Saturday, February 17, 2007


The "surge" just started....and as the politicos, safe in D.C. soil their underwear in's a report from a blogger in Baghdad. Read it, since you'll not find this in your local newspaper.
Since the multiple bombings in Shroja market district on the 12th, Baghdad hasn’t seen any major attacks and there’s a tangible decrease in all kinds of attacks.

Not only official statements say so (Defense ministry officials said today that attacks are down by 80% in Baghdad). It’s a reality I live in nowadays, at least in my neighborhood and its surroundings. It is also what I hear from friends and relatives in other parts of the city. We are hearing fewer explosions and less gunfire now than two weeks ago and that, in Baghdad, qualifies as quiet.

I agree with what some experts say about this lull in violence being the result of militants keeping their heads down for a while. It is also possibly the result of the flight of the commanders of militant groups. Grunts left without planners, money or leaders wouldn’t want to do much on their own.

During my tour in Baghdad today I had to pull over to be searched at several checkpoints — something that has rarely happened to me before. When you are searched soldiers or policemen check the identity cards of passengers, and the registration papers of the vehicle along with a thorough physical search. Checkpoints deal even more strictly with large vans and cargo trucks.

The interesting thing about new checkpoints is the constant shifting of their location. One hour the checkpoint would be here and two hours later it would relocate to another position within the area. I think this helps security forces avoid becoming targets instead of hunters. In addition to soldiers and policemen, most checkpoints have one or more traffic policemen reportedly being equipped with laptops that enable them to flag suspected vehicles by offering instant access to vehicle-registration databases.

Side by side with new security efforts is a campaign to clean and redecorate many streets, circles and parks in Baghdad. New trees are planted and damaged street medians and sidewalks are being refurbished. This offers a small yet much needed breeze of hope and normalcy to the traumatized city.

The most significant and encouraging development is certainly this report from al-Sabah:
Brigadier Qasim Ata, an authorized Baghdad Operation spokesman, told al-Sabah that for the 3rd day in a row dozens of displaced families are returning to their homes. 35 families returned in Madain, 7 in hay al-I’ilam and small numbers of families in various districts of Baghdad.
Later reports in the local media indicate that the total number of families that returned home is as high as 130 families across the city, including several families in the, until recently, hopelessly violent district of Hay al-Adl.

The report adds that Maliki ordered that the Bab al-Muadam and al-Shuhada bridges on the Tigris be reopened to traffic next week. This decision came in response to the “notable increase in traffic activity which in turn is a result of the growing feeling of safety”.
Confirming what we said earlier about the recovery of civilian activity, the spokesman said “most stores in the Alawi al-Hilla districts have reopened after times when this area was a scene for repeated terrorist attacks”.

As the effort continues in Baghdad, four other provinces are launching simultaneous plans to support operation ‘Imposing the Law’. Officials in the provinces of Diwaniya, Salahaddin, Wasit and Babil announced that the security forces are implementing a security plan to support and empower the ongoing operation in Baghdad, and to deal with the threat of possible infiltration by terrorists coming from Baghdad.

The progress made so far invites hope and optimism, but it’s still too early to celebrate. Terrorists will keep trying to carry out attacks similar to those in Sadriya or Shorja. They want sow as much death and destruction as they can in order to shake the people’s confidence in the security plan. Such criminals attacks are still quite possible in Baghdad, but even if happen we must not let that stop us from pursuing the objectives of our efforts to stop the death and deterioration, to turn the tide and make progress.

If this holds, there's hope. There's no doubt...absolutely none...that the terrorists will try to counter this. But it sounds like there's a real strategy for helping those miserable people, and this man, at the least, has hope. Which is better than a pants load of one's own shit, Mr. Murtha.


One of the most literate and beautifully artistic blogs to be found on the Net is "All Things Beautiful." It deserves a daily read. Today she's nailed it down tight.

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

...Only last week did the Senate unanimously confirm General Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, full well knowing that his appointment "marks the real start of the new US strategy in Iraq, but is also seen as a last chance to turn things around".

And the new US strategy is what? Is it just more troops -- 21,500 extra U.S. troops, to be precise? Does it mean, that these extra "troops are now going to run out and look for gun battles with insurgents in back alleys", as critics immediately after the President's State of the Union address had us believe?

Of course not....When both Democratic and Republican Senators unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, they knew that "it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine".
What was done yesterday by the US Congress....nearly all the Dems and a handful of loose boweled Reps...was simply beyond forgiveness.

The abandonment of the Army in the field by repudiation of the Commander whom they just ordered to battle, with his newly approved plan, is not to be forgotten. These cowards will embolden our enemies, frighten those friends we have left, and make the world incomparably more dangerous.

Their strategy, a "slow bleed" of the Army's ability to fight....a tactic that will create another too bizarre to account for in a rational world. Either de-fund the war, and end it now, or support our men and women in the field.

Even today’s Washington Post gets it.

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

"Slow bleed" is what enemies would do to our country, but that is what the Dems have become.

It’s unfortunate that the Washington Post is more concerned for the harm to the Dems than the harm to America, but the infamous bastards will deserve what they get. Let's hope they get what they deserve.

There are still those who attribute all this to heartfelt differences of opinion and interpretations of patriotism. Today Senator Lieberman called for "reasoning together," and fears a constitutional crisis. Fat Chance, Joe.

Personally I cannot support a benign view any longer. These maneuvers look like cynical actions which provide aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. It looks like treason.

There is another possibility. And I'm not intending to be facetious here....but it's possible that our Overlords, as a class, are simply unbelievably stupid. I've previously referred to the doltish comments of Boy-John Edwards. Could it be...could it be that MOST of them are just too dumb to do anything else?

UPDATE: Readers of this blog are familiar with Ralph Peters.
I just came upon his opinion of all this.

February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

We've come to the point where there's simply nothing more to be said. I'm beyond discussing this again.

