A Second Hand Conjecture

According to Think Progress:

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others have been arguing that Bush is wrong, and that funds won’t dry up until June, giving plenty of time for negotiations:

Murtha says he believes the April 15 date for funds running out is incorrect. Based on the inquiries he’s made, he said, the Pentagon will start running out of money at the beginning of June.

“We’ve never had a year where they didn’t give us bad information,” said Murtha, who’s known for his contacts inside the military. “We’ve been asking people and we think it’ll be the end of May.”

Now we know who’s right. A new report from the Congressional Research Service makes clear that Bush’s deadline is completely fabricated:

In a memo to the Senate Budget Committee dated Wednesday, the congressional analysts said the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May — about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available.

See the full CRS report HERE.

Well if they are right we may have a chance to find out, but let me note a few things. First, we should take into account what is actually being claimed, and to start we should begin with the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:

“the service will be forced to consider” cuts. What would those be? Things such as training, quality of life funding for troops and families, equipment repair. The “disruption to key programs”, such as those “will have a genuinely adverse affect on the readiness of the Army and quality of life for Soldiers and their families.”

Watch for your self:

So what seems to be the real problem, lost in competing sound bites? The military will not run out of funds April 15th, true. The normal military budget still exists, it is the supplemental funding which is running out. Therefore the funds will have to be stretched by taking resources from other areas, short changing soldiers and programs here at home, including soldiers who are training to deploy. Murtha and his allies, while attacking the administration for sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate training, are insuring that pre-deployment training is cut along with other programs. The result? The extension of deployments of soldiers currently in Iraq.

What about that CRS report Think Progress mention? let us look at a couple of key points:

To use this transfer authority, DOD would have to submit a reprogramming request that could temporarily move for example, procurement funds into Army O&M as long as the four defense committees approved.

[...]

The Army has suggested that these actions would disrupt its programs including facilities repair, depot maintenance, and training. In order to ensure that funding is available for the later months of the year, the Army may very well decide that it must slow down its non-war-related operations before money would run out by, for example, limiting facility maintenance and repairs, delaying equipment overhauls, restricting travel and meetings, and, perhaps slowing down training. Although it is true that a delay in passage of the FY2007 supplemental could require additional management actions, Congress has given DOD flexibility by providing transfer authority so that funds can be moved to meet more urgent requirements. In this case, because the transfers would presumably be temporary, the disruptions might also be less onerous.

In addition, funding for operation and maintenance finances a wide variety of activities ranging from day-to-day maintenance of military facilities to pre-deployment training of troops. The Army could take some actions that might be less efficient but would not necessarily harm readiness by for example, delaying facilities repairs until later in the year or splitting support contracts into smaller increments so that obligations would be smaller initially and larger later in the year.

Seems to me that we see some framing going on, from both sides. Funds won’t be cut off completely, but it will result in significant problems. The Administration may be indulging in overly stark sound bites at times, but the problem is real. Since Think Progress and the myriad left/liberal websites spreading the meme know that, I suggest it isn’t too strong to say they are misrepresenting what is really at issue on purpose. The lack of funds, as Gates said, will lead to exactly what he claims, and the assertion that the Bush “deadline” is “completely fabricated” is belied by the very report they are citing.

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, partisanship, politics, John Murtha, War

3 Comments »

Despite all kinds of bogus claims the administration wanted to bring back the draft, all the agitation for it has come from Democrats. Of course, in the case of some it was just to scare people. Murtha however, does want a draft:

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, War, Senator Murtha, Draft

4 Comments »

As the British soldier crisis simmers towards a boil, Iraqi and coalition forces captured an Iranian in Sadr City accused of being a major arms smuggler. From the Multi-National Force – Iraq website:

BAGHDAD, Iraq –Iraqi and Coalition Forces captured a suspected criminal tied to explosively-formed projectile facilitation networks during an operation Friday morning targeting anti-Iraqi forces in Sadr City. The suspect is believed to be involved with several violent extremist groups responsible for attacks against the Iraqi people and Coalition Forces and facilitating the movement of EFPs into Iraq. “Iraqi and Coalition Forces are continually working to degrade extremist operations which are unrelenting against the innocent Iraqi people and the government of Iraq,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.

ADN Kronos International has more:

The Iraqi authorities have arrested a man they believe to be a major trafficker in arms, particularly bombs, coming from Iran, a US spokesman in Baghdad said on Friday. The man, whose identity has not been released, was arrested in the mainly Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in the capital. He is accused of being a middle man between groups of Iraqi insurgents and the al-Quds battalion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Both links courtesy of Gateway Pundit, who also has a good deal of info on the fate of the British soldiers.

How will the arms-smuggler’s capture affect the game the Iranians are playing with Britain? Although it’s difficult to tell what they’re up to, I would assume that having yet another connection between the al Quds forces and terrorists in Iraq does not help Iran’s cause. If, as the Iranian captors apparently forced one British soldier to ask, the goal is to precipitate a British withdrawal from Iraq and thus “let them [the Iraqis] determine their own future” (see also here), then such aim is belied by shipping bombs and other arms to terrorists there. In the very least, this news delivers a blow to Iran’s intentions, whatever they may be. 

My best guess is that Iran wanted to hamper the efforts of Coalition Forces to disrupt Iranian smuggling operations in the Gulf (the Brits were searching ships for smuggled cars, at least some of which end up as mobile bombs in Iraq). Most likely the real goal of brazenly kidnapping the British soldiers from Iraqi territory was to intimidate the monitors enough for Iran to gain just a little breathing room to operate.  The rest of the story is just bureaucratic and political bungling.  I don’t think the Iranians ever planned on keeping the soldiers, or at least had no good plan for what to do with them afterwards.  Of course, to say that Iran is playing clumsy brinkmanship is an understatement.

Now that Iran has the captives, backing down off its initial demands makes it look weak.  That is a non-starter.  Escalating the situation does no good either since, in reality, Iran is weak.  The only viable alternative at this point is for Iran to stall, so stall it will.  Even though I’m sure the latest UN missive has the mullahs quaking in their robes, Iran cannot afford to back down right now so it will instead make a series of conflicting statements and demands, and move the goal posts as much as possible until it can turn over the hostages and still claims some sort of victory for staring the West down.

I honestly can’t say what the best course of action for the Brits is since my instinct its to simply inform Iran that I will be sending someone to pick up my soldiers in two days, please have them ready at such-and-such time, and then park enough battleships and aircraft carriers on the shores of Iran to light up the country at the drop of a hat.  That’s because my instincts tell me to punch the bully square in the nose when he tries to intimidate me.  What the Brits instincts are, only time will tell.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, arms smuggler, captured british soldiers

Powered by ScribeFire.

2 Comments »

Last November, right before Thanksgiving, six Muslim cleric were removed from a US Airways flight for “suspicious behavior” in the view of several passengers and crew members. The six have since been dubbed the “Flying Imams.” Although at first the breathless reports suggested that over-sensitive passengers had, perhaps, created a civil rights issue, as the story unfolded the suspicious behavior began to lend credence to the pilots’ decision to remove the Imams. For example, an Arabic speaker sitting near the two of the Imams was one of the first triggers to evicting the holy men.

That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking “bin Laden” and condemning America for “killing Saddam,” according to police reports. Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one.

Indeed, there were several indicators that the Imams may be up to no good.

So the captain apparently made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. And he consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline’s security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.

Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers – even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.

And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline’s account is confirmed by the police report. The airline spokeswoman added that some seemed to be sitting in seats not assigned to them.

One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.

Something else that I’ve not seen mentioned very often is that “[o]ther Muslim passengers were left undisturbed and later joined in a round of applause for the U.S. Airways crew” when the Flying Imams were escorted away.
Of course, none of this has stopped the Flying Imams from seeking their day in court, and from threatening to sue “John Doe’s” who reported them. That threat apparently produced a reaction from Republicans who introduced legislation to obviate such threats (via McQ):

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity — the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

[...]

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and “John Does,” passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a “chilling effect” on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

The “John Doe Gambit” (as dubbed by McQ) also provoked this response from Michelle Malkin.

Apparently, Megan McArdle (aka Jane Galt) is only vaguely aware of this story, and yet she took the time, in a post nominatively taking CAIR to task for making Muslims look bad, to castigate Americans for being too vigilant and insensitive to the Flying Imams (emphasis added):

Unfortunately, whatever public relations geniuses run the organisation have a positively uncanny knack for finding a case where muslims or Arabs have been wronged, sticking their oars in, and somehow screwing things up so badly that at the end of it all, net Arab/Muslim hatred in the country has increased 15%. Case in point: last November, some muslim clerics were removed from a flight and questioned after passengers reported them for “suspicious activity”. This crazy, unwonted behaviour? The muslim clerics were . . . dressed like religious muslims. And praying to Mecca, as devout muslims are commanded to do five times a day. Needless to say, this is not exactly America’s proudest hour.

