Evil Genius Speaks
April 24, 2007 02:21 PM | Permalink
He might just be a shill for Halliburton, but he speaks the truth here:
I usually avoid press comment when I’m up here, but I felt so strongly about what Senator Reid said in the last couple of days, that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made. I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading. Senator Reid has taken many positions on Iraq. He has threatened that if the President vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation, that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraq operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops. Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently, he doesn't know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn't have real substantive meetings with the President. Yet immediately following last week's meeting at the White House, he said, "It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq." What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it's a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party.
|
Democrat declares Al Qaeda Victorious!!!
April 19, 2007 12:05 PM | Permalink
I knew this was only a matter of time. The Dems couldn't wait to give the surge a chance. It might have succeeded, and that would have just been horrible for the Dems. So, they just stalled funding for it and declared it a failure. These people are dangerous, very dangerous.
In an insurgency like this, success and failure are all a matter of perception. Unlike global warming, consensus actually matters. If most people think you are winning, you are. If most people think you are loosing, you are. Compare McCain risking his own life to serve his country (again) by walking the streets of Baghdad in an effort to demonstrate some progress, to Reid who just announced to the world that we were beaten militarily by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In an insurgency like this, success and failure are all a matter of perception. Unlike global warming, consensus actually matters. If most people think you are winning, you are. If most people think you are loosing, you are. Compare McCain risking his own life to serve his country (again) by walking the streets of Baghdad in an effort to demonstrate some progress, to Reid who just announced to the world that we were beaten militarily by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Bumper Sticker Rebuttal
April 16, 2007 04:01 PM | Permalink
This is a fascinating read. I strongly recommend it the next night you are suffering insomnia. He starts with rebutting West LA bumper stickers them ridicules the ridiculous.
Seeing the Unseen, Part I
Seeing the Unseen, Part II
Seeing the Unseen, Part I
Seeing the Unseen, Part II
Military Code Of Conduct
April 06, 2007 01:49 PM | Permalink
United States Military:
Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
British Military (at least as understood by the 15 sailors and marines held captive by Iran):
Article I
I am Briton, doing time in the military until something better comes along. I am prepared to fight for my country unless there is a possibility that I or any of my chums may actually be injured.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will, but I can be tempted by a cheap polyester suit.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to avoid unpleasantries by all means available. I will make every effort to get home without being inconvenienced. I will accept parole and the aforesaid cheap polyester suits sans tie from the enemy.
Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners (a joint book deal will be more profitable). I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades (If I give an interview it might jeopardize said joint book deal) . If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, date of birth, a false confession, smiles for the camera and thanks to a dictator.I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause. (That might lead to unpleasantries and violate article III)
Article VII will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
British Military (at least as understood by the 15 sailors and marines held captive by Iran):
Article I
I am Briton, doing time in the military until something better comes along. I am prepared to fight for my country unless there is a possibility that I or any of my chums may actually be injured.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will, but I can be tempted by a cheap polyester suit.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to avoid unpleasantries by all means available. I will make every effort to get home without being inconvenienced. I will accept parole and the aforesaid cheap polyester suits sans tie from the enemy.
Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners (a joint book deal will be more profitable). I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades (If I give an interview it might jeopardize said joint book deal) . If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, date of birth, a false confession, smiles for the camera and thanks to a dictator.
Dhimmicrats
April 05, 2007 11:10 AM | Permalink
"Don't question my patriotism!!!" is their battle cry. "How dare you. You are just trying to silence dissent." they claim. What is absurd is that the politicians are buying into that BS and they are not questioning the patriotism of some of the politicians on the other side of the isle. In today's LA Times, in an apparent piece of "news" the paper regrettably announced that Bush will probably win in this standoff with Congress and will get funding for the troops without severe restrictions attached. However, there were some comments that I want to highlight:
and
These are just the type statements that are repeated day in and day out by Democrats in Washington. It is clear to me that the Democrats do not want the surge to be successful. The Democrats do not want our troops to be successful. If the troops are successful and if the surge works, Bush is successful and his legacy will not be destroyed. The Democrats want the troops pulled out in defeat so that they can pin this defeat on Bush. Bush's war. I am sorry, our troops are fighting and dying to accomplish a goal (however ill defined it might be), and this Democratic Senate aide is hoping for things to go wrong in Iraq (higher US casualties maybe?) so that they will in the future have the public support for pulling the troops out in defeat. For this -- hoping for defeat of our troops on the battlefield -- Yes, I question your patriotism. No, as a matter of fact, there is no question. You are not a patriot. You are a craven politician willing to see people die and your nation humbled just to see the power of your faction increased.
"This is a moving picture, not a still frame, and with every day the situation fails to improve in Iraq, the support for withdrawal is stronger," said a Democratic Senate aide who asked not to be identified by name because his comments were not authorized by party leaders.
and
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, replied that he was confident the two houses could agree on a joint measure. "I bet we have a better idea how to pass [a compromise] than Bush has of figuring out a policy for success in Iraq," he said.
These are just the type statements that are repeated day in and day out by Democrats in Washington. It is clear to me that the Democrats do not want the surge to be successful. The Democrats do not want our troops to be successful. If the troops are successful and if the surge works, Bush is successful and his legacy will not be destroyed. The Democrats want the troops pulled out in defeat so that they can pin this defeat on Bush. Bush's war. I am sorry, our troops are fighting and dying to accomplish a goal (however ill defined it might be), and this Democratic Senate aide is hoping for things to go wrong in Iraq (higher US casualties maybe?) so that they will in the future have the public support for pulling the troops out in defeat. For this -- hoping for defeat of our troops on the battlefield -- Yes, I question your patriotism. No, as a matter of fact, there is no question. You are not a patriot. You are a craven politician willing to see people die and your nation humbled just to see the power of your faction increased.
An army of one
April 04, 2007 06:03 PM | Permalink
I was thinking that with the British response (or non-response) to their captive sailors and marines, the sun has finally set on the British Empire. But then it reminded me of General Elphinstone and I realized that the sun has been sinking toward that horizon for some time now.
In 1841, General William Elphinstone of the British army was stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan along with 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 British subjects. Elphinstone was considered a fine fellow but one of the worst generals ever to reach that rank.
On November 2, 1841, Akbar Kahn an Afghan warlord revolted and started attacking British interests. Jihadists stormed Sir Alexander Burnes’ home and slaughtered him and his staff. Elphinstone took no action in response, and by his inaction emboldened the jihadists to further bloodshed.
The British situation continued to deteriorate. Finally, State Secretary William Hay MacNaghten attempted to negotiate with the jihadists a withdraw of British troops and subjects from Afghanistan. The Afghan diplomats invited MacNaghten for tea, but just as the British delegation dismounted their horses, they were seized by the jihadists. Akbar Khan had MacNaghten executed and his body dragged through the streets of Kabul. Once again, Elphinstone did nothing.
Not only did Elphinstone not retaliate for Kahn’s perfidity, but he actually put the safety of those in his charge into the hands of the treacherous Kahn. He agreed to a capitulation wherein the British agreed to give Kahn the British gunpowder reserves, their best muskets and most of their cannons. In exchange, Kahn -- the man who just murdered MacNaghten -- promised the British safe passage to Jalalabad.
The British injured and ill were left behind -- Kahn had promised them safety. Once the last British soldier had left Kabul, the British sick and wounded were slaughtered and burned in their tents.
Elphinstone was just an incompetent on the march as he was in garrison. The column moved slow, and he failed to secure the passes which were now occupied by jihadist armed with new British muskets. Before the column had move 10 miles three thousand British subjects were dead - frozen to death or shot by Afghanis or suicide. A few hundred soldiers became so frustrated they returned to Kabul -- all were slaughtered. Elphinstone became dejected, and he stopped issuing orders. The women having no real alternative surrendered themselves as hostages to Kahn. The European women who could be ransomed were spared, but the Indian servants and wives of the Indian soldiers were all slaughtered.
Elphinstone allowed himself to be taken captive a few days later. He died in captivity a few months later. Basically, he abandoned his troops while they were struggling to fight their way out of hostile territory. The jihadist blocked the column at Jugdulluk crest. The British made a desperate assault but only a handful managed to break through. The last 40 men -- low on food and ammunition -- made their last stand at the village of Gandamack. They were surrounded, and the Afghan’s demanded their surrender. Remembering Burnes, MacNaghten, the sick and wounded in Kabul, the promise of safe passage to Jalalabad, and the slaughter of their women, one British sergeant curtly responded “NOT BLOODY LIKELY!”
Only one British soldier made it to Jalalabad -- William Brydon. On January 13, 1842, he rode through the city gates on a dying horse. Part of his scalp and skull had been sliced off by a jihadist’s sword. When he arrived, he was asked what happened to the army. He responded, “I am the army.”
In 1841, General William Elphinstone of the British army was stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan along with 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 British subjects. Elphinstone was considered a fine fellow but one of the worst generals ever to reach that rank.
On November 2, 1841, Akbar Kahn an Afghan warlord revolted and started attacking British interests. Jihadists stormed Sir Alexander Burnes’ home and slaughtered him and his staff. Elphinstone took no action in response, and by his inaction emboldened the jihadists to further bloodshed.
The British situation continued to deteriorate. Finally, State Secretary William Hay MacNaghten attempted to negotiate with the jihadists a withdraw of British troops and subjects from Afghanistan. The Afghan diplomats invited MacNaghten for tea, but just as the British delegation dismounted their horses, they were seized by the jihadists. Akbar Khan had MacNaghten executed and his body dragged through the streets of Kabul. Once again, Elphinstone did nothing.
Not only did Elphinstone not retaliate for Kahn’s perfidity, but he actually put the safety of those in his charge into the hands of the treacherous Kahn. He agreed to a capitulation wherein the British agreed to give Kahn the British gunpowder reserves, their best muskets and most of their cannons. In exchange, Kahn -- the man who just murdered MacNaghten -- promised the British safe passage to Jalalabad.
The British injured and ill were left behind -- Kahn had promised them safety. Once the last British soldier had left Kabul, the British sick and wounded were slaughtered and burned in their tents.
Elphinstone was just an incompetent on the march as he was in garrison. The column moved slow, and he failed to secure the passes which were now occupied by jihadist armed with new British muskets. Before the column had move 10 miles three thousand British subjects were dead - frozen to death or shot by Afghanis or suicide. A few hundred soldiers became so frustrated they returned to Kabul -- all were slaughtered. Elphinstone became dejected, and he stopped issuing orders. The women having no real alternative surrendered themselves as hostages to Kahn. The European women who could be ransomed were spared, but the Indian servants and wives of the Indian soldiers were all slaughtered.
Elphinstone allowed himself to be taken captive a few days later. He died in captivity a few months later. Basically, he abandoned his troops while they were struggling to fight their way out of hostile territory. The jihadist blocked the column at Jugdulluk crest. The British made a desperate assault but only a handful managed to break through. The last 40 men -- low on food and ammunition -- made their last stand at the village of Gandamack. They were surrounded, and the Afghan’s demanded their surrender. Remembering Burnes, MacNaghten, the sick and wounded in Kabul, the promise of safe passage to Jalalabad, and the slaughter of their women, one British sergeant curtly responded “NOT BLOODY LIKELY!”
Only one British soldier made it to Jalalabad -- William Brydon. On January 13, 1842, he rode through the city gates on a dying horse. Part of his scalp and skull had been sliced off by a jihadist’s sword. When he arrived, he was asked what happened to the army. He responded, “I am the army.”
AG, Who cares?
April 02, 2007 12:41 PM | Permalink
Alberto: "Yes, I fired those 8 US Attorneys for political reasons. They serve at the pleasure of the President. They were appointed for political reasons. They were asked to resign for political reasons. That is how the games is played. So, buzz off."
That is how Gonzo should have responded to Congress when Feinstein started sticking her nose into the affair. Instead he apparently lied, or is so stupid he did not know he was lying. Either way, he should resign -- not for this but for being a light weight "yes" man for Bush on immigration. There is no scandal here. The Democrats are just imagining things again, but he is totally unworthy of the effort to defend.
That is how Gonzo should have responded to Congress when Feinstein started sticking her nose into the affair. Instead he apparently lied, or is so stupid he did not know he was lying. Either way, he should resign -- not for this but for being a light weight "yes" man for Bush on immigration. There is no scandal here. The Democrats are just imagining things again, but he is totally unworthy of the effort to defend.
April Fool
April 02, 2007 12:35 PM | Permalink
I am a subscriber to the Los Angeles Times. My wife grew tired of my ranting about misleading reporting and propaganda. So, she tried to switch us to the Daily News. That didn’t work because it is not a real newspaper. So, she will just have to endure my rants.
I read this April Fools Day Puff Piece on a retired state department diplomat that is going around Montana condescendingly teaching the Montana hayseeds that Islam is not the cause of terrorism. You see, he is particularly qualified to make this determination, because he HAS TRAVELED. The article doesn’t explain how he reached his conclusion, it just repeats the fluff that Islam is peaceful but has been hijacked, yadda, yadda, yadda. (I guess the article is written for the typical LA Times reader that already knows Islam is the Region of Peace and wants to know what is being done to inform all those ignorant red state types what they should be thinking.)
Neither the article nor the retired diplomat discuss the jihad ideology, the violent example of Muhammad, the Islamic supremacist teachings of every major school of Islam, not to mention the daily reports around the world of violence committed by that “tiny minority” hijacking the religion.
I guess this former diplomat wants to indoctrinate the local yokels so he can enjoy his cocktail parties again as he used to with his elitist Washington friends.
Montana, do not believe this guy. Research the issue yourself and come to your own conclusion. Happy reading….
I read this April Fools Day Puff Piece on a retired state department diplomat that is going around Montana condescendingly teaching the Montana hayseeds that Islam is not the cause of terrorism. You see, he is particularly qualified to make this determination, because he HAS TRAVELED. The article doesn’t explain how he reached his conclusion, it just repeats the fluff that Islam is peaceful but has been hijacked, yadda, yadda, yadda. (I guess the article is written for the typical LA Times reader that already knows Islam is the Region of Peace and wants to know what is being done to inform all those ignorant red state types what they should be thinking.)
Neither the article nor the retired diplomat discuss the jihad ideology, the violent example of Muhammad, the Islamic supremacist teachings of every major school of Islam, not to mention the daily reports around the world of violence committed by that “tiny minority” hijacking the religion.
I guess this former diplomat wants to indoctrinate the local yokels so he can enjoy his cocktail parties again as he used to with his elitist Washington friends.
Montana, do not believe this guy. Research the issue yourself and come to your own conclusion. Happy reading….