Friday, February 16, 2007


Here’s a piece from the London Telegraph that’s extremely interesting, and revealing. "Gun laws that constrain the law-abiding"

The article itself is “ordinary” stuff….by now everyone has made this point before….but the comments are unusually revealing…and extremely extensive. Be sure to read them. They reveal a depth of anger, of racial animosity, of resentment and cynicism in England that we don’t know about, as a general rule. I heard a touch of this in our upper class hotel and conversations during our last trip to London, but even I, NRA Card Carryin’ GunTotin’ Master Cynic, am surprised at the depth, the texture, the complexity of this…..and most important, the sense for the English that this “gun issue” is part of a larger fabric of social disarray that’s out of control.
“We now live in a society of repression & fear that has come about. For example, privacy invasions in order to ensure you pay the maximum council tax, in the form of nosy snoopers having obligatory access to our homes. Don't speed or you will be punished, recycle or you will be punished, no smoking or you will be punished. I ask you, cigarette police!!! This oppressive new regime has slithered into our lives slowly enough to be barely acknowledged. All the while, the only section of society which has been left to thrive is the criminals. Would zero tolerance not be a logical step for this overbearing government?”
We have the same issues here, but in a less advanced state, so far. There’s a clear warning to us by several of the writers in this thread….but it may already be too late, as it seems it is too late for the Brits.

Imagine the convulsive social breakdown as these angry people find no legal way to “fight back” and then turn to the illegal ways. Consider large groups of alienated people in multiple camps….with no political will in Government nor consensus….followed by breakdown of police authority and capacity to deal with civil disobedience and unrest. How far away is that scenario from what’s felt in these comments?

Imagine a Western Civilization with a dysfunctional England AND America, and weep for that reality.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007


I've previously commented on Johnny Edwards Really Fine Blog Adventure. It's not very important, really, except that it revealed the nature of the man. That nature is, ugh! blech! stinks! and worse. He fired Amanda, then he didn't fire her, then she quit, and now she's gone. What's revealed is just how powerful the lunatics of the Dems are within that conglomeration, and how frightened of them Little Johnny must be. Here's what another blogger has to say.
As for Edwards, he looks irredeemably pathetic. There’s a simple reason for this - he is irredeemably pathetic. He hired someone who had no business being legitimated by a mainstream political campaign. He then bowed to pressure and fired her. He then bowed to pressure again and unfired her. And then he left the stage to let her resign. In the wake of all these stumbles and pratfalls, he looks like a careless fool. He also may have alienated the Fightin’ Nutroots to boot. Well played!
Imagine this pathetic wimp in control of The Nuclear Football.

Sunday, February 11, 2007


Michael Yon sent this email today.
I was present today in Baghdad for the Transfer of Authority. Godspeed to the Coalition and to the people of Iraq. General David Petraeus is now running the war in Iraq. Anyone who knows much about the General might agree that David Petraeus seems to have been born and raised to win this particular war.

Frankly, the odds seem nearly impossible. Iraq is broiling and it's getting worse. Yet, there are glimmers of hope, and I see those glimmers with my own eyes here in Iraq. But make no mistake: America has asked David Petraeus to walk into a burning barn and perform brain surgery on a dying patient. If it can be done, David Petraeus is our man.

A new dispatch, Roughnecks, is available now. It contains some combat video shot from above. The previous dispatch, Hands of God, has an audio clip that was heavily downloaded for many days, making it slow to access for some visitors. For those who haven't had the chance to listen to it yet, there is a link built into the dispatch name above.

No one can predict the outcome of events here, especially those who have never set foot on Iraqi soil. But, given how vital the outcome is to our national interest, it is imperative that someone be reporting from the ground.
Michael Yon is an interesting man. Raised in Central Florida, he joined the Army, then Special Forces, then after the Army, became one of the first long term imbedded observers with the Duece Four in Mosul the first time. His early dispatches will become "classics." He's not a "journalist" in that NOBODY pays him except, a lot of other guys, and you, if you'll help. He went on his own nickel, and then asked for support. Read his website and his past dispatches to see what I mean...then send him a few bucks to keep him there. the guy deserves it. If you're interested, read his autobiography, Danger Close. If you have my copy, please return it.

In "Roughnecks" there's a paragraph describing his refusal to take a pistol for self protection from a soldier who offered his..."against the rules," he said. What isn't said is that Yon got in serious trouble the first time when he picked up a rifle and fought in a deadly firefight which resulted in several American casualties. Serious trouble....he's an observer, not a fighter...and that's why her refused it here. Long term readers will recognize that, but unless you follow him, you can't realize how serious his work is, and how much jeopardy he's in along with our soldiers, who can fight back.

This, alone, differentiates Michael Yon from the "journalists" of the Green Zone, who's greatest risk is getting into Baghdad on an airplane, and they're fewer and farther between than ever. This also gives the lie to the "work" of William Arkin who was quoted several posts ago in Patriots Points. Only a damn fool cannot recognize his lies through the reports of Michael Yon.

Follow it over time. (And pay for it; find the payment mechanism on his Home Page). It's the only way you'll really know what goes on; good, bad, tragic, comic, victorious or defeated. If you think you're getting "reporting" from the kind of media that consider Arkin a "military analyst," you're wasting your time at Patriot's Points...and AMF.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007


I've said in the past that the US Muslim "community" response to America's need to win the War on Terror was characterized by a deafening silence. Fairness requires clarification, when someone speaks up.

Today's WSJ carries an article by an Arab-American (I'll feel a LOT better when we don't consider ourselves hyphenated-Americans) who speaks reasonably...about a subject lots of us consider really, really important...


I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of "24." The two things are not mutually exclusive, despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season's opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society.

Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.

