I posted a couple of days ago about the clever tactics resorted to by Democrats (and RINOs) in the Senate hearings.
I was unable to see most of the hearings, but I watched with contempt as Barbara Boxer (D-CA) lectured Petraeus and Crocker, using up all her time and agreeably suggesting that she would be happy to accept their answers in writing, and Chairman Biden cheerfully accommodating her.
I’m not the only one who noticed this trend. Apparently, later in the day, Barack Obama spent his time lecturing the witnesses and then using the last minute to pose a 266 word question. Unfortunately, there was no time for the witnesses to respond, and he expressed regret. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) didn’t let the moment pass unremarked, however. Opening his remarks he observed dryly, "As you have found, our hearings are more about listening to ourselves than listening to our witnesses."
Touché.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says the best Bush strategy is to put Congress on TV as often as possible.
Politicians who resort to such clever tactics don't appear intelligent or astute, but rather shifty and craven in their attempts to frame the debate without giving their "opponents" an opportunity to rebut them. I don't believe it's lost on the American public.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
If You Support Our Troops and Their Mission in Iraq, Please Sign the Victory Caucus Petition
You’ll notice I’ve made some additions to the sidebar. I’ve added two links to the Victory Caucus petition to support the military mission in Iraq; One near the top of the sidebar, and one at the bottom. They both take you to the same place, so there’s no need to click on both. I only added the one at the bottom for convenience, in case readers missed the top one.
I agree with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that the achievements we are hoping to accomplish in Iraq are by no means certain, but they are obtainable if we press on. If we choose to disengage in Iraq, the consequences are dire for the entire Middle East. Civil war, chaos, and genocide will rule the region as all the different ethnic groups and neighboring nations rush to take advantage of the power vacuum that is sure to follow. If we abandon Iraq, we must abandon all our interests in the Middle East, including our allies, even Israel. Iran is sure to become more powerful and influential, but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt are not likely to stand idly by and let that happen uncontested. If Iran gains control of Iraq’s oil fields, the price of oil will skyrocket, affecting global economies, including our own. We have so much of our own national interests tied to Iraq and the entire region that abandoning them is idiotic and insane. Those who claim nothing bad will happen if we get out are shortsighted, shallow, craven and immoral. Yes, immoral. To abandon the millions of Iraqis to civil war and ethnic cleansing is akin to firefighters letting a house burn down with women and children still trapped inside. It’s unthinkable.
So, please, click on the link and sign the petition. Add the link to your own blog if you like. Instructions are here. It's amazingly easy. I did it, for crying out loud. Or send emails to your contacts.
Democrats have often pointed to our failure in Vietnam as justification for pulling out of Iraq. They don’t see the irony in the fact that Osama Bin Laden used our Vietnam retreat as part of his rationale for declaring war on the U.S. and attacking our interests wherever he could.. He assured his followers that we were cowardly and weak, and we proved him right, for a long time. All the attacks of terrorism were ignored and went unanswered until Sept. 11, 2001. When the Twin Towers fell, Bin Laden got our attention, because we realized that we could no longer ignore him.
And now, six years on, we are at the crossroads, trying to decide if it’s worth it to press on, or should we turn back and retire from the field. If we turn back, we prove Bin Laden right, we are cowardly and weak, and lack the resolve necessary to remain a great nation. If we abandon the Iraqis in their struggle to establish a stable country in which they can live in peace and safety, we will deserve whatever evil comes of it.
But what about the Iraqis? Will they be deserving of the chaotic hell that is sure to descend upon their heads? I think not. They were powerless to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising to power. They were impotent to depose him once he gained power. He reigned in terror for decades. They were powerless to stop the U.S. led invasion in 2003. Once elections were held and a constitution ratified and representatives selected to the Iraqi Parliament and government, the ball was in their court. For the first time in history, the fate of the Iraqi people was in their own hands, if they would take the opportunity and not waste it while America and others in the coalition spent blood and treasure on their behalf. True, they haven’t made as much progress as we would like, and there’s too much bickering and infighting, as well as violence, assassinations, suicide bombs, and attacks against innocent and unarmed civilians, including women and children. But for us to throw our hands up and walk away in despair would be reprehensibly cowardly, weak, and cravenly immoral.
Democrats are claiming that this is "Bush’s War" or perhaps "the Republicans’ War", but its an American army and Marine Corps that’s fighting in Iraq, for vital American interests. If we choose to quit the fight, we lose so much more than just a war. The Democrats don’t see that, and are eager for our defeat, because they see it as a political victory for them. They believe it will lead them to the White House in ‘08. What they apparently don’t see is that if we are successful in Iraq, they won’t share in that victory because they’ve worked so hard against it. But if we fail, the American people will lay it at their feet, and the stench of treason will be carried by the Democratic Party just as it was after the Civil War, and it will be a generation or more before they come back into power, if ever. People won’t trust Democrats to look after American interests, and rightly so.
Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote this:
Governmental competence is imperative because as Petreaus explained, "the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." Petreaus continued, "The question is whether the competition takes place more — or less — violently."
What is notable about Petreaus's statement is that it can be equally applied to all countries. Politics and warfare are both about the relative distribution of power. What separates democracies from tyrannies and failed states is that democracies determine power's distribution through deliberation and debate while tyrannies and failed states are governed by the rule of the gun and the laws of the jungle.
That the political party now in control over both houses of Congress, and well-positioned to form the next administration seems to have discarded this basic truth is far more dangerous for Iraq, the Middle East and indeed the entire world, than the chronic weakness, incompetence, double dealing and corruption of the Maliki government or any successor government.
The strategy that the US has adopted in Iraq, that has met with such success even in the brief time it has been operative is a long-term strategy. Unless the Democrats regain their senses, it will be difficult for anyone to trust that the US won't simply abandon Iraq and with it, its responsibility as the leader of the Free World in the midst of a global war. (Bold mine).
I agree with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that the achievements we are hoping to accomplish in Iraq are by no means certain, but they are obtainable if we press on. If we choose to disengage in Iraq, the consequences are dire for the entire Middle East. Civil war, chaos, and genocide will rule the region as all the different ethnic groups and neighboring nations rush to take advantage of the power vacuum that is sure to follow. If we abandon Iraq, we must abandon all our interests in the Middle East, including our allies, even Israel. Iran is sure to become more powerful and influential, but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt are not likely to stand idly by and let that happen uncontested. If Iran gains control of Iraq’s oil fields, the price of oil will skyrocket, affecting global economies, including our own. We have so much of our own national interests tied to Iraq and the entire region that abandoning them is idiotic and insane. Those who claim nothing bad will happen if we get out are shortsighted, shallow, craven and immoral. Yes, immoral. To abandon the millions of Iraqis to civil war and ethnic cleansing is akin to firefighters letting a house burn down with women and children still trapped inside. It’s unthinkable.
So, please, click on the link and sign the petition. Add the link to your own blog if you like. Instructions are here. It's amazingly easy. I did it, for crying out loud. Or send emails to your contacts.
Democrats have often pointed to our failure in Vietnam as justification for pulling out of Iraq. They don’t see the irony in the fact that Osama Bin Laden used our Vietnam retreat as part of his rationale for declaring war on the U.S. and attacking our interests wherever he could.. He assured his followers that we were cowardly and weak, and we proved him right, for a long time. All the attacks of terrorism were ignored and went unanswered until Sept. 11, 2001. When the Twin Towers fell, Bin Laden got our attention, because we realized that we could no longer ignore him.
And now, six years on, we are at the crossroads, trying to decide if it’s worth it to press on, or should we turn back and retire from the field. If we turn back, we prove Bin Laden right, we are cowardly and weak, and lack the resolve necessary to remain a great nation. If we abandon the Iraqis in their struggle to establish a stable country in which they can live in peace and safety, we will deserve whatever evil comes of it.
But what about the Iraqis? Will they be deserving of the chaotic hell that is sure to descend upon their heads? I think not. They were powerless to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising to power. They were impotent to depose him once he gained power. He reigned in terror for decades. They were powerless to stop the U.S. led invasion in 2003. Once elections were held and a constitution ratified and representatives selected to the Iraqi Parliament and government, the ball was in their court. For the first time in history, the fate of the Iraqi people was in their own hands, if they would take the opportunity and not waste it while America and others in the coalition spent blood and treasure on their behalf. True, they haven’t made as much progress as we would like, and there’s too much bickering and infighting, as well as violence, assassinations, suicide bombs, and attacks against innocent and unarmed civilians, including women and children. But for us to throw our hands up and walk away in despair would be reprehensibly cowardly, weak, and cravenly immoral.
Democrats are claiming that this is "Bush’s War" or perhaps "the Republicans’ War", but its an American army and Marine Corps that’s fighting in Iraq, for vital American interests. If we choose to quit the fight, we lose so much more than just a war. The Democrats don’t see that, and are eager for our defeat, because they see it as a political victory for them. They believe it will lead them to the White House in ‘08. What they apparently don’t see is that if we are successful in Iraq, they won’t share in that victory because they’ve worked so hard against it. But if we fail, the American people will lay it at their feet, and the stench of treason will be carried by the Democratic Party just as it was after the Civil War, and it will be a generation or more before they come back into power, if ever. People won’t trust Democrats to look after American interests, and rightly so.
Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote this:
Governmental competence is imperative because as Petreaus explained, "the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." Petreaus continued, "The question is whether the competition takes place more — or less — violently."
What is notable about Petreaus's statement is that it can be equally applied to all countries. Politics and warfare are both about the relative distribution of power. What separates democracies from tyrannies and failed states is that democracies determine power's distribution through deliberation and debate while tyrannies and failed states are governed by the rule of the gun and the laws of the jungle.
That the political party now in control over both houses of Congress, and well-positioned to form the next administration seems to have discarded this basic truth is far more dangerous for Iraq, the Middle East and indeed the entire world, than the chronic weakness, incompetence, double dealing and corruption of the Maliki government or any successor government.
The strategy that the US has adopted in Iraq, that has met with such success even in the brief time it has been operative is a long-term strategy. Unless the Democrats regain their senses, it will be difficult for anyone to trust that the US won't simply abandon Iraq and with it, its responsibility as the leader of the Free World in the midst of a global war. (Bold mine).
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
What If The Current President Has Found His Grant and a Better “Strategery”?
Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist adding that little bit of embellisment to irritate the defeatists.
I remember with disgust on election day in November 2006 when the Democrats won majorities in the House and Senate by decrying the Republican "Culture of Corruption"®, and claiming that we needed to take a new direction in Iraq. Well, the Culture of Corruption was clearly bogus, at least in terms of being exclusively a Republican product. But the "new direction in Iraq" apparently resounded with the president, because on the very next day he accepted the resignation of Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, and within mere weeks, General David Petraeus was installed at the head of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, and General Casey was relieved. The complete turn around of the president had me concerned, because it seemed so out of character. It seemed as if he was caving in.
And now here we are 10 months later, with Gen. Petraeus reporting to Congress how things have changed in Iraq, making victory possible if we don’t now shun the fight, but press on. So they’ve changed course in Iraq, but they’re still saying press on. This is not quite what the Democrats had in mind, and they’re clearly irritated and panicked.
Donald Kagan at National Review Online has a long article highlighting the similarities between the current conflict in Iraq and the Civil War. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but here are some long excerpts.
The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.
In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, "that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory." Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!" The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens."
I remember with disgust on election day in November 2006 when the Democrats won majorities in the House and Senate by decrying the Republican "Culture of Corruption"®, and claiming that we needed to take a new direction in Iraq. Well, the Culture of Corruption was clearly bogus, at least in terms of being exclusively a Republican product. But the "new direction in Iraq" apparently resounded with the president, because on the very next day he accepted the resignation of Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, and within mere weeks, General David Petraeus was installed at the head of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, and General Casey was relieved. The complete turn around of the president had me concerned, because it seemed so out of character. It seemed as if he was caving in.
And now here we are 10 months later, with Gen. Petraeus reporting to Congress how things have changed in Iraq, making victory possible if we don’t now shun the fight, but press on. So they’ve changed course in Iraq, but they’re still saying press on. This is not quite what the Democrats had in mind, and they’re clearly irritated and panicked.
Donald Kagan at National Review Online has a long article highlighting the similarities between the current conflict in Iraq and the Civil War. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but here are some long excerpts.
The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.
__________________________________________________
So it was, too, in the midst of America’s Civil War. As late as 1864, after three years of fearful casualties, victory for the Union forces was not in sight. Lincoln was determined to continue the fight to restore the integrity of the Union and to abolish slavery. Original opponents of the war were joined by great numbers who were simply weary, and others who were ready to seek peace at any price, which was for some the persistence of slavery and for others the dissolution of the Union. One English friend of the Union cause expected such politicians to compromise with the South in order to take it back, slavery and all. Such an event would be shameful, he said, but still "it would leave the question to be settled by a similar process of blood by another generation."
In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, "that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory." Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!" The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens."
____________________________________________
No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: "Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House."
_____________________________________________
Victory in the war Americans confront today is not certain. If it comes it will arrive only after long and hard effort, but it is well to remember that the United States has lost war only when it has chosen to fight no longer. There are defeatists aplenty among us today, and they too, shout that the war has been lost, that the government that conducts it is stupid and incompetent, that the war is not necessary and that our leaders lied to us in bringing it on, that nothing terrible will ensue if we abandon the fighting. They, too, bewail the casualties incurred in the war and proclaim their support for the troops even as they delay voting a budget to sustain the military.
Such stratagems may work so long as a war goes badly. But what if the current president has found his Grant and a better strategy? Like the Copperheads of the Civil War, today’s defeatists have a huge investment in defeat and live in dread of success in the field, which could turn into disaster at the polls. In this, they would do well to understand that they are at odds with most of the American people, who are tired of the war and deplore the casualties and expense that goes with it. They want peace, but not one that is an illusion and will not last. Nor do they want a peace at any price that will bring fearful consequences and disgrace. If the defeatists have their way that is the kind of peace we will get; the American people will know whom to blame and will not quickly forget.
(Bold mine).
Well, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. But this is pretty much what I had in mind when I posted last week about Frederick W. Kagan's article about the likelyhood that the recent successes in Anbar represent the Gettysburg of this war, that we've turned the corner and achieved at least the possibility of victory.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Live Blogging Petraeus/Crocker Report to Congress
7:55 a.m. Amb. Crocker is reviewing his statement. It sounds like he's going over ground he covered yesterday. It's hard to tell if the Congressmen are listening. Chris Dodd looks skeptical. John Kerry is stone faced. Others have heads down, reading the statement.
Iraqi provinces don't have the power of taxation, so they must receive all their resources from the central government in Bhagdad.
My overall impression is that this is not so much a report as a televised debate. Clearly a lot of Congressmen have already made up their minds where they stand, and they're eager to rebut whatever Petraeus or Crocker say.
Crocker says failure in Iraq will be followed by massive human suffering beyond the magnitude that has been suffered already, and that other nations, particularly Iran, are poised to fill the vacuum that would be created. He says our present course is hard, but the alternative is even harder.
At the conclusion of Ambassador Cocker's remarks a Code Pinker stood and made a loud, incoherent statement and was led away by Capitol police. Goofs.
8:10 a.m. General Petraeus is giving a statement. Sounds a lot like what he said yesterday.
(Well, duh--he gave the same statement to both Houses of Congress!)
The source of the conflict in Iraq is the competition between all the different political and ethnic groups for power and resources. This competition will take place. The question is will this competition be less or more violent?
He's busy "cherry picking" statistics now to show the declining trend of violence and attacks in and across Iraq. In other words, he's emphasizing the positive.
More disruption. A red faced, white haired man in a white suit is apoplectic, loud but still incoherent. He too is escorted from the room.
8:30 a.m. C-SPAN has switched coverage to something else. CNN and MS-NBC are only providing partial coverage. They're not really interested in anything Petraeus or Crocker have to say, I'm sure.
8:44 a.m. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) is questioning Petraeus and Crocker. He is minimizing the effects of the surge. He's emphasizing the hardships of the Iraqi people, and the incompetence and ineptness of the Iraqi Parliament. Sounds like he's cherry picking, to me.
I suspect Lugar is a RINO.
Crocker says that Iraq is unlikely to come out of this conflict looking like a smaller version of America, and we shouldn't expect that.
8:10 a.m. Chris Dodd (D-CN) has his turn now. He's cherry picking, using an anecdote, because he doesn't want to go back and forth debating the statistics that Petraeus has presented. This situation is not going to get better. How can we justify extending this effort?
Petraeus points out some of the smaller intermediate steps that have been taken toward where we want to go.
8:59 a.m. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) points out "bright line contradictions" between his report and the GAO report and others. He concludes that the Iraqi government is disfunctional. Flooding a zone with U.S. troops, it's logical to assume that there will be some success there. We've lost the four southern provinces to thugs and militias. We're paying tribute to these thugs to keep the ports open. British troops are huddled in the Basra airport. He's citing the 7 NCOs who wrote an article in the New York Times desputing the progress that has been reported in Iraq. Are we going to dismiss their report? Are we going to continue to pour blood and treasure into Iraq when there is so little real progress, especially on the political front? He lays the blame for the lack of progress on "this administration". He's clearly a RINO. I'm glad he's announced his retirement.
9:15 a.m. Senator Kerry (D-NY) says this is a historic moment. Not since General Westmoreland addressed Congress during the Vietnam War has an American General addressed the Congress; a clever reference to the quagmire that was Vietnam, similar of course to the present quagmire in Iraq. Is it acceptable that the British troops are stationed at an airbase and militias are fighting it out in 4 southeastern provinces under the influence of Iran?
What I see is a general unwillingness to give the Iraqi government any more time to get their act together. I think the U.S. Congress is extremely hypocrital to criticize Iraq's parliament and government as disfunctional when our own government is nearly as corrupt, inept, and disfunctional. Add to that a measure of cravenness. There's a clear reluctance to keep pouring American blood and treasure into this conflict. No one is talking about the alternative, and what would happen if our forces were to withdraw by next spring.
9:30 a.m. General Petraeus is reponding to Sen. Biden (D-?) He misspoke, saying that he was going to "go home"--meaning go back to Iraq and work on some things. I thought that was an interesting little slip of the tongue. Clearly, Gen. Petraeus is fully invested in Iraq and it's outcome. Nothing wrong with that. In spite of that investment, he has responded to all the questioning and quibbling dispassionatley and respectfully, and yet, I believe, he has responded to every question with an answer.
9:45 a.m. General Petraeus was responding to a question and Sen. Biden cut him off because he was taking too much time. He cut him off and called on Russ Feingold (D-WI) to pose his questions. Feingold is going on and on about all the bad things that are going on in the world other than Iraq, and has now asked for a response. Which is more important, Pakistan or Iraq?
This is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters. What are we going to do, redeploy to Pakistan?
Feingold calls this "myopia", "the myopia of Iraq". His point is that we're over committed to Iraq at the expense of the overall effort against al-Quaida.
When can we tell the American people that combat deaths will go down in Iraq?
What a grandee.
10:00 a.m. It strikes me that Petraeus and Crocker need to be careful to not paint too rosie of a picture in Iraq, lest Congress use that to justify a precipitous withdrawal of our forces from the region.
Crocker is saying that to threaten the Iraqis with our withdrawal will have the effect of pushing them in the wrong direction. Self-preservation, instead of reconciliation, will become a priority, as Iraqis prepare for a massive civil war.
10:03 a.m. Biden cuts off the general again citing time constraints, gently chiding the general and the ambassador, saying it's in their own best interest to shorten their answers. Incredible arrogance. He's not interested in the answers, it's more important that they get the opportunity to be on television, making their own points.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is making a statement. I haven't heard a question yet. She'll use up all her time and then give them a minute or two to respond. She's accusing them of cherry picking, again. Now she's quoting the BBC poll of Iraqis.
Sen. Boxer has taken up her time and Petraeus and Crocker will have to respond in writing. Great job. Pose questions on T.V. and deny the witnesses an opportunity to respond. Craven. Not interested in answers, but eager to grandstand and rail against the present administration.
They say that war is politics by other means. Apparently, conversely, politics is war by other means, but still war, all the same.
10:20 a.m. I have to sign off. Today is my wife's birthday, and I need to turn my attention to that. Also, it's election day here in Spanish Fork, and we need to do our civic duty.
Iraqi provinces don't have the power of taxation, so they must receive all their resources from the central government in Bhagdad.
My overall impression is that this is not so much a report as a televised debate. Clearly a lot of Congressmen have already made up their minds where they stand, and they're eager to rebut whatever Petraeus or Crocker say.
Crocker says failure in Iraq will be followed by massive human suffering beyond the magnitude that has been suffered already, and that other nations, particularly Iran, are poised to fill the vacuum that would be created. He says our present course is hard, but the alternative is even harder.
At the conclusion of Ambassador Cocker's remarks a Code Pinker stood and made a loud, incoherent statement and was led away by Capitol police. Goofs.
8:10 a.m. General Petraeus is giving a statement. Sounds a lot like what he said yesterday.
(Well, duh--he gave the same statement to both Houses of Congress!)
The source of the conflict in Iraq is the competition between all the different political and ethnic groups for power and resources. This competition will take place. The question is will this competition be less or more violent?
He's busy "cherry picking" statistics now to show the declining trend of violence and attacks in and across Iraq. In other words, he's emphasizing the positive.
More disruption. A red faced, white haired man in a white suit is apoplectic, loud but still incoherent. He too is escorted from the room.
8:30 a.m. C-SPAN has switched coverage to something else. CNN and MS-NBC are only providing partial coverage. They're not really interested in anything Petraeus or Crocker have to say, I'm sure.
8:44 a.m. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) is questioning Petraeus and Crocker. He is minimizing the effects of the surge. He's emphasizing the hardships of the Iraqi people, and the incompetence and ineptness of the Iraqi Parliament. Sounds like he's cherry picking, to me.
I suspect Lugar is a RINO.
Crocker says that Iraq is unlikely to come out of this conflict looking like a smaller version of America, and we shouldn't expect that.
8:10 a.m. Chris Dodd (D-CN) has his turn now. He's cherry picking, using an anecdote, because he doesn't want to go back and forth debating the statistics that Petraeus has presented. This situation is not going to get better. How can we justify extending this effort?
Petraeus points out some of the smaller intermediate steps that have been taken toward where we want to go.
8:59 a.m. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) points out "bright line contradictions" between his report and the GAO report and others. He concludes that the Iraqi government is disfunctional. Flooding a zone with U.S. troops, it's logical to assume that there will be some success there. We've lost the four southern provinces to thugs and militias. We're paying tribute to these thugs to keep the ports open. British troops are huddled in the Basra airport. He's citing the 7 NCOs who wrote an article in the New York Times desputing the progress that has been reported in Iraq. Are we going to dismiss their report? Are we going to continue to pour blood and treasure into Iraq when there is so little real progress, especially on the political front? He lays the blame for the lack of progress on "this administration". He's clearly a RINO. I'm glad he's announced his retirement.
9:15 a.m. Senator Kerry (D-NY) says this is a historic moment. Not since General Westmoreland addressed Congress during the Vietnam War has an American General addressed the Congress; a clever reference to the quagmire that was Vietnam, similar of course to the present quagmire in Iraq. Is it acceptable that the British troops are stationed at an airbase and militias are fighting it out in 4 southeastern provinces under the influence of Iran?
What I see is a general unwillingness to give the Iraqi government any more time to get their act together. I think the U.S. Congress is extremely hypocrital to criticize Iraq's parliament and government as disfunctional when our own government is nearly as corrupt, inept, and disfunctional. Add to that a measure of cravenness. There's a clear reluctance to keep pouring American blood and treasure into this conflict. No one is talking about the alternative, and what would happen if our forces were to withdraw by next spring.
9:30 a.m. General Petraeus is reponding to Sen. Biden (D-?) He misspoke, saying that he was going to "go home"--meaning go back to Iraq and work on some things. I thought that was an interesting little slip of the tongue. Clearly, Gen. Petraeus is fully invested in Iraq and it's outcome. Nothing wrong with that. In spite of that investment, he has responded to all the questioning and quibbling dispassionatley and respectfully, and yet, I believe, he has responded to every question with an answer.
9:45 a.m. General Petraeus was responding to a question and Sen. Biden cut him off because he was taking too much time. He cut him off and called on Russ Feingold (D-WI) to pose his questions. Feingold is going on and on about all the bad things that are going on in the world other than Iraq, and has now asked for a response. Which is more important, Pakistan or Iraq?
This is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters. What are we going to do, redeploy to Pakistan?
Feingold calls this "myopia", "the myopia of Iraq". His point is that we're over committed to Iraq at the expense of the overall effort against al-Quaida.
When can we tell the American people that combat deaths will go down in Iraq?
What a grandee.
10:00 a.m. It strikes me that Petraeus and Crocker need to be careful to not paint too rosie of a picture in Iraq, lest Congress use that to justify a precipitous withdrawal of our forces from the region.
Crocker is saying that to threaten the Iraqis with our withdrawal will have the effect of pushing them in the wrong direction. Self-preservation, instead of reconciliation, will become a priority, as Iraqis prepare for a massive civil war.
10:03 a.m. Biden cuts off the general again citing time constraints, gently chiding the general and the ambassador, saying it's in their own best interest to shorten their answers. Incredible arrogance. He's not interested in the answers, it's more important that they get the opportunity to be on television, making their own points.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is making a statement. I haven't heard a question yet. She'll use up all her time and then give them a minute or two to respond. She's accusing them of cherry picking, again. Now she's quoting the BBC poll of Iraqis.
Sen. Boxer has taken up her time and Petraeus and Crocker will have to respond in writing. Great job. Pose questions on T.V. and deny the witnesses an opportunity to respond. Craven. Not interested in answers, but eager to grandstand and rail against the present administration.
They say that war is politics by other means. Apparently, conversely, politics is war by other means, but still war, all the same.
10:20 a.m. I have to sign off. Today is my wife's birthday, and I need to turn my attention to that. Also, it's election day here in Spanish Fork, and we need to do our civic duty.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Loud, Hysterical, Incoherent and Shrill
I’ve been watching the Petraeus/Crocker Report on C-SPAN.
As General Petraeus concluded his remarks several protesters erupted in the back of the hearing room. I was struck by their apparent hysteria and loud incoherence. Do these people have no idea how idiotic they look by resorting to these tactics of disruption and anarchy? They do themselves and their cause a disservice by resorting to this kind of thing because it makes them look buffoonish and moronic. Apparently, that’s not obvious to them, but it is to me. If I was a Code Pinker or a MoveOn.org sympathizer, I’d be embarrassed. What a bunch of goofballs.
Understand, I’m not upset by the fact that these people are dissenting. What I object to is the manner of their dissent. The only thing that can be said for it is that it’s at least non-violent. But it’s clearly shrill and idiotic.
As General Petraeus concluded his remarks several protesters erupted in the back of the hearing room. I was struck by their apparent hysteria and loud incoherence. Do these people have no idea how idiotic they look by resorting to these tactics of disruption and anarchy? They do themselves and their cause a disservice by resorting to this kind of thing because it makes them look buffoonish and moronic. Apparently, that’s not obvious to them, but it is to me. If I was a Code Pinker or a MoveOn.org sympathizer, I’d be embarrassed. What a bunch of goofballs.
Understand, I’m not upset by the fact that these people are dissenting. What I object to is the manner of their dissent. The only thing that can be said for it is that it’s at least non-violent. But it’s clearly shrill and idiotic.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Strict Gun Control Works---To Empower Criminals
Richard Munday in the London Times Online has a column decrying the failure of strict gun control in Great Britain, which has totally disarmed its law abiding subjects (I almost said citizens, but unarmed subjects aren’t truly citizens, at least in the eyes of their government). The author points to recent events in the U.S. and cites differences and similarities in the violent crime rates in both countries.
Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has "banned" pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).
In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.
As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.
Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.
Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has "banned" pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).
-----------------------------------------------------
In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.
------------------------------------------------------
As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.
Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.
(Bold mine)
So, in the U.S., in states where law abiding citizens can legally carry firearms for self defense, crime rates are much lower than areas where it's strictly forbidden. And in Britain, where it's people are totally disarmed, they're suffering an even worse epidemic of violent crime. It's an interesting article, worthy of your time to read the whole thing.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Osama Withdraws Endorsement of Dems, Still Uses Their Talking Points
Osama Bin Laden, in a video that was intercepted by the U.S. before being released on the internet, is apparently cross with the Democrats for failing to surrender as they promised in 2006.
That's the story at Captain's Quarters, where Ed Morrissey notices that OBL still seems to take his talking points straight from the Dems. He talks about globalization, the Kyoto accords, global warming woes, and the recent mortgage crisis as a result of capitalists oppressing the poor.
Actually, I think it’s rather praiseworthy of the Democrats that Bin Laden has withdrawn his endorsement. But I’m not sure they see it that way. I think they’re secretly stinging from this most recent rebuke.
But, at least the main scream media refused to pile on. This AP story, for instance, despite its length, never mentions OBL's apparent disappointment with the Democrats' fecklessness. Instead, they emphasize the talking points, and the headline is "Osama Slams Capitalism." And they mention that he endorses Noam Chomsky as worthy of our consideration as a leader to follow.
In other words, they play along with the propaganda.
But Morrissey is, um, more skeptical. He mocks OBL's invitation to embrace Islam coupled with the mention of a 2.5% dhimmi tax.
Isn't that sweet? If we just agree to live as slaves under our new Taliban masters, we can finance our homes at a flat 2.5% fee. Think of how liberating that will be! Well, except for the burqas, the barbers, the end of music, dancing, Judaism, Christianity, voting, the press, the 13th-21st centuries, science ...
Not to mention that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution would be repealed, replaced by Sharia Law and the establishment of Islam as the State Religion. Or is that too obvious to point out?
That's the story at Captain's Quarters, where Ed Morrissey notices that OBL still seems to take his talking points straight from the Dems. He talks about globalization, the Kyoto accords, global warming woes, and the recent mortgage crisis as a result of capitalists oppressing the poor.
Actually, I think it’s rather praiseworthy of the Democrats that Bin Laden has withdrawn his endorsement. But I’m not sure they see it that way. I think they’re secretly stinging from this most recent rebuke.
But, at least the main scream media refused to pile on. This AP story, for instance, despite its length, never mentions OBL's apparent disappointment with the Democrats' fecklessness. Instead, they emphasize the talking points, and the headline is "Osama Slams Capitalism." And they mention that he endorses Noam Chomsky as worthy of our consideration as a leader to follow.
In other words, they play along with the propaganda.
But Morrissey is, um, more skeptical. He mocks OBL's invitation to embrace Islam coupled with the mention of a 2.5% dhimmi tax.
Isn't that sweet? If we just agree to live as slaves under our new Taliban masters, we can finance our homes at a flat 2.5% fee. Think of how liberating that will be! Well, except for the burqas, the barbers, the end of music, dancing, Judaism, Christianity, voting, the press, the 13th-21st centuries, science ...
Not to mention that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution would be repealed, replaced by Sharia Law and the establishment of Islam as the State Religion. Or is that too obvious to point out?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Utah Felon Uses Gun to Kill Attacker, Faces Felony Gun Possession Charges
Here's a story in the Salt Lake Tribune about a Hurricane man who justifiably killed a man who attacked him, but did it with a gun that he wasn't entitled to have in his possession--because he's a convicted felon.
Apparently nobody involved in this story can be described as a law abiding citizen; certainly not the attacker, not the victim/shooter, and not even any of the room mates. But the fact remains, this man’s life was in danger, or at least he was in danger of grave bodily injury, which is legal justification for use of deadly force in the state of Utah. So Danny Dutton is alive today because he was in possession of a handgun and was willing to use it to defend himself. He’s in danger of going to prison for a very long time, not because he used a gun to kill someone, but because he had a gun. The crime he committed was possession of the gun. The reason possession of a gun is a crime for Danny Dutton, but not for me, is because Danny Dutton has a prior felony conviction, and I don’t. The conviction, by the way, is for cultivation of marijuana, not exactly a violent crime.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know all the nuances that go with a case like this. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that one of Danny’s room mates was a law abiding citizen and legally owned a gun or guns and kept them in the house where they were accessible. Danny’s attacker breaks into the house and starts beating him and breaks his arm in the process, and continues to pound away at him with this blunt instrument. Danny retreats to the kitchen where he sees the gun on top of the fridge or behind the cookie jar or whatever, grabs it and dispatches his attacker. In this scenario, does Danny have a legal problem with felony possession of a firearm?
I think so, because technically, even though it wasn’t Danny’s gun, and he didn’t own the gun, when Danny picked up the gun, it came into his possession. As soon as Danny picked up the gun, he committed another felony, because he was then a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That seems to be the approach that prosecutors are taking in this case.
So, in order for convicted felon Danny Dutton to stay alive, he had to commit another felony to defend himself. There’s something wrong here.
Do convicted felons have reasonable expectations to be able to defend themselves if their lives are in danger when they’re not committing a crime? If not, why not? The Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn’t go on to say "unless you’re a convicted felon." That’s something that individual states tacked on later.
I think the State Legislature needs to revisit the law, and stipulate that even a convicted felon who is not committing any other crime, has the same right as any other law abiding citizen to defend himself in a deadly situation.
Apparently nobody involved in this story can be described as a law abiding citizen; certainly not the attacker, not the victim/shooter, and not even any of the room mates. But the fact remains, this man’s life was in danger, or at least he was in danger of grave bodily injury, which is legal justification for use of deadly force in the state of Utah. So Danny Dutton is alive today because he was in possession of a handgun and was willing to use it to defend himself. He’s in danger of going to prison for a very long time, not because he used a gun to kill someone, but because he had a gun. The crime he committed was possession of the gun. The reason possession of a gun is a crime for Danny Dutton, but not for me, is because Danny Dutton has a prior felony conviction, and I don’t. The conviction, by the way, is for cultivation of marijuana, not exactly a violent crime.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know all the nuances that go with a case like this. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that one of Danny’s room mates was a law abiding citizen and legally owned a gun or guns and kept them in the house where they were accessible. Danny’s attacker breaks into the house and starts beating him and breaks his arm in the process, and continues to pound away at him with this blunt instrument. Danny retreats to the kitchen where he sees the gun on top of the fridge or behind the cookie jar or whatever, grabs it and dispatches his attacker. In this scenario, does Danny have a legal problem with felony possession of a firearm?
I think so, because technically, even though it wasn’t Danny’s gun, and he didn’t own the gun, when Danny picked up the gun, it came into his possession. As soon as Danny picked up the gun, he committed another felony, because he was then a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That seems to be the approach that prosecutors are taking in this case.
So, in order for convicted felon Danny Dutton to stay alive, he had to commit another felony to defend himself. There’s something wrong here.
Do convicted felons have reasonable expectations to be able to defend themselves if their lives are in danger when they’re not committing a crime? If not, why not? The Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn’t go on to say "unless you’re a convicted felon." That’s something that individual states tacked on later.
I think the State Legislature needs to revisit the law, and stipulate that even a convicted felon who is not committing any other crime, has the same right as any other law abiding citizen to defend himself in a deadly situation.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Q: Have We Fought and Won the Battle of Gettysburg in Iraq?
A: Not if terrorist enablers in the media and Congress can help it!
On July 1, 1863, the Copperheads, who opposed the war, were powerful, influential, and loud in their objections to the high cost of the war in blood and treasure, and they were hateful in their denunciation of the president. (One of their favorite insults was to compare him to an ape.) England was seriously considering intervening on behalf of the Confederacy, which would have been disastrous for the North. Robert E. Lee had invaded Pennsylvania and was determined to threaten Washington, D.C. from the north. His intent was to force the Union to acknowledge the futility of prosecuting the war any longer and to sue for peace on terms the South would find very satisfactory. Union troops rushed to Gettysburg to block his way.
We all know what happened. For three bloody days the two armies locked in mortal combat. Thousands died on both sides, and many more thousands were wounded or maimed for life. The South came within a whisker of winning, but were turned back because of heroic sacrifices by Union troops. Let me point out here, that the Rebel troops were not in any way less brave or heroic, but their sacrifice and effort was only marginally less successful. That small margin was the margin of victory, and Lee lost many more men than he could ever hope to replace. That loss spelled the eventual doom of the Confederacy. Had Lee prevailed at Gettysburg, the war would have ended in 1863, with our nation divided and our Union at an end. But on July 4, as Lee began to withdraw what remained of his forces from the field of battle, the aura of invincibility that Southern soldiers had worn like a mantle was permanently dispelled. Overnight, sentiment for intervention evaporated in England, and the Copperheads, though still loud in their denunciation of Lincoln, began losing influence. The war dragged on for nearly two more agonizing, brutal, years, but it was at Gettysburg that the tide turned.
For years, the anti-war Democrats, aided by their allies in the media, have decried our efforts in Iraq as doomed to failure and defeat. They’ve fairly gloated whenever terrorists have succeeded in attacking and killing Iraqi civilians or coalition forces. They’ve long compared this war to the "quagmire that was Vietnam," and have openly supported and given comfort to the enemy in Iraq. For reasons that are beyond me, they’ve lobbied unceasingly for defeat. They’ve been unable to hide their worry whenever coalition forces have seemed to be on the verge of any kind of success, however temporary. Any time anything good happens in Iraq, they downplay and minimize it, or point to the latest suicide bombing or helicopter crash, or to any of a myriad of good things that aren’t happening, or haven’t happened yet.
Last week, President Bush began pushing back, comparing the aftermath of the Communist victory in southeast Asia, the massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia, the thousands of boat people desperate to escape oppression and genocide, and claiming similar consequences in the Middle East if we give up in Iraq. The Leftist response was immediate and vitriolic. How dare he? How dare the Chimp-in-Chief use their favorite analogy, the Vietnam quagmire, how dare he use that against them? What unfathomable arrogance! They were almost apoplectic in righteous indignation.
Last year western Iraq, particularly al-Anbar province was described in a Marine Corps intelligence report as a hopelessly impenetrable al Quaida stronghold. Monday, September 3, 2007, President George W. Bush met with members of his cabinet as well as with Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders, in al-Anbar, to discuss how best to get money and projects going in the province as a reward to the people for turning against al Quaida and joining the fight to make it safe for Iraqis. Almost simultaneously, Frederick W. Kagan at National Review Online, published a column claiming that this represented an accomplishment similar to winning the Battle of Gettysburg, that we have turned the corner in Iraq. Other columns appeared elsewhere, claiming similar accomplishments.
Undeterred and unbowed, terrorist enablers in the main stream media published stories the very next day touting a GAO report that showed that the Iraqi government had not met 11 of 18 benchmarks critical to success in Iraq. They tiptoed carefully around the obvious assumption that there were 7 of the benchmarks that they had met, at least partially. They were following the time tested pattern. If anything good happens in Iraq, downplay it, point to something bad happening, or barring that, point to all the good things that aren’t happening.
There’s no question in my mind that good things are starting to happen in Iraq. It's obvious there’s much left to do, that won’t get done if we leave now or in the near future.
So have we, as Kagan claims, fought and won the Battle of Gettysburg in the current conflict in Iraq? I don’t know. Time will tell. Modern day Copperheads in the press and in Congress, still have power and influence. Terrorist enablers are still loud and influential. If they succeed in stampeding us out of Iraq where the jihadis and terrorists have failed to defeat our forces in the field, then the consequences for our world and the Middle East will be just as dire as the consequences would have been for the United States if Union forces hadn’t turned Lee back at Gettysburg in 1863.
On July 1, 1863, the Copperheads, who opposed the war, were powerful, influential, and loud in their objections to the high cost of the war in blood and treasure, and they were hateful in their denunciation of the president. (One of their favorite insults was to compare him to an ape.) England was seriously considering intervening on behalf of the Confederacy, which would have been disastrous for the North. Robert E. Lee had invaded Pennsylvania and was determined to threaten Washington, D.C. from the north. His intent was to force the Union to acknowledge the futility of prosecuting the war any longer and to sue for peace on terms the South would find very satisfactory. Union troops rushed to Gettysburg to block his way.
We all know what happened. For three bloody days the two armies locked in mortal combat. Thousands died on both sides, and many more thousands were wounded or maimed for life. The South came within a whisker of winning, but were turned back because of heroic sacrifices by Union troops. Let me point out here, that the Rebel troops were not in any way less brave or heroic, but their sacrifice and effort was only marginally less successful. That small margin was the margin of victory, and Lee lost many more men than he could ever hope to replace. That loss spelled the eventual doom of the Confederacy. Had Lee prevailed at Gettysburg, the war would have ended in 1863, with our nation divided and our Union at an end. But on July 4, as Lee began to withdraw what remained of his forces from the field of battle, the aura of invincibility that Southern soldiers had worn like a mantle was permanently dispelled. Overnight, sentiment for intervention evaporated in England, and the Copperheads, though still loud in their denunciation of Lincoln, began losing influence. The war dragged on for nearly two more agonizing, brutal, years, but it was at Gettysburg that the tide turned.
For years, the anti-war Democrats, aided by their allies in the media, have decried our efforts in Iraq as doomed to failure and defeat. They’ve fairly gloated whenever terrorists have succeeded in attacking and killing Iraqi civilians or coalition forces. They’ve long compared this war to the "quagmire that was Vietnam," and have openly supported and given comfort to the enemy in Iraq. For reasons that are beyond me, they’ve lobbied unceasingly for defeat. They’ve been unable to hide their worry whenever coalition forces have seemed to be on the verge of any kind of success, however temporary. Any time anything good happens in Iraq, they downplay and minimize it, or point to the latest suicide bombing or helicopter crash, or to any of a myriad of good things that aren’t happening, or haven’t happened yet.
Last week, President Bush began pushing back, comparing the aftermath of the Communist victory in southeast Asia, the massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia, the thousands of boat people desperate to escape oppression and genocide, and claiming similar consequences in the Middle East if we give up in Iraq. The Leftist response was immediate and vitriolic. How dare he? How dare the Chimp-in-Chief use their favorite analogy, the Vietnam quagmire, how dare he use that against them? What unfathomable arrogance! They were almost apoplectic in righteous indignation.
Last year western Iraq, particularly al-Anbar province was described in a Marine Corps intelligence report as a hopelessly impenetrable al Quaida stronghold. Monday, September 3, 2007, President George W. Bush met with members of his cabinet as well as with Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders, in al-Anbar, to discuss how best to get money and projects going in the province as a reward to the people for turning against al Quaida and joining the fight to make it safe for Iraqis. Almost simultaneously, Frederick W. Kagan at National Review Online, published a column claiming that this represented an accomplishment similar to winning the Battle of Gettysburg, that we have turned the corner in Iraq. Other columns appeared elsewhere, claiming similar accomplishments.
Undeterred and unbowed, terrorist enablers in the main stream media published stories the very next day touting a GAO report that showed that the Iraqi government had not met 11 of 18 benchmarks critical to success in Iraq. They tiptoed carefully around the obvious assumption that there were 7 of the benchmarks that they had met, at least partially. They were following the time tested pattern. If anything good happens in Iraq, downplay it, point to something bad happening, or barring that, point to all the good things that aren’t happening.
There’s no question in my mind that good things are starting to happen in Iraq. It's obvious there’s much left to do, that won’t get done if we leave now or in the near future.
So have we, as Kagan claims, fought and won the Battle of Gettysburg in the current conflict in Iraq? I don’t know. Time will tell. Modern day Copperheads in the press and in Congress, still have power and influence. Terrorist enablers are still loud and influential. If they succeed in stampeding us out of Iraq where the jihadis and terrorists have failed to defeat our forces in the field, then the consequences for our world and the Middle East will be just as dire as the consequences would have been for the United States if Union forces hadn’t turned Lee back at Gettysburg in 1863.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Update: Why Scandals Hurt Republicans, Not Democrats
Something I hadn't considered, in my recent post about the Craig scandal and resignation: Republican voters hold their candidates to higher standards. Democrats expect their politicians to be crooks, as long as they provide pork for the hometown constituents. From a column by Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
...media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents. The typical Democratic voter doesn't mind terribly if their senator or congressman takes something for himself along the way. (Time Magazine's story on Rep. Mollohan's re-election was headlined, "Pork Trumps Scandal.")
The typical Republican voter wants his senator or congressman to keep his taxes low, his government honest. He is furious when GOP lawmakers stick their fingers in the cookie jar, or give lip service to values they do not practice.
Republicans must be squeaky clean to win elections because their voters will crucify them for behavior Democratic voters wink at so long as the pork keeps flowing. This is why his GOP colleagues already have stripped Sen. Craig of his committee assignments, and many have called for his resignation, while Democratic senators are comfortable having among them a man who left to drown in his automobile a young woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair. (Bold mine).
Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it? The facts clearly seem to bear this out. Here's a list of corrupt Democrats who've been reelected despite being under an ethical cloud, shall we say:
...media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents. The typical Democratic voter doesn't mind terribly if their senator or congressman takes something for himself along the way. (Time Magazine's story on Rep. Mollohan's re-election was headlined, "Pork Trumps Scandal.")
The typical Republican voter wants his senator or congressman to keep his taxes low, his government honest. He is furious when GOP lawmakers stick their fingers in the cookie jar, or give lip service to values they do not practice.
Republicans must be squeaky clean to win elections because their voters will crucify them for behavior Democratic voters wink at so long as the pork keeps flowing. This is why his GOP colleagues already have stripped Sen. Craig of his committee assignments, and many have called for his resignation, while Democratic senators are comfortable having among them a man who left to drown in his automobile a young woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair. (Bold mine).
Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it? The facts clearly seem to bear this out. Here's a list of corrupt Democrats who've been reelected despite being under an ethical cloud, shall we say:
- Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is the target of a federal investigation, was forced (by Republicans) to step down from the ethics committee last year but was reelected in November.
- Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was the target of a 2-year federal bribery investigation, had $90,000 in bribe money found in his freezer, and was still reelected last November.
- Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was involved in the ABSCAM scandal, also apparently steered millions in federal funding to companies that were clients of his brother's lobbying firm. He was also reelected in November.
- Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) found guilty in civil court of leaking an illegally recorded phone conversation to the media in March 2006. He too, was reelected last November.
- Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
- Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
Update: Mark R. Levin at National Review Online:
There is indeed a culture of corruption, and it extends well beyond any single politician. It swirls around big government. It always has and it always will. It has become institutionalized in many ways. And that culture of corruption celebrates clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have as they rewrite the Constitution; it demeans people of faith who speak out against the culture of corruption and for — dare I say — family values; it undermines and seeks to demoralize Americans in uniform as they fight a horrible enemy on the battlefield; it demonizes entrepreneurs and successful enterprises; it uses race, age, religion, gender, and whatever works to balkanize Americans; and so on. This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism. And its impact on our society is far worse than the disorderly-conduct misdemeanor to which Larry Craig pled guilty and for which he has now resigned.
(Bold mine).
Botched (Wrong House) Raids—A BIG P.R. Problem For Police Departments.
...And sooner or later, someone’s going to get killed!
Oh, wait...never mind.
In Temecula, California the police department raided a two story house. Brandishing firearms and shouting expletives and threats, they quickly ordered two adults and four teenagers to the floor and placed them in cuffs. Then they trashed the place, kicking down interior doors and ransacking the house while they searched for drugs. When the couple’s 5 month old infant began to cry, the mother, who was still handcuffed and prone on the floor, asked a nearby officer about her baby’s condition. She was advised not to move or he’d shoot her in the head. The officers notified their superiors that both floors of the house had been cleared. The officers were informed over the radio, within hearing of the residents, that the house they were supposed to be raiding only had one floor.
OOPS!
Well, at least the city is apologetic, has temporarily disbanded the SWAT team, and is offering to settle in lieu of a lawsuit, with a promise that the officers involved will be reprimanded.
In Philadelphia, PA, the residents were out of town when the police broke down the front door, entered and searched the house. They disabled the security alarm system by tearing it from the wall, emptied cupboards, pulled out and overturned drawers, and then figured out they were at the wrong house. Another house just down the street was raided simultaneously, and several people placed under arrest. Apparently these bozos strayed to the wrong house, unsupervised. Philadelphia P.D. isn’t talking about this incident.
I know police officers are human beings trying to do a very difficult job, and in every human endeavor, mistakes happen. But supervisors need to make absolutely sure that they have the right address. People have been killed, and more will die if this trend continues. I agree with Glenn Reynolds, who says that this sort of thing will keep happening until the penalty for wrong house raids becomes much more severe. The careers of all involved in these incidents need to take a serious hit. If that means dismissal, so be it. Others think there should be some jail time involved. I don't know if I'd go that far unless corruption, not just incompetence, can be proven.
There's more here. The comments are kind of fun. It seems the drug using public is outraged, while others are downright gleeful about the law enforcement community's, um, discomfort.
Oh, wait...never mind.
In Temecula, California the police department raided a two story house. Brandishing firearms and shouting expletives and threats, they quickly ordered two adults and four teenagers to the floor and placed them in cuffs. Then they trashed the place, kicking down interior doors and ransacking the house while they searched for drugs. When the couple’s 5 month old infant began to cry, the mother, who was still handcuffed and prone on the floor, asked a nearby officer about her baby’s condition. She was advised not to move or he’d shoot her in the head. The officers notified their superiors that both floors of the house had been cleared. The officers were informed over the radio, within hearing of the residents, that the house they were supposed to be raiding only had one floor.
OOPS!
Well, at least the city is apologetic, has temporarily disbanded the SWAT team, and is offering to settle in lieu of a lawsuit, with a promise that the officers involved will be reprimanded.
In Philadelphia, PA, the residents were out of town when the police broke down the front door, entered and searched the house. They disabled the security alarm system by tearing it from the wall, emptied cupboards, pulled out and overturned drawers, and then figured out they were at the wrong house. Another house just down the street was raided simultaneously, and several people placed under arrest. Apparently these bozos strayed to the wrong house, unsupervised. Philadelphia P.D. isn’t talking about this incident.
I know police officers are human beings trying to do a very difficult job, and in every human endeavor, mistakes happen. But supervisors need to make absolutely sure that they have the right address. People have been killed, and more will die if this trend continues. I agree with Glenn Reynolds, who says that this sort of thing will keep happening until the penalty for wrong house raids becomes much more severe. The careers of all involved in these incidents need to take a serious hit. If that means dismissal, so be it. Others think there should be some jail time involved. I don't know if I'd go that far unless corruption, not just incompetence, can be proven.
There's more here. The comments are kind of fun. It seems the drug using public is outraged, while others are downright gleeful about the law enforcement community's, um, discomfort.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
An Odd American Phenomenon: Sex Scandals, Even Non-Sexual Sex Scandals, Only Destroy Republicans.
...While Democrats get a pass. Why is that?
From Classical Values:
What is it with these guys that they can't even run a proper sex scandal?
Who ever heard of sex scandals without sex?
At least when the Democrats have a sex scandal, it involves real, honest to goodness sex. Yeah, I know, Bill Clinton said the sex wasn't sex. But let's face it, it was. Had Bill tapped Monica's foot, the most he'd have been accused of was playing footsie, and there'd have been little to no outcry, much less an impeachment. And as Matthew Sheffield makes clear, the double standard is appalling; Democrats keep their jobs after drowning women in cars or keeping male brothels, while Republicans are hounded out of office for sex scandals without even the component of sex.
If I were the American people, I'd be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.
The GOP needs to shape up.
The link in the middle of the quote is interesting. A pertinent quote:
Sen. Craig's political career is probably over. The abuse of power, however, was not Sen. Craig's but the media's, who pick and choose whose privacy they will violate on a partisan basis.
(Bold mine)
From Classical Values:
What is it with these guys that they can't even run a proper sex scandal?
Who ever heard of sex scandals without sex?
At least when the Democrats have a sex scandal, it involves real, honest to goodness sex. Yeah, I know, Bill Clinton said the sex wasn't sex. But let's face it, it was. Had Bill tapped Monica's foot, the most he'd have been accused of was playing footsie, and there'd have been little to no outcry, much less an impeachment. And as Matthew Sheffield makes clear, the double standard is appalling; Democrats keep their jobs after drowning women in cars or keeping male brothels, while Republicans are hounded out of office for sex scandals without even the component of sex.
If I were the American people, I'd be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.
The GOP needs to shape up.
The link in the middle of the quote is interesting. A pertinent quote:
Sen. Craig's political career is probably over. The abuse of power, however, was not Sen. Craig's but the media's, who pick and choose whose privacy they will violate on a partisan basis.
(Bold mine)
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Why I don't trust the media---They're propagandists pushing an agenda!
Recently, a Public Affairs officer within Multinational Force-Iraq privately expressed his concern to me that the media were spiking or deliberately misrepresenting reports made by the military about Iranian involvement and the capture of Persian fighters within Iraq. “We would arrest three members of the al Quds force (part of the Revolutionary Guard), and the story that would come out in the papers the next day would be, ‘Three Iranian diplomats arrested from embassy.’ I'd call the folks at the papers and say, ‘Look, these folks weren't diplomats, and they weren’t at an embassy. They’re Iranian soldiers and they were taken while fighting against the coalition in Iraq.’ I’d say to them, ‘We have evidence – from weapons to ID cards to uniforms – that proves beyond a doubt who and what they are,’ and I’d offer to bring them in and walk through each piece of evidence with them.“They’d never take me up on it, and would never correct their stories.”
From Jeff Emanuel, an independent imbedded journalist (i.e. blogger) in Iraq.
Clearly another example of the facts on the ground not fitting the narrative, so alter the facts to better fit the narrative. Way to go, MSM! Why don't the American people trust you, I wonder?
From Jeff Emanuel, an independent imbedded journalist (i.e. blogger) in Iraq.
Clearly another example of the facts on the ground not fitting the narrative, so alter the facts to better fit the narrative. Way to go, MSM! Why don't the American people trust you, I wonder?
Karl Rove's Parting Thoughts
From his National Review Online column:
I have known George W. Bush for nearly 34 years and have had the privilege of watching from nearby as history has placed its demands on him and our country. I know his humility and decency, his intelligence and thoughtfulness, his respect for every person he comes in contact with, his unwavering commitment to principle-based decision-making, and the quiet and compassionate hearts of the man and his graceful wife, Laura.
I have come to understand true leadership leans into the wind. It tackles big challenges with uncertain outcomes rather than taking on simple, sure tasks. It does what is right, regardless of what the latest poll or focus group says. History demands much of America and its leaders and I am confident it will judge the 43rd president as a man more than worthy of the great office the American people twice entrusted to him.
Friday, August 31, 2007 was Karl Rove's last day at the White House.
Farewell, Mr Rove, and gentle winds. History will remember you as one who was devoted to the service of his president and his country. Your most bitter critics, if remembered at all, will not be remembered well. Thank you for your service.
I have known George W. Bush for nearly 34 years and have had the privilege of watching from nearby as history has placed its demands on him and our country. I know his humility and decency, his intelligence and thoughtfulness, his respect for every person he comes in contact with, his unwavering commitment to principle-based decision-making, and the quiet and compassionate hearts of the man and his graceful wife, Laura.
I have come to understand true leadership leans into the wind. It tackles big challenges with uncertain outcomes rather than taking on simple, sure tasks. It does what is right, regardless of what the latest poll or focus group says. History demands much of America and its leaders and I am confident it will judge the 43rd president as a man more than worthy of the great office the American people twice entrusted to him.
Friday, August 31, 2007 was Karl Rove's last day at the White House.
Farewell, Mr Rove, and gentle winds. History will remember you as one who was devoted to the service of his president and his country. Your most bitter critics, if remembered at all, will not be remembered well. Thank you for your service.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Matt Lauer Talks "Republican Corruption"; Tom Delay Calls Him On Double Standard and Bias.
I didn’t watch the show, but I read this reaction at Blogs For Bush. Matt Lauer had former Speaker of the House Tom Delay on the show to talk about the recent woes of the Republican Party. Mr. Delay wasted no time pointing out the hypocrisy in the media by pointing to the disparity in coverage of the two parties. He said that coverage of Republicans who are accused of wrongdoing is relentless, while coverage of Democrats suspected of malfeasance or impropriety is for a day or two and then dropped and never discussed again. Apparently Mr. Lauer became quite defensive, and accused Mr. Delay of deviousness by accepting his invitation to discuss Republican wrongdoing and then wanting to change the subject once they were on camera. Mr. Delay responded by saying, basically, "See, you just illustrated my point. You’ll talk about Republican shenanigans and treat Democrat scandals as old stories and sweep them under the rug. And then accuse me of deception and dishonesty. The basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is this: Republicans kick out wrongdoers; Democrats re-elect and promote them to positions of power term after term."
Zing!
Democrats who were reelected last yet despite being under a dark ethical cloud:
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is the target of a federal investigation, was forced (by Republicans) to step down from the ethics committee last year but was reelected in November.
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was the target of a 2-year federal bribery investigation, had $90,000 in bribe money found in his freezer, and was still reelected last November.
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was involved in the ABSCAM scandal, also apparently steered millions in federal funding to companies that were clients of his brother's lobbying firm. He was also reelected in November.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) found guilty in civil court of leaking an illegally recorded phone conversation to the media in March 2006. He too, was reelected last November.
Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
From Blogs for Bush
Zing!
Democrats who were reelected last yet despite being under a dark ethical cloud:
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is the target of a federal investigation, was forced (by Republicans) to step down from the ethics committee last year but was reelected in November.
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was the target of a 2-year federal bribery investigation, had $90,000 in bribe money found in his freezer, and was still reelected last November.
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was involved in the ABSCAM scandal, also apparently steered millions in federal funding to companies that were clients of his brother's lobbying firm. He was also reelected in November.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) found guilty in civil court of leaking an illegally recorded phone conversation to the media in March 2006. He too, was reelected last November.
Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) linked to countless scandals, was reelected last November.
From Blogs for Bush
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Abu Ghraib Commander Exonerated, Washington Post Whines
Lt. Col. Steven Jordan was court martialed for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and was exonerated. The jury found that he didn’t authorize the abuse nor did he engage in it.
This apparently doesn’t sit well with the Washington Post, which was one among many media outlets which trumpeted the story for weeks and insisted that this was not an isolated incident but was systemic and pervasive throughout the military. From the conservative blog Powerline:
This story in the Washington Post also provides no reason to doubt that justice was done. However, the Post sniffs that "the verdict means no officer will serve prison time in connection with the mistreatement of detainees at Abu Ghraib, leaving the harshest punishment for low-ranking soldiers who were shown in the infamous photographs that emerged in early 2004." This theme also appears in the subtitle of the story in the print edition. The Post thus seems unable to conceal its disappointment that the harshest punishment went to the people who actually engaged in the abuse, as opposed to bigger-shots who were never shown to be culpable.
(Bold mine).
Apparently, this is another situation where the facts didn't fit the narrative, but the Post was undeterred in their telling of a nice juicy story that smeared our entire military all the way along the chain of command up to and including the White House, which was the objective all along. Mission accomplished!
This apparently doesn’t sit well with the Washington Post, which was one among many media outlets which trumpeted the story for weeks and insisted that this was not an isolated incident but was systemic and pervasive throughout the military. From the conservative blog Powerline:
This story in the Washington Post also provides no reason to doubt that justice was done. However, the Post sniffs that "the verdict means no officer will serve prison time in connection with the mistreatement of detainees at Abu Ghraib, leaving the harshest punishment for low-ranking soldiers who were shown in the infamous photographs that emerged in early 2004." This theme also appears in the subtitle of the story in the print edition. The Post thus seems unable to conceal its disappointment that the harshest punishment went to the people who actually engaged in the abuse, as opposed to bigger-shots who were never shown to be culpable.
(Bold mine).
Apparently, this is another situation where the facts didn't fit the narrative, but the Post was undeterred in their telling of a nice juicy story that smeared our entire military all the way along the chain of command up to and including the White House, which was the objective all along. Mission accomplished!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Awesome ATV Trail Ride
Sunday my oldest son Jared called and invited me to go on a challenging ATV trail ride on Monday. I jumped at the chance. Here's Jared posing on the trail with his Chinese motorcycle and my Yammy Big Bear.
There's some great scenery, such as this waterfall that goes right across the trail.
This is looking down the waterfall. What looks like the creek is actually the lower part of the trail, which switches back. Part of the stream goes right down the trail for a hundred yards or so. Not too much dust on this trail!
This picture was taken about three-quarters of the way up the trail. We're looking north, back down the canyon. The far mountains are on the opposite side of the main canyon, which runs east and west, left to right in this photo.
We sat on the little knoll in the middle right of this photo and saw some very interesting things.
Jared Petersen photoJared took this picture from that knoll while I ate a sandwich. It shows the steep grandeur of the canyon, the rugged, steep trail, and if you look very closely, in the lightened area at the top of the photo, some very tiny white specks...(click the picture to see the enlarged version of the photo).
Yep, mountain goats!
I counted six females with kids. I think one of them had twins, because I counted 13 goats altogether. (Not all pictured)
We didn't actually get this close to these animals, but I took the photos at the highest resolution with my camera, then cropped tight in Photoshop. We were able to work a little closer to the goats a little later but the pictures turned out to be disappointing. Note to aspiring wildlife photographers: photos of wildlife with their heads down and their backsides towards you aren't nearly as interesting as animals facing you with their heads up. 
Jared takes air.
Most of the trail was pretty rough, but this part was smooth as silk.
Jared Petersen photo
Jared Petersen photoComing down was a lot easier. I was nervous because of the trouble I had had getting through on the way up. The fact that I'd been through it already helped, from an experience standpoint, but the angle of the rocks was different going in the other direction, and I was able to pick my way through without assistance.
Jared Petersen photoSometimes I only had three wheels on the ground.
Jared Petersen photo
Jared Petersen photo
Jared Petersen photo
After we'd loaded up the bikes and we were headed out of the canyon we saw this mountain goat crossing the road. I could tell as soon as I saw him he was hurt because he was limping really badly. I don't know if he got hit by a car or what, but he wasn't putting any weight on that one leg. He had just been down to the creek to get a drink, I think. He soon became the center of attention as motorists pulled over to have a look.
Jared Petersen photoMaking his way back up the slope, but wondering what all the fuss was about.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
British Subject Calls for Military Coup d'Etat at the White House. No, Really.
Martin Lewis at the Huffington Post is calling for the head of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, to relieve President Bush of his command as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces and place him under arrest for “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman.” And apparently he’s not joking, and he quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I think they’re becoming unhinged. I’ve heard of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” before, but this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. It’s kind of like Hillary Clinton calling for Nouri al-Maliki to step down as the Iraqi prime minister. He’s come to office by a duly elected Iraqi government, but a U.S. Senator feels competent to nullify that by calling for his dismissal because he hasn’t measured up to her standards of governance. Maliki is totally justified in calling on Clinton and other American politicians to “come to their senses.”
The Looney Left has tried to incite assassination of both our President and Vice-President and repeatedly expressed regret over their failure. They’ve called for impeachment, with no satisfaction, as the Democratic Congress has shown little interest. They’ve called on Congress to obstruct the war effort by defunding it, and have gone unheeded. Now they’re calling on the Joint Chiefs to remove the President from his position as Commander-in-Chief. They are so desperate to depose this President that they’re willing to commit sedition and treason to get it done. Incredible.
Martin Lewis is a British subject of the Queen, by the way. He’s also described as a humorist, although the “humor” on display in the post is a little, um, shrill. And I can’t help wondering how humorous the Secret Service detail charged with the President’s security would take an attempt by U.S. Marines under the command of Gen. Pace to place the President under military arrest as the General relieves the President of his command. What an asinine screed.
Everyone in government needs to concentrate on doing their job instead of tending everybody else’s business. The media needs to concentrate on reporting the news, instead of telling the American people what to think. Congress needs to take care of the country’s business, instead of obstructing the President in everything he tries to do. A lot of stuff is being neglected because our government in Washington is dysfunctional, incompetent and corrupt. It’s hurting the country. A lot.
I think they’re becoming unhinged. I’ve heard of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” before, but this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. It’s kind of like Hillary Clinton calling for Nouri al-Maliki to step down as the Iraqi prime minister. He’s come to office by a duly elected Iraqi government, but a U.S. Senator feels competent to nullify that by calling for his dismissal because he hasn’t measured up to her standards of governance. Maliki is totally justified in calling on Clinton and other American politicians to “come to their senses.”
The Looney Left has tried to incite assassination of both our President and Vice-President and repeatedly expressed regret over their failure. They’ve called for impeachment, with no satisfaction, as the Democratic Congress has shown little interest. They’ve called on Congress to obstruct the war effort by defunding it, and have gone unheeded. Now they’re calling on the Joint Chiefs to remove the President from his position as Commander-in-Chief. They are so desperate to depose this President that they’re willing to commit sedition and treason to get it done. Incredible.
Martin Lewis is a British subject of the Queen, by the way. He’s also described as a humorist, although the “humor” on display in the post is a little, um, shrill. And I can’t help wondering how humorous the Secret Service detail charged with the President’s security would take an attempt by U.S. Marines under the command of Gen. Pace to place the President under military arrest as the General relieves the President of his command. What an asinine screed.
Everyone in government needs to concentrate on doing their job instead of tending everybody else’s business. The media needs to concentrate on reporting the news, instead of telling the American people what to think. Congress needs to take care of the country’s business, instead of obstructing the President in everything he tries to do. A lot of stuff is being neglected because our government in Washington is dysfunctional, incompetent and corrupt. It’s hurting the country. A lot.
Mitt Romney and the “M-word”–(Money)
I read a column online at the JEWISH WORLD REVIEW by Cokie and Steve Roberts about Mitt Romney and his immense wealth, (an estimated $350 M) and how it could help or hinder his quest for the White House.
Theology came up. From the column:
The wealth question reaches beyond the practical into the realm of theology and myth. A core belief of early New England settlers was the Protestant Ethic: the idea that thrift and hard work were prime earthly virtues; and even better, that material success was a sign of God's grace and eternal salvation.
But that’s it. That’s as close to the "M-word" as they got. I finished the column and then reread it to be sure. Nope, not one single time did they mention Romney’s peculiar Mormon faith or any of the odd tenets of his religion, past or present.
They talked about money, his family’s investments that are enumerated in a list that covers 47 pages, how the company that oversees the investments has divested of some questionable stocks in the recent past, but is still invested in a Chinese company that does business with the government of Sudan, which supports genocide.
They mentioned how in the recent Iowa straw poll, in which he finished 1st with 32% of the vote, he spent something like $800 per vote. The runner-up, Mike Huckabee spent $58 per vote and got 18%, and told his supporters he couldn’t pay for them, or even rent them.
They talked about rich candidates who’ve sought the White House and failed, such as Steve Forbes, John F. Kerry and John Edwards and the pitfalls that had brought about their failures. They talked about other more successful candidates, such as John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, who ascended to high office partly because they were able to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, elitism and greed.
But no mention of Mormons, gold bibles, plural wives or magic underwear. I’m shocked.
Theology came up. From the column:
The wealth question reaches beyond the practical into the realm of theology and myth. A core belief of early New England settlers was the Protestant Ethic: the idea that thrift and hard work were prime earthly virtues; and even better, that material success was a sign of God's grace and eternal salvation.
But that’s it. That’s as close to the "M-word" as they got. I finished the column and then reread it to be sure. Nope, not one single time did they mention Romney’s peculiar Mormon faith or any of the odd tenets of his religion, past or present.
They talked about money, his family’s investments that are enumerated in a list that covers 47 pages, how the company that oversees the investments has divested of some questionable stocks in the recent past, but is still invested in a Chinese company that does business with the government of Sudan, which supports genocide.
They mentioned how in the recent Iowa straw poll, in which he finished 1st with 32% of the vote, he spent something like $800 per vote. The runner-up, Mike Huckabee spent $58 per vote and got 18%, and told his supporters he couldn’t pay for them, or even rent them.
They talked about rich candidates who’ve sought the White House and failed, such as Steve Forbes, John F. Kerry and John Edwards and the pitfalls that had brought about their failures. They talked about other more successful candidates, such as John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, who ascended to high office partly because they were able to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, elitism and greed.
But no mention of Mormons, gold bibles, plural wives or magic underwear. I’m shocked.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Washington Woman Mauled by Black Bear...
...but she may have had it coming. By that I mean she kind of brought in on herself.
Here’s a link to the story in the Kitsap Reporter. It’s an unintentionally hilarious story, really, about a couple in Kitsap, Washington who had trouble with a 300 pound black bear and handled it, um, badly.
In an attempt to try and scare the more than 300-pound black bear after spotting it on her property last Wednesday morning, the woman, a retired Navy doctor and volunteer Search and Rescue worker who wishes to remain unnamed, shot off her .30-06-caliber rifle, hitting the bear.
Okay, let me get this straight. She tried to scare the bear by shooting her rifle and hit the bear when she did. I assume, since she only wanted to scare the bear, she was aiming to miss it. And she missed. By hitting the bear.
I’m sorry, but my B.S. meter is blaring.
I can believe this woman is a bad shot. I just can’t believe she’s that bad. If you’re aiming to miss a dangerous creature like a 300 pound black bear, aim for someplace other than the bear, for crying out loud. No wonder she "wishes to remain unnamed".
I guess frightened people can do incredible things. And in this case, I do mean incredible! I’m not normally a suspicious-natured person. But this story, um, smells funny.
If she actually tried to kill the bear and didn’t get it done with the first shot, that’s much more plausible. Many hunters have botched one-shot kills, including myself. It’s not something to be proud of, but it happens. Maybe it’s illegal to kill a marauding black bear on your property in Washington state. I don’t know.
But okay, let’s take her at her word and agree that she’s a dangerously inaccurate shooter. I still have some questions.
Why didn’t the husband take the shot?
Why did he let her go first when they went looking for the now clearly dangerous wounded bear? Did he know something she didn’t? I love this quote from the story: "The bear was taller than I was," her husband said. "He was hiding in the brush ... then I heard movement and started walking behind her." Clearly a very clever man. Not necessarily a brave man, but a smart man, nonetheless.
Why did he wait until the bear had his wife’s head in its mouth before shooting it? The story says "[n]ot missing a beat, her husband shot five rounds into the bear." From a .460 Magnum handgun. But obviously, he missed a beat or two.
And the recoil of the gun was so violent it nearly severed his thumb? That’s way too much recoil. The .460 Magnum is an elephant-rifle cartridge, fully capable of taking down a 300 lb. black bear. But apparently, it’s fully capable of taking down the shooter, too. Somebody needs to rethink their choice of handgun caliber. I think some gun merchant motivated by cash flow rather than scruples saw this couple coming when they came into the gun store and sold them some very expensive guns and ammo when they had no idea what they were buying. The .30-06 is probably the most common hunting rifle in North America, but it's not a cheap gun. The .460 Magnum is exotic and expensive. Ammo for the .460 Magnum is $4.50 to $6.00 per cartridge.
Clearly this couple is a pair of babes in the woods and they have no business living in black bear country. But I don’t know. They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But does it make you smarter, too?
Have a nice day.
Here’s a link to the story in the Kitsap Reporter. It’s an unintentionally hilarious story, really, about a couple in Kitsap, Washington who had trouble with a 300 pound black bear and handled it, um, badly.
In an attempt to try and scare the more than 300-pound black bear after spotting it on her property last Wednesday morning, the woman, a retired Navy doctor and volunteer Search and Rescue worker who wishes to remain unnamed, shot off her .30-06-caliber rifle, hitting the bear.
Okay, let me get this straight. She tried to scare the bear by shooting her rifle and hit the bear when she did. I assume, since she only wanted to scare the bear, she was aiming to miss it. And she missed. By hitting the bear.
I’m sorry, but my B.S. meter is blaring.
I can believe this woman is a bad shot. I just can’t believe she’s that bad. If you’re aiming to miss a dangerous creature like a 300 pound black bear, aim for someplace other than the bear, for crying out loud. No wonder she "wishes to remain unnamed".
I guess frightened people can do incredible things. And in this case, I do mean incredible! I’m not normally a suspicious-natured person. But this story, um, smells funny.
If she actually tried to kill the bear and didn’t get it done with the first shot, that’s much more plausible. Many hunters have botched one-shot kills, including myself. It’s not something to be proud of, but it happens. Maybe it’s illegal to kill a marauding black bear on your property in Washington state. I don’t know.
But okay, let’s take her at her word and agree that she’s a dangerously inaccurate shooter. I still have some questions.
Why didn’t the husband take the shot?
Why did he let her go first when they went looking for the now clearly dangerous wounded bear? Did he know something she didn’t? I love this quote from the story: "The bear was taller than I was," her husband said. "He was hiding in the brush ... then I heard movement and started walking behind her." Clearly a very clever man. Not necessarily a brave man, but a smart man, nonetheless.
Why did he wait until the bear had his wife’s head in its mouth before shooting it? The story says "[n]ot missing a beat, her husband shot five rounds into the bear." From a .460 Magnum handgun. But obviously, he missed a beat or two.
And the recoil of the gun was so violent it nearly severed his thumb? That’s way too much recoil. The .460 Magnum is an elephant-rifle cartridge, fully capable of taking down a 300 lb. black bear. But apparently, it’s fully capable of taking down the shooter, too. Somebody needs to rethink their choice of handgun caliber. I think some gun merchant motivated by cash flow rather than scruples saw this couple coming when they came into the gun store and sold them some very expensive guns and ammo when they had no idea what they were buying. The .30-06 is probably the most common hunting rifle in North America, but it's not a cheap gun. The .460 Magnum is exotic and expensive. Ammo for the .460 Magnum is $4.50 to $6.00 per cartridge.
Clearly this couple is a pair of babes in the woods and they have no business living in black bear country. But I don’t know. They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But does it make you smarter, too?
Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
