Sunday, October 31, 2004
Preparing for the worst
I am privately resigning myself to the very real possibility that John Forbes Kerry will be the president-elect on this Wednesday. He has a lot going in his favor, including favorable "early voting" results in Florida, momentum in key battlegrounds (PA, FL, WI, IA, MN, MI,) and even the announcement by Zogby that Kerry is favored to win. I am confident that Bush can probably pull off wins in NV, OH, and NM, but that's about it. He needs to pull Florida (the most likely place for an upset amongst Kerry's battleground states) to win this election. He may get lucky and win one more contested midwest state (MI, WI, or IA) but cannot count on winning more than one of the three. Hawaii might go Bush too, but historical tends show this as unlikely.
I only console myself by thinking that I did my best to keep Kerry out of office by changing my registration to Florida and voting early (but not often, as Chicagoans do.) I do not like or respect Kerry, but if he becomes my commander-in-chief I will have to respect that, for at least the next four years. I also pray that the election will be clean and not be subjected to selective recounts, allegations of fraud, or other litigation that challenges the legitimacy of the president and the very Constitution itself.
I only console myself by thinking that I did my best to keep Kerry out of office by changing my registration to Florida and voting early (but not often, as Chicagoans do.) I do not like or respect Kerry, but if he becomes my commander-in-chief I will have to respect that, for at least the next four years. I also pray that the election will be clean and not be subjected to selective recounts, allegations of fraud, or other litigation that challenges the legitimacy of the president and the very Constitution itself.
Searching for Spike
What have military investigators in Iraq really discovered about missing aviator Scott Speicher?
Most press accounts say that they have found no evidence that shows he was captured by the Iraqis, and investigators privately believe he died in the morning hours of Jan. 17, 1991. But the Sunday Times story of Oct. 31, 2004 tells a very different story.
The London-based newspaper has found an Iraqi source (a sheep merchant) who claims to have taken Speicher into his house shortly after his plane went down. From there he was turned over to police in the town of Hit (a fairly stable Sunni triangle town in Anbar province) and taken to a hospital in Ramadi, the notorious insurgent stronghold.
After establishing that part of the story, writer Bob Graham presents two parallel courses of events. The first is that Speicher was eventually executed on the orders of Izzat Ibrahim (the top-ranking Iraqi fugitive) or turned over to the infamous Ali Hasan al Majid (Chemical Ali) and shuttled between eighteen different prisons. Supporting the second claim are two sets of"MSS" initials (one in a prison cell at Hakmiyah, another on a wooden post at a Tikrit car port) and captured documents saying that Speicher was injured during captivity.
I don't know who to believe in this long but important investigation. Speicher's family believes that the military search team was completely devoted to their task and did a good job, yet they believe Speicher was definitely captured.
When ruminating on the first possibility that Speicher died soon after ejecting from his stricken jet, I think of what crash invesigator Bruce Trenholm told The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in early 2002: on that cold January morning, an injured pilot could have succumbed to exposure. Then I think of the two fates presented by the Sunday Times and wonder which would be worse: being murdered by a war criminal and having nobody know your fate, or being locked up indefinitely with only token efforts being launched to find you.
Either way, we need to find the truth. The sons-of-bitches responsible for hiding the truth about Scott Speicher should be subjected to "persuasive" interrorgation. I don't mean sensory deprivation or "hot and cold" or listening to Britney Spears for days on end. I mean that their family members should be tortured in front of their eyes until they give us verifiable information that ultimately results in finding Scott Speicher, dead or alive. It sounds brutal, but it is appropriate, given the anguish and torture that their actions and their silence have put Scott Speicher's family through.
Most press accounts say that they have found no evidence that shows he was captured by the Iraqis, and investigators privately believe he died in the morning hours of Jan. 17, 1991. But the Sunday Times story of Oct. 31, 2004 tells a very different story.
The London-based newspaper has found an Iraqi source (a sheep merchant) who claims to have taken Speicher into his house shortly after his plane went down. From there he was turned over to police in the town of Hit (a fairly stable Sunni triangle town in Anbar province) and taken to a hospital in Ramadi, the notorious insurgent stronghold.
After establishing that part of the story, writer Bob Graham presents two parallel courses of events. The first is that Speicher was eventually executed on the orders of Izzat Ibrahim (the top-ranking Iraqi fugitive) or turned over to the infamous Ali Hasan al Majid (Chemical Ali) and shuttled between eighteen different prisons. Supporting the second claim are two sets of"MSS" initials (one in a prison cell at Hakmiyah, another on a wooden post at a Tikrit car port) and captured documents saying that Speicher was injured during captivity.
I don't know who to believe in this long but important investigation. Speicher's family believes that the military search team was completely devoted to their task and did a good job, yet they believe Speicher was definitely captured.
When ruminating on the first possibility that Speicher died soon after ejecting from his stricken jet, I think of what crash invesigator Bruce Trenholm told The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in early 2002: on that cold January morning, an injured pilot could have succumbed to exposure. Then I think of the two fates presented by the Sunday Times and wonder which would be worse: being murdered by a war criminal and having nobody know your fate, or being locked up indefinitely with only token efforts being launched to find you.
Either way, we need to find the truth. The sons-of-bitches responsible for hiding the truth about Scott Speicher should be subjected to "persuasive" interrorgation. I don't mean sensory deprivation or "hot and cold" or listening to Britney Spears for days on end. I mean that their family members should be tortured in front of their eyes until they give us verifiable information that ultimately results in finding Scott Speicher, dead or alive. It sounds brutal, but it is appropriate, given the anguish and torture that their actions and their silence have put Scott Speicher's family through.
Me vs. the Catholic church
As you may know, I officially split with the Catholic church in March 2003 and, although I sometimes attend Catholic services, I cannot call myself a Catholic--only a "nondenominational Christian." My split has mainly to do with contemporary Catholic teachings on war and pacifism, which has condemned the 1991 Persian Gulf War and blamed the U.S., and not Iraq, France, or Russia, for the sufferings of Iraqis under the Oil-For-Food scam. Other qualms with the church include their socialist teachings on health care, welfare, and workers rights. The Catholic church's teachings center around consistent criticism of America and our way of life. Yeah, and that entire "raping alter boys" thing doesn't sit well with me, either.
I stumbled across a pro-Kerry group called "Catholics for Political Responsibility." After adding them to my "Axis of Evil" section, I sent them the following e-mail:
I feel that you are twisting the teachings of the Catholic church to fit your partisan agenda and you are no better in this regard than the Islamic militants who kill non-Muslims in the name of Allah. You represent the worst elements of the Catholic church, such as the bishops who publicly express sympathy for deposed tyrant Saddam Hussein.
I'm certain they will ignore me, but it felt good to get that out. Once the pope is gone and the moral depravity of church leaders has passed, I may return to the church I have spurned. That day will come long after I am cold in the ground. I have made my choice: I would rather have a flag pressed to my heart than a rosary around my neck.
I stumbled across a pro-Kerry group called "Catholics for Political Responsibility." After adding them to my "Axis of Evil" section, I sent them the following e-mail:
I feel that you are twisting the teachings of the Catholic church to fit your partisan agenda and you are no better in this regard than the Islamic militants who kill non-Muslims in the name of Allah. You represent the worst elements of the Catholic church, such as the bishops who publicly express sympathy for deposed tyrant Saddam Hussein.
I'm certain they will ignore me, but it felt good to get that out. Once the pope is gone and the moral depravity of church leaders has passed, I may return to the church I have spurned. That day will come long after I am cold in the ground. I have made my choice: I would rather have a flag pressed to my heart than a rosary around my neck.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Clift-hanger
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift is certain of a Kerry victory on Tuesday night (or afterwards, should this election go to the courts.)
Let's run down her points in a nutshell:
1. Iraq will sink George Bush--'cause "Stone Cold" Eleanor said so!
2. Americans think the country is on the wrong track, so they will vote Kerry.
3. Kerry voters will rush to the polls in larger numbers than Bush's supporters have.
4. Anybody who thinks the Russians hid Iraqi weapons is living in a right-wing fantasy.
Argument #2 is a complete fallacy, as many of the people who say "wrong track" think that George Bush should be more aggressive with Iraq than he has. If you're like me and believe that this election has temporarily tied George Bush's hands in hunting down the insurgents, you will still vote Bush in spite of thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction. Let's face it, people: KERRY IS A PUSSY. If you don't want a pussy president, you will vote Bush.
Her third argument does have some weight. John LeBoutillier talks about the "passion differential" in almost every post on his blog. Kerry voters have one thing in common: they really hate Bush (in spite of whatever feelings they may have about their candidate.)
So is Eleanor Clift right? The polls will be the only indicator, but keep two things in mind: not only is Eleanor Clift very smug and self-assured, but her analysis is very simplistic. If Kerry pulls the lection off, I will say Clift got lucky. If Bush reigns supreme, I don't think there's any reason to trust her anymore.
Let's run down her points in a nutshell:
1. Iraq will sink George Bush--'cause "Stone Cold" Eleanor said so!
2. Americans think the country is on the wrong track, so they will vote Kerry.
3. Kerry voters will rush to the polls in larger numbers than Bush's supporters have.
4. Anybody who thinks the Russians hid Iraqi weapons is living in a right-wing fantasy.
Argument #2 is a complete fallacy, as many of the people who say "wrong track" think that George Bush should be more aggressive with Iraq than he has. If you're like me and believe that this election has temporarily tied George Bush's hands in hunting down the insurgents, you will still vote Bush in spite of thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction. Let's face it, people: KERRY IS A PUSSY. If you don't want a pussy president, you will vote Bush.
Her third argument does have some weight. John LeBoutillier talks about the "passion differential" in almost every post on his blog. Kerry voters have one thing in common: they really hate Bush (in spite of whatever feelings they may have about their candidate.)
So is Eleanor Clift right? The polls will be the only indicator, but keep two things in mind: not only is Eleanor Clift very smug and self-assured, but her analysis is very simplistic. If Kerry pulls the lection off, I will say Clift got lucky. If Bush reigns supreme, I don't think there's any reason to trust her anymore.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Pakistan's funniest home videos
Osama bin Laden is back on an al Jazeera video tape, just days after ABC received a tape in Pakistan from "Assam the American."
The bin Laden video is worthy of volumes of analysis. He again changes his justification for 911. This time, he blames the U.S. for Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Do you think it was that? Was it the Crusades? Was it American soldiers in Saudia Arabia? Is it our cultural attitudes towards women's rights and homosexuality? Or could it just be that pure hate, like the kind espoused by Osama bin Laden, is completely irrational, and it continues to search for new justifications?
The video comes out before the elections. So, Osama, who are you voting for? He pulls pages from Michael Moore's playbook, saying that the Florida election was rigged, and blasting President Bush for listening to the story about the pet goat in a Sarasota, Florida classroom as the towers burned. But bin Laden also boasts that neither Bush nor Kerry can protect the US from his wrath.
Going to the older video, Assam is perhaps Adam Gadahn, an al Qaeda lily-white. Is there any doubt now about Jayna Davis's theory that al Qaeda recruits "lily whites" to do their bidding?
The bin Laden video is worthy of volumes of analysis. He again changes his justification for 911. This time, he blames the U.S. for Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Do you think it was that? Was it the Crusades? Was it American soldiers in Saudia Arabia? Is it our cultural attitudes towards women's rights and homosexuality? Or could it just be that pure hate, like the kind espoused by Osama bin Laden, is completely irrational, and it continues to search for new justifications?
The video comes out before the elections. So, Osama, who are you voting for? He pulls pages from Michael Moore's playbook, saying that the Florida election was rigged, and blasting President Bush for listening to the story about the pet goat in a Sarasota, Florida classroom as the towers burned. But bin Laden also boasts that neither Bush nor Kerry can protect the US from his wrath.
Going to the older video, Assam is perhaps Adam Gadahn, an al Qaeda lily-white. Is there any doubt now about Jayna Davis's theory that al Qaeda recruits "lily whites" to do their bidding?
Missing explosives, part two
The missing explosives from al Qaqaa story gets more muddled every day. With all of the recent revelations and twists, a number of questions have been opened up.
1) What, if anything, did the Iraqis take before March 20, 2003? Trucks were spotted outside the bunkers on March 17, 2003. What were they doing?
2) What do the Russians really know about this matter?
3) Of the 250 tons of explosives destroyed by US soldiers, how much of that consisted of the missing RDX and HMX?
4) Were any explosives taken by insurgents between that destruction and May 2003?
5) Did Iraqi authorities overstate the amount of RDX and HMX they had in thei first place? Some press accounts say "definitely."
6) Will John Kerry and his surrogates ever stop politicizing the war effort in Iraq and allow our armed forces to get their job done?
This is an accounting disaster of the highest order. If you're confused by now, you're in the vast majority. If you're saying "Bush let the looters have the explosives" at this early stage in the investigation, you are a partisan hack and a tool.
1) What, if anything, did the Iraqis take before March 20, 2003? Trucks were spotted outside the bunkers on March 17, 2003. What were they doing?
2) What do the Russians really know about this matter?
3) Of the 250 tons of explosives destroyed by US soldiers, how much of that consisted of the missing RDX and HMX?
4) Were any explosives taken by insurgents between that destruction and May 2003?
5) Did Iraqi authorities overstate the amount of RDX and HMX they had in thei first place? Some press accounts say "definitely."
6) Will John Kerry and his surrogates ever stop politicizing the war effort in Iraq and allow our armed forces to get their job done?
This is an accounting disaster of the highest order. If you're confused by now, you're in the vast majority. If you're saying "Bush let the looters have the explosives" at this early stage in the investigation, you are a partisan hack and a tool.
Getting Squirrely
Dave (from my O'Connor suite) invited me over to play with his squirrel. It turned out that he honestly had had a squirrel, and no innuendo was involved. The squirrel was named Frances because Dave rescued the squirrel (as a baby) during the hurricane of the same name.
Despite having killed sixteen chipmunks this summer, I still took a liking to Frances. He reminded me of Smitty's pet rat, with his climbing and his claws. Frances likes to chew on people's watches.
Despite having killed sixteen chipmunks this summer, I still took a liking to Frances. He reminded me of Smitty's pet rat, with his climbing and his claws. Frances likes to chew on people's watches.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Missing ATA
I'm feeling sad over the loss of American Trans Air to bankruptcy. The beleaguered airline will be leaving Midway airport, ceding the Chicago routes to AirTran. There are also rumors that what remains of ATA will be bought, although I hope the company can recover and streamline from its base in Indianapolis.
I have only flown on four airlines: Kiwi, Metrojet, ATA, and Delta. I have flown ATA far more frequently than the others, and have no qualms with them. Their fares were the lowest for the particular route I fly frequently. My image of that airline improved dramatically after they got their new fleet of 757-300's and 737-800's.
Unfortunately, those new planes pushed ATA over the brink. The airline purchased the new jets in 2000, not anticipating the airline slowdown and the calamity that would occur the next year. As critical as I was over the creaky 727's, ATA should have stuck with their old 727's and superb 757-200's.
Perhaps my fondest ATA memories came from the long trip home at Thanksgiving 2001, giving me my first chance to see my family again after the travails and tragedies of the previous fall. I bought a model of an ATA 757-300 today, hoping that it will always remind me of good times, and act as a harbinger of better times to come.
I have only flown on four airlines: Kiwi, Metrojet, ATA, and Delta. I have flown ATA far more frequently than the others, and have no qualms with them. Their fares were the lowest for the particular route I fly frequently. My image of that airline improved dramatically after they got their new fleet of 757-300's and 737-800's.
Unfortunately, those new planes pushed ATA over the brink. The airline purchased the new jets in 2000, not anticipating the airline slowdown and the calamity that would occur the next year. As critical as I was over the creaky 727's, ATA should have stuck with their old 727's and superb 757-200's.
Perhaps my fondest ATA memories came from the long trip home at Thanksgiving 2001, giving me my first chance to see my family again after the travails and tragedies of the previous fall. I bought a model of an ATA 757-300 today, hoping that it will always remind me of good times, and act as a harbinger of better times to come.
Radio killed the video star
As part of my radio training, I appeared as part of a large mob of guest pundits on the "No Left Turns!" radio show. I didn't get to say as much as I wanted, but it was a start. I'm daunted by the radio equipment and not sure if I will have the time to do the radio. Yet I still want the Impossible Scissors message to spread out beyond my tiny corner of the world. I will give it my best shot to balance the school radio program with the rest of my duties.
Carpet bags
I carpet-bagged today. I voted, for my first time ever, in a polling place. I'm still getting used to the concept of "early voting." Not too much to add other than P. Diddy's "Vote or die!"
October surprise, biatch
The Washington Times and Bill Gertz again come to the rescue. Gertz is reporting John Shaw's belief that not only were Iraq's missing explosives moved before the war, but that the Russians helped to move them, and Syria served as a repository for the missing weapons.
If the mainstream media catches on, it will be a huge blow for John Kerry, who had hoped to use missing explosives to hammer home his points about "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Usually, the mainstream media treats the Washington Times as a right-wing rag with no credibility. The emperor's clothes are now off, however, thanks to the Dan Rather memos.
Russia's role in all of this should also be explored. The Russians used Iraq as an outlet for their arms industry during the period of UN sanctions, then sent guys inside to hide the evidence after their cash cow was about to be slaughtered. Of course, Pootie was also telling the president that Iraq had imminent plans to attack us, and he still supports Bush despite his deposition of Russia's arms whore, Iraq. The Russian bear indeed has two faces.
Also recommended is a recent piece in Newsweek from Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball. They characterize the Iraqi resistance as predominantly Baathist holdouts. This still leaves plenty of questions unanswered. Who exactly is Jaish Ansar al Sunnah? Have Izzat Ibrahim and the Special Republican Guard pledged their loyalty to Abu Musab al Zarqawi? The duo also comments on "liasons" between Iraq's Mukhabarat, but fails to mention the insurgent group Jaish Mohammed, which appears to be a full-fledged joint venture between Mukhabarat holdouts and Saudi Wahhabii fighters.
If the mainstream media catches on, it will be a huge blow for John Kerry, who had hoped to use missing explosives to hammer home his points about "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Usually, the mainstream media treats the Washington Times as a right-wing rag with no credibility. The emperor's clothes are now off, however, thanks to the Dan Rather memos.
Russia's role in all of this should also be explored. The Russians used Iraq as an outlet for their arms industry during the period of UN sanctions, then sent guys inside to hide the evidence after their cash cow was about to be slaughtered. Of course, Pootie was also telling the president that Iraq had imminent plans to attack us, and he still supports Bush despite his deposition of Russia's arms whore, Iraq. The Russian bear indeed has two faces.
Also recommended is a recent piece in Newsweek from Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball. They characterize the Iraqi resistance as predominantly Baathist holdouts. This still leaves plenty of questions unanswered. Who exactly is Jaish Ansar al Sunnah? Have Izzat Ibrahim and the Special Republican Guard pledged their loyalty to Abu Musab al Zarqawi? The duo also comments on "liasons" between Iraq's Mukhabarat, but fails to mention the insurgent group Jaish Mohammed, which appears to be a full-fledged joint venture between Mukhabarat holdouts and Saudi Wahhabii fighters.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Iraqi insurgents: voting with bullets
I have no doubt that Iraqi insurgents want to influence the election as detailed in this Washington Times article. What I found surprising is that foreign jihadis would want to keep Bush because he is "a provocative figure." But if that was really the case, why would they ratchet up the violence?
Insurgent Abu Jalal has a simple formula for measuring success: 1,100 dead soldiers = 1,100 anti-Bush families. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, Abu. If the family believes the cause was just, they can't be added to your total. This is Michael Moore logic, and it doesn't always hold. After all, the mother of Maj. Gregory Stone referred to Moore as "a maggot who feasts off the dead" for exploiting her son's funeral. Major Stone believed in the righteousness of what he was doing, and his family presumably will not be deterred.
One can only hope that our president come January, whomever he may be, would be 100% committed to laying the smack down on the insurgency, with or without additional UN support.
Insurgent Abu Jalal has a simple formula for measuring success: 1,100 dead soldiers = 1,100 anti-Bush families. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, Abu. If the family believes the cause was just, they can't be added to your total. This is Michael Moore logic, and it doesn't always hold. After all, the mother of Maj. Gregory Stone referred to Moore as "a maggot who feasts off the dead" for exploiting her son's funeral. Major Stone believed in the righteousness of what he was doing, and his family presumably will not be deterred.
One can only hope that our president come January, whomever he may be, would be 100% committed to laying the smack down on the insurgency, with or without additional UN support.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
About my new links
The first link I added is for the Live Journal "The Real Deal" page. It's by high school chum and rising musician Rick Susner. Please check it out and support his music.
The second link is the most comprehensive page collecting all of Saddam Hussein's possible ties to terrorism, enough to make Douglas Feith proud.
To set the record straight, I do not believe ALL of the claims made on that page. For instance, I have seen the photos that purportedly show Iraqi agent Ahmed al Ani meeting with Mohammed Atta. Needless to say, the pics do not conclusively show Atta, but instead they show an Arab man with a mustache who is probably not Atta.
On the topic of Salman Pak, all we can conclusively say is that the camp was guarded by Egyptian and Sudanese foreign fighters, who were euthanized by the Marines in April 2003. Were they al Qaeda fighters? Were they being trained to hijack planes? Nobody can say for certain. A theory I'm tossing, to anyone who will bother to listen, is that the Sudanese fighters from Salman Pak were being trained in Iraq, then were sent back to the Sudan to take part in the camel-riding genocide squads that have been murdering innocent black Africans in Darfur.
Much of the evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda has been ambiguous. But there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had extensive ties with multiple terrorist organizations and was willing to support their anti-Israel and anti-American operations with money and safe haven. Aside from the harboring of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, there may have been no actual collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But given bin Laden's successful track record and Saddam Hussein's growing desperation to lash out at the United States, what would have stopped the two from casting aside their differences and cooperating? In this case, pre-emption not only ended the Iraqi WMD threat before it could reach a critical phase, but it prevented any future cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
The second link is the most comprehensive page collecting all of Saddam Hussein's possible ties to terrorism, enough to make Douglas Feith proud.
To set the record straight, I do not believe ALL of the claims made on that page. For instance, I have seen the photos that purportedly show Iraqi agent Ahmed al Ani meeting with Mohammed Atta. Needless to say, the pics do not conclusively show Atta, but instead they show an Arab man with a mustache who is probably not Atta.
On the topic of Salman Pak, all we can conclusively say is that the camp was guarded by Egyptian and Sudanese foreign fighters, who were euthanized by the Marines in April 2003. Were they al Qaeda fighters? Were they being trained to hijack planes? Nobody can say for certain. A theory I'm tossing, to anyone who will bother to listen, is that the Sudanese fighters from Salman Pak were being trained in Iraq, then were sent back to the Sudan to take part in the camel-riding genocide squads that have been murdering innocent black Africans in Darfur.
Much of the evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda has been ambiguous. But there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had extensive ties with multiple terrorist organizations and was willing to support their anti-Israel and anti-American operations with money and safe haven. Aside from the harboring of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, there may have been no actual collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But given bin Laden's successful track record and Saddam Hussein's growing desperation to lash out at the United States, what would have stopped the two from casting aside their differences and cooperating? In this case, pre-emption not only ended the Iraqi WMD threat before it could reach a critical phase, but it prevented any future cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
He's not Hanoi John... right?
The College Democrats are getting two speakers to come in tonight: former senator Max Cleland and POW/Ambassador to Vietnam Pete Peterson. The point of their lecture will probably be summed up as follows: George Bush = draft dodger, John Kerry = hero, John Kerry = greater hero for protesting the war, Iraq bad, and John O'Neill and the swift vets are lying liars. Cleland will probably say "How dare George Bush question my patriotism" and bitch about how he was ousted in a fair election against Saxby Chambliss in 2002.
The College Dems were putting up flyers touting the two as "war heroes." I thought the idea of heroism emerging from war is anathema to the anti-war movement (and the Democratic party on campus has clearly established itself as an anti-war party that takes its orders from Michael Moore and George Soros.) For starters, Max Cleland has admitted that he is NOT a war hero. He holds himself at fault for blowing off his arm and legs with a grenade. People screw up all the time, and being a victim does not mean you should be placed on a pedestal. I would only attend a Max Cleland event if he was water-skiing. Perhaps he could change his name to "Skip."
I'm very curious about Pete Peterson, as he served as ambassador to a country that tortured him for seven years. At the same time, he's campaigning for a man who wanted the U.S. to totally withdraw from South Vietnam before they would even begin to negotiate for the freedom of POW's like Ambassador Peterson.
Tonight's little presentation is a shameless attempt to swing military votes on this campus for John Kerry. Yes, there are plenty of veterans who support John Kerry. Most of them are cutting off the heads of infidels in Iraq right now. The veterans who matter most are fighting the insurgency in Iraq right now, and they need our 110% support in this mission. John Kerry must be defeated.
The College Dems were putting up flyers touting the two as "war heroes." I thought the idea of heroism emerging from war is anathema to the anti-war movement (and the Democratic party on campus has clearly established itself as an anti-war party that takes its orders from Michael Moore and George Soros.) For starters, Max Cleland has admitted that he is NOT a war hero. He holds himself at fault for blowing off his arm and legs with a grenade. People screw up all the time, and being a victim does not mean you should be placed on a pedestal. I would only attend a Max Cleland event if he was water-skiing. Perhaps he could change his name to "Skip."
I'm very curious about Pete Peterson, as he served as ambassador to a country that tortured him for seven years. At the same time, he's campaigning for a man who wanted the U.S. to totally withdraw from South Vietnam before they would even begin to negotiate for the freedom of POW's like Ambassador Peterson.
Tonight's little presentation is a shameless attempt to swing military votes on this campus for John Kerry. Yes, there are plenty of veterans who support John Kerry. Most of them are cutting off the heads of infidels in Iraq right now. The veterans who matter most are fighting the insurgency in Iraq right now, and they need our 110% support in this mission. John Kerry must be defeated.
The start of the looting
The disappearance of 377 tons of high explosive from Iraq's al Qaqaa weapons dump has all the earmarks of October Surprise. Reckless George Bush and his ill-prepared defense department could not stop the explosive from being looted, and the world is less safe. Right?
NBC News has admitted that its reporters, embedded with an Army unit, found the site to be cleaned out on April 10, 2003. The use of the term "looted" is highly disingenuous. The media makes it sound like some lucky Iraqs were getting the five-finger discount. Instead, the explosive was likely relocated to several sites in small batches as the Iraqis prepared for a protracted insurgency. This probably took place in early 2003 or perhaps during the march to Baghdad.
The History Channel's documentary on Operation Iraqi Freedom shows a version of the fall of Baghdad quite different from that depicted by the media. In much of Iraq, we were hailed at the moment as liberators. It's also clear that the regime had melted away and the looting had started well before the Americans got to Baghdad. The "noble" people of Iraq had taken everything that wasn't nailed down--just as they did during the retreat from Kuwait in 1991.
"Looting" could hardly be a less accurate word for what really happened. Although plenty of Iraqi civilians ripped off the regime as payback when Baghdad fell, much of the looting was instigated by members of the fallen regime and military. They were out to horde conventional weapons, cause chaos, and cover up their illegal WMD-related activities. Some looters, eh?
NBC News has admitted that its reporters, embedded with an Army unit, found the site to be cleaned out on April 10, 2003. The use of the term "looted" is highly disingenuous. The media makes it sound like some lucky Iraqs were getting the five-finger discount. Instead, the explosive was likely relocated to several sites in small batches as the Iraqis prepared for a protracted insurgency. This probably took place in early 2003 or perhaps during the march to Baghdad.
The History Channel's documentary on Operation Iraqi Freedom shows a version of the fall of Baghdad quite different from that depicted by the media. In much of Iraq, we were hailed at the moment as liberators. It's also clear that the regime had melted away and the looting had started well before the Americans got to Baghdad. The "noble" people of Iraq had taken everything that wasn't nailed down--just as they did during the retreat from Kuwait in 1991.
"Looting" could hardly be a less accurate word for what really happened. Although plenty of Iraqi civilians ripped off the regime as payback when Baghdad fell, much of the looting was instigated by members of the fallen regime and military. They were out to horde conventional weapons, cause chaos, and cover up their illegal WMD-related activities. Some looters, eh?
Monday, October 25, 2004
Early retirement
There is a growing sense within the space community that the Space Shuttle cannot make it another 25 flights to finish the space station. It's being suggested instead that the shuttle retire after only 6 or 7 more flights, just enough to get the station to core-complete status.
The supprters of early retirement will get no quarrel from me. It's a dangerous vehicle and it needs to go soon. The problem is the huge and expensive (not to mention time-consuming) changes that must be made to the space station assembly schedule if the shuttle is retired. Delta and Atlas rockets could pick up the slack, but modules designed for shuttle launches will need modifications to fit on the new boosters.
There is still no solution in sight for bringing cargo down from the station. Europe's ATV can deliver cargo much like the shuttle can, but it can't bring the cargo back. Until the Crew Exploration Vehicle is built, only the tiny Soyuz will bring cargo to earth.
I'm trying to brainstorm ways of allowing the shuttle to retire early without emasculating the space station.
1) Build a new, reusable cargo ship (bigger than CEV) that can take sufficient mass down from the station. This will take several years and lots of money.
2) Develop a shuttle-derived, unmanned rocket. We will need it, or something like it, for getting to the moon and Mars anyway. It could also deliver the space station modules without extensive modifications. It will also make sense to retire the manned shuttle at the same time the shuttle-derived vehicle goes operational, because there will not be a lull between manned shuttle operations and unmanned ones, during which workers will either be paid to not work or sent home without work. This rocket would require a lot of funding upfront, but I think Congress should bite the fiscal bullet with this one.
3) Convert the shuttle orbiters into unmanned vehicles. The shuttle would keep on flying, to resupply the station and return payloads to earth, but nobody (except for a toaster) would get too broken up after another shuttle is lost. It keeps the shuttle workforce employed for a bit longer and it gets the space station completed with minimal costs or modifications.
The supprters of early retirement will get no quarrel from me. It's a dangerous vehicle and it needs to go soon. The problem is the huge and expensive (not to mention time-consuming) changes that must be made to the space station assembly schedule if the shuttle is retired. Delta and Atlas rockets could pick up the slack, but modules designed for shuttle launches will need modifications to fit on the new boosters.
There is still no solution in sight for bringing cargo down from the station. Europe's ATV can deliver cargo much like the shuttle can, but it can't bring the cargo back. Until the Crew Exploration Vehicle is built, only the tiny Soyuz will bring cargo to earth.
I'm trying to brainstorm ways of allowing the shuttle to retire early without emasculating the space station.
1) Build a new, reusable cargo ship (bigger than CEV) that can take sufficient mass down from the station. This will take several years and lots of money.
2) Develop a shuttle-derived, unmanned rocket. We will need it, or something like it, for getting to the moon and Mars anyway. It could also deliver the space station modules without extensive modifications. It will also make sense to retire the manned shuttle at the same time the shuttle-derived vehicle goes operational, because there will not be a lull between manned shuttle operations and unmanned ones, during which workers will either be paid to not work or sent home without work. This rocket would require a lot of funding upfront, but I think Congress should bite the fiscal bullet with this one.
3) Convert the shuttle orbiters into unmanned vehicles. The shuttle would keep on flying, to resupply the station and return payloads to earth, but nobody (except for a toaster) would get too broken up after another shuttle is lost. It keeps the shuttle workforce employed for a bit longer and it gets the space station completed with minimal costs or modifications.
Easy does it
Crispy's test was much easier than I expected, based on my interviews of his old students. It's easy for me to say this because Dave did the hard section while I worked the easy part. Still, I'm thinking that if anything got messed up, it was my part.
(Respectable) world leaders want Bush to win
President Bush has now gathered the endorsements of Vladimir Putin (Russia,) Silvio Berlusconi (Italy,) Junichiro Koizumi (Japan,) and John Howard (Australia.) I'd rather trust those guys over Yaser Arafat, Kim Jong Il, George Soros, and Jacques Chirac.
Of course, Americans should decide for themselves who their president will be. The rest of the world should not choose America's president. Conversely, America should not intervene in the elections of liberal democracies. I am certainly willing, however, to intervene with illiberal democracies and autocracies if America's vital interests are at stake.
Of course, Americans should decide for themselves who their president will be. The rest of the world should not choose America's president. Conversely, America should not intervene in the elections of liberal democracies. I am certainly willing, however, to intervene with illiberal democracies and autocracies if America's vital interests are at stake.
Beast of Baluchistan
An interesting statement by 911 commissioner and former Navy secretary John Lehman.
The Pakistani population has become a huge problem in our struggle with the Islamic militant culture. Too many of them are pro-bin Laden, and we're playing a delicate balancing act by propping up an autocrat like Pervez Musharraf in the name of keeping Pakistan and its nukes in secular hands. We also have to balance between keeping the Pakistanis happy while keeping India safe.
Also, John Lehman previously said (apparently too late for inclusion in the commission's report) that a Lieutenant Colonel in the Fedayeen Saddam may have been an active al Qaeda leader, present at the January 2000 meeting in Malaysia where 911 was planned. Don't look for your mainstream media to follow up on that one, folks.
The Pakistani population has become a huge problem in our struggle with the Islamic militant culture. Too many of them are pro-bin Laden, and we're playing a delicate balancing act by propping up an autocrat like Pervez Musharraf in the name of keeping Pakistan and its nukes in secular hands. We also have to balance between keeping the Pakistanis happy while keeping India safe.
Also, John Lehman previously said (apparently too late for inclusion in the commission's report) that a Lieutenant Colonel in the Fedayeen Saddam may have been an active al Qaeda leader, present at the January 2000 meeting in Malaysia where 911 was planned. Don't look for your mainstream media to follow up on that one, folks.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Good news from Iraq update
Check this story out.
What was the most intersting part of the story, from my perspective?
Pittard says his staff studies counterinsurgencies going back to the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection and holds regular "free-thinking" sessions during which anyone, regardless of rank, can come up with ideas.
There I go again with my Iraq-Phillipines analogies. It's a shame that tiny chapter of our history goes untaught in so many of our schools.
What was the most intersting part of the story, from my perspective?
Pittard says his staff studies counterinsurgencies going back to the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection and holds regular "free-thinking" sessions during which anyone, regardless of rank, can come up with ideas.
There I go again with my Iraq-Phillipines analogies. It's a shame that tiny chapter of our history goes untaught in so many of our schools.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Election 2040
Perhaps you have seen the new show on the WB network, Jack and Bobby. It's about two Kennedy-esque little bastards who will grow up to become politicians in the year 2040.
Well I say screw them. There is only one man who is fit for command in the year 2040.
He is the most electable American candidate ever fielded.
And he wants to be the 49th President of the United States.
Developing story... More to follow...
Well I say screw them. There is only one man who is fit for command in the year 2040.
He is the most electable American candidate ever fielded.
And he wants to be the 49th President of the United States.
Developing story... More to follow...
Back in the USSR
Despite being an evil empire, I sure miss the Soviet Union.
A wise man once said that the slain Soviet dragon has been replaced with a garden of snakes. Never has this been more true. The Soviet client states that were kept happy with huge arms shipments (Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc) have become the trouble-makers of the post-Soviet era, while they were fairly benign while they took orders from the Russian Bear. Other jihadis like the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were kept busy through their wars against the Soviets, distracting them from attacking us. Weapons proliferation has become even worse, with renegade scientists working for the highest bidder, and the nightmare scenario of a suitcase nuke in the hands of jihadis a too-real possibility.
What's more, American society has stagnated without a rival superpower to compete against. Would we have gone to the moon if the Soviets weren't willing to do it? Who inspired us to enshrine our civil liberties and hold ourselves up on the pedestal of human rights? Obviously, it was the Evil Empire.
Yes, the Soviets meant us harm. However, they make for a far more rational and less scary foe than the Islamic militants. At least the Soviets were rational enough to be deterred by nuclear weapons. Islamic militants, on the other hand, desire their own death. And they are unafraid of sacrificing their innocent countrymen in their pursuit of martyrdom. The only deterrent for them is un-Islamic torture, and because we're too big of pussies to do that, we cannot deter them.
It's hard to be a good guy when there isn't an equal bad guy to compare yourself to. We need the Soviet Union back, pronto.
A wise man once said that the slain Soviet dragon has been replaced with a garden of snakes. Never has this been more true. The Soviet client states that were kept happy with huge arms shipments (Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc) have become the trouble-makers of the post-Soviet era, while they were fairly benign while they took orders from the Russian Bear. Other jihadis like the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were kept busy through their wars against the Soviets, distracting them from attacking us. Weapons proliferation has become even worse, with renegade scientists working for the highest bidder, and the nightmare scenario of a suitcase nuke in the hands of jihadis a too-real possibility.
What's more, American society has stagnated without a rival superpower to compete against. Would we have gone to the moon if the Soviets weren't willing to do it? Who inspired us to enshrine our civil liberties and hold ourselves up on the pedestal of human rights? Obviously, it was the Evil Empire.
Yes, the Soviets meant us harm. However, they make for a far more rational and less scary foe than the Islamic militants. At least the Soviets were rational enough to be deterred by nuclear weapons. Islamic militants, on the other hand, desire their own death. And they are unafraid of sacrificing their innocent countrymen in their pursuit of martyrdom. The only deterrent for them is un-Islamic torture, and because we're too big of pussies to do that, we cannot deter them.
It's hard to be a good guy when there isn't an equal bad guy to compare yourself to. We need the Soviet Union back, pronto.
Have gun, will waffle
You have to hand it to John Kerry. Despite his voting record, which consistently supports gun control, he's still trying to convince gun owners that he's "one of them."
In several very public hunting trips, John Kerry has tried to portray himself as a hunter and sportsman. He even boasted of the Chinese-made assault rifle he owned (despite his support of the assault weapons ban.) A publicist then backpedaled, saying that Kerry misspoke and the weapon he owned was not an "assault" rifle.
In states like West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas, you will not win if you are anti-gun. Kerry knows this, and even the lamest attemps at dispelling this image are acceptable in this tight election.
In several very public hunting trips, John Kerry has tried to portray himself as a hunter and sportsman. He even boasted of the Chinese-made assault rifle he owned (despite his support of the assault weapons ban.) A publicist then backpedaled, saying that Kerry misspoke and the weapon he owned was not an "assault" rifle.
In states like West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas, you will not win if you are anti-gun. Kerry knows this, and even the lamest attemps at dispelling this image are acceptable in this tight election.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Iran takes the "global test"
George W. Bush gets an endorsement from a surprising source: Iran.
I dispute the notion that Democrats have caused more damage to Iran than Republicans. It was Jimmy Carter who failed to get the hostages out of Iran, while Ronald Reagan forged an alliance of convenience with Iraq. One million people on both sides were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, and while Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeni must bear most of the burdens of guilt, the US can't be held blameless either.
Neither party is going to be buddy-buddy with the Iranians. The only question is which party has the best strategy for dealing with the Ayatollahs. We can side with President Bush, and try engaging Iran in a multilateral way regarding its nuclear program and its "house arrest" of Saad bin Laden and other high ranking al Qaeda figures. We could side with Senator Kerry, who has pinned his hopes on unilateral discussions and naive offers of nuclear fuel to Iran. The choice is yours on Nov. 2.
I dispute the notion that Democrats have caused more damage to Iran than Republicans. It was Jimmy Carter who failed to get the hostages out of Iran, while Ronald Reagan forged an alliance of convenience with Iraq. One million people on both sides were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, and while Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeni must bear most of the burdens of guilt, the US can't be held blameless either.
Neither party is going to be buddy-buddy with the Iranians. The only question is which party has the best strategy for dealing with the Ayatollahs. We can side with President Bush, and try engaging Iran in a multilateral way regarding its nuclear program and its "house arrest" of Saad bin Laden and other high ranking al Qaeda figures. We could side with Senator Kerry, who has pinned his hopes on unilateral discussions and naive offers of nuclear fuel to Iran. The choice is yours on Nov. 2.
"New Age" Outlaws
We tried Dahn yoga this morning. It was hard for me to concentrate with half the guys around me treating it like it's a joke. In spite of the yoga-hostle atmosphere, I found the session productive. First, I have to say that parts of yoga are more strenuous than I expected. However, other parts were quite relaxing (maybe it was the fact I was doing this on three hours of sleep.)
I don't know if the benefits of yoga are real or merely a placebo effect. However, if doing something creates a beneficial placebo effect for you, there is no reason to stop.
I don't know if the benefits of yoga are real or merely a placebo effect. However, if doing something creates a beneficial placebo effect for you, there is no reason to stop.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The Global Test
The following leaders have endorsed John F. Kerry:
al Zarqawi, Abu Musab (not in words, but in actions)
Arafat, Yaser
Blix, Hans
Castro, Fidel
Chirac, Jacques
Kim Jong Il (I'm so lonely)
Mohamad, Mahathir (the Jew-hating PM of Malaysia)
Schroeder, Gerhard (I'm not 100% certain on if he's publicly endorsed Kerry)
So much for the "Global Test." The Chinese communists probably endorse Kerry. Also, the communist leadership of Vietnam has repeatedly praised Kerry for his anti-war activities. Kofi Annan is probably a closet Kerry supporter as well. How much money did his son make from "Oil for Food" again?
Conspicuously missing from the list? Tony Blair, leader of America's only real ally, the United Kingdom. Also missing are John Howard of Australia, Alexander Wisnewski of Poland, and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy.
al Zarqawi, Abu Musab (not in words, but in actions)
Arafat, Yaser
Blix, Hans
Castro, Fidel
Chirac, Jacques
Kim Jong Il (I'm so lonely)
Mohamad, Mahathir (the Jew-hating PM of Malaysia)
Schroeder, Gerhard (I'm not 100% certain on if he's publicly endorsed Kerry)
So much for the "Global Test." The Chinese communists probably endorse Kerry. Also, the communist leadership of Vietnam has repeatedly praised Kerry for his anti-war activities. Kofi Annan is probably a closet Kerry supporter as well. How much money did his son make from "Oil for Food" again?
Conspicuously missing from the list? Tony Blair, leader of America's only real ally, the United Kingdom. Also missing are John Howard of Australia, Alexander Wisnewski of Poland, and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy.
Pootie Tang
Vladimir Putin, Russia's emerging Czar, has basically repeated what I said about Iraqi terrorism: it's all aimed at getting President Bush out of office.
Russia and Vladimir "Pootie" Putin have turned into unexpected allies of President Bush in this election. Putin has joined the small list of foreign leaders who don't want John Kerry to be president. Furthermore, a small majority of Russians want Bush to win re-election. Only Israel is more pro-Bush among foreign countries.
Of course, Russia is acting out of self-interest here, as Russia always has. If the Russians wanted to kick the shit out of Chechnya (as they should,) who would be more permissive: Bush or Kerry? Even on Iraq, Russia's position was one of self-interest. The Iraqis were buying Russian weapons and owed tons of debt to Russia. So the Russians, in spite of their belief that Iraq was planning imminent attacks against America, would back up Iraq in the security council.
Russia and Vladimir "Pootie" Putin have turned into unexpected allies of President Bush in this election. Putin has joined the small list of foreign leaders who don't want John Kerry to be president. Furthermore, a small majority of Russians want Bush to win re-election. Only Israel is more pro-Bush among foreign countries.
Of course, Russia is acting out of self-interest here, as Russia always has. If the Russians wanted to kick the shit out of Chechnya (as they should,) who would be more permissive: Bush or Kerry? Even on Iraq, Russia's position was one of self-interest. The Iraqis were buying Russian weapons and owed tons of debt to Russia. So the Russians, in spite of their belief that Iraq was planning imminent attacks against America, would back up Iraq in the security council.
Marines in danger
Here's a very depressing story about what the Marines in Anbar province experience. The Marine being interviewed notes the lack of armored vehicles and men. I totally agree that they need more armored vehicles when there are so many IED's out there. My feelings on sending more Marines are not as enthusiastic, as sending more men than necessary just creates more targets for the enemy.
The mission in western Iraq is very important, as it keeps foreign jihadis on the Syrian side of the border. This article gives a bit more insight into what's really happening in Anbar province, as Marine death announcements are usually devoid of details.
I sense there was a reluctance on the part of the Bush defense department to send more men or equipment to Iraq because it would be seen as a sign of panic and quickly exploited by the president's nemesis, John Forbes al-ZarKerry. The politicization of the war for Iraq has certainly cost good men and women their lives. After this election is over, will George Bush's people give the Marines the tanks and fighting vehicles they need? If ZarKerry is elected, will he do the same? If you're not committed to the mission in Iraq and if you won't support the soldiers performing that mission, you have no business being my commander-in-chief.
The mission in western Iraq is very important, as it keeps foreign jihadis on the Syrian side of the border. This article gives a bit more insight into what's really happening in Anbar province, as Marine death announcements are usually devoid of details.
I sense there was a reluctance on the part of the Bush defense department to send more men or equipment to Iraq because it would be seen as a sign of panic and quickly exploited by the president's nemesis, John Forbes al-ZarKerry. The politicization of the war for Iraq has certainly cost good men and women their lives. After this election is over, will George Bush's people give the Marines the tanks and fighting vehicles they need? If ZarKerry is elected, will he do the same? If you're not committed to the mission in Iraq and if you won't support the soldiers performing that mission, you have no business being my commander-in-chief.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Zarqawi pledges allegiance to al Qaeda
The "big story" last night was a statement by al Tawhid wal Jihad (Zarqawi's gang) pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden. It should not come as too much of a surprise.
There was considerable debate as to whether Zarqawi was an al Qaeda member or his own man before the announcement. He trained al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and worked with al Qaeda-affiliate Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq. His philosophy was similar to bin Laden's, but with a few important caveats. Zarqawi hates Kurds and Shiites, while bin Laden is willing to work with them as long as it means Muslims vs. infidels. While bin Laden was focusing on overthrowing the house of Saud, Zarqawi wants to bump off the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and win concessions for the Palestinians.
The net effect of this allegiance will probably mean that Zarqawi will cut back on anti-Shiite violence and focus his efforts on Americans and Iraqi collaborators. Yet anti-Shiite attacks have been effecive in fracturing Iraqi support for the Americans, creating an impression (sadly correct, in too many cases) that America cannot protect the Iraqis.
Whether the alliance was new or always existed is moot. This global conflict should not be limited to simply bin Laden and his minions. Kill bin Laden, and in time he will be succeeded by another member of the Islamic militant culture. The solution is to take the fight to ALL Islamic militants, while reforming the social institutions (despotism, command-based economies, and radical imams) that cause rational people to choose the militant way of life.
There was considerable debate as to whether Zarqawi was an al Qaeda member or his own man before the announcement. He trained al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and worked with al Qaeda-affiliate Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq. His philosophy was similar to bin Laden's, but with a few important caveats. Zarqawi hates Kurds and Shiites, while bin Laden is willing to work with them as long as it means Muslims vs. infidels. While bin Laden was focusing on overthrowing the house of Saud, Zarqawi wants to bump off the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and win concessions for the Palestinians.
The net effect of this allegiance will probably mean that Zarqawi will cut back on anti-Shiite violence and focus his efforts on Americans and Iraqi collaborators. Yet anti-Shiite attacks have been effecive in fracturing Iraqi support for the Americans, creating an impression (sadly correct, in too many cases) that America cannot protect the Iraqis.
Whether the alliance was new or always existed is moot. This global conflict should not be limited to simply bin Laden and his minions. Kill bin Laden, and in time he will be succeeded by another member of the Islamic militant culture. The solution is to take the fight to ALL Islamic militants, while reforming the social institutions (despotism, command-based economies, and radical imams) that cause rational people to choose the militant way of life.
Chicago Shocker
The Chicago Tribune has endorsed George W. Bush for president. After reading through the Tribune's opinion and Sunday "perspective" sections over the past few years, I have come to call the paper "the Libune." Tha's why the endorsement was all too surprising.
Back in the 60's, the Tribune was Chicago's conservative newspaper and the Sun-Times was the liberal paper. Things changed since then, as the Tribune became more liberal and the Sun-Times more conservative (Bob Novak has done so much to change that paper's image.)
The Trib's opinions section is dominated by two strong anti-Bush voices: liberal Clarence Page and libertarian Steve Chapman. Page is somewhere in left field, but still a card-carrying Democrat. Chapman (despite my belief that Libertarians are merely idealistic Republicans) has been tearing into the president because of the Patriot Act, war for Iraq, and what he perceives to be a disaster in Afghanistan (election? What's that about an Afghan election?)
The writers for the perspective section run from liberal to radical in their persuasions. In particular, there is a schmuk named William Beeman, who claims to writing various books that have to deal with the topic of his weekly anti-Bush rant. George Bush is evil for visiting soldiers on Thanksgiving in Iraq. George Bush ruined our relations with Iran because he accused them of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and building nukes. Of course those are the lies of George W. Bush! If they were true the Iranian government would admit it!
Despite these dorks, the rest of the Trib editorial board must be staying true to the paper's Republican roots with the abolitionist McCormick family. I halfway expect the Sun-Times to endorse Bush too. I even think it's possible that the Washington Post (whose liberal tendencies are mitigated by conservatives like Charles Krauthammer) might enorse the president, as they admitted in 2000 that they weren't too entused with Al Gore.
Back in the 60's, the Tribune was Chicago's conservative newspaper and the Sun-Times was the liberal paper. Things changed since then, as the Tribune became more liberal and the Sun-Times more conservative (Bob Novak has done so much to change that paper's image.)
The Trib's opinions section is dominated by two strong anti-Bush voices: liberal Clarence Page and libertarian Steve Chapman. Page is somewhere in left field, but still a card-carrying Democrat. Chapman (despite my belief that Libertarians are merely idealistic Republicans) has been tearing into the president because of the Patriot Act, war for Iraq, and what he perceives to be a disaster in Afghanistan (election? What's that about an Afghan election?)
The writers for the perspective section run from liberal to radical in their persuasions. In particular, there is a schmuk named William Beeman, who claims to writing various books that have to deal with the topic of his weekly anti-Bush rant. George Bush is evil for visiting soldiers on Thanksgiving in Iraq. George Bush ruined our relations with Iran because he accused them of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and building nukes. Of course those are the lies of George W. Bush! If they were true the Iranian government would admit it!
Despite these dorks, the rest of the Trib editorial board must be staying true to the paper's Republican roots with the abolitionist McCormick family. I halfway expect the Sun-Times to endorse Bush too. I even think it's possible that the Washington Post (whose liberal tendencies are mitigated by conservatives like Charles Krauthammer) might enorse the president, as they admitted in 2000 that they weren't too entused with Al Gore.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Newborn friend
My world is being turned on its head. My buddes are having a baby. Other friends are getting married or seriously discussing marriage (mainly because they're commissioning.) Everybody is growing up around me.
That also means I'm living in the past. Ever since summer 2003 I've been seeing flashes of memories I had from childhood, when life was simple and wholesome and I always felt loved and protected. Then I look at the way I am now and the way I was as a boy, and I figure that I'm not too far from what I wanted to be.
Looking at the way everybody is progressing with their lives and their growth as people makes me look at my own development. I certainly see some changes and maturing, but ultimately I want to stay the way I am. I refuse to "grow up." I appreciate the way things are now and would not give them up for anything.
That also means I'm living in the past. Ever since summer 2003 I've been seeing flashes of memories I had from childhood, when life was simple and wholesome and I always felt loved and protected. Then I look at the way I am now and the way I was as a boy, and I figure that I'm not too far from what I wanted to be.
Looking at the way everybody is progressing with their lives and their growth as people makes me look at my own development. I certainly see some changes and maturing, but ultimately I want to stay the way I am. I refuse to "grow up." I appreciate the way things are now and would not give them up for anything.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
bin Laden is probably alive (not that he matters anymore)
Froggy (whom I have just added to my "Allied Blogs") thinks that Osama bin Laden is dead, but the US government will not admit it because they want to avoid making the terror king a martyr.
I tend to think Osama bin Laden is still alive. After all, he's living in a moutainous area of the world, moving from cave to cave, and protected by people sympathetic to him. Every once in a while, al Jazeera (his propaganda mouthpiece) airs an audio tape, which the CIA claims was made by bin Laden. I do not believe stories that bin Laden has kidney disease. They are unconfirmed, and could be misinformation (just like CBS News.) The kidney disease story is probably as false as the "Zarqawi peg leg" story.
Of course, I find bin Laden's disappearance from the spotlight after the invasion of Afghanistan a bit suspicious, and he may have indeed been injured (based on his appearance in a late 2001 video.) Even more suspicious is the video released on Sept. 11, 2003, when bin Laden and al Zawahiri's voices were dubbed into a very old video.
So what's my verdict on bin Laden? He is still out there, but he's on the run, and he's given operational control of his network to Ayman al Zawahiri. We are still hunting him (such as Cofer Black's statement of closing in on bin Laden, meant to force bin Laden to move,) and will continue to do so until the bastard is ours.
When that happy day comes, we will hopefully take the son-of-a-bitch alive. I've had three years to think of un-Islamic punishments for him. We will make Abu Ghraib look like a tea party when we're done with bin Laden. By the time we are done punishing him, he will be able to put watermelons in his rectum with ease.
I tend to think Osama bin Laden is still alive. After all, he's living in a moutainous area of the world, moving from cave to cave, and protected by people sympathetic to him. Every once in a while, al Jazeera (his propaganda mouthpiece) airs an audio tape, which the CIA claims was made by bin Laden. I do not believe stories that bin Laden has kidney disease. They are unconfirmed, and could be misinformation (just like CBS News.) The kidney disease story is probably as false as the "Zarqawi peg leg" story.
Of course, I find bin Laden's disappearance from the spotlight after the invasion of Afghanistan a bit suspicious, and he may have indeed been injured (based on his appearance in a late 2001 video.) Even more suspicious is the video released on Sept. 11, 2003, when bin Laden and al Zawahiri's voices were dubbed into a very old video.
So what's my verdict on bin Laden? He is still out there, but he's on the run, and he's given operational control of his network to Ayman al Zawahiri. We are still hunting him (such as Cofer Black's statement of closing in on bin Laden, meant to force bin Laden to move,) and will continue to do so until the bastard is ours.
When that happy day comes, we will hopefully take the son-of-a-bitch alive. I've had three years to think of un-Islamic punishments for him. We will make Abu Ghraib look like a tea party when we're done with bin Laden. By the time we are done punishing him, he will be able to put watermelons in his rectum with ease.
Brits in Baghdad
It's being reported that 650 British soldiers will be moving to Baghdad to replace American soldiers and Marines who will be sending the savages of Fallujah to meet Allah. In the American press, this is being treated as a move of military necessity. In the UK, the press (including the conservative Telegraph) is calling this a political move by Tony Blair to help President Bush get elected.
I fail to see how this move will help the president at the polls. Some soldiers and Marines currently in Baghdad will be re-deployed to Fallujah, where an offensive is expected after Ramadan. Brits will be taken from pacified areas in the south to cover in Baghdad.
For that matter, what's so sacred about Ramadan? The enemy sees nothing sacred about it; he used the beginning of the holy month to bomb five Christian churches, plus military convoys in Qaim and Mosul. Of course, we're afraid to go after Moqtada al Sadr when he's holed up in his mosque. That is the double standard again. But I must digress from this tangent.
The Brits have not used the heavy-handed tactics we have adopted in the Sunni Triangle. Of course, they're operating in Shiite-controlled areas where people won't hate you just because you're an infidel. Still, it will be interesting to see them apply their same "gentle touch" to southern Baghdad and see if they can get results. If so, let them stay after the Fallujah offensive is over.
The need to put Brits in Baghdad underscores the apparent troop shortages we have in Iraq. By creating a vacuum in southern Iraq, we will be inviting either the rise of Moqtada al Sadr there, or anti-Shiite violence by Wahhabi militants like Abu Musab al Zarqawi (not to be confused with John Kerry.)
My guess is that the Brits will be sent to Saddam City (not Sadr City!) after the weapons buyback and verification ae complete. There are some fears that the Mahdi army is not acting in good faith and is hiding weapons from us. Others complain that we're paying too much money for the weapons, although Saddam City is very poor, and the infusion of cash is sorely needed. The weapons buyback does not change the fact that we will need to marginalize or eliminate Moqtada al Sadr in the near future. Keep him happy for now, then kill him when we've bagged Zarqawi.
I fail to see how this move will help the president at the polls. Some soldiers and Marines currently in Baghdad will be re-deployed to Fallujah, where an offensive is expected after Ramadan. Brits will be taken from pacified areas in the south to cover in Baghdad.
For that matter, what's so sacred about Ramadan? The enemy sees nothing sacred about it; he used the beginning of the holy month to bomb five Christian churches, plus military convoys in Qaim and Mosul. Of course, we're afraid to go after Moqtada al Sadr when he's holed up in his mosque. That is the double standard again. But I must digress from this tangent.
The Brits have not used the heavy-handed tactics we have adopted in the Sunni Triangle. Of course, they're operating in Shiite-controlled areas where people won't hate you just because you're an infidel. Still, it will be interesting to see them apply their same "gentle touch" to southern Baghdad and see if they can get results. If so, let them stay after the Fallujah offensive is over.
The need to put Brits in Baghdad underscores the apparent troop shortages we have in Iraq. By creating a vacuum in southern Iraq, we will be inviting either the rise of Moqtada al Sadr there, or anti-Shiite violence by Wahhabi militants like Abu Musab al Zarqawi (not to be confused with John Kerry.)
My guess is that the Brits will be sent to Saddam City (not Sadr City!) after the weapons buyback and verification ae complete. There are some fears that the Mahdi army is not acting in good faith and is hiding weapons from us. Others complain that we're paying too much money for the weapons, although Saddam City is very poor, and the infusion of cash is sorely needed. The weapons buyback does not change the fact that we will need to marginalize or eliminate Moqtada al Sadr in the near future. Keep him happy for now, then kill him when we've bagged Zarqawi.
No Bush for me today
A lot of people were surprised that I didn't go to see the president today. I don't see what the big deal is. I met him on July 22, 2002 at ANL. Do I really need to see him again? Will my life be better as a result of going to see him? The answer is obviously "no."
Ultimately, people will ask what I think about our commander in chief. I just admit that my enthusiasm for him has cooled considerably over the past year and a half. That should not detract from my conviction that he was a tremendous leader during his first year and a half as president. I believe that America can easily do better than George W. Bush as president. However, John Kerry is "unfit for command" and could not be that better replacement.
Hopefully we can get a real leader in four more years, someone with integrity, like Gen. Tommy Franks or Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps even Condi Rice, if she is the alternative to Hillary Clinton.
Ultimately, people will ask what I think about our commander in chief. I just admit that my enthusiasm for him has cooled considerably over the past year and a half. That should not detract from my conviction that he was a tremendous leader during his first year and a half as president. I believe that America can easily do better than George W. Bush as president. However, John Kerry is "unfit for command" and could not be that better replacement.
Hopefully we can get a real leader in four more years, someone with integrity, like Gen. Tommy Franks or Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps even Condi Rice, if she is the alternative to Hillary Clinton.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Running on empty
I gained a little bit of confidence in myself by running the 1.5 miles in 10:33 tonight. I shaved two whole minutes off Wednesday's time, so the lactic acid from situps must have really hurt me then. Tonight I ran it after eating a stomach-upsetting meal at the student village. Talk about your handicaps.
Hermanas the Wise once told me that your body is accustomed to however you've been training it over the past two weeks. With about that much time before my fitness test, I have not a day to spare.
Hermanas the Wise once told me that your body is accustomed to however you've been training it over the past two weeks. With about that much time before my fitness test, I have not a day to spare.
Every girl (and guy) is crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man
I got a lot of compliments Thursday just because I wore a shirt and tie to classes. I don't see what the big deal is. I wanted to wear a shirt and tie, so I did it. Clothes aren't supposed to make the man.
That "irony" thing again
Yesterday I found out that my flight physical just went through. Funny thing is that last Friday I talked my way out of my categorization, citing the medical runaround as a factor.
If I had known things would be cleared up, would I have decided differently? I don't think so, although I can't say that with certainty. Truth be told, my heart was not into what I had categorized as, despite my desire to see danger.
I really want to work in intelligence. I can hunt down our shadowy enemies in the world of militant Islam, or I could write books like Jack Ryan that will be read by Sean Connery.
Of course, I'm stuck as an engineer. How can I make the situation more exciting? How can I start engineering on the edge? Perhaps MacGyver will have the answers.
If I had known things would be cleared up, would I have decided differently? I don't think so, although I can't say that with certainty. Truth be told, my heart was not into what I had categorized as, despite my desire to see danger.
I really want to work in intelligence. I can hunt down our shadowy enemies in the world of militant Islam, or I could write books like Jack Ryan that will be read by Sean Connery.
Of course, I'm stuck as an engineer. How can I make the situation more exciting? How can I start engineering on the edge? Perhaps MacGyver will have the answers.
Gigolos in space
For the first time in ages, the presidential candidates have sparred on the issue of space exploration. However, the candidates participated in today's Washington debate by sending surrogates. Gigolo John Kerry went with former NASA official Lori Garver, while President Bush tapped space journalist (and unabashed Bush booster) Frank Sietzen. Lori Garver portrayed George W. Bush's NASA as partisan and secretive, while Sietzen cited evidence to the contrary. She thinks NASA's other programs will be raided to pay for the Vision for Space Exploration, while Sietzen doesn't. I tend to feel that the President's VSE will get a shot in the arm if he wins the election, either in the form of a substantial budget increase, the immediate retirement of shuttle and ISS, or both.
If you are a space enthusiast, this election has huge reprocussions for you. We finally have two candidates who have starkly different views, philosophically and operationally, on America's space program.
John Kerry's view of space is that NASA stands for science. He wants the space station to be the centerpiece of our space efforts, and believes that space may hold the cure for cancer. Most space enthusiasts will publicly dismiss the idea of earth-orbital space as a place for science. They feel that NASA's scientific results are miniscule in comparison with the cost of obtaining them. Perhaps they should suggest NASA spend its science budget on earth, exactly as
John Kerry said back in 1996 when voting against the space station (I voted against it before I voted for it...)
President Bush believes in space as a place for exploration. Under his philosophy, a price cannot be attached to putting a man on the moon or Mars. The moon is old-hat, but it's intended as a proving ground for a mission into the human spirit: a mission to Mars. Not only will man set foot on another planet, but he may finally learn the secrets of the evolution of life in the universe.
If Kerry becomes president, Sean O'Keefe may as well que up in the welfare line. Because he is a Bush loyalist (albeit a fine NASA administrator,) he will be sacked. I don't expect the Crew Exploration Vehicle to be scrapped, but it will be scaled back into a space-station only vehicle. I also think the shuttle will survive past 2010, albeit as an unmanned cargo ship (but some rumors suggest Kerry wants immediate shuttle retirement.) Mars will be probed by robots, but not humans. Lunar exploration will die out. The idea of government-sponsored prizes for space accomplishments will probably die out too.
We already know where President Bush stands on space, with his vision for space exploration. His speeches reveal that he has some bad ideas about using the moon as a stepping stone to get to Mars. However, I also know that Bush is not a micro-manager. He understands that he's not a rocket scientist, and he will allow the NASA experts to figure out how to get to Mars and the moon.
If you are a space enthusiast, this election has huge reprocussions for you. We finally have two candidates who have starkly different views, philosophically and operationally, on America's space program.
John Kerry's view of space is that NASA stands for science. He wants the space station to be the centerpiece of our space efforts, and believes that space may hold the cure for cancer. Most space enthusiasts will publicly dismiss the idea of earth-orbital space as a place for science. They feel that NASA's scientific results are miniscule in comparison with the cost of obtaining them. Perhaps they should suggest NASA spend its science budget on earth, exactly as
John Kerry said back in 1996 when voting against the space station (I voted against it before I voted for it...)
President Bush believes in space as a place for exploration. Under his philosophy, a price cannot be attached to putting a man on the moon or Mars. The moon is old-hat, but it's intended as a proving ground for a mission into the human spirit: a mission to Mars. Not only will man set foot on another planet, but he may finally learn the secrets of the evolution of life in the universe.
If Kerry becomes president, Sean O'Keefe may as well que up in the welfare line. Because he is a Bush loyalist (albeit a fine NASA administrator,) he will be sacked. I don't expect the Crew Exploration Vehicle to be scrapped, but it will be scaled back into a space-station only vehicle. I also think the shuttle will survive past 2010, albeit as an unmanned cargo ship (but some rumors suggest Kerry wants immediate shuttle retirement.) Mars will be probed by robots, but not humans. Lunar exploration will die out. The idea of government-sponsored prizes for space accomplishments will probably die out too.
We already know where President Bush stands on space, with his vision for space exploration. His speeches reveal that he has some bad ideas about using the moon as a stepping stone to get to Mars. However, I also know that Bush is not a micro-manager. He understands that he's not a rocket scientist, and he will allow the NASA experts to figure out how to get to Mars and the moon.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
The day I got my butt kicked
Physical training this morning came pretty close to killing me, and it succeeded in crushing my pride. I did around 200 situps in the course of about ten minutes. The next event was the 1.5 mile run, for which I had trained myself to break 10 min. in before the hurricanes. After the first of four laps, however, my legs felt like lead and by the second lap I felt the ill effects of the lactic acid from the situps. I couldn't even break 12 minutes in the run, which is a failure. I couldn't do more than 40 pushups consecutively after the run, as I was feeling too queasy to go any further.
I tried to do a better job in stretching and I attempted the workout once more in the evening. The pushups went okay but I had to abort the run on the treadmill after a half mile. I don't know if it was psychological, but I was having trouble breathing and knew I couldn't go further.
I will try to run the 1.5 miles again tomorrow, this time without the treadmill. I have one week to get my scores and times into the passing range and another week to get a score that I can be proud of. My physical fitness has proven to be a great disappointment and a failure to myself.
I tried to do a better job in stretching and I attempted the workout once more in the evening. The pushups went okay but I had to abort the run on the treadmill after a half mile. I don't know if it was psychological, but I was having trouble breathing and knew I couldn't go further.
I will try to run the 1.5 miles again tomorrow, this time without the treadmill. I have one week to get my scores and times into the passing range and another week to get a score that I can be proud of. My physical fitness has proven to be a great disappointment and a failure to myself.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
My Funny Family
Man, my family does the craziest things that truly disappoint me. I found out from my father on Sunday that he never opened his birthday card or gift from me (his birthday was in late September) because I never called him to say "happy birthday." I thought we had come to the understanding that my phone was dead, but he still expected a call. I wonder if holding onto the card was one of his funny ways of making me feel guilty for something without talking to me about it.
I also found out Sunday that my dad was sending me a new cell phone battery, even though I had told him that I'd pick it up at Thanksgiving. I got it today but I have yet to test it, other than installing it in the phone and hooking up the AC adaptor.
Fricking family breaking my fricking balls...
I also found out Sunday that my dad was sending me a new cell phone battery, even though I had told him that I'd pick it up at Thanksgiving. I got it today but I have yet to test it, other than installing it in the phone and hooking up the AC adaptor.
Fricking family breaking my fricking balls...
A severed head is a vote for Kerry
Roll the clock back to 1900. With the US Army occupying the Phillipines, the Filipino insurgents knew they could exploit our political system and hopefully kick the Americans out. They intensified their attacks in hopes that President McKinley would fall to his challenger, William Jennings Bryan (the cowardly lion of L. Frank Baum's allegory, The Wizard of Oz.)
As luck would have it, McKinley triumphed over his anti-imperialist foe, and the bulk of the insurgency died down halfway through 1901, although some sporadic violence was present throughout the first world war.
Continuing with my "Iraq is similar to the Phillipines" theory, does anybody not suspect that Zarqawi et al are intensifying the violence so they can boot Bush from office? When John Kerry is saying that the war is a mistake and undermining our sense of moral clarity, why would Zarqawi not like this schmuck?
The LA Times reported today that the offensives into Ramadi and Fallujah will not take place until after our election. If Zarqawi and his ilk are truly motivated in their savage ways by our elections, it would make sense to wait until we have resolved the presidential question and settled on a path forward. Likewise, Gen. Tommy Franks thinks that recent violence is tied to our election (and the Jan. Iraqi elections, I might add.)
The tri-fecta of a Bush victory, successful incursions into Fallujah and Ramadi, and a successful January election may be enough to break the will of all but the most hardcore insurgents. Until then, al Tawhid wal Jihad will continue taking captives (who are kidnapped by petty criminals and sold to the Islamic militants) and lopping off their heads. If these images shock you into voting Kerry, the title of this post will be fulfilled.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Liar, Liar
Normally you have to wait two months between blood donations. Still, it seems like a bloodmobile is on campus every other week. Today I ended my 12-day wait and gave again.
It went pretty smoothly. I found out that the Central Florida blood people have always mistaken me for a guy who get sick after donating. That explains why they always fret over me and ask me how I'm doing.
I got my juice and cookie, but found out that I never got my Olive Garden gift certificates after my third donation last year. Hopefully that can be rectified tomorrow. They also ran out of t-shirts, so I will have to come back anyway to get one.
"Free T-Shirt" has almost become cliche around here.
It went pretty smoothly. I found out that the Central Florida blood people have always mistaken me for a guy who get sick after donating. That explains why they always fret over me and ask me how I'm doing.
I got my juice and cookie, but found out that I never got my Olive Garden gift certificates after my third donation last year. Hopefully that can be rectified tomorrow. They also ran out of t-shirts, so I will have to come back anyway to get one.
"Free T-Shirt" has almost become cliche around here.
KC and the sunshine tankers
Congress recently said "nyet" to a proposal which would lease Boeing 767 tankers for the US Air Force.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that building air-refueling tankers out of the Boeing 767 is a bad idea. The rationale behind the deal is that the 767 was the right size for replacing the aging, 707-based KC-135 tankers. That excuse is bull-plop. The Air Force's best tanker is the DC-10 based KC-10, which is a much bigger plane than the KC-135. During Afghanistan (and probably in Iraq, although I haven't seen a source for this) the KC-10 established itself as the most reliable tanker in the AF fleet.
The advantages of the KC-10 are numerous: it can refuel other KC-10's, it offloads more fuel, and it has an unimpeachable safety record: only one has been lost, and it was in a ground fire. The problem is that the AF only has 59 of them in service.
The KC-135's are getting old and should be replaced urgently, but we shoud not knee-jerk into buying a 767 tanker or opening a competition up between Airbus and Boeing. The best solution is to purchase more DC-10 and MD-11 airliners with low flight hours and convert them to KC-10 standards.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that building air-refueling tankers out of the Boeing 767 is a bad idea. The rationale behind the deal is that the 767 was the right size for replacing the aging, 707-based KC-135 tankers. That excuse is bull-plop. The Air Force's best tanker is the DC-10 based KC-10, which is a much bigger plane than the KC-135. During Afghanistan (and probably in Iraq, although I haven't seen a source for this) the KC-10 established itself as the most reliable tanker in the AF fleet.
The advantages of the KC-10 are numerous: it can refuel other KC-10's, it offloads more fuel, and it has an unimpeachable safety record: only one has been lost, and it was in a ground fire. The problem is that the AF only has 59 of them in service.
The KC-135's are getting old and should be replaced urgently, but we shoud not knee-jerk into buying a 767 tanker or opening a competition up between Airbus and Boeing. The best solution is to purchase more DC-10 and MD-11 airliners with low flight hours and convert them to KC-10 standards.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The great ones go in fours?
Today we lost Mercury pioneer Max Faget (pronounced "fah-zhay," not "faggot.") He essentially designed the Mercury spacecraft and its escape tower. Importantly, the escape tower went on to save the lives of two Soyuz crews, for which Faget received the "Hero of the Soviet Union" medal.
Faget dies just days after Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper. Between the losses of these two pioneers, the entertainment industry lost Janet Leigh and Rodney Dangerfield. It's often said that we lose the great ones in threes; this time we lost them in fours.
Faget dies just days after Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper. Between the losses of these two pioneers, the entertainment industry lost Janet Leigh and Rodney Dangerfield. It's often said that we lose the great ones in threes; this time we lost them in fours.
The NY Times gets it right
Well, at least David Brooks does.
Brooks's column, and the Duelfer Report that inspired it, show that sanctions could not be trusted to contain Saddam. The Bush 41 Administration was totally foolish for believing that sanctions would be able to contain Saddam Hussein over an extended period. They should have either finished Saddam off in the first place or never freed Kuwait at all. The middle ground has never been an acceptable course of action in extreme situations.
Brooks's column, and the Duelfer Report that inspired it, show that sanctions could not be trusted to contain Saddam. The Bush 41 Administration was totally foolish for believing that sanctions would be able to contain Saddam Hussein over an extended period. They should have either finished Saddam off in the first place or never freed Kuwait at all. The middle ground has never been an acceptable course of action in extreme situations.
A Great Gas Boycott
The thrust of Charles Duelfer's WMD report was not actual WMD, but of Saddam's efforts to fund them. We had always suspected that sanctions were eroding and the Oil-for-Food program was crooked. We now know that our suspicions were only scratching the surface of depravity.
France and Russia deservedly get most of the blame for bankrolling Saddam. But American companies are at fault too. Four companies and three individuals were recently named for getting fat off Saddam's scams. The following companies are the perpetrators:
Chevron
Exxon Mobil
Texaco
Bay Oil
These companies are responsible for funding the Iraqi war effort and insurgency that have killed over 810 of our fighting men and women. We should treat them as enemy combatants. Spread the word, and make sure that every citizen boycotts these morally vapid companies.
Our government should step up and jail the CEO's and confiscate these companies' earnings. They are no better than enemy combatants and deserve no better treatment.
France and Russia deservedly get most of the blame for bankrolling Saddam. But American companies are at fault too. Four companies and three individuals were recently named for getting fat off Saddam's scams. The following companies are the perpetrators:
Chevron
Exxon Mobil
Texaco
Bay Oil
These companies are responsible for funding the Iraqi war effort and insurgency that have killed over 810 of our fighting men and women. We should treat them as enemy combatants. Spread the word, and make sure that every citizen boycotts these morally vapid companies.
Our government should step up and jail the CEO's and confiscate these companies' earnings. They are no better than enemy combatants and deserve no better treatment.
Friday, October 08, 2004
The Debate Drinking Game
Whose bright idea was it to hold a presidential debate on a Friday night? People don't need two bags of hot air while they're slamming down a few brews. Or do they?
Tonight, you may wish to try what I call "The Debate Drinking Game." Essentially, every lie, cliche, and awkward moment is rewarded with a drink. It goes a little like this:
The following phrases / actions will be rewarded with a shot of beer:
"The smirk"
Wrong war at the wrong time
He voted for it before he voted against it
The wealthiest one percent...
Sweating
Angry faces
The following deserve a larger swig of beer:
The Global Test
Outsourcing jobs
No WMD's...
Anything having to do with botox or fake tans
Lastly, these whoppers deserve a full beer:
Soldiers without body armor
Millions of jobs lost...
Any mention of "The H-Word" (Halliburton)
Tonight, you may wish to try what I call "The Debate Drinking Game." Essentially, every lie, cliche, and awkward moment is rewarded with a drink. It goes a little like this:
The following phrases / actions will be rewarded with a shot of beer:
"The smirk"
Wrong war at the wrong time
He voted for it before he voted against it
The wealthiest one percent...
Sweating
Angry faces
The following deserve a larger swig of beer:
The Global Test
Outsourcing jobs
No WMD's...
Anything having to do with botox or fake tans
Lastly, these whoppers deserve a full beer:
Soldiers without body armor
Millions of jobs lost...
Any mention of "The H-Word" (Halliburton)
Thursday, October 07, 2004
A bacteria, not a rock band
In spite of all the conspiracy theories, the FBI continues to break its balls investigating the anthrax attacks of fall 2001. MSNBC has a pretty good article about the most recent developments, and a few new details.
The civil liberties aspects of the case are worthy of volumes of discourse. Should the government have outed a potential terrorist? Not feeling strongly in favor of or against Hatfill, I really can't say. It was a strategic blunder for the government to announce Hatfill's name if they suspected him. However, if they suspected someone else, sacrificing Hafill may prove to be a Machiavellian master stroke.
I need answers soon so I can stack them up against Dorn's conspiracy theory. He thinks the attacks were perpetrated by an anti-abortion activist, and Team Bush is stymieing the investigation. I don't agree, but that's why we have an FBI--so we can find the truth and not have to fill the air with wild guesses.
The FBI has not ruled out a foreign source for the anthrax...
For the record, I do not believe there was Iraqi complicity in these attacks, as Iraq did not possess the Ames strain of anthrax. That would not rule out Iran, Pakistan, or some other rogue state. But it could be just as likely, perhaps more likely, that there was a domestic source.
The civil liberties aspects of the case are worthy of volumes of discourse. Should the government have outed a potential terrorist? Not feeling strongly in favor of or against Hatfill, I really can't say. It was a strategic blunder for the government to announce Hatfill's name if they suspected him. However, if they suspected someone else, sacrificing Hafill may prove to be a Machiavellian master stroke.
I need answers soon so I can stack them up against Dorn's conspiracy theory. He thinks the attacks were perpetrated by an anti-abortion activist, and Team Bush is stymieing the investigation. I don't agree, but that's why we have an FBI--so we can find the truth and not have to fill the air with wild guesses.
The FBI has not ruled out a foreign source for the anthrax...
For the record, I do not believe there was Iraqi complicity in these attacks, as Iraq did not possess the Ames strain of anthrax. That would not rule out Iran, Pakistan, or some other rogue state. But it could be just as likely, perhaps more likely, that there was a domestic source.
Boy Scouts of Iraq
Chip Beck, the former spook, Naval officer, and long-time POW activist, has found a worthy new cause: bringing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts back to Iraq.
One mission of this blog is to expose the side of the Iraq story that is buried underneath the sandstorm of media spin. It is a story of compassion and optimism, the belief that while Iraqis may not be able to enjoy the full fruits of their freedom, their children will.
From the article:
"Americans have been asking since 9/11, 'How do you find common ground with Arabs and people in Islamic and Third World societies?' " Beck says, shifting into evangelical mode. "Scouting has been doing it for 97 years. It crosses religious and national values. It's a belief system in something higher than yourself."
The Boy Scouts of Saddam's Iraq were very different from ours. While our scoutmasters went out of their way to take any para-military aspects out of Scouting, Saddam's Cubs were a pre-teen Fedayeen.
The Impossible Scissors wishes Chip Beck total success in his noble mission. Go, Chip, go!
One mission of this blog is to expose the side of the Iraq story that is buried underneath the sandstorm of media spin. It is a story of compassion and optimism, the belief that while Iraqis may not be able to enjoy the full fruits of their freedom, their children will.
From the article:
"Americans have been asking since 9/11, 'How do you find common ground with Arabs and people in Islamic and Third World societies?' " Beck says, shifting into evangelical mode. "Scouting has been doing it for 97 years. It crosses religious and national values. It's a belief system in something higher than yourself."
The Boy Scouts of Saddam's Iraq were very different from ours. While our scoutmasters went out of their way to take any para-military aspects out of Scouting, Saddam's Cubs were a pre-teen Fedayeen.
The Impossible Scissors wishes Chip Beck total success in his noble mission. Go, Chip, go!
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Iraqi trailers re-examined
A second look at two mysterious trailers found in Iraq
Charles Duelfer submitted his Iraq Survey Group report today, and it's widely being spun in the media as proof of "no WMD's," as Sean Penn eloquently put it. Ignore the fact that the report talks about uncovered chemical weapons, ongoing WMD research, missile and UAV developments, and Saddam's desire to restart WMD programs after the inevitable erosion of UN sanctions.
World Net Daily, a conservative media outlet, is firing back with some counter-spin. This time, they're going back to the two trailers from Northern Iraq and presenting hints that they might have been for producing biological weapons.
The military people involved in the WMD hunt by-and-large believe that Iraq had fieldable WMD's. It's no surprise then that they would support the bio-weapon conclusion behind the trailers. On the other hand, there are leftists who dismiss the trailers as being "merely" for hydrogen production. Of course,these self-righteous critics have never seen the trailers and lack the engineering backgrounds to make such a call. They merely echoed a "devil's advocate" position from a DIA report in July 2003.
The best interpretation of the trailers is from David Kay's testimony and from the British "Butler Report." Their analysis is that the trailers are not those described by the discredited defector "Curveball." However, they feel that the trailers were ideally suited for neither hydrogen or bio-weapons, and may have been used for both purposes. They also produced Iraqi miltary sources who claim that hydrogen was always put in canisters before being taken into the field and was never produced in trailers.
The most interesting parts of the World Net Daily story are in the details. Like the trailer explosion that supposedly killed 12 Iraqis and necessitated a re-design. The bit about anthrax, botulism and staphylococcus matches Iraq's pre-1991 bio-weapons program, which centered on anthrax, botulism, and aflatoxin. Finally there is the issue of when the trailers were built. WND says it was 2001, while the original NBC news story on the item from April 2003 said they were built that year. Maybe there were different dates on the two trailers.
The best evidence for the trailers comes from the Germans, who sold trailers to the Iraqis with equipment for biological research back in the 80's. Like so many dual-use items that we and other countries sold to the Iraqis, the trailers were probably used for nefarious purposes. Still, the German trailers are too old to account for the mysterious pair of trailers in our custody.
No matter how many reports the ISG writes, some mysteries may never be solved. The trailers are certainly one of them.
Charles Duelfer submitted his Iraq Survey Group report today, and it's widely being spun in the media as proof of "no WMD's," as Sean Penn eloquently put it. Ignore the fact that the report talks about uncovered chemical weapons, ongoing WMD research, missile and UAV developments, and Saddam's desire to restart WMD programs after the inevitable erosion of UN sanctions.
World Net Daily, a conservative media outlet, is firing back with some counter-spin. This time, they're going back to the two trailers from Northern Iraq and presenting hints that they might have been for producing biological weapons.
The military people involved in the WMD hunt by-and-large believe that Iraq had fieldable WMD's. It's no surprise then that they would support the bio-weapon conclusion behind the trailers. On the other hand, there are leftists who dismiss the trailers as being "merely" for hydrogen production. Of course,these self-righteous critics have never seen the trailers and lack the engineering backgrounds to make such a call. They merely echoed a "devil's advocate" position from a DIA report in July 2003.
The best interpretation of the trailers is from David Kay's testimony and from the British "Butler Report." Their analysis is that the trailers are not those described by the discredited defector "Curveball." However, they feel that the trailers were ideally suited for neither hydrogen or bio-weapons, and may have been used for both purposes. They also produced Iraqi miltary sources who claim that hydrogen was always put in canisters before being taken into the field and was never produced in trailers.
The most interesting parts of the World Net Daily story are in the details. Like the trailer explosion that supposedly killed 12 Iraqis and necessitated a re-design. The bit about anthrax, botulism and staphylococcus matches Iraq's pre-1991 bio-weapons program, which centered on anthrax, botulism, and aflatoxin. Finally there is the issue of when the trailers were built. WND says it was 2001, while the original NBC news story on the item from April 2003 said they were built that year. Maybe there were different dates on the two trailers.
The best evidence for the trailers comes from the Germans, who sold trailers to the Iraqis with equipment for biological research back in the 80's. Like so many dual-use items that we and other countries sold to the Iraqis, the trailers were probably used for nefarious purposes. Still, the German trailers are too old to account for the mysterious pair of trailers in our custody.
No matter how many reports the ISG writes, some mysteries may never be solved. The trailers are certainly one of them.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
A Hero of the Highest Order
The story of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Paul Ray Smith seems to have fallen off people's radar screens, which is a grave sin. He was nominated or the Medal of Honor, but I am unaware that Congress has taken any action on granting this much-deserved honor.
In short, SFC Smith was part of a group of engineers building a temporary prison at Baghdad International Airport on 4 April 2003 when his unit came under attack by fifty to one hundred Iraqis. SFC Smith manned the machine gun on a disabled M113 and held off the enemy until his wounded comrades could be evacuated. After calling for more ammo four times, he was fatally wounded.
SFC Paul R. Smith is the only member of the US Armed Forces nominated for the Medal of Honor since Somalia.
There were two phrases that sum up SFC Smith incredibly well. One is from a comrade, the other was from the man himself.
When interviewed for a recent documentary (I think it was by the History Channel or Discovery Channel,) one of his comrades bluntly said, "He was a prick, but what he taught us saved our lives."
As SFC Smith said before he left for war, "There are two ways to come home, stepping off the plane and being carried off the plane. It doesn't matter how I come home because I am prepared to give all that I am to ensure that all my boys make it home."
May we all prepare to give our all, so that the people who trust us find their way home.
In short, SFC Smith was part of a group of engineers building a temporary prison at Baghdad International Airport on 4 April 2003 when his unit came under attack by fifty to one hundred Iraqis. SFC Smith manned the machine gun on a disabled M113 and held off the enemy until his wounded comrades could be evacuated. After calling for more ammo four times, he was fatally wounded.
SFC Paul R. Smith is the only member of the US Armed Forces nominated for the Medal of Honor since Somalia.
There were two phrases that sum up SFC Smith incredibly well. One is from a comrade, the other was from the man himself.
When interviewed for a recent documentary (I think it was by the History Channel or Discovery Channel,) one of his comrades bluntly said, "He was a prick, but what he taught us saved our lives."
As SFC Smith said before he left for war, "There are two ways to come home, stepping off the plane and being carried off the plane. It doesn't matter how I come home because I am prepared to give all that I am to ensure that all my boys make it home."
May we all prepare to give our all, so that the people who trust us find their way home.
To Live and Die by the Polls
The 2004 election has all the earmarks of a media-manufactured Cinderella story: Senator Kerry falls behind among voters after the Swift Boat Veterans ads and an effective Republican National Convention. Just when he's finished, he comes back with a strong showing in the debates and wins the presidency.
Problem? The polling to support this drama is incredibly tenuous. An analysis of the CBS/NYT "Kerry, Bush tied" poll and Newsweek's "Kerry winning" poll shows that their samplings are skewed heavily in favor of Democratic voters. Likewise, polls showing a big bounce for President Bush depicted a electorate where Republicans outumbered Democrats.
The biggest problem with polling is that it's too hard to get a representative sampling of the country. How should the polling organizations break their sample down between Democrats and Republicans? One figure I have seen shows that among registered voters, 43% are Democrats and 41% are Republicans. But how did we get those numbers? Again, somebody must have polled a random sampling of Americans.
Another problem of polling is that the pollsters often bias their results through the wording of their questions. For example, news organizations have repeatedly used the question, "Is the nation on the right track or wrong track?" I find this question utterly useless. The media has used this number to represent voter dissatisfaction with the president. Yet there are many explanations for the way people answer the question. People obviously attach different levels of importance to different issues, and the question dows not allow people to express what issues they feel the nation is taking the right or wrong track on. The question also does not allow voters to specify what direction theywant to see the country take. I'm sure that a significant portion of people who say the nation is on the wrong track feel that President Bush should dramatically intensify his anti-insurgent efforts in Iraq, as opposed to Senator Kerry's internationalist approach. Yet ths viewpoint is never allowed to surface because of the wording in the polls.
There are some useful things that can be gleaned from polls, particularly in the trends. To find them, it becomes essential to have a detailed breakdown of who is taking your poll and ask them detaile questions. On this account, I feel that Fox News/Opinion Dynamics does a good job of giving citizens a detailed breakdown of the polling questions and how people answered based on their party affiliation. For instance, an Oct. 5 poll by Fox shows that 93% of Republicans will be voting for President Bush while only 84% of Democrats will be voting for Senator Kerry. Likewise, it can be inferred that while the President's pre-debate lead was inflated, it nevertheless was real. Detailed polling questions such as "did the debate affect your vote" instead of "who won the debate" have brought light on the real story here: few people were swayed by the intellectual joust.
Politicians must never allow themselves to live and die by the polls. Otherwise, we will have too many "Dewey Defeats Truman" moments. The only poll that counts is the one on Novmeber 2, when every citizen should step into the polling place to be counted.
Problem? The polling to support this drama is incredibly tenuous. An analysis of the CBS/NYT "Kerry, Bush tied" poll and Newsweek's "Kerry winning" poll shows that their samplings are skewed heavily in favor of Democratic voters. Likewise, polls showing a big bounce for President Bush depicted a electorate where Republicans outumbered Democrats.
The biggest problem with polling is that it's too hard to get a representative sampling of the country. How should the polling organizations break their sample down between Democrats and Republicans? One figure I have seen shows that among registered voters, 43% are Democrats and 41% are Republicans. But how did we get those numbers? Again, somebody must have polled a random sampling of Americans.
Another problem of polling is that the pollsters often bias their results through the wording of their questions. For example, news organizations have repeatedly used the question, "Is the nation on the right track or wrong track?" I find this question utterly useless. The media has used this number to represent voter dissatisfaction with the president. Yet there are many explanations for the way people answer the question. People obviously attach different levels of importance to different issues, and the question dows not allow people to express what issues they feel the nation is taking the right or wrong track on. The question also does not allow voters to specify what direction theywant to see the country take. I'm sure that a significant portion of people who say the nation is on the wrong track feel that President Bush should dramatically intensify his anti-insurgent efforts in Iraq, as opposed to Senator Kerry's internationalist approach. Yet ths viewpoint is never allowed to surface because of the wording in the polls.
There are some useful things that can be gleaned from polls, particularly in the trends. To find them, it becomes essential to have a detailed breakdown of who is taking your poll and ask them detaile questions. On this account, I feel that Fox News/Opinion Dynamics does a good job of giving citizens a detailed breakdown of the polling questions and how people answered based on their party affiliation. For instance, an Oct. 5 poll by Fox shows that 93% of Republicans will be voting for President Bush while only 84% of Democrats will be voting for Senator Kerry. Likewise, it can be inferred that while the President's pre-debate lead was inflated, it nevertheless was real. Detailed polling questions such as "did the debate affect your vote" instead of "who won the debate" have brought light on the real story here: few people were swayed by the intellectual joust.
Politicians must never allow themselves to live and die by the polls. Otherwise, we will have too many "Dewey Defeats Truman" moments. The only poll that counts is the one on Novmeber 2, when every citizen should step into the polling place to be counted.
Headline News
When I got my new copy of Riddle's weekly newspaper, The Avion, I was stunned. My article on women's soccer made front page! I have never, ever had one of my articles as the main headline before.
It must be a slow news week when a regional soccer game gets the headlines. I guess it's time for me to manufacture some news...(add evil laugh here.)
It must be a slow news week when a regional soccer game gets the headlines. I guess it's time for me to manufacture some news...(add evil laugh here.)
Leap of Faith
Godspeed, Gordon Cooper.
Gordo, as he was affectionately known, was the last of the Mercury Seven astronauts to fly in space. He was immortalized in Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff for the way he bravely nursed his spacecraft back to earth after its systems began to break down one-by-one. Wolfe's point is that the astronauts proved themselves as being great pilots in spte of the fact that they were only supposed to be "spam in a can." Early, optimistic assessments of highly-automated spaceflight were premature, and it was the astronauts who made the space program work. Among all of the original pilot-astronauts, Gordo was the best.
Later in his life, Gordo got a reputation for his eccentricity. He testified before the UN that he had encountered UFO's (according to his 2000 bio Leap of Faith, he actually intercepted them during his time in the Air Force.) He also became a treasure hunter and started several small firms to investigate applications for alternative energy systems.
Not all of us may have the right stuff that Gordo did, but he lived to see the day when a private citizen would fly in space. All of this would occur on the 47th anniversary of Sputnik--Oct. 4, 1957. The best way to honor his pioneering achievements and spirit of adventure is to keep on climbing.
Gordo, as he was affectionately known, was the last of the Mercury Seven astronauts to fly in space. He was immortalized in Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff for the way he bravely nursed his spacecraft back to earth after its systems began to break down one-by-one. Wolfe's point is that the astronauts proved themselves as being great pilots in spte of the fact that they were only supposed to be "spam in a can." Early, optimistic assessments of highly-automated spaceflight were premature, and it was the astronauts who made the space program work. Among all of the original pilot-astronauts, Gordo was the best.
Later in his life, Gordo got a reputation for his eccentricity. He testified before the UN that he had encountered UFO's (according to his 2000 bio Leap of Faith, he actually intercepted them during his time in the Air Force.) He also became a treasure hunter and started several small firms to investigate applications for alternative energy systems.
Not all of us may have the right stuff that Gordo did, but he lived to see the day when a private citizen would fly in space. All of this would occur on the 47th anniversary of Sputnik--Oct. 4, 1957. The best way to honor his pioneering achievements and spirit of adventure is to keep on climbing.
The Moore You Know
Michael Moore's attempt to sway the election begins today with his home video release of Fahrenheit 9/11 and two books: one that accompanies his movie, and another that reprints letters from soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq. Of course, right-wingers will not let him go unchallenged, so they will strike back with two anti-Moore documentaries of their own: Fahrenhype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 (the temperature of brain death.)
Michael Moore tells us to "connect the dots" with his movie. I have, and I don't like the direction it's pointing to. I suspect that Moore thinks 9/11 was a huge conspiracy and Osama bin Laden was framed.
Let's begin with Moore's statement from a debate with Christopher Hitchens on Sep 11, 2002, when he said that "Osama bin Laden should be treated as innocent until proven guilty." Then we have his book Dude, Where's My Country? where he claims "there is no terrorist threat" and asks how bin Laden could have planned the attacks if he's just "a guy sitting in a cave on a dialysis machine."
Instead, Michael Moore places the blame on the Bush family, the Carlyle Group, and bin Laden's estranged family (who now spells their name 'Binladin' to avoid connections with their brother.) The (humanitarian) relief we gave to Afghanistan and the 1998 negotiations between the (Clinton) White House and Afghanistan over an oil pipeline ony "prove" his hairbrained theory.
Of course, such a theory relies on so much contrary evidence being ignored. Never mind the fact that bin Laden's dialysis is about as illusory as Abu Musab al Zarqawi's peg leg. Forget the fact that 9/11 was planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and a group of lower-ranking al Qaeda types (possibly including a Lt. Col. in the Fedayeen Saddam) during a meeting in Malaysia in January 2000. And the video of bin Laden watching the attacks on TV and saying "Praise Allah! This is even better than I expected!" must also be fake, in the mind of Michael Moore. The flight of bin Laden's family members does not occur until after the flight ban is lifted, according to the 9/11 commission. Therefore, the commission must be wrong. And Richard Clarke must be absolved for his role in that airlift, because he's been critical of the war in Iraq.
For a person as outspoken as Moore, he lacks the guts to tell us what he really thinks about 9/11. If he thinks that there's a conspiracy going on, a "proletarian hero" like himself should lift the wool off our eyes. Of course, Moore will never totally come clean with his radical theories because he knows that America will never fully accept him. To truly know Michael Moore is to demand that he be tarred and feathered.
Michael Moore tells us to "connect the dots" with his movie. I have, and I don't like the direction it's pointing to. I suspect that Moore thinks 9/11 was a huge conspiracy and Osama bin Laden was framed.
Let's begin with Moore's statement from a debate with Christopher Hitchens on Sep 11, 2002, when he said that "Osama bin Laden should be treated as innocent until proven guilty." Then we have his book Dude, Where's My Country? where he claims "there is no terrorist threat" and asks how bin Laden could have planned the attacks if he's just "a guy sitting in a cave on a dialysis machine."
Instead, Michael Moore places the blame on the Bush family, the Carlyle Group, and bin Laden's estranged family (who now spells their name 'Binladin' to avoid connections with their brother.) The (humanitarian) relief we gave to Afghanistan and the 1998 negotiations between the (Clinton) White House and Afghanistan over an oil pipeline ony "prove" his hairbrained theory.
Of course, such a theory relies on so much contrary evidence being ignored. Never mind the fact that bin Laden's dialysis is about as illusory as Abu Musab al Zarqawi's peg leg. Forget the fact that 9/11 was planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and a group of lower-ranking al Qaeda types (possibly including a Lt. Col. in the Fedayeen Saddam) during a meeting in Malaysia in January 2000. And the video of bin Laden watching the attacks on TV and saying "Praise Allah! This is even better than I expected!" must also be fake, in the mind of Michael Moore. The flight of bin Laden's family members does not occur until after the flight ban is lifted, according to the 9/11 commission. Therefore, the commission must be wrong. And Richard Clarke must be absolved for his role in that airlift, because he's been critical of the war in Iraq.
For a person as outspoken as Moore, he lacks the guts to tell us what he really thinks about 9/11. If he thinks that there's a conspiracy going on, a "proletarian hero" like himself should lift the wool off our eyes. Of course, Moore will never totally come clean with his radical theories because he knows that America will never fully accept him. To truly know Michael Moore is to demand that he be tarred and feathered.
October Surprise?
New documents link Iraq to terrorism, WMD
The new documents (which are just a tiny fraction of the Iraqi documents waiting to be translated) show that Iraq did have extensive ties with Islamic militants, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and that he possessed mustard gas and anthrax as late as 2000.
We should try to thoroughly investigate these documents, lest we end up embarassed like Dan Rather. Yet it still offers an intriguing glimpse into what dangers Iraq really posed, rather than the "kinder, gentler Iraq" that Kerry & co. believe in.
I am most intrigued by the order for mustard gas, as it comes out to 5 kilograms. Is that a lot of gas? It doesn't seem that way to my untrained mind. I would propose that it may be a pilot batch of mustard, just to prove that Iraqi industry could still produce it. The lesson of the Butler report is that Iraq had spent its energies not on WMD production but on maintaining the ability to produce them.
These documents could have "October Surprise" written all over them. The mainstream media will probably bury the story so they can keep on repeating the "no WMD's" mantra. Only the conservative-leaning media outlets (like CNS News, who broke this) are going to follow stories like Iraq's ties with terrorism, uncovered chemical weapons, and the oil-for-food scandal.
I'm deeply disappointed in this administration for not giving the public their best information about Iraq's terror ties, and then failing to back up conservative journalists when they uncover it. A good example: pre-war stories about Salman Pak being a terrorist training camp were true (to an extent,) as the Marines laid the smack down on Egyptian and Sudanese terrorist fighters when they smashed the place in April 2003. Yet the Bush people have stayed quiet about this, and even the great Gen. Tommy Franks will not publicly comment on the topic. Perhaps the Sudanese fighters from Salman Pak are also responsible for the genocide in Darfur.
How extensive was Iraqi support of Islamic militant terrorists? What elements of the Iraqi WMD program were shipped to Syria? Did Iraq have any role in 9/11, or even advance knowledge? Whatever happened to missing aviator Scott Speicher? None of these questions have been satisfactorily answered, and hopefully the untranslated Iraqi documents will be our light in the darkness.
The new documents (which are just a tiny fraction of the Iraqi documents waiting to be translated) show that Iraq did have extensive ties with Islamic militants, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and that he possessed mustard gas and anthrax as late as 2000.
We should try to thoroughly investigate these documents, lest we end up embarassed like Dan Rather. Yet it still offers an intriguing glimpse into what dangers Iraq really posed, rather than the "kinder, gentler Iraq" that Kerry & co. believe in.
I am most intrigued by the order for mustard gas, as it comes out to 5 kilograms. Is that a lot of gas? It doesn't seem that way to my untrained mind. I would propose that it may be a pilot batch of mustard, just to prove that Iraqi industry could still produce it. The lesson of the Butler report is that Iraq had spent its energies not on WMD production but on maintaining the ability to produce them.
These documents could have "October Surprise" written all over them. The mainstream media will probably bury the story so they can keep on repeating the "no WMD's" mantra. Only the conservative-leaning media outlets (like CNS News, who broke this) are going to follow stories like Iraq's ties with terrorism, uncovered chemical weapons, and the oil-for-food scandal.
I'm deeply disappointed in this administration for not giving the public their best information about Iraq's terror ties, and then failing to back up conservative journalists when they uncover it. A good example: pre-war stories about Salman Pak being a terrorist training camp were true (to an extent,) as the Marines laid the smack down on Egyptian and Sudanese terrorist fighters when they smashed the place in April 2003. Yet the Bush people have stayed quiet about this, and even the great Gen. Tommy Franks will not publicly comment on the topic. Perhaps the Sudanese fighters from Salman Pak are also responsible for the genocide in Darfur.
How extensive was Iraqi support of Islamic militant terrorists? What elements of the Iraqi WMD program were shipped to Syria? Did Iraq have any role in 9/11, or even advance knowledge? Whatever happened to missing aviator Scott Speicher? None of these questions have been satisfactorily answered, and hopefully the untranslated Iraqi documents will be our light in the darkness.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Space Ship Won
Brian Binnie did it. He earned his astronaut wings on the third spaceflight for SpaceShipOne. Unlike Mike Melvill (whom I still put on a pedestal as one of the world's best pilots,) Binnie didn't roll the spacecraft. Despite my initial doubts, Burt Rutan says the roll problem is a known deficiency and not a safety hazard. I would feel better about that, however, if he wasn't so aloof about what the problem really is.
Burt, thank you. Thank you for believing that space flight is for all of us. Thank you for not getting trapped in the rut of conventional design.
Thank you, Paul Allen. Although you can't be forgiven for the role you played in getting the glitchy Microsoft Windows to market, you have put your ill-gotten fortune towards the noble goal of building a space-faring civilization.
Thanks go to the X-Prize people who made this contest real. Whether it was the vision of Peter Diamandis or the money of the Ansari family, the X-Prize has nonetheless inspired an entire generation of rockets and revolutionary new ideas about the way spaceflight should be.
Robert Bigelow, thank you for putting up $50 million for the next great prize: private, manned orbital spaceflight. You have kept the spirit of the X-Prize going.
For the Brian Feeney's and others who want to duplicate Burt Rutan's feats, please take care of yourselves. Do this right, and don't rush things, lest you kill yourseves in a fireball of idiocy.
The recent flighs of Space Ship One have renewed some of my faith in what humanity, and America in particular, can accomplish. Maybe we have overcome the end of our societal malaise. Maybe the future is slowly but steadily coming into being. As the great Paul Simon once sung,
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry
Burt, thank you. Thank you for believing that space flight is for all of us. Thank you for not getting trapped in the rut of conventional design.
Thank you, Paul Allen. Although you can't be forgiven for the role you played in getting the glitchy Microsoft Windows to market, you have put your ill-gotten fortune towards the noble goal of building a space-faring civilization.
Thanks go to the X-Prize people who made this contest real. Whether it was the vision of Peter Diamandis or the money of the Ansari family, the X-Prize has nonetheless inspired an entire generation of rockets and revolutionary new ideas about the way spaceflight should be.
Robert Bigelow, thank you for putting up $50 million for the next great prize: private, manned orbital spaceflight. You have kept the spirit of the X-Prize going.
For the Brian Feeney's and others who want to duplicate Burt Rutan's feats, please take care of yourselves. Do this right, and don't rush things, lest you kill yourseves in a fireball of idiocy.
The recent flighs of Space Ship One have renewed some of my faith in what humanity, and America in particular, can accomplish. Maybe we have overcome the end of our societal malaise. Maybe the future is slowly but steadily coming into being. As the great Paul Simon once sung,
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry
The Revenge of Brak
Today was not my day. I stayed up til 4 AM watching "Adult Swim" cartoons and had to get up before 6 AM. I have to ask myself whether "Venture Bros.," "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," and "Brak" were worth it.
Work was just as dismal. The closing bathroom door hit one of the coffee pots I had just washed out, shattering it. My bosses tried to sugar-coat the incident, but I realize I am still a moron.
My computer is acting really shady. It all started when a piece of spyware infiltrated it, and it only got worse when I tried to remove it.
It was drizzling rain in the middle of a sunny day. Things don't get much stranger than that.
Yeah, and I slept through most of my classes.
At least Astro Nick had an awesome day.
Work was just as dismal. The closing bathroom door hit one of the coffee pots I had just washed out, shattering it. My bosses tried to sugar-coat the incident, but I realize I am still a moron.
My computer is acting really shady. It all started when a piece of spyware infiltrated it, and it only got worse when I tried to remove it.
It was drizzling rain in the middle of a sunny day. Things don't get much stranger than that.
Yeah, and I slept through most of my classes.
At least Astro Nick had an awesome day.
Hope Trumps the Doubts (Part II)
Once Out of Baghdad, Hope Trumps the Doubts
Finally we get a media account of Iraq that tries to capture the complex situation going on there. It actually contains good news, like the increasing role of Iraqi military forces in security operations (which Newsweek magazine is still skeptical of,) and the rebuilding of critical infrastructure. Bear in mind that the author, Rowan Scarborough, is notorious for kissing up to secretary Rumsfeld, but his facts can't be denied. The stark reality faced by the soldier in Saddam City (I refuse to call it Sadr City, and I praise Saddam for killing the bastard's father) is also a harsh reminder that Iraq is still a mixed bag. But at least it's not the totally failed state that we hear about from John Kerry, Newsweek, and the Cato Institute.
Dr. Craft has us reading a book about the Phillippine insurgency. In that case, our enemy employed tactics similar to those of the Iraqi insurgents. Eventually the Filipino insurgents were worn down to the point of sporadic violence. Japan invaded, and the Filipino people were drawn closer to the United States. The Phillipines became an independent but illiberal democracy after WWII, eventually evolving the reforms of a truly liberal democracy.
The lesson we learned from the Phillippines is to be benevolent with our friends and brutal with our enemies. Despite the differences between the Phillippines and Iraq (the Phillippines are surrounded by ocean rather than by anti-democratic sheikdoms,) I predict that Iraq can have a similar future to that of the Phillippines. Of course, that will rely on having a leader on Nov. 3 who is unafraid to take back Fallujah and will bear the heavy burdens of nation-building in the cradle of civilization.
Finally we get a media account of Iraq that tries to capture the complex situation going on there. It actually contains good news, like the increasing role of Iraqi military forces in security operations (which Newsweek magazine is still skeptical of,) and the rebuilding of critical infrastructure. Bear in mind that the author, Rowan Scarborough, is notorious for kissing up to secretary Rumsfeld, but his facts can't be denied. The stark reality faced by the soldier in Saddam City (I refuse to call it Sadr City, and I praise Saddam for killing the bastard's father) is also a harsh reminder that Iraq is still a mixed bag. But at least it's not the totally failed state that we hear about from John Kerry, Newsweek, and the Cato Institute.
Dr. Craft has us reading a book about the Phillippine insurgency. In that case, our enemy employed tactics similar to those of the Iraqi insurgents. Eventually the Filipino insurgents were worn down to the point of sporadic violence. Japan invaded, and the Filipino people were drawn closer to the United States. The Phillipines became an independent but illiberal democracy after WWII, eventually evolving the reforms of a truly liberal democracy.
The lesson we learned from the Phillippines is to be benevolent with our friends and brutal with our enemies. Despite the differences between the Phillippines and Iraq (the Phillippines are surrounded by ocean rather than by anti-democratic sheikdoms,) I predict that Iraq can have a similar future to that of the Phillippines. Of course, that will rely on having a leader on Nov. 3 who is unafraid to take back Fallujah and will bear the heavy burdens of nation-building in the cradle of civilization.
Hope Trumps the Doubts
The Washington Times: Once Out of Baghdad, the Hope Trumps the Doubts
These are the reassuring kinds of articles that Americans need. True, Rowan Scarborough is a bit of a Rumsfeld-kissup. But the facts he lays out can't be denied, like the increasing role of Iraqi military forces in daily security operations, or the improvement of infrastructure. The real Iraq is, like the article says, a mixed bag. But it is far from the failure that is being predicted by the John Kerry's, the CATO Institutes, the Newsweeks, and prettymuch every liberal academian who has an anti-Bush ax to grind.
Dr. Craft has us reading a book about the Phillippine War, an insurgency that employed enemy tactics similar to those we're seeing in Iraq. I hope that our leaders learn the lessons of the Phillippines: treat your friends with benevolence and show your enemies utter brutality. If that is the case, I think Iraq will turn out much like the Phillipines: a period of sporadic violence, then illiberal democracy, then true reorms leading to liberal democracy. Take note that there are some key differences here, too. The Phillippines are surrounded by water rather than hostile, anti-democratic states. Also, the Phillippines were invaded by Japan, and this had the effect of driving the Filipino people closer to the United States.
These are the reassuring kinds of articles that Americans need. True, Rowan Scarborough is a bit of a Rumsfeld-kissup. But the facts he lays out can't be denied, like the increasing role of Iraqi military forces in daily security operations, or the improvement of infrastructure. The real Iraq is, like the article says, a mixed bag. But it is far from the failure that is being predicted by the John Kerry's, the CATO Institutes, the Newsweeks, and prettymuch every liberal academian who has an anti-Bush ax to grind.
Dr. Craft has us reading a book about the Phillippine War, an insurgency that employed enemy tactics similar to those we're seeing in Iraq. I hope that our leaders learn the lessons of the Phillippines: treat your friends with benevolence and show your enemies utter brutality. If that is the case, I think Iraq will turn out much like the Phillipines: a period of sporadic violence, then illiberal democracy, then true reorms leading to liberal democracy. Take note that there are some key differences here, too. The Phillippines are surrounded by water rather than hostile, anti-democratic states. Also, the Phillippines were invaded by Japan, and this had the effect of driving the Filipino people closer to the United States.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
My Favorite Bloggers
I wanted to shout out to several top-notch bloggers out there.
First, we have Dan Darling, author of "Regum Crucis." He has to be among the best middle east experts out there in the blogosphere. More importantly, he has gone out of his way several times to answer my questions about Saddam Hussein & the Jaish Mohammed terrorists, the Jaish Ansar al Sunnah terrorists, and Saddam's former intel man, Tahir Jalil Habbush. Dan rocks to the max.
Then we have John N. Brown of "What Can Brown Do For You?" He's in much the same position I am in. He blogs about current events and about what goes on at the University of Tennessee. John has seen fit to add a link to the Impossible Scissors on his website.
Finally, we have "Lime Shurbet." It's done by two young Republicans who won't let John "Waffle King" Kerry get away with a single change in his "position of the week." They have reciprocated with a link to the Impossible Scissors. The irony here is that I found them with a random search of Blogspot pages.
Kudos, guys. Joining the "Allied Blogs" section should be considered a lofty accomplishment. Keep it up.
First, we have Dan Darling, author of "Regum Crucis." He has to be among the best middle east experts out there in the blogosphere. More importantly, he has gone out of his way several times to answer my questions about Saddam Hussein & the Jaish Mohammed terrorists, the Jaish Ansar al Sunnah terrorists, and Saddam's former intel man, Tahir Jalil Habbush. Dan rocks to the max.
Then we have John N. Brown of "What Can Brown Do For You?" He's in much the same position I am in. He blogs about current events and about what goes on at the University of Tennessee. John has seen fit to add a link to the Impossible Scissors on his website.
Finally, we have "Lime Shurbet." It's done by two young Republicans who won't let John "Waffle King" Kerry get away with a single change in his "position of the week." They have reciprocated with a link to the Impossible Scissors. The irony here is that I found them with a random search of Blogspot pages.
Kudos, guys. Joining the "Allied Blogs" section should be considered a lofty accomplishment. Keep it up.
Smile, It's the End of the World
My song of the day right now is "Love and Mercy" by Brian Wilson. Please go out and get your hands on it. Give it a listen. "Love and Mercy" is just as relevant today as it was when originally written. It's another work of pure genius by one of the greatest pop songwriters in history.
I normally don't buy music, but I think Brian Wilson's just-released album "Smile" is worth my money. I plan on buying it within the the month. After all, when it was originally supposed to launch in 1967, it was Wilson's answer to the Beatles' phenominally successful "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."
Unfortunately, Wilson had his nervous breakdown and "Smile" was never released. Allegedly, Wilson thought that the world would end when "Smile" came out. With all due respect to Michael Stipe, it's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Granted, Wilson's brothers Dennis and Carl are now dead, and the current "Beach Boys" that I saw three years ago are now called "Beach Boy." It's understandable that the "Smile" of 2004 is not the "Smile" of 1967. Yet it's a musical odyssey I must take before I truly can understand the experience that the Beach Boys were.
I normally don't buy music, but I think Brian Wilson's just-released album "Smile" is worth my money. I plan on buying it within the the month. After all, when it was originally supposed to launch in 1967, it was Wilson's answer to the Beatles' phenominally successful "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."
Unfortunately, Wilson had his nervous breakdown and "Smile" was never released. Allegedly, Wilson thought that the world would end when "Smile" came out. With all due respect to Michael Stipe, it's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Granted, Wilson's brothers Dennis and Carl are now dead, and the current "Beach Boys" that I saw three years ago are now called "Beach Boy." It's understandable that the "Smile" of 2004 is not the "Smile" of 1967. Yet it's a musical odyssey I must take before I truly can understand the experience that the Beach Boys were.
I Can Never be President Now
I had originally planned on using this evening to write my newspaper articles, watch "From the Earth to the Moon" on TNT, and read my school book about the Phillippine War. Instead, I had three beers more than I planned on and went to one more party than I planned on.
When I made a fool of myself, I must admit that I was not the least bit inebriated. When a buff Marine asks you to remove your shirt and ride around on his shoulders, you do what he says. Then I had to attempt an upside-down kegstand. It was all in good fun, although this incident will forever prevent me from running for president of the USA.
The last beer went down a bit fast by my standards, as I generally do not like beer and tend to nurse a beer over the course of an evening. During the ride to Steak & Shake I felt extra pressure on the back of my brain and lightness on the front. Sometimes my toes and fingers felt tingly. I probably wasn't drunk but was at least buzzing, and I probably shouldn't go that far again.
When I made a fool of myself, I must admit that I was not the least bit inebriated. When a buff Marine asks you to remove your shirt and ride around on his shoulders, you do what he says. Then I had to attempt an upside-down kegstand. It was all in good fun, although this incident will forever prevent me from running for president of the USA.
The last beer went down a bit fast by my standards, as I generally do not like beer and tend to nurse a beer over the course of an evening. During the ride to Steak & Shake I felt extra pressure on the back of my brain and lightness on the front. Sometimes my toes and fingers felt tingly. I probably wasn't drunk but was at least buzzing, and I probably shouldn't go that far again.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Space Stuff: Air Force Spaceplane
Here is a tale of two experimental aircraft programs, the X-37 and X-40. The X-37 was supposed to be an experimental NASA spaceplane (at one point, it was a prototype for a space shuttle replacement,) while the similar X-40 would be the Air Force's spaceplane for inspecting andmaybe disabling enemy satellites.
It would so happen that the X-40 was built first, but only in a limited form that would test the approach and landing aspects of the new spaceplane Then the X-37 was built, but the X-37 prototype was also limited to approach and landing.
The final change in plans occurred with the president's Vision for Space Exploration, which forced NASA to abandon projects that were not related to the moon and Mars. The X-37 was transferred to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA.) So it looks like the Air Force may get its spaceplane after all.
The catch here is the new mission profile of the X-37. Originally it was supposed to be launched into orbit by a Delta IV rocket. Now it is rumored to be used as a sub-orbital space bomber, part of the Air Force's "FALCON" program.
I would like to know how the Air Force intends on launching the X-37. Maybe it will be droppe from a B-52 and have an attached rocket booster. Alternately, it could be launched from the ground by an old Peacekeeper ICBM or Falcon I/V rocket, depending on what kind of range is desired. Weapons release may occur at apogee by opeining its payload bay, or it could occur later in the flight if the X-37 ejects its bombs out of its backside.
Making the X-37 sub-orbital eliminates one of the engineering problems standing in its way: building an engine that would be stored for a year in orbit and finally work to de-orbit the spacecraft. Unfortunately, the X-37 was the only real impetus for developing new hydrogen peroxide engines, and the motivation appears to be gone.
It would so happen that the X-40 was built first, but only in a limited form that would test the approach and landing aspects of the new spaceplane Then the X-37 was built, but the X-37 prototype was also limited to approach and landing.
The final change in plans occurred with the president's Vision for Space Exploration, which forced NASA to abandon projects that were not related to the moon and Mars. The X-37 was transferred to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA.) So it looks like the Air Force may get its spaceplane after all.
The catch here is the new mission profile of the X-37. Originally it was supposed to be launched into orbit by a Delta IV rocket. Now it is rumored to be used as a sub-orbital space bomber, part of the Air Force's "FALCON" program.
I would like to know how the Air Force intends on launching the X-37. Maybe it will be droppe from a B-52 and have an attached rocket booster. Alternately, it could be launched from the ground by an old Peacekeeper ICBM or Falcon I/V rocket, depending on what kind of range is desired. Weapons release may occur at apogee by opeining its payload bay, or it could occur later in the flight if the X-37 ejects its bombs out of its backside.
Making the X-37 sub-orbital eliminates one of the engineering problems standing in its way: building an engine that would be stored for a year in orbit and finally work to de-orbit the spacecraft. Unfortunately, the X-37 was the only real impetus for developing new hydrogen peroxide engines, and the motivation appears to be gone.
Friday, October 01, 2004
A Tale of Two Forgeries
Some commentators (mostly on the left) have tried to make an analogy between Dan Rather's memos and forged documents pointing to Iraq asking Niger for uranium. Their point is, "Let's not make such a big deal about this. George Bush used fake documents so he could start a war."
A better analogy is, "the documents may be fake, but much of the substance is correct." George W. Bush skipped his flight physical and took time off from the guard while working on a senate campaign. Iraq did seek uranium from Niger in 1999-2001.
Much to the chagrin of the forgers, their handywork has only undermined their cause. The Rather memos were probably penned by an anti-Bush operative before being passed of to Bill Burkett. The Iraq-Niger memos may have been the work of anti-Saddam groups who wanted to see this war happen. Instead of backing up their case, people are calling Dan Rather a boob instead of asking what the president was doing in summer and fall of 1972. Similarly, people are saying that "Bush lied, people died" while remaining ignorant of Iraq's pre-war work on its WMD programs.
As time and technology march on, it becomes harder to deceive people. All lies may not lead to the truth, but the lies ultimately backfire on the liars.
A better analogy is, "the documents may be fake, but much of the substance is correct." George W. Bush skipped his flight physical and took time off from the guard while working on a senate campaign. Iraq did seek uranium from Niger in 1999-2001.
Much to the chagrin of the forgers, their handywork has only undermined their cause. The Rather memos were probably penned by an anti-Bush operative before being passed of to Bill Burkett. The Iraq-Niger memos may have been the work of anti-Saddam groups who wanted to see this war happen. Instead of backing up their case, people are calling Dan Rather a boob instead of asking what the president was doing in summer and fall of 1972. Similarly, people are saying that "Bush lied, people died" while remaining ignorant of Iraq's pre-war work on its WMD programs.
As time and technology march on, it becomes harder to deceive people. All lies may not lead to the truth, but the lies ultimately backfire on the liars.
Our Media, Our Enemy
I read a pretty outrageous news article by Reuters' Luke Baker that was posted on globalsecurity.org today and really got my blood boiling. Here is a snippet:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis hail their mobile phone network as one of the few achievements in the country's reconstruction, but the technology is also being used to detonate bombs that cause daily death and destruction.
"Few" achievements in the country's reconstruction? What about the schools and hospitals that have been renovated? Or the power infrastructure, that in spite of all the sabotage still exceeds pre-war capacity, and now distributes power more evenly thoughout Iraq's provinces? What about the sewage plant we opened yesterday, only to have a bunch of militant bastards blow up 35 kids during the dedication ceremony?
The rest of the article is a re-hash of old info about how insurgents are using cell phones to set off roadside bombs. Tell me something new.
Luke Baker and journalists of his ilk are no better than the insurgents or the Islamic militant propagandists on al Jazeera. The media whitewash of our humanitarian relief in Iraq must be lifted. Winning the peace is always dependent on both "guns" and "butter," but one must always be joined by the other. The media message is that Iraq consists of the enemy's guns and no American butter.
Hopefully Luke Baker will find himself decapitated by Islamic militants in Iraq. Pehaps his murderers will find a better use for his empty skull than it is currently employed in, such as using it for a candy dish.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis hail their mobile phone network as one of the few achievements in the country's reconstruction, but the technology is also being used to detonate bombs that cause daily death and destruction.
"Few" achievements in the country's reconstruction? What about the schools and hospitals that have been renovated? Or the power infrastructure, that in spite of all the sabotage still exceeds pre-war capacity, and now distributes power more evenly thoughout Iraq's provinces? What about the sewage plant we opened yesterday, only to have a bunch of militant bastards blow up 35 kids during the dedication ceremony?
The rest of the article is a re-hash of old info about how insurgents are using cell phones to set off roadside bombs. Tell me something new.
Luke Baker and journalists of his ilk are no better than the insurgents or the Islamic militant propagandists on al Jazeera. The media whitewash of our humanitarian relief in Iraq must be lifted. Winning the peace is always dependent on both "guns" and "butter," but one must always be joined by the other. The media message is that Iraq consists of the enemy's guns and no American butter.
Hopefully Luke Baker will find himself decapitated by Islamic militants in Iraq. Pehaps his murderers will find a better use for his empty skull than it is currently employed in, such as using it for a candy dish.