...There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. When Bill Cosby talks to African-Americans about self-respect and responsibility, and says publicly what many have been saying privately for years, he's branded a "reactionary," "misinformed," "judgmental," and so on. When "24" confronts America's worst fears about al Qaeda--whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible--the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.

Well, here's the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America's survival, viewers will lose interest in "24," because it will have lost its relevancy.

That said, I would certainly welcome more characters in movies, TV programs and novels who reflect the overall Arab-American experience. Truth is, most of us don't have bomb-making skills or a desire to become human missiles. And there are Muslim and Arab-American CTU heroes out there, as well as doctors, superdads, women scientists, etc.

...In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist.

And maybe that same reporter could take a closer look at CAIR. Ask CAIR about the Holy Land Foundation and its support of Hamas. Ask it about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the CAIR board member who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case--yet still sits on CAIR's board. Look a little closer, and maybe you'll find that CAIR has good reason to get nervous about shows like "24."
Ahmeen, brother.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007


Yesterday I posted a piece on John Edwards that said he's dangerous, not because he's a Dem, but because he's a dolt.

But wait! There's more! Call now and I'll throw in the Big Enchilada.

It was Super Bowl Sunday and I wasn't paying attention, but I remember surfing past Tim Russert's program briefly and just before I got hold of the remote to stifle him, there for my wondering eyes to see was...yes, John Edwards. I couldn't believe what I thought I heard, and clicked it to blessed off. Today, there's time to check, and here's what I remember.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, (No shit, Sherlock...he actually said that) and be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials...

It's fun watching a Trial Lawyer being cross the transcript...but what he said is that his "error" in voting for war in Iraq was because 1) he checked with former President Clinton's people and 2) he heard the testimony by the intelligence experts before the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate and found, 3) that they were essentially the same.

Anybody who's been awake for the past 8 years knows that it was believed by the Clintons that Iraq had WMD, and it was admitted that he had used them. It was the policy of the Clinton Administration to work for "regime change' as a consequence. "Regime change" was their terminology. Most of the famous UN resolutions and sanctions were applied as a result of Clinton's efforts. That they didn't work, and that the UN Oil for Thieves scam actually funded Saddam's machinations is what led directly to the next Administration carrying the policy to war, an event based on the same information as the Clintonistas had, including a clear statement from Clinton's holdover CIA Chief who characterized the data as "a slam dunk."

Despite this, for the past five years there's been a constant campaign of lies and deceptions...denials of the obvious and more lies that the Bush Administration mislead the country...they took us to war for Oil, for Halliburton, for revenge for the attempted assassination of Daddy Bush, and because The Shrub was too stupid to know what the literati knew all along....that there was never anything to worry about.

Talk of Impeachment. Movies and books talking of Assassination of G.W. Bush. Talk of elimination of the Electoral College...US Constitution be damned. Hysteria and a virtual abandonment of any sense of comity in the governance of our country...and virtual paralysis of the Congress...the War on Terror hamstrung, and for what? For nothing less than revenge and hatred over the loss of the 2000 election.

And now, in the heat of another election campaign, Mr. John Edwards, he of the two Americas...dissembler, liar and airhead to the stars... admits that everyone, including the Dems who so strongly supported the war, was wrong on Iraqi WMDs...based on the same bad information that long preceded George Bush, and which had misinformed two successive US administrations.

Mr. Edwards has made the case, not only that he dishonors America and is a craven toady and fool, but that he is joined by the now vast majority of his political party. Sad. Sad. Sad.


CNN reports: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber
A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.

U.S. military intelligence in Iraq has approached al-Maliki's government with the allegations against Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, whom it says assists Iranian special forces in Iraq as "a conduit for weapons and political influence."

Repeated efforts by CNN to reach Jamal Jafaar Mohammed for comment through the parliament, through the ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and the Badr Organization -- the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization he once led -- have been unsuccessful.

..."We don't want parliament to be a shelter for outlaws and wanted people," al-Maliki told CNN. "This is the government's view, but the parliament is responsible. I don't think parliament will accept having people like [him] or others currently in the parliament."

Top U.S. officials, including President Bush, have accused Iran of meddling in Iraq by fomenting sectarian violence and providing arms to illegal militias. Bush has authorized U.S. troops to use deadly force against Iranian agents in Iraq...
Mr. al-Maliki may not want to act. He may pretend that "the Parliament" is sovereign, but VICTORS don't have to accept either point of view, and we should not.

This foolishness has to stop. The R.O.E. have to be changed, for the military, for the diplomats, and for the Iraqi "government."

As long as situations like this are tolerated by America's Government, then no matter how many billions of dollars we spend, no matter how many of our soldiers are killed, no matter how many diplomatic meetings we have, we simply are NOT SERIOUS about the War on Terror.

If Mr. Bush expects the rest of us to be serious, and he has the right to do so, then he has to "get it" too.

Further evidence of lack of seriousness on our part is the constant, continuous reiteration to all who have senses that WE ARE OUTTA HERE, AL QUAEDA.

From the cowards and liars, the BushHaters, the AmericaHaters in the Press, in the Congress, in ourselves, there's simply no doubt that when we finish eating our own, when we've finished deciding the "when" and the conditions of our abandonment of the Iraq War, we're leaving. That's a done deal. ChimpyBushHitler can't last forever, and we're gone. Adios.

This isn't lost on our Iraq or Iran.
Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over those areas to units that are close to al-Sadr's militant Shiite group.

"All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory."

"Honestly, within six months of us leaving, the way Iranian clerics run the country behind the scenes, it'll be the same way here with Sadr," said Quinn, 25, of Cleveland. "He already runs our side of the river."

And it isn't lost on the nuclear armed Israelis as they confront their own bleak future and see their abandonment.

If anybody has a thought of what General War in the Mideast, one that WE don't win, means for the rest of the world, or has considered how our reckless abandonment of the mission in Iraq will ensure that outcome, it's not evident in our Congress. The Congress talks and plots "non binding" resolutions of surrender. The President pretends that Maliki is running the show. NOT SERIOUS.

Here we are, with a divided government in which one part seeks to guarantee the failure of the other, all in the clutch of grasping for domestic political power. That is what this is about....the control of a country that spends 2.9 trillion dollars a year, and the capacity to determine where it goes.

For that plum, we are sacrificing our Grandchildren.

Lucky them!

Perfidious us!

Monday, February 05, 2007


There's really a lot of important stuff happening....and about to happen... but it's complicated and I'm not into thinking too much today....still, here's a subject that's too enticing not to pass on.

Our former Senator...a really prominent High MuckyMuck in the running again, this time for President. Leaving aside the partisan politics...Dem vs. Rep opinion of John Edwards is so low that it's cruel to discuss it. Hence, I've left it off this blog entirely....until today.

If you're gonna be a cool dude, you gotta have a blog. If you can't do it yourself, you hire yourself a blogger. They're out there for hire, and a lot of them are really smart, clever...worthy advocates and opposed to your standard mainstream "journalist" who graduated from a PC school in the lower third of his class. So, were you Mr. Edwards, you'd look for a really good person to be your official Voice on the Internet. Anybody would.

And how would you recognize such a person? You'd read the blogs and other writings, and it'd be clear to you. Anybody would.

Well, I hope that Edwards is only dumber than owl-shit, because if this is his idea of a Voice....well make up your own mind.

Meet Amanda Marcotte. This lady's Edwards' Blogmeister. His Voice. I guess she's writing in opposition to Conservatives hatred of women....worthy if it were true.

One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
Can it be that Mr.PrettyFace didn't even read this crap? Is the debate even about "birth control?" I thought the issue that's tearing us apart is abortion. Birth control? That was settled 50 years ago.

On another day she opined on Katrina's aftermath.
And as for the racist fucks behind this foot-dragging and lying and all those that support them, I hope that when you get to hell, after you’ve been greeted nicely by Satan and checked in by Ronald Reagan, your punishment is to be drowned over and over and over again until you fucking realize that suffering is suffering, no matter what race or class or ethnicity the people suffering are.
So did he not even read her potty-mouth stuff, or is the Real John Edwards standing up? No? He's that dumb? Yes...indeed I think he's really that dumb. He's a guy who made a fortune on other people's misfortunes by exploiting the fact that there are people dumber than him. He gives the term "lightweight" a bad name.

But he's clever...clever, and he's a serious threat...not because he's a Dem, but because he's a dolt.

Saturday, February 03, 2007


Eureka! I found it! There is a way to get the Dems serious about the Islamist threats. Tie it to THEIR religious beliefs.

As one of those Islamic clerics put it as he took a stage on the campus of the University of California at Irvine just two days before 9/11, “If you don't give us justice, if you don't give us equality, if you don't give us our share of America,” he said. “We're gonna burn America down.”
--Fox News

But won't Burning America make Global Warming worse? All that heat? All that carbon dioxide? All those pollutants released into Gaia's respiratory system? Gadzooks! We can't have that. We'll have to fight those Children of Abraham, after all.

There it is, folks.....The Hook.

Friday, February 02, 2007


The Political Class are currently absorbed in Washington either running for President, running from their President, or just milling around, acting confused, sniffing each other's rear ends like dogs determining just who's Alpha and who's not. The country is at war, and one half the electorate's nominal representatives have nothing to offer.

Victor Davis Hansen says it this way:
It is fine for Democrats to talk of “redeployment” out of Iraq, “engagement” with Syria and Iran, more soft power, Europeans and the United Nations, organizing “regional interests,” etc. — until one realizes that we did mostly just that for most of the 1990s.

And? We got Syrian absorption of Lebanon, Afghanistan as an al Qaeda base, a Libyan WMD program, worldwide serial terrorist attacks, Oslo, a Pakistani bomb, a full-bore Iranian nuclear program, Oil-for-Food — and 9/11. If one doubts any of this, just reflect on why the Democrats have not offered any specific alternative plans. And when pressed, they usually talk only of “talking” and thereby bring embarrassment to even their liberal questioners.

Thursday, February 01, 2007


The Washington Post carries one William Arkin, an old time lefty activist posing as a journalist who also writes for the L.A. Times, has this to say. Read the whole thing.

Friday's NBC Nightly News ...relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

...But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

...I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

See, it's just like John Kerry said...they're stupid and they ended up in Iraq. Nevermind that they're not cut off from society, but they're Reservists with "real " lives at home. They ARE society.

Please read the letter by Second Lt. Mark Daily which was posted earlier as "DEAD AT 23," and then tell me this demented Journalist is not Brain Dead Already. Disgusting. What has come over our country that we accept this as legitimate opinion?

The Blogosphere is alive with this one...start here.

Update: Some Senators get this.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Must be true. The New York Times says:

"President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran."

"The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said."

"On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks."

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

Well, now isn't that special? Never mind that mad Mahmoud might well be willing to trade Tehran for the destruction for the entire state of Israel. It's only a couple of bombs...(surely he won't make more than two, right?)...can't be all that bad. Use one on Israel, keep one "in the bank" to threaten the rest of the neighborhood, and see, there won't be any left for France. Not to worry. See? Tres cool.

Anyway, just because I said it....doesn't mean I mean's "off the record." Didn't happen. King's fingers were crossed....yes they were too. I don't care if you didn't see them crossed, I did. So there.

Is your mind blown yet? No? Well consider this. The Los Angeles times published a "provocative" article by David A. Bell, a Professor of History...yes, History...which maintains that the United States is "over reacting" to the attack of 9/11/2001.

"if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States."
Never mind the obvious truth that these "hate filled fanatics" are still trying to acquire those means, and that the war isn't over yet. Desire and capacity are not the same, but one leads to another if you can buy the capacity. These fanatics have huge amounts of money with which to purchase that capacity, and are working diligently to do so. To prevent that eventuality we are fighting a war in Iraq.

The Professor further elaborates:
" the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down."

"Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents."

"....Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all... It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler."
Indeed, this war is Chicken Feed. Hey, Kerry got his wish! This terrorism stuff has been turned into a nuisance. It turns out that the Dems breast beating about US casualties is just political poppycock...hardly anybody's dying, it seems. Compared to the 20,000,000 or so Russians killed in WW2, this doesn't even register. Hey, boy, call me when you get into a real war.

This horse shit is beyond explanation except when it's seen in light of Chirac's enlightenment. It's clear that both Chirac and Bell are preparing for the next stage of the abandonment of our defense.

Iraq is one piece in the greater War. As we abandon that battlefield, led into ignominy and defeat by the cowards and liars of our political class, we'll soon find ourselves in an accelerated downward spiral to an America none of us has ever seen or imagined. As Chirac and Bell must understand, that will require some some ground preparation.

These people are just turning the soil. The real work of destruction of our civilization comes later.

Upon such men rests the fate of the entire world.


Monday, January 29, 2007


Bob Sheiffer, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric and a tough old U.S. Marine sergeant were all captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.

Sheiffer said, "I'd like one last bowl of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Sheiffer ate it and said, "Now I can die content."

Brokaw said, "I'd like to hear the song "America the Beautiful" one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Brokaw sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.

Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."

The leader agreed and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.

"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.

The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, all the Iraqis were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying the three news anchors, "Ms Perky" asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass first?"

"What," replied the Marine, "And have you three assholes report that I was the aggressor?"


My calls for a strategy that kills the enemy, my repeated disgust at rules of engagement that use "minimal force," my acceptance of the brutality of what we must do to save our civilization are at odds with many of my friends views, and with their wishful thinking. My view is that the harsher the policy, the shorter the time and the less the killing. Minimal Force kills more slowly, and for longer, and is greater in total bloodshed. There is no place for Minimal Force in self-preservation. Period.

Donald Sensing is a Methodist Minister from Tennessee, who I think has a son in Iraq. He writes a well regarded blog, and I recommend a look at his writing from time to time. Click on his links to his Main page and Essays to see the kind of man he is. Here is a serious man's view of today's issue.

“Killing is the sine qua non of war.” So wrote Europe’s premier war theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, which he amplified thus, “Without killing there is no war.” This should seem self evident, but its truth is easy to lose, and easiest for the civilians who (rightfully) finally command our military. Even senior military officers, removed by distance and time from personal battle experience, can fail to remember that truism.

Of all the failings of the previous “strategy” in Iraq, directed by the commanders whom Gen. David Petraeus will very soon replace, the main failing was not keeping the main thing the main thing. In counterinsurgency, as with any other kind of fight, the main thing is killing the insurgents, for which civil assistance to Iraqis must play the supporting, not primary role.

Hence, the “surge” of 21,500 more soldiers and Marines being sent to Iraq does in fact represent a new strategy in the recent history of this war, though not new in the history of warfare. Gen. Petraeus, asked recently by one of the Congress’ armed services committees whether 21,500 was enough new troops, replied that how the new troops are used is more important than the number sent.

And lethality is the focus now, as we saw from the release of an unclassified version of the strategy by the plan’s authors themselves, which I analyzed on Dec. 17. Retired General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army, and Frederick W. Kagan, former West Point professor, wrote (and briefed President Bush) that,

We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.

“Securing the population” = “kill the insurgents.
That is what's going on now. The "insurgents," read that as Al Quaeda in Iraq, are being killed in large numbers. Snipers that can't be cleared from high rise buildings are being killed and the entire buildings taken out with them. Read Sensing's entire piece.

This IS a new strategy, and anyone but a "useful idiot" or a politician who loves political power more than he loves America, would encourage it, would revel in it, would pray for its success. Make your own choice.

Sunday, January 28, 2007


But George Bush already said that....and everybody knows he's an idiot.

Several days ago I referred to our Senatorial trollops as cowards and liars. They speak as though they mean to solve our problems, but they lie, and they know it.
Today's Washington Post carries an article by Robert Kagan that explains why there is no substitute for victory.
"American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want. They've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. And they've embarked on these operations with the expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq and the new commander he has appointed to fight the insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began.

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.

...they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.

...To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away. Once American forces depart, Iraq will no longer be our problem. Joseph Biden, one of the smartest foreign policy hands in the Senate, recently accused President Bush of sending more troops so that he could pass the Iraq war on to his successor. Biden must assume that if the president took his advice and canceled the troop increase, then somehow Iraq would no longer be a serious crisis when President Biden entered the White House in 2009.

This is a delusion, but it is by no means only a Democratic delusion. Many conservatives and Republicans, including erstwhile supporters of the war, have thrown up their hands in anger at the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. They, too, seem to believe that if American troops leave, because Iraqis don't "deserve" our help, then somehow the whole mess will solve itself or simply fade away. Talk about a fantasy. The fact is, the United States cannot escape the Iraq crisis, or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part, and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

...Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect. The next president will thank you."
I don't think WaPo and Kagan are considered idiots, but.."Well, nevermind."


Newt Gingrich gave this speech a while back, and raised the usual suspects' bile and ire...but it's still true, and still circulating. I think it's right on the mark, and for anyone who wants to refer back to it, I've posted it. Just send the URL for this post to anyone you want to see this portion of his thoughts.

"The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.
Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So...
(APPLAUSE) This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us."


Shakespeare, as usual, said it all. I've given examples, and complained of rules of engagement for our armed forces that are dangerous, and even worse, are causing our soldiers to fight an inefficient war. Killing is normal in war. That's why it's called War, and not Policing. The enemy wants to kill us. That includes you, your wife, children, neighbors....anybody you love...they're us. The killers are them. There's a difference. Duh!
Defense officials tell us one of the rules of engagement for U.S. combat troops in Iraq is vague and written by lawyers with little or no battle experience. The result is that troops are at risk of getting killed in action because of military lawyers' penchant for ambiguity.
One troubling rule that is among several printed on the card given to troops going into combat is "use minimum force necessary to decisively eliminate the threat." It is viewed by many in the military as ambiguous and confusing.

"Does it mean you are obligated to wrestle with a threat rather than shoot him or her?" one defense official asked. "That is how a lot of police officers lose their lives each year, as the criminal gains control of the police officer's firearm. How about approaching and/or wrestling a threat who, it turns out, is a homicide bomber?"

Bottom line: There is no way in law to define "minimum deadly force," the official said.

It is not known whether the imprecise rules directly led to the deaths in action of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some say it is likely because the rules are overly cautious and vague, an apparent outgrowth of destructive political correctness applied to war.

"A major part of the problem is that military commanders have surrendered their responsibility for ROE [rules of engagement] preparation and approval to lawyers lacking the knowledge, training and experience to prepare ROE. Unsure of themselves, they err to caution and ambiguity," the official said.
The President has the power to change order it changed. A lot of mistakes are made in War. It's unreasonable to expect otherwise, but fighting a minimalist war against a maximalist enemy is suicide. That's a nice word for criminally insane, when it results from worrying about what our "friends" in the U.N. and elsewhere will think. Those bastards won't credit us with goodness, ever. So fuckem. In the event they ever get to fight their own war, let them worry about being nice to their murderers.

Friday, January 26, 2007


The U.S. Senate today confirmed General Petraeus to be the Chief Warrior, Head Honcho, and the Biggest-Baddest American in Iraq. He's highly regarded by all parties, so far as is known, and apparently he is honorable, brave, and intelligent; all the stuff that we want in such a person. He has devised a plan, proposed by the President, to turn around the Iraq mess.

Several weeks ago, the same Senate almost instantaneously confirmed a new Secy. of Defense, Robert Gates, who has multiple positive attributes, but chief among them was that he isn't Donald Rumsfeld. As General Petraeus' immediate superior, he has also approved the plan, now known as the Bush Plan.

Having confirmed and lauded both these men, the same U.S. Senate is now devising a series of "non-binding resolutions" calling for the defeat of the plan devised by the selfsame people. The degree of defeat the honorables of the Senate are willing to accept varies with different resolutions, but it is clear that the supporters of these resolutions are willing to see the United States lose the war.

Mr. Gates puts it this way: "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries."

Just what else needs to be said than that?

Here's what. The Senators of the disloyal opposition, all the Democrats to put a fine point on it, and a few Republicans who lost their final vestige of courage after the recent election, are willing to see America lose, but they are unwilling to accept responsibility for creating that event.

There is universal understanding that the U.S. Army cannot be defeated on the ground, and that the battleground has shifted to the U.S. domestic political arena. This is precisely so because our enemies know where is located the seat of American cowardice. The Senate is about to confirm this.

IF there are brave opponents to the Petraeus/Gates/Bush plan, they should call for immediate withdrawal, defund the war now (which is their constitutional right to do), and vote to relieve Mr. Gates and General Petraeus of responsibility for carrying out the plan they have created. The "honorables" refuse to do what they claim is their "duty," knowing that the American people will not support them in this, and fearing for the consequences TO THEMSELVES.

By refusing accept this responsibility, these Knights of the Limp Wrists make manifest to anyone paying attention just what they are. They are cowards and liars; in the interest of their own political ambition they are selling out America.

Cowards and liars. That's what remains to be said. I just said it.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that after many months of knowing the Iranian contribution to killing our people, having caught several of them red handed last week, and having released them, the President has decided that it's now OK to capture and kill new ones. That's got to be good news. But more bad news is that we should have been doing this all along. And the same should be said for a lot of other malefactors that we'll now have to catch again before we can kill them....if Mr. Malaki will let us.

With Rules of Engagement like these that have constrained our soldiers, we're lucky we're not yet fighting them here. I suspect that The Bubbas, armed Americans, will refuse to honor those rules when that time comes. That's the good news.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007


The President has spoken...eloquently in my opinion...but words, words...more words won't cut it. He has the power to change this. If he doesn't we're fucked, and we might as well fold our tents. We sent warriors, so make war. Alternatively, bring them home and send social workers if you wish to appease our critics, and let history decide what we should have sent. I've already decided.
“We are fighting a Politically Correct war,"said Major Owen West. “Specifically, Abu Ghraib has taken exponential importance “ in how we approach fighting the insurgency, and has led to an excess in caution in dealing with arrest and detainee issues. The interrogation process has been neutered due to past errors. “PC has filled us with false fear,” said Major West. “We treat detainees better than I treated my college roommates.”

“We tiptoe around cultural issues so greatly that the Iraqi Army laughs at us,” said Major West. He explained the difficulties in arresting women involved with the insurgency. In one case, it was well known a woman that was sheltering and aiding foreign fighters, and the evidence of her guilt was solid. In order to arrest her, the MTT needed permission from a general's staff. The Iraqi troops stood in wonderment at this absurd decision making process.

Major West believes the U.S. is suffering from what he refers to as “COIN [counterinsurgency] false hope” in Anbar province, and this is impacting our effectiveness in fighting the insurgency. “In Anbar, the average male is our enemy, and you won't win his heart. But you can win his mind, and make him make rational decisions” to not attack US forces and Iraqi institutions and security forces. “We should detain large amounts of [military age] males, not re-releasing them.” The catch and release program, where known insurgents are released only to fight another day, only serves to encourage and reinforce insurgent activity.

Major West went on to explain how the Americans need to enforce strict punishment for small crimes, using the “broken windows” theory of law enforcement to deter insurgent activities. Laws must be put on the books to make activities such as running weapons, providing shelter for terrorists, and digging holes to plant bombs major crimes. “The way the Iraqis see it, Americans suffer from cognitive dissonance on the legal and detention issues.” They are aware that many of the suspects detained have an extremely high probability of guilt, yet release them based on a desire to implement a peacetime legal system during a brutal insurgency. This must change to achieve real success in Anbar province.

I don't know who originated this quote, but it works for me. "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Monday, January 22, 2007


This is reprinted in its entirety from Michelle Malkin's blog. I can add NOTHING to this. Speechless isn't sufficient. Second Lt. Mark Daily was killed at Mosul after writing this.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

Friday, January 19, 2007


There's movement around the edges of our problems. Perhaps our spineless political "experts" on warfighting are finding their mojo. Time will tell, but there are three items worth mentioning.

First, Krauthammer has signed on to The Plan. He's recommending we threaten to move to Kurdistan and leave Maliki to fend for himself and to eat his own dead, unless there's real progress from our "friends," the Iraqi Government. That's good. Patriot's Points brought it to you first.

Second, our Iraqi "friends" are moving against their last week's goodbuddies, Mookie and his Iraqi rock group that specializes in sectarian murder... and the poor dears are feeling, well, "under siege." Now, they've arrested Mookie's director of media affairs. We'll know they're serious when they arrest Dan Rather.

Finally, Scrappleface reports that Bush is getting serious about Mad Mahmoud, the Iranian used carpet salesman, and Adolph wannabe.
President George Bush, under pressure from the Iraq Study Group to open negotiations with Iran, today named a lead negotiator whom he said is already on the way to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Jack Bauer, a freelance intelligence contractor and former agent with the Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU), has been dispatched to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s office for a “diplomatic listening session” aimed at determining the best way to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and shipment of arms to terrorists in Iraq.

“For some reason, people like to talk to Jack Bauer,” said Mr. Bush. “He’s a straight-shooter, good at establishing mutual understanding and I think he and President Ahmadinejad will come to a rapid agreement on terms favorable to global peace and security.”

Although Iranian government officials said no negotiations with the U.S. had been scheduled, Mr. Bush described the talks as a “unilateral diplomatic initiative that will be under way before they know it.”
That's the good news. The bad news is that Fox News reports that a third of Americans, and nearly half of Democrats either want America to fail in Iraq or can't decide if they wish us to be defeated. It's not clear that all these people are treasonous bastards. Perhaps just that portion of Dems, between 1/3 and 1/2, in other words "only" 17% of Dems are actually traitors, and the rest are just so fuckin' dumb that they should be declared citizens of France and deported to the home of the original "reign of terror."

Kurt Vonnegut, a certifiable schizophrenic novelist of my youth, was right. As his Billy Pilgrim said, "So it goes."

Saturday, January 13, 2007


One can hope that Mr. Bush finally gets it. IF he does, then we've got a chance to pull this off. Here's the attitude we NEED.

Another random thought....from the outset, it's been clear that one major problem in the War on Terror is telling the Enemy from Then Innocent. This has been a problem before, and for others. Here's one solution. Hat tip: American Digest.
According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, was asked by a Crusader how they might distinguish the Cathars, their enemies, from other citizens. He answered: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" -- "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his."
This is no joke. Imagine what's going to happen after the next attack on US soil. There's a real chance that we'll volunteer to give up much of our civil liberties and America could become a country that we don't recognize. The "intellectuals" of the academy and the media...those who denigrate Mr. Bush for malapropism and inarticulateness...seem too dense to understand that we MUST win this war, in order to protect values they profess to support, and which they accuse us of ignoring. It's quite the opposite. Like it or not, Iraq is a part of this war, and we must win it. There is NO choice but victory. It is not impossible....if we develop the political will and just half a man's balls, we can still pull this off.

Just for clarification, in case someone thinks the Jihadisphere has a monopoly on the Crusades....the Albigensians were French.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007


We now know of President Bush's new strategy. I'm not going to critique it point by point....if you're reading this, you already know what he said. My view is that this is it...a last chance, last ditch opportunity to salvage the secondary goal of the Iraq War. Let me comment that I found him believable and consistent, and clear in presenting a plan that's coherent, and obviously well thought out. I like an executive who takes responsibility for errors or failures of any kind.

None of this means his plan will work.

The first goal of this war was "Regime Change," which, for a variety of reasons including Iraqi support for terrorism and the belief in Iraqi WMDs, had been US policy since Clinton's time. Bush actually did something about it, and the regime was changed.

The secondary goal was to move the entire Middle East toward a new and modern life by introducing a legitimate, freely elected, independent government which would settle internal differences in a civilized way. We were to create a nidus of civility, an example of the possibilities for all the people in the region to see as a better way for their future. The idea was that a decent future for them would defuse the attraction of radical Islam, and reduce and ultimately eliminate the terrorist threat to the West, particularly to America's interests at home and abroad.

This secondary goal has so far proved impossible. The depths of depravity, cruelty, hatred and barbarism as revealed to us by the action of Iraqi Arabs...not Kurds, by the way....Arabs, has shocked us, and defies defense by anybody. It's not an unpatriotic act to refuse to support people who
do not share our Moral Universe, and there are a lot of them in Iraq....that's not what the internal US fight is about.

It has been the policy of this government that long term, the secondary goal is sufficiently worthwhile to be "worth a shot," to use Lee Hamilton's phrase. After regime change, that's what we've been fighting for. The evidence that some millions of Iraqis want this future, and desire our help has been clear if not overwhelming....remember the 11,000,000 blue fingers, the cries of joy at the fall of Saddam Hussein, the digging up of hundreds of thousands of unnamed corpses, the detritus from his rule. It WAS worth a shot.

One question is, is it still? Or is it impossible to bring those barbarians into our Moral Universe? Who knows? Not me. Personally, I've NEVER met an Arab (as opposed to Persians and Kurds) that I thought was anything other than duplicitous and untrustworthy.

But there's so much at many lives in the balance, so much bloodshed to come if the Middle East continues in its cycle of hatred and murder and barbarism...that I support the President's attempt to "give it a shot." I also see this war as part of the greater war on Islamofascism. In a world where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's clear that Saddam's Baathists were enablers and sources of support for those who'd kill us in a heartbeat if they could. We have to fight them somewhere. Better there than here.

It's clear that the time has come to play the hand out. The President's plan is clearly his last. The possibility of success, in my estimation, depends upon two things.

First, will the President release our forces to fight....will the new "surge" of troops be anything other than more targets? It's reasonable to wonder if more troops can do what the current troops, were they not constrained by rules of engagement written by Miss Manners, cannot do. Mr. Bush spoke of troops going door to door to demonstrate and reassure the Iraqis that we're there for them. Unless we kill the bad guys we find, next year's reassurance will be about as good as last year's. Will the addition of only 20K+ soldiers be such a great difference? Will they be social workers or will they be war fighters? Will they kill our enemies, take Baghdad, destroy the militia of Al Sadr, and him if necessary, and make it possible for civil life to be established in that Hell-Hole?

Second, given the corruption of Arab police and politics, will an incompetent Maliki government be able to hold the ground won for them? It's said that the Iraqis will be largely responsible for the new fighting force, but I doubt they have the balls to do it....especially if they doubt we'll be there to protect them in the future. Will Maliki inhibit our stopping his Shiite friends the Iranians, as he has done in the past? Will he insist on a free pass for Al Sadr, as he has in the past? Mr. Bush says no, he's agreed not to...but he's an Arab...I told you what I think of Arabs. Racial insensitivity? Maybe. True? Probably.

If the answer to either of the questions is "no," then the cause will be lost and we'll leave, with disastrous consequences.

I'm skeptical that this will work, largely because it will take a degree of political courage both here and in Iraq that we've not seen lately. Just think of the media hysterics when we start fighting with the brutality of our enemy. Think of the increase in our own casualties, and the media's caterwauling as the coffins come home. War IS hell; there will be more losses. Remember, cowardice is an infectious disease. Think of Republicans running for cover from a lame duck President.

I don't doubt the integrity, courage, intelligence of our new Commander, General Petraeus, but unless he's able to fight this war as brutally as our enemy will fight it, the second question is moot.

I'm sure the President will say yes to any request made in the field, and we're going to see a renewed vigor and level of fighting, and more casualties than we've seen for a while. It's already started. But we're fighting savages, and if we're not going to fight savagely, then what's the point? They disappear for a while, and re-emerge later to behead their neighbors. If we fight them, we have to kill them. Then, the neighbors can feel safe, and life may go on, even get better.

I'm particularly skeptical of Maliki and his government. I doubt they have the balls to fight to protect anything but their own asses. They know that someday we'll leave, and that they'll be left to live with the people we're telling them to fight. Yet, for once, their asses will be on the line, for real. If this strategy fails, the US will withdraw, and they're either dead men walking, or selling pizzas in Bulgaria. It's possible that such a choice will concentrate their minds, and upon this possibility rides the whole enterprise. Perhaps that's what's "new" in the equation. We'll see.

Finally, I'm skeptical about the role of Iran and Syria. Both are serious players in this melodrama, and unless we're going to do something about and to those bad-boys, the Baghdad Plan may not come to much. Pacify one area, while Iran and Syria undermine another, and what's the net gain? I found President Bush's recognition of their role to be thin gruel, unless he's just being cagey about a real plan....maybe he is. One hopes, still.

In any case, the question for us is whether to hold or fold. The consequences of failure are so great that I see no choice but to fight. I hope we fight hard, no holds barred, no enemy to be safe from our tolerance. Go back a few posts in this blog and read what Ralph Peters suggested. Then let's kick ass.

I'm reminded of the punchline of the joke about Freddie the Oral Sex Frog. "Dammit Freddie, I'm gonna show you
just one last time."

Mad Mahmoud The Iranian is coming to visit Hugh the Chavez, over here on our side of the ocean. Just what do you think they'll talk about? What the girls wear under the burqua? Maybe killing infidel yanquis? Maybe porous Southern US borders?

We must prepare for that, and start now.

ADDENDUM: The Morning After.

My guru...Ralph Peters... has his morning's take on where we are now. Not surprising, it's basically the same as mine, above, but more informed and therefore better. Click here ...please read the whole thing. Here are some fragments

Will the plan work? Maybe. It's a last-hope effort based on steps that should've been taken in 2003...Given that we're now committed to a strategy of sending more troops, a larger increase of the sort proposed by Sen. John McCain would make more sense....the number feels like another compromise measure for an administration and country still unwilling to accept that we're really at war.

should we support the president's plan? Yes. The stakes are too high to do otherwise - the president's right about that. Iraq deserves one last chance. And I say that as a former soldier well aware of the casualties ahead.

Ultimately, it's the Iraqis, not the additional American soldiers and Marines, who'll decide Iraq's future. And the acid test will be their government's handling of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Paradoxically, a burst of fighting would be a positive sign, indicating that Maliki meant yesterday's disarmament ultimatum to Muqtada's militia. But if the Mahdi Army just goes to ground and the prime minister claims that - poof! - it's no longer a threat, it will mean that he cut another deal with Muqtada. ...If we and the Iraqis try to avoid Sadr City's challenges, you'll know the entire effort's a hollow sham.

There are no guarantees that this plan will work, but it deserves a chance. Surrender isn't a strategy, and cowardice won't save us from the deadly threats we face