#7
These hostile submorons just don't seem to understand that ratcheting up the threat level only inspires America to devise new technology that is light years beyond anything they will build during this century ormost likelyeven the next one. Go ahead dumbphuques, make our aerospatial day. We will own the high ground and use it to pound deorbited projectiles and DEWs hot sand up your Chinese tailpipes.
Radical Islam supporter Yvonne Ridley, if you live in Toronto or Montreal
You may remember the name Yvonne Ridley. She was the journalist captured by the Taliban in 2001. A textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome, she converted to Islam and took up the cause of her captors. Now a talking head on the Islam Channel in England, where she is responsible for political issues, she is also a founder and frequent candidate for the Respect Party (the political party of choice for fundamentalist Muslims, and terrorist-supporting left wing political scoundrels like George Galloway).
Ridley supports radical Islams objectives and its spokespeople (she has stated, for example, that Abu Hamza al-Masri, the infamously radical and openly jihadist Finsbury Park Mosque imam is quite sweet really and has designated as martyrs such monsters as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Chechan devil Shamil Basayev, who perpetrated the horrific Beslan school massacre), and to this day defends the Taliban in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers are risking (and losing) life and limb to defeat them.
Ridley has also recently become the London correspondent for a new TV channel created by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Press TV which, according to Ridley, offers a different perspective than that of conventional media. (On its Internet site there is a section, Analyses, where one can find insinuations that the British government orchestrated the recent car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow in order to tarnish the image of Muslims in Great Britain.)
And yet, at the invitation of the Islamic Congress of Canada, Yvonne Ridley is being brought this September to our shores as a guest speaker. A petition is presently making the rounds in Quebec, demanding that the Islamic Congress of Canada disassociate itself from Yvonne Ridley and her odious connections and words, and, in addition, make clear to the Canadian public the Congress refusal to offer any support, direct or indirect, to Islamist terrorism. If you would like more information about Yvonne Ridley or about this petition, please contact redaction@egards.qc.ca.
Her first husband was Daoud Zaaroura, a former Palestine Liberation Organization officer. Zaaroura was a PLO colonel when Ridley met him in Cyprus, where she was working on an assignment for the Newcastle-based Sunday Sun. They had one daughter who was born in 1995.
#4
She is the British version of our own Mother Sheheen. At least she had the guts to show her true colors by wearing them and converting to Islam. Sheheen should do the same.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/15/2007 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
I post the question and scenarios below in regard to a certain train of thought into which I was inescapably, and without conclusion, drawn after the following seconds-long discussion with Rambler during the recent Rantapalooza:
Rambler: So. John Kerry. td#1: Laughable. Totally incompetent. Rambler: That's not even the issue. The man's a traitor.
So the question that I pose to the members of Rantburg, which I hope you are all far better equipped than I to answer:
Would it be worse to have in leading political office (e.g., that of President) a competent traitor, or an incompetent one?
The wording of the question that presented itself to me is actually fairly ambiguous. It could mean either that a competent traitor (to take one of the options for the sake of example) is both competent in office and is a traitor, or that he is competent at being a traitor. In the first case, the constant is treachery; I would have to assume that both the incompetent and competent candidates are equal in such, and the only variation between the two is their level of competence. In the second case, the constant is their competence in terms of office; the only variation is in their competence as traitors.
Given these interpretations, I have set up the problem as a series of combinations of two of the four vital qualifiers, with each of those combinations presenting individual considerations as well as specific scenarios that could appear within those greater situations.
1 (competent within office; competent traitor): This situation provides for at least two possible scenarios. Assume that the officer competently manages his duties on the one side, maintaining the appearance of fulfilling the desires of his voters, and on the other side undermines the system he rules until he is either in complete power or has completely destroyed the country. The first case appears in Animal Farm and the philosophies of Machiavelli; the second, in the fantasies of the powerless flag-burners and in the practices of Saddam Hussein. 2 (competent within office; incompetent traitor): Richard Nixon? This scenario seems, to me, the best (being the least harmful) of bad choices. The country would continue to run effectively, as desired by the officer's constituency, and any treachery would either be uncovered or merely ineffective. 3 (incompetent within office; competent traitor): Jimmy Carter? Or is he #4? I admit that I'm stuck in terms of trying to imagine this scenario and its results, although possibly it would be as destructive as scenario #1sub2. 4 (incompetent within office; incompetent traitor): More probably Jimmy Carter. The effect on the country of this sort of leadership, within the office, would be the same as with any other incompetent leader. In terms of treachery, it would likely be, as in scenario #2, either uncovered or ineffective. The first end result would leave the officer universally despised and ostracized and probably facing his very own Nuremburg trial impeachment, with the only remotely honorable option being suicide; the second result would have any reference to him be one of derision. Like Ralph Nader. *rimshot*
I'm curious about everyone's opinions on this topic, and any discussion that may stem from it. I'd love to get some help on these ideas, and to see what everyone has to say.
#1
As background, trailing daughter #1 will vote for the first time in 2008, and she's taking her responsibility as a citizen very seriously. Rambler, you have this mother's gratitude.
#2
Ummm... I hate school and this question is set up exactly like something I would expect to see at one and therefore had a hard time getting through it as I wanted mostly to burn my eyeballs. ;) Even with that difficulty, I wanted to give the article proper digestion so I decided to be steadfast and I overcame.
What I discovered after reading the question instead of skimming it was, this is an excellent question. One that I will have to chew on for a bit before I can answer.
Stoopid job!
The one thing I will say, is that Nixon and Carter were not traitors. Well, maybe there's a case for Carter. Still, when the average Rantburger thinks of the word traitor, they think of it as an alternate for the word treason. The wages of treason is death. Carter deserves ritual lampooning, not death.
Now, if we're applying the word to someone who's policies or actions in general aren't in the best interest of the nation, you've got Carter nailed.
Which version of traitor are we talking about? The treasonous kind, or the bad policy kind?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/15/2007 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, if these are the only choices, then my selection would be #4 on the basis of "Things have to get worse before they can get better".
Would we have had a Ronald Reagan without a Jimmy Carter preceding him? I dunno.
This is also the only reason I'm a little more sanguine than some folks about a Hildebeest presidency.
I'm convinced she'll be a disaster one way or another, but maybe that's what's needed before we can have real thoroughgoing change.
My preference would be that we could have that change without a major crisis, but my reading of history and human nature tells me otherwise.
#4
Nixon was never a traitor. You have to understand his WW-II history to understand Richard.
Richard managed to run a cas ino in the Solomon Islands while being in uniform. He was a capitalist first. Money was there to be made so he did it.
His buddie Bebe Rebozo ran tire rationing for the South East in WW-II. No citizens in the South East were able to buy new tires under Bebe. He sold the SE's ration of tires to South Am.
The rumor is that he got money to do that from Nixon's cas ino revenues. Who knows but it would explain the "donations" by bebe to Richard. Likely his own money just banked.
#6
Nixon also tried to appease the Left of his time with things such as the EPA. It didn't help him; you'd think Dubya would have taken note, being the history buff that he is.
#7
#1 would be the worst which, of course, would not be Kerry (incompetent in every respect). #1 would be the exception to Lincoln's rule about fooling all of the people all of the time and would therefore be in the position to do the most damage.
With #2 the country runs well and the traitorous acts fail so no there is no harm done.
There is danger in #3 because some traitorous acts might succeed before the checks and balances stop him or before the voters get rid of him.
I believe that #4 is what we had with Jimmuh. It was bad but after four years American democracy prevailed. The people got wise and elected Ronald Reagan.
I would also disagree about Nixon. He may have been a little shady but I never heard of him doing anything traitorous unless you count the damage done by Watergate. Watergate did damage but it wasn't done intentionally to benefit any of our enemies such as the Ruskies which I would call the definition of treason. I still believe that deep down, in spite of all his flaws, the man was a patriot. He may have been a crook but I still have a soft spot in my heart for old Tricky Dick. Hey, nobody's perfect.
#8
You need to qualify the term traitor. Traitor to what? To the country in the criminal definition? And how? Kerry is not the President and never will be, IMO. Was Carter? Again, not by criminal definition. Compentency or the lack of it doesn't equate to traitorous behavior but traitorous behavior that is well hidden leads to competency in office since it is illusional. I think Carter was the most incompetent President ever (I didn't live through Millard Fillmore). Clinton probably fits the closest to treason since he was more concerned with dipping his wick than protecting the American people and their homeland. But I would rather have a competent leader and an incompetent traitor.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/15/2007 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Carter could indeed be the traitor. If reports of him sidling up to the Russkers in hopes of heading off a Reagan electoral victory are correct, then he's a traitor. His actions since his presidency only give credence to those reports. In today's world politic, there is no greater friend of the dictator than Carter.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/15/2007 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Which version of traitor are we talking about? The treasonous kind, or the bad policy kind?
The treasonous kind. In my opinion (which should in no way be taken to define the question, as these are my own conclusions), bad policy would be more a mark of incompetency in office rather than of treason.
The TW brings up an interesting point: does the official we're defining as a traitor owe loyalty to the entire country, or only to those who voted for him as representing themselves? I agree with her opinion that he owes loyalty to the entire nation; however, to which group is he a traitor?
Regarding the comments on and disagreements with my parallels between the four profiles and certain presidents: I'm not very good in terms of American history, and those parallels were drawn based on the most infamous policies and acts that shaped popular opinion. I think that those of you who actually know what you're talking about are more correct in your opinions than I am, so I concede the point. Thanks for the correction and information.
#11
td, today I was present when a recently promoted full colonel re-affirmed his military oath in front of colleagues, subordinates and superiors. Considering that the President is also Commander in Chief, the oath is worth a review:
"I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The oath of office which Presidents swear is shorter, but has some interesting overlaps:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So I think the question about 'traitor to whom' is defined first and foremost with regards to the Constitution. It is the Constitution which embodies the lasting center, the inherent identity of this country. Everything else might be ephemeral - laws, policies, regulations, political parties, how many states there are, which ones have more population = more Representatives, etc.
And note that the Constitution may well have, as the military oath acknowledges, domestic as well as foreign enemies against whom it must be defended.
Back in 1974 I held my first professional job as a computer programmer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff command center and then for the Army's command center in the Pentagon. One of my colleagues was a senior Captain fresh back from Vietnam and bearing the scars from burns acquired in combat. The Washington Post published an article about an attack in that country with the headline "Viet Cong Take Key Bridge".
Of course, 'Key Bridge' is also the name of a bridge in the DC area and Rick posted that headline in our office with the note "They're getting damned close!!"
Which, besides being funny, was his way of reminding us (in the midst of the Kerry-driven Winter Soldier slander and all the attacks on Vets and slanders they faced) that one day it may come to it that he and his Army colleagues might once again, as with the Civil War, be required to defend that Constitution against enemies here as well as abroad.
#12
Luckily, the Presidency itself has been largely bereft of treason. High treason at least.
If we were talking about all federal politicians, we would have different results.
Getting back to the presidency though, its pretty tough to make a treason case against any POTUS. Clinton would likely be the easiest and most likely only one due to tech that landed in Chinese hands.
A treasonous case, if it's a part of official policy though, would be more than difficult to make.
I think the best way for everyone to look at the question then, would be to combine facts and a little imagination - like certain fiction authors - and combine an actual Presidents that fit the competent/incompetent part with possible fictional treasonous acts.
if I may suggest, I think you could get better/more realistic results if you also include a Presidents administration instead of the President alone. After all, the odds of a President committing treason directly are much less than if he used one or more of his people as a go between and a Cabinet member could certainly commit treason on their own.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/15/2007 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
#13
TD1 (if it's not too soon)- excellent and thoughtful article.
However, I think that there is a *small* flaw in your vector here. But as you are clearly precocious, you know that small flaws can lead to what us engineering nerds call catastrophic failure. Think of a cold O-Ring in a Space Shuttle booster.
The flaw is that traitor and treason are legally defined terms. They can be 'proven' in a court of law, a courts martial, or the House and the Senate (acting as a court of law for the POTUS.)
In that case, Kerry, Clinton, Nixon, et al were NEITHER traitors or treasonists (I made that word up.) They were not found guilty of any such legally defined crime. (Nixon came closest.) If a candidate for POTUS was guilty of such, IMO they should NEVER be a choice for the presidency.
Incompetence OTOH, is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously we want a competent president. But how do you define that? Was Nixon competent in foreign policy? Some would say yes- China, Detente, etc. Others might say no- the move off the gold standard screwed our allies, Skybolt, The Year Of Europe, etc.
So that is my long-winded explanation of my thoughts. PLEASE feel free to comment, disagree, or pelt me with rocks and garbage.
But again- excellent and thoughtful. Congratulations!
- Free Radical
"I don't 'work through my inner demons, I
harness them up and take them out for a ride"
Trailing Daughter #1, I dashed off my reply w/o reading the other comments and your reply- so I am probably guilty of dog-piling. Please accept my humble apology and feel free to have the TW unleash her Legions against me.
You said in #10: I think that those of you who actually know what you're talking about are more correct in your opinions than I am, so I concede the point.
A small comment: NO ONE (not even here at Rantburg) is provably correct about an opinion. They are fungible, subject to fine print and changes-without notice, escape clauses, and (like schrodinger's schtoopid cat,) usually change states the second you measure them.
#15
Silly Free Radical! I can't count high enough to reach the number of times I've been guilty of posting without proper reading, never mind proper thought, so I wouldn't dare tick you off for that. Besides, reading all the posts is bringing me to tears, so I'd rather you sat next to me with a clean hanky and said, "There, there," if you'd be so kind.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/15/2007 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#17
td#1 and TW -- I wish I lived near you two -- so I could just enjoy your company and conversation!
td#1 -- I have no answer or opinion... but keep throwing thoughts out there. It's interesting exploring the minds of you and your peers, "The Milliumn Kids" that one Marine general called those that serve under him.
You're in a generation that is facing, standing up to and fighting against yet another major evil that seems to pop up in our midst throughout history.
Probing your thought processes is good for us "old timers." Old timers in the sense of age only, not of mind or thoughts.
#18
Jeebus, TW, why you gotta go and teach something like logic and thought processes to TD#1? I mean how's she gonna function in some liberal college if she's not a programmed robot?
TD#1, GREAT thought exercise and thanks for posting. I back lotp in post #11 in his definition of a traitor (in terms of the Constitution first and foremost). The sad part is (I think most of us feel this way here), no one determines the "competency of the office" question anymore in terms of the Constitution.
Case in point...GW Bush. I think all of us here would pretty much never consider him anything close to a traitor (especially in the "Peace through superior firepower" department). However, most of us here (again in terms of the Constitution) are ALL OVER him in the "Competency in Office" issue, especially the last year or two. Think Harriet Miers, the recent Amnesty bill, the recent giving in on "no torture" at Gitmo thingy, spending (that's been the case his entire terms), etc. The public (and Republicans) always say, "Yeah, he's upped the Feds' budget by billions, but, hey, he's still better than Gore/Kerry/whomever the Donks throw up". While fundamentally true, why can we NOT expect the CEO of our nation to be competent to the CONSTITUTION ALSO (not just the Office of the President)?
Listen, I'm one of his biggest fans, and I understand the pressure he's under to "wheel and deal" and "compromise" on any host of issues. But, why can't we get ANY legislation that reflects the TRUE (originalist) meanings of the Constitution anymore?
And, one final quip, lotp re: #11. Your statement about "defending the Constitution" in terms of the Civil War is "fightin' words" where I come from. Many here still feel that there's a right for States to suceed (sp?) in the Constitution and many Constitutional Scholars have written in favor of it too. Not sayin' that I agree, but it's still a contentious issue in these parts. In fact, many see that as the beginning of the end of the Constitutional idea of a very small FEDERAL (not National) gov't.
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2007 22:36 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Oops, forgot the /sarc tag at the end of Parag. 1 above...no offense meant, TW!
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2007 22:37 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Would it be worse to have in leading political office (e.g., that of President) a competent traitor, or an incompetent one?
Again, it depends on how 'traitor' is defined. If the office-holder engaged in unauthorized meetings with the enemy while still a member of the military to benefit the enemy(as did J. F. Kerry), then had a series of mediocre or barely-competent terms in various political offices (as has J.F. Kerry), then the example is already before us.
If the term is used to define someone who did not uphold with equal vigor the standards, duties, and ideals of the office, then it becomes so much more murky. Politicians, after all, are beholden to their political beliefs, their sponsors and their constituency (though the quality of any or all of them and the priority they are given varies wildly).
#21
None taken, BA dear. It'll be interesting when she gets there, that's certain. But she's been reading Rantburg for about a quarter of her life, which has had a clear impact on her thought processes.
P.S. For future reference, lotp is one our lovely Rantburg ladies.
Dick Cheney sat transfixed by the images on the small television screen in the corner of his West Wing office. Smoke poured out of a gaping hole in the World Trade Center's North Tower. John McConnell, the vice president's chief speechwriter, sat next to him and said nothing.
Then, a second plane appeared on the right-hand side of the screen, banked slightly to the left, and plunged into the South Tower. "Did you see that?" Mr. Cheney asked his aide.
A little more than an hour later, Mr. Cheney was seated below the presidential seal at a long conference table in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, better known as the bunker. When an aide told Mr. Cheney that another passenger airplane was rapidly approaching the White House, the vice president gave the order to shoot it down. The young man was so surprised at Mr. Cheney's immediate response that he asked again. Mr. Cheney reiterated the order. Thinking that Mr. Cheney must have misunderstood the question, the military aide asked him a third time.
The vice president responded evenly. "I said yes."
These early moments and all that followed from them will define Mr. Cheney's vice presidency. He was aggressive in those first moments of the war on terror and has been ever since.
Mr. Cheney flew from the White House that night to Camp David, where he stayed in the Aspen Lodge, usually reserved for the president. It was his first night in the "secure, undisclosed location" that would eventually provide fodder for late night comedians. When he woke the next morning, Mr. Cheney asked himself two questions: When is the next attack? And what can I do to prevent it?
They were the questions on the minds of many politicians immediately following 9/11. "When, not if" quickly became one of many clichés to emerge from the national trauma of that day. Democrats and Republicans alike spoke of further terrorist acts on U.S. soil with certainty.
Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida who has since retired but at the time was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the intelligence after a CIA briefing days after 9/11. "There is evidence that Tuesday's attack was the first phase of a multi-phase series of terrorist assaults against the United States, all under one umbrella plan," he said. "It's critical that we move with what capabilities we have today and strengthen those capabilities so that the next acts of this horrendous scheme against the people of the United States can be interdicted before it is executed."
No wonder, then, that a Time/CNN poll, taken in September 2001, found that four out of five Americans believed another attack within a year was either "somewhat likely" or "very likely."
That was nearly six years ago. To many, the threats no longer seem urgent. Critics speak of "the so-called war on terror," and accuse the administration of exaggerating the threats. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading indicator of Democratic conventional wisdom, recently argued that the "culture of fear" created in response to the 9/11 attacks has done more damage than the attacks themselves.
But Mr. Cheney has not moved on. He still awakens each day asking the same questions he asked on Sept. 12, 2001. Then, as he sips his morning coffee, he pores over the latest intelligence on his own before receiving an exhaustive briefing on the latest threat reports. After that, he joins his boss for the president's daily intelligence briefing. All of this happens before 9 a.m. He mentions the war on terror in virtually every speech he gives, and in a letter he wrote to his grandchildren he acknowledged that his "principal focus" as vice president has been national security.
The way that he has gone about his job has won him many critics. His approval ratings are low. A small but growing group of congressional Democrats is mobilizing to impeach him. Respected commentators from respected publications have suggested that his heart problems have left him mentally unstable. Others have called on him to resign. Some conservatives have joined this chorus of criticism, with one prominent columnist labeling the vice president "destructive" and another dismissing those who share his views as "Cheneyite nutjobs." This past Saturday, protesters near his home outside Jackson, Wyo., tore down an effigy of Mr. Cheney in much the way Iraqis famously toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein.
So President Bush should ignore Mr. Cheney's advice and the White House communications team should keep him hidden from public view, right?
Nonsense. With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.
The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet--a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan--was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.
"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the Untied States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
Long, so continue reading at site. You know you want to read it all.
#2
Mr. Cheney likes to work in the background and he does not care much about being loved. "Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" Mr. Cheney said in 2004. "It's a nice way to operate, actually."
#3
I remember a discussion with some leftist nut and they were all for impeachment of Bush. I said "so you can't wait for a President Cheney?" They shut up.
#1
Excellent! There really is no way to take these people (msm) seriously anymore, once you start to see behind the curtain. Bloggers and the like have of course their own flaws, but at least, you can choose your poison, exercise your free will and critical mind, instead of being passively fed by a caste of mandarins. Besides, many bloggers seem to be reasonably successful professional, or with backgrounds relative to their topic, while, let's face it, journalists of all stripe are basically the ones who flunked literature studies, or went to that because they had an higher (leftist) calling : either blowing hot air, and/or Enlightened People with an agenda to push.
I'm probably using too broad a brush, but globally, IMHO, that's it.
#4
As noted by a commenter at link, those are not even US military 5,56 (who are green tipped for the ball/FMJ ammo, hey, I actually knew that), but probably civilian ammo (don't think the brits would leave ammo laying around neither).
#7
In the photo, that's 55 grain .223 ammo civilians buy. Cabelas .223 Ammo.
The military uses larger 62 and 77 ball ammo that have a green tip. SS109, 62 gr Green Tip
Question is who in Iraq is importing civilian .223 ammo?
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2007 23:49 Comments ||
Top||
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.
