In 15 yrs, "An Inconvenient Truth" will be as revealing of Gore's shrunken character as this.
The tape discussed on The Rush Limbaugh Show. A 1992 speech: Gore condemns President Bush for "blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot."
This is Vice Presidential candidate Al Gore ripping the first Bush administration apart - because of Saddam's ties to terrorism!!! In 1992, and they did nothing, absolutely nothing about it...(sigh)
I've collected a few cultural stories that have a humorous side to them. For instance, I think it's nice to know that some in the U.S. military can still call a politically incorrect spade an "immoral" spade. His apology seems to be directed at the fact that he should have stayed on script, not that he said what he believes.No apology from Gen. Pace for gay stance
After a flurry of condemnation Tuesday, Pace issued a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays is a sensitive subject and said: "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views." The military lets gay men and lesbians serve if they keep their sexual orientation private. Commanders may not ask, and service members may not tell. More than 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged since President Clinton signed it into law in 1994.
It's not a given, but probable that "specialists in Arabic" refers to Muslims. Homosexuality is supposed to be a forbidden act among them, and perhaps that's why they joined the coalition forces. Of course, if you're "lucky" enough to be of some importance or influence in a Muslim country, it's an entirely different scenario. Left unsaid in this piece is any analysis of timeframe in the numbers it mentions. Or any possible other employment oppurtunities for said "specialists in Arabic." If I spoke Arabic and knew the culture, I might find plenty of incentive to want to leave the Army pay grade and work for Halliburton or Blackwater and perhaps make a killing. Or perhaps as a volunteer Army Arabic specialist in 2001-02, I didn't consider the possibility that I'd go to war against Iraq seriously enough. Perhaps others can think of reasons why someone would WANT to leave the military that also have nothing to do with being gay. And then, there's every reason for a descendant of the mighty, historically important Persian empire to be embarrassed about the current administration in Iran. That a loosely historical comic book style portrayal of the Greco-Persian wars is thought to be an attack is simply paranoid. I would think that Frank Miller ought to be very proud for the mention, though. Iranian official lashes out at Hollywood movie "300" for insulting Persian civilization
Shamqadri was quoted as saying "following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S. initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture," adding "certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."
My bold, obviously, that's the funniest projection of fascist ideology I've ever seen. Living in an oppressed, tightly controlled society, this propaganda rings true to the Iranian reader. If they had any idea at all how unregulated "Hollywood and cultural authorities" are in America, they'd wonder how we've managed to survive. The best is saved for last. No comment is necessary.Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
....
Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
....
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures. "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
The democrats in America don't easily take "no" for an answer. Over the years they have perfected the political tactic sometimes called "the shotgun approach." In this short-term strategy for gaining political strength, a slew of usually contradictory, unrelated and brainless ideas are "shot" full force through a friendly media to gauge reactions from the public. The far left likes all of them so their poll numbers are only mediocre early. But the media blast is repeated with nauseating regularity (think "re-deploy the troops")until a few ideas find homes in the minds of a large enough poll sampling that a mandate can be claimed by the owners of that idea. I could probably be talked into the timetable, but not if the intention of pulling all the troops out. That's simply head in the sand denial. This is happening now with the Iraq "time line" idea being pushed by house democrats, with Murtha being the mouth. From AP:
WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable would be accelerated — to the end of 2007 — if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq's security. The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file Thursday, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even Lady Espresso believes it's time for Iraq to defend Iraq. I believe this pellet of scattershot will strike its target. So, I have an inclination and a couple recommendations. I don't think the Islamists have finished what they started on 9/11, so my initial inclination is to buy weapons and ammo. I've been through this thought process before, though. I'm going to think about it. My recommendations would be to:a)get as much "punch" out of the Baghdad surge as is possible. People are war weary and want the soldiers home if this is all the progress the military can show. This would be a good time to pull UBL and Mullah Omar out of the Himalaya's butt. b)instill as much insecurity in muslims about the value of their religion as possible. Personally, I subscribe to the view that "moderate muslim" is an oxymoron. But to encourage the growth of such a religious entity could do to muslims in our century what corruption and political ascendancy did to christians during the Reformation / Enlightenment era. (Come to think of it, there are some neat similarities.) This video came from following links from powerline
This is a movement worth trying to encourage, and I hope the administration can be shown its value!
Finally, I found an article that shows that the security sweep in Baghdad is having some effect. Unfortunately, the AP is having a hard time keeping their relief at continued violence covert. Controversy sells advertising, peace does not.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, left scores injured and sent a grim message to officials boasting that extremist factions were on the run.
I hadn't heard that Operation Law and Order was supposed to produce immediate and permanently positive results. I know the Iraqi's did not share expectations that absurd.
The attacks in mostly Shiite areas — twin explosions in an open-air market that claimed 62 lives and a third blast that killed one — were a sobering reminder of the challenges confronting any effort to rattle the well-armed and well-hidden insurgents. Instead, it was the Iraqi commanders of the security sweep feeling the sting.
Not to mention the families of about sixty murdered civilians, and several dozens more wounded. This article refers to one of the more depressing Iraqi newspapers, Azzaman , in keeping with the general attitude that AP projects. On Azzaman's English site, there is no article related to the Baghdad murders on Sunday, the 18th. Note the date is Wednesday, the 14th. Also note that Azzaman originates in southern Iraq.
Azzaman, February 14, 2007 Car bombs and insurgent attacks have shaken Iraqis’ faith in the new Baghdad security plan which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unveiled today. The plan which has divided Baghdad into 10 security zones has cripple the Iraqi capital, with traffic congestions and no-go areas making it almost impossible for many government employees and workers to reach destinations.
Iraq The Model, living and blogging in Baghdad - getting his information from neighbors , local media and the Al-Sabah newspaper - had a completely different take.
The most significant and encouraging development is certainly this report from al-Sabah:
"Brigadier Qasim Ata, an authorized Baghdad Operation spokesman, told al-Sabah that for the 3rd day in a row dozens of displaced families are returning to their homes. 35 families returned in Madain, 7 in hay al-I’ilam and small numbers of families in various districts of Baghdad."
Later reports in the local media indicate that the total number of families that returned home is as high as 130 families across the city, including several families in the, until recently, hopelessly violent district of Hay al-Adl.
...
The progress made so far invites hope and optimism, but it’s still too early to celebrate. Terrorists will keep trying to carry out attacks similar to those in Sadriya or Shorja. They want sow as much death and destruction as they can in order to shake the people’s confidence in the security plan. Such criminals attacks are still quite possible in Baghdad, but even if happen we must not let that stop us from pursuing the objectives of our efforts to stop the death and deterioration, to turn the tide and make progress.
Nobody in Iraq thinks this is a picnic, but many see the sacrifices as a step through determination and into a self-governance that was won at a high price.
Too much lying by activist jerks, some working for the gov't. Some twist and spin in the press like the article below... too little response by the White House. ... (all emphasis mine)
WASHINGTON - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.
In 2003 there was nothing "gone wrong" about the Iraq war except that it was plain that the Democrats - in disagreement with it - were taking a bath in opinion polls. As important as polls are to politians, that's a call to arms - so they went on their own covert campaign to smear all of America's best efforts. And if the "effort" had to be made, why shouldn't it be an aggresive one? ...
The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.
The "mission" at the time was to depose Saddam and install a democracy and an ally in the gwot. The American military had just accomplished a part of that, and there's no reason the President shouldn't have offered his thanks and encouragement. ...
The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion. Trial testimony so far — including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recorded testimony to a grand jury in 2004 — suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.
Someone could remind this journalist that "claims" and "accusations" do not constitute evidence. It should go without saying that at some point, a little evidence of what this journalist is reporting is needed. The word of a reporter with a spin for sale is not taken for granted to be truthful. The report's author is as much as admitting that the press has no idea what it's talking about regarding the level of "discipline" present at the White House. One could go on and on throughout this junk, but it's apparent to me that this is another example of "controversy sells" rather than reporting honestly...which is too boring. The Wilson scandal may prove that Libby had something to hide, or not. The real scandal here is Wilson is an employee of the US State Dept, and a partisan liar.
Ghost of "Tokyo Rose" and some random gifs I've been collecting...
Anyone who remembers anything about World War II, or has studied anything about World War II, will understand and remember that during World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work. They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.
What was that demoralizing message?
It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you. 2. This war is illegal. 3. You cannot win the war
Does this sound familiar?
Is it because;
Tokyo Hillary,
Tokyo Harry,
Tokyo Teddy
Tokyo Nancy ,
Tokyo Durbin,
Tokyo Kerry,etc. have all learned from the former enemies of our country and have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on
Tokyo CNN,
Tokyo ABC,
Tokyo CBS,
Tokyo NBC,
etc., to our troops?
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them.
Come to think of it... Tokyo Rose told the American Troops she was on their side also!
The bomb strapped to his body was studded with ball-bearings so that he could kill more villagers as they gathered for prayer. The detonation would eviscerate and dismember those closest, shattering bones into fragments, but the ball-bearings would ensure lethality beyond the percussive edge of the blast wave, ripping through the flesh of people who might not have been knocked down by the explosion. There were no soldiers in his path to stop him; no police to alert to the man in women’s clothes. There were only villagers. The man dressed as a woman was to be the agent of their deaths. He kept walking down the alley toward the mosque where more than one hundred people were praying, a mass murderer masquerading in a woman’s garb.
I can't help but wonder how many other great lives there are in Iraq, and how the vaunted American media is missing them all.
The closer a counterfeit comes to the genuine article, the more obvious the deceit. As the murderer dressed in women’s clothes walked purposefully toward his target, there was a village man ahead. But under the guise of a simple villager was a true Martyr, and he, too, had his target in sight. The Martyr had seen through the disguise, but he had no gun. No bomb. No rocket. No stone. No time. The Martyr walked up to the murderer and lunged into a bear hug, on the spot where we were now standing.
I'm finding it difficult to commit to anything I've heard about the immigration issue. My thoughts are that our system of law is mocked when our legislators pass or continue with laws that don't work, and our INS systems can't handle what's going on at our southern border. I welcome folks that want to immigrate legally. There are masses of folks that want in. The U.S. economy has masses of jobs for them. I don't see why it's apparently so difficult to simply revise the quotas upward substantially. If the problem is that the Hispanic people are coming here illegally, then arrange it so they can come legally. Then, if they don't want to immigrate according to our pretty generous rules, they don't get in. What we heard from Mr Bush regarding health care had some merit, but we should have seen action on this issue four years ago. I'm convinced that the Republicans could have made some good progress against creeping socialism with programs such as those laid out by the President. Those are my opinions on those items, but I was only really interested in what he would say about Iraq. I liked it. The democrats sat politely, and have since said they are having none of it. A few republicans are stepping with them. Most republicans stood and applauded.
We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.
We know now that U.S. and Georgian authorities have arrested a man "holding" (literally) weapons-grade uranium for sale to buyers that he thought were Islamists in the former Soviet state of Georgia. He told the buyers that he had access to much more.
With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)
Democrats believe that the war should be being fought in Afghanistan, and focusing on getting Bin Laden. So they could applaud this line, but with their interpretation. Even though Bin Laden and other terror leaders have said that they must win Iraq, and that the battle against America IS Iraq.
Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.
Whether the left likes it or not.
What every terrorist fears most is human freedom
I think he should say, "every terrorist hates most..." and stop using the word "fear" regarding the thugs. A fearful terrorist just doesn't sound too threatening to me!
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)
...
We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.
Good line...Best line next--
I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.
What is Bush going to do, if anything, about Iran? The period for surprises may be over for this lame-duck presidency. But Pres Bush had been surprising none the less. He made a couple of veiled threats to Iran during his speech, but their communications with the American public has been calmly insistent that there are no actions planned against Ahmadinejad. This Cox and Forkum cartoon puts to paper what ignoring Iran looks like to those of us outside the beltway.
"Pakistan is our partner in the war on terror and has captured several al Qaeda leaders. However, it is also a major source of Islamic extremism," Negroponte said in written testimony submitted to the panel. "Eliminating the safe haven that the Taliban and other extremists have found in Pakistan's tribal areas is not sufficient to end the insurgency in Afghanistan but it is necessary."
Condi and secdef Gates face Congress seeking support for the President's "surge" plan...(Look at the AP's choice of photo) Let me give you a hint - the dem's and even some rep's will only oppose you - even if you use their ideas, like more troops! Get it?
Bush and top members of his national security team sought to rally support for the troop buildup a day after he unveiled his plan for turning around a conflict that has lasted nearly four years and cost more than 3,000 American military lives. Instead, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found themselves embroiled in the first pitched exchanges in a battle that is likely to dominate Congress for months or longer and is already shaping the 2008 presidential election. "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential contender, told Rice. While he is a Republican, administration officials were defending the plan for the first time to the Democratic-controlled Congress.
There's several changes being made in combat zone timing...the duration and frequency of duty. But the most interesting part of this article had was peripheral to that message - having to do with the deployment of Patriot missiles...
As part of Bush's plan for boosting U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a brigade of National Guard soldiers from Minnesota will have its yearlong tour in Iraq extended by 125 days, to the end of July, and a Patriot missile battalion will be sent to the Persian Gulf next month, the Army said Thursday. Maj. Randy Taylor, a spokesman for the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss, Texas, said thePatriot unit was aware of the announced deployment. He said no formal order had been received Thursday. The dispatching of a Patriot missile battery, capable of defending against shorter-range ballistic missile attacks, appeared linked to Bush's announcement Wednesday that he ordered an aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East, which would be in easy reach of Iran, whose nuclear program is a U.S. concern.
Just my opinion here, but I think the major chieftains and players have decided that the U.S, doesn't have the necessary ruthlessness to whip a "unity gov't" together that's strong enough to placate the restless militias and populations. I think they're seeking their own "exit strategy" for the perceived eventual "re-deployment" of American troops, and that the Kurds and Shia are looking to Iran, and the Sunni's to the House of Saud to supply them with arms and intelligence. What Iran's end game is - is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they think they can take a sizable chunk of Iraq for themselves. Particularly the heavily Shiite south, including Basra and the Gulf coast. A missile attack is, in my view, unlikely, but the Patriots are a good show of resolve. The aircraft carrier group (in addition to the fleets already in place) is likely a warning to Iran. Events such as what is described in this AFP account of a raid in Kurdish Arbil make me wonder just who in Iraq counts the Iranians as allies.
The White House declined to comment specifically on the operation, but unapologetically defended it. "If we get information that is actionable that the Iranians are interfering with Iraq, with Iraqis, or in any way going to harm Americans that we're going to take action," said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "The president made it clear last night that we will not tolerate outside interference in Iraq. And that's what the Iranians are up to."
...
"We expect the Iraqi government to act quickly for the release of these people and to condemn the US forces and not let them disturb the two countries' relations with their illegal and spontaneous action," a senior foreign ministry official reportedly told Iraqi ambassador Mohammed Majid al-Sheikh. The Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq -- normally a staunch supporter of US policy in the region -- also condemned the raid and demanded the immediate release of all prisoners taken. "The presidency and the government of the Kurdish region of Iraq express their disapproval of the operation against the Iranian consulate," said a statement from regional president Massud Barzani's office.
The story of Saddam's capture that I remember was that the "spiderhole" lid was under some trash. The lid was removed and the voice from inside said "I am Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, and I am willing to negotiate." The soldier replied, "Mr Bush sends his regards." This Guardian rendition was published December 16, 2003. He was captured three days earlier. This is decidedly not that story. It is a much better one. This article was published Apr 13, 2005. Don't know where I've been. Meet Samir.
It had to have been the most sublime moment of his life. Samir tells how he arrived in Tikrit as an Arabic interpreter for United States Special Forces in late 2003, how he peered into a hidden bunker and heard a voice begging for mercy, how he reached into the darkness and pulled out Saddam Hussein. "I was so angry," says Samir, who immigrated to St. Louis eleven years ago after fleeing Iraq. "I began cussing at him, calling him a motherfucker, a son-of-a-bitch -- you name it. I told him I was Shiite from the south and was part of the revolution against him in 1991. I said he murdered my uncles and cousins. He imprisoned my father.
NRO"s Andrew McCarthy takes a look at the unfortunate relationship between the Transportation Security Administration and terror supporting CAIR, the Islamic ACLU. Into that convolution he compares Bush's "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" statement with Boxer's cancellation of an awards event with CAIR, specifically because of their relationship to terrorists. Not only does McCarthy find Bush wanting, but sees the Democrats setting up a "Sister Souljah Moment" for themselves. First, the TSA gets cozy over the Imam fiasco, ahead of the Islamic hajj.
As if snuggling up to CAIR, coercing our law-enforcement and intelligence professionals to endure CAIR’s Islamic “sensitivity training,” and inviting CAIR to weigh in on our nation’s foreign policy were not enough, we now have a Bush-administration agency publishing an unedited CAIR press release on publicly subsidized, official government Internet space.
After bringing us up to date on the many noxious Hamas and Al Queda linked organizations that brought CAIR to us, and the activities they've engaged in, McCarthy then shows how the Dem's will, as they said in the campaign, "fight smarter."
THE DEMOCRATS BEGIN A DIFFERENT APPROACH While the Bush administration continues to enrage its supporters by romancing this besotted organization, top Democrats — having just run rings around GOP strategists in the midterm elections — are mobilizing in a different direction with the 2008 campaign already in swing.
...
Boxer indicated that she had been “influenced by previous critical statements about CAIR made by her Democratic colleagues Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York.” She’s right. As Pipes notes, “Senator Charles Schumer ... describes [CAIR] as an organization ‘which we know has ties to terrorism.’... Senator Dick Durbin ... observes that CAIR is ‘unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.’” The more the American people learn about CAIR, the more odious they are going to find it, and the more outraged they are going to be that the Bush administration — which for now embodies the Republican party in the public mind — has cozied up to it. Along those lines, the Newsweek article features a picture of President Bush with CAIR executive director Awad right after 9/11 — notwithstanding Awad’s by then solid record of statements supporting Hamas and its atrocities.
Rice told the Washington Post newspaper she opposes the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage the two countries. She said she will not allow Syria to interfere in Lebanon or let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for their help in bringing peace to Iraq. The secretary said that if the two countries had an interest in stabilizing Iraq they would do it anyway.
Major B - Allow me, if I may, to remark on the lack of morale of the American Soldier in Iraq. Reality: Soldiers in Iraq do not feel they are making a difference. They feel things are out of control. They are scared, and they are angry. They want to come home.
...This is a "publishable" letter that I came across at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler from an understandably upset Baghdad soldier, regarding the so-called "Rules of Engagement." Now THERE'S a term from the old grunts-in-a-police-action-quagmire days if I ever did hear one!
I can’t even tell you how pissed it makes me to hear a JAG officer suck in breath as he tries to think real hard how to explain the murky depths of our ROE. A system that used to be a way of allowing soldiers to avoid hurting civilians by using certain weapon systems at certain times has once again degenerated into a complex “Cover Your Ass” legal trick for higher command. Believe me, it isn’t there because Colonels and Generals WANT us to fight this way, it is there because YOU do.
This is compelling reading. It's enough to make me want to write my congressman.
POLITICAL ANSWERS WON'T WORK says the New York Post's John Podhoretz. The problem has never been that we didn't have a plan, the problem has been that our plan didn't work because it was political, not military.
Yes, we'd stay in Iraq and fight the bad guys when we had to, which seemed mostly to be when they decided to attack us first. Our resolve was intended to give the Iraqi people the sense that they were being given control of their future, and to give Iraqi politicians the sense that they had a chance to forge a new kind of country in which everybody could prosper.
For this reason, we relented on several occasions when we had a chance to score a major victory over the bad guys. Because politics was more important than military victory, because playing the game was more important than killing the enemy, we chose to lose.