Hi there, !
Today Tue 02/27/2007 Mon 02/26/2007 Sun 02/25/2007 Sat 02/24/2007 Fri 02/23/2007 Thu 02/22/2007 Wed 02/21/2007 Archives
Rantburg
531692 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 99 articles and 366 comments as of 12:28.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
3 Pak bad boyz dead when their package blows up
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
10 00:00 Procopius2k [4] 
1 00:00 Anonymoose [3] 
0 [3] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [3] 
0 [3] 
6 00:00 DMFD [4] 
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [3] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [3] 
3 00:00 anonymous2u [3] 
2 00:00 Redneck Jim [3] 
5 00:00 Sic_Semper_Tyrannus [4] 
4 00:00 gromgoru [3] 
3 00:00 Nimble Spemble [4] 
36 00:00 Sic_Semper_Tyrannus [6] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
14 00:00 Darkydark [4]
15 00:00 Procopius2k [5]
1 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
5 00:00 Chiper Threreger8956 [4]
2 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
2 00:00 DanNY [3]
2 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
7 00:00 SteveS [3]
6 00:00 Excalibur [4]
3 00:00 Elmereter Hupash6222 [3]
0 [3]
3 00:00 Chuck Simmins [3]
9 00:00 doc [2]
0 [3]
3 00:00 Lone Ranger [3]
0 [3]
7 00:00 Elmereter Hupash6222 [3]
1 00:00 Shipman [4]
1 00:00 anymouse [3]
0 [3]
2 00:00 regular joe [3]
8 00:00 Chiper Threreger8956 [4]
0 [3]
0 [3]
0 [4]
3 00:00 3dc [4]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
3 00:00 Old Patriot [4]
0 [3]
1 00:00 Frank G [3]
0 [3]
0 [3]
7 00:00 Elmereter Hupash6222 [4]
Page 2: WoT Background
2 00:00 Nimble Spemble [3]
0 [3]
1 00:00 Floluse Angineling3308 [3]
14 00:00 Mike N. [4]
0 [3]
2 00:00 MacNails [3]
2 00:00 Anonymoose [3]
8 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
0 [3]
5 00:00 Eric Jablow [3]
11 00:00 IG-88 [4]
4 00:00 Frank G [3]
1 00:00 Excalibur [3]
1 00:00 gromgoru [3]
3 00:00 Mahmoud "Bilingual" Abbas [3]
4 00:00 Seafarious [3]
1 00:00 DMFD [3]
5 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
12 00:00 Mike [3]
0 [3]
1 00:00 Alaska Paul [3]
1 00:00 Frozen Al [3]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
1 00:00 DanNY [3]
2 00:00 MacNails [4]
4 00:00 Phereper Hupineth8926 [3]
3 00:00 Anonymoose [3]
0 [3]
6 00:00 tu3031 [3]
4 00:00 Jimmeh Cahtah [3]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [3]
3 00:00 Mike [3]
2 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
0 [3]
0 [3]
16 00:00 Thrump Snairong6534 [4]
3 00:00 Frank G [3]
3 00:00 USN, ret. [3]
0 [4]
1 00:00 John Frum [3]
0 [3]
2 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
4 00:00 Chiper Threreger8956 [3]
13 00:00 RD [4]
1 00:00 JosephMendiola [3]
7 00:00 RD [4]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
0 [3]
7 00:00 Alaska Paul [3]
0 [3]
5 00:00 Redneck Jim [3]
4 00:00 trailing wife [3]
8 00:00 Chiper Threreger8956 [4]
Africa Subsaharan
WND : Mbeki puts on thinking cap to wrestle with crime
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 02/24/2007 12:06 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:


Bangladesh
Did the U.N. engineer Bangladesh's coup?
If you thought the United Nations was not in the business of backing military takeovers, think again. According to Britain's Economist, the world body sent a letter to the Bangladeshi army chief on January 10, warning him that his army would lose lucrative peacekeeping contracts if it provided security for dubious elections scheduled for later in the month.

The next day, General Moeen U. Ahmed ordered the president to cancel the elections and install a military-backed caretaker government, effectively with U.N. approval. Does this mean the peacekeeping contracts could top the list of U.N. diplomatic tools when it comes to influencing its member states?

It certainly worked in Bangladesh, one of the biggest contributors of manpower to peacekeeping missions. It has 10,000 soldiers deployed at any one time, as do Pakistan and India. This brings in $300 million (£153.2 million) a year for Bangladesh, not an insignificant sum for a poverty-stricken country.

Since the elections were going to be flawed, the coup may have been the best option, the paper argues. The West certainly didn't complain.

But the paper is sceptical this success could be repeated in other countries. Bangladesh's generals were considering the move anyway and, according to the paper, "they must have known that the United Nation's threat was almost certainly hollow". After all, Pakistan and Fiji didn't lose their peacekeeping contracts after coups in their countries.

In any case, it is unlikely that the United Nations would jeopardise the numbers of already overstretched peacekeeping forces, which should be enough to dismiss the Bangladesh scenario as unique and unlikely to be played out elsewhere.
Posted by: Seafarious || 02/24/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The U.N. couldn't have been involved... the coup was competently run and successful
Posted by: Snavise Slotle9568 || 02/24/2007 0:29 Comments || Top||

#2  My thoughts exactly.
Posted by: Fred || 02/24/2007 0:36 Comments || Top||

#3  Correlation does not equal causation.

they must have known that the United Nation's threat was almost certainly hollow

Well, duh. "Almost" certainly hollow?
Posted by: gromky || 02/24/2007 4:05 Comments || Top||

#4  What the UN "warning" meant to the generalissimo is that there will not be international sanctions following a military coup.
Posted by: gromgoru || 02/24/2007 4:37 Comments || Top||


Britain
Mark Steyn: Blair is right on troops
ACCORDING to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".

For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.
And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.

Alas, even being in the general vicinity of regions where fighting is taking place got a little too much so the Norwegians demanded a modification of their rules of non-engagement and insisted their "soldiers" be moved to parts of Afghanistan where there's no fighting whatsoever by anyone at all. Good luck finding any.

Which brings us to that brave band of countries who still use "ally" in the more or less traditional sense. The Old French word it comes from is "alier", which means "to bind to". Au contraire, these days to be an ally of America is to be in a bind. John Howard has just announced that things are pretty tough in Iraq so this is no time for Australia to be heading home. Tony Blair has just announced that things are going well in Iraq so this is exactly the time for Britain to begin heading home. But either way it makes no difference: both Prime Ministers have been greeted with jeers and catcalls, and each man's position has been assumed to undermine the other's, and both by extension to undermine George W. Bush.

Howard, as the most rhetorically surefooted of the Anglosphere's three musketeers, had a good comeback to the suggestion that the Bush surge and the Blair drawdown are mutually incompatible: "Anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes," he said, "knows that controlling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than controlling Basra in the south. That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason why, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers."

That would appear to make sense. I had the privilege of being in the Oval Office a couple of months back when Bush observed that 80 per cent of the violence in Iraq took place within 30 miles of Baghdad. If the object is to transfer control to a competent Iraqi military, it would seem likely that a largely Shia army would be more likely to be able to assume control in the largely Shia south before it's ready to police Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. But to the media and much of the political class throughout the Western world, almost by definition there can be no good news from Iraq: the Bush surge in Baghdad is bound to fail, the Blair handover in the south is bound to fail, and therefore Howard's support for both or either or vice-versa is deluded. In strict numbers, London has been reducing - or "redeploying" or "withdrawing" - forces since 2003, when 46,000 British troops were holding down the southern third of Iraq single-handed.

Within a year, it was a fifth of that, and this latest drawdown is significant only because of the opportunity it affords Bush-bashers (and Howard-bashers) for some political sport. The southern provinces are as stabilised as they're likely to get under any regime short of multi-decade colonialisation.

And those British troops who remain will provide serious muscle when the Iraqi authorities need it: the Blues and Royals are shipping out in a few weeks, including Second Lieutenant Wales - that is, Prince Harry - who, according to The Times, "has already made his wishes clear. He wants to be with his squadron, not locked away in a staff job in a heavily protected base."

You don't have to be third in line to the throne to feel that way. Most soldiers from serious militaries want to be doing something real and tough when they're sent halfway round the world. The Americans accept (a little too easily, I'd say) the political reality that these days a military coalition will be 95 per cent US, 4 per cent Britain and 1 per cent everybody else, with the detachment of Royal Marines from Tonga ranking as a greater per capita contribution than any NATO member. But, given the relatively small numbers, they should at least be doing something when they get there.

The British Prime Minister is in a bad position, facing a hostile backbench on his own side and a bunch of contemptible opportunists among the Tory ranks. Howard is, to that degree, in an enviable position: his party supports him, and even Labor would supposedly do no more than withdraw 500 or so personnel from the wider Middle East, which makes Kevin Rudd a more or less loyalish Opposition by the standards of Washington, London and Ottawa.

In other words, it's not the war, it's the home front. If their job is all but done in the Shia south, why could not Blair redeploy British troops to Baghdad to share some of the burden of the Yankee surge? Well, because it's simply not politically possible. Not even for a leader who shares exactly the same view of the Islamist threat and the importance of victory in Iraq as President Bush.

In that sense, the Blair reduction is not a withdrawal from Iraq so much as a withdrawal from the assumptions of the broader Anglo-American relationship: the Prime Minister's successor, Gordon Brown, is likely to prefer something a little more distant, not as distant as those Norwegians in Afghanistan but a little closer to the default NATO model of being supportive without being helpful.

Thus, even for reliable allies with capable militaries, the political price of marching into battle alongside the Great Satan is steep and getting steeper. This does not bode well for the general health of the planet. When the wilier Democrats berate Bush for not maintaining an adequate military, they have a sort of crude point, albeit not the one they think they're making: if the time, money and energy expended in getting pseudo-allies to make pseudo-contributions were to be spent instead on the Vermont National Guard, you'd get more troops more quickly with more capability. Yet for wealthy countries to deny Washington even the figleaf of token multilateralism is, in the end, to gamble with their own futures.

Howard is perhaps the last Western leader to understand this. If he is a pathetic Bush poodle, he was a poodle long before most folks had even heard of Bush. He first committed Australia to supporting American military action against Iraq in 1998, back when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. All that's changed is the scale of the threat: an American defeat - or perceived defeat - in Iraq would embolden all kinds of forces around the globe, including in Indonesia and the Pacific.

The French and the Norwegians will never be meaningful American allies again, and even the British will be ordering a la carte. To modify Howard's words on September 11, even if 80 per cent of the allies have gone, this is no time to join them.

Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 14:15 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Once the old broad and Charlie are out of the way, I hope King William V and Prince Harry take some of her billions and invest in a Caribbean based mercenary army for England, loyal only to the King.

Kept out of England except for dire emergency, this Caledfwlch (Excalibur) Regiment could guarantee that if England's military is so emaciated as to be unable to defend their country, that neither a civil rebellion or a "repugnant invasion" by Brussels could conquer England.

Even back in the 1970s, it was speculated that if things got utterly awful in England with a socialist government, that the Queen could quickly visit Canada and name a "Lord High Protector", like Cromwell, who would dissolve parliament then take care of business.

The monarch would have to leave the country to do this, or the government could force them to return power to them. But after a year or two in Canada, Britain would be considerably better off.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 02/24/2007 19:56 Comments || Top||


A step to the right, a slap to the left
The invasion of Iraq and the debacle that followed prompted a change of heart in one passionate British left-winger
Posted by: ryuge || 02/24/2007 02:16 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The left has forgotten its core principles, he charges. It has abandoned its commitment to democratic and human rights struggles in poorer countries. In place of its old internationalism is an isolationist and narcissistic obsession with the evils of Western corporations and governments - in particular with the Great Satan, the United States.

LOL! That's a description of the only left I've ever known. I've been told that they believe they were once The Great Wise Ones. Yeah, okay. Riiight.

I find it amusing that this poor chap still clings to the term "leftie". I suppose if I had spent my life feeling superior to the Knuckledragging Right it would be tough to finally swallow that big slice of crow pie and acknowlege that I wasn't even as smart as those whom I believed were soooo stupid.

I wish these arrogant bastards would spare us these long wordy explanations attempting to nuance how - even though they were wrong, they were really right afterall. Yeah sure. Whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: Thrump Snairong6534 || 02/24/2007 5:03 Comments || Top||

#2  Churchill said it best,

"Every reasonable man is a socialist at twenty and a conservative at fourty."

The problem is those who don't grow up.
Posted by: phil_b || 02/24/2007 7:33 Comments || Top||

#3  Hear Hear Thrump!
Posted by: Shipman || 02/24/2007 10:53 Comments || Top||

#4  Here is the key to the "Left".

"...the working class is seen as a reservoir of racism and homophobia, he says. It has gone "from the salt of the earth to the scum of the earth in three generations".


It was only the salt of the earth rhetorically as a stick with which to beat those more powerful than the left. They ALWAYS thought of them as scum, but they were a weapon to use in their struggle to gain power.

The weapon was taken away from the left when the demands were met! The were never MEANT to be met.
Now that the "salt" is no longer a weapon for the left, they are scum publicly as well as privately.
Posted by: AlanC || 02/24/2007 11:07 Comments || Top||

#5  I find the transformation of the Left's attitude toward Israel even more informative. Where once the Left supported the existence of Israel as they viewed it as a safe haven from European Fascist tendencies, today they consider it an "apartheid state" and a tendril of European/Western colonialism.

What has really changed is not the object of their displeasure but their association of Israel with a Western identity which they despise to the core. The Left never really admired the construction/creation of a functional state with democratic/capitalistic ideals - they were always motivated by a negative emotion, by abhorrence for the place these refugees fled from.

And today that same quasi-Marxist worldview is the common thread running through the kaleidoscope of their take on all world events. It means nothing to them that Saddam Hussein was a vicious mass-murdering dictator; he was cast down by the West, and in their formulations Western powers are driven exclusively by imperialism, racism, and covetousness for natural resources. The well-being of the Iraqi people under Hussein or in the future is also immaterial to them. Only the opportunity to reaffirm their revulsion toward the West matters.

Perhaps we need a new term to explain this attitude - something along the lines of "Western Civilization Derangement Syndrome".
Posted by: Sic_Semper_Tyrannus || 02/24/2007 22:02 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
Lying for Fidel
Fifty years ago today, The New York Times ran a front-page love letter to Fidel Castro at a crucial moment in the Stalinist thug's drive to take control of the Cuban people.

Timesman Herbert Matthews' 4,400-word article disproved government claims that the rebel leader was dead. More important, it portrayed him as the popular commander of thousands of like-minded revolutionaries - and so gave Castro international stature. Alas, the story was a tissue of lies.

Still, as former Times executive editor Max Frankel has written, it "practically invented Fidel Castro for the American people." Without it, Castro might well never have risen to power in Cuba. Now the ailing Communist dictator is formally acknowledging the big favor he got from the Times.

The Cuban state news agency Prensa Latina reported last week that the government has unveiled a marble plaque commemorating Matthews' interview at the remote location where it took place in the Sierra Maestra mountains.

There's no denying that Matthews was infatuated with the 30-year-old revolutionary, who granted his first-ever interview to the Times. "Thousands of men and women are heart and soul with Fidel Castro and the new deal for which they think he stands," wrote Matthews. Yet as Castro later gleefully admitted, his entire force at the time consisted of just 18 men. Matthews never caught on to the fact that he was seeing the same people, who kept going past him in circles.

That's not the only thing to which Matthews never caught on. That new deal that Castro was promising, he wrote, was "radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist." Indeed, long after Castro attained power and had jailed some of his former comrades, replacing them with Communists, Matthews continued to insist that Fidel had no Communist leanings. Which no doubt is why when Frankel years later asked to interview Castro, the dictator replied that "any friend of Herbert's was also his friend."

Of course, this wasn't the first time the paper showed a soft spot in its heart for communist dictators. Back in the '30s, Walter Duranty served as an apologist for Joseph Stalin, knowingly filing false articles denying that Stalin's brutal collectiv ization policies had killed millions of Ukrainians through forced starvation. Duranty never got a plaque or an award from Stalin - though he did win a Pulitzer Prize for his "reporting."

Actually, the Cuban plaque for Herbert Matthews is a reminder of the power of mainstream news organizations like the Times and their ability to influence history - not always for the better. Little wonder that conservative journals used to run photos of Castro adorned with the paper's then-popular marketing slogan: "I got my job through The New York Times."
Posted by: ryuge || 02/24/2007 10:23 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  the government has unveiled a marble plaque commemorating Matthews' interview at the remote location where it took place in the Sierra Maestra mountains.

Where nobody will ever see it.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 02/24/2007 12:30 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
The Numbers on Hillary vs. Rudy
Posted by: ryuge || 02/24/2007 10:46 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Read it and be of good cheer.
Posted by: Shipman || 02/24/2007 11:06 Comments || Top||

#2  Rudy is our only hope. I dont give a dmn about the abortion issue with him. The SC will hold RvsW and he will have little to not impact on it.

the gun issue is a different matter. We are going to have to continue to send him emails letting him know how most Americans feel. I believe he will get nowhere on gun control as well. It would take a giant writting off of half his followers on his part to move toward gun control and I doubt he's that stupid.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 02/24/2007 17:55 Comments || Top||

#3  he could take Duncan Hunter on as VP: geography and ideology balance
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 18:06 Comments || Top||

#4  Mr. Guilian will be aware of the little Zumbo brouhaha, I'm certain. I don't think that will be a concern going forward.
Posted by: trailing wife || 02/24/2007 19:49 Comments || Top||


You Go, Geffen!
Hillary Clinton's very bad week.
by William Kristol

We know from the philosophers that a true statement is true without regard to the reliability or sagacity of the person who utters it. We have it on good authority that the truth shall set us free. David Geffen spoke truth to Maureen Dowd last week. And he may have triggered a series of events that will set the Democratic party free from its Clinton captivity.

Here is what the Hollywood mogul told the New York Times gossip columnist:

I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is--and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?--can bring the country together. Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. . . .

I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person. . . . I think [Republicans] believe she's the easiest to defeat. . . .
It's not a very big thing to say, "I made a mistake" on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't. She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base . . . that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive. . . .

Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice? Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling.


There it is, in black and white. Will it set the Democrats free? It could. Hillary Clinton was cruising along, raising big money, triangulating on Iraq, rounding up supporters who felt they had little choice but to sign on. And then Geffen spoke up. Suddenly Democrats all over the country may be thinking to themselves, "Well, what about that? Why exactly do we have to be for Hillary anyway? Shouldn't we consider some alternatives?"

Once unleashed, this series of thoughts is subversive. So much of the Hillary Clinton candidacy depends on an aura of inevitability, supported by oodles of money and a fear of retribution if you're not on board. But what if she's not inevitable? And what if the retribution isn't so all-powerful?

That's what is now being tested. Now that it has been raised, the thought that Hillary isn't the ideal nominee might spread. Hence Team Clinton's need to enforce omertà. Hillary's attack dog, Howard Wolfson, couldn't even take the time to do some basic fact-checking before rushing out an attack email demanding Obama denounce the remarks of Geffen, "his campaign's finance chair." But Geffen is not and has never been Obama's finance chair. He has no official role in the Obama campaign.

Obama's aides pointed out the falsehood. Obama himself commented, "It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark." (Notice he didn't exactly disavow the remarks.) And Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs fired back: "The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when [he] was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Then the next day, Obama convinced a credulous Adam Nagourney of the New York Times that he personally hadn't been aware of his aide's statement. After all, he got himself quoted saying on page 1 of the Times, "I don't want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we're spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played."

Nicely done. Geffen's comments get repeated in three days' worth of stories--because how can you report about the spat without reporting the remarks that started it?--and Obama gets to rise above the fray. And consider the original response by Gibbs. He went out of his way to respond not to Hillary Clinton, and not to Howard Wolfson, but to "the Clintons": "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons. . . . The Clintons had no problem . . . "

Very nicely done. Is Sen. Clinton not her own person? Are we again getting two for the price of one? Hillary Clinton's popularity soared after the Monica affair, when she achieved a kind of political separation from her husband. That's what made her Senate race possible, and her current presidential candidacy plausible. Relinking her to Bill makes her political life more complicated.

Obama is running an impressive campaign. But if he ultimately falters because voters think him too inexperienced--then the experienced, antiwar-from-the-start, and environmentally prophetic Al Gore is waiting in the wings. It was a bad week for Hillary.
Posted by: ryuge || 02/24/2007 10:34 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  supported by oodles of money and a fear of retribution
LH man, you got the fear yet? :>
Posted by: Shipman || 02/24/2007 11:16 Comments || Top||

#2  Speaking truth to power. Guess Geffen doesn't care what the Clintons have in his FBI file.
Posted by: RWV || 02/24/2007 13:37 Comments || Top||

#3  As always we will see the Clinton's attack dogs coming out of the woodwork...regardless of whether or not they are at all truthful in ANYTHING they say. For some interesting reading, Google "Clinton Lied". There is a wealth of decent to good reading there. Just food for thought when people start with the tired old..."Bush Lied".
Posted by: WolfDog || 02/24/2007 15:36 Comments || Top||

#4  If William Kristol thinks al-Gore is a credible alternative for anything - let alone the Presidency - he needs his head examined. I see no threat to HRC from him or O"b"ama.
Posted by: Excalibur || 02/24/2007 16:48 Comments || Top||

#5  Kristol is a campaign killer with his endorsements
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 17:35 Comments || Top||

#6  Word of advice to Mr. Geffen: If Hillary invites you to a midnight meeting at Fort Marcy Park - don't go.
Posted by: DMFD || 02/24/2007 18:01 Comments || Top||


"Iraq the greatest disaster in American foreign policy": Halfbright
"I think that Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy," Albright said, with former President Jimmy Carter at her side in one of a series of "Conversations at the Carter Center." "We have lost the element of goodness in American power, and we have lost our moral authority," she said. "The job of the next president will be to restore the goodness of American power."
Goodness really helped us with the NKors when Maddy was in charge.
Albright, who was part of Carter's national security team in the 1970s, long before she was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said many Americans believe that they should be loved around the world. "We don't have to be loved," she said. "But we shouldn't be feared. We should be respected."
Tell me how this woman became Secretary of State.
Carter, who also has been critical of U.S. military action in Iraq, said that since Albright was secretary of state, "there has been a reduction almost all over the world in trust and esteem by foreigners toward Americans."
Not that it was all that high before; just ask the French. Or the Germans. Or the Spanish ...
He said much of it is "because of an unprecedented policy toward the utilization of military power."

Carter said all previous presidents have said the United States would go to war only if its security was endangered, but that President Bush made it clear that there is a new policy of pre-emptive war. "That is, we're going to go to war if we think that some time in the future a nation might do something that causes our security to be in danger," the former president said.
That's pretty much it.
He said the "unwarranted invasion" of Iraq resulted in bombing that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Carter and Albright appeared on The Carter Center stage together for what the former president had indicated would be a debate on his controversial book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Answering written questions from the audience, Carter said he felt no need to debate Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Mideast envoy and major player in past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Carter said he planned to have a debate with Ross' former boss, Albright, Thursday night. The Carter Center meeting was not exactly a debate, but Albright did say it was important to remember both sides of the conflict. She said she agrees with Carter that it is necessary to recognize the legitimate rights of Palestinians and territorial integrity and that the United States must play a major role in bringing about a peace agreement.

But she said she would not compare Israeli policy to the former apartheid of South Africa. "To me, the single most important problem, actually, was the initial refusal of the Arabs to accept Israel's right to exist, and the subsequent use of terror and violence to change boundaries.

"There's no question, in my mind, that Israel aggravated the problem, especially by the settlements and overreaction," Albright said.
Those darned Israelis, always over-reacting every time an Israeli woman or child was killed ...
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 02/24/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [6 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Many presidents have problems in office and then go on to do great things. Jimmy Carter was a disaster as president. Since then his mission has been to embarrass Americans and frustrate America's goals.
Posted by: whatadeal || 02/24/2007 0:25 Comments || Top||

#2  I thought letting Iran go to MM, was the greatest disaster in American foreign policy. With attack on Serbia in support of Muzzi territorial ambitions being the second.
Posted by: gromgoru || 02/24/2007 1:11 Comments || Top||

#3  Madame Albright is much too modest; she can certainly claim the title of the greatest disaster in American foreign policy.
Posted by: RWV || 02/24/2007 2:12 Comments || Top||

#4  Now HERE is a "Great Disaster."

My Daddy the Dancer

One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living All the typical answers came up -- fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.

However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin
aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," the boy said, "he works for the Democratic National Committee and is helping to get Hillary Clinton to be our next President, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."
Posted by: Besoeker || 02/24/2007 3:02 Comments || Top||

#5  ROFLMAO!
Posted by: DanNY || 02/24/2007 6:25 Comments || Top||

#6  We're going to skip the foreign policy debacle in which our State Department wasted years negotiating withe the Japanese Foreign Office when all along the real power was being wielded by the military junta that constituted the real center of power in '40-41? Ignoring who's really in charge and not operating your actions and policies upon reality seemed to have cost the American people a hellva lot more than anything we've experienced since. Sorta like taking Kimmey at his word, right Babes?
Posted by: Procopius2k || 02/24/2007 9:04 Comments || Top||

#7  "We have lost the element of goodness in American power, and we have lost our moral authority," she said. "The job of the next president will be to restore the goodness of American power."

"Element of goodness"??? "Moral authority"??? Jeez Louise, WTF is it with these people, anyway? Do these flatheaded, drooling imbeciles actually believe that if only we'd be "nicer" to the world's tyrants, mass-murderers, psychopaths and slave-drivers, they won't hate us so much???

Eight solid years of that kind of nonsense is what CAUSED the attacks of 9/11: the Islamoloonies sensed weakness and it encouraged them to strike.

There's something wrong with these idiots. Their brains don't function properly. They need adult supervision in a controlled, highly structured environment.

Posted by: Dave D. || 02/24/2007 10:08 Comments || Top||

#8  Dave D, right on!

The fact of the matter is that American power and moral authority is not and should not be based on "goodness". American power and moral authority extends from doing the right thing at the right time even if that means going against the grain of the rest of the world.

"Goodness" means nothing when exercising power and moral authority. Being nice usually means being taken advantage of when trying to exercise the legitimate interests of one's country, especially when those interests are American as opposed to the rest of the world's intersts.

"Goodness" means very little to the rest of the world. They simply do not have the capacity to understand it IMNSHO as practiced by the US. Sheer, raw-boned FEAR means a helluva' lot more to most people.

In today's world, the exercise of US power and moral authority needs to get away from the "good" aspect and swing more towards the aspect of inspiring fear.

We must become wolves.

Posted by: FOTSGreg || 02/24/2007 10:33 Comments || Top||

#9  "goodness" and statecraft lectures from Halfbright have as much value as "ethics" lectures from Hillary! and "justice" lectures from Janet Reno... ask for a refund from their time in office
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 10:40 Comments || Top||

#10  I had a great experience yesterday. I was out jogging, wearing an old Army PT shirt, when I passed an old German guy. He smirked, pointed west, and said, "Paris ist zwei tage" (Paris is two days that way). Apparently, not only does he feel that Paris needs subduing, but that a woman could do it all by herself. LMAO!

Screw goodness. We'd score big -- and not just with Germans -- if we invaded and annexed France.
Posted by: exJAG || 02/24/2007 10:59 Comments || Top||

#11  Germans have always had a soft spot for chemists.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 02/24/2007 11:07 Comments || Top||

#12  :> exJag

Hit 'em Again Dave D.
Posted by: Shipman || 02/24/2007 11:20 Comments || Top||

#13  Albright... said many Americans believe that they should be loved around the world. "We don't have to be loved," she said. "But we shouldn't be feared. We should be respected."

Anyone who believes that we "should be loved around the world" is just plain neurotic: needy, insecure, and craving of warm fuzzies, group hugs and a little Golden Star on his report card.

But Albright herself is tainted with more than a small dose of that, if her definition of "respected" is substantially different from "feared". Best I can figure, her notion of "respected" corresponds roughly to being "liked", or perhaps "admired, if a little grudgingly". In the end, it's no different from wanting to be "loved", just that the neediness is not quite as intense.

This "progressive" notion of respect needs to go.

REAL respect, in my opinion, consists of the following:

1. People-- friend and foe alike-- know without a doubt that they can count on you to do what you say you are going to do. In friends, this behavior breeds trust. In enemies, it breeds fear.

2. They know without a doubt that you will treat them fairly-- and, just as important, that you will insist they do the same with you.

3. They know without a doubt that if they fuck with you, you will impose unacceptable-- and sometimes horrible-- consequences on them.

When people know these things of you, THAT is respect. Anything else is worthless.

Posted by: Dave D. || 02/24/2007 11:39 Comments || Top||

#14  this from the incompetent that sent US State "messages" via her daily choice of brooch
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 12:13 Comments || Top||

#15  exJag: okay, we'll do it, but you know the Germans are going to want Alsace-Lorraine from us when we're done.
Posted by: Steve White || 02/24/2007 12:20 Comments || Top||

#16  Tell me how this woman became Secretary of State.

Pure Accident. That's how.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 02/24/2007 12:36 Comments || Top||

#17  Where? Oh, Alsaß. Cool with me. Personally, I'd take care of Belgium while we're at it, and give Flanders back to the Dutch, along with Wallonia and the rest of France. Perhaps some would flee to, say, Morocco, Sierra Leone, or Rwanda? No offense, JFM and A8059, but y'know what I'm saying.

But we were discussing US foreign policy disasters, because of course there's never been such a thing in Europe.
Posted by: exJAG || 02/24/2007 12:45 Comments || Top||

#18  A couple of years ago, one of the commentors at the Daily Brief insisted that it was soooo much more dangerous for Americans overseas, now, than it had been before the Bush administration. I argued to the contrary, with the following list. I would refer Ms. Albright to it, for a little education on how much our goodness and moral authority got us:
Item: 30 May, 1972. Members of the Japanese Red Army Faction, acting on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, open fire at Ben Gurion Airport, killing 26 and wounding 78. Many of them are American citizens from Puerto Rico
Item: 2 March 1973. Two American diplomats are taken hostage and murdered by at the US Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan; it is thought members of the Fatah faction were responsible, and that PLO leader Yassir Arafat gave the order for the murders.
Item: 23 December 1975 : Richard Welch, the CIA Station chief in Athens is murdered in front of his house by the Greek N17 terrorist group.
Item: 11 August 1976. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine attacks the El Al terminal at the airport in Istanbul, Turkey. An American citizen is among the 4 killed.
Item: 1 January, 1977. The ambassador to Lebanon and the US Economic counselor are kidnapped by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine at a checkpoint in Beirut, and later murdered.
Item: 4 November 1979. A radical Islamic student faction seized the US Embassy in Tehran, and hold 66 diplomats and American citizens hostage. Thirteen are released, but the others are held until January of 1981.
Item: 17 December 1981: Italian terrorist group “Red Brigades” kidnaps a senior US army officer in Italy, BG. James Dozier; he is rescued by Italian police forces.
Item: 19 August 1982. Two American citizens are killed when the PLO bombs a Jewish restaurant in Paris, France.
Item: 18 April 1983. A truck-bomb kills 68 at the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Hizbollah, with backing from Iran is held responsible.
Item: 23 October 1983. A truck bomb destroys US Marine HQ in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Marines. Hizbollah, apparently with the assistance of Syrian intelligence, and Iranian financing.
Item: 18 January-20 September 1983. In Beirut, Lebanon, the president of the American University (an American citizen) is assassinated. The head of the CNN news bureau is kidnapped, but escapes. A political officer from the US embassy is also kidnapped, but he was never released, and his body never found. A suicide bomb on the US Embassy killed 23. A van full of explosives detonated near the US Embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon kills 2 Americans and a number of local employees and bystanders.
Item: 15 November 1983. The head of the Joint US Military Aid Group-Greece, US Navy Captain George Tsantes, along with his Greek driver is murdered on his way to work by the terrorist group N-17.
Item: 3 April 1984. A US Army NCO, Robert Judd is attacked while driving between JUSMAGG and the American air base at Hellenikon by the terrorist group N-17. He is injured, but survives.
Item: 12 April 1984. A popular restaurant near Torrejon AB, Spain is bombed. 18 US service members are killed. Hisbollah, again.
Item: 4 December 1984. Hisbollah hijacks a Kuwait Airlines flight en route from Dubai to Karachi. Two American passengers are murdered.
Item: 2 February 1985. Bobby’s in Glyphada, a bar popular with American service personnel in Athens is blown up with a small suitcase bomb. No one is killed, but many injuries.
Item: 14 June 1985. TWA Flight 847, from Athens to Rome was hijacked by Hisbollah. A US Navy diver returning from a TDY was murdered and his body dumped on the runway.
Item:8 August 1985. A car loaded with explosives is driven into a busy parking lot at the American base at Rhein-Main, and detonated. Two are killed, twenty injured. The Red Army Faction claims credit. It is thought the murder of an American soldier several days previous was done to secure his ID card, and facilitate moving the car bomb onto a guarded installation.
Item: 7 October 1985. The cruise- ship Achille Lauro was hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. They threw an elderly disabled American man into the ocean. His wheelchair was thrown in afterwards.
Item: 27 December 1985. Terrorists from the Abu Nidal organization shoot up the El Al offices at Rome’s international airport. Seven Americans were among the 87 killed and wounded.
Item: 30 March 1986: A bomb exploded on a TWA Rome/Athens flight. Four Americans were killed, although the aircraft landed safely in Athens. The Fatah group was held responsible.
Item: 19 June 1985. Four off-duty Marines assigned to the American Embassy in San Salvador are murdered by local terrorists, while sitting at a table at a sidewalk café. They were in civilian clothes at the time.
Item: 5 April 1986. An explosion at a nightclub in Berlin popular with American service personnel kills three and injures 191. Two of the dead and 41 of the wounded are service personnel. The Libyan government is held responsible.
Item: 5 September 1986. Abu Nidal terrorists hijack a Karachi/Frankfurt Pan Am flight, and divert it to Cypress, demanding the freedom for three convicted murderers in exchange for the lives of the passengers. They eventually kill 22 of them, including two Americans.
Item: 9 September-21 October 1986: Three American citizens, two of them associated with the American University in Beirut are kidnapped. Two of them are held for 5 years by Hisbollah.
Item: 20 October 1987. An Air Force NCO and a retiree are murdered just outside Clark AB, in the Philippines.
Item: 27 December 87. An American civilian employee is killed in the bombing of the USO Club in Barcelona, Spain.
Item: 17 February 1988: Colonel William Higgins, USMC, while serving as part of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization in Lebanon, was abducted by Hisbollah. The US refused to negotiate, and Colonel Higgins was excecuted.
Item: 28 June 1988, a defense attaché to the American Embassy in Athens, US Navy Captain William Nordeen is murdered by the N-17 terrorist group, using a car bomb
Item: 21 December 1988. Pan American Flight 103, from Frankfurt to New York, was blown up over Scotland by agents of the government of Libya. Most of the 259 passengers are Americans. Another 11 people are killed on the ground.
Item: 21 April- 26 September 1989. An American army officer is assassinated in Manila, and two military retirees are murdered just outside the gates of Clark AB, the Philippines.
Item: 13 May 1990. Two young enlisted men are found murdered, outside Clark AB, the Philippines.
Item: 7-18 February 1991: Members of a far-leftist Turkish group kill an American civilian contractor at Incirlik AB, and wound an Air Force officer at his home in Izmir.
Item: 12 March 91: Air Force NCO, Ronald Stewart is killed by a car bomb in front of his house, in Athens, by the N-17 group.
Item: 28 October 1991. An American soldier is killed, and his wife wound by a car bomb at a joint Turkish-American base in Ankara. The Turkish Islamic Jihad claims responsibility. at October 28, 1991, Ankara, Turkey. Victor Marwick, an American soldier serving at the Turkish-American base, Tuslog, was killed and his wife wounded in a car bomb attack. Two more car bombs in Istanbul kill an Air Force NCO, and an Egyptian diplomat. The Turkish Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Item: 5 July 1992. In a series of incidents in southeastern Turkey, the Kurdish PKK kidnaps 19 Western tourists, including one American. They are all eventually released unharmed.
Item: 26 February 1993. A bomb in a café in downtown Cairo kills three. Two Americans are among the injured.
Item: 8 March 1995 Two gunmen armed with AK-47s open fire on a van belonging to the US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Two embassy staffers are killed, one injured.
Item: 4 July 1995. A Kashmiri militant group takes six tourists, including two Americans hostage, demanding the release of Muslim militants held in Indian prisions. One of the Americans escapes, and the militants execute a Norwegian hostage. Both the American and Indian governments refuse to deal. It is assumed the rest of the hostages were killed in 1996 by their captors.
Item: 13 November 1995. A car bomb in the parking lot of a building that houses a US military advisory group in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven person, five of them American citizens.
Item: 25 June 1996. An explosive-laden fuel truck explodes outside the Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 American military personnel are killed, and 515 persons are injured. A group identified as the Saudi Hizbollah is held responsible.
Item: 12 November 1997. Four American employees of an oil company and their Pakistani driver are murdered by two unidentified gunmen, as they leave the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan.
.
Item: 7 August 1998. Car bombs explode at the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and at the US Embassy in Dar es Sala’am, Tanzania. 292 are killed in Nairobi, including 12 Americans and injured over 5,000. The Dar es Sala’am explosion kills 11 and injures 86. Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network claims responsibility.
Item: 28 December 1998. Sixteen tourists, including two Americans are kidnapped in Yemen. One hostage and a Yemeni guide escaped, and four hostages were later killed when local authorities closed in.
Item: 12 October 2000. A small boat laden with explosives rammed the USS Cole.

Yep, it's all about our goodness and moral authority.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom || 02/24/2007 13:02 Comments || Top||

#19  *WHY* is she consulted for ANY opinion?

She was a disaster herself - North Korea, Kosovo (we are *STILL* there), allowing Iraq to become even more of a rogue nation, ineffective crusie missle strike on "aspirin factories" and empty camps in Afghanistan... The list goes on and on.

Its like them consulting Mugabe on how to transition Zimbabwe to a democratic capitalist society.

Posted by: OldSpook || 02/24/2007 13:39 Comments || Top||

#20  OS---people like Halfbright, Jimmah, Slick willie, et al are darlings of the media. They fit their agenda. Good people don't. Our biggest enemies are the MSM and the dems, then comes Al and the Qs.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 02/24/2007 13:48 Comments || Top||

#21  *WHY* is she consulted for ANY opinion?

She's sort of the Brittany Spears of the Helen Thomas set.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 02/24/2007 14:00 Comments || Top||

#22  I once heard that we don't agree with what she says, but we defend to the death her right to say it.
Not me. Not any more. All these traitors should be whipped, then put in the stocks for public display. I've had it with their bullshit. They are all corrupt and they have been working hard to destroy all we do that is good in this world. I say the left needs a world class ass kicking.
Wake me.
Posted by: wxjames || 02/24/2007 14:06 Comments || Top||

#23  But under the Clinton Administration a contradictory sanctions program, a manipulated oil-for-food program, a near-daily violated no-fly zone policy, an ineffectual UN Weapons Inspections program, and covert support for opposition groups (terrorists) worked so well. Gotcha!
Posted by: Beavis || 02/24/2007 14:16 Comments || Top||

#24  sgt mom
You left out Sirhan Sirhan, a Leb Paleo, shoots and kills Robert Kennedy after he makes a campaign speech in support of Israel.
Posted by: 3dc || 02/24/2007 14:25 Comments || Top||

#25  Wikipedia on Sirhan Sirhan

...Sirhan was born to Palestinian parents in Jerusalem and was raised a Maronite Christian. However, in his adult years he frequently changed his religious thoughts, to Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, and Rosicrucianism....

Sirhan supposedly believed himself deliberately betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in the June, 1967 Six-Day War, which had begun exactly one year before the assassination. However, the "RFK must die" diary entries started before Kennedy's support of Israel became public knowledge. After his arrest, these journals and diaries were discovered. Most of the entries were incoherent and repetitive, though a single entry obsessed over a desire to kill Kennedy. When confronted with this entry, Sirhan couldn't deny writing them, but rather expressed bafflement. In the 1990s, Sirhan proposed the theory that he had been brainwashed.
..
Posted by: 3dc || 02/24/2007 14:31 Comments || Top||

#26  Albright never has gotten over the fact that Condi Rice was her father's (Josef Korbel's) star grad student.

Rice is sexier, smarter, more effective, more respected, funnier and more articulate than Madsy can hope to be. The old lady has never gotten over her jealousy.
Posted by: occasional observer || 02/24/2007 14:48 Comments || Top||

#27  My focus was on American military, diplomats and travelers overseas, from the end of the Vietnam War up to the Cole bombing. I also omitted American citizens killed by terrorism in Israel, which was another kettle o'fish entirely, and would have doubled the length of it, easily.

Although the Kennedy assassination happened in Beverly Hills, IIRC, so maybe that would count as a foreign country today.
Posted by: Sgt. Mom || 02/24/2007 14:50 Comments || Top||

#28 
Tell me how this woman became Secretary of State?


Have you noticed that all of Clinton's affairs were ugly?
Posted by: JFM || 02/24/2007 16:10 Comments || Top||

#29  Not all. We almost got to see Kimba Wood on the nightly news for 8 years. Instead, Janet Reno.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 02/24/2007 16:16 Comments || Top||

#30  Carter and Albright appeared on The Carter Center stage together

Good gawd, speak of your targets of opportunity. If it weren't for the 'burbs of Atlanta, where I live, I almost hope the next strike is on Atlanta. The "mecca" of rap music, home of da Carter Center, and the former Republik of Cynthia McKinney. What is it with major "urban" areas that leans toward LLL-ism?
Posted by: BA || 02/24/2007 16:44 Comments || Top||

#31  "What is it with major 'urban' areas that leans toward LLL-ism?"

My theory is that it's because these people live in an environment in which all the necessities of life are provided by others, and within which the need for self-reliance has completely evaporated. Their brains are no longer capable of making the connection between "it's broke" and "I better get it fixed"; for them, the connection is made instead between "it's broke" and "THEY better get it fixed".

Their housing is provided by someone else-- either the city government or a landlord. Their food is supplied by someone else-- a supermarket chain whose obligation (assuming they want to stay in business very long) is to keep the shelves stocked. Their transportation is provided by someone else-- urban mass transit or the cab companies. Their drinking water is provided by someone else-- public utilities under legal obligation to keep safe, clean water flowing from the taps. Their poop is flushed away efficiently in sewers provided by someone else.

They live in an environment in which they are literally no longer responsible for anything, other than going to work each day to earn the money to pay for these things that are provided for them by others.

And that's where the problem starts: it all has to be paid for. For the well-off, city/suburban life is comfortable, indeed. But for those of less means, coming up with the scratch can be a challenge. So it's a small step from having all these infrastructure things available for a price, and having that price controlled and/or subsidized so that it is "affordable".

And it's only a teeny, tiny little step from there, to "I've got a problem: I can't work to earn that money; so government (e.g., the people) should GIVE me that money. I'm ENTITLED to it."

Urbanization breeds a socialist mindset. That's my theory, anyway...

Posted by: Dave D. || 02/24/2007 18:11 Comments || Top||

#32  interesting theory, DD. Similarly, I would postulate that in an urban environment there is less of a "community of like-minded souls" that a rural setting has. In a rural town, EVERYONE has the same issues: water, schools, power, etc., in which they all have to cooperate to get things done. There are few free-lance ACLU-type gadflys throwing roadblocks 'cuz everyone knows where they live...heh heh. In an urban setting, the sheer collective size makes each person freer to be an asshole, looking out for their particular pet peeve to the detriment of the overall good
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 18:32 Comments || Top||

#33  A nice analysis, Dave D. You're good at this.
Posted by: trailing wife || 02/24/2007 19:49 Comments || Top||

#34  Re: #21 "*WHY* is she consulted for ANY opinion?
She's sort of the Brittany Spears of the Helen Thomas set. "

All I can say Nimble Spemble, is I hope you not anticipating any 'special' limosine exit photoshots from Halfbright.......
Posted by: USN, ret. || 02/24/2007 21:29 Comments || Top||

#35  Reno and Albright must have been Hilliary picks.
Posted by: JohnQC || 02/24/2007 22:11 Comments || Top||

#36  If America became a place which (today's) Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela could love it would be time for me to find a new homeland. I am quite proud of what we stand for and am willing to wait forever for many parts of the world to change into something WE can respect.
Posted by: Sic_Semper_Tyrannus || 02/24/2007 22:18 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Bill O’Reilly and Tammy Bruce Analyze Bush Derangement Syndrome
BRUCE: Well, it certainly isn't politics. It's -- I'm a liberal. It's not about even disagreeing with the president. I disagree with him on many issues, including the immigration issue and the abortion issue. But I still respect the man.

You can disagree with people. Your audience does not always agree with you 100 percent of the time. This is personal.

And what my reflection is, having been on the left, is these are people who look at the president in a way as like a father figure. That they are projecting their issues that are unresolved in their past onto the stranger.

O'REILLY: Here's -- look, you can make an argument that the Bill Mahers of the world think that this guy has screwed up the country in a policy way and then take that personally and transfer it.

I think he's wrong, Maher, in doing what he does, but I understand that there's passion against President Bush. I understand that.

However, I think it has to do with his religious beliefs. Bill Maher is a very anti-religious person. And I think Hollywood, a secular community. Would you agree?

BRUCE: In general, those who are people of faith or conservative remain hidden. But generally, yes.

O'REILLY: OK. So Hollywood very secular. Bush comes in with a, quote/unquote, "faith based" approach, and right off the bat they hate him.

Look, I've got -- look, let me just read you. Jennifer Aniston, "Bush is an F-ing idiot." Martin sheen, "Bush is a moron." Cher, "Bush is stupid."

BRUCE: A little projection with Cher, right?
Contrary to their stage personas, Sonny was the brains of the operation.

O'REILLY: I don't know if Cher has a Ph.D. or not. George Clooney, "Bush is dim." Julia Roberts, "Bush is embarrassing." Jessica Lange, "I hate Bush."

BRUCE: It speaks for itself. And yet Bill Maher a couple years ago in explaining why he thinks Christianity has ruined the world, essentially, is he said he reflected on his own childhood about what his father what he essentially inferred jammed down his throat.

I think these issues about faith -- these are people who perhaps, growing up in a generation where faith was important in their family, and that that, too, is an issue.

O'REILLY: So you agree with me that there's a linkage to the faith thing?

BRUCE: Absolutely. And faith is a dynamic, also, that asks things of you. It is the thing that the president asks as faith does, that you sacrifice something, that you exercise discipline in your life, that we want you to be a better person as conservatives. That is the thing that gets rejected.

And those values that have made this nation great, that allows Bill Maher to say what he said, is based in a Christian ethic.

And the issue has to be for everyone who hates President Bush. But you got to ask yourself a question. How can I hate so much a stranger, a veritable stranger? We can disagree, but hate is an entirely different framework.

And my work has revolved around something called malignant narcissism. The idea that the damage in your childhood that may be inflicted by your own father, perhaps, is -- affects the way you view the world now. It is based in paranoia. You heard it with Bill Maher.

It is litanies, an orgy of personal attacks, name calling that have nothing to do with logic or reason. And I think people like Danny DeVito and Bill Maher are envious of the president. And they remind him of their father perhaps. And they resent that.
Posted by: Mike || 02/24/2007 07:35 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Could someone post the pic of the Surprise Meter set to zero, please?
Posted by: no mo uro || 02/24/2007 10:53 Comments || Top||

#2  for a libertarian lesbian, Tammy's kinda hot
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 10:55 Comments || Top||

#3  It's called "boomers."

Some psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist wrote about the boomers a few years ago as to why they did what they did.

They couldn't live up to their greatest generation fathers, hate their fathers, possibly their mothers, so they had to destroy what their parents had built.
Posted by: anonymous2u || 02/24/2007 14:00 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
An open letter to Kasuri
Dear Mr Kasuri

I read with interest the following agency report, dated February 22, 2007, on some observations made by you regarding the need for co-operation between the intelligence agencies of India and Pakistan: 'Intelligence agencies of India and Pakistan will have to work together if South Asia is to live in a civilised manner,' Pakistan said on Thursday, emphasising that such a cooperation is possible if governments push it.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, while talking to some TV channels in New Delhi, hoped India will share the outcome of the probe into the Samjhauta Express blast before the March 6 meeting of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism so that 'meaningful contribution' can be made to the fight against terror. Asked whether the intelligence agencies of the two countries could work together, he said, 'They will have to if South Asia is to live in a civilised manner.' He added that if both the governments 'put their weight behind' such an endeavour, it will work.' 'After all, both countries have suffered. It's your territory but majority of them are from Pakistan,' Kasuri said, and asked, 'Why shouldn't it work?'
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: John Frum || 02/24/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I think India has sufficient cause for distrust of the ISI in particular and Pakistan in general. I am also ashamed if the many reports I have read of the CIA mistreating India's intelligence community are true.

It seems to me that we would want the world's most populous democracy on our side in the war, particularly since they are fighting it already on their own soil and are in more imminent danger than we ourselves.
Posted by: DanNY || 02/24/2007 6:23 Comments || Top||

#2  Indian-US cooperation on terror has not been exactly smooth in the past.

According to B. Raman...

After the March 1993 Mumbai blasts, the Government of India sought the assistance of the counter-terrorism experts of Austria and the US for the examination of some hand-grenades of Austrian origin and a chemical timer of US origin recovered from the spot. The Austrian experts, who examined the grenades in New Delhi itself without taking them to Austria, gave a signed report that they had been manufactured in a Pakistan Ordnance Factory with technology and machine tools sold by an Austrian company to Pakistan's Defence Ministry. They also told New Delhi that it was free to use the experts' conclusions in its case against the ISI.

The US experts expressed their inability to examine the timer on the spot in India and wanted to take it to the US for examination in one of their forensic science laboratories. The Government of India agreed to this. After some weeks, they sent to New Delhi an unsigned report stating that the timer was of US origin and was part of a consignment given by the US to the Pakistan Army during the Afghan war of the 1980s. They cautioned the Indian Government against using the report for any purpose.

When it was pointed out to them that the timer produced the clinching evidence, which they had always wanted to declare Pakistan a State-sponsor of international terrorism, they disagreed. They contended that there was considerable leakage of arms and ammunition from Government stocks in Pakistan into the hands of smugglers and that the Mumbai terrorists might have got the timer from the smugglers without the ISI being aware of it.

The then Clinton Administration did place Pakistan on a so-called watch list of suspected State-sponsors of international terrorism and removed it from the list after a few months on the ground that Islamabad had given them satisfaction on the question of co-operation in counter-terrorism. When Washington was asked to return the timer to India, they replied that their forensic science experts had by mistake destroyed it after examination.
Posted by: John Frum || 02/24/2007 6:34 Comments || Top||

#3  Pakistan is Sarajevo. I'm sure that is why we tread carefully. Time is on our (and India's) side.

In 20 years, we'll have a whole new set of problems. If in the meantime we can avoid general general war with Islam we'll be all the better prepared for the next challenge.

It may not have been as nice for the Eastern Europeans, it may have taken a long time, it may have been expensive, but I prefer the way we ended communism to the way we ended nazism, not that they were a hell of a lot different. I prefer the cold war route to destroying Islamism.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 02/24/2007 8:32 Comments || Top||


Iraq
The Other Face of Iraq
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 02/24/2007 10:42 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:


Terror Networks
Mysteries about Madrid's bombings (Part 2).
This is the second installment summaizing a series of 32 articles published in Spain about the constradictiona, goofings and lies in the investigation about Madrid bombings.

Links for preceeding parts of this series:

Part1
Glossary:

Tedax: is the special police unit for disarming explosives.
Scientific Police: the police forensics unit. They are not part of the Tedax
Guardia Civil: A branch of the Spanish military who does police work mostly in rural areas while the civilians of police are competent in rural areas.


Fourth article: A shameless string of lies

A bit of context (from myself): an unexploded bomb in a backpack and the chip in the cellphone was the first clue about the authorship, the day after a mini-van in Vallecas was discovered containing unrigged explosives and tapes in arabic for beginners in study of Koran.


Now the article:

The chief of the TEDAX, Sanchez Manzano, wrote a report, on March 12, telling that the explosives in the backpack and the van were both identic between themselves and to a reference sample of GOMA-2 ECO. Since the explosives were the same and in addition not used by ETA this reinforced the theory of an islamist authorship.

But this was not true: the Scientific Police determined later that while the explosives of the van also contained methenamine (used in military grade explosives) who is not a component of GOMA-2 ECO. Still more curious the reference sample provided to them by the TEDAX contained methenamine too. Finally a few days after the elctions a bomb was discovered on the AVE's (high speed train) railway and it turned to be identical to the explosives in the backpack: pure Goma-2 with no trace of methenamine

Remainder of the article discuss the successive turnarounds from Manzano as he first tells the judge "methenamine is part of GOMA-2" (false), later that it is not part of GOMA-2 but this is irrelevant because it is not an explosive (false again), then that he never mentionned methenamine in his reports because it is irrelevant (demonstrably false)

Aftermath: Sanchez Manzano was fired in 2006 and left the police. In fact he was mere manager and knew nothing about explosives. I cannot discard that his misreaports were merely the blunders of a man who is out of his depth. I cannot disacrd that since he knew nothing about the subject he could have beeen manipulated by one of his subordiantes. I cannot discard that he was nominated due to being "politically reliable".

Second aftermath: On Februray 23, 2007 (yesterday), the chief of the Scientific Police with three of his subordinates has been charged of "falsifying evidence in the investigation of the Madrid bombings". He erased any mention of boric acid from the reports of the experts. This deserves a whole chapter by itself due to the maneuvers of judge Garzon (and former number 2 for Madrid in the socialist party) to cover the falsifiers while sending the whistleblowers to jail.



Article 5: The bread crumbs of Little Thumb


Behaviour of terrorits attracts attention: they buy their tickets while wearing bonnets and scarves despite the warm weather. Then in the mini-van discovered on 11-3 there are no fingerprints, even in the coranic tapes but there are plenty of clothes (great for ADN analysis). The mini-van has been stolen but its license plates (authors were in the busineess of car stealing but don't have false plates) have not been changed. It has not ben forced and the owner lost the keys eight months before.

JFM remarks: Why didn't they buy their tickets before hand? It is natural to think that the terrorists did use this van as litle as possible (to avoid an accidental arrest) and probably only once, the morning of the bombings, then why were those tapes in the van in the first place? In those last minutes before operation logic is spend them concentrating, doing a last briefing, checking if they are being shaded, not listening tapes.

Article: In the van it was found a bag with detonators and a bit of explosive. Why? The bombs had been assembled elsewhere. A team of two dogs with their trainers got near the car. The van was searched by one of the dogs who didn't find any explosive. Also te parliamentary commission didn't call his trainer to testify but the other policemen.

Then there is the question of the backpack found in Vallecas. There are two unconnected cables so there is no way it can explode, it was programmed for detonating at 7:40 instead of 7:38. It also points several important differences between this bacpack and another one who was unactivated. Alos initially nobody notices this backpack (who weighed 15 kgs) then agents get a series of orders and counterorders where objects collected travel several times between railway station, IFEMA (where judge had ordered they had to be stored), police station of Villa de Vallecas and police station of Puente de Vallecas. It is there that it is discovered it has a bomb inside. The chip in the cell phone in it led to first arressts.

JFM's conclusions: If we admit that the goal was to overturn the elections outcome then a simple islamists vindication, it was a requirement to let leads allowing the police to arrest part of the ring befiore the elections. That the arrested people knew beforehand they were to be sacrified or not is secondary. What is troubling is the explosives in the van and the backpack who suddenly appear out of thin air. If neither the policeman who searched the van and the jouranlist aren't lying then that raises a lot of questions.
Posted by: JFM || 02/24/2007 08:19 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thank you for doing this for us, JFM. You've discussed bits in the past, but it's really helpful to have it all neatly laid out in one place. Merci beaucoup!
Posted by: trailing wife || 02/24/2007 15:03 Comments || Top||

#2  Thank you, trailing wife. But in this case you can say muchas gracias (I have two mother languages)
Posted by: JFM || 02/24/2007 15:47 Comments || Top||

#3  Two errata:

In the glossary: police is competent in urban not rural areas.
About Sanchez Manzano: I tiold he could have been nominated because he was "politically reliable". A better wording would have been: "he could have been nominated (notice the conditional) because he would do any dirty work if asked". The hypothesis of a political nominee is because he was neither competent about explosives nor a good manager
Posted by: JFM || 02/24/2007 16:06 Comments || Top||

#4  Mille gracias, Senor JFM, then. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 02/24/2007 17:34 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy
SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo.
Rhymes with Dumbo
A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
This is the full posting, which was quickly picked up by anti-gunners like the Brady Bunch as proof hunters support them in banning assault weapons:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
His apology sounded as true as Mel Gibsons
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.

In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons --
Well, not really. There was no decades long fight for assault weapons, or "Saturday Night Specials" and a lot of members left the NRA because they felt the organization was letting them down in fighting legislation that chipped away at our Second Ammendment rights and had become more of a elite hunting and target shooting club. I'm a life member and I was pissed they didn't do more. They learned.
noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.
Which came right as a new assault weapons ban was introduced
"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week. "This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy. "For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."
Because we recognize a phoney apology when we read one
Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.
Yeah? You priced a full-up AR lately?
The NRA appeared to be saying as much in its statement Thursday, when it emphasized that the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed.

"Jim Zumbo Outdoors" was not broadcast as scheduled last week on the Outdoor Channel and will not air next week, said Mike Hiles, a spokesman for the channel. He said sponsors have requested that they be removed from the program. The show "will be in hiatus for an undetermined period of time," he said. Zumbo's long career at Outdoor Life, which is owned by Time Inc., also came to a sudden end in the past week. Zumbo was hunting editor of the magazine, which is the nation's second-largest outdoors publication. He wrote his first story for Outdoor Life in 1962.

The magazine's editor in chief, Todd W. Smith, said that Zumbo submitted his resignation after hearing of the large number of readers (about 6,000, at last count) who had sent e-mails demanding his dismissal. Smith dismissed as "conjecture" a question about whether Zumbo would have been fired had he not resigned. "Jim is a good guy, and I feel bad about this unfortunate situation," Smith said. "We are living in very delicate times. For someone to call these firearms 'terrorist' rifles, that is a flash-point word. You are painting a bunch of enthusiasts with the word. They don't like being called terrorists."

When he wrote his now-notorious blog entry, Zumbo was on a coyote hunt in Wyoming sponsored by Remington, a detail he noted in the entry. That mention -- as it bounced around in recent days among a number of assault-weapon Web sites -- triggered a call for a boycott of Remington products. That prompted Remington to issue a news release, saying that it has "severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately."
They remembered what happened to Smith and Wesson
Remington chief executive Tommy Millner issued a personal appeal to gun owners who might be thinking about boycotting the company's products: "Rest assured that Remington not only does not support [Zumbo's] view, we totally disagree," Millner said. "I have no explanation for his perspective. I proudly own AR's and support everyone's right to do so!"

Zumbo, in his public apology, said that when he wrote the blog entry that criticized assault rifles, he was at the end of a long day's hunt. "I was tired and exhausted," he wrote, "and I should have gone to bed early. When the guide told me that there was a "huge" following of hunters who use AR 15's and similar weapons to hunt prairies dogs, I was amazed. At that point I wrote the blog, and never thought it through.

"Now then, you might not believe what I have to say, but I hope you do. How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don't know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.

I never intended to be divisive...

...What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I'm taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.

...Believe it or not, I'm your best friend if you're a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way. I simply screwed up...

Sounds a little too much like a "Some of my best friends are" apology for me. Sorry, Jim. Enjoy your free time.
Posted by: Steve || 02/24/2007 14:05 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:

#1  There's a good summation here
Posted by: Steve || 02/24/2007 15:45 Comments || Top||

#2  the Brady campaign could hire him.... then again, they have little use for him, except for quoting him. Idiot forgot who his audience was. Now, he can still write..on some obscure unpaid blog
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 16:07 Comments || Top||

#3  btw - excellent link Steve, thx
Posted by: Frank G || 02/24/2007 16:14 Comments || Top||

#4  More info at the Gun Talk site:

Something fascinating just happened. I suspect it will be studied by those who do such things, but at this point, it is clear that last weekend we saw a sea change in the way gun owners react to threats.

We can take away from this experience several observations.

The first is that this attitude of "just let them take those ugly, black guns" is common among hunters and competitive shooters. Anyone with that attitude is a fool. Sit down with a hunter from England or Australia, hear him tell the story of what happened there, and watch the tears well up in his eyes when he says they never thought the government would take away their hunting guns. To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.

A ban on black guns, or "Saturday Night Specials," or 50-caliber rifles, is a ban on all our guns. There is no such thing as a bad gun or a good gun. We can't throw babies off the back of the sled, thinking it will keep the wolves away from us.

The next thing we learn from this is that the world has just changed. This entire episode took place inside of 36 hours, on a weekend -- a three-day weekend for President's Day. It happened...and this is important...entirely on the internet. The original posting was on the net, the reaction was on the net, the emails demanding that companies break off with Zumbo were on the net, and the reactions from the companies were all on their web sites. This was completely an internet event. It was a nuclear explosion, with tens of thousands of messages posted, spanning all the firearms-related web sites.
Posted by: Steve || 02/24/2007 16:18 Comments || Top||

#5  Gun is just a tool. Much depends on the brains that control the tool. For example, in Russia it is not uncommon to go hunting with machine guns - inherited from Soviet Union, so what?
Posted by: Nesvarbukas || 02/24/2007 16:24 Comments || Top||

#6  Zumbo really stepped in shit with this one. Tamara K., never one to suffer idiocy lightly, rips Zumbo a new orifice here, in Who the hell is Jim Zumbo? and reams it out a little more here in Can open. Worms everywhere. She does a nice summing-up-- with a VERY pointed lesson in the power of the blogosphere-- in An Army of Davids, illustrated.

I have no idea WTF Zumbo was using for brains when he wrote that column. I've encountered hints of his sniffy kind of anti-AR snobbery before in hunters from time to time; my best guess is they consider Black Rifle enthusiasts reckless extremists who'll "ruin everything" for those oh-so-gentlemanly hunters.

What they don't seem to get through their thick skulls is that banning the sale of AR-type guns is just a prelude to banning the sale of **ALL** guns, then confiscating the whole lot. Because the Constitution, AFAIK, doesn't say Jack Shit about any "right to hunt". If they can take away my ARs, and the ban is upheld by the USSC, there is no logical barrier to their confiscation of anything that can fire a bullet.

Like the AoS said: enjoy your free time, Zumbo.

Posted by: Dave D. || 02/24/2007 16:43 Comments || Top||

#7  Incredible eruption of pissed-off, had-enough gun owners took place less than a week ago.

Now that it has almost reached the national stage my best guess is that gun writers et al have are likely paying much, much closer attention to what they write.

And in all this, one clear message: You want to ban guns, best polish up your resume. It is now considered career suicide.

And the idea: that an assault weapon is nothing more that a terrorist firearm: what possessed Zumbo to utter such foolishness?

Did it feel good, Zumbo?
Posted by: badanov || 02/24/2007 16:45 Comments || Top||

#8  Further thoughts-- and some damn good ones-- from Kim du Toit here and here. In the first link he does a good job of showing the lack of any important functional differences between hunting firearms and those Evil Black Rifles that Zumbo was tut-tutting about.

Posted by: Dave D. || 02/24/2007 17:11 Comments || Top||

#9  They came first for the mail order gun sales,
and I didn't speak up because I bought mine locally
Then they came for the “cop killer bullets”,
and I didn't speak up because I didn’t buy them.
Then they came for the “Saturday Night Specials”,
and I didn't speak up because I bought expensive guns.
Then they came for the “Plastic Guns”,
and I didn't speak up because I had steel ones.
Then they came for the “Assault Weapons”,
And I didn’t speak up because I was a hunter.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Posted by: Steve || 02/24/2007 17:56 Comments || Top||

#10  TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


It take a true liar to pervert the very words of the Constitution to rationalize that this is not what the founding father meant to protect by the 2d Amendment. Since both the M-16 and the AK-47 are pretty much the basic firearm of military forces worldwide, the only implication can be that ownership of said weapons is protected until the Constitution is so altered by legal amendment.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 02/24/2007 22:16 Comments || Top||


In praise of civilization
Kathy "Relapsed Catholic" Shaidle, commenting on low-flow shower heads:

Be honest. You hate Nature as much as I do. The bugs, the uncooperative weather, the garish green/brown colour scheme. Sane, intelligent people want to live in a totally artificial, silvertoned world right out of a Thin Man movie, with martinis and glamourous gowns and big cars, not eating tofu in a dimly lit basement decorated in Rasta doohickies, with a bunch of stinking emos.

Join me . . . in doing your part to destroy Nature once and for all. Make a hippie or little brainwashed kid cry today!
Posted by: Mike || 02/24/2007 07:18 || Comments || Link || [3 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I disagree. I want to live in a sleek Thin Man environment with glass walls in the middle of Nature, so I can gaze on its majesty while sipping a drink in air-conditioned comfort. And then I'll turn on the TV.

In the Fifties we were promised that the 21st century would mean glass-walled houses in beautiful woodland settings with wall-sized TVs, and we'd commute to work in flying cars. We've made great strides toward the wall-sized TV, but that's it. Where's the rest of it?
Posted by: Angie Schultz || 02/24/2007 12:08 Comments || Top||

#2  Flying cars have been invented, but will never be allowed to be used George Jetson style, Reason? Air Traffic Controllers have nightmares about the idea.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 02/24/2007 12:34 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
99[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sat 2007-02-24
  3 Pak bad boyz dead when their package blows up
Fri 2007-02-23
  U.S. bangs five bad boyz in Iraq gunfight
Thu 2007-02-22
  Another poison gas attack in Iraq
Wed 2007-02-21
  Brits to begin withdrawing troops
Tue 2007-02-20
  USS Stennis Now On Station
Mon 2007-02-19
  64 killed in Delhi-Lahore train boom
Sun 2007-02-18
  Iraqi, Coalition forces detain 21 suspected terrs
Sat 2007-02-17
  Algeria: Police kill 26 bad boyz, arrest 35 after attacks
Fri 2007-02-16
  Attempt to hijack Maretanian plane painfully foiled
Thu 2007-02-15
  Al-Masri said wounded, aide killed
Wed 2007-02-14
  Bombs kill nine on buses in Lebanon
Tue 2007-02-13
  Tater bugs out
Mon 2007-02-12
  140 arrested in Baghdad sweeps: US military
Sun 2007-02-11
  Petraeus takes command
Sat 2007-02-10
  Iraqi and US forces push into Baghdad flashpoints

Better than the average link...



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.
44.222.186.148
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (33)    WoT Background (30)    Non-WoT (16)    Local News (6)    (0)