She is Awesome

We just saw this great lady on Cspan. She has no confusion about who the enemy is and why we must fight them.

As for moderate Muslims, she says we ought to judge them on their deeds. Do you see vigorous protests? I don't.
Brigitte Gabriel / American Congress For Truth

Corker is big fat liar., Vote Bryant

Flattery Will Get You Nowhere - FactCheck.org

Fact Check is most certainly not without a liberal bias, but it is also most certainly the most reliable source for this sort of thing and they are really pretty good.

Bryant is a cool customer and exudes the confidence that comes with expertise.

Indians, Blacks and Liberal warfare

It's odd that the Left spends so much time describing how Whites destroyed Indian culture, which they savagely did, of course, but can't learn the right lessons from it.

Lakota author Joseph Marshall III, talking about the last "battle" of the Indian Wars, Wounded Knee, explains what eludes them:

There was a period of traumatic change over a period of a few years when one kind of lifestyle ended and another began. There was no more purpose to hunt because the government was going to provide all the annuities in the form of beef and flower and all the other things they were providing. There was no more need for protection because the wars were over. So what the government did was effectively render obsolete the societal role of the male that had existed for thousand of generations. (The Real West: Wounded Knee, History Channel)

Please don't be sophomoric and complain that the analogy is false, a favorite tactic of the dull witted. Instead, try to learn from what similarities there are.

Whites are basically doing the same thing to Blacks today. Of course not all Whites are trying to destroy Black, just Liberals. To be fair, since the (often hidden) core of Liberalsim is nihilism, they are trying to destroy everyone who is Other. Also, not all Blacks are the targets of the destructive policy, just those least able to defend against it -- just like the Indians vs. the Hotchkiss gun.

It is not the army which destroys culture; it is Leftist government policies like those we used against the Sioux et al. For many years, most major inner-cities have been under Liberal policies and we all know how that is working out. The Great Society is a dismal failure as are our schools. Liberals are not waging a war on poverty; they are waging a war on the poor.

An interesting note: the reporters at Wounded Knee lied about the war just like ours are doing today.

This should give you pause

[this was accidentally posted to another of my blogs in April]

lgf: Orwellian Image of the Day

Of course, they are just happy for the cheap energy.

Considering Partition of Iraq

I'm mulling over the proposal that Iraq should be partitioned. Some aspects of it are appealing to me, but I have reservations also. My primary concern is that partioning Iraq would mean undoing the newly elected government. What do we say to the Iraqis? "Hey, we're real proud of y' all for risking your lives to vote, but we have a new plan".

Anyway, here are the more thoughtful posts on the subject that I've seen:
By mparent7777 at live journal
By Bill Steigerwald at Kurdish Media
By Juan Cole (Professor of History at the University of Michigan) at Informed Comment
By Steve Sailor at V DARE
"Don't Purposefully Partition Iraq" By Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch

History in the Making? One Can Hope

I went to the first Fair Tax ralley which was held on May 24th, and let me just say, it was truly awesome!

Wednesday mornong, I drove to N. Carolina to pick up my sister, we drove to Deluth GA, and we waited in the hot sun for 2.5 hours to get in. It's a good thing we got there when we did, because over 2 thousand people were turned away due to arena capacity.

The drive, the wait, the heat . . . all worth it! It was a stunning demonstration of people with the will to make a real and lasting change. The ralley was so successful, it earned a presidential sit down for its sponsor in the House, John Linder. I felt like I was part of history in the making. One can hope.


Also, I have never been in a crowd of such polite, considerate people. Fair Tax supporters are nice people.

Go here for details on the ralley. Go here for details on the fair tax . . .or better yet, go here.

Critical Thinking and the Duelfer Report

Stephen,
Upon review of the Duelfer report, not just Annex D, but including Annex D, I came to the conclusion that the decision to invade is vindicated. It only reinforces what I had already heard and read regarding the threat posed Saddam's defiance of the UN sanctions.

Your conclusion that "experts" determined the trailers to be "useless for producing bioweapons" is not supported by Annex D or any other part of the final ISG report. Also the ISG pays more respect to the second team which you describe as "analysts or officials".

A second examination was undertaken by a team of scientific experts, after Al Kindi personnel suggested the trailers were for hydrogen production. Their report concluded, “The trailers have equipment and components possibly compatible with biological agent production and/or chemical processes that might include hydrogen production.

It seems likely to me that the final team is probably even more specialized than the second team and was brought in to do an even more thorough examination. However, this does not mean that the other teams should be casually dismissed.

At any rate, what the ISG actually concludes in Annex D, is that the trailers were very unlikely to have been used for BW (bioweapons), and consistent with hydrogen production. That is not the same as impossible or useless for BW, or exclusively useful for Hydrogen. Also, it should be noted the interviews with the "Highly Valued Detainees" reported in annex D did not support the hydrogen model.

The third team concludes that the trailer (they only report an examination of one trailer) would have required major and costly modifications for BW use.

This assessment focuses on Trailer 1 because it appeared to have a complete set of equipment.

Though I mention they only examine one trailer, I did not overlook their explanation for doing so. While the ISG reports that the level of completion of the unexamined trailer is consistent with Iraqi documents, nevertheless, the report does not include a focused assessment of that trailer. Furthermore, other parts of the report note that both trailers had been looted. They don't say what the extent of the looting is, or that it is even knowable. While it may not be the ISG's mandate to speculate on everything that could have been removed, there may be a gap between what Al Kindi produced, and what the ISG was able to examine. This is not irrelevant, given the Regime's long history of dual use technologies.

There is another element missing from the ISG report. It is an unaddressed discrepancy between the findings of the first team, and this report.

On 19 April 2003, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) elements confiscated a tractor and trailer near a checkpoint at Tall Kayf in northern Iraq. The trailer was stolen by a looter . . .US forces then moved the trailer to Irbil air base for further investigation. . . The gooseneck trailer has two rear axles and accommodation in the frame for a third also at the rear. A telescoping rod, which could raise roughly nine meters, was located at the rear left corner of the trailer. Roughly three to four inches of a solid light brown material beneath a one half-inch liquid layer was inside. Despite wearing protective mask, an ammonia odor was noted. The pH of the material was fourteen. A rusted hand shovel was located at the base of the reaction vessel. . .

It mentions liquid and solid material “inside”. How surprisingly vague that is. "Inside" what, the trailer? Does this mean on the floor of the trailer? Also, the DIA paper noted that material within the [alleged] fermentor was tested positive for azide and urea (inconsistent with hydrogen production) along with other substances. Other substances were mentioned in the ISG report, but not the azide or the urea, not even to say they are insignificant to the judgment.

In May 2003, analysis was carried out on seven samples taken from key equipment locations on the trailer, including powder and slurry taken from the ‘reactor vessel’. No evidence of BW organisms was detected. The complete absence of proteins and the minute amounts of phosphorus and sulfur present were deemed inconsistent with normal bio-production.

Shouldn’t they have mentioned it, even if it was human waste, given that this report is written by experts for the benefit of non-experts? (Do you honestly think it likely the azide came from human waste)? Was the first team wrong about azide and/or urea not being consistent with hydrogen production? If so, why didn't the ISG include it in their findings that support the hydrogen model?

The following excerpts pertain to various parts of the Duelfer report, they are not all from annex D, nor are they specifically in regard to the trailers.

Consider the contradiction between two sections in the report. The first statement is in the key findings regarding Biological Weapons in volume III. The two statements after are from the key findings for Finance and Procurement in volume I.

The years following Desert Storm wrought a steady degradation of Iraq’s industrial base: new equipment and spare parts for existing machinery became difficult and expensive to obtain, standards of maintenance declined, staff could not receive training abroad, and foreign technical assistance was almost impossible to get. Additionally, Iraq’s infrastructure and public utilities were crumbling. New large projects, particularly if they required special foreign equipment and expertise, would attract international attention. UN monitoring of dual-use facilities up to the end of 1998, made their use for clandestine purpose complicated and risk laden.

Throughout sanctions, Saddam continually directed his advisors to formulate and implement strategies, policies, and methods to terminate the UN’s sanctions regime established by UNSCR 661. The Regime devised an effective diplomatic and economic strategy of generating revenue and procuring illicit goods utilizing the Iraqi intelligence, banking, industrial, and military apparatus that eroded United Nations’ member states and other international players’ resolve to enforce compliance, while capitalizing politically on its humanitarian crisis.

Saddam’s increasing illegitimate revenue and profits from UN oil sales compensated for legitimate revenue loses. Illicit oil revenue provided Saddam with sufficient funds to pay off his loyalists and expand selected illicit procurement programs. From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency.

Note the very equivocal language of the 1st quote in relation to the very decisive language in the last two.

Note here, the pressure Saddam was exerting against the UN to lift sanctions:

November 27, 2001 Iraq rejects a call by U.S. President George Bush to let United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country to determine whether it is building weapons of mass destruction. An Iraqi spokesman states that, before asking Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return, the United Nations should lift the 11-year-old sanctions on Iraq and the West should abolish the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.

Saddam had reason to believe the UN was weakening in its commitment, not just because of back door deals, but also because of open proposals to policy change.

December 17, 1999 The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1284 on returning weapons inspectors to Iraq. Under the Resolution, sanctions could be suspended if Iraq were to cooperate with the inspectors over a period of nine months. Iraq has stated that it does not accept the Resolution, which also creates the new United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) for Iraq.

Here we see the weakening commitment, with Saddam holding out for a better deal. Note his refusal to cooperate for even 9 mos. in exchange for lifted sanctions. Clearly, this man felt more threatened by inspections than sanctions.

The sanctions and inspections were not holding Saddam. Perhaps they were slowing him down, but it's irresponsible to think they would have held indefinitely. He was defying the sanctions, and to this day, no one can account for all that Saddam was required to declare. The best we can do is speculate.

You can assume, if you like, that the unaccounted materials were destroyed, or have naturally degraded. Or were they transported out as suggested by David Kay?

"There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

And Kay is not the only source for this argument. Refer to this post from Endymion, entitled "Yet Another Reason to Believe Saddam had WMD" from March 27, 2006. Follow the links from there as well to get the complete evidence.

You can assume, if you like, that Saddam evaded inspectors because he was preserving the illusion of WMD capability as a means of self defense. Or, was that a ruse, to rationalize his misbehavior? We may never know. We do know that by failing to hold him to the inspections and sanctions, we rendered those devices practically useless. Consider this excerpt from the ISG report:

They had anthrax seed spores right up to the time of the invasion. Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi official until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.

Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover,Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.

Kinda like his nuclear mujahadeen, huh?

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.

Not finding his intentions is not the same as him not having them. Besides, I wonder what he kept the anthrax seed spores for, his scrapbook?

In spite of the difficulties noted above, a BW capability is technically the easiest WMD to attain. Although equipment and facilities were destroyed under UN supervision in 1996, Iraq retained technical BW know-how through the scientists that were involved in the former program. ISG has also identified civilian facilities and equipment in Iraq that have dual-use application that could be used for the production of agent.

So, go ahead and quibble over an over enthusiastic reaction to some disappointing evidence. It seems true the president erred in overstating the importance of the trailers. But what kind of ridiculous apology is, "I'm sorry that the trailers probably, but not definitely, are not mobile BW labs, and might be for hydrogen, but that's not definite either". Stephen, you yourself either overstated the findings of the ISG, or placed too much faith in Warrik's unverifiable sources. Your behavior is not so different from that which you criticize. Your comments are the kind of hindsight rhetoric that discourages weaker politicians from taking risks in order to defend the country and defeat tyranny. It is irresponsible for a citizen to prioritize public relations to a level that overshadows the good that has been done and should be done.

What Strategy?

I challenged Stephen to declare his strategy for winning the war and show how it would have succeeded where Bush has failed. Here are his responses, block quoted and bolded, along with other references he has made about strategy in Iraq. My rebuttals follow each blockquote.

I thought I provided [my strategy and argument of its validity] with the report on Nation Building

No, you did not. Here is what you provided:

The parts that are relevant are contained mostly in the executive summary and lessons learned and include: the intensity and length of the war phase, how homogenous the population is, the troops levels used to establish security, the building of judicial and police power, the cost spent per capita in rebuilding the economy, transition time for creating local governments, longer time for holding national elections.

The above is a not a report on nation building, it is list of topics. Even its source is not a report, so much as it is a BOOK. And if you have read more than the executive summary, or knew the arguments within the book, your comments have not reflected it. I gleaned more information from press releases on the book than you have given in your comments.

It's not enough to just say that there's a book that outlines a strategy, and it is not what Bush did, so therefore the Iraq War is a disaster. Why don't you show how they're right, and Bush is wrong? How can you even examine Bush's strategy when you don't begin by acknowledging he has one? I wouldn't be so frustrated, except I know you know better. I don't intend to read this book. I have neither the time nor money to buy and read every book that disagrees with Bush anymore than you do every book that does otherwise (hell, you couldn't be bothered to read a post I liked to). If we're going to discuss this book, you're going to have to bring its arguments here, not just a list of topics.

What they should do is stop thinking that "stay the course" is a legitimate strategy.

In fairness, you have already responded to my previous rebuttal of this assinine comment, in which I asserted that "Stay the Course" is not really a strategy so much as a slogan. It proposes the opposite of "Cut and Run" supported by the likes of John Murtha. And here is your response:

"Stay the course is not a strategy." Exactly. What we need is a strategy, and a proactive one that defines what victory is.

Don't be rediculous, Bush has a strategy. If you don't recognize it, that doesn't mean it does't exist. Experts meet on a regular basis to discuss strategy without your awareness or approval. Your characterization of our leaders as "idiots" who sent troops into Iraq with no plan is beneath this discussion. I love a sarcastic quip as much as the next guy, but this comment sounds like what you get from teenagers on pot.

And how about this? We are victorious. Saddam is being prosecuted. His oppressive regime is destroyed. His twisted, sadistic sons are dead. His Baathist allies are fighting for their very existence. All that's left to do is restore stability. That's not to be taken lightly, but consider post war Germany. For more than two years after the end of WWII, Seigfried Kabus was still carrying on an insurgency. It didn't mean we didn't defeat Nazi Germany. It didn't mean VE day was premature. We don't call Eisenhower, and Churchill idiots, even though they left us with Stalin. Maybe you don't call that victory, but I do. What do you call victory?

An official declaration of war through Congress

This is not a strategy for winning the war, nor was its lack an act of dishonesty. Congress gave its overwhelming approval for the use of force in Iraq. Everyone knew there was going to be an invasion. You yourself said you initially supported it. Were you unaware at the time, there was not an official dec. of war; or was it okay with you at the time, but not now?

a draft

This is a TERRIBLE idea. Our modern warcraft is more suited for highly trained units with high tech weaponry. Consider this quote from a Global security article by Dennis O'Brian.

Another key factor in improving a soldier's chances of avoiding injury is better training.

"In some ways, it is like a football game," says Frederick Kagan, a professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "The training, experience and skill level of your forces are all crucial."

Kagan says today's military is better trained than its counterparts were in both world wars. In those conflicts, he says, some U.S. casualties can be attributed at least partly to having inexperienced troops who entered the wars late and fought German armies that had several years of battlefield experience.

"We had to put green troops up against the Germans who had been fighting for years," Kagan says. "You're not going to walk into a situation like that and clean their clocks."

You'd have a hard time convincing me that a mass of minimally trained soldiers would do much more than make a bigger target. Basic training alone would take at least 6 mos; that's twice as long as the initial phase of the war. Even if we redefined the initial phase to include the capture of Saddam, that would only have been 9 mos. Plus, how well do you think these conscripted (and perhaps bitter) young soldiers would interact with the Iraqi people?

400,000 man army for the initial phase of the occupation

Is more necessarily better? This article has something to say about that. We have the best military in the world. If you think we need 400K troops for any given ground war, then we might as well hang it up. I'm not sure we could support an army of that size in peacetime, and draftees do not make a superior army. As much as you and your polls say the Iraqi's hate us, imagine them being surrounded by 400k minimally trained, not professional, US soldiers.

The total cost, had security been established, would have been around 200 billion.

How do you know? That's an estimate which I presume came from the book. It's possible this is right, but few projects in the private sector come in on budget, and I've never heard of a government endeavor that did. Also, it depends on what you're buying. You wanted to seal the border. That may have been cheaper, but I like the strategy of drawing in the non Iraqis that wanted to fight us. Financially, it might be more expensive, but it roots out people that would've preferred the extension of Islamofascism into Iraq, or the continuation of Saddam's defiance of the UN resolutions which were aimed at protecting the region and the world.

We are well past that number right now and no clear end in sight

We are past that number, true. And maybe there's no clear end in sight. But there's an end in site. Iraq is getting more stable as time passes. Saddam is in prison. Iraqis have held their elections. Insurgencies are weakening. We are making progress.

retaining what was left of the Iraqi Army

Please clarify this. You seem to mean we should've kept the Iraqi army intact and reassigned them to work with our soldiers. I don't think this is such a good idea, since some number may have remained loyal to Saddam, or just hated the US, or just may not have wanted to be soldiers anymorel. That seems like a good opportunity for such folks to do us harm. The ones who want to join the security forces can do so, and I'm sure, have done. BYT has commented on this topic in his chaotic way, and at the time, I thought that he meant for us to recruit the Iraq army. I argued against it at that time. But in a later comment he made it clear that he thinks we should have detained them. Perhaps that's what you mean, also, but I think that's an even worse idea. I think that detaining a mass of people for no crime except serving in their country's army could hardly help us win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Besides, to arrest them, you'd have to fight and capture them. How is that better than just fighting the ones who decided to become insurgents.? I think the best idea was to let them go. Those who don't want to get ivolved with the fighting may abstain. Those who wish to fight the insurgency, can join up with the new Iraqi forces doing so. Those who oppose democracy in Iraq can face the allies who defend it.

securing the border

That's one strategy. Here's a better one. Let terrorists in so our soldiers can engage them in Iraq. That way, we don't have to invade someone else to get them, and they're not free to plot against the US. Bush has spoken often of this strategy. Are you unaware of it, or or just not acknowledging it? I'm guessing the latter.

rebuilding their infrastructure

We are.

giving the UN a prominent role in the diplomatic/political effort with security provided by the US

Perhaps you can be more specific about exactly thier role would be. This is extremely vague.Why have them doing something unless we couldn't it do ourselves? After all, they couldn't even support us in enforcing the terms of the very resolutions they created. Also, whatever they offer, does it justify adding some one else for our troops to protect before the nation has been stabelized? The UN has had its own problems their safety in Iraq, and their plans are not always the best. Some in Iraq considered them to be just a mouthpiece for the US anyway, and Iraqi people didn't really appreciate the sanctions that were starving the infrastructure and the people themselves. The insurgents don't seem to see a great deal of difference between the US and the UN. The new Iraqi government and the UN may interact as they please. That's not up to the US.

open judicial system . . .

What does this have to do with the war? Besides, that's for the Iraqi government and people to establish in their own time, per the terms of their own constitution. It cannot be Bush's failure, as the choice does not belong to him.

. . .with a competent police force

We have been training the Iraqi security forces since 2003. Are you proposing a different force? Beyond leaving someone behind who can keep peace, how far do you think the US should go in micromanaging Iraq's affairs?

By what standard would you judge their competence? After all, not every one can live up to the esteemed reputation of the UN peacekeepers in Kosovo. Police work is very difficult, and no force is without its embarrassments. I hope you're more fair in your judgement of the Iraqi police than you are to the Bush administration.

local elections held within the first year, national elections held in the second year

Actually, "by February of 2004, democratic elections, under the supervision of the CPA, had already been held at the municipal and city level in some of the southern and northern provinces" according to this report. The same report further states that the national elections took place on Jan 30, 2005, not within 24 months, but 34 months. Your timeline is arbitrary in the big picture. It's more important that it happened successfully. Sooner is better, usually, for anything in life, but later is not necessarily incomptence. Consider that the Iraqi people had to overcome a certain threshold of confidence that the US would protect them in spite of the fact that many within the US predicted failure, and still do.

This would work because it worked in Kosovo,

This is rediculous statement! Only a small fraction of what you describe has anything to do with Kosovo. In one breath you're calling for a largely conscripted army of 400,000 troops, in the next, you want to do it like Kosovo. The Bosnian conflict was almost entirely an air war. It didn't depose Milosovich. He was left isolated, but nevertheless ruling Yugoslavia. We had to wait for his own people to hand him over for prosecution when they got tired of being isolated. We'd already tried this in Iraq with Desert Storm. Saddam was left isolated and sanctioned, but ruling Iraq. The problem was that the Iraqi people couldn't get rid of him. He squashed two rebellions after Desert Storm, and continued his cruel reign, refusing the inspections, scamming the sanctions while torturing and starving his people, keeping anthrax seed spores, and maintaining his WMD expert teams. By definition, what worked in Kosovo had already failed in Iraq. As a side note, all was not perfect in Kosovo, either. Bombing the Chinese embassy didn't exactly enhance America's reputation, did it? Intelligence isn't always correct, is it?

which was in the midst of a civil war when our intervention started.

That doesn't necessarily mean the job was harder, there. In fact, I think that probably made it easier, mostly because the people were ready to oppose Milosovich. This was not at all the case in Iraq. The Iraqi people were utterly subdued by Saddam.

If Bush is going to fight the war on terror by invasion of other countries, (which is a dubious strategy at best)

I don't see how it can be done any other way. The governments who harbour terrorists ARE our enemies. They don't give them up just because we ask nicely. They like them. And sanctions were essentially ineffective against Saddam in any respect.

Of course, there is a certain degree of discretion that must be exercized in terms of who we take on and when. One should only start a fight they have a chance of winning. But that doesn't mean it's not the right strategy. Of course, we could return to our pre-911 way of dealing with terrorism: Place all hope in the chance of capturing intelligence about an attack before it happens; of course gathering our intelligence without upsetting anybody's understanding of what they think are their civil rights; and then capturing and prosecuting the would be attackers where ever they may be, but without invading anyone.

Stephen, your ideas really are not bad, but your argument doesn't rise to the level of showing the war to be a failure, or its management, incompetent. If Bush didn't prosecute the war the way you would have, that's not to say he deserves the redicule and scorn you have heaped upon him and his administration. There are experts who disagree with the path you would have taken. That's a judgement call, not a failure. I'm not saying everything has been done as well as it could have, but nothing ever is. The book you cite, though surely written by good historians/ strategists, is not the sum total of strategic expertice. Your 20/20 hindsight scrutiny is shallow, unjust, and over dramatic.

P.S. I thought I had finished this post when I ran across this bit of brilliance form the Euston Manifesto. It takes me back to Stephen's accusation that I place partisan concern over the welfare of the country. Though the insult is grievous to me, I had judged it to be beneath response. After all, anyone of intelligence can see it for what it is. Here is a very appropo quote from this group of truly reasonable Liberals.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Revisiting Warrick

The links I provide serve two purposes. One is to show evidence to back up my arguments. The other is to make an argument I would have made if I had thought of it first. I could, as I would in a research paper, reprint quotes and provide citations. But instead, I link. It’s easier, and it gives credit where it's due. By saying I agree with their argument, it becomes mine too in a way. Not addressing my link is the same as not addressing my argument. Stephen has refused to respond to a particular, very important link.

If I hadn’t stated specifically in my Warrick post that reading the Seixon post was essential to understanding my position, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But I did. Then I did again, in comments. It’s true, I don’t respond to every single one of the numerous links provided by both Stephen and BYT. That would, if properly done, consume every minute of my free time. But I do what I can, and I certainly wouldn’t refuse to consider a link that one pointed out as the centerpiece of their argument. Let’s observe Stephen evading my argument.

Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us. The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.

The important thing for this story, is that Warrick is a liar. He absolutely lied about how old the report was. If you’d read Seixon’s post, you’d know that.

Let’s dissect Stephen’s comment.

Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us.

When did we start engaging only the arguments of experts? I’m not and expert on WMD, and neither are you, Stephen. Well fortunately, it didn't take a WMD expert to expose Warrick as a liar. Just a good memory, and common sense. Since you refuse to follow the link, I'll bring the crucial part to you, substituting my own bolds for emphasis.

Warrick writes breathlessly:

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Boy, that sure was a lot of hot air. You might say you could fill an entire weather balloon with it. Sorry Mr. Warrick, I have an archival memory, and I will call you out and beat you over the head with several facts. Let's rewind to June 2003, June 8th in fact, and a story in the Guardian across the pond in the UK:

A separate investigation published by the New York Times yesterday discloses that the trailers have now been investigated by three different teams of Western experts, with the third and most senior group of analysts apparently divided sharply over their function.

Dang, the New York Times scooped Mr. Warrick by almost three years. By whom? Well what a shocker, Judy Miller. She wrote the following, 7 June 2003:

In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.

Ouch. Warrick claims that this mission had not been made public until now, yet it was made public by our darling Judy Miller three years ago. Not only that, both the Guardian and the Times point out that the third group, of which Warrick is speaking, were sharpy divided. I don't find "unanimous" under "divided" in my thesaurus, do you? Warrick claims that this third team had nine experts from the US and Britain. The Washington Post writes:

Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized.

Six people who participated or knew about it? In other words, there is every possibility that we are getting a minority report about a minority report here. The Washington Post is selectively choosing those experts that did not think the trailers were for biological purposes, leaving out the others . . . and presenting the entire group as "unanimous". The previous articles by the Times and the Guardian show that to be completely false.

And, don't forget what Stephen said,

The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.

That is a false conclusion. In the official report by the third team, they say they were not the only proficient team, but that they were preceded by a team of scientific experts. More accurately, they seem to be the final, and most proficient team. Furthermore, their report does not support the claims of Warrick’s sources (which do not appear to be the actual scientists of the team). We can only take Warrick’s word about statements that are at best, anonymous hearsay.

So, Stephen, I don't see why we should place more trust in anonymous sources in this case, than in the official report. Why should we even believe in Warrick's anonymous sources when we know he lied about the timing of the report? Doesn't he owe you an apology?

Big Fun at the Polls

Yesterday, for the first time, I searved as a poll official in the Knox county elections.

In the week leading up to the election, I had begun to regret my promise to fill in as a voter registrar for my neighbor who normally does the job. I felt a little weighted by the imagined tedium of a redundant task that would go on for thirteen hours. I felt a little anxious at the propsect of assisting belligerantly passionate voters, fired up by their civic calling to get the right guy in or the wrong guy out.

The reality of it is that it was fun. It was nice. I really enjoyed meeting all the people. Thanks to two new friends who taught me to play Sodoku, the tedium of slow times was never an issue.The precinct I worked is the largest in Tennessee, I was told by the experienced officials there. Some of the voters were very pleasant. Some were very brusque, with no desire to be social (would a smile have been out of the question?)

Some volunteered their grievance with this candidate or that. Regardless of their political axe, I just smiled quietly. Because of my physical appearance, my style of hair and dress, many people mistake my political affilliation. I think that frees some people up to say things they might not if they knew I was a conservative. I'll just leave it at that.

Regardless of their party, or lack there of, I was proud of voters and their commitment to their civic duty.

The other election officials were great. I was impressed greatly by their commitment to fair and honest procedure. Their behavior was impeccable.

Special thanks to June, for getting me involved, and to Gail and Deloris, for taking me under their wings.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part IV

Warrik's WaPo article is ludicrous.

Immediately, the following question occurred to me:

1. Why a mobile hydrogen factory for weather balloons, instead of transporting tanks of hydrogen in regular trucks? Is that SOP?
2.The Jefferson team was 9 civilian scientists. The anonymous whistleblowers for the WaPo article were 6 government officials and weapons experts. So, why not the actual scientists; and by the article's own admission, some officials/experts who may not have even been there.
3. If the mobile labs were made for hydrogen production, could that have been a WMD application?
4. Seeing how this is a case of some opinions vs others, what would be your basis for believing just the ones that support your position?
5. Do you require that any one who makes a claim not 100% supported by 100% of the experts should apologize and accept defeat, or just your political opponents? Do all the Democrats who said Saddam had WMD also owe us an apology, given that they voted for Bush to intervene to disarm Saddam, and knowing full well that would be military intervention? Should they step down for making a mistake?
Some of the questions are rhetorical. If you do not find them addressed below, they were not meant for you to answer. Of course you may answer them, if you like. But before you do, you should ask them to yourself, with all gravity and honesty. They're good questions.

Any way, those were the questions that occurred off the top of my head, the easy ones that should have occurred to anyone with an open mind. As I commenced to investigating my questions, I found that someone else already addressed some, and had quite effectively debunked Warrik’s article. Please see SEIXON's post of 4/12/2006, Hydrogen Warfare. Endymion and I so enjoyed his site, we added him to the blogroll. I considered researching all his points before posting myself, but I barely have enough time to do what I already do. I checked out some of them, enough to satisfy my trust of the author. If my debaters wish to debunk this post, they can do so on their own. I can't do all their research for them. If they just disregard the post without due consideration, I’ll know this is not an honest debate.

So what it boils down to is this. Saddam has not been proven (as far as we can tell) to possess WMD at the time of the invasion. Neither has he been proven otherwise. There is evidence of WMD that is circumstantial, but compelling. The case for disregarding this evidence is weak given that such a position creates a burden of proof that hamstrings our ability to defend ourselves against devastating attacks.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part III

In his comments on my previous related posts, BYT wrote,

First of all, shrub and his cronies tried as hard as they could to associate Iraq with 9-11, which was never true. They made Americans believe bin-laden hit New York, he and Saddam could hit anywhere USA with WMD, including nuclear weapons.

In the CNN article provided by BYT, the facts (Bush quotes) do not support BYT's argument that Bush tried to make Americans believe that Saddam was involved with 911. Bush's opponents used to criticize action in Iraq, based on the fact that Iraq wasn't directly involved with 911. This was a very weak criticism, in that it in no way addressed the threat of any other enemies. The fact is, if Al Qaida was able to attack us, some one else might be able to as well. If that someone had WMD, the devastation could well top that of 911. At the time, Saddam was vigorously defying UN weapons inspectors. That made him a gathering threat. You can disagree that was the case, but I and many other Americans didn't want to take the chance.

Actually, not having anything to do specifically with 911, has nothing to do with what makes some one a threat. Whole Al Qaida cells exist without ever having had anything to do with the 911 plot. This does not make those cells less our enemies.

When BYT wrote " . . .made Americans believe Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . .", I assume he meant to write " . . .[if] Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . ." There is good evidence that Saddam was working with Al Qaida, our undisputed enemy. It is unreasonable to say that if Saddam was developing any WMD, he wouldn't collude with whomever he could to use it in the USA. The sanctions against Saddam were regarded by many in the international community as part of the "US agenda", and wanted to repeal or limit them. If Saddam felt the same, why would he not support an attack in the US? He sure didn't regard us as friends or allies. And it is true, that we have been attacked before, eventually, we could be attacked again. We can try to prevent that on our end. That failed on 911, for a number of reasons. In a country that values civil liberties, it is difficult at best to detect imminent attacks in time to prevent them. At times, it's true that the best defense is a good offence. Go after your most threatening enemies, in the order of their ability to threaten you, and with the consideration that some, like N Korea, have obtained so much weaponry that military action is unwise.

Moreover, the statements by Bush et al in regard to Saddam and WMD have not been proven to be wrong, they just have not been proven to be right. Was Saddam a WMD threat at the time leading up to the invasion? The argument that he was, is based on material and circumstantial evidence. The argument that he was not a threat is based on the inconclusive nature of the evidence. One side evaluated the evidence and said "This is too much to ignore". The other side did the same, but concluded, "This is not enough to warrant the use of force".

The evidence at the time was in my opinion, too much to ignore, enough to go to war, even if we never find more.
It's like when a cop shoots a perp who holds up a gun. If the gun turns out to be a toy, that doesn't mean the cop made the wrong choice. He made the best choice he could given the evidence and the risk, at the time.

It's like when a surgeon does an appendectomy on some one who had all the signs and symptoms of appendicitis. If it turns out the appendix was not the problem, that doesn't mean the surgeon made the wrong
choice to operate. He made the best choice given the evidence, and the risk, at the time.

If a woman is being stalked, there is little the police can do until the stalker commits a crime. The first crime the stalker commits may be the time he rapes or even kills the woman. Until that time comes, what recourse does the woman have? Hire body guards? Take a self defense class? Invest in security devices? Those things may or may not work, assuming she has the financial resources for them any way. One sure way to protect herself is to eliminate the stalker. Under US law, she cannot choose to eliminate her stalker. To do so would undermine the very foundation of law in the US.

But there is no world law. There is no law between nations, only contracts, and the enforcement of them. Iraq broke its contract with the US and the UN. There are no world police to whom the US can appeal for help, only friends. There is no reason the US cannot eliminate those who threaten her.

She is only restrained by her ability, her will, and her conscience, all which I'd stack against any other nation in the world.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part II

BYT regards accusations by Paul R. Pilar (in this WaPo article) as damning evidence. I think Pillar's accusations should give us pause, but it is unreasonable to give them more weight than that. Time and time again, BYT gives more weight to those with whom he already agrees, with no other discernable criteria for validity. Pillar was a man of high rank, yes, but so is the Pres., VP, Sec of Defense, etc. BYT supports his argument of Bush lies with the accusations of Pillar. Fair enough, but then but then his argument that Pillar's side is more valid than Bush's side? Here is some opinion on Pillar for better, (strike that, I got tired of trying to find better opinions of what Pillar said; they are not abundant) or worse, or worse, and also worse. Here's more, with an interestingly trivial note that the author was Pillar's roomate in the past.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part I

The topics of the next three posts are in response to three articles sent to me by my debater burtyoutires (BYT). He thinks he's exposed Bush, his cronies, and the war for the frauds he thinks they are. What I find in his arguments is a willingness to accept accusations as evidence of misconduct.

There would have been four articles to which I'm responding, but some of the addresses provided by BYT led to error pages. In the case of the WaPo article by Warrik, I was able to find it by googling the topic. I'm assuming it is the article to which BYT referred. There was also a BBC article, but the address didn't work, and BYT did not provide enough info for me to find what article he meant.

I'm breaking the post up into separate posts for each article. I hope this will keep the comments more manageable. Kudos to BYT, btw, for keeping his last comments concise and reasonably focused.

Welcome Back, Stephen

Stephen,
Pursue: to strive to gain or accomplish. I most certainly did read the Dulfer report, and found Saddam to be "striving to gain or accomplish" nuclear weapons capability. Keeping your scientific base intact is pursuit of a renewal of the program. Just as Bin Laden was "Intent on striking in the US" so was Saddam intent on obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

Dulfer's testimony was given1/28/2004. I wonder if Dulfer would give the same odds now that new evidence has emerged. We know that Russian operatives helped Saddam move something out of Iraq, and into Syria. Why would Russians help Saddam move something benign? New evidence indicates that WMD were being moved.

As for the sanctions, it's nice that you trust them to last forever or until the good guys are running Iraq. The European Journal on International Law, however, has not viewed them as particularly effective, and has proposed instituting time limits on sanctions. Read their 2002 proposal matter at www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No1/130093.pdf. It seems to me that Saddam had a light at the end of the tunnel. Besides, the sanctions were corrupted. When thugs have wealth and power, they always find a way to use it. The only way to defeat that is to remove the thug. The only way to remove Saddam, was militarily.

* Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Nevertheless, after 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.

As for your link to the book, I have to say this is not up to your usual standards of argument. First, you link me to info that, if done properly, would take considerable time to respond to. Certainly, you already have read the book, and you could've pointed out the pertinent ideas . I read two reports on the book, then followed the news link. What I found is not enough to support your claim that consequences speak for themselves.

One report stated,

Success in Iraq will require an extensive commitment of financial, military, and political resources for a long time. The United States cannot afford to contemplate early exit strategies and cannot afford to leave the job half completed.

Isn't this exactly what the Left wants to do?


The other read,

UN missions are nearly always undermanned and underfunded, with uneven troop quality and late-arriving components. But despite these handicaps, the UN success rate among missions studied-seven out of eight societies left peaceful, six out of eight left democratic-substantiates the view that nation-building can be an effective means of terminating conflicts, insuring against their reoccurrence, and promoting democracy. The authors conclude that the UN provides the most suitable institutional framework for nation-building missions that require fewer than 20,000 men-one with a comparatively low cost structure, a comparatively high success rate, and the greatest degree of international legitimacy. American or other major power leadership is, by contrast, needed for operations which require forced-entry operations or force levels in excess of 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, the United States has been less successful than the UN in learning from its mistakes and improving its nation-building performance over time, and this is reflected in the lower success rate among US-led missions studied in this series.

It does not say that the US is ineffective where <20k soldiers are required. It says that the UN model, typically "undermanned" was nevertheless, historically successful. I thought you were trying to make the argument that undermanning the effort would end in failure. The left calls for more troops, and early withdrawl, neither supported, as far as I can tell, by the authors of the book.


This was the only thing I thought supported your argument at all.

# Relying on its soft power attributes of impartiality and legitimacy, the UN is sometimes able to succeed in stabilizing post conflict societies with remarkably small forces sizes. The U.S., more reliant as it must be upon hard power, has had less success in Afghanistan and Iraq when employing the characteristic UN approach of the small footprint, or low profile.

Stephen, please explain what the authors mean by legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a body that levels sanctions that it can't protect from exploitation, and resolutions that it won't defend from defiance. Also, please show how the US attempt at small footprint (which I presume to mean less troops) has created the larger number of casualties, and not some other cause. Also, why must the US rely on hard power, unlike the UN?

# The review of U.S.-led operations suggests that the higher the proportion of stabilizing troops to population, the lower the number of casualties they suffered and inflicted. Significantly lower force-to-population ratios in Afghanistan and Iraq, in contrast to Bosnia or Kosovo, have been accompanied by much higher casualty levels. Accordingly, the authors recommend that the U.S. abandon efforts to emulate the low profile, small footprint approach to nation building that has traditionally characterized the UN approach, and return to supersizing the missions America leads, as it did throughout the 1990's.

Here, the authors have pointed out the correllation been high troop numbers and lower casualty rates, but have not proven the cause and effect relationship. Were there other correllations? I see this mistake often, the confusion between correllation and cause. It's unlikely the authors are making this mistake, but you are, and I'd like to know what their opposition thinks. And when did this book come out? A couple of weeks ago, I heard on the news that US casualties have been decreasing since last december.

As for your quote of Wolfowitz, I'd like to see it all, and in context, and from something other than a Left wing blogger saying that's what he said. I think they're not lying that he said it, but I believe he meant that the oil would pay Iraq's expenses. Otherwise, we would have to have confiscated their oil to pay our expenses. Furthermore, Iraq's facilities are not at full capacity, and it's new government is very young. Oil deals in long run could still pay off for the US. Way to think in the short term, guys. Lack patience much? This has not been a long war by historical standards.

And no, my friend's experience is not a joke. Why do you insist on coming to my site to insult me? I am not a liar, nor is my friend. I trust Larry's personal account of his experiences over your poll any day. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what question the poll asked. For instance, did it ask "Would you like to have all US forces out when you can run your own country"? Or did it ask, " Do you want all US forces to leave right now, so you can handle the threats on your own"? Why, I think my answer would be different depending how the question was phrased. That's why I'm distrustful of polls, and refrain from using them.

Stephen, how long did it take you to pump out that shit? It took me 4.5 hours to expose it for what it is. Thoughtful work takes time. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me much time to deal with burnyourtires who has not learned to edit his ideas into concise, cohesive argements. Don't worry burnyourtires, your spanking is forthcoming. I addressed Stephen ahead of you because though he is wrong, he is lightyears ahead of you in the skill of argumentation. I considered him a higher priority.

And now, if you'll excuse me, my lawn needs to be mowed.

Thanks, Gateway Pundit!

How fortunate for me! As I was seeking information to debunk arguments of my not-at-all insulting friend burnyourtires, I ran across someone who already has! This really shouldn't have surprised me, since, fortunately, burnyourtires offered nothing new or original.

This brilliant post by Gateway Pundit has already done the work, and I couldn't have done it better. Any lunacy left unadddressed in the post is likely to be found in the comments thread in which an anonymous moonbat barks the usual underdeveloped points. Also be sure to follow his links to similar posts.

Off the top of my head, without even having to try, here is a defense of the "mistakes" by Bush, Rummy, et al, posted by burnyourtires. I just hope he's still reading. His words, alleged Bushie mess-ups, are in bold.

" . . .Greeted with flowers". I have a friend whose son Larry served in Falujah. He loves the Iraqi people, and he says they love marines. This doesn't mean every Iraqi feels the same. Just the liberated ones do. Larry says the problem is with imported terrorists. But what does he know, he was only there.

"Republican Guard let go". You don't know this was a mistake. How do you know they wouldn't have stayed united under another Baathist oppressor, creating a new enemy to depose? You don't know. Experts disagreed, and still do, but you think you know. This isn't even as good as 20/20 hindsight, because in hindsight, we still don't know what would've happened if the Republican guard was left intact.

"No WMD" Wrong again. The latest translated documents show that WMD were being moved out of Iraq prior to the invasion. We've posted on that here: (Yet another reason to believe Saddam had WMD), be sure to follow the links. There's more in Gateway Pundit's post by him and his readers.

"No Iraq govnt set up in 2003, when it should have been"--I'm going to take your word that a Bushie said it would be. Any way, ooh! Heads should roll for this! What difference does success make now, when there was no Iraqi govnt in 2003?

"Not enough troops" Prove it. BTW, a quote of someone else's opinion has weight, but it is not proof. If high-ranking general so-and-so disagrees with high ranking govnt official, it's still a matter of opinion until we know the facts. So please, show me the data that says that sending more troops would've reduced casualties or expense. Show me the data that says we didn't need those troops on reserve. Remember, Bush was criticized for not having troops available for stateside deployment in the hurricane Katrina crisis.

"Iraq oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding"-- Actually, it wasn't promised the oil would pay for the war. How nice would that be? "Here's your freedom! BTW, you owe us $300 billion. Oh, and we're leaving. Good luck with the remaining Baathists, and the foreign terrorists vying to fill the power vacuum!" Is this the brilliant diplomacy of the Left? The oil is meant to pay for the reconstruction. It hasn't yet, but you're right, we should get out now, before it does. Do you play the stock market with that buy high, sell low mentality? How very short-sighted.

"mushroom clouds over Knoxville" How can you read and watch so much news and still be so uninformed? The Bushies never said we'd find nukes. They did say Saddam had a history of having and using WMD, none of which could be shown to have been eradicated. The Dulfer report showed that Saddam did indeed have WMD programs and was pursuing nuclear capability. Who wanted to wait until he's up and running before trying to stop him?

I wonder what burnyourtires thinks of the mistakes of the last sitting democrat president? Did he make mistakes? Some think so, and they don't even work for FOX.

Shrill as I Want to be

Sub Cultro is an outlet for expressing ideas. Sometimes, our ideas are about how certain other ideas are stupid. By extension, and to the extent they hold those ideas, people are stupid. To paraphrase Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid [thinks]".

If you find yourself reading this blog, and feeling insulted, you have options:

1. Make a valid argument showing that we're wrong. Whining about mean words is not a substitute for a good point. Valid arguments contain evidence, and a logical conclusion. If your logic is faulty, or your evidence unreliable, we'll point that out, but we can't promise not to call you stupid.

2. Don't read my blog. This may be the only reliable way to avoid ever feeling stupid.

3. Grow a pair. Dare to feel stupid, I do. Embrace intellectual humility. Stop whining.

4. Throw out the baby with the bath water. You're not obligated to really consider the ideas here, especially if you don't like their shrill packaging. Refuse to take us seriously. Repeat this mantra brought to us by the ever gracious, never insulting Al Franken: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonnit, people like me".

Here is an option you don't have: whining that we call people stupid. That will induce us to exercise our least favorite option, deleting your comment.

Mean or shrill language does not invalidate an idea. "Insulting" is not synonymous with "wrong". Deal with it.

Helicopters in my Backyard

Here is a cell phone video of the silver maple seed pods helicoptering down into my yard. Despite the problems these trees cause, this is a beautiful spring event.

Republicans are not Conservative

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Free speech on life support by George Will - Apr 16, 2006:

Candice Miller, R-Mich., said that restricting 527s would combat ``nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship.'' Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.

I have tired to use the terms Democrat, Left and Liberal to make distinctions such as Democrats are OK, but liberals are not and Leftist are the Enemy. The same goes with "The Right." There are two major kinds of Conservatives: Religious and philosophical. Libertarians have a similar dichotomy: libertines and Libertarians in the mold of Charles Murray and Boortz. Republicanism is a way that some on the right align themselves for the purpose of political party voting, but that does not mean that we agree philosophically.

These distinctions aside, there is a major difference between Dems and Repubs -- or there should be. The Dems a party of people whose political ideology stems from Relativism. They do not always know that, of course, but that is the philosophical foundation. The Republicans are the opposite -- or should be.

This bill is a Liberal bill. It abandons good valid principles to adapt to a unique situation to affect a result that is good for a minority. It is controlling, paternalistic and disgusting.

What will happen this fall? The best we can hope for is another crop of R-politicians like we had in '94. That is unlikely since we are the Majority. Probably people will vote for candidates who say the right things, but have no chance of winning and we will lose the Majority in the Senate. If this happens, though, maybe that will allow some Conservatives to win the next round.

Rumsfeld, The Generals and Tom Barnett

I was in the smoke shop yesterday and a very interesting conversation was in the air. When the topic turned to the generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, one of our friends pointed out that they are Army generals.

Now, if you have not made yourself familiar with Tom Barnett and his book The Pentagon's New Map, you are way behind the curve. His plan, which Rumsfeld supports, drastically alters the role of the Army. Note that you don't hear many Airforce generals complaining.

Although our "smoking man" was quick to give credit for this idea to Krauthammer, he seems to have inside knowledge himself. You see, a classic gentleman's smoke shop often attracts a certain kind of client. (There is one in particular who proves the point best. He is well known among the long-time regulars to be CIA, however, he will not admit it.)

It was clear yesterday that my interlocutor was an expert of sorts. He did admit to having inside information about the Navy's new submarine plans and that these Navy based these plans on exactly the roles laid out by Barnett.

You are likely to hear the moron brigade discuss this issue without this context as they do here. Again we have an example of Conservatives as the party of fluidity and adaptation and Liberals as backward looking, calcified idiots.

Censoring South Spark

I am disgusted by the stupidity of Comedy Central and the other Liberal morons who agree with them. This is another case of Liberals accusing Conservative of the very thing that they do themselves. They have been crying that this administration is destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet here we have a real example of exactly that and they applaud it.

I am happy that some liberals agree with South Park, but all Americans should cherish Free Speech. As Kyle said, it has been easy to be "for Free Speech" for decades, but now, when it is difficult, is when it matters.

America does not negotiate with terrorists. This is not really any different. Besides, if you think that airing or censoring an image of Muhammad really changes anything, you are a fool -- pehaps I should say "useful idiot."

Easter Giggles

Cream of the Crock: Happy Easter!

This is a bit scary

lgf: Orwellian Image of the Day

This is the same Iran that may be on the new Human Rights council at the UN -- you know, the one with no more HR violators. This is the same Iran that wants to "wipe Israel off of the map."

Honestly, they really believe in the 12th Imam and this is exactly how the feel about The Bomb. It is their salvation. Moonbats think that Bush wants to start Armeggedon. Well, these guys really do.

Perception, and What Really Matters

Watching Michelle Malkin speak before students at her alma mater, Oberlin College, I heard some disturbing commentary.

Many students there disagreed with Michelle that there have been great strides in the civil rights movement. They denied there had been any progress at all. Apparently the attendees of this very good private college have it just as bad as this woman did.

Honestly, they couldn't admit there's been any progress since this.

They claimed that this sort of thing is just as bad.

Where would they get ideas like that?

I could be wrong. After all, there are still plenty of underprivileged black children who are denied access to the schools that might help them.

Wisdom from Eleanor Roosevelt

Great minds discuss ideas.

Average minds discuss events.

Small minds discuss people.

Conservatives Progress Liberals Stagnate

Girl on the Right

Even though my dishwahser erased the logo from her mug from Cafe Press, we still like her.

Isn't interesting that the Progressive party isn't. They are so calcified that they can not adapt to the changing world whereas conservatives are willing to make huge changes in public policy -- breaking with tradition, mind you -- to suit new situations. When you argue from principles which are time tested, you are not blinded by rhetoric nor are you bound to certain ideas.

Sometimes you have to change the rules. The changes cannot be without merit, of course. The problem is that Liberal Thought is incapable of producing meritorious ideas (except by accident).

It takes wisdom to change well and the Left is unwise.

Victimization as a Claim of Entitlement

To what are victims entitled?

Does victimization give one dominion over someone else's life?

A woman is raped, and demands an abortion or she'll kill herself and unborn child. Presumably, a compassionate person grants her an abortion.

It's a 13 week fetus. Do you grant her demand?

It's a 20 week fetus. Does that change your position?

It's a 30 week fetus. Does that change your position?

Is her suffering inversely proportionate to the gestation of her pregnancy?

A woman is raped, and demands the execution of her rapist immediately, or she'll kill herself. Does a compassionate person grant her demand?

What if the accused already has been investigated and released on insufficient evidence?

I felt compelled to ask these questions by what I read in the comment thread on the March 24th post at chez Diva. Here is only a fragment of the comment by Nigel Humphries:

I recently saw a documentary about women who suffered in the “rape camps” in Serbia. One of these women dissolved into a weeping, bawling mess describing how, when rescued, she had yelled and screamed in a hospital in order to have a 3rd trimester abortion - eventually only
getting one because she informed the doctors if they did not do it, she would walk into a minefield.
I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and anguish in all of this.

The author of this comment claims he cannot imagine the pain and anguish. That's a cop-out. The implication of his comment is that if one has not experienced a particular tragedy, one must defer without question to those who have. Such irrational thinking cannot hope to find truth or promote justice.

Of course we can begin to imagine the pain and anguish. That's how we know it's appropriate to extend her our compassion. The woman did not have to convince us she's experienced pain and anguish from her rape, we can imagine it. That which we've experienced informs us on how to react to that which we've not. I've never been raped, but I've been treated with contempt. I've never been beaten, but I've been abused and credibly threatened with violence. I have believed my life was in danger, and I have been so depressed I felt ready to die. I've certainly experienced physical pain. All this and more I have experienced, and I have witnessed more still. I can apply my experiences to her situation, even though hers obviously is more extreme.

Besides, the demands of victims aren't automatically just. A victim has a right to justice, though it is not always found. A victim has no right to commit injustice, though it is often done.

An abortion is not justice. The woman's pregnancy may exacerbate her suffering, but the abortion will not cure it.

Once again, the argument comes down to whether a fetus has personhood. That is the only question that matters, but let's face the fact that we don't know when personhood begins. If a third trimester fetus is a person, then an innocent person was murdered to comfort a rape victim. If a third trimester fetus is not a person, then there is no right to deny any abortion. How arrogant it is to act as if we know . . .to grant or deny abortions based on, let's face it, popular opinion. The only moral position is to protect the very right to life that we all enjoy.

Ask yourself one more question: If a scientist could prove definitively that personhood begins at 11 weeks, would you still support abortion on demand?

Yet another reason to believe that Saddam had WMD

Fmr. Saddam General Georges Sada On The Daily Show; Says WMDS Existed, Were Moved (VIDEO)

We have been saying this from the beginning:

The Left, in fact must deny and work against any conclusion from the right since its existence threatens their epistemology. This is why they continue to deny the facts while they say loudly "there were no WMDs." Of course there were; it is just that understanding this is complex. The Washington Post had another article today putting this in question.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

If you follow our link and read carefully you will find this (sourced from the Washington Times):

The highest-ranking Communist bloc defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa (defected from Romania when it was still Communist) has warned that Russia has an interest in having Iraq's WMDs disappear. He explains that Russia had a key role in Saddam receiving the weapons initially, and had a secret operational plan to make them disappear” should it become necessary. The plan was called “Sarindar”, or, “Emergency Exit. Pacepa played a key role in Operation Emergency Exit in Libya. The goal of the plan? To remove all WMDs from any third world ally that was being invaded by the West.

OK, so this idea -- that Iraq had WMDs removed before we could find them -- is not new at all. The fact that Stewart was clearly surprised by this idea is revealing. Liberals are not well informed. Here is a comment made on another blog:

If this were credible, and we're talking about viable weapons--not the expired crap from the late 80's and early 90's--then you'd think that this "vindication" would be all over the MSM.

(I'm sure Faux is doing it, aren't they? I can't bring myself to watch them to find out for myself.)

I guess that pretty much sums it up. They don't know because they do not want to know. As I have said before, conservatives consider all ideas but liberals refuse to actually entertain conservative ideas.

This explains why they ignore the mounting evidence that Bush was right all along.

[update 4/26/06] You should also check out Hitchens on Joe Wilson

Accounts And Accoutnability

Edwin Feulner, author of Getting America Right, in a lecture on C-Span's "Book TV", proposes that all appropriations bills should be posted on line at least 24 hours before they are voted on.

We think this is a good idea, but I say there should be two versions posted. One should be the detailed version that our leaders presumably read before voting. The other should look like a credit card statement. Read the statement, look up any questionable items in the detailed version, contact your representatives. If the detailed version is unreadable by lay people, then we citizens should demand otherwise.

It's outrageous how little we citizens know about how our money is spent. Would you use a credit card company that didn't send you statements? Would you send that company checks without knowing where your money went?

Mr. Feulner cited in his lecture, a waste of $110 million by the Pentagon on unused airline tickets that could've been redeemed, but were not. This is the nature of spending in a system where individuals are not accountable as they would be in the private sector. Of course, our military is not an example of the many govnt. programs that could be privatized, but how about a little disclosure?

We conservatives can moan about the democrats' support of big government programs. The democrats can whine about tax refunds and the cost of war. They fillibuster judicial appointments, but never spending bills. Nor has our President ever vetoed any. This is a bipartisan problem that can only be fought by a vocal watchdog citizenry.

Pressure your representatives to reduce government spending. Don't just speak with your vote. Call them. Blog against them. Tell them what it takes for you to elect them. Tell them you expect less spending, and for God's sake . . .not everything you like needs to be funded by the federal government.

Buckley, Money, a horrible monster and Catan

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Funding democracy by William F. Buckley - Mar 24, 2006

Bill considers the huge money already in Hillary's coffers. This must be in preparation for the Presidential election. Hillary as president is truly a frightening proposition - scary enough that I don't think it possible.

Anyway, he is worried that democracy is up for sale. No news there. But, as he says,

A few years ago we attempted financial reform, and more or less gave up, on the grounds that reform was inconsistent with individual liberties ... It all conduces to a queasy suspicion that the democratic ideal is up for sale.

This is akin to what Boortz has been saying for years. He thinks he got it from De Toqueville, but it seems to come from Alexander Tytler. I found it on Andrea Shea's quote page a site which I intend to examine further:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787 Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

This is the inverse but not the opposite of what Soros and the like do. They buy their special influence both political and social whereas the poor must vote it. But, in our system money is not really that different from votes. Money in some way represents the ordered chaos and so son in a free market of ideas. The rich are so because people make them so by giving them their money. To give money is in some way to give assent.

We play Settlers of Catan. If I trade my resources with you and then you use them to build a road to my severe disinterest, well, that is my problem. I tacitly gave my assent for you to use those resources to do whatever you will. I have no right to complain.

Soros is a moronic fool. But, he should be free to use his money however he wishes, even to our severe disinterest. If he wishes to try to elect the Medusa, so be it.

Like all heroes, good people must fight the monsters evil men conjure.

My tiny little cubicle

My cubicle at Central is smaller than the one I had at Days Inn Reservations. For scale, notice that the brown boxes on top are Kleenex.







Note too how many of these are packed into an already too small room. The chiar with the coat is mine.

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

Wow. Science is neat!

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter: Multimedia

She flies in beauty through the night of starry skies

This makes me so proud!
Tammy Bruce: What Their Grandmothers Couldn't Do

Liberals are more guilty than Cons

I am a bastard when it comes to plagiarism. I'll hand out zero's like there is no tommorow if I think students have plagiarized. It is serious. It seems that Domenech plagiarized. Michelle and NRO think so too. I can't tell what happened over the years, but that stuff at NRO is pretty bad. I say admit it and move on with your life. Your character and inner life are more important than any job or what people think of you.

Anyway, I have noticed anecdotally that political crimes are way more common among Liberals. I mean I watch alot of TV and I see shows about corrupt politicians. Of course, I have to go to the internet to find out when they are democrats -- republicans are usually identified in some way -- and I have found that they are more often democrats.

Malkin (again) has the latest example and it seems to put Demenoch's problem in perspective.
Michelle Malkin: DIRTY DEM TRICKSTER: GUILTY

apropos our abortion discussion

reading about the charge of plagiarism at redstate
led me to this post: chez Diva » Quiet Reflection

make sure to scan the comments wherein you will find the same old tired arguments so easily refuted but not killed. Liberals are like horror movie monsters.

Spring means Bunnies and Lowlands

I know it is spring, not because of our cold and rainy weather, but because I am drinking a Lowland Malt and I saw bunnies doing it in my backyard. I have discovered that these bunnies are squatting in my burn pile (pictured to the left). Now, I can't just burn it down since there could be baby bunnies in there, so I have to deconstruct it and look for them before I light it up. Oh, wait, I'm conservative and TV tells me that means I hate nature (despite the fact that conservation is conservative). I guess I can burn it down -- I will just do it while drinking my spring whiskey and everything will be just fine.

Whiny Kids study Grossly Biased

Wen we read this latest study here we knew it was biased. Take this line:

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Here they are trying to be fair, but look how they view the world: "Recognition" of complexity. I have dealt with this before, but this pissed me off. Conservatives are not introspective. Give me a break.

No, better, just take a look at the last discussion here. Late Bloomer gave the issue serious and long thought whereas her interlocutors responded quickly and without even considering what she had said.

Worse, the implication is that the world is complex exactly in the way that liberals believe it to be, but not in the way the Conservatives do. Of course we know that thge world is complex -- that is one of the core reasons that we want to encourage free markets. We just also recognize the aspect of our world which are not complex. Specifically those parts which deal with morality. Evil is Evil and is fairly easy to spot and is not complex in itself. Yes, of course, the facts surrounding any event are complex. Wisdom is knowing how to weed out information (complexity) that is irrelevant.

But, we did not know just how stupidly flawed the study was. See This:

Michelle Malkin: SCOOP: WHO ARE THE WHINY KIDS?