Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: Politicians Hit Bottom, Dig... Archives

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)

Rock the Kasbah: Obama's Pravda

[Kat]

Reading over at HotAir, I caught this little gem: Obama's 75k crowd was a rock concert.

I heard about this all day and then some. People were crowing at the "largest political rally, evah". The media...oh, heck, let's just call them what they are...Pravda kept hyping this huge turn out as if it was the harbinger of doom for not only Hillary, but for all those who might oppose the great and mighty Obama.

Well, it turns out that a very popular band gave a free concert...er..played for an hour before the rally began up there in Oregon. The group called The Decembrists are, what might be called, "alternate pop". According to Wikipedia, the Decembrists have played:

In July 2007, the band embarked on a five-date tour with a full orchestral accompaniment. On July 7, the tour put the band on the stage of the historic Hollywood Bowl for the first time, pairing them with the Los Angeles Philharmonic.[9] On July 15, the band performed with The Mann Festival Orchestra at The Mann Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where they debuted a new song.[10] The band then played a free concert in Chicago at the Millennium Park with the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra.

.

So, how many no name bands have you heard of that play with the LA Philharmonic ar at the Mann Center for Performing Arts in Philly? The band was big enough for a short European tour and 28 shows in the US. And, have their last album noted on Billboard

On October 6, 2007, the band announced the cancellation of the remainder of their European tour, citing the ill health of a band member. On November 1, 2007, the band further canceled the remaining 28 shows of their "Long and Short of It" tour.[14]

And, to get around those pesky details of in kind contributions per the McCain-Feingold (spit) act, the band had themselves billed as performing individually as opposed to "the Decembrists" who are under contract with Capitol records and would have to declare the value of their rock concert to be much bigger than they would as individuals at a rally:

The members of The Decemberists appeared, individually billed (as "Colin Meloy, Chris Funk, Jenny Conlee, Nate Query, and John Moen"), to perform in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at a rally at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland, Oregon, on May 18, 2008 that drew a crowd of 75,000 people. [15]

Unlike Pravda and Obama's campaign (wait, isn't that the same?), the band recognizes that, yes, indeed, their performance, after having to cancel a big tour last year due to illness, releasing a new album and signing on to Capitol, drew the crowd.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

We've come to expect this from the Lame Stream Media, but it's still scary every time we learn just how deeply they're shilling for one side over the other.

by fdcol63 on May 22, 2008 7:02 AM

Yeah, no doubt none of the 75K participants even knew that Obama was going to be there. I'm sure they all came out for a relatively unknown West Coast alt rock band who probably wouldn't be even known to the general public except for the Colbert Show. Don't worry though, I'm sure that John Sidney McCain will have his chance to get a country-western band to front one of his political rallies. Then maybe he'll get more than just a few thousand disaffected Repubs to show up.

by Jason on May 22, 2008 8:00 AM

Dude, nobody said no one came to see Obama, but lets be real. 75k people didn't show up to see Obama in the Park. That's why the most you can say to defend it is "no doubt none of the 75K participants even knew that Obama was going to be there."

And, now I laugh about your "relatively unknown" band. Even I had heard of them and I live in the "clingy, bitter" midwest and rarely listen to alternate rock. The Alternate Rock scene is the Northwest Coast thing. Nirvana? I still remember back in the day when they were drawing in huge crowds and I was saying "who's Nirvana?"

For these folks, add in Pitchfork, the west coast music paper with several big adds promoting the Obama rally and free concert, along with multiple radio stations and local TV news coverage promoting the event?

I'm sure somebody came to see Obama.

And, I hadn't noticed any concerts for McCain as yet, though I recall last election with a few country music stars providing entertainment at some events. They were paid for it, too. However, even those events were limited to specific locations and number of potential attendees and largely for fund raising among a specific crowd.

Now, if Toby Keith showed up and gave a free concert in the park with mcCain speechifying afterwards, I'm sure we'd get a nice crowd going, but I sure wouldn't say they came to see McCain.

A WELL known alternate rock band from the West Coast gave a free concert in the Park. People came. They got a politician's speech afterwards. The Obama crowd tried to claim it was the Messiah's presence.

Sorry, in the bitter midwest, we know BS when we see it.

by kat-missouri on May 22, 2008 9:29 AM

Hee! All we have to do to get Jason to drop from lurking in the rafters is to poke his fella.

Jason - do I take from your silence on my "Dem Military Credentialing" post you didn't find too much to quibble about - at least not enough to make it worth the effort? Or did Argent carry your water on that post?

Or did you just not (sniff, sniff) read it?

8^ )

by John of Argghhh! on May 22, 2008 9:30 AM

Oh, and Kat, that's *clingy* and bitter. Stick to the meme, womyn!

by John of Argghhh! on May 22, 2008 10:00 AM

Um, J, Portland is a west coast city with major ties to the alt rock world, homey.

But, Kat, having listened to them (their kind of emo sounding, but not, in an odd way kind of reminds me innocence mission, but they're a lot like many of the other critic faves the last two years. Folky, emo-ish, and the kind of stuff you can play in a working office nicely) anyone who'd be into them hardcore enough to go to a concert is likely to be an Obama backer anyway. Well, that or a die hard cynic who hates pols anyways. So, 45k show up without the band. The remaining 30k show up because it is Obama AND the band. 5k show up for band only. That's this WC alternative(not alternate. (Joke deleted because the potential for misunderstanding was waaaay to high.)) rock kid thinks knowing what he knows about the scene and the region.

Sure, it's the legacy media laying it on thick for Obama, but it's also an overeaction to think that the crowd would be like 12k, in PORTLAND(liberal mecca), for Obama.

by ry on May 22, 2008 2:10 PM

Well I don't do alternative but my wife does, she's heard of them, I stick to classic rock and metal bands myself. Just suggesting it's a bit snappish to try to take away from Obama's very evident popularity (outside Apalachia that is) by sniffing "well, there WAS a rock band there..."

John I must have missed your post. I have to say that having to face that horrible cartoon "daybyday" is a factor in my reluctance to come over here and spar with you all... it's like liberal repellant...

by Jason on May 22, 2008 2:33 PM

YOu've got to be kidding me. DBD is repellent? You can scroll past it in less than 3 seconds(more if you use dial-up from home, like me). That's weak sauce.

And, yeah, I'm not having a good time with your commentors. You guys are hooked on the 'I hate republicans' song too much it would seem. I'm not saying that they should agree with me, but when the core of a dude's arguement is the assumption that the other side is stupid and evil, well, he's not playing with a full deck.

by ry on May 23, 2008 2:39 AM

Day by Day is uneven, I admit. But yeah, I'm with Ry, "Just scroll on by..." like the song said.

Wait, that was walk - but hey, same meaning in context.

I promise - you can start post Ted Rall and I'll just scroll on by...

Ry - I suspect Jason is like most of us, who try to read "the other side" - when they stick to what they know and do best, we can stick to policy discussions on the merits.

When they go full partisan, especially as in the tank for Senator Obama as Jason is, well, it's hard not to wince. Samey-same from his side.

I'm just not in the tank for anyone, in that I'm inspired by the choices. I suppose in that vein, I envy Jason his fevered frenzy for the Senator.

Me, I know I'm going to vote for McCain, absent something tectonic happening... because the only issue I have left that is usefully affected by this race is Judges.

I'm resigned to the fact that Jason and his boys and girls are going to open up my piggy bank and give the money to anyone but me, tell me how warm or cool I can keep my house, and how much food to eat.

And that's just from last week's speechifying by Senator Obama.

by John of Argghhh! on May 23, 2008 6:33 AM

I'm not saying that everyone there was about the Decemberists, but they are bigger than Jason and even Ry are making out. Their last album peaked at 35 on Billboard. Think about that. We're talking about a generation that is very adept and *not* paying for their music, yet they are popular enough to rise to 35 and spend over a dozen weeks on the chart.

I knew who they were (at 47) because they had been on the Colbert report.

I agree with Ry - there would be a lot of cross pollonation between Decemberist fans and Obama supporters.

Although I think Kat's main point was that the main stream media totally hyped Obama's drawing power by leaving out the Decemberist angle. Sin of ommission........it's spin and she's calling them on it. I think she's right on the money.

by Maggie on May 23, 2008 6:45 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Kat on May 22, 2008

Seen around New York.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Heh. Speaking of politicians from the Empire State...

From the fertile mind that resides here: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

The latter comes from the man who gives us bucket's o' snark at Doug Ross@Journal.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Mar 27, 2008

Keepin' it in your pants.

So, we find that another powerful man has succumbed to the temptations of power and wealth.

And another woman is shackled to her politician husband as he confesses on national television how much he's let down his family.

Ah, would that he'd thought of that earlier - but it seems one of the diseases of power is a belief that those rules are for the other guy. You know which other guy - the ones you put in jail for breaking (or, in this case providing the service you took advantage of) the laws, etc.

Personally, I think he should resign. If his wife and daughters want to forgive him, fine, he doesn't need to be Governor to be forgiven... It's not like the party in power in the state is going to lose that power (nor should they, for this is a personal failing) and if the people of New York want to "forgive" him, so to speak, let him "run for redemption."

While I also think President Clinton should have resigned/been let go for baldly lying to the public and the special prosecutor regarding l'affaire Lewinsky (though perhaps not for the affair itself), this is a fundamentally different proposition.

The Senator Craig situation is a little different, although I think he should have honored his announced intent to resign.

Yes, I do think things like this are corrosive, in small ways, to the fabric of society. Just another cut here and there, especially as the mighty seem to escape consequences the mass of us would not.

At least Governor Spitzer has acknowledged what he did. Senator Craig is on rather weaker ground. I hope his constituents send him packing when next given the opportunity.

Much is expected from those to whom so much is given.

And just once, just once, I would love to see the stony-faced humiliated woman step to the microphone and say "You sorry b@st@rd. How *dare* you put me in this position!" and storm off.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

As a prisoner of the Democratic party in NY, I have to say that from what I know of the man and having seen how he reacts to criticism, we may have to storm the castle to drag him out by his hair.

I hold him in much more contempt than Larry Craig, because he used to be the chief prosecutor for NY and I can just imagine the glee and pure joy that would have been in his voice if he had managed to sink his claws into a Republican who found themselves in the spot he is in.

I'm looking into recall rules in NY this week.

by Jon The Mechanic on March 11, 2008 6:26 AM

Meh...Sex Scandals in politics are nothing new. I'm not going to get too worked up about this one. The guy is clearly a hypocrite, however. Sadly, this has became the standard for politicians and not the exception.

by LT Nixon on March 11, 2008 6:41 AM

Considering today's environment of very limited privacy, 24/7 media coverage, and polarized partisan opposition research, I personally think that someone who does something like this has 2 other behavioral traits instead of the hubris to think he won't get caught:

1) A fetish for the adrenaline rush of the danger of getting caught.

2) A deep-seeded self-destructive desire, wherein he actually wishes to be caught.

by fdcol63 on March 11, 2008 7:30 AM

"Deep-seeded" or "deep-seated"? I get confused.

by fdcol63 on March 11, 2008 7:32 AM

Well, if the seed was stuck somewhere deep, it ain't no more. I bet you'll find it somewhere shallow at the Mayflower's rubbish heap.

As I see it, it is not the salacious acts themselves that cast these powerful men into trouble, but the breaking of other dead-serious laws, while in the pursuit of such libertine acts.

Our 41st President got himself impeached for Perjuring himself before Officials of the Court - PERIOD.

The New York Governor is now in a pickle for at least two things:
1) Interstate Trafficking and Solicitation of Prostitution and Debauchery. Title 18 Part I Chapter 117 Section 2421, Transporting and individual across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution is forbidden. That AMTRAK ticket between NYC and Union Station should plainly put that in evidence.
2) Structuring Transactions. Title 31 Section 5324 of the U.S. Code, strictly forbids cloaking the untented purpose of bank transaction for the purpose of evading reporting requirements to the IRS. This apparently was done by the chief enforcer of law in the State of New York.

by Boquisucio on March 11, 2008 8:56 AM

John,

The (dis)Honorable Senator Craig is not expected to run for re-election. His current term expires in 2009.

My opinion - Regardless of what he actually did in the airport, his clear in-ability to honorably and honestly handle an embarrassing situation disqualifies him from service. Pugnacious stupidity, indeed!

