposal for one ...
I, ___(Last, First, MI)___, who wish to enlist in the armed forces of the United States of American do hereby disclose and affirm the following ...
That my __(Fill in name of relative here ... example: MOTHER)__ is a LEFT WING LOONY BIN and a member of the Democratic (Terrorist's Rights) Party. Additionally, my aforementioned relative also subscribes to an unrealistic PACIFIST IDEOLOGY and is known, through personal statements, to be __(list other anti-social condition here ... example: ANTI-SEMITIC).
I am not responsible for the opinions of my aforementioned relative - in fact - I hereby disassociate myself from any of his or her opinions or activities. In the event of my heroic death serving this country - it is my wish that the people of the United States of America disregard any childish or wacko statements or actions he or she takes on my behalf. Further, no left-wing liberal looney tunes organization (that normally spits on military servicemembers and calls them "murderers") -- even while pretending to "care" about me has my permission to use my name to promote their political agenda or raise money.
I make this declaration freely and without mental reservations. I hereby also declare that I am enlisting in the armed forces of the United States voluntarily and not through any form of conscription or draft. I consider myself a PATRIOT of this country and fully support the actions of my chain of command - including my Commander In Chief. If I should fall in combat, please remember that I did so in the service of this country and that I freely gave this service to defend FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD - WHICH IS THE LEGACY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. In this manner, I would like to be remembered.
Signed this _____ day of ____, 20__.
______________________________
SIGNATURE
KEAN'S SUBTLE WARNING TO PENTAGON
When the 9-11 commission reported it’s findings and published it’s “novel” – which NOW should be moved the FICTION shelves in bookstores – the commissioners all made the PR rounds patting themselves on the back. According to them, THEY had produced the DEFINITIVE account of the events leading up to 9-11. They proudly exclaimed that NO Iraqi connection existed between Mohammed Atta’s little band of Islamo-fascists and Saddam Hussein. When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke of a “link” between Iraq and Al Qaeda – he wasn’t even speaking of an Iraqi link to the 9-11 attacks – but the commissioners chastised him anyway. Democrats hailed the 9-11 commission report as the gospel – not to be disputed – infallible (except perhaps on the few points where Clinton administration mistakes were pointed out).
We NOW know that this commission was a POLITICAL commission – which produced an “Oliver Stoneish” version of history.
Consider the following revelations of the last two weeks …
That military intelligence officials identified Mohammed Atta and his cell of terrorists one year before the attacks – and they desperately tried to tell the commission this. But the commission blew ‘em off.
The State Department tried, in 1996, to alert Bill Clinton to the fact that, if Osama Bin Laden was allowed to migrate from Somolia to Afghanistan – it would mean serious trouble for U.S. security.
In March, 2001, the Germans arrested two Iraqi spies at virtually the same time the 9-11 hijacking leaders travelled through that country. And the Germans uncovered what they believed to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and Bin Laden.
And none of the above revelations are included anywhere in the 9-11 report.
Thomas H. Kean, former governor of New Jersey and a member of the 9-11 commission now wants hold the Pentagon accountable for not screaming loud enough to his commission about ABLE DANGER.
But my question to Gov. Kean is this – how loud does an Army Officer have to scream “We knew about Atta!” before it gets your attention Sir? How many times does he have to call the commission offices and get blown off before it gets your attention?
I would think a mere “whisper” of the name “Atta” should be enough to get your attention. Kean even admits himself that Atta’s name was “electric”. Okay Sir, well Shaffer mentioned it - and several times - where's the "electric" response of the commission? Why did the 9-11 commission appear to have a dead battery?
But now Kean wants the Pentagon to check the credibility of these Officers who told his commission about ABLE DANGER. Another question I have for Gov. Kean is – why do you need the Pentagon to check their credibility? YOUR staff spoke to these Officers and you said last week that they didn’t mention Atta’s name. If that’s true, these Officer’s have NO credibility – and are lying. So what’s the “credibility” check for? Are you NOW changing your story again? Perhaps they did tell you about Mohammed Atta?
Make no mistake folks – the next item up for bids in this story is going to be a complete assault on the character of LtCol Shaffer. Kean’s call to the Pentagon isn’t a “credibility check”. What he’s really doing is throwing the ball to the Pentagon to dish the dirt on these Officers so that he can go back to his “back-slapping” lifestyle as one of the 9-11 “pontiffs” who saved us all by telling us what really happened leading up to 9-11.
And the not-so-subtle message to the Pentagon is – “Either discredit these Officers – or we’re going to PUMMEL YOU!” The 9-11 commission is giving fair warning that THEY AREN’T taking the blame for this – either these Officers will take it – or the Pentagon – and it’s the Pentagon’s choice as to WHO gets slapped. Next move - PENTAGON's.
It’s not surprising that a POLITICAL commission that produces a POLITICAL report resorts to POLITICAL means when they’re on the ropes. And the 9-11 commission is on the ropes folks.
Meanwhile – LtCol Shaffer has told ONE VERSION of the story – and the 9-11 commission is in a tight race with Joran Van Der Sloot in Aruba to see who can change their story more.
We NOW know that this commission was a POLITICAL commission – which produced an “Oliver Stoneish” version of history.
Consider the following revelations of the last two weeks …
That military intelligence officials identified Mohammed Atta and his cell of terrorists one year before the attacks – and they desperately tried to tell the commission this. But the commission blew ‘em off.
The State Department tried, in 1996, to alert Bill Clinton to the fact that, if Osama Bin Laden was allowed to migrate from Somolia to Afghanistan – it would mean serious trouble for U.S. security.
In March, 2001, the Germans arrested two Iraqi spies at virtually the same time the 9-11 hijacking leaders travelled through that country. And the Germans uncovered what they believed to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and Bin Laden.
And none of the above revelations are included anywhere in the 9-11 report.
Thomas H. Kean, former governor of New Jersey and a member of the 9-11 commission now wants hold the Pentagon accountable for not screaming loud enough to his commission about ABLE DANGER.
But my question to Gov. Kean is this – how loud does an Army Officer have to scream “We knew about Atta!” before it gets your attention Sir? How many times does he have to call the commission offices and get blown off before it gets your attention?
I would think a mere “whisper” of the name “Atta” should be enough to get your attention. Kean even admits himself that Atta’s name was “electric”. Okay Sir, well Shaffer mentioned it - and several times - where's the "electric" response of the commission? Why did the 9-11 commission appear to have a dead battery?
But now Kean wants the Pentagon to check the credibility of these Officers who told his commission about ABLE DANGER. Another question I have for Gov. Kean is – why do you need the Pentagon to check their credibility? YOUR staff spoke to these Officers and you said last week that they didn’t mention Atta’s name. If that’s true, these Officer’s have NO credibility – and are lying. So what’s the “credibility” check for? Are you NOW changing your story again? Perhaps they did tell you about Mohammed Atta?
Make no mistake folks – the next item up for bids in this story is going to be a complete assault on the character of LtCol Shaffer. Kean’s call to the Pentagon isn’t a “credibility check”. What he’s really doing is throwing the ball to the Pentagon to dish the dirt on these Officers so that he can go back to his “back-slapping” lifestyle as one of the 9-11 “pontiffs” who saved us all by telling us what really happened leading up to 9-11.
And the not-so-subtle message to the Pentagon is – “Either discredit these Officers – or we’re going to PUMMEL YOU!” The 9-11 commission is giving fair warning that THEY AREN’T taking the blame for this – either these Officers will take it – or the Pentagon – and it’s the Pentagon’s choice as to WHO gets slapped. Next move - PENTAGON's.
It’s not surprising that a POLITICAL commission that produces a POLITICAL report resorts to POLITICAL means when they’re on the ropes. And the 9-11 commission is on the ropes folks.
