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!
May 22, 2008
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!
March 27, 2008
Seen around New York.
Heh. Speaking of politicians from the Empire State...
The latter comes from the man who gives us bucket's o' snark at Doug Ross@Journal.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Dammit went to put the rubbish out this morning and couldn't... damned snipers! If i'd had a wife and daughter I would have sent them like Slick Willie.
Was late for class but it was ok, the lecturer was trapped in the admin building... snipers.
Bus was delayed so they sent us LAV's. Damned snipers on the bridge again.
by Murray on March 27, 2008 6:28 PM
Politician hits bottom -- begins to dig in...
by
BillT on March 28, 2008 4:02 AM
Is it true shes getting Harry Stamper on staff?
by Murray on March 28, 2008 7:04 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 11, 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!
February 22, 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!
December 20, 2007
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! �
DOUBLE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on December 20, 2007 2:55 PM
Technically not - the one that has been deleted was a work in progress and incomplete - therefore *not* technically a double-post.
Even if it was from a fat-finger perspective.
Why couldn't you have left your bloody comment on the deleted post!?!?!?!
Damn you, Moriarity!
by
John of Argghhh! on December 20, 2007 3:01 PM
Once it appears it's a post sonny, incomplete or not.
So the question is why is he saying outrageous things? Where does he have something to gain? Is his district fervently anti-war or something?
by
Trias on December 20, 2007 9:20 PM
I'm getting "sonny'ed" by Trias?
Geez, boyo, IIRC, I was killing people and breaking things for the gov't when you were *born*...
Fervently anti-war? I don't think his district is, but I believe Moran is. And I'm sure he can compartmentalize it so that he see's that as a criticism of the Administration and the war, and not the troops.
I don't accept his binning.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 21, 2007 6:15 AM
Then maybe we should boot Jim Moran in the Ass and give him a good wake up call. I will be glad to do the kicking in my pointy high heels :)
by Rita on December 21, 2007 8:22 AM
;D
Well I can't see it. He has to just be an idiot.
by
Trias on December 21, 2007 9:30 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 19, 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!
October 14, 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! �
Wow. Bravo to Rush for putting it to that kind of use!!
And as I am up to my eyeballs in web design and planning for the Valour-IT auction, I'm insanely jealous! :P
Btw, this auction is going to be amazing. A military wife has tapped into the network of Romance novel authors and landed a HUGE fish is going to be donating highly-sought-after, signed first editions of three of her (out of print) books. And under her encouragement, a number of other authors are expected to jump on the bandwagon.
There is also a very, very special handmade quilt called "Fallen but not Forgotten" that is going to be auctioned.
And there are a number of military-related books signed by the authors that are also lined up. It's going to be awesome!
But yeah... nothing like that letter. Wow.
by
FbL on October 14, 2007 7:52 AM
I should also add that the romance novel items for our auction are going to be advertised on a BB that caters to readers, so we should get a lot of interest in it from outside the milblog community. And due to a pre-announcement, people are already showing interest in donating some beautiful handmade items to support Valour-IT (i.e. an award-winning, knitted baby blanket). It's really branching out this year!
by
FbL on October 14, 2007 7:56 AM
Is it that time of year again? Where we put sibling rivalry aside and show the love?
I smell....FUNDRAISING.
*sits in for the interservice snark-a-thon*
by Cricket on October 15, 2007 9:26 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 5, 2007
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! �
I've barely got time to sleep let alone blog and comment, but you sum up my feelings in 1.
Next they'll be passing a Brittney bill.
by
BloodSpite on October 5, 2007 8:59 AM
Well smote, sir. If it makes you feel any better (and I'm almost positive it won't), we're just as bad up here north of you folks. It's like these pols live in a freakin' bubble, where everything's about the sizzle and nobody cares about the steak.
Frustrating.
by
Damian on October 5, 2007 9:19 AM
Well, except for not passing any salient bills, sometimes non-working buffoonery is good...for the American people that is. At least they can't make it worse than it is.
But, money would be good for these two items. They can wrestle over their little squealing pork projects some other time.
and people wonder why I absolutely detest the possibility of government directed health care.
by
kat-missouri on October 5, 2007 9:42 AM
Hmmm. I did kinda break my own rulez, didn't I?
Sigh. Anger, it's such an ugly thing.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2007 10:13 AM
Hmmm. I did kinda break my own rulez, didn't I?
Not really. The messengers have self-identified with the message in this instance, ergo, a slap at the messenger is a slap at the message is a slap at the messenger.
Think of it as a political Moebius strip...
by
BillT on October 6, 2007 11:25 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 6, 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!
September 2, 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 �
Martha's way: Stuff a miniature marshmallow in the bottom of a sugar cone to prevent ice cream drips.
My way: Just suck the ice cream out of the bottom of the cone.
====
Martha's way: Use a meat baster to "squeeze" your pancake batter onto the hot griddle and you'll get perfectly shaped pancakes every time.
My way: Buy the precooked kind you nuke in the microwave for 30 seconds.
====
Martha's way: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.
My way: Buy a mashed potato mix and keep it in the pantry for up to a year.
====
Martha's way: To prevent eggshells from cracking, add a pinch of salt to the water before hard-boiling.
My way: Who cares if they crack, aren't you going to take the shells off anyway?
====
Martha's way: To easily remove burnt-on food from your skillet, simply add a drop or two of dish soap and enough water to cover bottom of pan, and bring to a boil on stovetop.
My way: Eat out every night and avoid cooking.
====
Martha's way: Spray your Tupperware with nonstick cooking spray before pouring in tomato based sauces and there won't be any stains.'
My way: Feed your garbage disposal and there won't be any leftovers.
====
Martha's way: When a cake recipe calls for flouring the baking pan, use a bit of the dry cake mix instead and there won't be any white mess on the outside of the cake.
My way: Go to the bakery. They'll even decorate it for you.
====
Martha's way: If you accidentally over salt a dish while it's still cooking, drop in a peeled potato and it will absorb the excess salt for an instant "fix me up".
My way: If you over salt a dish while you are cooking, that's too bad. My motto: If it's cooked, you will eat it no matter how bad it tastes.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Okay, now turn on the 100 watt bulb next to the bug zapper...
by
BillT on September 2, 2007 9:51 AM
Translated from Japanese:
I have faces variations of this creature before. Find big flying pest and rip wings from flying pest, yes. Stomp. Stomp. Stomp. Burn. Burn. Burn.
BGAM wonder if too late voting Libertarian.
Have nice day.
Well, I think he's starting to calm down a bit...
by
BGAM on September 2, 2007 10:14 AM
BGAM -- The sound track needs synchronizing with your lip movements. But add a couple of little toy tanks and some scantily-clad Balinese dancers and I can get you a good Chinese DVD deal...
by
BillT on September 2, 2007 10:36 AM
BTW, who's babysitting the LGAM while you're sticking your nose into the slipstream?
by
BillT on September 2, 2007 10:39 AM
Ah, poor Mothra, once again falsley maligned!
When Godzilla was evil, Mothra fought against him. When Godzilla was rehabilitated, Mothra fought with him against evil.
Elected Rep. Murtha consistently shows a lower moral posture than a giant moth.
by Mike on September 2, 2007 10:41 PM
Well, Mike, if it's any consolation, Warrant Officers called our now-obsolete branch insignia -- the Squashed Bug.
Affectionately, mind you.
Fly, Mothra -- fly!
No, wait -- not a fly, he's a *moth*...
by
BillT on September 2, 2007 11:27 PM
Mike - this is "Murthra" Mothra's evil twin...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 3, 2007 6:51 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 6, 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! �
Far be it for me to otherwise endorse the left, however I think the recent "KOS Convention" is a good thing, and I wish we (as in more of the right leaning) would do similar.
Putting politicians in the hot spot with direct questions that we want answers, not rhetoric is a good thing.
One thing you can say for the "blogosphere" or the "New Age" in general, is people are becoming less afraid to just accept what people say on a pdoium (case in point here) without asking questions, making points, and, land o goshen, publicising those points.
One hopes the movement will take more wings and grow continually.
Maybe one day, we'll get representatives of the people. Versus the 90% re-election rate of the "Meet the new boss same as the old boss." scenario we have had for the last 30 years.
We need some nobodies.
by
BloodSpite on August 6, 2007 6:40 AM
Hey, bad people can have good ideas. Look at the Volkswagon...
by
John of Argghhh! on August 6, 2007 6:50 AM
...the American people will understand the importance if we fund it and if we address the issue of the bridges.
1. The federal tax on gasoline has been funding it for years, Mr. Young. Why has Congress diverted the funds for other than infrastructure maintenance?
2. The "issue of the bridges" has also been around for years. Why does it take a collapse to bring it to your startled attention?
Oooop. No scathing editorials in the press absent a current collapse.
Silly me...
by
BillT on August 6, 2007 8:19 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 23, 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!
April 30, 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 and
significantly less ego.
To borrow a quote from a long ago speech by labor leader John L Lewis “A pox on both your houses”
I can assure you that at least one voter won’t forget.
I got into this punditry business when I first started writing letters to the editor of the KC Star back in the mid-late 90's.
I have warned my father that it can get addicting. I have no idea who influenced whom, here - but dang, he writes purty stuff.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
You come upon your gift for written gab quite naturally, I see.
Good on ya, Father Donovan!
by AFSister on April 30, 2007 8:49 AM
I got into this punditry business when I first started writing letters to the editor of the KC Star back in the mid-late 90's.
Watch out, that's how I got my job at the paper. Oh, sure it starts out harmlessly enough. You tell yourself you can stop at any time, it's just a hobby. But then you find yourself reading more and more newspapers, watching more and more newscasts. You subscribe to the news magazines and write letters to the editor to them. Before you know it you are running around with rid-rimmed eyes and callouses on your fingertips from all the typing.
And then the sad day comes when someone utters the J-word -- Journalist. You try to deny it. You point out all the other accomplishments in your life, but to no avail. You ARE part of the media.
Welcome aboard
by NevadaDailySteve on April 30, 2007 10:34 AM
Ah, but Steve... I'm *new media*!
It's all different, you see.
;^ )
by
John of Argghhh! on April 30, 2007 11:01 AM
I am always happy to see the constituents straightening out the idiot savants public servants. Lessee, last I checked the prison wasn't THAT far from the state capitol.
heh
by Cricket on April 30, 2007 11:55 AM
New Media - Old Press: Just different methodologies to achieve the same goal.
As the saying goes: The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree... or is it... The tree doesn't grow far from the fruit?
Sharp whitted that there Donovan Clan.
by Boquisucio on April 30, 2007 1:20 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 13, 2007
Defunding the Defenders
Now that the anti-uniform War For Oil mob in Congress is frantically skittering to distance itself from the scheme to bleed-down The Surge, I can probably write this without being accused of posting a partisan political polemic in the guise of a TINS.
One of the (many) squawks of outrage I heard concerning Monsieur Murtha's Modest Proposal went something like, "This is the first time in the history of the United States that politicians, in a time of war, intend to rob soldiers of the tools they need to fight that war!"
The first time? Heh -- maybe so or maybe no. How 'bout I tell you a little story and let you decide for yourselves, okay?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Time: Early-to-mid-1970
The Place: Tent City, aka Circus World, aka the Company Area of the 162d AHC.
There must've been a dozen of us -- pilots, crewchiefs, doorgunners -- gathered around the bulletin board outside the Orderly Room.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 164TH AVIATION GROUP (CBT)
APO SAN FRANCISCO XXXXX
"THE DELTA GROUP"
ORDER NUMBER XX
1. Due to recent funding constraints imposed on USARV, all units under this command will implement ammunition conservation measure as stated below.
2. Effective immediately, units will be limited to drawing five hundred (500) rounds of linked 7.62mm machine gun ammunition per machine gun barrel per day.
FOR THE COMMANDER:
Twelve helicopter crewmen with a single thought. We do about ten CAs on a good day.
[Note: On a bad day, the number of CAs you flew depended on what time you got shot down]
We're gonna get killed because some effing bean-counter wants to save a buck...
Twelve helicopter crewmen with a single vision: five wrecked Hueys scattered around in a clearing.
1st Platoon 1LT: "Emory."
1st Platoon Doorgunner: "Sir?"
1st Platoon 1LT: "How many rounds do you burn up going into a hot LZ?"
1st Platoon Doorgunner: "About six hundred. Maybe a thousand, if the grunts are slow unassing the ships. Or if we have to shoot our way out."
Six hundred rounds for one M60D. We mounted one on each side. Two hundred rounds shy of what each ship needed to fight it's way into a hot LZ -- and a thousand short of what each needed to fight it's way out. We're all dead...
1st Platoon 1LT: "Hey, Geoff -- when was the last time we went into a cold LZ?"
1st Platoon CW2: "Last week, southeast of Nui Hon Soc, but that was because we caught Chawles-baby with his drawers droopin'. The second and third trips in were hot."
Copperhead Crewchief: "We worked that LZ all morning after the flight got fragged to clean out that ammo cache the SEALs found. We had to re-arm three times..."
We're gonna get killed. First hot LZ, we're gonna get killed...
Second Platoon WO1: "Cripefire, even the kamikazes got protection on their last flights..."
1st Platoon 1LT: *studying the order* "Hah! I think we may be in better shape than we think. This doesn't say, '500 rounds per machine gun,' it says, '500 rounds per machine gun barrel.' Doesn't even say they have to be good barrels..."
We didn't have one single gunner who hadn't squirreled away at least six spare barrels -- not counting the burned-out ones decorating the tent interiors.
Copperhead WO1: *wolfish grin* "Minigun's got six barrels. And we have twelve minis in the Supply hootch."
Long story short, we eventually counted over two hundred 7.62mm barrels, which we dutifully displayed for the local bean-counters. Of course, when the IG paid us a visit, we had to hide three-quarters of them. We dumped the sand out of the 55-gallon drums we used for counter-mortar blast walls, stuck twenty in each drum and then put sandbags on top. If we got mortared, we might definitely get wounded, but if the IG made us turn in those M60 barrels, we'd definitely get dead.
However, even though we could, by the strict letter of the edict, draw 100,000 rounds per day, we practiced ammo conservation and only drew the tens of thousands we needed.
Until we needed more...
And everyone -- except the enemy -- was happy with the solution. Of course, when the bean-counters from 'Way On High realized they were spending just as much on ammunition as they had been before the edict, they came up with a diabolically clever alternative target.
However, I'll save the saga of the Great Mekong Delta Toilet Paper Shortage for another day...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Okay, just to keep both readers from asking, "WTF is a CA?" -- it's a Combat Assault. Technical helicopter pilot term for dropping onto the opposition's front lawn (on purpose) with a load of troops and start trashing his house.
Problem is that he's usually at home, awake and irate (you can't really sneak up on somebody when you're flying a helicopter), so you just have to keep shooting at him until he stops shooting back -- hopefully, he'll stop long enough for you to beat feet and come back with another load of troops. And another.
Then you go to his *other* house and do it there, too. Ad infinitum...
by
BillT on March 13, 2007 6:41 AM
Amen Brother, I remember when the logistics types in Binh Thuy got their knickers in a knot after the Navy base at Nah Be had gone through their monthly "quota" of 2.75" rockets by the 15th and asked for more. It escalated to the 3-star level before more rockets were forthcoming. To bad we couldn't convince Charlie to fight his side of the war on a quota basis. :-)
by
74 on March 13, 2007 10:51 AM
a *fine* piece of barracks-lawyering ;-)
by
bad cat robot on March 13, 2007 11:23 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Mar 13, 2007
February 15, 2007
None Dare Call It Treason...
The first time I read Instapundit's entry on the Democrat strategy emerging to oppose the President's Iraq policy, I did a double-take. FbL beat me to the punch (scroll about half-way down) but captured my initial reaction after rereading what I thought was a joke.
No joke, apparently. And utterly vile.
