Well I had O'Reilly on tonight and low and behold he has as a guest Father John Morris, whom I recognized from checking out the lone site Titus has offered up. This was the first time I have heard him speak on television and my jaw about dropped when I realized the reason he was on. Apparently, in addition to being a FOX News contributor on spiritual matters, he personally knows the guy who wrote the TIME Magazine article asserting that Pope John Paul II was euthanized. The basis for this claim, and thus the article, were the observations of one woman, a physician whom never attended the Pope, and made her assessment that he had engaged in defacto euthanasia via denying himself medical treatment AFTER SEEING HIM ON TV!! Are you kidding me? This is on the heels of NEWSWEEK hiring the vocal atheist and author, Christopher Hitchens, to write an article besmirching Mother Theresa as a "miserable woman" after the recent release of private letters which showed - hold on to your hat - that she sometimes questioned her faith! What a shocker, a human being whom along her long and storied journey of faith had a question or two once or twice in her life. If anything that should give the rest of us solace that yes, even she sometimes had questions and was in need of answers. Is the main stream media in this country so desperate to discredit Christianity that it would go after its two premier figures of the last quarter century based on such laughable evidence and accusations? Apparently so.
Well, the gist was that Father Morris called this guy and asked why he would go with a story based on such weak evidence and (I'm paraphrasing) the TIME "reporter" said that sometimes reporters are supposed to initiate debate on a subject in order to further the conversation, to which the good father said, NO you're a reporter, you're supposed to report the facts. I noticed, though I haven't read it yet, that the Father has the article he wrote for FOX News.com, condemning the TIME piece, on his website. He also noted that TIME misrepresented Catholic doxy by reporting in it's first paragraph (thus setting up the story) that it is incumbent upon Catholics to pursue "any and all medical treatments in the extension of their lives", which is patently false, there is no such requirement, as Morris pointed out, to undergo extreme measures in the pursuit of an extended life.
In other news, I'll be watching a lot more White House press conferences. Have you seen who's replacing Tony Snow? Well, you should. Her name is Dana Perino (probably Catholic herself in that her name ends in a vowel - it's a joke you Italians, relax) and she's quite easy on the eyes. Short blond hair, GREAT smile, and has a mind plus vocabulary that's sharp as a tack. Hmmm, surely there's a "Bund video of the week" with her name on it in the near future.
FR
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Still Guilty ...
Titus, in his response to my post "Dueling Professors", noted that I owe Columbia University President Lee Bollinger an apology (I hope everyone got my title - Ahmad was a lecturer at one point in Tehran, as Bollinger is here) .
I owe nothing of the sort.
I disagreed with his decision to host the event (and still do) but was honest enough to acknowledge how well he used it to confront "Ahmad." I praised the tone and substance of Bollinger's words in spades, lest we forget I am the one who cut and pasted it all over the Bund. It was a fantastic confrontation and just how much disdain Bollinger has for Ahmad was not left to the imagination.
However, I want to add ... I STILL think Bollinger is guilty of a great hypocrisy. If Ahmad's appearance was justified under the annals of free speech, then what is his excuse for ejecting the ROTC from campus? He clearly stated it was over his disapproval of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Fine, he disagrees with it, but why can he vehemently disagree with Ahmad, yet allow him on campus, then turn right around and NOT honor that same free speech right for the US military? It would appear his defense of the 1st amendment is selective.
As McCain correctly pointed out, that program is responsible for the majority of the officers we have in place today. It is ironic that he would deny free speech to the very organization that defends (sometimes with their life) his. Are they not worthy of the same free speech Bollinger so treasures? Are they some how less deserving of free speech considerations then a man Bollinger himself refers to as "a petty and cruel dictator"?
How poignant the moment would have been had 6 ROTC cadets been able to sit in the front row, in full dress uniform and berets, while Mr.Coatsworth read ... "The following comes from our students within the Reserve Officer Training Core. 'The United sates soldier is sworn to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, and they are without a doubt the most professional and well trained soldiers in the history of warfare. As your country's leader, do you think it wise to risk a war with men such as these?' Columbia would have had every red blooded American from sea to shining sea jumping out of their seats to applaud. Unfortunately this is a moment that Mr. Bollinger will never allow to happen. Not because the despot was uninvited mind you, but because those cadets were.
Give him all the "kudos" for his confrontation of Ahmad you want Titus, I have done as much myself. But let us be as forthright and loud in our condemnation of his ROTC stance. It is deplorable. One might even say that to kick the ROTC off campus just because he disagrees with a single policy of theirs are the actions of a "petty and cruel dean."
FR
I owe nothing of the sort.
I disagreed with his decision to host the event (and still do) but was honest enough to acknowledge how well he used it to confront "Ahmad." I praised the tone and substance of Bollinger's words in spades, lest we forget I am the one who cut and pasted it all over the Bund. It was a fantastic confrontation and just how much disdain Bollinger has for Ahmad was not left to the imagination.
However, I want to add ... I STILL think Bollinger is guilty of a great hypocrisy. If Ahmad's appearance was justified under the annals of free speech, then what is his excuse for ejecting the ROTC from campus? He clearly stated it was over his disapproval of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Fine, he disagrees with it, but why can he vehemently disagree with Ahmad, yet allow him on campus, then turn right around and NOT honor that same free speech right for the US military? It would appear his defense of the 1st amendment is selective.
As McCain correctly pointed out, that program is responsible for the majority of the officers we have in place today. It is ironic that he would deny free speech to the very organization that defends (sometimes with their life) his. Are they not worthy of the same free speech Bollinger so treasures? Are they some how less deserving of free speech considerations then a man Bollinger himself refers to as "a petty and cruel dictator"?
How poignant the moment would have been had 6 ROTC cadets been able to sit in the front row, in full dress uniform and berets, while Mr.Coatsworth read ... "The following comes from our students within the Reserve Officer Training Core. 'The United sates soldier is sworn to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, and they are without a doubt the most professional and well trained soldiers in the history of warfare. As your country's leader, do you think it wise to risk a war with men such as these?' Columbia would have had every red blooded American from sea to shining sea jumping out of their seats to applaud. Unfortunately this is a moment that Mr. Bollinger will never allow to happen. Not because the despot was uninvited mind you, but because those cadets were.
Give him all the "kudos" for his confrontation of Ahmad you want Titus, I have done as much myself. But let us be as forthright and loud in our condemnation of his ROTC stance. It is deplorable. One might even say that to kick the ROTC off campus just because he disagrees with a single policy of theirs are the actions of a "petty and cruel dean."
FR
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Look who's talking tough...
France and Germany!
Nick Sarkozy told the UN general assembly that allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons was an unacceptable risk to the stability of the region. Then Angie Merkel jumps up and says sanctions should be tougher because Ahmadinejad's attitude is, well, less than diplomatic.
Which didn't matter to Ahmadinejad a bit, who took the podium and said the only body they'd answer to is the IAEA. So the enrichment of uranium for weapons purposes is a forgone conclusion? Or the UN is supposed to trust him?
Not to bring up more badness when it comes to our current administration and foreign policy, but we're about to sign on a nuclear material deal with India that breaks every UN non-proliferation law in the books. India did not sign the non-proliferation treaty nor do they allow inspection of their sites. And no one would have been the wiser for this except for Israel, who's hoping to get a non-proliferation waiver and import nuclear material as well, citing this potential agreement as grounds for their own waiver.
#1) Why are we giving India nuclear material, for power or otherwise?
#2) Why AREN'T we doing this for Israel? Public or otherwise?
#3) Can we let France and Germany TCOB in Iran? Or at least play point?
Nick Sarkozy told the UN general assembly that allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons was an unacceptable risk to the stability of the region. Then Angie Merkel jumps up and says sanctions should be tougher because Ahmadinejad's attitude is, well, less than diplomatic.
Which didn't matter to Ahmadinejad a bit, who took the podium and said the only body they'd answer to is the IAEA. So the enrichment of uranium for weapons purposes is a forgone conclusion? Or the UN is supposed to trust him?
Not to bring up more badness when it comes to our current administration and foreign policy, but we're about to sign on a nuclear material deal with India that breaks every UN non-proliferation law in the books. India did not sign the non-proliferation treaty nor do they allow inspection of their sites. And no one would have been the wiser for this except for Israel, who's hoping to get a non-proliferation waiver and import nuclear material as well, citing this potential agreement as grounds for their own waiver.
#1) Why are we giving India nuclear material, for power or otherwise?
#2) Why AREN'T we doing this for Israel? Public or otherwise?
#3) Can we let France and Germany TCOB in Iran? Or at least play point?
Man, did I read that right?
2089 visitors since August 29? Nice starting date, by the way.
Does that seem like a crapload of hits for less than one month or what?
In answering my own question, I guess three people checking the thing on average twice a day, (for me the day begins when I wake up, so checking it when I get home from work in the early am, then when I get up in the afternoon) still only adds up to 90 hits a month. That's a lot of hits. Ok, toss in Bad Boy, (hoping 1st Sergeant Bad Boy come November) and he's a lurking loser so I'm giving him one hit a day, making it 120.
A complete side note. I'm anxious about Bad Boy's promotion because I want to yell that immortal line from "Band of Brothers," "1st Sergeant Lipton!" And watch him snap around like a boot at parade.
So anyway, am I misreading something or are we like 1900 plus hits above what the mailing list would have had?
Does that seem like a crapload of hits for less than one month or what?
In answering my own question, I guess three people checking the thing on average twice a day, (for me the day begins when I wake up, so checking it when I get home from work in the early am, then when I get up in the afternoon) still only adds up to 90 hits a month. That's a lot of hits. Ok, toss in Bad Boy, (hoping 1st Sergeant Bad Boy come November) and he's a lurking loser so I'm giving him one hit a day, making it 120.
A complete side note. I'm anxious about Bad Boy's promotion because I want to yell that immortal line from "Band of Brothers," "1st Sergeant Lipton!" And watch him snap around like a boot at parade.
So anyway, am I misreading something or are we like 1900 plus hits above what the mailing list would have had?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Dueling "professors"?
Two orders of business before I get to the subject title.
1.) The US House of Representatives .. that is very interesting. I'm glad Titus is keeping track of these prestigious visits. Undoubtedly we will soon find ourselves being plagiarized. Our ideas put forth in talking points and even bills submitted for law ... that's the "natural narcissism" by the way, that Titus correctly identified.
2.) Unlike the more well known but less prestigious Move On blog, I am relieved that the FBI has advanced search engines which flag sites like ours for review. Undoubtedly this is the type of "victimizing" Move On and the ACLU would claim is eroding our 1st amendment rights. They would be wrong. It is not the lawyers, reporters (or even bloggers) that protect free speech - it is the soldier, FBI agent and policeman.
Alright ... on to today's business.
Ahmdinejad's appearance at Columbia University.
First let me make a correction to my previous post on this subject (after all, we're not the NY Times, we don't bury mistakes below the fold on page 26). The president of Columbia is a man, not a woman. However, while this may steal the meaning out of my clever title (The Madam and the Madman), it does not change the substance of what I wrote - this man should have never been given this platform.
As to the event itself ... After tremendous criticism was heaped upon the university president and his supporters they began to bill this event as an opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad with the sort of tough questions he never faces at home. Was it a clever PR offensive? Perhaps. However, in reading the full text of the exchange (as I did) one realizes that Bollinger followed through, with force, on that promise. And while I still condemn his decision to allow this madman to have such a forum, I am intellectually honest enough to give him credit for that follow through. I submit for your review just a taste of the introduction by Lee Bollinger:
"Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"
"Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
"The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.
My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)"
"A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
"Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.
A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)
I am only a professor, who is also a university president.
And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you." (Cheers, extended applause.)
And brother, that was just a few excerpts. The man clearly was going to define this event on his own terms and I am heartened to see that the leader of one of our premier academic institutions has not been blinded by a hatred of all things conservative or Bush and that he still finds attacks against America and human rights violations appalling even if it puts him in a position of agreeing, however temporarily, with George W. Bush. So for his personal conduct in this event I give him credit.
Some of the students then went on to offer tough questions as well. BUT ... the problem with interacting with a skilled propagandist is that for all of the tough questions and accusations, not one of them will be answered. Sure, it makes Bollinger look good and perhaps saves his reputation regarding this issue, but what did it achieve? Listen or read the transcripts - there wasn't a single answer on these issues. It was replete with ten minute responses chalked full of the double speak we became accustomed to during the Soviet era. And even more disturbing was at times - especially in Ahmadenijad's initial defense from the introduction - the student audience gave wild applause in support of this butcher. And I understand Bollinger's point that his inability or unwillingness to answer these questions speaks volumes in and of itself - but the portions which will be shown on Iranian sate TV, Al Jazerra et al will be the thunderous applause Ahmad got from the students - and shamefully they wont even have to cut and paste that audio - it was genuine! I'll give you an example:
Ahmadinejad: At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
The chills that went up my spine when that "applause" you see above echoed - I practically yelled at the radio. The audio gives it a different sensory experience I assure you.
At any rate, their were in fact tough questions, protesters were allowed to demonstrate outside and I acknowledge that the longer this whack job was allowed to talk, the more he looked like a whack job, so whether it was PR move or not, the university did in fact deliver on it's promise to give him tough questions. So while I disagree with allowing him this platform, the university officials and some students did conduct themselves in a commendable way. The American whom should be most ashamed in this whole ordeal is Mike Wallace. In comparison his "interview" with Ahmadenijad of some months ago looks like a make out session.
This does not however explain why the ROTC is still not allowed on campus. And if Mr. Bollinger wants to fully acquit himself of accusations of bias then he can add to today's performance a lift on the ROTC campus ban. Then and only then will the "elitist academia" on each of our coasts that conservatives rail against on radio and TV be taking their first steps back into the legitimate and mature debate they so claim to treasure.
One last thought. When the students apllauded at Ahmadenijad's comment about how in Iran they don't prejudge the speaker before he speaks - they were, via that applause, condemning their own Dean's opening remarks. And as I yelled at those students blaring through my radio I realized that for a brief moment, the president of Columbia University (an avowed left-winger) and F. Ryan were on the same side in condemning evil. If that is possible, even briefly, then perhaps the unity that America displayed in WWII when confronting evil is possible again should we find oursleves going to war with Iran. Like I said, just a thought, but a hopeful one.
FR
1.) The US House of Representatives .. that is very interesting. I'm glad Titus is keeping track of these prestigious visits. Undoubtedly we will soon find ourselves being plagiarized. Our ideas put forth in talking points and even bills submitted for law ... that's the "natural narcissism" by the way, that Titus correctly identified.
2.) Unlike the more well known but less prestigious Move On blog, I am relieved that the FBI has advanced search engines which flag sites like ours for review. Undoubtedly this is the type of "victimizing" Move On and the ACLU would claim is eroding our 1st amendment rights. They would be wrong. It is not the lawyers, reporters (or even bloggers) that protect free speech - it is the soldier, FBI agent and policeman.
Alright ... on to today's business.
Ahmdinejad's appearance at Columbia University.
First let me make a correction to my previous post on this subject (after all, we're not the NY Times, we don't bury mistakes below the fold on page 26). The president of Columbia is a man, not a woman. However, while this may steal the meaning out of my clever title (The Madam and the Madman), it does not change the substance of what I wrote - this man should have never been given this platform.
As to the event itself ... After tremendous criticism was heaped upon the university president and his supporters they began to bill this event as an opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad with the sort of tough questions he never faces at home. Was it a clever PR offensive? Perhaps. However, in reading the full text of the exchange (as I did) one realizes that Bollinger followed through, with force, on that promise. And while I still condemn his decision to allow this madman to have such a forum, I am intellectually honest enough to give him credit for that follow through. I submit for your review just a taste of the introduction by Lee Bollinger:
"Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"
"Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
"The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.
My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)"
"A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
"Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.
A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)
I am only a professor, who is also a university president.
And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you." (Cheers, extended applause.)
And brother, that was just a few excerpts. The man clearly was going to define this event on his own terms and I am heartened to see that the leader of one of our premier academic institutions has not been blinded by a hatred of all things conservative or Bush and that he still finds attacks against America and human rights violations appalling even if it puts him in a position of agreeing, however temporarily, with George W. Bush. So for his personal conduct in this event I give him credit.
Some of the students then went on to offer tough questions as well. BUT ... the problem with interacting with a skilled propagandist is that for all of the tough questions and accusations, not one of them will be answered. Sure, it makes Bollinger look good and perhaps saves his reputation regarding this issue, but what did it achieve? Listen or read the transcripts - there wasn't a single answer on these issues. It was replete with ten minute responses chalked full of the double speak we became accustomed to during the Soviet era. And even more disturbing was at times - especially in Ahmadenijad's initial defense from the introduction - the student audience gave wild applause in support of this butcher. And I understand Bollinger's point that his inability or unwillingness to answer these questions speaks volumes in and of itself - but the portions which will be shown on Iranian sate TV, Al Jazerra et al will be the thunderous applause Ahmad got from the students - and shamefully they wont even have to cut and paste that audio - it was genuine! I'll give you an example:
Ahmadinejad: At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
The chills that went up my spine when that "applause" you see above echoed - I practically yelled at the radio. The audio gives it a different sensory experience I assure you.
At any rate, their were in fact tough questions, protesters were allowed to demonstrate outside and I acknowledge that the longer this whack job was allowed to talk, the more he looked like a whack job, so whether it was PR move or not, the university did in fact deliver on it's promise to give him tough questions. So while I disagree with allowing him this platform, the university officials and some students did conduct themselves in a commendable way. The American whom should be most ashamed in this whole ordeal is Mike Wallace. In comparison his "interview" with Ahmadenijad of some months ago looks like a make out session.
This does not however explain why the ROTC is still not allowed on campus. And if Mr. Bollinger wants to fully acquit himself of accusations of bias then he can add to today's performance a lift on the ROTC campus ban. Then and only then will the "elitist academia" on each of our coasts that conservatives rail against on radio and TV be taking their first steps back into the legitimate and mature debate they so claim to treasure.
One last thought. When the students apllauded at Ahmadenijad's comment about how in Iran they don't prejudge the speaker before he speaks - they were, via that applause, condemning their own Dean's opening remarks. And as I yelled at those students blaring through my radio I realized that for a brief moment, the president of Columbia University (an avowed left-winger) and F. Ryan were on the same side in condemning evil. If that is possible, even briefly, then perhaps the unity that America displayed in WWII when confronting evil is possible again should we find oursleves going to war with Iran. Like I said, just a thought, but a hopeful one.
FR
The House of Representatives...
... has visited our blog!
That's right, friends and neighbors! At 8:51 am today, someone using the "house.gov" domain checked out our blog. This is the second high-profile examination our blog has received since its inception.
The first visit was from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Langley, VA.
That visit, which occurred about 2 weeks ago, was almost expected. With the tags we are undoubtedly generating in our posts (like Osama bin Laden, Saddam, Bush, terrorism, et al), any basic search engine will find our blog eventually... and I am quite sure that the FBI (which registered as "fbi.gov" domain) uses far more than the most basic search engines.
So, as if Ryan's natural narcissism wasn't enough to have to deal with, we will now have to know that he is no longer simply writing to US, but to the whole of the Congressional body as well as most of Homeland Security.
*sheesh*
That's right, friends and neighbors! At 8:51 am today, someone using the "house.gov" domain checked out our blog. This is the second high-profile examination our blog has received since its inception.
The first visit was from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Langley, VA.
That visit, which occurred about 2 weeks ago, was almost expected. With the tags we are undoubtedly generating in our posts (like Osama bin Laden, Saddam, Bush, terrorism, et al), any basic search engine will find our blog eventually... and I am quite sure that the FBI (which registered as "fbi.gov" domain) uses far more than the most basic search engines.
So, as if Ryan's natural narcissism wasn't enough to have to deal with, we will now have to know that he is no longer simply writing to US, but to the whole of the Congressional body as well as most of Homeland Security.
*sheesh*
I'll concede to this...
The string on this issue (Bush/Rummy military expenditures affecting our capacity to wage effective war in Iraq) was getting long, so I brought it back into the day light. Besides, Titus wouldn't want my talking ill of Republicans to be buried on page 9.
Yes, the transition from an attack force to an occupying force was bungled - namely because there was no occupying force. Baddboy's observation that the lighter more lethal attack machine that cut a swath through Iraq should have been only the first of a two step plan, rather than the plan itself, is inarguable. I concede that the path our forces cut, once deserted, was again swallowed up by the enemy as we moved along because there were insufficient forces to hold the ground won. Rummy's fault, no question. Hopefully this lesson will not be lost on the next president when we expand into a greater near east theater of operation, as some believe we will.
The question before us is what to do now? We have identified the problem - an inadequate size force for the current job of occupation. But what political figure of presidential merit will be willing to advocate what will be viewed as a Vietnam style escalation in their first term? The choices are stark - 3 to 500,000 more troops or get out and watch the genocide unfold. No one, and I mean NO ONE is talking in terms of that sort of force escalation. And to be honest I find that a bit curious on the GOP side. And by curious I mean this - all of the top tier Republican presidential candidates supported the presidents "surge", right? Well then the question one has to immediately ask himself is if the Presidents assertion that a "surge" of 30 thousand or so troops is the correct strategy, then how could a surge of 300,000 not be an even MORE correct strategy? I mean if more is the better route to victory, than how could MUCH more not be an even quicker route?
The most specific the GOP top tier candidates will get as of now is "we should finish the job." And the Democrats? Forget about it - the choices range from pulling out immediately to pulling out last week. We can only hope that the Republicans cryptic "finish the job", as uttered by Giuliani, McCain & Romney is code for putting in adequate force levels.
And I know Titus in quoting Lieberman hoped to demonstrate that there is still some strain of sanity on the Dem side of this issue, but I'm sorry T ol' boy - Lieberman is an "Independent" now. He changed his party affiliation last election cycle when his own party abandoned him. As of this moment there is no Democrat leader or legitimate presidential contender that has a single serious thing to say on this issue. Their best bet is to nominate Gene Taylor for president and put a muzzle on Reid, Hillary, Pelosi and Edwards.
FR
Yes, the transition from an attack force to an occupying force was bungled - namely because there was no occupying force. Baddboy's observation that the lighter more lethal attack machine that cut a swath through Iraq should have been only the first of a two step plan, rather than the plan itself, is inarguable. I concede that the path our forces cut, once deserted, was again swallowed up by the enemy as we moved along because there were insufficient forces to hold the ground won. Rummy's fault, no question. Hopefully this lesson will not be lost on the next president when we expand into a greater near east theater of operation, as some believe we will.
The question before us is what to do now? We have identified the problem - an inadequate size force for the current job of occupation. But what political figure of presidential merit will be willing to advocate what will be viewed as a Vietnam style escalation in their first term? The choices are stark - 3 to 500,000 more troops or get out and watch the genocide unfold. No one, and I mean NO ONE is talking in terms of that sort of force escalation. And to be honest I find that a bit curious on the GOP side. And by curious I mean this - all of the top tier Republican presidential candidates supported the presidents "surge", right? Well then the question one has to immediately ask himself is if the Presidents assertion that a "surge" of 30 thousand or so troops is the correct strategy, then how could a surge of 300,000 not be an even MORE correct strategy? I mean if more is the better route to victory, than how could MUCH more not be an even quicker route?
The most specific the GOP top tier candidates will get as of now is "we should finish the job." And the Democrats? Forget about it - the choices range from pulling out immediately to pulling out last week. We can only hope that the Republicans cryptic "finish the job", as uttered by Giuliani, McCain & Romney is code for putting in adequate force levels.
And I know Titus in quoting Lieberman hoped to demonstrate that there is still some strain of sanity on the Dem side of this issue, but I'm sorry T ol' boy - Lieberman is an "Independent" now. He changed his party affiliation last election cycle when his own party abandoned him. As of this moment there is no Democrat leader or legitimate presidential contender that has a single serious thing to say on this issue. Their best bet is to nominate Gene Taylor for president and put a muzzle on Reid, Hillary, Pelosi and Edwards.
FR
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Madam and the Madman.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was once president ... of Columbia University. Think about that for a minute. This is a man whom marched Germans through the encampments at Dachau so as to expose the 20th century's greatest atrocity to the very citizens who served as its host. And now his successor, Madam President Lee Bollinger, has welcomed with open arms the preeminent Holocaust denier of our time.
Let us start with this. The "President" of Iran kicked off his political activism by leaving school and participating in the seizing of a US Embassy and her citizens in 1979 in a little incident referred to as the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Then with the commencement of the Iran/Iraq war he left university life and volunteered for the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He served in the intelligence and special operations division where his "talents" were proven and he rose to become a senior commander in the elite "Qods" brigade, ( a word used for Jerusalem which literally translates as "holy"). This group specialized in Iran's quote, "Extra-territorial Operations." He directed and even personally participated in dissident suppression, assassinations, bombings, infiltration and an assortment of wet work throughout the world. One of his most famous targets was none other than Salman Rushdie, an operation that failed. It should also be noted that his command period of Iranian covert forces covers the time frame in which 241 Marines were murdered in their Beirut barracks by Hezbollah. He later became involved in politics as an "advisor", then returned to University teaching, in civil engineering no less, until he was appointed mayor of Tehran in 2003 - a position from which he launched his successful bid for the presidency.
As "president' he has headlined conferences such as "A World Without Zionism" in which he declared that Israel, "should be wiped off the map." Other "conferences" (stress the "con") he has either hosted or played a meaningful role in were investigatory in nature. "Investigating" whether or not the Holocaust occurred. And lets just say that his conclusions held a slight difference to that say of the Nuremberg judges. He accused the West of quote, "living the myth of the Holocaust." This along with mass suppression of his own people, religious trials, secret police, disappearances of political and religious rivals, state run and edited television and newspapers, and oh ya, his pursuit of nuclear armament in which he described the Wests attempts at thwarting as "a matchstick against a flood."
And did I mention, his particular brand of Islam is considered "ultra-conservative" ... by other Muslims. It is Hojjatieh Shi’ism, in which the faithful believe that the return of the 12th Imam, destined to rule in a state of grace enforcing the law of Muhammad, can only return to earth after a period of "universal chaos." Sort of like that chief demon on Ghost Busters - he could only be set free after the capacitator erupted, you get the picture.
Now that we have a fairly round picture of the man, lets turn back to Columbia University for a moment. The current president of this once proud institution has ejected the ROTC off of "her" campus. And even though she runs the risk of then losing all federal funding, she has chosen to take this "principled" stand because of the military's "don't ask don't tell policy" towards homosexuals. I see, the military is too bigoted towards gays to allow their presence on campus .... last week nine men were put to death in Iran for being gay. Does anyone else feel like their hair is on fire here? Also, within the same federal court district that Columbia resides a federal judge has just last week awarded 2.6 billion dollars to the family members of the 19 US Servicemen whom were murdered in the Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia. And who was the defending party found responsible to that astounding monetary tune? The government of Iran.
And lets not forget - US Military commanders have testified to the US Congress under oath that Iranian made munitions and explosives are killing our boys in theater as we speak.
Has American academia gone mad?
To allow this torturing, despotic, antisemitic, Holocaust denying, genocidal terrorist to be introduced to the thunder of applause in an American University is enabling the worst type of propaganda and endorsing the worst notions of human nature. 6 million plus souls cry out from their fiery graves in chorus with Marines in Arlington to say with one voice, NO!
And to that extent I thought that the least I owe those perished souls was to lend voice to their silent cries and call Columbia myself. Call Madam Bollinger herself, and voice my opinion. I hope you will do the same. Her mail box was full, but if you wait 30 seconds, a back up voice mail takes over. After having gathered my thoughts briefly on paper I sat down and dialed 212-854-9970 and said to this woman, " How do you do? I am calling to express my outrage at your appalling decision to provide the President of Iran, a man whom actively seeks to kill the defenders of our freedoms whilst denying that a Jew ever died at the hands of a Nazi, the platform of an American university for which to spew his vile advocations of genocide."
The intellectual wilderness these neo-leftists are lost in is one for which I think there is no return to sanity.
FR
(source citation for the Iranian "president":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm)
Let us start with this. The "President" of Iran kicked off his political activism by leaving school and participating in the seizing of a US Embassy and her citizens in 1979 in a little incident referred to as the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Then with the commencement of the Iran/Iraq war he left university life and volunteered for the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He served in the intelligence and special operations division where his "talents" were proven and he rose to become a senior commander in the elite "Qods" brigade, ( a word used for Jerusalem which literally translates as "holy"). This group specialized in Iran's quote, "Extra-territorial Operations." He directed and even personally participated in dissident suppression, assassinations, bombings, infiltration and an assortment of wet work throughout the world. One of his most famous targets was none other than Salman Rushdie, an operation that failed. It should also be noted that his command period of Iranian covert forces covers the time frame in which 241 Marines were murdered in their Beirut barracks by Hezbollah. He later became involved in politics as an "advisor", then returned to University teaching, in civil engineering no less, until he was appointed mayor of Tehran in 2003 - a position from which he launched his successful bid for the presidency.
As "president' he has headlined conferences such as "A World Without Zionism" in which he declared that Israel, "should be wiped off the map." Other "conferences" (stress the "con") he has either hosted or played a meaningful role in were investigatory in nature. "Investigating" whether or not the Holocaust occurred. And lets just say that his conclusions held a slight difference to that say of the Nuremberg judges. He accused the West of quote, "living the myth of the Holocaust." This along with mass suppression of his own people, religious trials, secret police, disappearances of political and religious rivals, state run and edited television and newspapers, and oh ya, his pursuit of nuclear armament in which he described the Wests attempts at thwarting as "a matchstick against a flood."
And did I mention, his particular brand of Islam is considered "ultra-conservative" ... by other Muslims. It is Hojjatieh Shi’ism, in which the faithful believe that the return of the 12th Imam, destined to rule in a state of grace enforcing the law of Muhammad, can only return to earth after a period of "universal chaos." Sort of like that chief demon on Ghost Busters - he could only be set free after the capacitator erupted, you get the picture.
Now that we have a fairly round picture of the man, lets turn back to Columbia University for a moment. The current president of this once proud institution has ejected the ROTC off of "her" campus. And even though she runs the risk of then losing all federal funding, she has chosen to take this "principled" stand because of the military's "don't ask don't tell policy" towards homosexuals. I see, the military is too bigoted towards gays to allow their presence on campus .... last week nine men were put to death in Iran for being gay. Does anyone else feel like their hair is on fire here? Also, within the same federal court district that Columbia resides a federal judge has just last week awarded 2.6 billion dollars to the family members of the 19 US Servicemen whom were murdered in the Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia. And who was the defending party found responsible to that astounding monetary tune? The government of Iran.
And lets not forget - US Military commanders have testified to the US Congress under oath that Iranian made munitions and explosives are killing our boys in theater as we speak.
Has American academia gone mad?
To allow this torturing, despotic, antisemitic, Holocaust denying, genocidal terrorist to be introduced to the thunder of applause in an American University is enabling the worst type of propaganda and endorsing the worst notions of human nature. 6 million plus souls cry out from their fiery graves in chorus with Marines in Arlington to say with one voice, NO!
And to that extent I thought that the least I owe those perished souls was to lend voice to their silent cries and call Columbia myself. Call Madam Bollinger herself, and voice my opinion. I hope you will do the same. Her mail box was full, but if you wait 30 seconds, a back up voice mail takes over. After having gathered my thoughts briefly on paper I sat down and dialed 212-854-9970 and said to this woman, " How do you do? I am calling to express my outrage at your appalling decision to provide the President of Iran, a man whom actively seeks to kill the defenders of our freedoms whilst denying that a Jew ever died at the hands of a Nazi, the platform of an American university for which to spew his vile advocations of genocide."
The intellectual wilderness these neo-leftists are lost in is one for which I think there is no return to sanity.
FR
(source citation for the Iranian "president":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm)
Friday, September 21, 2007
Woah, back up the missle trolly a second...
Titus, let me ask you something. You wrote in your response to "baddboy" that ...
" In fact, 2 out of 3 of the above mentioned SECDEFs (MacNamera, Brown, Aspin) spent an average budget that was LARGER than Bush has spent yet, and he is a WAR TIME PRESIDENT! In fact, according the GAO (gao.gov) data, Bush’s defense budgets are STILL 5% or more UNDER the 45 year average… taking us all the way back to 1962!"
This 5% business and the 45 year average, those numbers are relative to the annual budget proposed by those administrations at the time, isn't it? In other words Bush/ Rummy in fact did spend more than any of the three sec defs you mentioned in actual dollars. In fact a great deal more if I'm not mistaken. The averages you quote from the GAO are based on what percentage of the over all budget the defense spending constituted at the time. Well, given that today's budget is MUCH larger in terms of real dollars (i.e. prescription drugs, and a billion other new expenditures non-defense related) then talking about defense spending in terms of percentages is a bit deceptive, if the conclusion you wish others to draw is that defense spending is down under Bush/Rummy. It may very well be down in terms of what percentage of the overall budget it represents, but NOT in terms of real dollars spent, meaning the percentage drop that defense spending has incurred may have as much to do with how large other portions of the budget have become, versus an actual real dollar cut cut in military spending.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Rummy et al did no wrong in setting their budgets, but lets not get crazy - they did spend more actual dollars then the predecessors you mentioned.
This reminds of the argument Democrats make concerning welfare and other social safety net programs. Every time Republicans propose a reduction in the rate of spending (which they've done too little of lately I assure you - so lets use the Gingrich Congress), Clinton and others called it a quote "cut." Well it wasn't. It was a reduction in the rate of growth - but that still meant more growth, more real dollars pumped in then the year before, but at a slower rate. Which isn't a cut at all. So let's just be careful when you describe "defense spending cuts" using percentages. Ok?
FR
" In fact, 2 out of 3 of the above mentioned SECDEFs (MacNamera, Brown, Aspin) spent an average budget that was LARGER than Bush has spent yet, and he is a WAR TIME PRESIDENT! In fact, according the GAO (gao.gov) data, Bush’s defense budgets are STILL 5% or more UNDER the 45 year average… taking us all the way back to 1962!"
This 5% business and the 45 year average, those numbers are relative to the annual budget proposed by those administrations at the time, isn't it? In other words Bush/ Rummy in fact did spend more than any of the three sec defs you mentioned in actual dollars. In fact a great deal more if I'm not mistaken. The averages you quote from the GAO are based on what percentage of the over all budget the defense spending constituted at the time. Well, given that today's budget is MUCH larger in terms of real dollars (i.e. prescription drugs, and a billion other new expenditures non-defense related) then talking about defense spending in terms of percentages is a bit deceptive, if the conclusion you wish others to draw is that defense spending is down under Bush/Rummy. It may very well be down in terms of what percentage of the overall budget it represents, but NOT in terms of real dollars spent, meaning the percentage drop that defense spending has incurred may have as much to do with how large other portions of the budget have become, versus an actual real dollar cut cut in military spending.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Rummy et al did no wrong in setting their budgets, but lets not get crazy - they did spend more actual dollars then the predecessors you mentioned.
This reminds of the argument Democrats make concerning welfare and other social safety net programs. Every time Republicans propose a reduction in the rate of spending (which they've done too little of lately I assure you - so lets use the Gingrich Congress), Clinton and others called it a quote "cut." Well it wasn't. It was a reduction in the rate of growth - but that still meant more growth, more real dollars pumped in then the year before, but at a slower rate. Which isn't a cut at all. So let's just be careful when you describe "defense spending cuts" using percentages. Ok?
FR
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Prescient
Well well well. Seems my post of some weeks ago has come to fruition as topical sooner than I had anticipated. I asked in an earlier post whether or not , in this age of terror, our diplomatic immunity laws were a bit antiquated in terms of the enemy we now face.
First, as to what has occurred. The president of Iran, Ahmedadenajad (thus forward known as "Ahmed") is coming to New york City to address the UN. Not only that, he put in a request to Mayor Bloomberg to visit and lay a wreath at Ground Zero, right where the towers stood. Bloomberg, being the idiot billionaire he is, said, "sure." Naturally the high velocity sh** smacked the fan as a consequence and Bloomberg subsequently rescinded the offer saying the NYPD made a plea to the mayor's office advising him that it would be a security nightmare and it just wasn't feasible. The state police, same story; and the secret service, no doubt under direction from the White House, also declined to provide an escort. Ahmed has now decided to go anyway, with Iranian state bodyguards et al, and lay his wreath. And of course, a major American University, Columbia, has offered to let him address the college and he has accepted.
Now, lest we forget, this is no ordinary foreign leader or convoy. We are in a global war on Islamo fascism, commonly refered to as "The War on Terror." He is the sponsor-in-chief of terror world wide. His army regulars (i.e. special forces in a raid/kidnapping) and munitions are killing our boys in the field as we speak. And the topper, he has been clearly identified by eyewitnesses as one of the hostage takers in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. That's right, the very man whom participated in seizing our embassy will now be given safe passage under the same customs and laws he chose to reject. In fact, his participation in that is one of the fame inducing credits that led to his being the mayor of Tehran and eventually president. So we have an ACTUAL TERRORIST whom has personally committed acts of terrorism against our nation in the past, and whom is personally directing acts of terror against us in Iraq, not to mention region wide, laying a wreath at the site where we suffered our most lethal terrorist attack. This is the precise scenario I described prior. Do diplomatic immunity laws apply to him? Should they?
There is precedence for this. The roots of this tradition are found in the prerogatives of Western European nobility, thus representatives of the Ottoman Empire were subject to arrest were hostilities to break out during their visit. Now, I realize that the modern rules codifying safe passage for diplomats were established in 1961 in Vienna - The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but my question is given we are at war with states and organizations that disregard the very nobility such laws are rooted in, is it time to make exceptions?
Now of course I understand the fire storm that would erupt if we were to begin seizing the diplomats of any nation for which we had a squabble with, i.e. China, Russia, etc. Seizing such envoys would be viewed as an act of war by their respective countries and nothing short of disaster. Much like the Roman diplomatic convoy whom was urinated on upon exiting Carthage, ("This stain will be washed away with blood") we, in blanketly revoking or disregarding this law, would be starting our own "Punic wars" with everyone, so obviously a general rebuke is not what I am suggesting. But are we not already at war with Iran? Are they not part of the axis of evil? Wasn't there a promise to go after terrorists and their state sponsors? "With us or against us" is a phrase I seem to recall.
My point is this. Ahmed is not here to meet with our leader in hopes of ceasing current hostilities. He is not negotiating terms of his surrender, nor a treaty or any other aspect of ending a war. He is not a traditional war time envoy. He is simply "coming here." Given his participation in siezing our embassy; given the acts of war he is currently committing against us in Iraq; given his regulars are engaging us in theater; and given he is not a member of an envoy meant to discuss the cessation of those engagements, he is a legitimate target for arrest in my opinion. So the moment he steps off the plane we take him in to custody and publicly announce that his personal acts of terror in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and his directing of terrorist activities in Iraq has caused us to revoke his diplomatic status and he will be prosecuted as an enemy combatant - then send his ass to GITMO. And by the way, criminal acts outside of the official diplomatic capacity are legal justification, according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to revoke an ambassador's status and arrest him. Doesn't the 1970's hostage taking in Iran qualify?
At the very least the administration should announce, prior to his arrival, that we will not honor his diplomatic status and he will be subject to arrest as an enemy combatant. Then he will cancel his little trip and we will at least spare the families directly affected by 9/11, and all Americans, the insult of his presence.
FR
First, as to what has occurred. The president of Iran, Ahmedadenajad (thus forward known as "Ahmed") is coming to New york City to address the UN. Not only that, he put in a request to Mayor Bloomberg to visit and lay a wreath at Ground Zero, right where the towers stood. Bloomberg, being the idiot billionaire he is, said, "sure." Naturally the high velocity sh** smacked the fan as a consequence and Bloomberg subsequently rescinded the offer saying the NYPD made a plea to the mayor's office advising him that it would be a security nightmare and it just wasn't feasible. The state police, same story; and the secret service, no doubt under direction from the White House, also declined to provide an escort. Ahmed has now decided to go anyway, with Iranian state bodyguards et al, and lay his wreath. And of course, a major American University, Columbia, has offered to let him address the college and he has accepted.
Now, lest we forget, this is no ordinary foreign leader or convoy. We are in a global war on Islamo fascism, commonly refered to as "The War on Terror." He is the sponsor-in-chief of terror world wide. His army regulars (i.e. special forces in a raid/kidnapping) and munitions are killing our boys in the field as we speak. And the topper, he has been clearly identified by eyewitnesses as one of the hostage takers in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. That's right, the very man whom participated in seizing our embassy will now be given safe passage under the same customs and laws he chose to reject. In fact, his participation in that is one of the fame inducing credits that led to his being the mayor of Tehran and eventually president. So we have an ACTUAL TERRORIST whom has personally committed acts of terrorism against our nation in the past, and whom is personally directing acts of terror against us in Iraq, not to mention region wide, laying a wreath at the site where we suffered our most lethal terrorist attack. This is the precise scenario I described prior. Do diplomatic immunity laws apply to him? Should they?
There is precedence for this. The roots of this tradition are found in the prerogatives of Western European nobility, thus representatives of the Ottoman Empire were subject to arrest were hostilities to break out during their visit. Now, I realize that the modern rules codifying safe passage for diplomats were established in 1961 in Vienna - The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but my question is given we are at war with states and organizations that disregard the very nobility such laws are rooted in, is it time to make exceptions?
Now of course I understand the fire storm that would erupt if we were to begin seizing the diplomats of any nation for which we had a squabble with, i.e. China, Russia, etc. Seizing such envoys would be viewed as an act of war by their respective countries and nothing short of disaster. Much like the Roman diplomatic convoy whom was urinated on upon exiting Carthage, ("This stain will be washed away with blood") we, in blanketly revoking or disregarding this law, would be starting our own "Punic wars" with everyone, so obviously a general rebuke is not what I am suggesting. But are we not already at war with Iran? Are they not part of the axis of evil? Wasn't there a promise to go after terrorists and their state sponsors? "With us or against us" is a phrase I seem to recall.
My point is this. Ahmed is not here to meet with our leader in hopes of ceasing current hostilities. He is not negotiating terms of his surrender, nor a treaty or any other aspect of ending a war. He is not a traditional war time envoy. He is simply "coming here." Given his participation in siezing our embassy; given the acts of war he is currently committing against us in Iraq; given his regulars are engaging us in theater; and given he is not a member of an envoy meant to discuss the cessation of those engagements, he is a legitimate target for arrest in my opinion. So the moment he steps off the plane we take him in to custody and publicly announce that his personal acts of terror in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and his directing of terrorist activities in Iraq has caused us to revoke his diplomatic status and he will be prosecuted as an enemy combatant - then send his ass to GITMO. And by the way, criminal acts outside of the official diplomatic capacity are legal justification, according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to revoke an ambassador's status and arrest him. Doesn't the 1970's hostage taking in Iran qualify?
At the very least the administration should announce, prior to his arrival, that we will not honor his diplomatic status and he will be subject to arrest as an enemy combatant. Then he will cancel his little trip and we will at least spare the families directly affected by 9/11, and all Americans, the insult of his presence.
FR
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
How do you spell "pissed off"?
Muqtada al Sadr has a problem with foreign, private security forces openly carrying arms in Iraq.
I, too, have a problem with private security forces being allowed to operate in Iraq with automatic weapons and little-to-no oversight from the US or Coalition forces... but I certainly am not going to listen to complaints voiced by the man who "commands" the neo-terrorist Mahdi Army, at whose slightest whim can instigate a prolonged and excessively bloody attack on any civilian population within the borders of Iraq, without reproach or reprimand from any US, Coalition or Iraqi authority. No frigging way!
This man may very well be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Sunni civilians that once lived in the mainly Shi'a areas of northeastern Iraq, in what could be considered one of the grossest examples of ethnic cleansing since the removal of Saddam. He has been implicated in the deaths and attempted assassinations of numerous IPC members and officials, and has made open statements calling for the murder and attack of US troops in the region, as well as calling for suicide bombings of Americans outside of Iraq.
How sad is it when a media outlet of the size and prestige of the New York Times is seen as supporting the views of a man such as this when reporting the Blackwater incidents of a few days past? It seems that even the pretense of objective journalism has been tossed aside for the far more profitable (and inflammatory) editorialism of the liberal media giants.
THIS is why I am truly beginning to feel that the international press and independent "blogs" are the last source for objective journalism. I am honestly getting worried that I can find better and more honest "reporting" of the news in places like PRAVDA, the SDA (Swiss), Kyodo News (Japan), and the Canadian Broadcasting Company than I can in the Times, the Washington Post even CNN Headline News!
I, too, have a problem with private security forces being allowed to operate in Iraq with automatic weapons and little-to-no oversight from the US or Coalition forces... but I certainly am not going to listen to complaints voiced by the man who "commands" the neo-terrorist Mahdi Army, at whose slightest whim can instigate a prolonged and excessively bloody attack on any civilian population within the borders of Iraq, without reproach or reprimand from any US, Coalition or Iraqi authority. No frigging way!
This man may very well be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Sunni civilians that once lived in the mainly Shi'a areas of northeastern Iraq, in what could be considered one of the grossest examples of ethnic cleansing since the removal of Saddam. He has been implicated in the deaths and attempted assassinations of numerous IPC members and officials, and has made open statements calling for the murder and attack of US troops in the region, as well as calling for suicide bombings of Americans outside of Iraq.
How sad is it when a media outlet of the size and prestige of the New York Times is seen as supporting the views of a man such as this when reporting the Blackwater incidents of a few days past? It seems that even the pretense of objective journalism has been tossed aside for the far more profitable (and inflammatory) editorialism of the liberal media giants.
THIS is why I am truly beginning to feel that the international press and independent "blogs" are the last source for objective journalism. I am honestly getting worried that I can find better and more honest "reporting" of the news in places like PRAVDA, the SDA (Swiss), Kyodo News (Japan), and the Canadian Broadcasting Company than I can in the Times, the Washington Post even CNN Headline News!
3 State Plan... Part II
Baddboy writes:
"The reality is that the 3 state plan is the best plan yet. The Kurdish state is already in place with a functioning government, economy and as soon as they recall their troops from the this JOKE of the Iraqi military and police force they have a functioning military...all compliments of the old Northern No Fly Zone. The Kurds are American allies and would like nothing more than to have an American military base or bases in their state.
"As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites...well who cares really. Let them have their civil war and let them beat the shit out of each other until there is nothing left for the Americans to do but go in and pick up the pieces. If 2 groups of people want to have a stinking war and they don't want to listen to reason it doesn't seem we should stand in their way. Once they are done we do what was the original intent and put them back together our way with our puppet government until they want to kill each other again. It's a regional tradition and we shouldn't stand in their way. If they are killing each other they aren't killing us."
I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly only two years ago, but I am worried that the "effort" involved for the US in establishing 3 states out of one would only end up costing us more time, money and (worst of all) lives. The most painful aspect (and the one that will keep Bush, or anyone else from adopting it) is that it is tantamount to admitting that we are UNABLE to accomplish the goal as was laid out by Bush in the '04 State of the Union... to build a stable, democratic Iraq out of the ruins of Saddam's regime.
Honestly, the best we can hope for (in my opinion) are at least three semi-autonomous "provinces" in the current structure, so that the central Iraqi government can handle defense, police and revenue, while the provincial administrators take care of the local (read: ethnic) issues.
I would have to dispute the existence of a "Kurdish" state, outside of the independence that the Kurds have exercised since March or '03. I am the first to admit that they have led the way in showing the rest of Iraq how to function in a post-Saddam world, but to suggest they are the fledgling "Kurdistan" that the Kurds have dreamed of for so long is misleading. Our OTHER ally in the region, Turkey, would go to any length the stop the formation of a Kurdish independent state... of this I am convinced.
I would go so far as to suggest this, though... that as long as the Kurds are doing what has to be done and are showing the hutzpah (if I can use a term like that in reference to Muslims) it takes to get their shit together, then I can't help but feel they should be rewarded with substantial powers and authority in the new government. I recall hearing Rummy suggest once (years ago) that the sooner specific regions of Iraq got their acts together, the sooner they would reap the benefits of oil and gas revenues from the State-owned wells. If that is still policy, then the Kurds should be practically rolling in money, compared to the Sunni-Shi'a regions.
What struck me as interesting was the thought of Kurdish Iraqis working as units outside of their traditional ethnic homes as police and military units. If the US really wanted to avoid the hassles and dangers of "police work", then let the Kurds patrol the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or Basrah, let the Kurds man the checkpoints on the Iranian border, let the Kurds cover the Syrian frontier... and then let's see how many "insurgents" or supplies get across the border. We can support them with all we have, but it isn't US troops in harms way, and the Kurds are allowed to lead the Iraqis by example.
The Kurds give us an example of how the support of the population is what wins the effort. One doesn't hear of suicide bombers in the Kurdish regions, and you don't see them shooting each other (or others) in the streets of the big cities. If that lunatic Muqtada al Sadr wants more say in politics and processes, then he should be rallying his "people" into the kind of efforts that the Kurdish leadership has done for nearly four years now... not calling for "jihads" against the US Army.
I am very inclined to agree with you about the "letting them beat the shit out of each other", though. If the Shi'as and the Sunnis want to fight it out in a civil war, then we give the support and revenue to the Kurds, until such time as the rest of the country gets their shit together. If I thought the US could remain safely behind the lines in that kind of a conflict, then I'd openly support it from word GO... but I'm the kind of "armchair General" that would call for the efforts of D-Day in reprisal for even one American death due to sectarian fighting in the street.
T
"The reality is that the 3 state plan is the best plan yet. The Kurdish state is already in place with a functioning government, economy and as soon as they recall their troops from the this JOKE of the Iraqi military and police force they have a functioning military...all compliments of the old Northern No Fly Zone. The Kurds are American allies and would like nothing more than to have an American military base or bases in their state.
"As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites...well who cares really. Let them have their civil war and let them beat the shit out of each other until there is nothing left for the Americans to do but go in and pick up the pieces. If 2 groups of people want to have a stinking war and they don't want to listen to reason it doesn't seem we should stand in their way. Once they are done we do what was the original intent and put them back together our way with our puppet government until they want to kill each other again. It's a regional tradition and we shouldn't stand in their way. If they are killing each other they aren't killing us."
I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly only two years ago, but I am worried that the "effort" involved for the US in establishing 3 states out of one would only end up costing us more time, money and (worst of all) lives. The most painful aspect (and the one that will keep Bush, or anyone else from adopting it) is that it is tantamount to admitting that we are UNABLE to accomplish the goal as was laid out by Bush in the '04 State of the Union... to build a stable, democratic Iraq out of the ruins of Saddam's regime.
Honestly, the best we can hope for (in my opinion) are at least three semi-autonomous "provinces" in the current structure, so that the central Iraqi government can handle defense, police and revenue, while the provincial administrators take care of the local (read: ethnic) issues.
I would have to dispute the existence of a "Kurdish" state, outside of the independence that the Kurds have exercised since March or '03. I am the first to admit that they have led the way in showing the rest of Iraq how to function in a post-Saddam world, but to suggest they are the fledgling "Kurdistan" that the Kurds have dreamed of for so long is misleading. Our OTHER ally in the region, Turkey, would go to any length the stop the formation of a Kurdish independent state... of this I am convinced.
I would go so far as to suggest this, though... that as long as the Kurds are doing what has to be done and are showing the hutzpah (if I can use a term like that in reference to Muslims) it takes to get their shit together, then I can't help but feel they should be rewarded with substantial powers and authority in the new government. I recall hearing Rummy suggest once (years ago) that the sooner specific regions of Iraq got their acts together, the sooner they would reap the benefits of oil and gas revenues from the State-owned wells. If that is still policy, then the Kurds should be practically rolling in money, compared to the Sunni-Shi'a regions.
What struck me as interesting was the thought of Kurdish Iraqis working as units outside of their traditional ethnic homes as police and military units. If the US really wanted to avoid the hassles and dangers of "police work", then let the Kurds patrol the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or Basrah, let the Kurds man the checkpoints on the Iranian border, let the Kurds cover the Syrian frontier... and then let's see how many "insurgents" or supplies get across the border. We can support them with all we have, but it isn't US troops in harms way, and the Kurds are allowed to lead the Iraqis by example.
The Kurds give us an example of how the support of the population is what wins the effort. One doesn't hear of suicide bombers in the Kurdish regions, and you don't see them shooting each other (or others) in the streets of the big cities. If that lunatic Muqtada al Sadr wants more say in politics and processes, then he should be rallying his "people" into the kind of efforts that the Kurdish leadership has done for nearly four years now... not calling for "jihads" against the US Army.
I am very inclined to agree with you about the "letting them beat the shit out of each other", though. If the Shi'as and the Sunnis want to fight it out in a civil war, then we give the support and revenue to the Kurds, until such time as the rest of the country gets their shit together. If I thought the US could remain safely behind the lines in that kind of a conflict, then I'd openly support it from word GO... but I'm the kind of "armchair General" that would call for the efforts of D-Day in reprisal for even one American death due to sectarian fighting in the street.
T
Monday, September 17, 2007
Hits From The 90's, A Two Disc Collection.
Well, I departed from the Caesar's parking garage last night and headed straight for the Golden Nugget, downtown, where my beautiful significant other is currently employed. I had found myself on the bad side of an argument we were having (as if there is any other side for a man to be on) and I was bringing a rose and chocolate to the workplace, in full view of her coworkers of course - an added bonus, so as to smooth things over and resume the relationship uninhibited.
Well, the route I traversed took me past a large city building, for which I noticed there were several news trucks parked outside. ABC NEWS, FOX, MSNBC, were names I noticed emblazoned across the various vans. I then noticed that the large city building was none other than the city jail, and yes, OJ Simpson was inside.
Then it hit me ... that feeling of de ja vu all over again. You know the kind, not the warm and fuzzy tingle crawling up the back of the neck, but rather a disturbing and noticeable wave of nausea which makes the knuckles white and the rear pucker. It's 2007, and here I am staring at at a full year's worth of being inundated with an OJ Simpson trial, a Clinton running for president, and low and behold today the announcement of "Hillary Care." I feel like the man reporting on the Hindenburg as it burned ... "Oh the humanity."
Someone please tell me, what year is it again?
FR
Well, the route I traversed took me past a large city building, for which I noticed there were several news trucks parked outside. ABC NEWS, FOX, MSNBC, were names I noticed emblazoned across the various vans. I then noticed that the large city building was none other than the city jail, and yes, OJ Simpson was inside.
Then it hit me ... that feeling of de ja vu all over again. You know the kind, not the warm and fuzzy tingle crawling up the back of the neck, but rather a disturbing and noticeable wave of nausea which makes the knuckles white and the rear pucker. It's 2007, and here I am staring at at a full year's worth of being inundated with an OJ Simpson trial, a Clinton running for president, and low and behold today the announcement of "Hillary Care." I feel like the man reporting on the Hindenburg as it burned ... "Oh the humanity."
Someone please tell me, what year is it again?
FR
Is it getting chilly?
It is cold today… only 37 degrees this morning, and really foggy. Even the dog got his business done quick.
But I bet it’s colder by far in the West Wing of the White House today.
Allen Greenspan and Henry Kissinger have both made bold, open statements contradicting Bush’s stated policy in Iraq and the reason we invaded. They both said it was OIL, and nothing else. Not a colonial-era land grab intended to make US or Western oil companies rich… but a method of ensuring that clear and unrivaled access to the region's oil supplies do not fail in the near future. Greenspan even went so far as to say that Iraqi oil was “necessary” for the functioning of the US economy in the next 15 years… something that seems to give a lie to what the PotUS clearly said in just about every State of the Union address he has ever given.
These two aren’t your run-of-the-mill “Bush hating” liberals, either. You would have trouble giving me examples of two more conservative politicians that have had the length of career that these two have had… and where are you going to find an example of two more influential men in American politics in the last 50 years of more? Greenspan as much as ran the US economy for 19 years, and Kissinger has nearly 40 years of political and diplomatic experience under no less than 6 former (and current) US Presidents… Carter being the only President never to meet with him officially.
This isn’t going to sit well with the President… nope, not at all.
T
But I bet it’s colder by far in the West Wing of the White House today.
Allen Greenspan and Henry Kissinger have both made bold, open statements contradicting Bush’s stated policy in Iraq and the reason we invaded. They both said it was OIL, and nothing else. Not a colonial-era land grab intended to make US or Western oil companies rich… but a method of ensuring that clear and unrivaled access to the region's oil supplies do not fail in the near future. Greenspan even went so far as to say that Iraqi oil was “necessary” for the functioning of the US economy in the next 15 years… something that seems to give a lie to what the PotUS clearly said in just about every State of the Union address he has ever given.
These two aren’t your run-of-the-mill “Bush hating” liberals, either. You would have trouble giving me examples of two more conservative politicians that have had the length of career that these two have had… and where are you going to find an example of two more influential men in American politics in the last 50 years of more? Greenspan as much as ran the US economy for 19 years, and Kissinger has nearly 40 years of political and diplomatic experience under no less than 6 former (and current) US Presidents… Carter being the only President never to meet with him officially.
This isn’t going to sit well with the President… nope, not at all.
T
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The "Three State Plan"
It is a shockingly beautiful, crisp cool day here in NEPA, and after a first obligatory cup of coffee and a smoke while the dog relieves himself in the yard, I sat down to view the latest news available via the World Wide Web.
The headline that caught my eye was one concerning Senator Brownback’s bipartisan plan to draw up a “three state” solution to the crisis in Iraq. It seems that Brownback and Biden have revisited the plan wherein Iraq would be divided into three states of Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish majorities, each with its own elected central government and each with its own security and defense organizations to ensure peace, stability and sovereignty.
We in the Bund have discussed this topic on numerous occasions and have had mixed results (if memory serves). I would make my argument here, as clearly and succinctly as I can.
Aside from the obvious question of “viability of policy” (let’s be honest… we haven’t done such a good job getting ONE Iraq up and running, so how well will we manage getting THREE of them functioning in the same timeframe?) there are two main themes to consider in this question: an historical perspective of past attempts at nation-building and an objective look at what has worked and not worked in Iraq to date.
In 2003, Toby Dodge wrote “Inventing Iraq”, which I feel is an excellent source for data in my argument (he cites over 100 different works in his research, and it is well written), in which he compares the British mandate for Iraq of 1921 (when Faisal was installed as King) to the Coalition’s efforts to date in Iraq now.
In 1920-21, the British needed to focus control of the country on domestic Iraqi elements instead of British Foreign Office appointees, and they chose (arbitrarily, in my opinion) to focus that control on a tribal, ethnic level while giving governmental power and authority to an ethnic foreigner in Faisal I, a Hashemite ruler from Damascus in Syria (then controlled by France). In a very short time, agrarian land ownership was dominated by a vast Sunni middle class, while the Shi’a, Christian and Kurdish populations were marginalized. In short, they focused on the ethnicity issue as a delineator of control and authority in setting up the “new” Iraq of 1921.
My comparison to today’s issues is this: Haven’t we done the same thing in focusing our attention so much on tribal and religious leaders who “claim” to gain authority by popular assent from their respective ethnic or religious constituencies? The factions of power in today’s Iraq focus on Shi’a religious leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and the Kurdish ethnic leader Massoud Barzani, among others. Coalition attention is focused, intentionally or otherwise, on this ethnic specificity as a matter of policy… as is the attention of neighboring states like Iran and Syria that might not have the best intentions of the Iraqi people at heart.
The British mandate formed the modern state of Iraq out of the confusion and chaos of post-WWI Mesopotamia with no regard for ethnic or religious boundaries, marking the beginning of a multi-cultural and ethnically diverse state. Right or wrong, the job there was done for us 88 years ago. That forced multi-cultural blending was long, bloody and still hasn’t finalized into a cohesive Iraqi nationality.
However, that process has nearly a century of progress behind it, and I am not sure it should be abandoned simply as an expedient way for the US (and especially two Senators with higher political aspirations in mind) to extricate itself from a bloody and expensive effort to bring democracy and freedom to 26 million people.
In the intervening 88 years, the Kurdish, Shi’a and Sunni populations have intermarried or relocated to homes outside of their traditional ethnic origin, while religious and lingual differences (even within the varied groups) have not diminished. For example, I have recently read that the various Kurdish dialects spoken in what is often referred to as “Kurdistan” are mutually unintelligible, and I have no knowledge of an “ecumenical” movement within the Shi’a-Sunni sects… yet circumstances and various governmental policies in the intervening years have brought Kurds to Baghdad and Shi’as to the Sunni “Triangle” of influence by the hundreds of thousands.
My question is this: What sense is there in following the course of failed historical policy in regards to Iraq? None, but the situation in Iraq is no longer as ethnically or religiously divided as it was in the 1920’s. The region is replete with examples of ethnically diverse nations… Israel, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria…that function at least as well (if not leaps and bounds above) the post-invasion Iraq does now. I do not feel it is a good idea to bring more division to the region, when we can focus our efforts on making the diverse cultures of Iraq function as a society instead.
Finally, I can’t help but think that the example of the British is further useful to us in that it shows two extremely important lessons:
1) The superiority of arms and technology is not enough to maintain order and security in Iraq without substantial “domestic” influence and participation. This is something the US is following as a matter of course in putting so much attention of the development and training of the ISF and Iraqi Army, but that the media and the world in general is not taking into account.
2) The possible establishment of “arbitrary” boundaries and borders amidst the cultures and religious sects in modern Iraq will not eliminate or even reduce the occurrence of violence in the region, and instead will undoubtedly cause them to increase. To displace, by force or necessity, huge segments of the population from one place to another based only on ethnic or religious affiliation is a recipe for conflict that no one with a drop of common sense could refute. To back this kind of policy simply because it gives the US troops and interests shorter “tour” in Iraq is nearly criminal in its negligent attitude.
Just my thoughts…
T
The headline that caught my eye was one concerning Senator Brownback’s bipartisan plan to draw up a “three state” solution to the crisis in Iraq. It seems that Brownback and Biden have revisited the plan wherein Iraq would be divided into three states of Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish majorities, each with its own elected central government and each with its own security and defense organizations to ensure peace, stability and sovereignty.
We in the Bund have discussed this topic on numerous occasions and have had mixed results (if memory serves). I would make my argument here, as clearly and succinctly as I can.
Aside from the obvious question of “viability of policy” (let’s be honest… we haven’t done such a good job getting ONE Iraq up and running, so how well will we manage getting THREE of them functioning in the same timeframe?) there are two main themes to consider in this question: an historical perspective of past attempts at nation-building and an objective look at what has worked and not worked in Iraq to date.
In 2003, Toby Dodge wrote “Inventing Iraq”, which I feel is an excellent source for data in my argument (he cites over 100 different works in his research, and it is well written), in which he compares the British mandate for Iraq of 1921 (when Faisal was installed as King) to the Coalition’s efforts to date in Iraq now.
In 1920-21, the British needed to focus control of the country on domestic Iraqi elements instead of British Foreign Office appointees, and they chose (arbitrarily, in my opinion) to focus that control on a tribal, ethnic level while giving governmental power and authority to an ethnic foreigner in Faisal I, a Hashemite ruler from Damascus in Syria (then controlled by France). In a very short time, agrarian land ownership was dominated by a vast Sunni middle class, while the Shi’a, Christian and Kurdish populations were marginalized. In short, they focused on the ethnicity issue as a delineator of control and authority in setting up the “new” Iraq of 1921.
My comparison to today’s issues is this: Haven’t we done the same thing in focusing our attention so much on tribal and religious leaders who “claim” to gain authority by popular assent from their respective ethnic or religious constituencies? The factions of power in today’s Iraq focus on Shi’a religious leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and the Kurdish ethnic leader Massoud Barzani, among others. Coalition attention is focused, intentionally or otherwise, on this ethnic specificity as a matter of policy… as is the attention of neighboring states like Iran and Syria that might not have the best intentions of the Iraqi people at heart.
The British mandate formed the modern state of Iraq out of the confusion and chaos of post-WWI Mesopotamia with no regard for ethnic or religious boundaries, marking the beginning of a multi-cultural and ethnically diverse state. Right or wrong, the job there was done for us 88 years ago. That forced multi-cultural blending was long, bloody and still hasn’t finalized into a cohesive Iraqi nationality.
However, that process has nearly a century of progress behind it, and I am not sure it should be abandoned simply as an expedient way for the US (and especially two Senators with higher political aspirations in mind) to extricate itself from a bloody and expensive effort to bring democracy and freedom to 26 million people.
In the intervening 88 years, the Kurdish, Shi’a and Sunni populations have intermarried or relocated to homes outside of their traditional ethnic origin, while religious and lingual differences (even within the varied groups) have not diminished. For example, I have recently read that the various Kurdish dialects spoken in what is often referred to as “Kurdistan” are mutually unintelligible, and I have no knowledge of an “ecumenical” movement within the Shi’a-Sunni sects… yet circumstances and various governmental policies in the intervening years have brought Kurds to Baghdad and Shi’as to the Sunni “Triangle” of influence by the hundreds of thousands.
My question is this: What sense is there in following the course of failed historical policy in regards to Iraq? None, but the situation in Iraq is no longer as ethnically or religiously divided as it was in the 1920’s. The region is replete with examples of ethnically diverse nations… Israel, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria…that function at least as well (if not leaps and bounds above) the post-invasion Iraq does now. I do not feel it is a good idea to bring more division to the region, when we can focus our efforts on making the diverse cultures of Iraq function as a society instead.
Finally, I can’t help but think that the example of the British is further useful to us in that it shows two extremely important lessons:
1) The superiority of arms and technology is not enough to maintain order and security in Iraq without substantial “domestic” influence and participation. This is something the US is following as a matter of course in putting so much attention of the development and training of the ISF and Iraqi Army, but that the media and the world in general is not taking into account.
2) The possible establishment of “arbitrary” boundaries and borders amidst the cultures and religious sects in modern Iraq will not eliminate or even reduce the occurrence of violence in the region, and instead will undoubtedly cause them to increase. To displace, by force or necessity, huge segments of the population from one place to another based only on ethnic or religious affiliation is a recipe for conflict that no one with a drop of common sense could refute. To back this kind of policy simply because it gives the US troops and interests shorter “tour” in Iraq is nearly criminal in its negligent attitude.
Just my thoughts…
T
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Numbers
I have come across an article recently that attempts to answer the question I once asked James. A question that has raised many eyebrows of concern within the Bund itself. It is this -just how many Jihadists are we facing? There are a billion Muslims. Even if you go as low as 1%, that's 10 million strong, more than 7 times our army in numbers (not lethailty of course). I provided the link to the full interview on the right in the article of the week (nobody else claimed it this week) ... now the good dcotor's numbers.
Dr. Walid Phares, from the Foundation For Defense Of Democracies has testified before our congress and consulted for the FBI, DOD, and the Department of Homeland Security. He was on the radio due to a new book he wrote, "The War Of ideas", and at one point was asked, "raw numbers, just how many of them are there?" He broke them down into three separate categories. First were the "pre-jihadists" whom have been converted or indoctrinated into the ideology of fundamentalist Islam. These are people whom philosophically side with terrorism and may at some point participate, although they are not active planners now. He puts them in the multi-millions. Then you have the "Jihadist activists" whom have crossed the threshold of wanting to commit violence themselves and are terrorists in our legal sense of the word. They are seeking out participation actively. He puts them in the 200,000 plus range. Then there are the hardcore jihadist, that are official members or associates of Al Qeada or its affiliates. These are members, organizers and current participators of terror activity against the West. He puts their number at 30,000 world wide.
How many does the US have currently within her borders, from each category? At least 30,000 of the first group. Approximately 5,000 of the second group, and "hundreds" of the third group.
Combine that with the recent revelation of documents found in Afghanistan in which Al Qeada describes their desires to perpetrate "10 fold what was visited on Beslan (sp?) on the US." That was the Russian elementary school in which 40 or so children were massacred. They described their desire to maim and kill (along with other unspeakable acts) US children and then shoving them out windows, all in an attempt to cause US citizens to start a waive of hate crimes on Muslims within the US, thus starting a "civil war" here. Then you have the fort Dix Six, the two arrested down in Tampa and our own common sense that assumes they get up every day trying to hurt us, and well, altogether there's grave cause for concern here.
Also, interesting enough he was asked "whether we are creating more terrorists in Iraq?" Obviously relevant due the recent reports given on Capitol Hill by our commanders, and even more so to the Bund, as Titus has claimed often that we are simply breeding more of our enemy (not that he recommends a Democrat style with drawl, let me point out, but rather he is stating what he feels is an obviuos and painful side effect to our presence). I thought the doctor's answer was insightful and I'll give my interpretation of it. It's not our fighting the war in Iraq that causes them to grow, thus be more dangerous (afterall their most lethal attack came prior to the invasion in the form of 9/11), but rather that we are encouraging the liberalization (in their view) of Islam in various mediums, such as media, movies, governmental relationships, etc. The terrorists are produced in the Madrases regardless of our military actions because we simply "exsist", not the battlefield in Iraq because we "occupy."
And by the way -and this is my assertion, not one asked of or offered by the doctor - if you do the math we are creating more democrats (small d) than terrorists in Iraq by about 300 to 1 even if you count only the last national election (6 million voters). The current net gain seems quite positive in terms of whether we are inciting or democratizing Muslims in my estimation.
That's a vital observation in my opinion, and one completely lost in the media landscape.
Just my thoughts .. Oh, and any parent reading this site, you MUST view the "Clip of the Week" on the right. Just click it and scroll to the top. Remember the guy who has a site, citing where best for fellow pedophiles to "see" children, then rates them on his "hottie scale"? Police have circulated his picture, but are as of yet unable to arrest him because he hasn't broken any laws (that they know of). Not to mention, the ACLU et al are defending his 1st Amendment rights. Well, every father should keep in mind their 2nd amendment rights concerning this guy if you ask me.
FR
Dr. Walid Phares, from the Foundation For Defense Of Democracies has testified before our congress and consulted for the FBI, DOD, and the Department of Homeland Security. He was on the radio due to a new book he wrote, "The War Of ideas", and at one point was asked, "raw numbers, just how many of them are there?" He broke them down into three separate categories. First were the "pre-jihadists" whom have been converted or indoctrinated into the ideology of fundamentalist Islam. These are people whom philosophically side with terrorism and may at some point participate, although they are not active planners now. He puts them in the multi-millions. Then you have the "Jihadist activists" whom have crossed the threshold of wanting to commit violence themselves and are terrorists in our legal sense of the word. They are seeking out participation actively. He puts them in the 200,000 plus range. Then there are the hardcore jihadist, that are official members or associates of Al Qeada or its affiliates. These are members, organizers and current participators of terror activity against the West. He puts their number at 30,000 world wide.
How many does the US have currently within her borders, from each category? At least 30,000 of the first group. Approximately 5,000 of the second group, and "hundreds" of the third group.
Combine that with the recent revelation of documents found in Afghanistan in which Al Qeada describes their desires to perpetrate "10 fold what was visited on Beslan (sp?) on the US." That was the Russian elementary school in which 40 or so children were massacred. They described their desire to maim and kill (along with other unspeakable acts) US children and then shoving them out windows, all in an attempt to cause US citizens to start a waive of hate crimes on Muslims within the US, thus starting a "civil war" here. Then you have the fort Dix Six, the two arrested down in Tampa and our own common sense that assumes they get up every day trying to hurt us, and well, altogether there's grave cause for concern here.
Also, interesting enough he was asked "whether we are creating more terrorists in Iraq?" Obviously relevant due the recent reports given on Capitol Hill by our commanders, and even more so to the Bund, as Titus has claimed often that we are simply breeding more of our enemy (not that he recommends a Democrat style with drawl, let me point out, but rather he is stating what he feels is an obviuos and painful side effect to our presence). I thought the doctor's answer was insightful and I'll give my interpretation of it. It's not our fighting the war in Iraq that causes them to grow, thus be more dangerous (afterall their most lethal attack came prior to the invasion in the form of 9/11), but rather that we are encouraging the liberalization (in their view) of Islam in various mediums, such as media, movies, governmental relationships, etc. The terrorists are produced in the Madrases regardless of our military actions because we simply "exsist", not the battlefield in Iraq because we "occupy."
And by the way -and this is my assertion, not one asked of or offered by the doctor - if you do the math we are creating more democrats (small d) than terrorists in Iraq by about 300 to 1 even if you count only the last national election (6 million voters). The current net gain seems quite positive in terms of whether we are inciting or democratizing Muslims in my estimation.
That's a vital observation in my opinion, and one completely lost in the media landscape.
Just my thoughts .. Oh, and any parent reading this site, you MUST view the "Clip of the Week" on the right. Just click it and scroll to the top. Remember the guy who has a site, citing where best for fellow pedophiles to "see" children, then rates them on his "hottie scale"? Police have circulated his picture, but are as of yet unable to arrest him because he hasn't broken any laws (that they know of). Not to mention, the ACLU et al are defending his 1st Amendment rights. Well, every father should keep in mind their 2nd amendment rights concerning this guy if you ask me.
FR
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Dangerously Close
We are approaching the point in time where "lefties" will begin calling our soldiers "baby killers" all over again. And I say that because of the following. "Move on. org" has until recently been regarded as a far out in left field Bush/America hating lot, not taken serious and not mainstream. However, not only is there blog talking points being recited verbatim via MSNBC (read: Keith Olberhman), but now the NY Times, supposedly America's preeminent paper "of record" has allowed the website to purchase a full page ad in which the group calls General Patrauis, our commander in theater, a traitor. "General Betrayus" as they call him. A full page article assassinating the character and patriotism of this man. "So what?", you might say. "It's an ad buy, not the editorial board." Well, the going "rate card" on a full page ad in the Times is $167,000. They gave it to Move On for $65k. This is tantamount to an endorsement in my opinion. If THE preeminent paper in the nation is willing to go so far as endorse this deplorable and mindless behavior, then "baby killers" shouted in the streets can't be far off. The Times is legitimzing and and endorsing this into the mainstream of media and debate.
And you know what, the elected Democrats in this country better be VERY careful about the direction this left wing rhetoric is headed in. They could find themselves on the bad side of it if they're not careful - which says mountains about their party to begin with.
Oh, and Giuliani has now made a formal request for the same rate in order to put out a political ad ... we'll see if he gets it.
FR
And you know what, the elected Democrats in this country better be VERY careful about the direction this left wing rhetoric is headed in. They could find themselves on the bad side of it if they're not careful - which says mountains about their party to begin with.
Oh, and Giuliani has now made a formal request for the same rate in order to put out a political ad ... we'll see if he gets it.
FR
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Camelot
I noted in a previous post that 9/11 would echo in our minds like the Kennedy assassination does in our parents. In that vein my father wrote this email to me of the events in his life that day. I found them to be an interesting trip to the past, the day our president was killed.
Just So You Know
I awoke in the morning feeling comfortable enough to give a talk in Mr. Lowe's speech class that morning. It was about golf. I had made some fried eggs, and toast, as my mother had thought me to cook a bit. I drove off to school in her 1962 Buick Wildcat with white bucket seats and powder blue paint.
I remember the sun peaking through the clouds as I pulled into the Danville High School lot behind the shop classes off of Jackson Street. I had on a light Arnold Palmer Windbreaker jacket on, grey in color. I had a drafting class with Mr. Bud Logan, a family friend, at 9:00 AM
My next class was Mr. Lowe's comprehensive speech class at 10:00 am. I was not the first speaker. We as a class had to critique our classmates speech for some very clinical guidelines. I got out my spiral notebook and I leaned against the wall my Johnny Revolta 5 iron and Titlest bulls eye putter. They were my props. I remember being a little nervous, because I had given two speeches that semester, one on 'Banning Smoking in Public Places' and another on a trip I had made as an 8th grader to Arizona. Neither one being very profound. I remember Mr. Lowe's comments in a Senator Dirkson (IL) voice which was very deep and gravely with pauses between each syllable saying " Mr. Moore there are times when a cigarette could save your sanity. "
I remember being stunned at that comment, and probably blushing with confusion. Later we all found out why he said that to me. When all of us were playing with cap guns as a kid, and waiting for Santa Clause, Mr. Lowe had spent many a day in a fox hole in Korea.
My turn to speak.
"Mr. Moore , I believe it is you next."
As I approached the front of the class with my props, I began by introducing the game of golf, first with some history; and getting into my demonstration I climbed on top of Mr. Lowe's desk, with my shoes off of course. I glanced back with a quick look at my newest war hero. He had a head of very black hair, and it was combed like a man walking the floors of an insane institution, untamed cow licks all over. But he had a very seasoned face with at least 20 wrinkles per square inch.
He nodded, I proceeded. At one point, about 11:00 ish, I was in the top of my back swing talking about correct hand position documented from the book by Ben Hogan named, "The Five Lessons of Golf.” As I am coming down in slow motion with my right elbow snug against my right side, a knock came on the window of Mr. Lowe’s door, mimicking the sound of a percussionist on kettle drums. This not only angered me, but startled me and being in socks I struggled just to stay on the top of the desk.
Swinging the door open a redheaded student shouted, "The President has been shot!”
A blond girl Sarah, in the front row, very tall, stood up and asked, “Mary Miller ?",(our class president).
“No the President, President Kennedy!!”
Well my talk was over, and no more evaluation that day. We really didn't know what to do. No TV in any class rooms in those days.
We went to our American History Class, with Mrs. Wright, a very short, dark headed woman all business and very somber. She had the radio on and Walter Cronkite was on the air, just as he was on TV announcing the President had died at 11:52 Dallas time.
I distinctly remember one comment. A veteran Larry Sills blurted out, “Whoever shot him will never live to go to trial."
Class was then dismissed, and I was so angry, I started to walk down Fairchild past the Playboy barber shop, and Rex Wade had a small TV in his place just down from Nixon’s restaurant. I shoved open the door, and said, “What stupid MF shot our President?."
I later apologized to Rex, himself a Marine. I was glued to the TV through the reversed settled black stallion, those cadence drums were intoxicating.
Later, after the Dallas police had Lee Harvey Oswald, I witnessed Jack Ruby shoot him on live television, and then I remember thinking after much later seeing Zapruder film, how many, how many did it and why? We were all kind of naive then, the biggest deal was Sputnik and the hottest item was bomb shelters.
Yes, I had similar feelings talking with you on 9/11 Ryan, Praying to God that none of you were in the middle of some mayhem, ... malls, airports on that September morning. It was pulling at our very sanity in November1963, just like Sept 11th 2001 did all over again, for all of us.
Then for our family came your second son, a gift just 3 days later.
Lastly I printed your article and put it under the American Flag you had sent to me on the waiting room wall.
Love Dad.
P.S. Without really realizing it I walked home that afternoon, Mom said , “Butch where is our car? You didn't wreck it did you?” I said, “I'll go get it”, and I walked back to the school at 10PM that same November night.
Just So You Know
I awoke in the morning feeling comfortable enough to give a talk in Mr. Lowe's speech class that morning. It was about golf. I had made some fried eggs, and toast, as my mother had thought me to cook a bit. I drove off to school in her 1962 Buick Wildcat with white bucket seats and powder blue paint.
I remember the sun peaking through the clouds as I pulled into the Danville High School lot behind the shop classes off of Jackson Street. I had on a light Arnold Palmer Windbreaker jacket on, grey in color. I had a drafting class with Mr. Bud Logan, a family friend, at 9:00 AM
My next class was Mr. Lowe's comprehensive speech class at 10:00 am. I was not the first speaker. We as a class had to critique our classmates speech for some very clinical guidelines. I got out my spiral notebook and I leaned against the wall my Johnny Revolta 5 iron and Titlest bulls eye putter. They were my props. I remember being a little nervous, because I had given two speeches that semester, one on 'Banning Smoking in Public Places' and another on a trip I had made as an 8th grader to Arizona. Neither one being very profound. I remember Mr. Lowe's comments in a Senator Dirkson (IL) voice which was very deep and gravely with pauses between each syllable saying " Mr. Moore there are times when a cigarette could save your sanity. "
I remember being stunned at that comment, and probably blushing with confusion. Later we all found out why he said that to me. When all of us were playing with cap guns as a kid, and waiting for Santa Clause, Mr. Lowe had spent many a day in a fox hole in Korea.
My turn to speak.
"Mr. Moore , I believe it is you next."
As I approached the front of the class with my props, I began by introducing the game of golf, first with some history; and getting into my demonstration I climbed on top of Mr. Lowe's desk, with my shoes off of course. I glanced back with a quick look at my newest war hero. He had a head of very black hair, and it was combed like a man walking the floors of an insane institution, untamed cow licks all over. But he had a very seasoned face with at least 20 wrinkles per square inch.
He nodded, I proceeded. At one point, about 11:00 ish, I was in the top of my back swing talking about correct hand position documented from the book by Ben Hogan named, "The Five Lessons of Golf.” As I am coming down in slow motion with my right elbow snug against my right side, a knock came on the window of Mr. Lowe’s door, mimicking the sound of a percussionist on kettle drums. This not only angered me, but startled me and being in socks I struggled just to stay on the top of the desk.
Swinging the door open a redheaded student shouted, "The President has been shot!”
A blond girl Sarah, in the front row, very tall, stood up and asked, “Mary Miller ?",(our class president).
“No the President, President Kennedy!!”
Well my talk was over, and no more evaluation that day. We really didn't know what to do. No TV in any class rooms in those days.
We went to our American History Class, with Mrs. Wright, a very short, dark headed woman all business and very somber. She had the radio on and Walter Cronkite was on the air, just as he was on TV announcing the President had died at 11:52 Dallas time.
I distinctly remember one comment. A veteran Larry Sills blurted out, “Whoever shot him will never live to go to trial."
Class was then dismissed, and I was so angry, I started to walk down Fairchild past the Playboy barber shop, and Rex Wade had a small TV in his place just down from Nixon’s restaurant. I shoved open the door, and said, “What stupid MF shot our President?."
I later apologized to Rex, himself a Marine. I was glued to the TV through the reversed settled black stallion, those cadence drums were intoxicating.
Later, after the Dallas police had Lee Harvey Oswald, I witnessed Jack Ruby shoot him on live television, and then I remember thinking after much later seeing Zapruder film, how many, how many did it and why? We were all kind of naive then, the biggest deal was Sputnik and the hottest item was bomb shelters.
Yes, I had similar feelings talking with you on 9/11 Ryan, Praying to God that none of you were in the middle of some mayhem, ... malls, airports on that September morning. It was pulling at our very sanity in November1963, just like Sept 11th 2001 did all over again, for all of us.
Then for our family came your second son, a gift just 3 days later.
Lastly I printed your article and put it under the American Flag you had sent to me on the waiting room wall.
Love Dad.
P.S. Without really realizing it I walked home that afternoon, Mom said , “Butch where is our car? You didn't wreck it did you?” I said, “I'll go get it”, and I walked back to the school at 10PM that same November night.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
I Remember.
I remember, as I'm sure we all do, where I was and what I was doing this morning 6 years ago. I was on my way out of the door to an English Comp II class at Jefferson Davis Community College. I stopped to kiss my 2 year old in his sleep. Little did I know, three days later, my second son would be born. I jumped in the car and immediately turned to my favorite AM talk radio station - 870AM out of New Orleans. And the wrong voice was on.
9/11 as we would all come to know it was occuring. I was listening to the story unfold, and then they reported that one of the towers had fallen. I raced down the highway, knowing there were televisions at school, and I noticed armed soldiers closing down entrances at the Hwy 90 side of the Veterans Administration. "I can only imagine the scramble going on at Keesler" I said to myself. The entire school was dead silent as I arrived, and door after door that I passed was open, no instruction, just a TV blaring and a quiet audience. I made my way to my Western Civ instructor - her classroom seemed the most appropriate for some reason - and I found a seat in the back. There we sat silently, unaware that we were watching the world change. Then the president came on and explained that "an apparent terrorist attack on our country" had occurred. I knew as I sat and listened to him utter those words that we would go on as adults to speak of this day in the same reverent tones as our parents did of November 22nd, 1963.
Yes, many images come to mind today. The fact that we were jolted awake to the realization that America was at war with radical Islam. That the safety we all took for granted in this nation had been forever shattered - oceans no longer protecting us. But as important, on this day each year, we should remember the good parents that died that day. The strong sons. The beautiful daughters. The favorite cousins. The dedicated husbands. The loving wives. The best friends.
All lost their life. Bedrooms, firehouses, police stations, family rooms, mornings, and nights ... they all go on being empty for the loved ones who lost someone on that day.
Each night my sons and I pray for the safety and success of our soldiers and their loved ones. Tonight we will add the families left behind on that day. I hope your families will do the same.
FR
9/11 as we would all come to know it was occuring. I was listening to the story unfold, and then they reported that one of the towers had fallen. I raced down the highway, knowing there were televisions at school, and I noticed armed soldiers closing down entrances at the Hwy 90 side of the Veterans Administration. "I can only imagine the scramble going on at Keesler" I said to myself. The entire school was dead silent as I arrived, and door after door that I passed was open, no instruction, just a TV blaring and a quiet audience. I made my way to my Western Civ instructor - her classroom seemed the most appropriate for some reason - and I found a seat in the back. There we sat silently, unaware that we were watching the world change. Then the president came on and explained that "an apparent terrorist attack on our country" had occurred. I knew as I sat and listened to him utter those words that we would go on as adults to speak of this day in the same reverent tones as our parents did of November 22nd, 1963.
Yes, many images come to mind today. The fact that we were jolted awake to the realization that America was at war with radical Islam. That the safety we all took for granted in this nation had been forever shattered - oceans no longer protecting us. But as important, on this day each year, we should remember the good parents that died that day. The strong sons. The beautiful daughters. The favorite cousins. The dedicated husbands. The loving wives. The best friends.
All lost their life. Bedrooms, firehouses, police stations, family rooms, mornings, and nights ... they all go on being empty for the loved ones who lost someone on that day.
Each night my sons and I pray for the safety and success of our soldiers and their loved ones. Tonight we will add the families left behind on that day. I hope your families will do the same.
FR
The NEW and IMPROVED...
UBL!
The Father Jonathan blog I have listed to the right ran an article yesterday giving the good Padre's thoughts on the latest Usama video, and I have to admit, they are very interesting.
I hadn't seen the video until just now... and I will say right now, I'm not impressed. He sounds terrible (but, I don't speak his language, so maybe there is an appeal there I'm unaware of), he looks like a Muppet with a horse-hair beard glued on, and the translation running at the bottom makes as much sense as an Ann Coulter book-on-tape.
However...
IF, as has been said, much of the Islamic world is entrenched in medieval esthetic theological dogma (meaning they respect and admire even the appearance of hardship and sacrifice in their religious leaders), then he might seem very appealing to millions, indeed. No fatigues, no AK-47, no web-belt slung across his shoulder… even his turban and robes are clean and stain-free. He doesn’t shout or raise his voice, and the only object brandished in the video is a small book (I assume it is a Koran).
The consensus seems to be that he is trying to re-invent himself as a new icon of Islamic theology… maybe a new Ayatollah “bin Laden” (that analogy is mine alone, I KNOW he’s Sunni and not Shi’ite). My first impression on hearing of the video was to dismiss it as more violent and hate-ridden rhetoric, but it seems this is a departure from the norm at last.
UBL breaks with traditional, mainstream Islam by stating that no interpretation of the Koran is allowed, as it is handed down directly by Allah. He says that all conflict in this world stems from the simple fact that Jews and Christians are not Muslim, and to end all conflict, the entire world must become Muslim. He clearly states that Allah is “will” alone (where Judaism and Christianity teach that He is all LOVE), and all people must bow to Allah’s will, as we are slaves to that will.
There is an insidious side to this speech that all might not see. In denying the interpretive nature of the Koran, he tells people who might not understand better that if it is clearly spelled out in the holiest of books, then it must be true. No amount of contextual consideration matters… if it is there, it is true. By claiming that non-Muslim peoples are the cause of conflict, he as much as says that the troubles facing the Middle East, West Africa, Afghanistan, Mesopotamia, Southeast Asia, and all the hundreds of millions of poor, ignorant Muslims living in those regions are BLAMELESS in their plight. It isn’t their fault, so they can do what they want to correct it… without consequence or repercussion.
Most importantly… if people have no free will and all must slave themselves to the Will of Allah… who explains the will of Allah in a language they understand? Less than 20% of Muslims in this world read Arabic… but that is the ONLY language that they will read the Koran in. So how do they know what Allah wants?
UBL will tell them!
T
The Father Jonathan blog I have listed to the right ran an article yesterday giving the good Padre's thoughts on the latest Usama video, and I have to admit, they are very interesting.
I hadn't seen the video until just now... and I will say right now, I'm not impressed. He sounds terrible (but, I don't speak his language, so maybe there is an appeal there I'm unaware of), he looks like a Muppet with a horse-hair beard glued on, and the translation running at the bottom makes as much sense as an Ann Coulter book-on-tape.
However...
IF, as has been said, much of the Islamic world is entrenched in medieval esthetic theological dogma (meaning they respect and admire even the appearance of hardship and sacrifice in their religious leaders), then he might seem very appealing to millions, indeed. No fatigues, no AK-47, no web-belt slung across his shoulder… even his turban and robes are clean and stain-free. He doesn’t shout or raise his voice, and the only object brandished in the video is a small book (I assume it is a Koran).
The consensus seems to be that he is trying to re-invent himself as a new icon of Islamic theology… maybe a new Ayatollah “bin Laden” (that analogy is mine alone, I KNOW he’s Sunni and not Shi’ite). My first impression on hearing of the video was to dismiss it as more violent and hate-ridden rhetoric, but it seems this is a departure from the norm at last.
UBL breaks with traditional, mainstream Islam by stating that no interpretation of the Koran is allowed, as it is handed down directly by Allah. He says that all conflict in this world stems from the simple fact that Jews and Christians are not Muslim, and to end all conflict, the entire world must become Muslim. He clearly states that Allah is “will” alone (where Judaism and Christianity teach that He is all LOVE), and all people must bow to Allah’s will, as we are slaves to that will.
There is an insidious side to this speech that all might not see. In denying the interpretive nature of the Koran, he tells people who might not understand better that if it is clearly spelled out in the holiest of books, then it must be true. No amount of contextual consideration matters… if it is there, it is true. By claiming that non-Muslim peoples are the cause of conflict, he as much as says that the troubles facing the Middle East, West Africa, Afghanistan, Mesopotamia, Southeast Asia, and all the hundreds of millions of poor, ignorant Muslims living in those regions are BLAMELESS in their plight. It isn’t their fault, so they can do what they want to correct it… without consequence or repercussion.
Most importantly… if people have no free will and all must slave themselves to the Will of Allah… who explains the will of Allah in a language they understand? Less than 20% of Muslims in this world read Arabic… but that is the ONLY language that they will read the Koran in. So how do they know what Allah wants?
UBL will tell them!
T
Monday, September 10, 2007
Installment #2
2) The creation of a national mass transit system.
Now this is something I can't believe anyone has hit on. Ryan, how's traffic in Vegas? How would it be if fuel cost half what it does now? If we look at the elimination of petroleum imports as a national security move as opposed to environmental, then we need to look at national mass transit as just freaking practical. The interstates were a good thing sixty years ago. Now... We can spend trillions rebuilding something doomed to fail, or we can do what needs to be done and do it right.
City to city bullet trains, then inner-city trolleys, cable cars, trains, shit that gets vehicles and people off the roads. (Notice how I don't say buses or taxis? They serve a different purpose and aren't considered "mass transit" in the New Deal. At most a bus can haul thirty, where a train can haul hundreds. THAT'S mass transit.) Some cities are doing this on their own, which is good. It just needs to go to the next step.
Something conspicuously absent in my musings? Airplanes and the like? Well, costs should fall with the cost of fuel dropping, but whether or not the companies can handle volume is a large question mark. The bullet train links between metropolitan areas will relieve some of the pressure on the airlines but not eliminate the need for flying. The New Deal likes planes. Especially flying with home grown avgas. But the airline industry can't handle the increasing load alone.
Installment #1
Of FR's campaign for the White House. Something I like to call "Spank Rudy!"
And by the way? This is cut from the old mailing list... So the profanity is basicly intact. Just a little note at the top for the sensitive among us.
New Deal 2008
In light of the complete lack of identity in the 21st Century incarnation of the Democratic Party, my answer to the lack of opposition to the current incarnation of “Conservative” Republican trends is Ryan’s New Deal. Calling any democrat an advocate of BIG GOVERNMENT, especially by a Reagan Apostle as yourself, is like Whoopie Goldberg calling the Rutgers basketball team nappie headed hoes. As we've documented numerous times, Reagan did nothing to reduce government. The size of the government isn't determined by tax income, it's determined by spending. The more the beast is fed, the larger it gets. Cut spending and you get small government. We have to go to Hoover before we see a Republican that chokes the beast into something nearly unrecognizable in the last half of the 20th century.
Now, lets spend some money.
And this is a minor side-note. The f**king of big business is just an added benefit. No one wants to break it off inside Exxon and the rest of those gougers more than me, but that does not necessarily represent a party or an ideological platform. That part is pure entertainment.
1) The cessation of the importation of all petroleum in four years.
In large agrarian states, (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, you get it) federal refineries are constructed for the production of ethanol. I do not know how long this takes, (to build the building, you get it...) but if they can throw Hoover Dam up in three years I'm thinking we can build the twenty or so refineries needed. Being federal, we have an advantage with OSHA and EPA and all that. This shit gets done no red tape. Fast. As many people working balls to the wall as possible. We're spending money, we're spending it well.
NOTE: Any wiener can pop a couple of holes in this, but what's GOOD about it? It appeals to Heartland mentality. It appeals to farming, country, patriotism, Midwestern values, the heart of American conservatism. And let's face it. If you acknowledge Titus’ position that Hoover and not Reagan is the 20th century's torchbearer for conservatism, then Iowa really is heaven. In one bold stroke we've done three things.
And by the way? This is cut from the old mailing list... So the profanity is basicly intact. Just a little note at the top for the sensitive among us.
New Deal 2008
Now, lets spend some money.
And this is a minor side-note. The f**king of big business is just an added benefit. No one wants to break it off inside Exxon and the rest of those gougers more than me, but that does not necessarily represent a party or an ideological platform. That part is pure entertainment.
1) The cessation of the importation of all petroleum in four years.
In large agrarian states, (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, you get it) federal refineries are constructed for the production of ethanol. I do not know how long this takes, (to build the building, you get it...) but if they can throw Hoover Dam up in three years I'm thinking we can build the twenty or so refineries needed. Being federal, we have an advantage with OSHA and EPA and all that. This shit gets done no red tape. Fast. As many people working balls to the wall as possible. We're spending money, we're spending it well.
All farm subsidies stop. I'm not paying any money for good land to stay fallow. I want as much farmland we have as possible (without starving the nation, I'm not Stalin, for crying out loud) used. I want some Joe Blow 19 year old with no college education able to buy the forty acres next to his dad's 40 and farm just like their family has done forever. If that's corn, wheat, saw grass, sugar cane, sugar beats, whatever. Don't care. Because we (the feds) are buying. What determines the price? I don't know, not an economics major. The market value for the product would be more than made up if the ethanol sells for HALF of what gas goes for now. So at 1.50 a gallon the feds can pay the farmers what they deserve. And that will only get better as demand increases. I can tell you, lots of things need fuel and in four years we're going to be self-sufficient. All those planes need gas. Trucks need bio-diesel. The demand for product to be refined into ethanol should allow anyone who has an interest and a desire to farm to be able to make that kind of a living. All of a sudden Kansas is a nice place to live again.
NOTE: Any wiener can pop a couple of holes in this, but what's GOOD about it? It appeals to Heartland mentality. It appeals to farming, country, patriotism, Midwestern values, the heart of American conservatism. And let's face it. If you acknowledge Titus’ position that Hoover and not Reagan is the 20th century's torchbearer for conservatism, then Iowa really is heaven. In one bold stroke we've done three things.
A) Created agrarian jobs. Name the last President to do that? (Jefferson. Go west.)
B) Created guaranteed jobs that'll last a century. John farms the corn. Mike hauls the corn. Suzie works to refine the corn. And Peter pumps the gas.
C) Cut the legs out of not only the Arabs, the Venezuelans, and some other oil rich state, but companies like Exxon and Mobile and those cornshuckers charging me 3+ a gallon.
I have to admit...
Ryan was right!
While fussing with the news articles found to the right of this post, I came upon a link to a Canadian paper that I have viewed in the past… The Edmonton Sun. I know very little about the paper (or community) in general, and only followed links to it in the past because of the headlines.
The article I found today, though, struck me as quite different. Compared to much of what I have read from Canadian editorials, it is as supportive of Bush and the post 9-11 American policy as I guess you could hope for. Here’s the link: Edmonton Sun story
It is a very nearly insightful look into the attitude of much of North America 6 years after the attacks, and I think it is an excellent chance to see that even the traditionally “liberal” attitude of our northern cousins can be tempered by rational, moderate thinking.
As Ryan said in previous posts… perhaps that signals a change in attitude amongst our “liberal” and lately, very “anti-Bush” allies.
I hope so.
While fussing with the news articles found to the right of this post, I came upon a link to a Canadian paper that I have viewed in the past… The Edmonton Sun. I know very little about the paper (or community) in general, and only followed links to it in the past because of the headlines.
The article I found today, though, struck me as quite different. Compared to much of what I have read from Canadian editorials, it is as supportive of Bush and the post 9-11 American policy as I guess you could hope for. Here’s the link: Edmonton Sun story
It is a very nearly insightful look into the attitude of much of North America 6 years after the attacks, and I think it is an excellent chance to see that even the traditionally “liberal” attitude of our northern cousins can be tempered by rational, moderate thinking.
As Ryan said in previous posts… perhaps that signals a change in attitude amongst our “liberal” and lately, very “anti-Bush” allies.
I hope so.
Listen up, THAT is how you complain!
Fantastic!
I thoroughly enjoyed "Bad Boy's" recitation of the various crimes and miscarriages of justice that the Democratic party is guilty of. Eloquently spoken, and I'm glad to see a kindred spirit has joined our ranks. From Kennedy to Reid, to Pelosi to Schumer, these people have engaged in a level professional sophistry which allows empires to crumble and causes republics to fail. And as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches these political Jacobins seek to smear the reputation of our most honored servicemen. That's correct, Reid has taken to calling General Patraius a liar. In preparation for the "surge report" to be issued Tuesday (9/11), Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) NV has said "this man has been known to make statements in the past that weren't supported by the facts." The leader of the senate has taken the step of calling our battlefield commander a liar. Truman despised MacArthur, but did him the service of "asking" for his resignation and a ticker-tate parade. Our battlefield commander, a man whom has given his life to defending our rights, has to now listen to a corrupt and broken man tarnish his good name. Despicable. What has become of this once proud and patriotic party? They are democrats (small "d"), no more.
Also, given his eloquent prose, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank "Bad Boy" for his service to this nation .. thank you sir. And in that spirit I will offer this piece which I wrote on the one year anniversary of 9/11. Now six years past it sits framed on my wall as a reminder to me of the sacrifice of men like you, and my little brother, proudly serving in the US Army.
On Point
I was recently asked whether or not I thought our president, and America in general, were on point with a foreign policy that seems to be leading to an inevitable invasion of Iraq.
On point.
Those words instantly conjured up a host of images. Images of men’s faces that I have seen throughout the years in John Wayne and Audie Murphy war movies. Faces of the “point man.” He is the soldier whom walks ahead of the rest of his platoon that’s out on patrol. He walks out ahead first. He meets the enemy first. He meets death first. He secures the area first and then signals to the rest by waiving them forward. “Come along”, he says, “this area is safe, I have secured it.” That sounds a lot like America to me. We are history’s point men. We walk ahead of the rest of the world in meeting those who live to kill freedom. We land first, we die first, we defeat the enemy first, and we leave the battlefield last. We signal to the rest of the world, “come forward.” In total, we lead.
Why?
It is because of our intimate knowledge of freedom. Freedom is not some abstract ideal to us. It is a tangible, living, breathing being that we can reach out and take a hold of, as it has taken a hold of us. It flows through our courts, churches, and homes. It is in our prayer meetings and at our dinner tables. It races down our highways, and screams through the air on the wings of our jets. We know it, and more importantly, it knows us. It knows that we are its defender, its keeper, and that it will always have a home as long as we hold breath.
We go out on point.
We signal to the rest of the world “come along." Liberty echoes in the sound of our soldiers boots hitting the ground, and freedom smiles. For it knows that once again we are out on point.
Our blood is still wet on the Sands of Iwo Gima. Sailors are still trapped at the bottom of the Pacific. Dog tags still lay buried without owner on the Korean Peninsula. And men still cry at the Vietnam Memorial.
And tomorrow, we will get up, and go out on point again.
FR.
9/11/02
I thoroughly enjoyed "Bad Boy's" recitation of the various crimes and miscarriages of justice that the Democratic party is guilty of. Eloquently spoken, and I'm glad to see a kindred spirit has joined our ranks. From Kennedy to Reid, to Pelosi to Schumer, these people have engaged in a level professional sophistry which allows empires to crumble and causes republics to fail. And as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches these political Jacobins seek to smear the reputation of our most honored servicemen. That's correct, Reid has taken to calling General Patraius a liar. In preparation for the "surge report" to be issued Tuesday (9/11), Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) NV has said "this man has been known to make statements in the past that weren't supported by the facts." The leader of the senate has taken the step of calling our battlefield commander a liar. Truman despised MacArthur, but did him the service of "asking" for his resignation and a ticker-tate parade. Our battlefield commander, a man whom has given his life to defending our rights, has to now listen to a corrupt and broken man tarnish his good name. Despicable. What has become of this once proud and patriotic party? They are democrats (small "d"), no more.
Also, given his eloquent prose, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank "Bad Boy" for his service to this nation .. thank you sir. And in that spirit I will offer this piece which I wrote on the one year anniversary of 9/11. Now six years past it sits framed on my wall as a reminder to me of the sacrifice of men like you, and my little brother, proudly serving in the US Army.
On Point
I was recently asked whether or not I thought our president, and America in general, were on point with a foreign policy that seems to be leading to an inevitable invasion of Iraq.
On point.
Those words instantly conjured up a host of images. Images of men’s faces that I have seen throughout the years in John Wayne and Audie Murphy war movies. Faces of the “point man.” He is the soldier whom walks ahead of the rest of his platoon that’s out on patrol. He walks out ahead first. He meets the enemy first. He meets death first. He secures the area first and then signals to the rest by waiving them forward. “Come along”, he says, “this area is safe, I have secured it.” That sounds a lot like America to me. We are history’s point men. We walk ahead of the rest of the world in meeting those who live to kill freedom. We land first, we die first, we defeat the enemy first, and we leave the battlefield last. We signal to the rest of the world, “come forward.” In total, we lead.
Why?
It is because of our intimate knowledge of freedom. Freedom is not some abstract ideal to us. It is a tangible, living, breathing being that we can reach out and take a hold of, as it has taken a hold of us. It flows through our courts, churches, and homes. It is in our prayer meetings and at our dinner tables. It races down our highways, and screams through the air on the wings of our jets. We know it, and more importantly, it knows us. It knows that we are its defender, its keeper, and that it will always have a home as long as we hold breath.
We go out on point.
We signal to the rest of the world “come along." Liberty echoes in the sound of our soldiers boots hitting the ground, and freedom smiles. For it knows that once again we are out on point.
Our blood is still wet on the Sands of Iwo Gima. Sailors are still trapped at the bottom of the Pacific. Dog tags still lay buried without owner on the Korean Peninsula. And men still cry at the Vietnam Memorial.
And tomorrow, we will get up, and go out on point again.
FR.
9/11/02
Sunday, September 9, 2007
My Counter to the Red (Republican) Menace...
is nothing short of....
New Deal 2008!
Remember when we hashed this out? I won't drag this out into the open unless someone tells me it's ok. You guys have already put a link up for my book, giving me the platform for the unveiling of the sure fire way to win your party into the White House for a generation is asking a lot. And besides, FR may hold that to be proprietary as planks in his platform. So, who wants to see it?
Saturday, September 8, 2007
This should make FR's day...
This was tacked on to some thread that rolled off... Too good to leave it buried.
Hey,
This piece was written by an old friend of my wife and as you can tell he is a pretty hard core republican. I thought it was a pretty good piece to discuss and am looking forward to your opinions.
Badboy
A Declaration of Independence
From the Democratic Party
When in the course of American events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political allegiance that has connected them to one political party and to search for new and better governance, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to the separation
We hold these truths to be self evident, That the United States of America is the greatest experiment in democracy that the earth has ever experienced, That a nation is only great when it promotes and defends the ideals of God, Family and Country. That this country and all others can only exist if it believes in the right of the majority with respect to the minority, That we as Americans are a great people and a great nation and that we are great because we promote and defend Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Democratic Party has become destructive of these ends and we the people have a right through peaceful means to alter or abolish it. We have the right to support any other party which will lay in its foundation the principals of Government that is most likely to insure a more perfect Union, establish Justice and Promote the General Welfare.
Since the cessation of hostilities of the Vietnam War the Democratic Party has become the domestic enemy of the United States of America. More potent than any foreign enemy they have these last forty years borne down upon the brow of the people a long train of abuse and usurpation with the object being to reduce us to absolute despotism. It is our right, it is our duty, it is our obligation as Americans to throw off such unbearable government and establish a new direction for ourselves and our posterity. With the Democratic Party standing accused of treason, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
You have expelled God from our schools, businesses and public places by intentionally appointing judges who knowingly abuse the constitution of the United States of America. By allowing the judicial branch of the government to usurp the power of the legislature and then promoting or ignoring the injustice, this so that the will of the people will be thwarted in the congress and state legislatures.
You have enslaved the minority populations to federal government welfare programs with the intention of breaking their will to live as free and independent citizens. You have grinded them into government anti-poverty projects and endless “self-help” programs all to no avail and all for the purpose of creating a bureaucracy to be fed by endless tax dollars which invariably benefits its creators only.
You have supported, ignored or encouraged traitors to the American causes in times of peace and war, allowing them to destroy the morale of the American military and its civilian base of support.
You have actively supported the murder of unborn American citizens by means of abortion and partial birth abortion. You have raised these procedures most foul and filthy to the level of sacraments.
You have taxed the people beyond their ability to endure with the object of fatiguing them into a accepting a socialist form of government that benefits a tyrant only and oppresses the freedom and liberty of the people.
You have abandoned the military on the field of battle by declaring that they are murderers, baby killers and torturers. You have sought to cut off the funds they need to sustain their lives and carry on the battle. You have nominated, elected and defended a commander in chief who declared that he “loathes the military”.
You have supported, defended and covered up actions of the same commander in chief rightly and justifiably accused of high crimes and misdemeanors. The likes of which are Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Evidence Tampering, Witness Tampering, Money Laundering and Sexual Harassment. You have witheringly attacked those duly obligated to investigate and prosecute such crimes. You have ignored in the most vile, vicious and unfeeling way the cause of Justice that his victims sought.
You have encouraged, supported and defended Illegal Immigration into this nation to the point that the general welfare of the people has been threatened. You have used them to vote illegally to gain, regain and retain political power due to the loss of support among the American People.
You have endeavored to censor all opposing viewpoints in the media through judicial and bureaucratic means, rendering ineffective all political opposition.
You have bartered away our sacred national sovereignty to international organizations and foreign tyrants. You have attempted to split asunder American traditions and values necessary to sustain its existence. You have endeavored to destroy the American people’s faith in God, Family and Country. You have attempted to render useless state legislatures, congress, majority rule and constitutional law all for the purpose of congealing power in the federal courts. You have substituted foreign Anti-American political philosophy for constitutional law preferring the ravings of atheists, socialists, radical liberals and communists for the Reasoned, Enlightened approach of the Founding Fathers.
For these and other offenses too numerous to mention here, We the People of the United States of America, United in Liberty and fortified by the knowledge that we have a birthright of Freedom, do hereby declare that this nation should and ought to be free of the malignant stain of oppression forced down upon us by the Democratic party, That We the People have a right to take our place as leaders of the free world. Therefore, we hereby highly resolve that this great nation free and sovereign, and united in Liberty, will not bow down before any human power on the face of the earth. And with a firm reliance on the hand of God, We the People of the Untied States of America mutually pledge to our nation and ourselves our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Jerome Bowe
429 Center Street
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
(908) 461-3330
Bayshoreconsultants@yahoo.com
Hey,
This piece was written by an old friend of my wife and as you can tell he is a pretty hard core republican. I thought it was a pretty good piece to discuss and am looking forward to your opinions.
Badboy
A Declaration of Independence
From the Democratic Party
When in the course of American events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political allegiance that has connected them to one political party and to search for new and better governance, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to the separation
We hold these truths to be self evident, That the United States of America is the greatest experiment in democracy that the earth has ever experienced, That a nation is only great when it promotes and defends the ideals of God, Family and Country. That this country and all others can only exist if it believes in the right of the majority with respect to the minority, That we as Americans are a great people and a great nation and that we are great because we promote and defend Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Democratic Party has become destructive of these ends and we the people have a right through peaceful means to alter or abolish it. We have the right to support any other party which will lay in its foundation the principals of Government that is most likely to insure a more perfect Union, establish Justice and Promote the General Welfare.
Since the cessation of hostilities of the Vietnam War the Democratic Party has become the domestic enemy of the United States of America. More potent than any foreign enemy they have these last forty years borne down upon the brow of the people a long train of abuse and usurpation with the object being to reduce us to absolute despotism. It is our right, it is our duty, it is our obligation as Americans to throw off such unbearable government and establish a new direction for ourselves and our posterity. With the Democratic Party standing accused of treason, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
You have expelled God from our schools, businesses and public places by intentionally appointing judges who knowingly abuse the constitution of the United States of America. By allowing the judicial branch of the government to usurp the power of the legislature and then promoting or ignoring the injustice, this so that the will of the people will be thwarted in the congress and state legislatures.
You have enslaved the minority populations to federal government welfare programs with the intention of breaking their will to live as free and independent citizens. You have grinded them into government anti-poverty projects and endless “self-help” programs all to no avail and all for the purpose of creating a bureaucracy to be fed by endless tax dollars which invariably benefits its creators only.
You have supported, ignored or encouraged traitors to the American causes in times of peace and war, allowing them to destroy the morale of the American military and its civilian base of support.
You have actively supported the murder of unborn American citizens by means of abortion and partial birth abortion. You have raised these procedures most foul and filthy to the level of sacraments.
You have taxed the people beyond their ability to endure with the object of fatiguing them into a accepting a socialist form of government that benefits a tyrant only and oppresses the freedom and liberty of the people.
You have abandoned the military on the field of battle by declaring that they are murderers, baby killers and torturers. You have sought to cut off the funds they need to sustain their lives and carry on the battle. You have nominated, elected and defended a commander in chief who declared that he “loathes the military”.
You have supported, defended and covered up actions of the same commander in chief rightly and justifiably accused of high crimes and misdemeanors. The likes of which are Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Evidence Tampering, Witness Tampering, Money Laundering and Sexual Harassment. You have witheringly attacked those duly obligated to investigate and prosecute such crimes. You have ignored in the most vile, vicious and unfeeling way the cause of Justice that his victims sought.
You have encouraged, supported and defended Illegal Immigration into this nation to the point that the general welfare of the people has been threatened. You have used them to vote illegally to gain, regain and retain political power due to the loss of support among the American People.
You have endeavored to censor all opposing viewpoints in the media through judicial and bureaucratic means, rendering ineffective all political opposition.
You have bartered away our sacred national sovereignty to international organizations and foreign tyrants. You have attempted to split asunder American traditions and values necessary to sustain its existence. You have endeavored to destroy the American people’s faith in God, Family and Country. You have attempted to render useless state legislatures, congress, majority rule and constitutional law all for the purpose of congealing power in the federal courts. You have substituted foreign Anti-American political philosophy for constitutional law preferring the ravings of atheists, socialists, radical liberals and communists for the Reasoned, Enlightened approach of the Founding Fathers.
For these and other offenses too numerous to mention here, We the People of the United States of America, United in Liberty and fortified by the knowledge that we have a birthright of Freedom, do hereby declare that this nation should and ought to be free of the malignant stain of oppression forced down upon us by the Democratic party, That We the People have a right to take our place as leaders of the free world. Therefore, we hereby highly resolve that this great nation free and sovereign, and united in Liberty, will not bow down before any human power on the face of the earth. And with a firm reliance on the hand of God, We the People of the Untied States of America mutually pledge to our nation and ourselves our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Jerome Bowe
429 Center Street
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
(908) 461-3330
Bayshoreconsultants@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