Meanwhile – LtCol Shaffer has told ONE VERSION of the story – and the 9-11 commission is in a tight race with Joran Van Der Sloot in Aruba to see who can change their story more.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
THE OMISSION COMMISSION
There are two SERIOUS questions surrounding the recent ABLE DANGER fiasco.
First – Who, what is the NAME of the individual who made the final decision not to release ABLE DANGER information to the FBI in late 2000? And what input did they base that decision on?
Second – why isn’t ABLE DANGER information included in the 9-11 commission findings? I know the commission has already answered this question. Their answer is that ABLE DANGER (AD) was not “historically significant”. That’s a bad answer – an unacceptable answer and I’ll get to that question here in a minute.
But first … The first question – who kept AD information from going to the FBI a year before 9-11?
We need a name here. Rep. Weldon tells us that he doesn’t really know who made the decision – maybe the DoD, maybe the White House. But both he and LtCol Shaffer are now saying that the reason they weren’t allowed to release the information to the FBI is because “they” (whoever “they” is) were afraid of a backlash and didn’t “want another Branch Davidian situation” to occur. The Branch Davidians keep coming up over and over again in this situation. Why?
Well, if we take Weldon and Shaffer at their word – and they’re correct that someone didn’t want to share AD information with the FBI because they feared another Branch Davidian backlash … Who would have feared another Branch Davidian backlash? Certainly no one in DoD – because DoD wasn’t involved in any of the Branch Davidian standoff. The FBI, ATF and Justice Department took that body-blow - not anyone in DoD.
It doesn’t make sense. DoD – on it’s own, wouldn’t have cited the Waco affair as the primary reason for not sharing the information.
Possible scenario – perhaps DoD lawyers were convinced that the AD information was extremely important and they ASKED the Justice Department or the White House for advice on what to do with it? And perhaps that “someone” in either the Justice Department or the White House told them “What, are you crazy??? This would be like asking for a repeat of the beating we took over WACO!!”
And perhaps that’s the reason the DoD lawyers gave to the AD folks why they couldn’t share with the FBI. They just left out the part about WHO told them not to share – which wouldn’t be unusual. The fact is, if the Pentagon made the decision on it’s own – they wouldn’t have cited Waco and the Davidians as a reason (they just weren’t “touched” by the Waco affair and therefore weren’t sensitive to it).
No, the Pentagon, if anything, would have cited the fact that AD had collected information on legal persons within the United States – and OUTSIDE of military jurisdiction. We have a very long tradition in this country, that we’re rightfully proud of -- of keeping the military out of civilian affairs. So I can see DoD telling the AD guys “We shouldn’t even be collecting this kind of information” – but I can’t see them giving the Branch Davidian excuse or even mentioning the Waco affair at all!
I CAN see the Justice Department saying it though.
This question will be solved if more Pentagon sources come forward. We simply need to find the guy in the Pentagon who made the decision that AD couldn’t share information – and then we pull that guy’s chain. We may very well find that he (or she) made a “phone call” to the Justice Department for advice before making the decision.
This speculation above relies on one thing – that Shaffer is telling the truth on the reason he was given by DoD not share the AD information with the FBI.
To the second question – why wasn’t the AD information in the 9-11 commission’s findings?
Well, the 9-11 commission says that what they received from DoD wasn’t “historically significant”. That answer doesn’t wash. They also claim that they never heard Atta’s name mentioned in connection with AD until the very last minute when a “Naval Officer” who wanted to be interviewed by the commission mentioned it to them. And they say that his testimony was unreliable because he had only looked at a intel chart for a brief time and only “recalled” seeing Atta on it.
That may be but …
They DID have an interview in connection with AD at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in October, 2003 on ABLE DANGER. If Atta’s name wasn’t mentioned at that briefing – then what was? What was the point of going all the way to Afghanistan on official 9-11 commission business if Atta’s name wasn’t mentioned? In fact, what did AD have to do with anything the 9-11 commission was studying if they didn’t know about Atta before he led the attacks? Why would anyone in DoD even seek such an interview unless they could provide the commission important information on what they knew about Atta?
And how could such a meeting take place without mentioning him? It can’t. They had to have mentioned it. And even a panel of idiots – such as the 9-11 commission would have immediately noted the “historical significance” of the information.
Shaffer by the way, insists that he did mention Atta and the commission immediately began making phone calls to dig into this - and they asked to interview him again. When he returned to the states - he called 'em up to talk to them again. They blew him off. Somehow, what was all fired up important to them the first time he talked to them - they mysteriously lost interest in.
Why wasn’t the commission diligent in getting more information on AD?
Did someone on the commission quickly recognize that the fact that AD information wasn’t shared with the FBI was due to the “WALL”? A WALL that Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton Justice Department erected? Did someone on the commission realize that this AD revelation would lead right back to the welcome mat on the White House’s doorstep – Bill Clinton’s doorstep?
Let’s remember that we’re trying to connect the dots here and fill in the story – because the 9-11 commission doesn’t seem to want to do that. So what’s going on here? Unless Shaffer is just an outright liar then the commission should have known that AD was powder keg information that should have been thoroughly investigated. If everyone on the commission is on the “up and up” then when the commission learned about the DoD’s failure to inform the FBI – they would have joyfully beat the bejabbers out of the Pentagon for this information.
Hey folks, if the ONLY guilty party here is the Pentagon – then no one on the commission would have refrained from blasting away at OSD – that’s a fact. So why didn’t the commission do it?
Connect the dots …
I find LtCol Shaffer to be VERY credible. Consider a few things here. First, he has told one consistent story all along - while the 9-11 commission told a plethora of stories last week alone. Shaffer is also putting his livelihood on the line here - no one on the 9-11 commission is. And, probably most significant to me - the 9-11 commission is made up of a bunch of politicians with an elastic definition of the truth. Shaffer is a military guy and I assume that any Officer that rises to the level of a LtCol has displayed at least a fair ability to adhere to the Army core values. Now, unless we find out fairly soon that Shaffer is under psychiatric care or something like that ...
So this is where we’re at now. And if you look around – the only people who are keeping this story alive in the news is Weldon, Shaffer, and the news media. The commission, aside from their statement last Friday – is pretty silent. Are they hoping the story will go away? Well it won't - it hit critical mass today and all the major news agencies are just fascinated with it.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
ABLE DANGER - WHISKEY / TANGO / FOXTROT ?!
I've been sorting through the "new news" today on ABLE DANGER. Whew! What a tangled web! The exciting development today is that one of Cong. Weldon's AD sources "outed" himself today ... and his name is LtCol Anthony Shaffer.
Here's some required reading ...
Captain Ed marvels at the developments in this story and says it hasn't run it's course yet - not by a long shot, but he appears to be enjoying the dance.
Laura Rozen gives an updated account of today's events and some of the explosive stuff that came out.
Philip Shendon over at the NYT also with a good story on new developments.
And prolly the most interesting one to me - LtCol Shaffer himself, posting anonymously over at INTELDUMP. Shaffer has verified that yes, it's him.
So where is this story going now? I don't know - but it appears that someone in the Pentagon DID keep ABLE DANGER from sharing information with the FBI. Shaffer claims he "brokered" three meetings between SOCOM and the FBI to "share" the information - and SOCOM cancelled everytime. At this point, if things are what they seem - there was probably little if any White House - or Justice Department involvement in this affair. It may all be just one of those typical "military snafu's". Certainly, you can see that Shaffer mentions the fact that information wasn't shared because the OSD was afraid of "blowback" if something went wrong. They didn't want another "Branch Dividian" scenario to raise it's head and bite the Pentagon - so the CYA move was to sit on the information - probably figuring they had no legitimate right to collect that kind of information anyway. So the failure to get this information to the FBI could have very well been due to "politically correct" lawyers in the Pentagon.
But that doesn't get the 9-11 commission off the hook. Shaffer says he told the 9-11 commission specifically about Mohammed Atta and three others - but they poo-poo'd it.
But over at the commission they say "no" - he didn't tell them. And basically they're saying something else to Shaffer - "proove it".
