Nine-Sixteenths, again

Budget

2011-03-23T14:56:00.001-07:00

Ok,I admit that I don't get out much. With my schedule I usually check in on the Obamateurism of the Day in the morning then in the afternoon I catch up on the rest of HotAir and listen to Hugh Hewitt. Most of the time I agree probably 80-90% of what I read/hear. Even most of what AP as has to say except when he goes on his anti-cop rants.

So maybe I'm getting an oversampling of the budget talk. That's entirely possible, but what I'm hearing annoys me to no end. I'm so sick of this $100 billion or $60 billion pro-rated debate. Defunding NPR, Planned Parenthood, NEH, NEA etc etc... I just don't care. None of those things do anything to even come close to fixing our fiscal nightmare. As a political point, no I don't think that the federal government should be funding any of those things. However, talk of cutting them is nothing but red meat for both the liberal and conservative bases. They do nothing to restore solvency.

Seriously. Get over it. Beating your chest and banging the drum over $40 billion dollars may make you feel good or score you points with the TEA party crowd but you are not helping. I'm talking to you Hugh Hewitt.

All this debate does is fire up the bases and leave everyone else yawning when there are serious issues that we could be talking about. We SHOULD be out talking about entitlement reform. Republican leaders SHOULD be on the Sunday shows laying out the numbers and making the case on social security reform. Building a consensus about what needs to be done. There is a large middle ground of people, seniors included, who need to be educated and informed about what social security reform means. Instead we are quibbling over $40 billion dollars and a few million here and there to score some points with the base... What a waste of time.

I keep hearing commenters and callers talk about the lack of presidental leadership, but where is the Republican leadership on the big issues? All I hear is well Paul Ryan will have a plan but we need to talk about this $40 billion!! No, we don't. We need to talk about the plan ahead of time. That way when the time comes we have already had a good portion of the debate and it won't just be Democrats screaming about how draconian it is. This is the time that we need to be making our case.

We need to cut $1.6 TRILLION. This year. Stop wasting my time with this bogus $40 billion argument and get to the adult discussions.

Lybia...

2011-03-20T22:26:00.000-07:00

Figure this is an appropriate time as any to give blogging another shot. There has been more than enough going on blog about have just been busy and feel things are generally better left to the experts like HotAir.com. However, I think there is room here for more.

First, do I, at this time, support military intervention in Lybia? Yes, but barely. Did I at the beginning? No. Do I think military action would have been better three weeks ago? Absolutely. But you go to war with the president you have not the president you wish you had (natch).

The problem here is not so much the moral/political justification for intervening in Lybia as a single issue. The problem is how do you square intervening in Lybia with not doing so in Iran, Bahrain, Syria etc.? I don't know, but that's for Obama to explain. I'm not going to try and carry his water on that since I think the man's a dope.

When Lybia first started going downhill I was listening to Hugh Hewitt, who I respect and agree with about 90% of the time. He was adamantly calling for military intervention and I couldn't have disagreed more. At the time there was no clear reason that I could see. The rebels had the momentum and were not, so far as I could tell, in danger of being massacred. Our national interest is, and was, in my humble opinion is in removing Gaddafi and hopefully getting a more pro-Western government in his place. Early on that seemed to be happening. Should we have been more vocal in our support of the rebels? Yes. Should we have been talking to and supporting them clandestinely? Absolutely. I'm in no position to know if that was happening but based on the news reports I've seen I don't think it was.

In order to shape events and outcomes you have to take part in them. If you want the respect of these rebels who are fighting and dying you have to support them when it matters. It doesn't seem that we have done that. Maybe with our air cover they can regroup, counter attack and take out Qaddafi. I don't know. But either way, there will be resentment on their part. Where was the West when it mattered? Where was the West when they could have made a difference and saved rebel lives? Contemplating NCAA tournament brackets apparently.

Given Obama's statements that our involvement will be "days not weeks" and won't involve ground troops, I don't know what he hopes to accomplish here. His goal doesn't seem to be regime change, but if that's not what it is... what's the point?

I think that it's important for America to be the good guy. To stand for liberty whenever possible. I don't think that we can, in good conscience stand by and let Qaddafi carry out a massacre in Benghazi. I just don't. But I don't think that we are doing anyone any favors with a half assed commitment. We are in it to remove Qaddafi or we aren't. Our goal can't be an indefinite stalemate/partition that we have to police. The only way to get involved is to pick a side. Win or lose pick a side.

Wow

2010-03-22T19:57:00.000-07:00

Good luck spinning this... 67% Angry about Healthcare takeover

As of 2200 Monday night, MSNBC of all places, shows 25.6% "Excited", 67.2% "Angry", 6.3% "I don't know what to feel. I'm happy that more Americans will be insured, but don't think that anyone should be required to purchase coverage under the threat of costly penalties."

Vets On The Hill: Afghanistan

2009-11-09T13:10:00.000-08:00

This is something that I meant to blog about over the weekend but somehow never got around to it. Unfortunately November 5, 2009 was an extraordinarily eventful day and our little event was greatly overshadowed. I hope to write further about the Ft Hood massacre later but for now I'm going to try and stay on topic.

Vets For Freedom

On November 5 we held another Vets On The Hill event, this time in support of General McChrystal and his strategy for an Afghanistan surge. This even was quite a bit smaller than the last one, see my previous post here. We probably had 20-30 veterans. Not everyone was an Iraq/Afghan vet but all of us served at some point. Just for clarification, I deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Iraq from March 2006 to July 2007. My unit was extended for four months at the beginning of the surge so that the first surge units could deploy straight to Baghdad. Our 16 month tour is the longest tour of any combat brigade that I am aware of in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Despite the smaller turnout, I think the fact that we had as many members show up as we did on less than three weeks notice and at our own expense shows how serious we are about this issue. When we have troops in combat we must not allow them to be left dangling while politicians wring their hands and worry about invented crises like health care.

Interestingly, this time around Democrats seemed much more willing to meet with us than they were last time, but I was also surprised that unlike last time we didn't have any meetings with Minnesota Republicans. Again Minnesota Rep Kieth Ellison had his Legislative Director meet with three of us from Minnesota. The meeting was not productive but was cordial. We basically agreed to disagree while agreeing that it was a complex difficult issue. Or something like that. It was a very DC meeting.

Next we met with MN Rep Betty McCollum's Chief of Staff. This meeting was again very cordial. When meeting with staff members I never really know how to read these things. I don't believe that McCollum, or any Democrat we met with for that matter, is at all willing to push the President on this issue.

I had some free time in the middle of the day so I did a walk in at House Minority Leader John Boehner's office. Not just because he's a big wig but I did happen to grow up in his district. He was not available but I did have a nice chat with his Legislative Assistant. I was assured that Rep Boehner was on our side on this issue and that he was hoping to have General McChrystal testify.

I also stopped by the TEA party rally for awhile. I support their message but... more on that later.

I then went with one other VFF member to meet Maryland Rep Chris Van Hollen. This was interesting for a few reasons. There was a vote going on so we did not meet in his regular office. We went to the Capitol building and met in a room next to the House Floor which was kind of cool. It was also interesting because I really felt that in his heart, he knew what the right side of this issue was. Again, he wasn't willing to overstep his position, but we got to the point where he was unable to argue against what we were saying.

Last but not least, we met with MN Senator Amy Klobuchar. Which, considering how our last meeting went was kind of surprising. All of us present were pleasantly surprised at how informed both the Senator and her staff were on the Afghanistan issue. To my knowledge she was the only person we met with who had actually read the full McChrystal report. She seemed willing to support a surge and was just waiting for Obama to give the word. Though once again she was unwilling to call out the President. Interesting tidbit. The Senator is a big .Vince Flynn fan and has already read his latest book.

The Democrats we met with were very interested in not offending their veteran constituents but were at least as equally interested in not appearing to be more hawkish than the President. And in fairness to them it is not their place to answer for President Obama's dithering. For the most part none of the VFF members I went into meetings with pushed the issue from that angle either. What multiple members did push for was for Congress to call General McChrystal to the Hill so that they could sort the issue out for themselves. Many members did seem interested in doing this but again, the feeling is that letting McChrystal go on public record will undermine Obama. I think in every meeting I participated in at some point we were told how, "how proud I am that the President is taking his time deliberating on this issue".

There is a palpable fear on the Hill of doing anything to make Obama look weak on Afghanistan. When push comes to shove Obama has everyone toeing the party line that HE is the decision maker. Obama makes the call, not some General and that everyone else just needs to be quiet. That was my take on the subject from several meetings anyway. Multiple times we got to the point in the conversation where staffers or the Representative/Senator started to mention McChrystal staying within the chain of command and that he should not be speaking publicly. Which, to an extent I can understand. But I also got the sense that the elephant in the room was Obama's dithering/indecisiveness and that nobody really wanted to take the position that McChrystal just needs to be a good soldier and keep his mouth shut.

Overall the actual meetings went about how I thought they would. For the most part the politicians/staffers wanted to stay on the talking points and were prepared for a meeting on those grounds. Well anyone can go in there and deliver talking points. The reason we want vets to go is to testify about our experiences. To deliver our stories that no one else in the world can give. When I had the chance to speak that's exactly what I did and it obviously knocked many of them off their game.

When I explained that I was sitting in a tent in Iraq with six local Iraqi interpreters the day that Harry Reid went on TV and said, "This war is lost". And that those interprets stopped what they were doing and looked at me to explain what he had just said. Because to him, and to too many people in politics and on Capitol Hill those are just words meant for domestic consumption. Well those Iraqis and I know that those words are a death sentence. I know that those words prolong the war and cause more American body bags to be filled. I know that those words aid the enemy because the enemy is not trying to break our military. They are trying to break our will. When our politicians go on TV and demonstrate weakness they drive regular Iraqi's and Afghani's against us.

When I was able to get them off of their talking points and they were in the position of having to address what I was saying it seemed that they at least had to think about it. Not that it necessarily changed any minds, but at least they had to leave their comfort zones for a little while.

It was also fun to turn around the 'I think we can agree' game with a little logic bomb. During the course of conversation we often covered thoughts on air strikes, counterterror vs. counterinsurgency, why the surge in Iraq worked, etc. etc. and we'd generally come to some sort of agreement. So later on I would return to those points and started asking if we can agree that the current situation is not working, and we can agree that reducing troop levels probably won't help, then what does that leave? Does anyone really think that drone strikes are really the way do this?? They generally didn't have an answer for that and that was kind of fun.

Overall the event was fairly successful I think. We were of course overshadowed by the TEA Partiers and the events at Ft Hood. And as I said earlier, I agree with the TEA Party message, but I do not agree with how many of them behaved that day. Once they started running around the various office buildings I would have to wait until they were gone and calmly explain that I was not with them before anyone was really willing to hear what I was there to talk about. I have no problem with people going to see their representatives but they are doing themselves a disservice getting into shouting matches with staffers. I mention this only because it effected how Vets For Freedom members were received once the TEA partiers showed up. I am proud of how our members conducted themselves with professionalism and pride

Disgrace

2009-10-30T04:32:00.000-07:00

Fucking Disgrace

Disgrace by itself was simply not strong enough for this.

The interim government of Honduras has yielded to international pressure and agreed to allow the return to power of Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President who was toppled in a military coup four months ago.

The breakthrough came after renewed pressure from senior US officials who travelled to Honduras this week for a last-ditch effort to end the crisis...

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, praised the agreement.

"We were very clearly on the side of the restoration of the constitutional order, and that includes the elections," Mrs Clinton told reporters during a visit to Pakistan...

US President Barack Obama cut some aid to Honduras after the coup but had been criticised by some Latin American countries for not doing more to force the de facto government to back down.

The collapse of talks last week prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to dispatch the US delegation to push again for a negotiated settlement.

A negotiated settlement? There was no negotiation. It was put "our" guy back or else. "Our" guy being Chavez junior. Way to go Obama. You interfered in an internal matter, which I'm not sure why I thought that you didn't like doing that *cough*IRAN*cough*. You bullied a "tiny" country to reinstate a fellow lefty and made Chavez, Ortega and Fidel's days.

You got what you wanted. And that tells us all a lot.

Library of Congress report

Devastating Mary A. O'Grady Column

What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?

Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.

It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.

Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.

Again. Disgrace.

Not so random thought

2009-08-19T04:29:00.000-07:00

Honduras

2009-07-05T06:00:00.000-07:00

Not a coup. 1) Look at their constitution. 2) when's the last time there was a military coup that a. was supported by the legislature and supreme court and b. did not result in the military being in charge?

Iran Commentary for Future Reference

2009-06-20T19:07:00.000-07:00

Dueling Tweets: Protestors Killed vs. Obama Families' Ice Cream Order

Obama Dithers

"On several occasions, I've had supporters of Mousavi say we need President Obama," reported CNN's Reza Sayah, from Tehran. When Wolf Blitzer asked Sayah directly whether the protesters want Obama to speak out in support of their cause, Sayah responded: "I think they do, but they're realistic."

Cop Hating Blogger and Liberal Facist Commenters Smear Cop For Removing Jackass Reporter From Accident Scene

2009-04-24T17:08:00.000-07:00

Heh, more to come later. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/24/video-jackass-cop-arrests-reporter-for-no-reason/

Nobody, And I Mean Nobody, Saw This Coming...

2009-03-08T05:31:00.000-07:00

The Telegraph, via Hot Air (emphasis added)

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest...
They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister...
Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy"

Sheesh. Thank goodness Obama doesn't have an important job like say, being the President of the United States of America! To echo Ed Morrisey, Obama isn't screwing up because he's stupid. He's screwing up because he's in over his head.

Which of course leads to this, from the usually effusive MSNBC

while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

So Obama scaring the populace by saying we're in an economice "catastrophy" might have caused uncertainty among investors? Noooo.

And it gets much worse for Obama in the best economic reporting I've seen from MSNBC

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

Makers of heavy road-building and other construction equipment have taken a hit, partly because of expectations of fewer public works jobs here and globally than first anticipated.

"We've got a lot of scared investors and business people. I think the uncertainty is a real killer here," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the libertarian Cato Institute.

So Obama's fear mongering combined with his leftist policy proposals are hurting the economy, stock market and millions of American's retirement accounts? That can't be. He still has 60%+ approval ratings and he's the Obamassiah. He's change and hope. What's that you say? In the real world you actually have to lead and have answers that make sense? You can't just hope your way to a better future? Geez, This job is hard, really really hard... (skip to about 3 minutes in)

Remembering February 22, 2007

2009-02-23T06:22:00.000-08:00

A good friend of mine reminded me that yesterday was the anniversary of my worst day in Iraq. Night actually. That was the night that I figure all of my chickens came home to roost. That was the night that all of my bitching and moaning. My stubbornness. My vanity and my pride combined to kick my ass.

That was the night, not long after we had been informed that we had been extended, that the insurgents decided to give us their best shot. They executed a near flawless complex attack against our base that killed one and wounded 13 others. It's a miracle that they didn't kill dozens. Their aim was good but we were lucky.

I was awaken from sleep that night by the sound of incoming. Close incoming. I, along with everyone else, hauled ass to the concrete bunkers just feet outside of our hooches. We had lived through several of these attacks and it was almost routine to roll out of bed and be sprinting for the bunker before you were really awake. But this time it was closer than normal. I couldn't tell how close but I knew it had the potential to be bad. My job required that I carry a radio so that I could be contacted 24/7. After the wave of mortars ended I heard the status reports and knew that no one was injured.

Being as salty as we were we gave it anywhere from 30 seconds for the brave to 5 minutes for the more cautious to go back to bed. Seconds later BOOM BOOM BOOOM another wave of rockets comes in. This time even closer. Unknown to me at the time the first round was a direct hit on the bunker outside a hooch maybe 100-150 meters from mine. The rest, amazingly, walked away from the living area. That first one though wounded, to varying degrees 13 soldiers and started a fire in their hooch.

The real kicker though was this. As had become standard, we used our radar to determine the point of origin and dispatched or QRF to investigate. This is where the insurgents did us one better. They knew what we would do and they set up an EFP ambush. They waited until our patrol got to the ambush site, detonated the EFP and launched the second wave of rockets and mortars so as to cause as much confusion as possible.

Here's the really interesting part. In the EFP attack they used 12 inch EFP's. At the time, and probably even now, you could count the number of 12 inch EPF attacks on one hand. They were virtually unheard of yet here in our "quiet" little corner of Iraq was a whole cache of them. See, and this part I still don't understand, they had the ones they used in the ambush, and had more stashed near by that they didn't use and just left behind.

The result of this, and the reason that it's the worst day of my Iraq war, is that the 12" EPF that did get used, blew part of SFC Berry's face off and killed him that night. That 12" EFP made his wife a widow. Took away his children's father. Took away his parent's son.

February 22, 2007. The day Iran helped kill a soldier I was supposed to protect. See, all of the weapons used by the Shiite militia we were fighting were supplied by Iran. The EFP's the 81MM mortars, the 107mm, 122mm and 155mm rockets... all from Iran. That's how Iran has been "unhelpful" in our new president's words.

Unhelpful.

OK, This, Is Sick

2009-02-23T03:52:00.000-08:00

Up to now I've dismissed the, admittedly disturbing, incarnations of Obama worship as liberals being liberals. They need to show off to each other, and everyone else, just how liberal they are by keeping signs and bumper stickers up for years after they have ceased being relevant. The have to make a big deal out of being "green" or whatever else the cause dujor is. That's a given. But this, litterally makes me nautious.

See Obama in yourself -- and take a photo for our gallery
FREE PRESS STAFF • January 21, 2009

You can help build our gallery of faces from people who see a part of President Barack Obama in themselves.

We've got a photo of Obama you can cut out for yourself -- click here to download it. Then follow the instructions, take a picture and send it to us here. Tell us what part of Obama is in you and we'll add your comments to your photo.

Tell us what part of Obama is in you? Are you serious? What the hell kind of sick worship is this? Someone please convince me that we are not about to have Obama Youth running around. This is the most disturbing political development I have seen in my lifetime.

EDIT: Well this was aleady out there, along with the Obama Junior Fraternity thing. This is almost as creepy as he montage. But at least this is little kids who don't know any better being forced by thier parents into making political pap. Not adults fantasizing they have a little Obama in them.

The Aftermath

2009-01-30T03:51:00.000-08:00

Since my last post the least qualified major party candidate in the history of the country was elected and sworn in.

Super.

As cynical as I am, I kept my fingers and toes crossed in the run up to the election, hoping against hope, that the American people would prove to me that the civilization was not beyond saving. Well, that's what I get for getting my hopes up. It's not just that a democrat got elected. I could have somewhat understood Hillary getting elected. For all her flaws I think that Hillary is a serious person who understands the gravity of being President.

I don't believe that Obama does.

The man said hope, change, believe, believe in hope, hope for change, believe in change, change we can believe in, and that "He" was the change we've been waiting for: And got elected President of the United States of America.

Think about that. This man who's greatest achievement (husband and fatherhood aside) prior to being elected was graduating college convinced 53% of the voting public that "He", was change we could believe in. It's incredible. The man never once said what exactly we would be changing from, or changing into. Other than names on the desk in the Oval Office that is.

Empty. Suit.

Not that I wish ill on the man. Like Rush though, I can't really say I hope he succeeds on a policy level. I think Obama policies, to the extent that he has shared with the American people what his policies are, would be detrimental to the country. Therefore I cannot hope that he succeeds, which I guess means that I hope he fails. On a policy level. That does not mean that I hope that bad things happen to America so that Republicans can get elected. That, I believe, is the difference between Rush and I and the American left of the last 8 years. The left begged for something bad to happen that they could blame on George Bush. I really hope that through sheer luck if nothing else, that Obama manages to keep this country safe and that we go on to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think he will, but I hope he does.

I think that Obama will be an unmitigated disaster personally. He's going to get bent over the barrel by Ahmedinijad, the mullahs, other dictators and the UN on foreign policy. All you have to do is look at this "stimulus" porkfest to see how he's going to do domestically. We're in for Carter II simple as that. He couldn't even keep to his own ethics rules for a week. He went from saying that Americans can't keep their thermostats at 72 degrees to turning the White House up to 'orchid' level. He's slowly but surely lowering the prestige of the office with little things like not wearing a suit coat in the Oval office in front of the media. He's going to be a disaster.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm buying gold just in case.

Election 2008

2008-09-06T13:02:00.000-07:00

I've taken a bogging hiatus the last few months because my new job has kept me extremely busy all summer. I still keep up my reading the best I can, I just don't have time to write as much as I'd like to. I thought that this week called for me to make time. So here are my condensed thoughts on this summer's political campaigns and most importantly the conventions and John McCain's speech.

McCain was not my first, or second choice to be the Republican nominee, though I did caucus for him in my state. I did so mostly because of Iraq. Regardless of how I view some of his domestic policies, John McCain gets the need to win in Iraq. More importantly, he gets how. I supported the war from the start. I enlisted in the National Guard hoping to be deployed to Iraq and I was. For 16 months. In that time I found myself very disappointed with how we were doing there. I knew we had to change what we were doing or get out because our old strategy would not lead to victory. Over time I reluctantly came to believe that we should leave Iraq because I didn't believe that our leadership knew what to do to win. And they didn't.

But John McCain did.

I wasn't real happy about it at the time because it meant that my 12 month tour turned into a 16 month tour. But more importantly I was skeptical that anything would really change. But it did. And for that the whole country should be grateful. One's country is rarely better off losing a war. Especially one such as Iraq where voluntarily leaving has such dramatic effects on our credibility. McCain understands that America is not a normal country. We are exceptional. McCain understands that if America is defeated in Iraq, and understand that I don't mean militarily defeated, I mean if we lose our will to fight and abandon the Middle East to religious zealots and power seeking thugs, that we forfeit any moral authority we have to talk about combating evil. That we would lose the ability to tell the oppressed to stand up and fight because you have an ally in America. No one would believe us. The shining city on the hill that serves as an example to the world would be no more. McCain gets this.

It's because McCain gets this, and who he has to be as a person to understand this, that I was not at all surprised by his acceptance speech a couple nights ago. I knew before he took the stage what kind of speech he would give. McCain has no use for soaring yet empty rhetoric because that's all it is. (And for the life of me I can't figure out why people are so enamoured with Obama's speeches. I think they're awful.) McCain doesn't really "give a speech". McCain talks to people. When he's in front of an audience he doesn't see himself as giving a sermon to his flock. He's telling his fellow Americans who he is and what he believes. He doesn't approach it as him being superior to the masses and in his speech he explained why.

McCain is what I continue to believe what most Americans want in a president. He is someone who honestly loves his country. Very simple. Very straight forward. He's not pompous ass who tries to talk over you or around you. He talks to you. Just as importantly, he knows who he is. He's comfortable in his skin and he has no problem being himself. He's real and Americans like that. Not very many politicians are like that, especially at the presidential level. Obama certainly isn't and it will show more and more as people start paying attention.

I'm happy with the Palin pick for VP. Yes, she's a woman. No she doesn't have a lot of experience. However, I don't think this means that she was picked simply as a ploy to get Hillary voters. What record she does have is full of accomplishments and they're 'executive' accomplishments. Not simply serving in the legislature. Is she ready to be President if McCain drops dead the day after he's inaugurated? Probably not. But, she's better than either person on the Democratic ticket. On a political level I don't think she was picked as much to offset McCain's weaknesses, in fact unlike the Dem pick Palin completely embodies the McCain message, as I think she perfectly counter's Obama. They're basically the same age but she can point to so many more accomplishments than he can. And I loooooove how the Republican VP is being compared to the Dem presidential candidate. But she's just the "mayor of Wasily" and doesn't have any experience says Obama, er wait, what experience do you have Obama? As a woman, will she pull some of Hillary's voters? Yes, but I don't think that's why she was picked. I think it's just an added bonus that she's a big ol' monkey wrench in the identity politics of the Democratic party. And there a symmetry to the pick. Elder statesman mentoring, then passing the torch to the next generation. Palin is in the perfect position to run for President in 4-8 years.
Again, unlike the Dem pick.

On the Democrat side. Slow Joe Biden? Seriously? Pick one of the few people who have been in Washington longer than McCain and who has almost zero record of "change" or bipartisanship or any of the things that Obama claims to be about. A new kind of politics? Good job Barry O.

I'm still waiting to see the very great speaking, very talented politician that Barack Obama is supposed to be. It seems to me that he steps in it at basically every turn. He's an AWFUL speaker without a prepared text. This guy says 'Umm' and 'Ahhh' so much I forget what he was originally talking about. Terrible speaker. And biting on Palin's 'lack of experience'? Come on. He served that softball up on a silver platter.

Memorial Day 2008

2008-05-26T07:39:00.000-07:00

RIP SSG Berry and all the other soldiers who gave their lives during our 16 month deployment to Iraq.

Taps
The 'Vacant Chairs' of today's Desert Bulls.
We have seen, over the course of recent deployments that too many of our own soldiers - the 34th Infantry Division - have died in the U.S. Central Command theater. The recent losses are listed below.

We know, from our own experiences in World War II, what it means to lose a fellow Red Bull. To their families, their friends, their comrades still in harm's way, we present this small remembrance in their honor, in your honor.

Specialist Rhys W. Klasno, 20, of Riverside CA and the 1114th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 13 May 2007 in Haditha, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

Staff Sergeant Robert J. Basham, 23, of Kenosha WI and Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 126th Field Artillery Regiment, died 15 April 2007 at Camp As Sayliyah, Doha, Qatar as a result of injuries from a non-combat incident.

Staff Sergeant Greg N. Riewer, 30, of Frazee MN and A Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, died 23 March 2007 in Habbaniyah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive devise detonated near his HMMWV during combat operations.

Sergeant Joshua A. Schmit, 26, of Willmar MN and the 1451st Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 14 April 2007 in Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle.

Sergeant Brandon L. Wallace, 27, of St. Louis MO and the 1451st Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 14 April 2007 in Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle.

Sergeant 1st Class David R. Berry, 37, of Wichita KS and A Battery, 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment, died 22 February 2007 in Qasim, Iraq, when the vehicle he was in struck an improvised explosive device. Berry's 'home unit' was the 1st Battalion, 161st Field Artillery, Kansas Army National Guard, Dodge City, Kansas.

Sergeant Major Michael C. Mettille, 44, of West Saint Paul MN and the 134th Brigade Support Battalion, died 1 February 2007 from a non-combat related injury at Camp Adder, Iraq.

Specialist Carla J. Stewart, 37, of Sun Valley CA and 250th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 28 January 2007 of injuries suffered in a convoy vehicle rollover in Tallil, Iraq.

Command Sergeant Major Marilyn L. Gabbard, 46, of Polk City IA and Joint Forces Headquarters, Iowa Army National Guard, Camp Dodge IA, died 20 January 2007 in the crash of a UH-60 helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq. Her death is noted here because of her close organizational connection with our division.

Staff Sergeant James Wosika Jr., 24, of Saint Paul MN and 1st Platoon, B Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 9 January 2007 by a car bomb while conducting a vehicle search south of Camp Fallujah, Iraq.

Staff Sergeant Thomas W. Clemons, 37, of Leitchfield KY and the 1st Brigade Troops Battalion died 10 December 2006 of natural causes in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq. Clemons' 'home' unit was the 2nd Battalion, 123rd Armor Regiment.

Sergeant Nicholas Turcotte, 23, of Maple Grove MN and A Company, 2nd Battalion, 135th Infantry Regiment died on 4 December 2006 from injuries suffered north of Logistics Support Area Adder near Al Nasiriyah, Iraq. His M-1117 Armored Security Vehicle had been escorting a logistics convoy when it rolled over. The accident was not the result of enemy action and an investigation was conducted.

Sergeant Bryan T. McDonough, 22, of Maplewood MN and the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment died on 2 December 2006 from injuries suffered in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. An improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during security operations supporting the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group.

Sergeant Cory Rystad, 20, of Red Lake Falls MN and the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment died on 2 December 2006 from injuries suffered in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. An improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during security operations supporting the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group.

Staff Sergeant Scott E. Nisely, 48, of Marshalltown IA and C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment was killed on 30 September 2006 near Al Asad, Iraq. He was part of a forward security element providing convoy security when insurgent forces attacked with small arms fire. Nisely had previously deployed for Operation Desert Storm as a USMC officer.

Specialist Kampha B. Sourivong of Iowa City IA and C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 30 September 2006 near Al Asad, Iraq.

Sergeant Germaine "DB" Debro of Nebraska and B Troop, 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry (RSTA), was killed in action 4 September 2006 near Tikrit, Iraq.
* RSTA: Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition

Staff Sergeant Joshua Robert Hanson of Dent MN and A Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 30 August 2006 near Khalidiyah, Iraq while supporting 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment.

Staff Sergeant Jeff Hansen of Cairo NE and B Troop, 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry (RSTA), died 28 August 2006 near Balad, Iraq.

Sergeant Kyle R. Miller, 19, of Willmar, MN, a Signal Support System Specialist with Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment (Strike), was killed in action 29 June 2006 when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle south of Balad, Iraq.

Sergeant Brent W. Koch of Morton MN and 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 16 June 2006 when a roadside bomb detonated near his cargo vehicle near Ad Dwaniyah, Iraq.

Specialist Benjamin J. Slaven, 22, of Plymouth NE and a HMMWV gunner for the 2nd Platoon, 308th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, was killed in action 9 June 2006 when a roadside bomb exploded near his convoy near Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq.

Sergeant Daniel L. Sesker of Ogden IA and C Troop, 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment, was killed in action 6 April 2006 near Baghdad, Iraq.

Sergeant Gregory L. Tull of Pocahontas IA and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 194th Field Artillery Regiment, was killed in action 25 November 2005 near Hit, Iraq, while assigned to the 155th Brigade Combat Team.

Specialist James C. Kearney III of Emerson IA and B Company, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry Regiment, died 1 November 2004 of combat injuries near Sharan, Afghanistan.

"May they have no more hills to climb,
nor cold, nor rain, nor mud, nor enemy fire,
and may they now rest in Peace."

Huh?

2008-05-10T12:49:00.000-07:00

Ok, I've kind of taken a break from blogging lately, but this just too WTF mate.

And it's actually worse than Obama saying I want to be president of all 57 states. He actually says, "I've been to 57 states, with one to go", then says that he hasn't been to Alaska or Hawaii. Well, if he's been to 57 states, not counting Alaska or Hawaii, what are the other nine that he went to? And how does he have one to go when the next thing he says is that he hasn't been to two.

I know everyone has gaffes, but come on.

Spring

2008-05-02T16:30:00.000-07:00

Despite the snow last week, it must finally be spring in Minnesota. We have One, count'em one flower blooming outside.

Excellent

2008-05-02T15:21:00.000-07:00

That is the only way I can describe this post on supporting the war on terrorism by Il Duce over at Anti-Strib. He absolutely nails it right here

So there you have it. We did what Americans do, we tried something new. It might not work and it was a hell of a lot harder than we thought, but at least we tried to spread freedom in the Middle East. And for that, I will always be proud to have supported the GWOT, the war in Iraq and GW Bush.

Liberals hate to admit it, but they really wanted us to do nothing. They throw out lines about the UN or Sanctions but we all know than nothing would have changed. And now they are very, very proud that they resisted an attempt to make the lives of millions of people better. This is the sad of modern liberalism. They are proud that they have given up. They resent the fact that we attempted to spread freedom and the only way they can salve their guilt is for us to lose so that they can say I told you so.

That's it. I want to say more about this but there is nothing else to be said about this topic.

What Is Victory

2008-05-01T10:50:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following to the Star Tribune. They declined to publish this op-ed, but that's OK. It's too long and really should be broken into multiple parts. This is in response to Wes Davey and others who claim that there is no standard for victory in Iraq. Well to an extent that's true, as there will be no single defining moment that ends our involvement in Iraq. There are however certain conditions that must be met, and it strikes me as deliberately obtuse for the "reality based community" who values nuance to demand a simple (or simplistic) answer to Iraq.

What is Victory in Iraq?

This is certainly a fair question and one that I didn’t address directly in the 556 words of my original article. Though “victory” was a word that I chose, I’m not sure it is a precise enough word for this conversation. The word victory may seem to imply that there will be a single moment in Iraq that we can say, “That’s it. It’s over. We’re done”. The harsh reality is that there will be no USS Missouri moment in Iraq. We are not simply fighting an army that we can defeat on a battlefield then go home. We are attempting to change a society. We are rebuilding a nation. This might not be what many of us expected to do in Iraq. The wisdom of nation building is certainly debatable, but it is what we’re doing. This is something that we have to accept and react to accordingly.

I think the difficult concept here is that we are trying to measure a quality and not a quantity. We cannot simply say that there are 500,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces and that means we can leave. We have to judge how effective those forces are. Can the Iraqi government effectively train, equip and deploy those forces? If those forces cannot be deployed effectively, it doesn’t matter how many there are. For this reason there can be no predetermined definitive timeline for withdraw. There just can’t. There’s no way to know for sure when the Iraqis will be competent enough to handle their own affairs. In that regard, we really are in a “we’ll know it when we see it” situation. I know that’s not a good answer. It doesn’t have the nice solid feel of saying February 22nd 2009 is the day. It’s not a comforting thought that we don’t know how long we will have troops in harms way. I know. I don’t like it either. But we have to deal with the reality we have and this is it.

That said, there is the legitimate question of what will have to happen in Iraq for us to leave. I think there are two areas that Iraq must progress in before we can reduce our military/security commitments. The first is establishing the rule of law, and the concept of a representative democracy that is accountable to the will of the people. The second is the cultivation of Iraqi Security Forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people.

Regarding the first goal, rule of law, this is something that Iraqis are somewhat familiar with having lived under decades of Saddam’s secular rule. What isn’t ingrained yet is the idea of a popularly elected representative government that is accountable to the people. There is a strongman tradition in the Arab world where the government can do pretty much whatever it wants without fear of losing power through the ballot box. That is something that is changing in Iraq. In 2006-07 I talked to many Iraqis who were decidedly unhappy with the government they elected the first time. The Shia found out the hard way that electing parties to office based on religious affiliation does not necessarily produce an effective government. Nor did boycotting the election have beneficial results for the Sunnis. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the government and the people were eager to have new elections in order to get rid of the religious parties. Those elections are due this fall and I am eager to see the results.

Another aspect of having a democratically elected government that we are teaching the Iraqis is the protection of minorities. The concept that the Shia couldn’t just enact whatever laws they wanted because they are the majority and in a democracy majority rules, wasn’t exactly clear to them. Educating the Iraqis on the finer points of democracy at both the governmental and citizen levels is an area where we have not done as much as we should. This is an area where there is no military solution per se, though it has largely fallen on individual military members to take mayors, sheikhs and city council members under their wings to attempt this education.

Secondly, the Iraqi Security Forces need to be able to provide security for Iraq on their own. This process has been underway for nearly five years and is showing measurable success. The recent fighting in Southern Iraq showed something that I didn’t expect to see from the al-Maliki government. That is the Shiite government taking military action against the person that al-Maliki once protected, Moqtada al-Sadr. This is significant on two levels. One, it is a concrete sign to the Sunnis and Kurds that Maliki is now serious about taking on all armed groups regardless of sect. I can’t stress how significant this is. One of the reasons that the Sunnis boycotted the last election and were such violent resisters of us and the Iraqi government, is that Sadr’s militia killed Sunnis but was protected by the Iraqi government while Sunni militias were targeted by the government. It is also a sign that that the Iraqi Security Forces are developing to the point where they are capable of independent operations, something unthinkable only a year or two year ago. No the fighting in Basra didn’t end in a decisive victory, but Iraqi forces weren’t routed either. In my eyes, having seen police units that were afraid to arrest militia members a year ago, just having the Iraqi government conduct independent ground operations against a Shia militia in Basra is a huge accomplishment.

I am not saying that everything in Iraq is great. I’m not saying we haven’t made mistakes. I’m not saying that we won’t make more mistakes. I’m not saying that there aren’t problems with the Iraqi government, and militias, and Iranian influence, and troop levels, and just about every other area you can think of. Yes there are problems, but does the existence problems mean that we just throw up our hands in exasperation and give up? Are we that weak as a nation that we don’t have the fortitude to persevere in the face of adversity?

Absent a conclusive moment that we can look forward to, we have to look at conditions in Iraq, as objectively as we can, and see if they are acceptable and compatible with our goal to leave behind a stable functioning state. I think there are two main areas that the Iraqis have to make progress in before we can remove our military forces. I have laid those out and I believe that demonstrable progress has been made on both of those fronts in the past year. Sectarian deaths are down 90% since last summer. Coalition Forces deaths have dropped 70% over the same time. The Shia led government is conducting military operations against Shia militias, a concrete step demonstrating a reduction in the sectarian nature of the government and towards reconciliation with the Sunni population. Iraq is now paying three-quarters, $9 billion, of its security budget which is up from paying zero not that long ago. But I don’t think that these statistics demonstrating progress should be the determining factor in whether or not the United States stays engaged in Iraq. National policy should not change with the wind, it should be based on principal and what’s best for our country’s future.

Many people say that immediate withdraw from Iraq will improve our standing in the world and help repair poor relations with our traditional allies in Western Europe. Since 2003, less pro-American leaders have been replaced with blatantly pro-American leaders in Germany and France, the two staunchest critics of invading Iraq, our relationship with England appears as strong as ever, and pro-American Silvio Berlusconi was just re-elected in Italy.

If we were to immediately withdraw from Iraq, Iran has said that they will move in to fill the void. Given Iran’s history of supporting violent groups such as Hezbollah and the disastrous results this has had for the Israeli and Lebanese people; Iran’s support of Sunni killing militias in Iraq; and the growing concern in the Sunni Arab world of Iran’s ascending power, I can’t imagine how allowing Iran to set up a puppet government in Iraq is a good thing. Iraq and Iran may be friendly of their own accord. They share a border; they do a lot of trade and business together, and the have some cultural similarities. But if we leave a weak and unstable Iraq behind, it won’t be a relationship of equals. Iran will simply move in and take over.

If we learned nothing from our experience in Southeast Asia and immediately withdraw from Iraq, what does that do to our credibility as a nation? What sort of moral credibility will we have if for a third time we abandon our allies to be slaughtered by the same people they helped us fight. How can we be a beacon of freedom and morality if we repeatedly say to people that our lives are more important than yours, so thanks for helping us but we’re going to go now.

Rather than focus on what it costs us to stay in Iraq, we need to focus on what it will cost if we leave.

The Worst Politician Ever?

2008-04-29T19:16:00.000-07:00

OK, maybe overdoing it, but I'm fairly young. I don't remember that many awful politicians. Especially politicians who are supposed to be as exceptionally gifted as Barack Obama, but really are just awful. I may update this post with line by line examples of how Barack Obama has contradicted himself, repeatedly, with his statements on Wright. But for now, think about this. Obama is someone who is so smart, with such great judgement, that we don't need to worry about his legislative record.

Then how is it that until today, I knew more about Rev Wright than Obama did, when Obama has known the man for 20 years?

Now that I get to looking around the web, I see that Jim Geraghty has done an excellent job with the cutting and the pasting =here and makes my point here. That darn Jim.

The Pomposity Is Painful

2008-04-26T09:20:00.000-07:00

The NY Times outdoes itself yet again with this shamefully ugly and divisive editorial about the now famous North Carolina GOP ad featuring Rev. Wright. The same NY Times that violated its own policy by not just printing MoveOn.org's Gen. Betrayus ad, but by giving MoveOn a deeply discounted rate to boot, of course feels morally superior enough decry a perfectly legitimate political ad. The same NY Times that has repeatedly (mis)reported about the Rev. John Hagee endorsement of John McCain, in both the opinion pages and in "news" articles, as if there is an equivalence between the McCain/Hagee and Obama/Wright relationships.

Obama's loooooong relationship with Rev. Wright. His kinda sorta I-can't-denounce-him-but-I've-denounced-him-already-so-leave-me-alone "distancing". Wright's statement that the so called denouncing was just a politician saying what a politician has to say all make the Obama-Wright relationship fair game. At least to fair minded people. But according to the Times running a very simple ad about Obama and Wright is "Manipulative. Shameful. Race-baiting"... "a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state"... and that "The country cannot afford such divisiveness". But MoveOn.org divisiveness on Iraq is OK. Gotcha.

I understand that McCain wants to run a campaign "on the issues". I get that and applaud him for it. I get that he doesn't want his presidential campaign to engage on personal issues. That's fine. I assumed that part of his reason for publicly coming out against the ad was to garner press clippings like this

Senator John McCain was right to condemn the ad and demand that state Republican Party leaders pull it

Fine. But it also gets press clippings like this

a demand they refused. As of Friday, the state party’s Web site was soliciting contributions to “keep this ad on the air.” The country cannot afford such divisiveness.

Unless Mr. McCain quickly gets control of his party, we fear there will be worse to come. (Just note the it’s- not-my-problem reaction of Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, who set a new low for implausible deniability by claiming that the ad by the G.O.P. in her home state has nothing to do with her own re-election bid.)

And comparisons like this

But that’s not what this ad is about. The assertion that Mr. Obama is “just too extreme for North Carolina” is a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state. The ad’s claim that its target is actually two Democratic gubernatorial candidates who endorsed Mr. Obama is ludicrous.

This is too familiar. In his 1990 re-election campaign, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina ran the infamous “hands” ad showing two white hands crumpling up a letter while the announcer intones: “You needed that job, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority.” His challenger, Harvey Gantt, a former Charlotte mayor, was, of course, African-American.

So while McCain gets this

Senator McCain was right when he said, of the new ad, that “there’s no place for that kind of campaigning — and the American people don’t want it, period.”

The rest of the party gets this

Now he needs to get his party to listen

The end result being that the NYT still gets to paint Republicans as racists, and use John McCain to do it. Great.

Mainstream Chicago?

2008-04-25T12:54:00.000-07:00

According to Obama's website anyway
AYERS AND DOHRN BECAME RESPECTABLE FIXTURES OF THE MAINSTREAM IN CHICAGO

Bill Ayers And Bernadine Dohrn "Became Respectable Fixtures In Mainstream Liberal Chicago Years Ago." Alexander Cockburn wrote in and op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal, "Late last week, the Clinton campaign was leaking stories about support for Obama from the former Weather Underground couple Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, both of whom became respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago years ago." [Las Vegas Review Journal, 3/2/08]

Mainstream. Yep. Every word.

Response to Wes Davey

2008-04-24T20:02:00.000-07:00

Mr. Wes Davey, a Minnesota member of Iraq Vets Against the War, responded to my op-ed with an op-ed of his own in yesterdays Star Tribune.

In it, Mr. Davey repeats the increasingly common liberal track that there is no definition of victory in Iraq. And that somehow without a defined victory it is impossible to continue in Iraq. While I agree that we should not be involved in an open ended adventure with no real goal. It seems to me that our goal in Iraq has been repeated numerous times by the administration. Mr. Davey isn't really interested in a definition of victory though.

Mr. Davey says that “if we expect our troops to continue to serve and die in Iraq, then at the very least we must clearly define what we are asking them to achieve.” Fair enough, but in his next sentence he says it doesn’t matter if victory is clearly defined or not, “Even if Bush could define victory in clear and measurable terms, how long and at what cost are we willing to stay his course?” So even if we define what victory in Iraq is, it doesn’t matter because one, over 4,000 troops have died, and two, it costs too much money. I understand why some people are against the war, but I don’t understand calling for a definition of victory then saying that if you have one it doesn’t matter.

Mr. Davey goes on to say that he takes exception to my use of the phrase “get rid of” regarding what Iraqis want us to do with the terrorists in Iraq. He says that, “The phrase… itself implies a worse fate for them, and that is something our country and our military cannot morally be a part of.” I don’t claim to be religious, but I think Mr. Davey and I have different ideas of what moral is. Mr. Davey thinks it’s immoral for the military to kill terrorists, I think it’s our duty. What is the military supposed to do with terrorists? Give them reparations checks and a hug?

He goes on to talk about how the military is "broken". Funny how Democrats have been saying for years that the military is broken but we still seem to be meeting recruiting and retention goals and maintaining troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. He talks about Chuck Hagel and the Iraq Study Group, neither of whom have produced anything worthwhile related to Iraq.

Wes Davey concludes his piece with an interesting argument.

Both Vets For Freedom and Iraq Veterans Against the War are concerned about what will happen to Iraqi citizens when the American military leaves Iraq. It is likely that sectarian violence will continue, but as the Vets For Freedom writer pointed out, the Iraqis are smart. They will find a way to end the violence before their country is destroyed.

I'm glad to know that Mr. Davey is such a free-market libertarian. I think his conclusion is completely wrong. Not because I don't believe in the power of the people to be rational, smart and conduct their own affairs, but because Iraqi's won't be free to make their own choices. They will be acted upon by many outside forces including Iran on the Shia side and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the Sunni. Iraq will be caught in the middle of a larger regional conflict. In the mean time our Iraqi allies who have risked their lives to bring the progress that we have recently seen will be murdered by the resurgent militias. Not to mention the humanitarian crisis that will erupt as millions of refugees who have recently returned to Iraq are again forced to flee their homes.

Surprise Of The Day

2008-04-17T06:42:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwe rulers accuse opposition of 'treason'

I'm sure nobody saw this coming.

Coalition of the Willing

2008-04-14T08:04:00.000-07:00

via Blackfive;

[Lance Cpl. Evan Eskharia, basic water systems technician, Marine Wing Support Squadron 374, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing recites the pledge of allegiance alongside 258 other service members during a naturalization ceremony at Al-Faw Palace, Baghdad, April 12. During the ceremony service members from 71 different countries officially became United States citizens.]

The naturalization ceremony was the largest outside the United States, with 259 service members from 71 different countries receiving their citizenship.

My, ahem, Latest Column...

2008-04-13T15:39:00.000-07:00

I've always wanted to say that. So this one is actually my first column, but hopefully there will be more to follow. Anyway, it's up at the Star Tribune here.

For Widest Dissemination

2008-04-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

Obama's slap at small town America is already being widely covered, but in the spirit of widest dissemination, I'll add my two cents.

Over at Powerline, John has two excellent posts here and here. On the new spin angle, he hits exactly the point I was going to make with this:

Note the difference between what Obama said in an unguarded moment in San Francisco, and the cleaned-up version he tried to sell tonight. San Francisco:

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Indiana:

So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on.
In Obama's cleaned-up version, religion ("faith") becomes something small town people "can count on," along with community and family, rather than something they "cling to" on account of being "bitter," along with guns and hatred of immigrants and others "who aren't like them." That's a nice try, I guess, but it's hard to believe it will fool anyone.

On the original statement John links the "anti-trade sentiment" to Colombia, but does anyone remember the run up to the Ohio primary where Obama and Hillary spent weeks demagoguing NAFTA?

Question or Mr. Obama; Who exactly is anti-trade? And are those people voting for or against you and your stance on NAFTA and Colombia?

Ralph Peters 1, Rest of the Media 0

2008-04-11T06:48:00.000-07:00

Ralph Peters in todays NY Post has a nice bit of commentary.

April 11, 2008 -- TODAY, the Newseum - a 250,000-square-foot homage to journalism that cost $450 million to build - opens on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol.

What's wrong with this picture?

Other than the (symbolic?) fact that the building's an architectural mishmash, it's this: There's no museum in the vicinity of the National Mall dedicated to our military.

Tells you a lot about the vanity and priorities of today's governing and informational "elite," doesn't it? Ignore the blood, enshrine the ink. A Pulitzer Prize outranks a Congressional Medal of Honor.

I think this should get Allahpundits Quote of the Day award:

Let's be honest: Journalists are parasites.

I'm glad someone out there is saying it.

Vets On The Hill, One Minnesotan's Take

2008-04-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Special Thanks to Ed Morrissey for the link from HotAir! This post is about the last VFF event in April 2008. VFF is holding another Vets On The Hill event on November 5. More info here and here. Please consider Donating to VFF or VFF PAC here. Thank you all for stopping by!

First I'd like to say thanks to Pete Hegseth for all the work he put in to organize Vets For Freedom and the speaking and public appearances he's put in. The same goes for David Bellavia and everyone else who rode around the country on a bus telling their stories and drumming up support to "Let them win". I don't know if we changed any minds on Capitol Hill yesterday but it really felt good to be there and at least make our position known.

VFF put us up at the Sheridan National Hotel, which by the way is very nice. So nice in fact that the first thought I had when I walked into the lobby was, "uh oh, this place is way too fancy for a bunch of war vets". Not that it was too snooty because it wasn't the staff was very respectful and polite. But because I know how vets act when they get together. We drink.

We tell stories and lies and drink some more. All in good fun but there's always the chance that something could go wrong. We had to get up at about 4:30 a.m. Tuesday morning so I wanted to get to bed early but it just wasn't happening. It was amazing how a bunch of people who had never met, but had the common bond of being war vets could get together and act like old friends. I forced myself to call it quits and head up to my room at about midnight because I didn't want to be a complete zombie while meeting with elected officials.

We started with breakfast and some speeches in the hotel conference room

First Pete Hegseth talked and later we were honored to have former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Richard Meyers We were also happy have Georgetown basketball coach John Thompson III, though unfortunately I did not get a good picture of him.

After the speeches at the hotel we headed out to the morning press event at the Hill.
There were a number of cameras there but I don't know if any of the footage actually made it to TV
The real guests of honor were of course Senators McCain and Lieberman.

There were more senators than I can remember names, and others have more and better pictures than I do so I won't post all of those here. I would be remiss however if I did not note the lone Democrat on stage yesterday, Rep Jim Marshall from Georgia.

The real meat of the event really came after this though when we, as individual veterans went to our state officials to say what we had to say. I know the nutroots think that we are partisan Bush shills but nothing could be further from the truth. We all have our own stories and experiences and were there because we wanted to be.

Minnesota veterans did their state proud yesterday having, I think, the largest delegation with about 45 veterans. I'm not positive that we beat out some of the bigger states in total numbers but I know we accounted for 10% of the total vets. Even with such a large delegation there was only one Democrat from Minnesota who agreed to meet with us at all, even if that meeting was with his staff and not the Congressman himself. As much as VFF thinks that winning in Iraq is an "American" issue and not a Republican-Democrat partisan issue, the fact that most Democrats had zero interest in meeting with their veteran constituents tells you how our politicians view this war.

Our first meeting was with Senator Coleman who was very gracious and met with us for almost an hour in his office. I found Sen. Coleman's knowledge and understanding of what the war in Iraq means to the country to be very heartening. He also made the point that if we abandon the forces of moderation in Iraq and allow the radicals to win, that the ripples of that would be felt around the world. Particularly in places like Indonesia and the Philippines. He may never be the hawk that McCain is, but he gets the war (update: and we're lucky to have him).

While in the Senate building we decided to take our 40+ veteran delegation to Senator Amy Klobuchar's office and see if we couldn't get a meeting with her. Her secretary tried giving us the run around saying that, oh the Senator is very busy, there are a lot of things going on, she's not available. We said, OK we'll wait.

Mind you this is not just any group of veterans. We are all Minnesota citizens who are represented by Sen Klobuchar. Normally, I think that 40 citizens showing up at your office would rate a slightly different response. Especially when the senator knew that we would be there. So we waited and happened to catch Sen. Klobuchar as she was coming back to her office. She said that her office wasn't big enough to hold all of us so she couldn't invite us in. She talked to us for about 5-10 minutes in the hallway but I don't think she really heard a word we had to say. She just had no interest at all. VFF had contacted every senator to try and schedule meetings, she declined, she knew we would be in Washington but still didn't make an effort to see us. She has the right to do that, but guess who I'm not voting for when she's up for reelection.

As much as I didn't support his election, and question his relationship with CAIR, in the spirit of credit where credit is due, I tip my hat to Congressman Kieth Ellison from Minneapolis for being the ONLY Democrat or Independent from Minnesota to schedule a meeting with Vets For Freedom. The Congressman wasn't there himself but he did have his chief of staff and legislative aide there to meet with us. I think we had a good meeting. I don't think we changed their minds, but I'm hopeful that a couple points made it through and will actually give them something to think about. Specifically, the point that I wanted to make was that public pronouncements by politicians that the war is lost, unwinnable, awful, and that we should withdraw immediately are disastrous to the effort. That those statements are broadcast into Iraqi homes and it causes them, the average Iraqi, to hedge their bets. These statements prevent Iraqis from coming to our side because they question our commitment. The statements of Harry Reid and others do, as a matter of fact, prolong and worsen the war.

I know this from personal experience. The personal story I told every politician and staffer I talked to is that I was very close with many of the local Iraqi interpreters. And that even on our little postage stamp of a base we had satellite TV and watched the news regularly. Well, one day we're sitting around having tea and who comes on but Harry Reid talking about how the war is lost and we need to leave. Mind you I'm sitting with people who are risking their lives just to come to work on base. And this Senator comes on TV talking about how we need to pull troops out. That's a death sentence for these guys and the look at me to explain what this guy is talking about. They don't know that he's just one nutty senator and doesn't have the authority to do any of the things he's talking about. So I have to explain who Harry Reid is, that he's a nut, and that we aren't going anywhere as long as Bush is in office. What do you think other Iraqi's who don't have an American sitting right there with them think? Is that going to encourage Iraqis to turn on al Queda and the Shia Militias and come over to our side? Or is it going to make the situation worse by pushing the average Iraqi away? Is it going to prolong the war and make it harder for us to make political and security gains?

My statement to them is in direct opposition to their belief that by threatening to withdraw troops, we put pressure on the Iraqi government. The origins of that argument aside, they never considered the effect on the Iraqi people and if I was able to make one thing stick, I hope that was it. We also talked about how to get more public involvement with Iraqi reconstruction and I think we talked them into pushing for a Sister City initiative with Iaqi cities. I think that would be something that could help with domestic public opinion and something that could help Iraqi's at the same time.

Our other scheduled meetings were with Michelle Bachman and John Kline. Unfortunately they were scheduled at the same time so I couldn't go to both meetings. I tried to meet with my own Congressperson Betty McCollum, and of course she couldn't be bothered to come back a few hours early to meet with us, nor did she have a senior staffer even in the office so I went to the John Kline meeting instead which was very good. Congressman Kline is a retired Marine and he's been great on the victory in Iraq issue.

Overall, it was a good day. If nothing else I was happy to get together with other vets and talk about our shared desire to "win" in Iraq. It was disappointing to see first hand how partisan this issue is though. I have to say that seeing Washington in action has motivated me to become more active. I had always had a passive approach, not so much to debate, but to the political machine. I always just assumed that the machine would work itself out. This event has made me realize that it won't. We, as veterans and supporters of the war, really are going to have to get more involved with the politicians. We need to come together and make our voice heard as a large voting bloc that cannot be easily ignored.

Also, one last note about protesters. I walked all over Capitol Hill yesterday and saw, two. That's it. Two. Here's one

The other was one guy with a little sign in one of the senate office buildings. So we had nearly 500 veterans on one side, and what, half a dozen nuts on the other. Who did you see more of on the news?

VOTH Teaser

2008-04-08T22:42:00.000-07:00

Well I'm back and pretty wiped out. I'll post about the actual nuts and bolts inside politics view of the even tomorrow, but for now, check out This ain't Hell for some great pictures and video of the mornings press event.

Until tomorrow, I leave you with this. One of the many great one liners was delivered by Rep Sam Johnson from Texas

"When John and I were over there (Hanoi Hilton), we wondered what kind of country we'd be coming back to. We didn't know it'd be a country full of wimps."

Vets On the Hill

2008-04-06T14:52:00.000-07:00

Well the big day is coming up quick. I'm flying out tomorrow to meet up with the rest of the VFF veterans to tell Congress that we need to finish the job in Iraq. 296 members of the House, 77 Senators and the President of the United States sent the military into harms way for the strategic benefit of the United States. Well the military has given their blood, sweat, lives, limbs, marriages and families for the benefit of the nation, but the task is not yet completed. Until there is a stable Iraq that can stand on its own, we can't leave. Leaving before that point squanders all of our sacrifices. Too many good people have died to allow that to happen.

The politicians need to understand this. Debate all they want before committing troops next time, but this decision is already made. We are committed and we must see this through.

Semper Fi,

Sgt_H

Very Good News from Iraq

2008-04-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

Major JAM Leader Caught With Weapons Cache

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Hillah Iraqi Special Weapons and Tactics unit, advised by U.S. Special Forces, detained a suspected high-level Special Group leader and recovered a significant weapons and munitions cache during a patrol March 22 in Hashimiyah...

During that search, ISWAT and U.S. SF found a major weapons cache supporting Special Group violence in Babil Province. The cache included several EFPs, EFP components including more than 50 copper disks, 40,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition, 122 mm high-explosive rockets, more than 100 HE mortar rounds, 107 mm HE rockets, more than 200 pounds of C-4 explosive, 240 mm HE rockets, 50 complete rail systems for launching 122 mm rockets, components for constructing IEDs, rocket propelled grenade launchers with RPG rockets, a 81 mm mortar system, anti-personnel land mines and HE grenades.

The U.S. SF team believes this to be a significant cache supporting Special Group and criminal militia operations in the area. The capture of the munitions as well as the suspected Special Group leader is expected to have a significant impact against groups that continue to operate illegally and which remain a threat in the area.

The article doesn't give the name, but this is someone I'm very familiar with. We referred to him as Keyser Söze because nobody could touch him. No one would roll on him. nobody had a picture of him. We'd get reports that he hung out in coffee shops smoking cigarettes and had a network of informants all over town to alert him to U.S. presence.

This guy is a major importer of Iranian muntions into Southern Iraq and is responsible for untold numbers of American and Iraqi deaths and injuries. I can't tell you how significant this is for Babil Province.

Forest Lake High School and VFF Update

2008-04-02T10:33:00.000-07:00

I am a member of the Minnesota chapter of Vets For Freedom. I attended both public events while the were last week. And, I think that FLHS principle Massey made a poor decision in baring VFF from speaking at the high school.

That said, I think that FLHS has taken an unfair amount of criticism regarding this incident. I think people were understandably upset and were justified in expressing their feelings to the school. I don't support or condone calling the principal or school board members names or resorting to personal insults. That's just not fair and mischaracterizes at least some, if not most or all of the school board members.

I had the opportunity to speak to one of the school board members recently and found out a few things that I didn't previously know. First, the Stillwater group who contacted the school and threatened to protest, does actually have a history of carrying out protests and disrupting events. It wasn't just a lone nut or two sending e-mails, there was a legitimate concern about disrupting the learning environment at the school. I don't think that was adequately covered in the media. Second, that Principal Massey made the decision on his own without contacting school board members. So many of the criticisms of the rest of the school board are totally baseless because they didn't even know that there was a controversy until after the decision had been made.

The FL school board is conducting an investigation into exactly what the chain of events was, who was involved, and who said what when. When the report is published I think there will be at least some determination that the decision to bar VFF was in error. That the school should have followed through with it's decision to allow VFF to speak, and to allow the police to deal with whatever protesters decided to show up.

I think it's important to note also that FLHS was the ONLY public school in the country who agreed to allow VFF to speak at all. Even though the event ended up not happening due to threats if civil disobedience by outsiders, Forest Lake was the only school that even agreed to host VFF in the first place. I think that's a telling point about the orientation of the school board that had been completely distorted because of this.

I'm not saying that anyone needs to apologize for their comments if they called FLHS a bunch of Wellstone hippies, I just think it's important to have all the facts and be intellectually honest.

Doublespeak and a Golden Nugget

2008-04-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

Allahpundit links to this video of Obama "attacking" McCain. I put attacking in quotes because really all Obama is doing is distorting a statement that even Factcheck.org says "is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said". But that Obama has to rely on such "a rank falsehood" to try and score points against McCain is not the point I want to make.

I tried watching the video and only got to about 44 seconds in, to an exchange between the reporter and Obama:

Reporter- You've said that you would leave a small force there
Obama- Sure. (nodds head)
Reporter to deal with terrorist attacks. How long would you leave them there and what is your criteria for pulling them out?
Obama- No no that's not what I said. What I've said is we'd have troops looking uh, looking after our embassy there. Which is what we do everywhere...

So the "small force" Obama would leave in Iraq is the Marine Security Guard detachment? And the only other troops would be a strike force somewhere in the region?

I was going to make a snarky comment on Obama saying, "Sure" and nodding his head as the reporter stated Obama's position, until the reporter asked a question, the said, "No no that's not what I said". But I think we just tripped over a nugget of gold right there. We just got a specific from Obama!

A Liberals Take on Obama

2008-04-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

The George Wallace of the Left? Maybe. It's a good post.

McCain's New Ad

2008-03-28T09:29:00.000-07:00

The new McCain ad, 624787 is very good.

MCCAIN: Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Stand up. We're Americans. And we'll never surrender. ANNCR: What must a president believe about us? About America? That she is worth protecting? That liberty is priceless? Our people, honorable? Our future, prosperous, remarkable and free? And, what must we believe about that president? What does he think? Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?

Not to toot my own horn, but it sounds kind of familiar

This is America. We, at least some of us, still believe that the leader of the nation is not simply elected to promote one set of political ideas or another. We believe that the American President should, first and foremost, believe in the inherent greatness of the nation. The American President should believe in an exceptional America. The American President is not just a representative of a political party, the President is the representative of the people. And as such the president needs to be bold in defense of America. Not passive and apologetic and ashamed of our history.

Fighting in Southern Iraq

2008-03-28T06:49:00.000-07:00

From MSNBC

Mahdi Army fighters have held territory or fought with authorities in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kerbala, Diwaniya and other towns throughout the Shiite south over the past several days.

I don't want to say I told you so, but I did. I spent about a year right in the middle of these cities. I knew that the militia problem was bigger than most people realized but we couldn't do anything about it. We just don't have enough troops there. Everyone wanted to focus on the Sunni's so those of us who had to deal with the Shia militias, outside of Sadr City, were just supposed to suck it up. Well now, we have to deal with it.

Personally I was hoping that as Anbar was pacified that we could move the surge troops south. I don't know if that was ever the plan, but the Sadrists didn't wait that long anyway. So far the Iraqi Army has been doing the fighting in Basra, which is good because there aren't any CF troops there to do it.

Here's how it breaks down in Southern Iraq.

SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) is the political arm of the Badr Corps. These guys spent a lot of time in Iran while in exile from Iraq so there is a lot of Iranian influence there. SCIRI controls a vast majority of the local governments and security apparatus in Southern Iraq. They aren't known to conduct many attacks against CF, not because they are our allies, but because they are smarter than that and don't want the attention.

JAM/Sadrists are loyal to Moqtada al Sadr because of Sadr's father. Originally this was more of an Iraqi only group but Sadr himself has since been co opted by Iran. His fighters have been more active in conducting attacks against CF than Badr and are supplied by Iran with munitions.

Between them these groups have massive public support and large numbers of fighters. The Sadrists in particular have the kind of hot headed supporters who are taking up arms against the government, and will do so regardless of what Moqtada himself says publicly.

So now you have largely Sadr supporters rising up all over the south and fighting with the government. Can the Iraqis handle the situation?

Marine Officer and Iraq Vet Wins MMA Belt

2008-03-27T06:34:00.000-07:00

Brian Stann, a Marine officer, Silver Star recipient and two time Iraq veteran won the WEC Light Heavyweight title last night despite only having five previous professional fights.

Brian Stann always makes a point about dedicating his fights to the Marines he lost in Iraq and was very emotional after the fight last night. Congratulations to a class act and I wish him much continued success.

VFF at Fort Snelling

2008-03-25T19:59:00.000-07:00

I hadn't planned on attending tonight's VFF event at Ft. Snelling, but I just couldn't resist. Unfortunately, I was a dummy and forgot to put the memory card back in my camera after this mornings event. Doh!

On the up side I had to opportunity to meet three of the nicest bloggers you'll ever want to meet, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air (who did have a working camera), and John Hinderacker and Scott Johnson of Powerline (who also had a working camera). Both blogs have posts up covering the event which are more entertaining than mine, since, theirs have pictures. I can't stress how great Ed, John, and Scott are in real life.

It really was a great event and if you have a chance to see them before the tour is over, I highly recommend it. The guys are funny and great public speakers. They have been there and done that. They were in Iraq at its worst and most of them have been back recently to see how it has improved. These guys know what they're talking about and they can talk about it without being preachy. They are humble, smart, and for me, very refreshing.

I'm looking forward to seeing this group again in Washington next month at Vets on the Hill.

UPDATE: Ed has video of the event posted at HotAir. Retired Marine and U.S. Congressman from MN, John Kline's speech is here.

VFF Executive Director Pete Hegseth's speech is here.

And Medal of Honor nominee David Bellavia's speech is here. David Bellavia is also the author of House to House, his story of the Battle of Fallujah. I haven't read it yet but I have yet to hear a negative review of the book. If he writes like he speaks it has to be good.

Vets For Freedom in Minnesota

2008-03-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

I'm glad that Minnesota can give a warm welcome to America's war heros. Forest Lake event canceled; too political. Or so believe some political hacks in Minnesota. Powerline has several links to stories about the VFF stop this morning in Forest Lake.

The Vets for Freedom message is that we need to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that we need to elect Republicans because Democrats are cheese eating surrender monkeys. Though, if Democrats weren't cheese eating surrender monkeys, would this event have been considered controversial?

Anyway, I made it to the rescheduled event in Forest Lake but only caught the last hour of the event and heard David Bellavia speak. He gave a pretty good speech about how war and combat aren't partisan events. He, and I, went to war with Republicans and Democrats. Seventy-seven Senators and 296 congressmen of both political parties voted to authorize force in Iraq. The VFF message is that regardless of political affiliation that we need to stay and win in Iraq. Three quarters of both houses of congress voted to send the military into harms way, and the government needs to honor the sacrifices the military has made while carrying out the national policy.

The VFF Bus, which I heard used to belong to Fred Thompson.

Even with the rescheduling the turnout was pretty high. There were several Forest Lake High School students who were allowed out of classes to attend the event in the front of the room.

Possibly the most partisan thing that happened, we sang 'God Bless America'.

I encourage any Iraq or Afghanistan veterans who come across this story to go to the Vets For Freedom site at http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/ and take a look. See if you can make it to the Vets on the Hill event coming up on April 8th in Washington D.C. I'm signed up and you may even see me there!

EDIT: I'd like to welcome the visitors from Look True North and Ladies Logic. Feel free to comment and look around.

5 Years, 4,000 Lives

2008-03-24T20:57:00.000-07:00

-This post may, does, contain graphic language. Viewer discretion is advised
EDIT: Some background on this post. I wrote the below post as it is intentionally. That said, its form and content are the exception rather than the rule. So if you are a new visitor to this blog and this is one of the first things you read, this is not the norm. I wrote this post largely stream of conciseness because normally I self censor far too much to write something like this, and I needed to get this, vent if you will, out of my system. So the following is what it is, warts, vulgarities and all. -

I haven't written about Iraq as much lately as I should have because, honestly, I haven't really known what to say. I spent two years and 10 days activated, away from my wife and home. Sixteen months of that time was in combat operations in Iraq.

Luckily I was never involved in a firefight with the enemy. I was never in a Humvee that was blown up by an IED.

For that I am grateful, and ashamed.

Because at the same time I can't help but feel that it means that I didn't do something I could have done. Whether or not that means that I think I should have been wounded or killed instead of someone else, I don't know. I do know that given my job I feel like I should have been able to do more. I feel like I might not have been as effective as I could have been because I played by the rules. Even though I helped take, I don't know, 15 or so bad guys off the street, I didn't prevent SSG Berry's head from being blown off by an Iranian made 12" EFP. I didn't prevent any of the attacks that cost my fellow soldiers limbs. I may have helped prevent some attacks that I'll never know about, but I didn't prevent the ones I do know about and that hurts.

I should have prevented this

Had I worked harder. Had I bent the rules. Had I said fuck the rules and thrown them out the fucking window. Yes I would probably be in jail, but would I have saved someones life or legs? Maybe. Would it have been worth it? I can only answer, yes.

Thus far I have been successful at blocking those questions but tonight, tonight I'll indulge them. I joined the army well after Iraq started. I joined with the expectation that I would go to Iraq. I can't say what I expected to find there. Truth. Myself. Meaning. I don't know. What I think I found is reality. That actions and words have consequences. I mean that in a micro and macro sense. That had I acted differently with people I knew to be terrorists, could I have saved a life or two? That what is said in America is not just for domestic consumption. The whole world hears it and reacts. If we are strong proponents of freedom the world listens, and if we are half hearted and divided, the world still listens. Had Harry Reid, Dick Durban and Nancy Pelosi acted differently, would one or two thousand lives have been saved?

This past week has seen two milestones. Five years in Iraq and 4,000 dead. I have posted before about Iraq in general, but never really about my experience. I had the opportunity tonight to talk with a friend who was there with me and it reminded me of many things that I had forgotten about. Mostly that the army is fucked up.

Yes, the army is fucked up. I don't want this taken the wrong way. Most soldiers are busting their asses and risking their lives for a mission that many do not understand. They are doing everything they can to make life better for people they do not know and who often do not appreciate the effort. This is true and I'll have words or more with anyone who says otherwise. But that is not to say that the military is without blame for how Iraq has panned out.

Many people and institutions carry some amount of blame for how Iraq has turned out. The 2002 vote on authorizing force to remove Saddam Hussein was passed by 77 senators and 296 congressmen. Three quarters of each house. But what did we have two years later in the 2004 election? Constant calls of Iraq as a disaster. And what did we have after that in 2006? More calls of an Iraq disaster, of Americans running gulags, of the war being unwinnable. Well fuck you Dick Durban. Fuck you very much. Thanks for fucking nothing. And what do we have now in 2008? Both Hillary and Obama saying that Iraq is lost and unwinnable and that they, being of superior judgement, will withdraw troops immediately. Well la di fucking da.

Do they have any fucking clue what that means?? Do they?? Do they fucking realize that they are making the situation worse?? Do they? Do they even fucking care?? Do they realize that lives are at stake? Do they realize that men like SSG Berry have died to create a free Iraq? Or is 4,000 deaths just a number to them to beat the administration over the head with? Well Iraq isn't a goddamned political football. Iraq is human fucking beings and human fucking lives. You people need to pull your collective heads out of your collective fucking asses and get with the fucking program. You want to save lives? Do you? Do you really want to save lives? Then get on board with creating a free Iraq. Get on board with defeating terrorism.

When American politicians get on TV and call for leaving Iraq ASAP, you are making the situation worse. You are alienating allies. You are increasing the perception that we, Americans, are not to be trusted. You are damning the effort to create a free democratic Iraq. You idiots think that you are increasing our credibility, but with whom? And at what cost? You want to curry favor with European leftists, but while you do, you are pissing away our Iraqi and Middle Eastern allies. You suck up to some French leftist, but you damn a patriotic Iraqi to death. You do. This is not theory. This is real fucking life with real fucking consequences and you had better get that shit through your fucking heads.

As I've said before, I don't think that anyone who has not been there has the right to criticize those of us who have. That doesn't mean that you have to support us, and I'm not saying that if you haven't been there you aren't entitled to an opinion. What I am saying is that if you haven't been there you don't know what you're talking about and you need to keep that in mind when expressing your opinions. So while I can say that the army is fucked up, I'll probably fight with anyone else who says it.

The Army is a giant bureaucratic machine. It is skilled at producing soldiers who follow doctrine, but not so much at producing a command structure that is flexible and creative. It just isn't and I think that this has been one of the major problems in Iraq. Too many leaders are concerned with protecting their careers either by being cautious and limiting their casualties, or by trying to maximize their statistics through whatever means necessary.

I have said before that the army is not well trained enough to handle the situation in Iraq, and for that I have been criticized. I'm not saying that soldiers aren't trained to drive, shoot and survive in a combat environment. I'm saying that most soldiers don't understand Arab culture. They don't understand the environment that they are entering. My army training on Arab culture consisted mostly of the following:

Iraq contains Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization. The End.

How the fuck are we supposed to fight a war armed with that? What we should learn is what David Pryce-Jones says in, "The Closed Circle", or what Fouad Ajami says in, "The Arab Predicament". That is what's useful. That is how you can learn to relate to Arabs. But what do we learn? Islam is a religion of peace and Iraq is the cradle of civilization. Well whoop de fucking do. A lot of good that does an army at war.

I realize that what I've said is not politically correct. And further, I realize that what I've said may not make sense to some. That much I credit the bottle of wine I've had tonight. So while some of you may not agree with it, and some of you may critique my writing ability, what I write is no less true because you don't agree with it or because my literary style is sometimes vulgar. What I write it the truth as I see it. It is not the whole truth of course, as the whole truth would take many volumes and more knowledge than I have to contain. What I have tried to produce here is simply an extremely rough draft of the objective truth.

The following is the list of Servicemembers who died while serving with the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division:

Specialist Rhys W. Klasno, 20, of Riverside CA and the 1114th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 13 May 2007 in Haditha, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Two months afte we should have left Iraq

Staff Sergeant Robert J. Basham, 23, of Kenosha WI and Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 126th Field Artillery Regiment, died 15 April 2007 at Camp As Sayliyah, Doha, Qatar as a result of injuries from a non-combat incident. a month after we should have been home and on R&R in Qatar

Staff Sergeant Greg N. Riewer, 30, of Frazee MN and A Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, died 23 March 2007 in Habbaniyah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive devise detonated near his HMMWV during combat operations. we should have been home already

Sergeant Joshua A. Schmit, 26, of Willmar MN and the 1451st Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 14 April 2007 in Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle. again, we should have been home

Sergeant Brandon L. Wallace, 27, of St. Louis MO and the 1451st Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 14 April 2007 in Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle. same as above

Sergeant 1st Class David R. Berry, 37, of Wichita KS and A Battery, 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment, died 22 February 2007 in Qasim, Iraq, when the vehicle he was in struck an improvised explosive device. Berry's 'home unit' was the 1st Battalion, 161st Field Artillery, Kansas Army National Guard, Dodge City, Kansas.His is the death I feel most personally responsible for.

Sergeant Major Michael C. Mettille, 44, of West Saint Paul MN and the 134th Brigade Support Battalion, died 1 February 2007 from a non-combat related injury at Camp Adder, Iraq.

Specialist Carla J. Stewart, 37, of Sun Valley CA and 250th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, died 28 January 2007 of injuries suffered in a convoy vehicle rollover in Tallil, Iraq.

Command Sergeant Major Marilyn L. Gabbard, 46, of Polk City IA and Joint Forces Headquarters, Iowa Army National Guard, Camp Dodge IA, died 20 January 2007 in the crash of a UH-60 helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq. Her death is noted here because of her close organizational connection with our division.

Staff Sergeant James Wosika Jr., 24, of Saint Paul MN and 1st Platoon, B Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 9 January 2007 by a car bomb while conducting a vehicle search south of Camp Fallujah, Iraq.

Staff Sergeant Thomas W. Clemons, 37, of Leitchfield KY and the 1st Brigade Troops Battalion died 10 December 2006 of natural causes in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq. Clemons' 'home' unit was the 2nd Battalion, 123rd Armor Regiment.

Sergeant Nicholas Turcotte, 23, of Maple Grove MN and A Company, 2nd Battalion, 135th Infantry Regiment died on 4 December 2006 from injuries suffered north of Logistics Support Area Adder near Al Nasiriyah, Iraq. His M-1117 Armored Security Vehicle had been escorting a logistics convoy when it rolled over. The accident was not the result of enemy action and an investigation was conducted.

Sergeant Bryan T. McDonough, 22, of Maplewood MN and the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment died on 2 December 2006 from injuries suffered in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. An improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during security operations supporting the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group.

Sergeant Cory Rystad, 20, of Red Lake Falls MN and the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment died on 2 December 2006 from injuries suffered in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. An improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during security operations supporting the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group.

Staff Sergeant Scott E. Nisely, 48, of Marshalltown IA and C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment was killed on 30 September 2006 near Al Asad, Iraq. He was part of a forward security element providing convoy security when insurgent forces attacked with small arms fire. Nisely had previously deployed for Operation Desert Storm as a USMC officer.

Specialist Kampha B. Sourivong of Iowa City IA and C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 30 September 2006 near Al Asad, Iraq.

Sergeant Germaine "DB" Debro of Nebraska and B Troop, 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry (RSTA), was killed in action 4 September 2006 near Tikrit, Iraq.
* RSTA: Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition

Staff Sergeant Joshua Robert Hanson of Dent MN and A Company, 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 30 August 2006 near Khalidiyah, Iraq while supporting 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment.

Staff Sergeant Jeff Hansen of Cairo NE and B Troop, 1st Squadron, 167th Cavalry (RSTA), died 28 August 2006 near Balad, Iraq.

Sergeant Kyle R. Miller, 19, of Willmar, MN, a Signal Support System Specialist with Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment (Strike), was killed in action 29 June 2006 when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle south of Balad, Iraq.

Sergeant Brent W. Koch of Morton MN and 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry Regiment, was killed in action 16 June 2006 when a roadside bomb detonated near his cargo vehicle near Ad Dwaniyah, Iraq.

Specialist Benjamin J. Slaven, 22, of Plymouth NE and a HMMWV gunner for the 2nd Platoon, 308th Transportation Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, was killed in action 9 June 2006 when a roadside bomb exploded near his convoy near Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq.

Barack's Choice

2008-03-24T11:46:00.000-07:00

I really hate that my blog has become so Barackcentric lately. I don't want to keep harping on this issue, but I came across an editorial that I think deserves consideration.

Janet Daley, writing in the Telegraph, (oddly, some of the best commentary on American politics comes from British papers) says that Barack has surrendered in the race war. That by giving the speech he choose to deliver last week that he has "accepted the mantle of black resentment".

This is, on a much deeper level, the point I made in my previous post. That Barack Obama decided to make this election about race. As Mrs. Daley points out, Obama is no longer a presidential candidate who happens to be black. He is now a black man running for president.

I have generally tried to stay away from the race factor in my criticism of the Obama/Wright relationship. Partially because, as I stated, This is about Barack Obama and his judgement and integrity. But also because I wasn't sure how best to address the deeper issues of Obama's membership in Trinity United. For the record, I do not have a problem with Trinity United being unashamedly black. I do have a problem with it pledging fidelity to Africa, in the same way I have a problem with any organization pledging fidelity to any political entity above the United States. That said, the congregants of Trinity United are free to go to any church they choosed to attend and I don't have a problem with that. Barack however, is not a typical congregant. He is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee so I believe that his mindset, or frame of reference as it pertains to the United States of America, is an important issue.

This is America. We, at least some of us, still believe that the leader of the nation is not simply elected to promote one set of political ideas or another. We believe that the American President should, first and foremost, believe in the inherent greatness of the nation. The American President should believe in an exceptional America. The American President is not just a representative of a political party, the President is the representative of the people. And as such the president needs to be bold in defense of America. Not passive and apologetic and ashamed of our history.

It is here that Mrs. Daley gives voice to some of our deeper concerns:

Mr Obama has accepted the mantle of black resentment: the bitterness of slavery and segregation, the triumphs of the civil rights movement, the continuing struggle for equal opportunity and achievement. They are all his now, an intrinsic part of the package in which he offers himself to the electorate, even though, ironically, they have little to do with his own life experience.

He is not descended from slaves, nor was his childhood marked by poverty, segregated schooling or social deprivation. His father was not African-American but entirely African and his mother, as we all know, was white. He did not grow up in the midst of the ugly hatreds and divisions of the American South, or even with the more subtle, disguised discrimination of the North.
So how has he come to find himself trapped in this political ghetto? More mystifyingly, why did he choose to cleave to a spiritual mentor whose church was dedicated to the perpetuation of black anger? Why did he identify himself, in what must have been a quite conscious act of personal reinvention, with a pastor and congregation whose collective memory was so utterly different from his own?

...So what was it all about? It was part of a phenomenon that almost no one who was not born and raised in the United States seems to grasp: the desperate need that Americans feel to be part of a shared ethnic or cultural identity that will give them a sense of rootedness and belonging in the vast, endlessly shifting flux of a country that is a nation but not a people.

I would guess that Mr Obama, who had a personal genealogy even more dislocated and idiosyncratic than most, wanted to belong. He wanted a community that could enfold him and make him feel that he was part of something that was recognisable and self-affirming.

I don't agree 100% with her assessment of a universal American need to latch on to an identity outside of being American. I think there are many Americans who are quite comfortable accepting the identity of "American". But she does have a point. Even those of us who don't feel a particular need to connect with our ancestral roots in whatever country our ancestors came from, still often feel a need to belong to something bigger than ourselves. Whether that something is a church, or the military, a political party or as a member of a particular vocation. Many people feel the need to belong to a group.

The issue then is to what type of group does one seek out? Obama, like many Americans chose a church. The difference is that Obama chose a church the preaches black liberation theology. Why? Probably as Mrs. Daley said. He needed to be a part of something that made him feel like he belonged and was self affirming.

I think it has become clear to most observers that black liberation theology is not compatible with the desire of many Americans that their president be more concerned with being, to borrow a phrase, unashamedly American, than he is with being unashamedly black. Not that being unashamedly black precludes being unashamedly American, but it seems to me that that is not what Rev. Wright preaches.

Americans suffer from the collective insecurity that arises from rootlessness and the wilful abandonment of historical continuity. That longing for roots, and the emotional security that goes with them, divides Americans as surely and inevitably as their constitutional arrangements unite them. That is the perennial contradiction at the heart of national life.

That is the deeper question with Barack Obama and his church. Not the parsing of his speech or which video made it to Youtube. But that while many Americans feel the need for roots, Barack chose a black liberation pastor, that is at least "un" if not "anti"-American.

How is one supposed to reconcile this with the desire that the President of the United States be an unashamedly patriotic American?

My Worry

2008-03-20T19:38:00.000-07:00

My worry about Obama and the response to the response of his speech is this: I worry that it will be viewed as the rejection of a black man, instead of the rejection of politician. Some will say that there is no difference. Some will say that I'm just trying to rationalize white racism.

I'm not.

I believe that there are legitimate concerns with Barack Obama as a politician. First and foremost, he is very liberal and I am conservative, so we are ideological opposites. Of course I don't want him, or any other liberal elected president. It's not about race, it's about politics.

Secondary to that basic fact is the kind of politician Barack Obama is claiming to be. Obama is not the same old kind of politician. He has integrity. He has ethics. He is a post-partisan, post-racial uniter. He's going to elevate America up on his shoulders and give everyone something to believe in. He personally is going to meet with world leaders and solve all of our problems. He will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity based on government programs for all.

No he won't. He can't, and neither can anyone else.

Beyond those issues, you get to Obama's personal behavior and the judgement that he alone supposedly possesses. How has he used that judgement in the past? He joined Rev. Wright's church and established a friendship so close that Obama can no more disown Rev. Wright than his own flesh and blood grandmother. Why did he do this? We can only speculate what the reasons might be, but none of them are very flattering to Obama's judgement. Contrary to Obama's statements, Rev. Wright has a long history of the type of speech that has come to light recently. Obama admits as much when he says that Rev. Wrights views were formed in the 50's and 60's. Wright didn't just go off the deep end a couple of times since 9/11/01. He has a 40 year history.

But this isn't about Rev. Wright and what he said, though that is what many mistakenly believe. This is about Obama. If Obama wants to rely on Rev. Wright for religious guidance and friendship, fine. He has the right to associate with anyone he wants. But Wright is who he is and Obama knew it. That's why Wright said a year ago that Obama may have to distance himself from Wright during the campaign. That's why Obama has played down his church over the past year saying that his church is not that controversial. That's why when this story first started breaking last week Obama said that he had never personally heard any of Rev. Wright's controversial statements while he sat in the pew. But in his speech on Tuesday, Obama admitted that he had in fact been present. Last week Obama said that he only became aware of these statements when he launched his campaign a year ago. Why is it that he never said anything about them until now?

Why does he now condemn the statements he's known about, for who knows how long really because Obama won't give a straight answer. How does he say a month ago that his church wasn't controversial, when he now says that Wright's comments "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam"? How is that? How did he come to that realization now? Was he simply lying before? Hoping that this issue would never come to the surface?

Why did he first say that there was nothing controversial about his church, when of course, there is? Was he lying?

Why did he first say that he had never heard a sermon like the ones that recently came to light, when he now admits that he did? Another lie?

Why did he say that he had never heard Rev Wright express, in public or private, any of these views, when he now admits to knowing that Wright was a, "fierce critic" of American policy? Yet Another lie?

Then, we get to Obama's speech. Or should I say, evasion. Obama did not make the speech about himself. He did not make it about Rev. Wright. He made it about us. He took the focus off of what he did, and didn't do, and essentially told America to sit in the corner and think about what it's done.

It's a great political strategy. When a politicians web of lies is contracting around them, what do they do? Create a distraction. Put the focus somewhere else. That's all he did. First he made excuses for himself and Rev. Wright, then he deflected attention away.

No this isn't about race. This isn't about Rev. Wright being a racist. This is about Obama and his judgement and his integrity. If he ever found the things Rev. Wright was saying offensive, why did he never do anything about it? If he didn't find them offensive, why does he now say that he does? If he knew about these statements years ago, why did he lie and say there is nothing controversial about his church? Now that he's being called to answer for his behavior, why does he deflect attention and change the conversation.

These are the questions about Obama. Shame on him for now trying hide behind his race. Shame on him for trying to hide behind slavery. Shame on him for not taking responsibility for his own actions. Shame on Barack Obama for damning America to yet another chapter of unnecessary racial turmoil.

Obama's Speech

2008-03-18T19:51:00.000-07:00

I'm more interested in the reaction to Obama's speech than his actual speech. Because... His speech was lame. It was stupid. Evasive. Fluff. Like most things Obama related, lame.

No, it's not his speech I'm interested in. It's the reaction. Particularly the reaction of Obama supporters. It makes me utterly and profoundly, sad:

“It was amazing,” Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. “I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don’t know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory.”

MATTHEWS: I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn.

Todd Gitlin (This one I could fisk all day) And finally, the temperature of this speech is one of its messages; or should I say invitations? Obama kept his cool and turned up the heat at the same time. For those who have not yet voted, and crucially to the superdelegates, he raised the stakes, asking them all: Can you, too, keep your cool and your heat at the same time? The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he said, had spoken in an "incendiary" manner, but Obama offered himself as the man who rises from flames and invites you to rise from your own. He took a grievous embarrassment and moved his lesson to the plane of prophecy. Talk about hope; talk about audacity. Tears came to my eyes. I don't think I'm especially hard-hearted, but I cannot think of another time when the speech of a presidential candidate watered me up.

Michael Crowley Today, Barack Obama gave a brilliant, inspiring, intellectually supple speech--but one that may have done little to solve his festering problem with working class white Americans. (aka, the stupid peasants won't get the highly sophisticated nuanced message)

What bothers me is not that liberals are claiming that Obama actually "said" something today. It bothers me that the above actually passes for intellectual analysis on the left. This, teary eyed, adulation of Obama's brilliance, when the man said nothing. Nothing. It pains me that people are this stupid. This gullible.

EDIT: Thomas Sowell, as usual, puts it better than I could:

Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.

Well Done Mike Kaminski

2008-03-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

Why Sharia Indeed

2008-03-17T09:41:00.000-07:00

Stephen Green critiques a fluff piece on sharia law. I saw this article by law professor Noah Feldman, in the NYT Magazine and could only shake my head. It's full of the typical liberal self loathing that that we have all come to know and love. I'll admit that I couldn't read the whole thing. Partially because of time constraints, and partially because it was just too vapid. Prof Feldman actually compares modern sharia to 18th Century English Common Law in an effort to how progressive sharia is. Really.

Stephen does a better job than I would writing about Mr. Feldman's apologetics so please read his piece.

Crazy Uncle?

2008-03-17T07:17:00.001-07:00

Watch this video of Obama praising Rev Wright.

I have to give a special shout out to my pastor. The guy who puts up with me. Counsels me. Listens to my wife complain about me. He's a friend, and a great leader.

Now watch this video of Juan Williams.

So you can be Baracks friend. You can put up with him. Counsel him. Listen to his wife complain about him. But when the time comes you can count on Barack to throw you under the bus and dismiss you as "an old uncle". Even though he doesn't think that Trinity United is all that controversial. At least he didn't until it became politically expedient to think that it was. But that was only last week. Last month was different. Even though it was last year that Barack allegedly "became aware" of Rev Wrights more "provocative" statements and supposedly condemned them.

So, if you buy Baracks story, last year he condemned Rev Wright's inflamatory statements. Leaving aside that no press release to this effect, or any other proof of this has come to light. Why would Barack comdemn those statements a year ago, but last month say that there was nothing controversial abou this church? But now that the actual videos came to light, he condemns, vehemently, the offensive comments that have come to light, though which ones are offensive are left to the listener to decide.

Boy, this post racial, post partisan, post political new kind of politics sure looks an awful lot like the old kind of politics. But perhaps I just don't get the nuance.

November Looking Bright For McCain

2008-03-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

It looks like the Democratic infighting is starting to pay off McCain. As Michael Hirch laments in Newsweek

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama show few signs that they're aware of it, but the general election campaign has already begun. And appropriately for the eve of St. Patrick's Day, the pair have begun to destroy each other like the two crazy Irish cats of Kilkenny. The upshot is that both of them are already losing the general to John McCain. By the time the Democratic convention rolls around in August and the nomination is finally awarded, the battle may already be over.

If the recent polling data is any indication, he may be right.

Rasmussen reports that Obama's negatives are way up. He has a Hillary Clinton like 49% unfavorable rating in their most recent trackng poll, up 5% from a month ago, while his positives have fallen by the same number. Clinton isn't fairing any better. Her negatives now surpass 50% with a 49/51 favorable-unfaborable rating.

McCain on the other hand has a 55% favorable rating to a 41% unfavorable and his nubers have trended to the positive over the past month. On February 14th he was at 50/47 favorable-unfavorable.

What I find amusing is that while Obama is supposed to be the post-partisan, above the fray, no dirty tricks candidate, it is the evil Republican McCain who is running the above the fray campaign. Mac could easily have jumped on Obama for his involvement with Tony Rezko or Rev Wright, but he hasn't. Which is smart. Instead, he's focusing on elevating himself with his "Man in the Arena" and "35 Years Ago" videos.

I know many conservatives would like McCain to be more aggressive, but he doesn't need to be and right now, he shouldn't be. He has effectively co-opted he Obama campaign and can run with it all the way to the convention. Once the Dem's get their nominee, whoever it is will be so bloodied up that McCain still won't have to get into the mud with them. Not that the Dem won't try drag him down. They will be so dirty and behind in the polls that they will have to sling anything and everything at him just to try and get something to stick.

It's way too early to call him President-elect, but if the current trends hold November is looking very bright for John McCain.

Weekend Round Up

2008-03-14T17:52:00.000-07:00

Since I haven't blogged all week I'm going to try and cram some thoughts on the weeks events into one post.

1. Elliot Spitzer- Were he a private citizen I really wouldn't care about his private life. However, as Attorney General and Governor, he does not have a private life. He was the chief prosecutor of the state and the head of the executive branch of the government. In those capacities, his personal integrity is a public matter. His behavior undermines the crdibility of the entire criminal justice system and makes the job of every law enforcement officer and agent harder. When those who are sworn to uphold and enforce the law don't have the integrity to do so it causes the citizenry question the system.

2. Obama- Barack has had quite the week. First he has some questionable earmarks come to light where he secured money for his wife's employer (University of Chicago), and a campaign backer. That is not a new kind of politics. That is the same old dirty you scratch my back I'll scratch your back kind of politics that people are sick and tired of. Then the media finally decides to pick up on The Rt. Rev Jerimiah Wright and his only mildly controversial sermons. But it's no big deal. Really. An no, there is no inconsistency.

Oh and lets not forget the Obama response, lame, as usual (from Mickey Kaus):

If it offends you I condemn it!

"All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn." --Barack Obama

This seems to be the General Rule of Obama--if it's going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements--his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print 'void where prohibited' waivers. "Condemned if controversial."

3. The Saddam "(no) links to terrorism" report: See Stephen Hayes' report in the Weekly Standard:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

But there's no link. Thanks MSM.

4. In other news: According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. We thank you for your support

How's a Democrat Going to Top This?

2008-03-08T13:33:00.000-08:00

What are they going to do? Talk about how mean Americans are? How bad NAFTA is? I'm looking forward to this race more and more.

Why I Hate the UN, part 527832

2008-03-07T14:26:00.000-08:00

Libya Blocks UN Condemning Violence

That is all.

Sadr Retires?

2008-03-07T10:20:00.000-08:00

From MEMRI

The leader of the Shi'ite Sadrists in Iraq, Muqtada Al-Sadr, has announced in a letter to his followers that he is stepping down from his position, distancing himself from people, and focusing on his studies.

He explained that he was doing so because he had failed in carrying out his father's will to liberate Iraq from the occupation and turning its people into believing Muslims.

He wrote that the continuation of the occupation, the many who were distancing themselves from the true path, and their turning to politics and affairs of this world had motivated him to sequester himself from human society, in order to carry out his obligation to Allah and not to add sin to the crime.

Al-Sadr called on his men to obey the committee for managing the affairs of the Sadrist movement and all Sadrist institutes, and its representatives that bear the name of the Office of Al-Sayed Al-Shahid – which is named after his father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadeq Al-Sadr, murdered in 1999 by the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

This is an interesting development and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it yet. Sadr has huge influence among the poorest Shi'ites and I'm curious what they're going to do with him out of the picture.

Why I Love Powerline, Part XLII

2008-03-07T06:20:00.000-08:00

The arrogance of impotence, Obama style

Barack Obama likes to complain about American "arrogance" during the Bush years. In fact, our alleged arrogance is his pretext for wanting to negotiate directly and without pre-condition with some of the world's worst and most virulently anti-American dictators, a move that even Hillary Clinton opposes...

...However, Ed Lasky reports that Obama and Power are contemplating the promotion of ethnic cleansing in Iraq. During a BBC broadcast, Power revealed that when President Obama retreats from Iraq, his plans might very well include "moving potentially people from mixed neighborhoods to homogenous neighborhoods" if that is their choice. Power acknowledged that this action would be the “equivalent of facilitating ethnic cleansing."...

...Arrogance is a pretty malleable concept, and Power and Obama may subscribe to the traditional leftist view that actions taken by the U.S. during a craven retreat by definition cannot be arrogant. Otherwise it's difficult not to affix that label to a course of action under which we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and offer the victims moving expenses as they flee from the consequences...

Read the whole thing. Really.

Danish Cartoons Revisited

2008-03-06T17:13:00.000-08:00

Kurt Westergaard, despite continued threats on his life, has a new cartoon:

In the spirit of solidarity I'll continue to reproduce Mr. Westergaard's cartoons as I become aware of them.

H/T Sugerio via Hot Air

The Most Illustrative Video, Ever.

2008-03-06T14:33:00.000-08:00

This Video has been cited around the internet because Al Jazeera has since issued an apology for allowing Wafa Sultan to "offend Islam". Another organization apologizes for "offending Islam", big whoop.

What really is important about this video, is that it has two perfect examples of their respective arguments. The first guest, Tal'at Rmeih perfectly lays out how America is viewed by the Muslim world. Particularly, when we show weakness.

"The West only understands the language of force. Contacts with the West which are not based on real force are futile. One day, America declared that the North Korean nuclear dossier would be referred to the U.N. Security Council. North Korea issued a one-line declaration: 'Korea will consider this to be a hostile act of war.' The Americans bit their tongues, and that was it.

This is the worldview of our enemies. This is it. They respect strength and attack weakness. When we back down when faced with force, it emboldens our other enemies to try and recreate that success.

Therefore, our nation – with all its people, and organizations, institutions, rulers, and subjects – is required to adopt a resolute stand of resistance and confrontation in the face of these criminal and hostile acts...

...By Allah, if we issued a communiqué, signed by all the Arab and Islamic organizations and institutions, the West would bite its tongue and stop all this. By Allah, if the Arab summit decided to boycott Denmark, they would all be disgraced. By Allah, if the masses of the nation would gather for one hour only around the embassies of Denmark, those despicable lowlifes would be in a position of retreat, not attack."

This applies to all situations where the West confronts the Islamic world. Not just, though particularly important, in military situations. When the West shows weakness and acquiesces to the demands of the Islamic world wither under threat of violence or under the guise of "multiculturalism", the West is viewed as weak and invites upon itself further attacks. When a culture does not believe in itself enough to stand up for it's basic principals it invites subversion.

When you have Muslims who are willing to kill and die for Islam while Westerners wring their hands about how to extend the welfare state and how to incorporate Sharia into British law, you are inviting the fall of Western Civilization. One of my favorite sayings is, violence is not always the answer, but when it is, it's the only answer. In this case I would substitute the word violence with the word force because I'm not talking only about physical violence. There are many ways to force people in to doing something without using physical violence, and that is a large front in our current challenge. When faced with an enemy of this sort, an enemy who is using force, ideological, legal, and physical, we must meet that force with force.

We must have strong enough beliefs in the goodness of Western Civilization to be able to face down these aggressors.

That, in part, is where Wafa Sultan's argument comes in. She is an Arab but she understands Western Values, and is willing to use those values in an ideological battle. But her arguement isn't just in favor of Western values. She gives the most eloquent, succinct, critique if the Islamic world that I have ever seen.

...The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally...

...If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light...

She's right. She cuts to the heart of the matter and calls for Muslims to move into the 20th century. It's exactly what is needed. Western Civilization in the 21st century does not need to contort itself to accept 14th century Islam and Westerners need to embrace that fact. Not just in some jingoistic way either. Westerners need to be convinced of the goodness of our way of life. We need to be so convinced that Western values are good that we're willing to defend them.

It's Getting Ugly Over There

2008-03-06T06:23:00.000-08:00

Check out this video from MSNBC

Apparently Obama woke up yesterday morning and decided that he was done practicing a "new type of politics".

I'm not sure I understand why he's going after the Clinton tax returns. But he does have a good attack asking where Hillary's crisis experience is. Either way, he's throwing away whatever advantage he had as a change agent by getting down in the mud with Hillary.

Is It a Wonder...

2008-03-05T16:38:00.000-08:00

That some people are suspicious of Muslims?
From MSNBC:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A former Navy sailor from Phoenix was convicted Wednesday of leaking information about the movements and vulnerabilities of ships in his battle group to suspected terrorism supporters.

In their second day of deliberations, jurors convicted Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of providing material support to terrorists and disclosing classified national defense information.

Of course I'm not promoting the idea that all Muslims have ties to, or are sympathetic to terrorist organizations. However, if Paul Hall changes his name to Hassan Abu Jihaad, you might want to pay attention. There is a balancing act to be done. On one hand we can't throw all Muslims in camps, but on the other, we can't let fear of being called Islamophobic keep us from using our brains. This guy was passing sensitive information to Muslim terrorists long before we supposedly created so many terrorists by invading Iraq.

With this in mind is it really out of bounds given stories like this one, is it really unreasonable for people to have some suspicions? I think it's reasonable. Is this a case that can spur some discussion and debate? I hope so. I think it's well past time that Left and Right come together and say that it's not automatically discriminatory to suspect a Muslim is up to no good. There are legitimate security concerns to be addressed and we need to be able to do it without worrying about violating a speech code and having the thought police knocking down our doors.

Michelle Obama: America is Downright Mean

2008-03-04T18:57:00.000-08:00

JammieWearingFool Links to yet another Michelle Obama bashing of America.

At first I was willing to give Barack the benefit of the the doubt concerning the statements of his wife. No more. If she is going to continue stumping for her husband, saying the same sorts of things that she has been saying, then it's on him. I have to assume that he agrees with her. I have to. From now on everything she says gets credited to the candidate.

UPDATE: It appears that we don't have to extrapolate Baracks views from what Michelle says, He says it himself now. But according to Gregory Rodriguez, it's "absurd" to question his loyality to his country.

H/T Allahpundit

Patriotism, Symbolism and Liberalism

2008-03-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

RALLY ROUND THE FLAG DEMS is the title of a Gregory Rodriguez opinion piece in yesterday's L.A. Times. In it he calls for Democrats to "dump their discomfort with overt symbols of patriotism." Not to actually say, be comfortable with the idea of America being a great or even good country, worthy of small shows of pride. No, such things don't seem to matter to Mr. Rodriguez. What does matter to Mr. Rodriguez is that, "by sporting the flag and redefining the meaning of patriotism, he could very possibly help himself, his party and us all."

I don't know if this is an issue that I'm overly sensitive to or not. It's entirely possible that I am and I'm fine with that. But what I'm not fine with are statements like this;

If Barack Obama really wants to rise above the "old politics of division," he might want to start by putting that American flag pin back on his lapel and retracting his all too earnest explanation as to why he took it off in the first place.

No, not because he should seek to appease his conservative critics who are absurdly questioning his loyalty to the country. But because it could help heal the festering division over the meaning of patriotism in America while also beginning to make up for the Democratic Party's self-imposed patriotism deficit.

So, the author admits that Democrats have a patriotism deficit, but it's "absurd" to question Barack Obama's loyalty to this country. I've touched on this subject before relating to Barack Obama, and it's not just Obama's refusal to wear the lapel pin because of the Iraq war. Even though he did wear it after 9/11 and consciously made a decision to take it off some time after he began running for president.

With Obama there are multiple reasons that it is less than absurd to question his loyalty. The lapel pin was just the first. A small thing in and of itself, but the first point on a trend line.

Obama argued that such symbols "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism," and added that he had decided not to wear the pin because he was "going to try to tell the American people what I believe, what will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to patriotism." (emphasis added)

So for Obama's part, his own words show that he doesn't think that America is inherently good. No, his words and his beliefs about what will make America great are patriotic. Not that America is good now, but what he believes will make the country great, is what's patriotic. That, my friends, is absurd.

The next data point is his, 'sometimes I do sometimes I don't put my hand on my heart during the National Anthem', not during the Pledge of Allegiance which is a false e-mail rumor. Though, in this case the truth is probably worse than the rumor. If one does not feel strongly enough about the goodness of the country one wishes to lead to put one's hand over one's own freaking heart, every time the Anthem is played, then it is absurd NOT to question whether that person has the requisite level of patriotism to lead the country!

But in Obama's case, I guess it's OK because he doesn't think the President of the United States is above a tin pot dictator like Castro, or a crazy front man like Ahmedinijad, which is the thrid point.

My problem with liberals in general, when it comes to patriotism, is that unlike Mr. Rodriquez seems to think, patriotism is not about symbols. Patriotism is not something that that should be used to manipulate people. Nor, is it an affectation as he advocates.

Ten years ago, the late philosopher Richard Rorty warned liberals of what he called the "spectatorial" approach to national politics. He counseled them to favor affection over theory.

People can debate exactly what patriotism is, and how one should or should not express their patriotism. But I don't think it's debatable that patriotism comes from an inherent love of country. That in order to be patriotic, one has to, in their heart, actually have some positive feeling for their country.

With that understanding of where patriotism begins, is it hard to see why those of us who are patriotic, take issue with those who view patriotism as an affectation? Is it absurd to believe that someone who does not does not always put their hand on their heart during the National Anthem does not believe in their heart that America is inherently good?

This is just another example of the cynical, vapid, cluelessness of the left.

Obama lied people...?

2008-03-03T19:33:00.000-08:00

Change Obama to Bush and what would the headline be?

Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama claimed that when he had first denied the meeting between Austan Goolsbee and any members of the Canadian administration he provided "the information that [he] had at the time."

EDIT: The NY Times of all people has a detailed explanation of the Obama/Canada/NAFTA I didn't do it and if I did I didn't inhale moment.

The controversy began last week when CTV, a Canadian television network, reported that an Obama official had called the Canadian ambassador in Washington to play down the significance of Mr. Obama’s criticism of Nafta.

The campaign and the Canadian Embassy issued denials that were, it appears, technically accurate. But they were incomplete because they did not address Mr. Goolsbee’s meeting with Canadian officials.

When WKYC-TV in Ohio asked Mr. Obama about the CTV report, he said: “I don’t have to clarify it. The Canadian Embassy already clarified it by saying the story was not true. And our office has said the story was not. And so I think it’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” When pressed, he said, “It did not happen.”

ABC News then reported that the Nafta conversation involved the Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, not the ambassador. ABC News identified Professor Goolsbee as the official who met the Canadians.

Mr. Burton issued another strong denial, although he declined to respond to a question about Professor Goolsbee’s discussions with Canadian officials.

The spokesman focused instead on the CTV report and attacks from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign based on it.

“Again, this story is not true,” Mr. Burton said. “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.”

When the memorandum emerged, it confirmed the meeting and that Nafta was discussed...

...When asked about his past denials, Mr. Obama said he had responded with what he knew.

“That was the information I had at the time,” he said.

The NY Times is about six days late in covering this story but at least they finally got around to it. Of course they try to soft pedal it as much as they can, but the basics are still there. There was a meeting that Obama denied. In the meeting Goolsbee minimized Obama's objections to NAFTA in contradiction to Obama's statements on the campaign trail. I bet the Times staff was cursing through gritted teeth publishing this story. After all, it actually has some substance, unlike their candidate or "reporting" on John McCain.

The Gathering Obama Question Marks

2008-03-03T00:32:00.000-08:00

UPDATE & BUMP:

I don't hate Barack Obama. I won't vote for him. But I don't hate him. The more I find out about him though, the less I like him. I got to thinking about it last night and he really does seem to be collecting a disturbing number of question marks in his oh so brief political career. Many of these things, taken individually, may be explainable or dismissed. When combined with other issues though, a disturbing pattern begins to emerge.

Most egregious, I think, is Obama's support for Kenyan populist Raila Odinga, who some claim has cut a deal with Kenyan Muslims to allow Sharia in Muslim majority areas. Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has perpatrated much of the violence in that country since he lost the the Dec 27 presidential election. Odinga claims to be Obama's cousin and the two are of the Luo tribe. I don't know if they are in fact cousins, or if Obama has any special affinity for his fathers tribe.

Obama's father is Kenyan, Obama has a special place in his heart for Kenya. So what? By itself, no big deal.

Then there is the question of Obama's church. I'm not big on picking apart one's religion. I don't think Romney's Mormonism is a big deal. Especially the claims of racism in LDS policies that were officially abolished in, I believe, 1978. Obama's church is a little different. And I think that it's more of an issue because he's not just Lutheran, or Catholic, or Baptist. He's a member of this specific church. From the home page(Edit, the TUCC website has changed and the following is no longer on the home page):

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization... We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

I don't know about you, but to me this raises an eyebrow. Both the blatent racial separatist mentality, and the "remain true to our native land, the mother continent" language raise concerns with me.

Again, by itself, maybe not a huge issue. But combine Obama's Kenya politicing and his church's Afro-centrism and you're starting to develop a pattern.

Add to that the views of his pastor and the honoring of the racist, anti-semite Luis Farakhan by his church.

Again, one can dismiss the actions of his church and pastor because they are not the candidate. I don't think this can be so easily dismissed because again, Obama is not just a Baptist. He is voluntarialy a member of this specific church, not just a regular old run of the mill Baptist church.

So he has an affinity for his father's native country and he belongs to an apparently racist Afro-centric church with definate anti-Semetic leanings. So what? That doesn't mean that Obama is anti-Semetic. No, but one of his "senior foriegn policy advisors, Samantha Power, has, some thoughts, on the issue. Another senior advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
does as well. Not to mention Brzenzinski's recent trip to Syria.

Then there is this statement from Ali Abunimah of the website electronic intifada

As [Obama] came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Then there are the issue with his refusal to wear a U.S. flag lapel pin. Wearing a pin doesn't mean that one is really patriotic, but a refusal to wear one? What does that mean? Maybe nothing, I don't know.

But add to that to his sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. Does this show a more disturbing pattern?

What about his lack of criticism of his volunteer campaign office Houston with the Cuban flag with Che's face on it. Seems pretty weak for someone who is supposed to be heir to JFK. If one is even aware of JFK's history with the communist nation.

Again, individually do any of these things mean anything? I think some of them do. Taken together, do they begin painting a picture of Obama? I think so. It's up to the individual to decide what that picture looks like and if they like it or not. I'm just gathering the pieces.

UPDATE: Captain Ed links to another puzzle piece.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious – and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

As Ed puts it,

Which brings us to the visit of Barack Obama and the apparent blessing he received from Ayers and Dohrn. This doesn't mean that Obama professes the same support for political violence as the Weather couple, but it does show a lack of backbone in rejecting those that do. If Obama can't stand up to two discredited American terrorists in Chicago ... well, you get the drift. What does it say about Obama's politics that Ayers and Dohrn approved of him, and what does it say about Obama that he felt he needed their blessing?

UPDATE II: As part of painting the Barack Obama picture I found the following statement from the most recent Democratic debate illuminating:

Because the problem isn't -- is if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time, and I think that it's important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step. (Cheers, applause.)

So again we come to this issue of Barack and his view of America. I haven't included Michelle Obama's comments about our souls being broken, or her now being really proud of America, or the collectivist parts of her speeches (which I find more troubling than whether or not she's proud of her country). But I think that these things are starting to come together. Here he says that America isn't "above", a two bit dictatorship. If the cheers and applause are any indication, his supporters don't either.

UPDATE III: I don't want to get in the weeds on every issues that concerns Obama. But there are a few integrity issues that, again, I believe start to show a pattern. First there is the issue with his relationship with Tony Rezko. There are several issues with Rezko that I won't detail here but it's deep enough to rate some investigation. Another issue is the current fluff up with Canada and NAFTA. As Jim Geraghty put it, Either [Obama's] Lying Or He Has An Insane, Out of Control Adviser". Individually what do these things mean? Put them together and do they start showing more of a pattern?

Conservatism Part 1

2008-03-01T16:19:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of talk lately about what conservatism means. I hear many of the same things from other conservatives; small government, individual freedom, personal responsibility. I think these principals are the real three legged stool of conservatism. I think these principals are things that most Americans can recognize and embrace as authentically American.

Nobody wants more government intrusion in their lives. Nobody wants less freedom. Some people probably want less responsibility, but I think that most Americans accept the premise that they are responsible for their own decisions.

These are things that all conservatives can agree on. And, I think, things that can win us elections. Where we run into problems is not with, "what is conservatism", it's with communicating what conservatism is to other people. To many of us, conservatism is so intuitive, so basic and logical, that we never really think of what it "is". We don't think of conservatism in terms of definitions that can be explained to other people.

As conservatives we also face challenges from those who don't agree with us who often distort conservatism as only for big business, or for the rich, or for racist white people. I have had several debates with people who have said those very things to me. I've been told that conservatives "want everyone to be the same". My response has generally been to recognize the intellectually lazy, closed minded attitude that leads to those kinds of statements, and cease the debate because they obviously aren't interested in what I have to say. I was wrong. The result of leaving the field of battle that way is that the liberal then has the stage. The purpose of this post is to correct that.

I want to take this opportunity to answer the questions about conservatism. Not just what conservatism stands for in theory. But what it means for government. What it means for people who elect conservatives. We need to be able to explain conservatism to people in terms they understand. That, is why we long for another Reagan. Not for Reagan policies, but for the Great Communicator and his vision of what America is and could be. Conservatism is not an ad hoc collection of single issue voters. Those are Democrats. Conservatism is a guiding philosophy.

The Basics:

1. Individual Freedom: People, to a large extent, should be able to do what they want, when they want free of government interference. Obviously we want an orderly society so we enact laws and hire professional peace officers to enforce them. But other than arresting law breakers, we generally want the government to leave us alone.

2. Individual Responsibility: This goes hand in hand with individual freedom. The trade off for the government staying out of our business, is that we take responsibility for our own actions. If we break the law, we get punished. If we do something to offend someone but don't break the law, then we should be able to work it out without government intervention. Conservatives want people to organize at the lowest level and work out their problems. The more people can work out their own problems the less there is for the government to mediate. The American form of government is based on the "reasonable man". The Constitution is designed to govern, in fact relies on the governed being, free, reasonable, smart people. It is not designed to govern sheep. The Framers did not intend for the government to fix every hang nail. They intended for people to handle most issues themselves.

3. Role of Government: So what then, is the role of government. The role of government is to handle the things that individuals cannot do. For example, raise armies, conduct foreign relations, regulate trade, coin money, etc. It is also the Constitutional duty of the Federal Government to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

It is this last sentence that is really the crux of the conservative view of American government. It is also the source of the greatest conflict with the liberal view of the role of government. What does it mean to "promote the general welfare"? Many liberals think that it means to redistribute wealth, through taxation, from the "rich" to the "poor" so that the poor aren't wretched while others are affluent. Conservatives disagree.

Conservatives, at least this conservative, believe that it is the role of government to provide an atmosphere of stability. To create and environment where people can create their own prosperity through their own work. An environment free of excessive regulation and taxation. A land where people are secure enough in their persons that they can work and live without fear.

Why do we focus on low taxes and eliminating excessive regulation? There are several reasons. The simplest being that the more something is taxed, the less of it there is. The more you tax businesses or products, the fewer businesses and products you will have. A more concrete example might be, you want people to smoke less, raise taxes on cigarettes. You want people to drive less, raise taxes on automobiles or gasoline. The same is true with jobs. If you want fewer jobs, raise business and payroll taxes.

The inverse is true with prices. One of Reagan's great quotes, "businesses don't pay taxes". When businesses are taxed, that cost is passed on to the consumer. When the cost gets to high for consumers to pay, the business cuts costs elsewhere, namely jobs. So higher business taxes result in higher costs for all of us and fewer jobs. Higher income taxes mean that we have less money to pay the higher costs and fewer people with jobs to pay taxes for government programs.

Conservatives don't want low taxes because we're in the pocket of big business. We want low taxes because they promote the general welfare. We're not against "the little guy", we're for "the little guy" because we want more businesses to hire more people and produce products at lower prices.

These are reasons that I am a conservative. And I think that these are things that we can explain to others when asked what conservativism is. Liberals and Conservatives both want to provide for the people. Coservatives have the superior philosophy to make it happen.

R.I.P. William F. Buckley Jr.

2008-02-27T16:47:00.000-08:00

I am certainly not the first to write this today. Conservatives lost a great voice with his passing.

Unfortunately I never knew much about the man until today, and I still know terribly little. I knew his name and knew he started National Review, but that was about it. Like many others I spent the afternoon on YouTube finding some of his old interviews and debates. Of course I came across the famous Gore Vidal debate, which in my opinion is just classic. There were a few clips of a debate with Noam Chomsky, the content of which was over my head, but I certainly admired the rhetoric.

I'm certainly no intellectual, but I have a bachelors degree, and I enjoy a good turn of phrase. What struck me while watching these snippets was how far the political discourse has fallen since WFB was a young man. I'm not a fan of Noam Chomsky, but the intellect on display with he and Buckley on the stage at the same time was just astounding.

I also came across this hour long Charlie Rose retrospective. I found it to be a very educational look at the man. There is a sequence at the end of the hour where talks about being tired of the routine of life. Not only would he not want to be twenty years old again he said. Were there a pill that made him twenty years younger, he wouldn't take it. I hope that in the intervening years he came to a sense of satisfaction and contentment, rather than weariness, that he had in the interview.

Democrat Debate: Obama Gets Specific?

2008-02-24T08:31:00.000-08:00

-- what I've been talking about is not just hope and not just inspiration; it's a $4,000 tuition credit for every student every year -- (cheers, applause) -- in exchange for national service so that college becomes more affordable. I've been talking about making sure that we change our tax code so that working families actually get relief. I have been talking about making sure that we bring an end to this war in Iraq so that we can start bringing our troops home and invest money here in the United States. (Applause.)

So let's get this straight. He offers three items. One of which is sort of specific, the $4,000 tuition credit, though I haven't seen how he's going to pay for it, administer it, or if the evil children of the evil "rich" fall under the category of "every student". "Making sure that we change our tax code so that working families actually get relief". Does that count as a specific? I don't think so, but I find it interesting that he uses the Bush term, "relief". And ending the war in Iraq. Sort of specific unless you know, he has to make a decision:

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.

From the debate:

And so just to finish up, these are very specific, concrete, detailed proposals, many of them which I've been working on for years now.

Indeed.

The New Obama Theme Song?

2008-02-22T14:33:00.000-08:00

I heard this on Garage Logic this afternoon. They were tring to think of a theme song for Obama and a listner sent this idea in.

Gather round, the Candy man is here. What kind of candy do you want? Sweet chocolate? Chocolate malted candy? Gum drops? Anything you want. You've come to the right man because, I'm the Candy Man...

...Who can take tomorrow
Dip it in a deam
Seperate the sorrow
And collect up all the cream?

The candyman

If this doesn't sum up the Obama campaign, I don't know what would.

UPDATE: Apparently I'm about a week late on this. I hadn't heard about it until today but according to a FreeRepublic post, Rush Limbaugh called this back on the 13th. There is another version out there, which I won't link to because it's in terrible taste and parts of it are blatently racist. I think the song compliments the Obama campaign nicely, but I completely disavow any association with the other video.

To Steal a Headline: "Shame on the L.A. Times"

2008-02-19T10:59:00.000-08:00

I thought about writing about this last week, but I didn't. It seemed like just another one of those times that a headline was distorted, which it was. But now it's turning into the story that won't go away. It doesn't bother me that the story won't go away. It bothers me that premise of the story is false. It bothers me that the headlines are lies. It bothers me that this is how the media intends to fight this election. And it bothers me that people see this and ask, "what media bias?"

I'm talking about this editorial from the L.A. Times and it's headline

Shame, Sen. McCain

His vote against a ban on 'enhanced' interrogation methods belies his opposition to torture.

Maybe the L.A Times can't be bothered with the fact that the bill in question did not simply ban waterboarding or 'enhanced' interrogation. The bill would limit CIA interrogators to the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. I have issues with his for several reasons.

First, what sense does it make to apply an Army field manual to people who are not only not in the Army, but not even in the Department of Defense? There are many differences in the way the military, particularly the Army, collects intelligence and the way the CIA collects intelligence. There are some very good reasons for these differences, the first being the quality of the intelligence personnel. Army personnel are much younger and less well trained than their civilian counterparts and should have stricter limits on how they go about Intel collection. If Congress wants to tie CIA interrogations to Army field manuals, how long before they try to tie other techniques to Army doctrine? As someone who is a trained Army Human Intelligence Collector, I can tell you that's not a good idea. Army manuals in general are written for the lowest common demoniator and the interrogation manual is no different. There are useful psychological techniques that can be, and are, used to good effect. But one must remember, the average Army interrogator is a 20 year old high school graduate. Many CIA employees are much older and hold specialized advanced degrees.

Secondly, I don't believe it's good policy to broadcast to the world what our interrogation policies are. Having experienced first hand, tactical level detainments and questionings of insurgents/terrorists, I can tell you what a disadvantage it is for the detainee to know exactly what rules you are operating under. This is exactly what the result would be under Feinstein's bill. The bad guys have our manuals. I bet you can find it on the internet in less than five minutes. Maybe some people think that is good for our national security but I don't.

To be fair, the L.A. Times goes into more detail in their editorial about restricting the CIA to the Army Field Manual. Their only focus though is that the Army manual prohibits "enhanced" techiniques such as "sleep deprivation, painful "stress positions" or extreme temperatures, or using dogs..."

They claim that that these are techniques that, "most reasonable people would consider torture". I tend to disagree with that assessment, so I guess by the L.A. Times standard, I'm not "reasonable".

Today's Ray of Hope

2008-02-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

Hefting the ax, Wahdan sliced into the dozen or so orange trees, part of his family's livelihood, sending them to the ground, one by one.

Palestinian gunmen -- members of Hamas, the armed movement that controls Gaza, and other groups -- had used the cover offered by the orange grove to launch rockets at the Israeli town of Sderot, the white houses at the edge of Wahdan's fields.

It may sound odd to hear someone chopping down his livelihood is a ray of hope, but to me, it is.

The Washington Post has the full story of "Gazans feeling the recoil of attacks on Israel. Actually this is a ray of hope on two fronts. The fact that the WaPo words the headline as they do, "feeling the recoil of attacks on Israel", instead of something more typical like, Palestinians suffer at hands of Israel, is by itself cause for celebration. At least they acknowledge that Israel is being attacked, and that it is the attacks that bring the recoil.

More important are the interviews with Gazans who seem to be increasingly fed up with Hamas.

When the fighters came one morning last month, the Wahdan family pleaded with them to think of the Israeli return fire that the rockets often drew. "There are women in the house, there are children," Wahdan recalled telling them. "You run away, but if the Israeli planes come, where do we go?"

But the gunmen went on as planned, the Wahdan family said. When the fighters came back that afternoon to launch rockets that had failed to fire the first time, Khadra, Mohammed's 54-year-old mother, was rolling dough in the kitchen. She ran out to shout at the fighters.

Khadra made it to the gate of the family courtyard when an Israeli shell hit. Shrapnel killed her and the family's 15-year-old hired farmhand.

"Her last words were, 'Go away,' " Mohammed Wahdan said.

One of the farmers at the gathering in Beit Hanoun, a place of mixed support for Fatah and Hamas, described Hamas security members chasing a local farmer, and firing wildly, on suspicion the man had been taking cash from Fatah.

Asked what they wanted for Gaza, one of the farmers asked first that he not be identified for fear of reprisals. Then he replied that he wanted the borders of Gaza to be reopened and the economy to recover.

The man added a third hope, his mouth twisting into a smile that held no amusement: "And for Hamas to roast on a hot grill."

He changed the subject, then finished his answer only reluctantly. Hamas "should take care of the people's interests, not just fire rockets," he concluded.

When the population begins to turn this way it is the begining of the end for terrorism. Much like the Anbar Awakening. It wasn't American military action directly that led to the Anbaris rejecting AQIZ. It was a realization among the popultation that AQIZ really didn't have their best interests at heart. It looks like the same thing is begining to happen in Gaza. The people probably aren't about to start liking Israel dramatically more, but the realization that Hamas is not acting in the best interest of Gaza taking hold. If Hamas continues with the attacks, especially from non-combatants property where they leave the civilians to suffer the consequences, it won' be long before the Gazans turn on Hamas the same way the Anbaris turned on AQIZ.

The question then becomes, who do the Gazans turn to, and how deep will their rejection of attacking Israel go?

Obama the Academic?

2008-02-18T20:02:00.000-08:00

Over at NRO, Matthew Franck has an interesting bit on Obama. According to Mr. Franck, during Obama's tenure at the Harvard Law Review, Obama never wrote a single law review, despite his rising to President of said Law Review.

And what has Obama published on constitutional law or any other legal topic? Although he was president of the Harvard Law Review as a student, in which capacity he no doubt wrote some unsigned notes, a search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time. This is yet more indication that his status as "lecturer" at Chicago was not a regular faculty appointment, since regular full-time faculty are expected to produce scholarship.

Not being a lawyer myself, I'm not familiar with HeinOnline. I am familiar with other similar portals where one can look up peer reviewed literature and the like. Like the one's I have used it's subscription only, except for a limited guest feature which does not include HLR. As such I cannot confirm that Obama has never published scholarly research or other articles, so I only have Mr. Franck's word. So far as I know, NRO is not in the habit of publishing demonstrably false information so I'm willing to take Mr. Franck's word.

What I was able to look up is Mr. Obama's status at University of Chicago. Obama is in fact a "senior lecturer" and not, a "professor" as claimed by at least some of his supporters. Barack's website says he returned to Chicago to teach constitutional law and does not claim that he was actually a professor. I suppose lecturing counts as teaching...? Kinda sorta in a way.

This is not a claim of dishonesty against Obama, but it does call into question his already meager qualifications for the office he seeks.

This is too much to pass up

2008-02-13T18:30:00.000-08:00

I haven't commented, anywhere, on the Berkeley Marine conflict. I am a former Marine and as such obviously have feelings on the issue. None of which are warm to Berkeley. Sometimes that old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", strikes me, and this is one of those times. As a result I have held my tounge.

Fortunately though, Powerline points to a blog, new to me, called Zombietime. Zombie, at great personal risk to him or herself, braved the unwashed masses of a Berkeley city hall protest/counter protest to bring us pictures of the gathering.

This is fortunate for me because I don't have to say anything. These pictures linked from Powerline more than speak for themselves.

This last picture is of my new favorite Army vet.

This is Rich

2008-02-13T08:40:00.001-08:00

It started as this

And changed to this

Now, THAT'S change I can believe in!!

H/T Powerline

CNN Wimps Out

2008-02-13T08:25:00.000-08:00

CNN has a story about European newspapers manning up and reprinting the Mohammad cartoon that caused such a controversy a while back.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

Captain Ed has a solidarity post up and I encourage anyone who reads this post or his to participate in this stand for freedom of speech.

UPDATE: Carl has more here

Underestimating Sadr

2008-02-12T11:05:00.000-08:00

Brian Bennett has an interesting article on Moqtada al-Sadr over at Time. His main contention is that the U.S. is underestimating Sadr, and in that, I agree with him. I decided about a year and a half ago, that the single biggest American mistake in Iraq, was not killing Moqtada in 2003. There have been many other mistakes which I have written about previously. But this one has a special place in my heart since I spent the better part of 16 months tracking, arresting, and being attacked by Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) members.

Mr. Bennett writes:

Observers believe the freeze in operations of his Mahdi Army is a major reason for the recent security successes in Iraq; and most expected it to be extended.

I disagree with what has become a standard liberal argument, that Sadr's cease fire is a major reason for the lul in violence in Iraq, and that if/when that cease fire expires, violence will return to previous levels. I have never been a fan of The Surge (tm), and I don't believe that Gen Petreaus and the extra troops are responsible for the remarkable reduction in violence. The Surge certainly didn't hurt anything, and I think moving troops out into the neighborhoods has helped bring security to Baghdad. The real credit for the queling the violence goes to the Iraqis and their rejection of al Queda in Iraq (AQIZ). See here for an indepth view of my take on Anbar and The Surge.

Where I do agree with Mr. Bennett is assessment of what happens if the cease fire expires.

Is the U.S. alarmed? It is not — and that is alarming.

Though American officials recognize the importance of Sadr's inactivity, they are now saying that the cleric's political influence in Iraq has diminished. On Thursday, the senior diplomat overseeing U.S. policy in Iraq, David Satterfield, told a room of foreign policy experts at the Middle East Institute that the 34-year-old cleric was a "deeply troubled young man" who is spending most of his time in Iran watching events in Iraq move "beyond his ability to influence." Those are strong words about the surviving scion of a revered religious family who has proven time and again to be a thorn in the side of U.S. efforts in Iraq.

As reports had come in about Coalition Forces (CF) arresting, supposedly rouge JAM leaders, I had begun to think that CF were finally starting to take Sadr and Southern Iraq seriously. Since the war began there has been very little real effort put into combating the Shia militias in Souther Iraq. What was done was usually on an ad hoc basis without much follow up. Several reasons for this existed, and still do exist, but it seemed as if the leadership was at least appreciating the gravity of the situation. Mr. Bennetts report troubles me in this aspect.

Moqtada is in deed a "deeply toubled young man", but that does not mean that he does not wield influence over a large and potentially very dangerous group of followers. Some reports put the number of Sadr's followers as high as 150,000. More troops than we had before the surge. And considering that many of these followers are in the south, while most of our troops are in the central, north and west, makes JAM even more dangerous. It has always been unclear how many of those people were die hard followers, and how many may protest but not actually fight, and how many merely claimed allegience, the so called 'rouge elements' that conducted criminal activities while claiming the protection of JAM.

I don't think that most people realize the level of support Sadr has in rural Southern Iraq and among the Shia in Baghdad. We have arrested a handful of leaders with Iranian connections, but they are quickly replaced.

I apologize for the long quote. I don't want to seem lazy, but I agree with everything that follows and don't have much to add in the way of substance.

His militia was instrumental in carrying out thousands of reprisal killings after the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, bringing Iraq to the verge of all-out civil war.

He was underestimated. And now it seems, the folks that matter in the Administration are making the same mistake again — pointing out his shortcomings and his inability to influence events. "That's a very optimistic way of looking at it," says Vali Nasr, author of The Shi'a Revival, of Satterfield's comments, "Moqtada al-Sadr still commands the largest social and political movement in southern Iraq." Nasr and others believe the Mahdi Army's leader is biding his time out to develop stronger religious credentials and strengthen his control over a militia. Sadr's gameplan, it appears, extends far beyond the next year or two. "The game in Iraq is not over," says Nasr, "he has been beefing up his strength."

In fact, the ceasefire has allowed Sadr to purge his militia forces, some of which had been hijacked by criminal gangs running lucrative kidnap-for-ransom schemes. The indiscriminate thuggery had damaged Sadr's reputation among average Iraqis. So had the perception that Sadr was an Iranian stooge. Some of elements of the Madhi Army had morphed into groups that answered directly to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and were operating beyond Sadr?s control. He has stood by as those elements have been arrested by U.S. forces.

The U.S. believes Sadr has been spending most of his time in Iran. So what's he up to? He is likely in the Shi'ite religious center of Qom studying to achieve the higher rank of ayatollah, a position that would allow him to issue fatwas, and garner more respect from the Shi'ite establishment. Such a rank usually requires two decades of study, but Sadr, say aides, wants to complete it within two years. In that time, he'll receive the religious equivalent of a mail-order diploma. "No Shi'ite Iraqi really believes he is going to study or that he could complete his studies to become a respectable cleric in a year," says Nasr, "but he can do enough to get the political cover he needs."

It's what he does when he comes back on the scene that should have U.S. officials worried. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who closely follows developments in Iraq, calls Sadr's decision to rein in his forces a "pretty huge" part of the recent progress. But he isn't convinced that the young cleric has graciously taken himself out of the game without a long term strategic agenda in mind. O'Hanlon doesn't see Sadr as a weaker player, "but a person who is deciding if he wants to play politics or go back to the battlefield," says O'Hanlon. "I wish I could think Sadr has taken this position out of weakness."

It's that last sentence that is the most troubling. Over and over again Westerners misjudge Arab actions because they see everything through a Western prism. I'll try to get back to this issue, but in the mean time, see my posts from September 2007 for a more comprehensive take on this.

And that's a nomination

2008-02-07T10:26:00.000-08:00

Romney drops out stating that he doesn't want to contribute to the Democrats winning.

I'm slightly in the McCain camp anyway so I'm kind of happy that he's out. I think his reasons are sound and I'm glad that we can start working on November now, while the Democrats are still fighting it out. I don't think that Romney could have beat McCain anyway, and I'm, relieved, really, that the punditry can now stop talking up Romney and attacking McCain.

I've lost a lot of respect for several pundits and radio hosts, and have quit listening to their shows because they have gone off the deep end. In their desire to prop up Romney they compromised their integrity in criticizing McCain. Speaking for myself, they are going to have to work to get me back as a listener. They are going to have to eat a lot of crow now as well. They became so bombastic that I'm not sure how they're going to come back and support Mac now.

Anyway, good for Romney. I think he has set himself up well for 2012 or 2016. He now has at least four years to pull a Reagan and make policy speeches and work the dinner circuit to build up his conservatives bona fides. If McCain looses this year Romney is in a very good position to challenge in 2012.

MN Caucus

2008-02-05T19:21:00.000-08:00

I attended my first caucus tonight, along with MANY, fellow first timers. In 2006 my district had 64 attendees and my precinct had 6. Tonight there were probably 250-300 for the district and 31 in my pricinct. I'm sure some of that is attributable to off year vs. presidential year, but still, that's an incredible increase. Radio reports say this is a state wide phenomenon, and the increase on the Democratic side is at least as large.

All four remaining Republican nominees received at least one vote in my precinct. Yes Ron Paul had, 1, supporter. He read a form letter, it was cute.

What my caucus experince taught me, besides there are a lot more Republicans here than I thought there were, is that talk radio has a huge effect on primary voters. More than one Romney supporter cited listening to talk radio and one McCain defender did as well. Recent history has also taught me that talk radio hosts are not always as honest as I once thought they were.

Case in point, McCain and the Gang of 14. It surprises me how many people associate the gang of 14 with "blocking judges". It didn't. It prevented the Republicans from exercising the "nuclear option" against Senate Democrats who were filabustering judicial nominations, which many of us were upset about at the time, but it did not "block judges". The gang of 14 is something that many radio hosts cite, without real explanation, as evidence that McCain is weak on judges. I'm not saying that McCain is great on judges, but the hosts know what the gang of 14 was and wasn't, and it bothers me that they are not being intellectually honest in their arguments for Romney.

I bring this up because this issue because this issue was brought up during the candidate discussion portion of the caucus as a knock on McCain. Unfortunately I didn't have time to respond to the group before the voting, but it did push me ever so slightly further into the McCain camp.

So without further ado, here are the results of my precinct:

Romney 16
McCain 11
Huck 3
Paul 1

I think the results show, that for better or for worse, and in this case I believe it's worse, that talk radio is shaping the primary race.

The Romney Campaign

2008-02-01T08:52:00.000-08:00

Now that the ABM (anybody but McCain) campaign has gotten into full frothing at the mouth swing. I think it's important to consider Romney the candidate in the general election.

First off, I think that Romney would be a fine president. He's smart, articulate, has worked outside of politics. All good things. If he gets the nomination I'll go vote for him.

The question though, is can he win.

He was a Republican governor of a very liberal state, which is good. But how conservative could he be, and get elected governor of a very liberal state? That really is the catch for Mitt. He had to be a moderate to liberal Republican as governor and he's had to move to the right to run for president. It just so happens that his policy shifts came just before his presidential camaign. How convienent.

This casts Romney as inauthentic. For me, and apparently many others, this is an important issue. McCain may not really be conservative, but neither is Romney. So as long as we're not going to get a "real", movement conservative nominee, why not at least get the most electable Republican in November.

Many talking heads and radio hosts would have you believe that Romney is the most electable. I disagree.

First of all, look at his performance thus far. He has out spent his competition by multi-millions of dollars, he's younger and better looking, he's had the support of many establishment conservatives like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, who not only endorse him, but have relentlesly hammered his competition for him, and he's still, losing to McCain. With all of his advantages, why isn't he winning? This tells me that Romney is not very electable.

So what's wrong with Mitt the candidate?

In my very humble opinon, Romney's a panderer. Lots of people are drawn in by his ability to 'look the part', but many other are turned off by the timing of his, I'll use the term conversion, to conservatism as opposed to Republicanism. I am very put off by his campaign and his constant pandering to each state he goes to. He talked up ethanol in Iowa, billions of dollars of government spending in Michigan, government backed insurance in Florida, and last but certainly not least, his "who let the dogs out, nice bling bling" performance on MLK Day. That, conviently, was not reported by Romney backers.

In addition to his pandering, his campaign message sounds like it was lifted from the Democrats. Look at his Michigan victory speech and his Florida concession speech. Washington didn't give us this, Washington didn't give us that, you can't change Washington by sending the same people back. I know he has different policies than the Democrats, but how is his message different? This leads to the next problem of the Romney campaign.

Mitt is a rich, white, male, Republican, politician, with a nice smile. Nothing wrong with being any of those things. I don't hate the rich or white male Republicans. But how is a rich white male Republican, going to sell the message of "changing Washington", when he's running against either the first woman, or first African-American presidential nominee? Does anyone think that Romney can out Obama Obama?

Updated to Add: Romney also seems to be a very nice, earnest guy. And I mean that. I don't think it's a front. That said, can he compete with the vicious, dirty, mean, nastiness that will come at him from the Left? If he's having a hard time with McCain, how would he respond to the Clinton machine, MoveOn and the rest?

Regan Library Debate

2008-01-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

I couldn't live blog this debate but I got to listen/watch most of it.

This was interesting. There were some bad bad exchanges between McCain and Romney. Very petty. Very Hillary/Obama. Ron Paul had one of the best moments of the night when he chastised the two of them that there are much more important issues than who said what when.

I'm glad that Romney hit McCain on cap and trade. I can't stand McCain's line that it doesn't hurt anything to adopt some of these green policies. It's not true.

I really don't think that Romney can win in November so I've begrudgingly started to support McCain, but damn, he makes it hard.

I will say that Romney had a much better debate performance than he had before. He's always come across as trying to "sell hope", a la Obama. I can't stand that.

Ron Paul, everything he said regarding foreign policy aside, actually had a pretty good showing. Domestically he's not that bad but he drives me freaking crazy with his "empire" rethoric.

Huckabee did OK. They didn't let him talk much, he did what he does. Stumps for his brand of populism.

McCain and Romney need to grow up. I'm not going to be able to support either of these guys until October if they keep this up.

McCain Wins Fla

2008-01-29T20:25:00.000-08:00

I thought about titling this post 'Plastic Man Gets Spanked', but thought better of it. It will be interesting to see how Hugh spins this for Romney. Had Romney won by 5 Hugh would be talking about how bad a loss it was and how it's over for McCain. But his guy lost so he's still hanging on to Romney winning conservative and very conservative voters. Big whoop.

I'm not happy with McCain as a candidate but anybody who thinks the Plastic Man can win in November is off their rocker. Did anyone listent to Romney's concession speech? "Change Washington!" He sounds just like Obama. Does anyone think that a rich white guy is going to out change Obama? You think someone with more flips than Kerry is going to beat the first black presidential nominee? I don't think so.

Hillary? He might be able to take Hillary. But it looks more and more like St. Barak of Obama is going to be the nominee.

The Conservative Coalition

2008-01-25T16:07:00.000-08:00

I like to beat up on Democrats for their lack of coherent policies. They don't have an overarching philosophy that gives them a vision for the future. They have to pander and buy votes from gays, blacks, hispanics, the poor, enviro-nuts, and the white liberal guilt vote. They cobble together issues but they don't have a strategic policy vision.

Well the Republicans have a coaliton as well though it's much smaller, and in my view more principaled. The Reagan Coalition has received a lot of press lately, specifically whether or not it is still a coalition. There have been others, but David Frum has a a column in the New York Times today describing the friction developing in our coaliton.

I fall into a cross between the fiscal and foreign policy conservative. I think the two go hand in hand. I get the social conservative issues of pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I don't get the populism that seems to go along with it. Everything else, strong military, low taxes, America first foreign policy, protecting innocent life, all seem to go togeter. Populism aka welfare, protectionism, big government programs, just doesn't seem to fit and I'm not sure why it seems to be such a big factor to Huckabee wing of the party? I understand the religious desire to help your neighbor, but, in my view that means help your neighbor. Not we need programs from the federal government to help your neighbor.

As with all elections this one is going to be closely fought and we're all going to need to put some differences aside when it comes to electing a president. But I think along the way we're going to have to jockey this coaliton around a little bit. We all need to realize that our number one priority can't come first all the time. Certain groups need to realize that some issues just aren't popular and are not electable. For social conservatives it's probably getting Constitutional ammendments passed for abortion and gay marriage. It's just not going to happen. For fiscal conservatives, we're probably not going to get a flat tax and an elimination of entitlement programs. Social security is not going to go away even though I wish it would. Same with foreign policy conservatives. As much as I'd like to convince everyone how important Iraq and fighting Islamic terrorism are, I know that's not going to be everyone's top issue.

All the kumbaya stuff aside for minute, I think we need to lay out the basic planks of conservatism again. I understand the need to be a "big tent" party, but I must say that I'm concerned about the lack of traction that a traditional three prong conservative received, while at the same time a moderate McCain and populist Huckabee soared to the forefront of the party. I'm concerned by this leftward shift.

I don't have any answers right now. I don't know if I'm imagining things or if the party really is just that far left now. I don't know but we do need to figure it out and get everyone on the same page.

Coincidentaly, here is a related post at Red State with some very good links to traditional definitions of conservatism.

Florida Debate Live Blog

2008-01-24T18:12:00.000-08:00

Wasn't sure if I would do this or not but here goes

8:11 Huckabee wants to add two lanes to I-90. Sooo a government project will stimulate the economy? FDR flashbacks anyone?

8:13 I'm finding it odd that all these questions are, here's a softball to hit your opponet with, go ahead. I think they're trying to reproduce the negativity of Hillary-Obama. Good for the Republican candidates for staying positive so far.

8:16 Ah yes, Ron Paul. He has some decent ideas on the economy but I can't stand his overseas empire talking point.

8:20 I can't believe people think Democrats would be good with the economy. McCain's hitting this one out of the park. Democrats will increase taxes, spending, entitlements. McCain almost convinced me that he'd be good.

8:22 Huckabee the populist again. OK, but what is the federal government going to do about it?

8:24 Romney's doing the Washington outsider, Washington hasn't done this, Washington hasn't done that, Michigan victory speech all over again.

8:24 Rudy cut taxes by 18%, huh.

8:26 Paul, don't blame me, don't blame me!

8:27 Army on the verge of breaking? Stupid question. McCain, "you're wrong". I do like that. Otherwise kind of a fluff answer but called out Hillary.

8:30 Barry McCaffery? Is that the guy from CNN? Romney, business answer to increasing the military. Boy, they're going after Hillary. Think they want to run against Obama?

8:34 War good idea or bad? McCain, good idea, pinned it on Rumsfeld, but he was and is right. The war was not handled well. Solid answer.

Rudy- Way to turn the question around. Good answer, not as good as McCain.

Paul- schmuck

Huckabee- wishy washy... coming around... never answered the question really but ok.

Romney- He's right. Post Saddam was mishandled, but now he sounds like he copied McCain. I wonder what he would have said if he went first.

And Break... Strange that they're going to have the candidates ask each other questions. Are they going to have Hillary and Obama ask each other questions next time? That would be worth watching.

So far I think McCain is having the best performance. Rudy isn't bad but he's not really impressing or separating himself. Romney just doesn't have credibility with me. I think he'd probably be a good manager, but he doesn't do anything for me. Huckabee is just too populist.

8:41 Romeny question to... who...? Rudy. Wow, that was about a three minute question. Good answer from Rudy.

8:45 McCain to Huckabee, re: fair tax. Good point about the current tax system and IRS. I'm not sure about this prebate thing. Sounds kind of complicated and would still require some sort of enforcement system like the IRS. Huckabee does have full control of the issue. Good question for him.

8:50 Question from Paul to McCain. Didn't quite catch the question, something about an economic working group? McCain sounds like he's advocating a Taft like cabinet.

8:51 Huckabee to Romney on 2nd Ammendment. Would have supported AWB. No new legislation.

8:53 Rudy to Romney. Catastrophic Fund. Knew that shot at McCain was coming. I don't know much about this issue. Bad answer. Wiffed on that.

McCain similar answer to Romney's. Not impressed. Does say it could be sorted out through insurance regulations instead of government funds. Sounds good to me.

8:58 Energy question to Rudy. Global warming tripe but good answer. Build new technologies. McCain cap and trade policy. Bad idea. This why I don't want to vote for McCain. Cap and trade is a terrible idea and is bad for the economy. This idea that it doesn't cost us anything and we just clean up the planet is dumb and it's below him.

9:05 back from break. What happened to your campaign Rudy? Good funny answer referencing the Giants.

9:06 McCain's mother, wow she's 95. Republicans will have to hold their noses and vote for McCain. How will you unite the party? He's right on the war and economics. Climate Change ppttttttttttbbbbbbbbbbb!!!!!! What about Israel? Proud to be a conservative.

9:09 Hillary will run as a team! Wow, interesting question. Surprised it came from Russert.

9:15 Mormon issue. He's prepared or it and line drives it back.

9:16 Ron Paul social security. He's right.

9:18 Huckabee makes a nice quip about Romney's money. He is funny.

9:21 Why is Rudy airing an ad in Spanish? Learn english to be a citizen, good. Reach people in their native language. Whatever. Follow up with wet foot dry foot, good answer. Presumed fleeing political prosecution, other cases have to prove it. Not to metion Mexicans aren't fleeing prosecution.

9:25 Huckabee, funny bit about Chuck Norris. Good comeback with Stallone, throwing in Stormin Normin was gratuitus though.

9:26 Screw you NY Times. Ha!

Somalia, The Gift That Keeps on Giving

2008-01-24T12:11:00.000-08:00

Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard points to a RAND report that discusses how a possible military confrontation with China may play out. It gets pretty in depth, but one of the key graphs:

Chinese analysts assess that even a small number of casualties is sufficient to spark strong popular opposition and erode domestic support for U.S. participation in a conflict. The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion.

If this report were to get national media attention, would the Left begin to understand what happens when you show weakness in the face of an enemy? Will they get what many conservatives have been saying for years? Now that running away from Somalia has been cited by Osama and the Chinese, will they understand what Bill Clinton bequeathed the country more than a decade later? Will they start to understand Peace through Strength?

Somehow I doubt it.

Where to go now?

2008-01-23T08:50:00.000-08:00

As everyone knows by now Fred is officially out. Now everyone is wondering where the Fredheads will go. Well that's a good question. I think most of us supported Fred because he didn't really have a "yeah, but". What he did have was incredibly minor compared to the other candidates. I supported him because he was authentic, and I think that is incredibly rare in American politics. I think we had a chance to elect someone different and we passed on it.

It does make me a little sad. But mostly I'm frustrated. Here was the person that conservatives had been asking for and they spurned him. And for what? A slick, pandering Mitt "who let the dogs out Romney? Mike "I want to change the Constitution to reflect God's law" Huckabee? John "I hate conservatives/man made global warming is real" McCain?

I waited until now to post because yesterday I advocated sitting out. How far left are Republicans willing to go? How far left are conservatives supposed to go just to keep the Democrats out of office? Elect McCain and get the same economy killing environmentalism. yea... Elect Huckabee and get higher taxes, tution breaks for illegals, and whatever other populist crap. yea... Elect Romney and get some wishy washy pandering politican. yea...

I'm very enthused by the remaining prospects!

That said I'm leaning towards probably the next person to drop out of the race, Rudy. I didn't include him above because he hasn't won anything yet so he hasn't been a front runner. He certainly has his problems, mostly personal which I don't really care about. I read William Bratton's book Turnaround which describes some of his leadership and personality problems. It also calls into question the amount of credit Rudy should get for improving NYC.

That said, I think he's the best remaining combination of authentic/credible and right on the issues. McCain is authentic, but he's wrong on the issues. Rudy is maybe slightly less authentic but is right on just about every issue. Larry Kudlow says Rudy has the best tax plan. He's strong on defense. Pro school choice. Right on judges. And claims to be right on immigration.

I'm not sure that I'm ready to endorse Rudy the way I did Thompson, but at first blush he seems like the next best choice.

Dark Days at Camp Thompson

2008-01-20T12:51:00.001-08:00

I can't say I'm surprised by a thrid place finish in SC. Fred moved up in the polls all week but couldn't seal the deal. It's unfortunate that the only candidate that I could enthusiastically endorse is now, for all intents and purposes out of the race.

Not one person left in the race qualifies as the Anti-Soundbite Candidate

Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantative candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.

He has well thought out policy positions - "White Papers" the campaign calls them - have won him almost universal praise from sources as wildly divergent as the Washington Post and the National Review.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Thompson's tax plan:

"However, what's refreshing about the Thompson plan is that it goes well beyond the current Republican mantra to make "the Bush tax cuts permanent." That is certainly needed, but the GOP also needs a more ambitious agenda, especially with economic growth slowing. The flat tax has the added political benefit of assaulting the special interests who populate the Gucci Gulch outside Congress's tax-writing committee rooms. Lower rates and simplify the tax code, and you instantly reduce the opportunities for Beltway corruption. It is both a tax policy and political reform.

So now what?

Plastic Man's Victory Speech

2008-01-17T14:29:00.000-08:00

Michael Medved takes Romney to task for his Michigan victory speech. I didn't catch any of if live, but holy crap.

You see, America understands that Washington has promised that they’d secure our borders, but they haven’t. Washington told us that they would live by high ethical standards, but the haven’t. Washington told us that they’d fix Social Security, but they haven’t.

Washington told us that they’d get us better health care and better education, but they haven’t.

I've never been a Romney fan because he's a panderer and I hate that.

McCain's not a panderer but he's wrong on the environment, energy, campaign finance, immigration, and he's iffy to bad on taxes.

Thompson's not doing much in the polls. Rudy's barely on the map. Unfortunately it's looking more and more like we're going to be stuck with one of those two.

Jew-Baiting Anyone?

2008-01-16T19:16:00.000-08:00

This blatent anti-Semitism apparently passes for commentary with the Washington Post.

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

You got that Jews? You play nice with Hamas and Hezbollah or you're going to destroy humanity!! Oh, and get over that whole Holocost thing too. Geez, that was soooo 20th Century!

Victor Davis Hanson has more

Life After Michigan

2008-01-16T14:10:00.000-08:00

Over at Real Clear Politics Rich Galen has a different take on the political tea leaves post Michigan. Mr. Galen is a paid consultant for Fred Thompson and I'm rooting for Fred so this may just be wishful thinking, but Rich thinks that Thompson has a good shot at winning South Carolina. His poll numbers have been improving there, up from 6-9 percent to 16% according to Rasmussen. And he sees a Romney Huckabee alliance to stop McCain and hopefully leave an opening for Fred.

It makes sense for Romney since he probably doesn't see Thompson as a threat long term and losing SC is worth it if it blunts McCain's momentum even more. It's a little trickier for Huckabee since he hasn't shown well anywhere but Iowa. If he doesn't take at least second in a Southern religious state his campaign is in real trouble.

Win or Be Right

2008-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:00

A topic has come up recently regarding the Republican presidential candidates; Is it better to nominate a true conservative, or an "electable" Republican?

I'd like to address the issue in general terms before talking about the individual candidates. As a matter of principal I can't justify the idea of compromising my values as a conservative for the sake of attracting "the center". I just can't. That doesn't mean I don't understand the need to nominate viable candidates. To paraphrase Dennis Prager, principals that don't work in the real world are useless. So I understand the dilemma, what good is voting your values if you can't win. Especially when losing means having Hillary or Obama in the White House. The stakes are high, but do high stakes justify compromising your values? Or, do high stakes make sticking to your values that much more important? I lean towards the latter.

I don't just say that because it sounds good in theory. As I said, what good is principled theory if it definitely will lead to defeat, especially in politics. If I were totally convinced that a true Reagan conservative absolutely could not win, then yes, I would go with the compromise candidate. But I'm not convinced that the Republican party [i]needs[/i] a compromise candidate in 2008. I think that a true conservative, who has a history of being conservative, can motivate the silent majority in a way that no centrist can. Minnesota, a state that hasn't voted for a Republican president in generation, elected a Republican governor and Senator in 2002 when they ran as conservatives. The governor has since moderated significantly and the base is NOT happy. If he runs again in 2010 there is a good chance that he won't be reelected because the base won't turn out for him. For a lot of people simply keeping the Democrats out of office isn't enough reason to go to the poles and vote (R). It will take someone who can inspire the conservative base to win. Just like Reagan beating Carter and Mondale. A large majority of Americans are inspired by the conservative message when it is presented articulately and passionately. They don't respond to the luke warm, semi-apologetic conservatism of the so called moderates. That may work for legislative office but it doesn't, and won't, work for the Presidency.

Leaving aside for the time being the very real possibility of a large number of conservatives sitting out 2008 if a RINO is nominated, there is a good chance those voters won't come back in 2010 and 2012. Why would they? They voted for Bush twice and got one of the biggest expansions of the federal government in history. They elected Republican majorities in both houses of congress for the first time in what, 50 years, and they spent like drunken monkeys. Now in 2008 we're going to nominate an unabashed Moderate? Not only do I think that a Moderate won't win, I think it will lead to a split in the party serious enough that we could end up with a third party. Then how are we going to beat the Democrats? There are a lot conservatives who would just as soon let the Dems win as a means of teaching the Republican party a lesson. See 2006. Just like the Democratic party "Left" the Kennedy liberals, the Republican party is abandoning mainstream conservatives. Let the Republican party become more and more liberal and see what happens.

Let's be clear on one thing. No matter who the Republican nominee is, he will be absolutely savaged by the Democrats, MoveOn and Soros. Their ad campaigns will make him look like the next coming of Hitler no matter how moderate they may have been in the past. This is why a moderate won't win. A moderate (McCain) won't have the support of the base. Nor will the moderate message really get out to the voters because of the massive media support that will be behind the Democrats. Not to mention that McCain has a reputation for having a short temper and I don't think that he'll be able to handle all the negativity aimed at him. Thus far he's been the Democrats favorite Republican, but that won't last once he's nominated (if he's nominated). If Hillary is nominated there will be some anti-Hillary vote and some anti-Democrat vote, but I think McCain loses big because so many conservatives stay home.

Now my guy is obviously Fred (click on the logo on the right to contribute). I know he isn't doing much in the polls, but I think he's the only one in the race who can do what Reagan did. I'm not saying he's the next Reagan, but I think that given the chance he's the only one who can inspire the undecideds and the base alike. I'm not saying he's the perfect candidate, he voted for McCain-Feingold, but I think he's the best option we have. He won't have a problem attracting the Base and in front of a national audience he has the personality to attract voters. McCain fails on both counts. He's not a RINO like Romney and Guliani. He's not a wacko like Ron Paul and he's more electable than Duncan Hunter (who by the way would make a good VP and a strong Presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016).

It's going to be a tough election no matter who gets nominated. The Dems will have lots of money, a lot of negative ads, and a lot of media bias to support them. The only way to cut through that is to have someone who is unabashedly conservative and can take those attack ads and say "That's right I believe in smaller government", "That's right I believe in a larger military", "That's right I believe in lower taxes", and here's why. I don't think that a moderate is the guy to do that. To paraphrase what Thompson said in an interview the other day, I am who I am, and that will either be enough to get elected or it won't. I think that should apply to conservatives in general. We are who we are, and our principals will be enough to get elected or they won't.

Ouch! A Proper Fisking

2008-01-01T18:52:00.000-08:00

After all of this fevered, paranoid prose, the editors finally get to their real point:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.
In other words: Elect a Democrat in 2008, or we're going to stamp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue!

Read the whole thing at Powerline I'm not always impressed with Republicans but the Times illustrates beautifuly why I can't stand liberals/Democrats.

Well I'll Be...

2007-12-26T08:08:00.000-08:00

Falling dollar means more exports

CINCINNATI - Challenged by a troubled U.S. economy and the steeply falling dollar, a growing number of U.S. manufacturers are making up for slowing domestic sales by expanding them overseas, often with sophisticated products.

Gee, nobody's heard that before. Thanks MSNBC. I'm sure the author is a fine writer and even better person, but this piece is not his best work. Maybe I'm too sensative but it seems that he's making an effort to politicize increased exports.

Once fingered as a prime culprit in the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, global business is shaping up as a bulwark against what some analysts fear is a looming recession. Some forecasters predict that the export boom will allow the United States to cut its huge trade deficit.

Those silly xenophobes and isolationists!

Patrick Ruffini

2007-12-24T22:47:00.001-08:00

Over at Hugh Hewitt Patric Ruffini discusses how to attack McCain. Now, McCain is not my favorite candidate but I have to tak exception to Ruffini's suggested tactics.

First I'm not a fan of the whole "Muddy the waters and contaminate his message" tactic. But the dirty tactics aside, I don't think his line of attack is accurate, especially on his Iraq stance.

In New Hampshire, McCain brands himself as a longtime critic of our Iraq strategy. And yet for four years, he was one of the war’s staunchest defenders. He criticized Don Rumsfeld, and yet he campaigned strongly for President Bush in 2004, who could have fired the Defense Secretary at any moment and was ultimately responsible for the strategy.

First and foremost, for four years our Iraq strategy was wrong and McCain was right to criticize it. Everyone who defended the first four years of our "strategy" in Iraq, and this includes much of the conservative blogosphere, was totally and completely wrong. I don't think that the surge in and of itself turned things around in Iraq, but we did change strategy, with a new SecDef and a new Iraq commander and things are getting better there. Things would not be getting better had we kept doing what we were doing.

Interesting

2007-12-22T15:33:00.000-08:00

Interesting little poll on Captains Quarters. It's the Captains Egg Nog Poll

Which Presidential candidates would you want to have an eggnog and a conversation with?
Selection
Hillary Clinton	9 votes
Bill Clinton (under the 2-for-1 provision)	95 votes
John Edwards	12 votes
Rudy Giuliani	454 votes
Mike Huckabee	48 votes
John McCain	357 votes
Barack Obama	98 votes
Mitt Romney (alcohol-free)	260 votes
Fred Thompson	1,063 votes

What's interesting to me is that Fred more than doubles the nearest competitor, Rudy, and quadrouples Mitt, but as far as I can tell all of the major bloggers are still on the Rudy Romney bandwagon. Hmmm...

Better Late Than Never

2007-12-16T21:24:00.000-08:00

From the Weekly Standard. Actually Daily Standard Thursday. I never claimed to be a punctual blogger.

THE WINNER was Fred Thompson. Fred came to play. He also had the obvious moment of the day when he took on the officious moderator, refusing to go along with one of those idiotic "raise your hands" questions. Given the hour that the debate took place, a lot of people will probably see only a highlight package of the debate. The unquestioned highlight was Fred slapping down the moderator. Even putting that aside, Fred had his best day of the campaign. He was serious, thoughtful, and authoritative. It was a wonderful day for him.

R.I.P. Gen Qais

2007-12-12T14:32:00.000-08:00

Babil Provincial Police Chief Killed by IED

This is kind of a tough one because this is someone I knew, not well, but he came to our base for some meetings and I attended some meetings that he attended in Hillah. As far as Iraqi police go, Gen Qais was actually pretty good. I don't think that he was completely clean but I believe that he fundamentally wanted an Iraq based on the rule of law and free of the religious militias. I've heard elsewhere that AQIZ was being blamed for this but I doubt it. If I had to guess I'd say that it was Badr Corps, aka Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (formerly called Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq).

This is a good article on the subject http://www.fresnobee.com/651/v-printerfriendly/story/256973.html

Live Blog of the Republican Debate

2007-12-12T11:17:00.000-08:00

Live blog of the Iowa Republican presidential debate.

1:16 Been watching the debate for about 5 or 10 minutes. Overall not impressed. Thompson is doing OK at least he's specific. Romney is trying to "sell hope". Guliani talks too much.

1:19 The moderator is annoying.

1:20 Ron Paul needs to go away. Hunter has a good point about $250 Billion in overhead.

1:22 McCain- Nice statement. Hunters is OK.

1:24 Paul wants to end the Cuban embargo? Yeah, that's a HUGE market that we're missing out on. Huckabee, good points about reducing taxes, red tape, and litigation.

1:26 Good question about not trading with countries with human rights abuses.

1:30 Paul good points on restraining government and the Constitution, but still wack job. Thompson- good, strong statement.

1:32 Ohh global warming. Nice response by Thompson. This is stupid. The moderator is rude and I'd really like to call her something else.

1:33 McCain, pandering bad response. Guliani is the same, lame.
Romney- just talking about spending more money. Keyes- not on topic, but good points. It's a shame they only let him answer every 3rd question.

1:37 Huckabee is a dumb ass on the environment. Hunter at least points out ethanol is "not the best thing in showbiz". Incentives are better than mandates. Tancrendo has a good answer about the government not being able accurately create mandates and that the market is better.

1:41 OK statement from Huckabee. Education question: McCain more choice and competition, good answer. Guliani, less gov't restrictions, more choice. K-12 is bad, colleges are good that's because of gov't. Hunter, interesting point on teacher credentialing.

1:45 Education changes: Romney- blah blah. Cool point about incentives to students with scholarships, good answer. Huckabee- less federal gov't more state gov't, good. Good points about changing the way students are taught. Keyes- I like him. I'm glad he made a point about being passed over. He has a good point about kids not having the moral foundation to be responsible adults.

1:49 Paul, who cares. Thompson, good answer, way to call out the NEA. Tancredo- We don't need the Dept of Ed. funny call out of Huckabee.

1:55 What can you accomplish in your first year? Guliani, war on terror, border, energy. Thompson- military, bring back industrial base. Paul, bring troops home, become diplomatically credible, don't threaten anyone. Idiot. Tancredo- free who? Thompson- good speech, light on specifics but the others were silly considering the question specified one year. Huckabee- be a uniter, isn't that sweet. McCain- restore trust in government. Keyes- ban abortion, abolish income tax, seal borders.

2:02 Romney- pandering to Iowans, lame statement. Keyes statement, telling the people to become active. Good for him. Guliani- "I've dealt with crisis".

2:05 videos? I'm not sure what this is. But I can't stress how awful this moderator is. She looks angry and she's a hair shy of combative. She does not want to be there and she appears to dislike Republicans.

2:07 Silly questions about character, but it's really an ambush question about Guliani's security detail. What character has to do with having and "open administration" I'm not sure. This is a terrible segment.

2:14 I think Huckabee is calling for nationalized health care.

I've really lost track of what's being talked about. Answering questions is one thing but now everyone is just rambling about themselves. This is the part of politics I can't stand.

This was disappointing debate. The moderator was terrible. This is the first debate that I've really watched. I saw some of the retarded YouTube debate which was worse than this, but this was boring. I don't see why Huckabee has become so popular. He's obviously not a real conservative.

Personally I think Thompson did pretty well, though I'm already inclined to support him. Hunter and Tancredo were OK. Keyes did not come across as a presidential candidate but I like what he has to say about the people needing to stand up get away from the typical candidates who pretend to be conservative during the campaign then don't live up to their promises. Accurate shots I think at Guliani, Romney, and McCain.

Congrats Les Miles

2007-12-02T17:32:00.000-08:00

Now you can loose to Ohio State TWICE in 2008!!

The Future

2007-10-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

I don't know how much I'll be posting to this blog in the future. I started writing again with the intent to keep this blog updated for the foreseeable future, but I'm really sick of thinking about Iraq. I'm tired of dealing with it. I'm tired of the Army. I'm tired of hearing about Iraq on the news and thinking it's all a bunch of crap. I'm tired of politicians talking about it. I'm just tired of it.

I think I wrote the bulk of what I had to say on the subject anyway. I hope anyone who read it found it informative, useful, thoughtful etc. etc. I may continue posting in some fashion or another but I won't be focusing on Iraq anymore. I just can't deal with the spin.

Will Return Soon

2007-09-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the recent inactivity. Some real life issues involving chainsaws and lots of manual labor came up recently so I've been otherwise occupied. I have a few posts I've been working on and hopefully I'll have those up this weekend. For the rest of the day though I have other plans

An Example

2007-09-25T13:23:00.000-07:00

Captain Ed at Captains Quarters has post that represents what I was talking about in my last post. Here Ed wants to paint a picture of how nimble a politician Nouri al Maliki is and how he is about to unify Iraq. He cites this article or rather, part of the article, as evidence that Maliki is doing a bang up job. Please read the whole thing and judge for yourself.

What I know of Maliki is that he has actively aided the Shia militias who conduct anti-coalition as well as sectarian violence. He has done exceedingly little to prevent the ISF from conducting sectarian violence. He has protected Moqtada al-Sadr and JAM from the U.S. and he has lobbied on behalf of Iranians captured in Iraq for ties to terrorism.

Some key points that I get from the same article:

He confidently dismissed charges by his Sunni Arab critics that he was
pursuing sectarian policies. And he brushed aside criticism that he has failed
to win over the Arab world's Sunni-dominated regimes.

Well, if he not only dismissed charges that he's pursuing sectarian polices, but confidently dismissed them, well he must be OK. In addition to dismissing charges he can also brush aside criticism, yep he's smarter than I ever gave him credit for!

The prime minister also took credit for the U.S.-backed revolt by Sunni tribal chiefs against al-Qaida in Anbar province

Once again proving his smartness, he's taking credit for something that he not only didn't inspire, but tried to keep from happening. Very smart indeed.

Six Sunni Arab ministers quit al-Maliki's government in early August over his failure to meet demands that included the release of security detainees not charged with specific crimes, disbanding militias and wider inclusion in decision-making on security issues.

What I don't understand is the free pass Maliki is getting on these charges. There is no follow up on whether these charged are valid or not. I don't know who exactly the Sunnis want released, but I do know that there are Sunnis in custody that shouldn't be. Sometimes, especially in Iraq, there are people who are bad guys, everyone knows they're bad guys but you just don't have the evidence arrest them. I don't know if these guys fall into that group or not, but I'm guessing they don't. Maliki's support for the Shia militias has long been a problem and he deserves much more criticism than he has received for it. And Sunni leadership has long been frozen out of security making decisions that are mostly directed at the Sunni population, largely for sectarian reasons. These are legitimate concerns and they're simply being brushed aside. Why?

Al-Maliki solidified his position when his Dawa party joined the "alliance of moderates," comprising the two main Kurdish parties and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the country's largest Shiite party.

First a note on the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. This is the new name of the party better known as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI. SCIRI is an Iranian backed group whose military wing is called the Badr Corps or Badr Brigade. SCIRI (as I called them when I was in Iraq and will continue to call them because I'm stubborn that way) supporters outnumber Moqtada al-Sadr's JAM throughout southern Iraq and has a larger contingent in the government as well. This means that Iran, to a large extent, controls southern Iraq due to their influence within SCIRI.

Why would the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni, align themselves with an Iranian front group? Simple. They both want Iraq to be divided into three regions so that they can both have semi-autonomous states, the Kurds in the north and SCIRI in the south. Together they have enough of a majority that they can bully around the Sunnis, who oppose autonomous regions.

"The Americans support al-Maliki because they have no substitute," said Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Kurdish lawmaker who is close to President Jalal Talabani, also a Kurd.

"But it's a failed government," he said.

This is the only part of the article that makes sense to me. Maliki is the "legitimate" leader of the Iraqi government, and politically the United States can't simply replace him. I understand being stuck with him, I don't understand not only giving him a free pass, but going so far as to elevate him to the status of a smart, savvy politician.

The Problem With Conservative Coverage of Iraq

2007-09-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

I openly admit to being a conservative (with a libertarian streak) and voting Republican. Though often times I do so more because the opposing Democrat is a whack job than because I think the Republican will actually govern or legislate like a conservative. I am a big fan of talk radio and conservative blogs. I think they have done a wonderful job in articulating for the general public a clear and thoughtful view of American conservative politics. Many, OK, most of these commentators are smarter than I and are capable of dissecting issues in ways that I would not think of. This does not mean that they are infallible.

We are all human and are therefore prone to make mistakes when we really want something to be true. I think this has happened to much of the conservative media as it relates to Iraq. Iraq is such a polarizing issue and everything about it is spun so much by the liberal media that the natural inclination is to defend it. I understand that and I don’t think it’s done in a concerted effort to misrepresent the nature of the conflict, only to counteract the negativity of the left.

Over time this has created two opposing camps where Iraq is either a total disaster carried out by idiots and war criminals, or a noble endeavor planned and carried out by infallible leaders and every service member is super man. I can tell you that neither of these views is correct, and, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

For the record I think the left has been incoherent on Iraq from the beginning. They have done nothing to help the situation and in many instances they have actively tried to sabotage it. The Moveon.org “Betray us” ad is only the most recent example of this. Nancy Pelosi’s scarf wearing trip to Syria is another. And if you listen to the bin Laden tapes he’s repeatedly used statements by Democratic officials as talking points to legitimize Islamic jihad against the West. I certainly have no sympathy for liberals or Leftists and they will find no quarter here.

That said, I don’t think that the conservative media has been much better. Be it Fox News, talk radio or blogs, they have all essentially been cheerleaders for whatever the administration and MNF-I commander have decided to do. They have done many good things and brought attention to many good causes to support the troops in the field. I am very grateful for that and take nothing away from them in that regard. Where I think they have failed is in regards to policy and putting forth thoughtful critiques of the situation and strategy. Too often over the last four years they have preached the, “stay the course” mantra without really understanding the situation or understanding that staying the course was doing nothing but getting people killed. Now, with Gen Petreaus and the surge, it’s more of the same.

Part of the problem is that it’s impossible to understand the situation if you haven’t been there, and been there in the military. Most journalists don’t leave the IZ so they don’t have a clue. I don’t even think that embeds like Michael Yon, who do great work, really get it. You can observe, and report stories, and ask questions, but if you don’t have some understanding of Arab culture, you’re not going to understand what people are saying to you. Even if you have been there it’s no guarantee that you really understand what’s going on around you.

As I’ve said before, Arabs pride themselves at being masters of verbal language. Not necessarily the ability to communicate effectively, but the actual usage of the language. Where many Westerners like succinctness, Arabs enjoy very expansive, expressive, I would say unnecessarily complicated and redundant, ways of speaking. They are also very good at knowing what you want to hear and are more than willing to say it to you. That doesn’t mean that they mean what they are saying, but they are willing to say it. Especially if you are in a position of power and they think that they can curry favor with you. Did I mention that Arabs are master manipulators as well? I’ve never seen a people as skilled at getting something for nothing as Iraqis. Really amazing.

So the media in general is at a real disadvantage when they try to critique or support the effectiveness of our policies in Iraq. Most of them haven’t been in the military, most of them don’t have much background in Arab culture or Islam so they really don’t know how to interpret what’s going on and what they read in interviews with Iraqis. Many people also mistakenly believe that knowledge of Islam equals knowledge of Arabs/Iraqis/the Middle East. It does not. Arab culture predates Islam and in most ways is more important in day to day interactions.

The area that is probably the most touchy and difficult to discuss, especially by those who are not veterans, is the performance of our armed forces. Everyone wants to “support the troops” and criticism of our performance is generally taboo. I understand that and in most cases it is probably a good thing because most people are not in a position to intelligently critique the performance of the military.

It is unfortunate though, because for years the military has under performed in many respects. I was there for 16 months, extended because of the surge. I worked intelligence the whole time, moved around the country, had the chance to interact with several different units and agencies and I can say with a clear conscience that many army units have hindered the accomplishment of the mission in Iraq. Many of the policies forced down the chain from Washington to Baghdad and onto the combat units handcuff the troops on the ground. Many brigade and battalion commanders are too risk averse to be effective in a counter insurgency, probably in any shooting war for that matter. Their only real interest is avoiding casualties so that they don’t have to answer questions and derail their next promotion. Lastly, in what I consider a failure in leadership, many of the troops on the ground don’t have the training and education they need to know how to interact with the general population. Sure they’re trained to drive, shoot and blow things up and we have 60 pounds of protective gear, but very few know how to effectively interact with Iraqis.

The performance of the army is too large a topic to be covered in this post so the above is just a summary. The point I’m trying to make is that as detrimental as the left is and has been to the Iraq mission, cheerleading failed policies and staying the course has been just as damaging to the mission. Will Gen Petreaus and the surge be more effective? Maybe. I’m not optimistic personally, but you never know. What I do know is that much of the conservative media is simply doing the same thing they did before, which is support whoever is in charge and whatever their policy is when what we need is real introspection and more effective policies. Maybe the conservative media is not in a position to do that and that’s fine. In that case I wish they would restrain themselves to “support the troops” efforts and not reassure their audiences that the current polices are working and it’s just a matter of time.

The Below Post

2007-09-24T13:49:00.000-07:00

"They" say that you shouldn't swear. "They" say that swearing makes you look ignorant. I say that's stupid. I say, use the right word for the right job.

If you think that attempted intellectualism and bludgeoning someone with facts is always the way to go. Fine. More power to you, knock yourself out. However, if you are not Mike, St Paul, keep your feelings to yourself because I don't care.

When someone tells me that I should be ashamed for something that I did, when they don't even know what I did, my response is, has and will continue to be, "Fuck You". Does it win an argument? No. Am I trying to win an argument? No. Do I think that Mike, St Paul would be at all persuaded to change his views if I were to write a well thought out, logical argument detailing the virtuous behavior of U.S. service members in Iraq? No. Therefore, when confronted with a Mike, St Paul I will not waste my time. What I will do, on occasion, is express my feelings in whatever manner I deem appropriate.

No, I don't think that this is always the "right" thing to do. If you were to read the rest of my blog I don't think that you would find another swear word. In this case, I take it personally when someone says that I should be ashamed of what I've done, when they don't know what I've done. If you want to critique my actions, fine. If you want to debate policy, fine. If you want to paint every service member who has served in Iraq with the same brush, and say that we should all be ashamed of what we did and what we tried to do, not fine.

Open Letter to Mike in St. Paul (Not Dave in Mpls)

2007-09-24T10:26:00.000-07:00

I have no remorse for any of the soliders. It is a volunteer army and they all
should be ashaimed of what they have done. They should stay in Iraq and fix the
problems they started.

Posted by: Mike, St Paul.

This is the first comment I saw after reading this story, about an event I happened to be at, on the Pioneer Press website. The story by Rachel E. Stassen-Berger is OK, if a little patronizing at times, but a decent human interest story. Fine. My issue isn't with the story. My issue is with the little hippie fuck who calls himself Mike, St Paul.

Well Mike, other than telling you to take advantage of spell check before you post your intellectual missives for our benefit, maybe I can explain a few things to you.

First, nobody is asking for your remorse, nor would any of us accept the ‘pitty the poor soldiers who are pawns in Bushitler’s war’ kind if pitty that comes from your kind.

Maybe you don’t realize that you commented on a story about the Minnesota National Guard. Maybe you don’t realize that the unit referred to in the story didn’t arrive in Iraq until 2006, while the war started in 2003. So I’m interested in what problems we started in 2006 that we need to stay and fix. Oh, but maybe you weren’t referring to the “soliders” who were the subject of the story you decided to comment on. Maybe you’re too much of an idiot to do anything but lump all military members into some sort of warped time-space continuum where every service member was there in, and has been there since 2003. Maybe you think that we’re all sadomasochists who get off on killing innocent people and getting blown up with IED’s and rockets. Maybe you even think that the soldiers referred to in the story, decided to start the war and were responsible for the planning and conduct of the war?

I certainly don’t think that we’ve done everything right in Iraq. I don’t even think that we’ve done very many things correctly at all. But for some ignorant little bitch like you to say that those of us who gave up two years away from home to try and improve some shithole of a country on the other side of the world, should be “ashaimed”, is too fucking much. You can’t even spell the word. Who are you to tell me I should be ashamed of anything?

I’m not saying that you have to support the war. I’m not saying that you have to support the troops. In fact, I’d prefer that people like you be honest and DON’T support the troops. I’d even like if you went so far as to stand up and spit in my face. That way I’d be provoked into punching you in yours.

In closing Mike, I’d just like to say, Fuck you Mike. Fuck you for being an idiot. Fuck you for being a pompous fuck with the audacity to tell me, and thousands of other soldiers that we should be ashamed when you have no clue what any of us did over there.

Sincerely,

Fuck you