Austin Bay discusses his press lunch with SECDEF in his column.
Wish I could get a shot at one of those.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Can't feel too bad for the Texans...
They passed on Reggie Bush to draft Mario Williams, who has 2.5 sacks and one fumble recovery on the year (6 games).
In the fifth round of the NFL draft, the Bears drafted Mark Anderson, a player from Alabama. Anderson has 6.5 sacks, two forced fumbles, and a fumble recovery in six games.
They could have had Reggie Bush and a good defenseive end. Instead, they paid a lot for Mario Williams, and Reggie Bush is on another NFL roster.
Houston is currently 2-4 and on a pace to lose more than they win. Again.
Memo to Houston Texans: Make bad draft-day decisions, and you have a bad football team.
In the fifth round of the NFL draft, the Bears drafted Mark Anderson, a player from Alabama. Anderson has 6.5 sacks, two forced fumbles, and a fumble recovery in six games.
They could have had Reggie Bush and a good defenseive end. Instead, they paid a lot for Mario Williams, and Reggie Bush is on another NFL roster.
Houston is currently 2-4 and on a pace to lose more than they win. Again.
Memo to Houston Texans: Make bad draft-day decisions, and you have a bad football team.
Sudan boots a blogger...
Sudan has booted a blogger. Austin Bay links to Strategypage's report.
This is a sign of just how bad things are. Sudan's commiting genocide - and the UN can only send a blogger?
Send a lot of second-hand guns (AK-47s, SKS carbines, M16s) to Darfur. Teach people to use them - get 40 guys from Blackwater, DynCorp, or Vinnell to do that, and a couple of C-130s to handle the airlift needs - and train additional instructors, to help Darfur defend itself. As Strategypage reports, the NRF is already able to inflict defeats on the Sudanese Army. That is a good base of support.
And to deal with the Sudanese Air Force's bombing raids, well, we handled that before in a place called Afghanistan. The Stingers helped drive the Soviet Union out of that country.
This is a sign of just how bad things are. Sudan's commiting genocide - and the UN can only send a blogger?
Send a lot of second-hand guns (AK-47s, SKS carbines, M16s) to Darfur. Teach people to use them - get 40 guys from Blackwater, DynCorp, or Vinnell to do that, and a couple of C-130s to handle the airlift needs - and train additional instructors, to help Darfur defend itself. As Strategypage reports, the NRF is already able to inflict defeats on the Sudanese Army. That is a good base of support.
And to deal with the Sudanese Air Force's bombing raids, well, we handled that before in a place called Afghanistan. The Stingers helped drive the Soviet Union out of that country.
Blacklisting a hawk...
Seeing that purges don't work, it looks like left-wing anti-war Democrats are now trying blacklisting.
Congresswoman Harman's likely replacement? Alcee Hastings, who was impeached for corruption and perjury.
Congresswoman Harman's likely replacement? Alcee Hastings, who was impeached for corruption and perjury.
Think this over when you vote...
Check this comment by Dick Morris out... via the Worldwide Standard blog.
Put bad cops away...
Thoughts on the sentences handed down to two former Border Patrol agents:
These guys had to hang - and they had to be hung high. We cannot tolerate cops who try to cover up what is obviously a bad shoot. The bad shoot is bad enough - but the cover-up is unforgiveable.
When they tried to cover up - it was an admission that they never should have fired their guns in the first place. It was an unjustified use of force - and it was as bad as can be imagined. This never was about appeasing Mexico. It was about making sure that those badges don't become hunting licenses.
The misuse of force by police - particularly lethal force (and that is what you are using when you fire a gun) - is something that can never be tolerated in a free society. Because once cops start thinking they can do that, we lose trust. And when people don't trust the cops, there are very big problems coming down the pike.
Yes, the present situation on the southern border is unacceptable. Yes, there are dangers out there. But if we tolerate bad cops of one variety, what other varieties of bad cops will we get? The ones who accept bribes to look the other way when stuff is smuggled in, perhaps? Or maybe they'll decide who did it and then plant the evidence to "help" the case along. How does that sound?
To tell you the truth, I feel pretty sick just thinking about it.
EDIT: I will note that in the past, when it ws the IRS of BATF that was the subject of accusations involving abuses of people, conservatives were all over this. Is there a reason that the Border Patrol should be held to a lower standard?
These guys had to hang - and they had to be hung high. We cannot tolerate cops who try to cover up what is obviously a bad shoot. The bad shoot is bad enough - but the cover-up is unforgiveable.
When they tried to cover up - it was an admission that they never should have fired their guns in the first place. It was an unjustified use of force - and it was as bad as can be imagined. This never was about appeasing Mexico. It was about making sure that those badges don't become hunting licenses.
The misuse of force by police - particularly lethal force (and that is what you are using when you fire a gun) - is something that can never be tolerated in a free society. Because once cops start thinking they can do that, we lose trust. And when people don't trust the cops, there are very big problems coming down the pike.
Yes, the present situation on the southern border is unacceptable. Yes, there are dangers out there. But if we tolerate bad cops of one variety, what other varieties of bad cops will we get? The ones who accept bribes to look the other way when stuff is smuggled in, perhaps? Or maybe they'll decide who did it and then plant the evidence to "help" the case along. How does that sound?
To tell you the truth, I feel pretty sick just thinking about it.
EDIT: I will note that in the past, when it ws the IRS of BATF that was the subject of accusations involving abuses of people, conservatives were all over this. Is there a reason that the Border Patrol should be held to a lower standard?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Navarette on the Dobbs special...
Lou Dobbs wants to talk about the war on the middle class.
Ruben Navarette's response is worth reading. Sadly, the responses by the commentors are just the typical knee-jerk reactions one sees on immigration.
These conservatives have, quite frankly, decided that personal responsibility has variable applicability. You make bad choices, you need to deal with the consequences.
But Lou Dobbs is trying to abrogate that - instead, it's the fault of those Mexicans stealing our jobs. To the extent conservatives go along with that - it speaks poorly for them.
Ruben Navarette's response is worth reading. Sadly, the responses by the commentors are just the typical knee-jerk reactions one sees on immigration.
These conservatives have, quite frankly, decided that personal responsibility has variable applicability. You make bad choices, you need to deal with the consequences.
But Lou Dobbs is trying to abrogate that - instead, it's the fault of those Mexicans stealing our jobs. To the extent conservatives go along with that - it speaks poorly for them.
Friday, October 20, 2006
On the sniping reports...
Even if the GOP wins, it will face infighting. For once, the New York Times is correct.
Let's just get used to it. There are going to be some serious arguments in the future. But at least the GOP is willing to have an internal debate and doesn't purge its members over disagreements, unlike the Democrats.
Let's just get used to it. There are going to be some serious arguments in the future. But at least the GOP is willing to have an internal debate and doesn't purge its members over disagreements, unlike the Democrats.
Staffer Suspended...
It seems that one leak has been traced, and the leaker has been suspended.
Surprise, surprise. The leaker was a Democrat.
Quite frankly, if other leaks are determined to be due to Congressional staffers or members of congress, anyone who decides to lie to Congress in order to protect classified information is justified.
Surprise, surprise. The leaker was a Democrat.
Quite frankly, if other leaks are determined to be due to Congressional staffers or members of congress, anyone who decides to lie to Congress in order to protect classified information is justified.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The Stakes
That is the title of a new ad the RNC will be running this weekend.
Since the media is more interested in discussing naughty IM sessions than the primary issue of our generation, it is only fair that the RNC run this ad.
I expect the howling and screaming from the Democrats will be coming soon.
Since the media is more interested in discussing naughty IM sessions than the primary issue of our generation, it is only fair that the RNC run this ad.
I expect the howling and screaming from the Democrats will be coming soon.
Surber on conservative ingrates...
I'm giving Don Surber another link. This time, he discusses conservative ingrates.
Quite frankly, reading the article from the Washington Times he linked to, I just have to shake my head. It seems that they want ideological purity over results.
And they will get neither in a Senate controlled by Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, and Ted Kenendy - or a House controlled by Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha.
Quite frankly, reading the article from the Washington Times he linked to, I just have to shake my head. It seems that they want ideological purity over results.
And they will get neither in a Senate controlled by Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, and Ted Kenendy - or a House controlled by Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha.
Iraq and Vietnam...
Don Surber discusses the Bush interview with Bill O'Reilly.
One quote worth emphasizing:
One quote worth emphasizing:
America cut and ran in Vietnam. It still pays the price for that. Evil-doers still look upon this nation as cowards.This is why Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi should not be in power come November 8, 2006.
Ahmadinejad talks big...
He's now claiming that Israel cannot survive.
I'm willing to bet that Israel will be around long after Ahmadinejad is dead.
I'm willing to bet that Israel will be around long after Ahmadinejad is dead.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
"Blade" indicted.
Wesley Snipes is now facing something worse than vampires. The IRS.
The scary thing is that crosses and holy water don't work against the IRS.
The scary thing is that crosses and holy water don't work against the IRS.
FCC complaint process draws fire.
Sumner Redstone is upset with the FCC's "indecency" crackdown. And he has good reason to be.
How are these complaints generated? Well, the PTC and AFA have links to the FCC. Someone can send it in from there - and the complaint is filed. There is no proof that the person who filed the complaint even saw the offending TV series. For all we know, they're just complaining based on what the PTC and AFA has said about the shows.
TVs these days come with these things called remotes. Parents have a responsibility to learn how to use them and to keep control of them - and not let the TV stand in as a babysitter.
Haven't people heard of personal responsibility?
FCC data show that the lion's share of indecency complaints lodged at the agency are generated by two groups: the Parents Television Council and the American Family Assn.
How are these complaints generated? Well, the PTC and AFA have links to the FCC. Someone can send it in from there - and the complaint is filed. There is no proof that the person who filed the complaint even saw the offending TV series. For all we know, they're just complaining based on what the PTC and AFA has said about the shows.
TVs these days come with these things called remotes. Parents have a responsibility to learn how to use them and to keep control of them - and not let the TV stand in as a babysitter.
Haven't people heard of personal responsibility?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
28 months for Lynne Stewart...
Here is the report.
Unlike some, who wanted the max, I'm not as disappointed. She's 67 and has cancer. She'll probably get a book tour when all is said and done, but she probably won't be able to represent any more terrorists (felony convictions usually result in disbarment).
It looks like the mission has been accomplished.
Unlike some, who wanted the max, I'm not as disappointed. She's 67 and has cancer. She'll probably get a book tour when all is said and done, but she probably won't be able to represent any more terrorists (felony convictions usually result in disbarment).
It looks like the mission has been accomplished.
From the EU...
It seems the European Union wants to regulate video bloggers.
I guess some people don't like it when YouTube blows the whistle on things like staged photographs...
I guess some people don't like it when YouTube blows the whistle on things like staged photographs...
Monday, October 16, 2006
Why taking the fight to terrorists works...
Read today's Strategypage article on Lebanon for perhaps the best explanation of why an aggressive, forward-leaning strategy works - as opposed to a "stability" approach favored by others.
Yes, the Israelis made some huge errors. Yeah, they failed to get any of the hostages Hezbollah took back right away.
But aside from some good reviews in the mainstream media, what did Hezbollah get? Well, they fired a lot of rockets for very little effect. They also lost a lot of infrastructure, as many as 700 of its personnel, and a lot of good will among other factions in Lebanon.
Even an attack filled with mistakes and problems is far better than doing nothing. This is why going into Iraq and Afghanistan was a good move. Because even when we err, we do a lot more damage to them than they do to us.
Yes, the Israelis made some huge errors. Yeah, they failed to get any of the hostages Hezbollah took back right away.
But aside from some good reviews in the mainstream media, what did Hezbollah get? Well, they fired a lot of rockets for very little effect. They also lost a lot of infrastructure, as many as 700 of its personnel, and a lot of good will among other factions in Lebanon.
Even an attack filled with mistakes and problems is far better than doing nothing. This is why going into Iraq and Afghanistan was a good move. Because even when we err, we do a lot more damage to them than they do to us.
A flare-up?
Eve Fairbanks has a theory about the whole Foley situation.
I think there is some truth to her comparison to a psoriaisis outbreak. There has been growing tension among the social conservatives and the small government wing of the GOP. Quite frankly, I have been less than thrilled about some things lately. With the war on terror going on, and the need to re-capitalize our force of cargo planes, aerial refuelling tankers, maritime patrol aircraft, and air-superiority fighters, you would think that Congress would be dealing with that. Instead, our officials were debating bills about the slaughter of horses for meat and internet gambling.
Furthermore, I have seen cases where some conservatives have begun acting as if they were a Soviet-era zampolit as opposed to trying to deal with some very thorny problems. One of the worst offenders has been Tom Tancredo on immigration (but there have been others on different issues - look at how some have treated Mitt Romney's health-care plan). If a solution does not comport with what they deem conservative thinking, the vitriol and venom spew out - and facts are often ignored.
The resentments build... and build... and soon things explode.
I think there is some truth to her comparison to a psoriaisis outbreak. There has been growing tension among the social conservatives and the small government wing of the GOP. Quite frankly, I have been less than thrilled about some things lately. With the war on terror going on, and the need to re-capitalize our force of cargo planes, aerial refuelling tankers, maritime patrol aircraft, and air-superiority fighters, you would think that Congress would be dealing with that. Instead, our officials were debating bills about the slaughter of horses for meat and internet gambling.
Furthermore, I have seen cases where some conservatives have begun acting as if they were a Soviet-era zampolit as opposed to trying to deal with some very thorny problems. One of the worst offenders has been Tom Tancredo on immigration (but there have been others on different issues - look at how some have treated Mitt Romney's health-care plan). If a solution does not comport with what they deem conservative thinking, the vitriol and venom spew out - and facts are often ignored.
The resentments build... and build... and soon things explode.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Daniel Pearl's killer identified...
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Just remember, this is one of the slimeballs who Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other groups who have filed suit against the DOD have been sticking up for.
Give him a trial, then give him the death penalty that he so richly deserves.
Give him a trial, then give him the death penalty that he so richly deserves.
Have the porkbusters gone too far?
Bob Novak's latest column displays a clear sign that the porkbusters are going way too far.
Apaprently, the final version of the defense appropriations bill contains earmarks for 10 more C-17s for FY2007 and up to 60 F-22s over the next three years.
These earmarks have John McCain, John Warner, and Tom Coburn throwing hissy fits.
Well, in this case, they are wrong - and their efforts are, quite frankly, one reason why I was against this anti-pork crusade. It had the potential to go too far, and in denying new cargo planes and fighters to the Air Force, it is placing national security at risk - especially if the C-17 production line closes.
The C-17 replaced the old C-141 cargo plane. However, we also have 77 C-5s built from 1968-1973 that are getting up there in years. Those might need to be replaced, much the way the C-130E is in need of replacement (and earmarks for new C-130Js got called pork, too). Another pressing priority is replacing 157 KC-135Es (and hopefully, all of the KC-135s, which were first purchased in 1954, with the last being bought in 1965).
The F-15 is also old - having been in service for three decades. Yes, it is still a good plane, but it is outclassed by the Eurofighter and Rafale, and the Su-27 family is very close. The F-22, on the other hand, assures dominance of the air for years to come. Our fighter pilots will have a better chance with the Raptor, and it needs to be bought - preferably in number to allow it to replace the F-15 on a one-for-one basis. It is already proving its ability to take on multiple opponents and win.
The porkbusters are being penny-wise, but extremely foolish. Shutting down a production line can be a very permanent thing. The workers will retire, or move on to other work. The equipment will be re-used, possibly even destroyed (as was the case with the MD-11 tooling). Senators McCain, Warner, and Coburn need to back off on this fight for the good of the country.
There is pork in the federal budget, but the C-17 and F-22 are not oinkers. If anything, I wish whoever inserted those provisions had earmarked funds for building more of them.
Apaprently, the final version of the defense appropriations bill contains earmarks for 10 more C-17s for FY2007 and up to 60 F-22s over the next three years.
These earmarks have John McCain, John Warner, and Tom Coburn throwing hissy fits.
Well, in this case, they are wrong - and their efforts are, quite frankly, one reason why I was against this anti-pork crusade. It had the potential to go too far, and in denying new cargo planes and fighters to the Air Force, it is placing national security at risk - especially if the C-17 production line closes.
The C-17 replaced the old C-141 cargo plane. However, we also have 77 C-5s built from 1968-1973 that are getting up there in years. Those might need to be replaced, much the way the C-130E is in need of replacement (and earmarks for new C-130Js got called pork, too). Another pressing priority is replacing 157 KC-135Es (and hopefully, all of the KC-135s, which were first purchased in 1954, with the last being bought in 1965).
The F-15 is also old - having been in service for three decades. Yes, it is still a good plane, but it is outclassed by the Eurofighter and Rafale, and the Su-27 family is very close. The F-22, on the other hand, assures dominance of the air for years to come. Our fighter pilots will have a better chance with the Raptor, and it needs to be bought - preferably in number to allow it to replace the F-15 on a one-for-one basis. It is already proving its ability to take on multiple opponents and win.
The porkbusters are being penny-wise, but extremely foolish. Shutting down a production line can be a very permanent thing. The workers will retire, or move on to other work. The equipment will be re-used, possibly even destroyed (as was the case with the MD-11 tooling). Senators McCain, Warner, and Coburn need to back off on this fight for the good of the country.
There is pork in the federal budget, but the C-17 and F-22 are not oinkers. If anything, I wish whoever inserted those provisions had earmarked funds for building more of them.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Why the Greens scare me...
It seems that anti-immigration conservatives are not the only ones who think disagreement is tantamount to treason. Now, we have environmentalists discussing the notion of Nuremberg-style trials for those who disagree on global warming.
Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Crichton, and Senator James Inhofe would be among those standing in the dock - because they wanted to pursue science rather than allow themselves to be stampeded by dire predictions. Those who ask questions are to be placed on trial for crimes against Earth - or something like that.
So much for scientific debate and free speech.
Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Crichton, and Senator James Inhofe would be among those standing in the dock - because they wanted to pursue science rather than allow themselves to be stampeded by dire predictions. Those who ask questions are to be placed on trial for crimes against Earth - or something like that.
So much for scientific debate and free speech.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
What part of "rule of law" does Tom Tancredo not understand?
It seems that Tom Tancredo and 28 other Congressmen have signed a letter asking Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to not extradite Duane "Dog" Chapman to face charges of conspiracy and illegal detention in Mexico.
I say extradite him. We signed the treaty, and treaties are part of the law of the land. It's about the rule of law, Congressman, the very same reason you claim to be opposing the President's approach to immigration - you claim his approach rewards people who have broken the law.
I say extradite him. We signed the treaty, and treaties are part of the law of the land. It's about the rule of law, Congressman, the very same reason you claim to be opposing the President's approach to immigration - you claim his approach rewards people who have broken the law.
Well, Duane Chapman entered Mexico, where bounty hunting is illegal. He and two of his employees detained a person, and took him to the USA. He broke the law.
So, shouldn't he be extradited to face justice, like any other lawbreaker? Or are you only interested in the rule of law for some and not for others?
If it's the latter, then there's a word to describe Tom Tancredo: Hypocrite.
F*** Me, This Ain't so Funny Anymore
H/T to Captain's Quarter's for this one:
We now have a threat to use nuclear weapons on the table from the Dear Leader's regime.
It's time to get Looking Glass back on continuous airborne alert, just like the Bad Old Days. It's also time to turn Pyongyang into a large smoking hole, screw what China has to say about it.
No, I am not eagerly looking forward to doing that. This would the geopolitical equivalent of putting down a rabid dog. Nobody in their right mind likes the prospect of doing so; nobody in their right mind would refrain from doing so if one was loose in their community.
A North Korean official threatened that communist nation could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday.
"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," the unnamed official said on Monday, according to a Yonhap report from Beijing. "That depends on how the U.S. will act."
We now have a threat to use nuclear weapons on the table from the Dear Leader's regime.
It's time to get Looking Glass back on continuous airborne alert, just like the Bad Old Days. It's also time to turn Pyongyang into a large smoking hole, screw what China has to say about it.
No, I am not eagerly looking forward to doing that. This would the geopolitical equivalent of putting down a rabid dog. Nobody in their right mind likes the prospect of doing so; nobody in their right mind would refrain from doing so if one was loose in their community.
One thought on Foleygate's effects in 2008...
Republican "outsiders" will have an edge. That is going to hurt John McCain (who has been in the Senate since 1986, and was a member of the House for a while longer), and it gives Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney an edge. This also makes Governor Mike Huckabee a somewhat viable option as well.
McCain has too many fights with the base to really make it to the nomination... campaign finance reform, detainees, tax cuts, and immigration (that one he was right on) are all areas where he's butted heads with conservatives on a very public basis. Unless Romney, Giuliani, and other candidates split the "not-McCain" vote enough, McCain's an also-ran.
McCain has too many fights with the base to really make it to the nomination... campaign finance reform, detainees, tax cuts, and immigration (that one he was right on) are all areas where he's butted heads with conservatives on a very public basis. Unless Romney, Giuliani, and other candidates split the "not-McCain" vote enough, McCain's an also-ran.
A history lesson...
Kosher Hedgehog reminds us of how we got to the present situation with North Korea.
Remember who came up with the deal that gave the North Koreans all that oil and two nuclear reactors? Yep, Jimmy Carter. Remember whose watch it was on? Bill Clinton's.
Remember who came up with the deal that gave the North Koreans all that oil and two nuclear reactors? Yep, Jimmy Carter. Remember whose watch it was on? Bill Clinton's.
More Foleygate...
Hey, I know, Foleygate is depressing. It's icky. But we need to talk about it. Why?
Because as this report from Harper's indicates, the Democrats seem to have had these e-mails months earlier and had been shopping the story.
Because as this report from Harper's indicates, the Democrats seem to have had these e-mails months earlier and had been shopping the story.
In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out,” the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to The Miami Herald—both which decided against publishing stories.
Folks, this is the real damning evidence. The Democrats were holding on to this story for months - and shopping it around. They never took these e-mails to the FBI. CREW provided them - in July, and even then, only redacted versions. When the FBI asked for the original copies, CREW did not provide them. Some concern for the safety of pages. /sarcasm
For fun, take a look at the Wikipedia entry on misprision of felony. Then keep an eye on Strata-Sphere and MacsMind for more in-depth coverage.
I'd rather not talk about this. Bianca's return to Pine Valley would be more interesting. So are the baseball playoffs (the Yankees lost again, and Steinbrenner will go on a shopping spree). Or the NFL (Bears are 5-0). But we have to.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Regional fallout from the NK nuclear test: Time to Worry (UPDATED)
"Shall we play a game?"
In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, there are some worrisome aspects that will come into play.
First, testing is not a friendly act in the post-Cold War era. It's one thing to walk into a bar with a concealed weapon. It's another thing to haul it out, fire a shot into the ceiling to verify that it's loaded, and yell, "WHO WANTS A PIECE OF THIS?" Li'l Kim has just done that, and now everyone is discreetly reaching for their hardware. (UPDATE: Apparently, Li'l Kim's pistol may have had a blank chambered. H/T to my partner in crime for finding this.)
Second, there is the question of "who's next?" Japan is a shake-and-bake nuclear power--one estimate I've read puts Japan having a credible nuclear deterrent within six months of the Japanese government giving the go-ahead. They have a breeder reactor that manufactures large amounts of plutonium (Reactor-bred "Ploot" is, by definition, bomb-grade), and they have a first-rate technical infrastructure; the rest is merely a matter of money, man-hours, and political will.
South Korea and Taiwan are not in that league--they do not have breeder reactors--but they have good technicians, and they can always whip out hard currency for what William Burroughs called "The Yard Sale at the End of History." So they could probably have nukes inside of two years.
Now, the second-order effects:
South Korea and Japan don't like each other overmuch. If one goes nuclear, the other will. If Japan goes nuclear, Taiwan will (assuming that they are not already practicing what I call "CCWMD"), simply because nobody in eastern Asia trusts the Japanese (the 1931-1945 period may seem to be ancient history to an upstart nation like the United States, but to the cultures of the Pacific Rim, it's just last week). The People's Republic of China will be extremely unhappy if Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan go nuclear.
Some sort-of good news: multilateral (as opposed to bilateral) nuclear stability has never been tested in an international crisis, only in RAND political-military games. Some really bad news: in those RAND games, multilateral nuclear stability seems to be a figment of everyone's imagination; it "fails deadly" about 95% of the time as players pursue their victory conditions vis-a-vis Country A without thinking about how Countries B, C, D, and E view their actions. It seems to be a natural human blind spot--because the same players, with their experiences from earlier games to inform and admonish them, did the same damn thing in subsequent games.
Moving from the purely geopolitical to the tactical end of nuclear warfighting ("It's all fun and games until somebody gets their eyes melted out!"):
One thing that Japan, the Koreas, and Taiwan would need is early warning (and, in that theater, it would be not-so-early warning due to the short distances times of flight involved) in order to maintain some minimal level of crisis/prompt launch stability (the old "use 'em or lose 'em" issue from the late Cold War). Early warning systems tend to be incredibly expensive; the best solution may be for these nations to buy access to our own warning net. (Pay-per-view launch detection: the new growth market for the United States Strategic Command.) We spent billions per year during the Cold War just to buy an extra 10-15 minutes of tactical warning time against the USSR. The same amount of money (after indexing for inflation) would give 30 seconds to 2 minutes additional in northeast Asia--which would just about enough time to execute one predetermined nuclear strike option on initial alert.
Because of the short timelines involved, a lot of "early warning" would be strategic (i.e., intelligence of possible intent to attack) as opposed to tactical (detection of missile launches). Strategic warning is ambiguous at best. With relatively small forces on all sides, generation stability (the sensitivity of force survivability to whether the force is on day-to-day alert or generated alert) assumes critical importance.
On the one hand, generated forces may be more survivable (additional mobile missiles on the move or in hide sites away from the main garrisons, additional command and control assets deployed, et cetera). On the other hand, generating forces to increase their survivability may convince the other side that you intend to launch a first strike.
One potential response to this concern is to design a missile force whose day-to-day posture is more or less indistinguishable from its generated posture. This, however, will tend to make even minor crises into nuclear ones, as there would be no way to know if the other side's nuclear forces are cocked and locked or not.
So, if America does nothing:
At some point in the not-too-distant future, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, North Korea, and China will be in a multidirectional Mexican stand-off, most likely with relatively accurate nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. All sides would be able to deliver a signifcant strike from a day-to-day alert posture and would have next to no tactical warning available. The only thing missing would be the spark.
How does one say "Able Archer" in Japanese, Hangul, or Mandarin?
Inaction is failure; failure is not an option. We must lead.
In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, there are some worrisome aspects that will come into play.
First, testing is not a friendly act in the post-Cold War era. It's one thing to walk into a bar with a concealed weapon. It's another thing to haul it out, fire a shot into the ceiling to verify that it's loaded, and yell, "WHO WANTS A PIECE OF THIS?" Li'l Kim has just done that, and now everyone is discreetly reaching for their hardware. (UPDATE: Apparently, Li'l Kim's pistol may have had a blank chambered. H/T to my partner in crime for finding this.)
Second, there is the question of "who's next?" Japan is a shake-and-bake nuclear power--one estimate I've read puts Japan having a credible nuclear deterrent within six months of the Japanese government giving the go-ahead. They have a breeder reactor that manufactures large amounts of plutonium (Reactor-bred "Ploot" is, by definition, bomb-grade), and they have a first-rate technical infrastructure; the rest is merely a matter of money, man-hours, and political will.
South Korea and Taiwan are not in that league--they do not have breeder reactors--but they have good technicians, and they can always whip out hard currency for what William Burroughs called "The Yard Sale at the End of History." So they could probably have nukes inside of two years.
Now, the second-order effects:
South Korea and Japan don't like each other overmuch. If one goes nuclear, the other will. If Japan goes nuclear, Taiwan will (assuming that they are not already practicing what I call "CCWMD"), simply because nobody in eastern Asia trusts the Japanese (the 1931-1945 period may seem to be ancient history to an upstart nation like the United States, but to the cultures of the Pacific Rim, it's just last week). The People's Republic of China will be extremely unhappy if Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan go nuclear.
Some sort-of good news: multilateral (as opposed to bilateral) nuclear stability has never been tested in an international crisis, only in RAND political-military games. Some really bad news: in those RAND games, multilateral nuclear stability seems to be a figment of everyone's imagination; it "fails deadly" about 95% of the time as players pursue their victory conditions vis-a-vis Country A without thinking about how Countries B, C, D, and E view their actions. It seems to be a natural human blind spot--because the same players, with their experiences from earlier games to inform and admonish them, did the same damn thing in subsequent games.
Moving from the purely geopolitical to the tactical end of nuclear warfighting ("It's all fun and games until somebody gets their eyes melted out!"):
One thing that Japan, the Koreas, and Taiwan would need is early warning (and, in that theater, it would be not-so-early warning due to the short distances times of flight involved) in order to maintain some minimal level of crisis/prompt launch stability (the old "use 'em or lose 'em" issue from the late Cold War). Early warning systems tend to be incredibly expensive; the best solution may be for these nations to buy access to our own warning net. (Pay-per-view launch detection: the new growth market for the United States Strategic Command.) We spent billions per year during the Cold War just to buy an extra 10-15 minutes of tactical warning time against the USSR. The same amount of money (after indexing for inflation) would give 30 seconds to 2 minutes additional in northeast Asia--which would just about enough time to execute one predetermined nuclear strike option on initial alert.
Because of the short timelines involved, a lot of "early warning" would be strategic (i.e., intelligence of possible intent to attack) as opposed to tactical (detection of missile launches). Strategic warning is ambiguous at best. With relatively small forces on all sides, generation stability (the sensitivity of force survivability to whether the force is on day-to-day alert or generated alert) assumes critical importance.
On the one hand, generated forces may be more survivable (additional mobile missiles on the move or in hide sites away from the main garrisons, additional command and control assets deployed, et cetera). On the other hand, generating forces to increase their survivability may convince the other side that you intend to launch a first strike.
One potential response to this concern is to design a missile force whose day-to-day posture is more or less indistinguishable from its generated posture. This, however, will tend to make even minor crises into nuclear ones, as there would be no way to know if the other side's nuclear forces are cocked and locked or not.
So, if America does nothing:
At some point in the not-too-distant future, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, North Korea, and China will be in a multidirectional Mexican stand-off, most likely with relatively accurate nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. All sides would be able to deliver a signifcant strike from a day-to-day alert posture and would have next to no tactical warning available. The only thing missing would be the spark.
How does one say "Able Archer" in Japanese, Hangul, or Mandarin?
Inaction is failure; failure is not an option. We must lead.
Foleygate and crybaby conservatives
MacsMind has two updates on Foleygate, both on a smoking gun and on what it has allowed the media to ignore.
But the important post for today comes from Strata-Sphere.
Money quote:
I do hope certain conservatives who have been throwing temper tantrums over a possible Bush pocket veto of the border fence (which I would support due to reasons Big Lizards has enunciated) keep that in mind. If they want to be petulant crybabies, they had better think through the consequences.
But the important post for today comes from Strata-Sphere.
Money quote:
Personally, any conservative who fails to push through election day is one we can affort to go without.
I do hope certain conservatives who have been throwing temper tantrums over a possible Bush pocket veto of the border fence (which I would support due to reasons Big Lizards has enunciated) keep that in mind. If they want to be petulant crybabies, they had better think through the consequences.
A dud?
Bill Gertz reports on the initial take of the intelligence community. If so, it might not warrant severe measures, but at the same time, it is clear they tested something.
The good news is that the Administration wants a blockade. They need to stick to their guns on this one.
The good news is that the Administration wants a blockade. They need to stick to their guns on this one.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Foleygate updates...
Macsmind has updates on both aspects of Foleygate. More pages are coming forward, as well as the "gaymail" ring that seems to be in place.
Strata-Sphere has more.
The real big deal is the "gaymail" ring. What we have here are people who are snooping into the private lives of Republican staffers - and threatening to air their private lives out in public because they do not back a certain agenda.
Here's the scary part folks - staffers often provide the information - and make recommendations - to a Senator or Congressman. This is something very serious. If it can be done on one issue, why not others? And who says it will just be limited to activists? What would keep other Senators or Congressman from doing such a thing? Or even a President?
Strata-Sphere has more.
The real big deal is the "gaymail" ring. What we have here are people who are snooping into the private lives of Republican staffers - and threatening to air their private lives out in public because they do not back a certain agenda.
Here's the scary part folks - staffers often provide the information - and make recommendations - to a Senator or Congressman. This is something very serious. If it can be done on one issue, why not others? And who says it will just be limited to activists? What would keep other Senators or Congressman from doing such a thing? Or even a President?
NK nuclear test...
The North Korean nuclear test draws commentary from Macsmind. I think the time for talking is over. It's time to impose a full-on blockade. Nothing in, nothing out.
And if they even think of another missile test, send a B-2 to drop a few JDAMs on the site. Talking will do nothing to stop the North Korean missile program. Decisive action will.
And if they even think of another missile test, send a B-2 to drop a few JDAMs on the site. Talking will do nothing to stop the North Korean missile program. Decisive action will.
Rally against Chavez...
Strata-Sphere reports on the rallies against Chavez.
The thing is, Hugo has a militia that is loyal to him. He ordered as many as 100,000 AK-103 rifles for them. What means of self-defense will be available to his opponents? I fear we could be headed for a Caracas variant on Tiananmen Square.
The thing is, Hugo has a militia that is loyal to him. He ordered as many as 100,000 AK-103 rifles for them. What means of self-defense will be available to his opponents? I fear we could be headed for a Caracas variant on Tiananmen Square.
Friday, October 06, 2006
From prank to book deal?
Macsmind's latest on the Foley situation does not reflect well on Jordan Edmunds. At this point, we certainly cannot trust much of what Brian Ross says now.
Speaking of which, on these latest IMs, why were they kept for 4-8 years? Why didn't those former pages use the "block" feature on their instant messenger?
I'd like to know...
Speaking of which, on these latest IMs, why were they kept for 4-8 years? Why didn't those former pages use the "block" feature on their instant messenger?
I'd like to know...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Why death penalty expansion is a good thing...
Read this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The judge should have given him the 60 years. The law should have allowed for the death penalty. Anyone who breaks into a house and rapes a 9-year-old needs to be dealt with decisively. Ideally, said decisive dealing will involve borrowing the GRU's blast furnace, but lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber, or hanging will do.
The death penalty, in my view, is appropriate for those who rape children or rapists who give thir victims HIV. In the latter case, the victim is dead, it just will take as long as two decades for AIDS to claim their life.
This is not about proportionate punishment. I want deterrence via a sentence that is disproportionate - and which will be capable of decisively dealing with this kind of scum. As one death-penalty opponent said, "Still, if it's deterrence you want, nothing better prevents recidivism than capital punishment. Ted Bundy can't bother co-eds anymore."
The judge should have given him the 60 years. The law should have allowed for the death penalty. Anyone who breaks into a house and rapes a 9-year-old needs to be dealt with decisively. Ideally, said decisive dealing will involve borrowing the GRU's blast furnace, but lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber, or hanging will do.
The death penalty, in my view, is appropriate for those who rape children or rapists who give thir victims HIV. In the latter case, the victim is dead, it just will take as long as two decades for AIDS to claim their life.
This is not about proportionate punishment. I want deterrence via a sentence that is disproportionate - and which will be capable of decisively dealing with this kind of scum. As one death-penalty opponent said, "Still, if it's deterrence you want, nothing better prevents recidivism than capital punishment. Ted Bundy can't bother co-eds anymore."
Foley-gate updates...
For the latest updates, check out Strata-Sphere and MacsMind.
Two paragraphs from MacsMind's latest post on this warrant attention:
This is the real scandal. Not that Mark Foley has not been innocent, but the real scandal is that certain people are trying to dig up information on the private lives of Republican congressman in order to affect their votes on certain issues. This is something that is serious - and needs to be hammered. Petitioning for a redress of grievances is one thing. Blackmail is another.
It's increasingly obvious that the safety of the pages and former pages was of secondary concern to scoring political points via blackmail. This is something that needs to be exposed.
Check Macsmind and Strata-sphere for updates. They are on top of this - and know of others who are as well.
Two paragraphs from MacsMind's latest post on this warrant attention:
Besides Foley two names that have come into play are Rogers and John Aravosis of America’s Blog. Both are gay activists who on many occassions have threatened not only Foley and Fordham with outing, but others as well. These guys are what we call “Political Thugs”, the only thing they don’t use is guns, but they do nearly as much damage. Others call it by it’s real name - blackmail.
Again, the FBI - and I have this on good source - are aware of both individuals and looking into their involvement as well. As I said before we cops aren’t so stupid as to just look at an IM log or an email and say, “Oh look at that?, case closed!”
This is the real scandal. Not that Mark Foley has not been innocent, but the real scandal is that certain people are trying to dig up information on the private lives of Republican congressman in order to affect their votes on certain issues. This is something that is serious - and needs to be hammered. Petitioning for a redress of grievances is one thing. Blackmail is another.
It's increasingly obvious that the safety of the pages and former pages was of secondary concern to scoring political points via blackmail. This is something that needs to be exposed.
Check Macsmind and Strata-sphere for updates. They are on top of this - and know of others who are as well.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Truth detection software?
The founder of Google thinks that "truth detection" software will exist in five years.
He's wrong, it already exists in the form of Google and other search engines. It's the Age of Google, and people who peddle phony stories, like fake memos purporting to show someone was AWOL, won't be able to do so. You also can't hide stories, either, like the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (500 shells with sarin and mustard gas). You can also find out the background of a person who makes a scene with a politician.
The truth can be found - and revealed - setting everyone free.
He's wrong, it already exists in the form of Google and other search engines. It's the Age of Google, and people who peddle phony stories, like fake memos purporting to show someone was AWOL, won't be able to do so. You also can't hide stories, either, like the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (500 shells with sarin and mustard gas). You can also find out the background of a person who makes a scene with a politician.
The truth can be found - and revealed - setting everyone free.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A reminder...
Two of the links on my blogroll are must-reads if you want to see some of the facts behind the liberation of Iraq.
RegimeofTerror.com discusses Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism.
Meanwhile, www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com has translations of recovered documents. One, from September 25, contains significant exculpatory evidence concerning the "no WMD" claims. Six days is a long time if you really want to hide something.
The truth is out there, and the MSM is refusing to give this evidence any exposure.
RegimeofTerror.com discusses Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism.
Meanwhile, www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com has translations of recovered documents. One, from September 25, contains significant exculpatory evidence concerning the "no WMD" claims. Six days is a long time if you really want to hide something.
The truth is out there, and the MSM is refusing to give this evidence any exposure.
Monday, October 02, 2006
An interview at Article6Blog...
A quick lunchtime post:
Article6Blog interviews Mitch Davis of RunMittRun.org. It's well worth the read - if only to see how widely certain misconceptions are held.
Article6Blog interviews Mitch Davis of RunMittRun.org. It's well worth the read - if only to see how widely certain misconceptions are held.
Selective admiration of self-improvement...
Eve Fairbanks has hit a home run with her latest column in the Examiner discussing the attacks on George Allen.
In a very real sense, she has hit on something. I suspect that part of the heavy fire on Allen and President Bush may be because they did not play the victim, but instead confronted their demons head-on. If they could do it, then perhaps others could do so as well - by accepting responsbility for their lives. And for some in politics, having people feeling like victims is vital. It means that they can push their agenda by blaming the problems the victims have on big business/immigrants/neo-cons/racists/Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld/Wal-Mart. They'd probably find a way to blame Santa and the Easter Bunny if it would help them get votes.
But a self-help/self-improvement story turns all that on its head. It tells people that they might have it rough, but they can get out of it. The victimhood pimps on the left and the right can't have that. If people began to think that they were responsible, the scapegoating of immigrants and big business carried out by Pat Buchanan - as well as the race-baiting of Al Sharpton - would lose a lot of its appeal. Buchanan and Sharpton might actually have to do some real work for once.
Perhaps we need more self-improvement stories from politicians, not fewer.
In a very real sense, she has hit on something. I suspect that part of the heavy fire on Allen and President Bush may be because they did not play the victim, but instead confronted their demons head-on. If they could do it, then perhaps others could do so as well - by accepting responsbility for their lives. And for some in politics, having people feeling like victims is vital. It means that they can push their agenda by blaming the problems the victims have on big business/immigrants/neo-cons/racists/Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld/Wal-Mart. They'd probably find a way to blame Santa and the Easter Bunny if it would help them get votes.
But a self-help/self-improvement story turns all that on its head. It tells people that they might have it rough, but they can get out of it. The victimhood pimps on the left and the right can't have that. If people began to think that they were responsible, the scapegoating of immigrants and big business carried out by Pat Buchanan - as well as the race-baiting of Al Sharpton - would lose a lot of its appeal. Buchanan and Sharpton might actually have to do some real work for once.
Perhaps we need more self-improvement stories from politicians, not fewer.
As if they didn't have more important things to do in Oconee County, Georgia...
It seems that the latest hot-button case in Oconee County, Georgia, involves chasing down a gossip in a MySpace blog. I kid you not.
I guess the cops are looking to avoid budget cuts or something...
I guess the cops are looking to avoid budget cuts or something...
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Getting a bum rap...
It seems that there has been a long-running campaign against Petland pet stores over the use of "puppy mills". The latest in this animal-rights jihad now involves shots at the American Kennel Association.
Now this goes too far. The AKC and Petland, if one believes this, are actually trying to hurt the dogs that are the source of their livelihoods. Never mind how irrational that is on its face, but that is what is being claimed.
If animal cruelty is going on, it needs to be handled decisively. That said, can someone please give me an objective definition of "puppy mill" that doesn't boil down to "I know it when I see it"? We do not need to add some vague law when there are already exisiting laws that can do the job.
Now this goes too far. The AKC and Petland, if one believes this, are actually trying to hurt the dogs that are the source of their livelihoods. Never mind how irrational that is on its face, but that is what is being claimed.
If animal cruelty is going on, it needs to be handled decisively. That said, can someone please give me an objective definition of "puppy mill" that doesn't boil down to "I know it when I see it"? We do not need to add some vague law when there are already exisiting laws that can do the job.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Blogroll addition
Dean Esmay won his spot on my blogroll with his stand against Michelle Malkin's mindless Islam-bashing. I'm glad to add him to my blogroll. I might not agree with him on everything in the future, but he sounds like a patriotic American whose only "sin" is not going along with those who have somehow discovered some exception to the First Amendment that excludes Islam.
It must be some emination from a penumbra, I suppose...
It must be some emination from a penumbra, I suppose...
Friday, September 29, 2006
Jimmy Carter doesn't get it...
Jimmy Carter decides to blast Don Rumsfeld, claiming we are in more danger now than we were back then.
Wrong. Jimmy Carter is the one who placed us at greater risk, through his weakness when confronted by the Ayatollah Khomeni. Granted, he was not the only one who showed weakness (Reagan pulled the Marines out after the Beirut bombing rather than sending them to clean them our, and Clinton cut and ran in Somalia), but he started the trend, and he put Khomeni in power in Iran.
At least George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld are fighting. I guess Jimmy Carter is unable to deal with the fact that they are showing far more backbone when confronted by aggression than he did.
Wrong. Jimmy Carter is the one who placed us at greater risk, through his weakness when confronted by the Ayatollah Khomeni. Granted, he was not the only one who showed weakness (Reagan pulled the Marines out after the Beirut bombing rather than sending them to clean them our, and Clinton cut and ran in Somalia), but he started the trend, and he put Khomeni in power in Iran.
At least George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld are fighting. I guess Jimmy Carter is unable to deal with the fact that they are showing far more backbone when confronted by aggression than he did.
Animal Olympics...
China seems to have something interesting in the form of Animal Olympics. Boxing with a kangaroo. This looks like something fun - a form of circus.
They also have horse-fighting. The horse-fighting is beyond the pale.
They also have horse-fighting. The horse-fighting is beyond the pale.
Bush wins on interrogation and tribunals...
President Bush won in terms of what he was getting on military commissions and interrogations. This means we don't have interrogators with one hand tied behind their back, or that we won't be giving over classified information to terrorists.
The House will pass it. The President will sign it. Then the human-rights groups will sue again, and we now have to hope that an imperial judiciary will not decide to re-write the bill to suit their purposes.
The House will pass it. The President will sign it. Then the human-rights groups will sue again, and we now have to hope that an imperial judiciary will not decide to re-write the bill to suit their purposes.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
You tell them, Tony!
Tony Snow fires back at the Clintons. Bill Clinton cut at least four divisions from the U.S. Army. He was also scattering the military all over the world on peacekeeping missions. His Administration capped B-2 production at 21. On his watch, the CIA carried out a human-rights "scrub" that meant CIA personnel couldn't use anyone with less virtue than Mother Theresa as a source. The U.S. Navy started decommissioning nine nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers, six of which were still very modern, and the 31 Spruance-class destroyers. We started selling off early Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and Los Angeles-class attack submarines, not to mention retiring the A-6 Intruder. The Air Force gave up its F-111 fighters and B-52G bombers, while losing a number of fighter wings.
And a number of Rumsfeld's retired critics were there at the time - and did not raise objections then. Wouldn't those four extra Amry divisions have been useful for the liberation of Iraq? Wouldn't the extra ships help us handle WMD proliferation? And the A-6s, F-111s and B-52Gs (not to mention the extra B-2s) would certainly be useful in extending the operational life of the current bomber force.
We are paying for Bill Clinton's peace dividend now. Thanks for nothing, Slick.
And a number of Rumsfeld's retired critics were there at the time - and did not raise objections then. Wouldn't those four extra Amry divisions have been useful for the liberation of Iraq? Wouldn't the extra ships help us handle WMD proliferation? And the A-6s, F-111s and B-52Gs (not to mention the extra B-2s) would certainly be useful in extending the operational life of the current bomber force.
We are paying for Bill Clinton's peace dividend now. Thanks for nothing, Slick.
This will be fun...
It is the start of the school year. That means the usual controversies over T-shirts in school.
Larissa, the reason they are wearing it is not because they have no respect for themselves. They wear it because it drives the parents and teachers to a high level of battiness. It's really quite simple.
Larissa Olson, 20, a Hollister employee at Potomac Mills Mall in Woodbridge, said she wonders why girls buy them. "I'm like, 'She has no respect for herself.' "
Larissa, the reason they are wearing it is not because they have no respect for themselves. They wear it because it drives the parents and teachers to a high level of battiness. It's really quite simple.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Make genocide painful
Austin Bay's latest column on Darfur is worth the read. However, peacekeepers are not the answer. The answer is to make genocide painful. And it could be very cheap in DOD terms. Probably no more than two percent of the entire defense budget.
How do you make genocide painful - and do so on the cheap? Well, first I go to Israel and India, both of whom are retiring a number of M16 and AKM rifles in favor of the Tavor. I cut a deal, defraying the cost of the Tavor purchases in exchange for the retired rifles. Then you get two Special Forces ODAs that train the folks in Darfur on how to use them well. We might be able to get some general-purpose machine guns as well.
We'd need four C-130Js (or maybe C-17s) to get the rifles and machine guns there. Maybe a couple of older EA-6B Prowlers to deal with Sudanese radars and air defenses and some F-16As and some reactivated A-7s and A-37s to deal with any fighter opposition and to provide support (much of these could be pulled from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan and transferred to Chad). Perhaps some Stingers for the folks in Darfur, to deal with Sudanese helicopters as well. We probably have some B-2A Spirits at Diego Garcia already. Just add some locations in Khartoum to the potential target list for their JDAMs.
In essence, start carving out a state within the nation-state of the Sudan. This would be very doable, cheap, and not require a major deployment of American personnel. If anything, such a deployment, even if it were possible, would not be the most efficient solution. Leveraging the people of Darfur, who really only need the means to defend themselves, is a much better solution. They will know the terrain, and for them, it will be about defending their homes and families. It is far more effective than a massive troop deployment. The solution is to make genocide painful to commit, and when that happens, the Sudanese government will crack down on the Janjaweed militias.
Oh, and one other thing: Waiting for UN action is not going to do any good. China will probably veto any resolution. This calls for some unilateral action... and if the UN doesn't like it, TOUGH. Kofi Annan has had three years to deal with this crap, and he's just made some flowery speeches. Time for America to act.
How do you make genocide painful - and do so on the cheap? Well, first I go to Israel and India, both of whom are retiring a number of M16 and AKM rifles in favor of the Tavor. I cut a deal, defraying the cost of the Tavor purchases in exchange for the retired rifles. Then you get two Special Forces ODAs that train the folks in Darfur on how to use them well. We might be able to get some general-purpose machine guns as well.
We'd need four C-130Js (or maybe C-17s) to get the rifles and machine guns there. Maybe a couple of older EA-6B Prowlers to deal with Sudanese radars and air defenses and some F-16As and some reactivated A-7s and A-37s to deal with any fighter opposition and to provide support (much of these could be pulled from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan and transferred to Chad). Perhaps some Stingers for the folks in Darfur, to deal with Sudanese helicopters as well. We probably have some B-2A Spirits at Diego Garcia already. Just add some locations in Khartoum to the potential target list for their JDAMs.
In essence, start carving out a state within the nation-state of the Sudan. This would be very doable, cheap, and not require a major deployment of American personnel. If anything, such a deployment, even if it were possible, would not be the most efficient solution. Leveraging the people of Darfur, who really only need the means to defend themselves, is a much better solution. They will know the terrain, and for them, it will be about defending their homes and families. It is far more effective than a massive troop deployment. The solution is to make genocide painful to commit, and when that happens, the Sudanese government will crack down on the Janjaweed militias.
Oh, and one other thing: Waiting for UN action is not going to do any good. China will probably veto any resolution. This calls for some unilateral action... and if the UN doesn't like it, TOUGH. Kofi Annan has had three years to deal with this crap, and he's just made some flowery speeches. Time for America to act.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
From the YCMTSU! Department
Iranian televison has stated that Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man's Chest is a Zionist Plot.
Whodathunkit? Words just do not do justice to the nuttiness on display at the link...
Arr! Shalom!
But why does he wear the tri-cornered cap and not a yarmulke?
Sun Tzu strikes again...
The DNI site has the declassified National Intelligence Estimate as a PDF file.
Bush obviously grasps the tao of Suz Tzu's Art of War: Move like the wind, strike like the thunder.
Countdown to allegations that Rove was behind the original NIE leak commences on my mark . . . MARK!
Iran and enrichment...
Bill Gertz has a report on an agreement that may be in the works.
A 90-day suspension will not cut it. Iran needs to completely cease its enrichment, or face consequences.
A 90-day suspension will not cut it. Iran needs to completely cease its enrichment, or face consequences.
Condi hammers Slick Willie...
Condi Rice returned fire after Bill Clinton's temper tantrum on Fox.
It's about time.
Clinton spent eight years making a mess of things - largely through disinterest. I'm sure cutting the military down to ten Army divisions and slashing the Navy big-time to pay for midnight basketball reflected how serious he was. Not to mention passingon that offer the Sudanese government made. Or taking an approach that required us to tell bin Laden what we knew about his organization.
Come to think of it, I'm sure he thought that getting bin Laden was important. But fooling around with interns who flashed thongs at him was more important.
It's about time.
Clinton spent eight years making a mess of things - largely through disinterest. I'm sure cutting the military down to ten Army divisions and slashing the Navy big-time to pay for midnight basketball reflected how serious he was. Not to mention passingon that offer the Sudanese government made. Or taking an approach that required us to tell bin Laden what we knew about his organization.
Come to think of it, I'm sure he thought that getting bin Laden was important. But fooling around with interns who flashed thongs at him was more important.
Monday, September 25, 2006
McCain, Romney, and The Age of Google
John over at the Article 6 blog made it clear that McCain had two targets with Mosteller's attack on Romney: Romney himself, and the Evangelicals. He sought to taint Romney among the "values voters" by suggesting that he really doesn't have their values, and he sought to taint those same "values voters" in the eyes of the mainstream GOP by showing them as rednecked, ignorant bigots.
It was a brilliant "two-fer" move that would've worked perfectly in 1986. The problem is that time, tide, and technology wait for no man, not even an ambitious Senator looking to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight.
In The Age of Google, these kinds of slimy tricks are harder to pull off. As our ability to develop new forms of information from raw data evolves (such as the still-new and imperfect methods of social network analysis), it will get harder yet.
A few minutes of quality time with Google outed Mosteller as a McCain sock puppet. This might have been avoided by using a relative unknown--but getting such an unknown into place for this meeting would require sponsorship, and sponsorship is traceable.
Given enough planning and forethought, it might be possible to "cleanly" plant such a stinkbomb. But that's today. In 2008, it will be harder--because we'll be able to more completely map out a person's social network and its connectivity.
It was a brilliant "two-fer" move that would've worked perfectly in 1986. The problem is that time, tide, and technology wait for no man, not even an ambitious Senator looking to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight.
In The Age of Google, these kinds of slimy tricks are harder to pull off. As our ability to develop new forms of information from raw data evolves (such as the still-new and imperfect methods of social network analysis), it will get harder yet.
A few minutes of quality time with Google outed Mosteller as a McCain sock puppet. This might have been avoided by using a relative unknown--but getting such an unknown into place for this meeting would require sponsorship, and sponsorship is traceable.
Given enough planning and forethought, it might be possible to "cleanly" plant such a stinkbomb. But that's today. In 2008, it will be harder--because we'll be able to more completely map out a person's social network and its connectivity.
On the McCain cheap shot... and how Romney should respond.
Article 6 Blog discusses a disturbing incident in South Carolina. I have to agree with Lowell in that it is an attempt by McCain to take Romney down a few pegs and to also marginalize evangelicals. John's take is largely good, but he forgets one thing. Between Article 6 Blog's comments, and the fact they were picked up by Dean Barnett on Hugh Hewitt's blog, this now makes Cyndi Mosteller's confrontation a national story, not a local story.
Romney needs to do two things:
1. He needs to respond to this, and to do so quickly in a manner that will address some questions.
2. He needs to also retaliate against McCain - if only to show that this governor from the Bay State is not a wimp. Like the first thing, this needs to be quick in coming. There are plenty of things McCain is vulnerable on, and which Romney can use.
Romney needs to do two things:
1. He needs to respond to this, and to do so quickly in a manner that will address some questions.
2. He needs to also retaliate against McCain - if only to show that this governor from the Bay State is not a wimp. Like the first thing, this needs to be quick in coming. There are plenty of things McCain is vulnerable on, and which Romney can use.
On that report...
Some things to remember with regards to the report the Democrats are seizing on to criticize the Administation:
1. The report was classified. That means somebody leaked it to the New York Times - just as the NSA's surveillance of terrorist communications and the financial tracking system were leaked.
2. The New York Times report is said to be less than accurate.
3. If Iraq has been a hinderance to the war on terror, then we should have suffered soem sort of reverse in Afghanistan - nor should three successful elections in Iraq have occured. Do we have more terrorists? Maybe, but they are not at the same level as the ones that were being trained in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. It is also not surprising to see new cells emerge. For years, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were training terrorists from all over the Moslem world. The roster of al-Qaeda includes terrorists from Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and even the United States of America. What's to say some haven't been recruiting?
5. Have we seen any major attacks on American soil since that bight, sunny, Tuesday morning?
Things are not as bad as this report would have us believe. And some leaker needs to be grabbed by the long arm of the law.
1. The report was classified. That means somebody leaked it to the New York Times - just as the NSA's surveillance of terrorist communications and the financial tracking system were leaked.
2. The New York Times report is said to be less than accurate.
3. If Iraq has been a hinderance to the war on terror, then we should have suffered soem sort of reverse in Afghanistan - nor should three successful elections in Iraq have occured. Do we have more terrorists? Maybe, but they are not at the same level as the ones that were being trained in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. It is also not surprising to see new cells emerge. For years, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were training terrorists from all over the Moslem world. The roster of al-Qaeda includes terrorists from Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and even the United States of America. What's to say some haven't been recruiting?
5. Have we seen any major attacks on American soil since that bight, sunny, Tuesday morning?
Things are not as bad as this report would have us believe. And some leaker needs to be grabbed by the long arm of the law.
Mel Gibson on Iraq...
Mel Gibson's latest comments just leave me shaking my head.
"What's human sacrifice," he asked, "if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"Folks, if you haven't checked out JVeritas and RegimeofTerror.com on my blogroll, do so. The reasons are outlined - particularly through translated memos.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Check out GOP Progress...
I discuss the McCain-Graham-Warner proposal on military tribunals. I think that the 2004 op-ed by Andrew McCarthy in Commentary magazine provides sufficient reason to oppose their approach and to instead support the President.
I must emphasize that I think that Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner are acting sincerely and with the best of intentions. But good intentions and a dollar will get you a Whopper Junior. They do not mean to place our intelligence gathering at risk, but that is the inevitable result.
Sadly, to deal with terrorism, we have reached a point where we don't have good options. We are at a point where we've got to decide what we want to live with after we win the war. That's how it is. War is an ugly thing - in a way, former Secretary of State Colin Powell is correct to call it bad policy. But there are things far worse than war. Appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are two such things.
I must emphasize that I think that Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner are acting sincerely and with the best of intentions. But good intentions and a dollar will get you a Whopper Junior. They do not mean to place our intelligence gathering at risk, but that is the inevitable result.
Sadly, to deal with terrorism, we have reached a point where we don't have good options. We are at a point where we've got to decide what we want to live with after we win the war. That's how it is. War is an ugly thing - in a way, former Secretary of State Colin Powell is correct to call it bad policy. But there are things far worse than war. Appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are two such things.
The Ahmadinejad speech...
The transcript of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech is available via the Washington Post. NPR also has it.
Take a very good look at it. This is brazen - he has declared his intentions quite clearly. Oh, he's all for peace... but it is peace through tyranny and genocide. He needs to be stopped. Now.
Take a very good look at it. This is brazen - he has declared his intentions quite clearly. Oh, he's all for peace... but it is peace through tyranny and genocide. He needs to be stopped. Now.
The Chavez speech
Hugo Chavez's speech in front of the UN is at the Drudge Report - at least for the short term. Other transcripts are available via pennlive.com and the Washington Post.
We now have dictators citing the arguments of the anti-war movement. Think that over as November approaches, folks. Just take the time to compare what Hugo Chavez says to what the anti-war movement and the folks at DailyKos say.
We now have dictators citing the arguments of the anti-war movement. Think that over as November approaches, folks. Just take the time to compare what Hugo Chavez says to what the anti-war movement and the folks at DailyKos say.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
A thought experiment...
It's 2010. During several NBA games late in the season, terrorists with sponsorship from the Sudan manage to release soman and/or sarin in eight arenas where the games are in progress (Madison Square Garden, the AT&T Center, FedEx Forum, United Center, Quicken Loans Arena, the US Airways Center, the American Airlines Center in Dallas, and the Staples Center).
Total fatality count is around 9,000 (both from the gas and the stampedes of panicking people that follow), with about six times as many suffering injuries (some from the gas, some from the panic that followed).
With a body count three times higher than 9/11, what would your response be? Assume that within two weeks, Sudanese sponsorship is determined with a high degree of confidence. Feel free to leave your response below.
Total fatality count is around 9,000 (both from the gas and the stampedes of panicking people that follow), with about six times as many suffering injuries (some from the gas, some from the panic that followed).
With a body count three times higher than 9/11, what would your response be? Assume that within two weeks, Sudanese sponsorship is determined with a high degree of confidence. Feel free to leave your response below.
Words Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner need to heed:
Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Tom Clancy wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about how the CIA was gutted.
I'd like to commend that op-ed to Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner. Particularly the last four paragraphs:
If that attack involves weapons of mass destruction, the American response will, in all likelihood, be directed by the major command based at Offutt Air Force Base. That response will wipe out at least a city if some restraint is exercised. More likely, an entire country gets wiped off the map, possibly in less time than it takes an order from Pizza Hut, Papa John's, or any other pizza place to get to your doorstep after you've made the phone call.
I wonder how such a thing contains the moral high ground, particularly in comparison to a few suspected terrorists getting roughed up. I suppose it must be some sort of logic that those who are inside the Beltway can fathom. I certainly can't.
It is extremely difficult to see a man who, when the plane hit the Pentagon, raced to the scene and began aiding survivors get second-guessed by a bunch of Senators who seem to be competing for praise from the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. Donald Rumsfeld got an involuntary up-close look at what terrorists do. Where were Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham? What did they do, cower in some secure location?
I'd like to commend that op-ed to Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner. Particularly the last four paragraphs:
It is a lamentably common practice in Washington and elsewhere to shoot people in the back and then complain when they fail to win the race. The loss of so many lives in New York and Washington is now called an "intelligence failure," mostly by those who crippled the CIA in the first place, and by those who celebrated the loss of its invaluable capabilities.What a pity that they cannot stand up like adults now and say: "See, we gutted our intelligence agencies because we don't much like them, and now we can bury thousands of American citizens as an indirect result." This, of course, will not happen, because those who inflict their aesthetic on the rest of us are never around to clean up the resulting mess, though they seem to enjoy further assaulting those whom they crippled to begin with.
Call it the law of unintended consequences. The intelligence community was successfully assaulted for actions taken under constitutionally mandated orders, and with nothing left to replace what was smashed, warnings we might have had to prevent this horrid event never came. Of course, neither I nor anyone else can prove that the warnings would have come, and I will not invoke the rhetoric of the political left on so sad an occasion as this.
But the next time America is in a fight, it is well to remember that tying one's own arm is unlikely to assist in preserving, protecting and defending what is ours.
I'm going to speak a little on this. Not to indulge in rhetoric, but to discuss what I feel the likely consequences of tying one of the intelligence community's hands behind its back on this matter. Should the McCain-Graham-Warner version of this legislation pass, it is a virtual certainty that we will get hit in a major attack again.
If that attack involves weapons of mass destruction, the American response will, in all likelihood, be directed by the major command based at Offutt Air Force Base. That response will wipe out at least a city if some restraint is exercised. More likely, an entire country gets wiped off the map, possibly in less time than it takes an order from Pizza Hut, Papa John's, or any other pizza place to get to your doorstep after you've made the phone call.
I wonder how such a thing contains the moral high ground, particularly in comparison to a few suspected terrorists getting roughed up. I suppose it must be some sort of logic that those who are inside the Beltway can fathom. I certainly can't.
It is extremely difficult to see a man who, when the plane hit the Pentagon, raced to the scene and began aiding survivors get second-guessed by a bunch of Senators who seem to be competing for praise from the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. Donald Rumsfeld got an involuntary up-close look at what terrorists do. Where were Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham? What did they do, cower in some secure location?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Why McCain, Warner, Graham, and Powell are wrong...
Senator John McCain seems to be unwilling to back down, and he's got the backing of the MSM. But he's wrong.
The wording of Common Article Three is vague. Who has defined what an "outrage against human dignity" is? Is there a common standard? I mean, someone getting killed or maimed in a bombing or other attack is an outrage against their dignity - but human rights groups don't say or do much about those. But taking a terrorist and subjecting him to South Park or Britney Spears videos - or trying to take down a vicious drug cartel - is worthy of lawsuits and reports that won't be complimentary, treating a Pablo Escobar as a victim.
It's messed up. What about the rights of the people terrorists will randomly kill and maim? Who speaks for them? There is a right to not be killed or maimed by terrorists supporting a genocidal agenda and/or a religious dictatorship. What about that right? What is so inhumane and degrading about trying to prevent a terrorist attack?
In a way, Secretary Powell is right, we'll be criticized. But at least we'll be alive to hear the criticism.
The wording of Common Article Three is vague. Who has defined what an "outrage against human dignity" is? Is there a common standard? I mean, someone getting killed or maimed in a bombing or other attack is an outrage against their dignity - but human rights groups don't say or do much about those. But taking a terrorist and subjecting him to South Park or Britney Spears videos - or trying to take down a vicious drug cartel - is worthy of lawsuits and reports that won't be complimentary, treating a Pablo Escobar as a victim.
It's messed up. What about the rights of the people terrorists will randomly kill and maim? Who speaks for them? There is a right to not be killed or maimed by terrorists supporting a genocidal agenda and/or a religious dictatorship. What about that right? What is so inhumane and degrading about trying to prevent a terrorist attack?
In a way, Secretary Powell is right, we'll be criticized. But at least we'll be alive to hear the criticism.
Monday, September 18, 2006
The President's press conference...
Transcript via the White House web site. He's convinced me on detainee treatment.
The techniques we used (stripping a guy, putting him in a cold room, and playing Red Hot Chili Peppers until he talked) are not torture. But all it will take is for some joker at Amnesty International to claim this is an "outrage on human dignity" (as if what the terrorist was planning wasn't) for our guys to possibly face charges - possibly in front of the ICC.
Call your Senators, and tell them in no uncertain terms that while Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner mean well, their legislation is going to tie the hands of our intelligence personnel. We cannot afford that in time of war.
The techniques we used (stripping a guy, putting him in a cold room, and playing Red Hot Chili Peppers until he talked) are not torture. But all it will take is for some joker at Amnesty International to claim this is an "outrage on human dignity" (as if what the terrorist was planning wasn't) for our guys to possibly face charges - possibly in front of the ICC.
Call your Senators, and tell them in no uncertain terms that while Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner mean well, their legislation is going to tie the hands of our intelligence personnel. We cannot afford that in time of war.
The new Bill Gertz book...
First excerpt printed today in the Washington Times.
This is worth a long look. China's not exactly friendly, but they are on a much weaker foundation than other threats. Their banking system is a mess, and they have a huge demographic time bomb to deal with as well. Don't get me wrong, they can be dangerous, but they're not the primary threat.
This is worth a long look. China's not exactly friendly, but they are on a much weaker foundation than other threats. Their banking system is a mess, and they have a huge demographic time bomb to deal with as well. Don't get me wrong, they can be dangerous, but they're not the primary threat.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Austin Bay on oil...
Austin Bay discusses oil prices.
Last year, he discussed oil shale. One of the money quotes:
The other, from a commentary by Linda Seebach that she linked to:
Can you say, "OPEC is screwed?"
I sure can, and at that point, I need to quote Eric Cartman.
"Sweeeet."
Last year, he discussed oil shale. One of the money quotes:
A couple of large oil companies’ research teams had visited with the Rocky Mountain News’ editorial board to discuss advances in oil shale recovery techniques.
The other, from a commentary by Linda Seebach that she linked to:
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel.
Can you say, "OPEC is screwed?"
I sure can, and at that point, I need to quote Eric Cartman.
"Sweeeet."
Why the President is right...
John McCain may be sincere in his stand on military tribunals, but he is sincerely wrong.
The real issue is who defines what is "degrading" under Common Article Three. Unfortunately, given the proven track record of Amnesty International, which has stuck up for such noble persons like Pablo Escobar (a good drug lord, who during his tenure as head of the Medellin crug cartel, ordered the bombing of an airliner), Saddam Hussein (the former Iraqi dictator who used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds), and Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (a terrorist sprung by pressure from Amnesty International in 2002), not to mention other human rights groups, there is a chance that "degrading" and "inhumane" are going to be defined in a way that makes the people who are trying to keep innocent civilians from being bombed or maimed by the bad guys if they give terrorist thugs anything less than five-star treatment. The Detainee Treatment Act has the necessary bright-line standards that they cannot cross while also making sure we have access to methods that get information should we need them.
The Warner-McCain-Graham legislation is only going to make it more likely that when the day comes, and we face a pending WMD attack, and have a planner of that operation in custody, we're going to hold back on the terrorist involved. As a result, the attack will succeed, and then long-standing U.S. policy will force a response in kind. For the record, the United States only has nuclear weapons.
And with all due respect to Secretary of State Powell, who has taken a lot of unfair criticism over the whole Armitage/Plame fiasco, if roughing up a terrorist leads people to doubt the moral basis of the war on terror, what do you think our inevitable - and necessary - response would do to our moral standing? Yeah, we'd be justified in responding, but is a nuclear response whose body count would be measured in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands (or even millions) really a more moral action than roughing up a terrorist and making the response unnecessary in the first place? Mr. Secretary, as much as I hate to say this, your position on this makes less sense than your decision to designate the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as a foreign terrorist organization (for a detailed explanation of why I disagreed with that decision, readers can look at my review of Killing Pablo at Strategypage.com).
If someone's an al-Qaeda terrorist we've captured on the battlefield, I'm with Harry Callaghan in saying, "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!" Innocent people - particularly American citizens and those in the United States - have to come first.
Note: This was cross-posted at GOPProgress.com.
The real issue is who defines what is "degrading" under Common Article Three. Unfortunately, given the proven track record of Amnesty International, which has stuck up for such noble persons like Pablo Escobar (a good drug lord, who during his tenure as head of the Medellin crug cartel, ordered the bombing of an airliner), Saddam Hussein (the former Iraqi dictator who used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds), and Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (a terrorist sprung by pressure from Amnesty International in 2002), not to mention other human rights groups, there is a chance that "degrading" and "inhumane" are going to be defined in a way that makes the people who are trying to keep innocent civilians from being bombed or maimed by the bad guys if they give terrorist thugs anything less than five-star treatment. The Detainee Treatment Act has the necessary bright-line standards that they cannot cross while also making sure we have access to methods that get information should we need them.
The Warner-McCain-Graham legislation is only going to make it more likely that when the day comes, and we face a pending WMD attack, and have a planner of that operation in custody, we're going to hold back on the terrorist involved. As a result, the attack will succeed, and then long-standing U.S. policy will force a response in kind. For the record, the United States only has nuclear weapons.
And with all due respect to Secretary of State Powell, who has taken a lot of unfair criticism over the whole Armitage/Plame fiasco, if roughing up a terrorist leads people to doubt the moral basis of the war on terror, what do you think our inevitable - and necessary - response would do to our moral standing? Yeah, we'd be justified in responding, but is a nuclear response whose body count would be measured in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands (or even millions) really a more moral action than roughing up a terrorist and making the response unnecessary in the first place? Mr. Secretary, as much as I hate to say this, your position on this makes less sense than your decision to designate the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as a foreign terrorist organization (for a detailed explanation of why I disagreed with that decision, readers can look at my review of Killing Pablo at Strategypage.com).
If someone's an al-Qaeda terrorist we've captured on the battlefield, I'm with Harry Callaghan in saying, "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!" Innocent people - particularly American citizens and those in the United States - have to come first.
Note: This was cross-posted at GOPProgress.com.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Finally criticizing Hezbollah...
Amnesty International finally issues their report on Hezbollah.
Note to Amnesty International: There's a moral difference between genocidal thugs like Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces. Maybe you ought to lean harder on the genocidal thugs (and all the world's thugs) rather than dump on the people trying to do something about the thugs of the world.
Taking the thugs down is a tough job as it is. The people trying to do that job do not need groups like Amnesty International sticking up for the thugs.
Note to Amnesty International: There's a moral difference between genocidal thugs like Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces. Maybe you ought to lean harder on the genocidal thugs (and all the world's thugs) rather than dump on the people trying to do something about the thugs of the world.
Taking the thugs down is a tough job as it is. The people trying to do that job do not need groups like Amnesty International sticking up for the thugs.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A revealing post...
Last week, Paul J. Cella took strong exception to a column by Ralph Peters.
Yesterday, he posted at Redstate on the fact that a number of student visas have been issued to Saudis and Muslims.
One quote from his response to a comment reveals what must have been the real reason that he was so upset with Lieutenant Colonel Peters for that column:
Time for me to go on record, Mr. Cella: I think your reaction to Colonel Peters' column was the reaction of a man who has read the denunciation of conduct and recognized he was one of those that was being rightfully denounced.
The last time I checked, the First Amendment did not have an exemption that excluded Islam from its protections.
Yesterday, he posted at Redstate on the fact that a number of student visas have been issued to Saudis and Muslims.
One quote from his response to a comment reveals what must have been the real reason that he was so upset with Lieutenant Colonel Peters for that column:
Your faith in the American education system is rather touching. I do not share it. I've been on record for a complete cessation of all Muslim immigration for well over a year now.
Time for me to go on record, Mr. Cella: I think your reaction to Colonel Peters' column was the reaction of a man who has read the denunciation of conduct and recognized he was one of those that was being rightfully denounced.
The last time I checked, the First Amendment did not have an exemption that excluded Islam from its protections.
Dealing with Hugh Hewitt...
Kosher Hedgehog bemoans Hugh Hewitt's discussion of NCAA Football, and fears he will be insufferable.
My advice to him: Just ask Hugh how much he enjoyed the weekend trip the Cleveland Indians took to Milwaukee this past June.
My advice to him: Just ask Hugh how much he enjoyed the weekend trip the Cleveland Indians took to Milwaukee this past June.
A great exchange...
From Liz Smith in today's New York Post:
Very well said, Ms. Simpson.
ENDQUOTE: Jessica Simpson in Glamour on why she won't diss her ex Nick Lachey: "I don't have anything bad to say about him at all. I don't. And I do have something to lose by talking about it."
Glamour: "What's that?"
Simpson: "Integrity."
Very well said, Ms. Simpson.
What the troops think about Code Pink...
Austin Bay has a link to first-hand reporting by LT SMASH about the Code Pink protests at Walter Reed.
All I will say is that code Pink has some very strange ideas about what constitutes support for the troops.
All I will say is that code Pink has some very strange ideas about what constitutes support for the troops.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Why conservatives are wrong on immigration
There was a lot of celebration of the failure to pass a comprehensive immigration bill at RedState last week. This shows just how wrong conservatives have gone on immigration on so many levels, particularly morally and ethically.
The moral aspect of this issue is very clear to me. This country was founded on the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal". As such, they had certain rights that came from God, including life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. It came from the Declaration of Independence. Some of those rights were set forth in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1789. I saw no exception on the basis of race or national origin in either of those documents. Indeed, the 14th Amendment made it doubly clear that no person was to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Yet, these days, to be considered a conservative in good standing, I must embrace claims that the President and the United States Senate engaged in "treachery", that they supported the "dispossession"of the United States of America. It is a veiled way of calling those he disagrees with traitors. This is, in essence, an act of cowardice. Rather than debate the ideas, he dismisses it with an ad hominem, and the only proof backing that attack is the fact that those he labels as supporting the alleged treachery and dispossession are in disagreement with Paul J Cella on the issue of immigration.
It matters not that they deliberately mischaracterize the President's proposal as "amnesty" (there is punishment - it is just not the punishment demanded by people like zampolit Cella and others on his side of the debate). In fact, there is the notion that the only legitimate course of action in a situation like this is to either throw more money and effort into enforcing the law or tightening the law. Easing up on a law, or fixing an obvious problem, is seen as a non-starter.
Indeed, looking at the treatment Mike Pence received, it is obvious that "amnesty" has a very simple definition: An immigration reform bill that does not have Tom Tancredo's approval. It is a classic case of shifting goalposts. It is the biggest lie since Bill Clinton claimed that Republicans wanted Medicare cuts (after all, complaints that Republicans weren't increasing spending enough just wouldn't fly with the public). We cannot question their rationale for this. Nor can we offer arguments - that alone is sufficient to brand us as heretics.
Indeed, these days, it seems that one who wishes to identify himself as a conservative must accept the neo-"blood and soil" argument that emanates from Pat Buchanan and others like him. This argument claims that truly being an American is largely a function of who one is born to - and also argues that those from the "Third World" are somehow incapable of being Americans. Not only that, we must accept and defend a broken system that will not even tell those it rejects the reasons why they are rejected or how to gain acceptance.
How this argument can be reconciled with the founding documents of this country is a mystery to me. Reforming the system to encompass objective criteria that a person will be able to understand is never considered. Instead, the demand is for a moratorium on legal immigration, a wall on the border, and measures more draconian than previous enforcement efforts.
This is wrong on so many levels.
First, it is wrong because it allows a broken system to fester, breeding more resentment of the law in the first place. The failure of Prohibition was not due to a lack of effort by the government, it was because enough people saw fit to defy and break the law. It should have been patently obvious to some that telling a person they could not consume alcohol could not be enforced without a level of surveillance that would have placed America under an Orwellian nightmare, or that the enforcement would, by necessity, become random and increasingly arbitrary - and the latter course of action would only engender further resentment and defiance of the law itself.
On immigration, I submit that this tipping point has already been passed. We have a combined federal, state, and local prison population of 2,226,787, according to the latest DOJ report I was able to locate. The number of illegal immigrants is held to be at anywhere from 11 to 20 million, depending on the estimates. Divide the 11 million and 20 million figures by the 2,226,787, and you realize that the ratio of illegal immigrants to prison beds is well over the number one. And that assumes we throw open every prison cell. Who wants to release Charles Manson or Zacarias Moussaoui?
On a second level, the conservative position is wrong because it misplaces priorities. We have already seen one potential standoff emerge over the intention of ICE to deport a cleaning lady. A cleaning lady. How do cleaning ladies (not to mention gardeners, nannies, and construction workers) even come close to threatening the dispossession of the United States of America? Shouldn't the efforts be more focused on those who do mean the United States harm (like gang members, drug smugglers, and terrorists)?
On a third level, the conservative position, particularly as enunciated by Cella, is wrong because it is vague. "Protecting the culture" is admirable on its face. But those who cite that fail to explain exactly what their view of American culture is. What is American culture in their minds? This is not a minor detail of the debate - it is the central question of the debate. Unless a definition is pinned down, it is far too easy for the goalposts to be shifted.
And when people decline to provide such definitions, I get nervous and suspicious. This is because there are some slimy elements to the immigration debate on the right, including out-and-out racists like Jared Taylor. I want to know what they are thinking, and what they seek to defend. And I want specifics. If I don't get specifics, I'm going to have to assume the worst.
For a classic example, look at how Tamar Jacoby's proposals are often treated. If the issue is a secure border, then why not simplify the immigration process and increase the quotas? This draws fire - even though it addresses the problem of illegal immigration. This leads me to ask just what exactly their objective is.
Finally, the position is wrong because the conservative position, as enunciated by Cella, relies on the demonization and mischaracterization of its opponents. Accusations of treason, supporting the dispossession of the United States are commonplace, not to mention the epithet of "open-borders fanatic" - in all of this, the only proof of these allegations come from the fact that those who are accused disagree with their pronouncements on immigration.
Conservatives have managed to get this issue very wrong. Their refusal to listen to any disagreement is typical of what one would expect from the DailyKos. Indeed, I would compare this intolerance of dissent to the actions of the environmental movement regarding global warming (as Michael Crichton discussed in the appendix to State of Fear - Crichton also discussed the eugenics movement, and some of its tactics, as well). One would hope this is a mere aberration - a temporary loss of judgment - and not the beginnings of a trend.
But I sometimes have to wonder, given the way the zampolits have acted. If a self-appointed zampolit can read someone out for a disagreement, or merely failing to attack "the other" with the requisite zeal, then the trend is already started, and reversing it will require much heated debate and discussion.
The moral aspect of this issue is very clear to me. This country was founded on the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal". As such, they had certain rights that came from God, including life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. It came from the Declaration of Independence. Some of those rights were set forth in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1789. I saw no exception on the basis of race or national origin in either of those documents. Indeed, the 14th Amendment made it doubly clear that no person was to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Yet, these days, to be considered a conservative in good standing, I must embrace claims that the President and the United States Senate engaged in "treachery", that they supported the "dispossession"of the United States of America. It is a veiled way of calling those he disagrees with traitors. This is, in essence, an act of cowardice. Rather than debate the ideas, he dismisses it with an ad hominem, and the only proof backing that attack is the fact that those he labels as supporting the alleged treachery and dispossession are in disagreement with Paul J Cella on the issue of immigration.
It matters not that they deliberately mischaracterize the President's proposal as "amnesty" (there is punishment - it is just not the punishment demanded by people like zampolit Cella and others on his side of the debate). In fact, there is the notion that the only legitimate course of action in a situation like this is to either throw more money and effort into enforcing the law or tightening the law. Easing up on a law, or fixing an obvious problem, is seen as a non-starter.
Indeed, looking at the treatment Mike Pence received, it is obvious that "amnesty" has a very simple definition: An immigration reform bill that does not have Tom Tancredo's approval. It is a classic case of shifting goalposts. It is the biggest lie since Bill Clinton claimed that Republicans wanted Medicare cuts (after all, complaints that Republicans weren't increasing spending enough just wouldn't fly with the public). We cannot question their rationale for this. Nor can we offer arguments - that alone is sufficient to brand us as heretics.
Indeed, these days, it seems that one who wishes to identify himself as a conservative must accept the neo-"blood and soil" argument that emanates from Pat Buchanan and others like him. This argument claims that truly being an American is largely a function of who one is born to - and also argues that those from the "Third World" are somehow incapable of being Americans. Not only that, we must accept and defend a broken system that will not even tell those it rejects the reasons why they are rejected or how to gain acceptance.
How this argument can be reconciled with the founding documents of this country is a mystery to me. Reforming the system to encompass objective criteria that a person will be able to understand is never considered. Instead, the demand is for a moratorium on legal immigration, a wall on the border, and measures more draconian than previous enforcement efforts.
This is wrong on so many levels.
First, it is wrong because it allows a broken system to fester, breeding more resentment of the law in the first place. The failure of Prohibition was not due to a lack of effort by the government, it was because enough people saw fit to defy and break the law. It should have been patently obvious to some that telling a person they could not consume alcohol could not be enforced without a level of surveillance that would have placed America under an Orwellian nightmare, or that the enforcement would, by necessity, become random and increasingly arbitrary - and the latter course of action would only engender further resentment and defiance of the law itself.
On immigration, I submit that this tipping point has already been passed. We have a combined federal, state, and local prison population of 2,226,787, according to the latest DOJ report I was able to locate. The number of illegal immigrants is held to be at anywhere from 11 to 20 million, depending on the estimates. Divide the 11 million and 20 million figures by the 2,226,787, and you realize that the ratio of illegal immigrants to prison beds is well over the number one. And that assumes we throw open every prison cell. Who wants to release Charles Manson or Zacarias Moussaoui?
On a second level, the conservative position is wrong because it misplaces priorities. We have already seen one potential standoff emerge over the intention of ICE to deport a cleaning lady. A cleaning lady. How do cleaning ladies (not to mention gardeners, nannies, and construction workers) even come close to threatening the dispossession of the United States of America? Shouldn't the efforts be more focused on those who do mean the United States harm (like gang members, drug smugglers, and terrorists)?
On a third level, the conservative position, particularly as enunciated by Cella, is wrong because it is vague. "Protecting the culture" is admirable on its face. But those who cite that fail to explain exactly what their view of American culture is. What is American culture in their minds? This is not a minor detail of the debate - it is the central question of the debate. Unless a definition is pinned down, it is far too easy for the goalposts to be shifted.
And when people decline to provide such definitions, I get nervous and suspicious. This is because there are some slimy elements to the immigration debate on the right, including out-and-out racists like Jared Taylor. I want to know what they are thinking, and what they seek to defend. And I want specifics. If I don't get specifics, I'm going to have to assume the worst.
For a classic example, look at how Tamar Jacoby's proposals are often treated. If the issue is a secure border, then why not simplify the immigration process and increase the quotas? This draws fire - even though it addresses the problem of illegal immigration. This leads me to ask just what exactly their objective is.
Finally, the position is wrong because the conservative position, as enunciated by Cella, relies on the demonization and mischaracterization of its opponents. Accusations of treason, supporting the dispossession of the United States are commonplace, not to mention the epithet of "open-borders fanatic" - in all of this, the only proof of these allegations come from the fact that those who are accused disagree with their pronouncements on immigration.
Conservatives have managed to get this issue very wrong. Their refusal to listen to any disagreement is typical of what one would expect from the DailyKos. Indeed, I would compare this intolerance of dissent to the actions of the environmental movement regarding global warming (as Michael Crichton discussed in the appendix to State of Fear - Crichton also discussed the eugenics movement, and some of its tactics, as well). One would hope this is a mere aberration - a temporary loss of judgment - and not the beginnings of a trend.
But I sometimes have to wonder, given the way the zampolits have acted. If a self-appointed zampolit can read someone out for a disagreement, or merely failing to attack "the other" with the requisite zeal, then the trend is already started, and reversing it will require much heated debate and discussion.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Remembering what happened...
On September 11, 2001, we got hit in an unprovoked sneak attack.
A review I wrote is up at Strategypage.
We have made a lot of progress since then. We still have a lot to do.
A review I wrote is up at Strategypage.
We have made a lot of progress since then. We still have a lot to do.
The Senate Intelligence Committe Report...
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s recent report is being held up by some as proof that the Bush Administration “duped” the American public into supporting the liberation of Iraq. The Senate committee’s report flat-out stated there was no relationship with al-Qaeda. However, this claim ignored multiple reports, some of which are based on internal documents from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. These internal documents are important because they partially open the window to what Saddam’s regime intended to do. The intentions were far from innocent.
The first of these memos to be reported on was discovered in April, 2003 in the rubble of Mukhabarat headquarters by a pair of journalists. The memo indicated that the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi Intelligence Service) wanted to bring over a representative of Osama bin Laden to discuss “the future of our relationship with him”. The memo in question went through five translations before the article was published. One of the reporters who discovered the memo, Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star, admitted that he had been skeptical of the claims of a relationship between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda.
A year and a half later, other memos were leaked to Cybercast News Service. These show Iraq had terrorist connections (English translation here), to an Egyptian terrorist group known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad. This group was one headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is Osama bin Laden’s second in command. The documents also mentioned Omar Abdel Rahman (original scan here), the spiritual leader of the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That memo highlighted his group as “the most violent in Egypt”. These memos also showed that Saddam’s regime was attempting to acquire mustard gas and anthrax, and seeking a means to attack American forces in Somalia in 2000. The Senate Intelligence Committee also failed to note that Saddam Hussein had been making payments of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian murder-suicide bombers.
The Senate Intelligence Committee even managed to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s report, in which Richard Clarke’s e-mail opposing a U-2 mission over Afghanistan was quoted. The e-mail states that the U-2 overflight would warn bin Laden of a potential attack and “old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad” (Chapter 4, 9-11 Commission Report).
Finally, there is an evidence summary for an al-Qaeda detainee held at Guantanamo Bay. The summary, reprinted in a report by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, indicated that the detainee traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 1998 for the purposes of carrying out a chemical mortar attack against the American and British embassies in Pakistan.
These were just some of the items that contradict the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report.
The Senate report, by ignoring these facts, has proven that it should not be taken at face value. The truth remains in many documents from Saddam’s regime, some of which have been released, while others are still classified.
Threatswatch.org and RegimeofTerror.com are working on this in much more detail. Keep an eye out.
The first of these memos to be reported on was discovered in April, 2003 in the rubble of Mukhabarat headquarters by a pair of journalists. The memo indicated that the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi Intelligence Service) wanted to bring over a representative of Osama bin Laden to discuss “the future of our relationship with him”. The memo in question went through five translations before the article was published. One of the reporters who discovered the memo, Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star, admitted that he had been skeptical of the claims of a relationship between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda.
A year and a half later, other memos were leaked to Cybercast News Service. These show Iraq had terrorist connections (English translation here), to an Egyptian terrorist group known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad. This group was one headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is Osama bin Laden’s second in command. The documents also mentioned Omar Abdel Rahman (original scan here), the spiritual leader of the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That memo highlighted his group as “the most violent in Egypt”. These memos also showed that Saddam’s regime was attempting to acquire mustard gas and anthrax, and seeking a means to attack American forces in Somalia in 2000. The Senate Intelligence Committee also failed to note that Saddam Hussein had been making payments of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian murder-suicide bombers.
The Senate Intelligence Committee even managed to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s report, in which Richard Clarke’s e-mail opposing a U-2 mission over Afghanistan was quoted. The e-mail states that the U-2 overflight would warn bin Laden of a potential attack and “old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad” (Chapter 4, 9-11 Commission Report).
Finally, there is an evidence summary for an al-Qaeda detainee held at Guantanamo Bay. The summary, reprinted in a report by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, indicated that the detainee traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 1998 for the purposes of carrying out a chemical mortar attack against the American and British embassies in Pakistan.
These were just some of the items that contradict the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report.
The Senate report, by ignoring these facts, has proven that it should not be taken at face value. The truth remains in many documents from Saddam’s regime, some of which have been released, while others are still classified.
Threatswatch.org and RegimeofTerror.com are working on this in much more detail. Keep an eye out.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Thanks for nothing, France and Canada
The Democratic Intimidation campaign continues...
Now the Senate Democratic leadership is making threats.
I guess they have decided it is more important to cover the asses of Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick than it is for people to know the truth. I mean, if the truth were out there, we might not have had decisions like Hamdan.
I guess they have decided it is more important to cover the asses of Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick than it is for people to know the truth. I mean, if the truth were out there, we might not have had decisions like Hamdan.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Rejection of the hard-liners?
Matt Towery at Townhall.com discusses the recent rejection of hard-core social conservatives by Republican primary voters. His focus in on the Florida gubernatorial primary, where a candidate pandering to the hard-liners was beaten by 30 points. A very similar rejection occurred in Utah (where Chris Cannon successfully fended off a challenger backed by the Tancredobots), and it is also reflected in the rise of sites like GOPProgress.com and WildTurkeys.net (full disclosure: I post at both of those sites).
In 2004, there was a backlash against the imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts. This was reflected very closely in the wide margins that eleven constitutional amendments were passed by in that election. The problem is that the social conservatives misread the widespread objection to the imposition of gay marriage as support for other aspects of their agenda. They thought they could get away with mischaracterizing the President's immigration proposals. They thought they could chase Howard Stern to satellite radio, and nobody would be that upset.
They were wrong. Now, the South Park Republicans, who want government out of their lives, are probably feeling like they have nowhere to go, and certainly don't want to stick their necks out for social conservatives. I, personally, feel that the 2006 elections look more like a choice between two sets of control freaks. One wants to get into my wallet and gun safe, the other wants to tell me what I can and can't watch, while also throwing a fit because I want to put $50 on a Bears game.
It seems that the only real reason to get out an vote these days is the war on terror. At least the Republicans will fight. And so, I guess my vote is decided. All I can do at this point is to make clear that my vote comes in spite of the House GOP's obstinancy and disingenuous maneuvering on immigration, despite the poor treatment of the UAE (a valuable ally in the war on terror), and despite the fact that the House Republicans have done little to be proud of.
In 2004, there was a backlash against the imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts. This was reflected very closely in the wide margins that eleven constitutional amendments were passed by in that election. The problem is that the social conservatives misread the widespread objection to the imposition of gay marriage as support for other aspects of their agenda. They thought they could get away with mischaracterizing the President's immigration proposals. They thought they could chase Howard Stern to satellite radio, and nobody would be that upset.
They were wrong. Now, the South Park Republicans, who want government out of their lives, are probably feeling like they have nowhere to go, and certainly don't want to stick their necks out for social conservatives. I, personally, feel that the 2006 elections look more like a choice between two sets of control freaks. One wants to get into my wallet and gun safe, the other wants to tell me what I can and can't watch, while also throwing a fit because I want to put $50 on a Bears game.
It seems that the only real reason to get out an vote these days is the war on terror. At least the Republicans will fight. And so, I guess my vote is decided. All I can do at this point is to make clear that my vote comes in spite of the House GOP's obstinancy and disingenuous maneuvering on immigration, despite the poor treatment of the UAE (a valuable ally in the war on terror), and despite the fact that the House Republicans have done little to be proud of.
The Democratic letter to ABC...
MacsMind discusses the letter sent by John Conyers, John Dingell, Louise Slaughter, and Jane Harman to ABC.
I find it very telling when someone doesn't like a message... and then threatens the messenger. And make no mistake about it, this letter is a threat. Congresswoman Slaughter's decision to have a part of this letter is doubly hypocritical. Her official web page discusses her efforts to "ensure that all radio and television broadcasters are accountable to the local communities they are licensed to serve, that they offer diverse views on issues of public importance including local issues, and that they provide regular opportunities for meaningful public dialogue among listeners, viewers, and station personnel and licensees".
Slaughter was a major supporter of the "Hush Rush" Act back in the 1990s. I guess her idea of meaningful discourse doesn't include anything to the right of the CBS Evening News or the New York Times.
I find it very telling when someone doesn't like a message... and then threatens the messenger. And make no mistake about it, this letter is a threat. Congresswoman Slaughter's decision to have a part of this letter is doubly hypocritical. Her official web page discusses her efforts to "ensure that all radio and television broadcasters are accountable to the local communities they are licensed to serve, that they offer diverse views on issues of public importance including local issues, and that they provide regular opportunities for meaningful public dialogue among listeners, viewers, and station personnel and licensees".
Slaughter was a major supporter of the "Hush Rush" Act back in the 1990s. I guess her idea of meaningful discourse doesn't include anything to the right of the CBS Evening News or the New York Times.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Disagreement is not disloyalty.
Frank Gaffney is the kind of person I don't like. His latest column is a prime example of what is going wrong with conservatism these days.
Short version: Because Colin Powell and Dick Armitage did not support the liberation of Iraq with the same zeal as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others, they are somehow disloyal to President Bush (and Gaffney tries to hint that it is disloyalty to the country as well). Just the fact that they have advocated a different course of action - or maybe emphasized a differnt aspect of the threat Saddam's regime posed - was enough for zampolit Gaffney to deem them as "disloyalists" (let's just ignore the inconvenient facts that Armitage promptly went to the FBI, and that the then-White House counsel, Al Gonzales, refused to hear specifics). Never mind that Colin Powell has apparently ended at least one friendship over criticism of the liberation of Iraq.
This has often cropped up on the right - particularly with immigration, but also with regards to the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and some other issues (including abortion). You either believe precisely as some people believe, or you are a pandering RINO who doesn't have any principles that they would fight for.
Again, that characterization is false. I do have principles. On the immigration debate, these principles, including the fact that "all men are created equal", lead me to believe that the position held by hardliners like Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and Michelle Malkin are morally wrong. These principles also lead me to sharply criticized their mischaracterization of any plan that has what they deem to be insufficient punishment as amnesty. When they are doing that, they are in the wrong.
In other words, when the immigration hard-liners want me to go along with their neo-"blood and soil" philosophy about what it means to be American, or when other people want me to remain silent in the face of unfair attacks on a pair of distinguished publc servants, they are demanding that I compromise my principles.
That's where I get off.
Short version: Because Colin Powell and Dick Armitage did not support the liberation of Iraq with the same zeal as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others, they are somehow disloyal to President Bush (and Gaffney tries to hint that it is disloyalty to the country as well). Just the fact that they have advocated a different course of action - or maybe emphasized a differnt aspect of the threat Saddam's regime posed - was enough for zampolit Gaffney to deem them as "disloyalists" (let's just ignore the inconvenient facts that Armitage promptly went to the FBI, and that the then-White House counsel, Al Gonzales, refused to hear specifics). Never mind that Colin Powell has apparently ended at least one friendship over criticism of the liberation of Iraq.
This has often cropped up on the right - particularly with immigration, but also with regards to the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and some other issues (including abortion). You either believe precisely as some people believe, or you are a pandering RINO who doesn't have any principles that they would fight for.
Again, that characterization is false. I do have principles. On the immigration debate, these principles, including the fact that "all men are created equal", lead me to believe that the position held by hardliners like Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and Michelle Malkin are morally wrong. These principles also lead me to sharply criticized their mischaracterization of any plan that has what they deem to be insufficient punishment as amnesty. When they are doing that, they are in the wrong.
In other words, when the immigration hard-liners want me to go along with their neo-"blood and soil" philosophy about what it means to be American, or when other people want me to remain silent in the face of unfair attacks on a pair of distinguished publc servants, they are demanding that I compromise my principles.
That's where I get off.
Dealing with Sudan...
Austin Bay discussed the recent ultimatum Sudan gave the African Union on his blog.
My earlier comment will be expanded on a little. It is clear that the present government of the Sudan is unwilling to do anything about the genocide, and in fact is now taking steps to hinder efforts to resist it.
This is not something that going to the United Nations will solve. The only solution will center around the use of force. It is time for the Sudan to pay a penalty for not stopping the Janjaweed militias from carrying out their genocidal intentions.
Step one has to be increased military aid to Chad. The United States can probably pull out a number of older AH-1 Cobras and UH-1 Hueys from the boneyard. They might be able to do some good against a militia. This aid also needs to be aimed towards developing solid bases in eastern Chad for further steps in the plan.
Second, once there are secure bases in eastern Chad, the intended victims of the genocide need to be armed with sufficient light weapons to enable them to repel attacks. Again, I'm sure that various natiosn have a surplus of such weapons that can be provided at little or no cost (M60 machine guns, M1 Carbines, M3 submachine guns, various service rifles).
Third, the use of airpower should be considered against regime targets, particularly if the Sudanese regime decides to up the ante.
It's time to push the ineffective UN aside, and get the task of stopping this genocide in its tracks done.
My earlier comment will be expanded on a little. It is clear that the present government of the Sudan is unwilling to do anything about the genocide, and in fact is now taking steps to hinder efforts to resist it.
This is not something that going to the United Nations will solve. The only solution will center around the use of force. It is time for the Sudan to pay a penalty for not stopping the Janjaweed militias from carrying out their genocidal intentions.
Step one has to be increased military aid to Chad. The United States can probably pull out a number of older AH-1 Cobras and UH-1 Hueys from the boneyard. They might be able to do some good against a militia. This aid also needs to be aimed towards developing solid bases in eastern Chad for further steps in the plan.
Second, once there are secure bases in eastern Chad, the intended victims of the genocide need to be armed with sufficient light weapons to enable them to repel attacks. Again, I'm sure that various natiosn have a surplus of such weapons that can be provided at little or no cost (M60 machine guns, M1 Carbines, M3 submachine guns, various service rifles).
Third, the use of airpower should be considered against regime targets, particularly if the Sudanese regime decides to up the ante.
It's time to push the ineffective UN aside, and get the task of stopping this genocide in its tracks done.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
No immigration bill this year...
As must have been apparent when the House came out with its road show hearings, the New York Times reports that passage of an immigration bill is now highly unlikely.
The fact is, the blame for a lack of an immigration bill lies entirely with the House Republicans, who decided that rather than come up with compromise that would have included additional security while also addressing other issues that pertained to immigration, they would take their ball and go home - then pander to hard-liners on the issue about how they stopped an "amnesty". This was an amnesty that never existed - just as the alleged spending cuts to Medicare that Clinton claimed Republicans wanted in 1995 never existed. They were both lies, and both actions were unsuccessful. Sadly, both seem to have at least temporarily succeeded.
Charlie Norwood let the game slip about those hearings when he threatened a Congressional Research Staffer because she game him information that belied the kind of pandering to the hard-liners on the issue, some of whom are nativists (or worse). His mind on the issue was made up, and he did not wish to be confused by facts.
Americans want officials to provide leadership and to act like adults. This requires maturity. The Republican leadership of the House did not lead. Instead, they abdicated, and rather than force hard-liners like Tom Tancredo to compromise - or at least actually try to force them to defend their obstinacy in public - Hastert instead let Tancredo dictate the House position.
The House Democrats certainly do not deserve power. But the House Republicans don't look much better at this point. Increasingly, I find myself admitting that if asked for a reason to vote for House Republicans, I can only say, "Because the Democrats are worse."
Monday, September 04, 2006
The AFA is at it again...
It seems that it's not just Howard Stern and NYPD Blue they are after now. Now, their push for censorship goes to an award-winning documentary.
It seems the American Family Assocation is now readying to fire off thousands of complaints to the FCC over a 9/11 documentary that will be aired as-is.
The AFA's beef? A lot of unedited profanity. Can I just call this pure, unadulterated Bravo Sierra?
For Mr. Sharp - a crash course is in order. TVs these days come with this thing called a remote. On this remote (varying by specifics) is a control marked CH, CHAN, or CHANNEL. This control has an up button and a down button. You use this when you do not like the show you are currently watching. With cable, I can go from something that I don't want to watch (say, the latest drivel from Lou Dobbs) to something I might be more interested in watching (like SoapNet's re-run of the day's episode of All My Children).
Failing that, Mr. Sharp, there is another button labeled POWER. This turns off the TV, so you can go read whatever book you want to. Or turn on the radio, (provided you aren't as hyper-sensitive about that as you are about what's on TV). Or, many TVs these days come in with built-in DVD players (which gives you more control over your viewing than ever before - if there is a boring scene in a movie you like, you can skip to the next one).
The AFA needs to be told to go soak their head. They've gone way too far in trying to force a network to not air a documentary. Where does this end? Is the end for the AFA to enforce its aesthetic choices on all of us, through massive complaints to the FCC - hoping they can turnt he force of the federal government against the decision the free market has made?
Unfair criticism
It seems that in light of the recent news reports surrounding the source of the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's position with the CIA, that a firestorm has brewed up.
Yet it seems the right is more interested in settling scores with Colin Powell than it is in going after the real culprit: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Looking at some of the commentary at Redstate, or other conservative opinion sources (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, columnist Jack Kelly, and National Review Online). Have conservatives lost their sense of priorities?
Let's get the rough sequence of events down pat first. Armitage tells Powell he thinks he was the leak in October, 2003. He talked with the FBI that month. He did not even hire a lawyer. This was two months before Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as a special prosecutor. Powell proceeds to have the State Department's general counsel inform the DOJ, and at the same time, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed in very general terms of what went on. Gonzales declined the offer of specifics. Yet James Comey appoints a special prosecutor. And the Special Prosecutor then launched what has turned out to be a two-and-a-half-year witch hunt.
I am not a mindless apologist for Secretary Powell. Over a year ago, at Strategypage, I dished out some strong criticism of his decision to designate the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as a terrorist organization on par with Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. In 2002 and 2003, I felt that not only did the neoconservatives have the right policy with regards to Iraq, but I felt their course of action was proper because there was enough evidence that a reasonable person could conclude that Iraq probably had a relationship with al-Qaeda - and it was best to take down Saddam's regime quickly
On both issues, my position has not changed. Proof of Saddam's regime's relationship with al-Qaeda was discovered as early as April, 2003, by a reporter from the Toronto Star. More recovered memos have shown outreach to other terrorist groups. The liberation of Iraq was a good call, and Colin Powell still thinks it was the right decision, and as a result, his friendship with Larry Wilkerson (a vocal critic of that decision) has apparently ended as a result.
But at the same time, I felt very uneasy about the personal attacks directed at Secretary Powell by some proponents. And here, we have a case where two men did the right thing - and it is not their fault the matter wasn't ended. The fact they weren't clairvoyant enough to foresee Patrick Fitzgerald going rogue is not their fault. And seeing the future only happens in fiction.
Furthermore, the big questions are those that must be posed to Patrick Fitzgerald. Did you know Armitage had come forward with exculpatory evidence? If not, why not? If you did, then why did you go on with this investigation for over two and a half years? Is there a good reason why you couldn't just let it die? Who or what motivated your decision to ignore the evidence?
The stuff about Powell and Armitage is a worthless sideshow. In addition to being grossly unfair, it is a waste of time. Petty score-settling is far less important than dealing with a special prosecutor who has gone rogue. Yet conservatives want to settle scores.
If this is what conservatism is, count me out.
Yet it seems the right is more interested in settling scores with Colin Powell than it is in going after the real culprit: Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Looking at some of the commentary at Redstate, or other conservative opinion sources (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, columnist Jack Kelly, and National Review Online). Have conservatives lost their sense of priorities?
Let's get the rough sequence of events down pat first. Armitage tells Powell he thinks he was the leak in October, 2003. He talked with the FBI that month. He did not even hire a lawyer. This was two months before Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as a special prosecutor. Powell proceeds to have the State Department's general counsel inform the DOJ, and at the same time, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed in very general terms of what went on. Gonzales declined the offer of specifics. Yet James Comey appoints a special prosecutor. And the Special Prosecutor then launched what has turned out to be a two-and-a-half-year witch hunt.
I am not a mindless apologist for Secretary Powell. Over a year ago, at Strategypage, I dished out some strong criticism of his decision to designate the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as a terrorist organization on par with Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. In 2002 and 2003, I felt that not only did the neoconservatives have the right policy with regards to Iraq, but I felt their course of action was proper because there was enough evidence that a reasonable person could conclude that Iraq probably had a relationship with al-Qaeda - and it was best to take down Saddam's regime quickly
On both issues, my position has not changed. Proof of Saddam's regime's relationship with al-Qaeda was discovered as early as April, 2003, by a reporter from the Toronto Star. More recovered memos have shown outreach to other terrorist groups. The liberation of Iraq was a good call, and Colin Powell still thinks it was the right decision, and as a result, his friendship with Larry Wilkerson (a vocal critic of that decision) has apparently ended as a result.
But at the same time, I felt very uneasy about the personal attacks directed at Secretary Powell by some proponents. And here, we have a case where two men did the right thing - and it is not their fault the matter wasn't ended. The fact they weren't clairvoyant enough to foresee Patrick Fitzgerald going rogue is not their fault. And seeing the future only happens in fiction.
Furthermore, the big questions are those that must be posed to Patrick Fitzgerald. Did you know Armitage had come forward with exculpatory evidence? If not, why not? If you did, then why did you go on with this investigation for over two and a half years? Is there a good reason why you couldn't just let it die? Who or what motivated your decision to ignore the evidence?
The stuff about Powell and Armitage is a worthless sideshow. In addition to being grossly unfair, it is a waste of time. Petty score-settling is far less important than dealing with a special prosecutor who has gone rogue. Yet conservatives want to settle scores.
If this is what conservatism is, count me out.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The click is ticking...
While the President has to fight off an anti-war movement that we now know is based on little more than the lies of Joe Wilson, Iran still moves closer to getting the atomic bomb. That's right, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who has denied the Holocaust, will have nukes.
However, I must disagree with Austin Bay's approval of imposing sanctions. First of all, they will not work. Second, there is no guarantee they will not be busted. The best approach is to skip the sanctions, and begin the dangerous work of getting human intelligence assets into Iran to locate the critical portions of their nuclear weapons program so that we can take it down hard.
However, I must disagree with Austin Bay's approval of imposing sanctions. First of all, they will not work. Second, there is no guarantee they will not be busted. The best approach is to skip the sanctions, and begin the dangerous work of getting human intelligence assets into Iran to locate the critical portions of their nuclear weapons program so that we can take it down hard.
Yankee Alpha Oscar Mike.
Hedgehog Central has the rundown on Keith Olbermann's decision to attack Rumsfeld for simply telling the truth about the cut-and-run crowd.
All I can say is, "Go, Rummy, GO!!!"
All I can say is, "Go, Rummy, GO!!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)