Wednesday, August 30, 2006


I just saw Iraq war veteran and former Democratic candidate for Congress Paul Hackett on The O'Reilly Factor. Former CPA spokesman Dan Senor was the other guest. The subject of the segment was (ironically, as I soon saw) whether Donald Rumsfeld was out of line in referring to the antiwar crowd as appeasers in a recent speech to the American Legion.

Senor started, giving his reasoning for why it's important to see the job through in Iraq. When Hackett got his turn, he started off by attacking Senor personally. His first words were in German ("unter fuehrer," or something to that effect), apparently meant to imply that Senor is a Nazi. He then went on to point out that Senor didn't "fight" in Iraq, and he (Hackett) had. I was waiting for Hackett to say "I'm a war hero, and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!" Hackett spent most of his time attacking Senor. Apparently, the irony of spending most of a segment about name calling by name calling was lost on him. As was the irony of calling a Jewish guy a Nazi.

I had heard of Hackett before, but I didn't know much about him. Now I know all I need to. I know that it's a damn good thing that this walking turd lost his bid for Congress. We have enough of those in Washington already. If we're lucky, Mr. Hackett will stay out of politics and stick to chasing ambulances.

Update: Hotair has video of part of the O'Reilly segment. It's too bad they don't have the whole thing, but you can get a pretty good idea from the portion they do have. Poor John Kasich (the substitute host) wasn't up to the task of reining in Hackett. It's too bad O'Reilly wasn't hosting tonight. I'd like to have seen his reaction to Major Moonbat's tirade.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006


Frank Gaffney has an excellent column on today that examines the price of cutting and running in Iraq, titled Sounding Retreat

The defeatists typically offer two rationalizations for this course of action. The first contends that we need to retreat so as to compel the Iraqis to make the "tough decisions" about their own future that our presence and support allows them to postpone. 

Unfortunately, the decisions that will almost certainly flow from the perception -- let alone the reality -- that America is once again abandoning the Iraqi people will translate into the rise of another repressive authoritarian regime there, this time probably one closely aligned with Iran.  Such an outcome would not be good for freedom-loving people in Iraq and elsewhere, including here.

The defeatists' second rationale is even more disingenuous.  They complain bitterly that we do not have enough troops in Iraq to win.  Yet, with few exceptions, they are unwilling either to increase the deployment there or otherwise to build up our military to contend with current and future needs. 

This line fails to acknowledge that war is a come-as-you-are affair.  The United States faced the dangerous post-9/11 world with the armed forces and defense industrial base it had left following the 1990s, when many of today's defeatists cashed in yesterday's so-called "peace dividend."  It takes a relatively short time to dismantle large parts of our military's power-projection capabilities and infrastructure, and decades to reconstitute them.

(emphasis mine)

Gaffney's right.  We need to get our heads in the game and focus on defeating the insurgency in Iraq.  Call it "redeployment" if you want, but if we leave Iraq now, we are retreating in the face of the enemy.  Doing that will only embolden them.  Don't believe me?  Think this is just right wing hyperbole?  Let's consult an expert on al Qaeda.  Not some wannabe pundit from the media.  Most of those clowns didn't know al Qaeda from Al Bundy before 9/11.  I'm talking about the man who knows more about AQ than anyone:  Usama bin Laden.  From his 1996 fatwa:

 But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

(emphasis mine)

So tell me, how will adding Baghdad to that list make us any safer?  How will it weaken al Qaeda?  Bin Laden and his fellow travelers think the US is a paper tiger.  How will proving him right further our interests?  The short answer to each of these questions is:  it won't.  That being said, I have one more question:  whose interests are the rereatists trying to serve?  It's obviously not ours.

Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar Today!

Monday, August 28, 2006


Today's must-read is a column by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. at titled We cannot lose this fight.  Smith examines the basic rules of fighting and the reasons why cutting and running in Iraq is a bad idea.

Let�s look at the Vietnam War as an example of �game over� and without benefit to the quitter:

On April 25, 1975 � less than a week before the South Vietnamese capital fell to the Communists � a U.S. military delegation met with North Vietnamese officials in Hanoi to discuss the issue of Americans missing-in-action. At one point during the meeting, U.S. Army Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. turned to his North Vietnamese counterpart and said, �You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.�

The Vietnamese official thought for a moment, then responded. �That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.�

Now, we could argue all day about whether America�s involvement in Vietnam was right or wrong. But that too is irrelevant.