So Shaffer may be in a pinch here. My guess is that the commission rummaged (very quickly last week) through all their ABLE DANGER paperwork (the stuff DoD turned over to them) and found no mention of Atta's name. With very happy faces, they concluded that they had complete justification to deny ever hearing his name from Shaffer. Since apparently Shaffer wasn't the one they got the documents from - he's basically SOL at this point - it's a "he said / she said" and the 9-11 commissioners know how to milk that game for all it's worth.
And indications here that the 9-11 commission intends to strike back - AT DoD! Ben Veniste shrugs his shoulders now and wonders, if these ABLE DANGER allegations are credible, why then didn't the Pentagon turn over more information on the program? Good question (considering the source) -- and it's one that's going to keep the Pentagon hopping for at least the next week - maybe longer.
We'll see what new information comes out in the coming days. I'm not making a call on this - but right now it looks like Shaffer is going to lose both of his government jobs and the OSD is going to be pronounced the "bad guy" of the scandal - the people who could have prevented 9-11. The only good thing about this is they can't stink up RUMMY on this issue - this issue happened on CLINTON'S WATCH.
Here's some required reading ...
Captain Ed marvels at the developments in this story and says it hasn't run it's course yet - not by a long shot, but he appears to be enjoying the dance.
Laura Rozen gives an updated account of today's events and some of the explosive stuff that came out.
Philip Shendon over at the NYT also with a good story on new developments.
And prolly the most interesting one to me - LtCol Shaffer himself, posting anonymously over at INTELDUMP. Shaffer has verified that yes, it's him.
So where is this story going now? I don't know - but it appears that someone in the Pentagon DID keep ABLE DANGER from sharing information with the FBI. Shaffer claims he "brokered" three meetings between SOCOM and the FBI to "share" the information - and SOCOM cancelled everytime. At this point, if things are what they seem - there was probably little if any White House - or Justice Department involvement in this affair. It may all be just one of those typical "military snafu's". Certainly, you can see that Shaffer mentions the fact that information wasn't shared because the OSD was afraid of "blowback" if something went wrong. They didn't want another "Branch Dividian" scenario to raise it's head and bite the Pentagon - so the CYA move was to sit on the information - probably figuring they had no legitimate right to collect that kind of information anyway. So the failure to get this information to the FBI could have very well been due to "politically correct" lawyers in the Pentagon.
But that doesn't get the 9-11 commission off the hook. Shaffer says he told the 9-11 commission specifically about Mohammed Atta and three others - but they poo-poo'd it.
But over at the commission they say "no" - he didn't tell them. And basically they're saying something else to Shaffer - "proove it".
So Shaffer may be in a pinch here. My guess is that the commission rummaged (very quickly last week) through all their ABLE DANGER paperwork (the stuff DoD turned over to them) and found no mention of Atta's name. With very happy faces, they concluded that they had complete justification to deny ever hearing his name from Shaffer. Since apparently Shaffer wasn't the one they got the documents from - he's basically SOL at this point - it's a "he said / she said" and the 9-11 commissioners know how to milk that game for all it's worth.
And indications here that the 9-11 commission intends to strike back - AT DoD! Ben Veniste shrugs his shoulders now and wonders, if these ABLE DANGER allegations are credible, why then didn't the Pentagon turn over more information on the program? Good question (considering the source) -- and it's one that's going to keep the Pentagon hopping for at least the next week - maybe longer.
We'll see what new information comes out in the coming days. I'm not making a call on this - but right now it looks like Shaffer is going to lose both of his government jobs and the OSD is going to be pronounced the "bad guy" of the scandal - the people who could have prevented 9-11. The only good thing about this is they can't stink up RUMMY on this issue - this issue happened on CLINTON'S WATCH.
Monday, August 15, 2005
DOW - HOWARD DEAN
It was bound to happen and this probably won't be his only appearance in my "Dummy of the Week" award. However, this week I have to say the honor goes to ...
Chairman of the Democratic Party .... HOWARD DEAN!
(Tell him what he won, Johnny!)
Howie is the hand's down winner this week for the following quote on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"... today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
In spite of the fact that women in Saddam's Iraq had to deal with RAPE ROOMS - where Saddam, his sadistic sons, and the Iraqi intelligence apparatus used RAPE as an institutionalized method of maintaining order.
In spite of the fact that women in Iraq had no vote - well, not one that amounted to anything anyway.
In spite of the fact that Saddam took the lives of hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of Iraqi sons and daughters in his many campaigns of genocide. And in spite of the fact that thousands of mothers still grieve for these lost sons and daughters to this day.
In spite of the fact that thousands of women today walk the country in search of mass graves that may hold the remains of their loved ones - loved ones murdered by Saddam.
In spite of the fact that thousands of women still grieve for their lost husbands and sons who were killed in the Iranian War and the Gulf War as a direct result of Saddam's bloodthirsty greed.
In spite of the fact that women in Iraq certainly never celebrated the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people - and all women had to live in fear of the possibility that he would use the same weapons on them.
In spite of all that - and a million other reasons - Howie thinks that women were better off under Saddam.
It appears that Howie's only gage of women's rights is how short they are allowed to wear their skirt. That is a pretty shallow yardstick if you ask me - but a typical one for Democratic men in politics.
Howie, one question bro...
What rights will the new Iraqi constitution take FROM women? The right to wear a mini-skirt?
With tortured logic like this being displayed by Dean - can we help it if we just outright conclude that he is ANTI-AMERICAN and PRO-SADDAM? I mean, give me a break - did he go to public relations 101 class with Baghdad Bob as his instructor?? "There are no tanks in Baghdad! No Sir! No Tanks!" ..... Boom! Boom! Boom!.... "Those were NOT tanks!"
I think it's clear that, if we win this war and defeat terrorism - it won't be because of anything Howie Dean contributed to the effort.
HOWARD DEAN - DUMMY OF THE WEEK
Chairman of the Democratic Party .... HOWARD DEAN!
(Tell him what he won, Johnny!)
Howie is the hand's down winner this week for the following quote on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"... today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
In spite of the fact that women in Saddam's Iraq had to deal with RAPE ROOMS - where Saddam, his sadistic sons, and the Iraqi intelligence apparatus used RAPE as an institutionalized method of maintaining order.
In spite of the fact that women in Iraq had no vote - well, not one that amounted to anything anyway.
In spite of the fact that Saddam took the lives of hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of Iraqi sons and daughters in his many campaigns of genocide. And in spite of the fact that thousands of mothers still grieve for these lost sons and daughters to this day.
In spite of the fact that thousands of women today walk the country in search of mass graves that may hold the remains of their loved ones - loved ones murdered by Saddam.
In spite of the fact that thousands of women still grieve for their lost husbands and sons who were killed in the Iranian War and the Gulf War as a direct result of Saddam's bloodthirsty greed.
In spite of the fact that women in Iraq certainly never celebrated the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people - and all women had to live in fear of the possibility that he would use the same weapons on them.
In spite of all that - and a million other reasons - Howie thinks that women were better off under Saddam.
It appears that Howie's only gage of women's rights is how short they are allowed to wear their skirt. That is a pretty shallow yardstick if you ask me - but a typical one for Democratic men in politics.
Howie, one question bro...
What rights will the new Iraqi constitution take FROM women? The right to wear a mini-skirt?
With tortured logic like this being displayed by Dean - can we help it if we just outright conclude that he is ANTI-AMERICAN and PRO-SADDAM? I mean, give me a break - did he go to public relations 101 class with Baghdad Bob as his instructor?? "There are no tanks in Baghdad! No Sir! No Tanks!" ..... Boom! Boom! Boom!.... "Those were NOT tanks!"
I think it's clear that, if we win this war and defeat terrorism - it won't be because of anything Howie Dean contributed to the effort.
HOWARD DEAN - DUMMY OF THE WEEK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
