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

Have No Fear, Under Dog is Here!

[Kat]

Just a thought before I run off for the weekend and catch some native American activities:

You know, for all the hyperbole about Obama being the under dog, having to fight off potential racism (right), rumors about his birth, religion, etc, the real Under Dog is John McCain.

Seriously. He isn't as articulate.

He's old.

He doesn't raise as much money.

He has the last 8 years of republican presidency to overcome, even if it wasn't any where as bad as people think it was, the propaganda machine of the left, along with Bush's total collapse in communications, pretty much has it sewn up as "the worst presidency ever".

He supports the successful conclusion of an unpopular war (or, at least, an extremely tired of war population is just wishing it was over).

Speaking of the last eight years, an incredible economy finally slows down, still under a Republican's watch, and McCain is going to be lumped with that along with the rotten luck to have all that war for oil turn out to be the most expensive, non-producing war for anything in history. Forget all that 4,000 points gained on the DOW since 2001 and the millions of jobs recovered and created. It's down turned, companies are writing down bad debt (like they always do at the end of presidential term, just in case inflation or raised interests come along; plus, they are expecting higher taxes so they are looking for the bad debt to take as a write off on their taxes next year).

McCain's campaign hasn't figured out how to do grass roots like Bush/Rove. Let's face it, McCain's demographic is older and less computer savvy.

He's taken positions that do not trend with his base.

Some of his ideas are Obama-lite. Universal Healthcare? Not so much, but more regulation, because, you know, that works so well in a free market. Global warming? Let's keep that panic going and give the Obama some gravitas on the situation by making it a political point instead of focusing on energy independence. Security? Apologize for war and tell everyone how much you hate it instead of re-stating supremacy of defense of the nation. Nothing like giving the peace mobile in the Obama camp some more gravitas. Immigration and border security? Amnesty for illegals and more of the same on the border: not much after 8 years. Did I say "Obama-lite"?

McCain is not fun or funny. Neither is Obama, actually, but all the young people think he must be because he's, well, young and he spoke at this rock concert.

Really, thinking about giving Obama the reins of state is like giving a newly graduated MBA the position of head of the Fed. But, I digress.

McCain is the Under Dog, for all the hoopla about the white, old boys club of politics. Yet, no one is going to give him the "under dog pass" that typically happens for such people in the press, while they go after the big gun. Even the press is in love with Obama. Frankly, I don't get it. However, McCain ought to take that position as the under dog and run with it.

He needs to get his positions in order and his house. One thing that he should do is lump Obama with the Democrat dominated congress with its worst approvals ever. A Democrat congress that hasn't done a d@mn thing (thank G_d) and Obama is definitely one of them with his incredible number of no shows, no votes and losing votes. McCain ought to be hitting Obama on his experience, or lack there of, left and right. Point out important legislature that McCain supported, not just the war, that Obama was a no show on. Point out, as he is doing, how much baloney Obama is spouting about his alleged experience. Point out how the general business of the government is to do the business of the people and Obama has done so little of that, it's a miracle he actually knows anything about how the government works. Besides asking for earmarks for his friends and back door deals.

Obama the new politician? Not so much. A do nothing about everything but sloughing money from the public trough is more like it. With an extra dash of rubbing elbows with the worst sorts of the political machinery down Chicago way and the oddities of the left over sixties radical sub culture.

McCain's acting like he doesn't need to campaign until the end. And is actually trying to run a "clean campaign" on principle and having experienced the not so clean version, he's determined to go down with the ship.

Maybe he's hoping Obama's campaign will run out of steam?

Let's hope it's more like, "We have not yet begun to fight!" Because, every time I see McCain, all that keeps running through my mind is, "Have no fear, Under Dog is here!"

Update: Thought. You know, McCain needs to get excited about a few things. I mean, look and sound a little more driven. Get angry! Everyone always acts like something terrible is happening when McCain "loses his temper" and the press swarm like sharks. They start comparing him to Obama and its all bad. I don't think so. It's all about what you get angry about and who you are pointing it towards. Normal people get angry, too, sometimes and if McCain's anger matches theirs, he might have some bump. .

One thing, he should lay off of the capitalists making money because he is making them suspect he's a control freak that just might "punish" them for making money. At least with Obama, they know he's going to say one thing and do another because he wants to get re-elected in four years (if he wins) and screwing the capitalists means screwing the economy. Lay off the reporters, too. Why push them into the "enemy camp". Turn them back into the semi-neutral, hide their politics organizations they were by not playing their game. Make them play the McCain game. If McCain's got one, that is.

Final, final observation. Today, they were talking about "fist bumps" and "knuckles" while standing around on break after a big meeting. Can you say "uugh!"?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 21, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

Why I will vote Republican.

John Paul Stevens 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 75
Antonin Scalia 72
Anthony McLeod Kennedy 71
Stephen Gerald Breyer 69
David Souter 68
Clarence Thomas 59
Samuel Alito 58
John G Roberts 53

There's a near certaintly that the next President will be appointing at least one Justice to the Supreme Court and I'm pretty sure Senator Obama will not be appointing any Constitutionalists. The Republicans are in the throes of terminal "been in power too long" disease, and the ranks of them in Congress will be thinned still more this cycle, I'm thinking. Which will perhaps get the party more focused and winnow out the ones who see the job as an entitlement, vice a privilege. We'll see.

Best a conservative can hope for, this cycle.

In that the Republicans can wander in the wilderness and see what they wish to become - relevant, or the relic of a time gone by - as Fred suggests in the comments here.

If I'm going to have to have a virtual Democrat in the White House, I would rather it be Senator McCain than Senator Obama.

I said I didn't see the Boumediene decision as the end of the world. That doesn't mean I thought it was a good decision, nor a good precedent. So, I'm thinking we don't need another Justice who thinks like Justice Kennedy on the Court

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

John, I agree with your point and would add for others to consider that the 2 most important jobs the President has is the Commander-n-Chief and the appointer of federal judges. Of course the Supremes are the most important, but he appoints all federal judges (with advice and consent of the Senate, of course). Look at the 9th circuit if you want a reason to not vote for Obama. Considering that the congressional Republicans will be wondering in the wilderness for at least another 2 years, McCain is the best choice for an appointer of judges since he has proven he can get things done across party lines.
On that other job most of us at this blog have a personal interest in: the thought of Obama as C-n-C depresses me…

by Oldloadr on June 19, 2008 9:22 AM

John, you really frighten me when you start agreeing with Scalia and Roberts. This was the THIRD TIME that the SC said "listen to us: you don't get to suspend habeous corpus unless there's a civil war going on in our country. What did you not get the first two times we said this?"

Thank God Kennedy is there to moderate between the two wings. I can't imagine how many 5-4 rulings we've had in the last seven years. The law ought not to be that difficult where there are so many opportunities to have significantly divergent views on American liberties.

Last point, I think there are some who think they see "judicial activism" when they ought to be seeing "independent third branch" playing the role it's supposed to be doing - acting as a catch to when the Executive and Legislative branches screw up and make bad decisions based on emotions and political baggage.

There are better reasons to vote Repub than this one (although frankly I can't think of any reason to vote Repub). And in what universe is John McCain a virtual Democrat? He's voted lockstep with Bush for the past three years (in fact, every year since 2001 except for 2004, the election year).

by Jason on June 19, 2008 10:02 AM

Jason...listen to us. These men are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. What part of "they don't qualify for having any rights under our constitution beyond what congress deems them to have based on section 8 of article I" do you not get?

These are not criminals, sir, they are foreign ENEMIES!

Why don't you understand that, indeed, we don't believe our constitutional protections extend to everyone around the globe because they are not Americans, we don't own the entire globe (even if you like to accuse us of wanting it) and giving such enemies such rights constitutes making them legitimate actors and elevating terrorists and terror acts to the status of acceptable warfare.

Why don't you get it that that makes the world more dangerous, sir, because we continuelly tell people that they do not have to abide by any rules but we will give them more and more leeway to commit their acts and be accepted as part of legitimate civil society.

Screw that!

by kat-missouri on June 19, 2008 10:24 AM

I would like to go into great detail about how Jason has it bass ackwards, as we say in the South, but I have supper on (it’s 19:30 in the UAE). Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the US Civil War and that was one of his moves that drove most Kentuckians to the Confederacy. However, by the Geneva Convention, these people are illegal combatants and the US would have been within international law to summarily execute them, but we didn’t (‘cause we’re the good guys, whether you believe that or not). Therefore, suspending habeas corpus in a civil war (IMHO) is the height of tyranny, but to not even mention it with illegal combatants is not only prudent, but within all pre-existing case law.
Now, I have to go check my supper…

by Oldloadr on June 19, 2008 10:39 AM

"What part of "they don't qualify for having any rights under our constitution beyond what congress deems them to have based on section 8 of article I" do you not get?"

Hey kat, take it up with the judges. They're the ones who say that you're wrong - in three separate cases. So tell me, what part of "your actions are actively supporting the continued growth of anti-American insurgencies" do you not get? Do you deliberately ignore the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy from the point of a gun and its blissful "yeah but international laws don't matter to us" attitude? Do I really have to send you the links where Bush is stating how everyone in the world should have the same rights and protections as Americans?

Wake up. People who were wisked away from their homes - not from a battlefield - and held for five-six years without charges and without evidence of any wrongdoing - and tortured for information that they don't have - that's what happened in the Soviet Union. That's what happens in African countries. Not supposed to happen in United States. Your kind of attitude paints a big bullseye on every American who travels overseas, not to mention supporting radical extremist propaganda that extends the justification for their fight.

by Jason on June 19, 2008 11:41 AM

Jason, how much do you travel overseas? I’m working in a ME country, right now, with local nationals and they still love the USA, in spite of liberal efforts to convince everyone otherwise. Oh, I’m sorry; I forgot that you said personal observation doesn’t count; all that counts is what your liberal “experts” say what the folks overseas are supposed to think. Of course, except when a liberal observes e.g. John Kerry “observing” war crimes in Viet Nam… Just like his ol’ pal Murtha “observing” war crimes in Haditha…

by Oldloadr on June 19, 2008 12:14 PM

So tell me, what part of "your actions are actively supporting the continued growth of anti-American insurgencies" do you not get?

so tell me, what sort of naivete leads you to believe that, that is the cause of anti-American insurgencies? Seriously, this is totally wrong assessment of "insurgencies" as if they are actually caused by whether someone gets a criminal case heard or is held without habeas corpus. Do you spend all of your time reading the Democrat talking points, or do you actually read any manifestos or other "insurgent" (#$%^! TERRORIST!) captured documents? Do you think that the Pashtun tribals are largely fighting because 270 people still remain in Guantanamo? Or, are imprisoned in Afghani jails?

These men fight for the power and position of their tribes. They change sides for their personal benefit. Their allegiance swings with the wind and depends on which feud of the day tops their list of gripes. Most of those who join are commanded by their allegiance to the tribe or a leader.

Beyond that, they have unmolested bases, unmolested training camps, and unmolested indoctrination camps in madrassas across Pakistan. They don't need prisons or prisoners to get more recruits.

Do you deliberately ignore the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy from the point of a gun and its blissful "yeah but international laws don't matter to us" attitude

That does not make those nations or those people American citizens nor subject to our constitution, contrary to continuing claims of imperialism. Neither are there international laws that guarantee the right to our civil courts. In fact, international law would be satisfied with 10 minutes of formality and a gun shot to the head. Internationalists would demand that formal process take longer, but the law does not. You want to keep going with what international law demands?

Wake up. People who were whisked away from their homes - not from a battlefield - and held for five-six years without charges and without evidence of any wrongdoing - and tortured for information that they don't have - that's what happened in the Soviet Union.

name them. Name one person who was whisked from their homes in this country and held for six years and tortured or stop giving yourself the willies with your over hyped BS from some stupid Hollywood movies and McClatchy news articles.

You can't do it because those people do not exist. The person held the longest was Padilla at two years, and his chief complaint wasn't torture, but isolation that he claimed was torture. He certainly was not whisked away from his home and kept in prison for 6 years.

Now, try someone else. Name a United States citizen who has been hidden away in the gulag archipelago of the United States and tortured for six years?

Otherwise, my point stands: foreign enemy combatants who did not comply with the Geneva Convention and who, by our signatory, are afforded the bare rights of any person and whose torture you cannot confirm, but try to make up out of half-a$$ statements about being slapped or pushed or kept in confinement or made to listen to loud music, etc, etc, etc, are not required to be seen or heard in our civilian courts.

Further, military tribunals, the tribunal system that has for over two centuries in this nation, been the process for dealing with prisoners during war time, is all that is necessary by even your vaunted international laws. The most it says about habeas corpus is to make sure prisoners have a tribunal to establish their status within the conventions and that they should be repatriated at the conclusion of the war. There is that part about prisoner exchanges, but since the enemy usually kills all of their prisoners, that's out of the question.

If you had to go with what international law says. And the constitution simply instructs congress to make all laws or rules of capture at land and sea. It never tells them they have to give any rights or other process of addressing their capture to any other body of this nation. They are outside of the law.

by kat-missouri on June 19, 2008 12:45 PM

Let be clear, enemy combatants who do not adhere to the letter of the convention nor even the spirit, are outside the law.

by kat-missouri on June 19, 2008 1:23 PM

People like Jason don't understand the differences between:

1) Rights of US Citizens, provided for by the US Constitution.
2) Rights of POWs and enemy combatants, provided for by the Geneva Conventions.
3) Basic human rights, provided for by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

They are not the same, nor should they be. Each are entered into by different social contracts.

by fdcol63 on June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

Well, first blush is to accept that they are acting outside the laws of combat(codified in Gen COn and LoLW). That doesn't place them outside the law. It just means the penalties for being outside the law are the GenCon and LoLW ones(trial and hanging by a military tribunal) instead of the civil ones. It doesn't mean you get to make stuff up as you go along or do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how evil the enemy is. We are not an unruly mob.

The problem I see with this SCOTUS ruling is that taken as part of a series you now have 1) enemy combatants are now POWs 2) POWs now have habeus rights to sue the gov't for release. That's a pretty stupid arrangement.

I really would've rather had SCOTUS say that the military commissions act was illegal and go no further instead of what they did do.

by ry on June 19, 2008 3:44 PM

It seems pretty bloody simple to me.

The U.S. Constitution protects American Citizens and to a lesser extent Foreign Citizens on American soil.

Jason, what part of not a U.S. Citizen, not on U.S. soil do you not understand?

The legislative body is the Constitutionally authorized body to determine how Foreign Citizen's captured and detained on foreign soil are to be treated.

The S.C. usurping the legislature's Constitutional authority and duty is the very definition of Judicial Activism.

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on June 19, 2008 4:57 PM

Oh, and voting for McCain because you don't want a Kennedy? Dude. If things work out as you say(congressional Reps in the minority and impotent, and with a Pres. McCain) it is exactly a Kennedy like jurist we'll get. That's better than Ruth Bader Ginsburgh and her friends, but still. YOu aren't going to get Scalia or Thomas or Roberts out of that arrangement.

Why say this? Because I'm tired of getting slapped around like the red headed step child by Unka Bill on the topic of Pakistan.

by ry on June 19, 2008 6:44 PM

[laces up the Big Boots of Argghhh!]

by John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2008 6:54 PM

Seriously, what's wrong with that? Isnt' that what happened with Bush the Elder(who gave us kennedy)? COuldn't get someone more Constructionist past a TeddyK dominated Senate?

Oh fine. Get mad at me for saying the obvious. One of these days I'm going to get stuck in the waffling and you're never going to be able to get me out.:>/

by ry on June 19, 2008 8:01 PM

Snerk. Yer just making my point for me.

by John of Argghhh! on June 19, 2008 8:27 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jun 19, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

I'm not a single-issue voter, but it shouldn't shock anyone...

...that issues of guns and gun-ownership are a *big* issue with me.

Arms Room of Argghhh!

D-uh.

Senator McCain is marginally okay on the issue. And he is *much* better than Senator Obama, whose actions belie most of his words on the subject as he realized he's going to have to get some gun-owners to vote for him.

Pretty much, in his voting history, he hasn't found an anti-gun proposal he didn't like. Some examples, with cites. Yes, I know, from the NRA. Heh. It's not like *I'm* not partisan on this issue... though for my friends who swear by GOA and JFPO, I'm a weak-willed squish on the subject... ;^ )

From the NRA-ILA:

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

For the rest - click the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. There are a lot of links in there, too - so it would actually be easier if you clicked the "permalink" button. It's easier to deal with a lot of links that way.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

The numbers refer to the cites at the end of the article. My comments in [brackets]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2 [Not entirely true - he wants to impose a *more* sweeping version of it, because, after all, if a liberal shibboleth fails, it's only because we didn't do it big enough or spend enough money on it - not that it was ever a bad idea or anything. Come to think of it - that sometimes applies to conservative shibboleths, too.]

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3 [Actually, expecting a loss with the Supreme Court in the Heller case, this is the new tack the antis are taking - going after ammunition, in many different ways, with California leading the charge.]

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7 [And we've all seen the bloodbaths resulting from the passage of those laws, haven't we?]

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8 [You have to be careful here - I was on the Board of Catholic Community Services, an organization that doesn't advocate in this field, but is oft-times supportive of anti-gun issues. It wasn't a core piece of their efforts - which is helping the poor and disadvantaged - so I didn't have any problem serving on their board - nor did that have a problem with me serving... The company I work for gives money to anti-gun causes, but I don't think I've seen 'em give a dime (directly - all us employees who are NRA members just launder the dollars, right?) to the NRA. I still work for them. But the Joyce Foundation makes a point of it's anti-gun stance, so I left this one in there.]

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9 [Yeah, this was really well-thought-out proposal. Heh. Not too mention that the next wave of anti-gun activism would have been disguised as high-civic-mindedness - about establishing many, many, many more small parks in neighborhoods. Got a vacant lot? Mow it and designate it a park - and oh, btw, make that overlapping Venn diagram of 5 mile circles that much larger.... Heh. We'd probably also see a sudden interest in decentralizing rural schools and designating home schooling homes... schools. No, they'd never think like that...]

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13 [Even though it's pretty much shown to not work. But who cares, you feel good for having done it, and it makes guns more expensive, so only the well-to-do can afford 'em. Which, well, that's okay. Heh. One of the reasons Governor Sebelius signed the law that allows we non-governmentally-employed peons to own automatic weapons was the knowledge that only rich people could afford the hobby. And I'm sure she'd sign any bill on her desk like California's proposed controls on ammunition - which will make it much more expensive to shoot. But that's a rant for a different time.]

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9 [Heh. I'm all for training requirements. Just like driver's ed. And provide it just like driver's ed. You can pay for private tutoring, or get it from school...]

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

But it's ok, John. Obama and his cohorts on the Left just want to protect us from accidental shootings, road rage, and domestic violence.

They're benevolent, and when they have a monopoly on power, we'll never need to protect ourselves - from criminals OR a despotic government.

/end sarcasm

by fdcol63 on June 17, 2008 8:32 AM

Hear ye, hear ye! NRA supports Republican candidate! In other unsurprising news, NRA supports laws that allow terrorists and disgruntled mental cases in the United States to have complete access to all conventional weapons short of tanks, MANPADs, and nuclear devices.

Tomorrow, Republican positions on big government and monopolies on power - hypocritical or just disingenuous?

by Jason on June 17, 2008 10:03 AM

Hi Jason. I figured this would bring you out.

You miss the point of the post, in your doctrinaire defense of your guy.

Do you contest any of the points?

Do you think that I should just vote for your guy, though if he were to do what he votes on, it would potentially cost me tens of thousands of dollars? On this issue alone, leave aside others? And yet, to my eye, accomplish nothing but abuse the law-abiding?

Your response is just pointless snark. C'mon, you can do better.

I don't pretend that everything I post is "fair and balanced" nor does it have to be, that's just a strawman and beneath you.

Hear ye, hear ye! NRA supports Republican candidate! In other unsurprising news, NRA supports laws that allow terrorists and disgruntled mental cases in the United States to have complete access to all conventional weapons short of tanks, MANPADs, and nuclear devices.

Heh. The NRA supported the recent update to the Brady Bill that is fully intended to allow the Brady Check system to do a better job of sifting out the "disgruntled mental cases" - a bill I supported as well, and worked with my Congressperson on.

I dont' recall the NRA advocating the government surplus out TOWs and AT4's, either. And do me a favor, big fella, name all the times legally-held machine guns have been used for criminal activity since 1934. Or the last time a privately owned tank went on a rampage, owner at the levers. Oh, tanks have gone on rampages... usually with disgruntled government employees at the wheel.

So, aside from a Clint Eastwood movie, when's the last time a bank robber opened up a vault with a legally-held 20mm cannon?

How 'bout all the times conservatives with legally-held artillery have shelled gatherings of liberals?

Or those warbirds, strafing communes and dropping napalm in the forest...

C'mon, Jason. You can do better than this. Really. Come back with *why* people should vote for your guy on this issue... people like me. Remember - we're only talking the one issue - so keep focused, eh?

by John of Argghhh! on June 17, 2008 10:22 AM

Yeah, it's always about the criminals and nut cases. We should just give up all our rights because a few don't know how to behave.

Maybe we should give up voting, too. I mean, Jason, wouldn't you agree that a bunch of criminals and nutcases seem to be involved in that process as well? Not to mention, you know, end up in political office?

by kat-missouri on June 17, 2008 11:28 AM

No need really to defend my guy on this issue. Ain't gonna convince you, and as your title suggests, it's not the sole issue that will motivate you to go vote for or against. So what's the big deal? There is no story here. There will never be a Democratic politician who, despite being a hunter and gun collector, will get the NRA stamp of approval. And despite the Dems numerous efforts on the record to assure the continued rights of hunters, gun collectors, and those people afraid of the next VA TECH shoot-out, the NRA will never believe them.

Let's be honest. No politician in office will ever vote against 2d amendment rights as you see them - the right to own and shoot licensed firearms. The challenge is, what degree of oversight ought to be levied? If it were up to the NRA, there would be no oversight for purchases at gun shows and no holding records of purchases at a gun store for more than 30 days. That's unsat, and given this administration's penchant for monitoring citizen activities and modern technology, there ought to be a national firearms database for state and federal law enforcement use. But I don't see that ever happening, thanks to the NRA.

Obama's not going to win based on the votes of gun owners, and you know, I don't think that's going to be his strategy. I would suggest that he's counting more on the recognition that our country's in a s***hole as far as economics and that McCain's got no plans to improve the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan. And in the end, it's not you or I that have to be convinced, it's that damnable 25% of the populace that sits on the fence every four years, holding themselves and shaking, saying "oh my, I just can't figger it all out..."

by Jason on June 17, 2008 12:20 PM

"... given this administration's penchant for monitoring citizen activities and modern technology, there ought to be a national firearms database for state and federal law enforcement use. ..."

Can anyone say "cognitive dissonance"?

Here Jason fears a government that abuses its power to snoop and control its populace, but in the same breath argues for a centralized database that will make it easier for the government to do just that.

by fdcol63 on June 17, 2008 12:34 PM

Jason it isn't really fair to say that the NRA never backs Democrats in elections. It does happen.

by Dawnsblood on June 17, 2008 1:04 PM

Money quote from the second linked article:

That means the NRA, which sits on a campaign war chest of $20 million, is expecting to endorse as many as 60 Democrats in House and Senate elections, about the same number it endorsed in every national election since 2002 and three times the 20 or so Democrats it supported in races during the early 1990s.

So of the 535 Senators and Representatives about 60, or a little over 10%, of it's potential endoresments go to Democrats.

That's something fairly substantially north of "Never"

If it were up to the NRA, there would be no oversight for purchases at gun shows...

The NRA has actually favored Brady Checks on numberous occasions, even at gun shows. Background checks happen at gun shows the exact same as they happen not at gun shows. The "Gun Show Loophole" isn't. Businesses at gunshows have to do the same background check they have to do back at the store. Private parties don't do background checks just like they don't have to do back in their living room. What you are really talking about wanting to regulate the sale of personal private property.

and finally...
NRA supports laws that allow terrorists and disgruntled mental cases in the United States to have complete access to all conventional weapons short of tanks, MANPADs, and nuclear devices.
Because we all know terrorists and disgruntled mental cases will obey laws banning guns even though they are OK with disobeying bans against murder.

The fact is those people will obtain guns just as easily with or without a ban. Don't believe me? How's the gun crime in D.C. and Chicago doing?

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on June 17, 2008 3:14 PM

I think there is a quote from our friend Nicolo Macchiavelli out there about it not being wise for a new Prince to disarm his new subjects (unless of course they were foreigners that he had just conquered), something to do with gaining Trust of said subjects. Then again perhaps most of us subjects are just disgruntled mental cases (bitter, clinging, still listening to the Pope...) and foreign invader types.

In a related unhappy memory, here in the wonderful Federal Republic of Germany, where "Kriegs Waffen" (weapons of war) are proscribed it is now easier to get such illegal weapons. Though it was never impossible to get such weapons even after the law was passed. In fact, if I recall, about forty years ago there was even a Atrocity by a real Disgrunted Mental Case who made his own Flame Thrower and used it on Children in a Kindergarden (this being another reason I do not watch German TV during dinner anymore).

by darkriders on June 18, 2008 11:13 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jun 17, 2008

Biblical Proportions

[Kat]

So, have you heard this joke? The Prophet turns to the Messiah and says...

...$%^#! Allahpundit stole my line: Liberal John the Baptist heralds Democratic Jesus in Detroit

In other hilarious news Driver Blames Crash On 'Brain Freeze'

Frankly, I'm waiting for the announcement that he's suing Sonic for serving their drinks in non-recyclable Styrofoam cups and that they are "too cold".

by Kat on Jun 17, 2008

The Gitmo Decision.

Kat makes her points in a post down below (and has drawn in Cliff, too. Heh).

I talked with a lawyer friend of mine -

"Yeah. I'm still somewhat bemused. They're essentially saying that all those POW's we gathered up in WWII should have been treated the same way.

Unless I'm missing something."

This was her take:

Yep. However, since Habeas rules weren't (according to this court) suspended, and these guys/gals are on American soil (or close enough), they now get to petition for habeas. Nevertheless, the VAST majority of habeas petitions are summarily denied every year - almost on auto-pilot. So don't worry too much. And the good thing is that since they now are being "their rights," those who argue we should shut down Gitmo now have one less arrow in their quivers!!

Chief Justice John Roberts, who recused himself because of previous involvement in the case, had this to say:

So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court's analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to "determine—through democratic means—how best" to balance the security of the American people with the detainees' liberty interests, has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

That said, there is truth in here, too, from the majority opinion [emphasis mine in the quote]:

Because our Nation’s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined.If, as some fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come, the Court might not have this luxury. This result is not inevitable, however. The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism. Cf. Hamdan, 548 U. S., at 636 (BREYER, J., concurring) ("[J]udicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine— through democratic means—how best to do so").
It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners’ detention. That is a matter yet to be determined. We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

This outcome isn't really surprising to me. Nor is it unprecedented - the Court has not been friendly to the idea of suspending habeas in the past, in the cases of the Civil War and World War II. The "Great Writ" as it's called, is really an important foundation of our legal system. A lack thereof is precisely, for example, what allowed the National Socialist German Workers Party to set up detention camps in Germany in the 30's, and create a whole extra-legal system of detention, and, eventually, murder. No, certainly not a likely outcome here. But I'm feeling like if we're going to fight tooth and nail against any restriction on the government's ability to regulate firearms, we need to pay as much attention to the government's ability to regulate our persons. Habeas is a control on government power. One of the concerns civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum share about aspects of the Patriot Act and other actions on the part of government is... the apparent ability of the government to take the average citizen, a lifelong resident of the nation, with birthright citizenship, and classify them as unlawful combatants. We don't mind so much when it's some foreign fighter, because we trust the government to not behave that way to the citizenry.

But should we? Feel that safe?

Heed well the history of the Palmer Raids, conducted under the rule of Woodrow Wilson. David Kennedy in his book Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), quotes Wilson on page 24:

Hyphenated Americans (who) have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out

.

Right now, the Left conveniently forgets the behavior of their forbears, and paints activity like the Palmer Raids as a phenomenon of the Right - however... In June of 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act. The law made illegal acts of interference in foreign policy and the conduct of espionage. This law instituted fines and prison terms of up to 20 years for anyone who obstructed the draft or encouraged "disloyalty" against the U.S. government. This is a disease of power, not of party. This is a bludgeon that can be used by any who pick it up.

So, I'm nowhere near as upset by this ruling as many of my fellow-travelers are. The Court has thrown it back to the Congress and the President - and by extension - us. Just makes the elections more important, eh? Especially if we can keep the politicians focused on this sort of external thing, they'll have less time to fiddle with our lives, thank you very much.

You may commence firing.

Update: The Editors of National Review are not pleased, predictably, given the editorializing that has gone on there ere now. They give strong note to Chief Justice Robert's dissent (provided above). Sift through it all, however, and I don't think we're that far apart - and the part they attack, which is, I freely admit, the weakest part of my response - is that while they've thrown it back to Congress and the Executive, it is these same people (the Court) who will sit in judgement of what results.

Which is why, for both sides... the upcoming election is important. And why sitting it out, taking your blocks and not playing this year, because your guy or gal didn't make it, is going to be some potentially really tough love, as you cut off your nose with a chainsaw to spite your face. Just a thought.

And I hear Senator McCain is not pleased with it, either. I should note I'm not *pleased* by it. I'm just not motivated to think that the world just ended.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Because our Nation’s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined.

That may be true of our nation's wars, but historically, our wars are way out of the norm with wars either lasting a decade or two or three, etc. Or even 100.

SEcondly, our wars have been trending longer, precisely because we don't fight the wars of the past with the weapons of the past or the rules of the past. Thus, longer detentions are a symptom of our "humane war" and if a few guys have to be detained for twenty years so that we don't kill a million or so in war, I don't find the trade off insufficient.

Also, I would point out, that not only did we keep the Nazis, Japanese and Italians on our soil, we kept them for two to three years after the war was ended in order to do exactly as this military tribunal system was doing: try them for crimes and execute them or send them to prison longer. So, again, I don't find that "OMG our wars are going so long people are being detained too long" argument to suddenly be any more relevant than it was in 1947 or '48.

And, unless there are US citizens who are still being detained as "enemy combatants", this decision was not about American citizens caught up in a terror investigation who already have had it determined that they have all their rights (why Padilla was finally given over for civilian trial), but enemy combatants who are designated such, not only by their actions, but by many rules, regulations and conventions.

I think the courts should have thrown out any pleadings from any one who was not a US citizen being held in US military POW camps and simply refused to hear them on those grounds. Keep it simple and point to section 8 of the constitution.

A two to three sentence decision or simply say "read the constitution".

I just want to know why the Supreme's insist on setting a precedent for every law when every time they do they create another law that everyone tries to use and no one, because it comes from the Supremes, can ever over turn.

by kat-missouri on June 13, 2008 9:49 AM

C'mon, Kat - by your reckoning we were finishing up the WWII POW cases at this point in duration, we're just getting started.

And the history of the tribunals after WWII aren't necessarily an example of great jurisprudence, either.

