MuD & PHuD

Please, someone tell me that he's not serious. Reporting for duty?! I'm nearly at a loss for words. As a matter of fact, I think I'll just let the picture speak for itself.


(barf) President? (via Drudge) 

Update:

Protein Wisdom has a good side-by-side comparison. Remember, all in good fun =).

Update 2:

NE Republican does a good job fisking the foreign policy aspects/absurdities of Kerry's enthralling speech.
|

The Command Post advances a theory that has the potential to really make me angry:

Anyone who’s been following the shennanigans in the warcrimes tribunal judging Slobodan Milosovic knows that his health problems may abort the trial, permanently. How ill he actually is is a matter of some debate.

The Butcher of Baghdad should be brought to trial even if he develops raging sepsis. If his prostate is a problem perhaps he should be offered a quick checkup with a cattle prod (as suggested by my girlfriend...she's usually a very nice person =)).
|

Remember this folks...not only did it take until the last day for crowds to become disruptive at the DNCC, but it appears that not a single Conservative has caused any problems:

BOSTON - After three days of calm, protests turned ugly at the Democratic National Convention as demonstrators burned a two-faced effigy depicting President Bush (news - web sites) on one side and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) on the other.

[...]

The Boston-area Bl(A)ck Tea Society, an ad hoc group of self-described anarchists and anti-authority activists that formed a year ago to stage protests at the convention, called for "decentralized direct action" Thursday.

[...]

Bl(A)ck Tea members joined with anti-war groups in a march that began in Copley Square shortly after noon and quickly grew into the largest demonstration since thousands of anti-war and anti-abortion protesters greeted delegates on Sunday as they arrived in the city.

And to be fair...

The crowd, estimated at around 400 people...

Let's wait and see what happens at the RNCC.

More (if in a different vein):

Check out the second picture of this post and try to imagine what country this scene belongs in.
|

Fearful Jews Fleeing France. I'd say blame it on The Passion.
|

Interesting new book coming out. Here's some info according to Drudge.
|

Dean's World has posed a question to Conservatives. He basically wants to know, if Kerry gets (barf) elected, will we do what we have been telling the Left to do for the past 4 years. Specifically, will we refrain from calling (barf) President Kerry a "traitor, loser, liar, incompetent" etc.?

Instapundit has posted some interesting thoughts on this topic (from the comments in this post). I am somewhat torn between the commenter's opinion and the general desire to provide a unified front against our enemies. Here's what the commenter said:

Aren't you basically saying that Republicans can be counted on to support the country and the WoT if a Democrat is in office, but not vice versa? This argument lets the Democrats who would rather control the White House than have the U.S. remain safe and secure off the hook. Not a good precedent. Rather Kerry and the Democratic party should be punished for undermining Bush and creating the division in the country, not rewarded!

True (and I personally think they will be punished...at the polls in November, but I digress). All the same, we Conservatives have a choice (if Kerry were to (barf) win). We can either become just like our Liberals "friends" (the ones who liken Bush to Hitler, and hence our "friends"), or we can maintain the high ground and (wonder of wonders) challenge President (barf) Kerry with (now get this) actual ideas.

I happen to believe that the old adages (which the Left has so painfully abandoned) of politics stops at the water's edge, we must stand United and all the various iterations do not exclude public disagreement with the sitting President.


Let me pose my own question: If Kerry is elected (barf) President, should I reinforce behavior with which I disagree? And further, is it possible that he might actually do something that would make him a loser, liar, incompetent or even a bona fide traitor?

Example? How about turning over our sovereignty to the UN? How about asking (on bended knee) for the permission of our masters in France, Germany and Russia before we do anything outside of our borders? Should I support such behavior in the name of providing a unified front? And, would such actions (or others) actually make him a traitor?

You see, the important thing here is not necessarily the words used (although some are just unacceptable), but whether or not the words actually apply and, as importantly, whether or not the accuser is willing to take full moral and legal responsibility for the words used.

If I call President (barf) Kerry a traitor, I damn well better be ready and willing to back that up in the most solid way possible. To do otherwise would be to assume the cloak of shame with which the Left has so odiously covered the nakedness of their hatred for President Bush.

However, whether or not anyone might ever choose to call President (barf) Kerry a traitor, it is never acceptable to do so in a foreign country. If you want to challenge the President of the United States, you damn will better be doing it in this country. Otherwise you're at best a wimp and at worst a traitor.

So, I will take a pledge right now:

I, Tom at MuD&PHuD, do hereby pledge that I will not directly insult President (barf) Kerry (although I reserve the right to make fun of him in good humor and disagree on any topic). Further, I pledge to never enter a Foreign Country, stand in front of a crowd of any size, and call President (barf) Kerry anything other than my President while extolling any virtues of his with which I agree.
|

I kid you not. This post at JYB will both chill you to your bones and make your blood boil. Try this on for size:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) - A recent Sunday found Tina Kolm changing her morning routine. Instead of attending a Unitarian Universalist service, she was at the Lenexa Christian Center, paying close attention to a conservative minister's sermon about the importance of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.

[...]

The coalition, based in suburban Kansas City, Kan., says it wants to make sure clergy adhere to federal tax guidelines restricting political activity by nonprofit groups, and it's taking such efforts to a new level.

Oh man. I am absolutely disgusted that anyone would sink to these levels. Once again, the Left has decided that the Constitution really isn't all that important, as long as it stands in their way. I guess Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... only applies if you're not classified as a non-profit organization, right? And the Right was referred to as Brownshirts...does this citizen-informing-on-citizen remind anyone of something from the past?
|

JunkYardBlog has some great comments on WWII and its parallels to the War on Terror:

Note, by the way, that these slides only concern the Middle East. I'm also working on graphics to show successes and threats beyond the region, and developing a comprehensive view of the war to date. We're winning in some areas, sliding in others and threats are gathering in other areas. It's a war, after all, and a global one. There are no straight lines to victory, and it is naive to expect everything to magically fall into place. In World War II we lost the entire Philippines before coming back to retake them on the way to defeating Japan; we invaded Italy (which had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor) on the way to encircling and finally defeating Germany (which also had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor) before finally defeating Japan. That's just how it all worked out. Looking back, though, it's perfectly obvious that there would have been no complete victory without defeating Italy, Germany and Japan. Likewise, this war isn't just about killing and capturing individual terrorists or destroying their mountain hideaways--it's about destroying the environments that spawned them and the states that support them. President Bush told us that in the beginning, but we seem to have forgotten. There have been and will continue to be setbacks and zigzags until we win this war. If you're only concerned with the daily death toll in Iraq or Afghanistan or the latest self-help tip from the 9-11 Commission, you're missing the big picture.

Thank you!
|

Drudge reports that (here's the story):

Kerry carried a an 8-mm home movie camera with him to Vietnam so he could record his war exploits, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The clips will debut during the intro of Kerry at convention...

I wonder if any of this footage will include the war crimes to which he has admitted.

|

I realize that this is going to be both self-indulgent and pretty pitiful, but I'm not going to let that stop me.

Sitemeter just informed me (pretty passively) that the search string "Sandy Berger" returns MuD&PHuD as the 21st result. And even better (in some strange light) is the fact that I am the 3rd blog on the list (after Instapundit (twice), Drezner). All things considered, this is either not too shabby or an indication that Google's retrieval method is all messed up =).
|

...Frankly, Dan Rather is a little bored. Make that a lot bored.

More:

Anyone remember all the complaining that some (especially from the Left) did about the Free Speech Zones to which protesters have been confined while Bush is around? I actually agree that these so-called Zones are a serious restriction on Free Speech and should not be allowed. But...let's just point out some hypocrisy:

It would appear that evil VRWC* types are not the only ones enforcing Free Speech Zones:

Meanwhile, groups of pro-life and pro-family protesters at the Democratic National Convention are finding it difficult to get their messages across. They have found themselves relegated to a fenced-in area with two layers of cyclone fencing with razor wire at the top and a net overhead attached to a catwalk with armed snipers. It is the only place they are allowed to demonstrate, so the various groups are going to challenge the arrangement.

Interesting.

* Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
|

Let me start by saying that THK creeps me out. I don't know if it's her way of using English or if it's just her...but I get really uncomfortable just watching her talk. If Uncle Bernie ever said anything I think he'd sound like her.

Anyway, here's the text of her speech.

As for her husband, I had to laugh twice about these pictures. First, they're funny. Second (as Drudge reports):

DEMS CLAIM NASA LEAKED PHOTOS TO SMEAR

[...]

HUME: so the campaign had no idea there would be any photographs.

CAHILL: none.

Umm...I hate to point painfully obvious facts (although you'd never know it from the frequency with which they appear on my blog...), but look at this picture and then tell me that Ms. Cahill is not lying through her teeth.


Kerry posing for a picture of which he is obviously unaware. 

Update:

NASA's been accused of leaking these photos without telling the Kerry campaign (via The Command Post):

...the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told Fox News that the Kerry team saw the photos before publication and passed on their release.

Be watching for the waffle. Perhaps something along the lines of: I posed for the picture before refusing to pose for the picture but just after agreeing to have them released but telling NASA to not release the pictures. Let me make myself perfectly clear, I never posed for any pictures. Any pictures that were taken were taken without me knowledge...or with it. Obviously somebody's out to get me.

I can almost taste the syrup.

More:

From the article above also comes this little gem:

"My hunch is that the brilliant Republicans who put George Bush in a flight suit to strut around an aircraft carrier won't get very far giving advice to NASA and John Glenn about the kinds of coveralls to wear" on the Space Shuttle Discovery, Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade said yesterday.

I suppose there's really no difference. After all, Bush was a real live fighter pilote and so he's got every right to wear the flight suit. Similarily, Kerry has ever right to wear the 'bunny suit' by virtue of him being a total space cadet =).

When all the dust settles, I agree with Tim Russert:

All politicians, stop getting in outfits. Just stop it.

Update 2:

pacetown has a pretty funny photoshopped picture of Kerry in his bunny costume.

Update 3:

Hog on Ice as my favorite so far =).

Update 4:

And perhaps even better =).

Update 5:

Rush has an interesting "news flash" on this topic (although I haven't heard this anywhere else yet):

"NASA spokesman Bill Johnson," get this, "said that the Kerry campaign asked that the pictures be taken of Kerry's unusually up-close tour of the shuttle Discovery, and that processing of the pictures be expedited so reporters could have them."

Humm...

I think he's right on with this bit of advice:

and there's one thing you can understand about the psychology of these people, especially the Kerry campaign as well as many people on the left, and that is they actually -- if you want to find out what their tactics are, listen to what they accuse their opponents of doing. They do that which they accuse others of doing against them. So there you have it.

Hard to argue.
|

This poll indicates a lack of pre-convention bounce for Kerry. It will be interesting to see if he gets a during- and/or post-convention upswing in poll numbers. I'd imagine that he will to some extent.

The thing that constantly gets me about this is volatility of poll numbers. I guess it just drives home the point that politics is perception (and vice versa). It just boggles the mind to think that so many people allow themselves to be passively informed (a la campaign commercials and the like) that opinion can swing so quickly and easily. It would be somewhat comforting to see people taking the time to investigate (or just read about) the candidates, comparing the finding with their own moral compass and then making a decision.

Am I asking too much? Probably considering that most people don't make it past the first paragraph of an article (and hence these very words may very well be safe from a large percentage of the population =)).
|

Yep. Poor Spain, I hope they recover emotionally.

More:

Memo

Re: Cheney to Democrats: Weakness Invites Terror

CC: Spain


|

It seems that John Ashcroft gets the short end of the Liberal fairness stick simply by virtue of being the Attorney General at the same time the Patriot Act was passed. To date, I am aware of zero ACLU lawsuits claiming that John Ashcroft (or anyone else) has abused their newfound 'powers' in that Act.

Further, I think that this article does a great job of illuminating stark differences between John Ashcroft and the soon-to-be-former-presumptive-nominee John F-ing Kerry. Let's play a game. I'll give you two quotes and you guess whether it was Kerry or Ashcroft who said it. Here we go...

Number 1:

"To date, we have heard a great deal about the needs of law enforcement and not enough about the privacy needs of the rest of us. While we need to revise our laws to reflect the digital age, one thing that does not need revision is the Fourth Amendment... Now, more than ever, we must protect citizens' privacy from the excesses of an arrogant, overly powerful government."

Number 2:

"[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one."

I'm sure that you'll have no trouble assigning the quotes (if for no other reason than my own political persuasion). But let's not forget that old Ben Franklin said: Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

The balance between the two is never easy to maintain...but it becomes nearly impossible when the defenders of freedom are demonized while the proponents of empowering an invasive government are held up as the defenders of Civil Liberties.
|

Man, I hate that insulting reference to the Black Vote. As if everyone who's Black just follows the lead lemming. Voting demographics aside, this insulting concept should not be reinforced. Ever.

Along those lines, another false conception is that Republicans are bad for all people who happen to be Black. I think that Peter Kirsanow sums it up better than I've ever seen in such few words in his recent NRO column:

The party of Lincoln does indeed have a lot of work to do. But no doubt many would've liked to have seen the president remind Rev. Jackson that the Republican party isn't the party that worked against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments; it isn't the party that institutionalized segregation; it didn't establish poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting; it didn't enact Jim Crow laws or fight against anti-lynching legislation; it hasn't resisted helping black kids escape failing schools; and it hasn't claimed that shoveling trillions of dollars into ineffective government programs is the best evidence of a commitment to black advancement.

Duh. Why doesn't everyone realize this?
|

Two Americas? Yep.

Whose side are you on? Bush's or Arafat's? (And people have the audicity to complain when I say that Terrorists (and dictators) want Kerry to win.)

Are the French moving towards puberty? Maybe.

Out- vs. Insourcing. Mixed news, as far as I'm concerned.

J&J: As specific as they'll ever be. (Motto: We can make things better...just don't ask how.)
|

I never fail to find Teresa Heinz Kerry entertaining. Drudge has a great bit of irony on her. Check it out =).
|

Finally, we have found some (quote, unquote) World Leaders who support Kerry! (Well, aside from the maniacal dictators already supporting him, that is.)

It looks like some Italians want Kerry to win (via The Command Post). Unfortunately for them, they don't know Ralph Nader very well. Trying to get that guy out of a race only makes him want it more.

I'm sure the foreign endorcements will just keep on rolling in =).
|

No, I'm not referring to what would happen if Mike Moore were to fall from orbit (remember the Dinosaurs?). I'm talking about the impact that F9/11 has had on at least some of our soldiers.

The only thing that makes Iraq anything at all like Vietnam is the Left's continued and absolute distain and hatred for our fine military. Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog has a good post from a solider on the impact Moore's political hit piece is having on some (via AM Sirian's Good News). Read it and then arm yourself with facts to counter the lies of Moore.
|

I went down to DC this weekend to see the WWII Memorial with some of my family including my Grandfather, who drove a tank in 778th. I cannot say enough about the majesity of this Monument. It is a fitting tribute to the Men who fought and died in Europe, the Pacific, North Africa and elsewhere so that we, and the rest of the World, might live free from the clutches of Hitler and his partners in conquest and evil.

To the Men of WWII: Thank You.


The Atlantic Pillars 


View towards the Reflecting Pool 


The Pacific Pillars. 


WWII Memorial 


The Field of Stars. 4,000, one for every 100 Americans killed in WWII. 


We must never forget. 
|

Chenkoff has yet another great positive update. This time it's the 2nd installment of Good News From Afghanistan. Give it a read and let him do the work of the Media.
|

Profiles of the bloggers attending the DNCC (via The Command Post)
|

The Best Of Homespun Bloggers is up. Go check 'em all out.
|

My most recent UselessK article is up. It's a relatively short response to a bit of this post. Here's a bit:

The 2nd Law does not say anything such thing. It does not state that systems by themselves becomes more disordered rather than ordered at all. Rather, it was originally formulated to deal with the limits of energy that one could extract from a carnot engine. For our purposes, however, it's more informative to deal with the bigger picture. The 2nd Law actually states that under any given set of conditions:

|

Check out QandO's post. He's compiled (apparently) all of the references to Iraq that can be found in the 9/11 Commission's report (via Wizbang).

I've got three letters for you:

Woa.
|

Drudge has reported on a pro-Bush sign hanging near the site of the Democratic Convention. Take a look at this:

On Friday, WRKO-AM's Peter Blute and Scott Allen Miller reported how Pasquale has been confronted by city inspectors who have threatened to fine him unless he takes the anti-Dem sign down!

Pasquale told Blute and Scotto that while he doesn't want any trouble, he will continue to exercise his First Amendment rights by keeping the sign up in spite of any fines.

Now, what would the Left be saying, nay, crying if such a sign were hung by the 'other side' and threatened by NYC officials just before the Republican's Convention?

Humm...I wonder.
|

According to Clinton Taylor, the 14 Syrians were just musicians, not terrorists (my previous posts here and here).

Regardless, this incident does draw much needed attention to a few things. As Clinton points out:

June 29 was no ordinary day in the skies. That day, Department of Homeland Security officials issued an "unusually specific internal warning," urging customs officials to watch out for Pakistanis with physical signs of rough training in the al Qaeda training camps. The warning specifically mentioned Detroit and Los Angeles's LAX airports, the origin and terminus of NWA flight 327.

That means that our air-traffic system was expecting trouble. But rather than land the plane in Las Vegas or Omaha, it was allowed to continue on to Los Angeles without interruption, as if everything were hunky-dory on board. It certainly wasn't. If this had been the real thing, and the musicians had instead been terrorists, nothing was stopping them from taking control of the plane or assembling a bomb in the restroom. Given the information they were working with at the time, almost everyone should have reacted differently than they did.

Yep. Let's hope we learn something from this.
|

Every now and then I like to check my Technorati profile to get some positive reinforcement...oh, and to find new high quality blogs (by virtue of the fact that have linked to me =)).

As a result of my most recent perusal I have added two new blogs to my roll.

The first is Musing by Jason Hayes. From what I've read he seems to have a good (Conservative [Actually, I have just been informed that Jason leans more towards Libertarian than Conservative. I appologize of the error =)]) head on his shoulders.

The second (and no this wasn't a link to me...as if =)) is a actually John Lott's website, which now incorporates a blog. As I am about as staunch a defender of the 2nd Amendment as you'll find I am more than happy to link him up. For anyone interested, Lott's side of the Mary Rosh contraversy is here.
|

Instapundit points to a column I hadn't seen before.

Read it.
|

A good step was made today towards realigning our laws to respect the 2nd Amendment:

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush Thursday will sign the "National Concealed Carry for Cops" bill, a measure allowing about a million off-duty and retired officers to carry weapons out of plain sight.

And, in yet another waffle:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry made a rare appearance in the Senate, coming off the campaign trail to try to defeat the measure he had originally helped sponsor, Deeds said.

Kerry and his Massachusetts Democratic colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy, became concerned over cops carrying "concealed sniper rifles" and "grenade launchers," according to Deeds, prompting Kerry to introduce "poison pill" amendments that would have attached further gun control measures to the concealed carry bill.

Yeah, I'm really worried about off duty and retired cops carrying sniper rifles and grenade launchers under their trench coats. What a feaking joke.

In any case, I do agree with this little tid bit:

He said GOA thought the bill would be viewed as establishing a "privileged class" of people who had concealed-carry rights, while law-abiding gun owners would not be afforded the same rights.

"We would rather have had the police working together to get everybody able [to have concealed-carry rights]" Pratt said. He added that his organization and other supporters of the Second Amendment would continue pushing legislation allowing civilians the right to concealed-carry without the requirement of a permit or license. Pratt pointed to such laws in Alaska and Vermont and called them "very effective."

[...]

As more states are enacting concealed carry measures, the nation's violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991. In 2002, the rate hit a 23-year low.

According to the FBI, right-to-carry (RTC) states have lower violent crime rates on average: 24 percent lower total violent crime, 22 percent fewer murders, 37 percent fewer robberies, and 20 percent fewer aggravated assaults. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states.

It just makes sense. If a you know there's a 50/50 chance that the person you're going to rob is carrying a gun, are you more or less likely to trying robbing them in the first place? Umm...duh.

Oh, and not to mention that the 2nd Amdendment gives me (personally) the right to carry a gun. So this bill should be extended to include all law-abiding citizens, not just off duty and retired poilce officers. But who actually pays attention to that Living Document anyway?

|

Who-da-thunk-it? Saddam's lawyers have begun the inevatible stalling in an attempt to put as much time as possible between Saddam's horrid rule and his trial. They're not dumb...scumbags, but not dumb. They realize that people have generally short attention span and anything they can do to delay the trail will only serve to help them.

Here's my favorite line:

He explained that the legal team opted to file its complaint against France because it is a signatory to both the Geneva Conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights.

France "can thus defend its image as a defender of human rights", Ludot added.

Umm...right.

Anyway, I'm sure this is far from the last we'll hear from Saddam's fine group of belly-crawlers.
|

(My previous posts: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)

JunkYardBlog has some mighty interesting info:

Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.

Republicans have suggested that the information contained in the documents was used to formulate Kerry's policy, but are limited in proving those charges because the material is still classified. The sudden disappearance of the policy from the campaign web site that coincided with Berger's dismissal supports Republicans' contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate's homeland security program.

Whoa.

There's more. Read it all.

Update:

I just found this on Rush's website:

Anti-Leak Bill Splits Clinton Aides

[...]

...those who now oppose the measure, said to include Podesta and Berger...

So...Berger was against the anti-leak bill way back then, huh? Hey, I thought it was funny. Maybe he can see the future or something =).

Update 2:

Wizbang has the NYT's (finally) front-page story...and guess who they're not questioning. Answer: Sandy Berger!

Update 3:

A good post over at USS Neverdock. Every time I read/think about the crap that went on behind the scenes in the Clinton Admin I get the willies.

Update 4:

And we continue (rightly) to pile on this Berger loser.
|

Didn't Edwards learn anything from Kerry's little World-Leaders-Tell-Me-They-Want-Me-To-Win sanfu? Drudge reports that:

Edwards Suggests World Leaders Want Bush To Lose
Thu Jul 22 2004 10:51:24 ET

Sen. John Edwards said on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE last night: "Just a few weeks ago...I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president. ... They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them. They believe that in this case our trans-Atlantic relationships are important, should be important to America, are important to them. They want to be treated with some level of respect. They understand, because I made it very clear, at the end of the day, the president of the United States is going to do what's in the best interest of the American people. But the vast majority of the time, our interests are aligned with the interests of our allies around the world."

You've got to be kidding me! Sounds a little like:

In fact, Kerry told donors at a fundraiser in Hollywood, Fla., on March 8, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this; you gotta beat this guy.' "

So far, the only World Leader (that I know of) to come out in favor of Kerry is Kim Jong-il. No wonder they won't name names.
|

Ann Coulter's most recent column is up. There's a great line in there. Try to figure out who wrote it (or just his/her party affiliation) and about whom it was written:

Will he learn the power of fixed principles in leadership, or will he continue to engage in waffling and expedient stances on issues...

Give up? My guesses would have been: Any self respecting human being and About John F-ing Kerry. But that's just me. Want the answer? Read the column =).
|

Will this information (or this) convince the Left that Bush wasn't to blame for 9/11? Somehow I doubt it. Look for the Dashel and Mcauliffe types to discount any findings that don't agree with their preconcieved (and politically-driven) notions.

Update

Awesome pre-analysis analysis of the 9/11 report. Read it!
|

More info today from the Washington (com)Post (see also the TNR commentary):

Several days later [after sensitive documents were retrieved from Berger's home], after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July, the lawyer said. Berger turned the notes over to the Archives. He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse.

First off, the fact that Berger made notes and took them when he left the secure area is a clear violation of the rules. He admits to breaking those rules, so I don't quite see what the basic controversy is about here. He broke the rules. The only question in my mind is how badly did he do so.

Anyway:

Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find them [missing Classified documents]. By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week.

Really smart to not tell Kerry about a political time bomb just waiting to go off.

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

This, if true and I'm reading it correctly, is very important. If Berger took all the copies of any document, the possible motives take a sinister turn. If it turns out that he had taken only a few copies of drafts, then maybe it was a mistake or he was going to use them for political advantage (neither option is all that rosy for him). On the other hand, if it turns out that he took all the copies (and originals) of any document, it would seem more likely that he did so to cover something up and deny information to others. That, is scary and extremely sinister.

Here's a quote that would seem to support the worst case scenario both for Berger and for National Security:

"These allegations are deeply troubling, and it's our constitutional responsibility to find out what happened and why," Davis said in a statement. "It boggles the mind to imagine how a former national security advisor walked off with this kind of material in his pants, or wherever on his body he carried it. At best, we're looking at tremendously irresponsible handling of highly classified information -- some of which, I understand, has not yet been located." (emphasis added)

This article at least begins to answer some of the questions I had yesterday, but there is obviously more to learn. I'm sure we'll all have our eyes wide open (or wide shut...).

Update:

NE Republican has posted a good Op/Ed on the Berger saga.

Update 2:

This one's even better.
|

Remember those British Marines and sailors who where "detained" by Iran a little while back?

As I recall, they were marched in front of TV cameras (a violation of the Geneva Convention) and now it turns out they were subjected to the atrocity of faked execution:

LONDON (Reuters) - Iranian soldiers who detained eight British naval troops last month on the Iran-Iraq border subjected them to a mock execution, The Sun reports.

[...]

"We had been taken into a small ditch which we thought was our shallow grave," he said.

"There was just ten seconds of silence, ten seconds of hell, as we waited for the bullet," he added. "And there is no doubt at all that that is what the Iranians wanted us to think."

Remember all the discussion about how fake executions are horrible and the US should be forever condemned if it turns out we ever did such a horrible thing? (Oh, and this is nothing new for the Iranians.)

I ask you: Where is the outrage over the treatment of these men?
|

I was just informed of this by pacetown. I had blogged about some Syrians acting suspicious previously so I thought I'd put this new (potential) info out there (and, for the record, I stand behind my support of 'racial profiling').

Any truth to it? Who knows.

For what it's worth:

Let us Clear things UP - we are just Syrians

OK, there has been many things said about supposed 'terrorists'. A person called Annie Jacobsen (a very lovely lady) saw us on our flight to Los Angeles on June 29th, saw our personal habits a bit confusing, and wrote an article implying that we might be terrorists.

We almost chuckle wen we read such things. Let us clarify our thoughts:

Read their thoughts if you like. The English is a little rough but understandable.
|

According to Drudge, Terry McAuliffe has filed a Freedom of Info request for:

Any and all communications relating or referring to the investigation of Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, between, correspondence (including electronic mail) between, memoranda between, phone records of communications between, meeting notes and/or minutes of meetings between, on the one hand, any official or employee of the US Department of Justice AND, on the other hand, (i) the Executive Office of the President or any unit or office thereof (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President); (ii) any official, employee, or representative of the Republican National Committee; OR (iii) any official, employee or representative of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign.

Obviously, we'll hear more about this in the days to come. I wonder, however, whether or not Mr. McAuliffe is interested in what Sandy was up to?

This sounds a bit like the 'secure' computer scandle involving Manuel Miranda. Again, the Dems are more interested in how we got a hold of damning information, rather than being interested in the damning information itself.

Regardless, let me state for the record that if someone did something illegal (i.e., leaked info inappropiately) he, she or they should be held accountable...and I have no doubt that they will. It would do us all well, on both sides of the asile, to remember than Lady Justice is (supposed to be) blind.
|

Drudge has linked to three articles (one of which I can't get to right now):

Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq

Iraq Interior Ministry Says Report on Nukes 'Stupid'

From the first article (Wash Times):

Baghdad, Iraq, Jul. 21 (UPI) -- Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

From the second article (Reuters):

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Interior Ministry dismissed as "stupid" a report in a local newspaper on Wednesday that said three nuclear missiles had been found near the town of Tikrit.
A senior U.S. military official told reporters he had no information on the report in the newspaper al-Sabah. He said officials were checking the report.

Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior Ministry said: "It's stupid."

Most likely, more information will become avaliable in the very near future. This might just prove interesting...or a big hoax. We'll see.

Update:

How about other WMDs (via Allah)?

Perhaps a bit more vindication of Bush might be to your liking (also via Allah)

Update 2:

Still not much info, and it seems that no one official believes these reports (also here):

U.S. Army Major Earle Bluff in Baghdad said the report had been checked out, and nothing had been found as far as the U.S. was aware.

``There's nothing to confirm (the discovery)'', he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking on the Sean Hannity radio show, said ``I would go with the Iraqi minister. I would be surprised if they found any such thing.''

|

Bill's Big Bloviating Blog has a interesting post on the Authority of Silence (via Homespun Bloggers).

Bill raises a number of interesting points concerning the authority proscribed by the US Constitution and by God via the Bible and contrasts those with our current situtation. Definitely worth reading.
|

I found this article to be extremely disturbing and I wanted to pass it along. It's not pleasant and is quite disheartening...but you should read it anyway:

When One Is Enough
|

I was going to post this later...but I couldn't wait. If this email doesn't bring tears of pride to your eyes you probably need a Patriotism Transplant.

Here is a excerpt...but read the whole thing:

Having been here for nine months, I feel a certain duty to report some real heroes. I see how the softness has faded to hard lines on the faces of my soldiers. Doubtless, others have seen more and done more than we have in our little corner of contested ground. That, however, does not take from the hundreds of missions that these men have completed. We have learned our lessons the hard way and been made better for it. There is an odd, overwhelming pride which I feel as I remember some very intimate moments from the last few months. These men, my men, are the reason I do this job. Not the pay, not the resume, and not the God and Country stuff. It's these guys who have become my heroes.

Read it! And thank God for young Men like these.

Obviously, this warrants inclusion in the Ideas That Stand The Test Of Time.
|

That's my personal favorite for what's going on with Berger and the stealing of Classified material.

This topic is worth yet another post (here is my original post) because of some (potentially) explosive info that has (potentially) been posted by Hog on Ice:

Kerry Suspected in Pants Scandal?

I'm Almost Like a Journalist Today

I have been cleared to reveal the following info. I'm not allowed to say where I got it.

I have a reader who is involved with the government's efforts to fight terror, and he has connections who tell him the big suspicion is that Berger took things he thought would help Kerry in the Presidential campaign. Also, the grapevine says not all of the documents taken were copies. Furthermore, I am told that an FBI agent described Berger as "a total asshole" who is not as cooperative as he claims.

As a number of commentors on this post have pointed out, there is a lot of connections, big suspicions and I'm not allowed to say where I got its.

Regardless, as the Left so often likes to say, it's the seriousness of the charge that's important, not the nature of the evidence.

So now it's time for the Kerry spin machine to kick into high gear. Obviously, they will make the claim (as they already have) that 1) the documents weren't even all that important 2) copies of the documents in question were already widely avaliable 3) it was a mistake 4) the VRWC stuffed the documents down Berger's pants.

Will this all blow over? Most likely not in the blogosphere...I just hope that once the truth is uncovered here that the "mainstream" Media will finally get their pants on and let the rest of the world know.

Update:

The Command Post informs us (via the AP) that Berger has stepped down from the Kerry campaign:

“Mr. Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter is resolved,” said Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney. (emphasis added)

Scoff! Yeah, as if the 9/11 Commission hasn't already been used for partisan purposes.

This should not be the end of the story...but I'm afraid that the Bush Admin is going to let it all go to avoid being called meanies. We'll see...I hope I'm wrong. The truth deserves to be aired (or at least blogged)...but I'd settle for it having its day in court.

Update 2:

I think Berger has been damned by those trying to defend him. Try this on for size:

One Berger associate said Berger acknowledges placing his handwritten notes into his pants pockets, and perhaps into his jacket as well.

National Archives' policy requires that if someone reviews classified documents and wants to take out handwritten notes, those notes must first be cleared by archivists.

Berger said Monday that he returned everything he had after the National Archives told him documents were missing, "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."

Now let's see...we know that it's illegal to remove Classified documents and notes taken about Classified documents. Now we have "One Berger associate" telling us the Berger admitted to breaking that rule! And...reading somewhat between the lines...Berger also admitted to being aware that he had the documents by saying he had "accidently discarded" a few of the documents.

Am I really supposed to believe that he shredded (God, I hope he shredded them...) his notes and, miracle of miracles, he managed to shred the Classified documents also? Jeeze, I wonder if he has a whole team of people working to shread Classified document...oops, I mean...to shread (quote-unquote) his notes.

Makes a guy wonder.

Update 3:

Citizen Smash has a bit to say about 1st-hand experience with Classified material:

Every time I go up for a periodic security review, the inspector impresses upon me the seriousness of not violating security protocols. At the end of the review, I sign a document acknowledging the criminal penalties for mishandling or unauthorized disclosure of classified information: up to $50 thousand in fines and 10 years in prison for each incident.

[...]

If I ever did something like this, I would not only lose my job, but I’d almost certainly go to prison. Berger, on the other hand, simply shrugs it off and attributes it to “sloppiness.”

Unbelievable.

I hate to disagree with the Indepundit, but this is higly believable. This is the MO of people from the Clinton Admin and their ilk. Anything goes, as long as it goes in their direction. Let's see if the JD shrugs it off...I hope not.

Update 4:

Glenn, again, has some extremely interesting info on what, exactly, Berger may be guilty of:

...having knowledge that the same [i.e., Classified material] has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

It would seem to me, by Berger's own public admissions, that he has committed the following boo-boos:

1) illegally removed from it's proper place
2) abstracted (i.e., taking notes, I think)
3) destroyed
4) failed to make prompt report of such...

So the Woops defense cited above is really not all that useful here. From what I can tell the laws and regulations governing National Security with respect to Classified material don't seem to be written will a person's intent in mind but rather his or her actual actions. While not surprising, definitely enlightening.

Update 5:

I just finished typing the last update, and happened over to Drudge to find this:

CLINTON SAYS BERGER-DOCUMENTS FUROR IS JUST POLITICS: 'WE WERE ALL LAUGHING ABOUT IT'
Tue Jul 20 2004 20:54:50 ET

Former president Bill Clinton defends his embattled national security advisor as a man who "always got things right," even if his desk was a mess.

"We were all laughing about it," Clinton said about the investigation into Sandy Berger for taking classified terrorism documents from the National Archives. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."

MORE

DRUDGE has learned: In an interview set for publication Wednesday in the DENVER POST, Clinton questions the timing of the Berger flap less than a week before the Democratic National Convention and two days before a presidential commission is slated to release its final report on the Bush administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton tells the POST he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling the news a "non-story."

"I wish I knew who leaked it. It's interesting timing," he added.

"I feel terrible for Sandy. But I just believe his explanation because I know how much he cared about this ... terrorism business," Clinton said, describing his former security advisor as a "workaholic" who has "always been up to his ears in papers."

Developing...

I am dang happy to hear that they're all having a good chuckle over at Casa de Clinton. Does anyone else see something in Clinton's comments that stinks of contradicting something I just said?

But I just believe his explanation because I know how much he cared about this ... terrorism business

Oh, so he offically cares about this terrorism business...and now we should all not only stop questioning his motives, not only forgive him, but forget the whole thing?

Again, let's picture what this situation would look like if Condi had been the one shoving Classified documents into her socks...

Update 6:

Glenn has a piece at MSNBC.com about this Berger (and Wilson) situation. Give it a read.
|

This is amazing:

Blow to France's 35-hour week law

French workers at a car components factory owned by Bosch on Monday dealt a blow to the country's law limiting the working week to 35 hours, as they unilaterally accepted demands from the private German automotive group to work longer for the same pay.

Gasp!! I can't believe it! You mean to tell me that some French workers have agree to work more than the lazy-arse 35 hours/week? Maybe there's hope for them yet...or maybe not quite yet:

Only 2 per cent of Bosch's 820 workers refused to amend their contracts to allow themselves to work 36 hours. (emphasis added)

So the big hubbub is a 1 hour increase? The significance of this is that it breaks down the absurd barrier of 35 hours/week.

I guess I've just lived in America long enough (i.e., my entire life) that this seems pretty childish. Do you know anyone (outside of ER docs) who work 35-hour weeks? I don't. Here in America we work hard and, when we do, we are rewarded by the Market. In France, apparently, you are prohibited from working more and getting ahead. Of course, you get all sorts of time off...but here's the problem:

Bosch's plan, which will cut costs by 12 per cent, will allow it to invest in a new diesel-injection system at Venissieux rather than the Czech Republic, where labour is 40 per cent cheaper. It will save 190 out of 300 jobs Bosch had planned to axe by 2008.

If you don't cut costs, you get out competed. How unfair:

In Germany, moves to extend working hours could become unstoppable. Siemens had said it would otherwise shift production to Hungary - a threat that Nicolas Sarkozy, French finance minister, described as "a form of extortion that would be unthinkable over here". Other big companies seeking longer working hours in Germany include MAN, Linde, Bosch and Opel.

Extortion? Are you kidding me? Try Free Market on for size you pompous arse!

And finally, my favorite quote from the whole article:

He [Chirac] also said companies that asked their workers to vote for longer working hours or risk seeing relocation to countries where labour costs are lower were putting France on a "slippery slope".

Your piddling little, lazy country had better hope and pray that this is a "slippery slope", Mr. Chirac. You might just end up slipping into actual prosperity and freedom.
|

Apparently Sandy Berger, at the request of Bill Clinton, had been reviewing classified documents relating to the 9/11 Commission's investigation...and the funny thing is, some of those classified documents ended up coming home with him. Amazing. The article notes that:

Berger is the second high-level Clinton-era official to face controversy over taking classified information home.

Former CIA (news - web sites) Director John Deutch was pardoned by President Clinton just hours before Clinton left office in 2001 for taking home classified information and keeping it on unsecured computers at his home during his time at the CIA and Pentagon (news - web sites). Deutch was just about to enter into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets when the pardon was granted.

I guess that Berger is only the second if you don't count Hillary's little oops-I-somehow-ended-up-with-FBI-files-on-various-political-opponents-in-the-White-House-residence...humm...

Sorry, I don't believe even for one second that this was an accident. I don't pretend to have a motive, but the fact is that Berger is a lawyer and he has had plenty of experience working with classified documents and I just don't buy this being a mistake. Especially with this description:

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

[...and...]

Breuer said Berger was allowed to take handwritten notes but also knew that taking his own notes out of the secure reading room was a "technical violation of Archive procedures, but it is not all clear to us this represents a violation of the law."

So, Berger admitted that he did something that is a techincal violation of Archive procedures...and is perhaps actually against the law. At the very least he should never be allowed back into the Archives. As for criminal charges, let's leave that to the JD.

More:

You know, this didn't hit me before but this quote might prove interesting:

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement to the AP.

The question that this leaves unanswered is: Did anyone volunteer important documents, or did the former Clinton Admin people only follow the letter of the law with respect to providing documents?

Maybe I'm just being paranoid here...but when it comes to Bill's Admin I think we've got every right to look for hidden loopholes.

Update:

Captain's Quarters has some excellent commentary on this story (his first post is here):

For my money, that's at least one "inadvertently" too many, and that is not a literary criticism. Perhaps this explanation will fly for those who have never worked around classified documents, but since I spent three years producing such material, I can tell you that it's impossible to "inadvertently" take or destroy them. For one thing, such documents are required to have covers -- bright covers in primary colors that indicate their level of classification. Each sheet of paper is required to have the classification level of the page (each page may be classified differently) at the top and bottom of each side of the paper. Documents with higher classifications are numbered, and each copy is tracked with an access log, and nowadays I suppose they're tracking them by computers.

Read the whole thing.

Update 2:

Junk Yard Blog also has some good commentary.

Update 3:

Glenn points out (pointing to Sissy Willis) that, as usual, when a big story hits the blogosphere has the ability to flesh out the details long before the Old Grey Lady.

A great quote:

Said one important person there as I nodded myself into a case of whiplash: "What we define as 'quality journalism' is what our peers define as quality journalism . . . We keep trying to give our readers what we call quality journalism, and our readers call it crap."

Yep, 'nough said.

Update 4:

General BS and smokescreen from Gergen:

Former Clinton aide David Gergen, who worked with Berger in the White House, was interviewed on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday and said of Berger's actions, "I think it's more innocent than it looks."

Yeah, I'm sure that stuffing Classified documents in one's jacket, pants and socks is "more innocent than it looks." Right.

How about this smokescreen:

Gergen also said he found it "suspicious" that news of the investigation should surface just at the Sept. 11 commission is about release its report.

Ah yes, the old VRWC rears its ugly head yet again =).

|

...Democrats win. That's the message is the coming through loud and clear these days (and Rush has been harping on since long before it was as obvious as it is now).

Want some proof? How about this article from the AP (via The Command Post):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are gambling that there is enough lingering uneasiness about pocketbook issues that their message about a struggling economy and loss of jobs will resonate despite rising public optimism.

[...]

Should the economy continue to improve, it could complicate the Democrats' message of protecting jobs and reviving the economy.

So, basically John&John have put themselves a position where the worse Americans feel about themselves and their country, the better they'll likely do in the election. What a wonderful place to be.

Now to be fair, it's been easy for them to get into this position for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that Bush is so upbeat and confident in America and Americans that if you are going to take the purely contrarian position on everything (at least half of the waffling time) then it's easy to fall into this particular trap.

However, the Democrats did (and do) have a choice. They could easily have taken the strategic tact that: Sure, things are going well (economically) with Bush...but we can do better so elect us. Perhaps they did not choose this path because it's just too hard to get that message across...and it would obviously require some actual thought (dare I say nuance?) to come up with specific plans to allow improvement of our economy. And I think that is the underlying problem, the Democrats (as a party and as a Liberal ideology) have had a virtual monopoly on the press (as well as the House and Senate) for so long that they've forgotten how to argue. All they ever had to do previously was smear any opposition and the Media would go along with it.

This is still very much the case, but now there are new and truly free places to exchange information and ideas that are not subject to the Old Media. So all of a sudden the old mantra of Republicans are meanies just doesn't work...but they keep trying. Fortunately, it appears (to this humble blogger) that the old strategy is falling down around their collective Donkey ears.

Because of this basic failing and internal weakness of the Democratic Party (as a Party...not necessarily as any particular member of the rank and file) will lead to their utter downfall in November and, most likely, their rebirth by fire (hopefully in the image of Zell Miller...but that might be hoping for too much). Will the rebirth happen before Hillary makes an arse of herself running for President in '08 or after? I don't know. I think that all depends on how badly J&J manage to mess things up between now and the election. Until then, it should be fun watching J&J make themselves and their Party look silly. Enjoy =).

Update:

And as long as I'm on the topic of Kerry...check out Drudge's little collage of Kerry and the contradictory statement.

He's a Man of the People, right? How many of you regular people out there know how (and have the time) to: Snowboard, Ski, Windsurf, Kite Sail, Ride Bikes, etc., etc.? I've done most of them at one time or another...but I don't have neither the time nor the money to do them all.

It's one thing to do all that stuff...and I don't begrudge him any of it. Just don't tell me that he's a regular guy.

Oh...and he never had botox...(Frankly, he looks better with the wrinkles...the non-wrinkled Kerry is just disturbing.)
|

Apparently an unknown group has managed to kill yet another Hezbollah scumbag (via The Command Post):

A bomb blast has ripped through Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah's stronghold in the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing a senior member of the group, witnesses and Hezbollah said.

Witnesses said the blast rocked a car, killing at least one.

Hezbollah's al Manar television said the bomb killed Ghalib Awali as he got into his car.

It described him as "part of the leadership of the Islamic Resistance" - a reference to Hezbollah.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast.

Hezbollah played a leading role in helping end Israel's 22-year occupation of south Lebanon in 2000.

Israel assassinated the group's leader Abbas al-Mussawi in 1992 in an air strike on his car.

Lebanon has tried and convicted several people in recent years of spying on and plotting against the group.

-- Reuters

How sad.
|

Now maybe I should give Elton the benefit of the doubt because he's British and they don't have anything (as far as I'm aware) like our 1st Amendment. However, you'd think that someone would take him aside as explain this very simple concept to him:

Only the Government can commit the 'crime' of Censorship.

It's really that simple. I cannot personally, as a citizen of the United States of America, be rightly accused of Censorship. Nor can any group (private, corporate or otherwise) be rightly accused. Only the Government can engage in Censorship. If that's not clear enough, I don't know what else to say.

Why am I all worked up about this? Try this story on for size:

Elton attacks 'censorship' in US

Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech. (emphasis added)

Now notice exactly what he has said. He has accused the "US Government" of "hinder[ing] free speech." Now I challenge anyone out there to find a single instance where Elton cites some specific case of such an act. You're not going to find it. Here's what he does cite:

He voiced concern that it appeared acceptable to speak out if you were pro-Bush, using the example of country singer Toby Keith, but not if you were critical of the President, as in the case of country rock band, the Dixie Chicks.

"On the one hand, you have someone like Toby Keith, who has come out and been very supportive of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - which is OK because America is a democracy and Toby Keith is entitled to say what he thinks and feels.

"But, on the other hand, the Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticizing the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he's freely elected, and therefore accountable."

Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks' problems? Where they with the "US Government"? NO! Their issues were with private citizens who did not approve of the three of them going overseas and then mouthing over about how America sucks. Remember the steamroller protests? Those were carried out by individual US Citizens...exercising their own right to Free Speech.

Elton John apparently does not understand the nature of Free Speech as it exists in America. Until he does, perhaps it would be best for him to exercise his own Free Speech elsewhere.

Update:

So which is it, 9 or 11?

Permalink, posted by Tom : 8:49 AM

|

Arthur's latest installment of Good News From Iraq is up. If you read any news at all...you owe it to yourself to read this post (and the 5 previous posts as well). The mainstream Media is failing us, and Arthur does a good deal of work to provide us with some balance. For example:

"Iraqi public has little faith in the new interim government of Ayad Allawi, with only 27 percent approving the formation of his cabinet. However, more than two thirds (81 percent) said they would like Allawi's government to disarm local militias or bring them under its control... [M]ore than half believed that the forthcoming general elections would be 'just and fair' while only 18 percent said they would be 'unfair'...

"66 percent of Iraqis objected to the presence of foreign troops while only 29 percent said their presence was necessary. An even lesser number - 41 percent - said they would feel safe if the troops left...

"Regarding electricity, 64 percent agreed to a question that power supplies were worse than under the ousted leader Saddam Hussein. But 58 percent said the overall economic situation was better than before...

"The poll... reinforces results from earlier surveys that Iraqis dislike any system of government that is based on religious, sectarian or ethnic grounds."

So there is some disagreement amongst the Iraqi people, huh? Sound like any other well-functioning, free society you can think of?

Update:

Awesome! I just saw Arthur's post that his Good News From Iraq is now at Opinion Journal! Congrats Arthur!
|

The first installment of Homespun Blogger's Best Of is posted here.

Take a minute to visit a few or all of the Homespun Bloggers. You won't be disappointed.
|

CJ at The Unmentionables posed a question that I am sure has crossed every (small time) blogger's mind:

Why Bother?

A fair and important question, both from a personal and 'higher moral' standpoint. I gave my off the cuff answer in CJ's post's comment section. However, since that time I have given the issue some further thought, but have not yet had the opportunity to convert those thoughts into a few thousand 0's and 1's.

In the near future I plan to do just that...but in the mean time I would love to hear from anyone out there as to your answer to the question: Why Bother?

[And don't let this question be restricted to bloggers. Long before I started a blog, I was that guy who could never let an intellectual gauntlet hit the ground with immediately picking it up. So any non-/future-/potential-bloggers out there should also feel free to take part.]
|

...but this story (via Wizbang) is almost a relief after all the Terror issues these days.

The new boat, which appears to be a combination of indigenous Chinese hardware and Russian weapons, suggests that China is building up its submarine forces in preparation for a conflict over Taiwan, defense analysts say.
 
[...]  
 
"China has decided submarines are its first-line warships now, their best shot at beating carriers," said Sid Trevethan, an Alaska-based specialist on the Chinese military. "And China is right."

As much as this story makes me uncomfortable, this developing situation with China over Taiwan has the feel of the old Cold War style showdown. For all the danger and the potential loss of life...at least we know who the enemy is.
|

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw this on Drudge. Too funny.



 


|

If this account is true, the best we can hope for his mere training.  WomensWallStreet.com is carrying a first-hand account of suspicious goings-on during a flight from Detroit to LA.  I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will scoff and say: You're just being paranoid.  These Syrians just all happened to have small bladders and one had a limp.  What are you, a racist?
 
You be the judge...but read this article:

Terror in the Skies, Again?

By Annie Jacobsen

[...]

After seeing 14 Middle Eastern men board separately (six together, eight individually) and then act as a group, watching their unusual glances, observing their bizarre bathroom activities, watching them congregate in small groups, knowing that the flight attendants and the pilots were seriously concerned, and now knowing that federal air marshals were on board, I was officially terrified.. Before I'm labeled a racial profiler or -- worse yet -- a racist, let me add this. A month ago I traveled to India to research a magazine article I was writing. My husband and I flew on a jumbo jet carrying more than 300 Hindu and Muslim men and women on board.  We traveled throughout the country and stayed in a Muslim village 10 miles outside Pakistan. I never once felt fearful. I never once felt unsafe. I never once had the feeling that anyone wanted to hurt me.  This time was different.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...there is nothing inherently wrong with racial profiling.  We absolutley must keep our goals firmly in mind.  Our goal: Stop acts of Terror before they happen. 
 
If the vast majority of Terrorists are Outter Mongolians, then would it make any sense to 1) check all Inuits closely or 2) limit the number of Outter Mongolains we can have in secondary questioning for a given flight?  No! of course not.  Jeeze.  If you were going to bring down a plane with a bomb, and you knew that the American government could, by law, search only 2 of your ethic group per flight...how many bad guys would you send?  Is this really so difficult?
 
The argument often used to oppose racial profiling is based on 'common' crime.  People will say that we should not pull over more black drivers because we will end up creating a selection bias that will cause it to appear that there are more black criminals than there are in reality.  Valid or not, this reasoning does not even begin to hold up in the case of Terrorists.  If the anti-racial profiling camp is wrong about pulling over black drives, the result will be that we 1) don't catch as many criminals and 2) don't bother innocent people just minding their own business. 
 
In the case of Terror, however, if we fail to catch the bad guys because we're queasy about singling out Middle Eastern men...we'll, we've already seen what can happen.  And if you think that 9/11 was bad think what would have happened if those hijackers had managed to get some radioactive material onboard...

In the end we have a choice: Single out the group of people who have been 100% of the successful Terrorists within the borders of the United States and maybe bother a few innocent people or watch more of our fellow (and definitely innocent) citizens die horrible deaths.
 
Where do you stand?

Update:

Michelle Malkin has some confirmation of this story (via NE Republican).
|

I have been extremely remiss in not blog rolling Allah Is In The House before this.  The blog is absolutely hilarious and yet manages to hit all the improtant points.  I particularily like this campaign ad.

|

Robert Novak has written a column everyone should read:

Wilson contradictions leave Democrat senators speechless

[...]

For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth.

Whether or not they admit the error of their ways...Vindication tastes so sweet!

By the way...why is Wilson not be prosecuted for something here? I don't have any idea whether or not he broke any laws...but misrepresentation of the facts would be the understatement of the year. Slander (Wilson's lies), libel, treason, etc., etc.?

I wonder if anything will come of this (besides public humiliation).

Update:

Libertarian Leanings has a great post on the Butler Report:

499. We conclude that, on the basis of intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of January 28, 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

|

Fact Check.org is probably one of the best, no BS, sites out there for fair and evenhanded analysis of most things political. Their latest analysis of the economy is an absolute must read:

Economy Producing Mostly Bad Jobs? Not so fast.

Let's start with what's new. Numbers supplied to us by the BLS highlight an important trend: more white-collar managers and professionals, relatively fewer low-wage jobs requiring less education. As we sort out the raw data, employment has recently increased by more than 1 million in categories that on average paid above the median earnings of $541 per week, while employment was virtually unchanged in categories paying below the median. That's comparing the most recent 12 months with the same period a year earlier. By that measure, the jobs gained are overwhelmingly good jobs -- the very opposite of the claim made by Kerry and his allies.

Read the whole thing. It's a little long, and maybe somewhat involved for a noneconomist (such as myself), but it is definitely worth your time.
|

This is a perfect example of the America I know and love:

Passengers Give Troops First-Class Seats

DALLAS (AP) - Eight soldiers flying home from Iraq for two weeks of R&R flew in style instead of coach after first-class passengers offered to swap seats with them.

"The soldiers were very, very happy, and the whole aircraft had a different feeling," flight attendant Lorrie Gammon told The Dallas Morning News in Thursday's editions.

The June 29 seat-swap on American Airlines Flight 866 from Atlanta to Chicago started before boarding, when a businessman approached one of the soldiers and traded his seat.

When the swapping was done, "the other two first-class passengers wanted to give up their seats, too, but they couldn't find any more soldiers," Gammon said.

Another flight attendant, Candi Spradlin, said she was impressed with the acts of good will.

"If nothing else, those soldiers got a great homecoming," she said.

It's nice to see stories reaffirming my faith in my countrymen.
|

The statue that an Iraqi artist made from metal that was once a statue of Saddam is apparently going to be displayed at Fort Hood (I first saw this at Healing Iraq).


 
|

Ann's most recent column on Joe Wilson is up. My comments on this can be found here. Here's a bit:

Wilson was shocked because, in 2002, he had been sent on an unpaid make-work job to Niger to "investigate" whether Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger. Wilson's method of investigating consisted of asking African potentates questions like: Did you commit a horrible crime, which, if so, would ruin your country's relationship with the United States? I have no independent means of corroborating this, so be honest!

On the basis of the answers he got, Wilson concluded that Saddam had not sought uranium ore from Niger. Since "Africa" means "Niger" and "British intelligence" means "Joseph Wilson," Wilson realized in horror that Bush's statement referred to Wilson's very own report! Out of love for his country and an insatiable desire to have someone notice his worthless existence, Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling Bush a liar.

Yep. Right on yet again. Too bad nobody (by which I mean the Media) will listen.
|