Huh? I have to assume that Megan missed, well, just about everything that developed after the initial report. It’s been quite clear for some time now that the Flying Imams’ story didn’t add up, and that they did a lot more than pray loudly. Then, rather inexplicably, Megan takes an unwarranted swipe at Michelle Malkin’s response to the John Doe Gambit (again, my emphasis):

Via Julian, I now see that Michelle Malkin is ratcheting up the whole sordid business one more hysterical notch with this delightful piece on our nation of citizen spies. I’m not quite sure why she felt the need to announce to all the Arabs and Muslims in America that they are being watched like hawks. It seems to me that after six of their religious leaders were detained by the government for, er, acting religious, they probably already know.

Again, huh? Malkin’s piece begins: “Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist, …” I must admit that I’m more than a bit chagrined by this rather sloppy post from Ms. Galt. One of my favorite things about her is her ability to rise above the fray, and to take all the facts she can get her hands on into account before opining on something. Normally, she is reliably independent minded and, even when I disagree with her, she is quite respectful of other opinions. This latest post, however, is none of those things. It misses almost all of the facts, goes out of its way to malign Americans, and imputes a snobby “tsk, tsk” to those of us who are vigilant against would-be Muslim terrorists. Frankly, its a rather bizarre departure from what I’m used to reading at her site.
I don’t know what bee got in Megan’s bonnet, but she misses wide left on this one.

Technorati Tags: Flying Imams, John Doe Gambit, Megan McArdle, Jane Galt, Michelle Malkin

No Comments »

Via Patterico I see that the bad news visited upon Tony Snow is generating an unexceptional response at HuffPo:

I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it’s terrible. I admit it. I don’t wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there’s Justin Timberlake’s “What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya..”

I had to provide you the quote above from Patterico’s site because its author, Charles Karel Bouley, deleted it from his post. How typical.

I don’t normally get too bent out of shape about these matters. After all, it is the internet and people can and do say what ever mean hateful things they want. To me, doing so just diminishes their credibility, and my interest in listening to anything they have to say. But some people go out of their way to flaunt their (self-assessed) moral superiority by positing that only one side of the political spectrum is so vile and hateful, and that no countervailing example from the other end of the spectrum is even possible. Well … at least not without dredging up anonymous commenters. Or, y’know, conflating of all of one political ideology with the rantings of one madwoman. Despite copious evidence that “some” are embarrassingly wrong in their assertions, the meme spreads like a … well, you get the idea.

So when a ugly partisan thinking rears its venomous head once again, I almost feel compelled to highlight it. Bouley’s observation are not vile because he wishes someone harm (he doesn’t, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense anyway since the man is already afflicted). It’s vile because he deems Tony Snow’s malady some sort of just desserts for hanging around the wrong crowd.

Just to be clear, this Charles Karel Bouley’s justification clarification for all you unsympathetic blockheads who didn’t pick up on his nuance (my emphasis):

OK, by the amount of evil email and actual death threats I have received, obviously you all misunderstood what I was trying to say or I was not clear. I believe that negativity can manifest inside the body. Just as stress can lead to strokes and heart attacks, high blood pressure, I believe if you surround yourself with vitriolic and terribly negative people like Cheney, Bush, Rove and the lot, it’s bound to have a physical effect. Does he DESERVE cancer, no, no one does. But when you are in such a horrifying atmosphere the physical is bound to pay somehow. And AS I SAID, I wish him a full recovery and support of family and friends. But just as good things happen to bad people, isn’t the converse of bad things happening to bad people true? I do not count Tony Snow as a good guy. He has publicy questioned my patriotism at the behest of his boss. I don’t like that. But again, that doesn’t mean I want him to have cancer. By: karel on March 27, 2007 at 08:47pm Flag: [abusive]

Got that? He’s not “wishing” cancer on Tony Snow. Heaven forfend! He’s just ruminating about his own medical theory that handing out with people as toxic as Republicans is bound to involve payback. See? That’s much better.

Was anyone actually confused about his point? What’s really sad is that Bouley seems to truly believe that (a) cancer is caused by being around hateful, vitriolic people, and that (b) Republicans are so hateful and vitriolic that diseases such as cancer are inevitable amongst such crowds. And, mind you, this is a member of the “reality based” crowd.

Bouley’s ignorant “thoughts” rather pale in comparison to this real piece of work, however, who bestowed upon himself the task of harassing a conservative pundit and chiding a dying woman in her last moments. Cathy Seipp, as known to many, was a rather feisty conservative writer who found a home at the L.A. Times, and was greatly loved in the righty-sphere as well as by many of her left colleagues. From Susan Estrich:

As for the rest, we had to agree to disagree. But I was always interested in how Cathy put it, where she came down and how she got there, because I knew she’d be as tough on herself as any critic would be. So I checked in every day to see what she was thinking, until the end. Ours was an old-fashioned relationship, the kind people used to have with people they disagree with, the kind that is too often under attack these days.

Alas, being a conservative critic also managed to draw many detractors. One in particular was cyber-squatter Eliot Stein who, allegedly because of some personal grudge against Seipp, bought the domain cathyseipp.com and posed as Cathy by writing inane things on the site. Upon hearing the news of her imminent demise, Stein posted a lovely good-bye message from Cathy:

Just hours before her death, “Cathy Seipp” suddenly seemed to undo decades of hard work with an oddly written letter posted on the Web site, www. cathyseipp.com. In what came off as more bizarre rant than heartfelt apology, her supposed “very last blog entry” called her years of journalism a “shoddy,” “despicable” and “irresponsible” career as a “fourth-rate hack.” Her political stance? All a mistake. The fiery, unwavering supporter of George W. Bush supposedly said she’d done a complete 180 in the past year and was now an implied supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. What was even more perplexing was that “Seipp” was taking mean-spirited potshots at her own daughter, Maia Lazar, whom she called an “obnoxious” and “arrogant” wanna-be “skank” who was “mentally ill.” Throughout the letter, the one person whom “Seipp” seemed most sorry for ever having offended was Maia’s 10th-grade journalism teacher, who had frequently clashed with mother and daughter. Finally, “Seipp” said she was probably to blame for her own illness — the “venom” she’d spewed for years was responsible for her terminal cancer.

Hmmm, where have I heard that diagnosis before? Ah yes! “Seipp” must have been chatting with that medical genius extraordinaire Charles Karel Bouley. What classy company. I wonder if they know this guy? I bet they’d get along real well. (HT: Patterico, Insty, Jim Treacher)

UPDATE:  Little Green Footballs has more regarding some rather nasty remarks about Tony Snow, this time coming from the comment section at the Washington Post: 

Yesterday Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post took a slap at LGF, labeling our commenters “vile,” equating them to the lunatics at Huffington Post, and suggesting that blog comments need better policing.

So let’s have a look today at the comments section of the Washington Post—one of the largest news organizations in the US—under the article about Tony Snow’s illness, shall we?

Tests Show Snow’s Cancer Has Returned.

 My favorite comment (YMMV):

Liver cancer is universally fatal, and quickly. Let the party begin people, let us dance on our roofs in joy at the end of a neocon mouth piece. This will be a big party, the only one bigger at this time would be for the utter and complete distruction of israel via Iranian nuclear tipped missles. Oh what a beautiful day that would be, mushroom clouds over toilet aviv, oh joy! Stick that in your pipe wolfie, pearlie, libbie, and feithie – I dance a jig in celebration.

By whetsell | Mar 27, 2007 2:20:22 PM | Request Removal

Yep.  Real classy bunch. 

Technorati Tags: Cathy Seipp, Tony Snow, cancer, moral preening, Greenwald, hypocrisy

3 Comments »

Tyler notes how the French economies rigidity is connected to its health care system.

No Comments »

Frank Warner digs into the latest Pew Poll on Iraq and finds that “Americans now are slightly more optimistic about the Iraq war.”

In the last month, the percent of Americans saying the war is going “not too well” or “not well at all” dropped from 67 to 56.

 

Sample of 1,503. The Pew Research Center took the poll of 1,503 people from March 21 to March 25.

The portion of Americans who said the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the “wrong decision” dipped from an all-time high of 54 percent in February to 49 percent in March.

The percent calling the Iraq invasion the “right decision” rose from 40 to 43.

Now, this is good news, especially coming on the heels of the surge. Either the lack of bad headlines, or the promotion to the front page of successes in capturing and killing terrorists/insurgents, are driving these numbers.

But, what I have to question is the variability of the “right decision.” Going into Iraq was either the right or wrong thing to do. Once you make that decision, how does your opinion change? You can certainly think things have gone well, badly, or somewhere in the middle, but how does that change the opinion you had at the start?

Now, what I may be grousing about is really just an artifact of the polling methodology. The pollsters may not give people the options that give them, right decision/executed badly, which is probably a popular opinion

Of course, popularity is no way to run a war, despite what the leftist/liberal/progressive/democrats seem to think.

But, come to think of it, if the trends keep going like this, I expect one of two things. They can either turn into the wind, and fight harder for surrender, or turn with the wind, and support the surge and the President (while claiming that their rhetoric helped convince the Iraqis that they had to step up to the plate.) I imagine, that the more moderate Democrats can be convinced to follow the latter course with these new results.

3 Comments »

This article gives a few quick details on the “60 Minutes” interview given by Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich regarding his actions in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. Examine the key final paragraph which is Wuterich’s explanation and evaluation of the events on that fateful day nearly a year and a half ago. Is this a correct assesment of how soldiers and marines are trained or is it a mischaracterization by Wuterich? Also, if he is, in fact, accurately describing current training, does that training need to be re-evaluated or is it correct and are his actions justified? Discuss.

Update! Sorry I forgot to link the original article. I have now fixed that oversight.

No Comments »

Update and correction: Keith has provied me with the correct link to the article in question, so I have deleted the full version of it from this post and substituted the link, instead. Much thanks!

This article by Iranian scholar and journalist Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich was passed on to me by a friend. Here is another article that demonstrates her beliefs and usual journalistic style. She has several other articles online and if I recall correctly, has written for, among others, the UK based Guardian newspaper. I won’t bother addressing the comedy of errors and mischaracterizations present in the above article. I simply use it as an example of the mindset all too prevalent amongst the Iranian elite.

11 Comments »

“Peace protesters” conducted a few marches across the country to commemorate the launch of the war in Iraq. These rallies were organized by the usual suspects, but the incidence of hostile and, at times, violent displays of “dissent” towards war-supporters and fighters seems to have risen, or at least become more blatant. For example, at the Portland, OR protests we have this report:

This splinter group of protesters showed its support for “peace” by burning a U.S. soldier in effigy. It exhibited its supposedly pacifist nature by knocking a police officer off his bike — an action that brought out the police riot squad.

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion.

Please note that these reprehensible actions are attributed to a “splinter group” who, it is usually maintained, should not be confused with the peace-loving peoples who mostly populate such marches. (more…)

11 Comments »

If only we still lived in the good ole’ days is a cliché which is generally unwarranted. However, looking at this copy of the 1913 form 1040 I am filled with wistful longing. From Carpe Diem via Club for Growth:

(more…)

5 Comments »

Now that the House has passed its duplicitous, pork ridden supplemental bill for funding the effort in Iraq the debate moves on to the Senate. First though, let us look at the kinds of things which have been larded on to this bill so far: (more…)

No Comments »

Keith recently posted about the enlistment of older and/or successful men in our military, knowing full well that they would likely be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and National Medal of Honor day .

I got this e-mail from my brother, who volunteered the day before he would have been ineligible to volunteer and is thus much older than most of the young men he serves with. I think his thoughts on these young men, and the wonderful example he has chosen are worth considering. I am sure he will not mind me putting this up:

I do not know this soldier but I know a few who I believe would fight as bravely in a similar circumstance. I think that it is telling of an entire generation of young men and women who are largely marginalized by the media and preceding generations. The MySpace generation /the video game generation / the computer or digital generation – whatever the term will be for it has some outstanding individuals and I’m confident that there are many more. Bill Gates has not destroyed the American youth or their dreams.

There is a page on the Army AKO site that has a lot of soldiers’ stories and their awards (all age groups, branches and conflicts; some of these brave souls have waited 30-60 years to be recognized and pinned) – this was among them as well as stories of young soldiers and marines diving on grenades and the like to shield their buddies (who would have been unable to escape the blast) when they could have jumped out of the room or vehicle and saved themselves.

It reminds me of a group of soldiers who’s electronics I flew to service monthly in Balad (Anaconda). They lost a lot of men over the year. (18 – I think). Each month I wondered who wouldn’t be there to greet me.

It makes me proud, sad, privileged and honored to serve amongst them.

Peace, Scott

Here is the story of Private Stephen C. Stanford:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, awarded the Distinguished Service Cross to Army Pvt. Stephen C. Sanford of Company C, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, for displaying extraordinary courage during the evacuation of casualties from a home in Mosul while under intense enemy fire, according to Army officials.

Although shot in the leg during his squad’s initial assault attempt, he still accompanied his squad during its second assault. Once inside the house, Sanford provided a heavy volume of suppressive fire while the casualties were evacuated. He continued to engage the enemy while escorting wounded soldiers from the house, according to the award citation.

Sanford returned to the house a second time to provide covering fire for the final withdrawal of casualties. When the last soldier leaving the house was shot in the neck, Sanford began performing CPR. Sanford was shot twice more in the back while trying to revive the other soldier. He returned fire and killed an insurgent while receiving two more potentially fatal gunshot wounds, the citation stated. He continued returning fire while helping his wounded comrade until he was incapacitated by his own loss of blood.

“I have had the distinct honor of participating in many award ceremonies,” Pace told the audience of family, friends and fellow soldiers. “This is the first time I have ever had the honor of awarding a Distinguished Service Cross.

The chairman said each of the soldiers would probably say they don’t think they deserve the awards. “If you asked them, they’d say they were doing their jobs,” he said. “But if you asked their fellow soldiers, they’d say they went above and beyond the call of duty.

“The soldiers on the wall behind me know what you have done,” Pace told the award recipients. “Your courage in combat made a difference. You deserve these awards.”

When read in a citation, Pace said, words like “extraordinary heroism” and “gallantry in action” don’t capture what really happened that day. “But you know what happened, and so do your fellow soldiers in the unit,” he said.

“Thank you for doing what soldiers have always done in combat — to serve, to serve well and to serve above and beyond what any of our fellow citizens would ask you to serve,” he concluded.

Shot five times and he still kept trying to help his comrades. Keep safe Scott, you are always in my prayers.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, soldiers, General Pace, Steven C. Stanford, Distinguished Service Cross, heroism, war

1 Comment »

David Obey is a real piece of work. First he gets upset at those “idiot liberals” who insist on a principled stands against the war, defeating his efforts to get an unprincipled, pork ridden compromise passed. A compromise that attempts not to end the war (and thus make he and his allies share responsibility for whatever consequences that might have) and instead do everything they can to undermine and sabotage the effort. The idea is to make it harder for us to be successful and force us to leave due to a failure they help cause. That is what those “idiot liberals” stood in the way of before caving this week.

Obey’s disgraceful attitude towards his liberal base extends of course to anyone who wants to hold him to some kind of standard. Such as possibly standing by he and his party’s claims about cleaning up congress. From the Club for Growth:

Now this is jaw-dropping. Congressman Jeff Flake is contending, as the following video will show, that the House is violating its own rules on earmarks. As an example, Flake points to one earmark in the war supplemental bill that is designated for NASA. Because it wasn’t reported in the bill correctly, Flake was seeking clarification. In response, Congressman David Obey said:

“The fact is, that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual member. This item was not requested by any individual member. It was put in the bill by ME!”

Either Obey believes he is above the law when it comes to enforcing House rules, or he doesn’t believe he is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Which is it?

Yeah, all that talk of Kings and Princes on the Republican side and how we needed to elect Democrats to do something about it. Only if losing power goads Republicans to do something. Read that quote again. Sheesh. Here is the video: (more…)

1 Comment »

One of the steps in turning countries into a totalitarian state is the placing of power in local committees selected for “Revolutionary commitment.” Cuba has used the local committees as the states eyes and ears, enforcers and purveyors of terror. The local gangs have been a key part of Mugabe’s assault on his opponents.

Chavez is now about to eliminate the legislature and set up his own committees:

Venezuela may eliminate the National Assembly and transfer the powers of congress to community councils, congressman Dario Vivas said.

The councils, which the government began organizing this year, will replace some state institutions and shutting congress is “part of that debate,” said Vivas, who is president of the assembly’s committee on citizen participation, decentralization and regional development.

Vivas didn’t say when or how congress would be eliminated.

“We’re going toward a communal government, a communal parliament,” Vivas in an interview with Caracas-based Globovision television station today. “Those institutions that we consider to have completed their cycle will have to make way for decisions made by the communities.”

Boosting the power of community councils is part of President Hugo Chavez’s plan to transform Venezuela into a socialist society. The assembly’s 167 members, all of whom support Chavez, gave the former Army lieutenant colonel last month the power to make laws by decree for the next 18 months.

I’ll have more on Chavez soon.

Tags: Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, Socialism, Cuba

2 Comments »

Now this is a really stupid case, but if Al Gore and John Edwards can do it for themselves, I can do it for America as a whole. Heck, I’ll throw in Canada. If this paper from Science is correct we North Americans may be carbon neutral already. In fact, we seem to be carbon negative. We have room to pollute even more! (H/T: Don Luskin )

The spatial distribution of the terrestrial carbon dioxide uptake is estimated by means of the observed spatial patterns of the greatly increased atmospheric carbon dioxide data set available from 1988 onward, together with two atmospheric transport models, two estimates of the sea-air flux, and an estimate of the spatial distribution of fossil carbon dioxide emissions. North America is the best constrained continent, with a mean uptake of 1.7 ± 0.5 Pg C year…mostly south of 51 degrees north.

(more…)

2 Comments »

We live in a fast changing world. I consider that a good thing:

Technorati Tags: China, India, technology, economics, politics, US, jobs, education

No Comments »

Pelosi and Murtha obviously haven’t been getting updates on the war, since the reality is, the Iraqis are stepping up with the current counter-offensive, and progress is being made. And having to lard on at least $20 BILLION dollars to get votes. Yep, that’s real principled folks people elected there.

This ploy has less to do with National Security, and everything to do with Democrats exercising their power. Which only goes towards reinforcing the stereotype of Democrats being soft on National Security.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O20KLO2&show_article=1

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”

…

“What we’re trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 “no” votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress’ best chance of forcing Bush to change course—an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

1 Comment »

Nine days have gone by since I brought you this update on Iraq. They sure have been busy in Iraq these last 9 days as the list of headlines below, from MNF-I, can attest to. Now, if you’ve been following us, the past week we’ve blogged about (see below) some of the major and noteworthy items happening in Iraq, and the Democrats’ efforts to hamstring the effort.

One thing I’ve noticed this past week, is that the mainstream media is starting to get the hint that maybe things might turn around. I believe I’ve seen more positive coverage of developments in the past week than I have for a while.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Senators Pryor and Nelson gave cogent reasons for being against set timelines last week. Take a look.

Will they suddenly discover that they are great with enough pressure and pork thrown their way? From the WaPo in its entirety: (more…)

1 Comment »

From CBS:

After warning that the threat of deadly EFPs, or Explosively Formed Penetrators, was growing at an alarming rate, the U.S. military now says there’s been a “dramatic” decrease in the use of the powerful roadside bombs.

EFPs “can punch through most of the armor out on the battlefield today,” Army Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman said of the devices, which U.S. officials have said come from Iran.

How large a decrease?

“In February, we noticed a 47 percent decrease in explosively formed penetrators being detonated against our troops, a 53 percent decrease in the number of troops wounded and a 51 percent decrease in the number of troops killed” by the devices, he said.

Why now?

According to Garver, the reasons for the marked drop in EFP incidents could include the detention of three Iranians in Baghdad in December. One of the men was believed to be a high-level Operations Officer with the Quds Force of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard.

Garver says the men were suspected of involvement with weapons smuggling.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Yesterday I posted about how I feel about those who enlist and serve in our military, especially during a time of war, and when they could have more lucrative careers.

Well, James Robbins, over at the National Review, reminds us that this Sunday is Medal of Honor day, and suggest everyone read some of the stories behind our highest military award. Many are stories of soldiers and Marines going above and beyond the call of duty, sacrificing their own lives so that their brothers in arms might live. It is the ultimate sacrifice and hearing, reading or seeing these always makes me weep.

To commemorate this event, Congress has designated March 25 as National Medal of Honor Day. The purpose of the holiday is to recognize the heroism of the more than 3,400 recipients, educate the public on the medal and what it means, and to celebrate and honor the more than 100 living recipients of the medal.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

Heroism is the brilliant triumph of the soul over the flesh; that is to say, over fear: fear of poverty; of suffering, of calumny, of sickness, of isolation, and of death. There is no serious piety without heroism. Heroism is the dazzling and glorious concentration of courage.
– Henri-Frederic Amiel

I will post one such story here…
(more…)

1 Comment »

Iran is escalating the situation in the Middle East, and against the Brits especially:

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure the release of its personnel, who are based on HMS Cornwall.

It added that the men had been carrying out a routine patrol in Iraqi waters.

The Ministry of Defence said: “The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

This isn’t the first time that Iran has asserted its authority in the Persian Gulf. In 2004, some British soldiers were captured in the Gulf after accidentally wandering into Iranian waters. But this incident is much more provocative, in that it allegedly took place in Iraqi waters, and comes just as British Army colonel claimed that his troops are mostly facing violence in Basra at the hands of Iranians:

Col Justin Masherevski told BBC News that Iran was providing “sophisticated weaponry” to insurgents.

“Iranian agents” were also paying local men to attack British troops, he added.

PM Tony Blair has previously said weapons used were of “Iranian origin”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says any Iranian links are “unacceptable”.

Col Masherevski said “local information” indicated that “the vast majority of the violence against us is inspired from outside Iraq”.

“The people here very much believe that is Iran,” he said.

“All the circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement in the violence here in Basra which is disrupting the city to a great extent.”

The standard of weapons being used against British troops was such that it could only have come from outside Iraq, he said.

“These are not old munitions being used from the Iran-Iraq war, they’re much more modern – some of them produced in 2006.

“The locals are telling us these are coming in from Iran.”

And it was believed Iranian agents were paying “up to $500 a month for young Baswari men to attack us”, he added.

Combined with the US allegations of Iranian involvement in arming and training insurgent elements in Iraq, these recent events suggest that Iran is becoming more bold and openly hostile to Western presence in the Middle East. And its claims of wanting a stable Iraq should, by now, be deemed utterly bogus.

My only question is, will Iranian escalation backfire? By that I mean, instead of harassing British and American troops to the point of them leaving, will it instead solidify our resolve and perhaps invite scrutiny from others? Russia is finally getting some religion with respect to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Perhaps they would be interested in turning the screws a little tighter on the Mullah-cracy if the pot is sweetened (i.e. oil deals).

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Britain, troops seized, Persian Gulf, Basra, Iraq, nuclear ambitions, Russia, UN sanctions, arming the insurgency

9 Comments »

Thomas Barnett has a great post up today about how the State Department is holding back progress in Iraq. State needs to get with the program, or get out of the way.

The story on our ag aid to Iraq is a microcosm of the whole sham that is the interagency process, and–quite frankly–what a disaster it is to have the State Department in charge of Iraq (you thought DoD was bad).

…

Class example starts the story: Commerce wants to end the food rationing in Iraq and move onto something more–CANYOUBELIEVEIT!–more marketized. State has a kitten and freaks out, believing the rationing was essential to continued social stability in Iraq (lots of that going around right now). I guarantee you this: leave State in charge long enough and Iraqis will be on food rations the rest of this century. (more…)

1 Comment »

As the pundits pile on, and facts become evermore distorted, I am finally finding Attorney-Gate more interesting. Below is a round-up of some of the more cogent analyses, both of political and legal issues. But first, here’s my take.

This fight between the Administration and Congress is primarily a power struggle. In such cases, I think it is prudent to first look at the motivations of each side before comprehending the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective positions. In simplest terms, the President is attempting to both be a good manager and to cement his legacy, while Congress is seeking to permanently cripple the Bush Administration and solidify its power vis-à-vis the Executive branch.

The CEO President

I think it’s safe to say that Bush considers himself the CEO of the Executive and runs his administration like an office. Personally, I don’t think that is a good thing — businesses are more amenable to efficiency than governments. But that is basically how Bush has run his presidency.

A good manager pushes his team, holds them internally accountable for their actions, openly rewards them to motivate the team as a whole, and above all else, protects them from outside interference. That last management goal is what I think Bush’s primary motivation is in this case. In principle it is a good management technique because in showing loyalty, the manager encourages loyalty and, at the same time, establishes a clear line of authority. If the manager’s team is more worried about what outsiders think than what the manager thinks, that manager has lost control. By encouraging his team to worry solely about executing the manager’s goals and directions, and by consistently going to mat for his team members, a good manager creates a healthy culture of camaraderie, loyalty and trust. Such a culture is infectious and effective if it can be created.

By taking on Congress, I think Bush is merely exerting his loyalty to his team. Both to the current members (Gonzales, Miers, et al.) and past members (i.e. the former USA’s).

The Bush Legacy

Bush’s insistence on fighting Congress over subpoenas, from a legal standpoint, is all about establishing the boundaries between the opposing branches. This, IMHO, is Bush’s secondary motivation. One of the familiar laments about the Clinton presidency was that he had “harmed the office of President.” True or not, there is a contingent of Republicans who firmly believe this to be the case. In my most humble opinion, President Bush wants to leave a legacy of strengthening the Executive branch, particularly regarding separation-of-power issues. Maybe because of the complaints about Clinton, or something he saw during his father’s tenure in office, or perhaps because of Ford’s testifying before Congress regarding his pardon of Nixon. Whatever the reason, the impression I get from the battles he’s chosen to fight, and the way that he’s fought them, is that Bush wants to reinvigorate the Executive branch as a balance to Legislative power and overreach. That is what the Unitary Executive theory is about, that’s what the battles over the NSA terrorist surveillance program was about, and that is what Attorney-Gate is about.

Slaying the Executive

Congress has its own power issues, not the least of which is showing the President just who’s boss. The Democratic majority, which has found little legislative traction, also wants to assert its newfound authority in the face of a hostile Executive branch. Add in a cup of spicy electorate unhappy with the war, and a dash of BDS, and you have yourself one thick political stew.

However, despite the rhetoric heard on the Sunday talkshows, I don’t think that a majority of Democrats necessarily want to abruptly end the war in Iraq. They want to assure that Bush gets blame for anything that goes wrong, and they do want to leave Iraq ASAP, but they don’t intend to hamstring the troops in doing so. Just my opinion.

With respect to Attorney-Gate, however, I think Congress is motivated to cut the heart out of the lame duck, and thus remove a major impediment to the Democrats’ agenda, a goodly portion of which means micromanaging the war, but which also includes getting at least some of the major initiatives promised made into law (e.g. health care reform, minimum wage, etc.). Undermining the Executive branch by embroiling it endless political scandal will serve that end quite nicely.

Moreover, Congress has a legitimate interest in pressing its own power versus the Executive branch, especially when, such as now, that branch is seeking to expand and cement it’s own demesne. Every bit of authority ceded to the president today will embarrass the aims of not just this Congress, but future Congresses as well. As some scholars have indicated, Congress has a legitimate dog in this fight too, in that part of the legislature’s job is to oversee the execution of its laws. If the Bush Administration was involved in either carelessly handling the powers granted to it, or worse, it violated the very laws it is entrusted to “faithfully” execute, then Congress is constitutionally empowered, indeed mandated, to reign it in. In fact, if a prima facia case can be made that the Bush Administration violated some criminal law in the firing of the USA’s, then Congress has an absolute duty to either investigate itself, or appoint a special prosecutor.

The Bottom Line

Both the President and the Congress have legitimate powers to assert, and plenty of reason to assert them. Although many knowledgeable people are speculating that the two sides will reach a deal before any court precedent is set, I think that their respective positions are too entrenched to budge now. The Democratic Congress really can’t afford to back down because (a) they’ve made too big of a stink about this issue, and (b) they really believe that they have to assert Congress’ constitutional authority after the past six (really five and a quarter) years of compliant Republican rule. Meanwhile, the Attorney-Gate issue puts one right in the President’s wheelhouse as far as priorities are concerned: being a good manager, and strengthening the Executive branch. Bush won’t back down since he really has nothing to lose. In that sense, I think of Bush more of a wounded tiger than a lame duck, since regardless of how popular he is, Congress is much less popular and he still has the full power of the Executive branch to use. Accordingly, my Bold Prediction (channeling Tom Maguire) is that neither side backs down, and this ends up in court.

In order to better understand the legal issues, I present you with an Attorney-Gate Carnival:

Orin Kerr: THE QUESTION IS WHY

Orin Kerr: PRESIDENT BUSH’S WARNING

Marty Lederman: Did Anyone in the White House Act Unlawfully?

Bill Dyer (aka “Beldar”): Beldar on Lederman on executive privilege

Patrick Frey (aka “Patterico”): “I Use Titles That Are Too Freaking Long, So I’ll Have To Suffice With Links From ASHC All in One Made-Up Quote”

Captain Ed: Bush Digs In, Democrats Double Down

Your own humble correspondent: Attorney-Gate

Technorati Tags: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys Firing, Bush Administration, Unitary Executive, power struggle, executive privilege, CEO president, Democratic Congress, Carol Lam, David Iglesias

3 Comments »

Thanks to Simon at Stubborn Facts, I read this piece again from Michael Kinsley:

[I]t’s pretty clear what Americans want. They want an end to partisan bickering. They want pragmatic solutions, not ideological posturing. They want leaders who reject politics as usual and put the country’s interests ahead of the party’s. They want a government that will do the right thing, regardless of whether it is “liberal” or “conservative.” They don’t like labels. And, oh yes, they are tired of spin.

…

What Americans say they want–or even what they think they want–needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Their objection, very often, is less to politics than to arithmetic. Do they want our health-care system fixed? Yes. Do they want Social Security and Medicare on a more solid footing? Absolutely. Will they pay for these things? Not a chance. There are no pragmatic, nonideological solutions to the big question of what the government should do and what it shouldn’t. You can have your government programs and pay for them, like a good liberal, or you can have your tax cuts and forgo the programs, like a good conservative. Asking for both is the opposite of pragmatic.

Another name for the much derided “politics as usual” is democracy. Things get disagreeable because people disagree. Ideology is a good thing, not a bad one — and partisanship is at its worst when it is not about ideology. That’s when it descends into trivia and slime. Ideology doesn’t have to mean mindless intransigence or a refusal to accommodate new evidence or changing circumstances. It is just a framework of basic principles.

…

A politician ought to have an ideology. For that matter, so should a voter. Although ideology is sometimes dismissed as a substitute for thinking, it more likely is evidence that you’ve thought things through. Why is there a huge farm bill and no bill for struggling autoworkers? Why did we invade Iraq in search of nuclear weapons, but not North Korea? Hillary Clinton’s description of her beliefs, quoted above, sounds more like a charity fund-raiser gift bag–a little of this, a little of that–than a coherent philosophy. Her competitors are no better.

Emphasis above is mine. I have been accused at times of partisanship, which to me is about “my side” being right no matter what their position. I am a partisan, to certain conclusions about things, to certain ideological beliefs, not parties or organizations. I make no bones about that, and neither should anyone. It is political partisanship without regard to ideology that has brought the Republicans low, and from what I can see will lead the Democrats even lower if they don’t get their bearings.

Tags: Democrats, Republicans, politics, partisanship, ideology

9 Comments »

to be offended, and to offend…

At least, that’s what the 1st Amendment ought to mean. But some recent cases show that students don’t have that right, and increasingly many in the public square feel their rights to free speech are being curbed.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/308282,CST-NWS-gay22.article

A Neuqua Valley High senior has gone to federal court seeking the right to wear an anti-gay T-shirt to school next month on the day after a national event in support of gays is scheduled in schools.

Heidi Zamecnik, 17, is asking the court to order her school and Indian Prairie District 204 to allow her to express her anti-gay beliefs on April 19, the day after the 11th annual “Day of Silence” is scheduled to protest harassment of gays in schools.

…

During her first two years of high school, the Naperville resident did not outwardly object to the “Day of Silence,” in which students wear pro-gay messages on T-shirts. But in her junior year, Heidi wore a T-shirt the day after a “Day of Silence.” It read in part, “BE HAPPY, NOT GAY.”

Maybe those who would ban speech, whether anti-gay, or pro-drug, ought to listen to the President of the EU Commission…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/22/weu22.xml

Europe’s citizens must be on their guard against political correctness and moralising politicians, says the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

The former Portuguese premier and centre-Right politician is concerned that freedom can be the loser in European culture wars over climate change, cheap air travel, Islam and free speech.
advertisement

“We should be aware of people who, sometimes for good reasons, try to establish what I call private moral codes, for this or that, be it climate change, religious behaviour or any kind of social behaviour,” he says.

Just wish we had a Presidential candidate who knew this… Oh wait, we may have one up and comer who fits the bill…

1 Comment »

Tyrants bringing in external brut squads is never a good sign… At the same time the AU calls for Mugabe to have “respect for human rights and democratic principles in Zimbabwe.” Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

How long till Zimbabwe boils over??? What can be done to forestall the bloodshed of a civil-war? What can be done to stop Mugabe in his quest to retain power?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21431134-2703,00.html

ABOUT 2500 Angolan paramilitary police, feared in their country for brutality, are to be deployed in Zimbabwe, raising concerns of an escalation in violence against those opposed to President Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabwe’s Home Affairs Minister Kembo Mohadi confirmed the Angolans’ imminent arrival, with 1000 expected on April 1 and the rest in batches of 500. Angola is regarded as the most powerful military nation in Africa after South Africa.

The deployment comes amid reports of concern in the Mugabe Government over the capability of the country’s police force to suppress outbreaks of unrest, which are mostly in Harare’s volatile townships.

ANGOLA DENIES REPORT – UPDATE BELOW!!! (more…)

2 Comments »

It is often heartening to hear stories of why people join the military. Some people do it because they have few options, but many people do it because they want to serve this country. And some few give up more lucrative careers to do it.

They are asked to make such great sacrifices and put up with a great deal of suffering, in order to keep us and others safe. It really puts things in perspective during my hour commute to think of what the soldiers and Marines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else they are stationed have to put up with on a daily basis.

As long as they serve honorably, they are all heroes to me.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6592988?MSNHPHCP>1=9232

A former NFL player who joined the Marines and was motivated by college roommate Pat Tillman, who died in Afghanistan, was heading for the war in Iraq Tuesday night.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Staat, a former defensive lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers and St. Louis Rams who had been playing Arena Football, was one of 300 Marines in the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment being deployed from Kaneohe Bay. The unit is expected to be in Iraq for seven months. (more…)

2 Comments »

While this may lead to some ultra-violent fringe groups, I think over all this is going to be a big plus for Iraq and our mission there. Now, if they could further seal the border between Iraq and everywhere else, they have a good chance of shutting out some of these extremists who’ve left for Iran to get more training.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-21-shiite-millitia_N.htm?csp=34

The violent Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, adding a potentially even more deadly element to Iraq’s violent mix.

Two senior militia commanders told the Associated Press that hundreds of these fighters have crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

The breakup is an ominous development at a time when U.S. and Iraqi forces are working to defeat religious-based militias and secure Iraq under government control. While al-Sadr’s forces have battled the coalition repeatedly, including pitched battles in 2004, they’ve mostly stayed in the background during the latest offensive.

…

At the Pentagon, a military official confirmed there were signs the Mahdi Army was splintering. Some were breaking away to attempt a more conciliatory approach to the Americans and the Iraqi government, others moving in a more extremist direction, the official said.

1 Comment »

Apparently not as much as we’ve been led to believe, when you total up the entire environmental costs. Now, if you only look at fuel costs for running the vehicle, they sure are green. But what about all those materials used in the car.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer. (more…)

10 Comments »

Al Gore will be carbon neutral (well maybe, he says he is) but he won’t do everything he can, even though he could live quite the life going carbon negative. That is something most of us don’t have the means to accomplish. He does. So is he ready to change the way he lives?

[youtube]t_gWgs4InRE[/youtube]

Apparently not.

Update: From Instapundit:

HEH:

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma asked Gore to pledge to reduce his personal home energy to the national average within a year.

That was in reaction to reports of Gore’s large utility bill at his Nashville home.

Gore responded that he lives a “carbon neutral life” by buying carbon offsets to compensate for his energy use.

Inhoffe called the offsets “gimmicks” used by the wealthy.

That may be too strong, but they don’t sit well with moralistic messianic crusading. There’s more here:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

A gimmick? Yes. A stunt? Yes. But it’s one that Gore has opened himself up to. That’s the problem with moralistic, messianic crusading — people expect you to live up to it.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore, Climate change, global warming, environment, Senator Inhofe

3 Comments »

Pakistan, with the help of local tribes, are going after al-Qaeda along part of the Afghan/Pakistan border.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21425195-2703,00.html

SCORES of al-Qa’ida fighters were reported dead last night in fierce battles with tribal militants in the key Waziristan area of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to be based.

With clashes entering the third day and hundreds fleeing villages in the Azam Warzak area near the administrative hub of Wana, in South Waziristan, officials in Islamabad estimated that more than 100 fighters, most of them from Uzbekistan, had been killed. (more…)

29 Comments »

The approval ratings of Congress are slipping down.

Could be because the Democrats’ Senate record, so far, is 0 and 6, and the Democrats have larded on $20 BILLION dollars onto the FY07 War Supplemental, all in an effort to micro-manage the war in Iraq.

And what is the Democrats’ primary concern right now? Well, with the Presidential primaries of course. They’ve decided that something is rotten in DC, and it’s the firing of 8 US Attorneys that they need to get to the bottom of.

Now, this is what has confused me since the start of this.

What exactly are the Democrats trying to prove? (more…)

6 Comments »

A lot of good info in this editorial by Gordon Cucullu

Petraeus, the new commander managing the “surge” of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. “Sure we see improvements – major improvements,” he said in our interview, “but we still have a long way to go.”

What tactics are working?

It’s an impressive list:

“We got down at the people level and are staying,” he said flatly. “Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.”

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were “scraping” for intelligence information, they now have “information overload,” the general said.

A large hospital project – meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle – had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it’s back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government – for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

“We’re using ’soft knock’ clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side,” he notes.

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. “We initiated Operation Safe Markets,” Petraeus said, “and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets.” Car bombings have dropped precipitately – the limited access thwarts them.

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people – “acting like a politician,” Petraeus said, without malice. “He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots.”

So, when should we be able to tell if we’ve won???

Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we’re winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, “We’ll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer.” That’s his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war.

Good advice.

1 Comment »

Lee over at postpolitical takes my theme from the other day and fleshes it out with regard to events in Venezuela. Well worth reading in gaining an understanding of the dynamic that inevitably occurs.

Technorati Tags: Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, socialism

5 Comments »

Not content with undermining the Presidents role as command-in-chief, it looks like some in Congress want to be Secretary of State too…

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res.00106:

Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

So, what could possibly happen with such a seemingly innocuous bill…

Oh, just pissing off our trusted ally Turkey…

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454179.229861111.html

Officials said passage of the resolution would significantly weaken pro-American circles in Ankara and strengthen Islamic forces loyal to Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.

Administration officials hope to block the resolution that deems the Turkish killing of Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Turkey has warned that such a resolution would harm relations with Washington.

“Turkey provides extensive logistic support to our troops in Iraq,” Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said. “This critical lifeline includes the cargo hub at Incirlik air base through which we ship 74 percent of our air cargo to Iraq.”

In testimony to the House International Relations subcommittee on Europe on March 15, Fried warned of Turkish retaliation for the Armenian genocide resolution. He said one prospect was that Ankara would expel the U.S. military from Incirlik, located in southern Turkey.

“They could, for example, shut down or curtail operations at Incirlik,” Fried said. “They could slow down traffic at the Habour gate [along the Iraqi border]. They could restrict our overflight rights. They could do so wholly, they could do so in part.”

The Armenian genocide resolution has been introduced in the House and Senate. The administration has persuaded House leaders to delay any vote until at least late March.

…

Officials have also warned that Americans could be assaulted in Turkey in response to the resolution. On March 15, the U.S. embassy in Ankara warned Americans to be on alert for demonstrations that could turn violent.

“If, despite the administration’s concerted efforts against this resolution, it makes its way to the floor of the House for debate and a possible vote, there could be a reaction in the form of demonstrations and increased anti-Americanism throughout Turkey,” the embassy said in a warden message.

Hmmm, maybe the consequences aren’t unintended.

1 Comment »

There are many ways people can show support for our troops, even if you don’t think the mission in Iraq is the right mission. Not disrespecting the troops, or the mission they are trying to accomplish would be a good step in the right direction. But, even with the recent coverage of conditions at Walter Reed, I fear not enough will be done to ensure our troops are getting what they need. Notice how the coverage of Walter Reed is barely a buzz, now that the MSM smells fresh meat in the form of the US Attorney firings.

Today, after reading various accounts of the Gathering of Eagles pro-military/counter-protest, and reading one soldiers account of being at Walter Reed, I just want to remind everyone to:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

So, since it’s tax time, and we’ve been going through our records, I’ve compiled a list of the charitable organizations that we’ve donated to that lend support to the troops, and/or their families. Normally, I don’t like making note of what or who we give charitable contributions to. Charity is from the heart, and somehow, publicly making note of it, diminishes the act for me. But, I’m not doing this to change anyones opinion of me, I want people to consider giving what they can to help support the troops.

http://www.uso.org/

http://www.soldiersangels.org/

http://www.fisherhouse.org/

http://freedomalliance.org/fa/

Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund

http://www.saluteheroes.org/

http://www.vva.org/

http://www.dav.org/

http://www.vfw.org/

2 Comments »

According to Mick Stockinger, when one is a climate scientist:

On January 29, 2006, the New York Times published a front-page article about Hansen: “Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him.” According to Hansen, as the Times reported, “officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for interviews from journalists.”

[...]

In a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) noted:

“We have over 1,400 opportunities that you’ve availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. Mr. Hansen responded: “For the sake of the taxpayers, they should be availed of my expertise. I shouldn’t be required to parrot some company line.”

Arrogant and a liar. There simply is no evidence, whatsoever that Hansen was asked to express a particular view. The nature of his alleged “muzzling” was that a low level employee suggested to his superiors that NASA send someone else to an NPR interview.

My mother-in-law sleeps about 3 to 4 hours a day and spends the rest of time nibbling at food (she’s very skinny) or talking (which may be why she’s so skinny). It doesn’t matter whether anyone’s listening or not, she just keeps talking. By Hansen’s definition, my mother-in-law is the personification of “muzzled.”

powered by performancing firefox

2 Comments »

I seem to remember many people saying that there was NO WAY to obtain nuclear material from African countries, except through legal channels.

Hmmph, maybe not…

KINSHASA, CONGO — The head of Congo’s atomic energy commission has been arrested on suspicion of illegally selling uranium found in the nation, officials said Wednesday.

Fortunat Lumu and one of his aides were arrested Tuesday, Atty. Gen. Tshimanga Mukendi said. He declined to give details.

In August, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s government denied a report in the Sunday Times of London that a uranium shipment left its territory in 2005 bound for Iran, saying the dangerous element was tightly controlled by international agencies.

No Comments »

From the New York Times via Pajamas Media, I learned that John Backus died on Saturday. Now, the name probably doesn’t mean anything to most people. In fact, it didn’t mean anything to me, until I saw the computer language the team he led created. FORTRAN

Now, FORTRAN may be considered ancient history by many computer programmers these days, much like paper tape, and punch cards. But, and I hope I’m not dating myself to much, this was the 2nd or 3rd computer language I learned in college.

Fortran, released in 1957, was “the turning point” in computer software, much as the microprocessor was a giant step forward in hardware, according to J.A.N. Lee, a leading computer historian.

Fortran changed the terms of communication between humans and computers, moving up a level to a language that was more comprehensible by humans. So Fortran, in computing vernacular, is considered the first successful higher-level language.

Mr. Backus and his youthful team, then all in their 20s and 30s, devised a programming language that resembled a combination of English shorthand and algebra. Fortran, short for Formula Translator, was very similar to the algebraic formulas that scientists and engineers used in their daily work. With some training, they were no longer dependent on a programming priesthood to translate their science and engineering problems into a language a computer would understand.

Funny thing about computer programming, it is as much art as science. Translating what a program should do, to how the computer should do it, isn’t always straightforward. Often based on often vague requirements from users who just want things done faster, and better. Many of the people who I’ve seen throughout my career have only had the foggiest notion of how to do this. To me it seemed as if they knew the syntax of a language, but not the grammar needed to make cogent sentences. I have to wonder what exactly they are being taught in their classes.

1 Comment »

All polls in Iraq should be treated with a certain amount of skepticism, but neither should they be ignored, that is unless they hopelessly skew themselves from the get go, whereupon bit of interpretation will be needed. Amongst a number of interesting nuggets, Keith recently posted the results of a Times of London poll:

“49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.”

Meanwhile another poll was released which claimed:

And just 38% said the situation in the country was better than before the 2003 war, while 50% said it was worse.

Neither result surprises me, and both show that the invasion has not been in the eyes of all Iraqis an unmitigated disaster. Still, quite a difference. So which is closer to the truth? Mostly it seems it is due to one factor, from Dave Price:

The new poll is thirty-five percent Sunni Arabs (p37), who benefitted from Saddam’s regime and are generally much angrier and more pessimistic about the invasion and its results than the other groups. That’s right, thirty-five percent in a country where most estimates of Sunni Arab population are around 15% (note that the Sunni number given by the CIA Factbook includes Kurds, who are more than half the total Sunnis in Iraq). They’re oversampling Sunni Arabs by roughly two to one.

Unless I’m missing something here, somebody has some serious explaining to do.

Allah goes ahead and does some of that explaining for Dave: (more…)

7 Comments »

As a follow up to my post, “Internal Struggle in Iran on the Horizon,” I’d suggest reading this article by Michael Young on the recent defections of military officials from Iran.

If the U.S. played a role in Asgari’s defection, it will boost morale in Washington after the intelligence debacle in Iraq. The episode shows that there are cracks in the Iranian system, and that these can be exploited by the plethora of intelligence agencies today cooperating against Iran’s expanding influence in the Middle East. At a time when there are unconfirmed reports that the U.S. is involved in clandestine activities in Iran–particularly among the Sunni or Kurdish populations–this kind of breakthrough surely reinforces the value of human intelligence and the advantages of more traditional methods of spycraft.

….

It may be too soon to judge how big an information coup Asgari’s escape will turn into, but it’s already a massive political one. The moral of the story is that if the U.S. wants to deal with Iran successfully, it has to do so as much in the darker recesses of state interaction than from the top of aircraft carriers. The Iranians have always been remarkable builders of institutions. If you’re going to erode their self-confidence, those institutions have to appear vulnerable. Whatever Asgari divulges, the real impact of his disappearance is that Iran can be penetrated.

No Comments »

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently “clarified” a statement that he made to the Chicago Tribune regarding the immorality of homosexual behavior. General Peter Pace suggested that he should have focused his comments more on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” rather than on his personal beliefs about morality. While I certainly belive that the General is entitled to express his opinion, my question about the matter is whether a sitting Chairman of the JCS should be throwing what amounts to a political bomb in the middle of a war. Were this a matter of discussing policy during peacetime, then I think the stakes would be much lower and the Chairman should feel obligated to comment. In wartime, however, it is the responsibility of all serving military personnel to focus entirely on the successful prosecution of that war to the exclusion of all else. Engaging in political sideshows is not only disruptive to the conduct of the war, but also demonstrative of very poor judgement. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not demanding that General Pace be removed, but I feel that either the President or SECDEF needs to keep a much tighter leash on things over at the Pentagon. Now, perhaps this was merely a response to former Chairman John Shalikashvili’s recent statement that the military should abandon “don’t ask, don’t tell” and accept anyone willing to serve, but if so that response is better handled by the civilians in office, not the military. The military is not a political tool and should not be allowed to become one by either its members or by the civilian leadership that it answers to.

3 Comments »

Despite the title of this post, I’m not so sure there is any meat to the alleged scandal concerning the firing of seven U.S. Attorney Generals and the non-rehiring of another, Carol Lam. In fact, as I argue below, there does not seem to be anything at all the Carol Lam allegations. But for the sake of brevity, I’ll go along with the current MSM mindset that this was an insidious plot by the White House to derail investigations of Republicans, and call it “Attorney-Gate.”

[ed. -- Purely as an aside, is anyone else looking forward to sometime next summer when the current SecDef is scrutinized by the media and Congress for presumptuously trying to "win the war"? This will, of course, be dubbed "Gates-Gate" and will finally bring full circle the rather meaningless and arbitrary appending of "Gate" to what ever allegations the MSM is then using to sell newspapers and airtime. I know I am.]

While I have not delved too deeply into the intricacies of the latest brouhaha, I have been following with some interest the attempts by the media to tar the White House by connecting Carol Lam’s termination as USAG for San Diego with the ramping up of the case against the now-infamous Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Patterico, quite reliably, has been all over this story from the get-go. He took the L.A. Times to task for implying that Carol Lam was targeted because of her conducting of the Cunningham investigation (which eventually led to Duke’s imprisonment) by misrepresenting the timing of email communications from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff for Roberto Gonzalez.

The L.A. Times has the unmitigated gall to write an entire story about the timing of an e-mail regarding Carol Lam, without telling its readers that Lam was on a list of targeted prosecutors well before the Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal ever broke. Worse, the paper misstates the facts to its readers to support its position.

On March 2, 2005, Kyle Sampson sent Harriet Miers a list (dated February 24) of prosecutors. The names of those targeted were struck out. Lam’s name was stricken out, meaning she had been targeted.

As I told you earlier this morning, the Cunningham investigation broke months later in June 2005, with the publication of this story. Even the lefty TPM Muckraker admits that Lam was targeted before that date. TPM Muckraker also admits that Carol Lam was not investigating Cunningham until the scandal was broken by a newspaper in June 2005, after Lam had been targeted.

The primary email in question, dated May 11, 2006, has been the topic of much consternation amongst the media scandal-mongers. According to the L.A. Times, and now the Washington Post, that email proves that Carol Lam was fired for political reasons. From the WaPo:

The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general’s chief of staff warned the White House of a “real problem” with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

[...]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that Lam “sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants” in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA’s top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

The next day, May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel’s office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

“Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following,” Sampson wrote, referring to “[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.”

The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys.

There are several problems with the WaPo (see Cap’n Ed for some good analysis) and the good Senator’s reasoning on this, not the least of which is readily apparent when one reads the whole email (emphasis added):

From: Kyle Sampson
Sent: May 11, 2006 11:36 AM
To: “[email protected]”
Subject: FW: Removal and Replacement of U.S. Attorneys Whose 4-year Terms Have Expired

Sensitivity: Yes Please! [ed. - Heh; just kidding] Confidential

Per your inquiry yesterday after JSC, this is the e-mail I sent Dabney last month at Harriet’s request. Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following:

* [REDACTED]

* Tim Griffin for E.D. Ark.; and

* The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.

Obviously, since this was a forwarded email from a month prior to May 11, 2006, Sampson could not possibly have been responding to Lam’s May 10, 2006 notice that she would be issuing the Wilkes and Foggo search warrants in her investigation of Cunningham. Moreover, if the reason she was such a “problem” was because of these search warrants, why wait more than six months to get rid of her? For Senator Feinstein to “suggest” that Lam’s subsequent termination (when her term ended in November, and well after Randy “Duke” Cunningham had been convicted and sentenced) was because of the Cunningham probe, and for the news media to actually print such unmitigated garbage, is a serious travesty. Not because it unfairly smears Gonzalez and Sampson (which it does), and not because it brings unwarranted scrutiny on the White House (which I don’t really care about), but because it badly misinforms the public.

The only, and I do mean ONLY job of the press is to shed light on the goings on in the country and the world for the benefit of the public. That’s what they are in the business of doing. When they indulge the outright lies and slander of public officials, as in this case, and in the process badly misinform the public about the facts of the situation being reported, the press is not doing its job. Although you can’t fire the press, you can stop renewing its contract. Cancel your subscriptions, stop watching the legacy news broadcasts, and tell them why you’re doing it. Let them know that you’ve had enough of the distortions, bias and outright lies, and that if you wanted to pay for that stuff you’ll throw some money in a hat the next time you sit down for a sewing circle. Otherwise, just stop paying attention to them, because we are being treated like fools and dunces.

I for one am pretty darn sick of it. How about you?

Technorati Tags: Roberto Gonzalez, Kyle Sampson, Carol Lam, Sen. Diane Feinstein, U.S. Attorney firings, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, media bias

2 Comments »

Sparked by Keith’s excellent post below, I decided to rummage through some old posts of mine regarding civil war in Iraq. I seemed to recall that the media had been pushing the “civil war” meme quite early on, often conflating the actions of al Qaeda and insurgents to make their case. In September 2005 I wrote about how Reuters, the AP and NPR’s Anne Garrels had all portrayed a series of bombing attacks by al Qaeda as a cog in the civil war engine. Even though al Qaeda operatives claimed that the attacks were in retaliation for their significant set backs at the hands of U.S. and Iraqi forces in Tal Afar, the media shamelessly promoted the idea that it was part of the coming civil war:

Of course, there’s nothing insidious about mentioning the ongoing Constitutional process in Iraq in a story about suicide bombing there. But the the clear implication of both stories is that the suicide bombings are in some manner precursors to the impending civil war between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, and that the Constitutional process is a catalyst for that war. However, if Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks, and in fact explicitly stated that they are in retaliation for “the recent killing of about 200 militants from the city of Tal Afar by U.S. and Iraqi forces,” in what way does the Consitutional debate amongst Iraqis figure into the bombings?

Now that the constitutional issues are largely resolved (although, Iraqis are currently negotiating and re-writing the governing document), and the oil issues seem to have alighted upon a promising solution, all that seems to be left is the naked civil war conjecture.

By that, I don’t mean to state or imply that an Iraqi civil war is an impossibility or even highly improbable. However, as demonstrated by the view of the Iraqis themselves, such an event has not necessarily come to pass as of yet. My thoughts in September ‘05 were roughly similar:

The truth is that civil war is not as inevitable as some would have you believe. I don’t mean to suggest that it’s impossible or that it would comes as a great shock if the situation in Iraq were to devolve into a civil war. But the window of where that was a great likelihood has passed with the elections in January and the subsequent campaign of inclusion seeking to draw as many Sunnis into the nation-building process as possible. Judging by the numbers of Sunnis who registered to vote on the draft Constitution (”Iraq’s Sunnis Register to Vote in Droves“), that campaign has been largely successful, and there doesn’t seem to be as great a potential for civil war as there once may have been. To be sure, there are still Sunnis who will fight the U.S. and whatever Iraqi government that eventually results. But it will take more than some holdouts to launch a full-blown civil war.

Moreover, the question still remains unanswered as to what the connection is between Al Qaeda, who took responsibility for the recent blasts, and the beginning of a civil war based upon Sunni dissatisfaction with the Constitution. Neither the AP nor Reuters has answered that question, even as they implicitly raised it, nor are they likely to. Instead, they will continue to conflate the two (Al Qaeda and Sunnis; War on Terror and Iraqi Civil War) in an effort to channel the blame for every horrible thing in Iraq directly to the feet of the United States and it’s “illegal” war. Nevermind the fact that prior to the Iraq War we were constantly reminded of how Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party because of their secularism, and of how there was never any connection between the two. That the insurgent Sunnis and Al Qaeda appear on the same side of the ledger now is irrelevant and needless of explanation so long as it is clear to all that U.S. presence in Iraq and the Iraqi Constitution (a direct result of U.S. presence) are the source of all Iraqi ills. So needless of explanation is the apparent comraderie between insurgent Sunnis and Al Qaeda in fact, that both the AP and Reuters consider it appropriate to include the complaints of one group in a story about the other’s retaliatory strikes.

My only point here is that the media has steadfastly been pushing the idea of a civil war in Iraq since early on, and they have taken any and every opportunity to support that meme whether justified or not. Recall that NBC took it upon itself to declare that Iraq was embroiled in a civil war, thumbing its nose at the White House et al. refusal to do so in the face of much prodding from the MSM. In fact, as early as January 2004, the MSM was issuing warnings of Iraq’s inevitable descent into full-on internecine combat.

CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.

The CIA officers’ bleak assessment was delivered verbally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.

The warning echoed growing fears that Iraq’s Shiite majority, which has until now grudgingly accepted the U.S. occupation, could turn to violence if its demands for direct elections are spurned.

Despite the constant prodding however, the Iraqis have apparently disregarded the received wisdom that they are in the midst of a civil war.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

So, at this point at least, and in spite of the persistent MSM drumbeat for civil war in Iraq, the Iraqis don’t seem to be in the mood to oblige. They may get there at some point. Lord knows that the neophyte state has many growing pains ahead of it. But for now Iraqis are reportedly more interested in quelling insurgent and al Qaeda violence than in slitting each other’s throats over who will run the government, and over what sort of nation Iraq will be.

For those of you who are civil war die-harders, never fear, for the drumbeat is sure to continue. You may well get your wish, as did those who pined for a violently indignant reaction to Pope Benedict’s speech in Regensburg. Pardon me if I’m routing against you.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, civil war, polls, MSM, media

No Comments »

This weekend there was a protest march on the Pentagon. What is important, to me at least, is that there was a counter-protest called, the Gathering of Eagles. Since I wasn’t there, I can’t comment first hand on the scene. But there were plenty of bloggers who were there, so I’m linking to Michell Malkin’s post on this, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007109.htm, so hop on over there for updates.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

the first unofficial estimate of the Eagle turn-out today…

30,000!

That figure may be adjusted upward as more figure are tallied during the week. Fox News reported today that the anti-war protesters had significantly less than they expected. However, they are erroneously reporting that the Eagles were there in “equal numbers”. The truth is that we outnumbered them by at least three to one!

Consider…ANSWER had a year to plan their well-publicized event and were hoping for around 100,000. They actually drew about 5,000-10,000, according to various news reports today. The Gathering of Eagles, on the other hand, had about six weeks to plan an unprecedented response – and with no advertising, no publicity, no celebrity or political endorsement, no news coverage, and no big money, we had about 30,000 boots on the ground!

**************

And this gent, found some interesting opinion polls from within Iraq:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/18/iraqis-ask-civil-war-what-civil-war/

Lifting from Marie Colvin’s report in the Sunday Times of London:
” 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.”

Well, so much for his popularity. Didn’t he get 100% of the vote in 2002?

But this was the big news:
” Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.”

Now, how could that be, when 76% of Americans believe there’s a civil war in Iraq???

Tigerhawk also has some comments on this topic.

**************

And this in from Iraq the Model…

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/03/one-thing-al-qaeda-excels-at-making-new.html

Al-Qaeda’s terrorists-whom AP insists on calling insurgents-expended three suicide bombers and precious resources against their supposedly sympathetic civilian Sunni hosts instead of American and Iraqi soldiers and Shia civilians; their usual enemies.
If this indicates anything it indicates that al-Qaeda’s is reprioritizing the targets on the hit list. The reason: al-Qaeda is sensing a serious threat in the change of attitude of the tribes toward them and perhaps the apparently successful meeting of the sheiks with Maliki and the agreements that were made then was the point at which open war had to be declared.

The tribes in Anbar are stubborn and they have many ruthless warriors. That’s a proven fact and it looks like Al-Qaeda had just made their gravest mistake—their once best friends are just about to become their worst enemy.

Well, if al Qaeda is targeting Sunni’s, then the Sunni’s must be targeting al Qaeda. Which is a good thing for our troops on the ground.

3 Comments »

Not just in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion too…

Wonder how this is going to impact Hillary’s campaign to become President???

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19734

Hillary Clinton’s political methods were founded on the theories of a 1960s radical about whom she wrote her college thesis in 1969. It may take a village to raise a child, but Clinton’s college thesis seems to say that the village politicos need an enemy to mobilize against.

She titled the paper, written to fulfill her Bachelor of Arts degree at Wellesley College, “There is Only the Fight.” It praises the work of radical activist Saul Alinsky, a man who epitomized a self-interested no-holds barred campaign style that Hillary has emulated in later years. Clinton’s savvy-but-ruthless politics, including the “politics of personal destruction” she so often condemns but more often practices, seem rooted in Alinsky’s famous rules for radicals.

One year after Hillary turned in her thesis, Time Magazine profiled Alinsky. Their assessment was much different than hers. It said, “In his [Alinsky’s] view, the end of achieving power justifies a range of means…If the occasion requires, Alinsky’s forces will not refrain from spreading rumors about an antagonist or indulging in something that comes very close to blackmail.”

Young Hillary balked at Alinsky’s critics who said he was too extreme. In her college paper she professed, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound radical. His are the words used in our churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structures of our lives in order to realize them.” While she wrote, Hillary Rodham learned.

2 Comments »

Iraqis are increasingly the face being seen at the front of patrols and operations in Baghdad. American soldiers are, day by day, in an increasingly supportive role. And the American people, despite the constant bad news, think the mission is vital enough that we should continue doing it.

According to Investors Business Daily polling, “two-thirds believe victory in Iraq is important, while a third (35%) are “very hopeful” we can win and 23% are “somewhat hopeful” the U.S. can pull it off.” And:

According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, a majority of Americans recognize that the U.S. still has a lot of work left to do in Iraq. For example, the vast majority (82%) believe it’s important for the U.S. and coalition countries to continue training Iraqi security and police forces.

Beyond showing common sense, these findings also show that ordinary Americans are concerned about the security not only of our troops but also of Iraqis — people who, for the most part, they have little relation to or interaction with.

Furthermore, our poll also found that 75% of Americans believe the U.S. should continue to provide economic aid to Iraq. And 71% believe we should continue to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.

(more…)

3 Comments »

McQ, over at QandO, notices some opposition to Ahmadinejad’s economic and foreign policy. Tie that in with the defections and executions of members of Iran’s military and you have signs of an internal struggle on the horizon.

Perhaps, the pressure, rhetorical, economic, and diplomatic, we’ve kept up is having some effect???

I have little doubt that we are also clandestinely supporting dissident groups in Iran.

And I’m sure Hollywood putting out movies like “300″ which the Iranians feel is “part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture”, is certainly helping some too…

OK, maybe not, but wouldn’t it be nice if they were helping.

6 Comments »