This *still* just doesn't bother me as much as it does others, and the Congress and the Executive can still cut a deal to work it out.

And if they choose, or are unable, to do so - well, we put 'em in, didn't we?

My whole purpose in bringing in US citizens is because *if* the US gov chooses to designate US citizens as unlawful combatants, you can find yourself in Gitmo, on trial for your life, with relatively few tools to defend yourself, and no way to challenge the detention.

The fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't, to me, relevant. That's precisely why I brought up the Palmer Raids and the Civil War. It *has* happened in the past, for good reasons and bad.

So the fact that we have a system that makes it difficult now... well, that just doesn't bother me.

by John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2008 10:04 AM

kat: caution on terminology.. Gitmo is specifically NOT a "POW camp"...

Geneva III details the requirements for a detainee to qualify for the privileged status of Prisoner or War. Gitmo detainees (unlawful combatants) meet none of them.

a PW (or POW, or EPW (under current Army terminology)) is a patriot of another sovereign nation who has served his/her nation and thru whatever circumstances has been rendered non-combatant and in the custody of the opposing power. they are soldiers (sailors, marines, airmen, whatver) who are entitled to the same exact treatment we would want for one of ours under the opposite circumstances. our job is care/custody/accountability, and when the war is over, transport them safely back to their own border and deliver them over (re-patriation) in time for a parade up the main street of their capital city (cuz they deserve that, too).

unlawful combatants? not so much.

by RetRsvMike on June 13, 2008 10:26 AM

But that's precisely why I brought up Padilla. His case was being heard and he was given a different outcome precisely because he was a US citizen. Which seems to me to have exactly determined the question of US citizen's rights v. those of foreign enemy combatants.

Further, these are "unlawful" enemy combatants who have, indeed, forsaken or refused to accept any rules or law of combat. Which is precisely what puts them "outside the rule of law" in war and subject to even immediate execution.

Where is the incentive to act within the law of land warfare if there is no-consequences?

And, while we're on about how long it's taken, it has taken exactly this long because we have never previously given any privileges to those bad actors and now we want to. It doesn't mean they have existed all along in every war, just that we decided to change the rules. Folks like to believe that's because we are doing something better and more humane, but frankly, it seems like every time we accept or excuse some terrible act of humanity, allegedly to protect our own, it gives rise to even more terrible acts, not less.

Mind you, I'm not advocating for summary executions. Not because I am against the death penalty or believe that there aren't any people we are holding who don't deserve it, but because it doesn't fit with our war strategy. However, I believe that the Supreme Courts have inserted themselves into conducting a war more than necessary and that we conduct that war as we see fit as a nation, not as officers of a court.

by kat-missouri on June 13, 2008 10:30 AM

I'm thinking we're just talking past each other here, Kat.

I'm not outraged by the decision. The Court essentially threw it back into the lap of "the political branches" - which, in a sense, gives us more leverage than we have with the Courts (as the Founders intended).

I see the system working as intended. Making it hard to do things, and keeping government tied up doing things like this - especially since now that they've gone and professionalized it and everything, they think they need to be "doing something" - and if they aren't tied up in knots, they can lower the bar of what interests them pretty low.

We've *always,* in the last 100 years or so, fought under the handicap that the people we're fighting don't have to follow the rules we have to follow.

We've not lost any conflict because of that. Those where we failed to achieve our objectives, we failed because we either didn't define the objectives in a long-term supportable fashion, or we simply didn't have the will to complete the task. In other words, we've been outlasted by our adversaries, vice defeated. With consequences that were not fatal to the Republic, however fatal to populations that made the mistake of trusting us.

And, of course, that's what our adversaries are learning - we don't need to be defeated. We need to be bored.

by John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2008 10:43 AM

so then, we three are agreed.

by RetRsvMike on June 13, 2008 11:02 AM

Okay. I actually have to do some work here. LOL

Probably do agree mostly. I just haven't figured out how we get the supreme's making that decision at all.

by kat-missouri on June 13, 2008 11:08 AM

Well, John, you made me feel better. Up to now what I had read gave me the impression that those goobers could expect civil court trials next month.

by Casey Tompkins on June 13, 2008 12:24 PM

Casey. that might be next.

by kat-missouri on June 13, 2008 12:44 PM

John, Would you correct at least one VERY DUMB VET, ME? It appears to me, you came out the door and with a slightly raised voice said two words. "CHILL OUT!" As we look at this decision from SCOTUS, it opens a door to a maze. As if you didn't already know, this will take forever to even get started. This decision is like a coin with two sides. Groups on each side, at some point we may find the very elusive thing called, "balance". In a time war? Yes, in a time of war! Yes, especially in a time of war. This is the reason I see John saying, "CHILL OUT!"

Grumpy

by Grumpy on June 13, 2008 2:19 PM

I have a very simple solution to the problem.

Shoot them on sight. No need for detention that way.

Whatever happened to the old Geneva Convention rules about NON-uniformed combatants be considered guerrillas and therefore NOT protected by the Convention?

My memory may be a tad fuzzy on this, but if I recall, if you were a combatant NOT in uniform, you could be shot on sight. No trial needed.

Hence the armbands worn by the Polish Home Army, and members of the German Heydete unit at the Battle of the Bulge etc.

Just a question of historical note.

And, the Brits also seemed to have pretty good success with flying gallows...

by Kevin on June 13, 2008 4:55 PM

The designated interpreters of that which I have sworn to support and defend are looking a lot like domestic enemies to me.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on June 13, 2008 5:32 PM

Kevin, Let me say this as respectfully as possible.. If I were you, I would weigh my words very carefully.

You say, "Whatever happened to the old Geneva Convention rules about NON-uniformed combatants be considered guerillas and therefore NOT protected by the Convention?

My memory may be a tad fuzzy on this, but if I recall, if you were a combatant NOT in uniform, you could be shot on sight. No trial needed."

You were not the only one taught that way, BUT there was one very important additional definitive point made to all of us. The point is, Who are the combatants IN uniform.

Respectfully,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on June 13, 2008 7:32 PM

Grumpy,

"You were not the only one taught that way, BUT there was one very important additional definitive point made to all of us. The point is, Who are the combatants IN uniform."

Ya lost me, what point are you making? Our folks are IN uniform, as combatants, easily identifiable in accordance with the GC. The opposition are NOT complying with those codes.

So, what point are you attempting to make?

Not being combative on this point, but, if you wanna play football, I'm not gonna handicap OUR team by making them play basketball. For a very poor sports analogy.

My point was, we can't play by one set of rules that handicaps our effort, while the other side plays by another.

My bottom line is this. We win, you lose. All else is irrelevent in my opinion and the UN and so-called world opinion be damned.

Cheers.

by Kevin on June 13, 2008 8:22 PM

Kevin,

If you wish. There is a major difference. It really depends on when you went into the Military. The definition of "combatant IN uniform" meant some very specific things. This requires a combatant to be either enlisted or commissioned officer in the Military, under oath to a Military Code of Law and honor, dog tags and Military I.D.. Let there be no confusion, this is only open to the Military, while in a distinguishable uniform with all of the above. The issue in the past was spies, spies could be shot. Now, it is my turn to way my words.

You can draw you own conclusions. The other thing is this, many changes have taken place over the last year. I must agree with you, except for one thing, I do NOT know of all the factual changes. There we must take all of this with a grain of salt about the size of the State of Alaska.

Have a GREAT weekend,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on June 13, 2008 10:31 PM

I can see where you got your point but I cannot agree. The ruling the court just threw out was crafted by the Congress to meet the standards this same court set before. Congress wrote it based on what the Supremes required, the president signed it and now the Supremes have just thrown out the law that was crafted to meet their own rules. At what point will we get a final draft that all parties can agree to or will the Supremes just keep moving the goals.

In the meantime I don't see that the Supremes have even ruled on the whole concept of unlawful combatants and how they should be dealt with. If we go by this case, then the POW's will not be up for as many rights as the unlawful combatants nor will our own citizens if they do something that will put them in the Gitmo situation. How should that be handled. If I recall correctly there is a definition of POW's and also unlawful combatants in the GC that we ratified. Should that not have figured in what the Supremes based their decision making on? All in all I am not happy with this one at all. I do not see the result being good for our troops in the battle situation nor do I see it being good for the trial of these people as opposed to the potential of our troops being charged with crimes because of the differences between military proofs and civilian court proofs, yet another point that the Supremes conveniently forgot.

What is to keep the Supremes from throwing out law after law that the Congress passes to try to meet the goals that the justices keep moving - at what point does the nation get to say that enough is enough and get on with it.

by dick on June 14, 2008 6:47 PM

Bah! A plague on the black robes. Far as my neanderthal behind is concerned, you wanna play ball, then you abide by the same rules I have to play by.

No uniform, no acknowledgement of your status.... Then, bang dead on the spot and my unit would move on.

I refuse to subject my troopies to an unfair playing field.

War is not a game to be played out in the court system.

You don't wanna play the game, then you damned well better not fire on my men.

CIVDIV and the rest be damned. I'm not gonna risk the lives of my men over squabbling symatics.

Sux to be you.

And, yes, I would stand proud and defend my actions. In combat, I'm not gonna quibble where my mens lives are at stake.

by Kevin on June 14, 2008 9:41 PM

Kevin, I wish it was a level playing field for our troops. I agree with you, i would rather there were no more casualties. The thing you might just want to watch, if you can, are the "Status of Forces Agreements" or SOFAs. The SCOTUS action will take decades to begin only to have the cases remanded back to the lower courts. It will probably take forever for this to be resolved.

You make a major point about "semantics". It has nothing to do with "semantics", it is about "discipline", "honor" and "duty".

For whatever it is worth, in my view, your focus should be on your men, not here.

Take care,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on June 15, 2008 12:47 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jun 13, 2008

Where's Obama?

[Kat]

Everyone is asking why Obama hasn't gone back to Iraq since 2006. An equal question might be when was the last time, if ever, Obama's been to Afghanistan? A quick search on the subject only brings up Obama's comments and his one big gaffe trying to equate the loss or lack of Arabic speakers to our problems in Afghanistan. Guess he didn't know they speak Dari, Pashto and Urdu, amongst other languages, over there, but no Arabic. Except the foreign fighters from AQ.

Anyhoo, no Obama, but Mrs. Bush flew over, visited in Kabul and then took a 50 mile helicopter ride to Bamiyan Province to meet the first female governor of Afghanistan. It isn't just a 50 mile helicopter ride; it's 50 miles, in a helicopter, in territory known for RPG shoot downs.

I always knew librarians had steel.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 10, 2008

AmericaBlog... missing the point.

Why is John McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?

The same reason I'm getting $15,120 a year.

He earned it.

He earned it through his military service, and the amount of it was determined by an agency of the federal government you don't find in the Yellow Pages under "Get Free Stuff The Easy Way!" And it was awarded based on rules established by Congress, as implemented by the executive branch, all of whom, last I checked, were duly elected representatives of the people.

Let's get to the heart of the matter - the only reason this is being brought up is because Mr. Aravosis is annoyed that Senator McCain won't vote for the new GI Bill, because it's "too generous"

First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

Nice way to use the math, badly, in order to maximize the dollar amount, given that it's a less-than-COLA indexed benefit. Additionally, since Senator McCain is a military retiree, he's spent most of that time funding a good chunk of his disability payment out of his retirement check, meaning it was mostly a tax break, vice income.

I'm just not sure that the McCains, who own "eight or nine houses," should be getting $58k a year tax-free from the government for a "technical" disability when others who don't have families worth a gazillion dollars could use that support a lot more. The median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,201. I know vets who have done well for themselves in the workplace and, as a result, refuse to take any federal medical benefits. They feel it would simply be wrong to take what amounts to federal welfare when they're rich.

Heh. No doubt Senator McCain's retirement pay should be means-tested, too.

I'm curious - Mr. Aravosis says the "rich" vets he knows are forgoing "federal medical benefits" - does that include any disability pension they may be due?

The reason I ask - I'm a "technically" disabled vet, too - rated at 70%. Which puts me in the VA Priority Group 1, meaning space-required health care coverage for all of my ills and ailments, not just the ones rated service-connected.

I, too, don't use that health care. For many reasons. One, the coverage I have elsewhere is simply... better. The coverage offered via the VA would be for me alone, and doesn't cover my family - so I'm going to be spending the money on insurance anyway.

And, by not using my priority one status (except once, out in Las Vegas, when I had food poisoning and the VA facility was closest) I leave a space open for those sad, tired vets sitting in the waiting room hoping for Space Available treatment.

My point being that it may not be as noble a sentiment there as he implies, and I am curious if he is perhaps conflating the pension benefit with medical - because on a "technical parsing" of his english - he is (for that whole snark on "technical" to make sense, you need to read his full post - and, as always, you should, rather than just my cherry-picks).

I'd be more impressed with the overall argument if he was arguing for revamping the VA rating and compensation system to bring it into, oh, the late 20th Century Service/Information economy vice the 1930's-1950's Agricultural/Industrial economy paradigm that it currently labors under. I personally despair of the system being able to be brought into the 21st Century.

Or if he argued that means-testing the pension benefit would free up dollars for use elsewhere in the system. Not that I'm going to trust any Congress or any Administration on that issue, seeing as how Democrats and Republicans kept me funding my own disability payment for a decade, until a Republican Congress forced a Republican President to repeal (over nearly a decade, mind you) that offset. Hmmm. Wonder how Senator McCain voted on that. I would guess since he would personally benefit, Mr. Aravosis would argue he should not have voted. No, frankly, I'm *not* going to take the time to go look it up, either.

And no, even though I make a comfortable living, in fact, by some Democrat politico metrics, I'm officially "rich" (heh) I'm going to continue to accept the deposits made in my bank account every month. One reason we've had "Castle Work Days" where our friends come by and help out, and we have a barter arrangement for heavy labor around the Castle, and where I paid people to come in and build some interior walls I know how to build isn't because I like fleecing my friends and supporting my local contractors - it's because I can't swing a hammer over my head. It's because I can't set 50 fence posts. It's because I need to have people come by and do stuff, were it not for my service-connected health issues, I could (and would rather, though having people come by is nice) do myself.

But then, Mr. Aravosis' use of the most recent payment figure for a less-than-COLA-adjusted benefit that was worth less in dollars when originally awarded (though given inflation over time, arguably more in adjusted dollars in the early days than it is now) and completely ignoring the fact (or are ignorant of) that Senator McCain was funding a good chunk of that payment out of his retirement pay (see discussion of the offset above)... I'm thinking this is more about damaging candidate McCain than it is a serious discussion of the issue.

And since Mr. Aravosis brought up Senator Kerry and such - if we're ever going to stop that sort of thing, does this mean that Republicans must stand silent on any similar issue this time around, while the Democrat side whales away, then, will karma be balanced and we can start afresh?

Heh.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Jun 09, 2008

Obsessions: a further rebuttal

I do not understand the obsession; the obsession about the dead, future dead, and the “evil.” Really, I don’t. On the one hand you have melodrama about the dead, but then you have it pointed out that the dead from other acts don’t seem to count as much. Apparently one dead body is an orange and another is an apple. Being ‘evil’ means you’re #1 on the Hit List, even though certain actions that make one ‘evil’ can be seen entirely as the rational, but cruel and horrific, acts of a nation state. Acts very much like one’s the US has taken during the Cold War as issues of policy, including things like proxy war (Contras come to mind, as do the Maquis and Afghani resistance fighters). But, most important, is the lack of one specific thing. What is it that one wants with respect to Iran? What’s your goal? What’s the purpose beyond mere denial of one of their policy to attain nuclear arms? How is it that this obsession with death caused by Iran overrides some very important factors in decision making?
(More below the fold. No, really, there's a lot below the fold.)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

I Still See Dead People.
The point of what casualty calculations, whether from the Cold War or not, is utterly lost; or insinuated to be irrelevant because Iran is killing people and that wrong apparently outweighs all other considerations. I could go on at length about how Containment, crafted by Keenan for the Truman administration, was decided upon in the absence of nuclear conflict since the USSR did not detonate their first nuclear device until 4 years after the assumption of Containment as national policy, but that would be skipping the point as well. It was the cost of the end desired, namely the defeat of the Soviet Union, and its inherent costs versus other means of acquiring the same end which was the whole and only point. Said costs and calculations were done regardless of nuclear arms in the equation.

The Cold War example is essentially:
1) All actions, choices, and goals with respect to the USSR had associated costs.
2) One needs to understand the costs of each choice, action, or goal.
3) There exists a significant non-zero chance that indirect confrontation attains your goal for you at lower overall cost.

That is a universal in decision making, actually. The example was only to bring it to the fore.

Nor is it merely the weak-kneed snobbery of White Tower intellectuals. B.H. Liddell-Hart’s Strategy is an entire work on this concept of attaining strategic goals via an indirect approach. Toughness, manliness, or announcements of one’s presence ‘with authority’ are only useful if they actually buy you what they want. Liddell-Hart pointed out that in the realm of poli-mil affairs that just as often as not the indirect works better, is cheaper, and doesn’t exhaust a nation the way direct confrontation could.

If it costs me, hypothetically, approximately 9 millions dead in six months of direct conflict and 9 millions dead over 40 years to achieve the same goal using proxy wars how can one say the former is better? Yes, I know all about the integration of misery under a curve analytical tool. But, if one is focusing on the dead as the basis of correctness or stupidity of an action is not paying a higher price for the same item usually considered the worse play?

Let’s apply this same hypothetical (read as the numbers were chosen strictly for illustration only, they are not from actual analysis) to an Iran conflagration. 9 millions represented by 1 million from the actual war, approx 3 million starving in China from lack of fuel to move food within six months, an equal number in India for the same reason, and another 2 millions from the rest of the world, particularly in what we used to call the ‘Third World’, that cannot afford higher costs for a diminished total supply of petroleum passing thru the Persian Gulf. What have I gained in doing that? And how long in comparison to another hypothetical situation with a further hypothetical death rate from Iran’s proxy war-making before I reach that 9 millions? If it is a matter of decades can I truly say I’ve gained anything?

Now, keep in mind, I am not the one who said that deaths were the deciding or most important factor. I am just pointing out that if one holds deaths so important the full accounting of the dead should also weigh on your decision making. If it takes decades to attain the same number of mortalities then can you say, since the policy was predicated on death-toll, that you have actually gained much of anything beneficial?

Repercussions do matter greatly when you accept, as you must, that a confrontation or conflict does not exist detached, does not operate like a duel with only the two fighters affected by the outcome, from everything else.

The repercussions go beyond the US, the EU or the ME and branch out into countries around the world since energy will be diminished, food, medicine, clothing and shelter will rise dramatically. More than they are today.

It’s a true statement, the above. But it is not only true for allowing Iran to be the ‘bully’ by gaining a nuclear weapon. A war to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons carries the exact same repercussions, sooner and more severely, and likely in higher amounts. Those costs need to be considered as per my hypothetical, and, if one is making the decision based on the number of dead, policy adjusted accordingly. In most people’s books, the payoff better be real good if you are going to buy something that expensive.

Why sooner? Iran has the capability to close Hormuz as we speak. That was the significance of the Brecher story a few weeks ago. Mining Hormuz closes it. It is no secret that Lloyd’s of London cancels insurance for vessels passing thru such warzones quicker than snap. Iran has the capability to do exactly what has been stated as the worry over the use of an ‘economic weapon’ right now without a nuclear weapon. They can with the ballistic missiles they currently have shut down the Saudi oil fields, tomorrow. Attacking them does not prevent the economic/oil weapon that has been discussed. It brings it on in a much harder to fix/clean up scenario. Hence, the world’s poor die of hunger and preventable disease in vast numbers while the 1st World economy shudders if not seizes like a car engine without lubricant in summer heat.

Nor does Iran’s proxy war capability depend upon nuclear weapons. Hezbollah is a major nuisance and was formed without nuclear capability as backup. What is the justification for implication that unconventional capabilities are dependent or will become more pronounced with nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands? It does not seem to follow since Soviet SOF and US SOF wax and wane depending upon personnel available and not nuclear weapons backing up said SOF. It does not agree with history as to why these non-conventional forces were created or methods initially studied.

Lack of a nuclear weapon seems not to prevent Iran from partaking of shadow war and slaughter of innocents right now or for the last 20 years. Our having nuclear weapons, and Israel’s long known open secret of nuclear arms, does not seem to have any effect on their actions what so ever right now. Maybe it is not the nuke that makes that dynamic go? After all, such 4th Generation Warfare forces are by their very design and intent to be means to circumvent advantages granted a major industrial power for a weak industrial power. Nukes seem not to be the enabler for proxy war and 4th Generation Warfare methods employed by Iran, or anyone else, at all. More likely it is that the US and Israel are nuclear powers that has pushed Iran to ‘grab the belt’ as Giap tried to (and did) in an attempt to neutralize said technological advantage.

Someone I Know Is Standing In The Trenches
In relation to costs it has been said that because one’s child/friend/loved one is in the Services or in boot they understand the cost. No, that isn’t the point as it is not about personal costs and grief. That one will experience the loss of one’s kin and that said event is painful is not the point. Personal loss is not the point. Not to be a callous jerk, but it is not the point. “People die” is often lesson one for officers in war, and lesson two is often “your rank doesn’t mean you can change that.”

I accept that people will, must, die if any action will be taken; whether said action is a neo-Containment or direct confrontation or Barnett’s ‘Big Boy Pants’ theory. The question is scale and, more importantly, what have we bought with that particular amount of carnage? Are there other pathways we can go down that cost us less in terms of lives---and in other metrics---than a direct military confrontation?

One does not decide policy or strategy based on *who* will be lost. Securing a policy that buys a better peace, using Liddell-Hart’s definition of said peace, and what the cost of that purchase is what matters. Particular losses are rather inconsequential. It is the size and the object I am buying with them that is of prime importance, and, unfortunately, all else is fluff. If the goal is actually worth what I am paying in lives then I will spend it but one should not spend more lives than necessary.

It is not weakness or some bizarre need to be Neville Chamberlin that drives this. No. It is a dicta of Richard “Demo Dick” Marcinko, high priest of high testosterone warrior ethos, to not screw over one’s men. Going ‘hey-diddle-diddle-up-the-middle’ without considering whether or not another course of action is superior or viable is exactly that. Marcinko relates in one of his books the different fates of SEAL teams in Panama wherein one commander forced ahead with his plan regardless of facts on the ground and the other not only evaluated different options he had multiple plans to call upon for each option. The former, SEAL Team Four, got cut to pieces at Hato Airfield while the latter, Seal Team Two, pulled off its mission without a casualty. One guy *knew* evil was afoot, was dragon slaying, was unwavering, went with a one throw of the dice approach, and his men paid for it; the other asked questions, thought about his situation instead of emoting, and his men lived because of it. Sending men to die, asking—or condemning depending on your perspective------ civilians to die, in a furball which was un-necessary in that one could have bought the same end by different and cheaper means is, defacto, screwing one’s men; and worse for said civilians. Whether that is assaulting a meaningless hill or going into an unnecessary confrontation to achieve national goals it still counts as screwing the men… royally.

Kill ‘Da Wabbit, Kill ‘Da Wabbit, Kill Da Wabbit (eh, eh, eh, eh).
The following is rather emblematic of the ‘no questions necessary, just hit ‘em’ school of thought: How many millions have to die for the second Cold War to be considered a complete disaster compared to direct war?

There it is. Shock Battle it must be, our hoplites against the Persian horde for anything less is seemingly failure. Regardless of how many die as a result it must be done because millions will die if we do not. If millions die it is a failure. Just as many millions, from economic collapse brought on by closing Hormuz for months to years, do not apparently count as much because Iran has killed them. We. Must. Have. Shock. Battle. We. Must. Kill. ‘Da. Wabbit.(Eh. Eh. Eh. Eh.)

There is no value to be found in spreading the dying out over time to be found here, is there? No. There could not be any real advantage in not having an acutely high body count. The loss of economic output and other tangibles we will lose via a direct confrontation pathway are irrelevant. It is only the deaths and losses caused by Iran’s nefarious actions we will count.

What Are You Asking Him To Die For?
But for what purpose will we do this? To end evil is unlikely. To forestall an economic threat is our cause? No, not when the threat actually already exists and can be utilized while we speak can it be rightly cited. Will we save millions of lives in the process? Maybe, and it might actually cause more death and mayhem than if we took a different path---and that is not guesswork. What is our reason for taking a directly confrontational pathway?

What would be our aim coming out of said conflict that would make it worth doing? Would we be wanting to integrate them rapidly into the global economy? Are we deconflicting the ME and spreading democracy? What? What would be our purpose for doing this? An ‘anti’ strategy is not good enough.

In the Cold War we did not just deny a country to the Soviets. We did more, far more. We integrated it as much as possible. We supported monsters like Noriega, Pinochet, even Marcos (they should have flogged Imelda with all of her shoes) with a purpose beyond simple denial of Panama, Chile, and the Philippines to the Red Sphere of Influence. Americans died supporting all three. Their lives were worth it because there was more than just a ‘hands off, it is mine’ strategy that called for their lives to be sacrificed in pursuit of it. What would that be vis-à-vis Iran?

Shock battle for the sake of shock battle is screwing your men royal. What do you seek to purchase, how do you intend to shape the world coming out of this to make it all worth it?

Madden 2K1 Is Not Much Better Than Madden 2K, But 2K7 Is a World Apart
Is it also possible that a ‘go slow’ approach is preferred and has inherent advantages over Kill Wabbit? Is it possible that the issue of iteration of choices puts us in a stronger position? Nash’s economic theory seems to support this. So does recent evolutionary biology. A series of sub-optimal, not for the all the marbles choices may actually lead to greater outcomes over the long term.

It is not like Great Captains of the past did not recognize this. Gen Eisenhower saw that the Broad Front idea allowed for change with iterations of choice in ways that simply letting Gens. Patton and Montgomery go buck wild in offensive glory would not. A ‘go slow’ or Barnett’s ‘Big Boy Pants’ approach does not discard future offensive action should it become necessary.

Each logic gate, since I choose to model it that way, has three options: a) Kill ‘Da Wabbit b) Neo-Containment c) Barnett-ian Big Boy Pants. Options b and c give us the option to choose a series, and the concept that it is a series is of prime importance, of moments of choice where we can consecutively choose options that move the pile forward toward a better peace. We would not be deciding such a situation with long lasting ramifications on a single throw of the dice. Iterations of choice give us the opportunity to minimize the death tolls and other associated costs. There are examples of this phenomenon in economics, evolution, and war being used beneficially.

Of course there’s the risk that things go south on any iteration or consecutive iterations of choice. That is always possible. There is no zero risk approach. We have seen this sequence play out on the Korean Peninsula in a mixed bag fashion. Given that DPRK threatens 3 major US trading partners from whence the majority of our electronic supplies come from--- PRC, Japan, ROK--- one cannot say that potential DPRK action via CBW does not already give us an analog of Iran, no microchips no economy, and yet the carnage of 50 years of dealing with DPRK iteratively is still cheaper than the one big gulp approach.

Failure is also possible with a single throw approach such as Kill Wabbit, and recovering from that is far harder than the iterative approach. Destroyed or damaged oil fields will not be quick fixes as the Kuwaiti experience shows. Market Garden was hard to recover from because of the logistical losses such a one-and-done approach incurred.

Kill ‘Da Wabbit is not a panacea. It is a particular policy choice that has its place in the tool box.

Evil, Evil, Evil.
A litany of evil acts have been listed at one time or another regarding Iran. Whether it be actions during the Iran-Iraq war or proxy means to attain Iranian policy or support for terrorists like Hezbollah it is meant to show that Iran is evil and that Iran cannot be a rational, and ergo stable and predictable, actor. Because Iran is evil we must attack.

I do not deny that many of the acts are, truthfully, evil. It is also irrelevant. Robert Mugabe is evil, his regime is evil, and has a body counting numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Burma is a flat out freaking mess. Sudan is still tagged as genocidal warfare by the ruling faction against the non-Moslem factions by the UN. So? Irrelevant. What would invading or other muscular acts in these countries buy the US? Going off like an knight errant to drive all dragons from the kingdom makes for great epic poems and romances, it is not a coherent means of deciding for a nation.

Are we to be governed by the R2P (the right, or responsibility, to protect inherent in the UN charter) then? Will we then find ourselves invading Sudan, Burma, and DPRK then? Wherever we are told there is an evil regime, one that abuses its people, foments trouble for neighbors, or fights proxy wars we will have to attack then? If it is based on the two factors of evil and body counts one would be hard pressed to find a justification for not going into places like Sudan, Burma, and the DPRK (particularly North Korea, the king daddy of proliferation, murder and kidnapping of foreign nationals, and active belligerent threat to its neighbors.).

Evil is a poor ‘gotta’ factor in decision making. There’s so damn much of it around after all. Being consistent in policy would mean we would be tied to policies that lead to many Kosovos, many Somalias, and take downs of every whackadoo dictator like Kim Jong-Il regardless of what it buys the US. Such an ‘Onward Christian Soldier’ sermon works on Sunday but it is not sound policy.

Not Bowing Down To Darth Sidius
Which brings me back to the central thrust of the initial piece: can we get to a defanged/irrelevant Iran/Iran we can live with via another route? Are there iterative pathways that get us to the same place for far lower costs? Do not all other options than direct confrontation amount to bowing down to Emperor Ahmenidijad ne Palpatine (a.k.a. Darth Sidius)?

Is it possible to give nuclear weapons to UAE and other ME nations to counter Iran and end the problem via a MAD theory soft kill? Actually yes it is, and it is standing these nations in Iran’s way instead of capitulation.

Can we extend our nuclear umbrella, meaning saying to Iran ‘any use by you means your nation turns into a glass parking lot’, and then providing neighbors with military aide to combat irregular forces get us there? Yes, it is possible to counter in just this way and then ‘buff up’ a nation’s forces to meet the unconventional threat. We have seen this sequence play out on the Korean Peninsula. Given that DPRK threatens 3 major US trading partners from whence the majority of our electronic supplies come from--- PRC, Japan, ROK--- one cannot say that potential DPRK action via CBW does not already give us an analog of Iran. No microchips no economy. And that is being handled in an iterative fashion that does not amount to capitulation.

There is a host of possible, viable pathways that can be considered or enacted that come well short of the beloved one throw of the dice shock battle for all the marbles to buy us what we want--- an Iran we can live with and a secure stream of petroleum for the world economy. They must all be considered and the ‘Iran is evil’ mantra does not dismiss them. It is the rare cure that is worse than the disease---chemo-therapy for example--- but I do not dismiss the possibility. Few amount to kneeling at Darth Sidius’ feet. Quite the contrary, many are standing up to the Sith but not in a winner takes all fashion.

Coda
Obsessions with slaying evil dragons or numbers of dead or with looking tough do not coherent policy make. Obsessions do not purchase the nation its goals for responsibly considered costs.
--ry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

When I read this, I just get the sense from you, Ry, that we all ought to just sit by and do nothing. Why, there's nothing to get worried about at all. Everything will be okay as long as we don't do anything stupid or unnecessary, and just wait and let matters take care of themselves in the long run, eventually. Because, God forbid, if we do something, we'll just make them angry at us and this will just make things worse.

Why, the Cold War would have NEVER HAPPENED if we had not over-reacted when Japan attacked us on 12/07/1941, and went to war with Germany. The Cold War was all our fault, because we were the ones who helped defeat Hitler, and created the conditions that removed an important check on an expansionist USSR.

Oh, and never mind the fact that millions of Jews were dying in Nazi concentration camps. We would not have known about these anyway, since we woould never have liberated them or known about them with Hitler and his fellow Nazis still in control of the continent. Besides, that whole "Holocaust" accusation is nothing but a big LIE anyway, promoted by those pesky Jooos and the victorious Allies who needed to justify their "war of aggression" and "war of choice".

And if Truman hadn't done something stupid like issue that "Truman Doctrine" - you know, an over-reactive and aggressive policy that threatened the USSR which caused them to react in kind - we would have never needed to keep troops in Germany or Europe for 60+ years nor would we have fought proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, or elsewhere.

How could we have been so misguided and naive? How could we have let ourselves be MISLED so much by Truman, JFK, and LBJ - who lied about that Tonkin incident? Because Lord knows, if we hadn't gone to war in Vietnam, we would never have angered the North Vietnamese, and they would not have had reason to seek vengeance and retribution on those traitorous South Vietnamese who aided us when we withdrew from Vietnam, which caused that whole refugee and boat people problem. Oh, and that whole Cambodian mess, either. Those Khmer Rouge guys were not evil, after all. They just wanted to enlighten those misguided people who wanted a different society.

Etc etc etc.

PS - Did you change email addresses recently? I tried to thank you for you kind comments on one of your previous posts. I was out of town on business at the time, was too busy to post much.

by fdcol63 on June 9, 2008 9:02 AM

I think you're being a bit unfair, Frank, and over-reading what Ry is saying.

As I read it - Ry's thesis is, Containment and the indirect conflict inherent in that approach gained what we were after (the collapse of the Soviet system) with fewer overall deaths than would have resulted from direct conflict (as he see's is advocated by Kat), and that approach should get as serious a consideration as the more robust approach advocated by Kat.

And Ry doesn't like the invocation of "evil" and "people are dying" as the rationale for going all kinetic.

Let's face it - as OIF shows, once started, wars develop a character all their own, and usually don't follow the path the initators were seeking. Ry also suggests that Iran is already capable of doing 90% of the mischief we fear without using nukes.

Ry is also positing that Kat may in fact kill more people than would die over the protracted approach he suggests - all in order to save them.

Kat's counter is that the Iranian government doesn't constitute a rational state actor and the issues of self-preservation extant in the Cold War don't apply, so the better to kill the threat abornin' than find out it's actually a psychopath.

Both arguments have merit - though I admit, I'm in favor, at least right now, of Ry's approach. I don't think we've got the ground combat power to deal with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

by John of Argghhh! on June 9, 2008 9:28 AM

John,

I didn't mean to be unfair or flip. However, I did want to convey 2 things:

1) Everything is interconnected, and whatever policies, strategies, or tactics we adopt and pursue will inevitably lead to "equal but opposite" reactions from the other side, and consequences that are both foreseen and unforeseen, as well as positive and negative.

At every point in the decision tree, you're basing your actions on the reality as it currently exists, trying to solve the most immediate crisis first, even though you may be trying to plan ahead as much as possible. But Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences always reign.

2) If we had adopted Ry's "containment" strategy with regard to Hitler and Nazi Germany, we might have prevented the larger war in Europe, preventing the continent wide destruction and millions of combat-related deaths that ensued.

But would the world have been better off?

Personally, I think the "containment" strategy pursued by the US, Britain, France, and USSR led directly to the horrors of WW2, when they failed to take adequate action at Germany's rearmament, Hitler's move into the Rhineland, Hitler's Anschluss of Austria, and their failure yet again at Munich over the Sudetenland.

Their "containment" strategy at these points may have prevented a "smaller" war in 1935, 1936, or 1938. But might this smaller war have prevented the much larger war that followed?

by fdcol63 on June 9, 2008 10:30 AM

Heh. Mostly I used your comment as an excuse to show Ry how much you could condense his argument...

And to throw some props to Ry for his side.

I know, I know, Ry - brevity is for wimps!

by John of Argghhh! on June 9, 2008 10:41 AM

I agree with John that I'm being largely misread here.

Itterative approach is not 'do nothing'. It is more like turning a car without flipping it or even better turning a semi without jackknifing. It's nudging things along in a positive manner, and just because I'm using the word positive doesn't mean holding hands and singing koomayah. Iran-Contra was a 'positive manner' in an iterative fashion.

The Nazi Germany example is being abused, me thinks. Teh Triple Alliance does not qualify as 'Containment'. That was simply defensive alliance making("Don't attack us becasue the other two will be in at your sides.") and none of the troika had the capacity to intervene. None could arm the Poles or the Romanians with the methods and means to stand against the Wehrmacht, as we did during the CW.

The current ISR network allows us to take 'Never Again' seriously while having the R2P protocol as legal @55cover for intervention, and one could say that the ability to intervene and see what Iran is doing is why we're not seeing ghettos and gas chambers for homosexuals. None of the big three had that capability at any point before 1939. The Triple Alliance does not count as Containment.

Containment is being abused. The Truman Doctrine is part and parcel to it. Korea was part of Containment; as was supporting folks like the slew of corrupt Philippine presidents, not denouncing S. Africa, and the support for the Contras. That was all part of Containment. Some of it was muy macho and some of it not. It was entirely iterative.

Fd, except for the 'worst crisis' as an absolute I'd agree with your #1 in the scond comment you made. Only when it moves strategy forward or halt dire threats does it make sense. Patton didn't worry about flank attacks because his threat to the enemy was great enough that the enemy quit flank attacks.(His famous, 'I don't worry about my flanks' comments). Same logic here. If and only if it gets me where I want to go or is about to kill my plans dead do I worry about a given crisis.

People are seeing what they want to see: any arguement that does not end with '...and then we kick their @55' is capitulation. That is far from the truth.

I knew morality was going to get tossed up. I predicted it inthe first rebuttal. Sure, it is a factor to consider. But, as I pointed out above, abuse of the Nazi example is not a proof for doing Iran. You haven't shown that they *are* as depraved as the NAzis and that not doing them leads to as horrible a world as not standing up to the Nazis would have. You've assumed it and not shown your supporting work as for why. Dangerous assumption, imo.

That doesn't rule out that they can be or are. Just sayin' that assuming it is a bad way of making up your mind or trying to win a debate on it.

John, I don't suggest. The capability is there. It is fact. the two Kilo class subs can lay 15+ nautical mines each per sortie, and mines they have aplenty(look at Galrahn's post over at InfoDissem on it). Mining Hormuz ends commercial traffic within it. That's just application of Formosa reality to an analogous situation. Someone else worked that one out. It isn't just a claim, some other analyst(guy who gets paid to do it) I know worked that out and I'm cribbing from him.

The BM attack is suggestion but the mines are not. But it would seem to be a decent educated guess given ranges.

And it's 'Brevity is for the weak.' Wimps are people who have the capability but not the will. THe weak simply don't have the capability. (Hyaa! Hyaa! Flog them electrons! Hyaa!)

by ry on June 9, 2008 12:19 PM

see what Iran is doing is why we're not seeing ghettos and gas chambers for homosexuals.

Nope, they just hang them. After a "fair" trial of course.

But, on a different note, when we talk about "morality" as if it has no place in decision making, I believe it leaves us considerably blinded by cold numbers. When a country does things that are explicitly immoral (and I don't mean some namby pamby multi-cult outlook of "this is their culture" BS I mean political prisoners, absolute repression, and executions or imprisonment based on ideological concepts that have little to do with good ordering of society...homosexuality, changing religion, opposing government policies, etc), I believe it indicates the over all nature of the government and what we can expect from it on an intra- and inter-national scale.

For instance, besides Iran, there is Sudan. Certainly, Bashir was smart enough to ask Osama to leave and, at least, give an outward appearance of rejecting international Islamist terrorism, but, his internal activities of promoting Islamist ideologies and promoting genocidal assaults is representative of his actual international behavior.

Sudanese are some of the top "foreigners" found on battlefields we operate on. There are likely international Islamist terrorists receiving training, participating (training) against the internal citizens and Bashir is basically posturing his national government and organizing his citizenry in such a manner that, should the Islamists actually gain a foot hold or "legitimate" government in other states, he can easily align and reflect that ideology and alliance.

On the other hand, he is also positioning himself under the umbrella of the chinese, to hold power indefinitely. One could say that he is a pragmatist that needs to be watched.

I can see some of that in the Iranian movements, but John is correct that I am concerned that they have not quite settled over whether they are a rational state or a revolution. In otherwords, they aren't all that rational yet.

Part of that is due to their internal struggle to continue to maintain control of the government and keep it functioning under the "Islamic Revolution".

However, recognizing that doesn't mean that we should give them extra breaks since it means they also have the tendency and capacity to do just as you argue they are not doing. Extremist ideologies are considered extreme for those reasons. Largely, they have a tendency to be extremely reactionary in order to survive. An extremely reactionary government with nuclear weapons does not sound particularly safe to me.

While I can appreciate the idea of containment and believe that it has a possibility to work, I also believe that Iran's instability along with their move towards nuclear technology and probably weapons, makes them more dangerous at this moment than any other time. I also believe that the window for implementing successful containment is very narrow for the reasons I stated above.

Another issue that weighs heavily on my mind is "never again." I have a very strong feeling about those who routinely call for the destruction of others and hold Nazi like forums for conducting a defamation drive against people of any sort. Most particularly the 7 million Jews (of the 20 million left in this world) who reside in Israel. I believe that there is only one reason that this occurs and that is because Iran is trying to whip up support for a much bigger war with Israel since they know that Israel sees their nuclear activities as a threat.

I believe Iran wants this because they believe that they can consolidate their power over the region by advancing their leadership in the "fight" against Israel. That is the reason that they had their proxies in Hezbollah attack Israel in 2006. Not because it gained anyone anything physically, but because it increased their stature in the region.

Since I believe they have not reached rational stage of post revolution, since they have regional and global ambitions, since they have nuclear ambitions and since they are in fact exporting that revolution in order to meet their stated goals AND since I believe that, upon reaching those stated goals, they will create an even more horrific crisis, not just regionally, but internationally with oil and gas from the region under their auspices....

I believe that, yes, that would end up killing many more people directly and indirectly (through famines, raging energy prices and housing crisis, etc) than a direct war would.

In short, I would kill 200,000 Iranians today if it meant that 7 million would not have to fear death ten years from now either through nuclear attack or conventional warfare that these states might feel they can now perpetuate under the umbrella of nuclear weapons.

I would accept 1 million Iranian casualties if I thought that 10 million or more people around the world would be saved from a future with Iranian power firmly in control of the ME, its resources and exporting its proxies to kill and terrorize nations.

But, you know, I never wrote that war should be tomorrow. I simply believe that the window is much shorter than those who propose talking believe it to be. In fact, after thirty years of hearing the same comments from people about how the time is never right it does seem that those who advocate talking have never and will never accept any other action. So, yes, I feel the need to advocate a more hawkish stance so that we do not forget that we do have that option, we are responsible and able to assist in securing our allies survival (and securing ours) and that people and nations should know there is a line that we will not accept being crossed without a significant response.

And, no, I do not mean more sanctions.

Finally, John did surmise my point neatly. This isn't 1947. Iran is not the USSR. What we could or should accept as behavior from them should not be equal to anything we accepted from the USSR under those conditions. To do so and allow people to die under the acceptance of a new "cold war" and an unequal comparison of The Cold War until now seems, indeed, immoral and decidedly cheapening.

Further, to allow ourselves to be placed in a position of potentially diminishing survival due to Iran's control of the region and resources does feel unnecessarily suicidal. In the end, my entire premis is based on that being the primary concern, followed closely by our allies and then the rest of the world.

We no longer have grand enemies like the USSR, but that does not mean that we are not in danger. Even giants can be pulled down by a million little rabble rousers.

by kat-missouri on June 9, 2008 2:11 PM

Dude, that was longer than anything I ever wrote except a historical review of the bombers of wwii.

But, to refer to another note or two, I'll be addressing your post later this week because I believe that you willfully misrepresented some of my points or choose to ignore them at your own peril and ours.

by kat-missouri on June 9, 2008 4:41 PM

I guess the best way of saying this is: don't assume the casualties you fear so are inevitable because they are not. YEs, the full span of national power and means should be on the table and a containment-like policy would use some of that hammer(like the Libya raid) to further goals. But it is about costs, not fears.

Fear does not override the need to evaluate costs and means available(look at how the US pop reacts to deaths for esoteric reasons, and how that effects the ability to comitt the force necessary for a full takedown).

A 4th Gen approach can buy the same thing, the 10 million not dead and not oppressed, without the 1 million dead or the economic costs associated to making those 1million dead.

It should not be about how Iran relates in some historical spectrum of threats. IT should always be about are we securing the better peace. If it is 'insulting' to 'elevate' Iran to do so I don't give a damn and consider the idea that we shouldn't because it is emberassing to be silly to even consider. If it gets me where I want to be fine. If not fine. BUt because it is emberassing or ruins some categorization of threats historically as a reason not to consider is just flat out boneheaded.

It is not game over once they've fitted a nuc to a missile either. THEL and the ABL research programs in conjunction with the SM-3ER program for AEGIS means that having a nuc means a whole lot less in 2009 than it did in 1999.

That leaves their non-conventionals. The de Atkine and FARC experiences should speak to that. We train and equip nations to deal with it. We buy the same damn goal for a hell of a lot less.

It just means we've got to get over being scared to achieve it.(That short enough for you, John? I got distracted once or twice so it got a bit wordier than intended)

by ry on June 9, 2008 4:56 PM

8^)

by John of Argghhh! on June 9, 2008 7:37 PM

Gad Ry my eyeballs hurt. Well for what it's worth I'm more on your side with this one if we're talking sides which is a bit limited. I want to see careful considered thoughts and plans in the now context. We have time to do this cleverly. If it shows Kat's way is better though auf Wiedersehen. At this point in time I see US and other political will not being there and there being no good case for intervention. Is there a good third option?

What I would vastly prefer is Iran to grow up real-soon-now. That is the fairytale. sigh.

by Argent on June 10, 2008 9:52 AM

Hey, when did folk reach the point where they can only handle 500 words? Eh? Slackers. (yipe!)

There is a third option Argent. That's largely my point. Kat's way sounds like very muscular engagement with a preponderance toward breaking their stuff and rebuilding the country. There's the peace, love and harmony pipe dream. Then there's neo-containment with 4th Gen elements option which has low buy in, low stay in, and low closing costs. Building an ABM system is a lot cheaper than repairing Iran. Helping Lebanon fight its own battles is a lot cheaper(in cash and in bodies) than fighting it for them by taking on Iran. Building a mini-NATO to deal with bad actors in the ME is a lot cheaper than just deciding we've got to take someone down.

There's three options. All have strengths and weaknesses. But being ruled by fear on this is tremendously stupid. Go to War Historian's site and read his three part series Images of Enemy and Self. Then tell me this is not a situation where fears aren't calling the shots instead of reason.

by ry on June 10, 2008 12:48 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Jun 09, 2008

The Rising Tides 3 - The Obaminator v Captain America

[Kat]

This election season is going to get really interesting as each candidate of the two parties tries to show they have the right answer for defending the United States. Obama wants to talk them to death and McCain is practically claiming he's the father of the surge. Between the two of them, the Obaminator and Captain America are set to single handedly save the world.

My question to both of them is where is the praise, the recognition of the magnificent performance of our troops and the incredible strategic competence of Petraeus et al.

All the while, here in Kansas City, the river is rising, the rain is pouring and still, no sign of The Obama to stop the rising tides.

UPDATE: Severe Weather Kills 8, Waters Rising in Indiana

Where's the Obama Messiah when you need him?

Fred Kagan - Vote for Commander in Chief

Obama - Al Qaeda or No Al Qaeda?

Rising Tides 1 - Obama Stills the Rising Oceans, But Can He Stop the Rising River?
Rising Tides 2 - The Powerful Luminescence of Obama

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 09, 2008

The Rising Tide 2 - The Powerful Luminescence of Obama

[Kat]

I caught this article by Mark Morford of the San Francisco Gate from Hotair.com or Instapundit. Take your pick, they both had it. He claims that Obama has a "powerful luminescence", an "aura" that all the haters out there just don't get. It inspired a second round of "Rising Tides".

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 07, 2008

My take on the USAF "Revolt"

[Armorer's note: Dusty posted this late yesterday, after the bulk of our traffic had passed - so I moved it so the people who come by early will get a chance to see it.]

I'm a little busy right now (got annual sim training and checkride tomorrow and Saturday) but in the FWIW department, sounds like the Top Two just pegged Bob Gates' fun meter. Such is life.

I don't know anything about Wynne but I met Moseley briefly when John Jumper was prepping him at Langley before his assumption of command at 9AF/CENTAF. He's a shrewd and flexible air warrior and air campaign strategist (and his technical expertise is superb) but in the last few years things just haven't been going very well.

From Goldy Goldfien's tripping himself up over the T-Birds to the unscheduled nuke tour, all kinds of "stuff" did precisely what the Wired article said it did, i.e., provided "bureaucratic cover" for Gates' move. This is a backhanded slap at Gates in my opinion. Who needs "cover" anyway? Only a wuss does, and I can't say Gates is one, one way or 'tuther. I doubt it.

The tussle over UAVs has been going on for awhile. Ironically, Jumper was a solid champion of Predator, aggressively incorporating it into day-to-day USAF battle planning and employment in support of the overall combat effort, to say nothing of his near-single-handed internal bureaucratic crusade for its being armed with Hellfires. It's the overall force management joint windmill that the USAF tilted against, much to Gen. Moseley's misfortune. There is an advantage to central management for procurement/development/sustainment economies of scale but it sounds like the Air Force a) didn't make that case very well; or b) got locked into a turning fight with people more influential on who should be in charge and why; or c) dragged its feet on supporting the mission; or d) buffooned the argument for more operator support, or e) a combination of the above.

I hope the reports about Gates saying the "F-22 has no role in the war on terror" was a gross example of taking a quote out of context. (I think/(hope!) it was.)

That is correct, of course, but begs the question, "And, therefore, what...?" This is also true for nuclear sub SLBM platforms, all our nukes, all our heavy combat ground units, all our carrier battle groups, and just about everything associated with responding to a strategic threat from a peer or near-peer competitor, whether it be a direct one or one against our allies...and if you really want to include all their possible uses, against an asymmetrical threat as well.

However, comma, if Gates felt that these guys were not getting with the overall DoD program, if he felt he was spending more time putting out fires that from his vantage point these guys were unnecessarily starting inside and outside the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace, then, well, this makes sense.

They may be wrong or Gates may be wrong. in such cases, the SecDef wins. Game. Set. Match.

Finally, if I were Buzz Moseley, I would sure as hell walk out the door with head held high. From what I know of him, he's a good man, a fierce fighter and can fly the shite out of an airplane. I'm sure there are people in the Air Force who would disagree and are glad to see him go--this is a byproduct of that thing called "command," something that precludes you from being universally loved. He has done more good for his country than most, and that includes many senior elected officials--I'm talkin' to YOU Murtha!

P.S. I could go on about this, but like I said I'm a little busy. I did however enjoy the suggestion in the Wired article comments--"They should take the opportunity and as quietly as possible, fold the AF back into the Army." Now THERE'S some forward thinking! (Original, too. Heh.)

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Repeal the Key West Agreement. Turn the drones over to the Army and the Marines. Turn the A-10's over, too. Air Force keeps the big birds and gets all of space, sorry Navy.

by Chuck Simmins on June 5, 2008 8:58 PM

Here is a long and thoughtful piece from Ltc. Bateman in the Armed Forces Journal on the history of replacing generals and admirals.

by Fred on June 6, 2008 1:20 AM

Turn the clock back .....

Billy Mitchell who?

by fdcol63 on June 6, 2008 7:25 AM

Dusty,

My understanding of the sacking was that the Nuke issue (and to a lesser extent, the UAC issue) were the stated reasons for the sackings. The REAL reasons, however, had more to do with the top AF folks going behind Gates' back to lobby Congress critters for the F-22 and other items. SecDef just got tired of saying NO, outlining what he wanted done, and then having the kids run to mom and ask her instead. Any parents out there know exactly what I am talking about.

My only hope is that this policy will now head over to the Navy and start with sacking those responsible (from the top down) for our current quagmire of ship procurement (among other things)...

And yes, I would also support the undoing of the Key West agreement. I admire much and many in the AF but the bloat has to stop somewhere, and this is a good place to start.

Respects,

by AW1 Tim on June 6, 2008 7:37 AM

Well, the Bateman article link didn't go through. Here it is again THREE DIFFERENT WAYS this time.

http://www.afji.com/2008/06/3468975

by Fred on June 6, 2008 11:04 AM

Heh. Fred, I'm always happier with Bob Bateman when he checks his politics at the door of his history.

And I didn't care much for the article - not that I have a brief against his thesis, lord knows I think there should be more general officer scalps at the gate - but this one reads more like an earnest undergrad paper than a polished piece.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you like the play...

by John of Argghhh! on June 6, 2008 2:37 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Dusty on Jun 06, 2008

We Interrupt This Program For An Emergency Weather Report - The Rising Tides Obama '08

[Kat]

Due to inclement weather, our regularly scheduled program "Pvt Benson Goes to War" will be rebroadcast on Monday, June 9th. Fortunately, the battery in the camera was still charged so I'm able to bring you this up to the minute weather report.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Jun 06, 2008

Garrison Keillor... clueless in Lake Woebegon.

[Armorer's note - this post is even more ironic in light of the post above it.]

So, Mr. Keillor was inconvenienced in DC this Memorial Day by an annual protest ride by some bikers, who were interested in the POW/MIA issue... One wonders if he would have felt as inconvenienced had it been the "Million Man March" the "Million Mom March" or something like the protest SWWBO and I attended in DC last year... One suspects rather he would have been waxing rhapsodic.

The roar of hollow patriotism Garrison Keillor E-mail: oldscout@prairiehome.us
Three hundred thousand bikers spent Memorial Day weekend roaring around Washington in tribute to our war dead, and I stood on Constitution Avenue Sunday afternoon watching a river of them go by, waiting for a gap in the procession so I could cross over to the Mall and look at pictures. The street had been closed off for them and they motored on by, some flying the Stars and Stripes and the black MIA-POW flag, honking, revving their engines, an endless celebration of internal combustion.

A patriotic bike rally is sort of like a patriotic toilet-papering or patriotic graffiti--the patriotism somehow gets lost in the sheer irritation of the thing. Somehow a person associates Memorial Day with long moments of silence when you summon up mental images of men huddled together on amphibious assault vehicles and pilots revving up B-24s and infantrymen crouched behind piles of rubble steeling themselves for the next push.

...or pilots turning in on a target in al-Anbar, or infantrymen steeling themselves to clear that building in Fallujah. Or perhaps clearing the Palace in Hue, or clawing their way up the mud of Hamburger Hill, or holding the perimeter at Pusan, or hoofing it back from the Chosin Reservoir with his buddy on his back. Storming ashore on Koh-tang Island to free the crew of the Mayaguez. Not to mention 'forting up' in Mogadishu waiting for the relief force. But no, it would appear for Mr. Keillor, military history ended in 1945. Of course, unlike, I believe, Mr. Keillor, I know some people laying under the turf at Arlington with graves dated in *this* century.

You don't quite see the connection between that and these fat men with ponytails on Harleys. After hearing a few thousand bikes go by, you think maybe we could airlift these gentlemen to Baghdad to show their support of the troops in a more tangible way...

Heh. Shows what you know, Mr. Keillor. Perhaps (and very likely) many if not most of these men on those bikes strolled the dikes in Vietnam, patrolled in Bosnia and Kosovo, walked the streets in Somalia, and not a few may well have wandered streets and valleys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some may have trod the brown, treeless hills of Korea. And not a few may well wear bracelets with names of people they knew personally. I love the assumption that they're mostly chickenhawks.

...It took 20 minutes until a gap appeared and then a mob of us pedestrians flooded across the street and the parade of bikes had to stop for us, and on we went to show our patriotism by looking at exhibits at the Smithsonian or, in my case, hiking around the National Gallery, which, after you've watched a few thousand Harleys pass, seems like an outpost of civilization.
There stood Renoir's ballerina in pale blue chiffon and Monet's children in the garden of sunflowers. And Mary Cassatt's "The Boating Party," which I stood and stared at for a long time. A lady in a white bonnet sits in a green sailboat, holding a contented baby in pink, as a man rows the boat toward a distant shore. (Perhaps the boat is becalmed.) The man wears a navy blue shirt, he is preoccupied with his rowing, and the lady looks wan and mildly anxious, as well a mother should be. The baby is looking dreamily over the gunwales. Is the man a hired hand or is he the husband and father?

A work of art can lift you up from the mishmash of life, the weight of the unintelligible world, and the situations where vulgarity squats on you like an enormous toad and won't get off. You stroll down past the World War II Memorial, which looks like something ordered out of a catalog, a bland insult to the memory of all who served, and thousands of motorcycles roar by disturbing the Sabbath, and it depresses you for hours.

Sorry, the WWII memorial doesn't affect me that way. My grump with it is that it took so long to get done. So now your Sabbath has been marred by motorcycles? You poor man. How much churchly stuff did you partake of that day? Did you attend a Memorial Day event that was to your liking? Since you don't say, we don't know, but I have my suspicions, at least regarding Memorial Day events.

If anyone cared about the war dead, they could go read David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War" or Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944 to May 7, 1945," or any of a hundred other books, and they would get a vision of what it was like to face death for your country, but the bikers riding in formation are more interested in being seen than in learning anything. They are grown men playing soldier, making a great hullabaloo without exposing themselves to danger, other than getting drunk and falling off a bike.

What breathtaking arrogance. From personal knowledge, several of the people on that ride *lived* the books you so blithely drop in here. Those books are on my bookshelf, too, Mr. Keillor. With dog ears and other evidence of having been read. It's good to know you've read them too. Of course we could add... House to House, by David Bellavia, or No True Glory and The March Up, by Bing West, or One Bullet Away by Nate Fick, and My War by Colby Buzzell, or perhaps my fellow Scorpion and compadre Marty Stanton's Somalia on $5.00 a Day and Road to Baghdad: Behind Enemy Lines: The Adventures of an American Soldier in the Gulf War or Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden. Heck, what about The Four Days of Mayaguez by Roy Rowan.... but I'm betting those aren't on your bookshelves, because those are somehow inauthentic and unworthy experiences or something. But, perhaps I'm just projecting, as you do. But again, you can't get past that chickenhawk meme. Those bikers are fellows who can read books, and many have probably read those and more... *and* they choose to do something active to keep the POW/MIA issue alive. So that the Missing are not forgotten. Strikes me, sir, that is an entirely active and appropriate way to mark the day we Remember - by not allowing some to be forgotten. Just as your staring at art and contemplating it in relative peace is... well, you know, something you can do apropos of a cliche I won't bore you with.

Update: In the comments, Bill says it better:

"Keillor's world view obviously doesn't permit the existence of living veterans -- in it, our deeds and lives are limited to the dimensions of books, so he may safely close the pages and escape us as soon as reading about that which we did (and still do) becomes

*sigh*

wearisome."

Wearisome, indeed.

No wonder the Current Occupant welcomed them with open arms at the White House, put on a black leather vest, and gave a manly speech about how he'd just "choppered in" and saw the horde "cranking up their machines," and he thanked them for being so patriotic. They are his kind of guys, full of bluster, giving off noxious fumes, and when they leave town, nobody misses them.

Heh. So he talks to them in their vernacular, and that's too vulgar for you. Guess what, I'm thinking people aren't missing the Million Men and Million Moms that much, either. [deleted Rule-breaking personal attack formerly located here. See? I make myself delete my own rule infractions. Mebbe not always... ]

Meanwhile, the man pulls at the oars, the lady wonders if this trip was a good idea or if some disaster is at hand, and the child lolls on her lap, dazed by the sun. They started this trip in 1894 and haven't advanced an inch, meanwhile half the people who ever stood and watched them have reached that distant shore and the rest of us are getting closer every day.
I am the boatman and maybe you are too--it is quiet on the water, we lean on the oars, and we are suspended in time, united with every other man, woman and child who ever voyaged afar.

Heh. You did a better job of reading the minds of dollops of paint than you did ponytailed men on bikes. And told us more about yourself than anything else.

Last word on the subject from a long time reader of this space:

Andrew L Mills... on the Wall.

Not all fat guys rode Harleys.......and some no longer have enough hair left for a pony tail.

Mr. Keillor just wouldn't understand that though.

Heh. They weren't even all 'Muricans. Or riding bikes.

RFTW%202003%20010.jpg

For a stronger view of Mr. Keillor's musings, see Jim Linesberry below, in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Mr. Keillor

I couldn’t resist responding to your article, “The roar of hollow patriotism” in which you were complaining about the “fat men with ponytails on Harleys crowding up your city”. I think the point you fail to realize is that Washington DC is America’s city. Every American who pays a penny in taxes owns that city and every bureaucrat in it works for us. Those elected officials that think they own America are there to answer to us.

Another point you fail to realize is that Rolling Thunder just completed its 21st year. You think of it as a “patriotic bike rally”. It isn’t a bike rally at all. Go to Daytona, Sturgis or Laconia if you want to see a bike rally. Rolling Thunder is a protest. It’s designed to be disruptive. We are not a bike club. We are a political activist organization. So for 3 hours, 1200-1500, once a year, you can just suck it up and be inconvenienced.

Our purpose is to remind our elected officials that we intend to hold them accountable for every American they send on to the battlefield. We still have over 80,000 soldiers still missing from past wars. 3 from Iraq and 1 from Gulf War 1. There are names and families attached to each name. Their mothers want and deserve closure. The military does not send soldiers onto the battlefield, you and your elected officials do. When a soldier walks onto the battlefield he has to know that every resource of the greatest military ever assembled and every resource of the greatest country in the world will be used to bring him home. Dead or alive.

America’s mothers entrust their children to our care when they join the military. They know and understand the dangers, but they volunteer anyway because they understand the world is made up of sheep, sheep dogs and wolves. They are the sheep dogs.

Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of several books, including “On Combat.” As he says it, “We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.” The sheep do not like the sheepdogs (the military) even though they protect them from those who mean them harm (the wolves). They don’t want the sheepdogs around. But when the wolves show up, they clamor for and try to hide behind the sheepdogs they loathe, demanding protection.

I can see Mr. Keillor, that you are a sheep. That’s OK. The world needs sheep. Just don’t complain when the sheep dogs get together to make sure they are properly cared for. The vast majority of those fat guys on the Harley’s are veterans. They have already served time protecting you’re heard of sheep. My personal feelings aside Mr. Keillor, those fat men with pony tails on Harleys have already risked their lives for you and the rest of the fat cat liberals in this country. The time has come for you to do your part. You should be shipped to Baghdad where you would quickly realize that words in a book can never describe the horrors of war.

By the way, the World War II Memorial is a beautiful Memorial to the greatest generation. Only a sheep could not see the beauty in it and swell with pride just walking near it. America continues to produce generation after generation of heroes. If you had taken the time to walk down to the Lincoln Memorial you would have had the chance to hear from the parents of a Medal of Honor recipient, a young man that sacrificed his own life so that his fellow Marines could live. That’s the kind of sheep dogs we were honoring last Sunday.

In addition to letting our elected sheep know we will be holding them accountable for the 80,000 missing servicemen we also demand Congress do something for the 28,000 plus veterans that were misdiagnosed with Immature Disability Disorder, rather than using the correct medical term PTSD (Post Trauma Stress Disorder). This incorrect diagnosis is an insult to all the military having served or serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are combat veterans and this is just a way for the Government to save money on the backs of the veterans who have PTSD related mental problems. More suicides will occur because frustrated veterans are not getting the proper diagnosis and treatment.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is holding up House Resolution 111 – Select Committee on the POW/MIA Affairs, even though it has 263 cosponsors. The Democrats constantly complain that they want control to make government work; well they have control and fumbled the ball! Use your pen to make Ms. Pelosi do her job and get this bill in play or get out of office.

So you see Mr. Keillor a lot more was going on than you thought. I could say you shouldn't write such unpatriotic dribble, but this sheep dog fought for your right to write such dribble.

Respectfully,

Jim Linesberry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I love you Armorer! Can you email me the unedited, non-Rulez-compliant version? You know, I am a bad girl, so I would love it.

I never listen to the Lake Woebegon thing. I listen to NPR for news and such. But I do hear him on Morning Edition doing his poetry thing.

I'll miss that.

by Maggie on June 2, 2008 10:47 AM

He's got a wonderful voice and knack for storytelling.

[Deleted Rulez-breaking personal attack]

Dammit! Bad Armorer! Sit! Stay!.

by John of Argghhh! on June 2, 2008 10:50 AM

Keillor's world view obviously doesn't permit the existence of living veterans -- in it, our deeds and lives are limited to the dimensions of books, so he may safely close the pages and escape us as soon as reading about that which we did (and still do) becomes

*sigh*

wearisome.

Wouldn't surprise me if *that* occurs around the third page of the preface...

by BillT on June 2, 2008 12:14 PM

Just when I think I have set the gold standard for blithering inanity on the Internet, Garrison Keillor has to try and prove he is even more of an a**hat than yours truly...

As *if*.

by Cassandra on June 2, 2008 1:08 PM

Maybe. But Garry doesn't *flounce* as prettily as you do...

by BillT on June 2, 2008 1:15 PM

We get a weekly dose of his inane babble up here in MN. Different topic each week all with the same lack of deep thought, typical of limosine liberals.

Dave

by Dave on June 2, 2008 1:29 PM

I think my favorite reponse thus far is one I got in email from a buddy:

A reason why artists shouldn't be exalted until after their gone.

-- Jack

by John of Argghhh! on June 2, 2008 1:48 PM

[Moved here because it so upset Fuzzybee she put her comment in the wrong post!]

I've enjoyed Keillor's artistry despite his political inanities, but this is just too much. I don't see how I could bear to listen to him again. What a colossally arrogant idiot!

I think BillT has the right of it.

by FbL on June 2, 2008 1:51 PM

Oh, I think it even worse than what Unka Bill had to say.
"Somehow a person associates Memorial Day with long moments of silence..."

Y'know. No more than 30 seconds and then on with the pretty, highly enjoyable things like Renoir. Oh, and maybe a hotdog(conisuer hotdog, natch) at a bbq--if you feel like slumming it up and 'experiencing Americana'.

Oh, and like they flounce around here anymore anyways.(pout)

I'll take Bill Whittle over this faux protector of Old American Customs. But then gollum's an admitted phillistine anyways.

by ry on June 2, 2008 2:17 PM

Hmmm...let's see, on Memorial Day I was placing flags and flowers on white marble headstones in the garden of stone....Mr. Keillor was where?

One of those headstones was my uncle, a Viet Nam Vet who was a fat man with no hair and a buzz cut. One of his proudest moments in his later life was riding with these other fat men to honor his friends who didn't make it home and his fellow vets. He couldn't go all the way because his diabetes, neuropathy and heart condition related to exposure to agent orange had deteriorated so bad he could barely ride a few hours. But he went as far as he could.

I remember when they stopped in Kansas City and we stood around for a bit listening to the fat men tell stories and enjoy each other's company.

Maybe, though, considering Mr. Keillor's apparent leanings, he should consider his interminable wait listening to roaring bikes and watching fat men go by as a penance for not welcoming these men home thrity ought years ago.

One parade, one kind word and real consideration for their trials and tribulations after the war was over instead of a shamed country shamefully trying to discard its association with the war by discarding its veterans.

In any case, Mr. Keillor has made a mistake. He should have held his comments on the event and stuck to art critiquing because, as any fat or skinny person on a bike will tell you, when you get out of your lane, you're likely to get ran over.

by kat-missouri on June 2, 2008 2:43 PM

Maybe I'm confused. I am a Veteran and I have ridden my Harley thru DC on Memorial Day, to remember my brothers who have gone before me. I am only a little fat (according to the Army) and I keep my head shaved (less mess). Perhaps Mr Keillor needs to look at the sacrifices millions have made to allow him to wander thru museum exhibits in freedom. Perhaps he needs to come out on the last Sunday in September, and see the Harley Riders who come out to support the Gold Star Mothers. He would probably be horrified at the idea of Harleys roaring thru the roads of Arlington National Cemetary. I know for a fact the Moms love it and they love the support they get from us. We are a living link to what they have lost and they show their gratitude. One wonders what is an "appropriate display"? This Country was built on War and our National Anthem is about Rockets and Bombs...So noisy motorcycles are bad/inappropriate why?

by CAVSCT on June 2, 2008 3:58 PM

This Country was built on War and our National Anthem is about Rockets and Bombs...

That's the crux of it, Scout. They can't stand that, and sometimes, they seem ashamed of it.

Heh.

by John of Argghhh! on June 2, 2008 4:37 PM

Reading that made me feel a little funny. The day previous I had attended Keillor's show at Wolf Trap, where he paid respectful tribute to America's veterans and fallen soldiers at several occasions during the show, at one point lamenting that fewer Americans each year did take the time to remember what Memorial Day stands for. It seemed out of place given his typical audience and left bent, but I appreciated it. His column did nothing but disappoint.

by pleiades on June 2, 2008 5:23 PM

Like Neptunuslex said on a link to this -he's a putz and I pitty him for his ignorance.

by Rob Johnson on June 2, 2008 5:35 PM

Pleiades - I like Keillor doing what he does best. And he probably meant what he said at Wolf Trap - but he clearly doesn't understand what he saw on Memorial Day, and let his predjudices lead him down that rhetorical path.

In some respects, I rather expect that Bill hit it one the head with his comment:

Keillor's world view obviously doesn't permit the existence of living veterans -- in it, our deeds and lives are limited to the dimensions of books, so he may safely close the pages and escape us as soon as reading about that which we did (and still do) becomes

*sigh*

wearisome.

by John of Argghhh! on June 2, 2008 5:40 PM

I had to look up who this dude was. You guys keep throwing names at me. I do have a problem with bikers but that's because two big groups of them are mafia-like businessmen delving deeply into crime and harmful behavior here. Not because they wear leather jackets, eat too much, admire chrome and make noise. [smelling salts applied]

It's my view he said a great deal about himself and really rather little about veterans. He seems to know even less about them than I do and that's quite an achievement. In a way i find the noise an appropriate expression. After all war was noisy at times.

Of himself well we see several themes (lets be careful not to be personal hmm how to do) and the info I found on him backs it up too. He's afraid of authoritarian men. Why he associates fat with authority isn't clear, possible he has other issues with fat. He also shows a lot of snobbery and has a hard time seeing outside the square.

Yes i think that's neutral enough, it's certainly bled all the fun out.

[Ouch! The Rulez get a thorough drubbing from Down Under..!]

by Argent on June 2, 2008 7:24 PM

Wearisome, troublesome, and disappointed beyond words.
*sigh*

by AFSister on June 2, 2008 9:23 PM

GK should stick to poetry. Since his stupidity on
the protestors, I will not donate another dime to NPR.

The very first time I saw the Vietnam War Memorial, I was silenced.

I had some friends who were veterans, but when I saw it, I was in awe. Flags, flowers, children
and parents coming to connect with the name of a loved one etched in stone...the name that was etched on their hearts and memories. They do not forget, they do not quit loving these men and women.

Even though I was not in church or at Arlington, I knew I was on sacred ground.

Even now, we pray for specific members of our church, our neighborhood and our family who wear the uniform...and my daughter just finished her
nightly prayers:

"Please bless our men and women who are in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, away from home and family. Protect them from harm, guide them safely and bring them home to us. We love them."

She never forgets to ask for Divine Intervention on behalf of the US military...and our allies.

by Cricket on June 2, 2008 9:48 PM

One more thing...GK loves freedom of speech because he can show off his wordsmithing skills.
Why would he diss another's way of saying what they think?

Isn't that what the premise of NPR is about? Lack of censorship more so than lack of taste?
His personal pique is to be pitied. Biker noise
doesn't worry me or cause me to get my frilly panties in a wad. The enforced silence by whiners like him does.

I can turn off the radio. He was mad because there was no control button.

by Cricket on June 2, 2008 9:58 PM

Well said John,,,very well indeed!!

by AgPilot60 on June 3, 2008 3:32 AM

Oh thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

by RetRsvMike on June 3, 2008 7:23 AM

As a codicil, I would like to point out that Dubya had, in fact, "choppered" in, since he arrived by helicopter.

I'm just sayin'...

by Casey on June 3, 2008 12:28 PM

Casey: Your point? If the distance from where he was coming from was over 20 miles, that is i the cheapest way to get the head of state through such a city of DC. Much easier than motorcade.

by GeoSTI on June 3, 2008 4:35 PM

For those of us who live near DC, or in the the Mid-Atlantic region for that matter, the roar of Harleys is every bit as much a part of Memorial Day as the other parades and ceremonies. When I asked my students this year what people do on Memorial Day to remember those who've served and died, they said people ride on motorcycles in a parade. It's amazing that my students (most of whom are from other countries) know this is an important part of Memorial Day observances, but Mr. Keillor does not.

by K on June 3, 2008 5:17 PM

For those of us who live near DC, or in the the Mid-Atlantic region for that matter, the roar of Harleys is every bit as much a part of Memorial Day as the other parades and ceremonies. When I asked my students this year what people do on Memorial Day to remember those who've served and died, they said people ride on motorcycles in a parade. It's amazing that my students (most of whom are from other countries) know this is an important part of Memorial Day observances, but Mr. Keillor does not.

by K on June 3, 2008 5:18 PM

GeoSTI, my point is very simple. Despite Garrison Keillor's lackwit reaction, President Bush had an excellent reason to say he had just "choppered in." GK seems to be implying that Dubya was trying to talk smack by imitating biker lingo. In this case, the term "choppered (i.e. cycled) in."

You do know that chopper is another word for motorcycle, yes? And, no, I'm not being snarky. Just asking.

by Casey Tompkins on June 3, 2008 11:55 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Jun 02, 2008

A rational response.

We live in an oil patch. We are literally surrounded by wells. This is in northeastern Kansas, not someplace most people think of when they think of oil patch.

Gnoshing contentedly at Castle Argghhh!

So, oil is up to $130 a barrel. Most of that price hike is caused by supply concerns. Not that there isn't plenty of oil in untapped reserves (leave aside the varying predictions of when the supply will be exhausted or the claims of the guy who says it might be almost inexhaustable...) but therein lies the rub.

Untapped.

Not because we don't want to, but because we can't.

Not because we don't have the tech, but because we won't let ourselves.

Because, well, Greenies and the Congress (both parties, over time) don't want us to. For varying motives.

Well, you see high gas prices. My neighbor sees... opportunity. And he's loyally trying to do what he can to help you all out.

He's drilling wells on his property. That would be the property that abuts ours.

He's got two in, two dry holes, and one drilling. Mind you, there've been no 'gushers' - no oil has yet shown up as an oily sheen in the creek that runs between us and then across my pasture and along the cliff, before heading off to Stranger Creek, the Kaw, and then the Missouri.

From the size of his horseheads, I'm guessing three barrels a day. Two wells is 6 barrels, assume (really dangerous in the volatile market) an *average* wellhead price of $100 for the year (also a swag at accounting for production and storage costs) - he'll gross $219K for a year.

Not bad for doing nothing more than just paying the electricity bill for the two horseheads bobbing up and down, up and down.

A rational response. Drill.

Just look at that despoiled and distressed landscape. Horsehead on the left (not yet in place on the well) and that blue thing on the right... is the drill rig, just despoiling the view. Not.

It *is* noisy, however.

I own the mineral rights. I'm waiting for $200 a barrel. Alternatively, I could invade.

Wait. That didn't work out so well for Saddam. Well, except for the whole "Oil for Food" scam he ran with the UN. Hmmmmmm.

And before we waste bandwidth on it - yes, I know arctic tundra and permafrost areas are far more sensitive than flyover country occupied by bitter, clingy people who probably deserve what happens to them as despoilers of the land. Heh. I appreciate my land a lot more than any city dwelling enviro who visits unpaved dirt on weekends and two weeks a year, I assure you.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

"Come and listen to a story 'bout a man named John..."

Yeah...I'll never get that song out of my head...

by Carrie on May 28, 2008 11:00 AM

The price of gas in some areas out here has jumped about 60 cents in less than a month--40 cents overnight last weekend at some stations (the overall average this Spring has gone up 40 cents or so). Diesel is over $5/gal (I now have to "donate" about $12 in gas to volunteer for a shift at the USO).

Food prices are rising accordingly: tomatoes--in Southern California in May!!!--are $3-4/lb, canned beans are $1.70 (used to be $1 or less), my favorite frozen food jumped $2/ea, etc., etc.. It's starting to scare me--all those prices were BEFORE the most recent sudden jump.

Thank God I'm no longer unemployed, and that said employment requires no commute.

by Fbl on May 28, 2008 11:02 AM

Didja see those cool pictures of the Martian arctic that the Pheonix mission sent back? Looks just like ANWAR.

by Fred on May 28, 2008 11:26 AM

Alternatively, I could invade.
Dude, I'm not ridding the Trebuchet to be the airborne advance force. Just. Not. Gonna. There's not enough cheetos in KS.

by ry on May 28, 2008 11:28 AM

I used to "make" money driving my own car on company business. I get about .40 per mile. Now, however, it costs me so dang much for gas it makes more sense for me to rent a car instead. If I rent a car, the gas goes on my company card, so I don't have to pay for it myself and then wait to get reimbursed. With the cost of gas, I can't afford the month it takes to get reimbursed.

by AFSister on May 28, 2008 12:01 PM

One argument in favor of going ahead with a well is if the formation in your area is also producing natural gas. Your own supply + a NG fired generator would give you energy independence. That would be nice not only for the savings on the utility bills but also for the winter time (and Spring storms).

Offsetting that is the rather large investment required in drilling any well - no assurance the first one you drill will hit anything but dirt (and your bank account).

by KCSteve on May 28, 2008 12:04 PM

AFsister, it has been my companies policy for some time that all trips over 100 miles/day be in rentals, as it is cheaper than paying milage now .495/mile. Make friends with the rental personnel and they will set you up in some fun rides when the company mandated sub-compacts are "unavailable".

by dave on May 28, 2008 3:43 PM

Oh, John darlin'

You are begging a truly Olympian rant.

by Cassandra on May 28, 2008 4:21 PM

Ooo! Ooo! Do! Do! Pleeeeeeze?

by John of Argghhh! on May 28, 2008 4:27 PM

John --

You might want to look at Oil 'barons' work harder on W. Michigan fields from last Sunday's GR Press. It covers some of the economics of domestic oil prices.

by The Thomas on May 28, 2008 4:46 PM

Oil Celebrations
If you had more than one well, you could set up jerker lines

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on May 28, 2008 5:47 PM

Dave- I'll have to do that....!!

by AFSister on May 28, 2008 8:47 PM

Remittance Man had a great discussion on Reserves vice Resources and the difference between them, as well as how the mining industry classifies the differences in terms of production and profitability.

I for one am actually cheering the rise in oil price (this from a guy who's car, while not exactly guzzling 93 Oct, does shoot it down like that Carrie woman downs cosmos). The increased price leads to not only more resources going into reserves, but also neat technological tricks like nuclear and geothermal power being used to make those long carbon chains that work so well.

The Los Alamos guys say all they need is $5 gal gas, and its profitable. Economically it will be a hit, initially, but I'm certain the total cost will drop like a stone once the energy plants get online.

by GeoSTI on May 29, 2008 12:04 AM

I'm starting to get priced out of my commute, and I don't have the ability to move closer to work...

by Sgt. B. on May 29, 2008 7:58 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on May 28, 2008

Catching wild pigs.

This is for Wolfwalker, et.al., who see the demise of the Republic just over the horizon.

Catching Wild Pigs A chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself. Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut! In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you. Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

H/t, JimC.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on May 28, 2008

Heh. Read the Farm Bill?

Oh, wait - if you got the version the President got (and vetoed) then you haven't read the whole thing.

Having become a Gentleman Farmer (who am I kidding, SWWBO is the Gentlelady Farmer), living out among farmers and ranchers, and working with a few others who have some acres and agribusiness interests, I have been paying some attention to the Farm Bill. I'm bemused to find that if I *don't* do some things, the Farm of Argghhh! could pull in several thousand dollars per annum, for *not* doing things. Of course, that makes the Federal Government a lessee of my land, and gives them far more control over what I can and can't do than I am interested in allowing.

Mind you - they may have put a provision in there to make it worth my while to *do* something, because I might just be able to make more money for doing something, almost irrespective of the market, than I can for *not* doing something, other than owning land zoned agricultural. Hey, unlike most of the big winners in the Farm Bill, I at least *live* on my land, and not in Manhattan and Los Angeles, Dallas or Houston.

Heh. I've been talking with the farmers I know, and several of them, mostly ranchers, admittedly, though a few are crop-growers, and they were looking at the bill skeptically.

Heh. Not any more. But if you really care - click the Flash Traffic/Extended entry for the rest.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Around the water cooler and elsewhere, like Rotary - several of the bigger crop growers (vice the ranchers) were all agog over the ACRE program - which looks like a poster child for Possibly Good Idea with Huge Unintended Consequences. The conversation was the country-style version of this from the WashPo:

Then farmers got a look at the bill's formula for determining benefits under ACRE . It pegs the subsidies to current, record-high prices for grain, meaning farmers would get paid if prices fall back to their historical and, for farmers, perfectly profitable norms. A program that started out as a streamlined insurance policy against extraordinary hardship has mutated into a possible guarantee of extraordinary prosperity. Small wonder that, as The Post's Dan Morgan reports, a farming blog is urging farmers to sign up for ACRE, which it describes as "lucrative beyond expectations."

The farm bill's defenders insist that a budgetary disaster will not come to pass, because grain prices will not come down much during the five years the bill will be in effect. "The program does not look excessively expensive for the lifetime of the farm bill," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte ( Va. ), the ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee. In other words, even if they don't have to pay extra for ACRE , Americans will have to pay higher food prices – so they may as well get used to it. None of the legislators who rushed to override President Bush's veto of the bill yesterday will have the decency to blush the next time they pontificate about fiscal responsibility. But we can only wonder what other expensive surprises still lurk within this profoundly wasteful legislation.

Yanno, as one of the congressional staffers I chatted with yesterday noted, "What you're seeing is an urban/rural divide." and that's certainly true.

And most of the farmers I've talked to are either late-in-life tyros like myself - but a few are lifelong farmers, and we all feel like this thing is just out of control, and been bashed and modified and added to, subtracted from, etc - that it's just a mess, and an expensive one, to boot.

My closing comment to the staffer was this: We gotta find a better way for you guys (meaning Congress in general, not just staffers) to do the business of hashing out the details in the bills so that they're clear and understandable. Maybe some Members should spend less time worrying about steroids in baseball and eavesdropping in football and take the time to *read*, analyze, and do the math on the more mundane matters that cost money, vice the glitz stuff better left to law enforcement. In other words, perhaps Congress should stick to it's knitting.

Oh, wait - clear and understandable. That's not likely to happen. Because with that would potentially come accountability, and that's not something most politicians, especially legislators, want too much of, for themselves. Lots and lots of it for the rest of us, though.

� Secure this line!

by John on May 22, 2008

Heh. Dems. McCain. Military Service, suitability of.

So, lessee if I understand the Dem bible on Experience, Military, Utility of. (For a completely different dissection of this topic from a different angle, see Cassandra of Villainous Company)

Scenario 1: If combat-experienced Republicans are running against a draft-avoider (who is so estranged from things military he doesn't even know how to salute properly) for the highest office in the land, then... military experience is irrelevant (admittedly, knowing how to salute is also irrelevant, just useful if you're going to be patronizing to the people who provide your side-boy details). This was the meme for President Bush the Elder and Senator Bob Dole when they were running against President Clinton.

Scenario 2: If a National Guard fighter pilot is running against a Vietnam veteran who served less than 6 months in-country as a low-ranking military journalist... then being in Vietnam as a low ranking journalist trumps flying fighters (in a unit which never deployed because it was tasked with the air defense of the continental US) because being a junior troop with no real combat experience, but time in-country, clearly trumps flying fighters as a qualification for directing the military strategy of the United States. This would be the meme for President Bush the Younger versus Senator Al Gore.

Scenario 3: When you find yourself with a genuine combat-experienced candidate with Purple Hearts and a Silver Star (even if he did heave 'em (well someone else's, actually) over the fence to return them to the war mongers in the Pentagon) who served in-country, shot and got shot at, all as a very junior officer, and then fled for an Admiral's staff when he got the chance, then flying fighters on the Gulf Coast is not only puerile, it is actually virtual cowardice and grounds for the epithet "chickenhawk" when that Republican has ordered troops into harm's way. This would be the meme for Senator Kerry running against President Bush the Younger.

Now comes Scenario #4: Combat-experienced Naval Aviator and Prisoner-of-War and retired naval officer Senator John McCain against zero-military-experience (and not much legislative experience, and zero executive experience) Senator Barack Obama (treated here as the nominee-presumptive, which may not happen, admittedly - though it's the most likely outcome at the time of this writing).

But wait! There's more! Senator McCain is the son and grandson of Admirals. And, unlike *any* candidate of recent memory, his children are not only of the right age to serve... one is actually *serving* and has served, actively, in the on-going war, and another is on the verge of entering the arena. So now what's the meme - when the war is the second-most important topic before the electorate (the economy appears as number one) - well, now, let's try a whole new tack.

Senator McCain has too *much* experience, and it is also of the wrong type - i.e., being locked up and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton saved Senator McCain from properly experiencing the trauma of fighting in jungles against enemies unseen.

And if you aren't falling asleep yet - click the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry to catch the rest of this rant.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

For an example of "too much" experience, we point you to Senator Tom Harkin, of Iowa, as related by Jane Norman in the Des Moines Register:

Washington, D.C. — Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.
"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

Heh. So, now I as the son and grandson of soldiers, must be unqualified (hey, I am, but not for that reason) as well. In fact, the entire "military aristocracy" is tainted. As is, I would assume, any career warrior, being "steeped" in it after all. Clearly, Senator Harkin believes that draftee or one-term service as junior enlisted or officer is a clear trump when it comes to directing the national strategy of the United States. And if that's true, well then, absolutely zero experience is probably astoundingly way good, no? Good thing, since that is Senator Obama's qual. Which Senator Hagel actually reflects upon:

He said that "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military" and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well.
"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

Full disclosure, Senator Harkin was a naval pilot in during the Vietnam era, but never saw combat. He's disqualified from Presidential aspirations by virtue of Scenarios 2&3, even though he would qualify under Scenario 4. Which Scenario takes precedent, I wonder? Oh, no I don't. Whichever is expedient.

As for the wrong kind of experience - the NYT's article on Senator McCain has this discussion of fellow Senate combat vets feelings about Senator McCain:

There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

He's experienced, yes, but it's not the right kind of experience. Not like piloting a Swift boat up the river into the heart of darkness, or writing stories about it. No, it's just not the right kind of experience, nope. Better a complete novice.

Senator Harkin isn't wrong, really. President Franklin Roosevelt had no direct military experience, but was a wartime Undersecretary of the Navy. He did okay on the issue of directing the strategy of the United States during WWII. Now, he may not have done quite so good, given his complete suckerage by Marshal Stalin, when it came to setting up the postwar strategy - but, in the event, that got left to President Truman, anyway. The point is the choice for President is a "whole person" choice.

What's funny now is you have Dems saying that you must have the right kind of military service (defined as expedience demands) and you can't have too much experience, because clearly, that blinkers you. Gee, I wonder how Senator Harkin will spin it should the Democrats ever nominate General Clark? Clearly - the man is too qualified and too military to be Commander-in-Chief, that takes a tyro. Bummer, POD.

Before I leave this topic - let me leave you this bit of over-the-top badinage from Senator Hagel, again from the NYT's article by Matt Bai

In a new book, Hagel, who voiced deep concerns about Iraq even as he voted for the war resolution in 2002, predicts that the war will turn out to be “the most dangerous and costly foreign-policy debacle in our nation’s history.”

Huh. And here I thought that honor went to President Wilson (a Democrat), who got his panties in a twist and walked away from the WWI peace process, helping set up... World War Two, which I rather think, thus far at least, somewhat trumps our troubles in Iraq.

Heh. They should boil it down the basics, and save themselves the tortured logic. As far as a Democrat is concerned, there simply is no way a Republican could possibly be qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Better a complete novice with no experience whatsoever than a Republican of any stripe.

Hell, at least that would be honest. And consistent.

Heh. I got bit by Gollum's "verbose" bug...

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I often lay awake at night hoping that in the morning I'll find out that this has all been a very bad dream.

But when dawn comes, I learn that we're one day deeper into an Orwellian nightmare.

by fdcol63 on May 21, 2008 7:07 AM

"In a new book" is the trigger. Every time i hear "book" I know the author is trying to popularise it and I instantly know from left or right up or down the vast majority of what they are saying fits into the category of advertising.

In other words The Art of Mancow Excrement. especially since most of these books are rubbish.

The other thing you talk about is expedience in politics. Politics involves spin which is all about expedience. Notice each candidate and their supporters try to emphasise their "credentials" while degrading the "credentials" on their opponent. Which is pretty much what you talk about and indeed what you are doing in this post.

It's rather more likely IMO that the democrats would work to devalue the importance of military service altogether here even as the GOP tries to beat it's drum as much as possible. The details of such service as you present it are prolly a secondary concern in this election because Obama is a nil there.

There is something to be said about too much of anything can be bad and it is true McCain is steeped head to toe in military. It may be a bad thing but there's also a lot to be said about the disaster possible from lack of experience which Obama is iconic for in the military and elsewhere. It's also more than possible Obama shares a too much problem. Dare I say too much listening to disgusting pastors. Many people have a too much problem of some sort. I know I do.

The presidential role is about experienced leadership to me more than the "too much of" problem. If these were the only issues and I voted McCain would get it every time. Experience is a McCain strong point IMO and it will be one the GOP will underline and the democrats devalue.

by Argent on May 21, 2008 7:34 AM

Echoing Argent on the Obama "too much" scale, how about Obama has apparently spent too much time imbibing propaganda from the Socialists and it has inundated his campaign with socialist phrases and near on communist/socialist artistry.

Have you seen these posters?

I get this really creepy feeling when I look at them like something isn't quite right.

by kat-missouri on May 21, 2008 7:54 AM

Argent, in reading your comment I come away with the following. Please let me know if I have misunderstood:

"Too much" listening to a racist, anti-American pastor (for 20 years, and apparently without saying a word in protest!) is just like "too much" time spent in the military serving your country.

You didn't just say that. Surely! I honestly thought you'd gotten past your reflexively anti-military bias.

And McCain has spent the last 26 years in the U.S. Senate. If he's steeped too much in anything, surely it's the Senate/Washington mindset.

I've spent the last two days trying to figure out how in the world a career in the military makes him a suspect leader by default.

by FbL on May 21, 2008 8:02 AM

That is so icky. It's got the strongperson stance, the rising sun and the kind of text one would see on an old 70s record.

by Argent on May 21, 2008 8:06 AM

FbL:

I was mainly talking about the too much of anything can be bad for you concept. From sugar to exercise to booze to cleaning the car.

In the case of giving the McCain example and the Obama example I was hinting that Obama's too much was in a worse area. Like too much hmm apples compared to too much Ratsack. Both may be bad but one is worse than the other.

The other hint was I think Obama has too little in the area of military involvement. Too little can be as bad as too much. After all being President includes a very major role in a very major power which is the US military.

Maybe my hints don't work real well come to think of it but you know i am in an audience here where many view me with suspicion and sometimes hostility so i *try* to tread with some care. Removing the embedded teeth takes time you know. Ry's prolly got a fine collection by now.

Yes I guess the political steepage could have more potential to be bad but i was going with the words of Harkin focusing on military to deactivate this speakers opinions directly.

As for military leadership I think McCain has the strength. I'll admit there can be weaknesses, any military guy involved in leadership could discuss them but it's all nitpicking. Necessary nitpicking but still. But McCain has shown experience in direct and deliberate leadership as well as the opposite of following (following teaches another aspect of leading) because of the military. He has a lot via his politics and family as well and who knows what other areas. Claiming he's no good at leadership is pointless imo and is really unlikely to work in the general US population.

by Argent on May 21, 2008 8:57 AM

Thanks, Argent. I was hoping I'd misunderstood--which is why I asked. My apologies if I was a little prickly about it. As you can imagine, Harkin's comments (and the ideas behind them) set off a lot of people 'round here.

by FbL on May 21, 2008 10:00 AM

Actually, Argent, had you been a reader around here during the last election cycle, you'd know that I'm not one to make the claim that "superior" military credentials are needful in a President. Especially credentials earned as a junior member of the enterprise.

Just as I don't believe you have to be fighting in or subject to fighting in, or have fought in, a war to have a valid opinion on the subject of going to war. I got really bemused by the people who said that if I personally wasn't fighting, or going to fight - even if I spent decades in uniform, then I could not legitimately have an opinion in favor of the war, because I was, by their reckoning, a chickenhawk. Of course, *anyone* can have an opinion, informed or uninformed *against* the war, and that was a principled stand. Heh.

I wasn't really attacking Senator Obama's credential in this piece - I was dissecting how the Dems try to frame the issue.

Me, a President needs to be a Leader (which skillset Senator Obama does seem to possess), and a firm decision-maker (vice the ditherer that President Carter was, for example), and, most importantly, a good judge of people, so that they surround themselves with good people who will offer good advice - and then they can choose which advice to take.

If I fault President Bush on anything, it is that he hasn't done as a good a job of choosing people, and his subsequent unwavering loyalty to them gets in the way of good governance.

From my perspective, Senator Obama is somewhat of a tabula rasa on his ability to choose good people, and the people he associates with... well, let's just say hangin' with Wright, Ayers, and Dohrn are not confidence builders for me, especially when trying to overcome a policy disagreement. Of course, Senator Obama is probably aware that pulling me into his orbit is most likely more trouble than it's worth.

Given that I live in despair of a government owned by a single party, I'd be likely voting Republican for President as long as they weren't nominating felons and drooling idiots.

[Don't go there, chuckleheads!]

by John of Argghhh! on May 21, 2008 1:23 PM

Its a common leftist mental condition known as FOS.

We're just getting over a bout of it here and its seen the ruling socialist drop to 20% in the polls.

Election in November.

Mmmmm freedom....

by Murray on May 21, 2008 4:30 PM

FbL : No problem and while Harkin doesn't make me prickly I found his words irritating enough to try and dismiss them.

John: Yes i know and I agree too about Presidents and military credentials but I do think some military experience is rather useful given the Presidential role in the military and their use of the military on the behalf of the US. I also think business, civilian and family experience is useful. How many pollies have any clue what being a civilian Joe is like?

I know you were pointing out the Democrat spin and I am agreeing and pointing out the GOP also does it. In fact every political party i have ever seen does it. Not that i approve, but they are political realities.

In terms of Bush, i think it's likely he learnt very clearly the lessons of political survival and I really think the man is a political animal in that sense. I think this is why you see his issues with surrounding himself with good people.

Bush is one for firm decisions, I think everyone can agree on that. The leadership of course is going to be argued about even on the GOP side.

Obama has so far surrounded himself with people i wouldn't spend much time with. I don't know about McCain but at least his wife knows what she's talking about.

In Australian politics two scenarios of domination seem to yield bad results. One is the numerical superiority in the houses of Parliament such that they can pass any (constitutional) bill. This was our conservative Howard's last term who was recently booted out for pushing it too far.

The other is having federal and the states all the same political party. Which is what Rudd, the replacement to Howard, has right now. Hence we'll see state-federal political idiocy instead. Joy. Mind you I think many of the state guys here are on wobbly ground now.

by Argent on May 22, 2008 6:39 AM

Sorry to have missed the party, but I think John is reading from the wrong book if he really thinks that's what the "Dem bible" says.

Scenario 1 - ha ha. He said "draft-avoider." Hmmm that would describe about 90 percent of the Bush administration senior officials. Yep, being a junior officer in World War II certainly makes you more cognizant of national security matters.

[Hey, I've been saying that all the time, too - be fair!]

Scenario 2 - And speaking of "draft-avoiding"... nothing like being in the National Guard during the 1970s to avoid service in a war zone, huh? at least Al Gore was in-country.

[The problem with this formulation is that you paint every.soldier.and.airman in the Guard as an avoider... and if you ask any jet jock, flying jets is neither easy, nor without it's danger - and the F102 wasn't a friendly airplane, either.]

Scenario 3 - Yep you summed that one up right. And you know what the ultimate virtual cowardice and chickenhawk action is? For a bunch of pasty, fat old civilians to mock a man who was in combat by wearing "purple heart" Band-Aids at a political convention.

[I agree about the band-aids, btw. Even if some of the wearers may have had their own Purple Heart or two.]

Scenario 4 - certainly McCain is an honorable man and has insights on tactical and operational warfare. It's a shame that he lacks any record of doing the right thing in as far as protecting the troops from strategic errors in the Middle East.

Bottom line - military "experience" is always good to get an endorsement from the VFW and a few voters out there. It's no replacement for clear vision, advisors looking at the strategic issues, and certainly neither the Repubs nor Dems have a lock on "service" to the nation.

[Um, isn't that what I said?]

by Jason on May 22, 2008 2:56 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on May 21, 2008

Peggy Noonan today.

From the WSJ:

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers.
All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . . Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what is he gonna do?"

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

Heh. The President didn't squander the "hard-built paternity" of the last 40 years. The party just got complacent and lost their compass. They fell in love with the job, and failed to understand - it isn't *supposed* to be a job. It's a privilege, not an entitlement. Just as the Dems did when they got booted in the 90's. Just like Jim Ryun did when he got booted in 2006.

"We can't let them take our issues" (not quoting Peggy, just the person she's quoting) - well, *if* they'll vote the way we want on those issues, as Nancy Boyda has on many, but certainly not all, of mine - then, what's so bad about that? I thought getting the *issue* dealt with was the goal.

Silly me.

The Republicans have earned what they're about to receive.

But the reality is - it's about the judges. That's where the battles are lost and won, mostly, anymore - since the Congress has floundered from the intent of the Founders, meekly surrendering their authority to the Executive and the Judicial branches, in exchange for electoral butt-coverage to keep jobs that were never intended to be a living, and We, the People, let them get away with it... and the Progressives, seeing that they can't convince the great unwashed on the issues, but *can* seduce the Judiciary to advance their agenda... Mind you, I don't mind it when the Judges protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority - but I wish they'd be a lot less prescriptive at times, and just send the issues back to the legislatures for the answer - as I believe the Founders intended.

So, clothes-pin on my nose or not, especially since I think the Republicans are in serious danger of getting attrited in the Senate to the point of not being able to filibuster, it looks like the only place I can work to keep government checked is by voting for McCain.

Heh. The only thing more dangerous to liberty and prosperity than a veto/filibuster-proof Congress controlled by Republicans with a Republican President... is the Democrat-controlled equivalent.

But wait! When *Our Side* (whatever your side is) has total control, then we'll build Paradise!

No. Not true. What would happen is you would all be on the Bullet Train to Abilene.

And that is a recipe for disaster.

Governance, given it's power, should be hard, hard, work in infertile fields.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Well said wise one.

by JimC on May 16, 2008 10:44 AM

Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. Become a non-hiearchical, entrepreneurial, distributed swarm of attacking Irregular Culture Warriors, making life miserable for Cultural Marxists, and multi-culti carbon dispensationalist tranzies while providing aid and comfort to American Exceptionalists, rugged individualists, Constitutionalists, and the rest of the bitter clingers who have turned their backs on the Republican party but yet cannot abide what the Democrat Party has become.

Don’t vote for incumbents. Period.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 10:55 AM

Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. Become a non-hiearchical, entrepreneurial, distributed swarm of attacking Irregular Culture Warriors, making life miserable for Cultural Marxists, and multi-culti carbon dispensationalist tranzies while providing aid and comfort to American Exceptionalists, rugged individualists, Constitutionalists, and the rest of the bitter clingers who have turned their backs on the Republican party but yet cannot abide what the Democrat Party has become.

Don’t vote for incumbents. Period.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 11:01 AM

But my very favorite incumbent is a rugged Constitutionalist!

And she's *cute*...

Wish she was running for Mayor instead of Town Council.

by BillT on May 16, 2008 11:02 AM

"and Jesus said, 'will you leave me also." Simon Peter said, 'Lord, where shall we go? You alone have words of life."

The Republican Party has lost its center. When given the opportunity to cling to words of life, we chose to leave, because it was too hard and too unpopular to stay and fight. We won't win another election in the next 20 years - Democrats will simply lose them. We have gone from victories being won on executable platforms to the nation growing tired of the incumbent and giving the other guys a turn. Not very encouraging. ML by Mike Lehnherr on May 16, 2008 11:03 AM

Yesterday, the House passed new GI Bill legislation that was supported by virtually every Veterans organization in the country.

Nancy Boyda, John's Rep (ACU rating 28.00), voted Yea

Mike Pence, my Rep(ACU rating 99.43) voted Nay

I wonder if Kansas would be interested in trading Rep Boyda for Rep Pence....and a Vice Presidential Candidate to be named later?

What frosts me is that I sat across the breakfast table on 1 April when Rep Pence promised his support........and I paid for the freaking breakfast......oh well, so much for my career as a lobyist.

by R Jewell on May 16, 2008 12:53 PM

Well, if Nancy wins the district this time around (I don't see Ryun unseating her, thus far) with more than 1% of margin, we'll see if she holds true to her record thus far.

by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 2:56 PM

This is why I'd dearly love the following Constitutional Amendment:

"No member of the Federal Government, except the President and Vice-President, shall serve two consequitive terms in the same office. This Amendment places no further restrictions on term of service."

If someone's good enough they'll get the job back when the person who replaced them's term expires.

by KCSteve on May 16, 2008 3:09 PM

" ... Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. ..."

Do you know what happens when you do this?

You just get a bunch of smaller, single issue and special interest groups and their candidates - or really, just more and smaller parties narrowly focused on specific interests and issues. And with these multiple, smaller parties without the clout of larger national party organizations, you wind up with the need to build coalitions to gain majorities to pass or block legislation. These multiparty & coalition governments are inherently weak and unstable, especially where you have proportional representation electoral systems. We know this from watching multiparty, coalition governments in Europe like Italy, Belgium, Finald, France, and others.

I think our system has proved to be much more stable. We may grumble from time to time when we don't feel that either of the 2 national parties is really representing our interests, but basically the political pendulum stays somewhere in the middle because of the greater numbers of people who are more "moderate" and "independent", and cross over to vote for the other national party in major elections whenever the other party pulls too far to one side.

However, these people in the middle are usually less politically active than the more partisan ideologues on either side, usually fat and happy and not interested in being active in political issues. This is why, IMHO, the concept of a strong 3rd party composed of these voters is doomed from the start.

We usually only see a strong 3rd party when we see a major realignment, as we did when the Whigs died out and was supplanted by the Republican Party. These are usually temporary, thank goodness.

Why? Because as we see each time we have a strong 3rd party candidate, as in 1992 with Perot and with Nader in 2000, the vote of the electorate usually gets divided so much that no candidate gets a simple majority of the vote. Without this simple majority, there isn't a "national consensus", and these candidates usually wind up being very weak and ineffective.

This may be okay in some instances, under the philosophy that a weak leader or government can't intrude too much, but at other times it can render a them too weak to do what's necessary when crises occur or when legislation and action is sorely needed.

It may be time to have a realignment, but we are better with 2 strong national parties. In a country of 300 million with such a diverse and varied electorate, it's really the only way to aggregate, assimilate, and articulate the interests of this large polity. No single party or coalition is going to satisfy each of the interests and goals of an individual, and there will be times when we find ourselves in conflict with specific items in a party platform.

But by and large, I think most of us find that we identify and associate ourselves with the core ideology of one party or the other. Oh sure, there are exceptions to every rule, and some people are more neutral than others. But I think most of us either believe in Big Governnment or Individual Responsibility; Capitalism or Socialism; American Exceptionalism or We're Just Another Country; American Sovereignty/Military Strength or Subjugation to the UN Now!; America is generally a force for good or America is the root of the world's problems; etc etc.

Personally, I think this is because of "Right Brain vs Left Brain" dominance in thought processing, which I think heavily influences our core political beliefs, and the fact that these 2 national parties mirror and oppose each other on most of these major issues, although because of the need to compromise there's often very little daylight between the actual policies that are implemented.

Overall, even though it's imperfect and there's always room for improvement, I think our system has served us well for more than 200 years.

by fdcol63 on May 16, 2008 3:22 PM

Which is why I don't vote the 3rd Party candidate, despite the carp I get from my old buddy Kevin, the Libertarian.

by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 3:27 PM

Bring back Bobby Walpole!

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on May 16, 2008 4:16 PM

"...bullet train to Abilene."
John, I've been trying to explain the bus to people for years and have not been able to find those darn videos anywhere. Any suggestions?

Hunter

by Hunter on May 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Collectivism, Cultural Marxism, Transnational Progressivism, Post-Modernism, and Radical Environmentalism are welcomed much more warmly in one major party than in the other. The same could once be said for Patriotism, Constitutionalism, Federalism and Capitalism. One party has many members who believe that OUR country is a force for good in the world, and is worth defending, and honors our defenders. These members are kept on the plantation through fear of the party that has many members who believe that OUR country is the focus of evil in the modern world, that we deserve it when OUR cities are attacked and OUR countrymen are killed, and support our troops when they shoot their officers.

Vote for whoever scares you least, or brings you the most bacon, or hands out free cigarettes, or drives you to the polls, or whatever your personal criteria is. Your vote is less important than your money, time and commitment, which I would encourage you to be very stingy with, unless they EARN it.

I used to be a conservative. I consider myself Patriotic. I believe in American Exceptionalism. I think Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism and White Liberal Guilt and Postmodernism and Transnational Progressivism and Anthropomorphic Global Warming are all Bravo Sierra. That makes me an enemy of the Left.

Conservatives fight political warfare like the Maginot Line fought panzers. Conservatives think they've succeeded when they slow the rate of descent in the downward spiral but they rarely climb. Somebody has to fight the Culture War and the Cold Civil War.

Instead of being unenthusiastic, grudging, blackmailed supporters of lesser evils, why not work on becoming Strategic Citizens?

What we are talking about is creating a movement in which people are inspired by the ideals and a vision of the American Experiment to take action on their own, independent of any centralized control and guided by their ideals and values. The specific kinds of non-violent action available to us are many and varied. Any type of media, technology, activism, rhetorical technique and organizational form is there in the tool box. What I would like to see is a proliferation of dozens perhaps hundreds of organizations all promoting pro-liberty, pro-American ideals and working to counter the postmodernist left and Islamic fundamentalism.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 6:01 PM

"They fell in love with the job, and failed to understand - it isn't *supposed* to be a job."

A mission for a while, and then go home?

That much Noonan was right about. They never go home. The fat is too thick.

Almost never. Zell Miller did.

by Grim on May 17, 2008 5:07 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on May 16, 2008

Obama: I Have A Question...

[Kat]

Who is Obama running against? John McCain or President Bush.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

"Who is Obama running against? John McCain or President Bush?"

What, there's a difference?

by Jason on May 16, 2008 8:24 AM

Yep. One can't speak and the other one stutters.

then there's the "The Trinity": Obama, son and holy Ghost

by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 9:18 AM

Jason, Jason, Jason. President Bush clearly has better hair.

by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 9:37 AM

I was really peeved. It was a really good speech and all this a$$hattery by Kerry & Biden (two completely irrelevant people) being all offended on Barry's behalf has taken away from that. The statement was delivered to thunderous applause and echoes similar statements "W" has made in the past. This has been "W"s line since before Barry was a Senator, much less a Presidential candidate.

All this nonsense takes away from the speech as a whole and I liked the next paragraph even better.

The President of the United States went to Israel and stated what is America's long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorist and standing with Israel. Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach!

The President did not go to Israel to thwart you. Sorry, Barry........you are not that important. Note to Barry - when Princess Crabby thinks your ego is out of control, you've got a problem. I know all those people were fainting at your rallies.....but "W" wasn't one of them.

Once again....Gore/Bush.....Kerry/Bush.....no question.

Disclaimer - Princess Crabby, while not always happy with "W", is solidly in the 30% approval group.

by Maggie on May 16, 2008 10:59 AM

Surely the question is rhetorical; it's been obvious for at least a month that the Dems will paint McCain as "Bush II," thereby eliminating their responsibility to put forth a concrete program.

by Casey Tompkins on May 16, 2008 12:31 PM

Jason just likes showing up here to toss the occasional stink bomb to keep us interested.

I like the fact that he's comfortable enough here to venture into enemy territory to tug on my beard...

by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 2:58 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Kat on May 16, 2008

Heh. Keep this in mind as you watch the political ads this silly season.

See how many of them (from both sides) follow this recipe:

1. Simplify: Reduce all to a confrontation between Good and Evil.
2. Smear the opposition.

3. Manipulate the central values of the target audience to one's own purpose.

4. Use star performers to present one's views as the right thinking.

5. Repeat - endlessly repeat - the same message in different variations.

Mind you, as Don Marquis noted, "An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it." but it's instructive nonetheless. So, go off snipe-hunting and figure out who gets credit for that recipe.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on May 08, 2008

The Current Dem attack ad on McCain.

Running here and there, and on the Democratic Party website, as a fundraiser. Typical soundbite sniping, as practiced by both parties.

Expose the Real McCain
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his lobbyist-ran campaign has and will continue to viciously attack anyone who remind the American people.

We know it -- we have it on tape to prove it -- and with your help, the American people will know it as well with our latest ad on John McCain and Iraq.

Spread the word and contribute today:

Heh. The Democrats don't pander to lobbyists, nope. Snerk. Of course, my guys aren't lobbyists, your's are! Mine are just, um, well-intentioned people with agendas who funnel me information and, um, money. On to the ad:

Narrator: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.
Video of Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Text in the ad: 100 years.

Video of McCain: "That'd be fine with me."

Immediately cut to carefully edited footage of two US soldiers ducking when an IED goes off right next to them (no bodies or gore).

Then snippets of video of lots of screaming people at bombing aftermaths with text that says:

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

In case you'd not quite gotten the point, the narrator says:

"President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.

Cut back to Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Narrator: "If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future? The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Heh. The ad is mostly red meat for the already decided, to make them feel good about making sure they get to their max limits on giving. It's not really aimed at thinking people who are undecided. Unthinking people... well, hey, if they'll send checks!

Well, gosh, let's have some more of that... Lessee...

How about an ad that ran (using 2002 adjusted dollars (except for Gulf War II) and US casualty figures, both sourced from DoD):

WWI... Led into war by Democrat Woodrow Wilson
"6 years"

"564 Billion spent"

"Over 116,000 dead"

Um, but that led to...

WWII... led into war by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt

"67 years... and counting."

"4.6 Trillion spent."

"Over 405,000 dead"

Korea... led into war by Democrat Harry S. Truman

"58 years... and counting."

"391 Billion spent"

"Over 36,000 dead."

Vietnam war... led into war by Democrat John F. Kennedy.

"9 years, and we walked away from an ally."

"840 Billion spent."

"Over 58,000 dead."

Gulf War I... led into war by Republican George H. W. Bush

"12 years"

"9 Billion spent (after Allied reimbursements)"

"Over 300 dead."

Gulf War II... Led into war by Republican George W. Bush

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

Narrator:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

"Based on this performance, are Democrats the right choice for America?"

The Armorer of Argghhh! is responsible for the content of the political ad parody. ©April 2008 by Castle Argghhh LLC.

Of course there's a whole host of false parallelism in there. And who knows how those cost numbers were calculated. And a complete absence of context. But we never let that get in the way of politics, now do we?

The Republican Party may purchase the rights to this idea... for enough money for me to buy out the guy next door. But I bet they just steal it. H/t to Princess Crabby for bringing the subject up.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Please tag this article so it can be filed under "Why Princess Crabby loves the Armorer".

by Princess Crabby on April 30, 2008 9:16 AM

Well, Maggie - at least *you* liked it!

by John of Argghhh! on April 30, 2008 3:26 PM

We know that this was meant in good-natured humor, but

in the interests of giving credit where credit is due, we think it important to mention the importance of the role that Eisenhower, a Republican, played in involving the USA in Vietnam. In an effort to provide fodder for the discussion we expect to ensue, we offer the following:

Selected excerpts from the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] article on the Vietnam War

"In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war. […]"

+ + +

"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil."

+ + +

"The Republic of Vietnam was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region."

+ + +

"In May [1955], Diem undertook a ten-day state visit to the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor. Although Diem was openly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that he had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Had we had ready access to our reference materials (which, alas, we did not think to bring to the office with us today), we might have been able to provide additional points to contribute to the debate.

by Ministry of Talking Truth to Power on May 1, 2008 12:22 PM

However, Johnson ran on a 'I will not send one of our boys to spill American blood over to Vietnaaam' ticket back in 1964.

After he won on that platform, as well as his Great Society garbage, he escalated and then micromanaged the war.

Outstanding, John.

by Cricket on May 1, 2008 1:08 PM

Mark - I said it was going to be as accurate as any political attack ad.

I ignored Nixon for Vietnam and Eisenhower for Korea, though if I had chosen to add them, I would have mentioned they technincally ended the wars in question.

I didn't mention the Republican Presidents and Congresses which have supported maintenance of troops in Europe and Asia (since the point of the piece was ignoring the context of McCain's meaning regarding 100 years).

And I didn't even *try* to separate out the dollars in that respect. Any more than the Democrat's ad does.

I ignored the Balkans and all the small stuff like Grenada and Panama.

But I still say that the ad works in the context I intended it - as a parody of the Democrat ad.

Further edits and "truthing" notwithstanding.

That being the whole point.

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

Okie doke. Fair enough.

by MOTTTP on May 1, 2008 2:36 PM

Hey, *both* parties rely on blind faith, ignorance of recent and not-so-recent history, and apathy to make it work. I at least said my ad was bad up front, well, more accurately, at the end. Be a hoot if we could make them do that kind of disclaimer...

"We know you're too ignorant of the details and too lazy to check the facts, so we think this ad is good enough for getting government work." or something to that effect.

If their ads suck... it's our fault.

That and the system of education we've constructed.

If constructed is quite the right word.

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 2:45 PM

Those cold hard equations are going to give you a gal stone, John.

by Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Nah, I've got plenty of gall left...!

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM

Cassandra likes this too.

Personally, I think it is a good attack odd.

The best defense is an excellent offense that overruns an enemy's OODA loop cycle.

When they are looking around trying to think up ways to explain why your figures are wrong, you hit them again from another side, John. Keep them guessing and expecting that axe-bat.

by Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM

I did like it! I said it was brilliant!

by Cassandra on May 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Yes, Cassie, you did. And in that phenom which is how the Blogs work... the commentary stayed at your place.

'Cuz they're your core herd, but you know me, fragile male ego and all that.

Heck, I let Kat tee me off upstream in posts today.

by John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 10:06 PM

You want to use this as a political attack ad? Come on, too easy. Here's the counter-ad: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem. (flash clip of the Argghhh! death ad) They claim it's the American way of doing business. (images of flag-draped coffins, teary-eyed widows, young kids saluting at grave-site, planes flying overhead) After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?"

This message brought to you by the Friends of Obama.

by Jason on May 2, 2008 7:22 AM

Gosh, Jason, I didn't know you had such a grasp of irony.

Jason: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem.

John:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Jason: "After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?

Flash up text: "Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Cue laugh track.

Your turn.

[Mind you, I'm not taking this seriously - but political ad makers, and politicians, do] Both of these approaches are bogus.

by John of Argghhh! on May 2, 2008 10:10 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 30, 2008

Jeremiah Wright

Much of his radical theology disgusts me, and I have a very strong intellectual disagreement with it. However, growing up a pastor's kid in a religion well-represented among both white and black communities (and more integrated than most), I understand a bit about where he's coming from--politics tends to be more overtly a part of black churches and theology than white, and there is more confidence in calling a spade a spade in the black religious tradition (church being a refuge from white control and interference going back to even the slavery days). But Jeremiah Wright is far beyond the tradition of black churches railing against injustice and pulling together to address or mitigate that injustice as much as possible.

While listening to the extended excerpts Hugh Hewitt played last week, I sat with my mouth hanging open. Literally. I had tried so hard to "understand," to consider that maybe Wright tended to get carried away to hyperbole with his emotionalism, that perhaps he spoke more metaphorically as is often the case in black churches. But there it was, staring me in the face.

I had two reactions after I was done: 1) I now "get" the Obamas. Michelle's speeches, her tone, her body language... the awkwardness of having said she'd never been proud of her country until her husband ran for president... I had never been able to form a coherent vision of her. Listening to Wright's sermons was like a final piece of the puzzle that made the picture pull into focus. And even moreso, I understood the cult of personality that Barak cultivated in his campaign. Whether she and Barak Obama believed as Wright does when they joined the church, twenty years of hearing things like I did as I listened cannot help but shape a person's intellect and attitude. 2) I need a shower; I felt like I'd had the worst kind of sludge poured over me for the last hour.

Mere transcripts do not do justice to the mood of Wright's diatribes against this country and people who don't look like him or believe like him. I was stunned and appalled. So much rage, so much carefully-considered and clearly-laid-out venom for the country he once served as a Marine and which has enabled him to retire in wealth to a gated community. Those short excerpts we heard were not moments of overwhelming emotion or ill-considered metaphors/similes/parallels. They were snippets in carefully-constructed and consciously-delivered sermons of rage, hatred, uber-left-wing politics, and a desire for the destruction of this country and anybody who didn't agree with him.

In response, I at first felt anger. But that quickly gave way to pity, and finally a sense of filthiness for continuing to listen... much as one feels if looking too closely at the car wreck as one drives by. It is appalling, and even moreso when you subsequently listen to the mild-mannered and "oh-so-reasonable" man Bill Moyers interviewed last week. I was forcibly reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think I've ever seen the two sides so starkly drawn as they are in Reverend Wright.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker comes close to summing up my opinion on this, though perhaps with a bit more resentment/offense than I had (I mostly feel pity for someone so obviously consumed with rage and the more destructive emotions of this life):

I had a busy weekend, and missed it when Hugh Hewitt posted extensive transcripts of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright on Friday evening. The transcripts are devastating to Wright. He is a despicable human being, and the fact that has been ordained, apparently, is a disgrace. Wright has been claiming that he was quoted out of context, and Barack Obama has suggested that Americans would view Wright differently if they heard his whole sermons instead of a few sound bites. In fact, the context makes it worse, and the whole sermons are outrageous. It turns out that "God damn America" understates the baroque hatefulness of Wright's theology.

Still unexplained is what Wright's political screeds have to do with Christianity. I don't know anyone who would sit still for a minister who persistently abused the pulpit to preach hate instead of the Gospel. As a Christian, I am outraged that "Reverend" Wright has hijacked my faith to preach hate and to sow falsehood. How Barack Obama could have participated in this charade for twenty years, and then held himself out as someone fit to lead this nation, is inexplicable.

Let the charges of racism begin...

[Note: if you are unfamiliar with the original definition of baroque (the one NOT referring to classical music), look it up. Hinderocker obviously chose his words very carefully here.]

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I have no problem with the good Reverend! I watched some parts on TV, yesterday and today and some snippets on YouTube. I think he's hilarious! Plus it's interesting to see him on Bill Moyers as opposed to the NAACP sermon (come on, it was a sermon!). The Press Club appearance was good theater.

But then again I am completely self-centered and focus only on how this benefits my Bad Boyfriend.

by Maggie on April 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Maggie,

*snort*

by FbL on April 28, 2008 11:52 AM

I never thought I'd be thankful for Billary. If she folded after the initial Barrack tidal wave, we wouldn't have had the pleasure of all the little missteps and gaffs produced by all those Dems, not least of which is Barack himself. Maggie's heart throb actually has a legitimate chance. He may not fit all my ideas for a President but he beats the hell out of the competition.

This is sure getting old though. Can't we just vote now and get it over with? Then Fox News can go back to covering Peterson or Aruba or other some such or whether Victoria Secret is changing their product line. For that I'll tune in.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 12:37 PM

This is really getting wild. The implications are not good. As pointed out somewhere (I can't remember where I read it), the ridiculous things Wright said about racial "differences" in his speech to the NAACP this weekend will be used by other racists... and they won't always be black, but they'll have cover to air their anti-black racism using Wright's own words. Ugly, ugly.

by FbL on April 28, 2008 1:01 PM

To true Fbl.

All those antics professed by so many unfortunates over the years are now given legitamacy by Rev Wrights ill informing speach. I felt good that my country matured enough to actually have an African-American candidate for the highest office. Unfortunately he's a liberal jerk. If Steele of Maryland had the nomination on the Reps side, I would deffinately vote for him.

by Fishmugger on April 28, 2008 2:00 PM

Wright is only unique due to his being the pastor of a front running Presidential candidate. He is not alone, he is just recognised. I know many Christian preacher's say things which the congregation resonates with and yet are utterly vile.

While this is probably doing damage to Obama it's likely to be empowering Wright granting him contacts, recognition and exposure which may mean Wright will outlive his church member in political influence.

by Argent on April 29, 2008 7:43 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by FbL on Apr 28, 2008

A little photo essay on protests on college campuses.

In this case, regarding recruiters on campus. I think it speaks for itself.

Anti-anti-recruiter protest.

Perhaps not eloquently, but certainly gets the point across.

If you'd like a larger version to share, we can oblige.

Click here.

Heh. Dude. Recruiting is *not* militarism per se, though it can be a component. Yer english skillz are weak - but you're probably a marketing major or something, right?

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

... you're probably a marketing major or something, right?

With a sign like that? LOL Probably more like an "Alternative Lifestyle/Pan-Gender Studies" major.

by fdcol63 on April 25, 2008 10:45 AM

Gandalf and Barnacle would be offended to be likened to a character like him.

by Boquisucio on April 25, 2008 10:48 AM

The Beast saw this via Jonah Goldberg's link in NRO's The Corner. Absolutely hilarious! Hopefully the brothers at his frat will buy that kid a few extra beers this weekend - he deserves it.

The pic is also timely - on the Beast's home blog there has been a debate about whether Conservatives can be funny. The Libs maintain that only left-wingers are adept at humor and they cite the usual suspects: Colbert, Stewart ad nauseam. Of course they ignore clinkers like Comedy Central's "Little Bush" and "That's My Bush". This kid shows we can be funny and the Beast thanks you for putting the picture up. He has linked to you here.

by The Hairy Beast on April 25, 2008 10:55 AM

Hey! I want a laugh, too, but your site doesn't work with the latest Opera beta - not a single picture shows up anywhere... Had to make do with Safari...

Ok, the picture was worth it, but still...

Best from Germany,
- DHH

by DHH on April 25, 2008 11:19 AM

If you want Conservative humor, just start reading anything by Mark Steyn. Even America Alone has humor in it. He's really quite adept at skewering the morons on the Left. Actually, he's not afraid of taking on the idiots on the Right, either!

by NukemHill on April 25, 2008 11:32 AM

They all look like geeks. Did the Computer Science program have a recess or something?

by Clark Mountain on April 25, 2008 11:39 AM

The Libs maintain that only left-wingers are adept at humor...

Wellll, considering that they think SNL has been *funny* ever since PJ O'Rourke left...

by BillT on April 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Bill, you meant National Lampoon, right?

Agreed, despite the fact that O'Rourque's Conservatism has had its ups and downs over the years, he's still funny and NatLamp isn't.

Let us not forget the late Doug Kenney, who would probably have become a Conservative too had he not pitched off that cliff in Kauai.

Wikipedia: "About Kenney's death, Harold Ramis famously quipped "Doug probably fell while he was looking for a place to jump.""

by The Hairy Beast on April 25, 2008 11:59 AM

Maybe they teach new spelling at colleges these days, but "terrorism" only has 3 "r"s. I'm surprised there's no Mercedes Benz peace symbol on his sign too.

by POTUS on April 25, 2008 12:18 PM

Gunner! Heat, troops in the open! Right Troop!
FIRE!!! On the Way!!! Target, cease fire.

by TankCdr on April 25, 2008 1:10 PM

Beast -- Actually, I meant Michael O'Donoghue.

Things got a bit lively earlier and I get lysdexic when I'm multitasking...

by BillT on April 25, 2008 3:23 PM

Is that Adam Gadahn holding the yellow poster?

by bigjim-ky on April 25, 2008 4:20 PM

DHH - thanks for the note about Opera. We're doing a site makeover, I'll make sure to test it in that browser.

by John of Argghhh! on April 25, 2008 6:19 PM

Speaking as somone who was recruited from a collage campus I can honestly sat that I am happy to be in a place that is largely fri signed up, free of such clueless moonbats. I am damn glad that I joined up. I have four weeks of AIT left here at Fort Sill, and that one week in reception and ten weeks of BCT here. For John I will add that my MOS is 13D, AFATDS operator maintainer for the job title, but that leaves out the fact that first two weeks is spent on old fashioned manual gunnery straight from the 6-40.

by PFC Christopher Denny on April 26, 2008 9:08 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 25, 2008

Candygram for Hugo! Candygram for Hugo!

Navy Re-Establishes U.S. Fourth Fleet

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced today the re-establishment of the U.S. Fourth Fleet and assigned Rear Adm. Joseph D. Kernan, currently serving as commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, as its new commander. Fourth Fleet will be responsible for U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

U.S. Fourth Fleet will be dual-hatted with the existing commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command (NAVSO), currently located in Mayport, Fla. U.S. Fourth Fleet has been re-established to address the increased role of maritime forces in the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of operations, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to regional partners.

"Re-establishing the Fourth Fleet recognizes the immense importance of maritime security in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere, and signals our support and interest in the civil and military maritime services in Central and South America," said Roughead. "Our maritime strategy raises the importance of working with international partners as the basis for global maritime security. This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests. "

Effective July 1, the command will have operational responsibility for U.S. Navy assets assigned from east and west coast fleets to operate in the SOUTHCOM area. As a result, U.S. Fourth Fleet will not involve an increase in forces assigned in Mayport, Fla. These assets will conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narcoterrorism, and theater security cooperation (TSC) activities. TSC includes military-to-military interaction and bilateral training opportunities as well as humanitarian assistance and in-country partnerships.

U.S. Fourth Fleet will retain responsibility as NAVSO, the Navy component command for SOUTHCOM. Its mission is to direct U.S. naval forces operating in the Caribbean, and Central and South American regions and interact with partner nation navies to shape the maritime environment.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Okay, who's making book on how long it takes before someone like COde Pink or World Socialist Workers call this a provactive action and intimidation of Brother Hugo?

I like it. If only we had the hulls to go around(LCS is not the low-end vessel we need for this!).

by ry on April 24, 2008 2:13 PM

Dude. You beat me to it. I expect an announcement from Hugo tomorrow at the latest. He already made some noise the last time they announced they were considering it, calling it a build up to an act of war or some such nonsense (though I am sure he and his Bolivian pal are some of the reasons why).

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 2:46 PM

My Gary! Was he a good pick or what?!

BZ, baby!

by Maggie on April 24, 2008 4:27 PM

John, I hope you'll forgive a "brain-dead old vet". "Candygram?" Does "Candygram" equal something like, "Special Services?" This, of course would be special services for a special character. Good grief, to this old vet, it could send like a delivery service. I just don't want to be the addresssee. Do we know the location of their office?

Ry, seriously, our biggest need is not systems, but a NEW younger force, schooled and trained for this region alone. Take a moment and think about something. Were did many of the Nazis go after WWII? At some point, it will become more important than the Middle East.

"Candygram for Hugo, Yeah Candygram for Hugo!"

Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 24, 2008 5:36 PM

Mm, I think that might be a "Saturday Night Live" joke. One of the absurd skits they repeatedly played had an innocent doodah woman answering a knock on the door. When she asked, "Who's there?", there would be a sotto voce reply, "candygram."

Being an innocent doodah, she would open the door, to be confronted by the fearsome and ferocious Land Shark, which would then proceed to bite her lots and lots, to the tune of the theme from "Jaws."

That's one of the many (and among the least, I assure y'all) reasons why I either answer the door with one hand behind my back, or go out the back door and walk around the house.

by Justthisguy on April 24, 2008 6:59 PM

Well Sr. Sulphur Hating Hugo, will be in Moscow shortly, so as to finalize a multi-million Ruble deal with Russia's new Tzar. High-flying MIGs, Submarines and other sundries.

In addition to SOUTHCOM, that should keep someone in Bogota awake at night too.

Besos de Negra para Hugo!!!

by Boquisucio on April 24, 2008 7:41 PM

Candygram for Hugo! is a take off of the 1970's movie "Blazing Saddles". Cleavon Little's character has to figure out a way to disarm and arrest this huge character named "Mongo" who is, of course, dumber than a box of rocks.

Candygram for Mongo

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 9:28 PM

Candygram for Mongo

by kat-missouri on April 24, 2008 9:29 PM

Grumpy - what Kat said.

by John of Argghhh! on April 24, 2008 9:34 PM

Well, considering that my sister in law's maiden name is Keller, is paler than my Celtic butt, speaks fluent Portugese(hell, I speak German better than she does, and I suck), and is from waaaaaaaaay south of the border I think you're a bit off on that, Herr Grumpy. Nazis? Really.

No, having people who know the region is an outstanding idea, something ADM Starvridis has put forth in public fora before and often, but Nazis?

Given how heavily Nazis and Commies hated each other, the number of Communist gov'ts that have come and gone in LAtin America I think this is a wee bit off. Nazis?

THe whole Bolivarist set is a communism retread. It's a danger in and of itself. No need for bogeymen of yore to stir the hearts. Bolivarism plain sucks, and is a threat to all democracies in the Western hemisphere. Plain and simple. (Oh, and go Columbia! SF Gate reports FARC is on the ropes.)

But hulls matter. We've got to police the Indian Ocean off of Africa(India's not going to and it is an important water way), Malacca still is a nasty spot, Formosa, the Arabian sea, and now a force to watch the Carribean, S. Atlantic, and S. Pacific? Tryanny of distance. Being able to surge is nice, but we need hulls. There's a reason why ADM Mullen wants to get back to a 500+ Navy.

Nazis?

by ry on April 24, 2008 11:57 PM

John, I agree with your assessment. Kat is dead on with the clip, "Candygram for Mongo". Even though I would "tweak" the special effects, just a little.

Ryan, I agree, we do need hulls, 500+, OK. Now if we have the hull capacity and not the people to use them efficiently, we can not complete the mission. Regardless of POTUS. The issue is not one above the other, it is BALANCE of all three. The thing I was trying to stress is this, we need new people. We can not plan on these same people forever.

Yes, Ryan, Nazis! I am not talking of the modern world "skinheads", but of the "old world Nazis". They have individual compounds and many larger groups of compounds spread all through the Southern portion of South America. When they would build a compound, they would start with the 3 outside walls of the compound, then build the house and complete it. Then they would build the front wall of the compound.

I knew a man who lived just outside the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina in the rural section on Garribaldi Street. There has been some dispute on the occupation of the resident. I knew a man who lived a block away. Some say the individual in the block house worked for Mercedes-Benz, Others say he had a mail order business, but both groups say he was a hermit. It was rare for him to come out of his compound. He had an assumed name or alias. One day, an old Dutch woman, who had a particularly bad experience with him, saw him and and called him by name. He denied the name, but the forensics proved him wrong. This would be late 50's or 60's. When he was captured, he "sang" like a canary. The information, at this point was accurate. The one who escaped was Joseph Mengala or the "The Angel of Death", the irony, my barber and his wife were freed from him.

Back to the Dutch Woman, she walked by this one man's house on Garribaldi Street. She looked through the gate and called him by name, he denied it. She said, "I lost my Mother, Father and Sister at your hand, your name is Adolph Eichmann."

History is important. Ryan, Thanks!

Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 25, 2008 12:09 PM

I still have a problem with the NAzi issue in LatAm. 1) Weisenthal et al have been all over that place hunting for them. 2) Communists. Fascists and Communists really don't get along. 3) Unless you're saying that the gradnchildren and great grandchildren of those who fled to LatAm have been schooled in it a lot more intensly than those Southrons who still bemoan the 'War of Northern Agression' they're all 80 year old men now, if not dead.

I'm still not seeing the Nazi angle as viable. Revised communism? Si. Nazi? no.

by ry on April 25, 2008 12:47 PM

Ry, I understand the difficulty in understanding what I am saying to you. Let's go point by point, through the issues. First of all, Venezuela is not Latin American, its South American. This is not a minor issue, because Latin American rejected Nazis out right. But on the other hand, many of the South American Nations embraced them. Why? There was a brain trust and the stolen wealth and treasure. These people paid top dollar for their protection. You raise the issue of Simon Weisenthal et al. Weisenthal et al were not permitted into many South American countries, therefore the Nazis were never found. There were some very rare exceptions to the last sentence.

As you write about the age of the original Nazis, we must remember they taught their own, just like home schooling is done here. Don't forget, they were purists, they didn't want anything corrupted by any false teachings. This would include the passing on of military traditions in every thing they do.

You also talk about Communism and Facism not mixing. In a perfect world, you are most definitely right. Even in an imperfect world, you would still be right, this would still include revised communism. But the real question is this, is communism, revised or not, even on the table? Let's just say, yes. Let's, just for the sake of the discussion, let's do the same questions with Facism. According to your view, you say these two views don't get along. The real question is this, can they coexist? I believe we can look at our own history and find a workable answer. In our society we have law abiding citizens and organized crime. I agree with you, it is hard and we don't like it because of the split. The main thing is it can be done.

The last thing is this, I don't believe the Nazis are having a major impact, but I do think they are involved. About you, I don't believe there is anything I will write or say that will actually change your mind, but the reverse is equally true. I just want to say THANK YOU, for this chat.

as always, GRUMPY!

by Grumpy on April 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Eh, no problem Grumpy. I admit I don't have all the answers. I'd also say that I could be persuaded on this. I'm not a LatAm/SouAm specialist. More into Asia. I could be 100% wrong. I just dont see it.

On the manning/hulls issue: if you build it they will come. They always have. The hemmorage of hulls has created a personnel crunch. That'll be resolved(if/when) as we move upwards in numbers of major ships again.

by ry on April 26, 2008 12:44 AM

Ryan, There was an old saying or riddle, it went like this- "What is the difference between a wise man and a foolish man? A wise man knows that he knows not. A foolish man knows not that he knows not." Did you notice tho one thing in common, they BOTH don't know, it's all in how they respond.

I sincerely hope you're right about the hulls issue.

Have a GREAT weekend,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on April 26, 2008 12:05 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 24, 2008

A look at the campaigns from across the pond...

Subject: One Foreigner's Opinion
We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a witch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer . . . and a lawyer who is married to a witch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big gazongas who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?"

H/t, Princess Crabby

Aside from the fact that it's funny (and probably is even to many Democrats) the alignments, laid out like that, are... interesting.

Not that war hero, large glands and beer are qualifiers - but that the contrast, I'm thinking, does serve to show a possible source of the Dem's candidates troubles in connecting to significant chunks of the electorate which would otherwise seem an easy-to-connect constituency.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 22, 2008

Hmmm. This might be fun. Well, it will amuse me anyway.

Given the discussion that erupted in Kat's post One Man And A Symbol Of Freedom I thought I would toss this out for you to chew on.

The local Ford dealership takes up a full city block. They are ringed with flagpoles. The flags all fly non-standard-sized (there really is a spec) US flags.

Okay.

Since I'm one of those who is not going to beat someone up for flag desecration, edgy "art" and setting illegal fires in urban areas by igniting cloth imbued with symbolism, I thought I would pose this question -

How does wrapping your business in the flag in that way, clearly for crass commercial purposes, differ from the other abuses of the flag?

Or, how about those businesses that run up a flag, slap a light on it, and then fly it until it's little more than tatters?

Is that offensive and abusive?

Full disclosure - I'm the guy who goes to businesses who fly their flag to tatters and gives them a new flag, telling them how sorry I am that their business is doing so badly they can't afford a new bit of $15 bunting.

Fire away!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

TINS: once a month, maybe, i get over to the mega-box home repair type store (rhymes with Foam Re-po), and they have these two poles mounted just outside their main entrance. now mind you, these poles are advertised and sold by them as being "special", in that they rotate in such a way as to never cause Old Glory to get tangled. which of course, not so much...

so every dang time, i got straight to the "service" (word used with extreme irony) and ask to speak to a manager regarding said tangled-up-edness...

every time they say will do something, so i continue to shop, and every time i check out and go back to my car, you guessed it, the flags are still tangled. usually takes another visit to the manager, ask to see his/her boss, before it gets corrected.

so i get their customer complaint line toll-free number, and duly register my concerns with someone in Bangalore.

it wouldn't be so bad if i actually had another choice of places to get the materials i need.

by MajMike on April 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Luv the give 'em a new flag solution.

by Rod Thorsen on April 21, 2008 11:01 AM

The local Ford dealership takes up a full city block. They are ringed with flagpoles. The flags all fly non-standard-sized (there really is a spec) US flags.

I know exactly where of you speak because, when I see those flags, I know exactly where to turn to take care of business near there or how many blocks to go to get to a certain restaurant.

More flags at the Ford Dealership then at the Memorial day ceremony near by I sometimes think.

Materialism on display. Then again, as a true believer in capitalism, I sometimes I wonder what is more patriotic than...well...capitalism.

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 11:34 AM

Maybe it's true. Its great numbers cheapen its value as the rags from China whence they came.

by Boquisucio on April 21, 2008 11:44 AM

Well, the current flags at the Castle are proudly made in... Malaysia!

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 11:51 AM

Mexico here

Oh no! Free Trade!

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 11:54 AM

¡Ajujuy! Si Señora yo so El Frito Bandito!

by Boquisucio on April 21, 2008 12:01 PM

But the real irony is that the liberal-leaning UAW has put pressure on Ford and other domestic auto makers to "fly the flag" to promote "Buy American" as part of their protectionist agenda against free trade. LOL

by fdcol63 on April 21, 2008 12:48 PM

The school (in Coliformico) where SWHNOB attends her formal indoctrination has been given a flag not once but twice. Have I seen them flying anything but the faded, tattered rag that I first saw upon enrolling her last August?
Of course, I don't know why I expected better, this is the same school that had a Spanish language segment for the National Spelling Bee competition.
*sigh*

by DL Sly on April 21, 2008 1:07 PM

What's that quip about a dog kicked versus a dog tripped-over? Even he knows there's a difference? Intent can't be totally ruled out, but ignorance of due respect is so lacking these days that you're signing on for a LOT of work trying to fix it. 'Course, that's sort of this crowd's forte, isn't it?

by Ironside on April 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Ironside - what? Us? Tilt at windmills? Never!

[Sancho, keep that donkey under control, would you?]

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 1:17 PM

Sí Señor - Pero El Burro, habiendo comido tantas fabas, está muy peoso.

by Boqui-Panza on April 21, 2008 2:12 PM

What gets me are the political rallies with the flag printed on napkins. As far as I'm concerned it's barely better than having a flag printed on toilet paper. The people with the napkins all seem to think nothing of it but to me it's desecrating the flag to use it to wipe your greasy fingers on such a napkin.
If I weren't so lazy I'm sure I could find the relevant part of the flag code (but then with this audience I don't need to.)

by NevadaDailySteve on April 21, 2008 2:23 PM

Boq - I dunno what a fabas is, but are you telling me they make your burro gassy?

As the thread careens wildly out of control...

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 2:44 PM

Pero El Burro - Pardon. Donde es la bano?

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 3:02 PM

I think the bathroom is over there behind the Ballista, Kat. Just remember to open the ventanas(SP, blow me John and Bill) or light a match when you're done.
(I don't speak Spanish, I just know how to use it defensively. I resisted every attempt to force me to learn it back when I lived in Cali. I studied German and Japanese instead, and still suck at both. I was even yclempt 'Caballo' for having the odd running gait and blonde hair that flopped around like a mane back in the day.)

You're going to have to teach me this 'soft hand' approach one of these days, BB. I've contemplated it, but don't understand it. And I'm getting too old to continue to be a screamer.

by ry on April 21, 2008 4:08 PM

(SP, blow me John and Bill)

Heh. Potty mouth again.

[Opens bag of cheetos, puts out on the deck to "air out."]

Fine. You want stale cheetos, you get 'em. I *was* going to be nice.

Oh, and you *did* spell "windows" correctly, boyo.

Same-same cannot be said, however, of your changing the religious affiliation of 'yclept' to some form of Yiddish construct.

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 4:37 PM

Maudit Americains...

Asti, parlez en anglais pour eux autres, en collisse de tabernac!

(Avant la question inevitable, non, je n'peut pas parler francais/quebecois sans sacrer. Asti de niaseux.)

by Damian on April 21, 2008 5:20 PM

Pardone me?

Yo hablo poco Frances. Digame "collise en tabernac!"?

Church?

and are you asking if we can speak french?

If yes, only enough to get me in serious trouble on this blog and abroad. ;)

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Kat - I thought you liked guys? What's this about a broad?

by John of Argghhh! on April 21, 2008 7:36 PM

well, those french women sometimes look like men with their hairy upper lips.

by kat-missouri on April 21, 2008 8:26 PM

Behold Fabada Asturiana: Faba Bean Soup with Blood Sausage. My favourite. Just keep dat donkey down wind.

by Boqui-Panza on April 21, 2008 9:12 PM

John,

What's the spec for lapel pins?

When you find out, send a note to Nancy so she can pass it on to Barack.

Frankly, I'm more affected by a tattered flag than a too big/too small one.

My feminine side says, "Size doesn't matter." Of course, my masculine side says, "Yeah, right." But that's another story.

Anyway, I'm now sensitive to another improper display. I am honestly offended every time I see Obama talking while standing in front of a bank of Old Glories. He, and his wife, view a very large segment of this nation with (poorly) disguised contempt (see remarks made during recent fund raising meeting in Kollyfornia) and the hypocrisy makes my head swim.

Desecration comes in many forms, some worse than others.

by Attila on April 21, 2008 9:36 PM

Kat, I was feeling left out, given that I have only Dora The Explorer spanish (the benefits of having a four-year-old daughter!), and so I decided to switch to quebecois french, just to tick you guys off. Unfortunately, you have to swear to speak it properly.

A rough translation:

$*&(@! Americans...

*%&^, speak english for the rest of us, fer #$^*$ing *&^%$ sake.

(Before the inevitable question, no, I cannot speak french/quebecois without swearing. *(&^!@$ing *&^^%%heads)

Pay no mind to the crazy Canuck with the bilingual Tourette's...

by Damian on April 22, 2008 12:02 AM

Not to be the wet towel and get back on track, but check out this effort: http://www.operationnationalanthem.com/
Due respect for national symbology- check
Tastefully done- check
Implied violence for the willfully disrespectful- not enough.

by Ironside on April 22, 2008 7:37 AM

Well, Ironside, it's only appropriate you grab the tiller... since the thread went adrift after your previous post.

by John of Argghhh! on April 22, 2008 7:50 AM

Sheesh, wander out above decks one time...

by Ironside on April 22, 2008 12:35 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 21, 2008

Why vigilance (and informed, vice emotional, voting) matters.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, which makes me a minority around here among the people who have expressed an opinion one way or another on the subject, but Justice Scalia's shot at Justice Stevens in the recent decision regarding Kentucky's Death Penalty methods was, well, interesting.

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, " 'objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.' " Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).

A classic "Living Constitution" argument, since the Founders didn't seem to have any huge problems with the death penalty... A classic example of "rule by judicial fiat" so beloved of people who can't convince the people of the merit of their ideas, and so instead rely on finding "right-thinking" judges to enact their will.

A slippery proposition to be sure. Because both good and bad has come from it.

However, the only way we the people influence this is through our choices for President and Congress. We have no direct input on the Judicial branch at all.

Yet that branch has been imbued in the last 100 years with a vast amount of essentially unchecked (on a day to day basis) power, the only checks being over generational time spans as Judges retire and new ones are appointed.

It means we really, really, really should be paying attention. And keeping that in mind when choosing.

And it's a really good argument to keep the levers of power churning around between the centers of gravity, and for heaven's sakes don't let either herd of asses or elephants hold all the levers.

The potential for mischief is great.

As Justice Scalia further notes:

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as "the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process." Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a "thirst for vengeance." Ante, at 11. It is JUSTICE STEVENS' experience that reigns over all.

More accurately, it is the experience of 5, mostly unaccountable people, that reigns over all. Which makes picking the people who do the picking important, even if those people as individuals are really nowhere near as important as politicians are wont to believe they are.

The Supremes, however...

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 18, 2008

Bellavia takes the plunge...

Bellavia Files For Congress In New York's 26th District
Batavia, NY – Retired Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia announced today that he is filing the necessary paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission to form a campaign committee. The move allows Bellavia to begin raising money for his much anticipated Congressional campaign.

Mr. Bellavia chose to file his candidacy on April 15, 2008, to highlight the need for tax reforms that allow workers to keep more of what they earn.

"During this time of challenge for the U.S. economy, Western New Yorkers need someone who will go to Washington to fight for their job and their families," Mr. Bellavia said. "The last thing voters want is a tax-and-spend liberal who will further burden their wallets with the threat of more taxation."

"If elected to represent the 26th district of New York, I would oppose any effort to raise the personal income tax. I firmly believe that Americans' hard earned income belongs to them – not the federal government."

Mr. Bellavia is the recipient of both the Silver and Bronze Stars, and the Conspicuous Service Cross, New York State's highest award for combat valor. He also has been nominated for The Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions in a fierce, urban hand-to-hand fight in the battle of Fallujah in November 2004. Mr. Bellavia is the author of House to House: An Epic Memoir of War, which recounts his experiences on the ground in Iraq.

Mr. Bellavia, a native of Buffalo, lives in western New York with his wife and two sons. There he has founded a local Veteran's Coordination Center that focuses on the early treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other veteran's-related issues and outreach programs. Bellavia is also a co-founder of the non-partisan, non-profit Vets for Freedom organization.

I'm thinking they could do worse, much worse.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 15, 2008

Of strategic thinking and presidential candidates

The other day J over at Armchair said that he believed Sen Obama was the better ‘strategic thinker’ of this campaign season. This intrigued me a bit, so I thought about it. I don’t think J is right. Note, in classic Castle Argghhh! style I’m not advocating for any candidate (not like that stops Dusty from doing it, but then he outranks me. And nothing stops Attila, except a chicken bone in the throat---stay away from the chicken and fish, Dusty.). I’m just saying I think that saying Sen Obama has ‘the vision’ superior to others is rather wrong.
(more below the fold)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

Why? Let’s look at his stance on Global Warming. In a sense, this amounts to a strategic game of ‘Red Rover’ where we all line up to stop a freight train by linking hands and willing it to stop. I’m saying that if you take the science seriously, and the conclusions that have been made from the data, the whole idea of carbon trading and sequestration is tantamount to trying to close the door after the cow’s bolted. If you listen to Al Gore (ManbearPIIIIG!!!) and the broader scientific opinion we’re slated for serious climate change. And if you take their arguments seriously you have to laugh at them when they say that simply cutting carbon emissions is going to turn it all around, even in your great-great-great-great grandchildren’s time(Seven tenths of a degree by 2050 in temperature savings is what we get if we went the full Kyoto. I wonder how long it would take to get back to what people say we should be at, or to return to what we had in 1986?). Look at how much a change you’ll get in 50 years. Oh, and don’t forget the cost, either. You think this current economic downturn is bad and requires all kinds of gov’t bail outs for people? Jeebus, that looks a whole lot worse to me.

So, this is true strategic thought? Hardly. You want a *real* strategic thinker on this? Find the politician who is following Bjorn Lumborg’s recommendations or Tom Barnett’s instead of ManbearPIIIIG’s!!! and you’ll have a real visionary instead of someone reading from the Book of Dystopia, Chapter Doom, verse Gloom. If you really believe in the predominate scientific view you are left with no choice but to accept that sea levels will rise, and the problems that come with that. If you accept said view you also accept that weather patterns will shift in ways that make the Dust Bowl, in many places across the US and the world, possible and likely. You have to accept that very real problems will come down the pipe that have to be dealt with, and that by simply capping carbon emissions (or moving them in the negative direction) those problems will not be resolved.

What’s Obama planned to do on these? Nothing, at least nothing in his publicly declared positions. What’s he going to do about crop failures from drought and weather pattern shifts? What’s his plan to ensure potable water is available to continue agriculture (even if we all became vegan soy eaters)? Sorry, saying he’ll support waste water plants out in CA is not having a broad visionary plan, particularly since those plans were already in place and moving ahead (my home town already has treated waste water being fed back into the watershed from which it draws water, something they started building in 1998. When I was helping my Mother out this summer I was drinking that foul smelling and tasting stuff.) He’s got nothing so far, same caveat as before. So, this is strategic thinking? I. Don’t. Think. So. A real strategic thinker wouldn’t take what amounts a plan that would halt the oncoming crisis back in the 1950’s and push it now, as if it was visionary and going to halt the freight train, nor would a real visionary try to pass off to the country stuff that someone else already did as something he’s bravely moving to support (it’s done and over, sir, they never needed your support.).

He’s running with a forty year old plan on this. One that isn’t likely to work without killing a large number of people off, whose cost is major (you think people are annoyed at how they’re suffering because of the housing crisis and current economic slow down? Look at the cost in standard of living *if* we follow the Ed Bagly Jr. inspired plan in the link above.), and only deals with the ‘first half’, to steal a Barnettian phrase, while it ignores all the other problems that are inescapable if you accept ManbearPIIIG’s numbers.

Sorry, I’m not buying Obama as having ‘the vision’ over the other two (Clinton or McCain), not if his environmental plan is an indication of this ‘strategic vision. If he did he’d have plans, in place and delivered publicly, to deal with the potable water issue, soil erosion issue, dike and levee ideas to protect things like Manhattan (or, if one were really bold, most of India). Sorry, Sen. Obama (and J), but you’re not selling gollum on this vision thing. You really aren’t showcasing it.

What I’m seeing, when I read the plans listed on his web site linked above, is populism and the cynical use thereof. It may sound tough to walk into Detroit and tell them need to be more fuel efficient, but it isn’t really when they’ve been working on hybrids, flex fuels, and other non-petroleum derived energy source vehicles for a decade (that dang educated populace thing Jefferson talked about comes up to nip the good Sen. In the ankles). The way his stated plan reads, and he’s not alone in this, it looks like he believes in a closed carbon loop/perpetual motion machine. Who taught these people thermodynamics (sure wasn’t BCR, that’s for sure.)?

If he comes up with a real long range and truly visionary plan--- instead of the hodgepodge of green-truther, ‘I’ll create jobs!’, and petroleum boogie man hating that he’s put out--- I’ll listen. You got plans to actually deal with the real problems of climate shift(feeding people, keeping shoreline communities from being ‘Veniced’ given the inevitability of sea level rise, etc) then fine, I’ll listen. Come to the table with something like building the Taiwan 101 but using it as a self-sufficient as possible agro-dome that’s got much of the engineering problems resolved, or a massive aquaduct system ala what Jerry Brown came up with in CA lo these many moons ago, and I’ll call you a frackin’ visionary, ‘cause you would be. But what Obama has put forward is not visionary.

Sorry, J.

(Note: ry doesn’t buy the anthropogenic theory, yet. He finds the data sketchy and other theories (like the albedo shift or the increase in solar radiation theory) to be equally supported. Hence, he says doing something about the real problems (crop failure, water shortage, coastal city drowning) is more important than anyone’s pet whipping boy---whether that be the evils of consumerist culture, big oil, non-vegetarian living, or what have you in the mid-to-long term.)
--ry

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I'd agree with you and up that ante by saying the complaing could be easily applied to several of his other so called "plans".

He talks about saving social security, but his plan basically calls for forcing people to put money in an IRA which they already can do, starting at a $100 easily. His difference is that he is going to make it "mandatory" with an "opt out" that he knows will not happen often because people are, in fact, lazy sometimes.

He's not going to save Social Security. That plan doesn't even do that. But he is going to take more money out of some poor shlubs pocket to put in an IRA while simultaneously continuing to take social security taxes out of his check.

The question is who is going to run these IRAs and what will the interest be invested in? Government stocks and bonds?

The whole time, he never actually mentions saving social security or how he's going to do it. Not once because he knows the only way to save it is to a) cut people off or b) raise social security tax or c) all of the above.

It's ridiculous slight of the hand stuff that I can't believe anyone falls for.

by kat-missouri on April 14, 2008 11:28 AM

And Ry moves into the Armorer's corner (he may have been there all along, he's just slunk into the open) - all the hooey posited about Kyoto etc, is more about the elites grabbing more power for themselves (and the consequences of which are usually borne by superstitious armed myrmidons clinging to outdated notions) and control over ever greater aspects of human endeavor.

I said long ago - if all the efforts put forth were going to make only about 1 degree of difference, far better we put that money and effort to figuring out how we're going to deal with it, since it would seem we really aren't going to do much to truly prevent it.

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 12:07 PM

My point is John that at this time there's little we *can* do, we can't truly prevent it(not now, and not likely in`80 either). So why not figure out how to deal with the rest of it? Why, that's because some people can't "move on". ;)

This isn't leadership. It's jumping out in front of the lemming pack and yelling follow me.

by ry on April 14, 2008 1:05 PM

Oh, and an unseen gollum is a much more effective gollum(damage x2 backstab! ).

by ry on April 14, 2008 1:10 PM

Waittaminute. You're going to use global warming to measure Obama's strategic sense? Couldn't you find something more abstract to use, say, preferred defenses against asteroid bombardments? What I was referring to (and this is clearly in my post) is the sense of strategic vision on national strategy issues. I don't think global warming is (yet) a national strategy issue, but it may be soon. Who knows.

The point of the post was to identify that Obama, at the least, is debating the need to engage the region as opposed to just Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, seems very satisfied with ensuring the smooth military execution of a failed strategy focused only on Iraq. I am sure I don't have to spell out the differences in strategic warfare vice operational warfare. McCain doesn't have it, or at least he hasn't expressed the desire to engage the regional challenges.

No, just keep chanting "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." yeah, that will solve all of our issues in Iraq. Or not.

by Jason on April 14, 2008 2:06 PM

And Jason shows up to defend his man!

Gimme some popcorn.

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 2:22 PM

"bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." yeah, that will solve all of our issues in Iraq.

I don't think any of us just want to "bomb Iran" in the naive belief that that alone would solve anything, but I think most of us would acknowledge that the Iranian regime is behind a LOT of our problems in Iraq and elsewhere, with respect to their state support of terrorism and their constant efforts to undermine US interests and security around the world.

by fdcol63 on April 14, 2008 2:52 PM

Elements of Strategy (Art Lykke Army War College Model):

Ends (What you want to achieve)
Ways (How you will do it)
Means (What resources are required to do it)

Obama is long on ends, short, or at least extremely unrealistic, on the other two.

Also, any strategy must meet the FSA test: it must be Feasible (it can be done), Suitable (It will solve the problem it's trying to solve), and Acceptable (meaning, in this case, acceptable to the voters and Congress)

Obama fails on all three counts.

by Heartless LIbertarian on April 14, 2008 2:55 PM

"Failed Iraq" strategy?

Where has it failed?

islamization has been largely discredited right in the center of the Arab/Islamic region (regional strategy?)

