Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Sat Jun 30, 2007

How much damage could a petrol bomb do?

Lots

We lived in London in 1989/90. One evening we heard a tremendous explosion. We thought an IRA bomb had gone off in our street. We rushed to our windows to see what had happened. About 100 yards up Inverness Terrace there was a smoking ruin where an old stone house had stood. The walls had collapsed onto the sidewalk and the cars parked next to it. Any pedestrians walking near by would have been killed. Luckily, none were. The windows of every building on the other side of the street, almost down to our flat, had been blown out.

It turned out that the owner of the house wanted to develop the property but was restricted from doing so because it was listed. He had decided to burn the building down and had taken drums of petrol into the basement. Perhaps he'd paused for a smoke after he'd emptied the petrol out. Whatever the spark, the explosion was devastating. The arsonist was the only fatality, but it could have been far worse.

A bomb using petrol, shrapnel, and propane gas cyclinders, encased in the body of a car, that exploded in a crowded London street, would have had devastating consequences.

Keith Olbermann would do well to take such attacks seriously.

Fri Jun 29, 2007

The surge has just started

Learn what the strategy is and then decide if it is succeeding

Michael Totten links to a piece at Small Wars Journal, by Dave Kilcullen, that describes the strategic thinking behind the surge. Dave Kilcullen is Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor to General Petraeus, so one suspects he knows a little more about what is going on than the likes of Harry Reid. The key points:

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation.
...
The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on.
...
It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts, to wit:

(a.) The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail.

(b.) The enemy is fluid, but the population is fixed. (The enemy is fluid because he has no permanent installations he needs to defend, and can always run away to fight another day. But the population is fixed, because people are tied to their homes, businesses, farms, tribal areas, relatives etc). Therefore—and this is the major change in our strategy this year—protecting and controlling the population is do-able, but destroying the enemy is not. We can drive him off from the population, then introduce local security forces, population control, and economic and political development, and thereby "hard-wire" the enemy out of the environment, preventing his return. But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That’s why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game—they are a distraction. We played the enemy’s game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game.

(c.) Being fluid, the enemy can control his loss rate and therefore can never be eradicated by purely enemy-centric means: he can just go to ground if the pressure becomes too much. BUT, because he needs the population to act in certain ways in order to survive, we can asphyxiate him by cutting him off from the people. And he can't just "go quiet" to avoid that threat. He has either to come out of the woodwork, fight us and be destroyed, or stay quiet and accept permanent marginalization from his former population base. That puts him on the horns of a lethal dilemma (which warms my heart, quite frankly, after the cynical obscenities these irhabi gang members have inflicted on the innocent Iraqi non-combatant population). That's the intent here.

(d.) The enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two main local population groups. We could do (and have done, in the past) enormous damage to potential supporters, "destroying the haystack to find the needle", but we don't need to: we know who the population is that we need to protect, we know where they live, and we can protect them without unbearable disruption to their lives. And more to the point, we can help them protect themselves, with our forces and ISF in overwatch.

Still, the enemy relies on financing and logistical support from Syria and Iran, and covert support from across the Muslim diaspora. We can never win this war until those sources of support are destroyed.

Thu Jun 28, 2007

Victory over Shamnesty

The people won

Bush, Kennedy, Reid, McCain and the rest of the pro-illegal immigration brigade lost big-time. My wife called, emailed and faxed Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich dozens of times. Both Ohio Senators switched their votes. She was one of half a million Americans outraged at what the senate was trying to do.

We hope the politicians got the message that they need to close the border and enforce the law first. Once that has been achieved, then the people might trust them to overhaul immigration.

The MSM will spin this as a defeat for Bush. The reality is that the red-state Democrats, who helped the Democrats win in 2006, yanked the chain on the rabid left of their party. Powerline notes that:

Given that 34 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted for cloture, while 16 Democrats and 37 Republicans voted against, the result was primarily a defeat for the Democratic Party. My guess, however, is that the press's ability to spin it as a defeat for President Bush will cause them to go easier on the anti-comprehensive "reform" forces than would otherwise have been the case.

Who were the defiant Democrats? I count the following 15 Senators:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Harkin (D-IA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

These Senators understood that legalizing millions of illegal aliens via Z-visas was going to adversely impact union members, already upset at jobs being out-sourced to Mexico. Union workers, manual workers and tradesmen would not take kindly to a Democrat congress in-sourcing millions of Mexican workers to compete with them in the legal job market.

Tue Jun 26, 2007

Fight the Shamnesty

Here's where to go

Numbers USA has been leading the charge against the comprehensive immigration bill and making a difference.

Turning the tide in Iraq

And on the home-front

The MSM is slowly realizing that America is fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. It is difficult to claim that America is in the midst of a Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq when the Sunni triangle is switching sides and supporting the US and the Shia dominated Iraqi government. The Times has a report from the battle-front in Baquba:

The platoon’s push began shortly after 4 a.m. on Saturday, as American forces continued their effort to wrest the western section of this city north of Baghdad from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Tracer rounds zipped through the air as the soldiers fired antitank weapons, mortar shells and machine guns at the abandoned houses they planned to inspect across the street.

They calculated that the firepower would blow up any bombs the insurgents might have planted in the houses, while providing cover so the first squads could move south across the thoroughfare.

Of course, the Times is still a bit confused. One dictionary definition of insurgent is:

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
n.
One who is insurgent.

The resident Sunni forces that were fighting US forces and the Iraqi government would qualify as insurgents, except that they have switched sides. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia would not qualify as insurgents.

Joe Public will slowly realize that the War in the Sunni triangle really is a war with Al Qaeda. The Democratic mantra that the US is involved in a civil war and should get out is starting to sound very hollow.

Sun Jun 24, 2007

Political correctness run amok

Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim Peer, speaks out on Rushdie

Solomonia links to some of the good lord's word:

Honouring a man who has blood on his hands goes too far.

Rushdie exercised his right to free speech. Muslim nutcases went crazy and murdered people who had translated or otherwise dealt with Rushdie's book. Had they gotten hold of Rushdie that would have torn him limb from limb. Somehow, that puts the blood on Rushdie. Such is the logic of a Lord of the realm. God help the realm as it goes on appeasing the unappeasable.

Sat Jun 23, 2007

Salman Rushdie still a high priority for Muslims

Killing him, that is

We lived in England in the late 1980s. I do not recall all the details, and Google comes up a blank, but we saw a newspaper survey that showed global concerns by religion. Most religions came up with issues like the environment, world peace, and poverty, but to Muslims the most pressing issue was killing Salman Rushdie.

This is the Fatwa issued on Salman Rushdie:

The author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, against the Prophet of Islam, and against the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to capital punishment. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to execute this sentence without delay, so that no one henceforth will dare insult the sacred beliefs of the Muslims.

His knighthood has brought the issue back into prominence in the Muslim world. No moderate Muslims have spoken out defending Rushdie. Few Westerners have, either. Tim Rutten, writing in the L.A. Times makes that point:

Equally to the point, what is the societal cost of silence among those who have not simply the moral obligation but also the ability to speak — like American commentators and editorial writers?

What masquerades as tolerance and cultural sensitivity among many U.S. journalists is really a kind of soft bigotry, an unspoken assumption that Muslim societies will naturally repress great writers and murder honest journalists, and that to insist otherwise is somehow intolerant or insensitive.

Lost in the self-righteous haze that masks this expedient sentiment is a critical point once made by the late American philosopher Richard Rorty, who was fond of pointing out that "some ideas, like some people, are just no damn good" and that no amount of faux tolerance or misplaced fellow feeling excuses the rest of us from our obligation to oppose such ideas and such people.

If Western and, particularly American, commentators refuse to speak up when their obligations are so clear, the fanatics will win and the terrible silence they so fervently desire will descend over vast stretches of our world — a silence in which the only permissible sounds are the prayers of the killers and the cries of their victims.

When a nation imposes a death sentence on the citizen of another country then it has declared war on that country. It is a pity the West has not yet understood that Rushdie is us.

Fri Jun 22, 2007

I'd like to see Fred Thompson debate John Edwards on Medical malpractice

It would expose John Edwards' hypocrisy yet again

Fred Thompson explains how soaring medical malpractice insurance rates can be tackled at the state level:

The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.

Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.

At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent

Compare that with what happened to high risk specialties in South Carolina. This Google cached Washington Times article, by Charles Hurt, provides some background:

The American Medical Association lists North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over.
One of the most successful personal-injury lawyers in North Carolina history, Mr. Edwards won dozens of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals across the state that he now represents in the Senate. He won more than 50 cases with verdicts or settlements of $1 million or more, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, and 31 of those were medical-malpractice suits.

During his 20 years of suing doctors and hospitals, he pioneered the art of blaming psychiatrists for patients who commit suicide and blaming doctors for delivering babies with cerebral palsy, according to doctors, fellow lawyers and legal observers who followed Mr. Edwards' career in North Carolina.
"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care."
"And all of this for the little people?" he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwards' argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. "How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?"
...
Doctors, however, take it all a bit more personally.
"We are currently being sued out of existence," Dr. VanDerVeer said. "People have to choose whether they want these lawyers to make gazillions of dollars in pain and suffering awards or whether they want health care."

Edwards did more than anyone to destroy health care in South Carolina.

Thu Jun 21, 2007

Taking back the initiative in the War on Terror

Better late than never

The blogosphere knows through reporters like Michael Yon that the US operations in Baqubah are trapping al Qaeda fighters driven out of Baghdad. The locals are only too willing to help:

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

The surge has just started and is already showing results. Harry Reid and company are in the unfortunate position of hoping for failure. If the surge succeeds in greatly reducing the ability of al Qaeda and the Mahdi army to terrorize Iraq, then Harry "the war is lost" Reid is going to look very stupid.

Meanwhile, back on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, US forces may be making life unpleasant and short for foreign terrorists operating there. A J Strata reports on s successful strike on a terrorist camp in Pakistan:

Major Update: Many of the dead have been identified as Arabs and terrorists:
The terrorists who have been killed in blast in Datakhel area near the Afghan border in abandoned area of Miramshah have been identified.

Military sources while talking to Online confirmed that explosion in the suspected religious seminary in Datakhel area near the Afghan border on Wednesday claimed 33 lives out of which 27 persons including four injured have been identified as foreigners.

Military sources further confirmed that out of 23 deceased, 19 have been identified as Arab, while four belonged to Turkmenistan.

Similarly, four injured have also been identified as Arab. Now the area has been under strict security after the deployment of military personnel.
Stay tuned! Seems to have been a success.

There is speculation that the strike was carried out using a new weapon system deadly accurate from 300km.

The system, called High Mobility Artillery Rockets, or HIMARS is reportedly a complement to Predator drones, particularly when weather prevents the high-altitude strikes, and are the new favorite when significant firepower is desired. The truck-mounted artillery rocket system (hence the "high mobility" moniker) first entered service in June 2005 at Fort Bragg, N.C., to complement the venerable MLRS rocket, which is heavier and more constrained in its movements and flexibility.

HIMARS carries a single six-pack of rockets on a standard Army 6x6 all-wheel drive (MLRS carries 18 rockets). The six-pack can be configured to shoot a wide array of rockets and missiles, from cluster bombs to a single missile system with a range up to 300 kilometers. HIMARS can fire a variety of non-cluster bomb rockets from the standard MLRS range of 32 kilometers to 300 kilometers.

The HIMARS launcher can also aim at a target in just 16 seconds. A crew of three operates the launcher, and it is possible for the crew to select preprogrammed targets stored in a fire control computer to increase flexibility.

With HIMARS, the United States certainly has the ability to fire deep into Pakistan from Afghanistan, and with GPS-aided precision, the missiles have a greater ability to hit the target (with the MLRS, accuracy is to within about 1,000 feet). There have also been reports of laser-guided rockets and missiles available on HIMARS, further improving accuracy.

The US now has the means to respond quickly enough to kill Bin Ladin when someone rats him out. Please, let it be before the Democrats surrender to al Qaeda in January 2009.

Mon Jun 18, 2007

Islam shows its true colors

Salman Rushdie and Gaza Christians suffer Islamic intolerance

LGF links to an AP report on Muslim reaction to Salman Rushdie's knighthood:

"This is an occasion for the (world's) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, said in [Pakistan's] parliament.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq said.

Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a 1989 fatwa, or religious edict, ordering Muslims to kill the author because his book, "The Satanic Verses," allegedly insulted Islam. The threat forced Rushdie to live in hiding for a decade.

It sounds like Sunni's and Shi'ites agree on something; Rushdie must die.

Meanwhile, Hamas shows its tolerance of Christianity. In the preceding post LGF links to a Jerusalem Post report on the plight of Christians in Gaza:

ather Manuel Musalam, leader of the small Latin community in the Gaza Strip, said masked gunmen torched and looted the Rosary Sisters School and the Latin Church.

"The masked gunmen used rocket-propelled grenades to storm the main entrances of the school and church," he said. "Then they destroyed almost everything inside, including the Cross, the Holy Book, computers and other equipment."

Musalam expressed outrage over the burning of copies of the Bible, noting that the gunmen destroyed all the Crosses inside the church and school. "Those who did these awful things have no respect for Christian-Muslim relations," he said.

He estimated damages at more than $500,000. "Those who see the destruction will realize how bad this attack was," he said. "Christians have been living in peace and security with Muslims for many years, but those who attacked us are trying to sabotage this relationship."

Too much more of this and Christian liberals may suddenly realize that Islam isn't exactly a religion of peace.

Sun Jun 17, 2007

Did Iran kill 250 American soldiers on 12/12/85?

Quite possible - Reagan seemed to think so

In a long essay entitled "HOW THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION TAUGHT IRAN THE WRONG LESSONS", Nathan Thrall lets us know that Iran may have had a hand in the crash of a US troop transport plane returning from police duty in Sinai:

Four days later, on the second anniversary of the six Da'wa bombings in Kuwait, there was quite literally "fire" on America's interests. As Reagan wrote in his memoir:
On December 12, our nation got another reminder of the high price we were having to pay for the continuing strife in the Middle East and our efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict: Nearly 250 American soldiers returning home after six months of duty as members of the international police force posted in the Sinai under the Camp David accords were killed when their plane crashed after a refueling stop in Newfoundland.
It was the largest single-day loss of life for the U.S. Armed Forces since the invasion of Normandy. As with the bombings of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, the kidnappings in Lebanon, the truck bombings of the French Paratrooper and U.S. Marine barracks, and the Da'wa bombings in Kuwait, Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Yet Reagan's admission in his 1990 memoir that the crash was a "reminder of the high price we were having to pay for the continuing strife in the Middle East" is the closest that any high ranking U.S. official has come to acknowledging terrorist involvement. In fact, all responsibility for the official investigation and report on the crash was deferred to the Canadian Government. Though the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Transportation Safety Board, FBI, and CIA all investigated the crash, their findings were not released to the Canadians. "The Canadian Aviation Safety Board was unable to determine the exact sequence of events which led to this accident," the Board's official report states.

However, a dissenting opinion was issued by four of the Board's nine members:
In our judgment, the wings of the Arrow Air DC-8 were not contaminated by ice--certainly not enough for ice contamination to be a factor in this accident.... Accordingly, we cannot agree--indeed, we categorically disagree--with the majority findings.... The evidence shows that the Arrow Air DC-8 suffered an on-board fire and a massive loss of power before it crashed. ... [The fire] may have been associated with an in-flight detonation from an explosive or incendiary device.
Until the U.S. declassifies its findings, the public cannot know if the results of U.S. investigations were withheld by the Reagan Administration because they would have pointed to its secret negotiations with Iran. The historic catastrophe is not so much as mentioned in most memoirs of Reagan Administration officials. What is a matter of public record, however, is how rapidly in the wake of the crash the administration, in its all too familiar and masochistic pattern, advanced toward more intimate contact with Iran. These negotiations slipped, at first unknowingly, from contact with shady arms brokers to witting, formal meetings with the hostage-takers themselves.

The essay demonstrates yet again that those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. So it is with Iran. They kill some of us. We talk to them. Then we give them something they want. They kill some more of us. It's time to break the cycle but it is doubtful that can happen on Bush's watch.

(Linked from Strange Women Lying in Ponds)

Sat Jun 16, 2007

Elections do not equal Democracy

But Bush's Middle East policy was based on that equation

The rush to elections in Iraq did not deliver Democracy. The electorate split along sectarian lines, and loathsome forces, such as the Al Sadr's merry men, gained positions of power. They saw the elections as a way to gain absolute power rather than a step towards a civil society, based on the rule of law.

In totalitarian states, such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran, elections are a charade. In the Islamic world, Democracy means one man, one vote, one time. This has been proven truer than ever in Gaza. Powerline has a key quote:

"The American strategy has totally collapsed," Israeli officials said. "They carried out an exercise in democracy, and that led to the election of Hamas. Then they wanted to arm the Fatah operatives in Gaza so they would fight Hamas, instead of blocking the weapons and the money being smuggled into the strip."

Hey presto: Hamas now has a base in Gaza, with no remaining internal opposition, and 1.3 million people held hostage against a full scale Israeli operation to root Hamas out.

Condi Rice and Foggy Bottom are betting on Arafat's bag man to pull the fat from the fire. Fat hope.

Nifong goes down

So should the Duke Faculty Group of 88 who smeared the Lacrosse players before justice was done

But you know that won't happen. This weasly group will not be censured, disciplined or corrected in any way. If they had any honor they would resign. That is even less likely.

But parents should think twice whether an education at Duke is worth it. And alumni might ponder whether money gifted Duke goes to a worthy cause.

Wed Jun 13, 2007

Ann Coulter takes down Bush on border security

And his Texas buddy, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton

Coulter is often her own worst enemy, but she is spot on with this column. Here's a teaser quote:

The Bush administration pulls out the big guns only for serious violations like a Border Patrol officer not filling out paperwork.

In addition to giving the illegal alien drug smuggler full immunity to testify against U.S. Border Patrol agents, the government gave him taxpayer-funded medical care for his buttocks wound, an unconditional border-crossing card, the right to sue the U.S. for "civil rights" violations, and a GAP gift card. The drug runner is also on the short-list to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

He's now suing the U.S. for $5 million, but the Bush administration is hoping to bargain him down to $10 million.

That border-crossing card came in handy when the winged illegal alien brought in another load of drugs a short eight months later — for which he has still not been charged, nearly two years later. Who does he think he is? Rep. William Jefferson?

Bush's pal Sutton keeps defending his decision to prosecute Border Patrol agents for paperwork violations, rather than an illegal alien for drug trafficking, on the grounds that the drug dealer has not been charged with any crimes. Let's see, whose job is it to charge that Mexican drug runner with a crime? Why, I believe that would be Johnny Sutton!

Unfortunately, Coulter is right. The Bush administration has shown no interest in border security. In fact, it has worked against improving border security, as Coulter make abundantly clear.

Frank Wuterich's case against John Murtha continues

Murtha is claiming immunity rather than answering the charges

The court battle to clear Wuterich's name following Murtha's repeated slanderous attacks continue. Murtha has claimed that he was acting in his official government capacity and therefore has immunity. Wuterich's legal team filed this response on 6/8/2007. The response says:

Plaintiff Frank Wuterich (“Wuterich”), the squad leader of the Marines engaged in the
Haditha battle, brought defamation and false light claims against defendant John Murtha
(“Murtha”) for asserting that Wuterich, as part of an easily identifiable group of Marines,
was a “cold-blooded” killer, among other disparaging and unproven comments. Rather
than substantively – or even personally – respond to these claims, Mr. Murtha, a sitting
member of the U.S. House of Representatives, seeks to hide behind a purported cloak of
immunity and has brought the United States Government into this litigation to fight his
battle for him.

However, at this very early juncture of the litigation, Mr. Murtha is neither entitled to
immunity nor is the United States Government an appropriate intervening party to this
action. Before either of these steps can take place Wuterich is entitled to limited
discovery – to include at a minimum deposing Mr. Murtha – in order to challenge the
defendant’s scope of employment claims and the Westfall Certification filed by the
United States Attorney’s Office.
Let it first be made quite clear. This case is not about the War in Iraq or Mr. Murtha’s
opposition to it. The legitimate public debate regarding whether the United States should
or should not have entered Iraq, or at what point in time our troops should or should not
withdraw is an unrelated distraction, both as a matter of fact and law. Neither Wuterich
nor this lawsuit takes a position or seeks to debate those questions, or Mr. Murtha’s views
on the topic.

What this lawsuit addresses is the irresponsible and false statements spread by Mr.
Murtha, without any substantive basis, against a group of young Marines – led by
Wuterich – who were risking their lives in a dangerous situation that turned tragic. Mr.
Murtha’s conduct was unbecoming that of Marine, much less a serving U.S.
Congressman, and he should be held personally accountable for his intentional actions.

Let's hope that Murtha's motion is denied so that he can be held to account for smearing the good name of his fellow marines.

If you wish to help Frank Wuterich in his fight to clear his name, you can support him at his web-site. I sent money there instead of the RNC.

Is BDS a fatal disease?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit makes a good case

The NRO Editors tear apart Fourth Circuit's decision to remove Al Qaeda operative Ali Saleh Kalah al-Marri from detention as an enemy combatant in the war on terror. The key graph:

By their lights, even 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta wasn’t a combatant. Despite his enlistment in an organization waging war on America that had trained him and sent him here, he was just a civilian.

Was it BDS? The two judges who ruled for Al Qaeda were:

Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton appointee, and Roger Gregory, an unsuccessful Clinton appointee renominated by President Bush in a good-will gesture to Democrats

Democrats reflexively oppose anything Bush does in the War on Terror. That is a symptom of BDS. By their lights, Al Qaeda cell members on US soil get all the rights of US citizens. FDR, JFK and Joe Lieberman must be so ashamed of what the Democtatic party has become.

Mon Jun 11, 2007

Joe Lieberman is right about Iran

Bill Roggio provides further confirmation

Lieberman takes the threat of Iran seriously. Unlike every Democrat and most Republicans, he is forthright on the the threat posed by Iran. He says:

I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. To me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

Lieberman said diplomacy with the Iranians was not enough: “We can’t just talk to them. If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force and, to me, that would include taking military action to stop them doing what they’re doing.”

Lieberman also said that “90 percent” of the suicide bombings in Iraq were being caused by Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Joe has strayed a long way from the Democrat reservation but he is right. He's more right than Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Perhaps Bill Roggio has reported a trigger point:

In the June 4 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology, the magazine reported that Iran build a mockup of the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center inside its borders, which was used to train the attackers. The "training center" was discovered by a U.S. spy satellite surveying Iran.

"U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers," Michael Mecham reported in the In Orbit section of the magazine. "The U.S. believes the discovery indicates Iran was heavily involved in the attack, which relied on a fake motorcade to gain entrance to the compound. The duplicate layout in Iran allowed attackers to practice procedures to use at the Iraqi compound, the Defense Dept. believes."

An American military officer confirmed to us the report is accurate, but did not disclose the location of the training camp.

Has Bush the will to do anything about Iran? Joe has given Bush the political cover. Can he use it in time? Doubtful.

Sun Jun 10, 2007

China - 21st Century Powerhouse?

Or Demographic flop?

Mort Kondrake writes:

That’s because, I’m convinced after spending three weeks in China and Tibet, unless the United States gets its act together, our grandchildren will be living in a world dominated by the Peoples Republic.

China is simply inexorable in its pursuit of wealth, growth and power. It cares little about human rights, democracy, labor protections, fair trade rules or the environment. It is relentless in advancing its national interests.
...
Hundreds of thousands of Tibetans — along with an estimated 30 million Chinese — died in Mao Zedong’s maniacal collectivization campaign, the “Great Leap Forward.” In Tibet, the Chinese caused mass famine by trying to change the dominant crop from barley to rice, which does not grow in high altitudes.

Tens of thousands more Tibetans were killed when the Chinese put down a nationalistic revolt in the late 1950s and almost all Buddhist temples were sacked and burned during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.

On the other hand, Writing on NRO's corner, Mark Steyn points out:

My line on China, the soi-disant colossus of the 21st century, is that it's been dramatically oversold. China will get old before it gets rich, in part because of its foolish "one-child" policy. You'd think they'd have figured that out, but apparently not.

Steyn's link points an article showing that China is implementing its one child policy as rigorously as ever. Forced abortion at 9 months for violating the one-child policy would test the resolve of the most hardened abortionist in the US:

An unmarried 19-year-old woman, He Caigan, told NPR that her forced abortion occurred just days before her scheduled delivery.

The consequences of the one-child policy appear to have escaped the brilliant Marxists who run China. Two parents, one child eventually means the one child has to support the two parents, one way or another. Add in a fierce desire to have that one child be male, and many of those children supporting their parents will be males within no female to marry. That is a recipe for societal disaster that has traditionally resulted in war, as millions of young males stir up trouble.

Kondrake has it wrong. China's power is illusory. Ours is not much better unless we rid our selves of the mindset that led to China's disastrous one-child policy. Where did China get the idea that "overpopulation" was a problem. This Free Republic post gives a clue:

China's One-Child Policy and Western Population Controllers
By Steve Mosher

Population control was not imposed on China by the West, as it has been imposed on smaller, weaker countries. Not only did western-funded organizations like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and others lend China's one-child policy enthusiastic support but, as recent research makes clear, the intellectual impetus for the policy came from the West.(1) Vaporous Sixties ideas about population growth and resource depletion had explosive real-world consequences years later and half a world away. The core ideas underlying the one-child policy, it turns out, came from Western "science," and more precisely from the notorious 1974 Club of Rome study which asserted that we were breeding ourselves to extinction.

The Club of Rome sponsored a computer simulation, carried out by a group of MIT-based systems engineers, called "The Limits to Growth." Released with great fanfare, the study predicted that, if population growth and resource consumption were allowed to continue unchecked, the world would come to an end by about 2070.(2) The study was soon shown to be a hoax, with even the Club of Rome disowning it. Its primary purpose, said the president of the Club, had been to "jolt" people into taking the overpopulation problem seriously.

The brilliant Chinese leadership bought the hoax. China murdered millions in its past. It has aborted far more millions from its future. Like Europe and Japan, China's future is geriatric power.

Thu Jun 07, 2007

This video should be seen by all MSM reporters

But I doubt they will understand it is a parody until the end

Flopping Aces has linked to a must-see parody of current TV reporting transposed to D-Day.

My father-in-law captained a landing craft on D-Day. He served his country. Our MSM does not serve our country. It does us a disservice every time it undermines our efforts in this war; it does that 24/7. The NYT has the record, of course, by obsessing endlessly about Abu Ghraib.

Send the video link to all your leftist friends. It might turn on a light for the least dim.

Wed Jun 06, 2007

Which Hispanics will support the GOP?

Not those who would get a Bush/Kennedy amnesty

The wonderful Heather MacDonald puts paid to the delusion that Hispanics will favor the GOP in her City Journal article. Mexico is exporting its poverty to the US. Its poor can suck the US taxpayer dry, its criminals can murder US citizens by the tens of thousands, its drunk drivers can kill and maim more US citizens by the tens of thousands, and its motor voters can ensure Democrat politicians stay elected. The GOP is the party for those seeking freedom and opportunity. It is not the party for parasites, and that is what too many illegal immigrants are.

The only Hispanic bloc that will support the GOP is the Cuban community, soon to be joined by a Venezuelan community driven out of their homes by Hugo Chavez.

Can Rove believe that amnestied illegals will vote for Bush's party over Kennedy's party? I hope not, but that means Bush overrode him.

Tue Jun 05, 2007

GOP Scorecard post debate

Fred Thompson wins, hands down

I watched the second half of the GOP debate and then Fred Thompson on Hannity & Colmes. Fred won hands down. He had a major stage to himself while a bunch of GOP contenders fought for air-time.

I'd have to say I was impressed by Fred. He was as well informed as any major R.O.C. (right of center) blogger on the issues of the day. He was passionate in his defense of Libby. He knew the minutiae of the case and where it went off the rails. Man, was I impressed. When he talked about the major issues of the day he hit the big points that the rest of both fields won't touch -- the demographic time bomb that will kill Social Security and Medicare -- Tax reform -- the war against radical Islam. I liked what I heard. I like what he writes.

Back to the rest of the field. This format needs to be modeled on Survivor. We need a way to vote cretins like Ron Paul and light-weights like Gilmore and Tommy Thompson off the stage.

Despite that, I was impressed by Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter. Romney fluffed a few questions by going off on irrelevant stuff, like trade opportunities in Asia. Hunter did well; he'd be a good VP candidate.

Libby sentenced to 2 1/2 years

Will Bush pardon Libby?

This is a travesty. The Fitzgerald perjury trap investigation should have been terminated the second it was known that Armitage was the leaker. That was before Fitzgerald's investigation got started. But Comey and Gonzales let Fitzgerald carry on for years, despite knowing that Armitage was the leaker, and despite the fact that Plame was not covered by the IIPA.

A massive irony was spotted by a commenter at Just One Minute. He links to a letter that Paul Wolfowitz, another honorable man unjustly treated, wrote to the court on behalf of Libby. He said:

I know of many examples of Mr. Libby's service to individuals, but let me mention two that are particularly relevant in the context of the present case. One involves his efforts to persuade a newspaper not to publish information that would have endangered the life of a covert CIA agent working overseas. Late into the evening, long after most others had left the matter to be dealt with the next day, Mr. Libby worked to collect the information that was needed to persuade the editor not to run the story. His assistant Jenny Mayfield told me that was when she realized she was working for a very special purpose - as indeed she was.

I also remember how Mr. Libby offered his services pro bono or at reduced costs after he had returned to private law practice - to help former colleagues and friends with legal issues. In one case he helped a public official defend himself against libelous accusations, something that is extremely difficult to do for anyone in public office. The official in question was Richard Armitage who more recently served as - Deputy Secretary of State.

Such irony. Libby worked to protect the like of a real CIA agent, not the likes of the duplicitous duo, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. Libby worked to defend Armitage's name yet Armitage made not one move to help Libby while his life has been destroyed.

Mon Jun 04, 2007

Another problem with illegals

They're litterbugs

First thing they do after breaking into America is trash it. Michelle Malkin links to a report that highlights the problem:

Cleanup crews from various agencies, volunteer groups and the Tohono O'odham Nation hauled about 250,000 pounds of trash from thousands of acres of federal, state and private land across southern Arizona from 2002 to 2005, says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

But that's only a fraction of the nearly 25 million pounds of trash thought to be out there.

Authorities estimate the 3.2 million-plus immigrants caught by the Border Patrol dropped that much garbage in the southern Arizona desert from July 1999 through June 2005. The figure assumes that each illegal immigrant discards eight pounds of trash, the weight of some abandoned backpacks found in the desert...

...In 2002, the United States estimated that removing all litter from lands just in southeast Arizona - east of the Tohono Reservation - would cost about $4.5 million over five years. This count didn't include such trash hotbeds as Ironwood Forest National Monument, the Altar Valley, Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta.

Since then, Congress appropriated about $3.4 million for a wide range of environmental remediating measures in all of southern Arizona. This includes repairing roads, building fences and removing abandoned cars.

The five-year tab is $62.9 million for all forms of environmental remediating for immigration-related damage across southeast Arizona, including $23 million for the first year.

Here's a thought. Whenever the US catches an illegal, they are sentenced to six months of community service on the border, before being sent back. They might be less inclined to return if they know they are going to spend six months picking up garbage each time they are caught.

Democrats prove they are unfit for office

To a (wo)man they all say they'll end the war in Iraq

Let's see, now. Could Roosevelt have ended WW II by withdrawing from Europe and the Pacific? Obviously not. The Nazis and Imperial Japan would have taken full advantage of a unilateral American surrender.

Ditto Al Qaeda and Iran. Both are declared mortal enemies of the US and a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq will embolden them beyond measure. What the Democrats can do is end American involvement in Iraq. Such an action would precipitate a blood bath far worse than the aftermath of US withdrawal from Vietnam.

Any GOP candidate worthy of the nomination should have no trouble making mincemeat of any Democrat candidate on this one issue. It is simple. The only way to end a war is by winning. The real beef with Bush is not, that he went on the offense against Radical Islam, but that he did not go in to win. No Democrat has a plan to win in Iraq, and unilateral surrender, as recommended by the Democrats, will not wash with the electorate.

Sat Jun 02, 2007

Conservatives turn on Bush

He's betrayed us too many times

Deposing Saddam was justified on the basis of UN Resolution 1441 alone. Bush did the right thing to do that. Turkey's Islamist government paid no price for preventing the US from using its territory to attack Saddam. Had Bush had cojones, Turkey would have been expelled from NATO, lost all US aid, and had any US support for its entry into the EU converted into absolute opposition.

The consequences of Turkey's actions were disastrous for the US. The Sunni triangle was not exposed to US military might and became the center of the Saddam inspired insurgency. Al Qaeda, whether by design or opportunity, joined forces with that insurgency. It has taken until the present for that nexus to be broken. The cost to the US in having the insurgency convert an easy military victory into a guerrilla war has been massive. Bush let that happen.

Meanwhile, Al Sadr, a man wanted for murder in 2002, the leader of the Shi'ite insurgency, was allowed to live. Worse, his sect was allowed to participate in the premature election that left Iraq ruled by competing religious factors, instead of secular forces. In a way, this stupidity matches Jimmy Carter's endorsement of Chavez. Bush let that happen.

On the first assault on Fallujah, the US stopped short of crushing the enemy. PC morons thought the US should stop winning. Bush let that happen.

The US military has been subjected to such restrictive rules of engagement that US lives have been put at risk. Mullah Omar was let go. A Taliban funeral attended by Talibal leaders was left unbombed because it was a cemetary. US troops have been prosecuted because they defended themselves despite terrorist-friendly rules of engagement. Bush didn't change the rules of the game.

We always knew that Bush favored some sort of guest-worker program. I'd even support some such program. But he joined the Democrats in going for an effective amnesty for all illegals. That's where he lost us.

My wife became a Bush supporter when she thought that he was appointing A-level people. In her experience, top people appoint smarter people than themselves to staff positions. But her doubts have come to the forward. Condi Rice has become a Foggy Bottom believer in the viability of a Palestinian terrorist state. Rummy has gone. Gonzales has been a disaster. Libby was left out to dry for committing no crime. Berger got off of major national security offenses with a wrist slap. Traitors within the government and their media collaborators have betrayed critical national security secrets to the world. Bush let them off.

A-level people would not have let these things happen. They would have created a sense of national urgency. Didn't happen. 9/11 is almost forgotten. 7/7 was forgotten. Our accomplishments in Afghanistan and Iraq are ignored. Bush hasn't communicated any of our successes.

Despite all his faults, Bush is still better than any Democrat alternative. That is a sad statement on the state of the nation.

Fri Jun 01, 2007

LeBron James is phenomenal

And humble to boot

Cleveland playing Detroit in Detroit. It's 2-2, and the game is on the line. James can't sink any free throws and Detroit forces it to OT. Twice. Despite that, he scores 48 points total, and an incredible 25/26 points in the close. Cleveland has been the sad sack of pro sports for a generation. James just changed that with a single-handed performance that stunned the basketball world.

After the game he does the interviews and handles them with grace. He gives full credit to the Detroit Pistons for being a great team. That's class. For a 22-year old, he shows incredible maturity.

Go to Main Page

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message