#6
HM: From Peak10, Telcove has had a major fiber cut in Atlanta, and our Level 3 Circuit is carried over the Telcove line. Telcove technicians are onsite trying to repair the cut right now. We will let you know as soon as we have any more information.
A long and quite excellent article. I'll just excerpt a couple of paragraphs that make one point about ex-President Peanut which I think is significant, but underappreciated:
The effect was exacerbated by one of Carters personality tics, strange in a man who boasted so often of his honesty: a compulsion to engage in flattery. At times, this could manifest itself toward a rightist ally like the Shah of Iran. Just months before the outbreak of the revolution that culminated in his toppling, Carter declared in a toast that Iran was an island of stability thanks to the love which your people give you. But the impulse expressed itself most strongly toward leftist strongmen. Carter hailed Yugoslav dictator Josip Tito as a man who believes in human rights and as a great and courageous leader who has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last forty years. Visiting Poland, then ruled by the Stalinist hack Edward Gierek, he offered a toast to its enlightened leaders and declared that our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland . . . much better than other European nations with which I am familiar. He outdid himself in receiving Romanias iron-fisted ruler, Nicolae Ceausescu, enthusing:
Our goals are the same, to have a just system of economics and politics, to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom, and in the benefits to be derived from the proper utilization of natural resources. We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people.
Carters weakness for dictators and his courtship of Americas enemies not only clouded his human-rights policy, it also contributed to a flaccid approach to security issues, thus adding momentum to Americas strategic decline following defeat in Vietnam. In several corners of Africa, Asia, and the Western hemisphere, Communist or other radical regimes took power, spearheaded by revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua. . . .
His penchant for flattery later got us all in even worse trouble:
Accommodating contrary views was not Carters problem, at least when it came to the North Koreans. The real obstacle, as he saw it, was President Clintons strong declaratory stance against North Korean nuclear weapons, which he believed was counterproductive. Still worse was the stance of IAEA chief Hans Blix, who was insisting on upholding the rules of the NPT and on getting Pyongyang to account for plutonium it might have already recovered. To overcome these irritants, which only played into the hands of hard-liners in North Korea, Carter determined to build a personal relationship involving trust with Kim Il Sung.
This he did by telling Kim it was tragic that the IAEA had brought to the UN Security Council a report saying that North Korea has violated its agreements. Then he added, in a direct attack on U.S. policy, I think this sanctions effort is a serious mistake. Having thus built trust, he went on to assure Kim that The U.S. desires to live in peace and harmony with North Korea. We dont believe our different government systems should be an obstacle to full cooperation and friendship.
For Carter, indeed, there appears to have been a solid basis for such friendship. Far from being the hive of fear and deprivation that other visitors had describedand from which masses had fled illegally into China at great perilNorth Korea was just like home. He found the shops in Pyongyang to be similar to the Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia, and the neon lights of the capital reminded him of Times Square. Not only were the people friendly and open, but the regime reflected their popular will, which he discovered to be homogeneous.
That is precisely why, he later explained in a press conference, he was so opposed to sanctions. For the North Korean people would look upon them as a
personal insult to their so-called Great Leader, branding him as a liar and a criminal. This is something . . . which it would be impossible for them to accept. I thought this before I went to North Korea and thats why I went. Now after observing their psyche and their societal structure and the reverence with which they look upon their leader, Im even more convinced.
In short order, Carter and Kim struck a deal. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/01/2007 12:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's really saying something when you are a limper dick than Blix.
The first incident involving Sen. Boxer arose after the senator rescinded an award given to a CAIR chapter executive in early January. She had reviewed online accounts that linked the organization to terrorist entities. CAIR with 32 chapters nationwide and in Canada, bills itself as Americas largest Islamic civil liberties group. Sen. Boxer discovered that CAIR members have been sentenced to prison for conspiracy to support terrorist activities and that they have refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.
Nihad Awad, CAIRs national director, claimed that Boxer succumbed to right-wing pressure and that her actions amounted to guilt by association. Ya just because you fund mooselimb terrorist, blah blah blah.
When I was a young teenager, the boys loved the sexy Jane Fonda in Barbarella. After I became an American soldier and a Vietnam veteran, she was "Hanoi Jane" to all of us. We were disgusted when she became a revolutionary and a communist sympathizer who sat on North Vietnamese anti-aircraft guns and gave aid and comfort to our enemy.
Now Hanoi Jane has become "Jihad Jane," and she has decided that the terrorists of the world who cut off people's heads and blow themselves up to kill innocent men, women and children are not as bad as the Americans who have liberated tens of millions of people since Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard her criticize the terrorists of the world.
When a Fox News reporter asked her, "What do you think about what happened to the 3 million Vietnamese and Cambodians who died after the U.S. troops left Vietnam?" Fonda replied, "It's too bad that we caused it to happen by going in there in the first place."
By blaming the United States for the millions of postwar murders in Southeast Asia, she proved to the world that she has never changed her radical philosophy. The killings after that war were the result of purges by her communist friends in Vietnam and by the murderous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Obviously, the apologies she made in the past for her actions during the Vietnam War were only because of book and video deals or to promote a movie.
Fortunately, the average American is too smart to believe that Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn or Tim Robbins are anything more than struggling celebrities who would do almost anything to get their mugs plastered on television. When Robbins was unable to give an intelligent answer to a question, he suggested that the reporter enlist in the military.
These so-called movie stars have the depth of a saucer of milk. They are shallow individuals who don't understand the scope of the threat facing the world. To blame the vast majority of deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan on the United States is to admit they don't watch the news. Our soldiers are killing insurgents and jihadists; the bad guys are the ones killing innocent civilians on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul with their improvised explosive devices, car bombs and suicide vests.
While there have been mistakes and tactical errors in waging the war on terror, if Osama bin Laden says the third world war is raging in Iraq, I believe him. We can't pretend that our enemy has not made that country the front line in the war on terror.
No matter how "famous" the Fondas and the Penns may be, even they cannot ignore the tsunami of blood sweeping across the world in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. This evil is being promoted and inspired by various entities, but the most successful has been Iran. Now that Tehran says it wants to increase its military and economic support for Iraq, we only have to look at Lebanon to see what could follow. The Iranian-supported terrorists of Hezbollah have no intention of letting a secular and democratic Lebanese government survive, and they are the model for fundamentalists in Iraq like Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Al-Sadr is also supported by Iran, and he is part of the current political process only because it suits his purposes for the moment.
As a veteran of Vietnam and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am waiting for the "celebrities" like Jane Fonda to make their trips to Iraq and Afghanistan for photo opportunities with the insurgent leaders. I can already picture Fonda holding an AK47 and wearing a suicide vest as she becomes cozy with the terrorists.
After "Jihad Jane" and her Hollywood pals sit on Haifa Street sipping tea with the insurgents, I hope they are permitted to leave with their heads.
Sgt. 1st Class Chuck Grist is preparing to mobilize for the third time since Sept. 11, 2001. He can be reached through his blog at www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com.
#2
When a Fox News reporter asked her, "What do you think about what happened to the 3 million Vietnamese and Cambodians who died after the U.S. troops left Vietnam?" Fonda replied, "It's too bad that we caused it to happen by going in there in the first place."
...the TRULY sad part about that is that we have only taught our kids - more or less - that Vietnam was heaven on earth before the Americans got there, and Gawd knows that ain't true. Even seriously biased authors and commentators like Stanley Karnow (Vietnam: A History) make it very clear that violence, terrorism, and rebellion were part of everyday life in Vietnam for more than a century before we got there. We just happened to be the ones who went in there with gobal communications and reporting behind them. Add to that America's amnesiac historical memory, and Jane will say that all day long and no one will call her on it.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/01/2007 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
..gobal=global...PIMF, PIMF...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/01/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hanoi or Jihad, Jane is still an ignorant slut.
#5
So who is making the new urinal sticker of Jihad Jane??? Her other stickers are getting a bit old.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/01/2007 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
She should have been executed as a traitor decades ago. It is no surprise she continues to side with any evil against the free nation which has made her rich.
#7
Sgt. 1st Class Chuck Grist--Thanks for your service to your country both in the military and in the press. The main stream media does not get it. When I read Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins I think traitors of the ilk of Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw, Fortunately they live in American where they are safely enscounced behind the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects their right to be free and to speak and yes even to sound like the shallow idiots they are. Thanks again Chuck for what you are doing. Keep up the good work and be safe.
#14
JFM, Jihad Jane is probably the most depised woman in America--I don't think there are any close seconds.
I'ma thinkin' that Rosie O'Donnell is pushing hard for #2! And, tu, disgustingly, she was introduced like that on Saturday at the D.C. anti-war march. "Here's a lady who speaks for all our vaginas" or some such crap.
Posted by: BA ||
02/01/2007 22:07 Comments ||
Top||
#1
For the Left its never been about better results no matter how imperfect or messy. It's never been about justice. It's never been about principle. It's always been about power. A means and end in and of itself.
#2
This guy sounds like a Brit version of Bernard Goldberg. I think the UK could use a few more consciences like his.
And check out the first two comments under the article. If ever there were evidence that the left is completely disconnected from reality, there it is for all to see.
Repeat after me, lefties - there is NO SUCH THING as a world citizen..............
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/01/2007 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
(An article from the creator of 'Maledicta', Journal of Bad Language. NSFW for language only. For further information about Internet resources for obscene language, please see:)
H/T to Captain's Quarters. I've got no real heartburn with Rep. Pelosi - in her OFFICIAL function as Speaker Of The House - usuing USAF tranport. She's third in the line of succession;, that's reasonable. It's what she wants instead that is far from reasonable.
It didn't take long for Nancy Pelosi to create the imperial Speakership. She has requested that the Pentagon supply her with military aircraft at all times, and not just for herself, but also for her staff, her colleagues, and her family:
The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."
"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.
Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.
I'm not even sure that the succession is good enough reason to meet the demand for the House Speaker, even if Denny Hastert used that reasoning. The Speaker is second in line for the Presidency in the case of the death of the President and Vice-President, and therefore deserves some special security protocols. It doesn't take a military flight to implement those, especially just to fly home on the weekends.
This request by Pelosi goes far beyond even that questionable consideration. Pelosi's staff doesn't have anything to do with the succession, and neither do her colleagues in the House. The military is not a charter service for politicians who want to avoid using the same airports as the rest of the hoi polloi. The military has other responsibilities, especially in a time of war, and pampering Congressmen shouldn't take precedence over them. That most certainly applies to flying Pelosi's family around, too.
I seem to recall that Pelosi and her party ran on the notion that the Republicans had grown too fat over the perquisites of power. The GOP lost touch with the people of America, they claimed, and let power go to their heads -- and certainly in some cases they were right. It's hard to square that rhetoric with these new demands that the Pentagon start providing free charter flights to Democratic politicians and their staffs and families at a moment's notice.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/01/2007 09:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I know many of you will disagree but I dont see why this service should not be extended to the Speaker and her family. She is in a position of prominence and her family (right or wrong) shares the danger that comes with that position. Its not hard to imagine somebody wanting exploit a situation when they find out they are on the same flight of a relative of the Speakers. As long it doesnt become Air Pelosi this is the exact mission of the executive flying Wing based at Andrews AFB. If it does become Air Pelosi you can bet that information will come out in a CBO review.
#2
Since Pelosi and the Democrats dont believe we are threatened by Islamists and we should not be actively fighting any of them then she or her friends/family/staff/pets do not require the extra security. Therefore the only reason for the request is so she and the others can get free airfare paid by the taxpayer.
#3
I don't believe the Speaker should have access to military transport. The President and Vice-President have broad national responsibilities as laid out in the Constitution and require the resources to carry them out. The Speaker may be first among equals, but her responsibilities are to represent her district and her district should provide those resources.
The "third in line" carries no weight with me, because it is simply an argument about where to draw that line. Third? Fourth? Everyone in congress? (note that Pelosi is trying to wrap in the rest of the California delegation; think other state delegations will want in on this deal?) I think drawing it at two is just fine. Including Hastert was a mistake.
Finally, I want my congress people, and their families, to fly the same planes I do. The less time they spend on commercial aircraft the less they will care about them.
#4
I have no problem with her flying military flights. Take a bench with soldiers in transit. Her family can fly too - but it might be better if they enlisted first. But she no doubt wants a dedicated executive jet and crew at her constant disposal - not a good general practice (not even a good General practice).
#5
Won't that contribute to the dreaded global warming? Official travel for all senators / representatives, yes, but carte blanche, I don't think so. the rank and file gov't employees have to file commercial coach cattle car class; why can't they?????
#10
YOUTUBE > FOREIGN IMPERIALISM MEANS THE END OF THE END OF THE REPUBLIC, + ASIATIMES > Nemesis at America's Door > Amer may explode due to high national and foreign indebture controlled by foreign nations, + domestic democracy is incompatible wid military-centric foreign imperialism. IOW, AMERS WILL KILL THEIR COUNTRY WID THEIR EYES WIDE OPEN.
I read, with a heavy heart, this WaPo blog entry by William Arkin, who handles the papers national and homeland security beat. (The distinction escapes me, at the moment.) The pith of the gist seems to be shut up and bleed, but Ive only read it once, and subsequent study might yield additional nuance. Go read it.
This sticks out:
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
They ought to be damn glad we dont regard them all as man-stackers and baby stabbers, I guess. Every time theyre not spit upon in an airport, they ought to offer up a silent prayer.
Noted. Then comes this:
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
As for the obscene amenities, I recall putting together that package to send to the troops a month ago. Foot and hand warmers were requested. I realize now they were just stockpiling those things in case the fancy propane-fired boots run low, and the fur-lined Gucci gloves get swiped by the locals. Fine. I heard the other day that some bases have fast-food outlets. They have a Subway stand. And you can just walk to it. Me, I have to drive. And find a parking place. And they dont give stamps anymore. I suspect the Subway stand in Iraq gives stamps. Right now Id imagine theres some guy whos paid a decent wage whose family back home in a nice house with freshly painted cinder block walls is sitting in his bunk (with a blanket he got for free, no doubt) licking the stamps that bring him ever closer to a free six incher. With meatballs. And he has the nerve to have an opinion about other peoples opinions.
No, thats not fair; hes entitled to his opinion. But its another thing to express it. Its almost as if the actual troops think they have some sort of absolute moral authority to have an opinion, and this gives them the right to express themselves without considering the impact that might have on people who disagree. They do have a moral authority, but only when theyre killed, and it transfers immediately to the closest relative who disagreed with the mission.
Oh, and we need the Fairness Doctrine to restore balance to the AM radio band. Dissenting voices are being stifled.
Then comes this:
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.
This is the most singularly incomprehensible passage I have read from a mainstream media journalist in my entire life. And Ive written a few that might win second place. I dont know where to begin. Hoovers?
Hoovers? I write for a second-tier regional daily, and if I woke tomorrow to find Id posted that paragraph on a company blog I would open my veins in a warm bath.
The coup de gracelessness occurs in the next paragraph:
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
Oops, indeed. That just slipped out. He temporarily forgot the patriotism that motivates many, and provides a definitional difference between mercs and volunteer soldiers, but thank God he caught himself in time. As for that dirty work, it is best understood in terms of soiled linen, which wives are ALWAYS complaining about. We dont do the laundry, we dont do it right, we mix the bloody clothes with the silk shirts, et cetera:
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
Dear lambs, confused by Robust Debate, thinking that the big package of letters from the elementary school back home means more than last Tuesdays editorial in the Times. One last blurt of unpunctuated insight:
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
You have your orders from the Posts muller-in-chief: commence pondering. Oh, and wed be talking about something different if we had a draft, which we dont, but somehow this all applies anyway. Did I mention Abu Ghraib? I did. Okay. Fine.
Fricken Hoover. Hate that guy. Dont you?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/01/2007 06:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I posted the following comment to the clown's column. There were many, many comments that were far less polite.
My son served in Iraq as a Marine. My wife jumped every time the phone rang. The moment he will remember for the rest of his life was watching the Iraqis have their first free elections. He was proud to be a part of that.
I suggest you read "Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story About Love and The United States Marine Corps" by John Schaeffer and Frank Schaeffer. The author, Frank, thought much the same way you do, until his son, John, joined the Marine Corps.
May all of your children join the Marine Corps. Maybe you'll learn something.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/01/2007 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bobby:
May all of your children join the Marine Corps. Maybe you'll learn something.
Well said, sir. Well said!
Posted by: Mike ||
02/01/2007 7:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Another step closer to making Sulla.
George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
#4
Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers.
...I have gone through EVERY historical reference I can get to and can find nothing about Herbert Hoover getting us into a war (though every president from TR to FDR sent the Marines somewhere in Latin America, so maybe this guy is just so fired up he can't get his facts straight), and Richard Nixon had us mostly withdrawn from Vietnam before his career ended. Seems to me though that Harry Truman sent a LOT of guys to Korea without a declaration of war, Kennedy not only sent them to Vietnam but sent guys to Cuba who weren't even HIS, and LBJ sent troops to the Dominican Republic and Vietnam based on a AUMF that even LBJ was skeptical of. On the other hand, I can find ONE President who consistently misled and lied to Congress and the American people, who sent US military personnel to assist one of the combatants without notifying Congress, and who conducted an undeclared war for more than a year that led to the loss of 141 US military personnel and hundreds more US civilians - and during all this time, the US military was looked upon as not much more than a group of overpaid and coddled bums who were unfit for 'real work'.
IIRC, his name was Franklin Roosevelt.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/01/2007 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd almost be mad at Arkin (who, I guess claims to be a man) if I actually believed he could find two synaptic nerves inside his cranium to rub together or an x chromosome in his body to prove his male cred.
I was there during the Iraqi elections and am going back for tour#2 (albeit a much shorter deployment) in about two weeks. I totally understand where those Army grunts are coming from. I remember calling home from the sandbox and my mom telling me about the stuff she saw on the msm and saying how her mind was changing on the war and all the typical quagmire nonsense - I spent more time arguing w/my own mom about how much b.s. the American folks were being fed and they really needed to get their heads out of their collective asses and connect the dots that Iraq is not 'nam, never was, never will be.
IMHO - The American public has an absolute personal investment in supporting the war - 17 UN resolution violations over 12 years written in the blood of 300 dead Americans in 1991 = we have absolute moral/legal authority to kick the fuck out of Iraq and dispose their tyrant. *Then* after that was done it was imperative for the region, the world, and our own safety/conscience that we leave the place in some sort of order so we're not un-f*cking them again in 20 yrs - how f*cking hard is that for the average person to grasp? Those of us mil guys don't want our kids there in 20 yrs doing the job we can easily handle now. GWB said this would be a long and bloody slog - I guess the average 30 second attention span of the pepsi gen has already forgot that. How many lives and years did it take for us to complete our own Revolution? 60% of the American population was against that war as well. 60% of the American (union side) pop was against fighting the south during the civil war. Does anyone (besides those on the 'burg) know their f*cking history?
The MSM is who I really have a chapped-ass with. The pussy's in our congress would be no.2 - f*ck you Nancy Pelosi - the only "catastrophe" is your dumb myopic ass being the speaker.
No.3 would be my drooling fellow citizens who are "too busy" or willfully ignorant to fact check the info they get from CNN/NBC/ABC/MSNBC or whoever.
Clearly Arkin's a 68'er moron w/a severe case of penis inferiority syndrome - prolly when he was in college his girlfriend cheated on him w/a Marine or Sailor hence the underlying disdain for any man who is not afraid to claim to be a man. Then again were all mercenaries (I prefer to be a mercenary of love though am not sure I banged his girlfriend during my formative years :)
- I guess his definition of mercenary is different from mine and websters.
Overall, a clueless article written by a coward who can afford to say such pussified crap from behind his cushy desk in his safe office.
#6
That's one BA rant to save, Broadhead. Keep your head focused in the sandbox and Godspeed in a few weeks.
Oh, and one more recent FACT of history. Official US Policy on Iraq was changed from containment to regime change. When? 1998, under Clinton! But, then again, facts are curious things that most Americans (worried over stupid sh!t again) don't know they don't know!
Posted by: BA ||
02/01/2007 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Broadhead: good luck, good hunting, and get back in one piece, OK?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/01/2007 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thanks guys, no worries here. Going back to the same place, essentially the same job, same office, w/the same Marines. Pretty low key & business as usual. I'll shoot some emails from out there like I did last year. Until then I'll still be doing my regular schtick.
#9
The significance of the WaPo blog post is that Arkin is already frustrated that the troops are likely to remain in Iraq, 30 days into the new era of Pelosi & Co., and regardless of whatever non-binding resolution is passed in Congress. Plus, there's the surge and the increasing activity vs. Iran.
From Arkin's POV, it must be hard to take that a Democratic congress in and of itself is unlikely and unwillingly to stick their necks out and go to the mat to de-fund the Iraq effort. So what was the point of those mid-terms, anyway? What sticks in his craw is that he and others still have to go through the jujitsu of "supporting the troops, opposing the war" for the benefit of public opinion. Look for more frustration to continue.
#11
Arkin has done all of us a real favor here. He has lifted the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" mask of "objectivity claimed by the MSM. He makes it abundantly clear that he hold our military in, ahem, disdain. This drivel could have been written by virtually any journalist at the NYT, LAT, CNN, CBS, etc, etc. So many of them feel this way. If they don't and they air their positive views about the mil or the ops in Iraq, they are smacked (see recent NYT journo who said the surge might (MIGHT) just work).
These people are on the other side, plain and simple.
Broadhead6, you watch your six and thanks so much for your continuing service. You protect me, my wife and my two little girls. I can't thnk you and your fellow Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors enough for that.
#13
Real poll never to be taken by MSM and headlined up front and first to air -
Who do you trust most, your military or your Congress?
Actually, in a poll taken, I think, before the last election, people were asked to rate how much they trusted a variety of people/groups. The most trusted, at about 75% I think, was the US military. President Bush got something like a 35%, and both houses of Congress got something like 17%.
Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has given a statement to the effect that the United States is the world's superpower, and we have to admit this fact. If we do not side with it, our fate will be the same as that of Iraq. If we do not carry out an operation against the terrorists, it will do so itself.
Commenting on the statement, Mr. Irfan Siddiqui has asked whether the United States is a superpower only for us? Has it crafted all its bombs and missiles for us alone? Is it not a superpower for North Korea, Iran and Venezuela? None of these is a nuclear power. None has as much population as us. None has an army, or armaments, like ours. None of them has a General in uniform as its president. Why is it then that each one of these countries is holding forth the banner of self-respect and independence, and is refusing to follow America's diktat, and why is America not threatening to push them back into the stone age? Mr. Siddiqui has said there is probably no example in history where a government has openly declared that they are pursuing such-and-such policy out of fear that if they did not do something, the superpower will itself do it.
Mr. Siddiqui's columns should not only be read for their subject matter but also for his elegant use of the Urdu language; in fact they should be included in the Urdu curriculum for their literary content alone. He goes on to describe how we have obeyed each one of the Americans' commands. They said: side with us in this crusade, we submitted. They said: give us bases, we obliged. They said: accept the Northern Alliance in place of the Taliban, we capitulated. They said: what we call terrorism, you also call it the same; we acquiesced. They said: The Kashmir movement is terrorism, we consented. They said: close down all its support centers, we agreed. They said: curb the jehadi organizations, we concurred; they said: discourage jehad, we complied. They said: tighten up the deeni madaris, we went along. They said: re-write your curriculum, we gave in. They said: make friends with India, we undertook all kinds of CBMs. They said: stop recalling the Kashmir resolutions, we gave a dozen alternatives. They said: incarcerate Dr. Qadeer Khan, we did as we were told. They said: help Karzai, we helped. They said: send troops to the tribal areas, we sent them. They said: bombard the tribals, we bombed.
The question, dear readers, is this: why is it that our government has capitulated to the extent that no country on earth has done? The answer is straightforward: if there had been a sovereign parliament, it would never have behaved like this. Remember, five phone calls to the prime minister from the US president failed, whereas one call by a subordinate to our president sufficed. Because they know General Musharraf does not need the consent of the parliament for any of his decisions, the Americans can coerce him.
In contrast, no one can threat hundreds of members of the National Assembly, either privately or publicly. For obvious reasons, private threats to hundreds of legislators cannot even be conceived. Public threats would create a storm of protest. That is why we have to have a civilian at the place where the buck stops. Even if it was General Musharraf as a duly elected civilian president, he would be vastly more powerful than the uniformed president that he is.
The question is: why should one man want to take on the grave responsibility of saying yes or no, in a case where a momentous decision involving the life and death of the community is to be taken? Why should the decision not be taken by hundreds of the people's representatives jointly? In the absence of such a mechanism for taking major decisions, every day more and more encroachments are being made into our country's sovereignty, until nothing has been left. Every day we have to answer even to Karzai, and we have become the laughing stock of the world:
Us naqshe pa kay bosay nay yaan tak kia zaleel
Main koochae raqeeb main bhi sar kay bal gaya.
We must have a civilian at the top as president, even if it was Musharraf! We will simply not survive with a uniformed president.
Posted by: john ||
02/01/2007 18:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dr (of what?) Ijaz Ahsan is wrong, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri is right.
By Daniel Pipes Text of a talk presented by Daniel Pipes on January 20, 2007, in London in a debate with the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as transcribed by the 910 Group with the help of others.
Posted by: ed ||
02/01/2007 07:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why does the likes of Red Ken and George Galloway always side with the enemy whether the IRA/Venezuala/Iran or Radical Islam????
#4
IMHO, Pipes has always been a tad soft. A while back, I had the distinct privilege of having lunch with Robert Spencer and his family. I expressed some rather harsh views, with which he more or less agreed. We got to talking about others in the resistance, and their personalities.
Pipes, he said, privately agrees with such views, but for some reason won't go that far publicly. Sounded like it has something to do with the fact that he's built his professional reputation reaching out to MMMs and talking up Islamic reformation. Pipes likely agrees that the jihad revival IS the reformation, but feels it would be inconsistent or hypocritical to point out that he now feels his earlier optimism was misplaced.
I think many of us have made that transition, without feeling too terrible about it, so remains unclear to me why Pipes feels constrained. Conclusions can, and should, change as more information becomes available, so, I dunno. Pipes certainly isn't a scaredy-cat.
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.
