Wednesday, July 20, 2005


The London bombings took place during my blogging hiatus, but some of the analysis (to use the term loosely) struck me as really asinine. To be specific, this BS about the "evolving" global insurgency misses the mark completely. If we're talking about evolving as in changing, then yes, it is evolving. But if the point is that AQ is growing or becoming more dangerous, then these "experts" aren't paying attention. Let's cast aside the hyperbole and look at the math. Math doesn't lie.

September 11, 2001: Terrorists hijack four commercial airliners simultaneously and crash three of theM into buildings in NYC and DC. Death toll: approximately 3000.

October 12, 2002: Terrorists set off two bombs -- a backpack bomb, and a more powerful car bomb -- at a resort on Bali in Indonesia. Many Australians and Britons were at the resort. Death toll: 202.

March 11, 2004: Terrorists set off multiple bombs on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain. Death toll: 191.

July 7, 2005: Terrorists set off four bombs in London's mass transit system. Death toll: 52.

Let's look at the numbers again: 3000, 202, 191, 52. Am I wrong, or are they going down? I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering caused by these attacks, but there is no denying that the attacks are becoming less destructive. According to the people who taught me about how wars are fought, you're in trouble when you lose your ability to do damage to the enemy. But what do I know, I'm not an "expert."

For a look at what a real expert has to say about the Global War on Terrorism, check out Lt. Col (Ret) Gordon Cucullu's column in Frontpage Magazine.
Before the dust had settled in the London subways and the wounded evacuated much was already being made by breathless commentators about the "increasing sophistication" and technical expertise of the terrorist killers. These kind of coordinated attacks, we were assured, presuppose a highly intelligent, highly skilled group of terrorists. The implication is that we are losing ground and are increasingly helpless in the face of such professional competence. We have been forced into a reactive mode to an invincible terrorist threat. Well, that's simply not the case.

In fact, to judge by the sophistication levels of terrorist attacks they reached the pinnacle with the simultaneous hijacking of airliners and converting them into homicide missiles on September 11, 2001. The terrorists have been unable to equal that attack and since then the degree and sophistication of terrorist offensives have declined. Frankly, it is no great shakes for a jihadist revolutionary movement with the kind of funding al Qaeda receives from sheiks in Saudi Arabia and mullahs in Iran to blow up a few bombs individually or simultaneously. It does not take loads of sophistication to pack a car with explosives, drive it to a target, and close an electrical circuit. Nor can it be anything other than sheer desperation to rely on terrorists who kill themselves along with their victims. Use of suicide bombers is a strategy of self-imposed attrition that can only result in organizational self destruction. Horrific, yes; advanced, no.

(emphasis mine)

Check out the rest of Lt. Col. Cucullu's column. With years of military experience, including time in Vietnam fighting real-live insurgents, I'd dare say that he knows more about unconventional warfare than the entire editorial board of the New York Times combined.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005


President Bush has named his nominee for the Supreme Court Seat being vacated by the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
WASHINGTON — President Bush has picked Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, his name has been floated for months as a possible Bush selection for the high court.

Bush announced the nomination to the American public at 9 p.m. EDT — with Roberts appearing alongside the president.

Senators Leahy and Schumer responded immediately after. It's tough to say how hard the battle over this nomination is going to be. One thing is certain, Chuckie Scummer will lead the charge against. He couldn't even wait for Leahy to finish his introduction before he went into his spiel.

If I was a bettin' man, I'd bet that it'll get nasty. Having the Scum-meister out front is a virtual guarantee of that. I really dislike that guy. He's actually gotten more obnoxious since he was reelected. I guess that's what carrying 71% of the popular vote will do to an already arrogant politician (is that redundant?). Of course he did run practically unopposed. But that's a whole different post.

Monday, July 18, 2005


Once upon a time, the folks in the mainstream media -- those would be the "real" journalists -- just loved a whistleblower. A high ranking government official who blew the whistle on less than ethical actions by...oh, say...a CIA official, would be hailed as a hero. As we now know (didn't we always know this anyway?), that doesn't apply when the whistleblower is a Republican, and the CIA employee is trying to advance an anti-Republican agenda. (Note: I was going to call it a pro-Democrat agenda, but I'd be hard pressed to explain what Democrats are in favor of these days, besides sticking it to Republicans)

Check out this site for a little background on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This law was passed in response to the actions of former CIA Officer Philip Agee. Agee is believed to have blown the cover of CIA station chief in Athens Richard Welch, which resulted in Welch's assassination in 1975. Agee fled to Cuba, where he has lived under the protection of Fidel Castro. Ironically, Agee has been a darling of the left for decades for doing what the media has accused Karl Rove of. If you can stomach it, do a Google web search for Philip Agee. You'll find many of the sites about him to be of a positive nature. Nice double standard. Further proof that you have to be a hypocrite to be a lefty.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005


I got tagged with a meme by Bloodspite last week. Being up to my eyeballs in work, I just got around to it this week. If you're interested, you can read it here.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter