Grand Standing!

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has Kurds. And those Kurds have to be killed by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Ali Al Adeeb? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the innocent Iraqi's and you curse the Baath party. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that two or three million innocent Iraqi deaths, while tragic, probably saved my dictatorship. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves the insurgency...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties and rape rooms, you want me killing traitors. You need me killing traitors.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent killing someone. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the false freedom the U.S provides, then questions the manner in which I tried to provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and start shooting the occupiers. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

Hat Tip: Caption This

Happy Thanksgiving!

Day late! A few dollars short. Went shopping at six. Eating breakfast at ten. Will post about my shopping experience later, but now I am too hunrgy. Not much else to say for now!

PS. Since it is the beginning of shopping season, this would make a great present for a Gen pre-X-er for X-Mas.

FUN!

Hat Tip: Digg

Question.

Do they have a "philia" for this?

If this were on "Caption This", you would expect to see the following:

..."You were SOOOOOO drunk last night"!

..."Hey! What can I say! She wanted me"!

..."But she looked so real"!

Win. Win. Win.

This should be the motto of every politician concerning the War on Terror, which, like it or not, does include the action of democratizing Iraq. Even if you think that the war was wrong, Bush lied, Al-Quada wasn't connected with Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11; Al-Qaeda is there and so are we. So we might as well stay and fight and, before we leave, make sure that the country is capable of not only self governance, but also capable of fighting and defeating the terrorists that reside within its borders.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives got themselves worked into a lather because hawkish Democrat John Murtha, a 37-year Marine veteran, in a public statement which echoed the statements of many other House Democrats, called for the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Here is a quote from the statement:

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. Troops are the common enemy of the sunni's, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis".

This looks like the same classic "Cut and Run" solution that ensured the Viet Nahm war would be lost. I am bothered by the defeatist tone of the whole statement. If we are the "Primary Targets" than why are the insurgence purposefully killing so many more Shia than Americans. And you want to base military policy on poling numbers from the war zone? That's insane. I don't think the Germans or Italians were happy to have us in country during World War II either.

"I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control".

"I believe"??? I don't want belief. I want proof. We also believed that the Vietnamese would be OK after we skipped town. Why would the violence stop just because we are no longer in Iraq. The sunni's want there power back, Al-Qaeda wants a new home, and our absence now would only leave the Iraqi government in a weak and vulnerable condition.

And no, I am not calling Murtha unpatriotic or what-ever; I am expressing my reasons why I think his proposal is wrong.

Getting back to congress, the legislation Murtha subsequently introduced did not offer an immediate pull-out, but offered a six month troop reduction schedule instead. It was a classic bait and switch, say one thing and propose another. The Murtha bill never would have passed, but had his resolution been voted on, it would have split along party lines. By voting for the Murtha bill, Democrats would have a way of nullifying their vote authorizing the war three years ago, for which they are still held to account by their very vocal anti-war base. The Republicans finally saw a way to call the Democrat's bluff. The House Republicans shelved Murtha's proposal and authored a substitute that read more closely to the statements Murtha had made the previous day. God I love politics. Unfortunately, during the debate that accompanied the new resolution, newbie Republican Jean Schmidt read a statement given to her by a Marine colonel currently on active duty in Iraq, in which he expressed that anyone who favored the "Cut and Run" solution was a "coward". Of coarse that was immediately interpreted as a slap at Murtha, the former marine. Pandemonium ensued, but no fist fights broke out. Even though the Dems are peeved that the Republicans pulled their own bait and switch, I think we all can claim so victory here.

WIN #1: By rewriting the resolution into a "Cut and Run" proposal, the Republicans turned it into a political poison pill, and got the posturing Democrats to AGAIN vote to support the war.

WIN #2: Though they almost all voted "NO" on the rewritten resolution, Democrats do have an out as they are screaming that the resolution they had to vote on has different language than the Murtha bill. It was political trickery at its worst, and therefore this vote doesn't count.

PS. To Democrats:
Sure it was sneaky and underhanded, but, hey, what do you expect. That's Politics! And don't give me that "They're Horrible! They're Playing Politics with the War" business. Both side have been playing that game for quite some time now.

PS. Three Dems did vote yes to cut and run, God rest their souls. They're probably in safe districts.

WIN #3: So much of modern warfare is all about public relations. If the congress would have voted on Murtha's original bill, because so many Dems would have voted for it, it would have been reported / spun around the world as a sign that the American people have lost patience in the war. That would have been a BIG, BIG win for the insurgence, fueling their fires even further and creating a greater "catalyst for violence" than our presence ever could. It would be interpreted as an acknowledgement that "WE LOST THE WAR". Public opinion is the more powerful weapon for insurgents in the type of guerrilla war we are fighting. Don't believe me? Believe HIM. And HIM.

Blogs = Power.

Good for the guys over at Daily KOS. Being a liberpublican, I disagree with them on a lot of issues, but they did a good job here persuading / forcing their congressional employees to craft sensible legislasion protecting political free speech throughout the internet. It also looks like we, the average (and not so average) Joe's and Joan's of the blogosphere, helped kill the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" too, but I'm holding my breath on that one. I must say I am giddy at the prospect of the ordinary citizen, via the blogosphere, having a greater say in politics and having a hand in guiding policy. No matter your political stripes, WE are, after all, the largest special interest group!

PS. I'm still of the opinion that the time is ripe for a legitimate third party to arise.

Blogosphere Writer

In response to Polibloggers post (who altered the lyrics from the BOC song "Don't Fear The Reaper"):

Hey anyone, will you read my work?
It took some time to write, will you take a look?
It takes up way to much time I fear
I will lose my job, but I want to be a blogosphere writer,
Blogosphere writer.

It's the wandering thoughts of a musician
And I write it simple so you'll understand.
You can leave a comment or send an e-mail,
I just lost my job so I want to be a Blogosphere writer,
Blogosphere writer.

Blogosphere writer

It's a thousand words, give or take a few,
I'll be writing more in a day or two.
I can post jpegs I know they'll make you smile,
I'll pretend I'm smart cause I want to be a Blogosphere writer,
Blogosphere writer.

If you really like it you can hyperlink,
It can make you laugh It can make you think.
Blogging's easy I've got google ads too
But I need some traffic cause I want to be a Blogosphere writer,
Blogosphere writer.

Blogosphere writer

Blogosphere writer - Blogosphere writer
Blogosphere writer - Blogosphere writer

But Do They Dream In Color?

Where can I buy my Squirrel decoder ring?

Hat Tip: digg nation

Control Alt Delete - or Ignore

Lately, there has been a kerfufal in the world community over who should have authority concerning internet addressing. Right now addressing authority lies with an organization called ICANN, a privately run non-profit organization that has US government oversite. This gives more background info for ICANN. The internet evolved from a US defense program started in 1958 called DARPA. In a nutshell, after Sputnik was launched, some forward thinking government chap (wow, that doesn't happen often) realized that the Soviets could sooner or later launch rockets or lasers or something at communication sites in the US, thus cutting the line to the Bat-phone, er, I mean the White House, crippling any response to their aggression. Thus a complex and redundant communications network with Multiple routes and hubs was created, so that if one or several hubs or lines got knocked out by the evil Pinko Ruskies, many others would still exist for information transfer to occur. These are the roots of the internet (when people bitch and moan about military R & D spending, remind them the world wide web and radar are a product of this). This framework of communication was eventually adopted world wide (you see where I'm going with this) and in the late 1980's, some bloke figured that this network could one day be used by everyone and coined the term "World Wide Web". Anyway, the internet is home grown as are the bodies that regulate it. Well, some in the "international community" (the EU, dictators in Tunisia and Cuba) have their panties in a wad and don't like the current ICANN set-up because, well, it resides in the US and has US government oversite and they hate the US. So what is a mob of internationalist to do? Well, they threaten to start using their own naming and addressing protocols, which would of coarse cause IP name and address duplication and break the very thing they want control of.

This from CNN:

"U.S. officials said early Wednesday that instead of transferring management of the system to an international body such as the United Nations, an international forum would be created to address concerns. The forum, however, would have no binding authority."

So the US has agreed to create a debate club to discuss international issues concerning internet addressing that has no binding authority or power. In other words, they've just created a mini UN. Well , if it makes the internationalists happy, well, more power to them (or less). This seems like a pretty good reason to keep the almost useless UN around. It provide a model on which to base other useless acronymed organizations around.

Europe

More Ouchness from Victor Davis Hanson.

Uhmm...

~~~~~~shocking~~~~~

Hat Tip: Malcontent and Gay Patriot. Oh hell, just make it a party.

GOP-roblems

Summed up nicely by Deroy Murdock. If they want to stop the slide, and yes, the iceberg is coming apart, they should head this man's advice.

Mid-Midterm Elections.

What does it all mean for the nation??? Who cares! Out here in California, we are our own sovereign nation, or at least we think that way. Here we had a set of propositions (74 - 77) that the Govenator wanted soooo desperately for us to get on the ballot. So we did that earlier this year, with those of us here in Central California providing a HUGE base of support (we often get screwed by the Sacramento politico's, so I guess this was to be payback of sorts). And then what? The union machine spends something like $180 BAZILLOIN dollars running ads opposing the props, which is what you would expect, since the props in question were aimed directly at reducing their strangle hold on government influence in Kaleefornia. Union ads attacking the props ran non-stop from January until election day. I've never seen anything like it really. I wonder how much property they had to second, third, or fourth mortgage, to come up with the cash to pay for the ad blitz? Anyway, on the one hand you had the unions running ads every two seconds non-stop for almost a year, and on the other hand, you had Arnold's team doing...










...Um, doing nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch (BTW, the amount of spaces in the blank space is equal to the amount of days where the Arnold team did nothing) (Ok. I didn't really count the spaces. But hey; it's my blog. So if I say it's equal, then it's equal). First rule in politics - don't let the opponent frame the debate. Not only did they frame it? The shellaced it! They wrapped it! They sold it! They stole it! And then, when election night is almost here, what does the Arnold team do? They make those annoying dinner-time pre-recorded phone calls that do nothing but turn people off. So is ANYONE really surprized that the Arnold propositions went down in flames.

In conclusion I want to say this. If you pick a fight with someone, and you and the opponent agree to meet after school to duke it out, but YOU, the instigator don't show up. That's called being a GIRLIE-MAN!!!!

If you're not going to fight for what you believe in? Why bother.

PS. Oh, and Arnold, thanks for wasting $50 mil on the special election. Please, DON'T run again. Don't waste our time.



Here are some thought from other people:

Ron Brownstein says: last night lifts the hopes of Democrats, though he does make note that Dems won both these races in 2001 when Bush's approval rating was at it's post-9/11 peak.

John Podhoretz says: "To sum up: Incumbent party victories in two states and one city. A Republican state rejected Democratic initiatives. A Democratic state rejected Republican initiatives. Don't let the Democratic spin doctors fool you. Election Day 2005 has nothing to tell us about where the electorate is going in the wake of Bush's terrible year."

Author unknown.

Larry Sabato says: "There's no way to spin this than anything other than a major defeat for Republicans and for President Bush. This [Virginia] is a red state, he came in on Election Eve and he had no discernible effect. If anything, he may have cost Kilgore some votes."

Stuart Rothenberg says: ``Given the state of things, the Republicans really needed to win one of these races. Because of the way the cycle is setting up, the way the momentum is right now, it's not good enough for the Republicans to say, `These were Democratic seats, we put up a good fight and still lost.' ``

Charlie Cook says: "Republicans on Capitol Hill are so scared already. This is just going to make them more fearful that 2006 could be a disaster."

Rahm Emanuel says: `This confirms that our voters are extremely mobilized, agitated and activated; theirs are despondent. Right now, I've got about 15 [potential candidates] I'm recruiting; this makes the sale a lot easier."

Ken Mehlman says: "From the beginning, we have viewed these as not national but state races. History is consistent with that, and the results tonight are consistent with that."

Quotes lifted from Real Clear Politics. The links to these quotes are there.

UPDATE: Here is the official results of the propositions, if anyone is interested. Click on the Maps buttons to see the results county by county. This is how bad it looks when you go down in flames. The chart represents the vote on spending limits. How can you NOT sell spending limits? The redistricing results look the same. And these were the two cornerstones of the Arnold campaign. The Terminator just got terminated.

France Is Burning, Pt. 1

"Well, there's two messages. One, that we in America can see where an unassimilated un-integrated a population goes, and where that leads to, it leads to a sort of an apartheid. And two, we can see what happens with an EU that can't create real economic growth, and has high stagnant unemployment of 10%. And three, this is I think a little bit more controversial, that we can see what happens to a society that doesn't ask the immigrant to integrate, and the immigrant doesn't feel that he has to integrate, or to learn the language, or learn the traditions of the West. So you have this Orwellian situation when thousands of people are rioting, you want to say let me get this straight. You do not want to go back to the country, an hour or two away by air, that you praise in the abstract, but you surely want to stay in a country that you want to burn down to the concrete. It doesn't make any sense, other than this strong, psychological urges of envy, jealousy, wanting something you can't have. Then, besides all that landscape, you get the impression there's something very wrong in Europe that has high unemployement and generous joblessness benefits, so that it allows people not really to have to go look for a job, because there isn't any, but to stay home and sort of nurse these wounds, with enough money to survive."

Victor Davis Hanson, former Fresno State prof., offering his thoughts on the riots in France.

List-O-Law Blogs

So many blogs. So little time. And, it's all Greek, er, Latin, to me anyway.

Update: This blog, one of my fave's for a couple of years, kinda fits between this post and the post below. Will write more about it soon.

Finally...

I get around to linking Boi From Troy to my blog. And Ann Althouse too.