SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

I'd hoped to post something profound today, but what can I say that hasn't already been said about 9/11?  The only thing that comes to mind is I fear that, inspite of all the rhetoric, we've forgotten that day.  Not the details, the timelines, and the speeches; we've forgotten how it felt to be attacked that day, and we've slipped back into our old complacent ways.  I'm going to take some time to search up some pictures and videos from 9/11/01, and reflect on how I felt that day.  If you're planning to do the same, this video might be a good place to start.

---

Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo

9-11 5th ANNIVARSARY REMEMBRANCE-REUNION

Note: This post will remain at the top for a few days. Newer posts can be found below


I got word from some folks down at Tyndall AFB in Florida that there will be a ceremony commemorating the 5th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The ceremony begins at 9:00 AM on Septmeber 11th in Flag Park on Tyndall AFB. It will be followed by a memorial brunch in the Enlisted Club at 10:00AM. If you are interested in attending, check out the event website here.


Tyndall AFB is the home of 1st Air Force and the Continental US NORAD Region (CONR). CONR/1st AF is responsible for providing the air component of Operation Noble Eagle, the military's homeland defense operation. If you want to learn more about their mission, check out the 1st Air Force website.

TWINKLE TWINKLE LITTLE STAR

Now here's a shocker.  A recent study supports the belief that celebrities are more narcissistic than the average person.  From Forbes:

In case anyone needed proof, a new study supports the widely held perception: Celebrities are more in love with themselves than the average person.

That's the conclusion drawn by Drew Pinsky and S. Mark Young of the University of Southern California, whose study of 200 celebrities will appear in the Journal of Research in Personality.

It's not the entertainment industry that turns stars into narcissists, the study found. Rather, it suggests, the self-adoring seek jobs in show business.

The study, whose subjects were all guests on Pinsky's sex-advice radio show - not a place for shrinking violets - found that reality TV stars were the most narcissistic of all celebrities. Female stars were also more likely than their male counterparts to exhibit narcissistic traits.

Can you believe it?  That little bit of information caught me totally off guard.  I always thought that big stars are just like the rest of us.  Except smarter.  And better looking.  And more compassionate.

In related news, Vanity Fair has the exclusive on Tom and Katie's baby.

---

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

NEW YORK POLITICS: A WHITE KNIGHT ON A WHITE HORSE(?)

If you live in New York, you've probably seen Eliot Spitzer's campaign commercials. And if you've seen them, you know that the State's Attorney General, and Democratic candidate for Governor, is on a mission to clean up New York. The commercials leave no doubt that the day Spitzer takes office will signal the dawn of a new era for the Empire State. We will return to the glory days of yesteryear under the leadership of a man of unquestionable ethics. Yeah, right.

High-flying Spitzer hits ethical turbulence

Eliot Spitzer is running for governor as the best guy to clean up Albany, including its corrupt "pay-to-play" system of shaking down interest groups for campaign donations and other goodies.

So what the heck is he doing jetting around on the Gulfstream of a Wyoming businessman who wants to run race tracks and build casinos in New York?

It's one thing for Spitzer to pile up money and endorsements from insiders. Fish gotta swim, pols gotta grub for cash.

But accepting deeply discounted air travel from a gambling mogul doing lots of business with state government - as Spitzer and an aide did in May - is too cozy for comfort. The would-be Sheriff of Albany should be keeping a safe distance from favor seekers, not putting himself in a position where he owes them anything.

Spitzer was on a two-day fund-raising swing out West and needed to get from Phoenix to Tucson to Cincinnati and back to New York in a hurry. Casino developer Richard Fields got wind of his predicament and offered the use of his corporate jet. Thanks to him, Spitzer and his aide could meet their tight schedule, skip the long check-in lines and fly in style.

The offer practically screamed "conflict of interest." Fields is part of a group bidding to take over the Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga horse tracks. He also represents developers working with the Oneida Indians of Wisconsin to build a casino in the Catskills. Both issues will fall squarely on Spitzer's plate if he wins in November.

So this happened in May? And we're just hearing about it now? Had Spitzer been a Republican, I suspect that the story would've hit the papers before the private jet landed in Cincinnati. And speaking of Cincinnati (and Phoenix, and Tucson), what was Spitzer doing fundraising in Ohio and Arizona? Is our next Governor going to be bought and paid for by out-of-state interests? If he's going to run as the reform candidate, maybe Mr. Spitzer should read his own website:

We need to end the pay-to-play culture in Albany by making it against the law for those who do business with the state to give gifts to state employees or to donate to candidates for state office. And to level the playing field in our election process, we must adopt robust campaign finance reforms, including public financing for campaigns and independent, non-partisan redistricting reform.

Yeah, right.

MONEY QUOTE OF THE WEEK

From the Washington Post website:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out --that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

(emphasis mine)

So, the WaPO finally "get's" the whole Wilson-Plame affair. Better late than never, I guess.

h/t: Drudge

PAUL HACKETT (UPDATED)

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.

A MESSAGE FOR THE CUT AND RUN CROWD

Frank Gaffney has an excellent column on Military.com 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!

FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION

Today's must-read is a column by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. at Townhall.com 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.

NO CONNECTION?

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

THE WILL TO WIN

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!

NOW HERE'S AN INVASION OF PRIVACY

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!

DEAD ON

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!

MANIPULATING THE MEDIA

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!

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE TSP RULING

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!

APPARENTLY, THE CONSTITUTION IS A SUICIDE PACT

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.

TOLERATE THIS!

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

WAR AND PEACE

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?

A MAJOR MILESTONE(?)

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!

INTERVIEW WITH STEVEN EMERSON

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

CSI: BAGHDAD

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

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

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

MORE VULNERABLE?

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!

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY...

is my friend.

AL GORE'S A HYPOCRITE?

Shocking!

WHY WON'T THIS GUY JUST GO AWAY?

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.

Link

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.

A COUPLE OF GOOD READS

I ran across a couple of good columns at Military.com. 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."

EVEN BETTER THAN A REGULAR MORON!

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?

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A STATESMAN!

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.

MY WORST FEARS ARE CONFIRMED

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.

TIME TO OPEN UP A NEW FRONT

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
year.

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
up.

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.

Link

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.

THE PASSION OF THE MOVIE STAR

Poor Mel Gibson. He couldn't just get a DUI, he had to get an anti-semitic DUI:

(CNSNews.com) - Actor and director Mel Gibson, arrested for drunken driving in Malibu on Friday, apologized over the weekend for the ugly things he said about Jews when police stopped him.

But his apology has not convinced the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which three years ago warned that Gibson was "seriously infected" with anti-Semitic views.

In a statement issued on Saturday, Gibson apologized for saying "despicable things" during his arrest that he "does not believe to be true."

According to press reports, Gibson was abusive to the arresting officer, telling him that "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and asking the officer is he was a (bleeping) Jew.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient. It's not a proper apology because it does not go to the essence of his bigotry and his anti-Semitism."

If only Mel understood the rules of anti-semitism, he wouldn't be in so much hot water. To avoid future controversy, he should consider doing the following:

-Use code words like "neocon" and "zionist" instead of referring to "Jews"
-Convert to Islam
-Become a French citizen
-Start hanging around with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
-Refrain from discussing Jews unless Cindy Sheehan is present
-Get a job at the U.N.
-Always be sure to mention the Palestinians and their "plight" when ranting about Jews

If he follows the suggestions above, accusations of anti-semitism will be few and far between.

If those suggestions are too much effort, he can always give a few million dollars to Moveon.org. Then he'll have a free pass to blame the Jews for anything he wants.

TRAINING FOR "WAR CRIMINALS"

The New York Air National Guard's 174th Fighter Wing is ramping up for a deployment in support of the GWoT. In preparation for the deployment, they're practicing on ranges at Ft. Drum, NY.

Controllers in the tower use TV's, microphones and sensors to score the accuracy of the pilots. Part of the training is to help soldiers identify what sites are of historical significance.

This kind of training is essential for soldiers headed to the Middle East.

"It's extremely unique, it's the only place with most of the capabilities in the whole Northeast, really the east coast north of Florida. There's some ranges bigger down in Florida, but north of Florida and east of the Mississippi we're pretty much the best capabilities out there," said Adirondack Range Operations Officer Lt. Col. Fred Tomaselli.

As part of their training, a simulated archaeological ruin and Muslim cemetary have been built so pilots can identify them and avoid them as targets.

(emphasis mine)

Kind of an odd way to train for a military that supposedly has no regard for the Laws of Armed Conflict, don't you think? Which of our adversaries, or potential adversaries, do you think spend time training to avoid hitting inappropriate targets? Al Qaeda? The Taliban? Iran? North Korea? How about "none of the above?"

You can read the rest of the story and watch the video from News10 Now here.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER?

Senate Democrats are taking Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to task over his comments about the Israel-Hezbollah situation. From CNN:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader's comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki's speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

Apparently, the Senate's leading Democrats have zero tolerance for Arab politicians who fail to recognize Israel's right to exist. Better late than never, I guess.

IF ALL OF THE RA1NDR0PS WERE LEM0N DR0PS AND GUM DR0PS...

"If I was president this wouldn't have happened."

-John Kerry, referring to the current situation in Lebanon and Israel.

A Kerry presidency would also mean:
-It would never rain on weekends
-Every day would be Sunday
-Everyone would win the lottery
-Pizza would be fat free
-No more computer viruses
-The class dork can date the homecoming queen (yes, even Al Gore would have a shot)
-Global warming would end
-All taxes would be abolished (except on those greedy "rich" people)
-All entitlements would triple
-The federal budget would be balanced

and, most importantly:
-The French would love us

Did I miss anything?

ISRAEL UNDER ATTACK

Israel is under attack. But who is attacking them? Is it a gang of criminals? Should they go to the world court and file a criminal complaint? Or a lawsuit? Hardly. This isn't about crime, this is war. Israel is under attack by Iran. From GlobalSecurity.org:

The Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is responsible for extraterritorial operations, including terrorist operations. A primary focus for the Qods Force is training Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Currently, the Qods Force conducts training activities in Iran and in Sudan. The Qods Force is also responsible for gathering information required for targeting and attack planning. The Pasdaran has contacts with underground movements in the Gulf region, and Pasdaran members are assigned to Iranian diplomatic missions, where, in the course of routine intelligence activities they monitor dissidents. Pasdaran influence has been particularly important in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

The largest branch of Pasdaran foreign operations consists of approximately 12,000 Arabic speaking Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, Lebanese shi’ites and North Africans who trained in Iran or received training in Afghanistan during the Afghan war years. Presently these foreign operatives receive training in Iran, Sudan and Lebanon, and include the Hizballah ["Party of Allah"] intelligence, logistics and operational units in Lebanon [Hizballah is primarily a social and political rather than military organization]. The second largest Pasdaran foreign operations relates to the Kurds (particularly Iraqi Kurds), while the third largest relates to the Kashmiri’s, the Balouchi’s and the Afghans. The Pasdaran has also supported the establishment of Hizballah branches in Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Palestine, and the Islamic Jihad in many other Moslem countries including Egypt, Turkey, Chechnya and in Caucasia. Hizballah has been implicated in the counterfeiting of U.S. dollars and European currencies, both to finance its operations and to disrupt Western economies by impairing international trade and tourism.

The Office of Liberation Movements has established a Gulf Section tasked with forming a Gulf Battalion as part of the Jerusalem Forces. In April 1995 a number of international organizations linked to international terrorism -- including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, and the Kurdistan Workers' Party -- were reported to have met in Beirut with representatives of the Iraqi Da'wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, Hizballah, Iran's "Office of Liberation Movements," and Iran's Guardians of the Revolution. Tehran's objective was to destabilize Arab Gulf states by supporting fundamentalists with military, financial, and logistical support. Members of these and other organizations receive military training at a Guardians of the Revolution facility some 100 kilometers south of Tehran. A variety of of training courses are conducted at the facility for fundamentalists from the Gulf states, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Lebanon, including naval operations, mines, and diving operations in a special camp near the Orontes River.

The State Department asserts that Iran supports the Lebanese Hizballah, as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups labeled as foreign terrorist organizations that are active in Israel.

Hizballah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qasim appeared to confirm the importance of Iran to his organization during a late-July ceremony in the town of Tulin, when he said "We must stand side by side against the Israeli enemy, because Lebanon's strength is part of Syria's strength, and Iran's support and [Hizballah's] support for Palestine are an honor for us."

(emphasis mine)

Hizballah is nothing more than a hand puppet for Iran. The mullahs are waging war against Israel by proxy. Just like they are waging war against the coalition in Iraq through their support of insurgent groups. If you want to shut down Hizballah and other IGRC-backed terrorist groups, you need to shut down Iran. I'm not talking about invasion. Or occupation. I'm talking about knocking down the Iranian theocracy. Let the Iranian people figure out how to run their country in the post-mullah era. Will chaos ensue? Probably. But better a chaotic Iran than an orderly Iran spreading chaos throughout the world.

SEE YOU IN COURT. NOT!!!!

Well, well, well. So Valerie "Double-O Soccer Mom" Plame and Joe "My 15 Minutes of Fame are NOT Up Yet" Wilson are going to sue, are they? Well isn't that special? I guess Cheney, Rove, and Libby are all shaking in their boots.

Look for this case to go nowhere. Not because the Special Prosecutor found no evidence of leaking. Not because Plame's position didn't meet the criteria for an "undercover" job. And not because Bob Novak says that he saw no evidence of a smear campaign. No, this case is going nowhere because Joe and Val don't want to answer questions like this:

"Mrs. Wilson, what role did you play in your husband being selected for this mission to Niger."

"Mrs. Wilson, considering that you were allegedly working undercover, do you think it was wise for your husband to go on such a mission? And to write about it in the NY Times? And to become a high-profile critic of the President and the war? And to put your name in his 'Who's Who' bio? And on his company's website bio?"

And my favorite:

"Mr. Wilson, considering the national security importance of your mission to Niger, what made you think that you -- a man who lacked military, intelligence, or investigative experience -- were qualified to go on such a mission?"

It's not that I think that Joe and Val lack answers to these questions, it's that I don't think they have any answers they'd want to try under oath.

HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?

After endless whining about how President Bush uses the war and the military for political purposes, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has produced a video that uses images of flag-draped coffins to push their candidates. More proof that there is no depth too low for these folks to sink to in their single-minded quest for power.

The video is not only shameless and offensive, it's disingenuous. Did you see Tom Delay's mug shot in the video? It looked something like this:

So, where'd that come from? This is Tom Delay's mug shot:

Check out the number on the fake mugshot: 9110GOP. Hmm, I wonder what the significance of that is. It's obvious why they used the fake mugshot, it's less flattering and makes a more emotion-packed statement. But what does that say, when a political party has to use photoshopped pictures of its opponents in a campaign ad? How many other images in the video are faked? Are the coffins even real? Only the DCCC Ministry of Propaganda can provide an answer to that. Don't hold your breath waiting for one.

h/t: Blackfive

FROG MARCH THIS! (UPDATED)

This is too good. Drudge is reporting the following:

BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: 'I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... MORE Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue... MORE... My primary source has not come forward to identify himself... Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source... I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
(emphasis mine)

I wonder whether blowhard partisan hack Joe Wilson is going to turn himself in for revealing the name of a "covert" CIA employee. If so, will he frog march himself down to the local FBI field office?

Update: This quote at FrontpageMag is priceless:

One former senior clandestine officer scoffed at the claim that Valerie Plame had ever been truly covert. “How can you be [covert] when you are married to an ex-U.S. ambassador and work for the State Department overseas?” Somebody looking at her from a hostile power (say, Iran) would have to have a brain the size of a pea to miss her connection to the U.S. government, he added.

Classic.

THE RETURN OF TIMOTHY MCVEIGH

Remember those radical right wing hate groups? You know, the ones we were told posed the greatest threat to our nation's security? The ones that the Clinton administration and the news media focused on all through the 90s while bin Laden and friends were recruiting and training the next generation of Islamic extremist terrorists? Well, they're back:

The military may be meeting its recruiting goals by relaxing standards that prevent “racist extremists” from joining, the Southern Poverty Law Center says.

Just on Monday, the Defense Department reported recruiting goals had been met for the 13th consecutive month.

The Montgomery, Ala.-based center has asked the military to crack down. The new concerns are based, in part, on a report from a military investigator based at Fort Lewis, Wash., who told the center that he and other defense officials have uncovered an online network of 57 neo-Nazis in the Army and Marine Corps, some of whom are recent combat veterans. They are spread over five bases: Fort Lewis, Fort Bragg, N.C., Fort Hood, Texas, Fort Steward, Ga., and Camp Pendleton, Calif., the center said

“Because hate group membership and extremist activity are antithetical to the values and mission of our armed forces, we urge you to adopt a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to white supremacy in the military and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the policy is rigorously enforced,” SPLC president Richard Cohen said in a July 7 letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

OK, first up, the military already prohibits membership in racist organizations, hate groups, and street gangs.

Secondly, the Southern "Poverty" Law Center (whose assets are estimated at over $120 million) is a less than credible source, to say the least. The SPLC spent the 90s telling us that white supremacists were poised to overrun the country. More recently, they've turned their army of lawyer-thugs loose to open our borders to illegals and punish anyone who opposes them. For all their monitoring of hate groups, the SPLC hasn't noticed any of the radical Islamic groups out there (with the apparent exception of the Nation of Islam).

Now, SPLC leader Morris Dees, the "country lawyer" who pays himself a salary of $300,000 per year, is apparently setting his legal dogs on the military. Look for Islamofascist propagandists and antiwar moonbats to use this report to further bash the military. Asshats.

SMASH: REPORTING FOR DUTY

Smash has arrived at his duty station. Where is it? I'll give you a few hints:

-It's hot there this time of year.

-It's riddled with sectarian and ideological conflict.

-It's dangerous.

Anyway, good luck Smash. And thank you for your service to our country.

COURT STICKS TO THE LAW (FOR A CHANGE)

I was pleasantly surprised by the recent ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals on the issue of same-sex marriage. Unlike the 2003 decision by the Massachussetts Supreme Judicial Court, this decision was actually based on law, rather than some esoteric concept of "fairness." From today's Albany Times Union:

ALBANY -- There will be no wedding bells in
New York for lesbian and gay couples after
the state's highest court ruled Thursday that
same-sex marriage is not legal and it is up
to lawmakers to decide whether it should be.

"New York's statutory law clearly limits
marriage to opposite-sex couples," which
is consistent with the state constitution,
Court of Appeals Associate Judge Robert S.
Smith wrote.

"Whether such marriages should be recognized
is a question to be addressed by the
Legislature," Smith added.

(emphasis mine)

Regardless of how you feel on the issue of same-sex marriage, there is no reasonable argument that courts should be allowed to unilaterally change the definitions of words. Marriage has had a specific meaning since the founding of this country, and for centuries, even millenia, before that. If a word that defines the basic building block of our society is going to take on new meaning, it should be up to the people to decide what that meaning should be, not a small group of judges. Once judges are allowed to change the definitions of words at will, any law passed by the legislature, even the Constitution itself, become meaningless.


Court: No to gay marriage

WORLD WITHOUT AMERICA?

If you're as sick as I am of hearing leftists and European sophisticates (is that redundant?) calling the US the greatest threat to global stability, you should check out the latest column by Peter Brookes posted over at Military.com, in which he examines the state of affairs that would exist if the US was not in the picture.

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century -- just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.

On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods.

Without the U.S. "Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia -- undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . . .

In Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia."

Check out the rest, it's good stuff.

HAPPY 230th BIRTHDAY, USA

The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

UShistory.org

SMASH: DEPLOYMENT CITY

I was surfing the blogosphere today when I noticed this post over at The Indepundit. It appears that Smash is deploying again. He's shipping out on Saturday. No word yet on where he's going. Based on his scrupulous attention to OPSEC during his last deployment, we may not know exactly where he's deploying to until after he gets back. Not that I can blame him for that. If you get a chance, head on over and wish him luck.

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

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.

LEAKERS OR WHISTLEBLOWERS?

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
our enemies.

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.

SSHHH, IT'S A "SECRET"

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.

LOOK WHO'S TALKING

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.

WHAT'S OLD IS NEW AGAIN

No, your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. I've changed templates again. The one I changed to previously wasn't working for me. I changed to that one because I thought that the wider text field would prevent the sidebar from being forced to the bottom of the page every time I included a link when posting by email. It didn't work. And since I didn't like the way it looked anyway, I figured I might as well switch back. Now all I need to do is find the time for some substantive posting.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

MORE FROM THE NANNY STATE

Teresa has an excellent post over at her blog about the American Medical Association calling for a reduction in the amount of salt in processed food. This is just the latest in the war the "health nazis" have been waging for control of our diets. This whole mentality is why I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare. If you think it's bad now, wait until the taxpayers are footing the bill for your doctor visits. It reminds me of this parental admonishment: "As long as you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules." Well, I'm a big boy now. I'll pay for my own roof and my own healthcare. And I'll make my own rules, thank you.

http://technicalities.mu.nu/archives/181537.php

TODAY'S MUST READ

For an interesting perspective on the war on terrorism, check out
the short story by Stephen Coonts posted on Military.com. It's well
worth your time to read it.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,100262,00.html

SOME QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS

Or progressives, or whatever name you're going by these days.

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)?

NO VIRGINS FOR YOU!!!

As it stands now, it looks like they finally got Zarqawi. Personally, I'm glad he's dead. Catching him alive would've generated more problems than it would have solved. Of course it remains to be seen whether this dirtbag's death will have an impact on the insurgency in Iraq. If nothing else, I think it'll make the other terrorist leaders in Iraq more cautious. If the big kahuna of terrorism there can be gotten to, none of those bin Laden wannabes is safe. With the perception of a less permissive operating environment, they may slow down for a short time. The key for us is to keep the pressure on.

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.