What is relevant for us in this war, is that cutting and running from Iraq will embolden the terrorists and fuel there recruiting efforts.  Of course, the cut and run crowd tells us that quite the oppositie is true.  But what do they know about the rules of war?  They're pacifists, for crying out loud.  And why in the blue hell should we take advice about fighting from pacifists?

Windows Live Spaces is here! It�s easy to create your own personal Web site.

Friday, August 25, 2006


I was surfing through the TV recently, when I ran across Don Imus on MSNBC interviewing Senator Joe Leiberman.  The interview covered predictable ground, but it contained one quote by Imus that's been bothering me for days.  He made the statement that Saddam Hussein's Iraq almost certainly had nothing to do with terrorism.  Leiberman said nothing to refute the assertion.

Now, this isn't the first time I've heard someone say this.  Hell, if you follow the news closely, you probably hear or read it at least once a week.  I have two problems with what Imus said.  Number one, it is demonstrably false.  Number two, it has become, by default, an accepted truth.  After having been repeated ad nauseum by "experts" in the media without being refuted, many people have come to accept it without question.

If you doubt my second assertion, you can test it for yourself.  Survey several of your friends and coworkers.  Choose people who aren't news junkies.  Ask them if Saddam Hussein had any links to terrorism.  I'f be willing to bet that a majority will answer, without hesitation, that he did not.  You see, "everyone knows this," therefore it's true.

Of course it isn't true.  Don't believe me?  Check out some of these posts from my archives.  They were all written in 2004, when I was deployed to Qatar for OEF/OIF.  I apologize if some of the links are dead.  I checked many of them earlier, and most are still active.

IRAQ AND TERRORISM looks at some of the terrorists that have taken refuge in Iraq, and one group that operated openly there.  It also looks at a posible link between Iraq and the 1993 WTC bombing.

WELL COLOR ME SURPRISED looks at Zarqawi's pre-invasion presence and activities in Iraq.

MORE EVIDENCE OF THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST looks at a possible AQ-Iraq connection.  It includes MSM reports from the 1990s that point to a possible connection.

IRAQ AND TERRORISM-PART 2 looks at a possible link between Iraq, Islamist extremists, and the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.

Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE

Wednesday, August 23, 2006


Economist Walter Williams is the author of today's must-read column:  Will the West Defend Itself.  Among other things, he addresses the problems we're facing in putting down the Iraqi insurgency.

We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.

Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?

Dr. Williams hit the nail right on the head.  The reason this war is dragging on, is that we've tried too hard to soft-pedal it in Iraq.  In WW II, the populations of Germany and Japan offered little resistance to occupation because they feared the devastation that would result from our response.  In the days before "smart" weapons and 24 hour news reporting about "disproportionate response," the bad guys were killed by wiping out the area they occupied.  Any civilians unfortunate enough to be nearby suffered the consequences.  Consequently, there was less motivation to resist, or even remain neutral and wait to see who came out on top.  The answer was obvious, the side with the biggest army would win.  And that wouldn't be the insurgents.

Our unwillingness to drop the hammer in Iraq, as humane as our motivations may be, will cost lives in the long run.  Cutting casualties in half may seem like a good thing in the short run, but if it lengthens the war, the final casualty tally may vastly exceed the number that may have resulted from an overwhelming first strike.  In the words of the late General Curtis E. LeMay:

"...if you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much and deliberately use too much.. you�ll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy's too."

Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!


I went to the drug store to buy some Sudafed a few days ago.  It was kept behind the pharmacy counter, and I had to show ID in order to buy it.  I had been through this process before at Walmart.  I knew that many stores were limiting access to OTC meds containing pseudoephedrine in order to combat the illicit methamphetamine trade.  I seriously question the efficacy of the tactic, but it's not the first anti-crime measure that I lacked faith in.

I asked the gal at the counter whether the limits placed on Sudafed were mandated by law, or were just company policy.  She told me that she thought it was mandated by state law.  When I got home, I decided to do a little research.  Much to my surprise, I discovered that it was a federal law that placed limits on Sudafed purchases.  And not just any federal law, it was a provision of the USA Patriot Act called the Combat Methamphetamine Act (CMA).

Key anti-meth provisions in the legislation include:

Restricts The Sale Of Necessary Ingredients To Make Methamphetamine.

Restricts the sale of medicines containing pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine (PPA) by placing them behind the counter, requiring purchasers to show identification, and limiting how much one person can buy to 9 grams a month and 3.6 grams in a single day.

Products must be sold in blister packs, each of which may contain a maximum of two dosage units.

The patriot Act?  How did that slip by without my noticing?  But that's not the most surprising part.  From a Reason Magazine article:

Ironically, some Democrats who objected to National Security Agency wiretaps in December actually championed provisions that step on privacy in the name of stopping meth. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), who voted for a filibuster after the revelation of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program in December, co-sponsored the CMA and helped insert it into the PATRIOT Act conference report after failed attempts to pass it through other legislation. The new provisions were stalled with the filibuster and temporary PATRIOT extensions, but now appear to be poised for passage with the compromise bill.

So, wiretapping international calls to/from numbers believed to be associated with terrorists is bad, but making you show ID and sign for OTC cold medicine is just fine.  And what is done with this information?  According to the Reason article:

 Once you sign for your medicine, your name becomes part of "a functional monitoring program" that would "allow law enforcement officials to track and ultimately prevent suspicious buying behavior of ingredients for meth production," according to a Feinstein press release describing a similar stand-alone bill.

A "functional monitoring program," eh?  Where are all the "civil libertarians" on this?  The sad part of this is that it looks like it's all for nothing, anyway.  From the National Drug Intelligence Center:

- Methamphetamine production appears to have increased sharply in Mexico since 2002. Mexican criminal groups are able to acquire bulk quantities of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine from China and other countries for use in Mexico-based laboratories.

- Methamphetamine smuggling from Mexico into the United States via Arizona appears to have increased sharply since 2001. More methamphetamine was seized at or between POEs in Arizona in 2003 than at or between POEs in California or Texas.



Get the new Windows Live Messenger!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006


No one wants to say it, (well, no one in a position of power, anyway) but much of the problem we are having with terrorism and war in the middle east stems from the culture of Arabs/Muslims.  Unencumbered by the need to avoid offending at all costs for the sake of holding onto power, Thomas Sowell comes right out and says what no politician would say.  And he nails it, dead on.

The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.

Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places.

Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.

That is precisely why we need to vanquish our foes in the GWoT.  These extremists are fanatics with a backwards-ass world view.  Their delusions of superiority, coupled with a reality that gives lie to the delusions, has resulted in some sort of mass mental disorder.  No one in his right mind would suggest trusting a maniac to deal in good faith.  So why is it so popular amongst the "intelligentsia" to suggest we rely on diplomacy to protect us from several million maniacs?

All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.� Get a free 90-day trial!

Monday, August 21, 2006


Check out Joel Mowbray's column about the manipulation of the western news media in the middle east.

To get an idea the lengths to which Palestinians have gone to manufacture sympathy for them and outrage against the Jewish state, consider a production from April 28, 2002. During a funeral procession, the stretcher carrying the �victim� was dropped. Oops. No problem, though, as the �victim� sprung up quickly and was able to shake it off.

The only reason the public learned of the funny, phony funeral was because it was captured on video by an Israeli drone. Given that almost everything done by the Palestinian propaganda machine is for the media, why did it only come out after the Israeli government released its grainy footage? Good thing for the Palestinians, though, that productions for Western consumption typically have gone much smoother.

Examples abound of Western reporters being duped or threatened. In April 2002, Israel Defense Forces raided the Jenin refugee camp, a known terrorist breeding ground and safe haven. Palestinians immediately accused the Jewish state of systematically committing war crimes, and the buzzword soon tossed about by the Western press was �massacre.�

That no massacre actually occurred�not even the United Nations, the Palestinians� best friend, found any evidence to suggest one had�received only a fraction of the earlier, largely uncritical reporting. Ditto for the incident this June where many family members died on a beach in northern Gaza. Originally covered as an Israeli shelling of innocent Palestinians, it turned out that Israel almost certainly played no role in the tragedy. The media mea culpa, though, was essentially mute.

This stuff has been going on for years.  The recent Reuters photo scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.  There's an old expression that goes "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  These folks have been fooling us for years.  Shame on us.  And our sorry-ass news media.

Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!

Friday, August 18, 2006


I was over at Blackfive when I saw this post by Uncle Jimbo.  It examines a column by a former federal prosecutor (under Clinton), who also served as a legal advisor to the National Security Council.  The column rips apart Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor's recent ruling against the terrorist surveillance program.  Apparently, Judge Diggs-Taylor either willfully ignored the statutory and case law that applies to the program, or she lacks even a remote understanding of said law.  My money's on willfull ignorance.  What do you think?

All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.� Get a free 90-day trial!

Thursday, August 17, 2006


So, it's illegal for the government to search electronic signals entering the country from overseas. Ships entering the country can be searched. Cargo containers, trucks, airplanes, and even your grandmother's luggage can all be searched as they enter the country. But not electronic signals. More 19th century reasoning applied to a 21st century problem.

Many people are wondering how this kind of thing can happen while we're at war. The sad truth is that we aren't at war. Our enemy is at war with us, but we're still standing at square one without a clue. We'd better get a clue soon. Unfortunately, I think it'll take another large attack (or two) before we finally get it.

Another problem is that we're dealing with judges here. Judges are people who are used to wielding power over people's lives without having to suffer any consequences for their bad decisions. They can't be sued, and (in the case of federal judges) they can't be fired.

If there is another attack, I think we need to take a page out of the ACLU's book and use their own tactics against them: shop for a sympathetic judge and sue the ACLU and the parties that brought the law suit that resulted in this idiotic decision.

And it's time to consider term limits for federal judges. A lifetime appointment? Gimme a break! Fidel Castro serves for life. So does Kim Jong Il. As did Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung. Starting to see a pattern here? Make their terms ten years. Twelve, if ten's too short for you. But a lifetime appointment to a position that wields that much power has no place in a democratic republic.


Western liberals tell us we should be more tolerant of Muslims.  Too bad the Muslims aren't inclined to return the favor.

20 arrested at Saudi gay wedding 

Riyadh - Saudi authorities arrested 20 young men after raiding a suspected gay wedding in the southern town of Jizan, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The detainees, who were among some 400 men attending "the wedding party of two men" on Tuesday, had been "emulating women," the Al-Watan paper said.

In all, some 250 people were detained in the police raid on the party but the rest were later released.

Police had "arrested the wanted people and released those who have nothing to do with the matter," the paper quoted a police commander as saying.

Some guests were also seen chewing qat, an illegal narcotic widely used in neighbouring Yemen, on a hill above the square where the party was being held, Al-Watan said.

 Homosexuality is illegal in conservative Saudi Arabia, which metes out strict punishments based on sharia, or Islamic law

(emphasis mine)

Make no mistake, there'll be no room for gay "marriage" and other liberal "rights" (like abortion on demand) in the Caliphate.

Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search

Wednesday, August 16, 2006


I read two great columns today, but computer problems prevented me from posting about them earlier. Both take a good look at the nature of war and how we view it.

Thomas Sowell looks at the bloody legacy of the peace movement.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Daniel Pipes examines a strange reversal in the way parties at war behave.
All these media activities stem from a perception that taking casualties and looking victimized helps one’s standing in the war. Adnan Hajj’s distortions, for example, were calculated to injure Israel’s image, thereby manufacturing internal dissent, diminishing the country’s international standing, and generating pressure on the government to stop its attacks in Lebanon.

But this phenomenon of each side parading its pain and loss inverts the historic order, whereby each side wants to intimidate the enemy by appearing ferocious, relentless, and victorious. In World War II, for instance, the U.S. Office of War Information prohibited the publication of films or photographs showing dead American soldiers for the first two years of fighting, and then only slightly relented. Meanwhile, its Bureau of Motion Pictures produced movies like “Our Enemy – The Japanese,” showing dead bodies of Japanese and scenes of Japanese deprivation.

Proclaiming one’s prowess and denigrating the enemy’s has been the norm through millennia of Egyptian wall paintings, Greek vases, Arabic poetry, Chinese drawings, English ballads, and Russian theater. Why have combatants (and their media allies) now reversed this age-old and universal pattern, downplaying their own prowess and promoting the enemy’s?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006


It's official.  This blog is now the number 1 result on a Google search for Lebanese prostitute phone numbers.  And here I'd always thought I'd never be number 1 at anything.


Get the new Windows Live Messenger!

Monday, August 14, 2006


Check out the interview with journalist and terrorism expert Steven Emerson at Planet Jackson Hole.  My choice for the best question, and the most spot-on answer:

PJH: Would distancing ourselves from Israel remove the bull's-eye from the United States? Would it ensure our country any kind of protection from attack?

SE: No, it would not make a difference at all. It would only whet the appetite further. Fundamentalists would say, "See, we can force the U.S. policy. Let's force them out of Iraq. Let's force them out of Qatar. Let's start making other demands." If Israel were to disappear tomorrow and was replaced by a fundamentalist Islamic state they would only use that state as a springboard to carry out acts of terrorism against other countries. Whether Israel exists or not, radical Islam will exist.

I'm sure the pro-Palestinian segment of the antiwar left and the blame-America-first crowd would disagree.  But who cares?  They're wrong on most things anyway.

Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search


This story from USA Today is over a year old, but it didn't get a lot of play.  I thought it might be worth linking to on the chance that a lot of folks may have missed it.

Intelligence teams track evolution of enemy bombs

SALMAN PAK, Iraq � The engine sitting upright on the tarmac, about 10 yards from the crater, gets the once-over from Sgt. 1st Class Carlos Tyson. It's the largest piece of an Opel sedan that a couple of hours earlier exploded into shreds that tore through nearby cars and people in this enclave southeast of Baghdad.

Over in the roadside dust, some bits of the bomber, including a foot, turn up. "We went to one and we got a hand, so we could fingerprint it," Tyson says. In this case, however, the number on the engine might be the most useful clue.

Tyson, 32, is part of a new team, one of six in Iraq, that Army intelligence has sent to look at roadside and car bombs in a different way. "We try to look at it the way the terrorist looks at it," he says.

The Weapons Intelligence Team is trying to help the military keep up with the constantly changing insurgent tactics and techniques.

The Weapons Intelligence Teams are basically like crime scene investigators, who employ forensic analysis techniques to track the roadside bombers in Iraq.  They can establish patterns and techniques used by various groups and even individuals, the way the police in this country track the M.O.s of criminals. 

The Weapons Intel Teams are an example of the kind of innovation that makes our military the best in the world.

Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search


OK, so let me get this straight.  According to the Democrats, the war in Iraq actually makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.  It distracts us from the real goal of eradicating al Qaeda, and acts as a recruitment tool for future jihadis.

On the subject of homeland security, the Bush administration has been a miserable failure.  In spite of the PR, our borders, ports, airways, and infrastructure are no more secure than they were on September 10, 2001. 

So, my question is this:  why, as we approach the 5th anniversary of 9/11, have we not been attacked?  What has kept the terrorists from striking us at home?  The war in Iraq has made them angry.  And it has helped them recruit.  So, where are they?  Why haven't they hit us already?  Could it be an act of God.  Oh, wait.  Protecting us from terrorism is a government responsibility, and the courts kicked God out of the government, so it can't be that.  So what's the deal?  Somebody please clue me in here.

Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar Today!

Wednesday, August 09, 2006


Watergate "whistleblower," and hero to the left (it's all in the people you blow the whistle on) John Dean is unhappy with the Bush administration. Big surprise. His latest book, titled Conservatives Without Conscience, asserts that the Bush administration is authoritian in nature, and that the country may soon be headed toward fascism.

I don't know about you, but I find it ironic in the extreme that an unrepentant convicted felon, who saved his own sorry butt by ratting out his co-conspirators, is accusing anyone of lacking conscience. But was Dean just another conspirator? One school of thought has it that he was the driving force behind the watergate break-in.
Secret Agenda , by Jim Hougan, and Silent Coup , by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, make a compelling case for the theory that Watergate didn't necessarily proceed from the top of the organization chart down.

According to Silent Coup, the key to the Watergate mystery was presidential counsel John Dean, a sort of conspiracy of one. This is a controversial recasting of Dean, whom history records as a peripheral player who turned whistle-blower and fingered the ostensible ringmasters in the scandal: ex-attorney general John Mitchell, chief of staff H. R. Haldeman, domestic affairs adviser John Erlichman and, of course, Nixon.

So what was Dean's agenda? Nothing so dull as tapping phones or scouring files for political dirt. For, according to Silent Coup and Secret Agenda, the Holy Grail of Watergate was sex! In Secret Agenda, Hougan suggests that the real target of the break-ins was a secret file featuring names, phone numbers, and perhaps even glossy pictures of prostitutes. At the time of the break-ins, a high-priced call-girl ring had been operating out of the posh Columbia Plaza apartment building a few blocks away from the Watergate complex.

According to Phillip Bailley, a young lawyer-pimp connected to that prostitution ring, a staffer at DNC headquarters had been arranging liaisons between the prostitutes and Democratic bigwigs. Apparently, at the DNC offices there was a file containing pictures and vital stats of the prostitutes, for marketing purposes.

It may have been Bailley's arrest for sexual pandering that triggered the fateful second Watergate break-in. As Colodny and Gettlin reveal, John Dean took a special interest in Bailley's well-publicized arrest. In a highly irregular and apparently unauthorized move, the presidential counsel took it upon himself to summon the federal prosecutor on the Bailley case to his office for a personal debriefing. It was then that Dean got a peek at important evidence: Bailley's address books.

According to Colodny and Gettlin, who build on Hougan's case, Dean's then-fiancée, Maureen Biner, was a friend and roommate of the prostitution ring's madam. What's more, Colodny and Gellin confirmed that Maurren "Mo" Biner's name, phone number, and nickname, "Clout" (after all, she was about to marry the president's counsel), appeared in Bailley's confiscated address books. But Bailley's little black books also listed the girls from the Columbia Plaza ring.

Silent Coup's hypothesis? That with the press and FBI sniffing at the exposed call-girl ring, Dean had his own embarrassing, albeit tangential, connection to the D.C. strumpets. Consequently, he took it upon himself to dispatch the burglars to the Watergate on a fishing expedition. (Silent Coup is oddly silent on whether or not the DNC kept a dossier on "Clout.")

According to Colodny and Gettlin, then, the real motive behind the Watergate break-ins was considerably less conspiratorial (but a lot more steamy) than presidentially authorized blackmail or political counterintelligence. Dean wanted to know what was in the DNC's secret hooker files.


I've read Silent Coup. It's an interesting theory, and the authors have unearthed some facts that went ignored by the lamestream media. If their theory is right, the left has been fawning over the man who is really the kingpin of the mac-daddy of all "right-wing conspiracies." More irony. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006


I ran across a couple of good columns at Both columns address the liberal/antiwar mindset.

The Liberal Mindset, by Jim Clonts, examines the apparent lack of urgency with which address the GWoT.
Why does the modern liberal fail to recognize, or worse, discount the threat of Islamic-Fascism? My first instinct was to assume their words and actions were purely political, intended to weaken the Bush Administration. Bush-hating is an essential and popular element of modern liberalism; however, I'm beginning to believe it runs much deeper than this. When Senator Joe Lieberman, a very liberal Democrat, is ostracized by his party for his stand on the war in Iraq, I begin to sense it's not just political. They do not recognize the threat militant Islam represents. Listening to a Democratic stump speech one would think the United States poses a far greater threat to world peace. Some Democratic members of Congress have gone so far as to voice this opinion. This is not partisan politics. They seem to really believe this.

Why do they believe this? Their view is a manifestation of their arrogance, which has been fostered from living in the most secure, wealthiest, and powerful republic in the history of man. It is easy to feel secure in America. We live in a very liberal society, one in which our system of government does not prevent or punish free expression. We do not worry about secret police whisking away a family member in the dark of night for comments critical of the government. When our military deploys our high-technology weapons against an enemy, the results are spectacularly disproportionate.