By not resigning, he deprives our current Republican governor of appointing the Lt Gov. (also Republican) to fill the seat and thus holding "incumbency" in the next election.

The Lt Gov. twisted the legislatures arm into approving a 1-year property tax relief, in exchange for a 20% increase in the sales tax...then assessed property values ~doubled! Now we have the same or higher property tax and the increased property tax.

Nathaniel

by NBAllen on March 11, 2008 10:17 AM

"Standing by my man" I can understand to a certain extent in cases of an affair. As awful and painful as it must be for the wife, arguments can be made about falling out of and into love, of sudden self-revelation and regret, and of having let a situation slowly get out of hand. I personally would probably leave a husband who has repeatedly cheated on me to face the press himself, but I can see why some women wouldn't.

But in this case... wow. The message he has sent her is--"You can't satisfy me sexually; I'd rather do it with a possibly disease-carrying stranger than with you." And yet she still stands there next to him to continue to be shamed? WOW! I've been accused of undercutting and underestimating/underselling myself, but I have enough self-respect to not allow a man who has made a fool of me continue to use me in front of the entire world.

Just seeing a picture of the two of them makes me feel so dirty I need a shower.

by FbL on March 11, 2008 11:08 AM

Boq,

I wasn't aware that George H.W. Bush was impeached. Perhaps you mean 42?

by XBradTC on March 11, 2008 11:44 AM

Ooops my bad. Didn't meant to imply that the 40th's V.P. was a compulsive liar.

by Boquisucio on March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

A few months back they had a fun situation in China. At a live television event for the upcoming Olympics the wife of one of the bigwigs came up to the microphone. There was some puzzlement because she wasn't scheduled to speak but hey, she's the wife of a bigwig and a pretty heavy hitter in her own right so...

So, she makes a nice little statement thanking everyone for attending the event and then proceeds to detail the affair she just found out her husband was having. Wouldn't give up the microphone until she'd had her say either.

Sounds like a great lady to me.

by KCSteve on March 11, 2008 12:52 PM

The problem this case has is the NY Gov is the person who takes the oath to execute the law of NY State. Its also likely that any prostitute who is charging over $5,000 an hour has connections to organized crime. So is the NY Gov (and as the attorney general before) not going after certain organizations due to their ability to expose his illegal activities? This "victimless" crime suddenly has real victims if justice was denied by his inactions as Gov or AG because others knew what he was doing.

by Andrew on March 11, 2008 3:29 PM

Infidelity does not make you a bad leader. It just makes you a bad husband.

That being said.... our leaders are held to a higher moral, ethical, and legal standard than the general public. So is the military. When you hold a public office, you represent your people, and I'm pretty sure his people don't want to be viewed as accepting of adultery. This is the same reason I stepped down as a Sunday School teacher when I was going through my divorce. My actions did not support the Bible or God's teachings, and I knew that once the church found out, they would ask me to step down, so I quit on my own. It was the right thing to do, and even though I really miss teaching Sunday School, I still stand by that decision.

Clinton should have stepped down as president over his infindelity, (Monica, Jennifer, and a couple others I can't remember), and so should Spitzer and Craig.

by AFSister on March 11, 2008 8:18 PM

"Infidelity does not make you a bad leader." AFSister, I have to strongly disagree. Infidelity means that you are willing to break an Oath for a little pleasure. Since when are oath-breakers trustworthy?

by Russ on March 11, 2008 11:56 PM

Taking an oath is only a small portion of being a great leader.
There are many people who hold leadership positions who are terrible leaders. How many of us have worked for bosses we consider to be unworthy of the position? Does that automatically make them an adulterer? No.
Not any more than being an adulterer makes you a bad leader.
There are many qualities that come with being a good leader. Keeping promises (or not breaking oaths, as you put it) is only one of those qualities.
There are no perfect leaders who possess all of the qualities that make a great leader, but there are excellent leaders who possess many of the qualities that make a great leader. Look at Reagan- he met Nancy while married to another woman and he became what many people consider to be one of the greatest presidents ever.

by AFSister on March 12, 2008 11:42 AM

I wonder where Hillary would be today if she had done it...stepped up to the mic and told Willie Jeff just that.

Which constituency would have supported her? The single moms? The feminists? The traditional family types?

I wish she had. What kind of a message did she send by taking the cr*p her husband dished out?

by Cricket on March 12, 2008 11:43 AM

Cricket- I completely concur.

by AFSister on March 12, 2008 1:27 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Mar 11, 2008

ObamaNation: Commander in Chief?

[Kat]

In a debate Thursday, February 21, Presidential Candidate Obama claimed that our armed forces in Afghanistan are "capturing" Taliban weapons to use because it is easier than getting weapons from the US government.

At Gateway Pundit quoting Obama (video included):

"They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier getting Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

Dear Obama,

You and your party for one global government continue to confuse our troops with our Allies. How many times is the Democrat party going to confuse the Canadians with US troops? This time, though, you've really done it. You have confused our British Allies and their weapons issues with our own troops. At least the Canadians live on this continent.

(UK) Troops Fight with Inadequate Equipment

Andrew Walker, the coroner, said the "totally inadequate" resources led to them being "outgunned by a bunch of renegades". "The soldiers were defeated not by the terrorists but by the lack of basic equipment," he said.[snip]
Asked if they could have matched their attackers if they been supplied with Minimi machine guns and under-slung grenade launchers, Major Jonathon Bristow, the commander of the patrol, told the court: "It would have made a hell of a difference. We lost the initiative through a lack of firepower and thus the Taliban had a greater weight of firepower."

(UK) Troops are running out of Machine Guns
MoD Wields Axe and Troops Suffer

I can't locate the original story on the lack of light and heavy machine guns, but it actually indicated Brit troops were using captured Taliban weapons because they couldn't get the parts (mentioned in one of the above stories) to repair their weapons.

Other issues include:

British troops fight Taliban without Chinooks

Anyway, Mr. Obama, I realize that the campaign trail is difficult and busy, but the job of President and Commander in Chief is even more difficult. Therefore, I am providing you with a brief guide on the difference between British and US forces (pictures included):

British Troops wear the Union Jack and funny hats.

Sometimes, American troops wear[spelling corrected] funny hats, too, but they have the Stars and Stripes on their shoulder. to help you tell the difference.

If you are confused, please ask your wife. She went to Harvard.

Yours,
Kat

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Mr. Free Market of Free Market Fairy Tales has had a couple of articles on this subject. This situation is of great interest to him since he is a English Veteran. Check him out.

by DE644 on February 22, 2008 8:57 AM

Ai! And the man thinks he's qualified to be President!?

BTW, Kat, that should be "American troops wear funny hats," not "where." Just a li'l heads-up.

by Casey Tompkins on February 22, 2008 12:09 PM

Linked you over here.

by TmjUtah on February 22, 2008 12:31 PM

Yeah, I got that, but couldn't fix it because I was at work and can't reach the login from there.

But, yes, I realize that I was criticizing him and then spelled it wrong. My bad.

by kat-missouri on February 22, 2008 6:38 PM

That's ok, you got the hard part right: spank Obama! Heh heh heh...

by Casey Tompkins on February 22, 2008 10:58 PM

Yeah I really hate it when Democrat stories about military readiness issues actually end up being true...

by J. on February 23, 2008 12:18 PM

Yes. Already saw that as well as the multiple other "partly true, partly misconstrued". As in, the story was from 2003-2004. Up armored humvees were being sent to Iraq because that is where IEDs were prevalent and it only became prevalent in Afghanistan more recently.

That they didn't capture weapons in order to use them because they were short, but because that is what they did, etc, etc, etc.

I still believe, to a degree, that Obama brought it up because he heard the stories coming out of England and got confused over whether it was a current event of US military or not.

Further, I will relate the multitudes of posts from various others explaining exactly why and what.

Read comments as well:

Blackfive I

Blackfive II

by kat-missouri on February 23, 2008 12:33 PM

Geez, J, yer such a slut. 8^ ) You only show up if I link you, and then you shovel stuff into the comments like we hadn't mentioned it elsewhere, like the H&I today.

Humph! I'm not in your RSS reader, like you are in mine, huh?

;^ )

by John of Argghhh! on February 23, 2008 3:12 PM

My thoughts are that, not that the story doesn't have some truths to it, though I believe it was presented erroneously as a current issue and as if the issues stand alone (ie, capturing weapons to use because they don't have enough of their own, working or otherwise), but that, the recent problems noted by the British in regards to their shortages have been extrapolated by the Obama campaign to represent a current issue within the US military.

by kat-missouri on February 23, 2008 3:21 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Kat on Feb 22, 2008

Open Mouth, Insert self. Congressman Moran of Virginia...

Feh. And the denizens of the Capitol in DC wonder why they are held in such ~~high~~ low esteem:

“Sure there’s less violence, but that’s because we’ve ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad” - Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA)

...for shame, sir. For shame.

Yep. A US Congressman, on the floor of the House, in debate on the Omnibus spending bill yesterday, 19 December.

Gee, Congressman, don't you think you should revoke your support for things like the "Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act" since you clearly equate the soldiery with war criminals?

More here. The Rulez forbid me from expressing myself as I'd like to. Let's just say I find the Congressman is talking from his "fourth point-of-contact" and echoes up a well of ignorance... and yet I bet he still backslaps and gladhands the troops when the occasion requires. Argghhh! Dang the Rulez, anyway.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Dec 20, 2007

A public demo of someone who has completely lost his mind...

Off to DEN tonight, but I couldn't resist posting the gem linked below.

This one takes the cake (for today at least)...

Holy Moly. Does the legal term, "fighting words" mean anything to the Left anymore? And then there's the comments section...

Sheesh. -Instapilot

H/T to El Rushbo

[Armorer's note: Dusty originally put this up late last night. Since most readers have hit the page by the time he put it up, and when they come back they start at the bottom of the new day, I decided to move this up so it would get a more fulsome exposure. ]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

That's pretty bizarre, all right. I wonder if he was just so wrapped up in himself that he didn't even hear what he was saying. It's pretty hard not to attack the messenger along with the message on that one.

by Barb on October 19, 2007 12:08 AM

My, that was an interesting display.

S'okay, though, Barb - he was only speaking Truth To Power, and that's okay rhetoric for that.

And while many of Representative Stark's constituents may cringe at the words, there are certainly enough people across the nation who pumped their fists in the air at his brave stand against the man that the Founders managed to get *everybody* a representative voice in the Congress, eh?

Heh.

I would note that I *should* delete Representative (or at least edit the audio) Stark's tantrum, since it is a Rulez violation for this space.

But, since Congress exempts themselves from libel suits for their words while in debate on the floor, I suppose a good tricksy lawyer would argue it applies here, too.

by John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2007 8:25 AM

By God .... don't question their patriotism!

But they can accuse a sitting president of murdering American soldiers and Iraqi civilians for nothing more than his own amusement.

BDS is a mental illness, and these people need help.

Unfortunately, as one who works in the MH biz, I can attest that most of them suffer from the same affliction and are in denial.

by fdcol63 on October 19, 2007 11:12 AM

...Congress exempts themselves from libel suits for their words while in debate on the floor...

Hence, legally untouchable. Bravery, thy name is Congress.

However, if I were to characterize Mr. Stark's words as the desperate ranting of an over-emoting, venal panderer playing to his financial contributors, his lawyers would try to hang my hide on a bramble.

*If* I were to so characterize his words.

And *if* they even noticed...

by BillT on October 19, 2007 12:49 PM

I was listening to Mr. Boortz's radio program today. Neal offered the question, "Do y'all think that Congressman Stark is sober at 0530, or not?"

Not that *I* am against anybody stating opinions after drinking too much, I just think that that guy should declare his degree, and kind, of impairment that he had when he made that speech!

by Justthisguy on October 19, 2007 2:55 PM

Starke is an idiot and a buffoon, but he undoubgtedly accurately represents the liberal wing of the Democratic Party these days. And, since he represents a district in the San Francisco Bay area he is also probably fairly representative of the people who keep reelecting him.

Just as a point of information, Congress does NOT exempt itself from the laws of liebel and slander. That is in the Constitution.

by Marine6 on October 19, 2007 4:50 PM

Marine6 brings up an interesting point.

More discussion of that here.

by John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2007 5:04 PM

Ah, yes. And it's quite specific about it's being limited to legislative actions.

Which raises some interesting questions...

by BillT on October 19, 2007 6:57 PM

He is from Alameda, CA. Therefore, he is a lost cause. And we were surprised that the BDS sufferers could stoop to a new level in low.

I sit corrected.

by Cricket on October 19, 2007 10:30 PM

The first time I watched the video the speakers were on the blink. Well actually they were unpowered but to turn them on you have to crawl under the desk, bump your head plugging it in, find hearing aids, turn them on and reply the video. Just another American politician spouting some rubbish. Can't possibly be important (and maybe this first assessment was the one best to run with). I am fundamentally lazy on some issues so glossed over it. ...*some* issues. You don't have to get all generalist with me.

Finally got around to listening to it today though. I expected him to say something rude or stupid and certainly he did admirably there. Really rather incendiary words all the more remarkable because most lefties and righties are so dulled after hearing them oft repeated with no real change of heart in the listeners or consequence for the speaker at all. In a more widely recognised and supported war such words would be far more risky to spout out spittle and all.

Listening to him tho reminded me of that other clip. The one with the US American of the USA teen beauty Queen talking rubbish. Yes i know the gender is different (well one presumes anyway). Yes she's younger and quite a bit better looking, even to me.

But it was the same pattern. Public speaking attempting to link key words and phrases and failing for the most part. They just really wanted to get the keywords across and seemed flustered, nervous and/or well.. drunk.

'Speaking truth to power' is a Noble concept IMO. There are plenty of instances where this was a good thing to do.

But in the cases I've seen it done nobly there have always been risks and more often than not consequences, sometimes quite serious.

'Speaking truth to power' has it's other darker side. This man is a good example of that. The courage replaced by cowardice, hiding behind legal protections and popular support. The truth and understanding replaced by catch phrases and opportunism.

by Trias on October 22, 2007 8:54 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Dusty on Oct 19, 2007

I challenge the Senators involved...

...to match the high bid. *Each of them.*

Then we'd see some support of the troops and law enforcers with the most important indicator of personal support - their own money, instead of just bloviating about their support of the troops... with my money. And yours. And you too - over there, yeah, you, over there in Pie Town, NM. I mean you - well, your money. Not to mention the closet liberal in Ann Arbor who reads this place because he was searching for pr0n, found Gun Pr0n and keeps coming back for more, even while his wife makes him write checks to the Brady Bunch.

How do you know you live in the post-industrial age? When the Senate had (and took) the time, theres a venue, and someone has the money, and you're reading about it here, there and everywhere...: For this.

Snerk.

I could get the money to bid on it at this time, but I *don't* have the cojones to ask SWWBO to do so. Because if I was gonna do that, I'd send it where most of my troop support money goes... Project Valour-IT.

That's not a slam on the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, it just means this is The Castle, and that's our shtick - every warrior, every service, every day. Whether we like the mission they've been sent to do or not. Yeah, we'll snark the AF, Navy, and Marines, but hey, that's what families do, right?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Oct 14, 2007 | TrackBack (0)

Note to Congress:

MoveOn made a dumb ad, that played to their base. Rush Limbaugh made a clumsy elocution, which when taken out of context, looks dumb. Okay. This is a note from the Heartland to BOTH parties.

COULD WE PASS A FEW FARGING APPROPRIATION BILLS, PLEASE?

Ya wanna make a statement supportive of the troops?

PASS THE DAMN VA FUNDING BILL. How 'bout that? Not to mention the rest of 'em. Good golly gee, people. And ya wonder why the nation thinks you're a collection of buffoons? Just watch C-Span.

The bills are what's important, ladies and gents. Not the posturing that mostly only interests those who already agree with you. ARGGHHH!!!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Oct 05, 2007

Well, if this is how the Democrat Party leadership feels...

...why bother wasting everybody's time? General Petraeus has better things to do than be Star Chambered, methinks. But, then we couldn't posture and pose and slap him around, could we.

From the Washington Times this morning (admittedly a paper that is no fan of the current Congressional Leadership, so allow for some hyperbole).

Dems already dismissing Iraq war report
By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007

Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Heh. So, the next time the Dems hold the White House, of course, somehow, the Generals will all be truthspeakers rather than the lying mouthpieces they are now? Overnight?

I despair for this Congress. The leadership seemingly lives in a state of continual cognitive dissonance.

From what I've seen in the news and elsewhere the report is likely going to say something along the lines of: "The surge is having measureable positive impact, though certainly not all that we'd hoped for. BTW, we can probably start returning some troops and drawing things down, accelerating that as the Iraqis take more of the load themselves."

I should note - I've not seen the report, this is just gleaning from the news and email.

Of course, when Robert Novak vents his spleen, he charactizes it thusly:

The most politically significant element of President George W. Bush's surprise visit to Iraq was his seemingly offhand comment that there might be troop withdrawals in the offing. That brings out in the open what had been implicit anyway: that the debate over Iraq is no longer whether there should be troop withdrawals, only how rapid they should be.

The President is neatly boxed with verbiage that does spin any reduction as a victory for the "Run Away" crowd, vice, just possibly, rational policy.

I am sick of the never-ending election and the lunacy it brings out in the political class. Just sick of it.

Message to the next President (who will most likely be a Democrat, sadly) - if this is how your party truly views the Generals, how can you do anything other than fire them all? Import some Brit, German, French and Canadian Generals to run things while you clean house.

Message for Congresswoman Boyda, this is how my email runs today:

Should we have expected something else? I hope Nancy underestands that this won't peddle here.

Hopefully, she'll listen and then judge, unlike the people who supposedly set the example.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

John,

There's a difference between cognitive dissonance and cognitive absence.

I think our problem is the latter...

by Instapilot on September 6, 2007 12:26 PM

" ... Import some Brit, German, French and Canadian Generals to run things while you clean house. ..."

This IS their agenda ... to cede American sovereignty and military authority to the UN.

John Kerry, interview with the Harvard Crimson, 1970:

" ... I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. ... "

by fdcol63 on September 6, 2007 12:59 PM

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

by fdcol63 on September 6, 2007 1:00 PM

The Democratic leadership, what a bunch of idiots. I cannot wait for the next election, I am voting for Bugs Bunny. Oh, and thank you Democrats for taking another big chunk of change from my paycheck to pay for some "social" program that has not worked in 40 years. Oh, and DICK Durbin, well the name says it all.

by Rita on September 6, 2007 2:16 PM

Actually, they'd probably have to sack almost the entire officer corps, since almost every officer I know thinks we can win in Iraq and that we should keep pushing.

by Heartless Libertarian on September 6, 2007 2:44 PM

John,

They're calling it the Bush report because:

A. there's no better way to discredit anything these these days than by tieing it to the chronic liars in the White House.

B. The WH announced last month they'd in fact be writing the report, not Petraeus. You must have missed it.

The Bush WH has politicized every other agency of government, it's no surprise then that Petraeus himself has been distorting facts and outright lying in appearances in rightwing media outlets trying to sell the surge. His past work training the Iraqi military has been a disaster. The proof is in the pudding, the Iraqi military is incompetent, corrupt, and riven with sectarianism. One of his top aides in that effort, Lt Col Levonda Joey Selph is being investigated for billions of dollars worth of missing weapons.

There are any number of reports, (GAO, Jones, NIE, etc.) that refute with facts the politicized military and Bush White House PR offensive that the surge is working. US casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up, sectarian killings are up, Maliki's government is falling apart, there is little to no security, potable water, electricity, or working sewers in most parts of the country. There is a cholera outbreak north of Baghdad. We're arming Sunni insurgents in Anbar. Sure they'll use them against AQ wannabes but you can be sure they'll eventually use them against the Shiites, Kurds and our guys. They've said as much. You don't end a civil war by arming everybody to the teeth.

None of the political benchmarks the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for have been met. We never had enough troops to pacify Iraq. The few more brigades we sent were sent because it was all we had to send. This is no plan for success, it's just another attempt to put off the inevitable. And in the long run arming everyone will make the violence much worse.

by markg8 on September 6, 2007 3:08 PM

They are all bound by a fax sheet on what to say and .... a common Chinese thread.

It stretches all the way to our governor.

by jim b on September 6, 2007 3:30 PM

Geez, HL, I was trying to keep the Night of the Long Knives in scope...

by John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 4:08 PM

markg8, you are a busy little beaver, aren't you? I keep finding the same post over and over, at any site committing the sin of defending Gen. Petraeus.

I just wanna know why the MSM referred to it as "The Petraeus Report" right up until they started to suspect it was not 100% gloom and doom .... it's always had the same requirements. Congress specified them. Why are they surprised now?

by bad cat robot on September 6, 2007 4:10 PM

And Mark misses my broader point - which was if the Dem leadership thought the report was going to be bogus, they should have kept their yaps shut, done the homework, and then asked General Petraeus the hard questions at the hearing.

Or, in a burst of real honesty, just said, "Never mind, we're not going to believe you, let's not waste our collective time on this report."

Rather than what is, to me, a dismayingly childish run up.

And that leaves aside any and all question about what anyone thinks about how the White House and all the lying military guys are saying.

Though, I know a lot of lying military guys, actually. And I don't think they're lying. Putting the most positive spin they can, certainly - in some respects they have little choice, given the climate.

As for the "casualties are up" mantra - believe me, I know. Each and every fatality drops into my email.

No one promised that casualties would drop during the execution of the surge, did they?

Did you know, that if, on any given stretch of highway, more cars are driven on it there is an increase in the numbers of accidents and moving violations... until enforcement pressure and structural and procedural changes put downward pressure on things?

Kinda like there was this sudden huge spike in casualties in the ETO on June 6, 1944, and those casualities continued to climb, with peaks and valleys, all through the rest of the year and into early 1945?

Then, they started dropping until they trickled to a crawl, with most of them being mostly entropy-related vice kinetically induced by outside parties.

My irritation is with the entire political class, Mark - but for this post, on this subject, the Dems are leading the way in a petulant fashion.

I'd rather they lead as adults.

But that's seemingly too much to ask for from the political class these days.

by John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 4:21 PM

markg8, you are a busy little beaver, aren't you? I keep finding the same post over and over, at any site committing the sin of defending Gen. Petraeus.

Don't you mean any site whining about the Mooney Times article and how he's being exposed as the shill he is? Through the magic of memeorandum
I can find all you guys.

I just wanna know why the MSM referred to it as "The Petraeus Report" right up until they started to suspect it was not 100% gloom and doom

Me too. We on the left have been complaining about that for weeks.

John,

if the Dem leadership thought the report was going to be bogus, they should have kept their yaps shut,

We've seen this PR offensive before. You keep your yaps shut and you get bulldozed. There is ample and mounting evidence lately that Petraeus and his men in the Green Zone are trying to cook the books along with the WH.

No one promised that casualties would drop during the execution of the surge, did they?

You're right. That hasn't stopped them from trying to claim (falsely) it lately though. Look hardly any casualties in Anbar! Hardly any in Bagdhad! But a lot more in Diyala. Whackamole works as whackamole. To use your analogy there were hardly on Guadalcanal in 1944 either.

by markg8 on September 6, 2007 6:25 PM

And... Guadalcanal was done on a shoestring and took months longer than they thought it would, and only went our way when we could bring a preponderance of power to bear over what the Japanese could bring in... and that it took longer because we couldn't stop the Japanese from sneaking stuff in... i.e., the local Japanese forces were supplied from outside - and we choked them off because we could bring power to bear on them.

And that all took place on a virtually uninhabited island, where we didn't have to try to tread lightly on the local populace, because they pretty much weren't in the line of fire.

And we weren't able to do Normandy until we had what Eisenhower believed were forces sufficient to the job, with the conditions set.

That said - I agree that the post-invasion planning was punked. I thought so at the time and said so. And I wasn't in favor of the invasion, either. Of course, I wasn't in favor of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, either. However, since I was still on active duty, I soldiered on to the best of my ability.

But I am in the camp of having started this, we need to give it our best shot at finishing it, and am in favor of continuing to hand over missions to the Iraqis and making them take more and more responsibility.

As for your earlier comment about Maliki... this Congress hasn't gotten much done, either. Should we abandon them?

Are we going to use the US Congress as an example of behavior the Iraqis should emulate?

But now I'm just getting mean and picking on an easy target, fair enough.

Interestingly enough, Mark - I'm actually on an advisory committee on Veteran's and Military Affairs to a Democrat Representative, Nancy Boyda of Kansas. I actually have access because she thinks I'm not a loony wingnut or moonbat.

How does that fit into your perception of this place?

8^ )

by John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 7:14 PM

I just want to put on the record as a good Canadian my indignation at the use of the word "beaver" to describe the comment maker above. Retract and replace, please. We have our canoes at the ready and the maple syrup storage locations in your country have been noted. Govern yourselves accordingly.

by Alan (aka Le Trappeur Fou) on September 6, 2007 7:15 PM

Well and good to be all huffy and demanding you plaid-cap-wearing furriner (if you aren't parading in your Budyanka), but what term do you suggest BCR apply in order to soothe your beer-fueled, syrup-soaked ire?

And it's not like we don't have beaver down here, too. We've some of the finest beaver on the planet right here in River City!

[Casts wary eye on the PG-17c] Hmmm. Still shell-shocked from the Return of Bill.

by John of Argghhh! on September 6, 2007 7:34 PM

Don't get too frisky, Alan, or we'll never give Lord Stanley's Cup back.

by Heartless Libertarian on September 6, 2007 7:34 PM

Alan, I regret to inform you that due to a childhood stint in Thunder Bay, Ontario -- in the winter -- I was granted the honor of certain Canadian privileges (some obscure treaty or other, the Pig War may have been involved ...) Ergo, markg8 remains a busy little beaver. I also have a +5 modifier to any activity attempted in a canoe, and I know the words to "O Canada". The original ones, before PC really got revved up. Plus, great-great-Granpa was a maple sugar farmer in Vermont, so BRING IT ON! (After we feed markg8 some treats and see if he has any more amazing feats of logic for us, that is. I don't know about you but after learning General Doctor Petraeus was a "shill" the scales, like, just fell from my eyes.)

by bad cat robot on September 6, 2007 10:05 PM

"Lordy...you walk away for five minutes and they're back...," he mutters as he walks around looking for the can of TrollBeGone and the nearest light switch...

by Instapilot on September 7, 2007 5:44 AM

That's a poor way to talk about Alan, Dusty!

As for MarkG8, he just disagrees, but does so politely and doesn't indulge in petty behaviors, so he's not a troll, either, by my reckoning.

by John of Argghhh! on September 7, 2007 6:34 AM

Alan wasn't my target...and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the other chap...

by Instapilot on September 7, 2007 6:53 AM

Zoot McAlor! You guys sure know how to make one's tartan wool shorts shift aboot. Thank God for the Grey Cup, that's all I can say.

by Alan on September 7, 2007 9:50 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Sep 06, 2007

When email spills over to the web...

Adjutant Brab sent out an email, containing a joke. Shock! Surprise! Disbelief!

Anyway, the joke's only tangential, so I stuck *it* in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry, since, let's face it, most of my weekend readers are probably also on the email list anyway.

As is the wont of email streams, like comment streams - especially one that has Bill the Rotorhead and John the BadPest (CAPT H) in it, this one morphed.

Now, I'm busy, I get a lot of email, and I admit I don't always read, um, er, closely.

So, Martha at some point in one of the emails morphed into Mothra (this after CAPT H accused us of hating his sister, btw) which then tumbled around in my as-yet-uncaffeinated brain as something else... which sparked an idea, which required a little searching, opening up some software and resulted in this - so you can see what happened in my head when Martha went to Mothra went to....

Murthra!

With a tip of the beret to Ghost of a Flea for one of the images and this song...

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Sep 02, 2007

Buffoon, Political, Clueless, un-self-aware dolt to boot, 1 ea.

I know, I know. I'm breaking The Rulez. I'm attacking the messenger. Sometimes, however, the message is just so breath-takingly dumb I can't resist.

K-Lo posted this on The Corner on Friday:

Don Young is on the floor talking about bridges. He just said, "I don't do this often, but I am saying, I told you so.

I hadda go find the context, so I went to that useful resource, the Congressional Record.

The issue at hand: AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE I–35 BRIDGE.

Mr Young rose to speak in support.

I don’t do this often when I say I told you so. As chairman, with Mr. OBERSTAR, we tried to put the money in to identify the weaknesses of the bridges and to repair them, and we were unsuccessful.
We ended up with a $286 billion bill instead of a $375 billion bill. Mr. and Mrs. America, I believe it is time for us to wake up. We have to repair our outdated infrastructure, especially our bridges. You have heard statistics, 11,000 and on and on, how many are deficient. But there are about 500 in the same shape as the bridge in Minnesota right now that are a potential death trap to constituencies.

We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem and, yes, lo and behold, I would even suggest fund this problem with a tax. May the sky not fall on me, but with a tax. Make it a 3-year tax. Make it a 5-cent tax, and they will say we can’t do that. But I would suggest respectfully that the American people will understand the importance if we fund it and if we address the issue of the bridges. We should do this.

And maybe this is a wake-up call, and I hope The Post is wrong, that we all don’t go back to sleep and watch football this fall and forget this tragic accident, because if we do so, then we are not fulfilling our obligation and our duty.

Well and good, sir. Perhaps we will need to raise taxes to pay for this *long simmering* problem you guys have been ignoring, with such stalwarts as the Senator from West Byrdinia preferring to build new, that they might get their name on it, vice reducing the new builds in order to maintain the already-built - or, one might note - un-needed and un-wanted (well, un-needed and un-wanted except by powerful development interests) bridges to nowhere... One wonders, however, how many bridges $223,000,000 would repair...

Here at the Castle we welcome your seeming conversion, if not your un-self-aware rhetoric.

Lord, what an opportunistic self-serving pristine example of why people are just *so* pleased with the Congress.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Aug 06, 2007

Argghhh! John Edwards annoys the Armorer.

Shock. I know.

One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America _ not just the poor kids who get sent to war _ are serving this country...

Leave aside the rest of the bilge in this piece from the Washington Post.

Aside from the fact that I'm not a fan of the draft (unlike some around here) I just tire of this Meme That Will Not Die coming from the anti-war crowd.

It's oddly contra-factual for the 'reality-based community' as it has no basis in... reality, just in their wishful thinking.

Recruits have a higher percentage of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distribution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.
Demographic evidence discredits the argument that a draft is necessary to enforce representation from racial and socioeconomic groups. Additionally, three of the four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005, and Army reenlistments are the highest in the past five years. A draft is not necessary to increase the size of the active-duty forces. Our analysis using Pentagon data on wartime volunteers effectively shatters the case for reinstating the draft.

Who are the recruits? Click here and find out.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Couldn't agree more with you about this ding-dong. Chapel Hill used to be a tolerable leftist town, but this guy decided to move here from Raleigh.....I guess he doesn't want to make the drive anymore to his favorite restaurant on West Franklin Street. And, of course, another failed Democratic candidate, the Dean of the law school and now president of the College of William and Mary created an "Institute" at the law school so poor John would have a platform from which to spew his nonsense. Thankfully, both of them are gone from the law school, but John of Expensive Hair is still hanging around annoying many of the local folks.

After watching this guy for many, many years in North Carolina, I can only say that I fear for the country if this guy and his super-ambitious wife end up anywhere near the White House. I think that if he wasn't so well-coiffed and hadn't honed that slick-talking plaintiff's lawyer act, more people would recoil at his nonsense. The good news is that there are lots of sensible people in North carolina, the present object of discussion notwithstanding.

by Bob on May 23, 2007 12:32 PM

Indeed, I cast covetous eyes on the carved piece that you presented to Andi at the conference in Washington, D.C. It would take something that large and swung with considerable skill and aim to wake up Johnny Haircut to the realities of the U.S. military. I do believe he hasn't made any progress since his 'glory days' as a law student here in the mid-1970's.

by Bob on May 23, 2007 12:39 PM

In my view people who feel more positively about their country are often richer. After all they have benefited. Poorer people are inclined to be more bitter.

So one driving force for the wealthier to join is the positivity they feel for the country. Perhaps not the filthy rich who might be embroiled in selfishness, but the more modestly wealthy.

by Trias on May 23, 2007 7:57 PM

not just the poor kids who get sent to war

The Lefties hatched that line of crapola (based on stats from WWII) during my war and have hung onto it like a pit bull with a squeaky toy ever since...

by BillT on May 24, 2007 12:35 AM

Founders got it right the first time.

Everybody shows up for militia drill, with clean weapon, ammo, boots, rucksack, etc., or he doesn't get to vote. And...

Volunteers only, for foreign wars.

We have one half of it right.

by Justthisguy on May 24, 2007 2:28 AM

The scary part is how little the average citizen really knows about us: our culture, views, philosophies, etc. I work with an elderly woman who lives within a mile of an Air Force base and yet knows absolutely nothing about us. Everything I tell her about the life is a revelation. Some have used that as an argument for a draft, but I know that won’t fix the disconnect and here’s why: In the last 2 periods of wartime conscription (Korea & Nam), draftees served on active duty for 2 years, most remained single during that time. They weren’t interested in learning the culture, just in doing their time. I once talked to a Viet Nam draftee who served his two years in the Army and he still thought military families went to the commissary, picked up what they wanted and walked out without having to pay! He thought living on-base was free, as well.
I chased that rabbit to say this: It’s an uphill struggle for us to get the truth out to the electorate, since they know so little about us, already believe fantasies, and demagogues, like Edwards, are taking cognitive dissonance to the stratosphere.

by Oldloadr on May 24, 2007 6:56 AM

##$**@%% When will they get this right?

You cannot get into the military without a High School diploma or GED. The enlisted young Marines that I know are the 'best' not the 'dregs' of their high school classes. My son and his buddy who enlisted in the Corps at the same time could have gone to college. Both of them had the brains and funds.

There are exceptions, of course, and the military has always been the way for an ambitious young man with no prospects to get ahead (look at all the 'younger sons' in the Middle Ages who went on Crusade).

The only thing 'poor' about our junior enlisted is the paltry wage they are given!

*this Marine Mom is crawling down from her soapbox now*

by Karla (threadbndr) on May 24, 2007 10:02 AM

The disconnect is pretty huge here in Australia. There are only about 25,000 actives and 15,000 reserves in the army. I know we are a small nation but with 20.8M that's 1 army for every 520 people. Hardly surprising so few know about it then. People in the military over here do not mix with wider society much usually keeping with other people in the army.

All that's left is a military history which is not well known and recruitment ads.

by Trias on May 24, 2007 8:18 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on May 23, 2007

Nature? Or nurture?

The Armorer's father, late in his 8th decade, a month after having buried his wife, writes his first Letter to the Editor, ever.

Editor, Castle Argghhh!
April 27, 2007

Copy of letter sent to the Missouri House and Senate leadership (both parties) this date.

I am an elderly (make that old) longtime observer of the political process in Jefferson City. A few years ago I attended a lecture given by a University of Illinois political science professor who specialized in state political processes. He described that process as being the ”Cesspool of the American political system” On more than a few occasions the Missouri legislature has epitomized that thought, but rarely has the descent to political buffoonery reached the level of the past several weeks.

I am a cancer survivor and recently lost my wife to lung cancer. To hear and read the statements of the legislative leadership boasting of the elimination of funding for a new cancer research and treatment center as a matter of political payback is truly incredible. How many lives will be lost and how much pain endured in the future as a result of this childish exercise of power?

The handling of the student loan sale issue by both parties is not something anyone should be boasting about. Rather they should be hanging their heads in shame.

It would appear that what we need in Jefferson City is a good deal more intellect a

June 20, 2008

Nuremberg, Osama and Obama

May 22, 2008

Rock the Kasbah: Obama's Pravda

March 27, 2008

Seen around New York.

March 11, 2008

Keepin' it in your pants.

February 22, 2008

ObamaNation: Commander in Chief?

December 20, 2007

Open Mouth, Insert self. Congressman Moran of Virginia...

October 19, 2007

A public demo of someone who has completely lost his mind...

October 14, 2007

I challenge the Senators involved...

October 5, 2007

Note to Congress:

September 6, 2007

Well, if this is how the Democrat Party leadership feels...

September 2, 2007

When email spills over to the web...

August 6, 2007

Buffoon, Political, Clueless, un-self-aware dolt to boot, 1 ea.

May 23, 2007

Argghhh! John Edwards annoys the Armorer.

April 30, 2007

Nature? Or nurture?