In my response to the Tucson Dhimmi Citizen's glowing review of Death of a President, I alluded to a possible screenplay for an unauthorized sequel. Entitled Media Beast: The Aftermath, this would follow loyalist vigilantes as they take revenge on various media quislings for inciting the assassination of GWB.
As the Moonbats say of their own film, it's only fiction, artistic license, ad nauseum.
Fair is fair, they surely cannot object if we exercise the same artistic rights and creative license.
I gave this example of a typical scene for Aftermath:
Several dozen BBC employees have gathered in an auditorium for their NUJ sponsored Minute of Hate. Cheney's picture flashes on the screen. Catcalls and chanting erupt from the crowd. At that moment, two men enter at the back. One of them has a backpack flamethrower.
"Hot damn, Jim Bob, a whole room full o' commie moonbats. Light 'em up!"
Since I am pressed for time and there is a substantial reservoir of creativity here, I invite fellow Rantburgundians to suggest their own scenes. Have at it, gang, and may the fifth column tremble at the very mention of our name.
#1
It was a dark and stormy night, and the low clouds scudding under the full moon cast a flickering light on Anderson Cooper as he was stretching on his front lawn before his evening run.
#2
...Suddenly his head snapped up, causing him to pull a groin muscle (it's important in such things to include health tips). He grunts in pain, and moves creakily to stand up. His eyes widen in shock. It's the entire news crew, in the big news van, the one with the CNN logo and his face plastered on all four sides, the one he always found painfully vulger.
His assisstant bursts through the door to land in a heap at his feet. She speaks in carefully gradated exclamations:
Asst 1: Hurry sir! No time to change!! Something's happening in the aud!!! We'll brief you on the way!!!!
#3
Meanwhile, across town, the phones were ringing hot. "It's Barbra's PA," she said. Shes holding a surprise party in an old warehouse in the meatpacking district, and she's going to sing. 'How exciting!
#4
...meanwhile, at the Palestine, Grizzled War Correspondent jovially asked Mahmoud for another double and to turn up CNN so he could get the war news for tomorrow's hard hitting "War is Hell" column. It was a huge hit with the rubes back home.
#5
Long version:
Bubbling with excitement, each recipient took pains to preserve his engraved invitation. The Clintons. Invited ME! Babs and Fleetwood Mac. The Boss. Mellencamp. An open bar and 7 course dinner. Glitter, glitz, and their due: special treatment. The only fly in the glamorous ointment was the pledge to keep the time and location secret, no uninvited press, just the "chosen ones". The lure and self-satisfaction was too great - all complied with the secrecy clause. They knew this would "make" them. American royalty.
Since the evil ChimpBusHitler had been assassinated and Clinton had won the election, they had been too ecstatic, to self-absorbed, too satisfied to worry about the lameduck Cheney who had been sworn in and, after some embarrassing slapdowns from the Democrat-controlled Congress, seemingly dropped off the radar. Ignoring the screeching, he held no press conferences and, only once, had he appeared on TV to give a fireside chat style speech. In late November he had called for unity and cooperation - worthy of howls of derision. He had asked for new powers from Congress to assist law enforcement in the investigation - it was met with sneers and jeers unseen in the history of Congress. He had been so brazen as to request passage of bills to fortify and dramatically increase the armed forces - this had brought the ultimate moment of conservative humiliation - a putative Bill of Impeachment had been produced and floated around the House and the rumor given heavy media coverage. But it was unneeded, Cheney gracefully thanked the Congress for considering each of his requests, and simply called for calm and restoration of order.
The limos pulled up at over a thousand addresses that first afternoon, the homes of corporate giants, hedge fund managers, members of Congress and, subsequently, their staff members, judges of all levels, each carefully chosen, each carefully timed to fit within their normal activities, and each synchronized to collect and deliver its occupants at their secret locale precisely on time. At that place, a corporate-style jet awaited, further reinforcing the impression of importance, the smug satisfaction that, indeed, they had been recognized and now appropriate rewards would be theirs to the end of their days.
When the jets arrived at the final destination, it was very late. A moonless night, the only thing that could be seen were the runway lights and the glittering jets delivering glittering VIPs. Each jet's occupants were rushed to yet another limo - windows deeply shaded, very posh, very hush-hush, very important. Again, off they went...
The process was military in its precision, with each limo arriving at the tunnel entrance exactly one moment apart, the doors were opened, the occupants assisted in exiting, and the needle inserted at the base of the skull so quickly that few even felt the prick. The bodies were quickly drug away, preparing the scene for the next limo.
The operation was repeated, daily, for the entire month of December and the first two weeks of January. The last batch of VIPS included the named parties from the earlier invitations and the Press - simply mentioning the Clintons was sufficient to lure both in.
President Cheney called the networks for airtime on the evening of January 18th, 2009, a Sunday. Since it was a slow night for networks shows - they reluctantly agreed to his request. He simply said:
Our republic has been in great danger since 9/11. We have been misled and lied to by many. Neither I nor President Bush did so - we fought against the lies with the truth. We could find little coverage - and even what was given was twisted, misrepresented, and contained both factual errors as well as errors of ommission. Our country, our nation, was forcibly divided and fed a diet of Stalinist propaganda, was subverted by paid traitors within, was torn asunder by partisan rhetoric and, yes, more lies. President Bush died an honorable man, a leader of amazing integrity and devotion to civility and the constitution. After his death, to my amazement and horror it grew even worse. I formulated a plan to deal with the threats that we faced. It was apparent the greatest threat was internal. I have completed the phase to correct the legal oversights and sedition and eliminate this threat. I will now turn to face the external threat. That, too, shall be eliminated. President-Elect, Clinton has withdrawn - and I have officially been designated the winner of all electoral votes. I will be sworn in on Tuesday morning. Thank you, and God Bless America.
Short version:
President Cheney has officially taken the title Longshanks the Second and will be sworn in on Tuesday. He will serve a single term or less, taking the direct actions needed to correct the problems which beset us, and will retire at the earliest opportunity - at which time the State of Emergency will be lifted. Thanks for playing.
#6
In a dusty classroom at an abandoned school, the men of Blue Team perched awkwardly on the tiny desks. None joked or even said a word- these were hard men from the hardest school of all.
And Blue Team Leader was about to speak. Who was this man with the steely grey buzzcut and the air of command, legendarily adept in every deadly art? None dared ask or even guess. He was an old spook, that was obvious, indeed unconcealable, but even that knowledge was dangerous.
#7
It was a moonless night. All the better, thought Jason as he adjusted his night vision goggles. I can see and they can't, not that it's going to help them much even if they can. He swept the field in front of him, slowly, methodically, marking each reference point in his mind. That was what? The fifteenth time tonight? The muzzies had changed their guard a half hour before -- no, twenty-eight minutes before, be exact -- and the current watch should be settling in.
A voice next to him whispered. "Chief, Tyrone's in position. He's got a lock on the guard in the left tower. Ramone's been dialed in on the right now for five minutes. We good to go?"
"Soon. We want the inside muzzies asleep and the guards dozing. Osama's gonna be there all night. We got one chance at this."
"Right chief." Roger, the man who'd slid up to Jason, didn't like waiting, no, no, certainly not. This was supposed to be a straight up grab. They didn't know quite for sure that bin Laden was in the compound, you could never know for sure with the informers (what was his name? yeah, Mahmoud, that's right, Mahmoud). But he knew that the captain wouldn't have sent them hanging ass out in the breeze like this just outside Peshawar for no good reason.
"Roger." The chief whispered as low as Roger had done a moment before. He took his eyes from the goggles for a moment. "Get on the net, call it in. Guards are taking their naps. We go in five."
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/26/2006 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Larry the Liberal newscaster on MSNBC was trembling in the rocking van, afraid to talk to the beshaded government agents who just snapped him up from the streets of New Jersey.
"Isn't it enough I was laid off?" asked and indignant Larry.
#9
I love the idea, and am tempted to start contributing... BUT...
It's a bad idea. Journalists are thin-skinned, and if one of the particularly weaselly types thinks it's HIM in the story, then suddenly that journalist will discover the legal concepts of "terroristic threats" and "slander". I don't think the cops would be all that charitable to an internet forum with threats of murdering, even if they think the the objects deserve it.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/26/2006 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Oh, come on Rob! Only .com's was really skeery!
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/26/2006 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The flamethrower thing was hilarious, so was .com's summary.
Longshanks II Love it!
Can you imagine a jouranlist actually complaining about threat to kidnap him and send him on a hunting trip with VP Cheney?
Saw a post earlier at Drudge. A BBC reporter is embedded. with the Taliban.
YJCMTSU.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/26/2006 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Rob Crawford was suddenly shocked awake by his revealing dream. He knew that dreams like this are tips, sure signs that the dreaded RB was indeed up to something, ......but what ?
When it came to the subject of enemies, Voltaire had the best take on the matter: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
Someone in the United States must have prayed for God to make Hugo Chavez a ridiculous anti-American enemy since the prayer has been granted.
Chavez is well known for his desire to make Latin America a bulwark against what he perceives to be American imperialism. But as the New York Times reported earlier this year, his efforts have fallen short:
As Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, insinuates himself deeper in the politics of his region, something of a backlash is building among his neighbors.
Mr. Chávez stridently anti-American, leftist and never short on words has cast himself as spokesman for a united Latin America free of Washington's influence. He has backed Bolivia's recent gas nationalization, set up his own Socialist trade bloc and jumped into the middle of disputes between his neighbors, even when no one has asked.
Some nations are beginning to take umbrage. The mere association with Mr. Chávez has helped reverse the leads of presidential candidates in Mexico and Peru. Officials from Mexico to Nicaragua, Peru and Brazil have expressed rising impatience at what they see as Mr. Chávez's meddling and grandstanding, often at their expense.
Diplomatic sparring has broken into the open. Last month, after very public sniping between Mr. Chávez and Peru's president, Alejandro Toledo, the country withdrew its ambassador from Caracas, citing "flagrant interference" in its affairs.
The Economist noted Chavez's ability to repel support overseas in its coverage of his interference in Peru's election:
According to the pollsters most Peruvians dislike Mr Chávez and his meddling. One poll, by Apoyo, found that only 17% had a positive view of him, and 75% disapproved of his comments. Only 23% approved of Mr Morales, and 61% objected to his calling Peru's outgoing president, Alejandro Toledo, a "traitor" for signing a free-trade agreement with the United States.
Chavez's support of Ecuadoran presidential candidate Rafael Correa influenced Correa's to fall to a second place finish in the recent first round of voting. This has prompted Correa to distance himself from Chavez in the hopes that he might be able to save his floundering campaign.
Indeed, it appears that an anti-Chavez coalition is being created throughout the Americas, and while Chavez is not without his supporters, his dream of creating an anti-American Bolivarian coalition appears to have run aground.
The backlash moved Dan Drezner, a professor of international relations and political science, to say, "As a citizen of the United States, I, for one, would like to thank Mr. Chavez for his antics -- keep it up, Hugo!!"
Chavez's diplomatic failures have continued unabated this year. He sought to get OPEC to reduce its oil production. OPEC rejected his call. He went to the United Nations and called George W. Bush "the devil." Democrats rushed to the President's defense.
And Chavez's attacks on the President may have served to alienate the United Nations; in its attempt to win a seat on the U.N. Security Council, Venezuela has been unsuccessful and its efforts have antagonized neighbors like Guatemala.
None of this diplomatic buffoonery makes Hugo Chavez less potentially destabilizing. Chavez is determined to use petrodollars to win friends and to use arms salesand, potentially, military adventurismto intimidate foes. The danger he poses ought not to be taken lightly. As things currently stand, however, it seems that Chavez's foes have a lot to be thankful for. If they could not have a friend in the president of Venezuela, they at least got the next best thing; a thoroughly ridiculous enemy. hugo is thoroughly ridiculous, anti-capitalist, antisemite, and anti-american, that's why the french leftists/antiglobos and shiraq love him so, they feel they have so much in common.
Pejman Yousefzadeh is a TCS Daily contributing writer.
Germany's former foreign minister Joschka Fischer kicked off his lecture series at Princeton University with a warning that Europe was being shortsighted and even "blind" when it came to Turkey and the Middle East. "Europe's security is no longer defined on its eastern borders, but in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East," Fischer was quoted as saying in the Daily Princetonian, the university's online newspaper.
Fischer is lecturing at the university for the current school year.
Fischer, a member of the Green Party who served under Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder from 1999 to 2005, called European hesitance to admit Turkey into the European Union "blind and irresponsible."
"Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted," Fischer was quoted as saying. Fischer said the terrorist bombings in London and Madrid showed that the Middle East "is truly our backyard, and we in the EU must cease our shortsightedness and recognize that." Germany did not back the US in its invasion of Iraq. Fischer said he doubted the American public "really knew that going into Baghdad means taking over the whole burden of the Middle East, and also we felt that with a Shia majority, how could you bring democracy to Iraq without playing into the cards of Iran?"
He said the challenge of Islamic terror must be answered with intelligence, police, and military assets - but also "by answering the intellectual poverty that has prevented modernization in the Islamic nations from bringing peace."
#1
He said the challenge of Islamic terror must be answered with intelligence, police, and military assets - but also "by answering the intellectual poverty that has prevented modernization in the Islamic nations from bringing peace."