The Democrats were elected, so the conventional wisdon goes (nutroots explanations excluded), not because people were against the war in principal but against the way it was being waged. Fair enough.
But what, pray tell, is the reason to withdraw from a struggle with an enemy that less than 6 years ago killed more American civilians in one day than in all our history? With an enemy that saws a person's head off with a steak knife...and films it...and broadcasts it worldwide? With an enemy that walks toward a crowd of children with 20 pounds of C4 covered with ball bearings and detonates it? With an enemy that won't allow women to see a doctor because the doctor is a male? With an enemy that drives school girls back into a burning building because they are not "modestly" covered? With an enemy that hangs teenage girls from cherry pickers in the public square because they resisted the advances...unsuccessfully...of an aggressive male? With an enemy that hangs teenage boys, in public, from cherry pickers, because they were homosexual? With an enemy that butchers three teenaged girls walking home from school because they're Christians, as happened in The Philippines?
As I see it, after 9/11, we started with Afghanistan because the chief engineer of the 2001 attack was holed up there. That's it. But this is not about geography. It's about waging war against a new kind of enemy just as hateful and depraved as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il.
I think we're fighting him because we can. We didn't have that option, so to speak, against Stalin or Kim, but we did have the resolve and the means to resist, and resist successfully, in other ways.
And, while I know this probably had little to do with the pre-war calculus (especially if the State Department was involved) I think we, as humans, also have a duty to resist that kind of savagery whenever we can. In fact, who else will resist the depredations of the most powerful species on the planet? What these poor excuses for humans do is ALL of our mess and we have a moral obligation to clean it up. Save the whales? Screw the whales. Save the humans!
Who cares if the current battle is in Iraq? Why isn't it being waged in Iran, Syria, Indonesia, The Philippines, Pakistan and everyhwere Salafists and Wahabbis have planted their seeds of hatred and barbarism?
If the majority party does not see this as a fight against not America's enemies but civilization's enemies, we are in for a long, sh*tty war. One where millions die. The Left can screech to its heart's content about the evil of BushCo but they ain't seen nothin' yet. Everything they say they despise about Bush, "Godbags," Rethuglicans," and the rest of the Red State usual suspects is embodied in the thoughts, words and actions of the killers our troops face on the streets of Baghdad--the suppression of every right we take for granted is business as usual in every square inch of land under our enemy's control. The very act of writing and saying what they do at the Daily Kos, Pandagon, Firedoglake and in the Hollywood and Broadway salons is a tangible refutation of their theory and worldview--they would, literally, lose their heads if taking the same tack in Waziristan or any region under control of the disciples of bin Laden and al-Zawahri. God, if we could only channel the Kos-sacks' hatred against the barbarians instead of fellow Americans...but I digress.
So, when I saw the article on how the Dems were going to try to sabotage by stealth our national effort to respond to the terror masters I was morbidly fascinated. Fascinated. These folks don't even have the guts to betray the cause in the light of day. They must do it by manuever, by guile, by bleeding the US effort to the point of collapse with a thousand little cuts. This probably the most cynical attempt to undermine the interests of the United States I can remember. This is perfidy, pure and simple.
I believe this will be looked back on as a classic blunder for the Party in power and for its standard-bearer in the 2008 elections. I hope the Republican Party answers the soon-to-be released "anti-war" TV spots with something that nails that effort for what it is: a craven attempt to destroy America's will to actively resist aggression, tyranny and barbarism beyond its shores and in defense of its allies...but I don't have a lot of confidence in my Party's ability do that right now, or in 2008 for that matter.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
If it's true that this is their plan it is indeed vile. This kind of slow death strategy will cost a lot of lives, livelihoods, money and time and any chance of success in Iraq. It's cowardly, deceitful and unfortunately i think it will work.
This plan has to be publicised and criticised before it actually happens.
by
Trias on February 15, 2007 5:14 AM
Bravo. Well said.
by
Andi on February 15, 2007 12:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, but have you heard the mealy mouth, less than passionate responses from the Republicans? I told you, they don't necessarily oppose the Dems plan either. They just don't want it right now because they still have hope of succeeding or at least bringing it enough under control it will smell like victory.
It's cr*p. It's worse than cr*p. If I had to hear the president give another unemotional, uninspiring "why we must stay in Iraq" or the half-A$$ remarks of congressmen, I'm gong to go ballistic.
Why don't they just come out and say they don't give a rats @$$ for Iraqis and that it's not really that important to stay there? That's the message even the republicans are sending, so let's just get it out in the open...
I am ticked off.
by kat-missouri on February 15, 2007 12:48 PM
kat,
Check this out...
by
Instapilot on February 15, 2007 1:16 PM
it is precisely for situations such as this that the word "scoundrel" was invented.
by MajMike on February 15, 2007 2:12 PM
THis isn't leadership. This is oppurtunism. Even the folks at MyDD are jumping on this. IF it's an evil that needs to be gutted stake your career on it. Have some guts. There's plenty of money and power to be had if you get booted---how many of the Clinton admin now are oft called policy experts and university profs/deans? Lots of 'em.
This is why many wanted to stay home from the republican side. Now the dems seem to be getting their taste of folk who want to remain electable instead of doing their job. And it might just cost someone their life.
by ry on February 15, 2007 3:50 PM
I've quoted you and linked to you here.
by
Consul-At-Arms on February 18, 2007 6:49 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 14, 2007
Sandy "Pants" Berger
Powerline has a post from Friday that just can't be missed. Here's a sample to whet your appetite:
Mark Steyn found it too much fun not to join in Bill Bennett's inspired "Sandy Berger Lies" contest that has contributed so much to my anger management therapy this week. Seth Leibsohn has kindly forwarded Mark's three submissions. Mark's first submission comes complete with directions for recording:THE SANDY PANTS
(from the film Slick Willie Wonka And The Shop-Lift Factory)
Hey, everybody! Gather round, the Sandy Pants is here! What kind of archival material do you want? Classified documents? Confidential minutes? Intelligence briefings? Cables? You’ve come to the right place, because I’m the Sandy Pants!
(Ooooooo!)
Who can take the memo
Stuff it in his sock
Take it out the building
And then walk it up the block
The Sandy Pants (The Sandy Pants)
Oh, the Sandy Pants can (The Sandy Pants can)
The Sandy Pants can ‘cause he fixes it for Bill
And makes his boss look good (Makes his boss look good)
Who can take the secrets
Out the door at night
Slide them under trailers
On a dark construction site
The Sandy Pants (The Sandy Pants)
Oh, the Sandy Pants can (The Sandy Pants can)
The Sandy Pants can ‘cause he fixes it for Bill
And makes his boss look good (Makes his boss look good)
The rest of
The Sandy Pants and Steyn's other submissions
here.
Update: The WSJ digs into the serious side of the story.
by
Denizens
on
Jan 14, 2007
November 27, 2006
Representative Rangel, a fly in amber.
I deliberately unplugged this weekend. I needed to get stuff done, and spend some time with family. So, I left the laptop at home, didn't surf the 'net much, and certainly didn't watch an TV news.
So I missed the performance of one of those new fresh faces brimming with a new world-view and New Ideas who will be in charge next Congress.
Y'know, Representative Rangel. Who more than anything, seems to me to be a fly in amber, a preserved relic from a bygone day.
I want to make it abundantly clear: if theres anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
Damn you, SGT Hook! Here I thought you were quality. Turns out you're a schnook. And what about neuroscientist Prakash? Apparently he's a toad, too. Then there's professional football player Pat Tillman, he certainly had no prospects. Not to mention Dr. Holland had no prospects to speak of, either.
Hey, it's true for me. All I was gonna do was flip burgers if I hadn't joined the Army. That's why my other career choices were Policeman and Firefighter. I wasn't ever going to be an investment banker or a furniture salesman, nope. Don't have the wherewithal to do those jobs. And I so hate being over my head as a Beltway Bandit that I'm on the volunteered-for-recall roster so I can take a big pay cut and go play in the sandbox. Because I know I'm just a poser, and they only place I can succeed is if I get back in the tie-dyed clothing - which is much kewler now, anyway! Me who takes a month of weekends to do a two-day job... because of how bunged up I am from having been in for 20 years. Oh, I know, I'm just a stupid horse, running back into the burning barn, too dumb to know any better, right Representative Rangel? Thank heavens you aren't my Representative, sir - I'd have to write you a letter. Hmmmm. That said, it's probably time to write my new representative a letter and tell her the quickest way to get in my sights will be to talk like... Representative Rangel. So, Representative Boyda, what *are* your thoughts on the Honorable Mr. Rangel's characterization of military service?
To sum up, Uncle Jimbo sez it pretty well:
I guess its inconceivable to Chuck that there are actually people who can look at the world see the dangers we face and consciously choose to meet that threat so others dont have to. He also repeats the repeatedly debunked BS about the poor brown kids dying so W and Cheney can make money. What a world class jackass. Enjoy your two years in the sun you sanctimonious, s**thead, You , Pelosi, Jackass Murtha, Freakin Lurch, Al Gore, Howard Dean, there is no way that cast of clowns doesnt remind America that even though things have been tough, handing the keys to to a bunch of asylum inmates doesnt make much sense either.
Sigh. New faces, new ideas. In 1969, mebbe. When we had a draft... as Mr. Rangel proposes.
Of course, Mr. Rangel proposes a draft because he knows it would make the services largely unable to be used for anything other than WWIII or Bosnia.
And, I would argue, they wouldn't be that good at WWIII kinds of things.
A fly in amber.
Discuss.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Didn't the flies get stuck in the quagmire of amber because they were too stoopid to move?
Just asking.
by Cricket on November 27, 2006 8:20 AM
I hope that Rangel and his ilk are tossed back into the minority in 2008. But this past election has given me serious doubts that a misinformed, uninformed, apathetic, myopic, and attention-deficited American public will make the right choice.
Rangel, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha, Durbin, et al continue to spout the same, tired, and cliched tripe about the US military and other issues like health care, the economy, education, and class warfare, but the American public still sucks it up.
by fdcol63 on November 27, 2006 9:23 AM
Um, fdcol63, dunno if you, like, noticed, but the Republicans repeatedly shot themselves in the foot the past couple of years. Over and over again, in fact.
From a mushrooming Federal budget, to corruption, to nearly-pure incompetance on many national issues, the GOP lost the confidence of the center (or the moderates, independents; whatever).
There were technical issues too; apparently Rove's rosy predictions just before the election were based on a collective confidence that the right could beat the left one more time just by "mobilizing the base" one more time. What they didn't seem to realize is that the GOP has pretty much realized the law of diminishing returns with that procedure, while the Democrats are still catching up.
Such "mobilization" is only a partial strategy, and insufficient to win elections; something I hope the GOP now grasp. The Lieberman election demonstrated the fact that the country (overall) is roughly 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat, and 1/3 independent/centrist/non-doctrinaire. The Republican strategists have apparently not yet grasped the fact that moderate voters were a vital factor in their victories for the past dozen years.
I must point out that -as has been observed by more than a few commentators- the Democrats gained their narrow majority by electing relatively conservative/centrist candidates. Pelosi has already encountered significant opposition from the new blood when she tried to decree that ex-marine Jack Murtha would be the new majority leader, over Steny Hoyer.
It's rather sad to see people praise voters when elections follow their own inclinations, then suddenly veer about and condemn them as stupid sheep whey they disgree.
by
Casey Tompkins on November 27, 2006 9:46 AM
Casey,
I agree with everything you said, except 2:
1) Since 1992, the point at which I became more "politically" aware, I have believed that the American public is, unfortunately, largely "misinformed, uninformed, apathetic, myopic, and attention-deficited". However, I stillhad hope ..... I can always have that, can't I? LOL
2) I agree that the GOP shot itself in the foot with great ineptness, lapses of ethics, and by abandoning its core values. But I'm still at a loss about how, exactly, voters could believe that the Dems would do any better .... especially at fighting our Islamist enemies - in Iraq or elsewhere.
Basically, they voted for "change" without really considering the nature of the change (or naively thought that ANY change would be good because it sent a "message" of discontent), and they cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Just my opinion ...... take it for what it's worth. As I will yours.
by fdcol63 on November 27, 2006 10:27 AM
That race-baiting Rangel would be waying what he does about poor/racial minorities being over-represented in a war is not surprising. But I found it intersting that in his rush to condemn the military, he condems the very people he claims to represent--those facing poverty and unemployment.
by
FbL on November 27, 2006 12:02 PM
Good Grief - you'd think he'd have learned SOMEthing from the Kerry debacle!
This offends me on the Marine!Goth's behalf (to say nothing of my own).
by karla(threadbndr) on November 27, 2006 12:15 PM
Rengel, no doubt, is saying things that he thinks people want to hear. Considering the citizens of America voted in the rather obviously anti-war Democrats its not hard to see what it comes from.
This is not the first time Ive heard US politicians claim soldiers on the ground are dumb etc and I sense the generation of pity in here. Why? I note no one asks a young bright soldier or regular young citizen what they think about it.
I can see this becoming a blame haemorrhage very soon now that the citizens have empowered the opponents. It may be repeated here at the next elections. It also seems a bit pathological which does spark my concern this might turn into a Vietnam kind of homecoming.
Im looking for the ray of sunshine here but I think the batteries are out.
by
Trias on November 27, 2006 12:22 PM
fd: I would characterize most voters as "earnest C students." You know, the ones who try hard, but never make the honors rolls or the varsity team.
I think common joe- or jane-sixpack is just that: a citizen who works hard, votes, and tries to make the right choice. Like you, I have hope for better, and I think I can point out something which (I think) will improve things; the blog we're conversing on right now, along with all the other "army of David" bloggers out there.
It's been said that, inside everyone there's one good book. I think we can extend the analogy to the observation that inside everyone there's at least one cogent observation, which made, is of great use to other people. Blogs help citizens plant their observations, hence increasing the probability of cogency, as it were. :)
As for the Dems, they're not all bad. Take Jim Webb, for example. I hear he's been giving the Democrats fits nearly every other day with his off-the-cuff comments. Heh. Not to mention the Democrats ran (as I mentioned before) some more-centrist candidates this time around, and I don't think they were thinking too far ahead about their strategy, either! :)
Robert Heinlein once observed that it is vital for citizens to vote, and if they don't have anything to vote for, then they should vote against. At least that way they make their voices heard. I believe that's how many voters were thinking this year.
I tend not to lose too much sleep over elections after they occur. One of the enduring concepts I have taken from Winston Churchill's work is a German saying was was fond of: "trees do not grow up into the sky." In other words, things don't go on forever, and must ultimately end. Sooner or later the Dems will regain leadership, then after that the GOP will revive. We will see heroes, knaves, and fools in the White House; sometimes all at once.
A friend of mine (a moderately well-known blogger in his own right) was certain by June of '04 that Kerry was going to win the election, and became truly depressed for a while.
I wasn't worried; if nothing else the people around Kerry, and the leaders of the Democratic Party aren't complete idiots. My expectation was -given a Kerry victory- that he would either withdraw early, commence feckless negotiations with Syria, Iran, and company, or both. The result would be more dead US soldiers, the citizens (who have supported the war so far, despite arguments about various polls) would become upset, and demand that DC "do something." So Kerry would revert to something resembling the Bush strategy, but with different stage dressing and marketing. I suspect that's what's happening right now with the Baker "study." Gives the Democrats the chance to make a show of fixing things while finally coming on board as partners in the war.
Sometimes I think that's what Pelosi is doing with that idiot, Rangel. It's an artful misdirection in the same way a magician convinces you to look at his dramatically waving right hand, while the left hand is palming cards. Or rabbits. Whatver. :) Basically Pelosi lets Rangel make a big stink about a draft, then she lets the measure go down to defeat. Her excuse would be that the newbie centrist Dems bolted to vote with the GOP a la the "gang of fourteen," and she was outnumbered. Basically stunts such as Rangel's allow the vituperative element of the anti-war left to vent while she builds some sort of concensus with Bush.
