Saturday, February 17, 2007

TOO EARLY, FOR SURE, BUT MAYBE?



The "surge" just started....and as the politicos, safe in D.C. soil their underwear in fear....here'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.



TWO FACED

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 Somalia...is 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 MoveCongress.org, 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

METAPHORICAL GUN CONTROL

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

TOADY ALERT, UPDATED

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 REPORTS IN


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 us....me, 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

MEA CULPA

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...

GO, JACK BAUER...BAUER POWER...JACK IS BACK...BAUER FOR PRESIDENT!

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

TOADIES AND FOOLS

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 examined...read 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.

NOT SERIOUS

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 enemy...in 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

ALMOST TOO FUNNY!

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 Dems...is running again, this time for President. Leaving aside the partisan politics...Dem vs. Rep stuff...my 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 adversaries...as 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!

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

FINDING THE ALPHA DOG

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

THINK I'M FUNNIN' YOU?

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 involved...read this.