#2
Germany did not back the US in its invasion of Iraq. Fischer said he doubted the American public "really knew that going into Baghdad means taking over the whole burden of the Middle East, and also we felt that with a Shia majority, how could you bring democracy to Iraq without playing into the cards of Iran?"
Ri-i-i-i-ight, Joschka. Such a wise and prescient man you are. Your 20/15 foresight kept Germany out of Iraq, a lion among the dwarves. Well, that or the near-fatal case of BDS.
Please. If Europe had stood with US and UK and Ozland, firmly and unbendingly, this thing would be wrapped up by now. Instaed you took the sniveling weasel way out, stabbing us in the back politically in the UN and publically in the media.
#6
Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community
Sure thing, buckey, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Let's see if the Pope gets out of there alive before we even begin to give Turkey any benefit of the doubt.
#8
"Please. If Europe had stood with US and UK and Ozland, firmly and unbendingly, this thing would be wrapped up by now..."
Glad to see somebody else recognizes this, Sea. It would have taken more than Germany, but can the world see how the current mess might never have taken root had the "international community" stood with us in getting rid of Saddam and promoting the concept of self-responsible democracy in the Mideast? No-their anti-Americanism reigned supreme. They wanted us to take a hit; they lacked and still lack the vision to see what the cost of their selfish urge will be. We should all hold the "international community" for the current mess.
#9
the intellectual poverty that has prevented modernization in the Islamic nations from bringing peace
While intellectual ossification is a hallmark of the Islamic world, it is far from clear that education brings enlightenment or peace. Zawahiri, for example, has a medical degree. Sayid Qutb wrote eloquently about the need for Islam to conquer the West after his experience teaching at a US college in the 1950's. KSM studied engineering in the US. Mohammed Atta had a master's degree from a German university.
We are confronted with an ideological challenge to liberal democracy. More education is well and good, but it is the willingness of those who enjoy Western civilization to stand for its foundational ideas that will decide the matter. One might hope that former foreign ministers of major powers would understand the issues.
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
10/26/2006 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Baba, one might hope that former foreign ministers of major powers would not also be former Marxist terrorists.
Sgt. Mom, maybe he's trying to keep the girl next to him from smelling the hippie B.O. Or maybe he's trying to strike a tuff Che pose.
Thats right - by not voting Republican in the House, you will be choosing Speaker Pelosi, and placing Majority Leader "Cut-n-Run Coward" Murtha, and at Ways and Means (thats tax policy and spending control) you get...
Chairman Charlie Rangel, and his most senior right hand-man,
Chairman of the Subcommitte on Human Resources Baghdad Jim McDermott.
What can you do?
Get out there, help get out the vote, drive others to the polls - call your local or state Republican campaign and volunteer.
Yeah, it aint purty, but consider the alternative above, so hold your nose and Vote Republican.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
#1
If you know somone who is considering sitting this one out, pooint out the them the consequences of allowing the current Democrat leadership to take over.
Yes, not all Dems are idiots, but thier leadership is almost uniformly socialist, statist and leftists, and would be a disaster for the nation.
All they need is for you to do anything except voting R (or do nothing at all).
Do I like the current crop of Republicans?
For the most part, No.
But the Dems are far worse, and my concern is for the Nation, not my ability to sit back and sneer "I told you so" (unlike many "Libertarian" bloggers who are advocating giving the Dems power as a way to punish Republicans).
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, elected in 1958 before four of his Senate colleagues were even born, would be in line to take over the powerful Appropriations Committee. Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, elected four years later, could be chairman of the Commerce Committee.
Many come from the party's liberal wing Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts would chair the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont would head the Judiciary Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan would be in charge of Armed Services, and Barbara Boxer of California is in line to take charge of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Others are Western or Northern Plains moderates such as Max Baucus of Montana, the would-be chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, or Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who would take charge of the Budget Committee.
A few harbor presidential ambitions Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware would chair the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut could be in line to take over the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts would likely chair the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.
If re-elected, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is running as an independent, would return to claim the chairmanship of the Homeland Security panel. Lieberman reiterated Monday that he would caucus with the Democrats.
Many of these Democrats say they will confront the Bush administration with aggressive investigations.
"The institution has not functioned in its historical role of oversight," Kennedy said. "That's going to be very important. That's just a given."
Leahy would likely lead hearings into the administration's use of military tribunals, warrantless eavesdropping and the constitutional power of the president.
#4
If you think the MSM has been carrying water for the Dems up until now just wait until the investigations begin. Wall to wall coverage, all tied back to the War on Radical Islam in some way. The Dems fear and hate the idea that the welfare state isn't front and center in the public debate and they will do anything to discredit the war and change the terms of the debate back to something they do well at: Expanding the welfare state.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
10/26/2006 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
Is the fix in? Recommend you RTWT.
Policymakers are abuzz with the explosive recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iraq soon to be released by the Baker-Hamilton Commission: Abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor. While former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton said they would withhold their report until after the elections on November 7 to avoid its politicization, they have discussed their findings with the press. On October 8, for example, Baker appeared on ABC's This Week, and the next day he discussed the group's findings with Charlie Rose. On October 12, both Baker and Hamilton appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
Both men are master inside-the-Beltway operators. Rather than prime the debate, they sought to stifle it. While on March 15, 2006, Baker said, "Chairman Hamilton and I have the same objective...to make an honest assessment of where we are and how we go forward and take this issue to the extent that we can out of politics," both chairmen designed the commission to affirm preordained conclusions that are neither new nor wise.
Take the four subordinate expert working groups: Baker and Hamilton gerrymandered these advisory panels to ratify predetermined recommendations. While bipartisan, the groups are anything but representative of the policy debate. I personally withdrew from an expert working group after concluding that I was meant to contribute token diversity rather than my substantive views.
Posted by: ed ||
10/26/2006 07:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm sure there's a part that recommends buttf*cking Israel
#2
Baker has received the mission statement from his Saudi masters. Anything this dick produces should be thrown out
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/26/2006 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There is concern gromgoru. I am concerned the conclusions from this panel will come first and the discussion later. Hope that decisions are not being made without Israel being at the table. Israel is our only friend in this area. I don't think you can make agreements with Syria or Iran. Syria and Iran have their long-term agendas and they look nothing like the Wests'.
Iraq Study Group Members
Group members include:
Individuals
James A. Baker III, Co-Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chair; former Democrat Congressman from Indiana
Robert M. Gates, former CIA director
Vernon Jordan, lawyer and friend of President Bill Clinton
Edwin Meese III, attorney general under President Ronald Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Supreme Court Justice
Leon E. Panetta, former chief of staff to Clinton
William J. Perry, secretary of defense under Clinton
Charles Robb, former Republican senator from Virginia
Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming
Think Tanks
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Study of the Presidency
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
United States Institute of Peace
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/26/2006 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Baker was a bad choice for the commission, but not for the reasons previously cited.
Baker has 'skin in the game' because he is the one who advised Bush 41 not to go after Saddam in the aftermath of Gulf War I.
He has gained high praise from the MSM for his decision back then, and represents a great narrative for the loony left. Here's a Bush family insider who, according to them 'made the right decision' back in 1991.
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/26/2006 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ed Meese is a stand-up guy, as is Chuck Robb, and, to some extent Gates.
The rest are known political hacks analogous to The 911 Commission
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/26/2006 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh, good. Vernon Jordan's there. When things get boring, he can start one of his fascinating discussions about pussy.
I hear that's one of the big reasons Clinton kept him around...
#8
What are the chances that ANY recommendations coming out of this commission won't dishonor every American soldier killed, every American soldier maimed, every American soldier jailed in this war?
Sigh. Wish the moderator would put up the graphic of the soldiers strung up on the bridge from the early days of the Iraq War. It would be useful to keep it in mind when we start talking about compromise with "insurgents".
President George Bush today signed into law a bill that authorizes a 700-mile long concept fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. The concept fence, a project approved but not funded by Congress, is similar to a concept car, administration officials said.
According to an unnamed bill sponsor, The concept fence is an insurmoutable barrier that will shut off the steady, daily flow of illegal aliens invading our country to take our jobs, boost our crime rate, burden our social welfare system and potentially bear contagious diseases or weapons of mass destruction. The concept fence is impossibly high, supercharged with 1.21 jigowatts of electricity, and each mile is guarded by a battalion of National Guard troops and a squadron of A-10 Warthog fighter jets.
If the concept proves popular, officials said, Congress may eventually fund the actual production fence which will be a three-foot high hedge of juniper bushes.
Human rights advocates responded to the new law by charging that the 700-mile fence would force undocumented workers to squeeze through the remaining 1,400 mile border gap, possibly causing lacerations and brush burns.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/26/2006 15:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
From Cliff May at The Corner -- I'm assuming this is a faily new publication For the Record from the Pentagon.. but I don't know that for sure!
DOD asks editorial page to correct error
Oct. 24, 2006 The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfelds negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals. Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfelds not listening to his generals.
Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not newor difficultto find, such as extensive commentary in General Frankss book, American Soldier. The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.
Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.
UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagons request to correct its editorial.
and...
Newsweek Declines Pentagon Request to Examine Reporting
DOD asks magazine to reconsider refusal
Oct. 20, 2006 In response to a Newsweek article on Afghanistan (The Rise of Jihadistan, October 2, 2006), the Department of Defense sent Newsweek a lengthy rebuttal of points of fact and opinion, as well as a request for an opportunity to submit a stand-alone column that not only rebuts some of the more sensational charges, but offers your readers a clearer view of the very real challenges we face in Afghanistanas well as the many achievements of the past five years.
Newsweek dismissed the rebuttal as the government position, as well as the request for a stand-alone column. The Pentagons response to that letter read in part: First, a concise letter to the editor, of say, 200 words, cannot adequately address an [sic] 2200-word article containing a series of false assertions. Second, the issue is not Newsweeks position versus the government position. The issue is that your readers were given a one-sided, opinion-laced article on Afghanistan based on falsehoodswhich is something that journalists and editors are usually concerned about. Your dismissive reply is disappointing, to say the least.
Read the whole exchange here
and...
Oct. 18, 2006
The Weekly Standard.
To the Editor:
Bill Kristols recent article No More Huffing and Puffing manipulates Secretary of Defense Donalds Rumsfelds comments at a recent press conference and misleads your readers.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/26/2006 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, its the theater commander who determines need. Any one of the critics produce one theater commander of that region who said he was denied manpower resources by POTUS or SecDef?
#3
I've done a lot of thinking over the last few months about what would likely happen if the Democratic Party won a majority in Congress next month, and then the Presidency in 2008. I've put a lot of work into it, because my gut sense has told me it could have some dire consequences.
So it was very difficult for me reading this article, because the scenario the author lays out is EXACTLY what I think could easily happen. The only quibble I'd make is that he has events unfolding much more quickly than I'd expect.
But make no mistake: either the Democrats will pay dearly for their perfidy in the next two elections, or we all will.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/26/2006 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Since the war has become so politicized, if the Democrats win, I expect the bottom to drop out of enlistments.
Posted by: ed ||
10/26/2006 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Good point. Recruitment and retention would both plummet, especially if the Dems forced us to abandon Iraq under the excuse of "responsible redeployment".
Not that they'd mind, of course: the current crop of Democrats would be more than happy to let our armed forces rot and spend the money instead on free lunches for their parasitic constituents.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/26/2006 8:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"The failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Liberal Democracies everywhere, by an Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism, and which will fight any war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve it, may prove to be the kind of blunder upon which the fate of America turns, and falls."
Seems to say it all. I will have to vote Republican because it is the evil of two lessers. The Democrats would sell this country out. I don't think they are capable of pulling off a good wet dream (Or respond to threats that are out there such as 9-11. What would they do, convene a internation conflict resolution conference?).
The "First Use and Pre-emptive War doctrine" has to be an option for defence of this country.
#7
--- The level of sophistication in this story is very doubtful. However, since our southern border is wide open, the existence of nukes in the hands of enemies like Pakistan, North Korea & Iran make it just a matter of time before such are smuggled into this country & set off.
--- Probably only 3 or 4 nukes set off at ground level in the US would do about the same damage as in this scenario, because the US economic network is more fragile than it looks to be. I remember that some Michigan gas stations closed for a few days as a result of damage to the oil industry caused by Katrina last year. Remember the wide-spread August 2003 power failure caused by a tree branch in Ohio? I wonder what effect just one small nuke detonated near Houston oil refineries would have on the rest of the country's economy and transportation system, especially in winter.
---- The response to the attack by the surviving US government now led by a Cheney was not mentioned in this article. I guess this has been discussed ad nauseam on Rantburg by now.
---- Mass murder in Iraq after a premature US withdrawal, as described by the author, are exactly what I foresee would happen. I would not dignify it by the term "civil war," but rather an escalation of what is already going on.
---- The indirect death toll is probably vastly understated. Remember all the oil the US must import to support its SOL (standard of living, or you can provide the alternative meaning)? I have mentioned before in Rantburg that the food we eat is made of oil and cooked with gas. It is also brought to us by diesel powered trucks getting 13 mpg if they're lucky. Ships transporting food run on oil. This scenario means worldwide food deliveries would drop like a rock.
--- Nuclear proliferation, wide open US borders, and the dependence on the US economy on large amounts of imported oil are at least as dangerous to our future as Islamic fascism. So much could have been done since 9/11 while we have been entertaining each other with other matters. The majority of the US electorate seems far more interested in enjoying their freedom than protecting it.
#8
One thing I do see if such a scenario were to unroll, and one thing left out:
President Cheney.
Do you honestly think he would sit there with major US cities in nuclear ruins, millions of Americans dead and NOT eliminate the threat?
There would be multiple large nuclear detonations from US ICBMs in Tehran, Pyongyang, Damascus, Karachi, Mecca and a few other known sites that have the finances, technical know-how and tacit ability to bring off such a threat. So the incoming president would have a crippled US, but would also not have to worry about follow-on strikes from those sources that launched the originals. I believe that a President Cheney would also follow up with world-wide conventional bombings of the Madrassas and other sites that spawned such hate, and the wet-work ban would be rapidly rescinded, followed by the death of large numbers of Saudi and other financiers, world-wide.
US Annihilation of NKor would be thorough, and the devastation of Iran, Syria and Pakistan would be just as fierce.
A President Cheney presiding over a nuclear attacked US would insure that those who generated the strikes would find it hard to build nukes and recruit terrorists - their leadership would be dead, finances destroyed, logistics demolished and the centers of their movement are all vapor. And Islam is tied to this world in a severe manner. US Freedom is a concept anchored in the hearts of men, and cannot be erased by taking out a place. Islam, on the other hand, with the application of thermonuclear blasts to certain areas, becomes bereft of its ability to function. It places all muslims in a bind if they cannot complete the Haj, and their holiest of sites do not exist at all anymore.
Blow up the Vatican? We will rebuild elsewhere.
Blow up Mecca? Well sorry, they cannot alter their books one iota, so they are stuck!
In that fiction, the US might have suffered a severe blow, but Islamicism would cease to exist through nuclear erasure of its main backers, their population centers and the centers of Radical Islam.
Do I advocate that now?
No.
But do I advocate it in the event of a covert nuclear strike that is designed to destroy the US?
Yes. Unequivocally. At that point they would have proven the threat level that justifies utter annihilation.
#9
Truly terrifying. I have to believe some over there, through their hatred, will not do this. It would ensure their own deaths and the deaths of those who give them power: The masses of Splodeydopes. Not to mention in EVERY SINGLE mind of every muslim is the threat of Mecca getting nuked. I would say the chances of this happening is almost nill, but with Kimmy in charge of Nkor and Ahmenijad in charge of Iran...
Well, I'm praying. History has always shown the least expected outcome can happen.
Posted by: Charles ||
10/26/2006 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
...I've gotta agree with OS - the one thing that was missing from that story is what a President Cheney would do once he was secure. Kimmy and Dinnerjacket would be dead within hours. We would be hurt, and hurt badly, but we would survive, and we would prevail. North Korea and Iran would not have sufficient population or infrastructure surviving to ever come back except as provinces of some other nation.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/26/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#11
OS and Mike have it, plus, following the retalitory attacks, there would be mass rebuilding effort begun that would put everybody still capable of fogging a mirror to work according to their abilities. yes, it would smack of socialism, but i expect the wankers would be shut up by whatever means necessary and we would persevere. if you have read Steven King's The Stand, substitute this for his epidemic and you have the flaovor of what we would be up against. i would also expect the hard decisions made that those not expected to survive would not have the scarce medical resources wasted on them. Harsh, but necessary.
#13
--- The wankers will never shut up, they are the living dead of the 21st century.
--- A mass rebuilding effort after an event like this will move very slowly without oil imports from the Muslims. About the speed of a walk, in fact. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is designed for short term shortages of oil, not for indefinite ones. Nothing has been done so far to deal with the issue of oil dependence.
--- The NK and Iranian leadership almost certainly have their own versions of Cheyenne Mountain. Iran has imported subway tunneling machines.
--- Even if Mecca became a radioactive crater, Muslims could still make the hajj. They might not return alive, but their obligation is to make the hajj once in a lifetime. A religion of suicide bombers could just as well become a religion of suicide pilgrims.
#14
This is intriquing read for certain. It may be simpler even than this. Notice how no one pays attention to the cargo containers border to border. Nearly none of these are inspected. A very large nuke could be hidden amongst the cargo in any of these. And we would deliver it to the designated location. These could be innocently delivered into the centers of many cities. (Only Detroit would be safe, so as not to kill too many Muzzies) Virtually all cities of any size could be simultaneously eliminated. Staggers the mind as to why massive efforts are not expended safeguarding our home territory.
#17
Notice how no one pays attention to the cargo containers border to border.
Ummmm .... that's not true, although details aren't appropriate here. Let's just say that while we don't have 100% screening, we do have some things in place and more being deployed as rapidly as we can.
The NYT hasn't managed to spill all the details on this stuff yet, so it's still effective.
..my thesis [is] that Political Correctness is a hate ideology disguised as "tolerance." It is based upon hate against anything considered Western and [expresses] a desire to eradicate this [Western tradition]. The First Commandment of Multiculturalism is: Thou shalt hate Christianity and Judaism. Multiculturalists also hate nation states, and they even hate the Enlightenment...{The multiculturalists} hate everything that's seen as Western and they like Islam, precisely because it's anti-Western...As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will. As Australia's Cardinal George Pell says, "some [Western multicultural] seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."
#3
"Quite a large proportion of the population does not derive any self-respect from having to work for a living because some people are no better off if they work than if they do not work [due to the welfare state]." They "do not feel they belong to any larger project than their private lives. ( ) I am not myself religious. However, I am not anti-religious. I am pro-religion provided that it is not theocratic, so long as there is still a division between church and state."
I believe Dalrymple overlooks the critical role of creativity and creative thinking in how each given person can individually assemble a "larger project" which makes use of and gives value to their life. No matter how appropriate, it would still be a dramatic oversimplification to claim that modern Europe does not encourage free thought or creativity.
The degree of individual latitude granted through socialism's attempt to be everything to all people has actually reduced the need for creativity and even the opportunity to exercise it, per se. Governmental control of industry and regulation of markets limits the scope of entrepreneurial activity and, therefore, fetters any incentive to utilize its innate propensity for creative problem solving or other forms of expression.
The simple fact of society's evolution away from the more demanding role of tenant-farmer, which itself necessitated extremely high levels of versatility and, to a somewhat mildly lesser extent, creativity, has seen a commensurate decline in both demand and rewards for same. The facility of modern metropolitan and industrial infrastructure has made life so easy that less resourceful individuals are still capable of surviving quite easily.
This lack of resourcefulness has manifested in many other delimiting aspects. Reduced emphasis upon critical analysis has yielded a gross decline in comparative reasoning and even artistic discernment. We are now brought back to the role of creativity. As modern culture increasingly rewards more easily assimilated art, the ability to appreciate highly demanding or complex forms of expression decreases proportionately. Nuances such as allegorical representation or literary reference fall upon deadened senses and the decline of creativity only accelerates.
To give credit where it is due, the de-emphasis of religion in modern Europe also plays a role in this overall cultural malaise. Creativity, by its inherently inductive and spiritual nature, is often able to derive impetus from religious inspiration. One needs only to examine Renaissance art of the great masters for irrefutable evidence of this. The progressive expulsion of deep spiritual meaning from European culture, be it through intentional marginalizing of religion in daily life or disincentives to be creative, all manifests as an aimless and rudderless character that is able to deny its roots even as it continues to depend upon their uplifting structure. It is this lack of historical and artistic appreciation that has allowed development of a society almost entirely free of the need for a moral compass.
Dalrymple also believes that "Discipline without freedom leads to misery, but freedom without discipline leads to chaos, shallowness, and misery of another kind," alluding to the total lack of freedom in Islam, but also to the seeming lack of direction in the West.
Again, lack of spiritual or artistic discipline goes a long way towards explaining this chaos, shallowness, and misery.
I agree with Harris and Dalrymple: As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will.
Which should evoke a sense of historic appreciation in modern Europeans but instead, through the diligent efforts of socialist deconstruction and revisionism, has all but died.
As Australia's Cardinal George Pell says, "some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."
In a deep irony, Pell inadvertently paraphrases an ancient Arabic adage:
The enemy of my enemy is my brother.
We have all seen exactly what brotherhood of that sort stands for amidst the gleeful slaughter by Muslims of their own religious brethren. That Western culture is somehow unable to envision what awaits it at the hands of a further empowered Islam goes beyond all comprehension. Through an immense wisdom that evolved the separation of church and state, Judeo-Christian religions have, indeed, proven their ability to foster freedom of thought, expression and spirit. Those who anticipate anything remotely like this from Islam both endanger all of us who know better and, if such should come to pass, are in for the shock of what will prove to be incredibly short and miserable lives.
#1
I don't think Iraq is as much of a liability as is claimed by liberal pundits.
The President stressed openness and flexibility in combat tactics, last week. A last minute media blitz could point the finger for the lack of pacificization in Iraq, on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (at least anti-regime forces). If the Dems blame GWB, then Republicans could paint them into the corner on what they would do about the bloody interveners.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
