Thursday, June 30, 2005
I am starting to think that the thought process goes as follows:
We lost in Vietnam; we can lose in the Middle East!!!
This thinking can only be understood in terms of ignorance, racism, and anti-Americanism.
Ignorance, because it implies that the war is either not a war or that the war is won. Splitting hairs on where we fight is a sign of ignorance. We do not always define the battlefield - the enemy has a role in that decision. Our major battle now is in the region we call Iraq. I use that term because the most deadly enemy action is not of Iraqis for Iraqis. They are jihadists from foreign lands. In addition, simply because the casualties occur ‘over there’ – much like those on the USS Cole, the African Embassies, the Khobar Towers, the Beirut Marine Barracks, etc… - does not imply that we are not at wa,r nor that we have won. Folks, those casualties imply that we are at war. It’s just that we are fighting it now.
Racist because it implies that the enemy is incapable of causing us harm. This portion of the American citizenry fundamentally believes that these folks are too backward, too savage, and too barbaric to be a viable enemy. They do not respect the enemy, thus they inherently do not respect the people. At its most base, that is racism.
Anti-American because it implies that if the enemy is lucky enough to harm America it will be the ‘other’ that they harm. These people no longer assimilate in the American culture because they do not believe in the fundamentals of modern America. Post-Shock, while they morn the deaths of individuals, they do not morn the destruction of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They do not morn the aggregate of those whose livelihood placed them in these structures – because as an aggregate, those people are the ‘Little Eichmans’ who oppress us.
They do not think that losing the GWOT will affect them negatively. Actually, losing this conflict will force us to rethink our corupt fundamentals. And, the enemy is not sophisticated enough to harm us while we make these cultural changes.
Unlike the Vietnamese, the Islamofascists have declared war on America. Unlike the Vietnamese, the Islamofascists have routinely murdered Americans for decades. Unlike the Vietnamese, the Islamofascists have attacked our homeland. And, unlike the Vietnamese, Islamic terrorist will view winning this single battle in the Middle East as winning a single battle in the Middle East. If this battle is lost, the war will continue – but it will follow an alternate history similar to one defined by a decisive loss at the Battle of Midway.
So here goes…
Regarding the Valerie Plame story:
It is apparent that Novak’s unimpeachable sources – remember, it is important to get confirmation of anonymously sourced information – were the journalists Judith Miller of the vaunted New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine. A brave journalist sourcing stories from unidentified (anonymous) sources who were journalists. It is important to protect Journalist/Journalist privilege. Such Constitutionally protected privilege is at least as important as that which protects communication between clients and attorneys.
Now, it would be interesting to determine what the media considers unimpeachable sources - outside of other media mavens, of course. Who was the deep throat source for Miller and Cooper?
Journalists are chillin'.
Everybodies a'chillin' now.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Senator Kennedy, take this to heart:
Kennedy himself and his liberal colleagues in Congress are waging an ill advised war against the United States that is most certainly a quagmire. The DNC is dying. Ted Kennedy is a deadender. He is a suicide bomber but his munitions are low order detonations that destroy the bearer and leave only a mess for bystanders to gawk at.
Uuummmm, in the right way...
Remember, Kennedy supports the troops...
As does Durbin
As does Kerry
As does MoveOn.org
As does International ANSWER
As do all the Congress Critters that funded our military at 2.5% of GDP
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Re(2): 'Three Conjectures', The Belmont Club, TC Wretchard
A blog I have seen referenced, but never reviewed, had an interesting post on the Foreign Minister of China stating:
"China will never permit the Islamic Republic of Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons"
"Though China does have certain relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, it will never agree to permit such a regime to equipped with nuclear weapons."
Tigerhawk effectively asks the question of why it would be in China's interest to strongly make such a declaration. Wouldn't it be in China's interest to poke the US and Russia in the eye. Isn't directly challenging your most important source of oil economically dangerous to say the least.
I think part of the answer can be found in
1. Wrechard's 'Three Conjectures'. and
2. Barnett's 'The Pentagons New Map' and
3. ‘The Clash of Civilizations’
Basically, for all its faults China lives within the civilized core of nations. One can deal with them in reciprocity. Like the Soviet Union, Trust But Verify. Deterrence functions. There is recognized leadership. Measured response can be made.
Once stateless Islamofascist use, or attempt to use, WMD the game is up and the starting gun is fired. There is no point in measured escalation. There is no command element, there is no deterrent effect, the movement is not limited to any state, and there is no confidence in any agreements.
I postulate that if an Islamofascist terrorist group, let’s say al Qaeda, nukes Paris the retribution will not be limited to coming from France, Europe, and/or even America. Even if the west proves soft and pliable, it is at least somewhat likely that China and Russia will become involved to the extreme. Actually, more than likely.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Re(2): 'Memos Show Brittish Concern Over Iraq Plans', AP, Thomas Wagner
To the Democrat/Media Party,
The bell tolls for thee...
The 'Times of London' reporter Mike Smith skillfully (honestly??? yuk, yuk) retyped the smoking gun documents those legions of the Left call 'THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS' onto plain paper to protect his anonymous source. He then destroys the originals.
With the American public showing a whopping 19% confidence level in your field of expertise you destroy your evidence.
Maybe you should have notified the Randi Rhodent (Err America ranter) and Congressman Conyers of this little problem before they jumped into their Birkenstocks and Burlap Sacks for their little march on Washington - with tens of other people.
That impeachment ‘hearing’ is funnier by the second. No real smoking gun. Potentially phony documents. anti-Semitic rants. Form Letters of Condemnation. Almost tens of people on the march. And some of the Left’s most qualified luminaries as witnesses.
Careers are made when you accuse based on retyped copies of reasonable facsimiles of fairly clear copies of fourth party interpretations of 'secret' meetings. Smith's career just shifted into overdrive - clunk, clank, drag, drip...
Mr. Wagner (AP Reporter in linked source story). I think the retyping of the memos show concern over the accuracy of the memos. I think I am concerned that you did not pick this up. I think I am concerned about my unimpeachable sources. I think I will put your byline on my Spam News Service filter. Stupid. Very Stupid.
Re(2): 'Walking the Line', Michael Yon: Online Magazine, Michael Yon
The Left asks how we could have possibly lost the War on Terror - knowing intrinsically that we have lost. See, we are still fighting!!!
But another question, one far more important, and one far less infantile presents itself:
How do we know when we have won???
This is also an important question.
Is the answer going to be we will know victory when we see it??? I can accept that – I guess.
It's important to talk with Generals: they are all very smart or they wouldn't
be Generals, but a General says what he wants people to hear, and sometimes they
do lay it on pretty thick. I wanted to meet soldiers. Combat soldiers in
particular. And combat soldiers before, during and after combat operations.
That's the only place to figure out who is winning and losing this war. "Winning"
meaning the Iraqis embrace and protect their freedom and most
of our folks come home. Losing meaning something other
than this, up to and including to any dreaded stasis.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Geographically, spiritually, financially, and logistically the axis of terror has been split on the bisect of Iraq and Afghanistan. Aggressive terrorists and clans must now reside in regions that once exported terror – not incorporated it.
Our current conflict is similar to those fought by the Roman Republic against border barbarians. Rome would divide and conqueror – often without overt military action. Similarly, our ‘counsels’ can travel the world and make things happen as a result of ‘saying what I mean, and meaning what I say’ diplomacy.
Syria is on the ropes. Its regime based on a strong man that is no longer such a strong man. Iraqi action could push the issue - and I mean Iraqi action.
Iran is militarily, diplomatically, and culturally vulnerable. If Europe and Japan could be coerced into purchasing oil from a resurgent Iraq (whose production is increasing) than Iran is in a world of sh*t. This coercion could take the form of an overt or nuisance blockade. The UN will soon back this – and Iran is not in a position to break the blockade. We have to get Iraqi oil production up to compensate Europe and Japan for the loss of Iranian production. Let China try to break the UN sanctions that are to come.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest danger long term. They can collapse, but have no structure to sustain order. They are not necessarily a direct enemy, but they are a weak and unbalanced player in our rear. They have also spent decades supporting terror – when it was possible to direct it outwards. It is now directed inwards.
Egypt can recover. It did not have the oil resources to isolate itself.
In all cases, excepting Iran, we want the people in the region making the first move. Iran must be dealt with directly through diplomacy and trade (blockade).
And let us not forget that (somehow, just somehow) Hussein will be in court in July/September. Ahhhh, the joy of watching a dictator (much like their own) get convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’ – and by Iraqis. It might also bump up Coalition moral.
Faster Please… But right now we have to wait…
Sunday, June 12, 2005
I think the hope was that the embeds would come back and fight an internal struggle with the 60’s and 70’s era ‘reporters’ trolling about for bad news. Young reporters embedded into military units had to get a feel for what we were doing and why we were doing it. If their voice is heard, how can it be said that we were not expecting WMD.
The problem is that these reporters are not embedded into units while fighting the terrorist led insurgency – it is too difficult to secure them from danger. Thus, the established ‘Watergate’ reporters with the big names are taking up residence in the Green Zone and reporting on noises in the night.
I still think there is hope for an insurgency in the halls of the media. However, like the GWOT, it will be a long and protracted war.
Helping their hand will be the:
- Ineffectiveness of the insurgency
- Expansion of consensual governance in the region
- and the economic factors noted in your post and validated by the election
I, for one, dumped many of my subscriptions based on concepts provided in the post. I reiterate those reasons at least quarterly when solicited for subscriptions. Soon, business interests will demand that our Watergate media listen to their customers. We demand news and opinion – not just opinion. And I want my news based on named sources. And I want documents released in context of all the other documents and discussions occurring at the time.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
But sure, go ahead, close Gitmo and wait for the torrent of rave reviews — right after the complaints that it is culturally insensitive to rebuild the World Trade Center when it’s the burial site of ten devout Muslim flying enthusiasts.
As I’ve said before, the jihad’s pretty much a busted flush. I was asked the other day what I thought about the rumours of al-Zarkawi’s death, and I shrugged. If he’s still alive, the media will say: ah-ha, the mastermind has eluded Bush and lives to fight again. If he’s dead, the media will say: now he’s a legendary martyr whose death will rally thousands of young men to the cause. But the truth is that thousands aren’t being rallied to the cause, and the title of Zarkawi’s latest pep talk — ‘Killing of Muslims is justified’ — sums up why. Four years ago, signing on with al-Qa’eda offered the prospect of taking out the Pentagon. Now all they do is kill fellow Muslims in the Middle East. Not the same appeal. As I’ve said before, the jihad’s pretty much a busted flush. I was asked the other day what I thought about the rumours of al-Zarkawi’s death, and I shrugged. If he’s still alive, the media will say: ah-ha, the mastermind has eluded Bush and lives to fight again. If he’s dead, the media will say: now he’s a legendary martyr whose death will rally thousands of young men to the cause. But the truth is that thousands aren’t being rallied to the cause, and the title of Zarkawi’s latest pep talk — ‘Killing of Muslims is justified’ — sums up why. Four years ago, signing on with al-Qa’eda offered the prospect of taking out the Pentagon. Now all they do is kill fellow Muslims in the Middle East. Not the same appeal.
Read the whole article - well worth the registration
By the way, who do you think is winning.
Those Head Choppin, Suicide Murderin, Runnin and Rantin Islamofascists
The Coalition of the Un-Willing
America and the Coalition of the Willing
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Ever spend an hour watching Alan Greenspan teach Libs a free-market economics class…
Enjoyable, thoroughly enjoyable…
So calm. So patient. Answering the same Lib questions over and over again… Remember folks:
There are no stupid questions…
There are no stupid questions…
There are no stupid questions…
I forgot just how wonderful the Soviet 5-year plans were. Just how successful. And he even dropped the Russian term for them – sorry, already forgotten.
Well, howdy doody, Mr. Greenspan just wants our kids lernin… I don’t think he be talkin about lernin eubonics, gender studies, Marxist Economics, conflict resolution, gay studies… Me thinks he might want me to read and write a might better, and add and subtract them number thangies…
I get the impression he is not overly impressed with our current education programs…
Monday, June 06, 2005
For those that may want to see the excised post:
Please note the comments (especially the last one) by Thomas Phillips.
Nice, very nice...
re(1): 'Making $87M, Paying Same Percent Income, Medicare, Soc. Sec. Taxes as Those Making $50,000', NYT via HuffingtonPost, David Kay Johnston
I looked at the HuffingtonPost today - actually a very attractive and well laid out site. I was going to lob a scud here and tell the world that most of her conservative guest writers don’t seem to be writing much when I came across the NYT slop about the poor paying the same income tax at the super wealthy…
Only a Lib would actually link to this article… Yuk, yuk…
Here are the flaws:
It used Year 2000 (Y2K) data to prove its point
It blames the BusHitler tax cuts for increasing the income gap
The headline implies that a chump like me pays the same tax as a chump like Bill Gates.
Uuuuummmmm, Arrreaaaaannnnnnna - and the mensas at the NYT:
Year 2000 taxes were still using President Clinton’s regulations.
The first BusHitler tax cut (a whopping $300 per dependent) occurred in 2001.
The major tax cuts were enacted for the 2003 tax year…
And the super rich got a massive 1.2% reduction in the upper income tax bracket.
Why am I proud.
I wrote two well reasoned posts on her site and another a bit smarmier. I guess reminding the author of ‘Pigs at the Trough’ that she partaked in some rather aggressive tax avoidance in the recent past was a bit over the top. Arianna, you paid NO federal income tax in 2002 and only $700 in California State income tax. Arianna, don’t run for public office on a populist message when you pay your tax attorneys more than most pay in taxes. Instead, consider picking up a few pounds and pay into the Democratic Machine…
Uuuummmm, yeah. That’s right. The first thought that popped in my head. I shall not pick the low hanging fruit – spending my time finding web videos of him at his most reasonable. My guess is that there are some out there – out there – out there…
Actually, to his credit he is a much better host than the ‘Randy Rhodent’. He allows his conservative callers to eat his lunch. Often. Very Often. Very, very often. Then he concedes… When your subject revolves around Bush unilaterally, and uniquely, bombing sites in Iraq prior to Iraqi Freedom than you are going to get spanked. Uuuummm, Jerry, do you remember the 'No Fly Zones', the multiple Tomahawk missile strikes, and the arming of the Kurds?
My guess is that Mr. Springer will find himself to be a ‘9/11 Democrat’ before the year is up. He listens enough to know his arguments – forged in titanic battles against other daytime television stars and those mensa guests of his – are weak, and getting weaker. I just heard two callers destroy him on the Err. He is smart enough, and probably strong enough, to make the transition from Birkenstocks and burlap sacks to getting mugged onstage at college campuses.
Here’s to hoping that his audience remains small before the transition. It will be better for his long term career!