Thursday, June 29, 2006
Have you ever watched a slasher movie? You know the kind;
Halloween, Friday the 13th, and so forth. Near the end of the
movie, the same kind of scene plays out in most of these flicks.
One of the characters, and it's usually a woman (hey don't blame
me, I don't write the things), escapes the house where all of
her friends were killed. She gets to the sidewalk, and what does
she do? She turns around and goes back inside the house. The
house where she found all her friends' mutilated bodies. The
house where the killer is. And you're screaming at the screen as
she does, "don't do that!!! What the hell are you
thinking?!?!" But it's ok, it's only a movie. Right?
Well, I found myself yelling those same lines at my computer
today as I read about the SCOTUS' decision in the Hamdan case.
Am I the only one who sees this as a war? Am I the only one who
believes our country is in danger (from something besides global
warming, that is)? I wish this was only a movie.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Are these people who are leaking information to the news media
leakers, or are they whistleblowers? I guess the answer depends
on whom you ask. Supporters of the Bush administration generally
refer to them as leakers. Administration opponents call them
whistleblowers. I'd like to find a less ideologically-based
answer; an answer based on a reasoned analysis of what these
people are doing.
So, what are they doing? They are people whose jobs give them
access to classified information. The information is classified
for national security reasons. We are currently at war. They
are giving the information to people who are not authorized to
have such information (the news media). They do so for personal
reasons (political reasons, seeeking "justice" etc.). The
information always winds up coming to the attention of our
enemies (through normal news outlets). The information benefits
Based on the information in the preceding paragraph, it would
appear that these folks are engaged in what we used to call
espionage. Consequently, they are neither leakers or
whistleblowers. They are traitors. Arrest 'em. Try 'em.
Execute 'em. That's what you do to traitors in wartime.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Well, the NY Times is at it again. Another story about a "secret"
government program designed to thwart terrorists. So what is it
with these clowns at the Times? Do they not grasp the reasoning
behind keeping the program secret? Do they think it's ok to
report on such programs because there's no way the terrorists
will see the story in the paper? Do they not want the terrorists
thwarted? Or have they just not given any thought to the
consequences of reporting such a story? It has to be one of
these. There's no other possible reason for doing what they've
been doing. Any way you look at it, it doesn't paint a very
flattering picture of the folks at our country's "most respected"
newspaper. Either they're thoughtless buffoons, grotesquely
stupid, or treasonous bastards. I don't know about you, but
I find myself leaning toward the third option.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of the
left whining that they're being called "unpatriotic" by the
GOP when they push their cut and run strategy -- if you can call
what they're suggesting a strategy. Aren't these the same folks
who are constantly telling us that Republicans want to poison the
air, poison the water, and bring back slavery? He who lives by
the hyperbolic sword, dies by it.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
the short story by Stephen Coonts posted on Military.com. It's well
worth your time to read it.
1. You want us to close Guantanamo. You have a fit when we send detainees back to their home countries (rendition). Exactly what are we supposed to do with the terrorists we capture overseas?
2. You constantly decry the fact that the upper classes aren't pulling their own weight in regard to serving in the military. To that end, when will you stop trying to block access to college campuses by military recruiters and ROTC programs?
3. You constantly criticize the president for not "getting bin Laden." When old binny finally gets whacked, are you going to downplay the significance of the event the way you have with Zarqawi's demise?
4. Why does John Murtha's service as a Marine in Vietnam give him absolute authority to comment on the war, while Oliver North's does not?
5. Why are our troops automatically presumed guilty of any war crime they are accused of, while Tookie Williams and Mumia Abu Jamal deserve the benefit of the doubt?
6. If our troops are really committing all these war crimes, why do you support them (as you claim to)?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
I caught an interview with former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke this morning on GMA. Clarke, of course, is the original expert at not getting bin Laden. He tried to downplay the role that Zarqawi played in the Iraqi insurgency. While I've never been a big fan of the mindset that "cutting the head off the snake" will put an end to terrorism, I do think that nailing some of the top dogs gives pause to the rest of their fellow travelers. Giving them pause robs them of the initiative. And that creates openings for us. I think Mr. Clarke misses that point. But then missing the point has always been his modus operandi.