Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: Media Morons Archives

June 20, 2008

Nuremberg, Osama and Obama

[Kat] (Moved by ry to the proper day)

I'll start very simply: Who thinks that Osama bin Laden will be captured alive to stand trial?

Leave your answer in comments.

Now, on with the commentary. While I understand Obama's lawyerly obsession with Nuremburg as the epitome of trying war criminals, it is obviously a safe answer to give because there is a less than .01% probability that Osama will be taken alive. Thus, Obama panders to his base while never likely to have to test his policy in reality. It is very much more likely that Osama will meet his demise in the same manner he dished it out for 3,000 people on September 11: from the air, blown apart in a fiery death. The only the only regret is that it probably won't last nearly as long and horrific as those who were trapped in the towers or Pentagon.

However, let's take Obama's logic to its conclusion.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

The fact is, the Nuremberg trials did not take place until the war with Germany was over. Further, Sen. Obama, obviously having skipped some important parts of the history of the trial, might have missed that at least one of those tried at Nuremberg was held, without trial, for four years. He was, in fact, held in isolation except for his guards, some interrogators and a warden. In fact, he was the longest held prisoner after the end of the war and subsequent trials.

You get extra points if you know who he was.

In Obama's logic, we could designate Osama a prisoner of war, or some equal designation, and hold him, without trial, until the conclusion of "the war". Further, despite comments regarding turning Osama into a martyr, by the standards of Nuremberg, Osama would be tried by a military tribunal whose authority and dictates could not be challenged or appealed to any higher authority, and would then most likely be executed for his crimes.

Definitely, by the Nuremberg example, there should and would be no complaint about holding Osama in complete isolation with no one but his guards as contacts, with his lights on all of the time and someone staring in at him 24/7 to insure he could not commit suicide. He would have little or nothing accept a Qu'ran, a bed and the four walls to talk to. For as long as we felt the need.

But, maybe Obama is thinking about all of the subsequent trials of over 2,000 men for various crimes. Some trials were not held until over four years after the conclusion of the war (counting 1939 as the beginning, that would be ten years later). Over 500 men were executed, many more received life imprisonment, with the bulk serving ten, twenty or more years.

Maybe Obama is infatuated with the seeming perfection of process that these trials afforded along with the golden treatment of the prisoners, such as that of the trial of those alleged responsible for the Malmedy Massacre. It is interesting to note that many of the prisoners alleged abuse by their guards. Those allegations became even more expanded and virulent as the entire mess went on and on. Even so far as peace movements and disreputable characters writing false stories, claiming that the isolation the prisoners were kept in, along with the hoods over their heads for transporting or movement, was tantamount to torture.

The entire trial was investigated over and over again (sound familiar?), even through a Senate Subcommittee who re-affirmed the trials findings, but, as had others, commuted the last sentences to life in prison because they could not trust the investigation that had taken place was "justice". Of course, as in this war, that final committee had taken place four years after the war had ended; four years after the horror of the war was over and people could start going back to "normal".

Defense attorneys for the prisoners did appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, wiser than today, refused to hear the case. Although, in fact, four were for it and for against, Justice Jackson recused himself because he had been at Nuremberg. The question of foreign prisoners of war being seen or heard before American courts was avoided, but not forever it seems.

Then there was the "stunning" account by one of the prosecutors at Nuremberg who later helped create the basis for the International Criminal Court (who, ironically, suggested that Bush be put on trial for war crimes). Who noted:

Americans delivered some low-ranking German suspects to Displaced persons camps for the purpose of having them executed by the DPs (displaced persons), without prior trial or sentencing.[1]

"I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"[1]

In the interview, Ferencz also pointed out that the military legal norms at the time permitted actions that wouldn't be possible today (actions during the Malmedy Massacre Trials).

"You know how I got witness statements? I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone one up against the wall. Then I'd say, 'Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.' It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid."[1]

Of course, I'm starting to see Obama's logic in this decision to return to the treatment of enemy combatants during World War II. For instance, when the Malmedy Massacre was discovered and it was known that the SS Panzer group was massacring POWs and civilians, an order was issued that no German SS or paratroopers would be taken prisoner, but shot on sight.

Our current enemies routinely massacre civilians and summarily execute any prisoners, making themselves outlaws under the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Conventions. Is Senator Obama really recommending we follow the historical precedents set by WWII?

Sometimes, as I listen to Sen. Obama speak about invading Pakistan, how he would have captured bin Laden by personally ordering the miraculous deployment of tens of thousands of troops to Tora Bora, talking to Iran like Kennedy or Reagan talked to the Russians and the Nuremberg trials, I wonder exactly who is it that has an unrealistic and romanticized view of war?

[On a separate note, it may be of interest to our readers that the actor Charles Durning, not only participated in the Normandy invasion, but was one of the few survivors of the Malmedy Massacre]

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Obama is ignorant, with a 9/10/01 "law enforcement approach to terrorism" mentality:

from Powerline Blog
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020784.php

Obama (June 16, 2008):

"It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

Andrew McCarthy (the lead prosecutor of the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack) comments:

This is a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism. In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended).

Fled to Iraq? Harbored by Saddam Hussein? Before the US invasion? This contradicts the assertion by Obama and the Left that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.

by fdcol63 on June 20, 2008 6:56 AM

Kat, I am beginning to wonder if Obama any meaningful knowledge of history. Judging from what he has said about the “57 states” I am doubtful he does.

by Ledger on June 20, 2008 7:00 AM

I firmly believe that Osama is dead, and has been for a couple of years. Had he been alive, he would have appreared in any number of recent videos. As it is, all we are ever fed is still pictures of him from the past, and patched-together audio tracks, sections of which are lifted from earlier speeches.

If, by some miracle, he is still alive, then i would strongly suggest that he is no longer in the ME, but somewhere in Africa, most likely Somalia.

Respects,

by AW1 Tim on June 20, 2008 8:12 AM

Does Obama mean the Nuremberg trials which were conducted ex post facto, and were hence illegal according to Common Law?

That sounds like his sort of gig.

by Casey Tompkins on June 20, 2008 12:51 PM

Of course, first we have to have a president who's interested in catching Osama, right? Then we worry about the trial.

by Jason on June 20, 2008 12:53 PM

"Of course, first we have to have a president who's interested in catching Osama, right?"

You know, I don't understand the Left's obsessive mocking of Bush's failure to catch OBL. I thought the Left's argument has been that 9/11 was an "inside" job perpetrated by the evil cabal of BushCo, and that the whole "war on terror" thing was bogus.

Perhaps we'll find OBL when we finally catch Abdul Rahman Yasin - who Clinton still has not found 15 years after the first WTC attack in 1993.

by fdcol63 on June 20, 2008 1:29 PM

Oh, wait ..... Yasin is still loose after 15 years, but the law enforcement approach that Obama and the Left advocate was so effective that he was released due to inadequate evidence, and he then fled to Iraq where he was harbored by Saddam - although the Left assures us there were no terrorists in Iraq before BushCo invaded in 2003.

It's hard to keep up with the Left's contradictory arguments. Which story are they using today?

by fdcol63 on June 20, 2008 1:37 PM

[reaches for more popcorn]

by John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2008 2:13 PM

Of course, first we have to have a president who's interested in catching Osama, right? Then we worry about the trial.

Dude, isn't it the problem now? Everybody waited until we had people in custody before setting out the rules and regulations under which they would be identified and then tried by the tribunal? Isn't that your complaint from yesterday? You know, holding them so long it creates a habeas situation that only the Supreme Courts and the Chosen can fix?

by kat-missouri on June 20, 2008 2:33 PM

Oh..nearly forgot, let's go into Pakistan because, well, you know that war is going to be a "cake walk" and, at least, if people died, it won't be because somebody lied or we sold our allies down the river.

Of course, we'll go it alone..you know, unilaterally, because NONE of our allies will be coming along for that ride.

That Obama is pure USDA cowboy!

by kat-missouri on June 20, 2008 2:38 PM

Hey, I heard Obama's going to try to avoid Bush's failure at Tora Bora by invading Waziristan with 2 whole divisions of US Army and Marines. And without worrying about Pak nukes or destabilizing the tenuous political situation with the Islamist radicals in Pakistan.

As soon as his aides can teach him how many personnel are in 2 divisions! LOL

by fdcol63 on June 20, 2008 2:57 PM

And they'll be armed with the most powerful subpeonas that America's finest legal minds can produce.

Bin Laden will soil his pants!

by fdcol63 on June 20, 2008 3:01 PM

If you want a president who thinks Jerusalem is the capital of Israel then go nuts, he's your boy. Outstanding potential for foriegn policies there I'm thinking.

Otherwise you know where to cast your vote.

Happily for me I doubt he could even find my country with both hands and a brace of bloodhounds.

by Murray on June 20, 2008 9:45 PM

Happily for me I doubt he could even find my country with both hands and a brace of bloodhounds.

Isn't New Zealand a Blue State, like the rest of New England?

*putting extra shoring in the bunker*

by BillT on June 21, 2008 4:09 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Kat on Jun 20, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

June 9, 2008

One of the Most Dishonest Headlines Ever Printed?

[Kat]

Let's just start with the headline:

War bill helps Iraqis, may ignore Katrina victims

Let's get this straight. This is a WAR bill. Not a Hurricane Recovery bill. The Republicans and Democrats have been adding on tons of ear marks to these bills since the war began. Finally, the President, under pressure from the anti-pork folks decided that he wasn't going to sign this bill if it came along with all the usual trappings of pork, more pork and even more pork along with the usual attempts to set time lines for withdrawal or limits on US forces activities in Iraq.

If more money is required to assist the victims of Katrina, why doesn't someone in congress get that bill together and request it? If it's really needed and not already provided for under another bill or it just hasn't been dispersed yet, shouldn't we know about that and help get something done?

Why would anyone in congress try to hide it in the war funding bill and not say anything until it was on the brink of being cut?

I can answer that, I suppose. It makes three great big statements:

1) Spending money on war is bad. We should spend it at home.
2) Bush, Blue Dog Democrats who support the war are bad people kicking the homeless while they are down.
3) We need more money in New Orleans

I'm pretty sure the most important points were 1 and 2 because, if there was still something terribly wrong in New Orleans and the US Congress brought it before the American people, I'm hard pressed to see how it would be turned down.

By September 2005, Bush had requested over $110 Billion for relief and spending was on track to spend over $300 billion. There are untold government and private organizations that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars.

Is that enough? I'm not sure. I'd like to hear more about what is needed and what is being spent where. But the honest truth is, this isn't an "either/or" question.

Why can't the American people get a bill to fund our troops and a separate bill for additional Katrina relief? Aren't these two efforts the most important events in American history in the last decade?

Can you believe anyone would play politics with either of these issues?

Heh. I know. Stupid question.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 09, 2008

May 6, 2008

"That little empty space on his lapel…"

That’s what Richard Cohen of the WaPo likes best about Barack Obama. (My thanks to Stanley Kurtz for this little nugget over at The Corner.)

It is where other politicians wear the American flag pin, a kitschy piece of empty symbolism that tells you nothing about that particular person except that he or she thinks like everyone else. Obama’s flag, invisible to the naked eye, is the Jolly Roger of a politician thinking for himself.

Well.

I imagine those who think like Mr. Cohen would probably expect me to have spotted the missing “kitschy piece of empty symbolism” immediately, being one of those dim-bulb military vets who reflexively look for every politician’s overt display of patriotism.

I never thought to look, frankly.

But now that it has been brought to my attention, I listened to the Narrative, both Obama’s and his opponents, and thought it rather silly (on both sides).

I thought Obama’s response petty and self-absorbed. Sort of like one of his wife’s campaign speeches. C’mon, dude. The Orwellian true-patriotism-is-best-demonstrated-by-a-conscious-rejection-of-one-of-its-most-common-symbols shtick was as clumsy as it was transparent. If most Democrats think like that, whoa; I’m in a very different country. Then again, maybe they do.

As for his critics: guys, pick more important things to tag the opponent with, OK? There are plenty. And I’m not even talking about Pastor Jeremiah. Obama’s record in the Senate is a good place to start (Hint: a McCain-like compromiser he ain't). His position on the Second Amendment, anyone? But I digress…

“Kitschy.” Hmmm. From Wikipedia: “…any art that is pretentious to the point of being in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.” So. A senior commentator in one of the nation’s leading newspapers finds the American flag lapel pin to be “pretentious,” “bad taste,” “trite,” and “crass.”

I cannot agree, though I am not surprised that Mr. Cohen would think it so. Affection for America, for the freedoms it guarantees, the benefits one enjoys living in it, the opportunities and successes it has offered and awarded Mr. Cohen is so…80s.

I find the phrase “empty symbolism” particularly telling. Does Richard Cohen seriously believe the flag of the United States is an empty symbol? This is not just a cheap shot by a smug left-wing scribbler pandering to his like-minded readers who subscribe to the Post. (Well, yeah, it is, actually. –Ed.) It defies reason.

Hundreds of thousands have risked their lives for the opportunity to pledge allegiance to it. It is the symbol of a nation that holds dear that the rule of law is supreme to the rule of men. It is a symbol of a nation that produced leaders committed to a government, “…of the people, by the people, for the people…” It is the symbol of a nation that replaces its leaders on a regular basis by peaceful means. It is a nation where the average standard of living, for even its poorest citizens (even Michelle, poor dear), is one of the highest on the planet. It is a nation that dominates the world in the advancement of science and technology. And it is a nation that was born with an obscenely ugly institution of slavery, then cleansed itself of that great blemish by force of arms and then reinvented its national psyche to not only allow, but enthusiastically encourage, an American of African descent to run for its highest office.

I know I’m wasting my breath (but electrons are cheap) but I found this particular rant breathtaking in its arrogance, ingratitude, smugness, pretentious self-righteousness and stupidity.

Moreover, I think Mr. Cohen missed the irony of his story’s point, that to wear the pin is political “pandering.” In a way, the pin does represent a new low in pandering by its conspicuous absence. It panders to a significant portion of Barack Obama’s base supporters who think it too “kitschy.”

Right, Mr. Cohen?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

It is where other politicians wear the American flag pin, a kitschy piece of empty symbolism that tells you nothing about that particular person except that he or she thinks like everyone else. Obama’s flag, invisible to the naked eye, is the Jolly Roger of a politician thinking for himself.

Well that's a nasty emotional hook isn't it? Ahh yes right at the beginning. So then Kitsch? The flag is not 'pretentious' or 'empty symbolism'. It's clearly and honestly the flag symbolic of the United States. Which, last time I checked, was a dinky die nation whether you loved it or not.

The rest of Kitsch is really about opinion and it's worthy to note Kitsch is actually in fashion in some ways. Maybe there's an argument there. Maybe something about wrapping one self in the flag or about non standard flags. Now if, as the author says in his article, Obama makes the argument about not wanting to show false patriotism like Nixon or others, and Obama is telling the truth there, then his action of removing the pin shows he is being true to himself and is not patriotic. Otherwise he'd leave it on and be true to the values the symbol represents. A bit disturbing for a Presidential Candidate IMO.

"tells you nothing about that particular person except that he or she thinks like everyone else"

Utter rubbish. Wearing a flag does indeed say very little except that one is trying to be associated with the symbolism. It says nothing about what a person thinks beyond that, for example their motivation for such association. But one can make educated guesses when politicians are involved. Even those that are wearing the symbol because they believe in it are only thinking along similar lines in the meaning of that symbolism. There's plenty more diversity of thought out there. And even if one does have the same thought as others it isn't always a bad thing.

by Argent on May 6, 2008 11:53 PM

I wear one with crossed US/NZ flags.

It saves telling people my political leanings.

Of course one idiot was silly enough to ask me why I wore it when I standing in front of the Marines memorial on waterfront in Wellington.

So much easier to just point than explain.

Shame in other copuntries they think I'm Australian.

by Murray on May 7, 2008 12:19 AM

...and wots de problim wit dat?

let's see.. No Helen, more sun, less cold, less wind, all the same companies and much better wine.

Of course free of charge special deal today only you get Mr Rudd, sunburn, heat exhaustion, all the same companies and inferior seafood.

by Argent on May 7, 2008 12:41 AM

Obama’s flag, invisible to the naked eye, is the Jolly Roger of a politician thinking for himself.

In Richard Cohen's world, pirates emulate Jack Sparrow (sorry -- *Captain* Jack Sparrow) and Singapore is, of course, located somewhere south of Santo Domingo. Cohen ignores the fact that those who flew the Jolly Roger did so because they thought more *of* themselves than *for* themselves...

by BillT on May 7, 2008 4:23 AM

Heh. My thought when I read Dusty's intro was... "oh, gad, the only thing more painful than a blowhard berating people for not wearing a flag pin is the earnest sophomoric explanation of why *not* wearing a flag is a more sublime form of self-expression."

Which is what Dusty said, essentially.

Heh. Like many of us here, I wore my flag on my sleeve.

I wear a Rotary, Soldier's Angels, or NRA pin on my lapel.

by John of Argghhh! on May 7, 2008 6:45 AM

Is the American public now going to elect a pirate as their president?

God help us!

by fdcol63 on May 7, 2008 8:07 AM

Frank, you poor deluded fool, sucked in by the Rethuglican Spin Machine.

We already have a pirate as President!

Bush invaded Iraq to loot their oil for his buddy (and sock-puppet master) Cheney.

And blew up the WTC so as to have an excuse to hoodwink the Congress.

Really. Get with the program fella.

by John of Argghhh! on May 7, 2008 8:41 AM

Thanks, John, for enlightening me.

I was apparently confused by the helpful information presented by the Dems. Instead of being jolly pirates, I thought Bush and Cheney were hapless morons controlled by the evil Über-Führer Rove in the Illuminati / Babylonian Brotherhood conspiracy to give the world over to the reptile aliens from the 4th Dimension.

LOL

by fdcol63 on May 7, 2008 9:01 AM

Da nada, buddy. No charge.

by John of Argghhh! on May 7, 2008 9:34 AM

Flies.

When they're big enough to have squadron markings I draw the line!

by Murray on May 7, 2008 3:25 PM

For those of you who have just joined us, Murray's comment is a continuation of the Sur'n Hemispherical Discussion of Insular Oddities.

Time lapse between postings is due to the fact that it's Autumn down there and Murray's struggling against that hibernation thang...

by BillT on May 8, 2008 2:19 AM

Bill, thanks. I didn't wanna highlight my continued confusion by asking, "WTF?!"

BTW ... here in FL we have to evade palmetto bugs.

by fdcol63 on May 8, 2008 7:06 AM

Hey if you guys choose to live at the bottom of the world thats your business.

I was refering to the down side of being Austalian (WHICH I'M NOT). Honking big flies and lots of them.

by Murray on May 8, 2008 3:23 PM

Hmmm. I don't think Argent is Austalian, either.

Now, AustRalian, that he is.

Weren't the Austalians a Star Trek species? Oh, wait, that was Thalian. Never mind.

by John of Argghhh! on May 8, 2008 3:31 PM

Freak.

by Murray on May 9, 2008 5:25 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Dusty on May 06, 2008

April 9, 2008

Attacking Bellavia: Comparing Heroes Now "Racist"

[Kat]

Well, it was bound to happen. Hot Air reports that some guy named Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post is implying that Bellavia, in comparing Tiger Woods as a hero for children to Sen. John McCain's heroism in withstanding five years of imprisonment and torture in Hotel Hanoi is somehow making a subtle racist comment. Of course, the commenters over at the HuffPo (loser central) went crazy about the terrible McCain Supporting Racist.

Some other ..person... at some place called Hotline also posts a similar comment. Of course, they are, as Hot Air notes, "treading lightly" on the subject by merely suggesting that, in today's political atmosphere, maybe its not a good idea to ever mention the name of a person of a different race or ethnicity in comparison to a person that isn't because any idiot can decide to construe it, in the name of politics, as racism.

I cannot even say how incensed I am over even the implication that Bellavia's comments were racist. At first, I thought that it was so ignorant it was not worth a reply, but I read the foolish comments in the posts, attempted to post a reply with refuting information and then realized I was unable to do so. Thus, I am posting here.

(continued in flash traffic)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

I am also incensed over the fact that idiotic conflation of such non-events to real racism, cheapens and degrades the continuing struggle against real racism in this nation. These two, Stein and the Hotline (not Hot Air) character, along with several commenters, make reference to Obama's speech on racism being "timely" in reference to this alleged racism. In fact, their comments did more to damage any possible good or truth that Obama's speech might have done.

Having attended the Vets For Freedom event in Kansas City, heard Bellavia's speech about real heroes vs. the paper heroes America puts on pedestals, read his book honoring the men he fought with (of all ethnicities and races) and listened to many other speeches by these men and women, the idea that Bellavia was making a racist remark or could be construed to do so is preposterous beyond belief.

Bellavia's speech was slightly abbreviated in order to move the event along and introduce McCain. In this event, he mentioned that Tiger Woods would not be the "hero" that he taught his children to look up to. He would teach them to look up to men like McCain. He introduced McCain as "the real 'Audacity of Hope'".

Bellavia has given a similar speech all along the Vets for Freedom tour. In Kansas City, his speech regarding the same theme, included noting various athletes and Hollywood stars from Tiger Woods to Tom Cruise, among several, that people call "heroes" when, in fact, he served with real heroes and was on tour with some real heroes. It is a theme that has been repeated many times among those who have served, their families and those who support them as on this blog: America has lost its way when choosing its "heroes" and it shows in our continued selfishness, our unwillingness to sacrifice in a greater cause and our total absorption with all things "me".

Sam Stein has very likely never read Bellavia's book, House to House. While it is a book about war, it is not a book about hate. It is a book about love for the brothers that Bellavia served and bled with in the Battle for Fallujah. It is about the love and honor that he feels for those who he served, who died in that battle and later. he never mentions the race, color or ethnicity of these men, though he calls them by name and their names sometimes gives their heritage away along with several pictures of his unit included in the book. They include black, white, Hispanic, Asian and many other nationalities and ethnicities. These men were not colors or races to Bellavia, but brothers. He calls them "heroes" and they are more so than a Woods, Obama, Clinton, Cruise, Spears or any other whom the shallow would deem "heroes" for their alleged "struggles" to overcome things that have little to do with sacrificing all for another.

Bellavia's heroes are men like 1Lt Edward Iwan, Japanese-American, who led Bellavia's platoon and who died in Fallujah November 12, 2004 having taken over the gunner's position in a Bradely fighting vehicle, surrounded by insurgents on every side firing AK-47s, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns and RPGs. Iwan was cut down by just such an RPG. Bellavia continuously referred to Iwan as a great leader who took care of his men to the end.

At the end of his book, Bellavia lists the 41 men from his unit who gave the ultimate sacrifice in order of the date of their death. They are a true representation of America's "melting pot" with names like "Khan", "Kennedy", "Eckhart", "Martinez" and many more. Bellavia wants people to remember these men and honor their sacrifice.

Stein and the other fellow, posted only a small snippet of the actual event in order to make this implications. I note that he did not bother to post any other video or pictures from the event that clearly shows the many men and women of many races and ethnicities that were part of the "Vets on the Hill" event. These men and women had served in the military as Bellavia had and were there for the same reason: to insure that those who had fought, were fighting and those who had sacrificed, had their voices heard. They want to insure, as LTC Steve Russell (ret) has said, that their sacrifices were not simply "remembered" by names chiseled on a black stone wall, but would be "honored" by a lasting memorial of freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those attending, those of the many races, ethnicities and genders, knew exactly what Bellavia was speaking of when he compared a "hero" for children like Tiger Woods to a real hero who had sacrificed much for his nation like McCain and the many who had served in the past and present. Tiger, Bellavia has previously noted, is a fine man who has made much of his talents and often gives much back to communities like free golf clinics for the young and underprivileged, charitable events and various foundations. He is an excellent example of how to be a self made man who knows how to give back in recognition of the advantages he had been given.

But, if you are going to tell your children about "heroes", "sacrifice" and "love of country" who are you going to tell them about?

Try Mike Mansoor, Navy Seal, Medal of Honor recipient, who have his all for his country and for the men he served with when he jumped on a grenade.

Obama was not completely wrong. There is racism in this country, though not institutionalized and rarely raising its head publicly. I know what racism looks like. I had an unpleasant and unfortunate experience last week when someone made a comment that was neither ambiguous, subtle nor misconstrued, though it was under their breath and in the company of people they thought were "like minded" for some unknown reason. That person now knows it is unacceptable and intolerable, not only by me, but those in our group.

This egregious and scurrilous attack on Bellavia, however, makes me very upset. What good has Sam Stein done to equate, no, lower the issue of real racism to comparison with this non-event? I'll tell you, he has done no good. In fact, the construing of these comments to "racism" actually provides people cover when confronted with real, subtle and unsubtle, racism. He has done nothing, but provided a place for every half-wit with a political ax to grind, who see our soldiers as nothing but jack booted oppressors, and dislikes McCain, the Iraq war, and various other angst and neurosis, a place to vent their ugliness and idiocy.

Sam Stein owes Bellavia an apology, in public (since he made it that way).

Sam Stein, tear down that post.

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Apr 09, 2008

March 26, 2008

Gollum Watches TV. It’s PBS so it’s OK. (Review of the ‘Bush’s War’ documentary from Frontline.)

The last two nights PBS has been showing a documentary called ‘Bush’s War’on Frontline. It was a two part doc run over two nights, with the first night covering the run up and the second night covering the aftermath. I know what many people are going to say, ‘It’s PBS ergo it is liberal minded, BDS trash.’ Not quite, and, honestly, not really.

On the whole, no, I didn’t like this. I found this to be rather contrived and predictable in its treatment. I’d call it journalism but not real documentary making, and I’d definitely never call this a good historical chronicle of events. Liberals will watch this and feel justified in their daily five minute hates. Conservatives will watch and be even more convinced that PBS is nothing but a liberal mouth piece. People who didn’t pay the greatest of attention will be left with a flawed and incomplete view of what happened and why, though better than what they had on their own dime. I may not have liked it, and sorry for being all Terry Teachout here, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth watching. It is worth watching. It is detestable at points, and maybe misleading at some others by my estimation, but it is worth watching for the many things it does do well (even if I don’t include them in my highlights). It does present some arguments that some of us on the rightish side of the aisle might not be able to easily answer, disprove, or set aside. For that it is worth watching.

There is a lot worth sitting thru the 3+ hours of this documentary to see. I cannot go into all the things I liked or disliked here (John’d kill me if I wrote a 10 pager (‘My bandwidth, my beautiful bandwidth!’), plus I simply don’t want to write that much about it.). Highlights include things like why Cheney may have had reason to distrust CIA and answers about the Atta in Prague story. There are nuggets here worth watching for. I, and you, may not agree with the total treatment but it is worth watching. It definitely goes out of its way to show things as controversial and to delve into office politics heavily, which I didn’t really go for. That turned it into nothing more than power politics and pecker waving contests, and I don’t believe much is ever that simple.

It is worth watching simply to have a single, coherent primer of what the dominate narrative about the Iraq *is*, right or wrong that narrative may be.

The short of it is that it does seem to follow a preset script and the Iraq War a bad thing and that there are definite villains of this play we are supposed to hate (boo Rumsfeld, essentially). The short of it is a reason not to watch. The long of it, the volume of data and other events surrounding the how and why, is a reason to watch.

(The long of it is below the fold.)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

There are villains that this documentary wanted to ‘get’. They just happened to be VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld instead of President Bush and the entire Administration. Quite honestly, this worked more like a hit piece on them than an indictment of President Bush. At their feet was laid almost all the blame for the run up to war, including claims of fudging the intelligence and ‘Curveball’, and the mishandling of the post takedown of Saddam. Rumsfeld, most heavily Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Yoo take the heat for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and things over which there is debate over like ‘is it torture’ and should Taliban or other insurgents be considered POWs. These are the villains. Cheney is Darth Sidious/Emporer Palpatine, and Rumsfeld is his acolyte, sort of, Darth Vader who has things so drastically wrong at every turn.

I was actually quite surprised at the treatment of just about everyone else in the current Administration. President Bush is not a villain or a war criminal in this. A weak man maybe, someone mislead by those closest to him, and dominated by Cheney but not a villain. Dr. Rice gets a mixed treatment. She’s given a ‘weak nancy-girl’ treatment in the first installment but given kudos for pushing the Administration toward the ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ strategy and for taking on Rumsfeld after being made SecState. She’s given a lot of kudos for that. SecState Powell is treated like a sage who should have been listened to, but wasn’t. Surprisingly the flaws in everyone but Cheney and Rumsfeld are not taken as a pathway to denounce them as war criminals. They are portrayed as flawed, tragic, or unready for prime time individuals, but not evil. People caught up in events beyond their control or erroneous lines of thought, but not evil.

There is an assumptions underlying how this documentary’s first night unfolds that I don’t and never will agree with. One of the most prominent being the proposition that the War on Terror is solely about al Quaeda. Rumsfeld and Cheney, our villains, push for a broader conflict in the ME, or seek to satisfy some bizarre jones to attack Iraq, but the CIA wants to keep it only about bin Laden and aQ. I’ve always rejected this. Why? For the best formal reasoning read Dr. Tom Barnett’s books and blog. In a nutshell: because turning this into retributive raids or manhunts doesn’t end the threat. We did Libya, and still got attacked. Did Sudan, the infamous cruise missile diplomacy. Still got attacked. We tried the first WTC attackers in civilian court, and attacks still continued. Whack-a-mole and targeted manhunts all thru the 70’s to the late 90’s and it only gets worse. No, the solution to the problem of Islamicist ideology driven terrorism has to be larger and more complicated than simply hunting for OBL and taking down the Taliban because if that’s all it was we’d never have had a bin Laden because we did that in the 80-90’s (Libya et al.) to seemingly no effect. So, right there, I find a major flaw in this documentary. They’re pushing people who looked to the problem of int’l terrorism as a bigger problem than just bin Laden and labeling them traitors or people with, possibly evil, ulterior motives for the broader view. Since that’s a very critical assumption, underlying much of the first night’s case, it is a crippling disagreement.

The second night is by far the weakest in my opinion. It showed a real lack of knowledge by the documentarians of what Rumsfeld was trying to do. They really try to play it as strategy summed up in nine words: “Do it small. Get out fast. Screw the aftermath.” Rather simplistic, and also tosses aside what they laid out as the plan going in for the aftermath, yes, they admit that there was a post Saddam plan drawn up before the invasion, the first night (Achmed Chalabi). Something they spent a good twenty or thirty minutes on the previous night. That constitutes a continuity problem in my eyes. Honestly, Barnett does it best. Rumsfeld was right, and wrong. He had it 100% right on how small we could go to take down Iraq but was 100% wrong on the post conflict reconstruction being able to be done by the same sized force. The documentarians take the tack that Rumsfeld’s a grandstanding idiot, mostly.

The second night follows a chronology that could have been taken straight from the New York Times staff writers. It does present the first Battle of Fallujah in terms I’d not considered in the past, and bases their claims on interviews of ‘insiders’ (but not faceless, nameless ‘highly placed officials’). But, even here, it doesn’t look like they’re willing to go much outside their preset script. They deserve credit for trying a multidiscipline treatment of event, but they still take a preset position and are unwilling to deviate from it (the insurgency became indomitable after that because there were too few troops in Iraq, and it’s Rumsfeld’s fault).

By far I found the weakest bit of this whole thing was the panel of people they interviewed. It seemed stacked to me. Much of the commentary was done by some of the harshest critics. Where were the critics but not opponent type people? Did Barnett get called but turn them down? I’m not saying that they should’ve put Jonah Goldberg on there, but couldn’t someone like Max Boot or Mark Steyn---people who present cases for other rationales for doing Iraq---have been put on there? Now that would have put the real question to the people: is it or isn’t it part of a larger campaign, is the WOT only a big name for what amounts to ‘Get bin Laden!’? Some of the people they got were excellent choices. Andrew Krepinevich being one example, COLs Hammes and McMaster being others of the dozen or so out of the 50 or so people who offer commentary that are experts instead of journalists who really lend something substantive to the doc. Unfortunately the experts don’t get as much time as the journo’s and book writers do. I’d much rather have listened to dueling accounts of what happened and why between Col HR McMaster and Col Hammes or Gen Keating than listen to Ricks deride the strategy of the Gen casey tenure as ‘war tourism’.

One of the best, if painful, elements to this was the documentation of Rumsfeld’s role in ‘energetic interrogation’ implementation. They did this one well, if somewhat melodramatic. They laid they case, they showed the documents, they didn’t trot out someone un-named source. This was straight up reporting.

Worth watching. Gollum can’t give a number of ‘yes my preciousssssessss’ or anything like that on this. It is too complex for that kind of treatment. I’d watch it again. I want to watch it again. But that doesn’t mean I liked it or agreed with much of it. I know, it’s PBS, but it is worth the time.
--ry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I think Stephen Den Beste's summary of why we went to war in Iraq is one of the best I've seen so far:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

by fdcol63 on March 26, 2008 7:39 AM

I also watched the Frontline piece and it is worth the time. In the theory that you have to pan a lot of dirt to find a nugget this piece should be one of a number of sources. But yes, it was more like a docudrama then a true documentory.

by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 8:48 AM

why did we go to war in Iraq? Because I said so.

by kat-missouri on March 26, 2008 9:39 AM

Ryan, The bottom-line is this, I agree with "Kat-Missouri". It really comes down to this- Because, Grumpy said so." But it is equally true, NONE of us have the facts! Everything has been intentionally blurred. Therefore, we have a whole series of different docudramas, this would include the whole military-veteran blog world, including this one. I am not saying you are liars or are trying to deceive anybody. You are dealing with perceptions. Even the people who are there only see a microcosm of the whole real picture. Many could accurately say this whole blog world is nothing more than a glorified op-ed piece. In the final view, these men will answer to the old "Hag" herself, her name is History. There will be a day when all of this will hang out in the open for all to see, totally and factually, with no spin.

by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

You think there's no spin in History?

by Trias on March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

For a fascinating read on the subject, I would highly encourage everyone to read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War.

I found it to be a thorough study on the rat's nest that was/is Iraq.

by Boquisucio on March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

Historians tell only the unvarnished, verifiable, uninfluenced truth, Trias!

Don't undermine my confidence!

by John of Argghhh! on March 26, 2008 2:07 PM

No. this war will be spun so badly in history, no one will know what's real or not, not even if they put it "all out there". Our grandchildren will look back and think we were crazy, uber-hubris near nazis that over responded to the death of a tiny number of our citizens by giving our oil hungry and imperial government the go ahead to trample on some poor nation that we had alternately wanted to blow to pieces and annex to our country for over a decade for its oil wealth under the guise of getting the people who attacked us on 9/11.

Which will also have deep caveats about the probability that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the government in order to start the war in the first place.

I want to write McMillan and demand that, under the Iraq war, when they are explaining why we went to war, they should put my picture and the words "I said so." Someone should take the responsibility and stop dumping it all on the administration like some horrifically bloody scape goat.

Helllloooo???? I hope they write in those books how the Iraq war started out with 70% support. Of course, if they do, they will write that American citizens believed Saddam ordered 9/11.

History was already written in the newspapers. You just have to marvel at the bizarre parallel universe we live in. I can't decided which of us actually went down the rabbit hole.

Saddam will be a martyr to imperial dreams.

by kat-missouri on March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

As we start going down the path of history, "She" will reveal all of the truth. Kat, you are right, people will try to spin it. The old saying many years ago was, "When politicians die, they don't bury them, they just screw them into the ground." The question becomes, "Is it a right handed thread or a left handed thread?" But as we grow older, we see things differently. There was another old saying, "He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it, repeat it and repeat it over again until you learn." D.O.D. made a policy change to disregard history, military and other types. In truth, this is like disregarding the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is the most arrogant moronic move a human can make.

by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 4:07 PM

Somebody said "History is written by the winners" I guess nobody cares what the loosers think. At least there will be more sources for historians when this chapter is written and not just the front page of the NYT. Well...if they can make sure the Sandy Bergers of the world ain't stuffing history down the front of their pants.

I try to read different accounts so I can determine what was to have supposed to maybe happen. My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.

And..to get this off my chest...if it was just for oil...Canada and Mexico are next door and Chavez sits just around the corner. With what we have in country; we use very little from the middle east.

Don't go starting anything while I'm fishing in the Bahamas. I need to get back here. I promised my grand children to be out for trout season.

by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 5:03 PM

My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.

Nope, we sure weren't. For the most part, we refused to stand and fight unless we had an advantage in position or numbers and we had our sharpshooters target the officers *on purpose*, which was the height of Bad Sportsmanship in EuroWarfare back in the day.

We're *good* at guerrilla and counter-guerrilla warfare, whenever our doctrine doesn't get in the way...

by BillT on March 27, 2008 5:59 AM

BTW, my branch of the family had combatants on both sides during that scrap, so we usually refer to it as "Our First Civil War"...

by BillT on March 27, 2008 6:14 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Mar 26, 2008

March 24, 2008

Making the News

I don't where I've heard it, but somebody once said polls are done by media outlets in order to make the news rather than report it. In other words, they use a poll as a way to report on a topic they want to write about, but in which significant news is not being made. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more obvious case than this:

The AP-mtvU survey found that overall, eight in 10 college students say they feel stress, including four in 10 who say it affects them often. The most often mentioned causes include school, money and relationships. [formatting added]

Headline? "College Students Stressed by War." The paragraph quoted above was the only one out of 27 that didn't address the war. They even managed to include the death toll, number of individual deployments and troops deployed, as well as the number of wounded. My curiosity was piqued, so I went and found the methodology and questions. Out of 21 pages of questions, only four pages covered politics or the war, including opinion questions about PTSD, and veterans' medical care. Note, these questions were being asked of random college students, not veterans or military family members (though there was overlap between the two groups, of course). The other 17 pages of questions addressed the kinds of things you'd expect to be part of a survey about college stress: leisure time, classes, relationships, spring break, drinking, etc.

But of course, the reporter (AP itself?) wasn't really interested in the biggest factors of college stress or how students cope with it. The poll was merely a pivot for a pre-conceived story. Silly me, I always thought newsmakers were people journalists reported on. Turns out "newsmakers" actually work in newsrooms...

UPDATE: Professional journalists ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife?". The descriptor "rabid partisans" seems to apply more and more. On days like this, I start fantasizing about GEN Honore as WH Press Secretary.

by FbL on Mar 24, 2008

March 4, 2008

Speaking of Prince Harry and Matt Drudge...

I got chastised in the comments of my "Dear Matt Drudge" post, by a long time reader and emailer who pretty much thought I was gonzo stupid for writing the post. Rather harshly spanked, really. I admit I was surprised at the heat and the source.

Really disappointed with this post & comments. As I told the Vodka Pundit:
"Bored/Upset with Matt?
http://www.thenewsrightnow.com/index.php?view=sources

However, Matt takes what should be public knowledge, see Lewinsky, and really makes it public.
After all, where would drug addled/sex addicted icon JFK be were Drudge around during his Presidency? Not to mention attempted Castro assasination brother RFK?

As far as Prince Harry is concerned, I’m certain the Taliban, on reading Drudge, immediately attacked all British forces in Afghanistan in order to kill the Prince!

I’m really disappointed when blogs I’ve read and supported for lo these many years, seem to lose all semblence(sp?)of rationallity and common sense."

I left my response in the comments, you can tootle down there to read them.

Hey - we welcome the alternative views! The reason I reprise this is because of this comment within the comment:

As far as Prince Harry is concerned, I’m certain the Taliban, on reading Drudge, immediately attacked all British forces in Afghanistan in order to kill the Prince!

Funny you should mention that, Mike.

From The Australian:

Chilling reminders March 03, 2008 Prince Harry is a hero among thousands
No sooner had news broken of Prince Harry's 10-week service in Afghanistan, than an al-Qa'ida website was calling on jihadists to behead the third in line to the throne and send the video to his grandmother, the Queen. This is yet another sobering reminder of the evil mentality of Islamic extremists and of why the war on terror cannot be relaxed.

Emphasis mine.

The Defense rests.

H/t, JimC, the harsher of my mellow.

Update: Prince Harry's thoughts on the matter?

PRINCE Harry vented his fury at being forced home from Afghanistan, telling a squaddie: “I’m ****ing p*ssed off.”

His outburst came on the flight home after ten weeks on the frontline fighting the Taliban. But the prince insisted: “I’m no hero”—as he paid tribute to two wounded comrades on his flight.

I'd have a care if you go clubbing in London, Matt. You might find yourself face-to-face with a peeved Royal.

Update II: I see that there is agreement with my position over at Small Wars Journal, especially with my opening position from last week. H/t, Jim C.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

i concur with the Armorer and Murray's comments on previous post.

OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC.

NO personal identities should be attached to down range ops, and even more particularly the identities of High Value Targets.

by MajMike on March 4, 2008 7:39 AM

To me the equivalent is the same as SOCOM or Pilots

You never list the names of bomber pilots in active missions.

You never list SOCOM operatives by name

Just because he's a Prince we have carte blanche to wave his name, unit and location?

Thats painting a target on the rest of his units back as every Tom Dick and Mauhmad think's he can be the one to a bullet in the Prince.

by BloodSpite on March 4, 2008 7:52 AM

Sorry. I agree with the Armorer as well. The need to know must be weighed against the need to protect. We weren't talking about some secret government program that endangered the people of the nation or had drastic national defense issues. We're talking about protecting a single man's identity while his life is still in danger.

We extend that courtesy to witnesses and victims, juvenile offenders, as well as POWs and their families in order to protect them as long as we can.

that is the case here. The good in exposing the information is outweighed by the danger to an individual and should have been evaluated as such.

by kat-missouri on March 4, 2008 9:03 AM

Agreed with your original assessment, and still do. Drudge really screwed the pooch with this one.
It has come out that he wasn't the first- I mean, yeah, he's popular, but not so much as to get that kind of information on his own- but it was his site that got the attention of the bad guys. I think I heard it was an Australian paper who first released it, but Drudge picked up and ran with it, garnering fame of the bad kind.

by AFSister on March 4, 2008 12:35 PM

A German paper ran a speculative story that noted Prince Harry's absence from the media, and wondered if he might not be in Iraq.

Then the Aussie magazine ran a story (and they have since taken a lot of guff over that), so clearly the information was leaking out, and I wonder if the MoD had considered the aspect of the Prince dropping out of the news and the impact that would have on people who make their livings being nosy?

The Aussie magazine said that if they had known there was an embargo, they would have respected it - which shows another aspect of the problem from the MoD's perspective. I assume they were able to embargo the info in the Brit press because, not least anyway, of the Official Secrets Act, which gives the Brit government an enormous amount of leverage over their press that we wouldn't tolerate.

I'm guessing it doesn't extend to Commonwealth news outlets.

I still think that Drudge's editorial judgement was bad on this story.

I also think Matt doesn't give a flip what I think.

S'okay.

by John of Argghhh! on March 4, 2008 1:30 PM

Yanno, I had a snark all ready. While we all applaud Harry doing his duty, I would have preferred to read about it after his deployment.

by Cricket on March 4, 2008 1:55 PM

I also think Matt doesn't give a flip what I think.

Yup. He never does...

by AFSister on March 4, 2008 6:44 PM

The Aussie rag a tabloid called New Idea ran details first. I guess we can call them No Idea now. Now i'm visualising Osama frantically reading all the tabloids to get the latest goss on Harry. I hope he doesn't miss the latest fashion cos man he needs work.

I'm with the Armourer on this one. I can understand the point made by Mike and it has some validity but this really is about OPSEC. This Drudge and indeed other mags could well have gotten this boy killed and stirred other problems. Lewinsky and JFK don't get OPSEC protection for their cases. The only gun Lewinsky was holding was Presidential.

Oh granted i'm not actually as OPSEC absolute as ppl like the Armourer. I have not had to bother with the experience of it although i can understand it through the context of research confidentiality. It's not my job I don't know all the rules and i have nothing to personally or professionally loose. But think about it what are the costs of revealing versus the benefits? The number of events important enough to break OPSEC as a rare as hen's teeth. Remember too we're often talking only about a delay in info. Harry's activities (presumably no more or less heroic than others in his unit) would be fine released after he's safely tucked in bed back in Windsor Hotel. Mai Lai maybe would have been worth it. Events in Dafur too.

No John we really aren't a colony anymore. In fact China and the US have more influence now than them. I suspect the Brits didn't tell the mags and papers to shut up here. Probably because if they did some upstart would have done it anyway. So there they are damned if they do damned if they don't. Resting on Media's honour is a really unwise thing to do but Harry had not a lot of choice.

by Trias on March 4, 2008 9:20 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Mar 04, 2008

What the FARC?

[Kat]

The newest news on Colombia and Venezuela is that, shocker, Venezuela (Chavez) has been bank rolling FARC to the tune of 300 million.

Venezuela hits back and claims to have info that Colombia's National Police Chief has been dealing cocaine on a large scale. Of course, that has to be extremely ironic considering the number of criminals in Chavez's government and their drug connections. And, the fact that they are bank rolling FARC Narco terrorists.

Columbia breaks out the sledgehammer and claims that FARC sold uranium on the black market. Maybe they mean Chavez was selling it because certain Venezuelan anti-Chavez folks have claimed that Chavez is making deals with Iran for yellow cake under the guise of joint agri-machinery factories.

From the media, though, is the typical ambivalence and quasi @$$ kissing:

The rebels, who have been fighting for more than four decades for a more equitable distribution of wealth in Colombia, fund themselves largely through the cocaine trade, while holding hundreds of kidnapped hostages for ransom and political ends. The drug trafficking and kidnappings haven't helped their reputation, which is why both Correa and Chavez have denied supporting them.

"Fighting for...more equitable distribution of wealth." If that doesn't make you go "What the FARC?" nothing will.

The FARC hasn't been about "more equitable distribution of wealth" in an extremely long time. In fact, it has a ton of wealth from drug cartels that it uses to enrich its leaders (why else did Reyes join them in the first place?) and pay for their private army that is largely used to kidnap, rob, raise and sell narcotics. The absolute horror of narco-farms and plants, the conditions of the enslaved peasants, while the fat cats at the head of FARC walk around with Rolexes cannot be overstated.

You really have to ask how any journalist could write that with a straight face.

Yeah. What the FARC?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Mar 04, 2008

December 11, 2007

When OS analyst shops attack

Ack. I hate doing this. I like OS shops. I really do. Not to mention that it’s about the only way I’m going to do “God’s Work” instead of simply being an egghead sitting behind a computer at home. But it needs to be done. This is an example of why OS shops get derided so much. 99% hyperbole and 1% facts may work for things like daily fish wrap and bird cage liners, but not for defense analysis.

The rather ‘disaster movie’-esque nature of the first article is what does it. Blowing threats up into Godzilla sized proportions never really does anyone any good. And doing so on the say so of the Iranian Defense Ministry, the same people who say putting an F-18 like tail assembly on an F-5 makes it the most deadly aircraft *ever*, is just wrong. Iran has had Kilo class SSK for over five years, along with ASCM of one type or another, so this is *not* a new threat. More like an old one with an extra wrinkle, and that wrinkle blown out of proportion.
((more below the fold))
--ry

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

‘Iran increases sub range to attack Israel and US.’ Yeah, an SSK(conventional power attack submarine, not a ‘boomer’ or ballistic missile submarine) firing a cruise missile is bad juju. 450kg sounds like a lot, particularly to those who don’t know that 1kg=2.2 pounds, but it’s only the equivalent of a 1000lb bomb. Again, bad juju, but not anything like the throw weight of a ballistic missile. It will blow the snot (Snot? Yeah, real nice technical term there, ry.) out of whatever building it hits or severely damage any USN asset that has its point defense systems defeated, but it isn’t all that different than what was already faced. 300km sounds far, but as 5km=3.2 (approximately) statute miles(don’t know what it comes to in nautical) you’re looking at a distance almost half of that from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Draw a circle on a map with a radius of about 190 miles. That’s the range of the cruise missile in question. That’s how close the sub would have to get to hit Tel Aviv or any US assets. So you might as well draw a circle of 190 mile radius centered on Tel Aviv on a map too. That’s where the sub would have to be to fire on Israeli territory. That circle basically leaves only the Red Sea in the vicinity of Medina or closer. Unless said Kilo rounds the Horn of Africa into the Atlantic to enter the Med, and then, well, hello SOSUS, the British Royal Navy, and the USN. Better to stick to the Arabian area.

There’s mention of the Kilo being a ‘Black Hole’ with the implication that she’d be a witch to track until it is well into firing range. True, SSK can be eerily quiet on battery(shudder). But a Kilo is going to have to snorkel to attain the range listed by Debka, and 400nm at 3kt from any port in Iran is well short of the 190 mile radius on your map. Snorkling is way loud. Running diesel generators is the equivalent of a Metallica concert in the realm of submarine stealth---not that I claim to know from personal experience mind you, but I have 'friends'. A Kilo isn’t going to transit all the way into a firing position on battery power, and if rumor be true on the ChiCom having an AIP edition of the Kilo it’s doubtful that they simply handed it over to Iran. She’s coming up for a blow. That doesn’t mean she’ll be found but it does mean there’s a chance, especially since there’s a nice, defined, area in which to look simplify matters (where the Gulf of Aden meets the Red Sea, defile even.). She’s findable well before she reaches a firing position if you’re nervous about it. A US sub tasked to find her will when she comes up for a blow while transiting to the Red Sea, if one is so tasked specifically.

But, they could put a nuclear warhead on it, ry you idiot! They might, if they had one. If they could make one small enough to meet the 1000lb requirement they might (where’s Jeffery Lewis the Arms Control Wonk when you need him?). If they had a tested warhead that they knew would work instead of simply landing in Israel like a lead weight they might. All publicly available data I’ve seen says they don’t, and that the Chinese don’t have it to sell to them either (ballistic missile warhead tech on the other hand…). They’ve not conducted a test of the warhead—why do I feel like I’m arguing about DPRK’s supposed nuc missile arsenal again?--- while they may have tested the alterations to the vehicle to hold such a warhead.

They could abuse the right of navigation laws to operate their sub in the Persian Gulf and IO until they reached some waypoint from which they could saunter on into a firing position around Medina in the Red Sea. Aye, they could. But they’d have to snorkel a few times while doing so, and thereby give away where they are and a basic course. In other words, a big red flag to watch the iron witch closely and react decisively when something untoward is done (such as hearing the witch flood tubes in preparation to fire or come up to launch depth because there’s a fairly well defined, by a weapon by weapon basis, depth below which the ASCM cannot be deployed).

It’s bad juju. No doubt. It’s a reason to invest in ASW(anti-sub warfare) assets like the P-3 (or its successor, or another bird from another country) and submarines capable of operating out there themselves to find said Kilo(if you’re Israel, which only has a limited capacity for this. The US already has both and in numbers to protect Med targets and deployed task forces.).

But it isn’t a reason to panic, which the Debka piece is basically begging people to do. We rightly get called clowns—or worse---- for it when we OS guys do that ‘the sky is falling’ thing overmuch. Particularly when this threat has existed for as long as Iran has owned Kilo class SSK with any kind of CM that can be modified for land attack missions, which in this case is since the mid-90s. Stick to the facts. Don’t ‘chew the steak’ for your client or audience. Don’t turn everything Iran does into Godzilla swimming into Tokyo Bay. It doesn’t do us any good.
--ry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Wow all those words condense into "Don’t turn everything Iran does into Godzilla swimming into Tokyo Bay"

In many ways i feel like Israel is more a favourite punching bag than a legitimate target. A way to deflect the ire of citizens at home. Not that I'm saying they wouldn't like to attack it.

From my layman pov disrupting the shipping of Israel would be a good way to go if i wanted to harm it. The whole nuke and missile thing sounds too expensive or too limited. I just don't feel those subs cut the mustard regardless of the way they go from what you say and the specs. Those turds in power are always talking up capability for political reasons.

Remember too Israel weathered a literal rain of missiles recently. I doubt Iran could do enough to really make a lot of impact that way.

by Trias on December 11, 2007 7:23 AM

It would be one more terror and a prelude to a more significant attack if Iran put a missile from a sub on Israel.

I guess I'm saying you're treating it as if it was singularly about the subs. Or about Israel. Everyone always assumes this is about Israel, but there are other targets I would be equally concerned about and other capabilities.

NOt that I place much treasure on a Debka report. Just saying.

by kat-missouri on December 11, 2007 12:24 PM

It's not DEBKA, it's the reporting on Iran in general. Few people actually look at the Iranian kit to see what it's capable of. Then they regurgitate the text of the Iranian press release. Some analysts have been studying the various aspects of the Iranian military, but few are sourced for info. Basically, the Iranian military is about as good as the Iraqi military in 1991.

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on December 11, 2007 2:05 PM

That's my assessment, too, CAPT H. With perhaps slightly better maintenance in some key elements, and less so in others, despite their trolling of DRMO auctions for airplane parts.

by John of Argghhh! on December 11, 2007 3:18 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Dec 11, 2007

December 8, 2007

Accountability Demo, Marine Style (Semper Fi Mea Culpa)...

This appeared on 30 November.

This appeared on 7 December.

One week.

Mr. Foer could profit (morally, if not financially) by this example, methinks.

Alas, getting gob-smacked by the principle (and my favorite, van Helsing-like) fabulist hunter probably contributed to the decision.

by Dusty on Dec 08, 2007

October 13, 2007

H&I Fires 13 OCT 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

*********************************

There's a reason why the headlines trumpet GEN Sanchez' criticism of management of the war in Iraq, and it's probably not what you think: the rest of what Sanchez said had an entirely different--and very uncomfortable--target. UPDATE: My thoughts. - FbL

*********************************

Iran is having it's own problems with warfighting... -the Armorer

********************************

Speaking of "It's Nice To Be Read" -- well, John's speaking about it -- or *will* be speaking about it, depending on whether you start from the top and work your way down or vice versa:

We're still in the Top 40!

And Lex -- ummmm -- is covering our six.

Meanwhile, NinjaFluff sends this for those of you who haven't had breakfast yet and are curious about why being hypoglycemic affects your mental state: "The 10 impossible things Liberals believe before breakfast." Heh -- dude, you visit some interesting places... --Bill

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Happy Birthday to the United States Navy! The CNO's birthday message to the Fleet (& me) is here, the MCPON's birthday message to the Fleet (& me) is here...........Maggie
****************************************************

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

When you consider anything Sanchez says, you have to remember to take it with a grain of salt- this is the man in charge during Abu Ghraib, who lost a star and any chance of furthering- or even continuing- his military career as a result of the Abu Ghriab fallout.
Bitter is the word that comes to mind.

by AFSister on October 13, 2007 8:25 AM

Technically he didn't *lose* that star. He just never got it.

And Karpinski, who did lose her star, didn't officially lose it for Abu Ghraib, but for failing to mention her shoplifting arrest on her GO vetting paperwork. (That story is pretty complex, and there's no doubt that Abu Ghraib is what caused someone to examine her paperwork closely), but she *should* have lost her star for Abu Ghraib.

And Sanchez should have been retired on the spot, not allowed to take V Corps back to Germany and hang around like he did. But I'm mean that way.

by John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 8:38 AM

I would tend to agree with both of you on Sanchez in general. But the point of the Powerline post, and indeed the thrust of Sanchez' words, is that the press jumps to conclusions and does poor reporting and fact-checking. Forget who is speaking and just read the words - he is right. And how ironic that they prove his very point by titling the piece as if he thrashed the administration rather than them! It is to laugh.

by Barb on October 13, 2007 10:04 AM

And I meant to limit my agreement to his thrashing of the press, as I did not yet read the second half of the speech.

by Barb on October 13, 2007 10:07 AM

Barb makes the mistake of assuming because I commented, I read the link!

This is a blog, I'm a blogger! I don't have to do that!

Actually, I'm saving my thoughts on Sanchez for tomorrow - FuzzyB just beat me to the linkage. I was just making clear Sanchez didn't lose a star, he didn't get the star everyone expected him to.

But I'm guessing no one at DoD or the White House wanted the circus the Senate Confirmation of a 4th star for Sanchez would have been.

by John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 10:21 AM

It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing.

The problem, of course, is that most flag officers just love the power and the prestige and aren't willing to jeopardize their position until well after their retirement is locked in and the book is being written.

If you want to see what happens to a fine officer who had the balls to very publicly disagree with his Commander in Chief look up the biography of Major General John K. Singlaub. If you want someone to admire, or better yet, to emulate, then Jack Singlaub is a shining example of an officer who did his duty as he saw it regardless of the consequences.

by Marine6 on October 13, 2007 10:33 AM

I'm going to don my Triple C cap here, and cut GEN Sanchez some slack.

Most of us weren't party to the meetings where the Iraq War Plan was hashed out. We don't know if he raised objections back then and was then a good soldier in not going to the press or Congress the way MacArthur did. Not everyone involved in Op Overlord and its aftermath liked it or agreed in how it was implemented----it's just that those arguments have largely been forgotten and ignored--- nor have those on the ground always agreed with the political leadership's decisions(from WW1 to the Gulf War). .

So I'm going to cut Sanchez some slack. Unless someone can come forward with the minutes of those planning sessions to show Sanchez sat on his hands I'd say lay off a bit. I really don't like the ad hominem like charges that he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that.

by ry on October 13, 2007 10:57 AM

...he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that.

If you're in command, you get the credit for what goes right and the blame for what goes wrong, regardless of your contribution (or involvement) in either situation. That's why he got that big Flag-grade dust before he hung up the star suit and why he gets the big retirement check now, ry.

KtLW blames me for everything that's gone wrong in the immediate galactic neighborhood since Adam gave Eve the apple -- or the quince, depending on your knowledge of Mesopotamian flora -- and I don't even get the consolation of calling a press conference...

by BillT on October 13, 2007 11:58 AM

Exactly. Where was all this courageous truth-to-powering when it might have made a difference?

*crickets chirping*

No, he saves the carping for when it will hurt someone else who is trying to do the same job he was.

by Cassandra on October 13, 2007 12:06 PM

Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him? For all time anything he says is inherently suspect? I'm not talking about blame or accolades, but whether or not he should be believed simply because Abu Ghraib occurred. That seems very ad-hominem to me. It is saying democrats can't be trusted, HRC is a democrat, ergo she cannot be trusted kind of thing. He gets all the accolades and all the blame, what does that have to do with the veracity of what he says now? So Patton was unbelievable because he slapped a couple of soldiers? Really, that's the tack you seem to be taking here. Something bad happened under him so he's totally un-credible. So because KtLW says it's your fault I shouldn't believe you when you tell me how to cut down trees then? That, in essence, is what you're saying, Unka Bill.

It's not like he's David Brock, an admitted liar trying to pass himself off now as a truth teller.

And had he spoken out publicly in the past? Come on, you know he'd have been crucified by us for thinking he was MacArthur, the American Ceaser who could change American policy by being 'God's Gift to the Army'--which necessitated his firing to save the Republic. Can't have your cake and eat it too is what I'm saying. You can't have civilian control of the military, banning officers from speaking publicly since that amounts to them telling the civies what to do(forbidden! Run Will Robinson! Danger! DAnger!), and then blast a guy for not speaking out publicly while he was in uniform. That's an unfair position. That's like saying, "Sit here and let me lock up your arms so I can beat you with a stick no matter what you do." (Please note: I don't agree with Sanchez.)

The knock that it's taken him a bit long since he went on the 'fade away' is not what I'm arguing against, but that he spoke out at all. UNless there's minutes of the meetings I think you all need to cut the guy some slack. Kill his arguments instead of hurling the trivet at his head. (Ow! Who knew Cassie was that accurate from out on the Eastern Seaboard? That's gonna leave a mark. At least she didn't tweak my ears.)

by ry on October 13, 2007 1:26 PM

And Sgt. B seems to be doing recon work by being ahead.

by ry on October 13, 2007 1:50 PM

Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him?

Heh. Read the first paragraph again.

Then read the second one again.

There are people who won't believe him just because AG happened on his watch, there are people who won't believe him because he was in Bush's Army and there are people who won't believe him because he doesn't have an Irish surname.

Democrats won't believe him because poor Iraqi terr suspects being held in an Iraqi prison in the middle of Iraq were denied their red-white-and-blue Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Republicans won't believe him because they figure the idea of putting somebody's Froot o' the Looms on a detainee's head had to have come from higher than E-5 level.

All of which means, "It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not, because the crux of the matter is that he's made a bit of political hay and waited until he was essentially untouchable before he did it."

And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...

by BillT on October 13, 2007 2:50 PM

True. He didn't technically lose a star.. but I'm willing to bet that if he hadn't been caught up in Abu Ghraib he would have 4 now instead of 3.

by AFSister on October 13, 2007 2:51 PM

*Shakes head*

AFSis... iddn't dat whut I sayd?

by John of Argghhh! on October 13, 2007 4:41 PM

OK, if you are too lazy (like me) to read Sanchez....you can listen on CSpan.

Sanchez starts speaking 8 minutes in. For 10 solid minutes he rips the press. Then he turns to the management of the conflict in Iraq for 12 minutes. Then he took questions for 25 minutes. Then they gave him a little present "The Day of Battle" by Rick Atkinson book about WWII.

by Maggie on October 13, 2007 7:41 PM

Yes, John, I know you did. I was just making the point that I also knew that, just didn't lay it all out in my first comment.
Mama may have raised a fool... but I'm no idjit.

by AFSister on October 13, 2007 8:39 PM

And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...

Tiz true, Unka Bill did do this. Somehow while out teaching people how to fly heloflopters at night he had time to instruct on how to do yard work. Though I still wound up with a half dozen nicks and cuts, learning the trade with a real empty tool shed dontchaknow. The three ______ _____ were a pain in the butt to get rid of, particularly since Mom passed on the copper nail trick. Digging out root balls is not fun.

by ry on October 14, 2007 12:33 AM

Chief, yer a living national treasure, as they say in Japan, and ought to be subsidised. Yup, I vote for 1% of my pay in my next job to be sent right to you, and have my social security "contribution" have that deducted from it.

by Justthisguy on October 14, 2007 11:31 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Denizens on Oct 13, 2007 | TrackBack (0)

September 3, 2007

I suspect Rove was involved...

W is too mature to delight in a tormentor's misfortunes.

I'm not. Bada-BING!

Heh.

Instapilot

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Dusty on Sep 03, 2007

August 25, 2007

A Dissertation Upon the Differences Between the MSM and The MSM

Well, between the MSM over here and the MSM back home, anyway.

Today's below-the-fold headline from The Nation:

250 militants, 60 troops killed in one month

End of dissertation.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by CW4BillT on Aug 25, 2007 | TrackBack (0)

July 26, 2007

Pity Private Beauchamp, he's just misunderstood and defamed.

"Scott Thomas" steps out of the shadows as Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Private Beauchamp has stepped into the light, because, well, his, urm, character has been questioned.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

According to AKO, he is assigned to the A Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, Vanguards, of the 1st Division of Foot, Schweinfurt, Germany. First fact check holds up! I suspect Private Beauchamp is also now the subject of LTC Glazer and CSM Choudri's personal attention. He seemingly blogs. Be interesting to see how that all goes - and I'm sure that it will go carefully, so as to not have any "i" undotted, nor "t" uncrossed.

That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question....

Imagine that. Private Beauchamp feels maligned and slandered by all the negative attention brought to his writing.

Um, well, yes, we have called into question your character - and your characterizations of your experiences have, shall we say, a certain fabulist, Eve Fairbanks-ish cast to them.

However, regarding character - by your own petard are you hoist, my son.

“I think she’s f*****g hot!” I blurted out.
“What?” said my friend, half-smiling.

“Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .”

“You’re crazy, man!” my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.

“In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles.”

My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground.

The only person who laid targeting tics on your buffoonish butt is... yourself.

Grow up, boy. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame - and I'm sure Senator Kerry can find a place for you on his staff after your enlistment is up.

Update: Baldilocks apologizes. Very specifically, however.. I don't think I've got anything to apologize for - I called him fabulist, and stick by it. And I'm guessing, if he's been in as long as he seems to have been, and is a E2... well, he may not be that great a soldier, discipline-wise, either.

But he's there - he's put his butt on the line. I have to give him that. And he's stepped forward. I just hope he doesn't live down to Kerry-esque expectations.

Of course, he may be an E1 before this is all over. Which will just add to his street-cred when he writes the next "Platoon."

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

You know, one of the things that really strains credibility for me-the bit he did about the Bradley driver who liked to run over stuff. Everyone keyed on the running over the dogs, but he also mentioned running over/into/through other stuff-market stalls (somehow, I don't see taking Brads into a crowded market at all, but I'm not over there), buildings, cars, etc.

We've been in Iraq for 4 years. The Iraqis figured out long ago that Uncle Sam pays lots of money when our troops damage people's stuff. They know how to read bumper numbers on vehicles. If a Brad were destroying stuff like that, the owners would be beating down the gates of the FOB to get paid, and that would have been noticed by the chain of command.

Since the chain of command knew nothing about anything like that, I'd say Private B is making sh*t up.

by Heartless Libertarian on July 26, 2007 10:58 AM

I read parts of his Germany blog. One has to wonder what on earth convinced this young cynic to join the military and leave home.

On the up side, he was certainly no barracks hermit, hiding on post and lamenting that it's not America. On the down side, making cynical sport of everything, including German food, beverages (the heathen), women, and culture, is a sad way to go through life...not to mention might indicate a lament that he's not in America.

Kind of pitiful, really.

by MAJ Arkay on July 26, 2007 11:01 AM

There is always 10%.

by jim b on July 26, 2007 11:05 AM

Private? As in, "E-2"?

First thought: If he'd actually served in Iraq, he'd have *at least* advanced to PFC, especially in an Infantry outfit.

Second thought: Perhaps he *had* gone to Iraq as a PFC -- or higher -- and his present rank is a result of his commander's application of the UCMJ.

Third thought: Perhaps his present rank is indeed the rank he was wearing when he arrived at his unit. Which could mean that he hasn't been anywhere except stateside and Germany.

'Nother third thought: Doesn't graduation from AIT result in a promotion of at least one grade?

Curiouser and curiouser...

by BillT on July 26, 2007 11:06 AM

This story is moving VERY fast on a variety of Milblogs and Friends of Milblogs.

BillT, you nailed it. By his own blog entry last Fall he was a PFC. According to someone with access to AKO, he's now a PV2.

And MAJ Arkay, by his own blog posts he enlisted as fodder for his future writing career. At one point before deployment he says, "I return from Iraq a writer."

Michelle Malkin has a great round-up of milbloggers on this subject.

by FbL on July 26, 2007 11:12 AM

Heh. And we didn't make it. Our transition to completely non-stream milblog is complete.

by John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2007 11:15 AM

Our transition to completely non-stream milblog is complete.

A non-stream would be a Puddle, right?

I blame AFSis' sending you that pic of a werewolf's toenail clippers. At least we haven't lost any credibility, but I've been working on that...

by BillT on July 26, 2007 12:03 PM

If he indeed actually said that, what I find interesting is that no one fragged his sorry butt right there and then.

He's safer in Iraq than he is here.

However, being objective about it, this is truly interesting that someone that badly disfigured and still in pain would not be in a treatment facility.

by Cricket on July 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Yep. I agree because I said the same thing because I think this guy was going around as "soldiernolongeriniraq" and talking about people impugning "scott's" character to which I replied, "what character? He is either a liar or a dirt bag".

Guess he wasn't to busy to try to defend his character in comments. LOL

by kat-missouri on July 26, 2007 12:25 PM

PS...I think the emphasis should be on "CREATIVE" in these "creative non-fiction" courses. LOL

I always love that phrase because it kind of goes with the "fake but accurate" defense. LOL

by kat-missouri on July 26, 2007 12:28 PM

BillT, I think you are correct. His rank and his bloviations point to a whiny snot nosed punk who
thinks he is indispensable...ala Hawkeye and Trapper John, or a pilot. He is NOT indispensable.

by Cricket on July 26, 2007 12:29 PM

I think he is full of carp on the disfigurement. I imagine that, if this person was there (I say IF, because nobody on camp falcon seems to remember her but Scotto) she probably wasn't nearly as damaged as he says.

Though, I did think of helicopter pilots and marine MiTTs I've seen in photos who wear a tan jumpsuit as opposed to your basic DCU. In which case, he could only hope to be those folks and probably the reason he was being so oblivious to what the uniform is. He didn't want to tell anyone he was dissing his betters.

Still, I think he is full of carp.

by kat-missouri on July 26, 2007 1:26 PM

Being a male soldier, and having been deployed (although only to the Balkans), I'll join the chorus of those who doubt the badly burned female story.

When you're deployed, at 90% or more of the people around you (at least, the American people) are male, you become very aware of ALL of the American females in your AO. (I know when I was in Albania, viewing LTG Hendrick's hot female aide de camp would make your day if not your week). So if she was actually stationed on the FOB, folks would know about her. If she was visiting from another FOB, her arrival would have benn also noted, because a) she's female and b) she's burned. Again, nobody seems to have noticed or remember her.

by Heartless Libertarian on July 26, 2007 1:37 PM

Hotair also has a good round-up and thought-provoking analysis on this.

by FbL on July 26, 2007 1:53 PM

Ha! Are you dopes still saying he's not really in Iraq?

by Paul on July 26, 2007 1:55 PM

Paul. Nope. We're just saying he's a punk and a fabulist.

Read the whole post before hitting "post" on your comments, please.

by John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2007 2:09 PM

Well...I just got through reading that Mr. Beauchamp was at the University of Missouri in columbia creative writing program (go figure LOL) and that he is engaged to be married to one Elizabeth Reeves, a researcher for TNR. LOL

who apparently joined the army so he could get "experience" to embellish his already carppy writing abilities. All of his old posts from pre-deployment and school have the same writing technique and include some made up stories about warfare.

This guy is a plant and I can't believe he made it through boot camp and being stationed over seas. His goal to become an "experienced" writer must have been really powerful to make him put up with stuff he thought he was above. Of course, it explains why he was busted before. Probably because he doesn't give a carp about advancing and figures it's all about his writing, not being part of the army, protecting his team, or doing anything good with his life.

by kat-missouri on July 26, 2007 2:28 PM

Like I said - he wants to be his generation's Oliver Stone. Too bad he didn't shoot for his generation's Jim Webb, or Leon Uris, instead.

by John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2007 2:46 PM

Ha! Are you dopes still saying he's not really in Iraq?

According to his blog and his current military address, Paul, no, he is not really in Iraq. He may have really gone to Iraq, but now he is really in Germany. Really.

...a whiny snot nosed punk who thinks he is indispensable...ala Hawkeye and Trapper John, or a pilot.

Okay, I'll cop to being a (sometimes) whiney punk, but I keep my nose squeaky clean -- that's why flight suits have long sleeves.

[waiting for the fallout from purposely mis-parsing sentence for a cheap laugh]

And as long as Scotts-O is in Germany, perhaps he can work on being adopted into a family of more literary accomplishment than the Beauchamps -- the Münchhausens...

by BillT on July 26, 2007 3:58 PM

Ha! Are you dopes still saying he's not really in Iraq?

No, were are not.

What we are saying is that just because he is/was in Iraq doesn't close the big gaping holes in his story you could drive a Mack truck through.

See, for example, what Baldilocks does not apologize for.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on July 26, 2007 4:44 PM

I have no idea how your rank systems works but in a Commonwealth army this guy would be a Dickhead 1st Class AKA Walter Mitty and in desperate need of vist to the back of the barracks.

by Murray on July 26, 2007 5:09 PM

" ... Doesn't graduation from AIT result in a promotion of at least one grade? ... "

It didn't in 1982! LOL I didn't make E-2 until about 3-4 months after getting to Germany. Oh, some could blame MY sorry a$$ for that, I suppose .... but I like to blame the battalion S-1. LOL

by fdcol63 on July 26, 2007 7:17 PM

Heh. And yer Battalion Adj *credits* your 1SG.

Plllpppptttt!

by John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2007 8:14 PM

Bill T,

You beat me to the punch in answering Paul, ty.

Kat, so he is engaged to Elizabeth Reeves (er, Elspeth Reeve maybe)?

Yet another Fairbanksing connection?

Back in December '06, the lovely Ms. Reeve wrote an article on "her reseach" of DC rental housing and the political biases that the landlords/overlords imposed on their prospects. Amazingly, Eve Fairbanks, also of TNR, had just written a piece about herself and her roomate trying to find a new place in DC and the biases involved. They read like they were different stories from the same notes, except the Fairbanksed story sounded more like someone took the requirements from "W4M" and merged them with properties for rent.

TNR never fails to entertain.

by Guy Montag on July 26, 2007 8:18 PM

The only way you can discipline a really good pilot is to ground him...but since he/she is that good, you can't ground him/her. Same with a top flight needed MOS...so you cause just enough trouble to not lose your mind but also not hurt anyone else in the process. He has no character, he is not indispensable and were it up to me, he would be getting a combination of a bad conduct discharge, some jail time (for lying while on duty. I don't care what the freakin' charge is, make it stick) and some form of a scarlet letter mea culpa for the rest of his miserable life.

And that is below the belt that he is from Columbia, MO. A decent college and town.

by Cricket on July 26, 2007 9:16 PM

Where I graduated high school and college, and my father and sister live...

Argghhh!, so to speak.

by John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2007 9:28 PM

So he exists. Be interesting to see where things head from here in the realm of official military practice. I think Kat might have the whole motive thing going. If she's right the army must be desperate if they keep a bullshit artist (Münchhausen was cooler alright) like him aboard.

Even if he didn't do the whole disfigured women event he wrote about it like he wanted to. An ambitious scumbag with no skill. What's the bet he ends up writing for the NYT?

by Trias on July 26, 2007 11:28 PM

Sorry...Elspeth is it. The whole thing was a bad writing trip made up of his fake experiences. It is almost sad if it weren't so funny.

I mean, on top of that, I think some guy (Scott?) was going around trying to defend his character and saying all sorts of stuff happens. Really? You mean we don't that folks in the military sometimes act like clowns or juvenile delinquents while the teacher's back is turned? Here I thought they were all Angels. ;)

Honestly, besides the details he gets wrong, the whole issue was how it read. Like a bad frat party on too many kegs and some crank. Like a bad book or movie. Had to go from one screwed thing to another in order to keep the pace moving and make sure the characters were all built up to anachronistic unfeeling Neanderthals. that way when you got to the really atrocious stuff it would be the pinnacle of shocking or he'd hit you with something really tragic so you could see that odd twist of fate that the unfeeling got paid back or whatever the usual literary twist is at the end.

It was just bad and copied people's poems and other writing, regurgitated his own fantasies from pre-Iraq days into something close to reality using new found experiences and then TNR posted it like it was the truth.

NOw..that was really sad. How many times can you get duped by your own people before you figure out that your journalistic practices are in the garbage can?

by kat-missouri on July 26, 2007 11:39 PM

Ok, I'll play the clueless civilian straight man again: what's with the E-2, PFC, PV2 ranks?

...Ok, Google Is Your Friend. So is E-3 (PFC) the normal minimal rank for soldiers out of basic, yes? So who usually gets E-1 and E-2?

by Casey Tompkins on July 26, 2007 11:46 PM

Even better....BadBrad (a jag officer) found a myspace friend who was serving with our great Scotto and it turns out, yes, he is a scumbag. From hotair BadBrad on July 26, 2007 at 11:23 PM:

as for private beauchamp him self. he just received his 2 article 15 for going awol for three weeks up at BIAP after he returned from R&R. not a model soldier despite that i have considered him a friend up untill now.

The rest of the comment was very interesting, too, including the closing from Pvt B's once pal:

I won’t have him wanting to mke things sound more intersting over here to make more people want read his writing reflect me in a negative light!

From this I imagine that this fellow is rightly concerned he is about to be dragged under the tracks of the Bradley with Pvt B.

by kat-missouri on July 27, 2007 12:01 AM

Speaking of R&R, there is a consulting firm by that name in DC that would love this guy. They make up sound bites for a certain political party.

by Guy Montag on July 27, 2007 4:50 AM

People who've been out of Basic for 3-6 months who are E1s and E2s are soldiers who have "issues."

Whether those issues are apptitude/performance based or attitude/performance based.

by John of Argghhh! on July 27, 2007 6:22 AM

He's not in Iraq anymore...if he was even there in the first place. He's in Germany. I would say all three. He has a contract to fulfill. Do we hear 'shamming?'

by Cricket on July 27, 2007 12:54 PM

Oh, to veer a bit; Baldilocks's Dad and Obama's Dad were buddies back in Kenya, according to Steve Sailer. (And Baldilocks, I believe.)

I'd rather have Baldilocks for President.

by Justthisguy on July 27, 2007 2:13 PM

My full take on this is here. Thanks for all of the people who looked at this before me.

Perhaps it is just me, but I see much more of a Faribanksing situation here than it appeared before.

When TNR has an editor who can transform "How not to steal a cellphone" from the New York Times into "Big shame in a small world" at the Examiner (turning cell phone thieves and their thuggish relatives into victims), obscure the source and get it past their editors then you really are investing in a new Stephen Glass.

Side note: Elspeth Reeve might have bragging rights in the TNR offices as the only woman there married to a Soldier who made Private Second Class twice*!

*My father made Corporal in the US Army at least twice, IIRC, in just 2 years of Active Duty.

by Guy Montag on July 28, 2007 6:08 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jul 26, 2007

Trias inspires me...

Trias' comment on the screed by Lew Rockwell columnist Robert Higgs was an excellent piece of reductio ad absurdum.

So, me being myself, I just couldn't stand for the reductio part, and had to inflate it a bit.

But it's rather longish, so I stuck it below the fold, in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Every bullet is Sacred!

So, c'mon - come to where... Ev'ry bullet is Sacred!

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Jul 26, 2007

July 23, 2007

The New Republic and "Scott Thomas."

I've not been ignoring this story, though, admittedly, I've been busy.

Besides, others, with better sources and more time, have covered it already. We'll get to them in a moment.

The real horror here is how the media and the medium shape the perception. Just as Oliver Stone's movie, "Platoon" and Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" defined what many people perceived as the experience (and values) of all soldiers in Vietnam, where everything bad that ever happened happens to a single platoon in two hours, so, too, the writings of "Scott Thomas" have the potential to be the next "Winter Soldiers" type of generational smear, where (if we accept them at face value) the scattered incidents of bizarre behavior morph into the face of a generation of soldiers in the popular imagination.

I don't think that's as likely to happen here - the media, thanks to the Internet is much more varied and diverse, and there are many many voices out there pointing out how things are different from those portrayals.

But the "Scott Thomas" stuff reads like the fevered imaginings of someone who really really really wants it to be true, because it fits the filter they want to see the world through.

But there are things throughout the "Scott Thomas" stuff that fall like lead weights on my experience... but others have covered those:

Like the Democracy Project on the "Chasing Dogs with Bradleys" assertion.

Cassandra, at Villainous Company, runs with the Winter Soldier Redux meme - and I gotta tell ya, the whole "melted face" thing just rings so false in my ear from how I've seen soldiers treat fellow soldiers with horrific wounds. And I've spent time amongst wounded soldiers, both as a kid, when I spent a week on an amputee ward at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Denver, and later through my military career.

I've heard carp like that (or read about it in aviator memoirs of WWII pilots who were hideously burned) from... *civilians* with no experience of war, but never a soldier. Not saying it can't happen, or hasn't happened - just that it isn't very likely to happen. And the perpetrator is likely to find themselves a casualty of "barracks justice" in the form of a blanket party or worse.

Then there's the New Republic itself.

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee, with his "Two questions for the New Republic."

My contribution to this is simple. I went to my bookshelf. The 30 linear feet or so of reference material I have on firearms and ammunition.

And tried to figure out "square-backed" 9mm ammunition - and how that related to Glock pistols. Because that's who "Scott Thomas" decided that a massacre scene he happened upon had to have been perpetrated by Iraqi police. "Square-backed" 9mm shell-casings that are unique to Glock pistols, which, according to "Thomas," only the Iraqi police carry.

I know of two total types of ammo in which the word "square" could be applied (leaving aside "square weight" as used for separate loading artillery ammunition).

The Puckle Gun, an early flintlock attempt at a Gatling-style mechanical machine gun, which proposed round bullets for use against Christian troops and square bullets for use against the Ottoman Turks. No casings here, just bullets.

The second is the experimental Heckler and Koch G11 Advanced Combat Rifle, which used a revolutionary (and ultimately unsuccessful) caseless round which was... square in cross-section - but, being caseless, didn't eject a... casing, square-backed or otherwise.

People are still working on the concept - though the tendency is to go for round casings - oddly enough, square caseless rounds, because they have corners, have a tendency to get damaged along the corner edges. See a 2005 brief on DoD caseless ammo efforts here.

There are lots of reasons, ease of loading and handling, as well as the physics of barrels and chambers, that bullets and their casings are... round, vice square, except for the exotics like the G11.

So, perhaps "Thomas" meant a different feature.

Primers? Nope. No square primers. Makes assembling the cartridge a pain.

Perhaps the rim and extractor groove? The SAAMI-standard 9mm round (for which Glock chambers it's barrels and designs its extractors) has an extractor groove which is square to the base, but has a slope from the edge of the casing body to the bottom of the extractor groove.

Such as these examples at Cartridge Collectors. None of my references anywhere - and I've got current books on all the ammo being made in the world today and most of the obsolete ammo - show anything that might be construed as "square-backed" ammo.

That leaves headstamp markings. There are some headstamps that incorporate a square. But one wouldn't naturally refer to those as "square-backed" - at least not anyone I've ever talked to, like a soldier, who has a passing familiarity with ammunition.

Just sayin'.

Update: The subject continues in the comments - worth reading.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

As Murtha's Haditha "massacre" looks more and more like a Jenin event, it's not surprising that journalists like Scott Thomas scramble to create yet another bogus American "atrocity" fantasy to push their agenda.

We can expect more extreme examples of this as The Surge continues to succeed, and anti-war Leftists become more desperate as their political focus on "failure" and "defeat" is jeopardized.

by fdcol63 on July 23, 2007 8:51 AM

John, Do you know about the Royal Navy's aborted volley gun of the late 18th century early 19th century vintage. It was seven half-inch barrels arrayed so that one flintlock spark discharged all of them simultaneously. The weapon was supposed to fired from the rigging to clear the enemy deck. The kick was so great that most men were not big enough to handle it and some were pushed out of the rigging by the kick. So only about 600 were made and they never caught on. It is probably more famous for being Sergeant Patrick Harper's weapon in the Sharpe series of novels by Bernard Cornwell. They are superb historical fiction.

by JimC on July 23, 2007 9:09 AM

I agree with fdcol.
Don Henley said it best in the 80's with the song Dirty laundry.

Crap sells. And if you can't find crap, then make up crap. War is not just a chance for hero's to rise from the trenches to slay the enemy in glory, but it's also a chance for the vermin to profit upon their names, for Pultizers and other awards for writing things that never happened, or twisting the way it was.

But then, looking at our modern education systems...we can't really ask where it is they learned to do that at.....

by BloodSpite on July 23, 2007 9:09 AM

being generous here in attempting to decipher the meandering "thoughts" of Thomas, but it might be possible that he is referring to the back of a round having a "squared off" profile, vice "boat tail".

other than that, i gots nuthin...

by MajMike on July 23, 2007 9:41 AM

That would be Nock's Volley Gun, I believe, Jim.

And since you bring up Patrick Harper...

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 9:47 AM

http://www.southessex.co.uk/weapons/nock.htm
http://www.johnsloughoflondon.co.uk/AntSite/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TnCKB8PuiM

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on July 23, 2007 9:59 AM

MajMike - Master Thomas was referring to casings, not bullets - and all standard pistol-caliber bullets are like that, not just 9mm.

Here's Bob Owen's bit that focuses on that issue. Thomas clearly states "casing."

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 10:01 AM

Well, I do have a thought on "Square-backed" rounds from a Glock- Glocks have a rectangular "firing pin" (actually a striker) indentation. If you had vaguely heard about that and weren't actually familiar with firearms, you might morph "square firing pin indentation" into "squared-back" inside your mind while you were creating your fabrications.....

by Karl Kugel on July 23, 2007 10:14 AM

Karl brings up the last thing I was going to check, having only fired a Glock once, and not taken one apart - mainly because I don't like 'em very much.

And that could well be the source of the characterization - though for an alleged combat Infantryman, it's odd terminology.

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 10:18 AM

Here's a website that discusses the Glock firing pin dent (which you have to scroll down a bit for).

If we accept Karl's thesis - which is certainly plausible - my scepticism remains unassuaged, as the terminology used in the "Thomas" article sounds more like someone whose heard stuff from other people, but doesn't truly understand himself, and then writes about it - just those sorts of things that gripe us soldiers and historians when we watch movies and read novels.

In other words, absent better proof from TNR, I still think "Thomas" while he may be an extant individual, is writing a composite story - see my example of "Platoon" - and TNR is letting it stand as "normal" for in-theater behavior.

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 10:27 AM

I cheated- I thought I remembered that and went to the collection to look- and sure enough. I don't like em either, or really any double action only design. Especially since every 3rd or 4th spent shell bounces off my forehead with mine...

by Karl on July 23, 2007 10:33 AM

Must be that Large Cranium getting in the way...

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 10:37 AM

Ho ho. It's just temporarily swelled by FINALLY knowing something about firearms that you didn't... I will treasure this moment forever. Heh heh heh.

by Karl on July 23, 2007 10:50 AM

Snerk! Nowhere near as hard to stump me on New Stuff.

If it ain't 50 or so years old or older, I ain't interested in it.

Right SWWBO?

[Ooooo - double-entendre!]

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 11:08 AM

... As John hijacks his own thread ;-)

by Barb on July 23, 2007 11:47 AM

We may be very close to identifying "Scott Thomas" as someone who actually IS a soldier in Iraq. An officer from FOB Falcon has written a letter to Blue Star Chronicles, saying there are threads of truth to Thomas' writings (i.e. the "mass grave" was actually a cememtary).

by FbL on July 23, 2007 11:51 AM

...which would make the Winter Soldier or simple fabulist angle more likely.

But would at least take some of the stink off of TNR.

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 1:04 PM

JD Johannes over at Outside the Wire said the same thing. Some parts are true but sounds like everything else someone has taken "literary license" with. In which case, I don't think it takes the stink off of anything.

Still, what I was really hoping was that it was total BS because this guy probably has just got himself, his buds and his command in some hot water considering the things that he admits to and, even if not true, still gets them in trouble for coloring outside the lines so to speak.

by kat-missouri on July 23, 2007 1:15 PM

Kat - by "some of the stink" I mean TNR may have done some pro-forma fact-checking, and not gone too deeply, simply because the story confirms what they want to think anyway - vice deliberately and consciously putting forth a fabrication.

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 1:19 PM

The author of this story is a bad apple. He is trying to get attention by telling wild stories. He too will be identified and removed from the service.
Respectfully,

U.S. Army Officer

as I was saying...

by kat-missouri on July 23, 2007 1:25 PM

and following up...Mr. Thomas (Hunter Thomas wannabe? anybody else pick up on that interesting coincidence?) has opened up a can of worms that he is probably ill prepared to handle:

4. I immediately notified MAJ Lamb of MND-B PAO, who advised me to send him the link and pertinent information on the New Republic's blog posts, which I did. He informed me of his intent to engage the CENTCOM blog team to see if they could take action, and at the very least, make them aware of the situation.
5. I contacted the only unit in our brigade that has Bradleys, 1-18 IN, and advised their XO of the situation, recommending that they talk to their Soldiers about Army values and the Warrior ethos, reminding them of the rules for blogging in uniform and also reminding them of integrity and telling the truth. The bottom line: If you put something out there you should be willing to put your name next to it and stand by it. That he and New Rpublic are insisting on anonymity is very telling here.

Small Wars journal

by kat-missouri on July 23, 2007 3:29 PM

Who needs cubical bullets, now that we can cause lithium deuteride to become instantaneously incandescent? I'm kinda sorta thinking about entertaining the notion that the problem with large parts of the Middle East is their bad mineral proportions; that is, too much petroleum and not enough trinitite.

Hey, sometimes the Alexandrine solution may be the best one. I might think differently later, but like Skippy, I am *so* tired of those A-rabs. All the ones in Iraq have to do is pretend to play nice until we say, "that's nice!" and leave, and then get back to unhindered killin'.

They don't seem to have enough patience for that.

by Justthisguy on July 23, 2007 4:14 PM

Sounds like this 'Scott Thomas' is engaging in a load of "Fairbanksing" (easy term to google), a style that is becoming popular at The New Republic.

I wonder if Eve Fairbanks, Assistant Editor at TNR, 'edits' his work? Perhaps she actually writes it?

by Guy Montag on July 23, 2007 6:42 PM

Does anyone remember a bit of whimsy from back in the black powder days, an advertisement for a gun that shot round bullets for Christians and square bullets for infidels?

I seem to remember seeing this on the back cover of an old copy of American Rifleman.

by thornharp on July 23, 2007 6:43 PM

Sounds like this 'Scott Thomas' is engaging in a load of "Fairbanksing" (easy term to google), a style that is becoming popular at The New Republic.

I wonder if Eve Fairbanks, Assistant Editor at TNR, 'edits' his work? Perhaps she actually writes it?

by Guy Montag on July 23, 2007 6:43 PM

Thorn - that *was* the Puckle gun!

by John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2007 7:24 PM

Leave it to the Armorer to be all over the ammo angle :)

by Cassandra on July 23, 2007 7:26 PM

Now I know that mr. T peed in y'all's wheaties, but is that any reason to use the facts?
You vicious meanies, how DARE you look up the TRUTH?!?!?! Dont you know you are supposed to shaddup and take this lying down?
Yeah right. Not that the military blogs have EVER shied away from a good fight, but you so totally rock.

You could almost be Molly Weasley.

*sniff*

by Cricket on July 23, 2007 7:52 PM

I don't understand why he is interesting. It sounds like a cheap money spinner to me.

by Trias on July 24, 2007 1:51 PM

I read this story to my father last night. Bless him, he is 87 years old and when I got to the part about the BFV running over the dog, he just
about became unglued, simply because for a tank (yes I know it's a Bradley but it is still armored and tracked) to just break the convoy simply wasn't done. He said the SOP would be for the convoy commander/leader (I am not sure about
what they are called) to dress down the crew for endangering the mission.

Dad is WWII era, so uh, some things don't change.
He did say that if Mr. T did indeed exist and the unit found out who it was...he sort of chuckled evilly and let it go at that.

by Cricket on July 24, 2007 7:07 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jul 23, 2007

June 28, 2007

Why I don't watch TV news.

Michael Medved's opening paragraph today...

The sad case of pregnant, murdered Jessie Davis and her married lover (and alleged killer) Bobbie Cutts threatens to dominate cable news for months to come – especially now that Paris Hilton’s out of jail and the justice system has established the paternity of Anna Nicole’s baby.

...especially now that Paris Hilton’s out of jail and the justice system has established the paternity of Anna Nicole’s baby.

And the fact that those stories lead, nay, *dominate* the news is *our* fault - meaning consumers, and I suppose, in a sense, it's a death spiral of sorts. As more and more of us abandon the TV news because it just gets more and more tabloid... the people who *do* still watch it are increasingly of the type who want... tabloid news. Local news has always been bad in KC, but now it's simply a joke. If you live here, and take your sense of community from the news - then you're living in a war zone, complete with kidnappings and murders all the time, with a tornado looming outside your door anytime there's a thunderstorm.

And heaven forbid if it's a cute white chick who's kidnapped. That will push the gangbangers (who are far more dangerous than the lone murderous loon) off the tube so we can worry about the pretty white girl in breathless tones.

And, sadly, there *are* a few neighborhoods in KC where that just might be true, where the 'bangers are warring amongst themselves and the innocents are caught in the crossfire. But that's *not* where most of us live.

Absolutely *not the fault* of the victims and their families - I don't mean to imply that at all, and I don't fault the families for using every means at their disposal to try and get their kids back.

This is a more general commentary on the producers and remaining consumers of the product.

I don't have an answer to it, I'm just venting.

But I do wish more newsies would do what Mika Brzezinski did on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show.

Be embarassed by what the producers put in front of them.

Check it out.

H/t, Toluca Nole

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I remember growing up at various Air Force bases and three channels of TV were the norm. When my Dad got stationed in DC as I recall the Washington Post listed 7 or 8 channels, of which you could probably get 5 on a good day. I remember them signing off at midnight or 1:00 am and coming back on around 6:00am. I wasn't a big TV watcher but I remember Combat, I Love Lucy, Andy of Mayberry, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Victory at Sea, Twirley Birds, Ripcord, Bonanza, Red Skelton, Ed Sullivan, Walter Cronkite and the Huntley-Brinkley Report. Not to mention Popeye, Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner.

So now we've got 200 channels and a big screen TV, and I watch local news until they get to the fluff stories - I don't even bother with the Networks anymore, and TV entertainment comes more from the History Channel and Discovery. I don't have any answers either, aside from just turning the drivel off, which is what I do. I think I'm due to read Bernard Fall's "Hell in a Very Small Place" again anyway. A much better use of my time...

by Pogue on June 28, 2007 8:58 AM

Hey .... did they ever find out who killed Chandra Levy?

My vote is still on Condit.

by fdcol63 on June 28, 2007 9:19 AM

Actually, SWWBO and I are considering forgoing TV altogether out at the New Castle.

For the cost of Satellite TV, satellite/broadband internet, and phone service, we can actually get very close to the monthly charge on a T1 line.

SWWBO has already checked into the availability.

The few shows that SWWBO likes are available via internet streaming.

And weather wouldn't be a factor. The phone usually still works after a power outage, too - and we have battery back-up UPS systems that will power our computers for over an hour...

Keeping up the blog over dial-up or at the extreme edge of a broadband connection promises to be frustrating.

Over a T1, however...

by John of Argghhh! on June 28, 2007 9:40 AM

That's a pretty good solution. Do you have to buy your own termination or does the provider supply it? I've gone for years at a time without even owning a TV and didn't miss it.

by Pogue on June 28, 2007 10:04 AM

Let me know sir, and I may be able to save you a few hundred bucks if you do the T1 idea ;)

Mainly because I can install the T1's card system at your house and run the Cat 5 as well.

I've been debating the same idea as of late.

by BloodSpite on June 28, 2007 1:38 PM

I have not watched the TV “news” for over 3 years. I do not think I missed anything.

I do read the blogs constantly.

by Ledger on June 29, 2007 3:41 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jun 28, 2007

May 30, 2007

Bill Arkin responds to the milbloggers.

In his bit today - Mr. Arkin responds to our criticism of his Baseball and the Military post.

Hey, he responded. It's a conversation, and so far it's not gotten too bad. He responded to Blackfive, Op-For, Badgers Forward.

He noted me directly, and followed with his summation paragraph.

One Milblogger, Argghhh!!!, seems to agree that there needs to be more accountability at the top: "Mr. Arkin - there aren't too many milblog spaces out there who call for *more* Flag Officer and Senior Leader scalps and heads on pikes than Castle Argghhh!." But he goes on to say that only he and the other MilBloggers have the adequate access and perspective to criticize: "The difference, sir, between you and I, is that I actually have some experience on the inside behind my call for summary executions."
I guess I'll continue in my naïve hope that a free press, not a fan base, is our best hope for encouraging impartial and well-rounded criticism. As for only team owners and players commenting on the team and hoping to be the only sources of information? I would prefer that all Americans saw themselves as team owners: that was the point of my column.

I left this comment at Arkin's place:

Heh. Fair enough criticism of my response to you, sir.

And admittedly poor writing on my part, in that I failed to convey my point adequately.

I didn't mean to set it the way you took it, in that *only* I am qualified - I meant it more in the terms that you set regarding criticism of the MSM, in that many in the mainstream sniff at us bloggers because we don't have the training and qualifications of a mainstreamer - so too I *meant* to say, I've got my subject matter expertise, too, and would suggest that in some respects I am therefore *more* qualified than you - but that doesn't make you unqualified.

And were you a regular reader you'd find I support and criticize the MSM. I know my limitations - as I said in my piece:

"No, Bill, at least here at the Castle, we're about providing context the MSM doesn't, explaining things they get wrong, and telling the stories they don't want/have the space or time to tell. I'm not anti-media, really. It's a symbiotic relationship. I'd have far less to write about if the MSM didn't exist - I know the limitations of my news-gathering abilities. But I also know my value-added, which is why some of your guys talk to me... to get that context, some back-story, some explanation beyond what the PAO provides."

We're looking in a mirror, Mr. Arkin - you criticize me for the same flaws I criticize you.

I would suggest we're both right.

Don't get me started on obscene amenities... 8^ )

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Heh. Does anyone besides us actually *read* Mr. Arkin's blog?

Oh, I know, most people don't click through on links, especially ones like mine, buried deep in the post.

But I find it amusing that I've gotten more visits from Andrew Sullivan's blog, from the trackback caused by Ry's linkage to Sullivan's torture post in today's H&I Fires post, than have shown up from Arkin's space.

But maybe I should be happy about that, eh?

by John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2007 2:13 PM

Two things: 1) I can't blog from work anymore. Totally caught off from everything but news and work related sites. blogspot or any other dot coms don't work. 2) sometimes, mr. arkin just makes me want to hurl things at the computer screen so I have to make myself read him.

there is this third thing. I got a notice from soldiers' angels that Rosie O'donnell donated to our organization recently (post her comments that seemed to imply the soldiers' were "terrorists" or at least, inflicting terror on the Iraqi people). I am having problems figuring out how to write about it. Mainly because the paradox simply boggles the mind, but also because I don't think private donations (indulgences) for public stupidity really erases the sin.

On the otherhand, I want people to donate to Soldiers' Angels and support our troops, no matter their politics. Our troops deserve everything and all the support they can get.

Now, the question is, how do I write about it without inflicting pain to on anyone including my own principles? Or, do I swallow it down and just write about it without any qualifiers?

Uuggh!

by kat-missouri on May 30, 2007 8:25 PM

John, go back and read Arkin's comments section. He gets read. Not sure how widely but he does get read. And sorry about the Sullican thing. not typical for my reading list. Didn't anticipate those two from today, particularly how I phrased it (things I might not have been right about), causing the bruhaha that they did. Sheesh. When did I morph into the OD clone? I'm getting real unpopular with vocal parts of the readership again.

Kat. I wouldn't write about it. Let it be. Unless you think somehow highlighting the donation would help get an untapped demographic I'd simply let the topic of O'Donnel be. NO point rilling yourself up and inviting trolls to come say nasty stuff about you on your blog as a bonus for it. Let her generosity, such as it is, go. Got your back either way, but I'd let it go since the value out is not real high compared to the effort in.

If you feel compelled to write about it, why do you think your own principles are compromised by accepting her gift? It's her hypocrasy and not yours. All you're doing is fighting for Troops. You aren't offering absolution or anything. If she's claiming it it wasn't because you guys offered it. Money is money. If a drug lord gave you cash I'd expect you to use it, and not speak up for him at trial. It doesn't negate the prior act---you guys aren't in the absolution business.

She did a good thing, to try and make up for a bad thing. Don't let guerilla PR work. Simply having her name linked to donating to SA is a PR bonus for her. Let it go unless you absolutely have to write about it.

by ry on May 31, 2007 12:32 AM

Ry, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, and a discussion of 'netizen behavior.

There's a growing anecdotal body of knowledge that indicates that if you "excerpt" from someone's post you're linking to - usually with the intent of it being a teaser to get someone to click the link, that in fact, you get fewer click-throughs than if you just link without excerpting.

That is certainly borne out, albeit unscientifically, with Arkin's post yesterday.

6 visits from his post. 48 or so from a buried trackback at Sullivan's place. It's just... interesting.

by John of Argghhh! on May 31, 2007 6:16 AM

Link her name and do nothing more. Sometimes the least said is the easiest mended. I think in Ms. O'Donnell's case, it would go down easier
to just not make a big deal about it. If people see her name, then yeah, they see it and move on with their lives.

by Cricket on May 31, 2007 6:30 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on May 30, 2007

May 29, 2007

Heh. As usual, Bill Arkin gets it almost right.

...and thus proves the point. Bill sez:

As I see it, beyond the social networking and communications functions, the Milblogs have set themselves up as an anti-news media squad. The conference included many discussions of the deficiencies of mainstream press coverage of Iraq. In fact, some people actually believe that, with the availability of worldwide news on the Web and the emergence of military blogs, the Pentagon press corps and even the mainstream news media is obsolete.

Heh - yeah, I ran one of those panels, and let an MSM'er have his say, and Noah certainly didn't go over well with some. But he had some good points, too.

No, Bill, at least here at the Castle, we're about providing context the MSM doesn't, explaining things they get wrong, and telling the stories they don't want/have the space or time to tell. I'm not anti-media, really. It's a symbiotic relationship. I'd have far less to write about if the MSM didn't exist - I know the limitations of my news-gathering abilities. But I also know my value-added, which is why some of your guys talk to me... to get that context, some back-story, some explanation beyond what the PAO provides.

Which is *another* reason, aside from OPSEC, that the Brass has a love-hate relationship with the milblogs - and unlike people like you, wrapped in the star-spangled banner of the 1st Amendment, many milbloggers ply their craft under restrictions you would find intolerable.

Bill goes on (and dons his White Hat):

I've often thought if we could cover the military like sports, with transparency and intimate knowledge and a play-by-play that was both affectionate and unsparingly critical, we'd have a healthier debate. Interest and knowledge on the part of the typical American in foreign affairs and national security would actually increase.
But alas, it is the military, and whether it is the death of Pat Tillman or a war plan, the impulse of the institution is strategic defense. Secrecy, of course, is always justified on OPSEC grounds.

In war as opposed to baseball, an attitude that has become more and more pronounced during the Iraq war is that the team -- the U.S. military and the American soldier in particular -- can't be criticized. There is no room to call someone to task -- not even a general -- for his managing, fielding or batting errors, no matter how egregious. Not only are the details held quite closely as to who is responsible, but to actually hold the team itself accountable is to be disloyal to the big team, the country.

That is why a vigilant and independent news media is needed more than ever.

Heh. Bill does *not* read the Castle. I'm guessing at best he reads Matt, over at Blackfive, and then only now and again, cursorily.

Mr. Arkin - there aren't too many milblog spaces out there who call for *more* Flag Officer and Senior Leader scalps and heads on pikes than Castle Argghhh!. The difference, sir, between you and I, is that I actually have some experience on the inside behind my call for summary executions.

This space does not often criticize individual junior troops. Nor does it criticize the soldiery in general. We do, however, criticize policies and actions. And when individual soldiers do Bad Things, this space says let the system work it's way through the process. Castle Argghhh! did *not* leap to the defense of the Pendleton 8, for example. We excoriated people over Abu Ghraib, while at the same time demanding a sense of proportion in the outraged reaction to it.

We were not kind to Colonel Karpinski, yet we were not really satisfied that LTG Sanchez got to keep his job, either.

You read us shallowly, and I suspect narrowly. Just as you accuse us of doing.

And many of us, though *not* this space, report the war from a far more intimate place than you do. Indeed, if only war reporting *were* this easy...

Other milbloggers returning fire at Arkin:

Op-For
Blackfive
Uncle Jimbo
Mrs. Greyhawk
Chapomatic

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on May 29, 2007

April 30, 2007

Having recieved a Boot to the head.(A response to John’s response in the H&I*)

PSA note to parents who read here at the Castle: it may be cheaper to buy from the big box store, but you’re not as likely to get an honest answer about the content from the clerk. It might be worth the extra 20% you might pay, 12 bucks or so, to get honest answers from the niche store clerk about content. Just like the explicit lyrics label the ESRB rating, when not covered by the price tag, doesn’t tell you near enough about what you’re buying. Ask around before you buy. Come here and ask if you’ve got nowhere else to go or nobody else you trust on it. Some of us Denizens are big juvenile delinquents who still watch cartoons, read comic books, and play video games. Some T rated games you’ll be utterly comfy with and others will cause you to break out the Crucifix and garlic.

Mostly I was just yankin’ your chain, Armorer. The Ferret hissing at The Bear and getting reminded why hissing at the Bear isn’t that smart a recreation. But there is a little more to it than that.

All true, well mostly. The target demo is skewing higher, like comic books. This is a Mature (M) rated game---so it’s audience isn’t 12-20 but 18-35. Maybe I’m still in the wrong with you since you’ve got Prodigal Son and PS’s Best Bud in mind, and, no, I didn’t link to the game as you’d just reach over the Internets and choke me, that’s to what the ESRB says about what an M game is. The same people interested in buying Pl@yB0y and other adult things are the target audience of the game and the party in question. And yet, this outrage is over goats and b00bies(PG-17 spelling), something maybe not that far removed from the toga party that inspired the toga party in the classic ‘Animal House’, and not nearly as bad as the lewd costumes and behaviour one can run into at anime or gaming conventions or even in rather pedestrian anime.
(more after the jump)
--ry

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Exceptionally indulgent, artsy fartsy, and connected 20 somethings--- who the party was really for--- don’t need video games to do things this crass and stupid(P@ris H7lton for instance). If it shifts away from the game launch parties it’ll wind up somewhere else, as it always has. That other launch parties I’ve heard of, third hand I assure you as I’m not kewlpeople, are just as bad but nothing is heard of about them because no outrage industry group’s offended strikes me as hypocrisy. And this is just one big game launch party where someone noticed the dead goat but not the tens of other launch parties that’re just as troublesome from a moral living aspect.

A dead goat? Is that what it takes for people to pay attention to game content and what happens at parties? The outrage industry that is PETA working up to full honk is when we get all bent out of shape about marketing parties(where, as one recent party had game execs firing everything from glocks to sniper rifles in the Nevada desert while taking drinks served by bikini clad beauties, likely because the Outrage Industry didn't make noise about it.) and game content? That seems like a non-sequitor and uncritical thinking to gollum, but gollum is often wrong on matters social, not to mention plain odd. It just strikes me as the same faux outrage as that we experience over Imus. Sure it’s offensive. Sure it’s annoying and tempting of children to misbehave, as misbehaving is seen as kewl. But worthy of the level of scorn heaped on it? Ich kenne nicht.

This is sooo a niche activity and audience. We’re only talking about it because PETA and other animal rights wet blankets got upset. Not because any one really notices how whacked out these parties are whether it be for club openings, album or game launches; or the content in many of the games. Nobody even noticed the guns, booze, and bimbos extravaganza that was the industry introduction to the Marcinko title. Nobody said much at all about the launch party of $0.50’s launch of his atrocious, Thug Life glorifying game or the game itself(largely because it sold like piece o' crap it was). That’s annoying. Yes, we, the small number of gamers are to be the fall of Civilization as we know it. All because some marketing joker who’s likely never picked up a controller, but attended lots of parties for the rich and famous, decided to be fashionably outrageous and included t0pl3ss womins and a dead goat we will be ones who left The West open to the Scimitar. How horrible we are. We’re worse than NAMBLA.

I guess you could say my pique is that we’re kowtowing to the outrage industry. That’s never a good thing. Sure, they’re proll’y right this time. Maybe, since I think we’ve all gone to parties of one type or another that are racier than dead goats, offal, and b00bies since we broke the hallowed age 18 barrier---it’s an M rated game after all, the same as an R rated movie. But that just means they’ll feel better about throwing paint at someone, or trying to close down my local Kentucky Fried and the local to you Australian Outback sometime in the future (the wastards).

Yeah, it’s a bit much, a bit indulgent, and a bit done in bad taste even for a theme party based on the game---about a guy trying to kill Greek gods for the cruelty they show in tricking him into slaying his own family. But it is intended for the same aged audience as Pl@yb0y, slasher flicks, and racy beer commercials---not kiddies or even HS kids. If it does get parents to actually pay attention a bit more and, to look just beyond the ESRB rating when they buy for their kid then it’s a good thing. But pissed over a dead goat and b00bies, small potatoes, at a launch party is a bit of the hypocrisy I loath so much. I don’t agree with it, I’m not one for enjoying fashionably outrageous stuff in the first place (the game that spawned the party in particular, or art for that matter), and a sign of the industry getting way out there(as was the extravagance of the now cancelled E3)? Sure. But artists are always this weird and barely tolerable. I get annoyed when we jump in time to the tune called by the outrage industry instead of being smart about how we get annoyed at the gaming industry and its practices.

There’s worse stuff out there too. The game itself is a bit more troubling to this gamer than the party, particularly how many kids wind up playing the dang thing. The game is a blood orgy. This game is horrendously, gratuitously bloody and violent enterprise. The Wife is in love with an M rated series that deals with occult subjects that drive me from the room. The GTA series, while groundbreaking in open-ended story telling, is a macabre celebration of being sociopathic---but the people criticizing that are scolds, donchaknow, while protesting a dead goat is a fine moral stance (the cool celebrities who are part of PETA said so.). The content of much of the more recent games is much more bothersome to me than the avant garde party for the small number of ‘cool people’ that actually got invited---which I wouldn’t be surprised wasn’t much of a gamer crowd but a partier crowd staffed with celebutaunts and ‘artists’.

So, yeah, I hear ‘ya Boss(and a lot of other parents). It isn’t what you raise your kids to aspire to. But if you want to really see the problem of the industry rifle through someone’s game (or DVD) collection, and pay less attention to the party. It’s the right reaction….to the wrong target. –ry
(ry can be reached at Ultimatewhinner at aol dot com for questions about videogame content. I only check that one about once a week so be a little patient, please.)

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Denizens on Apr 30, 2007

Chimpy McBushitler's Black-Clad Ninja Building Burners Strike Again!

This just in - for only the SECOND TIME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, steel has melted even though it wasn't contained in a crucible in a blast furnace.

The first time, as we all know, was when Chimpy McBushitler, in order to have the REICHSTAG FIRE he needed to ADVANCE HIS PLAN to create a STRAW MAN FOREIGN ENEMY to UNITE THE SHEEPLE to advance his agenda to make the United States an illiberal CHRISTO-FASCIST STATE suitable for making war on peaceful Islamists tending their poppy fields in Afghanistan and to avenge the planned attempt on his father's life by Saddam Hussein so he sent in the Ninja Building Burners to bring down the World Trade Center, because, as we all know, it's impossible to melt steel except in a Bessemer Converter! It can't be done with only a PETROLEUM FUELED FIRE! Can't!

Rosie sez so!

Therefore, because I know that celebrities are smarter than the rest of us, if this happened:

(04-29) 18:03 PDT OAKLAND -- Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

Rosie sez it can't happen just because, but can only happen as part of a carefully planned demolition, therefore the Ninja Building-Burners are back!

Kinda sad, though, that the McBushitler Administration is so diminished in power and stature that they could only collapse a bridge. He's like a homeless person, dressed in a tatty mis-matched three-piece suit pushing his shopping cart of state down to sleep under the bridge. Ooops! No bridge for you, George! He really *has* lost his mojo.

I think Osama had a Secret Service agent steal it when Bush was in the Sekrit Place being re-programmed by the Aliens who are really controlled by the Trilateral Commission (and the Skull and Bones Star Court) which, as we all know, is really a front organization for the Masonic Plot to take over the UN and rule the Multiverse!

Just sayin'. Because, well, y'know, celebrities are smarter than us little people.

And since I'm a minor celebrity (in my own mind at least) that means I'm smarter than you, so better just agree with me.

Or I'll pout. And then I'll accuse you of censoring me.

Not to mention making me feel bad about myself.

So there.

That is irrefutable logic.

Move along.

Update: Woo-hoo! Kim-o-lanche!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 30, 2007

April 17, 2007

Virginia Tech.

Brian Ross and Dana Hughes of ABC News are witless tools of the Brady Bunch.

The damn things are magazines, not clips, but I've been losing that fight for years. The 94 AWB banned the manufacture of new hi-cap magazines, but didn't stop the transfer of the hundreds of thousands of existing ones. 5 10-round mags (legal to make under the 94 AWB) carry more rounds than three 15 round (banned) magazines, you just swap mags twice more. The guns didn't pull their own trigger. I own over 150 firearms that didn't jump off the wall or out of the case and commit a crime yesterday. Unlike the article referenced by Ry, which *is* a crime against journalism, and is simply an agenda-driven op-ed masquerading as reporting. Just sayin'.

The shooter killed those people.

Just like the old guy who can't drive anymore kills the people, the not the car he was driving. And you can take away his license, but you rely then that he'll obey the law and not drive anymore. Take away the guns (hint: you *can't* get them all) and only those prone to obey the law are going to comply. And, as the Brit and Australian experience shows, you can try that and it doesn't affect your gun violence nearly as much as you'd think - and other forms of violence can increase, in terms of home invasion burglary, etc.

Then there's the Appalachian Law School incident, where two former cops took down the shooter. From Wikipedia:

On January 16, 2002, the Dean, Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. Three other students were shot but survived. After he ran out of ammunition, Odighizuwa was subdued by two ASL students who were former police officers. One of the students who helped capture Odighizuwa retrieved his service revolver from his vehicle after hearing shots being fired in the law school. The students held Odighizuwa until the police arrived.

Just who has taught everybody to go passive in the face of a gun? In truth, in a one-on-one mugging scenario, that might be an appropriate response - though I admit, if the guy is dumb enough to step inside my reach, he may well find himself in a fight over the gun if I get the wrong vibe from him.

But in a group, where the shooter just starts *executing* people?

Where's the Todd Beamers? Where's the passengers of Flight 93? A lone gunman? Move to the sound of the gun. If you're going to die, why do it cringing and crying, when you can do it raging and gouging.

I know it's not always that clear - but it sounds in this case, in the classroom there towards the end, it probably was that clear.

And sadly, ~~seemingly not a sheepdog among 'em~~ (not true - see post above this one), to take down the wolf. And of course, being a gun free zone (That worked well for them, didn't it? Though I understand the reasoning behind the law, I just don't think it works) even if there had been someone with a weapon in the area, he'd of had to go get it (assuming no legal CCW carrier would have one *on* him in a GFZ) and risk being taken down by the cops as the potential shooter, and charged for having the gun on campus.

Just as I, were I to grab the V10 from the wall and walk across the street to stop something over at the local high school, could find myself facing charges, even if I took the bad guy down. Admittedly, I suspect the local law would opt to no bill, but who knows what the Feds would do.

I admit, it would just make me pause, it wouldn't stop me from going over there to try and stop something like what happened yesterday, especially if the Police weren't there. If they police were on-scene... hey, I then become a part of the problem, not the solution.

I'm not blaming the victims - I just wonder what it is that makes the difference between a sheepdog, and a sheep, so to speak.

Of course, I know the DU answer to this event. It's Bush's fault - the recruiting for his illegal war has siphoned off all the Sheepdogs to Iraq or Afghanistan.

That snark aside, I wonder if there were any vets in among the victims, and if the crime scene analysis/survivor interviews will indicate that any students *did* fight back. [Update - we don't know as of this posting if any students fought back - but we know that at least on faculty member did - the Armorer]

I hope so. I'd like to think the shooter was at least inconvenienced before he killed himself.

Turns out there was at least one sheepdog present. I originally had that info here - but Professor Librescu deserves his own post, un-marred by my screeding.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

As a mother, I am a bear. I will come out growling if my cubs are threatened. I may not always make the best decision on *how* I swing or *what* I get, or even the consequences, but there is no doubt in my mind that I will protect them.
Defense is another issue altogether, as that deals with action both appropriate and not.

That said, if someone were to break into my home,
don't hurt my babies. I will get between them
and the perp.

by Cricket on April 17, 2007 7:50 AM

Wow. I was putting up a note about the professor at the same time you were writing this. Came to the same conclusions about him and his background, too. Great minds, I suppose... ;)

by FbL on April 17, 2007 7:50 AM

I should note - FBL came in to this while I was reworking this post - to better honor Professor Librescu with his own post, rather than mixing him in here.

by John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2007 8:11 AM

I went to that ABC site. I had to start skimming after about a dozen comments, but I didn't see even one GFW bloviating there. I wonder if the "journalists" ever go back and read the threads they start...

The M-1 Garand actually used a "clip" and the things 5.56mm come on that you stip them off of into your "magazines" are a type of "clip" i.e. stripper clip. However, I could never get anybody in the military but outside of the Ammo world to learn the difference between a "bunker" and a "magazine", either.

by Oldloadr on April 17, 2007 9:51 AM

I should note - the rule is simple.

Clips load magazines. Magazines load weapons.

I for one, blame John Garand's weapon for causing the muddled distinction!

That said, Oldloadr - what is the zoomie distinction between bunkers and magazines?

by John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2007 10:24 AM

one is something to hide from arty in, the other being a place to store munitions?

by MajMike on April 17, 2007 10:27 AM

John, that is easy: A bunker is for people and a magazine is for ammo. You don't run to a magazine during a mortar attack (unless it is to get more ammo for return fire) and you don't store your extra ammo where people hunker down from attack. All the services make the distinction in there Explosive Safety regs/instructions, as well as the DESB (Defense Explosive Safety Board).

Architecturally, if built from the ground up, bunkers are designed to keep explosive energy out (or limit its encroachment) and magazines are designed to keep explosive energy in (or limit its propagation).

by Oldloadr on April 17, 2007 10:38 AM

Magazines are for reading; clips are for scrapbooks?

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on April 17, 2007 11:53 AM

Argghhh! A$$holes do vex me!

Quick - who'm I quoting?

by John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2007 12:15 PM

Michael Richards

by Oldloadr on April 17, 2007 12:55 PM

No wait, Robin William?

by Oldloadr on April 17, 2007 1:00 PM

Close, there Oldloadr. Yer still short a consonant.

by John of Argghhh! on April 17, 2007 1:26 PM

by Oldloadr on April 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters raised a good point: aren't most carry permits limited to the over-21 crowd?

Still, that would leave "non-traditional" students, instructors, and faculty, no?

Excellent post. I just wish the gun-grabbers would learn how to count to 10. Amendments. ;)

by Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2007 1:50 PM

Virginia is an open-carry state, according to Packing.Org, and both Resident and Non-Resident carry permits require a min age of 21.

Also, from the reports I have heard, the action was not as simple as entering a classroom and killing most of those present. The shooter apparently went from classroom to classroom shooting a few rounds and moving on, at least part of the time. Unfortunately, most people without training will not run into a hallway looking for the source of the gunfire, so they likely stayed in their classrooms in confusion. Some of them did bar their doors, btw.

There is mention in this article of one of the victims, Kevin Granata, being former military.

by Barb on April 17, 2007 2:56 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 17, 2007

April 13, 2007

Heh. Imus gets fired.

Imus got canned by CBS.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Ludacris gets meetings with Obama (last year, to be sure).

Okay.

It's all clear to me.

Reverend Al is all happy with Imus getting canned, but he's not apologizing to any of the Duke lacrosse players, is he?

"It's not about taking Imus down," Sharpton said. "It's about lifting decency up."

Since when you pompadoured buffoon? Where's your campaign to take down the gangsta rappers?

Heh. Just, heh. How do we take *any* of these people seriously?

I've got no brief *for* Imus, I'm just stunned at the hypocrisy of it all. Oh, no I'm not. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Gimme some of what Jason Whitlock, local KC sports writer, is having.

Imus isn’t the real bad guy.
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

Gimme summora dat!

Update: Players on the Rutgers basketball team are getting hate mail? Feh. While I have no worries about Castle visitors on that issue I'll offer the following guidance.

1. Don't send hate mail. It's gauche and pointless. If your life is that bereft and barren with Imus leaving the air, you need to be contemplating your navel and your life, not harassing other people.

2. If ya gotta send something, drop a note to that zombie Imus and his posse, the craven lickspittle Moonves, the Pompadoured Buffoon Sharpton and his sidekick Jesse (yes, I've suspended the Rulez for this post).

3. I still await the announcement of the War on Gangsta from the Reverend Al "It's about lifting decency up." Sharpton.

Another update: Rich Lowry, of National Review, on the "bonfire of the profanities":

The unedifying Imus controversy is almost entirely a liberal conflagration, a perfect bonfire of the profanities: with journalists and politicians caught out ignoring their own standards of political correctness; with left-wing grievance-meisters doing their grim work on the mainstream media’s favorite shock jock; with the culture of victimology running its ritualistic course. Armed only with the dubious loyalty of his frequent guests, Imus didn’t stand a chance.

The rest is worth a gander.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Yeah, I love it when Whitlock shows up on the Sports Reporters. Dude lays waste in an equal oppurtunity fashion. He doesn't care about race. He typically doesn't express 'race' loyalty. Dude's just a stone cold 'Murican whose lines of decency are crisp, clear, and have no extra points added or taken away for ethnicity. His complaints about Imus I could stand, like NOW's(since they're about the only consistent group in this whole nonsense).

Like I've said to a blog friend, which ended my commenting at his place, if you accept irreverence and uncouth behaviour, even celebrate it by watching it, you have to accept that which transcends your limits of decency to be fair and equal. Imus passed the lines of decent conversation, or even thought. So what? We celebrate others who do that. Like Stewart and the Daily Show. Carlos Mencia and most of the Comedy Central lineup. SOuth Park for sure. Will Farrel? You betcha. If you've ever watched and enjoyed any of the in-house fare at Cartoon Network you better not be complaining about Imus. If you liked the Jerky Boys(Tarbash is totally a stereotype, and a denigrating one) or Crank Yankers you helped bring this about by making 'naughty boy behavior' popular.

I'm with Whitlock. This is just a thing where some people get to pretend piousness. Which, apparently, some blog friends don't like me saying.

by ry on April 12, 2007 8:20 PM

I must restrain myself.

Being a former Native of Georgia and still considering myself a son of Georgia, I have no words of grace that are to be delved for Rev's Jackson and Sharpton.

That being said they did a wonderful job, As Whitlock pointed out, in 1965.

I haven't heard Sharpton apologize to that ol gal he got busted with up in DC way back in the day either.

But then under the current standard, she'd have to apologize to him.

by BloodSpite on April 12, 2007 9:34 PM

The women of the Rutgers basketball team said they were offended. That's all that matters. It is not my place to question that. It is not my place to ask them to justify it. It is not my place to compare it to anything else. If they are not offended by rap music, that is their call. If they are offended, but choose not to speak against it, that is their call.

When white people say "What about rap lyrics?" all I hear is my son Frank justifying some transgression with "But Tom did it too!" This episode is about what Imus said, not about what 50 Cent said.

If a woman of color is more offended by Imus than by The Game, I completely understand. My sister Grace and I were vicious to each other, yet heaven help someone who looked crooked at Grace. In Charlestown there was a pecking order, kids on the Hill, kids from the Bricks, kids from the Catholic schools, kids from the Publics. Yet I have literally climbed over people to have the back of someone from The Town simply because they were from the Town. I would defend Nancy Pelosi to a Frenchman!

So if Vivian Stringer wants to sing along with Snoop Dog or JayZ and get angry when some old white guy calls her girls nappy-headed h0s.......I get it and I back her 100%.

As far as Sharpton goes, he's a nitwit. So what? His hypocrisy doesn't excuse Imus and it doesn't diminish the insult felt by the Rutger's girls.

by Maggie on April 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Sure, ry. Now why not come up here to Cincinnati, and I'll drop you off in Lincoln Heights, or Woodlawn Hills? There you are perfectly welcome to call the local women nappy-headed hoes, or jigaboos, and see how far your enthusiasm for "cutting edge" irreverent humor gets you, before they stomp your butt into the ground.

The references I do recognize, I generally have no use for anyway. Stewart is a self-important jackass, and a little South Park goes a long way.

I'll admit Mencia is hard core, but I've never seen or heard him use that kind of bigoted, insulting language.

Whitlock was mostly on the money, until he started complaining about rap. I have no use for rap as it is generally produced today; I find the lyrics hateful, violent, and misogynistic. Whining that Imus didn't say anything that rappers haven't misses the point, as Maggie quite appropriately points out.

If you can't grasp that two wrongs don't make a right, or that a black calling another black man (and a friend) a "niggah" doesn't make it ok for some random white guy to call the same man the same thing... I just can't help you.

...or maybe I can. This just occured to me. Would you be upset if the New York Times put a full-page, hard-core explicit sex photo on page 1? What if the same shot were on a public billboard? Would you object?

On the other hand, if a woman went to an adult bookstore, and bought a magazine full of such photos, would you object to her doing so? After all, it's the same photo (or set of photos), no?

The main difference here is context; what may be appropriate when purchased for private use may not be appropriate on public airwaves.

Someone might buy something to listen to/see/experience in their own home, but that doesn't equate to a public figure using the same form of expression on public, freely available performances.

by Casey Tompkins on April 12, 2007 11:54 PM

I guess that when my grandpa taught me that wrong is wrong, no matter who did it, I took him too literally.

Maggie, Casey, thanks for explaining to me how all people are equal, however, some are more equal than others.

by Jon The Mechanic on April 13, 2007 6:58 AM

Heh. I'm not about Imus. I'm about Sharpton.

I'm not about the Rutgers ballplayers, either. I may have missed it - did they call for Imus to get fired?

Casey has a point about public airwaves, though there is an element of choice about that, too.

Perhaps I'm confused on Maggie and Casey's points a bit, though - it seems that you are basically saying it's okay to call for Imus's head, and get it, and be silent on Gangsta, even go purchase it (and that, too, is a product that goes out on public airwaves), and that the two things are separate from each other and don't constitute hypocrisy and worthy of being called on?

Again - I may be conflating things here.

Certainly you can complain about Imus and not complain about rap. And you can want to focus on what Imus said because that was aimed at the players personally, and not feel that rap is...

However: When we start talking the consequences of things, and taking away people's livelihoods (not that Imus is going to suffer here in that regard but that isn't relevant) and making big public spectacles, and working to change policy (As Sharpton is with CBS) - I don't get to point out that the problem is bigger than Imus - and that it's rooted in the sub-culture that produced the term Imus used? And that the issues *are* related?

Or is it just too early for me?

by John of Argghhh! on April 13, 2007 7:51 AM

Well, our illustrious Guv, Jon Corzine, is in the hospital. Car wreck on the Garden State Parkway while he was enroute to "moderate the meeting" between Imus and the Rutgers Team.

Two questions immediately came to mind:

1. Why offer the governor's mansion to host and "mediate" a non-event, and

2. Since seatbelt use is mandatory in NJ, why wasn't the Guv buckled up?

Libs...

by BillT on April 13, 2007 8:12 AM

Remind me never to piss off J-Pod:

"...Al Sharpton, a rampantly infectious venereal disease that masquerades as a man..."

That left a mark...heh.

Instapilot

by Instapilot on April 13, 2007 8:17 AM

And as far as Sharpton goes, two words:

Tawana. Brawley.

The "Reverend" Al has yet to apologize to the six cops he castigated as rapist bigots, nor did he say, "Oooops -- my bad!" to then-Gov. Mario Cuomo for declaring him to be in cahoots with La Cosa Nostra and the KKK.

Libs...

by BillT on April 13, 2007 8:23 AM

I don't know about where you live, but in Boston the commercial radio stations edit rap music. The graphic lyrics can only be heard online and on CDs, not on the public airwaves. I have 19 year old boys in this house so I am familiar with it. I listen to these stations and I own some of these CDs.

Jon - I have no idea what your point is. You also get to be the final arbiter of what offends you and I will not ask you to justify it.

John - The players did not call for Imus to be fired, they wanted to wait until after they met privately with him. I agree Imus' remarks are endemic of a sub-culture, but it's not rap music. Imus was not influenced by rap music. I think that those who are happy Imus was fired heard Bull Connor, not Ludicris. I have been astonished at all the references to rap music in this discourse. I heard an old white man who had no regard for the feelings of people who he considers "less". All his protests about he is not racist do not move me one bit. Does he have Tourette's? How did those really awful things just *pop* out of his mouth? Too bad he is on the wagon, otherwise he could have gone into rehab and told us a story about some priest in his youth.
Again, as far as Sharpton goes, I don't believe he had that much influence here. I don't think anyone feared some kind of boycott or consequence from him. I think those sponsors didn't want their products associated with him. Period. One of his sponsors was Lumber Liquidators. The owner told the local talk radio guy in Boston that he had a black girlfriend. I don't imagine The Rev. Al influenced that decision.

by Maggie on April 13, 2007 8:26 AM

Mags -- There wasn't a peep from any of Donzo's sponsors until *after* his comment became a media circus. Three days after the event.

Personally, I'm surprised Imus had an audience at all; he stopped being funny sometime in 1985...

by BillT on April 13, 2007 8:38 AM

Your points are well taken, Maggie - but the fact remains Imus was canned right after the meeting with Sharpton.

Like I said, I've not been supporting Imus, I've been attacking the Pompadoured Buffoon.

I also think you are being a little blinkered if you think the message of the "edited" rap music is somehow diluted because of bleeps and voiceovers.

And I also think that Imus, whatever his motivation, picked up the term from the popular culture.

And I just object to the fact that it's okay for Ludacris to say and sell it, but Imus must get fired for it.

Because at bottom, the same failing is evident.

Disrespect, but a wildly disparate response to same. Because Ludacris and his fellow gangsta rappers have a *far* greater impact on society than does Imus.

But you just poof away Ludacris, and snarl about Imus.

I think that's a forest for the trees kind of thing - whatever the merit of removing a single diseased tree might be - failing to address the larger infestation simply means... the infection still spreads.

by John of Argghhh! on April 13, 2007 8:43 AM

Bill - Agree completely on the Corzine comment, on both counts.

I also agree with everything written about Shaprton. However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

What does it matter how the sponsors found out? I don't imagine that they listen to every episode of every show they sponsor.

I also agree that Imus isn't funny, but when he has on the guy who does the fake cardinal, I cry laughing. (Which goes back to my previous arguement. "the cardinal" character makes fun of Irish Catholics and I find him highly amusing. But I wouldn't suggest that some Sassenach or Boston Brahmin use a derogatory term about Irish Catholics in my presence.)

by Maggie on April 13, 2007 8:46 AM

Can we add 'Crown Heights' to the Tawana Brawley scandal? Rioting for four days over an allegation of non treatment and one death.

Interesting that you bring up Tawana Brawley...that case has some interesting parallels to the Duke lacrosse players case.

Nifong's career is on the line. Oh well. I guess when a shark chums the water...

by Cricket on April 13, 2007 9:13 AM

The unfortunate reality (well, there are several here ....) is that people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al thrive on creating and perpetuating racial tension. They've created an entire industry out of it, and they know that their continued influence, power, and livelihoods are dependent on it.

It's simply not in their interest for America to ever become the color-blind society that Martin Luther King dreamed about, and which many of us would like to see become reality.

by fdcol63 on April 13, 2007 9:24 AM

I can't cast rap out of the spectrum.

Essentially you have Sharpton who practices, and I'll go ahead and say it because I'm just that way, what is tantamount to reverse discrimination.

kdwill, my good friend and co-blogger pointed that Sharpton's antics, rap music, the whole gangsta methodology and Jackson's antics get shoved under the rug when it comes to "Somewhere we must draw the line in what is tolerable in mainstream media," Sharpton said Sunday. "We cannot keep going through offending us and then apologizing and then acting like it never happened. Somewhere we've got to stop this."

So...if thats the case...when does Sharpton become accountable for his actions?

Kdwill's response (and one he's debating blogging on as a African American whose mother picked tobacco in North Carolina) is "white guilt"

I'll let him explain it, but it makes a quasi sensicle sense....although it stinks. And it's something that probably won't change.

But I myself want to see equality...true equality...like in the Army...we're no colors we all are "green".

Instead of the current evident and blatant double standard.

by BloodSpite on April 13, 2007 9:26 AM

What does it matter how the sponsors found out?

Not "how" -- "when." Not a peep from them until the Bobbsey Twins started making boycott noises -- again, *days* after the circus came to town...

by BillT on April 13, 2007 12:19 PM

Imus getting fired of this is just CRAP. If he's going to get fired for saying "nappy-headed ho's"... why not fire singers like Ludacris for using the same language in songs? Why not arrest the Dixie Chicks for (among other reasons) murdering Earl? Let's arrest Gore for stealing the idea of inventing the internet. After all- they're just words, right?

I mean, Ludacris just sings about ho's, using crack, and driving drunk- he didn't really MEAN it did he?
The Chicks didn't really kill Earl, did they?
Gore didn't really invent the internet, did he?
I know Tupac's dead, but did anyone raise a stink about the use of the word "nigga" in his hit song, "Changes", which was all about getting the black community to change their lives around and STOP killing each other and selling drugs? No... no... can't do that- he's a BLACK man, using the word.

Yeah, "nappy headed ho's" wasn't the best choice of words, but if you listen to the whole conversation, he was playing off of his co-host who said something about them being "ho's"; Imus then added the "nappy headed" part.
It may have been offensive, but firing him over that is just ridiculous. If he had been a black man, it would be the joke of the day- not the "hang whitey for his racist comment of the day".

Double standards... I HATE them.

by AFSister on April 13, 2007 3:07 PM

Heh.

Do you people think I like this stuff? Father Guido Sarduchi, Mencia, and all that? Hell no. I hate it. I watch it when I'm at other people's places or get outvoted. It's all, what's the word I'm looking for? $hit. Sarduchi was at least moderately funny because you could tell he at least liked what he was mocking, but the rest? Give me a break.

Casey, dude, sure, I'll come up there, if you go to So Cal and say the stuff Mencia does at the corner of Bristol and 17th St in Santa Ana, CA. I absolutely dare you, wedo. I guess exposure to an ethnicity sensitizes you to what they find offensive. Really, go there, find out what the Latinos will do to you. Such comments are silly, man. They proove no point other than to show how piously sensitive you are.

That, that you're sufficiently pious, is not the point, besides being a non-sequitor. You blow way past the point, bro.

Some people can say or do evil things and we give them a pass because it's 'art' or whatever. Calling for it to end makes you a prude or a square. Remember the furor over Married with Children? Was the Michigan mother who complained about it right? On merits, yeah, she was right. The show had a caustic quality to it in how it skewered and celebrated stereotypes and conflicts. But it was funny, or so most of the country thought, so that was okay. (Which is why I've come to the point where I say everyone has to get thicker skin. say you hate it and move on.)

Imus on the other hand, or Jason Richards, well, people didn't find the joke funny. So that makes it evil. Chris Rock? Funny, but his stock and trade is race denigrating jokes similar to the Jason Richards comment, but since people laugh

Chocolate Jesus? Art. Burning the Flag? Political statement. 50 Cent? Art and social commentary? Imus? Racist. WTF? Star Wars Epsisode One? Racist. The movie 'How High' which mocks rap listening Asians, South Asians in general, midwestern Caucasions, and 'white's in general? Rip roaringly funny and nothing to get upset about unless you're a racist cracker(known from first hand experience). How does this make sense? It doesn't. So call a turd a turd and be consistent. You start going down the Oprah path, but i felt offended, and you've opened up the Pandora's Box that is indentity politics and grievance mongering as well as not setting real boundries for a society to live by. Nope, just a bunch of amorphic and hazy and contradictory guidlines, if you can call them that. People don't want a Manichean world, fine. Then the only rule I can then see is: prepare to be offended. I'm pissed over the hypocrasy of it.

I have nothing for Imus. I hate the guy as much as I hate Howard Stern and the laundry list of people mentioned above. It's the double standard and how we rationalize it all that pisses me off.

How can AFSis explain to her kids that calling thier female friends 'their sluts' is a bad thing when they do it but it's okay for their friends of another colour to do it? It makes no sense. Which is why I like BlSp's approach. We're all Mutt 'Muricans who all get pissed at different things and decide to let it go. Sure we yell about it, but we don't take it so seriuosly that we end someone's career or ruin their lives. Has anyone been following the aftermath of the Duke case over at Newsbusters? The logic employed by some here is exactly what leads to Rose McGowan saying, in effect, that she didn't care whether the three players were guilty but should stand and be punished for their 'group crime' anyway because someone once made her feel bad who was like those kids.

but hey, I'm gollum and nobody cares what I think anyway.;) Back to polishing the Portcullis de Argghhh! Someone ask Boq where the Brasso is, wouldya?

by ry on April 13, 2007 4:11 PM

1) I don't like Imus
2) I don't like Jesse
3) I don't like "al" Sharpton
4) I despise mob vigilantism, something those last two are good at, pretending to be judge and jury.
5) yes, I think this language thing is a bunch of BS since it has become pervasive in our society.
6) You will never catch me saying the "N" word or "nappy headed" because I think they are inappropriate, regardless to whom or about whom I am speaking. I have used the word "ho's" in humorous conversation with some girl friends. Which puts me in the position of these young women. I am quite certain that if somebody I didn't know used the word against me, I would understand it was not funny, but offensive since that person would know nothing about me. My private conversations with my friends are my own and are funny because the word is used as an ironic statement since none of us are. It's called "owning" a word. Like "chicken hawk".

Is that a double standard? Yes. But no more than a bunch of Marines calling themselves "jarheads" and being offended if somebody who is not a jarhead calling them that. Or, when a Navy guy jokingly sings "in the Navy" by the village people, but would take offense if some civilian he didn't know starts making fun of him using the same song.

We have come to the point where we may poke fun at ourselves with our own stereo types, but it still doesn't mean that the stereo type is appropriate or that you do not know what it means when somebody outside of your dialectic uses it against you.

That is where Imus failed. He IS an old whiteman. He IS not funny. He has NO in with the black community. Particularly with the young hip-hop crowd. He is OUTSIDE thus his words do mean soemthing else. he could not cross that lexicon, however much he wanted to be "hip" or pretend to be "in".

REgardless of what he said about what group, sooner or later, when you do that, you are going to come up against that group that you can never become a part of and you are going to say something that offends.

And there is certainly no way that Imus was going to become a hip, young black woman.

6) as far as rap music, the language and what you tell your children or how difficult it is to explain, there are many difficult things in this world that we have to explain. don't blame it on the music. it's just one more in a complicated world. Like explaining why our black friend has a white (step) son and a mixed race daughter. Or why people on TV shoot each other, but we don't advocate shooting each other on the street when we are mad or someone does something wrong. Or why there is a jack daniels commercial on TV, but they shouldn't drink. Or why 19 Muslim men from the middle east killed 3000 people but it is not okay to hate all arab or Muslim people.

That is part of growing up, deciphering the difficult things and making good decisions.

by kat-missouri on April 13, 2007 6:56 PM

Heh. I just wanted to bust Sharpton for being a hypocritical pompadoured buffoon.

by John of Argghhh! on April 13, 2007 8:15 PM

I agree. He is kind of like a clown. Or, like those over acting actors (eddy murphy) acting like a black baptist preacher on Sunday morning so you get the whole "funnY" thing about black baptist preachers.

except "al" is supposedly not an actor.

Still, kind of funny in that cringing sort of way once you get over the whole "al" Sadr similarities. then again, I don't find ol' "al" sadr very funny so I guess that shows you how I feel about old "al" sharpton.

by kat-missouri on April 13, 2007 8:36 PM

How can AFSis explain to her kids that calling thier female friends 'their sluts' is a bad thing when they do it but it's okay for their friends of another colour to do it? It makes no sense.

Nope. It doesn't. Which is why I make sure my kids realize that not all language is appropriate, not all songs are appropriate (although it is funny as hell to hear a 5 year old sing "I like big butts" and "Ride a horse, save a cowboy"), and that all people are to be treasured and treated as equals. It's this sort of socialization that has lead my oldest to have best friends who are "brown" (asian and african-american), and to accept handicapped children as equals who just happen to be physically different.

My kids may be caucasian, but I'm raising them "green", like the Soldiers in Bloodspite's Army experience. I just wish ADULTS could see the world "green", instead of as individual races against each other. There simply isn's such a thing as racial superiority, but for some reason, the thought exists.

by AFSister on April 13, 2007 9:33 PM

I should add that I also closely monitor the tv they watch, including cartoons. I absolutely HATE Spongebob, Fairly Odd Parents, Ed, Edd & Eddy, Rugrats, and others for the language and themes they present. Why let them watch cartoons which teach species superiority, parents are stupid, idiots are funny, and babies are stupid? I'd much rather let them watch cartoons like Jackie Chan Adventures, Pink Panther, and SuperFriends.

by AFSister on April 13, 2007 9:39 PM

He is OUTSIDE thus his words do mean soemthing else. he could not cross that lexicon, however much he wanted to be "hip" or pretend to be "in"."

ANd thus, why such a set-up ultimately fails if, and only if, one wants to be fair and consistent. You create and in group and an out group(racial policy), going just natural personality traits, in this manner. Someone who can be offensive and get away with it and one who cannot. Cemented it. Never can we all be 'Joint' or 'Purple' but always a disparate group at pissed at each other(ooop, I better not use those, I'm not of the proper group). Joy.

I also think, regardless of whether Imus has an 'in' with any group is immaterial. Many a comic has had no in with my social group in So Cal, those of us who group using 'like' outside of Standard ENglish rules and Val Sprechen, but mocked us none-the-less. What's her name who wrote 'Clueless' used it to poke fun of teens and Californians. She had no 'in' with my group or my age group. So what? Is it magically out of bounds because of that? Is social commentary and study of a group allowed only if you're of the group? Someone tell Martin van Crevald to quit writing his inciteful and outstanding books then, he's not allowed. ANd someone tell Gore Vidal to stop writing about Catholics 'cause he isn't one of us. Someone take my keyboard away because I'm not a soldier nor am I trained analyst(should I even be at Argghhh! then?).

This 'group' thing also fails because groups are not homogeneous monoliths. You can have an 'in' with a small sub-group of people within a group that isn't recognized by the larger(which means I can't say that chapelle doesn't have an in with the Caucasian community, nor can I say that Vidal doesn't have an in with Catholics). It doesn't work as a group is too diverse to allow for such, especially when you're talking about a national event or performace. It ultimately winds up with 'I can say it, however hurtful, but you can't.'
I can tolerate my Wife doing that. She tells me straight out that that's what she's doing. She doesn't try to rationalize it and pretty it up. She accepts that it's hypocritical. She just doesn't care so long as I do what she wants. (And believe me, we've been a lot happier since we figured that out and I stopped arguing about whether it was consistent with other comments or even rational. I simply jump when told. Every husbands first line of defense.)

'Reclemation of Words'(and symbols) is also a place where we find this double standard. The pink triangle has been reclaimed. It's not a symbol of shame or a mark of dysfunction as it was used by the Nazis, or in the US just after the 2nd World War. It's a gay pride symbol. The Pink Pages are San Franciscos gay friendly telephone book, once proudly emblazoned with a Pink Triangle. But the Confederate Flag and the moniker of Rebel? Hey, sorry to all my Southron friends, I hate farkin' hate the COnfederate Flag, but if one can reclaim something as distasteful and vile as the n-word and the pink triangle they ought to be able to reclaim and rehab the Confederate Flag and the designation of Rebel into something respectable. If the word 'fag', one of the worst epithets in American culture, can be reclaimed and made a positive why can't the CF? They're just not the cool kids so they aren't allowed. They just have to accept the negative group image of being Southern if they're going to accept Southern at all.

You may refuse a Manichean set-up, these words bad and always bad. YOu can't deny that then choosing to allow for group rage is then hypocritical if someone outside that group uses it since it is impossible to rule out that someone has an in with a community. Particularly with artists and entertainers. Whod've thought that Martha Stewart would become friends with what's his name at the MTV awards. But I garaun-damn-tee you that if Martha Stewart, despite having said in, said what Imus did she'd be just as vilified by the offended community. It simply does not work.

So we don't want a binary world, it'd be boring and prevent us from being hip, we then have to accept that we will be offended by others 'being cool'. PArticularly with those in the entertainment and social commentary fields. Really. Look, the Chocolate Jesus, when looked at simply as a sculpture, really is a fascinating piece of work. The detail this guy pulled off was amazing. But it's still offensive. So what. He's a social commentarian and an entertainer/artist. Whatever happened to the adage that art had to be somewhat subversive?

It's simply a double standard no matter how you dress it up. Lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty queen(and no amount of Southron phrases will ever make me a Southron).

Now, I do agree as for daily interactions that Kat's arrangement is a good rule of thumb. If you don't know them well enough to know whether they'd be offended then don't do it. But basing whether social commentarians and entertainers can say or do something based on their 'in'-ness or 'out'-ness? That's just racism and classism justified with different words. Person of group A can do it but nobody in group B can, or they can if someone in group A has declared them to be a client. How very Roman, we're back to clientage. You can get away with it if you're under the protection of some 'family'. It simply isn't making sense nor is it in line with any form of judging someone by the content of their character or egalitarianism I've ever heard of.

And why isn't John getting popcorn? What, we ferrets aren't dancing enough to keep you entertained with this thread? Punk.;)

by ry on April 13, 2007 10:59 PM

Something else I came acrossed tonight.

Brentwood Middle School typified the institutional rot confronting Goodloe-Johnson. When she arrived, just 3 percent of the 440-student downtown school passed state tests, continuing a 10-year pattern. Police were routinely called. Turnover was so bad that second-year teachers were considered veteran.

And race relations were so tense that a white teacher there filed a federal discrimination suit in 2004, claiming black students regularly called her, among other things, "white cracker, white honkey, white whore," with no intervention from the principal. White students backed up her claim, saying they were also routinely pelted with epithets.
[snip]
Amid the controversy over academics, the lawsuit filed by the white teacher went to trial, ending with a $307,000 verdict against the district. A federal judge labeled the school a "hostile workplace."
Gee, so white hs girls getting called "white 'ho" and being offended by it doesn't result in an official response, nor national outrage. I wonder why?

I do not buy the 'they were offended so that means it was wrong' line of reasoning. That's letting your class be taken over and run by the kid who throws the biggest tantrum. That's the old and discarded prudish(resident prude speaking) legal test about pornography. The most prudish Churchmouse and bible thumper decided. There's good reason why SCOTUS moved away from that, many a court case, and opinion why that's the worst policy to adopt.

Call me overly rationalist if you want(what was the name of the governor in Baron Munchausen?), but it simply doesn't compute.

by ry on April 14, 2007 12:43 AM

The reason that didn't make the 'newz' is because the teacher took it to the authorities and then went up the chain and got compensation in the courts.

My parents taught us that if you are going to make a difference you have to have a change of heart...which is something a Good Man taught a long time ago.

You watch. Rev. Al and Jackson are reading blogs or have their people reading them and they will try to turn it around, but I think they have jumped the shark on this one...and will fade.
Of course, the heir apparent is Milak Shabazz
to take it to the next generation.

by Cricket on April 14, 2007 4:20 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 13, 2007
� Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator links with: CBS fires shock jock Don Imus

April 9, 2007

Shame. Shame on the BBC.

A land fit for heroes [Mark Steyn]

As Britain's returning "heroes" are selling their stories for six-figure sums (in dollars), here's one who can't get a look-in:

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

How brave is Private Beharry? He's the first living recipient of the Victoria Cross since two Aussies, Keith Payne and Rayene Stewart Simpson, were honored with the Commonwealth's highest award for gallantry in 1969 for their service in Vietnam, and he's the first living recipient in the British Army since Lance-Corporal Rambahadur Limbu of the 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles won his in the Confrontation with Indonesia in 1965. Private Beharry is one of only 12 living Victoria Cross holders. But his story might "alienate" the British public.

Shamelessly lifted from National Review's blog "The Corner"

Update: As Oldloadr linked in the comments - the Brits have now banned their soldiery for selling their stories. Heh. Why? Because they were on "company time" and so the gov't should get the cash? I'm sure not, it's all about being "seemly". That said - does this mean that their vets can't write books now? What a back-door convenient way to restrain the documentation of history, though admittedly I'm reading into it on that point.

Another Brit, Toby Harnden a Telegraph correspondent in DC, was also rather harsh on the whole thing:

British humiliation becomes disgrace
Posted by Toby Harnden at 09 Apr 07 09:58

So now they can sell their stories? The Ministry of Defence believes the Tehran 15 should be treated like troops who have won the Victoria Cross. Britain's political and military leaders hail their "dignity" - and then give them the green light to profit from their abject capitulation.

Rather than courts martial for the top brass, expect gongs for the ex-hostages. The Government and Royal Navy seem to think they can wash away the humiliation in a sea of sentimental twaddle. Iran is laughing. Has Britain gone completely soft?

Harsh? I don't think so. Lasting damage has been done to Britain's reputation, never mind that of the RN and Royal Marines.

You can read the rest here.

I've been watching with bemusement. I'm not quite as harsh on the issue of the troops as many of you, but I *am* simply appalled at Brit senior leadership and governmental responses.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 09, 2007

March 10, 2007

More "Professional" Press Coverage of the Military

FbL Here: I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but some days when I read AP articles, I wonder if maybe that's a reasonable explanation...

One idea Democrats have floated as part of a "slow bleed" strategy is to force the DoD to give all troops a specific amount of "home time" between deployments, and other such standards of recovery or refreshment. Right on cue, here's the AP story about how the military already doesn't have the "fresh troops" it needs--prepares the ground for congress members to come to the rescue by hamstringing the President "because we care about the troops." [my comments follow, in bold]...

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

PENTAGON STRUGGLES TO FIND FRESH TROOPS

WASHINGTON - Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Yes, the military is stressed and the op tempo in many units is very high. But what does the AP offer as proof of this?:

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.

You mean, as part of the surge that is essentially the delayed return of some and the expedited deployment of others? This method of creating the surge has nothing to do with "freshness" of troops, but everything to do with logistics. To quickly increase battlefield numbers is impossible any other way, as only those scheduled to deploy soon would be at a point in their cycle to be ready for deployment!

Final decisions — which have not yet been made — would come as Congress is considering ways to force President Bush to wind down the war, despite his vow that he would veto such legislation.

Didn't I say something about a "slow bleed?" Interesting how they instantly connect the surge to efforts to attempts to "wind down the war" (another word for concede) and say "congress" as if there is a unanimity of opinion among congress members. If there were, we'd already have an "out of Iraq" resolution on President Bush's desk.

In the freshest indication of the relentless demands for troops in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of coalition forces in the north, told reporters Friday that his troops have picked up the pace of their attacks on the enemy in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.

"Could I use more forces? No question about it," Mixon said, adding that he had asked for more.

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said a day earlier that it was likely that additional U.S. forces will be shifted to areas outside the capital where militants are regrouping, including Diyala. The region has become an increasingly important staging ground for militant groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq.

And here we come again upon the reporter's lack of understanding about the military. Mixon is not talking about bringing more troops into the Iraqi war theater (that would take months); he's talking about shifting those already in place in order to meet a changing battlescape. Basic battlefield maneuvering.

"There have been about 30 percent more offensive actions and attacks. Many of those are initiated by us; some are initiated by them," Petraeus said from a military base outside of Tikrit. "I am cautiously optimistic that in the next 30 to 60 days that we're going to see some significant differences in the security situation in Diyala."

Aha! This must be what the AP was talking about the other day with the headline "U.S.: Iraqi insurgent attacks intensifying" that wasn't addressed in the actual article about Patraeus' comments. Imagine that!: Engaging the enemy inspires a reaction! But what matters at the end is not how many times the enemy attacked, but who was left standing. Wow. Seriously unbalanced reporting.

If not, he said, he'll go back and ask for still more support.

Petraeus said Thursday that the U.S. buildup in Iraq would need to be sustained "for some time well beyond the summer" to garner the needed results.

Another symptom of "fast food culture" applied to war. "Why doesn't everything go exactly to plan? Why can't we have this wrapped up in 3 or 4 months?!!!" Short answer: because the enemy gets a vote and he's not gonna give up easily.

Maintaining increased troop levels, said military officials, will require troops to return for what could be their second or third tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, and force military leaders to juggle the schedules to give soldiers a full 12 months at home before returning to battle.

Really? Logistics and scheduling amidst conflicting demands and the shifting of strategy are a part of warfighting?! /sarcasm

The officials would speak only on condition of anonymity, because no final decisions have been made and no formal requests for the forces have come from commanders in Iraq. But they said it is beginning to appear likely that Petraeus will ask to maintain much of the buildup at least through the end of the year, and possibly into 2008.

Let's focus in on that italicized phrase. In other words, all that has come before this is based on conjecture, contingency planning among military leadership, and anonymous sources. Nice.

There's more, but I'll end with this:

Combat troops, meanwhile, are coming to realize that the Pentagon can't fulfill its commitment to give soldiers two years at home for every year they spend deployed.

At Fort Drum, N.Y., the 1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division is already training for a return to Iraq this summer. The brigade, which spent a year in Iraq and got home last summer, is not yet on any official list of units scheduled to deploy, but it's likely to go in late summer.

"It's prudent planning for us to be prepared to go back in a year," said Fort Drum spokesman Ben Abel.

The military and its personnel and materiel are stretched and challenged by the OPTEMPO, but after all that discussion and hand-wringing, the reporter can only come up with a unit that isn't officially scheduled to deploy, but simply--in typical military fashion--is preparing just in case.

I've said it before, but I'm once again reminded: Though an amateur, I'd probably make a better military affairs reporter than at least half the people out there today. Pathetic.

You can read the rest here.

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Denizens on Mar 10, 2007

February 15, 2007

Shhhh!!!

Dinocrat's latest post ends with the following paragraph:

We will be very interested to learn in some future years what steps the administration has been taking with regard to Iran over the last half decade. Would you be surprised to learn that there has been something of a clandestine war going on in the last five years — including taking steps to cripple the Iranian oil industry and eliminate certain particularly important men? Would it be surprising in part because such steps would appear to have been both secret and competent?

What worries me is to what lengths the MSM and/or the Democrat Party wil go to expose these efforts, should they exist.

by Dusty on Feb 15, 2007

February 12, 2007

Obscene Amenities?

Oh, you know, Arkin's comment:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

Marines catching some z's in their spacious accomodations during the March Upcountry.

Heh. Compared to my Dad's Army, yeah, the pay's not bad. The housing is much better, too. The medical care isn't bad, and I'm not sure where this vast social support system is that he's talking about. At least the one that he implies is paid for with tax dollars. I see a darn huge lot of volunteers out there, and stuff paid for with NAF dollars. Hold that thought.

La Malkin, et cie, have already covered this subject, really. Nicely with this video, too.

I'm sure that Arkin has in mind the Great Ameriki Souk, AAFES. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, and NEX, the Navy Exchange. And the MWR services (Morale, Welfare and Recreation) that the profit from AAFES operations funds. With NAF money.

NAF. Now there is an interesting term not tossed about much in the press.

Non-Appropriated Funds. The significance of Non-Appropriated means that Congress does *not* authorize the expenditure of those funds. They are not appropriated. They do not come from the Treasury. They are not Bill Arkin's tax dollars. They aren't my tax dollars. They aren't your tax dollars.

But they are my dollars. They are the dollars of anyone who is authorized to use the PX/BX, the Post Exchange/Base Exchange. The military's in-house J.C.Penney/Sears/Target. Or, who pays to use the MWR facilities, like the swimming pools, stables, golf courses, movie theaters, arts and crafts shops, auto craft shops, etc.

They are self-supporting. And the money comes from - us. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen, commissioned Public Health Service and NOAA personnel, active, Reserve, and retired, and our associated families, who are authorized to use those facilities. There are some exceptions regarding some of the buildings that pre-existed the break that was created in the 70's when Congress defunded those activities. And the "traveling shows" that MWR puts on do get corporate sponsorship - but not money from the Treasury. Most of the golf courses were built, many a long time ago, with appropriated funds and today, they solicit outside sponsors. But there isn't any tax money going into their upkeep.

They have to be sefl-supporting, or they get closed. There used to be officer, NCO, and EM clubs here at Fort Leavenworth. Now there are none. Because they couldn't compete with outside the gate businesses. And I mean literally - we imposed regulations on their alcohol sales that made them uncompetitive with local bars. So, they closed. There used to be clubs everywhere, but now only the larger installations can support them.

Things like the stables here at Fort Leavenworth used to be real deals - but now, by MWR rules, the cost of MWR activities can't be more than 10% below the prevailing "outside-the-gate" price. And at least since 2002 there has been a surcharge on MWR activities. A surcharge that pays for... the MWR services for the deployed soldiers around the world.

It's not completely that clean. In some places, like here at Leavenworth, the stables are in the old post stables, built by the government for government use. When the horse soldiery went away, two of those buildings were kept for private horse boarding. But the PX, Shoppette, Gas Station, Bowling Alley, etc, were built with AAFES money, not appropriated tax dollars.

The emloyees are not GS civil servants. They're NAF employees. And last I recall, two of them died in Iraq.

And while the stuff going into theater is being shipped many times at government expense - outside of that, unless you are an MWR user, the stuff being shipped over wasn't paid for by you.

In other words, we self-tax to provide the "obscene amenities" that Bill Arkin so reviles.

You, Mister Arkin, essentially don't provide us squat in terms of amenities to the deployed soldier.

I *so* want to break the Rulez and go Weapons Free Cleared In Hot on Arkin. But, my sister lurks this place, and one of the reasons she lurks here is because this place doesn't do that... besides, Uncle Jimbo does that better than I.

Though she *does* hate the Castle Store ad. Hates it, hates it, hates it.

Hey, I'm her little brother - I gotta tease her somehow.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

It’s hard to make a “time adjusted” judgment.

But, I agree with John.

And, it’s very odd this comes up during elections season – or maybe it’s is engineered to put the left in power.

by Ledger on February 12, 2007 7:51 AM

I won't go in "cleared hot" on this...uh...challenging specimen of humanity...but I will put the laser beam on him and say I'd like to give him a swift kick in his "obscene amenities".

by kat-missouri on February 12, 2007 10:48 AM

John, the image of you as a teasing little brother explains SO much. But why would the Big Sis object to the Castle Store ad? Does she have something against Denizennes??? heh.

Thanks for the explanation of the funding for MWR and other NAF funded amenities. How sad that the high-and-mighty Arkin would deny you amenities as simple as MWR sites for in-country soldiers to stay in touch with their loved ones at home. What a tiny man.

by Barb on February 12, 2007 10:49 AM

But why would the Big Sis object to the Castle Store ad? Does she have something against Denizennes??? heh.

YEAH!
so.. whassup with that, Big Sis?

by AFSister on February 12, 2007 11:57 AM

1. Do *not* pick on my Big Sis. She survived me, think about that.

2. She's got nothing against you, it's against me... a touch too stereotypically male-oriented for her taste. Remember, my sister is the closest thing to a liberal in the family.

The fact that she hangs out here says something good about us.

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2007 12:43 PM

Not to invoke The Godwin, but that pic of the Marine, above, reminds me of a Hitler quote. I saw "Triumph of the Will" in German, and ol' Adolf was standing up there bringing up the old comrade memories, and spoke about those who had shared the privations of the War, in the field, and in the "Schuetzen-Graben." I just giggled. I (literally) translated it to myself as "Safety-Graves."

P.S. I laughed a lot watching that ("Ich bin Schwaebisch!") but the part that creeped me out was Hitler explaining what he did, and why he did it, to the inconvenient Brown Shirts. We gots some politicians, here and now, who kinda talk like that. Just as with the Nazis, if they treat their own people like that, what can the different folks expect.

N.B. I wrote "talk like that." We haven't yet got to the stage of "act like that."

by Justthisguy on February 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Let's see - you guys sleep in trenches so shells won't kill you in your sleep. You wear something like, what, 80 pounds of protective gear so some some pissed of jihadi behind a wall with an AK doesn't put you in a bag. I got buddies who sleep in tanks that get up to 150 degrees and then pee in tubes in front of their CO's to prove they're not dehydrated. You can get called away from you family for months at a time, and never know if you're going to see them again. And all that is fine and good, assuming you come back in one piece, bodily and emotionally.

And this guy has the nerve to kvetch about the lukewarm lemonade served in hell? Grrr.

If you guys get a golf course or twelve and some entertainment in the field on my dime to do all the above, that's a bill I'm willing to pay, and more. Heaven knows I pay taxes for so many stupid things that this sort of thing wouldn't even be noticed. Helluva lot better than most of the stuff they fund with the public endowment for the arts.

(Sorry if I broke a rule or two John. I get mad about this sort of stuff.)

by J-P on February 12, 2007 3:45 PM

Geez, another general order to keep track of. And yes, having you as a little brother would 'splain a lot.

by Adjutant on February 12, 2007 7:13 PM

So those obscene amenities that my fellow brothers and sisters in uniform seem to be wallowing in, come not from the Citizenry’s taxes but rather from those same folks who use them, what a novel concept Mr. Arkin, is this somehow akin to the wonderful benefits you receive from your employer. Of course not, Mr. Arkin doesn’t pay for those privileges and benefits, they are given to him to attract him and other’s like him to the company, after all the journalism business is incredibly cut-throat isn’t it. I guess that makes Mr. Arkin a mercenary doesn’t it. Funny how that works out, you and those you malign aren’t that different, in your world view, except of course for the fact that the members of the US Military do what they do not out of sense of who will pay me more, but rather because they believe in a set of values that are centered around Honor, Duty and Country.

Mr. Arkin has shown us that the media and those on the left do not appreciate in the slightest what it is that the US Military provides the US Citizenry on a daily basis. As a former member of the US Armed Forces Mr. Arkin should know better, and perhaps he does and if that is true then he has sold his soul and have become that which he so despises; a mercenary at its most base level.

by David M on February 12, 2007 7:33 PM

You just won't ever let me forget telling you about Godwins Law will you Just? :P

Yesh give a guy a techie inch and he takes a techie mile :D

by BloodSpite on February 12, 2007 8:19 PM

How does Finley feel about using his poster thusly?

by Jim C on February 12, 2007 8:29 PM

I am so regreting bringing up Arkin. I don't mind watching the mob go after people like that, but I don't like being the kid who starts it all.

Arkin's main fault is he took it personal and he mixed his opinion with that of the general public at large. Big mistake.

Yeah, the general public continues to support the military. But the complaint by the soldiers wasn't about the general public. That's a nasty rhetorical trick he tried to employ there. Seeing as that it was just a rhetorical trick I'm surprised at the trouble he's gotten into. He tried to make it into a red vs blue issue. Failed. Catastrophically. Only way it could've gone worse is if he put me in charge of it.

I thought he'd get a little roughed up, but this man got lynched. He didn't help himself at all with his further posts, but daaaamn. I feel bad for even bringing him up.

Hi, Sis-o'-The-Armorer! Don't mind me. I'm just the unhired help. (And finally John, answers a question I asked him when he started the Castle Store. gollum forgets, but he also remembers.).

Oh, and as the younger brother of two sisters: Nice tweak. (High five.)

by ry on February 12, 2007 9:45 PM

Snerk. So now you're taking credit "outing" Arkin?

Please.

Geez, dude. You may have brought him up here first, but he'd have surfaced eventually.

Twit hoist himself with his own petard. He has no one to blame but himself. All he did was lower his guard and talk to his peeps. He just forgot that he does that on one of the largest dailies in the country.

TFB.

Besides, I'm a 'splainer. I decided today to 'splain 'bout AAFES.

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2007 9:49 PM

Ry you have a bit of an ego bubble there. Now that's not too wise considering how much snerking goes on here.

Arkin's words are his career. You'd think he'd consider their impact a little more, especially in his replies. Unless it's some kind of publicity whore thing.

However Arkin is burnt at the stake or deemed anti-war hero du Jour his fate isn't very important. But various responses which are going to be presumed conservative or military head down the violent ape path which does the military no favours at all. And that *is* important because a professional defence force is going to have more of the support that a military perceived as a bunch of thugs will not.

The point here is I understand the emotional response of wanting the push him through a mincer but where eyes see and ears hear going through with that impulse is doing your fellow soldiers a disservice.

Arkin is so not worth it.

by Trias on February 13, 2007 3:06 AM

Trias - you finally broke out of comment-moderation hell. I wonder what changed.

As for the rest of what you said - that's why just used it as a vehicle to explain things, offer some context.

And resisted the urge to whack him with a chain-mail gauntlet.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2007 6:00 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Feb 12, 2007
� The Thunder Run links with: A Final Thought on Arkin痴 Mercenaries, Maybe.

February 7, 2007

Sorry, I just can't help myself...

This time, I'm stone-cold sober.

Bill Arkin on:
Demonization and Responsibility

Bill: I’ve been making my way through the mail and online comments I’ve received in response to my columns last week.

The many e-mails I’ve gotten privately from people serving in the military are, not surprisingly, the most respectful and reflective. Some correspondents are downright indignant, some are sarcastic, and most are hurt by the “mercenary” epithet and my commentary.

Moi: Wait. You’re NOT surprised the comments are “…respectful and reflective.”? I thought the benighted souls you described in the first two screeds would not be capable of such things. Mercenaries are not reflective. That’s why they’re mercenaries.

Bill: But they are philosophical about their service and where we are in the war and the country today.

Me: I have no idea what on earth that means. Philosophical as in “resigned to defeat” or as in “we’re used to this kind of tripe, in the best traditions of Jane Fonda and John Kerry”?

Bill: The torrents of other mail — biting, fanatical, threatening — represent the worst of polarized and hate-filled America.

Me: Read “Screw ‘em” Kos lately? How about John Edwards’ new internet chief? They dominate the left side of the blogosphere.

Bill: I’m not complaining about being criticized or being made the latest punching bag for those who subsist off of high-volume conquest.

Me again: “…the latest punching bag for those who subsist off of high-volume conquest…” is the latest MSM euphemism for “those uppity proles talking back to their betters” I should think.

Bill: Nor am I apologizing for addressing, however imperfectly, the questions I did last week, nor for being critical of the military.

Me: Bill, there’s a difference between “being critical” and being slanderous. You don’t know it.

Bill: Instead, I’m trying to make sense of the worldview of those who have responded. For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized. In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I’m not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I’m merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.

Me: Another “what-the-heck-is-he-talking-about?” moment. This is completely incoherent. (Hint: “person,” “individual,” and “human being” are essentially the same for the purpose of his argument which is, I think, “I’m human so they hate me!” This makes no sense either.)
There is no serious “campaign” to “annihilate” you, Bill, but there are a lot of people out there who think what you said is beyond the pale. Alas, some of them are in the news business too and are trying to get you to defend your position and, so far, it looks like you can’t. Or won’t.
And, oh yes, you are indeed setting yourself up as “victim” (see your sentence preceding the one I just cited). You then compound this contradiction by darkly hinting at the “…implications of dehumanization.” What ARE those implications, pray tell?
This should be interesting, given your denial that you are pleading victimhood.

Bill: The overall theme is fairly consistent: I bask in my easy, comfortable, elitist Washington existence telling people what to think and deciding what news is, while others suffer. Therefore, those who claim to love America and all it stands for wish for my life, my work, my fat-cat existence to be taken away from me, that I be punished not only for what I think but for who I am.

Me: It’s an easy trap to fall into, I admit. After reading something by a person who obviously has zero recent exposure to the military or, at the very most, a cursory one, some people might want you to get a different perspective. I think that’s the real message, however crudely expressed. For most folks like me, however, the reaction was a sigh and shake of the head after reading something so obviously inaccurate, unfair and just flat wrong…by the military affairs and homeland security “expert” of the Washington Post.

Bill: They find fault with four major areas of my work and existence.

Me (In my best command voice): Oh, stop whining and get to the point!…

Bill: Let’s start with military service: The argument I read is either that I haven’t served (coward, leftist, not real American), or that even if I did wear the uniform (which I did), I had a comfortable and safe existence in Germany while my brethren were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Or, that I was not high-ranking enough to know anything. Or, that I was not low-ranking enough to really experience the truth.

Me: For those who made assumptions in error, that’s a fair point, Bill. For future reference, before you malign a group, stating that you do have some experience with that group, of that type, may attenuate the overall blowback. Of course, the nature of the comments affects that attenuation. Some slagging of the military even by former soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines can get a rise, based on the nature of the rant. And Bill, trust me, that first piece was a rant.

Bill: I can see, in the military blogs and in the comments of those who have written about my posts last week, that those who refer to themselves as Vietnam veterans still yearn for the recognition and thanks that they believe they haven’t received.

Me: Now this is just a guess on my part, but I think in recent years, Vietnam vets have received a great deal of positive recognition. Granted, some is patronizing (of the Charlie Rangel sort) but for the most part it’s been genuine. In my personal military experience (26 years active duty), the Vietnam vets I knew were almost universally revered…we looked up to them for their experience, toughness and élan.

Bill: There is no question that Vietnam is still an open wound for them, and that they therefore only recognize the worth of fellow veterans, of those who have been through exactly the same experience.

Me: I think this may be a bit of a projection. You’re projecting the average Hollywood screenwriter (TV or movie, makes little difference). By that I mean, you’re seeing something that may be occurring in a small percentage of vets but projecting it onto all Viet vets. Really, most are normal, successful people and just honestly glad today’s kids aren’t being maligned for their courage and sacrifice.

Bill: (Why didn’t I actually serve in Vietnam? I enlisted in the Army less than one month after my 18th birthday in June, 1974, at a time when the war was essentially over and when no one joining the new, all-volunteer force was being sent to Vietnam.)
Then there is the issue of who pays me to write this blog: the mainstream media. Whether it’s the Washington Post or journalism in general, there is nothing the blogosphere likes better to rail against than mainstream media organizations. Now that Iraq is the center of national struggle, and with the President portraying U.S. presence there and the outcome of the conflict as a fight for national survival and honor, media bashing has gotten ever more vicious.

Me: Man, this projection thing is pernicious, ain’t it?

Bill: Since I write for washingtonpost.com, I am part of the all powerful, self-congratulatory, far-left, Bush-bashing, fifth column mainstream. It isn’t so much what I say — after all I’m an opinion columnist and if you don’t like what I say, don’t read it — it is more that I sit in my safe little cubicle in front of a keyboard sipping lattes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy while our boys and girls die. In other words, I’m comfortable while others suffer.

Me: No argument to the opening sentence, as long as you’re talking about military people, people of faith, flyover staters, Republicans and the rest of the people Michael Moore wish had been the actual victims on 911 (at least until he retracted it from his website).
Then there’s the AP photoshopped pics, the filming of a kid getting hit by a sniper’s bullet (CNN), the cover blowing of a legal but covert tracking of terrorist funding channels (NY Times). Bill, people are angry at smug, self-congratulatory, far-left (at least according to newsroom polls), Bush-bashing (to quote Evan “That’s my job.” Thomas, ), mainstream media.

Bill: Other criticism focuses on public opinion, which commenters say I’ve misstated. It appears that many Iraq war supporters believe that public opinion against the war (and the President) is a concoction of the mainstream news media and the liberal elite.

Me: There is no question the public mood has soured on the war. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Could it be the steady diet of defeatist propaganda pumped out by your peers?
When Chris Matthews, talking about the war, asks Matt Damon if Cheney should be waterboarded over the war and how his answers would then change, you kinda get the feeling that there isn’t a lot of love out there for the Administration and the war.
That only Baghdad’s battle is being shown when the majority of that country is experiencing nothing like that, when a couple of soldiers are killed or wounded in an engagement that annihilates (really, not figuratively) literally scores of terrorist “insurgents” and the characterization is that the good guys (that would be our soldiers and their Iraqi comrades) were “almost overwhelmed by a rag-tag militia” (paraphrasing the Grey Lady again), are you surprised at how the tide of public opinion has been turned?
To be honest, my hat’s off to you. You have played a key role in breaking the will of the people and elected leaders of world’s only superpower to resist barbarism before its depredations cause more death and suffering abroad and at home.

Bill: Moreover, some seem to believe that in the battle for public opinion, people like me are in some kind a contest with soldiers or veterans of the Iraq war as to who knows best.

Me: No contest. You appear firm in your conviction that you do…or only you should.

Bill: As this line of argument goes, the soldiers themselves and those who have served in Iraq are the only ones who really know what it is like, what the war is about, and what should be done. The media in general and war opponents in particular intentionally and purposefully provide a negative and discouraging view that doesn’t comport with what the soldiers see, so goes this argument. But the bigger point is that any dissenting voices are just those of whores, politicians, tin foil hat liberals, or worse, un-Americans. In this view, there are no actual experts in this world, no one who studies and measures public opinion, no one who studies war or the military, who do not wear the uniform. This is not some post-modern relativism, it is pure anti-elitism. The elite think they know it all, while those who do all of the dirty work, who do all of the suffering, are methodically ignored and dominated.

Me: Nope. It’s people who you’re not used to having an avenue to argue back atcha doing just that. Sorry, Bill. Gone are the days when you could type this stuff and not hear a peep out of the “anti-elites.”

Bill: Finally, commenters attack what I wrote as the work of Democrats and “liberals.” I’m lumped with Bill Clinton, that degenerate who decimated the military and the Kerry-Sheehan-Hillary-Gore-Pelosi evil axis, which now threatens more of the same. Fight back, the commenters say to their brethren. America for too long turned the other cheek against terrorism and now it is time not just to fight but to draw battle lines and show no mercy in that fight. They have, after all, shown no mercy for us.

Me: The first sentence in the preceding paragraph is a hoot. The last is, well, pretty good—sign me up!

Bill: In this narrative, I have spat upon the American soldier and thus America, called the true patriots naïve and un-educated.

Me: OK, so far…

Bill: I have all the power and control all of the words and through my actions I enslave others and ensure that only my type and my class prospers.

Me: Oh, don’t be silly, Bill. We NEVER gave you that much credit. You’re starting to sound rather amusing now.

Bill: The reconciliatory and peace-loving narrative is that only the soldiers are honorable and virtuous, and no matter how despicable I and my ilk are, they will still “save” me from the enemy. The evil narrative is that they will happily watch me die, serving not as protector but as judge of who can live and who does not deserve to.

Me: Well, in the first case, that’s a bit like your own condescension. In the second, well, they shouldn’t be listened to anyway—just ask Michelle Malkin about verbal abuse from the Left…two wrongs don't make a right, of course but a few of her samples might give you some insight into what it takes to be a little more thick-skinned about that sort of thing. Then again, reading some of them might give you a case of the vapors. My bet is hers have been much worse, and much more numerous, than yours.

Bill: Note: On the advice of my editors, this is the last column I will post for awhile on this subject. My impulse would be to continue to fight back and answer the critics, but I see the wisdom in their observation that nothing new is being said here and the Internet frenzy is adding nothing to the debate or our understanding of our world. I also see that I cannot continue to write about humanity and difficult questions if indeed what I wish is to vanquish those who attack me.
A blog is a deeply personal endeavor and for that reason, the writing and the comments in response veer towards the hyper-personalized. I need to say to my readers, though, that I write an opinion column. It is my voice, one that is often sarcastic and one that solely reflects my 30 years of experience in the field. I strive to see an angle in an event that is different. Because I try to be ahead of the curve, and not just reflect conventional wisdom, the observations are often uncooked, and often even wrong. I feel successful when I’ve tapped into something, and I guess the recent postings have been a success in that regard, even though they have become painful for me and others.

Me: Bwaaaaaaaahahahaha! Sorry…couldn’t think of anything else to say. That. Was. Just. Funny!

Bill: I’m a bit surprised that many of the critics, even the O’Reilly’s of the world, think that I AM the Washington Post, that is, that the journalism in the Post is inseparable from the opinion. Maybe these critics are just posturing to attack the newspaper; maybe they truly don’t get it; maybe they really wish for or foresee the demise of the mainstream news media. The Post, on the other hand, has made a major commitment to adjust itself to this new, cacophonous, very imperfect new medium, demonstrating that it is not going to die a carbon death while the digital era advances. Because it is the Washington Post, I know that my words carry more weight, and that gives me an added responsibility: I not only have to be true to myself and what I believe and adhere to the facts, but I also have to be mindful of the power of the pen. In that spirit, I’ll give myself and my readers a break.

Sentence to the WaPo Editors:

Thank you! For Bill’s sake! As for us, we can fend for ourselves.

Signed,
Your readers.

[BTW - if you missed Dusty's first rant on the subject... click here.]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Dusty on Feb 07, 2007
� Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator links with: Study: More kids exposed to online porn

February 6, 2007

Friendly Fire = Good Copy

This is back in the news, the HUD tape now being broadcast on the MSM.

A couple of comments vis-a-vis the text of the article reproduced below:

The incident occurred just seven days into the war as two pilots were nearing the end of a two-hour mission to destroy rocket launchers and artillery from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 6th Armored Division. The pilots were flying "tankbusters," jets whose prime mission is to destroy tanks.

Well, no, the prime mission of the Hog is not to be "tankbusters" but I chalk that up to general reporter cluelessness...not a big deal, really, and certainly not surprizing.

The enemy rocket launchers were dug into positions 25 miles north of Basra. Meanwhile, a British convoy of four armored vehicles was making its way north to probe enemy defenses.

Circling at 12,000 feet, one of the pilots spotted the Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north of the target of their previous attack run, as well as the convoy about three miles away. A Marine Forward Air Command official, code-named "Manila Hotel," asks them to engage the targets.

Which targets? The rocket launchers? The movers? The "Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north"? Those are the questions that immediately come to mind. I have no idea what the "Marine Forward Air Command" is; I assume they're referring to the ground FAC..but he could be an Air FAC. No clue.

The pilot, identified by the call sign POPOV36, radioed back that the vehicles' roofs appeared to display orange painted panels used to indicate coalition forces to aircraft. The pilot asked Air Command to confirm that there were no "friendlies this far north on the ground."

"That is an affirm," Manila Hotel radioed back. "You are well clear of friendlies."

OK. I'm well clear of friendlies. Or not. Several things here, and I can't say much more since I haven't heard the tapes but 1) does the FAC (assuming it's a Forward Air Controller) have eyes on the movers, in this case the Brit convoy? 2) Does he have eyes on the target? 3) Has his info been accurate in the past portion of the mission, i.e., has he established his cred with the flight that he knows the area, the target set, locations of the friendlies and other data (like accurately describing the target area) that lends one to believe he knows what he's talking about on questions like, "Are there any friendlies in the area?" Another thing...did the pilot ask about the orange panels? ("WTF? That looks like a good guy...I'm gonna tell him I see orange, or think I do.") Maybe it was asked, maybe it wasn't. And I confess to a certain amount of subject matter expert arm-chair quarterbacking here.

POPOV36 then contacted the second A-10 pilot, codenamed POPOV35, to coordinate the attack on the vehicles with "orange rockets" attached to them. An apparently confused POPOV35, however, requested that Forward Command fire an artillery round at the target to clear up the confusion, then suggested that the pair should return to base due to time constraints.

"I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great," POPOV36 replied before rushing in to strafe the convoy.

BIG question mark here. First, the odd-numbered callsign, Popov 35, is the lead's. Makes sense he'd be calling in arty to confirm they, i.e., whatever he's looking at--could be the convoy, could be the launchers--are bad guys. He's also the guy principally responsible for fuel management (and everything else, for that matter). The words, "...before rushing in to strafe the convoy..." leaves the reader with the impression that the wingman engaged without any further discussion, clearance or guidance. That's possible, but unlikely--big hole in the story here. What was said? Who gave clearance, if any? How is "rush" defined? Two seconds after 35 talked about fuel? A minute later after confirming the target and completing the in-flight attack brief? What?

Seconds after the circling for a second attack, American and British voices frantically call the A-10s to call off the attack — but the damage already had been done. Lance Cpl. of Horse Matty Hull, 25, died of injuries sustained as the A-10s pumped 50 rounds per second of armor-piercing shells into the convoy. Four other British troops also were injured.

"I'm going to be sick," POPOV35 radioed when Air Command broke the news. POPOV36 can be heard sobbing in the background.

Sounds like it was unintentional. And I don't mean to be sarcastic here. Friendly fire incidents are in the back of your mind every time you roll in. These guys are made to sound like out-of-control American air pirates (the impression I think was deliberately planted by the "rushing in" characterization) but they were probably anything but.

A British investigation into the 25-year-old's death was adjourned last week after a coroner said he "had no choice" but to delay his verdict because the United States refused to release the tape.

"A copy of the video was used as evidence by the Board of Inquiry's investigation into the incident. ... This recording is the property of the United States government and the [Ministry of Defense] does not have the right to release it without their permission," a U.K. Defense spokeswoman said.

I wonder who did?

The incident has been a sore spot with some British lawmakers who have demanded that U.S. soldiers involved in friendly fire incidents attend U.K. hearings. The United States has denied requests for servicemen to appear in court but does submit anonymous statements on each case.

Hull's widow, Susan Hull, said she was told the tape can help bring justice for her husband, the Sun reported.

"I'm very relieved this is being made public at long last," she said. "I can't believe these pilots can discuss what they're doing so casually when these are the last moments of my husband's life."

Don't see the "casually" in the transcript. Eager to kill enemy targets is casual? Their evident horror after the fact was anything but casual. Maybe these guys were different, but I cannot think of anyone I know who has been casual...at anytime...on a combat mission. The lady's anguish is certainly understandable and I can't fault her for the characterization, but I honestly don't think it fits. Again, my opinion only.

Sources last week said the tape, which the Ministry of Defense claimed did not exist, was "incriminating."

A senior U.S. military source told The Sun: "This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account."

I'd LOVE to know who that was. I think he needs to be identified and asked to explain his position.

The Sun is owned by News Corp., which is the parent company of FOXNews.com.

Final thoughts:

1) Blue-on-blue incidents are horrid and the things that REALLY make you wake up in a cold sweat at night. It really is the scariest thing to contemplate. Getting shot down is bad, but killing your own guys is MUCH worse. But it will happen. In. Every. War.

2) It can, however, be stopped by just not doing CAS. It's an option.

3) Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.

4) Perhaps the money we spend on fixed-wing air should be restricted to counter-air missions, i.e., shooting down enemy jets and weapons and attacking airfields well behind enemy lines (the latter is more efficient, by the way).

But, bottom line, the only way to guarantee no mistakes is to just not do it.

-Instapilot

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I thought the worst part is when they wanted "justice" for the death. We aren't talkinga about civilians playing with guns and accidently shooting somebody or a trigger happy police officer or an outright felonious murderer wacking some innocent who stopped to gas at the local convenience store and ended up in the middle of a robbery.

We're talking about combat. Though I understand the need to hold officers accountable for neglect or failure of command, I don't understand how this is "justice" for a death that basically occured in combat.

by kat-missouri on February 6, 2007 1:27 PM

Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.

I think that particular solution is the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many coalition partners of the U.S. haven't got CAS assets that can integrate with you guys. If you're going to have coalitions at all, everybody needs to support each other. Pull the CAS, and you're crippling your military coalition.

Btw, here's a link to the transcript.

by Damian on February 6, 2007 2:38 PM

This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities.

by J-P on February 6, 2007 2:53 PM

Comrades,

I think that a better solution is to return the Air Force to the US Army. There is no valid reason for the United States to maintain an Air Force as a seperate branch.

The Navy can handle the ICBM's, Space Command, etc. The Army can have all of the CAS it wants. They can have the Strategic Bombers forces as well. Sounds to me like a win/win all around.

Respects,

by Gwedd on February 6, 2007 6:12 PM

Heh. AW1 Tim just made the target list.

by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 7:19 PM

Instapilot. The video and transcript can clear up many of your questions.

by Trias on February 6, 2007 8:48 PM

Trias - go ahead and fill in the blanks.

by John of Argghhh! on February 6, 2007 9:12 PM

Trias,

Problem is, there are bits where you don't know who's talking to whom. The tape records everything you say into the mask. It does not distinguish between outgoing and intercom only and it does not distinguish between VHF-FM/AM transmissions and UHF. The radio you use is dependant upon which way you press the mic button and there are a couple of places where it may be that one party did not hear the other party's question/comment. I'll have to take a look at it tomorrow to try to clarify what I'm trying to say.

Not making excuses for 'em and Popov 36's attacks are made without final clearance, but I could be wrong...OR...the particular CAS type didn't require a final "Cleared hot." call (in some situations close control is not a requisite to employing weapons)...as I said, need to read it a little more closely.

by Instapilot on February 6, 2007 9:34 PM

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

The attempted withholding of the cockpit tapes, and the continued refusal of the american authorities to co-operate with the inquest just confirms our impression of cowardice and ultimate disrespect of the US military/political body.

by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:42 PM

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:43 PM

"it's clear they were trying to distinguish the bad guys from the friendlies"?!!!

They weren't trying very hard! They mentioned 'orange markings' several times but helped each other to come to the conclusion that they were 'orange rockets'!

Yet another instance of gung ho amatuer ANG american pilots not wanting to RTB with unexpended stores.

The US embassy spokesman said it was clear the pilots were 'contrite'; I couldn't hear it. Worried that they were in trouble 'we're in jail dude', quite possibly.

Although why? No inquiry (was there really one held?) has ever penalised an american for killing allied troops.

For those of you with short memories, the majority of British deaths in the first gulf way were caused by american 'friendly fire'.

by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:45 PM

"This sounds remarkably like a political shakedown - i.e., some Euro leftists in Britain upset about the war are going after our guys in this fashion because they know we can't possibly prevent every battlefield accident. Portraying Americans as out of control cowboys is a standard tactic of that crowd, as is generating fresh outrage about old combat realities."

The old bollocks!

The fact is we in Britain are pissed off being involved in a war whose prime concern is US oil supplies, and the lining of Bush/Runsfeld/Cheney's pockets!

by pastis on February 8, 2007 6:49 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Dusty on Feb 06, 2007

February 3, 2007

Fisk! Fisk!

Man, am I hammered. Whoever invented the Rusty Nail is (was?) a frickin' GENIUS. Been flyin' my a$$ off and trying to read the new contract before I bid for March (inside baseball airline comment--don't try to understand). Remodeling the house. Walking the dog in sub-zero temps. Flyin' but able to see my family every month. Heh. Life is good.

Then I read Bill Arkin...both his first piece and the follow up.

Oi.

So, I have a few cocktails and ponder.

This is the attack pilot way. It is not to be questioned. Well, you CAN question it, but I won't care and I won't answer. So there.

And thus, without further ado, is my rejoinder....

Bill: The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out

Me: Oh, dear. It does not bode well for the writer when he or she begins the piece with an ad hominem attack on those who have criticized his work. “Methinks thou dost protest too much” comes to mind but, after thinking about it, it fits the pattern of a man who, at least at first blush, seems to know he’s done something wrong. Not morally wrong, mind you, but tactically dumb—coming out of defilade too early is a misstep he regrets, i.e., before spitting on veterans is in vogue at the nation’s airports and other ports of debarkation. Timing is everything and America just isn’t ready to give the troops (professional thugs, if you will) the treatment they actually deserve.

Bill: Well, one thing’s abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn’t the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans — who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Me: For those who did that to Mr. Arkin, foul—depart the range, you’ve violated the ROE—by that I mean you’ve lowered yourself to his level (or worse, to Markos Moulitsas’).

Bill: Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

Me: Well, lad, that’s a bit of a dodge, actually. There is literal and implied messaging in one’s product, especially when crafting an opinion piece. The impression many people got is that you sort of think the troops should, in one man’s words, “shut up and bleed.” Perhaps this is incorrect, but thousands came away with that impression. Moreover, in listening to your interview with John Gibson, you quite clearly implied (to me…not my fault, man, I was just sitting there listening) that the behavior at Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly but rather typical, because that’s what American soldiers do.

Bill: I said I was bothered by the notion that “the troops” were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

Me: Please. First, the troops don’t need scare quotes. They exist. They are real. And they are hallowed beings to some extent in that they have voluntarily entered into the fray against barbarism. Second, many are post-9/11 enlistees and officer volunteers, conscious of what they were doing when they signed up and why. Third, they are willing to die for total strangers, in a faraway, alien place for a concept, not for a buck, not for health care, not for benefits but because they think it’s the right thing to do.
OK, I’ll give you that they’d probably prefer to live, but are willing to die if they must. Personally, I don’t think I’m fit to shine these guys’ boots…and I’m a retired senior officer (that would be a Colonel).

Bill: I was dead wrong in using the word "mercenary" to describe the American soldier today.

Me: Ah, the first step in rehab is admitting you have a problem…

Bill: These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Me: Goodness. I really think you misheard them. First of all, “hide” used in the same sentence as “American soldier” is a bit of an operational oxymoron. Second, these are people who are willing to sacrifice everything, in the most literal sense, for you to say they most repugnant things about them you can conjure.
That, my friend, is not hiding behind the Constitution. It is defending it to the utmost. Now, I will grant you there may be some impatience with the Democrat Party, “liberals” (who are often anything but, given their proclivity for suppressing counters to their arguments—scare quotes justly earned), journalists, dissenters and anti-freedom citizens because what these warriors see, in person, up close and personal, utterly annihilates the premises under which the above-mentioned groups labor. Third, I defy you to present me with a credible example of an active duty soldier, sailor, airman or Marine that shows “contempt” for the American people. Do they exist? Hey, there’s a FEW bad apples in every barrel but the percentage is statistically negligible. I’d bet my life on it and I’d be willing to bet his/her peers have no use for them…nada, zero, zip.

Bill: What I’ve heard ever since my article “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People“ was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

Me: OK, there are a lot of people telling you to shut up. Not good. However, there are a LOT of people out there who recognized the article for what it was, a snarky, condescending smackdown of men and women putting their lives on the line for a noble cause and making the best of a bad situation. Your piece was petty. It was dismissive. It was small. It was unoriginal.

Bill: I never said we shouldn’t support the troops. I just lamented that “we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?”

Me: Whoa, whoa, whoa! “We support them in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY?!?” C’mon, dude. Even the densest grunt and Jarhead KNOW that ain’t the case. “Support” refers to “giving aid and assistance to,” “providing encouragement to,” etc., and that isn’t a theme that jumps out in your piece. Your “lament” is crocodilian—tears that are shed for effect, not in sincerity. Then the paragraph descends into incoherence—“give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up” is sort of repudiated by the fact that you are doing so in one of the three most widely-read newspapers in the United States if not the world. “…[B]ecause they are above society” is called “projection”—assigning a shortcoming to an external entity that you in fact display in spades. (I know this is a waste of time, but I offer this as a way to support the troops: Support any and all efforts that lead to victory over Islamic fascism and contribute to establishing a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East.)

Bill: Thousands have written telling me to “shut up and quit whining,” that the troops do support the American people - “with their lives.”
I can’t respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I’ll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.

Me: *Sigh* “Impossible war” you say?

Indeed.

Read up on the war in the Pacific between 1942 and ’45. Fraught with mistakes, thousands of casualties, knee-deep in blood, the Allies fought on.

In Europe, the casualty rate in one battle alone (The Bulge) was 26 times that suffered to date in Iraq.

I know this makes your head explode—no death is acceptable in fighting for freedom, at least when a Republican is the Commander-in-Chief, but perspective is everything.

Given the fact that we are engaged in a struggle with entities that would detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil given half a chance, the cost we have borne so far is miniscule by comparison.

Now, before you take this out of context, know that I consider the blood of an American soldier the most precious of things. If I could prevent a drop being spilled, I would do it. But I cannot. I believe that resistance is necessary, uncompromising, fierce, and unyielding. That means blood will be spilled. But, as long as we believe that victory is preferable over defeat, it will not be spilled in vain.

-Instapilot

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Dusty on Feb 03, 2007

Wahabism Delenda Est!

If cease fires in the name of peace actually produced peace the Middle East would be the most peaceful place on earth by now.
.
Mebbe it's just Clobbering Time.
.
Just sayin'
.
"The Iraqis don't want Saddam back - they want the stability. But they want the stability without being fed into industrial chippers."
. -The Armorer, on Hugh Hewitt, 27 December 2006.

Life Member

Paid Up For Life

NRA

Castle Argghhh! - A Top 500 Blog

To Visit The Imperial Arsenal of Doom Click Here!

If all you came for is Gun Pr0n just Click here!

Gun Bloggers!

Rinos!

June 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

June 20, 2008

Nuremberg, Osama and Obama

June 9, 2008

One of the Most Dishonest Headlines Ever Printed?

May 6, 2008

"That little empty space on his lapel…"

April 9, 2008

Attacking Bellavia: Comparing Heroes Now "Racist"

March 26, 2008

Gollum Watches TV. It’s PBS so it’s OK. (Review of the ‘Bush’s War’ documentary from Frontline.)

March 24, 2008

Making the News

March 4, 2008

Speaking of Prince Harry and Matt Drudge...

What the FARC?

December 11, 2007

When OS analyst shops attack

December 8, 2007

Accountability Demo, Marine Style (Semper Fi Mea Culpa)...

October 13, 2007

H&I Fires 13 OCT 2007

September 3, 2007

I suspect Rove was involved...

August 25, 2007

A Dissertation Upon the Differences Between the MSM and The MSM

July 26, 2007

Pity Private Beauchamp, he's just misunderstood and defamed.

Trias inspires me...

July 23, 2007

The New Republic and "Scott Thomas."

June 28, 2007

Why I don't watch TV news.

May 30, 2007

Bill Arkin responds to the milbloggers.

May 29, 2007

Heh. As usual, Bill Arkin gets it *almost* right.

April 30, 2007

Having recieved a Boot to the head.(A response to John’s response in the H&I*)

Chimpy McBushitler's Black-Clad Ninja Building Burners Strike Again!

April 17, 2007

Virginia Tech.

April 13, 2007

Heh. Imus gets fired.

April 9, 2007

Shame. Shame on the BBC.

March 10, 2007

More "Professional" Press Coverage of the Military

February 15, 2007

Shhhh!!!

February 12, 2007

Obscene Amenities?

February 7, 2007

Sorry, I just can't help myself...

February 6, 2007

Friendly Fire = Good Copy

February 3, 2007

Fisk! Fisk!

Heh. As usual, Bill Arkin gets it almost right.