Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Mosul
Mosul: "Mosul
US Military Occupation Facilities
City Maps
Mosul Presidential Site
Units
*
References
* Iraq Army 2001 by Larry Smith
* Key Targets in Iraq Anthony H. Cordesman February 1998
With a rich ancient Assyrian history, Mosul is a historically important trade center linking Persia and the Mediterranean. In the 8th century, Mosul became the principal city of northern Mesopotamia under the early Muslim Abbasid dynasty. In the Ottoman period it was one of the provincial seats of administration. The largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan, Mosul is predominantly Kurdish with a sizeable Turkomen minority. The Yazidi sect is most numerous in the surrounding mountainous area. Mosul also has the largest number of Iraqi Christians of any Iraqi city, including Nestorians, Jacobites, Catholics and Chaldeans. There are churches in Mosul that are historically and culturally important for several of these Christian sects."
US Military Occupation Facilities
City Maps
Mosul Presidential Site
Units
*
References
* Iraq Army 2001 by Larry Smith
* Key Targets in Iraq Anthony H. Cordesman February 1998
With a rich ancient Assyrian history, Mosul is a historically important trade center linking Persia and the Mediterranean. In the 8th century, Mosul became the principal city of northern Mesopotamia under the early Muslim Abbasid dynasty. In the Ottoman period it was one of the provincial seats of administration. The largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan, Mosul is predominantly Kurdish with a sizeable Turkomen minority. The Yazidi sect is most numerous in the surrounding mountainous area. Mosul also has the largest number of Iraqi Christians of any Iraqi city, including Nestorians, Jacobites, Catholics and Chaldeans. There are churches in Mosul that are historically and culturally important for several of these Christian sects."
Wizbang
Wizbang: "We alienated and scarred a whole generation of those who served our nation, and in many ways we're still paying the price for that.
It's not talked about much, but it's probably the most significant social change brought out by that war.
I've noticed it a lot lately. It seems that nearly every highway overpass I see has a home-made 'WELCOME HOME' or a 'COME HOME SAFE' or 'WE'RE PROUD OF' or -- most sad of all -- 'IN MEMORY OF' banner for at least one service member, by name. Radio stations hold drives to get supplies and care packages for troops, and the biggest fashion accessory on cars these days are gold, red/white/blue, or camouflage ribbons.
Not everyone, it seems, has learned that lesson."
It's not talked about much, but it's probably the most significant social change brought out by that war.
I've noticed it a lot lately. It seems that nearly every highway overpass I see has a home-made 'WELCOME HOME' or a 'COME HOME SAFE' or 'WE'RE PROUD OF' or -- most sad of all -- 'IN MEMORY OF' banner for at least one service member, by name. Radio stations hold drives to get supplies and care packages for troops, and the biggest fashion accessory on cars these days are gold, red/white/blue, or camouflage ribbons.
Not everyone, it seems, has learned that lesson."
"What Hath I Wrought?": I Am Not A Baby Killer
"What Hath I Wrought?": I Am Not A Baby KillerAmazing story about a college boy who was a Vet and his experience with an antiwar demonstrator.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Sunday, November 14, 2004
KR Washington Bureau | 11/12/2004 | Foreign fighters now reviled by Fallujah residents
KR Washington Bureau | 11/12/2004 | Foreign fighters now reviled by Fallujah residents: "Once admired as comrades in an anti-American struggle, foreign fighters have become reviled as the reason U.S. missiles are flattening homes and turning Iraq's City of Mosques into a killing field. Their promises of protection were unfulfilled, angry residents said, with immigrant rebels moving on to other outposts and leaving besieged locals to face a superpower alone.
The fact that Iraqis are turning away from foreign terrorists, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they're turning toward the United States and Iraq's U.S.-backed interim government.
'We didn't want the occupation and we didn't want the terrorists, and now we have both,' said a Fallujah construction worker who gave his name as only Abu Ehab, 30. 'I didn't think the Arabs would be so vicious, and I never thought the Americans would be so unmerciful.'"
The fact that Iraqis are turning away from foreign terrorists, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they're turning toward the United States and Iraq's U.S.-backed interim government.
'We didn't want the occupation and we didn't want the terrorists, and now we have both,' said a Fallujah construction worker who gave his name as only Abu Ehab, 30. 'I didn't think the Arabs would be so vicious, and I never thought the Americans would be so unmerciful.'"
Energy a long term view
: "It is therefore inexplicable that some people cling to the Malthusian logic when discussing modern economic issues. Bartlett argues that the conditions of the energy market call for a halt in population growth. Yet no economic data exist to support his claim. Although market dynamics occasionally impact the world economy otherwise, the downward overall trend in the real price of energy indicates faster growth in the supply curve than the demand curve.
In the past decade, energy has been cheaper than in previous decades even as total energy demand has grown to historic highs. Bartlett presents data indicating that world per capita petroleum consumption grew steadily through the period of US energy price regulation in the 1970s and has declined since the Carter administration's deregulation late in that decade. He incorrectly suggests that the data are evidence of production limitations 'as production struggles to keep up with growing demand.' However, his suggestion could only be supported if prices had been rising during the entire period. In fact, the declining price trend during that time is evidence that per capita demand for petroleum was slowing even while supplies were plentiful. Bartlett unwittingly contradicts his own thesis"
In the past decade, energy has been cheaper than in previous decades even as total energy demand has grown to historic highs. Bartlett presents data indicating that world per capita petroleum consumption grew steadily through the period of US energy price regulation in the 1970s and has declined since the Carter administration's deregulation late in that decade. He incorrectly suggests that the data are evidence of production limitations 'as production struggles to keep up with growing demand.' However, his suggestion could only be supported if prices had been rising during the entire period. In fact, the declining price trend during that time is evidence that per capita demand for petroleum was slowing even while supplies were plentiful. Bartlett unwittingly contradicts his own thesis"
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Over a Barrel
Over a Barrel: "Experts say we're about to run out of oil. But we're nowhere near having another technology ready to take its place." Long, good article on Energy!
Pejmanesque: BURNING DRIFT-WOOD
Pejmanesque: BURNING DRIFT-WOOD: "I know the solemn monotone
Of waters calling unto me;
I know from whence the airs have blown
That whisper of the Eternal Sea.
As low my fires of drift-wood burn,
I hear that sea's deep sounds increase,
And, fair in sunset light, discern
Its mirage-lifted Isles of Peace.
--John Greenleaf Whittier, Burning Drift-Wood"
Of waters calling unto me;
I know from whence the airs have blown
That whisper of the Eternal Sea.
As low my fires of drift-wood burn,
I hear that sea's deep sounds increase,
And, fair in sunset light, discern
Its mirage-lifted Isles of Peace.
--John Greenleaf Whittier, Burning Drift-Wood"
Marine Corps Moms: PFC Halvorson's final trip home
Marine Corps Moms: October 17, 2004 - October 23, 2004 Archives
October 21, 2004
PFC Halvorson's final trip home
Pfc. Andrew Halverson, 19, of Grant, Wis. died Oct 9 as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Halverson was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Bridget Warns, mother of a deployed Marine, was a passenger on the plane that carried him home from the country he served:
“Because of my job, I travel a good deal. Last Thursday night I was returning from Albuquerque via Minneapolis and was one of the last passengers to board. As I was getting on the plane, a Marine in full dress uniform was coming up the jetway stairs from the luggage storage area of the airplane. I thought that was very odd. A few minutes later, the captain came out of the cockpit to thank everyone for flying Northwest. As he was finishing, a flight attendant told him that there was a Marine on board escorting a fallen Marine home. I was stunned when I heard this and at that time didn’t realize who it was. A gentleman sitting across the aisle from me immediately offered his seat in first class to the Marine escort. I couldn’t say anything since I was crying so hard.
As soon as we were airborne, the captain got on the loud speaker and announced the situation to everyone. He had to stop several times before he could continue. He asked that we all stay seated after landing until the Marine escort had deplaned. I have never experienced anything like this in all of my years of travel. I just wanted the parents to know that their son was brought back home by a plane full of people that knew of the precious cargo they were privileged to escort…and by a Marine mom who wept openly for their terrible loss.
They have been in my thoughts and prayers constantly.”
I cannot imagine how painful it is to learn that a beloved son has died in battle and my prayer, like that of all Marine parents, is that I will never find out. But if it happened, I would hope that a Marine Mom like Bridget Warns would be on the plane for his final ride home.
Posted by Deb at 01:39 AM
October 21, 2004
PFC Halvorson's final trip home
Pfc. Andrew Halverson, 19, of Grant, Wis. died Oct 9 as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Halverson was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Bridget Warns, mother of a deployed Marine, was a passenger on the plane that carried him home from the country he served:
“Because of my job, I travel a good deal. Last Thursday night I was returning from Albuquerque via Minneapolis and was one of the last passengers to board. As I was getting on the plane, a Marine in full dress uniform was coming up the jetway stairs from the luggage storage area of the airplane. I thought that was very odd. A few minutes later, the captain came out of the cockpit to thank everyone for flying Northwest. As he was finishing, a flight attendant told him that there was a Marine on board escorting a fallen Marine home. I was stunned when I heard this and at that time didn’t realize who it was. A gentleman sitting across the aisle from me immediately offered his seat in first class to the Marine escort. I couldn’t say anything since I was crying so hard.
As soon as we were airborne, the captain got on the loud speaker and announced the situation to everyone. He had to stop several times before he could continue. He asked that we all stay seated after landing until the Marine escort had deplaned. I have never experienced anything like this in all of my years of travel. I just wanted the parents to know that their son was brought back home by a plane full of people that knew of the precious cargo they were privileged to escort…and by a Marine mom who wept openly for their terrible loss.
They have been in my thoughts and prayers constantly.”
I cannot imagine how painful it is to learn that a beloved son has died in battle and my prayer, like that of all Marine parents, is that I will never find out. But if it happened, I would hope that a Marine Mom like Bridget Warns would be on the plane for his final ride home.
Posted by Deb at 01:39 AM
Marine Corps Moms: November 07, 2004 - November 13, 2004 Archives
Marine Corps Moms: November 07, 2004 - November 13, 2004 Archives: "Semper Fi Fund
Marine wife Tonia Sargent describes her husband's severe injury and shares in a letter to the Washington Times how caring people can help:"
Open for way to contribute.
Marine wife Tonia Sargent describes her husband's severe injury and shares in a letter to the Washington Times how caring people can help:"
Open for way to contribute.
Friday, November 12, 2004
The Claremont Institute: Better Unsafe Than (Occasionally) Sorry?
The Claremont Institute: Better Unsafe Than (Occasionally) Sorry?: "he anti-profilers' campaign against law enforcement is particularly bizarre and perverse given that minorities are vastly more likely to be victims of crimes. What kind of 'civil rights campaign' prevents the police from incapacitating criminals who prey on minority groups? If police flinch from law enforcement for fear of generating bad arrest data that will label them racist, the great harm that follows will fall disproportionately on law-abiding residents of lower-income neighborhoods.
"
"
VDH's Private Papers :: A Quintessential General
VDH's Private Papers :: A Quintessential General
What are we to make of Ulysses S. Grant? At thirty-nine he was seen as a wash-out—no job, no money, forced resignation from the U.S. military after occasional drinking binges, nearly destitute with a dependent wife and four children, ex-junior officer, ex-farmer, ex-woodcutter, ex-real-estate agent, and at last, in 1860, a rumpled leather store clerk in Galena, Illinois. Historians would be hard pressed to ascertain whether Grant or Sherman was the greater prewar failure, both meeting nothing but setbacks almost in direct proportion to the degree that they continued to exhibit talent, honesty, and hard work. Yet a little less than three years later by Congressional decree Grant was appointed Lieutenant-General in command of all Union forces. A mere seven years after he left Galena, at age forty-six, Grant became the youngest elected President in the young nation’s history. and so on . . . .
What are we to make of Ulysses S. Grant? At thirty-nine he was seen as a wash-out—no job, no money, forced resignation from the U.S. military after occasional drinking binges, nearly destitute with a dependent wife and four children, ex-junior officer, ex-farmer, ex-woodcutter, ex-real-estate agent, and at last, in 1860, a rumpled leather store clerk in Galena, Illinois. Historians would be hard pressed to ascertain whether Grant or Sherman was the greater prewar failure, both meeting nothing but setbacks almost in direct proportion to the degree that they continued to exhibit talent, honesty, and hard work. Yet a little less than three years later by Congressional decree Grant was appointed Lieutenant-General in command of all Union forces. A mere seven years after he left Galena, at age forty-six, Grant became the youngest elected President in the young nation’s history. and so on . . . .
This year, the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are foremost in our minds.
STLtoday - News - ColumnistsThis year, the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are foremost in our minds.
Before him he carries noise, and behind him he leaves tears: Death, that dark spirit, in’s nervy arm doth lie.
The most memorable image of Election Day was not Tim Russert's grim recalculation of electoral votes on his little white board. Nor was it the glum silence of Harvey Weinstein's celebrity-studded party in New York. And it certainly wasn't the fist of Sen. John Edwards desperately pumping the air.
It was a handful of U.S. Marines in Iraq, calmly eating their breakfast. Fox News Channel went to a live shot of their mess hall outside Fallujah several times that night, where quiet men in camouflage watched the election returns as they ate from metal trays. Beyond the sight of the lone camera, nearly 10,000 of their military brothers and sisters were preparing for a major assault that would take them into the heart of the Iraqi insurgency. Even with the risk of death outside the door, they ate with the steely look of men accustomed to fighting for their lives - and winning.
This year, Veterans Day will not be another long look back to "The Greatest Generation." Vietnam veterans already made their mark in the run-up to the election. The Democratic candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry, made his military service the centerpiece of his campaign and the "Band of Brothers his most critical endorsement. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, however, launched a full attack on the candidate's war record, and others who served revealed how much the war protests had cost them. Early in the year, Vietnam veterans gave Kerry's candidacy its only momentum. But by summer, other Vietnam veterans stopped it cold.
Center stage this Veterans Day are the veterans now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. The condition of their armor, the length of their tours of duty, and most importantly, the numbers of their dead, became critical issues in the presidential contest. There was little contest among those who served, and a clear majority supported their commander in chief's goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. Though the count of their absentee ballots is not yet final, a national election survey of hundreds of active military service members and their families, made before the election by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that 69 percent trusted President George W. Bush's leadership, compared to 24 percent for Sen. John Kerry.
Little wonder, since so many of those who serve in the armed forces hail from the reddest parts of the red states. These men and women were born and reared in an America where clarity is prized and "nuance" is a lack of conviction. In their hometowns, rooting for the United States Of America is as natural as breathing and just as necessary. A strong faith that there is a God and a purpose bigger than themselves makes self-sacrifice a necessary virtue.
Those who serve in uniform set and meet a standard higher than the rest of us. In a society with little personal discipline, they are highly disciplined. In a time of specialization, they understand computer programming, can change the oil in a Humvee and can load a machine gun while under fire. In a country that worships comfort, they train their minds and bodies to endure hardship without complaint or therapy.
Many of our troops will spend Veterans Day fighting for Fallujah, on the watch for car bombs and praying to get home to mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children. We certainly need them, and not only because we love them. Every state - red or blue - needs their strength and their courage.
Americans know how to vote, march in protest, write letters to the editor and harangue their congressmen. Our journalists know how to ask questions, uncover corruption and pressure institutions and governments. Hollywood knows how to make movies, market celebrities and stage rock concerts. Politicians know how to earn and wield power. But very few of us know how to actually fight for our lives.
The Marines do. So do the men and women of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. They fight for us, and fight to the death.
Before him he carries noise, and behind him he leaves tears: Death, that dark spirit, in’s nervy arm doth lie.
The most memorable image of Election Day was not Tim Russert's grim recalculation of electoral votes on his little white board. Nor was it the glum silence of Harvey Weinstein's celebrity-studded party in New York. And it certainly wasn't the fist of Sen. John Edwards desperately pumping the air.
It was a handful of U.S. Marines in Iraq, calmly eating their breakfast. Fox News Channel went to a live shot of their mess hall outside Fallujah several times that night, where quiet men in camouflage watched the election returns as they ate from metal trays. Beyond the sight of the lone camera, nearly 10,000 of their military brothers and sisters were preparing for a major assault that would take them into the heart of the Iraqi insurgency. Even with the risk of death outside the door, they ate with the steely look of men accustomed to fighting for their lives - and winning.
This year, Veterans Day will not be another long look back to "The Greatest Generation." Vietnam veterans already made their mark in the run-up to the election. The Democratic candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry, made his military service the centerpiece of his campaign and the "Band of Brothers his most critical endorsement. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, however, launched a full attack on the candidate's war record, and others who served revealed how much the war protests had cost them. Early in the year, Vietnam veterans gave Kerry's candidacy its only momentum. But by summer, other Vietnam veterans stopped it cold.
Center stage this Veterans Day are the veterans now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. The condition of their armor, the length of their tours of duty, and most importantly, the numbers of their dead, became critical issues in the presidential contest. There was little contest among those who served, and a clear majority supported their commander in chief's goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. Though the count of their absentee ballots is not yet final, a national election survey of hundreds of active military service members and their families, made before the election by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that 69 percent trusted President George W. Bush's leadership, compared to 24 percent for Sen. John Kerry.
Little wonder, since so many of those who serve in the armed forces hail from the reddest parts of the red states. These men and women were born and reared in an America where clarity is prized and "nuance" is a lack of conviction. In their hometowns, rooting for the United States Of America is as natural as breathing and just as necessary. A strong faith that there is a God and a purpose bigger than themselves makes self-sacrifice a necessary virtue.
Those who serve in uniform set and meet a standard higher than the rest of us. In a society with little personal discipline, they are highly disciplined. In a time of specialization, they understand computer programming, can change the oil in a Humvee and can load a machine gun while under fire. In a country that worships comfort, they train their minds and bodies to endure hardship without complaint or therapy.
Many of our troops will spend Veterans Day fighting for Fallujah, on the watch for car bombs and praying to get home to mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children. We certainly need them, and not only because we love them. Every state - red or blue - needs their strength and their courage.
Americans know how to vote, march in protest, write letters to the editor and harangue their congressmen. Our journalists know how to ask questions, uncover corruption and pressure institutions and governments. Hollywood knows how to make movies, market celebrities and stage rock concerts. Politicians know how to earn and wield power. But very few of us know how to actually fight for our lives.
The Marines do. So do the men and women of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. They fight for us, and fight to the death.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Shaking Spears: Calling Bob Dole
Shaking Spears: Calling Bob Dole: "Friday, November 05, 2004
Calling Bob Dole
'Britney (Spears) got $10 million bucks for the commercial. I got a lifetime supply of Pepsi.'
Ms. Shaker and I just returned from an evening at the San Jose, CA Chamber of Commerce's annual dinner, at which Bob Dole was the featured speaker.
Working the crowd like a seasoned nightclub comic, Dole offered up quips and self-deprecation to keep the well-attended crowd in stitches, but laced his talk with serious and inspirational observations that demonstrated the caliber of this man.
He said that he keeps getting invitations to these events because the audience expects him to come with free samples of his endorsed products (think little blue pills).
As a set up to his speech, a three-minute video was played that detailed his childhood in rural Kansas. What was notable for me was the fact that the video ended just as WWII began, never mentioning his war heroism or his long career in the U.S. Senate. One wonders how much more effective John Kerry would have been had he chosen to run as a silent, and humble, war veteran.
Dole recounted his recent trip to Libya where he met with Moammar Ghadafi. Ghadafi said that in preparation for their discussion he had read Dole's condemnations in the Congressional Record, and that he wanted Dole to know that he was committed to taking his country in a new direction that wouldn't warrant such criticism. Dole's anecdote reinforced the power and example that the U.S. wields on the world stage, and that our current course in the War on Terror is indeed yielding the right dividends - the dismantling of Libya's WMDs being prima facie evidence.
He spoke sincerely about the government's need to focus on ideas and problem solving vs. partisanship and polarization, using the bipartisan effort to reform Social Security in the 80s as a model of the spirit of American resolve. Tom Daschle could have heeded Dole's words.
Dole singled out the Mainstream Media as an institution that was in dire need of self-reflection, eliciting applause from this bipartisan California audience.
And he spoke of the WWII Memorial, and how a recent immigrant who was not a WWII veteran was the largest single contributor to the effort, writing a check for $1 million dollars. This Armenian immigrant wanted to give thanks to the U.S. for freeing Europe, and fighting for liberty and democracy around the globe.
Dole is an optimistic man, imbued with those heartland values that we are now being told are odd, intolerant, and somehow regressive. Yet it was obvious to all who attended that our government could use more men like Bob Dole to help smooth the partisan divide and coalesce our political rivalries around the big issues that confront us.
Calling Bob Dole."
Calling Bob Dole
'Britney (Spears) got $10 million bucks for the commercial. I got a lifetime supply of Pepsi.'
Ms. Shaker and I just returned from an evening at the San Jose, CA Chamber of Commerce's annual dinner, at which Bob Dole was the featured speaker.
Working the crowd like a seasoned nightclub comic, Dole offered up quips and self-deprecation to keep the well-attended crowd in stitches, but laced his talk with serious and inspirational observations that demonstrated the caliber of this man.
He said that he keeps getting invitations to these events because the audience expects him to come with free samples of his endorsed products (think little blue pills).
As a set up to his speech, a three-minute video was played that detailed his childhood in rural Kansas. What was notable for me was the fact that the video ended just as WWII began, never mentioning his war heroism or his long career in the U.S. Senate. One wonders how much more effective John Kerry would have been had he chosen to run as a silent, and humble, war veteran.
Dole recounted his recent trip to Libya where he met with Moammar Ghadafi. Ghadafi said that in preparation for their discussion he had read Dole's condemnations in the Congressional Record, and that he wanted Dole to know that he was committed to taking his country in a new direction that wouldn't warrant such criticism. Dole's anecdote reinforced the power and example that the U.S. wields on the world stage, and that our current course in the War on Terror is indeed yielding the right dividends - the dismantling of Libya's WMDs being prima facie evidence.
He spoke sincerely about the government's need to focus on ideas and problem solving vs. partisanship and polarization, using the bipartisan effort to reform Social Security in the 80s as a model of the spirit of American resolve. Tom Daschle could have heeded Dole's words.
Dole singled out the Mainstream Media as an institution that was in dire need of self-reflection, eliciting applause from this bipartisan California audience.
And he spoke of the WWII Memorial, and how a recent immigrant who was not a WWII veteran was the largest single contributor to the effort, writing a check for $1 million dollars. This Armenian immigrant wanted to give thanks to the U.S. for freeing Europe, and fighting for liberty and democracy around the globe.
Dole is an optimistic man, imbued with those heartland values that we are now being told are odd, intolerant, and somehow regressive. Yet it was obvious to all who attended that our government could use more men like Bob Dole to help smooth the partisan divide and coalesce our political rivalries around the big issues that confront us.
Calling Bob Dole."
This great Isonomy of ours | Samizdata.net
This great Isonomy of ours | Samizdata.net: "I figured out as a child that the least wonderful aspect of a modern liberal democracy is that it lets the majority decide: the tyranny of the majority is to be feared. Votes are a mechanism to deal with the fact that some administrative variables affecting many people (speed limits, for instance, or surrenders) must be set at a predictable value for a recognisable group, or bad stuff happens.
I also figured out as a child that the good soul of a liberal democracy, the thing that has made us the most fortunate human beings in history, is the idea that every individual matters. None of us can be made to stop mattering because we look wrong or do wrong. That's why every individual has certain rights that cannot be..."
I also figured out as a child that the good soul of a liberal democracy, the thing that has made us the most fortunate human beings in history, is the idea that every individual matters. None of us can be made to stop mattering because we look wrong or do wrong. That's why every individual has certain rights that cannot be..."
Power Line: David Lebedoff on why Kerry lost
Power Line: David Lebedoff on why Kerry lost Read this especially the values issue.
Power Line: Why Michael Moore should reconsider
Power Line: Why Michael Moore should reconsider: "Why Michael Moore should reconsider
Michael Moore has compiled a list of 17 reasons providing consolation against suicidal despair for himself and his Koolaid-drinking followers. We think it would be a public service to compile a compelling response that would encourage Moore to rethink his position. Please send us your best arguments and we'll see if we can persuade Moore to walk the walk.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 10:36 AM | "
Michael Moore has compiled a list of 17 reasons providing consolation against suicidal despair for himself and his Koolaid-drinking followers. We think it would be a public service to compile a compelling response that would encourage Moore to rethink his position. Please send us your best arguments and we'll see if we can persuade Moore to walk the walk.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 10:36 AM | "
Friday, November 05, 2004
WorldNetDaily: America renewed Don't you Love It!!
WorldNetDaily: America renewed: "On Nov. 2, 2004, America said it was tired of activist judges legislating from the bench. It was the day America said that moral values meant more than empty promises. It was the day that America told the terrorists that they were losing. Indeed, that they have lost. The Osamas and Zarqawis of this world won't be facing a new and untested liberal government led by the leader of the Vietnam anti-war movement. They will continue to face the same George Bush as before, only unencumbered by political considerations or special interest groups."
Stop Specter Now!
Stop Specter Now!: "Tell the Majority Leader that the grassroots of the Republican Party worked hard to re-elect the President and we will not let Specter stand in the way of a common sense constructionist judiciary."
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Right on Reasoning
No Left Turns Archive We think that this is one country. It is neither a mini-united nations, nor a country divided into two, the haves and the have-nots. Demos should stop talking as if it were 1936 and we are on the verge of economic collapse, and the economic pie can never grow. They should remind us that our work creates our wealth, and encourage us to work and prosper. The purpose of government is to insure that opportunity. How we spend our public monies is secondary point, and depends entirely on the first. Let the Democratic Party think upon these things and maybe they can reach a point in twenty or thirty years when a Democratic candidate for president of the United States will be able to gather over 50% of the vote of the citizens. This hasn’t happened since 1964. Until that day, they will be the minority party of the country. They had better start looking for their identity, and start that search now before it is too late.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Why Arabs Lose Wars
Why Arabs Lose Wars - Middle East Quarterly - December 1999 - Middle East Quarterly - December 1999 Excellent article on the Arab culture and its effect on their military
Monday, November 01, 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004
New York Post Online Edition: news
New York Post Online Edition: news: "FULL TAPE AN OSAMA A WOE SHOW"
Afganistan
No Left Turns Archive: "Charles Krauthammer says that the transformation of Afghanistan 'represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years"
America cannot afford Terry Kerry - PittsburghLIVE.com
America cannot afford Terry Kerry - PittsburghLIVE.com: "America cannot afford Terry Kerry"
Kerry's Legacy: By POW
Printer-Friendly Version: "Kerry's Legacy:
No One Who Has Aided the Enemy Deserves to Become President
PAUL GALANTI
GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Being a prisoner of war in Vietnam had some high points but many more low ones. The worst days physically were behind us in 1970, 1971, and 1972. After Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, the routine torturing of POWs for propaganda purposes pretty much stopped. Our captors panicked in November, 1970, following the daring raid on a closed POW camp at Son Tai 20 miles west of Hanoi - and moved all of us into the huge Hoa Lo prison in central Hanoi. We finally were permitted a semblance of societal life after years in solitary and/or stuffed into tiny windowless cells with two or three other POWs.". . . .
No One Who Has Aided the Enemy Deserves to Become President
PAUL GALANTI
GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Being a prisoner of war in Vietnam had some high points but many more low ones. The worst days physically were behind us in 1970, 1971, and 1972. After Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, the routine torturing of POWs for propaganda purposes pretty much stopped. Our captors panicked in November, 1970, following the daring raid on a closed POW camp at Son Tai 20 miles west of Hanoi - and moved all of us into the huge Hoa Lo prison in central Hanoi. We finally were permitted a semblance of societal life after years in solitary and/or stuffed into tiny windowless cells with two or three other POWs.". . . .
Saturday, October 30, 2004
TradeSports Trading & Betting Exchange, Best Lines & Bonuses.
TradeSports Trading & Betting Exchange, Best Lines & Bonuses.: "day's Highlights
Symbol Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.GWBUSH2004 55.1 55.8 55.8 1.0m 2.8
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.KERRY2004 44.6 44.9 44.9 93.2k -2.1
Contract Detail BUSH.FLORIDA 60.3 62.0 62.0 15.6k 1.3
Contract Detail BUSH.MINNESOTA 36.6 41.0 41.0 12.3k 1.5
Contract Detail BUSH.OHIO 49.8 52.0 51.9 15.0k 4.6
Contract Detail BUSH.ELECTORAL 300 26.9 28.0 26.9 19.5k -1.9
Contract Detail BUSH.POPULARVOTE 52.2 54.7 52.2 10.2k -0.5
Contract Detail SENATE.SD.DASCHLE 42.2 43.0 42.9 3908 -0.1
Contract Detail NFL.PATRIOTS 19.5 22.5 19.6 21.4k -0.9
Contract Detail BCS.SOUTHERNCAL - 40.0 40.0 4874 5.0
WHAT'S NEW?"
