Recently in War Category
The Petraeus hearings were a disgrace. The man was called a liar and a puppet before he ever uttered a word. Can this country have a political discourse under such conditions? When the moveOn.org message is indiscernible from the Senators' in the committee hearing room, there is a problem in our government. It means a foreign-born Hungarian socialist has hijacked the Democrat Party, for pennies on the dollar.
Why have the committee meet under such poisonous conditions? Aside from the political theater, was there any point to the exercise? We as a Nation still need to listen to each other. The only alternative is violence. To assume your political adversary is always lying is to end dialog.
When Reid proclaimed the war lost last April, the Democrat party announced publicly its investment in losing the war in Iraq in order to win the election in 2008 here in the US. It is this investment that set the stage for the Petraeus Report fiasco. With politics at home trumping the war abroad, do we really remember those who were killed on 9/11? Is this honoring their memory?
UPDATE:
OK boys, girls and Legionaries (Tom, Realist et al). Petraeus actually did provide a report. Instead of rehashing what we have been chewing on for over a year now, lets get a copy of it, I will open a new thread if needed. There is plenty of passion here, but lets put some fresher meat on the table than "should we go to war in Iraq". Your vote in a comment would be appreciated. BTW, using the NIE and other sources is most definitely fair game etc. But the TOPIC is the current situation and Petraeus' veracity.
Thoughts on September 11th
September 11, 2007
It seems hard to believe, but it was six years ago today that radical Islamic terrorists struck at the heart of our country, killing more Americans in a single day than at any time since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
These terrorist attacks were well planned and targeted.
By attacking The World Trade Center in New York City terrorists struck at the financial centers of our nation. By attacking the Pentagon in Northern Virginia they struck at the military strength of our nation, and by attempting to launch a similar attack against The White House or the U.S. Capital, they sought to strike the political institutions of our country.
In the days following these attacks the true American spirit was awakened. We sought to bring those who were responsible for these attacks to justice, and military operations against the Taliban and other terrorist organizations ensued. We pledged to do everything we could to make certain that an attack of this nature did not occur again.
Today, six years after these horrific attacks, there have been successes and disappointments in the war on terror.
It appears that Iraqi's and other Middle Easterners are paying big money ($20K a pop) to get across our southern border. One would imagine that this is part of some operation to wreak another 9/11 style terrorist act. In spite of the nay sayers there is little that an open border is an open invitation to nail us again.
This is the security dimension of what we face in light of a border out of control. Smuggling of drugs, weapons and aliens is going to come back and bite us. Al Qaeda won't be sending in an Arab plumber into the US at $30K a head. It will be a bomb maker, a pilot, or something worse.
What if a nuke is brought across the border? This is an idea is one the US government is concerned as are ngo's . What is amazing is how little press these concerns get. We are asleep and the bed really is burning. A reporter recently wrote it would take another 9/11 to wake us up. I hope that is not going to be the case.
[UPDATE: I just saw the ad on FNC and it appears the show tonight might be telling the same story as Islam vs Islamists but not play the same film. In any event, the story of this individuals is very compelling so I strongly recommend watching it.]
Free Republic has a notice that the documentary I wrote about in April, Islam vs Islamists, is going to air on Fox News Channel tonight at 9:00 pm. (There is some controversy because it was supposed to air last night, and so far it is not showing up on the Comcast guide.)
I highly recommend everyone watch this short film. It got pulled from PBS under questionable circumstances with the hint of pressure from Islamist advocacy groups.
There is only one possible, practical answer to the biggest problem of our age, and that is reform within Islam. This documentary tells the story of a few very brave individuals who are attempting to accomplish such reform. Don't miss it.
My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
'"Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and then detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants'," the court said.'
Article below the fold
I want to go back a ways because it looks like I missed a good discussion while I was on vacation.
I posted on May 2 about the comments of Harry Reid which I viewed as treasonous. Stay Poof then masterfully steered the following posted comments into an indictment of American policy in Iraq, stating the following about Saddam:
when did he try to assassinate the pres? was it before or after we had invaded his country?
Um...before. We only kicked him out of Kuwait in 1991. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003.
Poof then went on to say:
actually, the Iraqi government sent a guy to the US embassy to find out what the Bush admin's response would be if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was told something to the effect of, "we have no official policy on that" That statement was interpreted to mean that Bush/the US didn't care one way or the other if Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Poofy then quoted the NY Times and New Republic to back up his statement, to which Kevin replied:
schooled. Nice work.
Now, I'm not saying that the Times has ever had a problem with journalistic integrity, but I didn't trust the sources Poof was using. I, like Jack, figured I would have heard more about this if their reporting was accurate. I decided to check it out for myself and I found this now declassified NSC report on the meeting. That's the full text there.
So here's my take on the Glaspie issue:
First- The NY Times and New Republic printed Glaspie's words out of context at a time when the meeting between her and Saddam was considered classified.
Second- NOTHING she stated even implied giving Saddam a "go ahead" to invade Kuwait. Only a madman like Saddam could interpret a statement like "We are neutral in your territorial dispute," to mean, "Go ahead and invade and annex the other guy."
My answer? WHO CARES?
Part II of my answer: WHAT'S WRONG WITH OCCUPATION?
Call me Socrates and put me in a Bill & Ted movie.
Discuss.
Interesting report from a Marine over at Not Larry Sabato.
Not what you'd expect on that blog - and followed by an interesting discussion among his (mostly liberal) readers. The gist is, "If it is good news from Iraq, it cannot be true." Well worth checking out.
...At a minumum.
For a leader on the national level to comment about "this war is lost"...A firing squad or a hangman's noose is more appropriate.
I'm talking about the capital crime of Treason.
THERE ARE TROOPS IN THE COMBAT ZONE PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERY DAY TO WIN THIS WAR.
On a side note, forgive my absence as of lately. I've been busy getting ready for another trip to play in the sandbox. I'll post as much as I can until I go, then I'll see what I can do.
Soon to be nothing even remotely resembling household news is this story about the Al Qaida guy who was formerly a high ranking officer in the Iraq military.
Begging the question the MSM doesn't dare ask: how "formerly," exactly?Thomas Joscelyn wants to know how much, if any, contact he had with his old patron while waging terrorist war for bin Ladin in Afghanistan.
Don't we all.
Or should I say, "Don't we most."
I can imagine quite a few people who are right now beginning to shriek that this man, this poor abused misunderstood idealist, must not be asked a single question more.
Don't miss this further post on Bush's shenanigans in this matter.
Also, Captain Ed weighs in regarding media coverage of the capture. Which sheds some light on the story as a whole.
That is precisely the question raised by the controversy surrounding the new documentary, Islam vs. Islamists. The one-hour investigative journalism piece was originally included in a project launched by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Like the other installments of the $20 million "America at a Crossroads" series, Islam vs. Islamists was produced with a large grant (in this case over $600,000 in taxpayer funds). Now, however, it has been buried by the CPB and its production outlet, PBS.
Why? Because the topic of the film is the question that so many of us have been asking since September 11, 2001: "Where are the moderate Muslims?" - and some don't like the answer one little bit.
Powerful interest groups, it turns out - some of whom govern a massive, oil-laden Arabian kingdom, some of whom simply do the kingdom's bidding, and some of whom blindly follow wherever the nose-ring of multiculturalism leads them - don't like the fact that the documentary reveals the extensive Saudi/Wahabbi money trail in the development of Islamic institutions in the U.S., and exposes the widespread conspiracy against Islamic reformers. Thus there has been pressure on PBS and the CPB to spike the film. At the moment, PBS refuses to broadcast Islam vs. Islamists, and the only way most Americans will ever see it is if CPB releases the rights so the film can be distributed through other channels. (See below on how to make that happen).
Today in DC, the film's producers and two of its key subjects held a private screening and panel discussion. There will be a follow up here shortly, but first the basic message.
Bottom line: Moderate Muslims in Europe and North America are under unbelievable pressure to shut up. Leaders promoting the compatibility of Islam and democracy who speak out do so at the risk of their livlihoods and lives, and consequently the vast, silent majority of Muslims who are perfectly content in Western society have no choice but to "look at politics through an Islamist lens." Islamism - or political Islam - is the dominant ideology spread via the mosques and (maybe unwittingly) by the media. Those seeking a reformation in Islam are having a devil of a time getting their voices heard.
The stakes are high: The Islamist leaders interviewed in the film - all prominent, "mainstream" Muslim leaders in Europe and the U.S. - state unapologetically that their aim is to impose shariah law on western societies.
It is an amazing irony that modern "liberals" have been so slow to support the reformation within Islam. A key irony is that the media have allowed Islamists to import an immensely uncivil agenda under the auspices of supposed "civil rights." As one of the subjects in the documentary states, "the entire struggle is about the rights of women." Does anyone in the West actually need a slap in the face to appreciate this?
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Arizona cardiologist and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and one of the true heroes of our age, issued a plea this afternoon
...from the majority in the West that understand what it is to separate religion and politics, that understand that somebody can be even more pious and more religious by not having government coerce what we believe, that understand our religion can be a source of law but not the source of law, all of these aspects that are part of the Christian Enlightenment or Western Enlightenment: I've been taught by my grandfather that it can happen in Islam.
There will be another screening of the film tonight, Wednesday, April 25, for our congressmen and senators. Please take a moment to send a note to your representatives encouraging them to go watch this documentary tonight at the Rayburn office building (they have received invitations with details). ASK THEM TO TELL THE CPB TO PUT IT ON THE AIR VIA PBS OR RELEASE IT FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION.
Contact your congressman here.
More background:
Please read this outline of Paul Truong's memoir of the fall of Viet Nam and his escape.
Nancy Pelosi's 'great' adventure is a wonderful example of the lefts naivete toward the thugs of the world. This is an old trend. The first example I can think of was when a reporter for the NYT's back in the 30's wrote glowingly of the Stalin's regime, while wading through the dead bodies of millions of Ukrainians; fake but accurate indeed.
James Earl Carter is poster child for those who rub elbows with despots in order to attack one's own country. He was part of that smashingly successful program started back in the 90's to stop Kim Jung Il from building nukes. We all see how well that turned out; of course you know it's Bush's fault.
"Blood-soaked underwear"? What the hell does that mean? Is he associating the menstrual cycle with cowardess?
Shut your damn pie-hole, Spicoli. My close friend had his underwear, as well as the rest of his clothing, soaked in his own blood when a 30mm Russian grenade blew him up. Now he's pissed on account of his permanently paralized leg is getting him a medical discharge, thus preventing him from ever going back. We don't need your input...YOU ARE A COWARD!
On a side note, let me say I'm a Tony Blair fan. However, he's gotta sound a little less like C-3PO if he wants his 15 troops back. To paraphrase: "I hope Iran will release them. Oh My."
If the British declare war on Iran over their captured sailors and marines, will the U.S. support them, or will the gutless wonders in Congress abandon our best ally?
Today's news the Joe man may be looking to play ball reminded me of this oldie (for us) but goodie.
Joining our gang now would certainly be a lot more dramatic than if he had simply done it in January when the session started. And who knows, there may be matters of principle involved. But going from Al Gore's running mate to a Republican seems like quite a leap. It may not even be possible, based on certain elements of quantum theory.
An interesting take by Virginia's junior senator:
George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn's "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don't understand is that I didn't want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.
Via Freep ...
This is the continuation of the ongoing "Iraq: Now What" conversation. Here's the history:
No relation's Rantings of a Drunken Vet: Winning the War on Terror, No Relation's Sober follow-up, and Jacob's Sober Thoughts on the War
Something that concerns me about all this is that I often hear things like, "We have to remove Saddam" or "Leaving Iraq is not an option" or "If Iran is supplying weapons, we have no choice but to expand the war..."
It sometimes sounds like our enemy has completely boxes us in, and is leading us deeper down a tunnel, and we have no choice but to follow.
Has anyone here ever play the board game called Go? In it, two players try to control as much territory on the board as they can while attacking and attempting to gain control of their opponent's territory. It's an ancient game, that's been used for hundreds, if not thousands of years as a tool for teaching Chinese and Japanese generals about warfare.
Anyway, in Go there's a term called Sente, which means, "having the initiative." A player who is controlling the game is said to have sente. The longer a player is able to keep sente, the longer he will be able to force his opponent's hand, and in doing so will prevent his opponent from developing his own strategy. In the end, the player who is able to control the game will win the game.
The war in Iraq isn't a board game, but every time I hear something like, "We have no choice to..." or "Our only option is..." or "If we want to protect our way of life, we have to..." it makes me wonder which side is really in control of this war.
In a big sense this falls out from No Relation's articles Sober Follow-Up: Winning the War on Terror and Rantings of a Drunken Vet: Winning the War on Terror I credit comments from SPMM a.k.a. Marshmallow a.k.a. Puffy who asks some telling questions was the final goad, and I give him credit for giving these positions a local voice.
SPMM: I feel like you're beginning to misunderstand my main point: that winning at any cost could potentially be more costly than "losing."
In the last World War we lost over 350,000 all told. We currently are not at 1% of this number. We spent over 2.0 Trillion current dollars for WWII, we have not yet hit 400B in Iraq. We put over 16 million men into uniform, mostly through a draft. Our current armed forces consist of 1.4 million volunteers. We fought WWII with 130 million people. We now have 300 million. We are now far richer on a per capita basis. Our economy has not even geared up for war yet, and it is doing better than any other in the West. Now, you are asking if we are even close to a Pyrrhic Victory? With all respect, have you really this through to the end? We are ridiculously far from such a loss. When our losses surpass those of WWII, which we won, then such a question begins to look like something other than overwrought hysteria. The really crazy part is you are not alone; it is a mass hysteria running rampant in the nation. 3000 dead on the battle field was a single day of hard fighting in several of our wars. Did not the founders write that the tree of liberty requires the blood of sacrifice?
Thanks to all who commented on my last post. Good points being brought up.
Our friendly dissenter, Stay Puff Marshmellow Man, asked me how I would use the strategy of attrition in the current situation with the War on Terror.
I replied: "I wouldn't use attrition, I would use annihilation." I then promised to continue that conversation.
You see, the enemy we fight is fanatical and at the current pace they can replace their terrorists and supplies as fast as we can kill them. We are spending too much effort trying to win over public support and too little effort trying to kill bad people.
The ironic thing is, the longer we stay, the more support we lose. A long, foreign occupation would go unsupported in any country.
Some will say the "hearts and minds" game is the only way, but it's not. We've fought an enemy worse than this in the past, and left 100% successful.
I'm speaking of the Japanese, and I can't help but compare the war on terror to fighting them in WWII.
Say what you will about the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11, let me start by saying that if you think Iraq has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, you are a RETARD. Iraq is no doubt a battle front in the War on Terror.
That being said, I want to comment on the troop surge President Bush had proposed. I support it, because my opinion is that it is a huge step in the right direction. There's a war going on there, and the more troops we have in country, the better. It doesn't take a math major to figure out a simple concept like strength in numbers.
However, I don't think that will be enough. We need a change in strategy. Well, for that matter, we need a strategy to start with.
Years ago, in a military history class, I was taught that there are three strategies in war: annihilation, attrition, and exhaustion. Look them up...I lack the intelligence to properly articulate the concepts. I recommend the writings of John Keegan and Colonel Harry Summers.
SO...Which one have we been pursuing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Do I have to say how ridiculous the whole concept of a "non-binding" resolution against the President's war plans is? What a gutless excuse for action.
Why not just phrase it "I'm opposed to Iraq, but I'm afraid to do anything real about it, so I'll vote for the `non-binding' version of what I really think."
If you oppose the war, have the intestinal fortitude to back your opposition, or have the dignity to back down.
I'm embarrassed this thing got so many votes.
I have to admit it kind of makes me glad to see Jane Fonda exercising her free speech on the war issue again, only because I believe it will hurt the anti-war cause. If that treasonous waste of oxygen wants to go out there and tell everyone how bad war is...more power to those of us who disagree with her.
The recent protest circuses have me laughing because no one there can really explain why they oppose the war. We're just hearing the same old "no war for oil, Bush lied, kids died" rhetoric. It makes me think these protestors are just opposed to wars in general and have no sense of why they are opposed to this one...
Just to be clear, let me explain why I support this one...
The following article comes by way of a veritable princess warrior of the blogosphere, Nan of American Daughter. It was directed strictly at a law enforcement audience (for reasons that become clear), and has slipped out of the LE circle into limited public circulation. Nan is pretty plugged in and managed to get her hands on it.
Neither of us can with 100% certainty vouch for the information about training films found in Afghanistan or - obviously - any ruminations about "what's likely here." But based on the news items referenced, which I will vouch for because I remember most of them, the scenario is not remotely far fetched and certainly is worth bringing to the attention of all parents, school officials and local LE's who have not already seen it.
The argument that other states should join New Hampshire and Utah in allowing schools employees to carry concealed in particular makes complete sense to me and seems overdue.
The article also has plenty of good information for parents, but especially for cops.
"If you walk out off-duty without your gun, every time you pass a fire exit or see a fire extinguisher, say to yourself, 'Firefighters have made more preparations than I have.'"
I think you'll find this well worth taking a few minutes to read. Thanks to American Daughter for forwarding it.
Fool's Paradise
In their benevolent wisdom, our government is trying to prevent widespread panic by withholding information from the public. We obtained what purports to be a good copy of a password-protected article from a website for policemen and we a sharing it because we feel that the public has a right to know.
We are reproducing this article in its entirety. Normally we scrupulously subscribe to the doctrine of "Fair Use" and show the utmost respect for the material of other authors. But without the involvement of the bloggers this material would not be available to the general public. And all of this article has already been posted in Yahoo! Groups (such as Nassau County News Flash) and it is in general circulation throughout the "good old boy" email community. We believe that our readers have a right to see this material.
[Caveat: The Police One website carries this notice -- Warning! Some sections of PoliceOne.com are secure for law enforcement only. PoliceOne confirms the Law Enforcement status of all Law Enforcement officers who register on the site. We were unable to gain access to the website to confirm the accuracy of our copy of this article. We are reproducing the text of our copy here because we trust our source.]
Mass Slaughter in Our Public Schools: The Terrorists' Chilling Plan
By Charles Remsberg | 01/03/2007Probably the last place you want to think of terrorists striking is your kids' school. But according to two trainers at an anti-terrorism conference on the East Coast, preparations for attacks on American schools that will bring rivers of blood and staggering body counts are well underway in Islamic terrorist camps.
- The intended attackers have bluntly warned us they're going to do it.
- They've already begun testing school-related targets here.
- They've given us a catastrophic model to train against, which we've largely ignored and they've learned more deadly tactics from.
"We don't know for sure what they will do. But by definition, a successful attack is one we are not ready for," declared one of the instructors, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Our schools fit that description to a "T" -- as in Terrorism and Threat.
Grossman, the popular law enforcement motivational speaker, and Todd Rassa, a trainer with the SigArms Academy and an advisory board member for The Police Marksman magazine, shared a full day's agenda on the danger to U.S. schools at a recent three-day conference on terrorist issues, sponsored by the International Assn. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI) in Atlantic City .
They reminded the audience that patrol officers, including perhaps some with their own children involved, will inevitably be the first responders when terrorists hit. And they documented chilling descriptions of the life-or-death challenges that likely will be faced.
In Part 1 of this three-part report on highlights of their presentations we focus on what's known about the threat to our schools to date, why terrorists have selected them as targets, and what tactics you're likely to be up against in responding to a sudden strike.
In Parts 2 and 3, we'll explore Grossman's and Rassa's recommendations for practical measures you and your agency can take now to get ready, including some defensive actions that don't require any budget allocations.
Excuse my absence as of lately, but a few days off from work and watching Charlie Rangel show up on the news again has gotten me over my writer's block. (Sorry Joe, I hate to see you fight alone, but I'm clueless until I get drunk and ticked off...)
Let me begin by saying Congressman Rangel is a Korean War Veteran who served America honorably in a time of war, and for that, he has my utmost respect. I don't intend my following criticism of his positions to degrade him personally, and especially not his service and sacrifice, in any way.
He's been in the news lately for his recent characterization of Saddam's hanging as a "lynching", and I've got plenty of disagreement on that, which I hope to get to later. What's been bothering me for a while now about Congressman Rangel is his calling for the reinstatement of the draft.
I'm split 50/50 on the draft issue. I've been in the Army almost 9 years now, with over 5 of that on active duty. I like being part of a volunteer force. Those who join us, for the most part, do so for the right reasons, and no one has twisted their arms to get them in. On the other hand, I think a draft would do America some good. I observe the American public every day, and I see that the majority of Americans have no understanding of the sacrifice that has been made for the freedom we enjoy.
Congressman Rangel has called for the draft as a matter of protest against the war in Iraq. He's wrong. I won't argue against a draft, but I will argue against a draft that is used to protest a war. The Congressman disagrees with the current action in Iraq, and he's made that no secret. I won't claim to know his true intent in calling for a draft, but his statements make me angry.
Here is the full text of Congressman Rangel's position on the draft.
Let me pick apart some of his words here:
I just arrived at a hotel so it will be some time before I get to catch up on all the comments here, because ....
24. Oh yeah.
I'm not going to "live blog" 24 because live blogging 24 would be like live blogging sex, which tends to detract from some of the enjoyment. But now that we are at a long commercial break ...
GIVE ME A BREAK!! JACK BAUER JUST KILLED A MAN WITH HIS TEETH. OH MY GOODNESS IF YOU'VE EVER WONDERED HOW THEY COULD TOP THEMSELVES ON THAT SHOW THEY SURE AS SHOOTIN' JUST DID IT!! RIPPED OUT A MAN'S JUGULAR ...
I am so reminded of this line from Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman:
"The jugular vein is severed; not cut but torn apart as though by a powerful beast."
More at the next long commercial break. Holy cow.
UPDATE: Jack beat the helicopters to the hideout! Jack knew that transponders are kept in pockets! Jack got the guy out moments before the rockets hit! Next to Jack Bauer, we are all silly little girls ...
UPDATE II: INTERESTING angle on the Islamic terrorists!!! The show starts with a maelstrom of hand-wringing about civil rights and Americans turning against each other, warning against villainizing Muslims - and the terrorists turn out to be ... MUSLIMS! Of course, this being 24, by the 10th hour the real bad guys are likely to be a couple of teenage girls.
UPDATE III: I swear, the biting-the-guy-in-the-neck scene made for the best opening hour since the one where Jack Bauer walked into the room, shot the guy who had negotiated for immunity, and cut off his head with a hacksaw.
UPDATE IV: Oh, does Jack know from torture - or has Jack gone soft FROM THE TORTURE??!! What a friggin' commentary on current events: Torture works, Jack, TORTURE WORKS!!
Jack: "I don't know how to do this anymore."
So the problem with being tortured is: It makes us foolishly shy away from torture. (That's 24 talking, not me). So, be careful who you trust with national security, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE BEEN TORTURED.
UPDATE V: Prediction: The president's sister is a terrorist, although her Muslim husband is not.
UPDATE VI: Ok, the first two hours have been an Islamofascist-fest. It's ostensibly ALL about the Muslims, the nefarious bastards.
What this tells me is, it's not EVEN REMOTELY about the Muslims.
24 don't telegraph nothing. I'm thinking Prussian Blue, or perhaps the Russians, or maybe the Scientologists.
UPDATE VII: Oh, so THAT'S what you do with suicide bombers on the subway - kick 'em out the back door. Good to know.
UPDATE VIII: President Wayne Palmer: "So Jack was right. He was right all along and I - this is going to get much worse."
How delicious: Yeah, that's right. Ignore Jack Bauer's advice at your own peril.
Well godalmighty I hope I can be in front of a TV tomorrow night at 8 pm.
The preview was intriguing. Looks like the end of the world or something. Oh well, par for the course. This is what the television was invented for.
With the news that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has embarked on a tour of Latin America (hat tip: FR), we should wonder whether our country's priorities are properly ordered.
If you've got a distant-foreign violent moron leader getting chummy with other moron leaders who just happen to be situated along the Pan-American Highway, you might have a problem if you happen to live in the U.S.
Such ruminations evoke thoughts about the southern border.
I have spoken with two separate parents of children fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan who opined "we should bring them all home and put them on our southern border." I'm guessing plenty of Americans have had that exact same thought.
Here's my thought:
Why not bring most of our overseas-stationed troops home (ok, leave 135,000 in Iraq for a few more months), and put them on our southern border, and then SEND THEM ACROSS THE BORDER to make Mexico our 51st state, and then leave the necessary handful on the Mexico-Guatemala border and just worry about defending THAT one? It's one-third the size, for cryin' out loud. And although it's a mess, it's not as big a mess as the current U.S.-Mexico border.
Downside: Lot's of Mexicans go on U.S. welfare in the short term.
Upsides: The aforementioned millions of Mexicans get the chance to improve their lives. Replacing the Mexican government with an American state government will eliminate an incredibly corrupt institution once and for all. Consequently, Mexico's substantial natural resources could be developed in such a way that selling would not yield money down a rat hole as it does now.
I think there would be a huge amount of support from the revolutionaries and the biggest problem would be the handful of former plutocrats heading north. We could give THEM all soccer teams to run, and that would be the end of that.
Here's a pretty interesting site at Globalsecurity.org which seems to be documenting the releases of detainees from Guantanamo.
Also, a link to a report by Mark Denbeaux and Josh Denbeaux, Esq. Mark is a Professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and both he and Josh are counsel representing 2 detainees. It's actually pretty interesting.
I don't care what anyone says, the world has been a much better place for almost 24 hours now.
UPDATE: Welcome NY Times 'The Caucus' Blog readers! We don't get many city folk out here in possum gravy country, but we love it when we do. We also love our Rep. Virgil Goode, though I hope you will take a moment to read the full discussion that follows.
At the suggestion of our good buddy Zimzo, I have looked into remarks made by Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode in his recent letter touching on the Koran, religion and immigration, as well as Goode's follow-up statement.
I take exception to Goode's argument that the current state of affairs and the problem of rampant, nonsensical multiculturalism should be blamed on Bill Clinton. Clinton might have initiated the diversity in immigration program, but the Republicans had at least a short spell controlling the levers of power, did they not? They could have fixed it if they had a mind to.
Robert Spencer has a very informed take on this controversy (as tends to be the case with any question regarding Islam and the West):
Goode is not opposed to having "many more Muslims in the United States" out of "bigotry," as CAIR has predictably alleged, but because he is aware that Islam presents a challenge, as we have explained here so many times, to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." He also seems to be aware, when he warns that "our resources" could be "swamped," that Muslim immigrants, including mujahedin, cheerfully live on the dole in Europe -- a situation that is nothing less than suicidal.
Spencer is truly one of the "voices crying in the wilderness" about the threats facing America and the West in general. I've read most of his books and I think he is mostly on point. He knows a lot more than I do about Islam, to be certain.
I also think, however, that it is indubitably the case that the public face of any ideological or cultural movement can appear scarier than it really is - particularly in the case of religion.
Ideologically - and mythologically - religions can be pretty fearsome. A great example is the horrorshow that Roman Catholicism was made out to be in England and America from, like, 1600 until about 40 years ago. I mean, from the Pope right on down to the priests and the scruffy Irish foot soldiers, Catholicism was painted as a menace, an institutional force bent on subverting democracy and taking over the world.
It didn't quite work out that way because, whatever the Vatican might have been planning or not planning, western civilization has a way of smoothing the rough edges of any ideology that purportedly seeks to contravene basic human liberties, respect for the individual, rule of law, beer commercials, and all of the other things that have made the United States the shining city on the hill. There is no reason to think Muslims won't come around in a generation or two and start watching NASCAR and football with the rest of us. (And I do NOT mean soccer.)
As to the question of whether one should be allowed to take an oath on the Koran rather than the Bible: Spencer points out the Koran permits lying. That's a good point, and the Koran appears to permit quite a few additional behaviors one would not hope to see in a courtroom. Whatever criticisms one may have of Christianity's New Testament, you must admit the world would have far fewer religiously-justified murders if everyone followed its rules.
That being said, why do we need a holy book for the swearing in ceremony of a public official anyway? Christians can say "our book is holiest and true" and Muslims may counter, "no OURS is so we want to swear on it."
But the point is, you need to raise your right hand and make a public pledge. If you are a little "off" maybe you want to raise your left hand - sure, we can have that argument. But the pledge is what's important, whether you follow God or Gaia or Reverend Bob Dobbs.
I think an immigration policy that is discriminatory based on the ideology of the applicant is a great idea. Assimilation is a numbers game: Over time, over generations, the host society will influence newcomers as long as the number of immigrants who detest the basic tenets of American culture is much smaller than the number of people already here. Their kids will grow up learning to love football, freedom of thought and fast cars, and will gradually shed their alien cultural baggage.
Whether you are pledging on a Koran or Bible does not seem like such a huge issue because really you are pledging to tell the truth or uphold the Constitution or whatnot, and it seems to me that should be the focus. If Muslims make the pledge and keep the pledge, the law is happy. If they don't, the law will rain down hellfire on them as it will on anyone who breaks such a public oath.
And as long as all their offspring have the opportunity to watch the Daytona 500 every February, I think in the long run everything is going to turn out all right for America.
There is a theme of thought in America that the Muslim extremists who commit acts of terrorism are simply oppressed and misunderstood. Let me tell you: Nothing could be further from the truth.
My platoon returned to our base in Ghazni province one morning in the spring of '05, after an uneventful night patrol. We found the entrance of the base scattered with local Afghans. This by itself was fairly common...Afghans were often coming in and out of our base for legitimate reasons and had to wait outside before they were cleared for entry.
There was a big difference this time. The locals were clustered into maybe a dozen small groups, and within these groups were bloodied bodies. Some were moving, and some were not. We heard a few screams and moans as we went by.
As we continued through the entrance of our base, we saw the medics lined up outside of our aid station, ready to go to work. Most of us grunt troops just went to bed. We'd been out for a while and we were exhausted. There was nothing we could do, and the sight the blood and bodies was nothing new to us at that point. My platoon's medic, however, knew his work wasn't done, and hurried off as soon as he could.
We found out later that the Taliban had crashed a local wedding party and thrown a grenade into the crowd. I'm not sure exactly why this particular party was targeted, I only know that these terrorists had decided to kill people who did not support them, while they were in peaceful assembly. This was a typical thing.
I wondered if people back home would ever know what it cost the soldiers to win this war. In America, things were already beginning to look like peacetime. The standard of living was on the rise, racetracks and nightclubs were booming, you couldn't get a hotel room in Miami Beach...it was so crowded. How could anyone ever know of the price paid by soldiers in terror, agony, and bloodshed, if they'd never been to places like Normandy, Bastogne, or Haguenau?-PVT David Webster, as quoted in the HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers"
I've decided to start sharing some of my personal experience from Afghanistan, so this will probably become a regular post for me.
I usually try to avoid the topic in conversation. The few times I've tried to tell stories about it, I usually get blank looks and meaningless comments. Often, I get sympathy, which is the opposite of what I desire. While I appreciate it, the people it comes from have no idea, and it just makes me feel more distant.
Understanding is what I want. I want America to understand what we've been through. I want America to appreciate what we've done and what we've accomplished, rather than just pay us lip service.
Most of all, I want America to support us through to the only acceptable option...
From the Far East I send you one single thought, one sole idea, written in red on every beachhead from Australia to Tokyo...THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VICTORY!-General Douglas MacArthur
If this means you, congratulations on your new alliance with Iran.
The condemning excerpt:
Ayatollah Khamenei moreover said the failure of the American President party in the latest Congress elections proved that America's war waging policies are not approved within the country, adding the event was not just an American internal affair rather it was the defeat of Bush's war mongering policies.The IR Leader pointed to American President's late admission to the defeat, adding since Washington had shown hostility and war waging always towards the Iranian nation, the defeat of the policies actually translated into the convincing victory of the Iranian nation in this political phase. [That emphasis is mine.]
Paul Belien's "Brussels Journal" blog is a must-read. It should be required for everyone in the U.S., Europeans purportedly too far gone to save.
It isn't nice reading, but necessary.
The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."
I'm going to go a step further and recommend a book that ties in with Belien's theme.
From the "that's going to leave a mark" department:
The excitment you see among our enemies and among the Left are identical.
On a related note, here is an excellent review of Steyn's new book. Read it through to the end.
UPDATE: A critique of the above two pieces.
A Vietnam vet friend of mine sent me this one. It's a good one to end today with.
Happy Veteran's day, and Thank You to any veterans reading this.