Americans have not had to worry about national survival since Grant squared off against Lee. Our vast military power and unbridled capitalist economy has created, in the mind of the modern liberal, the notion that we are an all-powerful bully, undeserving of our might, our wealth and our role in the world. They assume the power of our nation has given the militant Islamists justified reason to hate us. America is the oppressor, and the terrorist a victim simply fighting back the only way he knows how. The victim mentality of the liberal has been extended to those who wish destruction upon us.

Democratic Defeatism, by Frank Gaffney, looks at the effect that antiwar rhetoric has on the war effort.
There is a certain irony here. Arguably, whatever mistakes Don Rumsfeld might have made -- or were made by others on his watch -- that are contributing to the present violence in Iraq pale by comparison with the effect Democratic defeatism is having on the so-called "insurgents."

Think about it: Our Islamofascist enemies and their allies are convinced that they can defeat us politically. The means by which they seek to do that is by producing a steady stream of bloodletting and mayhem. The results are then incessantly beamed into American living rooms by mainstream media transparently hostile to President Bush and his Iraq campaign.

Then, Democratic critics (and, in fairness, a few Republican politicians -- like Sen. Chuck Hagel -- who have figured out that it is more fun, or at least more conducive to favorable press reviews, to talk and occasionally vote like an anti-Bush Democrat) seize upon the suicide bombings in Iraq as proof that success there is impossible. Therefore, they solemnly intone, we should stop wasting lives and treasure trying to achieve it.

It is hard to imagine a greater incentive to more attacks against Iraqi civilians, security personnel, government officials and their families -- and, yes, against our own and other Coalition forces. Call it the "cycle of violence."

Monday, August 07, 2006


Today I find myself contemplating the oxymoron. For those of you with a limited vocabulary, or who are too lazy to open a dictionary, an oxymoron is a contradiction in terms. Here are some of my favorites:

-United Nations
-Middle East Peace
-Lebanese government
-The Democratic strategy for waging the war on terrorism
-Open-minded liberal
-The world community
-U.N. resolution
-Objective journalism

What's your favorite oxymoron?

Thursday, August 03, 2006


With this guy on the job, peace in the Middle East is practically a done deal.
Attending a summit of Muslim nations in Malaysia, Iran's president said: "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."

He also urged that "any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border".

With regard to the idea of deploying an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, he said: "The peace and security of Lebanon should be settled by the Lebanese people and government. The presence of foreign troops is unacceptable, unless they are under UN command.

The Israeli's are supposed to negotiate with these people? Where's the motivation to sign a ceasefire with Hezbollah? The people pulling Hezbo's strings want Israel wiped off the map. All a ceasefire would do is give them a chance to rearm for another attack on Israel.

Ahmadinejad's insistence on a U.N. force is as much proof as you need of intent. If you were going to mount another attack, you'd want to minimize obstacles. If there's anything history has taught us, it's that the U.N. has been useless at preventing Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Our problems in the Middle east have only just begun.


This little bit of news isn't encouraging:
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appear to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" -- the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet -- quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

I've suspected it for some time, and this story confirms it. Stupid is contagious. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006


I saw this Washington Post story linked on The Drudge Report. An interesting turn of events to say the least.
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad
accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha,
Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court
in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha
(D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made
public comments about the incident earlier this

Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in
courtpapers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's
reputation by telling news organizations in May
that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb
killed one of its members and that the troops
"killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha
also said repeatedly that the incident was covered

Murtha argued that the questionable deaths of 24
civilians were indicative of the difficulties and
overpowering stress that U.S. troops are facing.
The congressman, a former Marine, has been a leading
advocate for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post,
the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after
being briefed by Defense Department officials who
"deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false
information." Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing
for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that
Murtha made the comments outside of his official
scope as a congressman.


As much as I hate the overuse of the civil court system in this country, I find myself liking the idea of suing these loudmouths in politics and the media who think they can get away with saying whatever they want. I hope Wuterich wins his suit. And I hope other lawsuits follow. Then someone should take aim at these loopy 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Accusing people of heinous crimes without proof is not "freedom of speech," it's defamation.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter