Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    February 2026
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728

  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

    al qaeda barbarism big government blogging colorado congress corruption culture democrats denver economics economy elections environmentalism firearms freedom global warming gop gun control guns health care human rights humor iraq islam islamofascism israel journalism leftists liberty media bias military moonbats msm music obama politics presidential candidates republicans socialism soldiers spending terrorism war weather

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘war’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Take the pledge

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2007

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus testified that the Biden-Warner resolution opposing the Bush plan for Iraq, or any other similar resolution, would encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops. By all accounts, Gen. Petraeus is a highly competent, honorable, and intelligent military leader, and his opinion on this subject should carry considerable weight.

But it doesn’t take an expert in military strategy and tactics to understand the consequences of the cowardliness in the Capitol. The Islamofascists have long maintained that the West lacks the will for a sustained fight, and will run away when things get too difficult or bloody. And we already know from seized al Qaeda in Iraq documents that if we abandon Iraq, our enemies will eagerly follow us back here.

Iraq is not an isolated war, it’s one front in a much larger war. At this moment, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, and an emboldened Hezbollah seems to be preparing to seize control. Do you suppose this is unrelated to the growing evidence of America’s wavering resolve?

ln the long run, retreat from Iraq will likely lead to at least hundreds of thousands and probably millions of deaths in Iraq, and to thousands or tens of thousands of deaths in the United States — maybe more. Who knows how many more will die at the hands of emboldened and strengthened Islamofascists in Lebanon, Israel, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, …

The more that spineless Republicans and Democrats appear eager to run away from Iraq, the more al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran’s proxies must think that they’re just a few horrific IED blasts and another handful of American deaths from achieving politically what they can’t achieve militarily. Set aside for the moment the terrible long-term consequences of retreat — right now, today, this very moment, the Biden and Warner resolutions and their colleagues’ related hand-wringing and posturing are directly responsible for encouraging more violence and killing more Americans and Iraqis. It’s disgusting and contemptible and unforgivable.

This morning I joined 6100 other people (that number has since more than doubled tripled quadrupled) in signing The NRSC Pledge, which says:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Hugh Hewitt, the quintessential Republican Party loyalist, helped start this effort, and he explained why tonight with four little words: "The war trumps party." I couldn’t agree more.

I also won’t contribute to any organization or PAC — such as the Club for Growth or the GOA PVF — that funnels money to any such senator. Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard, who has a son serving in Iraq, made this additional promise:

… I’ll go one better on the pledge. I WILL actively work against any Republican up for reelection who votes for a resolution – like Chucky "Dead to me" Hagel did. If our politicians are too stupid to see what kind of message they are sending to the world with their grandstanding, then they do not have the best interests of this country in mind and do not deserve to stay in office. …

Good idea. I’m not a big-bucks contributor — I’m guessing all my campaign contributions last year amounted to not much over two grand. But I will be contributing to the primary opponents of Republicans who don’t stand with their president on this issue — and I’ll start with a contribution to anyone who challenges Sen. Warner. I’ll give a pass to a few GOP representatives (Ron Paul comes to mind) who opposed the war on principle from the beginning — they’ve followed their conscience all along.

But these gutless GOP wonders with their fingers in the wind who pander to a fickle public on this life-or-death matter (but don’t have the integrity or fortitude to actually prohibit appropriations from being used to increase troop levels)? They deserve to be punished. Please join me — sign the pledge. Then contact senators on Hewitt’s hit list and tell them to grow a spine or else.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Grim milestone” hyped

Posted by Richard on December 26, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, I warned you that the 90% of American media outlets that give the rest a bad name were preparing to hype another Iraq death toll milestone — "the momentous occasion when the number of Americans killed by al Qaeda is eclipsed by the number killed because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Halliburton/oil." Editor and Publisher had predicted it would happen by Dec. 19, and I’m sure many in the MSM were chagrined as Christmas approached, and the toll in Iraq remained short of the 9/11 toll of 2,973.

On Christmas Day, it happened. Within minutes of learning about death number 2,974, AP had a story out, updated several times since as the toll climbed further:

NEW YORK (AP) – In a span of a few hours, 2,973 people were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In a span of 45 months, the number of American troops killed in Iraq exceeded that grim toll as the war continues.

The milestone in Iraq came on Christmas, nearly four years after the war began, according to a count by The Associated Press.

Based on a quick check with Google News, I’m guessing the story has appeared over a thousand times on media websites alone. The latest AP rewrites have buried the "grim milestone" aspects deeper in the story, maybe in response to criticism. Charles Johnson called the first version "disgusting and ghoulish beyond belief," and suggested:

Write to the Associated Press and tell them what you think about this.

I suspect I was correct in predicting that no one would mention how long it took for the number of combat deaths in World War II to eclipse the number killed at Pearl Harbor (2,403). I actually did a bit of research on this, but with not much success. I found casualty numbers for specific major combat operations, and a Navy document showing casualties by year, but that’s too coarse. My best guess is that U.S. combat deaths in the Pacific theater surpassed the December 7 toll some time between the Battle of the Java Sea in late February and the fall of Bataan in early April — so, roughly 3 or 4 months.

I doubt if anyone noticed at the time. In 1942, American journalists were too busy reporting actual war news. Plus, they were on our side.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Preparing to hype the death toll again

Posted by Richard on December 15, 2006

Editor and Publisher is a trade publication for the newspaper industry. Describing their editorial viewpoint as liberal is something of an understatement. The other day, one of their columnists recalled "the last soldier to die for a mistake" in Vietnam and speculated about who’d be the last to die for the Iraq mistake, closing with "How many more years of torment and wasted lives remain in Iraq?"

On Tuesday, E&P provided a heads-up for journalists, basically telling them, "There’s another symbolically important milestone approaching in Iraq, so all you ink-stained wretches get ready to crank up the hype machine." Except they put it this way:

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 2,940 — Within 33 of 9/11 Total



By E&P Staff



Published: December 12, 2006 9:45 PM ET updted Wednesday


NEW YORK With five more deaths reported today, at least 2,940 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the Associated Press count. The AP count is six higher than the Defense Department’s tally, which often gets updated.

The most often cited number for those killed in America on Sept. 11, 2001, is 2,973, leaving the Iraq tally just 33 short.

At the current rate, the 9/11 number will be eclipsed within a week.

I imagine that a fair number of reporters, columnists, and editors almost immediately began work on news stories, human interest stories, analyses, and opinion pieces addressing the momentous occasion when the number of Americans killed by al Qaeda is eclipsed by the number killed because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Halliburton/oil.

I predict that virtually none of these articles, analyses, and opinion pieces will mention how long it took for the number of combat deaths in World War II to eclipse the number killed at Pearl Harbor.

UPDATE: The toll in Iraq reached the number they were waiting for on Dec. 25. The MSM celebrated commemorated the milestone without drawing any comparisons to WWII and Pearl Harbor.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alternate reality

Posted by Richard on December 8, 2006

One little excerpt from the Iraq Surrender Group report told me everything I needed to know about it and confirmed the fears and suspicions I had: "No country in the region wants a chaotic Iraq." Ahem. In what alternate reality do these tired old political reprobates reside? In this reality, Iran absolutely, positively does want a chaotic Iraq, and is working 24/7 to create one! And it’s client, Syria, is doing its share!

There is more wisdom, insight, judgment, and sense of history in the head of one young American soldier than in the entire preening, self-congratulatory, self-aggrandizing Baker-Hamilton commission — as evidence, consider the reaction of T.F. Boggs, a 24-year-old Sergeant in the Army Reserve who returned from his second tour in Iraq just last month (emphasis added):

The Iraq Survey Group’s findings or rather, recommendations are a joke and could have only come from a group of old people who have been stuck in Washington for too long. The brainpower of the ISG has come up with a new direction for our country and that includes negotiating with countries whose people chant “Death to America” and whose leaders deny the Holocaust and call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Baker and Hamilton want us to get terrorists supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism! …
…

What the group desperately needed was at least one their members to have been in the military and had recent experience in Iraq. The problem with having an entire panel with no one under the age of 67 is that none of them could possibly know what the situation is actually like on the ground in Iraq. …

We cannot appease our enemies and we cannot continue to cut and run when the going gets tough. As it stands in the world right now our enemies view America as a country full of queasy people who are inclined to cut and run when things take a turn for the worse. Just as the Tet Offensive was the victory that led to our failure in Vietnam our victories in Iraq now are leading to our failure in the Middle East. How many more times must we fight to fail? I feel like all of my efforts (30 months of deployment time) and the efforts of all my brothers in arms are all for naught. I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but apparently I have more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food-you can’t have what you want and have it now. To completely change a country for the first time in it’s entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years.

Talking doesn’t solve anything with a crazed people, bullets do and we need to be given a chance to work our military magic. Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by Islamofacists sucks more.

HT: Hugh Hewitt, whose assessment of the report is spot-on, including an apt historical comparison:

The report combines an almost limitless condescension towards the "Iraqi sovereign government," even going so far as to lay out a timetable for its exact legislative program for the next six months, with a cavalier indifference to the Syrian death squads operating in Lebanon, and the certain nature of the Iranian regime –still, on this very day, hosting the anti-Holocaust conference.

It is a wonder, this bit of appeasement virtuosity, and I think it will gain for its authors all the lasting fame that has attached itself to the name Samuel Hoare, and his brainchild, the Hoare-Laval Agreement.

I think Dean Barnett may have correctly identified the mindset of these morons:

Yesterday, the self-esteem movement reached its zenith. A nation and a government, eager to feel better about themselves, rounded up a passel of political has-beens to offer policy prescriptions that we could all support. And, other than the brain-dead nature of its policy prescriptions, what’s there not to love about the Iraq Study Group’s report? It’s the foreign policy equivalent of “a chicken in every pot.”

If this vacuous and venal piece of tripe isn’t dismissed and ignored — if its policy recommendations are actually followed, and the United States commits itself to appeasing terror states into being a bit nicer — then a few short years from now, when the nuke takes out Tel Aviv, we should refer to it as the Baker-Hamilton Holocaust.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ahmadinejad’s ultimatum

Posted by Richard on December 5, 2006

Kenneth Timmerman took a look at the Iranian president’s recent letter to the American people, and he didn’t like what he saw:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has followed up his 18-page letter to President Bush earlier this year with a five-page missive to the American people.

In the earlier letter, which left the Bush White House shaking their heads with wonderment, the Iranian invited Mr. Bush to embrace Islam. That is a well-established Islamic tradition when dealing with an enemy just prior to war. If they refuse, then the Muslims are "justified" in destroying them.

Timmerman noted that Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American people referred to America’s "injustice" a dozen times, and the concept of justice has a rather different meaning for Ahmadinejad than it does for those of us in the West. To him, it’s all about submitting to Allah — the "Islamization of the entire world." He demanded that we stop supporting Israel, leave Iraq, and quit embracing "moral corruption." Timmerman pointed out that "corruption" is a rather serious crime in Iran:

Students of recent Iranian history will recall that the "crime" most often used to justify a death sentence by Islamic Republic revolutionary courts during the early years of the revolution was "corruption on Earth." This was how the regime simply eliminated its opponents or those who rejected absolute clerical rule.

Timmerman thinks most commentors have missed the point of the letter, which came at the end:

Citing from the Koran at the close of his letter, he says that if Americans "repent" of their "injustice," they will be blessed with many gifts. "We should all heed the divine Word of the Holy Koran," he says.

The context of this particular verse (28:67-28, Sura "Al-Qasas," or The Narration), is very clear. It follows a graphic description of destruction and devastation that will befall those who fail to repent of their injustice, i.e., support for Israel and refusal to adopt Islam.

It also sets out the terms of the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. "And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses." This is precisely what Mr. Ahmadinejad does in his letter.

Dump George W. Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam — or else you will be destroyed. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s message.

Meanwhile, the gas centrifuges are humming in the underground bunkers at Natanz (the ones off-limits to inspectors), construction continues at the secret Neyshabour facility (deeper underground and less vulnerable to air strikes), and the supply of weapons-grade uranium slowly but surely grows.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Baker’s blunders

Posted by Richard on December 5, 2006

I’ve made no secret of my dislike for James Baker, Bob Gates, and their pals from the Bush 41 administration — see Baker, Bush, and the loss of vision and It’s not realism, it’s capitulation. In his latest column, Jeff Jacoby cited some of the specific Bush 41 foreign policy blunders in which Baker had a hand as secretary of state (1989-1992):

One such blunder was the administration’s stubborn refusal to support independence for the long-subjugated republics of the Soviet Union, culminating in the president’s notorious "Chicken Kiev" speech of August 1991, when he urged Ukrainians to stay in their Soviet cage. Another was the appeasement of Syrian dictator Hafez Assad during the run-up to the Gulf War in 1990, when Bush and Baker blessed Syria’s brutal occupation of Lebanon in exchange for Assad’s acquiescence in the campaign to roll back the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

When Chinese tanks massacred students in Tiananmen Square, Bush expressed more concern for the troops than for their victims: "I don’t think we ought to judge the whole People’s Liberation Army by that terrible incident," he said. When Bosnia was torn apart by violence in 1992, the Bush-Baker reaction was to shrug it off as "a hiccup."

Worst of all was the betrayal of the Iraqi Shi’ites and Kurds who in the spring of 1991 heeded Bush’s call to "take matters into their own hands" and overthrow Saddam Hussein — only to be slaughtered by Saddam’s helicopter gunships and napalm while the Bush administration stood by. Baker blithely announced that the administration was "not in the process now of assisting . . . these groups that are in uprising against the current government." To Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell’s plea that some of the 400,000 US troops in the area put a halt to the massacre, Bush dismissively replied, "Always glad to have his opinion. Glad to hear from him." Then he went fishing in Florida.

If Bush the Elder is remembered for a rather heartless and cynical foreign policy, then much of the credit must go to Baker. And what Baker did for the father, he is now poised to do for the son.

Jacoby went on to argue for adding more troops in Iraq, and he made the best argument for doing so I’ve seen yet. In particular, with the impending Baker report reminding many of us — and doubtless many Iraqis — of the past Baker-Bush betrayal, there’s this (emphasis added):

Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq’s chaos. It would also help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. That is why "they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for the protection the Bush administration has failed to provide," Robert Kagan and William Kristol write in The Weekly Standard. "That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, is what has brought Iraq closer to civil war."

I think that’s about right. I also think he’s on to something regarding why people have become so negative about Iraq: it’s not the casualties or the length of the conflict — "It is *losing* that Americans have no patience for." Of course, three years of relentless media negativity, disinformation, and outright lying have something to do with it, too.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not realism, it’s capitulation

Posted by Richard on November 28, 2006

Last week, I said I was "displeased and disgusted" by signs that the Bush administration is preparing to abandon its visionary foreign policy and embrace the Kissingerian realpolitik of Bush 41 pragmatists like James Baker and Robert Gates, by the prospect of dumping Sharansky for Scowcroft. New hints and leaks and off-record remarks suggest that the Iraq Study Group will indeed push us in that direction. And a chorus of voices from Capitol Hill to the United Nations is muttering about the need to "engage" the Syrians and Iranians.

In the new (12/04) Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol looked at this so-called "realism" and found it wanting:

So let’s add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis–Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others–who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria’s support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran’s nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries’ every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected–nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

OK, let’s tally that up: Stature of U.S. decreased — check. U.S. neither feared, nor respected, nor liked — check. U.S. gains no friends and loses no adversaries — check.

Kagan and Kristol made these points as if they were devastating critiques of the new "realism" — and for some of us, they are indeed. But for the Democrats, the "moderate pragmatists" like Baker, the Foggy Bottom internationalists, legions of Europeans, and fans of the United Nations everywhere, these consequences are at least tolerable and perhaps desirable.

HT to Neo-neocon, who noted that the Washington Post editors seemed to grasp the problems inherent in trying to reason with Syria and Iran, but fumbled the solution — the power of UN sanctions, she argued, "more closely resembles a small toothpick than a big stick."
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thugs and crazies

Posted by Richard on November 22, 2006

There isn’t really any doubt that the thugs of Syria, the crazies of Iran, or both are behind the attempt to topple the Lebanese government via assassinations. Gateway Pundit has a good roundup of what’s happened, with lots of updates and links.

The prospect of civil war in Lebanon — or a quick Hezbollah takeover — follows closely on the heels of rumors that Baker’s Iraq Study Group will recommend making deals with Syria and Iran. Mary Madigan wrote a great analysis of the situation:

Discussions about Middle East politics remind me of a bit from a comic, Pearls Before Swine. One of the characters is a Zebra, who can’t understand why the lions keep eating his fellow Zebras. So, he writes a letter to the lions filled with philosophical questions about peace, understanding and the nature of being, asking why can’t they all get along, why can’t they be friends..

The answer comes back from the lions "we eat Zebras becuz you taste gud."

One of the main reasons why we’ve been so ineffective against the mob politics in Syria, Iran, Hezbollahland, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. is the way we allow ourselves to be distracted by their propaganda and by our own desire for peace. We don’t pay enough attention to their goals and their actions.

If we listen to their propaganda, we can tell ourselves that we’re dealing with a group of people who are motivated by religion and philosophy. We’re fighting an ideological war.

If we pay attention to their actions, we realize that we’re dealing with a bunch of gangsters. They’re well-organized gangsters, funded by millions in oil money, but they’re gangsters all the same. They want more money and power (as much as they can get), and they use guns to get them. Some are knuckle draggers and some wear suits and move money, propaganda and religious dogma around.

If the Gottis and Gambinos had wised up to the power of multicuturalism, leftist self-loathing and the multitude of hiding places provided by the skirts of religion, they could have ruled the world.

Reading Madigan’s piece, I was reminded of how Ayn Rand used to speak of the Witch Doctor and Atilla (symbols of faith and force), and how they seemed so different, but were very much alike in their rejection of reason. The Islamofascists — enemies of modernity, the Enlightenment, and Western Civilization — are actually a dangerous fusion of the Witch Doctor and Atilla into one. Crazed thugs, if you will. All the more reason they must be taken seriously and opposed with all our might.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hanson’s questions

Posted by Richard on November 21, 2006

Victor Davis Hanson’s November 17 column is a must read. He asked the kind of questions and raised the issues that ought to be at the heart of the public debate about Iraq, but that are being largely ignored. Regarding the suggestion that we need more troops in Iraq, Hanson countered that first someone needs to explain exactly how they would help the situation. He doubted that they would unless the rules of engagement were changed — and if those rules were changed, Hanson argued, more troops wouldn’t be needed. He noted that in Vietnam, the U.S. military successfully fought a force well over twice it’s size, and in Iraq:

Even generous estimates of the number of insurgents in Iraq conclude there are about 10,000 active killers — a fraction of just the irregulars in the south of Vietnam alone. Why then, when the numerical disparities are so much more favorable to our cause than during the Vietnam War, are we, rather than our vastly outnumbered enemies, lamenting the paucity of troops? That we have not secured the country may be due to the limitations put on our soldiers rather than their number; and to our preference for conventional rather than counter-insurgency fighting.

Hanson had some tough questions for the proponents of "redeploying" troops, too:

Are Americans ready to accept tens of thousands of refugees into the United States when those reformers who believed we’d stay and protect them are targeted for death? And what would we do if Turkey threatens Kurdistan with invasion once its patron has abandoned it?

And where, in a new region of jihadist ascendancy, are troops to be redeployed to? Other Middle East countries? What Middle Eastern illegitimate autocrat would want to host a retreating and defeated American army, a sort of modern version of Xenophon’s orphaned Ten Thousand? Indeed, the problem would not be redeployment to a nearby host kingdom, but just maintaining Centcom forces where they are now, once the Arab Street smells blood and adjusts to an Islamic victory. If IEDs worked in Iraq, why not also in Kuwait and Qatar?

But perhaps most importantly, Hanson thought we should consider the nature of and reasons for the "unbalanced reporting" of this war. He wondered if it was just the American media’s desire to hurt Republicans and the Europeans’ desire to take the U.S. down a notch, or if there was something deeper:

Or is the bias a more general result of a Western elite so deeply conflicted about its own culture, and so fundamentally unable to define its own civilization, that it either doesn’t care whether it wins, or in fact wishes that the West lose in Iraq?

One can grasp that generic hypocrisy by reviewing all the journalists’ charges leveled against Gulf War I — too much realpolitik; too much pay-as-you-go war thinking; too much Colin Powell and James Baker and not enough Paul Wolfowitz; too much worry about stability and not enough about millions of poor Kurds and Shiites; too much worry about empowering Iran. Then compare those charges to those leveled against Gulf War II — too much naïve idealism; too much expense in lives and treasure; not enough Colin Powell and James Baker and too much Paul Wolfowitz; too little worry about regional stability and too much given to ungovernable Iraqis; and too little thought about empowering Iran.

Whatever the U.S. does, Hanson observed, it’s going to be deemed wrong by the liberal media elites. He had some interesting thoughts about the reasons for that, but it’s something that should be discussed and explored further. As should all the issues and questions Hanson raised.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Peace movement

Posted by Richard on November 20, 2006

The commitment to reason and dedication to science and logic that led some people to take World Jump Day seriously and that have always characterized the "reality-based community" have now led the Global Consciousness Project, in conjunction with Baring Witness, to promote a Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace. Elaib Harvey at The Brussels Journal summed it up nicely:

At last a way to stop Islamofascism, war, earthquakes and President George W Bush. The Global Orgasm is obviously the way.

The idea seems to be if countless millions are reaching a state of sexual ecstasy simultaneously on Friday 22nd of December then world peace will break out, Bush will indeed discover that Osama is quite a cute fellow after all, and that nasty fellow Ahmedinejad in Tehran will discover that the Isrealis are utter sweethearts.

This is the First Annual Solstice Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace, leading up to the December Solstice of 2012, when the Mayan Calendar ends with a new beginning.

For pity’s sake they even have a page pretending to prove the science – hosted at Princeton University!!

The "brains" behind this project are from Marin County, California — are you surprised?

You can’t make this stuff up.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Over there or over here

Posted by Richard on November 12, 2006

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri (Does every jihadist have two or more names? What’s with that?) said his 12,000 fighters won’t rest until they reach Jerusalem and destroy the White House:

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house — which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

The "olive trees of Rumieh" appeared to be a reference to the Mount of Olive in Jerusalem, or Christendom in general as a continuation of the Roman empire.

So let me get this straight: Abu What’s-his-name said they’re going to destroy the White House, right? That sounds to me a lot like Abu has confirmed that "If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them here."
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Kurdish leader blasts media

Posted by Richard on November 7, 2006

The grass-roots pro-troop organization, Move America Forward, is sponsoring a delegation of Gold Star Families — families who lost a child in Operation Iraqi Freedom — on a ten-day trip to Iraq to see first-hand what their children gave their lives for and to show their support for our troops. On Monday, they met with the Prime Minister of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government, who told them he couldn’t believe how distorted the Western media’s coverage of Iraq has been (emphasis added):

"CNN International and [Arabic television network] al-Jazeera are equally bad in their coverage of the situation in Iraq," Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani was quoted as telling a visiting group of Americans on Monday.

"When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn’t return," he said.

Move America Forward spent a year planning the Gold Star Families trip, but kept it strictly secret until the delegation actually arrived in Iraq on Saturday. They’ve met with U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders, and Iraqi citizens. You can see the latest pictures of the trip at this photo gallery.

Members of the delegation were thrilled that Saddam’s guilty verdict was announced while they were there, and they celebrated with Iraqis:

"Justice has been served, and we are now celebrating together with the people of Iraq," said Joseph Williams, whose son, Michael, was killed near Nasiriyah in March 2003.

Another parent, Mike Anderson, said the verdict provided additional justification for the war on terrorism.

"We are doing the right thing in Iraq, and many of the people in Iraq are trying to do the right thing in building a future free of violence and terrorism," said Anderson, whose son, Michael Jr., died in Anbar province in December 2004.

Debra Argel Bastian, whose son Derek Argel died in Iraq’s eastern Diyala province in May 2005, agreed.

"I am so happy to see that justice has prevailed over terrorism and bloodshed," she said. "I am so proud of the men and women of the United States military who have made this moment possible. And I honor the sacrifice my son gave to serve his country in the war against terrorism."

Among those on the trip are Joe and Jan Johnson, whose son Justin was killed in Baghdad in April 2004. The Johnsons, like others in the delegation, had a low opinion of Sen. John Kerry’s recent comment (emphasis added):

Kerry last week triggered a storm when he said during a California campaign event: "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

As Cybercast News Service reported recently, the Johnsons claim in a newly released book that Kerry tried to recruit them at their son’s funeral to speak out against President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Instead, the family, whose son was good friends with Casey Sheehan, son of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, said they support the president and the war.

"I want to be able to tell the troops that there are Americans who still believe we are doing the right thing by being here," Joe Johnson said.

Move America Forward has put the photo of U.S. troops holding a "HALP US JON CARRY" sign on the front of a T-shirt. The back says:

I Support Our Troops!

Smart. Brave. Proud.

They deserve our respect & gratitude.

They’re $15, and you can order them here. If you know anyone with a loved one in the military, there’s your Christmas present.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

What the troops think

Posted by Richard on November 6, 2006

Mirabile dictu! Someone at the Washington Post apparently decided that, if you’re going to claim that you support and respect the troops, you might want to occasionally listen to them and see what they think. The result was today’s remarkable story by Josh White, "Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results." White even left Baghdad and viisted troops in the countryside and at forward operating bases. He found a remarkable unanimity of support for the mission:

For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

(How do I know the troops are remarkably unanimous? Well, this is the Washington Post. I don’t it’s a stretch to suspect that if White had found even one soldier or Marine who favored pulling out, the headline would have been "Soldiers Divided About Withdrawing" — and it would have gotten better placement than page A-13.)

Even a self-described liberal from New Jersey thought withdrawing U.S. troops would be disastrous:

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It’s not ‘stay the course,’ and it’s not ‘cut and run’ or other political catchphrases. There are people’s lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn’t possible."

A captain from Texas talked about how his troops have helped Iraqi forces in Tall Afar and gained the trust of the local residents, and he described what it would mean if they left now:

"We’ll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It’s still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Read the whole thing (log in with BugMeNot if necessary).

Captain Ed described the long-term, strategic consequences of withdrawal well:

If the US turns its back on the Iraqis now, Somalia will pale into insignificance in comparison to the disaster, both militarily and strategically, we will have brought upon ourselves. Native populations will never — never — trust us to stand by and protect them after risking everything to assist us. Tyrants and terrorists will laugh at our threats, knowing they can outlast us, especially if they can create enough propaganda to distract American voters.

The soldiers and Marines understand that victory cannot be replaced by "phased redeployment". If the tactics need changing or adjustment, then bring in better ideas — but we cannot allow retreat and capitulation become the only other option for Iraq.

That’s right — bring in better ideas, if you have them. But don’t be like Ed Perlmutter and pretend that finger-pointing is actually an idea or a plan. "Hold the President accountable," my aching backside.

UPDATE: Would it be churlish of me to point out that this WaPo article is the petard by which all those making the chicken hawk argument are hoist?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Perlmutter’s plan for Iraq

Posted by Richard on October 30, 2006

Ed Perlmutter is the Democratic candidate for Congress in Colorado’s 7th District, the seat currently held by Republican Bob Beauprez. It’s one of the most hotly contested congressional races in the country, and the Denver airwaves have been full of attack ads from both Perlmutter and his Republican opponent, Rick O’Donnell.

I think Perlmutter’s ad on Iraq perfectly illustrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democrats. It begins by saying that O’Donnell’s "latest idea" is to send 75,000 more troops to Iraq (CBS4Denver called Perlmutter’s claim "misleading") and continues in a shocked tone:

O’DONNELL GOES EVEN FURTHER THAN GEORGE BUSH, AND WOULD SEND 75,000 MORE TROOPS INTO COMBAT TO DEFEND A FAILED POLICY. ANOTHER BAD IDEA FROM RICK O’DONNELL. ED PERLMUTTER HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA.

Aha, here’s where Perlmutter succinctly outlines his brilliant plan for Iraq, right? Umm, yeah …  right:

" IN IRAQ WE HAVE TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, AND HAVE REAL DEBATE IN CONGRESS. I’M ED PERLMUTTER AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IRAQ IS A MESS, AND SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE."

The Democrat’s brilliant solution to the Iraq problem: (1) Hold the President accountable. (What does that mean — hearings? impeachment? just more of the current carping and criticism?) (2) Have a real debate. (Still more hearings?)

Now why didn’t we think of this sooner? If we just critizice Bush enough and have enough critics testify in front of congressional committees, the Iraq problem will be solved! The Democrats don’t have to come up with a policy alternative — the hearings and criticisms, like magical incantations, will cause a solution to reveal itself!

Of course, that’s just the part of his Iraq plan that Perlmutter is willing to share with the rubes sitting in front of the boob tube. If you’re the more sophisticated, savvy, and activist type of Democrat who seeks out the Perlmutter website, you’ll discover (to your MoveOn-motivated delight, no doubt) that he’s a huge fan of Rep. John Murtha’s "expedited redeployment:" of U.S. forces in Iraq.

That’s Murtha’s insane plan to begin withdrawing from Iraq immediately and "redeploying" to Okinawa. That’s the plan for which Murtha cited U.S. withdrawal from Somalia (see Black Hawk Down) as the example we should follow.

So there you have it. Depending on which message you listen to, the Perlmutter plan for Iraq is either a vacuous call for more finger-pointing or a demand that we emulate one of the most ignominious events in U.S. military history.

If you live in Colorado’s 7th District please think carefully — do you want the next two years to bring higher taxes and the re-enactment on a larger scale of Mogadishu?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pelosi puff piece reveals danger of Dems

Posted by Richard on October 23, 2006

Thank goodness I didn’t watch 60 Minutes last night. I couldn’t have taken Leslie Stahl’s fawning interview with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve heard and read enough of it this morning to conclude that CBS should be charged with an "in kind" campaign contribution. All the emphasis on what a wonderful wife, mother, and grandmother Pelosi is ought to make feminists gag — but of course, they like her politics, so you won’t hear a peep of protest.

The questions weren’t just softballs — most of them were whiffle balls. Stahl sounded tough one time — when she challenged Pelosi on the civility issue, pointing out that Pelosi has used terms like "immoral," "corrupt," and "criminal enterprise" to refer to the congressional Republicans and has called President Bush practically every name in the book:

"It sounds personal," Stahl remarks.

"This isn’t personal," Pelosi says.

"He’s "incompetent", he’s…," Stahl continues.

"Well, I think he is," Pelosi states.

"Well, that’s personal," Stahl points out.

"Well, I’m sorry, that’s his problem," Pelosi replies.

"How does this raise the level of civility?" Stahl asks.

"Well, this is a – well – we’re in a political debate here. We didn’t come here to have a tea party together, and toss a coin to see who would win on an issue," Pelosi says. "I have very thick skin, I don’t care what they say about me."

Note: I heard the audio clip of this exchange, and Stahl sounded less tough than you’d think from reading it. I suppose her inability to suppress giggles — for instance, when referring to Bush as incompetent — had something to do with that.

Nevertheless, Pelosi comes off rather mean-spirited and hateful, doesn’t she? Well, 60 Minutes can’t have that — time for some "moral equivalence":

And she needs that thick skin. She’s being used for target practice.

GOP ads have labeled her "liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi." One Republican ad says "she’ll reward illegal aliens with welfare, food-stamps, and free education. How do we stop her?"

Republicans including the president go after her saying if she’s Speaker, it’ll mean a weaker military, pampering of terrorists, and higher taxes.

Sure, Pelosi calls her opponents criminals, bigots, morons, and incompetents, and says they’re corrupt and evil. But just look — they call her liberal and say she wants to raise taxes and give food stamps to illegals. Same thing, right? Both sides are doing it. They’re just debating the issues — whether the Dems would raise taxes on the one hand, and whether Republicans are the spawn of Satan on the other. No difference at all. Let’s just move on.

Let’s get really serious and talk about the war. Here comes the slow pitch right over the plate — Stahl noted that Pelosi wants to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this year, and asked (emphasis added):

"Does that not open you up then to that charge of cutting and running? This is just what they’re saying," Stahl asks.

"The issue is them. The issue is the war they got us into," Pelosi replies. "If the president wants to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, he’s not right."

"Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?" Stahl asks.

"No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan," Pelosi says.

Well. By my reckoning, that’s not a home run, it’s a foul ball. Pelosi succinctly articulated the mindset that makes her and her fellow anti-war Democrats so dangerous. They believe that if we just captured Osama and his buddies, we could declare victory, go home, and return to the way things were on September 10, 2001.

If they have their way, a lot more of us are going to die.

I suppose 60 Minutes would just characterize my statement as another example of name-calling and incivility.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »