Saturday, August 30, 2008
Entire Louisiana Guard Now Mobilized
In 05, his Majesty King Nagin would not allow the Guard in Orleans Parish with a round in the chamber. Now that Gov. Jindal has taken control of the situation, let's hope and pray what you see on the left does not happen again...
Lock and load, boys...protect the lives and property of law abiding citizens...round in the chamber...empty the clip...no bag limit!
Pray for all of TX, LA, AL, MS, AL...this hurricane will be nasty.
God Bless The Guard, Police, Fireman, Paramedics, Doctors and Nurses and all who stay and help those in need.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
O'Bama-Kennedy '08
|
Monday, March 05, 2007
A Fantasy Transcript for Mr. Fox - David Limbaugh
This is a really good piece someone sent me...
No one should have to suffer the indignity of a moral lecture from Sen. John Kerry as did fellow Missourian Sam Fox at hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination for Belgium ambassador.
Given Kerry's history of self-indulgence and hubris, it should come as no surprise that he would forget his proper role in the hearings -- as a senator considering the nominee's qualifications and fitness -- and turn the proceedings into an embarrassing spectacle about himself.Kerry was not about to forego this opportunity to transfer his unquenched hostility against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to Mr. Fox, who, it turns out, had donated $50,000 to that group during the 2004 presidential race.
Though Fox received "glowing tributes" from a number of senators, Kerry didn't even try to mask his anger. He said, "I assume that you believe that the truth in public life is important? Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction?"
Unfortunately, perhaps because he didn't anticipate that Kerry would stoop so low as to turn his confirmation hearings into a public vendetta and therapy session, Fox conceded that all 527 groups, like the Swiftees, are "mean and destructive" and "smearing lies." But he justified his contribution on the grounds that both sides engage in negative campaigning and it would be political suicide for one side to quit doing it while the other continued.
Seeing an opening, Kerry asked, "So two wrongs make a right? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship?"
I sure hope that Fox, on reflection, doesn't truly believe that all 527s, especially the Swiftees, were issuing lies. Despite the distortions of the overtly biased mainstream media and the "conventional wisdom" decreed by the cultural elite that the Swiftees were completely discredited, the Swiftees were not exposed as liars.
Swiftee leader John O'Neill exhaustively demonstrated that it was Kerry, not the Swiftees, who was lying. Kerry was forced to change his stories a number of times during the ordeal, such as with the tall tale about his little excursion to Cambodia .
I know this is pure fantasy, but I wish Mr. Fox had said something like the following to Mr. Kerry:
"Sen. Kerry, I wholly reject your premise. While two wrongs don't make a right, I deny, sir, that the Swift Boat Veterans did anything wrong. In fact, Senator, I applaud them for their courageous and patriotic service in boldly publicizing facts about your service that were relevant to your fitness to serve as president and commander in chief. I will note, Senator, that despite endless opportunities, you never answered the group's plausible allegations against you, many of which were substantiated by multiple witnesses. While you later said you should have fought back harder, the obvious truth is that you chose not to fight back because you had no credible answers. Indeed, you refused to produce the one set of documents that could vindicate you if their contents conform to your version of history: your medical records. You have repeatedly broken promises to release them. There is only one possible explanation for that, sir, and it isn't in your favor."
"Your supporters speciously attempted to impeach the Swiftee's claims by saying that some of the witnesses weren't in your boat, knowing full well, sir, that they were in other boats in sufficiently close proximity to make them actual eye witnesses to the events they were describing."
"Senator, I cannot in good conscience apologize for having contributed to the Swiftees. I am proud of having done so. But for their exposure of your real record, you might well be commander in chief of our armed forces today. I shudder at that thought, not just because of your record of softness on defense, but your pattern of slandering our troops, yesterday and today, and disrespecting their sacrificial service."
"Sir, I find your misuse of these hearings to lash out at your political opponents, once again, where they are not present to respond, appalling and cowardly. And while you have the legal right to lecture me about the importance of 'truth in public life,' I find your audacity breathtaking, given your obvious lack of moral authority to do so."
"You, sir, are free to vote against my confirmation. And while I would be honored to serve as ambassador, I will not grovel for the position, nor will I consent to your revised version of history. You are free publicly to exorcise your personal demons, even on the public's time, but I will trust that most of your colleagues will base their vote on matters relevant to my fitness to serve. Thank you."
Posted by David Limbaugh at March 1, 2007 06:32 PM - All pages copyright David Limbaugh 1994-2
|
No one should have to suffer the indignity of a moral lecture from Sen. John Kerry as did fellow Missourian Sam Fox at hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination for Belgium ambassador.
Given Kerry's history of self-indulgence and hubris, it should come as no surprise that he would forget his proper role in the hearings -- as a senator considering the nominee's qualifications and fitness -- and turn the proceedings into an embarrassing spectacle about himself.Kerry was not about to forego this opportunity to transfer his unquenched hostility against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to Mr. Fox, who, it turns out, had donated $50,000 to that group during the 2004 presidential race.
Though Fox received "glowing tributes" from a number of senators, Kerry didn't even try to mask his anger. He said, "I assume that you believe that the truth in public life is important? Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction?"
Unfortunately, perhaps because he didn't anticipate that Kerry would stoop so low as to turn his confirmation hearings into a public vendetta and therapy session, Fox conceded that all 527 groups, like the Swiftees, are "mean and destructive" and "smearing lies." But he justified his contribution on the grounds that both sides engage in negative campaigning and it would be political suicide for one side to quit doing it while the other continued.
Seeing an opening, Kerry asked, "So two wrongs make a right? Is that your judgment that you would bring to the ambassadorship?"
I sure hope that Fox, on reflection, doesn't truly believe that all 527s, especially the Swiftees, were issuing lies. Despite the distortions of the overtly biased mainstream media and the "conventional wisdom" decreed by the cultural elite that the Swiftees were completely discredited, the Swiftees were not exposed as liars.
Swiftee leader John O'Neill exhaustively demonstrated that it was Kerry, not the Swiftees, who was lying. Kerry was forced to change his stories a number of times during the ordeal, such as with the tall tale about his little excursion to Cambodia .
I know this is pure fantasy, but I wish Mr. Fox had said something like the following to Mr. Kerry:
"Sen. Kerry, I wholly reject your premise. While two wrongs don't make a right, I deny, sir, that the Swift Boat Veterans did anything wrong. In fact, Senator, I applaud them for their courageous and patriotic service in boldly publicizing facts about your service that were relevant to your fitness to serve as president and commander in chief. I will note, Senator, that despite endless opportunities, you never answered the group's plausible allegations against you, many of which were substantiated by multiple witnesses. While you later said you should have fought back harder, the obvious truth is that you chose not to fight back because you had no credible answers. Indeed, you refused to produce the one set of documents that could vindicate you if their contents conform to your version of history: your medical records. You have repeatedly broken promises to release them. There is only one possible explanation for that, sir, and it isn't in your favor."
"Your supporters speciously attempted to impeach the Swiftee's claims by saying that some of the witnesses weren't in your boat, knowing full well, sir, that they were in other boats in sufficiently close proximity to make them actual eye witnesses to the events they were describing."
"Senator, I cannot in good conscience apologize for having contributed to the Swiftees. I am proud of having done so. But for their exposure of your real record, you might well be commander in chief of our armed forces today. I shudder at that thought, not just because of your record of softness on defense, but your pattern of slandering our troops, yesterday and today, and disrespecting their sacrificial service."
"Sir, I find your misuse of these hearings to lash out at your political opponents, once again, where they are not present to respond, appalling and cowardly. And while you have the legal right to lecture me about the importance of 'truth in public life,' I find your audacity breathtaking, given your obvious lack of moral authority to do so."
"You, sir, are free to vote against my confirmation. And while I would be honored to serve as ambassador, I will not grovel for the position, nor will I consent to your revised version of history. You are free publicly to exorcise your personal demons, even on the public's time, but I will trust that most of your colleagues will base their vote on matters relevant to my fitness to serve. Thank you."
Posted by David Limbaugh at March 1, 2007 06:32 PM - All pages copyright David Limbaugh 1994-2
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Great quote by Gen. Robert E. Lee
submitted by email:
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
Robert E. Lee, 1863
|
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
Robert E. Lee, 1863
Labels: Robert E Lee, Robert E Lee quote
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Ronald Reagan's Last Words
If you watched the memorial service for Ronald Reagan, you probably noticed that Bill and Hillary were both dozing off.
President Ronald Reagan, who never missed a chance for a good one-liner, raised his head out of his casket and said...
"I see the Clintons are finally sleeping together."
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan
Monday, February 26, 2007
A cautious optimism on Iraq - Sen. Jon Kyl
The Arizona Republic has an interesting article about Iraq. The third point in Sen. Kyl's assessment caught my atention the most - 'I left the Middle East with a growing concern over the pernicious role Iran plays in the region.' We've known this for some time now. Let's let our troops do somehting about it and kill these bastards by the bushell!
|
Labels: Arizona Republic, Jon Kyl, Senator Jon Kyl
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Cal Thomas - A Soldier's Letter From Mosul
By Cal Thomas
With the House debating this week how much "non-binding" grief to lay on President Bush about Iraq , I e-mailed a soldier friend of mine for his impressions of the increasingly amplified protests.
Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, 22, of Grand Rapids , Mich. , is on his second tour in Iraq . I asked him what he thinks of the growing opposition to the war. Writing from Mosul , he says he appreciates the freedom Americans have to protest, but adds: "The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the seething debate raging over Iraq . Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming, visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress."
Sgt. Dobson believes the military is being hamstrung against an enemy with no reservations or restrictions:
"It is our overwhelming opinion that we have not been allowed to conduct the war to the fullest of our capability; neither do we feel that we should pull out because of a lack of 'results.' War is not a chemistry set with predetermined outcomes or complications. With a great army matched with an equally cunning enemy, we find ourselves in a difficult, but winnable fight. We do not seek results; rather, we seek total and unequivocal victory."
It's been a while since anyone spoke of "victory." Critics ask war supporters to define the word. Sgt. Dobson makes an effort: "That victory is close at hand. With nearly 80 percent of all terrorist and insurgent activity within 50 miles of Baghdad , the sheer thought of not taking out this stronghold is madness. If we can eliminate 80 percent of terrorist activity, the war is nearly won. To throw away a battle of this magnificent importance would be to waste the suffering and the sacrifice of American service members."
What of the effect on the troops from anti-war remarks on the streets and in Congress? Some assert it doesn't hurt troop morale. Sgt. Dobson disagrees:
"The question has been posed to me recently what congressional resolution hurts troop morale the most. No doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the thought is bittersweet. Most service members would tell you the same thing: there is no honor in retreat . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight for (peace) know all too well that peace has a very bloody price tag."
To make his point, he tells a story: "An army once marched on the great city of Rome . The emperor, fearing for the future of the Roman Empire , sent the Empire's greatest warrior to the camp of the general to negotiate the cessation of hostilities. After several hours with the general, he asked the warrior just how much he loved Rome . Without thinking, the warrior rose and walked to a fire and stuck his right hand in the flames until it was completely burned away. 'This,' the warrior said 'is how much all Romans love Rome .' The general, struck with fear, said that if all Romans should have the same spirit as this warrior, he could not afford war with Rome , and so retreated back to his homeland.
"I fear that when questioned of their love for country, many Americans would shy from the flames. It breaks our hearts to see our nation, which was more of a Union on Sept. 12, (2001) fall to such petty bickering. No longer are we (one) out of many, but have fallen from one into many. We on the front lines long to see the white-fisted, purple-faced, raging hatred for our enemies that we saw on the morning of the 12th. We long to see America seeking victory as much as we do."
Sgt. Dobson has another wish beyond the desire to come home and a successful ending to the conflict:
"We need to drop the politics and get back to what really matters: Our nation and its future. The question, therefore, lies in what will leave scars on our national spirit; a war in Iraq , or a war between Americans..."
To the recurring question about patriotism and policy, Sgt. Dobson replies: "I would never presume to call anyone's love for country into question. I ask the same of you. Truly our nation's honor is at stake, and we have been given the opportunity to put our hand to the flame. Should we now, in our moment of testing, shy from it? When asked how much we love our country, should we call retreat? No, we stand at a moment of great truth, let us now show our enemies just how much we love America and our way of life. Let us show them our love of country is as great as it ever was."
Pro, or anti-war, you've got to admire Sgt. Dobson and the other virtuous and committed young men and women our military attracts.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stratfor Intelligence Report - Russia's Great Power Strategy
Russia's Great-Power Strategy - By George Friedman
Most speeches at diplomatic gatherings aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. On rare occasion, a speech is delivered that needs to be listened to carefully. Russian President Vladimir Putin gave such a speech over the weekend in Munich , at a meeting on international security. The speech did not break new ground; it repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was given and the confidence with which it was asserted signify a new point in Russian history. The Cold War has not returned, but Russia is now officially asserting itself as a great power, and behaving accordingly.
At Munich , Putin launched a systematic attack on the role the United States is playing in the world. He said: "One state, the United States , has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons." In other words, the United States has gone beyond its legitimate reach and is therefore responsible for attempts by other countries -- an obvious reference to Iran -- to acquire nuclear weapons.
Russia for some time has been in confrontation with the United States over U.S. actions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). What the Russians perceive as an American attempt to create a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine triggered the confrontation. But now, the issue goes beyond U.S. actions in the FSU. The Russians are arguing that the unipolar world -- meaning that the United States is the only global power and is surrounded by lesser, regional powers -- is itself unacceptable. In other words, the United States sees itself as the solution when it is, actually, the problem.
In his speech, Putin reached out to European states -- particularly Germany , pointing out that it has close, but blunt, relations with Russia . The Central Europeans showed themselves to be extremely wary about Putin's speech, recognizing it for what it was -- a new level of assertiveness from an historical enemy. Some German leaders appeared more understanding, however: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made no mention of Putin's speech in his own presentation to the conference, while Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee, praised Putin's stance on Iran . He also noted that the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was cause for concern -- and not only to Russia .
Putin now clearly wants to escalate the confrontations with the United States and likely wants to build a coalition to limit American power. The gross imbalance of global power in the current system makes such coalition-building inevitable -- and it makes sense that the Russians should be taking the lead. The Europeans are risk-averse, and the Chinese do not have much at risk in their dealings with the United States at the moment. The Russians, however, have everything at risk. The United States is intruding in the FSU, and an ideological success for the Americans in Ukraine would leave the Russians permanently on the defensive.
The Russians need allies but are not likely to find them among other great-power states. Fortunately for Moscow , the U.S. obsession with Iraq creates alternative opportunities. First, the focus on Iraq prevents the Americans from countering Russia elsewhere. Second, it gives the Russians serious leverage against the United States -- for example, by shipping weapons to key players in the region. Finally, there are Middle Eastern states that seek great-power patronage. It is therefore no accident that Putin's next stop, following the Munich conference, was in Saudi Arabia . Having stabilized the situation in the former Soviet region, the Russians now are constructing their follow-on strategy, and that concerns the Middle East .
The Russian Interests - The Middle East is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive. Its military commitment in Iraq , the confrontation with Iran , the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and oil in the Arabian Peninsula create a situation such that pain in the region affects the United States intensely. Therefore, it makes sense for the Russians to use all available means of pressure in the Middle East in efforts to control U.S. behavior elsewhere, particularly in the former Soviet Union .
Like the Americans, the Russians also have direct interests in the Middle East . Energy is a primary one: Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world's top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve this is directly in line with Moscow 's interest. To be more specific, the Russians do not want the Saudis increasing oil production.
There are strategic interests in the Middle East as well. For example, the Russians are still bogged down in Chechnya . It is Moscow 's belief that if Chechnya were to secede from the Russian Federation , a precedent would be set that could lead to the dissolution of the Federation. Moscow will not allow this. The Russians consistently have claimed that the Chechen rebellion has been funded by "Wahhabis," by which they mean Saudis. Reaching an accommodation with the Saudis, therefore, would have not only economic, but also strategic, implications for the Russians.
On a broader level, the Russians retain important interests in the Caucasus and in Central Asia . In both cases, their needs intersect with forces originating in the Muslim world and trace, to some extent, back to the Middle East . If the Russian strategy is to reassert a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, it follows that these regions must be secured. That, in turn, inevitably involves the Russians in the Middle East .
Therefore, even if Russia is not in a position to pursue some of the strategic goals that date back to the Soviet era and before -- such as control of the Bosporus and projection of naval power into the Mediterranean -- it nevertheless has a basic, ongoing interest in the region. Russia has a need both to limit American power and to achieve direct goals of its own. So it makes perfect sense for Putin to leave Munich and embark on a tour of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.
The Complexities - But the Russians also have a problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states diverge, to say the least. The two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran . The Russians have things they want from each, but the Saudis and Iranians have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia , was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.
Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran . Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.
This creates a problem for Russia . While Moscow has substantial room for maneuver, the fact is that lowered oil prices impact energy prices overall, and therefore hurt the Russians. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq , since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States , as delivered in Munich , would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq . But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran . The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.
The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up, militarily and politically, in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran , but within certain manageable limits.
Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons. Of particular significance is the supply of surface-to-air missiles that would raise the cost of U.S. air operations against Iran . It is not clear whether the advanced S300PMU surface-to-air missile has yet been delivered, although there has been some discussion of this lately. If it were delivered, this would present significant challenges for U.S. air operation over Iran . The Russians would find this particularly advantageous, as the Iranians would absorb U.S. attentions and, as in Vietnam , the Russians would benefit from extended, fruitless commitments of U.S. military forces in regions not vital to Russia .
Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran 's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia .
Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran , there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the two countries. The Caucasus has been their battleground. For the moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union , there is a buffer there, but it is a buffer in which Russians and Iranians are already dueling. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. But as they get stronger, the Caucasus will become a battleground again. When Russian and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. Indeed, Iran frequently needs outside help to contain the Russians.
A Complicated Strategy - In sum, the Russian position in the Middle East is at least as complex as the American one. Or perhaps even more so, since the Americans can leave and the Russians always will live on the doorstep of the Middle East . Historically, once the Russians start fishing in Middle Eastern waters, they find themselves in a greater trap than the Americans. The opening moves are easy. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ambitions.Russia wants to contain U.S. power, and manipulating the situation in the Middle East certainly will cause the Americans substantial pain. But whatever short-term advantages the Russians may be able to find and exploit in the region, there is an order of complexity in Putin's maneuver that might transcend any advantage they gain from boxing the Americans in. In returning to "great power" status, Russia is using an obvious opening gambit. But being obvious does not make it optimal.
Contact UsAnalysis Comments - analysis@stratfor.comCustomer Service, Access, Account Issues - service@stratfor.com
Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.
Go to https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to register
Stratfor Premium: Full-Access, Complete Member Benefits
Has price kept you away? Try the flexibility of our monthly and quarterly subscription packages - at lower, more affordable rates -- available only through this special offer.
If recent events have caught you by surprise or the headlines find you searching for more understanding, then you are ready for Stratfor Premium, our signature intelligence service that will add exponentially to your perspective of how global events are shaping the future.
Gain access to the kind of intelligence tools used by large corporate clients at monthly or quarterly rates you can afford and with the flexibility you need.
Click here to find out more now!
Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
Newsletter Subscription
To unsubscribe from receiving this free intelligence report, please click here.
|
Most speeches at diplomatic gatherings aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. On rare occasion, a speech is delivered that needs to be listened to carefully. Russian President Vladimir Putin gave such a speech over the weekend in Munich , at a meeting on international security. The speech did not break new ground; it repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was given and the confidence with which it was asserted signify a new point in Russian history. The Cold War has not returned, but Russia is now officially asserting itself as a great power, and behaving accordingly.
At Munich , Putin launched a systematic attack on the role the United States is playing in the world. He said: "One state, the United States , has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons." In other words, the United States has gone beyond its legitimate reach and is therefore responsible for attempts by other countries -- an obvious reference to Iran -- to acquire nuclear weapons.
Russia for some time has been in confrontation with the United States over U.S. actions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). What the Russians perceive as an American attempt to create a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine triggered the confrontation. But now, the issue goes beyond U.S. actions in the FSU. The Russians are arguing that the unipolar world -- meaning that the United States is the only global power and is surrounded by lesser, regional powers -- is itself unacceptable. In other words, the United States sees itself as the solution when it is, actually, the problem.
In his speech, Putin reached out to European states -- particularly Germany , pointing out that it has close, but blunt, relations with Russia . The Central Europeans showed themselves to be extremely wary about Putin's speech, recognizing it for what it was -- a new level of assertiveness from an historical enemy. Some German leaders appeared more understanding, however: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made no mention of Putin's speech in his own presentation to the conference, while Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee, praised Putin's stance on Iran . He also noted that the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was cause for concern -- and not only to Russia .
Putin now clearly wants to escalate the confrontations with the United States and likely wants to build a coalition to limit American power. The gross imbalance of global power in the current system makes such coalition-building inevitable -- and it makes sense that the Russians should be taking the lead. The Europeans are risk-averse, and the Chinese do not have much at risk in their dealings with the United States at the moment. The Russians, however, have everything at risk. The United States is intruding in the FSU, and an ideological success for the Americans in Ukraine would leave the Russians permanently on the defensive.
The Russians need allies but are not likely to find them among other great-power states. Fortunately for Moscow , the U.S. obsession with Iraq creates alternative opportunities. First, the focus on Iraq prevents the Americans from countering Russia elsewhere. Second, it gives the Russians serious leverage against the United States -- for example, by shipping weapons to key players in the region. Finally, there are Middle Eastern states that seek great-power patronage. It is therefore no accident that Putin's next stop, following the Munich conference, was in Saudi Arabia . Having stabilized the situation in the former Soviet region, the Russians now are constructing their follow-on strategy, and that concerns the Middle East .
The Russian Interests - The Middle East is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive. Its military commitment in Iraq , the confrontation with Iran , the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and oil in the Arabian Peninsula create a situation such that pain in the region affects the United States intensely. Therefore, it makes sense for the Russians to use all available means of pressure in the Middle East in efforts to control U.S. behavior elsewhere, particularly in the former Soviet Union .
Like the Americans, the Russians also have direct interests in the Middle East . Energy is a primary one: Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world's top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve this is directly in line with Moscow 's interest. To be more specific, the Russians do not want the Saudis increasing oil production.
There are strategic interests in the Middle East as well. For example, the Russians are still bogged down in Chechnya . It is Moscow 's belief that if Chechnya were to secede from the Russian Federation , a precedent would be set that could lead to the dissolution of the Federation. Moscow will not allow this. The Russians consistently have claimed that the Chechen rebellion has been funded by "Wahhabis," by which they mean Saudis. Reaching an accommodation with the Saudis, therefore, would have not only economic, but also strategic, implications for the Russians.
On a broader level, the Russians retain important interests in the Caucasus and in Central Asia . In both cases, their needs intersect with forces originating in the Muslim world and trace, to some extent, back to the Middle East . If the Russian strategy is to reassert a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, it follows that these regions must be secured. That, in turn, inevitably involves the Russians in the Middle East .
Therefore, even if Russia is not in a position to pursue some of the strategic goals that date back to the Soviet era and before -- such as control of the Bosporus and projection of naval power into the Mediterranean -- it nevertheless has a basic, ongoing interest in the region. Russia has a need both to limit American power and to achieve direct goals of its own. So it makes perfect sense for Putin to leave Munich and embark on a tour of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.
The Complexities - But the Russians also have a problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states diverge, to say the least. The two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran . The Russians have things they want from each, but the Saudis and Iranians have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia , was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.
Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran . Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.
This creates a problem for Russia . While Moscow has substantial room for maneuver, the fact is that lowered oil prices impact energy prices overall, and therefore hurt the Russians. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq , since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States , as delivered in Munich , would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq . But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran . The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.
The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up, militarily and politically, in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran , but within certain manageable limits.
Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons. Of particular significance is the supply of surface-to-air missiles that would raise the cost of U.S. air operations against Iran . It is not clear whether the advanced S300PMU surface-to-air missile has yet been delivered, although there has been some discussion of this lately. If it were delivered, this would present significant challenges for U.S. air operation over Iran . The Russians would find this particularly advantageous, as the Iranians would absorb U.S. attentions and, as in Vietnam , the Russians would benefit from extended, fruitless commitments of U.S. military forces in regions not vital to Russia .
Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran 's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia .
Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran , there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the two countries. The Caucasus has been their battleground. For the moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union , there is a buffer there, but it is a buffer in which Russians and Iranians are already dueling. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. But as they get stronger, the Caucasus will become a battleground again. When Russian and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. Indeed, Iran frequently needs outside help to contain the Russians.
A Complicated Strategy - In sum, the Russian position in the Middle East is at least as complex as the American one. Or perhaps even more so, since the Americans can leave and the Russians always will live on the doorstep of the Middle East . Historically, once the Russians start fishing in Middle Eastern waters, they find themselves in a greater trap than the Americans. The opening moves are easy. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ambitions.Russia wants to contain U.S. power, and manipulating the situation in the Middle East certainly will cause the Americans substantial pain. But whatever short-term advantages the Russians may be able to find and exploit in the region, there is an order of complexity in Putin's maneuver that might transcend any advantage they gain from boxing the Americans in. In returning to "great power" status, Russia is using an obvious opening gambit. But being obvious does not make it optimal.
Contact UsAnalysis Comments - analysis@stratfor.comCustomer Service, Access, Account Issues - service@stratfor.com
Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.
Go to https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to register
Stratfor Premium: Full-Access, Complete Member Benefits
Has price kept you away? Try the flexibility of our monthly and quarterly subscription packages - at lower, more affordable rates -- available only through this special offer.
If recent events have caught you by surprise or the headlines find you searching for more understanding, then you are ready for Stratfor Premium, our signature intelligence service that will add exponentially to your perspective of how global events are shaping the future.
Gain access to the kind of intelligence tools used by large corporate clients at monthly or quarterly rates you can afford and with the flexibility you need.
Click here to find out more now!
Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
Newsletter Subscription
To unsubscribe from receiving this free intelligence report, please click here.
Labels: Stratfor, Stratfor Intelligence, Stratfor Premium
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Men Ignoring Wives - Happy Valentines Day
Look At This. Interesting.
I did not know that ignoring my wife was genetic. Now that this is known, it can be named and I can get some help from the government for treatment; especially if a Democrat wins in '08 and there is universal healthcare.
According to this article, this affliction is subconscious. So what is the name of this affliction? 'Reactance' is the clinical name. But that is not good enough. And I guess there should be a spectrum of reactance based on how much of a shrew you are married to.
Levels of Reactance on my scale would include identifiable behaviors as follows:
Naggus Interruptus: Pertaining to the cognitions of a wife that disturbs you while watching any sporting event, especially if your team is about to score with less than five seconds left in the game.
Bitchus Comorbidity: The coexistence of two or more personalities in a wife that manifest themselves in the same bitching tirade.
Parasitic Psychobabalry - NOS (Not Otherwise Specified): Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another parasitic source like Oprah, Dr. Phil, or Cosmopolitan wherein the affected person drones on and on about what an idiot you are, why you don't love her, and why your mother should die in the most expedient manner available with no traces or connection to your wife as the perp.
On a spectrum, with 1 being the lowest form of reactance to 10 being the highest end of the spectrum, then the scale could look something like this:
Happy Valentine's Day - Give Me The Remote - Your Flowers And Russel Stover's Gift Pack Are At The Front Door!
|
I did not know that ignoring my wife was genetic. Now that this is known, it can be named and I can get some help from the government for treatment; especially if a Democrat wins in '08 and there is universal healthcare.
According to this article, this affliction is subconscious. So what is the name of this affliction? 'Reactance' is the clinical name. But that is not good enough. And I guess there should be a spectrum of reactance based on how much of a shrew you are married to.
Levels of Reactance on my scale would include identifiable behaviors as follows:
Naggus Interruptus: Pertaining to the cognitions of a wife that disturbs you while watching any sporting event, especially if your team is about to score with less than five seconds left in the game.
Bitchus Comorbidity: The coexistence of two or more personalities in a wife that manifest themselves in the same bitching tirade.
Parasitic Psychobabalry - NOS (Not Otherwise Specified): Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another parasitic source like Oprah, Dr. Phil, or Cosmopolitan wherein the affected person drones on and on about what an idiot you are, why you don't love her, and why your mother should die in the most expedient manner available with no traces or connection to your wife as the perp.
On a spectrum, with 1 being the lowest form of reactance to 10 being the highest end of the spectrum, then the scale could look something like this:
Happy Valentine's Day - Give Me The Remote - Your Flowers And Russel Stover's Gift Pack Are At The Front Door!
Labels: men ignoring wives, reactance
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Jewish Group Blasts Mitt Romney for Choice to Hold Campaign Announcement at Henry Ford
Click on the above link, This is a great post from a great site.
I am a massive supporter of Israel. But what is it with the Jewish left in this nation? As I posted on the Yid With A Lid site: 'OK - look, Henry Ford hated everyone, not just Jews. He hated Catholics, Socialists, Communists, most Protestants, Congressman, newspaper editors and reporters. He hated everyone! So to say that having the kick-off of a Presidential Campaign at the home of a dead person is like saying Atlanta is a racist city since there used to be slave owners in the South. I am as Pro-Israel, anti-defamation'ist as anyone else. When will this oversensitivty stop? Get over it. Romney is kicking off his run using a symbol of America's greatness. Get over it! Oy!
|
I am a massive supporter of Israel. But what is it with the Jewish left in this nation? As I posted on the Yid With A Lid site: 'OK - look, Henry Ford hated everyone, not just Jews. He hated Catholics, Socialists, Communists, most Protestants, Congressman, newspaper editors and reporters. He hated everyone! So to say that having the kick-off of a Presidential Campaign at the home of a dead person is like saying Atlanta is a racist city since there used to be slave owners in the South. I am as Pro-Israel, anti-defamation'ist as anyone else. When will this oversensitivty stop? Get over it. Romney is kicking off his run using a symbol of America's greatness. Get over it! Oy!
Labels: Ford Motors, Romney Campaign
Air Force Three - Nancy Pelosi's New Ride!
|
ABC, Apple-Polisher for Autocrats
ABC, Apple-Polisher for Autocrats
by L. Brent Bozell IIIFebruary 7, 2007 (I love reading Brent Bozell - he has been a watchdog over the MSMfor the last twenty-five years. This is a great article)
Never try to say ABC anchor Diane Sawyer hasn’t been tough on oppressors. In one interview in 1998, she stared one in the face and said, “You’ve been compared to Saddam Hussein. Nero. To Torquemada, who was head of the Inquisition.”
Oh, forgive me. That wasn’t a dictator she was questioning. It was Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel investigating Bill Clinton’s lying under oath. This was a common practice for ABC at the time. Their website had an infamous instant poll asking if there was an “Ig-Nobel” prize, who should win it? The choices were Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and....Linda Tripp.
So how do ABC news anchors like Sawyer perform when they land “exclusive” interviews with actual dictators? The rings of international thugs are kissed for the privilege. Their obvious lack of respect for the concept of democracy is politely skimmed over. The real threat they pose to America is downplayed – or ignored.
Last fall, Diane Sawyer traveled to North Korea , and interviewed a general in the world’s harshest communist tyranny. She was an incredibly passive transmission belt, relating back to her American audience that the general insisted President Bush should be blamed for any nuclear weapons testing in North Korea , and added that "the General said to us, he does want peace. And he also said, again, reiterated, North Korea will not be the first to use a nuclear weapon." From there, Sawyer produced a very strange piece about regimented, yet refreshing North Korean school children, “a world away from the unruly individualism of any American school.” Proclaimed a student, no doubt surrounded by minders watching her every word: “We are the happiest children in the world!”
Last week ABC and Sawyer were at it again. Another continent, another ruthless anti-American dictator, but the same results. This time, Sawyer flew to Syria , following in the footsteps of Sen. John Kerry, who warmly announced a few weeks back that dictator Bashar Assad is ready to work with the United States . That was exactly Sawyer’s message, too, on the February 5 “Good Morning America .” Sawyer diplomatically awarded Assad the title of “President,” although no one elected him there. Dictatorship was handed down as the family business, but she called him “Your Excellency.”
She lamely suggested to Assad in the first day’s interview that “Americans would say they voted” in Iraq , that there’s a democracy. Assad shot back, “What is the benefit of democracy if you’re dead?” Sawyer didn’t challenge him, about say, his father Hafez Assad’s massacre at Hama of more than 10,000 people. She moved on instead to discuss gently how a peace process with America would work.
But the truly maddening part was Sawyer trying to take this dictator and turn him into a sympathetic human being. “You like video games?...Do you have an Ipod?” Obviously, she was slavishly toeing a PR line some Syrian functionary spoon-fed her. “You’re a country music fan. Faith Hill? Shania Twain?” Assad laughed and said, “Is it considered an ad?” Sawyer played along: “Yes, that’s true. They get free advertising.” Yippee!
The problem here is the free advertising ABC is handing the dictator of Syria . Can we imagine that if Hitler were alive and still ruling Germany with an iron fist, Sawyer would be asking him about his Ipod, too?
On the second day, February 6, Sawyer asked the more serious questions, about political prisoners in Syria , about Syria ’s role in assassinating Lebanese political leaders, its support for the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. But Sawyer had an odd tic throughout all of this, and it’s one that drives this writer mad. It was always “Americans say” or “human rights groups say” that Syria is unfree and supports terror, etc. Can’t the glorious fact-checkers at ABC News determine for themselves if Syria is oppressive? Or is an obsequious tone before dictators more important than giving American viewers the impression you have a firm grasp on hard facts?
Then, once again, after a few of those questions about democracy and terror, Sawyer went back to humanizing the Assads, not just the dictator, but the “elegant, athletic” dictator’s wife, Asma, the “31-year-old former career girl” who once lived in New York. What followed was a pathetic trail of ooze about the “amazing” work this woman is doing for women’s and children’s rights – in the middle of this dictatorship. We’re told the Assads “famously live in a modest home” and drive the kids to school, and bike together.
ABC famously forbids its reporters to wear flag pins, lest they be seen as tools of the U.S. government. But once again, in their frantic desperation to be “independent” of America , they look instead like enthusiastic apple-polishing tools for every dictatorial enemy America faces in the world.
|
by L. Brent Bozell IIIFebruary 7, 2007 (I love reading Brent Bozell - he has been a watchdog over the MSMfor the last twenty-five years. This is a great article)
Never try to say ABC anchor Diane Sawyer hasn’t been tough on oppressors. In one interview in 1998, she stared one in the face and said, “You’ve been compared to Saddam Hussein. Nero. To Torquemada, who was head of the Inquisition.”
Oh, forgive me. That wasn’t a dictator she was questioning. It was Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel investigating Bill Clinton’s lying under oath. This was a common practice for ABC at the time. Their website had an infamous instant poll asking if there was an “Ig-Nobel” prize, who should win it? The choices were Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and....Linda Tripp.
So how do ABC news anchors like Sawyer perform when they land “exclusive” interviews with actual dictators? The rings of international thugs are kissed for the privilege. Their obvious lack of respect for the concept of democracy is politely skimmed over. The real threat they pose to America is downplayed – or ignored.
Last fall, Diane Sawyer traveled to North Korea , and interviewed a general in the world’s harshest communist tyranny. She was an incredibly passive transmission belt, relating back to her American audience that the general insisted President Bush should be blamed for any nuclear weapons testing in North Korea , and added that "the General said to us, he does want peace. And he also said, again, reiterated, North Korea will not be the first to use a nuclear weapon." From there, Sawyer produced a very strange piece about regimented, yet refreshing North Korean school children, “a world away from the unruly individualism of any American school.” Proclaimed a student, no doubt surrounded by minders watching her every word: “We are the happiest children in the world!”
Last week ABC and Sawyer were at it again. Another continent, another ruthless anti-American dictator, but the same results. This time, Sawyer flew to Syria , following in the footsteps of Sen. John Kerry, who warmly announced a few weeks back that dictator Bashar Assad is ready to work with the United States . That was exactly Sawyer’s message, too, on the February 5 “Good Morning America .” Sawyer diplomatically awarded Assad the title of “President,” although no one elected him there. Dictatorship was handed down as the family business, but she called him “Your Excellency.”
She lamely suggested to Assad in the first day’s interview that “Americans would say they voted” in Iraq , that there’s a democracy. Assad shot back, “What is the benefit of democracy if you’re dead?” Sawyer didn’t challenge him, about say, his father Hafez Assad’s massacre at Hama of more than 10,000 people. She moved on instead to discuss gently how a peace process with America would work.
But the truly maddening part was Sawyer trying to take this dictator and turn him into a sympathetic human being. “You like video games?...Do you have an Ipod?” Obviously, she was slavishly toeing a PR line some Syrian functionary spoon-fed her. “You’re a country music fan. Faith Hill? Shania Twain?” Assad laughed and said, “Is it considered an ad?” Sawyer played along: “Yes, that’s true. They get free advertising.” Yippee!
The problem here is the free advertising ABC is handing the dictator of Syria . Can we imagine that if Hitler were alive and still ruling Germany with an iron fist, Sawyer would be asking him about his Ipod, too?
On the second day, February 6, Sawyer asked the more serious questions, about political prisoners in Syria , about Syria ’s role in assassinating Lebanese political leaders, its support for the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. But Sawyer had an odd tic throughout all of this, and it’s one that drives this writer mad. It was always “Americans say” or “human rights groups say” that Syria is unfree and supports terror, etc. Can’t the glorious fact-checkers at ABC News determine for themselves if Syria is oppressive? Or is an obsequious tone before dictators more important than giving American viewers the impression you have a firm grasp on hard facts?
Then, once again, after a few of those questions about democracy and terror, Sawyer went back to humanizing the Assads, not just the dictator, but the “elegant, athletic” dictator’s wife, Asma, the “31-year-old former career girl” who once lived in New York. What followed was a pathetic trail of ooze about the “amazing” work this woman is doing for women’s and children’s rights – in the middle of this dictatorship. We’re told the Assads “famously live in a modest home” and drive the kids to school, and bike together.
ABC famously forbids its reporters to wear flag pins, lest they be seen as tools of the U.S. government. But once again, in their frantic desperation to be “independent” of America , they look instead like enthusiastic apple-polishing tools for every dictatorial enemy America faces in the world.
Labels: ABC, Brent Bozell
Britney Spears vs. The Terrorists
By Robert R. ReillyFriday, February 9, 2007; A19
In the spring of 2003, across a field of rubble in Baghdad , a young Iraqi journalist accosted me and demanded: "Why did you stop broadcasting substance and substitute music?" The year before the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government entity in charge of radio broadcasting, had shut down the Voice of America's Arabic service, and it ended most of its Farsi service in 2003. Voice of America had been broadcasting features, discussions of issues and editorials reflecting U.S. policies. But now it filled 50 minutes of each hour on Arabic-language Radio Sawa and most of the time on Persian-language Radio Farda with Eminem, J. Lo and Britney Spears.
This change in format provoked other angry questions: Are Americans playing music because they are afraid to tell the truth? Do they not have a truth to tell? Or do they not consider us worth telling the truth to?
We did not fight communism with pop music. In fact, during the Cold War, America used its government media institutions to broadcast its ideas and beliefs. So why are we not refashioning those successful broadcast strategies and trying to spread our ideas in the Muslim world, the breeding ground of much of the world's terrorist threats?
Members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (B BG ) have shared their answer: Radio Sawa's progenitor, media mogul Norman Pattiz, was still serving his Clinton-appointed term in 2002 when he told the New Yorker that "it was MTV that brought down the Berlin Wall." (Not Ronald Reagan, Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, of course.) President Bush's appointees did not improve the board's outlook. In October 2002, Ken Tomlinson, then the board's new chairman, approvingly quoted his son as saying Spears's music "represents the sounds of freedom." It seems that the board transformed the "war of ideas" into the battle of the bands.
So, is MTV winning the "war of ideas"? After years of the United States broadcasting Britney Spears to the Levant , the average radical mullah has not exactly succumbed to apoplexy or come to love democracy. A State Department inspector general's draft report on Radio Sawa (the final report was never issued) found that"it is difficult to ascertain Radio Sawa's impact in countering anti-American views and the biased state-run media of the Arab world." Or, as one expert panel assembled to assess its value concluded, "Radio Sawa failed to present America to its audience."
The B BG has achieved part of its objective in gaining large youth audiences in some areas of the Middle East, such as in Amman , Jordan , where it has an FM transmitter. But as the Jordanian journalist Jamil Nimri told me: "Radio Sawa is fun, but it's irrelevant." We do not teach civics to American teenagers by asking them to listen to pop music, so why should we expect Arabs and Persians to learn about America or democracy this way? The condescension implicit in this nearly all-music format is not lost on the audience that we should wish to influence the most -- those who think.
Some, of course, suspect that the United States is consciously attempting to subvert the morals of Arab youth. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes told columnist Cal Thomas in December that our "view of freedom is sometimes seen as licentiousness. . . . And that is only exacerbated by the movies and the television and some of the music and the lyrics that they see exported from America ." Especially, Hughes might have added, since the B BG , on which she sits as an ex officio member, promotes this very image.
Becoming a caricature of ourselves is bad policy and bad public diplomacy. The job of U.S. international broadcasting is to present, before we are attacked, what much of the world saw only after Sept. 11 -- the sacrifice, bravery and piety of the American people -- as part of a complete picture. By presenting this aspect of our culture, we might even prevent the miscalculations of those who believe they should attack the United States or can do so with impunity because we are a weak, irreligious, morally corrupt country.
We need radio broadcasting in the "war of ideas," but it has to deal in ideas to be effective. The "MTV message" is something that commercial broadcasting can do and would do better than government-funded radio. Government broadcasting is needed when the United States must communicate a message to a key audience that that audience otherwise would not hear.
Music may have a role in this kind of broadcast mission, but only if it is part of a larger, idea-based strategy. Where are the ideas that will help us win this war, and why are they not being deployed by all available means to the places that most need to hear them? Isn't it time to change our tune?
The writer was the 25th director of the Voice of America and was senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Information during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801679_pf.html
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
|
In the spring of 2003, across a field of rubble in Baghdad , a young Iraqi journalist accosted me and demanded: "Why did you stop broadcasting substance and substitute music?" The year before the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the government entity in charge of radio broadcasting, had shut down the Voice of America's Arabic service, and it ended most of its Farsi service in 2003. Voice of America had been broadcasting features, discussions of issues and editorials reflecting U.S. policies. But now it filled 50 minutes of each hour on Arabic-language Radio Sawa and most of the time on Persian-language Radio Farda with Eminem, J. Lo and Britney Spears.
This change in format provoked other angry questions: Are Americans playing music because they are afraid to tell the truth? Do they not have a truth to tell? Or do they not consider us worth telling the truth to?
We did not fight communism with pop music. In fact, during the Cold War, America used its government media institutions to broadcast its ideas and beliefs. So why are we not refashioning those successful broadcast strategies and trying to spread our ideas in the Muslim world, the breeding ground of much of the world's terrorist threats?
Members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (B BG ) have shared their answer: Radio Sawa's progenitor, media mogul Norman Pattiz, was still serving his Clinton-appointed term in 2002 when he told the New Yorker that "it was MTV that brought down the Berlin Wall." (Not Ronald Reagan, Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, of course.) President Bush's appointees did not improve the board's outlook. In October 2002, Ken Tomlinson, then the board's new chairman, approvingly quoted his son as saying Spears's music "represents the sounds of freedom." It seems that the board transformed the "war of ideas" into the battle of the bands.
So, is MTV winning the "war of ideas"? After years of the United States broadcasting Britney Spears to the Levant , the average radical mullah has not exactly succumbed to apoplexy or come to love democracy. A State Department inspector general's draft report on Radio Sawa (the final report was never issued) found that"it is difficult to ascertain Radio Sawa's impact in countering anti-American views and the biased state-run media of the Arab world." Or, as one expert panel assembled to assess its value concluded, "Radio Sawa failed to present America to its audience."
The B BG has achieved part of its objective in gaining large youth audiences in some areas of the Middle East, such as in Amman , Jordan , where it has an FM transmitter. But as the Jordanian journalist Jamil Nimri told me: "Radio Sawa is fun, but it's irrelevant." We do not teach civics to American teenagers by asking them to listen to pop music, so why should we expect Arabs and Persians to learn about America or democracy this way? The condescension implicit in this nearly all-music format is not lost on the audience that we should wish to influence the most -- those who think.
Some, of course, suspect that the United States is consciously attempting to subvert the morals of Arab youth. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes told columnist Cal Thomas in December that our "view of freedom is sometimes seen as licentiousness. . . . And that is only exacerbated by the movies and the television and some of the music and the lyrics that they see exported from America ." Especially, Hughes might have added, since the B BG , on which she sits as an ex officio member, promotes this very image.
Becoming a caricature of ourselves is bad policy and bad public diplomacy. The job of U.S. international broadcasting is to present, before we are attacked, what much of the world saw only after Sept. 11 -- the sacrifice, bravery and piety of the American people -- as part of a complete picture. By presenting this aspect of our culture, we might even prevent the miscalculations of those who believe they should attack the United States or can do so with impunity because we are a weak, irreligious, morally corrupt country.
We need radio broadcasting in the "war of ideas," but it has to deal in ideas to be effective. The "MTV message" is something that commercial broadcasting can do and would do better than government-funded radio. Government broadcasting is needed when the United States must communicate a message to a key audience that that audience otherwise would not hear.
Music may have a role in this kind of broadcast mission, but only if it is part of a larger, idea-based strategy. Where are the ideas that will help us win this war, and why are they not being deployed by all available means to the places that most need to hear them? Isn't it time to change our tune?
The writer was the 25th director of the Voice of America and was senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Information during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801679_pf.html
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Labels: Britney Spears, Terrorists
Congress Short on Military Experience
f
Congress Short on Military Experience
Richmond Times - Dispatch February 06, 2007
As Congress debates the war in Iraq , the Senate and House are short on military experience. Only 130 of the 535 senators and representatives in the recently seated 110th Congress served on active duty or in the reserves of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard.
It's the lowest number since World War II, when 196 veterans served on the Hill in 1945. The ranks of veterans in the House peaked at 317 in 1973. The Senate had 78 in 1977.
Since then, the roll call of veterans has become much shorter. Public discontent over the Vietnam War, plus elimination of the draft, meant fewer people entered the armed forces.
Since 9/11, Congress has been dealing with the gamut of military issues -- from funding equipment and more troops to boosting pay and benefits.
Organizations representing veterans and military personnel said they spend more time lobbying nonveterans -- both politicians and staff members -- than those who served. "The impact to us is we have to educate them on veterans' issues," said David Greineder, deputy national legislative director for AMVETS.
The lack of veterans in Congress has resulted in an insensitivity to the burdens placed on troops and their families by the war and frequent deployments, said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for Military Officers Association of America.
Labels: Congress, Military Experience
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Anna Nicole Smith Is Dead
...and I don't care. Well, that is a bit harsh. But from what I know about this lady, which is not much, her life after being 'discovered' has been a train wreck. So, it seemed to me it was a matter of when this would happen and not why. The real tragedy here is that this lady's child will not have a mother, even a bad one. And with the money she was still trying to wrangle from her marriage to Moses, it seems this poor child might grow-up penniless.
ANS is a product of the minute-by-minute media that latches on to someone or some topic and won't let it go. Everything about ANS' life was made public, by her own choice and also by a media that wrote and pictrued everything about her life.
It's a sad end to a sad life, it seems. There will be another ANS to take the place of this beautiful and tragic figure the media and many in this nation could not get enough of. I only hope that the next ANS does not end like this.
|
ANS is a product of the minute-by-minute media that latches on to someone or some topic and won't let it go. Everything about ANS' life was made public, by her own choice and also by a media that wrote and pictrued everything about her life.
It's a sad end to a sad life, it seems. There will be another ANS to take the place of this beautiful and tragic figure the media and many in this nation could not get enough of. I only hope that the next ANS does not end like this.
Labels: Anna Nicole Smith
Oh How The Brits Love Our Liberals
Take a look at how the folks at the BBC view the upcoming election. Matt Frei, calling Her Thighness Hillary and Obama 'Superstars', prattles with a reverence once reserved for Royalty and religious icons. It's amazing to me how the left in England love the left over here. I guess that's so since the politics of Britain at this point in history has nothing to offer its own people but more taxes, more government, and a continued slide towards state-sanctioned cultural deviancy in the name of social progress.
The BBC article ends with this, 'The Windy City may have lost the Super Bowl but it is lucky to have two of the most intriguing candidates in the most open presidential election since 1928.'
It's too much hope to think that there is any way Frei would say the same of the two most intriguing conservative candidates, Rudy and Newt. I guess Atlanta and New York City just aren't on the list of cities the BBC would allow him to visit.
Bollocks
|
The BBC article ends with this, 'The Windy City may have lost the Super Bowl but it is lucky to have two of the most intriguing candidates in the most open presidential election since 1928.'
It's too much hope to think that there is any way Frei would say the same of the two most intriguing conservative candidates, Rudy and Newt. I guess Atlanta and New York City just aren't on the list of cities the BBC would allow him to visit.
Bollocks
Labels: BBC, Hillary, Matt Frei, Obama
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Poitical Jihad In The US
Article By Cal Thomas:
In the race to the bottom for votes to win office, or to preserve themselves in office, it would be difficult to out-run Republicans as they pander to the Hispanic vote by refusing to control our southern border against an invasion by millions of illegal aliens. Democrats are trying and they may soon pass Republicans in their cynical pursuit of political power.
At the Democrats' "winter meeting" (they used to call it a "retreat," before that word conjured up negative implications about the war), a clergyman was asked to deliver the invocation. He was Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn , Mich.
According to a transcript published on the Website HotAir.com, Al-Husainy offered a prayer with anti-American and anti-Israel undertones: "We thank you G-d, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, G-d, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us G-d to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation…"
To the untrained ear and uninformed mind, the first part sounds kind of ecumenical, a type of universalism and religious correctness, in which everybody's biblical or Koranic figures get equal billing, so as not to offend. But Muslims see all of these religious leaders as Muslim prophets. Their view is that Abraham, Moses and Jesus taught Islam and that the Jews and Christians perverted the Islamic faith and, according to some, deserve death for doing so.
Al-Husainy was engaging in something more dangerous than prayer. He proclaimed religious superiority and triumphalism. Surely Democrats do not subscribe to his not-so-subtle religious doublespeak, which places the United States and Israel among the people G-d "dooms." Neither do most Democrats believe that all of Israel is occupied and that "oppression and occupation" applies to the Jews who live there and must be evicted. So why invite a clergyman who leads them in such a prayer? It isn't that his background is unknown.
As blogger Debbie Schlussel has written, Al-Husainy led "almost daily protests" last summer "of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit , swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs. Later, I watched him … at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn 's Bint Jebail Cultural Center . He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are 'diseased.'"
On the Website "Jihad Watch" (a good place to keep up with what the Islamofascists are planning for us), Robert Spencer writes, "…the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world — and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach."
A clergyman who advocated white supremacy and the inferiority of all other faiths would never have been invited to offer the invocation at a DNC gathering. Yet Democrats got the equivalent of such a person in Al-Husainy.
Democrats have been trying to get back in the religion game since Republicans cornered most of the Evangelical Christian vote in the last several election cycles, but choosing Husham Al-Husainy as their instrument to put them in closer touch — if not with G-d, than with Muslim voters — is more outrageous and shameful than Sen. Joseph Biden's remarks about Barack Obama, and far more dangerous.
The Muslim vote went largely to Democrats in last year's election. In Virginia , Democrat James Webb received 92 percent of the Muslim vote, compared to Republican George Allen's 8 percent, according to the Muslim American Society and the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee. Was inviting Al-Husainy to pray for the destruction of America and Israel payback to the Muslim community? If so, the price is too high and the potential consequences are too great.
Has politics come to this, that some politicians would sell out their own and other free countries for a voting bloc that contains elements committed to our destruction (Democrats), or pander to illegal immigrants who break our laws and then get Social Security checks (Republicans)? Have politicians no sham
|
In the race to the bottom for votes to win office, or to preserve themselves in office, it would be difficult to out-run Republicans as they pander to the Hispanic vote by refusing to control our southern border against an invasion by millions of illegal aliens. Democrats are trying and they may soon pass Republicans in their cynical pursuit of political power.
At the Democrats' "winter meeting" (they used to call it a "retreat," before that word conjured up negative implications about the war), a clergyman was asked to deliver the invocation. He was Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn , Mich.
According to a transcript published on the Website HotAir.com, Al-Husainy offered a prayer with anti-American and anti-Israel undertones: "We thank you G-d, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, G-d, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us G-d to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation…"
To the untrained ear and uninformed mind, the first part sounds kind of ecumenical, a type of universalism and religious correctness, in which everybody's biblical or Koranic figures get equal billing, so as not to offend. But Muslims see all of these religious leaders as Muslim prophets. Their view is that Abraham, Moses and Jesus taught Islam and that the Jews and Christians perverted the Islamic faith and, according to some, deserve death for doing so.
Al-Husainy was engaging in something more dangerous than prayer. He proclaimed religious superiority and triumphalism. Surely Democrats do not subscribe to his not-so-subtle religious doublespeak, which places the United States and Israel among the people G-d "dooms." Neither do most Democrats believe that all of Israel is occupied and that "oppression and occupation" applies to the Jews who live there and must be evicted. So why invite a clergyman who leads them in such a prayer? It isn't that his background is unknown.
As blogger Debbie Schlussel has written, Al-Husainy led "almost daily protests" last summer "of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit , swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs. Later, I watched him … at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn 's Bint Jebail Cultural Center . He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are 'diseased.'"
On the Website "Jihad Watch" (a good place to keep up with what the Islamofascists are planning for us), Robert Spencer writes, "…the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world — and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach."
A clergyman who advocated white supremacy and the inferiority of all other faiths would never have been invited to offer the invocation at a DNC gathering. Yet Democrats got the equivalent of such a person in Al-Husainy.
Democrats have been trying to get back in the religion game since Republicans cornered most of the Evangelical Christian vote in the last several election cycles, but choosing Husham Al-Husainy as their instrument to put them in closer touch — if not with G-d, than with Muslim voters — is more outrageous and shameful than Sen. Joseph Biden's remarks about Barack Obama, and far more dangerous.
The Muslim vote went largely to Democrats in last year's election. In Virginia , Democrat James Webb received 92 percent of the Muslim vote, compared to Republican George Allen's 8 percent, according to the Muslim American Society and the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee. Was inviting Al-Husainy to pray for the destruction of America and Israel payback to the Muslim community? If so, the price is too high and the potential consequences are too great.
Has politics come to this, that some politicians would sell out their own and other free countries for a voting bloc that contains elements committed to our destruction (Democrats), or pander to illegal immigrants who break our laws and then get Social Security checks (Republicans)? Have politicians no sham
Labels: Cal Thomas, Jewish World Review, Winter Meeting
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Iran's Rocket's Red Glare!
Click Here!
For all those detractors of our policy in the Mid East, how did you feel after reading that article? Safe, happy, reassured that Iran's intentions for nuclear power are peaceful?
Morons. Do any of the anti-Bush Mid East policy chuckle-heads think Iran is going to send a satellite into space with a North Korean missile? If you answer yes, then pack your bags and head to Canada.
If Iran launches an ICBM into space, you can bet your a**, your cowboy boots and your house cat that the trajectory is Latitude: 32° 4' 0 N, Longitude: 34° 46' 0 E.
Find a map and look up those coordinates.
|
For all those detractors of our policy in the Mid East, how did you feel after reading that article? Safe, happy, reassured that Iran's intentions for nuclear power are peaceful?
Morons. Do any of the anti-Bush Mid East policy chuckle-heads think Iran is going to send a satellite into space with a North Korean missile? If you answer yes, then pack your bags and head to Canada.
If Iran launches an ICBM into space, you can bet your a**, your cowboy boots and your house cat that the trajectory is Latitude: 32° 4' 0 N, Longitude: 34° 46' 0 E.
Find a map and look up those coordinates.
Israeli Official: Foreign Sources Arming Hezbollah, Hamas at Alarming Rate
What will the Isralei response be this time? I hope it is not the same response as this past summer. I hope this time the IDF moves faster and more quickly up to the border with Syria to cut-off any retreat or re-supply of the Hezzbollocks.
The 'disproportiniate' response this time should be the utter destruction of any standing building in Lebanon all the way up to Syria and into Syria. The IDF shold create a path of destruction - a killing swath from Gaza to the Turkish border.
So instead of buying food for their people, Hezbollah is buying rockets and guns. Read. 'There is a recorded 150 percent increase in the number of terror groups being guided by Hizbullah over the course of the first half of 2006.'
This will lead to another war. Lebannon is posied for Civil War. And that conflict wil spill into Israel. I hope the IDF and the Israeli's have the guts to strike first. Take out where they know Hezbollah is now, not after another rocket falls into another Israeli city.
Za, Za, Za (Go! Go! Go!) One more good link on Israel.
|
The 'disproportiniate' response this time should be the utter destruction of any standing building in Lebanon all the way up to Syria and into Syria. The IDF shold create a path of destruction - a killing swath from Gaza to the Turkish border.
So instead of buying food for their people, Hezbollah is buying rockets and guns. Read. 'There is a recorded 150 percent increase in the number of terror groups being guided by Hizbullah over the course of the first half of 2006.'
This will lead to another war. Lebannon is posied for Civil War. And that conflict wil spill into Israel. I hope the IDF and the Israeli's have the guts to strike first. Take out where they know Hezbollah is now, not after another rocket falls into another Israeli city.
Za, Za, Za (Go! Go! Go!) One more good link on Israel.
Labels: Hezbollah Buildup, Israel, Lebanon Civil War
Run, Rudy, Run
It's about time. I would vote for Guliani today. I would enter the country illegally, obtain another driver's license and vote for Rudy as many times as possible. There is no other Republican candidate that is worth a darn that is out there. None of them have any heart or leadership.
Rudy has it all...
I can't wait for the day when he gets in front of the press corp and tells it to go to hell...
I can't wait for a debate with any Democrat and Rudy says, 'Imanaged NYC, what have you ever done?'
And the debate about all the social issues crap can hang - abortion, gays, blah, blah, blah...let the Merovingian Do Nothings in Congress prattle away at tax payers expesne.
The only question that anyone needs to ask is: Who is going to make the nation safest? It ain't Her Thighness Hillary, Obama, or the rest of the Dems, nor is it McCain or any of the other Republicans.
Run, Rudy, Run. I'll vote for you as many times as it takes. And since I live in FL, I am collecting ballots as I type!
|
Rudy has it all...
I can't wait for the day when he gets in front of the press corp and tells it to go to hell...
I can't wait for a debate with any Democrat and Rudy says, 'Imanaged NYC, what have you ever done?'
And the debate about all the social issues crap can hang - abortion, gays, blah, blah, blah...let the Merovingian Do Nothings in Congress prattle away at tax payers expesne.
The only question that anyone needs to ask is: Who is going to make the nation safest? It ain't Her Thighness Hillary, Obama, or the rest of the Dems, nor is it McCain or any of the other Republicans.
Run, Rudy, Run. I'll vote for you as many times as it takes. And since I live in FL, I am collecting ballots as I type!
Labels: Guliani Announces Candidacy
Monday, February 05, 2007
I Got A 40 - How Conservative - Liberal Are You?
Political Quiz You all have probably seen this before. I took this quiz and I got a 40! Maybe I should run for office.
|
CBS - Completely Boring Superbowl
A few months ago, I did a bit on the sport of Curling - how it's boring, very Canadian (hence, boring) and why it's a metaphor what is wrong with Olympic sports coverage. After watching the Super Bowl last night, I'd vote to watch Curling every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.
Except for Colts fans and their new band-wagoneers, did anyone else fall asleep in the rain like I did? I can't blame CBS for the quality of the game, but I can blame CBS for its coverage. First, Jim Nantz - God love him! He is a great commentator for sports like golf, golf, golf and golf. Hey Jimmy, this is not Augusta National and Tiger is not trying to decide if a 7 iron or an 8 iron is going to carry him over the left fairway bunker before he makes his approach shot on the 9th hole. Professional football is about violence, coaching, team stuff...all the stuff that golf is not. I was having Madden withdrawl, seriously. So we cooked a turkey and I was waving the turkey legs at the screen and drawing yellow circles on the tv for every play. If you need a little Madden, click here. Next, Prince! There may not have been a wardrobe malfunction, but there was no mystery to what that dwarf was doing with his guitar behind the curtain...and anyone who says differently is in denial.
The commercials were a snore-fest too, except the Blockbuster hamsters using the mouse to order movies - pretty funny. Coke and some of the other sycophant dribblers lathered up the black history month thing which leads me to this question: why is it important that a black coach be in the Super Bowl? If the representation of ethnicity is the issue, and since 75% of the players on the field this day were black, why is race an issue for the head coaching spot? Mark this sport/group off the list and move on. Hockey and Curling - now there are two sports where the NAACP should spend time advancing the participation of Afro-Americans since we know that ice sports routinely and by design shut-out blacks from inclusion. Now that the glass ceiling has been pierced in the NFL, what's the next brass ring - assistant coaches? Hell, we could go down the ranks of all coaching positions until one day there is a dyslexic, ADA, 1/2 Puert0 Rican-1/2 Jap who coached and won a Super Bowl. See how stupid this whole 'let's be special by being different crap is?
I could care less that the coach who won last night is black. I only care that he is legal to work in the US.
And since the Saints were not in the SB, did it really matter?
|
Except for Colts fans and their new band-wagoneers, did anyone else fall asleep in the rain like I did? I can't blame CBS for the quality of the game, but I can blame CBS for its coverage. First, Jim Nantz - God love him! He is a great commentator for sports like golf, golf, golf and golf. Hey Jimmy, this is not Augusta National and Tiger is not trying to decide if a 7 iron or an 8 iron is going to carry him over the left fairway bunker before he makes his approach shot on the 9th hole. Professional football is about violence, coaching, team stuff...all the stuff that golf is not. I was having Madden withdrawl, seriously. So we cooked a turkey and I was waving the turkey legs at the screen and drawing yellow circles on the tv for every play. If you need a little Madden, click here. Next, Prince! There may not have been a wardrobe malfunction, but there was no mystery to what that dwarf was doing with his guitar behind the curtain...and anyone who says differently is in denial.
The commercials were a snore-fest too, except the Blockbuster hamsters using the mouse to order movies - pretty funny. Coke and some of the other sycophant dribblers lathered up the black history month thing which leads me to this question: why is it important that a black coach be in the Super Bowl? If the representation of ethnicity is the issue, and since 75% of the players on the field this day were black, why is race an issue for the head coaching spot? Mark this sport/group off the list and move on. Hockey and Curling - now there are two sports where the NAACP should spend time advancing the participation of Afro-Americans since we know that ice sports routinely and by design shut-out blacks from inclusion. Now that the glass ceiling has been pierced in the NFL, what's the next brass ring - assistant coaches? Hell, we could go down the ranks of all coaching positions until one day there is a dyslexic, ADA, 1/2 Puert0 Rican-1/2 Jap who coached and won a Super Bowl. See how stupid this whole 'let's be special by being different crap is?
I could care less that the coach who won last night is black. I only care that he is legal to work in the US.
And since the Saints were not in the SB, did it really matter?
Labels: John Madden, Super Bowl
Friday, February 02, 2007
Dick Morris - Cut The Funds To Iran
Look at what Dick Morris thinks is one way to go after Iran:
The Iranian regime stands at the center of global terrorism and its nuclear ambitions must send a chill down our collective spine.
Bush is increasingly standing up to Iran with almost daily warnings and the deployment of a second carrier task force nearby. But the president's focus has been on Iranian involvement in Iraq and on its policy of shipping weapons, agents, provocateurs and possibly combatants into the war zone to harass and kill Americans. This emphasis is understandable given the dangers that face our troops in Iraq. Anything Bush can do to lessen the threats they face must be done.
Bush should continue and accelerate his efforts to destroy Iran's economy by cutting off investments to companies that invest there. Frank Gaffney's disinvestterrror.org campaign says that 87 state-administered pension funds in the United States have invested $188 billion in one of 500 publicly traded companies that "partner with terrorist-sponsoring states."
These 500 companies among them "have $73 billion invested in Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea."
Morris is exacly right. Iran should have been a bigger part of the 'de-financing' the GWOT. Some US companies are doing it:
Among these companies are: Alcatal SA, BNP Paribas, Hyundai, Linden Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Corp, Siemens AG, Statoil ASA, Stolt Nielsen, Technip Coflexip, and Total SA. UBS, which was once on the list, has divested itself of all such investments.
More is needed. Any US company that does business with Iran and NK should be fined a million a day until it is completely divested of any support of Iran.
|
The Iranian regime stands at the center of global terrorism and its nuclear ambitions must send a chill down our collective spine.
Bush is increasingly standing up to Iran with almost daily warnings and the deployment of a second carrier task force nearby. But the president's focus has been on Iranian involvement in Iraq and on its policy of shipping weapons, agents, provocateurs and possibly combatants into the war zone to harass and kill Americans. This emphasis is understandable given the dangers that face our troops in Iraq. Anything Bush can do to lessen the threats they face must be done.
Bush should continue and accelerate his efforts to destroy Iran's economy by cutting off investments to companies that invest there. Frank Gaffney's disinvestterrror.org campaign says that 87 state-administered pension funds in the United States have invested $188 billion in one of 500 publicly traded companies that "partner with terrorist-sponsoring states."
These 500 companies among them "have $73 billion invested in Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea."
Morris is exacly right. Iran should have been a bigger part of the 'de-financing' the GWOT. Some US companies are doing it:
Among these companies are: Alcatal SA, BNP Paribas, Hyundai, Linden Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Corp, Siemens AG, Statoil ASA, Stolt Nielsen, Technip Coflexip, and Total SA. UBS, which was once on the list, has divested itself of all such investments.
More is needed. Any US company that does business with Iran and NK should be fined a million a day until it is completely divested of any support of Iran.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
January 30, 1933
Anyone remember these two dung beetles?
Today, in 1933, Schikelgrubber became Chancellor of Germany. Twelve years into the Thousand Year Reich and some 80 million dead later, the world was rid of what Patton called, 'a paper hanging son of a bitch.'
Why did it take so long for this boil to be lanced? Because Europe did nothing. Britain, France, and even the Germans themselves did nothing to stop him. Numerous plots were hatched. Numerous plots failed, especially the one that Claus von Stauffenberg put in action in 1944 which was the closest to killing him.
There are men like Hitler that should not be allowed to live. Saddam Hussein was one of them. The Bush Administration should be given a special place in history for taking out this megalomaniac sob. The world is better off without SH. The US had the guts and resolve to allow the Iranian people to exact the justice justified to rid that country and the world of him. If the Europeans had the guts and resolve to do the same thing soon after 1933, how many people would still be alive today?
MLK, Tarleton State, and the ACLU
Crush Liberalism and FNC did a good job breaking this down.
The students at Tarleton State University should be ashamed of themselves for what they did off-campus at a mock MLK celebration party. From what I read and saw, it's disgusting.
But here's the kicker...where is the ACLU in defending the free speech rights of these students to be idiots? Every time there is a speech issue which advances the ACLU agenda of anything anti-Bush, anti-US, etc., the ACLU is out banging its gong and suing anyone it can. But the silence of the ACLU in this case is deafening.
The ACLU will do nothing since it sees any defamatory speech against minorities as hate speech while it defends groups like NAMBLA and all of its other preferenced groups.
Watch and listen...these students will be crucified and the ACLU will do nothing. I hope that the students at least contact their local ACLU chapter for help if and when the PC Cops discipline, expel and ruin these kid's lives.
|
The students at Tarleton State University should be ashamed of themselves for what they did off-campus at a mock MLK celebration party. From what I read and saw, it's disgusting.
But here's the kicker...where is the ACLU in defending the free speech rights of these students to be idiots? Every time there is a speech issue which advances the ACLU agenda of anything anti-Bush, anti-US, etc., the ACLU is out banging its gong and suing anyone it can. But the silence of the ACLU in this case is deafening.
The ACLU will do nothing since it sees any defamatory speech against minorities as hate speech while it defends groups like NAMBLA and all of its other preferenced groups.
Watch and listen...these students will be crucified and the ACLU will do nothing. I hope that the students at least contact their local ACLU chapter for help if and when the PC Cops discipline, expel and ruin these kid's lives.
Fred Barnes Is Right On!
Not This Time Don't give up when victory is at hand. by Fred Barnes 02/05/2007, Volume 012, Issue 20
No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq --wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq . "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam ," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation." But Webb feared that many who supported the Vietnam war, and watched America abandon South Vietnam as it grew close to victory over the Communist forces of North Vietnam , might see similarities.
Indeed, they might, for certain parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are uncanny. A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency. Four decades ago, General Creighton Abrams became the American commander in Vietnam , also with a new strategy. It called for taking and holding the villages and hamlets of South Vietnam . In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq , Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad , as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq : Don't give up when victory is at hand.
Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in Iraq . And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible. This happened in six descending steps in Vietnam, and today's coalition in Congress of antiwar Democrats and vacillating Republicans has started pushing us down that dangerous slope.
The first step is, when the war goes poorly, public support falls and politicians dramatically increase their criticism. In Vietnam , this occurred after the Tet offensive in 1968. In Iraq , it occurred gradually at first, then rapidly once violence and chaos in Baghdad flared over the last year.
Step two consists of growing criticism of the foreign government that America is supporting. In Vietnam , the target was the government of President Thieu. In Iraq , it's the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, insists Maliki has failed to seek reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis--that is, a political solution. "I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions," she said two weeks ago.
The third step involves resolutions and threats. This week, the Senate will take up resolutions opposing the addition of 21,500 troops to Iraq , a buildup Petraeus says is indispensable to his plan to secure Baghdad . If resolutions fail to force President Bush to begin winding down the war, Senator Joe Biden promises the Senate will take stronger measures. In the Vietnam era, congressional critics passed limits on funding.
The fourth step--the one we're approaching now in Iraq --would put restrictions on troop deployments. In 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment sought to bar funding for any American troops in Cambodia , a sanctuary for invading forces from North Vietnam . Today, Hillary Clinton would put a cap on the number of American soldiers in Iraq . Webb, echoing many others in Congress, said withdrawals should begin "in short order."
Step five is the last resort of war opponents: a fund cutoff over the protests of the president. In Vietnam , it came in 1974, after American combat troops had been withdrawn, but with the United States still supporting and funding the South Vietnamese government. What's striking is how much the congressional majority then resembles today's antiwar coalition, mostly Democrats but with more than a handful of Republicans. True, only a minority in Congress favors a cutoff today, but that bloc could grow.
Step six: the collapse. In Southeast Asia, it led to the deaths of more than two million people in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist triumph. The members of Congress whose actions prompted the collapse expressed no shame or embarrassment for having betrayed allies. And practically no one held them accountable. Their perfidy was greeted with silence.
In Vietnam , the slide down the slippery slope seemed inevitable. But in Iraq , there's time to halt it. Bush can be expected to hold firm in his pursuit of victory in Iraq . If Petraeus achieves a breakthrough in pacifying Baghdad and then in controlling insurgent-dominated Anbar province, the war opponents must stand down. If they refuse to acknowledge success and cause a repeat of the Vietnam calamity, they should be held accountable. This time, self-inflicted defeat should not be met with silence.
|
No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq --wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq . "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam ," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation." But Webb feared that many who supported the Vietnam war, and watched America abandon South Vietnam as it grew close to victory over the Communist forces of North Vietnam , might see similarities.
Indeed, they might, for certain parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are uncanny. A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency. Four decades ago, General Creighton Abrams became the American commander in Vietnam , also with a new strategy. It called for taking and holding the villages and hamlets of South Vietnam . In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq , Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad , as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq : Don't give up when victory is at hand.
Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in Iraq . And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible. This happened in six descending steps in Vietnam, and today's coalition in Congress of antiwar Democrats and vacillating Republicans has started pushing us down that dangerous slope.
The first step is, when the war goes poorly, public support falls and politicians dramatically increase their criticism. In Vietnam , this occurred after the Tet offensive in 1968. In Iraq , it occurred gradually at first, then rapidly once violence and chaos in Baghdad flared over the last year.
Step two consists of growing criticism of the foreign government that America is supporting. In Vietnam , the target was the government of President Thieu. In Iraq , it's the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, insists Maliki has failed to seek reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis--that is, a political solution. "I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions," she said two weeks ago.
The third step involves resolutions and threats. This week, the Senate will take up resolutions opposing the addition of 21,500 troops to Iraq , a buildup Petraeus says is indispensable to his plan to secure Baghdad . If resolutions fail to force President Bush to begin winding down the war, Senator Joe Biden promises the Senate will take stronger measures. In the Vietnam era, congressional critics passed limits on funding.
The fourth step--the one we're approaching now in Iraq --would put restrictions on troop deployments. In 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment sought to bar funding for any American troops in Cambodia , a sanctuary for invading forces from North Vietnam . Today, Hillary Clinton would put a cap on the number of American soldiers in Iraq . Webb, echoing many others in Congress, said withdrawals should begin "in short order."
Step five is the last resort of war opponents: a fund cutoff over the protests of the president. In Vietnam , it came in 1974, after American combat troops had been withdrawn, but with the United States still supporting and funding the South Vietnamese government. What's striking is how much the congressional majority then resembles today's antiwar coalition, mostly Democrats but with more than a handful of Republicans. True, only a minority in Congress favors a cutoff today, but that bloc could grow.
Step six: the collapse. In Southeast Asia, it led to the deaths of more than two million people in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist triumph. The members of Congress whose actions prompted the collapse expressed no shame or embarrassment for having betrayed allies. And practically no one held them accountable. Their perfidy was greeted with silence.
In Vietnam , the slide down the slippery slope seemed inevitable. But in Iraq , there's time to halt it. Bush can be expected to hold firm in his pursuit of victory in Iraq . If Petraeus achieves a breakthrough in pacifying Baghdad and then in controlling insurgent-dominated Anbar province, the war opponents must stand down. If they refuse to acknowledge success and cause a repeat of the Vietnam calamity, they should be held accountable. This time, self-inflicted defeat should not be met with silence.
Iran's Ahmadinejad is Winning
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com (read the rest)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil man. But he is not a stupid man. Indeed, he is a smart and fastidious. He understands power and how to get it. And he understands that the purpose of a nation's foreign policy is to sell ideas and messages and to build coalitions that enable a state to achieve its national aims. Due to his understanding and his abilities, Ahmadinejad has achieved significant success in advancing his policy aims of defeating the United States , destroying the State of Israel, and acquiring nuclear weapons.
Friday, October 06, 2006
NO 'Sugar Coating here' written by a retired Sgt. Major -- 'On Your Hands'
This was written by Sgt. Major JD Pendry (Ret.)
Direct Link http://www.geocities.com/jdpendry/OnYourHands.htm
Our God and soldiers we alike adore,
Ev’n at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both alike requited,
Our God’s forgotten, and our soldiers slighted. – Frances Quarles, 1632
_____________________________________________________________
On Your Hands
J. D. Pendry
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.
They need you to do it now.
Copyright © J.D. Pendry 2006
**********
JD’s weekly commentaries are copyrighted. You may forward them by email if unedited and forwarded in their entirety, which includes this notice and all information that follows. They may be printed. Commentaries can be republished in other formats and at other locations by permission only. You can Link to this article. JD’s Bio
**********
J. D. Pendry is author of The Three Meter Zone.
You may comment on articles at Misanthropundit – JD’s Townhall.com Soapbox or see them in the reader’s articles at RealClearPolitics.com
Direct Link http://www.geocities.com/jdpendry/Me.html
|
Direct Link http://www.geocities.com/jdpendry/OnYourHands.htm
Our God and soldiers we alike adore,
Ev’n at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both alike requited,
Our God’s forgotten, and our soldiers slighted. – Frances Quarles, 1632
_____________________________________________________________
On Your Hands
J. D. Pendry
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.
They need you to do it now.
Copyright © J.D. Pendry 2006
**********
JD’s weekly commentaries are copyrighted. You may forward them by email if unedited and forwarded in their entirety, which includes this notice and all information that follows. They may be printed. Commentaries can be republished in other formats and at other locations by permission only. You can Link to this article. JD’s Bio
**********
J. D. Pendry is author of The Three Meter Zone.
You may comment on articles at Misanthropundit – JD’s Townhall.com Soapbox or see them in the reader’s articles at RealClearPolitics.com
Direct Link http://www.geocities.com/jdpendry/Me.html
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Al-Gebra Terrorists
NEW YORK - A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement.He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a problem for us", Gonzalez said."They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.
As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle'."
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."
White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the president.
|
At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement.He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a problem for us", Gonzalez said."They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.
As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle'."
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."
White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the president.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
End The Jewish Occupation of Arab land!
|
Monday, August 21, 2006
C-SPAN Katrina Anniversary Special - Pandering At The 17th Street Canal
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was on C-SPAN this morning and stated 'America is going to be shocked at what has not happend since Katrina.'
Gee, I wonder if America would be shocked at the amount of work that has been performed since Katrina. I am.
Mary is right, though. New Orleans is still a mess. It will take generations to get things back. Just like it took generations to get MS back to normal after Camille - which Mary conveniently neglects. Mary also neglected to mention any of the other parts of LA that are worse off than New Orleans like St.Tammany Parish. How come your love-in with C-SPAN was not filmed there?
And on and on this show went on...critics of the money, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, etc., Uhm...Mary...here's a question for you: Aren't you in charge of monitoring this as a rep. of the federal disaster relief efforts? When is this your fault? You are the GVT, you bleach blonde, idiot! You are the direct link to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Why can't you give specifics of an audit of what has been wasted in terms of gvt relief? I bet the answer to that is because you have no idea of what is going on. It's real simple to charge that this Administration is doing a poor job. It's easy to criticize, sweetheart, especially when you're sitting in front of rubble. But where is your audit? Where are the GAO numbers? Do they exist? I am sure they do. I know they do. There has been waste. There has been fraud. But until you can prove anything, do your job as an elected rep. from your state.
Here's are some other observations: A caller stated that 481Million went to St Bernard Parish. (For the record, the Corps of Engineer said that out of a total of 66K strucutres in that parish, 4 were liveable after the storm) - 72K per person in St Bernard Parish. So how much progress do you think can be achieved in less than a calendar year when one parsih was wiped off the map?
Since this was an open call session, callers were able to say anything. Most of the calls were from residents or ex-pats of the city. But at no time was anyone who was critical of Landrieu or the local response to Katrina allowed to speak his mind once the nature of the call was known. Any call that did not fit into the victim format of this anniversary special had his/her call cut short.
Why am I so focused on this? My Grandmother had four feet of water in her house for several days in Jefferson Parish. She, along with the help of my family, was able to get in contact with the right assistance groups within FEMA. She has been given checks from FEMA along with what was covered in her home owners policy...and 11 months later, her house is back to its original state. Was her house underwater for days like the poor souls on the wrong side of the 17th Street Canal? No. But what this does illustrate is the notion that the mechanics of relief do exist, they are functional and those that can help themselves, and thousands of those who can't, are getting relief in some form from the gvt.
And something else that no one mentioned in this show which I thought was reprehensible was the fact that none of the private agencies who are providing relief on a minute-by-minute basis were ever mentioned. There are hundreds of millions of dollars raised for relief. Catholic Charities alone has raised over 159 million and 95% of that has been earmarked for Katrina relief for the whole Gulf Coast.
The area of this show took place at the 17th Street Canal in Orleans Parish. This was one of several levee breaks that flooded the city (My Cousin has a house about 75 feet from the b-cast site) . And the pictures of this section of New Orleans are devastating. But as one caller said, 'I'm tired of hearing about New Orleans. Here in Mississippi (MS), things are much worse and you don't see anyone talking about MS.' God Bless that caller, she is dead-on right!
I'm tired of hearing about New Orleans too. MS is much, much worse than New Orleans. But as long as Landrieu continues to put cameras in Orleans Parish, the sympathy pimping and lack of accountability will continue.
Disgusting.
|
Gee, I wonder if America would be shocked at the amount of work that has been performed since Katrina. I am.
Mary is right, though. New Orleans is still a mess. It will take generations to get things back. Just like it took generations to get MS back to normal after Camille - which Mary conveniently neglects. Mary also neglected to mention any of the other parts of LA that are worse off than New Orleans like St.Tammany Parish. How come your love-in with C-SPAN was not filmed there?
And on and on this show went on...critics of the money, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, etc., Uhm...Mary...here's a question for you: Aren't you in charge of monitoring this as a rep. of the federal disaster relief efforts? When is this your fault? You are the GVT, you bleach blonde, idiot! You are the direct link to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Why can't you give specifics of an audit of what has been wasted in terms of gvt relief? I bet the answer to that is because you have no idea of what is going on. It's real simple to charge that this Administration is doing a poor job. It's easy to criticize, sweetheart, especially when you're sitting in front of rubble. But where is your audit? Where are the GAO numbers? Do they exist? I am sure they do. I know they do. There has been waste. There has been fraud. But until you can prove anything, do your job as an elected rep. from your state.
Here's are some other observations: A caller stated that 481Million went to St Bernard Parish. (For the record, the Corps of Engineer said that out of a total of 66K strucutres in that parish, 4 were liveable after the storm) - 72K per person in St Bernard Parish. So how much progress do you think can be achieved in less than a calendar year when one parsih was wiped off the map?
Since this was an open call session, callers were able to say anything. Most of the calls were from residents or ex-pats of the city. But at no time was anyone who was critical of Landrieu or the local response to Katrina allowed to speak his mind once the nature of the call was known. Any call that did not fit into the victim format of this anniversary special had his/her call cut short.
Why am I so focused on this? My Grandmother had four feet of water in her house for several days in Jefferson Parish. She, along with the help of my family, was able to get in contact with the right assistance groups within FEMA. She has been given checks from FEMA along with what was covered in her home owners policy...and 11 months later, her house is back to its original state. Was her house underwater for days like the poor souls on the wrong side of the 17th Street Canal? No. But what this does illustrate is the notion that the mechanics of relief do exist, they are functional and those that can help themselves, and thousands of those who can't, are getting relief in some form from the gvt.
And something else that no one mentioned in this show which I thought was reprehensible was the fact that none of the private agencies who are providing relief on a minute-by-minute basis were ever mentioned. There are hundreds of millions of dollars raised for relief. Catholic Charities alone has raised over 159 million and 95% of that has been earmarked for Katrina relief for the whole Gulf Coast.
The area of this show took place at the 17th Street Canal in Orleans Parish. This was one of several levee breaks that flooded the city (My Cousin has a house about 75 feet from the b-cast site) . And the pictures of this section of New Orleans are devastating. But as one caller said, 'I'm tired of hearing about New Orleans. Here in Mississippi (MS), things are much worse and you don't see anyone talking about MS.' God Bless that caller, she is dead-on right!
I'm tired of hearing about New Orleans too. MS is much, much worse than New Orleans. But as long as Landrieu continues to put cameras in Orleans Parish, the sympathy pimping and lack of accountability will continue.
Disgusting.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Farewell Marine - Sandra Lee & James Gilcher
Another inspiring piece dedicated to Marines and all who pay the ultimate sacrifice for thdefense of this nation. Click here.
|
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Jonbenet Ramsey Is Not News
The Ramsey's are not news. This should not be on the air. I don't care about this twisted perv who confessed and was captured at his NAMBLA-Club Med love compound in Bangkok (that in itself is a crime since this SOB was guilty of child porn while a teacher and Bangkok is one of several places on the planet where you can pass kids around like a peace pipe). I don't care about his neighbors and how they 'feel' about what kind of person they think the alledged killer is. It's all tabloid crap that has no business on the air.
I did a post months ago that there should be a missing children's cable station and Greta Van Sustern should be its lead anchor. It's a great concept since it seems that there are millions of sickos that need their daily fix of 'electronic enquirer' crack. And since Israel and Hezbollah are not killing each other, it's back to the same 24/7 entertainment schtick.
Do yourself a favor, if when watching the news and a story of JBR comes on, turn the station.
|
I did a post months ago that there should be a missing children's cable station and Greta Van Sustern should be its lead anchor. It's a great concept since it seems that there are millions of sickos that need their daily fix of 'electronic enquirer' crack. And since Israel and Hezbollah are not killing each other, it's back to the same 24/7 entertainment schtick.
Do yourself a favor, if when watching the news and a story of JBR comes on, turn the station.
Wictory Wednesday (Thursday Edition)
This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.
Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.
Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.
As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.
Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you
would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
|
Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.
Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.
As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.
Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you
would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
As If Flying With The French Was Bad Enough!
from Human Events - Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned from Airplanes by Ann Coulter
Posted Aug 16, 2006
Last week, British authorities arrested 24 members of a terrorist cell plotting to blow up about a dozen U.S.-bound planes simultaneously. As a result of those arrests, we learned:
1. Nothing being done by airport security since 9/11 would prevent a bomb from being brought onto an airplane; and
2. This terrorist plot -- like all other terrorist plots -- was stopped by ethnic profiling.
Last week marked the first official admission that everything government airport screeners have been doing until now is completely pointless -- unless you're an airport security guard with a thing for women's undergarments, in which case it's been highly effective.
As we now know, all the ingredients necessary to blow up an airplane can be carried in small liquid containers. Airport security has not even been looking for small liquid containers. Judging from my personal experience, they seem to have been focusing on finding explosive devices inside women's brassieres.
After five years of submissively complying with bag checks, shoe checks and underwire bra checks, Americans have now been informed that the hell we've been going through at the airports (but which the president and members of Congress do not go through because they refuse to fly commercial air) has been a useless Kabuki theater.
The procedures that have wasted millions of hours of time cannot keep the most basic bomb materials off an airplane. This is like locking your windows to prevent burglaries, while leaving the front door wide open.
Airport security has been using metal detectors to confiscate sharp objects that could be turned into make-shift weapons, which could then be used by terrorists to commandeer control of a plane and fly it into a building.
Except the terrorists can't do that because we've seen that trick before.
After 9/11, airline passengers will never allow a half-dozen terrorists to take control of a plane again. Indeed, on 9/11, passengers on Flight 93 prevented terrorists who had already been given control of the plane from flying it into a building after hearing what had happened to the first three hijacked planes.
To pull off a 9/11-style attack now, literally half the passengers on the plane would have to be terrorists. (At least the airport screeners wouldn't have to worry about confiscating a lot of deodorants.)
I think a planeful of Arabs would attract attention -- except from people who had recently completed a government training program teaching them not to notice anyone's appearance. Not even a group of liberal Democrats flying off to a Renaissance Weekend would stand for that.
The sole objective of airport security post-9/11 has been to accomplish the impossible -- remove all sharp objects from a plane -- in order to prevent an attack that won't ever happen again. (OK -- well, that and finding out what color of lingerie Ann Coulter prefers.)
The plan seems to be to make flying so unpleasant that terrorists -- like the people who write laws about airport security -- will refuse to fly commercial air. On that theory, we could also keep terrorists off planes by forcing passengers to undergo root canal surgery before boarding, making them stand on their heads for an hour, or enacting an "all Whoopi Goldberg in-flight movie" policy.
What stopped last week's terrorist attack was ethnic profiling. We don't know the details of the British intelligence work that nabbed the 24 Muslims because The New York Times has not been able to obtain that classified information and publish it on its front page yet. But it is a fact that you could not catch 24 Muslim terrorists by surveilling everyone in Britain equally.
Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead.
Airplanes, ports, bridges, subways and shopping malls cannot ever be sanitized against every type of attack that can be dreamed up by fanatics engaged in asymmetrical warfare. We have to target the fanatics themselves. Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander" and most recently of "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)."
|
Posted Aug 16, 2006
Last week, British authorities arrested 24 members of a terrorist cell plotting to blow up about a dozen U.S.-bound planes simultaneously. As a result of those arrests, we learned:
1. Nothing being done by airport security since 9/11 would prevent a bomb from being brought onto an airplane; and
2. This terrorist plot -- like all other terrorist plots -- was stopped by ethnic profiling.
Last week marked the first official admission that everything government airport screeners have been doing until now is completely pointless -- unless you're an airport security guard with a thing for women's undergarments, in which case it's been highly effective.
As we now know, all the ingredients necessary to blow up an airplane can be carried in small liquid containers. Airport security has not even been looking for small liquid containers. Judging from my personal experience, they seem to have been focusing on finding explosive devices inside women's brassieres.
After five years of submissively complying with bag checks, shoe checks and underwire bra checks, Americans have now been informed that the hell we've been going through at the airports (but which the president and members of Congress do not go through because they refuse to fly commercial air) has been a useless Kabuki theater.
The procedures that have wasted millions of hours of time cannot keep the most basic bomb materials off an airplane. This is like locking your windows to prevent burglaries, while leaving the front door wide open.
Airport security has been using metal detectors to confiscate sharp objects that could be turned into make-shift weapons, which could then be used by terrorists to commandeer control of a plane and fly it into a building.
Except the terrorists can't do that because we've seen that trick before.
After 9/11, airline passengers will never allow a half-dozen terrorists to take control of a plane again. Indeed, on 9/11, passengers on Flight 93 prevented terrorists who had already been given control of the plane from flying it into a building after hearing what had happened to the first three hijacked planes.
To pull off a 9/11-style attack now, literally half the passengers on the plane would have to be terrorists. (At least the airport screeners wouldn't have to worry about confiscating a lot of deodorants.)
I think a planeful of Arabs would attract attention -- except from people who had recently completed a government training program teaching them not to notice anyone's appearance. Not even a group of liberal Democrats flying off to a Renaissance Weekend would stand for that.
The sole objective of airport security post-9/11 has been to accomplish the impossible -- remove all sharp objects from a plane -- in order to prevent an attack that won't ever happen again. (OK -- well, that and finding out what color of lingerie Ann Coulter prefers.)
The plan seems to be to make flying so unpleasant that terrorists -- like the people who write laws about airport security -- will refuse to fly commercial air. On that theory, we could also keep terrorists off planes by forcing passengers to undergo root canal surgery before boarding, making them stand on their heads for an hour, or enacting an "all Whoopi Goldberg in-flight movie" policy.
What stopped last week's terrorist attack was ethnic profiling. We don't know the details of the British intelligence work that nabbed the 24 Muslims because The New York Times has not been able to obtain that classified information and publish it on its front page yet. But it is a fact that you could not catch 24 Muslim terrorists by surveilling everyone in Britain equally.
Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead.
Airplanes, ports, bridges, subways and shopping malls cannot ever be sanitized against every type of attack that can be dreamed up by fanatics engaged in asymmetrical warfare. We have to target the fanatics themselves. Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander" and most recently of "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)."