2) Al Qaida has taken a huge black eye along with it even though, at some point, it certainly was able to draw in a nice crowd of wannabe warriors for Allah. In fact, as I once premised, the act of taking Baghdad acted as an accelerator, on purpose or not. If you want to get inside your enemy's OODA Loop, sometimes you have to do the unexpected or force them to commit some place they are not ready to either materially, monetarily, organizationally or ideologically. That was what happened, as ugly as we like to think it, accidental or not. Kind of reminds me of Sherman's march to the sea.

3) We are creating (and they already exist), some pretty adamant, free, democratic thinkers (though they are all at different degrees of that concept, they exist) who are becoming a credible voice for freedom in the region and will continue to do so as long as we don't abandon them to chaos and the potential rise of another dictator. It will have an effect on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and many others in the region. They won't be able to help it.

4) don't tell me that bombing Iran hasn't crossed your mind once or twice. It sure has mine every time I read about more rockets and EFPs coming in and killing our men and women. Fortunately, I am ready to finish the two projects we have going before seriously considering it, but it is still on my list if we don't get something else going to shove the mad mullahs back in their cages and our men and women stop being killed by their weapons.

We've staked a flag in the heart of jihadi Wahhabi land and I'm not willing to give it up. I believe there is a serious long term advantage to that that some folks are too short sighted to see.

by kat-missouri on April 14, 2008 3:20 PM

And the notion that the Bush Administration is just chanting "bomb bomb bomb Iran" and not actively and directly "engaging" Iran in diplomatic efforts is contradicted by stories like this:

US and Iran holding 'secret' talks on nuclear programme

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-and-iran-holding-secret-talks-on-nuclear-programme-808647.html

... Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret "back channel" discussions for the past five years on Iran's nuclear programme and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal. ...

Some people think that unless they read about it in the NYT, or that if it's not shouted from the rooftops, that "quiet diplomacy" is not happening.

by fdcol63 on April 14, 2008 3:35 PM

Oh, bother. Yeah J, I'm taking Obama to task for being touted as a 'strategic thinker' on a whole host of issues. It was inspired by you, but isn't only about *you*.

So, leaving a country, a powder keg that makes Franz Ferdinand look like a piker, 'as fast as possible'(meaning 18 months if not sooner) is engaging the region in a smart manner? Sorry, not buying. Leaving Iraq like Obama wants to puts a major conflagration on the table and a real non-zero possibility(but, hey, anything is better than staying, right?). Staying in Iraq, and as you say 'only Iraq'(which I think is a gross misstatement of the case and your oppositions reasoning for staying), is in part because we've now created something we simply cannot leave, it's the TS/slow step of the reaction(something that if you change the conditions you don't get the product you aimed for, to misuse an organic chemistry analogy). What I hear out of Obama is 'we've spent this long on it and now we're casting it off because we aren't getting results as fast as we'd like. It's hard and we don't want to do something hard anymore. Let's do all that gov't deficit spending here at home instead.'. Real nice. Real strategic.

And all the other work with people like Jordan, Lebanon, all those mil-mil, mil-pol stuff that engenders isn't nor will it ever be actually working with the region, will it(at least not while a Bush sits in the presidential chair anyways)? Talking to Iran instead of 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran'(and where the hell did this meme come from, and why are they massacring the Beach Boys. Sacrilegous wankers?) as Bush has done--- continuing the diplo angle in conjunction with the Euros over Iranian nucs. working with Pakistan, and India(Mil-mil and mil-pol, despite what the Indian Communist party says) doesn't count. Right. Okay, lets just define everything so the opposing side is nothing but jackals, then.

No, we stay because the scenario we believe in, the one the data points to, is a worse one than if we stay(no, not be channeling Cheney with the aQ takes over bogeyman, but the sectarian spill over looks very everyone else versus the Hapsburgs to me). Yeah, Obama's got the right track. Never has he even mentioned(in public) the problems with leaving. Only hit on how we're going to get everyone to get on board by talking to them(never a mention of what we're going to have to offer to get them on board, just the promise. Hell, if that's all it takes I promise everyone a unicorn and million dollars. Can we all end wars now, then?).

Yup, I call it like I see it homey. He's not a strategic thinker. He's a talker and someone who jumped out in front of the lemming pack(wow, the American public is so fickle that when the nightly news is 'Surge works' they side with it, when the nightly news was 'Iraq is scary' they were onboard with the invasion, but given a steady diet of anti-invasion/surge they side with the anti. Lemmings.) and does what they want, but only from the front of the pack. He's not a strategic thinker. If he was he'd see Iraq as the seam state that it is(as Barnett does) and how that it needs to be leveraged to forever alter the ME(much like Afghanistan needs to be leveraged to alter S. Asia forever), instead of saying we'll leave it and somehow(again, specifically) get people to sit down and talk thereby achieving it all without arms. Pie-in-the-sky doesn't count as leadership or strategic vision. They count as day dreams or impossible campaign promises. (Oh, you mean we can't use Iraq as an, i dunno, staging area for further operations(political as much as military) at all? Well, I guess that's just a stupid strategy then, huh? We shouldn't even consider pursuing it at all. Nope, just leave because it got hard and more expensive than we originally thought. Just like Somalia(and how is Somalia with the plans of talking instead of bombing going post-BHD, eh? Oh, went back to a hell hole didn't it? Repressive regime(but it provided stability!) that was a haven for pirates and terrorists(but at least it was stable!) took over. bummer.). But, at least it's not being stuck in Iraq.

We couldn't' possibly want to use Iraq as a means of imputting new ideas and institutions into the region(even if we do wind up having to do 'Nixon to China' vis Iran.), and so it must simply be The White Whale(in other words, what a load of $3i! such a reduction is.). Which is why Sen. Obama *isn't* a strategic thinker in terms of military strategy.

But that's okay, I don't expect most presidents(unless they were Flags before they became president) to be military strategists.

So, instead I looked at him from a multi-disciplinary angle. And you know what? He *still* came up lacking. He's been billed as this great man of vision(by you, Jason, and others) and I'm not seeing it. I don't see how your reason for leaving Iraq makes sense(the purpose of strategy is to ensure a better peace, leaving makes a better peace how, concretely? I know the fairy tales coming out of FP and FA the last couple of months. But how does that jive with the historical record that reconstruction and rehabilitation takes decades and not years to do regardless of the on the ground culture?). So I'm not seeing Obama as all that bright there. He, along with you, are classifying it as The White Whale and thereby dismissing out of hand that there could be any other rationale for continuing nor that Iraq in itself is a battle that's part of a campaign to deal with the region as a whole(a baby step, so to speak). Nope, it's just The Whale. Nor is he showing it in other areas as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry Jay, not convinced. I made my case. Now tell us why you think I'm a fargin' idiot(and no telling me about last weeks BSG either, or I'll ankle bite, I swear I will.).

by ry on April 14, 2008 4:03 PM

Congrats Ry - the response is longer than the original post by an order of magnitude...

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 4:25 PM

Well, I have to let the verbosity out somewhere. At least the post was concise and to the point, which is what you want(and at least I didn't burn up the front page with it neither). "He doesn't show the traits, here's the evidence." And verbosity is what you get when I'm IMing, reading about Asian mil-pol(what a bunch of fear mongering tripe about China is out there. Jeesh. Not saying that China isn't a problem or that their modernization changes the number of equivalents they get in the '3:1' calculations, but does it always have to be so 'they're coming to get us and they're soooo scary'?), and writing a response to Jason.

by ry on April 14, 2008 4:47 PM

You may want to take a look at Drudge. A Rep Congressman has a comment about Obama's finger on the button and his strategic thinking capability.

by Fishmugger on April 14, 2008 4:56 PM

Obama: I disagree. Obama has to be a strategic thinker already. He did not get into the Presidential race without thinking ahead with some degree of intelligence.

Obama's 'policy' on this sort of thing is not about him it's about his voters and saying the crap they want to hear which seems to be all this man does. As such it's not a reflection of his skills at strategic thinking. It's more a reflection of his lack of real dedication to global warming and probably anything actually.

Iraq: No staying is better now until the Iraqis tell those soldiers to go away. I would be the first to stick my hand up for the idiocy of the past strategic Iraq war policies. I would even venture to say it very nearly turned into a pile of goo for which I really thank the soldiers for preventing. However the general gist of facing nutso Islam and changing the ME from a policy of division with control to freedom and progress I fully support. Iraqis are becoming progressives haha! Now I bet that stirs the pot. I cannot even imagine the good these ppl could do. They will not be Democratic Americans. They will be new with a totally different cultural level.

Afghan will not be so smooth. It's been ignored and disfocused and has little basis of economy.

Global Warming: I am not on the conservative side with the environment. For one thing I think global warming is real as I do many other environmental considerations. Conservatives stick their hand in the sand and sing lalala it isn't happening. One only has to go to the river to see the damage conservatives created which most probably will never be fixed and know sticking the head in the sand is not very bright.

But much of the liberal side has jumped on the bandwagon and it often seems to me the bandwagon goes waaay off course. For one thing wastewater reuse has nothing to do with it. It's a different environmental issue.

These people are coming up with nothing to.. well, as Ry puts it, strategically solve the problem. If one takes that global warming is real then one puts in a plan of what to do about it. So far I'm not impressed. I hear too much romantic talk of solar cell and other marvelous technology proliferation and not enough on dealing with rising sea levels or severe weather or climate changes effect on nature, people or farming. *Practical* solutions to slow global warming and mitigate the effects are far too rarely implemented.

Iran: Actually.. I find bombing Iran somewhat appealing. Certain places you know. Suggesting that it's all Bush wants to do is sheer idiocy. It hasn't happened yet. What is preventing him? Well the answer is simple. Him. So the idea is complete bull. Besides it's not about solving problems in Iraq alone. There are far far more problem than Iraq no mater what anybody pretends. Iran is one of them.

by Trias on April 14, 2008 5:34 PM

But, that's my point, Trias. It won't hurt Obama with the people he's trying to woo to vote for him(centrist republicans, true independents(not the fools who claim they are but have voted and continue to vote for the same year after year), and what's now called the 'crunchy con') to come out with a much more detailed and far reaching ecoological plan. I get that there's a level of the 10 second attention span involved in all of this, but that he refuses to do so for something like the environment, something more people understand than military strategy or geo-political strategy, says something, imo. Either he doesn't think very far ahead and the inter=realations, or he's an elitist who doesn't think he needs to tell us(and that goes for most pols, not just Obama.).

When I look at the ME I do see things as being more reminiscent of the Hapsburgs being beset on all sides or pre-WW1 Europe where there's a ton of intrigues looking to set things off. I use the Hapsburgs because you've got not only the secular reasons(all the nations want what's best for them, and many don't like the pull of the COG east toward the former Persian empire) but also the religious thing(Sunni and Shiite). Without a strong influence in the region you've got people looking to off or annex someone---which explains the Hapsburgs troubles since they as big fish were either fighting someone off or wasting their strength trying to take someone out. In how this is pre-WW1 you've got people, again, not wanting to see the rise of a powerful Iran(the formation of the Triple Alliance as a countering tool against Bismark's machinations and the rising German economy) forming formal and informal alliances or taking other measures to limit Iranian influence(like picking up nuclear programs, or looking to do it(SAudi), Oman(?, I know there's a second nation doing it, can't remember who)). All it took was one nationalist to assasinate one minorly important public figure and Europe was in flames. So, pulling out, removing Gulliver, is somehow a stabilizing event in this how? I can't see it. Again, the purpose of a strategy is to bring about a better peace once it's all said and done. Leaving does not produce that, IMO. So why do it?

Enviro: yup, that's where I'm at, Trias. Lots of people talk, but what they say is very meaningless. We'll cap carbon and shift to hydrogen. Fine, what's the second biggest GHG culprit? Water(has to do with the way their O-H bonds oscillate). What's the product of hyrodgen reactions? Water. Great, we've really solved that problem. We'll just eject tons more steam into the air every year and that'll lick GW. How're you going to feed everyone with weather instability leading to massive drought in central parts of continents? Oh, well we capped carbon and that'll take care of all of it. Sheer self-righteous idiocy. But that's what the man's running publicly. If he's all that he's made out to be(Jason) he'll push more than 'Hope' and 'Belief" but actual policies we of the Gray Tribe can mull to be either wonover or lost based on the logic and reasoning.

by ry on April 15, 2008 12:14 AM

This feels more like some psychedelic compression of 1901 to 1941 complete with the rise of nationalism, fascism and communism (just call them the names of their modern counterparts) and many "little corporals" trying to stir the masses and take over the world.

by kat-missouri on April 15, 2008 12:27 AM

Iran. Sigh. Would bombing it actually get us what we want(which is nuclear weapons out of the hands of the terrorist(historicly speaking) supporting Mullahs(Amindijad is nobody, actually, it's the Mullahs who are the real power) and instituting a more Western friendly, market economy friendly, liberal(ish) regime.)? Just bombing Iran does not do that. It might forestall the first(Mullah's getting nucs) but it seriously makes the second(different regime) much harder. It may be necessary to do, if things take certain turns(say, they admit to actually turning out a few dozen warheads and our intel knows where those warheads are, so when we hit the production sites we also hit the launchables), but not right now. It *should* be in the workshop, but thought of as a specialty tool(lathe) instead of a common pair of channel locks that're really versatile.

Iran makes sense in some very limited scenarios. ONe that does make sense is classic interdiction of supplies/manpower(if we can ever confidently ID where and how stuff may be coming in). Beyond that I'm not seeing much.

So I don't know where J is getting the Beach Boys inspired 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' thing. Nobody so far as I know simply has a hard-on for bombing Iran or sees it as the pull on the gordian knot that solves Iraq. Sounds more like the demonization and infantilization of our position that I see on his side of the fence(not from him so much as the side he happens to be on) than a real criticism of any real policy(how many times have people like Sy Hersh and HuffPosters claimed a massive attack on Iran was immenent? At least twice in the last five years that I can remember.).

by ry on April 15, 2008 12:33 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Apr 14, 2008

Breaking news! New Acquisition for the Arsenal of Argghhh!!!

Eschewing contact with shady arms dealers in the Miami area (based on Boquisucio's advice) I worked with reputable Merchants of Death in the DC area... and the Armorer of Argghhh! can definitively support Senator Hillary Clinton's "dodged sniper fire in Bosnia" story!

We have acquired the *actual* rifle used in that event! The Senator is un-equivocally telling the truth.

(click the pic for a better, more stealable view)

Unsurprisingly, when we examined closely, we discovered that this rifle, like most phallic objects in the Senator's orbit, only shoots blanks, and displays a disturbing tendency to deposit firing residue on the person pulling the trigger.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 14, 2008

The President's Radio Address.

In case you missed it - here's the text of the remarks as prepared for delivery.

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Fifteen months ago this week, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results.
Since the surge began, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress. While there's more to be done, sectarian violence, civilian deaths, and military deaths are down. Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic progress. The Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. And many economic indicators are now pointed in the right direction.

Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq . Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda was using bases in Iraq to kill our troops and terrorize Iraqis; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq , and now we are working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq ; today, thanks to the surge, we've revived the prospect of success in Iraq .

This week, General Petraeus reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades. By July 31, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down 25 percent from the year before. Beyond that, General Petraeus says he will need time to assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making recommendations on further reductions. I've told him he'll have time he needs to make his assessment.

Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny. So what would this transition look like? On the security front, we will stay on the offense, continue to support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them, and move over time into an overwatch role.

On the economic front, Iraq 's economy is growing. Iraq is assuming responsibility for almost all the funding of large-scale reconstruction projects, and our share of security costs is dropping as well. On the political front, Iraq is planning to hold elections that will provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence.

Our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. And no one wants to achieve that goal more than the Iraqis themselves.

The turnaround that our men and women in uniform have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success.

I'm confident in our success because I know the valor of the young Americans who defend us. This week, I commemorated the sacrifice of Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who gave his life in Iraq , and became the fourth Medal of Honor recipient in the war on terror. On September 29, 2006, Mike and two teammates had taken a position on a rooftop when an insurgent grenade landed on the roof. Mike threw himself onto the grenade. One of the survivors put it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"

It is heroism like Michael Monsoor's that pays the cost of human freedom. Our prayers remain with Michael's family and with all the men and women who continue his noble fight. We look forward to the day when they return home in victory.

Thank you for listening.

Provided as a public service of the Castle. Discuss to your heart's content.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

AMEN!

People scoffed when some suggested that victory in Iraq might plant the seeds for a democracy in the very hub of the Islamic world. The sacrifice in blood and treasure may well be worth it, not for the sake of a "victory in Iraq" but as a critical strategic win in the global war against radical Islam.

The idiots in Congress and the media may still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And, if either of the donkeycrats win in November, it may turn into a disaster. THANK YOU TROOPS! {And contractors too!]

Pee on Congress for their lack of vision, incessant partisan roadblocks and shameless pandering to the ignorant masses. Their willing accomplices in the mainstream media deserve even more contempt and scorn, and plummeting circulation/viewership.

by John S. on April 12, 2008 8:31 PM

"Pee on Congress for their lack of vision, incessant partisan roadblocks and shameless pandering to the ignorant masses. Their willing accomplices in the mainstream media deserve even more contempt and scorn, and plummeting circulation/viewership."

Well said, John S., well said. I share the feeling. I add that the nation should IMPEACH CONGRESS!!!

by mike47 on April 12, 2008 10:07 PM

The management of Castle Argghhh! does not endorse using human execretory functions directed at elected officials as a useful expression of discontent with their performance.

We do however support mass impeachment of members of Congress, which the populace has the ability to do every two years, we would note.

Mind you, you have to start early, and do a good job of selecting the replacements! We suggest that impeachments occur during the primaries, so once you've tossed your own scoundrel, you can then turn your attention to tossing *their* scoundrel.

Sadly, even though a majority of Americans think that Congress is a nearly-useless organization (well, it's at least wildly unpopular) they won't take the bull by the horns and toss their reps and give someone else a shot at it.

And of course, when you reward them for essentially saying "We're going to take money from your neighbors and give it to you!" you don't have a lot of room to gripe once you realize they're taking your money, too.

by John of Argghhh! on April 13, 2008 9:53 AM

Just remember with those pigs oinking in Congress. You wanted them. You brought them in and you kept them.

How's that for suffering in Democracy? Knowing it's all your (collectively) fault? Of course to be on the list for selection and visible to be selected seems to require you are already a bad apple which means people are just voting for the less rotten apple upon which there isn't much agreement anyway.

Or maybe they aren't that bad? One wonders how honest one would be if confronted with that level of self serviceable opportunity. Most people can't even keep their hands off stationary.

And then there's why they chose it? I mean what kind of person really wants to be a pollie? exhibitionist, power freak, deluded saviour, sadist?

by Trias on April 13, 2008 12:36 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 12, 2008

So, Bill sends me a note... containing a note.

Heh. Why do all the flak chicks send this stuff to *me* -- *you're* the one with connections!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Subject: DNC: John McCain is Wrong on Civil Rights
To: Da Rotorhead-In-Eyerak.

Hi there Bill -- I'm your media relations rep for PR Newswire, which offers political bloggers public interest breaking news via email. We are the exclusive newswire for this year's DNC and RNC. The release below just crossed our newswire. This is a free service through PR Newswire for Journalists. To register for PRNJ, just reply to this email, letting me know that you'd like to be signed up for the public interest press release emails. We cover a variety of subjects, including foreign and domestic policy, political campaigns, federal and state legislation, energy, and financial services. Just let me know your preferences.

I'd also like to invite you and the Home of Two of Jonah's Military Guys Blog to subscribe to our news release feed via RSS. PR Newswire distributes releases from hundreds of campaigns and public policy groups at every level. Here's a link to the RSS feeds: http://media.prnewswire.com/en/jsp/rssInstructions.jsp. You must be registered with PRNJ to subscribe, but the service is always free.

Questions? Please don't hesitate to contact me at 201-360-6072.

Thanks and have a great day.
Christine

Heh. Flak-chicks. To an aviator, that's a double-entendre!

I responded...

Don't feel too special, flyboy. 27 inch zipper, #82, it's all the same draw. Lefty chicks dig us tripod myrmidons.
Christine.Cube@prnewswire.com wrote: To: johnbethd@yahoo.com
Subject: DNC: John McCain is Wrong on Civil Rights
From: Christine@prnewswire.com
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:45:24 -0400

Hi there Armorer -- I'm your media relations rep for PR Newswire, which offers political bloggers public interest breaking news via email. We are the exclusive newswire for this year's DNC and RNC. The release below just crossed our newswire. This is a free service through PR Newswire for Journalists. To register for PRNJ, just reply to this email, letting me know that you'd like to be signed up for the public interest press release emails. We cover a variety of subjects, including foreign and domestic policy, political campaigns, federal and state legislation, energy, and financial services. Just let me know your preferences.

I'd also like to invite you and The Home of Two Jonah's Military Guys blog to subscribe to our news release feed via RSS. PR Newswire distributes releases from hundreds of campaigns and public policy groups at every level. Here's a link to the RSS feeds: http://media.prnewswire.com/en/jsp/rssInstructions.jsp. You must be registered with PRNJ to subscribe, but the service is always free.

Questions? Please don't hesitate to contact me at 201-360-6072.

Thanks and have a great day.
Christine

Hey, I take the HuffPo's stuff, why not this? Gad, I only subscribe to the enemy's stuff. The RNC doesn't love me...

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 12, 2008

Now I remember why I get the HuffPo digest email every day.

So I can get these gems... like this bit of reportage from Mayhill Fowler. She gives Kat and Ry a run for their money on being... verbose. Some of which, I suspect, is her wanting to show us how educated and observant she is. Heh. Not like I don't suffer from that, now and again.

Anyway - Ms. Fowler is reflecting on following the Obama campaign through Pennsylvania, and more specifically, Senator Obama's fundraiser speech to rich Californians where he lays out what's wrong with Pennsylvania.

These qualities of hospitality, patriotism and endurance are exactly what Californians need to hear about Pennsylvanians. And when he spoke to a group of his wealthier Golden State backers at a San Francisco fund-raiser last Sunday, Barack Obama took a shot at explaining the yawning cultural gap that separates a Turkeyfoot from a Marin County. "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Emphasis mine.

Ms. Fowler continues:

Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of creamy Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.
I'm not sure this is what at least this lot of Californians needed to hear about Pennsylvanians. Such phrases can reinforce negative stereotypes among Californians, who are a people in a state already surfeited with a smug sense of superiority and, as an ironic consequence, a parochialism and insularity at odds with the innovation, prosperity and openness for which California is rightly known. (Of course, this is a generalization, and as such does not fit everyone; but as a state characteristic I stand by it.) Californians might be better served by hearing that Pennsylvanians have a strong sense of their place in American history, for here California is wanting. California needs to hear that other Americans have gone through hard times and survived, humor intact. Since Barack Obama sees himself as the candidate best able to unify the country, these are the messages he needs to carry and his frank words about Pennsylvania may not have translated very clearly.

Heh. Or perhaps they translated *very* clearly, Ms. Fowler. Those of us who cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment do so only because government has failed us.

And if we elect the Enlightened Senator from Illinois to lead us from the morass of armed superstitious bigoted populist thought in which we wallow, all would be sweetness and light, and we would cast off the shackles of faith and shift ourselves to Bill Maher's worldview, becoming *smart* in the process, beat our guns into iPods, take illegal/legal immigrant families into our homes and provide for them...etc. Heh. And we'd send what was left of our income to the government to send to other poor people the world over. Or something like that.

Heh. Could it be, possibly, that perhaps we cling to those things because we had them all our lives, and our parents had them, and we're stubbornly cling to them because people like "creamy Californians" (a frankly somewhat creepy description) superciliously and paternalistically, and patronizingly pat us on the head and tell us we're stupid and bigoted, and should just do what we're told - when... as in the litany of governmental failure laid out by the Senator... government is as often the problem as it is the solution? That they've worked better for us than government has... And that rich people, who will be comfortable pretty much regardless of what happens, rarely suffering the consequences of their policy failures, just have a credibility problem with the people who *will* suffer? And you, Senator, thus far, are just another glib, gifted orator who isn't really proposing anything really new, but are able to tell us we're superstitious bigoted rubes. Heh. Bill Maher has that niche already, Senator. We don't care that much for him, either.

There are kernels of insight into the Senator's statement. Both into we superstitious bigots and the patrician Senator. So far, I'll stick wth my tribe, Senator. I don't feel welcome, much less respected, in yours. But then, I'm a middle-aged white male, and we're personally responsible for everything that's wrong in the world, since the beginning of time. I know, I went to college, and they told me so.

Or, as Senator McCain's campaign staffer Steve Schmidt put it:

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

Ayup.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Armorer - Do you actually "cling" to the guns.....sounds kind of erotic. Maybe I have to rethink this gun thing. You have every kind of gun there you say.....and a spa......hmmmmm....

by Maggie on April 12, 2008 8:47 AM

This is my rifle, this is my gun...and I know the difference. My favorate is a Browning over and under 20ga used for birds.

I became a Barry Goldwater Publican just after LBJ said "Merican boys ain't gonna fight Asian wars". Well I was American and in Asia and on some occasions people were trying to shoot my young a$$. As the product of two County Committee Democrats this was a shock to the home front. Before they passed, they both joined me on the American Republican side.

Mr Barack's view isn't new. The Dems have been looking at us like that for a long time. Oh yeah...I live in Blue State New Jersey where it gets real lonely being a gun shootin Publican. But I have hope. There is my grandchildren to corrupt.

by Fishmugger on April 12, 2008 10:25 AM

Obama is worse than just an eloquent empty suit lacking actual executvie ability. He is also just flat wrong in everything he says, not matter how swell it sounds at the time. This time he just slipped up and revealed his true disdain for Americans and traditional American values.

Voting against him (or the Hildabeast) is intuitive and an event to be enjoyed.

However, it will still require a great deal of effort to actually vote for McCain who suffers from nearly as many faults as his donkey-swine opponents. Must-try-harder.....

by John S. on April 12, 2008 11:39 AM

Dude..you beat me to it. I was writing an open letter to Mr. Obama. I am bitter...about having to listen to these people every election cycle telling me what a backward idiot I am.

I'll save mine for tomorrow. Keep the pressure on as it were.

by kat-missouri on April 12, 2008 1:14 PM

PS..maybe someone might remind Mr. Obama and Ms. Fowler that it was the ancestors of those small town, gun toting, religion clinging western Pennsylvanians who died by the thousands at Gettysburg, a victory after many defeats, as part of the 1st Pennsylvania, that gave Mr. Obama the opportunity to run for president today.

by kat-missouri on April 12, 2008 1:38 PM

As I read on another blog (Instapundit, IIRC, who was quoting someone else):

I'm continually reminded by their leadership and bloggers that I'm not smart enough to be in the Democratic Party.

by fdcol63 on April 12, 2008 7:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow&eurl=http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=obama_turns_all_thomas_frank_o

by Our Paul on April 13, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama, how many security men do you have?

How many guns do they have? One or two for each man?

Why don’t you practice what you preach and get rid of all you guns (hired or holstered)?

by Ledger on April 14, 2008 1:09 AM

OP - sorry for the delay in publishing your comment. When they go into moderation, I don't know until they show up in the box - HM/MT has been getting cranky enough I sometimes don't know for almost 24 hours.

by John of Argghhh! on April 14, 2008 7:42 AM

This is all just so true. Thumbs up to you guys :-)

by Dameure on April 14, 2008 8:56 AM

Groan. Don't go cornfusing all of CA for SanFran(they hate that up there, they want to be called The City. They're like NYers and Baaaahstonians in they're belief of supremacy over all that surrounds them.). Yes, they are pasty looking people unless they go under sun lamps--which makes them look like they have leathery skin, or UnkaBill with a nasty sunburn. But not all of us 'Fornians are like that.

And this goes to show that the author doesn't understand CA(which can be easily broken down into three parts for easier governance, but won't: North, Central(ag country, where you find NASCAR and country fans in CA)), and South). Um, Californian's havent gone thru tough times? Where was she during the 90s when if you weren't tech you were going under? The real estate collapse? Northridge earthquake? Multiple(like 9 or ten fires, earthquakes, and mudslides) natural disasters costing tens of billions of dollars? We know what tough times look like. The San Raph and SF people might not, people in Humbolt might not, but the rest of us have a clue, thankewberrymunch.

No, what she should say, sans the code, is the liberal bastions of CA need to hear that people who don't think like them don't need to be re-educated. NOw *THAT* would be an interesting message.

by ry on April 14, 2008 1:22 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 12, 2008

Bellavia On Glenn Beck: I got my Ph.D. from the university of Fallujah

[Kat]

Bellavia was attacked the other day for an innocent comment during an introduction of Sen. John McCain. He said, (I paraphrase) "you can have your Tiger Woods. I want my two sons to look up to men like John McCain." That after noting that McCain had spent five years in Hanoi Hilton being tortured and refusing to come home before any of the other men who were there before him.

That set off a storm of scurrilous accusations of racism. Glenn Beck had Bellavia and the other Vets for Freedom on his show Wednesday night.

I introduced John McCain at this rally and what I basically said was, was that I was making a comparison of heroes, that all ages and races can look up to, referring to Senator McCain as more -- someone that, you know, should be on a pedestal for my two little boys to look up to, someone like Marcus Luttrell, Michael Mansoor. These are American heroes, compared to professional athletes or entertainers. I looked in the audience. I saw a guy with a Callaway golf hat on and I automatically thought of the most famous golfer who is Tiger Woods and I said, you can have your Tiger Woods as your heroes. We have men like Senator McCain. That's who my boys will look up to.

As usual, the nut bags got Bellavia's personal information and went crazy:

The first response I thought was ridiculous and then it just got more and more absurd with these bloggers getting my personal information out there calling me a bigot. In my world, I have an 8-year-old and a 1-year-old and I'm raising these kids to know that a man who sacrifices.

and...

They have been not only the e-mails that come pouring in but someone leaked, you know, phone numbers and everything else and locations of where people attend school and how they want to educate my kids and save them from their bigoted father. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

Bellavia has often noted in his speeches that there is no place for political persuasion on dog tags and also often noted that he has fought along side of every representation of America:

We are fighting as Americans. We're bleeding next to African-Americans. I fought with Muslim Americans, Glenn, in Iraq. This was never about religion or ethnicity. It's about Americans defending our culture and our way of life and I am proud to say that our legacy, we are the greatest humanitarian organizations ever lived in the United States military and we have nothing to apologize for...

My favorite line, when Glenn is asking him about his upcoming announcement about running for congress and how he'll fair or keep his principles:

my whole thing is, look, man, I faced down six guys in a house. That's my -- you can have your Princeton degree. I got my Ph.D. from the university of Fallujah and to me it's like if I'm not going to back down from Islamo terrorism, I'm certainly not going to back down from a special interest group.

Watch out, David. You keep making comparisons, next thing you know they are going to call you an anti-education troglodyte. ;)

JD Johannes writes about Olbermann's slandering of Bellavia on MSNBC.

Others, stung by their own fears and failing and whose ego will not allow them to acknowledge they are wanting, will ignore and marginalize the hero.
They find the comparison too unsettling.

Many, if tortured the way John McCain was, would not have chosen fortitude--and they know it and it hurts them.

Get JD's movie, Outside the Wire '07 and learn about the real war in Iraq.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Apr 11, 2008

Breaking News from Canada.

Perhaps some of our Canadian readers, especially those of the Center-sorta-left persuasion, like Alan of GenX@40 will offer up their thoughts?

From Kathy Shaidle via The Flea.

Hello everyone,
I wanted you to be the first to know that some Canadian conservative bloggers are being sued by the fellow who Mark Steyn has called "Canada's most sensitive man" -- serial "human rights" complainant Richard Warman.

The suit names:

• Ezra Levant (famous for the YouTube video of his confrontation with the Canadian Human Rights tribunal after he published the "Mohammed Cartoons")

• FreeDominion.ca (Canada's answer to FreeRepublic.com)

• Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com

• Jonathan Kay of the National Post newspaper and its in-house blog

• and me, Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com

More details at my blog, FiveFeetOfFury.

Richard Warman used to work for the notorious Human Rights Commission, which runs the "kangaroo courts" who've recently charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia".

Richard Warman has brought almost half these cases single-handledly, trying to get websites he doesn't like shut down.

He's also sued libraries for carrying books he doesn't approve of.

PLUS Richard Warman wants to ban international websites he doesn't like from being seen by Canadians.

Sites like yours.

The folks named in his new law suit are the very bloggers who have been most outspoken in their criticism of Warman's methods.

>WE NEED YOUR HELP!

The Canadian Human Rights Commission says "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.

Some Canadians DO believe in freedom of speech, and take our inspiration from our great American neighbors.

I for one "pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor" to the cause of free speech.

I vow to battle Richard Warman and his leftist supporters whatever it costs.

Thank you in advance for anything you can do to support our cause.

We hope you'll join our battle!

As Ezra Levant notes:

Warman’s not just suing me. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

what the helk? Well, there ought to be an outcry, a huge one and some definitive support across the internet. This is BS.

by kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 11:27 AM

Thanks for this, John. Freedom of speech is a Canadian value. It looks as though we are going to have to fight for it.

by Flea on April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

Thanks for the support! As a Canuck I can tell you we will not back down to these fascists.

by Blazingcatfur on April 9, 2008 11:59 AM

Freedom of speech is not only a Canadian value, its principle has been upheld by several Canadian Supreme Court decisions. Do the googling -- I found too many to link, but there's a nice recap of the law here.

Warman's take on free speech is like Stallone's take on handgun ownership: It's *my* right -- not yours."

Sic 'im, Cousins!

by BillT on April 9, 2008 12:15 PM

Tyranny of the minority, indeed.

I won't be moving to Canada any time soon.

by fdcol63 on April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

So countersue. Swear our harassment complaints. Bring heat to bear. Don't just talk about it.

by Mike S on April 9, 2008 12:33 PM

I realize that a full-on resistance is the right way to go here, but I'm a weasel. For those of you under threat, isn't it also worth considering setting up a blog or website on American soil and letting them have both barrels anonymously? Anything this Yank can do to aid and abet...

I don't think politicians have any idea how hard it is to silence a voice on the internet.

by S. Weasel on April 9, 2008 12:38 PM

Insta-lanched.

War of Ideas/ Blogospheric Restrictive Measures through Lawfare/ 5GW implications making my head hurt.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on April 9, 2008 12:56 PM

John,

Now you see why I want to live in your spare room?

RG

by RightGirl on April 9, 2008 1:05 PM

Hmm, should we tell Mr. Warman about JPFO? That'll make his head explode.

I dunno, RG, but there's still some room down here under the workbench.

by Justthisguy on April 9, 2008 1:11 PM

Well, that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing, that's an American construct. Naturally, it has no weight in Canada.

BTW, has anyone seen my nobles? They wanted me to sign something.

by King John on April 9, 2008 1:22 PM

I'm convinced that the CHRC subsists nose to ass with Warman and vice versa. Neither can justify their existence without the other's very real malfeasance. Mutually they wantonly and willfully set out to destroy lives and livelihoods. If their actions were to be thoroughly investigated, multiple charges could and should be laid against most if not all involved in this nightmarish fiasco.

by grant on April 9, 2008 1:22 PM

I'm convinced that the CHRC subsists nose to ass with Warman and vice versa. Neither can justify their existence without the other's very real malfeasance. Mutually they wantonly and willfully set out to destroy lives and livelihoods. If their actions were to be thoroughly investigated, multiple charges could and should be laid against most if not all involved in this nightmarish fiasco.

by grant on April 9, 2008 1:25 PM

Well, that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing, that's an American construct. Naturally, it has no weight in Canada.

BTW, has anyone seen my nobles? They wanted me to sign something.

by King John on April 9, 2008 1:27 PM

And, the Great Hall Echo proves to be no respector of boundaries!

by John of Argghhh! on April 9, 2008 1:43 PM

The InstaMan wonders why we don't make counter-claims and file our own nuisance human rights complaints. His brain probably cannot compute the fact the complainant and the investigator are often the same person. The situation is literally too Kafkaesque for an honourable man to grasp at first glance.

There is also at least one case of a human rights claim being dismissed because it had been submitted using both sides of the page instead of being single-sided. Problem is the submission was sent by fax... It was either Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant who called it the first two-sided fax in history.

by Flea on April 9, 2008 2:20 PM

don't you mean Richard "fascist" Warman?

by J.P. on April 9, 2008 2:27 PM

What? re: the fax not allowed on paper written on the back of? Well perhaps if it was not 'clear' and 'readable', even so, wouldn't a quick photocopy with a blank white sheet of paper behind each page have fixed that in a jiffy...and produced a one sided source doc to fax and a copy to boot?

Hey KAT from MIS... Long time no see at ITM.
~leap

by ldd on April 9, 2008 2:38 PM

Hey. I still read there. Just don't post as often. working, reading and posting here kind of uses up my time a bit. But nice seeing you again!

by kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 2:44 PM

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the complete English text of which may be found here, states in Article 2:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association. [emphasis added]

As I read the document, the Charter is as fundamental a document to Canadian law as the Constitution is to the laws of the United States.

Which means that plaintiffs in this suit are seeking to deprive Canadians of fundamental rights, which the courts are forbidden from doing. The Canadian courts should dismiss this suit with prejudice, on the grounds that it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

by Blake Kirk on April 9, 2008 2:44 PM

Blake-
From my brief look at Canadian documents, there are loopholes large enough to drive a skidder(for our north of the border friends) through. You think we've got a problem nailing things down because of our famous "rubber clause"....
I still can't figure out if there is any recourse for collecting costs in a successful defense....

by TBinSTL on April 9, 2008 2:57 PM

Of course this is serious stuff, but if ANY of this mess screws up the Stanley Cup Playoffs I am coming north of the border and knocking a few heads!

by Bilbeach on April 9, 2008 3:40 PM

Bilbeach - I think you're safe. There might well be a very polite governmental overthrow should hockey be impacted.

by John of Argghhh! on April 9, 2008 3:44 PM

John, I have read your terms of "rescue" and I accept! Small price to pay...

RG

[Snerk! I'm guessing SWWBO will have something to say...]

by RightGirl on April 9, 2008 4:00 PM

My trackback attempt failed. Warman can click my name to see what I think of him.

by McGehee on April 9, 2008 4:37 PM

Why don't you just tell them to F*** off?

by Cris on April 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Leap. Kat. Old friends. We live in interesting times.

by Louise on April 9, 2008 6:50 PM

Americans should look upon this mess up here as a warning - covet your freedom of speech. I'm surprised that more blogs weren't named. Perhaps Warman is saving them for the next round - mine included?

http://www.themoderateseparatist.com/2008/04/richard-warmans-censorship-sideshow.html

by Leigh Patrick Sullivan on April 9, 2008 7:06 PM

Please liberate our beseiged nation, I beseech you.

by Blazingcatfur on April 9, 2008 7:32 PM

It is wonderful to see you again. Hope to see you around and I'll try to get that way again.

by kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 9:51 PM

Richard Warman's not your friend, guy.

by Dave on April 9, 2008 11:01 PM

Richard Warman's not your friend, guy.

Heh. That puts me in mind of the joke "blonde dictionary" definition of an enema.

Oops. I think I may have hurt Warman's feelings again.

by McGehee on April 10, 2008 12:22 AM

One very important point that some of the other Canadian commenters' have missed, is that sec. 13.1 of the Human Rights Act is that the 'bar' is set pretty low, much lower than a criminal proceeding as far as burden of proof and court proccedure.

As hard as it is to comprehend, TRUTH is not a defense. FACT is not a defense. Once called before the HRC, you are ASSUMED guilty, and, as far as previous cases have gone, (100% conviction) No amount of supporting defensive evidence seems to affect the outcome. If you are brought before the HRC, you are pre-judged GUILTY before the trial or hearing, even starts.

Remember, 100% conviction, no appeal.

As for Warman, he used to work for the HRC, then resigned to work along side them as a 'professional' plaintiff. He, along with current officers of the HRC have been proven to plant 'hate' messages on targeted websites and then use their own planted posts as 'evidence' of hate, whereby using those 'proofs' to bring those sites to task at the HRC. 100% conviction-rate.

Freedom of speech, wot?

Please, please help support the bloggers! They are on the front lines of a very important fight we all need to support.

Thank you!

P.S. All those bloggers have really awesome content, so go pay them a visit!

by arctic_front on April 12, 2008 4:54 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Apr 09, 2008

Attacking Bellavia: Comparing Heroes Now "Racist"

[Kat]

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

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

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

(continued in flash traffic)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Stein, tear down that post.

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by Kat on Apr 09, 2008

I've been pretty resistant...

...about getting all snarkily political this silly season.

But sometimes, you just can't resist, and I *do* have Photoshop®. There *is* this thing called the Internet...

So, Senator Clinton, in Philadelphia yesterday, compared herself to... Rocky.

I had a very strong mental image of Senator Clinton's arrival at the Democratic National Convention this summer...

Rocky VII - The Horror...

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Apr 02, 2008

A Castle Public Service...

...to higher education. I got an email:

Dear John, Dusty, and Bill,

I am writing you in the hopes that you might be able to help me with a research study I am conducting as part of my research training in psychology at New York University. I would be very grateful to you if you could possibly post to your blog the link to a Web survey I am conducting as part of this study. I detail the research question we are trying to address below, but I would first like to assure you up front that this is not to sell anything, make a profit, or promote any sort of political agenda. What we are doing is conducting what we think is rather ground-breaking scientific research in the hopes of better understanding voting behavior from a psychological perspective.

The survey we are conducting is not aimed at changing respondents' opinions in any way, and this study is not being funded by any interest group or any of the candidates - rather, funding comes from a National Science Foundation grant for social psychological research.

Along with a team of students headed by Professor Yaacov Trope (NYU faculty), I am working on a model that will hopefully help us understand...

[big chunk deleted by request].

I would be more than happy to answer any questions about this research or provide references if you are interested in learning more about what we are doing.

Again, I would immensely appreciate your help with our project. The only thing you would have to do is post the URL in your blog (hopefully in the near future, as we are interested in how people reason about the four candidates, while at least 2 out of 4 are still competing for a party nomination). Also, I would ask you to please block any comments on the posting of the survey. I realize that this is a bit of a pain, but it is a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it. [Emphasis mine] On a related note, the research hypothesis described above should not be included in the posting [that big deleted chunk], since knowing the hypothesis also creates unwanted effects in the data. I hope that this does not deter you from posting the survey, which should be easy to do and would really help us recruit some politically savvy respondents, which we badly need!

Here's the link to the Survey.

There's more below the fold in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

by John on Mar 27, 2008 | TrackBack (0)

Vets For Freedom in Kansas City.

As Jim B reminded us last night:

Kansas City, MO - Thursday, March 26/27, 2008 What: Townhall at The National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial: Vets for Freedom will participate in a townhall & forum event with a book signing from the Vets for Freedom Heroes to follow.
When: 7pm March 26th

Where: 100 W. 26th Street, Kansas City MO, 64108

Open to the Public

After they got cancelled by some punk HS principal in Minn, I wouldn't miss being here.

Denizens Jim and Kat will be there. Due to other commitments, I probably will not. Any other readers going to attend? If so - would love to have your stories from the event!

Jim B and the Dole Institute want you to know...

And tomorrow ....Vets for Freedom Heroes travel to Lawrence or as John calls it "the Flaw on the Kaw"
What: Visit at the Dole Institute of Politics

WHEN: March 27, 2008, 9:30 am

Where: The Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics (2350 Petefish Drive, Lawrence, KS 66045)

***Open to the Public***

I would be there, but I have a work obligation that cannot be rescheduled.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Mar 26, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The long of it is below the fold.)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

� Secure this line!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

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

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

by fdcol63 on March 26, 2008 7:39 AM

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

by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 8:48 AM

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

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

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

by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

You think there's no spin in History?

by Trias on March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

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

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

by Boquisucio on March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

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

Don't undermine my confidence!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saddam will be a martyr to imperial dreams.

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

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

by Grumpy on March 26, 2008 4:07 PM

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

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

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

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

by Fishmugger on March 26, 2008 5:03 PM

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

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

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

by BillT on March 27, 2008 5:59 AM

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

by BillT on March 27, 2008 6:14 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Ryan on Mar 26, 2008

Annoyed black man rants...

This fella, I'm happy to say, is a friend of mine, as is his wife and their wonderfully diverse family. I swiped a huge bit of his latest rant, simply because in this America, he gets to say things I can't... He does use rougher language than I allow 'round here - so when you go read the whole thing (and you should) be prepared for that - you'll see what I mean from the edits I made.

While speaking to one of my student interns the other day he asked me what I looked for in a president. Basically I told him, nothing, not a damn thing. I don’t want my president to do a damn thing, I don’t want he or she to say anything, I want them to just occupy the space, don’t f*ck sh*t up, don’t push any red buttons or try to fix anything. I want them to vacation hard and long. Bottom line; just keep you f*cken mouth shut and try not to do anything too stupid. Is that asking too much?
For as long as I can remember I have regarded the presidency as a middle management position basically because the smarter the president tended to be the more likely they were to f*ck sh*t up. [emphasis mine!]

I don’t want my president to fix health care, I don’t want my president trying to “create” jobs. That is not what they do. I don’t want my president trying to fix race relations, or trying to cure world hunger, or spreading democracy or being the world’s f*cken police.

What about Iraq, Snoop? (sigh). Well being in Iraq and the Middle East was inevitable. Being in Iraq is a necessary evil and folks on both sides of the political divide are on the same page about how badly it got screwed up. However, to appease the monkeys on both sides of the political animal cages politicians throw out withdrawal timetables on one hand while the other growls about “finishing the job” and “keep America safe.” We are in Iraq because we needed a place to park troops – To keep a closer eye on the oil and the many nut jobs in the region.

That's not enough for you to click through on the link at the bottom? Okay - mebbe this will get you interested..

So, I’ll muddle through this as best I can, but it will no doubt seem disjointed to some. You can blame it on the lingering effects of my a$$ kicking flu or my increasing irritation with the news media and America’s new found racial enlightenment all because Barack Hussein Obama was feeling the pressure of anti-American backlash because he decided to attend a church to give him street credibility while at the same time embracing an over the top whitey-America hating Pastor. Folks maybe it is just me, being a black dude, conservative minded, independent thinking, beat of thy own drummer cranky ranting f*ck who just sees the mud and dirt all over every damn aspect of American politics.

Naw, Mr. L, you aren't alone. The rest of you? Go check out PoliticalPartyPoop for the rest of this rant!

Politics isn't always the answer. Sometimes, just let the ball roll and it'll take care of itself. But when your only tool is a hammer - all problems look like nails. That's why the Founders created the Three Branches, with the ex-officio 4th and 5th - to provide some competition. Only the 4th and 5th aren't always pulling their weight.

What do I mean? When the press let's themselves get captured by their biases (many voices! many voices! that's the impact of blogs and talk radio) and we the people (#5) won't periodically cull that herd of 535 people in DC. They've got no entitlement to the job, they've got a much-better-than-average retirement package without having to put in the years the rest of us do - send 'em home to get real jobs every now and then.

Heh. As if.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Mar 21, 2008

Winter Soldier II, IVAW's attempt to reprise Senator Kerry's political debut...

I've been so busy the last few weeks, I'd completely forgotten the Iraq Veteran's Against the War (IVAW) upcoming "Winter Soldier II"

I first discussed Winter Soldier II this last January.

And, promptly forgot about it. Fuzzybear Lioness hasn't. She sent me a note:

In a nutshell, IVAW's description of "Winter Soldier II" has gone from "Iraq's version of Winter Soldier--same script, different country" (war crimes, it's the politicians' fault, etc) to a cross between an academic seminar on the veteran experience and a TINS exercise. Today they make no mention of the first iteration, though remnants of their original affiliation with it remained on their site as few as TWO days ago (though it had been toned WAYYYYY down).

I like my take on it: Wolves in Sheepdog clothing.

#@$%^Y^%#@#%$!

#@$%^Y^%#@#%$! indeed.

Heh. Wolves in Sheepdog Clothing. I like that. Though I'm sure there will be many well-intentioned people present - the change in their posted rhetoric would indicate they took some flak they probably weren't expecting. Or perhaps it will just be this generation's CW4(Ret)Bill T's telling stories that start out "This is no shiite..."

Or, it could be something else. Something along the lines of what Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation found the chance to chat with Senator Kerry about - the original Winter Soldier.

Heh. Senator Kerry. A man for all seasons, or whatever he needs to be on any given day, anyway.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

I think they changed the wording for marketing purposes. Some of the old statements were too wobbly to be publicly presented to vets IMO, even those opposed to this war; especially the negativity given the recent successes.

I don't understand what the problem with this event is apart from it not having the pro-war pov.

by Trias on March 14, 2008 8:17 AM

Trias,
I'm not sure there is such a thing as "pro war" amongst the military. Pro mission maybe...

by Carrie on March 14, 2008 8:46 AM

Trias, if I didn't know you, I'd be saying, "You can't possibly be serious!!!"

In a nutshell (as much as I can pull things together on five hours of sleep): Winter Soldier the first time around was found upon subsequent investigation to be shot full of people "testifying" to atrocities who hadn't even served in a combat zone!!! It was pivotal in dunning an entire generation of veterans. For IVAW to have so closely aligned their current event with that unspeakable $%&#@(* speaks volumes as to their intentions, affiliations and desires. I'm glad they've watered down their statements about what they apparently expect Winter Soldier II to be, but that doesn't change who they are.

Maybe in Canada you aren't aware of the true history of the anti-Vietnam-war movement in the U.S. and organizations like VVAW. There were toxic, absolutely toxic.

Just read the "Wolves in Sheepdog Clothing" link (and the additional links embedded there), and you'll understand why supporters of the military are so incensed by this. Please.

by FbL on March 14, 2008 8:55 AM

Though I'm sure there will be many well-intentioned people present

I agree. Those aren't the people my rage is directed against, though I am saddened to see them used like this.

by FbL on March 14, 2008 8:58 AM

And, I might add to FbL's comments that even these guys at IVAW have hitched their wagon to some modern day morons whose stories are so incredulous that the media eats them up and the the blogs go to town and discover the truth.

Jesse MacBeth and Jim Massey are two that rings off the top of my head. Jesse MacBeth had barely survived 44 days in the military, was never deployed to anywhere and then went around claiming he was SF. Dude weighed like 110 sopping wet, couldn't wear his uniform right and wore his beret on the wrong side, for starters.

And Massey told so many embellishments, it was nearly insane. He was there alright and so were 5 embedded reporters and how many marines who all said his stories were either lies or embellishments.

The guy was suffering from PTSD as far as I could tell and now he's stuck with his BS and we are too.

Which tells me that what we're going to get out of this whole event is some more BS artists that the media will suck up to and regurgitate their garbage while we have to go around and prove them wrong instead of some people doing their jobs in journalism and corroborating any stories. But, they don't. Why? Because what these people tell the media and many others is what they want to hear, what they want to confirm their own ignorance of the military and the people who join.

It has the unfortunate tendency to spread into the general public like an ugly virus because of that and we will have to keep fighting it.

Just once, I'd love to see the media interview one of these morons and have them say: "yeah, I was in. I didn't even fire my gun. I just hated the officers, hated authority, hated structure, should never have joined and really, really believe that peace is the answer."

At least they'd have some credibility.

by kat-missouri on March 14, 2008 9:09 AM

Read the Vets for Freedom Blog for more explanations:

Winter Soldier I and II

Vets for Freedom: IVAW Credibility and Verification (lack there of)

As they say "Peace Out"

by kat-missouri on March 14, 2008 9:33 AM

Notice the placement of Sen. Kerrys index finger on his shotgun....

Or is that just his best "Rambo" photo op pose to prove to gun owners that he's just like us?

Guess he didn't learn gun etiquette during his harrowing times in Vietnam. Too busy being traumatized by the 'atrocities' occurring all around him. Guess he didn't feel the need to intervene to stop them...

Until he had the stage in D.C.

Poseur.

by Kevin on March 14, 2008 10:31 AM

Sure, some of these individuals are genuinely good people, genuine pacifists doing nothing more than expressing their opinions and hopes for a better, more peaceful world.

But make no mistake ..... many, especially among the leadership, are truly evil people actively supporting our enemies by exploiting the few genuinely good people among them.

Wolves, indeed.

by fdcol63 on March 14, 2008 11:06 AM

If you've been "out-of-the-loop" since January, perhaps you also missed this remarkable article by Scott Swett on the discovery of Army CID documents that put the lie to the VVAW fraud-fest of '71...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5AA13DC0-481C-46BC-AF88-D5FE933B3216

See also Mr. Swett's followup article today...

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5D74268B-C69A-47A9-A037-EE17D3C29E1E

by Bingo on March 14, 2008 12:44 PM

I understand and agree with what you mean Carrie but Carrie when war is the mission pro war is the result of being pro mission.

Yes, I am serious. I didn't understand why, i partially understand now thanks to you and some other links. Honestly you don't know me FbL and that's OK. I am Australian BTW.

I have read more links yours and the Iraq vets for Freedom and other info. Looks like much is related to the original Winter Soldier of Vietnam. I don't know how much of the original was truth or lie but it is interesting on both sides. At one level it looks like Kerry told quite a fib and it cost him Presidency possibly. At another the Army investigated much of the claims but it was entirely without any strength to discredit the claims. I couldn't find info to support that the ones that made claims hadn't been at a war zone. If you have a link that would be great.

The bigger problem was probably the balance of views. People turning what this Winter Soldier was into believing this was the the norm in Vietnam and probably this will happen again with the new version. Or so the organisers may hope. The other views of soldiers not really seen because they don't speak and no one is listening anyway? The positive news and the many good and bad days spent there by veterans but no war crime or media point of interest to speak of.

But much of this is reaction to fermented problems. Here's a few I think are part of it

The poor after service support which fuels considerable anger and disappointment with the military and government with vets. And other anger sources. Anger enough to speak about things they fear the repercussions of or to embellish or to lie outright.

Covering up and minimising real problems. Covering something up like My Lai sounds good but the consequence of an exposed coverup is an enormous public perception of there being many similar events that exist but are unknown. Coverups fuel conspiracy theories very much so. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars also have aspects of this. I think the lack of consequence to those involved with the prison abuse is a good example of that. My point here is by not facing the small number of real problems maturely the military is giving the public good excuses to believe there's lots more bad things happening.

Running a war with weak civilian support. People are far more willing to believe what fits in their worldview so if a citizen is already opposed to the war these things like Winter Soldier can be taken onboard with very little questioning.

The point in these three is that Winter Soldier took advantage of deeper problems none of which the military or government have adequately faced. While Winter Soldier might have been pivotal in dunning (I had to look up and twist the dictionary meaning of that one) the Vietnam vets, the real culpability lies with each person that actually did the dunning.

At the end of the day though US soldiers are fighting for the US which allows freedoms to do things like Winter Soldier.

However what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Attacking this event is OK too. If the organisers met with various dubious groups like had happened in the original Winter Soldier that can be very telling. So too can things like this;

In their website they have a link to "truth in recruiting" I think truth in recruiting might be a real issue. But you know when you click on the link it's not about trying to improve truth at all. In fact their stated aim is to shutdown recruitment not improve the truth level. To do so they use deceit via the 'befriend' a recruiter program. This essentially wastes recruiter time by tangling them up in false leads.

This last double deceit is the fat straw that sold me out of the intentions of Winter Soldier II.

by Trias on March 14, 2008 6:46 PM

Trias,
"pro-war" is a term most often used by loony lefties and Code Pinkos. For me, it's a thumb in the eye.
I am a Marine wife and Marine mom. I am most definitely NOT Pro-War but I do support the troops And their mission. I would rather us not be at war but we are.
Semantics but there you are.

by Carrie on March 15, 2008 7:43 AM

"I think the lack of consequence to those involved with the prison abuse is a good example of that."

I'm curious, just what punishment exactly, beyond the scope of the courts martial, prison time (that *Federal* prison they are in, btw, is USP Leavenworth, KS look it up, it isn't a *pretty* place to serve time), dishonorable discharges and complete ruin of their personal and professional lives, do you think should have been levelled upon those who committed the Abu Graib crimes? And how does that punishment equate to what you term "lack of consequence"?
If you think that the military doesn't live in the shadow of Vietnam - especially after having heard it basically from Day 1 of the Iraqi war - and incidents such as My Lai, if you think that it doesn't sit in the back of the judges minds when they mete out their judgement, then you are sadly mistaken.

And I must disagree on the semantic issue of "pro-war". It's not just that it's a term used by the Leftists such as Code Pink, et al, that is offensive. It is the term itself. It is a derogatory term invoking connotations of blood lust and a desire to kill for killing's sake. And it's an insult to the 99% of servicemen and women who honorably serve for our country.

by Sly2017 on March 15, 2008 11:13 AM

Point taken, Sly, regarding my use of the word "semantics"
And agreed with.

by Carrie on March 15, 2008 11:55 AM

My take: this is where we'll see how the military-press relationship, particularly the 'embed' program, in this war will pay off. No doubt, mistakes and unforeseen circumstances happen in war. Brutal things happen, particularly when fighting an enemy who inflicts atrocities and uses tactics to compel our troops into ugly incidents and packages it all as propaganda. The first challenge is to verify, the second is to place the accurate information in context. The anti-war groups are seeking to impose their context. The media that has embedded with our military over there, hopefully, will be experienced enough and called upon to judge the accounts they hear and place them in a fair context that's independent of the anti-war frame. They can also ask non-IVAW vets to evaluate, but that's probably expecting too much.

by Eric Chen on March 15, 2008 10:55 PM

When I first saw the pictures of abu grab I thought I was looking at pictures from either a Madonna or Brittany Spears concert.

No one's pro-war they're pro-reality.

If you watch those in these vietnam veterans against the war wannabees, check out the stuttering and stammering like they're looking for words. If you're telling the truth you do it with a lifelike style. If you're not lying you don't have to remember anything.

by John Cunningham on March 16, 2008 4:56 AM

Sly2017, to be exact;

courts martial,

I do not believe all participants underwent this process, including those identified as being involved. I see a court martial as a judicial process determining punishment not punishment itself. Is this incorrect?

prison time

Not all of those few charged have been convicted and gone to prison. Prison sentences are few in number and generally light even before good behavior and other credit.

(that *Federal* prison they are in, btw, is USP Leavenworth, KS look it up, it isn't a *pretty* place to serve time),

It is not clear to me that all convicted go to Federal prison much less the one you specify. It is claimed by military sources this prison is male only and thus at least one of the convicted (a female) is unlikely to be there. It is also my belief that this prison is considerably better run and pleasant than Abu Graib was. It is also downgrading to a medium security prison.

dishonorable discharges and complete ruin of their personal and professional lives,

There were indeed several dishonorable discharges although most discharges were given as bad conduct discharges. And there were several demotions and pay reduction/revocation and some fines. Personal and professional life ruin can be a consequence of being caught for any crime. It is not a form of deliberated punishment.

do you think should have been leveled upon those who committed the Abu Ghraib crimes?

I personally believe the sentences should have been heavier (max was 10 years, min no time served) and more numerous (12 or so got some kind of conviction), especially up the chain of command. I believe there should also have been convictions for the murders at that prison.

And how does that punishment equate to what you term "lack of consequence"?

To be certain there was consequence but I characterise it as lenient and limited when compared with the crimes committed.

I can't say i understand it but I will accept the 'prowar' point of view you present. Is pro-victory the preferred term?

by Trias on March 16, 2008 5:55 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Mar 14, 2008

David Mamet - welcome to my world.

I've got a seat for you in my tent.

An excerpt:

I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

You really owe it to yourself to read the rest of "Why I am no longer a 'Brain Dead' liberal.", by David Mamet, writing in the Village Voice.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

June 21, 2008

Have No Fear, Under Dog is Here!

June 19, 2008

Why I will vote Republican.

June 17, 2008

I'm not a single-issue voter, but it shouldn't shock anyone...

Biblical Proportions

June 13, 2008

The Gitmo Decision.

June 10, 2008

Where's Obama?

June 9, 2008

AmericaBlog... missing the point.

Obsessions: a further rebuttal

The Rising Tides 3 - The Obaminator v Captain America

June 7, 2008

The Rising Tide 2 - The Powerful Luminescence of Obama

June 6, 2008

My take on the USAF "Revolt"

We Interrupt This Program For An Emergency Weather Report - The Rising Tides Obama '08

June 2, 2008

Garrison Keillor... clueless in Lake Woebegon.

May 28, 2008

A rational response.

Catching wild pigs.

May 22, 2008

Heh. Read the Farm Bill?

May 21, 2008

Heh. Dems. McCain. Military Service, suitability of.

May 16, 2008

Peggy Noonan today.

Obama: I Have A Question...

May 8, 2008

Heh. Keep this in mind as you watch the political ads this silly season.

April 30, 2008

The Current Dem attack ad on McCain.

April 28, 2008

Jeremiah Wright

April 25, 2008

A little photo essay on protests on college campuses.

April 24, 2008

Candygram for Hugo! Candygram for Hugo!

April 22, 2008

A look at the campaigns from across the pond...

April 21, 2008

Hmmm. This might be fun. Well, it will amuse me anyway.

April 18, 2008

Why vigilance (and informed, vice emotional, voting) matters.

April 15, 2008

Bellavia takes the plunge...

April 14, 2008

Of strategic thinking and presidential candidates

Breaking news! New Acquisition for the Arsenal of Argghhh!!!

April 12, 2008

The President's Radio Address.

So, Bill sends me a note... containing a note.

Now I remember why I get the HuffPo digest email every day.

April 11, 2008

Bellavia On Glenn Beck: I got my Ph.D. from the university of Fallujah

April 9, 2008

Breaking News from Canada.

Attacking Bellavia: Comparing Heroes Now "Racist"

April 2, 2008

I've been pretty resistant...

March 27, 2008

A Castle Public Service...

March 26, 2008

Vets For Freedom in Kansas City.

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

March 21, 2008

Annoyed black man rants...

March 14, 2008

Winter Soldier II, IVAW's attempt to reprise Senator Kerry's political debut...

March 12, 2008

David Mamet - welcome to my world.