Symbol Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.GWBUSH2004 55.1 55.8 55.8 1.0m 2.8
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.KERRY2004 44.6 44.9 44.9 93.2k -2.1
Contract Detail BUSH.FLORIDA 60.3 62.0 62.0 15.6k 1.3
Contract Detail BUSH.MINNESOTA 36.6 41.0 41.0 12.3k 1.5
Contract Detail BUSH.OHIO 49.8 52.0 51.9 15.0k 4.6
Contract Detail BUSH.ELECTORAL 300 26.9 28.0 26.9 19.5k -1.9
Contract Detail BUSH.POPULARVOTE 52.2 54.7 52.2 10.2k -0.5
Contract Detail SENATE.SD.DASCHLE 42.2 43.0 42.9 3908 -0.1
Contract Detail NFL.PATRIOTS 19.5 22.5 19.6 21.4k -0.9
Contract Detail BCS.SOUTHERNCAL - 40.0 40.0 4874 5.0
WHAT'S NEW?"
BeldarBlog: Osama bin Laden's invitation to Pres. Kerry to negotiate a truce
BeldarBlog: Osama bin Laden's invitation to Pres. Kerry to negotiate a truce
this blithering fool's (Kerry's0 personal history of enthusiastically swallowing just this kind of bait, hook, line, and sinker — and then trying to base America's course upon it — scares me far more than anything Osama bin Laden could ever say.
Posted by Beldar
this blithering fool's (Kerry's0 personal history of enthusiastically swallowing just this kind of bait, hook, line, and sinker — and then trying to base America's course upon it — scares me far more than anything Osama bin Laden could ever say.
Posted by Beldar
What to do When the Atkins Diet Fails You ... and Why it Usually Does 7/3/04
What to do When the Atkins Diet Fails You ... and Why it Usually Does 7/3/04 I need to go through this, but it looks good.
Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts - February 1, 2003 - American Family Physician
Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts - February 1, 2003 - American Family Physician: "Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts"
Power Line: Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
Power Line: Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse: "October 29, 2004
Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
I've never understood the Kerry campaign's decision to make Al Qaqaa--that is, an attack on the competence of the U.S. Army, based on essentially no evidence--the centerpiece of the last week of the campaign. On the merits, the issue has fizzled. We now know (although it has not been widely reported) that around half of the explosives in question were surreptitiously removed from the site by Saddam Hussein prior to January 2003; this is acknowledged in the IAEA report of that date. We also know that American troops secured the area starting on April 3, 2003, and thereafter it is hard to see how 40 truckloads of explosives could have been spirited away, unbeknownst to the soldiers stationed there.
We got an email today from a member of the 101st Airborne who said that he was at Al Qaqaa from April 10 through May 18, living in the bunkers there, and throughout that time, no munitions were driven away by terrorists. 'I was there!' he wrote. No doubt there are another 100 or more soldiers who can say the same thing."
Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
I've never understood the Kerry campaign's decision to make Al Qaqaa--that is, an attack on the competence of the U.S. Army, based on essentially no evidence--the centerpiece of the last week of the campaign. On the merits, the issue has fizzled. We now know (although it has not been widely reported) that around half of the explosives in question were surreptitiously removed from the site by Saddam Hussein prior to January 2003; this is acknowledged in the IAEA report of that date. We also know that American troops secured the area starting on April 3, 2003, and thereafter it is hard to see how 40 truckloads of explosives could have been spirited away, unbeknownst to the soldiers stationed there.
We got an email today from a member of the 101st Airborne who said that he was at Al Qaqaa from April 10 through May 18, living in the bunkers there, and throughout that time, no munitions were driven away by terrorists. 'I was there!' he wrote. No doubt there are another 100 or more soldiers who can say the same thing."
Power Line: Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Power Line: Is Osama Calling Time Out?: "October 30, 2004
Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Wretchard has an interesting take on Osama's video: he's like the kid on the playground who tries to call 'time out' when he's about to get clobbered:
It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
Posted by Hindrocket at 08:20 AM "
Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Wretchard has an interesting take on Osama's video: he's like the kid on the playground who tries to call 'time out' when he's about to get clobbered:
It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
Posted by Hindrocket at 08:20 AM "
Friday, October 29, 2004
HOG ON ICE: Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale
HOG ON ICE: Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale: "Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale"
Shaking Spears: Zen and the Art of Vote-Chumming
Shaking Spears: Zen and the Art of Vote-Chumming
. . . In one scene from the 70s blockbuster Jaws, Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) is shown at the back of Quint’s boat, casually chumming to attract the villainous shark and secure its demise.
After the massive fish surfaces, Brody dryly replies: “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
That churning outside Kerry's boat is an electorate waiting to surface on November 2.
. . . In one scene from the 70s blockbuster Jaws, Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) is shown at the back of Quint’s boat, casually chumming to attract the villainous shark and secure its demise.
After the massive fish surfaces, Brody dryly replies: “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
That churning outside Kerry's boat is an electorate waiting to surface on November 2.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Good thoughts
Bad Example: "ersuading the Undecided in 250 Words or Less - He outlines 5 inarguable points regarding the War on Terror, and follows with this:
6) George W. Bush understands 1-5.
7) George W. Bush will not hesitate to summon all of the powers of the U.S. government to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby removing this grave threat.
What's wrong with Kerry?
1) John Kerry does not understand 1-5, and will not summon all of the powers of the U.S. to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby increasing this grave threat. QED."
6) George W. Bush understands 1-5.
7) George W. Bush will not hesitate to summon all of the powers of the U.S. government to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby removing this grave threat.
What's wrong with Kerry?
1) John Kerry does not understand 1-5, and will not summon all of the powers of the U.S. to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby increasing this grave threat. QED."
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
TERROR TAKES A STAND
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.
Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.
"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."
My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.
But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.
Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.
The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.
Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.
Click to learn more...
Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.
Even the French are uncharacteristically subdued. The serpents of the Seine thought they'd seduced the terrorists with a few anti-American apples. Instead, they've found that they can't even free two kidnapped French journalists.
After their own recent terrorist debacle, the Russians repented their criticism of the Bush administration. The Spanish, too, discovered that appeasement doesn't work any better for them than for the French — an Islamist plot to blow up justice-ministry buildings was recently uncovered. And there's more to come.
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.
Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.
Of course, the terrorists aren't suddenly going to quit if President Bush wins at the polls — but his re-election would be a terrible psychological blow to them. They know how high the stakes are in Iraq.
The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.
The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.
This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."
It is. For the terrorists.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
TERROR TAKES A STAND
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.
Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.
"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."
My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.
But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.
Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.
The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.
Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.
Click to learn more...
Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.
Even the French are uncharacteristically subdued. The serpents of the Seine thought they'd seduced the terrorists with a few anti-American apples. Instead, they've found that they can't even free two kidnapped French journalists.
After their own recent terrorist debacle, the Russians repented their criticism of the Bush administration. The Spanish, too, discovered that appeasement doesn't work any better for them than for the French — an Islamist plot to blow up justice-ministry buildings was recently uncovered. And there's more to come.
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.
Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.
Of course, the terrorists aren't suddenly going to quit if President Bush wins at the polls — but his re-election would be a terrible psychological blow to them. They know how high the stakes are in Iraq.
The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.
The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.
This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."
It is. For the terrorists.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
Arafat successor
http://haloscan.com/tb/chrenkoff/109893497745404439Chrenkoff: "There's an old tale retold by the ancient historian Arrian of young Alexander the Great laying on his death bed in Babylon, surrounded by his trusted generals who over the previous decade had conquered most of the known world at his side, all now uneasily waiting for Alexander to appoint his successor from among them. Alexander, always a ruthless realist at heart, despite his semi-divine pretensions, is said to have finally answered their question 'Who do you leave your empire to?', 'Hoti to kratisto' - to the strongest."
Wizbang
Wizbang: "Political sign language
On the way home from work tonight, while stuck at a red light, I saw a bunch of guys holding up 'KERRY-EDWARDS' signs. I honked to get their attention. When one of them looked over at me, I held up both hands to give him a double 'V' symbol.
The guy was thrilled. He nudged his buddies, and they all grinned at me and gave me thumbs up.
Then I pulled my hands together and joined my fingertips to make the two 'V's' into a single 'W.'
The guy's smile turned chagrined and he changed to a thumbs down.
Then the light turned green and I drove off.
Damn, it felt good.
J."
On the way home from work tonight, while stuck at a red light, I saw a bunch of guys holding up 'KERRY-EDWARDS' signs. I honked to get their attention. When one of them looked over at me, I held up both hands to give him a double 'V' symbol.
The guy was thrilled. He nudged his buddies, and they all grinned at me and gave me thumbs up.
Then I pulled my hands together and joined my fingertips to make the two 'V's' into a single 'W.'
The guy's smile turned chagrined and he changed to a thumbs down.
Then the light turned green and I drove off.
Damn, it felt good.
J."
Sobran Column --- Death of a Comedian
Sobran Column --- Death of a Comedian
DEATH OF A COMEDIAN
October 12, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In the middle of a pretty humorless presidential
campaign, we had to lose Rodney Dangerfield. Dang.
I first saw him on the old ED SULLIVAN SHOW in the
late 1960s. His style of comedy was already
old-fashioned: nonstop one-liners, many about his wife
and kids, hard-luck stories and insults. He added a great
new twist to the old formula, though: He was the butt of
his own insults.
In those days, Don Rickles had just made a hit by
taking the insult to new heights; but he softened his act
with occasional smiles to show it was all a joke, folks.
Dangerfield never flashed an ingratiating smile; he was
insulting himself, and there would be no apologies --
just implacable self-depreciation.
Humor is an elusive thing. The best joke will fall
flat with some people, and the dumbest joke may bring
down the house. It's hard to rate comedians. All you can
say is that every time Dangerfield appeared on
television, you could feel an earthquake of laughter.
Soon his signature line -- "I tell you, I don't get no
respect" -- was a catchphrase, coast-to-coast. It now
looks to be an immortal joke.
But he wasn't just telling jokes; he was playing a
character, a sore loser who felt, as we all do at times,
that he wasn't getting his due -- while showing us =why=
he was a loser. He wasn't a beautiful loser, either: "My
psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you
don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He says, 'All
right -- you're ugly too!'"
That was Dangerfield's world, a world where your
shrink steps out of his therapeutic role to destroy
whatever is left of your fragile ego, where every social
encounter ended in crushing discouragement. It had
started early: "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor
slapped my mother." He made being ugly -- bulky and
frog-eyed -- part of the act, turning the mud of
humiliation into pay dirt. He made the imaginary Rodney
Dangerfield (real name: Jacob Cohen) into a character
almost as beloved as Charlie Chaplin's nameless Little
Tramp.
The real Dangerfield must have had resources,
though. Despite early failures, he persisted in the very
tough business of standup comedy, where a stony audience
can quickly teach you the meaning of "flop sweat." I once
quoted a hilarious line to a large crowd, and the ensuing
silence has been matched, in my experience, only at
well-attended funerals, with the difference that the
corpse being stared at doesn't usually turn beet-red.
It takes a special kind of courage, as well as
talent, to make a living telling jokes. Dangerfield's
secret was that he appealed to our sympathy. He exposed
his dread of failure right in front of us. He'd already
failed in life, and he made the most of it. But he didn't
ask for our pity: he was indignant! And that was the best
part of the joke: When a lesser loser might have resorted
to self-improvement courses or cosmetic surgery, he
wasn't about to change. He was determined to keep on
losing, so he could keep on griping.
Psychoanalysts tell us that humor is a form of
aggression. My own view is that psychoanalysis is a form
of aggression for humorless people. The funniest writer
of the twentieth century, or any other century I can
think of, was probably P.G. Wodehouse, whose humor was
remarkably gentle and chaste. He could even make a
hilarious compliment: "My dear, you look like Helen of
Troy after a good facial!"
Of course it's easy to praise humor, since nobody is
overtly anti-humorous. The problem is that some people
are humorless, and there's no arguing with them. Refusing
to laugh is like refusing to extend sympathy: It can't be
forced. You can't =prove= something is funny.
Humorlessness is irrefutable. But so is humor. And if you
can't laugh at yourself, you're missing half the fun of
life.
I love a good laugh, but sometimes I find myself the
humorless one. DON QUIXOTE has, for four centuries, made
countless readers laugh helplessly, and is widely hailed
as the funniest novel ever written. But every time I try
to read it, I find myself wondering, "When do I get to
the funny part?"
That doesn't mean Cervantes isn't funny. It probably
means I'm like a tone-deaf man listening to Handel. I'm
up against the laughter of millions.
But never let it be said that I failed to laugh at
Rodney Dangerfield. I've been doing it for nearly 40
years, with a brief sad pause last week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041012.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2004 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
DEATH OF A COMEDIAN
October 12, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In the middle of a pretty humorless presidential
campaign, we had to lose Rodney Dangerfield. Dang.
I first saw him on the old ED SULLIVAN SHOW in the
late 1960s. His style of comedy was already
old-fashioned: nonstop one-liners, many about his wife
and kids, hard-luck stories and insults. He added a great
new twist to the old formula, though: He was the butt of
his own insults.
In those days, Don Rickles had just made a hit by
taking the insult to new heights; but he softened his act
with occasional smiles to show it was all a joke, folks.
Dangerfield never flashed an ingratiating smile; he was
insulting himself, and there would be no apologies --
just implacable self-depreciation.
Humor is an elusive thing. The best joke will fall
flat with some people, and the dumbest joke may bring
down the house. It's hard to rate comedians. All you can
say is that every time Dangerfield appeared on
television, you could feel an earthquake of laughter.
Soon his signature line -- "I tell you, I don't get no
respect" -- was a catchphrase, coast-to-coast. It now
looks to be an immortal joke.
But he wasn't just telling jokes; he was playing a
character, a sore loser who felt, as we all do at times,
that he wasn't getting his due -- while showing us =why=
he was a loser. He wasn't a beautiful loser, either: "My
psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you
don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He says, 'All
right -- you're ugly too!'"
That was Dangerfield's world, a world where your
shrink steps out of his therapeutic role to destroy
whatever is left of your fragile ego, where every social
encounter ended in crushing discouragement. It had
started early: "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor
slapped my mother." He made being ugly -- bulky and
frog-eyed -- part of the act, turning the mud of
humiliation into pay dirt. He made the imaginary Rodney
Dangerfield (real name: Jacob Cohen) into a character
almost as beloved as Charlie Chaplin's nameless Little
Tramp.
The real Dangerfield must have had resources,
though. Despite early failures, he persisted in the very
tough business of standup comedy, where a stony audience
can quickly teach you the meaning of "flop sweat." I once
quoted a hilarious line to a large crowd, and the ensuing
silence has been matched, in my experience, only at
well-attended funerals, with the difference that the
corpse being stared at doesn't usually turn beet-red.
It takes a special kind of courage, as well as
talent, to make a living telling jokes. Dangerfield's
secret was that he appealed to our sympathy. He exposed
his dread of failure right in front of us. He'd already
failed in life, and he made the most of it. But he didn't
ask for our pity: he was indignant! And that was the best
part of the joke: When a lesser loser might have resorted
to self-improvement courses or cosmetic surgery, he
wasn't about to change. He was determined to keep on
losing, so he could keep on griping.
Psychoanalysts tell us that humor is a form of
aggression. My own view is that psychoanalysis is a form
of aggression for humorless people. The funniest writer
of the twentieth century, or any other century I can
think of, was probably P.G. Wodehouse, whose humor was
remarkably gentle and chaste. He could even make a
hilarious compliment: "My dear, you look like Helen of
Troy after a good facial!"
Of course it's easy to praise humor, since nobody is
overtly anti-humorous. The problem is that some people
are humorless, and there's no arguing with them. Refusing
to laugh is like refusing to extend sympathy: It can't be
forced. You can't =prove= something is funny.
Humorlessness is irrefutable. But so is humor. And if you
can't laugh at yourself, you're missing half the fun of
life.
I love a good laugh, but sometimes I find myself the
humorless one. DON QUIXOTE has, for four centuries, made
countless readers laugh helplessly, and is widely hailed
as the funniest novel ever written. But every time I try
to read it, I find myself wondering, "When do I get to
the funny part?"
That doesn't mean Cervantes isn't funny. It probably
means I'm like a tone-deaf man listening to Handel. I'm
up against the laughter of millions.
But never let it be said that I failed to laugh at
Rodney Dangerfield. I've been doing it for nearly 40
years, with a brief sad pause last week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041012.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2004 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Eutychus Fell: Becoming Catholic
Eutychus Fell: Becoming Catholic: "Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that believes the Pope should stay out of the abortion question, has filed an IRS complaint against the Denver Archdiocese:
'Archbishop Chaput, leader of the Archdiocese of Denver, has repeatedly engaged in voter instruction by explicitly urging Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. In fourteen of 28 of his columns in the archdiocese's weekly newspaper, Archbishop Chaput has repeatedly urged voters to reject candidates opposed to the organization's views. The archbishop has also attempted to influence voters during public speeches, interviews and on Friday, October 22, in an op-ed in the New York Times.
'Without mentioning anyone by name, the archdiocese has frequently equated a vote for certain candidates as sinful and even outright 'evil.'
I wonder why no complaints ever seem to be filed against those Southern Baptist churches when Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Jesse Jackson stand in the pulpit and do much more than Archbishop Chaput ever does. This is just the sort of action our priest said the bishops were worried about.
So what if the Catholic Church loses its IRS except status? Whoever said being Christian was cheap, or easy?
I heard Jesse Jackson preach from the pulpit a few weeks ago, saying, 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family is gay and plans to be married this year.' Of couse no one raised their hand. 'You see, this issue is a side issue, what is it doing in the center of our plate?' I wonder, since there are supposedly 55 abortions for every 100 live births in the African American community, how many women would have raised their hands (honestly) if the question was 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family has had an abortion or plans to have one.' -- perhaps the abortion issue should be at the center of the plate."
Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that believes the Pope should stay out of the abortion question, has filed an IRS complaint against the Denver Archdiocese:
'Archbishop Chaput, leader of the Archdiocese of Denver, has repeatedly engaged in voter instruction by explicitly urging Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. In fourteen of 28 of his columns in the archdiocese's weekly newspaper, Archbishop Chaput has repeatedly urged voters to reject candidates opposed to the organization's views. The archbishop has also attempted to influence voters during public speeches, interviews and on Friday, October 22, in an op-ed in the New York Times.
'Without mentioning anyone by name, the archdiocese has frequently equated a vote for certain candidates as sinful and even outright 'evil.'
I wonder why no complaints ever seem to be filed against those Southern Baptist churches when Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Jesse Jackson stand in the pulpit and do much more than Archbishop Chaput ever does. This is just the sort of action our priest said the bishops were worried about.
So what if the Catholic Church loses its IRS except status? Whoever said being Christian was cheap, or easy?
I heard Jesse Jackson preach from the pulpit a few weeks ago, saying, 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family is gay and plans to be married this year.' Of couse no one raised their hand. 'You see, this issue is a side issue, what is it doing in the center of our plate?' I wonder, since there are supposedly 55 abortions for every 100 live births in the African American community, how many women would have raised their hands (honestly) if the question was 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family has had an abortion or plans to have one.' -- perhaps the abortion issue should be at the center of the plate."
John Wesley's Journal: Tuesday 23rd October 1739
John Wesley's Journal: Tuesday 23rd October 1739: "Tuesday 23rd October 1739
In riding to Bradford I read over Mr. Law's book on the new birth. Philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behemish, void, and vain!
Oh, what a fall is there!
At eleven I preached at Bearfield to about three thousand, on the spirit of nature, of bondage, and of adoption.
Returning in the evening, I was exceedingly pressed to go back to a young woman in Kingswood. (The fact I nakedly relate and leave every man to his own judgment of it.) I went. She was nineteen or twenty years old, but, it seems, could not write or read. I found her on the bed, two or three persons holding her. It was a terrible sight. Anguish, horror, and despair above all description appeared in her pale face. The thousand distortions of her whole body showed how the dogs of hell were gnawing her heart. The shrieks intermixed were scarcely to be endured. But her stony eyes could not weep. She screamed out, as soon as words could find their way, 'I am damned, damned; lost forever! Six days ago you might have helped me. But it is past. I am the devil's now. I have given myself to him. His I am. Him I must serve. With him I must go to hell. I will be his. I will serve him. I will go with him to hell. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved. I must, I will, I will be damned!' She then began praying to the devil. We began:
Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!
She immediately sank down as sleep; but, as soon as we left off, broke out again, with inexpressible vehemence: 'Stony hearts, break! I am a warning to you. Break, break, poor stony hearts! Will you not break? What can be done more for stony hearts? I am damned that you may be saved. Now break, now break, poor stony hearts! You need not be damned, though I must.' She then fixed her eyes on the corner of the ceiling and said: 'There he is: ay, there he is! come, good devil, come! Take me away. You said you would dash my brains out: come, do it quickly. I am yours. I will be yours. Come just now. Take me away.'
We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sank down as before; and another young woman began to roar out as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven, when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him who had 'stilled the enemy and the avenger.'"
In riding to Bradford I read over Mr. Law's book on the new birth. Philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behemish, void, and vain!
Oh, what a fall is there!
At eleven I preached at Bearfield to about three thousand, on the spirit of nature, of bondage, and of adoption.
Returning in the evening, I was exceedingly pressed to go back to a young woman in Kingswood. (The fact I nakedly relate and leave every man to his own judgment of it.) I went. She was nineteen or twenty years old, but, it seems, could not write or read. I found her on the bed, two or three persons holding her. It was a terrible sight. Anguish, horror, and despair above all description appeared in her pale face. The thousand distortions of her whole body showed how the dogs of hell were gnawing her heart. The shrieks intermixed were scarcely to be endured. But her stony eyes could not weep. She screamed out, as soon as words could find their way, 'I am damned, damned; lost forever! Six days ago you might have helped me. But it is past. I am the devil's now. I have given myself to him. His I am. Him I must serve. With him I must go to hell. I will be his. I will serve him. I will go with him to hell. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved. I must, I will, I will be damned!' She then began praying to the devil. We began:
Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!
She immediately sank down as sleep; but, as soon as we left off, broke out again, with inexpressible vehemence: 'Stony hearts, break! I am a warning to you. Break, break, poor stony hearts! Will you not break? What can be done more for stony hearts? I am damned that you may be saved. Now break, now break, poor stony hearts! You need not be damned, though I must.' She then fixed her eyes on the corner of the ceiling and said: 'There he is: ay, there he is! come, good devil, come! Take me away. You said you would dash my brains out: come, do it quickly. I am yours. I will be yours. Come just now. Take me away.'
We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sank down as before; and another young woman began to roar out as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven, when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him who had 'stilled the enemy and the avenger.'"
Proverbial Wife: Be Blessed
Proverbial Wife: Be Blessed:. . . . "He talked about speaking blessings over other believers (not recommended for unbelievers as they'll probably think you're wacky). This is somewhat different than praying. It's actually looking someone--your spouse, your child, your friend--eye to eye (intimidating, I know) and speaking words of encouragement, in the form of a blessing, into their life. It can be off the cuff or a recitation of Scripture, but personalized.
My husband was blessed in a special way by the message because our pastor actually related the incident I shared in The Prayer of Edward as an example of how to speak blessing over someone. Not to digress too much, but one reason I have had such peace about our new church (we started going in June) is because of the way the pastor has reached out to my husband--developing a friendship with him, recognizing his gifts, and discipling him. Eddie just thrives on the personal attention, and in turn, God is using him in our pastor's life, so that it is a mutually 'Ed'ifying relationship. I couldn't resist...
I know it would be harder for me to improvise a blessing over someone face-to-face than to pen them words of encouragement or pray (with heads bowed) for them, but I don't want to let that stop me from attempting this new (yet ancient) way of building up others in Christ. So I like the idea of memorizing blessings from Scripture. I think I'll start with this simple one ('Aaron's Blessing') whose imagery I have always liked (several of my former pastors used to close each service by speaking it over the congregation), but I would love it if you would write your favorite blessings from the Bible (or other sources) in the comments:
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. ~Numbers 6:24-26"
My husband was blessed in a special way by the message because our pastor actually related the incident I shared in The Prayer of Edward as an example of how to speak blessing over someone. Not to digress too much, but one reason I have had such peace about our new church (we started going in June) is because of the way the pastor has reached out to my husband--developing a friendship with him, recognizing his gifts, and discipling him. Eddie just thrives on the personal attention, and in turn, God is using him in our pastor's life, so that it is a mutually 'Ed'ifying relationship. I couldn't resist...
I know it would be harder for me to improvise a blessing over someone face-to-face than to pen them words of encouragement or pray (with heads bowed) for them, but I don't want to let that stop me from attempting this new (yet ancient) way of building up others in Christ. So I like the idea of memorizing blessings from Scripture. I think I'll start with this simple one ('Aaron's Blessing') whose imagery I have always liked (several of my former pastors used to close each service by speaking it over the congregation), but I would love it if you would write your favorite blessings from the Bible (or other sources) in the comments:
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. ~Numbers 6:24-26"
Wizbang
Wizbang
THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (Part III)
Note: Part 3 of a six part series. Return to Part I
THE IMPACT OF INSURGENCY
In the year and a half since the initial invasion, we have experienced a total of two insurgencies. One led by Muqtada al-Sadr and one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If anyone honestly expected anything less, they're just not rational human beings. I honestly expected a lot more resistance.
Do you realize that there are currently more than 100 active gangs and 30,000 hardcore gang members in the Chicago, Illinois area alone? Also, consider this... in the past 19 months we have been at war, a few more than 1,100 Americans have perished in Iraq. During this same time period, more than 950 Americans were murdered in Chicago.
Obviously the toll on Iraqis has been much greater, but I wanted to give you a little context before moving on.
Contrary to the beliefs of many of those on the left (and some on the right), there is NOT a general insurrection in Iraq. Three-quarters of Iraq is relatively stable and a strong majority of Iraqis want the liberty we are offering them.
So, what are these insurgencies? Generally speaking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is responsible for much of the unrest in the Sunni Triangle: Fallujah, Ramadi, Barqubah, Hit and, until recently, Samarra. The Sunni triangle is a relative small area of Iraq, north of Baghdad, and roughly comparable to the size of the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. Although Zarqawi's goons often travel to Baghdad and other high profile spots in Iraq to get maximum TV coverage of his antics, Zarqawi's sphere of influence is not very large. In fact, it is rumored that the locals in the Sunni Triangle are rapidly tiring of this foreigner and the grief he has brought upon them.
Zarqawi is the terrorist who operated training camps in Afghanistan before being harbored by Saddam. He is also the one responsible for the beheadings and most of the car bombings.
Because of the decision of the Turkish parliament and the resulting necessary redeployment of the 4th ID to Kuwait, we never had the opportunity to properly neutralize the area immediately north of Baghdad and south of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Unfortunately this allowed Zarqawi an opportunity to gain a foothold and develop a following in a foreign land. Had the 4th ID been able to swoop down from the north, much of the Sunni Triangle would have been neutralized and Zarqawi more than like would have been captured or killed.
Unlike Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr is a local, descended from a powerful line of religious leaders. Sadr's stronghold is in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. This neighborhood makes up roughly 25% (the northeast quadrant) of Baghdad. Over the past several months, Sadr has led a group of militants called the Mehdi Army. In addition to the general level of unrest in Sadr City with mortar rounds, some car bombs and medium to light arms, the Mehdi Militia and Sadr were responsible to laying siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, the holiest shrine to the Shiites and the second holiest site in all of Islam.
COMBATING THE INSURGENCY
The insurgencies started to become a more noticeable problem about 6 months ago. Toward the middle of June, right before the hand-over of Iraq to new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the insurgencies became more organized trying to disrupt the transfer of power to Iraqis. However, it was ultimately more important to put an Iraqi face on the new government than it was to immediately deal with the 2 insurgent organizations.
In an absolutely brilliant move, the United States relinquished control of Iraq to Allawi several days early, catching the insurgents by surprise and avoiding any potential attacks timed to coincide with the transfer of power. Incredibly brilliant.
Soon after the transfer, the insurgency became increasingly more organized and we knew we had to eliminate the threat from both Sadr and Zarqawi. The order in which they would be neutralized became apparent at the beginning of August when Sadr and the Mehdi Army laid siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Because of the holy nature of this shrine, the way we handled this crisis had the potential to become a very serious international incident.
In a masterful display of crisis resolution, the Bush administration was able to combine the U.S. Military with the Iraqi National Guard and bring Prime Minister Allawi, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Sadr together to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the potentially inflammatory incident. Could you imagine Kerry bringing the U.N. in to negotiate? I could. And I'm sure that would have impressed Sadr.
Since the resolution, Najaf has returned to normal, Iraqi police/National Guard are patrolling the city and we, here in the U.S., are hearing absolutely nothing from the mainstream media (MSM) about Najaf. That's because it is an incredible success story.
In a final push to completely neutralize Sadr and the Mehdi Army, Allawi and the Bush administration negotiated a 'weapons for cash' program which has, in the past few weeks, resulted in collecting more than 18,000 weapons, explosives and mines from the teeming slum of 2.5 million people and beyond as others traveled to Sadr City to exchange their arms for money.
It must be working marvelously, because I have heard nothing, save the weapons-for-cash program, from Sadr City or about Sadr himself in the past few weeks from the MSM. If the program was failing, the MSM would surely be there covering it.
Zarqawi is next and he knows it. In fact, he has already lost a small but significant battle with the U.S. and Iraqis. In what was described as a resounding success, Iraqi forces, backed up by U.S. forces, combined in a swift operation to wrest control of Samarra from insurgents loyal to Zarqawi. It was such a resounding success that the MSM reported about it for one day and we have heard absolutely nothing from Samarra since. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.
In Fallujah, where Zarqawi himself is thought to be hiding, there are currently negotiations underway, not with Zarqawi, but with the elders and leaders of Fallujah. The very people I stated earlier that were tiring of the foreigner and his thuggish gang. It seems as though either the city elders/leaders can not or will not hand over Zarqawi. But, when we have to act militarily, it can not be said that we did not attempt to stave off the incursion peacefully.
Additionally, by working with the locals, we are gaining valuable intelligence from those evacuating the city. As soon as we get this intelligence, we are acting immediately. Just yesterday (Friday October 22, 2004), we captured 6 Zarqawi loyalists, including a recently promoted senior leader in his terror movement. This captured leader had risen in rank as other Zarqawi associates had been killed in U.S. attacks on Fallujah.
There is still a great deal to do. With the insurgency, everything is not rosy. Neither is it sheer chaos as the left would have you believe. As the election draws near and Zarqawi's fate becomes more clear to him, the attacks will come more frequently and become more deadly. Attacks have reportedly risen by 25% since the beginning of Ramadan last weekend. But one thing is for certain, with the Sadr movement nearly quelled, the U.S. and Iraqi military will be working furiously over the next month to dislodge Zarqawi from Fallujah and the surrounding areas ahead of the January elections.
THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (Part III)
Note: Part 3 of a six part series. Return to Part I
THE IMPACT OF INSURGENCY
In the year and a half since the initial invasion, we have experienced a total of two insurgencies. One led by Muqtada al-Sadr and one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If anyone honestly expected anything less, they're just not rational human beings. I honestly expected a lot more resistance.
Do you realize that there are currently more than 100 active gangs and 30,000 hardcore gang members in the Chicago, Illinois area alone? Also, consider this... in the past 19 months we have been at war, a few more than 1,100 Americans have perished in Iraq. During this same time period, more than 950 Americans were murdered in Chicago.
Obviously the toll on Iraqis has been much greater, but I wanted to give you a little context before moving on.
Contrary to the beliefs of many of those on the left (and some on the right), there is NOT a general insurrection in Iraq. Three-quarters of Iraq is relatively stable and a strong majority of Iraqis want the liberty we are offering them.
So, what are these insurgencies? Generally speaking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is responsible for much of the unrest in the Sunni Triangle: Fallujah, Ramadi, Barqubah, Hit and, until recently, Samarra. The Sunni triangle is a relative small area of Iraq, north of Baghdad, and roughly comparable to the size of the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. Although Zarqawi's goons often travel to Baghdad and other high profile spots in Iraq to get maximum TV coverage of his antics, Zarqawi's sphere of influence is not very large. In fact, it is rumored that the locals in the Sunni Triangle are rapidly tiring of this foreigner and the grief he has brought upon them.
Zarqawi is the terrorist who operated training camps in Afghanistan before being harbored by Saddam. He is also the one responsible for the beheadings and most of the car bombings.
Because of the decision of the Turkish parliament and the resulting necessary redeployment of the 4th ID to Kuwait, we never had the opportunity to properly neutralize the area immediately north of Baghdad and south of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Unfortunately this allowed Zarqawi an opportunity to gain a foothold and develop a following in a foreign land. Had the 4th ID been able to swoop down from the north, much of the Sunni Triangle would have been neutralized and Zarqawi more than like would have been captured or killed.
Unlike Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr is a local, descended from a powerful line of religious leaders. Sadr's stronghold is in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. This neighborhood makes up roughly 25% (the northeast quadrant) of Baghdad. Over the past several months, Sadr has led a group of militants called the Mehdi Army. In addition to the general level of unrest in Sadr City with mortar rounds, some car bombs and medium to light arms, the Mehdi Militia and Sadr were responsible to laying siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, the holiest shrine to the Shiites and the second holiest site in all of Islam.
COMBATING THE INSURGENCY
The insurgencies started to become a more noticeable problem about 6 months ago. Toward the middle of June, right before the hand-over of Iraq to new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the insurgencies became more organized trying to disrupt the transfer of power to Iraqis. However, it was ultimately more important to put an Iraqi face on the new government than it was to immediately deal with the 2 insurgent organizations.
In an absolutely brilliant move, the United States relinquished control of Iraq to Allawi several days early, catching the insurgents by surprise and avoiding any potential attacks timed to coincide with the transfer of power. Incredibly brilliant.
Soon after the transfer, the insurgency became increasingly more organized and we knew we had to eliminate the threat from both Sadr and Zarqawi. The order in which they would be neutralized became apparent at the beginning of August when Sadr and the Mehdi Army laid siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Because of the holy nature of this shrine, the way we handled this crisis had the potential to become a very serious international incident.
In a masterful display of crisis resolution, the Bush administration was able to combine the U.S. Military with the Iraqi National Guard and bring Prime Minister Allawi, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Sadr together to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the potentially inflammatory incident. Could you imagine Kerry bringing the U.N. in to negotiate? I could. And I'm sure that would have impressed Sadr.
Since the resolution, Najaf has returned to normal, Iraqi police/National Guard are patrolling the city and we, here in the U.S., are hearing absolutely nothing from the mainstream media (MSM) about Najaf. That's because it is an incredible success story.
In a final push to completely neutralize Sadr and the Mehdi Army, Allawi and the Bush administration negotiated a 'weapons for cash' program which has, in the past few weeks, resulted in collecting more than 18,000 weapons, explosives and mines from the teeming slum of 2.5 million people and beyond as others traveled to Sadr City to exchange their arms for money.
It must be working marvelously, because I have heard nothing, save the weapons-for-cash program, from Sadr City or about Sadr himself in the past few weeks from the MSM. If the program was failing, the MSM would surely be there covering it.
Zarqawi is next and he knows it. In fact, he has already lost a small but significant battle with the U.S. and Iraqis. In what was described as a resounding success, Iraqi forces, backed up by U.S. forces, combined in a swift operation to wrest control of Samarra from insurgents loyal to Zarqawi. It was such a resounding success that the MSM reported about it for one day and we have heard absolutely nothing from Samarra since. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.
In Fallujah, where Zarqawi himself is thought to be hiding, there are currently negotiations underway, not with Zarqawi, but with the elders and leaders of Fallujah. The very people I stated earlier that were tiring of the foreigner and his thuggish gang. It seems as though either the city elders/leaders can not or will not hand over Zarqawi. But, when we have to act militarily, it can not be said that we did not attempt to stave off the incursion peacefully.
Additionally, by working with the locals, we are gaining valuable intelligence from those evacuating the city. As soon as we get this intelligence, we are acting immediately. Just yesterday (Friday October 22, 2004), we captured 6 Zarqawi loyalists, including a recently promoted senior leader in his terror movement. This captured leader had risen in rank as other Zarqawi associates had been killed in U.S. attacks on Fallujah.
There is still a great deal to do. With the insurgency, everything is not rosy. Neither is it sheer chaos as the left would have you believe. As the election draws near and Zarqawi's fate becomes more clear to him, the attacks will come more frequently and become more deadly. Attacks have reportedly risen by 25% since the beginning of Ramadan last weekend. But one thing is for certain, with the Sadr movement nearly quelled, the U.S. and Iraqi military will be working furiously over the next month to dislodge Zarqawi from Fallujah and the surrounding areas ahead of the January elections.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away | The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away | The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away
By Robert J. Caldwell
October 24, 2004
In a race appropriately dominated by questions of presidential leadership, the war on terror, Iraq and the economy, Vietnam nonetheless continues to haunt Democrat John Kerry. For this, Kerry has only himself to blame.
Advertisement
It is Kerry who quite deliberately made his brief four months on Navy Swift Boats in Vietnam in 1968-69 his signature credential to be commander in chief 35 years later. It is Kerry and his surrogates who repeat constantly the mantra that he "defended this country as a young man." It was Kerry who presented his "band of brothers" – the seven (out of eight) members of his Swift Boat crew who support him for president – as a backdrop at the Democratic National Convention.
Yet, the echoes of Vietnam also have grievously wounded Kerry's presidential aspirations, and rightly so.
A month of largely unanswered attacks by other Navy Swift Boat veterans on Kerry's war record and his subsequent anti-war, if not anti-American, radicalism helped President Bush build a lead in September. The Swiftees' anti-Kerry critique, detailed in their best-selling book "Unfit for Command" and publicized in television ads, raised profound questions about Kerry's fitness for the presidency. Against the seven supportive members of Kerry's Swift Boat crew, more than 250 Swift Boat combat veterans who served alongside Kerry in the same units denounce him as unfit to be commander in chief. Among them are 17 of the 20 officers in Kerry's chain of command in Vietnam.
Now, the anti-Kerry Swiftees are being joined by a second aggrieved group, former American prisoners of war. In North Vietnam's fetid prisons, they were subjected to years of torture and tormented by their interrogators with propaganda from America's anti-war movement. These highly decorated ex-POWs denounce Kerry for giving aid and comfort to a vicious communist enemy. In some cases, they recall being threatened with trial and execution by interrogators quoting Kerry's outrageous accusations.
In 1971, Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces in Vietnam were guilty of systematic war crimes, including rape, murder, mutilation and pillage with the full knowledge and complicity of their entire chain of command.
Virtually all of America's former Vietnam prisoners of war also believe – with good reason, as North Vietnam's army commander has since said publicly – that the anti-war movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s encouraged Hanoi to fight on despite the odds. That prolonged the imprisonment of American POWs.
Ralph Gaither, a Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent, as he notes, "seven years, three months and 23 days" as a prisoner of war, is unsparing about the radical protest movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s.
"My imprisonment was extended by the anti-war movement. The war would have ended sooner if the (North) Vietnamese had not believed that the anti-war movement would win in the United States. It prolonged the war. I had friends die during this time. One was beaten to death, one died on a hunger strike and a third of malaria," Gaither says.
George 'Bud' Day, an Air Force pilot who won the Medal of Honor for his heroic resistance in North Vietnamese captivity, says this of Kerry:
"This man committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget. What he stands for is wrong."
Leo Thorsness, another former POW and Medal of Honor winner, says the North Vietnamese threatened to execute him if he did not confess to war crimes.
"John Kerry and that whole movement made our lives more difficult. The things he said were just devastating because he was using words like 'war criminal.' He (was) saying the same things we were being tortured to say. I was told by them the penalty for this was death," Thorsness says.
James Warner, a Marine pilot who spent years in North Vietnamese captivity, recalls that John Kerry's 1971 accusations against the U.S. military were quoted and thrown in his face by a table-pounding interrogator at a punishment camp for resistant POWs.
"'This naval officer admits you are all war criminals. These words prove you all deserve punishment,'" Warner remembers his interrogator shouting. "He (Kerry) abandoned his comrades. His allegations were utterly absurd. To be charitable, at a minimum, he showed abominable bad judgment."
Mike McGrath, now a retired Navy captain, was a POW in North Vietnam for six years. Torture broke his back, dislocated both shoulders and broke an arm and a leg. "I nearly died," McGrath says. "They wanted us to make statements against the war."
Of John Kerry's lurid litany of accusations in 1971, McGrath says, "I agree with the Swiftees. I was ashamed that a Navy lieutenant would give such testimony. I'm disappointed this guy did the wrong thing. He shouldn't be commander in chief."
The testimony of these and other American POWs from the Vietnam War is the basis for a documentary entitled "Stolen Honor" that the Kerry campaign is trying, shamefully, to suppress.
Politics aside, no one can question the right of these men to be heard. No one can doubt the authenticity of their words.
How could this not be a legitimate issue as John Kerry, the unrepentant anti-war activist whose slanderous testimony did so much damage, seeks the presidency, and with it, the command of America's armed forces?
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away
By Robert J. Caldwell
October 24, 2004
In a race appropriately dominated by questions of presidential leadership, the war on terror, Iraq and the economy, Vietnam nonetheless continues to haunt Democrat John Kerry. For this, Kerry has only himself to blame.
Advertisement
It is Kerry who quite deliberately made his brief four months on Navy Swift Boats in Vietnam in 1968-69 his signature credential to be commander in chief 35 years later. It is Kerry and his surrogates who repeat constantly the mantra that he "defended this country as a young man." It was Kerry who presented his "band of brothers" – the seven (out of eight) members of his Swift Boat crew who support him for president – as a backdrop at the Democratic National Convention.
Yet, the echoes of Vietnam also have grievously wounded Kerry's presidential aspirations, and rightly so.
A month of largely unanswered attacks by other Navy Swift Boat veterans on Kerry's war record and his subsequent anti-war, if not anti-American, radicalism helped President Bush build a lead in September. The Swiftees' anti-Kerry critique, detailed in their best-selling book "Unfit for Command" and publicized in television ads, raised profound questions about Kerry's fitness for the presidency. Against the seven supportive members of Kerry's Swift Boat crew, more than 250 Swift Boat combat veterans who served alongside Kerry in the same units denounce him as unfit to be commander in chief. Among them are 17 of the 20 officers in Kerry's chain of command in Vietnam.
Now, the anti-Kerry Swiftees are being joined by a second aggrieved group, former American prisoners of war. In North Vietnam's fetid prisons, they were subjected to years of torture and tormented by their interrogators with propaganda from America's anti-war movement. These highly decorated ex-POWs denounce Kerry for giving aid and comfort to a vicious communist enemy. In some cases, they recall being threatened with trial and execution by interrogators quoting Kerry's outrageous accusations.
In 1971, Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces in Vietnam were guilty of systematic war crimes, including rape, murder, mutilation and pillage with the full knowledge and complicity of their entire chain of command.
Virtually all of America's former Vietnam prisoners of war also believe – with good reason, as North Vietnam's army commander has since said publicly – that the anti-war movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s encouraged Hanoi to fight on despite the odds. That prolonged the imprisonment of American POWs.
Ralph Gaither, a Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent, as he notes, "seven years, three months and 23 days" as a prisoner of war, is unsparing about the radical protest movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s.
"My imprisonment was extended by the anti-war movement. The war would have ended sooner if the (North) Vietnamese had not believed that the anti-war movement would win in the United States. It prolonged the war. I had friends die during this time. One was beaten to death, one died on a hunger strike and a third of malaria," Gaither says.
George 'Bud' Day, an Air Force pilot who won the Medal of Honor for his heroic resistance in North Vietnamese captivity, says this of Kerry:
"This man committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget. What he stands for is wrong."
Leo Thorsness, another former POW and Medal of Honor winner, says the North Vietnamese threatened to execute him if he did not confess to war crimes.
"John Kerry and that whole movement made our lives more difficult. The things he said were just devastating because he was using words like 'war criminal.' He (was) saying the same things we were being tortured to say. I was told by them the penalty for this was death," Thorsness says.
James Warner, a Marine pilot who spent years in North Vietnamese captivity, recalls that John Kerry's 1971 accusations against the U.S. military were quoted and thrown in his face by a table-pounding interrogator at a punishment camp for resistant POWs.
"'This naval officer admits you are all war criminals. These words prove you all deserve punishment,'" Warner remembers his interrogator shouting. "He (Kerry) abandoned his comrades. His allegations were utterly absurd. To be charitable, at a minimum, he showed abominable bad judgment."
Mike McGrath, now a retired Navy captain, was a POW in North Vietnam for six years. Torture broke his back, dislocated both shoulders and broke an arm and a leg. "I nearly died," McGrath says. "They wanted us to make statements against the war."
Of John Kerry's lurid litany of accusations in 1971, McGrath says, "I agree with the Swiftees. I was ashamed that a Navy lieutenant would give such testimony. I'm disappointed this guy did the wrong thing. He shouldn't be commander in chief."
The testimony of these and other American POWs from the Vietnam War is the basis for a documentary entitled "Stolen Honor" that the Kerry campaign is trying, shamefully, to suppress.
Politics aside, no one can question the right of these men to be heard. No one can doubt the authenticity of their words.
How could this not be a legitimate issue as John Kerry, the unrepentant anti-war activist whose slanderous testimony did so much damage, seeks the presidency, and with it, the command of America's armed forces?
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
22 questions unanswered from Bob woodward to Kerry
Decision Iraq (washingtonpost.com)Decision Iraq
Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?
By Bob Woodward
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B04
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."
In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.
Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:
1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.
Questions: If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?
2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a "lessons learned" study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.
Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy -- negotiations at the U.N. and covert action -- made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?
3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous "axis of evil" speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.
Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President Kerry frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?
4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.
Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?
5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.
Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.
Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.
Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?
8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq -- "You break it, you own it."
Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?
9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.
Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory -- getting Saddam out of power -- possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?
10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.
Questions: How might a President Kerry have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?
11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."
Questions: What might a President Kerry have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?
12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.
Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?
13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him "You can count on this" -- i.e., war.
Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?
14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.
Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a Kerry administration?
15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.
Question: What do you think of the timing of this?
16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, "If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours." Bush was optimistic but took no action.
Question: What would a President Kerry have done about this conciliatory statement?
17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.
Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?
18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. "And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt," Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.
Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?
19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a "fever," an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others -- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- were part of "a separate little government."
Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?
20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become "dangerously protective" of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.
Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?
21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.
Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?
22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead," he said.
Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?
Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?
By Bob Woodward
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B04
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."
In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.
Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:
1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.
Questions: If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?
2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a "lessons learned" study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.
Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy -- negotiations at the U.N. and covert action -- made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?
3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous "axis of evil" speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.
Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President Kerry frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?
4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.
Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?
5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.
Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.
Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.
Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?
8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq -- "You break it, you own it."
Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?
9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.
Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory -- getting Saddam out of power -- possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?
10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.
Questions: How might a President Kerry have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?
11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."
Questions: What might a President Kerry have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?
12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.
Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?
13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him "You can count on this" -- i.e., war.
Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?
14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.
Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a Kerry administration?
15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.
Question: What do you think of the timing of this?
16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, "If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours." Bush was optimistic but took no action.
Question: What would a President Kerry have done about this conciliatory statement?
17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.
Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?
18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. "And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt," Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.
Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?
19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a "fever," an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others -- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- were part of "a separate little government."
Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?
20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become "dangerously protective" of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.
Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?
21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.
Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?
22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead," he said.
Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