Trias: that anti-war fringe I mentioned above has been in full-blown "baby killer" mode for at least a year. They've attacked ROTC kiosks and offices on college campuses, assaulted soldiers at home on leave, and pulled out all the "days of rage" stops except for the spitting. I expect that to emerge by next spring. :(
That's not to say I'm painting all anti-war Dems as moonbats. I know of more than a few decent, patriotic Democrats who I'd be glad to share a beer with, who just can't abide Bush, or "his" war. Considering some of the speeches leading House and Senate Republicans made regarding Clinton's entry into the Balkans, they (the leaders) at least should not have too much to kick about. On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right, so monday-morning quarterbacking the current administration out of spite because the GOP pulled the same bonehead stunt ten years ago is a poor strategy.
by
Casey Tompkins on November 28, 2006 4:46 AM
I called Charlie's office yesterday and asked if they could clarify and expound on his comments. I then told them that I joined because I wanted to live up to what my grandfather had done during WW2 and my brother joined because of me.
I also told them to tell them "honorable" representative that the next time he wanted to insult the military to bring his goofy ass to Fort Drum on one of my drill weekends and tell me that I am not smart enough to get a good job.
At that time I would be MORE happy to tell him what an obnoxious assclown he is and to kindly get the hell off of my post before I proceed to kick him across the impact area.
The poor girl I talked to was rather shocked at my comments and a little speechless.
by
Jon The Mechanic on November 28, 2006 7:48 AM
...and we made this call from a payphone, using coins, wearing gloves, and not in view of a videocamera, right?
;^)
by
John of Argghhh! on November 28, 2006 8:00 AM
One of those "fresh new faces" indeed. Chuckles Rangel has been the Harlem House Rep since 1970 (the year Adam Clayton Powell decided he'd finally gouged enough money from his constituency).
Chuckie started making noises about a return to the draft in August of last year or so. Interesting that he was anti-draft during the SouthEast Asian unpleasantness and pro-draft during the SouthWest Asian one.
Most everybody in this neck of the woods (except, of course, his constituency) sees through the posturing rhetoric. If they ever yank Selective Service out of deep-standby, Chuck-bo will be the first one screaming about The Unfairness of It All -- just so long as he can do it in front of a live studio audience...
by
BillT on November 28, 2006 9:41 AM
Do you all remember that Ol' Charlie commisioned a study of military recruiting demographics a couple of years ago when he first brought up the draft. Unfortunately for the "Honorable Gentleman" from NY, the survey showed that recruiting in low income zip codes had dropped since 2003, but had gone up in middle and high income zips. Things that make you go hmmm...
by oldloadr on November 28, 2006 10:05 AM
I shall now connect The Dots: John Kerry makes
¬ty and ignernt comments about Persyns In Uniform Being Stupid. Rangel says that Minorities are Over Represented. Uh huh.
I did not wear The Uniform Of The United States Armed Forces, but I took care of it. All four types: BDUs, Dress Blues, Class As and DCUs.
Did my share of turning collars, sewing on Military Merit Badges (my snarky name for name, branch, MOS and rank thingies), washing, ironing
cutting them down to fit the CLUs when they got worn out.
by Cricket on November 28, 2006 8:25 PM
You know John, maybe you might want to do what The Corner does sometimes with The New Republic and do a little back and forth with a contrary opinioned mil-blogger by cross posting at both sites the running argument (Armchair Generalist for instance as he's rather pro-return and seriously so. Not just in a 'stick it to the republicans' way, but serious.). That could be interesting and stop some of the echo chamber going on at both sites.
by ry on November 29, 2006 1:15 AM
Isn't that what I hired you and Jack for? With a frisson of Owen?
That said - while it's an intriguing idea, I simply do not have enough space in my life at the moment to do that.
Because if I did that, I would feel compelled to be a lot more prepared than I am now - but perhaps more importantly, it would be hard to keep from using stuff I have access to via work, which is a rule I abide by religiously.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 29, 2006 5:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 16, 2006
Heh.
Given how some things seem to be sorting out... on both sides of the aisle, this seems to be appropriate for the times.
While walking down the street one day, a senator is tragically hit by a truck and killed. His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"There's no need! I want to be in Heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator, the doors open, and he rides the elevator down, down, down. When the doors open again, the senator finds himself in the middle of a beautiful green golf course. In the distance is a club, and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in formal dress. They run to greet him, and they reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. Also present is the Devil, who is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that, before the senator realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up, and the door reopens in Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
So 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by, and St. Peter
returns.
"Well, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, you must choose where you want to spend eternity."
He reflects for a minute and then answers, "Well, I would never would have thought it, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better satisfied in Hell."
So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator, and down, down, down he goes into Hell. Now, the doors of the elevator open, and he is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. And it's hot, hot, hot, and the odor is just horrible. Sweltering hot. Hot and miserable. The Devil comes over to him and smoothly lays his arm around his shoulder.
"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "The day before I was here, and there was a golf course and club, and we ate lobster and caviar and danced and had a great time. Now all there is is a wasteland full of garbage, and my friends look miserable."
The Devil looks at the senator, smiles, and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted for us."
H/t, Larry M.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Been excavating in the archives again, huh?
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 16, 2006 7:04 AM
Saddam escapes
Now that's news. Let us hope he finds the Senator's idea of heaven.
by Cricket on November 16, 2006 7:41 AM
Hey, the monster must be fed - and with Trent Lott rising from the dead... and Abramoff perhaps lapping about Harry Reid's ankles... and the junior Senator from Missouri skipping freshman orientation... it just seemed fit.
And besides, on the Internet, *everything* is new... Just ask the folks at Snopes. I admit, with over 3100 or so posts, not counting the 1000 or so I've dumped to make room... I don't remember *everything*. I'm only as big as an elephant, I don't have the legendary memory.
And with Cricket - we now have had three Denizens linking to Saddam Escaping.
Obviously, most links 'round here don't get clicked...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 16, 2006 8:23 AM
snerk!
Guilty as charged. I do try to click on the majority of them but in self defense at least we can all say that we found that hysterical even if it is redundant...
*whistles off to the kitchen*
by Cricket on November 16, 2006 8:30 AM
I'd laugh if it wasn't SO DANG SCARY AND TRUE.
I find myself deeper and deeper in hell every day since that election.
by
WereKitten on November 16, 2006 8:36 AM
Heck, www.lucianne.com has been showing us the fresh young smiling faces full on new ideas not on capital hill. Yesterday was Harry "sourpuss" Reid.
by JimC on November 16, 2006 10:07 AM
Only one comment for that joke:
BAZZZZZING!
by
Mike Slag on November 17, 2006 12:02 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 1, 2006
Argghhh!!!
Heh. If it turns out the Republicans *sat* on the Foley story, how does it spin any other way than they are desperate to hold on to their power, and that, at a minimum, should they actually manage to pull off retaining the House in November, that the leadership simply.must.change. I'm a squish in politics, unlike Dusty. And I'm not going to vote left to spite my face. But I find it increasingly hard to *support* this group of seeming buffoons. Sadly, the team that will take their place, from the Left, is full of its own horrors.
I wanna redo. And the Dems aren't a redo. I just want a whole new crowd. Top to bottom, soup to nuts. And yes, I know how impractical that would be. The Republic would survive it, however.
As I say for the Services, More.General.Officer.Scalps. Contrary to what the GO Corps thinks, tossing a few of their own to the wolves (when guilty of malfeasance and misprision, mind you, not just for sport), rather than just quietly retiring them - would *enhance* confidence, not undermine it. The same is true in politics. More scalps, not less. And the voters, on both sides, aren't very good at it, either - though right wing voters seem more able to toss their own than left wing. Of course, it's easier to toss the bums out when there are viable alternatives. I dunno. I'm getting to the point where I simply will vote against any incumbent who wants a fourth term - three for Senators. Federal, State, and local, and if they win the primary anyway, withhold my vote for the office in the General. These bastards, on both sides, are starting to wear my patience thin. If turnover is good for things like Boards of Directors, how can it not also be good for politicians?
Locally, Representative Ryun's operation is beginning to torque me - not because I don't get personalized responses and attention - I'm well aware I don't donate enough, nor have a big enough voice in Kansas to warrant that attention - but if all I'm going to get are boilerplate responses based on general subject, vice specific question or issue - and those weeks after the fact - I'm obviously represented by someone who either manages his staff badly, or who feels his seat is so safe he can just blow us off.
I find it interesting that I see signs, placards, and ads for his opponent, Nancy Boyda, all around (not huge numbers, but noticeable) and I don't see a single thing for Ryun. Boyda showed up for our local parade recently, Ryun did not (mind you - he does have the job, and I want him to do it, and we're a small population and apparently very safe part of his district) - but Ryun's almost complete lack of effort is telling, I think.
I'd like to see him get a real challenge in a primary.
Senators Roberts and Brownback on the other hand, have their staffs respond to questions and comments quickly, and with targeted responses (they may also be boilerplate, but are *far* more focused) and with words added that indicate the comment was in fact read, and not just scanned for General Topic. I appreciate that level of response. I don't expect phone calls and emails from the Big Kahunas themselves. But I expect some sense of them actually being read for comprehension by *someone*. I do not have that feeling from Ryun's office.
Sigh. Sadly, I judge this whole political thing more about what *doesn't* happen to me than what actually gets done. The one thing about having the Republicans in putative control means that I keep more of my money (vice when the Dems take control, when they allow me to keep some of *their* money - a telling difference in approach), the gun collection still exists, because I don't doubt that if the Dems ever get both houses and the presidency, the Arsenal of Argghhh! will be little more than a digital memory...
Geez, I'm whiny today.
Update: The Speaker's Office responds (no, I have *no* delusions it was my whining, thank you).
From: Speaker's Media Release
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER
Speakers Press Office
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800
September 30, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller
INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER
On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speakers Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexanders Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hasterts Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speakers in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexanders Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speakers Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexanders Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexanders Chief of Staff then went to the Clerks Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexanders office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexanders Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speakers Office liaison with the Clerks Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parents wishes to protect their childs privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speakers Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speakers Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
Mark Levin discusses the political side of it all, with backup from The American Thinker.
Note to J: I don't have to be balanced about this. The MSM is all over the other side of it - and I've made my feelings clear, as well, so I can be a mouthpiece for the other side on this one without a twinge of guilt.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Why are you wearing my whinny hat? I know I left it down in Castle Purgatory after you let me out, but that don't mean you should try it on Big Guy.;)
by ry on October 1, 2006 11:37 AM
Ok, first let me say that I have two sons and two extras and if someone laid a finger on one of them there wouldn't be enough left to bury.
That said, as far as I know, Foley never laid a glove on this kid. My understanding of the timeline is, the kid gets the emails, feels creeped out, tells someone and then goes on to have even more explicit conversations in IM. Come on! There is a little something else at work here. Foley should resign. I'm good with that, but I'm not going to call for anything more. What did you want the GOP to do? There was no crime (as far as I know). What my Congressman (Gerry &^*% Studds) did years ago was far worse and even after it was public there was no pressure from his party for him to resign. That was the first time I ever remember hearing Newt Gingrich speak. He stood in the well and railed against a man who poured Cape Codders down a child's throat and sodomized him. This didn't get past words. And that kid was no prize. Not to diminish Foley's culpability as the adult in this situation, but I think the kid was trying to get him to type incriminating stuff. If someone creeped me out....I'd stop writing. If the Armorer allows I'll post the link to the conversations. Or you can just go out to Drudge and poke around. The kid was writing about his plaster cast fetish for crissake!
by
Maggie on October 1, 2006 10:30 PM
Sorta mostly exactly my point, Maggie.
One nice thing about blogging, it allows for adding and expanding (as I did with the Speaker's news release).
All through this I've been pointing out the difference between Republican/Red, Democrat/Blue responses to issues like this as well.
Of course, I then conflated it with my own dissatisfaction with the Republicans - their leadership especially, while lamenting that the other side is, for the most part, scarier.
Go ahead - post the link to the conversations.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 2, 2006 5:51 AM
Here is a transcript of some of the instant messages.
John - Sorry if I missed your point. NPR is trying to explain that as a parent, I *should* be outraged. I was outraged over Gerry Studds.....where was Cokie Roberts?
by
Maggie on October 2, 2006 7:47 AM
Well, if you missed it, I didn't convey it very well, eh? Another reason I don't get paid to do this...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 2, 2006 7:48 AM
Also interesting, is that the local Red Sheet(St. Pete. Times) sat on the story for a year until just before the election cycle... This is the same paper that had a one day story on Barney Franks back when his boy friend was running a homosexual whore house from Frank's congressional office. Suprise, suprise, suprise - NOT.
by emdfl on October 2, 2006 8:50 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 22, 2006
Argghhh!~
Okay, lemme see if I've got this straight, ladies and gentlemen. I'll add my voice to that of Cassandra and Grim. Fuzzlicious Thinking and Blackfive pile on, too.
From Military.com, quoting USA Today:
According to USA Today, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury center, which is devoted to the treatment and understanding of war-related brain injuries, is set to lose half its funding, from $14 million down to $7 million, next year. The House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain only half of the funding the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center received last year. "Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities," a spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee told the paper. "They didn't have any flexibility in such a tight fiscal year." Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is becoming one of the most common injuries among soldiers fighting in Iraq. Research by the center has concluded that ten percent of troops in Iraq suffer concussions during combat.
Heh.
"Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities," a spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee told the paper.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
That would be the same bleeping Senate Appropriations Committee that didn't have any trouble finding $160 Million for the VA so that the VA could pay for a service - credit monitoring - that victims of identity theft can, with a touch of a telephone keypad, get for free?
Lessee, $160 mil, minus $7 mil, equals (takes off shoes) um, $153 mil.
Y'know, it just TORQUES ME RIGHT OFF that the Honorables of this Committee could rummage about and find $160 mil for an unneeded service to cover an embarrassing faux pas by an agency of this government, but, well, there just isn't $7 mil to continue funding research into what is the Signature Injury Of This War.
Gee, Honorables, our soldiery and the medical personnel who serve them are sorry that we are surviving injuries that used to kill us - so that these injuries weren't as, um, noticeable as they are now. We beg your indulgence.
One wonders how someone can say something that bloody insensitive and bleeping ignorant with a straight face and not have their head implode? I had to stick my head in the Armorer's Helmet to keep it from exploding...
Oh, I forgot. They really do think we're simpletons with short memory spans.
Thank heavens for Google!
Note to the Kansas Congressional Delegation... I'm a medium fish in a small pond - but Kansas is a small pond too. I'll be watching this one, and I will be *very* interested in your staff's responses to my inquiries on the subject. Especially Senator Brownback, as you sit on the Senate appropriations committee in question. But I'll be interested in Senator Robert's views, as you sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Ryun, as you sit on the House Armed Services Committee.
C'mon Senator Brownback, Congressman Ryun - you both have "Support Our Troops" banners on your websites, there isn't 7 million where once there was 160 million?
I do my bit of taking care of the wounded - via Project Valour-IT. Let's hear what you gentlemen have to say.
Updates to the story:
The Washington Times gets the run-around - maybe not deliberately, but it's *still* a run-around. I'd love to hear what DoD has to say on the issue.
A letter to the Editor from a founder of the centers, Dr. George Zitnay (you'll have to scroll a bit).
And last, but not least... so, it's all wrapped up in Senatorial Snits? Really? Sigh.
And golly, I provoked a decent exchange in The Corner today! Whee!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
This is despicable.
by fdcol63 on August 22, 2006 9:47 AM
Hey, how about taking that $230 Mil that is being earmarked for the rebuilding of Lebanon and spreading it out over the VA's budget. We did not fire a shot in this last little dust-up between Israel and Hez'bollah so why should we pay...let Iran, Syria, Saudi and all the others rebuild that sandbox.
by DoctorDentons on August 22, 2006 9:49 AM
Hey, maybe they're like the SS Doc in Hackett's "I Was a Stranger." He was working on the wounded of both sides at the hospital in Arnhem, and expounding his views on how to do triage.
"Kopfschuss, Bauchschuss, spritzen!" or, just give'em an overdose and let'em go if they're shot in the head or tummy.
by
Justthisguy on August 22, 2006 9:59 AM
What else do you expect Conservatives to do?
Conservatives have to pay for their tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent somehow.
So, Conservatives will take the money from wounded soldiers.
Wounded soldiers do not make campaign contributions.
The wealthiest 1 percent, with their money safely packed away in the Bahamas, British Channel Islands, and Cayman Islands, pay the Conservatives' campaign costs.
Does this actually surprise you?
by Mark on August 22, 2006 12:15 PM
A few questions:
1. Why is this being funded by DoD and not NIH? There are plenty of civilians suffering from TBI, too.
2. Why does this center get an earmark while the rest of us medical research slobs have to go through competative grant applications?
3. Are earmark proponents using this cut as a political ploy (think Seaseme Street with respect to public TV)?
by Kyle on August 22, 2006 12:18 PM
Conservative Oil Man, Ted Stevens (C-Alaska), is taking money away from injured soldiers to enact political payback.
Here's Bob Novak: [remainder deleted and replaced with this link- which, if you've read the links in the post above... you've already read. -the Armorer]
by Mark on August 22, 2006 12:23 PM
And The Washington Times, like Bob Novak, no liberal rag merchant, also blasted Conservative Alaskan Oil Man Ted Stevens in an editorial and with this letter to the editor on Aug. 21.
Again, another example of Conservatives using the military for political gain.
[Again, reposted complete article replaced with a simple link - and, again, if you've read the post *with* the links, you've read this already. -the Armorer]
by Mark on August 22, 2006 12:28 PM
Mark - did you *read* the post? I.e., where I already linked to that stuff you stuffed into the comments?
Do me and my storage a favor - post links, not full-length articles. It's blog-politeness. I pay for this place, show some respect to me and the readers who have to scroll through info *already* provided.
I didn't drag Left/Right into this, you did.
I was going after the issue. Not that I expect it, if you read through this place, you'll find, yeah, I'm a conservative, but that doesn't mean I drink the kool-aid.
Both sides of the aisle stink when it comes to this kind of thing, please. At least under this Congress, I only have to fund *part* of my disability payment directly from my retirement - unlike the the Democrat controlled Congresses (and many Republican, too) who did nothing about it but mouth pious platitudes.
This isn't about Right/Left. At least not for me. Your mileage obviously varies.
So, kindly quit thrashing about, okay? Golly, look at who I addressed the post to... they're *all* Republicans. That's my representation in Congress. So, it's not like I'm being a staunch Republican here...
by
John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2006 1:22 PM
Unfortunately, we cannot have a discussion about this without bringing politics into it. Alas, the issue isn't simply one of funding research for brain injuries, especially soldiers who have suffered such injuries while performing their duties. Heck, who's really going to be against that?
But, as you noted, this particular bit of funding is being supported by an earmark as a bit of political theater. I will almost always support an increase in funding for the military, but I am opposed to this method of funding an activity, no matter how worthy it seems. It is this method of ad hoc funding which has corrupted the federal budgeting process and helped make irresponsible spending the order of the day as far as the eye can see.
If this cause is as worthy as it seems to be, and I do believe it to be so, why hasn't the funding request come through formal budgeting channels at the Pentagon, NIH, etc?
Please note that this rant included no stone aimed at any particular person or party. My complaint is with the hidden and corrupt process.
by
charles austin on August 22, 2006 2:56 PM
Charles - yes, I know. I'm not a babe. The point being that it's not a right/left issue.
It's an almost pure politics in the rawest sense issue.
And I'd love to hear what reasoning DoD provides.
I'm an equal opportunity basher. But I don't want this to degenerate to right-left bashing.
Just line 'em all up and start bashing.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2006 3:11 PM
I think its about time ol Jim Nicholson start looking at doing a lot of fishing and step away quietly.
Its his job to appropriate these funds and its obvious, both from his handling of the laptop fiasco and now this that he is inept.
On the otherside of the house the Administration has just shown what we are in the full screaming color bandwidth of their opinion: cattle.
by
BloodSpite on August 22, 2006 3:44 PM
You're joking me. Right? Tell me I'm reading the Novak column wrong and Ted Stevens did not just turn down a request for funding for TBI treatment research and development because of a farking schoolyard spat last year. Please?
Stevens should KNOW better. The military is THE largest contributor to the Alaskan economy and many of those 1,700 soldiers per year that face a traumatic brain injury are Alaskan residents and military members.
HOW. DARE. HE.
He'll be getting an earfull from me tomorrow. That son of a...well, we won't go there.
by
HomefrontSix on August 22, 2006 10:32 PM
As a retired USAF officer and a retired defense contractor, I have some experience working "plus up" funding with Congress. Rather than venting our frustrations about this obvious inequity, let's take action to turn this decision around. $7M in the Defense Appropriation bill is "budget dust".
First, get a letter writing campaign going from vets who have been treated at the TBI center. Have their parents and wives write. We should write our congressman and both our senators. Tell them you don't have a lot of money, but you always vote.
Second, visit the organizations who need the funding and get their support. To be successful, these operational users and their requirements staff officers must support the effort. There is some push back from people in the building because they think plus ups will come out of their hide. (The line is "no net increase in aggregate resources".) This notion must be dispelled.
Third, organize a committee to work the staffers. You will be astounded at the youth and inexperience of the legislative assistants who write language into law. The members' offices we should visit include every member of the House & Senate Armed Services (HASC & SASC) and House & Senate Appropriations (HAC & SAC). Their names are published in books available in Washington. A key effort here is to convince the senior committee staffers (who are usually retored senior military). There's another trick - be nice to the secretaries. They're key to getting you on the schedule.
Fourth, obtain congressional sponsors, members who strongly support this cause and would be willing to put their names on a letter advocating the restoration of funds. It's best if these members are on HASC, SASC, HAC or SAC. Three are good; five better. Even my two senators - Schumer and Clinton - may sign up.
Finally, brief about 50 staffers and write the proposed text to go into the bill. A five slide power point briefing with a five page background paper to make these staffers look very smart.
This is an issue that needs to be raised soon. All the House and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election now.
Arch
by arch on August 23, 2006 9:18 AM
John,
An apology and an explanation. Yes, I correctly noted in your initial post the links that you provided to the Novak column and to the letter in The Washington Times.
However, Ive dealt with many people over the years on such issues, be it in the Veterans Administration or simply involving the activities of their local board of education. Too many people are, I respectfully submit, inherently lazy. As such, many wont even click on the fine links that you offered to read another item. Its too much work. I write this with a sense of exasperation, as Ive met numerous people whove confessed to exactly this modus operandi of laziness to the Nth degree.
As a result, I chose, apparently in violation of your website mandate, to post the full Novak column and the full letter to the editor in The Washington Times. I respectfully submit that people are much more likely to read something if its right there in front of their face. That, quite frankly, is sad, but terribly true. Feel free, of course, to disagree with me. And accept my apology for posting the items in full if so doing violated your sites criteria.
I find the actions of Senator Ted Stevens to be nothing short of deplorable. To bring personal political vendetta into such an issue is both repugnant and childish, and I could hardly care if Senator Stevens is a Conservative or a Liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, on the side of the Right, the Left, or the Just Plain Wrong.
I will add that I find a great difference between Conservatives and Republicans, who are a breed apart. I find much to like about the Republican, including a penchant for fiscal wisdom and common sense. I find the Conservative to be a radical and no less a threat to our nation than a Liberal. We require moderation in this country, not extremism from either side. We require negotiation, not merely a pre-emptive strike mentality. We require a fair amount of logic and common sense, not pandering to fear, arrogance, or just plain foolishness.
Without question, we require a commitment to our soldiers, not merely when stationed in the Iraqs and Afghanistans of the world, but when they return home, whether injured or safe. If we forget the dignity and health of our soldiers and allow politicians - regardless of party affiliation - to play petty games of payback with money that needs to finance services for our soldiers, whether in time of war or of peace, then, I respectfully submit, we are no better than our enemies.
Dont forget the soldiers.
Dont let the politicians place ego before action.
Dont, I respectfully submit, believe a person will click on a link. Put it right there. Before their eyes. Let them see whats happening. Maybe, just maybe, theyll do something about it.
Thanks again.
by Mark on August 23, 2006 9:50 PM
Hmm, I prefer Conservatives (American Burke-Locke type, not Euro authoritarian) to Republicans. For the same reasons given above, by Mark. I think he has it backwards.
What goes past any of that, though, is, I think, that most people find any kind of mental weirdness or brain injury which manifests in weird, "defective" behavior to be creepy and abhorrent.
So much so they don't even want to think about the neurally different folks, no matter how they got that way, except to shove them into a "hospital" somewhere to be forgotten.
I mind the time I saw a Marine officer testifying before a Congressional committee on C-SPAN: He looked good and sharp in uniform and decorations, but sometimes had to have his wife interpret for him because he was talking funny due to brain damage from Gulf War Syndrome. He said something about how he understood that going into combat might kill him or mess him up, but not like that. Sounded like everyone's idea of a short-bus kid.
Creeped me out, and I think *I'm* a bit weird neurally.
I think there's something about the monkey social brain functions which causes the monkeys to zoom in on and beat up upon the weirdly-behaved monkey.
Dang, it's hell being a monkey with brains, sometimes.
by
Justthisguy on August 23, 2006 11:27 PM
P.S. By "monkey with brains", I mean "human."
by
Justthisguy on August 24, 2006 8:16 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Aug 22, 2006
�
BLACKFIVE links with:
The Brain Dead Politicians
�
BLACKFIVE links with:
The Brain Dead Politicians
�
Searchlight Crusade links with:
Links and Minifeatures 08 22 Tuesday
�
The Steeljaw Scribe links with:
Braindead Politicians
�
HomefrontSix links with:
Disgusting.
January 10, 2006
The Weblog Gulag
"Annoying" someone online--anonymously--is now a felony. Can you say, "First Amendment Rights"...?
Nonetheless, you have been warned.
Sooo, if you want to rant about your boss groping you at the Holiday Eve party and you want to do it anonymously (so you don't wind up fired--which will work only if there were additional gropees), you *could* wind up arrested.
Best bet--follow my lead. Be annoying openly...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I think it should properly have been titled the "Incumbent Politician Protection From Annoying Gadflies Act"...
Let's see if it survives court review.
If I were a Spector constituent, gad, I might find myself voting for Ed Rendell or something...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 9, 2006 10:49 PM
Ack! In addition to being truly stupid, this just makes another reason to keep Arlen Specter on my sh*t list. He continues to make me VERY glad I no longer live in PA.
Good category name, Bill!
by
Barb on January 9, 2006 11:21 PM
Well, I *had* a really cool comment in preview, but my mouse-finger slipped on a beer slick, so I'll start over:
What if you're Semi-Anonymous? I've told The Donovan my actual True Name, and I believe him when he says he hasn't told that to anyone else.
Now, in my time playing with this here interweb thingy I believe that I have annoyed some people from time to time, mostly inadvertently, but, yes, there was a time or two when I let my grump out and some might have taken offense.
Let's imagine that someone felt annoyed enough by something I wrote to bring charges against me, and got a subpoena to bring John into court to make him tell all that he knows about me. Does he have to co-operate? Tell them my name, and where I live, and all,
*JUST BECAUSE OF A FEELING IN SOME STRANGER'S HEAD?!?*
Sorry, boys and girls, someone feeling annoyed by something I wrote and posted publicly ain't grounds for criminal prosecution, I don't think, and prolly not even a suit for libel or slander. (IANAL)
by
Justthisguy on January 10, 2006 1:56 AM
Well, JTG, yer so scary and annoying I put everything about you out of my head - and DBR everything you've ever sent me.
Who are you again? You live where, the Northwest Territories?
There have beenc comments posted here anonymously that I have deleted - but that's my editorial choice, I believe.
Then there is the case of SWWBO's stalker, or some of Cassandra's more vile visitors, who are the titular focus of the law. But I stand by my first comment in this thread - as described in Bill's post, this strikes me more as "The Incumbent Politician Protection From Annoying Gadflies Act" than useful law - the certainly was not subject to any meaningful debate.
Which means it will most likely get settled by the Courts, which is an abrogation of the duties of Congress and a seemingly arrant act of cowardice on the part of the sponsors of the provision. Which, sadly, doesn't seem to be unusual.
Many of our glorious representatives blather about the Courts interfering, but the truth is, when it suits their purposes, they want it to be this way, so they can feed us the crap about 'the imperial bench' even as they do carp like this to avoid responsibility.
Of course, in the end it's our fault. We won't call them on it and send 'em home - because we're either too lazy/busy to care until our personal ox is gored, or we fear losing our state's clout in seniority (if we think it through that far).
In other words, we get the government we want and deserve, because we're unwilling to change it at the ballot box.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 10, 2006 5:50 AM
Jtg - John's got a rotten memory. That's why we have to keep reminding him about #82.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 8:04 AM
"In other words, we get the government we want and deserve, because we're unwilling to change it at the ballot box."
Kinda tough to do that when the Deceased Democrat vote always squeaks the incumbent.
Heh. Former NJ Gov Tom Kean snarked that, when he died, he wanted to be buried in Hudson County so he "could continue to participate in the electoral process."
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 8:48 AM
As Hugh Hewitt noted, "They can't steal it if it isn't close."
by
John of Argghhh! on January 10, 2006 8:51 AM
Spam annoys me, and it is annoymous too. Can we use this to give spammers several thousand consecutive sentences? With no access to computers. Please?
by C. Van Dis on January 10, 2006 8:56 AM
There goes my Friday nights...
by Jon The Mechanic on January 10, 2006 9:10 AM
John - Put 20,000 (+/-) Republican votes against 20,000 (+/-) Democratic votes and you'll get close.
Now add 5,000 deceased -- but still on the rolls -- Dems and *close* reverts to horseshoes 'n' hand grenades...
Heh. "It's just another issue that the Republicans have."
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 9:40 AM
Why does Bill always inspire me to new heights of snark and why must I resist?
John, you have done an outstanding job of editing this blog and have gone one further I think in being a truly free press type of blog.
by Cricket on January 10, 2006 10:05 AM
Cricket - Resistance is futile. It also deprives us of keyboard alerts.
Snark away, Lady C!
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 10:24 AM
John's rotten memory: Is that because he thinks with #82?
by Cricket on January 10, 2006 11:27 AM
Ask SWWBO.
All *I* know is I just keep getting recurring e-mails asking why I keep calling him the Boss when he hasn't paid me a dime for doing this...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 11:37 AM
Seems to me that the egregious behavior that ought to be the driving force behind such a law is probably already covered by existing law and this is a needless feel-good legislative act.
JTG. No matter what you might desire, bloggers and commenters should have no more expectation of privacy than they would if talking on a park bench. Those listening or reading might not know your name initially but they can probably figure it out in short order. As such one ought not say things that could get one arrested (or fired)in the public square.
Then again, the public square is getting to be waaay too sensitive and vengeful. It ought to remember that eavesdoppers seldom hear nice things. But that is another thing entirely.
by
Punctilious on January 10, 2006 11:40 AM
Bill - I'm not charging you a dime, either...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 10, 2006 1:44 PM
That's because I've only written about a nickel's worth...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 10, 2006 1:49 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Jan 10, 2006
![American troops wear[spelling corrected] funny hats](http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb224/kehenry1/WarrickPin.jpg){kind=link}
© Pamela Bobik
